American Psycho:

I'm a bit confused as to why other readers have said this is a black comedy, I laughed once! Perhpas if i had read this in the early nineties it may have resonated with me more. But it didn't. The only thing that kept me going, was the wanting to know "where is the stuff of the reviews read?"
I'm not a page skipper, but I did indeed skip through a lot of the boring detail over designer labeling. There were no descriptives other than Bill Blass and the rest of the unheard of (to most of us) hoards of designers.
I feel fobbed off when a writer leaves the ending with no ending, I need closure, American Psycho doesn't leave that. I wanted him caught and beaten to a pulp as nasty as the pulps he had beaten his victims to. What does that say about me!! This book will, if it hasn't already stop many people in their tracks when thinking about having some wild or spontaneous sex with someone we really don't know.

>I read this book and OMG it was soooooooo sad!!!!!!
>I HATE IT WHEN GEORGE SHOOTS LENNIE!!!!!!!
>DO NOT READ THIS BOOK!!!!!!!!!
>I would rate this book ages 12+.
there are lots of cuss words like damn, hell and bitch!
>its too violent and inappropriate for you if you are young!
>(DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
>(CAUTION If YOU DON'T LIKE SAD ENDINGS DO NOT READ THIS BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

>>2879270
continued.

So it might do for the human race what condoms and AIDs warning couldn't. There may be less STD's around now if it was written a lot sooner. I for one will never ever have oral sex with a stranger or even half stranger again. I will seriously think twice about perhaps three times before I even go in for a cup of coffee. What sort of impression does this book leave with society's young people, the impressionable ones. There's already enough machete weilding tenagers out there now. I wouldn't be suprised if most of them had read this book. The gore and torture only gets worse the deeper into the chapters you go. BUT and thank god at least he stops yabbering on about designer labels and his bloody 100 assorted different face creams, we actually get some good writing in parts, I enjoyed maybe a page until the torture started again. Oh and the chapters on his favourite music, well if I'd wanted a music review I'd have gotten a copy of rolling stone.Its an inconsistent read, for example: as he leaves us at the end of one chapter about to go on a date with (lets say) Evelyn. At the start of the next chapter the girl has a new name a differnet girl! Oh and he gets called by all sorts of names throughout, to the point where i started thinking, has this guy got multiple personalities not just the two, Mr Boring and Mr Psycho. His head is in such a mess that I as a reader was just as confused..I'm sorry to damn it as he's had rave reviews for this peice of work. But its not funny, its sick and I do wonder what goes on in the minds of the reviewers so far that find it an amusing read. Yes it is a banal and superficial world he portrays, but its not done well. Or perhaps i'm just not sick enough.

I am giving this novel a one star rating because it has a lot of vulgar dialogue. There is an average of about 4 profanities per page.

>I gave this book a one star for the cursing! I was shocked to see that the book has a good amount of cursing and that the school recommended this book to be read.

>While reviewing the first book, "The Gunslinger", of Stephen King's "Dark Tower" series, I am trying to not let the brilliance of the subsequent editions cloud my judgment on this one. I am a "late" fan of King (still working my way through all his novels), and I finally decided to begin the journey to the Dark Tower. However, after reading this first installment, it took an editor's note from King himself to get me excited about continuing with Roland on his quest.

>The main problem I had with this book is that absolutely no context is given for Roland's world on his travels as the book opens. Roland is wandering through a land that looks like our own but definitely is not, contains mutant monsters, and for some reason a "Man In Black" that Roland is compelled to follow.

>As I continued reading, those mysteries were only beginning to be touched on as the novel came to a close. Thus, I spent way too much time trying to figure out just what the heck was going on (a task that is nearly impossible without reading the next few installments anyway) and less time just enjoying the adventure.

>At the conclusion of my reading, I wondered exactly how Stephen King was going to make an interesting story out of this. Little did I know that King is actually utilizing a form of background storytelling, where the events in this book are not fully explained for two, three, or even four books down the line. I did not care for this type of narrative, as it creates way too much confusion and too little of the mystery that King likely was gunning for.

>So, if you are looking to start your own quest for the Dark Tower, you still need to read this book, but keep firmly in your mind that the series absolutely explodes in the next few books, which is far different from the glacial-like pace of this first try.

The funny thing is that the lack of background is what made The Gunslinger have such an emotional impact on me. Its like I was reading a dream.

Fahrenheit 451
One Star
Heyyyy I had to read this book for school and it was the worst thing I ever read. A worthless good for nothing piece of junk! Actually it is good for something. I took this book with me to rifle practice and i shot at this instead of the target. I got busted but hey it was worth it. Mail me if you want a picture of my shooting.

>I gave this a one star... skipped most of the book... the ending was too confusing.

Stupid socialist themes almost always bore (look at the last third of "The Jungle") and this book is no exception. Unless you're a high school teacher who is hell-bent on warping young minds into America-haters, this book is not worth the time, money, or energy to read. Did Steinbeck think that a sleezy political opportunist like himself (remember, he was a big proponent of the Vietnam War when it was being run by Democrats) can actually produce work of quality? Come ON.

Think about the values of this book--irresponsibility is rewarded (who asked the idiot Okie farmers to borrow from the banks in the first place?), immorality is scoffed at, at the same time religion is put down ("I was 14, randy as a billy goat"), and capitalism gets the blame for an economic system that was anything but capitalistic (why else have oranges and potatoes thrown into rivers other than to prop up prices pursuant to a command economic policy?). Gradually this book i! s coming to be seen as nothing more than a product of the proto-"Hate American First" crowd, which is why it will continue to be popular among high school teachers.

>This book is pathetic. Many people called it a "classic." It's the book that killed John Lennon. Oswald had a copy. So I thought "What the heck?" I then embarked on four hours of my life spent reading this complete testacle sack of a book; four hours I will never get back, I might add. The long and short of it is: the writing style is mundane and repetative, the crude language, while could be seen as "liberating" considering the time in which the book was written, becomes more numbing than anything else thereby losing its effect on the reader...


LN2NARRATIVE VOICE

Another of Mice and Men

I did not like this book at all. I had to read it in eighth grade. It was so difficult to understand the interactions between the characters. Although the story itself was okay, it was nothing special at all and it isn't something I would look forward to reading. The WORST part is the end, it's VERY SAD. It's the WORST ending I have ever read in a book. I was hoping the book would end happy, but, just like the rest of the book, the ending sucks as well. I don't get how these books become famous. Maybe an adult would like it, but definitely not someone who is in middle school or high school. If you are a teenager, read something like realistic fiction that takes place in a school setting or at least in a more modern setting. Something that is interesting to what you do. Or something like a mystery or a fantasy. I don't get how a book this bad (in my opinion) could become SO famous. This is probably because this is a book ADULTS read and it shouldn't be read by kids my age. If you are unfortunate to have to read this book, GOOD LUCK. Hopefully you will like it, but I only recommend this to adults who like difficult classic "literature" style books.

>>2879271
WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN
OH GOD WHO LETS PEOPLE HAVE OPINIONS ON THIS SHIT
THIS IS WHY I HATE HIGH SCHOOLS
"Hey, let's force the greatest literature of all time down the throats of a bunch of kids who think Twilight is the shit!"
WHAT A GREAT WAY TO BUILD HATE FOR WORKS THAT SHOULD BE READ AS ADULTS, WITH LIFE EXPERIENCE AND A TASTE OF THE WORLD

>>2879313
There are SO many for Of Mice and Men and they ALL go on about "vulgarity" and the "depressing" ending. Same for Grapes of Wrath.

Lord of the Flies:

I had to read this book in my English class and it was horrible. It was bloody, depressing, and absolutly vile. I found my self cringe when I thought about reading it. If you have a tough time thinking back on your high school day because people were descriminating to you because of the way you looked or acted, this book will re-open those painfull scars. Nobody should ever recommend this book because it's so depressing and wretched.

lol fat loser kid

The Picture of Dorian Gray

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.

>Orwell is one of the most overrated novelists of this century. He's nothing more nor less than a second-rate hack who profiteered by preying on the worst fears of modern man. Today, his book is the modern bible of the paranoid disgruntled white male and other conspiracy nutcases. Yet another fairy tale, albeit a grown-up one, warns us to LOOK OUT for that proverbial boogy man--Big Brother, in this case, being the latest in a long line of aliases he goes under. Perhaps Orwell's "Newspeak" should include these additions: "Propaganda is Truth"; "Truth is Absolute"; "Freedom springs from Fear"; "Extremism is Virtue." This book has never made anyone stop to think, but, instead, to fear and hate one more faceless abstraction. Contemporary paranoia gets a much more powerful portrayal in the works of Thomas Pynchon, such as "The Crying of Lot 49." At least IT has the virtue of being well written.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

ok this book does not deserve the title of a horror story its not scary in the leat bit. so all y'all who think this book will send chills up your spine IT WONT! READ DRACULA ITS WY BETTER!frankenstein isjust plain sad and depressing

>The book was absolutely awful. Not one person had any sensible thoughts. If someone came close to making sense, their thoughts were hard to follow with a different speaker each chapter. All i got out of this book was: don't cross a river with a coffin, and bananas must be really tasty (the characters probably ate over 10 tons of them)

"The Great Gatsby contained nothing more than can be found in a TV soap opera. All of the characters where one sided and underdeveloped. The book makes a poor attempt at exploring human nature, which pales in comparison to great novels such as "Catcher in the Rye". It was one of the most boring and shallow books that I have ever read"

"My main complaint is about the writing style: it is written in a way that excites English teachers, and bores the rest of us (everyone I know [rather inteligent high school students with a slant twards math and science)"

"this book might be fine in dandy for people who like rambling, annoying, old style literature; but for younger, more modern people... it is a HUGE WASTE OF TIME. not that some of us really have a choice in the matter, we have to read it if we wanna have a decent grade in english class."

>I would give this so-called "classic" zero stars if it was possible. The language is vulgar and archaic, with words such as "gay" and "excitement" used completely erroneously. Fitzgerald could not even be bothered to spell gaiety correctly, though I suppose that is as much his editors' and publishers' fault as his own. This book was unpopular when it was written and is unpopular now, so why do we teach it in our schools? Do we really want our children to emulate ANY of the characters or "virtues" conveyed by this book? First, we have the main character, Nick Calloway, who is so spineless and passive that he doesn't speak up even when it would have saved Gatby's life. Next, we have Tom and Daisy Buchanan who are so out of touch with reality that they can't even realize how pathetic their marriage actually is. Last, but certainly not least, comes Jay Gatsby, also known as James Gats. Gatsby is living a seventeen-year-old's dream whichwould be fine, if he were seventeen rather than thirty, but is total folly at his age. Besides these few specific characters, the cast as a whole demonstrates a blatant disregard for laws big and small, from abolition to murder.

What is wrong with these kids?

When I read Of Mice And Men in High School, I thought it was a great book.

It's sad to see people shitting on classic literature

i ordered my item jan 5, and didn't get it until feb.2 slowest turnaround ive experienced yet.
it even says that it may take up to 21 days. it was well over 21 days.

At first I did like the book. Then it just started to suck right around the time when Winston was getting sexually involved with his girl friend. I hated the book so much that I forgot her name. The first hundred or so pages i liked, then it just got really boring. So II highly reccomend that you DO NOT READ THIS BOOK. And please for the love of God don't read that "Brave New World" book by Hoxley. It is twice as worse as 1984. To put it bluntly, DON'T READ ANY GEORGE ORWELL. Your just waisting your time.

>Twice as worse

>>2879351
Hey, I'm doing this one too! It's on my clipboard! We're soulmates.

>The only things that happened in this book happened in the last fifty pages. It's boring, and the only reason I read it is because it was an English assignment. The plot was dreary and I did not like it!

>>2879367
hoxley
lunboks

>This book was terible. I was forced into reading this book in school. Which is no surprise, this is exactly the kind of book our government wants to force people to read, so they hand it to schools, and try to force us to read it. This book was written by a insane man named George Orwell, who hated society, and displayed that by bashing humanity, and making people look like lower lifeforms than animals. He used pigs to potray govermnent officials (which isn't a bad choice if you ask me), horses for hard working people, dogs as SS troops, etc... Throught this entire book, he constantly tries to show that humans are sick people, that will corrupt no matter what happens. To be honest I think this man is crazy and needs to be locked up.

What the fuck. Seriously.

>>2879355
WHO WAS THIS. TELL ME THEIR NAME RIGHT THE FUCK NOW. I WILL FIND THEM.

Fahrenheit 451

>Confusing, disturbing, and stupid are some of the few words to use when describing this book. Firemen who start fires?? Come on. Burning every book that exists, this isn't a look into the future. It's a look into Bradbury's twisted little mind. Bottom Line.... Don't waste your time.

What really got me was the whole "FIREMEN WHO START FIRES? LOL THAT MAKES NO SENSE!"

>>2879383
Anon, I know. There there.

What's funny is all these kids complain about the plot or that the characters have no redeeming features... Too much Harry Potter where even Snape is good, methinks.

I was forced into reading this for my senior AP humanities class over the summer. I began about three weeks before school started, and it took me a week to get though, despite being a relatively short book. I literally almost fell asleep every ten pages. Mary Shelley almost as much in need of a good editor as friggin' Frank Norris with his stupid novel McTeague. She spend eons talking about how lovely the mountains are, then spends around five seconds explaining the birth of The Monster. This tendancy to skip over the exciting parts as though they were unimportant may have been intentional (that's what my humanites teacher tells me) but it still bored me. Also, I don't really care what the mountains looked like. Victor Frankenstein whines his way through the entire novel, which is really irritating because everything that happens to him is his own fault. When it comes to the development of The Monster, Mary Shelley seems to think that somehow, magically, The Monster knows way too much. Too many convient things happen. For example, he just happens to hang out behind a hut housing several very nice peasants, and they never notice? Yeah, right. Also, he just happens to find three very important and significant texts that have striking parallels to his own situation? Again, yeah right. It reached the point of ludicrocity. I sincerley did not enjoy this book, and though I know that it may partially be Percy Shelley's fault (evidently, he was her editor), and I know that Mary Shelley had many miscarriages and children's deaths and this book is about that and blah blah blah, I will never enjoy it.

