>goodreads
here is your reply

Plebs are forced to read him in college

>>8077279
3 1/2 stars / 5 is pretty good. considering 2 1/2 is average. And Ulysses has like 4. So I wouldnt say they are bad

>>8077290
3 is average.. you cant rate it 0

>>8077290
you need to look at more goodreads reviews my man.

>>8077295
Oh I wasnt aware.
>>8077301
I guess youre right, I was basing it just off the stars not user reviews

But also reading reviews are stupid, its just people either saying its the worst thing ever or the best.

Nearly every book is a little below or a little above 4, the cumulative rating means absolutely nothing. Add some /lit/ people, it makes goodreads so much better.

>>8077328
woah 4 million people. wtf am I doing reading joyce. that many people can't be wrong.

basically don't read anything under a 3.8 I've found

4 is amazing
anything over 4 is the bees knees
3.9 is good but might be difficult
3.8 is good bit probably difficult, verging on not good
anythinf 3.7 and under is trash not worth reading

>>8077286
/thread

why are there no good book review aggregator sites out there, though?
like rotten tomatoes, or metacritic, or allmusic?

>>8077422

Just add people with good taste on Goodreads, you see the average score of your friends.

>>8077431
oh.

nice one, ty

>>8077377
yea this
/thread

>>8077370
Surely the masses must know what they're doing

>>8077422
Because numbered reviews are useless for literature. If you know literature and you know your taste you will never need such a thing. So instead of a vapid "it's good/it's bad" review, you read in depth literary criticism and deepen your understanding of the work. That's something that can't be quantified in a number generator.