I enjoyed reading the wide variety of comments on book reviews and how much they matter yesterday. (Scroll down if you haven't read them yet). I was especially surprised by the fact that many of you would quickly forgo a movie with a single bad review, whereas it would likely take many bad reviews to make you skip over a book, which you would need to dedicate at least three times as much of your precious time to.
And so would I, I think. I've been pondering this. Is it because we rely on a smaller pool of movie reviewers, or because we're dedicated followers of one or two? Is it because we consider the enjoyment of a book much more subjective than the enjoyment of a movie?
My husband and I are followers of Ebert and Roeper. First of all, I love that there are at least two critics in one place there - you're not relying on only one opinion of a movie. We will generally give a movie a chance if it is only one thumb up. I love the "thumbs up/thumbs down" approach, as it is easy to quickly see how the critics felt in short glance. And the thing I love the best is seeing them banter about movies, when I actually get a chance to watch them on TV.
So I wonder, is there a regular book reviewer that you consider a kindred spirit...someone who you feel you can rely on their reviews and know that if they love a book, you likely will too?