A little while ago, Amazon.com announced that it was acquiring the social reading site, Goodreads.
Author Jami Gold mused:
In their official statement, Goodreads assured users:
It's important to be clear that Goodreads and the awesome team behind it are not going away. Goodreads will continue to be the wonderful community that we all cherish. We plan to continue offering you everything that you love about the site—the ability to track what you read, discover great books, discuss and share them with fellow book lovers, and connect directly with your favorite authors—and your reviews and ratings will remain here on Goodreads. And it's incredibly important to us that we remain a home for all types of readers, no matter if you read on paper, audio, digitally, from scrolls, or even stone tablets.
Going on to say that Goodreads will now be integrated to the Kindle experience, a top priority, they also assured users that Amazon supports growing their vision "as an independent entity under the Goodreads brand and with our unique culture. "
In response, and echoing my thoughts exactly:
Then proceeded to screech:
Tickling my funny bone, Jeff O'Neal (editor at Bookriot.com) tweeted:
Amid the fray, book blogger Jennifer Messner confessed:
Dare I say that I never got into Goodreads, either? Maybe now that Amazon.com has acquired them (a site I do use and enjoy--as a reader, writer and Hall of Fame Reviewer), I may have to take a second look.
So what do you think, dear readers? Is Amazon.com a big dog pissing on everything with words on it? Or are they the salvation of books and reading? Will the merger with Goodreads be a good thing for readers? Traditionally-published authors? Self-pubbed writers? Might it be "incestuous" as Jami Gold suggests...and if so, how?
Speak your mind in the comments section below. I'm listening...and curious about your thoughts.