Advertisements

Goodreads; Badcensorship.

Some of you may know that as well as blogging about whatever the hell tickles my fancy over here, I also review books. Yes! It is true! To hell with you, all the kids that mocked me for reading too much in school; I’ve made a nice little lucrative (in a non-paying sense) career out of it on my beloved interwebs! I have two places that allow me to spew my book-related thoughts whenever I feel the need; Insatiable Booksluts and Snobbery. It’s the perfect gig for me; no deadlines, I get to read what I want, and I get to tell people about amazing (or, at times, NOT-amazing) books that I come across (and there’s nothing happier for a reader than when you recommend a book to the faceless masses and someone takes your recommendation, reads the book, and loves it as much as you do. It’s an amazing feeling.)

However, there are some books that I read that, for whatever reason, don’t make it to either site, Either I didn’t like them well enough to write a full review of them, or they just don’t fit either site. For those books, I write a quick review at Goodreads.

Goodreads is perfect for me; I can keep track of what I’m reading, I can socialize with other readers, and I can write quick reviews of books that don’t deserve the full-review treatment. This is as much for me as for everyone else. I read a lot, and I like to keep track of what I read. I used to have a spreadsheet, but I lost track of that when it got insanely long. I like the graphic aspect of Goodreads, as well – sometimes I don’t remember the title of a book, but I remember the cover. I can just scan through what I’ve read lately and pick it out of the list.

I’m not a rabble-rouser over there. I know there ARE rabble-rousers; trolls who do various things like bait authors into getting into fights, or bait other reviewers, or if – GASP! – you disagree with their evaluation of a book, call you names. NAMES! Can you even IMAGINE the HORROR!

I don’t get involved in the drama. I don’t care for that nonsense. I’m there to write reviews so people can make educated decisions of books before they purchase or read them, and for my own records. That’s all. That’s it.

Recently, Amazon purchased Goodreads. There was a LOT of uproar over this. Up until this point, Goodreads was an independent site for readers. How would the biggest online bookseller owning the site change things? People threatened to leave, and people left, and people moaned, and people groaned.

I’m a big Amazon fan (although I’m not blind to their issues; I just like their prices and convenience.) I decided to wait it out.

Well, Goodreads dropped the hammer last weekend. I assume only the first hammer. We are, I would guess, going to be nailed with so many hammers in the coming months that we’re going to want a platinum umbrella when we visit the site.

Right before leaving for the weekend, they put up the following announcement, but they didn’t make it obvious; they put it up in the forums, where as few people would see it as possible.

In case you don’t feel like clicking, here are some of the highlights:

“**Delete content focused on author behavior. We have had a policy of removing reviews that were created primarily to talk about author behavior from the community book page. Once removed, these reviews would remain on the member’s profile. Starting today, we will now delete these entirely from the site. We will also delete shelves and lists of books on Goodreads that are focused on author behavior. If you have questions about why a review was removed, send an email to support@goodreads.com. (And to answer the obvious question: of course, it’s appropriate to talk about an author within the context of a review as it relates to the book. If it’s an autobiography, then clearly you might end up talking about their lives. And often it’s relevant to understand an author’s background and how it influenced the story or the setting.)”

“To clarify, we haven’t deleted any book reviews in regard to this issue. The key word here is “book”. The reviews that have been deleted – and that we don’t think have a place on Goodreads – are reviews like “the author is an a**hole and you shouldn’t read this book because of that”. In other words, they are reviews of the author’s behavior and not relevant to the book. We believe books should stand on their own merit, and it seems to us that’s the best thing for readers.

“Someone used the word censorship to describe this. This is not censorship – this is setting an appropriate tone for a community site. We encourage members to review and shelve books in a way that makes sense for them, but reviews and shelves that focus primarily on author behavior do not belong on Goodreads. 

“Some people are perhaps interpreting this as you can’t discuss the author at all. This couldn’t be further from the case. The author is a part of the book and can certainly be discussed in relation to the book. But it has to be in a way that’s relevant to the book. Again, let’s judge books based on what’s inside them.

