SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
All About Goodreads
>
Do you find it easier to review books the first time you read them?
If anything I find the opposite. Sometimes a re-read makes it easier to write a review. It's either no trouble the first time, or I need at least one re-read to clarify my thoughts.
For me it depends on the book. If it has topics that I need to treat carefully as I'm mentioning possible triggers for people (rape/explicit sex/violence/swearing/abuse/etc.) I frequently need to do 2-3 reads. If its a book I simply enjoyed and the problems with it are not controversial 1st read is usually fine.If I haven't read the book in years I do have to reread to review.
I agree with Tasha. For me, it depends on the book. If I love it, I usually need to read it again so that I can appreciate it more fully, (because a first read of a fabulous book can occur at a furious pace, but that's not usually a pressing reason for a reread before a review) :)It's the books that I'm either ambivalent about or actually detest, that need extra reading before review. That's so that I can write a coherent review that is actually useful for other readers. "I detested that book" simply isn't adequate. If it's not my genre or the content is too "out there" for me, I need to say so, and then concentrate on any positives or negatives in the writing.
Up until now, any serious consideration of books has been in "editor's mode" for four new writers I've helped out. As a retired teacher, I did this for 35 years, and now for the past 10, I've volunteered with an adult literacy group, where I've worked with scads of writers, and helped produce a number of anthologies.
I find it difficult not to have my "teacher mode" engaged, mentally tracking themes, looking for rising action, secondary plots, etc, but just reading mindlessly.
Anyway, yes, I would prefer first-read stories when I write a review. It's more fun, especially if it's an enjoyable yarn.
There is value in both kinds of reviews. The considered analysis of a well-digested and oft-reread work is meaty and grand. But the first fling of opinion, the "OMG, I just loved it!" post is useful too.
I almost never write reviews. My impressions change after I've had time to digest the book a little, and then I forget all the little details people seem to care about, so I end up doing nothing instead of rereading and doing a review.
Kythe42 wrote: "When I review a book I read for the first time I guess it's easier to review based on my first impression of the book and those reviews tend to be longer and more in depth. When I've reread a book I find it difficult to write more than a few sentences describing the book and how well I liked it."I think the same is probably true for me, but I can't be sure since I haven't re-read anything since I started writing reviews. I'm fairly sure I'd find it harder to write (or re-write) a review after re-reading a book because you get so much more out of it than you did the first time, but so much of that is related to your impressions from the first read it's hard to put into words. When I try to think back at my first impressions of books I've read many times I can't remember what I thought of them. I can only see them through the eyes of someone who knows the story and characters well, in many cases through sequels too. I do think it makes it much harder to write about.
Interesting thread!
Thanks for all the comments everyone. It's so interesting to see how everyone else experiences this.
For me--and I say this as someone that writes rather long-winded reviews on their blog--I have to wait a few days, at least, to let my thoughts congeal. I need to be far enough out that any initial rush of afterglow fades, and still near enough to the reading that I can gather my thoughts on various points.When I actually sit down to write the review, that too sets off trains of thought, and helps me unravel what I was thinking about the subject at hand. So it's a multi-stage approach.
It's neither easier nor harder for me, but they will be very different reviews. A first read review will give my initial impression and analysis. In a re-read, I'll not only be analyzing the book, but also the difference (if any) between my first read and any subsequent read.Not only will I have the ability to see whether the book stands the test of time, but I'll have the opportunity to compare it to other works I've read in the meantime, possibly even to works by the same author.
Micah wrote: "It's neither easier nor harder for me, but they will be very different reviews. A first read review will give my initial impression and analysis. In a re-read, I'll not only be analyzing the book, ..."That does make a lot of sense. Unfortunately as I've only started reviewing what I read over the last few months and many of those books being rereads, I don't have any reviews for the first read to compare. It will be interesting to see the difference in the future though.
Indeed? I adore re-reading, especially when I am not up to the challenges of a novel work. The term 'comfort read' is salient here. One of the functions of my Goodreads reviews is to remind me of what I did read, so that I don't accidentally pick up a work hoping that it is quite new to me. Or, worse yet, buy it only to discover I have a copy already!
