A letter to Ms. Corrigan, book critic

Ms. Corrigan

Caught a link on twitter about the review you wrote for Ms. Roberts’ latest book.  Obviously you didn’t enjoy.  That’s fine.  I don’t always like every book I read, although I do tend to enjoy NR’s stuff.

But to each their own.  You didn’t like it.  That’s cool.

Here is what isn’t cool.

Your comment:

So here I am, caught between a rock and a hard place. Roberts’s feisty heroines are often stuck in this kind of fix at the climax of her tales just before a deus ex machina in the form of Mother Nature or a hunky guy drops in to rescue them. That’s why women read Nora Roberts: to live out vicariously the fantasies that real life doesn’t provide.

Okay, I must say… NOT COOL. Guess what? I’ve got a life. I’ve got a family. I’ve got a career. I’ve got friends. I don’t need to live vicariously thru the pages of a book. Assuming that one reads only because they fantasize about what lies within the pages of a book is pure crap.

One could assume, by your reasoning, that anybody who reads detective fiction is either fantasizing about being a cop, or even a psycho killer.

Here’s my theory…one reads detective fiction because they enjoy it.

I read romance, because I enjoy it. That doesn’t mean I want to get stuck in the middle of one of the books I read.

Enjoyment doesn’t have to equal vicarious living.  But here’s a question for you… if somebody does read a book for the vicarious thrills…so what?  It’s their time, their life, so why the need to mock them?

Perhaps that is why you get angry emails when you give a negative review.  If you frequently feel the need to make assumptions on why people read whatever they choose to read, and you frequently dole out snotty, better-than-thou commentary, it’s no wonder you get angry emails.

It’s a book.  If you hate it…fine.  Tell us why.  If you love it…fine.  Tell us why.  But don’t assume you know why we choose to read romance.  Because obviously, you don’t.