Looking out at the night sky you see countless points of light, stars shining down on the world. Each its own giant body far, far away giving only a glimmer of its true self. The five-star review scale is similar: visible and more interesting than nothingness, but hiding vast unknowable shapes behind a tiny point of light. I am conflicted about giving starred ratings. On the one hand I find that it is a useful and understandable metric of something; though whether that something should be enjoyment or quality (both of which are subject to personal bias and perception and should therefore never be treated as entirely objective) changes depending on individual and circumstance. On the other hand they say so little that without explaining the bounds of the scale and the metrics used they mean nothing. So I write up reviews to go with my star rating, the stars provides a quick and easily scannable metric, the review provides grounding for it and explains the thoughts that led to that conclusion. I thought it would be a good idea to explain the metrics and process that I aspire to use when writing reviews.
I try to use my starred ratings as an indication of how much I appreciate the work, with an eye towards understanding what it is trying to be and rating it on how well it achieves those goals. I used to be a little more effusive about my favorite authors and genres, handing out five star reviews much more frequently but have recently backed away from handing out four and five stars without first digging deeper to see the weaknesses in a work. My goal is to be critical, not just an effusive fanboy. Pushing the scale to the top doesn’t give as much room to indicate when something is truly exceptional. As such I have been trying to limit my five star ratings to works that are qualitatively excellent and/or exceptionally effective.
In the review I try to point out both what I think the high and low points of the story are, what it does best even when I disliked it and vice-versa. I want to be fair and generally a story has to do something right to get published. I will admit that I tend to find that it is more enjoyable writing a scathing response to a story I have a disagreement with. For example I really enjoyed writing my review of Altered Carbon and wrote it almost immediately after finishing the story; I had a pent up well of reactions to that story and I really wanted to get them out. I want to be that excited and thorough in defending a story that I like.
My goal is to be informative and insightful about the experience contained in the work I review, I want to explain what I liked and disliked specifically about the work in a respectful and clearly readable format without revealing too much off the mystery of the story. In the process I may also use it as an opportunity to reflect and respond to the general ideas that the work is presenting. I struggle sometimes with fiction, particularly genre fiction, with whether I should explicitly state what I think the underlying message is, in some cases this is fair, but frequently I don’t think it is fair to treat a work of literature as a message. Even when a work of fiction conveys ideas and perspectives, it is not necessarily presenting an argument.
I try to avoid giving a mere plot summary, I want to engage the story with what it is trying to do and how it does it: with addressing the parts of the story and the ideological backing not with explaining the narrative, though as part of that it is generally necessary to present a synopsis of the premise. I try to present an argument, but I think I frequently fail to do this coherently. I suspect that I should adhere more firmly to the academic thesis->support->conclusion format.
I wanted to set out some of my thoughts on how I review so I could be more aware of what I am doing and hopefully leverage that to make my reviews better. Next up: I review my review of reviewing and determine that I have gone too far and the universe has collapsed.
Oops.
Have a great weekend
Marlin