So without further ado:
[...] keeps the pace moving quickly through this brief romp of a humorous
fantasy novel, and stuffs each page with one-liners and danger. Those looking
for depth of character and intricate plotting, however, should steer
[...] readers looking for a complex mystery will chafe at the slow pace and
[...] The simplistic storytelling and psychology don’t do the predictable
narrative any favors.
[...]Some of the exposition is slightly clunky...
Each week, as we read more such commentary, my hope is that patterns will start to emerge and that those patterns will alter the way we view our own stories -- for the betterment of our art, that is. Now I am not saying that we should write for the critics, because we shouldn't, we should write for ourselves, but that doesn't mean we can't look upon our work from an analytical and critical point of view. In these comments, I see a focus on plotting and on narrative technique. If we break it down, I see: depth of character, intricit plotting, and complex mystery as touch points, and then on the negative, I see: slow pace, simplistic storytelling, predictable narrative, and clunky exposition. When we read a review in this manner, we get an insider view of what a reader is looking for in a story and what is bothersome. It's like having a decoder ring, wouldn't you say?