Brenda wrote: "Indeed? I adore re-reading, especially when I am not up to the challenges of a novel work. The term 'comfort read' is salient here. One of the functions of my Goodreads reviews is to remind me of w..."Yes I love rereading my favorite books as well. I couldn't imagine absolutely loving a book and never reading it again in the future.
I re-read all the time as well. My favorite books get a lot of wear, always have. I remember when I was little I would check the same book out of the library over and over and over... The line in Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" truly resonates me, where she goes to the library, discovers there aren't any new books to read, and picks out one she's already read twice. That is definitely me.I have found that writing reviews seems to be easier when I've just read something and it's fresh in my mind. As far as whether or not it's "easier" to review something I've just read for the first time... I'm not sure I can say... I definitely have more motivation to review something I've just read for the first time, as opposed to something I read a while ago.
Jenelle wrote: "I re-read all the time as well. My favorite books get a lot of wear, always have. I remember when I was little I would check the same book out of the library over and over and over... The line in D..."This one, for me, right here:
I definitely have mixed feelings about re-reading. I have re-read a few books in my time but I find the excitement of not knowing what is coming next gone and that in some cases can leave the story feeling a bit flat. I suppose it all depends on the author's ability to make you feel the story and how drawn in you feel. Then again that is just my personal view and expect that in the future I will come across a lot of book I would love to re-read. Come to think of it I love Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte and Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen and have re-read them a few times! Sorry big fat liar here!!!
Jonathan wrote: "Unfortunately as I've only started reviewing what I read over the last few months and many of those books being rereads, I don't have any reviews for the first read to compare...."Neither do I. But I do have my recollections of my first read. Most any book I re-read is going to be one I liked enough in the first place to remember. I may not have it all written down, but my memory's not that bad yet...what were we talking about?
I find it easier, because things are more memorable when you read for the first time. The excitement and 'not knowing what will happen next' feel isn't the same when I re-read.
C.S. Lewis wrote about that. He distinguished clearly between that first mad rush of 'ohmigod I need to know what will happen next!' and the more considered pleasures of knowing what will happen next and watching the characters get there, and the author's deft orchestration of same. He declared that they were different delights, each to be enjoyed in their own time.
Brenda wrote: "C.S. Lewis wrote about that. He distinguished clearly between that first mad rush of 'ohmigod I need to know what will happen next!' and the more considered pleasures of knowing what will happen ne..."That's very well said Brenda. I have to admit I like both. I'm also very excited to re-read a few books that reveal a different truth and perspective near the end of the book. It'll be great to see how well thought out it was.
Having just re-read Brave New World I'll be writing my first re-read review, but I didn't review the book soon after reading the first time so I still won't have any real life experience to answer this question with! Someday I'll be able to say this was easier or harder with a concrete example.
The comments by Lewis which Brenda is referring to can be found in his book of essays, "On Stories". A wonderful read which I'd highly recommend.More specifically, they are summed up in this quote:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/88726...
I'll just add that I myself find it much more enjoyable to write reviews on books that I've re-read. It's not that I won't write them for books I've only read once, but good books, I find, are never done justice with a single reading and so the more times I've read one, the more rich the review will turn out to be and I try to put a great deal of thought into my reviews.
Besides, how dull to only be able to read books once. You can only ever have the pleasure of first reading PRIDE AND PREJUDICE once, after all. If it were not then the prelude to many happy re-reads, then gosh! You would be done with it -- how terrible!
Brenda wrote: "Besides, how dull to only be able to read books once. You can only ever have the pleasure of first reading PRIDE AND PREJUDICE once, after all. If it were not then the prelude to many happy re-read..."That is exactly my experience. Reading a good book again is like chatting with an old friend or taking a stroll through the same lovely stretch of woods you took yesterday. Here newness is not novelty, but the a kind of inner quality evoked by the work in you time and time again, a wonder that never diminishes or fades no matter how often it is experienced.
I (almost) always only review after a second (or later) read. If I can't stand to read it twice, it's not worth the review to encourage others toward it.
There are very few books I care to re-read, even if I enjoyed them the first time. As I'm reading a book, I keep track of my impressions and experience as a first-time reader of the book, then let my ideas sit and ripen for a day or so after I finish, then write the review.Even if I do re-read a book eventually, I still feel like that first impression review conveys the truest experience of reading the book.
