/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2909831]

It's that time again
>Go to goodreads.com and search for your favorite book
>On the book's page, set review filter to 1 star
>bring a review here


>One of the most annoying books I've ever read. I usually don't do this, but I literally couldn't bring myself into finishing it.
>How come a character who doesn't believe that someone could predict the future, believes him to be present at Jesus' execution, while both of them are living in the 20th century?
>And, what's the use of having a cat in a book, when everything it does is human? To name a few: drinking vodka from a cup while hold it with its paw, walking on its hind legs (ugh), steeping into a bus and paying the fare, and the final blow: talking! Bulgakov may have had an above average story, but his characters were extremely unbelievable and irrational in a bad way. And let's not forget the incredibly lengthy prose.

[Anonymous No.2909841]

That made me very angry, OP.

>"I am a bored girl. I am a tired girl." If you preceive that this is mockery of the way Notes from Underground opens, you are absolutely right. If Dostoevsky was trying to attain unto "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," by Dickens, he comes immeasurable short. I realize I can't appreciate living in Russia as an artist (writer) during the 19th century. But, in my opinion Dostoevsky, comes across as arrogant and trite despite his environ. NOW I'll read the other reviews. Regardless, I don't think I'll ever make it to The Brothers Karamazov, despite the "don't die without reading this" lists on which it appears.

[Anonymous No.2909843]

Can we do a revsal
>Go to goodreads and search for your favourite book
>On the reviews page, set review filter to 5 star
>find out lit waifus

[Anonymous No.2909847]

>And, what's the use of having a cat in a book, when everything it does is human?

[Anonymous No.2909849]

>>2909847
dear god you must link this

[Anonymous No.2909858]

>Okay, so I'm aware that this is a widely beloved book with it's Homers, and it's oral tellings, and it's histories-DAAAWHAWWW

>But it must be said. This book makes a habit of taking FOR-FREAKING-EVER to explain what could be said in like five seconds. Example? Heres one:
A bunch of freaking ships sail to troy!

>There I've done it. I have finally taken the biggest dumb on Homer. For in the book, that sentence takes AN ENTIRE CHAPTER TO SAY!!! You could argue that it's poetry. And since I almost never go out of my way to read poetry AND I think Shakespeare is REALLY over rated, that point would at all be unjustified. You could also say that Homer was explaining all of the ships and who was on it. EXCEPT THAT NOBODY WOULD EVER GIVE A CRAP IF THIS BOOK WASN'T SO FRIGGIN' OLD!!!

>Finally, you could argue that since I didn't finish the book, I have no right to criticize it. But, OOOH NO! I would sort of begin to agree with you If I was criticizing the plot or the continuity, and so on. But, I'm complaining about something that cannot be ignored. You can turn to any page in the story and see this problem. That is, the over stating of a simple idea. Many books fall for this. Even "Pendragon," one of my favorite franchises is guilty of doing this. Even I! Why just read this review and you'll see it!!! In fact, that's basically what writing is! One of the major goals of a writer is to create the illusion that there isn't any rambling going on, and this book fails on ALL accounts.

>Oh man, I'm getting so worked up about this that I'm overusing the caps lock. Well, I think my point is made. I didn't like "The Illiad."(less)

[Anonymous No.2909862]

>>2909831
Holy crap, how humourless can a person be?

See if you can guess the author.
>The man simply cannot write. My guess is that people like him so much mainly because he has the shock value. I'm sorry but just because you write "edgy" and "shocking" stories about sex and a dad flapping his penis in his sons face (yes an actual short story) doesn't mean your a good writer. Also when parentheses have to be used every 20 words (not kidding) then clarity in the writing (the authors writing) tends to be really befuddled (I mean really befuddled.) --- --- NOT EASY TO READ THAT LAST SENTENCE, AY?

>All in all if you (the reader) likes: indie films (only), wears skinny jeans, doesn't shave (man or woman), owns a mac, thinks weed should be legalized, wears a beanie throughout the entire year (including summer), can't just order a coffee but must order a "grande caffe mocha, no sugar, no whipped cream, extra dry, with half skim, half full milk". Then yes this book is for you.

[Anonymous No.2909863]

>I feel like a mental midget in trying to explain my feelings about this book. I struggle to understand why it is considered such a classic piece of literature. Am I jaded by my own time? Have I heard too often the world "lolita" used in modern contexts to refer to young girls who are attractive to adult men who should know better? I had to delve into some literary criticism in order to help me understand, and I think what Lolita tries to do is tell a disguting story about a disgusting man using beautiful language. I think it also speaks to our modern day inclination to want to explain ourselves, as if we could absolve ourselves from the horrors of the crimes we commit if it is understood why we did it. Listening to the audiobook, although fabulously read by Jeremy Irons, probably meant that the language was lost on me for the most part. Instead I was left with the story of this self-described monster who destroys a child's life and feels remorse only at losing her. Perhaps revolutionary in its storytelling at the time it was published, but too gross to read today.

[Anonymous No.2909865]

>>2909862

Bret Easton Ellis?

[Anonymous No.2909869]

>>2909862
Sounds like the description of your average David Foster Wallace fan.
Who is it?

[Anonymous No.2909870]

Three Men In a Boat

>This was my Facebook status immediately after reading the book. I think it stands up as a review as well.

