This is something that bothers me, because I do so many book reviews. I don't want to be an arbitrary reviewer, who gives scores based on how I feel at the moment. I want to have consistent standards.
If you've watched some of my reviews, you'll notice that there are some things I consistently give low scores for.
- Continuity errors
- There is a subplot or character who is briefly introduced, then disappears for the rest of the book, with no explanation.
- The mystery is solved by accident or coincidence
- The culprit's plan is illogical and makes no sense
- The main character does something incredibly stupid, like overlook an obvious clue
- Brenda Carlton or Deirdre Shannon appears.
I make a point of reading every book twice, before reviewing it. Sometimes it changes my opinion of the book, like "Oh, it's not so confusing! I must have been distracted the first time around." or "Man, I loved this book, but it's really clichéd and awful."
There have been books which I gave decent scores to, even though I disliked them. I did that recently, with the first two books of the Eco-Mystery trilogy, and less recently, with the book where Nancy time travels without any explanation as to how or why.
As for Nancy Drew 5: Secret of Shadow Ranch...well, I disliked it, and I gave it a bad score. I am definitely in the minority here, since that is the best-selling Nancy Drew book of all time, and the most popular Nancy Drew game of all time. So I went a bit out of my way, to justify why I don't like it.
For more on fact and opinion, watch my Garfield video on the topic! I mostly make fun of the "official" definition, for being wrong.