There is absolutely no way i will ever, ever, read this awful piece of trash.
>>8278245
I don't read anything above a 4 because you know the mass of plebs is jacking up the ratings. Also anything with more than 10,000 reviews
>>8278245
just don't read anything below 3.8 and your good. that's even pushing it a little. check this giant turd out.
>>8278245
I know this is bait, but fucking kill yourself.
Moby Dicky is literally the best novel in the English language.
>>8278606
Excepting a certain number of others.
I feel like Moby Dick has been appearing more and more on this board recently. Not a bad thing. Just noticed it.
>>8278713
Too bad it's mostly shitposting.
>>8278713
I blame Chuck Klosterman
why does cormac mccarthy literally worship this book?
>>8278606
That's not LOTR, anon
what's the sequel? moby balls lmao
>>8279054
LOL!!!
>>8278245
Goodreads ratings can only be used on books that are not part of any high school or introduction college courses.
Otherwise they are too saturated by people who shouldn't be allowed to rate.
Check the ratings on NYRB books - see if it doesn't seem more nuanced.
>>8278245
>Quantifying aesthetics
When is positivism going to die?
>>8279114
nyrb usually have terrible ratings except a few popular ones
>>8278245
Started it today, ilike it very much , stop being a whinging 15 y/o because you have to do it for school you cuck
>>8279054
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
desu the only people I've seen bitch about the whaling shit have been people who read exclusively young adult.
>>8278245
Fifty Shades of Grey has over a 4.0 as does Pewdiepie's This Book Loves You. I don't quite think they're of classic status.
>>8278742
Because its the best novel in American literature.
>>8279132
As soon as you ideologically displace it.
GET ON IT
The whaling shit is fucking amazing. Immersive as fuck.
Why do people shit on it so bad? Knowledge is power.
>>8279114
Goodreads is just horrible in general.
Too many plebs. The Worm Ouroboros has some 3.4~ score, purely because people can't be bothered to read the very mildly difficult (i.e. less difficult than Shakespeare) language.
>>8278713
Usually it's just one anon who tries tackling it, but requires /lit/'s validation in order to chug on through.
These days nobody wants to read big dense books without feeling congratulated to some extent, even if that congratulation is seeing that same book get praised on an anonymous board that is known for being pedantic.
>>8278245
I read the whole thing and 3.44 is about right. It has some good moments, but a competent editor could cut it down to half length without losing anything important.
>>8282792
This shop much
>>8279054
Oh my god....*slowly lowers my face into my palm and sighs*
>>8279054
>>8279054
/thread
>>8279114
This, besides, the book is legitimately boring at times. Plebs won't forgive it for that
>>8282953
*blocks your path*
Heh... big mistake kid...
>>8282953
>*using asterisks*
>>8282140
I read "big dense books" all the time and if I post about them it tends to be after I'm done to possibly have a discussion about them with someone else who's read them.
>>8279114
The only times that I've found Goodreads ratings to be of any use is when it's not a set text anywhere, and it's not a well-known book. You then stand a better chance of informed opinions in the reviews. For anything else, you'll get all kinds of people who were forced to read a book for class, or those who read it just because they'd heard of the title/author, and people complaining about stuff that's ordinary/expected for the period when the book was written.
small minds
small memes
>>8283474
is that davis fisher walrus?
>>8283474
tch....
you think you can stand up to me buddy?
*throws down smokebomb*
*escapes and leaves a paper in your hand*
[nuthin personel]
>>8279054
