Not every book can be a 5-star hit, but I'm curious how different people might react to a "mid" book. If you know a book is mid, would you still read it or prioritise something else? If you consider a book mid, would you still recommend it? Are all mid books rated in the 2.5-3.5 star range or... Idk, what kind of scale do you use?

What aspect(s) of a book are you more prone to tolerate being mid? Writing, plot, characters, the lack of a magic, talking cat? What aspect(s) make you dock off a half star?

Perhaps because I am OldTM, I'd also love to hear your thoughts on why you'd describe something as mid versus decent, basic, acceptable, nothing special, or any other term? Is it just the current lingo or does it encapsulate something more... more? To me, there's a slight negative connotation but maybe I'm understanding this wrong.

Personally, if I'm perusing a library, I won't check for ratings or reviews and will just try it out if the book interests me. Mid or not, it won't be a waste of time. If it were, I'd just DNF. Given the choice to get a digital copy of something I know I might enjoy better, though, I'm not sure I'd pick the former up.

Writing style is also not as big of a deal for me, along with one-dimensional characters. I can resonate with prettier or more profound writing, and certainly I'll point out cookie-cutter characters, but they don't take too big a dent from my rating--unless they're combined together and overall done badly with other aspects of the book.

So what do you think? How much time does a mid book deserve from you?

ETA: I literally have a book sitting on my bookshelf right now, gifted by a friend who loved it, because another friend basically told me it was mid. I have no idea how I'll get over this and finally read the damn thing. Advice appreciated.

If I only rate a book but didn't add a review, if I go back later to add the updated review do I get the extra points? Or is that a one shot chance when you finalize the book?