Random Topic: How do you define a "great" review?

Inspired on some level by a discussion on another thread, I thought it might be interesting to see how we all define 'great' reviews--at least here on LT/CR. How subjective do you think the term 'great' is? Is it a matter of taste? Do you gravitate to a certain style? What characteristics do you enjoy in reviews, and conversely, what turns you off? Does the length of the review play any part? Do other bits people add; such as, why they read the book now, how they discovered the book...etc, interest you?

For the sake of this discussion, I think it would be good NOT to point to the work of anyone here by name. And we should try not to read into what people write and take anything personally.

(now I'm off to have a good think before I post my own thoughts)

Obviously at least in some part it will vary by personal taste. My own ideas of the "perfect" review are something like, short to mid-length (more than a couple lines so there's enough substance, but more than a few paragraphs just turns into a wall of text that is too much, I don't want to read a whole essay on a book, just a review!), maybe a short quote or two to give an idea of the style, not overly much detail about plot (if fiction) but summing up the positives and negatives as they saw them (great prose? terrible grammar/lots of mistakes? too far-fetched aspects? perfect ending? etc) and what their overall opinion was. Why it was chosen and that stuff I don't need but think it's fun to have those personal bits included.

For me at least the format of the review doesn't matter, everyone in CR does it slightly differently. I don't even consider the write ups I do "reviews" and for the most part they follow a pretty set formula. If everyone reviewed books in the same manner, well it would be strange. Due to a limited attention span and a tendency to wander longer reviews of a couple paragraphs with quotes and such take longer for me to get through but I think they can be the most informative and interesting here in CR. Aspects I like are general plot summaries with a sense of style and prose. And the only aspect I don't like in reviews are plot summaries from beginning to end (not something I've noticed here at CR).

I think one the most important aspects in decided if it was a good review or not is past reviews. Without a calibration (a book/author both the reviewer and I've read) there's no way to gauge whether the review is warranted or not. But there is some undefined quality to great reviews that just sticks. It usually comes down to one sentence or line that just resonates for whatever reason. If I have a huh moment then I consider that to be a great review. Or if it makes me laugh that works too. So yes it's subjective and hard to define what is a great review.

"Great" Question!

'Great review' is probably one of the most subjective things there is on LT/CR. The style of the review being read is probably one of the most important things to me, far more so than the book itself. After all, a terrible book can have a very well written review.

What do I like in reviews by others?
- thoughtfulness and analysis on the part of the reviewer
- placing the book in some sort of context, no matter whether the book is fiction or nonfiction
- length and depth related to the importance of the book to the reviewer
- well selected quotes

Details I appreciate:
- what led the reviewer to this book
- why now if there's a particular reason
- how it fits in with some other books the reviewer has read
- variations on "other books I have read by this author"
- images

What turns me off in reviews:
- outright dismissal of a book without explanation
- dismissing a book based on today's values when the author has a well written book representing the beliefs of his or her time and culture ( some discussion of the fact that we might not see things as the author did is fine, but rejecting the author outright seems abrupt ((yes there are exceptions)) )

Lastly, for me the best reviews make me want to read a particular book, even if I have already read it. Whether it's a review of something I had never previously considered to be of interest, or of one of my top five interests, it has to fire me up to want to read the book. This may happen considerably later, but it will happen.

Your answers are all so intriguing....

I totally agree with SassyLassy at #4. In addition though I am quite happy to read about an emotional response from the reviewer. After all books are our passion and some of them should "get" to us.

I like to try and read all the reviews here on Club Read and so I usually have some idea of the reviewers tastes and so that gives me a sense of familiarity with the reviewer which I like.

I read reviews because I want to know more about the book being reviewed and if I am entertained at the same time then that's a bonus.

I think here on LT, deciding what a 'great' review is is very subjective.

I suspect a great review for me would be a mid-length review with a short synopses (no more than half the word count), and then I follow pretty much what Sassy has laid out in #4, with one addition: I like to know what questions the book generates in the reviewer (why did he not write it in chronological order? why did she use dashes instead of names? why write about such a disturbing character?); these can of course be answered in the review, but I like the unanswered questions, too.

I also appreciate reviews written with an open tone, and don't care for ones with a dismissive or authoritative tone. Though I acknowledge that some here may consider themselves experts, I find such a tone more about the reviewer than about the book. I'm a firm believer in the idea that one person's treasure is another's trash, and vice versa.

All that said, I will certainly read short reviews, but rarely the longer ones (though I have been known to skip to the bottom and read your last paragraph or few lines). I just don't have the time these days (and I hope to avoid the literary apocalyptic vision in JCO's comment that—and I paraphrase here—we are becoming a nation who reads more about books than we read books themselves). But never say never: I will, on occasion, read a long review on a book I've already read.

I do like to hear how a reader happened to read that particular book (it's on an awards list, it was calling them from the shelf, it was recommended by X...etc)

Like stretch, I prefer not to call my comments on a book, a 'review' - perhaps I'm old-fashioned. And like him, most of my own commentary follows a pattern.

