Critics take the book more seriously than I do. Why do they insist on picking it apart when it was only meant to entertain? Do the flaws they find prevent that?
I don’t mean to take the criticism that seriously, either. I appreciate an honest critique as long as it reflects a thorough reading of the book. The author can always tell whether it was really read or not. One “reviewer” I know of makes a virtue of reading only a handful of pages and dismissing it for trumped-up mistakes. Her mission seems to be to discourage self-published authors. “Exposition” is one of the deadly sins she cites. Seems there’s a right way and a wrong way to relate background information. The trouble with that rule is, it’s always wrong when self-published authors do it.
A reader of any novel has to have some patience. It’s a complicated world we’re inviting them into.