Review: Publisher’s Weekly
The Unfortunate Miss Fortunes
Jennifer Crusie, Eileen Dreyer and Anne Stuart. St. Martin’s, $7.99 (416p) ISBN 978-0-312-94098-0
For years, the three orphaned Fortune sisters, each endowed with a different magical ability, have been on the run from their evil aunt Xan. Dee, the oldest, is their shape-shifting protector; sullen middle child Lizzie has transmutative abilities (her latest aim is turning straw into gold); and self-satisfied Mare can move things with her mind. Aunt Xan, up to old tricks, uses a spell to send each girl her one true love-but if the sisters fall for these paramours, Xan will get her hands on their powers. What Xan doesn’t count on is that the girls are wise to the plot and determined to beat their aunt at her own game. Unfortunately, the three novellas that spring from this solid premise are hobbled by too many characters (three sisters, three love interests, one freaky aunt) and too little space. As a result, exposition crowds out the story, giving each a rushed feel and a jarring conclusion. Despite the book’s faults, it makes an enjoyable read; one hopes the authors’ next collaboration will be on a single, full-length novel-or better yet, three of them. (July)
Okay, my take on reviews is usually, hey, everybody gets an opinion, but this time . . . who wants to tell PW it’s not three novellas and that the authors already did a single full-length novel? The one she just reviewed.
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6448060.html?industryid=47159
Addendum:
Publisher’s Weekly finally fixed the review. It now ends like this:
“Despite the book’s faults, it makes an enjoyable read; one hopes the authors’ next collaboration will be on a more singular novel-or better yet, three of them.”
So she hope we collaborate on a more singular novel, or better yet that we collaborate on three more singular novels.
singular (comparative more singular, superlative most singular)
1. being only one of a larger population
A singular experiment cannot be regarded as scientific proof of the existence of a phenomenon.
[The book is singular. We’re not going to do another one.]
2. being the only one of the kind; unique.
[It is unique; I don’t think there’s another romance novel out there by three authors that’s not really three linked novellas.]
3. distinguished by superiority
[She wants us to be better. There’s a better way to say “better” than “singular.”]
4. being out of the ordinary
[See #2.]
5. (grammar) referring to only one thing or person
[She wants a book with only one protagonist written by the three of us. Kinda missed the point of the whole POV-for-each-author thing.]
Okay, then.
11 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Boo! and she was nasty about the characters, too. Not having yet read the whole thing, I don’t know on what evidence she claims Lizzie is sullen - she certainly didn’t seem so in the excerpts. And while Mare is, clearly, self-satisfied, somehow the connotations of that word (phrase?) don’t really get across the Queen of the Universe. The reviewer’s probably insecure and doesn’t understand real confidence!
Don’t know why she didn’t recognize it as a single novel - perhaps she’s so accustomed to the tri-novella concept that it didn’t sink in. Maybe she’s written too many positive reviews lately and her boss told her to start finding flaws?
But at least she had fun!
When did Harriet Klausner start writing reviews for PW??
Sorry, the snark is flowing today. *grins*
From the excerpts on this website the book seems to be
much more colorful and intersting than that review makes it
sound. The excerpts also give a very good impression of it being one
complete novel, not everal crudly stitched together!
I wonder how they could have gotten so completly turned about. Maybe someone should point them in the right direction.
Still fully anticipating the realease of this fabulous book!
Once again, one must conclude that the reviewer has not read the book. PW is usually better than this. No?
I already commented on this on JCF. Since I have read the book it is obvious that the PW reviewer has not. If the reviewer is a ‘professional’ reviewer then this review is shoddy work. It is not that I disagree with her (I do) it is that she did not do her job.
There was a reviewer named Klausner
Whom I’d like to build a house fer–
Made of glass (so to heed
That she actually read
Novels I fear she may gloss o’er).
Iknow! Very baaaad limerick. This is what 95 degree weather and a power outage will do to you.
From TIME magazine:
At 54, Klausner, a former librarian from Georgia, has posted more book reviews on Amazon.com than any other user—12,896, as of this writing, almost twice as many as her nearest competitor. That’s a book a day for 35 years.
Klausner isn’t paid to do this. She’s just, as she puts it, “a freaky kind of speed-reader.”
*******************************************
I should say so, about the speed-reading, that is.
This isn’t Harriet’s review. I found hers on the net, too. It’s taken completely from the promotional materials, almost word for word, so she gets some things wrong. Like the sisters don’t meet the guys at the climax of the book, they meet them in the first two chapters. But she gave us five stars, so “Go, Harriet,” that’s what I say.
Also, Harriet noticed it was a novel.
I have read the novel,(one complete novel) and it is wonderful, all three have touched all three sisters…it’s seamless.
I think the reviewer was looking for attention when this was written, and was badly in need of a nap.
This review stinks! Pardon me, but I am LOVING this book! You ladies are talented and “singular”, lol.