How reviews are evolving

[Aloha]

And if you post your writing twice, hopefully you'll get double the gratification.

David wrote: "Though I understand the point Jason is making, I'm not sure that "masturbatory" is the word I would use. I find masturbation much easier than writing reviews.

I think of review-writing as a sligh..."

[David]

Oops! Not sure what happened there.

[Jasmine]

Brian wrote: "Jasmine wrote: "mean I didn't read william gaddis because greg reviewed it. ..."

My reading never used to be influenced reviews, but GoodReads has changed that- mostly for the better. Eric W_Wel..."

yeah but was that because of the review or because no one will ever shut up about it

[Jasmine]

I'm generally of the opinion I review for myself. and I review the way I talk, I fuck around and get off topic and just generally make an ass of myself.

I use to worry a lot about how other people think of me and if I come off as smart, but since graduating from undergrad that's become a lot less important to me.

I do still worry if I'm going to piss people off. I don't like fighting although I enjoy a nice philosophical argument. But I am not really in a head space where I feel the need to go around justifying myself I sort of landed in a philosophical relativity space so that doesn't do much for me these days. so when I review and get comments from people I've never said along the lines of "your wrong" I ignore it just like I ignore the "your review doesn't match your rating comments" it's my review, it's my head, I'm the only one it needs to make sense to.

[Philip]

Jason said, "alright, so above, i see two prevailing views.

- reviews as book reports,
- reviews as blogs

a lot of flack above for being forced into two buckets. i propose a third bucket.

- masturbatory reviews

...is there a fourth"

I think that was message 47 or so.


I tend to see reviews more as a written book club dialogue. If you were at a book club, what would you talk about if you were discussing it? Maybe it's anecdotal, maybe it relates to the book, maybe just been thinking about cats the whole time you were reading it. I'm not talking bloggin randomness... I'm talking book club randomness.

Also, I just inserted my first pictures into a review. Go me.

[Jasmine]

I like when reviews have pictures go you!!

[Philip]

: ) Thanks. : )

[Aloha]

I don't review enough to worry about whether people like my review or its influence. It's more of a thinking practice and self-gratification thing. That's perfectly fine for me.

I'm curious. What do you get if you become a popular reviewer? Do you get paid? Do you become famous? Do you get invited to all the parties authors have?

[Nick]

my reviewing is in direct relation to how much adderall®-brand dextro and levo amphetamine sulfates i've ingested, and how little i want to work at the moment. i'd thus like to submit a 5th species: the opaque, speedy review i hereby dub Kerouac Toilet Rolls. the following review might be considered a canonical example:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/60007882

when combined with graduate-level hard science, i consider this kind of thing almost a new art form. alas, 99% of goodreads consists of liberal arts majors from the northeast who couldn't tell you whether the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is a good thing or a bad thing (answer: NATURAL LAW TRANSCENDS PATHETIC MORALITY, muh wa hahahahah), and think that π is something you stuff with key lime. The overly technical subset of Kerouac Toilet Rolls are hence known as Erdős Furbish (Erdős had a love for amphetamines, and prodigious output; to furbish is to buffer and sheen, much as racemic amphetamines might cause one to furiously cite, cite-check, amend and extend). Pearls before swine, alas.

[Jason]

funny, i just brought up a different Pi reference in an alternate thread.

~~

@aloha
yes. all the parties. they force top reviewers to accept mass amounts of cocaine then they pick at you until you are physically unable to write negative remarks. then they drop you back in the mix as a sleeper agent, posed to jump back in when certain authorial criteria are presented.

it is like MK ultra for the literary world.

[Brainycat]

Nick wrote: "the following review might be considered a canonical example:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/..."

I got to the third nested parenthesis and I thought to myself, "This is awesome!". I clicked 'like' when I got to the fourth nest. Didn't win the bonus points for not closing them together, though

[Nick]

Brainycat wrote: "Didn't win the bonus points for not closing them together, though

i recall thinking when i wrote it, "gotta close all the right parens together so it suggests tail recursion!" i cannot authoritatively claim, however, that this is an accurate recollection rather than just something i made up in the millisecond before realizing that i didn't actually have anything in mind. c'est la vie!

[Nick]

Jason wrote: "funny, i just brought up a different Pi reference in an alternate thread.

jason, i am surprised to see "fnordinc" in the absence of an Illuminatus Trilogy review!

[Brainycat]

Thanks for that link :) Being a sysadmin, I spend a lot more time scripting than writing for compilers. Wiki almost lost me when they busted out the Scheme, but then redeemed themselves when they provided a C example.


This is a perfect exxample of why GR is where I hang out rather than FB, MS, etc.

[Aloha]

Entropy is a good and necessary thing, order from disorder and vice versa, aping the creative mechanics of eastern philosophy's dualism. And I like my π with blueberries. Erdos is as ugly as Samuel Beckett. Have you read Beckett? I think you'll like him. Ugly, dry guys all think alike:

http://www.imagi-nation.com/moonstruc...

