Heh, it's not that we are going to bat for the novel, just for a obvious problem with the reviewer.

LOL. Elaborate? She made a long winded, semi-literate snarky review on her blog and announced it on the site her husband was banned from and then, with her husband, participated in shitting on the book on amazon.  That's elaborate to you? Petty, yes. Elaborate, no.

It's amusing because Bradley Wardell has nothing to do with his banning.  Tom Chick does, and it was in response to Matt's behavior over a period of time over several different topics.

Once again, for the record, I am also quite bemused at the rancor conjured by the suggestion that a videogame tie-in novel might not be all that good.

From where I'm sitting it looks more like a very ugly lashing out, championed by a Stardock employee no less, against  a woman who said critical  things in a reasonable manner. The personal attacks, the way her motives have been put in question, the way people have ignored what she said and focused on who she is, that is childish.

Yeah sorry why would she get all bent out of shape about a temporary banning? He's been banned before and will be again and I've never seen her get mad about it.

If you're going to go off about her review argue about the points in the review not the woman.

Why pick the book? Because Elemental was a highly anticipated game on QT3 and some of us were interested in it's quality. 

Okay, I really didn't want to get involved in any drama about who reviewed the book or why they may or may not be biased or how anyone's political views tie in. I really don't care, I just wanted to hear what people thought of the book. But this line is too much to pass up.

Let me get this straight: Quarter to Three, great site that it may be in many respects*, unfortunately seems to have some issues with drama and personal attacks - hard to deny that what with people getting banned over it. Then there are book reviews, possibly biased, possibly related to forum drama, possibly not - but either way they spawn threads on Qt3 and more drama on those unfortunate forums. This drama eventually bleeds over here into the Stardock forums and, lo and behold, newly-created Stardock forum accounts staunchly defend the Qt3-originated drama.

And you tell us not to join your forums and bring our bullshit into your quality content ... after you joined our forums to bring your bullshit into our quality content? I hate all the drama and am really beyond caring how good or bad the book may be at this point or who the hell chooses to review it, but that, man, that hypocrisy is just loathsome. Faith in humanity -1.

*I do have a lot of respect for many people that post on Qt3, and have read some fascinating game-related discussions there (the political crap on the other hand..), I ain't saying it's all bad by any means. Just that certain people here are making an (unfortunately) poor representation of a site that deserves better.

Yes, I believe what I wrote. Why? Because, unlike you, I know what I'm talking about. And apparently I'm capable of reading excerpts from a novel and realising just how terrible the writing is.

Semi-literate? Long winded? Oh dear. 

She "announced it" on the site that mostly inspired her to make the site in the first place. The site that has previously enjoyed her other reviews and where several people know her personally. It's also the perfect audience - everyone on QT3 knows Brad, everyone on QT3 is aware of Elemental. And please, provide some goddamn proof that she participated in "shitting on the book on amazon", because all anyone knows is that Matt posted a review. 

LOL. You can almost hear the spinning from here.

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=60997

The comments in their own thread tell the story.

I don't know or care why should wrote the review. Maybe it just pisses her off that Brad got to write a book. Maybe she's mad about her husband getting kicked off their board because of Brad. Maybe it's because she's a political nutjob. Maybe she was just bored. I don't know what her motive was.

I can only judge her and her friends by what they've written in that thread I listed above.

I'm the one that brought the QT3 debate over here?  Interesting.  I happen to be a member of both communities, yes, and I know some of the people involved in this.  I didn't bring in that drama.

This thread is comedy gold.

If you guys want to argue about whether or not some random internet troll is a troll, feel free to do it elsewhere. The poster started this thread looking for more measured reviews, and since the discussion is clearly not providing that, there's really no need for it to continue.

I just looked, she commented on one of the reviews defending the book trying to argue that it's racist.

At least you concede the argument, the people on QT3 know Brad and so it's hilarious to make fun of his book. Stay classy.

I think that if she wants to review the book then that's her right. She bought it. She read it. She can voice her opinion. If she makes valid criticism, and as far as I can tell she does, then her reasons don't matter. If you think her review is dishonest and that she, falsely, wrote bad things about it to hurt Brad then yes, that would be spiteful. But iff she's being honest and if her criticism is valid, how is that spiteful? If the book is poorly written then pointing that out isn't spiteful, unless you happen to think that pointing out that the emperor has no clothes is spiteful.