UNFAIR REVIEW ?
- By gaellecathy
- On 05/01/2015
Today I'm still very upset over a review I had yesterday for Fire and Ice. The fact that it's bad is not the point, to tell the truth. Lynne Pierce is not the first person not to like Fire and Ice or to put 3 stars (although her review reads more like one star). Liking the story or not is about people's personal tastes and to each their own. It's okay not to like it. It's okay to say you didn't like the ending, or that it crosses a line you don't like being crossed. Some said so and it was their right and I was never upset by those reviews.
What upsets me is spreading wrong facts about my novel because you read it so long ago that you don't even remember it. I know for a fact that Lynne Pierce finished reading Fire and Ice on August 9th. She wrote so herself in her yahoo group Lesfic_Unbound. Yet the review came out yesterday. Five months later. Obviously, Miss Pierce didn't like the story and just as well willingly forgot about it. It's her right too, but then either she should not have reviewed it, or checked her facts before saying things such as "The continuity editor truly failed in this story because a cat named Liloo is introduced in the present, then later in the book it’s revealed that the cat died years before. Perhaps every cat was named Liloo"
It's written black on white in the book. When the name Liloo is first mentioned for the much alive black and white cat, Charlie says that, "officially, it's Lil'loo" but she doesn't explain more. Later in the book, at Charlie's house, when Emma wonders about the many pictures of Lil'loo, compared to the other cats. Charlie points out that "it's Liloo on some of the pictures", a black and white cat that died years ago. She named the next black and white she had in "replacement" Lil'loo (little Liloo). It's all in the book, you just have to read it.
I can take the comment about the wording or awkward sentences. There are places where the wording is odd, which is probably due to the author not being a native English speaker. Because it's all true. I'm progressing with each new novel but I'm not there yet, so I accept it and try to do best with each new story.
But that other comment, I'm still wondering what she is talking about. That doesn’t explain the rest. The main characters know things about each other’s lives that they have no way of knowing or at least aren’t explained in the story. They use odd cues that make no sense to decide if someone is a lesbian. No, not gaydar, peculiar ideas. This, honestly, I have no idea what it's about. I was very down yesterday while talking to my friend about this review, and I talked about the Liloo thing then she, (my friend), brought up this part of the review to me. She told me herself "that part I didn't really get what she was talking about". But then, okay, she's my friend, so I'll give it to you, we may be biased. She's my guinea pig though, (reads all my drafts), and she's the one who tells me about inconsistencies and stuff that's wrong so... But anyway. Maybe Lynne refers to the out of comission truck scene? There's a banter between the two girls. Charlie (who Emma knows is gay by now) fiddles in the hood but has no idea what she's doing and Emma, in all her naivety says, "Really? I'd have thought that, um..." she stops herself but Charlie says it, "That I could fix trucks 'cause I'm a lesbian?" In case it's not clear, she's messing with her, because it's an old cliché that lesbian can repair cars and like sports and do boy stuffs, or how women with short hairs are lesbians, or blue is for boys and pink is for girsl etc... And in the book, right after that, the currently straigtht Emma who, on the other hand, knows her way around cars, fixes the truck, and says that she likes cars (her uncle is a mechanic) and Charlie mischievously says, "So you're a lesbian, then?" It is a BANTER. They're teasing each other, well, Charlie is teasing Emma who admits that she "made a wrong assumption and that it was cliché". But it was a banter, Charlie was not STATING that Emma was a lesbian. So I don't know. I'd ask Lynne what she meant but I doubt she remembers enough to tell me.
So we're back at why I'm so pissed and upset about this review. You may think I'm just some "angry customer who's yelling because she didn't get the good review" but, believe it or not, when I sent my book (paperback) to Lynne, on the other side of the ocean; I knew it wasn't going to be a good review. I read her reviews and sometimes, even books that I (or plenty of people have loved), don't get such great reviews. Plus I'll willingly admit that Fire and Ice is not my best story, definitely not my favorite so I'm not trying by any means to defend my baby. It's not that. Like I said, I wasn't expecting a stellar review, but I was expecting a fair review. And I didn't get that.
So, giving her review on Amazon the title "Spend your money elsewhere" is extremely harsh considering that Lynne Pierce can't even remember the book enough that she wrote wrong stuffs about it. With all due respect to her this is, to me, a lack of respect not only for me but for all the people involved in creating this book.
I may get the whole community on my back on this one because Lynne Pierce is an important figure, but I stand by what I said. It's disrespectul, and that review title on Amazon, ouch, extremely harsh, all things considered.