>I know that Mary Shelley had many miscarriages and children's deaths and this book is about that and blah blah blah

>>2879340

i agree with what was originally posted.

GUYS 1984 IS NOT THAT GREAT

OH NO

also, pynchon <3<3<3

This book is... how to describe its badness... random. I don't have anything against that, but Slaughterhouse-5 is so random that it just doesn't make sense at all. It doesn't seem to have a point, and it loses all credibility when it talks about how Billy Pilgrim has an "enormous wang." If this is such a great anti-war book, why doesn't it make that point? All war books describe the conflict, but usually not fictitiously (if that's a word...). My main problem, apart from the uber-randomness, is that the events in the book didn't actually happen, and the main character didn't actually go through the war, because he didn't exist.
I'm a freshman in high school, and I was relieved when my English G/T (Lyceum) teacher confirmed my suspiciouns that Kurt Vonnegut was, in fact, high. I wouldn't really mind if it were a good book (example: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey), but it really isn't. I suppose that one could infer from that statement that I endorse drug use for inspiration, but I don't. I just don't mind if it's a good boo--what the heck am I talking about?
Sorry for going on a rant there. My point is that the book doesn't have a point, so don't read it.

Heart of Darkness:

(Not written by a high schooler but easily the most hilarious)

The innocence of children is routinely destroyed in American classrooms with books like this. The fact that imperialism (although a lot of colonialism brought many good things to various cultures also) and evil people exist in all cultures is true. But books like this seem to promote the idea that evil is somehow European. The incredible negative focus in classrooms has devastated America as well as Europe. It is just part of more than a century of self destructive western writings beginning wih Karl Marx. Upton Sinclair wrote the Jungle as part of a self admitted promotion of Socialism. Unfortunately, Heart of Darkness is just another in a long line of books that promote self hate, or bitterness and rage, and event anti western sentiment that even people such as Stalin or the current terrorists use as motivation to kill "evil western imperialists." Ironically Communist countries use this literature to teach hatred of the west. And here in the U.S. this literature is forced on American youth by the left wing. But also this type of literature is used by Christian and conservative schools. The destruction of western youth is coming from all sides. And I have seen many statements frm young people that their self mutilation and horrible self image stems from 12 years of chronic darkness taught to them by a decrepit school system that thrives on darkness. Heart of Darkness is just dark.

>>2879313
But i loved Of Mice and Men in my early teens, best book we ever did in school.

Being fucking short was a major plus too. another class had to do Great Expectations the year we read it.

AN UTTERLY ABSURD AND INORDINATLY LONG BOOK THAT INEXPLICABLY SPAWNED NUMEROUS SEQUELS THAT RESIDE ON THE SAME LITERARY LEVEL AS THE ORIGINAL.BORDOM, POMPOSITY AND PRETENTOUSNESS DO NOT A GOOD BOOK MAKE AND THAT IS PERHAPS MORE EVIDENT HERE THAN IN ANY OTHER BOOK I HAVE EVER READ.THE PLOT IS BIZARRE AND STRONGLY AKIN TO THOSE OF THE 50'S B-MOVIES THAT WE ARE SO APT TO FORGET,THE DIALOGUE IS LEADEN AND THE STYLE IS HEAD GRINDINGLY BAD.

>Dull, boring, & overrated. Why are so many reviewers in love with this book? Is it because the author killed herself in real life? It certainly can't be the quality of the writing or story. Imagine if you wrote a book about your day to day life, getting up in the morning, including your thoughts on breakfast, your discussions with neighbors, ... etc. Boring right? To me this book was just that, a mundane description of a mundane life.

>>2879457
That was the Bell Jar, by the way. I didn't like the book too much myself but the review was lame.

Hahaha, 320 1 star reviews for Twilight.

MAKE ME UNSEE IT ALL PLS
MUTBLX

>>2879417
My brain totally rejects this.

I can't believe it I don't even

VONNEGUT WAS IN THE WAR! HE SURVIVED THE DRESDEN FIRE BOMBINGS! YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT FRESHMAN FUCKER!

>>2879365
I laughed so hard that something deep inside of me died.

What kind of idiot writes this tripe? This is allegedly a "Play" by some long-dead "Master".

Well, let me tell, you: it's boring and derivative. It's about this Prince who doesn't get his father's throne, and feels all depressed about it for a while, and fights back against his uncle (who took the throne and married the prince's mother), to show everyone that it was actually the uncle who killed his father the king.

Excuse me? Haven't we heard this before?

Yep: Disney's "The Lion King".

This is "The Lion King" dressed up in period clothes. Instead of "Simba", we've got "Hamlet". Instead of "Scar", we've got "Claudius". Instead of "Nala", we've got "Ophelia".

And it's in "Denmark", instead of the African Plains. Denmark? Is that even a real country anymore? Anyways, it's called Europe, now; That's a part of London.

And don't get me started on the language this writer used! It's all like it's from the Bible and stuff. Get rid of that, and use real words: Take a lesson from someone like Stephen King.

Don't waste your time with this; watch "The Lion King", and you'll get it. And while you're at it, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'm selling.

The God Delusion is not a literary classic, but I wanted to see the reviews for the lulz. And lulzy they were indeed.

Duly titled: "A kid's review"


I am perfectly fine with people not believing in God or Jeasus. I don't agree with it, but I can live with it. However, when you start to blame religion for all the worlds problems, such as war, I can't stand it.

Did you ever stop to think of the horrible things science has done? The nuclear bomb for example. Or maybe all the poisonis gas that terrible people such as Saddam Huesain use to kill thosands of people every day. You can never blame religion far the worlds problems. Do you know how many would be murders, or evan people who have already murderd, have repented and become good people thanks to Christianity?

Please if you are one of the people reading this who is not a Christian repent and join Chrisianity. Don't beleave people like the auther of this book just because he has a fancy title straped to his, and whatever you do, DO NOT blame religion(especialy Chrisianity) for the worlds problems.

>>2879355
RAJ:KLGDSKgj;sklfj askfSALE:Kf jAF A GHOOLY SHIIIIIT
NO THIS CANNOT BE SAID
THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO SAY THESE THINGS

>It's interesting to me to read the intellectualizing of the relationship between Lo and Humbert. Let's keep it real people. Any time a 40-year-old man seduces a 12-year-old girl, it is an abuse of power. Humbert, for all of his romantic allusions and delusions, acted irresponsibly and criminally. It saddens me that so many people really believe that Lo and Humbert's relationship was a real love story. Real love is conscious love-not the desperate, and failed re-enactment of some unfulfilled childhood love and loss. To dismiss the story as comedy minimizes the theme of power imbalance that permeates throughout this book. I'm sick and tired of how often young women are harrassed and sexually abused in this culture and throughout the world. This book is not funny. And the genius of the prose does not compensate for the weak, pathetic excuse of a man that Humbert is described to be. It's a scream that so many men identify with him and I find it interesting that so many readers are quick to turn away from what is really going on in the story-the sexual molestation of a 12-year-old child by an adult male father figure. This denial of reality happens all the time and I'm not surprised that it happens in literary circles as well.

>All this hoopla about Lolita made me curious enough to read it. Don't tell me this is about love. This pedophile clearly stalks young girls. Maybe his first true love could never blossom, but to carry that feeling throughout his life screams psychological problems, not love.

>1.) I'm bored 2.) He uses too many allusions to other novels, so that if you're not well read, this book makes no sense. 3.) Most American readers are not fluent in French, so to have conversations or interjections in French with no translation, is plain dumb. 4.) Did I mention I was bored? 5.) As with another reviewer, I agree, he uses a lot of huge words that just slow a person down. And it's not for theatrics either, it's just huge words mid-sentence when describing something simple. Nothing in the sense of imagery is gained. 6.) Also, to sum it up, it's a story about a pedophile, whether you interpret it as something else or not, is up to you, but there's the main plot for you. I would not reccomend this book to any of my friends.

If a carpenter is required to build a table are you telling me that Adam made himself out of nothing. If so where did Eve come from. Please check out icr(dot)org and familyradio(dot)com for religious truth!!! What we should do is focus on the one and only true faith - presented uniquely in the 66 books of the Bible, and ONLY the Bible in its entirety. As the Bible states: *** So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17 *** AND *** All scripture is given by inspiration of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 *** AND *** If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life. Revelation 22:18-19 *** AND *** Let God be true, but every man a liar. Romans 3:4 The Bible is the only book that claims to be the WORD OF GOD and proves it!!! Next? *** Note: ALL PAGANS WILL FIND THIS REVIEW UN-HELPFUL - I predict that less than 1 in 20 will consider themselves to be believers in the one and only TRUE God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. As the Bible states: ... a remnant shall be saved (Romans 9:27) !!! PRAISE THE LORD !!!!!

>Books are supposed to have plots, aren't they? This one didn't. BORING!!!!!! I only finished it because I had to write an essay on it. I can't believe someone would read it if they didn't have to

>>2879520
Oh dear, that's really told me now. I am an abuser of power, apparently. I think I will go cry into my pillow and beg God for forgiveness.

>>2879528
Once I saw two weeabooettes talking about Lolita and one of them asked if it was about the Japanese subculture. The answer? "No, but... um... don't read it, it's a pedo book, it's about this guy and this girl and he's -so- ooooooold! I was soooo grossed out."

Not that I don't like Shakespeare's works, but his tragedies are terrible, especially this one. I can't understand the language real well, so I have to grab one with the contemporary language so that it'll be easier to understand. I just can't understand this love tragedy at all! Here are some things that confuse me:

*How did this feud really begin?
*Why can't this story end in happily ever after?
*Why does Lady Capulet have to be so stuck up on everybody?
*Why couldn't Shakespeare have written in a language we could all understand?
*Why does everybody have to jump to conclusions?

I simply can't understand why people love this play so much. It's ridiculous! If you want a true love story, try reading "A Midsummer Night's Dream". This one absolutely SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

~~


6 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars the movie was better, May 25, 2005
By Son of Sammy - See all my reviews
i just read this book. everybody like always talks about how great it is and everything. but i don't think so. like, it's been done before, right?? soooo cliched. omg.

>>2879544
God Delusion =/= literature

>Aughh! Have you noticed that everyone had to read this book for an assignment in 8th grade, i had to read it in sixth! Want my opinion? This book couldn't be worse; don't even use it as a doorstop; it'll scare away your visitors. I agree with the other "pearl haters" anyone who reads this must be fully caught up with their sleep not to drowse off. I had to listen to it aloud and, i'm not kidding, i fell asleep!! No kidding! Okay, okay, 'nuff said. Just that DO NOT GET THE BOOK UNLESS YOU NEED FIREWOOD! Got it? Okay, if i see another person buy this book, i know the world has problems.

Jesus Christ. I mean, I personally didn't like the Great Gatsby, but I can recognize that it's a good book.

Also what's with all the Frankenstein hate? It's a great novel. Don't these little fuckers appreciate anything anymore?

>>2879567

>*Why couldn't Shakespeare have written in a language we could all understand?

9_9

The Scarlet Letter:

>>The book is boring if you try to read it without a good look at the movie first but it gets easier to understand once youre in class failing every single test your teacher gives you on it! Then she decides to explain what's going on to you later. It was boring and I fell asleep everytime I went to read it.

>>This work by Hawthorne, whose subject matter is always really boring anyway, is as dry and frigid as a desert. Horrible, horrible, horrible. I started with great optimism, for I had been curious about it for ages, and if it weren't for the paper I had to write about it, I would have stopped reading it in page twenty-five. By the end I was screaming thanks to the forces of the universe. Not only is the book periphrastic and dull; it completely drains the reader's energy and sanity. One just cannot relate to the characters--so imitative and spurious; besides, the story line is EXHAUSTINGLY and OBVIOUSLY outdated!!! I hated Hester. I cannot comprehend the concept going through some individuals' minds when they call her one of the most moving characters in American literature. WHATEVER!!!!!! And Dimmesdale's character was despicable, absurd, and ordinary. If you've read about the tremendous psychological impact of the novel, you have been deceived! You won't find any psychological force. Save your money and buy a real masterpiece, not this cheap counterfeit.

Made me rage. Oh, how that made me rage. The Scarlet Letter is one of my favorite books.

I last read Dante's "Comedy" in college. I thaught it might be rewarding to read it again, 40 years later. Now everybody finds out what a low-brow I am. "The Comedy" is a collection of nonsense from an age so seeped in religious nonsense that nothing was in excess in the name of God. Considered a "Classic" by generations of Christian zealots. I consider it (brace yourselves) trash.

