The Extra Cool Group! (of people Michael is experimenting on) discussion

This is mostly geared towards those who have been on goodreads for more than a year, although I'm sure some people who have been on here for a shorter length of time can trace some kind of evolution in their reviews.

Back when I started adding books and writing reviews, they tended to be roughly a paragraph long, and were usually pretty bland and uninspired...I really hadn't thought much about what I was communicating, and didn't have a firm sense of what could be done with a book review. Then, my style gradually changed. I'll post later in the thread about this because I want to get to the question.

As you think (or look) back over your past reviews chronologically, where did you START as a reviewer when you joined this site? Then, can you identify any big changes in your method of reviewing since then? Do you know what caused them?

I'd love some detail on this one, so feel free to be as long-winded as you'd like to be. This is one of the questions that will most directly tie in with the final written version of my project.

*As a reminder, if I'm going to quote you, I will get in touch with you to make sure you're comfortable with how I'm using the quote.*

I don't actually think my reviews have changed all that much in style since 2008 or so, they've just lengthened considerably as I've become more interested in adding something to the general GR conversation. This conversation, which reaches all over GR and includes many people who do not know that they are in some way conversing with me (likewise I'm sure I do not realize who I may be conversing with), is probably my favorite thing about GR now. It used to be more of a means of keeping track of my friends, but now my interest has expanded to a much wider pool of esoteric books that no one I actually know is reading and which I'm hearing about only through goodreads chatter. And this is the sort of thing I want to give back to. Especially with regards to the sorts of books and authors that I've lately found my way to through goodreads, which aren't actually read all that often, and which have had few reviews.

...Or maybe I used to be better at summarizing in a few lines what now takes several paragraphs.

I started writing longer reviews last fall, when I really began to comment on threads and tried to talk with people. Before that it was just a few sentences, rarely more.

Knowing that people may see what I wrote, I started paying attention to flow, order, sense. I thought about the reviews I loved reading and began to copy their conversational style. I think I wasn't quite successful in making it my own since writing is one of my weakest points, but the personal essay/diary type of review is fun since I have my own stories. That did make reviews more theraputic and it was a slippery slope, trying to keep it about the book at least a little bit.

Engaging with others was the big turning point for me.

I began with short blurbs, but these days, I try to write serious reviews. And I try to put in something personal in many of them. I also try to inject a bit of humor where I can.

This conversation, which reaches all over GR and includes many people who do not know that they are in some way conversing with me (likewise I'm sure I do not realize who I may be conversing with), is probably my favorite thing about GR now.

Aha! VERY well-put.

I think I wasn't quite successful in making it my own since writing is one of my weakest points

I don't know what you're talking about. Your reviews are awesome.

I began with short blurbs, but these days, I try to write serious reviews.

What do you mean by serious? Somewhat scholarly? Including book summaries and useful background info?

Oh no! I was totally joking when I posted about your reviews' length! I love them and all the thought you put into it, so awesome!

I joined in July 2008. The first reviews I wrote were generally shorter, but very similar in style, I think. I think I just didn't have time to write longer reviews, or I was cataloging some of the books I had read in the past couple of months and couldn't remember enough about them to write longer reviews.

Probably after those initial 20 books or so, I started writing longer reviews. I think reviews have always been a thing I did for myself, but it is inevitable to think about the people who will read it once you put it on a site like Goodreads. So I think that affected my reviews a little too, so that they aren't always as "inside-my-head" as I first set out to make them.

But mostly, my style hasn't changed that dramatically.

I'm still all over the place. Sometimes I'm more mentally organized than other times with a firmer grasp on what it is I want to say. Of course, I've not been reviewing on goodreads for all that long.

I've been reviewing for twenty years... unlikely.

Well, in the very beginning I didn't review at all, just rated, because I was just keeping track of the books I read. But later, as I started making friends, and people I knew joined the site, I started reviewing. At first they were short, bland, boring. Now I think they are probably still boring, but I try not to be short or bland. I find myself a lot more open now about how I feel about books. I really value honesty in reviews, so I try to be honest, too.

My goodreads reviews have definitely changed since joining. I think I used to express my response like a product review -- direct and abrupt. My responses now are more like personal essays, though I still try to be concise.