Finished reading 3 men in a boat by jerome k jerome.
god, its AWFUL.
3 whiny hypocondriacs who all need a damn good slap is what it should be called.
>I didn't like this book. It seemed like the author was trying too hard to be funny. It was really boring.

[Anonymous No.2909871]

Moby Dick is one of the worst, most dissapointing experiences of my life. I started it in February 2006, and was so utterly bored that didn't finish it until May... of the next year.
I felt sooo cheated!! This was the greatest classic of all time? The book everybody talks about? It even made me question myself as a reader, maybe I had misunderstood, or done something wrong? I even felt stupid. But after thinking a lot about it, I realized the book is one big freaking joke.
It starts of telling you about all this interesting misteries around the ships captain and the big white whale; which is actually pretty good. Suddenly, you start reading all this very - it's almost painful - detailed descriptions of every single part of the whale (there's actually a chapter called The Eye!!) You then find yourself going through almost 800 pages of the most boring thing ever written and then, all of a sudden, you realize you're in the last page... This one actually contains a bit of the story, but it ends so abruptly and so badly that you feel stunned and stupid.
In the end, you only read (and I'm not exagerating) like 50 pages of actual story, and the rest is biological documentation. It was deffinitely a huge let down, I wouldn't recomend it to anyone, unless you hated them and wanted to make them suffer. Even then, I doubt anyone is as masochistic as I am, I mean, most people would've given up by page 200.

[Anonymous No.2909874]

>Resolves nothing. And that is supposed to be the point.

>Just grieve for the dead, be glad it's not you (yet) and move on. Ho hum. If Camus was around today I'd smack him. I'd. Literally. Bitchslap. The Mother.

[Anonymous No.2909875]

>>2909869
It IS David Foster Wallace - Good job sir!
It a review of Brief Interview with Hideous Men.

[Anonymous No.2909878]

>>2909862
Wodehouse?
Heller?
Wilde?

[Anonymous No.2909880]

>>2909871
round 2. this could go all day but i'll stop

>Horrible book! I'm 2/3 the way through this 624 pg book and don't even know why they still print it, much less why it's a "classic"!Dosn't a book have to be good to begin with to be a classic?!?!?! I'm sure it sucked back in 1851 too.
Reading this book was one heck of a chore for me, and I've been known to crunch down some pretty dry reading material! (I'm also currently reading 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' by Jared Diamond, and ok with that.) I was lucky to attempt to read it on my own free agency! Some thousands of poor souls had to read this entire book (or the spark notes if they could get away with it) and then give a report on it if they wanted a good grade in a class! I am going to be starting a Facebook page offering a small amount of help to those unfortunate enough to have read this book for any reason, because I know it caused me alot of grief and anguish!
.....
When I like a book, I often reccomend it to friends and let them borrow it. If I find it mediocre, I take it to a used book store or library in hopes that someone not as cool as me might like to read it. When I don't like a book I throw it into the trash, or hop into my time machine and give it to Hitler so he can burn it on Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade. If I smoked cigarettes, I'd probably enjoy wrapping my own with the pages of this book. If I had the smallest form of respect for the book, I'd put it under my entertainment center to hold up the corner where the wheel broke off during my last move. I think this one is a prime candidate for placement behind my children's toilet to catch any misses. May God have mercy on Herman Melville for what he did!

[Anonymous No.2909885]

>>2909875
I've read that but I don't recall any gay incestuous penis flapping . . . refresh my memory, which story is that from?

[Anonymous No.2909890]

The Turn of the Screw
>This "book" does not deserve a star, let alone half of a star, or any portion of any geometric shape whatsoever. It is supposed to be a "ghost" "story" but is neither a story nor is it about ghosts. Nothing ever happens and it's narrated by a persnippety British woman who sounds like she has phlegm caught in her throat. Apparently it's a must for the GRE, but do not be mistaken. It is the most un-literary thing I have ever listened to. And there is no screw.

>there is no screw.

>no screw.

Fuck me, I think I just got dumber.

[Anonymous No.2909892]

>>2909890
>the most un-literary thing I have ever listened to.

Fuck you, I think you just got trolled.

[Anonymous No.2909893]

>Even though it is a novella, I kept wondering when it would be over. The main character could literally blow away, and I only know he was a character because he had all these things attached to him. He was more like a fence that collects themes, traits and ridiculous philosophizings like windblown garbage than he was like a person. If it'd been Bellow's first book, we wouldn't know who he is.

[Anonymous No.2909894]

>>2909890
>woman who sounds like she has phlegm caught in her throat
Sounds like? What the fuck-
>It is the most un-literary thing I have ever listened to
How is that the book's fault.

[Anonymous No.2909895]

>Yeah, it's cool that the narrator thinks he's a werewolf, but is really just a recluse pseudo-academic--and then reads a manuscript that describes fake werewolves and outs them as poseurs.

Reading 1-star ratings of Steppenwolf is great fun. People clearly missed the point of the book big time.

[Anonymous No.2909897]

>>2909890
>It is the most un-literary thing I have ever listened to
Oh my fucking god.

[Anonymous No.2909900]

>>2909885
That really is all the story is about.
A college-aged guy suddenly remembers an incident when he was a child where his father flapped his penis in front of him.
He confronts his father with the memory in a "What's up with that?" sort of way and the father just looks at him with disgust.
Rings any bells?

