The Power of a Bad Review

 Public opinion doesn't just rule reputations. Media is controlled by reviews and what others think of it. What can one bad review do to a decent game, movie, or book? Let's dig into that today. 

Courtesy of complex

I was afraid to read the copy of Ready Player Two that I bought on a whim after seeing all the Youtube buzz on how bad it was. I started reading it, then found it to be good writing. Midnight In Salem (MID) - a Nancy Drew puzzle game - got lots of delays and didn't turn out like the rest of the Nancy Drew Herinteractive games. I played it and found it wasn't half bad (Perfect? No, but we knew it wouldn't be.). Today I'm diving in on why bad reviews kill media that isn't all that bad. 

Let me be clear on this. Some media do turn out to be dumpster fires attached to nuclear bombs. I'm admitting this openly. Some honest reviews do turn out to be true. Fifty Shades of Grey and 365 are both horrendous examples of this. Not only are they badly written, but they are abusive erotica. No, I didn't read them, but I watched a detailed review on the plot of both (done by Amanda the Jedi, who talked about them in enough detail to know the plot details in the book). Both are based on Twilight fanfiction, which is bad enough already. These are the best examples of honest reviews that I can think of, both of which are dumpster fires of books that I'd gut and repaint into book safes. 

Why Do We Trust Reviews

In a world that gives us false advertising daily, we want to hear what people actually thought about something, whether it be a doctor, movie, or videogame. We want something called transparency, which is part of why reviews are on websites and apps. The primary reason to give a review is if you loved it or hated it. Most who thought it was "okay but not great" don't post reviews very often. 

The more we trust the source of the review, the more we trust the review itself. If our friend says they loved the Twilight series we might pick it up at the library. Verbal reviews from those we are close to mean the most. Second to that might be celebrities or mainstream people we trust online. No connection to the person doing the review means we discard it as unreliable unless backed by friends/family or celebrities. 

We all want to know what we are buying and if we can trust those doing services for us (doctor, plumber, maid...). When a review is posted we read it, especially when it is something we think we want to invest in. At the time the new Nancy Drew game came out, several reviews were posted all at once. We care what others think. All humans that are connected influence each other. Don't pretend your friend's opinion of a new movie doesn't impact your will to go see it. My friend is the reason I watched Encanto. I would have missed a good movie without her opinion. 

The level of good and bad reviews impacts whether we put that Amazon item in our cart. Say an mp3 player has seven reviews. Upon counting the reviews, you see four good reviews and three bad ones. I already have doubts. Yet, what if six reviews were positive and only one was negative? I'd be more compelled to buy it. While I would read the content of the reviews (please do, some people review different objects and put it in the wrong place), negative reviews discouraged me from investing in that mp3 player. This is where having bad reviews all over the internet can kill a product or any form of media. 

The Internet  

We are all heavily influenced by people over social media. One bad review can get circulated everywhere in seconds. One share button can make a world of difference in either direction. Every person on Youtube or social media has an opportunity to draw attention to either flaws or positives. Sometimes the 'so bad it's good' works in a person's favor. Amanda the Jedi watches movies that are sometimes really bad and sometimes quite good. Saberspark does the same thing. Either way, the public is now aware of the movies and may go see them for themselves. Sharknado is one of those movies, just like The Room. There is a particular category that some media fits into called 'so bad it's good', which bizarrely benefits from bad reviews. We like to laugh at films so bad they are laughable. Neil Breen benefits from this. 

Youtube has whole channels that review media. Saberspark and Amanda the Jedi are just two of them. Markiplier and Jacksepticeye go into this category because they review games and expose the audience to what the game truly is. That is still a form of review (which convinced me to buy at least two games already). They have an impact on gamers and movie fans everywhere. So many people watch Youtube today instead of cable. You share that video and it goes right onto your social media, where it gets spread farther into the world wide web. This is why one bad review or one great review can make a massive difference in sales. My husband and I fell in love with West of Loathing and bought it after watching Markiplier play it. 

