Find a really shitty review of a book you like and post it. Other anons state how much you agree or disagree with the review.
>"Alternatively, some fans may find it tempting to argue “Well this media is a realistic portrayal of societies like X, Y, Z”. But when you say that sexism and racism and heterosexism and cissexism have to be in the narrative or the story won’t be realistic, what you are saying is that we humans literally cannot recognise ourselves without systemic prejudice, nor can we connect to characters who are not unrepentant bigots. Um, yikes. YIKES, you guys.
And even if you think that’s true (which scares the hell out of me), I don’t see you arguing for an accurate portrayal of everything in your fiction all the time. For example, most people seem fine without accurate portrayal of what personal hygiene was really like in 1300 CE in their medieval fantasy media. (Newsflash: realistically, Robb Stark and Jon Snow rarely bathed or brushed their teeth or hair). In real life, people have to go to the bathroom. In movies and books, they don’t show that very much, because it’s boring and gross. Well, guess what: bigotry is also boring and gross. But everyone is just dying to keep that in the script.
>Yikes
I don't think is person read the book.
Those books don't really shy away from talking about hygiene. It's not constant but that review makes it sound like there is nothing in there about how gross things are.
>>7510897
>In real life, people have to go to the bathroom. In movies and books, they don’t show that very much, because it’s boring and gross.
>there's literally an entire 300 page chapter describing daenerys taking a fat sloppy diarrhoea shit
This was a very weird book. It annoyed me how the perspective of the story changed frequently throughout the book. I was constantly confused whether Biblo was speaking in past or present. This book really got on my nerves for several reasons. Sorry, but I have to unleash some of my hatred for this book.
1) wow, I "love" how it is sooo convenient that they spontaneously keep running into giant spiders, evil elfs, goblins, giants etc. I know they need a climax and all, but seriously?
2. Okay, bilbo, you have a mother frickin wizard with you, why don't u ask him to like umm...help?
3. Biblo use your brain, I don't care if you have to build a plane, blimp, submarine or whatever. But really, don't you have a better way of transportation?
4. You are being counterproductive.
5. You are so self-conscious and un-confident.
6. Horrible character build up.
7. I have no idea what time period this is in? The future, the past? The present?
8. Use the stupid map bilbo, obviously we have access to the same, identical map.
9. Maybe you should of you know, done some research before you and your "friends" go stampeding into unknown territory?
10. Wow, how convenient that Gandalf happens to have elf buddies right where you and your missionary dwarfs are headed for.
11. Treasure? Really? Come on?
Idc if you disagree with my review, but I certainly hate this book.
>>7510897
So, let me just start off this review by saying that I understand why this is classed as classic literature. And I understand why this is the book that defined the gothic genre, as in terms of gothic elements, this book has it all.
In fact, I can wring out a couple of good points. For a start, the imagery of this book was stunning. If you ever think of the traditional horror story set out, of the haunted house out on a dark and stormy night, this book does an astounding job of putting you right there and describing every detail in the most gorgeous way. If the rating system could be on setting development, this book would be way up there.
I lied. That was the only good point.
NOW, had this not been compulsory reading for school, I would've thrown this down after the first 100 pages, and to be honest, I nearly did. Nothing happened . For those first few pages, I was starting to question the creatures very existence. Where was it? Maybe my main issue with this book is that I was expecting a novel filled with bloodcurdling terror surrounding encounters with a repugnant creature, a daemon from Hell. And instead, I was treated to the first world problems of Victor Frankenstein, who is turmoil. He falls in love with his sister when he is a child, and has sworn himself to be betrothed to her forever.
Uhh...okay. So, so far we have established that Victor Frankenstein would not look out of place on Jeremy Kyle.
We then have this mad scientist believing he can play God, and thus creating this daemon of Hell, this foul beast he is so appalled by. Personally, I don't know what he was expecting to happen when he crafted a human out of other expired humans limbs, but apparently he didn't expect it to be as grotesque as the result.
