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.
Showing posts with label three ratings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label three ratings. Show all posts
Friday, October 11, 2013
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
"Revisit Me" Screams Number Three
Hello, again, fellow reviewers!
Welcome, fellow word grazers!
It's been awhile, hasn't it? I've covered many aspects of reviewing so topics are fewer to come by. Sometimes what is old is new again and this post proves it. I heard it through the editing grapevine that ratings aren't equaling the review. The ripple effect from that practice is not pretty and it affects the reviewer's credibility, not to mention causes untold confusion for the author as well as readers of your review.
The rating of three (3) isn't a bad thing. If you need a refresher about a three (3) rating click HERE -- remember the Rapunzel-effect?. I know some of you do. I even covered a three (3) rating in more depth HERE - personally, I think the 'Missing Link' is even more helpful. Three(3) is a popular subject, can you tell?
The flip side of rating a book a three (3), is not writing the review to justify it. In fact, what is being written is glowing, gushing and all perfectly positive. If you're that enthusiastic about the book, why in the world are you rating it a three (3)? To paraphrase Mr. Spock, "That does not compute." Certainly, it's not logical.
For a book to earn a three (3) rating, it has to have faults. Has to. Not maybe. Has to. And how to address them was covered in The Rapunzel Effect - so go check out that link if you haven't already.
A reviewer does a great disservice to the book and all readers of their review when there is tons of gushing and positive opinions without sharing what dragged it down from a perfect rating of five (5) or Best Book to a three (3). There has to be a reason. It's the responsibility of a reviewer to express that; share what didn't work and what could have made it better in a concise but respectful manner. Remember, no snark - it's never constructive nor truly informative. Remember, I covered No Snark when I went 'fishing'. Need a refresher? Click HERE
I'm not sure why a reviewer would hesitate to share their opinion of what didn't work for them. I don't think they'd hold back if they were talking to their friends face to face about it. I hardly think they'd recommend a book to their friends by waxing poetic about how great it was and then mislead them by not warning them of the book's pitfalls. Friendship means taking the good with the not-so-good. The relationship that a reviewer has with her/his audience is just like a friendship. Some readers follow a reviewer because they feel that they can trust the opinion of the writer. Why would you want to let them down? What are you afraid of? Are you aware that authors respect a well worded critique and find the information of what didn't work, helpful? They do. Well, most do.
If a reviewer stated that the hero's dialogue came across sounding like a stubborn, childish cur instead of a man you could respect and swoon over, then they'd know to pay more attention to the male POV and how he's depicted. Perhaps they need to do more research on how men talk amongst themselves to gain more insight. And that insight may very well benefit the next hero, and reviewers will truly have reason to be enthusiastic. Maybe there was a ton of confusing head hopping in a book and the reviewer shared that it was overdone and threw them out of the story. That might challenge the author to rein in his/her characters and the next book will be sharp and on target.
The bottom line? Write a review that matches the rating. Give details ( NOT SPOILERS) about what was missing, or what didn't work. Something. Don't just say the book 'feels' like a three (3). That means nothing. Please do not submit a review that has "Happy, Happy, Joy! Joy!" (nod to Ren & Stimpy) all over it and then slap on a three (3) rating, or even a four (4). When you do that, your credibility is on the line.
Please make your reviews match and/or justify your rating.
Welcome, fellow word grazers!
It's been awhile, hasn't it? I've covered many aspects of reviewing so topics are fewer to come by. Sometimes what is old is new again and this post proves it. I heard it through the editing grapevine that ratings aren't equaling the review. The ripple effect from that practice is not pretty and it affects the reviewer's credibility, not to mention causes untold confusion for the author as well as readers of your review.
The rating of three (3) isn't a bad thing. If you need a refresher about a three (3) rating click HERE -- remember the Rapunzel-effect?. I know some of you do. I even covered a three (3) rating in more depth HERE - personally, I think the 'Missing Link' is even more helpful. Three(3) is a popular subject, can you tell?
The flip side of rating a book a three (3), is not writing the review to justify it. In fact, what is being written is glowing, gushing and all perfectly positive. If you're that enthusiastic about the book, why in the world are you rating it a three (3)? To paraphrase Mr. Spock, "That does not compute." Certainly, it's not logical.
For a book to earn a three (3) rating, it has to have faults. Has to. Not maybe. Has to. And how to address them was covered in The Rapunzel Effect - so go check out that link if you haven't already.
