Okay, I'll answer my own question, so as not to waste other people's time.

What's wrong is that it might imply some kind of plagiarism. This was not my intent. I also should hedge a bit more on the language criticism. Hence the review should read:

"In the days when - Review by Jack Palache

There’s a whole lot to like about this tale, and like it I did. The author may not be aware that the story has a number of similarities with the film ‘Bruce Almighty’, which is not to suggest that the story is related. In any case it didn't bother me, because a) I liked that film; and b) even though it was much the same, it was also very different. So it kept my attention throughout.

I’m also glad to hear this is a novella, because I don’t think I could read a whole novel of this, but would happily read another 30 pages or so to see how it ends. Looks like William Penfield and Mrs. Brenner might wind up as the couple that lives happily ever after, but I could be wrong.

I liked being inside William Penfold’s head and the way he’s undergoing a transformation. Love the riddle of who he was ‘in the days when’. I also loved his bizarre choice of ‘presents’.

My major quibble with this work would be the language, but even that is not so bothersome because the POV is Penfold’s and we could hardly expect him to be an accomplished writer/speaker. Nonetheless the story could use some tightening up. The very first sentence starts with the ‘It was’ construction, which dominates this tale. It also includes ‘first thought’, to which later are added a number of ‘sudden feelings’ and ‘sudden thought’ etc. Isn’t every thought or feeling a first thought/feeling, and sudden? The whole introductory sentence is pretty awkward first sentence, although it does make sense:

“It was during one of his periodic bouts of smouldering resentment at the way his life had turned out that William Penfold first thought of emailing God.”

Wouldn’t it be better to SHOW the bout of smouldering resentment and then SHOW how the thought to e-mail God originates?

Later the author uses a sentence: ‘What he was was hungry.’

I only noticed a few typos/errors:

1) ‘next 2 days’ – should be ‘next two days’
2) ‘managed at last toget up the stairs’
3) ‘The cat was up and about early, climbing through the toilet window to the wider world outside, taking another sausage with it MISSING FULL STOP William was woken by the postman knocking on the door loudly’ And I don’t think you need the ‘loudly’.
4) ‘Don’t go up and down kerbs, you’ll do it in, Don’t drive it in a strong wind.’ Comma instead of full stop.

I gave 5s for everything relating to story (POV, Pace, Story, characters); 4s for settings, dialogue, and theme; and a 3 for language."

The point of my 'monologue' thread was a) to correct my own review; and b) to show that reviews can be criticised, at least by the reviewer him/herself (lol). my website

The only thing wrong with it is that you have put it up in a negative light, trying to get people to nit-pick. The reviewer has gone out of his way to give you a constructive review.

He pointed out a few typos, told you it sounded similar to another, said he couldn't read it as a full novel, but would as a novella (this told me he didn't fully engage in the story), and finally he liked it and gave you all fives (in my eyes he didn't competely like it and was being kind!)

Correct the typos, reread and see what he means about tightening and your sentence beginnings and move on.
___________________________________________________
http://louisewise.blogspot.com

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Louise-Wise/e/B003FW6RKM/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_pop_1Romance by Louise Wise

RE: What's wrong is that it might imply some kind of plagiarism. This was not my intent.

So what? Every story is similar to another in one way or another. I've been told A Proper Charlie is similar to Ugly Betty and Katie Fflord - I've never watched Ugly Betty or read Katie Fford (although since that review I have now), and took the comparing as a compliment.


___________________________________________________
http://louisewise.blogspot.com

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Louise-Wise/e/B003FW6RKM/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_pop_1Romance by Louise Wise

Very interesting responses by MRobinson and Louise. Dont' take this personal you two (pleeaase!) but a) my point was that I DIDN'T intend to imply plagiarism; b) I DID fully engage in the story, just thought that I wouldn't be able to maintain that level of engagement for a 200 page novel; and c) I DIDN'T give all fives.

I'm not sure what this all goes to show except that reviews, like stories themselves, are subject to varying interpretations. And that 'reviewing a review' is not a sin if it's done in a constructive fashion. I know I learned something from this.
my website

Lol, just goes to show that we all see things differently. I haven't read the story in question but I love that first 'tell' line about the email to God. Sometimes I think we get too caught up with all this show don't tell business.

Although,I totally agree with your point, Jack. Why shouldn't critters have hides like rhinos too? If you are hard enough to give a tough crit, then you should be hard enough to stand by it should that crit be criticised. Blimey, quite a tongue twister, I'm off for a rest now.