To be clear - three stars is *not* a negative rating. Three stars is still a solid book. I chose my cut off point based on the fact that I rarely see books rated much lower than a four average on Goodreads. So while three stars is still "good", it's about what books usually average out to - not what the standard for good is. Hope that makes sense!
I think Goodreads "good books" skew a bit lower than you think. Stuff in the upper 3 star range is usually fine, it's when you start dipping below 3.5 that red flags start going up.
To quote Robin Hobb's Goodreads page: "I am shocked to find that some people think a 2 star 'I liked it' rating is a bad rating. What? I liked it. I LIKED it! That means I read the whole thing, to the last page, in spite of my life raining comets on me."
Maybe the low rating for the classics like Northanger and Lord of the Flies were school kids who were angry at being forced to read them. I honestly think we introduce classics too early for school kids to like or interpret in their own way. The teacher forces a viewpoint on the students and it colors their enjoyment of the book.
I was just thinking, imagine how quickly the ratings for something like Oathbringer would drop if college professors of American literature were forced to read it to keep their jobs. Sure some would like it but I bet you would also see a flood of 1 star reviews.
@@hendrikscheepers4144 Ugh! I thought it was only my country's awful education system Unfortunately, this is the plight of many children around the world. Kids and teens should be allowed to formulate their own interpretations to a piece of art, not the interpretations teachers force upon them. It is so frustrating to get 3 out of 15 marks simply because your interpretations of symbolism used in a poem is not the same as the teacher's when you have CLEARLY provided evidence of your understandable line of thinking.
One note, on Goodreads all "English class books," are going to be low rated. If a Jane Austen book is given to someone who hates romance or classics or both, but they *have* to read it for school and then don't like it and review it on Goodreads, it's going to have a low rating Edit: That's probably why Lord of the Flies, Jamaica Inn and Jane Austen's books are so low rated
@@hendrikscheepers4144 Yeah, not all books I read in school I hated, but lots of the ones I didn't like, I probably would've if I was allowed to read slower or faster.
I think in Lord of the flies case it's more what Merphy is talking about, that some people just don't agree with the premise/ the messaging this book is supposed to give - I haven't read it yet personally but from what I've heard, I cannot see myself rating it higher than 3* as themes are one of the most important things for me in books and perpetuating a Hobbesian view is a no-no for me :)
As per Goodreads, 1-star == "I did not like it" 2-star == "It was ok" 3-stars == "I liked it" 4-star == "I really liked it" 5-star == "It was amazing" You can find this out, if you hover over the stars when writing a review for any book. So, 3+ is not particularly bad.
I was just thinking yesterday about how much it annoys me when people label Jane Austen as only a “romance” author (not that there is anything wrong with being a romance author!). Her books are much more than just love stories, so it frustrates me when that’s all people recognize them as🙄
I wonder about that often. That Austen stories are considered so very romantik, when they are not. I love Austen for her portrayal of the time, here critisism of society and pointing out the limited possibilities for women at that time. She is not romantising the men at all but writes them fairly realistic...I could go on. She managed that while packing it in a "lovestory" but its really not the focus of the stories.
This is absolutely true, and on an only slightly related note... I am so fruitlooping frustrated at people bashing the romance genre in general as “trashy” or “shallow” or as somehow having less merit than other genres. Not every book has to be high-brow literary fiction, and I think a good romance novel is on the exact same level as a good high fantasy or psychological thriller or contemporary fiction novel.
I think you may have underestimated how common middling 3. rattings are. I see them all the time on decent books. Particularly on very popular books (this is due to them having a larger pool of people rating the book). I would say 3.6 to 3.5 is when the rating starts to truly reflect the book being very bad or not. 3.7 to 3.9 will be were a lot of books that have a tendency to have split opinions on them range and 3.9 is usually still a pretty solid read.
Yup a certain YA-ish book that I shall not name got a whopping 4.3 out of over 80,000 reviews despite being utterly terrible in every sense of the word. Ever since then I take Goodreads reviews with a grain of salt.
I understand what you mean but I think it has more to do with classics and difficult literature being an even smaller niche market within the already small market of the reading-for-enjoyment-market. YA is more accessible for the general reader. It’s more about being a diverting and entertaining read. I’m speaking generally about YA, not all YA is like that. Whereas classics or difficult literature, tends to be more about dissecting philosophical and existential thoughts and experiences. There is much more debate and polarity about those topics, so one might encounter more varied opinions about them that do not agree. A classic with a rating above 3 on goodreads is decent. One just needs to keep the genre in mind when looking at goodreads.
Oh wow! I LOVED Northanger Abbey! It was flippin HYSTERICAL, and the character growth for the main protagonist was decent as well. But the sarcasm was hilarious! I love how offended you got about the lower rating 🤣
On Goodreads I’m not scared away by a book that has a rating of 3.7 or higher. 3.6 or lower and I start to be a little concerned about whether I’ll like it
I look at the synopsis and the author’s other work and the first few pages to feel it out. If I’m unsure after that, I’ll consult the ratings. Anything above a two is usually worth a go, unless the ratings have specific tropes or problematic things that really turn me off of books. Even then, I’ll avoid a 4.7 star book if it’s got something I detest as a main plot point or character trait or something.
I think a lot of classics are books that people read because they think they should and then they don't appreciate them because they don't like classics so they get low ratings. I'm not so surprised that some of the classics do tend to get more varies reviews on a place like goodreads.
The thing is Classics are compelled to be read by schools in the Literature Classes so it kinda Makes people salty about Classics. One of the reasons maybe.
Agreed. Hamlet is not my favorite Shakespeare play, but come one, I would never say it's bad 🙄. People in Goodreads forget to be objective sometimes. I mean, you may not like a book, but still realize it's a good written novel regardless. (In terms of plot, pace, character development, etc).
@@SexySiren24 love Hamlet! Macbeth, I adore. Othello was phenomenal, and all the comedies I really really adored. For school I had to read Romeo and Juliet (hated it) and then Julius Caesar (it was okay but I get why it was insufferable for some people lol). Even as a devout Shakespeare lover, it can be a lot for 13 year olds, for sure. They should let high school kids read one of the comedies. Why do the tragedies get all the love. Twelfth Night or Much Ado or Taming of the Shrew all deserve praise, and I think they’d be so much more fun for teens to read!! We put on the Tempest for a community play thing and everyone involved had tons of fun performing and watching it. There are so many possibilities, honestly. Why do English teachers adore depressing stuff? Why can’t we read good things?! In fact, why is most of literary fiction depressing. It’s usually supposed to reveal truths about the human condition, but they don’t want truths, they just want predictable tragedy they can neatly analyze. There is so much good in the world that is unequivocally pure and truthful. That’s not a complaint based at Shakespeare, just at how we, as a society, assign value to literature.
