Monday, October 27, 2008
Theory #44: Readerly Theories: Reviews Redux
I just read "What Is Wrong with the C Review" on Dear Author, and it sparked some thoughts, so here I am again, posting another Smart Bitches Day post. I'm on a roll, aren't I?
I'm not going to rehash everything Jane said, because she made some excellent points and said it better than I could, so go follow the link above and read the post--I'll wait.
You're back? Nice thought-provoking post, wasn't it? It makes a lot of sense. It is definitely true that when I write a review that's less than 4.5 stars, I tend to get into a lot of detail about what I liked and didn't like about the book, basically justifying why it wasn't my favorite book ever. The Dear Author post pointed out to me why that's actually more painful to an author than a horrible review that merely trashes the book without going into detail--it's easier to dismiss the latter.
I'm not sure how that insight is going to affect my reviews--not much, I suspect. I'm writing them for myself and for other readers, after all, and pointing out the specifics helps me make sense of my gut feelings about the book, and I'd hope it's more useful to readers than a general "good book," "okay book," or "this book sucks moose." I know when I read a review, I'm looking for reasons for that grade.
In fact, if I'm on the fence about buying a book, I'll go to Amazon, and read the worst reviews--not the 5-star reviews: they all say the same thing--but the 1-star and 2-star reviews. It gives me a better sense of what to expect from the book. For example, here are three one-star reviews of one of my absolute favorite books, Freedom and Necessity by Emma Bull and Steven Brust:
So I'm also hoping that by pointing out what I did and didn't like, that a less-than-great review will actually convince some other reader to try the book. I don't think I've ever hoped to convince people in general to avoid a book. There have been too many occasions where a book I've loathed has been extremely popular, and I have to assume that its fans want different things from their books than I do. And that's okay with me. Vive la Différence! Variety is the spice of life. etc., etc.
I've talked about reviews before, but I didn't really get into how I grade. In theory:
You'll notice that most of the books are rated 4, 4.5, or 5 stars. There's a reason why there's not a bell-curve distribution: I'm not reading random books. If I'd been reviewing and rating books back when I was getting a couple of boxes of freebies every month, there would be a lot more of the lower ratings. In fact, if you look back on the first few months here, when I was still getting the freebies, you'll notice a difference in my average ratings.
What that means is: I'm reading books that I expect I'll like. I'm reading books by authors whose books I've enjoyed in the past, or books that have been highly recommended to me. Of course the average rating is going to be higher.
But this is the thing: four stars does not mean that I didn't like a book. On the contrary. It means I did like it. Just because I didn't absolutely love it doesn't mean I hated it. And three stars doesn't mean the book sucked. I just thought it was okay.
Categories: Theories, Reading, SBD
I'm not going to rehash everything Jane said, because she made some excellent points and said it better than I could, so go follow the link above and read the post--I'll wait.
You're back? Nice thought-provoking post, wasn't it? It makes a lot of sense. It is definitely true that when I write a review that's less than 4.5 stars, I tend to get into a lot of detail about what I liked and didn't like about the book, basically justifying why it wasn't my favorite book ever. The Dear Author post pointed out to me why that's actually more painful to an author than a horrible review that merely trashes the book without going into detail--it's easier to dismiss the latter.
I'm not sure how that insight is going to affect my reviews--not much, I suspect. I'm writing them for myself and for other readers, after all, and pointing out the specifics helps me make sense of my gut feelings about the book, and I'd hope it's more useful to readers than a general "good book," "okay book," or "this book sucks moose." I know when I read a review, I'm looking for reasons for that grade.
In fact, if I'm on the fence about buying a book, I'll go to Amazon, and read the worst reviews--not the 5-star reviews: they all say the same thing--but the 1-star and 2-star reviews. It gives me a better sense of what to expect from the book. For example, here are three one-star reviews of one of my absolute favorite books, Freedom and Necessity by Emma Bull and Steven Brust:
This has got to be the most torturous bok I've ever read. It's presented as a collection of letters and journal entries from 1849, instead of as prose, and apparently the authors realized this wasn't working at around page 200, and gave one of the letter-writers a perfect memory, and the ability to hand-write letters that must have been 300 pages long, all written in one evening.
