Goodreads Hate Thread

[Anonymous No.23063398]

Go to the Goodreads page of the last book you read (or just one of your favorite books) and find the most retarded, rage-inducing review.

[Anonymous No.23063404]

[Anonymous No.23063415]

>>23063398
Why would I purposefully make myself angry?

[Anonymous No.23063446]

>>23063398
Gustave Le Bon, the Psychology Of Revolutions

Not sure if she was being sarcastic or not, hard to tell with females. Most of the other reviews were in Arabic and of no use.

[Anonymous No.23063481]

[Anonymous No.23063486]

>>23063481
>The publisher was bad so I rated the book 1 star

[Anonymous No.23063511]

>>23063398
OK so this was the top one star review for Lewis' That Hideous Strength with 50 likes. I'm not gonna screen it, it's too long:


>I have a love/hate relationship with C.S. Lewis. There's a lot I admire in his writing but enough I deplore in his worldview that even though I keep being drawn to his works, I can't call him a favorite. I mostly loved The Screwtape Letters and Narnia, which I read as an adult, adored Till We Have Faces (my favorite Lewis work), was moved by his book A Grief Observed and found Mere Christianity and the first two books in the Space Trilogy interesting. There was only one book by him until this one that I had dropped mid-read because I found it just too exasperating--and that was The Abolition of Man. Significantly, he cites that book in the Preface saying he delineated in that essay the point he was making through fiction in this book. I noted in the first two books of the Space Trilogy that for all they might seem to fall into the science fiction genre, both books are actually anti-science fiction. In the first book Out of the Silent Planet, the hero, Ransom spoke of the purpose of the book as "a change-over from the conception of Space to the conception of Heaven." (And I prefer Space--greatly.) The thrust of the first two books is against the humanistic message of science fiction itself and the books decry the very idea of space exploration and colonization.

>That's very much a line that is continued in That Hideous Strength, but that isn't what caused me to put the book down deciding not to torture myself further. Yes, the anti-science, anti-technology line irked me. As did the evident contempt for all those who aren't believers in Christian orthodoxy--let alone atheists. And as an American and (small "r" and "d") republican and democrat I bristle at Lewis' evident fondness for the whole class system from how you address servants to the belief in the curtsy as an essential social skill to the love of monarchy--and what may seem quaint in that respect in Narnia just seemed at its most noisome here. But no, what really got to me was the attitude towards women. I've defended Lewis in reviews against those who have called him sexist based on Narnia. Truly, Narnia has wonderful heroines. Even compared in terms of current science fiction and fantasy what struck me was how important and strong were his female characters and how gender balanced were his cast of characters in a very testosterone-laden genre. But it really was just really too much in The Hideous Strength. The contempt heaped on "emancipated women," characters like Hardcastle that seem to signal that just being in an nontraditional profession for a woman means you're perverted and a fascist. And Jane. Oh, Jane. You know where I couldn't take it anymore? It was the "Pendragon" chapter. Here's two quotes:

[Anonymous No.23063516]

>>23063511
>She said at last, "I suppose our marriage was just a mistake."
The Director said nothing.
"What would you - what would the people you are talking of - say about a case like that?"
"I will tell you if you really want to know," said the Director.
"Please," said Jane reluctantly.
"They would say," he answered, "that you do not fail in obedience through lack of love, but have lost love because you never attempted obedience."

>Jane said, "I always thought it was in their souls that people were equal."
"You were mistaken," he said gravely. "That is the last place where they are equal. Equality before the law, equality of incomes - that is very well. Equality guards life; it doesn't make it. It is medicine, not food. You might as well try warming yourself with a blue-book."
"But surely in marriage . . . ?"
"Worse and worse," said the Director. "Courtship knows nothing of it; nor does fruition. What has free companionship to do with that? Those who are enjoying something, or suffering something together, are companions. Those who enjoy or suffer one another, are not. Do you not know how bashful friendship is? Friends - comrades - do not look at each other. Friendship would be ashamed . . ."
"I thought," said Jane and stopped.
"I see," said the Director. "It is not your fault. They never warned you. No one has ever told you that obedience - humility - is an erotic necessity. You are putting equality just where it ought not to be.

