/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4952863]

>Go to Amazon
>Search for your favorite novel/text
>Post a one-star review ITT.
I'll start with Ulysses.

>This is one of those books that "smart" people like to "read." Well if being smart means liking this, count me out! I don't know if it's modern, post-modern or what: but I know this much, I'd rather just curl up with "Bridges of Madison County" for a good cry! I don't understand why such a 'great' author can't seem to come up with a straightfoward plot that makes sense. I'd like to have seen Leopold patch things up with Molly, am I right? I mean, let's get down to brass tacks: don't we all hate those intellectuals who consider this one of the century's 'finest works of literary craft'? I mean these are the people who put "Citizen Kane" in the top ten...and totally ignored "Life as a House"! (No offense, but Orson Welles is no Kevin Kline!) Unless Oprah puts it on her book list, I won't be picking this one up again, that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.4952892]

Catch-22

>I would give zero stars if that existed. Reading this was a grueling experience, something like the book Slaughterhouse Five and the film Pulp Fiction. Took months to get through it, since it was saturated with sickness. It was nightmare mixed with rollicking, often vulgar style humor. The writing included bucket loads of profanity, lust described with most every female in sight, orgy scenes, graphic violence, pervasive insanity and massive military incompetence. The author frequently ridiculed a belief in God. The overall effect tears at the fabric of society. Still, if it motivates our military to safeguard against incompetence and cruel behaviors, hurray. If the story motivates all of our nations to resist unjustifiable military activities, then double hurray. I am annoyed that wikipedia and the five star reviewers gave the book such generous, laudatory descriptions. Because the literary world commends this book and it has sold millions of copies, I feel that another form of insanity continues around me. I commend the author since he apparently suffered PTSD in WWII and writing the book may have assisted his healing process. I hope Mr. Heller benefited enough financially so that his life was eased there as well.

[Anonymous No.4952893]

>Bad is too mild a word to define Under the Volcano; brutal would suit it better. The fact is, the book is a good idea gone terribly wrong - as many other "important" works of literature. From the very beginning there's a sense of impending doom, but not as in a Thomas Hardy novel, for, in Under the Volcano, though you know something bad's going to happen, the book is so freakin' boring that you don't really care to read on in order to find out what it is that's going to happen - as you probably would with Hardy. And, besides, you probably wouldn't care to finish the book simply because of the fact that you already know what the hell is going to happen; the introduction, the preface, the postface, the prologue, the epilogue, the forward, the afterward, the abstracts, the acknowledgments, the dedication, the excerpt on the back cover all tell you what is going to happen. Of course, I exaggerate - but you get the picture. Can't the book itself unfold its events?
The man obviously has a mastery over the English vernacular but he just doesn't use it to any effect. And that's lamentable, because really all these fancy words mean nothing when there is absolutely no rhetorics to hang on to. There is little of poetry in this book and even littler of entertainment. The book is dull, slow-witted and slow-motioned - for that's how it seems everything in the book occurs, in slow motion. The characters - these Hemingway-ian animals - are teeming with tedium, to coin a term. And the one character who is SLIGHTLY interesting, the Frenchman Laruelle, seldom appears in the story. All these things make me question the credibility of most of these reviewers hailing the book a masterpiece. I guess sometimes a book's standing in literature renders the reader's opinion without any consideration of the book itself.
There should be a number of editions of this book in circulation, but I would perhaps argue that the Perennial Classics edition is the most popular, it being the first one to come up on the Amazon search and all. Nevertheless, it was the edition I read and I must therefore assert that it was one of the most disgraceful jobs of editing I have seen. There is, no kidding, a minimum of twenty misspelled words. It makes you wonder if this isn't actually the rough draft of Under the Volcano, mistakenly printed and never recalled.

>There is little of poetry in this book and even littler of entertainment. The book is dull, slow-witted and slow-motioned

For fuck's sake

[Anonymous No.4952898]

>>4952863
>This is one of those books that "smart" people like to "read."
why is there always a variation of this argument in one star reviews? I'm willing to bet that I could look through twilight reviews and find this shit there too.

[Meloetta !!SDShvhK3XQL No.4952901]

I just want to say this thread gave me the first fit of hysteria I've had in a few months. Keep it up.

[Anonymous No.4952904]

>>4952893
>>There is little of poetry in this book and even littler of entertainment.

oh GOD

[Anonymous No.4952907]

>>4952863
Is that girl supposed to be attractive or something? She looks like a child and/or a boy.

[Anonymous No.4952912]

Hey, it's ITAOTS girl. Hey, I spend too much time on the internet.

[Anonymous No.4952920]

>>4952912
Nice dress, shame about the itaots.

[Anonymous No.4952924]

>>4952907
get a load of this pleb

[Anonymous No.4952942]

>>4952892
>Still, if it motivates our military to safeguard against incompetence and cruel behaviors, hurray.
How over someone's head can a point go?

[Anonymous No.4952947]

>>4952920
see
>>4952924

[Anonymous No.4952952]

>>4952947
>muh stains on mountaintops

[Anonymous No.4952958]

>The Sun Also Rises

An unfunny Friends episode w/good travelogue of Spain.

Forget about the "simple truths" that this book is supposed to expose and focus instead on the "simple truths" about Hemingway's legacy. I mean, let's be honest, it's about time somebody let the cat out of the bag here and spoke up for the considerable notion that Hemingway was simply a bad writer. Essentially, he was the literary antithesis of the modernist movement going on at the same time he was writing i.e. he singularly managed to "dumb down" literarture when all around him there lived genuine creative talents like Joyce and Woolf who explored the limits of human language and creativity. The hype attributed to Hemingway is simply a result of the all too common fraudalent merits which, like an aging wine, are offered to authors as the years pass by. No doubt the same creditation will be offered to the likes of James Patterson and Barbara Cartland in 50 years time. And yes, I know that Hemingway won the noble prize but bear in mind that, for some inexplicable reason, there seemed to be a profound bias towards American writers at the time (some, such as Eliot, Faulkner and Steinback, did deserve such recognition, but others not so). In conclusion, don't bother with this book or any of Hemingways other novels/short stories. You will be determined to like his work and publicly declare his genius, but secretly you will be thinking "what's so good about it? Anybody could write this in a day."

[Anonymous No.4952964]

>>4952958
>An unfunny Friends episode

All of them?

[Anonymous No.4952970]

>Book of Disquiet

Nothing can prepare you for this work. No one in the history of literature has written with more pretentiousness and self-indulgence. How Pessoa can present himself as both pathetic and heroic at the same time is a miracle of narcissism. In contemporary terms this is like an adolescent blog. He dismally attempts to disguise his platitudes as lyrical profundity.

[Anonymous No.4952979]

>>4952970
I actually agree with this review. I give the book 4 stars, though.

[Anonymous No.4952980]

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version:

>Lousy Novel
>I picked up this novel thinking "The Holy Bible, that sounds like a good book!" Boy was I wrong. This novel is full of boring lists of names, and then everything dealing with the main character keeps getting sidetracked. And the weirdest thing is that the author doesn't even put his or her name on the book. Don't buy this novel, it's not worth it!

[Anonymous No.4952983]

>>4952979
So you're also an idiot and a pleb.

[Anonymous No.4952985]

The Trial by Kafka
>This is the most depressing book I've ever read. From the moment it starts to the very last page, there isn't one pleasing image. After I finished reading it, I felt like burnig this book. Books like this may introduce concepts in our brains, but this is one that will give you nightmares for days. I think I am different now, after reading this book, in a very negative way. It gives you a different, and a frightening, persepective on life. I think that my life has become worse after reading this book.

Someone couldn't handle the red pill.

[Anonymous No.4952986]

>I'll have to admit, I could not get past the first 16 pages. I'm a person with a rather large vocabulary, (I did crossword puzzles for years) and I found my self quite frequently running accross words I did not know. It reminded me of when a college professor told me my paper sounded like I had my head in a thesaurus (If you mean drunk, use drunk, not besotted!). Worse still, I found myself re-reading sentences frequently to decipher the meaning.
>I thought maybe it would change and the later writing would be clearer, so I randomly opened a few chapters, and the same obfuscating style is used throughout.
>After a while I just had a headache and put the book down. Peerhaps I'll try the Gulag Archpelago which another person reviewing this book recommended.
>Even War and Peace was easier reading.
>Authors, remember: Eschew Obfuscation, Espouse Elucidation!!

I think that to be fair to the guy the way Vollmann writes probably isn't easy on people who are used to taking everything literally. It's a crap reason to give a book one star though. I wish I had my copy with me find the context of that drunk/besotted thing. This review has it's own little thread of people calling each other names and it's just as dumb as you'd expect.

[Anonymous No.4952996]

Homer, The Iliad:

>NOT FOR ME OR ANYONE WHO HAS A LIFE
>If you do not have to read it for school, then don't bother. This book is for people whom want to feel important......I'll stop there....I was on the verge of being VERY politically incorrect.

[Anonymous No.4952999]

My favorite book doesn't have any one star ratings because plebs don't even know it exists.

What now?

[Anonymous No.4953003]

>>4952983
If it makes you feel like your opinions about Pessoa are "right" or "more right", go ahead. Place yourself in that self-fulfilling, reinforced hugbox and see how real life becomes for you.

[Anonymous No.4953006]

>>4952999
You can write one yourself, I believe you miss none of the prerequisites.

