Fantasy Book Club discussion

How do you write your book review for this particular genre. Do you have a different criteria when you review a Fantasy type of book, as opposed to say a mystery, suspense, a young adult contemporary novel, or a Sci-Fi? How do you approach your book review? Please feel free to share your comments here.

My first impression of any genre happens within the first paragraphs. From there I look for distinctive well fleshed out characters and an interesting dialogue between them. Details are important but too much takes away from the enjoyment and flow. I look for plot hints, flow, pace and consistency to be well developed, especially so with genres like fantasy. With fantasy I look for how much has to be taught to the reader, how much suspension of belief has to be there, and how much unnecessary language changes have been created.

I value well made characters, so this is the 1st thing i look for. The whole thing must make me empathize with them.

The best thing about a book is if it makes me laugh/scream/cry/angry/outraged/thrilled/overjoyed....what ever just not apathetic. It must have a good emotional kick to it:)

Next the writing style. For me the best kind is complex and rich but not to hard to follow. It must have a good flow.

Then I look for inconsistencies and logical holes in motivation and plot. To many of those and the whole thing makes no sense.

After all that world building, dialogues..

+1 for interesting creatures, magic, scenery...

Don't really like to much of a 'new&different' factor. Or in other words, I like some cliche and I do like elves:)

Kris43 wrote: "I value well made characters, so this is the 1st thing i look for. The whole thing must make me empathize with them.

The best thing about a book is if it makes me laugh/scream/cry/angry/outraged/..."

I think if you're going to do something dramatically different and new, it should be for a reason. Being quirky and strange for no reason often doesn't work out well.

I treat all reviews the same - the only difference for SFF vs any other genre is worldbuilding.

MrsJoseph (taking back my data & giving GR the middle finger) wrote: "I treat all reviews the same - the only difference for SFF vs any other genre is worldbuilding."

Snap. My reviews are all constructed around similar things; story,characters,believability,pace etc. But with Fantasy theres also worldbuilding to look at. For instance, I do get annoyed by holes in the overall logic. When the questions start stacking up in my head, its usually not a good reading experience and the review will reflect that. Sometimes I will let 'light' worldbuilding go,however,if its the first book in a series and I'm confident I'll learn more later.

Oh, yes! I agree. I am an immersive reader...so everything is jacked to hell and back when I start taking notes.

LOL
So that's my problem MrsJ.
:D

First, I only review books fairly soon after I've read it.

Second, I only review fantasy and very occasionally a sci-fi book since I only consider myself a veteran in the fantasy department, and therefore only qualified to speak from a position of authority on fantasy books.

Now, I'm VERY split about how to review books. You have many different qualifications you have to consider: the author's total ability to write a good book and his writing history, the qualities of the book in total (this means outside of what you like or don't like to see in books personally), and what you enjoyed or didn't enjoy about the book.

That said, I think we need 3 separate ratings. We need a rating for the author's total skill (from 1-100) and preferably with different categories you could rate such as, world-building, plot development and pacing, character depth, etc. We need a series rating (the total score the series recives, i.e., WoT would get say a 6 while certain individual books might range from a 1 to a 10 on a ten point scale), and we need an individual book rating.

A 5 star system is so incredibly limiting that I'm frustrated every time I try to review anything at all that I simple walk away from half the reviews I write just so I can calm down and not let the anger soak into my review of the innocent book.

I write all my reviews exactly the same - BADLY!

I agree with Luke's comment about the star system.

I'd like to see an additional option added - a "It wasn't my cup of tea" star. I love books and writers, but sometimes a book just isn't for you - I'd like to have the option to flag up a personality clash, rather than give the book a low star rating.

Luke wrote: "First, I only review books fairly soon after I've read it.

Second, I only review fantasy and very occasionally a sci-fi book since I only consider myself a veteran in the fantasy department, and ..."

I think this would be a great idea. People wouldn't have to use it, but just having it there would be nice. I know that there are a lot of books that aren't good from a purely technical perspective but are enjoyable nonetheless to people who enjoy the genre.

Th limitations of reviewing in a commercial environment such as GR makes having my own blog wonderful.

