/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6271242]

I noticed that Goodreads reviewers are actually more pleb than Amazon reviewers.

At first it was a little surprising, but in retrospect it makes perfect sense--Goodreads attracts all sorts of self-proclaimed 'book lovers', from the good to the bad, whereas writing Amazon reviews is a relatively uncommon thing and most of the people who do so are probably more competent and informed (on average) than the typical Goodreads reviewer.

[Anonymous No.6271251]

>>6271242
Read the amazon reviews of The Hobbit and tell me Goodreads is more pleb

[Anonymous No.6271275]

Don't even pay attention to the reviewers. I use goodreads for its recommendation system which is actually really good.

[Anonymous No.6271307]

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/180909895?book_show_action=true&page=1

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/5205104?book_show_action=true&page=1

[Anonymous No.6271336]

>>6271251
Seems fine to me:

http://smile.amazon.com/review/R1CE9PNZJG9BWY/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0618134700&nodeID=283155&store=books

[Anonymous No.6271576]

>>6271307
Dennis' edge is the critical equivalent of Un Chien Andalou.

[Anonymous No.6271672]

>>6271307
>https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/180909895?book_show_action=true&page=1

>I'm surprised how many people are willing to read my little blurb of nothingness!
>*sighs* okay I'm done, proceed with reading. If you want to, I'm just tiny words on a screen. Do whatever you want.
>I wish I could write more about this book, but I just can't explain the amazingness of it with my simple, unworthy words,

Is this what John Green does to you? Or was she always like that? Do we have an entire army 16 year old of pseudo-nihilists out there?

[Anonymous No.6271691]

>>6271336
>1 star
>The worst book I ever read I think cat in the hat is 10times better so boring officially the worst book I ever read. Don't waste your money in buying this book. On a scale of 1 to 100 I would rate it -3 please do not bye this book do not waste your mone

[Anonymous No.6271697]

>>6271691
Well, when you have almost eight thousand reviews on a book that was recently adapted into a trilogy of feature films, there are going to be some stinkers.

[Anonymous No.6272231]

>>6271242
Not to mention the shilling.

[Anonymous No.6272273]

>>6271242
>site with "X out of 5" rating
ugh

[Anonymous No.6272275]

based Hadrian

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/4100763-hadrian

based Kris

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/5974610-kris

[Anonymous No.6272448]

>>6272231
CHRIST FUCK

[Anonymous No.6272629]

1.Authors. (lookey here: >>6272231)
2.goodreads starlets (people building a portfolio?). They have a large following and will write your average paper tier review, maybe with a couple of jokes here and there. It is not completely dreadful but sometimes way too lurid.
3.The circlejerk crowd - utter cringefest. They will draw on the other reviews to make one of their own usually adding some painful original opinion based on their pronouncedly vague knowledge of what the book is about. Beware, there are a plenty of such idiot snobs irl. They will also comment each other without using their brains.
4.people who wrote an essay for university or school about the subject. Will repost them with the ton of complicated argumentation firing far beyond the original point of the book. Will contain what they have been fed in class about what makes the book so dreadfully "important"; more often than not what they say is just blantantly wrong. How would a Korean literature professor explain Charles de Coster? Well, now you know what it feels like to read euros and yanks opine on Gogol and Bulgakov.
5.Laundry list of things you will find in the book - my favourite kind of review; is unfortunately drowned by all of the above.
6.short insightful snippet with a bit of insider humor for those who have taken their time to read that book. They barely ever get a single point.
7.people much more gifted than those in point 2 but not using actively look for means to get upboats. Will get 0-1 points.
8.longwinded passionate discussion only coherent if you have read the book as well. 0 points.
8.commuters using audiobooks; Disarmingly honest opinions without even a shade of snobbery. Will sometimes opine on the narrator having a terrible voice even if it is the page of the paper version of the book.
9.an impenetrable barely coherent pretentious wall of text left by someone from /lit/.