Goodreads cringe

>>9470821
>stop liking what i dont like

This is your life OP

>>9470837
>Rothfuss often treads the thin line between prose and poetry
If you think this is acceptable then the downfall of Western civilization is on you

>>9470842
apart from that, it seems reasonable. it also pointed out a few flaws, the same I found when reading it.
I wouldn't have given 5 stars, but ratingt is very subjective.

>>9470852
The protagonist is a Mary Sue who can do anything, aimed at nerds who were bullied in highschool. It's nothing but wish fulfillment at the most base level. The writing is poor. The dialogues are uniform, i.e., all characters sound the same. This is, objectively, not a good book.

>>9470859
>objectively
>good

one of the only factors that can be regarded as truly objective for judging a book is the number of copies it sold.

>wish fulfillment
it does this very well. also, the third book will probably talk about how kvothe start failing at everything

>>9470863
By your logic, McDonalds makes the best food

>>9470893
the number of units sold is not a good factor to judge a book. it's just one of the very few (possible the only) objective factor, simply because it's one of the very few things we can objectively measure (sure, you can rank books by word count, but that would be even more meaningless).
that's why reviews don't just consist of a number. it's interesting to see how other people feel about a book. that doesn't make any opinion more valid that other opinions.

also, isn't it a bit egocentric to think that a book that has more than 400k votes on goodreads and has a very good rating of 4.55 is bad just because you think your judgement is better and everyone is an idiot? because that's how it feels to read your comments right now.

anon, just have fun reading what you like, and let other enjoy what they like. that's what's important.

have a nice day!

File: Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg (106KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1024x683px

>>9470913
>this whole post

File: Reader-is-sexy.jpg (90KB, 500x707px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x707px

>>9470821
Why read the reviews? The only thing Goodreads is good for is keeping track of what you've read and listing what you want to read.

>>9470887
This guy should kill himself

>these genre fiction idiots are on /lit/ right now

The general was a mistake, just ban all of them.

File: bah.png (196KB, 624x1659px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 624x1659px

Another classic of the genre

>>9470913
nr of pages is another objective measure, # prices it won and goodreads rating are objective ratings too, just incredibly poor ones

>>9470821
>that Dickens and Dostoevsky part

>>9471029
A piece of paper is enough for that. You don't need an account.

File: IMG_0815.jpg (181KB, 311x1250px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 311x1250px

Saw this review and noticed that he mentions his own book at the end of the of it. Hmmm....

1/2

File: IMG_0816.jpg (174KB, 407x1216px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 407x1216px

>>9471375
2/?

Ohhh... really make me think. Let's check out the reviews.

>>9471375
That's actually patrician as fuck

File: IMG_0821.jpg (165KB, 471x1161px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 471x1161px

>>9471396
In Peyreffite or Gide's hands, yes: however...

3/?

File: IMG_0823.jpg (206KB, 385x1226px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 385x1226px

>>9471408
Forgive my flagrant mobile posting by the way, computer broke.

Most of the reviews are positive and some of them suspiciously so, but they're not very interesting. Here's where things start to get interesting.

4/?

File: IMG_0825.jpg (207KB, 367x1254px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 367x1254px

>>9471428
5/?

>tfw pro-pederasty propaganda is problematic because of homophobia and misogyny

>>9471458
6/?

The man himself responds

File: IMG_0826.jpg (240KB, 633x1145px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 633x1145px

>>9471474
Fuck

File: IMG_0827.jpg (181KB, 750x917px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 750x917px

>>9471476
7/?

More dialogue between author and critics upcoming

File: IMG_0828.jpg (239KB, 467x1247px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 467x1247px

>>9471480
8/?

File: IMG_0830.jpg (170KB, 750x875px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 750x875px

>>9471488
9/?

File: IMG_0831.jpg (198KB, 749x946px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 749x946px

>>9471502
10/?

>>9470887
This is clearly an ironic review.

>>9471509
11/11

Here's some more shit. Somehow this got featured on London Book Review and Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297288/Pippa-Middleton-dropped-book-agent-Duchess-Cambridges-sister-parts-ways-literary-guru.html

https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2013/07/15/nick-richardson/eton-life/

http://thepaintheagony.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/feedback-on-jordis-island.html?

>>9471562
Thank you for posting all these, they're wonderfully bizarre

>>9471601
I'm glad anon. There's really something about accidentally finding these kind of niche, taboo topics that grip themselves to certain kinds of strange people with something like their own world? I don't know how to describe it, it's magical

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/reviews/1481222112/

These reviews are hilarious, too

>>9471029
>Your pic related

Is true cringe. I am a self-confessed pervert who doesn't mind watching a couple of sexy breasts/buttocks every now and then, but this whole 'female readers are sexy' stock photos make me cringe to orbit.