About The Deal of a Lifetime: a lot of people were disappointed (especially when they bought a hardcover) because the story ends around 60-70% of the book and a significant portion of the book is actually an excerpt from Beartown so people felt kinda cheated on in regards to that because the hardcover was not quite cheap and the book ended just like that with 1/3 of it still left. I've read through a lot of those reviews and pretty much everyone who's read it physically was salty about it, and I can see how it might've impacted the rating
Lord of the Flies is read in English classes in Ontario (and surely other places too). That could definitely contribute to its lower rating - I think I might have rated it 1 star years and years ago after finishing it in grade 9 English
Me: *expecting 1's and 2's* Oooo, I'm excited for this!! Murphy: *"Northhanger Abby is 3.82??? I'm so offended!!!"* Me: ........ Isn't 3 stars in middle?? Like it was good but not blow my mind good??? I'm so confused??? Love you Murphy! 😂😂 Great video! ❤
I’m surprised high threes is considered “low” on goodreads. I’d consider high threes to mean “good, almost great” - particularly if there are a lot of ratings for the book. If a book is getting an average of over 4 stars, that’s a pretty universally loved book, in my mind. It means that there are equal or more more 5 star votes than 1. 2 or 3 star votes.
On Goodreads its rare for a book to be below 3.5, so many people(myself included) never rate 1 or 2 stars. 4.0 means its popular, but not universally so Universally loved is also rare, and for that I'd look at books rated over 4.5
Exactly. I definitely do not see high threes as low. Below three, that's low, but as long as it's above, it means in the very least above average, right. And if it's say 3.8, it's much closer to 4 than to 3, so I'd consider that a pretty good rating. You gotta take into account that not all books are gonna work for all people, and also that some books might be especially devisive (you know, when half the people love it and half hate it). But maybe that's just me, I'm not on goodreads a whole lot, so this is just how I'd interpret any 5-star ratings in general...
A lot of my favorites are 3.5 or even lower, while other books I consider not as well-written, with shitty messages (abuse is romantic!1!) get rated extremely high by a small number of fans.
for something that seems to be generally disliked, I'm surprised The Cursed child is still so high 🤭 for me personally, everything above a 3.6 is still fine and will appeal for a certain audience (above 4.0 I consider generally loved)
@@RealVincent1989 let’s avoid generalizations. You have to take into account the number of very high and very low ratings which average out, plus who is most likely to be reading the books and when, the fact that different people have different tastes, the fact that just because a book is old doesn’t mean it’s important, plus the people who are most likely to be rating books on goodreads in the first place. Goodreads has its own specific audience which differs greatly from all the readers in the world.
@@Jellybeansatdusk it's not a generalization when modern readers expect classics to be written with modern tastes. Books that created the trope or genre readers go it's too tropey ugh why do authors use tropes.
@@ayajade6683 That’s literally what a generalization is. Saying “modern readers...” is a generalization. Maybe you have noticed a trend in this case, but it’s not fair or all that accurate to extrapolate that and apply it to modern readers as a single entity. I do agree with some of the ideas, that people might not always consider that a specific thing which was copied and done to death could have been innovative the first time. Still, just because something did it first doesn’t mean it was the best iteration. If it can’t stand up to imitation over time, that’s a problem with the original work. Also, a trope is just any general trend in art or media. You cannot avoid using tropes. Nearly everything is a trope or a reversal of a trope or a subversion of a trope. You can’t avoid tropes. What you can do is try to reinvent or subvert them in an interesting and unique way. That’s what makes for good writing. I can’t name you a single book that is entirely trope-free and I would implore you to think for a moment and try to come up with one book that has absolutely no tropes in it.
Have you by chance done a Gothic Recommendations video? I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts and suggestions! My reading tastes are similar to yours and I always appreciate your recommendations. Thank you!
I feel like if half those high raters came back in 5 years they'd change it to lower... I rated YA books pretty high when I was a teenager. I probably wouldn't now.
@@stephr5914 Yea that's one of the reasons I don't like to rate things. Your rating for something can fluctuate depending on a variety of factors. I just have a hard time assigning a somewhat arbitrary number to my entertainment.
I recently heard that the philosophy of Lord of the Flies is not so much that everyone has evil in them, but that the way very privileged British school boys were raised instilled certain dark values... I might reread the book from that perspective and see if I agree with that or not.
Understanding relationships is an undervalued skill. I can't get my hands on enough books regarding relationships, Sarah Forward, Milton Erickson, Robert Glover, and Malcolm Gladwell have been fantastic additions to my reading. Thank you so much for expressing your love of relationships.
I think classics are often rated really low compared to other books because so many people are forced to read them at school. Usually reading something for school (especially if I feel pressured to finish it fast because of assignments) will lower the rating of a book for me. Some people also think it's "cool" to dislike classics which is just silly.
I generally just don't look at Goodreads ratings anymore, especially after seeing some of the ridiculous reasons why people will rate things the way they do. Plus, I think the five-star scale (which doesn't allow for half ratings) is very limited. I've read a lot of books that were maybe a 4.5, but not a 5, so I have to choose between 4 or 5 and I feel it's not quite accurate either way.
People can be so spiteful on goodreads. The amount of times I've seen reviews that say "was gonna give this two stars but the average is high so I gave it a one" annoys me to no end. Just give the book the rating you want to give it.
@@hcstubbs3290 As someone who is a Star Wars fan, but not in the "I hate everything that isn't the exact way I want it" kind of way, it gets annoying. People hate anything new that comes out for the franchise without even giving it half a chance.
@@DanielBeer1 yeah, I've noticed the new SW books get a lot of low reviews. It makes it hard to figure out which ones I wanna read - I'm quite new getting into the books.
