Shannon C.’s review of Gatekeeper by Debra Glass
Paranormal romance eBook published by Ellora’s Cave 8 Apr 08
I try, I really do, to finish every book I start, especially if I requested it for review. But I got about a third of the way through Gatekeeper and simply couldn’t.
The problem with this book is that there’s an author’s note at the beginning that tells us that our hero, Thomas Benton Smith, a ghost of a Confederate soldier from the American Civil War, was a real person that Ms Glass regularly chats with because she’s a medium. She further dedicates this book to him. The result of this was that I felt slightly uncomfortable. I don’t want to ascribe motives to the author that weren’t there, but all this coupled with the fact that Benton is the hero of the book just gave me a someone-is-creepily-obsessed vibe.
The plot centers around Jillian Drew, who has been denying that she’s a psychic for years. Her sister is abducted by some very bad people, and with the help of a ghost, the aforementioned Thomas Benton Smith, Jillian has to rescue her sister. I got the impression (about the time that I gave up and started skimming) that the problems between Jill, Amy, and the bad men that are out for both of them were far from over. Oh and, of course, Jill meets Benton, is wildly attracted to him, and they have hot monkey sex.
The characters here got on my nerves. Jill is shrill and weepy. She is either about to be terrified, recovering from sheer terror, or simply TSTL. Benton is an asshole of the sort that I thought were pretty much out of style in romances these days. I wanted to knock their heads together.
Maybe this book got better as it went along. I have absolutely no idea. I didn’t connect with any of the characters enough to feel their terror when the evil bad things went after them, and I truly do not care how the question of how a ghost can reside happily ever after with a mortal woman is ever resolved.
I did like the setting–present-day Nashville. I got the impression it’s probably someplace the author is familliar with, and one of my favorite human beings on teh Internets is also a Nashville writer, but I’m afraid the setting and the Civil War history just didn’t make up for the sheer drek that was the rest of the book.
Maybe other people will have better luck with this than I did, but life is too short to waste on something this horrendous.
Grade: DNF
Summary:
Evil shadow ghosts known as soul collectors haunted her childhood nightmares, so Nashville PD criminal profiler Jillian Drew did everything possible to turn her back on her psychic abilities. But now her eccentric sister has been abducted and nothing in her criminology background has prepared Jillian for that tragedy — or for Benton Smith, the powerful and devastatingly attractive ghost of a Civil War officer and the only witness to Amy’s abduction.
Fearful of the brazen specter, Jillian nevertheless needs him. Benton is her Gatekeeper, a spirit sworn to protect her from the soul collectors, who attack each time she unleashes her long-dormant psychic senses in an attempt to find her sister.
Yet she must somehow keep the devilishly seductive spirit at arm’s length, for Benton’s soul is at stake — and succumbing to his desires could have dangerous consequences for them both.
You can read an excerpt here.
Hmmm…
Well, perhaps if you had spelled the heroine’s name correctly, I’d have taken this review more seriously.
As it happens, I had the complete opposite reaction to the book.
I also found the author’s admission of “knowing” the ghost both extremely intriguing and unbelievably brave — I’m sure she was aware she’d get some reactions that resembled yours.
I truly am glad this book worked for someone. It was a risk that the author took commenting on her channeling the ghost. I suspect it will pay off for a lot of readers who are into that sort of thing, but I’m a skeptic in general, and that comment just crossed the line for me into something I’d really rather not know.
And I’m not even going to respond to the pot shot about my spelling. The error shouldn’t have happened, but hey, at least I got the heroine’s correct name. 😛
Actually, you didn’t get the heroine’s name right. It’s Jillian with a J, not a G.
I, too, read Gatekeeper and absolutely loved it. I wish I had a ghost like Benton with me. I envy the author.
It was obvious you skimmed the book. I was on pins and needles all the way to the end.
I think Ms. Glass’s experience brought a realism to the story I haven’t seen in other ghost romances.
If you don’t like ghost stories, why review them?
Duck and Cover Shannon, they’re a comin’.
But really, the fact that you got the first letter of the heroine’s name wrong definitely means that your review lacks any kind of credibility. How dare you!
Ghost romances rarely work for me, but that doesn’t me I wouldn’t try them if one was appealling. It’s not a bad thing to stray outside of your comfort zone, even if doesn’t work out so good.
I loved, loved loved the most recent Kresley Cole, which had a ghost heroine.
It amuses the hell out of me that the fangirls are swarming on this review now. (I know, two hardly constitutes a swarm, but d00d, a mean grrl in training has to start somewhere.)
