Since it seems readers do not like it when a reviewer gives a zero star/1 rating, I will also be forced to implement "grade inflation" in order for those tl;dr readers to be better able to correlate my "score" with those of other distinguished reviewers. Ostensibly, the scale will be based on ten, but in reality, it will go something like this:
6.66 – This work is of the devil. The prose is wretched, the characterizations pathetic, and there are too many Canadians ruining any possibility of narrative flow.
7.5 – This will be the default rating. It does not matter if the work is the nth volume of an epic fantasy series that fails to move the plot along or if the novel/collection in question is a brilliant riposte regarding the prejudices shown toward rabid squirrels, unless I get inebriated,stoned, or am betrayed by a rabid squirrel and contract rabies, this shall be the default rating.
8.675309 – The "Jenny" exception, reserved only for novels written by a Jenny or which feature a character named Jenny.
9.0210 – The "Beverly Hills" exception, reserved for novels set in Beverly Hills or which feature a character who thinks that Tori Spelling was a great actress.
Hopefully, these new ratings will help readers to better appreciate the subtle nuances that go into explaining why one novel was mediocre and received a 7.5 while another was brilliant and totally deserved that 7.5 rating. Does this help clear up any confusion about how well/poorly I rate novels now?