Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Hello, don't know if I've posted this question before,but it keeps coming up:

Is there a way to review 2 or 3 books, say on basis of similar relevant topic, or books by same author or perhaps a fiction work + a biography of that author.. etc. ?

At present I'd like to review 3 books on Japanese carpentry / joinery--- they are enough alike, and all very small-niche--- to warrant a single review detailing similarities & differences amongst the three.

Is it possible under current GR rules, or could it be instituted without causing any problems ?
Thanks for thoughts & responses,
J.

This is really a question for the Feedback group, but to answer your question...

There's no in inherit method of doing this, but you can always one review and then copy it into the review for the other two books. I would put a note at the top explaining that this is a review of all three books so that people understand when they access your review.

Do ask in the feedback group, I think it would be a great addition.

I know some people have requested a method to review a complete series, specially if its one they read a while ago, or one with lots of books

Seems to me that the multi-subject review --done reasonably well-- could take the goodreads thing to a new level. Rather than the familiar 'read, review, repeat as necessary' cycle, a multiple subject review lets us go back and connect things, begin to build understanding into a larger framework.

Look at how the reviews are done in the TLS or the Atlantic; probably 5o/5o multi-subject to single-subject.

I've read great reviews here, and often enough they are the ones that feel free to draw from outlying subject matter or disciplines. This could empower that positive broadening of review writing.

But it has to be a standard Template of some sort, one that allows two or three works as the subject. To insert the additional works into the body of a single-subject review is to mix apples & oranges -- under the single label Apples. And to lose the intended 'floating' analytic perspective.

Or at least that's one opinion .........

This is a Feedback group issue.