I think that the main problem writers have is that they can not read. Yeap. Cause they think that their work is better than the others.
Snarky bit: you mean, writers can't read? Damn, that must be tough for 'em. Can't self-edit and do drafts and all that. Heck, if they can't read, how do they write at all? {/snark}
Uhm, I'm sorry, but are you including every single author into this blanket statement? Because you know, most writers start off reading, and reading a lot. Some of the professional authors I've met on the 'Net are avid readers; this I know for a fact. Unpublished authors? Dur; the first advice you're given is to read, read, and read some more.
Also, many, many writers are their own worst critics: they'll nitpick their own work to death, and see flaws no one else can quite see, not to mention have occasional attacks of insecurity. Unless you're Anne Rice, who regards her work as too good to have drafts and go through editors.
Blanket, unresearched/uninformed statements -> bad, mmmkay.
Critic is usefull IMHO only for the author for improvement. (And not always). Not for the readers. Recomending a book or not = IMHO always, is a big responsibility.
What...?
