The disapproving reviewer

It is always a bit of a risk to respond to a review, particularly one that isn't particularly complementary (for example: this meltdown), however one of the reviews that Hell's Garden attracted recently brought up some very interesting points, including some that I'd planned on blogging about at some point.  So let me start by saying thank you to all the people who have taken the time to read and review my book - it is incredibly useful to get feedback (good and bad), so I can shape future books.

This is the review in full (two star rating - and currently the lowest review in a 4.5 average):

An immoral and violent tale
This book really annoyed me. I had to go on reading it although I thoroughly disapproved of the way it ingulged in descriptions of violence and appeared to show approval of the use of cannabis, the splashing around of large sums of money and tliving on the proceeds of crime.There were also some irritating infelicities of language which spolied the narrative with reminders that this was a writer with an interest onlyin telling a story in asensational way, not in telling it well. But. he had an interesting main character.... perhaps he can improve.

So, to the main talking point as I see it:

1. Glorifying violence and approval of drugs / criminal enterprise - now this surprised me as I tried very hard to write Hell's Garden to stimulate thought or discussion around the current legislation on cannabis, particularly trying to take a neutral stance.  There are some big questions that need to be asked about the whole drug legalisation situation.  From the top of my head, I imagine these would include:

Is it right that governments continue to make it illegal?  In fact, are they overstepping their democratic scope by specifying what drugs adults choose to take?  The recent state votes in US suggest that it isn't a perfect situation by any means but I get the feeling that any UK government that put a legalisation pledge into their manifesto would lose more votes than they would gain.  A bit of a catch 22 situation then, (maybe...)  Hell's Garden didn't try to present any answers, merely to pose the question.  Without giving too much away, one of the plots tried to explore the conundrum that face the government - the opportunity to draw tax revenue from the large cannabis market and to focus law enforcement away from the enormous financial drain that is the 'war on drugs', without alienating voters by proposing a contentious law.

This leads me to the next point.  I wanted to explore the vulnerabilities of human nature and how very few people can be defined by the binary construct of good:bad.  In particular, I wanted to hint at the contrasts that Jacob faced between what his conscience was directing him to do, and what circumstance was forcing him into.  I wanted to throw tough choices at a fundamentally good person and see how far he'd go and how much anguish it would cause him (sorry Jacob, I'll make it up to you at some point - but the next few books aren't looking good for you to be honest).

Anyway, To Pay the Devil is shaping up well and has given me the chance to expand on these difficulties, in particular exploring the relationship between Jacob and Rebecca.  Although a word of warning, if you thought that Hell's Garden was a bit too ribald, you're probably not going to enjoy the sequel.  The main protagonist in particular makes Seamus look like Mother Teresa...