Rants & Raves: Yes, I *Am* Stingy With My 5-Star Ratings

This is a feature that appears sporadically on the blog, whenever I have a bookish issue I need to rant or rave about. Feel free to comment with your thoughts!

*Note: this post was inspired/influenced by any number of discussions other bloggers have had about ratings, and in particular Steph Su Reads's posts here and here.

You may have noticed I don't give 5-star ratings very often. In fact, it is quite a rare occurrence for me. But I know some authors find 3 or 3.5 star reviews disappointing, so I thought I'd explain my thought processes regarding ratings.

To start with: I may not hand out 5 stars like they're going out of style, but I am even less generous with 1-star ratings. In fact, I've never given a book just 1 star on this blog. I think I'd have to be actively appalled/offended/disgusted/horrified by its content in order for that to happen. Usually I can find some redeeming quality in a book, even if overall I didn't enjoy it, and that will bump up the rating.

I guess I see the distribution of book quality kind of like a normal distribution.

You're bound to get a few pretty crummy, poorly written books, on the low end — say, 2 and 2.5 stars in my rating system.

Ones that make me look like this.

You're bound to get a few absolutely fantastic, blew-me-away books on the high end — 4.5 and 5 stars.

Ones that make me look like this.

And then you've got the majority of the books in-between: not bad, but not the best book you've ever read. Those are the 3 and 3.5 and 4-star books.

Bloggers differ in how they approach rating a book. Some people are fine with giving a 5-star rating even if they found several aspects to criticize. Some might only give 5 stars to books that have the "re-readability factor." Personally, for me to give 5 stars to a book, it has to wow me. Maybe it's tackled an issue in a completely original way. Perhaps it's a stand-out example of a story within a certain sub-genre. Maybe there is absolutely nothing I can think of that would improve the novel.

Because let's face it: if I went around giving 5 stars to loads of books, the 5-star rating would quickly lose its impact. It wouldn't be that extra star beyond the (still very good) 4-star rating. And I think I would soon start having trouble distinguishing between what qualifies as a 4-star read vs. a 5-star one.

5 Stars: Outstanding! Buy it!

Not every book stands out enough to be "outstanding".

Interestingly, for me a 5-star rating does not always correspond to a belongs-on-my-favourites-shelf book. Sometimes, but not inevitably. I think there are likely plenty of books I consider my favourites that would get 4 or 4.5 stars, and perhaps even a few books I would "objectively" give 5 stars that aren't among my favourites. So just because I give a book 4 stars doesn't mean I didn't truly enjoy it! It just means there wasn't that "it factor" (for lack of a better term) to elevate it to 5 stars.

I'd also like to point out that books I gave (or would have given) 5 stars when I first started this blog are not necessarily ones I would now give the same rating. I was a lot less particular and critical a reader back in 2010! This doesn't mean I don't still love those books. I just suspect that were I to read them again, examining them critically, I'd probably catch sight of more flaws or areas that could be improved.

The Goose Girl and Crown Duel are a couple that might fall into this category...although it's impossible to tell, since I suspect my view of them will be forever tinted with nostalgic affection!

In conclusion: 5 stars is not my default rating. Authors, your book has to earn it. And because I do read so critically, I keep that 5-star rating in reserve for the ones that strike me as the most exceptional. Kind of like giving out the "class valedictorian" award. So if your book's gotten a 3 or 3.5 or 4-star rating from me, there's no need to worry — you may not be that one kid in the class getting the elusive 100%, but you're still bringing home good grades.

Re-reads and Ratings

When I was a kid I loved to read the same books over and over (and watch the same movies over and over, too). Now, I don't do that quite so much, but I still like to pull out certain favorite books when I have an urge to delve into their pages once more. With some books, it's very comforting reading the same story again, even if you know exactly how it's going to end, and often you'll discover something on a second or third read that you never noticed before.

Usually, any book that I re-read I will give a good rating. Examples of books I have read so many times I have lost count include: Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, The Goose Girl by Shannon Hale, Ella Enchanted by Gail Carson Levine, Sorcery & Cecelia by Patricia Wrede & Caroline Stevermer, Beauty by Robin McKinley, certain books in the Song of the Lioness and Immortals series by Tamora Pierce, Crown Duel by Sherwood Smith, Feeling Sorry for Celia and The Year of Secret Assignments by Jaclyn Moriarty, and several of the Mediators series by Meg Cabot. (Okay, there is definitely a theme here. Apart from the Austen & Moriarty they all seem to be fantasy/paranormal.)

But not every book I rate really well ends up being one that I turn to again and again. Case in point: Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins. I haven't really gotten up the nerve to read this one a second time, and I'm not sure I will anytime soon. The material is just so dark and emotionally intense. Others I don't re-read that often include mysteries, which makes sense of course — the mystery is never quite as thrilling once you know whodunit. I'll make exceptions, though, if the characters and their interactions are engaging enough that it doesn't matter that I already know the plot. Plus, it's always fun to read it at least once more and figure out which clues pointed to the revelation, and which were just red herrings!

I'm interested in how other readers and bloggers approach this, though. How frequently do you re-read books? What makes a book a re-read for you? For me, it's difficult to describe, but in most of my re-reads I feel like all of the elements in the novel have come together in perfect complement: the writing style, the plot, the dialogue, the characters...kind of like pieces of a puzzle all fitting into place. And most of the books I re-read are ones I would call "comfort" or "feel-good" books, which usually contain a good dollop of humor. But maybe that's just me. Do any of you like to re-read darker, grittier types of novels, or ones that you know will make you cry? Which books specifically do you keep returning to?

And does it affect your ratings? On a few blogs I've seen that the description on their rating system of "5 star" books is something along the lines of, "A definite re-read!" Should these two concepts be tied up in each other? Or is re-readability something that doesn't need to be taken into consideration when rating a book?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on these issues — comment away!