~

This book, which takes place during the Middle Ages, does not fall into any genre, it is a religious fiction. Because it is fiction and one man's interpretation of the afterlife, readers should be careful not to misinterpret this as Catholic doctrine. Since this book was written around 700 years ago, the language can be hard to understand. Dante weaves such a web of words that it is extremely easy to get lost in it. However, this does add to the style of the book. Many people associate such elaborate descriptions to something as grand as Heaven or Hell, for that matter. I would not recommend reading this book though. Although the plot sounds good, it is too confusing to follow. Also, many people could misinterpret Dante's idea of the afterlife as Catholic teaching. Since some of the things mentioned by Dante, such as Limbo, are disregarded by the Catholic Church, it would not be good if someone would take it as Catholic belief.

this thread reveals the bad taste and limited scope of most of the faggots that go to this website

this place is full

Oedipus Rex:

Oedipus Rex is bad. The book reminds me of drinking rancid milk. First off, there was far too much incest in the book, no one likes to hear about incest. Also, the book is incredibly unbelievable. Yeah, I'm sure that the Sphinx really told a riddle, and if you got it wrong, he ate you. I am sure that is 100% historically accurate. Don't even get me started on this blind guy "seeing" the future. Sounds like a ...Miss Cleo to me. Jocasta did the only realistic thing in the entire book...

>This book was abominably boring and pretentious. The protagonist was about as much fun as a roll of sandpaper Charmin. AP English classes every year are being forced to read this mind-numbing drivel. It must stop!

Argh. Not deserving of their AP class position (not that it means shit anyway).

>"literature" style books.

FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK

>All the book is about is sex, sex, sex! Celie and her father, Celie and Mr. _____, Mr, _____ and Shug, Celie and Shug, and Celie by herself. It's revolting! Why do they let this book be read in school, yet they won't show movies or other books b/c of their sexual content. It's a joke! The whole plot of the story stinks! It's been way overused my society. And people can say all they want about me only looking at the outside, and not the in-depth reading of the book, but they're wrong! I understood what the book was trying to say, but it could've been said without the sex. Even without the sex, though, the book is awful. It's about nothing at all, really. They say that it's about a black woman's struggle, but that's not true. It's about how a black woman fell in love with her husband's lover, who was also a black woman.

>>2879444
NOOOOOOOOOOOO DUNE IS MY FAVORITE BOOK EVER I'M GONNA KILL THEM

The Stranger:
I was required to read this book for my english class. The only books we ever read are depressing, sad and pointless. If you want to conteplate how pointless life is and whether it is worth it for you to be alive right now breathing and wasting air, then this book is perfect for you. I don't know how it can be hailed as fantastic when the english level is quite low and meaningless. It doesn't make you contemplate the mysteries of life, it just makes you feel more sad and depressed, like our lives aren't. If you don't want to be cornered into an idea of contemplating suicide, then please do not read this book.

Do you think he realized it is translated. And I hope he reads it a few more times just to remove himself from the population.

>>2879601
OP said high school level shit.

>THIS BOOK SHOULD BE BANNED. This book is the collection of sick perverted ravings of Alice Walker. I started reading the book thinking it had to be great to win the Pullitzer Prize, but I couldn't even finish it because it was so grossly sickening. I urge you to not read this book because it will subvert you and defile your mind with unwanted perverseness.

>>2879595
no
you cannot do this
that is my favorite
;_;

This thread makes me, a highschool student, rage so much. I hate kids.

>Alice walker, sucks.
>This book was disgusting.

>THE END.

>>2879644
Sorry this one is even better:

I thought this was a very UNREALISTIC BOOK. I thought was written very poor.

What?!?

>>2879591
Maybe i'm just a filthy uncultured swine who can't appreciate fine literature but that book bored me to tears when I had to read it in High School, honestly.

When I read this book I felt as if
time had stopped. It was so, so
boring. Emma Bovary was a psycho.
I hate this book so much. I never
been to hell and never plan on going,
but now I know what it must
feel like after reading that book.
Oh the horrors!!!! The memories
are coming back. I must stop
now before I experience that
hell once again. Please stop
the madness.
No more Madame Bovary!!!!<BR

>>2879667
eh, it was ok, I think it is more about how retarded people are when it comes to literature. I didn't really like it, but I can understand why people do.

>>2879606
No one likes to hear about incest.

I'm not altogether sure I'm not getting trolled here, but:

Lord have mercy this book is terrible. I read a lot and am quite capable of reading a long & complex book, but this just makes no sense. Russian loner sulks in his apartment. Oh and then on the street. Then he goes to some other folks' apartments & sulks. In between he has hundreds of pages of guilt-filled introspective thoughts. In the beginning there is a boring murder. On top of all of this, you must keep your thumb on the "character key" in the back of this giant brick of a novel in order to keep the names straight; always fun whilst attempting to read to relax.

I decided to read Atlas Shrugged because I heard of its interesting premise-- the leaders of the industrial world begin disappearing and everything starts falling apart. Little did I know what I was getting into.
Rand seriously messed up an interesting storyline with all of her political rantings and speeches. The mystery and suspense were really exciting for awhile, but as the book kept going and going, it really began to drag. I began skimming over the ten page speeches that the characters would say to each other in face to face conversation as it was the same old drivel over and over and over and over. No one talks like that in real life. Are you really going to sit down with one of your friends and talk at them for an hour without feedback? If you make it towards the end of the book, your in for a real treat... a sixty page speech over the radio. Us poor readers are meant to believe that everyone in the nation stopped what they were doing and listened to the droning mind-numbing drivel being drilled into their heads.
If people choose to believe Rand's political philosophy, thats fine. However, she can't even seem to be consistent within her own book. Galt and company are sick of working to support the masses and leave. Big deal. However, in their new 'utopia' Galt's machine runs the whole enterprise. Without him, there would be no 'utopia'. So basically he's back where he started; just supporting a smaller group of people.
Overall, the interesting premise failed because of Rand's insistance that EVERY action and EVERY idea falls into a black and white issue with no middle ground. A real editor might have helped her get her story straight (and 800 pages shorter), but as it stands, Atlas Shrugged is a waste of time.

Throught the book the auther keeps bringing in new charecters that have almost the identicle spelling of another and it gets very confusing
----
For you out there with nothing to do with your day, this book might be one one to pass time. But, if your a college student this book is a total waste of time. I was forced to read it for history class and it like shooting myself in the foot every page. Almost nothing happens for the first 100 pages except we find out that he has three wives and he beats his kids. GREAT, That took 100 pages to say!!
----
!!!Spoiler Alert!!!
Yam yam yam yam, beat my wife, yam yam yam yam, kill whitey, yam yam yam yam, beat my kids, yam yammity yam.
There, you have now read things fall apart. My version costs less and takes much less time as well.

Seriously though, we read this in high school and it is one of the worst books I have ever had the misfortune of reading.
---
All thumbs down I was supposed to read this book for ms. Pilat in Boston, but I didnt, I read two chapters and quit It was horrible, and I say BAH!!!!!!!!!BAH!!!!!!!and a BOOOOOOOO!!!!!
---AND THE WORST OF THEM ALL---
Having read this in college for a humanities class on the American experience, I only managed to get through it because I had to. If this story is representative of Nigerian culture, I have no empathy for them. I found this story went no where, there were no real accomplishments done by the main character, his could have check in to an asylum for a year, dealt with his tribal issues, what he missed out on as a kid, came back to his tribe and really made a difference with his people. Instead, we just see some ones life that just gets worse.

>>2879660

GTFO underage b&, you're just as retarded as all of these reviewers. Just because you liked some of these books doesn't mean you even begin to understand them.

>It is a fitting testament to our times that this novel, which should never have been published in the first place, has come to be regarded not only as a modern classic, but as the finest novel of the last century. Only a thoroughly immoral man could have written it and only a thoroughly immoral age would celebrate it. The review cited on the cover - describing it as the "only convincing love story" of the century - is the perfect punch line to this absurd joke: what better way to demonstrate your unimpeachable sophistication than by characterizing an explicit account of pedophelia as a love story? If you want to read erotic descriptions of children and sickeningly-detailed depictions of child molesting, the law is apparently powerless (or at least unwilling) to stop you, but please, please, don't hide behind "art." Admit, at least to yourself, what you're really doing; admit what you are.

5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Sci-fi classic? Hardly!, July 31, 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: Stranger in a Strange Land (Mass Market Paperback)
I have just about finished this book and I am having immense trouble getting through the last few pages. I, like many others, started reading this book because of its "Classic"-ness. The following line from the newest Ace version of the book was spoken by Jill, a major female character:

"Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it's partly her fault."

What the heck is that?!?! How could ANY responsible author write such trash?!?! I almost put the book down...into the garbage can, but for some reason I didn't.

This book is horribly dated and just oozes chauvanism out every pore. Even the strongest females are weak and subservient. It is disgusting reading a supposed sci-fi author who has been canonized by so many putting out trash like this.

Why don't you just give John Norman the Nebula or Hugo while you're at it?

>>2879713
But that book does suck. I think we are pretty unanimous about that here.

Let me begin by saying that I am an educated caucasian woman with a masters degree. I live in a town that has many African Americans, many of whom are close friends of mine. I was forced to read this book in an undergraduate literature class, and since then I have never been able to get this disturbing book out of my head. Bravo to Toni Morrison for being such an excellent writer, for a bad writer couldn't have stirred up such horror in me. I do not criticize her writing talent as much as I do her subject matter. It was horribly graphic and left me with a very disturbing feeling every time I read it. In fact, we were instructed to write a paper on this book and I refused. I spoke with the professor and was given permission to write about another book.

>>2879713
I've never read Atlas shrugged but I really don't want to read it since 1100 pages is far too big for my tastes, I can't imagine how any book can go on for that long and still somehow manage to be interesting.

I'll check out the review to my favourite Shakespeare that I had to read for high school, Hamlet (Macbeth is a close second).
> really didn't enjoy reading this book and I wish that our English teacher wouldn't force my class to read this play. Nevertheless I finished it. I think that the story is very complex and complicated and consist of a huge amount of details. This bunch of details really confused me sometimes so that I had to look on summaries of it. If anybody would like to read it I would recommend to do this in an English class so that you can trade information so that it's easier to comprehend this play. I think that Shakespeare did a pretty good job, though.

>>2879426
HOW CAN SOMEONE THIS RETARDED SUCCESSFULLY TYPE?

>>2879584
Oh God, why did you bring up "The Pearl"- I've been trying to forget that abortion for years.
Also Steinbeck flat out sucked

>>2879777
He probably had someone else type it

>>2879761
AJKF:AKJFAj
That's like watching Apocalypse Now. When you watch it, you're going to feel bad, you're going to be horrified at some parts. The first time watching that movie can fuck you up.

BUT IT'S GOOD BECAUSE OF THAT. THAT IS ITS PURPOSE OH GOD WHY

>I have to read this book for a Great Books meeting in two weeks, but I don't think I can finish it. It took me six weeks to get halfway through it because it is so incredibly boring that I have a hard time motivating myself to pick it back up after putting it down.

>The characters range from unengaging to infuriating, their multitude and the fact that most of them have very similar names is confusing (especially since the story jumps back and forth in time), and their actions are often revolting (what a bunch of spineless, brainless women, and let's not even think about the mucho men!).

>I find the book thoroughly unentertaining and pointless. What is the author trying to say? Is there a message somewhere? What kind of story is this supposed to be? Since it contains surreal things like flying carpets and quasi-immortal people, I'm guessing it's some sort of fairytale. If it is, all I can say is that the Brothers Grimm wrote better fairytales than this guy!

WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN

>>2879768
It isn't. There are long and interesting books, but Atlas Shrugged certainly isn't one of them. Like how elementary school kids think they write "better" by writing longer, Ayn Rand produced this piece of crap and subsequently cried about how Sputnik was a hoax.

Watership Down

>This book, by Richard Adams, was piontless. I was forced to read this for my Senior English class and I feel that it was the biggest waste of my time. I would only suggest this book to those who have nothing to do except to read about bunnies. There are many "bunny" terms that make the book hard to understand, and it is pointless. Watership Down is only for those who enjoy bunnies and Frith.

>>2879737
The reviewer may be a bit histrionic, but Heinlein WAS always chauvinistic.

>>2879713
Well, I think the idiot here is you. The only way I can imagine someone getting butthurt by that is if that person was a clinically retarded libertarian who thought Rand was a real philosopher.

>>2879782
Go back to highschool and hate on how "vulgar" and "depressing" Steinbeck is!

Everyone, let's forget about the analogies to Stalinist Russia and all the other subterfuges used to acclaim a book that is nothing more than a devil-worshipping treatise. I simply dont understand how people can give accolades to this novel when it shows innocent people being driven mad, and even has a physically sickening scene of satan rejoicing at the violent and gruesome death of a young child: "He was too young to have sinned." What is that? What does it even mean? I can understand all the clever references Bulgakov makes to Stalinist "purgings" and the like, but what his book boils down to, quite simply, is that Christianity is for the weak and insane, whilst satanism is for the strong and admirable. But how admirable does Woland (aka the evil one) show himself to be when he takes joy in a child's death? Oh, and I really dont believe the Gospel NEEDED to be retold; especially from the viewpoint of one who obviously doesnt believe. The fat old Russian was simply fooling around, dabbling recklessly in witchcraft, and doing all he could to disparage the name of our Lord. I wonder why no one here has noticed the blatant attack on Christianity this book represents. The truth is, however, this book, though trying desperately to invert the Faustian myth, has only succeeded in further establishing it: the devil can only ever be a deceiver, and destroyer, a loathsome creature who hates mankind...such is Woland's character.

fmwefkjeal;tkjgl
>>2879517
>>2879517
HAHA

I watch this video with my little brother, and I notices that it is a great video for kids ages 1 to 4.

In this story, Spot does not want to eat his dinner, so he hides in a basket, so his mom had to search around the house. Next, he has a party, and all the friends play Hide and Seek. In another one, he needs a bath from rolling around outside with his friends.

This is wonderful for kids, and it helps them discover their world. It is a fun way for little kids to learn.

My least favorite parts are when you see the snake in the clock, and when the cat screams at Spot. The illustrations are set to the right manor, and the colors and music is calm. Kids will not notice the plain white space in the distance.