@@artiheggannawar1188 No obviously not everybody. Even though a lot of fans of the series didn't like it, there are still plenty of people who did. People really just go overboard with these kinds of things. It's just become popular to rag on at this point.
yes, classics tend to get low ratings on goodreads because people compare the style of writing and the themes to today's books, which is really sad because there a lot of amazing classics
Some of the best books I’ve read have 3.60~ ratings and some of the most disappointing reads have ratings of like 4.15+ it’s really weird to me. Specifically books that cater to a really niche audience but have been traditionally published and have been marketed to the lowest common denominator have some really low scores. Magicians is a great example of a book scored rather lowly but still meant a lot to me when I first read it, and it’s goal is achieved brilliantly. Also, on a note about Jane Austen, I understand why some of her works have low ratings probably due to readers like me. Growing up, I’ve had tons of her work shoved down my throat. If kids were made to read Tolkien, I highly doubt LotR would have scores as high as they were, it doesn’t help that for a lot of people, her work is hard to read as well and it can translate into feeling a bit stilted and stuffy. That in addition to how unrelatable her work can be, In my experience, it seems that her work is more valued because of its influence rather than the work itself. I’m aware of how technically competent her work is, and I’m kind of obligated to respect it as an avid reader, but I personally don’t want to read about the petty and stupid matters of literally one of the highest social classes on the entire planet that were so unaware of how privileged they were.
Okay I always skip the sponsor breaks but I could not be gladder that I watched this one. "Give it to your husband. What a great gift. Look how happy he is."
I love your channel! I ordered the Lies of Lock Lamora and I’m so excited to read it because you love it so much. Also your hair looks really nice in this video
Ok why is no one talking about that ad? It had me dying laughing! Especially “look how happy he is!” 😂 Also, this video reminded me how much I dislike 5 star rating systems. It leaves no room for nuance, even if you allow half stars it’s not the same. 10 star systems or bust! ⭐️
For me if a book is lower than 3.5 I start to get a little sus... especially if I go there to look at a rating for a book I'm actively reading and unsure about, but lot of books I end up loving sit around a 3.6-8 on GR.
Yes Cursed Child is different and unexpected and it lacks the buildup novels have but that’s why I loved it. People are entitled to their hate but it’s canon and that’s all that matters 😁
This is hilarious and I adore it. I hate Picasso, but man do I see the merit. Culturally and politically and historically the man was so relevant, and yet he was a notoriously garbage human being and his stylistic choices hurt my eyes.
I notice a lot of people give low ratings to classics these days. They are used to the more modern prose and editing techniques so the older stories that use an older style language or were not edited as readily is today seem to get lower ratings.
I’m pretty sure that the biggest reason that The Cursed Child isn’t lower, is because most people have been forewarned that it’s awful, and they don’t read it in the first place.
There I was, on a Merphy binge, as you do, when all of a sudden an interesting video title appeared before me. I did not even realize my notifications have been updated and wasn't aware this video was very recent, so imagine my surprise when I saw there are only 3k views. I was so worried before reading the date
LoTF may also be so low because a lot of people (at least here in the UK) had to read it for school. Nothing kills a story like reading it for academic purposes.
I don't think 3,8 is a bad rating, even on goodreads. Most books I read, apart from certain hyped authors and books, score around 3,8 and 4,0 3,6 or below is another statement, though.
I'm not an expert on how numbers and statistics work so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't an average rating of 3.1+ mean that the book got mostly 4 and 5 stars? Obviously if it's really close to 3 it means that it also got a lot of 3 and less stars, but I think that anything above 3 is still worth a read.
I love reading so when I got an assignment to read a book and write a book report I enjoy it a lot but I'm the exception not the rule Most people hate the book they are forced reading hence the low rating in some of the famous English Literary type book School is a magical place where it manages to turn me into a book hater, only after high school I find passion for reading and learning again. CZcams and the internet in general is where I genuinely find learning to be entertaining which is something I never thought I would
Lord of the Flies doesn't surprise me. It's so ubiquitous in HS English classes, that I'm surprised I got through school without reading it. I think some of my classmates had to read it more than once.
In my opinion, ‘The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes’ is also a book for discussion. I found what you said about ‘Lord of the Flies’ was the same thing as ‘The Ballad…’ for me. It’s not so much of a plot that engages you, but more if a philosophical conversation about humanity, decision-making and formation of the villain we know today.
On the topic of Lord of the Flies being contrary to how you see human kind, I'd love to recommend Rutger Bregman - Human Kind, a Hopeful History. I don't know if you also enjoy nonfiction, but if you do, this one is really good :)
I'm with you on the Cursed Child ... I think it should be lower on Goodreads TBH ha-ha! I loved Lord of the Flies! But I can see it being low as it's TYPICALLY a book that students are forced to read in school (I think someone else commented on this), so there may be a lot of students rating this who are forced to read a genre that they don't care for. Either way, I really enjoyed Lord of the Flies (as creepy as it is). And Christina Lauren ... their books are hit or miss. I REALLY enjoyed "Autoboyography" but "Josh and Hazel's Guide to Not Dating" was meh to me. I am going to read "The Unhoneymooners" soon which I have a good feeling about
Goodreads ratings are so skewed in so many ways that they are almost worthless when it comes to assessing a book's qualities. They tend to heavily favour books released in the past couple of decades, so any classic literature that's stood the test of time will usually be underrated. I think the userbase of Goodreads probably also skews quite young so that has an effect. When looking at series the later books will always be rated higher than the earlier ones because the people who didn't like the early books will have stopped reading, creating an inherent bias.
I mean.. I think it also depends on how strong the rating is. A 3.8 with over 2 million reviews is pretty good, whereas 3.8 with 10,000 reviews seems a lot more iffy.
