What kind of scrutiny should reviews receive? I raise the question in the wake of a brouhaha over the use of profanity in a review.
"Yeah, it has the blood (tons of the stuff), it has the kick-ass dialogue, the one-of-a-kind stream-lined prose, and it moves along like a motherfucker - but this is no doubt a major departure for Huston. Shit, I’d argue that Mystic Arts isn’t even noir. Yeah, I fucking just said that. Deal with that shit.
"That said, it certainly still kicks some major fucking ass."
We're at a turning point, where fewer reviews are finding their way into print and reliance on volunteer - dare I say, in the opinion of some - amateur reviewers to spread the word about books. We receive hundreds of review copies or offers of review copies each year, and take our personal time to read and critique a selection of the works received.
If you follow the link from the quote I've included, you can read the whole review for yourself. Bookspot Central Guru Damon caught up with Charlie Houston and asked how he felt about profanity in reviews.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Charlie Houston on profanity in reviews"]
If you follow the comments trail, you'll see some have taken offense
and made profanity in reviews an issue.
I think reviews are like all things - some work for some people and don't work for others. This language speaks to a certain audience, a certain reader type that is probably part of a younger demographic. It works for me within the context of this review. It doesn't mean I'll start swearing like a trucker in my own reviews, but I find a certain amount of amusement in the fact that the arguments over swearing in books have extended beyond that, and there's debate now over the place of swearing in reviews.
The drama has been playing out for several days now. One thing's for sure: The Nerd of Noir writes reviews that get people's attention. Can that really be all bad?