Lets get one of these threads going

>>7790366

Watching the Soderbergh adaptation doesn't count, OP.

>>7790437
>Watching
...

>>7790437
If you think Soderbergh's adaptation is bad, you haven't seen Tarkovsky's, it's an abomination

>>7790446

I like both, for different reasons. I like the book better though.

File: 1449786735140l.png (739KB, 1601x601px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

739KB, 1601x601px

>>7790366

>>7790616
Was it worth the read?

>>7790621
I'd say so. When immediately finished, I thought it was completely overrated and not even worth the read but as time went on I noticed the story really struck and grew on me. The only thing that turned me off was that there was no climax or resolution to the plot (which bugged me greatly at the time). But you learn to appreciate it eventually (kinda)

>>7790637
Does it use a lack of plot line in a similar way to Infinite Jest? Like the reader is expected to infer it from the book itself

>>7790644
I've haven't read Infinite Jest yet but I suppose you can say that in some sense. Each action led to something else which led to another thing and so on and so on. There wasn't any conclusion to it.

>>7790668
Huh thanks. Do you think the cult-like fever that surrounds the book is warranted?

>>7790676
Ehh not really. I can see why is is though and it is a good story but maybe my expectations were just too high going into it.

>>7790644
No, not really. There's a puzzle aspect to it but it's ultimately irrelevant (though I guess the "read it for the jokes" proponents of IJ could argue the same against the author's intentions)