[ 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: 1.22 MB, 1641x923, shakespeare-people-page.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16909463 No.16909463 [Reply] [Original]

RYM now has a site for video games how do we get them to do a literature one?

Goodreads is just garbage

>> No.16909771

Top 10 books on RYM
1.1984
2.The Communist Manifesto
3.Fanged Pneumonia
4.Das Kapital (Volume I)
5.Pride and Prejudice
6.Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
7.White Fragility
8.Infinite Jest
9.Milk and Honey
10.Das Kapital (Volume II

Bottom 10 books on RYM
1.The Holy Bible (KJV)
2.Mein Kampf
3.Revolt Against the Modern World
4.Journey to the End of the Night
5.The Holy Bible (ESV)
6.Harassment Architecture
7.Stones to Abbigale
8.Industrial Society and It's Future
9.Lolita
10.Rats in the Walls.

>> No.16909844

>>16909463
I think literature is much more unrelated to RYM than video games and films for these are related to music, in OSTs. Why do you think goodreads is garbage? I mean it has many faults but still is decent.

>>16909771
Where did you get this from?

>> No.16909852

Literature shouldn't be rated numerically. Nothing should be for that matter, except something which naturally suits itself to quantitative measurement.

>> No.16909915

>>16909463
>>16909852
Every site focused on rating things will be garbage. Using numbers is a poor way of engaging with the medium of any kind - because it becomes devoid of any context besides the numbers themselves.

>> No.16909924

>>16909852
>>16909915
i dont think it is about quantifying a work but just categorizing it personally. dont you like some books more than others?

>> No.16909931

>>16909924
How do you plan to categorize it without assigning numbers to it which diminish the work in the process?

>> No.16909953

>>16909463
Hasn't glitchwave been in development for years and still in beta? The chance of them doing one for books is super low, they can't even do what they need to now

>> No.16909957

>>16909771
spot on

>> No.16909963

>>16909931
how am i diminshing a work i love giving it a 5?

>> No.16909979

>>16909771
all pretty good but I don't think ISaIF would be in the bottom ten because there is probably enough meme kids who would upvote it because unabomber memes are in style

>>16909844
he made it up you retard.

>> No.16909999

>>16909963
You diminish everything that you love about the book - be it style, plot, vibrant ideas, hot degenerate pedo scenes - to a single number. Now imagine that everyone does the same. These ratings erase any context, everything that you liked in the first place. It's becomes very hard to ignore these numbers, impossible, even. And your definition of "good' ends up synonymous with "highest rated' - rated by literally whos.

>> No.16910006

>>16909999
Checked

>> No.16910026

>>16909463
>Guyyyyys the only place I can flash my pseud e-peen is for normies, halp
You are pathetic, OP
If you want to read, keep a notebook and a log.
If you want to posture, goodreads is perfect for you
RYM is full of mu pseuds already, and funny how you didn't use discogs as the model, huh?

>> No.16910033

>>16909999
This is so irrational it is difficult to address. What is the difference between saying ''I love this book'', or showing you love it representing it with a symbol (5 stars in a rating system), or putting it on a separate shelf in your house? Am I dimishing the book by writing a review on it? Should we all commit to silence and aphasia about everything? As I said ratings are symbols for personal preference. Sometimes writing a review about a book you love may express less than simply rating it a 5, much like music, this is a qualitative aphasia. You are not expressing discusively, but still you show how it is above everything else.

>it becomes very hard to ignore these numbers... your definition of good ends up synonymous with highest rated
I think not a single person, even the most sheep-minded person, would deny every personal trait of hers in order to commit to the taste of the majority. This goes beyond the discussion and can be applied to anything.

>> No.16910089

>>16909931
Guess that classifying Hamlet as a 17th century piece of literature diminishes its value too?

>>16909999
>And your definition of "good' ends up synonymous with "highest rated' - rated by literally whos.
I don't think anyone with half a brain actually cares about the average ratings on GR, if that's what you're talking about.

>> No.16910116

>>16910089
Anon, there are tons of brainlets that won't pick a book because of muh wacissm!!!! or stuff like that

>> No.16910123

>>16910116
1. That has nothing to do with numeric ratings.
2. That has nothing to do with anyone with more than five grams of functional neurons in their skulls.

>> No.16910155

>>16909999
checked and definitely not based

>> No.16910167

>>16910033
>>16910089

The problem arises when the rating system goes wide. Sure, you can do anything you want with your books, I don't think there is something bad with this.
But on the internet, a personal preference becomes public. The thirst, the desire to express your own (more often worthless than not) opinion, to categorize, to rate, to share it with others overpowers you, replaces the genuine interest you once had.
You seem to hold the inherent assumption that people are rational beings, acting to their own interest. Maybe for you both it's true. I came to the conclusion above after using RYM for some time. I felt the way it works on me, and I believe it's the same for the majority of people. You can take a look at rating-obsessed "power users" on /mu RYM threads. This stuff changes you, and you might not even notice untill it's too late.

>> No.16910169

>>16909999
does my loving the book diminish everything i love about the book too? my expression of my love for a book i love diminish it? my representing this love of mine diminish it?

>> No.16910188

>>16910123
1. Okay, technivally right. But next to the rating there's a wall of text describing why author X is bad bc white bc euro bc etc etc, and pseuds gain goypoints if they jump on and give 1 star (it's sort of a feedback)
2.You'd be surprised, I've seen posts there worthy of one digit IQ

>> No.16910203

>>16910169
Well, talking about anything "diminishes" it. You take something whole and represent it with words. But I think it's not the point that I was actually trying to make.
The point is: using rating sites diverts your attention from actual "content" to "rating". Means become the ends.

>> No.16910212

>>16910167
Yes, anon. You have a point. I think this is reminiscent of mimetic desire in general and I am aware as well of people like you described, specially on RYM, even though not restricted to it, but very common in our modern mass media culture, which is founded on this very cycle of imitative desire. BUT this is not something predicated on the rating system itself and not even all people. Like the publicity of one's personal preferences one may or may not care about what other people will think, this is very subjective to be a universal law as you say. I myself use both RYM and Goodreads and I can say that they are very very helpful to me. I am not trying to show off with my ratings (have even thought about clearing all of them) but I just want to categorize them in order to help me in the future to have easy access to them. With rating or not there will be always a sort of categorization, describing the genre of the book, its date, etc.

>> No.16910213

>rateyourtranny.com
No

>> No.16910235

>>16910203
It's never been a problem with me for literature or music, but when I'm watching a film I often catch myself thinking "is this a 3.5, or a 4?" I don't have any following on these sites so I don't care about the public aspect of it, but I still have these thoughts even though I'm completely aware the ratings don't matter

>> No.16910241

>>16909771
Top would be more like
1) Catcher in the Rye
2) 1984
3) A Clockwork Orange
4) Slaughterhouse 5
5) Infinite Jest
6) Catch 22
7) The Crying of Lot 49
8) On the Road
9) Thus Spake Zarathustra
10) Fight Club

i.e. the same combination of 4chan adjacent memes and boomer favourites that makes up rym's music, film and videogame charts

theres no fucking way that something like das kapital or fanged noumena would be in the top 10

>> No.16910249

>>16910203
Isn't the book employing words too? Is the book diminishing the very intention of it? Is the book a diminishing of the book itself? What is the book: its finished physical presence or the will and intention in the author?
If we can't speak of anything without diminishing that which we speak of what is your point in trying to speak of how speaking diminishes what is spoken of? Can you see the absurdity of your ''logic''?
> using rating sites diverts your attention from actual "content" to "rating"
As I already said this is a subjective problem, not a universal law. But mainly: if the attention is drawn to rating, what does the rating rates? The rating itself? Even in the most superficial inclination and preference, the referential will still be the book and its content.

>> No.16910301

>>16910167
>The thirst, the desire to express your own (more often worthless than not) opinion, to categorize, to rate, to share it with others overpowers you, replaces the genuine interest you once had.
Having been rating all sorts of shit for years, I don't really notice that.
Most of my GR "friends" can't even read the titles of the shit I rate. The only person I can be showing off to is someone purely imaginary. In the end, the only thing the ratings actually do is being like little personal memos of my impressions.
> I came to the conclusion above after using RYM for some time
Well, that I can agree with. I definitely would distance myself from the RYM autism, but that's really just something that an individual should deal with by themselves. This problem is not present on, say, Letterboxd, which effectively has the same system, so it's obviously up to the audience rather than how the site works by itself.
That's why I prefer GR's scale, personally, it's more limited and prevents the pointless philosophizing and obsession with "precise" ratings.

>>16910188
>But next to the rating there's a wall of text describing why author X is bad bc white bc euro bc etc etc
So you don't like it when the reader reduces their reaction to a number, but you don't like it either when they write a wall of text explaining exactly what they think and how they've reacted to the book?
>You'd be surprised, I've seen posts there worthy of one digit IQ
It's not surprising, it's just something to ignore, as far as I care. After a certain point stupidity should be seen as a meaningless object (because it really is a sign of not being capable of attaining meaning) rather than something that personally attacks you and your values.
To compare things a bit, I'd say that the above anon's point about RYM users who usually aren't retarded, losing themselves in the rating autism and showing off, carries more weight than yours about the altogether hopelessly retarded GR users.

>> No.16910354

>>16910241
thank you for posting a much more accurate list

>> No.16910400

>>16909771
Nick Land would be the Les Rallizes Denudes of RateYourLit

>> No.16910631

>>16910400
youre overrating his obscurity i think. LRD didn't even release any music, whereas MIT Press has published stuff by Land. He's more of an equivalent to something like Feldman where he's a very primary figure in some real world circles but kind of a third or fourth tier favourite on a ratings website.

>> No.16910649

>>16910301
>So you don't like it when the reader reduces their reaction to a number, but you don't like it either when they write a wall of text explaining exactly what they think and how they've reacted to the book?
No, I'm cool with it. I pointed out that tons of GR users give a detailed review of the book, but on the author's ethnicity, or why you should decolonize your bookshelf, or why certain topic is problematic and should be censored, etc etc, instead of reviewing the content.
>
I'd say that the above anon's point about RYM users who usually aren't retarded, losing themselves in the rating autism and showing off, carries more weight than yours about the altogether hopelessly retarded GR users.
Sure, I am rambling like a retard, I give you that. Point is, I prefer commentary on the themes of a given book (which I often find here, so I end up reading good shit) instead of essays on why it is a bad idea to read something written by a white male (GR user excerpt) that offer no insight on the book I'm unsure whether to read or not

>> No.16910666

>>16910301
In >>16910649 I meant
*tons of GR users don't give a detailed review of the book, but on the author's ethnicity

>> No.16910849

>>16910631
I was more referring to the memey circlejerking and extremely inflated hype. Maybe Fishmans would be a better choice.

>> No.16910921

>>16910649
>>16910167
Anon, in the end it is you with this utter quantifiable valuation of a work. You don't like when people ''diminishes'' the work, be it expressing with a rating, writing a review assessing it with ''wrong reasons''. The problem to you is that the work is some quantifiable piece that must be precisely quantified not to diminish it. This is insanity.

>> No.16911009

>>16909771
The top would be a mix of Anglo high school classics with some token Japanese and Russian books as well as French poetry. Some 4channy classics like the Peregrine would be up there, too.
The bottom would be dominated by American Republicans, twitter theorycels, far right memes like SIEGE, and TERF stuff.
Christian texts would have middling ratings and sarcastic reviews, but more esoteric Christianity would be highly rated.
Avant-teens would be into mixed between accelerationists and mystical stuff like Shankara and Plotinus.
Poptimists would be obsessed with YA lit.
Nobody would care about analytics.
Ted would have decent ratings and a memey comment box. Trads like Evola and Guenon would have low ratings.
Commies would have high-ish ratings but boomers would vote them down like they do with hip-hop.
Epicurus or Spinoza would probably be the highest rated philosopher.
t. used RYM years ago

>> No.16911088

>>16910921
I said it before, you can diminish the work if you like to, given that either the prose, themes, pacing, characterization, etc were not of good quality. That's fine and accordingly. On the other hand, external factors* cannot possibly be the main body of your critique, that's what I'm saying.

>The problem to you is that the work is some quantifiable piece that must be precisely quantified not to diminish it
What, I'm not arguing for quantification

(*)There are valid exceptions

>> No.16911105

>>16910649
All of that is beside the point here. I agree that the bitching about racism and shit is worthless, but at the end of the day it is nether a problem of the numeric ratings, nor of GR, it's a more general trend.

