Romance Readers Reading Challenges discussion
RRR Discussions & Top-Lists
>
Review Questions
date
newest »
newest »
When I write most of my reviews it is within a day or two of reading the book. I base is on "CASSL" character,author, setting, story, and overall likability. Then I will include bits of the story that impacted me that couldn't be seen as spoilers. Giving the readers of the review a taste of why I rated it 3.5 or higher. I only use average rating on total unknown authors (to me) b/c I figure if someone out there took time to rate them then they had to have had a reaction to reading. Much like I do, good or bad. It is not my only reason but it helps to sort my TBR from those to read sooner than later.
I have a couple of author friends on GR whose books I have read or are reading. I don't let their presence influence my review b/c they aren't going to be the only people reading the review. If I did not like the book I don't just say it was not good I try and explain why.
Some great reviewers (depending on your choice of reading*smiles*) Daisiemae, Shawna Razzaz, Julie (jjmachshev) to name a few.
I like reading people's emotional responses, hate synopses, hate spoilers. I think if the book strives to be something more and touches on difficult subjects letting it stew a bit before putting a review on paper is beneficial. But most of the time I'd write a review short after having read the book...
I agree with Kasia, I absolutely hate spoilers in reviews. Reviews to me are supposed to be how good or bad the book was, on a level of storytelling, emotional effect and writing style. Among other things.
Do you guys have any examples of what you consider a good review? What does a three star reveiw (with no written back up) mean to you?
**I dislike synopsis reviews as well**
AD 1: Sorry, I'm too lazy to look for an example AD 2: Amount of stars you give is irrelevant to me. You might hate my 5-star-all-time-favorite book, and still, if the review is engaging, honest, well written, if I can see the point you're making, if your reasoning makes sense, if I can tell you feel strongly -> I'll vote for your review despite the fact that you gave it just 1 star.
When I give a book 3 stars, I'm not necessarily doing it to tell anyone anything. For me it just means that it was an okay book, it wasn't bad, but it didn't engage me to the level that I was hoping for. Although I've found myself giving 3 stars to novellas that I liked simply because I often feel that a novella just isn't long enough to pull me in. So for me a 3 star rating for a novella is a little bit better than a 3 star rating for a full length book.As far as reviews, I personally don't write synopsis reviews, but I like to read one or two to get a better feel for what I'm getting myself into. A lot of times the blurbs given don't give you enough to go on. But then after that, I just like reviews that will be specific about what they liked and what they didn't, and thats what I do when I write them. If someone is specific about what they didn't like, then I can say "Oh, I don't like that either" and I may steer clear, but sometimes I think, "Oh, I actually really like that!" and I'll add the book to my TBR.
I write my reviews within a day or so of finishing the book, while it's still fresh. Otherwise the urge to share dissipates pretty quickly and it would never get written.
I really hate synopsis reviews-- they're usually like three or five paragraphs describing the bloody plot, which is explained in the book summary, thanks, and then one paragraph of vague reaction. Specifics, including excerpts, are a big help so that I can decide if I will like or be bugged by the same factors, etc. I need a breakdown, not just a summary judgment. I really don't appreciate emotional reactions, to be honest, because that's too individual and doesn't give me any indication about whether I will like a book.
I appreciate a good analysis from time to time, but I have to be in the right mood for that, because otherwise it feels too much like that thing I was forced to do to a book at school...
In my opinion, a good review is one in which the reviewer gives their honest, thorough and well-thought-out opinion of the book without prejudice given to what other people thought of it, the fact that the author is a GR author, etc. Synopsis reviews are generally unhelpful to me as I can get that info in the book blurb. The only way they have some value is if there is no synopsis blurb or it is highly misleading. I don't mind if a reviewer includes a short 1-2 paragraph synopsis within their review as long as they give an equal or greater number of paragraphs to explain their opinion. Like new_user said, don't give me a 3-5 paragraph book summary and only one paragraph with your vague opinions. To me a bad review is one that says a book was great or sucked, but doesn't really give any reasons why. I also strongly dislike spoilers and very rarely read reviews that are marked as containing them. Another personal pet peeve of mine is when reviewers use the word "you" in their reviews. When a reviewer overuses "you," it makes me feel like they are pushing their opinion on me, whereas if they use "I" instead, then they are fully owning any feelings they had about the book as strictly their own and are acknowledging that others may feel differently.