A reviewer does a great disservice to the book and all readers of their review when there is tons of gushing and positive opinions without sharing what dragged it down from a perfect rating of five (5) or Best Book to a three (3). There has to be a reason. It's the responsibility of a reviewer to express that; share what didn't work and what could have made it better in a concise but respectful manner. Remember, no snark - it's never constructive nor truly informative. Remember, I covered No Snark when I went 'fishing'. Need a refresher? Click HERE
I'm not sure why a reviewer would hesitate to share their opinion of what didn't work for them. I don't think they'd hold back if they were talking to their friends face to face about it. I hardly think they'd recommend a book to their friends by waxing poetic about how great it was and then mislead them by not warning them of the book's pitfalls. Friendship means taking the good with the not-so-good. The relationship that a reviewer has with her/his audience is just like a friendship. Some readers follow a reviewer because they feel that they can trust the opinion of the writer. Why would you want to let them down? What are you afraid of? Are you aware that authors respect a well worded critique and find the information of what didn't work, helpful? They do. Well, most do.
If a reviewer stated that the hero's dialogue came across sounding like a stubborn, childish cur instead of a man you could respect and swoon over, then they'd know to pay more attention to the male POV and how he's depicted. Perhaps they need to do more research on how men talk amongst themselves to gain more insight. And that insight may very well benefit the next hero, and reviewers will truly have reason to be enthusiastic. Maybe there was a ton of confusing head hopping in a book and the reviewer shared that it was overdone and threw them out of the story. That might challenge the author to rein in his/her characters and the next book will be sharp and on target.
The bottom line? Write a review that matches the rating. Give details ( NOT SPOILERS) about what was missing, or what didn't work. Something. Don't just say the book 'feels' like a three (3). That means nothing. Please do not submit a review that has "Happy, Happy, Joy! Joy!" (nod to Ren & Stimpy) all over it and then slap on a three (3) rating, or even a four (4). When you do that, your credibility is on the line.
Please make your reviews match and/or justify your rating.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Play the Match Game
Remember Match Game back in the 1970s? Ah, that Gene Rayburn was a kick.
And I just dated myself. LOL
However, it's not a game that I'm referring to with that post title. Nor is it very humorous. In my archives, I did a post called The Rapunzel Effect. One of the comments inspired a reply from me that truly created a spark of emotion.
I was talking about reviews rated a three on the LASR or Whipped Cream review sites. That rating isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. It's what I term a summer read: something fun, it helps to pass the time in an enjoyable manner. Sometimes a reader doesn't want a heavy hitter, just an infusion of romance. Short stories do that but they also tend to see more three ratings than not.
Why do I think 3 has a bad rap? Easy - it's because of how the review is written. The Rapunzel Effect addresses that so I'm not going to repeat myself.
What I am trying to point out is this: The rating has to match the review.
A review simply cannot have the words: excellent, perfect, great, in the conclusion of the review where previously, the writer was blasting negatives throughout. The review will not be taken seriously--especially if the reviewer decided to give a four or better rating.
The reader is going to come away scratching their head, "I thought the reviewer hated the book.(?)"
Here's a review of one of my favorite stories. It's a four book rating but the writer mentions something that justifies it being a four. I also think if it hadn't been included, I would have expected a higher rating, but that could be my personal prejudice.
GOING OVERBOARD
A reviewer cannot give a gushing and glowing report and use those same positive words yet give a three rating. That makes no sense! There has be something that prevented it from getting a higher score. The reviewer has to say so. Has to. Otherwise, how can a reader trust the rating?
Here's an example: DON'T FENCE ME IN
Don't even get me started on how the review doesn't even give a potential reader any insight. That's a different post. But, see what I mean?
She claimed it was 'well researched' and 'solid'. So, why didn't it rate higher?
A better example of a three rating is this: BEHIND THE BENCH
Sure, something wasn't quite perfect for her, but the fact that the reviewer enjoyed the reading experience was not lost on me.
Now in this example, the reviewer hated the book. The tone of the review and the rating totally matched. I don't advocate this type of harsh and in depth microscopic carnage but the writer certainly was eloquent in her distaste. LOVE IN THE TIME OF DRAGONS.
By the same token, whenever a reviewer gives a reason for a three book or cherry, they need to do it with respect and civility. Reviews are not supposed to make an author bleed.
