{"id":1706,"date":"2008-03-07T10:35:28","date_gmt":"2008-03-07T17:35:28","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2008-03-07T11:02:01","modified_gmt":"2008-03-07T18:02:01","slug":"","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cesspit.net\/drupal\/node\/1706\/","title":{"rendered":"Books ladder"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In my books review I avoided giving numerical votes because when I look back I usually disagree with myself. It happens often that you find you gave an higher vote to a book you liked less than another. <\/p>\n<p>This happens because votes and ladders are used and useful as a comparative thing. But this also means that votes are going to change as you read more and have a broader view. The vote is relative to what you read.<\/p>\n<p>So I was thinking how I would rate those books I read recently. Here is my current ladder:<\/p>\n<p><b>9+<\/b> The Blade Itself &#8211; Simply brilliant, and I keep grinning every time I think about it. Oodles of charisma.<\/p>\n<p><b>9<\/b> The Black Company &#8211; The first book. Perfect structure and really accomplished.<\/p>\n<p><b>7.5<\/b> The Great Hunt &#8211; Jordan&#8217;s second. I liked it a lot, flows really well. I didn&#8217;t like where most people say it gets better (the end), but I still rate it high because it kept me hooked.<\/p>\n<p><b>7+ and 8+<\/b> Gardens of the Moon &#8211; Here is Erikson. Two votes because one is objective (the lower) and the other subjective (higher). The fact is that I love the setting and scope, so this adds a subjective value, but at the same time I recognize some flaws and so I would rate it lower.<\/p>\n<p><b>6.7<\/b> Shadows Linger &#8211; Glen Cook&#8217;s second. It was much weaker than the first. Too awkward and weird. I expected more.<\/p>\n<p><b>6.5 and 7.5<\/b> The Eye of the World &#8211; Jordan&#8217;s first. In this case subjective is 6.5, objective is 7.5, the opposite of Erikson. Fact is that I was bored by the type of plot. I read it already and this book is for the most part a rip off of Tolkien. Too many parallels. At the same time (objective vote) it&#8217;s really well planned and executed. In its kind it&#8217;s one of the best if not the best, but for someone who already read fantasy it feels redundant and gives deja-vus.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In my books review I avoided giving numerical votes because when I look back I usually disagree with myself. It happens often that you find you gave an higher vote to a book you liked less than another. This happens because votes and ladders are used and useful as a comparative thing. But this also [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[33],"class_list":["post-1706","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-books"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cesspit.net\/drupal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1706","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cesspit.net\/drupal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cesspit.net\/drupal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cesspit.net\/drupal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cesspit.net\/drupal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1706"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cesspit.net\/drupal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1706\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cesspit.net\/drupal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1706"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cesspit.net\/drupal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1706"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cesspit.net\/drupal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1706"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}