Goodreads

This article is about the book website. For the Sentinel fanfic, see A Good Read.
Goodreads is a website for fans of books to catalog, review, and discuss the source materials they consume.
The site was purchased by Amazon in 2013 as part of a vertical integration move., "The Guardian," April 2, 2013
While the main focus of Goodreads is professionally published books, some fanwork fans have also found a community there. This has led to much discussion regarding the value and audience for reviews and ratings, control of fannish personal information, fandom and profit, what constitutes a public space, the effects of mainstreaming on fandom and fanworks, differing definitions of fans and fandom, and differing community norms that sometimes lead to culture clashes.
For more commentary, see Goodreads/Links for Further Reading.
==Fanfic and Goodreads==
Although the site is intended for professionally published and self-published books, some readers use the site to post reviews of fanfic they have read. Fan Fiction is a browsable genre on the site, along with subgenres Slash Fiction, Femslash, and Real Person Fiction. Not all reviews are written: readers can "review" a story by clicking on a 1-5 star rating. A list feature also allows fans to group fanfics together. See the fanfiction and fanfic tags. Many members also use Goodreads to tag stories "to read later" or to track their progress in reading a novel.
However, in order for a Goodreads user to do anything—post a review, tag to read later, add to a list, or put on their bookshelf—the item in question must have a catalog record on Goodreads. So the first Goodreads user to read a fanfic would create the record. Most of these are listed as self-published ebooks since Goodreads bibliographic entries aren't designed to accommodate fanfic. Because these entries also provide a space to upload a book cover (although it is not required), many fanfic entries have fanart book covers included; the fanart selected may or may not have been made specifically for the fic. When a fanfic entry is created, Goodreads automatically creates a stub entry for the fan author, which caused problems later; see #Control of Personal Information.
In July 2012, members of the Goodreads Librarians Group discussed the policy of allowing readers to post reviews of and make rec lists of fanfiction. The main criteria seemed to be (a) the work must be "self-published", (b) completed and (c) novel-length. The policy of allowing fanfic on Goodreads, however, has not been a long-lasting one. See Goodreads and Removal of Fanfic Zines.
Fanfic authors can request that Goodreads remove the records for their fanfiction,. Note that professionally published authors are not afforded the same opportunity to erase discussion of their works. The initial fanfiction removal policy may have appeared complex but has been greatly streamlined: an author need only contact support, provide basic identifying info and Goodreads will remove the author's profile page and listings. A more recent overview of the policy was posted here: - see message 59. In a private email to a Livejournal fan author dated Dec 20, 2014, Goodreads support indicated that they had no current plans to change their policy: ""While we can't prevent members from re-adding a fan fiction work to the site in the future, we will be happy to remove it again if the author requests it. We will also remove any cover art at the request of the artist. We have no plans to change our fan fiction policy at this time, in part because we have many Goodreads Authors who only write fan fiction." although this has the effect of erasing the book from every reader's reading list and deleting all reviews and comments.See Tailtiu's comment in , December 15, 2014. See Bitchie's December 16, 2014 comment: I just hate the way all this came about, and that many of us have been made to feel flat unwelcome in the fandom, as well as lost a bunch of our own content. Many of us had some great discussions on our review pages, and those are just gone, *poof!* with no notification, and no way to recover it. And The 2012 Goodreads thread seems to imply that the practice of allowing fanfiction to be listed on Goodreads began in 2010. The earliest discussion of allowing fanfiction to be reviewed on Goodreads appears to have taken place in 2009 and was centered on whether to remove Cassandra Claire's Draco Trilogy on plagiarism grounds. The entries for the trilogy appear to have been deleted during the course of the discussion, but were later added again.Lisa commented Well, It looks as though they're gone. midway through the discussion. , comment by Lisa 19 July 2009. However, entries for The Draco Trilogy existed on the site as of 4 January 2015, with reviews posted 2013-2014. It appears that there is no mechanism for preventing the future re-creation of deleted records; some fic records deleted during the December 2014 purge have also reappeared, but previous reviews and ratings are lost.
===Some 2014 Fan Policing===
In December 2014, a group of fans on tumblr began advocating for the removal of fanfiction from Goodreads and sent out various "PSAs" and alerts via their blogs. The first alert was sent December 13, entitled "Why It’s Bad Fandom Etiquette To Put Other People’s Fics On Goodreads. The title and content of the post implied, but didn't state that actual stories were being uploaded without permission to Goodreads, and this impression may have contributed to the outraged reaction; reports of archiving without permission are usually an effective call to arms and result in swift justice. However, many critics did not make this mistake and raised a number of other issues. (For example, some fanart was uploaded without permission.) See #Some Topics Regarding Reviews of Fanfiction Posted at Goodreads.
Four days later, the number of fanfiction listings on Goodreads had dropped as fan writers began requesting removal of their listings. Below are unofficial numbers compiled by Morgan Dawn:The numbers were arrived by comparing the number of stories tagged with variations of the phrase "fan fiction" using Google cache results against the numbers that still appeared on Dec 17, 2014.
The strong negative reaction may have led some fan authors who had been using Goodreads to track and rate fanfiction on their own Goodreads shelves to request that their fan fiction be removed and to stop using the service for fanfiction.; It may also have caused some fans to start asking whether they were allowed to recommend or list stories in other traditional fannish spaces such as Livejournal.simplybeing. ("I have recced the shit out of a whole bunch of your stories in j2_recs... do you want me to remove them? I will. Just say the word."). And finally, at least one fan used the Goodreads debate to argue that the practice of downloading fanfic and converting it to be read on an eReader was a violation of fandom rules of conduct.
This led at least one fan to comment:
Needless to say, most fans outside Goodreads did not see the events in this light, feeling that their privacy and right to control the visibility and access to their fanworks was at stake. See the "Comments" section below.
===Goodreads and Removal of Fanfic Zines===
In February 2018, a fan posted about her decision to leave Goodreads due to the site's removal of fanzines. She speculated that the purchase of Goodreads by Amazon had resulted in the site purging content that would not ultimately make people (namely Amazon) money:
==Goodreads and Authors==
The community on Goodreads has a long history of bad experiences with authors who couldn't handle negative reviews,For example, see Goodreads and Me: Not a Love Story, posted by thefourthvine to Dreamwidth 29 March 2015. up to and including a case a few months before the 2014 fanfic wank of a pseudonymous reviewer getting stalked and outed by an author who unapologetically published the whole tale in The Guardian newspaper.See Dear Author's writeup, On the importance of pseudonymous activity, posted October 19, 2014. This is nothing new; see Interrogating the text from the wrong perspective. Some readers have responded to Authors Behaving Badly by writing negative reviews of their novels, setting up Do Not Read shelves, and giving one-star ratings, often to books they haven't actually read. A notorious doxxing site, Stop the GoodReads Bullies (STGRB), was started in response.See the extremely condensed version of events at Salon. Battle of the trolls: Kathleen Hale reveals the war raging between authors and readers, Oct 21, 2014. To counteract the escalating war between readers and authors, Goodreads adopted a new (or implemented an existing) policy in 2013 of deleting ad hominem reviews and do-not-read shelves; readers were outraged. So fanfic writers suddenly showing up and demanding fanfic entries be deleted likely looked like more of the same ABB nonsense.
Perhaps partly because of this history, to many Goodreads readers, interaction with the author is seen as an unwanted intrusion into their "safe space."
Another Goodreads member explained that while there are other places where fans can rec stories, Goodreads is where she and her friends have chosen to build their fan community with its emphasis on reviews for readers and not authors:
==Some Topics Regarding Reviews of Fanfiction Posted at Goodreads==
Some topics discussed below:
* reviewing/discussing fiction is not the same as archiving/uploading actual fiction
* visibility
* control of discussion
* fannish spaces vs non-fannish spaces
* differing expectations based on culture
* fandom and profit
* what is a "book"
* reviews of fanworks: are they fanworks themselves and separate from their source material?
* are Goodreads members who read fanfiction part of the "fandom" community?
===General Objections===
Some fanfic writers have objected to reviews of their fic being posted to Goodreads. Some objections appear to be based on the mistaken belief that the fics themselves were uploaded to the site, but other fans object to the fic being linked to or discussed in non-fannish spaces on the grounds that this would bring unwanted attention from nonfans and TPTB.
Furthermore, fanfic reviews by non-fans often misunderstand the point of fanfic—fic that relies on knowledge of canon and fanon is criticized, while ATG fic is praised.For example, see , posted by ohmyjetsabel on Tumblr. See also the differing reactions of fans and nonfans to the Teen Wolf fic DILF. In April 2014, an anon on Fail_fandomanon commented, "I found one of my Teen Wolf fanfics on there and most of the reviews are actual complaints that 'you can't fully enjoy this unless you've watched the show'."A perfect example can be found in a Goodreads review criticizing the lack of character description in a My Chemical Romance fanfic: "Another related problem was that all of the characters were introduced as if everyone already knew everything about them, barely given a physical or character description. If i didn't have google handy and didn't like all the bands i couldn't have enjoyed this book." , posted March 12, 2013.
