They say that Publisher's Weekly reviews don't affect sales. They say that only a few people read Publisher's Weekly. They say having a review in PW makes no difference.
BUT THEY ARE WRONG. Okay maybe they're not wrong about some of it, but that last one: WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
It does have an effect.
I got two crapola reviews this week and I managed to shake them off without the need for chocolate. I say, out loud, in the cafe , "Well. That's what you think. But I have two starred Publisher's Weekly reviews, beyotch. Ha! TWO!"
And then the people gossiping about teaching at the next table get up and move to a table closer to the entrance.
TWO OUTSTANDING REVIEWS. So suck it! Ha!
Also let's not forget that 4.5 star Romantic Times review. HA! Sowhatifthepersonapparentlydidn'treadthebook.
Do I seem to be all about the reviews these days? Eh, I don't know what else to be about. I find if I talk too much about what I'm writing, I stall out almost at once.
If I talk about my kids, they get annoyed.
How about what I'm reading? Yeah, that works.
I'm reading Angelmaker by Nick Harkaway. I like it even though the author is in love with his own voice. Occasionally he takes me along with him. That long section (that makes no real difference to the story, I think? Maybe it will later?) about the undertaker's creed, I loved that. Creepy, effective, the waiting men test is probably something I'll remember forever. Also I love Edie Banister. I'd vote for more of her and maybe a little less of Joe.
UPDATE: Okay the Waiting-Man-To-Be story is relevant. The whole thing is a huge book that you think is higgledy-piggledy, but is actually ornate and organized. Silly, too. Turns out Harkaway is John Le Carre's son. John would be proud.