"simply bad," #3 was awkward because "Anthony has always had trouble writing decent female characters." About the Notes he said: "Anthony's are getting longer and longer, and more and more boring and offensive." But the pro reviewers aren't much better. Publishers Weekly remarked on Incarnations #3: "...The novel comes alive only at its start (set in a charming, early 20th century America, where magic has equal footing with science) and in its afterword—Anthony's cranky, contentious and revealing author's note." The setting, of course, was Ireland; you will have to make your own judgment about the Author's Note. On #4 it said: "...In fact, most of this weak entry in the series is concerned with finding a proper mate for the" hapless Mym. As before, though, the liveliest part of the book is the author's note, a 30 page open letter to his fans in which Anthony feels free to be cantankerous, boastful, whimsical and self-revealing." Well, PW, here's another! These are actually relatively mild; reviewers get savage about my Space Tyrant series, and I believe I got my first "killer review" on Ghost. At least it gives us a notion where Satan's mouthpieces are. I like Danielle Steel's comment: "A bad review is like baking a cake with all the best ingredients, and having someone sit on it." I have this mental picture of grouchy people walking around with squashed cake crumbling off their backsides. They might feel better if they tried appreciating the cake for what it was, rather than being asinine.