Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

How do you decide if a book is worthy of your highest rating? Lately I have been second-guessing some of mine. Often when I finish a book I am full of emotion and enthusiasm and give it 5 stars. Later I may wonder if it was all that and a bag of chips. The opposite happens too. I rate a book I read some time ago and perhaps don't give it the credit it is due. For example, I finished When God Was a Rabbit this afternoon with a pile of soggy tissues beside me and rated it 5 stars. I was moved but was it really "amazing"? Alternatively I noticed yesterday that I had rated A Prayer for Owen Meany only 4 stars. I remember being profoundly moved by this book too, so I changed my rating. What makes the difference for you?

I normally follow the following;

5 stars - Amazing/Favourite
4 stars - Love it
3 stars - Like it
2 stars - Meh!
1 star - why did I bother

Has anyone else ever wished for half star ratings? Chosing between 3/4 and 4/5 is downright torturous sometimes.

I find I have the same tendency to be more optimistic about a book immediately after I've finished, and have been known to downgrade my ratings later on.

My 5 star books are ones that are (IMO) not just moving, but beautifully written and which develop meaningful themes. E.g. Angela's Ashes is gut-wrenching and had me reaching for tissues constantly, but it doesn't strike me as having powerful ideas behind it, or as having beautifully crafted prose. Hence 4 stars.

Likewise, I enjoy a good bit of trashy fiction as much as the next person (in moderation) but it'll always get low ratings because of the quality of the prose, the plot cliches, the unimaginative characters- even if I do find them addictively page turning. E.g. I'll admit to having read all the Twilight novels back to back and kind of enjoyed most of them in a very basic way, but ultimately they're vacuous and unfulfilling- hence 1 star.

The ones I find hardest to rate are the books I read as a child/teen. At the time I thought they were amazing and life changing, but now my standards are very different. I am still inclined to give the books that had a major influence on me, or were really formative, a high rating, even if looking back they're pretty unspectacular.

Half stars would make life so much better

And please don't associate twilight with pulp! not that you probably could call it pulp, but there is a big difference between Pulp and trash

Yes, Victoria, exactly. Not having half stars drives me crazy because there are so many books that don't fit perfectly into a 4 or 5 category. To me, the jump between 3 and 4 is huge just like the jump between 4 and 5. I've always thought that having a rating scale of 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest) would solve that problem.

Heather, yes, I agree that often there are books that really I've overrated a star or underrated a star. Sometimes you come back to a book and think...hmmm....it wasn't THAT great just like sometimes you come back and really see a book as so much more of an experience reading.

5 star books, to me, are ones that I see myself wanting to read repeatedly because they are so powerful and leave an impression, but there are a few 4 and a half star books that probably jump up to 5.

I don't give many one star reviews. More often a book that is very low to me is pretty much a 2 star book.

It is interesting to hear the different perspectives of what the rating system means. We all think a little differently about what is a 5 all the way down to 1.

A scale from 1 to 10 would be ideal. It will be easy to rate; moreover, it will help tremendously with all those torturous choices between 3.5/ 4 and 4.5/5. But we have what we have, and there were cases when I reconsidered my decisions and changed my ratings.

If only they would give that half a star choice. Sometimes I dont rate book for sometime, just cuz I can not decide how many stars.

Though I've been keeping a list of what I've read since I was 15, I never rated my books before joining Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ. I had a hard time tacking stars onto books I read over 30 years ago and barely remember.

Half stars probably wouldn't help me much, because then I'd be wishing for quarter stars. Seriously, I've read many books I would rate at 3 3/4 stars. They needed that little something extra to bump them up into the 4 star category, and the author just didn't deliver.

Needing to reach for a tissue at the end of a book usually adds a star to my rating. Don't know why - is this a "girl-thing"? Ultimately, I ask myself one question. Would I read this book again? If the answer is yes - 5 stars!

I hate giving book anything below 3 stars...I would never continue to read a book that I don't enjoy. My time is limited, and I do reading for pleasure so why waste it on a book that I don't like. But yeah, 4 and 5 stars can be tricky.

Knowledge Lost wrote: "And please don't associate twilight with pulp! not that you probably could call it pulp, but there is a big difference between Pulp and trash"

You're right, KL. Post edited : )

Edit 1: although, thinking more on it, I'm betting there's a difference between 'Pulp' as in the genre, and 'pulp' as in the adjective. Shall have to consult a dictionary, methinks.

Edit 2: Google offers the following definitions:

'n. Any professional fiction magazine printed on newsprint, but especially those of the 1920-1950 era.'

'n. Popular or sensational writing that is generally regarded as being of poor quality'

'pulpy adj. (of writing) Sensationalist and of poor quality; trashy'

OED says:

'pulp n. U.S. A popular magazine or book, printed on cheap ‘pulp� paper and typically lurid or sensational in nature. Hence, more generally: such works as a genre; any popular or sensational writing that is regarded as being of poor quality; pulp fiction'

'pulp fiction n. fiction of a style characteristic of pulp magazines; sensational, lurid, or popular fiction.'


We're both correct? : )

I tend to rate higher when I first finish a book but later may drop it down a little. It can be hard to separate 4 and 5 stars. I should probably be a little stricter with my 5th star.

I also would like to see an introduction of half-stars or an increase to 10 stars.

We may need a dictionary. I love pulp as a genre but I think you mean those best sellers that use the same generic formula all the time

Pulp magazines (often referred to as "the pulps"), also collectively known as pulp fiction, refers to inexpensive fiction magazines published from 1896 through the 1950s. The typical pulp magazine was seven inches wide by ten inches high, half an inch thick, and 128 pages long. Pulps were printed on cheap paper with ragged, untrimmed edges

Pulp magazines often contained a wide variety of genre fiction, including, but not limited to,

adventure
detective/mystery
fantasy/sword and sorcery
gangster
horror/occult (including "weird menace")
railroad
romance
science fiction
Série Noire (French crime mystery)
"spicy/saucy" (soft porn)
sports
war
westerns (also see Dime Western); the Colorado artist Arthur Roy Mitchell is particularly known for his sketches of the covers of such western magazines.

By that definition Twilight would have been considered pulp - horror/occult (including "weird menace") :P

Victoria wrote: "Knowledge Lost wrote: "And please don't associate twilight with pulp! not that you probably could call it pulp, but there is a big difference between Pulp and trash"

You're right, KL. Post edited ..."

Trashy is it? Oh yes. Hee hee...

Melki wrote: "Though I've been keeping a list of what I've read since I was 15, I never rated my books before joining Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ. I had a hard time tacking stars onto books I read over 30 years ago and barely re..."

Would I read it again is one of my criteria too, but sometimes I love a book that is not really of the highest quality. I won't give an example for fear of massive embarrassment. I am envious of your life-list. I wish I had thought to keep a record of everything I read. There would be some trash on it (we all go through stages) but it would be enormous!

Knowledge Lost wrote: "I normally follow the following;

5 stars - Amazing/Favourite
4 stars - Love it
3 stars - Like it
2 stars - Meh!
1 star - why did I bother"

Perfect! Thank you.

Sabine wrote: "I hate giving book anything below 3 stars...I would never continue to read a book that I don't enjoy. My time is limited, and I do reading for pleasure so why waste it on a book that I don't like. ..."

I agree. I usually give 2 stars to a book I had to force myself to finish. That rarely happens because I tend to fling it to the floor if its that bad. Books that get flung receive 1 star. If I paid for the flung book I get really mad!

I also find myself giving a lot of 5 star ratings to books especially when I rate them immediately after reading them. I'm on this emotional high I guess. I give a book 4 stars when I feel that even though the book was good, there was just one element missing from it. I gave "The Marriage Plot" 4 stars even though I loved Eugenides writing style, I couldn't put the book down, and I was fascinated with some of the characters. There was something missing from the book. I had a hard time relating to the main character's upper-class, Ivy league life. I think one of the characters reminded me of one of my stuck up classmates from grad school.

I wish there was a 6 star rating. I would give 6 stars to a book that profoundly moved me and that made a statement about human nature or about life. "Never Let Me Go" by Kazuo Ishiguro would be a 6 star book because for me it said something profound about human nature and the story and characters stuck with me for weeks afterwards. "Cutting for Stone" by Abraham Verghese would be a 5 star book. It had all the elements that I like in a book and there was nothing missing, but it didn't stick with me after I finished it and for me it didn't say anything profound.

I had a couple of books that i read while on holiday that I loved and gave 4 or 5 stars, but then when i got home, I downgraded them, because they weren't really that good. I think it was all part of the moment and the experience I had while reading them. I was worried that someone might read the book based on my 5 star rating and have a different experience with it that might not live up to mine.

I would also like the option to use half stars.

As for how I rate each book. When you hover over the stars they give you an explanation for each star which changed how I rated my books versus how I rate movies on Netflix... for instance on Netflix 2 stars means "didn't like it" but 2 stars on here means "it's ok."

Typically my 5 star books are the ones I keep talking about and always recommend to others but this isn't always the case.

I've went back and changed books after reading them. Some I gave 4 stars, but then upon reflection a few months later that they really weren't all that good and changed them to 3 stars. Yes, A Game of Thrones is still better than its follow-ups, I think.

Heather wrote: "Knowledge Lost wrote: "I normally follow the following;

5 stars - Amazing/Favourite
4 stars - Love it
3 stars - Like it
2 stars - Meh!
1 star - why did I bother"
This works for me, too!
Perfect! Thank you."

I have trouble deciding between 4 and 5 stars. There are some books I read long ago and gave 5 stars to that I can't remember the first thing about, so I doubt they were really 5-star quality. Some books I gave 5 stars to shortly after reading, but after the Kleenexes have dried, I realize are really at best 3 or 4 stars. I also have trouble with books I read as a child or a teenager. They were definitely formative, impactful books for me, but probably wouldn't stand up to rereading.

When I have this problem (which happens often) I read them again and decide if they deserve it or not. If they don´t, I change the stars and all´s well. If they do, then I have the reasurance that my first guess was correct.
If I don´t know them anymore and don´t have time for reading them, I leave them their stars until I have.

Marlene wrote: "When I have this problem (which happens often) I read them again and decide if they deserve it or not."

I barely have enough time to read new books, let alone reread books. I might change a rating later but not through a reread.

My rating goes as follows:

5= great plot, great descriptions, easy to read, couldn't put it down, wonderful characters you feel for, can't wait to recommend to others

4= good plot, good characters, moves along nicely, would recommend to others

3= alright plot, okay characters, could only read in fits and bursts, might recommend it to a couple people

2= faltering plot, slow story, hard to read, boring, would only recommend to specific people

1= no plot, crappy characters, no details, extremely hard to get into, would recommend to nobody