Worst Case Scenario

The worst-case scenario for a bad review is when no one checks to see if the review is actually accurate. Letting reviewers think for you is bad. Everyone has different standards for games and books. Some like it spicy, adventurous, perplexing, complex... I think you understand what I mean. Standards for one person do not equal the standards for you. The worst situation that can happen for any media is when everyone reads the review and blindly decides to not fact-check. Even worse, they can hit share after blindly believing it. 

Courtesy of postec.com

This situation does not apply to the 'so bad it's good', just to clarify. The human race likes to show people how bad something is when it is laughably awful. This category gains traction from people reacting to it. What doesn't gain traction are books and movies that don't reach the laughable level. It has to be so bad that it borders on ludicrous or people won't watch it for the laughs. Neil Breen makes it to this level. What makes it even funnier is that ludicrous movies often have directors with serious intent. You can't fake it to get here. Those that try fade into obscurity because they tried too hard.

Let's talk about a big example of this. Harry Potter got this treatment in the Christian Bubble. It was labeled as evil by some Christian moms, who then forbid it in their house. Some individuals took that as a challenge to read it, others didn't, and it still remains today. It had enough good reviews to keep it going in secular culture. It couldn't be stopped. Yet, among some Christian homes that never did their research, it is still thought to be evil. Fact-checking, let's make sure we're doing that.

Harry Potter may not have gone under, and I'm glad of that, but others have. The true worst-case scenario is that a company with a good game, movie, or product can't make ends meet and can't keep going. Bad reviews that get left unchecked can obliterate a company. This is the saddest ending to this story. Bad reviews can also kill a TV show, too. There is always a risk to targeting smaller niche groups. Media directed at small fandoms is a risk, which is why small fandoms seldom get large-scale productions. 

Sources:

Here Are 2 Reasons Why Customers Trust Online Reviews (revlocal.com)

Public Indecency Standards

 The societal standards have changed from century to century. In the 1800s you could probably get arrested for wearing skimpy clothing. Today? You have to be nude to get arrested. Let's dig into what public indecency used to be and still might be.

Courtesy of rare historical photos

Indecency would be, for example, running around nude in a public place. You can be arrested for that and should be arrested for that. Ohio's law states having sex in public, exposing yourself in public, or looking like you are masturbating or having sex in public will get you a criminal record and a reputation as a sex offender. It is not okay to do any of this, nor should it ever be. Urinating in a public place is also an arrestable crime.

It changes constantly when it comes to what is decent and indecent in society's fashion. It also depends on where you are. Puritans were probably tolerating less than other villages would, for example. Without any further introduction, I give you what I found on public indecency from the 1700s and onward.

Theatrical Scandal

We love theatre and movies today, but I can tell you that the Puritans did not. Women and some races of people were not allowed on the stage years later. Theatre did not have a particularly great start in the 1600s era and it was rather hard for women and foreigners to act even after it finally made it. Do you know why blackface happened? Black people weren't allowed to act on stage for a while. Do you know why men were in drag for Shakespeare? Women weren't allowed on the stage for a while, too. Surprisingly, Quakers did propose a form of theatre and got vetoed every time by the English Crown. You could get arrested for performing a theatre production in the 1600s. 

1700 Massachusetts put in a law that lasted 40 years preventing any space for theatre. It was considered immoral. Shows still happened in secret, however. The late 1700s was the time theatre fought back legally by forming an association. They successfully repealed the previous law preventing it five to ten years later.

There were plays that discussed sexual topics and there were scandals as a result. Art has been censored throughout time. Less of the sexual topics are being censored as time goes on. What is decent today would shock someone from the 16 to 1800s easily, including any discussion of sexual anything. Sex was taboo, which is still true in some communities today (depending on where you were raised). Homosexual topics were highly taboo, as well, though I can tell you that it was still happening in secret. There is nothing new under the sun, dear readers. Just because society won't talk about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. At any rate, sex and homosexual topics were considered off the table for a long period of time and still make a lot of our society uncomfortable. That doesn't mean some people didn't try to put it in their productions, though.

