DOSTOEVSKY - NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND
"By today's standards, his technical ability to write is horrible ... The writing, to say the least, is amateurish by even the lowest standard. If this were to be written today, it would be patronized by publishers and (if it even made it to publication) by critics for the silly use of language. There is not a single technical description in the entire novel, and sentence structure is 5th grade Essay Contest at best. Are we really supposed to believe this man of intelligence and 'high consciousness' can't write any better than the average 10-year-old? Some will argue that the writing is intentionally bad to show the mental decay of the Underground Man. This argument may be valid, except that in the sections before the Underground Man's mental trepidation are displayed the writing is even worse ... While some of the ideas are cute (though whiney), nothing in this entire section reaches an intelligence level above common sense. This isn't a book you learn something from. This isn't a book that causes you to think about the depth of meaning. This isn't even a character study, really ... I consider it relevant too. To kids in fifth grade. If you're older than that, and this is still insightful to you, I am insulating your intelligence."
"First of all, with a name like 'Fyodor Dostoyevsky' how in the world can a guy get published? Perhaps he shouldn't be. That is my opinion."
ROBERT BROWNING - POEMS
"I feel that poetry may be considered 'wack' by anyone born after 1970"
HEMINGWAY - THE SUN ALSO RISES
"If it wasn't for my self-diagnosed partial OCD I most likely would have have given up part way through and thrown this book in the trash, but as it stands I forced myself to finish it"
WOOLF - A ROOM OF ONE'S OWN
"does anyone really care boo hoo cry me a river better yet a lake put some stones in your pockets and then walk into it. oh thats right thats exactly what she did.
so was it really worth all the complaining."
AUSTEN - PRIDE AND PREJUDICE
"Pretty much a shot for shot rip off of the West Side Story, just based in the early 1800s."
SPINOZA - ETHICS
"After reading Spinoza's supposedly great work, I couldn't help but think about the things he told me regarding God, or say, the universe. After constant pondering, I began to come to my own conclusion that most of Spinoza's propositions in Ethics are completely absurd. One of these propositions, that 'God exists, is everything, and is all thoughts' (yes, even the thought that's the opposite of that thought) makes no sense to me. For if it were not absurd, then thinking 'God doesn't exist, is not everything, and is not all thoughts' would be true as well, which totally goes against Spinoza's proposition on God. He also proposes that everything is infinite and that nothing is finite. But what about the size of my arm? How can that be infinite if it does not go out infinitely, say compared to, the distance of light? Spinoza then claims that it's the imagination or distinction of things that makes things finite. But according to Spinoza, nothing is finite. So how can the imagination make something finite if the finite doesn't exist? Again, the more I think about what he says in this book, the more absurd it becomes. I can tell you countless more, but I don't want to bore you. Now I'm giving this review 2 out of 5 stars because I do believe this book is very well organized and very well translated. Other than that, I can't see how this book can help clear my mind from any doubts it has already given me."
WITTGENSTEIN - ON CERTAINTY
"Wittgenstein was a man who despised all things metaphysical and spiritual. He fancied himself a no-nonsense objectivist who would not be hoodwinked by false religious promises or tricked into seeing intangible ghosts ... Wittgenstein's solipsism has spiraled out of control and taken on a life of its own. For him the self is everything; all so-called objective entities spring from the subjective self, leaving us with no real objctive reality or atomic facts at all. All we are left with is Wittgenstein, the self-appointed possessor, owner, and sovereign monarch of the known universe. None of us exist unless Wittgenstein invites us into his little world, and we cease to exist the moment we exit his field of vision. I, for one, take exception to this. Hey Wittgenstein: - I exist - get used to it - I'm here to stay - you cannot expel me from the universe - the world does not revolve around you!"
FEYERABEND - AGAINST METHOD
"I believe those remarks could be summarized more concisely if he had said 'I Paul Feyerabend am an idiot'. I love philosophy but hate philosophers because very little philosophy comes from professional philosophers, it comes from scientists and mathematicians. Every time I think I’m being too hard on philosophers somebody mentions a person like Feyerabend and I remember why I dislike them so much."
