Bea Reviews I Have Strong Opinions by Laura Anne Gilman

Publisher: Faery Cat Press
Source: Purchased
Release Date: February 15th, 2020
Buying Links: Amazon* | Barnes & Noble | Apple Books* | Kobo
* affiliate links; the blog receives a small commission from purchases made through these links.

Blurb from goodreads:

Wisdom may be in holding your opinions close, but there’s definite freedom in letting them fly. I HAVE STRONG OPINIONS is a collection of twenty-five no-holds-barred rants from award-winning author Laura Anne Gilman on the everyday frustrations and irritations of life in the 21st century, from Facebook to fireworks, sex ed to snow tires.

"So, go on the journey. Buckle up. Get ready for some salt. You’re in good hands. You’re in an expert’s hands" - from the Introduction by Chuck Wendig.

Friday Memes: I Have Strong Opinions by Laura Anne Gilman

I'm participating in two Friday book memes, Book Beginnings On Fridays, hosted by Rose City Reader, and The Friday 56, hosted by Freda's Voice.

Every Friday, share the first sentence (or so) of the book you are reading, along with your initial thoughts about the sentence, impressions of the book, or anything else the opener inspires. Please remember to include the title of the book and the author’s name.

For the Friday 56, grab a book, any book. Turn to Page 56, or 56% on your ereader. If you have to improvise, that's okay. Find a snippet, short and sweet. Post it, and add the url to your post at the link here.

Anthropomorphism: Genre or Style?

After my post last week talking about urban fantasy, a reader emailed me asking if I knew the name for the subgenre of books told from a dog's perspective.

I had to think about it at first. I emailed an author friend of mine who's a regular here on the blog, J.A. Campbell for her thoughts. Turns out, we were thinking along the same lines.

First, what is genre? For the purposes of this post, I'm using this definition from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:

1: a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content

2: kind, sort

3: painting that depicts scenes or events from everyday life usually realistically

I'm pretty sure it's not a sub-genre but more of a style. Technically, I think it would be anthropomorphism, which Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines as

": an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics : humanization

— an·thro·po·mor·phist noun"

For instance, "Black Beauty" by Anna Sewell is told from the horse's perspective, just as if a human were talking and thinking. Rita Mae Brown uses this device in her cozy mystery series, Mrs Murphy, where the cats and dogs belonging to the main human engage in their investigations into the murders that occur and talk to each other as well as other animals e.g. horses, owls, etc. Speculative fiction author J.A. Campbell also uses anthropomorphism in her Doc Vampire-Hunting Dog short stories. There are plenty of other stories and series that use anthropomorphism but those were the first ones to pop into my mind.

There are different ways of using anthropomorphistic animals. Disney even has them talk like humans (pick the Disney movie of your choice for an example :D). Sometimes, as in the examples I mentioned above, the story is told from the animal's perspective, complete with human style thoughts but they talk normally i.e. barks, meows, neighs, etc. But always, they have been endowed with human characteristics in some fashion.

It's a style that works in different genres - mysteries, mythology and fairy tales, fantasy of most varieties, etc. There's a part of me that would like to see stories told from a dog's perspective as a separate sub-genre, especially as it sees to be occurring more often these days. But at this point in time, I think stories told from a dog's perspective are a style not a genre or sub-genre, and are anthropomorphism.

So, have you read any stories told from a dog's POV? What do you think, is it a style, a genre...? What do you think of it, do you like it? Is there another existing term besides anthropomorphism that would be applicable?

What is Urban Fantasy?

@blodeuedd83 I do not like when UF is on best of fantasy list, you know I love UF. But it has nothing to do with fantasy, nothing at all 

@BeasBookNook @blodeuedd83 *blink* but the F in UF stands for fantasy! And UF originated from fantasy. It can also be horror but that's fantasy too. 

@blodeuedd83 @BeasBookNook Fantasy for me takes place in another world. urban fantasy is just paranormal romance without the romance

 The following twitter exchange took place between myself and blodeuedd earlier this weekend. The conversation, in conjunction with a series that Bastard Books has been doing on UF, got me thinking. Bastard Books has a series of posts this month from various guests on what is wrong with urban fantasy, why they don't like it, or both. There are some very valid points in the posts and they have given me much to think about. I recommend reading them.

