Lyssa’s review of Theodora’s Tea Shop > Likes and Comments

I don't usually say anything. But I'm unsure if you are Australian, and yes this book was edited, her use of semi colons was correct.

A lot of your early points are personal opinon not fact, and yet you state them as such. Using she thought, she saw and so on is not wrong from the style of writing she is after. When I write certain styles, I add those in intentially and it works. Unless you wish to tell many authors in times past, that used those phrases, they needed a better editor?

You make many, many good points, and I acutally like your review, thus the like. Just wanted to point out the more grammatical side of things.

Anna wrote: "I don't usually say anything. But I'm unsure if you are Australian, and yes this book was edited, her use of semi colons was correct.

Semi-colon use is incorrect. For example:
How vulnerable she looked; how fragile and pathetic.

Her eyes trailed over the crack in her ceiling; the swirling woodgrain of her wardrobe; an illustration of Saint Penelope's Cathedral stuck to her wall; and beside it...

A mistake had been made; a bargain struck; the sound of Emily's screams still pierced her nightmares, but the result of it all?

***

My early points are about the poor editing - we could call it opinion but that's what a book review is: my opinion. My opinion is that the poor editing (including repeated words, odd or incomprehensible phrasing, and misuse of close 3rd POV) is one reason I disliked the reading experience.

Thanks for the like.

While I understand many of your thoughts on the prose, I don’t think you gave the characterization enough time to sit in. Specially I say this because Theodora is NOT Opal, and is stated to not be Opal very early on in the book as Theodora also was friends with Opal. The three were said to be students all together, like a friend-group. If I can roughly guess when you DNF’d, this was something I believe was stated already before you tapped out. I think maybe there was some misunderstanding of some of the characters dynamics which might have led to a harsher view of them as a whole.

The branches were clearly moving up and down, a guillotine moves up and down when severing a person’s head. For a know it all, you missed something very obvious.

Adam wrote: "The branches were clearly moving up and down, a guillotine moves up and down when severing a person’s head. For a know it all, you missed something very obvious."

Uh, no, the willows had guillotine branches because they were "sharp to the touch", like "claws".

Eden wrote: "While I understand many of your thoughts on the prose, I don’t think you gave the characterization enough time to sit in. Specially I say this because Theodora is NOT Opal, and is stated to not be ..."

I re-read the same chapters and it's still not clear to me Theodora isn't Opal. Given that she's not, it means those early chapters are too confusing. Those chapters never state that Opal was a third classmate in the forest, only that Lio and Theodora were classmates (which would've been the obvious place to include Opal as well). Lio thinks about "the girl he had known from the forest - the woman who now called herself Theodora" - again, no mention of Opal also being a separate person he knew in the forest.

I was led to believe he loved Opal but she became a witch called Theodora and wrote him a letter (in Opal's handwriting) to let him know she was still alive (i.e. not in the grave) and that's why he was trying to find her (Theodora aka Opal). There's no indication he's trying to find Opal (a different person) - no reason given for why he's trying to find Theodora instead, which is why I thought they were the same person.

These two phrases should've clued me in, I suppose, but I was already thinking they were the same person:

He finds a painting called "Opal" by Theodora - a "person he used to know" - this works whether Opal & Theodora are the same person or different people. This is in the context of us being told that Theodora keeps changing her identity.
and
"The broadsheets had not mentioned Theodora... Lio had heard his own whispers during the wayward years of his early 20s when he was searching the continent for another woman far more precious to him." - I took this to mean he loved the woman Theodora used to be, Opal.

Anyway. I think the problem here is that we're thrown a ton of little facts and backstories but not the very specific information that there were two girl students with Lio in the forest. Only Theodora is described that way before I stopped reading.

Good, then you understand the metaphor made sense. Well done!

Adam wrote: "Good, then you understand the metaphor made sense. Well done!"

What I wrote contradicts what you said, but you say "Well done"? lol

She described the willow as "dragging its claws", so adding "guillotine" is already mixing the metaphors. Specifically she then uses guillotine as an adjective meaning "sharp" - guillotine is not an adjective and a guillotine is not sharp, it just has a sharp blade.

The adjective she wanted was "blade-like" - though it's still incongruous with "claws". The use of mixed metaphors and misuse of the adjective in that paragraph alone exemplifies the author's tendency to overwrite.

The most hateful , obsessive review I’ve ever seen. Maybe there’s some personal agenda behind it. The author must keep an eye open even while sleeping! 😂

For someone who DNF’d the book, you’re talking an awful lot about it.and you clearly didn’t even understand the story. Opel and theodora are same even after re read🤭 . Basic courtesy is to read the full book b4 reviewing.

Hi your review cracks me up you couldn't even use a real name or ID

Erian_Writes Who even knows who uses their real name here? I didn’t write any vindictive review; I simply questioned the motive behind one. So name doesnt matter.
I’m a Tamilian, and we have a literary tradition that goes back over 2,000 years. So yes, I think I have some right to question the motive or quality behind a review.
I have absolutely no problem with opinions. Everyone is entitled to like or dislike a book. But when you look at someone’s (lyssa McB's) reading list and it’s full of Netflix tie-ins and similar books, you’re allowed to question where that criticism is coming from.

Hi:) wrote: "Erian_Writes Who even knows who uses their real name here? I didn’t write any vindictive review; I simply questioned the motive behind one. So name doesnt matter.
I’m a Tamilian, and we have a lite..."

"I’m a Tamilian, and we have a literary tradition that goes back over 2,000 years"
This just made me burst out laughing... Almost every culture on the planet Earth has a literary tradition that goes back over 2000 years. Many well over 3000 actually.

Hi:) wrote: "The most hateful , obsessive review I’ve ever seen. Maybe there’s some personal agenda behind it. The author must keep an eye open even while sleeping! 😂

Hey there Hi. Did you know that reviews are subjective and one can have an opinion on a book (based on explicit evidence in this case) without having a personal agenda?

Glad we cleared that up.

Hi:) wrote: "Everyone is entitled to like or dislike a book. But when you look at someone’s (lyssa McB's) reading list and it’s full of Netflix tie-ins and similar books, you’re allowed to question where that criticism is coming from."

Uh-oh, now you're shaming others' reading lists? You, who only made an account in order to respond to me?

Is it that hard to accept that I prefer books with plots that make sense and writing that is not overwrought? You're free to prefer something else. Or does your culture not allow that...?