The weird thing was, the creature wasn't described to be that bad. Frankly, I think I was overreacting, and I do wonder as to where we got our modern perception of Frankenstein's creature from, with the green skin and a bolt through his neck. This guy was described to look, well...rather dashing, actually. And was incredibly well spoken and articulate. Of course, his charm began to wear off once he developed a vengeance for his creator and decided to destroy everything in his path. But you get the idea.
Really, my main point with this book, besides Victor Frankenstein being a whiny bitch with a 'wah wah poor me I'm a genius with everything I could ask for wah wah' attitude, was that it was just BORING.
It's a relatively short book, considering the size of the ones I have been reading recently, but it felt like it just never ended. This wasn't aided by the fact that there was really only about 2 major events that happened at all.
Dreading having to analyse and write about this in an exam. I'm more willing to drive a pike through my hand at this point than have to do this, actually.
Stay away at all costs. Burn if you must.
>What a stinking pile of misogynist crap.
Dostoevsky's Notes From Underground
>"I am a bored girl. I am a tired girl." If you preceive that this is mockery of the way Notes from Underground opens, you are absolutely right. If Dostoevsky was trying to attain unto "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," by Dickens, he comes immeasurable short. I realize I can't appreciate living in Russia as an artist (writer) during the 19th century. But, in my opinion Dostoevsky, comes across as arrogant and trite despite his environ. NOW I'll read the other reviews. Regardless, I don't think I'll ever make it to The Brothers Karamazov, despite the "don't die without reading this" lists on which it appears.
>If Dostoevsky was trying to attain unto
>>7511154
>don't think I'll ever make it to The Brothers Karamazov
I'm actually happy that they won't get to enjoy such a great work.
To many of these "reviewers" mistake a critique for a chance to publicly jerk themselves off. Do androids dream of electric sheep.
>This book has one of the biggest reputations in sci-fi, largely because of the film, but it isn't deserving of it. (neither is the film, which although it has some great visuals, has no real story and nothing interesting to say)
The novel - when you see it free from the hype - is very poorly thought out. (Spoilers throughout) It is set in the 1990s, in a post-nuclear-war world. Many people have moved to Mars, but some still live on Earth. However, there are no animals, so no meat to eat, and not even spiders, so also no bees to fertilise plants. And probably few surviving plants anyway. What do people eat in this imagined world? Does everyone eat mass produced by-products from bacteria or something? There's no mention of any answers. Dick simply writes his story without any attempt at creating a believable world; he's focused on his one theme of androids and whether things are real or fake, and completely neglects everything else - which of course undermines his whole novel.
So, Herman Melville's Moby Dick is supposed by many to be the greatest Engligh-language novel ever written, especially among those written in the Romantic tradition. Meh.
It's not that I don't get that there's a TON of complexity, subtlety, and depth to this book about a mad captain's quest for revenge against a great white whale. And on the surface it's even a pretty darn good adventure story. And, honestly, Melville's prose is flowing, elegant, and as beautiful as any writing can possibly be. It's magnificent, actually.
It's just that any enjoyment or satisfaction I got out of the book was overshadowed by the tedious, largely pointless stretches of encylopedic descriptions about the whaling industry. Melville strikes me as one of those people who would corner you at a party and talk incessantly about whaling, whaling ships, whales, whale diet, whale etymology, whale zoology, whale blubber, whale delacies, whale migration, whale oil, whale biology, whale ecology, whale meat, whale skinning, and every other possible topic about whales so that you'd finally have to pretend to have to go to the bathroom just to get away from the crazy old man. Only he'd FOLLOW YOU INTO THE BATHROOM and keep talking to you about whales while peering over the side of the stall and trying to make eye contact with you the whole time.
Look, it's not that I don't get it. Or at least some of it. I get, for example, that Ishmael's description of the absurdities of whale classification systems provide a backdrop against which to project the recurring theme of mankind's doomed quest for complete understanding of truths that are ineffable and forever hidden (sometimes literally) under the surface. I get that. I just wish the guy didn't feel like he had to take it to such absurd lengths. I do not need twenty pages about how to properly coil a harpoon line! I can see why most people don't make it through this book without judicious skimming.
