How Does One Rate Fluff?

[Michelle]

There’s obviously many reasons to give a book a good rating. Thought provoking. Great story. Wonderful characters. You can identify exactly why you liked these sort of stories.

Then you have the fluff, but you liked the fluff.

To be specific, I was looking over some Star Wars books in Libby, and I couldn’t remember if I had read a specific book. I thought I did, but I checked to be sure. There it was in my “Read” list, rated four stars, with a review that didn’t tell me much. That tells me that I saw it as enjoyable fluff, but is that four star rating fair to other books? Should that even matter?

What is considered fluff anyway? Sometimes the story itself isn’t fluff, but it feels like it has a lot of detail that could be cut without losing anything from the story itself. Done badly, it’s boring, and the book’s rating and review will reflect that. With that in mind, I suppose four stars is fair because it entertained me with the fluff. Bad fluff is going to be judged much more harshly because there is nothing else of value.

I know a book doesn’t have to be rated, but what else do you do when you can’t really pin down why you liked it? I suppose my next question is, how do you review fluff beyond just finding it entertaining?

[L J]

Michelle wrote: "There’s obviously many reasons to give a book a good rating. Thought provoking. Great story. Wonderful characters. You can identify exactly why you liked these sort of stories...."

You raise some interesting points.

Goodreads star ratings, by Goodreads definitions, are based on how much you liked the book, from "did not like it" to "it was amazing." If you really liked the book then I think 4* is the correct rating regardless of what you think of the book's literary merit.

When it comes to reviews I think it is up to the reviewer how much of the review, if any, is about the literary merits of the book.

When it comes to genre fiction, which many would call fluff, there's nothing wrong with saying something is well written or that you enjoyed the writing style. I always try to keep in mind that many, probably most, works we now consider classics were written to appeal to the masses not the literati.

I've sometimes criticized genre fiction books when the writing style failed to produce a readable novel. That's not to say that genre fiction can't be written to high reading level. It's a matter of style matching what the book is trying to convey.

"She shot him on sight," conveys a different emotional/subjective message than "On discerning his presence she used the gun to rid herself of him." Both are valid but which one should be used is determined by what the author wants the scene to convey.

Authors can change their writing style to match the book they are writing. Rita Mae Brown's style for her popular mystery series is different from the style of her literary works. While acknowledging the quality of the writing of her literary works, it is doubtful I will ever read any of them again but I can see me re-reading some of the mysteries, especially the early Mrs. Murphy mysteries. That does not mean they are better but that they are books I enjoy more.

I see nothing wrong with enthusiastic positive reviews of genre fiction books. If you enjoyed a book that is something you can convey in reviews even if you feel the need to include something like, "I'm not sure why I like this book so much but I do."

[Cheryl, first facilitator]

You both raise interesting questions. I do agree that some fluff is just so much fun, or so enjoyable, that it deserves a high rating. Otoh, when I'm trying to figure out, from others' reviews, whether or not to read a book, I appreciate a little more help.

Maybe say something simple like "this is fluff but it's a joy (or comfort, or adventure, or whatever) to read and I just liked it." I've written my reviews like that sometimes.

And there goes that word 'review' again. I don't think we on GR need to try to write reviews. Imo, our own comments are the best use of that space. ;)

[L J]

Cheryl wrote: "You both raise interesting questions. I do agree that some fluff is just so much fun, or so enjoyable, that it deserves a high rating. Otoh, when I'm trying to figure out, from others' reviews...
...there goes that word 'review' again. I don't think we on GR need to try to write reviews. Imo, our own comments are the best use of that space."

I think I understand what you are saying.

There is, and should be, a difference between a reader review and a traditional book critic type review. I've done both and now lean toward simple reader reviews saying what I liked, or didn't like, and why.

Exceptions:
When I am asked to review by author, publisher or other person involved in the production of the book I feel I should do the more thorough traditional review.
When I am participating in group read where review is part of participation, I feel more traditional review is expected. Part of the reason I now tend to avoid these.

ETA: Think about comment cards at restaurants. They ask little about the nutritional aspects of the food.
No matter how good the quinoa salad you may have enjoyed the chocolate pie more.
Enjoy your pie and have some fun sharing your experience, though not your pie, with others.

