What do you think of this book's synopsis – original or not? Just curious...
Paul
Synopsis
Cassandra Archer is the Huntress. She has faithfully served the Earth Mother for years, rescuing kidnapped children from monsters-both human and supernatural-dwelling in the ruins of the Barrows District. But when two children are kidnapped under similar circumstances, all clues point to a cataclysmic event on the next dark moon. Now Cass must race against the clock and prevent a sacrifice that could destroy the entire town...
paulgoatallen wrote:
What do you think of this book's synopsis – original or not? Just curious...
Paul
Synopsis
Cassandra Archer is the Huntress. She has faithfully served the Earth Mother for years, rescuing kidnapped children from monsters-both human and supernatural-dwelling in the ruins of the Barrows District. But when two children are kidnapped under similar circumstances, all clues point to a cataclysmic event on the next dark moon. Now Cass must race against the clock and prevent a sacrifice that could destroy the entire town...
I wish the synopsis was more specific about what a 'huntress' is. Also the 'Earth Mother' reference is very vague and uncharacteristic of the UF genre. An 'Earth Mother' deity belongs more to the fantasy or sci-fi genre(s), IMO. Finally, I have a pet peeve about a plot driven by children in peril. The sacrifice thing is also sort of cliche. Note, to me adding threatened or captured children to a plot is just a bit too desperate. It's like adding the picture of 'puppy' to a photo-shoot. It begs for reader sympathy, and I don't like that.
dalnewt wrote:
paulgoatallen wrote:
What do you think of this book's synopsis – original or not? Just curious...
Paul
Synopsis
Cassandra Archer is the Huntress. She has faithfully served the Earth Mother for years, rescuing kidnapped children from monsters-both human and supernatural-dwelling in the ruins of the Barrows District. But when two children are kidnapped under similar circumstances, all clues point to a cataclysmic event on the next dark moon. Now Cass must race against the clock and prevent a sacrifice that could destroy the entire town...
I wish the synopsis was more specific about what a 'huntress' is. Also the 'Earth Mother' reference is very vague and uncharacteristic of the UF genre. An 'Earth Mother' deity belongs more to the fantasy or sci-fi genre(s), IMO. Finally, I have a pet peeve about a plot driven by children in peril. The sacrifice thing is also sort of cliche. Note, to me adding threatened or captured children to a plot is just a bit too desperate. It's like adding the picture of 'puppy' to a photo-shoot. It begs for reader sympathy, and I don't like that.
It kind of reminds me of the whole Chose Ones series by Dodd. I wish it was more clear.
dalnewt wrote:
paulgoatallen wrote:
What do you think of this book's synopsis – original or not? Just curious...
Paul
Synopsis
Cassandra Archer is the Huntress. She has faithfully served the Earth Mother for years, rescuing kidnapped children from monsters-both human and supernatural-dwelling in the ruins of the Barrows District. But when two children are kidnapped under similar circumstances, all clues point to a cataclysmic event on the next dark moon. Now Cass must race against the clock and prevent a sacrifice that could destroy the entire town...
I wish the synopsis was more specific about what a 'huntress' is. Also the 'Earth Mother' reference is very vague and uncharacteristic of the UF genre. An 'Earth Mother' deity belongs more to the fantasy or sci-fi genre(s), IMO. Finally, I have a pet peeve about a plot driven by children in peril. The sacrifice thing is also sort of cliche. Note, to me adding threatened or captured children to a plot is just a bit too desperate. It's like adding the picture of 'puppy' to a photo-shoot. It begs for reader sympathy, and I don't like that.
Sooo not original. Sounds far too similar to 4 other series just off the top of my head, so I know they're even more of them. And what's with the snake?! That is not even a poisonous one. Down right silly.
paulgoatallen wrote:It was a pedestrian read – nothing really noteworthy. Very formulaic – I liked the snakes though!
Paul
I know you want to discover new UF series, but was there any particular reason you choose this book? I mean the cover and synopsis isn't that compelling. In fact you can tell by the summary that the basic plot line has been done before. So why read it?
dalnewt wrote:
paulgoatallen wrote:
It was a pedestrian read – nothing really noteworthy. Very formulaic – I liked the snakes though!
Paul
I know you want to discover new UF series, but was there any particular reason you choose this book? I mean the cover and synopsis isn't that compelling. In fact you can tell by the summary that the basic plot line has been done before. So why read it?
I've been reviewing for so long – I rarely do not finish a book. So even though this one was not exactly spectacular, I wanted to give it every opportunity to "wow" me. There have been books in the past that have started off slow but ended with a bang so I wanted to make sure that if and when I commented, it truly was a comprehensive opinion...
Paul
MADIS wrote:
dalnewt wrote:
(What about that movie, 'Snakes On A Plane,' did you happen to watch that too?
)
That is just mean! I am sure Paul would never watch crap like Snakes on a Plane! Give our leader some respect!!!
(Paul, if you did, I recommend a cover up story
)
Never saw Snakes on a Plane. So there.
paulgoatallen wrote:
MADIS wrote:
dalnewt wrote:
(What about that movie, 'Snakes On A Plane,' did you happen to watch that too?
That is just mean! I am sure Paul would never watch crap like Snakes on a Plane! Give our leader some respect!!!
(Paul, if you did, I recommend a cover up story
Never saw Snakes on a Plane. So there.
Well, that's a relief! We rely on your ability to pick em Paul, and a snake fetish that could motivate the viewing of "Snakes on a Plane" is just too weird.
Of course, your most important contribution is your ability to write great book reviews, that I'd never question.
MADIS wrote:
dalnewt wrote:
(What about that movie, 'Snakes On A Plane,' did you happen to watch that too?
That is just mean! I am sure Paul would never watch crap like Snakes on a Plane! Give our leader some respect!!!
(Paul, if you did, I recommend a cover up story
I am shocked that Snakes on a Plane is not loved. It has everything. Snakes. Planes. Samuel L. Jackson. Excessive profanity...
...
Did I mention snakes?
Next people will be saying the movie Anaconda was not cinematic brilliance.
paulgoatallen wrote:
MADIS wrote:
paulgoatallen wrote:
Never saw Snakes on a Plane. So there.
I can just feel you sticking your tongue out at me.
Was there a foot stomp too? Followed by a pout? Just checking!
Nope. Just the tongue!
Hey Paul
Is it me or does your response have a sexual connotation? I love double entendre but giving a girl 'just the tongue' is arguably explicit!
KeithMelton wrote:
MADIS wrote:
dalnewt wrote:
(What about that movie, 'Snakes On A Plane,' did you happen to watch that too?
That is just mean! I am sure Paul would never watch crap like Snakes on a Plane! Give our leader some respect!!!
(Paul, if you did, I recommend a cover up story
I am shocked that Snakes on a Plane is not loved. It has everything. Snakes. Planes. Samuel L. Jackson. Excessive profanity...
...
Did I mention snakes?
Next people will be saying the movie Anaconda was not cinematic brilliance.
(snort) So unlike a real snake movement ever in that one. 
