SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

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 a SciFi & Fantasy type of book, as opposed to say a mystery, suspense, a young adult contemporary novel? How do you approach your book review? Please feel free to share your comments here.

I think the important aspect of writing any review is the readership of that review. When picking a fantasy novel and doing a good reads review I would usually assume that readers were familiar with significant fantasy works if I wanted to mention them.

I would also be inclined to talk about areas such as world building, whether this is the first in a series or stand alone, what type of fantasy is it etc. in more depth than I would cover the language or characterisation.

In mainstream writing fantastical elements are presumed to be allegorical whereas within fantasy and SF they are seen primarily as invoking a sense of wonder, strangeness or atmosphere.

However I am lucky in that, although I have recently started getting some review copies of books I am pretty unrestricted as to how I approach the reviews and I can focus entirely on my own eccentricities and preferences. It is worth noting that the main SF and fantasy awards are created predominantly from reader (or SF writing reader) nominations so if a book seems nomination worthy then this is something I would try to push into the review.

It really depends on what you want to write them for.

I write my reviews for myself. I don't really worry about an audience. I seem to have built a small following (~50 people) on good reads, but that's about it. I tend to average about 10-15 likes on my reviews. I don't post my reviews on a blog or anything like that. I have no idea how many people are actually reading them apart from those who bother to click the like button.

Somehow that has worked for me though and I've managed to get the occasional free ebook and I sometimes review audiobooks for SFFAudio.

For me my criteria is to talk about what I liked and didn't like about the book without trying to summarize the plot or rewrite the blurb, and without spoilers. This usually means characters and their development, backstory, and descriptions.

I hate spoilers and try to avoid them. It can be hard to avoid series spoilers from an earlier novel when reviewing a later one, but I try for that as well.

I don't really approach SFF books that differently other genres. Then again I mostly read SFF books and nothing else these days.

I tend to try to talk about the magic system in most fantasy books. I also tend to talk about world building, which is something that authors of contemporary fiction don't have to worry about doing.

I think about what I would like to read about a book. I keep it brief, usually inside 500 words and try to summarize the theme of the books, detailing the strengths and / or weakness of the author's achievement and avoid spoilers. Generally I take notes and write down thoughts and observations while reading and often the review is 80% written when I am done.

I don't write reviews any different for SF as I do for anything else, but I do mainly read SF. And I haven't written that many here.

But in my reviews I shy away from recapping the story, spoilers or not, unless it really is important to what I'm going to say. I hate reviews that end up just being a synopsis of the book without any criticism at all. That's not a review. If you want a synopsis, you can read the blurb (or the dozens of other reviews that summarize the plot).

What I try to focus on (try to, mind you) is primarily the writing style/quality, pacing, and then story elements like character and world creation, inventiveness and, um, well, it's general impact on me as a reader. And pretty much in that order.

An inventive story with well drawn characters and a brilliantly thought out world/plot can be totally killed if the author's use of language is ineffective. That's not just word choice and use of grammar, but selecting the right POV, the correct voice for the narrative, things like that. For me that can really make or break a book. A non-SF example of this is Stephen Fry (well, he did do a speculative fiction novel called Making History). I suspect he could write a book about a discarded shoe on the side of the road that does nothing at all and I'd still like it because his use of language is so delightful.

But after dealing with that, what I actually tend to write about are the book's strengths and weaknesses. I try to hit both the high and low points.

I do not think about the reader of the review at all. I write, and it is as it is.

I write what I liked, what I didn't, and add trigger warnings when appropriate.

I don't write differently for different genres. I mainly write to sharpen my own thinking.

I tend not to focus much on summarizing the plot; I only summarize that which is essential to the review. I will often point to Amazon or here for the synopsis.

I try to highlight the essential qualities of the book that drove me to like it (often) or dislike (rare). What does this author and this work uniquely bring to the literary landscape. Plot? Characters? World? Some combination thereof. Is it thought-provoking or funny. What it the word craft or the world. If a sequel, did it enrich the series?

I then take the most import "hook" for me and attempt to briefly build the case for the importance of the hook and how it accurately encapsulates the book.

I try to avoid spoilers and warn about them when I can't.

I introduce a brief summary if I feel like the blurb on the book page is inadequate or there is some overarching theme that deserves brief mention.

I always comment on style and writing, themes, characters, and emotional impact. For non-fiction, I look at content, methodology, detail, and organization. Of course, the tone of the reviews differs greatly from genre to genre and good books to bad books. But I write for me.

