Check this out: Gail Carriger just read BLACK DOG! Hah, that makes me happy, especially since she tweeted about it to about all the followers in the entire Twitterverse. (Is “twitterverse” a term people use? I have no idea.)
She did miss the thing about Dimilioc forbidding OTHER black dogs to marry the Pure, so her full review at Goodreads offers a moment of confusion about that, but she is sensible enough to say “I might have missed something” rather than “clearly a problem with the logic of the story.” I wonder if this is because as a writer she knows very well that all those layers of copy editors are not likely to miss something like that.
I will have to start checking in at Carriger’s blog because I like the “daily infusion of cute” and “tisane of smart” and “writerly tinctures.”
I have been reading more Regencies lately, what with not only Georgette Heyer but also modern writers like Teresa Romain. Maybe it’s time to get Carriger’s first book off my TBR shelves and give it a try.
Also, I like this link, which was the link from “writerly tinctures.” Because, YES, reviewers should DEFINTELY stick to reviewing books from genres they actually read and like. I’ve noticed that, too, that if a reviewer mostly reads contemporary romance, or literary, then they may try to write a fair review for one of my non-romance-non-literary secondary world fantasies, but they stumble over it. Why do this? Just say No when a publisher offers you an ARC for something that really isn’t your cup of tea.
However, as you may have noticed, I don’t agree that reviews should necessarily “summarize the book succinctly” rather than offer a visceral reaction to the book. I actually barely skim plot summaries, even if the reviewer is brilliant. I am way more interested in the reviewer’s visceral reaction, provided I think I share their taste in books. I can’t tell you how many times I have picked up a book DESPITE the plot summary, BECAUSE of the reviewer’s reaction to the book.
Kind of a place for both, imo.