For the first time ever, Amazon refused to post a review from me.
I’ve been reviewing there for a few years but only occasionaly do it now.
Here’s what they said in their rejection email:
Your review could not be posted.
Thanks for submitting a customer review on Amazon. Your review could not be posted to the website in its current form. While we appreciate your time and comments, reviews must adhere to the following guidelines:
We encourage you to revise your review and submit it again. A few common issues to keep in mind:
Your review should focus on specific features of the product and your experience with it. Feedback on the seller or your shipment experience should be provided at www.amazon.com/feedback.
We do not allow profane or obscene content. This applies to adult products too.
Advertisements, promotional material or repeated posts that make the same point excessively are considered spam.
Please do not include URLs external to Amazon or personally identifiable content in your review.
Got that? So below is the review. See if you find anything profane/obscene, any advertisements or URLs:
Typical Leftist Bias Torpedoes Story Potential
Evidently some other reviewers (on Audible) noticed the subtle (and not-so subtle) left-wing bias of the author. One reviewer basically said that’s a silly accusation because the captain of the ship is named after Robert E. Lee…therefore it has pro-freedom underpinnings.
Right. About that…
Classic case of leftists projecting and twisting facts/redefining words. I’m sure Lenin and Trotsky convinced people they were pro-freedom, too, when necessary to gather support.
Leftists are fine with individual liberty…as long as you think, speak, act and believe as they do. When you exercise your freedom as protected in the Bill of Rights but disagree with them on a significant subject, their inner Gestapo shines right through. They have long had a field day projecting their own tyrannical mindset (and other “liberal” virtues) on right-wing characters to demonize their opposition.
Just when the novel takes the plot in a direction where you get relief from the political undertones, the gender-bending cultural Marxism of the author kicks in.
I see this way too often, too, where the author is either female or a gamma male (aspiring to beta male) who wounds suspension of disbelief by building characters to breathe life into their own fantasies and fetishes. Macho women are the level-headed, iron-willed saviors in survival situations. The author takes revenge on the playground bullies who haunt his psyche by writing the alleged alpha males as cowards and sissies deep down inside. The quiet, artistic (how the author no doubt sees himself) passive, uncompetitive beta males are the only men who are not reprehensible in one way or another.
While this book is far from the most blatant example, I just wanted to escape this programming entirely for the length of a novel.
Oh yeah, Dr. Osaka is really inconsistent, too. The colony’s physician, her decision to tag along on the canoe trip was both unrealistic and monumentally stupid. Yet she is sage-like wise when the plot calls for it. In one scene she submits to Carlos’ authority (when it is foolish to do so) but in surrounding scenes she steadfastly asserts her dominance over all the males.
Gil Reese was a touch skitzo too, as written.
Planet colonization has huge story potential. This book didn’t live up to it, IMO.
Free expression of non-conformist ideas is probably now considered “hate speech” at Amazon. It’s a shame, because there’s a lot to like about that company. Nevertheless, here we are.
I’d also like to add something that wasn’t in my already-lengthy review:
Steele also dedicates a little time denouncing (through the narrative) the “social collectivists” who are basically communists. Through the Captain Lee character he also accurately opines that there is little difference in the oppression from a fascist regime than from a communist regime. His delusion is headquartered in the midst of the conflation of fascists with true right-wingers.
It’s a very common delusion.
The perspective of this narrative is classic NeoCon. NeoCons are socialists who focus on lower taxes and more military spending than their “liberal” colleagues. The first NeoCons, during the Cold war, were originally Democrats and other Marxists who thought Stalin and Mao went just a tad too far. They still were inspired to seek Marx-esque Utopia…but without all the embarrassing human rights abuses in the USSR and Red China.
They were called “conservative” because compared to the rabid Marxists in the news media who get to label people, they were still to the right. This is part of the reason why the term “conservative” is so confused as to be useless in political debate.
Eventually these Communist Lite advocates took over the GOP establishment, and now their control is ironclad–which is why we never get a true choice in our rigged elections.
The way Steele projects oppressive behavior onto the right reminds me of the Hugos and the Puppies.
- Scalzi and Co. rant about how unethical Hugo Award voting slates are after he himself has been the author and beneficiary of voting slates.
- The SJWs accuse the puppies of oppressing women, then with no sense of irony, No-Awarded Toni Weisskoph (and Patrick Nielsen-Hayden threw a tantrum directed at the wife of John C. Wright).
- They accuse the puppies of opposing diversity in science fiction, while No-Awarding the only nominated editor of Latino and Native American descent (Vox Day) as part of their decade-long hate campaign against him.
- Interesting that SJWs scream “the science is settled” to end debate about their dubious global warming assertions while the anti-puppies (SJWs in science fiction/fantasy) repeatedly insist DNA testing must be unscientific if it proves Vox Day’s minority credentials. After all, no REAL Native American is allowed to disagree with them.
- Anti-puppies play Twitter Tough Guy, issuing death threats against the puppies, then never fail to claim that it’s the other way around and THEY are receiving death threats FROM the puppies.
- SJWs accuse puppies and sympathizers of trying to deny free speech to others…while the SJWs try to deny free speech to the puppies.
You get the idea. And authors like Steele reliably engage in this kind of projection when depicting characters/organizations they see as “right wing.”