/lit/ - Literature

it's shit

pandering plebe fodder

>Paulo Coelho

You never see it posted because it's incredibly shitty, all his work is nothing but feelgood bullshit that panders to the lowest common denominator, coated in cheap pseudochristian mysticism.

Delete this thread, delete it and don't ever read anything longer than a food label again.

>>4126592
>>4126593
>shitmind

not that bad. criticizing a fiction book for having mysticism is idiotic. or is it the pseudochristian imagery that's bad. and most of /lit/'s taste is lowest common denominator (dickens, tolstoy) so I don't see how that's a valid argument against his work unless you're a dumbass hipster.

>>4126739
>samefagging
>2013

>>4126741
actually no.

>>4126588
you already asked this in another thread. whn I replied you erased your question. Coelho is the self-help author of novels

>>4126739
lol. are you putting Coelho over Tolstoy and Dickens? Besides, /it/ likes dostoievsky more and often criticizes Dickens

>>4126777
did I put one over the other? I said they're all lowest common denominator "pleb" lit

that's weird that /lit/ likes doestoi more since I thought pseudochristian imagery was a no no on here

It's just not a very good book. Feel good and shallow.

Worth reading? Well, at least it's a quick read …there are books I've regretted reading more.

>>4126851
Basically this.

It's not a BAD book but you can't take anything from it either. Pure mediocrity.

>>4126588
nah,didn't like it. lotsa hocus pocus and blabla

>>4126777
/it/? we got a italy board now? well I guess i'll be going there then

Coelho is the worst writer I've ever read, and he's not even "so bad he's good". He's horrible.

It's the type of shite that retarded leftist suburban soccer moms read. Just disgusting all around.

It's Spirituality for dummies written by an idiot spoon feeding you all his bullshit.

>>4126868
you mean you didn't find your heart's desire through it?

>>4126588
The book is mediocre.

>but is the content worth reading?
it's a light read, but you won't get anything from it.

>>4126810
Coelho beats you over the head with a sledgehammer with it.

>>4126739
He is not criticizing it for the mysticism, but for the cheap mysticism.

>dickens, tolstoy
>lowest common denominator
Jesus Christ...

>>4126928
are you stupid or do you seriously think coelho is more popular than dickens or tolstoy?

ah. such a clear distinction between cheap and deep mysticism you've delineated there. there are plenty of shitty white writers like Salinger and Hesse who's entire works are bent on cheap mysticism but I have never seen them charged with that.

>>4126923
is that a function of how slender his works are. doestoi does as well but he doesn't have the benefit of the doubt given by brevity.

I liked it.

Then again I like to experience the spectrum of emotional gravitation to a story. Sure, it's "feel good", but why wouldn't you want to read a feel good to balance out the deep shit? Balance, anons, is one of the keys to a long and satisfying life. Its a fun story, plays out like a short film, and is a tightly packaged adventure.

It's nice, is what I'm trying to say. It's just a nice story at face value. It's translated into like 50 languages and sold a shit ton because people enjoy a nice story. Then again this is 4chan, and further /lit/, where people are so disenfranchised with life, bitter and jaded that everything has to be dissected with the proverbial critique scalpal to make them feel not so disaffected and to prove their shitty personal tragedy has a home.

Or maybe not. Whatevs.

Thought you were referring to Jonson's The Alchemist. Was severely disappointed.

It was quick any easy to read and a little bit enjoyable. I only read it because a guy I was friends with in high school said it was the best book ever (he isn't the brightest). It's worth reading if you are really interested in it but I wouldn't recommend people go out of their way to read it.

>>4127107
Salinger's works were built on cheap mysticism???

>>4127852
have you read anything by him apart from catcher? and even that

Didn't this author hurt some kid in a hit and run and have an affair with some woman or am I thinking of somebody else?

>>4129593
maybe in a figurative sense

>>4126588
because it's "philosophy" for babies

>>4129699
>getting your philosophies from fiction
baby detected

>>4129735
>not understanding the ""
faget detected

>>4129762
>getting non "" philosophy from fiction
you're still a retard bro

>>4127395
>>4127739

This.

>>4126588
Pretty sure you can save a lot of time by reading one of the shorter versions of this story. Apart from the Arabian Nights, there's a Rumi poem and a Borges version I think...

>>4126588
Being a brazilian, I know that Paulo Coelho is one of the shitties authors alive. Almost on the same level with best seller's authors. He seriously thinks himself as some sort of wizard.

>>4126739
>lowest common denominator (dickens, tolstoy)

This is the most delusional post I've ever seen on 4chan.

>>4131453
you must be suffering from serious delusions if you think tolstoy is less well known than coelho.

>>4131441
Mas ele era bruxo, se você nunca viu nenhuma composição dele e do Raul Seixas deveria ler antes de sair cagando fantasia sobre o que nunca estudou.

>>4131523
Claro que ele era bruxo. E minha mae e uma bike.

>>4131532
Se você não acredita no assunto pra que vai me ler um livro intitulado "alquimista", negro?

>>4131505
He's been around a century longer and well known /= appeals to the lowest common denominator

Every time someone mentions that book on this board, it's to say they hated it, and frankly, I'd agree. Literal deus ex machina, a moral that pushes standard definitions of triteness, and all the spiritual relateablitiy of a Disney movie.

>>4131453
>>4126928
>>4126777
I'd say /lit/ is probably the most easily trolled board, but luckily /v/ saves you from that title.

>>4131552
length and popularity contribute to how far the range and appeal of the author which implies lowest common denominator. you're the one being a hipster putting a value judgement on this.

>>4131616
>and all the spiritual relateablitiy of a Disney movie.

Pretty much why its so popular. Sugar-coated feel goodness.