What Happened discussion

Seriously, Goodreaders? Who cares what your politics are? I 'followed' two of you -- notice past tense on the verb -- but not any more. How can I trust your rating/review of a book if you haven't even read it (Pub. date: 9/12/17) Ridiculous!

If it's a good enough read, people will like it because it's good rather than on a political basis. That's the way it should be.

It would be nice if Goodreads implemented a feature where nobody can rate a book until it's actually been published and made available to the public. There's 50 ratings, yet it isn't out for another 9 days.

I hope Amazon has a sample because I will look at that but I wouldn't give her a penny to read her book! She has stolen enough money!

Let me state up front that I'm a bleeding heart-lung-liver-pancreas-lower intestine liberal who voted for Hilary and who despises Trump, but I find all this pre-order pre-rating to offset potential future negative reviews incredibly juvenile. As if a lowered rating diminishes not only the book but also Hilary's legacy. Really? As if one won't be able to recognize within a few ratings which ones are simply venting their personal political biases? Anyone whose legacy could be permanently damaged by a shallow troll, I would argue, had a pretty shaky legacy to begin with.

Regardless of topic or genre, I distrust uniformly high or low ratings. I prefer mixed ratings, even wildly mixed ones, because the ones with ratings 180 degrees opposite of my own often make me stop and reconsider my own reading, which sometimes leads to helping me articulate better my original views or modify my views. Ones that are written with a degree of intelligence and insight, anyway. Those that aren't usually reveal their shallow praise / complaints quickly, and I move on. Instead of trying to preempt the effect of a negative review, I suggest focusing one's brains and energies on conducting the kind of close-reading of Hilary's book that will produce an authoritative and balanced review. Otherwise, what are we left with: grossly inflated or deflated ratings that mean nothing. Two sides lining up on the playground and shouting in sing-song fashion, "Nyah, nyah!" Let's be smarter than that, please!

Tom wrote: "Let me state up front that I'm a bleeding heart-lung-liver-pancreas-lower intestine liberal who voted for Hilary and who despises Trump, but I find all this pre-order pre-rating to offset potential..."

Maybe they should give a test to see if you actually read the book. Like supply a sentence on a certain page to prove that you have read it. And then maybe it could be a different sentence for everyone. Then you would be allowed to post your rating. LOL!

Nina wrote: "Tom wrote: "Let me state up front that I'm a bleeding heart-lung-liver-pancreas-lower intestine liberal who voted for Hilary and who despises Trump, but I find all this pre-order pre-rating to offs..."

I like it, Nina. Wish I'd used that one when I was teaching!

Tom wrote: "Let me state up front that I'm a bleeding heart-lung-liver-pancreas-lower intestine liberal who voted for Hilary and who despises Trump, but I find all this pre-order pre-rating to offset potential..."

Well said Tom!

Glad to see the reasonable liberals and conservatives can agree on at least one thing: this whole "offset" B.S. is ridiculous! I wish Goodreads would monitor this better!

Christina wrote: "Glad to see the reasonable liberals and conservatives can agree on at least one thing: this whole "offset" B.S. is ridiculous! I wish Goodreads would monitor this better!"

I"m of two-minds on administrative oversight in this case, Christina: on one hand, it's egregious case of misleading ratings -- dare I say, "fake criticism" -- but on other hand, I say if folks want to expose their foolishness to a wider audience, well, God-bless. Ain't that what makes GR great again!

Tom wrote: "Christina wrote: "Glad to see the reasonable liberals and conservatives can agree on at least one thing: this whole "offset" B.S. is ridiculous! I wish Goodreads would monitor this better!"

I"m of..."

I don't disagree with you, but sometimes people look only at the average rating when deciding whether or not to read a book. I know I do; sometimes I don't scroll down to see where that rating comes from. I'm not saying Goodreads should add some sort of filter (like Yelp, which I hate) but maybe there should be a flag feature for these types of misleading reviews.

Point taken, Christina. I, too, fall prey to misleading impression of cumulative ratings, especially when I'm tired, busy, or just feeling lazy and don't take time to scroll down. I do the same with movie ratings in newspapers, often skipping a review just because of a mediocre or worse star rating. And then I think, gee, you're certainly granting lots of influence, even power, to this reviewer. How many books or movies get sunk in first few weeks because they got a highly slanted review? I endorse your suggestions of a flag feature.

She happened.

You do not put answer on the book cover.

Szetela wrote: "She happened.

You do not put answer on the book cover."

Ooof, that hurt. But I laughed.

Jarett wrote: "It would be nice if Goodreads implemented a feature where nobody can rate a book until it's actually been published and made available to the public. There's 50 ratings, yet it isn't out for anothe..."

