Short & Sweet VS. Long & Rambling

[Charlotte Garnatz]

Which do you prefer when reading a Book Review?   I have all the free time in the world and have been trying to improve my blogging skills.  So I have been checking out a lot of blogs, maybe even yours.

I have seen reviews that are concise & to the point, yet I have also seen some reviews that were so long in their analysis that I just backed right out without reading anything but the title of the book.

What do you think readers prefer?  A short, concise blurb or a long, detailed analysis.   What do YOU prefer when writing and reading reviews?  What do you think authors prefer?

I tend to be middle of the pack, I think.  My goal is for a review to at least be longer than the picture I use.  LOL.  Sometimes I get pretty long-winded, but usually, I stay pretty concise.


Thoughts?

[Mark Engebretson]

Blogs, like books, should have precision. Each word is important and, if too long, people will back out, just like you did. Time is a precious commodity and we live live in the age of sound bytes. Long enough to cover the subject, short enough to be interesting and hold the reader.

[Charlotte Garnatz]

I agree with that, Mark.

[Christa]

I prefer reading short reviews - with explanation of why the reviewer likes/dislikes it, and not just a summary of the plot (I could read that on amazon).

I prefer to write short reviews too - probably because I don't analyze the book to the same extent as others do (and lack their skills of book analysis!), so my reviews are in bullet point formats :)

[Kris]

I guess it depends. I like a review that is just that...not one that summarizes the book in the review. Most of the time if it's way too long I won't read it, I guess most of my reviews fall in the middle. :)

[Aronald Harper]

You redo the summarizing because it's professional to do so. It's not a matter of what you want. It's a matter of what is proper. With the publisher summary there the reader has a hook to hang their jacket on per say. There should definitely be your own synopsis at least. If you're reading quality books, not just cheesy pulp, the urge to do a synopsis will be overwhelming.

[Alayne]

I am fairly middle-ground as well. I am immediately turned off of a review when it's too long. But I also dislike reviews that are only one to two paragraphs. My reviews tend to be average 400-500 words, more or less. For me, that length works in terms of reading a review.
Alayne - The Crowded Leaf

[Charlotte Garnatz]

400-500 words. Do you actually do a word count to determine this? I would have never thought to do that. Thank you for the suggestion.


Are there any authors or publishers that would like to weigh in on the topic?

[Rick]

I think some word processors will tell you the word count, and I know when I post on Wordpress it gives me a wordcount.

[Lesa]

Long detailed literary analysis can be tiresome. For ex. Amazon book reviewers usually leave short useful reviews but some are so lengthy and even meanspirited-- those kind irk me. I started my blog to have a friendly casual place to muse about books and reading. That being said: My first two book specific posts ended up longer than I anticipated. Not because of deep literary analysis--- just had many musings and observations to share with my book friends.

[Lesa]

Hi--- Oh yes, I have blogs. I may even be a blog addict! My book blog is: http://baja-greenawalts-cozybooknook.blogspot.com/

Please check it out. It is new and I'd appreciate any feedback. I didn't plan to promote the blog until I had blogged about the quest for Mrs. Baja-- a kindred spirit book lover who wrote a note in a book in 1951. I stumbled upon the note and have been captivated by this unknown woman ever since. A pic of the note is on the blog.

Your bookblog is great! I definitely relate to the most recent post on blogging and the resolution post was funny. I will be a follower.

[Stormi Johnson]

I like them short and to the point, if I haven't read a book I don't want to read a really long review that points out to many things about this or that that to me tells a bit to much of the plot and ruins the book. I just want to know if you thought it had good solid characters, was easy to follow, did it bore you to tears or keep you in suspense but I don't need to know every detail of the book and all of your thoughts.

[Daniel Lance Wright]

I think the first sentence should include something like: "It was a good read." Or, "It lacked something". Or, "It sucked." It should contain a hook just like the novel or short story it's critiquing. If it doesn't, then you'll know the level of expertise that's offering it and whether to assign any creditiabality to it or not. Why should a reviewer be any less subject to criticism than those they crtique?