All About Books discussion

What kind of book reviewer are you? Are you generous or stingy with stars? Do you follow the Goodreads rating system or one of your own? Do you tend to write long reviews or short reviews? Do you include a plot summary? Do you write a review for every book you read? Do you read reviews to get ideas of what to read next?

I do a review for every book I read and do some for authors and take read for review requests from them. I do the rating system and write a little of both and include a small synopsis of the book in my own words.

I was prodded to start this topic when I saw that my average review score is 3.94. I was surprised that it is so high. I've always thought of myself as a tough reviewer. But then I began to think of reasons for the high score. I believe I self-limit the pool of eligible books. I tend to read books that I know fit the genres I most enjoy. I have a group of favorite authors, contemporary and classic, that I gravitate to. If I start a book and it just doesn't seem right to me, I'm pretty brutal about putting it aside. I stopped marking books as "abandoned," when I realized that Goodreads counts those books as read. I'm very curious to see how other people handle the whole process of reviewing.

me, if I can't finish a book I don't review it. I only review books I read and finish.

If I don't finish a book, I don't review it.
My ratings are very much "gut reactions" to the book as a whole: story, writing style, cohesiveness, etc.
If a book leaves a sense of "bad taste in my mouth" and I finished it, it gets one star.
If there's no "bad taste" but I really didn't like it, it gets two stars.
Three stars is trickier but only because I've become aware that many people consider a 3-star rating as bad and dismiss the book. For me, a 3-star rating is a good, enjoyable book well worth the read and yet one that probably won't stick vividly in my mind. I try to start these reviews by stating that the book is a good read.

I review all the books I read. My reviews are my thoughts & feelings, without giving away spoilers or a synopsis of the storyline.

It really depends on the book. For okay-ish books, I like to write a short list of things I like and things I didn't like. If a book is just okay, it doesn't warrant a 'real' review. For books I loved or hated, I like to write more detailed and structured reviews about how it made me feel and what I think the 'themes' are, what I loved or hated etc etc.

Amber wrote: "me, if I can't finish a book I don't review it. I only review books I read and finish."

That is very fair and I think the only way to do it, Amber. I hate it when a reviewer 1★s a book that they have not finished. How do they know that the book does not improve? As we all know some books do improve as you delve deeper.

I review books that I have dumped, BUT I state clearly exactly why I have dumped them. IF a book is so very bad that I absolutely cannot finish it, and I usually get at least half way through, then I think it is best to warn others. But one must always explain because what one person hates another may love. I am sure there are people that say, "Ah, Chrissie, hates it, I will read!".....or they like short stories and mysteries and fantasies and I rarely do. Haven't any of you found people that if they like a book you won't? That is helpful too.

I review just about everything, but I primarily write about how the book affected me, with just a few words about the plot. I write reviews for myself, otherwise I will forget everything. Also the writing process helps me figure out my emotional reaction to the book. Sometimes I know I hate a book or love it, but I have to figure out why, why, why!!!! Three star books are maybe the hardest to write reviews about since my emotional response can be so bland.

If I didn't write reviews, all the time spent reading feels sort of wasted since in 5 years it would all disappear! I reread my own review and it all comes back.

I also figure why not help others who are unsure if they want to read the book. If I can help them that is great.

I think halfway through is fair and also stating why you dumped it. Others may be drawn to a book for the very reason you dumped it.

I started writing reviews last year and I write them for most of the books I read. I sometimes think that I am to generous with my ratings, but like Terri, I tend to choose books that I think are "my kind of book" and I'm not sure how to explain what that means.
5 stars means I loved it ,4 stars means I really, really liked it, 3 stars means I liked it but didn't love it, 2 stars means I didn't like it but it has some redeeming quality, 1 star means I'm really sorry I wasted my time.
Like Petra, my reviews are my "gut reactions" and I tend to write longer reviews for the books I love and that have really moved me. Once in a while, though, a book I loved leaves me almost speechless and my comments are short.
Again, like Petra, my reviews are my thoughts and feelings. I do not give a synopsis per se ,but sometimes tell a little about the book.
I have rated two books that I abandoned, but I don't do that anymore- it's really not fair if I haven't finished it.