See my reviews of The Scar, Sphere, or American Gods for examples of the direct style. I think the first reviews that I wrote that were written more like essays than product reviews were Westerfield's The Uglies or Unwind by Shusterman. This approach actually generated comments for my review of Count Zero by Gibson, so I've kept with it.

If I were to cite influences... probably Brad Simkulet, who I think was the first stranger I added on goodreads. I don't want to sound like a stalker, so I'll point out that he reads quite a few books that I read and he has a memorable avatar, so I found myself following his work "organically."

I say that my reviews have changed on goodreads, but they haven't in other locations. Going through this forum has helped me to realize the impact that the social network has had on my writing. I am writing for the people in my network and I'm interested in seeing their response to what I've written about my reading. Because I'm writing for an online audience, I tend to avoid long paragraphs.

Hope this helps,
Ryan

I joined two years ago, after looking for a recommendation for a book and being directed to goodreads. Joining was a birthday present to myself because I am nerdy and cheap. I wrote reviews primarily for myself, didn't bother to make friends until I'd read and kept liking other reviews from the same users, and didn't understand how the voting system worked for ranking reviewers at all. I still don't really know how the whole thing works. But now, instead of a vast possible perceived audience of whothehellknows? and one sure reader (myself), I have myself and maybe a couple of other friends' eyes taking a look at my reviews. I'm sure that my change of perceived audience has made a difference in my reviews.

Okay so I am going to write this as I go back through my reviews, and one thing I've noticed is I had no idea how long it has been since I read some of these books.

Just on the stats side I've always tended toward high ratings, probably because most books that I don't like I don't finish (and many of these live on my currently read shelf for years) and I'm pretty good at knowing if I'll like a book quickly.

I joined in april of 2008 after karen bugged me about it for a while and I didn't do too much on the site for a while, but apparently I did start writing reviews pretty quickly after joining. The first one actually being from april 27, 2008.

Now since I"m looking through a lot I'm going to go through and make some comments probably stopping every "3 months or so" so look at what my reviews look like.

A lot of my first reviews are extremely short and they don't make a lot of sense even to me, but they do tend to be about the books. I say things like, "It is not only a book about philosophy vs. psychology. It is about the fight to not give up on the mind" I don't know what I was trying to say here and I don't think the statement makes a whole lot of sense. But I was clearly making some attempt to discuss philosophical themes in the book. It strikes me as a, this is what I learned type review. I see this in another early review where I refer to a novel as a good introduction to group therapy. There are also several moments where I talk about emotions, being afraid of being a therapist, finding the plague boring and wanting to be Meursault. There isn't a lot of theory of mind in the early reviews I wrote (say hello to psychology), basically they don't look like I expected anyone else to read them. None of my opinions are explained at all I just stated how I felt and moved on. This is super obvious when I notice references to my undergraduate colloquium. For example, "Although, the author wrote the book to show how people could become a part of the normal society after years of deviance, the book could be argued to be showing us what we lose when these people are recreated in the image of the ideal person." This is a great insight I think, but I don't explain it at all I just say it in the review. I think now if I wanted to talk about reading a book differently than the author intended I would first explain how I think it was meant to be read, why I think it can be read the other way, and then probably make some gesture to understand the author probably included both reads on purpose for some meta-fictional dialogue, which I may or may not believe depending on the author. I also make a lot of references to other books. For example I compare haunted to and then there were none, I have no idea what I was thinking when I did this but there it is.

I think what is interesting about looking back is that my reviews haven't changed as much as I thought a lot of these themes aren't uncommon in my current reviews.

Getting to august of that year I see what I actually remember as my early reviews, they tend to be super short and point out one thing I found fun about the book. the only long one that seems to be there is one I recently rewrote when I was considering the applications of philosophy (I do periodically rewrite old reviews when I want to promote a book or make a point about a subject now that I feel like I have some audience, as I said back then I didn't see it that way). The reviews in this era were super short and say things like this book is about fickleness or feral fridges. It is actually very clear that I don't think anyone is reading them, possibly I thought making them shorter would make people pay more attention since if I don't know someone I am more likely to read something shorter, they also read like lists of memory joggers just for myself. There actually is one long review I see now that says "I think everyone on the planet should be forced to read this book" it also says I changed other star ratings because it was so good. This for me looks like I was probably trying to justify changes I'd made to my friends on here and I think I might have staff rec'd the book at work so I might have been trying to convince people to buy it. It was a more mainstream book (a lot of what I was reading was palahniuk or feral fridges which karen wasn't going to read) so I might have thought I could convince people. Also the book wasn't that popular so it seemed more like someone might care what I had to say about it. The author of that book was also the first author I ever talked to personally, but that happened on myspace.

