Predictable, every cliche in the book, crap.

But I paid my money at a train station in Philadelphia coming home from a concert and read it all.

So I guess crap got me. And got me jealous. As Stephen King said in “On Writing,” (paraphrased, ’cause I’m too damn lazy to reach over and pull it off the shelf): there is the moment when you think I can, no, I AM writing better than this.

Thank you for inspiration for National Novel Writing Month.

Did you by any chance forget that this book was fiction? And purhaps if the police procedurals where more accurate and detailed that what you would have is an extremely long, not so erotic book? I don’t mean to sound condescending towards you, you are of course allowed to express your opinion as openly as you wish, but when I picked up this book, believe me, location of characters and undercover workings was the last thing on my mind.
I just want to also mention that I loved the hero. Yes he could be an asshole and had issues…much the same as Philamina. As you pointed out yourself “Crazy and Asshole” do go together. Unless I missed some rule that all protagonists have to be happy, issue free uncomplicated people?

I just finished this book today by the way.. and I throughly enjoyed it to be honest. But I just wanted to say one thing… this book is FICTION! Of course not everything is going to be to the ‘T’ of real life situations. Chill out and dont poke around EVERY little detail in a book, and just learn to enjoy the reading.

Sincerely, Lisa

xoxo
Daisy

You did? Wow, I didn’t even understand that part.

Well, sure; Romance is full of heroines with low self-esteem who are drawn to men who avoid intimacy and commitment. How often, then is the heroine “cured” by the hero’s nine inches of pure love, and the hero “healed” by the heroine’s magic (practically) virgin vagina?

I absolutely understood why Ty and Phil would be drawn to one another,

You did? Wow, I didn’t even understand that part. Ty was a lunatic, and Phil was the kind of heroine I’d happily blow up with an Uzi. Hmmm maybe they did deserve each other…

If Jane hadn’t done such a stellar job in reviewing this book, I would have happily taken a carving knife to it on my blog.

I can categorically confirm that GGGB sucked Great Big Hairy Donkey Balls.

Like Jane, I was terribly frustrated with the way Phil and Ty rarely ever address each other by their undercover names while they are in the strip club; how they managed to keep the op a secret from anyone was impossible for me to discern.

It bothered me that upon reflection, I could find not ONE emotionally healthy character in this book. Until very close to the end, Ty thinks that all women are lying whores (like his mother) and Phil is so worried that Ty “likes” her, that she’s not, IMO, properly focused on if and why she likes him. Of course the fact that he keeps walking out on her, only to practically chase her down later doesn’t help. But maybe that should be a clue to Phil. I’m still unclear as to what really caused the epiphanies in both these characters.

The one passage in the book that stood out to me as self-aware and cogent is one in which Phil explains to Ty that she is not like his mother because she is just an “inhibited young woman” trying to come to terms with her sexuality (and how many more whoring, drug addled mothers do we need in Romance? Can’t any of these characters come from average screwed-up families?). Anyway, I think this passage contains the intended theme of the novel. And ussually I’m kind of a sucker for novels in which the heroine finds that sex is a liberating rather than rule-bound thing. However, setting this book in a strip club and having Phil transform LITERALLY overnight into the club’s most popular dancer (a woman who, up to this point, had one unpleasant sexual experience and had NEVER been kissed) threatens to make the novel and the characters charicatures, IMO.

I think most of the problems in this book stem from the forcing together of the police procedural/suspense (which, beyond all the cop talk struck me as very problematic — i.e. Ty is practically arrested when a guy turns up dead at the club. That is, the lead investigator on this delicate and urgent undercover case seems in imminent danger of ARREST after little or no investigation) with the Romance. Here’s the sentence that illustrates that best for me: “Joy lit up her world, despite the bodies in her house and having learned of her father’s betrayal by their own.” Even without the context that sentence sounds to me like two dissonant chords being played at the same time.

I also think this book needed more copy editing, to excise images like “a whole suitcase full of baggage” and mistakes like “confusion reined” — maybe in the print version some of this will be fixed?

It is not easy thing to take a woman with deep and complicated sexual issues and have her come to terms with those, especially by setting her up as a waitress/dancer in a strip club with a guy who has zero respect for women. I absolutely understood why Ty and Phil would be drawn to one another, but I could not buy their relationship as a romance. Especially when it seemed that they should be more focused on those poor kidnapped girls. Even under the best of circumtances, I think Romantic Suspense is one of the hardest sub-genres of Romance to sell believably; even Linda Howard’s books often strike me as an uncomfortable mix of romance and suspense plot. I have to agree for the most part with Jane on GGGB, though — this book did not make me a believer.