I discussed this once with Diane, when she noticed that I gave 5 stars to three books in a row. Then I thought maybe I'm too free with my stars, but she wisely told me that they were my stars to give.

Speaking of stars - I wish there were half stars.

Angela wrote: "Speaking of stars - I wish there were half stars. "

Me too!

I don't think I have ever abandoned a book, I would say I'm quite lazy/honest when I write reviews. When I do write reviews they are quite short and to the point as I have noticed a lot of reviews on here are basically retelling the plot. I do follow the rating systems on the site which I think is ok but I never say I give half star ratings.

I don't give a star rating when abandoning a book, but I do give my reasons for why. I am stingy with my fives, my favorite rating seems to be 3.5. Of course I write it in, since GR does not have 1/2 stars.I do review as much as possible, otherwise I could not remember what I read or why I liked or disliked a book. I do for the most ;art go by the GR rating system but I too rate on how I felt about the book, how well it was written and if I was drawn to the characters or even a particular character.

Terri wrote: "What kind of book reviewer are you? Are you generous or stingy with stars? Do you follow the Goodreads rating system or one of your own? Do you tend to write long reviews or short reviews? Do you i..."

I seldom post reviews. I only do so when it's an under-appreciated book I would like to give more exposure to, or when I think I might have something useful to say about a book that perhaps hasn't already been said. But there are so many reviews out there that I don't like to add to the clutter just for the sake of writing a review.

Bette BookAddict wrote: "I think halfway through is fair and also stating why you dumped it. Others may be drawn to a book for the very reason you dumped it."

Exactly!

And like you Bette:

5 stars - the book is amazing
4 stars - it is VERY good
3 stars - I liked it (A 3 star book IS worth reading!)
2 stars - it is OK
1 star - the book is terrible, terrible, terrible

I don't analyze when I award the stars, but go by my gut reaction, I don't even think about half stars. I analyze my gut reaction only when I write the review, after I have given the stars. The analysis begins when I try to figure out the whys behind my gut reaction.

I VERY rarely dump books because many change direction. I am willing to give a book all it has to give before deserting it.

I've been writing reviews for every book I've read since joining Goodreads. I don't write lengthy reviews, they tend to be just my thoughts and feelings about the book. I don't include anything much about the plot, certainly not a plot summary, as it makes me feel like I am doing a piece of homework for school!

My star rating is very similar to Chrissie's - I don't give out many 5 stars, mostly 3's and 4's with the odd 2. I also don't give out many 1 star ratings, but that may be because I choose my books quite carefully. I'm one of those who would like to see half stars introduced.

I do read for review on a couple of groups on here and for authors who contact me directly, and reviews for Netgalley on here and in my blog, which I try to make quite detailed as to why I liked it or not but they tend to become very sarcastic if the book was rubbish. At the end of the day I put across my opinion on it and that's that. I find it really hard to finish books if they bore me but most of the time I give them a good run before I give up.

I usually only write something for a book I'm just reading for pleasure if I feel something really strongly for it and just have to write it down.

I wish they had half star ratings on here as well!

My stars are very similar to what most everyone else has mentioned

5 stars - Loved loved loved the book, one I can't stop thinking about and I will pass around to my fellow book lovers, but feel very protective of and can't wait until it is safely back on my shelf. Only 5 star books get a space on my shelf, everything else gets donated to used book sales
4 stars - great book,well written, interesting plot, but doesn't stay with me like a 5 star. Will also get passed around, but upon return, it goes in the donate box.
3 stars - good book, nice story, writing style is nothing special, no or very few passages that make me stop, reread, and stare off into space like a 4 or 5 star. Still an enjoyable read, nicknamed fluff read, goes right into the donate box upon completion.
2 stars - ok book, but nothing special
1 star - why did I read this? I sorta wish I was one of those people who have the ability to abandon a book.....

I write a short review for mostly every book I read, but I do not include a story summery. There are so many already available penned by much better writers than I. What I do include is something in the book that stayed with me, maybe a passage or a feeling.