I recommend this to kids the ages of 1 to 4. If you have kids, they will enjoy it, and you might catch yourself watching it, too.

A 2-star review for "Where's Spot?"

>>2879834

Cont.

Im not here to push my religious views, and I know that my one star stance on this pernicious piece of literature will get me lots of "NO"s as to whether this was helpful (if it is even published). But I felt I had to get this out there, because it appears so many people are missing the essential point of Bulgakov's "classic": to besmirch the Church and anything holy because he, through his black witch wife, was messed up in the occult. But given all the praise heaped on this book, I think I should be allowed to differ, and should be given voice among all these amazon posts.
No matter what the outcome, however, Bulgakov and the Mrs. are doing their time. Justifiably so.

0 of 79 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars ruined by its ignorance of female sexuality, October 8, 2005
By A Reader (USA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Lady Chatterley's Lover (Bantam Classics) (Paperback)
I found this book embarrassing to read - not because it's risque, but because it so clearly illustrates how the French & Italians got their reputations as great lovers. Is this the best that English literature can give us? This fellow clearly understands little of female anatomy, let alone female sexuality.

It's also mean-spirited. Lawrence proves his points by setting up his version of idealized man and even more idealized woman, and then spends most of the book trying to knock down every other character and concept. This is his only real method of proving the superiority of his ideal. He drips way too much contempt.

Everything outside of sex is dumb, meaningless, ridiculous. Attempting to derive enjoyment from the "mental life" makes one ridiculous; being paralyzed makes one ridiculous; trying to have sex in any way outside Lawrence's own true and correct way makes one pathetic, or defective, or spiteful; not being able to enjoy the sort of lovemaking Lawrence proposes makes one undeserving of the title of "woman" or "man"; and so on.

Looking at Italian art is stupid. Everything in Paris is stupid. Constance can apparently tell from a glance that nobody in France knows how to have sex properly.

(And this shit goes one and fucking on...)
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0141441496/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoint
s=0&filterBy=addOneStar

"It's about monsters, for crying out loud! Why on earth would you want to plant the idea of fear and worry with your children just before bedtime? I remember being terrified of this book when I was a child. I will not read it with my kids. I know they will be introduced to it somewhere along the line, and I hope they are not frightened by it. I just do not understand everyone who says they love this book."

"With all the reviews - I bought this book for my son. While the book had some good graphics, I believe the message is all wrong. He talks back to his mother and I think the message to kids is all wrong.

Save your money - there are so many other books that send a positive message. "
GOOD GRAPHICS

"Bad role model and scary pictures. I should have read the negative reviews before buying this. I'm going to throw it out after one read."

Also, DAWWWWW:
not as good as new books, June 18, 2004
A Kid's Review
"I am almost 7 and my teachre said we have to say why we like a lot of books or do not like a lot of books this summer on amazon and then print out them and give them to our new teacher next year So I am starting with this book.

My dad reelly likes this book because he said it was good when he was a kid. I dont like it. The pictures are boring and the story is not long. My dad reads this to me a lot and I like the books that are newer. New books have pictures that are pretty and the storys are funner and longer. This book has pictures that look old. I wish my dad would read this to himself and let me read something diferent. Nichole"

STFU fag. I'm 18. And even if I don't 'understand' some of the novels I still recognize that these are great novels.

tl;dr Fuck off, pretentious faggot.

This was the worst book that I have ever read! The way that Huxley wrote the book was awful. He was writing about something that could never happen to our society. Back then he thought that our world would pretty much go to hell and the book portrayed the world that we should be living in today. Nothing that he said made sense. I don't understand why he would want anyone to live in that weird world that those people had to live in. People should have emotions and actual relationships. No one should be punished like that. I advise you not to read this book, unless you want to fall asleep!! :)

>>2879591
>>story is outdated

I can't even think of a response to that.

>>Nathaniel Hawthorne is boring

>>2879869
-100 for stupidity but like +10 for recognizing a crappy book when he sees one.

>>2879869
>He was writing about something that could never happen to our society

I am going to die from raging so much.

>>2879869
The end of the book comes to mind...

>>2879873
Okay, I thought of something:

It's a period piece you fucking twat!

How's that?

For those of you also graduated, looking back, do you feel sorry for some your teachers? I mean, what would it be like trying to teach a bunch of people that are really this stupid?

Moby Dick is the most BORING book I have ever read! I think if you made it into a short comic strip, you would have liked it. But this 550 page account called a novel? No way, man. I implore you, do NOT read this book. If it's required, then do so. But if you have other options, turn to those. We were given a list of books in English class, and I chose to read this. After a week, I was just in page 103. It was needed the next day, so I panicked and switched books, and bought War and Peace. And I finished that book in 8 hours of straight reading.

OK, this thread is awesome, this is what having fun on the internet is all about, thank all you anons for participating with awesome examples of maddeningly ignorant morons running into great literature, I have to stop reading this thread now, or else I will shoot myself in the face from sadness and rage. Take care everyone and have a great day!

>>2879856
this makes me depressed
not the book the reviews

>>2879864

That you "recognize they're great" without understanding them makes YOU a pretentious faggot. You've just admitted to using classic literature to make yourself seem more intelligent. Also, in order for you to use tl;dr, what you write should ACTUALLY BE "TOO LONG."

I restate my earlier claim. GTFO.

>>2879850
>>2879834

This is why christians make me RAGE

>>2879922

>finished War and Peace in 8 hours

NO YOU FUCKING DIDN'T FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUU

Anna Karenina by Tolstoy

I don't know why everybody thinks this is great literature. If it weren't Tolstoy, everybody would see it for what it is--a soap opera in print. At least the main plot is. I don't know what the point of the subplot with Kitty and Levin is, except to make the book a few hundred pages longer and a lot more boring.

Seriously, if you want decent literature with similar characters and stories, go read Jane Austen or Vanity Fair.

>>2879947
Understanding greatness doesn't necessary mean understanding that which is great. I agree that he is a fool, but that doesn't make his point any less valid. I don't understand astrophysics, but I am pretty sure Stephen Hawking is a genius, and I respect his greatness in the field, also, he is part robot, which is pretty sweet.

>In my opinion, this book was very boring. I say this because it went at a slow rate. There wasn't any exciting parts for me. It was plain boring but it is worth reading because you understand this person's life. But if you are like me, you'll think it is boring and don't want to read it anymore. But you have to continue and learn something. In my opinion, buy it to learn the person's detailed life, but don't be suprised if it is boring.

This book, I swear to God, put me to sleep in the middle of the afternoon. I had heard it was good (despite being written in verse). However, I was sadly mistaken. The plot sounds very interesting, but it is less intelligible and interesting than Shakespeare. Who knows, maybe it's just me.

~~

I consider myself a literarily open minded person. But this book I found to be the ultimate cure for insomnia. The English used then is very different from today's. It's not that I didn't understand it, because I did. But this novel carries no real plot, the entire dialogue throughout is robotic and monotone, and the descriptions are either overly simplistic or too "Hemmingway"...on and on and on....Yes I suppose some would argue that this novel carries much culture and tradition with it, but give me a break! Jazz up the translation a bit and use language that REAL people can understand!!!!! Or don't waste your time!!!! Unless you suffer from an extreme case of insomnia, suicidal depression, or sheer boredom, don't come anywhere near this book!

I'm not gonna post it here, but someone compared Faust to The Princess Bride... implying Faust is worse.

>>2879367
I fucking love both of those books.

>>2879850
"I'm not here to push my religious views...{proceed to push religious views}...shit sux man"

That is what I read.

>>I was forced to read this book for a World History class in order to write a thesis. The book contains over 1000 characters and no real main characters, which is quite confusing. I can't beleive i actually spent thousands of hours reading the thousand-page book with a 200 page epilogue. Tolstoy just wants to write an imaginary history of the years 1805-1820 and express his hatred toward Napeloen since his father fought against him. Actaully, i would give this book a zero because i wasted all my time reading it and still did not get info to write a thesis.

What a fucking idiot.

>>2880047
I want to kill him.

The way Crichton protrays dinosaurs is a disgrace. Sure, he knows their names, and what they look like, but he knows next to nothing about dinosaur behavior, theories... There are so many things that I can not put them all here. First of all, and of course, the most "well-known" and least accurate, the "Velicoraptors" The reason why I put that in quotation marks is that they aren't Velicoraptors, which are only 6 feet long and about HALF the size of a human, they're Deinonychi, and the ones the the movie were even bigger, half the size between a Deinonychus and a Utahraptor. Another thing, you can't hunt in a pack, an extreamly social enviroment where a very intimate understanding of each other's feelings is needed for a pack to function properly. Raptors hunt in packs like wolves, behavior should be modeled after wolves. Pack memebers are very close to eachother, they don't go EAT their members as soon as they die!! "...The female raptor shrieks and grabs his hand in her mouth, trying to pull her mate by the arm. But that action fails too--it rolls him onto his side. His face is smothered by mud... ...His mate cries piteously. She tries to dig out the mud from underneath his head. It's hopeless. Her sharp claws cut through the mud but can't shovel it out... ...She doesn't know what to do. Nothing works.

>>2880068
Nothing in her learned experience is helpful; nothing in her learned repertoire. Finally her sense of self-preservation overcomes the pair-bond, and she retreats to a bit of high ground. In ten more minutes the trapped raptor is dead, his body totally submerged in the dark sediment. The female raptor sits stunned for hours--she has just lost the mate she had chosen for life. They had hunted together successfully hundreds of times. They made countless kills without either raptor being injured in the slightest. She does not know what to do." -Raptor Red, by Robbert Bakker, if you want to read about dinosaurs, read THAT, he's a paleontologist, HE knows what he's talking about. Still talking about hunting, you don't go eat 50 things a day when you're already full, and you don't take your attention off your chosen prey. Also, now to the T-rex, you don't ROAR and just SCREAM out that you've stolen some food when the origional owner is probably not more that 50 feet away, and a whole lot bigger than you. And what the HELL was that tounge about? More on raptors: they're one of the closest dinosaurs to the archeoperyx, they don't have chamelon skin, they almost defenatly had feathers. And dinosaurs had a very strong sense of smell and eyesight. And one hell of a better memory than to forget something startling and unusual in less than two minutes. Dinosaurs don't have poison, either. And look a hell of a lot different from lizards. The last thing, nothing to do with accuracy, but another thing that I found disgusting with the book, actually, disgustingly cute, was the referance to Procompsognathi as "Compys" There was a lot more wrong with it, but I'm sure that you've heard me enough.

THIS THREAD MAKES ME RAGE SO FUCKING HARD I CAN'T EVEN

Mein Kampf

This is the most offensive nonsense i have ever read. This man is even more eviler than skeletor!!!!!

>1984. I read this classic piece of literature recommended by friend Rupert a Aussie bloke But i was very dissapointed indeed with it This could never happen the people would not allow it .Its just to far fetched to be true Life is to be enjoyed not to be mulled over in so called historicism memorabilia
your Sincerley
The Dutchess of edinburgh

what teh holy fuck?

Of The Stranger

This is a book for losers!!, June 24, 1998
By A Customer
I hate this book, though I understand why this book became so popular. We, humans, are not logical machines. I think anyone who have read any of Nietzsche's books would think this book childish and absurd.

Terrible Existentalistic Trash! Ugh,worst book EVER., June 15, 1998
By A Customer
Camus'little novel about a nihilistic nobody who sheds no tears over the death of his haggy old mother, does boring things and commits a murder. That's the plot. Gee, I hated this book. Hated it. The main character's behaviour and atheistic beliefs slightly offended me. Don't waste your time on this. Read Ionesco's 'Four Plays' instead. Then again, I might be wrong. After all, a critic's review is based solely upon his or hers personal opinion. It could be a wonderful novel, but not bloody likely. All I know is that at the end I was glad to see the malicous little bugger executed.

Don't bother., December 12, 2007
By Mary Mangan (Tallahassee, FL USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I hated, hated, hated this book. It came highly recommended and I voluntarily (and rather enthusiastically) picked it up. There has never been a main character I have been more disgusted by, a storyline that has been less interesting, and a writing style that has been more obnoxious. I would burn it if it weren't borrowed.

I have to read this book for school, and it is boring, dull, puts you to sleep after 2 pages.....exc.....exc....exc....... Dantes need to fugure out who he is....he must be 6 peple in his story.....but it did bite that he got arrested for that letter though..... Those guys were jerks..

- Count of Monte Cristo

Holy shit you double nigger. I almost never read books because i don't like them and i liked this one

L. Ron Hubbard's "Dianetics" is the number 55 highest rated book on Amazon. Scroll down the page and you will see it. I suspect that some cult members spammed it with 5 star ratings.

http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1232750959/ref=sr_pg_5?ie=UTF8&rs=1000&sort=reviewrank&rh=i%
3Astripbooks&page=5

>>2880128

Go down till you get to this part:
>>2879663

Something like that could never happen in my country I'm happy in communist China

>>2879998
You only think he's great because everyone else told you he's great. You just follow general consensus, without understanding/researching it yourself.

You _know_ that he's a great scientist, but you don't _comprehend_ the reason why

>>2880159
Hahahaha no fucking way. How does Chinese know how to internet?

>>2879873

Nathaniel Hawthorne is boring.

The scarlet letter has a ton of great ideas and fun symbolism, but the language hawthorne uses is just so dense that it makes reading it a chore rather than a pleasure.

>>2880211
The book wasn't plot driven, for sure, but it wasn't meant to be. Mostly, Hawthorne has a lot of good ideas and doesn't really go anywhere with them. But I liked reading it, I wouldn't call it boring.
Tess of the D'Urbervilles, that's boring.

