rameau's Reviews > Galley Proof

Galley Proof by Eric Arvin
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
4884555
Everybody has read those books–usually they come with horrendous cover art–that start with an apparent self-ironic scene that tries to justify using a cliché. It's some trope that has been beaten, hit, struck, battered, hammered, trashed, pummelled, and flattened to the ground ages ago. And for a while it works.

The author works his ass off and makes the first person past tense voice of his character sound like something hilarious, something new, refreshing, and witty. Then he crosses the line from a fine comedy to unadulterated spoof and ruins the effect. If you, the reader, are very lucky the narrative still sounds entertaining enough to carry through to the end and lets you finish a book instead of feeding your DNF pile.

If you're very, extremely, exceptionally, not-that-uncommonly-at-all unfortunate, you'll end up with a WTF face and whole lot of wasted hours. Hours of your life that you'll never be able to reclaim. At which point you either decide to move on and give this author a wide berth in the future, or you decide to give something back to the reading community and write a longwinded review that starts with a handful of meta-paragraphs sure to annoy innocent review readers.

how-to-make-an-entrance

Welcome to my life.

This book reads like an autobiography trying to be self-ironic and falling short by miles. It's like the author decided to skip coming up with anything original or fictional and instead document his day-to-day life in the publishing world. Maybe his editor told him to throw in a few outrageous characters and give them the kind of urban legend lives you only hear around the water cooler or wherever the workers go to smoke illicitly. Maybe the author was bored and decided to imitate a handful of his idols–in one book.

Whatever led to the creation and publication of this book, is everything that's wrong with the publishing industry today. This book is unbalanced, tactless, and inane. If it had to be published, why couldn't it be an in-house newsletter to amuse the people who are able to recognise and appreciate the publishing jokes. If it had to be published as a gay romance novel or erotica wannabe, why not write one. If this had to be published at all, why not just do it and NOT market it as something it's not.

This book is mislabelled as a gay romance. It's mislabelled as a romance. There's no romance here. There is simply a string of sex scenes and fuckbuddies without anything resembling a plot.

Also, Arvin went there. He had the ex-editor-fuckbuddy-friend attack-comment on a one star rating-review. How is this any better than the author–still talking about the book characters, just want to make it clear for Goodreads staff–himself commenting on a negative review? Just having it in the book is like condoning bad behaviour and I've had my limit. I would have given this book one star regardless, this just removed any guilt I might have felt.

Had Galley Proof been shelved under general fiction I might be more forgiving to the abrupt style changes and the utter lack of the thin red line that connects it all, but it wasn't and I'm not. If only Arvin had said what he made his character say:

"I have decided it's not worth my time to write nor is it worth her time to read."

I received a copy of this book from the publisher via NetGalley.


You can also read this review on Sandra's My Fiction Nook-blog.
8 likes · likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Galley Proof.
sign in »

Reading Progress

03/20/2012
19.0% "I've neglected my updates for various reasons, but this much I can say. You'll either like this or you won't. I, for one, have been rolling my eyes nonstop."
03/20/2012
27.0% "And I thought kissing scenes were awkward."
03/21/2012
63.0% ""You're on the verge of becoming damned boring." On the verge of nothing; you ARE damned boring. This book is soooo deliciously meta. "
03/21/2012
67.0% "You did not just go there. You did NOT just go there. Whatever qualms I had about giving this thing a one star review, just disappeared."

Comments (showing 1-14 of 14) (14 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by Sandra (new) - added it

Sandra I think I might want this for my blog. Send me the HMTL? Gif included. :)


rameau Sure. As you can see, I'm still working through my NetGalley backlog for Dreamspinner.


message 3: by Beate (new)

Beate Another one bites the dust, huh? Too many smut books are hiding behind the romance-label. I've seen it too many times by now.


rameau Beate wrote: "Another one bites the dust, huh? Too many smut books are hiding behind the romance-label. I've seen it too many times by now."

It wasn't even that smutty, to be honest. It wasn't descriptive erotica; it was more like the high literacy sex mentions without any emotional back up whatsoever. Logan, the narrator, has at least four sexual partners in the book that I can think of the top of my head. (view spoiler)


message 5: by Beate (new)

Beate rameau wrote: "Beate wrote: "Another one bites the dust, huh? Too many smut books are hiding behind the romance-label. I've seen it too many times by now."

It wasn't even that smutty, to be honest. It wasn't des..."


LOL Descriptive smut or not, still hiding behind the wrong label. It's impossible to trust books these days.


message 6: by Beate (new)

Beate rameau wrote: "Beate wrote: "Another one bites the dust, huh? Too many smut books are hiding behind the romance-label. I've seen it too many times by now."

It wasn't even that smutty, to be honest. It wasn't des..."


Or maybe I should say I don't trust certain publishers and authors.... :P


rameau Beate wrote: "Or maybe I should say I don't trust certain publishers and authors.... :P "

That's a valid theory.


message 8: by Beate (new)

Beate rameau wrote: "Beate wrote: "Or maybe I should say I don't trust certain publishers and authors.... :P "

That's a valid theory."


Sad to say this publisher is blacklisted with me. I'm sure I'm missing out on some solid authors/books that they have - but I just can't find it in me to support a publisher who thinks stealing is OK.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) Beate wrote: "Sad to say this publisher is blacklisted with me. I'm sure I'm missing out on some solid authors/books that they have - but I just can't find it in me to support a publisher who thinks stealing is OK."

I'm racking those up lately. Dreamspinner, Vintage, I'm sure more will join the list.


message 10: by Beate (new)

Beate Alicia wrote: "I'm racking those up lately. Dreamspinner, Vintage, I'm sure more will join the list."

I just can't believe that publishers, knowingly, support theft. Makes my head ache.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) Beate wrote: "I just can't believe that publishers, knowingly, support theft. Makes my head ache."

Same. There is absolutely no excuse for it whatsoever. And it's like a giant "fuck you" to their other authors, their real authors, who put the requisite effort into their work and didn't take from another author.


message 12: by Beate (new)

Beate Alicia wrote: "Same. There is absolutely no excuse for it whatsoever. And it's like a giant "fuck you" to their other authors, their real authors, who put the requisite effort into their work and didn't take from another author."

If they can't respect their authors, their readers, and the authors their authors are stealing from -- how can they expect me, or anyone else, to respect them?


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) Beate wrote: "If they can't respect their authors, their readers, and the authors their authors are stealing from -- how can they expect me, or anyone else, to respect them?"

I don't know, but then again, they don't care about anything other than money. Awful businesses and people, to be honest.


message 14: by Susan (new)

Susan Reaves It's some REVIEW that has been beaten, hit, struck, battered, hammered, trashed, pummelled, and flattened to the ground ages ago. And for a while it works. Until one discovers nothing but negative reviews by the same reviewers, over and over again.


back to top