When writing my own reviews, I always do them the very next day and before I've started a new book. This gives me time to sleep on it overnight, but it's still fresh in my mind without the interference of my reactions to some other story getting in the way. I don't post them immediately though. I always sit on it for a few days, because I sometimes think of things I forgot to add or may want to revise something I said to state it in a better way.
As to how reviews influence my reading habits: If I know the reviewer is someone whose tastes run similar to mine, and they recommend a book (and it sounds interesting) I will put it on my TBR list. By the same token if they didn't care for a book, I usually won't put it on my TBR list. A 3-star rating without a review is pretty meaningless to me. For me it just says, "It was OK, but nothing special." Now if the person includes a review with it that says something about the book that intrigues me, I may on occasion put it on my TBR list anyway. Sometimes the very thing that one person didn't like about a book is the same thing that will draw me into the story.
Here are a few examples of reviews that I thought were well-written:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/....
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Hey, thanks, Julie. I appreciate that. I really try to give my reviews some thought so they can be useful to other people. :) My bad reviews are usually my longest, LOL. So I can give people an idea of what I didn't like so that they can judge for themselves if what I've observed will be a problem for them or not.
Ok, maybe I'm not so lazy after all, some arbitrary reviews that I liked...5 star:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/....
4 star:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
3 star:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
(careful with the one below, David always comes on strong and this is his magnum opus) http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
2 star:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
1 star:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
no star (Rose doesn't rate her books, ever):
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
You're welcome, new_user. I liked your review exactly because I could tell that you had put careful thought into it.:-)Kasia, it seems that you prefer shorter and more to the point which I can understand. Usually I prefer longer reviews with more details, but I have also found some talented reviewers here at GR who seem to be able to say a lot in a limited amount of space.
Well yes Julie, you've figured me out, darn! Hehhe.... I can see why people prefer longer reviews (more thorough, etc), but everybody is different and the short more packed version suits me best, yes.=D
Oh, I'll throw my hat in and agree that new_user writes really good reviews. They always help me a lot to decide if I want to read a particular book or not.So we all know that reading reviews can help us decide which books to read, but I'm wondering if you guys ever read the reviews of books you've already read. A lot of people mention they don't like spoilers in reviews. But sometimes if I really liked a book, I'll go back and read reviews to see if other people had a similar reaction, and in those cases, I like more details and specifics in a review. It's almost as though I get to live in that world for just a little bit longer by reading what other people's thoughts were about particular parts.
Nichole wrote: "...So we all know that reading reviews can help us decide which books to read, but I'm wondering if you guys ever read the reviews of books you've already read..."I definitely do that. I don't write a lot of reviews, but I do a mix of spoiler and non-spoiler ones. I don't see the point of restating the blurb on the back or rehashing what everyone else has already written, so I tend to just put my thoughts. But once I've read a book that I feel strongly about, one way or another, I like to see what others thought of it in their spoiler reviews.
I want to know what you think makes a good review? What do you want to see in a review? What makes a review bad? General thoughts on past reviews? Maybe link to some that you think were very helpful and others...not so much.
For instance, do you like the reviewer to recap the book fully or only if the blurb doesn't tell you enough or is misleading? Do you want honest reaction immediately following or well digested thoughts after a few days and some emotional distance and perspective?
Do you want specific info, maybe even excerpts, if they don't like a part or all of the book or just simple statements that might not really prejudice you?
How much do reviews matter when deciding which book to buy or pick out of your TBR pile? Do you count the average stars or do you only take into consideration the written reviews or a mix of both? When you give a book three stars without any written review to explain why, is that a recommendation to read or a recommendation to skip?
If you know that the author is a goodreads author...does that influence how you write your review or decide against writing it?
I am anxious to see all the different opinions. I am really, really curious as to what other readers look for in a review.
Anyone care to voice their opinion?