SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Does writing reviews give you more insight?

In my case, not necessarily. However, the reading of others reviews are more inclined to.

In a word: absolutely. Writing a detailed review forces me to chew over what I liked, did not like, and WHY. I have taken to waiting a few days to post a review, to make sure that I have worked through my thoughts on things, and to give myself time to appreciate the structure of the book and the stylistic choices.

Moira wrote: "In a word: absolutely. Writing a detailed review forces me to chew over what I liked, did not like, and WHY. I have taken to waiting a few days to post a review, to make sure that I have worked thr..."

You said it better than I did! Yes, that's exactly what I meant! For me the length of time between finishing a book and writing a review changes depending on the book. I think there's a lot more to what I really think about I Am Legend, but since we'll be discussing it as a group shortly I'm happy to have given it my first review attempt and I'll weed out all the other details with the help of likewise interested minds.

I kind of use reviews to search for things about the book that I might not like. I scan for "love triangle" or "torture" or "too much violence" and things like that.

I love seeing things like "humor" and "fun" in reviews. But a lot of times if I'm on the fence I'm actually looking for key words to tell me if I'd like the book or if I should take a pass on it.

Yes. It helps me get my thoughts on "Why did/didn't I like this book?", "What worked/didn't work?", etc. out of a confused muddle in my head and into a tangible, logical form.

Thanks Maria and Jonathan; I'll try to bear your thoughts in mind when I do my next reviews. After all, the whole point of reviewing is to help potential readers decide whether the book is for them.

Stuart,

While that is one purpose of reviews, Goodreads is also for you! Some people use the reviews more like reading logs (what they liked/connected with/thought about while reading the text), which can be productive as well. Mine are a mix between personal reflections on a work and reviews for others.

Inevitably, reviews reflect the personal experience of the read. But I try to make them useful for other readers. It's for the opinions of others that I read their reviews, and I suspect that's true of most readers. Sometimes a review can be the spark that ignites a desire to read a particular book, sometimes it can be the additional factor that persuades a ditherer to try it, and sometimes it can be the one thing that convinces a reader not to bother with this one.

Thanks Stuart! I do sometimes keep personal notes in the personal notes section if all I want to do is remind myself of x or y, etc. I do this especially if I don't want to take the time to be completely coherent. Reviews are better if they are coherent...

While I read I'm already analyzing what's going on both in terms of story/character as well as the writing style/structure. Consequently, I don't really learn much from actually writing a review: I'm simply recording a pre-formulated opinion.

I tend not to summarize the story's plot in my reviews because any blurb can tell you that, but focus rather on what I liked and disliked about both the story and the way it's written.

As for reading other people's reviews, I find the "it sucked" and "wow, that was great!" reviews irrelevant because they give me no window into the reviewer's tastes and viewpoints. Those who bother to elaborate on why they gave a particular rating are much more useful. In those reviews even negative opinions can sometimes be read as a barometer pointing to works you'll like, as one person's meat is another's poison.

I give mad props to those who write reviews (serious, funny, insightful, anywhere in between) because, while I would love to write reviews, I've found myself to be a very critical and detailed reviewer.

And that tends to suck all the fun out of reading for me. So I don't.

No. I hate writing reviews. They are much harder to write than fiction. Fiction doesn't have to be true. I do write reviews but not as many as I should. I agree with Lee: those who write thoughtful reviews deserve mad props. Also, I don't mind giving a bad review to a "classic" like Gone with the Wind but hate giving a bad review to a new author and crushing his or her hopes.

I find that while writing them can be difficult, it does alert me as to what to watch for in my own work.

I love reading a good public review. Not a positive one, but a well written one. Because I can not write one to save my life! I try, I really do, and FAIL miserably. Now writing one for my one benefit, not a problem - because I do not have to worry about spoilers, or hurting someone feelings, or going off for 10 pages on some tangent like the use of Dragons as a metaphor for the political process. And the more I critique, the more I tend to expound on nuances rather than on core elements. So MAD Props to those who have mastered (or even marginally achieved) the skill of the Book Review!

Any comments are better than none, and it becomes easier with practice. Jack, a tangent like that would be kinda cool, because other ppl have written more basic reviews, and something that touches on, or expounds on, nuances would be an interesting addition to the line-up.

I write comments in the review space that 1. help me remember the book and maybe appreciate it more and 2. might help my friends and followers decide whether or not they want to read the book. Sometimes it's about one nuance, sometimes it's 'was this book effective in it's goal', sometimes it's how the book made me feel... whatever. Just a few sentences and done.

For me, it does. Sometimes it will actually change or enhance my opinion of a book, which can be interesting--I find myself beginning to like books I thought I didn't when I review them.

However, there is always SO MUCH I want to cover in each review--plot, premise, prose, underlying themes, character quirks, likes/dislikes... I always end up saying less than I want to.

That said, reviewing is ridiculously hard and I never really want to do it. And if it seemed to be taking any joy out of the actual reading I definitely wouldn't!! Nothing is worth that.

