Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SoothingDisarray t1_j0zl6on wrote

Reply to comment by _gothicghost_ in Pro-tip: If a well reviewed book has a Goodread's rating of around 3.5 then it's usually interesting by Proper_Cold_6939

I'm surprised by how often the 1 star reviews are what convince me to read a book. "There was no action in this boring piece of crap! It was all just people talking about philosophy while exploring an underwater civilization. Where were the sea monsters and romance? It felt like reading the terrible [BOOK I LOVE] all over again."

One funny thing I find is that when I write a 3 star review I often say something like "I really liked X part of this book, but didn't like Y, I wish it had been more of X," and all the other reviews are saying "I really liked Y part of this book, but didn't like X, I wish it had been more of Y."

13

DespoticBunny t1_j0znlzw wrote

Re: your second paragraph; that's exactly how I write my reviews. I try to keep emotion out of it. Sounds like you have the right idea all around

4

SoothingDisarray t1_j0zucnp wrote

Ha, I can't promise to leave all emotion on the cutting room floor! :)

But, yes, I tend to be very analytical when I review a book so we are aligned. Often I leave any "I liked this book" statement for the end. Whether "I liked" a book or not is only partially connected to the assessment of key themes, how the book was structured, what I felt worked or did not work, and how the book fits into the context of other books in its genre/space.

I guess what it comes down to for me is that my emotional response to the book is tied to my analytical response to a book. So I hesitate to say that the analytical review isn't actually emotional, even though that makes me sound like a robot. It's also probably why I often find what I like about a book is the opposite of what the majority of people liked.

2

Flash1987 t1_j0zxaoo wrote

Does this first book exist...?

3

SoothingDisarray t1_j0zyx9f wrote

Ha, no. I was just making something random up.

Here's a real-world example: I enjoyed Hench by Natalie Zina Walschots, which is a parody of the superhero genre where the lead character takes an actuarial science* approach to challenging superheroes. My review was that I liked the book but thought it could use a little less action and spend more time on the satirical mathematical analysis of superheroes.

"More math" was not the general take from the other reviews.

* In the book it's framed as accounting rather than actuarial, but it's clearly insurance math.**

** And that footnote gives you a good idea what my reviews are like.

1