/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.618519]

1. http://www.amazon.com/
2. Search for your favourite book
3. Click the 1-star reviews

>I first read this work as part of my Humanities class in high school. I reread again after college to see if several years of "higher education" would make my mind more receptive so great works of literature. Both times, I thoroughly hated this play and consider one of the dumbest pieces of literature commonly taught in schools. The plot is overly simple; two hobos (probably European) await someone (probably male) named Godot. Several others pass them by during their wait. Godot never comes, and the play ends right where it began. No introduction and no conclusion. However, there are supposed to be many meanings that can be had in this story. A common one is that Godot is God, and the hobos represent humans. This reviewer's opinion is that the plot is so simple, that one could draw whatever conclusions or meanings they wanted out of it. All in all, I did not gain anything from this work. Fortunately, it is short enough to get through quickly.

[Anonymous No.618526]

>none of my favourites have 1-star reviews

everythingwentbetterthanexpected.exe

[sandwiches !!jvCuWJ8NrnK No.618528]

moar like

go on goodreads.coms
find any book you like and read any 9 of 10 reviews and rage

[Anonymous No.618534]

>First of all, with a name like "Fyodor Dostoyevsky" how in the world can a guy get published? Perhaps he shouldn't be. That is my opinion. Maybe Crime and Punishment was good, but Notes from the Underground is absolutely awful. To be completely honest, I haven't even gotten to Part 2 yet, but the book is like Johnny Got His Gun and Walden on speed (quoted directly from my English teacher). The main character in this book, the Underground Man, is no more than a coward who has time to write books on how he is much too intelligent to act in life. The first seventeen pages leave the reader with a migraine, and after that, it all goes downhill. By the end of the book, I'm almost positive that one will be half insane and screaming, "Twice two is four, but twice two equals five is charming." Do not waste your time reading this so-called "classic."

[Belle De Jour !gZ2YMBNC2E No.618542]

>This book is just plain awful. Avoid at all costs. Sweet 'n' low is less artificial than this book. I mean come on!! If you are gonna make up a story, at least use a little imagination and invention. *this is a story about absolutely nothing, with no subtext, no entertainment* Why do people praise this book? Probably the same people who go out and buy some tom waitts (another way overrated snake oil seller) cds cuz they heard he's cool. Kundera is about 75 (he's probably older - just lying about his age) so hopefully he'll kick the bucket soon, and not leave behind any manuscripts. How long will we let Kundera serve us a number two on toast and call it gourmet? Stop the madness!! This book bites.

[Anonymous No.618547]

This is a 2-star reveiw for a collection of short stories, but still hilarious.

>SKIP this book if you like NOVELS
>When the Nines Roll Over: And Other Stories took me forever to read.
It looks like I am the ONLY ONE who did not enjoy this book. Maybe I'm
just not a fan of Short Stories? I didn't "get" half the stories. Were there endings?? I wanted to like this book b/c of all the rave reviews but it was more chore than pleasure to read. I would say if you like full length novels you might want to skip this book.

[Anonymous No.618551]

>Ulysses is the sorriest excuse for a novel I have ever come across; don't waste your time. I'm all for challenging reads, but not for gibberish which academics persist in labeling erudition. I find absolutely nothing redeeming about this book, but those who enjoy taxing their brains to ridiculous measures; drawing (more than likely inaccurate) conclusions from an incomprehensible conglomeration of words; and imposing meaning where none exists because few things in the text will limit whatever perspective they want to take are welcome to it.

>Having gotten through "Portrait of the Artist" and "Dubliners," I can now say James Joyce has to be the most arrogant, overrated author EVER. For someone with so clearly a gift for language, he lacked one important thing: THE ABILITY TO TELL AN INTERESTING STORY. Without a plot, it's just a bunch of random thoughts thrown at the wall, which is what this giant pile of excrement truly is. Don't buy the hype, I've read dozens and dozens of books deemed 'classic' and I found most to be labeled so for good reason. James Joyce is NOT a great writer, and this proves it. Awful, just awful...

[Anonymous No.618576]

>>618542
>Probably the same people who go out and buy some tom waitts (another way overrated snake oil seller) cds cuz they heard he's cool.

That is painful to read. Raaaage.

