Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronLoeb" data-source="post: 422463" data-attributes="member: 4382">Yeah, I tend to agree with you. I was trying my hand at the old "benefit of the doubt" game. The prevailing mood seems to be that the two statements have nothing to do with each other -- letter number 1 appears to say 'you can't be negative if you get it for free,' whicle letter number 2 appears to say 'that was a misunderstanding; I was being critical of a reviewer saying not to buy a book or to buy it cheap or used.' I was trying to reconcile those two statements.At the end of the day, though, a reviewer's only duty (and folks who aren't getting paid to do it don't even really have a duty, unless they want to) is to her readers. If her readers are consumers (and they always are), the first question that they will have is "should I spend money on this?" To say that it's dirty pool to tell people not to spend money on it, the instruction that is the hallmark of consumer criticism, does seem to be missing the boat entirely. That said, this is not the first time I've heard that complaint. Many publishers of entertainment products feel like reviewers should constrain their comments only to the product and its merits or faults, as though it's in a hermetically sealed universe. I've been complained at countless times simply for comparing two products (ala "well, Bonker Jerks is a good FPS, but Doom III just came out and it's better in ever way, so why would you buy Bonker Jerks?"). Many publishers feel that's unfair -- their product should be judged solely on its own merits, as if that's even possible in a world with competition.So, I agree with you Steel; I was just trying to point out that perhaps the original comment really wasn't quite as bad as many people (including me) originally felt it to be. Then again, maybe it is!Aaron</blockquote>

Verification