>> No.16911121

What is the appeal of sites like that? Why do people feel the need to show off what they read and watch

>> No.16911136

>>16909463
Goodreads is for the mob by the mob

>> No.16911229

>>16911105
>it's a more general trend.
Alright, what is it?

>> No.16911254

>>16911088
I agree. But the thing is that a particular rate will translate one personal experience and valuation. Your dismissing of the rate for not being precise is exactly an implication of quantificiation. What is a precise valuation of a book? This is quantification of the value (or expression) of something not passive of being reduced to quantification.

>> No.16911482

>>16911254
>What is a precise valuation of a book?
I mean, valuation =/= quantification amirite (in the sense we're discussing) ?

The other issue is that each reader has different "parameters", and each one of these parameters carry a different "weight" in the evaluation function.

Alice may weight plot consistency as a very important parameter, while Bob doesn't care as much. Based on that, in Don Quixote, Cervantes makes a mess of the dissapearance of Sancho's donkey, therefore Alice would value it really low, and Bob wouldn't change his mind as much.

Instead of a number, both of them would agree on a review that "the story is great, but the plot isn't always that well preserved" (the point being that a numerical value distort expectations for a lot of folks)

>> No.16911547

>>16911009
Accurate
The Bible would be in the top 100 though for sure

>> No.16912101

>>16909771
Replace Land with something by Foucault or Deluze and swap the Kapitals and that would be pretty close

>> No.16912353

>>16909463
>putting hope in RYM
That site is fucking awful U/I wise and even goodreads looks better in comparison, I don't even want to get into the community and the faggot mods.

>> No.16912610
File: 41 KB, 540x540, 1595855177964.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16912610

>>16911009
Better take

>> No.16912815

RYM is for plebs. MusicBrainz mustard rice.

>> No.16913261

>>16909771
>9.Milk and Honey
kek

>> No.16913491

>>16909771
>top 10 RYM lit would be like the music chart. Boomer core, mixed with hipster classics and just acclaimed stuff

1. Crime & Punishment
2. 1984
3. Wuthering Heights
4. The Pictures of Dorian Gray
5. The Old Man And The Sea
6. The Metamorphosis
7. Infinite Jest
8. To Kill A Mocking Bird
9. Harry Potter And The Philosophers Stone
10. A Tale of Two Cities

>> No.16913640

I think Goodreads is okay, OP is propably just a circlejerker who thinks they're mentally superior to the "filthy peasants who read YA" or something

>> No.16913693

>>16909463
Goodreads is ok for cataloging but the recommendations fucking suck. Sometimes people make nice lists though. They should add a forum and go from 5 star to 10 star scale.

>> No.16913721

>>16913693
why a 10 stars scale though? I feel like 5 is already enough

>> No.16913833

>>16909463
RYM is full of soiboy fags who think pulp fiction is the best film of all time. I'll take goodreads any day, warts an all.

>> No.16913953

>>16913721
Idk. 3, 4, 5 is a pretty quick escalation from mediocre to good to perfect. At least half stars

>> No.16914000

>>16913953
i think goodreads suggests a positive ranking, it goes like this :
1 star : bad
2 : ok
3 : liked it
4 : really liked it
5 : amazing

>> No.16914097

>>16909771
The RYM userbase is tryhard pseuds, their top 10 list would look nothing like this

>> No.16914131

>>16914097
>>16911009
you know that the avant-pseuds are a minority on the site, right? the majority of people there have common and popular taste

>> No.16914155

>>16914131
They're a strong enough coalition to get things bolded and the avant-teen/poptimist rivalry is ultimately what the website is known for.

>> No.16914204

theres already a sonemic group on goodreads and, of course, it filled with blatant fake rating and 16 year olds who somehow managed the read the entire western canon and decided the arcades project is its crowning achievement lol

>> No.16914218

>>16909463
>Goodreads is just garbage
why

>> No.16914306

>>16913491
>& Punishment
>2. 1984
>3. Wuthering Heights
>4. The Pictures of Dorian Gray
>5. The Old Man And The Sea
>6. The Metamorphosis
>7. Infinite Jest
>8. To Kill A Mocking Bird
>9. Harry Potter And The Philoso
the other two guys are out of touch, throw stoner with harry potter and this is it. maybe great gatsby too?

>> No.16915763

Goodreads reviews are a lot better than the autists of RYM who think ranking is a review.