[WaitingForAName]

Originally Posted by Darren MacLennan

Not wanting to wade through the convoluted details of an investigation that has not bearing on the central idea of the scenario is not the same as not reading through the entire book, Waiting.

Not reading part of the book is the same thing as not reading the entire book, though. Nothing requires you to read the whole book to critique it, just as nothing requires me to read your entire review to critique it.

This is just bizarre. I'm not sure what point you're getting at.

Not only did you bother to pass judgment on books you hadn't read, you didn't even get the titles right. That's a ten-second Google search.

And at this point, we come to a complaint common to any reviewer: Because he isn't me, he can't tell me that a product is bad. Only I can do that.

Which is cool. In that case, you can stop reading any review ever.

That's hardly the case. You're judging the book for X, and, finding Y, asking who could possibly find Y useful. The best thing to say would be that people who read for X will be disappointed, but those who read for Y will like it. If nobody really does like Y, then it won't be an issue. If they do like Y, they can pick it up.

It's fairly standard for reviewers to not take just their personal tastes into factor, but those of the audience. Asking "Who would find this historical data useful?" should never be rhetorical.

Have you read the book in question? The entire book is a mystery as to whether there's a monster at all, and the climax features the main character wrestling with something that might be a Dutch Wife or the monster itself. When the central point of the book is ambiguity, it's a little difficult to cite chapter and verse.

Should I point you to Chapter 28? You'll likely find the monster's actions most atypical of a pillow, no matter how large.

I'd also point out that the title of the book, one of the 20th century's most famous horror novels, is not Our Dark Lady, but Our Lady of Darkness. It's given right above the stats in Secrets you are critiquing.

Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with this book?

On top of that, 90% of the reason why I go into such length is because I know that there's nothing nearer and dearer to the heart of a gamer than laser-focused nitpicking. If I omit something - anything - then there's the chance that somebody will pick it up and complain about it.

Perhaps you should spend less time on completeness and more on ensuring the content is correct? If a reviewer can't even get basic facts right, it raises questions about how accurate his reading of the book really was. In fact, if a reviewer is willing to pass judgment on books he hasn't read, it's perfectly legitimate to ask whether he's read the book he's reviewing.

Now, I can tell you have read the book, and I agree with many of your judgments. (I think it's fairer to judge it as a city book like Cairo, London, or New York rather than a Lovecraft Country book, given their different focuses.) Still, you are seriously undercutting your credibility by making inaccurate and speculative statements, and you should be aware of that.