Why does goodreads give classics such mediocre ratings?

It is very possible that these reviews of classic books are said by people who were forced to read the books for a class, so their reviews of the books weren't based on the quality of the book itself, but with how they were forced to read it for a class. If they read the books on their own time and their own interest, their opinion of the books may be higher. Also, anyone can give books reviews. I suggest that the next time that you look up a classic book and see a 1 star review (or a "worst book ever," especially those reviews with no follow through as to why the book is the "worst book ever"), you see what other books that they rated and reviewed. They may have said that every book that wasn't Twilight or some other popular book may be "the worst book ever."

Sorry, but a review site can't give more objective reviews when anyone with access to a computer and the internet can review a book. The reviewers could be anyone between intelligent literature scholars or petty teenage girls who are upset that Dracula doesn't even sparkle. Some people may not be able to read classic books in term of the time period, so the writing may seem old fashioned, the themes irrelevant, the terms unknown. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, not everyone is going to love every classic book, but not every book can be "the worst book ever."

That's the thing about reviews, they're the very antithesis of objective. The site is called "goodreads," so every person with internet access can tell everyone else what they though was a good read.

People don't need to justify their opinions about books they liked or didn't. If someone hated The Old Man and the Sea (as I do, because I strongly dislike Hemingway), then that is what they should say on the review. Do you want everyone out there to give every book 5 stars? No, because then how would you know which books to read and which to skip.

I think that classics have worse reviews than popular fiction because some people are forced to read classics for school, but no one HAS to read the others. So, if someone thought that Twilight was the worst book ever, they simply wouldn't pick it up, and then they wouldn't write the review. If someone hated Catcher in the Rye (wonder how anyone could ever hate such a gem of literature as that one *sarcasm*), and still had to read it for class, there is a great chance of an unfavorable review on Goodreads.

I really, really loved Brave New World, and I respect it as "great literature," but great literature has tons and tons of ways to measure its greatness, such as the Pulitzer or Nobel Prizes. Goodreads is the place for individual people with their own opinions to rate popular fiction or any other book they choose.

This was a long answer, but the statement that a review site should be objective was so crazy to me I had to respond.

You have to think about the times. Goodreads.com is a contemporary invention, it makes sense that contemporary novels are the most popular on the site.

You also need to consider the fact that anyone and everyone can rate novels on goodreads.com. It isn't a closed society of intellectuals like most literary groups, average readers and consumers can weigh in as well. Honestly I'd say that the average reader is Goodreads target demographic.

This is a good thing in my opinion! We love to elevate "the classics" and parade the same tired group of novels again and again but there are more authors out there than Faulkner, Hemingway, and the like. Don't get me wrong, I love the classics, but I feel like there is a lot of pretension in the literary world. It's alright to enjoy a contemporary novel and it's alright to prefer a novel written in the vernacular of your time that relates to the issues facing your generation.

Remember, even these untouchable novels were brand new books in their day! I'm sure people were all "Alright Shakespeare you wrote some great stuff and imma' let you finish but Homer was the best storyteller of all time!" It's just ridiculous to disdain people for appreciating new works, without them reading word be a tortuous, repetitive experience from which we learn and gain nothing.

People give good reviews to things that they enjoy, which are usually things they choose to read on their own. They usually don't choose to read classic books: often classics are foisted on them in school or for some other requirement. Sometimes readers do find classics that they like, but a lot of times they just get through reading them for the assignment and then go back to reading on their favorite subjects and genres.

When they look back at those classic books (the ones they did not enjoy), instead of remembering any pleasurable experience they might have had from reading it, they remember plodding through a dull or incomprehensible story, and the stress of trying to squeeze out a decent paper from it, and the frustration of not understanding why it didn't live up to the hype as one of the greatest books ever written, and the dread that they'll be forced to read more books like this to please their teachers and parents. The books they read purely for pleasure don't have those burdens.

Because I like horror and mystery books, I tended to like reading Frankenstein and Jane Eyre. I detested books like Moby Dick and The Old Man And The Sea, because I didn't identify with the characters or the situations in those books. Whether a person likes a book depends on their personal tastes and experiences.

Goodreads' ratings are based on that person's particular likes and dislikes, not the collectively agreed upon decision of what books should be the most important to read for academic or cultural purposes.

Goodreads has a lot of younger users. I can only guess that younger readers only pick up classics as a school requirement and don't recognize value.

When searching for specific types of fiction on goodreads, the results definitely slant toward the younger reader. Type in dystopian and you get a list of over a hundred YA books. No 1984, no Brave New World, no Chrysalids, no We. And no modern adult fiction titles either. It may have changed, but I stopped using it after getting a YA-centered experience. I use Shelfari now.

As the old saying puts it, "Consider the source." It is possible that many of those doing these ratings simply do not "get" more sophisticated writing. If it isn't about their fellow teens, it tends to go straight over their heads. I'm not sayiing "all," but "some." Usually, there is a reason that some books have lived on through the test of time.

Hover your pointer over the stars and you'll see the ratings are:

1: I did not like it

2. It was OK

3. I liked it

4. I really liked it

5. It was amazing

Goodreads isn't asking for "objective ratings". It's asking whether you _liked it_. So no, we shouldn't give higher marks because they are "great" to books we hate.