The author who was responding to the question also never read good reviews either, as they didn't want to get big headed. As they saw it, reviews were for the readers, a way for readers to decide whether or not to part with their hard earned cash or not. The author in question reasoned that good reviews were brilliant, obviously, but they would see how well their work was received through their sales figures and the bad reviews would only hurt their feelings, so they opted to never read reviews at all.
This made sense to me and I thought it would be a good idea. Until I released Evil Brewing myself through Kindle. I was sending my book's details to a friend and noticed I'd received two reviews. I couldn't help myself, before I knew what I had done, the review page was open and I was reading them. I was very lucky in that the two reviews were very complimentary and they put the biggest smile on my face.
But having received two lovely reviews I wondered how I would have felt if they were not so nice. It's quite a thing to spend so much time and effort on a work and send it out into the big wide world. As an author you hope that people will enjoy it, this novel you have spent months carving and creating from your imagination. It is really a piece of yourself that you put out there and to have someone turn around and say they don't like it... that must be hard to hear, or read.
So I think I will opt to follow the advice I heard before I published my books. The Golden Rule - Reviews are for readers. I'll just stick to the writing part and leave the reviews to the readers and reviewers.