From another poster, and quite an interesting read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking around, it is strange that no-one bar amazon customers seems to have reviewed S&S's book. There don't seem to be many reviews from trustworthy sources for any of their books, actually. I do wonder if in part it is because they have written mainly for the US market in the past, with works on JFK, J Edgar Hoover and 9/11, so that they haven't picked up much of a following in the UK?
I found one mainstream review, from the Telegraph, for their book on 9/11, which of their other works was probably the one with the most widespread appeal.
This is from that review:
''Several old and far-fetched but still incendiary claims are examined. One is that the CIA met Osama bin Laden to "negotiate" with him in July 2001. Another is that the CIA was trying to recruit two of the 9/11 hijackers as agents, hid this from the FBI and then covered it up after the attacks. Despite the authors' insinuations, however, there is no real evidence for either claim.
Their habit of posing portentous questions without answering them also grates: "Alternately, could it be that the CIA relied on information from another, foreign, intelligence organisation? If so, which organisation? One candidate, some might think, is the Israeli Mossad." ........
The extent to which "innocent Arabs suffered humiliation or abuse" in America after 9/11 is grossly overstated and the assertion that "anyone brown and foreign-looking was vulnerable" conjures images of racist mobs that stalked US streets only in the minds of some Europeans.
It is also dubious at best that it is "rarely mentioned, if at all" that hundreds of non-Americans were killed, or that "dozens" of illegal immigrants died and are "remembered on no memorial".
There is no denying that Summers and Swan have done their homework. The main 443-page text is laden with attributions from secondary sources. Official reports, transcripts, books and the often unremarkable statements of journalists are quoted exhaustively. There are also 116 pages of endnotes that take considerable effort to decipher.
The problem is that the authors haven't done enough original research. Most glaringly, they seem to have interviewed no major figures in the Bush administration.''
The criticism that they have done ''very little original research'' surfaces in other reviews, along with other criticisms
''Looked forward to reading a constructive discussion of a corrupt J.Edgar Hoover. Found it to devolve into ridiculious conjecture. I was extremely disappointed and hurried to finish the mess.''
''Summers has largely plagarised the psychoanalysis form Volkan's "Psychobiography". The references to Nixon's childhood are largely borrowed from Brodie and the coverage of Watergate is superficial and inadequate......I really wouldn't recommend spending £20 on this book, unless you're a true Nixon junky, in which case you will have already bought the book, and will probably have been nodding your head in agreement about what I have just written.''
''The author picks and chooses the facts that seem to support his theories, and omits or ignores those which would disprove them. As a result, the conspiracies end up sounding too far-fetched''
In fairness, there are also some very good reviews and several awards.
So several things emerge
The more familiar the reviewer is with the subject matter, the more likely they are to find fault with a book which claims to be the last word on the topic, which is quite understandable.
Summers and Swan do not appear to have the same market for their books here as in the United States, where he in particular is a well-known author, having written about topics of interest there. Looking for Madeleine is not on sale in the USA at present.
Summers has in the past written extensively about conspiracies and conspiracy theories, but seems to have reflected the thoughts and opinions of others rather than generating anything original.
I can find very little by way of book reviews from unbiased sources. An article in an Irish newspaper complaining about the negative reviews makes reference to a review in the Telegraph, but I cannot find such a review - just the extracts from the book that were serialised there prior to launch
The websites of some major booksellers, such as Waterstones, have no reviews at all, and do not even have the hardback in stock.
I also wonder how willing they were to ask difficult questions.
For example, the following is a quote from one of the few original parts of the book, an interview with Brian Kennedy
''"Within 15 seconds of listening to Kate," he said, "I made a decision, using all the emotional intelligence one builds up over many years. I was 100 per cent convinced of their total innocence. I told them that, one, we would find a top Portuguese lawyer to defend them, and get them off as arguidos [the McCanns had been designated "named suspects" by the Portuguese authorities days before they returned to England]. Two, we'd do everything in our power to influence the public's perspective and views. And, three, we'd support them in setting up some private investigators ... The Portuguese police had stopped investigating. It was urgent to get some other guys on to it." ''
Personally, I would have wanted to know more. Did he really decide in 15 seconds, based on a single conversation? Did he make any further enquiries before coming to this conclusion? Why was ''getting them off'' and ''influencing the public perception'' seen as a priority over and above finding the missing child? You know - the things one might expect a journalist to ask?
I think Summers' biggest mistakes are twofold: his book came out far too soon after Kate McCann's whining piece of nonsense so the market for it was nowhere near what they imagined, plus he has encountered a readership who may well know more, or think they know more, than he does. He would have been better off waiting five years until people were ready for a reminder, or waiting until something worth reporting had actually happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
