How do you review?

[Maskins]

In my thoughts, a review should talk about the merits of that book and not compare it to other works unless they are directly connected (e.g. a sequel or set the same series/universe). It may be me but I get really tired of people saying this book isn't up with the authors best, or a near return to form or blah blah blah.

Books, like say, the Shining or IT take on a life of their own after publication - they enter the popular imagination. Is Mr. King ever going to release a book that has the same cultural impact of some of his earlier work? Possibly not, books are sometimes of a time and a place. Does he produce some excellent work? Yes, and that is all I want to know. I want a reviewer to tell me whether, in their opinion, the work merits a read and to make a decision on whether I should read it.

Comparing a great book with a modern classic is unfair. You might as well write rubbish books in the hope that you can only do better.

Grumble grumble grumble.

 

[chief4db]

when I do a review I just stay away from the details. for instance instead of describing a character in detail I will just say if he or she was likable and maybe an adjective or two. thumbs up or down I go two ways. say for instance im ranking the book. to decide if it goes ahead of another book I think of two things. one is if both books were in front of me and I had to re read one which one would it be. the other on a more serious note is which is actually the better, more powerful, more meaningful book. a good example would be thinner vrs the long walk. I would pick thinner to re read bc it was fun, a page turner. but the long walk had a lot more input on topics such as society ect.

 

[Walter Oobleck]

There's always the Colorado Barbecue & Floor Bucket school of thought.
Might be fun, categorizing some of the various schools we've come to know here.