I would hope that the reviewers have actually read the book (not that I’m any fan of Kelly), in order to lend legitimacy to their reviews.
We’ll never know.
The NSA might know. :>)
Amazon's reviews are an awesome feature but for political books by high profile people they tend to fill up fast (like the day the book is released) with hundreds of 1-star and 5-star reviews. To some extent on a book like this you have to decide if you like the person and whether you're willing to take a risk because the reviews are hard to sift through. Since I don't like Megyn, I'm skipping it and if it had 5,000 5-star reviews that wouldn't change.
I strongly disagree with the notion that one must read a book or watch a movie or program in its entirety in order to legitimately critique it.
In fact, if a sample is so non-compelling that one does not wish to continue to read or watch, or so off-putting that one can’t stomach continuing to read or watch, I think that is a very legitimate basis for a negative review.
Having said that, I do agree that a legitimate review implies at least a sample reading or viewing and cannot be based merely on prejudice toward the author, actor or producer.
I often decide not to read or watch something based on prejudice toward the author, actor, producer, or even the title or subject matter. That is my right as a consumer. But I would never write a review without at least sampling the wares.
I feel completely justified in saying that I will never read a word of Kelly’s book, and that I assume it is worthless, but I would not pass off my assumption as being any more than just that - an assumption.