I’ve been wondering about this lately whilst perusing my GR shelves for various reasons. I keep coming across books and I see those stars and I’m like
Because my thoughts have changed since I read the book. Now that I’ve had time to actually sit on it for a while, I realize that my initial star rating isn’t accurate anymore. As a reviewer, I would always rate and review right after reading (otherwise I would forget all my thoughts and have nothing to say). But the thing about those kinds of gut reactions is that they’re easily changed. I go with my gut at first, but my heart feels differently after the passage of time.
It seems to go in both directions, too. Like I enjoyed Open Road Summer while reading it, so I gave it 3 stars, which is a solid read for me. But after thinking about it for a while and picturing Matt Finch’s perfect face, I realized I actually loved it more than I had initially thought. So I upped it to a 4-star book on GR. This might not seem like a big deal, but 4 or 5 stars ratings are pretty hard to get from me. On the other hand, I was looking for fantasy recommendations for a friend and I scrolled past Defy and saw I had given it 2 stars. Seeing that just brought back all the negative feelings and ragey-ness I had after reading it and I realized that 2 stars was being way too generous, so I docked one.
I used to think that ratings were set in stone once the review posted. Like that was my final word on the book and once published, couldn’t be refuted. I have a lot of ridiculous thoughts sometimes. But this subject also brought to mind how much my perception of book blogging has changed the longer I do it. Things that I thought were irrefutable facts, like you must post book reviews to consider yourself a book blogger, are just not true. They’re just arbitrary rules that I decided to follow until one day I didn’t. So, if I want to change a rating, I’ve decided to just go for it.
Let’s chat! Have you ever changed a rating after taking some more time to think about it?