[Anonymous No.2909901]

>>2909895
Wait, that's what Steppenwolf is about? One poseur werewolf proving that other ones are fake?

FIVE STARS. Not even joking. I'd read the shit out of that.

[Anonymous No.2909905]

I don't have a favorite book. I tried with one I love though. The Gunslinger.
Most of the 1 star reviews were of people who admitted that this was their first SK book ever.
So.. are people that retarded?

[Anonymous No.2909908]

>>2909901
That's not what it is about at all, I'm sorry to say. It would be pretty awesome though.

[Anonymous No.2909909]

>>2909905
This thing doesn't work that well with scifi/fantasy.

[Anonymous No.2909910]

>I don't usually blast the classics, but I have to make an exception for this one. I had NO idea The Three Muskateers was a rendition of Disney characters meeting The Three Stooges, with a little Adam Sandler thrown in for heart. Forget all about basic writing procedures like character or basic logical plot development. Those things do not exist here. Dumas never uses one or two words when 347 will do instead, so there's heavy doses of nonsense interspersed with lots and lots of behavior that makes absolutely no sense. Even taking into consideration that times were different when this was published, and the novel takes place in another country, there's no accounting for the outright stupidity of the people and their behavior.

(cont'd...)

[Anonymous No.2909912]

>>2909910
>Besides all this, why does no one ever point out that Dumas simply couldn't count to four? There were not Three Muskateers by the end of the book; there were four. Further, the book itself was more about that fourth guy than it was about the other threesome. (This is not a spoiler, by the way. It is revealed at the beginning of the novel that we're going to be dealing with four dimwitted men, not three.)

>I thought maybe there was a benefit to reading this novel just for the historical significance. Wrong again. Absolutely nothing redeems this book. What's worse is that it's part of a trilogy, and guess who bought the whole set! Yep, that would be me. I can't wait to see what happens 20 years after the first one ends.... NOT!!! :)

[Anonymous No.2909913]

>>2909901
No. The "wolf" part of Steppenwolf is metaphorical. It's used because Harry Haller is a loner (lone wolf) who can be pretty savage toward plebs with cutsie photos of Goethe in their houses.

[Anonymous No.2909915]

>>2909913
So the idea about the pretentious delusional neckbeard who thinks he's a werewolf is still up for grabs?

FUCK YEAR

[Anonymous No.2909916]

>>2909912
The whole "....NOT!" thing. Wow. I haven't heard that since about 1992.

This thread is amusing. Cowabunga, dudes.

[Anonymous No.2909918]

>>2909912
>I can't wait to see what happens 20 years after the first one ends.... NOT!!!:)
I literally have no face.

[Anonymous No.2909919]

>>2909910
>Three Muskateers
>Three guys from Oman having bro adventures

[Anonymous No.2909920]

>>2909915
Up for grabs, and if done well, this idea could actually be quite generation-defining.

There's a teenager with chest acne on /x/ who makes a bunch of threads about how he's a vampire.

I think it's indicative of the teen generation that is growing up with the internet, that they are all really just obese suburbanites on a computer, but they feel the need to be set apart from everyone else somehow. That they desperately want to be original, even though they grew up in totally unoriginal settings, doing totally unoriginal things.

If you take it from that angle, it could be quite a mark on literature.

[Anonymous No.2909922]

>Gibson, William. NEUROMANCER. (1984). *. This is one of those neo-science fiction books that dazzle you with obfuscation and non-linear thinking. It is apparently a popular book, but I suspect it is only so among the crowd that says “cool,” “like,” and “I mean” a lot. I have to be honest and tell you that I never made it past page 100. I’m a patient person, but even I have my limits. It takes place, mostly, in cyberspace, where a team of units – only one of which is human – is being put together to do some kind of job. I’m sure they’re up to no good. Other unit members are not androids in the strict sense of the word. They seem to be part human and part enhancement. Drugs are the rule and any interaction among the characters is non-exixtent. None of the characters has any depth, nor can you get involved with them as characters. I have a tough time with books like this. I figure if you have a story to tell, tell it. Don’t fill up the pages with gobbeldy-gook.

[Anonymous No.2909924]

>>2909913
Is it bad that I now want a kawaiii uguuu picture of Goethe? Yeah, yeah it's pretty bad isn't it?

[Anonymous No.2909941]

All of the one star reviews for Paradise Lost are retarded feminists, retarded christians or... just retards all saying 'so tedious, so boring, hurrr durrr'.

>Yet another interpretation of God's intent that blames women for the fall of man. I don't care if you do believe in the Bible; this story has so many asides and weird monologues that you'll get bored. It was harder to get through the assigned parts in this book than it was to read the few Bible stories I've managed. Aside from the fact that Milton is a preachy misogynist, I've read and seen tons of more creative versions of the Fall and Satan than this.
>Also one starred: Inferno, The Odyssey and Iliad, Beowulf

Next
>I am fairly certain that we can blame this author for all gender inequalities in the chrisitan faith- as his dangerous interpretation of our creation melds with sunday school lessons. As my mother says sarcasticly, "that damn bitch Eve had to eat that apple and now the rest of us have to suffer."
>Favourites: Hunger Games, World War Z, Star Wars Novels.

Next
>Milton was a fascist turd.

NC
>Favourites: New Age and Conspiracy Theory books.