When I first read blodeuedd's tweets, I was in disbelief; how could someone think that urban fantasy has nothing to do with fantasy? I'm still doubtful, but then I thought more about her second comment. If I understand her correctly, (and blodeuedd, if you're reading this, please speak up if I'm wrong!) for her urban fantasy is about werewolves, vampires, demons and other creatures that traditionally were considered horror or paranormal. 

For me, urban fantasy is more, much more than that. One of the first books widely considered to be urban fantasy is "War for the Oaks" by Emma Bull. The first urban fantasy I ever read was "Greenmantle" by Charles de Lint, still one of my favorite books. Both books are set in contemporary times, in a more or less urban setting, and involve beings from fantasy. Another early series that I'd call urban fantasy is the Bedlam's Bard series by Mercedes Lackey and assorted co-authors. Again, stories involving the fae set in in modern times in an urban setting. Over the years as horror grew more mainstream, we began to see vampires and werewolves, along with witches, demons and ghosts, begin to show up in contemporary stories set in urban or primarily urban settings. Urban fantasy expanded and grew, creating a larger variety of stories and worlds.

These days, urban fantasy has been taken over by beings formerly considered paranormal or horror and you see less of the traditional fantasy side. Less, yes, but not gone entirely. Seanan McGuire's Tobey Day series is akin to de Lint and Lackey's early works. Kevin Hearne, Nicole Peeler, and Ilona Andrews among others have blended both the fae side and the paranormal side into delightful, thrilling urban fantasy stories. I especially love Hearne and Andrews' use of various global mythologies in their books. They have integrated different elements of urban fantasy into cohesive worlds that are firmly, in my opinion, urban fantasy. Their use of mythology and traditional, but often overlooked fantasy beings, are major factors in my enjoyment of their books. That said, I do enjoy werewolves and witches, vampires to a lesser extent. I love Kelley Armstrong's Women of the Otherworld series, and the Mercy Thompson and the Alpha and Omega series by Patricia Briggs; I enjoy Keri Arthur's Riley Jensen and Risa books (though admittedly, those are paranormal romance and not straight urban fantasy) and Jodi Redford's That Old Black Magic series (also PNR. Hmmm, not making my case, am I? :D)

Still, for myself, I prefer the fairy and mythology flavored urban fantasy. Happily, there's room for all of us. :)

So, what is your definition of urban fantasy? What does the term call to mind when you see it?

ETA: I got into a great discussion on twitter about the differences between urban fantasy, paranormal romance and contemporary fantasy. I see more discussion posts in my future. In the meantime, please, share your thoughts, I want to hear them.

Blog Hop Discussion: What Do You Look For You In A Review?

Nat at Reading Romances is hosting another discussion blog hop, this time around the topic of reviews. All of the participants will discuss what they look for in a review: Whether you're writing or reading one, there are certain things you always look for. What are those? What do you think are the most important elements you think the reviewer should include? What would you like see more? Less? What is the role of a review? How important is it? 

So, what do I as a reader look for? There are 4 basic types of information that I want:

1. Is the story well written? For instance, are there plot holes, inconsistencies, grammatical issues, are the characters believable? Is the plot banal but the writer has a gift for language or story telling? Does it hold your interest or does it start off slowly then grab you? Is there an excess of details? A dearth of details? Is it original? A well done take on a old theme?
2. A brief recap or synopsis of the story. However, the recap should not be the bulk of the review. I have no use for reviews that are 90% recap and 10% review. Use examples from the story to illustrate points or show off the author's writing, sure, that's excellent. But if your "review" is mostly story recap, I won't be back.
3. What worked and didn't work for the reviewer and why? What did they love? What did they hate? It may be that what worked for the reviewer pushes one of my buttons and vice versa.
4. And, because it's one on my pet peeves, how well done is the copy editing and proof reading? If it's done well, with no problems or only minor ones, then I don't expect to see it mentioned in the review. But it constantly amazes me when I read a book with huge editing and proof reading issues yet when I look at reviews, there's no mention. I've read books where I have had to untangle and rewrite sentences, or whole paragraphs, to make sense of them and yet, there is NO MENTION in the review. I am not your beta reader nor should I have to untangle your mangled spelling and grammar to understand a sentence. As you can see, I get very cranky. There's a reason I work as a copy editor. :D

