[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 435 KB, 1024x500, 81HxJ55dOkL.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15972984 No.15972984 [Reply] [Original]

are there goodreads users blessed by good taste to add/follow? I only have irl friends on there and it's barren and full of shit taste

>> No.15972988

no

>> No.15973017

>>15972984
Yes, me.

>> No.15973075

The Republic has 4 stars
White Fragility has 4.5

>> No.15973110

>>15973075
moby dick has 3.5
ready player one has like 4.3

>> No.15973126

>trying this hard to get more social media into your life

>> No.15973145

>>15973075
average ratings on most media sites are trash but it doesn't mean individuals on those sites can't have good taste

>> No.15973150

Why would you do that?

>> No.15973166

>>15972984
follow me bro>>15973017

>> No.15973173

>>15973017
name?

>> No.15973198

>>15973173
Bugman482

>> No.15973237

>>15973126

There are some genuinely redpilled mommies on there. I recommend looking at Nazi memoirs and stuff.

God, I'd wish they'd be my mommy.

>> No.15973291

>>15973237
That’s actually pretty good; like I’m reading Hitler’s War by Irving and I might see who have it a good review and look at their stuff.
I can’t tune out the retardation though. Not necessarily with Irving but you can look up literal 20th Century masters and have to browse through /r/menwritingwomen tier takes

>> No.15973423
File: 1.78 MB, 1242x2208, 19AC4511-C6BF-4684-948C-5DE86167DB9C.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15973423

No taste here, but I’ve found good recommendations in several anons added through the years.

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/7002468-carlos-eduardo

>> No.15973495

>>15972984
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/742138-thomas

>> No.15973557

>>15973495
This guy “gave up on” Look Homeward Angel and Don Quixote

>> No.15973598

>>15973557
and rated ready player 1 5 stars

>> No.15973608

>>15973291

I admit it's hard to sift through the bullshit, but it's worth it when find some golden lit.

>> No.15973624

>>15973075
The Republic is a pseud filter, while the only people reading White Fragility are those already primed to gobble that faggot shit up.

>> No.15973654

>>15973075
>>15973075
>>15973110
the stars mean either
1 I didn't like it
2 it was okay
3 it was good
4 it was great
5 it was amazing
it's all about subjective experience on a crooked scale

>> No.15973681
File: 1.50 MB, 240x228, 1594665459030.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15973681

>>15973495

>> No.15973711

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/7312273-m-cam-es

>> No.15974151

>>15972984
I'm pretty pleb-tier, but if anyone wants to follow a less seasoned reader working through the classics:
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/4357421-drazen

>> No.15974279
File: 67 KB, 1043x782, minRobot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15974279

Newfag on lit please add :D
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/108905243-einar

>> No.15974413

>>15973075
Man, the fucking reviews. Goodreads makes want to kill myself.

>> No.15974469

>>15974413
Just looked at some which I shouldn't have but those amerimutts are definitely true NPCs and those people don't seem mentally healthy

>> No.15974484

>>15974469
and its funny how a lot of what you see in the reviews is pure projection.

>> No.15974556

I flirt with older women on goodreads. I am a nice young 25 year old man in decent shape.

>> No.15974567

>>15974556
Bros you think i could find a wealthy mommy on goodreads?

>> No.15974706

>>15974567

Yes, they are very nice, even if you have autism.

>> No.15974951

>>15974556
I’ve been blocked by like 5 middle-aged women on Goodreads for shitting on their reviews when they give like 1 star to Faulkner or Melville. They can’t take the banter, and I can flex my autism with no real world consequences

>> No.15974978

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/57115665-prickle

I’m pretty much finished with reviewing shit though

>> No.15974988

>>15974951
The ones I see shitting on like, Faulkner are usually female millenials

>> No.15975102

>>15973075
People who read the republic are more likely to give more "sober" reviews and thus not many of them give it a 5 just because they agreed with it. On the other hand people who read White Fragility or other books like such are more likely to just give it a 5 because they are emotionally tied to its political cause.