I'm a really picky reader, and I read tons of reviews before deciding on whether a book is worth my time or not (unless I get a review request, in which case I just read the book).
I don't review all the books I read for lack of time and because I want to read the next book on my list, but I try to review the ones that were either really amazing or really terrible, or those that don't have many reviews.

Mostly, when I read a book I expect a 4.5 star read, so that's why my ratings sound a little harsher from everyone else's.

5 stars - omg yessss the book was so good and I must re-read it again and again and again because I'll never get sick of it that's how amazing it was!
4 stars - this book was pretty good, and I liked a lot but something was missing.
3 stars - the book was decent, but several things bothered me and lessened my enjoyment (mostly mediocre writing and weak, unrelatable characters)
2 stars - yeah this wasn't good, and I didn't like the book. Mostly I hated the writing, the characters and most of the plot, but there is something in the book that keeps me from giving it 1 star.
1 star - ugh, complete trainwreck. This book made me mad and cringe with disgust at the pathetic characters, the weak writing and/or the non-existing plot. There was something in the book that was so unacceptable to me that I'll never touch the book again and I wish I could erase the knowledge of its existence from my brain forever.

I feel very strongly about the books I love and those I hate and I can preach about them for hours to my unsuspecting friends.
When I'm really annoyed with a book I write a book full of examples of why the characters were the worst ones I've ever had to read about, while my positive reviews tend to be shorter (because I fail to find words to express my profound admiration).

All of my ratings are wildly subjective. It's hard for me to rate sometimes because I might appreciate a book but not personally like it. Or I might not be able to put my finger on why I didn't like something. I tend to change my ratings a lot. :P

Also, I don't need to hate a book to give it a 1-star, because if I'm hating a book I usually stop reading. My 1-stars might sound harsh but if I didn't do it this way then almost everything would be 3 stars and up, you know? (And that might make my recommendations from goodreads not very good.) So here's a rough idea of how I do it:

1 * - Didn't like it. Maybe had okay parts but the majority was boring or annoying or just left me feeling totally apathetic.
2 ** - It was alright. Had good parts but was somewhat underwhelming overall.
3 *** - Yeah, I liked it! Had a pleasant experience reading. (But not enthusiastic.)
4 **** - A great book! Gave me some memorable thoughts and feelings. But not a book I'd consider my favorite.
5 ***** - Loved it! Gave me enthusiastic responses and strong feelings while reading. Would highly recommend to others.

I review most books - when I have something to actually say about them, good or bad. Sometimes the mood strikes me to review, and sometimes it doesn't. When I do review, I keep it short - to me, a review (on goodreads anyway) is to help people decide if they want to read the book. It's not for plot summaries or intellectual analyses. I'm not expecting many strangers to read my reviews - I write them for myself to remember later, and for my friends who want to know my opinion.

I'm finding all these comments so interesting, and I continue to think about this subject a lot. I also would like to be able to award 1/2 stars. I've recently started reviewing books based on the genre. For instance, I just finished a memoir No Experience Necessary: The Culinary Odyssey of Chef Norman Van Aken, and I rated it 5 stars because, as a memoir, it really hit the mark. It's not great literature, which used to sort of be the criterion I used for 5 star books. But using that system, for instance, a thriller could probably never be a 5 star read, but maybe within the thriller genre a work could be considered 5 stars. I mostly write reviews for myself and include things that will bring back the book for me. I very briefly tell what the book is about, but I mostly concentrate on my reactions and feelings about the book.

I write short reviews based on my feelings. I'm not a particularly strong writer so I don't tend to write much on my reviews, just enough to remind myself what I did/didn't like or to let my friends know.

Star reviews much as everybody else although I agree with Terri, it can be hard to give 5*s to books you love but aren't considered 'great literature' and likewise I find it hard to give 1* to classic literature that I know has survived the test of time

Terri wrote: "But using that system, for instance, a thriller could probably never be a 5 star read, but maybe within the thriller genre a work could be considered 5 stars."

