Classics Without All the Class discussion
General
>
book rating
date
newest »



I usually give 5 stars that thrilled me for whatever reason: the story, the superb writing, all the gripping emotions I experienced while reading the book...
I give a book 4 stars when it's a great book that I loved but didn't knock me off my feet and that I know that I'll probably forget in a few years
Same idea with 3, 2, and 1 star

Carrie, I loved the "Why would anyone WRITE that?" part :)
And I do the same like you.
So you guys don't take the literary merit into consideration?! I had a discussion with a friend and she kind of insists on including that.

Was it just something not in my normal genres? Was there something offensive about the author's attitudes? Was it badly written, have poorly defined characters? Plot holes? Was there nothing truly wrong with the book other than I just didn't like it?
If it's the book/author's fault I didn't like it, I tend to give it 1 star. If it's my fault or no one's fault that I didn't like it, I'll generally give it two - just because one star seems really harsh when there's nothing wrong with the book.
I would include comments on literary merit in my review but not directly take it into account with my star rating. To me, the rating is how much I like a book - not how much English professors would like it. However, if a book has literary merit and I didn't like it, it generally isn't the author's fault, so I give it 2 stars. There's a few exceptions to this, but not many.

I was wondering what criteria everyone takes into account when rating a book, especially if you hate it.
thanks