SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

I think this might be closer to what I meant when I asked if Goodreads made you a better reader. I just wrote a review for The Day of the Triffids and it was only while writing and thinking about the book that I really came to understand why I thought it was so good. I hadn't thought what I now consider the take-home message in as many words until I was writing my review. It's a great opportunity to think through the main points of the story and why parts of it resonate with you.

The reason I give Goodreads so much credit is because I didn't think in terms of themes and world building and character development and so on before I started reading reviews on the site. That is not to say that every review is deep and thought provoking, but many are and narrowing that down is why having friends on GR is great.

I would have known that there were some interesting ideas in The Day of the Triffids and perhaps even thought more about it when it came up with friends, but writing a review gave me insight into my own thoughts that I may not have had otherwise. (This is a bad example since it's a club book so we'll be discussing it and that would have served to tease out a lot of interesting ideas, but still.)

Writing reviews, coupled with paying more attention to some aspects of the writing while reading a book, is how I feel that goodreads has made me a better reader.

I dunno if its helped me - my reviews seem to consist of either "it rocked" or "it sucked". Maybe I need to embrace that side of me...

Since I started doing reviews I've taken to highlighting passages and looking at aspects I would otherwise have chosen to ignore. I am even reading things that I wouldn't otherwise have.

I'd have to agree that writing reviews can help make one a better reader in the sense that writing reviews forces you to explain why you liked or didn't like a book. This is assuming that the review is an in-depth review and not merely a thumbs up or thumbs down report or a summary of the book's contents. The only danger with writing reviews is that over time you may find yourself picking books apart as you read them in anticipation of writing said review. Sometimes, that can prove to be a distraction while you're reading. But overall, I'd say it's good for critical thinking to write a review.

You know something if you can explain it to others.

But actively reviewing (which is more than thumbs up or down) isn't the only way to go. If you're participating in a thoughtful discussion it brings the same effect for me.

I think it depends on the book for me. It's definitely helped me to reflect on why some of my favorites are favorites, or why I really didn't like a book, but rarely on the ones in between.

I mostly write reviews with the secret hope of writing one so good that the like count gets into triple digits.

But my general principle of rejecting random friend requests and keeping my friend count low, works against that.

Then again a few of my reviews how somehow hit on the magic algorithm Good Reads uses for non-friend reviews putting me in the top 5, which has in turn led to random people liking them.

And no that it's no longer a secret..it shall never occur.

Of course I can all but guarantee David Sven will like my reviews, no matter how bad I think they are ^_^

Penny, a huge YES - writing reviews has absolutely helped me think more critically about what i did/not like about a book. the star rating system by itself is just so...lacking depth? i mean, with only using the stars, that all possible aspects of a book (technical quality of the writing, amount to which you care about the characters, how engrossing the plot was, novel ideas, world building, etc, etc, etc) get reduced down to ONLY "how well did you like it?". it's pretty easy for most books to come up with a kneejerk answer to the "did you like it?" question, and come up with a star rating... but thinking it out enough for a critical review lets me figure out that WHY, which i can use to pick other books that hit the same high notes. maybe it's not "i like books with swords" but instead, that "i like books with likable characters whether or not swords are involved."

the other bonus, for me, is that i have a whole bunch of partially read series laying around that i might not get to the next book for quite some time. a review reminds me how i felt about the previous book in the series, which puts me back in the frame of mind to read the next one.

Yes. Writing is simply codified thinking. Forcing yourself to explain what you mean helps you think it out.

Writing reviews does help me think about a book. I usually have a week or two lag time on my reviews because I take my time and re-write them a few times before I can get my thoughts down clearly. I am hoping it will also help me, years down the line, remember a book I've read better and, if re-read, I't will be awesome to compare it to how I liked it in the past. Plus, I've read books years ago but now remember them vaguely and just know whether I liked them or not. It is embaressing to recomend a book but not be able to say much more than I loved it.

For me, how I feel about this has changed over time. As a teenager I studied classics in English Literature and absolutely hated it because I felt it destroyed the magic of the book by trying to analyse it.

Move forward 35 years, and I joined a reading club - I found then that having to think and articulate what I felt about a book actually enhanced how I regarded that book.

Now on Goodreads I find that I am actually constructing parts of an intended review in my mind as I am reading the book. Looking at a book with a critical eye has enhanced my enjoyment of some books now.

