…but then the author did it for me. This is exactly why you should NOT EVER snap back at a reviewer. There just is no way to do it without looking like you’re throwing a fit.

My review (which I absolutely stand behind):

“…She needed a man. Hell, maybe if she bothered to drop down below 220 lbs she might find one. That, and she’d have to not talk. Basically she’d have to become an anorexic mute and then she could possibly attract the attention of a blind man with no sense of smell.” Want another excerpt? “Oh, and this book is self published, so there will be typos. Oh yes, there will be typos. Think of them as easter eggs. Happy hunting!” Under is the tale of two bad tempered middle aged office workers who are one small town’s only defense against cannibal creatures who are getting ready for a feast. Quinn tells the truth, there are plenty of typos to “hunt” for, mixed in with formatting errors, like words printed on top of each other. (Note: This refers to the original edition. In the revised edition these are supposedly fixed.) There’s plenty of violence and profanity, along with sexist and racist comments and female characters who are lined up like pigs for a slaughter. Jacob, the lead character, is very hard to relate to, and framing him not with some kind of amateur knowledge that saves the day, but instead with a load of cops and state troopers who are bumbling idiots and jerks leads to this book feeling like a poorly spun Rambo fantasy. The lack of editing, the -ist jokes and complete stereotyping of every character who isn’t the hero leads to Under reading like a first draft, or first novel attempt that’s not quite there. Horror is no longer and excuse for sexism, racism and homophobia and self publishing isn’t an excuse for typos and a complete lack of consideration for the money readers might spend on a book. Take your chances on this one, if you wish, but be forewarned it doesn’t have much to offer.

And the public response from the author from GoodReads, available here (behind the cut):