>> No.15975114

>>15973423
>Telcel
hola camarada

>> No.15975153

>>15974988
Yeah well perhaps I doomed myself by even looking for these reviews. By far the most triggering thing in my experience that I can say is “So you gave (X YA or trashy romance book) 5 stars but Light in August 1?” Works like a charm

>> No.15975346

>>15974951

Instead of that, I just send them suggestions and say it'd be fun to read together.

>> No.15975383

>>15973150
to find people with good taste to get indirect recommendations from

>> No.15975533
File: 825 KB, 1556x2400, palefire.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15975533

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/27579248-lorenzo

>> No.15975927

https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1.Best_Books_Ever
bruh_sound_effect.mp3

>> No.15976097

Add me faggots
(No, I’m not a Nazi I just happen to be on a bender of books about Jews/Nazis/racism)
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/117667303-scott

>> No.15976113

>>15976097
>add me faggots
Okay
>No, I’m not a Nazi
Dropped

>> No.15976256
File: 4 KB, 212x218, 1546492509015.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15976256

>>15974151
>Favorites
>Crito

>> No.15976279

>>15974484
>a lot of what you see in the reviews is pure projection
God it's fucking painful. You can't see a book that presents views that may disagree with someone without that someone showing up in the reviews lambasting it like the author wrote it to personally destroy that individual's way of life out of supposedly obvious immature spite.

>> No.15976307

>>15976097
>No, I’m not a Nazi
Then fuck off back to r*ddit

>> No.15976316

>>15976113
based

>> No.15976336

I just made an account, I'll add the books I've read soon, but thank you op for making me aware of this site. I'm gonna add people from the thread.
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/119029361-vlad

>> No.15976438

Anyone got links to any kind of good lists to get inspiration on what to read next from?
the "best books ever" and "books everyone should have read" lists are pretty much a joke, as are most others branded as popular

>> No.15976508
File: 327 KB, 512x1190, 6317FD83-1E40-475B-84D6-C9ED85656B1B.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15976508

>>15972984
Yes, me
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/23937251-the-final-song

>> No.15976544

>>15976438
there are a million charts on lit you retarded r*ddit pseud

>> No.15976551

>>15976438
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokklubben_World_Library

>> No.15976573

>>15976508
trannie looking for orbiters?

>> No.15976585

>>15976544
but I already know all of those

>> No.15976660

>>15976256
Dat social contract doe.

>> No.15976661

>>15976585
now read them

>> No.15976702

I just follow some guy named szplug but he has decent books on his read page that I check out here and there for a new book to read

>> No.15976738

should I follow paperbackdreams hoping that one day I'll be able to desecrate her pink heaven? she really has shit taste tho

>> No.15976996

>>15976738

As I said further up the thread, the book milfs are where it's at.

>> No.15977591
File: 139 KB, 335x339, 1468550629962.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15977591

>>15976573
What made you reach than conclusion, anon?

>> No.15977694
File: 19 KB, 616x96, goodreads crime and punishment.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15977694

>> No.15978423

>>15977694

She seems like a nice lady. Maybe her and I could drink some Barefoot wine, listen to a Danielle Steele audiobook, and then I could plow her vagina.

>> No.15978478

>>15973075
>>15973110
Books that students are required to read as part of their education always tend to have lower average ratings. Books that people voluntarily choose to read have a self-selected upward bias in their average ratings.

>> No.15978778
File: 68 KB, 617x377, goodreads kek.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15978778

>> No.15978784

>>15978423
>Maybe her and I

>> No.15978847

>>15978778
Damn when’s Stone-Chad gonna rape her too? In medieval literary terms of course

>> No.15979301

>>15978778
>hates stoner for being weak
>muh whatabout edith
>doesn't give 2 shits about grace

I didn't think this level of soullessness was possible.

