Synopsis vs Review
Ever read a book “review” where the entire plot is retold in six paragraphs? If so, then you know exactly what I’m talking about when I say that that is something I try to avoid when I’m discussing books I’ve read. I figure if you want a synopsis of the story, you can read abridged books. Reader’s Digest used to sell books that condensed 3 or 4 novels into one volume. Personally, I never understood why anyone would want to read them. They just made me want to know what had been cut out, and then I had to go get the original book, and re-read it, already knowing how it would turn out. Ack.
Everyone has a different idea of how to approach a review, and mine is just this: I am not going to tell you the story. You need to read it yourself. I’m just going to tell you if I liked it or not, and why. How it made me feel is usually part of my reviews, as well as how strong or weak I felt the author’s writing style to be. I will give it a rating, based on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being “It was brilliant/fantastic/lyrical/amazing (choose one), and 1 being “I appreciate the effort, but don’t give up your day job.” And I will recommend you either run right out and buy the book for yourself, or just RUN. The other way.
For anyone looking to have the plot summarized, this isn’t the blog for you. I don’t do spoilers, either. Of course, sometimes when you review a sequel, it will automatically give away something about the first book, even if it’s just who survived to go on to the second book. But nothing makes me madder than to be looking over a review of a book I’m thinking of buying and have the murderer revealed or the big secret in the attic explained. Before I even realize what’s happening, I no longer have much reason to read the book for myself.
So, rest assured, if you are looking for a review rather than a synopsis, you might like what I have to say. But you’ll have to check with someone else for that Reader’s Digest Condensed version.