...or the other way round, and wonder if you were reading the same book as the critics? I've just finished Seven Days in December by Sebastian Faulks (and I have loved everything else he's written) and been entirely underwhelmed. Yet although the reviews weren't totally uncritical most of them said it was extremely well done, with a compelling narrative, strong characters, searing commentary on modern Britain etc etc.
It was lame. Most characters were only half sketched, most plotlines went nowhere, and this strange and really intrusive habit of taking proper nouns and semi-changing them (MySpace to YourPlace, Cafe Nero to Cafe Bravo, etc) for no obvious reason.
So, am I missing something, are most literary reviews actually all about being nice to your mates, or is it all totally subjective and I should stop worrying about it?