What a Three Rating Means to Me

Poor Three.
Three is looked at askance.
Three carries a burden of shame.
Three is the loneliest number out there.

Why?

Because a rating of three tends to cause a myriad of emotions - none of them seem to be good.

Why is that?

I have no idea. Books that are rated a three can be quite entertaining. I call them many things: summer reads, a good time, a great way to pass an evening on a snowy or rainy evening.

For a book to be rated a three, there HAS to be some good qualities. I KNOW I've covered a Three Rating before. In fact, I wrote a post that had quite a few links within it pointing the way to those other posts. Here .. I'll make it easy. Go HERE for the back story on THREE.

In the post, Revisit Me, Screams Number Three, I was covering the writing of a review that screams HIGH SCORE, but the reviewer gives it a three rating. The words in the review did not match what the reviewer ultimately rated it and that's what that particular blog post was addressing. It's the links within that post that I want to draw your attention to.

I guess the question that should be asked then is, "HOW do I write a real three rated review?"

It's a very good question.
Some questions need to be answered not so much with words but with examples. Have I got a treat for you.

First, more words.
Just because a review of a book isn't rated high on a scale does not mean the review has no value. It does not mean that the book should be ignored. Far from it.

A well written three rated review is incredibly helpful to a future reader.

It translates to this: Yes, this book has issues. Yes, a reader is going to find some things that aren't smooth or perfect or logical.

But a well written three rated review is going to give you what makes it good. It will cover what makes it fun, interesting, entertaining, WORTH the time to read and worth checking out.

Why?

Because the story will grab you back; it CAN make you laugh, or gasp, or squirm with delight or ::facepalm:: from a bad or corny pun. That despite and in spite of all that might be wrong with the technical side of the book, the STORY is worth it.
The characters might be worth it.
The Romance might worth it.
The world building might be worth it.

The book might have SO much going for it that it seems a shame to rate it a three, but some things like: plot holes, overdone head hopping or changes of a hero's name within the book, all conspire to undermine what truly would have been a great book.

It ends up being, a GOOD book.

There is nothing wrong with a good book.

The following are links I invite you to check out.
Investigate why these reviews are considered solid examples of three rated books.

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/seeking-shelter-by-morgan-k-wyatt/

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/the-mortality-of-nathan-quinn-by-w-j-mccabe/

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/the-house-by-sebastiana-randone/

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/unexpectedly-you-by-lily-santana/

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/a-beautiful-disaster-by-willa-okati/

Here's a challenge for a reviewer. What happens when a book has even MORE things wrong with it that it is impossible to even reach a three rating. HOW in the world does a reviewer write a review without sounding snarky? Without insulting the author's baby? Or even, and this is a major no-no, insulting the author his/her self? Seriously? Some books with issues inspire people with no professional minded filters between brain and fingers to spout off in self-righteous indignation which in turn comes across as being mean and nasty. Can a review be written for even lower than a three and still be respectful, honest and informative yet positive?

Glad you asked that. YES. Yes, it can be done.

Voila. More examples.

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/my-three-dads-by-zane-silva/

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/haven-of-obedience-by-marina-anderson/

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/marked-by-grief-by-caitlin-ricci/

Now, since no reviewer is the same. I'm not going to say another word.

It's your turn.
After going through the examples, I would enjoy hearing your questions or comments. No one is going to find the same example as the one that "speaks" to someone else, but I hope one of them does. I'd like to hear which one you found helpful and why. It would be awesome if an actual formal "HOW-TO" format could be developed from this and I think feedback from you is key.

So, what do you say?
Do you now see why I say that a three rating is a good rating?
Because it is. Even if you end up going to the library and checking the book out. It's worth it.

How to Stay in the Race

The first thing a reviewer needs to do to reach the checkered flag at the end is make a good start at the beginning.  If we're talking horses, I'd say you have to shoot out of the starting gate as soon as it goes down.   If we're talking the Olympics at the sprinter's race, it is the sound of the starting pistol that gets everyone to move forward.  You can't stay in the race if you never get your best foot forward.  You can't stay in the race if there's no incentive to do so.  Your race = being read.

In all instances, an effective start puts a competitor in a better position to perhaps keep the lead and cross the finish line first.  That's the hope of every competitor.

The checkered flag in the end  = a reader who sticks around to read your entire review.

For a reviewer, their starting gate is the first paragraph. Their start signal is the first sentence.  I've covered this before but it's nice to have a reminder every now and again.  First, I'll give a link to the first time I touched base on this.

