Some people read so they can hate

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Geralt

This person (who I don't know) has 172 ratings on goodreads with 2.8 average rate. 65 out of those 164 (read books) are 1 and 2 stars very negative, very complaining in nature reviews. That is 39.6% of the books she has read, she absolutely hated them.

If reviews were distributed at random, 40% of reviews would be 1 and 2 star, so I don't particularly see an issue with the distribution.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

If reviews were distributed at random, 40% of reviews would be 1 and 2 star, so I don't particularly see an issue with the distribution.

I think this would be true if books were evenly distributed in "enjoyability", and people also chose to read and rate them randomly. You'd think that people would choose better rated books and thus push towards higher scores on average, but it certainly doesn't seem to be happening with the rater in question. Although, as others have pointed out here, I guess that many people tend to only put in the effort of rating a book if they really liked or disliked it.

I have no idea about the actual distribution of ratings over all books. Are there really as many 1-star as 3-star as 5-star books? I would be amazed if the distribution did turn out to be flat because there are a lot of non-random factors involved. The whole topic is fascinating to me just from a statistical point of view.

[haydnfan]

Geralt get over yourself! It's not my business what some stranger on goodreads thinks of certain novels. But I do say bravo to this individual for not letting turds (in her mind) deter her from finding something of value in the genre. It takes an adventurous reader to do that.

btw Geralt is just a poor copy of Moorcock's Elric. Please take no false idols. :-P

[Geralt]

I see discussing behavior is quite controversial for some. As I said 100 times here, it was never my intention to discuss individual. I guess I am more interested into motivation and interests, i.e what makes people tick. In this case in regard to reading.

Originally Posted by haydnfan

btw Geralt is just a poor copy of Moorcock's Elric. Please take no false idols. :-P

Yes, because all of creativity in fantasy is limited to anglophone tradition Maybe you should take your own advice from the beginning of your post :P

[FizzyWater]

Don't know if it's already been said, but some people get free ARC books, with the promise of an honest review. I can't say you'd still have a point in that, if she doesn't seem to like the genre, why take the freebies, but some people just can't so no to "free".

Or, she may feel she provides a service (at which point, I'm hoping she's young, because life really is too short to spend that much time doing something you don't like just "because") - by reviewing the drek, she's saving other poor readers from the mistake of purchasing those books!

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by Geralt

This was a conclusion I came to after accidently coming upon a woman who reads so she can bitch about it. Excuse my language but that's what it is.
This person (who I don't know) has 172 ratings on goodreads with 2.8 average rate. 65 out of those 164 (read books) are 1 and 2 stars very negative, very complaining in nature reviews. That is 39.6% of the books she has read, she absolutely hated them.

My mind was blown.

Why the hell would you read to hate? And don't you have enough experience and sense to choose books for you which you WILL like?

This is especially true of fantasy books she read because that genre is interesting to me.

1 star books include

Mistborn: The Final Empire (Mistborn, #1)
The Name of the Wind (The Kingkiller Chronicle, #1)
The Warded Man (Demon Cycle, #1)
The Gunslinger (The Dark Tower, #1)
The Way of Kings (The Stormlight Archive, #1)

I wont even list them all, or the other 2 star reviews that aren't any better. Clearly this women doesn't like fantasy. Why the hell is she keep reading it??

She is presumptuous, arrogant and ultra hard core (lol) feminist in her reviews. I honestly felt confused by her understanding of female characters. According to what I read from her, all female characters should be strong, independent, nonsexual creatures that turn men into pulp at the first sign of flirtatious behavior or god forbid sexual act.
(I'm a girl btw, but this kind of thinking blows my mind)


Have any of you come across this kind of reader? What do you think about this? I'm mostly just confused

I finally got around to reading this thread.

First there are people like you describe.
Second it is best to just ignore them

One thing these people like is the attention their opinions get.

[Felicity Grope]

The saying that ‘haters will always hate’ makes it sound better than the real situation. There are people out there who will take pleasure in being malicious and hurting strangers.

I had a book published a few years ago and I was over the moon. Proper advance, real publisher with a good track record. The book came out, well reviewed in different places. Lots of 5* reviews on Amazon. Then one character turned up and tore me apart for no reason. I didn't know them yet they went to great trouble to basically say my book was unfunny, terribly done, and deserved to fail. I don’t think I've ever read such a vicious book review.

That’s when I realised I don’t really care what people think. Well, I do care but I care about the sane, rational people out there say. Even then, I know that tastes vary wildly but mainly I don’t care what the crazies think or say.

Besides, I write for myself. Published or unpublished, successful or not, I do this because I’m a writer. Nothing else really matters.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Felicity Grope

I had a book published a few years ago and I was over the moon. Proper advance, real publisher with a good track record. The book came out, well reviewed in different places. Lots of 5* reviews on Amazon. Then one character turned up and tore me apart for no reason. I didn't know them yet they went to great trouble to basically say my book was unfunny, terribly done, and deserved to fail. I don’t think I've ever read such a vicious book review..

