I never fail to be surprised at the books the papers choose to review, especially when there is so little space allowed for book reviews. In today's Times, there's a review of a thousand-page first novel (first published nearly a year ago), reviewed by someone who really didn't enjoy it.
This poses several questions:
1.Why this particular first novel?
2.Why (when there are so many to choose from) pick such a long one, when reviewers are (presumably) pressed for time?
3.Why wait a year to review it?
4.Why publish a bad review at all? I can understand if it had been a novel by a well-known author; but a writer no-one's heard of? I would be thoughtful about starting on any novel of this length; I certainly wouldn't risk it after this particular review (it also has one two-star review on Amazon).
Do I have a personal axe to grind? Moi? I'm surprised it even entered your mind.