Still, I feel like I accomplished something and that I can now nod sagely the next time someone makes an oblique reference to Captain Ahab, mentions the Pequod, or refers to something as "that person's Great White _______." And chances are they skimmed more than I did, anyway.
>>7511424
>Melville strikes me as one of those people who would corner you at a party and talk incessantly about whaling, whaling ships, whales, whale diet, whale etymology, whale zoology, whale blubber, whale delacies, whale migration, whale oil, whale biology, whale ecology, whale meat, whale skinning, and every other possible topic about whales
Am I getting memed?
Naturally ,this book was part of a phenomenon. A great yearning to create a 'Big Publicity Bang' as it were. There was a vast nebula of hype revolving around a very feeble sort of philosopho-scientific fantasy dressed up with a very threadbare scrap of scientific history.
Hawking ,at the time of writing did not seem to realise that the central philosophical issues of whether the universe began in such a way as to include time's beginning also, or in some other way ,have been chewed over for centuries .Why he feels ,or perhaps others want to feel that his world view is really new in some way, or a contribution to the ancient question , is a phenomenon of OUR TIME and culture but little else.A culture as empty of original thought as ours ,deluding itself as to the nature of a science which produces a mythology like this,has a yearning for something beyond and vast and supposedly cosmic.But to proudly employ such threadbare power of imagination to the cosmos... well this is what we have come to it seems.
I am sure Niels Bohr for example would be terribly shocked to see even the mental subtelty and skill of the early part of the century deteriorated so far.
What is this strange being called 'Modern Science ' which Einstein is ludicrously supposed to have fathered? This is no child of his!He was someone altogether different.
Yet for all that Hawking is a phenomenon. That he should, as he says, feel identified with Galileo is interesting. With Galileo or the myth of him.? With the version so well corrected by Koestler or the popular character of Michael White and the scientific, pseudo-papal 'college of propaganda' etc.
Today the Pope kneels before the scientist. A compensation for an earlier time maybe?We pretend that a heroic Galileo used only his eyes while the deluded Aristotelians invented the truth from books.Eyes = Telescopes?Copernicus' epicycles?
Who now refuses to really THINK and has recourse to mathematical fantasy as substitute?
None the less Hawking is a brave refutation of the infallibility of the scientific world. He was infallibly to have died about 45 years ago!!!!!
Did one of you faggots write this? Stinks of the worst parts of BTEC literature.
>>7510897
>Googled review
>Found website called socialjusticeleague
>Fatal error: require_once(): Failed opening required 'wordfenceURLHoover.php' (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php:/usr/local/php5/lib/pear') in /home/vorpalier/socialjusticeleague.net/wp-content/plugins/wordfence/lib/wordfenceScanner.php on line 4
>>7511424
This reviewer is trying too hard to spot the themes, and is scared we'll respond with something like "ah but you missed the grand themes of mankind's doomed quest for ...zzzz"
It's fine to be unmoved by the style. I just don't like the way this guy goes about covering her bases. Personally, I think it deserves its reputation.
I totally finished it!!!!
In my view, finishing this book is akin to great human achievements like landing on the moon or that time my friend Suyin finished part one of the Graham Greene biography.
Mostly because no less than 3 times a week, people stop me on the subway to tell me that they tried to read it, but couldn't get through.
Wouldn't it be weird if everywhere you went strangers told you long serious stories about their lives that almost had a point, but didn't. That's the world of this book.
Or, as the guy in line ahead of me for coffee last week said, "Reading that book made me feel like I was insane."
And frankly I'm kind of tired of reading about violence against women. Yes, it happens and there's something to be said about capturing the horrific aspects of society. But when is the last time you read a description of being raped in multiple orifices written by a female writer? I'll tell you. It was never. So, lay off guys. Because it's creeping me out.
>>7511609
jesus christ
Capital in the 21st century is a goldmine.
>Communism is the evil that won't go away. That is why we must always defend our Constitution and the freedom that brave patriots fought and died for. This book is good in that it shows America how the left thinks and how they think we should live. Remember: Communism is for the people, not the Communist.
>Communism has never worked anywhere it has been tried but progressives keep on trying while millions have died under these experiments! This book is another attempt to further brainwash the ignorant masses into believing that a central government job is to take from the rich and give to the poor until there are no rich or poor!
