|
http://www.goodreads.com/Arsenio_Billingham I made a Goodreads account pretty recently but was turned off of the whole idea when I started getting e-mails from them recommending that I read The Host. Not exactly their fault but I took it pretty harsh. And I thought writing reviews was mandatory and I'm no good at voicing positive opinions on things, in any medium. Cruel, unfair criticism comes pretty natch to me but there's too much good out there for me to spend time reading lame crap and writing about it. Carly Gay Dead Son fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Jan 30, 2012 |
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
AreYouStillThere posted:It's the main thing that bugs me about Goodreads too. I'm reading Lolita right now and was perusing the reviews, and this exact scenario happened a few times in just the 3 reviews that I read. It's extremely prevalent in the Young Adult paranormal romance crowd but that's probably because it really is inundated with terrible books. According to Goodreads Lolita is the 36th worst novel of all time! But hey that's just part of the experience. I literally read a review on the The Great Gatsby where someone said that Jay Gatsby should have worked harder instead of daydreaming all the time  . Then I realized that the reviewer more than likely has not touched the book outside of high school and it made me feel better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 10:17
|
|
|
I read a review of a Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man that said it was terrible because Stephen was "emo". I wish I didn't live in a world (country?) where expressing any negative emotion is considered "emo". I'm sure I also read at least several reviews complaining that the writing at the beginning is terrible. e: also, I've said this in another thread, but the 2 lowest rated books in my library are Madame Bovary and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Highest rated: The Hunger Games. Conduit for Sale! fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Jan 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 10:38
|
|
|
The only reviews I take notice of are my friends and the average star rating of a book. I have goodreads because I like to keep track of what I read and the recommendations are pretty accurate. I treat reviews by people I don't know like I treat yahoo answers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
Depending on the book, I find the average ratings on goodreads are pretty accurate generally. I can't think of too many books I've read recently where I've disagreed too much with the average score, and a score below around 3.50 is usually a pretty reliable indicator (from past experience) that I'd only be wasting my time by giving it a chance. I know there's the attitude that we should read books for ourselves and not be cowed or prejudiced by the opinions of the masses, but in my opinion life is too short to read bad books: as someone once put it, "read all the best books now, because you probably won't have time later". The only exception to the reliability of the ratings, in my experience, is with "classic" literature, where the books invariably receive some middling scores that don't at all reflect their importance or quality. The reason, I suppose, is that a great many people are motivated to read these books for no other reason than they feel like they should, or that it would make them look clever to do so, and so they meander into these books without bothering to learn anything about its history, its subtext or how it came to be viewed as a "classic" in the first place and read it on the same level that they would any old mass-market paperback. For this reason, you'll get people downvoting such literature for completely superficial reasons, like Crime and Punishment because they "couldn't identify with the main character", La Nausee because "nothing happens", or Ulysses because the prose is "bollocks". With books that are less widely read (say less than 300 ratings) you can be relatively more sure that they have only attracted the people who know what they're talking about, so the average ratings are (again, in my experience) more reliable. Oh and my profile: http://www.goodreads.com/blurred
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 12:13
|
|
|
bowmore posted:The only reviews I take notice of are my friends and the average star rating of a book. I have goodreads because I like to keep track of what I read and the recommendations are pretty accurate. I treat reviews by people I don't know like I treat yahoo answers. Thats exactly how I look at the reviews. Plus the reviews done by housewives are terrible. Twilight A++++++ Lolita F-. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
My profile: http://www.goodreads.com/prolecat And Lolita is terrible, not because of the subject matter or anything, but the writing style is just poo poo. At least that's how I felt about it a few years ago. Might give it another chance at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 15:01
|
|
|
I'm also adding everybody who links their Goodreads profile. Mine is here. I like to read a variety of genres but I'm focusing more on classics. I want to write reviews but I'm afraid I'll come off sounding like an idiot. But I think I'll try to come up with something decent later this week. And Lolita was great, I couldn't put that book down when I first read it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
My favourite bit of criticism? "This book is the most overrated/underrated book of all time". The word "overrated" is used typically for books which are considered classics and "underrated" is used for books by guys like Chuck Palahniuk and Bret Easton Ellis. Anyway, I know theres an old goon GoodReads group out there because I used to be a member on my old account. It was dead but it had a really good profile picture. It might be worth starting a new group and stealing said picture. Also, here I be; http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/7212929-mark
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
prolecat posted:My profile: http://www.goodreads.com/prolecat Please give it another chance. It's an amazing novel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
My profile: http://www.goodreads.com/roydrowsy I think i played with this a bit awhile back, but never really got into it, but I figure I'll give it another go. I'll have to add some goons when i get a chance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
I like friends! http://www.goodreads.com/goochie I threw mine up in the 52 Book challenge thread, but I love digging through peoples catalogs for ideas for new stuff to read. I like SciFi, Fantasy, Thrillers, Horror, the occasional long walk on a beach.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
