Harry’s Place

link, link!

Sorry about the link, my computer’s playing up and I have to dash to work. You’ll see the evidence in situ if you go onto the Amazon UK site and read the reviews…

Hilarious.

Talking of puppies, we got a beagle puppy last week. They are notoriously difficult to house-train.

I put it up for sale yesterday.

Fantastic.

It can be found here. Another page includes one of his supporters accusing a critic of issuing ad hominems by… mocking his spelling.

I see two-dozen people are already trying to offload their copy on Amazon’s second-hand market. I expect this panic selling will rise.

Another page includes one of his supporters accusing a critic of issuing ad hominems by… mocking his spelling.

In all fairness, it is actually nothing but ad hominem, badly spelled. At the least the suicidal numpty from Belfast (how I wish I could drive more people to blow their brains out) took some care in what he wrote.

I see two-dozen people are already trying to offload their copy on Amazon’s second-hand market.

No, darling, when it says ‘Used and New’… (Poor Brett was never one of the brighter stars in the HP firmament).

Anyway, once again thanks for the free publicity. All links to the Amazon page drive up the sales rank and push it into the charts. It is now the 29th most popular international relations book, and this months before the launch. This happens periodically, but the more it happens, the more it affects the book’s ratings and profile, and therefore increases likely sales.

I wouldn’t get too excited about sales. From Amazon:

RRP: £16.99 (crossed out)
New: from £11.42
Used: from £14.86

The cheapest option is cheaper new than second hand.

Which means that the publisher has realised what a f*ck awful book it is and is trying to offload it as fast as possible. Faster than people who have actually read it realise how f*ck awful it is.

What you should have said Brett was “I see two-dozen people are already trying to offload their copy on Amazon’s used and new market”, that makes all the difference.

All links to the Amazon page drive up the sales rank and push it into the charts.

Only if people choose to suspend their disbelief and buy it.

You are the counter-argument to the reputation economy.

This is a bit like Oliver Kamm’s campaign on Amazon to negatively review all of Chomsky’s books. Pretty much all Chomsky books have a Kamm review attached. So, presumably the HP mob will all go and endorse this review, unburdened by the need to actually read the book before passing any judgement on it. Anyway, isn’t Gene going to give us a review here sometime?

I’m waiting for the pop-up version that should be out for Christmas.

Oh, dear, Richard (when you’ve torched even a model village, you can call yourself Lenin). Is the brief fame of an Amazon really the pinnacle of the good life? Sic transit gloria mundi.

In all fairness, it is actually nothing but ad hominem, badly spelled.

There is little in this porrly written “book” that is worthy of comment. The suthor is an out-and-out socialist who, unable to reconcile the atrocious historical results of the ideology he espouses, attempts (and fails) to pull off a bait-and-swtich by blaming non-socialists for all of the world’s ills.

It should be further noted that the book, along with the author’s website, are rife with anti-Semitic undertones (this is classic European anti-Semitism at its absolute worst).

Are you on drugs? Transposed letters or mis-hits on keys are commonplace on Internet commenting, and certainly much more forgiveable than turgid thesaurus-fuelled prose.

Here is the reviewer’s response:

Attacking someone’s typos is probably the most juvenile ad hominem attack of all. I am sure that I understand the ideology that drives someone to write this ridiculous piece of propaganda far better than you do. The writing is utterly devoid of any sense of objectivity, and ultimately seeks to justify a political system (socialism) that inevitably results in oppressive regimes in which the populace lacks the basic freedoms we enjoy in Western societies. Gee, maybe that has something to do with fundamental flaws of the ideology itself!

Spelt correctly, I see.

(Poor Brett was never one of the brighter stars in the HP firmament).

Fullstops go inside the parenthesis when representing an entire sentence.

I am reminded of a scene in “I’m Alan Partridge”.

With “The Windmills of Your Mind” playing on the soundtrack, the remaining 14,000 unsold copies of Alan’s book, “Bouncing Back,” are pulped. Alan takes some away with him in a plastic bag as mementoes.

It seems like what you wish to be true is more important than what is true: Richard’s book is doing pretty well indeed, especially for a first book by a new author in Verso, I think they will be pleased. Yet you are straining to pretend (or Brett & “so much for subtlety” really do misunderstand publishing that badly) it isn’t: It is as if how you “feel” about the world is more important than what actually happens (which is why you got into such a mess supporting the Iraq debacle in the first place, I suppose)

I’m looking forward to the sequel, The Marxist Defence of Arab Fascism and Islamist Terrorism; or perhaps an original reinterpretation of the 18th Brumaire as shameless piece of apologetics for the dictatorship of Louis Bonaparte.

“No, darling, when it says ‘Used and New’… “

The “new” covers unwanted gifts and original purchasers who realise they have made a dreadful mistake, but can’t find their till slip to return it.

Why else would a person try to sell a new book - on Amazon - for several quid more than Amazon’s own price? I suppose they could be Lenin-supporters with a characteristic shaky grasp on basic economic principles.

Still, there may be the poor fools who bought up a job lot of publisher’s remainders but still can’t compete with Amazon’s discount.

They’re all, of course, pinning their hopes on Amazon going out of stock not re-ordering.

Fullstops go inside the parenthesis when representing an entire sentence.

In British usage, yes. In American usage, no. “Lenin”, IIRC, originates from an Island between Britain and America, so we’ll give him some leeway there, for now.

There was another regular commenter here whose books were (I dare say) available from amazon uk “new from £0.01″: anyone up for a bet how long it is until this book is available at such rates? I say by mid-March at the latest.

“So, presumably the HP mob will all go and endorse this review, unburdened by the need to actually read the book before passing any judgement on it. “

Um, aren’t Amazon reviews meant to be ‘helpful’ in making a purchasing decision? In otehr words, did the review help you decide to buy or not to buy? There is no requirement to ignore the reviews, buy the product, and then return to amazon to thumb up or down the reviews according to your own experience of the product.

The whole point of reviews to to help you decide whether to buy or not, so they are evaluated on this alone. Though, perhaps TheIrie seeks out and purchases products with bad reviews just so he can take a contrary position on shopping sites.

“This is a bit like Oliver Kamm’s campaign on Amazon to negatively review all of Chomsky’s books. Pretty much all Chomsky books have a Kamm review attached. ”

Yes, you’re right, TheIrie; Amazon shouldn’t allow people to negatively review books. It only artificially skews the scores downwards. If only they could implement a system so that, for example, only Chomsky fans could review his books. Then you would see sensible 5 out of 5 star scores. Maybe you could write a letter to Amazon and suggest this? I’m sure MediaLens would back you up.

P.

I’m sure that, like Andy McNab’s Bravo Two Zero, Lenin’s book improves on each reading.

Yes, Ven, that did occur to me. It’s been said before, with all of his “puurleese” and “gimme a break”, he’s as much a Americanized twat as the next man.

TheIrie’s still being hilarious, I see.

There was another regular commenter here whose books were (I dare say) available from amazon uk “new from £0.01″

I bought The Count of Monte Cristo on Amazon Marketplace for £0.01, and can honestly say it was worth every penny. I’ve also recently bought the complete Sherlock Holmes, all 1,408 pages of it, and on Alec MacPherson’s recommendation The Winter Queen by Boris Akunin, again both for £0.01. The sellers must all be mad.

Dave - “I’m looking forward to the sequel, The Marxist Defence of Arab Fascism and Islamist Terrorism…”

Arf arf. Just collate the comment threads on Socialist Unity and you’d be halfway there.

I’m sure that, like Andy McNab’s Bravo Two Zero, Lenin’s book improves on each reading.

A cross between the two of them might be worth reading:

I noted the almost sensual weight of the German-made KP5 - approximately 6.2 pounds, depending on the model used - as I pressed the trigger. Its silenced muzzle produced a pleasant stacatto as it fired 13 round a second, blowing Oliver Kamm’s head clean off his shoulders.

P.

Leave Seymour alone.
He can see Kashmir from his house.

You’re onto something, Maloney.

“We warmed ourselves in the glow of the burning girls school. ‘How can we ever thank you and your International Brigade enough, Lenin Saib?’ asked the gentle-eyed Taleban commander. ‘I learned it all from George,’ I replied. ‘You know The Galloway!?’ he gasped. ‘I knew him. Once,’ I sighed ruefully, prodding the embers with my Bren gun. The commander’s daughter returned my smile. He shot her. It is their way.”

The point is not the negative review - which was written by someone who has read the book - but the people who click “this review was helpful” having not read the book. That number has risen from I think 19 this morning to 32 now. Is that a coincidence I wonder, or could it be HP trolls going over and endorsing it?

Still, nice to see Lenin embracing the capitalist publishing machinery, rather than publishing it as a free to download PDF on his blog.

The point is not the negative review - which was written by someone who has read the book - but the people who click “this review was helpful” having not read the book.

The whole effing point of a review is to help a person decide whether or not they want to read the book.

So of course they haven’t read it. That’s what a review is for. Nobody reads a review after they’ve read the book.

Jesus.

Poor old Lenin - this book would have been topical about two years ago.

By the time he labours his way through the cut and paste from his blog and put his ‘clever’ thesaurus down, Obama has been elected and everything has changed.

No wonder they have discounted his shite before it has even been published.

Mark - fair enough. I’m being silly. But still, the apparent HP effect on endorsing that review is hardly in the spirit of fair play now, is it.

I’ve just clicked on it.

Just for you. : )

Stop calling him Lenin!

