Sunday, October 26, 2014

Good day!

I'm curious and would like to find out your thoughts. When you read a book and you do not like it and could not give it at least a 3 star rating, do you still review it? It's been my policy for several years now, that if I can't do that, then I do not write a review, or rate it. My dilemma is: Am I doing a dis-serve to other readers by only reviewing books that I can give 3 stars? What do you think? 

Now if I can't finish a book because I totally dislike it, I would never write a review. That just seems unfair to the author. Unless I can finish a book so I get a full picture, I believe it would be wrong to review it. I have seen many reviews, especially on Amazon where the reviewer will say that they only read a small portion of the book, yet they still write a scathingly bad review. Do you think that is fair to the author or the reader?  Happy reading!


  1. Some books are so bad that they deserve a one-star. If there is no editing and I can't read through the typographical and grammatical mistakes to get into the story, then I feel it's my responsibility to warn others about it and encourage the author to find a good editor. There's so much crap out there that sometimes I wish someone had told me the truth about a book before I bought it and wasted my time trying to read it.

    Just my opinion. :)

    1. That is very true. I've recently read a few books that were not good, myself.