Enhancing Our Grading System

[Jean]

This thread is where we discuss the possible enhancement of our grading system. Sorry for possible inconsistencies - posts have been copied here from Round 2 threads. I tried to add clarifications, but may have missed something.

Re: 'Salem's Lot grading in Round 2


Surprised to see ratings so low - one of the best behind IT and Gunslinger in my opinion.

yes. It is because the system needs perfectioning. I will have to give It, my favorite King book ever (as it is yours) a B on "strength of plot", and I have already given same to The Stand. I really really do not think we love King for his plots (mainly nonexistent) or endings (often hated by most)

[mae]

yes. It is because the system needs perfectioning.

Jean, if you have anything in mind, I'd love to discuss it with you.

[Garrell]

Blah - as much as I loved the series, this one almost killed me from ever reading it.

[biomieg]

Just substitute 'Strength of Plot' with 'Strength of Story'.

[Jean]

yes

King has wonderful stories, but they are not always fitted into good plots. The question now is, whether or not it is important, and to what extent, to the quality of a novel.

pablo: I think this version of grading, the one we've always had, is superb, generalily speaking, but maybe now that we've collected some statistics of voting over the years we can begin thinking of reajusting it specially for King. Maybe we should dedicate the next year to discussing the possible readjustments, site-wide. What biomieg said sounds very good to me, and maybe working all together we might have other great ideas as well

[Jean]

the same happened to me. The novel just wasn't enjoyable. All the same, the plot - the main idea, the travel, the meetings, the flashback, the events - is superb, the main character classic (the others not bad, either), and the ending unforgettable. All the three As, however, do not make up for the stilty writing, trite philosophy and overall puerility of the novel.

[pathoftheturtle]

Also not sure that what King does is Character Development. He's very good at Characterization -- he creates and presents characters who are believable and affecting... but only sometimes do the events they experience actually change them in meaningful ways.

[Jean]

I just thought about it when I tried to grade Pet Sematary. There is no character development, or no characters to speak of - but it's the analysis of what is happening inside father's soul, all the evolutions of his grief and obsession what makes the book, so it sure has something to do with the second question of the poll. Maybe it's just "psychology" rather than "development"; I personally would much rather speak of soul, but I realize that it is not a widely accepted term.

There are some developing characters, of course - Harold and Larry, with their opposite vectors, come to mind immediately - but I agree it is not very often.

[Heather19]

Re: The Gunslinger grading in Round 2 (replying to Jean's grading it as AAA)

Hmmm, but if you didn't like it...

I think we need a better grading system. I can't give a book I didn't like an A so I've just been voting based on my overall feelings of the book.

[divemaster]

It's funny how these votes pan out for me. I gave Pet Semetary A A A, but there are plenty of these Round 2 books I like better (or think are better books) but by these categories I had to rate lower.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that this 3-category grading system does not reflect how I really would rank these books as far as my overall assessment of enjoyment or entertainment value is concerned.

[Jean]

Hmmm, but if you didn't like it...

I think we need a better grading system. I can't give a book I didn't like an A so I've just been voting based on my overall feelings of the book.

that's how I voted the two previous times, but now I feel it is not the right thing to do. The plot and the rest of the current grading criteria may be awesome, and still one may not like the book, being dissatisfied, for example, with the writing. I think, for example, that Wizard and Glass has the best plot imaginable, and one of the best King has ever created - and still I am very unhappy with the book. And vice versa: my favorite writer, Dickens, has only created absurd, sloppy plots, at the same time convoluted and inconsistent - and I love every word he wrote, and there's nothing better for me than his novels, pathetic as they are, plot-wise.

[pathoftheturtle]

So it's agreed we're sticking to this system this year. Yes? So, I think it might help if pablo detailed his own votes and reasoning for numerous examples in this round, just to better illustrate the intention of the existing standards.
Anyhow, I'm sure we're all grateful to him for designing them. I know that I am certainly quite impressed by his work in most respects on this forum, for one person at least.

[mae]

Well, first, thanks for the gratitude, but I wasn't the one who designed the polls, actually. It was Aaron, and I believe it's a fair and balanced system, touching upon all the main parts of a novel or collection. I think it was and is a very good system to gauge popular opinion based on a three-tiered system. That said, I think a reworking of the system is certainly something to look at, I think there is always room for improvement. Once this contest is done, we'll start a new thread for suggestions and opinions on how to evolve the CRAs going forward.