I agree. I doubt that many people who have "pre-rated" based on their politics will actually read the book. Pre-rating = prejudice.

The preemptive rating plague has spread to American Heart. Such an enlightened era we live in.

Francine Prose has thoughtful piece on "problematic" books and book ratings in NYR.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/11/...

‘Enlightened’ ... good word. You can pretty much figure when the ratings are half 1s and half 5s, the enlightened crowd hasn’t done much actual reading. I know a few probably did, but not many. (P. S. I think the author is Laura Moriarty.)

Great article by Ms. Prose.

Patricia wrote: "‘Enlightened’ ... good word. You can pretty much figure when the ratings are half 1s and half 5s, the enlightened crowd hasn’t done much actual reading. I know a few probably did, but not many. (P...."

"You've begun to separate the dark from the dark."

Philip Levine, "M. Degas Teaches Art & Science at Durfee Intermediate School"

Michele wrote: "If it's a good enough read, people will like it because it's good rather than on a political basis. That's the way it should be."

Thank you!

I happened to have read much of the book. I enjoy HRC's writing, but I think the whole issue is a carefully guarded situation. I doubt we will ever really know what happened. Hopefully, the Secret Service will and HRC has to follow them for the safety and security of our country. With that, said, I do believe this should be rated as fiction rather than fact.

Nina wrote: "Tom wrote: "Let me state up front that I'm a bleeding heart-lung-liver-pancreas-lower intestine liberal who voted for Hilary and who despises Trump, but I find all this pre-order pre-rating to offs..."

Nina, GREAT idea. Have something like a security question before a review can be posted. . Something not too difficult. Like for "What Happened": What was the main reason why Hillary Clinton did not want to run for POTUS?

Margot wrote: "I happened to have read much of the book. I enjoy HRC's writing, but I think the whole issue is a carefully guarded situation. I doubt we will ever really know what happened. Hopefully, the Secret ..."

Margot, you do have a good point: with autobiography/memoirs, we don't know if every word is true (who can remember everything?) But I think Hillary answers her own question to her own satisfaction, and to many readers, including me. This is nonfiction, imo, as much as any autobiography nonfiction can be.

Patricia wrote: "Seriously, Goodreaders? Who cares what your politics are? I 'followed' two of you -- notice past tense on the verb -- but not any more. How can I trust your rating/review of a book if you haven't e..."

Patricia, for me, all the reviews that said, "I hate her", thus a star was a dead giveaway the reader didn't read it. Cause for the people who hated Hillary, they would have loved reading about how much pain she went through.

Nina wrote: "I hope Amazon has a sample because I will look at that but I wouldn't give her a penny to read her book! She has stolen enough money!"

Nina, you can always read the book, or any parts of any book, at a library for free. Please tell me your source documenting that Hillary has stolen money. Also, what court proved her guilty, and what kind of term did she serve?

Greg wrote: "Margot wrote: "I happened to have read much of the book. I enjoy HRC's writing, but I think the whole issue is a carefully guarded situation. I doubt we will ever really know what happened. Hopeful..."

This is nonfiction if you believe Trump is the President. I don't believe he is the acting President. Rather, he's the photo-op President and we don't really know what's happening in our government, today. Unfortunately, HRC didn't know, when she wrote the book, either. It's too high security.

Nina wrote: "I hope Amazon has a sample because I will look at that but I wouldn't give her a penny to read her book! She has stolen enough money!"
Go to a library. If you want to see what she has written, then support your local library. You have paid for it through your taxes. If your library doesn't have a copy you can request one. It may take a month (because it took a while for my library since it was so requested) but it was worth the wait.

Nina,

Why read her book at all, if you're convinced she's stolen money? When did she steal it and from where? I'm tired of reading these random accusations with no basis whatsoever. It's just cruel and she was the First Lady. You are targeting a woman who was the First Lady not the First Concubine, thank you very much!

Margot wrote: "Nina,

Why read her book at all, if you're convinced she's stolen money? When did she steal it and from where? I'm tired of reading these random accusations with no basis whatsoever. It's just crue..."

Well said, Give examples of theft It simply comes down to this hatred of her because she is a strong, accomplished woman. We've come so far and yet we haven't moved at all.

I read about a quarter of the book before I got bored. She mentioned a lot of names I hadn't heard of. I'm not that keen on politics anyway.

Greg wrote: "Patricia wrote: "Seriously, Goodreaders? Who cares what your politics are? I 'followed' two of you -- notice past tense on the verb -- but not any more. How can I trust your rating/review of a book..."
Hm that makes sense.