September 3rd, 2009

pondering, bowie

What makes an interesting review?

So, last week when I polled you guys about cross-posting Twitter updates and Goodreads book reviews over here, the response was very clearly "Meh" on Twitter, and clearly positive on posting at least some book reviews. You may have noticed the book reviews starting to crop up here and there.

A healthy chunk of you voted for only posting the "interesting ones" of my Goodreads reviews. I'll admit that when I set that up as an option, I wasn't entirely clear on what would constitute an "interesting" or an "uninteresting review". I most clearly had in mind those instances where I go to check something off as read on Goodreads, and can't think of much more to say than to give it a rating and say something like, "Wow, that was good," or "Yeah, it passed the time pleasantly enough." I don't really consider those interesting enough to cross-post.

Beyond that, what makes for an interesting book review? Is it the subject matter of the book? (I know that only some of you are interested in the reams of Doctor Who stuff I read - fear not, I do read other things.) The format? (I know that only some of you are interested in audiobooks, and probably only some of you are interested in comics.) Whether the review helps you decide whether you'd want to read the book yourself? Whether the review itself is entertainingly written? Something else entirely?