“Some people are concerned about their “not-interested” shelf or variants of that. We are not deleting those; you are free to keep cataloging books that way. We are deleting shelves like “author-is-a-jerk”, as they don’t fit our guiding principle that the book page be about the book.”

“Thank you for all the comments so far. One concern that has come up in this thread is that the content was deleted without those members first being told that our moderation policy had been revised. 

“In retrospect, we absolutely should have given users notice that our policies were changing before taking action on the items that were flagged. To the 21 members who were impacted: we’d like to sincerely apologize for jumping the gun on this. It was a mistake on our part, and it should not have happened.

“Anyone else with reviews or shelves created prior to September 21, 2013 that will be deleted under the revised policy will be sent a notification first and given time to decide what to do.”

OK, so let’s see what’s up here.

  • We’re no longer allowed to discuss authors when reviewing books. I know this SAYS it’s ok if it’s relevant to the book; we’ll discuss that in a minute.
  • Any reviews violating this rule will be deleted.
  • Any shelves labeled offensively toward the author? Also deleted.
  • Goodreads will be making these decisions. How? Arbitrarily, it seems.

Goodreads went around deleting things before even telling anyone they were doing it. They say it was only 21 people; more than 21 people are reporting it happened to them. Who’s to say who’s telling the truth, here? The big, bad company, now owned by Amazon, or people who aren’t getting paid and just love to read and write reviews?

Here’s my issue.

I understand if you review a memoir or an autobiography or sometimes even a collection of personal essays you’re probably going to have to touch on the author. Goodreads states very clearly here they won’t censor that (HA HA IT’S NOT CENSORSHIP! says Goodreads! We’re just telling you what you can and can’t say or do, and what to think! IT WAS A PLEASURE TO BURN!) but who knows what they’ll do. If they find it offensive, it’s gone.

It’s a nice thing, to say the author and his or her behavior and personal beliefs have nothing to do with a book; that it’s easy, just judge a book on the content, not the author. It’s an easy thing to say. It must be nice to live in such a black-and-white world.

However, I just read Ender’s Game.

And I can’t, in good conscience, review Ender’s Game on Goodreads.

Because I cannot, utterly cannot, divorce Ender’s Game from the beliefs of its author, Orson Scott Card. It would be a betrayal of my own beliefs, and a betrayal of a number of people I care about a great deal.

Would my review, among a veritable sea of reviews for the book (which was written in 1985) be a drop in the ocean? No. Not at all. But I don’t betray myself, not if I can help it.

So I’m going to review Ender’s Game here, because this is a safe place, and no one’s muzzling me on my own blog.

And as for Goodreads? I’ll continue using it, unless someone creates something comparable. There’s not another site out there that has the same functionality. But I think they need to stop fooling themselves: this is censorship, pure and simple. Not telling us what the rules are – or telling us, but not playing by them – and arbitrarily deleting our hard work because it doesn’t fit your rules, whatever they might be – this is censorship. Whether or not this was dictated by Amazon – my guess is yes, because it’s not good for a bookseller to have someone give bad reviews of books or authors, now, is it? – is irrelevant. We’re no longer welcome to share our real thoughts on things.

This scares the hell out of me, to be honest. To just do something like this, and think it’s ok? And to say no, no, this is not censorship?

Such a pleasure to burn.

I just finished Ender’s Game. Ender’s Game was a really wonderful book. I immediately got caught up in the story. I didn’t know what was going to happen; somehow, a book that’s almost thirty years old wasn’t spoiled for me, even though it’s a cult classic. There were two points at which I had actual tears.

Then what’s the problem, Amy? I can hear you asking. It was a good book! Yay! The world needs more of these!

The problem is that the author is a loathsome homophobe, and I can’t reconcile that with this book. It was bothering me the entire time I was reading.

