Yesterday I dealt with veracity within the text itself but what about reviewers?
I recently read a book that was so stereotype laden, and not just vanilla stereotypes, but the ugly ones, that it made me cross-eyed and cranky. The author manged to paint a particular religious group as insensitive, hate filled, backward bumpkins. And that was one group. Each character was literally a caricature--completely skewed to an unbelievable extreme. I wondered, at one point, if I was reading a satire, but there was simply nothing funny about this book.
To each their own right?
The author clearly had no clue what he was talking about and only wanted to use the most salacious and negative bits of hyperbole he could. I guess he thought it was good for "Teh Dramaz".
But what made me see red was this--reviewers were thinking that this author was an authority and one even stated that the author clearly knew what he was talking about. (See how this goes back to my comment about veracity?) As much as we would like to think that people regard a work as utterly fiction, there will always be a few who may confer the author with the laurel of authority...
This made my head spin. Why? Because I knew something about the group that this author had maligned and the facts were not there. I also had to wonder if the reviewer even realized what statement she was making, for in my eyes that called into question the authority of the reviewer to be reviewing that book in the first place.
Hold up! I know you are raising an eyebrow at me. I am a firm believer that everyone has the right to review a book BUT, when you confer authority to a source that really does not deserve it....
Before making such a statement the reviewer perhaps should have done her own research (trust me, a little research would have shot holes into what this author was saying).
What are your feelings about this? Was the reviewer being lazy? The author? Both? What does this say about the authority of the author or of the reviewer?
Cupcake Couture Blog Party
4 hours ago