Anyway, isn’t the Internet already a glut of negativity? (TMZ, hello!) And, by the way, as long as we’re asking the tough questions here, does Isaac Fitzgerald not totally rock?

Now look, I’m no Pollyanna. I understand there are some stinkers out there. Just between you and me, James Patterson’s latest didn’t have the usual sizzle. And recently, I was quite put off by “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” But what purpose is served by publicly finding fault with a volume that some author has worked very hard to produce, when there are many, many excellent books upon which to lavish praise?

Recently, the reviewer Camilla Long of The Sunday Times of London won TheOmnivore.com’s tellingly named Hatchet Job of the Year Award for her savaging of Rachel Cusk’s memoir of her marital breakup, “Aftermath.” In her review, Ms. Long described the book as “a needy, neurotic mandolin solo” written by “a brittle little dominatrix and peerless narcissist.” My question is, what was gained by that petty sniping? Why embarrass poor Ms. Cusk and upset readers of The Sunday Times when Sheryl Sandberg’s “Lean In” was there for the reading?

The usual insufferable tweedwads argue that literary criticism is a genre unto itself, its value residing not in the appraisal of the book so much as the context, scholarship and thematic exploration offered by the critic. Uh-huh. Sure. Go ahead, Margaret Atwood — make this about you.

The other silly argument is that a positive review is rendered meaningless if there is no possibility for a negative one. Oh, really? Ever see a hyperlink?