It’s been a long time since I wrote any discussion posts, but I’ve been mulling over this topic lately. Especially with non-fiction, but sometimes with fiction as well, people get quite annoyed with the way I rate books. Back when I was on Goodreads, there was one guy who would often comment and note that he expected “better” of me (because of my English lit degree) when I didn’t like the classics or rated a book low just because I didn’t like the characters.
So first off, to set the scene, how do I rate? I rate the same for both fiction and non-fiction: did I like it? Did I enjoy it? I do not try to give anything some kind of “objective” rating, because I believe that’s very difficult — and also not useful to the majority of people who read my reviews. Most people who read my reviews don’t want to know if I thought Payment Deferred (C.S. Forester) was technically interesting, but whether it was enjoyable as a piece of classic crime fiction. Is it worth reading?
(The answer is “maybe”. If you’re particularly interested in inverted mysteries, it might be one for you. If you’d hate spending a whole book following around a murderer and watching how that splits his family apart, with everyone behaving horribly, then skip it.)
Instead, I give ratings that are consistent and over time can give you a picture of what I like and dislike, and you can then take me with a pinch of salt. There are a few reviewers I know whose ratings I don’t exactly agree with, but I know what they mean.
I got my rating system from Goodreads waaaay back when I was a teenager (I suspect we’re at over 20 years of me rating and reviewing books now, yikes):
- One star: disliked it
- Two stars: it was okay
- Three stars: liked it
- Four stars: really liked it
- Five stars: it was amazing
I know some people always disliked that scale, and ignored that way of rating books. I know authors tie themselves in absolute knots over getting a one-star review, as if it means anything other than “this reader didn’t like my book”. But I always liked the fact that it had plenty of room for nuance on books you get along with, and didn’t waste a lot of time with gradations of dislike, and that it’s focused on whether you enjoyed reading the book.
Is it fair to rate non-fiction books based on whether IÂ liked them? Yeah. I’m reviewing for fun here. There are several non-fiction books I’ve liked which are scanty with their sources, but stylistically enjoyable. You take ’em with a pinch of salt and move on, enjoying the language or the flight of rhetoric as you go.
There’s one guy who is completely wetting himself over on Goodreads about a really old review of mine, about a non-fiction book, complaining that I wasn’t rating the book but my reaction to it. And: yep. Unashamedly, forever, yep. But I did also write extensively about why — the weird judgements of sexualities other than heterosexuality, the references to discredited research, etc. As I noted in the review, the research hadn’t yet been discredited at the time the book was written, but the signs were there: obvious biases in recruitment into studies, conflicts of interest, poor statistical literacy.
You can take my opinions on these things for what they’re worth. Reading on my blog, you know more or less who I am — queer; British (Welsh); in my thirties; studied English lit, biology and infectious diseases; lover of libraries — and a thinking reader can quickly ascertain what I’m about and where I stand, and thus what I bring to reading and reviewing. Can figure out, for instance, that I probably do have the chops to evaluate whether someone ought to have known a particular line of research was utter bullshit ahead of time. To study biology or infectious diseases, statistics is a necessity. I’m not good at math per se, but I got a first and a distinction respectively in my BSc and MSc courses on statistics. Put two and two together (as even I can do) and you’ll know whether I’m spouting bullshit or not.
As for objectivity… it requires a great deal of self-knowledge to get anywhere close to objectivity. Sometimes, I do step back and think, “Y’know, objectively, the writing is very beautiful.” And I’ll say so in my review, if that’s what I think.
But that’s not what you need to know, is it?
Your system is very similar to mine, although I think I tend to rate a little higher. Three stars for me is “just OK”, two stars is “didn’t like it” and one star is “worst book ever.” I think I tend to judge books on mechanics a lot, but those that have an emotional punch often get their rating bumped up.
I like having more room for gradation in how positive I feel, because I really don’t read that many bad books, you know? Or at least, don’t get to the point of reviewing them!
