Book Reviews: How much to reveal?

I've written about my book review guidelines before but I just thought I'd raise a few points about them.

I am always concerned about how much of a book's story to reveal. My general policy of describing only the beginning of the story, that is, what is revealed in about the first 50 pages, sometimes means that I have a difficult time in writing a review.
In particular, some authors who are writing a multi-plot book, begin the second or third strand only as late as after page 100. Sometimes I decide not to even mention that plot twist.

I actually like to write my own "blurb" in the first couple of paragraphs of my review. I think this will give the reader a different "take" on the book, see it through my eyes as it were. However when I consider what my blurb reveals about the plot, and what the official one reveals, there is no doubt that sometimes the blurb on the back of a book gives far more of the plot away.

I like also to try to tell the reader what I liked, or didn't like about the book. This will, to an extent, explain my rating of the book.
I try to adhere very strongly to the "no spoilers" principle. I believe that my own reading of the book was a voyage of discovery, and part of what I enjoyed about the book was that feeling of discovery. So I am careful not to take that enjoyment away from another reader.

I think you can see book reviews from two points of view:

• there are those that try to persuade the reader to read the book.
  
• there are those that the reader will come to after reading the book, and compare their experience, what they liked and disliked with those of the reviewer.

My reviews are the first sort. I am really saying to the reader, if you generally like the sort of books that I read, then you will probably like this one. But in the long run, the review is my opinion and you may well disagree with me, or not enjoy the book as much as I did.
I know some readers who will not read a review of a book until after reading it, because they don't want their reading experience spoiled.

There are probably those who will criticise the sort of reviews that I write as lacking depth. If you come to my book reviews to find out about how the story ended, who killed who at the end, then you will be disappointed. I may tell you about some of the themes the author chose to explore, and I will usually try to tell you more about the author.

What are your really strong principles in reviewing a book?

System & Organisation: Book Reviews

In a comment on my recent Weekly Geeks post about reviewing books, Uriah Robinson asked if I had always been this organised.

I guess my answer is yes - but I thought I'd let you in on some of the detail behind that.
I have been an avid reader of crime fiction for as long as I can remember, certainly for at least 45 years, perhaps longer, but in the early days I read far more widely than I do now.

But lets jump to 1975. A 3 month bus trip from Kathmandhu to London, and I decided to begin making a record of the books that I was reading. And that's where it all began.
That notebook still exists, although the stitching and the glue are falling apart.

There it is on the left, lying on top of the red book that replaced it on 1 January 2000.

All I record in these notebooks is the author's name, the title, and the date I finished reading the book. But these details have been enough to supply me with starting points for my Forgotten Books posts.

But then, another New Year's resolution I suspect, at the beginning of 2005 I began recording more detailed information about the books I read. I began a database, which initially had simple details in it, and now has quite a lot.
I record details for the following fields:

• Author's first name
• Author's last name
• Whether it is a British or Australian author
• Title
• date of publication
• date I finished reading
• my rating
• description
• ISBN
• whether I've added it to Library Thing
• whether the author is new to me
• whether I've used the record in a blog post
• Comment
  

There are now 569 records in the database and I can spit out lists by authors, months, years, and even search for selected words. Where I haven't written a longer review of a book, I use these records for the mini-reviews with which I supplement this blog. I can rank books according to the rating I've given them, but this is far from an infallible system, although it can help me decide on my top 20 or so for the year..

I began writing "proper", more detailed book reviews in April 2006 and my reviews were published on Reviewer's Choice until just a few months ago. I became a public lifetime member of Library Thing in April 2007 and since then have uploaded 353 reviews.

MYSTERIES IN PARADISE is the result of yet another's New Year's resolution - to write, and publish online, a review for every book that I read. To some that might look like an unnecessary burden, but it is an exercise that I enjoy. I think I get more out of my reading as a result. I usually research details about the author, check my database for what I have already read, look for reviews that others have written, check for lists of other books by the author, sometimes even look for awards won etc.

I write the review immediately after I've finished reading the book. If I am away, I hand write the review, so that I can type it up on my computer when I get home. If I have my mini computer with me I type it up on that.

So yes, I am THAT organised!
When I write a review here is my checklist:

• always goes up on MYSTERIES IN PARADISE
• always gets added to the various lists on Smik's Reviews
• always gets added to Library Thing
• always gets added to my red book
• always gets added to my database
• usually gets submitted to the Book Review Carnival
• if an Agatha Christie novel, gets added to the Agatha Christie Blog Carnival
  
• often gets added to Fair Dinkum Reviews which I co-author with Bernadette
  

More? see My Book Review Policy & Guidelines

My Last 20 Books #1

I saw this meme over at Kittling Books, and I do hope Cathy doesn't mind that I've linked to her image. As you will realise, I don't need much prompting to write yet another blog post.