[Anonymous No.4953013]

Stoner

>I can't conceive of why this novel should be so popular in Europe. The 'hero' is the most passive, masochistic twerp who has 2 flashes of aliveness which quickly get snuffed out. Do Europeans really see Americans as belly-crawling, weak, submissive failures? What happened to the Europeans' image of Americans as the pompous, arrogant, insufferably boorish and crass and thoroughly brash? I prefer that American over the sad sack who is on the book's cover
The book would have been more interesting if the 'hero' got himself into a psychoanalysis.
Susan M. Houston

[Anonymous No.4953021]

>Lolita, by Nabokov

"Lolita, or the confessions of a murderer and panty sniffer" is the most famous novel of Vladimir Nabokov, one of the (inexplicably for me) sacred cows in twentieth century literature. A masterpiece of the English language for some, a manual of pedophilia for others, or just a plain overrated novel for the rest. Divided into two parts, its main characters are the twelve year old (and spoiled brat) Lolita and Humbert Humbert, a scholar of somewhat aristocratic origins able to encapsulate perfectly on his fictitious persona the type of irritating male character omnipresent in all Nabokov's narratives: the egotistical prick. "Lolita" is a textbook example of "style over substance", the problem is that not even the style alone in this particular case is very good either. If you are the kind of reader who likes sparse but meaningful prose, stay away from this book, as its whole amount of unbridled alliteration, pedantic metaphors, pretentious pseudo-poetic nonsense, ludicrous associations and superfluous descriptions will be exasperating to you, though also illustrative of Nabokov's manic attempts to dazzle the reader at all costs. This American writer of Russian descent conceives literary language as something completely affected, remote and out of the way from average speaking habits. A certainly insufferable approach for anyone holding antithetic contemporary authors like George Orwell as masterful writers by comparison (my case). An inexperienced reader may be tempted to think that elaborate or ornate language is always the equivalent of depth and substance in literature, but time and experience shows that the most difficult thing in any literary composition is not to be overblown, baroque or notoriously obtuse, but to be able of writing about challenging and complicated concepts in a precise, sharp and economical way. As a matter of fact, no one should forget that the kind of people who enjoy Nabokov's tripe and regard his craftsmanship as "supreme" are also the ones who usually consider a crass writer like James Joyce a "genius" or Jorge Luis Borges an "amazing storyteller". When all this have been said and done (and the adequate comparisons made), nothing else can be added. This rant of mine is because I'm getting very tired of late with all the snobbery and the nonsense surrounding these modern/postmodern giants of clay who only wrote narcissistic garbage gravitating around their own navels.

[Anonymous No.4953025]

>>4952985
reminds me of the time someone said heart of darkness wasn't that good because it was anticlimactic.

[Anonymous No.4953033]

>>4953021

[Anonymous No.4953036]

>the prose is difficult and is not light reading for a casual read on the beach sitting in the sun with a drink in hand

>How can this be a classic? I have no idea. Slow torturous story about a lunatic who lives in fantasy. If only he would find his end in the first chapter...

>I did not enjoy reading this book. I do not recommend reading this book unless you are studying it. It is not entertaining or enjoyable. There are many repetitive and redundant encounters and concurrences. The writing style is annoying and irritating.
>I doubt very much if a different translation will make any difference. The story keeps getting lost in the author's attempts to prove how clever he is or his endeavor to declare himself discerning. (I can do this all day long, apparently Cervantes could, and did, also)

>Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra is ok if one is looking for a text book, but fails on all points as a good read.
as a free book I think it is over priced. not recomended as a book to read to enjoy.

>It is supposedly a great Spanish classic but it is as bad as Shakespear. I got very little out of it.

>very boring abou the squire, i encourage everybody to no read this boring book, althogh it was pretty amazing

[Anonymous No.4953040]

I'm the exact opposite in terms of opinion of it, but damn, this is a funny review.

>Review: THE ROAD by Cormac McCarthy
1.5 stars

>The author wrote. Short sentences. Clipped and cold, like the air of his novel. Ash covering everything. He stumbled forward.

>Why dont we use apostrophes, Papa?
I dont know. We dont use quotation marks either.
Is it confusing?
Maybe. But we do use pathetic fallacy.
What's pafethic phallacy?
Pathetic fallacy. "To signify any description of inanimate natural objects that ascribes to them human capabilities, sensations, and emotions."
Oh. Like the weather? Like nature?
Yes, like nature.
Does it hate us?
No, it doesn't hate us. But the author does. He wants to manipulate emotional responses in readers to our relationship by making us suffer. He wants to explore me, an ordinary man, in an extraordinary circumstance.
Is it interesting?
Not really.

[Anonymous No.4953057]

>>4953033
This is an excerpt. The actual review is 5 paragraphs of the exact same length; this guy's hatred of Lolita is fucking staggering.

[Anonymous No.4953062]

>>4953040
10/10 review

[Anonymous No.4953091]

>>4953040

But The Road IS awful.
...
Its like reading Hemingway but with no substance.
It just kind of all happens.

[Anonymous No.4953097]

>>4953036

Don Quixote is one of my favorite books, though I think everyone can admit that Cervantes incessant description of resting and eating in Book I can get a little repetitive I just don't understand humans.

[Anonymous No.4953098]

The Kingdom of God Is Within You
>The edition I read is almost unintelligible. Broken sentences & paragraphs composed of phrases. The mental gymnastics needed to comprehend the twisted logic was exhausting. For this reason, I suspect there are parts of the writing not possible to translate effectively from Russian. I've explored spirituality for many years and did not find the ideas novel, as Tolstoy's contemporaries did.
>Throughout the book, Tolstoy denies any valid reason for self-defense. Never does he mention the USA, or the reasons for the American Revolution. Perhaps freedom, in this life, is worth dying for or killing for? For a man who always lived under a Czar, and who had wealth of his own, perhaps such freedom was either unimaginable r seemed unnecessary.
>Murder is a legal term. Tolstoy deems that all killing is murder. As one who chooses to live this life, on this Earth, I've learned to accept that death is part of life. Not everyone will die of natural causes in old age. Unfortunately, human beings will wage war. Death on the battlefield, does not fit the legal definition of murder. Tolstoy experienced war in his age. Brutal, beyond brutal, fought not for freedom or justice but at the whims of kings and tyrants.
>The Dalai Lama recently stated that non-violence will not work against terrorists because their hearts are not open to G-d. Tolstoy does not seem to grasp that those whose hearts and minds are open will perish at the hands of those whose hearts and minds are not.
>"Those who do not live by the sword can still die upon them".
>The theory of non-violence is an important and significant concept. Yet, the idea that all killing is murder and therefore against G-d's plan defies any sense of understanding of humanity. If G-d gave individuals life, it is to be cherished and protected. It can best be protected thru the individual responsibility of self-defense.
Democratic Government, which was foreign to Tolstoy, is an extension of that individual responsibility.
....
>G-d

[Anonymous No.4953126]

I think Steinbeck is the reason so many people don't develop a passion for reading. Started reading East of Eden which is apparently his best work....all I have to say is WOOF.
I've read a good portion of Steinbeck's works and I think he is for people who have a excitement and appreciation for WRITING. If you just enjoy reading, however, his characters have forced dimensions and are one-sided bores who are either totally good or wholeheartedly evil, making them completely un-relatable. To quote the great Sirius Black, "The world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters."
I think the worst thing about Steinbeck, though, is that he's peddled to young readers as one of America's Great Writers so people who might have had a passion for reading -- especially casual readers -- are so put off that they think, "Oh, reading's just not for me!" I can't even imagine how many people were turned off of reading because of such books like 'Of Mice and Men,' 'The Pearl' (act like you thought that was a good book. Way to make 6 grade even worse, am I right?), 'Tortilla Flat' and 'Grapes of Wrath' - I know I was for the longest time.

Maybe I'm not on a high enough level to appreciate this kind of writing but I'd say for us common folk, Steinbeck is a long, rewardless crap of a read.
In conclusion - Thank you universe for Harry Potter and bringing enjoyment back into reading for me at a young age. Without you I would have continued to think reading was the most painful thing in the world.

[Anonymous No.4953129]

>>4953040
I liked The Road, but the review is hilarious. It needs more "okay." "okay."s though.

[Anonymous No.4953141]

>>4953126
I agree, the curriculum needs more grade-friendly books. With literary value, not Harry Potter

[Anonymous No.4953148]

>>4953098
It's a jewish thing. Some of them think "god" is god's name. I shit you not.

[Anonymous No.4953151]

So the reviews pretty bad:

Stephen Hackman - "Well it's a shame because that Jimmy Joyce he had a knack for phrasemaking - blarney they call it - and no one could ever accuse him of over-reliance on the playsafe deracinated obfuscations and tergiversations of disproportionately latinate diction, so I like the part about the cow ("moo": delightful!) and would prefer it to any possible talk of quadrupedal lactifers yessir. De gustibus non est disputandum, however, as the Romans said.

Speaking of which, because I was raised Lutheran, I didn't get all the Catholic stuff. I figured you people just went to confession and moved on. My people just sing loud, eat sausage, and grow fat, as unnameable torment and self-loathing eat away at our heartvalves: how would you like them apples huh?

All in all, I was glad this book was short and will now go on to Ulysses, as I enjoy things Greek, with reasonable exceptions, being of German extraction. Thank you.

Having written my review, I turn my back, aware of my misprision of lactifer, but comforted by my error's Latin heritage."

But even worse is the comment section:

Spike - "I have not read this book yet and am deciding wether I should right now. This is probably a good review, but I am hoping there are some things the reviewer could help clarify.
What do you mean when you refer to Joyce as McJoyce?"

E. Easterling - "Spike - I wouldn't waste my time trying to interpret this review. Helpful votes for Mr Hackman's reviews are quite sparse."

Stephen Hackman - "Yes. Oh, how I long to be one of the popular kids. I will pause only to take note of your effete and precious use of "quite." Just the sort of thing one expects. More briefly: bite me."

[Anonymous No.4953157]

>>4952863
>Unless Oprah puts it on her book list

Too obvious

[Anonymous No.4953162]

>>4953151
I would totally read Mr. Hackman's book, if he were ever to write one.

[Anonymous No.4953166]

>>4952863

Platform

Before I read this book I was expecting a dirty, pornographic story that might have lead to something. In the end it didn't really lead anywhere but to my opinion that the author is not really a very good one. If your into porn then there is something much better out there than this. This book is for someone who is missing the "good old times" when women stayed at home, pleased their husbands whenever and however he wanted. The main characters are boring and in the end you cannot feel any sympathy for them. Save your time and money and read something, almost anything else.

and another commentator:
After reading Houellebecq's fascinating the Map and the Territory I wanted to read more of his works. I found the the Platform, disappointing, predictable and uninteresting. It is full of sexual content, that doesn't bother me, but it seems to be written from the perspective of a teenage boy (not that a teenage boy would be so experienced) or a Neanderthal and most disappointing is totally non-erotic.