I can do or say or rate in anyway I please. I do think I might incorporate some of Luke's suggestions for the future... that sounds fun.

I write reviews at my desk, in the bath and preferably within a week of finishing the book. Established names get a few sentences but I take the most time and effort to review indie authors. To them, a well constructed review is most valuable, as well as for their readers. Those reviews get published across GR Amazon and on my blog.

Emmy wrote: "I write reviews at my desk, in the bath and preferably within a week of finishing the book. Established names get a few sentences but I take the most time and effort to review indie authors. To the..."


Huh, that's another thing I don't really do: Cross-post. I never post at Amazon and I rarely post here now. Mostly I post to my blog and lately I've been trying to post to my Booklikes account.

I don't take reviewing too seriously, I just write down what I thought of the book basically. Sometimes I'll have more to say than other times and sometimes I won't have anything to say at all. That's usually when I don't know how to put my thoughts into words, so I just leave a star rating behind with no review.

I'm trying to construct my own rating system that I'll install at the top or bottom of my reviews.

Here's what I have so far:

Author rating, 100 point system:
Personal enjoyment of the author
Plot
Pacing
World-building
Characterization
(plot, pacing, WB, and characterization will all be based off the score from each book/series).

Series rating, 100 point system:
Personal enjoyment of the series
Plot
Pacing
World-building
Characterization
(plot, pacing, WB, and characterization will all be based off the score from each book).

Individual book rating, 10 point system:
Personal enjoyment of the book
Plot
Pacing
World-building
Characterization

Now, since I usually only review a single book from each series, the book ratings might be in my head rather than in an actual review.

It may seem like a lot, but I'm a very detail oriented person, and I find this sort of thing enjoyable.

Elise wrote: "I don't take reviewing too seriously, I just write down what I thought of the book basically. Sometimes I'll have more to say than other times and sometimes I won't have anything to say at all. Tha..."

That sounds remarkably similar to my system.

Emmy wrote: "I write reviews at my desk, in the bath and preferably within a week of finishing the book. Established names get a few sentences but I take the most time and effort to review indie authors. To the..."

I think this is a wonderful distinction to make. A single review can make an indie author's day and provide invaluable support and advice.

L.G. wrote: "Emmy wrote: "I write reviews at my desk, in the bath and preferably within a week of finishing the book. Established names get a few sentences but I take the most time and effort to review indie au..."

I completely agree. I don't imagine established authors ever wade through the thousands of reviews their books get. But for us indies, every single one counts.

I try to make them fun and entertaining. The only people reading my reviews are friends I have on Goodreads, and I doubt they read them.

So probably it's just a few people glancing at my profile page from time to time, and I doubt too many scroll down that far.

I mean, most books I review have more than a hundred reviews already - no one's going to scroll through to see mine.

So I try to put my own experiences in there, where I was when reading the book, what I was doing, and why I liked the book at that time.

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

Luke wrote: "I'm trying to construct my own rating system that I'll install at the top or bottom of my reviews.

Here's what I have so far:

Author rating, 100 point system:
Personal enjoyment of the author
Plo..."

Personally, I try to look at it from the other side: not the elements of the contents (i.e. plot, world-building), because seems to me to prejudge what a good book should look like, but rather at the elements of my response. I consider the different ways I can enjoy a book, and how much I enjoyed this book in each way - for me, I break it down into how exciting it is, how emotional it is, how thought-provoking, how beautiful, how much I admire the shear craft of the book, how original/imaginative it is, and how 'endearing' I find it, which is basically a measure of how much I'm likely to want to re-read it while curled in front of a fire on a rainy day when I'm feeling down and in need of some comfort. I give each of those a mark of of 5, which I think of in terms of recommendations: so taking adrenaline, say, if I were talking to someone who asked purely for an exciting book, would I demand they read this (5), warn them off at all costs (1), encourage them (4), discourage them (2), or have no opinion (3). Then I sum all those elements up into an overall score (which, perversely, I make out of 7 for some reason).

Hmmm. I think I generally follow a basic format with my reviews.

