How Do Readers Compare Characters In A Book Review Of Popular Books?

Most reviews I see start with a direct matchup: 'Character A is braver than Character B.' It’s a bit surface-level, but it helps new readers get a quick sense of who they might root for. Like, comparing Katniss Everdeen to Tris Prior—both in dystopian YA, but their approaches to rebellion are totally different, and pointing that out clarifies the tone of each book. I find myself doing this too when I’m trying to explain why I preferred one book over another; it’s easier to talk about people than plots sometimes.

What gets annoying is when the comparison feels forced because the books aren’t that similar. Saw someone trying to measure Fitz from 'The Farseer Trilogy' against Paul Atreides from 'Dune' purely on their 'chosen one' fatigue, and it just didn’t land for me. The contexts are too far apart. But maybe that’s just me being picky. I do think these comparisons are useful when they focus on archetypes or emotional journeys rather than specific plot points. Helps you know if you’re in for a grueling tragedy or a hopeful coming-of-age.

Okay, hot take: sometimes character comparisons in reviews are less about the text and more about the reviewer’s personal baggage. You’ll see a long thread arguing whether Gideon the Ninth is a better lesbian disaster than, I don’t know, someone from a completely different genre, and it spirals into fandom preferences rather than literary merit. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! It’s fun. But as a reader trying to decide if I should pick up a book, I need comparisons that are grounded in the narrative mechanics.

Like, when people contrast the moral ambiguity of Baru Cormorant with the ruthless pragmatism of Jorg Ancrath from 'Prince of Thorns', that tells me something concrete about the type of story I’m getting into. One is a calculated schemer in a colonial system, the other is a violent force of chaos. That distinction matters way more than who’s 'cooler.' I wish more reviewers would lean into those thematic contrasts instead of just popularity contests.

So I've been reading a ton of reviews lately, especially for big series like 'The Poppy War' or 'A Court of Thorns and Roses', and I notice people compare characters in a few predictable but honestly useful ways. First, they often pit protagonists against each other—like, is Rin more morally compromised than June from 'Legend'? It’s rarely just about who’s stronger; it’s about their choices and the consequences. Then there’s the foil comparison, where a side character highlights the main character’s flaws or virtues, which reviewers love to dissect.

But what really catches my eye is when readers compare characters across different books entirely. Like, someone will say Kaz Brekker from 'Six of Crows' is a darker, more strategic version of Locke Lamora from 'The Lies of Locke Lamora'. That kind of cross-universe analysis tells me more about what the reviewer values—cunning over charm, maybe—than about the books themselves. It’ s a shorthand for recommending similar vibes.

Honestly, I think the most insightful comparisons happen when reviewers dig into character dynamics rather than just listing traits. How a character’s relationship with power differs from another’s, or how their internal conflicts mirror each other despite different settings. That’s where you get beyond 'this character is good' and into why the story works or doesn’t. I tend to skim reviews that just say 'I love X' without that deeper contrast.

It often boils down to relatability for me. In reviews, I look for comparisons that hint at which character’s struggles mirror real-life dilemmas—say, the academic pressure on Nita from 'So You Want to Be a Wizard' versus the familial duty in 'Pachinko'. When reviewers highlight those parallels, it helps me connect to the book on a personal level, far beyond who has the best powers or the wittiest dialogue.