>>2880161
No, I believe he is a great scientist, I don't know that he is; I understand why he is great, I just don't understand the subject in which he is great at. know he is a robot though.
The kid may not understand Tolstoy, but that doesn't mean he can't appreciate, and believe that he is a good writer, and when he does finally understand the subject matter, then he can both believe and know.
Learn to differentiate knowing from believing.

This thread started great but has descended into boring arguing.

Some ones for The Good Earth:

Me personally, I didn't really like it. It was pretty boring in some parts and it was kind of dumb too. Nothing ever really exciting happened. Maybe you will like it better than I did. I didn't really have a favorite part, but it was when the soldiers came to the Southern city and started taking everyone away. I think this book is an important book to read if you want to research on the Chinese culture and I think it is a good learning book. It is not meant for a thriller book and a book that keeps you reading.

---

1.0 out of 5 stars I very well enjoy it because of the very boring text., May 11, 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: Good Earth (Paperback)
There is only one word to describe this book, "terrible!!!" I wish I can go back in time and diminish all the words written in this absolutely dull book.

>>2880298


I heard that you are about to read Pearl S. Buck's the "Good Earth". This book is about a young Chinese man and his wife. It tells how he works on the land, has kids, barely survives a famine, gets rich, cheats on his wife with a concubine...two times, and dies knowing that all he has worked for on his land will possibly be sold by his sons. I hate to tell you but, I hated this book! I thought it was the most boring book I have ever read(Well,except the other ones we had to read for English). I hated the fact that the main character was such a corrupt, immoral and greedy man. I don't understand how the English department could even allow us to read this book because of the sin and sex "seens".(Well, I guess I can believe it considering they also had us read the number one ban book in the U.S.,"Of Mice and Men") If I had to pick a favorite part in the book, it would be when Wang Lung dies and his sons smile because they plan to sell everything that their father has worked for in his life. That is my favorite part because I think it shows how Wang Lungs sons finally get their revenge for themselves and for their mother. I really don't think the book "The Good Earth" was an important book to read, because quite honestly, I don't really think that we should be reading about a slutty, old, lazy, Chinese guy. I doubt that us reading this book will have any revelance on your future English skills or on life itself. ( O.K. , well other than trying as hard as you can to NOT be like the main character, Wang Lung. Good luck reading

And another thing that makes me rage but can only be appreciated if you see for yourself: Obviously some teacher made a bunch of students write a paragraph response in a certain format and then post them as reviews... There are a bunch in a row that are all similar. (I guess it could just be one samefag, though.) Judging from their writing it's hard to believe they're even high school kids.

>Don't read it if you don't have to! Just because junk is old doesn't mean it's not junk. If a modern writer rolled out this garbage I doubt I would have been required to read it. I gave this book a one star rating because I don't think it's possible to rate a book no star... is it? There were so many things I disliked about this book, I wish I still had the book report to pinpoint them more clearly. I had to read this book in High School. I don't know why. I can't for the life of me see any educational value. And I don't just hate it because it's a bit of a snore...(which it was), but because if a teacher makes you read something you ought to come a way from it with some knowledge, a slightly greater understanding of the world or somesuch. No such luck! The story didn't have much of a point either. I just kept thinking "What is the point?" "What is the goal of this plot (if you can call it that)?" It was like watching a dead animal decompose only slower, not as interesting and most importantly COMPLETELY POINTLESS. There is also no likeable character to root for. The main character Is a lowdown good-for-nuthing who cheats on his wife, goes crazy (not out of guilt or anything) and can't stop feeling sorry for his pathetic self until he dies which would have been doing the world a greater favor had he completed the task on page one. His sons though still in control of they're mental facilities aren't much better. They're pigs in fact. I was especially fond of the part where they remember the girl who one of them lost his virginity to. The bother who had sex with her doesn't remember much except that she was fat and that the other brother "got him in there". *gag*

salesmanblock
>The wife and mother in this family sickens me as well, but she is so deserving of pity how can I judge her. The more of a pathetic, low-down, cry baby slug her husband is the more she loves him, sad little doormat that she is. I think I remember her doing a lot of laundry too. Anyone who can put up with a life like that and still wash her stalkings without wrapping them securely around her husband's neck deserves one star I guess. In conclusion the only things I gained from this paltry little work are a numb behind, glazed over eyes, a slight pang of nausea and lastly the realisation that I had completey wasted several hours of my young life that can never be recaptured just to right a book report.
oh...oh dear God...

Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes From Underground (1864) is predominantly a childish, intellectually dishonest, and edgeless tirade against life, living, and mankind. As such, it is entirely ineffective, and pales in comparison to genuinely gripping nihilistic works like Lautreamont's Maldoror (published only four years later in 1868), Louis-Ferdinand Celine's Journey To The End of The Night (1932), or any of Jean Genet's five classic novels (the first, Our Lady of the Flowers, was published in 1943).

Today's readers may recognize that Notes From Underground might have more accurately been titled Victimology 101, since its anti-hero protagonist, who has willingly dropped out of society at the age of forty, seems to exist in a psychic state of what Carl Jung called "prehistoric kindergarten." The narrator builds a series of small, circular, and repetitive arguments over the novel's 29 initial pages, then gleefully deconstructs one after the other while simultaneously mocking the reader for ostensibly following his previous lines of anti-reason. Dostoevsky may have been attempting to make a larger point about a particular kind of aggrieved personality, but if so, the author, in conjunction with his narrator, fails entirely to say anything illuminating.

>>2880398

That Dostoevsky's "underground man" ("I'm no longer the hero I wanted to pass for earlier, but simply a nasty little man, a rogue") is bitter goes without saying; he is also cowardly, immature, self-destructive, unobjective, bullying, inflated, and almost wholly defined by his petty envy and "everlasting spite" for the rest of mankind. The speaker continually states that he is "clever" and "cleverer" than everyone else, yet he repeatedly encourages whatever readership he has to laugh at him, since he assumes such a reaction will be automatic. But there is nothing particularly clever, acute, abrasive, or piercing about his diatribes, and his tepid experiences, as outlined in Part II, "Apropos Of Wet Snow," fail to justify his philosophical platform or the outcast position he has elected for himself.

Unsurprisingly, what sinks Notes From Underground is that its perceptions, debates, and critiques are collectively lacking teeth of any kind. Is it accurate to summarize "civilization" as an engine that "merely promotes a wider range of sensations in man...and absolutely nothing else"? There's a world of Marxists that would disagree, and have. Are "all spontaneous men and men of action" active, successfully or otherwise, "precisely because they're so stupid and limited"? Do such men routinely "mistake immediate and secondary causes for primary ones"? Are brave men and intelligent men mutually exclusive groups? It is a verifiable fact that "an intelligent man cannot seriously become anything" and that "only a fool can become something"? Western history, with its enormous catalog of highly accomplished "dead white males," clearly suggests otherwise. Do "normal and fundamental laws" inevitably leave mankind "unable to do anything at all"? Is personal integrity merely a hollow charade trotted out for the benefit of others in all cases?

>>2880407

Blanket assumptions like these may leave readers believing that the narrator more than deserves his self-induced fate, and that any society, regardless of size and structure, would be better off without him. Whether Dostoevsky's own opinions or merely those of the narrator, the overall impression the book leaves is that the "underground man" has erroneously extrapolated his own parochial experiences into verities that he believes apply universally to all men and societies. Since he is so grossly mistaken, as well as enthusiastically committed to his mistake, it's no wonder that he is a miserable human being.

Unfortunately, generations of lax, narcissistic personalities seeking validation for their own choices have embraced Notes From Underground as a blueprint and sacred text. But authentic defiance necessitates exactly the sort of conviction, fortitude, insight, diligence, and sense of the relative that are squarely beyond the limitations of the narrator.

Irresponsible, short-sighted, sad-sack squabblers like Dostoevsky's narrator have always existed in all cultures, and probably always will. It's unfortunate that Dostoevsky expended the effort to create and give voice to such a character, but gave him so little of appreciable merit to say.

>>2879737
Stranger in a Strange Land is definitely wishful thinking, and not a realistic portrayal of reality, but it is an amusing read. The quote about rape probably doesn't have its statistics right, but one can always do something to make rape harder to happen.

>>2879796

no, that book sucked. he wasted about 400 pages, and I'm being generous.

WHAT IS THIS I DONT EVEN

such great literature being trashed..it gave me palpitations. i think i shall go lie down.

>so this is 'atmospheric horror?' (excuse my pop reference.) first of all, the cover insults your intelligence. Lovecraft flatters Borges in the highest form, and his language is even worse than Poe's - awkward, verbose, ultimately annoying. the 'atmosphere' is arid, boring. writers (esp. horror and British) need to understand sometimes less is more: flowery & 'understatement' (for most Brits it's unnecessary adverbs and double negatives) only make you sound snobbish. (Lovecraft's pastiche aesthetic & snobbishness actually distract you from his racism.) his 'philosophies' are St. Olafian as well. I had to do a line of coke just to get through the first three pages. the real horror here is any possible amusement.

>so far I haven't found any horror writer in English worthy of mention. The early Ann Rice, William Blatty and Robert Aickman come close, though.

I read this book in 1977 and 20 years later I am stillwondering where all the "action" is in this book everyone is talkingabout. I think its just a big pile of SH-T. Its all politics and philosophy. Do yourself a favor, and just see the movie.

>)
You would have to be a masochist to like this book. Chapter after chapter, all the main character does is try to drown himself in self-pitying drivel. 90% of the cast of characters are sadistic psychos, and the terrible "aliens" couldn't hurt a fly, much less conquer a planet. I mean really, you never get to see them in person, and insect-like hive creatures have great promise! I was expecting a book about a grown man who actually does more than get picked on, wallow in self-pity, and play video games! The book is more a view of "What Earth Could Be" ( horrible and judgemental, kinda like Earth today), and is more fiction ( fantasy) than science fiction, with a few starships and orbital space station throw in for good measure. The part about Ender's sister and brother taking over world via internet and public opinion is amusing, but unrealistic. I'm glad I took this doozy out of the library and finished it in a day, rather than buy this. I'm still going to try a few more of Card's book, but since this is the first of his books I read, I'm rather unsure. Live long and prosper, but for your own sake, don't read this book!

>Possibly the dullest book I've ever read, I thought the movie was rather good. After about 250 pages I quit.

The Hobbit:

>This Book was just too childish. I Heard that it was a timeless classic, so i payed a whopping $12 which could have easily better spent. For an adult to enjoy this novel is just beyond my belief. I am 14 myself and after reading it it was plainly ment for parents to read to their 6 or 7 year olds as they fall asleep. With such childish names almost always ryming with another (example: Dwalin and Balin, and also the very childish name of Bilbo) I would only purchase this book if i had someone i knew about 6-8 years old just to read it to them

>I am 14 myself
ATOMIC RAGE SEQUENCE IN 10... 9... 8....

>>Simply put, this is a novel about racism written for people who received their knowledge about racism from this book! There isn't a single insighful moment in this overrated piece of drek, and frankly it is an insult to intelligent readers everywhere...Filled with more stereotypes than an epidode of Good Times, this novel features the archetypal White hero with few flaws, his perfect children, the maid with just the right amount of "colored wisdom," a black amn who is little more than a dullard, and the evil redneck who actually commited the crime! The problem with novels such as this is that instead of depicting reality, they present a world where minorities are at best well-meaning simpletons who need to be rescued by perfect white males from all those "unenlightened" white meanies! Kids should reads history texts...they're more entertaining.

>>Simply put, this is a novel about racism written for people who received their knowledge about racism from this book!

Wat.

WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN
>I read this book in 1977 and 20 years later I am stillwondering where all the "action" is in this book everyone is talkingabout. I think its just a big pile of SH-T. Its all politics and philosophy. Do yourself a favor, and just see the movie.

>After watching the movie, I was expecting much better from the book. Instead I got a slow-moving book mostly about the thoughts of Johnny Rico, instead of the war he was fighting. I did find the suits the Terran Marines wore interesting (including their absence from the movie), but the book just couldn't keep my interest. I had to FORCE myself to read this book to its end. If you like the action of the movie, do NOT read the book!

>This is probably the worst and most boring book I had ever read. I watched the movie first and loved it. I couldn't wait to read the book, and boy was I disapointed. It was nothing like the movie. There was hardly any action at all. It had to much discriptions in it, and the story kept jumping around which made it very confusing on what was going on. I don't see how this book got so many high ratings. I don't know how they made such an awesome movie out of this book either. But save yourself the time, watch the movie and trash the book.

>I bought the hardcover because I thought it would be nice to have in my collection. However, the one I bought was an "econoclad" book which seems to mean a paperback with a poorly glued on card-board cover. Hardly what anyone would consider a real hardcover. Still a good story if you are not judging it by its cover... but not for the collector looking for a real hardcover.

that last one was just because i felt sorry for him. i would have raged if that happened to me too, though it wouldn't, because i actually investigate before buying.

If I were suicidal, this thread would push me over the edge.

This is horrific.

>>2880771
>The part about Ender's sister and brother taking over world via internet and public opinion is amusing, but unrealistic.

WHAT IS THIS... I... I DON'T EVEN... RAAAAAAAGE

>>2880845
ouch. my heart hurts now.

>>2880855
fffffuuuuuck
I blew an eye vessel.

