MUSINGS: Three Stars Upon Thars... Or No?

There is often a great debate among book reviewers that I have seen, and also participated in. If you feel a book deserves less than 3 stars, what do you do? Personally, I am a bit perplexed as to why this is a debate. I mean, you just rate it... Right? Apparently, there are many who believe that it is "cruel" or "unfair" to give a book less than 3 stars. So, they either rate all books 3+ stars, or they just don't review it at all. You see, the author obviously worked very hard on the book, so it isn't nice to rate it poorly. I most certainly take issue with that type of thinking. Did the author work hard? Sure, probably. I have written a couple of novels, so I get it. (No, they never saw the light of day. I did it for fun when I was younger. My point still stands.). Their hard work doesn't give them an automatic high score, though. You aren't judging the author, you are judging their book (at least, you should be!). You are sharing your honest opinion. You are helping other readers decide if they might like the book. I have totally gotten excited to read a book based in 1- and 2-star reviews! What they didn't like was right up my alley. To take it a step further, you, as the reviewer, are also helping the author, no matter what you rate their book. Take the time to explain the rating you are giving. What did you not like, and why? What did you want more of? The author can't imorove without constructive feedback, and just keeping quiet if you didn't like the book is an injustice to them and all future books they may write. Do you know who else you hurt when you refuse to rate less than 3 stars? Authors who truly deserve that book to have 3+ star reviews. It is so incredibly frustrating as a reader to try to find a new book on GoodReads or Amazon and every damn book has 3-4 stars on average. NOT EVERY BOOK SHOULD BE RATED THAT HIGH! Sorry for the caps, but it needs to be said. I get so bothered when I see amazing books that deserve 3.5-4.5 stars get lost in the shuffle of mediocre books that readers were too scared to rate honestly. I think it's important to really consider what you are rating a book and your reasons why. When I am writing a review, especially one that is 3 or below, I always try to come from the perspective of what the author's assumed intent was, and how well that was orchestrated. I would never lower a rating because, for instance, I was reading a fluffy romance that was obviously intended to be a quick guilty-pleasure read and wished it was deeper or less formulaic. Sometimes, you just want some popcorn, and that's okay. Authors are allowed to write fluff, and maybe that book was wonderfully fluffy, which means they deserve credit for that accomplishment. Don't get me wrong - I don't hand out 1 and 2 stars often. A lot has to be wrong to get less than 3, but there are still books that deserve those. As you may see in my F.A.Q., I don't rain on book birthdays, or during tours. I keep my review back for a week or two, or reach out to see about sharing an excerpt or interview instead. I understand that a book is someone's baby. I just also understand that it, unlike a baby, can be changed by the author, and - not unlike a baby - helps the author grow. What do you think? Where do you fall on the - apparently controversial - topic of lower ratings?