I found the plot contrived, unsophisticated and trite, completely lacking the creativity and twists of the Map and the Territory.

[Anonymous No.4953171]

>>4952952
>not liking that album

Jesus Christ. I bet you hate pic related too.

Stick to literature you filthy casual.

[Anonymous No.4953179]

>>4953171
>I bet you hate pic related too.
Actually that's good. You're pretty bad at irony though. Are you listening to the beatles right now?

[Anonymous No.4953192]

>Someone considered this a top ten western. It was lofty biblical nonsense. Morose, brutal. If you are truly looking for a "western"....do not get this book.

>muh genre fiction

[Anonymous No.4953196]

>>4952863
hell yeah, kevin kline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZj4sEHt-K4

[Anonymous No.4953198]

>>4953179
No, Aphrodite's Child

[Anonymous No.4953202]

>>4953171
seriously don't bring TMR into this. NMH is awful shallow shit, beefheart is actually brilliant and relevant

[Anonymous No.4953214]

>>4953198
better

[Anonymous No.4953215]

>>4953202
>drug addled narcissist keeps his bandmates locked in a house practicing music the band leader can't even write

>SO DEEP

[Anonymous No.4953221]

>>4953098
muh freedom! *********------------------------
*********------------------------
*********------------------------
*********------------------------
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
damn i bet this wont be displayed correctly

[Anonymous No.4953231]

>>4953215
sounds pretty fun to me

but at any pace, I don't like it because of how it was rehearsed and recorded, although it makes for pretty interesting trivia, I like it for the music itself

[Anonymous No.4953240]

>>4953231
>LIMBO, BIMBO, SPAM

[Anonymous No.4953265]

>>4953231
How am I supposed to use a strawman if you only want to talk about the actual music? Damn.

[WESTERN !GERMaNYbDk No.4953272]

amazon didn't have any interesting ones about The End of Eternity so I'm just going to (re-)post this one from goodreads:

[Anonymous No.4953275]

>>4953057
>The actual review is 5 paragraphs of the exact same length
I don't think I have hated anything that much in my entire

[Anonymous No.4953282]

>>4952898
because they cannot conceive that they might not understand the book and so they dismiss it outright.

[Anonymous No.4953287]

>>4953272
>I got about 5 chapters read and was so distracted by the limited women's roles. No... more than limited. In fact. ONE. One women
God bless feminism

[Anonymous No.4953296]

On Borges

"I have read and enjoyed a wide variety of literature in my lifetime, but never before have I found such rubbish masquerading as itellectual work. "David Bickford. UK.


"This book is filled with short stories of bad boring science fiction. References, complete with page numbers, to non existent books only add to the tedium." Ransen Owen

[Anonymous No.4953310]

>>4953296
>such rubbish masquerading as itellectual work
WTF

[Anonymous No.4953315]

>>4953148
Yeah I know. I thought it was funny because the book's about the sermon on the mount.

[Anonymous No.4953316]

>>4953021
I actually hate Lolita to some extent but I don't agree with most of this, though it isn't absurd either.

[Anonymous No.4953331]

The Waves is considered Virginia Woolf's masterpiece. I don't think she had any, but I have an independent brain. This is a tedious read, so tedious in fact that if you take this to some park to read, you'll fall asleep in a few hours. My complaint is with the structure of the novel, there is a lack of it, hence it is an irksome, laborious, and lifeless read. If you can get away with it, pick up the Cliff Notes instead.

A sample of "The Waves, Virginia Woolf" (yawn):

'I see a ring,' said Bernard, 'hanging above me. It quivers and hangs in a loop of light.'

'I see a slab of pale yellow,' said Susan, 'spreading away until it meets a purple stripe.'

'I hear a sound,' said Rhoda, 'cheep, chirp; cheep chirp; going up and down.'

'I see a globe,' said Neville, 'hanging down in a drop against the enormous flanks of some hill.'

'I see a crimson tassel,' said Jinny, 'twisted with gold threads.'

'I hear something stamping,' said Louis. 'A great beast's foot is chained. It stamps, and stamps, and stamps.'

'Look at the spider's web on the corner of the balcony,' said Bernard. 'It has beads of water on it, drops of white light.'

'The leaves are gathered round the window like pointed ears,' said Susan.

'A shadow falls on the path,' said Louis, 'like an elbow bent.'

Thanks for making me see this OP; I'm fulminating.

[Anonymous No.4953335]

>>4953179
I like Beatles, especially Gimme Shelter

[Anonymous No.4953342]

Not my favorite work and not from amazon, but I do like the book and this review made me kek.

Whatever. Blah blah blah Samana. Blah blah blah Kamala. Blah blah blah Samsara. Blah blah blah River. Blah blah blah Om.

One guess as to the book...

[Anonymous No.4953349]

>>4953335
Yeah, that's a great album.

[Anonymous No.4953351]

Not my favorite work and not from Amazon but I do like the book and this review made me kek.

Whatever. Blah blah blah Samana. Blah blah blah Kamala. Blah blah blah Samsara. Blah blah blah River. Blah blah blah Om.

One guess as to the book...

[Anonymous No.4953417]

That girl is one straight line. She is wearing curtains. I don't like fat chicks, but man is that the opposite of curvy. Do you like 12 year old boys? That's the impression I get. Low testosterone weeb spotted.

[Anonymous No.4953433]

>>4953417
It's almost as if people have different preferences. I know, a startling realization.

[Anonymous No.4953445]

>>4953342
Had to write about this just the other day for class. Dead accurate.

[Anonymous No.4953449]

>>4953433
Yea but this is an imageboard so I'm going to obnoxiously voice my own preference

[Dr. Joseph Suglia No.4953479]

QUENTIN TARANTINO IS A SLOBBERING ANTI-BLACK RACIST: A review of Django Unchained by Dr. Joseph Suglia

>Quentin Tarantino is a slobbering anti-black racist who makes Blaxploitation films for white-trash hipsters. These hipsters grow aggressively defensive whenever African-Americans stand up and denounce these very films. Tarantino wishes to prove to his white hipster fan base that he knows African-American culture better than African-Americans know their own culture. And his hipster fanboys also desire that feeling--the feeling that they understand African-Americans better than African-Americans understand themselves. (For an analysis of the white hipster, consult Norman Mailer's The White Negro.)

God tier reviews: http://www.amazon.A2M8XFIIF9GPO5/ref=pdp_new_read_full_review_link?ie=UTF8&page=1&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R2RR84E6UABY8R

[Dr. Joseph Suglia No.4953484]

>>4953479
>Tarantino's latest abomination is Django Unchained (2012), a film about a murderer-for-hire named Dr. King Schultz (Christopher Waltz) who enlists an African slave named Django (Jamie Foxx) to assist him in his mass-murdering spree. Their journey ends at Candyland, a plantation owned by the oleaginous Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio, in an amusing and impressive performance that elevates above the film and never quite descends into camp). There is much to demur to, but I will restrict myself to three demurrals: 1.) The film is an agglomeration of plagiarisms. 2.) The film is crypto-racist garbage. 3.) The screen violence is without passion or meaning.

DJANGO UNCHAINED IS AN AGGLOMERATION OF PLAGIARISMS

[Dr. Joseph Suglia No.4953492]

>>4953484
>First of all, Django Unchained is a pastiche of Spaghetti Westerns. The opening song was lifted directly from the English-language version of Django (1966). On the soundtrack is a well-known composition from Ennio Morricone's soundtrack for Two Mules for Sister Sara (1970) - an American Spaghetti Western, if there ever was one. There is also an appearance by Franco Nero, star of the original Django, which is a pointless, meaningless cinematic reference that adds nothing whatsoever to the film, which is itself a pointless, meaningless accumulation of cinematic references.

[Anonymous No.4953494]

>>4953484
>>4953479
It's funny how nobody wanted to read this slop, so you're spamming it here.

[Anonymous No.4953496]

>every one star review of any of my favorite books is whining about how there were too many men and the protagonist wasn't a strong bulldyke womyn

one day i will have my 'retribution' all over the face of these tumblr dollar-whores

[Anonymous No.4953500]

Treasure Island
>I am only 14 I don't like books very much but it is okay that it is free and don't have to pay

this makes me almost unspeakably sad.

[Dr. Joseph Suglia No.4953501]

>>4953492
>Quentin Tarantino isn't very much different than Calvin Candie. After all, they both enjoy watching Mandingo fighting.
...
> Like its predecessor, Inglourious Basterds (2009), Django Unchained is a work of genocide pornography, the cruelest, most unconscionably vicious form of pornography in existence. The crude plot of Inglourious Basterds trivializes the Holocaust; the crude plot of Django Unchained trivializes the enslavement of Africans in antebellum America.

BLOWN. THE. FUCK. OUT

[Anonymous No.4953506]

>>4953479
>white-trash hipsters

[Anonymous No.4953507]

>>4953494
I am not Suglia, for the record, you crypto racist whigger hipster cunt who enjoyed and is defending the film, get rekt

[Anonymous No.4953512]

>>4953506
>no you doge
If you liked Django, you're a hipster. End.

[Anonymous No.4953518]

>>4953507
I thought the film was a silly disgrace. Sort of like the "review" you spammed was a silly disgrace.

[Anonymous No.4953532]

>>4953518
Suglia took his PHD on comparative lit at North Western, and has two novels published. Our qualifications are posting on a Mongolian image board. Ok doge, sorry the review wasn't an edifying experience for you, that's too bad, you smug cunt

[Anonymous No.4953559]

>>4953532
>PHD on comparative lit at North Western, and has two novels published.

Seems like you're actually impressed by this, which creeps me out.

