Site Theme...
Main FAQ [ baw] [ co / cog / jam / mtv / tek ] [ ck / coc / draw / writ ] [ pco / coq ] [ a / op / pkmn ] [ n ]

 Posting a reply to post #4389

File: 127165423172.jpg-(50.42KB, 545x386, 126173272840.jpg)
4389 No.4389
1.) go to
2.) look up a book you like
3.) read the bad reviews
4.) post the most ridiculous
5.) ???

Bathe in the stupidity. Let me see your rage.

1 post omitted. Last shown. Expand all images
>all of the people that worship this book should be rounded up and piled into a massive hole in the ground. the hole should then be filled with dirt and then a city the size of New York built on top. this book is not funny, entertaining, or educational in the least. it serves no purpose but to annoy and frustrate a lovely 12th grade honors english class. if you have not read the book this is my advise to you, RUN DON'T WALK TO BURN THIS BOOK AND ALL OF THE COPIES YOU CAN PUT YOUR HANDS ON.

u mad

>If you're searching for a literary example of peer pressure, look no further than Dr. Seuss's subtly horrifying "Green Eggs and Ham." The "hero" of this tale, Sam-I-Am, spends the entirety of the book trying to force green eggs and ham upon a nameless skeptic. The "villain" turns down the offer several times, but Sam-I-Am persists, going so far as to follow him home in order to make him try the green eggs and ham. He uses several textbook methods of peer pressure, including the famous, "You'll never know that you don't like it if you don't try it." He refuses to respect the man's right to say no, and badgers him incessantly until he caves under the pressure.

>What disgusts me most about the end of the story is that once the man tries the green eggs and ham, he loves them and is simply another addition to a pool of addicts. Dr. Seuss's tragic allegory for the rising drug use among young people that plagued his time period is brilliant, but certainly not appropriate for young children. Sam-I-Am is too easily twisted to become a hero, opening the antagonist's mind to new things, rather than a metaphor for Satan as I believe was originally intended.

>In conclusion, do not read this book to your children unless you are willing to explain to them that people like Sam-I-Am should be avoided at all costs, and that they should never follow the path of the story's antagonist.


>This book is SOOOOOOOO annoying! What's the deal with all the rhyming? That got on my last nerve. I can't believe this book is a children's "classic". This book does for childrens' books what Jim Jones did for children's drinks (kool-aid, that is). If you want a GREAT children's book, try "Atlas Shrugged" the pop-up book by Ayn Rand.

Okay... this one has to be a troll, right?

>i am giving this one star as I don't like the passage, and worse, the illustration : "and some are very, very, bad. Why are they sad and glad and bad? I do not know. Go ask your dad." The scene is a big red fish (mother or father is not known) with a scared little fish, the adult fish hand it up toward the face of the little fish with little lines to show action as if the child fish is going to get slapped across the face. Another child fish is watching and smiling as if to say "ha, ha, you are getting in trouble now".

>I grew up with Dr. Suess. I also grew up with capital punishment, being hit by my parents as a common punishment method. Now that I am a parent I've decided to teach and instruct my children rather than just issuing punishment by the method of physically hitting them. Call me PC or whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me what you think of me. I am speaking from my heart. I realize this book was written in times when hitting children was seen as the norm in America as a normal punishment method. But times have changed. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics has a policy against hitting children as a form of punishment. I also don't like the old-fashioned labeling of a child as bad if they did one bad thing. The action they did was bad, but the child as a person is not bad. Any modern parenting book will explain that children should not be labeled as bad because it helps develop poor self-esteem.

>I like the rest of the book and decided to just rip out that page!


>This book is pure garbage. It is not really about exploring the genuine inacurracies in American monuments and markers (perhaps an interesting topic). It is really about James Loewen trying to force his far left political views and outlook on others. Many of Loewen's claims of inaccuracy are actually debateable and Loewen is simply taking sides and proclaiming the far left view to be true. Sometimes Loewen's complaints have nothing to do with inaccuracies at all, just Loewen complaining that whites or southerners honor some politically incorrect person or event. I seriously wonder, after having read Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique, if their isn't an ethnic diminsion to Loewen's hostility to white Americans and Southerners. If any historical sites should be removed, I would recommend removing a particular museum in Washington that claims to show events that Americans really had nothing to do with and that certain segments of the population want to constantly focus on.