In July, LiveJournal user youcantseeus commented,
The other main objection to fan fiction being listed on Goodreads is that some believe it can lead to increased visibility of their fandom activities.
Throughout the Goodreads discussions, numerous pre-existing and long-standing points of contention became involved, making communication and understanding even more difficult. Some of those issues are outlined below.
==="Goodreads Readers Are Not Fans"===
Some writers feel that because the main focus of Goodreads is on professionally published books, Goodreads members are not part of the fan community:
Not surprisingly, this has left many Goodreads fans feeling unwelcome:
Other fans pointed out that some Goodreads members were in fact "fans" and used Goodreads because it was easier for them to keep track of all the material they stored on their eReaders.
===Reviews and Ratings===
Other writers object to their fanfic being listed on a website where any reader can "rate" it, feeling that this in of itself is demoralizing.
See also 
and
This has led one author to wonder if the reasons some fans are upset with fanfic on Goodreads is due to the fear of being judged by others: 
Other writers have commented on how reading negative reviews colors their experience with the Goodreads community:
And:
After reading one review, a tumblr fan posted: 
Many fans attempted to argue that fandom had collectively decided that reviewing fanfic without permission was no longer permitted:
Others claim that fandom had never allowed reviews without permission:
Others disagree, pointing out that fandom has a 40-year history of critically reviewing fanfiction, one that did not disappear with the advent of the Internet:
And:
And:
On the topic of reviews, many wonder why Goodreads members are not reviewing the fic where it is posted. Here, this fan muses over whether it may have to do with the fact that Goodreads is the readers' fandom space so naturally they would choose to comment there.
One writer argued that Goodreads was a recent outgrowth of the overall incivility in anonymous communities thereby allowing readers to leave negative reviews:
In response, a Goodreads member suggested that shy writers focus on the mainly positive feedback offered in traditional fandom spaces:
An added objection is that if the reviews are removed from the place where the author originally posted their fanfic, the authors were being made invisible and their contributions ignored:
Perhaps, some speculate, the problem is that there is no fandom safe space for the reviewers of fanfiction:
In fact, as one Goodreads fan wrote: The only option, she was told, was to use the AO3 search function and look for the most kudos.
===Control of Personal Information===
Because Goodreads automatically creates a "stub" or basic entry for each author, many fan writers feel that this creates the impression that they have listed their fanfic on Goodreads or that people are impersonating them. Re claims of fraudulent impersonation: When adding a fan novel to Goodreads, the reader cannot add personal info to the author's profile. The only changes that can made to to the author's profile are by the author or super-users known as Goodreads Librarians. See message 59 in .
Others note that sometimes too much personal info is added to their profiles. In one instance a photo that came from the author's twitter was included. The author initially thought the picture came from a locked twitter post, but later acknowledged that it was not.. See also: "...my bad, because I *did* have it out there. I’ve now taken it off my Twitter, and I’m sorry if I gave the impression that it should be used with my fic posting." Others are unhappy that their multiple fandom social media accounts (LJ, tumblr, twitter) are listed in their fan writer profiles. On the flip side, some fans also complain if the links to their social media accounts are incorrect.
In a few cases links have been made between fan writer and professional writer identities using publicly accessible info.See message 52 and message 65 This included a fan writer who had occasionally listed her professional writing name on her fan blogs and who had responded to reviews and recommendations of her professionally published book under her fan name.Source: Morgan Dawn's personal notes and research, accessed Dec 21, 2014.
Obtaining details for this second group of fan writers is difficult because few want to attract more attention to the connections to their professional writing identities. This has led many fans to say: just because the info is accessible and searchable, does not mean it should be included on the author's profile without their permission:
===Fandom and Profit===
On the topic of compensation, some fans feel that the listing of their fanfic on any website that makes money runs afoul of the fannish prohibition against profiting from fanworks.In March 2013, Goodreads was purchased by Amazon. They do so even while acknowledging that most of their chosen platforms (tumblr, LJ, YouTube, etc.) are in fact profit-making enterprises.Tumblr was bought by Yahoo in June 2013, and LiveJournal and YouTube run advertising on fan pages).
