Can't All Be The Same

So, one of the things I have noticed as I read books & read reviews of books by regular readers just like me is that many people complain or take issue with the fact that books are not written as they expect or as they want them to be written. Now, don't get me wrong, a bad read is a bad read, any way you slice it, but a good or decent read that has deviated from the norm is not a reason to trash a book...is it? Case in point, I have been reading the Twilight series by Stephanie Meyer & am on the 4Th book right now. My only issue with the book is that it is sooooo long! It truly could have been 3 books. And I have found myself needing to take a break after reading it for 3 1/2 days & not being done yet! That doesn't normally happen. I read The Good House by Tananarive Due cover to cover until I was done. Granted it took me about 3 weeks to do so, but I did it without feeling tired or overwhelmed by the story. To be completely honest, the only thing that is overwhelming me about Breaking Dawn is that I truly want to know what happens at the end of the book without flipping ahead (reading on my Kindle keeps me from doing that). Now I haven't finished the book, but as I read the reviews from others who have, I pretty much see the same complaints all the way around: Its not believable because its so different from other vampire stories; it's harder to enjoy because Bella seems so desperate, etc. Other people have just said its a piece of shit and they hated it (mind you they read and/or bought the 3 others). My point is this: Why or HOW can you enjoy reading the same thing over & over again? One of the things that I appreciate about the book is that it is different from the typical vampire stories. BTW, let me clarify that vampires are not real, so criticizing a fictional story for being unrealistic is just retarded! But, back to my point, these stories are written differently, primarily because of the audience that they were written for. Typically, a vamp bite with the exchange of blood does the trick for conversion. Typically, vampires are extremely sexual beings (excluding Louie from the dear Anne Rice) & are very much into satisfaction and are able to do so without damaging their guest for the night. But in this series, there's no need for the exchange of blood, there are "vegetarian" vamps who can't have sex with humans because they may break them to bits. I say this to say that I think readers (movie watchers, TV viewers, etc.) should be careful of how they criticize and what they criticize for. It seems a little counterproductive to complain & shoot down a book because the author chose to tell a story in a different way or create a story like no one has ever heard before. Isn't that what art is all about? And to add to that, I think that the complaints that folk have would be lessened greatly if the series were not such a hit. We still are a society that works to shoot down that which is lifted up, regardless of who it impacts. Having said that, let me make it clear, there are books I have read that have not enjoyed. But that is primarily because they were not written well. However, there are other readers who don't agree with me. For example, I read Timothy McCann's Forever & that was enough to let me know I didn't want to read anything else by him. On the other hand, I read The Other Woman by Eric Jerome Dickey on a loan, loved it, went out and bought Genevieve...didn't love it so much. I don't know where I wanted to go with that now, but I think my point is that some you take, some you leave, but just because you want to leave it, doesn't mean that it won't be taken by someone else.