BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

AndyB wrote:Because you've been  moved to Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea?

Looking For Madeleine (Paperback)
"Definitive"? "Independent"? "Objective"? "Impartial"? "Neutral"?

3 Oct 2014 By Textuseless

The first indication that there is something strange about this book comes in the `Authors' Note', before Chapter 1, in which the authors state that they "wish to make clear at the outset" that they have not seen "a shred of evidence to indicate that Kate and Gerry McCann, any member of their holiday group, or Robert Murat, were at any stage - in May 2007 or subsequently - guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance or the repercussions that followed".
Why the wish to make that clear at the outset?
I suppose it might be helpful as a one-sentence précis for someone who glances at it in a shop, weighing up whether to buy the book, as it would save them the trouble of buying and reading the whole thing. The "Authors' Note" at the start of their 9/11 book didn't say "We wish to make clear at the outset that we think the CIA did/didn't do it", or anything like that, so why do it with this one? It's a bit like John le Carre giving away a secret to one of his novels on the front cover, or the St Martins Theatre putting a large billboard at the entrance of the building telling people how the Mousetrap play ends - with predictable results, judging by the sales figures of the book so far.
The Authors' Note also states that the book "has been researched and written independently of Gerry and Kate McCann".
OK, fine.
Except that the `About the book' note preceding the Authors Note already stated that the book is the first "independent, objective account of the case".
But then at the end, the `Note on Sources' yet again states that the authors "conducted this project completely independently" of the McCanns.
Why the need to keep saying it? How many times does something have to be repeated before it sounds as if someone is protesting too much?
The endless repetition (even of the same words!) continues throughout the book in relation to the lack of evidence of anything in relation to the McCanns - "not a shred of evidence", "no evidence", "no factual evidence", "no evidence at all", "without any evidence", "never the smallest shred of fact or evidence", "no evidence whatsoever", "not a jot of evidence", "not an iota of evidence", "no such evidence", "not a jot of evidence" (again!). Overkill, much?
Why not just stick with the claim that it was a definitive account, `simply tell the story', and let people read it and make up their own minds? Are readers really unable to read a book and draw their conclusions without the 'aid' every few pages of hints as subtle as a flying mallet?
Another sign that something is not normal: partial quoting. As an example, the authors partially quote a piece of graffiti on a wall in Praia da Luz near one of the sites searched by Scotland Yard. The book quotes the part of the message about the English police, but not the other part, which was about the parents. The authors claim to be "entirely impartial" and that "Our aim in the book is in the main simply to tell the story" - but this is only telling part of the story. If a piece of graffiti was felt worthy of inclusion in a definitive account, why only quote half of it? Or did the authors only see the photographs of part of the message, and were unaware of the rest?
There is also a rather strange combination of partial quoting and added wording, with this interestingly worded sentence: "As Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood has said, the probability is that 'This is a criminal act [by] a stranger who has taken Madeleine McCann.'" This appears to refer to comments by Redwood to the press and TV in April 2012 that "It is our belief that that is a criminal act...that she has been taken by a stranger". Now, the Redwood quote in this book starts with "This is a criminal act [by] a stranger...". Starting the quote in that way, and omitting Redwood's widely-reported remark about it being Operation Grange's belief, makes it look more like a statement of fact. And why did the authors insert "the probability is that..."? None of the press reports nor the TV interview with Redwood I have seen mentioned anything about probability. If the authors have seen a statement by Redwood to that effect, why not quote it properly? If he didn't say it, why do the authors say "As Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood has said, the probability is that..."?
Another indication as to the position the authors take is in their repeated use of the `haters' term, which the pro-McCann forums have made their own. On two occasions the authors enclose the term `haters' with inverted commas, indicating that it is a term used by others. But on the other occasion they seem to have forgotten to do so.
Oh dear... this makes the book appear as if it was written by a pro-McCann forum.
Another strange comment appears in Chapter 1, where the authors state that they will "in this chapter relate events very neutrally". Well, firstly, why WOULDN'T they relate events very neutrally, as they claim that it is an independent, objective account? Secondly, why relate events very neutrally in only one chapter?
Neutrality is certainly not evident when the authors describe an interview with psychologist Christian Ludke. Instead of just relating what Ludke said (or, in their words, `simply telling the story'), the account is coloured to a considerable extent by pejorative phrases like "by the fourth question he had lurched into outrageous innuendo", "the psychologist replied darkly", "Ludke was still not finished", "Then, a final flourish". Hardly a case of `simply telling the story'.
What about the claim that the book is a definitive, researched account? The authors set out in detail a description of an incident 10 years ago by a `friend' of the family in question. The friend's account includes phrases like "From what the children told their parents, it seemed...", "the older girl told her sister something like...". Are the authors really putting forward what is little more than third-hand, vague, hearsay (from someone who even admits to not being sure what was said!) as a serious contribution in a book like this?
Much of a book supposedly dealing with a serious treatment of the case is devoted to page after page of rehashed tabloid stories and endless detailed accounts of non-sightings and other reports long since ruled out by the police. Here, I think, the explanation may be more straightforward - it is simply not possible to write a "definitive account" of a disappearance of which neither the investigating authorities nor the authors know any more than on the night it happened, 7 years ago. The official conclusion of the Portuguese authorities was "Type of crime - unknown", so the only `definitive account' at this stage is "Madeleine disappeared 7 years ago and the combined efforts of two police forces are no nearer solving the mystery", but that obviously needs an enormous amount of padding to fill enough pages for a book.
As for this (on the night Madeleine disappeared): "There is movement in the darkness. Undetected movement", and "The something appears to be a small child, warm from its slumber" - sheer speculation.
A serious book? "Independent"? "Objective"? "Impartial"? "Neutral"?

