The Symposium

I hope to be reviewed there some day. Only problem? Need to get PUBLISHED first!!! Argh.

Technicalities, technicalities.

Seriously, though, Miss Snark, the literary agent, had some advice that sounds similar to what I keep telling myself: “Your job is to write. Unplug the damn internet and get to work. If you need to buy another computer that doesn’t actually hook up to the net, do it. . . . There’s a lot to be said for sitting down with your ownself and writing. Nothing, literally NOTHING replaces that. Focus. You’re wasting time.”

Lucky for me, I’ll have a new laptop within two weeks (was supposed to be next week, but they got snippy about us using a slightly different road than the one on our credit card, even though it’s the exact same road but just has two names). And I won’t leave this laptop anywhere near that hairball of a cat.

————

Now let’s get down to a little work. The Symposium is running a contest that I don’t really care about winning (second place looks nice . . . it’d help me buy Meg Cabot’s latest . . .), but looks like a lot of fun to enter. I just have to review the site and two of its reviews. And I’m kind of fond of the site already, because it joined my button rotation on my other domain and it’s not a sparkly, hurts-my-eyes, “Look what I made in a doll-editing program and adopted from other sites” pixel doll site. (Seriously, some of those are just plain creepy.)

I always thought I’d like reviewing books, but don’t have the dedication. I mean, I can read three books in one day if they’re by the right author. But I’m too cheap to buy them from the bookstore, and I’m too lazy to interlibrary loan from the library (working my laziness up for a massive influx of Julia Quinn, who my library only carries in e-books, all of which I’ve read).

Anyway, whether or not my fondness is properly placed, I’m entering the contest in order to get more acquainted with the site itself, because I’d like to be, and because book reviews are good things for people to write and read — yes, they’re good for you! That means you, kids.

The Site

(This one is going to be pretty technical and picky, so casual readers can just skip to the review-reviews if they want to.)

I like the star system explanation being at the top — easy access — and the site purpose is clearly stated (a problem for a lot of sites). I’d like to have a more accessible homepage link — the small link is kind of hard to find (I take care of this by making my whole header image a link) — and I think Navigation and Themes should switch places b/c getting around is more important than layout. And maybe genre list above Last 5 Entries.

I’d like to have a page about the webmistress: favorite genre, reasons behind starting the site, etc. I don’t usually care about the webmaster/mistress, but in something like this, personal preferences do influence reviews, and readers should have some context. (I figure I might find out more by going to the nanashi-inc domain, but I’m lazy, and so are most people on the internet.)

I don’t love what the italics are doing. Can we make them not grey and remove the white background? Even blue is better than grey.

This may not be possible, but I’d kind of like to see more than one reviewer. One person can only read and review so much at a time, and that might keep the webmistress fresher. For example, I have a friend, Rachel, who I talk to about young adult books — we get new ones from the library and tell each other if they’re good or not. (I only know Rachel online, because all of my real-life friends like moody realistic things that scare the pants off of me. Well, that’s what I think they like, anyway.) Also, a second reviewer might delve into genres that the webmistress isn’t as keen on examining. That’s always helpful.

I see that the site links to several other book review sites. When reviewing the same book as another site, it’d be cool if the webmistress referenced the other reviews — both acknowledging their presence and agreeing or disagreeing with what they say. It would also give the reader a broader opinion base to search when deciding on whether they want to read that particular book.

The Share and Enjoy links kind of distract me from the posts and make the page feel cluttered. I don’t know how exactly to deal with this — me, I’d cut them all, but I could live with cutting them down to the most popular few.

Layout-wise, I’d like a little more separation between posts — my blog does that by framing them in a border, and headers/footers have backgrounds. Plus the little red hearts are good eye-stoppers for people scrolling — just like the Share and Enjoy icons, though you don’t want people stopping at those when scrolling, because it’s confusing.

Review: “Go Ask Malice: A Slayer’s Diary“

I’ve never thought the Buffy books would be as good as the shows, so I’m really glad someone thought this pre-Buffy diary of Faith was worth reviewing. I think a lot of the cult YA books get left out of serious book lists because they just target fans, and it’s refreshing to see one here.

The brief explanation of the book, and of its Buffyverse timeline, is very nice and non-spoilerific. The complaint of “Why would Faith keep a diary” seems very strong, except for the fact that the line “in the second entry Faith makes mention of how and why she came to be keeping a diary and the reason behind it fits her to a T” is never resolved in an actual explanation. So we know that the reviewer thinks that the diary format is weird until this second entry, but never actually tells us why she changed her mind.

Along the same road, I’d like to have some non-spoiler examples of the writing style, especially a passage that the reviewer thinks is strong. I think the best parts of this review are where examples are given: that we find out “the origins behind her tattoo, the meaning behind her infamous ‘5 by 5′, the revealing of her last name, and even who the loser guys are that she mentions in her first appearance” and the biggest weakness is a general lack of specifics beyond the overview.

The second-biggest weakness is that the review hasn’t been edited after the initial writing, because there are a few misspellings and words mashed together: “AnyBuffy addict” / “a bit of a heat attack.” I think with some careful editing, this review could be much more cohesive, much more decisive. I think the diary discussion could be condensed, the strengths of the book expanded, and the writing tightened. (I, for example, reread and edit my posts at least 3 times after posting. Obsessive? Yes. Likely to ruin my social life? What social life? But it makes me feel better, and it really makes a difference.)

For example: “AnyBuffy addict and any Faith fan will love reading this novel” could be tightened thus, “Buffy addicts, and Faith fans in particular, will swoon.” Simple adjustments, but effective ones.

Also, I’d like to know what people who don’t watch Buffy can get out of this book.

All in all, a good review. It really will help people decide if they want to read it — I just wonder if four out of five stars isn’t too high of a rating after all the complaints the reviewer had with the book. I doubt her “great-great grandkids will still be hearing about this book.” But perhaps that’s just a problem with the 4-star definition.

Review: “Glass Houses by Rachel Caine“

Ah, a review on something I know nothing about. And it’s YA. Good!

First, what is Weather Warden Series? If I don’t know what it is, it doesn’t mean anything to me. If the reviewer linked to it in Amazon, that would help, but I still want a snippet of description: “the Weather Warden Series, a romantic mime extravaganza” or something.

“the real people in power in this town isn’t the human inhabitants” — change isn’t to aren’t.

Other than a general vagueness in describing the depth of the characters (again, an example might help — maybe quote a paragraph about one of the shop keepers), the entire thing was excellent and much more well-thought-out than Go Ask Malice. The reviewer’s passion for the book is obvious, and I’d just like to see a few strong quotes to back up her claims.

————

And that’s all we’ve got for this. I think I’ve avoided World of Warcraft enough for tonight.

Time to do what I do every night, Pinky — try to take over the world! (Of Warcraft.)