I completely see what you're doing there. Your system allows more open-mindedness and balanced representation, which is great. It also keeps the "snob" books from getting all the attention. :) For me I think that would confuse me, having books that I didn't love in with books that I DID love. Do you rate all of your books very objectively? Perhaps that is the difference here, as I rate very subjectively based on my personal opinions. Do you ever give 4 or 5* to books you didn't personally like though, as long as they are "great books" in terms of literature?

I never kid myself enough to think I am a qualified literary critic so my ratings are based on how much I loved/liked/disliked the book. I base on how much I enjoyed the novel so it's pretty much an emotional reaction, I suppose. But I do acknowledge and love really good writing and award stars accordingly as well.

I often find myself at odds with book everything on adores; I still find myself a bit embarrassed by that.

I dislike writers who have found a formula and writes as such unless it is in a series. But some of these authors are most popular with readers: something I don't ever understand. In my view, if you've read one of said books, you've read them all.

I can think of an example for this. I hated Lolita but I know it's considered literature and I generally enjoy Russian literature so I found it hard to give a low score. With books like that I think it's my fault that I don't like them and Mott the fault of the writing so it doesn't deserve a 1* review

Shannon, the way I review books seems to be changing, so in a way it is confusing for me. I rate books pretty subjectively--it's based on my personal reaction to the book. If I read a great classic and I don't like it (can't think of an example off hand), I rate it accordingly, even though the fault is probably in me rather than in the book. I've only recently started rating within genres, so I'm not sure how that will work out. I do believe there are 5 star thrillers, or 5 star cookbooks, but you can't compare them to a 5 star read like A Prayer for Owen Meany or Let the Great World Spin. As I said, I'm evolving, and I really like reading how other people handle the whole issue of reviews.

Re classics: I don't think my review is important at all so if I don't like a classic it too will get one star. I just go by my emotional response. THEN n my review I have to figure out why I am reacting as I do, in the hope that others will then be able to judge if a particular classic will disappoint them. I don't think all classics fit everybody. I LOVE the Russian classics, but I don't think everybody will.

Terri wrote: "I rate books pretty subjectively--it's based on my personal reaction to the book."

Ah, I think I misunderstood your comment before. I think I interpreted it as you would rate things highly because they were high *for their genre,* even if you didn't care for them much. It sounds like you and I actually rate things the same way, which is that it doesn't matter what genre it is, if it's a cookbook or a great classic, if we loved it then we loved it, and we give it 5*. :) I can't imagine doing it any other way.

I agree, Shannon!

Terri - the dog in your photos is so pretty! Is that a collie, or mixed with a collie?

I tend to give 5 stars for books that I love and would read again, 4 stars for books that I really like but don`t love,3 stars for books I like, 2 stars for books I think are ok and 1 for didn`t like...so think I follow the gr ratings. I don`t review every book just when I feel moved to say something. Books are so personal and not everyone will have the same reaction. I`m still suffering some guilt to only giving 2 stars to The English Patient...I just couldn`t get on with it, yet the film is so wonderful.

Shannon Noel wrote: "Terri - the dog in your photos is so pretty! Is that a collie, or mixed with a collie?"

Charlie's a collie. He'll be 2 years old on July 5th. I just love him to death, as does my husband. We spoil him shamelessly, but we have no grandchildren yet. He's my walking buddy. :)

I continue to think a lot about this issue. I've been monitoring my reading habits, and I realized that I start lots of books and put them down. (A recent example is Burial Rites.) I read 100 pages and decided it just wasn't for me. So I've found that unless a book is at least a 3 star read, I tend to put it down. When I was younger, I would stick with a book once I started no matter what. But now my reading time is so precious, I don't want to waste it on anything that doesn't really speak to me. So I do self-limit my reading, and that's why my average rating is over 3 stars.

This is interesting! Some great comments :)

Star ratings:

I always start at 3* - that's my default, because I wouldn't be reading the book if I didn't expect to enjoy it! So I too "self-limit", as you say, Terri.

