Paul's Comment: Here's part one of Greenhorn's first ever two-parter...Say it with me, "Ooooooooooooh." The conclusion will be up by the end of the week, demons in my head permitting.
The idea sparked from all the hoopla surrounding book reviewers and their reviews. Take a minute to scan through those posts, read up on all the drama, and then come back here for some snacks. Wait, no snacks. Just more blabbering from me, your host.
Now I agree to some extent with what is being said. Book reviews most certainly should be more than just a rehashed telling of the back cover synopsis and they should be an expressive form of creative writing. Do I feel like every one needs to be this deep, intrical search into the book, its meaning, its purpose, its hidden agenda? Nope. Those kinds of reviews aren't for everyone, both to be written and read. I prefer my reviews with a sliver of story background, a slab of things liked and things not liked, and to end it all a thought about the book as a whole with maybe a suggestion for further reading. But that's me. And I ain't no critic.
Damon's Comment: So, here is my take on the whole review scene. If I know a reviewer likes the same books as I do and they review a new book and they like it I would consider buying said book. Simplistic, yes, but for me that is how it works. Now I'm not so egotistical that I think all reviews should be that way, but there should be a medium ground. I think professional reviewer The Bodhisattva does a good job at appealing to both the masses and the snot nose critics as well. The problem comes around that some professional reviewers (I'll leave them nameless) do no service except to boost themselves up by how much they think they know about books, not what is actually good. Which means they write reviews to just appeal to people like themselves. Yes, sometimes it just comes down to a book is good.