When my reviews start to get longer there are two things happening, some I complain about the context in which the book was assign and many of them I start to quote the book. This is very much my phase of let the book speak for itself. I felt for a long time that I couldn't compete with what the authors of the books had created so I didn't know what to write in reviews. So I have a lot of stuff that just points out really beautiful or meaningful passages in the text complete with page numbers, NYU trained me well. There is also a theme at this point that the longer reviews are books I read for school like walter lippman. This is probably related to the fact that writing helps me think and I was already writing extensive papers on these books so I felt like I had a lot to say about them. I still make a lot of inside references like one to HG wells history of the world (which is a book that I own) but most people I know don't know anything about. The reviews stay obsessively short the review of my favorite play on the planet is "A play about the French Revolution." Just based on the fact that I force my friends to listen to me rant about it on a regular basis for me this means that I didn't actually care if people were reading my reviews.
(End of 08 skip ahead to when things actually start to change drastically... maybe)

**sidenote dec 2008 my review of dear everybody is long, off topic, and references madame bovary and 13 reasons why, this could almost be a review I wrote now, I think that on some level the change is less in how I would approach a review and more in the amount of time I was willing to dedicate to reviews. Early in the process I wasn't willing to dedicate time because I didn't really use the site, I just asked greg for books in person and I didn't think anybody was reading the reviews I was writing, but I could have done what I do now if I had felt like it apparently. This theory is vindicated by the fact that longer reviews start to pop up for books like famous fathers that karen was also interested in (and I believe read after I reviewed it) so when I thought people were listening I acted like I was talking to other people.

this is not unlike my intellectual history as a general rule. When I started college I was told by several teachers that my conceptions of logic were flat out wrong and I didn't make any sense in written format. On some level I think goodreads really helped me practice and move more towards writing for other people even if I still write mostly for myself. I do after all still get very suprised when people read my reviews and comment on them, like michael did on the one about feminism and medicalization of the female body.

in 2009 there starts to be a sparadic mix of the longer reviews that are understandable and things like "If an alarm clock will snooze itself after 2 minutes without you getting your ass out of bed that is a design flaw." yeah that's the whole review for a book, I have no idea if I just quoted the book or if that meant something to me at the time, it certainly doesn't now, and it kind of depresses me I did that cause the book was really good. Another example "Althusser killed his wife." This is written on a book that has no apparent connection to althusser. In fact I don't even know who althusser is in reality I think a philosopher.

I start comparing myself to greg and karen a lot in april 2009 (and possibly before) maybe this is whe I found out about voting or that karen was famous. I might also just have been trying to process differences in taste. when you are younger you feel weird about people not liking what you like and you feel like you have to justify your taste and your right to have it. Some of my reviews the appeal to authority is really clear, one is just a quote of a teacher I had who was a fucking genius. I think there is definitely a kind of searching for a place sense at this point where a lot of the reviews are one line totally nonsensical reviews which I think denote a sense of sort of floating and feeling like there isn't a purpose and meaning behind what your doing and then there being reviews that are heavily trying to define myself off other people or in line with other people. Max stirner talks about the infant defining the self by rejecting the outside world, I think these reviews might be that phase of development. Where on one hand I wanted to be seperate, but on another hand I was looking for acceptance and inclusion so I had a tendency to appeal to other people's opinions that I thought were more right to prove people should listen to me. This is an important step between feeling like no one is listening and getting your own voice.

