/lit/ - Literature

>The Hunger Games has a 4.46 average rating
Why are there so many plebs on this site?

>>3522455
Because plebs make up like 98% of the Earth's population.

all these reviews... aw man, and I picked a "pleb" book too.

I'mma ragin

>“Dante, seriously, man up and climb the stupid hill. No, you can’t rest. I don’t care if you’re tired. I’m DEAD, don’t be complaining to me about how rough you have it!”

guess the book!
>"Here is a warning to all: this book is full of sexual content. The premise of the book is fascinating, but I couldn't finish it. There was too much sensual content."
>"This book rambles on for 700 or so pages and reaches a trite and pointless ending."

>>3522496
Ada?

>>3522506
nah. the first one is kind of a trick because the book is not actually full of sexual content. some chick just read the book incorrectly

>>3522496
house of leaves?

>>3522496
>I'm not really sure what to say about this book. It was terrible. I wanted to quit reading it several times but I kept thinking "give it time, it has to get better." I skimmed through a lot of it. It has so many characters that you get such a long back story on and then you find that they don't really matter in the story line. I feel like I wasted 600 pages of good reading on this book, complete waste of my time. It is nothing short of being sacrilegious. The families and people in the book are supposed to represent Adam and Eve and the Fall, and Cain and Abel. Well Cathy (Eve) is a monstrous women who runs a "whorehouse" (I hate even having to write that word out, it makes me sick). So I think that's all I have to say. Terrible, awfull book. Complete waste of time. I dont think the author has any idea what the Bible is about

>Romance of the Three Kingdoms only has 5 1-star reviews
>none of them have any text to them

Feels Lu Bu man.

I hate to say that the Emperor has no clothes and perhaps this wasn't the best book to begin my Foucalt journey with; however... I found it to be completely rediculous, meticulous, superfluous, and unnecessary. Certainly there are nuggets of lucid and intriguing points buried in his winding and verbose prose. The reality is that no one should have to take the time currently required to make sense of what he is attempting to say (language and words have power). Even for a frenchman in translation, this work flies past the line of acceptable loquaciousness.

^^^^
>Admits she's never read the book on the basis of which the theory constructed in this one was developed. Still self-righteous enough to feel competent in rating, dumb bitch.

FUCK OFF ABOUT WORLD WAR II!

"Praise the lord and pass the amunition, I am finished with this beast of a book. My brain feels like sludge, I just want to crawl into a hole and forget all that was engrained into my poor head. Why, oh why did I have the noble idea to read such a monster? How am I supposed to rate such s#@$?????
I believe, like some of you that this might have been better had I read it in a class or with a group. Alone it was fingernails to chalkboard miserable.
"Now I ask, Why do people lie about certain books? Do they think it makes them look smarter? Cooler? Well-rounded? I just don't get it, if you don't like something you don't like it. It's not neccessary to like it for classic book sake. This might not be making sense to some of you.... maybe you would have to know the people who were commenting, I don't know. But, I am sure all of you have been in a bookstore or talking with a co-worker, etc., and they spout out some well known "hip" book that they just 'adore'. You know this person and it's hard to see them reading period, much less what they are talking about.

I guess my point is, don't be a fake book talker. Like it, Yay. Don't like it, Yay. I'm not going to think less of you for not liking something you "SHOULD" like by literary standards"

She has a good point. /lit/ on blast

>a tale of two cities

"the quickest way to fall asleep would be to read a chapter from this book. but don't over do yourself. you may become addicted to it and you may not be able to ever sleep without reading a passage from this book. and when you read it all, chances are you'll be so horribly confused with life that you'll probably shoot yourself and die. don't say i warned you"

>don't say I warned you
oh god my sides

>>3522597

what's the book you shit

>>3522528
East of Eden

On my reading list actually, but I've heard some references about it

>>3522652
1984 lol

words can not, not express how much i hated this book. i loathed it. loathed! all that sex, consumerism, obession, youth, sonma, ford, more sex, decay. geez! it's horrible! blehhhh! way to make captialism into some industrial, mechanical, unfeeling beast! and those who tried to actually feel, exiled. besides, who needs to enhance ice cream?! it's fine all on its own! no sonma on mine please!

