There aren't many things a review can contain that will drive me up the wall faster than a blow-by-blow plot outline for a fictional work.

What's even more frustrating is backing out of such reviews without reading them because I might want to read the book later and don't want it to be spoiled. Arrgh!

Is there anything you find universally frustrating from a book review?

Julie

I also hate long plot descriptions. And I dispise those who "borrow" reviews from others and publish them as their own.

But there's more!

I hate lists of characters with an explanation of how each fits into the story. They go on and on and on, so that, by the time I reach the end of the review, I've read pretty much the same information presented several different ways. Every time I see one, I want to break the knuckles of the person who wrote it. (Maybe if the writer's knuckles hurt, s/he wouldn't be so inclined to repeat herself/himself so much!)

I hate children's book reviews that don't give any information about how a child reacted to the book or why the book was good for the adult that read it. I can get "professionally" written reviews that do that. The reason why I read Epinions reviews is to get information about how adult and child interacted with the book.

I hate reviews of non-fiction books that are little more than a table of contents. Or, worse yet, reviews that re-tell what is in the book but don't tell you how the information was preented or how the reader felt about the presentation.

I hate...

Oh heck! Just read my profile page! ;)

-- grump

I do try to make an effort. For example, really long reviews annoy me. Now before anyone goes crying hypocrite, let me preemptively admit to having on at least one occasion done each of the things that I hate to see in others' reviews. I said I'd admit it, not that I'd apologize for it. So feel free to hate me.

Anyway, the worst is when it's a really long review that focuses on the detail, whether it be plot or character or what. All detail, no digestion. If you're going to write 2,000 words the least you could do is include some thought instead of just regurgitating details.

And as much as it does or doesn't pain me to admit, I hate bad writing. 99% of everything is mediocre, if I can be allowed to tame the phrase, and this unfortunately goes for reviews too. Still, it's not hard to find people here who are worth reading, and I've found plenty, even if I'm not the most faithful of readers.

Bottom line: if I'm going to read something I demand that whoever wrote it have put a minimum of effort into writing it--as in actually thinking about whether there isn't a better word for what they're getting at, or whether a review could do without the padding of that extra phrase, or whether they should rewrite the whole thing now that they've a better idea of how to structure it.

Of course, I may be here for the wrong reasons.

(I'm sorry. I'm in a fey (feral?) mood. Please ignore the nastier side of panguitch. And please don't hold the amiable side to the standards the nasty side espouses.)

Is anyone grumpier than me?

(No answer needed!)

;)

My mood depends on the writer and their ability to take criticism (or compliments without becoming a complete egomaniac)and on how well the Epinions Books database is cooperating.

Needless to say, I'm grumpy lots. :p

(IRL, I'm fairly harmless. I swear!)

I once did a whole essay about basic points to consider in an Epinions book review. Taking nothing for granted, I started out with such basics as the idea that you really ought to mention both the title of the book and the name of the author. (Early on, someone took me to task for not mentioning those things in one of my own reviews, and I went back and took another look at the finished product and finally got it through my head that no, the webpage Epinions generated to show my review did not automatically provide that information right out in plain sight.)

I won't rehash that entire essay here, but I do remember one thing that's annoyed me several times over the years and that I probably didn't stress sufficiently in my original essay on reviewing. The reviewer who writes a review that implicitly (not explicitly) assumes that you a) have already read previous books in the same series, and b) therefore know exactly what he is talking about regarding plot threads, regular characters, ongoing mysteries, and whatnot.

To create a hypothetical example . . . let's suppose that bright young NewReviewer has written a review of the third volume of J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. The review might casually mention the current locations and problems of Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Gandalf, etc. in the early chapters of the book, blithely assume that you're already well aware of who those people are and why we're supposed to be worried about them and what mission statements they were allegedly pursuing the last time we saw them, and then move on from there.

Of course, NewReviewer does not bother to say any of the following up front, in the first couple of paragraphs:
1) "This is the concluding volume of a trilogy!"
2) "The trilogy is very much one long story that ought to be read in sequence to get the full effect, as opposed to being three distinct novels that happen to have some characters in common!"
3) "The titles of the first and second volumes are the following: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers"
4) "Unless you want the major plot twists of the first and second volumes ruined for you, don't read any further in this review!"
5) "You can find a good review of the first volume right HERE [insert link] if you want to get a better feel for whether or not you'd like to start reading this series from the beginning!"

(#5 is certainly not mandatory, but it shows a courteous willingness to try to be helpful to someone previously uninitiated in the ways of Tolkien who just happens to have wandered in off the street by mistake.)

With rare exceptions, my general habit has become to review the first book of a series, perhaps throwing in a few very general comments (not loaded with massive plot spoilers) about how the series later developed. If I write reviews of later installments, I throw in plenty of warnings about where this particular volume stands in the greater scheme of things. I feel I avoid an awful lot of trouble that way.