Do you post unpopular opinions on book discussion threads?

[Dawn]

Haha, no worries. I don't make the bridges. I make the seats your butt sits on in the car while you go over the bridge. It's a super glam job.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Sarah Anne wrote: "I think she was referring to the language rather than the opinion. By dismissing a book as stupid, it can be received as criticism against people who liked it. The opinion is fine, the attitude is ..."


I agree that wording can mean so much when conveying an opinion. I know I've got my feathers ruffled more than once when people are critical of certain books or genres - but it's often less that they don't like it, and more how they phrase it.

And people *do* place value judgments on books and opinions and things. And I don't just mean "They don't like this book I like, so they're saying I'm wrong."

I mean sometimes people do act like you are wrong for liking something.

Like, "I don't know how anyone can like this garbage". So you're not just judging the book, you are judging the people who like said book as well - and I think that's when the real nastiness starts coming out in response.

[Trike]

Dawn wrote: "Haha, no worries. I don't make the bridges. I make the seats your butt sits on in the car while you go over the bridge. It's a super glam job."

Human factors engineering is crucial. The older I get the more my back appreciates it!

[Valerie]

First, I have to say that for the first time since reading The Magicians someone has given me a reason to consider trying to the next book. I was not a fan of the book because I could not stand the whining of the MC.

I did not read your spoiler, but your perspective about the first book addresses why I didn't like it. It is interesting that you don't think this is true of subsequent books.

Guess I need to put The Magician King on my TBR list.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Nicki wrote: "I guess I'm generally supportive of criticism of things I like, but that doesn't mean some of the criticism isn't unintelligent.) "

I agree with this...

But this is also sometimes I tend to shy away from getting into a debate, or am extra careful about how I word things.

Like, I absolutely hate when people tell me I missed something if I didn't like a book. Hate it! Because, clearly, if I didn't like something it must mean I'm stupid or dense and "didn't get it" and not just that I didn't like it, right?

But I can't say that I haven't thought the same thing towards other people. "No, what you're complaining about is the point, you dimwit!" (I think your American Gods example is a a great one, actually.)

I just don't *say* that.

I might say, "Oh, well, I see what you're saying but I think that was done on purpose because... "

But in the back on my mind I'm screaming, "Gods, why are you such a moron?!"

I think some people just lack that filter between their brain and nastier impulses and their mouths/fingers. (Or some people just don't feel like they should have to censor themselves... but I tend more towards the "we all have to rub along together" kind of approach.)

Which is probably why I feel safer to discuss things on line - because my filter doesn't work so well in person.

⌐_⌐

¬_¬

*flees*

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

*stands firm in her distaste of the Magicians and non-continuation of the series*

[Chris]

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "*stands firm in her distaste of the Magicians and non-continuation of the series*"

You just didn't get it.

*ducks*

[Becky]

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "*stands firm in her distaste of the Magicians and non-continuation of the series*"

Me too. ;)

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Chris wrote: "colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "*stands firm in her distaste of the Magicians and non-continuation of the series*"

You just didn't get it.

*ducks*"

[Valerie]

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "Like, "I don't know how anyone can like this garbage". So you're not just judging the book, you are judging the people who like said book as well - and I think that's when the real nastiness starts coming out in response. ..."

I think you hit the nail on the head, here.

I have no problem expressing dissenting opinions. However, there are certain groups in which I am less likely to express because it quickly boils over into comments that cross the line into personal attacks. Even if they are not aimed at me, I do not have patience for what I perceive to be very rude behavior.

Sometimes, it is more subtle. If you love a book and feel there is a lot of complexity to a story, and then someone pops up with "the plot was very childish and immature," that can feel like someone is saying that you might be childish and immature.

I try hard to phrase my comments to avoid this type of misunderstanding, but I can't say I am always successful at it. I am all the way thinker on the Meyers-Briggs Thinker/Feeler spectrum. However, 60% of people are feelers, so I try to adapt my coldly logical nature to account for feeling and sentiment.

One of the things that I appreciate so much about THIS particular group is that most of the members are very respectful to one another. And, when someone crosses a line, the mods step in. I wish more groups were as well moderated.

[Dawn]

Just for the sake of jumping on a side, I'm with Nicki and Chris in that I loved The Magicians. The whole series in fact... If I remember correctly I liked the rest of the series better than the first book.

Show is pretty ok... Pretty different from the books IMO, but entertaining when I put away my expectations.

[Valerie]

Well, you are all wrong and you are stupid, too! Ha! Just kidding.

But it feels like that sometimes, yeah?

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Valerie wrote: "Sometimes, it is more subtle. If you love a book and feel there is a lot of complexity to a story, and then someone pops up with "the plot was very childish and immature," that can feel like someone is saying that you might be childish and immature."