[Cheryl, first facilitator]

Indeed. Well put.

[Raymond]

Michelle wrote: "There’s obviously many reasons to give a book a good rating. Thought provoking. Great story. Wonderful characters. You can identify exactly why you liked these sort of stories.

Then you have the f..." I do see what you mean, good point.

[Beth]

As often happens with this group, it's a good question and one I hadn't spent much time thinking about before now.

I don't grade stuff like this on a more lenient curve than I do more heavily literary books, I don't think. As with everything else, I go in hoping to "like it" and give it three stars, and the rating goes up or down depending on: whether it makes me laugh or cry, has an interesting theme to chew on (rarer in fluff, let's be honest), grates against (or is in sync with) my ethos, is too timid or trope-y, has delightful or annoying characters, whether the world-building feels vivid, unique, and lived-in, etc. tldr; same as any other book...

Maybe the mindset going in is slightly different? Going in expecting to be simply entertained, and not downgrading it if it has a low vocab level, for example. (Bestsellerese is a skill, too.) With series, I'll comment on how it's developing (if it is), and whether I'm excited to read the next one or not.

Michelle wrote: "Sometimes the story itself isn’t fluff, but it feels like it has a lot of detail that could be cut without losing anything from the story itself."

I'd call this "cruft" rather than "fluff." Fluff can certainly have cruft. Stories with "here and now" settings that meander about ordinary, everyday details too much...

[Cheryl, first facilitator]

And then there's the fact that one's person 'cruft' is another person's immersive details....

But the criteria you listed are great if we want to develop a checklist to make our reviews more specific!

I never thought of best-sellers being correlated w/ vocabulary level. I'll have to look for that.

[L J]

Thanks for this discussion. It came to mind recently when I was trying to decide what to say about books in a series.

They were silly but entertaining though without much depth when it came to character development or anything else. It felt like the series paranormal universe was made up book by book but that's probably not the case as continuity errors were not an issue.
So far it looks like I'll be rating the books 3* as not something I'd re-read.

Anyway, thanks again.

[Cheryl, first facilitator]

I have found that I did rate my series, Star Trek TNG, a little lower, on average, than more 'literary' books that gave me the same level of enjoyment. I kept reading, even though most got three stars.

Then again, the only ppl reading those reviews are those who know not to expect *L*iterature! So maybe it doesn't matter a whole lot, to try to be fair or consistent. Not all my four-star books are equally worthy of that rating, especially.

[Becky]

I don't rate Literature-with-a-capital-L or fluff any differently, as a rule. I rate each book on a scale of how much I enjoyed it or didn't and don't compare ratings between books. I will make comparisons between books if I think they are valid, but I don't adjust my rating scale based on perceived literary value - that's based solely on my enjoyment or lack thereof.

[Cheryl, first facilitator]

Honestly, I think that's the best way. I just feel a bit of shelf-pride when I get through a more *L*iterary or *C*lassic book. :blush:

[Beth]

Becky wrote: "I don't rate Literature-with-a-capital-L or fluff any differently, as a rule. I rate each book on a scale of how much I enjoyed it or didn't and don't compare ratings between books."

I don't give fluff a handicap, or "Literature" a head start, either. Mansfield Park and So I'm a Spider, So What?, Vol. 5 both got an "I liked it" 3 stars. :D

[Becky]

Considering how many Classics I've disliked, I don't really trust the designation as a signifier of value. I think that many "classics" were just first, and that gives them a staying power they often don't deserve. But, then again, I am a very different reader now than I was 10 or 20 years ago, and would be VERY different from readers when many of these were published, so my expectations and values are simply different.

I just finished listening to The Turn of the Screw last night on my walk, and while the audio was wonderfully performed by Emma Thompson (and Richard Armitage!), the actual STORY left me wanting and feeling like Victorians really had their priorities out of whack when "Without a hat!" is considered terrifying and scandalous and a boy going to sit on the lawn in the pre-dawn hours "to be bad" is considered horror. LOL

[Beth]

Becky wrote: "Considering how many Classics I've disliked, I don't really trust the designation as a signifier of value."

Considering how "best of" lists of books written earlier than the 21st century tend to sift down to straight white men, with maybe a single straight white woman as a sop to those who'd object, that's completely valid.