14 ms·
MacKenzie Bezos Writes Amazon Review for Jeff Bezos Biography
- dorznak 13y ago"When reading phrases like these, which are used in the book routinely, readers should remember that Jeff was never interviewed for this book, [...]" Since the subject of the book is still alive, I guess it's an unauthorized biography?
- newscracker 13y agoFor someone so close to Amazon, you'd think she would verify her name in her profile so that the review would show the Real Name tag next to her name (adding a little more credibility). Maybe it doesn't really matter since this is just her third review on Amazon, the other two written in year 2001.
- Grue3 13y agoA long, well-written review that is ultimately worthless as the author is clearly biased due to being related to the subject of the book. A good illustration of the importance of context vs content.
- afandian 13y agoI disagree. As commenter K. Mitnick put it: The authors are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to "their own facts".
- phorese 13y ago> commenter K. Mitnick "Ken Mitnick" btw, not Kevin. Just in case anyone wondered. Like I did-
- winstonian 13y agoThe Ghost himself!
- Grue3 13y agoClaims by biased entities are not facts. In fact, it's almost always the opposite.
- lsaferite 13y agoUnfortunately, everyone is biased in some way or another. That mixed with your logic means the whole book is fiction, right? The reality of it is that being biased doesn't mean you cannot make factual statements. It does mean you may highlight facts you want and ignore facts you find inconvenient. It also means you can lie. In this case she is saying the author made statements of fact that were not true and is trying to point that out. As the book is an unofficial biography, you have to assume the likelihood of factual error is increased.
- moogleii 13y agoWhich pretty much sums up the book in question. This is circular.
- Grue3 13y agoThere is no reason for the book author to be biased. We don't know if he is biased or not. However, we know for certain that Jeff Bezos's wife is very biased. She has a horse in this race, so to speak. So whatever she says is probably to protect Jeff Bezos's reputation, not to uncover the truth.
- hga 13y agoShe also points to two other reviewers with 1st hand knowledge who dispute enough of the facts to put the book at least somewhat in doubt. E.g. the first says 80/20% correct/incorrect, which makes him wonder what 20% of the claimed facts he's not privy to are also wrong....
- coolsank 13y agoAnd here's the author's response http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-05/responding-to-mackenzie-bezoss-one-star-slapdown http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-05/responding-t...
- joosters 13y agoNot much of a response really. Doesn't try to counter-argue any specific point made. It could be boiled down to 'I'm a good, honest writer, trust me' (I've no opinion here on who is right or wrong, haven't even read the book)
- UnoriginalGuy 13y agoHis wife sounds like one hell of a women. I loved the "third world prison" comment.
- chalst 13y agoMacKenzie Bezos: Everywhere I can fact check from personal knowledge, I find way too many inaccuracies, and unfortunately that casts doubt over every episode in the book. Brad Stone: Mrs. Bezos also suggests that there are a handful of factual errors in my account. There is something slippery about the way Brad Stone writes.
- vasilipupkin 13y agoIndeed, but the two may not be mutually exclusive. "Everywhere I can fact check from personal knowledge" doesn't automatically mean more than a handful
- endersshadow 13y agoGiven that her personal knowledge extends more than twenty years, I would say that it's safe to assume that it's more than a handful.
- barretts 13y agoThere's something slippery about the way Mrs. Bezos writes as well. She says: "Readers should remember that Jeff was never interviewed for this book." She conveniently elides the fact that Brad Stone has interviewed Bezos several times for previous articles, and has written about Amazon for a decade or more. It is certainly tricky, however, for an author to suggest he/she knows what a subject was thinking/feeling in the past.
- cliveowen 13y ago"If this were an isolated example" This always bugs me, damn grammar.
- afandian 13y agoWhat's wrong with that?
- adrianb 13y agothis was / these were
- afandian 13y agoIt's not quite as simple as tense and agreement though. This example is the subjunctive mood (and it is correct). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive Unless I completely missed your point and you felt that the correct grammar clashed with your intuition, in which case I apologise, and I suppose it depends on your linguistic surroundings when you learn the language.
- cliveowen 13y agoI know it's not wrong, it's just that every time I see it, it feels wrong.
- afandian 13y agoOkay. As I said in my comment further down, I suppose this depends on your linguistic surroundings when you learned to speak. To me using 'were' in the incorrect mood feels wrong. I'm not a strict grammarian (I had to look that reference up to double-check before posting), and my feel for grammar is intuitive rather than learned from verb tables. Obviously the verb-tables (or fragments of them) are encoded in that haze of language in some latent form, but it's entirely down to the environment in which I learned to speak. Acquisition of grammar is a fascinating topic. Can anyone can recommend any books on the subject?
- JetSpiegel 13y agoIronically, she had to buy the book to read it. The author didn't send them a copy?
- smoyer 13y agoFor some definition of "buy" I suppose ... somehow I'm not picturing her Amazon account being suspended when her credit card expiration date passes.
- thaumasiotes 13y agoHaving had some cards expire, I can assure you that nobody has their Amazon account suspended when a card expires; that would be insane. Instead, your account works as normal, but you can't use the expired card to pay for anything. Amazon doesn't operate on a tab system. I'm struggling to imagine how you thought using them worked.
- loopdoend 13y agoiTunes operates on a bit of an honor system, it seems to use a preauth for a small amount, and then batches following purchases. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/06/ff_gamed/6/ http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/06/ff_gamed/6/ Of course you will get locked out of updating your iDevices if you have an outstanding balance.
- smoyer 13y agoI understand how Amazon works ... I was implying that it didn't work the same for McKenzie Bezos. (I should have been more clear that I meant purchases suspended rather than the account).
- teh_klev 13y agoHow long before the factual inaccuracies noted by Mrs Bezos bleed into Wikipedia's articles on Jeff Bezos and Amazon, with this book being cited as a notable reference?
- 3825 13y agoI think it is a notable reference. It is a statement by ms bezos after all
- teh_klev 13y agoI meant as in the book, not Mackenzie's review content.
- 3825 13y agoSorry, I misread your post.
- mhurron 13y agoI believe they were asking how long until the incorrect facts in the book show up on wikipedia using the book as a notable reference to prop them up. Basically, biography claims he is a Lizard Man. Wikipedia is updated "Jeff Bezos, noted reptilian[1] ..." [1]This book And then no one argues with it.
- chris_mahan 13y agoAhhhh, now we begin to glimpse that asking for published information over first person information leads down the path of wikipedia becoming a reference of published works rather that an encyclopedia. Not everything that is useful knowledge for mankind is published, and not everything that is published is useful for mankind. I think I can finally word what's been nagging me. Thank you.
- talles 13y agoFor who is wondering: "MacKenzie Bezos is an American novelist and the wife of Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com."
- mathattack 13y agoDoes she have a competing book on the market? Or is she just reviewing the book with a writer's eye?
- sliverstorm 13y agoThe book isn't an auto-biography, so she could just be upset that some writer went and misrepresented her & her husband's lives.
- jessaustin 13y agoThanks, I sort of assumed this was Jeff's elementary-school-aged child. I even had an androgynous, towheaded, smiling image in my mind. ("MacKenzie" is a rather androgynous, and dare I say infantilizing, name.)
- lylejohnson 13y agoI don't believe any elementary school-aged kid could write an extensive book review like that. Not even Jeff Bezos' kid.
- jessaustin 13y agoWell of course I didn't click through to read it. I was just trying to imagine why so many people cared about what someone in the Bezos family thought about a book about Bezos, and I figured it must be, "aww, what a talented little kid, that's so cute!"
- aaronem 13y agoWhich says nothing about the person at whom they're aimed, but considerable about the person who made them -- and such assumptions as these say nothing particularly complimentary.
- kubiiii 13y agoThere still might be bias in what a wife knows of her husband.
- JabavuAdams 13y agoOf course, but she points to specific facts that can be checked. We need to be careful, as a society, that "everyone has a bias" isn't used as an excuse to discard verifiable information.
- kubiiii 13y agoI was just being silly but you have a point.
- barretts 13y agoShe actually only refers to one specific fact that can be checked -- when Bezos read Remains of the Day. Everything else is just her attempt to re-characterize the environment at Amazon, which is subjective, not factual. (She also has some interesting, though biased, comments on the process of non-fiction writing.)
- davidw 13y agoI read a book about Amazon a while back, and it was not all that good: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2RXH1XQAP8AAA/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm?tag=dedasys-20 http://www.amazon.com/review/R2RXH1XQAP8AAA/ref=cm_cr_rdp_pe... This one appears to be better, but I think that until one of these guys manages to spend more time with Bezos, we won't really get the definitive story of the company's early years. I would really like to see such a book, as Amazon, out of all the big tech companies, is probably the one I know the least about.
- Amadou 13y agoI think she streisanded the book, this "controversy" is the first I had heard of it myself. But now I've seen her review mentioned in three different online news sources in the last 24 hours.