>People like Piketty appear to believe that an all powerful State has the right to kill you, steal from you, or otherwise enslave you in the name of ensuring income equality for all.
>This book truly is an Obamanation. Only liberals would go goo-goo for a failed ideology and then try to implement it here. The Cold War is over, Commies. The good guys won, you lost. Get over it already.
>I will admit that I have not read this book but I feel I am qualified to make this review based on what I have read in the Amazon book description. Specifically I want to clear up Piketty's ridiculous claim that free market capitalism is to blame for income inequality, Since he couldn't get this right then it is not worthwhile to read the rest of his nonsense....here is a great explanation by Ron Paul as to why free market capitalism is not to blame for income inequality. (...)
(the book has absolutely nothing to do with communism)
The ending is totally soppy. You learn nothing about the Spanish Civil War, and a better explanation for why Robert Jordan decided to fight with the Republicans should have been given. The scenes depicting physical attraction were bland and insipid. Some dislike the macho behavior of Hemingway's characters, but this doesn't bother me. I see it as typical of the times, and Pilar is the best character of this novel. She is a strong, intelligent, no-nonsense woman!
1. The dialogs are NOT in the least believable. None of them.
2. Swear words are replaced with "unprintable word" or "obscenity". This is ridiculous and disrupts the prose! "F*/k you" will be written, "obscenity you", for example. Crazy!
3. In the 30s people did not speak with the terms "thy", "thee", "thou art". This is driving me nuts. WHY has Hemingway done this?
4. Robert Jordan is holier than "thou" (:0)), and it drives me crazy. SUCH a perfect soldier with SUCH motivation, and he is SO devoted to his job.
>>7511609
this guy is right tbqh
It really grinds my gears that most of these chucklefucks can't write a review without 50 damn gifs.
Ok, I decided that I wanted to expand my horizons and read some Kafka. I had heard various views from "He's the greatest writer ever!" to "Save your time and drive off a bridge, it's more exciting". Since this is my first Kafka book I am going to save my review of the author until after I read The Trial. But at any rate, here is my review of the book "The Metamorphosis".
The premise of the story has a lot of promise. I mean, people turning into bugs? That has some serious potential right there. Instead we start the story with a guy that wakes up as a bug and his first thoughts aren't "OMG! I'm a freaking BUG!!!" Instead he thinks "OMG! I'm late for work! How am I going to get to work?" I understand that situations can be difficult to imagine. I myself have never turned into a bug. If I were turned into a bug I think I might be a little more concerned with the bug thing than getting to work on time. After that we are treated to a tedious scene where he is trying to get out of bed and explain himself to his boss. He seems to be able to talk well enough to say he's getting out of bed. Then in a flash he is suddenly unable to talk to them in language they can understand. If you are a bug do you really think you are going to be able to talk to your boss face to face and not have him freak out?
I would say that I will try not to give away any major plot points but to be honest, there only two. 1) He's a bug and 2) He dies of starvation. Of course ignore the fact that he STILL has all his human intelligence and for the first hour of his bug-life he was able to talk. The best he can do to show that he is still part human is push a chair over to the window and cover the couch with a blanket? While I can understand him not being able to get his thoughts across very well but to not even try? That makes no sense.
I found the entire experience to be a long slow slog through a book that is so amorphous that I will repeat again only under great duress. This book is hardly worth the paper it's written on. The only people I would suggest this book to are those that would really love to READ the English Patient. For everyone else that enjoys plot, characterization and exposition I would suggest hitting yourself with a brick in some panty-hose instead of reading this 'book'.
>>7511609
This reviewer is another one who thinks that the worst thing you can say about a novel is that it lacks "a point." As for feeling "tired of reading about violence against women"... I'm sure this person is the type who never tires of criticizing american TV shows for their covert sexism.
>I read this book almost two years ago, and just recently stumbled upon it while doing some cleaning. The anger I felt back when I read it came flooding back, so it obviously had an effect on me.
