I love reading and writing about what I have read, making the connections and marking the comparisons and contrasts. God has given man the amazing power to invent language and the means to record it which has created words and worlds that border on the eternal.
I read promiscuously with catholic tastes-—biography, history, classic fiction, mysteries, general science, travel, philosophy, theology, sports, humor, politics. I thrive on the odd juxtapositions of ideas and words that such an eclectic mix brings to my thinking and writing.
I find that I tend to be less generous (I prefer to think more realistic) in my star ratings than most reviewers. In my reviews I have my own fixed scale that I use:
5 stars - What a classic!
3 stars - Worth my time
1 stars - Well, OK, I guess
-3 stars - Waste of time
-5 stars - Waste of paper
Classics are timeless and universal; very few books deserve this rank.
Worth my time are books that I thoroughly enjoyed, including the writing, the style, the setting, the topic, and I would recommend to any reader. Sometimes, these books lack only the timelessness (too new) or universality (narrower subject) that defines a classic.
Books rated "Well, OK, I guess" while otherwise good have some flaw in one area (writing, topic, style, or other characteristic) that hinders the reader's enjoyment of an otherwise fine book.
Waste of time are books that are discernibly less well written than the first three categories but still have some redeeming qualities ("Guilty pleasures" fall in this category)
Wastes of paper are relentlessly awful and would be unlikable by any reader; very few books deserve this rank.