Ever since I started adding bonus stars to the ratings on my reading journal, I've noticed a shift in the way I rate books overall. The old ivy leaf system, which began as a rather individualized and subjective arrangement spanning from Wow to Yuck, has become more and more objective now that I'm using stars to point out the titles I'm particularly pleased with. Objective enough that I feel compelled to tweak the entire formula and issue a fresh proclamation:
Stellar. Impeccably crafted.
Evokes astonishment.
Outstanding.
Evokes admiration.
Competent, respectable writing.
Noticeably flawed in some regard.
Stars, then, show books that especially hit the spot at the moment I read them. Unlike the professional review journals, though, my stars aren't necessarily reserved solely for the top-quality reads. A Whopper and fries isn't a gourmet meal by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes it sure is tasty, you know? Same goes for stories -- they don't have to be perfect to be fun. On the other hand, I can appreciate a well-crafted piece of literature without falling head over heels for it. Therefore, a book with four leaves and a star isn't necessarily "better" than a book with four leaves and no star. But it does mean that for whatever reason -- mood, personal relevance, subject, style, phase of the moon -- I enjoyed the starred book more.
Competent, respectable writing.
(Also occasionally given as a compromise to books I didn't enjoy because of a personal stylistic peeve or some other matter of taste.)
Noticeably flawed in some regard.
Ouch. I've still never had to use this -- perhaps because I'm not required to read celebrity picture books told in rhyme, nor hasty biographies of the latest teenie-bopper heartthrobs.
Stars, then, show books that especially hit the spot at the moment I read them. Unlike the professional review journals, though, my stars aren't necessarily reserved solely for the top-quality reads. A Whopper and fries isn't a gourmet meal by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes it sure is tasty, you know? Same goes for stories -- they don't have to be perfect to be fun. On the other hand, I can appreciate a well-crafted piece of literature without falling head over heels for it. Therefore, a book with four leaves and a star isn't necessarily "better" than a book with four leaves and no star. But it does mean that for whatever reason -- mood, personal relevance, subject, style, phase of the moon -- I enjoyed the starred book more.
If I were even more compulsive and procrastination-prone than I already am, I'd go back and alter some past ratings -- amend certain five-leaf books to four-leaves-and-a-star, and so forth. And I still feel bad about the measly three leaves I assigned to Jane Eyre. However, this being a new year and all, I've vowed to resist such absurd procrastination techniques. (Place your bets: How long will that last?)
ps: My December reading journal, which sorta straddles the old and new rating systems, is up.
