Around the Year in 52 Books discussion
Off Topic
>
Reviewing Books
date
newest »
newest »
My review plan is:- a general opinion (as the reviews don't fully appear in the book page)
- a short summary without spoilers for friends who don't know the book and for me if I don't remember the book later
- what I liked/disliked, usually around the writing, the story and the characters.
Reviews for graphic novels, picture books, short stories, etc, are more on a free style, depending on what I'd like to say.
Sometimes, I start the review while reading, others I write it just after finishing the book. I keep track of some of my thoughts with the "update status", and I'm very careful when I find the book average because, often, the ending is good and can influence the rating.
I definitely write more freestyle, conversational reviews, as if I were discussing the book with a friend, than academic ones. I sometimes make a note or two about a book, particularly the ones I really like, but I generally write the full review after I've read the whole thing. I've read several books lately where the second half of the book was better so I am glad I didn't start the review before I finished.
I don't review books often because I find it hard to say what I want without giving anything away. I usually just rate them. But, if a book really had a strong impact (positive or negative), I'll leave a review. Usually my reviews are just commentary on my overall impressions of the book/the reading experience. Mostly, I point out anything I especially loved or hated -- characters, storyline (without spoilers), etc. I never review a book until I finish the whole thing.
There is nothing academic or real structured about my reviews so I'm probably not the person to give you advice. My reviews come from a very personal place. I guess I don't really write them with an audience in mind. Well, no, I guess that isn't totally true. There are some GoodReads friends I have whose reviews, ratings, and thoughts on books I'm interested in reading because we have similar tastes and I trust their opinion. I can only reasonably assume at least one or two of my GoodReads friends feel that way about me so I do try to be a little helpful in my reviews. But mostly I write them for myself. Because I want to remember how a book made me feel. I want to remember why I did or did not like it. I don't retain books quite as well as I used to after some years have passed. ;) They're more memory joggers for me.
My reviews are mostly feelings driven. How did it make me feel? Why did I like a character? Why didn't I like the story? And so on and so on. I also try to sum the story up in my own words in every review I write. I know some people don't like that because it lengthens the review and that's what the synopsis is for. I don't entirely agree. The synopsis is designed to entice you to read the book. Sometimes a synopsis plays a little fast and loose with the summary.
As I read, I think about what is working and not working for me. Sometimes I note that in the status updates as I go so I remember to add it later. I usually like to review the book immediately after reading because that is when it is freshest in my mind.
Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen. It happened a helluva lot less than I would have liked it to in 2015. I've got 22 books on my "need-to-review" shelf at this moment. I wanted to review them all before I got too far into 2016 but I'm just to excited to read as much as I can this year! I'll get to them a few at a time.
I do agree that a book doesn't deserve automatic rating drops if the content is disturbing or infuriating. As long as it is well written and the author is getting a point across with it, emotion is to be expected.
So glad I started this topic, great replies thank you!I don't think I want to write reviews with the same structure over and over, but it could be helpful to have a little list of things to include even in a more freestyle text. I find I get so much more out of a book these days when I've increased awareness both during and after reading, though.
When I write a review, I'm really just writing it for me. I like to be able to look up what I've thought about previous books before reading another one from that author, or see what I thought about one book in a series before starting the next. It's also convenient if someone asks me if I've read something and, if so, what I thought about it. A star is just a general idea but the review tells me so much more. If I don't feel like writing a review, I try to find a review that I agree with and like it - figure it's better than nothing :)And I write the review when I mark the book as read and rate it. If I waited, I would be well into other books and would forget.
I also write them for myself more than anything. As I'm not a literary critic or an academic, I use the star ratings as GR seems to intend them to be used - to show how much I enjoyed the book. I find it a nice way to round out my reading experience, even if it's just jotting down a few words (like this one - https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...).
I review my books for myself, so I review them based on my mood at the time. Sometimes they're detailed, sometimes they're vague. Sometimes they're really long (especially if I know the sequel isn't coming out for another year) and sometimes it's something stupid like, "Yep, that was good" haha
Reviewing the book is my "sending off" routine adter I finish a book. It is mostly for myself, my thoughts about the book. I like that it forces me to think about the book and what I got out of it.The content is mostly about what I liked or disliked about a book. I often comment on language, character development and plot.
I find myself wanting a bit more of an academic approach, more structure and awareness in my reading, and your thoughts and tips are much appreciated!
For instance if a topic makes me frustrated or angry even, it isn't ground enough to punish by lowering the rating, as long as the book was well written. You know?