For those of you who are unaware, Socratic Seminars are defined as "collaborative, intellectual dialogue facilitated with open-ended questions about a text." I use these in my classroom to get my students engaged in the text we are reading/discussing. It works much better than just having them stare at me for 45 minutes.
I've been in this weird reading slump lately where the past few books I've read have just been okay. They haven't blown me away, but they haven't warranted a DNF either. I also think because of this, I haven't picked up a book in a while - like a week.
Granted, I've been a bit busy with wedding things, but to not read a least a chapter? A few pages? Quite unlike me.
Not to mention, the last two books I did read, I haven't reviewed. Also, unlike me.
I sat down to write reviews for these books a few times, but realized I didn't have anything to say. There was nothing for me to gush about, but there weren't major flaws for me to point out. The book was precisely middle of the road. I enjoyed it, but that's about it.
So, how does one rate/review an average read? "It was good. Nothing to write home about, nothing awful either. Characters were neat and I liked the story."
Do I write reviews for books I felt were average? Do I force myself to sit at my computer and write it? Do I hope that one day I'll wake up and know exactly what to say about this book? Or do I just say "Well, I rated it on Goodreads and that'll have to be enough"?
What do you do? Do you review your average reads or just chalk it up as a book you (unintentionally) read just for fun?