[Anonymous No.2909949]

Momo by Michael Ende

>I never read this book, even though we had to for literature. I did pass dirty notes to MP about the dirty old men. That was the best this book deserved.

that's the only one star review that say anything.

[Anonymous No.2909950]

>>2909941
>I am fairly certain that we can blame this author for all gender inequalities in the chrisitan faith
wat

[Anonymous No.2909961]

>>2909941
>Milton was a Fascist turd
>Centuries before the roots of fascist ideology.
>While supporting fighting against an authoritarian monarch.

Real trailblazer.

[Anonymous No.2909963]

>>2909949
>Never read the book.
>Judging it as worthless shit.

One of us! One of us!

[Anonymous No.2909969]

So is this the /lit/ version of rage threads?

[Anonymous No.2909970]

>>2909969
every thread on /lit/ is a rage thread

[Anonymous No.2909980]

>>2909950
Exactly. All three of the Judeo-Christian religions are inherently hateful toward women.

[Anonymous No.2909982]

>>2909980
..and the author of that book is the creator of all these religions? wut?

[Anonymous No.2909984]

>>2909980
What does Milton have to do with anything?

[Anonymous No.2910005]

Why does no one get Steppenwolf? Even the people that like it misunderstand it.
Like this:
>That very bleakness is the inspirational message of "Steppenwolf"--the inability of some to rise above the animal nature we all possess is counterpointed with the success others have at times in doing the heroic feat of being a better, more human, self.
Except the book explicitly states in the Treatise that Harry's idea of human vs wolf, with 'human' meaning everything good and noble, and 'wolf' meaning everything primal, is a dangerous oversimplification, and he is hurting himself by striving to just be the 'human' when really he is not. Steppenwolf is not about "rising above the animal nature", it's about accepting it and managing it, and letting the wolf and the human (and all the other elements of one's soul) peacefully coexist. Isn't it? Or am I the confused one?

[Anonymous No.2910033]

>>2909982
>>2909984
He's not responsible. I was agreeing that that person is an idiot for blaming Milton. He didn't put the misogyny in the religion. It was already there.

[Anonymous No.2910044]

The best review of The Golem is unfortunately a 2-star review and also too long to include in a post, also comes with pictures:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/19571889

[Anonymous No.2910049]

>>2910005
I think you got it pretty well. The realization that Harry gets in the theatre near the end, is that there isn't just two sides, but near endless parts of his personality, and that balance is paramount.

Apparently Hermann Hesse said that Steppenwolf was his most misunderstood book.

[Anonymous No.2910052]

>>2910049
>
I think you got it pretty well. The realization that Harry gets in the theatre near the end, is that there isn't just two sides, but near endless parts of his personality, and that balance is paramount.
Yeah, I got that. I don't get how people misunderstand it so much. It's not difficult!

[Anonymous No.2910073]

>>2909831
They let these people teach:

Waste of time. Alburt Camus..waste of time. Stranger... waste of time. The main character is "unemotional.. and says about everything, "it doesn't matter." So why read this book? It doesn't matter.

He has no feelings or morals when his mom dies, has casual meaningless sex with some chick, doesn't care when he sees a pimp guy beat a girl, lies about it, and writes a letter for the pimp who beats a girl, and then kills a guy for no reason (even though he said it was hot... well he should of went inside the house instead of spending 2-3 more hours on the beach. Doesn't that sound dumb). Besides how all he feels in the book is "bothered, annoyed, and irritated" when it comes to meaningful things, and throughout the book, he ONLY feels how hot it is and nothing else. It is like he is retarded. His mom dies, he kills a guy, and all he feels is how hot it is? Duh!

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.

For this reason along with all the others... throw this book away... or keep it to show others what a terrible novel looks like...and I have to teach this junk to my 10th grade students.

[Anonymous No.2910078]

>>2910073
>...and I have to teach this junk to my 10th grade students.

Pretty sure it's a troll. That line takes it into territory that makes it too infuriating not to be.

[Anonymous No.2910083]

>>2910073
>well he should of went inside
>of
Link to goodreads profile. This guy is unbelievable.

[Anonymous No.2910099]

>>2910083
http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/3691194-james

>Bible
>5-star rating
>Hohohoh.

[Anonymous No.2910101]

> This is a Hugo winner, and, I can't fathom it. It's sci-fi that revolves exclusively around political machinations of a made up political system. There's virtually nothing Sci-Fi about it other than the machinations revolve around cloning.
> I read 100 pages and dropped it. If I want that kind of book with almost no movement, I'll read a Frank Herbert novel.

[Anonymous No.2910105]

>>2910099
Pretty much high-school stuff. If he's a teacher, he doesn't read anything other than what he has to teach.

[Anonymous No.2910106]

>>2910073
This fucking guy

[Anonymous No.2910109]

>>2910099
All of his reviews also shoehorn in comments about God and the Bible.

[Anonymous No.2910110]

>>2910078
>>2910083
He doesn't look like a troll. Looky here: http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/3691194-james

And now, another 1 star review of The Stranger. This reviewer is a classic 3deep5u, who is currently reading classics like Atlas Shrugged and World War Z, while giving 2 star reviews to the epitome of trashy literature, of course, Lolita by Nabokov.