I'm still at the stage of "I can't quite put my finger on why this book didn't work for me..." And then I list a couple of possibilities but none of them feel quite right.

On liking a book I'm not sure it's much easy, like characters, plot, book had me turning pages so pacing was good... But a book can have all those things and I might not have liked it.

Hopefully I'll get better with time. It is making me a better writer. I'm more aware of what I want to do (or not do) in my own writing.

It is perfectly OK for people to say,"Argh, I didn't like it!" Not everybody wants to wrestle with analysis.
OTOH, if you can SAY why you did or didn't like it, much useful discussion can be generated.

Not only does the reviewing of a book help you understand the book better, but it is the only way you can help others understand why you liked/disliked a book.

A single book may have wildly different reviews based on the person who reviews it and the criteria they use. I may find myself agreeing with their reasoning or disagreeing with it based on their justifications. Sometimes I will pass on a book because because of a positive review because I don't think the reviewer gave valid reasons for recommending it.

Of course writing a simple "I liked it. It was good." review is fine, but not as helpful as giving the reasons behind that assessment.

There's a quote I'm fond of from Asimov: "Writing, to me, is simply thinking through my fingers."

I'm never entirely sure what I think until I've written it down... sometimes more than once. It not only helps me figure out what I think, but upon occasion why I think it. Hence, I journal, write reviews of books I've finished, participate on the occasional message board. Things like that. It helps to coordinate the ideas, and sometimes even lead to conclusions that I might not have reached--or that would have taken a lot longer--in some other form.

I know a teacher that instead of having the kids do a book report, she had them do a review. I thought that was a cool idea.

Kelly wrote: "I know a teacher that instead of having the kids do a book report, she had them do a review. I thought that was a cool idea."

That's a cool idea.

I agree that writing reviews helps me and gives me insight into both the book and myself. I dislike the "I liked/disliked" reviews, so when I write my reaction up, I have to think about what contributed to why I liked or disliked a book. It's also help me understand that I'm more forgiving over certain aspects, and less so over others. I've also learned I read for character, language, plot and imagination, and usually at least a couple of those elements have to be strong if I'll like a book.

Brenda wrote: "Yes. Writing is simply codified thinking. Forcing yourself to explain what you mean helps you think it out."

This. I learned what my likes and dislikes are where previously it was all just a blurry feeling. Now I can say with good precision what I like in a book, which helps a lot with finding similar books.

Experiment BL626 wrote: This. I learned what my likes and dislikes are where previously it was all just a blurry feeling..."

While writing reviews helps me to clarify my reaction, I don't know how much insight I get from the process-- my reactions shift too much. For me, blabbing about a book in a review controls my compulsion to talk about it 'irl', and since most of the people I know don't read fantasy, this is very helpful indeed. I also enjoy writing my response to what sometimes feels like a massive author-to-reader monologue.

Writing might not help me, but reading other peoples' reviews tends to give me a lot of insight into all the perspectives I missed. After I write my review, I tend to browse reviews to see what other people saw in the book.

I write a review of everything I read these days; have done for a while. I started this habit as a way of introducing my blog visitors to new books I'd enjoyed, since I love sharing the experience. It has definitely influenced the way I now approach reading. Knowing I'll be publicly expressing an opinion on the work, I read with more attention. As a writer, i tend to read a book in a slightly different way than I used to as a reader: there, I used to read entirely for entertainment. Now, I'm looking for themes, language use, characterisation. Of course, on odd occasions, I've been offered a free book in exchange for a review and discovered that the work is so bad I can find nothing redeeming to say about it. Under those circumstances, I retreat and don't review: I'd hate to cause a fellow writer pain.
Mind you, I have been pretty scathing about a couple of so-called classics, but that didn't matter, as the books were so well received and the authors were well and truly dead.
I never read other reviews before I write mine, and I always try to write mine as soon as possible after reading.
Interesting thread, Penny. Thank you.

I think writing and reading reviews has made a big difference in how I look at books as a whole. When writing reviews it gives me a bit of time to just sit and appreciate what I liked about a book, or what didn't work for me personally. It also helps distance myself from snap decisions like "Well this book is crap" by making me think about why exactly I felt that and whether it wasn't actually a bad book, but just a bad match up to my own preferences, so I don't rate something just on initial gut feeling.