I'm pretty good and writing reviews for film or video games, which is my general background, but I find it harder to write reviews about books. It is hard to condemn bad books since I know how hard it is to work on them. But also it is hard for me to really nail down what I might like about a book. But I do try to review a book the first time around since I don't do a lot of re-reads.
I rarely re-read books, especially books that I didn't like the first time around.The exception to that is Neuromancer. When I read it long ago I blasted it in to a pile of smoldering ash. But years go by and tastes change. I plan to re-read it soon (as an experiment). That being said, I tend to find it easier to write a review based on a first reading. There's no bias involved from a previous reading.
I rarely re-read books and prefer to write my thoughts on the book out as soon as I've finished it while it's all still fresh in mind. I have gone back and edited a review after my thoughts have stewed on it awhile though. Sometimes I'll wait though if I feel the book just wasn't 'right'. There have been a few books that I thought "Whelp, that was alright I guess..." and then later on decided "Ugh, no actually that was terrible!" Of course, I don't write full scholarly reviews breaking down each little detail of everything either, just an honest expression of my opinion with the general information I usually look for when browsing reviews- Did the world work, was the reviewer able to sympathize with the characters, did the magic system seem tacked on, was the pacing good, etc?
Does anyone else write a 'review' of books they just couldn't stand to finish? I like to put a blurb up explaining that I didn't finish, this was how far I got, and why I didn't feel it was worth going on. Sometimes I find those little statements of why you simply hated it to be some of the most valuable and candid reviews. Not that there have been more than three books in the last couple years I can remember just giving up on...
If I can't finish a book (unless it's because of personal reasons at my end, like surgery) then that's actually a useful datum. It is said of the great editor Damon Knight that he would read mss with an index card in his hand. The moment he lost interest, he would mark the place with the card and stop. Then he would return the mss with a rejection letter. If he got through an entire manuscript without using the card, he bought it.
There's an editor with a code: "Didn't grab my interest." I couldn't get into reading it.
"Didn't hold my interest." I couldn't finish it.
"Didn't work for me." I read it all, but there was just something off about it.
Brenda wrote: "...It is said of the great editor Damon Knight that he would read mss wi..."Sounds a little like Harry Cohen's counting the number of times his butt twitched in the theater seat.
We read aloud in my writer's group, and I always pay attention to what the listeners are doing. When/if people start shifting and playing with their papers, that's when I know I've lost them.
Really depends on the book. I would say eight percent can be reviewed immediately upon completion, but there are a select few that require some thought before expression an opinion. I know I'm still pondering a book I read a month ago. It too a week to write the review and the author and I started discussing how it ended. The debate is still going on.
I enjoy writing a sort of rough review for a book once I've finished it for the first time and then going back and adding a few thoughts after a rereading. There are some things that aren't obvious on the first reading and others that seem great at first but don't hold up so well under closer scrutiny. I will say that how you feel at the time can make a big impact. If you've just gone through a stressful relationship, for example, then a book about a stressful relationship may have more impact than if you're in a happy relationship.
L.G. makes a good point.The mood a reader is in at the time can indeed inluence his or her attitude and evaluation of the book dramatically.
I agree with L.G. I am fairly new to goodreads, but right now I have been writing reviews for books I've read recently before joining goodreads, as well as newer ones I've been reading. They are very brief...for now. But, I think if/when I do a reread of some of my favorites, I will go back and write a more thorough review. Overall though, since I am not a writer and am not a huge fan of looking for themes and symbols and such in books, I just give my honest first impressions/reactions of how I feel about the book. However, I also try to be fair and honest. For example, ASoIaF is probably my favorite series to date, I loved all the books, but that doesn't mean I gave all the books 5 stars, only the ones I felt deserve it.I'm hoping being on this site longer and reading more, as well as reading more reviews will help me write more lengthy reviews when I have the time!