If every few words of praise I’ve seen for “The Stranger” over my lifetime materialized into small chunks of rock in space, there’d be enough sh!t to conjure up the Oort Cloud. Much like this distant collection of debris bordering the outer solar system, I can’t really comprehend the acclaim heaped on this story, but luckily, like the Cloud, it’s usually out of sight, out of mind, and has absolutely no discernable current influence on my life. And just like the Oort can occasionally spit a chunk of sh!t at the earth and devastate all life upon it, so too can I hear/read some lip service paid to “The Stranger” resulting in my transition to Freak-Out Mode, resulting in me slapping someone in the face, usually someone I have to deal with again at some point in time (if only in court).

[Anonymous No.2910113]

>>2910110
part 2


Personally, I don’t see what the big deal is. Armed with a 100-word vocabulary, a meager 123 pages to bore one with, and a character who simply doesn’t seem to give much of a damn, Camus somehow shook the world of literature with this inane garbage. I haven’t sat down to conduct a thorough analysis, but using some reasonable guesstimation I will say that the average sentence in this book is about eight words long. I’m not asking that every sentence in a book run the length of a page, but the end result when employed by Camus was that either a twelve year old or some sort of retarded robot wrote this. (Cue robot voice) It struck me as strange. The sentences were so short. It was very peculiar. This could be read very fast. I began to read this on the train on my in to work. I finished it on my way back home.

Who the hell writes like that? More importantly, who the hell reads a book like that and suspects therein lay some complexity? Each time I noticed how condensed everything was it occurred to me that somehow the literati had spent all this time adoring the published equivalent of a commercial.

[Anonymous No.2910115]

>>2910113
part 3
Here’s a snapshot of the dude we’re supposed to give a hoot about. He doesn’t readily assimilate to or accept the conventional mores everyone else seems accustomed to. He’s not overly concerned, but he seemingly knows there’s some kind of disconnect. He’s also not out to go f#ck with the system for lack of anything better to do or in some attempt to make a statement. He’s pretty emotionless, he shows some genuine concern for himself at times, but even those close to him really aren’t too significant in his grand picture. His testicles are extremely small and sterile, and he fondles them often.

Not long after the death of his mother, Our Hero is chilling on the beach when some Arabs come around looking to start sh!t with an acquaintance of his, and after a small skirmish earlier in the day, Our Man goes back down to the beach and shoots an Arab. He gets arrested and pretty much just goes with the flow, he rolls over and let’s the prosecution have their way with his scrawny white ass. The whole time he pretty much just thinks it’s all pretty ridiculous and isn’t too concerned with the proceedings.

[Anonymous No.2910119]

>>2910115
and part 4


I wasn’t too concerned about the book. More than anything I was just bored with it. There was no build up, there was no action, there was no climax. There was nothing funny, nothing exciting, nothing interesting, and nothing to really take away from the book; just the same words repeating over and over, grouped in strings of seven or eight. The longest sentence in the book was also the only thing which I found even remotely amusing: “Finally I realized that some of the old people were sucking at the insides of their cheeks and making these weird smacking noises”. That isn’t particularly funny, but compared to the rest of the book it was comedic gold.

“The Stranger” is some seriously weak shit. I’ve gotten more enjoyment from looking a map of Kentucky.


He seems to be the type of fellow that uses goodreads as a social network.

[Anonymous No.2910146]

>>2910119
Welp, that got to me. Can't decide whether to laugh or rage.

[Anonymous No.2910154]

>>2910073

The funny thing is that Camus does mention the afterlife.

Seems like someone has selective reading blinders on.

[Anonymous No.2910157]

>>2910146
Mind you, this guy likes Holes by Louis Sachar more than Lolita or Metamorphosis

[Anonymous No.2910227]

I went to search the bad reviews of Plato's Republic.
My god, even people that read can be dumb.

[Anonymous No.2910234]

>Wow. This book might've been pretty good if it hadn't been so misogynistic. There isn't a woman in this collection who isn't a slut, a tease, a one-dimensional character who is pined after for no good reason, or a body with a forgotten name for a protagonist to sleep with and then discard. Two women are raped but one of them was the tease, so I guess that makes it okay according to Ellison. I like the idea of the super-computer in one story who takes over the world & keeps a few humans alive so he can mess with them. I also like the idea of a creepy ant-like race who is part of a gestalt mind or something like that, a premise that takes a backseat to the tease and her rapist and the other guy who feels bad about the rape but not bad enough to do anything about it. Each intriguing premise gets buried under all the hatred towards women. Yuck.

Twofer-

>ugh I gave up a couple pages in when it offhandedly mentions how the surviving dudes all take 'turns' with the woman. Didn't bother to look at other stories.

[Anonymous No.2910247]

This one made me rage


>Mrs. Dalloway is one never ending sentence without breath that wanders in and out of the minds of 25 people over the span of one day

>It made me dizzy with confusion and I longed for a resting place so I could shut the book and put it away.

>It had no plot, It had no point.

>The book did have a lyrical feel to it and could be read as one would read a book of poetry.

>The only symbol that I understood and really enjoyed was Big Ben tolling the hour and marking time. One cannot escape the passage of time, as all of the characters in Mrs. Dalloway discovered. I also like the fact that the story ended where it began, with Mrs. Dalloway as the central figure—symbolizing the futility of all our worry.