Orson Scott Card doesn’t just disapprove of same-sex marriage and homosexuality. Orson Scott Card wants to BRING DOWN ANY GOVERNMENT THAT ALLOWS SUCH AN ABOMINATION. I wish I was kidding.

He also:

    • is a member of the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), on whose agenda are things such as fighting against marriage equality, gay adoption, safe schools for LGBT students and the gay “lifestyle” as a whole;
    • has called same-sex attraction “reproductive dysfunction”
    • stated “Normalizing a dysfunction will only make ours into a society that corrodes any loyalty to it, as parents see that our laws and institutions now work against the reproductive success (not to mention happiness) of the next generation”
    • has equated homosexuality with pedophilia, and stated, “The dark secret of homosexual society — the one that dares not speak its name — is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally”
    • wrote a lengthy essay titled “The Hypocrites of Homosexuality” in which he admonishes gay people as nothing more than people who are giving in to sin and states that anti-sodomy laws should remain on the books, making homosexuality illegal in the U.S.

In 1985, he wrote a beautiful book about, among other things, a child forced to grow up far too quickly, and the grownups around him who use him as a blunt weapon for their own ends. Ironically, he also loaded it with homosexual subtext. But hey, it’s much easier to be shouty about the HORROR! the HORROR! of teh EVIL GAYZ! than to deal with whatever he has going on in his own closet.

I can’t reconcile this book with this hate speech. This really is a beautiful book. It’s full of huge thoughts and themes. It’s kind of groundbreaking; I could name a ton of books that have taken the lead from what happened in this book. The characters were fully-fleshed and relatable. I loved Ender. Utterly adored him.

But the man that wrote it hates some of the people I love more than anyone in the world. And he’s loud about it. And the last thing we need in this day and age is someone who had a podium and had the nation’s ear (the movie of this book is coming out in a couple of months) shouting hate-speech.

The book was about how we ill-use our children; I’d argue that teaching them hate from a young age is ill-using them, Mr. Card.

I won’t be reading the rest of the series. This book ended perfectly. I don’t need any more of his books. I just can’t divorce the author from the work. It hurts to do so.

I’m glad I met Ender. And, for what it’s worth? He’d find his creator’s views repulsive. The character you created, sir, has more compassion and character than you do. And he’s fictional. Do you see the problem here?

(For more on the Goodreads controversy, please read sj’s take, This is Me. Getting involved., Emma Wolf’s take, Where capitalism and art intersect, and Charleen’s take, Goodbye to Goodreads?)

Sources:

Orson Scott Card’s Anti-Gay Views Prompt ‘Ender’s Game’ Movie Protest (Huffington Post)
Ender’s Game, Superman and Anti-Gay Bigotry (Huffington Post)

Advertisements

About lucysfootball

I'm not the girl with the most cake. Someday. SOMEDAY. View all posts by lucysfootball

35 responses to “Goodreads; Badcensorship.

  • Charleen

    I haven’t heard of these people before, but I just can’t take the National Organization for Marriage seriously! And it has nothing to do with their views (well, okay, those too) but because of their acronym:

    NOM

    Seriously? NOM? That’s what you guys are calling yourselves? Okay then…

    Nom nom nom…

    (Oh and thanks for the link and Goodreads is ridiculous and all that… sorry, I got distracted by the noms…)

    Like

  • becomingcliche

    The more I think about the Goodreads fiasco, the more angry I get. I want to take my ball and go home. What breaks my heart is that, while I’m a regular user of Goodreads, I don’t feel a deep connection to it. But my friends do. It makes me furious and sad for my friends who found on that site everything they ever wanted in social media and who are now experiencing a betrayal far deeper than I can even understand.

    I knew nothing good could come out of being owned by Amazon. They are concerned solely with the self-pub business that is now booming, understanding that many of those customers will draw low ratings and reviews. SO frustrating.

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      If I knew how to do such a thing, I’d start our own Goodreads. We’d be the best moderators. We would rule the bookish corner of cyberspace.

      But of course I don’t. Like I said, before Goodreads, I had an excel spreadsheet.

