Good post, user.
Goodreads / odyssey
Adrian Sanchez
Caleb Brown
>What, there is some deeper meaning?
>A philosophical background to your work?
>Why won't something happen?
>Why doesn't this read like a Karl May novel?
Thomas Wilson
How do the Brothers hold up to Crime and Punishment?
Grayson Mitchell
You're an idiot and I'll explain why. These reviews are not laughable because they rate masterpieces badly; but because they do so while displaying an impressive lack of understanding of the historical context and of the book point itself. As simply as taking an ironic text as a literal one, or criticising the portrayal of slavery of an author from 2000+ years ago.
It's respectable to rate anything poorly; but understand the book and its context, and then give your reasons.
Hunter Hill
Slightly worse than Crime and Punishment for me, still marvelous. Also one of the most important texts of D., especially for parts as the "The Grand Inquisitor". Its really hard for me to decide but on purely personal ground I prefer Crime and Punishment because I like Raskolnikov as a character more than any other of D. characters.
Camden Reyes
>historical context and of the book point itself.
Is irrelevant for the enjoyment of the material. Most victorian novels got inflated world-counts because of the way authors got paid, should people just ignore that Dickens puking out paragraph after paragraph without saying anything? If a book has a certain flaw (which is all subjective either way) there might be an explanation for why this flaw exist but it doesn't take shit away. If you ended your novel in the middle of a sentence because you run out of time, it's an incomplete ending and people are right to complain about that.
Carson Flores
>Is irrelevant for the enjoyment of the materia
No.
You conflate feeling for thinking.
Samuel Sanchez
It's certainly not irrelevant for the enjoyment of the book. You can't enjoy a parody as a parody without any knowledge of the thing it parodies.
If your review boils down to «I got bored», that usually tells more about you than about the author.
It's not like we're saying such reviews should be banned, everyone is on their right to put up a review; we're just saying they're shit.
Once again, I'm not arguing against the criticising of old masterpieces. What you said about victorian novels tends to be true, and see, that's an argument that can be valuable, it's not: «the use of the N word offends me».
Jose Hill
>t. women
Nicholas Myers
>don't like reading about slaves
>book got slaves
Yeah, that's going to be a fun read because it's historical correct.
>You can't enjoy a parody as a parody without any knowledge of the thing it parodies.
Sure, and there is nothing wrong writing a review about how you didn't enjoy it because you didn't get it, since well, you didn't.
>If your review boils down to «I got bored», that usually tells more about you than about the author
As long you can tell why you got bored, it's a pretty good review. Besides, all a review can tell you is about the persons opinion of the book, even if you try to be objective and include reasons for why this happened and why that was acceptable, it's still boils down to reflecting the personal opinion of the reviewer. Only when they overstep their line and pretend it's somehow objective they fucked up
Someone who is afraid of naked bodies, won't enjoy a naked painting, they aren't supposed to since it's not for them. There is no piece of art, no matter how well done that can be enjoyed by everyone, why would it be an issue to point it out, as long the reviewer doesn't bitch about how naked bodies are objectively unenjoyable?