Between the Lines discussion

How do you choose the number of stars to give a book once you've read it?

Each book I read starts with three stars although I may be a bit biased one way or the other if the author is one with whom I'm familiar. I don't consciously think about my rating when I start a book; they just all start on a more or less equal footing. When I finish, the book will retain a three-star rating unless it's impressed me either positively or negatively. I'll drop the rating for books that didn't capture or hold my attention or for difficult writing style or for characters lacking realistic personalities or for similar 'offenses.' If a book brings me to a new perspective or appreciation for some aspect of life or the world, I'll give it a four-star rating. The few books that lift me out of myself and leave me feeling renewd for several days get five stars.

This isn't a strict process I go through as I click on the number of stars. It's more a feel for where among all the books I've read that the one currently at hand fits, but that feel is based on the things I mentioned above.

I wouldn't begin to read a book I didn't think wasn't going to be a five star. I'm always enthusiastic about the books I read and hope for the best. Of course, some do disappoint, or turn out to have major flaws like crap writing, too much conjecture and not enough solid research (non-fiction) or a rubbish plot and/or duh ending. Those books get downgraded obviously, but its all down on 'feel' as you say, I don't have a ratings chart (and wouldn't want one) to 'scientifically' rate each book.

I agree Petra -- I always hope the book I am starting will be at least a 4-star! Since I generally abandon books that don't interest me, and wouldn't rate a book I hadn't finished, I rarely give fewer than 2 stars. 4 stars are for books I like so much I would re-read them and recommend them to others. 5 stars are reserved for truly exceptional books that change the way I see the world, like Middlemarch or If This Is a Man for example.

I feel like the Goodread's description for the various levels of stars is good enough for me. So if it was "Amazing" it gets 5 stars. If I really liked it, it gets 4. If I liked it, 3. If it was "ok", 2. And if I didn't like it, 1.

I usually have a pretty good idea where a book is going to fall in the first hundred pages or so. But sometimes that will change as the book goes on. I just finished The Shadow of the Wind and initially, I had it pegged as 5 stars. Eventually, though, I had to downgrade it to 4 stars because it my amazement dwindled.

I'm wondering if your ratings ever change over time. Every once in a while, I let a great ending cloud my judgment for the full book. After a few days, a bit of buyers-remorse sets in and I find myself adjusting the rating. Is this cheating?

I never thought about it, but I guess I start out with a 3 star rating as well-because if a book is just "hey that was pretty good, glad I read it" then I give it 3 stars. Chick lit is a bit different though, for example-the Stephanie Plum series. I LOVE those books, but I would never give them 5 stars. They all get 3, unless they're brilliant, then I give them 4.

If I finish a book and love it so much I automatically want to read it again-5 stars. If the book is FANTASTIC and I want everyone to read it, that would also be 5 stars.

I change my ratings a lot-like SK's The Stand. I started out giving it 5, and recently changed it to 4 even though I loved it...because IMO it pales in comparison to Shogun, another brick I am about to finish. I can't see giving them both 5 stars when Shogun is so much better. So sometimes I change my ratings compared to other books I read later on.

I have to agree with Petra X. I go into every book with the idea that it is a 5-star book. I have gone the gamut of all of the star ratings. I have rated books I haven't finished, but am hoping to re-read most of them. If it happens, I will read them to the end, no matter how painful it may be (like The Road). I am going to make myself finish all books if at all possible from now on. That will make rating them a lot easier. I do say in the review that I hadn't finished them, though. I go by the "feel" of the book when I rate it. I go by how it makes me feel after I finish it.

Adam wrote: "I'm wondering if your ratings ever change over time. Every once in a while, I let a great ending cloud my judgment for the full book. After a few days, a bit of buyers-remorse sets in and I find myself adjusting the rating. Is this cheating?"

I don't think changing a rating is cheating because, as Allison alludes to, what we read changes us. I don't give very many books a four- or five-star rating so I generally don't move a rating down. I have found that a book I originally rated a 2 or 3 may keep coming to mind over a period of time. If I gain a new perspective on the book as a result of its 'stickiness' I might move the rating up.

