A lot of people who review a book or give ratings do so without having read it, especially if it’s on a subject that is politically sensitive.

I am of the opinion that most people don’t know how to critically engage with complicated texts

Those reviewers were unhappy they had to confront a topic that made them uncomfortable.

Most of these reviews are probably by people who never read the book. It happens a lot especially on Goodreads with any "hot topic" issues.

For the sake of brevity, usually authorial depiction is not an endorsement. Books with political persuasions that are proselytising a certain perspective *are* an endorsement however that we as readers anticipate.

If you’re reading a book about a gay man, expect gay themes. Likewise if you’re reading about police brutality, you can infer you’ll experience criticism of the police.

I typically hate on a book if it sucks, regardless of topic.

Do people usually read summaries before deciding what to read?

Because I don't. Sometimes I do, but most usually I don't.

Is goodreads even a good place for reviews anymore?

These are probably some of the same people who read a book written in 1890 and take issue with the characters’ Victorian mores.

this is why so many wusses will never experience the joy of reading lolita. it is not what they think it is, but they refuse to read it

Yes! I see this all the time on Goodreads! People giving absolutely masterful books the lowest possible score they can, then trying to paint the best aspects of the books as negatives ones. It's such flawed logic.

A lot of the time you can tell the people writing these reviews never even read the material. They will mention things that aren't in the book or they will only mention what you can learn from reading the description on the back cover.

Every time, these people's 'hate-reviews' are biased, opinionated or completely ignorant of the material. Like they chose to hate it without even reading it. Either that or they read the book and it went completely over their head, so they blame the book for that.

Some people are just seriously immature.

Well... to be fair, aren't most summaries on the cover by which we're advised not to judge a book!

I'm kind of an ass. It's why I park in different places so I risk not remembering where I parked. And I suppose it's also why I try to read books that fall outside the typical scope of what I'd rather read and banned books - to stretch my mind a bit. And likely why I read Elizabeth Gilbert's book on writing after reading her clueless illumination of her own down to earth pretension - better known as "Eat. Pray. Love."

I think any time you step into the political arena with fiction, you're walking a fine line.

This is especially true when you're writing a "preaching to converted" book that is based not on any real context beyond what you read in other people's books. Such books rarely have much worth saying but can often achieve popular appeal because likeminded people use them to re-affirm their prejudices.

Now, I haven't read the reviews you're talking about so it's impossible to usefully comment on them. But if I were writing a book about a gay man in the early 1900s, I'd want that book to speak to people who have no interest in early 20th Century gay men as well as those predisposed to find it a comfort read.

I don't read summaries beyond what's on the back cover, and sometimes I don't even read that. I read a lot of books as free pdfs, so if I decide halfway through I don't like it, there's nothing wasted in just stopping.

A well written book can carry you along with the narrative even if you don't like or agree with the concept behind it. In my experience a lot of the time people will lean on being morally or politically correct in the opinion they're expressing as a substitute for writing the story well.

On the other hand, people will hate-read things to give it a bad review. Or give it a bad review without reading.

I agree, in fact I made a very similar post myself not long ago. It's ridiculous to judge a book by its content. Whether that's hating a book because it has a gay character, touches on racism, features sexualisation of women or even something truly taboo to discuss, like an American Psycho type character, it's not the content itself that deserves criticism but the writing itself. And for the most part, content is easy to avoid if you don't wish to read about it (But I do advocate for trigger warnings in the back of books to warn people of the much more specific things)

As Oscar Wilde said, "There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all"

Don't like the content? Put the book away and move on. If you bought the book, well that sucks, but it's pretty easy to research an author and get an idea on the stuff they include in their writing. I personally can't think of any content so off-putting that you can't get through what you'd otherwise consider a good book and if the book is solely about that thing you don't wanna read...like OP said, didn't you read the summary?