>>our entire class read this novel and not one of us could understand a single word that was written. The constant change in place become confusing untul they got to Treasure Island. How could someone fall asleep in a coracle and an apple barrel? People have told me it was a classic when they thought it was terrible. At the end of the book I had no idea if Ben Gunn was on the ship or still on Treasure Island

>>2880758

f-f-f.... f...... FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

THE ACTION IS IN THE VERY FIRST CHAPTER YOU DUMB FUCK AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO DEPICT WHAT BEING A SOLDIER IS ALL ABOUT, SPOILERS: IT ISN'T ALWAYS ROMANTIC OR FUN. HOW DARE YOU EVEN MENTION THE MOVIE AND THE BOOK IN THE SAME BREATH, YOU PLEBEIAN, THE MOVIE WAS A GODDAMN SATIRE.

WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN

I thought that I wasn't that great for getting into Rutgers (live in NJ) but god, these retarded idiots make me feel like I'm a genius.

So this is what US high school kids are really like.

To Kill a Mockingbird:
i had to read this book in 9th grade. i heard that it was supposed to be this wonderful american classic, and i actually looked forward to reading it. well, all i'm gonna say is that it sucked. it was just like any other book, nothing special. yes, the prejudice part was good, i think it could show people that we need to accept our differences, but it just wasn't that deep. i got bored after 20 pages. all in all, i was very disappointed and to whoever gets an assignment to read this, good luck.

"It is only one of the mot boring books ever publihed"

I have to read this book for school, and it is boring, dull, puts you to sleep after 2 pages.....exc.....exc....exc....... Dantes need to fugure out who he is....he must be 6 peple in his story.....but it did bite that he got arrested for that letter though..... Those guys were jerks..

OP, WHY DID YOU DO THIS. RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE

ok, these are two 1-star reviews of my favorite book ever, dune. I am raging so hard right now.

--------------------------
#1
I must admit I heard a lot about the book prior to reading it: 1. One of the top ten 2. Question antisemitism 3. A little boring at times. Honestly, I can only agree to 1 and 3. I don't think it is in the class of the Lord of the Rings, but it is certainly noteworthy science fiction if you can slog through some of the more longwinded passages. Herbert's GRAMMAR skills are in question at certain points. Finally, except for it's small cult fan base, no one talks about this book....at all. No one buys Dune calendars, plays Dune games, etc. Thus, the emotional bond that Tolkien established in the Lord of the Rings is obviously absent here. Tolkien influenced generations with his story, and clearly Herbert has not.

--------------------------
#2
A friend told me that DUNE was different from the run of the mill sci-fi endless spillage of adverbs and adjectives. After three chapters of the most tedious and unnecessary descriptions of the tiniest details I decided he didn't know what he was talking about. Boring junk with a capital J!

MOTHERFUCKER. I WANT TO CHOKE THESE PEOPLE.

>>I'm sorry, but I have to say I didn't like this book at all. Which is really unusual, because I like a lot of books. But I didn't read all of it, I only got about 3/4 of the way through, and it bored me so much that I quit reading it. I don't usually do that. I was 13, but maybe that's too young. I don't think so, I've read books like Jane Eyre, and Pride and Prejudice and some other harder books, and really liked them. Maybe if I feel like it I'll pick it up and try it again sometime.

I really don't care if people don't like Ursula Le Guin. It's been ages since I've read her books, and only through nostalgia goggles can I remember anything about them. But when people say Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice are better books, that's slightly rage-inducing.

The Great Gatsby

>I read The Great Gatsby for school in my American Lit. class, and I never wanted to come home and read it. Fitzgerald uses to much symbolism and to many big words, so it keeps you from being focused on the plot. I don't reccomend this book to anyone, expecially to any teenagers.


lol learn to spell

>>This novel was good, but I found that the description of the setting was over used and i cannot understand how Jekyll suddenly can invent a potion that can turn him back and forth from Hyde!

>>2881015
>>to many big words

Oh Jesus fucking Christ that is pathetic.

herblock
>No one buys Dune calendars, plays Dune games, etc. Thus, the emotional bond that Tolkien established in the Lord of the Rings is obviously absent here.
NIGGER DUNE INVENTED RTS'S
ALSO PULL YOUR TONGUE OUT OF CONSUMERISM'S URETHRA

>>2880398
>>2880407
>>2880415

Did that reviewer just use a thesaurus to write something he could of summed up in a paragraph? Fucking high school.

>>2879302
Oh sweet jesus that's irony to the highest degree.
RIP Ray Bradbury and the gene pool.

"Depressiung book, old man and the sea

This book sucks. Only a depressed person would like this book. The old man is lonely and keeps trying to fish but doesn't catch any. It's like that old saying, if you put your mind to it you can accomplish anything, but this old man failed. Only a depressed person would like it"

>>2879517
I cried. This is the kind of person that is beyond saving.

Robot rage time:

"While cultural pundits try to convince you that some literature is better than other literature, the truth is that all art is relative to individial tastes. Thus, it doesn't make any sense to think that a novel like this one is really any better than say, Michael Crichton or Stephen King. Aesthetic standards can't be grounded.

Thus, don't listen to anyone who tries to distinguish between "serious" works of literature like this one and allegedly "lesser" novels. The distinction is entirely illusory, because no novels are "better" than any others, and the concept of a "great novel" is an intellectual hoax.

I prefer books with red covers. You may say the color of the book's cover has nothing to do with it being good, but who are you to dictate what criteria I use to evaluate books. This book does NOT have a red cover, so in the trash it goes. "


FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

(review of Brave New World, not that it matters)

>>2881148
That's a joke. It has to be a joke. How couldn't it be a joke?!
...Please tell me it's a joke.

>>2881167
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0060850523/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_3?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoint
s=0&filterBy=addOneStar&pageNumber=3

midway down the page.

OP I have to say you are a professional master troll of the highest degree. You have made a ton of people rage hard, very hard tonight. On Friday night. The weekend is in shambles.

>>2879313

AT WHAT POINT IS OF MICE AND MEN HAPPY?!

MEN FIND SHITTY JOB, DOG GETS SHOT, GUY GETS BEAT UP RETARD, RETARD KILLS PUPPIES AND WOMAN, RETARD GETS KILLED.

"I'm an avid reader, and I am usually able to comprehend what I'm reading. But this story was a bit too descriptive, I'm sure that appeals to some people, but not to me or any of the other kids in my english class. It seems to the majority of us that one would have to be on acid to understand what's going on, this may be because it's the end of the school year and we're seniors, but I think it's mainly due to the over-descriptive nature of the book."

>too descriptive
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff...

>end of the school year and we're seniors

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

(review of "Something Wicked This Way Comes" by Ray Bradbury)

>>2881144
That's because your a retard

Well, This book was magnifcent! I really liked the way G.B Shaw criticissed the louer class. How he showed that they we're pourly treted...he seems to no how tomake you laff yousing comedy.I red the bouk in class and I gut to bee a bunch of different peeple.It was KewL It waz goud. (haha Hugh)

I would recommend you gentlemen to archive this thread please.

review for "The Stars my Destination" by Alfred Bester:

simplistic, typical 60sh

Simplistic, cartoonish, trivial, liberal novel that should be 1000 words story. All based on one assumption (teleportation) and as old as.... Degenerative book!

>>2879595

WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN

FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

The Odyssey

1.0 out of 5 stars An awful book.., September 19, 2006
By T. (USA) - See all my reviews
Now let me begin by saying I understood this book. I read it for my freshman english class, and really didn't have much trouble understanding it.

That being said, I still hated this book. It was tedious, boring, and extremely conceited. I found myself not at all caring about these characters. Homer's idea for a story was a great one, but it comes out poorly. I know it's hard to argue with classics, but I just cannot explain how awful this book really is. The author doesn't get into the charcter's minds, leaving you to fill gaps in their personality.

The explaination of travels and fight scenes is extremely boring and long. He does nothing to spice up the descriptions to make us interested. Many times I could turn three more pages and still be in the same spot. Frusterating expierence.

>This book seemed to continually go on. It never really came to any important lesson or moral in the entire book. The book was extremely vague, nothing really had a reason for happening it just did it was very dissappointing after hearing all the praise that had gone into it.

FFFFFFUUUUUU

>>2881250
You can fuck with Heinlein, Bradbury, Silverberg or Card.

BUT YOU DO NOT FUCK WITH ALFRED BESTER
YOU DO NOT FUCK WITH THE STARS MY DESTINATION

>>2881265
ugh... m-my head.... make it stop....

A Tale of Two Cities:
this book is an abomination. i enjoy most classics, but dickens failed with this one. it is incredibly long, and not much happens. after a while i began attempting to discern what actually happened in terms of plot development after every chapter read. i realized that 80 percent of the book is long winded description of arbitrary characters and scenes.

honestly, i hate this book. it took me a lengthy amount of time to read it because i had to force myself to pick it up.

lol too deep 4 him.

1.0 out of 5 stars Like a Science Textbook, Man! Gimme a Break!, November 27, 2008
By RIZZOB "Rizzob" (People's Repubic of Earth) - See all my reviews
Borges was a hep cat, man, I'll concede that & seems to read a bit but his stories read like friggin' medical textbooks! Fine for scientists & other geeks of that type but a bit dull for the average reader. My favorite story was `Garden of Forking Paths,' which is the clearest story & easiest to understand. The `Secret of the Sect of the Phoenix' I'm assuming deals with Freemasonry though Borges claims it was homosexuality. But then he claimed a lot of weird things.
Borges is like digesting an overdose of fiber, long, arduous, excruciating at times, & in the end stinky, heavy, & a little too black.

>>2879377
I haven't made it through the thread yet, but that made me laugh my ass off.

>>2880771

I was able to get this far down before i decided to get back to making a gun that can kill people through the INTERNET.

>>2879301
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EE

Like the Anon who commented on this bullshit, the first book is what drew me to the series. It does explode in later books, but the first book sets the motherfucking stage. AAAAARGH

This book, possibly one of the most famous ever, is impossibly dull and unintersting. It is really about a bunch of French people who visit other French people and occasionally some Russian people, talk about Louis XVI, Catherine the Great and Napoleon, get drunk, and have sex... moving on! Yes, moving on, even the cover is wrong- it shows Napoleon Buonoparte, First Consul of France, crossing the Alps to invade Italy, c. 1799- 1800; this book is about Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, and possible invasions of Russia, in 1805- 1807. It is billed as 'a portrait of all layers of Russian society during the Napoleonic wars'. Wrong! At least, as far as I knew, not all Russians have 'Prince' before their names- or am I missing something here? Oh, sorry, I forgot, they're all French anyway. And I thought that the Napoleonic wars were from 1799- 1815.
Totally rubbish. Forget what other people say; don't bother picking it up. Now just go and read that 'trashy' novel you were going to read. For your own sanity.

FFFFFFUUUUUU


RAGE

wow, no 1-star reviews for Herodotus' "Histories."

Not that I'm arguing or anything. It's a remarkably lucid read for such an old book (and often unintentionally funny to boot).

0 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Deplorable!, January 24, 2004
By MAB (USA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Othello (Mass Market Paperback)

"Othello" is a play that will show you how unredeemable human beings can be. It'll make you question everyone, along with his or her motives and beliefs. It also shows you how men lusted after women in the late 16th century, but how women could not lust after men. The double standard was put to the test, and, as always, women lose this battle. Women may sell themselves as whores, and are ridiculed for it, but the men who use their services are overlooked. This is a foul play and I think Shakespeare held women without regard. Othello was a despicable man who had little self-esteem I do not recommend.

>>2881410
by the way, fellow gentlemen: This reviewer gave 5 stars to "Ya-Yas in Bloom" by Rebecca Wells (of "Divine Secrets" chick-trash fame), and 2 stars to Oscar Wilde's "The Canterville Ghost." Just sayin' .

First of all, I would not really consider this book fantasy. I find that when I read fantasy the author usually creates some sort of concrete world different from our own, with a set of rules, whether the rules be magic, mythical creatures, or alternate universes. This author creates an entire universe, which is fine, but there are no boundaries. Every planet, life form, or device seems completely made up on the spot without any organization. It's as if the author just decided to throw a bunch of letters together to come up with names for things, and then the creations don't really have anything to do with the storyline and you never see them again.

Second, I started reading this book thinking it would be hilarious...disappointed again. It's just blatantly obvious humor, which I don't find funny.

The characters are not that creative, and you don't get a chance to really get to know them. I find that when I really like a book, you seem to invest your emotions in it with the ups and downs of the characters and the anticipation of coming events. Nothing of that in here...

I always seem to want to know how old the reviewer is, so being a female in the mid-twenties who loves fanatasy and YA fantasy, I did not care for this book. It did not compel me to stay up late to find out what happens. Rather I continued reading it because I hate leaving a book unfinished. This is the third book in my life I've left unfinished. But halfway through the second book I found myself craving some real fantasy, so I put the book to rest.

Hamlet

What kind of idiot writes this tripe? This is allegedly a "Play" by some long-dead "Master".

Well, let me tell, you: it's boring and derivative. It's about this Prince who doesn't get his father's throne, and feels all depressed about it for a while, and fights back against his uncle (who took the throne and married the prince's mother), to show everyone that it was actually the uncle who killed his father the king.

Excuse me? Haven't we heard this before?

Yep: Disney's "The Lion King".

This is "The Lion King" dressed up in period clothes. Instead of "Simba", we've got "Hamlet". Instead of "Scar", we've got "Claudius". Instead of "Nala", we've got "Ophelia".

And it's in "Denmark", instead of the African Plains. Denmark? Is that even a real country anymore? Anyways, it's called Europe, now; That's a part of London.

And don't get me started on the language this writer used! It's all like it's from the Bible and stuff. Get rid of that, and use real words: Take a lesson from someone like Stephen King.

Don't waste your time with this; watch "The Lion King", and you'll get it. And while you're at it, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'm selling.

