/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7761033]

So GoodReads is all just an elaborate joke right?

[Anonymous No.7761059]

it's mostly used by teenagers and old ladies, literally what did you expect? rym is stupid anyway, give up on telling the internet about your progress and just progress

[Anonymous No.7761070]

>>7761033
Though most of its users are unbearable (what do you expect?), some users--Nathan "N.R" Gaddis, for example--aren't that bad, and can help you find new books to say you've read.

[Anonymous No.7761074]

I just use it to make lists

[Anonymous No.7761082]

Good reads is like worldstar insofar that you go in thinking of can't be as bad as people say, and it's worse.

Spending time on it is genuinely damaging to my ability to feel sympathy for otherwise innocent humans.

And in platos defence these retards would be properly handled a lot in life and not left to fumble about trying to read at all.

[Anonymous No.7761083]

It's useful to track your own progress and to rate books just for yourself. Also showing it to people is easy when you're traveling around, trying to search for better books that are fit for my tastes.

[Anonymous No.7761098]

>>7761033
LIke every other website ever it has its good parts and bad parts but as an overall scheme it is shit and would appear so to any ignorant outsider who doesn't understand the principle of cyber majority-shittiness. Much like how all the default subreddits on reddit are shit but there's a few ones that cater to obscure interests that are neat, or how 4Chan's literally entirely edgy teenagers with the exception of specialty boards like this one

Goodreads naturally promotes autistic and easily readable shit at the top but if you really like a certain genre for example Russian tesserect compound sentence shit then you'd find plenty of great reviews for books that cast different lights, reviews that are much better than the cancer you'd find here

[Anonymous No.7761113]

>>7761098
>abloo abloo muh cancer website muh shit website HOLY FUCK THIS SITE IS SO FUCKING SHIT like honestly everything else is better full of C A N C E R and edges too

[Anonymous No.7761131]

>>7761083
>It's useful to track your own progress

why would i want to do that? i just like reading books and reading about them and shitposting

[Anonymous No.7761146]

>>7761033
yes

[Anonymous No.7761149]

>>7761131
Opinions man, opinions. It's not like the categorical imperative. I personally like to list books that I've read for rating purposes. Again, for myself. I find it rewarding to fill that list.

[Anonymous No.7761166]

you cherrypicked a couple of bad apples and labelled the whole site rubbish when in actual fact the positives farrrrrrr outweigh the negative

[Anonymous No.7761169]

>>7761166
>best books ever
>cherrypicked
>bad apples
sure thing buddy

[Anonymous No.7761173]

>a popular site is filled with retards

Thanks for telling me OP.

[Anonymous No.7761177]

>>7761070
Nathan "N.R" Gaddis detected

[Anonymous No.7761182]

ITT: 16-year old edgy teens, and Nathan N.R Gaddis

/lit/ is at least as shitty as goodreads, if not shittier. The idiots on goodreads are at least sincere in their mediocrity, here on /lit/ it's nothing but Eternal September

[Anonymous No.7761185]

at least Jane Austen made it onto the list

that's worth something

[Anonymous No.7761191]

>>7761033
That Mein Kampf review is a masterpiece of comic writing.

[Anonymous No.7761194]

>>7761182
>Eternal September
haven't heard that one in a while

[Anonymous No.7761221]

>>7761033
that "review" on the old man and the sea demonstrates how deep women are now in there "self empowering" ideas. They they have basically lost all objectivity, they literally cant separate the ideas of "strong women" from anything they do, every thing is about them and how "the man" is keeping them down. as bad as minorities now.

[Anonymous No.7761229]

>>7761221
Yeah, and salty beta dudes won't shut the fuck up about it either. Why can't I go on the fucking internet anymore without hearing everyone's political opinions? It wasn't this way a few years ago, and I honestly have no idea when the change started

[Anonymous No.7761230]

>>7761113
god shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.7761231]

>>7761221
>objectivity

[Anonymous No.7761239]

>>7761229

Politics and morality inform everything, dipshit.

Can you imagine trying to review a piece of literature without deferring to them? Me neither.

[Anonymous No.7761240]

>>7761131
My father has the habit of writing on the book the date in which he got the book and the date in which he finished. This way i can track when i started and when i finished without having it on the book itself

[Anonymous No.7761244]

>>7761229
It changed when moot broke /pol/, so now all these "muh sjw"/"muh wymen" neckbeard virgins are shitting up all boards. Moot broke the dam as a farewell gift. He fixed the dam before he left, but the damage was done.

[Anonymous No.7761277]

Not wrong about Plato thought

[Anonymous No.7761281]

>>7761229
>>7761231
did you at least read the review from OP's picture?

it was a garbage review which didn't even try to relate to the actual book instead just blabbed about perceived overtones that offend her.

trying to imply that i wasn't objective in my criticism of a flimsy and inane review of a work of literature which is almost universally agreed to be at least good, because you think i have some agenda to hate on women on a random lit post is weak.

[Naomi Klein No.7761288]

>>7761281
I also like to imagine that people making fun of me said stupid things that they didn't say.

[Anonymous No.7761291]

>>7761288
Ignore the name, it was for a joke in a different thread.

[Anonymous No.7761300]

>>7761288
not really sure what you mean by this but nice dubs either way.

[Anonymous No.7761301]

>>7761300
No one was implying that he hates women. And nice dubs to you too.

[Anonymous No.7761342]

>>7761033
It's good for novels that are outside of the normal canon - NYRB (-Stoner) and Eastern European authors are usually reviewed by people with, at least, semi-decent taste.
I use it mostly to look at lists that people have collected, you can find some books you didn't know about before that way. Same as IMDB.

