In creating this book club, we debated if we should give scores. We went through all the usual arguments for and against doing so…and as you can see, we ultimately decided in favor. Scoring is a helpful framing mechanism, indicating our argument(s) about the book’s qualities and linkages to external conversations, histories, and genealogies.
Of course, our hope is that those scores are the beginning vs. the end of our dialogue with fellow readers; the deeper conversations that ensue are where the full picture and nuance will appear.
So then the question became: what exactly is our rubric? Earlier this year, Pitchfork made their album-scoring rubric public. Love them or hate them, Pitchfork has produced perhaps the most rigorous and durable scoring mechanism of any critical outlet, so we decided to translate their standards into book reviewing.
For folks unfamiliar with Pitchfork’s unflinching approach, you’ll notice that these adapted standards are much tougher than more conventional ratings (a “best of the year” might only receive an 8/10, while a “very good” book might only receive a 7/10). This ensures that we’re being as careful as we can be as reviewers, not just about the book itself but where it sits in broader conversations. A word of caution: this will probably mean that we end up rating books “lower” than you’d expect or hope at some point, but we hope you’ll refer to this rubric to understand how and why we arrived at the respective score.
With that out of the way, we give you: The Hidden Systems Book Club Rating Scale.
10.0 (Masterpiece, once in a generation+)
One of the best books you’ve ever read. A work you expect to stay with you for years and that feels culturally, intellectually, or artistically important. You’d defend its place in the canon, or argue that it deserves one.
9.1-9.9 (Instant classic, “Best of the Decade”)
Extraordinary. Feels timeless, groundbreaking, or both. The writing, ideas, characters, structure, or emotional impact are exceptional. Changes how you think about its genre or what a book can do. You’ll probably be recommending it for years.
8.6-9.0 (A major work, but not quite “Best of the Decade”)
A book worth reading regardless of whether it’s normally “your thing.” Ambitious, distinctive, and deeply accomplished. It takes meaningful artistic or intellectual risks and largely pulls them off. There’s something vital about it.
8.0-8.5 (“Best of the Year”)
One of the best books you’ve read this year. Demonstrates real mastery of craft, delivers unusually powerful ideas or emotions, or does something genuinely exciting with its genre. An enthusiastic recommendation.
7.6-7.9 (Great, especially if it’s “your thing”)
Highly recommended. Exceptionally good at what it sets out to do, with few meaningful weaknesses. Maybe it doesn’t reinvent literature, but it’s difficult to imagine a much better version of this particular book.
7.0-7.5 (Very good)
Easy to recommend. Engaging, thoughtful, well executed, and rarely dull. It may play things a little safe, or its ambitions may occasionally exceed its execution, but the overall experience is worthwhile.
6.6-6.9 (Good, not great)
Worth reading, particularly if the premise, author, subject, or genre appeals to you. There are memorable characters, passages, arguments, or ideas, but also noticeable weaknesses. You’re glad you read it, even if you wouldn’t insist everyone else should.
6.0-6.5 (Pretty good)
Interesting, but flawed. There’s enough here to appreciate or discuss, although the problems are hard to ignore. Fans of this kind of book (or author, or series) will probably get considerably more from it than everyone else.
5.6-5.9 (Decent)
Some genuinely good qualities, but substantial problems get in the way. Perhaps a great premise with mediocre execution, strong writing with a weak story, or fascinating ideas buried in an otherwise frustrating book.
5.0-5.5 (Not particularly good or bad)
Not a disaster, but you probably wouldn’t recommend it. There are worthwhile moments, yet the overall reading experience doesn’t quite justify the time or effort.
4.0-4.9 (Bad)
A frustrating or unsuccessful book. Significant problems with the writing, storytelling, characterization, argument, structure, or execution overwhelm whatever works.
3.0-3.9 (Really bad)
Deeply unsuccessful. Poorly conceived or executed to the point that finding things to praise becomes difficult. The book club discussion may be considerably more enjoyable than the book.
2.0-2.9 (Terrible)
Almost nothing works. Reading it feels less like encountering a flawed book and more like enduring a series of increasingly questionable decisions.
1.0-1.9 (Terrible…but in an “interesting” way)
Not merely awful: the book represents something you actively dislike about publishing, literature, its genre, or the ideas it advances. Its failures are bigger than the book itself. At least you’ll have plenty to argue about.
0.0-0.9 (Irredeemable)
You can find virtually nothing of value in it. Finishing the book should entitle you to some form of compensation.