[Anonymous No.618580]

> I'm being generous with the one star rating. I would've given it a zero but a rating that low is impossible. There was no plot to this book. The action is so subtle that it is impossible to follow. And the ending with the observations of the Milky Way, what was that all about? It made absolutely no sense. There was no point to this book and I must say that reading it was the biggest waste of my time. There's several hours of my life I'll never get back.

[Anonymous No.618599]

After I finished reading this book twenty years ago, I left it in my apartment building's laundry room for whomever might be interested in it. The book sat there for months and nobody was interested in it enough to take it home. Finally, it was ruined when a water pipe burst and, I presume, it is now landfill in Staten Island.

Apparently, many people believe that a book should be considered "great" just because it is long and overly complicated. It is my opinion that it is a complete waste of time if one needs to buy somebody's doctoral dissertation as a companion guide, in order to decipher or identify the dozens of plots and subplots and hidden codes. This is not the mark of great literature, rather it is the mark of an insuffereable show-off. For all its cleverness and faux sophistication, there is nothing in this book that will make you see the world in a different way, or that might be of use to you at some point in your life. IT IS A ZERO. There is not an ounce of humanity in this book. Just clever-clever intellectual showmanship.

As you may have guessed, I am not impressed with GR.

Pynchon is like a high school football bully who says "Okay, I'm gonna trow da ball as hard as I can--you see if you can catch it".

No thanks Spike.

Pynchon desperately wants to impress us with his strength, wants to show off for us. The more you examine Gravity's Rainbow, the less you find. Why? Because there is nothing there. Pynchon's cleverness is in not standing for anything identifiable. This book is hundred of words that add up to nothing. Gravity's Rainbow is ultimately as profound as all the doughnut holes in the world combined---ZERO.

Life is too short to read intellectually vain junk like Gravity's Rainbow.

This book did teach me one valuable thing, however. I learned to be much more discriminating in my selection of reading material.

D. Olney

[Friendly Neighborhood English Major No.618614]

Great. Now I have an ulcer.

[Anonymous No.618619]

>>618599
>This book is hundred of words that add up to nothing
THIS BOOK IS 100 WORDS AND I HATED ALL OF THEM

[From Maine !svxRtwDIeI No.618618]

>>618599
You have to admit, it is well articulated.

[Anonymous No.618622]

>>618599
>This book is hundred of words that add up to nothing
OhGodWat.jpg

[Anonymous No.618627]

Written about The Divine Comedy

> I have to say, I was disappointed in this book.

It was well written don't get me wrong, but it wasn't in the least bit funny. If anything it was depressing!

If a walking tour of Hell is your idea of comedy then I would recommend this (and also Little Britain).

But for those of you who like lots of laughs I would have to say - avoid!

[Anonymous No.618631]

>>618627
I can see where the misunderstanding comes from in this one.

[Anonymous No.618636]

>>618627
I had assumed anyone this stupid would be illiterate.

[Anonymous No.618640]

>>618636
Come on, not everyone knows how the definition of comedy has changed in the past 700 years.

[Anonymous No.618672]

>>618640
But they should know that Dante's Inferno isn't meant to be funny.

[Anonymous No.618679]

>if you like to feel depressed, then by all means read this book....it is dark and imaginary smells are those of death....yuk....totally discusting.

[Anonymous No.618702]

>>618672

Putting the Popes in Hell is pretty Lulzy though.

[Anonymous No.618704]

>I was fished into getting this book by the many glowing reviews which stated this was the acme of the comic-book genre, and when Amazon finally delivered a copy I was really looking forward to getting stuck in. What a disappointment; this is probably one of the least enjoyable comics I have read.

Whilst the artwork is undeniably good, Watchmen has tried to create a superior plot to set it above other comics. Unfortunately, I found the plot to be unnecessarily complicated: there are several concurrent story-lines, which include three different time-lines and an unintelligible pirate story. In the hands of a skilful writer, concurrent storylines certainly to a plot, but in this book it feels contrived and is confusing.

My biggest gripe with this book concerns the characters; only one of the characters has any real "super" powers, and the rest are merely people who choose to dress up and act as vigilantes. Some of the reviews have stated that this allows the book to explore real humanity and characters’ emotions. I disagree, if I want to read about humanity and emotions I would read a "written novel" (which has infinitely more capacity to allow for characterisation and description than the drawn format). Notably absent from this book is any form of action or any imagination stretching scenes which comics normally deal with so well. The book deals with a dastardly plot to change the outlook of nations during the Cold War, but I really didn't care by the end. True afficianados may say I have missed the point on this alleged ground-breaking book; maybe I have, but the fact is that neither I, nor several of my friends who also read this book, enjoyed it.