>If any historical sites should be removed, I would recommend removing a particular museum in Washington that claims to show events that Americans really had nothing to do with and that certain segments of the population want to constantly focus on.

...Holy Shit.

The only thing slaughtered was my love of books 1/5

>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.

Found this right after it. Oh wow.

>This without a doubt ranks up there with the WORST books I have ever read. Pointless, poorly written, and incredibly dull.

Wait for it...
If you want some great writing, try Ayn Rand.

File: 127172439253.jpg-(58.49KB, 812x887, 1557e127bf5a35e8b2c66d05497da85e63759d52.jpg)
>Ayn Rand.


> Possibly the worst book I've ever read.,

>I wrote "possibly" because I'm only 2/3 of the way through. The only reason I continue to read it is because I keep thinking, "Surely, based on over 2,000 5-star reviews, something MUST happen to pull this book's fat out of the fire soon." The plot is thin, the characters are cardboard, the dialog would be laughable if it weren't so terrible that even laughing at it gives it too much credit, and I don't know what drove Card to have the 6-year-old boys running around naked half the time, talking about kissing each other's butts and how many pubic hairs they have between them, but he may be eligible for sex-offender registration based soley on this book. I've read there's a scene coming up where a bunch of naked little boys beat another naked little boy to death in the shower. Is this a work of science fiction or a description of a pedophilic snuff film? Also, Ender's genius is constantly hyped, but it seems like he's only a "genius" because every other member of the military is borderline retarded. "Hey, guys, in zero gravity, the terms 'up' and 'down' are relative! I'm Isaac freakin' Newton!" Seriously? No one in the long history of space travel had figured that out before Ender? Seriously?

>Sheesh, this thing better have a good payoff, or I'm putting it in a paper bag full of dog feces and leaving it flaming on Card's doorstep.

>One of the worste books of all time, I feel.
>Actually... I couldnt make it past page 50. I usually give all books 100 pages, but I just could not stand it. It is written with a slight yoda like way. I just could not stand it.
>Though, the movies arent really all that bad though.

What? Yoda like way? What does that even mean?!

Not phrase sentences in the right order you must.

>It's truly mind boggling how this book got the reputation it now has. I finally read it after being encouraged by so many of my friends who considered it genius. Simply put, the writing is immature and pointless, full of "craziness for its own sake" with a few lame attempts at cultural criticism thrown in to try to give it some legitimacy. The only thing I can say for this book is that perhaps it was somewhat original when it was written, but that hardly qualifies it as great literature, or even as literature. If it weren't so horrendously overrated and made no further pretentions than to be a mildy amusing story, it might have found a semi-respectable place in some obscure niche as comedy writing, but as it has been trumped all around as some groundbreaking example of an insightful cross-breed of journalism and literature, I can't bestow upon it any higher title than "Garbage." I suggest reading this only in that it is necessary to understand the infantile minds that cling fervidly to its pages. You will learn something about our culture, yes. What you will learn is how terribly the idea of literature has been degraded that such a book could be so praised by supposedly literate people.

Sentence construction is an art that extends beyond your high school English teacher's boundaries of correct or incorrect. It's necessary, at a basic level, to ensure that a book's readable, but it can be also used as a tool, among other devices, to enrich an author's message. Stephenson's sentences in Snow Crash are so clunky, top-heavy, and distracting that it gave me a headache. The book is further weighed down by poor humor and cheap jabs.

I tried hard to like Snow Crash. I thought that maybe if I can get beyond the writing style, I'd find myself immersed into a whole new world of ideas. But after a good bit of effort on my part, I had to give up. Consider this sentence from the opening chapter, which occurs during an action sequence involving high-speed driving:

"He knows that when he gets to the place on CSV-5 where the bottom corner of the billboard is obscured by the pseudo-Gothic stained-glass arches of the local Reverend Wayne's Pearly Gates franchise, it's time for him to get over into the right lanes where the retards and the bimbo boxes poke along, random, indecisive, looking at each passing franchise's driveway like they don't know if it's a threat or a promise."

