The Difference between Goodreads and Amazon Reviews
There seems to be a difference in the way people review books on Goodreads versus on Amazon, and I’m not talking about the disparity in stars given. Amazon, even when the user has a name, a ranking, etc. seems to be primarily a solitary, if not anonymous forum. Goodreads is by its very nature more social in orientation. The difference between Amazon and Goodreads is maybe comparable to that between talk radio and a round table forum.
I don’t listen to talk radio or watch the chat shows at this point, but if I had to pick a more ideal outlet for intellection, I’d go with the radio’s format of one-on-one (host and caller) as opposed a moderator and their panel, if for no other reason than that disembodied voices in a one-on-one setting seem to be more truthful than a person with a group of other people.
The downside of one-on-one airing of ideas over the phone is obvious. The social graces and checks on behavior that occur in face-to-face interactions aren’t there (uncomfortable in-person interviews happen, but people are definitely more unconstrained over the phone than in person, for the simple reason that you cannot get your ass kicked over the phone, while it can happen in person if you say the wrong thing. I’ve seen fistfights break out on the set of a show).
Goodreads, I’ve noticed, is far more performative than Amazon. Some of this is just down to the prosaic details, like being able to upload gifs in reviews mocking or celebrating some book. Goodreads is even a bit of a beauty contest, with certain “most viewed” profiles displayed in thumbnail in a tab (the lion’s share of these are usually females with glasses of dubious or non-existent prescription). Humans are visual animals and there is more visual stimulus involved on Goodreads than on Amazon. And then some this can be put down to the fact that, as mentioned earlier, Goodreads is a more social outlet than the Amazon reviews section.
Sometimes Goodreads is an antisocial sphere; it’s beyond me why someone would cuss out someone for not liking a book they enjoyed, but I’ve seen this happen several times in Goodreads review threads, while I think it’s rarer at Amazon.
A few times people have critiqued my reviews at Amazon, pointing out where I’ve been wrong on some detail, or they’ve complained that I’ve spoiled the ending of a book they were looking forward to reading, but for the most part it’s more of a Thumb’s Up/Thumb’s Down world, less of a coffee klatch or a book club than Goodreads. Maybe once or twice on Amazon I’ve savaged a book that I really hated, but it was more my way of venting at having squandered time and money on the book in question than trying to court some kind of beef with the author in question. Hell, a couple of times the author in question had been dead for some time before I even picked up the book, so savaging the work to get their attention would have been a definite waste of effort.
There was one time, however, where I left a one-star review for a book that I thought was bad, and then a few days later the author responded to me in a combative way, and eventually offered to refund my money to me. I felt bad about leaving the review in the first place, and if I’d known he was going to read it, I probably wouldn’t have left it at all.
A couple of times on Goodreads I’ve heard of writers and reviewers exchanging words until things got heated enough for one or both parties to be banned from the site.
There’s one fascinating character on Goodreads (equally active on Amazon, now that I think of it) who calls himself the Lord High Executioner of the One-Star Review (among other appellations). Some years ago, he had a story nominated for the Pushcart Award, wrote a book of poetry, and then apparently had mental breakdown and now leaves fascinating one-star reviews for every single book he reviews. His nihilistic approach to reviewing books has become its own Dadaist artform. Each of his reviews is crafted in the form of a poem, which is oft times more interesting than the book he is reviewing. I keep hoping he discovers some of my work and one-stars me at some point.
I don’t want to slag Goodreads on Goodreads, since that seems counterproductive and a little ungrateful. I like the website, and use some of its features (like this one, for instance), but for me reviewing is mostly as solitary an experience as writing. I write a review as a kind of record to which I can return, in order to keep track of what I’ve read in previous years and how I felt about a work at the time.
It is also, like blogging, a way to stay busy between projects, to practice thinking out loud between more substantive work. It isn’t for me an end in itself, and it definitely isn’t something out of which I hope to make an identity.
I don’t listen to talk radio or watch the chat shows at this point, but if I had to pick a more ideal outlet for intellection, I’d go with the radio’s format of one-on-one (host and caller) as opposed a moderator and their panel, if for no other reason than that disembodied voices in a one-on-one setting seem to be more truthful than a person with a group of other people.
The downside of one-on-one airing of ideas over the phone is obvious. The social graces and checks on behavior that occur in face-to-face interactions aren’t there (uncomfortable in-person interviews happen, but people are definitely more unconstrained over the phone than in person, for the simple reason that you cannot get your ass kicked over the phone, while it can happen in person if you say the wrong thing. I’ve seen fistfights break out on the set of a show).
Goodreads, I’ve noticed, is far more performative than Amazon. Some of this is just down to the prosaic details, like being able to upload gifs in reviews mocking or celebrating some book. Goodreads is even a bit of a beauty contest, with certain “most viewed” profiles displayed in thumbnail in a tab (the lion’s share of these are usually females with glasses of dubious or non-existent prescription). Humans are visual animals and there is more visual stimulus involved on Goodreads than on Amazon. And then some this can be put down to the fact that, as mentioned earlier, Goodreads is a more social outlet than the Amazon reviews section.
Sometimes Goodreads is an antisocial sphere; it’s beyond me why someone would cuss out someone for not liking a book they enjoyed, but I’ve seen this happen several times in Goodreads review threads, while I think it’s rarer at Amazon.
A few times people have critiqued my reviews at Amazon, pointing out where I’ve been wrong on some detail, or they’ve complained that I’ve spoiled the ending of a book they were looking forward to reading, but for the most part it’s more of a Thumb’s Up/Thumb’s Down world, less of a coffee klatch or a book club than Goodreads. Maybe once or twice on Amazon I’ve savaged a book that I really hated, but it was more my way of venting at having squandered time and money on the book in question than trying to court some kind of beef with the author in question. Hell, a couple of times the author in question had been dead for some time before I even picked up the book, so savaging the work to get their attention would have been a definite waste of effort.
There was one time, however, where I left a one-star review for a book that I thought was bad, and then a few days later the author responded to me in a combative way, and eventually offered to refund my money to me. I felt bad about leaving the review in the first place, and if I’d known he was going to read it, I probably wouldn’t have left it at all.
A couple of times on Goodreads I’ve heard of writers and reviewers exchanging words until things got heated enough for one or both parties to be banned from the site.
There’s one fascinating character on Goodreads (equally active on Amazon, now that I think of it) who calls himself the Lord High Executioner of the One-Star Review (among other appellations). Some years ago, he had a story nominated for the Pushcart Award, wrote a book of poetry, and then apparently had mental breakdown and now leaves fascinating one-star reviews for every single book he reviews. His nihilistic approach to reviewing books has become its own Dadaist artform. Each of his reviews is crafted in the form of a poem, which is oft times more interesting than the book he is reviewing. I keep hoping he discovers some of my work and one-stars me at some point.
I don’t want to slag Goodreads on Goodreads, since that seems counterproductive and a little ungrateful. I like the website, and use some of its features (like this one, for instance), but for me reviewing is mostly as solitary an experience as writing. I write a review as a kind of record to which I can return, in order to keep track of what I’ve read in previous years and how I felt about a work at the time.
It is also, like blogging, a way to stay busy between projects, to practice thinking out loud between more substantive work. It isn’t for me an end in itself, and it definitely isn’t something out of which I hope to make an identity.
No comments have been added yet.
