I guess I got lazy about egosurfing, because I only just noticed that my book has two reviews on Amazon, and both are horrible. My average “grade” is 2 1/2 stars, and the review currently at the top of the page starts with the inauspicious words “This is an incredibly miserable book”. God, I wouldn’t buy my book based on that. But heck, you know what, I don’t think the book is that “miserable”. I actually think it’s pretty damn good.

I actually wondered whether “Edwin C.” had something personal against me. Perhaps he’s just, as he writes, “really upset to have wasted my money on this trash” that he thinks may have been “written by a college student”, full of “superficial dribble filled with lame cliches and suffocating amount of block quotes”. “Edwin C.” himself is a college student, according to his profile. Maybe he was assigned the book and didn’t like having to read it?

Ah well. I don’t know about the clichÈs, but I like block quotes myself – I love actually getting to see the stuff itself, and I love it when authors give me lots of examples and show connections between them and to theory rather than just theorising in abstract. People like different things.

I think I’ll take the other review as a compliment, despite it’s less-than-euphoric three stars: “Expected more. Not bad. But there is more to study about blogging. I should write it. In fact, I will.” Click through to the reviewer’s profile and you’ll see he has lots of really interesting books in there – google him and it’s Michael Hemmingson, “Michael Hemmingson is a novelist, short story writer, literary critic, cultural anthropologist, qualitative researcher, playwright, and screenwriter who has been called ìRaymond Carver on acidî by literary guru Larry McCaffery and ìa disciple of a quick and dirty literatureî by the American Book Review.[1]” Even three stars by someone like that is pretty awesome – and I’d love to read a semi-fictionalised, autoethnographic criticism of blogging. I hope he does write about blogging.

I do agree with “Edwin C.” on one thing, though: “just use the “Click to Look Inside” feature on Amazon and check out the content and style and judge for yourself.”

I’m going to make sure I write more reviews of scholarly books I’ve found useful. Just so that Amazon.com isn’t full of reviews by the people who had to read a book for class and hated it.

And you know, if you’ve read my book and liked it, I’d love a review on Amazon.com or elsewhere. Even if you hated it, I do appreciate feedback.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

10 thoughts on ““raymond carver on acid” says my book is “not bad”!

  1. Martin

    Well I just bought a copy anyway so there.

  2. Jill Walker Rettberg

    Well thank you Martin!

  3. Anonymous

    The UK Amazon site only has the five star review from down under – nice for the average. The French site has nothing. So far.

  4. Olava

    I think your book is a good lead into a world that not that many actually know of. So I tell them to read your book as a nice way into this world of socializing on web. So there you go 😀 It is a good book for many more than just the people that is already out there blogging 😉

  5. Jill Walker Rettberg

    🙂

  6. William Patrick Wend

    Ah well. I donít know about the clichÈs, but I like block quotes myself – I love actually getting to see the stuff itself, and I love it when authors give me lots of examples and show connections between them and to theory rather than just theorising in abstract. People like different things.

    I love them also and use block quotes extensively. It feels hypertextual to me: a way to (hyper)link to another book or article within the constraints of print.

  7. Wouter

    I like your book. It gives a clear view of blogging. While writing my thesis on blogging and trust, which was finished just before publication of your book, I used several publications that you reference too. While reading the book – after finishing my thesis – I realized it gave me a very clear picture I had been looking for, while writing. In a way it completed my thoughts and observations. It’s a pretty damn good book indeed.

  8. Michael Hemmingson

    Thanks for the shout. I may be doing a book for the Polity series on Twitter, or micro-blogging…

  9. Lucas

    I enjoyed the book too. Your writing tone is calm and you lay out the ideas very simply and easily. Any dead-trees book on blogging is going to be out of date pretty fast, so it’s good that you made your deposit into the archive at this point – it will be interesting to look back in 10 years and see how our understanding has changed. For instance, Serfaty’s book, which I found via yours, is a fascinating study of “online diaries”. It’s only 5 years old, but already seems dated – because blogs are no longer just online diaries.

    On the downside, my copy of your book is already falling apart – the glue binding is not holding it all together. Which makes me wonder – will you/have you published this book online? As a series of blog entries? Would you? (I reckon it’d be great if you did! Readers could contribute alterations and updates and comments which could lead to an amended second edition!)

  10. M-H

    I bought your book, Jill, and it’s just arrived. I will certainly review it on Amazon when I’ve actually read some of it.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.