I also feel that a book has to earn the right to be bumped off those 3 stars, so I often "award" a good book the 3* rating. Others may then question me as to why I didn't like it, but to me that's a perfectly good achievement, and the fairest way! I award stars the same way, even when I know the author. My husband, my brother, my friends (all of whom are in print, not just on Kindle or self-published. And no, I'm not telling you their names!) do not all get 5*!!! And I find "indie" authors who routinely award themselves 5* on their pages a bit... pathetic! :( Come on - who do they think they are kidding?! So I try to be objective even though the Goodreads language eg "I liked it" is so subjective. If something is so-so it gets 2*. It will get 1* from me if it's badly written, or does not achieve what it clearly sets out to. My "abandoned" shelf is an exclusive shelf, in the top section. I never used to abandon books; now I do not finish a book I consider a waste of my time, unless I have promised to read it for a discussion.

Comparisons or parity:

I would love to award within genres! Or even within specific authors! I frequently give someone like Dickens 4* (even though it's superb, as I know full well he's written even better ones) and then find difficulty giving a subsequent light read 4* even if I've thoroughly enjoyed it! Dickens may only be awarded 4* for "xxxxx" but to my mind it would still be a 5* read compared with everyone else...

I think we do semi-automatically rate within the type of book. We award as to how successfully it has achieved what it was meant to. If you rated a social satire for its merits as a whodunit, for instance, it might not score very well! A detailed reference book with no index or glossary would also get marked down, but some non-fiction books do not need them.

Fairness and accuracy:

My "Why do you want to be my friend?" question is actually telling authors that I don't review on request. To me, my time is precious, and I want to make the choice not only of what I read, but also what I review. A "free book" is neither here nor there. (No I'm not rich but I have a library ticket! LOL) If I were to be impressed by a new author's work, then I would be very generous with both my time and my comments. Unfortunately there's an awful lot of rubbish, and I don't want to be put in the position where I'm beholden to someone for a free book - yet would be ruthlessly critical (as I frequently am) in my analytical review.

Purpose and intention:

What should they be for? Obviously not to tell the story. The blurb will do that (and often far too much.) Off the top of my head, my reasons for both writing (and reading) a review are:

1. To give an idea what the book is about and why it was written. This might include some interesting background material.
2. If it's fiction, an idea of the type of thing it is, without telling too much.
3. To sum up my reactions to the book.
4. To analyse some of the interesting points about the book; this is mainly so I don't forget it, and also for those who have read the book and like to "revisit" what they read.

My reviews are lengthy, and I don't mind at all if others "skim" them, only reading maybe the beginning and the end, which would usually be points 1-3. The analysis is usually the long bit in the middle! LOL!

When I find others who also write thoughtful reviews I am delighted, as I know how long they take. Sometimes I am disappointed if there is no review from someone I know could have written a really good one. There are many readers on this site who have studied (or are in the process of studying) various subjects - including English Literature - to a far more advanced level than I have. If I'm in a bad mood, I will be cross and think they are a bit lazy, but it is a matter of choice. And we are all here to read, not write reviews after all! Short reviews can also be useful, if you know absolutely nothing about the book, and also to show the "gut reaction" of a friend. More the latter, of course, because as I said before, you get the nub of the book from the blurb.

Summing-up:

I think it's important to remember that we all choose to do this, and that it's different for each of us. There is no "right way." But I think the quality of reviews here is a lot better than on Amazon generally. It is rare to get ignorant or rude comments here. I think we mostly like to encourage and share what we have discovered, not tear it down :)

Fascinating comments, Jean. I really appreciate your perspective. I like the idea of setting 3 stars as the default rating. I've found that the way I read and review books in the context of GR is a fluid thing. I kind of like the system I'm slowly working out.

I certainly do review with the genre in mind. By this I mean that I'm comparing it with others of its type, so that a sci-fi novel could get 5 stars, the same as a great classic. I think I'm perhaps fairly generous in handing out the stars.

I use the star system here on goodreads. I only review books that there's something to say about; they could be either good or bad. I don't know whether I'm stingy or generous, I've mostly given three or four stars, but I do give my share of one or two stars.

@Jean- Very methodological. No wonder why you write such great reviews!