      Sigh.

      Like

  • emmawolf

    (Side note, I just noticed I had 1,001 unread messages in my inbox. And I was so excited because I studied Middle Eastern Studies in college and took classes dedicated to those stories, etc. I was about to go get a screen shot of it when I got another email. You just confirmed my GR friend request, and GR sent me an email to let me know. Damn you, GR! I could just delete an email, but it’s not the same.)

    A million years ago I wrote a rant in response to Card’s ridiculousness and homophobia. I remember he said something about judicial activism. When ever anyone says “judicial activism” to me, I get ragey. To me, it means “I disagreed with the judge’s decision and/or don’t understand how the American judicial system works.” He called the Dred Scott case and Plessy v. Ferguson judicial activism. No. No, they weren’t. Even to the extent that judicial activism is a thing that is real, they weren’t. They were an example of the Court following a bad law. They are the reason why we need judicial review (which some less enlightened people call judicial activism).

    Anyway, I feel the same way as you about Ender and Card. And I just don’t understand how someone so hateful and ugly could have created Ender. And, unlike GR, I think these things are important to know. Just like how I don’t shop at Wal-Mart because I don’t agree with some of their policies, I’ll want to know who I’m supporting when I buy a book.

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      I RUINED EVERYTHING! I do that a LOT, dammit!

      I wanted to mention what book I was reading when you replied to my comment on sj’s post, but I didn’t want to ruin this post. You totally hit the nail on the head over there. (And with your post today, which I’m going to retroactively add to this post when I get two seconds to do so.)

      I’m going to guess he created Ender when he was younger, and not so stuffed with a creamy, hate-filled center. I waited on a list to get this book from the library instead of purchasing it. I won’t let a dollar of mine touch that man’s wallet. Same with the movie; I want to see it, but I’ll get it from the library. My tax dollars pay for the library, but it’s the smallest impact I think I can have on him personally getting any money.

      (It’s such a great book, isn’t it? I was so sad reading it that it came from that man’s mind.)

      Like

  • emuse

    First, when you started writing about this, I thought of Orson Scott Card immediately. Because I’m very familiar with his thoughts on my life (which he would call lifestyle) and I know he’s very in the news at the moment due to the movie coming out. (Heh. Coming out.) I’ve never read Ender’s Game, I never well. He’s in the same category of people who broke my heart a little with their homophobia: Taylor Caldwell to name one, and whose books I had loved when I was young but that shocked me when I reread them and realized how very homophobic they were. No wonder I didn’t come out until I was 23. Yeesh.

    I like Amazon. I plan on self-publishing through them. But I am not blind to their issues. And, as an author, or at least, a future author, I’d rather have people feel free to name call me as long as it didn’t slide into hate speech.

    And that seems to me to be part of the problem. Is it hate speech to say I’m a dyke? It depends on how you say it. It depends on what you say after you make the comment that I happen to date women rather than men. If you say, “and that rocks, no wonder there’s a realistic lesbian in her book” great. If you say something along the lines of some of the things OSC says, well, that’s the sort of thing many a company would prefer not to be in the middle of. A great many companies want to avoid controversy. Especially with someone who produces and is positioned to move thousands and thousands of product for them. Or does it have to do with that at all?

    We’re in the wild wild west right now of all this. Companies don’t have to protect freedom of speech on their privately owned websites. My guess is it’s even simpler than that. I would bet Amazon would prefer to walk the central, non-controversial line that most large companies would, where they don’t offend any of their customers. (Although granted, there are unhappy people right now.)

    Either way, it will be interesting to see what happens on that site in the next 6 months.

    Like

    • emuse

      Back. I don’t mean to infer I expect only rainbows and lollipops from reviews. I’d rather have honesty around reviews whether it’s my book or someone else’s.

      But, like in real life, I’m not a fan of hatespeech, either.

      Like

      • lucysfootball

        I agree with that – there’s a bad review, and there’s a bad review that hits below the belt for no reason. (That’s also the sign of a bad reviewer.)