Reviewing books definitely makes you a more insightful reader! Most of us will take care (and pride) in what we put down in our reviews, and this means we'll think about what we say. Which means we'll think about the book in ways we wouldn't otherwise.

And who wants to litter their review with plot spoilers? Not me. So you have to really think about why it is you like (or indeed dislike) something without giving the game away. That can be challenging, but it can also be quite fun.

Keep at it!

I'd forgotten about this discussion (your memory tends to do that when you're my age!). But it's good to see it revived.
Since I wrote my last comment on here, I've signed up the 'True Review Pledge', which is a public declaration that my reviews are honest. That has also meant that I now write public reviews of the books I haven't enjoyed, which is quite difficult for a writer.
Like J, I was always unfazed by writing a 'bad' review of an ancient classic (you should read my thoughts on James joyce, Portrait of the Artists as a Young Man'!) but always reluctant to do the same for a new writer. However, signing the pledge made me seriously rethink my strategy.
After all, I write reviews to help readers select good books, so it does make sense to warn them of those that have serious flaws as well as those that are brilliant. Let's face it, there are a lot of very poor books out there, and we all need help to avoid the bad when seeking the good. I have no doubt that one day my review of a particularly poor book will generate troll attacks. But honesty is nevertheless the policy I'll continue to pursue.
I learn a good deal about writing whilst organising and constructing reviews, so they serve me as well as helping other readers, and writers.
Not an easy exercise, but one that is worthwhile.

I tend to write a review if a book is less well known, I disagree with most of the comments or I have some particular point to make.
I have 2 types of review: quickie and proper. A quickie involves taking 5 minutes to jot down a few thoughts. A proper review takes an hour+ after which I leave it for several more before editing.
The problem for me is that I become particularly articulate when I dislike a book. For most of the books on my favourite list 'Wow that was amazing!' would be my default review.
If I have trouble expressing myself I often compile my remarks from forums. The interaction is stimulating and reacting to other people's remark helps me focus my own. As a result my review seems more natural, less forced.

People "going off for 10 pages on some tangent like the use of Dragons as a metaphor for the political process. " are some of my favourite reviews.

Wow. I've just read through this thread - very interesting.

I'll try to hit everything discussed but I might miss stuff...

So. I do not think writing reviews have made me a more insightful reader. I do think writing reviews have made me better at writing reviews and articulating my feelings [in writing]. I'm rather verbose so I've never had a problem discussing books but writing reviews takes some work.

I do not think of the author - at all - when I'm reading. In fact, I rarely think of the author at all. When I do think of authors, it is in a very abstract way. I am not [the authors'] emotional support system so I am often boggled when people are concerned about the author's feelings/look to encourage the author by lying about their reactions to a work.

When I do bother to to think of authors, it's in the same way I think of actors and each book is a performance. Authors - like actors - have different ranges and performance qualities. I would never hesitate to say that I hated a movie (even when starring my favorite actor(s)!) and thus I don't hesitate to say I hate(d) a book.

I also never think of the "public" when I write reviews. I think of myself first - I read a lot and need to keep more notes as I get older - and then I think of my friends/family. Since I am not paid to write reviews, I only strive to be as complete as I need for personal satisfaction.

Excellent thread, just read through all the posts and found myself nodding or shaking my head at this and that.

I tend to skip reviews for books with more than a couple dozen reviews, unless I disagree with the majority. Then I write to add some balance.

I highlight as I read on my Kindle and add notes where I want to remind myself of a particular element for the review. I do usually include a summary of the book if I think that I can add a new level of interest with my viewpoint.

If a book is not worthy of finishing, I don't. And I don't review it. I only stick with the books that hold my interest, which skews the ratings, but we have so many books, and so little time.

While I totally get the reasons so many of you write fewer reviews, I do really value them for myself, as well as for my followers. So I do say *something* for every book. *Especially* for the dnfs... to me, since I have chosen to read the book, and done extra research before deciding not to finish it, it seems that I have *more* than usual to say about what I didn't like about it (and, actually, I often have to trim those reviews as I don't think anyone needs a rant or a convoluted excuse).

I tell you, I read so many books, if I didn't think about what I was going to say in my review space while I was reading, and then write a review, I would not remember most of what I read. I def. don't remember most of what I read before I joined GR and started writing reviews.

Btw, I haven't actually timed myself, but the idea of spending an hour writing a review horrifies me. ;) I'm much more informal. And I do have followers who hit the like button, so I must be doing something well.

(do note, if you happen to be curious and you go to look at my shelves, that most of my reviews were removed from GR last year,.. most of them are now on librarything....)

Reviewing for me is tough, I almost need to know if I'm going to review something in advance so I can keep notes, but at the same time I don't want to review something unless I want to. It's weird. The few things I have reviewed that are book-related, however, help me analyze and break things down on a literary level much easier.

Another reason to plan to review everything. Go into the read with that mindset, in any case. Maybe don't type out your thoughts, but at least be reading with full attention....

My opinion. :)

Does writing reviews give me more insight?