[Heather19]

It's funny how these votes pan out for me. I gave Pet Semetary A A A, but there are plenty of these Round 2 books I like better (or think are better books) but by these categories I had to rate lower.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that this 3-category grading system does not reflect how I really would rank these books as far as my overall assessment of enjoyment or entertainment value is concerned.

Absolutely. I have been saying the same since the start of this round; maybe our voting experience has accumulated in years, and now it's time for some changes. I will collect all observations to the same effect, and then we'll have a duscussion of how we'd rather grade the books.

That's where I've been voting based on how much I enjoyed the book overall. I guess I'm taking the questions in a much broader term than you guys. I just can't give an A to a book I don't like (unless it has a redeeming feature in one of the categories). And vise versa, if I loved it, I'm pretty unlikely to give it a C in a category. My criteria is one - how much I enjoyed the overall plot or storyline to the book, two - how much I enjoyed the characters (not necessarily their development, but whether or not I thought they were strong or entertaining), and three - what I thought about the ending. Sorry if this discussion should go elsewhere.


Back on topic with this thread I rated this book AAA. This one holds a special place in my heart. I loved it.

[skyofcrack]

It's funny how these votes pan out for me. I gave Pet Semetary A A A, but there are plenty of these Round 2 books I like better (or think are better books) but by these categories I had to rate lower.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that this 3-category grading system does not reflect how I really would rank these books as far as my overall assessment of enjoyment or entertainment value is concerned.

Absolutely. I have been saying the same since the start of this round; maybe our voting experience has accumulated in years, and now it's time for some changes. I will collect all observations to the same effect, and then we'll have a duscussion of how we'd rather grade the books.

I think for the novels you could list the main characters and we can rate them on a likable scale (1-5 or 10). Also, rate the plot and ending (from good to bad). For the collections, list all the stories to rate separately. The problem now is we have to lump all the stories together as a group to rate them.

[pathoftheturtle]

Nah: we have an appended categories sideshow tourney for that kind of thing. Rating whole collections (of stories and of characters) is fine, IMO, for the main "best book" contest, as long as it stays apples to apples. Yes, there may be room for improvement in this, but I'm happy doing best short and most likable protagonists plus most unlikable antagonists in that other area.

[Jean]

Re: Pet Sematary grading in Round 2

I still haven't voted.

I can't make myself give a B for characters in a novel where no character development is needed.

[Heather19]

So give it an A if you like the characters or C if you disliked? I don't think a book has to have character development to have strong characters.

[divemaster]

I still haven't voted.

I can't make myself give a B for characters in a novel where no character development is needed.

Jean, by this and other posts of yours I think you might have a unique position on what "character development" is. I don't believe one should be looking at it from a standpoint of "how does this character change or evolve over the course of the story." Some well-written and interesting characters may not undergo any sort of "development" in that sense.

To me (and I suspect most others), character development refers to how well the author has created an interesting, complex character. For example, Stu Redman in The Stand. You may not think he "develops" over the course of the novel--that indeed he's the same ole' Stu throughout. But that's ok! The question you should be asking is "how well did the author develop this character that he presents to us?"

Some authors use characters to merely move the plot along. Agatha Christie, for example. No one could accuse any of her characters from being very developed, but they serve the purpose of the mystery. Koontz is hit or miss. But I think for the most part King gives us complex, well-developed characters. To me, if I've finished a novel and feel like I know that person, what makes him tick; that I'm able to tap into his mind and emotions--that is a well-developed character regardless of whether he changes over the course of the story.

[pathoftheturtle]

That's reasonable, divemaster, but I don't think it's true that Jean has a "unique" position on the term or that "most" others define it as you do; that is, based on my own (partially completed) studies as an English Literature/Theatre double major. I wrote a couple of plays and analyzed MANY as an actor and director for the stage... I mean, I studied prose as well, of several kinds, but my own understanding of "Character Development" will probably always bear the imprint of the Stanislavski position. I would call what you're talking about "Characterization" or "Character Background." Of course, SK is a particular type of writer, and he says himself in the Full Dark, No Stars afterward that he's less interested in "extraordinary people in ordinary situations" than in "ordinary people in extraordinary situations" which is fine and good, we all like his style, I guess, or we wouldn't be members here... but some of us do still have interest in styles of the former kind, sometimes, too. If we SHOULD be concentrating on "how well did the author develop this character that he presents to us?" for the purposes of these awards, then maybe it should be relabeled to simply "Characters."

