The Extra Cool Group! (of people Michael is experimenting on) discussion

Do you approach writing reviews for non fiction differently from how you approach fiction? What about classic lit from modern lit? Do different types of books require different reviewing approaches? Or is it just whatev?

I do and don't.

With fiction, I try to summarize the premise. With non-fiction, I focus more on the argument and how it is presented.

I usually try to add an angle that explains how the book was relevant to me or how it fits into my worldview, regardless of genre.

Yes.

I also approach obscure books differently from well-known ones. If something is hard to find (academic, out of print, whatever) I focus on providing information about the content and quality. For something where there is a reasonable expectation that the reader of the review has some idea what the book is about, it is more my reaction and thoughts, critical or otherwise.

I often try to include a summary of the argument in a non-fiction review, more so that I can remember it than for any other reason. Like Miriam, if a book is very well known, I will write more about my reaction to it. Otherwise, no difference.

The main difference is actually the popularity of the author/book. If it is a very popular book then I won't pull my punches because I know my review won't actually make a difference to whether or not their options are picked up for another contract.

If it is a little known author or a first time author than I am much kinder.

I'm more likely to be analytical of classic lit than I am of modern lit.

I find it harder to give more stars to romance and UF books than I do to other genres because I'm far more critical of that genre.

Yes, I totally understand this Brian. Which is why the vast majority of the UF that I've read, despite how much I enjoyed it, hasn't garnered more than three stars.

Something has to be particularly well written, enjoyable, and quality to get more.

Nobody respects you if you give Twilight five stars and says it's the best book ever.

**Kat would like to clarify that she gave Twilight three stars and that she DOES NOT think it's the best book ever or is even close.

I can't say I've ever actually considered genre when thinking of how to review a book.

I'll pretty much do whatever I feel like at the time. I guess I do stick more to content for non-fiction, if not always. As for manga or comics- not much difference. I think in my head what I was in the mood for... Maybe there is a better way to convey that...

I'm with Megan. Usually the book itself will tell me how to review it.

I try to keep in mind the author's intentions to a certain extent when I review, and then evaluate how well they executed their likely intentions. That's not the only factor, of course. But if a paranormal romance does its paranormal romances thing perfectly, and I like it, I'm not going to hesitate giving it 5-stars.

To some extent. Most of the books I read are classics or non-fiction history. With classics I try to communicate why it's important and enjoyable to read; with non-fiction I focus on whether it's decent.

i'm pretty democratic, or slutty i suppose, when it comes to reading. i like almost everything, i've even tried PNR which sorta gives me the creeps. i try to treat all genres the same in my reviews. even PNR. although if an author is fairly unknown, i do try to give them a little special treatment. they deserve it, poor unknown authors.

other than humor picture books and craft books I approach everything the same. I focus mainly on negatives (probably for the same reason I talked bout reading negative reviews) I talk about what could have made the book better, what should have been in/happened in the book. Alternative explanations/scenarios.

there are minor changes based on genre but I think it comes down to fitting the review format over the book.


I do usually review short story books differently. I either talk about one story, or I ignore the book completely.

If I don't finish a book I apologize in the review and explain why I didn't finish it, then review it the same way as if I had.

As far as classics, I always include a note that I as a rule don't like classics.

Basically I am one for meta-explaining, but then the meat of the review stays the same.

Non-fiction: style and level of research ie is this a readable academic who knows his/her stuff, or someone pontificating in an ivory tower and leaving the rest of us plebs gasping for a breath of please-render-this-accessible air. I'm not expecting to be entertained, but to learn, however if the learning is boring, the book is a non-starter.

Fiction: what was the entertainment value? I'm a hopeless non-finisher. If I land on the last page having consumed the rest of book and not once skipped chunks of text, the book garners an attempt at thoughtful praise, regardless of genre.