I, Claudius
>If you introduce a character and kill them on the same page, what makes you think I am going to give a shit? Bunch of dead bodies, no story. Risque in the 1930's = not risque

This...wasn't really worth it, actually. It's main fault is the plot. About halfway through the book, the plot twists, turns, goes out to a bar, gets high on crack, walks into an alley and gets shanked backwards through the stomach, and its mutilated body is pushed down Mt. Kilimanjaro into a pile of something sharp and painful. WHY would you write a book where, for most of the story, the main character is AGAINST the totalitarian government, only to end it with the same character being a total patriot TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT? I wanted (and expected) to read some sort of awe-striking, totally B.A. anarchy-muckraking after the conversation between O'Brien, Winston, and Julia. But what do I get? Winston thrown in prison and brainwashed (BY O'BRIEN) through verbal means - which, I might add, I was able to find loopholes in (and I'm thirteen!). No, Orwell. Just...no

>>3522940
>and I'm thirteen!

>What makes this the classic it purports to be? Excessive use of the "f" and "c" words? By this standard, any one of my drunken temper tantrums is a classic diatribe. I just don't get it. Most of this book is about sex, trying to get sex, thinking about sex, buying sex, complaining about sex. But it manages to be completely unsexy. It's dirty, diseased, loused and infected.

Tropic of Cancer

>>3522940
I just raged so hard it's not even funny. Tell me that review isn't real. Please.

I have read this at least three times. Once for pleasure and twice for school. All three times I hated it. The symbolism is too obvious and Daisy (isn't that her name) is over the top indulgent and snooty. None of the characters were likable and that ruined the book for me. Their privledged secret world was ridiculous and nothing in that book appealed to me. It is my number one most hated classic book!

>read it 3 times
>is that her name?

This was 5000 characters long; it would be easier to screencap it.

I am perhaps digging my own grave by giving a negative review to the well-respected Steinbeck, but Grapes of Wrath is a sore disappointment. Steinbeck's epic is a thinly disguised forum for political, social, and religious dialogue. Unlike great literature, which can address any number of complexities or issues in the context of a larger narrative, Steinbeck presents a only a set of ideas and bends flat characters and a thin plot around these views. His characters are intended only for metaphorical interpretation and offer little substance.

>>3522997
Steinbeck's "interchapters," which portray misery through broad, sweeping claims (without engaging any of the main characters or advancing the plot), are the book's most interesting portions, despite the emotional manipulation that they set forth. To add insult to injury, the novel itself is barely literary. It feels as though Steinbeck is following a checklist of what to include in a novel. (Foreshadowing? Check. Symbolism? Check. Conflict? You betcha.) This would be bad enough by itself, but it isn't even done subtly. Steinbeck might as well have put up neon signs pointing out the literary devices used. He seems to cram as much into the novel as he can, only for the sake of including, rather than for any intrinsic merit. Finally, the messages themselves are somewhat strange. The tone of much of the novel can be described as guilt-mongering - Steinbeck's characters are in a particularly bleak situation, victimized by the Depression, the Dust Bowl, and capitalist land owners - and the readers are made to feel guilty for something that others have done. At the risk of repeating myself, this guilt comes from the narrator's direct condemnations, not through the reader's own understanding of the text or connection with the characters.

>>3522999
Moreover, the book has many religious themes - from the prose style, which imitates the text of the Old Testament, to the very title, which alludes to Revelation - yet the religious "messages" are quite sacrilegious. The main protagonist's epiphany comes from rejecting traditional doctrines (even the idea that all humans have a soul) in exchange for looser, pseudo-Christian ideals. The characters in the text who support traditional ideals are either evil hypocrites or in the case of the heroes (specifically, Granma) laughable, foolish, and senile because of their naive ignorance. This book does not present ideas in an intellectual fashion; it is not worthy to be counted among the greats. I am not criticizing the inclusion of a set of ideas, or even of the Marxist, communist, or religious undertones. I am criticizing Steinbeck's absolute failure write a story with a moral. He opts, instead, for a moral disguised as a story.