[Anonymous No.7761366]

>>7761059
I'm so tired of the word literally. It is constantly used in places where it carries no meaning and adds nothing to the statement.

[Anonymous No.7761368]

I'm so tired of the word proto-hegelian. It is constantly used in places where it carries no meaning and adds nothing to the statement.

[Anonymous No.7761372]

>>7761281
I got to the part where she started talking about bra shopping and decided it wasn't worth my time to read the rest. It's an idiotic non-review, I agree, but going off about how "women" have lost their "objectivity" with some references to "empowerment" and "the man" to round it out just makes you look like a neoreactionary high school student.

You aren't being objective, and you're a moron if you sincerely think the people who write these types of reviews on the internet are representative of women as a whole

[Anonymous No.7761379]

>>7761221
pure ideology.jpeg

sie tun es, aber sie wissen das nicht

[Anonymous No.7761411]

>>7761177
N-no I'm not. YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING.

[Anonymous No.7761415]

Guys, guys, I think I've figured it out!

This list of the 'best books of all time' was compiled by conducting a survey across the general public! That's why the results are skewed in favour of popular books: more people have read them!

It all makes sense now!

[Anonymous No.7761421]

>>7761415
So extrapolate this into how our government is run and decided.

[Anonymous No.7761430]

>>7761421
People don't vote for obscure fringe parties because they haven't heard of them?

[Anonymous No.7761508]

>>7761281
stop being a faggot

[Anonymous No.7761538]

>>7761239
>Can you imagine trying to review a piece of literature without deferring to them?
yes

[Anonymous No.7761544]

>>7761033
>So GoodReads is all just an elaborate joke right?

No, that's just literally 95% of the reading public.

[Anonymous No.7761636]

>>7761146
What was she reviewing?

[Anonymous No.7761644]

>>7761544
this

[Anonymous No.7761936]

>>7761033
To improve Goodreads, they should introduce an entrance exam like What.CD where only those genuinely interested in literature or those that are well-read can enter.

[Anonymous No.7761956]

>>7761098
>4Chan is edgy teenagers except this one
>except this one

[Anonymous No.7761980]

>>7761244
If you haven't seen how dreadful the Tumblr army can be, then I envy you. I wish I didn't know what an SJW was.

[Anonymous No.7762060]

>>7761980
A SJW is simply a reasonable/empathetic human being

[Anonymous No.7762087]

>>7761033
That 'Jarret' guy sounds like a full-blown degenerate, maybe even a Jew. Mein Kampf is a true masterpiece of world literature and only a cuckold would dare disrespect it with a flipantly ironic review

[Anonymous No.7762107]

>>7762060
Not if they use double standards, hypocrisy and prejudice (no matter how many times people say "prejudice to whitey isn't real" doesn't make it true) to fight for their cause.

Melissa Click deserved to be fired.

[Anonymous No.7762167]

>>7761146
>Barbara rates the Bible

[Anonymous No.7762201]

>>7761366
yeah bud? get used to it.

[Anonymous No.7762209]

>>7762060
>>7761980
>>7761244
>>7761221
>>7762107

None of this is in any way related to literature, if you want to talk about your stupid ideologies >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.7762227]

>>7761936
Worst idea I've heard, honestly

[Anonymous No.7762236]

>>7762209
> implying the stupid ideology isn't the SJW disease

Hello, Tumblr.

[Anonymous No.7762240]

>>7762227
Then you think of a solution, shithead

[Anonymous No.7762241]

>>7761098

[Anonymous No.7762249]

[Anonymous No.7762251]

>>7762249

[Anonymous No.7762255]

>>7762236
yadda yadda kys
>>7761239
what a narrow mind

[Anonymous No.7762265]

>>7762240
Just don't use goodreads you mongoloid

[Anonymous No.7762275]

>>7762265
but I want to, gaylord

[Anonymous No.7762336]

>>7762240
How about a rating and reputation system for reviewers? Like you could give a 1 star rating to a pleb reviewer and such. You edgelords would have to tone down the autism, though, so that you don't downvote serious reviewers just because they liked Pynchon less than you did.

[Anonymous No.7762342]

>>7762336
Sort of like Amazon seller reputation? I think this would be a good solution, but I'm sure the spastics that down vote classic literature and up vote Fifty Shades of Grey will also be up voting dumb reviewers too.

I just wish we had a place where we could actually talk about literature.

[Anonymous No.7762541]

>>7762167
kek
That was actually what I thought at first.

[Anonymous No.7762556]

>>7761033
I often check goodreads accounts of /lit/ users to find new books. The ratings of the website are shit, but it can be useful if you find a group of people with similar tastes to you

Yo-yo Ma.

[Anonymous No.7762578]

>>7762240
Your idea is terrible.

There is no need for a "solution" since the reviews on goodreads are excellent for the public, which is full of individuals with no taste or education.

If you use Goodreads to get recommendations from friends, their recommendation algorithm, and as a book tracker its fine.

If you are reading reviews for books like Moby Dick and Catch 22 and filtering for 1 star reviews to prove it is failed platform, you are an idiot. Try niche /lit/ tier works with smaller review bases and you find far more thoughtful reviews from well read individuals.

[Anonymous No.7762706]

>>7762251
>brothers karamazov
>"tome"

Thankfully these girls will be saved from ever learning about Proust.

[Anonymous No.7762723]

>>7762251
literally no reason why she disliked it, just whining about how bad she thought it was. triggered.

[Anonymous No.7762975]

>>7761033
You'll be a lot happier if you let go of the expectation that any single internet community is going to be good.

Also fucking shit those people make me want to die