« I'm so relieved that I'm not alone in worrying about stuff like this: | Main | BACA Alert! »

08 June 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kelly Jensen

I'm so waiting for the quirk edition of this masterpiece of literature.

Deb Marshall

Oh my gads. I didn't get much past the "make way for the new kid on the block" before I rocked back and had to stop from shouting at my computer, lol. I had the same reaction to the first book as you did. I wonder how much mg fiction the reviewer reads and reviews as part of his/her job. And yeah---like you I haven't read the second yet...but, well....


"Theo is a terrific character, an everyman kind of kid. He's smart but nerdy, respectful of his parents and pals but not afraid to speak up when he feels he should." Oh, yeah, because that's totally what every kid is like. And with perfect parents, too. Somebody should recommend this one to the WSJ.


Aha ha ha ha ha! You rule.


Why did they list only boy "icons" of YA? I can't swing a Kat(niss) without hitting a Hunger Games fan these days. (Okay, that pun was strained. But really!)

Also, "utility polls?" If I were actually being paid to review books, I would make sure I proofread before I published.

Like always, "precocious" seems to be code for "smartass," if the quoted passage is any indication. "Respectful," my imaginary third arm.


They call the first one "a whopping success." Where? When? Did I miss something?
I don't know a single kid who liked the book. Or a teacher who liked it. Or a librarian who liked it. The owners of two indie bookstores I frequent rolled their eyes over the first one.
Does anyone know anybody who DID like the first book?

So, what, exactly. were the criteria they used to call the first book "a whopping success"? Was it that no one bothered to have a book burning for it? What?


Sales, I guess?

But I still think the sales were because adults were buying something familiar, not because kids were asking for it. I've had a few --a very few -- commenters say that they've talked to kids who liked it, but nothing close to the hoopla that the USA Today lady suggests.


That reviewer is either a) on the take, or b) functionally illiterate. That's not a review it's an advertisement. An incompetent advertisement.


The whole thing just nauseates me and I haven't read either one of these books. I don't care for adult/crime/mystery books anyway so chances are I will not be adding these books on my "to be read" list. It just seems to me that because it's FREAKIN JOHN GRISHIM the reviewer had to suck up to him. Please.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad