What makes a review good? What do you think should a review be like?
Those are two of the questions that popped into my mind after watching the vlog of Trish from Hey Lady! Watcha Reading?, Natasha from Mawbooks, and Amy from My Friend Amy on why one shouls read book blogs.
I came to realize that I am trying to be as objective with my reviews as possible, sometimes I even leave out the "oh my goodness was this great", you know the moments when you're reading a really great book and your mouth gapes wide open with astonishment, the wide smile on your face because it is just so great that you can't do anything about it?
Now, I am studying literature and we're constantly told that we should leave the personal stuff out of reviews we're writing (for university) - and I'm not just talking about sentences with "I".
I have had a hard time with that in the past, but apparently, at one point I have taken over the "no personal references" position and am even using it when I review here on my blog. I am not sure I like this, as it is still a struggle and I find myself editing and re-editing my reviews until I hope my professors would at least to some degree be satisfied.
Now that doesn't mean I leave out my personal opinion of a book - then the whole reason for reviewing would be lost, wouldn't it? I do add my opinion, it's just not in the "I think" or "I felt" way.
Now when I read reviews, I enjoy the ones that are more personal a lot better actually, as I feel I get to know the reader behind the review, a person I haven't met and likely (and sadly) will never meet in person. I am not too much a fan of those reviews in newspapers or book magazines. I feel they don't say much else about the book other than what it is about and a bit about the author and some pompous talk about the writing that is not at all interesting or helpful.
Now, what do you think, what makes a review good? What do you think should a review be like?