The 5-Star System

There are so many reasons rating books is hard.

The comparison exists to make some books stand apart from the rest. I love the idea of having some favorites, some least favorites, and some in between books that leave no significant impression on you.

But what, exactly, are we comparing these books to?

In some ways, the 5-star system is rating books among genres. But because same system is used to rate books in historical fiction and fantasy, the historical fiction that I read would always have less stars. I find this frustrating because I like fantasy infinitely more than historical fiction, but I don't want to grade a good historical fiction down on the fact that it was historical fiction.

The star system is also used to compare books by a singular author. But if there's an author I love who has written books I love, I start running out of stars to differentiate the ways in which I liked the books. Perhaps one's plot was on par, and another had good characters, and yet another had a good message. Nothing is done to contrast the meaning behind the 5 stars I've given each.

Or perhaps the book is just being compared to itself. When rating books, this is the only way I can stand to do it. Does it have a good plot? Writing style? Likable characters? All of these things contribute to whether or not I like something.

But until I can explain my rating in words, the star system seems insufficient in doing what I'm trying to accomplish.

I use the 5-star system because it's universal. Goodreads uses it, and everyone understands the scale of "terrible" to "amazing." And I'm lazy, so I rarely write out my own reviews.

Despite my lack of motivation to write reviews, I still get angry whenever I think of the 5-star system. Maybe I should start rating books based on multiple categories. Maybe I'll come up with my own system sometime.