Writing while on the toilet with only a pen available is very efficient. I like multitasking.

Nick wrote: "my reviewing is in direct relation to how much adderall®-brand dextro and levo amphetamine sulfates i've ingested, and how little i want to work at the moment. i'd thus like to submit a 5th species..."

[Aloha]

I don't think there's any forcing involved. It's more like luring, much like the witch with the gingerbread house. Sorry, I'm reading a horror book about a witch murdering and decapitating defenseless children:



Yep, gingerbread house full of reviewers.

Jason wrote: "funny, i just brought up a different Pi reference in an alternate thread.

~~

@aloha
yes. all the parties. they force top reviewers to accept mass amounts of cocaine then they pick at you until yo..."

[Jason]

Nick wrote: "Jason wrote: "funny, i just brought up a different Pi reference in an alternate thread.

jason, i am surprised to see "fnordinc" in the absence of an Illuminatus Trilogy review!"

it's a discordian ploy to throw folks off? :)

i read it every year or two, i really should just write up something, but it is like a bible, so i think i would just gush and gush scaring away folks from reading it.

[Marydanielle]

I'm inputting all the books I own, want to own, have read, want to read - randomly as they pop into my head unless I find it's not in the system then I get the book and input it manually. It's a listing exercise and a memory exercise. It is also public exhibition of my reading. Sometimes when I add a book that was particularly meaningful I'll write a tiny autobiographical note related to reading the book, because that's what I'm thinking about - my relationship to the book.

[Paul]

It did strike me while writing my ongoing bloggish ever expanding review of Ulysses that there's such a delicious freedom in reviewing here. You're not shackled by having to do it in any particular way, you can do one-liners or ten pagers, you can make personal confessions, you can fantasise about kicking the skull of Frank Sinatra around his graveyard (as I have done) or going on a first date with Carson McCullers (which I intend to do); you can be extremely rude in all manner of waysd that you couldn't if you were a professional or heaven help us academic reviewer... and given that most professional reviewers are novelists and writers themselves I prefer my GR friends' opinions. Anyway, these are but some of the reasons why GR lights up my little life.

[Bill]

Aloha wrote: "Aw, come on, Mark. We know a real man will never be afraid to knit. A real man is so comfortable in his masculinity that he can do anything, cook, knit, change diapers, and carry a lady's purse. ..."

I've been working on a needlepoint for 20 years - am I real?

[Bill]

How and if I review depends on how others have reviewed a given book and how good the book description looks.

If a book doesn't have a bunch of reviews and a poor description, I'll do a good description, usually modifying it from the dust cover description (I try to only read hardcovers). In my review I will go into enuf detail to flesh it out and relate the novel to an author's other works or similar books. I read a lot of old relatively seemingly obscure works (obscure meaning how many GR bookshelves it's on).

If a book is popular with lots of reviews and summaries, I tend to write how I reacted to the book, what it meant to me personally, sometimes very personally. This sometimes leads me into very weird waters. I don't see a need to re-summarize a book if already done. I might add some specifics important to my feelings.

Oh! A lot of times I just put enough down, so I will remember what the book was about and how I felt about it. Recently it seems I can read a book this week and forget it next week. Early dementia, I guess...

[Kevin]

mark wrote: "i like the personalized reviews. the only other sites in which i read any reviews are imdb and amazon. unfortunately most of the reviewers on both sites have some mental issues or are just reaching..."

At the risk of going off topic, you probably find more 'pubescent' reviews on imdb. I got annoyed at comments by geeks who were so into Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings but didn't get his remake of King Kong. Two very different flicks that aimed at two specific audiences, yet his new found fans wanted all his movies to speak specifically to them.

[Jessica]

And, I think the threads that follow reviews add a dynamic that doesn't exist in most other places. Reviews are often more of a conversation STARTER than an attempt to encapsulate all the important parts of the book.

very true. and why I like goodreads.

[Mariel]

I've been trying to make myself comment in review threads now after reading posts in this groups about preferring comments to votes. I used to feel bad about doing it because no one will know who I am, or I might interrupt friends talking.

[Jessica]

Interrupt!

I do it all the time.


I come from a big family, where one gets trained early...no way to get heard otherwise.

[Scribble]

I just written a review composed almost entirely of hypertext. In order to fully appreciate the depth and breadth of this erudite composition, you'll need at least fifteen tabs adjacent and open simultaneously. Viva l'evolution!

[[deleted user]]

I have a deep-seated web designer's bias against linking out of page content. In marketing, it's not a good idea to link off the page (unless you're linking to more of your stuff), because the user might decide that what you linked to is more interesting and never come back.

[Scribble]

Brian wrote: "Haha, that's a good point! When I first learned to hypertext, I tended to go overboard with it. I'm coming back to a more moderate style, but hypertexting has definitely become part of my reviews."

That was a brilliant example, Brian. However I completely ignored your hypertext. Your reviews have that effect on me.