Tricky question. If I do it seriously it means testing each piece for plausibility and authenticity. Handling of themes is important, characterisation less so, and I am leery of fancy literary footwork. However - and it's a big however - taking stories apart has made me less accepting and more critical.
If I do it as a fan, I rely on rosy tinted memory and don't look too closely.
In the round, you might say that reviewing SF has made me more demanding. Is that good? I've no answer to that.

Writing a book review, a good one, is one of the hardest writing exercises I have ever taken on.

I also agree that writing a review for an OK book is even harder, and almost impossible to come out with a review you are happy with. Luke warm and bland is very difficult to make any passionate statement about.

I often find myself writing two or three reviews. (I don't count those three sentence comments I make from my tablet) One is for me - what and why I liked about the storyline, characters, writing style, creative elements, etc... I do not worry about spoilers or narrative flow - this is free writing for an audience of 1. This is also where I am hyper critical of everything, tearing into style, word choice, and satisfaction (or lack of) with any element that catches me. The second one I occasionally do is more of a lit-crit essay style tearing into a topic with commentary, comparison, analysis, and imposed meaning and motivation of the text and author. And the third one, the one for Goodreads, is a bit of a blend of the two, without spoilers, or in-depth analysis, or hyper critical commentary. I attempt to point out the positive, only mentioning negitive if very relevant to everyone, and let the number of stars express my overall level of satisfaction.

This not quite one or the other style essay, makes writing a book review feel a bit watered down because I do not put in the parts I love or hate (spoilers) but have to write around them giving the reasons without specific examples.

And I do think this makes me a better writer. I have to think about my audience, my motive, my subject, and word choice to create a narrative line that is informative and I hope helpful, without destroying the reader's own joy in discovery of the text.

And with that in mind, I go back and read other reviews after completing the text, occasionally with great joy as I discover something I had missed or a new perspective on the text.

For my part, I am not sure if writing reviews gives me more insight into the book itself, but they often give me more insight into my own thoughts.

Often when a book is good but not great, or when one doesn't quite hit the mark for me, I can't directly say why. The act of writing the review and having to try express my own thoughts often clarifies exactly what the problems are. So a lot of my longest and most in depth reviews are for books in the 2-3 star range, and the occasional 4* that I thought would be a 5* but let me down somehow.

I write reviews to give me a snapshot of my thinking about a book immediately after reading it. In the past, I didn't write reviews and I forget what I thought at the time. So, writing reviews now gives me the insight into what I think about a book, by forcing me to put my ideas down in a clear and concise manner.

I joined Goodreads out of curiosity and hoping for book suggestions. It took me awhile to understand I could use GR as a book diary.

I had begun writing book diaries a few years before, which consisted of the day/year I read a book and a brief description of the plot. Over time, it had proved very unsatisfactory. It was a physical diary, so to look up anything meant physically flipping back through pages. I started it to see what keeping a book diary was like, as it was suggested in a magazine article. I did not know if I would stick to it, or find it of value. I thought it was a dull thing to do for some books I picked up and read. I was surprised, though, at how much faster and clearer my thinking was generally after writing. It was as if I had had several cups of coffee, and my brain seemed to wake up.

I found out writing helped me think. I literally had not thought about a book when I read it since college. Before GR reading was like watching TV - passing the time but I made no effort to think or remember. Reading was like consuming soda - empty calories. It did not help that all I did was buy genre books I saw while standing in grocery lines. Most of this was pre-internet (no google).

GR was only a year or two old, and I discovered reading unsophisticated, raw amateur reviews was fun. When I saw I could write a review after 'finishing' a book, I ignored it at first. I only was thinking of a having better book diary, and I was shy. After all, I was simply a regular old person and I had been a secretary who read on my lunch break.

At first, the public access thing terrified me until I saw hardly anyone was professional on GR anyway, with some exceptions. It took time of exploring GR before I realized no one would seriously care what an ex-secretary thought and I could say anything. None of my family or friends read very much. None of the relatives of my generation went to college. No one I know is on GR. No one was following me thinking 'boy, she had better measure up to my standard or else she's off of GR!" I eventually'friended' people to get reviews and suggestions to follow up on. The 'like' thing I ignored, knowing it was only digital media click bait and for the professionals or young people. However, I discovered being 'like'd gave one a little bump of emotion, although I think it still is more for young people and professionals. I keep writing reviews anyway because it is working on my brain in a way I completely did not know would happen!

I did not know how many 'invisible' literary things were going on in a story until I began to write a description of the plot and characters. For some reason my brain did not make those connections until I wrote. Unexpectedly, I began to up my game. Writing caused brain wiring connections of thought which made me notice plot devices and literary references and author 'Easter eggs' which I had been ignoring. I would be in the middle of writing a review sentence describing a plot point or character when it would suddenly hit me this was referencing something from 'The Iliad' for example. Or that the author was showing and not telling that this character was having a mental struggle - literary structures I had before not even stopped to process. I had left all of that processing of what I read behind me after my last year of school. I began to read professional reviews and books about critical literary analysis. I started picking up classics and reading Modern and Post-Modern novels.

Wow! I love thinking! That is what is all about for me, now.