[Anonymous No.4953561]

>Revolution in the Republic of Costaguana threatens a silver shipment from the Gould mines, but the heroic Nostromo agrees to bury the silver so that it won't be found. But the corruptive power of the silver is too much for even the previously trustworthy Nostromo in Conrad's pessimistic tale of Central American colonialism.
Now I love Heart of Darkness (read Orrin's review), my beloved Grandfather gave me Lord Jim (read Orrin's review) when I was a kid and I was even pleasantly surprised by The Secret Agent (read Orrin's review), but I have never been able to get in to Nostromo, despite numerous attempts. I get the whole metaphor deal, the silver represents all of the wealth that colonists have torn out of the Third World and Nostromo ("our man") is corrupted by this shipments, just as the West has been corrupted by Imperialism. Yeah, yeah, yeah... I guess the first problem is that I think that's a crock of hooey and colonialism was the best thing that ever happened to these places, but I also really just find the novel to be lifeless.
I believe that both David Lean and John Huston died while trying to adapt the story for the movies, perhaps one of these masters could have sold me on the story. As is, I just didn't like it.

>Likes Heart of Darkness and Lord Jim
>Doesn't like Nostromo because of the anti colonial themes
I don't even know anymore fellas

[Anonymous No.4953566]

The Stranger's one-star reviews are just a bunch of retards complaining that Matthew Ward's translation is inferior to Stuart Gilbert's translation, even though it's leagues more accurate to the original French and Ward didn't fucking add entire sentences to the story that were never actually written by Camus like Gilbert's faggot ass did.

[Anonymous No.4953576]

>>4953561

Thank you for proving for everyone here than anonymity on 4chan is a silly myth.

[Anonymous No.4953579]

>>4953576
What?

[Anonymous No.4953582]

>>4952986
that one is full of self-satisfaction

[Anonymous No.4953588]

>>4953579

It's not cute to play dumb.

[Anonymous No.4953593]

>>4953588
What the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.4953595]

>>4953091
Sounds like something someone who dislikes a book for not having a "sympathetic protagonist."

[Anonymous No.4953599]

>>4953588
>>4953576
I'm confused.

[Anonymous No.4953603]

>>4953331
>pick up the cliff notes instead
I generally discourage this behavior from the get-go, but that would doubly defeat the purpose of reading The Waves. Awful. Terrible.

[Anonymous No.4953604]

>>4953599

You're confused because you're a disgusting parasite.

[Anonymous No.4953609]

>>4953604
no u

[Anonymous No.4953613]

>>4953609

I can name names about the Stirner fags on this board if you like.

[Anonymous No.4953615]

>>4953604
>>4953613
What in the fucking Christ is going on?

[Anonymous No.4953617]

>>4952863
Suttree

"Cormac Mc Carthy sees only the negative side of humanity. Was this book a paycheck? Could not understand Suttree the ' bum.'"

"This novel was heavy with description and exaggeration. l tried to skip it to get to the meat of the story which is what every writer's role is from the Bronte's to Danielle Steel. l do not think l will read his other novels."

"Incomprehensible..Boring, A waste of money..
I you want to spend time trying to unravel what the heck this man is trying to say, then do so..I gave it my best shot and in disgust tossed it into the waste basket."

[Anonymous No.4953618]

>>4953613
I'm not a Stinerist, I'm a stoic. See the picture included in my original post of Marcus Aurelius. The two philosophies are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.4953620]

>>4953615

The Stirner fags are arch-projectionists. Their "spookology" is belied by the fact they do the work of the secret services for them whether they know it or not. Spooks indeed.

[Anonymous No.4953621]

Shit I don't have a "favorite novel" but two things stick in my mind.
>Johnny Got His Gun
An amazon review that basically bashed the whole novel just because it wasn't possible to have all your limbs cut off and survive.
>fahrenheit 451
A couple of people have told me that they hated the book because it was boring and because the protagonist was a fireman who burned books.

[Anonymous No.4953622]

>>4952863
>The Plague by Camus

I found the book extremely dull and boring. I can on the other hand understand and apprecitate why it's regarded as a classic. Camus'es style of writing conveys emotions very well and is more suited for a people who are very much into philosophy.
Camus used the word "abstract" in a way I never thought of using it and found that very interesting. The plague represents an "abstraction" because it is so difficult to comprehend. The plague kills many people and forces everyone in the city into internment camps. The book centers around three characters one of whom is a doctor. The three characters are unusually contemplative and philosophical. This is what dulled the book for me. The characters simply didn't seem like real people and I could not see them as anyone I'd ever meet. Another thing about the story that bothered me was the fact that the events described was a fictional account of events taking place in an Algerian town, yet Arabs are seldom mentioned. There is no mention at all of the Arabic language or Islam. There is no trace of Arabic or Islamic influence anywhere. No one in the book has an Arabic or Islamic name, there are no Muslims anywhere. There are many parts of the book however that mention Christianity and churches. So it's also very culturally biased.

>mfw

[Anonymous No.4953629]

>>4953617

Get a load of this weirdo, i kek'd;

If you're considering buying the Peter Smith "edition" of this book, note that it is NOT a new "edition" in hardcover but the Vintage International edition rebound in red cloth, with the cover of said trade paperback glued onto the front. It looks like it's been rebound for libraries, is the type of thing that's usually not for sale to the general public (. . .) The book is WELL-REBOUND, and may still be worth it to you Cormac McCarthy diehards out there -- it is for me, and ultimately I'm just gonna keep the copy of it I bought, but it's still quite disappointing. Thought you deserved a warning, hope it came in time. McCarthy's a great writer, of course -- feel a little guilty about the one-star, but it's an issue of the edition, not the book.

[Anonymous No.4953637]

>>4953126
>To quote the great Sirius Black

this cannot be fucking real. like, no one would actually say that, right /lit/? right?

[Anonymous No.4953649]

>>4953637
nigga, have you read some of the reviews on goodreads? these ingenues review Camus with straight harry potter gifs, and a few adjectives describing their emotions

[Anonymous No.4953682]

>>4952985
>It is bad because it makes me feel bad

[Anonymous No.4953684]

>>4953296
I'm mad fuck these people.

[Anonymous No.4953708]

>>4953684
Here are more 1-star Borges reviews:

> I had no emotional connection to this book. The experience of reading it is like reading a textbook. The stories really sound like essays, and I'm still not convinced as to why I should care about some fake encyclopedia or some language that doesn't use certain parts of speech. Too much telling, and not enough showing.

>Extremely overrated... for academics and intellectual wannabes. One basic rule for a great writer is. Write the book you want to read. Borges only wrote what he wanted to write readers be dammed.

>Borges is supposed to be a surrealist wonder. I say leave surrealism for the painters my friend. I don't have time enough in my life to plow through and digest REAL, USEFUL theologies and philosophies that not only exist but also have meaning in my life...so what is the point of wading thru a fictional anthropological study of a people that were in fact INVENTED by others! This is the context of his first short story. Apparently, others shorts were much better. However, after the first two were such a pain with no payoff in my opinion...I fed him to the fishes

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4953712]

Moby Dick
>dwsilverhawk
>If you love sitting with one of those guys who know everything and spend endless hours telling you all about it you will love this book. If Melville had stuck to the basic story it would have been less than a 100 pages long and a good read. I've been more intertained in the dentist office.

>Robert R Hall
>This was the most difficult book I ever tried to read!
So difficult that I did not find it enjoyable at all.

>The audio narration move so fast that I could not keep up.

[Anonymous No.4953723]

>>4953682
This is a trend that I find across a lot of user submitted book reviews on different websites. People will give a book a low score because it made them feel depressed, or shocked, or just generally negative.

It's fucking infuriating. Who the hell exclusively reads books that make them feel good? Who would consciously involve themselves in such pathetic escapism?

[Anonymous No.4953738]

>Just finished this book ... it's one of the 1001 Books to read before you Die. What a painful experience. There is not a character in the book you can like or feel any empathy for including Rabbit. I'm baffled that this book is considered such a success.

[Anonymous No.4953743]

>>4953712
>>The audio narration move so fast that I could not keep up.

Was this an actual review or something you posted? lol

[Anonymous No.4953747]

>Let's be honest, this is nothing more than child pornography. I did not finish this nor would I recommend it. The only reason I gave 1 star is because Amazon won't let me give it 0 stars. I wish I could give it negatve infinity stars. JUST. PLAIN. GROSS.

[Anonymous No.4953751]

>>4953738
lol wow it's someone else who's read updike on /lit/

[Anonymous No.4953752]

>>4953712
>The audio narration move so fast that I could not keep up.

[Anonymous No.4953773]

>>4953751
lit doesn't like Updike?

[Anonymous No.4953783]

>>4953773
the amount of times i've masturbated over 'couples' then gave my paperback copies to boys i liked surprises me.

[Anonymous No.4953792]

>>4953773
we never talk about him here and every now and then you hear people bitch about him for the reasons people always bitch about him

[Anonymous No.4953794]

>>4953021
hemingway pls

[Anonymous No.4953822]

I was so offended I won't even post it.

[Anonymous No.4953828]

>>4953532
>Suglia took his PHD on comparative lit at North Western, and has two novels published.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA

Also his review read almost as if Calvin Candie himself wrote it. "Oleaginous"? "Demur"? "Agglomeration"?

bad taste word salad, son.

[Anonymous No.4953868]

>>4953040
I've never read The Road but this is hilarious

[Anonymous No.4953887]

>>4952952
haha, pleb.

[Anonymous No.4953969]

>>4953622
>Camus'es

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4954006]

>>4953743
Oh.
That was from Robert Hall.

[Anonymous No.4954023]

>Go to Siddhartha 1 star reviews
>Prepare to get angry
>Everyone is just mad that its a shit translation full of typos, not trashing the content of the original book
>Faith in humanity restored a little bit

[Anonymous No.4954036]

C. A Scovel "Christina Scovel" (Los Alamos, NM)

The Moon Is Down is a story of war. Of a conquered people and their conquerors. You cannot tell from the story when or where this book really takes place. The British and Germans are involved but that is about all you can really tell. The story is about a small town with a coalmine and the conquering forces trying to get coal out of the mine. My issue with this story is that it was written in such a pedantic way that you never seem to make any progress. And at the end, are you no further along than you were at the beginning (you still have people being occupied). I finished reading it thinking it wasn't written very well, the plot was terrible and the characters never developed because they had no depth to begin with. A real waste of my time.

