How do U decide on the number of stars U give when you rate books or movies?

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Goodreads member, Lora, posted the following in her profile:
=============================================
HOW I RATE:

5 stars - Means that my enjoyment while reading this was too great to give it anything less than 5 stars. Lately I've been trying to be more stingy with my 5 star ratings.

4 stars - Very good and usually something that surprised me.

3 stars - Good but could've been better. Or it was just fine but I don't feel the need to give it a higher rating.

2 stars - Either I hated this but I'm feeling generous for some reason or another, or I hated most of it but there were a few redeeming qualities.

1 star - A lot of people feel that a 1 star rating is harsh, but I give anything that I found absolutely no interest in whatsoever this rating. Also, something that I simply couldn't finish. (And to those who feel that you can't actually rate a book that you've not finished, I say: Yes, you can. If something is so bad that you can't finish it, then it deserves a 1 star rating.)
====================================================

I have to agree with much of the above.

See Lora's profile here:
http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/46...

When you give ratings (on books or films), how do you make your decisions about the number of stars you will give?

[Mike]

I rate books kind of along these lines

5-little or no repetitiveness
Suspensful
Good voice
No cliffhangers(unless in a series)
And finally well rounded

4-
Few flaws
Pretty good voice
Small cliffhangers
Maybe rare/limited repetitiveness

3- few flaws
Repetitive
Cliffhangers

2-storyline can be very much improved
Repetitive
Cliffhangers
Changing voice

1-awful storyline
Very repetitive
A bunch of cliffhangers
No stable voice

Sometimes books rank in the middle so I give the book a closer look and see where it qualifies better.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Mike wrote: "I rate books kind of along these lines..."

That's an interesting system, Mike.

I'm still mulling over how I give stars. It's usually an emotional reaction rather than an intellectual one, but I do require an appealing and intelligent writing style as well as a compelling storyline or compelling characters.

PS-The degree to which a book lives up to my above requirements, determines the number of stars I give.

[Jim]

I rate pretty much the way GR suggests, but always put in a review to back the stars up now. (Some books that I read before I joined GR just have star ratings.) If I'm wondering whether or not to read a book, star ratings don't have much effect on my decision, but reviews, especially those of friends, do.

5 is excellent in all ways & I'm likely to re-read it &/or it made a profound impression or statement to me. Most are books for the ages.

4 is really good, but generally didn't make any great statement.

3 is entertaining & fun. Such a book might get another star if it's the first of a well done series.

2 had issues, but wasn't a complete waste of time. Poor punctuation, repetition, weak plot or characterization & such were evident.

1 star is usually reserved for books I didn't finish. Any of the above issues could have run rampant or the author got artsy with punctuation & stream-of-consciousness writing.

Mike's ratings are interesting. He mentions things that I also look for, but take for granted, except for cliff hangers. It depends on how they're done. Some are cheap shots, some aren't. They can definitely tick me off at times. I think they're used more in YA novels & are a sign of sloppy or lazy writing. I remembered I hated that about Glass Houses. It's like the text book of how not to write a decent novel.

Some people call indefinite endings cliff hangers & I quite often like those. All my favorite novels end with a major event dealt with, but plenty of problems left for the future as life goes on.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Good list, Jim.

As for myself, I prefer books in which the plots are resolved and the reader is left with a sense of closure.

For me, a book doesn't need to make a statement. I just want a good story, well told. If it leaves me with a lasting impression, or something to thing about, or a life-lesson, so much the better.

I hesitate to give stars to a book I didn't finish unless I can give good reasons for not finishing it. I feel that I have to give the writer a chance to prove himself (or disprove himself) before I judge him. If he really ticks me off with his writing or story, I might give one star to indicate my dislike.

[Jim]

Joy, you're not alone in either wanting closure or not rating a book if you haven't finished it. I've been upbraided for that in reviews before, but I disagree. I give the author a chance. I've obtained the book & start to read it with good intentions. If they can't keep me hooked, then I say so & why. According to GR, 1 star just means I didn't like it & since a book is a work of art, a matter of taste, it is quite fair not to like it, but I usually reserve 1 star for those I consider a waste of paper, so I think I'm being more than fair.

Sometimes, I'll give a book I didn't like 2 stars if I feel like I might just be in a bad mood about it. If the author is a new one & they've sent me their book for free to review, I won't publicly review it at all. It doesn't get listed here & I just send them a private review. That happens a dozen times a year or so. I hate to hurt them & so many are wearing their hearts on their sleeves. They're too new to have developed self confidence & callouses. Too many authors have told me how poor reviews can ruin their day even when they've been at it for decades. One said he quit reading any reviews of his books because it made him a manic-depressive. They're sensitive souls, so I do try to take that into account.