Clothing

Women in pants is a common one that gets spoken of, as well as women getting arrested for swimsuits that we'd never consider illegal today. People wore more clothing swimming way back when than we do currently. Bikinis caused much scandal when they came on the scene. While we're at it, we'll consider tattoos and how they were attached to crime and prostitution. Women with tattoos were considered very bad news. Today none of this matters to us because most of us wear jeans and shorts out in public daily. Women wearing pants is not front-page news, nor is a woman lounging in a bikini. You'll only get arrested if you take that off and run around nude. Tattoos are also not an issue these days. 

If anything looked like lingerie on top - even if fully clothed otherwise- the silhouette was enough. The open dress was one dress that only pregnant women were supposed to wear from the 16 to the 1700s. I mentioned the Puritans, right? They influenced fashion more than you think. Flashing ankle was scandalous in the 1800s. This came from a society that wanted to suppress lust as much as possible, which is why sex was such a curiosity that more Puritan youth had sex outside of marriage. This usually ended in a shot-gun wedding, should the woman become pregnant. 

Do you remember those youth events that didn't let you wear a bikini without a t-shirt over it? If you think the bikini is scandalous, try the one-piece being a scandal. 1907 was the beginning of the one-piece bathing suit. A swimmer got arrested for it because it came above her knee. The first one resembled a wetsuit, which for us is more decent than most garden-variety bikini tops. Society then did not like it. That rule about not wearing a bikini without a t-shirt is now absolutely hilarious to me. 

Flapper dresses were a scandal by themselves. Phryne Fisher played with fire by dressing herself as she did, and the only reason she could was her money and position. Flapper is slang for "young prostitute". These dresses were moral uproar in the form of fabric. Add to that list bullet bras (bras that are shaped like they sound), mini-skirts, sheer shirts, women's tuxedos, slip dresses, and the 2000s trend of thongs being visible. The thong one I do agree with, however, as that is rather tacky. I also get perpetually frustrated by shirts that show my bra no matter how skin-colored it is, so I do think white sheer shirts are annoying, too.

Dancing

Is shimmying scandalous to you? It was in 1920. It was banned in some places. Is Elvis' dancing offensive to you? That was 1950. Madonna was considered too sexy, as well. Finally, we get to grinding on the homecoming dance floor and twerking. Dance and sex have been connected in many people's minds for years. Yet, in 1900, the turkey trot, bunny hug, and grizzly bear were shameful. If you let them happen in a dance hall you could be in trouble. Below the turkey trot is demonstrated, and it looks so tame that I can't even believe it was discouraged. The bunny hug looks like an excuse to be cheek-to-cheek, but not much else. I'm putting the videos for the bunny hug and the grizzly bear at the end for you to watch. It is absolutely hilarious. 

Dance, as Footloose suggests, is taken as a sexual act in some people's opinions. What many see as innocent fun is taken as indecent activity. Puritans did not completely ban dancing, but forbid mixed (or mixt) dancing because it encouraged adultery in their opinion. 

Jazz music and dancing caused no loss of scandal, given the ragtime dances attached. There are specific singers that were considered indecent, like Josephine Baker. It also happened more in places like brothels or gentlemen's clubs early on. Prohibition fueled private, secret clubs and ended up fueling jazz music and dance. Private clubs hired more black musicians (the culture jazz originated from). The origin of this music also has a great deal to do with racism. Jazz got blamed for a lot it didn't do due to its place of origin and the racism. We're not even talking about the sexy nature of jazz dance, yet, either. Move over bunny hug, because a new dirty dance has come to town. The charleston didn't get such a warm welcome. 

I didn't want to put Josephine Baker doing the charleston on here because she isn't so clothed in most of her dances, but I found a video of her dancing that shows off her personal style. It's worth watching. This is the tamest one I could find. Forewarning, she is an exotic dancer in most of the videos you find her in. Be prepared for some nudity and moulin rouge style of dance if you do look up more of her dance footage later. 