        I didn’t say anything about Card that’s not true. Well, ok, I might have come to the CONCLUSION he’s closeted. So I suppose that’s not TECHNICALLY true. But to be honest, I can’t think of any good reason for anyone to be that violently anti-gay unless they’re hiding something, to be frank. I know he’s religious, but I’ve known some Mormons. They didn’t spew that kind of hatred (or I wouldn’t have been friends with them.)

        Like

    • lucysfootball

      My guess is that the real reviewers will leave the site, and the casual reviewers will stay. People who are honest won’t put up with being muzzled.

      I understand the need to stop hate speech – and I’m all for that – but there should be some line. Like, “this review was flagged fifty times, and this reviewer keeps getting flagged for hate speech” or something, not “we read every review, this one mentions the author, ZAP GONE.” Or deleting shelves of books people won’t read due to the author. That’s just ridiculous. Who is that helping? The authors? If they can’t take some criticism, they’re in the wrong field.

      Hate speech shouldn’t be tolerated; honest reviews that may or may not touch upon the author should be allowed.

      Like

      • emuse

        That’s my guess too. The true reviewers will leave the site. Which leaves Red Room and, hopefully, bloggers will get more powerful. Because you are right, I think people will end up paying as much attention to Good Reads as I do to the reviews on Amazon itself. And go looking to the book bloggers and librarians for honest assessments of books.

        Like

      • emuse

        Also agreed that thick skin or ignoring reviews (either one) is what an author needs to be in that biz. Let’s face it, people called J.K. Rowling the devil practically and banned Harry Potter like mad. And I love that series with my whole heart. So I just thought the banners were having issues.

        Like

  • Samantha

    I have to say that I “sort of” agree with that the work should stand on its own merit, but I also don’t think they should be deleting reviews because someone says something bad about the author, even if it’s an unintelligent rant about them. That is censorship, plain and simple: because it’s deleting “bad/messy/unlikable” things that were written to the people administering the site. It’s still censorship whether they like it or not.

    On Ender’s Game, I’m thinking of reading it at some point, simply because I was read part of it aloud and I am intrigued about Ender himself.

    Something that I think is worth mentioning is an article I read recently (I think it was on The Stake?) that said that boycotting the Ender’s Game movie is not necessarily helpful because the actual work is not condoning any of Card’s hateful beliefs. There is no reconciliation between the two, as many have said. It’s a story with a really important message that goes completely against his beliefs. I don’t know. It’s such a hard road to tread when they go completely against each other. And now I feel like I’m rambling. :P

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      It’s a great book. I do highly recommend it; however, I recommend getting it from a library, or somewhere you don’t have to pay for it. I can’t in good conscience recommend getting it somewhere he gets any money for it. He doesn’t need any more money to further his goals.

      You’re not rambling. Never ever.

      I agree, to a point, that the work should stand on its own. And it usually does. But in this case, it felt like a lie to *not* mention Card…and I hate that Goodreads doesn’t give me that option. I realize they can’t go through all my reviews and see I’m not a rabble-rouser, that I don’t do this on the regular. They don’t have the staff (and don’t care.) But there has to be a happy medium between CENSOR ALL THE THINGS and LET THE TROLLS RUN THE PLACE, you know?

      Like

      • Samantha

        Yeah, I would hope there would be. I really don’t agree with deleting any reviews (unless they’re truly, obviously spam, or something.) Even if it does horribly rag on the author, because usually logical people can tell when people are being ornery to be ornery.

        Like

  • Andreas Heinakroon

    That author fellow looks an absolute pillock. What’s wrong with his face? Is he suffering from indigestion? Or is he chewing on a wasp? And what an unfortunate choice of facial hair.

    Homophobia is one of my least favourite phobias, along with xenophobia. And they aren’t even real phobias, technically speaking, just points of view. Or emotional stands, more like. Who was it said, “You can’t argue a person out of a position they haven’t argued themselves into.”? I forget. Or as your panda bear so eloquently puts it: haters gonna hate.