Having read a lot of other peoples reviews after writing my own its also really interesting seeing what others pick up but you didn't prime example being my favourite books of all time The Dresden Files, now I'll openly admit I 5 starred every one of those books and I didn't think they could put a foot wrong. But where I found a lot of the main characters actions in my opinion to be chivalrous in nature in his interactions with the female characters in the early books. I found to my shock and awe, that a lot of others perceived his actions to be chauvinistic, and in future books it made me examine all the interactions a lot more closely.

A character could be chauvinist without diminishing the book. It is important to understand that could be the way the author saw fit to portray it in order to set the tone of the story.
Moreover, characters are not a mirror image of the author.
SF are future scenarios. Who can say if on 50 years everybody will be chauvinistic, or worse. I could easily imagine the US going back. Some politicians are fanatically fighting women reproductive and other rights.

Sometimes the process of writing a review will jog something loose in my head, or make me think of something new, yeah.

The process of writing anything will do what's noted here: clarify thinking, organize and marshal your thoughts and reflect more carefully on what's being considered. Surely I write reviews to be read and possibly to support a writer, but mostly I write to clarify and reflect. For example, I'm seeing a theme in my relatively recent reviews on how hard it is to write a good ending. This helps me be clearer in my own writing.

One other beneficial aspect of writing reviews: it forces me to be more charitable and find what's good. Now, I don't hold back my punches on poor writing, especially manipulative writing. Writing, however, is really hard and it behooves us all, authors, reviewers and readers for reviews to be constructive. Don't gloss over issues, but just like that teacher passing out the red ink on mistakes and no ink on praise, we find what's right. This usually is easy. Sometimes it takes discipline. That discipline helps both our thinking and writing.

Joe wrote: "One other beneficial aspect of writing reviews: it forces me to be more charitable and find what's good. Now, I don't hold back my punches on poor writing, especially manipulative writing. Writing, however, is really hard and it behooves us all, authors, reviewers and readers for reviews to be constructive. Don't gloss over issues, but just like that teacher passing out the red ink on mistakes and no ink on praise, we find what's right. This usually is easy. Sometimes it takes discipline. That discipline helps both our thinking and writing. "

Sounds like something from the "Everybody Gets A Ribbon" school of thought.

While I suppose that's nice, it's the opposite of how I do it. I'm not the teacher or the editor. I'm the audience and consumer. Justify my purchase and don't waste my time.

I thought there was something in there about not glossing over issues - if there's nothing good about the book, I probably wouldn't finish and review it. So, if it's being reviewed, there's something in there that's worthwhile. So my point isn't to simply be a cheerleader, but cheer what you can. It may not be what you like, but it may be for someone else.

I tried that a couple times and it wasn't appreciated. For instance, I didn't care for John Ringo's first novel, but I did like a short section in the middle. I said so and he lost his shit. I thought he was going to have a stroke. Good thing it was over the internet, because he has temper issues and is literally a trained killer.

I don't give a damn how hard it is to write. If someone has wasted my time, I'm going to call a spade a spade. I'm not to encourage them to keep trying, because that's not my job.

If you're in a writing group, that's one thing. Be encouraging and helpful and go-team. But in a published work? Nah. If an author asks me for constructive criticism, I'll give it, but just in a review of what I did or didn't like? I'm not going to hold anyone's hand just because their job is hard.

... is there a link to that, Trike? I have to admit I'm curious now.

Trike wrote: "I tried that a couple times and it wasn't appreciated. For instance, I didn't care for John Ringo's first novel, but I did like a short section in the middle. I said so and he lost his shit. I thou..."

A review is an expressed opinion, Trike. Any author who takes offence and makes his displeasure public is clearly not being very mature or realistic. A good author will recognise those reviews (if any) that are by trolls. Any valid criticism has to be valued for the positive effect it could have on future writing. You carry on telling it the way you see it, why shouldn't you? You're the paying customer, after all.

I agree that an author should not respond to a review, except in the most general way ("Glad you liked it!"). It is unprofessional to argue and fight about it. The reading public should be left alone, to love your work or not. It is now (once the book is out) too late to do anything about it, for good or for ill.

Although I haven't commented since my original post I've been following this discussion with interest.

