VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Monday, April 20, 1:55:05 [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:19:13 12/01/07 Sat
Author: Jane (must be extra grumpy today)
Subject: ****SPOILER****SPOILER****SPOILER****SPOILER****

If we are free to talk about BOTB then I'd like to talk about that ridiculous review by Jennifer Reese on EW.com. Perhaps this woman IS an just an unpaid regular person, and YES everyone is entitled to an opinion, BUT shouldn't be some kind of rule that the person must actually READ the books they are reviewing? It is OBVIOUS that someone with even a high school reading comprehension level could NOT have made the kinds of errors she did if they had actually read the books she claimed to have been reviewing.
Calling the Outlander series "breathless bodice rippers" does a disservice to people who LIKE that sort of book because they will be sorely disappointed if they pick them up and find they are not. Even worse people who like me HATE that sort of book might read such a review and never pick up Diana Gabaldon's books if that believe her nonsensical review. What a terrible loss that would have been for me. Now she might have actually read Hellfire, that review came closest to almost being right. But Succubus? If she read it at all, she missed a lot (like that main plot) and she totally got the Stephan and John crush thing BACKWARDS. It is Stephan that gives John his beloved horse, gives John meaningful squeezes, and kisses him, leaving John confused but hardly "crushing". Then the worst total error of all when she did Haunted Soldier, John "falls for a gunpowder manufacturer" ? Sorry Jennifer, that brief sequence where John barely exchanges what might have been a meaningful glance but immediately dismisses any possibility of anything happening because he is his brother's employee must have been caught in a quick skim, because it sure wasn't any part of any major plot or even a minor sub plot. I couldn't believe her "goofy whodunit" comment about the "plots don't hold up to scrutiny". If she'd really read the story, she would have found that they certainly did make sense. People who offer opinions on things they have only the briefest possible knowledge of really annoy me!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:



[ Contact Forum Admin ]



Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.