- blowski 13y ago"Streisanded"? I think that's the worst word I will see or hear this week.
- hga 13y agoWell, what that means depends on your view of the maxim that "all publicity is good publicity". I'm sure more copies will be sold. I'm also sure more copies will be read with a more skeptical eye than normal. And for many of us, the quality of her review, the specificity, especially to critical and basic factual errors, tells us a lot if we find her believable (helpfully she cites two other reviewers making the same claim). For me, that's enough to decide not not buy it.
- simias 13y agoI'm not sure, I think the streisand effect works when people want to access the source material to see by themselves. The problem here is that you and I can't easily fact-check the book by yourself and therefore we can't really make our own opinion by buying and reading it. Therefore I can't really imagine anyone buying it because "hey, someone knowledgeable on the subject said it was full of half truths!"
- maddy_2601 13y agoCheck this out please :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL2Gasb6QTg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL2Gasb6QTg
- jroseattle 13y agoReading the review, I think I could create my own TL;DR: Overall, there is confirmation bias. We see what we want to see. This is as true for Ms. Bezos's review as it is for the author's biography. As is usually the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle area of consensus -- which we now know is anathemic territory for Mr. Bezos. EDIT: would appreciate a reply to understand why this was downvoted.
- JabavuAdams 13y agoSee these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6674569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6674569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6675042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6675042 Some things are actually verifiable. Or a weaker statement: if something could be easily verified, the fact that someone with an opinion on the matter hasn't bothered to research it indicates laziness. For people like journalists and writers, it may indicate misconduct. As a society, we need to fight the idea that everyone is biased therefore if your facts weaken my argument let's just agree to disagree, m'kay. While on a social level, this is a good idea, in the public sphere it allows bad actors to just shrug off contradicting evidence.
- jroseattle 13y agoI don't believe everyone is biased, but I do think it's reasonable to consider that Ms. Bezos might be, due to her relationship with her husband. It's not across the board, as you state certain facts bear themselves out, but several things she addresses are subjective in nature. I think it's more important we consider the fact that someone can raise valid points while also holding a natural bias, as opposed to the all-or-nothing state that it's become (which is what I believe you're referencing.)
- SkyMarshal 13y ago>EDIT: would appreciate a reply to understand why this was downvoted. Probably because neither of these statements is necessarily true: >As is usually the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle area of consensus -- which we now know is anathemic territory for Mr. Bezos. Also because bias is irrelevant to whether something is a verifiable fact or not. Thinking otherwise is like a reverse appeal to authority fallacy. Characteristics of the source have no bearing on the assertion, the latter must be evaluated on its own merits and verifiability alone, and nothing else. Lots of comments here about bias, none are relevant. Also, asking for explanations for downvotes is against HN ettiquette (see FAQ and Guidelines) and usually downvoted.
- kineticfocus 13y agoDebating biases aside... An author not interviewing their subject is unprofessional. (edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay )
- ddoolin 13y agoWhat happens if the subject doesn't agree to be interviewed? I haven't read the book or much around it except for this article. Is there a reason for not doing so? I agree it seems really unprofessional.
- hga 13y agoWell, such "unauthorized" biographies can have value (heck, what if you're writing one long after the author and those who knew him are dead?), but they have to be much more careful. Which she's pointing out the author wasn't. E.g. this paragraph, in the middle of like stuff, is devastating: "In light of the focus in many of the reviews here and elsewhere on what the book “reveals” about Jeff’s motives, I will also point out that the passage about what was on his mind when he decided to start Amazon is far from the only place where the book passes off speculation about his thoughts and intentions as fact. “Bezos felt…” “Bezos believed….” “Bezos wanted….” “Bezos fixated…” “Bezos worried….” “Bezos was frustrated…” “Bezos was consumed…” “In the circuitry of Bezos’s brain, something flipped…” When reading phrases like these, which are used in the book routinely, readers should remember that Jeff was never interviewed for this book, and should also take note of how seldom these guesses about his feelings and motives are marked with a footnote indicating there is any other source to substantiate them."
