Fairy-tale Spy-Birds ¬ worthwhile noticing by the renowned Kirkus Review
How to manage poor reception:
Identify the technique of the review. If the reviewer repeats the plot, of course with his/her way of unfolding the content, you know that you’re dealing with a repetition of the story line which you, as a writer, developed.
2. Check how much of the review is repetitious. If more than 2 thirds of the entire review is a summary, you can be sure that the reviewer only overflew the book. Reinforcement for this thesis:
3. If the review lacks any interpretation, lack of consideration of the form, lack of interpretation of the symbolic essence of the book, you can conclude that the reviewer was overwhelmed.
4. A poor reception of your book means actually nothing in this case, so there is no need for further pondering, with what you think went wrong about it. And never mind what this reviewer has said about it. 5. The process of rethinking is most successful, if you can direct it into writing a new novel.
5. This is a way to manage your confidence in writing skills, because you will find a way to partially reject what you might not have liked in the first try.
My conclusion about the anonymous, reviewer’s literature interpretation skills:
It is a generous attempt to not read into the mythology and futuristic history of the fairy-tale, to not mention the trustworthy consistency of the author’s meta perspective ¬which is in all times and ages a ventures to do something for the watermelon heads (BWSH) in some of the people all over the world. Fabulism is a mainstream Literature. It is a challenge to write and it is a challenge to review. Now, if this team works together in a “hands on” manner ¬ rather than ignoring the core of the tale, because it enters a psychological realm of toxic environment in the now of the USA ¬ you as the author and she/he as the reviewer can do the job in a more productive way. Most important is the agreement about reality between the writer and the reader.