I love hearing your opinions and I have been inspired by your channel to try new things. For example I am reading Starsight 💫 right now and I am going to dogeared the pages to see how it looks at the end :-)
Lord of the Flies was actually one of my favorites in High School and still is. I wrote an essay on that book and put my all into it. I got an A+ and loved all the discussions my class had on the book as we were reading it
Love the video. Next time you do this (I hope you do it again) maybe have the cut off be 3.5 stars. I know that I don't really think much about 3.8 stars but when it hits 3.5 I'm like "eh maybe this book isn't worth the time"
When I see a 3 star rating i see it as generally most people found it okay but not amazing enough for that 4 stars. The higher end with your 3.8s mean that a few more people LOVED it and the lower rating means that a few more people didn’t. Idk if I’m explaining this correctly omg I need a graph someone let me illustrate this with a graph pls 🥴🥴🥴
Same for me. When I rate I usually think of the star system like this: 5 means a great read. It's memorable in some way and I will probably read it again. 4 means I really enjoyed the book while reading it but I may or may not read it again. 3 means it was a good read and I enjoyed it but it had flaws that stuck out. 2 means I was able to finish it but it had some big problems. 1 means I either did not finish the book or it was very difficult to finish
This is true for individual rattings (3 stars means "I liked it" on goodreads) but when a book has an average ratting of 3.5 on goodreads, that's pretty low (based on observation). Merphy was talking about average rattings in the video. The reason books generally have high rattings has to do with the fact that people don't finish books they don't like, and therefore they don't rate them. Just my two cents
Merphy can you do Romance or Fantasy recommendations? I know two completely unrelated things but I just want something Magical or Romantic for my single, boring ass.
Pretty much anything written by T.J. Kingfisher, Mercedes Lackey, and Lois McMasters Bujold is fantasy and romance. Catherine's Asaro does pretty good Scifi Romance. Christopher Stasheff's Warlock series has quite a bit of romance especially in each kid's book. The wizard in rhyme series has a lot of romance too.
Fantastic video as always. This just highlights to me how flawed a five star rating system is. Everything gets mushed together into an average rating, with personal taste skewing one way or another. Classics aren’t going to be to everyone’s taste, so 3 stars almost seem like a ceiling there. That and the sheer number of reviews they get. It would be a rare thing indeed for one to break through and maintain a five or four star.
Holidaze was a good book but it had one big flaw: the love interest's reaction near the end was way too harsh. It's not like the heroine planned for all the book to happen so blaming her for it ruined the book a little for me.
You can go on any list (such as your TBR or your read books) on goodreads and there's a feature at the bottom of the page where you can choose what to sort by, and then sort by "avg rating". I consider 3.7-3.9 to be "average" on GR and only below 3.7 do I start getting nervous. Still, some books I really liked are below that. Some of the lowest-rated classics on my TBR: Vathek by William Beckford (3.28), Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs (3.46), Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift (3.58). I have my suspicions on why they're rated so low (particularly Naked Lunch) but I would have to read them first. I think that a lot of people don't rate books they don't finish, and people who REALLY don't like a book usually just DNF it and then they (usually) feel they don't have the right to rate it. So anyone who finishes a book will probably like it more than average. Main exceptions: a classic that people have to read for school (so even if you don't like it you finish it and then you rate it) and mysteries (sometimes a mystery/thriller will have an extremely low rating on Goodreads, which I take to mean that the story had a very unsatisfying twist or reveal). Also, 18th century books in general seem to get pretty low ratings on GR, maybe because the art form was so new and novelists back then weren't following what we would today consider "the rules" for good writing. I also went to an Amazon bookstore recently (I don't recommend it) and they had these tables of books that had more than a 4.7-4.8 on Goodreads. It was pretty much all cookbooks.
To be clear - three stars is *not* a negative rating. Three stars is still a solid book. I chose my cut off point based on the fact that I rarely see books rated much lower than a four average on Goodreads. So while three stars is still "good", it's about what books usually average out to - not what the standard for good is. Hope that makes sense!
Maam plss read Tokyo ghoul manga and bakuman
Yes I have the same experience with Goodreads, good books will usually be 4+ average.
I think Goodreads "good books" skew a bit lower than you think. Stuff in the upper 3 star range is usually fine, it's when you start dipping below 3.5 that red flags start going up.
To quote Robin Hobb's Goodreads page: "I am shocked to find that some people think a 2 star 'I liked it' rating is a bad rating. What? I liked it. I LIKED it! That means I read the whole thing, to the last page, in spite of my life raining comets on me."
@@therealbroga Wow, I hope if I ever publish a book, Robin Hobb doesn't rate it on Goodreads...lol 😄
Maybe the low rating for the classics like Northanger and Lord of the Flies were school kids who were angry at being forced to read them. I honestly think we introduce classics too early for school kids to like or interpret in their own way. The teacher forces a viewpoint on the students and it colors their enjoyment of the book.
As a middle schooler who used to fo the exact same thing, I assure you that you're correct.
@@SS-xm2hf most of us were middle schoolers but thanks for your confirmation
I was just thinking, imagine how quickly the ratings for something like Oathbringer would drop if college professors of American literature were forced to read it to keep their jobs. Sure some would like it but I bet you would also see a flood of 1 star reviews.
@@hendrikscheepers4144 Ugh! I thought it was only my country's awful education system Unfortunately, this is the plight of many children around the world. Kids and teens should be allowed to formulate their own interpretations to a piece of art, not the interpretations teachers force upon them. It is so frustrating to get 3 out of 15 marks simply because your interpretations of symbolism used in a poem is not the same as the teacher's when you have CLEARLY provided evidence of your understandable line of thinking.
I agree but I also think it's very easy to disagree with the main message of Lord of the Flies
One note, on Goodreads all "English class books," are going to be low rated. If a Jane Austen book is given to someone who hates romance or classics or both, but they *have* to read it for school and then don't like it and review it on Goodreads, it's going to have a low rating
Edit: That's probably why Lord of the Flies, Jamaica Inn and Jane Austen's books are so low rated
@@hendrikscheepers4144 Yeah, not all books I read in school I hated, but lots of the ones I didn't like, I probably would've if I was allowed to read slower or faster.
Animal Farm is disturbingly brilliant when put in historical context, however I can see it easily missed without knowing where it's coming from.
I think in Lord of the flies case it's more what Merphy is talking about, that some people just don't agree with the premise/ the messaging this book is supposed to give - I haven't read it yet personally but from what I've heard, I cannot see myself rating it higher than 3* as themes are one of the most important things for me in books and perpetuating a Hobbesian view is a no-no for me :)
Not only English. Polish classics, like the most impotent books in Polish literature history are like 3.2 ...
yup i forced to read jane in colleage..and i don't like romance lmao
“In March 2020, a month that we all remember...” *it’s been 84 years*
We’re all like the guy that got left on the planet in interstellar
I'm trying very hard to block out 2016-20, even though it'll probably take about 100 years to do so.
That's another reason why reviews are better than rankings. I would rather have a rant than see one star.
Agreed!