[Anonymous No.618712]

>>618704
Literature board, not a cartoon board. Don't post this shit here.

[Anonymous No.618717]

OP's posted review makes my blood fucking boil. I saw Waiting for Godot on stage while I was in London a few months ago. That shit is god shit.

[Anonymous No.618721]

>>618704
>>618704
>>618534

[Anonymous No.618723]

>>618704
this person really missed the point.

[Anonymous No.618729]

I did not like this piece. I feel that Oscar Wilde used this as a semi-autobiographical vehicle to transport his radical, eccentric ideas and ideals. He speaks through his characters of Lord Henry and Dorian Gray. They seek to justify debauchery and murder and they kill off anyone who is good, kind, moral or differs in opinion with them. A good read, perhaps, for the likes of the 42nd president of the USA. This book falls far short of it's hype and offers absolutely nothing of merit.


Some shit-brained fuckwit wrote this about The Picture of Dorian Gray...

[Anonymous No.618737]

Read the 1 star reviews for Book of the New Sun and then my boyhood favorite Ender's Game. They...had a good point. I didn't agree with any of them but they were all actually well argued and legitimate criticisms. Still love those books, but can see why people didn't like them for those reasons.

[Anonymous No.618747]

Midnight's Children:

>This is a lousy book. It's really amazing to me that the world had made such a fuss about such a mediocre writer as Salman Rushdie. The reason is properly that he is of somewhat Indian origin and that Khomeini got pissed off. Anyway Midnight's Children is a socio-political account. It revolves around some crucial times in newer Indian history, like the declaration of post colonial India on midnight August 15, 1947 and the declaration of state of emergency on June 25, 1975, the war with Pakistan, etc. Upon these historical facts Rushdie then brews an account inspired by magical realism and interspersed with personal experiences. Often Rushdie tries to be funny, but I didn't laugh one single time!

>The only book I have hated this intensely is James Joyce Ulysses. Midnight's Children is overwrought, and filled will unappealing characters behaving badly. Feces run through this book. At one point, the narrator describes a man defecating into his own hand and proudly proclaiming the length of this fecal masterpiece. The beauty of the language is mired in filth.

>had fair expectations. rushdie spends too much time being cutesy and obnoxiously witty. read a book on indian history instead.

[scarletisred !EWO1S5XDG2 No.618762]

>Dosotoevsky wrote an exceptionally dull and unbelievably boring book here. At 400+ pages it didn't flow like most great books. Do you really need to include a six page letter from his mother that had no relevance? No. It was unbelievably dry. I would not recommend this book to anybody.

[Belle De Jour !gZ2YMBNC2E No.618776]

>Slaughterhouse-Five is one of those rare sorts of books whose total lack of any merit whatsoever is inexplicable in the face of its generally agreed upon status as a world classic.

Had this fatalistic, dewy-eyed tripe not been written during the escalation of 'Nam and the sudden moral ambiguity pervading American letters at the time, it would, honestly, never have made it close.

This is sad. The literati have doubtless showered numerous accolades at its feet, though what, for instance, is there to celebrate in this pure dreck?

Vonnegut's cheap cynicism? The novel itself, when not drowning in a sea of depression and cathartic murkiness, hardly makes a joke worth mentioning that doesn't revile the establishment, turn the hardship of soldiers into a complete and utter disgrace, revile all war, and then have the sheer scholastic arrogance to proclaim once and for all, as though this distorted face were really truth. Yes, as a 'satire', it fails completely.

So we come down to technique. The structure of the novel is mildly interesting, and the minimalism flows well. The writing is fairly clear and potentially charged; if only the subject matter had been improved upon, than perhaps the author could have gotten away with the awards. As such, this is hardly the case.

In short, it's nothing groundbreaking. And moreover it is dangerous. Not to mention very worthless. Had it been a great absurdist parable like Catch 22 (which, though also wrong, has strong artistic license, and will likely stand the ages) than I would have rather different sentiments.