Miira wrote: "I almost never write reviews. My impressions change after I've had time to digest the book a little, and then I forget all the little details people seem to care about, so I end up doing nothing in..."Me too. I never feel like I can write enough. Sometimes I can't even tell you why I really loved a book. I'll read other reviews and go, "Oh yeah!" but I have a hard time putting my own words down. But hey, that's why I'm a reader and not a writer. :)
Chris wrote: "I agree with L.G. I am fairly new to goodreads, but right now I have been writing reviews for books I've read recently before joining goodreads, as well as newer ones I've been reading. They are ..."First impressions are usually the most honest; or at least, sincere.
I was impressed with your comment regarding the decision not to assign a 5-star rating to one of your favorite books.
It never ceases to amaze me how many Goodreads reviewers constantly award 5-stars to one book after another.
I have read many books in my lifetime. Most were good, some were very good, a few were just okay, and fewer yet would be what I consider to be "amazing", which is what a 5-star rating indicates.
Keep up the good work. I look forward to reading your reviews.
One of the tricks I try to convince readers to do is not write a review, but their thoughts. I know amazon requires a minimum of twenty-five words or so, but if you saw a movie or television show you really liked and told friends about it, that is a review of sorts. You have recommended it. That's all a review is. Being a writer I sometimes get to wordy and analytical with a work, so, I have to pull back the reigns and just talk about the points and the gaps.
Jeff wrote: "One of the tricks I try to convince readers to do is not write a review, but their thoughts. "I completely agree with Jeff. What readers look for in a review is whether its worth picking up the book at all. They're not looking for an in-depth analysis of why the author did this or that, but merely if the book's worth reading. And, unless I've been invited to assist in the editing of a book, I never read a story twice, unless there's 25 years in between. Even after that time I know what's on the next page and it spoils it for me.
To readers out there : independent authors really value your reviews, good or bad, so please do write them, even if it's just a word or two.
Did it do what it said on the tin?
Did it entertain?
Did the story hold together?
Was it professionally presented (ie not full of typos and bad grammar?
Would you buy from the same author again?
You don't have to precis the story in your own words - the back cover blurb should have done that, but you can mention any particular parts that grabbed you.
When I see a nice building, I receive an overall impression. I don't scrutinize every mortar joint looking for flaws.
It should be fun to write a review, not hard work.
Eh, reviews tend to sidle over into the literary criticism field all the time.
Pete wrote: "I never read a story twice, unless there's 25 years in between. Even after that time I know what's on the next page and it spoils it for me...."I'm getting to the age that I can re-read a book a year later and be entertained all over again.
Now, where did I leave my glasses and why did I wander into this room?
Al wrote: I'm getting to the age that I can re-read a book a year later and be entertained all over again.Now, where did I leave my glasses and why did I wander into this room? "
Now you mention it, when I edit my own books I find I can't put them down! I don't remember half of it.
Pete wrote: "Al wrote: I'm getting to the age that I can re-read a book a year later and be entertained all over again.Now, where did I leave my glasses and why did I wander into this room? "
Now you mention..."
ROFL-CGU! I admit I'm addicted to my own prose. It must be an ego thing.
I'd have a heck of a problem reviewing books on the second reading because I almost never read them twice. I can count on one hand the books I actually read twice and that includes the two I wrote. :P
Fantastic question. I'm loving this whole thread.I tend to read most books only once, but once I finish a novel I sit on it a day or two and think about, THEN review it. I like to digest.
I like to talk about books. My short & friendly reviews reflect that. I usually write them promptly - but sometimes I revise them later, for clarity or for something else I thought of, or in case of a reread. I like to read others' reactions, too. I *do not* like long fancy reviews.
My enthusiasm is usually at a higher level the first time I read them. That makes me want to write them right away. Or maybe I should say it's more intense. High highs and low lows.
I review everything I read. At first, it's so I can remember it. I may talk about characters or setting, how the plot goes from A to E, something or some things that stick out. Sometimes I quote the book. I love rereading books usually, but some of them I have very different feelings about as I reread them.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Neuromancer (other topics)Brave New World (other topics)
The New Dinosaurs (other topics)
When I review a book I read for the first time I guess it's easier to review based on my first impression of the book and those reviews tend to be longer and more in depth. When I've reread a book I find it difficult to write more than a few sentences describing the book and how well I liked it.
Does anyone else experience the same thing? Do you find the opposite to be true? Or is it equally easy(or difficult) for you to write reviews regardless of wither it's a first time read or not?