And it takes nothing away from my enjoyment of the story. But I would never expect her to NOT post her feeling on a book just because I didn’t agree.

That is what I took issue with in your post. Not that it matters either way because it is just my opinon.

As for the format here, if a person doesn’t like it they shouldn’t read it. Unless jane/jayne have started to tie people up and force dear author on them… and if they have I am soooooooooo hurt I was left out.

{I’m not talking about rabid fangirls of a particular author there,}

I take exception to this remark. I feel I adequately defended my position on why I enjoyed this book and did not agree with this review.

Rae, I’m sorry that you apparently misunderstood anything I said but I would point out that if I was addressing my comments to or about any particular person in this discussion I would’ve said so upfront. What I was, however, referring to with the “rabid fangirl” phrase is a general phenomenon that occurs quite frequently online. Whether it is or is not occurring here remains to be seen.

Also, I would be the first and last person to defend anyone’s right to say what they thought about a book and/or disagree with what someone else has said. Simple disagreement and different opinions, however, do not change Jane’s opinion on her own blog. Should it, Rae?

I take exception to this remark. I feel I adequately defended my position on why I enjoyed this book and did not agree with this review. I am a reader. Do you believe because I’m an author and know Karin Tabke that I can’t read her book and enjoy it? I think the message here, in all this talk about the format of the review is getting lost. I did not agree, at all, with this review. I think the points Jane brought up about the book are not sufficent to rate this book an F. I did not have the same feelings as she when I read this book. I didn’t have a problem with sense of place, I liked the “asshole” hero. I enjoyed the heroine, the erotic words in the book are normal for the genre and didn’t bother me, Karin police procedures where right on, in my humble opinion. I didn’t have an issue with the hero taking a mother and child to the zoo. I think Jane’s remark about that issue was silly. I thought the plot was believable and fresh. So, no matter what the format, reviews are reviews. I just didn’t happen to agree with this one. That’s my message. I’m going to go off auto now for this post. I think I’ve made my point and it seems I’m just re-hashing the same thing over and over and it’s getting old.

Yes, there is an argument to be made that the definition of review does include critical analysis that could be targeted at the author, but let’s face is that is not the purpose or audience of most reviews. Most are more recommendation than critical analysis and the ones that do blur that purpose and audience line bother me. A lot. Which is why I don’t get involved in most review discussions – the lack of clarity of what we’re actually talking about bothers me even more than the ruckous over “bad” reviews.

Once I figured out what the two Ja(y)nes were trying to do, I let it go, secure in the knowledge that they truly weren’t actually directing their comments at the authors themselves, except as a framing device. I do recognize the difference because I’ve seen plenty of reviews that are directed more at taking the author to task than recommending anything to the reader. I’ve always found the former suspect not because they aren’t needed but because they seem to appear at the worng place and time to be of any use to anyone but someone’s egos. So, had I thought the Dear Author reviewers were targeting authors and not readers, I wouldn’t have come back. Problem over.

The thing is, and this is extremely important to remember, if I ever thought they were breaking thier own guidelines, I would not hesistate to say so. Strenuously. Nor do I believe other readers would either. I’m not talking about rabid fangirls of a particular author there, but just regular readers of any author who would also recognize when they weren’t the ones being served by the review.

Conversely, we also recognize when authors are only looking out for their own interests and not ours. That may sound harsh. It may not. Sometimes reality just can’t be sugar-coated, you know.

Just my opinion. In THEORY, the personalized style should bother me…but I accept it as they’re “schtick” (no disrespect meant–it’s the gimmick here) and go with the flow.

Romance is a strange bird when it comes to critical discussion; the resistance to honest critique and forthright exchange of views still boggles my mind. There ARE readers AND authors who, IMO, clearly don’t play well with others,

I’ll bet that’s true in every genre. I’ve read claims that the over-wrought response is because Writers are Sensitive Artists. I think it’s because they’re people.

I recall feeling slightly unnerved by Dear Author’s second person style–and my novella got a good review. The sensation of that Ja(y)nes were thinking of me, rather than the book as its own entity, caused that, I think.

Hey, I don’t mind unnerved and I think it’s an interesting new style. . .but I do agree with Becca that for better or worse it feels a tad more personal.

The use of “you” is powerful. I took a few workshops for PR writers [back when bosses paid for it] and the instructors stressed when delivering bad news (such as complaints), avoid using the word “you.” It’ll make the receiver defensive and unable to hear the actual news. With things like product recalls, also stay away from second person POV–and of course first person. (Use plenty of passive voice, so there’s no responsible party, ie us.)

