Now I am officially pissed

Edited to add the link to offending webpage.

I’ve been trying to put together a complete list of all my books, with editions and ISBNs, etc, to put up on the website. Which means consulting Amazon. Which I was doing, comparing ISBNs to their listings, seeing what covers they have up and what they don’t. When something caught my eye.

On the page for the unabridged audiobook of Queen of Swords, there’s a one line “editorial review” without attribution. And what does it say?

Set in 1814, Hannah Boner gives birth to her half-brother’s child.

I’m not given to cursing, but I made a colorful, very loud exception. If you’re going to put down salacious falsehoods about the novel and about Hannah, you should at least have the good sense to spell her name correctly. Because it’s one thing to be an idiot, and another to being a clueless, sloppy idiot.

What makes me even angrier is that there’s no easy or straightforward way to contact Amazon and ask some questions. Such as: the hell? And: where did this come from? And: who is responsible, so I can tear off that individual’s tiny little head.

Accusing Hannah of incest. It makes my skin crawl. The casual browser would look at this and get what impression? Don’t tell me. I know.

Tomorrow maybe I’ll be able to handle this with some equanimity. I’ll get it fixed, but it’s likely to take a while. Grrrrr.

8 Replies to “Now I am officially pissed”

  1. Uh, let alone that they spelled Bonner wrong, they made it sound like her name was “Bone-ER”…choice phrase for erection from teenage boys everywhere. I say you just e-mail any and all links to e-mail you can find. HOw ridiculous

  2. Odd, I just googled “Hannah Boner” and found nothing but a few (real) genealogies. Wonder where it did come from…

  3. I’ve got some dark suspicions, and I will follow them up.

    It takes a lot to make me mad, you know.

  4. Eeewwwwww!! That’s disgusting! Hope you figure out how to fix it!! Honestly, you’d think they’d check their facts if not their spelling!!!

  5. You have every right to be angry.
    This sort of inaccuracy really gets me going too. If it was an inaccuracy on something so as personal to me as my own work I would feel 10 times worse, but as it is, I get bugged enough when I see this sort of thing. Usually I notice it on film reviews. In fact, it happened only this weekend. The local tv Guide had what they considered to be a brief synopsis of ‘In my Father’s Den’. In which they stated that a journalist returning to his home town after his father’s death becomes involved in a relationship (inferred to be sexual) with a teenage girl who turns out to be his own daughter. Such drivel! (Sorry, had to use the exclamation mark). It makes me wonder, did this person actually read the book/see the movie/attend the performance of the play they are reviewing?
    In the case of ‘IMFD’ the whole crux of the book (and movie) rests on the fact that most people (including the journalist) know who the girl’s father is except the girl herself.
    Personally I thought the movie was really well done, a good adaptation from the novel, but anyone reading that particular review would have no idea at all how pwerful a story it is.

  6. There might be a link at the bottom of the page that says “report this” — I’ve used it to report reviews that went off on tangents and weren’t really about the book that was supposedly the subject.

    Alternatively, isn’t there an “I am the author …” link somewhere there?

    I’ve sort of given up on Amazon, and Google too, except for the most surface-based transactions. You can’t get a link to a real person anywhere at these sites any more. Eventually I think they will collapse under their own facelessness.

    Hey, you got the para breaks in the preview! Yay!

Comments are closed.