Sybil by the Bay

It is high time we addressed the book review process, the ups and downs, the rationalizations, and the comfort-food eating it provokes (mostly cupcakes and cheese).
What better to characterize the experience than the utterly conflicting reflections in the past two days of the San Francisco Examiner and its rival, the Chronicle. It's a story of Schizophrenia in San Francisco. Or --and we despise using this terminology, but what the heck-- a Tale of Two Cities. The Best of Reviews, the Worst of Reviews.

The Examiner's review, which ran on Monday, was glowing.

Wrote the reviewer:
"A brisk read filled with twists and turns and a leave-you-hanging feeling at the end of every succinct chapter, “Hooked” is a cool, often funny, thriller." And "Lovers of fiction simply will appreciate that, despite the super contemporary themes, it’s an old-fashioned yarn with a likable hero that simply makes you want to turn the page to find out what happens next."

Full review: http://www.examiner.com/printa-785961~San_Francisco_author_'Hooked'.html

The Chronicle review, which ran on Tuesday, appeared to have been based on a read of a different book. The review said it fell short and would leave readers wanting. The reviewer didn't get invested in the character or find him imperiled.

Wrote the reviewer:

"Is Nat ever in actual danger? Sort of. There is a fire at a lab that he has to escape. And there's some gun pointing. But we're never really worried about his welfare, and that's what ultimately undermines "Hooked."
Addictions are exciting and alluring. They're also dangerous and, more than likely, self-destructive. By the time you put down this book, Richtel wants you to be glancing over at your laptop or BlackBerry with a new sense of wariness.
You might instead end up going online to see what else you can find to amuse yourself. "

On the positive side, in fairness, he also writes:
"One guesses that Richtel enjoys his Hitchcock, seeing how "Hooked" so clearly draws inspiration from both "North by Northwest" and "Vertigo." And there are numerous occasions in which Richtel makes good use of the suspense that comes with a story of this sort. "

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/19/DDGSVQGJHT1.DTL&hw=richtel&sn=001&sc=1000

On the whole, on this blog, I've posted mostly the positive reviews. There have been more of those than negative ones. But there have been negative ones too. The reason I am not posting those is not because I believe they are invalid or they anger me. Having written the book, I do think it is out of my control how it is perceived. And tastes are personal. But the bad reviews do disappoint me. The reason is because they can control whether people take a chance on reading the book themselves. If they don't buy, they may not have an experience like the one the Examiner reviewer had. And, plainly (and in turn), if they don't buy the book, the market may signal that it is not interested in what I write, thus making it hard for me to find a buyer for another book. It may sound clinical, but I think that is the only sane way to digest reviews, given the breadth of tastes of readers and reviewers.

I do appreciate the difficult position reviewers are in. Their words often are taken out of context by marketers, thus forcing them at times to be more negative than they might actually feel. For isntance, a movie reviewer wouldn't want a review that said "A triumph of bad taste" only to have the movie poster reduce the sentiment to: "A triumph."

Still, I would hope for the sake of giving curious readers a chance that reviewers would include their positive impressions alongside their barbs.

With that, cupcakes and cheese.