And yes, I am afraid that getting reviewed often does depend on who you are, and maybe that has not a thing to do with the quality of the work. Sad but true. In this case, I think Mr Grossman’s high profile did him a disservice – it meant that he was reviewed by someone who doesn’t normally read genre, and who ended up being patronising.

If it’s any consolation, I read something today that indicated that reviews in newspapers were becoming less important (link in post of 19th Sept on my blog.) http://glendalarke.blogspot.com)

If the Publisher’s Weekly review says Harry Potter discovers Narnia is real in this derivative fantasy thriller then I’m not surprised a critiquer finds the same. And It appears to be a book that has goals that are slightly at odds with the best of genre – _telling a captivating story_ and _exploring what would happen IF_.

What I am asking, however, is why this book is reviewed instead of the dozens of genuine high quality genre offerings; and I can only point to the celebrity status of the author

I don’t know the answer either, Kate. But I think there must be one, because SFF, including that which is sheer entertainment, has had tremendous success on the screen, large and small, without being dissed as a genre. I guess we can just keep on writing for a start …

Re reviewing generally:
Some people say that the true job of a reviewer is not so much to pull a book to pieces, or praise it to the skies, or even to say if he likes it or otherwise, but to write his review with a view to telling the readers enough to know whether THEY will like it.

There is nothing more childish than the desire to appear very grown up.

And I wear my orcishness proudly.

This kind of literary snobbery irritates me, but I’ve learned to take it with a pinch of salt. Books with pretensions of “Literature” don’t sell in anywhere near the same numbers as popular genre fiction, so it needs to promote be seen as higher or more meaningful to justify itself; cultural, rather than economic, capital.