Whenever I'm looking for a new book to read the first thing I do is read through it's reviews. Usually I skim through a few that gave it a high score and then find at least one that gave it a low score. I think sometimes the reviewers who give a book only two or three stars are the ones who say the most about what I want to know, "will I want to keep reading?" Sometimes those are the most valuable reviews to me. I try to keep this in mind when I write my reviews.
Very simply, when I review, a book that I give 5 stars is a book I couldn’t
put down. The plot of the story really is everything for me. I take note of
editing, clichés, voice, all of that. But, at the end of the day what I
consider a good book is one that I want to read.
Now on that note, there have been some books that I couldn’t
put down that didn’t have the greatest writing. Twilight is a good example of this. The story sucked me in and I
gave Twilight 4 stars, however this
does not mean I consider Stephanie Meyer a “great writer,” she’s not, but she
told a wonderfully intriguing story. Twilight
wasn’t completely original, it didn’t have amazing imagery, but I couldn’t put
it down. It made me want to read more. I was enthralled in the plot even
despite some weak sentence structure and overused phrases.
So I don’t review writing, I review stories. In contrast to Twilight I recently read Under the Never Sky by Veronica Rossi. I
think she is a much better writer then Stephanie Meyer, still not the “greatest
writer,” but better. She had wonderful
imagery in this book even though it was more descriptive then lyrical, and less
clichés; but I gave Under the Never Sky 3 stars because I found the plot had a
slow start, lackluster ending, and overall needed to be more concise. At the
end of this book I didn’t want to read its sequel, and I won’t. Veronica Rossi
has some writing skill, but she didn’t tell a story that made me want to keep
reading.
Some of the stories I find I like the most are written by
indie authors. They don’t have the best editing and often read a little rough,
but some have wonderful story lines. Samantha Young’s Fire Spirits series is a
perfect example of this. I hated some of the language in the first book, Smokeless Fire. Juvenile words like
“Sooo,” were annoying. But, her characters were deep, well developed, and the
story line was amazing. I’ve so far given this series 4 stars and will continue
reading it.
What I think makes a good book is more than good grammar. I
seek good stories; I want a good plot and compelling dialogue. Good writing and
good editing are very important. I don’t want anyone to think that I don’t find
these two things crucial. They are just not what I’m reviewing when I look at a
book. I review the story, not the author. I will always comment on my pet
peeves in my reviews, but there are enough people out there reviewing on some
systematic scale where they break down what they think makes a good book. This
is wonderfully consistent, but to me it doesn’t necessarily tell me what I want
to know about a book, and that is “Will I want to keep reading?”
No comments:
Post a Comment