I was very disappointed with this book; I bought it because I love Emma Bull's BoneDance, which does not resemble this one at all.
I don't like Victorian books, or pseudo-Victorian anythings, anyway, and wading through the rhetoric and the letters in this was not worth the time.
I consider myself a die hard Brust fan and have enjoyed Emma Bulls works as well. This book was near agony to read and I am still one third of the way from finishing it (I bought it about a year ago). The plot is slow because of the the need for the characters to write each other. Insights that are given into the plot were not stunning enough to keep my attention. I got bored.What these tell me is that they don't like the epistolary style, and that the book isn't like Emma Bull's or Steven Brust's other work. And if I hadn't read the book before, these negative reviews wouldn't dissuade me.
So I'm also hoping that by pointing out what I did and didn't like, that a less-than-great review will actually convince some other reader to try the book. I don't think I've ever hoped to convince people in general to avoid a book. There have been too many occasions where a book I've loathed has been extremely popular, and I have to assume that its fans want different things from their books than I do. And that's okay with me. Vive la Différence! Variety is the spice of life. etc., etc.
I've talked about reviews before, but I didn't really get into how I grade. In theory:
- 5+ stars (15 books) is a book that takes my breath away. It's one of those rare books that when I've finished reading it, I feel, just for a moment, that I never need to read another book, ever again.
- 5 stars (158 books) is a perfect book. Okay, nothing's perfect, but this is as close as it gets. I absolutely loved the book, it's going on my keeper shelves, and I'm going to look for more books by this author a.s.a.p.
- 4.5 stars (175 books) is a book that I absolutely loved. There might be one or two little things that weren't perfect, but it was a great book. It's keeper shelf material, and I'm going to look for more books by this author.
- 4 stars (176 books) means I really liked a book a lot. There were some things that kept me from loving it, but it was a good book. It may or may not go on my keeper shelves, depending on whether or not I'm collecting the author's books or if it's part of a series. Keep in mind that I read a lot, and I simply don't have the shelf space to keep all the books I would keep if I had unlimited space. If I already collect the author's books, this rating won't affect that. If I don't, I may or may not look for more books by the author, depending on the genre and how innovative it seems.
- 3.5 stars (71 books) means I liked the book, but it wasn't great. There were some problems with it, but I still thought it was above average, and I enjoyed it. I won't keep it, and while I won't seek out the author's backlist, I will give them another chance.
- 3 stars (65 books) is an average book. It didn't wow me, but I didn't hate it, either. A lot of times this will be because I don't like the genre (*cough* women's fiction *cough*) or the subject matter. I won't keep it. I'll be open to reading another book by the same author, but I'll try to find one that avoids what I didn't like in this one.
- 2.5 stars (28 books) is below average. I could probably see what some other reader might like about this book, but it didn't resonate with me. Not a keeper, probably not reading more by this author.
- 2 stars (30 books) is a book I didn't care for. There was something about the writing style that I didn't like, or the characters were annoying or inconsistent, or the plot didn't make sense. There are still things in there that I could enjoy--maybe there was some humor, or one of the elements (plot, characters, style) worked, though the others didn't.
- 1.5 stars is a book I really didn't like. I probably had a hard time finding any redeeming qualities about it, though I'll have to admit it's not the worst book I've ever read. I've rated 5 books with 1.5 stars--the last one over a year ago.
- 1 star is one of the worst books I've ever read. I've rated 3 books with 1 star here--the last one three years ago.
You'll notice that most of the books are rated 4, 4.5, or 5 stars. There's a reason why there's not a bell-curve distribution: I'm not reading random books. If I'd been reviewing and rating books back when I was getting a couple of boxes of freebies every month, there would be a lot more of the lower ratings. In fact, if you look back on the first few months here, when I was still getting the freebies, you'll notice a difference in my average ratings.
What that means is: I'm reading books that I expect I'll like. I'm reading books by authors whose books I've enjoyed in the past, or books that have been highly recommended to me. Of course the average rating is going to be higher.
But this is the thing: four stars does not mean that I didn't like a book. On the contrary. It means I did like it. Just because I didn't absolutely love it doesn't mean I hated it. And three stars doesn't mean the book sucked. I just thought it was okay.
Categories: Theories, Reading, SBD
Labels: reading, sbd, theories
