Li'l Red in the Hood - Graham Murray The author or publisher seems to have updated the book description since I originally gave my RATING after reading his story. Here is the current (22 Sept 2013) book description:

<<Please note that this story was written SPECIFICALLY for a BRITISH market. This is apparent by the humour it contains. However, judging by the peculiar reviews, I can see that even armed with this information, many readers have simply NOT understand the humour, or even what the story is about.<br/>
If you're not sure about a story, ask the author, but writing comments such as, "What the eff . ." only displays ignorance and disrepect for the author. Likewise, simply clicking on a 'star' is useless to anyone without an explanation of why you gave a book a particular 'rating'.

If a story is beyond your understanding, move on. But please, don't leave negative 'reviews' about works that you clearly have not understood.

"Li'l Red in the Hood" is NOT a 'twist' on Little Red Riding Hood. I just happened to pick that theme as it fits the message contained within. The story is actually both a political and social STATEMENT, combining much of modern day society and its decline into a drug-addled world of confusion, desperation and disrespect.

It also contains a scene of animal/human crossover and how we are not so far-detached from our fellow inhabitants on Earth.>>

_________ MY review (with editing suggestions at the end)________________

I do not think that making derogatory comments of reviewers/readers is acceptable under the goodreads terms of service. However, since there is no way to flag the book's description (???? how is that consistent with stated policies by the way???) thus, leaving the description intact and open for review.

The first problem I see with this book description is that it is very derogatory towards people of a specific cultural background (non-British). Making a statement regarding a reader's ability to understand something based solely on their culture is inherently offensive.

Not only that, the book description takes the readers/reviewers to task for not appreciating the book was intended for the British market. This does not make sense in light of the fact it was offered on the US based Amazon (for free IIRC) and at that time did not specify 'British Humor' as it's genre, or 'those who enjoy British humor/politics/social commentary' as the intended audience. Instead it was sold as erotica. This book description fails to account for this historical information. A review of other titles by the author on includes a book called "Erotica: Turn Your Prose into Profit!", which adds to this confusion of erotica vs. political/social commentary.

The description of this book states that 'if you are not sure about the story, ask the author'. One should not be forced to have a conversation with the 'author' in order to decide if one understands a book or if a book is even desirable to read. There are literally thousands of books out there to be unsure of (as in every time one reads a book description and does not choose immediately to buy or not-buy). Stopping to track down/contact an author (and certainly not all authors would like this themselves) would be a ridiculous waste of time.

Furthermore, this book's description fails to meet the standard of the goodreads terms of service in that it makes a statement that is specifically derogatory to an individual reviewer. If this statement was found as a comment under the review then it would be flagged as inappropriate and removed. Unfortunately the description section appears to be immune from the normal rules of conduct (and ability to flag) and the comment referring to an individual reviewer remains intact. Sad really.

Additionally this book's description takes issue with the people who rate the book poorly (apparently if the book is rated highly the rules do not apply in the same way). It seems that it feels that anyone who rates the books in their library owe the book a full review as well. This is a failure to understand that people who rate their library are doing it for themselves and not for the benefit of a book description. It is a RATING not a REVIEW. One does not require another.

Also, the description does not show understanding that the stars have meaning. There is a request (or is that demands) an 'explanation' as to why a certain number of stars was given. Let me help:

1 star = did not like it
2 stars = it was okay
3 stars = liked it
4 stars = really liked it
5 stars = it was amazing.

Hey look, this is the goodreads standard for stars. Ta Da! Now you know WHY the guy/gal who gave you 2 stars felt the story was 'okay'. Problem solved.

Another way this description is inherently derogatory to reviewers can be seen in this statement: <<don't leave negative 'reviews' about works that you clearly have not understood.>>. Wow, that sure looks like it's okay to leave a positive 'review' on something you don't understand, and that low stars implies being too stupid to understand a book. Perhaps that is not the intent of that statement, but when taken in the context of the other content, it sure looks like this description is engaging in name-calling.

Truly this work would have been significantly improved with a little more editing. Something along the lines of:

""This is not a re-telling of the Little Red Riding Hood story. Rather, this is a political and social commentary focused on modern British society and its decline into a drug-addled world of confusion, desperation and disrespect. You will find the humor is British in style and the book does contain adult content and themes. The author welcomes active discussion with the readers and may be contacted at XXXXXXX.""

(edited because I forgot what year it is)