>And yes, there were things I liked that make me wish I could tolerate this novel better. There's a reason after all I keep coming back to Lewis. He's a great writer with truly striking, shapely prose and at his best has a prodigious imagination and a winning sense of humor and a great way of infusing fiction with ideas--sometimes all too blatantly--but often brilliantly. Even here there were things I relished. His depiction of the process for instance by which Mark Studdock was corrupted was terrifically done. And I had to smile at the way he named his characters--very Dickensian. Some of those on the villain's roll included Lord Feverstone, Miss Hardcastle, Mr Frost, Withers, Steele, Curry. And you can't get better than the acronym for the sinister organization of baddies--N.I.C.E. And it's not as if I disagree with all of Lewis' message--the whole scenario of controlling humanity in the name of "Order" and scientific principle was chilling and resonated with me. I loved how Lewis was working in the Arthurian theme into a story set in mid-twentieth century England. And as I love the Arthurian genre, that was very much a highlight and it took a lot to finally break me away from that. But after that encounter between Jane and Fisher-King I thought it was time to part company before the urge to tear my book in half and start shredding the pages took hold of me--especially since this was about twice the length of the two earlier books. I couldn't imagine being able to get through the rest with my sanity intact.

[Anonymous No.23063530]

>>23063511
>>23063516
Probably one of the worst reviews of a novel I've ever read online. Here's my ultimate question and femanons, feel free to weigh in: why are women so transparently narcissistic? Every single critique I've ever heard from a woman about any piece of art is strictly when the art becomes critical of the woman and asks her to self reflect. Literally, that's it, that's all it ever is. If the book fellates the woman's sense of self victimization, paints her as sympathetic, or even as triumphantly wicked, women are always fine with but as SOON as literally the MINUTE that the book asks a woman to consider that perhaps she has flaws and she contributed to the bad outcome of the novel through her own poor decisions and personality defects; the novel is misogynist trash "men writing women lmao so bad" they put the book down, go online and write an obviously denialist driven screed about how its actually not true.
Any time a novel strikes the CORRECT cord by asking women to self reflect, they reject it. Every single time

So i ask you particularly the femanons: are all women this emotionally stunted and pathologically self absorbed? Because this is literally a motherfuckin small child's mentality and its incredibly pervasive, it makes me unattractive to women. Someone please explain. Are you all unconfident narcissists?

[Anonymous No.23063532]

>>23063530
*unattracted to women.
Whoever programs autocorrect in the android OS should be tried for crimes against humanity

[Anonymous No.23063533]

>>23063404
They're right. It's dogshit compared to the Iliad.

[Anonymous No.23063536]

>>23063530
I don't know, I'd probably get annoyed if the book I was reading was patently anti-male. I avoid reading feminist slop for that reason (unless it's good). She is right that Jane's independence is written as a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.23063540]

[Anonymous No.23063547]

>>23063404
>two women
>two Hispanics
Pottery.

[Anonymous No.23063554]

>>23063415
You browse /Lit/, of course. Isn't that the only other hobby we all share, fuckface?

[Anonymous No.23063560]

>>23063536
Yeah but this books isn't even patently anti female. Jane is a sympathetic character throughout the entire novel and even still is at the end. She's a little self victimizing though and so is her husband, that's the point of their relationship in the book. This is like the sole time in the whole novel that she's asked to challenge her own perception and consider responsibility. The rest of the book people are kissing her ass and helping her out. Lewis clearly doesn't hate women or created Jane as a stand in for like, how shitty women are. She's a sympathetic character

Women just don't want women to be criticized in books. Its fucking infantile

[Anonymous No.23063569]

>>23063536
Also homie, Lewis was a christian. Jane and Mark both don't believe in God. At this point in the novel that the reviewer is crying about, the guy is just telling her to have more humility from a Biblical perspective; he's telling her marriage isn't meant to benefit one's self, it's meant to benefit the world directly and yourself indirectly, that's what "obligations" are. Basically he's telling her that, in a very common human way, she's too selfish and never realized it bc she feels sorry for herself.
He literally tells Mark the same thing later.
It's not like he was like "you're a woman and women are selfish retards, back to the kitchen"
It was a critique of human nature irrespective of female or male

