OnlineBookClub.org

I'm in the middle of writing a review on a really good book. I'm afraid that the review may be too long (around 800 words), and I'd like to know whether most people prefer reviews that are either less or more than 500 words.

I don't think length is that important as long as your content is informative.

I appreciate a review that lets me know the skill and style of the writer, the subgenre or other genres that also apply to the story. Let your reader know what audience the book may appeal to. mention features a reader may wish to avoid, such as graphic violence or sex, a religious or sexist slant, or a lack of proofreading. These items will help us decide if we wish to read this book.

I think 800 words might be a little long. I am basing this on my own experiences writing reviews and then looking at previous reviews I wrote that were over 700 words. I would look at a few of my longer ones after they were published and think I rambled on too long about a particular plotline or element, went off track about too many different characters, etc. What I tend to do now is try to edit out the excess - repetition, one too many sentences about a topic, too many minor details about the plot. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the reviews that are just above the minimum 400 words are not always as interesting. To be fair, there are some books where there is just that not much to discuss - children's picture books, self-help books, cookbooks, etc.

In general, what might be interesting in an in-person book discussion or just chatting online with someone back and forth about a book might not be as attention-grabbing in an extremely long review.

What I want is for a review to tell if the book is any good and avoid any spoilers (even minor) in case I do decide to read it, so for me personally short is better. A review should not be an analysis.

I try to keep my reviews on the shorter side, although that sometimes does mean I'll leave out something about the book that I COULD have included.

Mine vary. Most often they are a bit shorter, but sometimes when I get going it just stretches out into a longer piece than I had intended.

AliceofX wrote:What I want is for a review to tell if the book is any good and avoid any spoilers (even minor) in case I do decide to read it, so for me personally short is better. A review should not be an analysis.

Analysis is actually an expected element of reviews on OBC.

CatInTheHat wrote:

AliceofX wrote:What I want is for a review to tell if the book is any good and avoid any spoilers (even minor) in case I do decide to read it, so for me personally short is better. A review should not be an analysis.

Analysis is actually an expected element of reviews on OBC.

I believe that a shorter review is more effective rather than a longer one. A review is a form of resume of a book. It is easier to read and form an opinon. The longer review takes away attention of the story. You lose the reader in the process.

Perhaps I should have been more clearer that what I meant is it shouldn't be a detailed analysis exploring every theme and concept of the story. The problem I have with plot descriptions is that you inevitably get an idea in your head of what the book is going to be like, but then when you read the book it's nothing like what you imagined and so you end up disappointed, even if the book was otherwise good, just because it didn't meet your false expectations. A long review will tend to go more into the plot and I try to avoid as much information as I can before I start reading a book to have a clear mindset about it.

It also depends on the book. Some books have alot of information, is literally a long book with alot going on or it could be a short story. It also depends on what you felt for the book after reading it. Reviews vary quite a bit in this case but I don't mind how long it is as long as it tells me your opinion of what you read.

Good points.