If authors are seeing a lot of negative and scathing comments regarding their work, and the majority of those are rated threes, it's not a wonder that poor little number 3 has had a bad rep. It's not fair. It's a generic paint brush tactic that is tarnishing everything.
A three rating can be a good thing, TEXT ME
- when the review is written right. Need a Refresher? REVIEWS CLASS #2
Make the rating match the review. Make sense. And play nice.
And I just dated myself. LOL
However, it's not a game that I'm referring to with that post title. Nor is it very humorous. In my archives, I did a post called The Rapunzel Effect. One of the comments inspired a reply from me that truly created a spark of emotion.
I was talking about reviews rated a three on the LASR or Whipped Cream review sites. That rating isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. It's what I term a summer read: something fun, it helps to pass the time in an enjoyable manner. Sometimes a reader doesn't want a heavy hitter, just an infusion of romance. Short stories do that but they also tend to see more three ratings than not.
Why do I think 3 has a bad rap? Easy - it's because of how the review is written. The Rapunzel Effect addresses that so I'm not going to repeat myself.
What I am trying to point out is this: The rating has to match the review.
A review simply cannot have the words: excellent, perfect, great, in the conclusion of the review where previously, the writer was blasting negatives throughout. The review will not be taken seriously--especially if the reviewer decided to give a four or better rating.
The reader is going to come away scratching their head, "I thought the reviewer hated the book.(?)"
Here's a review of one of my favorite stories. It's a four book rating but the writer mentions something that justifies it being a four. I also think if it hadn't been included, I would have expected a higher rating, but that could be my personal prejudice.
GOING OVERBOARD
A reviewer cannot give a gushing and glowing report and use those same positive words yet give a three rating. That makes no sense! There has be something that prevented it from getting a higher score. The reviewer has to say so. Has to. Otherwise, how can a reader trust the rating?
Here's an example: DON'T FENCE ME IN
Don't even get me started on how the review doesn't even give a potential reader any insight. That's a different post. But, see what I mean?
She claimed it was 'well researched' and 'solid'. So, why didn't it rate higher?
A better example of a three rating is this: BEHIND THE BENCH
Sure, something wasn't quite perfect for her, but the fact that the reviewer enjoyed the reading experience was not lost on me.
Now in this example, the reviewer hated the book. The tone of the review and the rating totally matched. I don't advocate this type of harsh and in depth microscopic carnage but the writer certainly was eloquent in her distaste. LOVE IN THE TIME OF DRAGONS.
By the same token, whenever a reviewer gives a reason for a three book or cherry, they need to do it with respect and civility. Reviews are not supposed to make an author bleed.
If authors are seeing a lot of negative and scathing comments regarding their work, and the majority of those are rated threes, it's not a wonder that poor little number 3 has had a bad rep. It's not fair. It's a generic paint brush tactic that is tarnishing everything.
A three rating can be a good thing, TEXT ME
- when the review is written right. Need a Refresher? REVIEWS CLASS #2
Make the rating match the review. Make sense. And play nice.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
The Rapunzel Effect
What does Rapunzel have in common with reviews?
Try letting it all hang down.
Rapunzel lets down her hair - as a big hairy dump or a sensual unrolling of locks.
Reviews...well they can take an author's hopes and either slam them down to the ground or have those same hopes sensitively addressed by a gentle waterfall of words that won't harm but inform.
What am I really referring to? Lower rated reviews of the 2-3 level and the words used to address and explain what put them there in the first place.
First let me say that for LASR/WC, a three rating isn't that bad of a rating. I have no idea why or how it got the bad rap in the first place. Books with a three rating have always been enjoyable and entertaining, they just don't make me dream about them at night, nor do they make me want to rush out and buy every and all books in an author's backlist. What a three rating has always done for me is to pass the time in an enjoyable and welcome manner. When glitches are found, and they always are, the story and/or characters were done well enough that it didn't matter, I still found merit in the story. I still am glad I read it. And I'm happy to say so.
A three rating also means that as a reviewer I have the responsibilty to explain what I felt held the story back. The most important component of meeting that responsibility is to respect the author and her/his work and be as factual, professional and courteous as you can be. There should not be any attacks on the author by making personal references that try to connect the faults in the story with perceived faults in the person. That's ludicrous and unacceptable behavior.