I also mark spoilers.

I write my reviews for myself, initially. I make a list of every book I've read and what I thought of it. It's intended as a memory aid, so I don't unintentionally reread books. (It doesn't always work...) I talk about the plot, characters, themes. If there are spoilers, I put up a spoiler tag when I put them here.

If it's a book I liked I'll often quote one or more passages from the book.

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

Julia wrote: "I write my reviews for myself, initially. I make a list of every book I've read and what I thought of it. It's intended as a memory aid, so I don't unintentionally reread books. (It doesn't always ..."

Mmmhmmmm, the same. Just notes to myself, mostly to jog my memory.

I personally give my general opinions of the book. I introduce the book, and then I focus on specific things that I liked/disliked such as writing style, characters, plot, etc... I talk about each of these in details. Most importantly, I do not post spoilers. If I really have to, I put a huge alert and leave a lot of spaces until I put the spoiler. It has happened to me before that I read spoilers even though there are spoiler alerts.

As for genres, I don't think it's necessary to review them differently. I don't stick to a definite way. I just say whatever I want to say :)

I write for myself and my friends. I have a bad memory and I'm a voracious reader so I often forget how I felt about a book until I read [my] review of it.

I don't write my reviews any differently depending on genre. It's mostly how I feel, how I reacted, what I loved and/or what bothered me.

I do have a blog that I have my reviews posted at but that didn't start until the Amazon sale (it's for protection rather than publicity).

I write my reviews based on what I am thinking at the time. The words in my head arrive on the post (page would sound less awkward here). There is no formula I apply, no structure. I do tend to compare to other books and assume that those who read my reviews will catch my references and make the connections I am drawing. I trust the reader to be educated, informed, and discerning. Critical. I tend to write my opinion on how well the author achieved their goal, crystallized their message, told a plausible and interesting tale.

I don't quibble about spoilers or present any component of plot summary. A reader has either A) Already read the book and doesn't need the summary or B) Has not read the book and can turn to the summary presented on the dust jacket or website they saw it on. No need to duplicate effort here. I don't treat genres differently, only what I consider "good writing" from "bad writing".

My reviews tend to be a critical analysis of the author's success in presenting an argument their book delivers. Mostly, I will ignore discussions of plot unless where it figures in the argument or in my assessment that the plot may be weak and therefore distracting from the point.

I write my reviews trying to be balanced, and adding pros and contraries.

If I see typos or plot holes, I generally try to contact the author first.

If I can´t stand a book, I don´t review it. I assume people who like my reviews would not be interested in that book anyway.

My reviews usually start with the plot, then go to things that I liked, then the cons, and end mentioning who I think would enjoy the book.

Adeeb wrote: I do not post spoilers. If I really have to, I put a huge alert and leave a lot of spaces until I put the spoiler. It has happened to me before that I read spoilers even though there are spoiler alerts"

FYI you can use spoiler tags in your review.

Sandra wrote: "If I see typos or plot holes, I generally try to contact the author first.

If I can´t stand a book, I don´t review it. I assume people who like my reviews would not be interested in that book anyway. "

This is something I don't do - I never contact the author (unless they contacted me first - but I have stopped accepting review requests so that makes it much easier) and I almost always give a review for books I DNF.

I always assume that my friends - if they read my review - would be fascinated by the same thing/plot/blurb that fascinated me so I explain why I DNF'ed a book.

Oops! I forgot - I also note any triggers if I notice them or they trigger me. I normally note: rape, over the top violence and violence towards women. The exception would be books that start with OTT violence.

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 a SciFi & Fantasy type of book, as opposed to say a mystery, ..."

I don't change it based on the material, although I'll be nicer to self-published/small press works because I know they don't have as large of a team helping them. If I don't have much to say I just give it a star rating. If I don't finish it I usually say what pissed me off about the book. If I'm feeling really creative I write something quasi-humorous in the review.

MrsJoseph (taking back my data & giving GR the middle finger) wrote: "I always assume that my friends - if they read my review - would be fascinated by the same thing/plot/blurb that fascinated me so I explain why I DNF'ed a book."

I agree. There had to be something that drew me to the book making me think I'd like it, so I would think people who follow me might likewise be drawn in.

That's also one reason I don't necessarily mind getting recs on books I gave 2 stars to (for the goodreads widget thing) because sometimes it's the execution I found lacking, but I might enjoy similar books if they're done better.