It's funny you use that example, because I had a kerfuffle in one of my reviews because I said the plot was, ultimately, rather straightforward and someone who read my review disagreed and thought it was complex and nuanced, and essentially accused me of lying...

He also told me my opinion on the characters was "bordering on ridiculous" and that the reason I didn't like it was because apparently I need things spelled out for me and with this masterpiece of a book I'd "actually have to do a little thinking and understanding on you own".

So, yeah... that didn't go well...

[Sarah]

It's funny how so many people buy into the idea that opinions are fact. Opinions are subjective and right/wrong is more factual and objective.

[Trike]

Sarah Anne wrote: "It's funny how so many people buy into the idea that opinions are fact. Opinions are subjective and right/wrong is more factual and objective."

That's just, like, your opinion, man. /thedude

All kidding aside, I don't understand your second sentence. Right and wrong are value judgements the same as opinions.

[Simon]

I think there are two difficulties here.

Most of us have an emotional attachment to the books that we love and find it difficult to accept any criticism of something so cherished.

also ...

Nobody likes the digital equivalent of being pointed at and told they are wrong (which happens a lot on the internet).

I say, post and be damned! You are never going to hit it off with everyone, and the stronger your feelings on something, the stronger the reaction will be. All you can be is honest. Right and wrong do not enter into it. It's an opinion, not an exercise in point scoring.

In the past I have gotten into some right old dingdongs, mainly concerning what Peter Jackson was doing to the 'Lord of the Rings', but in the end it made not a ha'porth of difference. What it did do was increase my own appreciation for Tolkien's creation in leaps and bounds.

(And can I just add that all stories can be traced back to the caves of Lascaux and Chauvet.)

[V.W.]

I do on occasion state my liking or dislike of a book when it is going against the main direction of opinion. What I find strange is that people seem to think that you can be argued into liking or disliking something contrary to what your own experience tells you.

Unless it is a serious fault in logic or fact, I never hang around to argue to the pros and cons. My opinion is mine alone, and I don't expect anyone to share it, or that I can convince someone to share it.

[Micah]

If we avoid posting contrary positions threads become nothing but echo chambers for one opinion.

The trick is to not accuse others of being wrong, but to state the contrary position as a personal opinion, which you're able to articulate beyond vague and emotive language like "it was stupid" or "it was immature" or "I hated it."

For example, I have expressed my loathing for Peter Jackson's LotR movies in a lot of discussions. Most people really loved those movies, and that's fine. They aren't as picky as me. But when I discuss my opinion of them, I am able to point to specific things that I found objectionable, such as major plot changes, fundamental alterations to the characters, changes to fairly minor scenes that ended up requiring additions to the story later on which made some of the plot unbelievable and clunky.

I don't expect to win anyone over. There's no point trying to "win" an argument about it. But if there is actually going to be a proper discussion about a book or movie or whatever, then all viewpoints should be presented otherwise you end up with another mutual admiration society.

[Sarah]

Trike wrote: "All kidding aside, I don't understand your second sentence. Right and wrong are value judgements the same as opinions., ..."

If you're talking morals, I agree, but facts actually are right or wrong. In saying that my opinion is "right", I'm saying it factually, not morally. Facts just aren't subjective.

I'm fresh out of bed and having a hard time explaining myself.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Simon wrote: "mainly concerning what Peter Jackson was doing to the 'Lord of the Rings'..."


You mean made them fun and less boring?





(I jest!)

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

V.W. wrote: "Unless it is a serious fault in logic or fact, I never hang around to argue to the pros and cons. My opinion is mine alone, and I don't expect anyone to share it, or that I can convince someone to share it. "

That reminds me.

Sometimes if I want to lodge my stance, but not really get involved in an argument - especially if I didn't read the book with the group but had read it sometimes in the past, so I might not be fresh with the details - sometimes I'll just be like, "I didn't like X because Y. Here's my review for more:"

[Sarah]

Micah wrote: "The trick is to not accuse others of being wrong, but to state the contrary position as a personal opinion, which you're able to articulate beyond vague and emotive language like "it was stupid" or "it was immature" or "I hated it."..."

This is the important thing to me. I did run across a situation where my use of a word was apparently different than others. In The Martian I said the humor was juvenile, but I meant that you would find a 7 year old using the same type of potty/anatomy humor. If I had said "childish" then I would have been judging it. But my hair splitting on words isn't always the same as other people. I've been much more careful since.

V.W. wrote: "What I find strange is that people seem to think that you can be argued into liking or disliking something contrary to what your own experience tells you...."

This boggles the mind!

[Chris]

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "Simon wrote: "mainly concerning what Peter Jackson was doing to the 'Lord of the Rings'..."


You mean made them fun and less boring?