>I've read and enjoyed Mishima before (Forbidden Colors and Confessions of a Mask), but words cannot describe how much I hated this book. The children in this story are the embodiment of evil. They are horrible, horrible monsters who deserve to be locked up for life. Based on the glowing reviews, I must be in the minority, but my hatred of these kids and the things they did ruined any bit of enjoyment I may have found in the book. I literally threw the book in the trash after reading the kitten scene, but I pulled it out again and finished in the hopes it would get better. It didn't.
>As other reviewers have said, animal lovers may want to steer clear. I wish I had. I haven't been able to read any Mishima since, which is frustrating, because I bought almost his entire library at once (after I read "Confessions of a Mask").
Most of the 1-2 star reviews seem to be hung up on children killing a kitten
I confess my crime that I never actually finished this book. For some odd reason, I got fascinated by Nietzsche in my first year, and that led to Dostoevsky. Basically, I just found the book terribly boring and deleterious (Dostoevsky loves this word doesn't he?) and I couldn't care any less about the main character. And I knew exactly how the book was going to end, so I couldn't bring myself to finish it.
I don't find his reasoning justifiable and the conclusion concerning atheism and rationality is just abhorrent. Absolutely hate the idea we need an all-powerful man in the sky to have a sense of right or wrong. I think that's a very immature argument that I wouldn't even waste my time debating. But Christian fundies will love it, they sure will.
>>7511629
I'm like 90% sure you've been trolled.
for lolita:
Lolita is a remarkable book. Not because it is good, but because of how damn dull and boring it was. And how uninteresting a character Humbert Humbert manages to be, despite his perversions. Has there ever been a more boring character? What, other than his pedophilia, makes him interesting? He is a shallow man with shallow pleasures. The only thing I got out of this book is the complete banality of evil, which (the phrase in itself) is banal.
If you're reading this review, it's quite likely that you already know me and my tastes a little. So I hope I don't have to convince you that I don't hate this book because of the content/subject matter. In fact, I root for it. I root for this kind of subject matter to actually be able to move me, or to illumine some portion of human experience heretofore un-illumined. No, I don't seek a moral. But some kind of depth, yes. Some kind of literary 'umami'. However, no such illumination or depth came.
And yes, I see the point (maybe), that this intense aestheticism is his out, it's H.H.'s way of life. It's his moral substitute. But I don't buy it. I think it's Nabokov's out. I think it's his way of not having to come up with anything of substance, but to be completely surface, to be fluttery and butterfly-ey, so that he can rely on his strengths -- i.e. pure surface-level prose, inane and beautiful in that "decorative" way. Yes, I mean that insultingly. The guy can write, but for what? He's like a guitar god, wanking out the notes. It's pure masturbation.
I have no idea why so many people (and people whose taste I respect) revere this guy.
>>7511699
There are hundreds of reviews in the same style. It would be hard to believe they are all trolling.
I did not like this book, to be frank. I have never been a fan of Shakespeare’s work. I don’t like how everyone from that time period just seems to be retarded. I was never a fan of his writing style either. Its just too pretentious for my liking. Although he was very vivid with his words and the stories are believable, I just never was a fan. Society would/has had a hard time accepting this book mostly because of the writing style. People don’t accept things they don’t entirely understand and it takes some brain power to understand it, which is hard for most people. This play is very graphic and isn’t appropriate for a certain age group. I wouldn’t recommend this to a friend because I dislike it, but they could like it. Who knows.
>Society would/has had a hard time accepting this book
Also is she calls the play retarded but admits that you need some brain power (you don't) to understand it. Good stuff
>OMG, an American classic.....yeah stick to Hollywood my cross atlantic chums cause literature you do not do.....just watch a few documentaries on whales then read the first few chapters, skip it from whence he sets sail and then fast forward to the last 30 pages.
>>7511424
>Look, it's not that I don't get it.
>Proceeds to regurgitate the sparknotes themes almost verbatim
>>7511689
>I never actually finished this book
Stop, you should always read the whole fucking book if youre going to review it you dipshit, one thing is saying in a conversation that you didnt like it and thought it was bad, and another one is to go and write a review, without even finishing the fucking book.