>>2881461
I think that was sarcasm

By M.Besselink (Purmerend, The Netherlands)


I always wanted to read Catch 22 because it was a famous book (and of course the term was used in a Metallica song). I began reading it three times but after 50 pages or so, I always lost interest. I never could discover a story and the many dialogues and events are strange, to say the least. Someone once told me it is a great book after page 100 but I never got that far. So I can only say: don't even try reading Catch 22', read '1984' by George Orwell and listen to Metallica.

>>2881439
THAT'S IT I'M BECOMING A SERIAL KILLER

>>2881410
>>2881433
To add something to this, although it's off topic: females in general have shitty taste and their criticisms shouldn't be taken seriously.

Pic is of the IMDB user ratings for Seven Samurai.

One Boring Book, March 29, 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (Paperback)
"I understand that this is a great book, but I just don't see it. I am just an average reader and I didn't catch any of the philosophical meanings Joyce had behind his writing, and even if I did, this book would still be terrible. Joyce failed to spark even the smallest bit of interest within me. Similar to Dubliners, I had to put this book down before reading seven or more pages at one time. "

10 of 178 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Hn., May 16, 2004
By A Customer
This review is from: Watchmen (Paperback)
I rather liked Ror Schach, but I think the whole thing was rather overrated. Or perhaps, as some readers say, it's a bit dated. It could easily have been much better when it was more current. It just didn't really 'click' with me.

I prefer The Sandman by Neil Gaiman or the JLA series.

bumping a deserving thread, and blockin' the mute like The Rock blocks CP.

A streetcar named desire

"I had to read this book for school. I do not recommend it to anyone. Boring, Boring, Boring, Boring. That sums it up. Blanche is out of her mind. Stanley is just mean and cold. Stella doesn't see the true colors of Stanley or Blanche. Boring, Boring, Boring, Boring"

srsly, his exact words. He makes a compelling argument.

Jesus Christ.

The Catcher in the Rye:
>the book is nothing but a democratic self centered view of life. i could care less about reading a book with a cry-baby wining about his life. this is the type of action that drags this country into the black hole of depression. if a book moves a person and it does not have the words holy bible on the front of it, it shows how lost the person it "moved" really is.

>>2881782

Now there's a good troll review.

>>2881782
I laughed until I hurt.

So basically, we have learned today that people do not like things that:

a) are complicated
b) are dark
c) challenge their pre-established worldview

This thread has reaffirmed everything I dislike about people.

>>2881144
Haven't laughed this much on /r9k/ for months

>>2881965
Way to link to a gay lego thread nigger

>>2882024
Do you even realized that you've been Duckroll'd?

3 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars extreamly boring, October 26, 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: The Handmaid's Tale: A Novel (Paperback)
the plot was never revealed, and you can get easily confused because the narrater switches back and forth between charecters. Also, she keeps remebering a lover of hers that was already married to another woman. i would defentally NOT recomend this book to ANYONE!!!!

Slaughterhouse-Five:

I saw that they had a whole bunch of books by Vonnegut, and I heard his name before, so I figured he must be a good writer. Boy was I wrong!!! His entire book goes all over the place like he was totally high while he was writing, and so his writing just gets all crazy and you can't make sense of it, and his characters are all boring.

If you want to know what the story is like, read below, but it may have spoilers (who cares though, because you shouldn't read it ever!). So it goes like this:

Billy Pilgrim has a big wang and is unstuck in time and gets captured by aliens and went to world war ii where he helped carry around a bible (oh, ironic, maybe? He thinks he is so clever, but he isn't). A tree died. So it goes. A bug died. So it goes. People thinking I am not a bad writer died. So it goes.

Stay away from this book unless you want to talk to all your supposedly smart friends about how funny he is when he isn't funny, while Vonnegut is thumbing his nose at you-know-who with every check and still they have a million of his books on the shelves instead of good books. If he wants to be funny he should just do fart jokes because I bet even he could manage those, and they'll be funny to people a million years from now.

>>2882217
don't school the newfags. they'll eventually make their way to encyclopedia dramatica and read up on old memes.

>>2882273
This one is superior in terms of "lulz," as you kids call them.

"In this novel by Kurt Vonnegut, the main character's name is Billy Pilgram. He is a war veteran who survived the firebombing of Dresden. The novel is very choppy, and switches from different parts of Billy's life. I found it very difficult to follow, and not very enjoyable.
In the novel, they often speak of a planet called Tralfamadore, where he was displayed in a zoo with a former movie star by the name of Montana Wildhack. I thought that the very concept of a man who was kidnapped by aliens was truly unbelievable and a tad ludicrous. I did not find the idea of aliens kidnapping a human and putting them in a zoo very plausible. While some of the tralfamadorians concept of death and living in a moment would be comforting for a war veteran, I found it relatively odd. I do not believe that an alien can kidnap someone and house them in a zoo for years at a time, while it is only a microsecond on earth. I also do not believe that a person has seven parents; I feel that two are a sufficient amount, and all that one person really has. Though Kurt Vonnegut was extremely creative with this story, and I usually enjoy creativity, this story was a tad bit to far-fetched for me."

(continued below)

>>2882334
AGGHH MUTEBLOCK FUCKIUCUFLDSCREU

"I also did not enjoy hearing about Billy's relationship with his wife, and daughter. I felt that there was an extreme lack of love between them, and that is not the type of family I want to read about. I would have much preferred them to hold a more important role in Billy's life.
The only part of this story I enjoyed reading was the part about Dresden. I found it rather interesting and compelling. It was an extremely sad story to read and it was the only part of the novel that evoked any sort of emotion from me. I also enjoyed hearing about the author's view of Dresden, and his experience there. Throughout the story, I felt myself wishing that the author would stop talking about Billy, and share more of his own story.
While this novel had potential to be enjoyable, and some may have even liked it, I did not. I found it deplorable to read and I would not suggest it to anyone, ever."

(these are by the same person)

100 Years of Solitude

>so mr marquez is supposed to have invented this whole new genre of writing with this book and other annoying ones like In Evil Hour. But no one seems to stop and say that the events of the story are ridiculous and embarrasing. who wants to read about an old lady who makes candy for her family for generations? no one. and the romance portrayed is nothing short of farcical. it's a wonder he's a star in the literary universe.

Bridget Jones's Diary (movie tie-in)

>I love this book not only because it really captures the life crisis that errupts in every late 20s/early 30s person, but it teaches you so much about the interesting aspects of contemporary English culture. This is something far from the Dickenisian world we usually envision, but a fast-paced new business world of intellectuals and modern women. You'll learn so much about the UK culture you'll want to visit.

>I heard the author interviewed on a radio talk show. I was facinated by the thought of a house being bigger on the inside then on the outside. On the srtength of the interview I bought the book. I am 100 pages into it and as much as i hate to, I am going to give up.

FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

yes ahha i do this all the time. if i remember correctly Things Fall Apart had a great one

This guy likes to pan classic films while jizzing his pants over stinkers, like RV and Bee Movie:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/ASU5IH3CM6XXE/ref=cm_pdp_rev_all?ie=UTF8&sort_by=Mos
tRecentReview

Fortunately, it's a joke: he has a real account too, where he shows actual good taste. I discovered him when I was reading the bad reviews for the original Twelve Angry Men (see if, if you haven't):

12 Angry Men is a courtroom drama that was made before they had color films and is very, very irritating to watch. It's a courtroom drama about twelve jurypeople deliberating on a really important case but like a lot of old movies, it really doesn't hold up after all these years.

If you like courtroom dramas, and I'm not a big fan quite frankly, you will not enjoy this movie. Remember in A Few Good Men when Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise were yelling at each other and you were on the edge of your seat? Well, get ready for none of that. Instead be prepared to be bored for 12 angry hours while people talk and talk and talk and nothing happens!

Movies are a visual medium for a reason. If you're going to do a movie about a court case, you should actually show the crime like on Law & Order. This movie would have been much smarter to follow their example and do the first half as the crime on the streets, and then the second half be an exciting courtroom drama.

Gee, do I really get to watch twelve dudes sitting around talking and making choices and opinions for two hours? Sign me up! I'm being sarcastic, if you can't tell. Because I don't want to watch a movie where twelve dudes sit around talking and making choices and opinions for two hours.

...[field too long]...

All in all this is a good movie if you have sleep apnea or children that enjoy this type of thing.

mmmmm Cous cous :D

>>2881461
oh god
i know it's fake, but still
i'm making it my facebook profile

off of the Siddhartha

"I have never read a more boring book in all my life. I was forced to read this terrible book in my Honors English class and I didn't realize cruel and unusual punishment was back in style. Siddhartha is a very self-absorbed and arrogant character. The whole plot was about his very very very slow path to enlightenment. Who CARES!?!?! I think there are better books out there for young readers than the story of a modern Buddah. All Siddhartha is concerned with is himself and his personal quest, he doesn't even try to make his son happy. In the selfish world of today, books like Siddhartha only make things worse."

>>2882616
>modern Buddah

wut

As I Lay Dying.

>I cannot recommend this book. History and time often creates legends out of the mere ordinary. This book and all of Faulkners works are horrible and would not find a publisher if written in 2008. There is not an editor alive that would read past the first chapter of As I lay dying. It is a dud. There is no reason to read it. None. The story is not interesting. Faulkners "stream of consciousness" writing style is not interesting. Nothing about this book is worthwhile, except to say that you've read Faulkner. I can say that rereading this book again I did actually feel pain. I felt like crying, it was horrible. But like all the idiots here leaving 5 star reviews I couldn't put it down because then I wouldn't be able to say I have read Faulkner. A book shouldn't be painful and you should want to read it. Faulkner sucks and I have a problem with anyone that recommends him. I've heard that Limburger cheese is delish, but how do you get rid of that smell while you are eating it? And why would you? I'll tell you why. Just so you can say you've ate Limburger cheese. That is the only reason. Why read Faulkner? Just so you can say you have read Faulkner.

There are no image macros for what I am feeling right now.

These reviews fit easily into one of two categories: stupidity that makes me laugh, and (much more frequently) stupidity that makes me die a little inside.

This book is terrible. It has no main point, confusing, irritating, and stupid. Don't read this weird book, trust me. Ernest doesn't deseve a nobel prize. Listen to me OK?! What is this book, it is so crazy and I wont even call it a book. This book is nothing!

Lolita- Vladimir Nabokov

>It is a fitting testament to our times that this novel, which should never have been published in the first place, has come to be regarded not only as a modern classic, but as the finest novel of the last century. Only a thoroughly immoral man could have written it and only a thoroughly immoral age would celebrate it. The review cited on the cover - describing it as the "only convincing love story" of the century - is the perfect punch line to this absurd joke: what better way to demonstrate your unimpeachable sophistication than by characterizing an explicit account of pedophelia as a love story? If you want to read erotic descriptions of children and sickeningly-detailed depictions of child molesting, the law is apparently powerless (or at least unwilling) to stop you, but please, please, don't hide behind "art." Admit, at least to yourself, what you're really doing; admit what you are.

Guess he totally missed the beautiful prose and symbolism. I hate having to defend this book when asked for a list of favorite novels.

He also advocates censorship, lawlz

>>2882522
Alright, okay, now I'm done. The world is full of retards. I watched that for the first time in 8TH GRADE and I already loved it. What the fuck.

This is the kind of person who likes Michael Bay movies.

>>2883065
Um, you missed it. Read the post; he's a troll. Apparently, a good one.

Reasons people pan these books:
1. They resented their high school English teacher.
2. They have a short attention span.
3. They don't actually like books.
4. They disliked the characters.
5. They disliked the narrative voice.
6. They don't try to understand metaphor.

This book is loathsome. I don't even rate it at all. It is incoherent, rambling, and remarkable solely for its subject - which CLAIMS to be realistic and drug-fuelled. It is sordid, squalid and depressing, with no redeeming qualities, except to convince one that drugs are just as you always thought they were. This book is overhyped, and nauseating. The cartoons merely annoy and irritate, especially the deliberately blotted pages. There is no insight into the human soul, or what passes for a human soul in these soulless victims of their own selves. I still do not believe that I read it all through, and will definitely never do so again. Never before has a book actually made me feel so physically sick - I would have flung it on the fire had there been one handy. The only thing it would be good for would be as compulsory reading in drying-out drug rehab clinics, to convince people that they don't deserve to demean themselves so miserably in this way again.

This book is despicable and could only be called a classic becuase it is old. The novel save the first 100 pages is dire and it is easy to see how the book will end I am 14 and read the book in 2 weeks understanding every word and knowing what was going to happen. The book centers around a ex-student named Raskolnikov( the only decnt character) who kills a old women and her sister and robbs them due to hard financial times adter this act is over the book spirals down and crashes as we are introduced to boring 1 dimensional characters and a boring plot and I use plot only because there are no other words. A paperwieght more than a book that I would only recommend to people who1 Have nothing better to do or 2 Who want to impress thier friends. I am sorry about the poor spelling and grammer in this review but i find it hard to talk about a book that I detest unless saying that I do detset it. Thank you for reading this review but don't read the book by some decent toilet paper!
oddly enough all the other 1 stars were almost reasonable - perhaps a bit too harsh in their star rating, but their criticisms are valid.

>>2882334

What the fuck is this guy smoking? Does s/he seriously not ever read anything that deviates, either concretely or metaphorically, from normal, everyday reailty in order to explore an issue or prove a point?

>I did not find the idea of aliens kidnapping a human and putting them in a zoo very plausible. While some of the tralfamadorians concept of death and living in a moment would be comforting for a war veteran, I found it relatively odd. I do not believe that an alien can kidnap someone and house them in a zoo for years at a time, while it is only a microsecond on earth. I also do not believe that a person has seven parents; I feel that two are a sufficient amount, and all that one person really has.