[Anonymous No.618782]

Look, you're a smart person. You know what you like and what you don't like. Unless of course you say you liked this book. In which case I rescind my first statement. Just because some art freak with oily skin and a funny hat says a book is good, doesn't make it an American classic. For lack of a better word, this book sucked.

For Catch 22

[Anonymous No.618819]

Nicomachean Ethics

>I found this book extremely tedious and pointless. I don't see Aristotle's convoluted "ethical" theories having any relevance at all to the world today. He might think that he knows how people ought to live their lives, but he doesn't have much of a clue. All in all, a wase of time.

Review is, of course, by a woman. Stupid bitches. As has been pointed out in similar threads in the past, the most rageworthy, bottomless-pit-of-stupidity type reviews are always, ALWAYS written by women.

[Anonymous No.618944]

>>618782
>>618776
FUUUUUUUUU

>>618819
This is why women should not be educated.
Kant was right.

[Anonymous No.618946]

>Moonraker has a good premise, a very human and quirky main villian who has an interesting background, but the pace of the book is really slow. James Bond doesn't even fire his gun the entire book. I don't expect Bond to shoot someone every page, but he doesn't even engage in combat. There is very little hand-to-hand combat, a couple car chases, and no gunfire. If there is only a little action, I expect deep and thoughtful espionage to substitute, but the book doesn't give you that either. There are some interesting chapters here-and-there, I like the card playing scenes, and the story Drax tells bond at the end, but the book is kind of non-eventful as a whole. I have read several of Ian Fleming's Bond books, this one is at the bottom of the list.

[Anonymous No.618967]

The Legend of Bagger Vance

>What a mistake it was to buy this book. It stank on ice. Instead of being serious and meaningful it was just plain silly and shallow. Do yourself a favor and read the Indian (sub-continent) source material that the author ripped off. I'm not sure I buy into this mystical connection between sports and spiritualism. Buy a good biography instead.

[Anonymous No.618977]

>>618819
>>618944
>I'm being a misogynist on 4chan!
Good to see you're not immune, /lit/.

Stay classy.

[Anonymous No.618991]

>>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.

:<

[Belle De Jour !gZ2YMBNC2E No.618996]

>I've recently had to read this book for AP Lit, like many of the other reviewers, and I don't see how this is a classic in any regard. Sure it is written in a lovely matter, but there are 15000 people with various English majors who can write beautifully as well. It's hailed as a love story, but at the core of it there isn't any love at all. Just an assortment of angry childish people all who are developed as a still birthed child.

>Heathcliff and (old) Catherine love each other. But WHY, they love each other is never granted in any regard. They are in love simply for the sake of having a story a write about. That's it. Then the characters themselves aren't just underdeveloped, but they're TERRIBLE people to add on top of that. I am not one of those people who feels the need to love each and every single character, or any of them actually, but this must at least backed up with something to frame the character.

>Heathcliff is a horrible person simply because, based on what was given of his character in the book, he was abused. Now this aspect of course warrants some sympathy for him. And even though he is vengeful while he is a child, this is completely understandable given how he is treated. However, as a man he does not grow at all. He degenerates to a sadist simply because he didn't get what he wants, why he wants Catherine is anybody's guest.

>I'll just stop here because I honestly can't go on. The book is far too terrible for me to even go through breaking down each miserable character paragraph by paragraph. To put this book simply; it's basically like an emo's version of a Tyler Perry story. The conflicts exist simply because the characters will it to.

[Anonymous No.619003]

>>618991

[Anonymous No.619002]

>>618776
Anyone who thinks Slaughterhouse 5 was a fatalistic novel must have serious mental disfunctions....

[Anonymous No.619001]

>>618977
Go check the reviews. The most rageworthy ones are almost all written by women.

[Anonymous No.619007]

Grendel

>I thought this book would be kinda cool to read since I'm a big fan of Beowulf and have read it several times. Man was I wrong. The writing is terrible. Grendel isn't a monster, he's a cry baby. A story from the "other perspective" has so much potential, but this author didn't use any of it. After reading this book, I wondered if John Gardner read Beowulf at all.

[Anonymous No.619011]

>>619007
*sigh* God damn it.

