Okay, so, I was flipping through a magazine this morning, and there was a full-page ad for James Patterson's "Zoo". I've never read any Patterson, as I am not a fan of the detective/murder mystery genre, but "Zoo" looked kind of interesting.
I headed for Amazon to find out more about it, figuring I'd just avoid the reader reviews, as Amazon's readers would give the damn PHONE BOOK reviews like, "Riveting!" "Amazing!" and "I stayed up all night to finish it!"
So imagine my surprise when I did scroll down to the reader reviews, and this one was the first one up:
"318 of 334 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Worst book I've read in years September 6, 2012
By Howard V. Tayler
Format: Hardcover "Zoo" is full of point-of-view errors, sloppy dialog, one-dimensional main characters, tell-don't-show, and artificially-induced pacing. There are a few neat action sequences, and the premise is fascinating, but the science is horrible, and the moral posturing is infuriating. Ecologists and "green" folks everywhere should bury all the remaindered copies of this book, because the best use it can serve for our ecology is as a carbon sink.
SPOILER ALERT: human-induced ecological collapse is a neat premise. The accidental generation of a pheromone that makes animals hate people is a bit of a stretch. The way in which these premises and plot-whoppers are worked into the story, however, is stupefyingly clumsy to the point of being insulting.
The publisher says "Zoo is the thriller he was born to write." That's a little bit like saying "this cardboard box is the mansion he was born to build," or "this steaming pile of excrement is the meal he was born to eat." My only consolation for having my intelligence insulted by Patterson is that Patterson's publisher has inadvertently insulted him with the glowing praise.
hahahahahahaha THANK YOU MR. TAYLER. You've made my morning.