I'm always wary of reviewers who chastise writers for writing the book they wrote, rather than writing the book that the reviewer would have written had any publisher given them the chance to write one. I'm getting a whiff of that with the HH review.
There are book reports and the are book reviews, the latter encompassing the role of critic for the author of the review.
Helen reviews books, as do a few others here.
One might not agree with a review for whatever reason, and that is the difference between a book review and a book report, of course.
In a review, the reviewer uses her or his critical eye to consider the work (book) at hand.
A report is, in essence, simply a recitation of items regarding the book, much as those done by student in primary or secondary schools.
A review, like it or not, takes a point of view that the critic establishes with the book and uses that lens to consider its contents.
Basically, a report is pablum and review a meal.
Whether or not one likes the meal set in front of one, that disagreement should be a catalyst for how to regard that work.
Critics are critical, that is their job.
Feathers get ruffled, handbags are hurled, epitaphs evoked, sacred cows become the main course, and so forth.
I certainly find some reviews to be shallow, over-abstract, non-sensible, obtuse, incoherent, vapid, misinformed, as well as being pretty stupid at times.
And, those are just the ones I find within the Academe, much less SpeedReaders, etc.
So, if a review gets you wound up, perhaps that means that the critic/reviewer has got you thinking...