[Anonymous No.4954051]

>>4952912
So is it a potato or a tambourine?

[Anonymous No.4954070]

>>4952985
Gee, maybe that person should watch Funny Games

[Anonymous No.4954096]

>>4953126
jesus christ, i even like the harry potter books but that guy is retarded

[Anonymous No.4954098]

>>4953445
I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Anonymous No.4954104]

Cannery Row:

"I started reading this book about six months ago. I got about halfway though and then I stopped. I kept thinking I would go back and finish it. But, alas, I am sure I never will. I just can't get back into it.

O.K. I understand. Published in 1945, this is a classic. Set in the 1930s in an area of San Francisco called Cannery Row, it's supposed to depict the lives of some real people and a way of life that is no more. This is where the sardine canneries are. And this is where a bunch of enterprising "hobos" live in a makeshift building where their big joy in life is drinking a lot of alcohol. They are drunk all the time or trying to get drunk. Sometimes they go into the countryside and bring back frogs for a doctor who is doing medical experiments, but mostly all they can think of is where the next drink is coming from.

I just didn't like the characters. They seemed like they came straight out of a comic strip. Perhaps the book has some literary or historical value. But I couldn't find it. And that's why I'm not planning on finishing it."

>cannery row
>an area of San Francisco

Or this one:
"IT STINKS

Boring plotless attempt at literature."

[Anonymous No.4954113]

Dune by Frank Herbert

Clearly, you have to be a fan of the robot genre to remotely even come close to liking this book. The first chapter gets off to a very slow start, the storyline becomes boring rapidly, and after a while, the book is unreadable. I would imagine that those disappointed with this highly overrated book would turn to other science fiction. Lord of the Rings puts this book to shame. J.R.R. Tolkien makes this author look unimaginative to say the least. If you want real science fiction, start with The Hobbit and go onto the LORD OF THE RINGS. Put this book where it belongs: in the GARBAGE bin.

since when is LOTR science fiction?

[Anonymous No.4954117]

>>4954104
Snippets of Tortilla Flat reviews:

"I cannot judge this by 1930 standards, but by today's standards, this book is racist and insulting. And yet it won awards."

"Somewhat reminds me of some stories I've read by Voltaire, ridiculous and fast moving, however Voltaire's being much more meaningful and philosophical. Sorry, I gave up on this one by the first chapter "

"Plot: Guy inherits 2 houses. He gets drunk. His drunk friends burn down one house. They all move into the other house. they invite more drunks in to live. All their money goes for jug wine. They also spend lots of time in jail, or begging for food. Anyone who doesn't want to blow money on wine either gets beat up or called a "Jew". At the end the house burns down.

This is meant to be entertaining?"

"After reading this I thought was really good, but then when I sat down to write this review it all just did not make sense."

"i just finished the book. after i write this two sentence review, i plan on committing suicide."

"Stienbeck, the revered author of alltime, has done it once again. Perfecting the techniques of creating the SUCKIEST BOOK OF ALLTIME is not as easy as it looks"

[Anonymous No.4954118]

>>4953496
I'll publish your manifesto, Mr. Rodgers

[Anonymous No.4954123]

>All the positive reviews here leave me stunned since I thought this was easily one of the most overrated, simplistic, and offensive novels I've ever read. After a reasonably strong and interesting beginning it got stuck in a one-note rut and was just a chore to finish. The book is billed as a triumph of the human spirit over adversity, but aside from the initial hardship at school when Peekay is a small English student among some cruel Boers what adversity is there? OK, he's poor, has no father and his mother is a Jesus freak. But he's also white in South Africa, a near genius, has no flaws, never loses a single boxing match and is surrounded by loving, supportive people who are willing to spend seemingly endless amounts of time nurturing and educating him for no apparent reason. There is none of the real-life tension that comes from overcoming hardship, or dealing with one's own weaknesses. Courtenay, to his credit, consistently attacks bigotry, from the English, the Boers, or the Nazis, be it against blacks, Indians or Jews (although sexism gets only occasional mention in the book). But aside from some small attention paid to the inmate who teaches Peekay to box and his two housekeepers Courtenay doesn't develop a single non-white character. Most of the blacks in the book are one-dimensional, almost caricatures of the "noble savage", who do not develop their own leadership against apartheid as happened historically. (The book extends into the 1950s when the ANC and organizers like Nelson Mandela became a potent force, but that doesn't get a mention.) Instead the blacks literally worship this white student whose main role in the bitter struggle against apartheid seems to come from providing some kind of inexplicable, mystical inspiration, which not surprisingly never rings remotely true and descends to the truly offensive by the end. The black workers, as portrayed by Courtenay, are incapable of fighting for themselves, but have to rely on the generosity and leadership of whites. Courtenay does give some descriptions of the brutality against blacks in prison and the workplace, which can be gripping, but in fact spends a lot more time on the tension between the English and the Boers, the "white tribes", than he does in exposing the horrors of apartheid. Peekay, pointlessly not given a real name, in the end is a one-dimensional, larger than life character who's not believable, and Courtenay doesn't muddy the waters with anything real such as weaknesses, mistakes, genuine hardship, or even love or sex. And his final symbol of the triumph over racism in a shockingly brutal ending--the English Union Jack superceding the swastika--ignores the struggle of the oppressed black majority (how many of his fellow Australians share his ardent affection for the Union Jack is something he'd probably rather not think about). The book clearly had high aspirations but didn't reach them ....

[Anonymous No.4954124]

>>4953512
>Enjoying a movie makes you a degenerate, plad-wearing twink.
No anon, you're the faggot.

[Anonymous No.4954131]

>>4953621
People are such aspies sometimes goddamn

[Anonymous No.4954135]

>>4953773
What's updike?

LOL GET IT

[Anonymous No.4954138]

>>4954131
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? PKD

From page one: "Friendlily, because he felt well-disposed toward the world...he patted her bare, pale shoulder."
This guy writes lovelily, doesn't he? Aspiring science-fiction authors take note: Avoid turning adjectives that already end with "ly" into adverbs. Someone is bound to try to pronounce your prose aloud, trip over himself, and sue you. In any case, the "friendlily" in the above example is superfluous: ALL shoulder patting is friendly (this is the meaning of the gesture). A simple "He patted her shoulder" would have been much more effective.
From page two: "After a hurried breakfast - he had lost time due to the discussion with his wife - he ascended clad for venturing out, including his Ajax model Mountibank Lead Codpiece, to the covered roof pasture whereon his electric sheep grazed. Whereon it, sophisticated piece of hardware that it was, chomped away in simulated contentment, bamboozling the other tenants of the building."
"He ascended clad for venturing out" is awkward and amateurish. "Clad", "whereon", "that it was", and "bamboozling" are affected. The nested "whereon"s are confusing. The colloquial "bamboozled" is inconsistent with the formal "clad" and "whereon".
In short, anyone with any literary discrimination at all will find this book unreadable.

jesus christ this guy must not be able to read anything.

[Anonymous No.4954141]

>>4953723
This. It also goes hand in hand with the current culture of "I'm offended, cater to my needs so that I won't be!"

[Anonymous No.4954142]

Looked for Hamlet and found this:

''A Kid's Review
This review is from: Hamlet (Shakespeare Made Easy) (Paperback)
I thought that this book made reading Hamlet easier, but I still don't really like the story of Hamlet. There is really no point and it's really long. Many people like the story so much just because it was written by William Shakespeare, but it doesn't matter to me who wrote it, I'm still not sure that I understand it completely. But with the "easier reading" side I liked the story better because I could sort of understand it a little bit better.''

>it's really long

Fuck those kids.

[Anonymous No.4954145]

>>4954113
>People still not understanding that LotR is a biblical allegory and in a lot of ways unoriginal
Holy shit I mad

[Anonymous No.4954153]

>>4954138
Jesus fucking christ, this is like the guy that had a hernia over dark souls and refused to play it because of the way you equip items

[Anonymous No.4954155]

>>4954145
im more upset by the "fan of the robot genre" bit.
dune doesnt have anything to do with robots.

[Anonymous No.4954160]

>>4954138
those passages seem pretty bad but having never read pkd ill be charitable and assume they are semi-ironic or out of context

[Anonymous No.4954162]

>>4954153
english majors, who get a "proper" method and style of writing hammered into their brains.

[Anonymous No.4954177]

>>4954155
Lol, I was half expecting him to recommend Asimov

[Anonymous No.4954179]

>>4954142

>Many people like the story so much just because it was written by William Shakespeare, but it doesn't matter to me who wrote it
At least he thinks for himself

[Anonymous No.4954180]

>>4954160
Well, they're out of context to some degree, but not necessarily semi-ironic. I think most PKD fans, including myself, are able to admit that he was not really the greatest wordsmith around.

Like most of the scifi genre, I read PKD for the ideas and the stories, not for the quality of the prose.

[Anonymous No.4954184]

>>4954162
That's so frustrating, there's no correct way to write and pretending that this "method writing" would even work for everyone is a farce.

[Anonymous No.4954192]

>>4954180
You seem like you've got some of the same thoughts about scifi that I do, any stories you particularly enjoyed?

[Anonymous No.4954200]

>>4954180
this guy gets it. sci fi is about the setting, story and ideas. good prose is a bonus, but as long as its not atrocious its fine. no common sci fi reader is going to be analyzing every word.

[Anonymous No.4954234]

>>4953342
>>4953351
Samefag

[Anonymous No.4954243]

>>4954234
What would we do without you, oh noble anon, without your powers of deduction and reason?

[Anonymous No.4954257]

>>4954243
Hopefully learn the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

[Anonymous No.4954336]

>>4952986
>(I did crossword puzzles for years)
;^)

[Anonymous No.4954402]

>>4954023
You sure?

Hermann Hesse tries to find in this controversial novel the essence of the universe in a sort of pantheism. His protagonist chooses to live successively in two totally opposite ways of escapism out of the socially relevant world: as monk (a shramana) and as rake.