Developing from that point you start to get more moments of me degrading authors which I think is a really good sign. I say something about hornby being "horrifically depressing" and not liking a novella by hansen who I do generally like. This probably is around the time that I was finishing up being in therapy and it was definitely the time when I was with my ex. Outside context does matter. where I was just generally getting a lot of validation that I did have the right to my own feelings and interpretations, which really wasn't the way I was raised. There are still a lot of the lower level, small reviews but when I review something seriously there is definitely a harder edge to it at that point and There are more mocking tones. Basically I started to stop worrying about how other people would react. A lot of this is down to the site. I hadn't had a lot of problems with people being mean to me here. I frequent a forum about religion regularly, but I don't generally tend to give serious opinions there because you get attacked and have to get through these giant fights. I don't want to fight so I just talk to friends and don't get involved in debates. I seldom get called out for anything on this site, and if there is a fight it clears up quickly so I think that it tends to foster the ability to express a wider variety of opinions. There is even a review I added of a book I had read years before on porn which comes down to the fact that I didn't feel like I needed to hide that I read things like that. Parts of that were the site and parts were my job. I mean I've always come off as a more rural modest person so I would get weird reactions when I would talk about liking baitille, sad, and legs mcneill, but working in a bookstore people thought it was cool. Even people who didn't like the books mocked it in a nice way not in a mean there is something wrong with you kind of way. You get that on this site too. There is a lot of validation here. If you don't like something someone else likes they generally will tell you there are other people who feel that way they just happen to disagree. There is a lot of tolerance here. On the other hand in the real world I was also writing a really long paper on tolerance and pluralism and the need for understanding and that probably also made me more comfortable being different.

Okay I'm going to run out of characters, but basically the more comfortable I got the more I was willing to share, my reviews got longer, more clear (because I wasn't afraid of people knowing my opinions) and the digressions were less couched because I wasn't as worried about being judged, because hell did it.

if you want more or elaboration let me know that is the exact number of characters it would let me use.

Sorry it's so long.

Wow, Jasmine! Great essay. Your response reminded me of something I wanted to add:

Like Jasmine, I also think one of the biggest differences between my early reviews and my later reviews is evidence. Early on, I rarely cared to back up my opinions or thoughts with specific examples from the book. Nowadays, I try to give an example of what I mean, or even include a quote from the book that would back up my point.

that is the single longest post i have ever seen.

that is because it is the longest post allow, I wasn't actually done, but when the letter counter turned red I decided to be.

I also went all psychological a couple of times, but these things happen. If anyone wants to have long post conversations about the development of identity in psychology and philosophy I'm game.

Jimmy wrote: "Wow, Jasmine! Great essay. Your response reminded me of something I wanted to add:
"

also thank you for reading it, as I said I assume people don't

Jimmy wrote: "Early on, I rarely cared to back up my opinions or thoughts with specific examples from the book. Nowadays, I try to give an example of what I mean, or even include a quote from the book that would back up my point.

I think about doing that for every book I read. Then I sit down in front of my editor and start working on my review, and realize that I'm doing this for fun. I have stuck a quote or two in a couple of my reviews, but that's just because they happened to by handy.

Ultimately, I'm writing my own thoughts and feelings about the book without giving away any spoilers. For free. I'm not writing polemics that I'm going to have to defend in front of a panel of Nobel laureates, or try to sell to The New Yorker.

When I first started, I'd write the most self-indulgent reviews I could. Now, I try to write the most self-indulgent reviews I can, then relate the book to a personal crisis so nobody will feel comfortable calling me on it.

I think one reason I didn't back up my points before was because I wasn't thinking about the review while I was reading the book.

Nowadays, when I read, I would sometimes come across a passage and I would say "AHA this illustrates a good point I might want to make in my review" and I would write down the quote. This might sound like more work, but I actually enjoy doing this, as it helps me pinpoint something about the book.

Before, I didn't have that kind of accuracy while reading, so when it came time to writing, I was just full of vague feelings instead of direct quotes and page numbers haha.

PS - Of course, at some point you can take it too far... i.e. "I'm reading this book because I want to write a review of it" instead of the other way around.

Richard, recovering sock puppet wrote: "When I first started, I'd write the most self-indulgent reviews I could. Now, I try to write the most self-indulgent reviews I can, then relate the book to a personal crisis so nobody will feel co..."


i love you as much as it is allowed to love a man married to a woman i also love.

actually now when I read a book I keep thinking of great starts to reviews while I read it. Then when I write the review I forget all the super interesting and intelligent things I was going to say and I just act like myself.

(this is one of the reasons I like status, I can put these "review thoughts" there while I read and then they are out of my head and I can concentrate on the book.

