A BOOK IS NOT A FISH STICK: Let’s Talk Goodreads and our Obsessive Review & Ratings Culture in relation to Works of Creativity (i.e. books)

Because books are not junk made on an industrial assembly line and we need to stop treating them as such. And because there must be a better way of talking about books that isn’t so totally toxic.

Photo by Ashley Whitlatch on Unsplash

Every author I know, pretty much HATES Goodreads. (I know I do.)

The mantras writers often live by—and advise their writer-friends who have books coming out to live by—typically go something like this:

Don’t EVER check your book on Goodreads. You’ll be sorry you did. Just: Do. NOT. It’s the worst. It’s vicious. It will destroy you.

Why is this advice so often given? Oh let me count the ways:

1. People don’t have to have read the book to review it.

2. People can “review” the book before the author has actually finished writing the book (as in, the book literally does not exist in the world yet, no one has received the full manuscript, not even the editor, it’s simply known to be coming out one day, and people decide to “review” it on Goodreads).

3. Sometimes (often?) the reviews (and Goodreads in general) can be vicious.

4. Often the MOST VICIOUS reviews get pushed to the top of a book’s page because those reviews are the most contentious and Goodreads’ algorithm favors this. Plus, these are sometimes (often?) reviews written by someone who (again) has not read the book. Who maybe doesn’t like—who knows—the sound of it, the topic, the author herself. And because of the review’s top placement, this one review comes to define the book’s Goodreads page. And even how well or how poorly a book does.

5. Goodreads does for books what Walmart does for everything it sells—treats books like every consumer good around. Toys, frozen fish sticks, storage bins, toilet paper. It encourages people to rate, rate,rate. To place stars with no comment. (Much like, ahem, Amazon also does.) As though a book is not art, but some kind of plastic junk you don’t need to discuss, or be thoughtful and reflective about. It teaches us to think of a novel, a memoir, in the same way we might think of some other random stuff we bought at the store: Yeah, I guess 2 stars for these fish sticks, whatever.

6. Speaking of Amazon, Goodreads is owned by Amazon, and they both feed into one another.

7. Review Bombing, Review Bombing, Review Bombing: which is when a whole bunch of people decide a book shouldn’t exist at all even if they haven’t read it (see what happened to Elizabeth Gilbert last year, as well as this article about Review Bombing in the NYTimes), or decide to tank it just before it comes out so nobody reads it with a ton of one star reviews (often for racist and anti-LGBTQ reasons, and/or in the attempt to get it cancelled somehow).

I’ve been thinking a lot about Goodreads because I am in the thick of having two books come out very soon (my memoir, WISHFUL THINKING, in late March, and then a rom-com, STEFI AND THE SPANISH PRINCE, in July), and Goodreads comes up often among all the publicity and marketing discussions in the preparation for the release of books these days.

But all of what I say above and more adds up to incredible toxicity for any author, especially one anticipating a book. And I’d argue Goodreads is toxic for readers too. (As does book critic, Maris Kreizman, in her hard-hitting essay, “Let’s Rescue Book Lovers From This Online Hellscape.”

Because it does teach us we don’t even need to discuss a book. That we should just slap some stars on it without much thought about what we’re doing. It teaches us that all things should constantly be rated and critiqued like every other object and experience in our life (because we are now living in a perpetual ratings culture, where we are encouraged to rate and review every single thing we do and buy, even our trips to the doctor).

It also encourages and supports a culture of meanness, even bullying, a culture where it doesn’t matter if you’ve read something, you get to—and are rewarded for—ranting about something you don’t really know anything about. Something that I know I was taught never to do (critique something you have not read or seen yourself, and given thought to).

And yet, Goodreads is still one of the most important tools a publisher has to get the word out about a new book. (YIKES.)

Sometimes I think today we all need to be reminded: books, those things we love with our whole hearts, these objects we snuggle into bed with at night, and turn to on good days and terrible ones, in the hope of consolation and escape and laughter—BOOKS ARE ART. They are the product of a writer’s heart, the creativity that comes from someone’s soul, words strung together toward the end of beauty, hope, transformation, consolation, sorrow. And so many other things.

They are not made on an industrial assembly line like the other stuff we buy.

We should stop treating them as such. We need to treat them—and each other—with more care, thoughtfulness, and humanity, because they are the creative works of our humanity.

And yet, so much of the publishing industry is depending so heavily on Goodreads to launch new books. (And of course, the other way to get the word out, as we all know, is putting up tons of pictures of authors posing with their books on Instagram, which is of course, also not very reflective and highly performative. Sigh, sigh, sigh.)

AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GOODREADS:

A brand new site called ITALIC TYPE was just recently discussed as an anti-Goodreads that has sprung up, in that same essay by Maris Kreizman which characterized Goodreads as an “online hellscape” for readers.

Italic Type describes itself as: “A book app that celebrates what it means to be a reader. We believe in the magic that happens when book lovers come together to share, teach, learn, discuss, debate, and rejoice.”

Because:

• Reading is Good: A good reading habit improves just about every facet of your life. It reduces stress, improves brain health, preserves memory, and enhances empathy.

• Community is Awesome: We are building a new social network for books and the people who love them. Learn from other people's reading experiences, get exposed to new books and ideas you might not have otherwise, and — perhaps most significantly — make new book friends.

• No Ads: We want to create a book app that helps people read more books — not just another tech company that serves more targeted ads.

• Books Are Innovative: But the industry isn't. Publishers and authors want to sell more books. Readers want an ongoing relationship with fellow book lovers. Italic Type provides a direct, targeted channel for both.

This has all sounded so much more heartfelt to me, and more like what I’d want from a reading platform. Also, at the moment: ITALIC TYPE ISN’T ALLOWING REVIEWS or RATINGS. (For all the reasons I mention above that are problematic on Goodreads.)

So I’m curious to see where this platform goes, and if it gains some traction. And as an author, I long for a different experience than Goodreads, for a way to interact with readers while still being respected as a human with a heart, who puts that whole heart into her books. Because my books are not fish sticks, and my skin is not made of Teflon, and frankly, Review Bombing is totally terrifying and has nothing to do with reading and everything to do with destroying.

And I just . . . want something else from the aftermath of having written books. One of the best parts of being an author, are those moments when a reader reaches out to tell you what your book has meant to them. But there is such a thing as too much feedback, and really, how thick does an author’s skin need to be today to survive mentally and emotionally? I don’t think my skin can ever get that thick—nor should it have to. Nor should anyone have to fear this thing we now call Review Bombing.

I mean, how did we get here? And is it possible after all of this, that we can get to somewhere else instead? I truly hope so.

Please share your thoughts, whether you love Goodreads or hate it like me. I’d be curious to hear.