To address reviewing in terms of writing:

I'm not an author, but I am in the process of writing up my PhD. I'm a far better writer now than I was when I started and I attribute part of that progress to writing reviews. If I go back and read my first reviews, they were short and not very insightful. As time goes on, they get better (in my totally biased opinion!). The same is true for my work. Writing does not come naturally to me and I've had little practice since almost all of my previous studies were in mathematics. The extra practice has been essential in improving my ability to communicate ideas on paper which has made my thesis that much easier to write. More importantly, I no longer hide behind the idea that "I'm bad at writing". It may sound silly to some, but reviewing books and being active on this site has made such a big difference to my confidence in my ability to write, and communicating clearly is half the battle in a PhD. I might have to include GR in my acknowledgements :P

On the topic of authors responding to reviews:

I've never experienced this myself, but I've seen and heard some awful stories on GR about abuse after giving a bad review. I would throw my toys if it ever happened to me. It's bad behaviour of a type I could not tolerate. That said, I'm as quick to judge a reader as I am an author when reviews or comments are out of line. Being nasty just because you can or because you took some issue with something that was said or done or something you read on the internet is not acceptable behaviour. I think there's a difference between having a negative opinion and being unnecessarily mean.

Penny wrote: "Although I haven't commented since my original post I've been following this discussion with interest.

To address reviewing in terms of writing:

I'm not an author, but I am in the process of writ..."

Your writing will be improving due to your reviews, Penny. Writing, rather like any creative process, is improved by practice, so the more you do, generally speaking, the better you become at it. Hope your thesis goes well.

Wow, some great comments. This thread has really made me conscious of my less than spectacular reviews. I'm with Chris, my reviews usually consist of 'it rocked' or 'it sucked'. Definitely something for me to work on.

I really enjoy readers who have taken the time to write a well thought out review. It does get me thinking. And I'm with Penny, when she said that Goodreads has made her a better reader, though, I think it's due to the various bookclub groups that Goodreads hosts.

You could always elaborate a bit on why. Why did it suck, for you? What was the bit that rocked your world? This helps you with self-knowledge. If you know that you always, now and forever, adore spaceship battles, or elf-human romances, this helps you find other works that feature the things you like.

Surveying the works that I like I discover that I just cannot bear a stupid protagonist. If the hero is unduly dimwitted, I am out.

Another thing that I often do is notice that other works are similar to this one. The old "if you liked LOTR you'll love X" thing.

I suppose if one writes a negative review and gets a nasty response from an author, then one does gain a certain additional level of insight.... It may not be the kind of insight one would enjoy, but it's certainly a new perspective on the book.

In any case, it's important to be able to answer "Why?" to an opinion. It's fine to have an opinion, but if you can't say why you have that opinion then... well, that opinion probably doesn't matter much. After all, if you have an opinion, but can't support it with "Why?" then why should anyone bother reading it?

I think this is particularly important for negative reviews. Here is "Why?" I think that: being able to answer "Why?" to a positive review is nice, supportive, maybe even informative, but answering "Why?" to a negative review can be constructive, meaningful or even a warning to other readers. It's like learning from your mistakes. You do learn from your successes, but mistakes are more powerful to the learning experience.

Brenda wrote: "You could always elaborate a bit on why. Why did it suck, for you? What was the bit that rocked your world? This helps you with self-knowledge. If you know that you always, now and forever, adore ..."

Good suggestions, Brenda. I do notice that I usually have more to say on 3 star reviews because there's usually an element of 'It would have been great if...'

There is definitely an art to writing reviews. Sometimes I get more enjoyment from reading the reviews of a book then the book itself (the bad ones anyway).

Gary wrote: "I suppose if one writes a negative review and gets a nasty response from an author, then one does gain a certain additional level of insight.... It may not be the kind of insight one would enjoy, ..."

So true, Gary. And those constructive reviews are the most helpful. I've noticed that some reviewers seem to attack the author instead of offering constructive criticism about the book and giving the 'why'. I find these types of personal attacks the least helpful as a reader who is trying to determine if a book is for me.

Very many actors never read their reviews -- whether they are good or bad, it has a bad impact on the performance. Likewise many authors simply do not read their reviews. There is nothing to be done about them. Once a book is done and published, there is no way to fix anything. It is like coming to me and complaining that my daughter is being mean to you. She is an MP captain in the US Army, and if she is being mean to you you probably richly deserve it. In any case, there is nothing I can do about it.
A book that is complete is like a kid that has graduated college and gone off to start their life. You may see them frequently and keep up on their doings, but you can't be responsible for their actions any more.