Here are the last 20 books I've read, and where I acquired them.

1. FROM DOON WITH DEATH, Ruth Rendell - BN - discussion book for oz_mystery_readers
2. LUCIFER'S SHADOW, David Hewson - A
3. SHADOWS STILL REMAIN, Peter de Jonge - BN - discussion book for face to face group
   
4. THE THIRTEEN PROBLEMS, Agatha Christie - BS - for Agatha Christie Carnival
5. THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE, Stieg Larsson - BN
6. SHATTER, Michael Robotham - A - discussion book for 4MA
7. SHADOW, Karin Alvtegen - BN
8. PERIL AT END HOUSE, Agatha Christie - BS - Agatha Christie Carnival
9. THE REDEEMER, Jo Nesbo - RV - from Random House Australia
   
10. NAME TO A FACE, Robert Goddard - A
11. THE MYSTERIOUS MR QUIN, Agatha Christie - LL - Agatha Christie Carnival
12. RITUAL, Mo Hayder - BN
13. RETIREMENT HOMES ARE MURDER, Mike Befeler - RV - Mike gave us this at LCC
    
14. SILENT IN THE GRAVE, Deanna Raybourn - LL - - discussion book for oz_mystery_readers
15. UNSEEN, Mari Jungstedt - BN
16. SEARCH THE DARK, Charles Todd - A - discussion book for face to face group
17. THE BAD POLICEMAN, Helen Hodgman - LL - - discussion book for oz_mystery_readers
18. PUBLISH OR PERISH, Margot Kinberg - RV - Margot sent me this
    
19. THE SITTAFORD MYSTERY, Agatha Christie - LL - Agatha Christie Carnival
20. THE POISONING IN THE PUB, Simon Brett - LL

My code
LL - library loan - 5
BN - bought new - 6
BS - bought secondhand - 2
A - listened to an audio book from Audible - 4
RV - review copy - 3

As you can see, I couldn't resist the opportunity to create a chart.
My main sources for new reads are bookstores and the library, so I was surprised that 20%, 1 in every 5, are audio books.

I write a review for every book that I read, and I don't really care if I borrowed it from the library, bought it myself, got given it by Random House Australia who regularly send books to me, or if it was sent by the author or another publisher. Anybody who writes or publishes a crime fiction novel has to wear the fact that if I don't like it, that is, it doesn't appeal to ME, then I will say so. I will try to write a fair review, and my opinion is only part of it, unless it got up my snout so much, I found it unreadable or unbearable. My review policy and guidelines are published for those who want to see them.

I do feel a bit guilty that I have so much reading on my plate, keeping up with what I want to read - for example for the Agatha Christie Reading Challenge, or for the various groups and lists I belong to - that review books only filter through very slowly, and some have been on the shelves for a long time.

Check out the links to other bloggers on this topic at Kittling Books, and the comments too.

Book Reviews: My Policy and Guidelines

Last updated 25 July 2011

I have felt for some time the need to state a book reviewing policy, built on some of the guidelines that I've already published a couple of times in earlier posts.

As the little box in the top right corner says, I'm seriously addicted to crime fiction. That means that I read almost nothing else, although I do tackle the full range of the crime fiction genre.

I read books supplied to me by publishers, and directly by authors, as well as books I buy or borrow from the library for discussion in a variety of fora, such as Yahoo lists, and face to face groups.

Basically once I start reading a book, I try to finish it it. And I also try to write a review of all the books that I read.
That means that I write a review whether I enjoy the book or not, and even if I don't finish it.
Of course, not every review I write will be favourable, and even though I will try to say something positive about a book, that is not always possible.
I am very aware though that not every one shares my taste in books, so I do attempt to say what I did or didn't like.

Notes to publishers and authors:

• I read crime fiction books in all formats, including e-books (Kindle)
• I often use plot description/blurbs from publishers websites and will usually check author and publisher websites for details about the author and other books. I usually follow the blurb with a section headed My Take where I try to describe how the book struck me.
  
• After I have posted a review I will contact you to tell you where it is located.
• I will often link the review to reviews by others,
  
• I am happy for you to use text from my review(s) in promotional material, but I do like to be notified.
  
