@mldavis2 - Excellent points, all of it. (I didn't quote because I would have quoted the entire thing and since I'm the next post...
) I think in both cases I mentioned, I would have been less bothered had my reviews been negative, but neither review was. In both cases I made sure to point out what I liked about the books and, as you stated, 3 stars is not (supposed to be) a "bad" rating. Plus, Goodreads had managed to be the one remaining drama-free corner of my online world, and I guess I wanted to preserve that as much as possible. So I think it's more a matter of where I chose to place my own personal boundaries rather than a matter of what is or isn't appropriate.
I mean, after all, this is the internet.
Anything we put out there can (and often will) be responded to. But I think the concept of authors responding to the Average Joe's review is a pretty new thing. That used to be the domain of high-profile authors who tangled in endless grudges with famous literary critics. I think a lot of authors and reviewers (such as myself) haven't yet figured out the best way to handle that and be comfortable with it.
The flipside of that is we've ended up with authors like Konrath, who makes his fans a priority and shows it. Then there's Kevin Hearne, one of my favorite new authors, who friended me on Goodreads and also positively interacts with his fans. So I think it's a net positive that the "wall" between authors and readers is coming down in some areas. It's just so new.