/lit/ - Literature

>>16800864
They read a lot

>>16800864
99% by lying, 1% by having too much free time

I hope I never have the displeasure of meeting someone who lies to strangers about the books they've read.

>>16800864
They're lying

>>16800867
at 2 books a week that would take 50 years

hey guize, do you want to share goodreads profiles so we can keep up with what the other c/lit/s are reading?

>>16800878
They just love reading!

>>16800882
no nigga fuck off

>>16800864
They're not shitposting on 4chan 24/7, but rather lifting, drinking water, getting some wood for their fireplace, breeding their tradwife in their cabin isolated from society

>>16800882
christ no. why even have that? do you have last fm too? can't remember what you read? who cares? i dont care. do you think i care? reading is personal let's keep it that way

read audiobooks on 5x speed

>>16800893
:(
>>16800899
There's a function to see similarities between your reading habits and somebody else. Might be good for finding recs from people with similar tastes.

>>16800929
>Might be good for finding recs from people with similar tastes.
ok I can see it. for me personally I like to find out everything by my own. makes it all even more personal. I have never read a single book recommended to me. I have never consumed any piece of media recommended to me. i find it my own way in my own time and so it's all mine and no one else's.

>>16800937
I guess so. Still think it might be useful for finding things that you may not have otherwise
>Anon and I both gave these three books 5 stars
>Anon just gave a 5-stars to some book I've never heard of
>I haven't read this, maybe I should

>>16800965
i agree it has its uses. but my backlog is so large that it would be some time before I ever thought to ask for reccs. often time I get my reccs from books themselves. I was reading some Bukowski and he was raving about Celine and Fante, so I picked up Journey to the End of the Night and Ask the Dusk. stuff like that

>>16800882
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/47358215-cookie
hello fren

>>16800978
ask the dust*

>>16800983
>Website: myanimelist
>Interests: anime girls
>2020 Reading Challenge: 28/5000
I honestly expected more from you, /lit/.

>>16801003
im sorry fren

>>16800864
they read only the title

Not trying to sound homosexual but I would like to know if there are any /lit/ groups on gr. I only use it to mark what I've read and when, but I'd be interested in joining an ebic and based exclusive /lit/ group.

I think people don't rate stuff properly. For me, 2/5 and under is a bad book. I wouldn't recommend it, it has a failing grade. Less than half.

3/5 is a good book. I enjoyed reading it, I finished it willingly, and you may enjoy it to. But most people look at 3/5 as a failing grade. Why should that be? We need a reference point and that is 5/5. 5/5 is a perfect book, it's a masterpiece, you cannot afford to not read it. Very few books you read should be 5/5.

And so we're left at 4/5 which is a very good book and easily recommended and a pleasure to read. This is at least how I approach things.

>>16801027
for me 5 is really good, 4 is good, 3 is ok, 2 is bad, and 1 is really bad.

>>16801037
>for me 5 is really good
I think this is where people go wrong. I look at goodreads profiles and see lots of 5s all over the places. What happens when you read a masterpiece, something that comparatively is a 6/5 or a 7/5? You have nowhere else to go.

>>16801027
I wish they used a 10 point system to give a little bit of room for nuance. There are 3s that I really liked but don't want to give a 4/5 for whatever reason and there are 3s that were lukewarm but not not bad enough to warrant a 2/5.

>>16801055
Technically you can give half stars so it functions as an out-of-ten system.

>>16801062
You can? On GR?

>>16801047
if i read a masterpiece i give it a 5. i don't care that much about ratings.

>>16801117
That's fair but what if you read something that you think is phenomenal but still full of errors?

>>16801086
Yes

>>16801150
if i really like it i give it a 5

>>16800868
No they're 100% lying except where they read manga exclusively and none of them do. Either that or they think translating the Amazon summary into their own language promotes reading.
Either way, both actions is a case of working harder not smarter and are a waste of time and are lying.