Pantheism, time and evil
For Siddhartha, `every wind, cloud, bird or beetle is divine.' `The river is god.'
In this pantheism, time is not real, but an illusion: `In this timeless world, everything is the way of the Perfect One.'
But pantheism has a big problem: evil. But, for Siddhartha there is no problem. God is also evil: `If time is not real, then the gap that seems to exist between the world and eternity, between suffering and bliss, between good and evil is also an illusion. Every sin already contains grace within it.'

Anti-reason
Siddhartha utterly detests reason. Besides such nonsense as `the opposite of every truth is also just true', he warns: `but beware, you who are greedy of knowledge. Beware of excessive cleverness. It was a certainty that the body was not the self, but also not thinking, not the reasoning mind.'
In the face of the butchery of World War I, Siddhartha could love people `who wage war'.

The Unity, Buddhism
For Siddhartha (Hegel?), `in the depths of meditation lies the possibility of cutting through time, of being the simultaneity of past, present and future life and that within that everything is good, all is perfect ... the eternal perfection of the world's unity.' (!)
The Perfect One lives on alms. But, if everybody would live on alms, mankind would be rapidly extinct. Therefore, the Perfect One needed a gift from `a wealthy merchant'.

Words, literature, art
But the truly most amazing aspect of this novel is its view on literature: `Words do not justice to the hidden meaning.' `But the words I cannot love.' `Teachings have nothing but words.' And then, what about H. Hesse's words and ideas in this novel?
These statements are nothing less than a virulent rejection of the author's own profession (writing), of literature and of art. Mind-boggling.

I cannot recommend this illusory, nonsensical and self-defeating `words'.

[Anonymous No.4954415]

>>4953723
I think it's partly about the reviewers not knowing that they're allowed to use adjectives other than 'good' or 'bad'. If you gave them a star-o-meter for whether the book was effective they'd probably figure it out.

Also that the goodreads scale is explicitly "how much did you like it" rather than "how good was it" probably lets some sensible people give good books bad reviews.

[Anonymous No.4954628]

Crime and Punishment

"Long and pretty boring I don't like the old timely language they use in this book I know it's translated from German or Russian maybe but I was bored to tears and there was never any payoff really just goes on and on."

-----------------------------------------------------------

This one has to be a troll...

"There is no doubt that "Crime and Punishment" would have been one of the greatest novels of the century had not Dostoevsky leaned towards the more acceptable sense of morality related to the weak tenets of Chrisitanity. In doing so, he made Rasknolikov a caricature of himself, lethargic and yet redeemable by accepting Christ's suffering. It was more appropriate to adapt Nietzsche's figure of "the noble superman" but Dostoevsky, at the time of his writing, was a destroyed soul, drinking and plagued by debts, a gambling and morphine addiction and on top of that, he was a converted Christian, which is to say he resembled a "spineless worm".

There is a powerful beginning in which the bold character Rasknolikov conceptualizes the murder of an old aged hag who serves no purpose to society but beyond that, Dostoevsky tortures us with the conscience of an obstinate man who is shattered by an insignificant crime. In all effect, Dostoevsky became an apologist not only for bourgeois values and the Czar with his corrupt regime, but for Orthodox Christianity, which not only supported the exploitation of the Russian population but welcomed it. The end of the novel, which portrays a once proud, noble, and intellectually superior young man weeping before a prostitute and the image of the bible, brings about the demise of Dostoevsky's credibility."

[Anonymous No.4954653]

Anna Karenina
>A lot of people claim this is "the best book ever written" and other such originalities, but quite frankly I don't believe them. Obviously Tolstoy does demonstrate a good grasp of his language and imagination. Apart from that the characters are truly despicable, each and everyone of those so called nobles and aristocrats.
I was relieved when I finished it so now I can slate it when discussing it with friends, but if you have a healthy dislike of boredom, I really suggest you do something better with your time.
Overall NOT an indispensible read.
I just had a stroke.

[Anonymous No.4954662]

Here are several for Anna Karenina because they are all short, prepare yourself.

>I tried so hard over many days to read this book which was constantly repetative and far far too deep. The book rambled on and on it was totally boring and in the end I gave up, reading should be enjoyable this book was just too much like hard work.

>The backbone of the story is mildly interesting but as soon as you get to an interesting point Tolstoy goes off on a tangent. Some chapters are so pointless and nothing actually happens. This book is never ending and is roughly four times as long as a normal book. I couldn't read anymore as I was bored stiff by 26% so I will settle with watching the film instead.

>She is just such an irritating person! How can she act as though lust is the only important drive in life. - how many words do i have to put into this before i am allowed to post it, isn't this 20 yet?

>It was extremely long, which is fine if the plot is gripping and exciting, but it's not. I found myself bored for most of the book with maybe 2 or 3 interesting chaoters thrown in here and there. I persevered with the book, hoping for a good ending to make it all worthwhile, which it failed to deliver.... would not recommend to anyone.

>A lot of people claim this is "the best book ever written" and other such originalities, but quite frankly I don't believe them. Obviously Tolstoy does demonstrate a good grasp of his language and imagination. Apart from that the characters are truly despicable, each and everyone of those so called nobles and aristocrats.
I was relieved when I finished it so now I can slate it when discussing it with friends, but if you have a healthy dislike of boredom, I really suggest you do something better with your time.
Overall NOT an indispensible read.

[Anonymous No.4954668]

Here are several for Anna Karenina because they are all short, prepare yourself.

>I tried so hard over many days to read this book which was constantly repetative and far far too deep. The book rambled on and on it was totally boring and in the end I gave up, reading should be enjoyable this book was just too much like hard work.

>The backbone of the story is mildly interesting but as soon as you get to an interesting point Tolstoy goes off on a tangent. Some chapters are so pointless and nothing actually happens. This book is never ending and is roughly four times as long as a normal book. I couldn't read anymore as I was bored stiff by 26% so I will settle with watching the film instead.

>She is just such an irritating person! How can she act as though lust is the only important drive in life. - how many words do i have to put into this before i am allowed to post it, isn't this 20 yet?

>It was extremely long, which is fine if the plot is gripping and exciting, but it's not. I found myself bored for most of the book with maybe 2 or 3 interesting chaoters thrown in here and there. I persevered with the book, hoping for a good ending to make it all worthwhile, which it failed to deliver.... would not recommend to anyone.

>A lot of people claim this is "the best book ever written" and other such originalities, but quite frankly I don't believe them. Obviously Tolstoy does demonstrate a good grasp of his language and imagination. Apart from that the characters are truly despicable, each and everyone of those so called nobles and aristocrats. I was relieved when I finished it so now I can slate it when discussing it with friends, but if you have a healthy dislike of boredom, I really suggest you do something better with your time. Overall NOT an indispensible read.

[Anonymous No.4954673]

Why is Androgyny so attractive?

[Anonymous No.4954676]

>>4953036
shakingspear.gif

[Anonymous No.4954706]

>>4953215
>"I don't like what I don't understand, and any production from doubtful ethics is unpleasant."
>>4953231
I once heard a musician say he didn't like it, because it had: "no groove".
>Listen to it like you would look at an abstract painting compared to a classic depiction

[Anonymous No.4954711]

>>4954145
>a biblical allegory
I thought it was supposed to be about the environment/the Industrial Revolution?

[Anonymous No.4954734]

>>4954145
>>4954711
It's all about the first world war.
Elves, humans and dwarves represent upper, middle and lower classes in england, orcs and goblins are the enemy, Sauron is the Kaiser, rhûn and Harad are the Ottomans, Nazgûl are german generals, Minas Tirith is Verdun, swamp of sorrows is passchendaele, etc etc

[Anonymous No.4954753]

>>4954138
To be fair, Dick's prose is shit. That's what happens when you write all your novels in a week while fucked on speed. His stories and ideas are brilliant, but his actual prose is at best serviceable and at worst amateurish. I doubt he redrafted the majority of his novels. I bet there's some he never even read all the way through.

The only exception really is A Scanner Darkly, which he worked on for a longer period than any of his other books, and with a lot of help from his wife and his editor. Even then the prose isn't anything particularly special.

It's a shame the reviewer couldn't get past the dodgy writing to appreciate the novel better, but honestly I don't really blame them.

[Anonymous No.4954760]

>>4954162
>english majors
>a "proper" method and style of writing hammered into their brains
uh, no
if anything 21st century english courses swing too far in the opposite direction
i've spent half this year learning how non-standard english is perfectly valid and all prejudices against non-standard english are snobby victorian hangups, never mind that it's handy for a language to be mutually intelligible from county to fucking county or anything.

[Anonymous No.4954762]

Wow Frodo really let himself go

[Anonymous No.4954767]

>>4952863
pic related.

[Anonymous No.4954775]

>>4953609
hahahameg

[Anonymous No.4954778]

How do you guys not realize this is satire?

>I'd rather just curl up with "Bridges of Madison County" for a good cry!
>these are the people who put "Citizen Kane" in the top ten...and totally ignored "Life as a House"! (No offense, but Orson Welles is no Kevin Kline!)
>Unless Oprah puts it on her book list, I won't be picking this one up again

All y'all a bunch of humorless dumbfucks.

[Anonymous No.4954781]

>>4954734
>>4954711
>>4954145
>“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” - J R R Tolkien
I don't like springing quotes from the author in arguments about a book's meaning because death of the author and all that, but this is really relevant here. Obviously it's going to draw on influences from the first world war and english society around that time because that was the society Tolkien lived in, and obviously it's going to draw influences from the Bible and some of the timeless concepts in it and other religious texts because nearly all works of art do, but it's such a narrow, limiting, and frankly pretentious statement to attempt to distil something like the Lord of the Rings into simply being "about" the first world war, or "about" the environment, or "about" something biblical, as if saying that instantly invalidates all other interpretations. Books aren't just a puzzle with one correct answer you get a brownie point for figuring out, good books aren't anyway. You can interpret them in a bunch of different ways, find a whole lot of meaning and meanings (often conflicting) in them, and apply them to a whole plethora of situations. I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this but apparently I do. Honestly it makes me cringe almost whenever I hear anyone say about a book or a film that it's "about" x y or z 'deeper meaning' as if it's an objective fact. That's not how fiction works.

[Anonymous No.4954789]

on Watership Down.