[Anonymous No.619010]

Not my favorite book but I enjoyed this review:

>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland was an extremely ridiculous and confusing book. The characters were mis leading and Alice was very annoying (from the little details I read throughout the book). This book would be a good for fantasy lovers, but to me it was unrealistic and childish. Some of the things the characters said and did in the story were confusing and somewhat complicated. I don't know if I would recommend this book to younger children because of its wording, but it was a child-like book and would attract young readers in a way. The writer writes in a unusual, seemingly "old fashioned" way. You could tell the book wasn't written recently by the language usage. Alice is a young girl who is very bright and adventurous. On her way down to Wonderland, she meets alot of new characters. Some are decieving like the treaser cat but all of the very intresting and USUAL, such as the Mad Hater, The Queen of Hearts, etc. The way the author worded things in the book, made me get confused and unintrested. I had no desire in reading it after the first few pages. I thought the book was far fetched, and seriously i wouldn't recommend this book to teens or children.

[Buddha Dave Apprentice No.619026]

Great Gatsby...
>The way that FSF wrote made it very difficult for me to follow and understand what he was saying. Everything was almost written philosphoically. I had a hard time concentrating on the words written because I simply lost interest in what was being said. It wasn't exciting enough to keep my attention.

[Belle De Jour !gZ2YMBNC2E No.619057]

>This book is all about some badly behaved brothers and their mean father and how they do nothing but shout and drink and threaten one another and are lewd and then, one of them anyway, goes to England, or at least he wants to. You call that a story?

[Anonymous No.619082]

>I've searched but I can't find the literary side of this book. Where are timeless themes, the affective characterizations? The book's a little like Finnegan's Wake -- too obscure, too 'over the top.' Excuse me, but the book doesn't make integral sense. This long tome is more a collection of random sentences and rambling paragraphs too often concluded with three (let's be honest) fatuous, trailing dots. No, GR is not literature -- it's more like a going out of business sale -- it's everything PLUS the kitchen sink. And beware: one needs a companion book to understand it 'fully'. This book's failings are in part a function of it's time -- the early 70's - when culture was naively experimental, half-baked, vulgar, and exhibitionist.

The hyphens show they're serious about (let's be honest) Gravity's Rainbow being a confusing book -- but the quotation marks around "hip phrases" used by "today's kids" show that they're a legitimate literary critic.

[Anonymous No.619089]

>Phenomenology of Spirit

>Hegel and Marx were responsible for an ideology that created the most repressive government in the history of the world (30 million dead Russians can't be wrong) and Heidegger was a Nazi.

[Anonymous No.619097]

>>619089
Oh wow, that's some review there.

[Anonymous No.619101]

>>619089
>implying any of that is untrue

Ok, maybe 15 and not 30 but that's hardly the point.

[Anonymous No.619110]

>A beautifully illustrated book based on poor scientific knowledge. Butterflies do not come from cocoons - moths do. When butterfly caterpillars pupate, they do not spin silk to make a cocoon. If you want your child to learn inaccurate science, use this book with them.

[Anonymous No.619111]

>>619101
I don't think he was implying that, just that the consequences of a book or ideology doesn't necessarily have things to do with the content of it.

[Belle De Jour !gZ2YMBNC2E No.619117]

>>619110
>Butterflies do not come from cocoons
>Butterflies do not come from cocoons
>Butterflies do not come from cocoons

wtfamireading.jpg

[Anonymous No.619118]

On A Game of Thrones

THIS AUTHOR IS NOT, OF COURSE, TOLKIEN'S HEIR. While with Tolkien you feel a wide range of feelings, positive feelings, you can not with this story that hides a lot of pederast material and coward violence. In other words, if you want to ENJOY a fantastic story whith dragons, and other fantastic creatures and mixed whith history don't buy this book. I threw it with its second sequel to the dustbin after reading a bit more than a quarter of the first volume. It was enough. Definitely nothing to do with the master of the epic adventure literature.
Excuse my English. I'm still learning.
This is the first time a write a review. But I hope that someone will find it usefull. Try with His Dark Materials by Pullman or Tunnels by Gordon or just go for a walk.
Greetings to Mr. Tolkien for the good moments he provided me there in Middle Earth's heaven. And too to Gordon and Pullman and other excellent novelists.
From southern Spain. Europe.

[Anonymous No.619120]

Enders Game

>In the beginning of this book Ender acted like a weenie, letting all those other kids bully him, even if he was only six years old. Ender Wiggin is a weenie. What more can I say?