It seems to me it was the book that was criticized and not you. And I would thought that the reason is obvious. If this was true opinions they are useful for other readers.

[Felicity Grope]

Originally Posted by tompe

It seems to me it was the book that was criticized and not you.

Actually, not really. It was so spiteful that the review actually attacked me, despite their not knowing me and my writing under a pseudonym. It was a *very* strange review and, actually, in the end it was so mad it was quite funny. It taught me a bit about dealing with the general public.

Criticisms of my books, I don't mind so much. Some are justified, some aren't. It's the nature of the business. I know I'm no F Scott Fitzgerald. A good critic could easily tear me to pieces if they wish.

But, besides, 'criticism' is such a bad word for what we do. It implies negativity which I think some people assume allows them to display a meanness of spirit. Proper criticism helps the author to improve. It shouldn't make them want to hide in a dark room and never come out again.

One final point: many people who criticise the hardest haven't actually tried to write.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Felicity Grope

A
One final point: many people who criticise the hardest haven't actually tried to write.

But that is totally irrelevant. Reviews are for readers and a reader have read a lot of books and have learnt to recognize what works and what does not work. You do not need to be a writer to do that in a good way.

[Felicity Grope]

Originally Posted by tompe

Reviews are for readers and a reader have read a lot of books and have learnt to recognize what works and what does not work.

In an ideal world that might be true. However, Amazon is not an ideal world and I wouldn't recommend that any writer take every bit of criticism to heart. Look at some of the criticisms of classic novels. Here's an example taken from a review of 'Heart of Darkness'.

'more baffling than thd film.a nothing of read.if i hadnt seen the film i wouldnt have had a clue. avoid as it is a classic, classic nonsense'

Okay, I'm taking an extreme case but I think it makes my point. All kinds of people can hate your book for sometimes strange reasons. Some people are malicious and others might simply not understand what you're trying to do. This doesn't mean that we're above criticism. You have to treat the glowing reviews with the same skepticism as you treat the bad. Other than that: be your own worst critic and listen to fellow writers who generally give the best advice.

[K. Molen]

I don't understand the negative attitude some here have shown towards Geralt and this topic. She very deliberately avoided pointing out who the person in question is, and only used some data to illustrate a behaviour she thought worthy of discussion.

Why some folks get their knickers in a twist over that I have no idea. I for one think it's an interesting topic and have very much enjoyed reading this thread. I've stayed out of posting in it until now because I haven't really had anything to contribute, but after seeing some of these aggressive posts criticising the topic itself, as well as Geralt herself, I thought I'd add a dissenting opinion and applaud the topic and Geralt for raising it.

As for me? I did a survey of my own and turns out my average review score is 3.92 out of 5. I'm actually surprised it's not lower, as I feel that lately I'm having a hard time finding a book I really love.

Also because I've never rated a book 5/5, the highest I've come is 4.5/5. I doubt I'll ever find a 5/5, as there's usually always something that bothers me, even in a novel as enjoyable and thought provoking as Ken Grimwoods Replay, which is my latest 4.5/5.

This actually brings to mind a related point. Some people, like myself, are pretty strict with what we'd consider giving 5/5 to, figuring it better be damned near perfect to earn a perfect score. Others seem to bestow a perfect score whenever they really, really loved something, whether that something can be considered perfect or not.

I wonder what that says about our personalities? Part of me wishes I'd be more liberal with my scoring, as I think it might be a reflection of my sometimes pessimistic personality that I can be a bit grinch-like in doling out praise. I wonder if research would find that people who give higher scores to things have a sunnier outlook on life than those who don't? Or at the very least are more forgiving by nature, which I think makes for a happier existence.

Or maybe I'm just overthinking it.

[treadlightly]

Great post K. Molen, and thanks to Geralt for an interesting discussion. If I don't like a book, I will rate it accordingly on Goodreads and maybe tag it as not being able to finish it. I don't see any need to attack the author or otherwise spread negative feelings in the universe. There are clearly people out there that need to do so. I do appreciate when people write balanced, spoiler-free and informative reviews, whether they liked the book or not. This is not as easy as it sounds, and I respect the talent and time it takes to do so.

That being said, I really did hate Heart of Darkness. But I had to read it to pass Grade 11 English, not by choice.

[Felicity Grope]

Originally Posted by treadlightly

That being said, I really did hate Heart of Darkness.

I'm afraid I brought that up and I'm new so I've not been able to follow this entire thread. Don't worry. You're not alone. Not many people seem to like it, though it is my favourite book.

Agree with everything you said, though. Even if people can't respect the talent, they should at least respect the time and effort. It saddens me to see any writer discouraged by people who are effectively yobs.

[treadlightly]

Originally Posted by Felicity Grope

I'm afraid I brought that up and I'm new so I've not been able to follow this entire thread. Don't worry. You're not alone. Not many people seem to like it, though it is my favourite book.

The world would be a boring place if we all liked the same book.