I found that often, when I read a book I loved, I struggled to express why. My reviews came down to a “did I like it or didn’t I and how much,” an expression of totality which was very subjective and never plumbed deeper into the good stuff. The truth is, reviewing things is hard. Critical reading and writing are really difficult; there’s a reason why my local bookstore has a section for “Criticism” and why my name isn’t on the shelf. Everyone’s a critic, yes — but some people have what seems to be a rare gift for cutting to the heart of why something rocks or sucks. Throughout the year of my resolution, my reviews started out poor and got a little better, but I found my hackles rising with the 5-star system in Goodreads because everyone seemed to have a different subjective method of using it. For me, a three star is “okay, wouldn’t read again, unlikely to recommend unless someone is very into the subject matter.” For some people, three stars means no more or less than “good,” and for some it means “forgettable” or even “meh.” How is a reader supposed to know the difference when we’re all just anonymous internetters? There are things I gave 5 stars to because I absolutely loved the idea (if not the execution), and this seems controversial, too. Me liking it is a “me” thing — and reviewing should surely be a little more objective so everyone can actually make use of the reviews that are now a dime a dozen for every book ever published. And that’s where CAWPILE comes in. Of course, much like my original problem, reviews with CAWPILE are subjective, but at least they offer a deeper dive into the positives and negatives of a story. I might strive for some sense of objectivity which ties closely to the idea of criticism as its own art form, but I’d imagine a lot of reviewers might not care about that at all: after all, the glut of reviews speaks to the fact that there’s a book out there for everyone.
Characters Atmosphere/Setting Writing Style Plot Intrigue Logic/Relationships Enjoyment
To fulfil the system, each parameter should be rated out of 10. Once this is done, the overall result should be divided by seven, which produces a sometimes decimal-pointed answer between 1 and 10. This 1-10 scale is arguably too specific to be broadly adopted, so instead, we convert the number back into a 5 star rating as follows: If the book score 0-1, there is no score. If it scored 1.1-2.2, that’s one star. 2.3-4.5 is two stars. 4.6-6.9 is three stars. 7-8.9 is four stars. 9-10 is five stars. So, in a hypothetical book review, I have scored as follows.
C: 9 A: 9 W: 8 P: 9 I: 7 L: 8 E: 9
This gives me a total score of 46, which divided by 7 is 8.4. This gives me a solid four star review. On top of that, the fact that seven parameters are scored and then averaged out means that one thing I really didn’t like doesn’t drag the rest down, or vice versa. I’ve gone through the review process a few times now and each time it’s given me a number I can agree with, and my review has considered in some depth the strengths and weaknesses. It doesn’t work for all types of books, and is, in my view, best suited to fiction or occasionally, narrative nonfiction. I couldn’t find a way to make it work for essay or poetry collections — and to be honest, this isn’t a criticism, because different book types deserve different systems of critical thinking. If you’ve been trying to write reviews and find you’re struggling and can’t quite get your point across, CAWPILE might help you get there. Even if you’re just snipping favourite bits for your own commonplace book, you could add some CAWPILE structured thoughts. In 50 years time, someone might pick up and see your little thoughts and rediscover a lost gem.
