And while on this restful weekend splurge, I got to thinking about the structure of book reviews. Book bloggers each have their own cool formula and I know that I've mentioned before that I'd like to find a format that works for me, so this is s a wee bit redundant. It's just, I haven't found that niche yet and I guess I sorta expected I would already.
For instance, how do you feel about ratings? Do you rate books and if you do, do you use stars as your rating? How do you base your ratings? I have trouble rating a book because I figure that book ratings are in context. I might give a fun loving book a 4 (think Sookie Stackhouse books) but that doesn't mean it would compare to a classic which I rated a 4. This is where I think I overthink things? Anyways, I absolutely love how Trisha over at eclectic/eccentric. If you haven't checked her out, you should.
I think that I'm leaning toward rating my books, but more in a general abstract way. I'm playing with ____(verbage here)_____ it. So, it'd look something like: loved it, liked it, skip it, try it. Work in progress. We'll see.
And what about pictures of the books on the post? I *always* upload a picture of the front cover. I'm immediately caught up in the eye candy of a cover. I don't solely base my decision on the cover, mind you, but it is important to me. Deep down I think that's probably wrong because I don't think that the authors have an opportunity to decide on their covers. (Do they?) Obviously that's not fair but it's still a very real thing I (and many others?) do.
Summarize or not? Overall I summarize through my reaction to the book. I know many of you break up your summary and your thoughts but they go so hand in hand with me, it's easier if I don't. I wonder if this is bothersome. In the beginning I (think?) separated my review from the summary. That quickly fell to the wayside. I hate summarizing. I don't think I do it very well (so do I hate it because I don't do it well or vice versa? Who knows?) I teach my students to write as if the audience is stupid. Because they think it is funny (But Miss! You're our audience, heehee) they tend to remember that their audience has not always read what they are talking about. That's what I figure summaries are - assuming the audience has no clue and you're generalizing to catch them up to speed. Man, I'd much rather you know what I'm talking about. I'm the type of gal that if I could have "inside" one word conversations with you, I'm in love. Seriously. There should be a magic wand where I can wave it and an understanding would just occur. We'd be on the same page and I'd be all, "Yeah, so Katniss, that time when she sang" and you'd be all like "Oh yeah I know what you're talking about...." *le sigh* I guess that's not life in the real world though, huh? My tangent simply means I'm probably not gonna have a long winded summary.
What do you look for in book reviews?
[Image from the Guardian]