A novel by its very definition IS fiction. Just say novel. If you want to classify Miller’s book…you know, beyond “egregiously written piece of shit”…”historical novel” would be the way to go.

I love my penis and all the penile things I can do with it.

You keep saying the novel is “fictional.” I am fairly certain it’s entirely too real. It is, however, fiction. Any equivalence between the two terms is utterly fictive.

On next week’s episode, watch as the FBB uses an 800-year-old piece of horse furniture to get medieval on people who use the phrase “reign in,” instead of “rein in.”

sorry to have used you as the butt of a joke

Why? Don’t be. It’s all about the entertainment, baby. If all my “rightwing opponents” argued and wrote as clearly as you do, and as plainly in good faith, life would be boring.

Do you guys want to deny him a right to make some extra money for selling a book that has squat to do with advancing conservative principles? Why would you even care if he sold 100 more books or a hundred less than he would otherwise if you all hadn’t banded together to write reviews on Amazon?

Well, as I said, I can’t speak for the rest of us guys, but as for me, that’s the one thing I don’t begrudge Miller.

Just saying going on Amazon and writing a negative review for a fictional novel because you don’t like the guy’s politics doesn’t make any sense to me.

Ehh? I didn’t go on Amazon to write a negative review just because I don’t like Miller’s politics. It’s true I don’t like them. But I wrote a negative review because his writing is howlingly bad. I detest Evelyn Waugh’s politics as much as I detest Miller’s. I detest Celine’s much more. I could attack both men for many things, but not for their literary gifts. One pardons them like Paul Claudel; pardons them for writing well. Miller, by contrast, will need to look elsewhere if he wants mercy.

Actor212,

…would be Actress212 if he wasn’t a he

If that’s true, then only because you have internalized the values of the phallogocentric patriarchy. Bastard.

Yup.

It doesn’t matter his politics, as Mark pointed out and as I pointed out. A bad novel is a bad novel. Period.

So he’s a conservative writer, so what?

He spends his days producing works of stupidity for the decadent and depraved and therefore deserves ribbing.

Kingsley Amis had a lot of opinions I very much disliked, but, you know, he was nobody’s toady and nobody’s fool and was an extremely fine writer.

Look, Actor thinks you’re a decent enough sort for a conservative..

Mark, sorry to have used you as the butt of a joke. I think I’ve pretty much stated my reasons for posting on this topic and I think both sides have made more of this than need be. My main beef is that this is a fictional novel. So he’s a conservative writer, so what? Do you guys want to deny him a right to make some extra money for selling a book that has squat to do with advancing conservative principles? Why would you even care if he sold 100 more books or a hundred less than he would otherwise if you all hadn’t banded together to write reviews on Amazon?

If you found out he’s making extra money from a hobby in some other capacity, say, selling some of photos he had taken or some paintings he had drawn, would you go out of your way to tell people that his photos or paintings sucked based on a partial glimpse of one of the corners of the picture?

Just saying going on Amazon and writing a negative review for a fictional novel because you don’t like the guy’s politics doesn’t make any sense to me.

Look, Actor thinks you’re a decent enough sort for a conservative (here I’m assuming a large value of “conservative”). And you haven’t posted anything in this thread to make me think he’s wrong about that (assuming he’s a he). So let’s be frank. I can’t speak for the other one-star reviewers. But in my case, at least, of course the point of my review was to thumb my nose at Miller and his NRO/BigHo fanboys.

My opinion of Miller’s work is entirely genuine, mind you. Based on the excerpt, his writing is bad. Gobsmackingly bad; so bad that, if I did not know better, I’d have thought it the work of a parodist attacking bad writers. There are many conceivable circumstances under which I’d not have bothered posting a review of that thing, but none under which my judgement of his gifts as a prose stylist would differ.