Brian wrote: "You have to! You can't say five stars for lighthearted YA romantic comedies or manga ninja action is equivalent to five stars for classical Greek literature."

books have a value as snapshots of history. they are capable of being powerful and living things. but in the end, they are still constructs of a "popular culture" unit. the higher the popularity, the lessened likelihood of obscurity.. classics are a product of that culture unit, not a part of it.

i am over simplifying, but in a nutshell, a five star rating system can never do a classic justice because that same system is what creates the next generation of classics.

~

now, with that stated:
any reviews, star ratings, etc that i put into the sphere are based entirely off my enjoyment of a book.

i expect that my interpretation of pop culture gives me the right to place all books on the same field of play. they can duke it out and screw till dawn, so long as i get to watch and judge in my own view, i will be pleased.

i was told that the movie easy rider was phenomenal. i found it annoying. were i to rate it based on the significance it held for others, it would be falsely skewing the numbers.

same goes for books.

this was meant to be a simple "bah" sorry for rambling

For nonfiction I focus on the facts of the book; for fiction I focus more on the emotions the story brought out in me.

I definitely take a different approach to writing reviews for fiction versus non-fiction. Not that either approach is set in stone. But there are some points I am likely to touch on in both cases.

Fiction:

* are the characters (a) credible (b) interesting (c) sympathetic?
* plot - is there one, is it well-constructed, reliance on huge coincidences or completely unlikely deus ex machina?
* style - narrative voice, fluency, ability to create and maintain interest, clarity?
* presence/absence of assorted postmodern gimmicks
* spark - does the author manage to pull off something special? or are things just run-of-the-mill?

If I read a story in one or two sittings, I will definitely mention that fact, because I think it's a helpful piece of information. Similarly, I will identify stories that are first-person narratives because I wish other reviewers would provide that warning (I don't generally enjoy first-person narratives of characters who are complete jerks - McEwan's "Solar", for instance, was very tedious).

Actually, my bulleted list is a complete sham. I wish I covered all these points in every fiction review, but when I check back on some actual reviews, I come nowhere close in most cases.

(mutters to self ... must write more thorough reviews ...)

David wrote: "(mutters to self ... must write more thorough reviews ...)"

I don't try to write thorough reviews. Nor do I look for "thoroughness" in the reviews I read. I'd rather a review focus on one thing (whether it be style, character, or whatnot) that really stood out for some reason or another, and really expand on that. Usually for me books I've read tend to give me a strong impression in one area, and the other things are there too, but I have considerably less to say about them so I don't try.

I automatically treat each book differently depending on the type of book, even within the same genre. Some books call for a factual, step by step reviewing. Others call for a whimsical review. I only review interesting books with lots of personality. I never review books I don't like. The books with personality will tell me how to communicate back as a reviewer, if that makes sense of any of you. Or am I hallucinating. You know, talking to a book kind of thing...

Since I live in the Horror Aficionado group, I make sure to say something about most every horror book I
finished. Even if it's not too favorable, I'll post a few sentences just to let my horror friends know what I thought about it and if it's really bad to steer clear of it.

Reading some of my old reviews, I find -- much to my dismay -- that I tend to review books based on how much they fulfilled the expectations I had for them when I picked them up. Which is totally unfair, really. Or at the very least, it's capricious & unscientific.

But on the other hand, I think I have the same sorts of expectations for every book I pick up: that the author will be really good at something, or have something to say that I haven't heard before ... to be unique and/or super-talented, basically.

I guess I crave novelty and want to be impressed.

Wow ... kind of amazed at my own shallowness, actually ...

Not sure I see anything wrong with reviewing books on fulfilled expectations. When I picked up the majorly promoted (hyped?) book , I was expecting a fantastic vampire tale. It did not meet my expectations and I gave it 3 stars. When a book surpasses my expectations, it gets a 5, and this goes for self-published books or books from small presses with spelling/typo/grammar mistakes in them.