[Anonymous No.2910268]

>>2910227
But, Platos Republic WAS bad. His vision of 'utopia' was horrible:

-Children are to be taken from parents and raised by the government.
-Slavery is OK
-Females are second class citizens
-It is important for the government to lie to the population, and the people will fully accept the lie within a few generations
-There is only 'one' real version of something, and it exists in heaven. Ie only one bed; beds on earth are bad replicas.
-There is only one state of a number, 4 is great because it it twice two, but... wait, it is small because it is half 8... Shit, let's ignore the contradictions and go back to...
-There needs to be rigid class systems, the lower classes are inferior to the upper classes..

[Anonymous No.2910275]

>see thread
>"hey this could be fun, I'll get some laughs from this for sure"
>go to goodreads
>search for grendel by john gardner
>set the filter
>over 500 pages of bad reviews
>read three first ones
>go sit in the corner facing the wall
>cry for hours

[Anonymous No.2910283]

>>2909831
Tried to do this, but failed.

Seems like 99% of goodreads commenters are schoolkids reading for a class assignment, clinically braindead kids, attention whoring clinically braindead kids. Burn that site with fire.

[Anonymous No.2910290]

>Reads like bad James Joyce
>Grendel kills a goat. I used to have pet goats, so this pissed me off so much that I hate the book
>I don't like Grendel because he's a monster

That's real /lit/ter

[Anonymous No.2910297]

>>2910283
The site is fine, functional, and really helps me with ISBN numbers when I upload torrents. I also like its reading challenge.

Community is total shit however, way too many women with shit taste

[Anonymous No.2910333]

>>2910290
>The problem with this tale is that Gardner arouses sympathy for Grendel by telling the story from his point of view, but Grendel's actions are objectively evil. The Bible does not encourage us to feel sympathy for evil, but to try to redeem it while also calling out for justice.

My sides.

[Anonymous No.2910343]

>>2909922
First, brofist for the choice of book. I was reading other one star reviews and they are terrible.

[Anonymous No.2910383]

>>2910119
I don't even like the Stranger, but that review hurt my brain.

[Anonymous No.2910431]

>Grim, hot, dusty, meaningless narrative set in the Deep South, with sentences routinely 130-170 words. Just gave up after 140 pages, read the chronology at the end, which confirmed that nothing really happened in the book.

>Absalom, Absalom!

[Anonymous No.2910438]

>>2910268
Technically, Plato argued that women could do anything a man could but worse, whereas a lot of people before him thought women couldn't really do anything at all.

The Story of the Eye
>Anyway, may have been shocking when it was first published, but not now, and so its apparent claim to fame is now a failure; also, as poorly written as any porn. Obscenity leads to obscenity; love one shadow you'll love a darker still; blah blah--that may be its point, but hell if I know or care. Since people must often give pornography a deeper meaning in order to justify using it, I guess, if you're one of those people, you could pay attention to the writer's explanations for his "symbolism" if you're suitably paralyzed by lethargy and the white noise in your head. The book, though, is basically just a precursor to certain parts of the internet (4chan for instance) but without pictures: so tits or gtfo is probably the most appropriate review.
>The book, though, is basically just a precursor to certain parts of the internet (4chan for instance) but without pictures: so tits or gtfo is probably the most appropriate review.
>tits or gtfo is probably the most appropriate review.

It's all people who heard the title from an Of Montreal song (or from it being one of Dave Matthews' favorite books, unpleasantly enough) being too edgy for edge

[Anonymous No.2910445]

> Let's parse the data, shall we? 459 people gave this turd four or five stars; whilst only eleven people were courageous enough to call a spade a spade and, against the grain of general opinion, to award it only one or two stars. I consider these eleven people heroes. You and your ilk can eulogize the armed forces, the pigs, the schlubby, mustachioed rescue workers, with your tearful montages of wars, standoffs, and celebrity house fires, all assembled to the reactionary tunes of 3 Doors Down or Nickelback; I prefer a subtler form of heroism -- you know, the lone voice who amid the Russophilic, ostentatiously intellectual acclaim for Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita dares to raise an eyebrow at this dry Goethe wannabe...

[Anonymous No.2910449]

>>2910431
>Absalom, Absalom!

That novel sucked. In my mental cabinet I file Faulkner away in the same drawer with Lovecraft, one labeled 'purple prose shitfest'.

[Anonymous No.2910454]

>>2910445
I read that too, Stoner wasn't it? I've never wished it more that I could kill by pure hatred.

[Anonymous No.2910471]

>2910449

When you were born did your mum drop you before your dad accidentally stomped on your head while he was running out the door, never to be seen again???

[Anonymous No.2910486]

>>2910445
>those comments below that review
What a fucking circlejerk.

[Anonymous No.2910506]

>>2910471
> Couldn't even quote the post he's replying to properly.

Which of us is retarded again now, hhmm??

[Anonymous No.2910515]

>>2910506
>thinks linking is quoting

[Anonymous No.2910518]

>>2910515
> Thinks linking isn't quoting.

This keeps getting better and better!

[Anonymous No.2910541]

>>2910044
My sides

[Anonymous No.2910543]

>Wow, this book was a dud. A handful of people traipse through France and Spain -- no, wait, they don't traipse, they more sort of slog, it's so dull and slow. They go fishing. They sit in cafes. Trysts are hinted at. They argue. Nothing happens. Oh yeah, and THEY DRINK ALL THE TIME. They also attend a bullfight. Whoop-de-frickin-do. The dialogue read like a bad play, and the descriptions of scenery and so on were really direct and simplistic, which to me suggested a paucity of actual writing ability. Plus, Hemingway decided to over-describe things that didn't matter, like diving into the water, while under-describing things that perhaps should have been described more thoroughly so that there could have been a plot.

>I read The Old Man and the Sea in high school, and here is my summary based purely on what I vaguely remember from reading it:

>"Duuude, I'm a fisherman. Duuude, I'm in this boat at sea. Oh, score, I caught a tuna. Lemme strap it to my boat. Oh crap, I'm having trouble getting back to land. This tuna is huge. Other fish are eating my tuna. Duuude, my tuna is now worthless. I'm ditching the tuna. My life sucks. The end."

>Why is Hemingway so famous again? "Classics" are a lie.

[The Bunk !aUuOckdYz6 No.2910555]

>>2910543
>mfw

[Anonymous No.2910761]

>>2910543
Holy shit, classics ARE a lie. The English department at my university just disbanded after reading her post.

[Anonymous No.2910794]

>>2910543

That's a fair description of The Old Man and the Sea. It's a pretty boring book.

[Anonymous No.2910806]

>>2910543
Her favourites are self-help books and shitty shojo manga.

Why do women have such shit taste?

[Anonymous No.2910836]

>>2909863
>the people who hate lolita almost all women

Are women THAT superficial?

[Anonymous No.2910915]

The kafka reviews are the best.
>I opted to read this because I feel like a well-educated adult, and so I should read at least one thing by the author who inspired the term "Kafkaesque".
>Even with that, I still finished it with a feeling of "What? Are you shitting me?After all of that, THIS is how you end it? Is this a joke? Am I being punk'd?"

Reading Kafka and complaining about it being kafkaesque, genius.

[Anonymous No.2910928]

>tfw the lightning and the such has zero bad reviews
>fuck yeah nazis

[Anonymous No.2910970]

>Dead Souls begins episodically, with a character-less man hopping from gross caricature to gross caricature trying to profit from a ridiculous legal loophole which Nabokov himself disregards as absurd. The book is sporadically funny, believe it or not, and between periods of tedium and gratuitous asides, possesses some amusing satire. But the book wallows in lazily vague generalizations (“and was on the point of returning a reply at least no worse than that which would have been returned, under similar circumstances, by the hero of a fashionable novelette”); sloppy disregard for detail (“How they contrive to be so God only knows.”); and, perhaps due to the translation’s fault, maddeningly overblown prose (“In short, dissatisfaction began to display itself on every feminine face.”) A lot of details are dismissed as being known by God only, a lot of characters act in ‘you know, that Russian way, meh.’ Frank O’Connor champions Gogol’s gratuitous use of generalization. I have no clue as to why.

Because he was satirising literature itself as much as the world about him?

[Anonymous No.2910971]

>>2910806
At least they read something. Most men don't.

[Anonymous No.2910973]

[cont.]

>>Gogol had a childish and pathetic hissy-fit when the public called him out on his inadequate novel, and he acted like an immature little bitch. The narrative begins preaching back, mocking, teasing, defending itself, back-pedaling, and even begging. Gogol acts like a bad stand-up comic unprofessionally responding to a heckler. He falters, trembles, and embarrasses himself trying to retaliate. He thus shows his vulnerabilities, and spectacularly fails. Seeing a heckler beat out a stand-up comic makes for some uncomfortable watching, and it gives the impression that one is watching…wait for it…a bad comic. Same goes here. Instead of throwing a tantrum and making up elaborate excuses about ‘actually writing an epic prose-poem’ and burning them because of insecurities over a not-so-good book, get over yourself, do your five minutes, and get the fuck off the stage. Better yet? Don’t even show up.

Oy oy oy...

[Anonymous No.2910981]

>>2910970
>dead souls
>Nabokov
am I reading this right?

[Anonymous No.2910986]

>>2910981

Nabokov wrote a book on Gogol. I keep meaning to read it.

[Anonymous No.2911007]

>I quit about half way through. This book kinda reminds me of a Conan novel, except not good. Lets not mix words THIS BOOK IS POORLY WRITTEN. I get the rough style argument, but this is more because he does not know how to write. McCarthy drifts from first person to third person, to third person multiple, and where ever the hell else he feels, and we are stuck trying to sift through.

>Besides bad writing, there is no plot. Yes I get "the west" was an unhappy place full of bloodshed and violence and I do appreciate how he never lets up on this aspect, but that does not equal a plot.

>Yes I know he scammed off Moby Dick and Paradise Lost.


>After reading this and The Road, i'm done with McCarthy and will save my time for reading books written by professionals.

[Anonymous No.2911016]

>>2910449
I want to stab you in the throat with a rusty nail.

[Anonymous No.2911020]

>>2911007

Another 1-star review:

>I hated this book. I was forced to read it in college by a male shovenist professor. It's just gross (one of the characters is a pedafile), and I got the impression that it was a "dude" book - not for everyone in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.2911036]

>>2911020
>shovenist
>pedafile

Dat retardation.

[Anonymous No.2911051]

I...I just...My brain just....I think something just snapped in my brain.
No matter what book I tried it with I just kept reading the dumbest assessments.
Even classics!
But the one I love is The Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy, which was criticized for being silly, and descending into nonsense....
What?!

[Anonymous No.2911073]

A Midsummer Night's Dream:

I thought this was really boring, and not really amusing either. The movie with Christian Bale wasn't bad though. It was pretty.
....
I HIGHLY DISLIKED "A Midsummer Night's Dream." In fact, I hated it with a burning passion. It's not romantic, it's not funny, I didn't learn anything from it, it's not entertaining, nothing was taken away from this book that will further my/others well being.
...
I didn't like this book very much. I read it for school and hated it. In my opinion,the only good thing about this book is that Christian Bale played Demetrius in the 1999 movie

(I want this stuff to be remembered the next time you hear that myth about women being more well read than men. This and Twilight and Shades of Grey and all those Fcking Harlequin Novels, Yes, men would be seen as being more avid readers too if we pretended our porn was literature as well.)

[Anonymous No.2911082]

>>2911073

I actually agree with this, unironically.

[Anonymous No.2911095]

>>2911073
I actually agree with this, but only ironically.

[Anonymous No.2911168]

>Just blow the fecking bridge up and have done with it.

>I hate it when I have to abandon a book. Its an insult to both the author and me, as a reader. I wanted so much to enjoy this. I love the photos of Hemmingway pouring his cocktails and it looked like it was was going to be a muscular novel about war, and a war I know little of and was keen to learn more. I was thinking Norman Mailer...

>150 pages in and nothing happened. An American (and everything is from his perspective) looks at a bridge with a view to blowing it up, retreats to the hills with the band of amigos and talks a lot about nothing, picking up a girl on the way. They eat some food, look at the bridge, tell stories in a medieval type of language, hide the dynamite. Oh look, there's a couple of planes. Tell some more stories.

>Its 6pm on a Friday, I have a glass of wine. I read 20 more pages and thought, you know what - this is dull. I'm gonna watch Game of Thrones instead.

[Anonymous No.2911189]

Some reviews of Dante's Comedy are worth reading:
>Might be the most unpleasant literature I ever was forced to read. Humanities class. College. Should probably give it another try, but good god Dante seems like an immensely unhappy and insane person.

>I put this one down because I really really dislike this book, and I'd like to hear reasons why people like it so much. Dante comes off as a judgmental curmudgeon, his ratings of human vice and virtue seem unfair and personally biased, and his ideas of layers of heaven and hell have permeated popular belief far more than I think is good for society. Booo! Give me your defense.

>Bad theology, presented in the most monotonously boring story possible. I've been listening to the audio book for several months on my ipod, which was recently stolen. The only favor the thief did for me was giving me a great excuse for not finishing this book.

[Anonymous No.2911197]

>>2911189
Pretty sure that first person went to the same school as me. lol

Also, that third person is correct insofar as I can't imagine an audiobook of Divine Comedy being any good at all.

[Anonymous No.2911205]

Guess who we're talking about (hint: it's not /lit):
>"i love evil!" - hampshire boy wearing black trench coat in lit and evil class
>is it just me, or is this a bunch of crap?! could be that its better in french, but i doubt it.

[Anonymous No.2911209]

>>2911197
Probably, but the whole idea of "reading" Dante as an audiobook without speaking Italian is quite hilarious. Like, do you really want someone to read you a translation of a eight centuries old poem ?

[Anonymous No.2911220]

>>2911209
Audiobooks are horrible.
I can think of maybe one or two enjoyable audibooks out of a veritable smorgasbord of terrible, terrible reading.
I had one once of Notes from Underground read by a cheery American 20 something with a penchant for mispronouncing words and slurring.

[Anonymous No.2911232]

>>2911209
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Just fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.2911609]

>A Separate Peace

I had to read it for high school....just like everyone else. I hated every page of it......well, I did like it when the one character broke his leg.

To quote my wife, "A Seperate Peace? Oh I've tried my very hardest to forget that book."

I tried reading it again about 10 years ago. It's amazing similar my reaction was in 1999 to what it was in 1985. I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate this book.

It's not well written. The characters are 2 dimensional. The plot is rolled out as quickly as a turtle.

>I know that some people are stuck reading it, as I was. I say you SHOULD read it...just to know what a bad book looks like.

[Anonymous No.2911682]

>I don't get it.

>I did something I rarely ever do; I skimmed and skipped just to make it to the end. The details were so overwhelmingly specific and, in my opinion, irrelevant that I was so bored I never even got close to being scared.

>Perhaps it's some failing on my part . . .
I hate everything.

[Anonymoose No.2911689]

A River Runs Through It and Other Stories by Norman Maclean. There were only two single star reviews. Not too sure if this one was a troll or not.

>I read this book sometime ago expecting and hoping to find some deeply philosophical and moving writing about life.
>Instead what I got was dreadful writing that never rises above the obviousness and triteness of "fly fishing is a metaphor for life."
>Try this one on for size: "My father was very sure about certain matters pertaining to the universe. To him, all good things - trout as well as eternal salvation - came by grace; and grace comes by art; and art does not come easy."
>Yuck. I can't even read that sentence and so many others in the book, without, um, metaphorically speaking, wanting to rinse it right out of my mouth. It's like rancid ice cream coated with honey and molasses and then sucked through a full pixie stick.

I wonder what other books he's reviewed. Checking now.