Trusted reviews

[Theherofleet]

Is this book on Amazon? or in Ebook version?

 

[devaed]

As I say, for me it would get 4 out of 5. I am curious, though, as to why people who don't like it so much aren't posting reviews that would redress the perceived balance. Nothing's stopping them, after all.

So at least numerically speaking, you think it's overrated too! JK, but I was genuinely interested in your thoughts on Blood Song vs the work of other, 'big' authors like the ones I mentioned (excluding Sanderson, I guess). The ratings are indicating that Ryan's book is better-liked, but as one of the many who enjoyed it, would you personally say it's better (or that you enjoyed it more) than a GRRM, Rothfuss, Lynch et al book? Or was it just a pleasant, took-a-chance-on-it surprise?

Either way is fine, of course - I'm just trying to figure out whether I should be thinking of Ryan as a legitimate major new force in fantasy, or whether once the hype has settled a little, he'll remain popular but won't be considered amongst the elite.

In terms of reviews redressing the imbalance - I know! I certainly posted mine, but either I'm in an extreme minority who didn't enjoy it (possible), or others simply haven't bothered to post reviews. Or, most of those who wouldn't like it were smarter than me, realised they wouldn't like it from the sample, and didn't buy it in the first place

 

[devaed]

Is this book on Amazon? or in Ebook version?

Amazon, eBook and I believe you can now get it in printed format too.

 

[Bugg]

So at least numerically speaking, you think it's overrated too! JK, but I was genuinely interested in your thoughts on Blood Song vs the work of other, 'big' authors like the ones I mentioned (excluding Sanderson, I guess). The ratings are indicating that Ryan's book is better-liked, but as one of the many who enjoyed it, would you personally say it's better (or that you enjoyed it more) than a GRRM, Rothfuss, Lynch et al book? Or was it just a pleasant, took-a-chance-on-it surprise?

Interesting question! I think it's a little of both. Yes, it was a pleasant surprise. I definitely enjoyed it more than GRRM's last couple of books, which I found hugely disappointing and, yes, overrated. I enjoyed it about the same as The Lies of Locke Lamora. I haven't read Rothfuss, yet. Looking at the fantasy novels I've read this year, the only ones I can categorically say I enjoyed more were Abercrombie's Best Served Cold, Bakker's The Warrior-Prophet, and Mr Lawrence's Prince of Thorns (not just saying that! ). But, then, going by this thread, you can't give a 5/5 unless a book is absolutely perfect, so I guess they're all 4's as well!

Either way is fine, of course - I'm just trying to figure out whether I should be thinking of Ryan as a legitimate major new force in fantasy, or whether once the hype has settled a little, he'll remain popular but won't be considered amongst the elite.

Probably the latter. But then Sanderson doesn't deserve the acclaim he's getting either, imo, so it's all down to personal taste, as we know.

In terms of reviews redressing the imbalance - I know! I certainly posted mine, but either I'm in an extreme minority who didn't enjoy it (possible), or others simply haven't bothered to post reviews. Or, most of those who wouldn't like it were smarter than me, realised they wouldn't like it from the sample, and didn't buy it in the first place

I think the samples are a good idea for that reason. I wish I'd done that where some other books were concerned!

 

[Stephen Palmer]

One of the problems with bloggers (world's smallest violin, First World Problems etc) is the simple workload involved. I read 3-6 books a month and easily receive 20-30 in review copies per month.

I'm curious to know who sends you these 20-30 per month.

 

[devaed]

Interesting question! I think it's a little of both. Yes, it was a pleasant surprise. I definitely enjoyed it more than GRRM's last couple of books, which I found hugely disappointing and, yes, overrated. I enjoyed it about the same as The Lies of Locke Lamora. I haven't read Rothfuss, yet. Looking at the fantasy novels I've read this year, the only ones I can categorically say I enjoyed more were Abercrombie's Best Served Cold, Bakker's The Warrior-Prophet, and Mr Lawrence's Prince of Thorns (not just saying that! ). But, then, going by this thread, you can't give a 5/5 unless a book is absolutely perfect, so I guess they're all 4's as well!

Excellent, cheers - that gives me a much better idea of where to mentally peg him for now! A lot of the reviews on Amazon are so extreme in their praise, it made it a little hard to judge. I'm sure that to a large extent as well, how he's thought of as a writer will depend a lot on the reception his next book gets.

Hah, and yes the issue of what makes a five-star book is certainly a tricky one! In theory, I quite like the Goodreads way of doing it, where five stars is 'it was amazing', four stars is 'I quite liked it', three stars is 'I liked it' etc. In practice, though, either a lot of people are ignoring that system, or they're being amazed quite regularly.

I've given a few five-stars over the years, but those were for books that I've loved so much that I know I'm going to read them several times over the course of my life. And I'm still instinctively a bit reluctant to give a book I've liked only three stars... my brain translates it to 6/10, 'D', which seems unfair on a book that I've enjoyed. But I do try to keep to that system on Goodreads as much as possible.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I wish people would retain their 5-star reviews for books genuinely deserving of that status.

