There's one from January magazine and one from Blacklisted. They both say something interesting about the book, and I thank both of them for that.
I like very much that the Blacklisted reviewer said the characters are fuckups - because they are, but I guess I always felt that, like most of my characters, they're fuckups trying to act against their natures, which, paradoxically, fuck them up worse. And because I myself am a bit of a fuckup from time to time (and by 'from time to time' I mean, more accurately: 'almost constantly') and yet I persist under the belief I'm not such an awful person. And the January magazine review says that the writing has: "an innate humanity, as well, though it almost seems at times the author tries to hide that fact: festoon it with dark pathos and grind it beneath booted feet." Which I get, totally, and I see how people will see it that way but I'm finally coming round to the fact that that is just the way I write and, ultimately, a little bit how I see the world: I'm really not purposefully trying to grind my characters up, or the world they inhabit (although I can see how readers would feel this is so): it's more that I guess I see the world as a place that is randomly lovely and randomly twisted, and I do my very best to show as much of that as I can ... but perhaps I dwell too much on the twisted bits, or perhaps I just describe them more memorably, so that's what sticks in readers' heads. For awhile there I skewed away from that, and I think it got me into trouble; nowadays I like to think I write in such a way that the beauty is there to be seen if a reader wants to see it - if they don't, or if they feel it's crowded out by other aspects, well, I do understand that completely.
All best, Craig.