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

I measure character development as a correlation of how well I feel like I know the character by the end. How they feel? How they think? What motivates them. Can I hear their voice in my head when I am reading their dialogue. For that, I think that character development less in this novel than in other King novels. Thus, I gave a B. However, I agree with Jean, in that character development is not necessary in this story.

BTW, maybe it was because we know a little backstory about him, but I though Judd was the most clearly developed character and he was an extra.

[Jean]

divemaster - being a foreigner, I wasn't sure in which sense the word "development" was used in the definition of the category.

Personally, I never judged the strength of a character in a book by their changing or not changing. I don't think I ever said I did, either.


If we SHOULD be concentrating on "how well did the author develop this character that he presents to us?" for the purposes of these awards, then maybe it should be relabeled to simply "Characters."
Maybe, yes. Tonight I will make a special thread for our ideas on improving the grading, and move all the relevant posts there; then we'll see where we are.

[Shannon]

Re: TWL grading in Round 2

I liked the cliffhanger ending. But you're right, if it were a single book, that would be a crappy place to end it. But wouldn't all the DT books' endings suck if we were just looking at them individually? Book One: Walking walking walking, no tower. Book Two: Walking walking walking, no tower. Etc.

[Jean]

I liked the cliffhanger ending. But you're right, if it were a single book, that would be a crappy place to end it. But wouldn't all the DT books' endings suck if we were just looking at them individually? Book One: Walking walking walking, no tower. Book Two: Walking walking walking, no tower. Etc.
That's why I want next time to try excluding the DT books from CRA, and maybe have a DT CRA separately. I'll start a thread tomorrow where we will discuss all possible variations and ways to enhance this event; I'll copy the relevant posts there.

[Heather19]

I liked the cliffhanger ending. But you're right, if it were a single book, that would be a crappy place to end it. But wouldn't all the DT books' endings suck if we were just looking at them individually? Book One: Walking walking walking, no tower. Book Two: Walking walking walking, no tower. Etc.
That's why I want next time to try excluding the DT books from CRA, and maybe have a DT CRA separately. I'll start a thread tomorrow where we will discuss all possible variations and ways to enhance this event; I'll copy the relevant posts there.

I'd actually be all for that. I know I've said it before, but I think the DT votes kinda skew things. We're on a DT site, giving those books an unfair advantage. Also it's hard to judge them on their own knowing the overall story. Personally I'd love to see a ranking without them.

[Jean]

posting just to let people know that we have this new thread now

all suggestions are very welcome

[mae]

Jean, you often talk about the quality of the actual writing, and I think that would make a good grading category, how well a book is written.

[Jean]

that was my first thought!

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/BEAR-HUG.jpg

[Merlin1958]

Sort of random, but I often wonder what Mr. King would have to say if he weighed in on these type of threads. Don't you all? Not meant as an indictment or anything just general speculation. Like the kid in "Sixth Sense". "I think weird thoughts"!!!!


:lol1:

[Jean]

it would be humanly interesting, but, in my opinion, not very relevant. It's the readers who can evaluate the merits of a literary work, not the author. He has already done all he could about it.

[Heather19]

Thanks for putting this together. You've got my opinions here already, so I don't think I need to restate them. I just think they need to be rewritten maybe? All three are important aspects of a book. Although in my opinion I'm not entirely sure ending is as relevant as the other 2 categories. And I agree, how well it's written definitely does sound like a good thing to add.

[Jean]

do you think that the three categories might be (roughly): story - characters - writing?

[Heather19]

Personally I like that :)

[divemaster]

do you think that the three categories might be (roughly): story - characters - writing?

I like this approach also. Those aspects should be emphasized, whereas "story ending" is not really a pertinent way to measure the worth of a book.

[pathoftheturtle]

What about collections? Categories for those also could use a little tweaking, I reckon. Different set from novels is a good idea, though. For that matter, I like the three rounds in general, and basically the whole status quo of this annual tourney. Only this that we're discussing did always bug me a bit. Nice work pulling this thread together, Jean.

