Tuesday, June 9, 2009

GoneAway Revisited

Okay, maybe this is a screwy thing to do, but I'm reevaluating by review of GoneAway Into The Land.

For two reasons.
  1. My copy was a galley, which I did not realize. I kind of suspected, but I generally dock at least half a star for bad editing, and that may not really be fair to do on a galley. (Is that how you spell it? Spell check didn't like "gally". Whatever, you know what I mean.)
  2. The target audience clarification from the author. Really, marketing it to 17+ makes a difference in my perceptions of the book.
  3. What was 3? I'm losing my mind.
  4. Oh yeah! I wasn't in the mood for it when I read it, so it may not be fair to dock it for that.
  5. Even after being confused and not feeling it and all that.... I find myself wanting to read the sequel. It's sticking with me, which I really didn't think it would do. Now, yes, this could be partly from the dialogue of comments on the post, but still. I want to know what happens next and I didn't think I cared.

And really, reason #5 is why it's worth another post. If it weren't for that, I would maybe have added a note on the original review... maybe would have adjusted the stars on GoodReads... but that's it. I'd have just let it go.

(Hmm.... I said 2 reasons. I can't count.)

So... An unprecedented REreview. (Yeah, it's not a word. I know.)

3.5 stars

R-1-2 YA

Here's my reasoning: A lot of my problem with the book (editing and target age) is resolved, thus the higher rating... BUT I'm still a little confused. Could just be me, but hey, it's my review.

Also, I'm not sure I buy a 12-yr-old protagonist in a book marketed to 17+. Yeah, it works for Harry Potter, but let's face it, he's a fluke. Now if he were.... 15? or so, I think it would work. I also think the story makes more sense if he's older.

As far as content, 17+ is a good range to market it at, but I'd give it to a reader as young as 13-14 if they were really interested. Unless the abuse was going to hit too close to home and give them ideas about killing their abuser. Then I think I'd hold off. :D (Dark humor, I know. :D)

Anyway, this whole idea of revisiting a book has me curious-- does time make you feel fonder to a book or not? I'm sure we've all had books that we can't decide how to rate. What do you do?

And, for those of you with book blogs, what if the copy you review isn't the final copy? Does that make it like a separate book that needs a separate review? I had never thought about this before...

(In the interest of full disclosure [though at the risk of hearing "methinks she dost protest too much"], yes, the author did ask me if I would change the rating. And yes, that did have an impact on my writing this post. But NO, it is not WHY I changed the rating. I had already changed my mind before he asked, I just hadn't made note of it. And yes, I still want a Pursier. :D)


  1. I have several books I've reviewed, where I might want to reconsider the rating (up and down!). In two cases I even mentioned in my review that I thought I might think differently once time has passed.

    I'm not sure what I'm going to do about it!

    I'm happy you were able to reconsider this rating.

  2. I'm glad I'm not the only one!