But women *literally* don't think they can be flawed and perceive all sentiment toward reflection as "someone is being mean to me"

Again this is how small children perceive the world

[Anonymous No.23063572]

>>23063560
I liked the book and I do agree that women are generally incapable of taking criticism gracefully, however CS Lewis did hold what most liberal women would call "reactionary" today (even though they were not nearly as bad as is often suggested). This quote, for instance:
>In the hive and the ant-hill we see fully realised the two things that some of us most dread for our own species — the dominance of the female and the dominance of the collective.
I'm not offended by it I find it funny (and true) but if I were a woman maybe I would be. Certainly the males on this site are not less sensitive than the women when it comes to messages in media they dislike... From the perspective of a woman I suppose anti-feminism is like being what being a cuckold anti-white or male feminist is for us or something.

[Anonymous No.23063578]

>>23063572
I don't agree though. I can laugh at men and I can tell when a critique of women is coming from a wizened place, versus straight incel rage, and I mock and dismiss the latter. But women idk like they NEVER self reflect

It's really childish

[Anonymous No.23063592]

>>23063536
Also; it's not that Jane's "independence" is a bad thing, its about what drives it. Lewis was incredibly smart in matters of the human heart.
Jane doesn't want to be truly independent, she's way too egotistically brittle for that. She wants to be affirmed and to be proud. And that's what the guy is telling her, you create your own problems because you want someone to validate your pride, but your pride is literally the problem. You sat around thinking about how your marriage is unfulfilling and so did your husband; did either of you work to make it fulfilling? And throughout the novel, no, it's clear they don't, both her and Mark are inherently self absorbed people. But actually, the genius of Lewis is he actually has the reader agreeing with Jane's idea that she's the victim of a loveless marriage right up until this point where the man basically says, you never occupied a mind state capable of injecting love into the marriage. You didn't want to love, you wanted to be loved.

[Anonymous No.23063684]

>>23063415
I just find enjoyment in getting angry at retarded takes

[Anonymous No.23063701]

[Anonymous No.23063712]

>>23063701
ok now I'm done

[Anonymous No.23063727]

>>23063684
This is insane.

[Anonymous No.23063729]

[Anonymous No.23063730]

>>23063684
>the book is bad because the main character wasn’t a good person
This is insane, literal child reasoning

[Anonymous No.23063793]

Does Reddit count too?

[Anonymous No.23063819]

>>23063730
These kinds of “people” expect perfection out of human beings. A very vain pursuit.

[Anonymous No.23063825]

>>23063398
>that zoomer non-binary leftist pfp
Pottery

[Anonymous No.23063829]

>>23063819
> expect perfection out of human beings
Nrly. They expect anachronistic ideological compliance from fictional characters.

[Anonymous No.23063835]

>>23063793
What Gogol story is more violent than BM?

[Anonymous No.23063843]

>>23063398
I don't read goodreads, I just use it to catalogue my books. The reviewers there are absolute mentally ill troons, they everywhere see racism and misogyny (especially misogyny)

[Anonymous No.23063904]

[Anonymous No.23063913]

>>23063904
>that hijab
>3 women

[Anonymous No.23063922]

>>23063530
>So i ask you particularly the femanons: are all women this emotionally stunted and pathologically self absorbed?
No, you idiot, only those who post dumb goodreads reviews. The ones who see that there might be something to the book don't bother writing reviews. Are all /lit/ posters as retarded as you?

[Anonymous No.23063928]

[Anonymous No.23063930]

>>23063486
That’s a legitimate reason to give a book 1 stat, you fucking retard. Too many jews try to make money by self-publishing books from PG, wherein their only effort is copy/pasting PG’s egregious formatting

[Anonymous No.23063937]

>>23063913
>> 3 women
bro it's goodreads

[Anonymous No.23063940]

>>23063904
Dune is still trash. It's capeshit without the capeshit.

[Anonymous No.23063941]

>>23063937
Excuse me there could also be liberal "men" on that website.

[Anonymous No.23063963]

>>23063536
It's really this simple, how do people not understand?

[Anonymous No.23063969]

I like to think that a lot of 1 stars are upvoted to the top because people are just looking for a reason not to read a book because they are lazy.

