Is it okay to criticize books?

I awarded 3* to Brandon Sanderson’s Warbreaker with a few harsh sentences and a couple of weeks later, it was announced he’ll visit Bulgaria. He did and I met him. Felt so embarrassed. But why was that?

When it comes to criticism, Dale Carnegie has been my ultimate guide. He wrote:

Dale Carnegie

Dale Carnegie says criticism does not work, it’s always bad, and he’s also attributed to a saying that constructive criticism doesn’t work either. Are there any exceptions? Dale Carnegie himself criticizes the people who criticize by saying they are fools, so at least one exception must exist.

The only somewhat working system I’ve seen so far is to criticize actions and not the people who do the actions. When I yell at my kids, I yell things like “Fighting with each other is bad” and I don’t yell “You are bad”. When reasoning is provided, it should be specific and with no generalizations. “This particular thing is bad because of this specific reason”. “Don’t punch your brother, he’ll feel bad and cry and I’ll take your phone” as opposed to “Stop you, idiot”, even though the second feels so much more rewarding.

So, in the context of Stephanie Plum #11, I said this: “I didn’t like that Stephanie ate so many donuts and faced no consequences. Most of us would burn in hell if we ate half of that.” – this criticizes Stephanie and generalizes because she doesn’t always eat vast amounts of donuts, only when her hair is messed up or her car explodes. Most people probably don’t have sugar issues, and I can’t speak for most people anyway – I can only speak for myself. I should’ve said something like “Reading about Stephanie eating 7 pieces of cake in one go made me feel nauseous. Cakes and donuts in such amounts can make her ill. I wish she had another way of dealing with the burnt and exploding cars.”

Two for the Dough and Three to Get Deadly

Stephanie Plum is a young 30-ish old woman with no job and no future. She starts working as a headhunter and hunts for dangerous criminals who skipped bond, primarily relatives and beloved members of the community. She seems to be good at that. Dead bodies are flying everywhere for no clear reason.

There’s a saying that once a writer breaks through with a story, they’re expected to write the same story over and over until they die from old age. I sense a mild risk that Janet Evanovich does that. Book 2 is too close to Book 1 to deserve a separate review. It’s still enjoyable because Stephanie Plum is an enjoyable character and some of the supporting cast are also quite nice but it’s about hunting a guy named Kennie, and that summarizes it.

The names of each book in the series follow a naming convention of a number followed by some clickbait. Two Dough. Three Deadly. Four Whatever. Of course, Deadly is more interesting than Dough and without it, there would be no new post on the series. Ranked both with Five but objectively, Two is Four.

The villain in Three is Uncle Mo. Everyone loves Uncle Mo and will absolutely not assist the evil headhunter who tries to capture him. Uncle Mo is also the first male character that’s built with care. Why does everyone like Mo? Is he a fraud? I guess we’ll find out 🙂

Five for the Goodreads.