I’ve had the same kind of reaction, from a non-fiction writer. “That’s not what I meant” kind of level – but, it’s how it read to me, and that’s how I’m going to review! Besides, reviews aren’t for the author. I do think there’s a bit of guilt-tripping in star ratings these days, which I object to a lot.
calypte recently posted…No Friend to This House – Natalie Haynes
Yeah. I also get other reviewers kinda complaining about my ratings and look, blame Goodreads, this is their official rating system from back when I first joined. And I was a literal sort of soul, I took it as read that was how I was supposed to rate, even if “everybody” actually interpreted it in some other way…
I’ve never been any good with numerical scales, which I’m going to attribute to my handful of years in a Montessori school and my Blakeian anarchist streak. Reviews aren’t for the author, and as long as a person is consistent, I don’t care how they rate. I’ve seen people rate with expressive emoji, which was fun. When I was paid for reviews, I actually was required to use a 10 point scale which was then converted by editorial to a 5 star system for the public.
Faranae recently posted…Good news, I got a little sleep!
I actually started out this blog without putting numerical ratings because I thought the reviews spoke for themselves, but people didn’t like it and asked me to add ratings. So I did, and they are mostly consistent because I persist in making them be entirely subjective even if other people don’t like it. I really don’t want to imagine trying to rate objectively.
Rating “objectively” is deeply unpleasant to do, even more for me because I resist the entire concept to begin with, but I feel like it was good for my intellectual rigor in the absence of other opportunities to exercise it, and for helping me identify what my personal taste is. I mostly reviewed books in genres I don’t even like, and had to figure out how they were arguably good or at least why they were bad that wasn’t just “but I hate [genre]”, and transferred that skill to the genres I do like. I don’t think I’d have learned those skills just reviewing on my blog, though – I had to argue my reviews to an editor and back it up with evidence and notes, which is a bit different from justifying a rating to a random person on the internet.
Oh, I like this post and the way you’re qualifying your rating system, it makes me want to reexamine my own. I agree with you that ratings shouldn’t be for anyone else except yourself but I do feel bad for the author sometimes. Still, I read and review (and rate) books so that I can come back to them one day and remember what I thought about the book, because I like to reread and I don’t often remember the books I read! Reading tastes are so subjective, and there’s no way I can or should rate a book based on how I think anyone else will like it. I only have my own opinions to go by! Perhaps the exception is if you were a professional reviewer/writer for a magazine or something and you need to think about if your audience will like the book you’re recommending, but if you’re reviewing on a personal blog or your own GR account, then it makes perfect sense to keep your reviews true to yourself.
Haze @ The Book Haze recently posted…Book Review | When Breath Becomes Air by Paul Kalanithi
Yeah, I don’t love giving a book a low rating, but I remind myself that I’m just writing honestly about what I think and feel about a book. Sometimes a low review from someone else will make me interested in a book, so I’m sure it works the other way round and some of my low ratings and reviews make people feel intrigued about a book I didn’t like.
I thought about doing my reviews like you do yours. Of course I had to make it complicated. I think the important thing is that the publisher / author understands what system is being used. And no one should be upset if one random person doesn’t enjoy a book. I recently rated a book 2.5 whose average rating on Goodreads was over 4. Shrug. It happens.
I don’t think about publishers or authors, because my reviews aren’t for them, they’re for other readers. But of course everyone who sees them needs to know what scale people are using, so that’s why I have a sidebar on my website explaining precisely that (unfortunately, people rarely look at it, gah).
I really just have a 4-category rating scale as I reserve 1 star for absolutely awful, as in no redeeming qualities whatsoever books. Thank goodness that is rare. For me 3 stars is it was okay, 2 stars I didn’t like it. 4 stars is I liked it and 5 stars is it was amazing.
That sounds like it’s shifted just a touch from mine. 😀 Similar, but I have more room for gradations of how much I liked something.