Also, I would dearly love to edit the post but don’t seem to have permissions to do so. So the heroine’s name will stay misspelled. I know, it’s a tragic, tragic state of affairs, but somehow we shall all pull through.
And I don’t object to ghost romances. I just object to ghost romances that have as their ghostly heroes real people who might not necessarily, in real life, have been grabby grabby romance heroes.
I shall go in and change the spelling for you Shannon.
I would have to agree with you though. I guess I’m a skeptic as well, and if I had read that I might think the same things while reading a book.
I just hope people remember that everyone has different taste though they may have loved it, they should respect that you didn’t and you did say why. . .
Thanks, Lawson. I really do feel bad that I got the spelling of the heroine’s name wrong, because I usually make it a point to check. Other than that, though, I stand by my comments and I’m glad that Ms. Glass made at least two sales. 🙂
I appreciate your choosing Gatekeeper for review. I’m very sorry you didn’t like it. I have to admit, though, you were right on when you said I’m obsessed with Benton. A drop dead (no pun intended) sexy ghost in a Civil War uniform just did it for me and I hoped to convey that to readers. What better hero than one right out of the author’s own life?
All authors base characters on people and situations in their lives. In fact, Rhett Butler was based on Margaret Mitchell’s x-husband, Red. Was she obsessed? Maybe. Did Red inspire a wonderful character? Hell yeh!
I’d like to invite potential readers to check out Kimberly Bea’s opinion of Gatekeeper at ParaNormalRomance Reviews.
It’s a pity the reviewer was too shaken up, by the thought of Ms. Glass having sex with a ghost, to be able to appreciate her elegant flowing style and the way she evokes a fine dark atmosphere. Her opening premise is believable to me and adds a dimension to what is already, by nature, a spooky situation. Spirits both corporeal and noncorporeal have had discourse and intercourse as long as they have existed. A major religion is based on the belief that a fourteen year old Jewish virgin was impregnated through her ear by a ghost disguised as a bird and then gave birth to Jesus Christ. Now that’s a paranormal romance if I ever heard of one!
I have been sick and not reading comments like I should. So I am really behind. So this has prolly been pointed out and I missed it… Shannon is blind and reads with a screen reader.
How this works is beyond me as I am lucky to be able to not need it but I hope one day she will write up a post about it so we can learn more about it. Seems very interesting…
So the spelling? Get over it. If anything it should have been caught by the editor before the review was posted. But mistakes happen, we put up 3 to 5 reviews a day and some where around 10 posts total if you include the author posts, excerpts, ponderings, contest and whatever the fuck. I believe it has been pointed out. Once or twice and corrected… yes? If not let me know. But our fucking up does not make this a better or worse book. In fact if the only thing you have to say in defense of the book was oh oh oh the reviewer mispelled the name… bad book, no cookie for you.
We are more than happy to put up more than one review. We love to showcase how reviews are OPINION and people are odd and tend to have their own. A review isn’t right or wrong because it belongs to that person.
I am leaving your link to another review site because I am just nice like that but I do invite you to think about how an author looks who runs to a review they don’t like and waves another link and quotes the whole thing? [I didn’t read it sorry] while going but look, look someone did love me so you must be wrong.
I would also invite you to not visit again unless you can deal with the fact TGTBTU believes in free thought so there will be many times people will not agree with you.
oh and there is the fact ip’s are tracked… can be a bitch if you try to sock… just saying
Then, at the risk of being dismissed as a “fangirl,” here’s some more free thought. Everyone here knows that reviews are comprised of subjective opinions. And we all know reviewers don’t write reviews for authors’ scrapbooks. They write them (or should) to steer a reader’s wallet and time either toward a book or away from it. But I’d like to perhaps raise a larger point about what a readership expects from a responsible, credible review site, because there seems to more going on here than mere reaction to an unflattering book review.
The misspelling of a heroine’s name by a reviewer with a sight challenge is, I think, more readily understandable than just a careless reviewer’s blunder that could make the reviewer and, by extension, the whole site appear unprofessional. Still, you have to admit, it’s in TGTBTU’s best interest to try to keep those kinds of errors to a minimum if you want to swim in the literary sea as a credible review site, yes, no matter how many reviews a day you post and no matter how many typos you point to in your posters’ posts.
But what’s remarkable in this case, what caught my eye and made me want to post here, is that the reviewer in question admits up front that she’s reviewing a book she’s only partially read. I’m not trying to be a facetious “fangirl” when I say that I really thought The Good, The Bad and the Unread meant something a little different.
