Fantasy Book Club discussion

Goodreads asks us to give 5 stars to books that are amazing. After a ton of reading, there are a lot less books that are amazing. How do you rate books to have 5 stars? Do you rate different genres on a higher code or standard. Does great literature automatically get a higher rating because of when it was written -- would Moby Dick be a classic if written now. Would Great Expectations. Does Catch-22 deserve 5 stars because it was a great anti war book.

Do you look at how a novel has been perceived to determine if its worth 5 stars.

Do sequels where the author gets to write in a similar world deserve less of a rating than books that are in a completely new world.

Mostly, do you judge sf or fantasy to the same standard that you would Shakespeare or Dickens.

I personally have to judge each book on its inherent nature but if it dares to tell a new story (kushiel's Dart) (Neuromancer) it has to get some pluses just for that.

I sometimes add a star if I feel a book started something new or had a great effect on books that came after. I might rate a 3 star book with 4 stars if the rest of the series was all 3 stars - good & enjoyable - just because it turned me on to something good.

I basically have a favorite book in mind for each genre. If I recently read a book that measures up to my favorite book in that genre, I give it five stars. Anything else gets less. For example, The Name of the Wind is my favorite adult fantasy novel. If I read some other fantasy novel, it must be equally as good or better than that to get five stars. To get five stars from me, a book has to be amazing, it must have some sort of crazy impact on me, and it has to be something that would immediately go onto my "favorite books of all time" list.
I don't typically judge a book based on its originality, but in fantasy, it seems like the same stuff gets recycled over and over, so it's nice to have something new! =)

Kelsey - I didn't think of this when I replied in another group, but I do something similar, too. I rate base on how much I enjoyed it - and that enjoyment level is definitely a sort of comparison to other books I've liked or hated.

I read something once where someone was all annoyed about rating books in comparison to other books - but it's not like we read in a vaccuum, ya know?

I agree blackrose. There has to be some comparison to your reading experience previously.

I'll give a five star rating to a book if I've enjoyed it fully, four stars to those that I've enjoyed, but maybe have some flaws, 3 and below are usually reserved for books I didn't care too much for.

Elise wrote: "I'll give a five star rating to a book if I've enjoyed it fully, four stars to those that I've enjoyed, but maybe have some flaws, 3 and below are usually reserved for books I didn't care too much ..."

I have to agree. I rate my books based on how much I enjoyed them. I'm not doing it with an eye on outside opinion, because they're my ratings :)

Seriously, I have a tendency to either absolutely fall in love with a book, or totally detest it. I'm not really apathetic about anything I read, so most of my reviews are either 4-5 stars, or sitting here fuming, wishing I could figure out a way to post "Burn the damn thing".

When I joined GoodReads, years ago, I wrote the following 'article' to explain my rating process: http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/2...

I review this periodically and I'm glad to report I'm consistent with myself. :)

I rate books for others more than myself. My review reflects my reactions to the work, of course, but I hope those reflections and refractions will help others discover other realms of possibility or plumb new depths of adventure not yet experienced. And, if applicable, a warning of plot pitfalls and witless windfalls. :)

That's a good explanation of your rating system, Jon. That's pretty much how I do it, although 2 stars may be a bit lower for me.

I do wish there was a negative rating, occasionally. Thankfully, I read few of them, but there are a couple of books with no redeeming features.

I rate books for myself, not for anyone else. A good rating means I can appreciate it on some level - whether it be the writing, plot, characters, setting etc. I don't necessarily need to like it, or fully understand it, but there has to be something about it that keeps me riveted.

Kelsey, agree with you re: 5 star rating only if it's absolutely amazing and has some sort of crazy impact on me :)

I tend to be a bit lenient with ratings as compared to some. Mostly the ratings are for myself and are based on my enjoyment of the story. Honestly, there aren't that many books that I absolutely detest, so most of my books will be rated at a three or better.

I'm pretty stingy with five stars -- agree with most of you that it has to be totally amazing for me to give that. Four stars means it's really good, but didn't quite have the impact for five stars. Three means average -- enjoyable, but nothing I'd reread or write home about. Two stars is 'meh' - not bad enough to throw across the room or not finish, but pretty average.
One star means I thought it was awful. I've noticed that it's sometimes easier for me to write a review of something I hated than of something I loved.

I'm an emotional reader, meaning that if something hooks me on an emotional level, then I tend to really love or like it. I don't shy away from tragedy or even horror, but it has to have something really redeeming. I love mysteries, thrillers, love stories if they're not sappy and touch something deep; I love fantasy of course, but I also love so-called 'realism'. All fiction is fantasy, of course.

I'm critical about writing. Having done a little myself, I know what good writing is and if I'm editing a book in my head, it's not going to get five stars! I also need characters who have depth and are real. I can't stand paper cut-outs or trite pop psychology people.

Come to think of it, Matt, I'm a little bit like you. I have strong opinions about what I read, although I wouldn't say I either love or hate. I've read things that are mediocre and engh just because I have nothing better to read at the moment.

How I rate a book is pretty personal. It is how that book came over to me and how much I enjoyed it

I give something 5 stars if I found it totally engrossing, and it left me wanting more. A good gauge for me is if I repeatedly tell my partner how much I'm enjoying the book!

I don't compare a book to works from another genre, I try to treat it on its own merits. If I were to compare it to other books it would be to books within the same genre, or by the same author.

One area I find somewhat grey is rating books that I've read more than once. For instance when I was 15 I would have rated Magician 5 stars, but on re-reading it a few years ago I found the book fairly flat. For a 15 year old reading the book today it is probably still a 5 star read, but I gave it 3.

I think I do tend to rate something more highly if it has been influential within the field. For instance I would give LOTR 5 stars even if I didn't personally think the books deserved that rating when judged on their own merits.

I think I need to "steal" Jon's rating system! I feel like I'm too flippant on the reviews. I like books so I don't want to be too harsh, I know that sounds weird. But books for me are living things. So I would give something a 4 when it probably should be a 3, or give a book a 3 when it probably should be a 2. I'm skimpy with 5's though. Then there is the days I'm feeling generous where the book gets rated better than it should or when I feel like crap and the book gets rated lower than it should. By having a guide made up like Jon does it doesn't feel like I would be as whimsical about the process, and it would help those that look at my ratings, isn't that why we rate books in the first place. I look at other people's reviews and ratings on occasion, so I feel like I should be more present when I rate the books.

My system is a pretty close match to Jon's, but I do distinguish between genres. All my 5 star ratings aren't created equal. There is stuff like the Lymond Chronicles which knocked me out for days and kept me from reading anything else after I was done and then there is some of Lois Bujold's stuff which I loved enough to give 5 stars to, but just ain't in the same ballpark.

I am pretty stingy with the stars, but like Jim I give extra credit if an author takes interesting risks with his/her character or plot. Mentally, I start reading assuming a 3 and move my rating up or down from there.

My ratings are openly subjective. They reflect my opinion of what I'm reading rather than what I think other people might expect.