- danso 13y agoBezos has been famously reticent to talk to reporters ever since Amazon became big: http://jimromenesko.com/2013/08/11/i-interviewed-jeff-bezos-when-amazon-was-an-insignificant-speck-in-the-book-selling-universe/ http://jimromenesko.com/2013/08/11/i-interviewed-jeff-bezos-... If the subject does not want to do an interview, than it is not unprofessional to not have interviewed the person. In fact, I can't imagine why even a dishonest reporter would not interview their subject given the chance, as that reporter is still in control of the transcribed material and can use it dishonestly, even moreso than if they didn't have the interview, because they can claim their biography has extra weight, due to the exclusive interview, even if they then end up twisting to their purposes. (which is why very famous people often do not talk to reporters in the first place) The "writearound", the kind of biography in which you do extensive research to fill in the gaps and talk to everyone else you can find, is actually a pretty well-honored form of biography, and one that can be very illuminating. (I'm not defending the author in the Bezos case as I don't know the particulars. Just disputing your argument that not having a direct interview destroys the legitimacy of a biography)
- dbecker 13y agoWhen I read journalism without knowing the subject well, I assume what I read is accurate. But I'm always shocked by the inaccuracy of reporting on stories I know/understand well. I wonder whether this book is less accurate than average, or whether this review is finding only the typical level of inaccuracy.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago> When I read journalism without knowing the subject well, I assume what I read is accurate. But I'm always shocked by the inaccuracy of reporting on stories I know/understand well. How long before you either () stop being shocked by the stories you understand, or () stop assuming the journalist is telling you the truth in stories you don't? A sentence like this makes more sense in the past tense... When I was small, my parents taught me that if it appeared on TV, it wasn't true （they were mostly thinking of commercials, but news programs were offenders too). It may be sad, but those seem more and more like words to live by, and extend to other media.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoWhen I was small, my parents taught me that if it appeared on TV, it wasn't true Someone I know calls it 'The Glowing Box of Lies', which seems as good a description as any.
- JunkDNA 13y agoI remember learning firsthand just how inaccurate journalism can be. My family ran a small business (a small factory) that tragically caught fire early one morning and burned to the ground. The newspaper account was ridiculous. It described how the fire sent employees "fleeing for their lives from the building". In reality, the building was entirely unoccupied at the time since it was the early morning (likely part of the reason the fire happened to begin with). I don't remember all of the details now, but reading the story, I was stunned at how wrong the overall picture was that it was painting. It was like a parallel universe. I take news accounts with a huge grain of salt now.
- 13y ago
- tobylane 13y agoI think it's notable that a review (that is currently the second most 'helpful') is the way to disagree with a book. It reaches people considering buying it, so it's less grandstanding than announcing the same facts to a newspaper, where there would be much less editorial control.
- saalweachter 13y agoDid anyone else find this section weird: In an archive of the thousands of thank you messages written to Jeff over the years, a small sampling includes “I just wanted to thank you for giving my husband the opportunity to work for your company so many years ago and let you know that he always spoke kindly and enthusiastically of the distribution center, the people and you.” “Having finished my shift I thought I would send you a short email to say thank you. There is a fantastic team based here and we have super support. Our mentors are true Amazon angels providing guidance and showing great patience.” “I cried as I read the Career Choice announcement on Amazon today. What Amazon is doing to help its employees is affecting lives in the most meaningful way I can think of. It restores my faith in humanity.” I'm not saying they haven't received thousands of thank-yous, but that's weird, right? I've never once considered sending a thank-you to any CEO/boss, nor have I met anyone who has. (Of course, I've also never worked at Amazon--)
- clinth 13y agoIt might be weird, but I'm a thank-you letter writer. I wouldn't write those exact letters, but I've written similar sentiments. I've written my CEO, because I live in a house I bought with money earned from this job, raising a family of three kids, and appreciate that my enterprise is sustainable. I'm grateful for my job, the opportunity to do the work I do, and to the people who make it happen. However, I write a half-dozen or so such letters per year. Not just professional: personal, community, and so on. This rate is trending up as I get older. I'm getting more and more grateful for how our lives all fit together. There are many people working hard toward good ends and probably not being thanked for the good work they do.
- mooreds 13y agoI don't often pull out the old pen and paper and write a thank you note. This comment reminds me I should. Practicing gratitude on your own is great, but what a gift to light up someone else's day.
- jonhinson 13y agoI don't think it's a weird thing to do if someone loves what they do or is very grateful for the opportunity they have. However, I'm biased as I have written a thank you note to my CEO before (small company - I was #13 and we have 36 people now).
- barretts 13y agoThe book author Brad Stone (who I used to work with) responded to Mackenzie's review and I think his comment is spot-on: "I'm certainly less biased than Jeff's wife." http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-wife-reviews-book-on-amazon-2013-11?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-wife-reviews-book-...
- MikusR 13y agoSo he is attacking Bezos wife and not the facts she wrote? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
- joshuaheard 13y agoCredibility of the witness (bias) is always a proper issue for argument.