Thank you 4 and 7! I agree with your comments 100%.

I too agree with SassyLassy & avaland on this one too.

I suspect my thoughts on this change constantly. At the moment I see a contradiction in what I want from a great review.

On one hand I want the review, like anything else I read, to draw me and give me a reason to read it. (In club read, that usually means just talk to me, or us, or CR in general. But it can also be done other ways)

On the other hand, I want to finish the review and feel that it was time well spent.

These aren't clearly contradictory, but, focusing on the former undermines the later. And accomplishing the later undermines the former...or at least that how it seems to work for me.

But Club Read is foremost social. So, there is no need for fancy or elaborate reviews. If they are fun to write and help you get your thoughts out, then that is an A+ here.

>10 dchaikin: An insightful perspective, Dan, and I agree: it is indeed all about being a part of the literary neighborhood.

I basically agree with SassyLassy too, but I would add that a great review doesn't always make me want to read the book. Sometimes I learn a lot from the review but realize that I would never read the book because there are just too many books to read, and sometimes I enjoy a review but realize it isn't a book for me. One of the greatest aspects of Club Read for me is that I have come to understand the reading tastes of many "members" and so I have a sense of what they like and how they respond to books, and this helps me decide how I might respond to a book. I almost never read reviews on the book pages because it is difficult for me to know how to interpret a review by someone I don't "know" -- of course, if it as Sassy says, places the book in some sort of reading context, that can be very helpful.

I think some people feel that because some of us write longer reviews, that they have to too. NOT TRUE! I enjoy whatever kind of commentary someone feels moved to write -- and has the time to write given the pressures of Real Life! I would much rather everyone spent their free time reading, rather than worrying about writing it up for Club Read!

Like some others have mentioned, I consider my reviews to be more like comments. It's less formal in my mind and thus more fun.

The only thing that really stops me cold is one large block of text--paragraphs are your friend. I'm not sure if there is anyone at ClubRead with that problem though. I do skim long reviews however, especially if I'm not familiar or interested in the book. Short reviews can be good -- there is one LTr who writes 2 or 3 sentence reviews that are highly amusing.

Otherwise, I agree with everything that's been said.

The main thing I'm looking for in a review/comments on LT is whether or not the book would appeal to me. Selfish, I know! I read or at least skim through the reviews and comments on all the threads here in Club Read, so I feel like I have a pretty good feel for whose tastes are similar to mine. If one of those people recommends a book (even if it seems outside my normal comfort zone) I will generally try it or at least TBR it. The other thing I like in a review is if it sparks discussion, even if its a book I most likely won't read.

Typically I prefer shorter reviews, though for some books, especially obscure or historical ones, I enjoy more detail.

As I said, I read and enjoy every single thread on Club Read and that's saying something on an internet forum open to all!

>12 rebeccanyc: I agree with your comments about learning things from reviews (rather than necessarily coming away with the desire to read the book), I find this especially true of nonfiction.

>14 japaul22: No one would read others comments if there weren't self-interest in it. Would we read them just to make the reviewer feel validated? Hmmm. Lie down on the couch here and tell me why you think that is "selfish"....

Reviews are a form of a dialog... and as such what I call a great review depends on the reason I am reading the review...

When I am looking for a book to read, I like reviews that tell me enough about the book but do not provide any crucial details. Striding this line is very hard... and when a menu succeeds - it is a real enjoyment to read. And the review is really great when read after you read the book, it actually turns out to reveal a lot - a lot that makes sense only after you had read the book.

When I am reading reviews of books I had read, I like the subtle discussion of what actually happens and mostly the feeling of the book...

My own reviews are usually rambling - trying not to talk about points of the plot that will ruin the story and trying to talk about them at the same time... It does not always work - but then I had never called my reviews great.

What I really dislike are reviews that are essentially the story told in 10 words or more; spoiling all the surprises (even the subtle ones), drawing attention to early parts of the book that one would pass through and almost forget until they become important - and that become a lot more visible if you are pointed to them, ruining the feel of the book.

Non-fiction is a lot different though - reviews should really be mentioning what is the author's thesis and what the reader thought of it....

There's a diversity to the review styles here that appeals to me. I like the in-depth review style a lot, although it is not one I can emulate. For some threads, I wait until I can sit down, with a cup of coffee and learn something interesting about an author and important work of literature. Many of those I have no plans to read (at least in the immediate future) but it's worthwhile to have an idea of what those books are about.

And other threads I read whenever I can spare a few minutes, as long as I also have the time to potentially add a book to my wish list.

So what makes a great review? One that makes me confident that I would either like or not like the book, which is also based on who the reviewer is; there have been unfavorable reviews of books that have caused me to read the book in question. And I like a bit of entertainment -- a suitable quote, a funny comment, that kind of thing.

>15 avaland: Ha! I guess by "selfish", I just meant that though I enjoy learning from reviews, being entertained, and learning about new authors or genres, I'm really in it to find more books that I'll like and there is a selfish element in that. No deep-seeded issues though, just a little humor! ;-)