 

Conclusion

Check out the bunny hug and the grizzly bear down below if you have time to do so. Today there are some of these standards that still apply and many that haven't applied for years. It also depends on your community and how you were raised, as well as where you were raised. I hope you enjoyed a look at the history of public indecency today and then. This was only a brief snapshot, so check out my sources down below. 

Sources:

Public Indecency Law | Justia

Ohio Indecent Exposure Laws - FindLaw

Indecent and Censorship of American Theater | Seattle Rep

25 Things That Were Considered Scandalous 100 Years Ago But Are Totally Normal Now — Best Life (bestlifeonline.com)

11 Fashion Items That Were Super Scandalous For Their Time — PHOTOS (bustle.com)

A Short History Of Dance: Dirty Dancing Through the Years (yourteenmag.com)

Dirty Dancing In The Early 1900s : NPR History Dept. : NPR

Opposition: A History of Social Dance in America -- AAS Online Exhibition (americanantiquarian.org)

Culture Shock: Flashpoints: Music and Dance: Early Jazz (pbs.org)

Jazz Controversy (AtoZ Challenge 2016 – Jazz Age Jazz) (theoldshelter.com)

1920's Dances (1920s-fashion-and-music.com)

Shy vs Introverted

 Every introvert on earth has heard that they are "so shy". We have been told that we need to come out of our shells. The truth is that introversion and shyness are not the same thing. Nor are we antisocial.

Courtesy of stereotypekillerasswit.com

I can explain it in one sentence, for those who don't know the difference between extroversion and introversion. Introverts recharge during time spent alone and extroverts recharge while socializing. Extroversion is what you see encouraged in schools everywhere, which leaves most introverted souls feeling a bit drained after their school day.

We need working definitions. Below you'll find the three definitions that we're running with for the entire blog. All are credited to Meriam Webster.

Introversion-  a typically reserved or quiet person who tends to be introspective and enjoys spending time alone 

Shyness- hesitant in committing oneself, disposed to avoid a person or thing, easily frightened

Antisocial- hostile or harmful to organized society

Introverts get accused of shy or antisocial behavior all the time. Choosing to sit alone at recess to read a book instead of playing tag might put you in the shy or antisocial category. Sometimes someone will interrupt your reading time with deep concern when you don't join a social group. Why? Because they expect social behavior from kids. Let's dig into the word shy, first. 

Shyness

Shyness has to do with fear. Introversion has to do with stress; it might be stressful for someone to join a social group when they need to recharge. One is anxiety and the other is not. To some, they look the same. It is not good to try to force an introvert to do anything while they need to recharge. You can't force an introvert to be an extrovert, as you'll mess with self-esteem and make them feel inadequate instead. They may even shut down or break down after a while.

Courtesy of Quora

The problem here is that kids sitting alone get interrupted when adults get concerned or don't know the difference. Me sitting alone with a book is not considered a cry for help from my perspective (though in some cases you should check in on someone), but a camp counselor may come over to ask if I'm okay. Counselors are told to shove kids who are sitting alone into camp activities, though, in case they wander off and cause trouble. That has more to do with the responsibility of the camp if I'm honest, but it still creates less time to recharge. 

Why can you mistake shyness for introversion? Introverts don't make as much eye contact and shy people share that trait. Introverts are uncomfortable at large parties (the ones where we know no one) with everyone except the family dog and shy people linger at the edge of social situations. We also lose the energy to converse toward the end of the party. The thing to do when you want to know the difference is to approach them. You initiate it and see what happens. If they start to appear bored by small talk you have your answer. We like deep conversations, so find what we like to talk about. We'll keep you occupied for hours if you let us talk about what we like to speak of. If we have next to no energy and want you to leave us alone, you can also bet that is an introvert. We like small groups and one-on-one conversations more often. Look for signs of those conversations when you try to tell the difference.

