I hate reviews. One month since the release of the book and I have to say... I hate reviews. I find them confusing--especially Amazon reader reviews. I find myself scratching my head and worrying about them more than I know I should. Mostly I'm confused because I'm revising and I want each book to be better than the last and keep readers satisfied. I can't cater to everyone, though, but I do care about consistent complaints. So far... there aren't any. Complaints are subjective. And a lot of amateur reviewers--and even pros--often aren't good at explaining their dissatisfactions very well. And sometimes--gotta say it--they had expectations and they just don't get it. I don't write romance novels.
One of the most confusing things is that Greywalker got unusually--unexpectedly--good pre-release reviews from some of the toughest pros in the business. Kirkus--Kirkus, for the gods sakes! A review body widely respected throughout the industry and notoriously unkind to Fantasy novels of any stripe--was downright effusive and gave the book 5 stars. Publishers Weekly--while not as hard-nosed as Kirkus--is another tough market and they, also, gave it their best marks. Ditto Library Journal. These are some tough customers. The reviewers are knowledgable about writing and the industry and they are responsible to a lot of other people for what they say and what they recommend. I had fully expected to be eviscerated by Kirkus and PW and ignored completely by LJ.
And now, of course, I'm spoiled. So when readers post that they hated the main character, thought the writing was bad, "overly flowery," clichéd, or confusing, the plot "overly complex," and yet at the same time mundane and predictable while being advanced through inept devices, the secondary characters "one-dimensional," and the details alternately insufficient and boringly long, I just don't know how to take that. Except to think "did you all read the same book?" Also, this is meant to be a 5-part arc with possible additional arcs after that, so what may seem like random shit I didn't bother to clean up is usually included for a reason, not just because I liked it or my editor didn't force me to remove it.
Most interesting were the reviews which: cited a supporting character as "too deus ex machine," but didn't say who; and found Harper to be a caricature of 1940s PIs of the hardboiled school and hoped the future books would dwell on Mara and the vampires, instead. I'd like to know which character the first reader referred to. I doubt I'd change anything about him (I'm sure it's a male character), but it would be interesting to know so I at least had a chance to evaluate the comment. As to the other... well... DUH! It's a noir book. It's based on the style and tone of Hammett and Chandler and Caine and Woolrich as filtered through my warped little brain. That's what it's supposed to be, that's what it is.
Let me be blunt: I did not set out to write a Fantasy novel, that's just the way the publisher chose to market it. I am not "jumping on the bandwagon" of Laurell K. Hamilton and the rest of the writers who have shaped the Anne Rice/romance-influenced aspect of this niche (take a much harder look at my vampires if you think that). I don't write romances or chick-lit with vampires. I have no interest in writing an ensemble series featuring a regular cast. And it is not a "vampire" series, either. There are no werewolves or demons in my world--there can't be by the rules of magic I laid out in the first book. I do not play by the common fantasy rules for my creatures; I do original research--I don't use other people's concepts for my magical system or the creatures that use it--readers will have to get used to my way because I'm the writer and I said so. I set out to write a hardboiled detective novel with ghosts and vampires. Mine is a series about a career PI whose job just went straight to hell. She's not Buffy the Vampire Slayer. She's not Anita Blake. She's a tough woman in a tough job in a universe that's revealed to be irrational and nasty in ways she never expected. Harper Blaine is the focus. It's all about her. And that's the way it's going to stay.
I'll be disappointed to see readers run off or be offended or upset by this, but I'd rather people know what they're getting. When people ask what the book's about I tell them, "It's a paranormal detective novel about a PI who unwillingly works for the undead. She hates the job, but she's stuck with it." And that's what it is. If it isn't to your taste, if it isn't what you wanted or expected or like, then you should read something else.
If, on the other hand, knowing what you're getting into and agreeing to take that ride for what it is, you still have problems or confusions, then I'm happy to discuss it. Sometimes I don't do things well and being the writer, I may not be able to see the mistake or the lack of clarity. Sometimes I've done or said something in the story for a reason that has not yet been revealed--I have a plan, you see.... And sometimes I just get something wrong--it is my first book, after all and though I have a great editor (I am truly offended by the reader who insulted my editor's skill) things do slip through. Got a note, a grouse, a question? Get in touch.
Back to top of this page, please.