I saw something that bothered me a bit and I want to see what everyone else thinks about it. I read some reviews for a book on Goodreads. One reader had given the book only two stars but her review seemed to say she enjoyed the book. At the bottom of the review she had a definition "Good books are books for entertainment. Interesting books are books that educate". So, she only gave the book two stars because it was interesting and educational, but not "good".
In case you wondered, I'm all for reading for fun, but I can't imagine putting that kind of limit on a book. Does something have to be a beach read to be good? If a book broadens my mind is it suddenly interesting but not good? I'm appalled that someone would give a book they enjoyed and learned from only two stars, just because they didn't read it solely for entertainment.
I'm glad she had her little disclaimer at the bottom of the review. It helped me gauge where she was coming from so I knew how much weight to give the review. Still, I'm disturbed. And worried. Do other reviewers have such random categories?
Is this normal and I'm missing the boat? How do you classify good? Is it quality of writing, interesting plot? Fun vs educational? Some combination of everything? Or just a gut feeling of "this touched me".
I'm starting to get an idea of how agents feel, and I'm glad I don't have to do their jobs.