This week the question I asked myself is: Why is it easier to write a review for books I disliked than it is to write a review for a books I really liked?
I've thought about this question over the past week and I have finally come to a conclusion. When I'm writing a review for books I enjoyed I tend to want to write things like: It was awesome, what a great book, amazing characters, and what a well developed world. As great as those statements may be a review they do not make. I find it exceedingly difficult to pin point exactly why I'm still thinking about the book I just read days after I finished reading. And then getting those thoughts coherent enough to write a review is sometimes a nightmare. Because it always ends the same I LOVED that book! Again too short and not very informative. This is something I really need to work on.
On the other hand I know exactly why I didn't like a book. For example the plot was underdeveloped, the characters were flat, or the ending was completely horrid. The bad issues tend to stick out in my mind. It's easy for me to rant on and on about why the novel I just finished left me underwhelmed. I think it has something to do with being disappointed. I wanted the book to be really good but in the end it just wasn't. And that disappointment inevitably leaks out into my reviews. I try to make sure I don't go over board and turn my review into a book bashing, that's just rude and not where I want to go. But I won't say I liked something that I didn't.
What I need to do is develop a type of outline that all my reviews follow. That way good or bad I will always know what I am going to write about.
Does anyone share these same issues? Or is it easier for you to write a raving review over a review for a novel that just wasn't very interesting.