Thanks you, Charbel! Reading my post through, I thought I sounded too... prescriptive? But then on a thread like this, it's only going to be of any use if we are all strictly honest. And although my own ideas might not work for everybody, I think my summing-up covers it OK :)

Terri wrote: "I stopped marking books as "abandoned," when I realized that Goodreads counts those books as read. "

I believe it only counts them if you have the start and finished dates set.

I usually never write any sort of review, but occasionally I'll write a few sentences about my reaction to a book: what I thought about it, how it made me feel, who I think might like it, things along these lines, which is what I think a book review should be about.

I really, REALLY dislike it when people give a summary of the book. I think that totally spoils it for people. It certainly does for me, and I don't wanna do that to anyone else. But I don't even read synopses, so I'm probably an oddball in that regard.

@Tina, I think I do too, a bit! I'm fairly generous with stars, and I've written very few reviews in the past because I've figured there were plenty of more expert reviews out there already. But someone in these threads recently made me think differently. They said they write reviews so they can remember what they thought of books later. I like that! My memory can be pretty bad on occasion; so I like the idea of having a record of my fresh impressions. I went ahead and wrote a review of Burial Rites because I quite liked that book, and I'm going to try writing more of them.

I don't think there's a good or bad way to write reviews - whatever works for you and inspires you is a good thing!

Sandra Fitzgerald
I don't like giving negative feedback because at the end of the day it's all a matter of option. And as much as we all value each others, yours may differ greatly to mine. I will, however, jump for joy when i love a book, and share the warmth when i like a book too.
Writing is hard, a real roller coaster journey and should be treated as so. It takes a lot of guts to put yourself out there, open to sometimes brutal criticism.

Hello Sandra, are you new here? Since this is your first comment, perhaps you'd like to introduce yourself on the "Welcome to new members" thread. We do share our subjective opinions very much about the books we've read, so it will be nice to hear yours :)

Hi, I'm new to goodreads. As for the thread-question, I think part of being a good writer (or critic) is to continually learn, evolve and grow. And writing is a subjective process while critiquing is supposed to be objective. And it's all a matter of opinion.

Does anyone take notes when reading a book to help with the review process? I've started putting a large post-it in the back cover, and as I read I note things that are significant to me, quotes I want to use or remember, and other things like that. In a review I usually do a brief plot summary, and this is mainly to help me if I want to know something about the book in the future. (I've had people ask about books I've read and I draw a blank. The reviews freshen my memory.)

Terri ,
I read pretty much exclusively on my kindle so I highlight passages quite a bit . I always have my iphone handy so I write notes as I go along . I usually cut and paste those notes into a word document and then write the review ,

Terri,
I started writing reviews on Goodreads last year and didn't always write my reviews this way , but I would say that I started doing the notes and highlights around 6 months ago .
My husband always asks me if I'm doing my homework - lol . I was an English major in college and this process is similar to how I prepared to write a paper - except then it was a highlighter , paper and pen for notes or the book margins and my typewriter !
I really enjoy this and like you it helps me remember the book .

I often do that kind of thing, Terri, but I do it all electronically. That's why I love eBooks so much. The text is searchable, so if I can remember any words at all in the text it's easy to find, and then I can copy and paste to a text file or into my browser. But I mainly do that for buddy reads and stuff.

Hi Terri,
I keep a reading journal where I make notes of all kinds about books I'm reading. I don't do it to help with reviews, but to keep track of complicated plots and numerous characters. Often with historical fiction I find myself making genealogy charts and things like that. Sometimes I am looking up unfamiliar vocabulary, etc. It's the scholar in me, I guess.

I keep my mini iPad beside me as I read a book and jot down notes as I go. Since I belong to two book clubs, I often refer back to my notes before a discussion, which saves me from having to read the book again. At the end of the book, I jot down my impressions since I cannot always remember precisely why I liked or disliked a book if it's one I read two or more years ago. I usually have 1-6 typed pages for each book (I email my iPad notes to myself and then print it at the computer for my binders.) I'm teased often about doing this, so it's nice to know I'm not the only one taking notes.