[fernandito]

The more I think about it, the more I agree that we should go with Jean's suggestion of grading The Dark Tower as one book.

[Jean]

The more I think about it, the more I agree that we should go with Jean's suggestion of grading The Dark Tower as one book.I really suggest trying it next year. And the year after the next, I suggest removing TDT from the competition altogether, and see how this would influence the results.

[mae]

With tons respect due, I don't really see how voting for The Dark Tower as one book will be beneficial. They are all very different books. Some are great (The Drawing of the Three, Song of Susannah), some are very good (The Gunslinger, The Waste Lands, The Dark Tower), and some are meh (Wizard and Glass, Wolves of the Calla). In my most humblest and insignificant of opinions, of course. Plus there's The Wind Through the Keyhole for next time. Which is why there was always the disclaimer to vote on the DT books as separate entities. Leaving them off altogether is an option, but doesn't seem fair, as we're choosing The Best King Book of All Time. We can, however, maybe separate the CRAs into book categories, choosing the Best Novel, Best Collection, and Best Dark Tower Novel. And then have those winners face each other for the ultimate prize.

[Brice]

I consider the dark tower series to be one book. Just as I have favorite parts of any other book I have favorite parts of this one. I would no more favor splitting the main storyline (7 books) than I would favor splitting another story and voting them against each other.

[Jean]

what Brice said

[fernandito]

Instead of grading them as one book, hows about we grade them as one story. I think we can all agree on that technicality.

[mae]

I was thinking that early in 2014 we begin our sometimes annual Constant Reader Awards and I would like to restructure the bracketing and the grading system. I would love to hear suggestions. The bracketing needs changing because the number of titles keeps growing. And the grading, while, in my opinion, very good, could still use some adjustment, too.

[mae]

If we leave off the eight DT novels for the upcoming awards voting, we may not need very much restructuring, just rewording of the actual vote questions (because I like the internal grading system itself). So we can still stick to 60 overall titles - we'd just need to sneak in a dubious title like The Plant or Ghost Brothers of Darkland County, both legitimate parts of King's bibliography. Thus, first round voting, like in the past, would be in twelve brackets of five titles as such:

Bracket 1:

Carrie
'Salem's Lot
The Shining
Rage
Night Shift


Bracket 2:

The Stand
The Long Walk
The Dead Zone
Firestarter
Roadwork


Bracket 3:

Danse Macabre
Cujo
The Running Man
Different Seasons
Christine


Bracket 4:

Pet Sematary
Cycle of the Werewolf
The Talisman
Thinner
Skeleton Crew


Bracket 5:

It
The Eyes of the Dragon
Misery
The Tommyknockers
Nightmares in the Sky


Bracket 6:

The Dark Half
Four Past Midnight
Needful Things
Gerald's Game
Dolores Claiborne


Bracket 7:

Nightmares & Dreamscapes
Insomnia
Rose Madder
The Green Mile
Desperation


Bracket 8:

The Regulators
Bag of Bones
Storm of the Century
The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon
Hearts in Atlantis


Bracket 9:

On Writing
Secret Windows
Dreamcatcher
Black House
Everything's Eventual


Bracket 10:

From a Buick 8
Faithful
The Colorado Kid
Cell
Lisey's Story


Bracket 11:

Blaze
Duma Key
Just After Sunset
Under the Dome
Blockade Billy


Bracket 12:

Full Dark, No Stars
11/22/1963
Joyland
Ghost Brothers of Darkland County
Doctor Sleep


Now, the question is, should the top two books in each bracket (winner and runner-up) automatically move on, as before, with the remaining highest-scoring books being the wildcards that fill out the Top 30 which moves on to the second round, or should it be a straight 1 through 30 ranking? Each method has its advantages. Straight ranking is arguably fairer, but the top-two system provides more balance.

[Heather19]

My personal choice would be a straight 1-30 ranking. It's definitely fairer. What if King has a bad era, and those books move on when there's without a doubt better works by him? I think it usually turned out that they would make it on anyways, but this would guarantee it.

Also can you refresh my memory on the initial voting phase. Do we rank them based on the brackets they're in or is it stand alone voting for each book?