    (Did you know that, contrary to popular belief, giant pandas are in fact real bears after all? It’s true. Biologists have recently concluded that giant pandas are just a branch on the bear tree, and not a completely different tree, as was previously assumed.)

    As to the whole GoodRead scandal, I fail to be suitably upset. Sure, it’s annoying when a community site changes its rules and people feel they can no longer express themselves. But in the end, the site owners have the right to change, redesign, alter and moderate their own site in any manner that suits their business model. Site hosting isn’t free, nor are the staff needed to moderate any user generated content. And, regardless of what might be said in the terms and conditions, the site owners are legally responsible for any content published on their site.

    I also don’t really buy the big evil corporation thing, for one simple reason: people are stupid. That means people running corporations are stupid. They rarely show the intelligence required to run these complex plots against our freedom of speech or any other conspiracy theories threatening the way we live our lives.

    But I might be wrong, or might be missing the point. It’s happened before. I’m human too (shut up, I so am!), and hence stupid.

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      I love pandas. I especially love happy pandas on playground equipment.

      I know. They have every right to change their rules. It’s their site. But I’m still upset and sad about it, and I don’t like that they’re saying it’s not censorship – don’t fool yourself, Goodreads, because you’re not fooling us. It is censorship.

      You’re not wrong or missing the point. And yes, you ARE human…and I love you for it. But you’re not at all stupid. And I love you for that, too.

      Like

      • Andreas Heinakroon

        Oh, it’s censorship alright. No doubt about that. But you say it like it would be a bad word.

        But seriously, the internet has never been free. There has always been someone to foot the bill and they have always been calling the shots. And on top of that we’ve always had the different governments eavesdropping on us.

        Aww, I love you too, you know. Even if you think I’m smarter than I am.

        Like

        • lucysfootball

          Oh, I know, I know. I know it’s there, and I know it’s bad. I just don’t LIKE it, Andreas! IF I DON’T LIKE IT SHOULDN’T IT STOP?

          Oh, wait, that’s not how the world works? Dammit.

          (You consistently prove yourself smarter than even I think you are, mister, don’t even deny it!)

          Like

  • Heather

    Very well said.

    You make me want to read Ender’s Game…and I refuse to read Ender’s Game.

    I almost wish I’d read it years ago before I learned about Card’s douchebaggery. Sigh.

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      I really did love the book. It was just sad that I couldn’t separate my thoughts about the author from the text. There are certain things that I might be able to ignore…homophobia of that magnitude isn’t one of them.

      I don’t know that he WAS always that much of a douchebag. Or, at least, that he was so vocal about it, I suppose.

      Like

  • grrgoyl

    Okay, I have two thoughts.

    1) My first thing I wanted to share was that I’m the same way about movie stars and celebrities. Two examples: I used to be sort of ambivalent about Matt Damon, until my friend told me her friend spotted him at the airport and he was just the nicest, most down-to-earth guy you’d want to meet. BOOM. You’re awesome, Matt. Counterpoint: I’ve heard (through much more far removed channels) that Gary Oldman is a stuck-up prig who’s full of himself. That kind of ruined Sirius Black for me, despite wanting to love him. Two ways in which knowing the men behind the roles influence my feelings about their movies.

    2) Then I started reading the comments about GR and Amazon. On the surface it seems to make sense they don’t want book reviews to be colored by personal, sometimes irrelevant feelings about the authors. But on Amazon, I’ve seen tons of negative product reviews that are actually complaining about the seller they bought it from. Is there a correlation there? It seems to me they’re judging the seller, not the product. But then again, sellers have feedback pages that I’m sure no one but me ever visits. These people are often called out in comments on their misplaced review, but Amazon doesn’t bother removing them. Maybe Amazon is too big for them to catch them all.

    I’ve heard the swirling Ender’s Game controversy. I won’t pay for the movie either; I’ll go a step further and say I’d pirate that puppy off the internet before I’d give a dollar to a hatemonger.

