Since the much-self-heralded overhaul of the Yellow Satan-owned book review website a little over a year ago failed to give us partial-star review options, unlike places like Storygraph, where my account has pretty much gone dormant, and my regional library, both of which have nowhere near Yellow Satan's money, I finally figured I'd knock out a piece here about how I use partial stars.
I'll look at non-fiction first, as what middlebrow or whatever fiction I read has a different review system and is of less depth. I'll also add comments about particular types of non-fiction as needed.
Side note to begin: Lack of an index on a non-fiction book can cost you up to one full star.
Second note: I, like Goodreads friend Marquise, have become a more critical reviewer as I've gotten older. Books from a decade or more ago would probably in many cases rank a half star or more lower today.
5 full stars:
Rare. For history, the book must have a good thesis, be well presented if it's controversial, etc. For military or diplomatic history, good analysis needed. Good and legible maps needed if the book needs them. Good photos, on plate pages, preferably, as needed. NO factual errors. Political science/political history? Minus the maps angle, pretty much the same. Science? Good info, at a non-dumbed down public level. Charts, graphs etc., as parallel to maps in things like military history, are a must. Again, they should be legible as well as explanatory. Critical religious studies? On biblical criticism and exegesis, new thought is fine, but anything flunking Ockham's Razor or even approaching that is not. This is even more the case on archaeology, anthropology and other social sciences.
Within 5 stars, you may get on my "worth buying" shelf if you truly nail all of this.
4.75 stars:
No obvious failures. May have minor, trivial and totally non-essential errors, but usually, I won't allow that. Usually, this is because the book just falls short of the pinnacle, and, in a Major League Baseball reference, re the Hall of Fame, I don't believe in a "big hall."
4.5 stars:
History? Very solid, informative, but not quite compelling. A less than fully-compelling narrative may be part of why. Maybe you fell short on picking up ideas hinted as in your thesis. Biblical criticism: Somewhat the same. Ditto on social sciences. "Hard" sciences: Maybe, especially in biology and evolution, the narrative wasn't quite there. Physics? You probably didn't sell me on just how important the idea is.
4.25 stars:
In all nonfiction areas, you've got something good, but it's not that new, not that broad beyond what I already know, whether in terms of information, or ideas, or narrative, or value. Or, if newer, you didn't sell it well enough.
4 stars:
In history, military history and political science, you either definitely didn't move enough beyond what's already out there, or else you had either a poorly formed thesis or else a poorly defended one if new. You also, where not only warranted but called for, were inadequate on maps, charts, photos, etc. And, if you have an index, but it's partial or inadequate, and the book was very good otherwise, you'll be here.
3.75 stars:
Same as above, but you also may have become tendentious. This is also the case in biblical criticism, social sciences, etc. And, if you have an index, but it's partial or inadequate, and the book was pretty good otherwise, you'll be here.
3.5 stars:
On history and related, usually, you're not that much more than conventional or received wisdom, but tidbits and nuggets here and there make this of some value. In the hard sciences, as well as to a lesser extent in the social sciences and some humanities, like philosophy, you probably did not do good work explaining items that needed explanation. Related may be that your writing was too dense, or quasi-academic.
3.25 stars:
Not used that often, but similar to the above, only with more problems on writing, whether narrative style, poor explanation, or more. Serious lack of the peripherals, of charts, graphs, photos, maps, etc., may get you here. Total lack of an index, combined with other problems, will get you here or worse.
3 stars:
Basically, you're average in my take on average, per all of the above.
2.75 stars:
Probably used even less than 3.25. Per becoming a more critical reviewer with age, and per "ars longior, vita brevis," I'm less likely to waste quarter-star nuance on you.
