Inattentive and Un-appreciated

[Zinny]

Anyhow this site has become so concentrated on the popularity contest of each Arthur, I think Tolkien is left out from most people list, as there will be no more new release launch coming up.

Most writer these days tried their best to follow Tolkien foot step and then add their own flavour to it.

Still it astonish me on how low it is rated

[Tash]

Tolkien by his very nature, is not an easy read. It took me five goes to get through The Hobbit, but I managed LOTR in one go. Tolkien was the original fantasy writer and almost all fantasy based novels since have been given inspiration by his writing.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Tash wrote: " Tolkien was the original fantasy writer and almost all fantasy based novels since have been given inspiration by his writing..."

He wasn't the 1st.
Many authors wrote fantasy before him.
He may have been the 1st to write fantasy on an epic scale though...and spawned a brood of authors that can't tell a tale in less than 8 books of 1000 pages each...

[Tejashree]

To each his own.
You cant really force some one to like a book becoz you do. I do like LOTR but then again there are so many books that are best seller and you may not like them.

[Kristin]

I think LOTR is a important book because elves were little pixies before Tolkien. To me its not a matter of the story being horribly interesting, its about the ground work that Tolkien put down for fantasy.

[Mark]

rating LOTR with 1 star says more about the reader than the book. Unless we have these imdb boys/girls here that aim to change a vote due to the fact that they want to improve the rating of their favorite movie.

A one star rating for LOTR means you better stick to your computergames and leave books alone.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

I see the necromancy performed on this thread has awoken the raging fanboys as well.

[Kristin]

I play a lot of games and read books ; )

[Mark]

If I dislike a book so much I will not rate it, most of the time I have not finished the book so how can I honestly give a rating.

[edi]

not liking a book has nothing to do with one's intelligence or ignorance. and the rating system is about how an individual person liked a book.
i rated faust with only 1 star, because i didn't liked it, but that doesn't mean i'm too dumb to get it or too ignorant to acknowledge its importance or greatness or whatever it is.

[Mark]

Testgnom wrote: "not liking a book has nothing to do with one's intelligence or ignorance. and the rating system is about how an individual person liked a book.
i rated faust with only 1 star, because i didn't like..."

I disagree with you, if you dislike a book it does not mean it is bad. Perhaps a book is not your taste. I would never do a review or rate a book like "Twilight or 50 shades of...." because they are turds imho.
But as this site is called GOODreads I tend to try and actually find good books and add to it. And I will not search out the books I found wanting..........
That kind of behaviour annoys the heck out of me as it happens on imdb or amazon.
Unless you really have something to say something special and offer a total unique critique on a classic leave it be......
And rating a book like Faust with one star and not writing a review smells kind like trolling. IMHO

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

The troll complains of trolling. How droll.

The rating system, if you hover over the stars, is based on how much someone liked a book. No, it doesn't necessarily mean a book is bad - or good. Nor does it mean someone is intelligent or otherwise. It is a marker of their opinion and enjoyment of a book - no more, no less.

And sure, people try to find books that they'll like, but it drives me a little bit insane every time I hear someone say something about how they only read books they'll like. Not all of us are gifted with such stellar precognition, apparently.

Speaking of dislikes, I, personally, dislike it when people don't rate books that they didn't like. I find it dishonest and disingenuous and I think it defeats the purpose of the rating system.

But it's a funny old world and what annoys one person means feck all to another. So excuse me if I will rate a book - classic or otherwise - based on my own experience and my own opinion and not really give a shit if some fanboy has a problem with that.

And if you want me to bow down to your alleged superior intelligence, as you would no doubt deem it - as I should, apparently, leave books alone - then you may want to try and formulate actual coherent sentences in the future.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Mark wrote: "A one star rating for LOTR means you better stick to your computergames and leave books alone..."

Why?

[Old-Barbarossa]

Mark wrote: "If I dislike a book so much I will not rate it, most of the time I have not finished the book so how can I honestly give a rating."

I agree that in most cases finishing a book before rating is more honest.
But also think that a rating on it's own tells us very little. A review in conjunction with a rating is more informative.
I can read, I read LOTR, I gave it 1 star...so what?
I disagree with other peoples rating, but as the rating system is only my opinion why would you get bent out of shape over it and demand I stop reading in general?

[Mark]

Colleen wrote: "The troll complains of trolling. How droll.

The rating system, if you hover over the stars, is based on how much someone liked a book. No, it doesn't necessarily mean a book is bad - or good. N..."

I do write a review on books I did finish and if I really cannot finish a book and put it to the side I find that I can say I really did not like it but cannot really judge it based on reading the whole book.

I find 1 star judgements without any reasoning behind it trolling. Just like writers themselves giving them 5 stars.

If you really don't like a book then come with a reason you have decided to award your star(s). People do want to know why you dislike or cannot be bothered finishing a book.

And calling me a troll is unwanted as I do generally respect people in their taste that explain why. And if they have read a few chapters and judge a whole book I find that strange that you feel the necessity to judge something.