• I always have far too many books in my TBR (to be read) pile, and I reserve the right to decide not to read a book. I can't predict when I will get around to the book you have supplied.
• I am happy to publish an "author review" using mutually agreed questions. (but I must have read the book)
• I nearly always hand books on to others, and sometimes use them in a competition on my blog. Here is a sample.
  

Smik's Reviews

I have been storing reviews on MYSTERIES IN PARADISE since the beginning of 2008 and now have  organised indexes of my reviews.

• Latest additions
• Authors A-Z
• All Reviews (ranked)
• 2011 Reviews
• 2010
• 2009
• 2008

If you follow the RSS feed for the site, you will get an alert whenever I change any one of those pages.

I also store all my book reviews on Library Thing (612 reviews there) and contribute to a variety of Blog Carnivals.

The following is culled from an earlier posting.

The general mechanics

• As I read the novel, if there is something I want to remember, an incident, a quote, I will use a post-it note to mark the place. I find though if there are too many of these, they are of no help at all.
• Sometimes I write a blog posting which I call a progress report. That seems to help me clarify my ideas about what I've read so far. I follow that up with a full review after I've finished the book.
• I try to write the review almost as soon as I've finished the book. I have a wonderful forgettery that sieves detail out pretty quickly, so the sooner the better. I probably couldn't write a review 2 or 3 weeks after reading a book without a quick re-read.
• I only read one book at a time. It helps me focus on that particular book. I'm not sure that I would be able to think clearly about one book if I had several working their way around in my brain.
• I write reviews for all the books I read, whether I like them or not, even when I can't finish the book - unless I didn't read few more than a few pages.
• I rate all the books I read.
  I have a rating scale of 0-5 and it is possible to score anything in that range.
  My general benchmarks are
  
5.0 Excellent 4.0 Very Good 3.0 Average 2.0 Poor 1.0 Did Not Like 0 Did Not Finish

• I keep records in a database, write my book reviews as blog postings, list them on Smik's Reviews, put them up on Library Thing, and store selected ones on Reviewer's Choice.
  
• I belong to a small Yahoo group that critiques reviews if I submit them. I don't submit all my reviews for critique but the process is often useful.
• I always do some research about the author, find lists of books previously written, author website etc. I'm not always precious about reading reviews that others have read. It's often interesting to see what about the book they chose to highlight but what they've said is unlikely to influence my take on the book. I do include some of the research links in my review.
  

The structure of the review

• I include publisher, year of publishing, ISBN number, and number of pages at the top of the review.
• The first two paragraphs are about the beginning of the book, but based on the principle that I rarely include anything from the story that comes after page 50. I don't want to spoil the experience for the reader, just whet their appetite. Blurbs that you find on the book itself often reveal more than I do. The rule is no spoilers ever.
  
• Then I talk about the structure of the book - whose point of view was it written from? themes that emerged. Strong characters, historical settings
  
• Next comes how I felt about the book. What I liked, disliked, what narked me beyond belief. Not just what but why.
  
• Where does this book fit? A debut novel? Part of a series? Where can the reader find more about the author or other books? Anything other interesting titbits my research has revealed.
• My rating.
  

Other Q & A

Q: Why do you write a review?
A: It helps me clarify my own feelings about the book. I'm also writing for others who might want to read it. And then finally, sometimes, as feed back to the author.

Q: How long does it take to write a review?
A: At the very minimum an hour to get my ideas down and organised. Longer if you include the research time. If it goes through the critique process, then you have to be more patient, because getting feedback from others can take days.

Q: Are you a real reviewer?
A: Well, I'm not a journalist, if that's what you are asking. But I have degrees, have taught English, and have been reading crime fiction for about 40 years. But you don't need the first two to write a book review. I'm an amateur, but an amateur who knows what she likes to read, and one who can usually pick a good book from a bad one.

Q: Could I write a review?
A: Yes, you could. But you need to be prepared to do more than just copy the book's blurb and says "I liked it". Initially I found writing the first 2 paragraphs, introducing the story, incredibly hard to do. It always seemed that the original blurb had said it all. That's why often my "blurb" takes a very different tack. I start with an entirely different view of the book. Then you need to think about what you liked about the book (or didn't like). I find the process of giving the book a rating helps clarify my ideas too and for me it is an indispensible part of the process.

Q: How long does my review need to be?
A: My reviews are usually about 500 words. I don't think people want a review they have to struggle through.They basically want to know whether they will enjoy the book or not.