Book Buying Addicts Anonymous discussion
General
>
How do you write reviews?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Joseph
(new)
Apr 13, 2013 05:58AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
I think that's 100% up to the reviewer. But it would be nice if people say what they liked and what they didn't like about it.Personally, though, I really, really hate it when reviewers spend time/space on summerizing the book. It's just a waste of space - and also a waiste of my time if I'm reading it. Also, the book description already has a summary, so why repeat it? But what is worse than summaries are spoilers!!!
When I am really taking time to write a review, I often find that I like to include quotes or examples from the book. It's also nice to compare the book to others I have read by the same author or of the same genre.When I rush through writing a review, I find that I don't really provide a lot of information.
I try to summarize the book for myself. Just to remember. And I try to give opinions, say what I liked or not, etc
When I write a review I generally try to keep it around two hundred words. I think personal impressions and reactions are more relevant to potential readers than a synopsis of a book that would make re-reading it redundant. With the exception of my Goodreads friend’s reviews, I seldom read a review prior to reading a story. I often see people pouring over the outside covers to get a general impression of a book. I usually judge a new buy with other parameters. Size (the bigger the better) and condition play a large role in my buying attitude. I may not give every book a high score but I’ve never really regretted reading any book.
I too tend to add my personal reaction to the book. I prefer to read honest, personal, reactions to books - so that's what I try to add to my own reviews. Sometimes I do add a very brief synopsis of the book - if it is the sort of book that requires it (ie: non-fiction). I require a novel to be entertaining and enjoyable. I require a non-fiction book to be enjoyable, well written, factually relevant and not too "text bookey". Most of my reviews are 4 and 5 starts because I don't often waste my time reading fiction that I don't enjoy. What's the point in reading a novel that one needs to 'slog' through just to be able to review it at 2-3 stars? (although I DO like slogging through a good non-fiction book at times!) If I don't have something good to say about a book, I generally don't say anything.
I have, in the past, read a book because I had promised the author that I would read and review it. The book had been out of my 'normal' catagories' .My promise was not a very good experience because I really did not enjoy the book, but I had given my word and so I read the book. My review came in at a 3 star. Now I am very hesitant to read anything that is out of my enjoyment range .
I don't want to write a book report, I just try to give my feelings toward the book. I'm more of a I liked it, what I thought of the characters, and if the story line moved or dragged along.I try not to write a synopsis of the book since they have one at the top of the page, but if I don't think the synopsis really explained the book I may give a quick explain. I also try to avoid spoilers, unless I need one to explain why I loved or didn't like something.
If I write a review I say why it gets the rating I am giving, whether it is what I liked and thought worked well, or the opposite if need be. If all I can think of at the time is something like I thought the book was great or something like that, I just leave it as a star rating with no review.If the book really had an effect on me and made me think about things I make sure to include that as well. For example, Jack Ketchum's newest book, I'm Not Sam had thinking of how I would react if what happened to the husband in book happened in my life. If something is also not typical of most of an authors stories I make sure to mention that as well. Like the Ketchum book. Most of, maybe all (haven't read much from him yet), his book are gruesome and violent horror stories. That one was not like that at all though.
If a review is informative then I don't care about the length of the review, whether reading it or writing it. One thing I really like about Goodreads is that I see friend reviews first, which I tend to trust more than some others.
One thing I don't like is when someone rates a book here with 1 star but doesn't have a review with it stating why they hated it. If you dislike a book so much it gets a 1 star rating, that is understandable, but if there is no review I typically don't even factor that rating into whether I want to read it since they didn't bother to say what was wrong with it.
In the case of some book I mention if it gets a half star as well, since Goodreads doesn't have that feature.
I agree with not liking spoilers or writing a book report. But I do share my reviews with my facebook friends and the second question I get after "What are you reading?" is "What is it about?" I do try to make it brief.
I used to give a synopsis of the story. now I fend to say why I liked the book. I do have a tendency to like everything. I am pretty sure publishers rating was a 3. Does that means am not a harsh enough reader?