***

How I write reviews:

I open Notepad. I think about the book and how I felt about it, and what I want to say about it.

I start writing, and see where it goes...

The only times I tend to fall back on summarizing things is when I don't know what else to say.

I don't single out types of content based on 'graphic nature'. I do say why I DNF a book if that's the case. Those reviews tend to be really negative, and I try to balance them by writing positive things about books I DNF because I can be a very harsh critic. DNF reviews tend to, for me, consist of tearing apart writing style/plot devices rather than critical theme analysis.

It very much depends on my intent behind the review. I tend to be far more critical of a book when I'm reviewing its merits without respect to audience or genre than I am when I'm judging whether or not fans of a particular genre or group would like it.

Personally, when I want to review a book in-depth (and I really need to update my reviews to reflect this), I look at four main categories: technique (the technical aspects of the writing), plot, characters, and ideas + setting. Most books, I've found, will do well in two categories and not so well in the other two. Good books will do well in three. Very good books will do well in all four.

To provide some context, I think Warbreaker is a very enjoyable fantasy. When I get around to writing my review, I'm going to give it four or five stars because I really believe that any fantasy fan will enjoy it. However, if I was to apply the blowtorch and compare it across genres and against all other fiction, I would have to score it a little lower because I don't think it has the cross-genre appeal of other series (e.g., there are people who don't read fantasy in general but will read Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones, and I would rate both those books higher than Warbreaker in a general sense).

I'm also more inclined to be lenient in my review when it's clear that the book is just trying to be fun and not claiming to be the greatest thing ever written. It's like watching something like Die Hard. It's not the most complex and deep movie ever made, but it's fun to watch - and it doesn't pretend to be anything more than a good action movie. On the other hand, a book (or movie) that has pretensions of being complex and sophisticated is just asking to be judged according to those standards.

I mostly write reviews for myself, especially when they are a part of a series, so I can go back and check to see what I liked and didn't like. If has has any of my 'pet peeves' I will note that, but also try to make it clear that this is my personal 'pet peeve' which may not apply for other readers.

I can say that I do rate/review books based upon my expectation of the book. If I'm reading a book that claims to be epic fantasy I will be harsher towards it than a...tongue in cheek comedy.

One example for me is the romance author Kristen Ashley. She writes books that are termed "cracktasic" and I really had to find out what people meant. MY GOD. The damage that woman does to the written language should be illegal. The typos, the repetition, the slang and dialect - all of it is atrocious. She does NOT get edited...at least not when I tried her. But the stories are so over the top that I was pulled in. So when I reviewed them I noted a caveat: I did not review based on the things I normally review on(mountains of typos and other crimes against English). I knew her work was trashy before I started it.

I don't have any particular formula. I just give it a rating based on gut feel, and my review usually just explains the rationale for the rating. The only two questions I ask myself:
* Why did I give this [rating] instead of [next lower rating]?
* Why did I give this [rating] instead of [next higher rating]?

I saw someone bring up today whether or not synopses were helpful, and it made me curious about this topic, too.

What's your "format" for writing reviews and why?

Allison wrote: "I saw someone bring up today whether or not synopses were helpful, and it made me curious about this topic, too.

What's your "format" for writing reviews and why?"

I often do a very brief synopsis but the book's blurb is available every place I post reviews so I don't see a need to repeat it. I'll include a quote or two if they are memorable or illustrate the author's unique style. My reviews are generally only a few paragraphs. I won't read long reviews. I'm just looking for the "feel" of a book (and also any reason to keep it off of my TBR list).

So I know overly long reviews in general turn me off. I start skimming/getting bored and then tend to stop reading all together.

As a result I always try for a 1-3 sentence review that I call "Executive Summary" to be fancy for the TLDR crowd.

Then if it's audio (which most of mine are) I give a few sentences on the quality of narration/audiobook.

This is followed a much longer/full review that can vary in length greatly depending on how much I like the book.

I don't remember when I started the format, but I've liked it enough that I've been doing reviews that way for a few years now.

I am pretty allergic to spoilers so I try not to do any synopsis, my reviews are generally targeted to my personal use so it is fairly stream of conciousness and hitting on the elements I liked and didn't like.

While I am glad that not everyone does a full synopsis, I'm glad a few do. I don't, because I'm perennially optimistic that I'll remember exact details in books, and when I remember that's never been the case, I scoff and say whatever, it's about enjoyment, not about specifics.

But then I try to read a sequel and have to recall what happened last, so thanks for those who do full break downs!!