I have mixed feelings about authors responding to reviews. I think it depends on the situation. If a reader posts on the author's Facebook page or starts tearing their work apart when they're a guest on an online bookclub, then I think the author has every right to respond. But with something like Goodreads or Amazon, it's kind of odd, since the reviewer is posting their opinion on something that resembles a massive bulletin board. If I post a review, good or bad, I would be surprised and maybe a little weirded out if the author responded to one of my reviews.

I did know an author who read her reviews and based on constructive criticism, she went back and tweaked her ebook, which I really admired.

On the flip side, the author had one lady who wrote quite a nasty review and then basically started stalking the author online: posting on every review site, blogs, joined the author's peer review and actually got kicked out of it because of comments, etc. In a case like this, the author is in a difficult position. I jumped in and engaged the nasty reviewer in conversation, but she was just overall, pretty mean-spirited and enjoyed tearing into people.

Derrick wrote: "I lean toward favoring the reviewer over the author, in general. If I am going to give the benefit of the doubt, it usually goes to the reviewer."

Eh, that's hard to do when the reviewer is stalking the author and making claims that all the good reviews were from the author's friends.

Sabrina wrote: "So true, Gary. And those constructive reviews are the most helpful. I've noticed that some reviewers seem to attack the author instead of offering constructive criticism about the book and giving the 'why'. I find these types of personal attacks the least helpful as a reader who is trying to determine if a book is for me."

Yeah, personal attacks aren't very useful. "I liked it" or "I didn't like it" doesn't help me much as a reader either. I usually look for the negative reviews and see if the person gives reasons for not liking something that I can agree with. If they say something about a book that they didn't like but that sounds like a good idea to me then that's a great indication that I'd like it.

The tone and writing ability of the reviewer is often helpful too. If someone writes a negative review, but makes it clear through their writing style or verbiage that they are not the kind of person I'd likely listen to, then I take that as a positive review.

I had a friend once who always hated the best movies. Nice guy, but his taste in films was abysmal. He always hated the best aspects of a movie too. He was like the Bizarro world version of Ebert or something. If he hated it, I'd always go see it, and he was never "wrong" in that sense. It was amazing.

Very short reviews; a sentence or less, and those that simply say the reviewer liked or disliked the book I find no help at all. A review of a book is surely like that of a film, restaurant, hotel or anything else that's under scrutiny, isn't it? That is, it's a way of highlighting (or criticising) those aspects of the work that either appealed or failed to hit the mark. Clearly, such views are personal and will generally vary from reader to reader. But reviews really can make the difference when a reader is deciding whether or not to buy a book; I know they influence me. However, if the review is full of typos or the language used is poor, I'd tend to ignore that particular view. Literate and considered reviews are what I like to read: they give an impression of the work from the point of view of an informed reader.
One point about not reading a book that has some bad reviews: bear in mind that there are trolls amongst writers as well as readers and it is not unknown for some of these to attempt to destroy a writer's reputation by simply lying about their books. Not a frequent occurrence, but something to keep in mind, I think.

And the other truth is that you are you. You like what you like and the opinion of others is not always a perfect guide. Otherwise there would be many many fewer novels in this world. (However if a work is universally panned it is probably an omen.)

Brenda wrote: "And the other truth is that you are you. You like what you like and the opinion of others is not always a perfect guide. Otherwise there would be many many fewer novels in this world. (However if..."

True enough, Brenda. Mind you, I reviewed 'Portrait of a Young Man', having found it puerile and self-obsessed and then confirmed it had been universally praised. I suspect 'Emperor's new clothes' here. But it does illustrate the point that universal acclaim ain't going to prove that everyone actually likes it.

Stuart wrote: "One point about not reading a book that has some bad reviews: bear in mind that there are trolls amongst writers as well as readers and it is not unknown for some of these to attempt to destroy a writer's reputation by simply lying about their books. Not a frequent occurrence, but something to keep in mind, I think."

I suspect that's an influence from the marketing mindset that seems to dominate our culture these days. It might be less the case for professional writers compared to others, but if so it is still a big influence. Marketing has transformed into a vapid "sales management public relations" process of pros and cons, black and white. The truth of public statements is not important, only that they support the product or not. Content is sublimated to the appearance of approval or disapproval.

