• No products in the cart.
  • No products in the cart.
Back To Top
Image Alt

Amazon Refuses to Post Review of “Ego Is The Enemy”

Amazon Refuses to Post Review of “Ego Is The Enemy”

Apparently Amazon wants to protect some of its  best selling authors, and refused to print this review, so here it is to warn the rest of you:

IT TAKES CHUTZPAH TO WRITE EGO IS THE ENEMY (by Ryan Holiday)

 

This book is so incredibly poorly written and supercilious that I scarcely know where to begin. It’s like it was written to support a TEDx talk. And how much ego does it require for an author to explain that ego is our enemy? Holiday attempts to explain this away in the introduction, and fails. He comes across as bombastic and pretentious in what I’d call a “booklet.” The work is 200 pages on 5X7 stock, with a LOT of white space. Chapters are all about six pages, leading me to believe he simply created a template for the content and filled it—unsuccessfully.

 

Worse, he distorts history. All of his examples are ancient—Eisenhower, Genghis Khan, Howard Hughes, ad infinitum. (Another annoying habit he has is that he sprinkles Latin phrases all over which he then interprets, as if the reader won’t understand them unless the teacher explains. How’s that for ego? Why use them if they have to be interpreted?) He cites General George McClellan of the Union forces as “perhaps the worst of all Union generals” (McDowell, Hooker, Burnside, and others had far worse records) yet McClellan WON the battle of Antietam which enabled Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation! In another passage he tells us that Alexander the Great (one of his favorite bad examples of ego) was “probably killed by dissenting soldiers.” Yet every scholarly study I’ve seen supports disease—typhoid or malaria—as the probable cause.

 

This is the way he simply bends facts to fit his dubious points. The book has no index. You can’t tell (or read, or find) when and who he introduces in what context, and it has ZERO SOURCES. He uses scores of stories with no indication that they’re real or where he got them, as if he were talking to Jackie Robinson himself. He conveniently uses General George Marshall as an example of small ego and success during WW II, but readily ignores his counterpart, Admiral Ernest King, Chief of Naval Operations, who had a huge, irascible ego according to every biography, yet is credited with winning the war in the Pacific. This is the kind of non-academic, dubious “research” that went into this book. Holiday is entitled to his own opinions and guesses, but not to his own history and facts. And the books is chock full of those kind of embarrassments.

 

Then there are the totally jarring, unnecessary obscenities, the “f-bomb,” and “asshole” and assorted street talk, in the same paragraphs as Greek philosophers, as if to say, “See, I’m really cool and one of the guys.” I get the impression he’d have a baseball cap on backwards as he wrote this.

 

I also get the impression that Holiday surrounded himself with philosophy, history, and biographical books and cherry-picked (or had someone else cherry -pick) quotes that supported his points, no matter what the surrounding context. It would be like my finding a quote by Peter Drucker that included “Ridiculous,” then writing about strategy and stating, “As Drucker said about it, ‘Ridiculous’!” (He actually explains who Peter Drucker and Genghis Khan were, but drops in people like Flannery O’Connor without any introduction at all (American writer born in 1925).

 

The entire book simply keeps repeating itself that “ego is bad, lack of ego is good.” He stomps all over John DeLorean, but won’t mention Elon Musk. In fact, all of his examples are so old that you begin to choke on the dust. He actually maintains that Steve Jobs’s ego changed after he returned to Apple, which is counter to everything I’ve read in the press and in Isaacson’s brilliant biography of him.

 

This book was written to make money, in my view, not to inform or help others improve. It’s a one-trick pony without any substantiating evidence or sources for the author’s simplistic notions of ego. He has the usual accumulation of testimonials over several pages at the outset, as if to try to prove that somehow what follows is respectable intellect. I wonder how many of those people read the book?

I wonder, also, why Amazon is so appalled at a reader’s reaction? You have to wonder what other censorship takes place.

© Alan Weiss 2016

 

 

Written by

Alan Weiss is a consultant, speaker, and author of over 60 books. His consulting firm, Summit Consulting Group, Inc., has attracted clients from over 500 leading organizations around the world.

Comments: 8

  • Patti Pokorchak

    July 13, 2016

    Why is Amazon censoring a 60 book author? Not as if you’re a fly-by-night anonymous reviewer? Did their ego get in the way?

    I curse Steve Jobs every time I want a cursor on my iPhone.

  • Praveen

    July 13, 2016

    Maybe they rejected it because you have “a**hole” in the review? I went to the Amazon page and there are 7 one-star reviews, some of which are very critical.

    I’d be curious if they would take it if you edited out the word.

  • Shawn Rhodes

    July 13, 2016

    Amazon is pretty picky about what they let into the negative review category. I’ve negatively reviewed several products purchased there and no matter how I edit them, shorten them, or even include pictures of the actual product sent, they still refuse to publish them. Lambasting a product decreases chances of purchase, and I guess Amazon is more interested in their margin than in serving as a marketplace AND consumer forum.

  • Gretchen

    July 13, 2016

    Their review approval systems are completely automated from what I’ve read and it is nothing personal. It is almost assuredly because of the obscene words. If you edit those out and re-submit the review will most likely be accepted.

    • John

      July 13, 2016

      Thanks for your comment on Alan’s review. I am also convinced that because of the tone and “strong” words used by him, may have been why it was not shown.

      Alan I do also agree that your review could have been better expressed than in the current form. A lot of us feed from you, we will also expect certain minimum when you give feedback to the work of others, no matter how poor you consider it.

  • Peter McLean

    July 13, 2016

    John, are you saying Alan was using those ‘strong’ words? Because he was quoting the author. But, yes, the review was probably automatically rejected because of the inclusion of the obscene words. By the sound of it, it’s a shame the ‘book’ wasn’t rejected, as well. All that poses as knowledge is not necessarily so.

  • Alan Weiss

    July 13, 2016

    I was quoting the book, which is sold on Amazon. I felt it was an accurate representation. Potential readers deserve to know. I removed them and the review was published. Amazon never specifically provided a reason for rejection. What you expect, John, provides no obligation for me, only my sense of proper behavior does, and I don’t find anonymous comments worthy of much. Unlike most people in my position, I accept comments on my blog, and I expect proper identification. The point here is the utter lack of intellectual honesty in this book, not my honest review of it.

  • Dan

    October 30, 2016

    This is your author: http://nypost.com/2012/07/15/pr-exec-tells-all-about-manipulating-the-media-and-spreading-lies-online/?0p19G=c

    I don’t think it’s necessarily malicious, but these guys are absolutely taking advantage of (and fueling) America’s self-absorption. And it’s a big, growing problem.

Post a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.