Those are the main things I look for. I also enjoy some humor in a review, even some mild snark, but no meanness and no attacks on the author. I also like to know why a reviewer chose a book but it's not essential. One of my personal criteria for a good book, at least the genre ones, is whether or not I'd read it again. However, not everyone enjoys re-reading so while I like to see a reviewer mention if they'd re-read it, I don't need it. Also, I don't want spoilers; unless, it's a book I probably won't read, then I don't care. In general though, I avoid blogs if their reviews typically contain spoilers. I don't do spoilers usually in my own reviews; when I do, it's to illustrate a point, or it may be a book in a series and discussing it would spoil an earlier book. In those cases, I'll post a spoiler warning so readers can decide to continue reading or skip that review.

Now the role of a review. Well, at it's most basic it's a critique of the book; the writing, the story, etc. But reviews are no longer limited to print sources such as newspapers and magazines. These days, we have blogs, goodreads, twitter, facebook, tumblr, etc. They are more casual and have immediate impact. To an extent, these have both replaced and complemented the traditional personal recommendations that we used to get from friends and family. Now, we have extended our circle of friends to include all these online resources. So, some reviews are "I really liked this. The story is fun and character X is hawt." while others are more critical and some read like traditional print "serious" reviews. So, a review is an opinion as well as a critique. If four bloggers/reviewers whose opinions I trust tell me to stay away from a book, don't waste my time; I'm going to listen and pass on that book. I may share that info with others who ask me about that book. Because these opinions and critiques are online, they have the potential to reach thousands of readers and they remain available for as long as that blog or site is online. That affects the buzz around a book, and even the sales. So, a review can share information about a book, praise a book, trash a book, sell a book or steer away a potential buyer. It's a recommendation, a critique, a sharing of information, a sales tool. It's a way for a reader to learn about a book, to gather information and decide if they want to invest their time, money or both in reading it.

How about you? What do you look for? What are your must-haves and what are the things you'd like to see but don't require? What do you think is the role of reviews?

Some Authors Are Classy

There has been a frigging meteor storm on the web lately about authors and bloggers behaving badly. I won't link to any of the misbehaving sites or obnoxious posts. Not even to the calm and rational posts addressing the problems. I need a break from the drama. No, this post focuses on the authors behaving themselves.

In the past few days, I've received emails from two different authors concerning posts on this blog. One was a nice thank you for a promo post I did; the author thanked me for participating in her book's blog tour. Now, most of the time, a thank you is considered a good thing. In the blog book reviewing world, it's not so simple. Many people feel authors shouldn't comment on, or even acknowledge reviews, while others feel it's rude if the author doesn't. The poor authors are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Now granted, this wasn't a review, but it was still nice, and a bit risky on her part, to email me. I appreciate it.

Now, the other email I received was in respect to a review I did. It was a mixed review, some negative points and some positive points. I tried to be balanced, and to give examples. I received a thank you from the author (brave! but he did do it via email, privately), and it included the following quote:

If I didn't write this ebook I would  go out buy it myself after reading your review."

Now that's a classy author.

I wrote this post on the spur of the moment and didn't check with the authors in question to see if they were willing to have me use their names publicly. So for now, I'll keep their identities private, but I felt I should share their examples of authors behaving well. We can all use a smile now and then.

Got any examples of classy authors? Share in the comment section, by name or anonymous, doesn't matter.

Authors, Reviews, and Commenting

First off, thanks to Nat at Reading Romances for hosting this multi-blog discussion on what is a very hot topic these days in the online book world. At the bottom of the post, you will find a list with links for all of the participating blogs.

When I first started reviewing and blogging, I would get so very, very excited when an author commented. I haven't actually had a lot of authors comment on my reviews, whether here, on goodreads or Amazon (though admittedly, I rarely look at my Amazon reviews so maybe someone has). Most have been a simple thank you, a few times the author offered clarification on something I questioned in the review (which, by the way, I appreciate and don't mind, though an email might be the best way to do that). The times that happened, the authors were polite and cordial. I've had some authors who didn't reply on the review itself but said "thank you" or "nice review" on twitter. One or two have emailed me thank yous, which was nice.