However, I have a duty to myself & GR friends to be truthful. Lord of Misrule doesn't use proper structure & that made it too confusing to figure out who said what to whom or if they just thought it privately. That's an artsy form of ruining writing that I have no tolerance for so it got 1 star from me & I said why in my review, even though I didn't come close to finishing it.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim, I agree with all of your reasoning above.

I like your thoughtful treatment of new authors. The words of writers are like their children. It hurts when they're criticized. I don't think any writer is ever inured to criticism of his work. It always hurts. But sometimes that's how they learn to improve.

As for writing which is confusing, that irks me. One star! (whether I've finished it or not!) Yes, the artsy stuff is often too obscure or confusing. I'm learning to ignore those supposed sophisticates.

[Werner]

My criteria aren't nearly as precise and clearly laid out as Mike's; my star ratings are pretty subjective. I use Goodreads' definitions, but how particular books fit into those definitions is a judgement call, and not a very exact science.

If I actually dislike a book, because of lousy writing, lousy message, or both, it gets one star. I don't rate many books I read nowadays that low, because I only rate books that I finish, and if they're that bad I usually don't finish them.

Two stars, from me, means the book was just okay --a run-of-the-mill, pass-the-time read with nothing to distinguish it from a host of others. My reaction to these could be summed up, as one of my Goodreads friends puts it, as "Meh!;" they're too bland to actively dislike, but too mediocre to actually like.

Books I liked reading, though not outstandingly, get three stars. They're solid entertainment, but they either lack the special sparkle to win them extra stars, or they have flaws that cost them stars. (Most nonfiction books I like get three stars; since I'm more of a fiction fan, the books that excite me enough to give extra stars tend to be fiction.)

Four star books are the ones I really liked, ones with a premise or plot that's fresh and distinctive, characters that are engaging, some good messages or thought content --books that stand out from the pack. They may have flaws, but my enjoyment factor is still high despite them. Nonfiction books that I found really interesting may get four stars.

The books that get five stars from me are the few nonfiction books that really shaped my worldview, or fiction books that (usually) are like four-star reads intensified to another degree. They typically don't have serious flaws; they evoke strong emotional reactions; they usually resonate as psychologically, morally and spiritually true; and they have a style that's suited to the purpose. (Also, I sometimes interpret "amazing" to include an amazing degree of technical perfection or moral and psychological penetration, even if I don't enjoy the book because it's more tragic than I like, etc.) In the case of short stories, I've sometimes rated them with five stars if they were effective examples of their type, even with more flaws than I'd have liked in a longer read. Generally speaking, I'm trying to be more discriminating now with my 5-star ratings than I've sometimes been in the past --I don't want to overuse them and diminish their value!

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Werner wrote: "My criteria aren't nearly as precise and clearly laid out as Mike's; my star ratings are pretty subjective. I use Goodreads' definitions, but how particular books fit into those definitions is a ju..."

Werner, I'm going to save your criteria for my own reference. You know how to say things I which jive with my own feelings but which I cannot express as well. "Subjective" is a good word to use because most of my judgements are based on an emotional reaction to what I read. If I really enjoy a book I tend to give it more stars, regardless of its flaws. Besides, I'm not good at picking out flaws because I haven't got a good background in literary criticism. I'm one of those people who say "I know what I like" and damn the critics! LOL

For example, I saw the Broadway play, "Legs Diamond" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legs_Dia...) with music and lyrics by Peter Allen and starring him. I loved it but it was panned by the critics and closed after 64 performances. Yet, I loved it more than one of the long-playing musicals at that time (can't remember which one). I still can't get over the fact that it wasn't a hit.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

PS-Werner, as I said above, I saved your criteria. Then I picked out the words that stood out for me. See them below:
==========================================
my star ratings are pretty subjective

lousy writing, lousy message

I only rate books that I finish

just okay - a run-of-the-mill, pass-the-time read with nothing to distinguish it from a host of others

too bland to actively dislike, but too mediocre to actually like

solid entertainment

lack the special sparkle

have flaws

ones I really liked

a premise or plot that's fresh and distinctive

characters that are engaging

some good messages or thought content

my enjoyment factor is still high

shaped my worldview

don't have serious flaws

evoke strong emotional reactions

resonate as psychologically, morally and spiritually true

style that's suited to the purpose

amazing degree of technical perfection or moral and psychological penetration
=========================================

Well said! Thanks, Werner!