Courtesy of Huffpost

I do have to admit that introverts with anxiety exist. There is overlap in that category. Yet, some introverts are social introverts. It probably means they recharged before the party. It also makes a difference if we know everyone there or not. We need to feel safe at a party to open up. This means a comfortable introvert will converse while they are around trusted friends in small groups. An introvert alone will look like someone with social anxiety.

Antisocial

Antisocial people are hostile toward social interaction, so an introvert that is at the end of their social battery may come across as antisocial. Or they simply need time alone and someone doesn't get it. Antisocial individuals think mostly of themselves and have no regard for the unwritten rules of social interaction. They are unwilling to be social. Introverts lose energy during social interactions and simply need a moment to recharge, which means avoiding some interactions with people they can't handle on a low battery. Antisocial people also have a lack of empathy and no regard for society's rules. The antisocial people don't like to make connections with others. 

Why do we get mistaken for antisocial beings? Easy, both of us leave parties early and interact with humans less. Antisocial people don't enjoy other humans and introverts are just too tired. Some perceive the lack of large group interactions to be antisocial behavior. An introvert at the end of their rope may appear to disregard social rules because they are out of battery entirely. The truth is simply this; antisocial people don't have empathy and introverts do. We are not antisocial. 

Courtesy of westressfree.com

If you want to know who fits the antisocial label, look at Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch's version specifically). He is allegedly on the autism spectrum or a high-functioning sociopath. Emotions are not easy for Sherlock. He only has one close friend (John Watson), and a few others he keeps in touch with. Mycroft is always watching him closely. Sherlock is closer to antisocial than most introverts ever are. Antisocial beings generally don't make new connections or follow social niceties, as they don't feel the need for human company often. Most people who are like this have a disorder of some form. While an introvert can have an antisocial disorder, it is not exclusive to introverts. Antisocial disorders can make someone dangerous, if untreated. There is a category of people called "asocial" who tend to live secluded lives outside of society, and they are allegedly not dangerous, but still have a disorder of some kind. 

Conclusion

Do your research before you assume anything. If they look annoyed to see you, find out if they respond to you politely. The only reason an introvert will drop social conventions is if they are at the end of their patience (which happens to anyone) or if you interrupted them way too often. There is a difference between shy, antisocial, and introverted. While therapy can help the antisocial or shy individual, it does not stop introversion, which is a personality trait and not a mental health issue. Half the world is introverted. 

Courtesy of Pinterest

Sources:

The Difference Between Being Shy and Being Introverted (verywellfamily.com)

Being an introvert is different from being shy — here's how to tell the difference, according to experts (yahoo.com)

4 Differences Between Antisocial and Introvert: Which One Are You? - Learning Mind (learning-mind.com)

antisocial VS Introvert: Am I Antisocial or Introverted? - introverted growth

The Psychology of Wade Watts

 After seeing review titles that say Ready Player Two was horrible I read it for myself and it is amazing. No, I am not here to roast the book. I think it is good sci-fi writing, but to each their own. What I'm here to talk about is how Wade Watts and literally everyone else in his fictional world need to learn how to handle reality outside their devices. Let's just psychoanalyze Wade and see what we find out.

Courtesy of Bookstacked.com

*spoilers for Ready Player One and Ready Player Two are contained in this post!*

Just to get it out of the way, yes I like this series. No, I don't think it necessarily needed a sequel, but it is engaging and entertaining. This is sci-fi, obviously, so you can expect a plot that isn't entirely possible. I think at this point he'd be wise to end it here and stop. I don't think it deserves the criticism it is getting. Your main character does not need to be perfect. He does change as the book hits the midpoint. The honest reality that I see is that Wade Watts never knew how to deal with reality without hiding in the Oasis, nor did most of the people in the Oasis. His mother died of drug overdose and he hid from that online. 