I love reading the rants
Goodreads scores are basically "Is this on the good or bad side of 4 stars?"
Because novels that people want to read are like people trying to become professional athletes, pretty good isn't good enough to make that cut
Thank you for shoving cursed child in the corner,my potterhead heart can't stand seeing it in full size
Older books have a lower average rating because there’s so many reviews. There’s over 300,000 for northanger abbey
Your channel and Daniel's channel are my favourite youtube channels!
Absolutly in my top 5!!!
You nerd!
Welcome :D
Woooooord
Same🤩
@@AleksandarIvanov69 Hahaha, Nerds! Nerds! Nerds! Nerds! Nerds! Nerds! Nerds!
Northanger Abbey is always underrated! It's a great and funny satire, Catherine's a very relatable heroine, and the romance is simple but good
As per Goodreads,
1-star == "I did not like it"
2-star == "It was ok"
3-stars == "I liked it"
4-star == "I really liked it"
5-star == "It was amazing"
You can find this out, if you hover over the stars when writing a review for any book.
So, 3+ is not particularly bad.
I was just thinking yesterday about how much it annoys me when people label Jane Austen as only a “romance” author (not that there is anything wrong with being a romance author!). Her books are much more than just love stories, so it frustrates me when that’s all people recognize them as🙄
I agree! They miss so much in it!!
I wonder about that often. That Austen stories are considered so very romantik, when they are not. I love Austen for her portrayal of the time, here critisism of society and pointing out the limited possibilities for women at that time. She is not romantising the men at all but writes them fairly realistic...I could go on. She managed that while packing it in a "lovestory" but its really not the focus of the stories.
This is absolutely true, and on an only slightly related note...
I am so fruitlooping frustrated at people bashing the romance genre in general as “trashy” or “shallow” or as somehow having less merit than other genres. Not every book has to be high-brow literary fiction, and I think a good romance novel is on the exact same level as a good high fantasy or psychological thriller or contemporary fiction novel.
I think you may have underestimated how common middling 3. rattings are. I see them all the time on decent books. Particularly on very popular books (this is due to them having a larger pool of people rating the book). I would say 3.6 to 3.5 is when the rating starts to truly reflect the book being very bad or not. 3.7 to 3.9 will be were a lot of books that have a tendency to have split opinions on them range and 3.9 is usually still a pretty solid read.
Merphy talking about The Cursed Child is always a fun time
Goodreads is the home of YA, I don't trust it most the time. Majority of classic scifi are less than 4 stars
Not only sci-fi almost all classics have a hard time on goodreads.
I have noticed that, most classics have a way lower rating than I’d expect
Yup a certain YA-ish book that I shall not name got a whopping 4.3 out of over 80,000 reviews despite being utterly terrible in every sense of the word. Ever since then I take Goodreads reviews with a grain of salt.
@@archlectoryarvi2873 name it now
I understand what you mean but I think it has more to do with classics and difficult literature being an even smaller niche market within the already small market of the reading-for-enjoyment-market. YA is more accessible for the general reader. It’s more about being a diverting and entertaining read. I’m speaking generally about YA, not all YA is like that. Whereas classics or difficult literature, tends to be more about dissecting philosophical and existential thoughts and experiences. There is much more debate and polarity about those topics, so one might encounter more varied opinions about them that do not agree.
A classic with a rating above 3 on goodreads is decent. One just needs to keep the genre in mind when looking at goodreads.
I love opening all the one star reviews and reading them like the evening papers
Oh wow! I LOVED Northanger Abbey! It was flippin HYSTERICAL, and the character growth for the main protagonist was decent as well. But the sarcasm was hilarious! I love how offended you got about the lower rating 🤣
On Goodreads I’m not scared away by a book that has a rating of 3.7 or higher. 3.6 or lower and I start to be a little concerned about whether I’ll like it
I look at the synopsis and the author’s other work and the first few pages to feel it out. If I’m unsure after that, I’ll consult the ratings. Anything above a two is usually worth a go, unless the ratings have specific tropes or problematic things that really turn me off of books. Even then, I’ll avoid a 4.7 star book if it’s got something I detest as a main plot point or character trait or something.
I think a lot of classics are books that people read because they think they should and then they don't appreciate them because they don't like classics so they get low ratings. I'm not so surprised that some of the classics do tend to get more varies reviews on a place like goodreads.
The thing is Classics are compelled to be read by schools in the Literature Classes so it kinda Makes people salty about Classics. One of the reasons maybe.
Agreed. Hamlet is not my favorite Shakespeare play, but come one, I would never say it's bad 🙄. People in Goodreads forget to be objective sometimes. I mean, you may not like a book, but still realize it's a good written novel regardless. (In terms of plot, pace, character development, etc).
@@SexySiren24 love Hamlet! Macbeth, I adore. Othello was phenomenal, and all the comedies I really really adored.
For school I had to read Romeo and Juliet (hated it) and then Julius Caesar (it was okay but I get why it was insufferable for some people lol). Even as a devout Shakespeare lover, it can be a lot for 13 year olds, for sure. They should let high school kids read one of the comedies. Why do the tragedies get all the love. Twelfth Night or Much Ado or Taming of the Shrew all deserve praise, and I think they’d be so much more fun for teens to read!! We put on the Tempest for a community play thing and everyone involved had tons of fun performing and watching it. There are so many possibilities, honestly.
Why do English teachers adore depressing stuff? Why can’t we read good things?! In fact, why is most of literary fiction depressing. It’s usually supposed to reveal truths about the human condition, but they don’t want truths, they just want predictable tragedy they can neatly analyze. There is so much good in the world that is unequivocally pure and truthful. That’s not a complaint based at Shakespeare, just at how we, as a society, assign value to literature.
About The Deal of a Lifetime: a lot of people were disappointed (especially when they bought a hardcover) because the story ends around 60-70% of the book and a significant portion of the book is actually an excerpt from Beartown so people felt kinda cheated on in regards to that because the hardcover was not quite cheap and the book ended just like that with 1/3 of it still left. I've read through a lot of those reviews and pretty much everyone who's read it physically was salty about it, and I can see how it might've impacted the rating
Lord of the Flies is read in English classes in Ontario (and surely other places too). That could definitely contribute to its lower rating - I think I might have rated it 1 star years and years ago after finishing it in grade 9 English
Might be Canada wide, I read it in Alberta.
It's read in English classes in Germany
All over the US. England, too, but It’s most common in schools mainly in North America and Western Europe
Me: *expecting 1's and 2's* Oooo, I'm excited for this!!
Murphy: *"Northhanger Abby is 3.82??? I'm so offended!!!"*
Me: ........ Isn't 3 stars in middle?? Like it was good but not blow my mind good??? I'm so confused???
Love you Murphy! 😂😂 Great video! ❤
I’m surprised high threes is considered “low” on goodreads. I’d consider high threes to mean “good, almost great” - particularly if there are a lot of ratings for the book. If a book is getting an average of over 4 stars, that’s a pretty universally loved book, in my mind. It means that there are equal or more more 5 star votes than 1. 2 or 3 star votes.
On Goodreads its rare for a book to be below 3.5, so many people(myself included) never rate 1 or 2 stars.
4.0 means its popular, but not universally so
Universally loved is also rare, and for that I'd look at books rated over 4.5
Exactly. I definitely do not see high threes as low. Below three, that's low, but as long as it's above, it means in the very least above average, right. And if it's say 3.8, it's much closer to 4 than to 3, so I'd consider that a pretty good rating. You gotta take into account that not all books are gonna work for all people, and also that some books might be especially devisive (you know, when half the people love it and half hate it).
But maybe that's just me, I'm not on goodreads a whole lot, so this is just how I'd interpret any 5-star ratings in general...
A lot of my favorites are 3.5 or even lower, while other books I consider not as well-written, with shitty messages (abuse is romantic!1!) get rated extremely high by a small number of fans.
for something that seems to be generally disliked, I'm surprised The Cursed child is still so high 🤭 for me personally, everything above a 3.6 is still fine and will appeal for a certain audience (above 4.0 I consider generally loved)
I found cursed child enjoyable in a fan fiction sense. Canon sense? Nahh.
When Wuthering Heights has a low rating you know the problem is with classics genre not the books
the problem is with contemporary readers who are either bored or judhe based on modern society standards. its pathetic
@@RealVincent1989 let’s avoid generalizations. You have to take into account the number of very high and very low ratings which average out, plus who is most likely to be reading the books and when, the fact that different people have different tastes, the fact that just because a book is old doesn’t mean it’s important, plus the people who are most likely to be rating books on goodreads in the first place. Goodreads has its own specific audience which differs greatly from all the readers in the world.
@@Jellybeansatdusk it's not a generalization when modern readers expect classics to be written with modern tastes. Books that created the trope or genre readers go it's too tropey ugh why do authors use tropes.
@@ayajade6683 That’s literally what a generalization is. Saying “modern readers...” is a generalization. Maybe you have noticed a trend in this case, but it’s not fair or all that accurate to extrapolate that and apply it to modern readers as a single entity.
I do agree with some of the ideas, that people might not always consider that a specific thing which was copied and done to death could have been innovative the first time. Still, just because something did it first doesn’t mean it was the best iteration. If it can’t stand up to imitation over time, that’s a problem with the original work.
Also, a trope is just any general trend in art or media. You cannot avoid using tropes. Nearly everything is a trope or a reversal of a trope or a subversion of a trope. You can’t avoid tropes. What you can do is try to reinvent or subvert them in an interesting and unique way. That’s what makes for good writing. I can’t name you a single book that is entirely trope-free and I would implore you to think for a moment and try to come up with one book that has absolutely no tropes in it.
Have you by chance done a Gothic Recommendations video? I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts and suggestions! My reading tastes are similar to yours and I always appreciate your recommendations. Thank you!
I cracked the code of Goodreads by discovering that 4*+ books can just as well be trash and 3.5* to 4* can just as well be brilliant.
Don't believe the hype x)
Yup. Found Where the Crawdad’s sing to be wayyy overhyped
I feel like if half those high raters came back in 5 years they'd change it to lower... I rated YA books pretty high when I was a teenager. I probably wouldn't now.
@@stephr5914 Yea that's one of the reasons I don't like to rate things. Your rating for something can fluctuate depending on a variety of factors. I just have a hard time assigning a somewhat arbitrary number to my entertainment.
I recently heard that the philosophy of Lord of the Flies is not so much that everyone has evil in them, but that the way very privileged British school boys were raised instilled certain dark values... I might reread the book from that perspective and see if I agree with that or not.
I consider a 3 star rating to be a good rating. I generally use it for books I liked but didn't love. Anything below 2.9 stars I would consider low.
Understanding relationships is an undervalued skill. I can't get my hands on enough books regarding relationships, Sarah Forward, Milton Erickson, Robert Glover, and Malcolm Gladwell have been fantastic additions to my reading. Thank you so much for expressing your love of relationships.
Is it just me or I stay to the end to see how creative her ads are?
I love seeing the kitty frolic in the background
Merphy: “ I love to have me feelings validated”
Also Merphy: “ :o How Dare You?!!!”
Yep, honest bookworm reactions 😂
I think classics are often rated really low compared to other books because so many people are forced to read them at school. Usually reading something for school (especially if I feel pressured to finish it fast because of assignments) will lower the rating of a book for me. Some people also think it's "cool" to dislike classics which is just silly.
Your getting your moneys worth of that book ripping clip. It's almost as if you enjoy it lol...
I agree with you 100% on the Marie Condo book, same here!
I generally just don't look at Goodreads ratings anymore, especially after seeing some of the ridiculous reasons why people will rate things the way they do. Plus, I think the five-star scale (which doesn't allow for half ratings) is very limited. I've read a lot of books that were maybe a 4.5, but not a 5, so I have to choose between 4 or 5 and I feel it's not quite accurate either way.
maybe thestorygraph is for you then! It's similar to goodreads but you can give any stars between 0 and 5 (4.25, 4.50, 4.75 etc)!
People can be so spiteful on goodreads. The amount of times I've seen reviews that say "was gonna give this two stars but the average is high so I gave it a one" annoys me to no end. Just give the book the rating you want to give it.
@@hcstubbs3290 As someone who is a Star Wars fan, but not in the "I hate everything that isn't the exact way I want it" kind of way, it gets annoying. People hate anything new that comes out for the franchise without even giving it half a chance.
@@DanielBeer1 yeah, I've noticed the new SW books get a lot of low reviews. It makes it hard to figure out which ones I wanna read - I'm quite new getting into the books.