GRRAGHHH

>>This is the wost book ever written in the history of the world. Reading it is like being stuck in a dark room with me for a week. You should never get this book and if you do chop it up burn it through the ashes in a ravine and nuke the ENTIRE VACINITY!!!

Not 100% related, but I'll post it because it made me lol hard. Under reviews of Stephen King's The Stand:

The Pitiful Mr. March, July 28, 2008
By Rosemary Daniels
Geraldine Brooks' Year of Wonder was an excellent read. For this reason I bought March.While it was also beautifully written the main character, Mr. March was a total dissapointment. After reading all the adoring and eloquent letters written to his wife and daughters while he was at war, I was very disappointed when he had an affair with Grace. I lost my patience and considered him an idiot when he suggested the sheep should be allowed to keep their wool, the cows should be allowed to keep their milk for their calves and I can't remember what the chickens were supposed to do with their eggs. I went to the last page to see if he got shot during the war but allas, he made it home to his loving family. Pity.

--

....lolwut? Wrong book I'm assuming, but pretty comical.

I also do not believe that a person has seven parents; I feel that two are a sufficient amount, and all that one person really has.

Lord of the Flies (William Golding)

I read this book on my own spare time over the summer for some fun reading..at least that's what I thought. First the plot. It is about a bunch of flies in a world a stupidly dark world. They eat themselves. It was so incredibly a waste of my time, that i deffinitely do not reccomend this book. Don't waste your money and time with this book.

The Portable Atheist

Don't buy this book. Instead look for God elsewhere.,

If you haven't found God yet then keep looking. Don't Stop. Never Stop Looking.

There is a lot of evidence for God = The Bible. There is a lot of scientific evidence supporting his existence. I will start with Intelligent Design as it is supported by modern scientists and destroys the theory of evolution. Check for yourself. As they learn more about DNA then it becomes impossible to justify creation by accident. I recommend "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. He has both a book and DVD by this same name. See if you can dispute the evidence that DNA is extremely complex and couldn't have been created accidentally. Nature also shows there is a God. There are a number of animals that defy evolution. There is a DVD series called "Incredible Creatures that defy Evolution".

If you are trying to justify being a nonbeliever then look at the evidence that Christians espouse. I have only given you a couple of examples above.

Be Honest with yourself.

If you are looking for God then I have given you some suggestions above. If you want to be a nonbeliever or stay a nonbeliever then save your money - just stop looking - you won't need to buy this book to stay a nonbeliever. It is not worth your hard earned money.

>>2885902
TROLLAN BE OCCURAN.

>>2883203
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

some people just don't fucking get it, man.

I can see why people desire to praise this book: Its foreign origins, its attempt at elevating the common man to the status of philosopher, rambling political and social commmentary. Yes I suppose in that context it is probably ok. Sadly, people beleive that they themselves are somehow elevated if they praise a piece of work that is esoteric. But as a science fiction piece it is a failure and mostly boring.

If you are interested in the plight of people subsisting within an oppressive political regime and the alcohol abusers and black market theives it seems to create why not read some non fictional works on the subject. But as far as intriguing and stimulating science fiction is concerned you should read something by Frederick Pohl, Vernor Vinge or Greg Bear.

Perhaps I am jaded by the fact that I have undertaken in the last 17 months to read at least one book by each of the top 85 masters of science fiction of the last 100 years. I have read many excellent novels. Perhaps the problem is that I myself am a physicist and have certain interests or expectations when it comes to "science fiction" but as far as I'm concerned, this Roadside Picnic was no picnic - it was just pathetic and sadly I was tricked by some of the reviews I read here into wasting almost 4 hours of my time.

>BAWWWWW I DUN LEIK DA SOVIET PHILOSOPHY BECUZ IT AINTS SCIENCE FICTIONY

>>2881782
Catcher in the Rye fucking sucked, any one denying it is autofail

>>2885971
Not to mention:
>Greg Bear
>stimulating
BAHHAHAHAHA OH GOD THAT'S JUST BAD

I read IT twenty years ago and admit that it was a great summer escape from a boring life in a small town. As an adult and with 1990's political correctness hindsight, I was unable to make it to the halfway point on my visit to paper back past.

I realized on page 450 that all of the lousy parents belonged to the white kids and that the golden examples of parenthood belonged to the "minorities"

Looking back further I noticed that the white male bullies were such because of the poor role models (crazy Dads) and not because of the unnatural public school setting they were compulsed to suffer through . Notice that the good kids (despite also having lousy parents too) loved their public school teacher and did well. it's like King is selling Hillary's, It Takes a Village communitarianisms. Soviets (teachers, librarians, Irish Cops) good, parents bad.

In conclusion:
Stephen King's IT is just another communist attack on what the commies consider their main target, white parents

Oh!! and the Bush Communitarians are just as bad as the Clinton Communitarians

Ron Paul for Prez!!!
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

I found that the stream-of-consciousness was difficult to read; this was possibly due to translation.
You can see the seeds of ideas which were better-explored by later literature, including 1984, Brave new World, THX-1138, and others, but they are poorly fleshed out in this novel. It only deserves points because it was before those others. At best it is a bland description of an impossible world: Glass tenaments, marching queues of citizens, copulation tickets, forced surgery, schoolchild indoctrination, assemblys, a single ruler, pre-decided elections, gas chambers, etc.
Part of SciFi though is to pay attention to details and try to create believability and some drama. Even if the world is one that obeys different rules, SciFi should set up a consistant system of rules and how they are then obeyed or disobeyed. This novel does nothing of the sort. It is a tragedy, but you don't feel sympathy with the protagonist. You don't know (or care) who is a good guy and who is a bad guy. It is completely unbelievable that the simple-minded protagonist is a highly technical designer of a spaceship. The size of the city-state is unbelievably small. The ride in the ship is anticlimactic. The comparisons of life with mathematics are juvenile and no one with a 6th-grade math education would buy them. Even if there were an oppressive rule, this world could not exist.

Someone I greatly respect gave me this book. If not, I would never have finished it. This is the single worst book I have ever suffered through. I kept reading in the hopes of discovering some redeeming value... understanding why someone would give me this scatalogical horror. But, no such luck... I finished on a plane and left it behind - as I was leaving someone pointed out that I left my book and I said, yes, purposely and you're welcome to it!
Perhaps it is just me, perhaps I just like dont reading about disgusting feces, filth, corpses... As an English major I did favor the Romantics, Wordsworth, Keats, Bronte... I studied Shakespeare at Oxford. I like beauty, poetry, art... but I also love sci-fi fantasy, Harry Potter and collect Tin Tin comics... so not a total literary snob.
I honestly feel inadequate. I want to understand, I tried to see the beauty that others have found in the strength of the human spirit. But this is art and art is subjective so I will accept that this book is just not for everyone. Dont expect an enjoyable read or a happy ending.

WAAAAAAAAAAAA THE BOOK WAS SAD

>First off, let me point out that I have read a score or better Star Wars themed novels. In each of these, the reader goes to a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. That said, the theme of the book fits this genre well, but the plot is abysmal. I felt that in this book, the author kept painting the characters into difficult corners and had to magically develop illogical escapes. Now, Star Wars is full of unlikelihoods, but the situations encountered here are beyond impossible, which makes this into a sort of ridiculous farce of a more serious-themed book. I've not been impressed with any of Allston's contributions to the X-Wing series. I think Stackpole did a very fantastic job with the first 4 and then the 8th books in the series, but I would skip the ones written by Allston.


Utter nonsense.

>>2879361
Of Mice and Men is a shit book even my English teacher thought so, and also my mum who used to be an English teacher. Sure the themes are easy to understand but the whole book is just a big downer.

>>2886084
P.S this is my opinion not an Amazon one.

Confusing, disturbing, and stupid are some of the few words to use when describing this book. Firemen who start fires?? Come on. Burning every book that exists, this isn't a look into the future. It's a look into Bradbury's twisted little mind. Bottom Line.... Don't waste your time.

YO DAWG I HEARD YOU LIKE REVIEWS SO WE GONNA REVIEW YO REVIEW SO YOU CAN BE A SNOB WHILE YO SNOB

FUCK YOU OP, I GOT MY FIRST MUTE FROM YOUR BULLSHIT

>>2879302
Is that the whole thing?
Did he post anything else that might indicate that he actually did read the book?
Does he want to be a fireman now?

ITP: Faggots don't appreciate "The Great Gatsby"

I would give this so-called "classic" zero stars if it was possible. The language is vulgar and archaic, with words such as "gay" and "excitement" used completely erroneously. Fitzgerald could not even be bothered to spell gaiety correctly, though I suppose that is as much his editors' and publishers' fault as his own. This book was unpopular when it was written and is unpopular now, so why do we teach it in our schools? Do we really want our children to emulate ANY of the characters or "virtues" conveyed by this book? First, we have the main character, Nick Calloway, who is so spineless and passive that he doesn't speak up even when it would have saved Gatby's life. Next, we have Tom and Daisy Buchanan who are so out of touch with reality that they can't even realize how pathetic their marriage actually is. Last, but certainly not least, comes Jay Gatsby, also known as James Gats. Gatsby is living a seventeen-year-old's dream whichwould be fine, if he were seventeen rather than thirty, but is total folly at his age. Besides these few specific characters, the cast as a whole demonstrates a blatant disregard for laws big and small, from abolition to murder.

annnnnnd...
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.

annnnnd...
The Great Gatsby contained nothing more than can be found in a TV soap opera. All of the characters where one sided and underdeveloped. The book makes a poor attempt at exploring human nature, which pales in comparison to great novels such as "Catcher in the Rye". It was one of the most boring and shallow books that I have ever read

Wow. Am I the only person in the world who actually enjoyed reading The Great Gatsby?

(what were these people expecting to read... also do they not read a couple pages before buying something)

I'm going to go ahead and give away the only mildly amusing thing in the 247 unfunny pages of this book. It takes itself seriously. It's an *actual* guide to zombie survival. There you go. Personally, that made me dryly chuckle for the first 5 pages. After that, it got annoying really, really fast. If you liked this novel, don't forget to pick up Max Brooks' other fantastic offerings:

- The Unicorn Husbandry Guide
- Trapping Leprechaun's for fun and profit
- Pixies vs Fairies; which side to take in the coming Global confrontation

This book wasn't just bad, it was violently suckworthy. Whenever I see the name Max Brooks again, I'll be reminded of the old adage that talent skips a generation.

This book is too hard for kids and even adults. Sometimes you think you found the item they are looking for, but it's so far fetched that you don't really know if you found the right object or not. I DO NOT recommend any I SPY books, I'll be sticking with Waldo for my family for now on.

(FFFFFFFffffffffffff)

>>2886256
I liked it. Gatsby is a cool guy. eh tells the story and doesn't afraid of anything.
Seriously, though, it's a great book.

>>2886265
I love books that troll like that. I remember having a similar reaction to a user review of The Areas Of My Expertise by John Hodgman.

I have heard almost all of Titus Goan on an audio tape and its by far the worst book written by someone that likely could have written a great book I have ever seen. Some of the Reviews compare it to Tolkein, which is an insult to one of the greatest writers in the English Language to even make the comparison. Character development and imagery are important supports to the purpose of a novel, which is to tell a story. The story in Titus Groan is so weak that it is embarassing. The Characters are more jokes than realistic, well fleshed out perhaps, but highly uninventive. The same is true of the imagery, it is detailed to be sure, but Mr. Peake's imagination is sadly lacking as is the emotional content of his imagery. Mr. Peake dumped out a lot of words for no purpose whatsoever. The people that praised this novel sure need to re-read Tolkien and the other great writers.


FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

>>2879309
>complete testacle sack of a book
Finally, a book with BALLS!

I remember reading user reviews when the Sound of thunder movie first came out. One user (I raged so hard his screen-name, Fearthekitty23, is permanently burned into my memory) said the following:
"It's pretty sad that Hollywood has stooped so low as to rip off a Halloween episode of the Simpsons..."
Every review after that one included an aside to correct this idiot's grievous error.

>>2880614
This gentleman speaks the truth. I am kind of midway of that book, is it worth finishing it?

>>2879796
FFFFFFFFFFFFF

I LOVE THAT BOOK D:<

>>2886534
How fucking many characters are there in that book? And they all have the same name! I hate books where I can't really remember every single character.
Does it get any better in the second half?

4 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Book review of cannery row, February 28, 2002
A Kid's Review
This review is from: Cannery Row (Mass Market Paperback)
Personaly,I did not like the book cannery row.The book was not action packed enugh for me.The carectors were very boring and didnt have much meaning to their lives.The book also jumped arond a lot and i didnt like that because it took my consentration off the main plot of the story and i got lost and it was very confusing for me.I though the auther needed to use a wider rang of vocabulary in the story as well.I would not recamend this book to many people, it is nonsenes.

>>2879313
>>2879309
>>2879305
>>2879302
>>2879301
>>2879276
>>2879270
It's funny, near the end of highschool I got out and went to the school a few blocks over (loves me some hooky lolz), an alternative school, mostly for kids that skipped a lot, did poorly, didn't like school, delinquents, etc. But just about all of those kids including myself understood and enjoyed all these books that they had to read.

It was weird, there was more in depth discussion between the "failures" of school on these books and other issues than there were between the kids at the "real" high school.

I can't believe how dull and uninspired so many people must be to not like Hamlet.

I mean, granted, I probably didn't understand a lot of it and missed a lot of the deeper messages of the play. But I liked it because Hamlet was awesome. He was a fucking asshole to everyone and crazy. How can you not like that?