This fictional period reflects a point where life has fallen apart, so much so that everyone is escaping reality and running from it, even after the Anorak incident. Some have given up on fixing it. Wade Watts is now becoming like Halliday (the man he idolized from the jump) - a recluse that doesn't know how to interact with people except in digital form. He changes when Anorak goes rogue and everything hits the fan. He realizes that he was wrong. The ONI device (a headset that connects to your brain for more real experiences) shot him down a rabbit hole that fed his already horrible addiction to the Oasis. Today we look at the flawed character that is Wade Watts and acknowledge that he is not a static character. 

His Situation

He went from living in poverty with his aunt and her boyfriend to being rich. Before that, his mother died of depression-related drug overdose. He is running the Oasis by the second book with the five people he found the egg with (minus one which is honorarily replaced with Morrow). His friendships have deteriorated in some ways, blown up in other ways, or faded. He doesn't have enough social contact. He is hopelessly addicted to the Oasis. He's already in a bad place mentally. If you want to call him a sociopath, please do your research. Halliday may have been one, but Wade is not. He simply doesn't know how to deal with the real world outside the Oasis. I don't think he ever did. He has spent almost his entire life in the Oasis avoiding the real truth of the state of the world - and he isn't the only one. When Anorak locks everyone into the Oasis until the seven shards are found, he begins to see that the Oasis is not so safe anymore. By the end he won't touch an ONI device again. Don't judge the first chapters of a book by the actions of a character that hasn't found the main conflict yet.

Courtesy of Daily Mail

If you know how important social contact is, you know that Wade is in a dangerous place when you first read the beginning chapters. We already see in the beginning of the second book how isolated he is and how addicted he is. His relationship with Samantha is lost temporarily because he couldn't live in the real world with her. They are no longer friends, let alone lovers in the first three chapters. The happy ending of the first book has snapped in two, only to be replaced by Wade letting his relationships fade and break. His friendships rise again towards the middle of the second book. Looking at how alone he is before that happens, this is hardly surprising. He admits that he doesn't trust an actual person as a therapist and we see that he lives in a world he creates for himself. This illusion promptly falls apart when Anorak takes the invincability robes back by stealing and the Oasis is taken hostage.

 Too Much Power 

Social skills have to be there to wield power. After living purely in the Oasis for most of his life, I can safely say he doesn't have the real-world social skills to wield the power of the robe he has on. He literally goes after the avatars who say bad things about him, that is until Aech suggests therapy. While the therapy was clearly a good move, he probably needs to be unplugged from his fantasy world along with everyone else in the book. Mid-book everyone wants to log out due to Anorak going AI rogue, so that is likely to happen more often after all this blows over. Wade gives up ONI use entirely. The Oasis does not lose too much popularity, though.

Samantha rails against him releasing the ONI because she wants to fix the real world. This was what ended the relationship dead in its tracks for a while. I do believe Samantha has a point. Unfortunately for Wade, he can't imagine life outside of what he's always known until Anorak happens. His safe place is a videogame world where he can be whatever he wants to be and do whatever he wants to. This is why his leadership is not quite up to the power of the robe. His character shouldn't be untouchable.

The world around Wade is serving him up until Anorak goes rogue. Part of his problem is that he is focused on himself, yet that isn't unique to the human race. Our technology does this every day for us, encouraging the individual to focus on themselves and not others. When you have your fictional, perfect world serve you and give you everything you ever wanted, it doesn't discourage "me, me, me". It actively discourages Wade from stepping out of his fantasy of being invincible to face the state of the world. This is why he opted to give ONI to kids of low income for free during early chapters, as opposed to trying to fix the world itself. He thinks helping others escape will help people live happier lives. Being focused in on your needs and obsessions instead of stepping out to see what others need is not what someone in power should be doing, which is why Og created a weapon that can kill Anorak. At the end of all this (and no, I'm not telling the entire ending), Anorak is destroyed and Wade is not the same person he was. 

