© 2003-2006 David Moles

Chrononautic Log

«  Fan-@☢☠☣?!ing-tastic (updated)
  Main  
Tinfoil hats shown to amplify, not block, government mind control rays  »

art

We report, you decide (updated)

1 o'clock, November 10, 2005

Publisher’s Publishers Weekly review of Tim’s book: Overwhelmingly negative.

Publisher’s Publishers Weekly review of that other book: Overwhelmingly positive.

Draw your own conclusions.


Update: Fixed punctuation of PW. I do know better. But it’d be easier to remember if the official punctuation actually made sense. (Contrast: Woman’s Daily, Women’s Daily, Women Daily.)

I need a mental image of the magazine that would really go with the title. Something where publishers would be the content rather than the source or the audience. Publisher pin-ups? Publisher road-tests?

And, for the record, that mispunctuation was in my capacity as a writer, not as a blogger. As a blogger, I just get my facts wrong.

Comments

While I've only heard about this book secondhand, I did see an interview with the author that suggests that Roc bought it at auction. Which, given what I've heard about this book, is somewhat alarming.

—— Jon Hansen, 2:01 PM, Thursday, November 10, 2005

Wow, that's appalling. I wonder if Paula Guran reviewed it. She was one of two PW SF/F reviewers on that reviewing panel at WFC.

—— John Joseph Adams, 4:34 PM, Thursday, November 10, 2005

There's always someone who will like a book that the rest of the world derides. Besides, I am sure that Roc's PR people were utterly delighted at the thought of a dragon p*rn book. Marketing and literature are two very different things.

—— Cheryl, 7:01 PM, Thursday, November 10, 2005

Ability of bloggers to correctly spell Publishers Weekly: same as ever.

—— Patrick Nielsen Hayden, 7:36 PM, Thursday, November 10, 2005

Touche, Patrick!


Repeat to yourselves, all: Publishers Weekly is not possessive.

And I still think Touched by Venom is a better book than you all have given it credit for.

I have chocolate cake to eat. Goodbye.

—— Colleen Lindsay, 8:40 PM, Thursday, November 10, 2005

Sorry, Patrick. Good catch.

Colleen: Having read Rangergirl in an early draft, I find it hard to understand how its reviewer could hate it so much without hating its whole subgenre. And knowing that can’t help but make me wonder if TBV’s reviewer was wearing rose-colored glasses. That said, I have no opinion on TBV. It’s entirely possible that those paragraphs aren’t representative.

—— David Moles, 12:03 AM, Friday, November 11, 2005

Well, if we've learned anything from similar dustups, the book will sell enough copies to blot out the sun.

—— Jon Hansen, 5:59 AM, Friday, November 11, 2005

I nearly bought one at WFC as a gag gift for someone. There were two copies in the dealers room. However, I didn't want to contribute to its sales.

—— Scott Janssens, 6:25 AM, Friday, November 11, 2005

Heh. You're sweet, David.

Seeing the stuff online about this other book has certainly made me feel better about the negative reviews my novel received. The reaction could have been oh so much worse...

—— Tim Pratt, 12:10 PM, Friday, November 11, 2005