My format is a quick overview of my feelings, a content warning, things I loved, things I didn't love and a recap with whether I'd recommend it or plan to continue the series. Unless I loathed the book, in which case it's just me being incensed until I run out of anger, or loved it, in which case I fangirl and wax rhapsodic.

Allison wrote: "I saw someone bring up today whether or not synopses were helpful, and it made me curious about this topic, too.

What's your "format" for writing reviews and why?"

I have no format. I write whatever comes to mind, and usually it's in the form of rambling incoherence, often with a big ol' scoop of rage and some expletive sprinkles. Or, with a dollop of SQUEE.

Expletive sprinkles usually get added into all reviews. :P

I write my reviews for myself, but usually it's more... conversational, as though I'm talking through my feelings and opinions of the book with someone I can be completely honest with. I enjoy READING reviews that are well thought out and cohesive and have an honest-to-goodness order to them... but writing them? Eh. Not so much.

I try to stay away from a synopsis as well. I just assume the blurb will do a better job of it than I can. Sometimes I do try to put a synopsis in if I feel the blurb is misleading.

I usually write a brief (1-3 sentences) synopsis. Then I write a little about my impressions of the book, what I liked and/or didn't like about it. My reviews tend to be fairly short, due to laziness or apathy or ?...

I don't put in spoilers, but I do appreciate those who do (as long as they are properly hidden!) because sometimes a book teaser makes me curious about the story, but I know I won't like the book enough to read it, and I just want to know what happens.

Shanna wrote: "I don't put in spoilers, but I do appreciate those who do (as long as they are properly hidden!) because sometimes a book teaser makes me curious about the story, but I know I won't like the book enough to read it, and I just want to know what happens."

LOL I do this, too.

I pretty much do what Becky does. I figure that other reviewers can be more thorough, and so I can focus on what is noteworthy about the book. If I had a template or strategy, I'd wind up writing about things that don't matter.

I do tend to say more about what kind of an experience it could be to read the book. I mean, just because it's described as a page-turning mystery doesn't mean it's thrilling, y' know. Or if it's a more subtle book, is it because it's formless, languid, boring, challenging, or what? I generally try to give my impressions.

I write as if I had an audience in mind. And lately, as more and more ppl are following me and giving me likes, I'm writing more directly to them. So I'm also trying to give very specific information about whether I'm recommending the book or not. It's personal information, not objective, but I try to be helpful.

I read mostly indie books by completely unknown authors, so I write my reviews mostly for the author. I break my review down into a few sentences as a spoiler free executive summary followed by more in depth lists of the good, the bad, and the technical. The technical is a list of stylistic choices that some readers may not like (e.g. profanity, present tense, multiple POVs, etc). I will be blunt and candid, but I do write as an unbiased reader for someone whose minimal number of reviews (under 15) likely include a lot of friends and family. My hope is the author gets a quick pick me up that someone took the time to give a comprehensive review.

If the book is more mainstream, then I just write the EXSUM review.

I like the idea of a TLDR summary of the review. I usually put my overall summary at the end but maybe I’ll try putting at the top of my reviews (which tend to be a few to several paragraphs long).

The way Cheryl describes her reviewing is very similar to how I approach mine. I'm very much focused on flow and subjective experience.

I write partially for myself, and partially for the tiny handful of people who read and respond to my reviews. I try not to repeat the exact same form for every review because they'd start to feel like term papers after a while. They might not function super well as reviews at times, but oh well. It's fun. :)

Fun is important! It's not like we're getting paid, or going to get a college degree... ;)

I don't generally do a blurb or sum-up of the story unless I can't think of anything else to say, or if it's directly related to my feelings about a book.

There have been times I have regretted this, where some of my reviews require a certain familiarity with the book to know wtf I'm talking about...

I can usually glean a summary from other reviews, though, or, failing that, Wikipedia or the like usually has some kind of summaries, which is especially useful for reading sequels years after the fact.

Like others, my review is sort of a monologue - just things that I would say to someone who asked me what I thought of a book. The things I liked, the things I didn't like, things that really stood out for me or that I hated.

I'm definitely on the writing something for me to remember what it was I did or did not like in the book. I try to avoid summarizing and spoilers. I'm always surprised when someone likes one of my reviews because I don't really see them as for other people. I have this one review from 2011 that manages to pick up likes and comments very randomly and I'm always stunned by that when it happens.