Why People Are Upset

Wade came across as an underdog hero in the last book because he was an underdog. Wade is no longer an underdog. He has the opportunity to do great things with his wealth. He had the choice of releasing the ONI or not. Many reviews are not positive on this book. I am currently reading it and see no problems with the writing itself, just many flawed characters who never learned to handle reality in their younger years and should be unplugged from their devices. The sad truth of the fictional world this book created is that most of the younger generations (Wade included) were taught to escape to the Oasis early on, leaving Wade and several others at the disadvantage of never knowing how to face real life. They never knew how to fix the world. Frankly, no one does.

Courtesy of Wordpress.com

People are upset that Wade is making horrible decisions, to put it point-blank. They didn't read enough to get to his apology to Samantha and see his worldview change. Yet, what I read about his decision-making skills early on doesn't surprise me. He didn't know how to face the truth of the world's sorry state, let alone how to wield the power of a robe that makes you immortal online. Did you expect the character to solve every problem on earth in the blink of any eye and save the world without flaws and conflicts? I didn't. When half the world or more is literally in stasis running around a digital world, most humans on earth aren't even looking for a solution. 

Every single human in the book is addicted to the Oasis to some degree (minus maybe Samantha). The rest of the five are all in for the ONI and give it credit for making end-of-life care better, upping the amount of empathy in the world, and eliminating disease spread. While end-of-life care might be a point to the five, the rest of it can truly come down to the fact that most of the world isn't leaving their house. Unfortunately, this makes it easy for thieves and murderers that killed some users while they were in stasis. ONI leaves your body in stasis while you wander the Oasis, so naturally, riots and disease spread have gone down due to physical inactivity. Anorak makes the ONI a serious problem by creating infirm ware that makes you unable to log out, meaning anyone logged in could go into a coma after 12 hours of use. The views on the ONI are suddenly not bright. Respawning is also suddenly not working, to make matters worse. In the end, no one died of ONI-related brain trauma. All the same, Wade decided not to use his ONI again.

Wade is not the only character blind to their addiction. Seriously, if you are mad at the main character's choices, go analyze how he grew up and why he is what he is. Wouldn't you hide in your happy educational treehouse if your mother is doing drugs due to depression? The book followed the natural progression of how Wade Watts would handle power. He barely left the Oasis in the first book, so what makes you think he isn't still an addict? He was unbalanced then and still is now. Wade made bad decisions, but he learned and apologized. What do you expect from someone so addicted to the ONI that he either sleeps or is online? He barely leaves his house all book. My point is simply this; Wade Watts is a flawed character, but you didn't get to see his worst traits in the last book because he was the underdog. Read past the first five chapters that are groundwork and get to the main conflict before you say the book is trash, because it isn't. The ending, while a bit odder than I expected, was heartwarming.

Conclusion

Courtesy of The Herald-Standard

 I don't see anything that shocks me. That world created by the Oasis is where everyone hid from the state of the world. AI going rogue isn't out of the ordinary, and nor is Halliday being sociopathic (given his disorder). Wade spent years of his life hiding in a van in haptic gear. He became his idol, which he studied obsessively (minus sociopathic tendencies). Halliday was in a dangerous state and Wade followed suit. He took one step further than Halliday, however, in releasing the ONI. That being said, Wade turned back from that path when the ONI was hacked by Anorak. Wade learned. We also know Halliday learned something from creating the ONI.

You are all entitled to your opinions on this book. It is a good sci-fi book (and if you dislike sci-fi, well, you may not be into it). I will close with a challenge, though; I challenge you to read before you judge. Ditto for games and movies. There is no shame in liking a series of books, games, or movies that isn't popular. Don't let one or two bad reviews stop you from trying it out. You can like it or dislike it. Get it from a library or watch another gamer play it on Youtube if you are afraid to spend the money. Don't let one person who hated it tell you what to think. Most people only post reviews if they love or hate it, so read the content of the reviews when you look at any review. Amazon sometimes has reviews from unrelated products in review sections because some people type in the wrong place.