(I jest!)"

LOL

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Sarah Anne wrote: "This is the important thing to me. I did run across a situation where my use of a word was apparently different than others. In The Martian I said the humor was juvenile, but I meant that you would find a 7 year old using the same type of potty/anatomy humor. If I had said "childish" then I would have been judging it. But my hair splitting on words isn't always the same as other people. I've been much more careful since. "

Yeah, I don't like the word juvenile. I even prefer the term Middle Grade for the 9-12 book range, though some places call that range Juvenile.

I know, rationally, that it can be used neutrally to describe an actual thing... but it seems often used with derision and has such baggage that I wince when I hear it, even if I'm saying it in a non-negative way.

[Grace]

I usually enjoy the books I read, or end up not finishing them. If I don't enjoy them, that's usually just a matter of my personal opinion and preferences--"not enough action scenes or epic speeches!"--when not everyone likes action scenes or epic speeches.
The one time that I will take a very strong and black-and-white minded stance on a book is if it has a blatant agenda. Even if it's an agenda I agree with, there's something about twisting a story and it's characters all to fit in one tiny box of thought that's just kind of ugly to me. I'd classify that as a 'bad' book, not just one I didn't happen to enjoy.

If I do end up disagreeing, if the argument gets into a lengthy back-and-forth between myself and one other member, I'll try to shut it down nicely or just walk away. Nobody wants their book discussion to turn into a debate between two strangers.

[Trike]

Sarah Anne wrote: "Trike wrote: "All kidding aside, I don't understand your second sentence. Right and wrong are value judgements the same as opinions., ..."

If you're talking morals, I agree, but facts actually are right or wrong. In saying that my opinion is "right", I'm saying it factually, not morally. Facts just aren't subjective.

I'm fresh out of bed and having a hard time explaining myself. "

Maybe I'm being dense but I'm not following that.

There was a great exchange about truth versus facts in the TV show Northern Exposure, where Chris said that truth changes but facts don't. He used the example of Custer: "Hero or villain? Civilizer or agent of genocide? The truth slips and turns, facts remain the same."

[Trike]

Micah wrote: "If we avoid posting contrary positions threads become nothing but echo chambers for one opinion.

The trick is to not accuse others of being wrong, but to state the contrary position as a personal opinion, which you're able to articulate beyond vague and emotive language like "it was stupid" or "it was immature" or "I hated it.""

This is key. I think people conflate the two, which confuses the issue.

I've also run into the issue where I've stated something that was clearly my opinion by using phrases such as "I think" and "in my view" and "for me" but people still don't pick up that these are merely different ways to say "in my opinion." And there's the larger point that context is king, so we can generally discern the difference between someone stating a fact (things a character does) versus an opinion (how that made us feel). Some folks can't comprehend that difference for some reason.

At that point I do kind of think the other person is stupid. If they act like an asshole, I will state that out loud. I'm Italian, and we view arguing as a full-contact sport. Every discussion is Thunderdome. So I'm always conscious of reining that in because most people aren't used to that. But it's nice to have that in my back pocket when the idiots present themselves. I loves me a good flame war.

[Sarah]

Trike wrote: "The truth slips and turns, facts remain the same...."

This is what I mean, actually. Facts do remain the same; they're objective and have absolutely nothing to do with subjective opinion. Stating a "fact" about an opinion only works if you're talking about your own opinion. Stating an opinion is right/factual for other people is illogical.

[Sarah]

Trike wrote: "And there's the larger point that context is king, so we can generally discern the difference between someone stating a fact (things a character does) versus an opinion (how that made us feel). Some folks can't comprehend that difference for some reason. ..."

Oh, we seem to be saying the same thing. I'm just saying that when people say they're "right" about a book they're treating it as "fact".

[Simon]

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "Simon wrote: "mainly concerning what Peter Jackson was doing to the 'Lord of the Rings'..."


You mean made them fun and less boring?"

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Grace wrote: "I usually enjoy the books I read, or end up not finishing them. If I don't enjoy them, that's usually just a matter of my personal opinion and preferences--"not enough action scenes or epic speeche..."

Heh - this reminds me of those lovely little things people say that they try to pass off as opinion but come across as condescending AF.

Like if you refer to a book as slow or boring, and their rejoinder is something like, "Well, yeah, this isn't a book for someone who needs to have constant action and explosions."

Or something like, "Well maybe you should stick to books like Twilight if this is too complex for you", insulting not just you, but also everyone who likes Twilight. (Which, well, fair enough... )


(I jest! Again!)

