2 Transgressions Reviews
Jun. 4th, 2009 02:55 pmI found this review of Transgressions yesterday in The Stranger, Seattle
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/is-that-a-bellows-in-your-tunic/Content?oid=1634459
I found it very funny, actually. It's a shame that the "straight women for straight women" has lingered on, because the publishers dropped this from their promotion immediately realising their mistake (and especially that one of the next flush of books is written by a gay man..)
It also has the best, and funniest explanation for the English Civil War I've ever seen in my life. *guffaw*
I suppose the thing is, that here in gay romance land we forget that we are a tiny corner of fiction-world in general, and that even people - like the author of this review - who have heard of slash fiction haven't yet experienced much gay romance, if any. We are such a tight-knit community, everyone knows everyone else just about that we are surprised when others haven't heard of it. And yet they haven't - if I asked my next door neighbour if she knew about gay romance, she'd definitely say no!
And there's another really nice write up in The Sacramento News and Review
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=1002345
I like the way they point out that the adventure is as important as the romance, I know that's what Alex and I were aiming at.
If I have any complaint it's being called a "middle-aged straight woman" *cries* I don't have a straight bone in my body!
And "fairly accurate" history. FAIRLY accurate??? *gives up*
only joking, though - it's wonderful to get this level of publicity!
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 02:03 pm (UTC)ETA: The more I read the first review, the more I'm just puzzling over it's trying to say. From what I can read, it sounds like the reviewer . . . didn't exactly find the whole genre their cup of tea, which is okay since not everyone will float on the same ship. But if that's the case, and if you can't appreciate the genre, why bother write the review? It's like asking me to write a review about, oh, I don't know books on Scientology, which I have no interest and no knowledge in! But then again, that's me.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 02:44 pm (UTC)*guffaw* I love it!
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 02:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 02:43 pm (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 02:17 pm (UTC)I'll grant you that at this point, any publicity is probably good, but I found that write-up in particular actually offensive. YMMV.
The second one was definitely better. A couple of clunkers, sure, but generally a positive treatment without the snark-fest of the first.
Angie
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 02:35 pm (UTC)You do find this mockity mock style all over the place, and some "well known" romance reviewers have made their name on it. I don't like it, mainly because it gives the impression that the reviewer thinks that THEIR writing is actually more important than anything they are reviewing. You'd see it a lot in fandom, the snarkers always had huge flists - look at Fandom Wank, for example!
But still, my experience has been that even with a mocking review, it will garner more sales than expected because someone will always say "oo - actually that sounds right up my street!"
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 04:27 pm (UTC)Let me share this great quote with you (by the genius Unknown): "Critics are like eunuchs - they know how to do something but they're unable to."
Whenever I review something, I try to do it from the POV of a pleased or displeased reader or audience member and try to be of service to other people so they can decide if something is for them. What gets on my nerves is when the critic suggests they could do it better...why are you a critic instead of a creator? Why are you looking at this stuff when you despise it so?
Having said that: Would you be interested in doing a guest review for my site? Maybe of "The Merchant of Venice"? XD
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 04:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-06 10:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 02:19 pm (UTC)Even if there is fail in it.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 02:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 02:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 03:07 pm (UTC)Congrats on the good reviews. Well deserved.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 04:57 pm (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 03:16 pm (UTC)ROTFL!!!! But an odd review, that first one...not sure if she (?) liked it or hated it...
OTOH, it's fabutastic that you are getting reviewed so far and wide! HUZZAH! :)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 04:57 pm (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 06:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 04:14 pm (UTC)Weeees for reviews. \o/
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 04:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 07:43 pm (UTC)AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
I think...she doesn't like it(?) but she's trying to say something positive about it? Or alternately, she sekkritly likes it but does all sorts of hand-waves to indicate that she doesn't =P
Eh. I think it's just The Stranger style to be all over the place.
The second review's really nice =)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 08:35 pm (UTC)Gay dudes make her uncomfortable, and yet she's reading a book that's clearly advertised as a M/M Romance. Like, (weeping cocks aside) when she's talking about writing sex in a so-called "unsexy way", she mentions that the entrance is also an exit (the horror!). Well, if that's unsexy to you, you shouldn't be reading a gay romance. Duh!
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 08:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-05 04:26 am (UTC)Bet she tried to write m/m and couldn't find a publisher.