What's more, we live in a time when the proliferation of opinions has exploded, and that's running headlong into the inevitable dilemma faced by the author. That is, the push-pull mindset of the artist, who must maintain a certain level of what I'm going to call "ego integrity" to work, but wants that work to go out into the public where it can be criticized in ways that could come back and haunt the artist. In order to create as an artist, you have to protect the mental bubble in which you create. That's particularly the case for writers whose process is more cerebral than other artists. Writers are almost entirely in their own heads where other artists have some sort of physicality to their work.

Imagine what Mark Twain might say if he were suddenly thrust into a world in which all the opinions of the high school kids who are required to read his books were suddenly thrust in his face. That famous, acerbic wit--and occasional braggadocio--could easily turn into a nasty target for troll bait.

Personally, my interaction with writers has been positive, and I'm more than a little surprised to hear about those writers who have responded badly to reviews from readers. It seems like a good way to expose a badly developed "ego integrity" and, therefore, someone who does not have what it takes to be a professional writer these days.

The first person who ever "liked" a review I wrote on Goodreads was Sharon Fisher regarding her book Ghost Planet. My review of her book was not particularly positive either (3 of 5 stars) so it took a well developed sense of "ego integrity" in order to support it.

Gary wrote: "Stuart wrote: "One point about not reading a book that has some bad reviews: bear in mind that there are trolls amongst writers as well as readers and it is not unknown for some of these to attempt..."

How right you are, Gary, regarding the need to preserve the creative bubble in which we work as writers. Easily damaged before you reach that stage where your mental hide is Rhino thick.
I've received many very good reviews for my various works. In fact, I think I've only had one lower than 3 stars and even then the reviewer acknowledged that she was not a typical reader of the genre and had specific personal concerns that made parts of the plot difficult for her. So far, I've managed to avoid the personal insults typical of the trolls, so I guess I've been lucky.
I use quotes from reviews (naming the reviewer if possible) to entice new readers. I'd be interested in the opinions of other reviewers on this subject.
As for Mark Twain, I suspect he'd be equal to the challenge faced by most trolls: let's face it, the majority are not the most witty or literate of characters, are they?

Stuart wrote: "As for Mark Twain, I suspect he'd be equal to the challenge faced by most trolls: let's face it, the majority are not the most witty or literate of characters, are they? "

They would be entertaining to read.... The young Sam Clemens would have been interesting. As an older man he become a bit of a crank, and those might have been a little rough.

Gary wrote: "Stuart wrote: "As for Mark Twain, I suspect he'd be equal to the challenge faced by most trolls: let's face it, the majority are not the most witty or literate of characters, are they? "

They woul..."

I know him only from my reading of his work when I was a young man, too many years ago to contemplate now.

I agree with all of the above...intellectually..
My issue with reviewing (and I actually did a lot for the LA Times Book Review in the 80s and 90s) was I am a fast reader---so sometimes, once done with the book, I'd have to go back and start picking it apart....which kind of bled the juice out of the whole reading experience (okay okay I got paid to do it!!). For a book I really liked---ooh it would be really hard to stay in my word count.....! For a book that really didn't' work for me, the same was true.
But the very hardest review to write (and still is)is for a book that was okay. All right. Somewhere in the middle. You don't want to damn it with faint praise---but you just don't know what else to say about it...(And then, once done, I'd look at it and wince: what a lame review). Did this help my writing? As someone said above, ALL writing helps you be more and more concise about your thoughts---except for reviewing!! For me anyway...I still review books for an online zine--mostly SF and fantasy...its called the Nameless ZINE. Sometimes I do read a book that just doesn't work. The plot doesn't, the characters don't. So what do you say? You voice your opinion. Its just yours---you aren't speaking for millions of silent voices...So a review is just one persons view (obviously) and I do find them helpful--because by the points they make you can say internally whether or not that resonates with you---and thus, make your own decision yeah or nay.

Arabella wrote: "I agree with all of the above...intellectually..
My issue with reviewing (and I actually did a lot for the LA Times Book Review in the 80s and 90s) was I am a fast reader---so sometimes, once done ..."

True, Arabella. Okay is...well, okay. Difficult to expand on that, as you say. I've never had to worry about word counts; I think I'd find that difficult. Though I was once asked by a publisher to become one of their reviewers. I prefer the freedom of just reviewing those books I choose to read; self-indulgent, I know, but great to know that whether or not you review is just your choice.