>>3522597


of course she does, everyone knows brave new world was better, 1984 was only hailed by the establishment because huxley hit too close to home.

Lets see, a book about a rich, devastatingly handsome snob succeeding fantastically at snooty private schools and then reaching Princeton, which has all these little quirky rich kid clubs and is very beautiful. I'm guessing Richy Rich eventually falls in love, figures out that although he is perfect, life isn't such a barrel of laughs and poof - he is a changed man, no longer a conceited prick. I don't know, I think F. Scott has too much of a boner for high society. To be fair, I stopped before page 100, I thought it sucked. I give it one star b/c the writing itself wasn't bad.

Why would you tell me to do that OP
It just made me mad

>"Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame"

A typical Japanese story line. Fucked up, makes no sense, and when they try to explain it, they make it so philosophical that it’s hard to understand anything at all. The characters were very likeable, and the worlds of the main character (who is nameless, now that I recall) are very enjoyable. Although at times I felt that the book was blatantly ripping off the idea of “daemons” from His Dark Materials, the over all message of the shadows was powerful.

>Northern Lights/Golden Compass (1995)
>Hard-Boiled Wonderland (1985)

Shannon rated it · review of another edition
Why are all the "great classics" lead by famed female heroines all too often about personal freedom thru means of sexual compromise leading to abject misery and ultimate demise? I realize it's an accurate depiction of culture and times, however why are Bovary and Moll Flanders the memorable matriarchs of classic literature? See my commentary on the Awakening for similar frustrations. Why aren't there more works about strong women making a difference in their own lives if not those of their families and communities? Why aren't we having young women read a work or 2 portraying a strong female who doesn't end up having an affair, committing suicided, or otherwise screwing up her own life and the lives of others as she sinks to the bottom where she inevitably belonged? Where are the strong, sentient heroines who might make feminists look slightly intelligent and/or inspirational?

Two different reviews.


"Mostly uneventful and meandering. You never achieve the state of flow you hope for, as you scratch your head looking for meaning from plot points and blocks of text that should be serving up the "best sf novel of the century".


"I read such great things about this series that I simply had to try it myself. But after slogging through the first quarter of Shadow and Claw, I just couldn't make myself keep reading. I'm sure many people enjoy the over-description, entrance and exit of minor characters, and slow plot, but I did not. The entire novel itself seemed more like some arcane, plodding stage play than like a fantasy novel, and despite re-reading sections of the book, there were so many vague references and unexplained terms that I just felt lost. Combined with the infrequent, rambling dialogue and plot that is more like a series of very short, disjointed stories, I just gave up on it and don't think I'll pick it up again. "

>>3522957
he (or she) kind of has a point though. henry miller uses the word cunt more than the pronoun "she" . he was such a fucking weirdo

I didn't really get the cookie thing. Seriously, dude--just grab some ding-dongs and move on! I think the stuff about the lady Madeline was also confusing. I read maybe fifteen pages before skimming a bunch.

>>3523077
>Seriously, dude--just grab some ding-dongs and move on
kind of seems like a prankster. still funny though

tfw no 1 star reviews for the way of kings

>The Odyssey

"Boring, full of nonsense, stupid, annoying, and just unrealistic! All the characters are selfish. Telemachus and Penelope are huge wimps, Suitors are stupid antagonists, Calypso is unrealistically dumb, Odysseus is senseless, the Gods have no motivation for ANYTHING they do, Athena randomly beautifies people for no reason whatsoever, Poseidon's a pathetic bastard, Gods are self-centered beings that require praying and sacrifice every second if someone was to go on an adventure. SELFISH SELFISH SELFISH! I really hate this book, I can't believe I had to read it for school. Why in the world does anyone think it's any good???"

Basically every review is just calling Odysseus a dick.

