And the winner is...

At the end of a long and stressful day there's nothing like unwinding with a good laugh, and the entries in "A Truly Fantastic Book Review" provided quite a few of them. Thank you.

As for picking a winner, I'll begin by mentioning that Henry is taking some badly needed time off this weekend, and the reader comments revealed no clear group favorite. Diving into the entries in hopscotch order, then:

Rifkind, "You and Your Genome, 4th Ed."

Kersley: That’s a really cool concept, but the entry’s not a review. More like a publisher’s blurb. Or an instruction sheet.

Bruce: I'll second that. The concept is cool, and more than slightly creepy. But the copy reads more like a catalog blurb than a review. In fact, I'd kind of like to see you try taking it that direction, and doing up a mock ad. What kind of disclaimers do you suppose would have to go with this product?

In all, a good effort, but not a review.

Arvid, "Stars Over Kristallnacht"

Kersley: It started out reading like a back-page blurb and ended up sounding like a full-blown synopsis written by someone who really likes his own writing. I don’t think reviews typically give away the ending.

Bruce: I have a visceral reaction to sympathetic Nazis, and it's not a good one; probably a racial memory or something. Pushing that aside, I really got the feeling I was reading a book report for a class rather than a book review for a magazine. Disagreeing with Kersley for the moment, yes, sometimes book reviews do give away the ending, but generally only when the reviewer really hates the book and doesn't want anyone to read it.

Overall, this thing would need a lot of work before it could be acceptable, mostly in the area of trimming and tightening. The language is stilted and dated; the recurring references to "this reviewer" went out of use fifty years ago. Reviewers are permitted to refer to themselves as "I," now.

Still, it's an impressive effort. I recommend that you take Miko's comments to heart, and just as an exercise, rewrite it. Miko, would you be willing to give it a second round of critiquing if Arvid does?

Vidad MaGoodn, "Roger Giblet's 'Write Now Guide for Authors of Speculative Fiction'"

Kersley: (Hang on -- gotta turn down “Fresh Air.”) Rough around the edges, but wonderfully cathartic.

Bruce: Boy, I bet it felt good to get this out of your system. I laughed. And then I cried. And then I got just a little bit paranoid and started looking over my shoulder. I think we may have to make this one part of the permanent gallery. And I definitely want to see your expanded proposal for the Write Now Guide to Cetacean Slash Fiction. (And on third thought, the idea of Roger Giblet ducking into the "little boy's room" really gives me the creeps.)

Vidad MaGoodn, writing as Dana DiGovmod (hey, it worked for Richard Bachman!), "Hot Love, Cold Rocks"

Kersley: Bwah-ha-ha! This would so totally work.

Bruce: Oh. My. God. Choose your own adventure porn for the bodice-ripper market. I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with Leather Goddesses of Phobos, but I'm too familiar with Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards, and I don't know why it never occurred to me to flip the gender roles. Work in a vampire angle and this would be a best-seller.

Miko, "The Future in Review"

Kersley: That’s how it’s done. That was beautiful. Similar sentiments, but more subtle. Well done.

Bruce: I also don't know why it didn't occur to me to jump the review back in time 50 years, but that was a brilliant stroke. And one thing I was even planning to hammer on hard in this morning's column was Arthur C. Clarke's 1962 nonfiction book, Profiles of The Future.

Clarke, writing in 1960, would have agreed with every single line of this review. Brilliantly done. (Clarke, rewriting it in the 1970s, would have pretended he'd never said any such silly thing.)

Avery, "Unbeskorrnt Mnebeholiths ova Scri’bo’lari"

Kersley: Wow. Just wow. I’d have like to have seen more about the actual contents of the book. This read a little too much like Margaret Drabble’s introduction to Signet Classic’s editions of Jane Austen. Other than that -- wow.

Bruce: Ditto what she said, except that I didn't care about the actual contents of the book. The review itself was just wonderful. Hilarious.


And the winner is...

---

Kersley: As far as combining the art of review-writing with the creation of a book, I vote for Miko with a close-runner-up going to “Dana.” Vidad’s needs a little work, and the others, sadly, weren’t written as reviews. Although I expect Avery to be getting a call from Signet Classic soon when they reprint Scribbler’s compilation.

Bruce: I also vote for Miko's entry, although I was leaning strongly towards Avery's entry until just a few minutes ago, and Dana's entry was a strong contender. Therefore, after giving this further consideration, and after taking a quick look at the overflowing mess behind Door #3, in consultation with Karen, I have decided to declare this our first-ever "Three Way Split with Only Two Judges." For the win, Miko, and tying for runner-up, Avery and Dana!

As for everybody else, thanks for entering, and remember, the deadline for the next challenge, "The Western Pitch," is this coming Thursday, and the deadline for this month's Greater Challenge, "July 4, 2050," is July 1st.

And one more time: thanks for the laughs!