There was one article I read just before I started writing this entry. It was about a book review, mainly how you write a book review. The article was giving a format to it and my reaction was nearly that of Avril Lavigne’s song on a loop.
At first I wonder how is that even a book review (that somehow is personal) turns to have a format. Maybe this could be just that person’s idea, giving a book review a format to follow. But when I searched it in google, it isn’t just an idea of one person, rather there are many of them that thinks of giving it it’s own format.
So why did I react that way? Because I have my own definition of making a book review, and that for some who wants to make an official format for such, I don’t know for them. A book review, for me, must be personal. Well not that personal that people will know the secret affairs you’re having but rather how you felt finishing the book. Of course another thing is that you should’ve finished the book. What is the worth of telling how you feel about something else without ever knowing it in full, or as much as you possibly could. Then I think at least you should tell why you liked the book, or why you didn’t. Then for that last part, give your overall rating on the book. Somebody even told me that to review a book at least read it three times, but that is another thing.
Alas. Here is how I write my book reviews. Maybe I missed some points, but as long as you’re telling how you feel about it that (I think) can help other people appreciate the book so they will have a platform to step on while reading. (For I think those who totally stopped reading the book in the middle are those that don’t have anything to hold on to. And my disappointments to them because some of the books they never finished are those that just needs patience in reading.)
On second thought, Having a format in giving review to a book has its pros and cons, that’s why it’s not to be despised. So how about you, what do you think should be included in giving book reviews?