[ 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: 214 KB, 1080x717, tfw there are words in a book.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20798017 No.20798017 [Reply] [Original]

why are people on goodreads like this?

>> No.20798020

>>20798017
They read, unlike /lit/.

>> No.20798024

>>20798017
why in the world did he give it two stars?

>> No.20798025

>>20798020
Who is this /lit/ guy you are talking about in every thread? Is he on tiktok?

>> No.20798169

>>20798024
because despite openly admitting to being a filtered pleb he doesn't want to appear like a 100% filtered pleb

>> No.20798234

>>20798017
I don't know, I don't read the comments

>> No.20798322

Because theyre needy and need attention

>> No.20798374

I miss they days when not everybody thought they were hilarious.

>> No.20798426

>>20798017
Joyce?

>> No.20798428
File: 138 KB, 974x834, 1558163561326.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20798428

>>20798017
That's nothing compared to the reigning champion of bad goodreads reviews

>> No.20798590

>>20798426
no, Melville

>> No.20798650

>>20798428
Bro who the fuck? What book?

>> No.20798662

>>20798650
sounds like winesberg, ohio

>> No.20800094

>>20798590
lol

>> No.20800212

>>20798017
Most people on goodreads aren't critics reviewing quality, but laymen rambling about their experience. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect more from them. Add cool people.

>> No.20800324

I only read book reviews from
>academic journals
>Paris Review
>Guardian
>Bookforum
>NYRB
>LRB
>staff recommendations at City Lights

I only read book reviews from
>Amazon
>Goodreads
>blogs

>> No.20800389

>>20800324
>I only read book reviews from
>Amazon
this is the only one that makes sense
if you are going to buy a book online you'd at least want to know if the edition is good

>> No.20800457

>>20800324
>Paris Review
Are they still on fed payroll?

>> No.20800464

Someone post that Ebola BTFO review by the Nietzschean stacey

>> No.20800697

>>20798428
How the fuck is she this retarded
What is the normally reading?

>> No.20800716

>>20800324
>LRB
lmao

>> No.20800720

>>20798017
I would appreciate it a lot more had they talked about the book. Specifically what they did or didn't understand. Been noticing a lot of these bad reviews are just people talking about themselves

>> No.20800765

>>20798428
100 years of solitude?

>> No.20800768

>>20800720
been noticing that too, it's probably a self-selection thing, the screenshot ones are invariably blog posts rather than actual reviews pertinent to the book

>> No.20800769

>>20800765
It's Winesburg, Ohio

>> No.20800791

>>20800324
>academic journals
>Paris Review
>Guardian
>Bookforum
>NYRB
>LRB
>staff recommendations at City Lights
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA holy fuck this is sad

>> No.20800818
File: 61 KB, 645x451, 555.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20800818

>> No.20800903

>>20800818
Houellebecq?

>> No.20801044

>>20800903
id say that this book, would be one of the last ones on the list, that fit the critique, this goodreads user given to it
Book is from 1st quarter of 20th c

>> No.20801120

>none of these fags posting what book their screengrab is from
Decide if you want to seethe about shitty reviews (then include the name of the book) or play a shitty guessing game (then choose reviews that aren't non-specific to the point of being unguessable).

>> No.20801141

>>20800818
>problematic
why do they all speak the same

>> No.20801156

>>20801141
they're not based enough to get redpilled like us anons

>> No.20801198

>>20798017
>>20798428
>>20800818

Could you imagine tentatively stepping out with your first novel, super proud that you actually finished the thing and are grateful that five people or so have decided to read it, thinking your work done? Then you see a Goodreads review like this smugly handwaving your sincere effort with a few throwaway lines based on their Twitter convinctions of the day? Even if you had no delusions of success for the book at hand, how does that not drive you into a murderous haze?

>> No.20801577

>>20800818
>plot
>character development
literal children

>> No.20802610
File: 79 KB, 760x425, nail polis.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20802610

>>20798017
idk lol

>> No.20802652

>>20801198
Dumb people say dumb things. Nothing new. Their arrogance is annoying, but who believes them? Other idiots, that's who.

>> No.20802674
File: 65 KB, 1068x601, 1613372175294.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20802674

>>20801198
by realizing there will always be retards filtered by my works

>> No.20802684

>>20798428
Those people imagine themselves writers but can only write those retarded reviews.

>> No.20802699

>>20798428
>nobody in the town has a life
>except for the life the author describes
Imagine being filtered by plaintext descriptions because they clash so forcefully with your propaganda addled worldview that you cannot even reconcile what you're reading as even remotely possible

>> No.20802730

>>20798017
> Benito Cereno
Andrew must be illiterate then. I mean, he doesn't even like The Cube.

>> No.20802893

what makes a good review? I've noticed my reviews are surface level summaries, and some minor analysis of what's missing (if I know enough about the subject to see what is in fact missing)