@@hcstubbs3290 😄 Omg I've never seen that. Ppl are ridiculous sometimes
I agree with you about Harry Potter And The Cursed Child!
Everybody agree's on that
@@artiheggannawar1188 No obviously not everybody. Even though a lot of fans of the series didn't like it, there are still plenty of people who did. People really just go overboard with these kinds of things. It's just become popular to rag on at this point.
yes, classics tend to get low ratings on goodreads because people compare the style of writing and the themes to today's books, which is really sad because there a lot of amazing classics
I think there are a lot of people on Goodreads that rate books without having read them.
I always love your ad reads Merphy 😂
Some of the best books I’ve read have 3.60~ ratings and some of the most disappointing reads have ratings of like 4.15+ it’s really weird to me. Specifically books that cater to a really niche audience but have been traditionally published and have been marketed to the lowest common denominator have some really low scores. Magicians is a great example of a book scored rather lowly but still meant a lot to me when I first read it, and it’s goal is achieved brilliantly.
Also, on a note about Jane Austen, I understand why some of her works have low ratings probably due to readers like me. Growing up, I’ve had tons of her work shoved down my throat. If kids were made to read Tolkien, I highly doubt LotR would have scores as high as they were, it doesn’t help that for a lot of people, her work is hard to read as well and it can translate into feeling a bit stilted and stuffy. That in addition to how unrelatable her work can be, In my experience, it seems that her work is more valued because of its influence rather than the work itself. I’m aware of how technically competent her work is, and I’m kind of obligated to respect it as an avid reader, but I personally don’t want to read about the petty and stupid matters of literally one of the highest social classes on the entire planet that were so unaware of how privileged they were.
Okay I always skip the sponsor breaks but I could not be gladder that I watched this one. "Give it to your husband. What a great gift. Look how happy he is."
I love your channel! I ordered the Lies of Lock Lamora and I’m so excited to read it because you love it so much. Also your hair looks really nice in this video
Ok why is no one talking about that ad? It had me dying laughing! Especially “look how happy he is!” 😂
Also, this video reminded me how much I dislike 5 star rating systems. It leaves no room for nuance, even if you allow half stars it’s not the same. 10 star systems or bust! ⭐️
I read the Harry Potter Series when I was 24 and the cursed child still ruined my childhood.
forever inlove with the memes at the end
For me if a book is lower than 3.5 I start to get a little sus... especially if I go there to look at a rating for a book I'm actively reading and unsure about, but lot of books I end up loving sit around a 3.6-8 on GR.
Yes Cursed Child is different and unexpected and it lacks the buildup novels have but that’s why I loved it. People are entitled to their hate but it’s canon and that’s all that matters 😁
take care of you! i hope you are well
Here’s me with Northanger abbey as one of my only 5 stars of 2020 😱 wtf
must be that damn mr Thorpe who put readers off
I died of laughter at cursed child being a tiny image shoved at the corner
I love your shirt! You just look so beautiful!
"I didn't enjoy this book either ... But I really appreciate it."
That about sums up my feelings about Pablo Picasso's "Guernica".
This is hilarious and I adore it. I hate Picasso, but man do I see the merit. Culturally and politically and historically the man was so relevant, and yet he was a notoriously garbage human being and his stylistic choices hurt my eyes.
I notice a lot of people give low ratings to classics these days. They are used to the more modern prose and editing techniques so the older stories that use an older style language or were not edited as readily is today seem to get lower ratings.
I’m pretty sure that the biggest reason that The Cursed Child isn’t lower, is because most people have been forewarned that it’s awful, and they don’t read it in the first place.
There I was, on a Merphy binge, as you do, when all of a sudden an interesting video title appeared before me. I did not even realize my notifications have been updated and wasn't aware this video was very recent, so imagine my surprise when I saw there are only 3k views. I was so worried before reading the date
I totally was expecting your reaction when a Backman book showed up
For some reason I get butthurt every time I hear you say you didn’t like The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes hahaha
LoTF may also be so low because a lot of people (at least here in the UK) had to read it for school. Nothing kills a story like reading it for academic purposes.
Northanger Abbey: **Has a low rating**
Merphy: And I took that personally
I would say 3.9 is pretty high. Meh is more like 3.7 and lover
Agree!
I don't think 3,8 is a bad rating, even on goodreads. Most books I read, apart from certain hyped authors and books, score around 3,8 and 4,0
3,6 or below is another statement, though.
Thanks to you, I read Jamaica Inn, and I LOVED it.
I'm not an expert on how numbers and statistics work so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't an average rating of 3.1+ mean that the book got mostly 4 and 5 stars? Obviously if it's really close to 3 it means that it also got a lot of 3 and less stars, but I think that anything above 3 is still worth a read.
I also would think that ☺️
On goodreads almost every book has at least a 3. Most have at least a 3.9, so it’s more of a goodreads based system and less of a statistical one.
I LITERALLY SAW THE OLD VIDEO LIKE JUST YESTERDAY
Loved that office clip in between
Lol @ you adding that iconic Kelly quote from The Office
I love reading so when I got an assignment to read a book and write a book report I enjoy it a lot but I'm the exception not the rule
Most people hate the book they are forced reading hence the low rating in some of the famous English Literary type book
School is a magical place where it manages to turn me into a book hater, only after high school I find passion for reading and learning again. CZcams and the internet in general is where I genuinely find learning to be entertaining which is something I never thought I would
I liked Lord of the Flies, but I also really do feel it's most valuable as a reference point for conversations to grow from
Lord of the Flies doesn't surprise me.
It's so ubiquitous in HS English classes, that I'm surprised I got through school without reading it. I think some of my classmates had to read it more than once.
In my opinion, ‘The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes’ is also a book for discussion. I found what you said about ‘Lord of the Flies’ was the same thing as ‘The Ballad…’ for me. It’s not so much of a plot that engages you, but more if a philosophical conversation about humanity, decision-making and formation of the villain we know today.
I love Northanger Abbey! It's my favorite Austen so far.
I think some of them were low because people were forced to read it for school. I often rate books I’m forced to read 1 star :P
You should rename it to lowest rated Covid Books
I really like these videos! Also enjoyed the one where you reacted to people that give five starts to books you don't like. It all makes me lol.
