I was reading through Romantic Times over the weekend, looking at the pretty ads and seeing what’s coming out next. This is one of those things I love to do, but a few review comments did hit me funny this month.
This one for Lilith Saintcrow’s REDEMPTION ALLEY:
While Saintcrow can sometimes be a workmanlike writer, she never fails to deliver excitement.
Workmanlike? I have no idea what that means in the context of this quote.
Then there was this for Barbara Bretton’s LACED WITH MAGIC:
The unfortunate drive to have absolutely everyone write paranormals has led Bretton to turn in something less than her normally excellent work.
Now, I don’t know why Bretton decided to try a paranormal. But, and here’s my point, the reviewer doesn’t either. I kind of – as in totally – hate it when reviewers presume to know why an author writes one book versus another. Authors change subgenres all the time. Believe it or not, the reason is not always just to chase a trend. Pet peeve? Why, yes it is.
Subscribe to Posts
Since I would consider “workmanlike” to be similar to “paying attention to craft”, I’m confused by the implication in context it’s a negative quality.
It must not mean what I think it means, I guess.
by Shannon Stacey July 6th, 2009 at 1:09 pmI think workmanlike means acceptable. No frills. But it sounds like she’s saying, “the work is boring but exciting!” which doesn’t make much sense.
by Jill Sorenson July 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pmOkay, I totally read that as “womanlike” and was extra confused.
by Alison Kent July 7th, 2009 at 8:50 am“Workmanlike” is frequently used in contracts and agreements in the law office where I work, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen it used in a book review. Unusual word choice.
by Laurie July 11th, 2009 at 8:30 pm