|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jan 11, 2012 23:15:36 GMT -5
Do you read them? Do you read good ones, bad ones? For books you've already read? For books you want to read? Has a bad review (or a lot of them) ever made you not read a book?
Normally, if there's a book I really want to read, I will go in and read the bad reviews. I never really read the good ones (unless they're very short) because I feel like they never say anything, just throw a bunch of words at me that basically sums up to "i liekd it!!!!". But I read the bad ones because, normally, people are better at summing up what they don't like about a book than what they do. At least, in my experience/opinion.
So what about you?
|
|
Kori
Young Armadillo
Posts: 51
|
Post by Kori on Jan 12, 2012 14:41:29 GMT -5
I read reviews sporadically, usually only if I'm thinking about reading a book (or adding it to my ever growing too-read list,) but not after I've read it. I've found that I can be easily manipulated by a well written review, and end up hating the book I've just read. It's like getting the rosy glasses just ripped from the bridge of your nose. You liked the book, thought it was a good romp or a way to spend a snowy afternoon, and then the review makes you analyze the flat characters, the over usage of certain adjectives, whatever. Kind of takes the fun out of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sammybluejay on Jan 17, 2012 10:34:19 GMT -5
I find the same thing, but when I read reviews before I actually read the book. I need to stop doing that. I'll read something negative about the characters or the writing style, so then when I sit down and actually start the book I have that on the brain and end up not liking those things about them. I'm really trying to break the habit because I feel like I'm killing a lot of potentially-good books for myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jan 17, 2012 20:13:11 GMT -5
I agree with Sammy. Goodreads is a great place for reviews because people there aren't afraid to say what they think (sometimes nastily), but at the same time it can totally ruin the book. For example if I heard about a book, I go check reviews on Goodreads or Amazon, if I see the reviews are mostly positive there's a good chance I'll read it. If the reviews are mostly negative I probably won't, though sometimes it's upsetting to see something that sounded so exciting get panned.
What I hate though is checking or reading the reviews after I read the book. Because sometimes I might just like the book enough to ignore it's flaws and then the reviews will simply ruin it for me. But then again, sometimes the same reviews will explain why exactly I didn't love the book.
It's a complicated relationship.
|
|
|
|
Post by andreaisabbbw on Jan 22, 2012 4:56:12 GMT -5
I like to read the reviews after I've read a book. I do, however, check the rating details on Goodreads before making the final decision to add a book to my to-read list.
I also have a taste for the bad ones. However, some people like to just spew crap about the book without actually pointing out what exactly it was about the book they didn't like, and I hate that. I want elaboration on what you didn't like (and vice versa for the good reviews) and why. I just read a review where all the girl said was that she was offended by the overuse of profanity in the book. That's all she said. She went on for one huge, messy paragraph about how insulted she felt that the book used profanity every other word. Why? Did it affect the quality of the writing? The character development? The strength of the plot?
Yeah, it's a hit or miss with some reviews. On Goodreads, I find that the 3-star reviews are the best to look through if the reviewer has substantiated them thoroughly.
|
|
|
|
Post by sammybluejay on Jan 22, 2012 11:36:27 GMT -5
I totally agree. It's so frustrating when you're actually trying to check out a book and you get reviews that are so fixated on one little thing like that.
Something else that irks me on Goodreads is when people review a book and start off with a two-paragraph plot summary. A review should not be about detailed plot summary, if I wanted that I could look up at the general info about the book. And for some people, that's all their review is. "This happened, then this happened, then in the end oh but I don't want to spoil you! And I really enjoyed it." In my opinion that's not a review. I can read the book to find out what happens. What I want to know is how it's written, how the plot is, if the characters are worth getting attached to.
And don't even get me started about how some authors review their own books and then post laughing comments about how they wrote it so of course they think it's going to be good. To me that's an immediate strike against the book. Or when they attack other people for giving them a bad review and demand to know why even if there's an actual review posted, and they contest anything they say in that review. I can't help it. I feel that an author and their behaviour does reflect on their novels. For example, I've never picked up a Nicholas Sparks book because I read this interview where he had a minor freakout about how they are not melodrama, they DESERVE to be on the shelves next to HEMINGWAY. And he just seemed so full of himself that I lost all appetite to ever read anything by him. That being said, I don't have a lot of interest in them, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jan 22, 2012 14:29:59 GMT -5
For example, I've never picked up a Nicholas Sparks book because I read this interview where he had a minor freakout about how they are not melodrama, they DESERVE to be on the shelves next to HEMINGWAY. I have the feeling that Hemingway would have words to say to Sparks. ...With his fists. |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jan 22, 2012 19:02:38 GMT -5
For example, I've never picked up a Nicholas Sparks book because I read this interview where he had a minor freakout about how they are not melodrama, they DESERVE to be on the shelves next to HEMINGWAY. Yeah, I heard about this, which is basically why I refuse to read any of his book or watch any of the movies based on his books... even if they have a really sexy, shirtless, and mature Zack Effron... He also says that his stories are the perfect romances... No, no he even objects to the term romance... he writes perfect love stories and claims he does it better that Austen and Shakespeare. What a douchebag. |
|
Kori
Young Armadillo
Posts: 51
|
Post by Kori on Jan 24, 2012 1:18:27 GMT -5
For example, I've never picked up a Nicholas Sparks book because I read this interview where he had a minor freakout about how they are not melodrama, they DESERVE to be on the shelves next to HEMINGWAY. Whoa, really? I just can't conceive of any author being that conceited. I've always hated Sparks because he seems to be one of those authors that churns out a crappy book every few months and make millions, but I guess I have a new reason... |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jan 24, 2012 1:27:26 GMT -5
For example, I've never picked up a Nicholas Sparks book because I read this interview where he had a minor freakout about how they are not melodrama, they DESERVE to be on the shelves next to HEMINGWAY. Whoa, really? I just can't conceive of any author being that conceited. I've always hated Sparks because he seems to be one of those authors that churns out a crappy book every few months and make millions, but I guess I have a new reason... The thing is, there's a good chance he will be shelved with Hemingway. I mean, not literally (H and S aren't exactly alphabet neighbors), but in a couple hundred years, which authors will English majors be looking back on and studying as "the literature of the age"? We'd like to think it's what we currently consider Good Books, but plenty of famous historical authors we considered crap writers by their contemporaries. The facts are that Sparks has published a decent number of widely-read (and critiqued) novels, and he's likely to be remembered for it. |
|
andy
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by andy on Jan 29, 2012 7:27:51 GMT -5
Whoa, really? I just can't conceive of any author being that conceited. I've always hated Sparks because he seems to be one of those authors that churns out a crappy book every few months and make millions, but I guess I have a new reason... The thing is, there's a good chance he will be shelved with Hemingway. I mean, not literally (H and S aren't exactly alphabet neighbors), but in a couple hundred years, which authors will English majors be looking back on and studying as "the literature of the age"? We'd like to think it's what we currently consider Good Books, but plenty of famous historical authors we considered crap writers by their contemporaries. The facts are that Sparks has published a decent number of widely-read (and critiqued) novels, and he's likely to be remembered for it. Sparks isn't really considered a crap writer by most of his contemporaries, he's a huge bestseller. He will probably lead the same life as, e.g., W. H. Ainsworth whose books sold extremely well during his life, but whose work was rarely read or commented after he died except from a socio-political perspective or in studies about the development of the romance genre and sensationalist novels. |
|