Long sentences aren't inherently bad, this one's just awfully constructed. Structurally, the bulk of the sentence revolves around the "'s time" construction. The "when" leaves the reader anticipating the next clause which will, presumably, complete the thought. But while we're waiting for the completion, we're given an elaborate description of a view of just the corner of a billboard sign. The description is given merely to add a flare of style, since it contains no content that is meaningful to the reader. All of which would be fine if the description were more precise, but instead we're given a lengthy description of these arches and the unnecessarily long name of some irrelevant franchise. Had the sentence just ended there, it would merely have been a terrible sentence. Characteristic of Stephenson's writing, the sentence doesn't end there, elevating it from terrible to excruciating, as the next clause - intended to complete the "when..." construction - contains an even wordier description of the sort of drivers in the next lane. Not to mention the clumsy "it's time for him to get over into the next lane", which could easily be swapped for something more efficient, along the lines of maybe "he needs to switch lanes" - or just with anything that avoids a superfluous "it's", which immediately takes your mind out of the action by introducing the neutral and meaningless universal subject "it" smack in the middle of the sentence. Redundant with the previous clause, is another "where" construction, which is then used as an excuse to dive down a second whole rabbit hole of unnecessary description and detail. Needless to say, the poking and looking actions of passengers in the neighboring lane does a fine job of burying any muddled intentions that the sentence might have had under a thick layer of fresh concrete.

All of which, mind you, is simply a thought in the character's head (i.e., "He knows that when"), and is occurring during what's supposed to be a high-speed action sequence. And all of which begs the question, how can you possibly be emerged in the action as you slide down numerous tangential clauses, or how could care about the technical intention of the sentence (i.e., what he knows) when you're thrown wordy proper nouns, and how could you simultaneously care in the least about billboard signs and retards driving cars, all at the same time?

Labyrinthine sentences like these aren't speed bumps on the road, they're 6-inch round potholes and roadblocks. And Snow Crash is filled with them on every page. In them, Stephenson throws practically everything at the reader hoping he or she might bite onto something; you might bite onto pieces of it, but it's at the greater expense of losing everything else along with blocking any possibility of literary flow. No matter how hard I tried my mind was kept at an uncomfortable distance from the text as it stumbled over mindless clauses, unnecessary elaborations, and adjectives that were more distracting than descriptive. It all resulted in a gray unmemorable mess.

It's not that Stephenson has bad ideas, it's that he can't effectively get them out on paper. Purchasing an audio version of the book might help, so that someone else has to read the sentences, but it's doesn't make up for the fact that the book's dreadfully written.

I was annoyed by other stylistic techniques throughout the book as well. Curse words are sprinkled liberally throughout the narrative to pointless effect. They're used in place of more descriptive adjectives. Perhaps Stephenson used them to give the book a pulpy feel, but even good pulp consists of more than just four-letter words.

And lastly Stephenson's humor often borders more on cheap than witty. The example that sticks out the most in my mind is his slang term - "bimbo-boxes" - for minivans. I don't own a minivan, or particularly sympathize with those who do, it's just a very superficial brand of humor - a cheap-shot at modern society, not particularly well thought-out or clever. Certainly a timeless piece of literature - even if it's farcical - should have higher standards than calling minivan drivers bimbos merely in passing. There are bigger literary fish to fry.

This sort of humor pervades the whole book. Sometimes it serves a minor plot or thematic function, but more often it's just mentioned in passing, often replacing qualitative character- or world-building. If that's really what you're looking for then there are plenty liberal political/social commentary books, or go to a leftist protest, or check out a Michael Moore film. Just because it's in a sci-fi book doesn't automatically give this sort of humor more merit. Anyone can do it.

I'm sure that there are great ideas in the book - had I read beyond the first eighth of the book, I probably would've come across more of them - but it got to the point where I couldn't imagine how they'd justify the work of clawing through grammatical jungles under the guise of "sentences" and elongated portions of fluff.

All I managed to get one one really uninspired troll who couldn't even make up a reason, one person who wasn't good with the internet and complained that her copy was mildewy, and one person who gave it one star but ended up admitin that it was a good book.
Out of 103 reviews.

>The books have super detailed descriptions of the geography of the places, which made the reading way too tedious. Besides, heroes are supposed to act like heroes, not like cowards. And that IMO is what Frodo is: a coward forever denying his mission. I could not finish it, not even out of curiosity.

My word.

>The Lord of the Rings are good books I myself liked the Hobbit very much when I was a child. Lots of people think Lord of the Rings are the greatest books in the world and that most start reading these first. I personly think The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings are children books I mean come on with the simple plot and there isn't a great deal of action in it. There's no sex or cussing to rate it a adult book not like I'm saying that akes a good book but if you ask me these books are for children.