"I'm kidding! I looove this book!,

Alright, so now that I have gotten your attention--I know, I just rated this book one star, but you see, I noticed as I was reading reviews that my eyes skipped over all the millions of five star reviews, and went straight to the one stars. I hope I'm not being confusing, but what I am TRYING to say is that I actually love this book, and I just used the whole "one star thing" to grab the readers' attentions.

I have a lot of friends who have blatantly stated that "this book it terrible." I hate to have to say this about smart people, but my opinion is that if you don't understand the meaning of this book, you might as well read only for entertainment because you will never be able to understand great literature. Want proof? Just look at the other entire one star reviews. None of them are eloquent. None of them give a good reason as to why it wasn't good (other then the fact that they personally didn't understand it).

What IS so great about this book, anyway? I can answer that! First of all, the emotions of the characters are so vivid that you could cry over them. When one of them, Fiver, is seized with fear, you really do care, you really do understand. Each character has so much depth that everything they do is such a "them" thing to do. I find myself smiling as if watching an old friend when Hazel does this, or Bigwig does that.

Another great thing is the fact that they are so definitely rabbits. They don't understand everything that humans understand. They function differently, they fear different things, and Richard Adams so flawlessly portrays this that the reader is almost oblivious at times. You just accept it all and sometimes sit back and marvel at... well... just everything!

I could talk and talk all day about this book, but then no one would read my review, so I will stop now. I really hope you have been either: a) convinced to read this book or b) made to feel very guilty for not liking it. All right that is all I have to say. Good day."

[Anonymous No.4954797]

Not my favorite book but:

>Ugh! I was so disappointed with this book - I didn't even last 20 pages. I was defeated by the archaic style (capital letters in the middle of sentences drive me nuts) and the talking dog (Seriously? Who thought that was a good idea?). A pity, because I was really interested in the history behind Mason & Dixon.

i love that someone picked up this book because they wanted to learn more about m&d, and then were surprised at what it actually was. i just imagine this person picking out the book randomly and then just being like WHAT THE HELL

[Anonymous No.4954798]

>>4954781
So a book might contain a story, despite its roots and influences?
>you don't say
Are they mainly a compendum of human experiences?
>Orly?
Can you state the origins about a production without making a statement about the merits of its contents?
>apparently not
1984 can be construed as a love story in a background of extreme stalinism, but without the stalinist background, is it just a love story?

[Anonymous No.4954817]

>Among the very worst books I have ever read. I won't detail the plot (such as it is) as others have done. I can't relate to these characters at all. A century is not necessarily a long time but in terms of attitude these people might as well be from another world.

>No swearing, no rage, no hate. Conversations between characters are artifical and often just statements of politics, philosophy, religion.Endless descriptions of food eaten, clothes worn.

>If this was the only book in the world I would never read a written word again I hated it that much. The author could kill people with boredom and intellectual waffle without getting to any point.He manages to say in 1000 words what another author could say in 10. Not so much a novel as a sort of encyclopedia of descriptions of the human body, attitudes to life and being bored.

>Life is too short to read this.

>A book like Stephen King's 'It' is worth a 5/5 for it's sense of fun, drama, depth, terror, endless stories and characters. This book is for me a 1/5

[Anonymous No.4954825]

>>4954797
Hysterical Realism is hardly the movement for literary novices.

[Anonymous No.4954837]

It was hard to find funny one star reviews of Osamu Dazai's No Longer Human, but J.C. thinks it's such a snoozer he posted it twice.

[Anonymous No.4954846]

>Paradise Lost
This is supposedly a classic so I felt I OUGHT to read it.... it is of course based on the bible and you may enjoy it more than I did if you are a Christian. It is an ancient book and therefore written in a very archaic style (and in the form of a poem), so it can seem laborious to read in these 'modern' times. I gave up, it was too much like hard work, and I wish you luck if you have to study it!

>tfw i was 15/16 and read it fine

[Anonymous No.4954864]

>>4953500
No more

[Anonymous No.4954884]

>I'd like to think of myself as reasonably literate, but I find myself stupefied by the critical circle-jerk which has fomented around 2666. I appreciate that taste is subjective, but I was hard-pressed to find a single passage, clever parallel, insight into any facet of the human condition or turn of phrase -- in over 800 pages -- that made me feel like the reading experience was worthwhile. (That, in itself, is almost impressive.) In all honesty, I've never experienced a book which was so devoid of reward. I don't need the bad guys to get comeuppance, I just want a sense that my life has been somehow enriched by the time spent in the world offered by the book. Or even a sense. Of anything. All I found were endless culs-de-sac, bloated streams of consciousness which negate themselves, multiple interpretations of the dreams of distant relatives of unimportant side-side characters. There is the slimmest interconnection between the five books here, and even the title which unifies them is of nil significance: it takes the editor's note, appended to the end of the book, to explain that Bolano makes a reference to the year 2666 in an earlier novel. How anyone but the most devoted Bolanophile would pick up on that is anyone's guess.

>I barely made it through, fueled only by some masochistic sense of completism, and a rapidly ebbing hope that there was some reason for the whole endeavour. Is there really that much demand for a sprawling, formless, utterly pretentious bloated drudge? Is it merely that the backstory of the author's awareness of his impending mortality as he wrote imparts the book itself with some credibility? If anything, I think that there's a morbid comedy to be found in the idea of Bolano racing against time to pack his novel with as many red herrings as possible - really, that's all I felt there to be here. Even books which I've found frustrating reads -- Eggers' "You Shall Know Our Velocity", Sebold's "The Lovely Bones", Easton Ellis' "Glamorama", Ballard's "Crash" -- have had some quality which propelled me onwards. Guess I'm destined not to get Bolano, like I don't get Jean-Luc Godard

>Sorry - just had to vent.

>Just so you know I'm not a full-on hater, I'd like to give props to Daniel Alarcon's "Lost City Radio", which I read last week and whose unpretentious style I found exquisite. In my opinion, a young talent worth following

Why do dummies spend hours writing amazon reviews with a thesaurus in hand?

[Anonymous No.4954896]

>>4954884
>Due to the accolades this book had received, I refused to give up on it despite my increasing frustration. I kept looking for the gold and never found it. Finally, two-thirds of the way through, I quit. I found it to be boring, repetitive, pointless, misogynistic, indulgent blather and not worth my time. I don't have enough days on this earth to waste on such overrated drivel. I can see how this might have been written by a very ill man.

[Anonymous No.4954935]

>>4953021
urgh, you just know that this fucker is a 'I know what I like' socialist scumbag.

[Anonymous No.4954951]

>>4953098
This was unbearable.

>Never does he mention the USA, or the reasons for the American Revolution.

Why would he give a shit? He was Russian.

>Death on the battlefield, does not fit the legal definition of murder.

Welp, I guess that settles it, as long as the government says it's not murder, I guess it isn't.

>The Dalai Lama recently stated that non-violence will not work against terrorists because their hearts are not open to G-d.

The Dalai Lama is a Marxist hippie in a bathrobe, why would you listen to anything he said?

>Democratic Government, which was foreign to Tolstoy, is an extension of that individual responsibility.

>Democracy
topkek

[Anonymous No.4954955]

Gravity's Rainbow

>I sucked it up and read this whole book because I desperately wanted to justify the time spent wading and at times sprinting through this muck. Call it cognitive dissonance. When one contrasts Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five with this book, it's like comparing an Olympic sprinter with an obese man running for the bus with a hot dog in one hand and a soda in the other. Where Vonnegut is concise and elegantly economic, Pynchon is wasteful and ostentatious. Where Vonnegut's images are economically and powerfully portrayed, Pynchon's images are disorienting and leave little impression but surprise.
>Having read this novel from the perspective of 1996, I agree that this novel is an experience as did the reviewer who favorably compared it with the Summer of 1974. However, I recall the summer of 1974 with horror at a world that was paranoid, obsessed with impersonal and degrading sexual mores and filled with androgynous images not to mention political corruption, defeat in war and an American Dream turned upside down. Perhaps the value of this novel lies in its ability to reflect the mad society in which it was born. However, it's not worth reading unless you want to evoke a pleasant experience from those mad times. Such a narrow purpose does not befit great literature.

[Anonymous No.4954963]

Les Misérables

>I bought this book because I had to for my bookclub. I HATE IT!!!! To wordy, too much French, it jumps around from topic to topic, hard to follow, starts a story line then just drops it - don't like this book at all!!!!

>How can this poorly written piece of sap be considered a classic? The hopelessly over-sentimental plot and characters made me want to lose my lunch- in this case, the musical beats the book, hands down.

>my teacher completely over did it

[Anonymous No.4954971]

The Hobbit

>This yogurt tastes awful! This is the worst yogurt I have ever tasted! Bleck! Don't buy this yogurt, it SUCKS!!!

>After writing LotR Tolkien should have hunted all of his Hobbit books and burnt them in a giant bonfire.
This book tells about the adventure of Bilbo Baggins, Gandalf and a number of Dwarves (I can't remember the actual number, because all the dwarves were so similar).

This book is so silly, juvenile and ridiculously written that it is completely unprecedented.

People are defending this book by saying that it's a childrens' book unlike LotR. Well here's some news for you. There are some actually good childrens' books out there.

Not all would doom this 1 star, but no way would this book be receiving so many 5 star reviews unless it was written by Tolkien.

I'm not saying someone couldn't like it, but from any sane point of view it just isn't *good*. Period.

>The movie is probably good but for me the book stinks . With a capital S. Tried to read it twice. Each time got farther but to childish of a story. I read in the paper it was a rush job for his daugther or it was his granddaugther. Movie makes millions . Think about it. It don't take a lot to please some people. One star not low enough !! Give me back my money.!!!

[Anonymous No.4954973]

>>4954955
Every Pynchon review I read was the same

>no plot
>sily names with no meaning
>no character development
>i understand it, I just don't like it
>lol Emperor's New Clothes!!!
>Pynchon just wants to show off his intelligence

[Anonymous No.4954983]

>>4954973
>just wants to show off his intelligence
Nothing makes me more angry than this. YOU SHOULD BE TRYING TO DO THIS! FUCK!

