sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains

[lagilman]

The short but nice lovefest from PW has ended: Although the reviewer says WEIGHT OF STONE "will delight fans of the first book and plenty of action sequences keeps things moving" (yay!) s/he also found the characters "self-deprecating," and "the book itself slow-moving."

Negative reviews are the inevitable counterpoint to the positive ones. The reviewer didn't love the book, but neither did s/he hate the book, or call me a hack. I am Zen.

(Okay, I'm actually pouting like a 5 year old. But that will pass and Zen will come.)

The only comment I will make about the review is that yes, Jerzy is self-deprecating. It's up to the reader to decide if that's appropriate for the character or not. For this reviewer, not.


Now I'm going to blow up modern Manhattan something fierce.


EtA: for the record, Zen arrived about 90 minutes after this post. And without booze or chocolate. I'm actually pretty proud of myself for that. Also? I still like this book a lot. I did a good job. That's essential to Zen.

Comments

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

I remember when the film version of Hunt For Red October came out, the local movie reviewer in the paper spent the entire review not on the movie, but the book. He absolutely hated the book, and he wanted to make sure that we all knew about it. I don't think he said two lines about the movie itself.

Whenever I see bad or mediocre reviews, I remember that incident and think that it's more important to find out for myself than rely upon another person's tastes.

[lagilman]

All reviews are is a matter of taste, writ large. There have been many critically acclaimed books I've hated, and many panned books I've loved. In the end, what will matter is how readers respond.

Good reviews just make it easier to hold onto that positive mood, prior to a launch. That's why the month before pub is so fraught with aieeeee, no matter if it's your first turn, or your 23rd. And no matter if it's your 1st or your 23rd, you WILL get dinged by someone.

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

And I was just about to ask when Zen got there.

Good to see.

[ex-fashioni.livejournal.com]

Whenever I see bad or mediocre reviews, I remember that incident and think that it's more important to find out for myself than rely upon another person's tastes.

This.

And dark chocolate.

[lagilman]

Gyros. And extra tzatziki. *groans in overfed pleasure* It's hard to be depressed when there's good Greek food being digested.

[jperceval.livejournal.com]

What's so bad about a self-deprecating character? So it wasn't to their taste, but it shouldn't be held up as an "ooh look what this author did wrong" thing in a review.

Zen, I know you haz it. :-)

[lagilman]

Apparently I overdid it, in the reviewer's eyes. So it goes.

Zen. Plus a really good gyros for dinner. And the knowledge that my editor, at least, liked the book. So hopefully will other people.

This? Is the game. This is how we play it. Someday, eventually, they will luff me again. Or, y'know, not.

[blitheringpooks.livejournal.com]

That reviewer is emotionally tone-dead.

[barbhendee.livejournal.com]

The only thing about PW reviews that stresses me out slightly is that they seem to be the only reviews pasted all over Amazon and B&N for our books. My last Vampire Memories book received nine glowing professional reviews (the reviewer from Booklist just loved it) and one negative review. Unfortunately, the negative review was from PW so that's the only one posted on Amazon or B&N.

Plus . . . I'm not sure about some of the new reviewers they've recently hired. I genuinely think that a few of the folks they now have reviewing fantasy novels do not like fantasy novels in general very much.