>>16801155
How?

>>16801239
Hmm. I must be remembering incorrectly. I thought I gave half stars in the past. My mistake.

>>16801259
you shall be burned at the stake for your deceptions, WITCH!@

Reading lots doesn't mean they're well-read. Chances are they only understand those books on a surface level, never stopping to think and contemplate what they are reading.

Also I know some people that have read loads, but most of its pure trash

>>16801265
I wish it were true though. It would solve the really good book vs masterpiece problem. Really good is 4.5, masterpiece is 5.

>>16801275
>I wish it were true
Me too. a 4 and a 4.5 are very different things.

>>16800882
Be nice I am very new to reading
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/122475122-strathclyde

>>16801282
Maybe they're afraid that a 10 point would be a slippery slope into a hundred point system where you have Pitchfork giving one record a 9.1 and another a 9.2 and I'm supposed to fucking tell what a 1% difference in quality feels like. Ditto IGN.

>>16801303
Mayhaps. /5 ratings are vague but you can always write an actual review if you feel the need.

>>16801312
>you can always write an actual review if you feel the need.
Sure but those are self-indulgent and no one reads them anyway.

>>16801319
True. I suppose in the end you just know which books are a high 4 and which are low.

>>16801334
What I end up using goodreads for is to explore the bibliographies of authors I already like, and so the rating system is handy to sort their output from most to least acclaimed. I feel that the ratings are only useful to compare the works of a same author, since people evaluate different genres and authors differently.

>>16800864
If you ignore them they won't bother you.

>>16800900
>read
>audiobook

Pick one.

>>16801441
Listening to audiobooks is an excellent gateway for normies.

>>16800900
baste!

>>16800878
I don't understand people who can read more than one book PER WEEK. Unless you're a NEET, that is.

>>16803380
Depends on the size of the book. I read around 100 pages a day, so that's 700 pages a week. That could be 1 book, it could be 2 books, it could be 3 books.

>>16803397
>100 pages a day
I get like 50 on a good day, almost two hours usually. I read so fucking slow.

>>16803380
Depends how big the book is and how busy the week is. Because of quarantine I can get all of my uni work done with just a few hours each day. That leaves me with like ten-ish hours every day to do whatever I want, like reading.

>>16803406
It also depends what you're reading. Not all books are the same trim and have the same amount of words on a page, so 100 pages of this book might only be 70 pages in that book. And of course some books are denser than others and take slower to read and understand, you may even feel the need to reread parts.

>>16803414
>That leaves me with like ten-ish hours every day to do whatever I want, like reading.
I only do about 2 hours of schoolwork per day but I still manage to piss away entire days. Uninstalled all my vidya a few weeks back but that only helped marginally. I spend a lot of time refreshing catalogues on 4chan.
>>16803417
To be fair I mainly read non-fiction, which probably takes long to read. I typically whiz though fiction.

>>16803431
For me my computer’s motherboard just failed like a week ago so I’m using my dad’s kinda shitty old laptop which can’t play any games at all. I’ve also deleted most social media since I realize how addicted I was getting to tiktok. At this point my only time wasting distractions are texts and the occasional browsing of /lit/. So I get a lot of reading done, I watch a lot of classic films, I get to cook, pursue hobbies (right now Im sewing), and generally just live a relaxed productive life

>>16801027
>>16801037
>>16801047
>This is at least how I approach things.
The website tells you what the ratings mean if you hover over them.

5 - it was amazing
4 - really liked it
3 - liked it
2 - it was ok
1 - did not like it

My average review is 3.06 with ~300 ratings. People with an average rating of 4-5 are doing it wrong.