Mod
I would disagree with the descriptions of the rating that Goodreads uses. A 2 star rating is most definitely not an OK book. If you use percentages, 2 stars out of 5 is 40%, which is an F. 3 stars is 60%, 4 stars is 80%. This is why I wish Goodreads utilized half stars like LibraryThing does. I use 3 stars here for books that are ok, 4 stars is good, 5 is very good.So far I haven't used 1 star on anything, which is good since that would mean I really messed up with getting that book, lol
Most are mine are 3 stars, I believe my overall rating is like 3.1. Most book are entertaining but are missing that little something that makes them really good for a 4 star and 5 stars are the books you have to rave about and try to get everyone you know to read it.
A few times I have given 2 stars. I felt the books are okay, not good not bad just ok and since this is Goodreads I will go by their rating system. It would be nice if they had half stars though.
Joseph wrote: "When you write a review on Goodreads, what do you think should be included? Do you just say "I liked it" or do you go further, "I liked it because..."? Do you summarize the story? List the chara..."I am not a writer, so I don't try to act like one. I write what I felt about a book; sometimes that is only a paragraph, sometimes longer. Some books leave me speechless, and that is exactly what I write. Why do I need to summarize a book that has the summary already listed with the book? I always think that reviews from readers should be about what the book felt like, not picking apart a plot.
..hell, what do I know; I am not a writer...
Alondra wrote: "Joseph wrote: "When you write a review on Goodreads, what do you think should be included? Do you just say "I liked it" or do you go further, "I liked it because..."? Do you summarize the story?..."I'm not a writer either, but the type of reviews you write are the ones I like reading the best!
When I write a review of a book, its for several different reasons. Most often I will review books that I really enjoyed and would recommend to others. I also write reviews for books that just suck and can't keep my attention. As a reader those are the kinds of reviews I would be looking for.I generally add a little blurb about the narrative, acknowledging plot lines and the like. But I think the most important thing we can do as readers is to describe how each particular book affects us. Documenting the moments where a writer really connects with the reader is what the joy of reading is all about, in my opinion. :)
I don´t review every book, just those I feel like reviewing. It can be bad or good, but it has to be some of that. If it´s average (2.5 - 3.5 stars), I won´t review it at all. I never just say that I like or did not like it. I always say why. I don´t rate or review classics, I never rate books with stolen characters/story, or retellings, and if I really hated the book, I won´t rate/review it either. And sometimes I simply do not feel like reviewing/rating at all.
Some books are just not worth rating and reviewing. I do spend money on them so I have right to consider them worthless and most of them really are - worthless.
You would be more apt to write a review if you saw it more as a public service than a labor of love. Thousands of Goodreads members would appreciate in hearing your opinion; good or bad. They are constantly expanding their reading horizons and can use all the help they can get.
Lára wrote: "Some books are just not worth rating and reviewing. I do spend money on them so I have right to consider them worthless and most of them really are - worthless."You really think most of them are worthless? Why would keep reading them then? I tend to know what I would enjoy, and as a result I can count on one hand the number of books I have read that I didn't care for very much.
I don't review every book I read (Actually most books I do not write a review for), but I do make sure that I rate everything I read on Goodreads. It helps both the authors of the books and people looking for new books to read, so I have no problem doing that. It literally takes seconds to rate a book on Goodreads, no need to review it if you don't want to.
Spoilers! Bring 'em on! I'm all about the journey, and any journey is improved if you know where you are going. If all its got is a twist, then it hasn't got anything.But seriously, I do think that spoilers are the risk of reading reviews. People shouldn't get upset about it. If someone is really precious about not knowing anything about a book's plot ... then they should avoid all reviews.
Robert wrote: "Lára wrote: "Some books are just not worth rating and reviewing. I do spend money on them so I have right to consider them worthless and most of them really are - worthless."You really think mos..."
Because I hope some will be good perhaps?
I would never say a book is worthless unless read.
"You would be more apt to write a review if you saw it more as a public service than a labor of love."
Tom, I really have disagree with you. Lots of people would, too, just like to tell me "I do not care what you think, my opinion is what matters" - I get this kind of comments all the time (from authors, too)
I don't bother with a synopsis of a book. And to be perfectly honest, it really irritates me when reviewers do give a synopsis. Especially a detailed one. I know where to go if I want to know what the book is about. That's not why I'm reading a review. Mine are generally short. What did I like? What did I possibly not like? I don't review everything. Books I get for free I review as a sort of payment. I try to review books that are more or less than three stars.
I'd like to be better about doing reviews or being more thorough but I just don't have the time. A lot of my updates are on the fly.
