Now far be it from me to take the piss out of the glorious 'forth estate', but I feel honour bound to draw attention to the thorough and conscientious review supplied by the inimitable Lloyd Shaw of the Washington Times. What a star the man is.
I don't particularly mind that he hated the book - after all, as I've posted before it seems to be a love or hate thing with Cold Granite - but, sad though it makes me, I have to question good old Lloyd about his choice of words. Yes, he says 'Although St. Martin's Minotaur has rapidly gained a reputation for quality mystery novels, and I read this long book to its end, I frankly became bored and disgusted by it.' Fair enough - the book's not for everyone, but he charges on into: 'Perhaps this statement was necessary to keep himself from being driven out of town by the citizens of Aberdeen, who are described as having "urine-colored eyes,"…'
How cool is that? Having written the bloody thing I'm pretty sure 'urine-colored eyes' don’t feature in the book. Nor do ' urine-coloured eyes'. And a search through the document backs me up. Nada on the urine-coloured eyes front. So that means our lovely Lloyd has MADE IT ALL UP. Marvellous: don't like a book? Why not make up a lie about what's in it and pass it off as a quote? Amaze your friends, stun your enemies, make yourself look like a real journalist, earn yourself a kick in the nads from a bearded write-ist.
Pulitzer Prize material that is: Lloyd Shaw, you are a star. And you deserve everything you're going to get out of life. In the ear. With a stick.
So I've decided to create an irregular award - the Sphincter Balaclava (it's a bit like an 'ass-hat', but where a hat sits on top of the head a balaclava goes all the way down to the neck), and this month's recipient has to be none other than Lloyd Shaw. Congratulations dude, long may you continue to make this 'news' shit up as you feel like; no one's going to notice anyway.