Okay, now you're not even trying.

>I am a big fan of fantasy books and roleplaying games. For years people have been telling me that I MUST read Lord of the Rings. I have always had doubts, for two reasons. First, I saw the old cartoon movies, which put me to sleep. Second, I hate Halflings/Hobbits. My reasoning is simple: I find the idea of short, chubby, jolly people that love to eat, sing, and sleep to be unheroic. Yet somehow, this series wants to make them heroic.

Well, the movie is coming out, and many people say this book is great, so I picked it up.

So far, it is everything I feared it would be.

I have read 130 pages filled with hobbit lameness, and the total cumulation of actual events could have easily been written in 20 pages, with a decent level of description and atmosphere. There is at least one superfluos poem or song every 3 pages that usually begins with "O!", and has a minimum of 5 more exclamation points throughout. I hate cheesy poetry about mundane acts, and I hate it when people overuse exclamation points. I must also criticize Tolkein's use of misspellings as "flavor". If he wants to make up new words, and explain them using footnotes at the bottom of the page, that is great. I feel it adds flavor, and shows that the world differs from our own. Simply misspelling "wagon" doesn't cut it, and by his own admission, irritated the hell out of his edditors (Look! Flavor! O!).

I desperately want to drench this book in oil, light it on fire, and throw it into oncoming traffic. The problem is, I will then be criticised with "you haven't read the whole book, you are judging it on such a small portion of it". Well, it is one thing to put a book down after the first chapter, or the first 10 pages. I figure that within 130 pages, I know if I am
interested in where the book is going. The idea of the hobbits wandering into the evil forest and being saved by some godlike being in their first "adventure" reminds me much of High School D&D. "Everything has to be amazing and spectacular, lets make them meet the eternal spirit of the earth on the first adventure! Lets have them stumble into an unescapable doom, and not allow their own wiles to get them out! Instead, let's introduce my new all powerful NPC to save their butts! O!" The only difference is that my friend Mike and I would have made an NPC that was a badass of some sort (I'm not saying that makes it better, it is just the only difference), instead of a fruitcake that sang songs about picking lillies off of the wallpaper. Oh, and did I mention that he is short, jolly, and likes to eat?

I am torn. I don't know if I want to force myself through several more hours of suffering in order to give it another chance, or just toss the thing and assume that the movie will take that 130 pages and condense it into the 5 minutes it deserves. I certainly will be happy not to see any "O!"s in the movie.


>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!

*rubs temples*


I could understand (not agree, mind you) everything up to this point.

> 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!

After that, I realized they were trolling.

>This book is a mess, and when one reads it, you can almost hear the self-conscious rattling of the author and the genre he's trying to "expand" but just fails on almost all levels. Here is a world where all sorts of fantastic technology exist, yet things like a telephone or radio are unheard of. The language and metaphors are cumbersome, and author uses every chance he gets to use "flesh" like that makes things more terrifying.

>Also, I would add that this is more of a Fantasy novel than anything else. If you want something well-written without 1-dimensional characters, try Dan Simmon's "Hyperion" series.

Someone doesn't know what steampunk is.

>Ok. What is there not to like about this masterpiece? Where do I begin. This book is about a gross booger-picking scientist who eats ham sandwiches and does drugs and has a scandalous affair with an "art-iste" AND for all that he still can't get his own news story on TMZ. He is soooo unlikeable x 1million that he makes you think "Oh OctoMom isn't so bad..." Seriously. He is the ultimate people-user and selfish and has the morality of a 5 year old. The whole story is about him chasing down these big gross killer bugs ***yes you heard that right***, and he also drags along this journalist who at first you are all "Oh she is like Rachel Maddow but quirky like Rachel Weisz, but then your realize she's all "WAAAA THINGS DON"T GO MY WAY...I will join Perez Hilton Scientist and devote my life to becoming a GHOSTBUSTER!! as if this makes ANY sense!) Then there is also Big Bird who is all "Can You Tell Me How to Get How To Get To Sesame Street?" and then Perez Hilton is all "LOL oh wait China D'Mie'ville wants to SHOVE down the readers throat his ham-fisted ramblings like um hi China today's reader has already survived CLOVERFIELD and VIRAL ADVERTISING so society is at "Does Amy Winehouse shave her upper lip?" and "Do Jon & Kate Plus 8 deserve another season?" not "What about the third trimester?" or "Should we have an intervention for Dana Plato?" LOL U r SO junior high. Another problem is this book took 6 million years long to read and made me not be afraid of death existentially because at least I will be rotting in the ground and not wasting my time reading this book. Also I wish everything bad that happened to all the characters in the book happened to Perez Hilton Scientist and Bitter Journalist because at first you are like "Ok I will go along with this" but then you realize You + Reading This Book = Waiting for Godot and excuse me there is better characterization in old Smurf cartoons at least Gargamel made sense and was over in 30 minutes and Smurfette was Deepak Chopra and all oh well bad things happen to good people, and not WAAAA like these dumb characters. Seriously, you want this book to be good after page four hundred and whatever but then you realize you're that stupid girl from the bar who gave it up to this author on the first date, and now you're all "Call me?" and ha jokes on you it was pure booty call. Shame. Ha ha Neil Gaiman wrote a good review for this book like he never says "This is SO DEEP!" Please. Oh yes there is also a TRANSFORMER in the book! Good job ha ha I am glad to see Optimus Prime busting out into literature but oh well they already made the movie so once again sorry *yawn*