[Jean]

My personal choice would be a straight 1-30 ranking. It's definitely fairer. What if King has a bad era, and those books move on when there's without a doubt better works by him? I think it usually turned out that they would make it on anyways, but this would guarantee it.bears agree :rose:

[mae]

My personal choice would be a straight 1-30 ranking. It's definitely fairer. What if King has a bad era, and those books move on when there's without a doubt better works by him? I think it usually turned out that they would make it on anyways, but this would guarantee it.

Also can you refresh my memory on the initial voting phase. Do we rank them based on the brackets they're in or is it stand alone voting for each book?

Since it looks like the Dark Tower novels will indeed participate in the upcoming Constant Reader Awards as eight separate entries, the above bracket list will have to be restructured. I'd like more feedback on the methodology: the 1 through 30 option, or the top-two in each bracket plus the wildcards as before. To remind, everyone, the first round of the process involves rating each book on its own merits and then at the end of Round 1 the top 30 books move on to Round 2.

[mae]

The brackets then would look like this:

Bracket 1:

Carrie
'Salem's Lot
The Shining
Rage
Night Shift


Bracket 2:

The Stand
The Long Walk
The Dead Zone
Firestarter
Roadwork


Bracket 3:

Danse Macabre
Cujo
The Running Man
The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger
Different Seasons


Bracket 4:

Christine
Pet Sematary
Cycle of the Werewolf
The Talisman
Thinner


Bracket 5:

Skeleton Crew
It
The Eyes of the Dragon
The Dark Tower II: The Drawing of the Three
Misery


Bracket 6:

The Tommyknockers
The Dark Half
Four Past Midnight
The Dark Tower III: The Waste Lands
Needful Things


Bracket 7:

Gerald's Game
Dolores Claiborne
Nightmares & Dreamscapes
Insomnia
Rose Madder


Bracket 8:

The Green Mile
Desperation
The Regulators
The Dark Tower IV: Wizard and Glass
Bag of Bones


Bracket 9:

Storm of the Century
The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon
Hearts in Atlantis
On Writing
Dreamcatcher


Bracket 10:

Black House
Everything's Eventual
From a Buick 8
The Dark Tower V: Wolves of the Calla
The Dark Tower VI: Song of Susannah


Bracket 11:

The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower
Faithful
The Colorado Kid
Cell
Lisey's Story


Bracket 12:

Blaze
Duma Key
Just After Sunset
Under the Dome
Blockade Billy


Bracket 13:

Full Dark, No Stars
11/22/1963
The Dark Tower: The Wind Through the Keyhole
Joyland
Doctor Sleep


Yes, 13 brackets now. Meaning if we're going the wildcard route, the top two in each bracket will be moving on, as well as the remaining top four.

[stroppygoblin]

I'm not going to enjoy this game.
Choosing only 2from some of those early groups is like choosing which 2 of your 5 children you love most :(

[Jean]

I suggest grouping them differently. This way, I am afraid everyone will agree, we make the classic compete with the mediocre instead of weeding out the mediocre at early stages

[mae]

Well the books in the First Round aren't competing against one another. They are all graded on their own merits. So we can go with a straight 1 through 30 ranking. I'm fine with either way. The way we did it before, the top two books in each bracket moved on and the rest of the Top 30 was filled out by the wildcards, those that ranked highest among the books which weren't top two in their brackets. So that provided balance.

[Heather19]

Personally I'd vote for a straight ranking. I think its the fairest way for the best to move on.

[mae]

That's what I'm leaning toward, too.

[pathoftheturtle]

I think it would still be more fair if they were grouped randomly.

[mae]

The groupings have no effect if we're just using straight 1 through 30 ranking, since each book is rated individually.

[Jean]

I am all for straight ranking

pablo, can you unearth and post here the positions we were grading by? I remember having some problems with those

[mae]

Sure thing, Jean.

In Round 1 each book is rated on its own merits using the following scale:


5: I loved it
4: It was good
3: Average
2: Only so-so
1: I didn't like it
Never read


The results are then averaged, giving the book its Round 1 rating. The top 30 then move on to Round 2.

In Round 2, the books are graded A, B, or C in the categories of Strength of Plot, Character Development, and Quality of the Story's Ending (for non-novels it's a little different). The average score from that is then added to the Round 1 score, and the top 10 books move on to Round 3, where they finally face off against one another, with the question being "Please vote for the book you would rather re-read".