These days, I'm less green and also, the blogging atmosphere seems a bit sticky and at times it feels like a group of young toddlers screaming and tantruming cuz another child took their toy away. Unfortunately, we can't put authors or bloggers in a time out. It feels as if every week, or even every day, there's another kerfuffle concerning a review that an author made an inappropriate comment on. I still get excited when an author comments but I'm also more aware of the potential for disaster. So, do I want an author to comment? Is it appropriate?

I don't think we'll get agreement on the appropriateness of it, but maybe we can agree on how an author comments, if they choose to do so. I know many authors who choose not to, for one reason or another. Honestly, for the author's sake, I think that's the safest course. Now matter how carefully the reply is worded, someone, somewhere, will find a way to take offense. And if the author makes any kind of criticism, however mild, someone, somewhere, even if it's not the person who wrote the review, will take offense. Then you have the authors, I'm sure you can think of some, who go ballistic and get insulting, even send emails deriding or harassing the reviewer. In those instances, that author should erase the comment or email as soon as they hit publish, or better yet, don't say anything at all, and go find a trusted peer or friend upon whom they can rant and rave at, IN PRIVATE.Taking their displeasure public rarely works out well.

If an author chooses to comment, then I think a simple "thank you" is good. Some say "Thank you for taking the time to read and review my book." I think that's fine too. They are acknowledging the time and effort that the reviewer has put into the review, regardless of their personal opinion on the review. They may be crushed or furious but ideally, they will rein in those feelings, decline to comment, or maybe leave a polite thank you, and then go off to deal, appropriately, with their feelings, in private. Authors work hard on their writing, some feel as if the books are their babies; it's normal and understandable that they would be hurt by a less than glowing review. The trick is in how they handle it.

Some writers don't read their reviews at all, some read them and think seriously about what the reviewer said and even use that information when writing their next book or story. Authors, if you choose to read your reviews, and you choose to comment, please tread carefully when commenting. Many potential and existing readers have been lost by an author's inappropriate comment on a review.

So, do I want authors to comment on my reviews? Yes, please. I enjoy it and sometimes we have good discussions or even just banter. Even if it's a simple thank you, I'm happy. Did I get a fact (fact! not opinion or perception) wrong in my review? Email me and I'll fix it. Hate my review? (You can disagree with my review, that can be interesting, and as long as you 're polite, it's all good.) Think I'm the worst reviewer EVER? Want to tell the world what a bitch I am? Sorry, those comments and emails will be deleted.

In addition to visiting the other blogs in this hop, take a few minutes to check out some other good posts: Author Linda Poitevin has a writer's guide to book blogger etiquette and blogger Natasha at Wicked Little Pixie tackles the topic of proper book blogger etiquette.

Thanks for stopping by. Please take a minute and share your thoughts and feelings in the comment section. Politely, of course. :)

OK, when I preview the post, I don't see the linky list so here's a link to Reading Romance's page with the linky list. Sorry for the inconvenience.

ETA: I finally got the linky to work! *happy dance*

We're Lexicomanes, Are You?

Lexicomane: Noun, dictionary lover. lexico-, lexi-, lex-, -lexia, -lexias, -lexic, -lectic, -lexis + (Greek: a word; a saying, a phrase; speaking, speech) Closely related to legi-, ligi-, lig-, lect-, -lectic (Latin: read, readable [to choose words; to gather, to collect; to pick out, to choose; to read, to recite]).  ~ From English-Word Information Word Info about English Vocabulary

Yep, dictionary lovers. That's us. Well, Jax and Bea anyway; Liz likes them but doesn't love them. So, what's the big deal about dictionaries? They don't tell a story, they are huge, heavy and have a hard time keeping up with a constantly changing language.

Bea: Dictionaries, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

1. They contains words, lots and lots of lovely words. And not so lovely words. You can look up anything and find it. One advantage of online dictionaries is their ability to update quickly and add new words and terminology. Most online dictionaries though don't give you the etymology, which leads me to my next point.
2. I love etymology, the meaning and history of a word and other words that it's related to. Print dictionaries will give you that, online dictionaries are less likely. Urban Dictionary doesn't but Webster's Dictionary does. I don't how many times I've looked up a word and gotten distracted by its etymology and looked up related words; I've probably lost hundreds of hours that way. 
3. I can get lost for hours in a dictionary. Not only do I get lost in etymology, but my eye spots an unfamiliar word on the page and I just have to read it, and then I get lost in the meaning or usage or etymology.