[Anonymous No.619122]

>>619110
HAHAHA, OH WOW!

[Anonymous No.619123]

>>619117
cocoons > moths
chrysalis > butterfly

Not to diss Eric Carl. Motherfucker taught me to love reading way back in kindergarten.

[Anonymous No.619129]

>Ive read through Cat's Cradle twice and I'm convinced that Mr Vonnegut was either insane or is good at convincing the reader that he is. The characters in the story are certifiable. And the leadup to the climax is a trip through the rediculous and surreal. That may very well was his intention, however the result is a book this is every much jarring to try and get through.

[Anonymous No.619135]

The Cobra Event

>This story struck me as an adolescent-like attempt to impress with excessive amounts of blood and gore. The plot itself was simplistic. The characters were fairly interesting and likable. But the only good thing going for this book was the action filled conclusion. Still, not worth wading through the main body of the story to get to the end. This book was wildly different from Preston's first book, The Hot Zone and a big disappointment

[Anonymous No.619134]

>>619110
Cocoon/chrysalis/pupa
Tomayto/tomahto

[Anonymous No.619143]

>>619134
No. Not really.
A cocoon is a silk structure woven by an insect larva.
A crysalis is a chitin structure that hardens from an enzyme-rich mucus excreted by an insect larva.
A pupa is an insect encased within a protective structure currently metamorphosing from its larva state to an adult state.
>ignorantmotherfucker.jpg

[Anonymous No.619152]

/lit/ - Butterfly Lifecycles

[Anonymous No.619157]

things fall apart


I had to read this book for my senior year in high school and it was not on the reading list for teachers as a mandatory book to read so my teacher chose this book for us to read...I wish she hadn't...I found this book to be the most boring book ever! I had to read the first chapter four times to figure out what was going on! This book is beyond college level to understand..I don't even see how high school teachers could understand this book....half of it is written in another language (thank god they had a index with translations) and the other half is just plain boring! I would rate this at one star however I gave it two, because it does give us a good life lesson in that one mistake made can change your life forever to the point where you do something drastic as Okonkwo figured this out. Other than that, the book is terrible and really hard to understand...I felt this book was too challenging to me with the Ibo language and the way everything was worded put me in a loop. If you have to read this book for school, I suggest you get cliff notes for it or go to gradesaver.com and/or sparknotes.com..I wouldn't recommend this book and don't bother reading it if you have to....you probly won't understand about 80% of what is said.

[Anonymous No.619166]

>>619157
>This book is beyond college level to understand..I don't even see how high school teachers could understand this book
>Things Fall Apart
>Difficult to read
lolwut

[Anonymous No.619167]

>While Grealy showed superior grammar and vocabulary in this book, she lacked a positive attitude. I found this book extremely sorrowful and drowning in self-pity. I dont mean to sound harsh, and I am very grateful that I have not contracted this disease, but I found it rather pig-headed of her to write with such detail about her appearance when she had a 5% chance of living with this disease- and she lived. I took no pleasure in reading something 240 pages long that talked only about how ugly she was and how terrible her life was, because in all honesty, things could have been a lot worse.

Autobiography of a Face. I raged.

[Anonymous No.619177]

>the most cheery portion of this book is slightly happier than a crushed puppy
The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. I lol'd. All better

[Anonymous No.619186]

>The book is gross, shocking and at times perverse. The book is not really centered around or identifies for the reader what the color of someones skins has to do with anything. I highly doubt that had Ms. Morrison had not been friends with Oprah...this book would have gone nowhere. My daughter had it as required reading in a college course. As highly educated as we both are, this book was down right repulsive. I am against banning books and sometimes read them on that principal alone. But please, if you want me to learn about being a black woman...hand me a book by Maya Angelou who celebrates, not degrades her culture. She is indeed what it means to be a national treasure.

So. Much. Rage.

[Anonymous No.619187]

>>619167
>>lives in a nice neighbourhood with a decent childhood and has never experienced anything remotely as traumatic as Lucy

[Anonymous No.619192]

>1984
>Orwell is not my favorite author, obviously. 1984 may have been the crux of his career, but for me it is the worst book ever. It is most obviously an attempt at satire of communism. The thing here is, does the author or any of his readers know what communism is?