That isn't how it comes across to me at all.

MRNOODLES wrote:I seriously wonder if Jim Gamble had some kind of a stake in the book.  Otherwise it's a mystery why he's so keen to promote it and make references to it on Twitter.

Brian Griffin wrote:The review war is still going on on Amazon. It's worth a look to see how well Vten is so eloquently putting down the - dare I even use the word? - 'trolls' who are still trying to defend the indefensible by attempting to put down those who tell the truth about the book, in relation to the facts. Who is Vten, by the way? Is he or she also represented on here? I've gained some interesting insight.

The book has failed to do what it was apparently supposed to do. That's two years of work down the drain plus the reputations of two previously credible authors. Was it really worth it?

In my opinion.

PeterMac wrote:Latest decent review

Looking For Madeleine (Paperback)
"Definitive"? "Independent"? "Objective"? "Impartial"? "Neutral"?

3 Oct 2014 By Textuseless

The first indication that there is something strange about this book comes in the `Authors' Note', before Chapter 1, in which the authors state that they "wish to make clear at the outset" that they have not seen "a shred of evidence to indicate that Kate and Gerry McCann, any member of their holiday group, or Robert Murat, were at any stage - in May 2007 or subsequently - guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance or the repercussions that followed".
Why the wish to make that clear at the outset?
I suppose it might be helpful as a one-sentence précis for someone who glances at it in a shop, weighing up whether to buy the book, as it would save them the trouble of buying and reading the whole thing. The "Authors' Note" at the start of their 9/11 book didn't say "We wish to make clear at the outset that we think the CIA did/didn't do it", or anything like that, so why do it with this one? It's a bit like John le Carre giving away a secret to one of his novels on the front cover, or the St Martins Theatre putting a large billboard at the entrance of the building telling people how the Mousetrap play ends - with predictable results, judging by the sales figures of the book so far.
The Authors' Note also states that the book "has been researched and written independently of Gerry and Kate McCann".
OK, fine.
Except that the `About the book' note preceding the Authors Note already stated that the book is the first "independent, objective account of the case".
But then at the end, the `Note on Sources' yet again states that the authors "conducted this project completely independently" of the McCanns.
Why the need to keep saying it? How many times does something have to be repeated before it sounds as if someone is protesting too much?
The endless repetition (even of the same words!) continues throughout the book in relation to the lack of evidence of anything in relation to the McCanns - "not a shred of evidence", "no evidence", "no factual evidence", "no evidence at all", "without any evidence", "never the smallest shred of fact or evidence", "no evidence whatsoever", "not a jot of evidence", "not an iota of evidence", "no such evidence", "not a jot of evidence" (again!). Overkill, much?
Why not just stick with the claim that it was a definitive account, `simply tell the story', and let people read it and make up their own minds? Are readers really unable to read a book and draw their conclusions without the 'aid' every few pages of hints as subtle as a flying mallet?
Another sign that something is not normal: partial quoting. As an example, the authors partially quote a piece of graffiti on a wall in Praia da Luz near one of the sites searched by Scotland Yard. The book quotes the part of the message about the English police, but not the other part, which was about the parents. The authors claim to be "entirely impartial" and that "Our aim in the book is in the main simply to tell the story" - but this is only telling part of the story. If a piece of graffiti was felt worthy of inclusion in a definitive account, why only quote half of it? Or did the authors only see the photographs of part of the message, and were unaware of the rest?
