The Subjectivity of Reviewing
It occurs to me as I just finished posting a new review, just how subjective reviewing is - or more to the point, just how subjective my reaction to the books I read is. A mainstream novel from a large publishing house is going to get much more harshly critiqued, and I'm going to be much harder on it for my enjoyment than I am for one that isn't.
For example, I recently rated a book I read a four stars, which means I liked it (with my rating system, anyway). It's an intensely complex and imaginitive urban fantasy novel from a series that's really impressing me. I also just rated a M/M erotic paranormal romance as four stars. Which means I liked it. Are the two even in the same ballpark when comparing technical skill and style, depth and scope of plot, and vivid depth of character?
Not even close. Not even close to the shadow of the idea of close.
The key, though, is I wasn't expecting them to, so I wasn't disappointed, and could still enjoy both. Not in comparison to each other. On their own. I realize that I enjoy (or not) books based on my own criteria, and rightly or wrongly, that criteria is a big factor in how I feel about, and write about, a book I've read.
How very subjective of me.