There are so many parallels between 1984 and Animal Farm, his other acclaimed book. Big Brother is Napoleon, of course. (parody of Stalin) Snowball is Goldstein (parody of Trotsky). The windmill is the Flying Fortress, what keeps being rebuilt over and over. There is little original about this novel.

How do the numerous sexually abundant scenes in this book help its role as a satire? All that happens is Winston has sex with Julia. There is a constant war with a country, and the hint is that Oceania is THE only country in the world. Does this hint that communism creates a warlike society?

Communism in its true form is a state no government has yet achieved. It occurs when the level fo technology becomes so great that machines do all the dirty work (i.e. growing crops, making clothes) and humanity can devote itself to higher, sophisticated pursuits, like drama or science. It is originally a state of peace, not war. There is no money in a society. There is no government, because everyone can do what they want to do. So bleak compared to Orwell's paranoia. Communism is too often regarded as the "bad thing." Nobody really understands it. Did Orwell? The fact that he was once a member of the Communist Party makes no difference. As Richard Wright pointed out, Americans in that party hardly understood it either.

I'm raging to death.

[Anonymous No.619203]

Hm. Almost all of the bad reviews of Blood Meridian admit the prose style is good, but they think it's 'too violent' for them. Boo-hoo.

[Anonymous No.619211]

>This review is from: East of Eden (Paperback)
I was surprised that this book was written by Steinbeck. For high school, I had to read this book during the summer and I had to put it down in the first few chapters. It didn't seem real and Cathy (the main women character) is so cold and evil. It is a dark novel that will make you cringe and throw up-well that's how I felt. The novel shows the worst in people through the characters.


Someone didn't understand timshel.

[Anonymous No.619229]

>>619007
Grendel was pathetically charming
although the 20th century dialect that popped in every once in a while reminded me that i was only reading a book

[Anonymous No.619234]

>>619203

I'll give you an adequate dose of rage to make up for it.

> Farewell to Arms, by Hemingway. Good stuff. That's what I write," he says, putting it back. "That's what I write."

Cormac McCarthy? "Horrible," he says, looking at Blood Meridian. "This is probably the most pulpy, overwrought, melodramatic cowboy vs. Indians story ever written."

[Anonymous No.619238]

>>619192
>It occurs when

No, no it doesn't. Communism doesn't happen. Ever. Stupid commie bitches.

[Anonymous No.619240]

>>619234

[Anonymous No.619252]

As you can tell by reading some of the reviews here many of Wilson's disciples seem to have mastered the art of sesquipedalian obfuscation - an iterative procedure to generate pseudo-profundities by the successive manufacture of nonstandard grammatical combinations through the use of excessively big words.

[Anonymous No.619253]

>>619252
>derp

[Belle De Jour !gZ2YMBNC2E No.619254]

>>619234

[Anonymous No.619536]

> With a nod towards to Nietzsche, Currie's launches his first novel with a simple premise: What would happen if the world had physical proof of God's death? Unfortunately, that question is the high point of an otherwise disjointed collection of short stories. The book lacks any coherent narrative direction and careens from tale-to-tale without much thought. It reads as if "God is Dead" was a prompt at a writers workshop and Currie cranked out six stories, but none of them could stand on their own.

The book begins with a sophomoric portrayal of (former) Secretary of State Colin Powell visiting Darfur and accidentally finding God. Again, Currie has another great premise but fails to fulfill the potential. Instead, Currie is content with imagining Powell as a cursing, disgruntled, Samuel L. Jackson-esque caricature. The first 20 pages of the book should excite the reader, but I was prompted to pitch the book. Of the remaining 160 pages, there are barely two good stories: (1) the Dog who speaks after eating God's flesh and (2) a suicide pact among childhood friends.

Despite some obvious and labored effort, Currie fails to provide an insightful social satire with his vision of a world of parents worshipping their child. While parents always brag and delude themselves to the talents of their child, Currie's attempt to expand on that theme reads as overt, heavy-handed, and a bit too "clever". Currie's writing lacks any measure of subtlety.

If you want a social satire with a devilish sense of dark humor, then look towards:

Go-Go Girls of the Apocalypse by Victor Gischler
World War Z: Oral History of the Zombie War by Max Brooks
War with the Newts by Karel Capek
Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley