Reviewing Struggles | Discussion

What is all boils down to is this: are my reviews good enough? With that question, though, comes many others. Good enough for whom? For those who read them? For myself? I'll make this discussion easy by breaking it down into more specific questions that I ask myself while thinking about or writing reviews.

What is the purpose of a book review?
One of my biggest pet peeves when reading reviews is that the review is too vague or overly positive. I get so annoyed when there is a line that goes something like this: "I really enjoyed this book, but there were some things I didn't like." That's it. No further explanation on the things that weren't liked. I think a review should do several things, including:

• Giving some insight into general plot, themes, and characters. I don't need to know every aspect of the plot and I certainly don't need to know every detail of every character, but it helps to situate myself in the book's world so I can easily understand the positives and negatives that are being laid out in the review.
• Outlining what was enjoyed and what wasn't enjoyed. This is simple enough. Why did you give the book the rating that you did? I want specifics. Even if the book was an absolute 5-star read, I always like to find one thing that I didn't like, even if it is as small as a line of dialogue that didn't fit right with me. Was the magic system cool but not expanded enough? Did one character do things that seemed out of place? Specificity is the name of the game here.

What kind of reviews are the hardest or easiest to write?
Is it easier to write about a book that you absolutely loved or one that you absolutely hated? For me, it's the latter. I can go on and on about a book that I gave a 1- or 2-star rating (examples here and here) but, for some reason, 5-star books are harder to write about. I think it is because of what I talked about above: I don't want to heap excessive praise on it without balancing that out with some criticism, no matter how much praise it deserves. At the same time, though, isn't it fair for me to point out something good about a book that I absolutely did not enjoy? This is where the difficulty lies.

I think it is also quite easy to write about books that I have an opinion about that differs from what I believe is the majority (see: The Raven Boys). It's fun, for me, to write about these opposing opinions and I think that a lot of other reviewers feel the same. After all, a community such as the bookish one is dependent on discussion and conversation, something that wouldn't be as fun without different opinions.

Finally, I find it incredibly hard to write reviews for books I rate as 3 stars. I don't know why. If a book is average, there should be equal amounts of positive and negative things to write about, right? It makes sense. The issue, I think, is that, in three-star books, I never have a huge emotional reaction - whether it be positive or negative. Without this reaction, I'm just kind of... meh (excuse the lack of eloquence here). Why write about a book that I felt neither strongly positive or strongly negative about? This is something that I need to get better with, but I just don't know how.

Is this review long enough?
The length of any certain book review is something that I struggle with. In an ideal world, I would have a paragraph or two discussing characters, plot, and setting/fantasy world in turn, while also having introductory and concluding paragraphs, as well. I don't live in an ideal world, though. The length of my reviews depends on several things: whether I loved or hated the book, how long it has been since I finished the book, and the mood I am in while writing the review. A lot of times, I will wait a couple of days and then those days will turn into a week and then my review ends up being three to five sentences. Ugh.

So...
Are my reviews good enough? I don't know. Are they good enough for me? Not always. Are they good enough for other readers? I think so. Even if I write nothing but a short blurb, I think that I include a general idea of what worked and didn't work in that book. That's helpful, right? I think that writing any sort of review - no matter how long, how detailed - can supplement a book's rating in a way that having no review can't. What it comes down to is this: star ratings only tell me so much. People using them have different criteria for how they rate books and, as such, a written review works to clarify ratings. Easy as that.

While I definitely want to work on my reviews, I think that the fact that I write at least something for every book I read is a good starting point.

How do you guys feel about writing reviews? Do you put a lot of pressure on yourself to get them done? Do you have any tips for making this process easier? Let me know!