Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheRawToast t1_j0vtn7t wrote

There's a selection bias of who reads and reviews books. For instance, Classics are read by a diverse group, including plenty who are reading a book in a style / genre/ etc. that they don't normally enjoy. This is going to cause a lower rating.

Its similar reason why sequels are often rated so high, especially in an area like epic fantasy. The only people who read the second book really like the first. This makes it easier for a sequel rating bump.

That said, I don't think I believe your rating system is some pro-tip, but rather a byproduct of your own preferences. There's plenty of people that can come to a completely different answer.

267

jenh6 t1_j0whl9a wrote

I also notice with horror the ratings are really divisive. Lots of 5 stars and 1 stars.

37

SlouchyGuy t1_j0wbf3c wrote

Which is why when sequels have the same rating as the first books, it means that series is getting worse and worse

24

Frosty_Mess_2265 t1_j0wkg8u wrote

Interestingly, I noticed the Hannibal Lecter trilogy gets lower ratings from books 1-3. I think it's not because they're worse, but because they're more disturbing (which is obviously what Harris was going for). I remember finishing the last one and just thinking I'll never be able to unread that...

10

That-Requirement-285 t1_j0xrhle wrote

Generally it’s because the last books are much more over-the-top than the first two. Specifically Hannibal. The film also got a mixed reaction because of how ‘ridiculous’ it was + Clarice hooking up with Hannibal seemed to go against her character.

6

laconicflow t1_j0yc2fk wrote

I think the point is that Hannibal wins.

3

That-Requirement-285 t1_j0yc9gl wrote

No kidding but it felt like it was written by shippers.

I genuinely liked the last two books, and think Hannibal Rising got the worst reputation, but they’re not as good as the first two.

3

laconicflow t1_j0yhqvs wrote

I never read Hannibal Rising, just the other three, all of which I liked equally. the twist at the end of Hannibal was not something I soming one bit, I took it to mean he'd won, he's a bad guy and he won by brainwashing clarice, it wasn't that she'd always been in love with him.

Just my thought. Is Hannibal rising worth checking out?

1

That-Requirement-285 t1_j0yjrds wrote

It’s a Hannibal backstory that I think the author wrote mostly because he feared that somebody else would write it. It’s not as well-written as Red Dragon or Silence of the Lambs, but I think it tied in nicely.

1

Proper_Cold_6939 OP t1_j0vzmk3 wrote

Yeah, I know. I was being a bit facetious with the title. Generally that's the rule I've personally found though, but others can work with their own personal tastes. I've just found a lot of the more 'out there' titles range around this area, and the same can go for Rotten Tomatoes. It's only to be expected when something's taking a risk creatively, in that it's not going to be for everyone and the scoring will reflect that. I mean, I don't always automatically like the creatively risky books myself.

But I agree about selection bias. Certain titles are going to be found by certain audiences, sequels especially so.

17

risingsuncoc t1_j0x5r6n wrote

>Its similar reason why sequels are often rated so high, especially in an area like epic fantasy. The only people who read the second book really like the first. This makes it easier for a sequel rating bump.

I kind of figured this out a while back too. Goodreads ratings and reviews are best used as just a guide

2

bikes_and_music t1_j1595dv wrote

> Its similar reason why sequels are often rated so high, especially in an area like epic fantasy. The only people who read the second book really like the first. This makes it easier for a sequel rating bump.

Hah I noped out of beginning a couple of series when I saw that sequels didn't have a rating bump.

1