New new new!

Right. Because I've nothing better to do today (hah), I've gone back and instituted a rating system on books. I've been wanting to do this for awhile, but I'm so wishy-washy that I don't like the usual 5-star sytem: too limiting. So, stealing a page from VOYA (one of my favorite journals), I have decided to rate on more than one scale, because sometimes you really like a book that has no redeeming social value. Or, in my case, vice versa.

I've chosen the following areas to start with. I am willing to bet that this will evolve, but in the meantime I have gone back and rated everything since the beginning of the year. By the end of 2005, I may even be able to create a quantified list of "good books" that I've read, without relying on my sometimes rather spotty and emotional reviews. We'll see anyway.

Merit: This refers to the overall value of the book, both the physical item and the production, editing and writing. Generally, if it's hard to see/read, full of typos, not organized, the score is going to be lower.
Interest: My interest in the subject, as well as how interesting to read it is. So this is a bit of apples combined with oranges, but that's just my brain. If I'm interested and the writing is good, it will mean a higher score than one or the other by itself.
Fun: Is it fun to read? This isn't the best word, since some really good books are not FUN to read (Anne Frank comes to mind), except in the sense of being a joy to see creative genius at work. So, I could use "Joy" but that just seems fey and goofy. Besides, one of the things I find fun are endnotes and footnotes, and those don't connote joy even to me. So "Fun" it is.

One of the other positives I see is that these benchmarks will give me more structure in how I 'review' each title, even the ones I don't finish or like much.