Some authors are never, ever, evah gonna like reviews. (hey monica is jealous cuz at least someone read your book to bitch about it)

And we can say over and over and over that reviews are opinion. Because that is what they fucking they are – OPINION.

My question is can you have an opinion on FACT?

We read romance fiction (among whatever else), does that mean in order to have a view on if something rings true to us we have to research it first?

I adore Elizabeth Lowell. One thing she seems (note SEEMS) to be is very well researched. But really, for all I know her books are riddled with errors. She comes across well. She makes me believe she knows her shit.

But really, really, I know nothing for sure cuz I didn’t go pick up books on gems (or whatever) after reading her book.

I have really enjoyed some scottish historicals before I started to chat with maili. She killed my lurve of them because she had to point out shit I didn’t know was wrong. Donna know how that pissed in my cheerios. I couldn’t read a scottish historical after that without going into fact check overload.

le sigh I miss maili…

Maybe ignorance is bliss… but either way, does the reviewer have to research something in order to say it feels wrong?

Isn’t it up to the writer to make us believe in their world? No matter if it is based in fact, completely made up or a mixture of the two the writer has to sell it to me because if it is written well enough I can believe in anything. Well until I know better… maybe romance books should come with cliff notes.

But who do we put in charge to make sure those are correct?