Spoilers mean different things to different people. I suspect they are what you wanted to know to decide if you'd read the book. Some read reviews and sales blurbs to decide to read books. I believe nearly all of the sales blurbs totally spoil
the book. I also think it is near impossible to write a review on any book beyond the first book in a series without unintentionally adding spoilers.
Some folks just take recommendations. That's why I do a recommendation or not immediately and hope you'll thank me and go read the book, or not depending on what I recommend. Skip the review & sales blurb.
I studied writing extensively for decades. Sincerely, it's better to go on the recommendations of people you trust if you want to avoid spoilers. Then you can sincerely enjoy the offering as intended.
I'm adding this as I've spent years trying to write reviews and avoid spoilers. I'd much rather just tell you what I want about the book. Sometimes, it's all I can remember!
Ratings are subjective. Even with the same reviewer -- from review to review. Writing is supposed to be persuasive, informative, or create an emotional experience. While writer's may have one intention, it is impossible for them to know or
even understand why someone will react to what they write.
I review primarily fiction. Fiction, by it's nature, is a hallucination in the mind of the author. It may be based on a number of true things, but how do you rate a hallucination? It may be wonderful or a nightmare. Nightmares in fiction are
still entertainment. Zombies? Space monsters? The author tells a story.
Rationally, or objectively, I can professionally critique a story. I am well trained to do that. But rate and review a story based on the story? Did it have a beginning, middle and end? Did they write comprehensible sentences and paragraphs?
Did they convey the story in any way the reader comprehended the author's hallucination?
As you may deduce by my questions, I asked questions about craft. A critique is technical, it is a criticism on the craft of writing. Reviews are commentary on the art of writing. You may look at any number of examples of art and may or may
not like any of them to some degree or another. There are no experts on art despite the protestations of art critics. (Note they are critics, not reviewers.)
This is my point.
I will give one example."Catcher in the Rye, by J. D. Salinger". Critically, it is excellent. Critically it is nearly flawless. As an editor, agent, or publisher I would not hesitate to publish this based on anything related to craft. Critically
my review would be 4.5 to 5 stars.
The story, the art... I hate the story. I hate Houlden. I think the novel is garbage. I would not publish that piece of garbage if it guaranteed to make me a billionaire. As art, I could say 1 star… it exists and I hate it, which is where
I have rated it. I have a dozen reasons I hate that story. If I’m honest all those reasons are more about me than Mr. Salinger’s character.
As you can see, my reaction to the story is about me in relation to the art. My reaction to the art. How I feel is irrelevant in almost every situation in life. Perhaps my spouse or children care about how I feel about Mr. Salinger’s story.
I'm pretty sure no spouse I ever had would have cared much about how I felt about it, beyond my reaction being entertaining or annoying to them.
Basically, that is the conclusion of my opinion about review RATINGS. It's art. Therefore, it is an opinion about my reaction. It is irrelevant regarding the actual art.