I think in this instance, Sock Puppet Richard, you would need to...ahem...read the hypertext in the review in question to appreciate the...erm...context. (pun intended).

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

Since I came over to Goodreads from my reading blog, I definitely write my reviews like my blog entries. It's sort of a conversation with myself about the book and how I felt about it.

[Jessica]

I used to review novels for my local newspaper and other publications. I always felt that the review was an intimate conversation between me, the novel and the author.
I love reviewing for that reason--whether here on gr or elsewhere.

my professional reviews are longer though, more in-depth and less conversational.

[Cass]

Ninja Sock Puppet wrote: "Many of them are focusing less on the content of the book and more on the experience of reading the book. Meaning, they're functionally blog entries using books as a springboard."

I also agree with this. I suspect it is because of the community like atmosphere. Unlike a real blog where readership would be much smaller and the community non-existant.

Jimmy wrote: Most of my book reviews are written with an ideal audience in mind: that audience being one who has ALREADY READ the book I'm reviewing.

I think you really explained the two different types of reviews very well. There are those, more formal reviews, that I read in order to decided whether to read the book. Then there are the less formal reviews that I read after I have read the book, and sometimes I even go read the book just that I can contribute to the discussion and laugh at the jokes.

As for masturbating.. I don't think we have been reading the same books...(You should use the 'add book' function then we can all read the book and have a post-mastubatory discussion.)...

[Cass]

I just had a thought, which might be a thread highjack.

When I am deciding whether to read a book (or if I have uploaded my review and want to read what others think). I definetly avoid the 3-star rated reviews.

I read the 4/5 stars (probably means the reviewer loved the book). I read the 1/2 star (probably hated it). But I generally don't want to read a review when some just thought it was okay.

[Jim]

Cass, you might be missing some good reviews if you're skipping 3 stars. I understand your point, but I have several friends who do good, long reviews listing the pluses & minuses. Often they'll arrive at 3 stars, but it is how they arrive that is of interest. They hated a certain characterization or the author committed a pet peeve or the reverse. Some of those things might not bother me at all, others ruin the story for me.

It's one of the cool things about friends here on GR. You learn what their tastes are & how they correspond to your own.

[Cass]

I suppose I mean generally. It isn't that I won't read a 3-star review, just that when faced with a book with too many reviews to read, I will probably mostly read the high and low ones.

[Jasmine]

it I am considering a book I actually tend to read the 3 star reviews cause I want to know what people think were the problems that could have been fixed to make it better, without people ranting or being over adulating.

[Dawn]

Cass wrote: "I read the 4/5 stars (probably means the reviewer loved the book). I read the 1/2 star (probably hated it). But I generally don't want to read a review when some just thought it was okay..."

Just so you know, three stars per the GR ratings system isn't actually defined as "okay", that's two stars. Three stars is "liked it". I've been trying to stay true to this system more lately than I used to... Before I would rate things three stars that I just found "ok" and save two and one for disliked and hated. Now I have a lot more three star books though, which isn't by any means a bad rating.

[Paul]

If it's of interest my highest rated and my third highest rated reviews are 3 star ones.

[Jessica]

yes, that is of interest.

[Velvetink]

Paul wrote: "If it's of interest my highest rated and my third highest rated reviews are 3 star ones."

That's more or less how I use the star rating also; and sometimes with the 3's I've read it some time ago & can't remember details well enough to go higher but know that I liked the book.

I am actually in a dilemma over books I've read when younger that I either adored or thought very highly of but know that if I had read them now (with maturity or social changes)influencing me, I would not rate them so high. What to do? Rate them as if I had the same reaction as me the past or rate them as me in the now. This example is another one where I'm flummoxed and just give them a 3 star rating.

[Cass]

Dawn wrote: "Just so you know, three stars per the GR ratings system isn't actually defined as "okay", that's two stars. Three stars is "liked it". I've been trying to stay true to this system more lately than I used to... ."

True, but not everyone does, and some people have an aversion to giving only one-star for anything.

In truth, I will first read the 5-stars and 1-stars, then I will read 4-stars and then 2-stars and maybe then 3-stars. All of this is apt to be overridden by a review that is 'liked' (so hopefully well written) or something from someone that I follow.

[Ian]

Elizabeth wrote: "I wrote about some of this in a review, Michael, so I won't repeat all of that, but part of why the reviews evolve here, why they're different from other sites, and why they aren't just blogs, (in my opinion) is that we are part of a goodreads community and we influence each other. I want to kiss the first person that ever went off topic but some how brought it all back to the book in the end because I love that kind of review, the one about the reading experience, and I feel that I'm writing for people like that, people like me, who enjoy that intersection between review and community. If I just wanted to read straight reviews, I could go to Amazon. It's about the friendship, community, non-paid, and freedom to say what you want that makes goodreads special and the reviews special"

I just feel like Elizabeth's comment from a couple months ago (it was number 38) needs to be repeated. Mostly because it's precisely how I feel about this subject, but articulated better than I could. Thanks, Elizabeth!