I'm planning to read Northanger Abbey.. my first classic ever.. According to Merphy's rant it sounds pretty good. Fingers crossed
On the topic of Lord of the Flies being contrary to how you see human kind, I'd love to recommend Rutger Bregman - Human Kind, a Hopeful History. I don't know if you also enjoy nonfiction, but if you do, this one is really good :)
I'm with you on the Cursed Child ... I think it should be lower on Goodreads TBH ha-ha! I loved Lord of the Flies! But I can see it being low as it's TYPICALLY a book that students are forced to read in school (I think someone else commented on this), so there may be a lot of students rating this who are forced to read a genre that they don't care for. Either way, I really enjoyed Lord of the Flies (as creepy as it is). And Christina Lauren ... their books are hit or miss. I REALLY enjoyed "Autoboyography" but "Josh and Hazel's Guide to Not Dating" was meh to me. I am going to read "The Unhoneymooners" soon which I have a good feeling about
I usually say 3 stars = good book. 4 stars = great book. 5 stars = the best. So I've rated many a good book 3 stars. Still a fun exercise ;)
Goodreads ratings are so skewed in so many ways that they are almost worthless when it comes to assessing a book's qualities. They tend to heavily favour books released in the past couple of decades, so any classic literature that's stood the test of time will usually be underrated. I think the userbase of Goodreads probably also skews quite young so that has an effect. When looking at series the later books will always be rated higher than the earlier ones because the people who didn't like the early books will have stopped reading, creating an inherent bias.
My sister had to read Austen for school and that’s why she didn’t like it
I mean..
I think it also depends on how strong the rating is.
A 3.8 with over 2 million reviews is pretty good, whereas 3.8 with 10,000 reviews seems a lot more iffy.
I think it’s definitely a real thing that a lot of classics get low ratings on goodreads
I love hearing your opinions and I have been inspired by your channel to try new things. For example I am reading Starsight 💫 right now and I am going to dogeared the pages to see how it looks at the end :-)
Lord of the Flies was actually one of my favorites in High School and still is. I wrote an essay on that book and put my all into it. I got an A+ and loved all the discussions my class had on the book as we were reading it
Love the video. Next time you do this (I hope you do it again) maybe have the cut off be 3.5 stars. I know that I don't really think much about 3.8 stars but when it hits 3.5 I'm like "eh maybe this book isn't worth the time"
Wow!!! This is earliest I've ever been.
When I see a 3 star rating i see it as generally most people found it okay but not amazing enough for that 4 stars. The higher end with your 3.8s mean that a few more people LOVED it and the lower rating means that a few more people didn’t.
Idk if I’m explaining this correctly omg I need a graph someone let me illustrate this with a graph pls 🥴🥴🥴
I'm on goodreads for like one month, so I don't know the basic statistics but to me 3 stars isn't bad. Bad begins at 2. Just my opinion
Same
Same for me. When I rate I usually think of the star system like this:
5 means a great read. It's memorable in some way and I will probably read it again.
4 means I really enjoyed the book while reading it but I may or may not read it again.
3 means it was a good read and I enjoyed it but it had flaws that stuck out.
2 means I was able to finish it but it had some big problems.
1 means I either did not finish the book or it was very difficult to finish
This is true for individual rattings (3 stars means "I liked it" on goodreads) but when a book has an average ratting of 3.5 on goodreads, that's pretty low (based on observation). Merphy was talking about average rattings in the video. The reason books generally have high rattings has to do with the fact that people don't finish books they don't like, and therefore they don't rate them. Just my two cents
Okay.... Unrelated question probably but....
Why u always look so pretty in every frickin video!??? 👁️👄👁️
We have Skoob here in Brazil, it's like goodreads, but the ratings are usually higher, idk maybe be cause there's less people using it
Merphy can you do Romance or Fantasy recommendations? I know two completely unrelated things but I just want something Magical or Romantic for my single, boring ass.
The Bargainer servers by Laura Thalassa has both! It’s one of my favorites.
@@FreyaWarr thanks for the rec !
Pretty much anything written by T.J. Kingfisher, Mercedes Lackey, and Lois McMasters Bujold is fantasy and romance. Catherine's Asaro does pretty good Scifi Romance. Christopher Stasheff's Warlock series has quite a bit of romance especially in each kid's book. The wizard in rhyme series has a lot of romance too.
Laura Thalassa's four horsemen series or anything by Grace Draven (if you don't mind explicit sex).
You should watch or read attack on titan merphy. Its so good u'll gonna love that anime
You’re far harsher than I. For me, once I book dips below 3.5, then it’s in the “average” range, and then it’s bad once it dips below 3
Fantastic video as always. This just highlights to me how flawed a five star rating system is. Everything gets mushed together into an average rating, with personal taste skewing one way or another. Classics aren’t going to be to everyone’s taste, so 3 stars almost seem like a ceiling there. That and the sheer number of reviews they get. It would be a rare thing indeed for one to break through and maintain a five or four star.
Holidaze was a good book but it had one big flaw: the love interest's reaction near the end was way too harsh. It's not like the heroine planned for all the book to happen so blaming her for it ruined the book a little for me.
You can go on any list (such as your TBR or your read books) on goodreads and there's a feature at the bottom of the page where you can choose what to sort by, and then sort by "avg rating". I consider 3.7-3.9 to be "average" on GR and only below 3.7 do I start getting nervous. Still, some books I really liked are below that. Some of the lowest-rated classics on my TBR: Vathek by William Beckford (3.28), Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs (3.46), Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift (3.58). I have my suspicions on why they're rated so low (particularly Naked Lunch) but I would have to read them first.
I think that a lot of people don't rate books they don't finish, and people who REALLY don't like a book usually just DNF it and then they (usually) feel they don't have the right to rate it. So anyone who finishes a book will probably like it more than average. Main exceptions: a classic that people have to read for school (so even if you don't like it you finish it and then you rate it) and mysteries (sometimes a mystery/thriller will have an extremely low rating on Goodreads, which I take to mean that the story had a very unsatisfying twist or reveal). Also, 18th century books in general seem to get pretty low ratings on GR, maybe because the art form was so new and novelists back then weren't following what we would today consider "the rules" for good writing.
I also went to an Amazon bookstore recently (I don't recommend it) and they had these tables of books that had more than a 4.7-4.8 on Goodreads. It was pretty much all cookbooks.
1:48 ohhhh don't remind me🥲
An interesting and fun topic of discussion