We all pick up a book with certain expectations, and sometimes we're lucky and are blown away, other times it's just "meh."

OMG, Mykle. You wrote Help! A Bear is Eating Me? My husband and I loved that book!

I had a sample of Help! sent to my iPhone a while back. That was one of the books that I was interested in. It looks really good.

I don't review books I don't finish since I feel that it is unfair to judge a book when I haven't explored it fully. The Passage was overly long and boring compared to other vampire tales I read. It got put in my "unfinished" shelf.

I laughed all the way through Help. I hate people IRL like the main character, so it was a juicy story for me.

I don't give full reviews for books I can't finish, but I have no qualms in posting WHY I couldn't finish the book and what the book was lacking for me.

Mykle it is okay with me if you are shallow I am terrified by your awesomeness as it is, so it's nice to know you have flaws.

aww ... i'm totally blushing right now ...

I'm going to buy your new book tomorrow, if it isn't good I'm going to hunt you down and beat you up with it.

Ha! Every author needs a reader like you!

yay. karen was suppose to bring me eyeheart everything, because you are sadly under appreciated and I can't find a copy for myself, but she was irresponsible and forgot, so I have to live without it for another week.
you should be more famous!!

It's a mixed bag - I don't have a consistent reviewing policy in the first place, so some reviews are completely whimsical.

I review fiction in the same way genre or non-genre or classic doesnt matter. I try to review criticly. I give high rating only if its an important book of its kind or the best of its kind. A fun entertaining book but not much more i cant give more 3 stars. I cant give it as much stars as the best classic novel i have read or the best modern novels.

Doesnt mean im literary snob either who thinks non-genre,general fiction is better because they are mundane stories and not genre fiction. Usually i give 5 stars only masterworks of its type of story. If they cant equal that level i give them lower ratings. I rate both storytelling,prose,writing ability.

Thats why i dont understand people who give 5 stars to every book they enjoy reading....

I have different expectations for different types of genres and it's reflected in how I review them. Say for example I'm reading a romance. I expect certain things: are the main characters likable, does the story seem realistic, is it emotionally stimulating, are there good sex scenes? If you can meet these few points I'll more than likely post a good review. Then you can take it a step further even, am I attached to the characters/do I want to read more about them, do I want to buy a copy of the book, do I want to recommend it to a friend? If those points are met, then I can guarantee a great review. On the other hand though, lets say I'm reading a mystery thriller. I hold a book like that up to different standards: is the story unique, is it exciting, is there a lot of ass kicking going on, can I guess the ending? If you take the above two examples you can see where I want different things. Take Neil Gaiman and Charlaine Harris, as authors they're apples and oranges. Each has their legions of fans and who's to say which one is the better so there for me the separation is needed. I can't see where it's possible to use the same review standards across the board...I just measure the book against what I'd expect for a book of that genre and try to give my honest opinion.

Yes, I review or rate differently depending on the genre, but not in terms of fiction/non fiction, maybe because I rarely read non fiction. I tend to be more critical of genres I have more experience reading. I will review a romance book completely different from a horror book. Different genres have different qualities and I think this should be reflected. This has probably skewed my reviews. If I rated everything evenly across the board, then many of my books would be reviewed differently. I tend to review my favorite genres more harshly.

I have certain expectations for each genre. That affects my review. But I will give a genre book five stars as easily as I would a classic book. Possibly, I am harder on classic/overrated/literary books because of the tendency for them to be perceived as more worthwhile than genre fiction. Neither is better or worse in my opinion. My reviews are based on my emotional response to a book, although I do give extra points for a book that strikes me as being very well-written, even if I don't like everything about the book. I am more critical in my reviews when I am doing them for my review gig.

No matter the genre, I'm asking the same questions: can this author write, do they achieve what they set out to do, are they entertaining, what original insights do they put forth, and how do they compare to other authors writing in a similar vein? As far as my reviewing method goes, there's no strict delineation.