It's been so long since I've written a review, that I've forgotten my own personal style. I opened my word processor to begin typing, and nothing came out! I used to be good at this!
I did a little research online to see how you're technically supposed to do it. I found this great article that was four pages long explaining exactly what a blogged book review should contain. Four pages?? Alright, my reviews aren't even four pages long. If I went through this list and added everything they suggest, my reviews would be a book in themselves. Not only that, the result of that would definitely be a review I'm not willing to read. If I'm spending more than five minutes reading the review, I might as well just dive into the book and wish myself the best of luck.
During the past dozen years, I've read hundreds (possibly thousands) of book reviews. They range from a simple 'This book sucked!' to several pages of in-depth information. What do you normally put in your reviews? Do you want to spend a few seconds and give your general idea of the book? Or do you want to continuously ask yourself why you felt that way, and go in to great detail?
There are a few points that are necessities, I believe. Of course, you need the title and author of the book. You need a general summary. It's great to have an idea what genre the book belonged in. As a reader of reviews, I also like to have information about the plot and characters. I also want to know if there was anything that made this book excel above others or whether there is a fault that is so severe that the book should never have been published.
It looks to me like most of today will be spent redefining my review process. Though I know vaguely what sort of reviews I used to write, and would like to write, I also think this is the best time to reinvent and improve upon myself. I'm open for suggestions!
What information do you put in your reviews? What information are you looking for?
No comments:
Post a Comment