Monday, July 13, 2009

Review of a four star review

Romantic Times gave THE VISCOUNT'S KISS a four-star review. Whoo hoo!

Unfortunately, even in this good review, there were a couple of points that made me wonder if I wasn't as clear in the text as I should have been, and a minor error that's definitely the reviewer's.

First, the good stuff:

"Moore spins an intriguing web of romance between a spider-obsessed aristocrat and a maidservant posing as a noblewoman in this fourth book in her Kiss series. This book blends humor and romance with a twist of suspense, and each chapter begins with an excerpt from Buggy's book about spiders or from the local gossip rag."

The review then goes on to give more details about the plot.

"Web of romance" - heee.

However, while Buggy is indeed fascinated by arachnids, I wouldn't call him obsessed. And the heroine was a lady's companion, which isn't the same thing as a maidservant. "Maidservant" is lower down on the social scale. To many, this may be a distinction without a difference, but it seemed important to me if the reader was to believe Nell could successfully trick Buggy and others into believing she was a lady. Now I'm wondering if I ever actually said she was a lady's companion, or if I assumed (oh, dear) that the way she described her job was enough to make that point.

I also have to say I didn't envision the Bath Crier (the newspaper I made up) as a "local gossip rag"; I saw it as a newspaper with a social column. But since it's never discussed in the rest of the book (only used for quotes at chapter openings), I don't think the reviewer's view of it can be called an error.

None of these things are enough to make me want to rip out my hair. I have had reviews where it was very obvious the reviewer couldn't have been paying any attention at all to what was actually written, and these minor quibbles simply don't compare in terms of angst inducement.

Also, I'm pleased with the general plot summary which follows. It tells enough without giving away too much, which has to be one of the trickiest things a reviewer has to do (and why I'd probably fail at it).

The book is 277 pages, though, not 311.

So overall, a good review with a few quibbles. That's a relief.

No comments: