/lit/ - Literature

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1514123]

1) get on goodreads.com
2) find the book you most recently read and a one-star review of your choosing
3) ????
4) RAGE AS FUCK/ BE OKAY WITH IT

Civilization and Its Discontents - Sigmund Freud

here is Graham's take on it:
>Freud exposes himself for the reactionary that he was. It is not so much this book itself that pisses me off, but the tendency of so called liberals (and even feminists--you know--especially in the fields of literary and film criticism) to not see the right wing elements within this text. Others, perhaps more familiar with the work of Freud, do understand the reactionary element, and yet choose to completely ignore it. These people use psychoanalysis is such fields as art, literature, and film. These folks are the most dangerous of all. Of course, a lot of liberal people need Freud in their lives because their careers depend on his understanding of civilization. We go to see our therapists so that they can break our spirits and accept the leviathan as a normal part of modern living.

>By accepting the ideas of Freud, one accepts the Leviathan as a necessary construct of human progress just as Hobbes did. And you know, Hobbes was actually much less reactionary than Freud, yet his work is despised by the left. How is that so? Well, Hobbes tells us that the leviathan is going to decrease the amount of pain and suffering in our lives, so he really believes in it in a sort of benevolent way (as strange as that at first may sound) whereas Freud readily admits that civilization is going to cause trauma, but really, he doesn't give a damn. Why? Cause he knows who the fuck benefits, that's why.

>This book is a shameful defense of patriarchy and no one is gonna convince me otherwise.


>It is not so much this book itself that pisses me off
should have stopped writing there

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1514138]

bump

[Anonymous No.1514145]

There weren't any 1-star ones, but here's a 2-star one:

Naomi by Junichiro Tanizaki

"naomi was so annoying

he was even more annoying

it was nice reading this with some history on the meiji period though because i'd imagine his poor pasty spineless self trotting around with these little blums of change going on all around him

this book also made me think of how many korean people with accented english would feel more confident if they knew that they'd sound so much better speaking if they were actually confident. people from other countries who also speak english as a second language tend to not be as frightened of offending others with their heavily accented english and their aplomb does make up for alot."

Seems like most people rate it low because they hate the characters.

[Anonymous No.1514156]

All of the 1 star reviews I can find don't write anything and just rate it 1 star.

[Brownbear !5EJ71eKlNQ!!6SnjW+BUlLP No.1514158]

The Trial - Franz Kafka
>I know we're supposed to love Kafka and appreciate him as the singular, german literary achiever of his time, but let's live dangerously and call this what it is-

>crap.

>It's not existential or surreal or any other "al" ending philosophical vocabulary word used by some of the lonelier of Kafka translators (read: borderline psychotic "enthusiasts). No, a story is not deep just because it's difficult to understand, sometimes it just doesn't make sense. The book is the picture of ad hominem argument and absurdity. This is to say nothing of the fact that the wunderkind's grip on simple concepts such as "time" is, at best, loose.

>Ok, over it now.

welp, he's a bit of a spaz.

[Anonymous No.1514166]

The last book I read has only a few readers (two reviews, both 5 stars)

So I will look at the current book I am reading, The Count of Monte Cristo

>Historical fiction novels can reside on opposite ends of the spectrum of good books. They can either be exciting and possibly even educational, or they can be terribly boring. At a staggering 591 pages, Alexandre Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo took determination and time for me to get through.

This book was published sometime between 1844-1846, so the language used in it was hard for me to follow. Along with that, Alexandre Dumas applied a style in which the story was told by a different character in each chapter. Generally, this style adds to the story because the reader can understand what each character is feeling. In this book, however, there are many, many characters, so switching around is just confusing.

This book is set in France around the early 1800s. In my opinion, the author did not do a good job of describing the setting. I have no idea what France looked like during that time, so there is no background information to help me. Plus, the setting is constantly changing with the change of characters.

Truthfully, I did not like this book at all. I was not interested in the subject, and there was hardly any action. It was also very difficult to read and hard to get through. I would not recommend it to anyone.

>591 pages

The version I own is over 1400 pages....

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1514170]

Oh god that image is awesome.

>mfw I couldn't find a one-star rating of Ted Hughes' Crow after a dozen pages.

[Anonymous No.1514177]

>>1514145
Alright, I went back a few books, and found a 1-star review with words.

Hotel Iris by Yoko Ogawa

"Disturbed old man savagely rapes young girl repeatedly. The end."

[Brownbear !5EJ71eKlNQ!!6SnjW+BUlLP No.1514182]

guys you can filter it to only show 1 star reviews.
just above where people who are not your friends on goodreads reviews start there is a filter option.

click it and press 1 star

[Anonymous No.1514185]

>>1514182
Yeah, but some books just don't have one star reviews.

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1514193]

>Will Self really needs to shut up about vaginas. If I have to read another highly-pretentious, “literary”-crude, half-lustful and half-petrified description of the female genitalia—of which this book contains, oh, dozens—I may have to do something…unladylike. I mean, bloody hell! It’s a vagina. Get over it.

>This book intrigued me as all (all? There is so little. Sigh) published genderfuck intrigues me. It’s broken into two parts: the first involving a woman who grows a penis, the second involving a man who grows a vagina. The second is okay—I don’t think it actually says anything interesting about gender, but bits of it are sort of weirdly hot, if you like that sort of thing. (And I do, okay? Leave me alone. *g*) The first, however…ew. EW. Apparently, a woman who grows a cock will immediately rape her husband to death. And then rape random strangers on trains. Lovely! I’m not really sure what this is supposed to be saying about gender, either. Or about people. Well, except that Will Self apparently hates everybody.

>This is one of those books that makes me despair of “literary fiction.” It also made me want to take a long, thorough shower.

Eh. I can understand somewhat where she's coming from. You can tell Self hasn't really found much of his own style yet, his later stuff is better.

[Anonymous No.1514536]

The Odyssey

>I really did not like this book at all. It was way too long and complicated for me to understand. I did not enjoy reading it at all. There were ALOT of pages and the vocabulary was also very unfamilar. When I read long books I tend to not really pay attention to what is happening because there is just too much going on. There were some interesting parts in the book, like when the Cyclops` eye got poked out by Odysseus and his men. Another part that I really like is when the suitors fought against Odysseus. I really liked these two parts because they had alot of action and gore in them and those are the kind of things I like to read. I would not recommend this to anyone at all.

>There were ALOT of pages

YOU FUCKING CUNT I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND KILL YOU YOU LITTLE SHIT. THAT IS THE MOST RETARDED THING I HAVE EVER READ. MORE RETARDED THAN TWILIGHT.

ALL OF MY HATE.

[Anonymous No.1514566]

>>1514536
>The Odyssey
>complex
There is absolutely no way that I could ever, ever see how anyone could consider the Odyssey complex.

[Anonymous No.1514576]

Samuel rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

>I've read the whole Divine Comedy once, all the way through, and then skimmed Inferno a second time for a class I had. I get all of his jokes, why he put the people where he put them, the religious reason for everything being in triads, I was aware of the basic facts of the political situation during his time; I basically just get it, and it's not that great to me. It's just some guy who's putting people in a fictional Hell/Purgatory/Paradise where he thinks they'd belong. That's not that great ...moreI've read the whole Divine Comedy once, all the way through, and then skimmed Inferno a second time for a class I had. I get all of his jokes, why he put the people where he put them, the religious reason for everything being in triads, I was aware of the basic facts of the political situation during his time; I basically just get it, and it's not that great to me. It's just some guy who's putting people in a fictional Hell/Purgatory/Paradise where he thinks they'd belong. That's not that great of an idea to me, and actually comes off as a little adolescent.

>Sure, there's symbolism in the punishments themselves. Sometimes it is quite clever. I certainly like his image of Satan at the bottom. But, in my humble opinion, this is the most overrated book in history

Not as rage inducing as I've expected, also he's using the word "skim" wrong.

[Anonymous No.1514581]

>>1514576

I wish I could read Italian and experience The Divine Comedy in the original language. Translations only go so far, I think.

[Anonymous No.1514594]

>>1514581

What's stopping you from doing so?

[gallowsCalibrator No.1514602]

>ROC4NNONS WORLD
>There might have been some good ideas in here, but once the hero, lost on the savage primitive world of Fomoalhaut II, reveals that he's wearing a thin, transparent, impermeable suit that protects him from heat, cold, stabbing, drowning and crushing, I kinda had a hard tie giving a damn.

>LeGuin has written better, I know.
1 GU3SS CH4R4CT3RS 1N PL4T3 4RMOR 4R3 UN1NT3R3ST1NG TOO

4T 4NY R4T3 H3 S33MS TO B3 COMPL3T3LY M1SS1NG TH3 PO1NT 4S D3SP1T3 ROC4NNONS SU1T H3 ST1LL SUFF3RS GR34T LOSS3S 4ND 1S F4R FROM 1NVULN3R4BL3 B3S1D3S

4LTHOUGH 1 COMPL3T3LY 4GR33 TH4T L3GU1N H4S WR1TT3N B3TT3R

[Anonymous No.1514606]

In the Name of the Wind: The Kingkiller

>I tried, I really did....but I couldn't make it through. I always think that I'm a fantasy genre fan...but I only like the really, really good ones, like Tolkien and Harry Potter. This is not the first grown-up fantasy book that I've tried and given up on. They all just seem to be copies of Tolkien, with a few new ideas thrown in. This was the same. Don't be fooled by all the five star reviews....unless you are a very serious fantasy reader, you'll be hungry for some characters with depth and un...moreI tried, I really did....but I couldn't make it through. I always think that I'm a fantasy genre fan...but I only like the really, really good ones, like Tolkien and Harry Potter. This is not the first grown-up fantasy book that I've tried and given up on. They all just seem to be copies of Tolkien, with a few new ideas thrown in. This was the same. Don't be fooled by all the five star reviews....unless you are a very serious fantasy reader, you'll be hungry for some characters with depth and understandable motivations

[Anonymous No.1514628]

>>1514606
>harry potter
>serious fantasy reader

haha oh wow

[Anonymous No.1514652]

Kurt Walters called it "whinny" and said that "I you loved this book - we have different tastes"

The_216 was assigned this book for 10th grade U.S. History and said "I would rather have hot lead poured into my eyeballs than reread this book."

Juan Guzman thinks this is a WWI war victim, while Alice thinks this is a Vietnam POW.

Both Jan and Joanne admit having not read the book for decades but remembering it as "disturbing" and "horrifying"

And finally Mike calls it flatout "filthy Communist propaganda."


>mfw 50% of people giving Johnny Got His Gun 1-star reviews are doing so because the book did its job (i.e. showed the horrors of war through the eyes of one of its most tragic victims)

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1514669]

>Hate this book. HATE THIS BOOK. This is what my 11th grade American lit teacher thought he'd have us read rather than Thoreau's Walden. Still bitter.
>Into the Wild
im fine with this

[Anonymous No.1514686]

Imaginary Jesus by Matt Mikalatos

No one stars. UMAD?

[Anonymous No.1514689]

Bradley gave Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's "The Phenomenon of Man" one star and this enlightening and informative review:

>Indecipherable.

Somehow I believe the problem may have had more to do with Bradley than Pierre.

[Courage Wolf !penisASZp2 No.1514702]

>Ubik
>This book was pointless. A bit like The Catcher in the Rye. Stuff happens, but nothing meaningful.

[Anonymous No.1514754]

Tara
Jul 11, 2008
Tara rated it 1 of 5 stars
Recommends it for: no one
Shelves: 1001-books, couldn-t-finish, horror, loathed
I plan to skip the violence, but I hope the rest of it gets more interesting than what I've read already. What a bore.

<two days later>

Ok, so I tried. Something about banned books (well, semi-banned in this case. I'm surprised my library has it) makes me want to read them. But I can see why this book is so contraversial. Even though I didn't finish it.

The first third of the book is amazingly boring. I found myself skipping every third line or so bec...moreI plan to skip the violence, but I hope the rest of it gets more interesting than what I've read already. What a bore.

<two days later>

Ok, so I tried. Something about banned books (well, semi-banned in this case. I'm surprised my library has it) makes me want to read them. But I can see why this book is so contraversial. Even though I didn't finish it.

The first third of the book is amazingly boring. I found myself skipping every third line or so because I really didn't care what people were wearing. All the characters were boring and conceited, and I got rather offended when they said that the only purpose of women was to turn men on, survival of the species and all that. Misogynistic bastards.

I managed to stomach the first hints of violence, but I gave up after Bateman killed the gay man and his dog. It gave me nightmares and it didn't seem worth it to try and finish. The parts that werent' violent or sexual were extremely boring, and the parts that were violent or sexual were disgusting and disturbing.

I understand that this is supposed to be a work of satire, but I like my satire to be funny, or witty, not gross. There was nothing witty in this book.


All of my hate.jpg

[Anonymous No.1514798]

What a piece of shit. A friend who I really respect a lot lent it to me, and I was shocked at how pointless it was. A bunch of spoiled, melodramatic hippies. This book was the first and, because it was so unbearable, last book I'll ever read by Haruki Murakami. His other books are supposed to be so good, but I'll never know because I'm unable to push this awful soap opera out of my head. Maybe the worst book I've ever finished.

[Anonymous No.1514818]

"read this book for the first time in the 8th grade. I had to get my mom to sign a permission slip because of the cursing. Before I began reading, I had so many expectations. Back then, I read Seventeen Magazine, and back then, Seventeen Magazine ran brainy features about books and poetry. There was one feature where they asked people what book changed their lives, and something like more than half said Catcher in the Rye. I think there might have been some celebrity comments in there, too. At any rate, it was a ringing endorsement.

So you can imagine my disappointment when I hated it. Not only did I hate Holden, but I hated everything about the novel. There was nothing I enjoyed. I did my book report where I confessed my hatred (which led my teacher to confess that she did, too), but I couldn't let it go. I honestly felt that my loathing of a novel that so many others found "life-changing" indicated some deep and horrible flaw. I felt like hating Catcher in the Rye was my dirty little secret.

Time passed, and my self-loathing mellowed. I began to think that perhaps I'd come at it too young, so after my first year of college, I decided to re-read it, go at it with fresh eyes, and see if my opinion had changed.

Here's the thing: it hasn't. I get it. I get that Holden is supposed to be loathsome. I get that he is the hypocrite he hates. I get that almost all teenagers go through the kind of thinking he experiences. I get it. I do. I just don't like it.

Oh, and I'm not ashamed anymore."

> Mentions absolutely no positive or negative aspects about the book
> Only talks about herself
> "I'm special because I dislike something popular"

RAGING SO HARD. Not because I disagree with her, but because the dumb bitch can't grasp the basic concept of what a review is.

[Anonymous No.1514945]

Sherlock Motherfucking Holmes

>too complex to understand their language and tone.

>We had to use this book in a critical reasoning class and deduced that Sherlock is not at all a reasoning sort of fella --just a lucky guesser.

>I'm not gonna lie, I barely made it through the first story before putting the book down. Being a huge fan of the show House (which is loosely based on Sherlock Holmes) and enjoying the new Holmes movie, I was excited to read the source material. Sadly, it fell flat for me. I found the writing very dry and mater-of-fact. While Holmes is portrayed as a great detective, I found him seriously lacking in character or personality (don't get me started on Watson). Normally I am all for reading the original, but in this case I think I'll stick to the film versions.

And they're all fucking Twilight fags.

[Anonymous No.1514959]

TOO GOOD:

Cat's Cradle:

"This book made me stop reading fiction. The only novel I've read since is The Fountainhead. I'm definitely never reading Vonnegut again. I don't know what it was about this book but it just made me want to stop reading. "

[Anonymous No.1514965]

>>1514818
It's like she wrote a shittier version of The Catcher in the Rye. 0.o

[Anonymous No.1514971]

>A Clockwork Orange

>It's an interesting plot and the way it's written is really what makes it worth reading. Everything else is just kind of shitty, though. Our antihero, Alex, commits horrific acts of violence with impunity, is caught and subjected to experiments which make him incapable of being aggressive, is beaten up by his former victims, manages to undo the scientific conditioning, goes back to being violent, then gets tired of it and decides he wants to have a son. All the while reminding us that nothing is his fault and that all teenagers are hardwired to be violent and nasty.
Sure, right, whatever.

>Anthony Burgess is basically just a pretentious bastard. The movie version of this book is pretty sucky too, basically because Stanley Kubrick is a pretentious bastard too.

[Anonymous No.1514977]

>>1514971
I liked a clockwork orange :(

"When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man"

[Anonymous No.1515001]

> Metamorphosis
This book is so retarded. How did it become a classic?? It's about a guy who randomly wakes up and sees that he has turned into a cockroach over night. Yet, he is still set on catching the next train and going to work so he doesn't lose his job. What the heck?!!! How was he planning on working in his state. Like, people would think it was kind of weird if a random cockroach walked into their office.

...the fuck?

[Anonymous No.1515005]

>i think i'm one of the few people in this world who didn't like this book. i really tried to read it, my dad and sister just raved about it - but i found myself bored and annoyed. it's one thing to not like characters b/c the author wrote them so brilliantly you actually have an emotional response to them, whether it be positive or negative, but with this book, i was just bored and didn't care about the characters. It was actually painful to read past one point. I absolutely could not read past the middle of the book. Then I found out my mom and 2 of my friends felt the same way. So at least I don't feel crazy anymore. :)

FUCK YOU BUDDY

[Anonymous No.1515020]

Nausea - Jean-Paul Sartre
Adam:
>If you hate yourself and life so much, why not end it all and spare us the torture of reading your stupid book? This book is called nausea because it makes readers nauseous from its badness.

Eva:
>uuuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Dylan:
>What I learned from this book

i want to punch sartre in the fucking face after 10 pages.

[Anonymous No.1515027]

>>1515001
Missing-the-point reviews are the worst reviews.

[Anonymous No.1515028]

>>1515001
Man, wtf are you doing on /lit/? What makes a good story for you? Pre-digested fucking teen drama?
Come on. Hit me. Hard.

[Anonymous No.1515032]

>>1515027
On that subject, here is my favorite "missed the point" review:

The Stranger - Albert Camus
>Finally the biggest point, I feel, is that the author Camus DOES NOT mention the afterlife, or even the slight mention whether there is an afterlife, or even a quick question from a guy who is about to be executed about what is going to happen after he dies. Duh! It doesn't matter how athiest or existentialist you are... THE MAJORITY of people, when they are about to be executed (for murder none the less) will ask, at least once, "what happens after I die." He has no conviction, no sorrow, no guilt, no heart, no soul. No second thoughts. And definitly NO FEARS of death? NO FEAR of an afterlife? Not even a question about it. Seems the book was written way too unrealistically.

Seriously.

[Anonymous No.1515033]

>read through the 1 star reviews of On the Road
>"It's racist"
>"It's sexist"
>"It's pretentious"

How about writing an accurate fucking review of that shit? Like how Sal's obsession with Dean is borderline creepy, or how the writing style is horrible or the fact that IT'S SO FUCKING BORING.

I did find one review of it that almost made me rage, though:

>Steve rated it *****
>An obvious classic. Free-thinkers only.

I hope Steve chokes on a million fucking dicks.

[Anonymous No.1515035]

>>1515032

i like that one

[Anonymous No.1515036]

>>1515032
Oh what the fuck.

[Anonymous No.1515037]

>>1515028
Poster of the post you directed your comment too, did you seriously not understand that I was posting a review taken from goodreads for Kafka's work, not writing my own? You know, fitting in with the context of the thread?
I clearly read Metamorphosis and enjoyed it enough to disagree with a completely idiotic review of it, so what do you expect from me now? To hit you hard? Learn to read the fucking context of a thread before replying to something.

[Anonymous No.1515039]

>>1515036
Yeah, this is hilarious. I love goodreads.

[Anonymous No.1515042]

>>1515036
Interestingly enough, the writer of that review gave The Bible 5 stars.

[Anonymous No.1515047]

>>1515042
Christfag here

How the hell do you write a review of the Bible?

Anything older than say, 200 years is past the point of simply a piece of literature that can be given an objective review

[Anonymous No.1515052]

The Big Sleep
>This is the first...and last, Raymond Chandler book I'll read. It's just one big male fantasy. The women are all "dames" and "broads." They're bad girls and seductresses who get slapped around by the men. The book feels dated--I didn't understand some of the phrases and dialogue from the era. I also couldn't get past all the cliched characters and dialogue which I suppose isn't fair since Chandler was probably the originator of this genre! But they've appeared and been parodied so many times, it was difficult not to roll my eyes

[Anonymous No.1515056]

I'm noticing a trend that a lot of the people who give bad reviews to the books I like are women who claim the books are misogynistic, and therefore are bad books.

[Anonymous No.1515055]

Hey Nostradamus - Douglas Coupland

Stephanie's review:
This is the worst book I've ever read and I've read in-progress drafts from beginning writers. There's zero difference in the narrative voices. There's a gimmick for how the story is being told (ex: a letter, notes by a court stenographer compelled to tell her story). The plot is laughable and the character reactions could be called "unrealistic" if the characters themselves behaved the least like actual people. I mean, "Well someone saw us together in this Vegas hotel lobby so, naturally, I killed him." (not actual quote, just actual storyline)

I read this for a book club. It was the only book I read for the book club. I would sell it except that I feel wrong inflicting this literary pain on other people.

BTW: Coupland seems to have some very rabid supporters. When I blogged a longer review after reading it and then a shorter, softer review at Amazon, they came out of the closet to tell me how I didn't "get it" and how ludicrous my opinion is. They're entitled to that opinion and I'm entitled to mine: this book sucks.

---

Not surprisingly, Stephanie is a fat disgusting Mormon lolcow.

[Anonymous No.1515062]

>>1515047
The Bible - 5 stars
Recommended for - EVERYONE
I have been reading this book since 1992, the year prior to my salvation January 4, 1993. I love this book above all the books I own. This book is why I live, breathe and have my being. I love Jesus with all my heart and because of Him I am living; la dolce vita ~ "the sweet life." If you want to know more about Jesus, you can visit my blogs at:
http://creatingmemories.typepad.com/comp......
I have many blogs on their feel free to browse around.
Tina

[Anonymous No.1515063]

>>1515056
Yeah - check out the "The Big Sleep" reviews.
I posted one a few minutes ago and I noticed several reviewers complaining about misogyny.

[Anonymous No.1515074]

> I have no idea how this book made it onto the Literary Criticism reading list. Samuel Butler basically took the idea for Gulliver's Travels and made it more boring, dumber, and with these really pointless essays scattered throughout. 'An Erewhonian's View on the Rights of Vegetables'? Honestly!

The problem is I agree.

[Anonymous No.1515091]

on Montaigne's Complete Essays Megan says
"Humility is a good quality. Montaigne could have used a little bit of it."

[Anonymous No.1515095]

Frankenstein:
>pretty mediocre
I kinda agree with it.

[Anonymous No.1515097]

>fuckin Jim on Candide by the V man

"Sorry, fellow academicians, but I don't find _Candide_ to be that good at all. I think it caught a wave, like _Clerks_ caught the first indy film wave, or like _the Drudge Report_ caught the first blog wave. Find a point made in Candide that isn't made routinely by 20-somethings, even teens, and I'll raise my eyebrow. But then I'll lower it. And nod patiently."

>what does that shit even mean? aren't there enough 12-30 year old people on the planet to say just about everything on any topic? fuck this guy that book was awesome

[Anonymous No.1515099]

>There are so many things wrong with this book that it's hard to know where to begin. For starters, the idea of having a couple of different timelines going at once, and shift tenses according--present tense for the present, regular past tenses for the past--causes some serious grammatical problems, and is an utter BS plot device. I'm not a huge fan of telling a story through flashbacks, but it can be done reasonably while retaining proper grammar. It's not brain surgery.

>The biggest problem was the characters, though: three such utterly unsympathetic main characters do not make it easy to like anything about the story. Crake was a rabid dog that needed to be put down a lot sooner than he was, Oryx was probably insane and too cold to make you care, and Snowman was just too damn stupid. Also, characters that you meet while they're watching child porn to me means that they should be first in line for the electric chair, not that I should care about their personal problems.

>Also-also, she probably thought that ending was clever, but it was, in fact, a cop out. She was bored with the book, she wanted to end it, so she did. It must be convenient to not have to actually tie up her loose ends.

Ugh...The reviewer also mentions that she started to read the book " predisposed not to like it".
Also, she mentions the ending as shallow and lazy not realizing that it was meant to be a trilogy. Sheesh!

[Anonymous No.1515104]

>>1515099
whoops, that was a review for oryx and crake

[Anonymous No.1515105]

>On Chomsky's Profit Over People our friend Sean says

"let's get real here motherfuckers, I read this and really tried to understand what he was getting at and still was left baffled. I even tried to reread parts and was still lost. This shit's like 150 pages and took me months to get through."

>mfw it was like 6 medium sized essays that feed you the conclusions

[Anonymous No.1515109]

What I've noticed:
1.The reviewers are divided in 3 general kinds: angry kids venting off essay-induced steam, (sub-)urbanites showing off erudition, intellectuals (teachers, clerics or wives) making a public statement
2.Most reviews are American and reflect the two main ideological paradigms of the USA. If a book is refused the grounds are either that it either propagates misogynist/racist ideas or that it is "too gloomy" (critical)/not anabaptist.
3.Most of the 5 star reviews are generic leering over random holy cows:
>More than anything, this book should make you think. And not about trivial shit either, but about big, important conditions of life and how best to view and react to them. I have "should" italicized in that first sentence for a reason: If you don't give yourself time to think -- if just skim through the book quickly -- then you won't get anything out of it.
Can you name the book? Nobody can. The lower the rating the better the review. if you'll ever feel butthurt it's because you're the lobotomised apeman snob

[Anonymous No.1515169]

>This book, as much as I detest it, is actually rather useful. Those who have read it tend to be those whom I most especially desire to avoid. Because those who have read it are invariably proud of the fact--ostentatiously so--it is even easier for me to keep my life free and clear of delusional egomaniacs. Thank you Ayn Rand.

>I think reading 500 pages qualifies me to say that this is the worst book EVER WRITTEN. I HATED IT.

>This book was the most overrated piece of crap of the twentieth century. It spars only with Dianetics and in its absolute absurdity.

>Imagine an analogous situation:
A white supremacist writes a book in which all the white characters are great and all the black characters are awful. If you were to read that book and as a result buy into white supremacy; that would make you an utter utter fool.

>This book just flat-out sucks. There's no other way that I can put it.

>Hey, if everybody acts like a total dick to everybody else, then everybody will be happy. Good call, Ayn.

>I'm wondering whom I'd need to bribe to have this book moved from the philosophy shelf to its proper place on the Books That Seem Really Great to 14 Year Old Boys But That Don't Hold Up At All Well to Rigorous Thinking shelf. Other charter members of said shelf: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, The Catcher and the Rye, and anything by a post-Descartes French philosopher.

[Anonymous No.1515175]

>I read a hundred pages of this book and barely made a dent. It had been highly recommended, multiple times, and I don't like to give up on a book that my friends love, but after a hundred pages, all I had to show for my efforts was foreshadowing of supernatural forces, unnecessary violence and unbelievable hostility, adoption of some wolf pups, awkward children that don't behave their ages, and more foreshadowing. I kept thinking, okay, now the story is going to get going. Okay, now. Maybe the next chapter?

>Then I thought, do I really care if something happens? Am I invested in these characters? Has he answered any of my constant questions about their food supply, if winter can last a lifetime? He doesn't seem to have any concept of economics and there doesn't seem to be any political intrigue going on, just the obvious stuff.

>So, I put it down and picked up Bleak House; if I'm going to read a nine-hundred page book in the middle of winter, it should probably be Dickens. Sorry, everyone, I really did want to like this one.

No political intrigue in A Game of Thrones? Rage...building...

[Anonymous No.1515291]

Someone using the Deep&Edgy name AND making a decent thread?

BLASPHEMY!

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1515448]

Bump.

These people almost do /lit/ better than /lit/.

[Anonymous No.1515512]

>Zarathustra, the character through which Nietzsche vicariously spews forth his world-view, is a pompous, narcissistic, ego maniac that is so obsessed with how right he is, he can't see just how terribly wrong he ends up being. Nietzsche constantly contradicts himself, uses poor logic and reasoning, and pushes for a social order that benefits only the elite. I'm appalled of Nietzsche's idea that the great men of the world should walk all over the little, regular people to achieve their greatness. He says that the existence of the general population is justified only by the fact that there may come out of them a greater race (Hitler was a big fan of this view as well). He says that morality and ethics are not real, but merely tools to manipulate masses and hold back the elite. This guy must have been insane! (Turns out he was, being committed to a mental institution only years after finishing this work).

[Anonymous No.1515516]

>>1515512

[Anonymous No.1515528]

>My boredom levels in this book no doubt contributed to my own decline and fall, freshman year of college.

[Anonymous No.1515542]

Siddhartha

>I really tried with this one. I've read Karen Armstrong's biography The Buddha. and liked it a lot, so why don't I like Siddhartha? Maybe it's just Hesse. I couldn't even finish Steppenwolf so maybe it IS Hesse. That darn Hermann - he wrote such MAN books. Like Heinlein and Asimov, who wrote books that just don't have any appeal to me because I sense they don't like women, don't have any use for women (other than the obvious) and aren't writing for women. Yeah, it's HERMANN'S fault that this ...moreI really tried with this one. I've read Karen Armstrong's biography The Buddha. and liked it a lot, so why don't I like Siddhartha? Maybe it's just Hesse. I couldn't even finish Steppenwolf so maybe it IS Hesse. That darn Hermann - he wrote such MAN books. Like Heinlein and Asimov, who wrote books that just don't have any appeal to me because I sense they don't like women, don't have any use for women (other than the obvious) and aren't writing for women. Yeah, it's HERMANN'S fault that this book gets one star.(less)

[Anonymous No.1515577]

Fahrenheit 451

>During I was reading this novel book, I had a picture in my head what is going on. The picture sort of scared me. Because of that i didn't really like this book. The books were burning and it was not really good for people. Who were enjoying the reading books. Story a bit confused me at some points. The main character is afire man who was burning books in the city. I dont like idea about burning books that is because book is sores of information and also helping to developing our community and u...moreDuring I was reading this novel book, I had a picture in my head what is going on. The picture sort of scared me. Because of that i didn't really like this book. The books were burning and it was not really good for people. Who were enjoying the reading books. Story a bit confused me at some points. The main character is afire man who was burning books in the city. I dont like idea about burning books that is because book is sores of information and also helping to developing our community and understanding world around us. Its kind of sad to think that no any books on the bookshelf is at your house. And others tracing you to take the book to destroy it. People were hiding the books but it was dangerous and those people took the risk. So with all the thinking about this book makes me thing just how i don't like this book.

[Anonymous No.1515591]

House of Leaves

I was never scared, but rather annoyed. NOTHING seems to happen. And as soon as the story begins to move, we get a long winded worthless conversation from our main character.

Nothing is ever explained, nor finalized. This is seriously one of the most boring, meandering, monotonous books I have read.

While reading the book I found a message board dedicated to the book and its absolute greatness. It took all I had not to log in and question the taste and objectivity of these people, but if they like it, who am I to pee on them.

I do not recommend this book, but if you do read it and turn out to enjoy it, please enlighten me as to what I missed as I fought falling asleep reading these boring passages.

[Anonymous No.1515599]

>>1515577
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[Anonymous No.1515614]

I recently re-read Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man" and holy shit this review is retarded.

>First off, he isn't really invisible. That was disappointment enough, but I couldn't keep reading it when I came to this clunker of a sentence: "Placing [the letters] in my inside pocket, I grabbed my bags and hurried for the bus."

[Anonymous No.1515616]

>I hated this book, I got bored by by the fifth page and stopped reading.

Does it really matter what book? This probably accounts for about 1/3rd of the negative reviews.

[Anonymous No.1515625]

>>1515577

best be fucking trolling.

[Anonymous No.1515632]

I did this but I couldn't rage because I don't care about the opinions of random people on the internet.

[Anonymous No.1515649]

>>1515616
The other 2/3rds:

> THE CHARACTERS WERE FLAT AND THE PLOT IS BORING
> Doesn't deliver specifics

Cool opinion bro.

[Anonymous No.1515661]

>Apathy and other small victories by Paul Nielan
Laurie rated it: *
>I will be upfront: I hated this book like I haven't hated a book in a really long time. Do not read the rest of this unless you feel like reading a lot of complaining.

>This is the story of Shane. He goes to the dentist a lot. He hates his corporate job. He drinks and steals salt shakers. He is accused of a murder. The end.

>How did the preceding really pass for a plot when the publisher read this book? Honestly, NOTHING ELSE HAPPENS. The most interesting element of this novel was the murder investigation, and it was literally set up a bit in the beginning and then a solution was tacked onto the end.

>I think it is because this book is billed as being "funny" people will excuse its thin and pointless plot line. Unfortunately for me then, I did not find it funny. Well, ok, a few lines made me chuckle. The rest? Tired. Boring. Making fun of people that take their nine to five cubicle jobs too seriously? Been done. Too many times to list all the examples, actually. And honestly, it was preachy. Ok, yes, we get it: this is no way to live a life, blah blah blah you are sooooooooo superior. SPARE ME.

>This book was smug. It wants me to feel like an idiot for taking it seriously, just like every other character who gave a shit about something was show to look. I mean, for christ's sake, it's called Apathy, right? What's MY problem?

>Well "Apathy" for a book about not giving a shit, I think you tried way too hard. Thanks for wasting my time

I WANT TO RAPE YOUR BRAIN YOU DUMB FUCKING CUNTFACE

[Anonymous No.1515677]

Brighton Rock by Graham Greene

>Why does Graham Greene usually get a pass for his Krazy Katholic antics? Because as a writer, both aesthetically and technically, he's difficult to rival. He can turn a phrase almost as well as Nabokov, and plot a story tighter than my good friend's vagina(she is exquisite). But this, this was a bad book. The only redeeming sentence in the entire book is the first one, which I shall replicate here in hopes that you don't bother with reading any further--although I'm aware this seems like an enticing reason to do so.

>"Hale knew, before he had been in Brighton three hours, that they meant to murder him."

fucking lol. I like this guy.

[Anonymous No.1515679]

> Look up 1-star reviews on Game of Thrones
> mfw bitches didn't like it due to its obscene contexts and degradation of women in a medieval time period

[Shitty Leith Apartment Fag No.1515689]

>>1515679
>Look up 5-star reviews on Game of Thrones
>mfw people like it.

[Anonymous No.1515724]

>rousseau has written the first anti-civ, anarchist philosophical essay that i am aware of. it doesn't seem to be fully acknowledged as that, but it's clear what rousseau is talking about when he declares "All ran to meet their chains thinking they secured their freedom... Such was the origin of society and laws, which gave new fetters to the weak and new forces to the rich, destroyed natural freedom for all time, established forever the law of property and inequality, changed a clever usurpation into an irrevocable right, and for the profit of a few ambitious men henceforth subjected the whole human race to work, servitude and misery."

>when i first read this book it was a wake up call to the highest degree, because i had never read someone who had such a similar viewpoint to my own before. it was a liberating experience, as if he was speaking my words.

>rousseau takes the reader all the way back to the beginning of humanity and brings you one step at a time through the development of society (and the division of labor) until we reach our current, horrible state.

>finally some realistic philosophy! beats the shit out of marx, THIS is materialism.

[Anonymous No.1515775]

>Somehow between that time I read The Bell Jar, and heard others using this novel as an pseudo-autobiographical explanation of Ms. Plath living a dysfunctional existence, as well as supporting their own political agendas, I came to an epiphany: this book is a self-serving/self-pitying pretentious literary load of classic whine.
bravo!

[Anonymous No.1515784]

is there a /lit/ group on goodreads?

[Anonymous No.1515806]

>>1515784
make one. Then the tripfags might go.

[Anonymous No.1515815]

>Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

>Noe rated it *

>This book was crap. 204 pages of some dude staying completely wrecked. There was no point, I kept waiting for some deep meaning to come out of it but it never did. A complete waste of my time.

>THERE WAS NO HIDDEN MEANING OR PHILOSOPHY IT WAS ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT THE BACK SAID WHAT A SHIT BOOK

[Anonymous No.1515824]

>>1515806

This.

[Anonymous No.1515829]

One star review of Small Favor by Jim Butcher.

>I really liked Book 1, disliked Book 2, then skipped directly to this book. Unfortunately, a lot of battles, appointments and various political moves, back-stabbings, and alignments transpired between Book 2 and this book.

>It was too confusing for me to follow, and the bad after taste from Book 2 was still lingering in my mouth, so I stopped reading. But I'm pretty sure I won't regret the decision to stop.

Well, I think this person is a fucking moron for skipping ahead like that, but I will agree that Fool Moon is the weakest book of the series.

[Anonymous No.1515832]

>>1515784

http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/29373._lit_

[Anonymous No.1515834]

Gravity's Rainbow:

>I tried this in college after enduring an entire semester of my friend ranting about its awesomeness. After 100 pages of alternating boredom and confusion I asked my friend if it was going to change. He said no. I closed the book. Still don't understand why Pynchon is supposed to be so amazing. Then again, I like reading about telepathic elves who ride wolves.

[Anonymous No.1515862]

I would NOT recommend this to any one. While the author portrays characters and events beautifully, he also includes a lot of pornographic situations throughout the book. I read it because my 17 year old son was given this book as an assignment in his English class. I'm glad I read ahead of him. Needless to say he will not be reading this book. We rented the made for TV series which was cleaned up and very good.

[Anonymous No.1515894]

>>1515862
Name of book?

[Anonymous No.1515910]

>>1515894

The Holy Bible

[Anonymous No.1515912]

>>1515894

Lonesome Dove.

[Anonymous No.1515918]

Denis Johnson - Jesus' Son

"I can confidently report that this is one of the top-3 worst books I've ever read. The book is made up of short stories, wherein each is worse than the last. Every story is written in that style where the author is the only person who can POSSIBLY deduce what is happening. I felt like I was on the outside of an inside joke.
I brought it with me on the metro today, giving it one last chance, but it is so incontestably bad that, rather than read this terrible terrible book, I chose to stare blankly at the blank wall in front of me. For 8 metro stops. I could have gotten through an entire one of his terrible short stories in that time. But NO. I wouldn't put myself through that torture.
(I subsequently abandoned the book on a table at a coffee shop, just to ensure that I never had to look at it again. I caught a man eying it, possibly considering nabbing it, and I wanted to say, "NO MAN! SAVE YOURSELF!")
Anyway. In conclusion: bad book. "

[Anonymous No.1515920]

>>1514158

[Anonymous No.1515929]

You chaps will have to look up the Beatrice and Virgil reviews for yourselves. It's got a lot of 1-stars, and they're all heaps of shite. I want to hurt things.