The only thing I didn’t really like was the “head-hopping” (is that the correct term?) in the other books. Just my opinion. I know in the Twilight books Meyer did it too and it bugged me. But overall, I loved these books and will read more by the author in the future.

I must add that there are MANY different authors out there for a reason. Authors appeal to different readers for a variety of reasons, and that’s a good thing. It just means there’s something out there for everyone.

I hesitate to comment even further because to spend more time on this would be to give it more weight than it should and reflect poorly on PW. I am immensely proud of my association with PW and think of it as the bible of the publishing industry. In no way would I like to think of this “discussion” as hurting the magazine’s reputation.

I read and reviewed a Stephen King novel many years ago, and much of it was really terrific…until it became a true horror novel and I no longer enjoyed it. Today I read quite a bit of urban fantasy and urban fantasy romance, and while straight urban fantasy can be pretty intense in terms of graphic violence, straight horror often crosses a line for me. This book did as well.

So, when I put my draft review as sent to the editor together with my follow-up about who might like it more, it seems reasonable to me that the editor migh have combined what I’d written, particularly given my overall confusion as to the book’s market.

But let’s not forget what I also included in that endless post…that nine months after reading and reviewing the book I’d had a chance to think more about it than I had a week after reading it. For me, great becomes greater and bad becomes worse.

To go back again to my endless post, I talk about matters of tone…but also about factual stuff. Had I seen the finalized review prior to its being well and truly finalized, I would have asked for some reworking so the review would not read as a recommendation.

Second guessing is something I try never to indulge in – either in my PW reviews, or in the reviews I wrote or edited at AAR. Trying to put yourself in another reader’s shoes is dicey, so I attempted in my draft review to present my own opinions, then to provide some counterweight in my notes to the editor. It’s possible, though, that I failed, and that my original review really wasn’t strong enough.

At this point all I can do is reiterate the market confusion and that it may have affected either my draft review for PW, my editor’s edits…or both.

You have no obligation to me to explain yourself, and I do appreciate you coming here twice (out of retirement, as it were) to do so.

I confess that your second comment has confused me.

So, if you feel like coming back yet a 3rd time, I would love just a straight reply to this question:

The PW review and the AAR cannot, in my mind, be reconciled at all by referring to a change in “tone”. They cannot both be views one person held at the same time about the same book.

So either the positive view was never your view (and the PW review represents the editor’s view, not yours — this was what I inferred from your first comment), or it was initially your view, but stopped being your view by the end of the year (I sense this from your second).

If I may ask, which is it?

I apologize to Ms. Armintrout for getting the name of her series wrong in that long-ago ATBF column. I’m glad to contact the site’s new management and have them fix that if she would like.

My PW mass market reviews (I review hardcover as well) are sent in at 200 words. In that word count I must provide brief synopsis and character information, as well as some critique. Which means using specific language to describe things in as few words as possible. And because PW reviews are written in what I consider “staff” format – ie, anonymously so as to eliminate the individual reviewer’s “voice” – there is no leeway whatsoever for the theatrics found in my then-blog, my reviews at AAR, or in my ATBF columns.

The review form in use at that time, though, did include some questions so as to provide further information to the editor. Upon emailing my review and answering those questions to the editor, that was the end of the line for me on any particular review, unless I requested a book earn a star (and those final determinations were/are made higher up the food chain). Until recently PW reviewers did not have full access to the web-version of the magazine. Occasionally my editor would mail me a print version of the magazine if it contained one of my reviews, but more often than not, I’d see the final version on Amazon when the book went up for sale.

I’ve learned a tremendous amount over the years from *all* my editors, but both of my current editors engage in perhaps a more active give and take than some of the earlier ones. Both will often email me their edits and ask if everything is copacetic, and in that way, matters of tone can be resolved, as well as anything factual. Regardless, every writer knows that her work will be edited; it’s simply a fact of life. I can remember when I was in municipal management the first time an interim boss changed what I wrote. I was so full of myself I made a stink, but that experience has served me well. Everything improves with editing.

In looking at my records, I can see that I read and reviewed the book in question in March, 2006. When it came time to write my year-end column – some nine months later – all the books I’d loved and hated throughout the year had had a chance to percolate, so to speak, in my head. For 2006 four books earned F grades from me and five earned A’s. As if often the case, my feelings for books on both ends of the spectrum solidified over time; if I loved it in January, I loved it even more in retrospect. The same goes for the books that didn’t work for me. I had a whole year’s worth of reading to compare them to, after all.

It’s never enjoyable to be confronted by an author after giving her book a bad grade. To be honest, I’d hoped that after retiring last November, I’d never face that again. I continue to stand by what I write for PW and what I wrote online at AAR, my blog, and TRR over the years. But if some reconciling between publications is necessary, I’m glad to respond, which is why I took the time to do so here…and now.

Something that was not addressed in any of my writings about the book relates to its marketing; in my notes to my PW editor, I questioned who the book’s market was and indicated that straight horror readers might appreciate it better than romance readers. My guess – and it’s only a guess – is that this confusion may have led to the final edits as they were.

And to end this endless comment, let me add that it bothers me terribly that Ms. Armintrout feels as though her subsequent books have a lie printed on them. She must feel horrible, and for that I fully empathize.

Laurie Gold

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I can see how unbelievably irritating that situation must be for you, to have someone’s quote on your covers who has written so negatively about your book. I think “chap my ass” might be the phase I would use in that context. It was bad for her, bad for you, and bad for PW.

Thank you again for your visit and for sharing your persepctive.

Robin,

I listened to The Turning on audio. So, what I heard was both Ms. Armintrout’s writing, and an interpretation of it. It may be that this book did not work well on audio. That sometimes happens.

I’ll look forward to yours and Larissa’s thoughts.

I feel not only dreadful that someone might have seen the review and bought the book based on it, thinking that was the reviewer’s honest opinion, but I feel super crappy for Laurie. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have someone change your words around and misrepresent your opinion.

As for the review on AAR, and I know that this is incredibly silly, but the thing that bothered me most about it is that my MOM read it. She was so upset. And while I generally take negative review comments under consideration and examine what I’m working on to make sure I’m not pulling the same dumb mistakes over and over, that one just got under my skin. I didn’t word my comment last night very well, probably owing to the fact that my head was about to spin around and explode over the PW thing. I should have said that I found that review needlessly harsh, rather than “too personal.” I took it too personally, I guess, would be a better way of describing it.