There is also a rather strange combination of partial quoting and added wording, with this interestingly worded sentence: "As Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood has said, the probability is that 'This is a criminal act [by] a stranger who has taken Madeleine McCann.'" This appears to refer to comments by Redwood to the press and TV in April 2012 that "It is our belief that that is a criminal act...that she has been taken by a stranger". Now, the Redwood quote in this book starts with "This is a criminal act [by] a stranger...". Starting the quote in that way, and omitting Redwood's widely-reported remark about it being Operation Grange's belief, makes it look more like a statement of fact. And why did the authors insert "the probability is that..."? None of the press reports nor the TV interview with Redwood I have seen mentioned anything about probability. If the authors have seen a statement by Redwood to that effect, why not quote it properly? If he didn't say it, why do the authors say "As Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood has said, the probability is that..."?
Another indication as to the position the authors take is in their repeated use of the `haters' term, which the pro-McCann forums have made their own. On two occasions the authors enclose the term `haters' with inverted commas, indicating that it is a term used by others. But on the other occasion they seem to have forgotten to do so.
Oh dear... this makes the book appear as if it was written by a pro-McCann forum.
Another strange comment appears in Chapter 1, where the authors state that they will "in this chapter relate events very neutrally". Well, firstly, why WOULDN'T they relate events very neutrally, as they claim that it is an independent, objective account? Secondly, why relate events very neutrally in only one chapter?
Neutrality is certainly not evident when the authors describe an interview with psychologist Christian Ludke. Instead of just relating what Ludke said (or, in their words, `simply telling the story'), the account is coloured to a considerable extent by pejorative phrases like "by the fourth question he had lurched into outrageous innuendo", "the psychologist replied darkly", "Ludke was still not finished", "Then, a final flourish". Hardly a case of `simply telling the story'.
What about the claim that the book is a definitive, researched account? The authors set out in detail a description of an incident 10 years ago by a `friend' of the family in question. The friend's account includes phrases like "From what the children told their parents, it seemed...", "the older girl told her sister something like...". Are the authors really putting forward what is little more than third-hand, vague, hearsay (from someone who even admits to not being sure what was said!) as a serious contribution in a book like this?
Much of a book supposedly dealing with a serious treatment of the case is devoted to page after page of rehashed tabloid stories and endless detailed accounts of non-sightings and other reports long since ruled out by the police. Here, I think, the explanation may be more straightforward - it is simply not possible to write a "definitive account" of a disappearance of which neither the investigating authorities nor the authors know any more than on the night it happened, 7 years ago. The official conclusion of the Portuguese authorities was "Type of crime - unknown", so the only `definitive account' at this stage is "Madeleine disappeared 7 years ago and the combined efforts of two police forces are no nearer solving the mystery", but that obviously needs an enormous amount of padding to fill enough pages for a book.
As for this (on the night Madeleine disappeared): "There is movement in the darkness. Undetected movement", and "The something appears to be a small child, warm from its slumber" - sheer speculation.
A serious book? "Independent"? "Objective"? "Impartial"? "Neutral"?

That isn't how it comes across to me at all.

canada12 wrote:I wonder if the book was also meant to swell the coffers of The Fund... as in, we'll commission you (S&S) to write this bewk, and we'll pay you X number of dollars (or pounds) to do so, but let's be sensible and make it a percentage commission based on sales. After all, it'll be an instant best seller. Look how well Kate's bewk did! And then you can give us a percentage of the percentage, and we'll all be very happy.