Same here. I wrote a super awesome review of Our Lady of the Flowers while reading it over holiday break. I didn't remember any of it when I got on the computer to write it (I even jotted down notes!). At least writing reviews in my head helps me while reading because I'll try to think more about why I feel what I'm feeling.

I've never really used the status updates function. I'm worried I'll spoil for people who haven't read the books.

I don't understand the concept of spoilers probably because I don't care if a book is "spoiled" for me

My twin and I share books with each other like crazy. I'll tell her about what I'm reading as if the experience is a story itself. I'll feel I've read something I haven't when she tells me about it... then she chews me out for ruining a book for her, she never wants to read it because I told her too much. I'm scared I'll get yelled at. (Not that I ever use the spoiler tag on reviews. I figure someone can just not read a review.)

It occured to me today that my writing/speaking in general has changed from when I dated a Spanish speaker. I'd try not to use words he didn't know, or make things too complicated because we'd have fights over misunderstandings from language stuff. Although not more than with my French Canadian buddy. She got mad over *everything*.

Um I think I fear people getting mad at me... (Troll whoring aside.)

Elizabeth wrote: "Jasmine wrote: "I don't understand the concept of spoilers probably because I don't care if a book is "spoiled" for me"

Even if you might not get why it bothers other people, it's important that w..."

I tend to over use the spoilers button because I know it does bother people. like my torn review I didn't want to spoil it for karen. I actually think knowing someone else's reading of a book can spoil it, as I have said a couple places I generally don't read reviews of a book before I read at least part of the book because I want to establish my own place with the book.

My early reviews had a certain self-consciousness about them. I thought (mistakenly) that people might read them. So now I write more for myself and rarely reread or edit them.

I rarely reviewed when I first joined but I have since become less concerned with others opinions so I tend to write more, though still short, reviews. I know what I like in a review so I try to emulate certain qualities, such as brevity (with some exceptions) and total honesty, especially important if I am one of the first to review a book. I also now try to avoid writing reviews which require the spoiler box to be marked. I also tend to not review or provide a limited review, for books I plan on discussing in my group.

Michael wrote: "This conversation, which reaches all over GR and includes many people who do not know that they are in some way conversing with me (likewise I'm sure I do not realize who I may be conversing with),..."

I try to provide a summary, but look also at themes and imagery. If there are particular events in my life that are relevant to the book I include bits of that. After I write my review I look to see what others have said about the book to see if I missed something obvious, then adjust as needed. Where it makes sense, I refer to other books that may be tackling the same or related subject matter. I also look at interviews with the author, when the urge takes me. I do not have the educational licks to go scholarly but I try to fuse sundry elements into my reviews. I believe that makes them more informative.

I began this whole thing as a summary for myself. I would often forget what I had read and keeping notes on read books seemed a good way of being able to review. Also, I find that the act of writing is a memory enhancer. Keeping notes on books lent itself to reworking the purely informational into pieces on what I thought of the book, after I joined GR.

Not really. I used to review books on my blog, and I found about Goodreads and started posting my reviews here and on my blog.

Elizabeth wrote: "To Michael's question,

I was probably writing short and fairly practical reviews for my first six months on the site. Then I got laid off and needed something more to do during my day and so my re..."

Continuing the conversation- that is what goodreads is to me.

I prostrate myself before the illusion that I'll attract an audience.

I don't, of course. But I may as well use that piece of self-deceptive logic as any other.

I loved karen's review that was entirely links to songs.

I've been on Goodreads since 2007, and since I've written a review for every book I add (don't ask me why, somehow I can't seem to stop) I can definitely see my reviews changing and evolving over time. For instance, the very first review I wrote, for The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, goes like this:
"Sherman Alexie makes his short stories feel like poems. All very well-written, albeit depressing. Funny at the most inappropriate times, and very entertaining.
Three other equally good Alexie novels: Ten Little Indians, Flight, and The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian."

That's it - I explained what I liked about the book, and a little of what I didn't like, but didn't go into any detail or show evidence. And then I recommended three other Alexie books I read, which in my mind meant I didn't have to list them on my "read" shelf. (I don't do that anymore.)

When I first joined Goodreads I had exactly 2 friends - my mom, and a real-life friend who has since left the website. Since hardly anyone was reading my reviews, I didn't feel any need to put a lot of effort and critical thought into my reviews, since they were mostly for my benefit.