Okay, this is just a big block of words that makes no sense.

The rest of the negative reviews are either, "This is too gross," "The descriptions deviate from the plot too much," or "I cannot take giant killer bugs seriously."

Same. I can consent that it's a tough read, but using the phrase "jazz up" is typically a red flag that whoever uttered it should best be ignored.

And the "no real plot" and "robotic dialogue", all I can say is...well, Yeah! Beowulf was the first of its kind. It's taken centuries of refinement to get to where we are now.

> literarily
I can't figure out if they meant to say "literary" or "literally". Also, the "review" was obviously a troll once you get past like the second sentence. He just started meandering around looking for things that sounded educated. I mean... the descriptions are too Hemingway? Beowulf? That immediately got a "not sure if srs" reaction from me.

>I can't figure out if they meant to say "literary" or "literally".

I thought it was a made-up word at first, but it turns out it's legit.

File: 127222946841.jpg-(10.58KB, 432x323, Bull.jpg)

I swear, you people are looking for bopoks I love and finding the reviews that are MOST likely to piss me off.

I was trying to find a really ridiculous review of Camus, but some were rational, some were dumb, but not ridiculous, and some just missed the point.

File: 127223001631.jpg-(16.68KB, 210x213, bonkers_lolwut.jpg)
> A Whale of A Bore
>Many of the reviewers seem to enjoy this. I however, think its one of the longest, most boring works of art ever created. It starts off fantastic, but then out of nowhere it goes into this dull drum solo. Yawn. Check out, Immigrant Song, much better.

...It's kinda true.

>some were rational, some were dumb, but not ridiculous, and some just missed the point.

How appropriate.

Oh, I know. What's hilarious is that he seems to not realize he's reviewing a book.


You leave Camus alone!

...There isn't a bad review of Redliners!

That may be the joke.

It seems phrased in a way that it's not serious.

>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.

>A good read, perhaps, for the likes of the 42nd president of the USA.


>Dorian Gray is not a kid book by any stretch of the imagination. No swordfights, no prince and princess, no happy ending. Dorian Gray is a very dark work with drug use, murder, and depression. One of the main themes is homosexuality. It shocked and outraged the public when it was first realeased. It is scary. It scared me . Frankly, I doubt very much that many children would appreciate this book. Colleges study this book in literature classes. That's not to say no child would not get stuff from this book, but the few children that could would probably be just fine with the original work. Folks, stick to Treasure Island and White Fang for the kids. And if you want something kinda spooky, try Phantom of the Opera. Save Dorian Gray for later.

I think this guy should review something by the Marquis de Sade.



>A good read, perhaps, for the likes of the 42nd president of the USA.
...Bill Clinton? Wut.

Now we know how Bill kept his good looks!

>This book actually sucked, big time. I was forced to read it. An illiterate six year old can write better than Burch. If you want a good read look elsewhere. This book bites!!!!!!!!!!!!

>I thought that They Cage The Animals at Night was a very boring book and I would not recommend it for kids. The reason that I thought it was boring is it was a very slow moving book and it went on and on about the smallest things. It's a book about a boy whose mother keeps putting him in orphanages and bad things keep happening to him when he goes there. I prefer sci-fi and action books.

>This book is horrible. The story is intresting, but it becomes lost benath a style that is both immature and drab. It is clearly written by someone without any training in creative writing. I do not understand what the prevous reviewer saw in this book.
Only three bad reviews? Not to bad.

>I personally don't read that many books, but this is one of the worst books I ever read. First, they're are too many characters. This book has too many characters that I can't remember even one of them in my head. They include many minor characters that nobody cares so you get confused about it. Second, it has too many mini-stories. It has lots of short stories that doesn't relate to any of the other stories and they are usually pretty boring. Third this is none sense. It doesn't have a major theme or anything and it's just talking about air force men being board of the war and just being crazy. It's like writing every detail of your every day life. I cannot believe that it saids on the behind that it is one of the greatest American literature and I would definitely not recommend to anyone.

Truly a master literary critic.

>Since I didn't like this book it is guaranteed that they would not put my comment on the web site. This book just tries too hard to be funny without any attempt to build on the storyline and the characters. Unfortunately this was twenty bucks I won't get back. I would like to beg anyone planning to actually read this book to not, one of the most absurd things was attempted in this novel and it failed miserably: to look at the lighter side of war.

>look at the lighter side of war.

Wow. This guy certainly captured the spirit of the book. A+

File: 127280661498.jpg-(28.14KB, 600x335, 1272403139733.jpg)
>Don't even THINK about allowing a child to read this - or even a teen lost in his own "goth" moment. Connolly has reached far into the earth and pulled up homosexuality, erotic thoughts, murder, gore - any evil thing possible to put a poll of black around the reader and then has the nerve to charge $16.00 for his own perversion. It's been said that if an irishman was a boomerang he wouldn't come home, he would just cry and whine and write stories about why he wanted to come home. This is what this melancholy, dark soul has done in this book. My advice to you is "don't read" and my advice to Connolly is "seek help immediately" --- what a distasteful, loathsome tome!

File: 127282935217.jpg-(34.83KB, 440x580, lolponies.jpg)
>I had to read this book for my english teacher at my high school. I finished the book 3 weeks late, and the only reason I read it in the first place was because my teacher said read it or fail. Looking back I wish I would have just taken the zero, cause I failed anyway. If you have the choice for God's sake take the 0.

The first part of the review is dumb enough, but the last line is was seals the deal.

>They should re-name this book Retard on a Ranch.

File: 127285581640.png-(257.45KB, 349x438, blarg.png)
>The audience would probably give this book the same review that I did if not worse. I found myself having to go back and think about what I was reading not something that I have to do when I am into a book and reading contently. If you ever pick up this book make sure not to put it down because I am afraid that you might not want to pick it back up. There is no way in my opinion that anyone under the age of eighteen would enjoy this book or even pick it up.

>The only reason that I opened it was because I saw the word "Death" in the title.

>>It's been said that if an irishman was a boomerang he wouldn't come home, he would just cry and whine and write stories about why he wanted to come home. This is what this melancholy, dark soul has done in this book.
But...The Irish whining about how they want to come home is some of their best art.

>I recently took up the hobby of reading "classics" instead of teenage dramas or mysterys. 1984 was second on my list. But now I'm left wondering why is this book a classic? This book was descriptively crude with its love affair and prostitute, redundant with its thoughts and routine, and overall dull. I admit that this book did have a good message and was thoroughly enforced from the beginning to end.
>However, thats all that happened. It was just thoughts of a sad man with perverse and suspicouis thoughts. The main character constantly dwelled on how horrible everything was and eventually how he was going to fight against it. But never did, unless you count having an affair and writing in a journal or buying an old paperweight.
The first time I read 1984 I was 14 years old. I had picked it up on a whim, but ended up reading the whole thing in a single day. Up until then it was the single most engrossing book I had ever read.
>At times the story would pick up, and just as quickly as it picked up it drastically fell back into the continuous complaints of Winston.
>1984 is well written. I guess, there were quantities of complex words tied in with a new language created within the book (Newsspeak). Keep your dictionary handy.
"It was too hard for me!"
>The chararcters also lacks personality. They were so 2 deminsional.
You usually read teenage dramas. Your opinions in this matter are all nil and void.
>Overall it was impossibly hard to follow, and paragraphs could be skipped and you wouldnt miss a thing.
>Not to mention that tragic ending. No steps were made toward anything! It stops about were it left off except Winston loves BB and loves his torturor.
>This book was an overrated classic and a big fat FLUB!
This guy is cracked in the fucking head.