Hope you don't mind if I might have left out some qualifying words. However, I saved the entire piece for reference.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

PPS-I should really do that "boiling down" with the other posts in this thread. This is the way I try to make myself become more articulate. I keep many random lists like this from all my reading. It's my own private "self-improvement" method. :)

[Werner]

Joy, I'm delighted to see that you enjoyed my post so much, and got that much food for thought out of it! Truth to tell, though, I don't have much (if any) more background in literary criticism than you do; like you, I just "know what I like." :-)

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Werner wrote: "... Truth to tell, though, I don't have much (if any) more background in literary criticism than you do; like you, I just "know what I like." :-)

But Werner, I'm sure you've read much more than I have. That puts you in a position to be a better judge, especially because you are selective in your choices. It has a lot to do with reading background, I think.

[Werner]

True, Joy --reading is like anything else; the more you do it, the more proficient you're bound to become just by practice, even without formal instruction. And the more self-assured and confident you become with it, as well. But even if your interest in reading bloomed later in life than some of ours did, you're not far behind anyone in this group; it's easy to see that you're very intelligent, and have a naturally perceptive approach to what you read!

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Thanks, Werner. Kind words indeed! As long as I stay within the range of my comprehension, I'm OK. When things get too complicated or vague, I tend to lose confidence. I always wonder if some writers tend to make things more complicated than they really are by using vague terms and not explaining abstract ideas clearly enough.

For example, I'm listening to an audiobook version of The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C. S. Lewis. Some of that stuff is incomprehensible, especially when they refer to certain writers and philosophers in Lewis' life. (I tend to zone out when that happens.)

[Werner]

I think some writers presuppose that readers have more acquaintance with the subject than they actually do. (For instance, a reader who already had a basic familiarity with Lewis' life would probably recognize the names of people who were big influences for him.) But sometimes we're NOT that familiar with the subject, and we jolly well need a writer who doesn't make that many assumptions!

My impression is that the popular "...For Dummies" series (e.g., American History for Dummies, or Computers for Dummies) doesn't make those kinds of assumptions. My youngest daughter (who was never much of a reader) has lately gotten into reading history in that series, and really likes it. (We're delighted to see her reading!)

[Jim]

That's a fine line an author has to walk. I just dinged Robin Hobb for her Soldier's Son trilogy because she assumes her readers are idiots studying to be morons. Great world with really neat magic, but she repeats everything & goes into tedious detail about every thought process over & over. Well, you can read it in my reviews of the books.

Shaman's Crossing
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Forest Mage
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Renegade's Magic
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Werner wrote: "... we jolly well need a writer who doesn't make that many assumptions! ..."

Right on, Werner!

Thanks for the book recommendations: American History for Dummies, or Computers for Dummies.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "That's a fine line an author has to walk. I just dinged Robin Hobb for her Soldier's Son trilogy because she assumes her readers are idiots studying to be morons. Great world with really neat mag..."

Yes Jim, sometimes it's hard to get a happy medium.
Will check your reviews soon.
Today I am going out and won't be back until tomorrow.

[Werner]

Joy, those book titles are just made-up examples of the sorts of titles they have --I don't know for sure that they have those specific ones. (Though it wouldn't surprise me at all if they do!) Hope that makes sense.

[Nina]

I saw the bio movie of C.S, Lewis life and it was wonderful. I can't remember if it was Netflix. I think it was put together by his stepson who seems simply adored him. Very moving and fascinating. I am now just finished reading, "Paris Wife," and it is fiction about Hemmingway's first of four wives. They were all a decadent bunch, even if they were talented. I do have some survivors in my garden as I water them every day and they are protected by a fence and the house. I am fortunate in that way but our drought is the worst in sixty years.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Werner wrote: "Joy, those book titles are just made-up examples of the sorts of titles they have --I don't know for sure that they have those specific ones. (Though it wouldn't surprise me at all if they do!) H..."

Well, Werner, I found the following website:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/educati...
Not a book but a history website for "Dummies". LOL

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Nina wrote: "I saw the bio movie of C.S, Lewis life and it was wonderful. I can't remember if it was Netflix. I think it was put together by his stepson who seems simply adored him. Very moving and fascinating...."

Thanks, Nina. I searched and found this:
C.S. Lewis: Beyond Narnia" (2005)(TV Documentary)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497337/
http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/C.S.-Lew...
"Relive the life of C.S. Lewis (portrayed by Anton Rodgers) in this fascinating docudrama... "
Genres: Drama, Biographies

Thanks, Nina. I will put it on my Netflix queue.

[Werner]

Joy, the Dummies.com site is apparently maintained by the publishing company that does the books, since I see that they use the same logos (which would be legally protected trademarks). Thanks for the link --I haven't explored the site much, but it looks very interesting!

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Werner wrote: "Joy, the Dummies.com site is apparently maintained by the publishing company that does the books, since I see that they use the same logos (which would be legally protected trademarks). Thanks for..."

I thought it looked interesting too, Werner.
I like to have things simplified. :)

"Genius is the ability to reduce the complicated to the simple."
-C.W. Ceram