A Note About Review Grading

I figured I would take this opportunity to outline my grading criteria for the books I review, since it may not be entirely straightforward. As you may have noticed, I assign each book a final grade on a hundred point scale at the end of each review. The grade ranges fall into four general categories:

85-100: A superior book that offers a unique reading experience with at most a few minor quibbles.

70-84: An above-average book that has many positive qualities, but also a few negative ones that keep it from attaining a higher grade.

50-69: An average book with either just as many or more negatives than positive qualities.

Below 50: Should not have made it to publication.

Now, my expectations are that any book published by a major publisher should be within the above-average range of 70-84. Considering the amount of editing involved in a published novel, this seems like a reasonable expectation. What would the point of editing be if not to create the best novel possible?

I went to graduate school studying philosophy. A major part of that process was spent writing and revising papers, hopeful to get them published in a journal. Not only did we edit ourselves, but we edited our peers. And we were brutal. It's not personal, it's just part of the job. It also turns out a better paper; one that has a better chance at publication. Since I am reading edited published material, I expect the books to have undergone this same process of brutal review. This means that at most I expect only a few negative aspects in any book, since the majority of bad qualities should have been removed in the editing process. A book that contains a large amount of flaws strikes me as nothing more than a shoddy product published only to improve the publisher's bottom line. In other words, they can make money on it, before people realize it's crap. Should we be so afraid to point this out? Should we be afraid to be honest?

I wanted to take a stand and post reviews and a reviewing schema I thought was honest. I wanted there to be an overall number for each book, because you can't back away from a number. Some reviews don't give an overall grade, mainly because you can't hide that (a 2 out of 5 is always 2 out of 5; there is no way to confuse this fact). It's real easy to write positive things about any bad book. But that doesn't give the reader an honest impression; it does make your reader realize that you're not being honest. Taking this course of critical action, everything sounds great and there are no gradations which, in essence, invalidates the review.

If I only write good reviews for books, then my reviews are meaningless, because they are only good. (You need a bad book to truly appreciate the good ones.) What's the point of this? If I accept free review copies, then I'm just a pawn of the publishers, spouting meaningless publicity. And I'm working cheaply. Why blog to give someone good publicity? For review copies? That's no longer blogging, that's marketing.

Sure the publishers may want great publicity, but your readers don't. Your readers want honest insight. Blogging is supposed to be personal and honest opinions, and this means being honest with oneself. So if you dislike a book, it makes sense to write that you disliked the book. Why cheat yourself our your opinions? My readership isn't stupid, and I have no intention of treating them that way.

And publishers should want honest insight too, because it is more meaningful, not to mention likely more profitable for them, to publish better books. Criticism makes things better. Rarely, do people change things that are already considered good.