A quick word to people not familiar with my reviews.
I've been told I'm mean when I review books. I don't think I'm mean, I just refuse to filter myself. When you're in middle school and high school you have to be nice. Go along to get along, tell the teacher what they want to hear. In college, some people still do that. Say the nice thing. But reviewing books isn't like that. If you read a book you start picking things up. What the author does more than what he doesn't. Where his strengths are and what he does to compensate. Does he drag the characters exposition around like a man handcuffed to a corpse? Or does he overcompensate action because he doesn't do transitions very well. Saying, "I liked this book, it was great," is all well and good, but what do you get out of it without going into spoilers. A critic who gives a bad review, or at least an honest one, actually read the book. They took the time to look at it closer than even someone who tested the book for the author. They know what works and doesn't because they went through it with a fine-toothed comb and recorded it. A good critic can do it without being mean spirited or vulgar, but if you didn't like the book then who's feelings are you sparing? Let's not forget, bad reviews do more to sell books than good ones do. Someone may get a book because their buddy liked it, but more people pick up books because they want to see if it's as bad as they say it is. The fact that Go Set a Watchman is still on the best sellers list can attest to that. So if I seem vulgar, or mean, or overly critical, let's keep in mind, I'm not some dick on a forum trashing books. I'm a reader response/deconstruction critic. I'm not here to play nice. If I didn't like it, I'd City of Bones it and never review it. Thanks and save your filters for instagram people. This is the real world