Those are the main reasons I love dictionaries. I learn so much, and it's at my leisure. I can quickly (well, I can try to be quick :P) look up something that I need to know or I can get lost in an orgy of words and meanings and history. Without words, language is non-existent. I'm not talking about written language, but language in general. Words, whether vocal, printed or signed, have meaning; if the recipient of the words doesn't know or understand the meaning, communication breaks down. So, we have dictionaries, one of the best inventions ever in my very biased opinion.

Of course, there are many kinds of dictionaries. There's the basic dictionary that defines all of the words in a language, there are translation dictionaries where you can look up a word or phrase in one language to see what it is in another language, topic or field specific dictionaries ie a medical terms, sports terms, etc., even a reverse dictionary, where you know the meaning but can't recall the word. With that one, when you find the meaning, it will give a slew of related words and you decide which one that you intended. 

On the internet, you often will have someone pose the question, "If you could take any five books with you while stranded on a desert island, what would they be?" I always include a dictionary; my other choices may vary but I always pick a dictionary. Every story you could want, exists in the dictionary.

One of the best features of my Kindle is that it comes with dictionaries, yes, plural. It came pre-loaded with two dictionaries so when I'm reading and encounter a word whose meaning I'm unsure of, I can easily look it up. This is an excellent feature and one that the Nook has also. I don't know if the Kobo or Sony readers do but I assume so. It only makes sense. It's a definite advantage over print where you have to stop, get your dictionary (if you even have one) and page through until you find the word. So much easier to highlight the word and look it up!

I've had the same print dictionary for 20+ years, I think it's time to upgrade. I shudder to think how out of date it is. Though, I often use a web dictionary these days to look up definitions.

Jax: Ah dictionaries...outside of the usual Little Golden books, the two earliest memories I have of books are the giant Bible with the family tree in it....and the battered dictionary that was just as large. I don't remember who taught me to how to use it, I just remember being told to look things up in it. It was the start of my life long love affair with words. 

In the house, right now, I have my Webster's college dictionary, a Spanish-English dictionary, TWO American Sign language dictionaries, a crossword dictionary, a dictionary of superstitions, and a couple of desk sized dictionaries that the kids could use for school. And that's just the ones I can see from here. We're in the midst of packing. I know there's a few more of these things around somewhere in a box. Like a dictionary of the meaning of flowers. (Did you know people used to send messages using flowers? How freaking cool is that. It explains why some painting of bouquets are so damn garish. If I actually could identify flowers, I'd love to see what the painter was trying to tell us. And some people think still-lives are dull. Betcha' some of those are downright vulgar.) 

Anyway...back on topic. Dictionaries, and by extension thesauri (yes, that's the right word. It's even on the sign at the bookstore, I swear.) give me the ability to play with language in the most amazing ways. Writing, teaching, reading... Dictionaries record the nuances between the synonyms. A thesaurus will tell you how words are similar....dictionaries tell us why they are unique. And they contain SO much information. Not just the meanings of words...but their past. Their pronunciation. (That funny spelling in parenthesis...that's the word written in the International Phonetic Alphabet. Another interest of mine.)

Words are the basis for language. Language allows for stories. Flash fiction, fan fiction, short stories, novellas, novels, series....and the dictionaries are the keepers of the keys, in  a manner of speaking. What is contained within those covers let us paint vivid images, even though I mangle stick figures. Is it really that hard to understand why I think they are so marvelous? 

We're Lexicomanes, Are You?

Lexicomane: Noun, dictionary lover. lexico-, lexi-, lex-, -lexia, -lexias, -lexic, -lectic, -lexis + (Greek: a word; a saying, a phrase; speaking, speech) Closely related to legi-, ligi-, lig-, lect-, -lectic (Latin: read, readable [to choose words; to gather, to collect; to pick out, to choose; to read, to recite]).  ~ From English-Word Information Word Info about English Vocabulary

Yep, dictionary lovers. That's us. Well, Jax and Bea anyway; Liz likes them but doesn't love them. So, what's the big deal about dictionaries? They don't tell a story, they are huge, heavy and have a hard time keeping up with a constantly changing language.