>> No.15979918

>>15979301
its a woman

>> No.15979952

>>15978778
How does someone rape their wife? That doesn't make sense to me.

>> No.15980068
File: 43 KB, 687x344, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15980068

Anyone else find it extraordinarily amusing to look at normalfag's reactions to Lolita on Goodreads? Like, just take Nabokov as a person, whose life experience in the turbulent early 20th century was so totally different from any of the miserly housewives and teenagers reviewing his work, and whose books, especially the ones written in Russian before coming to America, were only ever intended for the literary intelligentsia and would be bewildering for general audiences. And case in point when they do run up against what is almost purely an aesthetic exercise and narrative experiment in Lolita due to its notoriety alone, a book completely unconcerned with morality which will likely be totally different in literary level to what bottom of the barrel lit they will read for the rest of their lives, they're reduced to incoherent rambling and projection that would have given Nabokov himself a hearty chuckle if he didn't want to shoot himself right before.

And the very fact that they actually read the book despite knowing full well what it was about shows how morbid curiosity can still get the better of their supposed set-in-stone moral opinions most of the time

>> No.15980218

Totally new to reading. Add me
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/105355095-evocati
Maybe in a few years we can pass for pseuds

>> No.15980413

>tfw my "currently reading" being public on Goodreads keeps me accountable and forces me to finish books

>> No.15981623

>>15980413
based, when did you stop reading for pleasure and started reading just to see the numbers growing on your read list for a cheap dopamine fix?

>> No.15981652

>>15973711
>1.84 avg rating
imaging reading book after book you hate

>> No.15981664
File: 181 KB, 995x1000, EVhnX_yXgAEjDqv.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15981664

https://www.goodreads.com/knfsdnvxcmsphfg

i added two people from here last time one of these threads were posted but the feed is mostly dead

>> No.15981675

>>15977694
to be fair that is actually a based review

>> No.15981681

>>15981623
From the very beginning.

>> No.15981685

>>15980068
>a book completely unconcerned with morality
what a week read, even that screen grab there has better understanding of the book

>> No.15981691

>>15981664
>2.81 avg rating
so, are you just shit at picking books to read or purposely harsh on your scoring?

>> No.15981695

I haven't read many classics (yet) but I think nobody can deny that my taste is good
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/82843718-a-wat

>> No.15981708

>>15981695
>The Fault in Our Stars 5/5
care to explain yourself, anon?

>> No.15981739

>>15981691
I generally rate three stars, not sure why the average is lower, probably because i read a bunch of detective novels over Christmas.

>> No.15981742

>>15981708
I was a redditard and a normie back then, but I have changed.

>> No.15981958
File: 398 KB, 480x238, (you).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15981958

>>15972988
fishing for that fpbp (you) sweet dopamine, I'm gonna indulge you

>> No.15982134
File: 78 KB, 634x951, 1595386714647.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15982134

>>15972984
Goodreads was a mistake.

>> No.15982142
File: 8 KB, 187x250, 1595691440674.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15982142

>>15982134
but why

>> No.15982144

>>15978784
she

piss off

>> No.15982311

You all have shit taste

>> No.15982327

>>15982311
post your profile

>> No.15982517

>>15981652
Low average is a good omen, usually marks a man of discernment. Makes even 2 stars meaningful. You can't search users by average rating alas

>> No.15982642

>>15982517
to me someone who isn't capable of using his reason and intellect to select good books to read isn't really worth following

>> No.15982676

>>15982642
wise man, just stick to the charts and the canon

>> No.15982708

>>15972984
>using goodreads
Go back

>> No.15982727

>>15982708
the true lithinking man doesn't need goodreads, he just downloads the charts that lit tells him to read and puts a red x on the ones he reads as he does

>> No.15982748

>>15982727
That doesn't mean anything

>> No.15982883

Add me: https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/88317446-max-berendsen

>> No.15983108

>>15982708
>>15982727
Tourists

>> No.15984150
File: 27 KB, 400x400, sPe325c-_400x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15984150

>>15982748
That doesn't mean anything

>> No.15984413

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/79592068-gonzalo-s

>> No.15984465

>>15973291
>/r/menwritingwomen tier takes.
What do you mean by that? I don't really know reddit culture.