>>16801303
>Pitchfork giving one record a 9.1 and another a 9.2 and I'm supposed to fucking tell what a 1% difference in quality feels like.
That's 10% you mong

>>16803474
You retard

>>16803474
Oh my god it's 1%
kill me

>>16803463
>how addicted I was getting to tiktok
My fellow Zoomer. Never installed it but I appreciate the vast quantities of coom coming from the heux on that app.
>pursue hobbies
It's all self-discipline. Mine has been shit over the last few weeks- spending far too much time of 4chan. This is my last semester of uni and I've been in classes for almost 16 months straight at this point. Getting extremely tired.

>>16803466
I'm at 3.05 with 22 (aforementioned new to reading lad). Kinda cringe seeing someone's read-list be 90% 5-stars.

>>16800864
>go to Goodreads to check reviews on whether a book is worth reading
>it's just a bunch of gifs and some comments of how the reader felt whilst reading the book

>>16801003
Sounds pretty based to me

If I read for 3 hours on weekdays and 12 hours on weekends at a rate of 1 page per minute, I can read 122095 pages a year, which is 305 books assuming 400 pages per book or 407 books assuming 300 pages per book

>>16803762
12 hours a day on weekends, that is

>>16803762
>3 hours on weekdays and 12 hours on weekends
Oh fuck that's a lot, Anon.

>>16803762
>3 hours on weekdays and 12 hours on weekends
As the other anon said, this as an absolute fuckton, especially assuming you don't read anything else study/work related.

>>16800899
Why yes, I have a last.fm profile too. How'd'y guess?

>>16803815
What kind of music do c/lit/orises listen to?

>>16803865
i like jazz, rock, and rnb

>>16803968
>rnb
ever listened to K-R&B?

>>16804030
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnjbduKLhZw

>>16804056
Fuqq that reminds me of vapourwave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1kQvZhQ6_M

>>16804056
>>16804030
neat

>>16800882
I'm still interested in seeing other anons' goodreads. Post em you fools.

Lots of love and effort

Would be cool if I had a chaima gf

>>16801047
Give 5 stars and write a review, idiot. Its not that serious.

>>16803466
5-point rating systems are too vague. For me something good means it is 7/10 and lots of stuff I think is 7/10 can be rounded up to 4/5

>>16803466
I read a shit ton of books, but I finish almost exclusively top tier books. regularly I spent a day in the library starting about 50 books, read more than one page in ten, and take home five. you can mark god tier books as your favorites btw

>>16803719
I always ignore these fgts and look for reviews with profile pictures of older gentlemen. wasn't disappointed yet.

>>16806271
>profile pictures of older gentlemen
Good advice.

>>16800874
You are on /lit/.

>>16807480
You either lie about only having read 13 books this year or get shit on for admitting that you've only read 13 books this year.

>>16800882
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/58204386-christopher-dech
>>16800893
>>16800899
Be nice, anons.

>>16807495
How can someone like Asimov?
I was a huge sci-fi nerd as a teenager, I read almost everything from Stanislaw Lem, but found Asimov boring.

>>16807519
Same. He was dull. Everyone has to pretend he's great because the jewish publishing industry memed him into a household name. His prose is execrable. He doesn't seem to understand English tense.

>>16807519
>>16807542
When I was a teenager, I found Asimov's worlds and stories extremely comfy and it fascinated me. While I have found far superior writers, even within science fiction, Asimov's worlds and ideas have a special place in my heart. Plus, Forward the Foundation and The End of Eternity are killer stories. It's not because muh joo but because I simply find Asimov comforting and his ideas bright and thought provoking.

>>16807519
I like him even though I'm not a fedora. The early Robot stories are definitely worth checking out and the Foundation series is what science fiction is all about. That is, taking an idea and playing with it. The stories are secondary to the question of what would happen if the universe was mechanical in nature and sociology could be a mathematically precise science.

>>16807495
I can't imagine what sort of asshole writes reviews for Aristotle.

Maybe they're rating the cover before they read it.

yeah often times it makes me insecure about my reading speed

>>16800864
They're lying.

>>16807893
I'm not an asshole, just trying to do more than just put a couple of stars and forget about it. Maybe you're the asshole for judging people for what they review.