[Anonymous No.4954991]

breakfast of champions

>I have this tenacious streak that causes me to persist to the end with every book that I start. On this occasion the upshot has been to waste several hours of my life. This book was terrible - maybe the author has written many other good books, but I will never find out because this was appalling. I cannot imagine what was going through his head when he wrote this drivel, but I suspect that it was not available on prescription. I cannot recall being this disillusioned with any book I have read in the past, and that is saying something!

[Anonymous No.4955070]

>>4954673
because it's different.

[Anonymous No.4955155]

>>4953021
>style over substance
>bad

Do you even Nabokov

[Anonymous No.4955191]

>>4954955
I actually think this review hit the nail on the head. There's a reason why he'll never win the Nobel Prize, and this guy sums it up pretty nicely

[Anonymous No.4955192]

>>4954973
>i understand it, I just don't like it
This criticism is the worst because anyone who has ever said it never actually goes on to describe what exactly about the book that they understood, they just repeat the things they don't like which have little to do with the subtext they supposedly "got."

[Anonymous No.4955197]

>>4955191
I have to disagree rather vehemently. When I read Kurt Vonnegut, before I even knew who Thomas Pynchon was, I thought he was unfunny, stripped down, too trite in his smugness etc. Pynchon on the other hand delivers exactly what I want -- the same sarcastic, flippant style with whacky cartoon shit and funny names and a deeper meaning. He just actually does it well.

I like that post modern books are big because I like postmodern books.

[Anonymous No.4955208]

Stoner
>I read this for my book circle. Managed to finish it but oh dear, what a dull book. This man had an unfortunate life. He married the wrong woman. He brought up his child only for his wife to alienate her from him. I wanted him to stand up for himself, it was so frustrating.

[Anonymous No.4955217]

I blame Orwell for all of this. Young people pick him up and then never betray what he believed to be good writing.

[Anonymous No.4955232]

Madame Bovary, by Gustave Flaubert

>The novel seems to step back and tsk at Emma, saying that she had so much. A safe and comfortable home, a good husband who doted on her and she just couldn't be happy with that.
>Signifying nothing. Much like this novel. My final criticism about this book... This was a book about people gettin' it on... AND THERE WAS NO SEX!

and another one

>Take me for example, when I, mere weeks into my marriage, realized what a horrific mistake I'd made did you see me running out and hanging on every mans ramblings, staring at members of society that were not in my immediate circle, day dreaming about being invited in? Hell No! I did what any respectable woman would do, I walked to the back of he closet, rocked my dead dads shirts close to me and sobbed silently - that's how you do it.

Wow OP. I have never read reviews on Goodreads before today. What a frustrating, irritating and entertaining task.

[Anonymous No.4955245]

Can we never have another thread like this. Think of Hans Hansen in Tonio Kroger, these people are not supposed to read literature. There reasoning and responses are making me physically ill.

[Anonymous No.4955249]

>>4955245
*Their reasoning
Please don't bully me.

[Anonymous No.4955257]

>>4955245
>Come to 4chan
>Don't like laughing at plebs
>This painfully drawn out "lol it's making me sick guys xD like literally sick amirite lol"

Reddit?

[Anonymous No.4955260]

>>4955232
Whoops. I realize now I was supposed to look on Amazon. Even worse:

>Bovary is boring, melodramatic, and as likely to break people of the habit of reading literature as to improve their ability in it. (It is, however, and interesting test of whether a person has more honesty, or more pretension. If you pretend to like this thing, you may be a pompous egghead.)

>his story is just tired, sexist and overdone. Something about the French writer (of the 18th & 19th centuries) compels him to draw tawdry sexploitative portraits of wealthy women who throw their entire lives away for some hot action.

And the winner:

> had to read this wack siht for class and I must say, overrated garbage! why does everyone think that just cause a novel is pre-1900s its such a CLASSIC. smh. madame bovary lost.

[Anonymous No.4955291]

I'm dying

[Anonymous No.4955298]

archtype of a /g/tard oldfag?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c

[Anonymous No.4955411]

>>4952863
>"I read this book last year for my AP English class. That was the ONLY reason that I finished this book. It was a huge task just to finish a page of Wuthering Heights; it was almost impossible to complete it. I enjoy characters that I can care about. I like to be able to really feel like I want something for a character. If that happens, then I want to finish the book; I want to know what happens to the character. I found with Wuthering Heights I hated Catherine and Heathcliff. I wanted them to die. I was supposed to be sad when things went wrong in their lives, but instead I was so happy. They were selfish, cruel, horrible people and I wanted them to DIE! Was I really supposed to like these selfish people? Since when is love a selfish thing? This is supposed to be a marvelous love classic, but where is the love? Love isn't just about what makes oneself feel good. Love is a kind, caring, sharing thing. Catherine and Heathcliff were selfish, cruel people. They deserved each other simply because they would make each other miserable."

The best part is that this was supposed to be a review for Jane Eyre.

[Anonymous No.4955457]

>>4952863
Looks like she just noticed a small turd in the corner.

[Anonymous No.4955460]

>Don't waste your time reading this book - this book is awful! This book was supposed to be so good, according to the other reviews, and it's definitely not a good novel. In fact, this is by far the worst novel I have read in my life. I think one of the other reviewers hit the nail on the head - most of this book just seems like random writing and ultimately it has no real purpose for carrying forward the plot line. Indeed, it definitely seems like he was just trying to meet a word count for the publisher. The edition of the book I read was slightly over 700 pages, and it could have easily been reduced to 300 without affecting in any way the plot line. Thus the reader is left to swallow 400 pages of pointless writing that just seems like "waffling" to mention the term used in England to describe writing that leads you no where. Not only that, but the 300 pages devoted to actually explaining the plot are not that interesting anyway. The plot line of the novel is incredibly implausible; a prince who is an "idiot" but on occasions doesn't seem like such an idiot after all and who suffers from a mysterious illness of "idiocy" that could not be labelled as an actual illness by modern medicine. Moreover, one of the principal characters in the novel, Aglaia Yepanchin supposedly is madly in love with the prince while at the same time making fun of him in a very rude way right in front of his nose - am I the only one here who thinks this is JUST a little implausible? And then just to make matters worse, and as an appetizer after having to swallow 650 pages of horrible writing, near the end of the novel Dostoyevski puts in the mouth of the prince two full pages of the most outrageous slander against the Catholic religion I have read in my life. Supposedly, according to Dosteyvski, atheism comes from the Catholic religion - certainly Dosteyevski doesn't hide his hatred for the Catholic faith. Even atheists would laugh at such an absurd proposition.

Impressive levels of kek

[Anonymous No.4955470]

>>4955260
the last one was written by a /mu/tant/KTT member

[Anonymous No.4955476]

>>4953604
Fucking lunatic.

[Anonymous No.4955721]

>I think there are two types of people in the reading world, those who are impressed when authors drop punctuation and common technique to be "edgy," and those who can't stomach it. Except on rare occasion, I can't stomach it. I don't think authors who refuse to use quotation marks, commas, periods, and/or paragraphs are "stylistic geniuses" or "edgy," I think they're lazy and trying to come off as being clever with the least amount of work required. It's the same feeling I have when eating at a "fancy" restaurant where the portions are twice as expensive for half as much food; this may impress a lot of people, but not me.

[Anonymous No.4955745]

>>4954973
The emperor's new clothes thing fucking pisses me off
"I don't like something therefore it must be objectively bad and anyone who does like it is lying and/or deluded!!!"
fack aff

[Anonymous No.4955771]

From a review of Ethan Frome:
>I really wanted the leads to die so that the book would end, but they couldn't even do that right.
I love Ethan Frome but that's pretty funny.

[Anonymous No.4955792]

>Clear signs of insanity from the start. He was rejected in so many ways during his life, and I hereby reject his attempt at literature. An utter failure.
>The ranting and raving of a mentally disturbed person. Let's hope the human race will never have to go through this kind of suffering ever again.
>Ramblings of a maniac, incoherent, repetitive, and displays how far from reality this idiot really lived. How a whole nation could be influenced by this fool beggars belief but I,m glad I persevered.

I'm sure you can guess who

[Anonymous No.4955796]

>>4955792
so edgi

[Anonymous No.4956004]

>>4955792
DFW?

[Anonymous No.4956009]

>>4955792
?

[Anonymous No.4956045]

>>4952980
Here's a better, more nuanced one.

[Anonymous No.4956070]

>>4954051
Neither; it's a bodhran.

[Anonymous No.4956074]

I read slaughter house five by Kurt Vonnegut and I loved it

What authors are like Kurt Vonnegut in terms of writing and maybe experiences? What would you recommend for someone like me?

[Anonymous No.4956083]

>>4955792
da neetch

[Anonymous No.4956097]

The Sea-Wolf by Jack London

The book is stupid.
Don't read it.
The plot basically involves a character named Hump (suggestive of London's sexual frustration?) who is verbose and stupid. Eventually he meets a girl and becomes monosyballic and even more stupid.
The book is rife with technical detail about sailing, both boring and factually wrong. The author has the people doing things that one would not do (for example, in a heavy storm, the people tighten the sheets, resulting in a firm sail, which would in real life result in the boat capsizing ~ what they should have done is released one of the sails or rigged it half-mast). The boat is tedious for all of its verbosity and technical detail, which, ironically enough, adds nothing to the story and is factually wrong.
London is an idiot. If I was not sure of it before reading this book, I am now. Fortunately, he realizes he is an idiot, and so roughly two thirds of this book consists of quotations from more successful, better writers.
London repeatedly has the main character talk about how he loves the body of the capitan, and how he wants a relationship...seriously throwing the masculinity of the protaganist into question.
Overall, this book offended me. It was so poorly written that my eyes hurt. I feel like my IQ dropped 40 points as a direct result of reading this drivel. Don't let it happen to you.

[Anonymous No.4956114]

Another London book, The Call of The Wild

This booooooooooook confused meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee so baddddddddddddddddddd AND I DIDN'T GET IT AT ALLL BECAUSE THE WORDS ARE OLLLLLLLDDDDDDDDD LOL LOL