Peter's Reviews > Lord of Light

Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review

it was amazing
bookshelves: classic, fantasy, science-fiction, fiction

GoodReads/Amazon management has chosen to ban this review from their "community". The complete version of this review has therefore been moved to the following sites:

If you, like me, object to what Amazon has done to the world of books, book lovers, and book shops, you can find many alternatives to GoodReads (for reviews) and to Amazon (for shopping) at the "Escaping Amazon" community []. Our free public resource listing and describing alternatives is at [

Please be aware that the reviews you read here on GoodReads (now wholly owned by Amazon) are not an unbiased view of the opinions of site members. Reviews which threaten Amazon's bottom line are censored. Reviewers aren't even informed that their sites have been quietly exiled to a literary ghetto. There are better sites, both for reading and for shopping.

Readers and their love of books are not commodities to be bought and sold - unless we allow it.
18 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Lord of Light.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

Finished Reading
April 17, 2008 – Shelved
August 16, 2010 – Shelved as: classic
August 16, 2010 – Shelved as: fantasy
August 16, 2010 – Shelved as: science-fiction
August 16, 2010 – Shelved as: fiction

Comments Showing 1-10 of 10 (10 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Jim (new)

Jim As one who lives somewhat remotely (Anchorage, AK) and even more remotely (Homer, AK) when Amazon inaugurated I have found it to be a boon. I imagine book-lovers in rural America thought so, too.

For every new book I purchase, I purchase ten used books - this was true pre-internet, BTW.

Change is inevitable. It is still possible for small book sellers to make a living - one way is to team up with Amazon and stop paying rent - at least for browsing space - storage space is another thing.

Anyway, I'd ask that you continue to post full reviews at Goodreads - we remote members would appreciate it.

message 2: by Jim (new)

Jim At Cranky Old REader you said:

"I'm a Goodreads refugee, looking for a new home."

These days you can be a metaphorical jet setter - from the comfort of your study and bathrobe. Think of GoodReads as a vacation home!

Peter Jim, GoodReads has screened this review from "the community". I no longer have a place here. I don't have a place to move to, but I will NOT stay here.

Unfortunately this comment thread will be gone soon, along with the review itself.

I hope we can stay in touch elsewhere on the web.

message 4: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan Peter, would you consider deleting ratings & reviews, but leaving comments? Just a thought. I can understand if that won't work for you.

Katy I'm a little confused as to why 5-star reviews are being removed? If, as you say, they're trying to avoid affecting their bottom line, I would think they would remove one-star critical or negative reviews. Do you have any idea why they would be doing that?

message 6: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan Katy, They're probably looking for key words like GRamazon, etc.???

Or if they attack a person.

It's frustrating to not know what reviews may be being removed.


message 7: by Jim (new)

Jim Great Idea, Lisa.

Peter, why not just put your review in a comment - maintain a presence of sorts.

message 8: by India (new)

India I'm confused. Why was it banned? There did not seem to be anything offensive in it.

message 9: by [deleted user] (new)

I'm also in the process of transfering to BookLikes. When that is finished, I won't come back here.

message 10: by Katy (new) - rated it 4 stars

Katy Алиса Тамна wrote: "I'm also in the process of transfering to BookLikes. When that is finished, I won't come back here."

Hmmm. Right at the top, BookLikes says:
Cookies may be also used by third parties cooperating with BookLikes, like advertisers, research companies and providers of multimedia applications.

Sounds like a great way to receive a lot of spam, I would think?

back to top