Here’s why I did bother, though. Miller asked the troops to go post reviews; they dutifully did so. I don’t hold that against Miller, actually. If one has written something and wants to sell it, self-promotion is, at worst, forgivable. No, it’s the fanboy hordes I despise. Orwell excoriated partisan Stalinist and partisan Roman Catholic commentators alike for forming their (publicly expressed) literary judgements on the basis of how effectively a work advanced their cause. Now, I detest both those cults. Possibly you detest at most one of them. The precise focus of allegiance doesn’t matter terribly, though. What is objectionable is the Zhdanovite stance. And, when people like Miller’s positive reviewers swarm like ants at the command of their queen to Amazon.com to vote up a book they have been told is from the correct side, it is meet and proper that their fun be spoilt.* (To anticipate your question: yes, that would be just as true of some horribly inept book by somebody whose politics I find congenial. And, no, in that case I couldn’t be arsed to go mock his work on Amazon. But then, nor could I be arsed to go there to vote his work up to begin with.)

There is one thing that, in retrospect, I might have said a bit differently. One commenter to my review thought I was mocking Miller for being self-published. I wasn’t. I think it’s funny that he had to self-publish; I really do think it’s hilarious that not even Regnery would publish his appalling pablum. And I think it’s a pity that Miller failed to draw the correct inference from the fact that not even an extremist conduit for wingnut welfare would pay him for his drivel. But as for his going out and making the investment in vanity publishing? If he thinks the commercial (and even quasi-commercial) publishers have made a mistake, and if he believes in his product, then good for him. I admire that, actually. I think he’s wrong, mind; and I’m certainly not going to let any of my discretionary income confirm him in his folly. But if he manages to make a buck off the rubes, fair play to him.

* I don’t think all the positive reviewers were necessarily insincere. Some seemed genuinely interested in this sort of historical potboiler; and some of those might not know, or might not care, about the author’s politics. Surely they should want better-crafted examples of the sort of thing they like, but de gustibus and all that. But the obvious ideological fellow-travellers, like the reviewer who thought Miller’s book a perfect addition to his home-schooling curriculum? Or the one who, in referring to the non-wingnut mockers as “brown-shirted thugs” revealed himself to be the 666th Platonic emanation down from Jonah Goldberg (himself the 666th Platonic emanation down from the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Boy)? For such creatures did the gods disdain endow.

The defense rests, your honor.

I doubt you have the stones to do it.

C’mon, tigrismus, the whole thing is beyond silly at this point. All one has to do is look at all the 1-star reviewers to tell what’s going on.

Aldous Huxtable? Kudos for his original name, but his only book review. Extra credit for giving it two stars instead of one. That’s thinking on his feet.

Charles Bragg. His only other review was for a cookbook. At least it appears that he read that one, which he described as “fascinating”. Double bonus kudos for mentioning Bullwer-Lytton Fiction Prize.

Blarty Barcklebart. Again, excellent name whoever you are. No other reviews for anything. This book must have made quite an impression on him even though he didn’t like it that it motivated him to do something he’s never done before. I’ll have to take that into account.

Alicia Morgan. Only other review was for an unknown Bush-basher in which she declared she wants to live in that author’s America. Wow. Just wow.

Lee Markson. His very first book review EVAH. No longer an Amazon virgin. Well done, sir. Best description of boring I’ve ever read.

Mark Devlin. Also his very first appearance. Riveting review on his first attempt. I look forward to many more.

random observer. Admits he/she read the first chapter and was a lurker here at Sadly, No! Points for honesty. I must admit I did enjoy his review of the Birkenstocks.

And Jesus H, Rick, if you’re going to bitch about calling it fraud because Miller made no explicit call for Amazon reviews, you can’t in the same breath accuse this site of “vile fraud” when it made no explicit call for Amazon reviews. But of course Miller did make an explicit call: “This calls for a counterattack. Readers of The Corner can go on Amazon.com’s customer-review page for The First Assassin and rate the customer reviews. By clicking a button, you can describe which reviews are helpful and which are unhelpful. These decisions matter. Reviews deemed most helpful rise to the top of the section. Also, if you’re able and willing to contribute your own customer review of The First Assassin — now or at some point in the future — this would be even more valuable.” A call from the author to fans and friends to rate down pans, rate up positive reviews, and post fan reviews is unethical to say the least, and probably a lot closer to the legal definition of fraud than anything this site has done.