Wednesday 24 April 2013

Always a bigger fish...

Just to keep things in perspective... here's a little video of some books you might know, scaled by the number of ratings they have on Goodreads, which in turn has some loose correlation to sales.


  1. Those are some pretty amazing stats for The Hunger Games.

    1. Staggering! Of course it's also about the demographic on Goodreads. Many Lord of the Rings readers are long dead or old and not net-savvy. Goodreads has grown very rapidly and the books that are happening _now_ get the biggest chunk of their readers rating them.

      Also look at 10 or 20 year old books and many are getting 50 ratings a day just from new people joining and remembering them.

  2. Then it's simply a popularity contest. No bearing on actual quality. If Goodreads is comprised of teenaged girls and middle-aged women, I will never trust the ratings.

    I've read The Fellowship, Hunger Games and am almost completed Prince of Thorns. And I've only read a paragraph of Twilight. It was all I could take. Fellowship trumps all. Hunger Games pales in comparison to Prince of Thorns. The premise for HG was good, but the execution was way to emotional and immature. It was well written though. Prince of Thorns is so well done. I'm not just trying to suck up. It is far beyond the quality of composition compared to HG. Fellowship is a tad tedious to read but so beautiful!