Deciphering Amazon Review #328 … Pft! Please!

countdown to

 

 

 

So for the sake of argument. . .I would have easily categorized this particular review under “the Good, the Bad & the Ugly of Reviews“ but unfortunately this is not a review on HUSH itself but rather a review on its grammar.  So before I RIP – not Rest In Peace –  into this review please allow me to stress on the following:

First things first, AND let`s be realistic here:  If I hired a professional Editor to Edit HUSH and its entire series, then I would be forced to sell HUSH at publisher prices; meaning, HUSH would no longer be sold at $0.99 but upwards, and in between the vicinity of, $7.99 or more because, and let`s face it, the cost of editing, which can be rather pricey, has to be passed onto someone, and unfortunately it will be passed onto the buyer or the reader.  So forgive me if I`d rather not go there as I would rather worry about telling a story than bothering with the proper of grammar etiquette.

Secondly, and I can`t stress this enough, but I`m an Indie Author.  And yes, Indie Authors do hire Editors and I could very easily do that, but only and if, the Editor has a jaw-dropping resume that consists of famous Authors who have made it to a Top #25 Best Selling platform based on the grammar itself and not necessarily the story.  And if that`s the case, then point me to that Editor!

So now that I`ve ranted about that, now let`s move on to the review.

Which, and IMO, is not a valid review because it wasn`t based on HUSH at all.  Here is the review:

 

HUSH

 

 Desperate need of an editor… 
By Dom on May 08, 2017 

This book was recommended by Amazon for reasons I can’t figure out. As an English teacher, I read a lot of bad writing and HUSH was right in line with very bad, freshman writing. I am guessing the book was self-published- which is fine- but Devlin de la Champ (aka Sandra Raine) really should have sprung for an editor to fix her simple grammatical issues including the misuse of homophones (to, two, too), run-on sentences, and the use of “’cause” for the word “because.”

I admit that at times I can be a bit of a literary snob, but I was interested in the subject matter that HUSH offered. I assumed it wouldn’t be canonical work. That being said, this book is a poor representation of the American education system. I finished reading the book only because it is my personal rule not to quit a book once started.    

 

Okay.  So now that you`ve read this so-called “HUSH Review“, let me begin.

Amazon Non-review

  1. A person who takes the time to pick a certain page out of a book (see above photo; red remarks, the reviewer; black remarks, mine), make notes and upload it to a site is pretty damn scary if you ask me! And it also proves that this person has nothing else better to do with his/her time.  After seeing this, I fear those death threat letters heading to my P.O. Box.  Maybe I should look into hiring bodyguards before I become famous!

 

  1. If HUSH was “Recommended by Amazon“, then the honor is all mine! So thank you, Amazon!

 

  1. So this particular reviewer is an “English Teacher“.   Now there`s another scary thought considering that America is facing a crisis of education with the teachers being at the center of this critical debate.  So here`s my question:  Shouldn`t this reviewer be occupied with what`s going on with education and not necessarily with concerns over proper grammar in books such as HUSH?  Much to ponder there, you think?  And if my writing is on a “freshman“ level then this particular teacher must`ve been one of  my English teachers which means I could have been a great and proper writer if he/she was actually doing some teaching instead of lulling over books that have nothing to do with education!

 

  1. Obviously this “English Teacher“ hasn`t heard their students talk as teens tend to use words like “`cause“ quite a bit: `Cause I couldn`t`, `Cause I had to`,`Cause there wasn`t enough room in the car`, `just `cause`. . .yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

  1. This person isn`t a bit of a “Literary Snob“ especially if they`ve taken the time to upload pictures of pages off books and make notes in red ink that literally jump off the pages and give you nose bleeds.  So IMO, this person is a Literally Snob.  Congratulations.

 

  1. So “canonical work“. Well, if this reviewer would have taken the time from visually editing my book and did some research they would have found much of the book to be “canonical“.

 

  1. If HUSH is a “poor representation of the American education system“ shouldn`t he/she hold some of the blame? See Defense #3.

 

  1. So reading a book to the end is this person`s personal rule, huh? I seriously doubt that as I looked into this reviewer`s profile and found that HUSH is the only book this person has ever reviewed (since 2014) which leads me to believe that this reviewer`s interest was piqued by the nature of HUSH or they bought it based on a curiosity factor.  Because if this reviewer was really interested in the subject matter, then other books of this nature would have also been reviewed and posted.  So it is my strong belief that in spite of the grammar errors riffed throughout and the complaint, the reviewer actually liked my book, and so therefore another 5 Star Review goes to HUSH!

 

Until next time …

~Devlin De La Chapa

 

 

Leave a Reply