[icodemuch]

> Amazon and Goodreads ratings, and numerous online book-reviewing sites, have all contributed to and reflected the democratization of the arbitration of literary taste. But such democratization is not intrinsically a good thing.

It hadn't occurred to me before this article but after thinking about it I do depend upon Amazon/Goodreads ratings in large portion when choosing my next book.. Upon re-examination I think I'm going to factor in more book critics' opinions into my selection process.

[forapurpose]

A great example of the problem of even reading Amazon reviews: I was looking for a translation of the Analects by Confucius (more correctly, Lunyu by Kongzi).

A well-respected translation was criticized by at least one Amazon reviewer for its commentary, which veered off-topic, included the editor's own ideas, etc. I ruled out that translation.

Then I read a scholarly review of the translations (found via Google Scholar) and learned that such commentary is the proper way and that it's been done that way for centuries or more. The editor is meant to interact with the Kongzi's text.

If I didn't read the scholarly review, I would have believed the Amazon reviewer. It was a lesson to me - one I finally accepted: No matter how smart you think you are, unless you have expertise in a field then you lack the ability to discern the truth from ignorance. Persuasiveness is not a measure of truth. You're a sucker, a mark, if you think otherwise.

I no longer read Amazon reviews for such purposes and don't trust Wikipedia either. Also, note that reading the Amazon review actually hurt me; bad information is worse than no information.

[shubb]

I dunno. Sounds like the Amazon review was factually correct. The difference was whether what it identified was good or bad.

The answer to that surely depends on what you need.

My friend is a car expert. I might read a positive review of a car which said that its small engine made it easy to control. He would say that a small engine meant it had poor top speed and acceleration and therefore sucked.

Surely all I learned from this is that the car has a small engine. Someone who drives a lot of cars may want a fun one. Someone who reads a lot of translations of the analects may want a dialogue that contributes to the field. After all, if such a scholar wanted a litteral translation they would read it in the original language.

[gralx]

The problem that Harold Bloom frames in his 1994 The Western Canon is that with a finite amount of time to read, we ought to choose wisely. A good literary critic helps with that, and The Western Canon is a great example.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/136-9956209-9412407?...

[icodemuch]

https://www.npr.org/books/

https://www.nytimes.com/section/books

[dredmorbius]

Also:

http://www.nybooks.com/ (Source of TFA)

http://www.lrb.co.uk/

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/

[B1FF_PSUVM]

> democratization is not intrinsically a good thing

Isn't that heretical, and deserving of - what's the word nowadays ... oh, yeah - "consequences"?

[adrianratnapala]

Being told how to think by experts in literary professions has always been orthodoxy. The heresy is to contractict them.