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Simon wrote: " "

[Sandi]

I love it! Someone quoting Northern Exposure! The only fact about an opinion is the fact that I or you have it, not that our reasoning is based on tangible factors or our reaction to uncertainties in a larger world. I think the problem ends up being that fictional books are not facts but a artistic creation from the mind and heart of another person. Sometimes what that person says, his or her style and techniques can make a connection with one subset of the audience while leaving another group cold. My reaction to many 'good' books (as opposed to great books) does tend to change based on other books I read at the time, other great books I read, what is happening in the world, my family's emotional state, etc. This group aside, the larger community on the internet seems to get really emotional about their opinions and have the mistaken belief that if they just argue and shout a little louder (96 all cap font) they can change your mind and your opinion. I don't know how they forget the fact that I just finished using my valuable and limited time to experience that experience and I would not have invested that time if I did not want it to be awesome. When the book falls short, I want to see if anyone else saw the same problems and virtues I did and how they reacted to them.

And I always keep rein on my temper and my opinions because even on the internet, we are all a part of a larger society of not only right and wrong, but also like and dislike. I can only say what I think not what everyone should think.

[Simon]

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "Simon wrote: " "

"



It will all end in tears...

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

One we can all agree on?




:D

[Sarah]

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "(Which, well, fair enough... )


(I jest! Again!)..."

I'm one of those rare ones who loved Twilight. I am SO used to defending my opinion. :)

I actually stopped commenting in my classics group because people get so pissy. There was a serious argument during Matilda. Matilda, for God's sake!!! I haven't commented since. I love contrasting opinions but I'm not a fan of argument.

[Becky]

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "One we can all agree on?




:D"

Fact. :P

[Dawn]

Sarah Anne wrote: "I love contrasting opinions but I'm not a fan of argument..."

I'm completely with you on this. I don't have the time or the patience to deal with internet arguments. Or non-internet arguments either, for that matter. There was once a point in my life where that was different, but now it just feels like such a massive waste of time and energy.. I just can't do it.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Dawn wrote: "Sarah Anne wrote: "I love contrasting opinions but I'm not a fan of argument..."

I'm completely with you on this. I don't have the time or the patience to deal with internet arguments. Or non-inte..."


Same.

Once upon a time I used to get into a lot of philosophical debates online. I would enjoy - and sometimes get a bit of a rush - in dissecting a specious argument and pointing out the flaws and logical fallacies and factual errors...

But now I just find it kind of exhausting and pointless more often than not.

[J.]

I don't have any on-topic comments about this thread. I'll just say it was the most entertaining thread I've ever read on goodreads. Wow! I wish all goodreads discussions were this good.

[Trike]

Sarah Anne wrote: "

I'm one of those rare ones who loved Twilight. I am SO used to defending my opinion. :)"

Try hating the nearly universally-beloved Empire Strikes Back since 1980. That'll grant you one hundred percent flameproof armor plating just from sheer practice.

[Trike]

Nicki wrote: "Yep, I have mellowed out a lot in the last few years and I just really don't have the energy or the inclination to pursue that kind of argument anymore."

Reminds me of the saying: "I don't give a shit and I won't take any shit. I'm not in the shit business."

[Sarah]

Look at all of these unpopular opinions! Tsk tsk.

[Michael]

I will post a negative opinion of a book or movie if it's relevant, popular or not, if I can intelligently articulate why I liked or didn't like something. I'll even go solar as to defend it if someone asks intelligent questions. I can't be bothered to take part in yes it is/no it isn't arguments though. I also agree it's important to be able to express your opinion without insulting the people who disagree with you.

[Chris]

Nicki wrote: "I like The Phantom Menace. It's the only one of the prequels I particularly enjoy, and I probably even like it a bit more than A New Hope.

Yep.

I'll just go build my own pyre now, shall I? ..."

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

I was having a Star Wars conversation recently and I said I didn't hate Jar-Jar. Not my favorite character, but I actually found him less annoying than the kid they got to play Anakin.

I was told by someone in the discussion that all my opinions on all things were now void...

I'll assume he was joking, for his sake...

[Chris]

Hell, I'd say that the kid they got to play Anakin wasn't as annoying as the young man they got to play Anakin ;)

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Chris wrote: "Hell, I'd say that the kid they got to play Anakin wasn't as annoying as the young man they got to play Anakin ;)"

I wouldn't disagree.

[QueenAmidala28]

I have no problem posting my opinion on Goodreads whether others agree or not. I come to this site to learn to experience books in different ways and how can I do that if I don't share my opinion and listen to others' views?

[M.L.]

It depends on the group. This one is the best for all around opinions. In another one, the moderator seems bent on convincing everyone to her point of view. I try to be tactful though because when I've read diatribes, it's like, oh, please grow up. Also being fairly new to Twitter, I've seen how mad people get over nothing. That, and with the uproar around last year's Hugo, things can get pretty nasty. So it's true, the pen (text) is mightier than the sword! :-)