I’m approaching the half-way point of my quest, and I’d appreciate some feedback.
The main thing I’m pondering, as you can probably infer from the subject line, which is preferable: long or short review?
Many of my earlier reviews contained rather long synopses. Of course, “long synopses” is an oxymoron; stupid bovines notwithstanding, I’ve been aiming for shorter synopsis lately, a bit more of my own impressions or favorite moments, themes, characters, or lines, but a shorter review in total.
Now, I know what some of you are thinking: Well Wanderer, it’s your blog; write whatever type/length review you like.
Point taken, and agreed.
However, I like people to read my reviews and I like them to like reading my reviews and I like them to return and read more of my reviews, so… I am interested in your opinion: shorter or longer?
Two examples: Nostromo (shorter review (looks long, but only because of the artwork)) vs To the Lighthouse (longer review).
Of course, I’d welcome any other feedback: hate the layout, like the star ratings, love the cover art, etc, but mostly, what do you hope to learn when you read someone else’s book review? And maybe even more importantly, anything you especially don’t want to learn?
Me? When reading others reviews, I don’t want much of a synopsis and definitely no spoiler without a warning. Some reviews are very analytical, scholarly even, while others are more emotive. I like both, with a slight preference for the latter. Primarily I want to know: did you like it? Why or why not?