Which Type of Reviewer Are You?

Happy Friday, folks! Today I’m asking which type of reviewer are you? I’ve laid out 10 reviewer blueprints – which one do you most relate to?

Perhaps there’s another type that feels too blatant an omission not to pull me up on!

Feel free to let me know, even though I will do absolutely nothing about it.

There’ll undoubtedly be some crossovers but check out the list below and we’ll see what type of reviewer you most closely resemble.


The Analyst

You like to dissect a book to its core. Your reviews are mostly in-depth, looking at hidden meanings, metaphors, interconnecting themes, nuances of character development, author inspirations, plot techniques, writing styles – it’s all in there.

For people who like comprehensive reviews, yours are the ones to read – to sit back and relax as they are able to get a thorough understanding of whether a book will be for them or not.

A review written by you is not just a review; it’s a piece of work, of journalism, of academia.


The Heart on the Sleeve

A review for you is less about the what, why, how and much more to do with how it made you feel. If you loved a book, you sit down and throw your thoughts at the page in whatever order they come into your head – you didn’t even mention some of the supposedly important stuff but you wrote 3 paragraphs about something in the book you loved and it’s your frenzied passion that shows what you thought of a book.

Your reviews for books you love are invariably longer and more in depth than for those that were just pretty good.


The Methodologist

Your reviews follow a tried and tested structure that you rarely deviate from.

Everything is organised and controlled and you know how you’re going to approach each review in advance. You use the same headings or sections, or make sure to talk about the same things at the same points. You value giving the readers of your reviews some uniformity and familiarity to help them judge whether the next book is destined for mount TBR.


The Storyteller

You start writing a brief introduction to the overall plot and before you know it, your little summary has turned into several paragraphs detailing who all the characters are, what they’re doing, the situation in various locations in the story, how the magic system works and what the motivations for the bad guys are.

If a reader forgets some of the foundations halfway through, they can return to your review to get right back up to speed.


The Minimalist

You don’t believe a reader of a review needs to know too much about the book to decide whether to read it.

All that matters are the most prominent aspects, choosing to focus on the biggest strengths and/or weaknesses of the book and letting the reader of your review decide whether that piques their interest enough to look further.

Being to the point and easy to get an immediate feel for holds the most value to you.


The Joy-Spreader

Life is too short to read and review bad books. You’re here to share positivity and the books you loved. You see yourself more of a book recommender and prefer to talk about aspects of a book you enjoyed.

Putting people off books just isn’t your game. You know that over time people will begin to find out whether they share your particular loves and if so, a book review (recommendation) from you is a book they will be more likely to pick up.


The Realist

You’re not necessarily critical, but those joy spreaders are sailing in a different direction to you.

You don’t believe in sugar coating; you can still recommend a book whilst openly pointing out all its flaws. And if you don’t recommend a book, you need to be honest and tell people why a book wasn’t for you. You’re not here just to give the thumbs up, you believe there is value in finishing a book you’re not enjoying, or reviewing a book you disliked – no matter what. People need to read the negative reviews too.


The Distanced One

You try to steer clear of language such as “I thought” or “I enjoyed/didn’t enjoy” and see your reviewing role as more of an information hub to recommend a book to the right readers.

You don’t view yourself as there to decide whether the book is good or bad; you distance your sense of self and subjective views and try to adopt a less personal approach, using phrases such as “readers who enjoy romance will find plenty to enjoy” or “if you enjoyed book series x there will be a lot of parallels you might enjoy in this.”


The Mood Reviewer

You don’t really identify with any set reviewing style as it changes with your mood. You’re somebody who constantly likes to change it up, or unintentionally your mood as a reviewer affects what type of review you’re going to write.

Sometimes you feel like putting more work into the review, sometimes you just want to do the minimum and get it ticked off.


The Procrastinator

You let your completed books build up and delay writing a review. You come to write your review and you finished the book months ago. It’s no longer fresh in your mind.

Your reviewing life is plagued by referring back to notes, searching in the back of your mind or having another flick through the book to refresh yourself on what happened and what you want to write in your review. Or you simply have a great memory!

“Was that in this book or am I thinking of a different series?”


10 thoughts on “Which Type of Reviewer Are You?

  1. Great idea! This reminded me of the results sections of those quizzes you used to get in teenage magazines – “If you answered all A’s you are a Methodologist!!” Maybe you could come up with a quiz to accompany this?! I think I’m probably mostly a methodologist.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. unf, I think I’m a hard blend of some of these…Would love the be The Analyst but I’m definitely more of a Heart in the Sleeve type of reviewer. Which kinda ends up with me overthinking every review long after it’s posted because I keep realizing it’s all joyous blabbering that made me miss things I wanted to bring up… Would not recommend xD

    Also toeing the line between Joy-Spreader (I admire anyone who has the drive to write long about books they hated but most times I don’t have the mindset for that) and Realist. I like to think I rec books for what they are, with a mix of hyping books I loved above all. Tho I could be wrong and be just a jumble of mess lol.

    And let’s face it, all of us have a Procrastinator side that rears its head from time to time…

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Great post! I think I’m a blend of some of these (such as analyst, joy-spreader, minimalist), as how I write my review often depends on what kind of book I’m reviewing.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Loved this haha! I always try to be a methodologist, but I think it turns more into a combi of the hearton the sleeve and the storyteller haha, but also sometimes minimalist!

    (www.evelynreads.com)

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: