what?

Authors are not supposed to vent about reviews, so I'll express my puzzlement here and hope nobody notices. I'm pleased that my article about classical (and folk, she didn't mention the folk) music that inspired Tolkien and was inspired by him came across to the Mythlore reviewer as both erudite and heartfelt - I work hard at the vexatious process of writing about music, and it's always pleasing to get validation that it's paid off - but I'm puzzled as to why she should spend over 2/3rds of her space complaining about my complaints about Howard Shore. Too-often repeated and ongoing, she says. In truth, I criticize Shore thrice, which may be one or two too many but hardly amounts to "ongoing", and the third - the actual topic paragraph on his work - is actually mostly a backhanded compliment. (It's imaginative and not a cheap John Williams clone, and far superior to the music for the Bakshi film.) And considering how many people think Shore must be marvelous because he worked for the sainted Peter Jackson, the criticisms need to be hammered in. Incidentally acknowledging that my critiques are actually valid, the reviewer devotes fully half as many words to her beef about me as I do to Shore both negative and positive - and that's out of one succinct paragraph in a book review, whereas my essay was 9,600 words long. Which of us needed the editorial pen wielded more strongly, now?

That's as many words about the reviewer as the reviewer devoted to me, so I'll stop here.