Quote:
Originally Posted by library addict
I usually delete books that I hate or are DNF's so that kind of skews my scale.
For me:
5 stars = A- or A or A+ range = A real favorite! Can still have flaws, but a book where I really love the characters and the story (at least for the most part).
4 stars = B or B+ range = A very enjoyable read that just misses being five stars for various reasons. But overall I really like the h/h and plot.
3 stars = C+ or B- range = An average or slightly above average read where I liked the characters but the book had plot flaws or where I really love the hero and not the heroine or vice versa but the plot was fairly good.
2 stars = D+ or C- or C range = Often still an average or slightly below average book, just with more flaws than a 3 star. I may have disliked major parts of the plot or really disliked either the h/h or both or they did a lot of TSTL stuff. Or a below average book which has enough redeeming qualities that keep it from being a 1 star.
1 star = F or D range = A book in which I really didn’t like the characters plus poorly plotted or even where it had a promising start and likeable characters, but the author totally blew it. For the most part I will only keep 1 star book by my absolute favorite authors and/or if they are part of a series.
ETA: Ratings are usually a balance between characters and plot, but in long running series featuring the same main characters (i.e. In Death or Psy/Changeling) the rating usually refers to just the plot and is often nothing about the major characters.
|
That's way more thought than I put into it... which is why I don't write reviews very often - I rate a book almost solely on that book alone and not in any comparison to other books. Sometimes in a series, I might think about how much I enjoyed it vs the previous books, but in general my rating comes from how much I enjoyed the book and it's very similar to Blossom's scale. If the editing is not very good, that will usually only affect my rating if it takes me out of the story - so it would have to be pretty bad. Plot, of course, is considered but only in so much as it works to create a good story for me. If it's an unbelievable plot but the author made it work for me, I'll probably still rate it higher. If it's too unbelievable and I'm rolling my eyes throughout the book, then well, not so high a rating.
But it seems the thing that affects me the most is depth of character/depth of story. If it feels like I've just skimmed along, that will keep me from enjoying a book and I'll end up rating it lower. Sometimes the overall story-line will keep me interested enough that I'll keep reading, but I always feel like I'm missing something from the characters - like WHY they are feeling or doing what they are doing. Mimi Barbour's Vegas series is like that for me. Things happen too fast between the H/h and I don't feel the 'insta love' between the characters. Can't really put my finger on it because I tend to like the insta love trope, but it's not really working here. We do get to see inside their heads, but something's missing for me. I really just feel like everything is on the surface. But, I do want to know what happens, so I'll likely finish the series. They are short reads at least...
And I'l probably give them 3 stars because I didn't hate them, I was interested in the outcome, but I didn't love the characters either.