- mcguire 13y agoWell, you would say that, wouldn't you?
- objclxt 13y agoI don't think it's a logical fallacy: he's making a general point that the wife of his subject is not going to be particularly impartial.
- justin66 13y agoWhen accused of getting the facts wrong, this journalist responded by attacking the impartiality of the accuser. A person who didn't know the meaning of the word "fact" might find that insightful.
- barretts 13y agoIf you'd read the article you'd note that he barely addresses her or her status, and primarily responds to her review and elucidates his reporting process. I quoted that line because I think it usefully reframes the conversation. Journalists certainly can be biased, but the good ones try very hard not to be. Spouses by definition are biased.
- j_s 13y agoI would like to read Brad Stone's life partner's response to MacKenzie Bezos' review.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- rmk2 13y agoSomething bothers me about the conclusion of the review... "In this theory I treat the historical work as what it most manifestly is: a verbal structure in the form of a narrative prose discourse. Histories (and philosophies of history as well) combine a certain amount of 'data,' theoretical concepts for 'explaining' these data, and a narrative structure for their presentation as an icon of sets of events presumed to have occurred in times past. In addition, I maintain, they contain a deep structural content which is generally poetic, and specifically linguistic, in nature, and which serves as the precritically accepted paradigm of what a distinctively 'historical' explanation should be." (Hayden White, Metahistory, p. IX) What MacKenzie Bezos points out, albeit in a localised fashion, is what the Humanities have come to regard as the "linguistic turn" during the course of the 20th century. As Hayden White states above (in his concern with historical writing), historical writing takes a certain set of data that is then fitted into a wider narrative, alongside some underlying meta-narrative, which marks a certain interpretive paradigm (e.g. a progress-narrative). This, in turn, means that no account can desribe "historical truth". It also means that every account is fundamentally literary (or, as he formulates it, at least linguistic). It is no surprise, then, that the Bezos biography does not describe "historical fact". However, it also means that a biography written by Bezos's wive or even his autobiography cannot describe "historical truth" either. Every account remains a narrative, and thus fictional, even if based "on real events", as Hollywood so neatly calls it. Hayden White continues: The chosen (or, in this case, criticised) writers' "status as possible models of historical representation or conceptualization does not depend upon the nature of the 'data' they used to support their generalizations or the theories they invoked to explain them; it depends rather upon the consistency, coherence, and illuminative power of their respective visions of the historical field." (Hayden White, Metahistory, p. 4) So her final claim is dubious, at best: "Ideally, authors are careful to ensure people know whether what they are reading is history or an entertaining fictionalization. Hollywood often uses a more honest label: 'a story based on true events.' If authors won’t admit they’ve crossed this important line, their characters can do it for them." While the "character" may certainly give you their version of the story, what they present is far from being "historical truth". They also choose examples, omit others, pick and make decisions, depending on their very own narrative. This is less a clash of "fiction" versus "historical truth", but instead a clash of two narratives. The character's narrative (in this case, Bezos's) might carry more authority (he is the character in question, after all), but the account remains nevertheless a narrative, which can also be criticised. This is the same reflex as can be observed sometimes with old guest listeners at universities who torpedo (especially) historical lectures with a simple claim: "But I was there in 19xx, and I didn't know about or notice any of that." And while that might be a true data point, it doesn't mean that it somehow invalidates the wider narrative. Edit: The author can thus certainly criticise the overall narrative or narrative thrust in the biography, but pointing out singular data points that simply oppose a given data point do not serve the same function.
- makmanalp 13y agoHere is the author's response: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-05/responding-to-mackenzie-bezoss-one-star-slapdown http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-05/responding-t...
- taralx 13y agoThat is a very classy response. No blame, no deflection. My respect for this author just went up a notch.
- marincounty 13y agoI'm tired of anything Jeff Bezos. Actually, I liked Amazon better, when I didn't know so much about Jeff Bezos. Now I know his wife's name--ugh.
- cylinder 13y agoI think there's a push to turn Bezos into the new Steve Jobs. Media always likes to have a figure like him around.
- frogpelt 13y agoThe author's response is here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-05/responding-to-mackenzie-bezoss-one-star-slapdown http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-05/responding-t...
- crb002 13y agoCool. I didn't know Bezos worked for DE Shaw. Their research into how we schedule molecular dynamics simulations to gain the maximum information from limited compute resources is going to revolutionize experimental design in the engineering world. http://www.deshawresearch.com/publications.html http://www.deshawresearch.com/publications.html