I'd love some more friends, enjoying browsing everyones read lists so far. I absolutely need to pick up my game with adding stuff i've read though. http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/3013997-kirsty
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 09:42
|
|
|
Let's do this, I'm adding you all now. http://www.goodreads.com/themutato
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 12:09
|
|
|
I noticed some of you were looking for recommendations on the site so I went a little nuts this morning and recommended a bunch to some of you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
I've just started with this site so I don't know much about it, but what the heck. I'll give it a go. http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/7355709-philipe-landry
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
On a slight tangent, I came across this blog post about some crazy drama on goodreads: http://cuddlebuggery.blogspot.com/2012/01/first-five-days-on-goodreads.html apparently there are some authors that also use goodreads that are starting to react badly to negative reviews of their novels. Now other readers are reacting and voting down books just because of the author's reaction. When you have an author that you like and then you come across them on the internet and realize that they are a total fuckwad, does that make you like their novels any less or are you objectively able to separate the novel from the writer?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
Poutling posted:On a slight tangent, I came across this blog post about some crazy drama on goodreads: Yeah I've been following this since it all started at the beginning of January. I have a book blog and I made a post that was all "what does being a reviewer mean?" and I talked about how I negatively reviewed this one book...and the author showed up. Gasp! But he was totally awesome and was all "I appreciate negative reviews, carry on old sport" and it makes me want to read the rest of his novels even if I hated the first one. It was a very positive experience. As opposed to all this crazy drama in the young adult romance crowd, which are books I wouldn't normally read anyway but now I REALLY won't read any of them if the authors have been extra rude to reviewers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 09:51
|
|
|
Poutling posted:On a slight tangent, I came across this blog post about some crazy drama on goodreads: A douchebag writer would certainly taint the stuff I read to some degree. But this blog, I don't know, it all seems way overblown. Also this: Lauren DeStefano posted:"I'd even venture to say GR makes 4chan look like a hallmark card from my own loving granny." Anyway I guess I think all involved are a bunch of huge crybabies who should know better, this is the internet, if you take it seriously enough to be offended by anything you read on it you're doing it wrong. Edit because I don't feel like making a new post: My Goodreads profile I read a lot of science fiction and fantasy, but the plan for this year is to read more "serious-people" books just because. I try to reflect/review on everything I read but sometimes  I guess.
Hasseltkoffie fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Feb 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 10:59
|
|
|
Some of those authors need to get over themselves and realize that Goodreads and review blogs don't exist to sell their books. Many of those same folks are happy to ask their friends to put up five star ratings and gushy reviews, but then they whine that readers who didn't care for the book should keep their mouth shut. It's kind of insulting, like they don't trust potential readers to look over a variety of reviews and make their own decision. I absolutely stay away from authors if I hear that they've publicly made a fuss over reviews or reader comments. I've got a shelf full of other books to read, and I'd rather support writers who either connect with their readers like mature adults or just avoid the drama entirely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 11:01
|
|
|
I threw myself upon the 52 book challenge, so I'll toss myself up here: http://www.goodreads.com/chimirick
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
Goodreads is okay for keeping track of your library and occasionally scoring advance copies of stuff, but the whole glut of self-published nonsense and boring reviews make a large part of the site complete poo poo. I'm not surprised terrible authors are getting mad at terrible critics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
Oh definitely. I still get a few self-published authors spamming me with friend requests. Simply adding a question before gets them to stop though. And I try and add at least some useful commentary to my reviews. I'm no Michiko Kakutani, but I try and keep things clean - and grammatical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
I joined GoodReads a couple years ago because my .doc file of Books I've Read was ugly and tiresome. Then I imagined what the file would look like in ten years. Thanks to the 52 in '12 thread, I've had more friend requests in the last week than I have in the past two years. GoodReads motivates me to read more, for sure. The Most Read Authors tool makes me sad because it makes me realize I read primarily White Male authors. I'm looking to add more flavor with my 62 in '12 challenge. Here's me: http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/3024699-william
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
Poutling posted:When you have an author that you like and then you come across them on the internet and realize that they are a total fuckwad, does that make you like their novels any less or are you objectively able to separate the novel from the writer? Eh, if I cared about an author being a dick, I would've never read Midnight's Children. But I did and it's the best thing I've ever read. Even Nabokov was kind of a dick. But I suppose that's different than some genre or passable fiction (this should be a genre) writer being a dick. I liked Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion but I won't read any more of Simmons' books because he's a racist fuckhead. And I don't care how good Ender's Game is, I'm not giving Card any money because he's even more of a fuckhead. So if some dick writes one of the best novels of the century, I'll read it regardless. But if it's just something moderately good or any quality genre fiction, I think I can live without it. Which is probably why I avoid learning about authors of genre fiction I like. On the other hand, I've always hated Web 2.0 because only maybe about 5% (being generous) of the people who comment/blog/whatever on the internet have something worthwhile to say. But I think those people would always find an outlet for what they have to say. All Web 2.0 does is give the other 95% (which I'm including myself in btw; I'm white noise at best) an outlet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Conduit for Sale! posted:But I suppose that's different than some genre or passable fiction (this should be a genre) writer being a dick. I liked Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion but I won't read any more of Simmons' books because he's a racist fuckhead. And I don't care how good Ender's Game is, I'm not giving Card any money because he's even more of a fuckhead. I didn't know this about Simmons, care to elaborate? I feel pretty much the same as you. I remember in my younger goth days being really into Poppy Z Brite and then she went and got a livejournal and I was like "My god, this person is the biggest twat to ever walk the earth!" All of you goodreaders that are wandering over to the 52 books a year thread are really tempting me to sign up but I'm nervous because I find I read less when I have a deadline or a quota to meet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
