In my books review I avoided giving numerical votes because when I look back I usually disagree with myself. It happens often that you find you gave an higher vote to a book you liked less than another.
This happens because votes and ladders are used and useful as a comparative thing. But this also means that votes are going to change as you read more and have a broader view. The vote is relative to what you read.
So I was thinking how I would rate those books I read recently. Here is my current ladder:
9+ The Blade Itself – Simply brilliant, and I keep grinning every time I think about it. Oodles of charisma.
9 The Black Company – The first book. Perfect structure and really accomplished.
7.5 The Great Hunt – Jordan’s second. I liked it a lot, flows really well. I didn’t like where most people say it gets better (the end), but I still rate it high because it kept me hooked.
7+ and 8+ Gardens of the Moon – Here is Erikson. Two votes because one is objective (the lower) and the other subjective (higher). The fact is that I love the setting and scope, so this adds a subjective value, but at the same time I recognize some flaws and so I would rate it lower.
6.7 Shadows Linger – Glen Cook’s second. It was much weaker than the first. Too awkward and weird. I expected more.
6.5 and 7.5 The Eye of the World – Jordan’s first. In this case subjective is 6.5, objective is 7.5, the opposite of Erikson. Fact is that I was bored by the type of plot. I read it already and this book is for the most part a rip off of Tolkien. Too many parallels. At the same time (objective vote) it’s really well planned and executed. In its kind it’s one of the best if not the best, but for someone who already read fantasy it feels redundant and gives deja-vus.