[ 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: 47 KB, 860x749, _91408619_55df76d5-2245-41c1-8031-07a4da3f313f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23157681 No.23157681 [Reply] [Original]

why is every goodreads review a monumental essay containing a link to their blog

>> No.23157687

>>23157681
Are they? I mostly find retarded reviews that are not even about the book. Like that Manny faggot. Just conversations about him buying coffee or some retarded nonsense.

>> No.23157697

One thing that really bothers me about Goodreads is that pretty much every shitty YA fantasy book has a 4+ score. And then you have masterpieces of literature with a score of -3.5.
Is this because every fucking zoomer feel like they have to give 5 stars to a book if they've read it as some kind of reader's guilt?

>> No.23157704

>>23157681
everyone on goodreads thinks they’re an author. lots of strange prose and long-winded reviews. for some people reading is a fashionable ego thing I guess

>> No.23157712

>>23157681
you KNOW why
>>23157697
because people who read actual literature don't rate books using stars or use goodreads

>> No.23157747

>>23157681
Everyone wants to be an influencer and feel important.

>>23157697
The answer to this is that those who read YA do it because they:
1. want to be famous on TikTok by reading books. The only way to so that is by giving rave reviews and explain as dramatically as possible how you cried while reading it.
2. they get new books free sent by publishers to promote them. They are obliged to rate them high.
3. are women and easily emotionally manipulated by dramatic slop. YA writers know their audience give them what they want.
4. read only for entertainment, are entertained and rate it accordingly. Not one critical thought enters their mind when they read YA. Thus there is nothing to critique. As long as they feel strong emotions the books are good.

>> No.23157753

>>23157681
who the hell reads goodreads reviews

>> No.23157755

>>23157681
Most of the goodreads reviews I've read are by retards with a severe lack of reading comprehension, like they can't understand even basic bitch books.
Others complain about even more retarded things like a book being known from its bleakness to be very bleak.
And a lot of roasties giving low scores to classic books because lack of diversity and representation.
That site is a shithole and shouldn't exist. Also women should be forbidden from reading or voicing their retarded opinions on anything.

>> No.23157827

>>23157681
They try to get advance copies of books for free and they need to justify to publishers that people read their opinions.

>> No.23157847

writing as a profession died and its desperate slim pickins, Zuckerberg wouldn't even let them keep their blogs, AI is the Universal Blog now, and you'll shut up and eat it.

>> No.23158027
File: 9 KB, 620x118, les miserables.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23158027

>> No.23158040

>>23158027
lol

>> No.23158049

>>23157681
Rating art on a numeric basis literally makes no sense at all when you think about it

>> No.23158102

>>23157681
I don’t do that on goodreads personally but I’ve seen it

>> No.23158105

>>23157753
There was a funny one under Concept Of The Political where this older liberal guy typed out five paragraphs of him malding over the book. It was pretty funny.

>> No.23158552

>>23158105
freaking epic. sounds so funny!

>> No.23158566
File: 106 KB, 1083x609, hammerhead-shark.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23158566

>>23157681
I don't have a good reads account.
Have a picture of a shark

>> No.23158591

>>23157681
What, you think people are just gonna write stuff without it being part of some grift?! What is this, 2005??

>> No.23158787

>>23157681
>why do prolific readers like to write a lot and in-depth about their thoughts
Gee a real mystery.
Not commenting on their quality though, most are trash as expected, but you're also vastly overrating the ratio of long reviews to short reviews.
The real review "style" we should be griping constantly about are the ones with a dozen .gifs, each place after 1-3 lines of text just to represent the author's emotions. Easily the most obnoxious thing ever, and they NEVER say anything of substance between the .gifs either.

>>23157697
This is a "flaw" with every public score aggregation system. People with taste don't read that garbage, so the only people giving it reviews are the ones with no standards and who love the genre with no qualifications. Similar effect happens with any sequels; people who didn't like the first book aren't going to read the followup book(s) so their scores skew unnaturally higher.