There are some books that I won't review though. Some books are perfect to review- you know what you want to say, you can clearly analyze the book. Others are harder. You have to think a little and you feel more "meh". What I want to talk about is those books that you don't write a review about.
What books are they?
I recently have not written any reviews. I've also looked at reviews I've written and thought, "Gosh, what an awful, unhelpful review. No way I'm going to post that." This usually happens when I'm reading a book further along in a series or the finale. Cuz if I've stuck to a series for long, I usually have some type of emotional attachment and it's hard not to rave about the awesomeness of the characters or the plot. (Ex: Every review I've done for Michael Grant's Gone series or Rick Riordan's Percy Jackson and the Olympian and Heroes of Olympus series.)
If I really like a book, it's hard to write about why. You ever read a book and you're thinking, OMG I LOVE THIS. Now try to explain why you like it. Sometimes you like something because it appeals to you and others may not understand that because different things appeal to different people.
If I really hate a book, it's also hard to write about. My most negative reviews are not written on my blog. Books that have resulted in strong negative feelings will rarely get a review. They'll get a couple lines in Goodreads (that's why you should be my friend! For extras!) or maybe I'll write a really scathing and awful vent about why I couldn't stand the book, but then I'll delete it. (Happens more often than you'd think.)
There are also books that are really popular and that I didn't much care for. (Daughter of Smoke & Bone by Laini Taylor.) These are the really hyped, popular books. If I don't feel like I have much to add to the discussion, I probably won't review these books. It's kind of hard to have seen dozens of reviews a book and expected to love it just to find out it wasn't your type of read and you're not that into it for some reason that's hard to explain.
Finally, there are books that I read for fun. Books (usually won in a giveaway, belonging to me, or after a reading slump) that I read just for the sake of reading. I always try to remember that I'm a reader first and a reviewer next. This is probably 1/3 books normally (recently: 5/6) that are read for the fun of it. If I constantly analyze a book it's hard to get into the story because I'll keep trying to evaluate a character's depth or a plot's originality. And sometimes I don't want to do that. Sometimes I just want to read for the sake of reading.
In sum:
I'm unlikely to review:
- books near the end of a series
- books I loved
- books I didn't like at all
- books that overly disappointed me for some intangible reason
- books read for the sake of reading
(It took me 5 paragraphs to say this. I love to ramble. :P )
How about you? What books will you not review? Agree/disagree? Let me know your thoughts in the comments!
And thanks for reading!
We don't review book at all, as a general policy. However, we DO mention them in the context of larger discussions or themes, and we only mention ones we enjoyed (to whatever degree -- with 4 of us, it may vary). Like you, we want to feel like we're adding to the conversation. Otherwise what's the point? So, since there are so many other great review blogs out there (like yours!) we figure we can talk about great books in a different way. :)
ReplyDeleteI like the idea that blogging is a conversation, and you can do what you want with it. I like to visit your blog because of the discussion topics.
DeleteI review most everything I read, if I finish it. If I totally don't like a book, then I rarely get past about 50 pages, but I've started a feature where I post about why I didn't finish those books.
ReplyDeleteI recently read 50 shades of gray but did not review because I hardly ever read anything but YA and didn't know if it would be appropriate for what people expect.
Brandi from Blkosiner’s Book Blog