The Beginning of the Same Difference

The reason I believe it's good to visit this again is to remind reviewers that stating the obvious is boring.  Making it your first sentence is a buzz-kill.  Rehashing  - This is # such and such in the LaLa series and it's great - doesn't do a thing for me.  Not as a reviewer and certainly not as a reader.

Why should you avoid stating a book is whatever number it is in a series in your first sentence and paragraph? Because you'll lose a reader immediately.  The only ones that will keep reading your review is someone already a fan of the series. Readers unfamiliar with the series or the author and his/her works will say - "Oh, forget this.  I'll have no idea what's going on, so I'm not going to read anymore.  There are other books out there."

Right after identifying the number in the series, some reviewers will rehash the blurb - a major no-no and another boring addition.  Why?  Many review sites post the blurb first.  It's after reading the blurb that a reader will then continue onto the review.  Telling them what it's all about after they just read what it's all about is a waste of their time for reading, and a waste of a reviewer's time for writing. The only time giving a brief overview has value is when a review site does not include a book's blurb with the review and reviewers have to give a reader some insight.  For this post, I'm specifically addressing reviewing for sites that do provide the blurb up front. 

What you put in your first paragraph is key.  I like variety so, here are some examples to peruse for Bite Me, Your Grace by Brooklyn Ann.


Terrific, a wonderful bland of historical, romance and paranormal.

Of course, the typo in the first sentence doesn't inspire confidence much.*grin*

A fearless virgin and a reclusive duke sound interesting when paired together but throw in a vampire duke and a young woman determined to remain unmarried and willing to do anything to ensure she won’t, makes this book unique and fascinating.

The intro sentence compares the usual Regency fare to that same scenario with a twist, thereby teasing the reader to read more. Okay, so I wrote that particular review, but still, that is the result I was aiming for. How'd I do compared to the other examples? I enjoy feedback.

When I chose this book to review, I was intrigued by both the title and the premise. “Bite Me, Your Grace” as the title had me imagining a story using a clever double entendre. A clever title shows an author with a clever mind, right? In some ways the book was clever and there was evidence of that double entendre.

Even though I liked how it started and because I did, I read more - with this review (it's from a site that does not provide a blurb) I found the tone quite negative in the extreme even though it was well written.

Merging the humor of a Regency romp with the darkness of a vampire novel, Ann has come up with a charming debut that captures the light and dark of the era.

Although I liked this sentence, using an author's first name is unprofessional.  I covered this no-no in my post That Familiar Touch.

I included the above because they showcase how a good first sentence lures a reader to continue reading.

Next, I tried to find a book in a series, I chose, Lion's Heat by Lora Leigh:

This was another hot episode in the Breeds series. (ho-hum)

FULL of Spoilers!  Readers of this blog know how I feel about spoilers. 

Gives a wolf whistle and pumps fist in the air: She’s baaaaaaaaaaaaack! Oh Em Gee everyone, Ms. Leigh hit it out of the park with this long awaited story, Lion’s Heat.

I liked this because of the sheer enthusiasm of the reviewer.  Her comment about "died hard fans" had me laughing, which I'm sure was not her intent.  See?  Editing IS important!  And ::sigh:: spoilers again. What is it with spoilers in reviews??

This volume in Lora Leigh's Breeds series is a pretty good entrant -- unlike many of the other books in the series she published around the time of this one, it doesn't feel totally phoned in, maybe because the character of Jonas had received a lot of fleshing out in earlier volumes, or because of the build-up from the volumes.

Wow- nothing like bringing out the negative. Really makes me want to read the rest of the review. NOT!

Expectations can be too high sometimes. I was really looking forward to this book by Lora Leigh, Lion’s Heat. This is the 21st book in the breeds series and Jonas’s story which is a breed who has figured prominently in many of the breed stories to date.

Here we go, the # of the book, and negative to boot. I don't think this horse should have gotten out of the starting gate, do you? And, because I found two reviews back to back with prevalent negativity, it's the perfect segue for you to check out the The Sandwich Rule for Reviewing. There's a place for, and a way of, mentioning what didn't work for you in a review. It's worth referring to, believe me.

Director of the Bureau of Breed Affairs Lion Breed Jonas Wyatt knows the only person who could bring him to his knees is his assistant, Rachel Broen. -

I don't call this a review. It's a synopsis, pure and simple - and disappointing.  The first sentence starts as it went on.  In a race, it would have been disqualified. 

So, do you see what I mean? Initial presentation is important in writing a review. You want to be read, not passed over.

From an editing standpoint, many of these would have given an editor a headache due to content. Ouch.