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      I feel the same way about celebrities. If I know someone who knows them and they’re awesome, they immediately go on a secret “they are my six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon-BFFs” and I will watch things they are in without an issue. But if I hear they’re a douche – nope. I’ll never again watch a Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson movie, for example.

      You’re right about Amazon. Don’t know if the decision was Amazon-based or Goodreads-based, really…just know it’s suspicious it happened right after Amazon bought the company.

      Yup. Not a dollar of mine will directly go into Card’s pocket. I can’t knowingly fund a homophobe.

      Like

  • Sarah Says Read

    See, whenever I hear drama about Goodreads (which seems often, and it’s never good), I’m all like “Hahahahaaa, I stopped using that ages ago!” And kind of just because I fell out of it, not because of any of the issues currently happening. Might I suggest BookLikes for a good shelving/review system? They’re new and still working out kinks, but cool.

    Also, I am so 100% with you on Ender’s Game / OSC. I loved the book SO MUCH, but the author is such a complete and total douchebag. And besides his rampant homophobia, preeeeeety sure he’s a racist too. There’s the controversy over his use of the n-word in the book (which he later removed), and his recent statements that the president has a bunch of hoodlums forming as his own private gangster army, and UGH he’s such a terrible human being. DAMN HIM for making Ender’s Game so great.

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      What happened to him? Card, I mean. I can’t believe he was that terrible when he wrote the book. The mind that created Ender and his classmates – I can’t believe that’s the same mind that’s coming up with this nonsense. I just can’t.

      I’ll look into BookLikes – I’m ok with Goodreads for now. I’ll just be more judicious about what I do/don’t review there. And all my friends are there. It’s kind of like Facebook vs. Google Plus. Google Plus might be BETTER…but all my friends are over HERE. You know?

      Like

  • Michael Lane

    Wow. I was only tangentially aware of GoodReads… but all of this is fascinating… and I suppose depressing

    Like

  • E

    I read Ender’s Game when I was in high school. It spoke to me more than any other book I read before. It wasn’t until I was an adult that I realized how horrible a person Orson Scott Card is. It can’t make me dislike the book, bit I won’t support anything else he does.

    I would suggest that you read Ender’s Shadow. It is Ender’s story told from Bean’s point of view. If you can put aside the ass-hattedness of Card, it is so very, very worth it.

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      I might read more of his work…but it’ll be a while before I do. He’s left such a bad taste in my mouth. And I’m so sad about that, you know? Because his book was so lovely…but the man behind it is such an evil, twisted little soulless troll.

      Like

  • Well, THAT’S not depressing at all. Oh, wait. | snobbery

    […] since the whole Goodreads review deletion fiasco a few weeks ago (see also Amy’s thoughts, Charleen’s thoughts, Susie’s thoughts and Ceridwen’s thoughts), I’ve been […]

    Like

  • Jelzmar

    My husband loved Ender’s Game when he was a kid/teen (I don’t remember), so I read it and liked it. I didn’t find out about the author’s views until much later. Which is a huge disappointment, because we so would love to see the movie.

    We were going to give one of our kids the nick name Ender (my husband is a second and so our son would be the third), but we ended up naming him Xavier.

    I have a readernaut, and it isn’t comparable to goodreads really. It has a lot of little annoying glitches. You start your account with four bookshelfs: Plan to Read, Finished, Reading, Abandoned.

    When I first got my account there, you could mark a book abandoned and it would disappear from your Reading shelf, and the same once you finished a book. It was automatic. Now you have to manually do it yourself. Which is kind of a pain.

    But I tend to avoid GoodReads because it can be a time suck. I don’t mean to get on the forms, but they are just everywhere. It was always a little too social for me.

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      I’ll watch the movie when it’s been a while and I remember to get it from the library, I suppose. I am curious how well it translates to the screen. The commercials look good, at least.

      I love the name Xavier!

      I’m still using Goodreads. For now. We’ll see what happens.

      Like

%d bloggers like this: