>So Hunger Games wasn't bad, it was just a little... underdone and overly derivative?

YES, these are the words that define my "I didn't like neither book or movies... But I loved the idea behind them"

[removed]

Sometimes, but sometimes not. Sometimes I like the internal reading voice, almost like a narration to an audiobook or something. Sometimes I'm reading very visually, like a movie in my mind. Sometimes I'm reading it quickly, like I'm just absorbing the information on the page. IDK, it's kinda hard to describe. I don't think I decide consciously, it's kinda whatever feels good in the moment.

Well good thing you didn't read the others. I thought the first was the most interesting - trying to figure out what happened without being told.

Curious what plot holes you found. It's been a while since I've read it but I love picking apart books for inconsistencies. Even when I enjoy the book. Do tell.

I find it unbelievable that Katniss living in that very system would know and think so very little about it. If nothing else, there could have been glimpses of things, but there was nothing. Because the book has a very lazy world-building going on.

Seeing inside Katniss' head would have been lovely if she had more of a personality. Even her relationship dynamics with everyone else happens to be oversimplified. It just lacks any complex emotions, in my opinion. Every single relationship dynamic seems to be based off of one thing. That's so unrealistic.

In the movies, i think Jennifer Lawrence brought more to the table than there was on paper. Katniss is so bland. I have gained zero new insights into the character after having read the first two. Maybe the third one will be better, but i doubt it.

Except for The Godfather and this series, i have never enjoyed a movie adaptation more than the books.

Any teenager claiming that is openly admitting that he/she did not read Shakespeare. Because the attitudes described in that story depict things that today are frowned upon instead of romantized.
•They knew each other for a day
•Romeo was friendzoned by Rosaline, Juliet was his second choice... a leftover.
•He was a sick stalker and a manipulator. "O then, dear saint, let lips do what hands do / They pray; grant thou, lest faith turn to despair" (amazing how Shakespeare, with a single line of text, could unleash HOURS of literature study)... He's literally coercing her using faith as leverage. And lets not talk about how he stalks her, hiding at the backyard... Not revealing himself until he was spotted.
•His words about love after meeting her for a few hours would be a redlight for any woman today, hinting that he's being nice only to get in her pants.
The dual suicide drama is so... toxic

About the same as you. I have given 1 stars though very rarely. It usually means the book had major problems. I was probably skimming it at some point just to find out the basic plot of the rest of the book because I couldn't force myself to actually read it anymore.

in the past, i've tracked down signed 1st editions as gifts when i knew that they really adored a book....usually goes over pretty well :)

The pervasive cultural hatred of education in the US that caused those bomb threats back then have compounded to the current book-burners of today.

It depends on what you hope to get out of the rating system. Are you doing it for more accurate personal recommendations or for being a reliable recommender of books to others? Or, for weighing in on what books are truly great and truly bad whether you or even most people would personally enjoyed them or not.

As for me, I use it for accurate personal recommendations. I have no problem giving low ratings to books even if I recognize they're well written or of some importance. Also, there's a "not interested" option in Good Reads' recommendation feature for books that I already know aren't my cup of tea.

Until it's a girl that has had her period. Then she's a "flowered woman" at 11, with no more innocence and is fair game to be married off to a 50 year old man. God bless.

5 - Loved 4 - Liked 3 - Ok 2 - Didn’t Like 1 - Awful

How about in this age they focus on one task that they are failing at now such as reading writing and math.

Why skip ahead to other concepts beyond understanding if they don’t have the basics to do so.

Why skip to teach culture of any kind if they can’t read.

Why skip to teaching sexuality and anything related if I haven’t had a period yet and again have No deducing skills to be able to pick a decent human to share sexual acts with.

Do you think because this is a structure who by the way the white Christian brought here with them is the only structure.

Do you think my culture had a classroom of village kids in it and one ndn lady taught them language in their tipi.

Go fight with the same venom and conviction to actually educate children with the basics forget all extras until we make a mark in that department no?

All of the divisions and opinions of this ages education has continued to divide its efficiency as we added to it and fought about it this far.

Now again I am indigenous, it is not until the masses in these Americas get treated every bit like we have been before this will change.

Find an Indian these days to find out how this plays out for you all. Ignored is what the people are now, just like our cry’s were. Wait for when eating amongst your group is deemed illegal. And I suppose since this age in rebelliousness decided that religion is a no no, they don’t have to take religion from very many.

Indians believe in Creator in Great Spirit in The Great Mystery, if you have problem with a Christian a Jew or a Muslim you will also take an issue with me. We would be fundamentally different and with high probability possibly never be able to see eye to eye nor align. We could compromise should we need but in this instance and circumstances change will only come after thinking critically about what was said today and to refine that or enamel that by action on an individual level is what has to happen beyond that discovery.

P.s. do not use Indians as a bullet for your gun unless you are us and have been taught you will never understand that weight of the Amo you are using and it isn’t yours to use. To use it as a bullet I am beyond upset about. I can only hope you at the very least have a descendant waaaaay back that can be the liaison on your behalf for what you have done here today by trying to use it.

Peace be with you. To all my relations!

🔴⚫️⚪️🟡

🪶🐻🦬🦅

Aho!

Lol beg pardon to your brain cells I’m sure they’re fine

Definitely too fucked up for children. Not only is it full of messed up events but it also indoctrinates children more than literally anything else. Must be banned

I didn't like the Movies, I didn't like the books.
Yet, I still loved the idea. An idea that earned its place in my head right next to Orwell & Huxley's ones.

Pay wall, yo.

Most of the people on here have pretty similar answers, so I won't spell out star ratings individually. But I do have a subtle variance in my approach.

I'll usually go sort of in tiers of evaluation.

1. Personal enjoyment for me (pure opinion).
2. Innate quality of the work within its sphere.
3. Technical competency.

If a book is less than 3 or 4 stars on a given tier, I try to switch to evaluating on a lower tier instead. I want to clarify this isn't necessarily an average, but rather a way to hopefully give books a "fair" rating even if I didn't personally like them, or even if they arguably failed at what they set out to do.

For example, I recently finished two YA fantasy books: Lightlark by Alex Aster, and Kingdom of Ash by Sarah J. Maas.

• Lightlark Is the first book in (presumably) a gestating fantasy series. ultimately I gave 3 stars. For personal enjoyment it was down in the 1-2 stars area, so I started evaluating on whether it was a good YA fantasy book in general or a good book to launch a series. That ended up being like 2-3 stars. Dipping into the technical competency level, I rounded that up to 3 because the writing was functionally okay, if uninspired.

• Kingdom of Ash was the culmination of a long YA fantasy series. Going by personal enjoyment, I would have given it maybe a 3. I didn't not enjoy it, but this isn't really my genre and I was reading it for my wife. So I switched to evaluating on the innate quality of what the work is trying to be, and ended up giving it 5 stars because it's a fitting and powerful end to the series and a great example of broad appeal YA fantasy. As that ended up being an acceptable rating for me, I didn't weigh in basic technical competency to my score.

I think that there is something called objectively good and objectively bad. It's not gatekeeping to acknowledge that.

I enjoy the Eragon series a lot. All 4 books, in fact, not just the first. But i do absolutely see what others are talking about when they critique it.

That critique however doesn't take away my enjoyment of it at all.

I might know that french fries and chicken nuggets aren't delicacies, but i enjoy them thoroughly nonetheless.

I think that many people attach their identities too much to their likes/hobbies, so when someone criticises or even critiques something, they feel personally insulted. It's a silly way of living one's life.

It is completely possible to love a flawed book, and to hate a great one, whilst being fully aware of the flaws and the greatness.

My rating system is similar to yours. I noticed I started comparing my own ratings when deciding on a new rating. For example, I recently downgraded a book from a 4 to a 3 because I realized I simply didn't enjoy it as much as my other 4's and the flaws bothered me more later on

I read this series around the time that the Free Britney movement was really picking up, and I think it really reflects the way young women were treated by the media in the early 2000s. As I followed Katniss’s story and Britney’s, I saw so many parallels. You could even draw parallels between Katniss and Jennifer Lawrence, the way the media built each of the up and then tore them down. It may not be the best writing, but it’s a compelling artifact of its time.

As a kid myself, I found this article rather droll. Aside from the asinine premise (how, exactly, does one measure an entire group's "love" of reading?) I found it to be irritatingly verbose and irrefutably short-sighted.

Anyway, I have to get back to class now that I've boofed my last whip-it for my tiktok scribers.

I use the same system

My girlfriend in 6th form was really into them, and wanted me to read them. As a 17-year-old male, I definitely wasn't the target audience, but they were ok. The romance was there, but it felt like that characters weren't purely acting out of romantic interest, which is a trend that seems to happen in a lot of these sorts of books. There were probably more clichés than I noticed at that age, but I did think the world was interesting, and the actual "Hunger Games" (which, to my disappointment, took a back seat in Book 3) were really interesting. I'm not planning a re-read, but I'd say it's one of the better YA novels I've come across, especially taking into account I was not the target audience for them.

I frequently read things I don't think I'll like, so that rating system wouldn't be fair for the books.
4 - Made me think and sticks with me for a while. This is the highest initial score I'll give. If I'm still thinking about it six months later, I'll give it a 5.
3 - It was okay, but lacked weight or quality of writing.
2 - I didn't like the message nor the presentation, nor do I think it is a useful way to spend my time.
1 - Badly written, bad ideas, not thought provoking. But I have to think, is that because I didn't like it, or it's not what I like. Am I being fair?