File: 127293681931.png-(183.75KB, 1024x1024, Awesome-1.png)
>Overall it was impossibly hard to follow, and paragraphs could be skipped and you wouldnt miss a thing.

>skip paragraphs
>too hard to follow

> As far as the mechanics, one cannot hold anything against the work. Nor will I comment on anything further than the first chapter, which I could not complete. I found it filled with actual witchery and sorcerel realism. It became a threat to my soul and poisoned my imagination. The rest of the work, I imagine, is filled with the demonic. Christian, if you own a copy, do not sell it, (spreading the evil) rather destroy it like I did, and boldly tearing it to peices lest it weave its spell over you.
(I did however enjoy the tv mini-series, in which, interestingly, her wizards seemed more like our priests).

I would like to convince myself that this is a joke, but my faith in humanity is not that strong...

File: 12737329196.png-(41.34KB, 736x736, hurpdedurp.png)
Every single word in this review, man.

Lol, religion.

>I couldn't decide whether the characters and plot were clichéd because Ms Christie "wrote the book" on murder mysteries, or because the book was populated with badly drawn characters trapped in a clichéd and obvious plot.

>I did decide. It's the latter.

>I can understand why Agatha Christie has sold over 2 billion novels world wide - she writes to the lowest common denominator.

Calling it now - guy's an English teacher

File: 127956576191.png-(8.89KB, 300x300, dismay.png)
>I know people will downvote me like crazy for this review, so shame on me for being honest, I guess.

>I was disappointed with this book. I had borrowed it from the library recently and tried sitting through it. I mainly borrowed it because of all the praise it got and the amount of hype surrounding it. I do enjoy a little "brain popcorn" now and then, so I'd enjoy it.

>I didn't.

>First off, the writing here is garbage. Actually, it's every bit as bad as Twilight. The worst crime with the writing is that, like the aforementioned Twilight saga, Heller does more telling than showing. Yeah, the gun is across the room. you don't need to tell us that. How about "Clevinger was surprised to discover the inexorable hatred of the Action board, which was the strangest of many things happening". That is way better than, paraphrasing here, "There were many strange things happening. The strangest of all was the inexorable hatred of the Action Board. Clevinger was surprised to discover it." There are more examples of that throughout the book, and they are WAY longer than the one I provided. There are several run-on sentences and examples of bad grammar, which are annoying. And the dialogue is just "shoot me in the head" awful. Further, he abuses such tags as "He lied" or "He questioned", which gets repetitive.

>The plot? Was there even any plot? I could hardly distinguish one. Just random events happening. Also, the book tries to make itself like a movie by jumping around from character to character when it comes to certain things, something I hate. The names are stupid too- Major Major Major Major? Colonel Korn? I get that this book is meant to be a satire, but those names are just childish. Hell, even Family Guy is more creative with the names.

>OK guys, I am now ready to be crucified for my negative review. Hammer away at the nails.

>"brain popcorn"
>... every bit as bad as Twilight...
>... those names are just childish. Hell, even Family Guy is more creative with the names.
>>complaining about lack of plot
>>bawww I'll be crucified I am such a martyr

What the fuck I don't even. Oh my God, he's trying to sound all smart and shit. There's no plot because it was a novelty at the time due to Catcher In The Rye 10 years before Catch-22 came out. Plot isn't supposed to be the focus. The names are supposed to be childish. It's juxtaposition.


Askal you never told us what book that is.


Oops sorry, meant to put Catch-22 in the title field.


Major Major Major Major.

I tried looking at a few of the bad reviews for Discworld books, but most of them were either complaints about the audiobook or they fell to the Final Fantasy "This one isn't my favorite of the series so it sucks" syndrome. Nothing all that rageworthy.

> threw book away after reading 500 pages

>When I'll put a book in the trash rather than donate it, then I don't feel right about passing it along.
It starts out okay, then it gets a little slow, then it gets disgusting. After that I don't know.
I'm just guessing, but I think it got the Pulitzer prize for political correctness.

Main FAQ [ baw] [ co / cog / jam / mtv / tek ] [ ck / coc / draw / writ ] [ pco / coq ] [ a / op / pkmn ] [ n ]
0.027811050415039 (0.03 seconds )