Not all reviews are this good. |
I've really
shifted how I give reviews since I became published.
I used to be
pretty brutal on books that weren't excellent.
That was only how the story impacted me personally, rather than how the
book achieved its goal of entertaining me over the course of the story. When I entered into review groups, I saw how
the star system was far more important.
Amazon used to consider a three-star review as favorable, but has since
switched it to being marginally unfavorable.
This is made even worse because it’s (nearly) impossible to get a
five-star aggregate. The more reviews
you have (good) the more under five stars you can achieve (bad). So if a book was only moderately
entertaining, a series of three-star reviews, one or two four or five stars and
whatever mean-spirit allows two stars reviews will center the book around
3.5. Amazon considers anything under four stars to be a mediocre-to-crap product.
That’s fine and dandy for toasters and food processors, but it’s a world
of difference for books.
Since then, I’ve
changed my perspective on giving reviews and stars. Three stars is my hard floor—I try to not go
below that. You’d have to actively work
in a genre that I hate with characters that offer nothing and a story that
lulls me to sleep to earn something less than three stars.
I boil it down to
the following:
1 - Are the story
and the characters solid and consistent?
2 - Did the story
maintain my willing suspension of disbelief?
3 - Was I
entertained?
4 - Were the
typos/grammar issues minimal?
Fantastic book! Great characters! Clever twist! Two Stars! |
The last I'm
willing to cut more slack than most people.
Even the Big Five publishers release books with typos/grammar issues in
them. So, finding a dozen to twenty
shouldn't bother anyone. Also, I’m not
writing the review for me. I know what I
think of the book. I’m writing the
review so that others can gain decent insight into whether or not this is a
book they would enjoy.
Enjoyment is,
after all, the goal of any decent author.
If a book hits all
four, then at a minimum, I'm going to give it four stars and likely five. A worthwhile story, one that was entertaining
and reasonably consistent, should get four to five stars. It is, as far as helping another author, the
absolute least thing I can do. It
doesn't hurt me, or my reputation, to give someone a helping hand, and since
reviews aggregate, this is the one thing that I can do to help any author.
Plus, I know first
hand that other reviewers will be less kind, even if they don’t mean to. I’ve received rave reviews that gushed about
dialogue, characters, plot, etc. and couldn’t say enough good things. I couldn’t pay people to write reviews like
that. Then—three stars.
This doesn't mean
my review won't point out flaws or stumbles.
I don't need to white-wash or pull punches when discussing any failings
(as I see it) with the book. But if a
story can manage at least the first three, then likely I'm going to give it
four stars.
I give this post 5 stars.
ReplyDeleteThank you!
Delete