===Content Notes===
Some fan writers began adding notes to their profile pages requesting that fans obtain permission before recommending, reviewing or commenting on their fanfic. Such statements can range from a request that all discussion be limited to the platform where the fic was posted:
and
Some fans request that other fans avoid discussing or linking to their fanfic in publicly accessible places:
Other variations include: mentioning them or their fanfic on places where "published" works are reviewed.
Some demand limits on who may read or share their fanworks and even limit how it may be shared:
This fan attempts to be specific and cover a multitude of situations: (a) reposting (b) linking, (c) mentioning, or (d) reading or sharing excerpts:
In this author's note, posted at the KSArchive, the author lists what she considers fandom spaces. Unlike some, her list is more expansive, but it still defines Goodreads as outside of fandom:
Other fans ask for banning all recommendations without permission:
Several authors added their objection to fanfiction appearing on Goodreads in the form of meta essays and posted them to AO3. One fan indicated that if their wishes were not honored, they would permanently remove their fanfic from AO3. ("I will permanently remove my stories, link and art from AO3 if it happens again.")
In response, a fan who uses Goodreads posted "An Appeal from the Fanfiction Fans over on Goodreads" on A03:
===What Is A Public Space?===
Because each fan may define "publicly accessible" differently (and in fact what is considered 'public' has changed multiple times over the decades), this had led some to argue that the writer's wishes as to where their fanfic should be discussed should rest ultimately with them:
A few authors have attempted to define "public" as distinct from "fannish" spaces. Most spaces that are listed are open to the public and indexed by Google, but some allow the users to lock their entries if they so choose:
Other fans point out that the boundaries between "public spaces" and "fannish spaces" are permeable and that the "rules" are not clear:
===Effect of Mainstreaming===
Others framed the debate as one of the many consequences that may follow with fanfiction mainstreaming:
While many fans welcome the mainstreaming of fanfiction, they'd rather see more separation between published book and amateur fanworks:
===Different Community Norms Leads to Culture Clash===
Irrespective of whether a reader qualifies as a "fan" or not, many Goodreads readers say they were unaware of any community standards that prohibited them from listing their favorite fanfics on Goodreads. Complicating the discussion is that members of the Goodreads community have their own community norms and expectations, some which are directly at odds with fandom expectations. (See #Goodreads and Authors above.)
As one reader explained: 
Not all fans object to the inclusion of fanfic reviews on Goodreads. In one tumblr exchange, a fan was confused over misleading statements that fanfic was being uploaded to Goodreads instead of being listed and reviewed. In the course of the follow-up discussion, an alternative interpretation emerged, one which looked at the wider culture of Goodreads and how it differs from some areas of fandom culture of today:
An example of this culture clash can be found in this Goodreads Status Update.
An excerpt from a Goodreads member:
The commentator goes on to point out that the definition of 'fandom' is global and norms vary from country to country and community to community, making it difficult to speak for all of fandom: 
Others attempted to point out that the fandom world was much larger than AO3 or Tumblr and that the key to moving forward was to acknowledge this diversity:
===Moving Forward===
Ultimately, as one writer pointed out, the conflict surrounding fanfic on Goodreads will require some adjustments and understanding on the parts of both communities:
Another writer argues that the introduction of fanfiction to a wider audience may be a positive thing for fandom:
==Other Listing and Review Platforms==
* Delicious
* Pinboard
* Booklist
==Further Reading==
Essays and Meta:
* Goodreads/Links for Further Reading
* Fandom Content on Mainstream Spaces
* Linking to Public Fan Sites
* "Crossing the Line: 'Netfans' and 'Printfans'" (a historical examination of a period of time when fans debated who were the 'real" fans)
* Podfic and Last.fm
* Fandom Does Not Use Technology. Technology Uses Fandom
* (2015)
* What do you guys think of people reviewing fics like books? (2024)
General Terms:
* Concrit
* Feedback
* LoC
* Review
* Fannish Hive Mind
* Wattpad
===The December 2014 Fail_fandomanon Discussion===
* Part 1: 
* Part 2: 
* Part 3: 
==References==
✪ This article was featured on the Fanlore main page in 2018How To & About
*About Featured Articles
*How to Nominate
Past Featured Articles
*2024
*2023
*2022
*2021
*2020
*2019
*2018
*2017
Featured Article Nominations
*2024
*2023
*2022
*2021
*2020
*2019
*2018
*2017
Category:2018 Featured Articles
Category:Fiction Writing
Category:Social Networking
Category:2018 Featured Articles