I am going to pose two questions with this post:
- When writing a review, do you like to keep it short and sweet or go into detail?
- When reading a review, do you like short and to the point reviews or long and descriptive reviews?
So, let’s chat!
My answer to both of those questions is the same. The shorter the better.
When I am writing a review of a book it is typically right after I finished reading it. Which explains why some of my reviews are very fangirl-y and some aren’t. Those that aren’t are typically written a few days later.
But one thing you will notice is how long they are. They’re never very long. I think my review of Gemina is the longest review I’ve written in a while and I don’t think it was all that long. Definitely spazzy and fangirl-y though.
I think keeping it short and to the point is the best way to minimize the chance of me spoiling something for someone. And if I’m going to spoil something I always wait until the end and mark it as spoilers first.
But the same goes for when I am reading a review. I will click on the review and the first thing I do is see how long it is. If it’s my kind of short, I’ll read it. If it’s crazy long with a lot of indepth analysis and character profiles and all that jazz, I skip to wherever the rating is and just look at that.
The way I see it, the more you write in a review, the more likely you are to spoil something for someone. And if I’m reading a review I want to avoid spoilers at all costs.
Descriptions can be the worst sometimes.
I generally write my own description when I’m writing my review. And I always try to take my info from the first quarter of the book so I don’t ruin any major plot twists.
I will not read a description if someone says it’s from the blurb on the back of the book or from Goodreads. I have had too many books spoiled that way.
But that’s just me. I want to hear what you guys think now so feel free to leave a comment!