LOST gets its first thumbs down

"Lost in the Ivy by Randy Richardson is a captivating story, well written and articulate."

So begins Alan Paul Curtis' review of my book on his Who Dunnit Web site.

Reads like a review that any author would dream of. But you know what's coming, don't you? Of course you do, since I tipped you off with the title of this blog entry.

You smell the big BUT coming, right? Here it is: "But it has one glaring fault -- the plot has huge holes in it."

I've said all along that bad reviews would almost certainly come. Book reviewing is, by definition, a subjective business. And everyone's tastes are different. We all don't share the same cup of tea.

Still, I'd been riding a pretty strong wave of approval for my book (see the Home Page for a sampling of the reviews)  before this review caused me to wipe out. Even though you know that when you put yourself out there not everyone's going to like what you do, I must confess that the ego took a couple of lumps when I read Mr. Curtis' review.

I could take the high road and not comment at all on his criticisms but I find that my inner compass just won't let me follow that path.  

First, he's right. The judge who's introduced at the opening is nothing but a big red herring. I suppose I could have avoided that problem and put the courtroom escape scene in the middle of the story, which is where it actually takes place, rather than in a prologue. But I wanted action to start the story, so I put the courtroom escape front and center. In hindsight, I'm not sure if I would have made that same choice today. I fought an internal battle with myself over using a linear versus non-linear plot line and even sought external advice. The votes from others who'd read the story were divided, so I became the tie-breaker. Perhaps I made the wrong choice. You see, I'm still split myself. It's a tough call, as are most choices you make in constructing a novel.

Second, he's only partially correct about flimsy evidence. The fact is, we never learn what evidence the cops have against the protagonist because the case never gets to trial. He flees the courtroom before there's even a bond hearing. Not that flimsy evidence has ever slowed Chicago cops. Heck, men have gone to death row on flimsy evidence. And the reviewer doesn't know much about the criminal courts if he thinks that murder defendants can get out on bail easily. The only murder defendants that can get out on bail are VERY rich ones. The protagonist in my book could barely pay his own rent. How could he possibly raise funds to make bail? I spent years covering the criminal courts and can't remember a single murder case that I covered in which the accused was able to raise bond. Judges, for obvious reasons, are reluctant to just let an accused killer walk out of jail.

The reviewer only alludes to other plot holes in the story. There may very well be some, but I don't think that they amount to a Grand Canyon as a reader might suspect from the way he portrays them.

I could be wrong but what I think the reviewer is getting at is that Lost in the Ivy is not a traditional mystery and the hard-core mystery enthusiasts who are his primary readers may not find it to their tastes. I don't disagree with that. One of the problems I had selling the manuscript was that it didn't "fit" what most publishers are looking for. But it's the story I wanted to tell and I don't think I'd change it -- except for the possibility of changing it to a linear plot. See, I'm still having that inner battle with myself.

Of course you can always put a positive spin on a bad review. You see it done all the time in movie ads. Like when a critic writes that "Deuce Bigelow: European Gigolo" is a perfect example of all that can go wrong with a movie and his sentence is pared down to one word in the ad: "Perfect".

Likewise I can just pretend that Mr. Curtis' review didn't go past that first sentence.