Of course if it’s good news, a glowing report, or a promo directed AT the reader, make “you” every other word. Make it allllll about them so they can feel like winners and glow along with you, too.

Anyway, this conversation reminds me of those workshops, which were probably called something alliterative like Powerful POV. The subject is interesting, is all. No demonization at work here, she says in third person passive.

Reviews are subjective. Because people view art through a lens that’s colored by who they are and what their general life experience is. Some people lurve them some fated mates, some people don’t.

Whatever. If any website disturbs you so deeply, it’s really easy to just not visit. I don’t go and read what Rush Limbaugh says, he hurts my head and makes me feel like kicking puppies. If the Janes make you feel that upset, it’s important that you not come here anymore. I’m actually not trying to be snarky, I think it’s important that we try and not purposely go to look at things that make us annoyed or upset. There’s enough aggro in life, why seek it out?

that said, I’d probably read this book, I like police procedurals and reading the review, I can’t say I’m that scared off by it. Because, and I repeat (and believe me, I’m an author, I have to repeat this to myself from time to time) reviews are all about the subjective.

My issue is not with negative reviews in general. I never said I did. I’ve written them myself. What I feel is wrong is structuring it as a letter to the author. It entirely changes the tone of the review, and I have to say I don’t understand the point of it, anyway. Aren’t reviews written for readers? They’re not written to inform the author how you felt about the book, yes? Because what would be the point of that?

If you were to ask the authors whose books were reviewed in this manner if they felt differently than if it was a review with a regular structure, I’m pretty sure they would say they do. I know you don’t care how a review affects an author. That’s your prerogative.

I’m sure that some authors feel differently about each review that is given of their work; but simply because an author responds personally does not mean the review was personally aimed. When a reviewer comments explicitly on the quality of a book’s writing or plotting or characterization, that, IMO, is NOT personally directed critique, unless the reviewer calls the author a name, insults his/her appearance or family, or otherwise impugns him/her as a person. I don’t like name calling, and I’ve seen a number of reader reviews that I personally think go over the top. But I haven’t really seen them here. And if authors feel the format is uncomfortable, then maybe they shouldn’t read their reviews here, although that might be a shame, because sometimes I think these reviews provide valuable feedback on what did and didn’t work for readers. The first couple of times I came here, I had to adjust to the “dear author” schtick, but soon enough I realized that it was simply a clever device to set this blog apart, and since the reviews themselves are NOT aimed at the person behind the author, I see nothing wrong with it.

Romance is a strange bird when it comes to critical discussion; the resistance to honest critique and forthright exchange of views still boggles my mind. There ARE readers AND authors who, IMO, clearly don’t play well with others, but no one is forced to visit the sites they frequent and host. Here there are honest and intelligent discussions of books and other interesting topics, in which both authors and readers participate. In other words, I just don’t think this is the blog to take to task for inappropriate reviews.

I bought it from SimonSays.Com for $6.49. It was an advanced ebook release. I really love that program (plus the price point). I read the blurb and it sounded good to me because I love police procedure books and I liked the idea of the transformation of the heroine. Tt’s probably my favorite erotica/erotic romance theme – the releasing of inhibitions and finding your true self. That seems like a very honest emotional journey. Throw in a hot cop and I am usually sold. :)

Getting me to buy a book, particularly an ebook that is 40% off, is pretty easy.

This book isn’t out until September and didn’t make it into the September RT. So, I’m curious, how did you get your copy, from the publisher or author or is it out in Ebook and I missed it? Were you asked to review it? Or was it a “hmm, this sounds good, I’ll give it a try” book?

I’m having a hard time following some of the logic here…

I’m sorry you didn’t like this book. That’s a shame. And what a shame you feel the need to post your negative opinions/remarks like this so publicly, but that said, everyone is entitled to their opinions and this is your blog.

…I still really dislike seeing a bad review like this posted on Karin’s book, GOOD GIRLS GONE BAD. Mainly, because I don’t agree with it, and that’s why I assume there’s a comment section here, so you, as the reader can hear all the opinions.

1. Does this mean negative reviews are okay as long as we agree with them?

2. When exactly is it okay for a reviewer to post negative opinions/remarks publicly?

3. Why is it okay to post negative remarks about the review/reviewer but not a book?

And, as to Becca’s comments about the format–why come here if you don’t like what and how they’re posting?

Awww, Jane’s so nice. Evil Jay would have just said don’t let the back button hit you on the ass on your way out Becca.

Evil Karen would have told her to get the f*ck off my blog. I find that that usually works best with these people. (Even as they lurk to find out if I’m talking about them)