?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Page | Next Page

Extreme Peeve! Arrgh!

So after a reminder from Amazon that a book I might want is coming out vaguely soon, I went to take a gander at the page for it here. Now, this is all well and good, except I made the mistake of looking through the two "editorial reviews."

What I want to know is: Why the FUCK does a reviewer seem to find it to be a requirement of his or her damned job to spoil pretty much the whole plot (granted, with a Gaiman book there's still going to be a lot going on under the surface.. but still!) as a "review"? The hell?

It wouldn't be as much of a peeve if it weren't so common in general to just tell more and more of the plot for various blurbs (comics, movies, books, what have you). And it REALLY PISSES ME OFF. *pant pant*

I mean, it would be at least somewhat excuseable if it were a reader review, and said reader just hadn't twigged onto just how to do reviews, how much of the story to spill, etc... but these are professional gods-damned reviewers, doing their job. So why do they do it so poorly?

Here's a hint guys: I want a hint of the story given to me, an idea of the genre, set-up, etc., so I know if it's something that might appeal to me. I do not want the entire plot more or less handed to me on a silver platter. *fume*

(And damnit... I really need a pissed/annoyed icon, don't I? Oh well, I'll just use the one with the sword. Which I would like to be using right now.)

Tags:

Comments

( 6 Notes — Write a Footnote )
khaman
Sep. 13th, 2005 03:33 am (UTC)
Gaiman bitched about that a bit himself on his blog, I think. I try to not read Amazon reviews beyond star ratings, unless I read the book. Harry Potter reviews have spoilers ALLLLLL through them.
(Deleted comment)
stormfeather
Sep. 13th, 2005 05:51 pm (UTC)
I usually avoid it, but got caught in the trap this time for some reason.

Just because it happens a lot though, doesn't make it "okay." And last night it really pissed me off. *fumefume*
silmaril
Sep. 13th, 2005 03:11 pm (UTC)
That's just stupid. Yes, it's hard to strike a balance between what you're complaining about and the totally insipid backcover blurb type. But then, they are being paid for that.

(I could give you the non-texted version of this icon for "annoyed"...)
stormfeather
Sep. 13th, 2005 05:50 pm (UTC)
Thanks, but nah. I'll probably end up snapping a pic of my cat in one of her common less-than-pleased moods, or something.
rdkeir
Sep. 13th, 2005 10:11 pm (UTC)
Icoincidence
hi - just ran into your icon in someone else's journal and did a doubletake.

Check out http://www.livejournal.com/users/cavlec/ and compare.

I've seen other icons from this generator that were kind of similar, but never as close as you two are. It's kind of cool - anyone who rants about Neil Gaiman spoilers is ok by me, and Cavlec is a neat person.

(The path was: a comment to http://www.livejournal.com/users/kierthos/162485.html, which in turn I ran into when reading Jim Rittenhouse's http://www.livejournal.com/users/jrittenhouse/311656.html

It's a small world after all).
stormfeather
Sep. 14th, 2005 12:01 am (UTC)
Re: Icoincidence
Ahahahaha, and it looks like she likes memes too.

What a coinkydink. ;)

( 6 Notes — Write a Footnote )