What did the people think about her book

1. What the reporting actually contains: signals about review ecosystems, not a verdict on one book

None of the supplied links points to a single review of a named woman author’s book; instead they are portals to major review platforms and guides that explain how books are evaluated and aggregated — NPR’s book-review section and features ^{[1] [7]}, The New York Times Book Review’s coverage and selection practices ^[2], aggregator Book Marks and Literary Hub’s role in curating critical conversations ^[3], and discipline-specific trade reviews like Kirkus and Publishers Weekly ^{[4] [5]} — so the available material documents the machinery of opinion rather than the public’s reaction to a particular volume ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.

2. How critical verdicts are produced and why they diverge

These outlets reflect distinct audiences and editorial missions: national outlets such as NPR and the New York Times aim for a broad readership and editorial curation that can shape bestseller lists and cultural conversation ^{[1] [2]}, trade journals like Publishers Weekly and Kirkus serve the industry with prepublication assessments that influence booksellers and librarians ^{[5] [4]}, and aggregators like Book Marks synthesize critics’ takes into an at-a-glance consensus; that institutional variety explains why “what people think” about a book often looks like several coexisting judgments rather than one unified public opinion ^{[3] [5] [4]}.

3. The role of readers vs. professional critics

Professional reviews and trade notices are only part of the picture: librarians’ and academic guides (Library of Congress guides) call attention to where to find reader reviews and historical criticism, signaling that broader public judgment is commonly gathered across user reviews, local booksellers, and library circulation data — forms of opinion that are outside most newsroom review pages and thus not captured in the supplied reporting ^[8]. Where the provided sources cover readers directly (e.g., NPR features and year-end lists), they still foreground curated lists and critic selections rather than exhaustive public sentiment ^{[1] [7]}.

4. Why advertising, access and subscription models matter to “what people think”

Several entries reveal hidden incentives that can skew visibility: paid or branded content appears in general outlets (The Guardian’s paid-for content note) and trade outlets require subscriptions for full archives (Publishers Weekly, Oxford Academic), meaning some reviews gain prominence because of editorial relationships, advertisement or paywalls rather than purely on merit — an important caveat when interpreting who surfaced a book and why the public might encounter it in a particular light ^{[9] [5] [10]}.

5. Alternative viewpoints and analytic tools for answering the question properly

To answer “what people think” about a specific woman author’s book one needs targeted sources the current set lacks: the book’s reviews on NPR/NYT/Kirkus/Publishers Weekly, Book Marks’ aggregation of critic sentiment, retailer and library ratings, and social-media or reader-forum reactions; the provided reporting implies these are the standard data streams for such a verdict but does not supply the case-level evidence needed to state a conclusion about any single book ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [8]}.

6. Bottom line: what can be said, and what cannot

Given the materials provided, it is not possible to state definitively what people thought about “her book” because no review or title is present in the dataset; instead the sources outline where and how such opinions are formed and aggregated — and they show that critics, trade reviewers, and general readers often offer differing responses shaped by editorial mission, access, and commercial structures ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [9] [8]}. Any firm claim about reception requires pulling the specific book’s reviews and reader ratings from these named outlets and aggregators.