The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group discussion

I tend to keep it short and focus on what I liked or didn't like about the book I rarely comment on technique as I don't feel qualified to do so, but if something is obviously wrong I will mention it. In writing style I will just say I liked or didn't like the way it was written, if it's a series book I will say how I feel it rates against others in the series and most importantly should you read others in the series before starting on this book. I don't tend to rehash telling people what the plot is as I assume they will have already read the blurb, but if I feel the blurb doesn't necessarily represent the book I will mention it, a classic example the Amazon blurb for Michael Dibdin's Cabal makes it sound like a Dan Brown style thriller which when you read the book it clearly isn't. Lastly I try not to be to harsh on books I didn't like without a very good reason.

I write how I'm feeling at the time. If I feel like giving a point by point review and relate it to genre then I will, but more often I just concentrate on how I feel after reading it.
Most of the time, I don't read other reviews first because I don't want them to sway my opinion. :)

I find it harder to explain why I really like a book. Sometimes I just really 'connect' with the story or characters or setting for some reason but can't explain why or how it happened.
If the characterization or story telling or some other aspect of the book doesn't click with me, I'll mention it but rarely go into a long diatribe about it - unless it's so bad that it ruins my reading of the book.

I write my reviews the way I want, because they are MY reviews as yours are yours and whatever way feels right to you is just fine. I always preface my reviews with the line *all my reviews contain spoilers* to avoid ruining it for someone else who hasn't but, again, it's my review I can do what I want with it :) Some people are against spoilers but when I have read a book and what to talk about it, I talk about it; not tip toe around what other people may or may not want to read. Happy Reviewing!

I bend over backward to avoid spoilers: what's the point in reading the book if you know the major plot points? And the people who reveal plot information just out of spite are beyond contempt.

If I review a mystery, thriller, suspense novel, I will comment mainly on whether the actions are plausible and whether the author knows what they're writing about, i.e. if they mess up with the technological aspects, I will comment negatively on that.

If your book features guns, you should know the difference between a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol. If your book features musical instruments, you should know the difference between a double bass and a bass guitar.

The terminology should be correct. The characters should act appropriately for their function and station, i.e. not behave like schoolgirls when they're supposed to lead a department in a federal agency.

I'm a stickler for verisimilitude. A contemporary suspense fiction novel should resemble reality as close as possible. No forensic scientists eating sandwiches above a corpse they are performing an autopsy on, no protagonists getting hit over the head with a steel pipe and walking around five minutes later, no fatal head shots with a .22 Ruger Mark II at two hundred yards...

Stephen wrote: "I bend over backward to avoid spoilers: what's the point in reading the book if you know the major plot points? And the people who reveal plot information just out of spite are beyond contempt."

I do exactly the same. I used to write film reviews too and I spent so much time trying not to reveal anything that would ruin the experience for the audience.

It can be very difficult avoiding spoilers with certain books, but its just so important to do otherwise it can put people off reading the book at all.

And don’t even get me started on people who do it deliberately out of spite...(!)

Can't see the point of Spoilers or rubbishing a book in a review especially if you didn't read to the end.
What Goodreads has shown me is that there are books out there that meet everyone's taste.
Love it when I get a recommendation to read a "good" book. Not sure I'm ever disappointed even if I would score it differently - Some of my friends like books more than me and the other way round.
Sometimes I read a book not in my preferred genre and try to be fair then in my review; I'm usually surprised but the bottom line for me is to encourage people to read!!!

Richard wrote: "Can't see the point of Spoilers or rubbishing a book in a review especially if you didn't read to the end.
What Goodreads has shown me is that there are books out there that meet everyone's taste.
..."
Richard, how exceedingly well put! Even if I don't care for a particular book, I try to review the strong points critically. If I absolutely abhor a book, I just don't review it. Reading out of preferred genre is a wonderful way to expand one's horizons even if "uncomfortable" at times.

Just discovered this thread.... I love writing reviews. It satisfies me to write a good one, and that doesn't mean a good review of a book, but one that presents my thoughts well. If I read a negative review that I agree with and is well_written, I often "like" it. I sometimes read a book I don't enjoy, and I feel challenged to express why. As far as criteria, I am always aware of the writer's craft. Is the book engaging? I will finish a book I don't enjoy if it's newly published, just to see what all the hype is about, and to stay current, or because I paid for it. I am glad GR doesn't require rave reviews to promote books.

Linda wrote: "Just discovered this thread.... I love writing reviews. It satisfies me to write a good one, and that doesn't mean a good review of a book, but one that presents my thoughts well. If I read a nega..."

Again, well put!

There's a lot of interesting criteria for individual book reviewing here. Thanks for the time sharing your thoughts everyone.

I approach all my book reviews the same way, regardless of genre. I recap the plot first (with a spoiler warning), then discuss my feelings on the book overall, specifically on the plot (plausibility, organization, pacing, etc.) and characterization. Then I talk a bit about the writing style. My reviews are actually split into those three distinct sections. I might be a little...overly organized.

I tend to focus on the same things I do when I write. Are the characters believable? Does the plot make sense? Does it hold my interest? Is it written well -- clear, well-organized prose? Are there any elements that make it "special" or above average? Are there any elements that were detrimental to my enjoyment of the book?

I try to point out both positives and negatives. At the end, I make a recommendation (or not) to read the book. And that's my method.

NYKen wrote: "I've been meaning to ask. How do you write your book review for this particular genre. Do you have a different criteria when you review the mystery, crime, thriller type of book, as opposed to say ..."

I write all my book reviews from the heart. I try not to divulge any plot spoilers. That's important to me because I hate it when reviewers just lay out the storyline. I just let other readers know if/how I enjoyed the story. As an example, here's the review I wrote for Ultimate Justice:

"I am sitting here dabbing my eyes. Grab a box of tissues before you reach the end of this book.

I have heard some people say that this is the final book of this series. All I can say is I hope not! Ultimate Justice is a perfect addition to the series; the story is strong, the characters continue to remain engaging. Anyone who hasn't read The Justice Series is cheating himself."