Thanks, I'll check that out. I was just reading a positive review on that and thinking 'this review's pretty good actually,' then half-way through it cuts to a link for the Washington Post. That's pretty telling...

I read a 1 star review of Moby Dick just now (after heading there from this thread) and there was a 1 star saying 'beautifully written but incredibly boring.' Like seriously? The fact you liked its prose at the base level isn't worth more than a single star?

I've generally found it's 'reading the room' as well. Like I mentioned in the comment below, if you weigh-up the target audience of a book seeing what their expectations are, you can also get a clearer idea of where the book stands.

lol, they're not automatically good by default. Contentious books can still be failures. Obviously I'm not going purely off this metric alone.

Yeah, I've just learned to apply ratings to the book's background its the target audience. If a book's big on TikTok then it's going to have a high-rating regardless of actual quality. If a book is of a certain genre that's enjoyed by a particular demographic, but it subverts expectations, it's more likely to hit the 3.5.

For example, I saw readers complaining about the book 'Woman, Eating' by Claire Kohda, which I was pretty interested in as it had good reviews elsewhere (which is usually a good balance to work with). It's a subversion of vampire novel, so I went to Goodreads and checked it out. Sure enough there were plenty of YA and horror fans with goth avis complaining about it for being too arty (with the 3.5). So I immediately got it and wasn't disappointed lol.

I've noticed it's often authors that have a reputation behind them. So books like Ulysses/Finnegans Wake are classic examples from Joyce. If a new book is getting recognition for 'bucking trends' and being a little different, you'll get the naysayers pop in with their review and rating too.

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.

Yeah, I generally use this system for films as well. Unless it's made to make money, many of the more 'creative' films on Rotten Tomatoes that range through the the 50s and 60s seem to be interesting.

lol, probably. But you also see a lot of people arriving at these books from '1001' type lists, and it not being what they expect.

Moby Dick I noticed being 3.53 too. That one's weird, because the 'classics' people were forced to read in school usually seem to range between 3.6 to 3.9 (Catcher's currently about 3.81). People must really not be into fishing.

I was just looking at Naked Lunch by William Burroughs on there, and that's currently 3.46. Obviously it remains a contentious book (and for good reason), but it's a clear example. I can try and find some more, but it's something I notice often whenever I go on there.