Cheryl’s Comments (group member since Jul 30, 2011)

Cheryl’s comments from the More than Just a Rating group.

So, the question is, do we remember to discuss inaccurate covers and blurbs in our reviews, to help others who may be deciding whether to pick up the book? I try to, but I know I don't always remember, especially if I actually got over my frustration & confusion and did like the book.

Beth wrote: "
This cover (of a book I enjoyed, by the way!) is a particularly strange case of "whitewashing." The actual photo seems to be of a WoC, but..."

That is another terrific example... and I, too, actually enjoyed the book nonetheless.

Indeed, which kind of robes? Thanks for the giggle, LJ.

I was just thinking about misleading blurbs myself today and thinking of visiting this thread. But, yes, inaccurate covers are definitely frustrating. Esp., imo, when the author took the trouble to create POC characters and the art disses them.

Good choice!

Hah! Gulch - good way of putting it! Yes, series do tend to peter out, or reflect that the author is getting too full of themselves, in my experience.

Good points. It's probably easier for most of us to admit to how a book makes us feel, or what tangential ideas or memories it evokes, than to try to more objectively analytical. Probably it would be good for many of us to just 'lean into' it a bit more.

Odd but not stupid! I often waffle between 3 and 4, myself, and that's why I'd prefer to simplify it. Both would simply be a thumbs up, tyvm.

But that's why it's an interesting thing to converse about. Different readers have different ideas about evaluations.

That system makes sense, thanks!

I most assuredly do not. In fact, I'd prefer thumbs up/thumbs down, and that's it.

But with any ratings system, it's not the number that matters. Hence the name of the group. I beg you all to write at least a sentence or two explaining your rating. If not, and you still fret, at least you can use the review space to say "this is actually a 3.5 star book for me."

But what am I missing? Why do ppl want finer granularity?

Some people still wish we had half star ratings (or a 10 point scale, same dif.) Do you?

I do all of the above, for different books. My reviews are generally very casual, seldom edited (though usually proofread), meant to be like friendly chats with all my GR friends.

I like seeing the more personal stuff in others' reviews. I, personally, generally don't have as much to say as some people do, but I appreciate the heart & soul shared when someone else is moved by a book.

We call them reviews. GR called them comments, and now says "what did you think?" Some people use the space to talk about who gave them the book or what nostalgic memories it evokes or other personal stuff.

What do you like to use the review space for? How much of yourself do you like to share in your reviews or reactions or thoughts?

I've got some hours to bring in to Metro, thanks for doing your bit and reminding me to do mine!

Absolutely poor marketing. Tbh, I actually very seldom look at jacket reviews, and even then am less likely to notice 'gender' of reviewer. I'm more likely to be looking to see if the review is by Kirkus, NYT, etc., rather than by an author, blogger, or someone I've never heard of.

Very sexist. And, um, homophobic? What about the non-binary, trans, gender fluid, and other queer reviewers and readers?

Thank you. Both for the information and for not participating. I'm actually not surprised to learn of this practice.

I must say, I think that some of those professionals do review summaries, as their comments give praise to the exact things that I find wrong with the published book. And/or sometimes they skim, and miss significant problems, admiring only the surface of the book. This seems to happen more in non-fiction.

I'll have to remember to call them out, now that I have learned that this can indeed happen.

Agreed. Misleading blurbs and covers definitely need to be noted, strongly, in reviews. I'm sure I don't always remember to do so, but I do try.

(Do you want a certain thread to exist? We can create one!)

Oh gosh yes. "Professional" reviewers are the worst. Still are. I read the reviews in the magazines sometimes and then compare my thoughts, and it definitely seems like they didn't read the book but only reacted to elements of it.

And of course the community of 'critics' and publishers etc. is insular and almost incestuous; they really don't know what the rest of us want.

Yes. But, yes, any review that reveals that the reviewer has not read the book is suspect. I googled 'review bombing' and found a title that had been subjected to it... went to the book page here on GR... and it is clear that there are a lot of comments and low ratings that were placed by 'friends of friends' who had not actually read the book. So, yes, RBing is def. a problem.

I don't rate books that I don't finish. I review them, to explain why I didn't, but I almost never rate them.

I mostly trust reviews from people I'm GR friends with, or people on GR that I'm following. I do write reviews for every book that I attempt to read, whether or not I finish it, because I want my thoughts to be available to my GR network so they don't have to rely on strangers' opinions. I do not, however, generally write very long reviews.

Ratings, well, no, never have put much stock at all in them.

Oh, yes, non-fiction is rated on rather different criteria, indeed. Thinking about it a bit, I suppose I want my science books to be lucid, and to have a point (maybe a theory), and to have evidence/ research to convince me that what they are presenting does make sense (the theory fits the data).