by Yummy Men and Kick Ass Chicks
Carmel: Personally, I prefer when all of the pertinent information about the book is included in the review i.e the title, author, series, format, number of pages, genre, ISBN #, book cover, synopsis, buy links and publication date. This way I have all of the necessary details to figure out whether the novel appeals to me and I can find it easily should I wish to check it out for myself. I really like it when reviewers include a rating as well. It gives me a general idea of what they thought of the book and will often help me decide whether I should read the review in full or just skim. If the rating doesn’t match the GoodReads average then my curiosity gets the better of me and I want to find out why that particular reviewer is going against the norm.
I dislike reviews that include a summary of the book. It comes off as too book report-ish to me, and that information is also already included in the synopsis. I don’t read reviews to find out what a book is about but rather to find out that reviewer’s specific thoughts on it. I realize that it’s next to impossible to not include a bit of summary (I do this myself) but only when it’s helpful to back-up the point that you’re trying to make. I’m also not a fan of too many direct quotes from the book. Two or three are okay but any more than that and it becomes an excerpt not a review.
I enjoy reading reviews that are injected with the reviewer’s personality. It helps to better understand their opinion and makes for a more engaging read. I think that it’s important to have a nice balance of facts and opinions. And, of course, good spelling and grammar are important too. I understand the need for the occasional fan girl squeal but these sound effects shouldn’t comprise the bulk of a review. Finally, no author bashing. It’s petty and just plain unnecessary.
Oh, and spoilers. I hate spoilers. Ok, I think I’m done now. LOL
Josh: Usually I look to see if it’s a book I’m already interested in reading. I rarely read reviews for books that are not in my sights. Since you have left it open what kind of things are being reviewed, I would have to say, based on my roommate’s biased opinion, that Roger Ebert’s reviews are those that all others should be measured by. If there is ever any doubt if I should go see a movie Roger Ebert is my guy. The only times that he has been blatantly wrong are when he dealt with such cult classics as: Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie and Limits of Control.
Now what beyond Roger Ebert’s name makes his reviews so great? I could not say. They read lightly, frequently humorous even when I don’t agree with him as seen above. They have a measure of authority. That might be the best thing about them. I like to read people who are in the know so my roommate can sometimes be just as good if not better than Roger Ebert.
Sue: My main thing with reviews, is how did the reviewer feel when reading the book. I need a run down of why the characters, plot, dialogue etc., were amazing or not. Then I ask myself, are those things that I would like too? By consistently reading certain reviewers I get a feel for what they like. I stick with the one’s most similar in taste to me. I do not like summary’s or spoilers.
What about you?
|What Do You Look For In A Review?|
About the Blogger
I review Urban Fantasy and Paranormal Romance books with a focus all things werewolf. Based out of Ottawa, Canada