Poutling posted:I didn't know this about Simmons, care to elaborate? He is virulently anti-Muslim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
Conduit for Sale! posted:Eh, if I cared about an author being a dick, I would've never read Midnight's Children. But I did and it's the best thing I've ever read. Even Nabokov was kind of a dick. yeah there's a collection of nabokov's essays/lectures where he's pretty harsh on joyce and i think faulkner, too. guy certainly didn't hold back
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
Poutling posted:I didn't know this about Simmons, care to elaborate? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3345499&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=67#post399725206
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
I don't care about what the author thinks about anything. If the books are good then that's all that matters to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
PureRok posted:I don't care about what the author thinks about anything. If the books are good then that's all that matters to me. Yeah, but as an author gets increasingly passionate about something (for good or ill), it's often hard for them to keep that from infiltrating their writing. See: Dan Simmons with Flashback and Olympos
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Just added a bunch of you, none of my irl friends use goodreads and I'm always looking for recommendations and reviews. My Profile
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
barkingclam posted:Goodreads is okay for keeping track of your library and occasionally scoring advance copies of stuff, but the whole glut of self-published nonsense and boring reviews make a large part of the site complete poo poo. I'm not surprised terrible authors are getting mad at terrible critics. I've had a LOT more luck getting free books from Library Thing. And not terrible, self-published poo poo, either; I got an ARC of Harbor. Also, I think there's a lot of crossover between what's offered, at least by the larger publishers, so if there's something you want, you can double your chances  .
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
The main reason I went with goodreads over Library Thing is that Library Thing has the word Zeitgeist on a tab on the top of the page. Completely stupid and petty and whatever, but I've never heard anyone who wasn't a total prick use that word. Oh, and goodreads is just prettier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
Conduit for Sale! posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3345499&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=67#post399725206 Thank you for the link I had no idea. How disappointing. I've read Carrion Comfort and enjoyed that but thought Drood was a little boring. The Terror was on my list but that does make me want to drop it. prolecat posted:Oh, and goodreads is just prettier. I agree, I have a librarything account too and it might sound incredibly shallow but I just like the way goodreads looks so much better. Poutling fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Feb 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
I wish there was a Goodreads for movies. The exact same design/format.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:I've had a LOT more luck getting free books from Library Thing. And not terrible, self-published poo poo, either; I got an ARC of Harbor. I might have to check that out. It's actually not that hard to get review copies from publishers if you ask nicely and have a place willing to run your review.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
I added loads of people from the thread yesterday and today and hit my daily adding limit both times.  Here's my profile. I read lots of terrible books and give them good ratings because I have no idea what quality writing is. I don't review stuff, but I shelve nearly everything I read to make it easier to navigate.It's telling that all the authors complaining about GR reviews write YA fiction. YA books don't tend to be met with much criticism from their target audience, especially not about sensitive issues like sexism and unhealthy relationships (two staples of the genre, thanks to a certain broody stalker vampire). When a reviewer calls out a YA book for being antifeminist after the author has seen literally hundreds of gushing reviews from teenage girls, it's bound to inflame the author's righteous indignation. How could her book possibly be bad when it's sold hundreds of thousands of copies? Time to get on Twitter and tell the world how wrong that stupid cow is! Of course, that kind of behaviour is not specific to YA, just more prevalent. Just because an author writes "adult" fiction doesn't mean he's going to act like one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
An author of a book to me has always been this mythical, godlike being that has felt kind enough to grace me with their entertaining words. In order to keep this mystique I just ignore everything past the book. This didn't stop me from crying the day I learned Robert Jordan died. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
naptalan posted:Of course, that kind of behaviour is not specific to YA, just more prevalent. Just because an author writes "adult" fiction doesn't mean he's going to act like one. I honestly think that in this day and age of instant gratification that authors, especially 'rockstar' authors like Palahniuk, Bret Easton Ellis, et al - should get a good publicist or handler to prevent this specific situation. That being said, I do think that Salon has a habit of getting rabidly malicious in their negative reviews of both books and movies. I tend to follow their good reviews and ignore their bad ones because sometimes I get the sense that the reviewers 'dislike' specific novels or movies just because they're likely to appeal to the masses. This is just my opinion, of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 05:33
|
|