Discussion post today, and I’m tackling the three-star head on!
I know that writers aren’t fond of the three-star rating, and well, I mean, it makes sense.
But, why do we as reviewers issue them?
I do completely understand when an author would like an explanation of why a three-star if we seem to have positive things to say.
So! I’m here to explain why I give a three-star, and why I may not always have something constructive to say to support the review. [And I hope if you have something to say to this all that you’ll comment with your opinions and insight as well!]
Let’s get to it!
Why do I give three-star reviews if I have given a positive review?
It’s usually pretty simple in all actuality!
It means the book didn’t razzle-dazzle me, but it also means that this book wasn’t bad it was enjoyable, but it didn’t full-on capture my heart and to do that, well, a book will be 4-5 stars.
But, here’s the kicker, I love Mary Higgins Clark novels, they’re not amazing, they’re fun and enjoyable, 3-3.5 star reads but I love them still, I reread them all the time, and there’s nothing wrong with a three-star book. And because usually there’s nothing wrong with it, I don’t have much to go for in regards to constructive criticism.
If there is something I find problematic, I try to explain it, but, sometimes a book was just nothing new and exciting for me personally.
It can be a bit draining to also constantly write out really constructive reviews on books that are rated three-stars. It’s because a lot of those books may have something in common so it’s just constantly repeating yourself and in the end, it’s much easier as a reviewer to just…
I’m writing this because I’m curious to see why others rate them three-star reviews, and I hope that some authors read this and hopefully they get some understanding, the three-stars aren’t a slight on them or their books, it’s usually just saying it was a good solid read for me.
What about you all?