M. Suzanne Terry

I have read some really great books this month. I have only been sharing the things I plan to read but I seldom really talk about what I learn or what I love about them. So I think I’m going to start making the last Friday of the month (ish – maybe sometimes the first Friday of the next month) the top five reads I’ve enjoyed (with maybe the occasional “save yourself” PSA if I run into a book that I really didn’t like).

But today I want to talk about stars. Not the actual stars, although those are nice (I see you, full moon in Pisces on Monday), but rather the star ratings that I use when I log my books on Goodreads. I know that there are generic meanings, but I think that people pretty much ignore those for the most part. And by people I do mean me. I ignore them.

Here’s what my ratings mean instead:

1. One star – Yuck. I’m embarrassed on behalf of humanity that this book exists. I don’t have this reaction often, but when I do, it’s visceral. I felt this way about Twilight (which I read – all four books – just so I could explain IN DETAIL exactly what I didn’t like to people who were like “How do you know if you haven’t read them?”). Also Bridges of Madison County. How anyone ever read that terrible book and thought, “Let’s prolong this drivel by making it into a movie” is beyond me. I have a copy that I use for blackout poetry, which greatly improves it. These books lived rent-free in my head for a long while, and they made me want to turn off my give-a-damn about my love of reading.
   [Aside – if you enjoyed either of those books, great for you. Read what you love; just keep reading. I’m sure you despise something that I love, and that’s ok, too.]
2. Two stars – Meh. It may have taken me a long time to finish this book because it did not hold my attention at all. I many not have even finished it, which doesn’t happen very often. A lot of my two star reviews are classics which, admittedly, may just not be my preferred style but it felt like they in particular droned on and on. Anna Karenina is one such book – a few nice descriptions but overall too tedious to finish. Plus, I don’t think Tolstoy liked her (or maybe even women) that much. A Woman of Substance was suspiciously lacking in substance itself. Madame Bovary made me want to drop out of my honors humanities course from sheer boredom (I didn’t…thank goodness we only spent a week on it).
3. Three stars – Good. Or…it was fine. Meh+, maybe. I don’t have vast complaints about this book. I may even be able to understand why other people liked it or why they thought I would. It didn’t quite live up to the hype for me, though. The most recent book I gave three stars was The Midnight Library, which I really wanted to love, but alas, no.
4. Four stars – Great (or at least very good for what it is). I recommend it, particularly for people who like this genre. Most of the books I read fall within this category.
5. Five stars – I LOVE IT AND EVERYONE SHOULD READ IT EVEN IF THEY NEVER READ THIS GENRE. I definitely own it and have probably bought additional copies to give away to reader friends. If you mention it, I will likely clap enthusiastically and perhaps hop around in joy a bit. I just can’t help myself. It’s possible that this book will make anyone who reads it a happier/better person. I may have cried when I finished because I was sad it was over. I felt this way about Their Eyes Were Watching God and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Anxious People is my most recent 5-star review. Stop what you’re doing and go read it now.

Do you track and rate the books you read (do you do it on Goodreads? Are we friends so I can see your recommendations?)? If so, how closely do you stick to the generic meanings on your ratings?