1. An intro line to get people interested, or a quote or whatever.
2. A synopsis of the books I usually put together myself
3. A body, where I discuss whatever I liked, didn't like, whatever.
4. A paragraph where I generally give my thoughts on what sort of read it was and if I recommend it.

That's as basic as it gets. I really write my reviews with some basic rules in mind:
1. Be as polite as possible.
2. I don't say changes should have been made at this and that point, I leave that stuff up to the authors and editors. I'm just going to say what did and didn't work for me.
3. I pretty much say whatever I have to say about a book and to hell with the consequences. If I think it's a great book, I laud it to high heaven, but if I didn't enjoy it, I pull no punches. If that costs me access to certain ARCs, it doesn't bother me.
4. Keep it fun. That's all I'm really doing reviewing books anyways, having fun. If it lets me strike up a conversation with someone, even better.

I like your attitude.

I try to give an idea of genre in the opening lines, enough of the opening plot to intrigue, and then some non-spoilery hints at what happens next, usually listing some things in random order that feature.

Then I only review books I like enough to read twice.

Mary wrote: "Then I only review books I like enough to read twice."

That seems fair, and I would probably follow it, if only I wouldn´t have my own criteria.

I don´t, usually, write lines between genres (graphic novels being the only exception to all the rules) so I mostly treat all the books the same; I use Goodreads stars system but there´re some (private) "rules" I tend to follow:

- book 1st needs to pass a probation/sample. If the sample is not available, I won´t check the book (unless it´s manga), if sample isn´t sufficient (like too much introduction or credits), I won´t read it any further

- if it´s any form of graphic novel - I generally don´t rate it less than 3 stars (because of the art) - graphic novels are a special case (which also means I might rate it less than 3 if it´s especially annoying)

- if it´s a classic - I don´t rate it at all (might be harsh but dead men don´t need ratings)

- if it contains stolen characters (historical people, mythology or alike) - turns me off completely

- if it´s a retelling of some story - usually don´t rate it because it doesn´t deserve a rating (it´s a stolen work - only exception, in my case, could be graphic novels or extemely high quality novels)

- I may enjoy a book very much but if something felt off in a way (no matter how small that "off" thing might be), I´ll give it at least a one star less, sometimes even two (depends on every single detail)

- I´ll write review only for the book I really liked or really hated - rarely any exceptions to this, if any at all

- books I hated might get a review but mostly won´t get a rating, since my 1 star is for books that weren´t that terrible but were still very bad

- sometimes I don´t rate a book at all, regardless of the quality or my enjoyment - it purely depends on my current mood

Im not good with words...So I pretty much try to describe more to myself than someone else if I liked or disliked a book and how it made me feel. I'm not a person to dissect a book, wouldn't know how. I follow the Goodreads stars rating, so that pretty much adds to the reviews feeling.

Interesting topic! Thanks! :)

For me, reviewing is a "Gut" thing. Since I try to pick/read books that I'm fairly sure I'll enjoy even before I start them, my star ratings are pretty generous. (I'm not overly stingy with 5 stars, and most of my reviews range between 3-4 stars, with a few 2 stars thrown in.)

But, since I'm so well read in the fantasy and weird-fiction genre, it takes more to truly impress me there than it does in other genres I'm not as familiar with (History/ Historical Fiction, for instance.)

I'm very quick to recommend (or lend) books I enjoyed to my friends.

In terms of WRITTEN reviews, though, I find myself far more likely to WRITE a review for:
A) Books I didn't care for as much (particualrly if I went in with any expectations.)
B) New authors whose work I enjoyed that don't have much press/publicity/reviews. (I mean, who needs another review of "Game of Thrones" to sway their opinion? Where, for a new author, every postivie comment/star-rating review makes a huge difference.)

I find it interesting to hear from people who only review books they really liked (or really hated).

I used to do that. But in the past few years I've made efforts to review every book I read. I don't always succeed - last year I stopped reviewing around Oct - but it's a yearly goal.

I'm not sure how much my reviewing has changed with the uptick in reviews. I did notice that writing reviews often helps me from duplicate purchases.

