There& #39;s a difference between evaluating a book for what it actually is vs. what you think it should have been.

It& #39;s worthwhile to ask ourselves sometimes: am I trying to connect with the author& #39;s story or am I trying to connect to a story that I want but may not even be there?

I don& #39;t really care how you write these reviews, but, GAH. I find these & #39;this book should have been XYZ& #39; reviews really frustrating and unhelpful.

Especially because I see these reviews a lot with marginalised books.

I feel like it stems from this unfair expectation that marginalised stories are expected to & #39;give& #39; more. Give, like teach, resonate, etc.

And these expectations to & #39;give& #39; are so unfair because they& #39;re more indicative of what you want as a reader, not the book itself???

I think it& #39;s unfair when we impose our expectations of what the story should& #39;ve been without considering what the book actually *was*.

By expectations, I don& #39;t mean & #39;I wish it was a better sequel!& #39;. Rather, I mean, & #39;I thought this book was about trauma but it wasn& #39;t so 2 stars.& #39;

I have so many thoughts on this (and I& #39;m cognizant that some reviewers review to inform while others review for themselves!) but have ZERO brain cells to express my thoughts, so I& #39;ll do what I do best: go to bed and hopefully write a blog post about my feelings on this. https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="💀" title="Schädel" aria-label="Emoji: Schädel">https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="✌️" title="Siegeshand" aria-label="Emoji: Siegeshand">