OK, my first slightly-crappy review and it's from Kirkus of all places, although Kirkus is NOT known for being "nice." And no, not everyone will love my book. That's a given, and that's okay. I guess I'm tougher than I thought because (after the initial twinge of outrage) I'm not all that disturbed. And because Kirkus doesn't review "everybody" I should actually feel honored.
They began the review by recapping the whole story. I mean the WHOLE freaking story. Why bother buying the book, guys? Just go read the review.
It ends with: "The first-person narrative often tells rather than shows, and Martha’s accounting of her atrocious behavior without comprehension of her own culpability (hello, she's 14 years old?) frequently renders her unsympathetic. Despite these flaws, though, this gritty story has great appeal."
Well, at least I can quote those last few words. Personally, I don't read Kirkus Reviews because I know they're often unsually harsh. I rarely buy books based on reviews, anyway. I pick them off the shelf, skim through the pages, read the jacket, and make my decision.
My editor said she felt they didn't "get" the book. Personally I feel this reviewer simply dislikes the first-person narrative. First person is difficult because it IS so limiting, and yes, certain events simply have to be told. But I've never been accused of being a "passive" writer. Quite the contrary.
Anyway, enough anal-lyzing. Just wanted to share. :)
P.S. Oh, and they made a major typo in the body--HAHAHAHAHA!