What makes a good book review?
>>24823889>She didn’t make the connection between the Abrahamic creation myth, the Ouroboros, the Great Mother, and Mankind’s struggle for consciousness and journey to JerusalemPity.
>>24823889It being 5 fucking stars and explaining what they got out of the product
>>24823889Exactly this. Why would read reviews other than to make myself feel superior. Maybe even the short funny ones, memes that aren't repeated.
>>24823889I don't think the unwashed masses should even be allowed to present their critiques of art. This woman seeks only to tear down the foundations; to destroy everything that came before and that is beautiful, so that everything may be ugly like her. You see it on Letterboxd, you see it on GoodReads, they all either want to shit on anything held in high esteem or make quippy, smug, meme-reviews using gay terminology for updoots sake. For example of the latter, a review of Barry Lyndon with over 800 likes: "Twink on twink violence." A review of The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, "sometimes a fellowship is just six himbos two daddys and a gimli." That review has 5,000+ likes.
>>24824150You know, I think MyAnimeList unironically has better reviews than Letterboxd and GoodReads
Book reviews are only worth reading if you wanna know what you're getting into. So the more a reviewer tells me about his personal tastes and what he liked and disliked in the book while revealing as little as possible about it the better
>>24824158>worth reading if you wanna know what you're getting into.>reviewer rambling about their personal opinions while saying nothing about the work will tell me that
>>24824263>and what he liked and disliked in the bookAgain just to be sure>and what he liked and disliked in the bookOne more time>and what he liked and disliked in the bookTo like: to feel attraction toward or take pleasure inTo dislike: to feel distaste for or hostility towardsBook: a written text that can be published in printed or electronic form
The typical goodreads review>I was at a farmer’s market in Maine 8 years ago when I had the most precocious thought…(Skip down 4 paragraphs)>kindness is everything. As I child I would become physically ill and cry when I detected even a whiff of unkindness. I still do to this day.(Skip down another 4 paragraphs)>and that’s why every last xtian needs to be hunted down and slaughtered like the fundie, homophobic pigs they are.(Skip down 7 paragraphs)>My ex’s words hit me like an electric bus, “check twitter now! Hillary Clinton just retweeted your zinger!!!!”(Skip down 3 paragraphs)>Ultimately, after 30 pages, I have had to add Moby Dick to my DNF pile and can’t recommend it.
>>24823889when you're sincere and not pandering to pseuds
This one always cracks me up honestly
>>24824509Lol
>>24825395Based
>>24823889Short. Relays strengths and faults in context (historical, oeuvre, genre ect.). Makes it evident whether or not it's going to be to your tastes.
the reviewer being a believer in what i believe. the reviewer sharing my opinions and views.biased? yes, it is, but this is a criteria i follow religiously.when i am looking for a book about, say, politics, i always look at who's doing the reviewing. i don't care a lot about so-called impartiality.i, a right-winger who has made peace with the fact that the only way we are exiting the hell we are in is by violence (laws might have to be suspended, for instance, but i'm digressing here; i apologise), have no problem in reading a book about a political matter which has been lauded by leftists - imagine a book about left-wing terrorism written by someone who is more than willing to pull out of his backside the daftest arguments for it. i go into it knowing this, and perhaps i will read it because of this - knowing your enemy's views is a maxim i find most important.actually, reviewers are overrated. and ridiculously unreliable (one is at the mercy of them if the matter reviewed is not reasonably known to us).if you have the time needed for such an endeavour, look out, acquaint yourselves with, for the debates about Israel's New Historians. One finds books reviewed by members of this tradition about which one member says A, and another states B. Imagine buying a book about which A says it's "magisterial", and about B says it's a "historiographical abomination". what the fuck, man? ought I to approach such a book as if it were fiction?
>>24823889/lit/ does the same thing too just from various right wing perspectives. I'd say one feature of a good review of anything is doing away with personal emotion and bias as much as possible.