>>3523069
You can't really blame those people, honestly

>Didn't like this one at all. I found that McCarthy was trying to make his points too heavy-handedly. And having almost the entire play consist of one long conversation between two characters about the nature of existence--how pretentious. Perhaps if he hadn't been so direct, if he had made me work to understand what he was saying, instead of laying it out so obviously that it became banal, I would have respected what he was trying to say more. But as it is, the play was tiresome despite its length, and though I read it approximately three years ago, it still stands out in my mind as a great disappointment.

Well, I don't know, Steve. If you found this book too easy, that's your opinion. You sound a bit like a hipster, Steve.

>>3523057
lol'd

>>3523205
Those were probably some of the few sensible reviews out of all the other ones calling it misogynist and going on about how Severian is a rapist.

Who did he rape, exactly?

Catch 22
>I suffered through about 60 pages, and finally put it down. I very rarely ever leave a book unfinished.

>The author narrates and introduces us to Yossarian, who does not want to fly in the war. I get that. I get the whole catch 22 scenerio... You have to be insane to fly the plane. If you can get a dr to say you are insane, you wont have to fly. But in order to tell a dr that you are insane, this actually means you are sane. So you must continue to fly... which makes you insane. blah blah blah.

>What I couldnt get past was the author's constant bouts of Attention Deficet Disorder.... He went off on tangents, introducing a new character seemingly every paragraph, and seemed to lose his train of thought only to regain it 2 pages later.

>I couldnt take all the jumping around, and was completely lost the whole time... at times rereading the prior page thinking I missed some important tie-in somewhere....

>Am I the only one on this planet who is asking myself what heck everyone was smoking when they read this book and actually enjoyed it?

i lol'd

>Do your self a favour and burn this book.
If you're not clinically depressed now, you will be out of sheer boredom from reading this.
The author seems to have issues with his parents, namely his mother, who much like the one in this book, dumped him at a young age with his grandmother to go gallivanting around the world.
This whole book is a huge big whine disguised as fiction. From reading interviews and the like, he also seems to dislike Islam and seeing as he at one point in the novel generalises all Muslims to be like Nazi's, I don't think this is too far off his own real opinion. Added to the fact that the 'fictional' protagonists are misogynists, I'm unsure whether these opinions are a part of the fiction or the author's own opinions.
He force feeds you his own ideas of philosophy, sociology and psychology, most of which I disagree with.
Added to all this the story seems to be about the pointless lives of two men. One is obsessed with sex and the fact he isn't getting any. And the other isn't obsessed with sex and isn't getting any, but they both get some in the end.
Nothing happens. It is not a novel, it does not have a story, it does not convey anything apart from 'ideas' whatever they may be.

So do your self a favour, skip past this horrendous book and read something else.

>I will write an overly angry review of a book I don't like. It's both hilarious and, like, so true! Also, the author has mommy issues. LOL!

The only bad review to my favorite book is apparently written in Catalan and Google translate doesn't handle that well.

I was going to post some reviews for The Metamorphosis, but I found an interesting connection amongst most of them I would rather point out. To sum 90% of negative reviews up, they are either one of these sentences, rephrased:
>bugs are gross, so I didn't like it
>family were dicks, so I didn't like it
>roaches can't go to work, lol, so I didn't like it

Hah.

>>3523290

>>3522963
Gatsby sucks though. Not terrible review. Get better taste

>>3523290

>>3523168
>unrealistic

Usually reading one star reviews of my favorite things makes me either feel bad for liking it or realize how many things there were that I disliked about it.

yep, I totally agree with her

>>3523290
>what is it a metaphor for though?? why does such a kind guy get turned into a bug?

Finally! it took me months to force my way though this book. Who decides what's a classic anyway?

You killed someone... you know it, I know it and everyone else in the novel seems to know it... why did it take 600 pages to wrap the story up?

These were my favourite reviews.

>>3522470
Otherwise they wouldn't be plebs

>people posting reviews without mentioning the books the people are referring to.

>>3523359
It's feminism.

Gregor is a misogynist that turns into an insect. The point is not the insect, but how he is treated differently based on his departure from traditional masculinity. The Male privileged salesmen finally knows what it feels like to be a women in a patriarchal society.

