Have you ever in your life avoided going to a movie or reading a book because of a review you read in the paper or heard on television? Have you ever skipped a movie or didn't buy that book because you allowed a creature, commonly known as a "critic," make your mind up for you?

I can honestly say, with no fear of contradiction, that I've never ignored a movie or failed to buy a book based on the opinion of someone else. If I've wanted to see a particular movie or to read a certain book, I've not allowed the temper-tantrum rantings and ravings, in the guise of a "reviewer," stop me. What's happened to rugged individualism? Have we become sheep?

I had a couple friends (one, a former college roommate) who would never, and I do mean never, see a movie unless it got an all "thumbs up," or "five stars" (or whatever it is critics use to control people's minds). What is with that anyway?

How do a bunch of people, who claim to be movie and book critics, control the minds and subsequent actions of so many? And, why do these so-called critics always seem to be in chronically rotten moods?

Just what are movie critics or book reviewers supposed to be anywayexperts? If so, how did they achieve this status? How exactly did they become critics of anything?

Did they go to the "University of The Chronically Angry?" Did they major in "How to destroy movie producers and book authors' lives?" Can they trash people just with a bachelor's degree or is this something learned on the graduate level? Do they have to sit for a licensure exam for "Now you are licensed to show people just how much of a ding-a-ling you can be and get paid for it?"

Is it just me, or have you too noticed just how mad movie and book critics always seem to be about the work they are reviewing? They seem to have put much thought and effort into just the right destructive adjectives to convey just the right degree of utter gall and hatred for a work and its creator.

I am quite sure they must sit up all night to do this.

Just what is their problem?

Where is any semblance of objectivity? Here is one line from someone who Amazon.com allowed to review a book:

"What a load of amateurish drivel!"

Here is why the confusing lack of any objectivity does not work when reviewing a movie or book.

Just what does "amateurish drivel" mean exactly?

Does this mean there is such a thing as "professional drivel?" Would it have been better if the author had written a work of "professional drivel" as opposed to "amateurish drivel?" What would "professional drivel" look like on the page of the book?

(And you do realize I am not bringing this up to you, the reader, because of something a reviewer said about a book my hand had written. God forbid!)

Subjectivism confuses. Objectivism makes thing clear.

And what about these moods critics and reviewers always seem to be in? Do they need a medication adjustment or what exactly?

Amazon.com confuses me to no end. You can read countless glowing reviews about books on the site from professional reviewers as well as "laymen" who will make you want to run, not walk, to the nearest bookstore and buy the book. Then, someone comes along who decides to review that same book, the book others have praised as heavenly literature, and says something like,

"What a load of _____! What a crock! I can't believe some publisher allowed this author to put words on a page and then to actually publish it. Who does this book author (whose work is consistently in the top five of its genre on Amazon) think he isa writer?"

(Now remember, I am not talking about something I may have written.)

Just how are we to understand this sort of thing? Ten readers come along and like the book enough to write reviews and offer objective reasons why they liked it. There are professional reviewers who liked the book and give their reasons. Then, along comes someone who calls the book a load of horse droppings. Sales for the book immediately plummet like a lead ball.

Who is correct in his criticism? Do the terminally grumpy really hold that much power that they can control the masses? Whose review is the correct one?

As a writer, I still struggle greatly with this issue. I, of course, love the positive reviews. But the bad ones still send me into a case of the vapors. It is not because I expect everyone to like what I write. Just how crazy would that be? It is the utter viciousness with which some people express their dislike for what you (or someone else) wrote.

How is threatening to board a plane to come find me in Mexico so she can slap me an objective review of my writing? Why does Amazon.com allow that?

And, that was one of the nice reviews.

(In all fairness, Amazon did remove that comment when I complained. But, did they ban this woman from ever posting another piece of her insanity to their site?)

Precious few "readers' reviews" of books on Amazon.com bear any objectivity. All you have to do is spend an afternoon reading some of them. Can a book be reviewed objectively? You bet it can. I've posted some criteria on my book's page on Amazon.com.

What does not work, however, is using hideously inflated hyperbole as pejoratives to get the point across that you didn't like the book (or movie). Why try to hurt someone (like the author or all those involved in the making of a movie) just because you cannot express yourself in a rational manner? Why not offer critical proof for not liking the work?

Why try to hurt someone?

I've had people post "readers' reviews" of our books on Amazon. They actually say they must protect the unsuspecting from harm by exposing the "amateurish drivel" I dared to put on a page. They must protect mankind from making an error by exposing me.

Now, that is someone thinking more highly of himself than he ought, wouldn't you say?

If you do not bother to offer a critically reasoned review of a work, then isn't what you are offering nothing more than pure, unadulterated subjectivism?

Subjectivism is about as substantial as the wind.

Why even bother?