Why I'm No Longer Giving Starred Reviews for Books Under Five Stars
What does your book reviewing and rating system look like? Keep reading, then leave a comment to join this dialogue.
If you read my recent Updates post, you already know I will primarily be sharing my book reviews on Goodreads and Storygraph moving forward.
What wasn’t mentioned in that post, however, is that I will no longer be giving star ratings to books under five stars, which are books that I view as exceptional. And even then I may not offer a star rating.
There are many reasons for this.
First, the star-rating system (in general) is highly subjective and not entirely reflective of how I or others really view or appreciate a book in the long run, which doesn’t make it all that useful.
What I think a three-star rating entails may not be what another reader thinks it entails. There is no one-size-fits-all star-rating guide, nor should there be.
I do believe book reviews should be subjective, but untied to a star system that doesn’t accurately capture or portray anything useful to prospective readers. We shouldn’t be trying to turn something subjective (a book review) into something that is not meant to be subjective (a star rating), in other words.
There is a loose understanding of the star-rating system for books, sure, but not enough agreement and consistency amongst readers and across genres. Hence the need some reviewers have to expand their rating systems to include ratings like 3.75 stars and 6.25 stars, which still don’t offer much nuance or consistency across reviews in the long run.
There have even been times when potential readers think I don’t like a book I’ve rated four stars or three stars, which I always found odd. It is possible to not like a few things about a book but still like the book overall and want to recommend it to others.
There have also been times I’ve rated a book five stars simply because I chose to read it at the right time in my life, so it ended up resonating with my mood or life condition at the time. And that is the type of thing no author or publisher has control over— making sure readers only read their books when their books are relevant to those readers’ fluctuating moods and stages in life.
Which brings me to the second reason I won’t be leaving starred reviews anymore: they are not nuanced or objective enough at scale to be valuable to a wide pool of prospective readers.
Personally, a slew of one-star ratings that bring a book’s entire star rating down and only say things like “hated this book” or “waste of time” or anything else snarky or rude aren’t helpful and just take up space.
Okay, you didn’t like a book? That is completely fine. But say why you didn’t like it with some evidence from the book, even if you only vaguely reference a character or chapter or portion of the book without direct quotes.
Why?
Well, if you aren’t referencing the book in any way, you aren’t actually leaving a review of that book for other prospective readers to use when weighing their reading decisions. Instead, you are simply displaying your own personality and attitude and being annoying to others who are genuinely trying to decide what their next read will be, or if they want to read a particular book.
Sorry, but it’s true.
Leave your snark and rudeness for your personal journal or diary or other parts of the internet if you aren’t going to leave a book review that will actually be USEFUL TO OTHER READERS.
Book reviews aren’t for you, they are for others. I cannot stress that enough.
To put it even more bluntly: Why would I care about some random person on the internet saying they don’t like a book, or that they loved a book, if they don’t tell me why? I won’t, because I am more interested in the book being reviewed, not them.
Which brings me to the third reason I will no longer be leaving starred reviews. A book review, or star rating, without context and nuance simply isn’t useful to prospective readers— especially when the text of a book review doesn’t align with its star rating.
Many times I have seen someone rate a book four stars then leave nothing but negative comments about the book in their text review, which I find confusing. Doesn’t a four-star rating mean they liked the book and should therefore have something positive to say about it?
Likewise, I have seen plenty of one-star and two-star reviews that offer no context or information, which immediately makes me skeptical of their opinions, or if they’re even a human reviewer who actually read the book they’re rating.
Remember the whole Goodreads review bombing problem, which hasn’t yet been totally resolved?
So, most one-star reviews are probably left by bots and trolls with some sort of agenda anyway, which is the opposite of useful, or real.
Bottom line, star-ratings aren’t very reliable or useful. But they also — and here is my fourth point— insinuate that every book should attain five stars across the board to be worthy enough to read. And that is simply ridiculous and unreasonable.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read a book that included a few passages that changed my way of thinking or challenged me in some way, but weren’t necessarily five-star reads to me in the long run. Or books that didn’t personally resonate with me, but that I knew would resonate with countless other readers.
I have many other reasons for my decision to move away from giving star ratings to book reviews. But for now, I’ll end this post here. I might add to it in the future…
What are your thoughts on this topic? Leave a comment or chat thread to join this dialogue.
Want to express your appreciation for this particular post?
Buy me a coffee one time, or become a free or paid monthly suscriber for less than the cost of a fancy coffee. Please and thank you! My writing and I are fueled by loyal readers, caffeine, and kind gestures.