>>3523464
Grete was the one who had to take on 'a tradition gender role', She had to clean Gregor's room, she had to bring in his daily meals. It shows the feminine role was to provide food and a clean house. The male role was to work, support the family, and to control. Kafka uses the point of view of Grete to point out the necessity of gender equality. Gradually the story shifts from Gregor's perspective to Grete's perspective. Gregor's transformation forces Grete to fill the hole left by Gregor and create her own point of view, whereas before she mindlessly obeys everyone's commands. At the beginning of the story, Grete obeys commands without refusal. She does not possess her sense of self because she never experiences the need for independence before Gregor's metamorphosis.

As Gregor slowly diminishes, Grete gains her self-confidence and forms her own opinions, because Gregor can no longer bring home the money and keep the family functioning. Taking a stand, she decides the fate of Gregor when the family can withstand the bug no longer, and she states, "'we can't go on like this. If you can't see it, I can... We have to try to get rid of it'". For once, she takes the opportunity to situate her thoughts into a plan of action, even rising above the patriarch father and challenging his opposition. With the downsized view of Gregor, Kafka reveals the power behind a once idle Grete; therefore, the removal of the unbalanced gender household allows Grete to form her own opinions and uncover her own strength, thereby defeating the oppressive patriarchy.

>>3523463
its a pleb test
you failed

>Great writing, but an absolutely terrible plot.
Stoner

I did not enjoy this book at all. Maybe it was the translation, but something tells me I wouldn't have liked it anyways. From about page 50, I was wondering when it would end. I don't think I liked any of the characters, each had something annoying, vapid or cruel about them. I sympathized with none of their situations, and most importantly despised the protagonist. Julien, who no doubt we are supposed to somewhat like, I simply hated. He was a singularly empty individual whose emotions were all over the table throughout the entire book. I could've cared less what happened to him at the end.

I feel somewhat duped for reading all 500-odd pages of this nonsense, and have little to no idea why it is considered a classic. Perhaps I did not read enough into the characters, but to be honest, it truly felt like there was not much to read into. Definitely glad it's finally finished!

>>3523502
it's the red and the black btw

>hunger games has a higher rating than the holy bible

>hunger games has a higher rating than most of shakespeare

>>3523468
This is brilliant.

The author of this book obviously didn't do his research.

The title of the book is "1984," but it might as well take place a few billion years after. The year 1984 actually was rife with punks sporting mullets and leather jackets, electronic-influenced music and terribly produced science-fiction movies. By no account was there a futuristic society involving some omniscient leader named "Big Brother." If this is a stab at Ronald Reagan then as a devoted American citizen, I am highly insulted. And it obviously takes place in the US (they all speak American English), so don't attempt to contradict me by saying it could be Communist Russia or the People's Republic of China. I wasn't in the least "challenged" by the book as all my colleagues predicted I would be; in fact my intellect was insulted by the lack of research put into this novel. Obviously this George Orwell is some punk kid out of college who wasn't even alive in the 80s and is preaching about something he did not even experience. Obviously this Orwell spent his high school years playing hooky and smoking the reefer instead of attending his History class, a utility that would have greatly benefited the writing of this novel.

>>3523554
that's obviously a troll

Sometimes I really hate the people on this planet.

>>3523545
>a local library has Hunger Games in the classics section

>>3523464
>>3523468
interdasting

Maybe there's a reason this book is usually required high school reading; it reads like it was written by a 17-year old. Someone who clearly finds himself to be hilarious, and no one ever had the heart to tell him differently.

I never felt for any of the characters, I never laughed, I never cried. In fact, half way through the book I couldn't take it anymore, so I skipped ahead to the last chapter and yet it still made sense. I'm sorry, but if nothing happens in the second half of a book to impact the ending, then something is very wrong.

I know there are a lot of people out there who think this is one of the classics and that everyone should read it, but it just doesn't hold up to any of the classics I've read thus far. Hell, it doesn't even hold up to Sheep in a Jeep.


What monster doesn't cry for Orr then fall into laughing hysterics

Are the recommendations from Goodreads reliable? I'm thinking of cataloging my library for this purpose but I'm not sure if it will pay off. I might do it anyways just for something to do but that is unlikely.