Seymour spends his life finding complex ways to argue in favour of sloppy and illthoughtout judgements; the basis of his book is that those people who want to stop another Rwanda genocide or listen to the majority of people in a country like Afghanistan or Kosovo, are like 19th imperialists.

It’s such a selfish and cruel mentality - wanting to play anti imperialist against the nasty capitalist is more important than facing up to the modern world and the people who live there. He’d rather fantasise about being alive hundreds of years ago. Amongst all the waffle and pleading there is actually something quite anti intellectual about it, ironically.

“that review is hardly in the spirit of fair play now, is it”

Compare the commenting policies at both blogs and get back to us about the “spirit of fair play”.

“The point is not the negative review - which was written by someone who has read the book - but the people who click “this review was helpful” having not read the book.”

Jesus! How is a review “helpful” *after* you’ve read the book? The whole point of reviews is to guide you in your decision to buy/read/watch/attend…

Indeed, a reviewer may have provided some insights of enduring value, but the primary role of a reviewer is to persuade you either not to waste your money on something, or to rush out and get it without further delay.

Why does this need explaining?

To be fair, Brett, he has acknowledged he was being silly when I made the same point to him.

Ah, I see Mark T had the same response an hour ago ;-)

Anyway, isn’t Gene going to give us a review here sometime?

In due time.

I should add that Richard Seymour arranged for his publisher to send me a free copy of the book, on the condition that I review it here.

Jesus! How is a review “helpful” *after* you’ve read the book? The whole point of reviews is to guide you in your decision to buy/read/watch/attend…

Unless one isn’t able to come to an opinion on anything with knowing exactly how your peers think about it, for fear of making the faux-pas of agreeing with a verboten opinion.

Which doesn’t describe TheIrie at all, of course.

P.

Which doesn’t describe TheIrie at all, of course.

It does describe young Barry Obama though. Remember the celebrated passage from one of his autohagiographies where he earnestly tells us how he picked and chose his friends and aquaintances so that he would appear suitably right-on and progressive.

Personally, when I went to University, I had close friends of all sorts. Even catholics. Variety is the spice of life.

;-)

I should add that Richard Seymour arranged for his publisher to send me a free copy of the book, on the condition that I review it here.

I suppose this does beg the question whether it’s right to review a SWP members book. This is guy is is currently trying to whip up a sense of fear amongst Muslims and selfishly pretend there is no problem with jihadist ideology within their community, just for political purposes. That is thoroughly abhorent by anyones standard.

Should you give any type of platform to such an individual? I’m not saying I know the answer.

Where can we buy any of your works, Marcus?

what does LOUIS bonaparte have to do with 18th Brumaire? Perhaps you meant Napoleon Bonaparte…

Why is it that a liberal achingly middle class blog attracts so many fucking idiots?

…Oh wait.

Be nice to have a detailed review of the book rather than attacks on its author or writing style.

I suspect Marcus knows that’s what book reviews should be about, but he’s instead back at HP recycling jejune ephemera.

By the way, attacks on Richard Seymour because of his alleged pomposity and verbosity are entirely subjective. It thoroughly depends on whether or not you agree with his politics. To those that don’t, he’s of course pompously prolix, but those pompous and long winded folk that you agree with politically are never accused of that. I mean, let’s face it, you can’t get enough.

Master, come back to bed, I’m cold!

You bunch of sad fucks ! So consumed with jealously that you would be eating your hearts out if you lot had any, but I guess a perquisite to being a groupie of anti-Semitic baiting Toube is a lack of heart as well as brains.

@Benjamin, you’re wasting your time expecting these cyber trolls to be able to deliver a serious critical review of anything more challenging than an Eric Carle book for under five year olds.

Perhaps you could review it yourself, Benji. You seem to have a lot of spare time on your hands.

“It thoroughly depends on whether or not you agree with his politics. ”

No, it really doesn’t. Any averagely skilled editor could reduce any Seymour poasting by at least half its length with no los of content and considerable gains in style. He is a profoundly un-gifted writer. There are plenty of people I read for style and verve with whom I disagree politically. But Seymour is grim.

I actually think Seymour’s quite a talented writer. But he buries his pithier turns of phrase under a mountain of pointless verbiage and bullshit. He kind of has to though - his views are so flagrantly nonsensical that the only way to disguise their idiocy is under a mountain of crap.

I guess a perquisite to being a groupie of anti-Semitic baiting Toube is a lack of heart as well as brains.

Yes, leave those poor antisemites alone!

A half truth is worse than a lie,

you fail to see the essence of the problem… Richard reaps what he sows. It is called NEMESIS. He’s been making many cyber “friends”. And I suspect it’s payback time. And I very much think Richard Trombone’s lackeys would do exactly the same if someone here was publishing a book. The thumbing down thing chez Amazon that is [or in this case the "thumbing up" of a negative review]…

As for his style. What some people say is true. He uses hundreds of words when he could do exactly the same with a few dozens of words.