I think what caused a big shift in my reviewing style was when I wrote the first of my Shakespeare parodies - I wrote it for fun, and didn't think anyone would really read it. But then it started getting a lot of comments (this was way back in The Good Old Days, before we had all this fancy new-fangled voting system and the follower requests) and people seemed to like it, so I wrote a few more parodies. That led to me getting more friend requests (from people I had never met, which at the time struck me as so weird, and as my friends list grew and I started reading the thoughtful, funny, critical, and insightful reviews that everyone else was posting, I wanted to do the same thing.

Now when I write a review, I seriously think about what I liked and didn't like about the book, and then try to find direct evidence to support those claims. I usually try to quote directly from the book, and I'll do my best to make the review sound funny. The review style I strive for, I think, is someone who is well-educated and thinks critically, but speaks like a normal human being with a dirty mouth. (if you ever see one of my reviews use the terms "themes" or "post-colonialism" in a serious way, it's a sign that it's time to take me out back and shoot me.)

And, if we're being totally honest, when I write a review now I'm always thinking at the back of my mind, I wonder how many votes this will get? Will people like this? Ooh, I'll throw in a movie quote! That's funny. And a dig at Twilight, that always gets votes.

I've been on the site for three years and my use of the site has changed so much in that time. My first reviews are short (or non-existent) because they were for books I hadn't read in awhile so the reactions and emotions weren't fresh in my mind. I've found that if I don't write a review as soon as I finish a book, the intensity of what I want to say is gone and I'm left with nothing but those quick paragraph summaries without much opinion or emotion or fanfare.

It's kind of overwhelming to add every book you've ever read and try to remember when you read it and include a star rating. It took me awhile to get into a groove of writing real reviews and I have on occasion gone back and elaborated on a subpar review from my earlier days on the site. For a while there, I got into a nice groove where I was marking quotes, thinking about what I'd say as I read, and writing long-winded, scholarly-type essays as soon as I finished my reviews.

Everything changed in August 2008 when I wrote a review that started getting votes and comments and friend requests. I'd been on the site for 8 months, but I never really expected anyone to see my reviews buried past pages and pages of other reviews. The reviews I'd written before that were targeted toward me or my friends, but all of a sudden I was getting comments from strangers and my reviews were showing up on the first page and people were recognizing me. My audience changed, as did this small amount of pressure to write good reviews, whether they be entertaining or a thorough analysis or whatever. Now when I write my reviews, I have a different image in my head of who will read it. If I haven't had anything good to say in a review since then, I don't publish it to my feed.

I'm seeing different reviews too which affects the things I consider after a read, the books I read, and therefore my reviews. Most of the people I know in real life don't use goodreads all that much and their reviews are short and sweet, but my goodreads friends are typically more well-read, write more thought-provoking and/or entertaining reviews, and participate in discussions. I'm seeing a lot more of the site from what shows up on my home page. There were several months there were I was spending too much time on the site.

In July I bought an iphone and now that I can check my email on my phone, it's changed the way I use the internet. As a result (as well as other personal changes in my life that have limited my time), I only get on goodreads a couple times a week. I'm missing great discussions and reviews and my own reviews have suffered. It's been a while since I've written a good review that I'm proud of. I still think about what I'd say as I'm reading, but by the time I get around to actually writing one, they feel flat to me. My read count is going to considerably drop next year, but maybe that'll help me focus more on what I do read and get back into writing decent reviews. Maybe. One can dream.

Mariel wrote: "My twin and I share books with each other like crazy. I'll tell her about what I'm reading as if the experience is a story itself. I'll feel I've read something I haven't when she tells me about it..."

I always wished I had had a twin.

Hmm, as delightful as it was to go and look back through three years of reviews, I didn't find much to indicate a change in their tone, style, length, or content from the earliest to the most recent.

Certainly there are some that I have altered due to responses I've gotten: shoring up this argument, simplifying that bit of language. A few have grown quite long from trying to preempt the most common arguments and misunderstandings.

Then again, if my purpose in writing reviews has remained constant, I suppose the reviews themselves wouldn't drift that much. It would be nice to think I've gotten better with experience and practice, but writing's always up-and-down.