Didn't see this thread, sorry.

>>3523607
The major complain I see in that site is "I didn't sympathize with the characters".
Well, maybe the problem is yours when you can only relate to wish-fullfilling protagonists that are the best at everything they do and have no shortcomings whatsoever.

>>3523634
I've never understood why people think "the main character isn't me" is a legitimate criticism.

>>3523636
Low level narcissism.

>>3523290
I actually looked into it because I wanted to laugh. I found out why a ton of them seem to be saying the same thing, a lot are in "Lausanne English 9" it's a student group that meets in real life. So a good 15 of them clustered together seem to know each other

"Worst, Book, Ever.

For reals. I read this short "book" twice and wrote a couple of papers on it, even comparing it unfavorably to Little Women. I hated Little Women and I would still rate it higher than J.D. Salinger's crap-fest.

My reasoning for such a poor rating is simple: Catcher in the Rye has no beginning, middle, or end. Instead of a story it is a clumsy glimpse into the worthless life of the apathetic main character Holden Caulfield who leaves no mark and accomplishes nothing of value.

I can't believe it when anyone says that they sympathize with Caulfield. That he "speaks the things which they can't". Every time I hear someone gushing about Catcher in the Rye and it's nonsensical ramblings a little part of me dies.

Every time someone finishes this book and puts it down thoughtfully, tilting their head in mock understanding as they furrow their childish brows, Satan laughs and high fives J.D. Salinger amidst Hell's furious flames.

When Catcher in the Rye is read aloud backwards from finish to start, it opens up an extra-dimensional portal where Lovecraftian horrors spew endlessly into our peaceful world. When it's read aloud forwards from start to finish, people fall asleep from boredom.

Your evil twin loves Catcher in the Rye and twirls his or her's nefarious pencil thin mustache while reading it. They laugh their evil doppleganger laugh while thinking of evil ways to ruin your life thanks to J.D. Salinger.

In his early days, Salinger pulled a thorn out of a witch's foot who granted him a wish, which was to write the great American novel. Unfortunately, the witch's foul magicks were encapsulated in the book, Catcher in the Rye and Salinger hung himself in shame immediately after it's publishing.

I could literally go on and on for days like this. This book is awful and if you like it you're a putz.

I'm sorry... it's just... I'm sorry."

>>3523703
Another troll. One who thinks he's particularly clever.

>>3523618
Don't take the reviews to heart when deciding what to read.

The site is filled with people who shouldn't be allowed to review sandwiches, let alone books.

But to answer your question; yes, I find the recommendations helpful.

I have a bone to pick with Kundera and his following. People, this has got to be the most over-rated book of human history. I mean, references to infidelity alone (even infidelity that makes use of funky costumes like '50s ganster hats--the only note-and-applauseworthy aspect this book!) do NOT make for good literature, and such is The Unbearable Lightness of Being, in a nutshell. The male protaganist is, hands down, a one-dimensional and boring buffoon, while the female protaganist is lackluster and underdeveloped. This book is not but chicken soup for those obnoxious, lonely intellectuals who wish they could be playaz, and therefore admire Dr. Love's trite antics. In addition, Kundera's references to philosophy and Beethoven were clearly extracted from a cracker jack box. In conclusion, the emperor has no clothes! Kundera-following (and you are the majority), free yourselves (!), and stop pretending that this book is good.


holy fuck i'm mad

Goodreads is filled mostly with idiots, yes. The reviews can still tell you something about the books though, the actual content and style. I do cringe, however, whenever someone reads 20 pages than gives a book 1 star out of 5.

>"Fuck Pessoa."

>"Started but did not finish, far too up it's own arse."

>these reviews

Just when I thought I couldn't hate people more.

a wonderful review: very funny, and also true. Dante was a great poet, but he was also a very mean and bitter man. And hes character in the dc is really a "wuss".

>>3523043
Is that Gatsby? I hope not

>>3524455

I'm not so sure about that. True, he does punish his political enemies but actually some of the leniency he has towards certain 'sins' would be heretical at the time.

>>3523319
So edgy.