How do you write your book review?

[[deleted user]]

I've been meaning to ask. How do you write your book review for this particular genre. Do you have a different criteria when you review a crime fiction type of book, as opposed to say a fantasy or a young adult contemporary novel? How do you approach your book review? Please feel free to share your comments here.

[Sharon, Moderator (Netherlands)]

Very good points thanks....

[Ian]

No set way, I just go with the flow of what I'm thinking once I've read it. Always do a review when it's fresh in my mind or not at all.........and definitely no spoilers in the review.

[Dick]

I'm not sure where to post the reviews.

[Enrico]

Well, I read and review only thriller/crime novels. I usually avoid any minimum spoiler (I hate them) and usually I give gut impressions about it. When I rate a novel I usually summarize my feelings about: Characters (capability to identify myself) + mystery (turning page pace) + enviroment (need to get on google map / streetview to see the places) + thrilling (heartbeating pace) + my feelings about characters personal life/experiences/love stories/credibility.

[Mary]

Perfect Enrico!

[Anita]

Just want to say that as far as the star rating system on here goes, I follow the guide from GoodReads. 5 = It was amazing, 4 = I really liked it, 3 = I liked it, etc. After finishing a book I think of what I would say if someone asked what I thought of it. It'd be pretty rare for me to say, "It was amazing", so I rarely give 5 stars.

[Anna]

I often try to give 1-2 days before reviewing (as it's still fresh and not forgotten, but gives more time to draw conclusions too). Some are fine with just the stars, some (especially if few reviews for that title) are better also with some words.

I follow the same system for the star ratings. But my weird discovery is that often when I'm experimenting outside my comfort zones (like with some chicklit, teenlit, scifi etc) that if I like a book, I might rate it a bit higher. Similarly when I'm in my comfort zones (procedurals, crime, noir etc) I tend to round up when I discover a new author or a new style, essentially with some of the falling in love feel. To keep that feel the same author needs to exceed the expectations for the next book. So that may get also rounded down. That's why some of my favorite books by favorite authors end up with 4 stars instead of 5. (4,5 - pretty excellent, so it comes to whether it was the "fall in love with" thing or not, which it might well have been had I started with that book).

[Pat]

In general, I tend not to read to analyse a book. I read for pleasure and if I'm really blown away by a book I will mark it as "Read Again" (wishful thinking, perhaps?). I'm not a fast reader, so I generally read books from my public library that aren't 'hot off the press' to allow others to read those first. I have a very long list of "Want to Read" titles so it's rare that I would read a book that has been given less than a 3.5 star rating. I follow the Goodreads guide for star ratings. My review is about how the book impressed me. I will look at the other reviews of the book on Goodreads first. If there are lots, and if they already reflect my own reactions I won't add a review. If I have something new to add to the ones that have been posted, I will. I don't repeat the synopsis of the book in my reviews if that already appears on the page with the book details. If I like/dislike a book I make a point of explaining why. If it reflects a style that is similar to other writer/s, I mention that as a guide for further reading. A simple 'loved it'/'hated it' is a waste of effort - for everyone.

[Anita]

Anna wrote: "I often try to give 1-2 days before reviewing (as it's still fresh and not forgotten, but gives more time to draw conclusions too). Some are fine with just the stars, some (especially if few review..."

I'm exactly the same when it comes to rounding up & rounding down :-)

I should probably start writing reviews on here too, but I already have a book journal that I keep for myself

[Pat]

I think warning of spoilers is a good practice. It gives prospective readers the opportunity to choose whether to proceed or not. To this end, the star ratings are helpful guides. I like to read synopses of books before I read them and to read reviews after I've read the book, so spoilers aren't an issue then. Further discussions can be freer.

[Ken, Moderator (U.S.A.)]

I didn't know that I was in the top 1% of reviewers for Goodreads. I only like to let the know whats going on without spilling the beans. Only one or two sentences if you please.

[Sharon, Moderator (Netherlands)]

I received an email that I was
You’re in the top 1% of reviewers on Goodreads! Your many thoughtful book reviews help make us a vibrant place for book lovers.
What does that mean? Very strange........

[Pat]

Sharon and Kenneth,
I think the system is probably counting all your comments and messages as 'reviews' - you are both very good communicators!!

[Ken, Moderator (U.S.A.)]

What about Italian Shoes or Depths to names a few.

[Sharon, Moderator (Netherlands)]

Kenneth wrote: "What about Italian Shoes or Depths to names a few."

What are you referring to Kenneth? IMO Italian Shoes was an excellent book. Personally I did not read Depths because a friend did not like it. So despite it being HM I left it as I had done with the Africa series. And you?

[Junying]

Very good comments about reviews - I don't read reviews if someone does spoilers, unless I have finished the book. In fact, I don't usually read reviews beforehand.

When I write reviews, I don't do spoilers either, and I focus on my personal reaction to the book as a reader and occasionally as an author. I look at their characters, plot, writing style and how the stories affect me as a person.

[Harry]

In general, I follow the GR rating system. Just hover over ratings to find that out. As I review crime fiction only, and within that genre usually only series crime fiction, I usually split my review into a "book" review and a "serires" review. The series review stays the same throughout, the book review changes depending on what book in series is being reviewed.

Since this is Scandinavian (or Nordic) fiction, which I've been reviewing almost exlusively lately...I usually include a lot of background that might be unfamiliar to American readers. It may be a comment about the author(s), their political views, interesting tidbits in their bios, their influences, the setting, sociopolitical commentary (which is quite prevalent in Nordic crime fiction), comparisons with other Nordic writers, and how characterization, writing style, and plot (in the abstract) come together in these novels.

And no, I never discuss the actual plot events and never include spoilers: period.

I make conservative use of images (usually authors, maps, and even some imaginative references). What I don't do is try to pictorialize what the author is writing (such as the face of an actor when the series has a televised version, or grabbing numerous photos of settings). I think that's the job of the reader's imagination, to carry that forth pictorially inside their minds. And, isn't that the joy of reading?

Hmmm...can't think of anything else.

[Stephen]

I think revealing a plot is one of the most evil thing a reviewer can do. What i do is set the location & time period. How the author fits within the published world,(i.e. is the author like PD James or more like Mankell. Is it a stand alone title or is it part of a series. Last did i like the writing style, is it a light summer read or a rainy night, bourbon in the flask type.

[[deleted user]]

I agree that a review is best written immediately after reading the book so that the contents of the book is still fresh on the reviewer's mind. However, I do believe some minor spoilers can be added on the review provided they are not major turning points in the book.