Four Out of Five is Great, and Three Isn’t Terrible

It’s easy to hope that your beloved book will get five out of five stars from everyone who reads it. A rating of less than five stars can feel like a bit of an emotional blow, but it’s not all bad. Browsers on Amazon and elsewhere may be suspicious of books that have all five star reviews. They assume it’s mostly the writer’s friends and relatives or paid reviewers.

Thus, a four-star review is terrific because it lends authenticity to the review process. A three-star review that names specific flaws that might not bother other people is okay too, and even better if it specifies some things the reviewer liked.

Here’s an example of a review that benefits both the author and potential readers:

The characters are interesting and the plot moves along at a good pace. I took off a star because I personally don’t care for explicitly violent scenes. Readers who don’t mind them won’t be put off by those parts of the book. The book is well-edited, which is great in this age of poorly edited books.

This review uses the “sandwich” structure, starting with praise, enclosing the negative in the middle, and following it with more praise. The author gets the positive feedback. Potential readers who dislike violence get an unemotional warning. This benefits the author as well, since those warned readers won’t be reading the book and then giving it a bad review.

Even Andy Weir’s smash hit The Martian has a few one-, two-, and three-star reviews. There’s no such thing as a story or book that literally everybody loves.