I'll jump right in on this one because it's been on my mind for a while now and today encountered another 'trigger' instance that pushed me to write about it.
I'm talking about Romance Reader / Reviewer reviews again.
It's obvious (to me) that there are quite a few Romance readers (perhaps readers of other genres, too) who are very narrow-minded and live in-the-moment so as not to be taken seriously.
However, when they under-rate a novel based on that way of thinking/believing, it does the author no justice -- which is why I've decided to speak my mind on the topic.
However, my favorite remains Romance novels, and I write Contemporary.
On a daily basis, I browse this category in search of new reading material and will habitually scroll down to the reviews section and read them.
I'll admit that most reviewers are honest when they low-ball a novel and that just as many are dishonest when they give it glowing praise, but that is a topic for another blog post.
Tonight, I'm going to address the issue involving the reader who low-balls a novel because it was written five years ago or earlier.
Contemporary Romance written later than within the last few years.
These reviewers have the audacity to complain (and give a low star score) because of things like land lines, radio, and e-mail.
Land lines, TV, and no internet access.
Today's 2.5 star reviewer suggested the author 'update' her manuscript so that it is in keeping with the times.
Can you imagine?
The novel she reviewed was published in 2003 and uploaded to Amazon in 2013.
Does this mean divas like Judith McNaught are screwed?
It makes me wonder just how terrified people actually are about learning any history even if it is as recent as 10 years ago.
It also makes me abuse cuss words, but we won't go there for this post.
And, yes, I commented on her review because I honestly couldn't take it anymore and HAD to say something.
Thinking logically, how does mentioning the words 'answering machine' or 'voice mail' throw one off enough to take you out of the story and even confuse?
Is it really so awful (or laughable) to read e-mail or fax machine in a novel?
Look out! We're all going to die now!
How can anyone believe that anything written ten years ago isn't worth reading today?
Again, where is the logic?
No Stephen King? Danielle Steel? James A Michener? Jayne Ann Krentz? Tom Clancy? Lisa Kleypas? John Grisham?
What about classics with modern stories like Bridget Jones' Diary or The Russia House by John Le Carre?
TWILIGHT, for crying out loud!
I think I get it now.
If you can hold an actual book in your hands and turn pages as opposed to swiping them, then it is okay to write from the perspective of time as being relative?
If it is electronically uploaded, however, then no.
So many people today are not the least bit afraid to show off their ignorance, and it makes me sad.
Too many people today are stuck in this narrow tunnel with darkness on both ends so that they are unable to see a forest or any trees!
And, for me, the bottom line in this instance takes me right back to that horrid OPINION thing I keep harping on since it does far more harm than good.
You're as welcome to your stupid as you are your staunch determination to stick to your guns, but no one has a right to destroy anyone with it.
In closing, we need to hold out hope that a majority of the review readers actually recognize inane opinions for what they truly are and ignore them.
Don't be afraid to click NO in the Was This Review Helpful area, people!