(HeyT, it's probably because you were one of the few ppl to say why it was only worth one star. I just gave you another like for your enlightening review. I hope you don't mind my little bit of stalkerism, but I was curious.... :)

Omg I saw the notif before I saw this post and I was so confused I was like how is this happening again! lol

colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "I don't generally do a blurb or sum-up of the story unless I can't think of anything else to say, or if it's directly related to my feelings about a book.

There have been times I have regretted th..."

I don't like reviews that give long summaries or quote large chunks of the book so I don't do that in my reviews either.
If the book doesn't have a lot of reviews with summaries I might add a few lines but normally a review is just my thoughts.
I like to find a nice turn of phrase and vocabulary that truly expresses how I felt but that is mainly for my own enjoyment - I like rereading my reviews a few years down the line. I am always surprised, but chuffed, when someone else enjoys my reviews.

I think my reviews have developed a pattern over the years, although I don’t always follow it.

* My first paragraph usually summarizes my main opinion about the book. If the book is part of a series, I usually include a sentence with the series name and book #.

* My second paragraph usually gives some info about the story. I try to confine it to what a reader would find out for themselves within the first few pages, so it isn’t a plot summary. This paragraph may also include a few opinions that relate directly to the story info I provide. I usually omit this section for sequels, because I don’t want to spoil previous books for anybody.

* After that, I may have one or more paragraphs with more detailed opinions, depending on how much I want to say. This is usually pretty disorganized, and it isn’t remotely a proper literary analysis. It’s just a flood of whatever thoughts I have in my head at the time I finish the book.

* If I have any spoilerish stuff that I’m bursting to write about, I dump all of that under spoiler tags toward the end.

When I first started writing reviews, I rarely included plot info. My reviews were, and still are, mostly for myself, but even in the beginning I considered that other people might run across them. When I was new and friendless, I looked at it from the perspective that people would read my reviews on the book page where there was already a synopsis at the top.

My philosophy shifted after I started friending and following people here and elsewhere. I realized that my reviews were more likely to be seen on the feeds of my friends and followers than randomly encountered on the book pages. Sometimes I see reviews on my feed where I can’t tell what kind of a book is being reviewed unless I click to the book page, which I rarely do. I’m also more likely to be tempted to try a book that a friend has reviewed if they provide a little bit of info that makes the story sound like something I’d enjoy, without providing so much info that I feel like I’ve already been spoiled. I do prefer when people confine any plot info to a single paragraph that I can easily skip if I don’t want to read it. I avoid plot info about books I already plan to read, and I also usually skip it if I’ve already read the book.

I try and write a summary of what I though of the book without any spoilers.
Often I add additional notes in private note section at the bottom. Things that I want to remember that would be spoilers for anyone not having read the book.

Maybe I should reconsider doing a little summary of the book. Especially if I'm recommending it. YouKneeK and others make a good point that our reviews can show up elsewhere than on the book page, and ppl shouldn't have to click through. TY for giving me good info. to think about this!

I don't have a specific pattern, though I try to open by giving my general opinion of the book in one phrase.

Then I move onto describing why I liked the book, or why I didn't. I seldom do synopsis, as I find them boring to write (and read) and too often spoilerific. I do sometimes write a short paragraph or two explaining the plot a bit if I see it fit, but otherwise I'd rather tell you why you should read it (or not.) I've actively been trying to make my reviews shorter, which has in turn made me think better about what I really want to say about each work, and the better way to say it.

As for ratings, my baseline is 3 stars, which means the book was decent, though I don't really rate many books that. I usually lean towards 4 stars, which means that a book was more than acceptable - entertaining or even good. 5 stars means I loved it and everyone should read it. I reserve the (very rare) 2 and 1 stars ratings for books whose content I find objectionable, offensive, or just plain bad. But I rarely ever run into those.

I usually do a short spoiler-free summary of the plot (which usually means the first half as that tends to be easily done spoiler-free) and say what I liked or not + (as kindle user) share my highlights.
Reviewing sequels might contain spoilers for the previous books.

I don't write reviews for really well-known books most of the time, if there's 1000+ of them, feels like wasted effort.

I know when I read reviews I look for a basic summary of the book (no spoilers!), a couple of comparison references to other books or authors (e.g. If you are a fan of the Harry Potter series (or) writing style like that of H.G. Wells) and also the best or worst points of the novel in the reviewer's perspective, like quality of world building, lack of flow in the prose or the dimension of the characters for example.

So, yeah, I try to include these whenever I write a review myself.