>>16808210
Why wouldn't you judge people based on what they say? Are you an idiot?

>>16808226
Judging someone on what they say and judging someone on what they review are different things, retard.

>>16808271
How is it different?

Okay who's the cute Pajeeta who added me, guys?

>>16808301
One is more objective than the other, I'll let you figure out which is which.

>>16808326
What does it mean to be objective in this context? How is what you say more or less objective than where you say it?

>>16808336
You can judge more effectively someone on what words they use, how many filler words they use, the ideas they promote and follow, et cetera. But it's more difficult, and ultimately pointless to judge what someone chooses to write or not write reviews for. How they write is one thing, what they write is another, and it is the latter that is ultimately asinine to judge.

>>16808348
The question isn't how you can judge more effectively, it's whether it's right or wrong to judge based on what you say and where. You implied that it's wrong to judge based on where people speak when you insinuated that I'm an asshole for judging where you leave reviews. Do you really think it's wrong to judge people based on where they speak? If I walked into your house in the middle of the night with a bullhorn would you be an asshole to judge me?

>>16800900
is listening to audiobooks cheating? its a form of media im not well acquainted

How does he read 100-200 books a year?
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/13715808-sean

How does he read 100-200 books a year?
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/13715808-sean

Seeing people in their early 20s with 500+ books makes me feel insecure desu.

>>16808430
What was she rating?
>>16808440
pic too. Who the fuck reads 18 books at once?

>>16808462
>What was she rating?
try to guess ... there is a method to her madness ... kinda

>>16808440
It's really not that difficult. I read as much by spending a good 8-10 hours reading per day. I read 81 books so far with a 385 page average and it's actually less than usual since I've started studying Greek this year.

>>16808485
Are you a neet?

>>16808498
Of course I am

>>16808502
Based.

Something about modern literature makes it very easy to read, I went through that chink sci-fi novel in two sittings yesterday, yet I take ages to finish older classics or god forbid philosophy

>>16800864
They couldn't possibly not be honest about that. What, you someone would just go on the internet and... lie?!

But seriously, do you guys take your time with your books or do you just speed read them? I speedread stuff I find boring, since my autism can't allow me to put them down. I take my time only with whatever I really like.

>>16803466
>People with an average rating of 4-5 are doing it wrong.

Nonsense. People tend to do some research on books, so they read stuff they think they'll like in the first place. There's a heavy selection bias, so giving an average rating of 4 is perfectly reasonable.

>>16800900
People who do this depress me. It has to be such a joyless existence.

>>16808706
I watch most youtube videos on 2x speed.

>>16801576
Literally how? I've tried audiobooks but my autism won't allow me to consider something read unless I've gone through a physical copy. I buy the cheap editions first, and if I like something enough I have to find some cool-looking expensive edition to display.
>>16808706
I do it wih tv shows I've invested time in, and don't like enough to keep properly watching, but also want to finish because I'm a completionist. Sometimes a movie too. But I stop around 2.5x where I can still follow the dialogue/subtitles/images.

>>16801047
The best rating system is 2-5 for various degrees of masterpiece, and 1 star for everything else

>>16807519
All I’ve read from him is a short story collection and it was pretty good.

>>16808788
Audiobooks are good for when you're doing something else too. I don't just sit and listen when I could just as easily read. Cooking, cleaning, playing a mindless vidya, walking/driving/commuting somewhere; that's when they're good. Some people even switch between reading and listening to the same book depending on what they're doing at the moment.

>>16808440
100 doesn't sound unrealistic unless you exclusively read 600 - 1000 page books, and even then 70+ isn't too difficult. I've read
>children of time
>children of ruin
>cage of souls
>all 600-ish pages
>dogs of war
>spiderlight
>expert system's brother
>walking to aldebaran
>100 to 350-ish
in the past 3 or so weeks, and I mostly just read in bed.