I read for pure escapist pleasure so I don't read much stuff I don't think is pretty good.
I usually score high- most often I give a book 5 stars- And then I'll score all the way down to 3 stars- that's for a book I read but I thought it was just so-so.
I don't usually score a book I didn't finish unless it hit my truly bad button-
then it gets a one star with a note that I did't finish it.

I use the good reads scoring and reserve the 5 stars for books that I find have moved me, that I return to and reflect upon etc. What I am realizing though is that for some genre's they will never reach 5 stars so I am thinking of revisiting my ratings for my light mysteries that I read for pure escapism, and some may get bumped up. For general fiction though, this does serve me well (at least in my mind but it really is all very subjective isn't it).

I don't really have a particular method to rating books - just gut feel - but I was surprised after reading this thread to discover how generous I am. I went back through all my ratings and found not a single one-star rating and only a few twos. Four stars is definitely my most common rating, and there are a surprising number of fives. Would have thought the spread would be more even.

I think it's because as I get older, I really don't want to waste time on bad books. So whereas in the past I would go to a bookshop and pick something off the shelf based on whim or an amusing cover design, now I am more clear about my own tastes and also more careful about what I choose to read. From checking out reviews and conversations on sites like this I have a pretty good idea of whether a particular book is the kind of thing I might like. It could still go wrong, of course, but there's a higher chance of finding good books than bad. As for the really bad books I've read in the past, I generally got rid of them and haven't bothered to add them to my shelves.

Or maybe I also give higher ratings because, having written a book myself, I know how much work goes into it, and how deeply a one-star review would hurt.

My rating system is similar to Fiona's, although I do think I'm guilty of giving out too many 5 stars! But then if I've really enjoyed a book (which I regularly do) and can't find anything of significance wrong with it, then I feel it deserves 5 stars. I don't tend to look at the genre either, as the mysteries I like to read would never gain a 5 if I put them up against the books on the 1001 list.

1. Rubbish, didn't like it, might even have despised it and wished there was a bomb icon or zero rating to give it.
2. I finished it and didn't hate it but didn't like it either.
3. I liked the book but it was nothing special. Or the subject matter was ok, but the writing was tedious to read. Generally an ok book.
4. I liked the book a lot but it was either flawed in some way (Sea of Poppies ended at no particular point as it is part of a yet-to-be written/published saga) or not knock-out wonderful and memorable.
5. Fantastic read. A tremendous experience reading it. Either it sparked off a train of thought in me that was totally new (non-fiction) or was a book that when I was reading it was a world-unto-itself.

If I could change the rating system, I would just add a bomb for books that I really didn't like.

LOL Petra, a bomb icon... I like that idea!

When I first started adding books on Goodreads I gave out a lot of fives. Then I found that I wanted something special to give my books that were above and beyond expectations. So I moved the fives to fours and now I save five stars for special occasions.

I generally start with a three star rating then grade it up or down according to how I feel about it. I tend to be over generous in my ratings, then after a few month pass wish I had not given so many 4 and 5 stars. Learning not to be so swayed by a character I like or so critical because it was a moody book.

I'm still working on how to rate. There are a few books that I gave three stars to and I really didn't like them. That then raises the question, do I give the rating based on how I liked the book OR how well it was written, etc...

There are books I hated, The Roadbeing one, but I still rated it high because it was well written and really made me feel. If an author can do that, he's written a good book, even if I don't like it.

Kandice,

That is probably the way I am going. For the ones I didn't really like, I would have given them a 1 or 2 based on just my 'liking' them but, there was something else to them. They didn't make me feel but, the writing was not bad.

1 Star= boring plot, lackluster characters, bad writing, not one I would recommend, one I had to force myself to finish
2 Stars= lacking plot, silly characters, poor writing, not one I would recommend
3 Stars= interesting plot, okay characters, writing with few errors, a book I would recommend to select people
4 Stars= good plot, good characters, good writing, a book I would recommend
5 Stars= fast-paced plot, excellent characters, great writing, a book I would recommend, a Keeper