Please bear in mind that I refer to reviews on professional sites and not personal blogs. People's personal blog space can be anything they want it to be and that means anything goes - free speech.
That being said, I ask, "What do you think drags down a story?"
My first thought is editing. If it's a self-published book then it's the author's complete burden. If it's published with a big house or even a smaller e-pub that has editors, then the editors let the author down. But some editing is so bad that it sinks the story. If a reader feels disconnected more than involved because of the constant interruption, that would prevent a higher mark.
What are some specific things that would drag a story down? Depending on degree, there are:
* Too Stupid To Live (TSTL) Hero or Heroine
* Plot holes - makes no sense
* Too many coincidences - how convenient and pat
* Bad or lazy research - American Slang used by a British character that's never been to America and the book takes place in England
* Telling instead of showing
* Head hopping - too many (POV) point of view shifts in too short a space
* Narrative or passive story telling
Those are just a few. The trick to mentioning these types of things in a review is to couch them with positives especially if it's a three rating. Threes should have plenty of good things to say.
Like I mentioned - Showing is tons better than telling.
So, check out these links that are of reviews with "three" ratings. I believe these to be straightforward, succinct and address the issues of the story itself without going off on unprofessional tangents.
The Boy Next Door
Sunrise in a Garden of Love and Evil
Fallen
Act Like We're In Love
Hot Spanish Nights
Although the last one is a four rating, the review showcased again how issues prevent a good book from being even better. So, as you can see, there are various ways to express things that didn't work for a reviewer. Always remember to surround the negatives with positives and the review should always end on a upbeat note.
Any questions?
Try letting it all hang down.
Rapunzel lets down her hair - as a big hairy dump or a sensual unrolling of locks.
Reviews...well they can take an author's hopes and either slam them down to the ground or have those same hopes sensitively addressed by a gentle waterfall of words that won't harm but inform.
What am I really referring to? Lower rated reviews of the 2-3 level and the words used to address and explain what put them there in the first place.
First let me say that for LASR/WC, a three rating isn't that bad of a rating. I have no idea why or how it got the bad rap in the first place. Books with a three rating have always been enjoyable and entertaining, they just don't make me dream about them at night, nor do they make me want to rush out and buy every and all books in an author's backlist. What a three rating has always done for me is to pass the time in an enjoyable and welcome manner. When glitches are found, and they always are, the story and/or characters were done well enough that it didn't matter, I still found merit in the story. I still am glad I read it. And I'm happy to say so.
A three rating also means that as a reviewer I have the responsibilty to explain what I felt held the story back. The most important component of meeting that responsibility is to respect the author and her/his work and be as factual, professional and courteous as you can be. There should not be any attacks on the author by making personal references that try to connect the faults in the story with perceived faults in the person. That's ludicrous and unacceptable behavior.
Please bear in mind that I refer to reviews on professional sites and not personal blogs. People's personal blog space can be anything they want it to be and that means anything goes - free speech.
That being said, I ask, "What do you think drags down a story?"
My first thought is editing. If it's a self-published book then it's the author's complete burden. If it's published with a big house or even a smaller e-pub that has editors, then the editors let the author down. But some editing is so bad that it sinks the story. If a reader feels disconnected more than involved because of the constant interruption, that would prevent a higher mark.
What are some specific things that would drag a story down? Depending on degree, there are:
* Too Stupid To Live (TSTL) Hero or Heroine
* Plot holes - makes no sense
* Too many coincidences - how convenient and pat
* Bad or lazy research - American Slang used by a British character that's never been to America and the book takes place in England
* Telling instead of showing
* Head hopping - too many (POV) point of view shifts in too short a space
* Narrative or passive story telling
Those are just a few. The trick to mentioning these types of things in a review is to couch them with positives especially if it's a three rating. Threes should have plenty of good things to say.
Like I mentioned - Showing is tons better than telling.
So, check out these links that are of reviews with "three" ratings. I believe these to be straightforward, succinct and address the issues of the story itself without going off on unprofessional tangents.
The Boy Next Door
Sunrise in a Garden of Love and Evil
Fallen
Act Like We're In Love
Hot Spanish Nights
Although the last one is a four rating, the review showcased again how issues prevent a good book from being even better. So, as you can see, there are various ways to express things that didn't work for a reviewer. Always remember to surround the negatives with positives and the review should always end on a upbeat note.
Any questions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)