And indeed that is generally the reasoning for me call that superiour that is your choice. I do not feel smarter than anybody on this site and have read some great reviews of books that made me decide to pick up a certain writer and book. That is why I visit this site and I do enjoy those that really make an effort to tell people about their enjoyment or dissapointment. They inform me which is what I seek on this site.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Mark, I didn't call you a troll because of writing reviews or not. Though I have rated books I did not finish, because 1-star means I "didn't like" it, and I agree that reviews are more helpful than just ratings - but that doesn't mean people who don't review are trolls.

But, really, that's all beside the point, and not the cause of my ire. This is:

Mark wrote: "rating LOTR with 1 star says more about the reader than the book. Unless we have these imdb boys/girls here that aim to change a vote due to the fact that they want to improve the rating of their favorite movie.

A one star rating for LOTR means you better stick to your computergames and leave books alone. "

So, yeah, I think that you do think you're better or smarter than people around here, solely for their enjoyment, or lack thereof, of a book.

[[deleted user]]

Why are people so fixed on getting everyone liking the same books as they do? I would hate to like what everyone likes...

Books are something so personal, just like yours and ignore everyone else...

[Mark]

Colleen wrote: "Mark, I didn't call you a troll because of writing reviews or not. Though I have rated books I did not finish, because 1-star means I "didn't like" it, and I agree that reviews are more helpful th..."

Nope I do not think that I am smarter, but giving a one star without reasoning I consider a bit naff on a site were most people take the effort to write at least a review one their thoughts about a book. If you cannot be bothered than do not rate the book.
I myself could not finish 2 books in recent years and have not rated them solely because I lack imho enough insight to rate them besides the fact that I did not like them.

[edi]

Testgnom wrote: "not liking a book has nothing to do with one's intelligence or ignorance. and the rating system is about how an individual person liked a book.
i rated faust with only 1 star, because i didn't like..."

what the hell are you talking about?
1 star means 'i didn't like it'
2 stars mean 'it was ok' etc.
3 stars 'i liked it'
so it is absolutly ok to rate any book you didn't like no matter how good it is in general opinion with only one star.
and what does it matter that this site is called goodreads? people read books before this site existed. what if XY read ltr in, don't know, 2003 and signed up two years ago? why shouldn't (s)he rate it like he liked it in 2003?
i don't think there are many people who go and search for shit books just to rate them bad. they probably read it by chance and disliked it.

and about faust, i read it in school over a year ago. i signed up at the end of last year, and i'm definitly not the type of person to write reviews about every fucking book i ever read. i don't feel the need to explain why i don't like stuff, and most of the time i don't even really know. it's most often a feeling or i simple didn't like the theme or setting or the main character.
-----
Sorry if i repeated here something someone else already said, but man, not everyone writes reviews on all the books they read but that doesn't mean they want to troll anybody.. saying things like that makes you appear as if you don't really know what trolling is. in my opinion, it's even better not to write a review than write something like 'dudes, don't read this, this is total bullshit.'
i don't write reviews because i think who's going to read them anyways? nobody. i write them for myself and for fun and sometimes to share it with my few friends, but not for the community or something or not to appear as a troll; man what a messed up logic.

[Sherri]

I agree. I think the people that rated it badly just didn't get it.

[Sophie]

The thing is, some people say age has to do with it.
(Not being discriminating here)
Lots of people say that people more in their late twenties-onwards would enjoy it, because teens "just don't understand". I'm 14 now, and I was twelve when I read LOTR. I ADORED it. Maybe it was my upbringing, or just my plain old love of reading and literature, but my age had and has nothing to do with it. I think maybe intelligence has a small factor in appreciation; but not much. It is more about your taste in books, your upbringing, exposure and opinions. And everyone is entitled to their different views on all of those.

[Sophie]

And the movies just made me love LOTR all the more :)

[Lótë (Iris)]

I agree. This book is genius.

[brooke1994]

My gosh, I completely agree with you!! Lotr is so underrated and crap like Twilight and The Vampire Diaries gets promoted more. Lotr has a good story and good morals and I see a majority of people go to the weird series, like vampire series where the girl is drawn to the guy who stalks girls in their sleep and kills them. It's creepy and gross.

[Zinny]

Lótë (Iris) wrote: "I agree. This book is genius."

So how come you haven't rate it yet?

[Bjarne]

Sid wrote: "This is my favourite book, but I can understand how some people might not like it. I don't think we should judge people for not liking it, just as other people shouldn't judge those who love Tolkie..."

We should remember the old professor himself and his mild amusement over the enormously differing opinions of the work : fanatical love or burning hate. Or as he summed it up :

The Lord of the Rings
is one of those things.
If you like it you do
if not, then you boo.

[[deleted user]]

Everyone is always going to have a different reaction to any given book than the next person. Plus, a book you loved ten years ago, you might find you hate on a second read. I don't object to people saying they hate a book as long as they have actually read it - or at least got more than halfway through it. What really gets my goat is when the review of the book instead descends into a personal attack on other people's intelligence or taste. Yes, I loved LOTR, other people don't. I didn't like The Da vinci Code, but other people do. Anyway, if we all thought the same way about any book, this web-site would be pretty pointless!

[Julia]

I try not to think too much about why people rate books the way they do. All I care about is whether or not I will like a book. I skim through a review, if I can't relate to the reviewer, then their review is irrelevant to me.