She Treads Softly: rating books

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

rating books

I'm dropping the number ratings for awhile. I will continue to note if the book is very highly recommended, highly recommended, recommended, so-so, not recommended, or if I did not finish it, so the idea of the 5 point scale is there but not the numbers. What I am pondering right now is some special notation of books that I would previously have given a 5, a very best award (like Bethany's Happy Chicken Award) and maybe a stinker award for the very bottom. I've always struggled with the idea of rating a book, but began doing it for a book group which required a rating. Since I'm no longer a member of that group, I really don't have to continue doing something that makes me uneasy.

I'm uncomfortable with a rating system simply because sometimes I read a certain kind of book for the escapism - and that's ok. After reading (and really liking) John Updike's rules for reviewing, I decided that a number rating system makes me too uncomfortable. I don't want to make any author an example, but let's take Alten's Meg books as an example simply because they are exciting escapism. I know they are not fine literature, but they were never intended to be fine literature. The pleasure my nephew and I had in reading Meg met Alten's purpose in writing it.

2 comments:

Lisa said...: I stopped rating my books the second year I had the blog. I do occasionally say something like "I'd recommend skipping this one unless you like...." or the positive equivalent. I do like the idea of an award for something outstanding though.; March 4, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Lori L said...: I think I'm going to be much more comfortable just saying whether or not I'd recommend a book. The number rating of a book always felt so arbitrary. I'm still thinking about what my award will be for a very highly recommended book...; March 4, 2009 at 6:46 PM

Post a Comment

John Updike's six rules for reviewing:

1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.

2. Give him enough direct quotation--at least one extended passage--of the book's prose so the review's reader can form his own impression, can get his own taste.

3. Confirm your description of the book with quotation from the book, if only phrase-long, rather than proceeding by fuzzy precis.

4. Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending.

5. If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author's oeuvre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it's his and not yours?

To these concrete five might be added a vaguer sixth, having to do with maintaining a chemical purity in the reaction between product and appraiser.....Review the book, not the reputation.... Better to praise and share than blame and ban. The communion between reviewer and his public is based upon the presumption of certain possible joys in reading, and all our discriminations should curve toward that end.