[Anonymous No.23063972]

>>23063404
I remember when I was 10 or so, and my school forced Odysseus onto me, I was so fucking awestruck, I read it like 5 times and was the only kid in class who talked about it over and over. The teacher asked a question or wanted us to discuss something? I was immediately there talking about sirens and shit. I loved Odysseus so much.

[Anonymous No.23063991]

>>23063684
>he doesn't have any agency, just lets life happen to him
Isn't that one of the points of the book? I saw myself in Stoner because I also just keep going with the wave, never having agency in my life, just accepting stuff as they come. I'm working a job I hate because I got education in something I don't give a fuck about because a few people recommended it to me and I went with it lol, even though I have other interests

[Anonymouṡ No.23063993]

>>23063972
Interesting. I had a very similar experience at the same age.

Once a week at primary school we had a thing where we watched some TV programme and talked a bit about it. For some reason they showed us an adaptation of the sirens epiusode in the Odyssey where O. has himself tied to the mast etc.

I was just overwhelmed by that — the whole idea of being so curious, so determined to experience this ultimate temptation that you're prepared to risk insanity for it. I had this moment of revelation where I realized everything else I was being fed was just stupid pabulum and this was the Real Deal.

[Anonymous No.23063994]

>>23063940
Are you retarded, what are even trying to say here?

[Anonymous No.23063997]

>>23063940
>It's capeshit without the capeshit
You've just described the whole fantasy genre

[Anonymous No.23064028]

>>23063994
Basically what he said >>23063997

And Dune is a particularly bad case of this as fantasy goes. It is this pointless fake world that doesn't make any attempt to teach about reality or showcase a view of it, but it's still super complicated and not entertaining at all. It combines the worst parts of fiction and non-fiction into one pointless book that is absolute dogshit.

[Anonymouṡ No.23064031]

Posted before but it's worth a repeat.

What's really exquisite is that the character in question is absolutely one of the most likeable in all of literature. Every sane person loves her.

The book: Anne of Green Gables

[Anonymouṡ No.23064060]

A new one.

The book is Larkin's Collected Poems, fairly obviously. I imagine it's "The Less Deceived" that Hannah is getting so worked up about. Admittedly, it must be hard to deal with the world with strident feminism the only object in your mental toolbox. I sympathize, sort of.

[Anonymous No.23064346]

>>23064028
lmao, this nigga got FILTERED by Dune

[Anonymous No.23064351]

>>23064060
>I was already pretty icked out

Why do zoomers talk like this

[Anonymous No.23064362]

>>23064351
They haven't been publicly embarrassed for talking like toddlers by what they consider an authority figure. They think doing it ironically absolves them of being lame.

[Anonymous No.23064402]

>>23063404
Good morning from Kazakhstan

[Anonymous No.23064408]

>>23063446
Actual queen. I would marry her.

[Anonymous No.23064478]

Here's Kevin's take on The Metamorphoses

[Anonymous No.23064518]

[Anonymous No.23064554]

>>23064478
Theres something incredibly funny about somebody going online and rating Ovid 1 star. It's like those people downvoting the Grand Canyon on Google maps.

[Anonymous No.23064559]

What I'm gathering from this is that women and libtards are aesthetically and intellectual deficient. Is this supposed to be some kind of a revelation?

[Anonymous No.23065154]

>>23064518
based

[Anonymous No.23065244]

>>23063398
>1 star, I didn't get it
this but every time, can't be assed to fetch a snap
>>23064559
at least the women are reading. where are the male goodreads users? OH, NOT THERE. THEY'RE OFF PLAYING VIDEO GAMES. faggot.

[Anonymous No.23065334]

>>23063835
That tranny is saying Taras Bulba (pretty brutal desu)

[Anonymous No.23065350]

>>23063829
How tf is that even possible?

[Anonymous No.23065354]

>>23064408
To be fair she could be sincere…

[Anonymous No.23066472]

lol

[Anonymous No.23066744]

>>23063398

[Anonymous No.23066757]

These threads are always blackpills.

[Anonymous No.23066957]

>>23063904
>(disgusting)

[Anonymous No.23067604]

>>23066957
I laughed out loud at that part of the review.