MrsJoseph wrote: "I find it interesting to hear from people who only review books they really liked (or really hated).

I used to do that. But in the past few years I've made efforts to review every book I read. I..."

I do try to review everything I log on Goodreads, even if it's just a single-sentence reaction. The chief exception is when I'm on vacation -- I'll typically plow through several books, and I'll rate them but I won't review them because I hate typing at length on my laptop keyboard, and then by the time I'm home it's been long enough that I don't necessarily remember all of the details.

Joseph wrote: "I do try to review everything I log on Goodreads, even if it's just a single-sentence reaction. The chief exception is when I'm on vacation -- I'll typically plow through several books, and I'll rate them but I won't review them because I hate typing at length on my laptop keyboard, and then by the time I'm home it's been long enough that I don't necessarily remember all of the details."



Same here!

One year I tried my best. I wrote a little "feeling" of each book as I finished it on the hotel mini notepads. I tried to write up reviews when I got back. Those were...atrocious reviews, lol.

My reviews are pretty much the same for all genres: short. I never really write more than a couple short paragraphs and it mostly has to do with how I feel about the book. Never understood the reviews with a synopsis in them, there's one of those when you go to the book's page!

Star ratings are kind of silly to me so I usually round up (I give out a lot of 5 stars).

Mostly I try to hit one a couple things I really liked about the book and how it made me feel and if I would continue reading the series or more from that author

Scott wrote: "My reviews are pretty much the same for all genres: short. I never really write more than a couple short paragraphs and it mostly has to do with how I feel about the book. Never understood the revi..."

I agree with you Scott. I write my reviews like you do. I, like you, don't see the point of a synopsis, at least on "goodreads". There's really no need for it. Also, I think the "goodreads" star system is very weak. I believe that it needs to convert to a half star system or change it to a scale of 1 to 10. I know this might be impractical, but I would be willing to wager that if everyone on the site was polled most would agree.

Tnkw01 wrote: "Scott wrote: "My reviews are pretty much the same for all genres: short. I never really write more than a couple short paragraphs and it mostly has to do with how I feel about the book. Never under..."

I think the 'synopsis in the review' is a habit left over from magazine/newspaper reviews, where that was the only synopsis you'd get. I agree that it's a bit redundant on Goodreads, though.

I like the idea of having a 1-10 star rating system, but I suspect Goodreads (like Amazon) has had 1-5 stars now that it'll never change. I tend to rate a lot of things 4 stars and nothing below 3; anything I hated that much, I don't usually finish, and then I feel unfair giving it a rating at all!

I know I need to get better at leaving reviews. For years, I've had my own spreadsheet of books I've read, and I write mini-reviews of everything in that, but somehow I never transfer them to Goodreads.

I hardly ever write even a blurb on why I liked a book so much, that's what all the bloggers etc are for on here in my opinion, but sometimes will write a 1- 2 sentence of what I thought (usually when I'm annoyed or despised the book it reaches 2-3 sentences).

My star system is as follows:

1 star- DNF and I absolutely hated it (very rare)
2 stars- incredibly lackluster, sometimes a DNF that I basically just lost steam on it.
3 stars- ranges from it was not bad- fairly good, I'll see where this series goes..
4 stars- it was really good! But it didn't change my life or really good but I had some issues
5 stars- ranges from I threw the book against the wall from diabolical plot lines, I cried, it ruined my life, it changed my life, or that I completely ignored all life responsibilities while reading it.

Amy wrote: "I tend to rate a lot of things 4 stars and nothing below 3; anything I hated that much, I don't usually finish, and then I feel unfair giving it a rating at all!

I know I need to get better at leaving reviews. For years, I've had my own spreadsheet of books I've read, and I write mini-reviews of everything in that, but somehow I never transfer them to Goodreads. "

haha, I'm the same way! I think my average rating last year was more than 4, and I hardly every finish a book I'd give 1 or 2 stars to. If I'm not liking it, I won't finish.

I also made an effort last year to review everything I finished reading, even if it was just a short, two sentence something. It's kind of cool to go back and read those and think "oh yeah, that's what I really loved about this book!"