One of the problems with reviews - here and Amazon - is the star system. I don't have much time to review books I read for pleasure, but when I do I like to spend some time and discuss the work: what worked for me, what didn't, and so forth. And yet the first thing people will notice -sometimes, all they want to know about - is how many stars you gave it.

I really don't like the star system, but in our time-starved society when there are too many books and not enough time to read them I can understand why people will rate a book with three, four or five stars and leave it at that. Trouble is, there's a world of difference between three stars and two stars in the eye of the beholder. Two stars indicates a poor work, three stars points to an average piece. There's nothing in between.

I recently reviewed "The Last Temptation of Christ" and gave it two stars but with a detailed review. Two stars in the Goodreads system means "it was ok." And yes, that's how I felt about it. Neither brilliant nor poor.

However, a friend on Facebook who is a fan of the book, was puzzled and said "even your own review suggested it's worth more than two stars."

I see what he means, and how the review looks with the stars. But if reviews are subjective, the star system is even more so. Two stars: it was okay. Three stars: liked it. Four stars: really liked it.

It's not how good the book is - it's how you, the reader, personally feel about it. Liked it/didn't like it.I've read books I've admired but didn't enjoy or like, and I've read books that are rubbish but enjoyable. Perhaps I should continue reviews without adding stars?

Or perhaps a different system - a ten star rather than a five star would allow more.

What d'you think?