My main concerns are:
* When a book is definitely a well executed piece of writing, but I just didn't like it. I think there are certainly books that could receive a 4 or 5 for writing, but a 2 for whether or not I would recommend someone to read it. If I hated the book, I'm not going to rate it a 4 or 5. But I don't want to discount the literary merit.
* When a book is "ice cream," basically just a book for entertainment. The book could be a 2 as far as literary merit, but higher for entertainment value. Still, it seems wrong to rate something like The Hunger Games over a masterpiece that just wasn't as "fun."
I think I am going to try rating different aspects of a book and then average them for an overall score. The areas I am considering are
- Aesthetics/literary merit
- Plot
- Character
- Personal response (although this is different for everyone and may have everything to do with someone's personal taste, I think it is still a valid aspect to consider when writing a review)
- Accessibility/Readability - In this case I think it makes more sense to just make a qualitative statement.
What do you think? My goal in writing this blog is to have a place to write about what I read and a way to connect to others' ideas about books. Do you think this ratings system would be a more effective way to accomplish these goals? I think I am going to try it for the next few books I review and see if I feel like I've covered my bases more thoroughly. After reading so many scientific papers, I guess I feel the need to come up with an accurate scale for evaluation!