 

[Bugg]

That implies that there is some hard and fast rule as to which books deserve that status, but then who else decides which ones deserve it other than the person writing the review? I don't think any individual has the right to say their opinion on something so subjective is superior to another person's, and therefore more correct.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

My feeling is that 100% marks are so exceptional they should be rare. Very rare. I suspect the proliferation of 5/5s is both people cheating the system, and an 'invisible' force that tends to push marks upwards. It has been argued that this force explains the constant upward trend of school exam marks, amongst many other things.

 

[HareBrain]

But 5/5, in a 5-point scoring system, isn't 100%. It could be anything over 80% if you divide the 0-100% range equally.

 

[Bugg]

But 5/5, in a 5-point scoring system, isn't 100%. It could be anything over 80% if you divide the 0-100% range equally.

Agreed, and I'd still like to know who gets to decide for all of us what qualifies as 'exceptional' or not, because I'll personally go around and tell them to stop making decisions for me

 

[Ursa major]

It's exceptional to the person giving the 5-star rating.

Which then makes you wonder how many 5-star ratings the person is doling out. (One would hope, not many.)




EDIT: I looked at the rating record of A. C. F. Guile, who'd given "the most helpful favourable review" on Amazon of Blood Song. Of their 18 reviews:

• 11 were 5-star
• 2 were 4-star
• 2 were 3-star
• 2 were 2-star
• 1 was 1-star.

(I ought to list the books involved, but I'm preoccupied with something else at the moment, so I'll get back to you on this.)



EDIT2: here's the list of books reviewed, in the order they appear in the list on Amazon (i.e. in reverse time order):

• Blood Song (Ryan) 5*
• Red Country (Abercrombie) 5*
• The Name of the Wind (Rothfuss) 5*
• The Way of Kings Part Two (Sanderson) 2*
• The Final Testament of the Holy Bible (Frey) 5*
• The Left Hand of God (Hoffman) 4*
• Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell (Clarke) 5*
• Mainspring (Lake) 3*
• A Thousand Suns (Scarrow) 4*
• Troy: Fall of Kings (Gemmell) 5*
• The Book Thief (Zusak) 5*
• Genghis: Birth of an Empire (Iggulden) 5*
• Assassin's Apprentice (Hobb) 5*
• Brilliance of the Moon (Hearn) 3*
• Weapons of Choice (Birmingham) 5*
• Shadowmancer (Taylor) 2*
• The Elder Gods (Eddings) 1*
• A Game of Thrones (Martin) 5*

(To be fair to this reviewer, the earliest review (AGoT) was as far back as 23rd of April 2011.)

 

[Bugg]

They gave Sanderson a 2 - I agree with them completely

 

[devaed]

I think part of the problem is that there's simply not enough nuance in the five star system, at least in the way Amazon, Goodreads etc implement it. I can't count how many times I've wished I could give a book 3.5 stars, and I'm pretty sure a lot of people would give books 4.5s, rather than 5s, if they had the option. But because the current system is so basic, it means that what a 'star' rating really means is left somewhat open to interpretation.

I also think it has, in a weird way, become another form of some people over-expressing themselves on the internet because they desperately want their opinion to be heard. Liked a book, and think other people should give it a go? Give it five stars to boost its rating! Didn't care much for a book? Give it one star to warn off other people! I've heard of plenty of instances on Amazon, for example, of fans of a book systematically going through all its negative reviews and downvoting them as 'unhelpful'. It becomes a kind of passive-aggressive argument, rather than being a genuinely thoughtful what-did-I-think-of-this-book process.

And then those reviews get mixed up with all the people who are giving their honest opinions (but whose interpretation of the system will differ person-to-person anyway), and nobody really knows what the end result actually means.

 

[HareBrain]

I wouldn't expect any reviewer's star ratings on Amazon to be evenly spread, though. I tend to review a book when I'm very impressed, very disappointed or believe I have something to say that no other reviewer has. And I think i tend to base my rating on a comparison with books in general, not only the ones I read. I only tend to read those I think/hope will be four/five-star ones anyway.

 

[Ursa major]

I wouldn't expect any reviewer's star ratings on Amazon to be evenly spread, though.

True (although it never stops the media reporting the results of "polls" which simply count the votes of those who do no more than click one option or another on a website).

Perhaps it would help if Amazon allowed a reviewer to select their favourite book, and allowed this to be changed as time goes by. (I think there'd have to be some sort of minimum number of reviews to allow this; otherwise there'd be a risk of getting a lot of single-review "this is my favourite" rankings.)

 

[devaed]

True (although it never stops the media reporting the results of "polls" which simply count the votes of those who do no more than click one option or another on a website).

Perhaps it would help if Amazon allowed a reviewer to select their favourite book, and allowed this to be changed as time goes by. (I think there'd have to be some sort of minimum number of reviews to allow this; otherwise there'd be a risk of getting a lot of single-review "this is my favourite" rankings.)

Something like that, I think, would work pretty well.

I also think it would be interesting if you were able to see the ratings of books based on how far they deviate from reviewers' average scores. So if one person gives ten 5-star reviews and nothing lower, then each of those reviews actually counts as the reviewer's 'average', and therefore doesn't boost that book's overall rating. If they've given nine 3-star reviews and one 4-star review, then the 4-star review boosts the book's rating. And if they've given nine 5-star reviews and one 4-star, the 4-star review actually lowers the book's rating.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I do agree that the 5-star system is nowhere near nuanced enough. A percentage (with 100% impossible!) would be much better - 01 to 99.