The verbosity is more or less normal in:

a) philosophical works (er, just because if philosophers were using a simple language no one would take them seriously…)

b) pure literature (the authentic realm of imagination, creativity)

Seymour’s works are not a) or b). He is supposed to write political stuff, and propaganda as well. Note that I don’t think the latter is necessarily pejorative. A simple language IS necessary when you write such works. You want many people (millions) to EASILY UNDERSTAND your point. In other words, the verbosity is actually a shot in your foot.

The sooner he realizes this, the better [for him].

@Meredith + Cartman,
Thank you for your “expert” critique & analysis; the fact that your very replies themselves, apart from their self-contradictoriness, are not exactly full of literary flair & excellence, probably means you should SHUT THE FUCK UP.

@Mark T
Your attempt at sarcasm betrays that the T after your name must be for TWAT.

@Pierrot Grenouille
Just from your one Post, it is clear that you are a demented Nutter, who obviously has a chip with writers who use long sentences, & with more than two words, to explain complex matters that obviously go over your head repeatedly.

Funny how you clowns here spend so much time & attention trying to rubbish somebody you think is beneath you. Calling it “payback” is an interesting way of expressing jealousy, so in the interest of enlarging your “payback”, have a little listen to this;

http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=29669

(Check the mirror after for the new greenier shade of green you have acquired !)

Sorry for the “self-contradictoriness”. Although you’ll have to point it out to me because I can’t see what you mean.

And Seymour on the same bill as William Ayers is just too apt. A couple of silly boys playing at being big grown up terrorists. It reminded me of what Sartre said about Andreas Baader.

“Just from your one Post, it is clear that you are a demented Nutter”

And from your comment I can affirm that you are a worthless piece of shit, so pay attention, you pathetic lackey.

@Cartman, “a talented writer” v “a mountain of pointless verbiage and bullshit” & “a mountain of crap”. A bit Psycho, as in schizophrenic ?

So Seymour is now a wannabe terrorist ! Forget schizo, you are just plain bonkers !

@Pierrot Grenouille, How can I be worthless if I can wind you up so easily ! And what’s the point of paying attention to a smearing half-wit like you ?

@Cartman, “a talented writer” v “a mountain of pointless verbiage and bullshit” & “a mountain of crap”. A bit Psycho, as in schizophrenic ?

So Seymour is now a wannabe terrorist ! Forget schizo, you are just plain bonkers !

That’s nice. Perhaps you could call me a spastic as well?

And I suppose I should take time to point out the difference between being talented and producing good work, but I just can’t be arsed.

On the “terrorist” line, I’m not suggesting that Ritchie literally wants to blow up a bus, but I’ve read some hilarious (and occasionally slightly chilling) stuff by him about violence and its necessity. Let’s be clear - he doesn’t think that people being killed is a bad idea, just that the wrong sort of people are dying.

@Cartman, Yes the difference between “a talented WRITER” & somebody who WRITES “a mountain of pointless verbiage and bullshit” & “a mountain of crap”, is so obvious, but only to a demented schico SPASTIC like yourself.

I would not give the slightest credence to any of your perceptions of whatever anybody ever wrote, as you are obviously mentally unstable, and like all proper fruitcakes, don’t even realise it.

Unwilling to spend money on Seymour’s book, I’ve instead spent some time investigating Lenin’s Tomb, the Seymour website, and reading reviews on Amazon of ‘The Liberal Defence of Murder’. Most of the reviews I read were positive.

Am I right in thinking that Seymour and his supporters harbour an especially large hatred for people who have ‘gone over to the Right’ by, allegedly, supporting the war in Iraq? This seemed, to me at least, to indicate that those who had offended Seymour and the Socialist Workers’ Party crowd had done more than adopt a contrary opinion. They had become apostates. Does that not indicate that there is some affinity between The Left and, say, a religion? Essentially, any religion that proscribes apostasy cannot admit that it is possible for believers to simply change their point of view and adhere to an alternative set of opinions. Apostasy is a crime against the deity and the community of believers. Neither personal opinions nor the right to hold them are irrelevant in defence of those charged with religious thought crimes.

I noted also that amongst those accused of supporting the Iraq war were many, such as the much-despised Eustonites, who were clearly never supporters of the war in Iraq but, in reality, critics of the war in Iraq whose crime was to urge that, as the war and occupation were unalterable facts, Iraq be left with the sort of secular, democratic government that opponents of the Saddam regime had always wished for the country. Are there other HP posters who see this misrepresentation of one’s opponents’ point of view as a repellent, adolescent and self-serving form of intellectual dishonesty?

sorry - after ‘nor’, irrelevant s/be relevant.