>Book is bad because it's just so ICKYYYYY
>All I can say is YUCK and YIKES

[Anonymous No.23067605]

>>23066757
Unironically, no blackpill incel doomer wojak could ever demoralize me more than just reading women's reviews

[Anonymouṡ No.23067618]

>>23067605
Remember we are picking one-star reviews of books we like. So there's more than a little selection bias in there

That said, it's a little depressing to see just what fifty years of WHITE MEN BAD indoctrination has done to people.

Brainwashing works.

[Anonymous No.23067621]

>>23067618
Some of the screenshots are top reviews (highest number of votes, by a large margin)

[Anonymous No.23067637]

>>23063730
It’s the literary equivalent to “how would you feel if you didn’t have breakfast today”. Some people are completely unable to read about people who disagree with them or their morals. It doesn’t matter if the narrative approves or disapproves of what it’s portraying either.

[Anonymous No.23067639]

>>23067637
>how would you feel if you didn’t have breakfast today
Hungry?

[Anonymous No.23067643]

>>23063994
I think he wanted to write "capeshit without the capes" but he has single digit verbal IQ, and that would be nonsense anyway

[Anonymouṡ No.23067663]

This is a good one simply because it's so bizarre. (I spoilered it to hide the filename in case anyone wants to try guessing the book, but you never will. It's The Long Goodbye.)

I approve of Laurie's general disapproval of bad language. But the point is, there is no bad lanaguage in this book. I'm wondering if she saw a certain foul-mouthed film adaptation?

[Anonymous No.23067685]

>>23064478
Complaining about there being too much rape in a book of mythological stories seems a little misguided.

[Anonymous No.23067690]

>>23067639
You passed the groid test.

[Anonymous No.23067694]

>>23066472
I like the way she managed to both complain about him using an Italian word she didn't know, then complain about him not knowing Italian that she did know.
Real logical rollercoaster.

[Anonymous No.23067880]

Speaking of goodreads, what's with arabs in that place? I thought art was halal for them or something.

[Anonymouṡ No.23067978]

>>23067605
If you want blackpills, <pic attached> is, in a quiet way, one of the most depressing reviews on the site, I think.

The point is that the woman actually liked Laura Ingalls Wilder when she was nine (or whatever "fourth grade" is). Then she went through the public school system and had all her instincts scrambled by woke indoctrination from stupid and/or wicked people. So now she hates a magnificent book about self-evidently admirable and likeable people.

She's literally spent a decade being wrecked.

[Anonymous No.23068119]

>>23067880
As long as it is just text it's fine. Hungry Hungry Caterpillar is haram

[Anonymous No.23068130]

>>23067880
>halal
Halal means allowed by Islam. Haram is the word you're thinking about. Think about Harambe.

[Anonymous No.23068140]

>>23063530
Bro you do realize that women are at a collectively much lower level of consciousness than men, right? They have to be ... how else would they be capable of tolerating children for extended stretches of time?

[Anonymous No.23068207]

This one doesn't make me feel rage. It's funny.

[Anonymous No.23068334]

Why are they like this?

[Anonymous No.23068354]

>>23067618
You can find "White man bad" tier reviews on Borges lmao. Don't even care about him but it's depressing nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.23068361]

To me there's something retarded in rating classics that influenced the world 1/5
normal people would research and look stuff up, thinking they didn't understand something, but just look at this shit
>>23064478
>why are they retelling stories around a fire instead of just writing the stories?!?!?!
holy shit man

[Anonymous No.23068408]

>>23068334
Reading is a challenge for black folks, it is a pretty simple skill for most others.

[Anonymous No.23068411]

>>23068334
Same people pushing stuff like pic related are the same people who run GoodReads and the publishing industry.

[Anonymous No.23068424]

>>23068334
>>23068408
I noticed this too. I also noticed how underrepresented black people are in the review sections of books.. really makes you think...

[Anonymous No.23068464]

>>23063398
6000 people cant appreciate Milton's genius for some reason

[Anonymous No.23068578]

>>23063712
After reading some of these reviews, i've come to the conclusion that women cannot comprehend the abstract

[Anonymous No.23068632]

>>23064351
This seems more like millenial "I just cant adult today" type of lingo to me