actually i'm on salary.

Just going to put my two cents in: it really irritates me when a valid and well thought out response to something like a book review is answered by the author with nothing but a snarky quip. If you're going to put your opinion of a work of literature out in the public eye, you can at least be receptive to the criticism of others who likely feel very passionate about the piece of work you just passed judgment on. Be a little more mature and I think you will see improved results.

Dear merc book reviewer Alison Hallett,

Please figure out a way to review books against a canon that extends beyond what limited personal collections decorate your coffee tables, like, maybe, non YA books, for a start- Dora transcends genres. Your review suggests a typically Portland contrarianism embellished by sloppy journalism. Did you read the introduction? The Chronology? These materials might rebut some of your misinformed assertations. Also, if books about teenhood make you uncomfortable, maybe you should ask yourself why....

I wasn't talking about the author of Dora, I was talking about the author of the article.

I would suggest to Allison to consider, at least, the legitimate use of farce as a construct to pull off serious cultural criticism. By poking fun and using outrageous exaggertion as a device, farce is a viable form of serious literature. I fully own that I don't have degree in literature and I am not of academia. I just know to look further when someone like Yuknavitch writes. She is deliberate and an expert at weaving multiple meanings into her work that teach, inform and transform the reader without knowing they are being transformed until after its all over. I am trying to reserve my own snark, because I want my observations to be taken seriously, but really? It must be either arrogance or some external factor that shrugged this review into existence, because I can not believe there was any serious thought that went into this. I hope these comments on this review are actually helpful to you, Allison, and you consider a deeper, more informed look at the books you review in the future.
With compassion,
Domi J. Shoemaker

@margaretg, that first comment is incredibly mean-spirited. I responded in a way that made me feel better. Try signing your name to things you write on the internet, you might find it changes your opinion of how anonymous shot-takers deserve to be treated.

@everyone else: It's entirely possible that I'm on the wrong side of history here. So it goes. But for the record, I dislike writing negative reviews, particularly of local writers (particularly of local writers whose past work I admire, as is the case here), and I did in fact put a lot of time and thought into this review, knowing that it would be subject to exactly this sort of criticism.

I said what I want to say about the book already, so I probably won't say too much more in this thread—I just didn't want my only contribution here to be a bitchy response to a mean comment. Carry on.

TONIGHT: BOOK REVIEWER DOESN'T REALLY LIKE BOOK; FRIENDS OF AUTHOR LIKE BOOK UNCONDITIONALLY, ACT BUTTHURT ON INTERNET BECAUSE OBJECTIVE REVIEW DOESN'T AGREE 100% WITH THEIR SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT.

TOMORROW: TODAY'S HEADLINE - TOO WORDY?

yaaaaawwwwnnn