Bea: Dictionaries, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

1. They contains words, lots and lots of lovely words. And not so lovely words. You can look up anything and find it. One advantage of online dictionaries is their ability to update quickly and add new words and terminology. Most online dictionaries though don't give you the etymology, which leads me to my next point.
2. I love etymology, the meaning and history of a word and other words that it's related to. Print dictionaries will give you that, online dictionaries are less likely. Urban Dictionary doesn't but Webster's Dictionary does. I don't how many times I've looked up a word and gotten distracted by its etymology and looked up related words; I've probably lost hundreds of hours that way. 
3. I can get lost for hours in a dictionary. Not only do I get lost in etymology, but my eye spots an unfamiliar word on the page and I just have to read it, and then I get lost in the meaning or usage or etymology.

Those are the main reasons I love dictionaries. I learn so much, and it's at my leisure. I can quickly (well, I can try to be quick :P) look up something that I need to know or I can get lost in an orgy of words and meanings and history. Without words, language is non-existent. I'm not talking about written language, but language in general. Words, whether vocal, printed or signed, have meaning; if the recipient of the words doesn't know or understand the meaning, communication breaks down. So, we have dictionaries, one of the best inventions ever in my very biased opinion.


Of course, there are many kinds of dictionaries. There's the basic dictionary that defines all of the words in a language, there are translation dictionaries where you can look up a word or phrase in one language to see what it is in another language, topic or field specific dictionaries ie a medical terms, sports terms, etc., even a reverse dictionary, where you know the meaning but can't recall the word. With that one, when you find the meaning, it will give a slew of related words and you decide which one that you intended. 


On the internet, you often will have someone pose the question, "If you could take any five books with you while stranded on a desert island, what would they be?" I always include a dictionary; my other choices may vary but I always pick a dictionary. Every story you could want, exists in the dictionary.

One of the best features of my Kindle is that it comes with dictionaries, yes, plural. It came pre-loaded with two dictionaries so when I'm reading and encounter a word whose meaning I'm unsure of, I can easily look it up. This is an excellent feature and one that the Nook has also. I don't know if the Kobo or Sony readers do but I assume so. It only makes sense. It's a definite advantage over print where you have to stop, get your dictionary (if you even have one) and page through until you find the word. So much easier to highlight the word and look it up!

I've had the same print dictionary for 20+ years, I think it's time to upgrade. I shudder to think how out of date it is. Though, I often use a web dictionary these days to look up definitions.

Jax: Ah dictionaries...outside of the usual Little Golden books, the two earliest memories I have of books are the giant Bible with the family tree in it....and the battered dictionary that was just as large. I don't remember who taught me to how to use it, I just remember being told to look things up in it. It was the start of my life long love affair with words. 


In the house, right now, I have my Webster's college dictionary, a Spanish-English dictionary, TWO American Sign language dictionaries, a crossword dictionary, a dictionary of superstitions, and a couple of desk sized dictionaries that the kids could use for school. And that's just the ones I can see from here. We're in the midst of packing. I know there's a few more of these things around somewhere in a box. Like a dictionary of them meaning of flowers. (Did you know people used to send messages using flowers? How freaking cool is that. It explains why some painting of bouquets are so damn garish. If I actually could identify flowers, I'd love to see what the painter was trying to tell us. And some people think still-lives are dull. Betcha' some of those are downright vulgar.) 


Anyway...back on topic. Dictionaries, and by extension thesauri (yes, that's the right word. It's even on the sign at the bookstore, I swear.) give me the ability to play with language in the most amazing ways. Writing, teaching, reading... Dictionaries record the nuances between the synonyms. A thesaurus will tell you how words are similar....dictionaries tell us why they are unique. And they contain SO much information. Not just the meanings of words...but their past. Their pronunciation. (That funny spelling in parenthesis...that's the word written in the International Phonetic Alphabet. Another interest of mine.)


Words are the basis for language. Language allows for stories. Flash fiction, fan fiction, short stories, novellas, novels, series....and the dictionaries are the keepers of the keys, in  a manner of speaking. What is contained within those covers let us paint vivid images, even though I mangle stick figures. Is it really that hard to understand why I think they are so marvelous?