I understand that the reviewer didn’t bother to finish the book in question in large part, she says, because she couldn’t suspend her own disbelief regarding the premise conceit that apparently really put her off. I’m not saying Ms. C would have loved the story had she gotten to the last page, but most readers expect a reviewer who post a review to at least be conversant with the entire plot. (I haven’t read “Gatekeeper,” but as a member of your site audience, I’d have appreciated a review based on all of the material.)
However, instead of passing the book on to another reviewer who would be willing to read the whole thing before passing positive or negative literary judgment, Ms. C went ahead and pronounced her whole opinion of the concept without reading the whole story. I read for a living. If I did that in my job, I’d be fired.
I respectfully ask you to consider, if TGTBTU’s reviewers are going to post reviews without taking the time to read the books all the way through, why should we, your audience, read your reviews all the way through?
Feel free to track my ip.
That is why it is labeled DNF and the reviewer said up front she couldn’t finish it. As well as why every other reviewer on the site was asked if they would review it to give another opinion – no one would take it. It was MY decision as site owner to run the DNF. As well as I would have posted another review if someone had come along willing to try it.
I am more than happy with how the site is ran. You can run yours however you like. Some post DNF reviews, others don’t. This is a ‘reader blog’. Reviewers are not paid. And they do not have to lie to make authors feel good.
When random people comment, who have never visited before, only to gasp in horror over a bad review… is it shocking they could be called fangrrls? When their IPs are the same *which they ALL were not* is that surprising?
Your lack of knowledge of the site leads me to believe you are here for one thing only… to defend a book. Which is beyond silly.
Say what you liked about the book. Say why you enjoyed it. Talk about the reasons someone might like to read it. Pot shots at the reviewer or review site does not make the book better, sorry, you can keep trying but the book will remain the same.
Since there seems to be a couple of new readers here this might help:
The Pond
The Duck Mantra
Thank you for explaining more about the DNF grade – I mistook this for a more dedicated review site, not a hobbyist reviewer blog. There has to be a first time for all readers to post, suspect though we may be in your eyes.
Since I haven’t read “Gatekeeper,” I wasn’t examining its literary merit, but rather the site’s and whether this is a place to come when deciding my next pleasure read. I’m on the side of an honest review, I just don’t see the helpfulness or the point of one based on a partial read – why not just review book blurbs, instead? Puzzling choice, but, unquestionably, your choice to make.
I posted the review because I requested the book. As a reviewer, I strongly feel that if I’m going to request a book from a publisher, I should make the attempt to read it. Because the publisher does not *have* to send us review copies. Had I left the book languishing on my TBR pile, as I have done with books that are no doubt much better, the publisher would then have every right to write to Sybil and complain about why I wasn’t reading the book. And I *did* read the blurb. That’s why I picked the book to read. I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking.
As for the site, I believe this review went up on May 5. In the last two weeks, people on the site have moved on. I had to actively go back through quite a ways when I went to see if I could correct the post. In those two weeks I have written other reviews for books I did finish, including an A grade review that is going up tomorrow night, I believe. So it really does feel like most of the people over here are fangirls who wouldn’t actually care what else might be on the site because OMG their favorite author got trashed. I don’t think my review was any more negative than some other things I’ve read. But then, an author intimated that I trashed her book today when I gave it a B+ so, you know, whatever. Can’t please everyone, so I guess I’ll just go back to my hobby.
Someone thought a B+ was a bad grade? Sheesh, if I give anything above a B-, it’s pretty much a ringing endorsement.
I was the one who scheduled Shannon’s review, and yes, I did not notice the change in the 1st letter of the heroine’s first name. Mea Culpa. At least it was pronounced the same. It’s not like she called her Gilligan or something.
As for the subject of DNF reviews, I do think there’s merit to posting them. In this case, Shannon clearly stated what did not work for her. For others who commented, that particular aspect made the book work especially well for them. Is it a stretch to think that perhaps there are other readers who might read Shannon’s review and be intrigued, if they are into ghosties and such? Free publicity, baby! No such thing as bad publicity.
Perhaps this site would have more literary merit if we awarded five wet thongs or big kisses to every book.
IMHO, the misspelling of the heroine’s name is an easily made mistake since the names sound the same. I know many people who spell by ear. The site fulfilled its part by acknowleging the mistake and rectifying it promptly.
I really enjoyed this book. Particularly the paranomal aspects, which ring with authenticity. I also thought the writing was well done and the story tensely plotted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, though. And I do have to agree that there is no such thing as bad publicity. And another cliche works here too – one person’s trash is another person’s treasure.