>>16801047
People are completely unable to rate things properly. Most of my reviews when I tried having an account were 2-3 stars. I gave 1 to unreadable trash and 5 to books that impacted me.

>>16809096
It's the rating system that sucks, not the way people rate books. If I thought something was excellent and deserves a 4.5, I'm not gonna rate it a 4 just because GR is a piece of shit.

>>16808462
>read(49)
>to-read(803)
Why do people do this? To inflate their e-penis?

How can I get goodreads to automatically detect a pirated book I'm reading on my Kindle? It always says it can't find the book on the server

>>16809303
I just manually add them when I'm done. Nobody cares that you're on page 172 of War and Peace.

>>16809355
That's probably what I'll end up doing anyway. I was just trying to figure out if there was something I wasn't doing correctly

>>16809195
do what?
keep track of books they want to read?

>>16807562
>It's not because muh joo
Yes but you are jewish.
Harry Seldon is a jewish self-insert fantasy.

>>16809535
Worse, I'm Chinese.

>>16808322
that's a man's name you faggoid

it's just a bunch of lonely young dudes trying to get laid

>>16810063
>trying to get laid on goodreads

>>16810113
it's their idea of impressing a girl. and it works. there's this hot ginger babe that works in a library i frequent that wants my d totally because she saw De Sade in my read list. #winning

>>16803380
I have 9 hour shifts and my job requires ear protection so I got some noise canceling ear buds and listen to audiobook everyday, I can clear 2 maybe 3 books a week

>>16803463
>addicted to Toktok
>take up sewing as hobby

Are you a vapid grill?

>>16800864
Don't be jealous, anon.

It's not about the quantity but the depth of what you absorb and how it improves/changes your worldview.

>>16810161
>>16810166
Two different but equally based posts.

>>16808440
>/lit/ gets surprised when someone actually reads

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/124814876-lyapunov

Just created one.

>>16808843
Based

>>16801267
Guilty as charged. Easily 15,000-20,000 hours of reading nothing but forum posts all over the internet.

Never underestimate the reading prowess of a bored stay at home mother. She has nothing but free time but cannot go more than a few yards from her child and she likely reads simple and easy to process novels like romance or YA.

>>16800874
They're paid reviewers.

>>16808422
It’s impossible to pay as much attention to them as you would a real book. I listen to a lot at work but limit it to nonfiction (no philosophy or heavy shit) and genre fiction, and even then it’s easy to lose focus

>>16800893
say NIGGER not nigga pussy

>>16800864
>Many people have been protesting against what they describe as censorship on Goodreads. I disagree. In fact, I would like to say that I welcome the efforts that Goodreads management is making to improve the deplorably low quality of reviewing on this site.

>>16800882
who are you calling a clit you little frog faggot?

>>16800882
>>16804176
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/83756630-lain

>>16800864
>How do they do it?
The relevant question is why.
Better to read one good book a month than wade through piles of thrash just so other pseuds will feel their balls shrink and get flashbacks of every girl that ever rejected them in their minds

>>16800882
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/51635060-nikolai

>>16809195
>noooooo why are you using the tool to track books you want to read
Yikes.

>>16800874
Holy fucking shit, me too

>>16811955
his sci-fi reviews are generally pretty good though

>>16815338
Tried to read some but cringed at all the Trump analogies. Why are Americans so fucking obsessed with politics?

>>16815991
Yeah, he's been in TDS mode since 2016. but he's been active a lot longer. I'm not American either, so I wouldn't know.

>>16815991
>>16816005
Mind control is real and it was perfected here.

>>16801027
I rate books from 1-being bored and to 5- I really enjoyed the book and would like to read it again
>>16800864
I’m one of those people who don’t add books that I recently read on the website.

>>16814187
>>16814140
>>16807495
>>16801297
>>16800983
Sent ;)

>>16800882
>>16804176
Don't bully pls
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/94467603-sup-memers