>> No.15984842
File: 129 KB, 360x360, 1593561329072.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15984842

>>15981695
>harry potter 5/5
>fault in our stars 5/5
>my twisted world 4/5
>guns germs and steel 5/5
>hunger games 5/5
>all that school required reading 5/5
>I think nobody can deny that my taste is good

>> No.15985298

>>15981695
Your taste is beyond salvagable

>> No.15985507

>>15984842
not that guy but goodreads openly identifies its ratings as (going from 1 star to 5) "didn't like it", "it was ok", "liked it", "really liked it", "it was amazing", so they're clearly extremely subjective and if for example he loved harry potter as a child it makes sense that he'd have a special relationship with it that he doesn't have with some "objectively" good book that got in touch with his more rational and sober side

>> No.15985532
File: 137 KB, 770x774, tumblr_pjjo4qy51Z1ts8iy3o1_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15985532

>>15972984
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/38155755-harri

only recently started using it again so there's gaps but :)

>> No.15985616

This guy's good:
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/13715808-sean

>> No.15985800

https://www.goodreads.com/voidbeing

this guy has great taste/reviews

>> No.15985930

almost every time I read a book he's there among the reviews having already read it
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/614778-ahmad-sharabiani

>> No.15986181

>>15985532
is that rose mcdowell and douglas p with tom yorke or am i retarded

>> No.15986386

>>15986181
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in_June

>> No.15986401

>>15985616
I could have sworn this little poser fag was 17

>> No.15986418
File: 735 KB, 1125x2023, FB8D1FB9-9236-41FC-B0FB-77E88507D80D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15986418

This guy seems pretty legit, I keep seeing his reviews everywhere
Anyone here know about BlackOx?

>> No.15986456
File: 67 KB, 581x378, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15986456

>>15974413
>>15974469
>>15974484
I wish I could make GoodReads and Letterboxd my own by just paying attention to my follows' reviews, but they don't even give you some sort of option of disabling the overall star score.

It's the first thing you see next to the title of a book/film, and it subconsciously shapes your taste no matter how much you try to ignore it.

>> No.15986472

>>15974413
>>>15986290

>> No.15986506

>>15986418
nice find, I'll follow him

>> No.15986545

>>15986456
Get a css browser extension, add this for goodreads:

.staticStars {
display: none;
}
.staticStars + * {
display: none;
}
.reviewControls > :first-child {
display: none;
}

>> No.15986548

Does an alternative to goodreads have a chance at succeeding? The UI is absolutely fucking atrocious, it's insane

>>15986456
Eh, I really don't think it's that big of a deal. It would be nice if you could see the average rating of something from only your friends, but still, I don't think ratings mean much. Ratings only really work in relation to other ratings by the same person

>> No.15986626

>>15986548
I doubt it, reading is not even that popular and most readers who would even use a site like goodreads are those retarded booktuber tier wits who go for ya and other similarly meaningless books, and they're probably ecstatic in their booksocial-echo chamber and don't even notice how bad the ui is or how delusional the average ratings and lists are

>> No.15986636 [DELETED] 

>>15986545
Test

.staticStars {
display: none;
}
.staticStars + * {
display: none;
}
.reviewControls > :first-child {
display: none;
}

>> No.15986652

>>15986626
I think the UIs okay, and the site as a whole is way more feature-rich and customizable than most.

>> No.15986663

>>15986545
I'll try it, thank you blessed child

>>15986548
But that's not how our brain works. There's going to be some kind of baseline established in our brains when we see a book rated 3.5 stars on average, even if we look at our friends' reviews and see that they rated it higher. It won't be conscious, but it will be there