What is pitchfork for books? Is there any reliable site that

File: index.png (4KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 183x275px

>implying Pitchfork is reliable.
>implying RT is reliable and not a fucking joke and cancer of film community.
>Would prefer arbitrary opinions with arbitrary scores.

Pic related is you.

>>9308624
Do you mean Metacritic? Pitchfork is only one review site, not an aggregator.

Anyway, Metacritic used to do books, but they stopped, maybe because assigning scores was hard/pointless. Would be really useful if there wassomewhere linking to all the reputable reviews of a given book, though.

>>9308751
pitchfork is mostly reliable with what /mu/ agrees is good music.

Probably not always, but in most cases it's good intro to what is worth listening to

>>9308751
>>implying RT is reliable and not a fucking joke and cancer of film community.
How is it not reliable in what it does? It states the number of percentage of critics (and audience) that liked the film.

>>9308988
Because those critics and that audience are fucking brainlets. They've rated masterpiece film works like Knight of Cups as dog shit.

File: 1433733776489.png (667KB, 798x602px) Image search: [Google]

667KB, 798x602px

>>9308982
>pitchfork is mostly reliable with what /mu/ agrees is good music

>>9308993
And Synecdoche New York. Hurts my soul desu

>>9308996
>The Banana

Patrish

goodreads but it's shit
amazon is the best resource to find new and good books imho

File: 1440456536988.png (44KB, 780x387px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 780x387px

>>9309011

>>9308993
>Because those critics and that audience are fucking brainlets.
That doesn't make it unreliable, it's not saying how good the films are, but how many critics like it. (It's still a lot better than IMDb for example, but any site that has multiple opinions for anything won't completely agree with you.)

>>9309029
It makes it unreliable diarrhea because the critics are arbitrary.

Much better option is to make Letterboxd account and follow people with similar taste to yours and compare how they rate stuff and pick and choose based on that.

>>9309036
I do both, plus RateYourMusic.com (has a pretty good collective taste https://rateyourmusic.com/films/chart) and ICheckMovies (some great lists, some pretty bad ones).

>>9309046
You have letterboxd? throw a link mate.
I also use goodreads because its recommendation feature is fucking good

>>9309013
no to both, as good reads is massive and consumer review driven, while amazon is sales and customer view/purchase algorithm driven

>>9309046
i like rym better than a lot of aggregators, but its still not quite what op is looking for

>>9308774
same as above, not really fitting ops criteria

pitchfork is a magazine with critic reviews, who prefer independent music from the east and west coast. and insufferably white, though pitchfork has slid into pop music because of white guilt, presumably.

the answer youre looking for is the believer magazine, op

books take longer to review than music so there's less of a critic culture. also it would probably strictly review new releases so I mean it would be hard to even sort through all the stuff they said was good

>>9308982
most of /mu/ is 14 year olds and any classical, jazz or traditional music is either ignored, barely gets any replies, circlejerks the same 3 albums because thats what people have heard, or whatever pitchfork or theneedledrop has rated as good, even when its basic shit.

I really want a website to exist that is literally Pitchfork for literature. No comment system and staff reviewing so /lit/ would effectively become its message board. Imagine every night five book reviews were put up (maybe one classic, one fiction, one non-fiction, one collection of short stories and one poetry) with scores to one decimal place. Just think of people freaking out when Infinite Jest gets an 8.1 or Catcher In The Rye gets an 8.6.

Of course at its deepest layer would be a scathing commentary on /lit/'s inability to make up its own opinions on literature, or understand these books at all.

>>9309471
sounds like shit desu

>>9309471
This is literally what destroys all discussion on /mu/ and you're a retard for wanting this.

>>9309471
this is garbage.
pitchfork has ruined music since some retards like OP would discard a good album based on some arbitrary score.

>>9309471
That site would be terrible. You'd also need specialists to review the non-fiction (I don't need a literature mayor's review of a book on psychology or history).
The decimal scores are the peak of pointless autism, however.

>every night five book reviews were put up
You'd need ~50 people constantly reading new books to pull this off.

>Just think of people freaking out when Infinite Jest gets an 8.1 or Catcher In The Rye gets an 8.6.
You are hopelessly lost in chan culture, anon, if your fantasies revolve around internet people being shocked by some numbers.

>>9309755
>"You are hopelessly lost in chan culture, anon, if your fantasies revolve around internet people being shocked by some numbers."
>not having easily gratifiable fantasies to increase the chances that they'll come true

it's like you don't want to be happy

I've been thinking about a long time making a goodGoodReads website.

>>9309755
>>9309645
>>9309622
>>9309481

Did you read the last sentence of my post at all or do you just possess no reading comprehension whatsoever? Nice work proving my point.

>>9308624
The more people's opinions you put together, the more brain dead and mediocre they become. Best to have a small circle of critics and friends that you trust.

>>9309806
Irony does not automatically give legitimacy to stupid and pointless ideas. In fact, your whole concept becomes even shittier because of it.

>>9309836

oh shut the fuck up you pretentious cunt. i bet you're the type who drinks caramel lattes in starbucks whilst reading postmodern novels thinking they make you intellectual or cool. i can assure you almost all of what you read goes over your head, because you clearly have no idea what i was trying to convey.

is english even your first language?

>>9309864
>is english even your first language?
No

>oh shut the fuck up you pretentious cunt. i bet you're the type who drinks caramel lattes in starbucks whilst reading postmodern novels thinking they make you intellectual or cool. i can assure you almost all of what you read goes over your head, because you clearly have no idea what i was trying to convey.
You sound very triggered.
Yeah, I don't want an ironic meme review site that would be omg so epic, so I must be a pretentious fan of postmodernism.

File: 1490023132943.png (159KB, 460x402px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 460x402px

>>9308982
>>9308624
>>9309775
Holy fucking shit, people like this actually exists. I'm shaking right now. Please stop sharing your opinions on any culture related subject until you've properly educated yourself.

>>9308624
THERE IS A LITERAL FUCKING ENTIRE ACADEMIC INSTITUTION DEDICATED TO DISCUSSING AND RATING THE MERIT OF LITERATURE. JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO COMPREHEND IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE ENTITLED TO SOME SHITTY ASS POP-CULTURE SITE TO TELL YOU WHAT YOUR OPINION ON THE LATEST TIMES BESTSELLER IS. FUCKING KILL YOURSELF

>>9308624
You're cancerous. Get off my board.

>>9309877

Damn I was just trolling you man I didn't mean what I said about English being your first language. Sorry. I think it's really cool that non-native speakers communicate on English message boards. I feel awful now. Sorry again