Why are the ratings for most high-quality classics on goodreads so low?
I mean for movies and art the critics seem to agree with the audiences at least to some degree but everyone who still reads seems to only appreciate the most simplistic and easy stories
Like look at the page for moby duck for christs sake
>>7861555
Fucking hell autocorrect
Thanks censors
who the fuck gives a shit. why don't you make a thread discussing a book you retard
>>7861570
Maybe I like talking about art as a whole too instead of constantly discussing specific books
Can't always talk about it in school because of the way it is formatted
Many people just aren't intelligent enough to understand them. No need to be a pretentious ass about it. Next question
when people read classics they expect it to be some transcendent piece of work that will instantly appeal to their individual tastes rather than just being good at something that other literature was doing at the time
barely anyone knows what art is anymore
>>7861608
>when people read classics they expect it to be some transcendent piece of work that will instantly appeal to their individual tastes rather than just being good at something that other literature was doing at the time
I agree with this but...
>barely anyone knows what art is anymore
...then you say that.
>>7861555
Look at heart of darkness and Ulysses lol.
I read I have no mouth and must scream a few days ago and checked the rating on good reads as well as a few reviews, they were giving it 1 star because it was "misogynistic" lmao
wow maybe because reducing books to numbers between one and five isnt the best heuristic to judge quality in the first place
>>7861555
You need to avoid Goodreads averages. You would be better off collecting 25 /lit/ "friends" and using their recommendations.
There are plenty of contemporary critics who took a big steamy dump all over Moby Dick at the time it was published. Classics are determined post hoc by some elite twits in academia who have influence and browbeat others into submitting to their expertise.
what would you consider low? a 3 on goodreads = 'i like it' and a 4 'i really like it', so a 3.5 is still p good
>>7861555
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6759.Infinite_Jest?from_new_nav=true&ac=1&from_search=true
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/415.Gravity_s_Rainbow?from_new_nav=true&ac=1&from_search=true
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24280.Les_Mis_rables?from_new_nav=true&ac=1&from_search=true
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18405.Gone_with_the_Wind?from_new_nav=true&ac=1&from_search=true
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4406.East_of_Eden?from_new_nav=true&ac=1&from_search=true
Nice cherrypicking OP. Facts don't matter when we all know all of Goodreads consists of evil liberal feminazis from tumblr and reddit who are hellbent on ruining the western canon by forcing you to read Things Fall Apart and the Twilight series.
>>7861859
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/15896085?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1
I think a lot of it has to do with the classics being required reading for classes. Then you have these people who don't really like literature (but maybe they read YA or something, hence the Goodreads account) who then proceed to rate classics low scores.
>>7861712
ficking really?
>>7861555
You know all the things we half-seriously say about plebs who jerk off to genre fiction? Well, it turns out that those plebs are all real and every single one of them has a goodreads account.
>>7861961
>I think a lot of it has to do with the classics being required reading for classes.
That was my initial thought, too. I wonder how many poor reviews come from someone who had to read something back in high school and hated their teacher, etc.
I find mostly everything hovers around four stars.
