SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

I just took a look at the books I've read this year and decided to change the ratings on some of the books I've read recently. On some, I lowered the rating because it didn't really stick with me or because I decided that I didn't like them as much as I initially thought. On others, I raised the rating because it had kept me thinking after I had read it. Some were changed in either direction because I had participated in some discussions that improved my opinions.

Do you ever go back and change your ratings?

Yes Sandi! And for exactly the same reason - the sticking factor. Altho sometimes I'll change it higher for books I read a long time ago because even tho it didn't stick at the time I loved it dearly.

I rarely change my ratings unless it is a book in a series. So I will rate the book on how it matches up to the other ones in the series, so sometimes I will change a rating after reading a new book in that series.

I change mine quite frequently, because when I'm in the zone of book-rating, I often rate them all higher than they really deserve.

I've generally only done this on classics I was assigned in high school that I hated at the time, and then later realized I appreciate them now more than I did then.

Sometimes I change ratings because I realize I rated a book higher than I should have, because I’m supposed to like it. Like “The Great Gatsby”, for example, or “The Da Vinci Code”. Everyone told me that I would love them, but honestly, I was not impressed.

If upon a second or third read I feel that I may have rated the book too high or too low I may go back and re-rate. I tend not to do it too much, though, because I kinda value the impression the book made on me at the time.

I think its funny when I find myself influenced by how other people rated a book. Usually this only happens when its someone whose opinion I value, but then if I see someone gave a book 5 stars were I only gave it 3 and I'll start thinking about it and decide its really a 4. You wouldn't think other people's tastes would be so influential on your own, but at least for me they sometimes are.

I don't normally change my ratings. I either really liked it, though it was good mind candy or hated it. Re-reading it doesn't normally influence me because I normally only re-read books I really liked.

I sometimes do upon a re-read, or following an intense discussion about a book, but generally I try to stick with my initial gut response the first time around. I don't actually like rating books because my responses to them are more complicated than that, but I think the stars are pretty (!) and Goodreads' rating system suits me, what with the "I liked it" "I loved it" rating. It's when I have to give a rating based on how good the book is that it gets tricky.

all the time! i don't think book ratings (or my opinion about anything in general) can remain static. i think also rating books sometimes gets difficult cause i sometimes rate books for different reasons. I have to admit, most of the books that i've liked enough to read again, wouldn't be considered very good literature :)

Since I'm newer to this site, I've changed my ratings to reflect what the star's represent, ok, liked, loved, amazing. It's not like rating my music so I've changed a few things. But most of the books I've got rated I've already read 2-3 times, minus maybe a few. So it's just being honest with myself and grading them appropriately instead of treating it like my music ratings, which are slanted.

I don't tend to pay attention to GR's descriptions for the stars. Two stars, to me, is not "okay". That should be three stars. At some point, I may decide to update all my reviews accordingly.

I don't tend to pay attention to GR's descriptions for the stars. Two stars, to me, is not "okay". That should be three stars. At some point, I may decide to update all my reviews accordingly.

Ditto - in fact, I didn't even know GR used descriptions. Three stars for me means it was a decent read that I'm glad I read, but it's nothing overly special - although a lot of my 3 stars are really 3.5 stars in my mind, so there's often a bit of differences between all my 3-star books.

By the time I start choosing 2 stars, that means the book had some major deficiencies. 1s and 5s are rarely doled out, but those that receive them are worthy.

Out of curiosity, Ben, if 3 stars is Okay, what would 2 and 1 stars mean for you?

I actually tend to stick to GR's star descriptions, I find it useful to rate according to your personal reaction and I don't have a problem with the system here - if I had to rate a book on my own I'd get so bogged down on the writing style, plotting, character development etc., there wouldn't be any room for whether I liked the book.

Does that make sense? That way, I can give high star ratings to slightly (or very) trashy popular fiction because I enjoyed it so much, or thought it was crap - and the same goes with literature etc., but a paranormal romance book with 4 stars is not comparable to a book of literature with 4 stars. There are books I've given low ratings to despite their literary merits, based on my own subjective reading of it, and I find GR's system to be very user-friendly :)

My view of the stars corresponds exactly to Amazon's, which is:
1 - hate it
2 - don't like it
3 - ok
4 - good
5 - excellent

To me, it just doesn't make sense to have four of available rating to be "positive". I don't mean anything else by it. I agree with your other statements.

I like that GR's has four levels of "positive" as I tend to have a larger range of positive feelings about the books I read and I like the ability to differentiate.

If I don't like the book, then I don't like the book. And if I hate the book, then I am probably not going to finish it in the first place. So I don't feel the need to have more than one negative response.

However, after all is said and done, the 1-5 stars likely represents our ratings accurately regardless of the description we go by. Everyone has a different range of tolerance when it comes to reading preferences and it is quite likely that Ben's "Don't like it" lines up with my "It was Ok".

However, after all is said and done, the 1-5 stars likely represents our ratings accurately regardless of the description we go by

That's likely. To me, there are books that I don't like but I am able to recognize some goodness in them. Then there are those books that are simply horrid. Thus the need for the two negative ratings.

My rating system is:

5=Excellent
4=Very Good
3=Good
2=Mediocre
1=Poor

I'd definitely reread a 4-5 book, and maybe a 3 book, but probably not a 2 and never a 1.

Mark.

Rating books is a complicated business for me. I don't change the old ratings much though the temptation is there all the time. Whenever I read new books, the ratings of the old books seem to need adjustment relative to these new books. Rating is always relative to me so I find it difficult to make sense of my own ratings in a year's time.

I go back and change my ratings fairly often (usually only by 1 star) because my perception of a book does change with time. Even if I thought it was an execellent read, if I don't remember much about it after a year goes by, it will usually drop a star. Likewise a few books stay with me a lot longer then I initially expected (or I experience one of those aha moments after thinking on it awhile ... such as after book club discussions :) and I might add a star. The only books that get 1 star are books I never finished or had to really struggle to get done (I use my book shelves to split these up effectively giving me a seven star system since I do the same thing on the top). Single star books are pretty rare as I am reasonable good at avoiding those based upon reviews and back cover summaries.

Kristjan--I like your system.

Ditto!

For awhile I was wondering why my average rating is so high. Shannon said it best - I avoid books that would be single or even double stars.

I’m a concrete thinker – so for me each star represents 20%, as though I’m grading the quality of the book, I guess. Although I won’t give a book the full five stars unless I feel it merits at least a 95%. Why do I do this – I don’t know.

i kind of think I have to finish a book before i can rate it cause sometimes books that seem like a waste of time can kind of make up for it with a really good ending, i think i remember feeling the great and secret show was a complete waste of time, until i got to the ending

so if i finish the book, i'll give it at least one star, and then go from there. sometimes i rate by thinking along the lines of, now that i've read this book, does it make a difference or could i have been just as easily entertained by watching a 90 min movie of the book (and spent the rest of the time doing something else, like sleeping), did it change the way i think about something, etc.