I'm open for any suggestions on rewording these questions, but I'd like to keep the overall poll structure the same, if possible.

[Jean]

can we expand the first round grading at least to 10? Starting with something like "one of my favorite books ever", going through "adored it" etc, --- to "liked it" --- to"hated it" --- and "wish King hadn't written it"?

[mae]

I think we could expand the Round 1 rating, I was actually just thinking about it. How about:


5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1
0
Never read


Assign whatever descriptors you feel are necessary.

[Heather19]

Just my thoughts, but maybe for the final round instead of re-read, which would you rather read, or maybe even do you like better? We're pitting two books against each other right? I know in the past people have made comments voting for one book since they had just read the other, even though they technically liked the one they didn't vote for more.

And for round 2, does the quality of the ending of the book really affect your overall impression of the book? For me personally, no, but I'm not sure what else to substitute.

[Jean]

I agree. King normally writes endings that people hate. I know that UTD is totally ruined by the ending for many, which is a shame, because it is a fantastic book.

[mae]

What would be your preference for the Round 2 polls? Round 3 can be worded Which book is better etc. no problem.

[Jean]

bears are thinking

[stroppygoblin]

bears are thinking

http://www.greenpacks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/coastal-brown-bear-thinking.jpg

[mae]

And we're gonna need a new 2014 sub-forum here and icon.

[Jean]

bears are thinking

http://www.greenpacks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/coastal-brown-bear-thinking.jpg

: bearwink :

some results of this exausting thinking process:

1. We must add the quality of writing somewhere. I know I represent extreme views here, but for me a book is the writing.
2. I don't really understand what Strength of Plot is, or if it means what I think it means, then why it is there. The plot as I understand it, and especially its strength, has little to do with the quality of the story itself. For example, the plot of The Stand can be reduced to one short and abysmally trivial sentence, and the plot of 'Salem's Lot is unoriginal to the point of nonexistence. I think we should somehow re-formulate it with the emphasis on the story.

[mae]

I completely agree, so how would we restructure the Round 2 polls? I'd still prefer to have three categories where we vote A, B, or C.

[Heather19]

I was thinking the same thing Jean. I was going to suggest the writing as the other point, but then considering they're all written by the same author, I wasn't sure if that made sense to anyone but me. But I do agree that his writing style has changed over the years and some stories are written stronger than others.

I always interpreted plot to mean story. It could have a simple plot, but if the story is captivating, that's what I was voting on.

[kaufen]

Like the kid in "Sixth Sense". "I think weird thoughts"!!!!

[amd013]

Ok the above post brought this thread to my attention, and I started from the beginning with the hope that since there was new activity on the thread, maybe there was a new awards for 2017 starting, but unfortunately that doesn't look like the case. Is there any possibility of there being a new one? I don't think there has been one since I joined the site.

Based on the comments through the history of this thread, here are some of my comments, if there ever is a new CRA.

1) prefer a random grouping, as all the original doubleday books (except Carrie) would be in my top 10.
2) prefer a simple number rating. Don't want to have to think about the various questions I heard mentioned in previous threads. For example many of these books I last read circa 1983. I have strong memories of how I felt about the books, and in most cases memories of the story and plot, but there are lots of holes. I would probably rate Roadwork as unread, even though I have read it, as that is the only book that I have no recollection about what it is about.
3) which brings me to my next question. How did you guys hand "did not read" rattings? Just didn't factor that person into the average? I would suggest that any book that has a certain percentage of unread votes be disqualified. (maybe 40%?)
4) Why was 30 the amount to move on to the next round? Seems like 32 would be a logical choice being a power of 2, which would allow a head to head bracket to be built.

[mae]

Ok the above post brought this thread to my attention, and I started from the beginning with the hope that since there was new activity on the thread, maybe there was a new awards for 2017 starting, but unfortunately that doesn't look like the case. Is there any possibility of there being a new one? I don't think there has been one since I joined the site.

You're in luck! See here: http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?20882-The-Constant-Reader-Awards-will-return-in-2018!

[kaufen]

Personally I like that.

[kaufen]

I think that would make a good grading category, how well a book is written.