Well, I’ve ranted about reviewers criticising things for being what they are. And for criticising things that aren’t out yet or never existed.
How about this: criticising things for what they were never meant to be!
Yep, it happens.
I can vaguely recall any number of example, but one I can specifcally think of is one W. H. Stoddard criticising Variable Star for not being a Heinlein Juvie. Thing is — it never claimed to be, no one ever said it would be. He got it into his head that it was going to be, and then carried this delusion into reviewing the work.
It’s like the people who criticise the Harry Potter series for not giving more information about Draco and Snape … uhm … it’s not Draco Malfoy and then … nor is it Severus Snape and the … it’s Harry Potter and the … So obviously Harry is who the narrative will concentrate on and who will get to be the hero. Somehow they don’t get that the stories aren’t about [insert their favourite (oddly enough usually a villain) here].
Come ON people! You don’t go to an art gallery, look at a painting and go “Boy, this is a shite arsed sculpture”, you don’t go to a rock concert and say “damn, this is lousy chamber music“. No of course not (Well, I hope not, but I imagine I’ll be disappointed if I went looking — given my line of work I’ve met or talked to folk who just might … believe me, I can’t possibly underestimate the supposed intelligence of H. Sapiens).
Let’s be reasonable and sensible about these things. It all should be judged on the merits of what it is, what it’s meant to be, and all of that sort of thing. Otherwise we’ll all go mad looking at endless reviews of Twilight saying “God, this sucks — it wasn’t written by Stephen King and doesn’t have enough murderous clowns in it!”
I guess I just can’t fathom the self-centred, brain damaged, fucktarded mindset that leads to this kind of stuff. I mean, the one-star reviews of things for being what they claim to be, I could almost chalk up to a lack of reading comprehension, but THIS?! This borders on a complete lack of brains. How else do you do things that amount to saying this Romance sucks because it isn’t a Mystery/Thriller!? How else do you explain “why isn’t this person the book isn’t about the major protagonist and hero?”
Clearly, there is something fundamentally wrong with this species.