on reviews, both good and bad and meh.

[lagilman]

Hrm. A review of FLESH AND FIRE in Asimov's that's sort of "moderate praise with subtle damns." Trying to parse how I feel about that, and trying to decide if I might be reading more derision into the text than was intended....

After basically laying out the entire plot*, the reviewer** says "Gilman throws in the added fun of a completely fresh body of esoteric knowledge, the ancient and highly evolved technology of wine-making. This, along with a novel religion underlying the magic, gives the book an energy that many more generic medieval societies don’t ever achieve....The new series is definitely a step up in ambition, and has a good chance to appeal to a larger audience than the “Retrievers” books that have been her most notable work so far."

So, yeah. Positive, but also leaving me feeling a little "wow, did it hurt you to not dislike it?" as well as what felt like a slam against my previous work.


Oh well. Ya rolls with it...






*seriously. Paragraphs of it. WTF?
** who is, in fact, not unknown to me, personally -- take the lesson from that, oh newbies. Friends is friends but biz is biz....

Comments

[martianmooncrab.livejournal.com]

on the other hand, it does show that they read the book, unlike some reviews where you could swear the book being reviewed had nothing to do with the book you wrote.

[neko-san.livejournal.com]

That's one of the reasons I avoid reviews - most seem to confuse "review" with "plot summary", and that drives me absolutely batty. I tend to rely on friends for actual reviews (how's the writing, how's the acting, is it plot-driven or character-driven, etc.).

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

I wonder if there's an appropriate location thing going on? Some people are very peculiar about implying any good about fantasy in arenas they feel should be all about SF.

[chaoticgoodnik.livejournal.com]

I went and looked at the review and skimmed another one that was there -- and in the F&F review the guy was a lot more specific about the plot. It was almost like a middle school book report.

[chaoticgoodnik.livejournal.com]

To clarify, not "like a middle school book report" in that it was amateurish, but because it focused on plotline details more than, say, themes.

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

I think it was a kind of a backhanded slam against your Retrievers novels. However, the "added fun" comment makes me wonder if that was derisive too. That little twist could have been said better in a lot of ways.

I still had a blast reading it, however.

[lagilman]

To be clear, I'm okay with a reviewer not liking a book. It happens, and I've got an entire wardrobe of Big Girl pants. It was just HOW it was said that made me uncomfortable.

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the "how" is kind of a head scratcher.

[windrose.livejournal.com]

:/ This is why I don't read reviews for the most part.

[smoemeth.livejournal.com]

This is the writerly version of "this new album is *so* much better than her last one!"

[saladinahmed.livejournal.com]

"The new series is definitely a step up in ambition, and has a good chance to appeal to a larger audience than the “Retrievers” books that have been her most notable work so far"

I'm not sure that's a slam, so much as subgenre assumptions at work -- the reviewer may think that epic fantasy is inherently 'more ambitious,' that it still has a larger readership than urban fantasy, and that it is read by a broader readership than UF. They'd be wrong in at least a couple of these assumptions, of course, but that's another matter.

[sorek.livejournal.com]

I think you've captured the reviewer's mindset here.

The reviewer isn't slamming the writer, just their whole profession.

'Cause that's so much better, yeah.

[lagilman]

well, no. I know the reviewer, who also happens to be a writer. So I strongly doubt it's that.

[terri-osborne.livejournal.com]

Wow, that's just...yah.

*scratches head*