Entertainment Weekly has a review of Catching Fire.
Don't read this, or that, if you want to be spoiler free.
First, let me point out that this proves my point that a blog review can be more professional than a professional review. Tho, some blog reviews can be like this Catching Fire review. It's not about the method of publication; it's about the writer.
What is wrong about the EW review? First, in trying to be pithy it is inaccurate.
"In between romantic daydreams, Katniss shot strange beasts, dodged force fields, and battled murderous zombie werewolves — usually while wearing fabulous glitzy outfits."
I'd say most of Katniss's daydreams in the Hunger Games before the Games were about food, and after were about survival. Much as I'll argue for Team Peeta, these books are not romances. Plus, um, werewolves? How does this reviewer define werewolves? And the glitzy outfits were BEFORE the Games.
". . . — this being a teen novel — she also has boyfriend problems. For PR purposes, Katniss pretends to be in love with her sweet-natured Games teammate Peeta Mellark, but she secretly pines for brooding Gale, a childhood friend. . . . Collins conjures none of the erotic energy that makes Twilight, for instance, so creepily alluring." OK. So no adult novel has boy/girlfriend problems? Oh, right, if its adult then it's just chicklit. Eye roll. And, as a firm member of Team Peeta, "sweet natured"? Um, no. That's the POINT. He appears to be sweet but is quite clever and cutthroat. And Gale as "brooding"? OK, I'm not Team Gale but there are ton of better ways to describe Gale than brooding. What, she's trying to turn him into Heathcliff? But the final sentence shows what this is about -- not Peeta, not Gale, but the reviewer wanted to read a romance like Twilight. And saw Gale as Edward...huh? I
Let's all say it together to her at once, because she may then hear and get it. In the words of the brilliant Carlie at Librarilly Blonde, "It's not fair for to give Catching Fire a bad review because it's not what Ms Reese wanted it to be. You might as well get mad at a pair of pumps for not being a pair of Wellington boots."
You want to read a romance? Fine; but when the book isn't a romance, DON'T BLAME THE BOOK. Man, why is EW paying this person when there are a dozen bloggers out there (including me and Carlie and you) who could do a better job with half a keyboard. Jeesh.
The author describes [Katniss] wearing a series of Cher-worthy costumes in which she confronts poisonous mists, deranged monkeys, and a flock of ''candy pink'' birds equipped with long beaks used to skewer human necks.
Readers, raise your hand if at this point you're convinced the reviewer did not read the book. The "Cher worthy costumes" end BEFORE THE "CONFRONTING."
I'm not pissed about the review. Seriously.
I'm pissed EW paid someone MONEY to write this.
Edited to add: PS: Time shows you how it's done. A review (but SPOILERS) of CF.
© Elizabeth Burns of A Chair, A Fireplace & A Tea Cozy
Because I love iambic tetrameter : Poem 126 by Emily Dickinson The brain is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one...
At the end of this post is a round up to my previous, often lengthy explanations of what an ARC is (and isn't) and why an ARC isn't ...