2.5 stars:
History and related? If your book needs a thesis, it's probably poorly written and poorly defended as well. You're also surely missing some of the peripherals above. Biblical criticism? You're getting either too close to fundagelical territory, or if Christian New Testament criticism, too close to either that or Jesus mythicism. Sociology, anthropology and some political science? For this leftist who's a skeptical leftist, you may also be getting too far into identitarian-based ideas. Or, you may be getting too far into "-isms"; this can be true with philosophy and philosophy of history type books, too. On hard science books, you probably haven't done a good job of explaining concepts and such well to educated laypersons, or similar. This is going to be especially true in things like serious "pop" physics. If I need half a hand, at least, on quantum gravity, and a full hand on your sub-version, and you don't supply it, for example, you'll be here. Archaeology, anthropology? Poor explanation of relations between different peoples, cultures, etc. can also get you here.
2.25 stars:
Might use this a bit more than 2.75. Basically, it says your book is near the fairly bad territory, but not quite there. Or, that it is fairly bad for me, but some people may find moderate redeeming value.
2 stars:
Your book is fairly bad for several of the reasons above. In history, you may be over your head, on a poor thesis which isn't new, along with bad narrative plus not being able to organize raw information into history.
1.75 stars:
Used rarely. Basically, your book is falling into really bad territory, but it's not quite totally there.
1.5 stars:
Your book is pretty much really bad. It has no truly redeeming qualities, even for people less informed than me. In the hard sciences, you're at least flirting with pseudoscience. Ditto in health and medicine. In history, you're over your head, or at least flirting with the edge of conspiracy theories. On political science, some types of history, and some social sciences, you're getting strongly into identitarianism, or other isms. I may like crushing you.
1.25 stars:
Very rare. Possibly a charity rating half the time.
1 star:
You're more into conspiracy theory, in history and political science, even if not a central part of your thesis. You're into quack levels of pseudoscience. You're into hard-core identitarianism. You're failing on trying to defend things. I probably like crushing you.
Less than 1 star:
I review-bombed your conspiracy theory book is the usual. Or you write a book that appears to be knowledgeable, but in reality has a self-undercutting pseudo-thesis that isn't what the book is actually about, like Sapolsky's "Determined." If it's not a review-bomb review, I totally like thoroughly crushing you.
==
Middlebrow fiction?
Something like Tony Hillerman's murder mysteries, or Ursula LeGuin's fantasy?
I use a three-part rating, looking at plot, narrative and characters. I then average out the three, with weighting toward one of the three areas as necessary.
Plot: The scale runs from plausible to implausible. On mystery-type books, don't be either a Captain Obvious, or on the other side, offer up bizarro twists.
Narrative: Don't give me stilted dialogue, or stilted narrative moving the plot along, either. And, if your book is part of a series by you, do a reasonable job at book-to-book consistency.
Characters: Are they plausible as individuals, on psyche, personhood related to job and other situations in the book, and interactions with other characters? If part of a series, do they grow from book to book? Is the growth and changes reasonable?
On the sum of the parts, how am I being entertained?
==
Highbrow fiction?
If it's philosophical fiction, whether Plato, Hume, or Camus, you're getting a mix of the three-elements judging plus how I would judge your philosophy as philosophy.
Historical fiction? Less emphasis on the three-elements judging, but not nonexistent by any means, and plausible history. I'm not expecting maps here, but if an Alison Weir, etc., photos/paintings of photos, of course. And, within your historical fiction, like history, some sort of thesis, defended.
Alt-history? If it's a novel, at a minimum, be better than Harry Turtledove. If it's an alt-history essay like in the "What If?" series of books, no more than one major twist, please, and otherwise, meet the canons of history writing.
Other "highbrow"? A Thomas Mann to cite someone I've read from within the 20th century? Beyond the three-elements judging, have you moved me? Have you made me think? Have you enlarged me? Middlebrow fiction might be about entertainment; highbrow, for me, is about these things.
==
Finally, a couple of other additional notes.
First, I will call out egregiously bad reviewers, either as a class, or individuals, in some cases. That's above all in political science, modern political history and related, where I suspect low-star reviewers as individuals or a class are doing so for narrowly political reasons.
Second, I've called out much further, in a blog post, an oft-wrong history reviewer who has willfully developed a cult around himself. Don't make yourself into another History Nerd/History Toddler.