DANTE - THE DIVINE COMEDY
"'Twixt? Isn't that a candy bar? I'm going o'er there, back to Dr. Seuss! Back where I can read Withouten all these extraordinarily outdated words!"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Alexander Pope - An Essay on Criticism
"Essay on Criticism = awful. Snotty, hypocritical, poorly written, and infuriating. Justifies everything horrible that has ever been said about Pope. After an Essay on Criticism I was too afraid to read the rest of the book - apparently Pope has multiple personalities and I didn't want to encounter the megalomaniac side again."
"I feel as though the verse hurts the content."
"This essay is also in verse, and quite frankly, it gets in the way."
"The entire essay is in verse. His thoughts are that it made it more powerful. My thoughts are that it obscured his message"
"I feel as though the verse hurts the content."
"This essay is also in verse, and quite frankly, it gets in the way."
"The entire essay is in verse. His thoughts are that it made it more powerful. My thoughts are that it obscured his message"
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Dante - The Divine Comedy IV
"'Twixt? Isn't that a candy bar? I'm going o'er there, back to Dr. Seuss! Back where I can read Withouten all these extraordinarily outdated words! If I were more into poetry I believe I would have loved to read this book, but...."
"A struggle to read, I feel like it would have read a lot better in the original Latin."
"I wanted to read or listen to it in Latin even though I don't know Latin. I found a recording by Librivox that I downloaded and listened to.
My wife though it was silly to listen to it in a language that I don't know. As I began to listen to it, I felt like I only knew perhaps a dozen words in Latin. But as I strove to understand what I was hearing, I have recognized enough words that my recognition vocabulary seems more like 100 words."
"I can not look beyond its catholic propaganda preached by an Italian drunkard who ultimately killed himself."
"a comedy uses common vernacular and tragedy uses high language. funny how common vernacular back then sounds so cryptic today"
"Dante's Divine Comedy is the worst book that I have read in my life, and that means a lot, because I also have read 'Twilight', well at least tried the first 50 pages ... it is of no importance today, it can give no joy to the reader, and the ideas expressed in the book are rare, old-fashioned and sometimes stupid. Overall, don't waste your time reading the Divine Comedy"
"Why did I even read this? Because I read Dan Brown's Inferno, which is based on this book. And because it's on Book Riot's 100 books to be well-read list.
This is a so called classic. I did not find it sensational or even that interesting, despite it being about hell. It was basically the same thing over and over: Dante (the narrator) goes with Virgil (his guide) to a section of hell, and in that section, dead people are being punished. He stops and talks to one of these sinners, and discovers their name and what they did to deserve their punishment. He moves on, and repeat. For something that had a lot of influence, this book is pretty tedious."
"when I read it almost 10 years ago, I HATED this book. Talking about circles of hell. I felt like I was in a circle of hell trying to get through this book."
"This book is the Journey of Dante Aligheri and his Journey through the 9 circles of hell. Each Circle contains diffrent sinners and as Dante goes deeper in, it'll get worst. Dante goes through hell, and when he gets out, he'll try desperately to find his long lost love Blanche."
"I would like to give Dante`s Hell , tow Stars for putting Muhanned in the ninth gulf of hell , because this is the place he deserve :D"
"A struggle to read, I feel like it would have read a lot better in the original Latin."
"I wanted to read or listen to it in Latin even though I don't know Latin. I found a recording by Librivox that I downloaded and listened to.
My wife though it was silly to listen to it in a language that I don't know. As I began to listen to it, I felt like I only knew perhaps a dozen words in Latin. But as I strove to understand what I was hearing, I have recognized enough words that my recognition vocabulary seems more like 100 words."
"I can not look beyond its catholic propaganda preached by an Italian drunkard who ultimately killed himself."
"a comedy uses common vernacular and tragedy uses high language. funny how common vernacular back then sounds so cryptic today"
"Dante's Divine Comedy is the worst book that I have read in my life, and that means a lot, because I also have read 'Twilight', well at least tried the first 50 pages ... it is of no importance today, it can give no joy to the reader, and the ideas expressed in the book are rare, old-fashioned and sometimes stupid. Overall, don't waste your time reading the Divine Comedy"
"Why did I even read this? Because I read Dan Brown's Inferno, which is based on this book. And because it's on Book Riot's 100 books to be well-read list.
This is a so called classic. I did not find it sensational or even that interesting, despite it being about hell. It was basically the same thing over and over: Dante (the narrator) goes with Virgil (his guide) to a section of hell, and in that section, dead people are being punished. He stops and talks to one of these sinners, and discovers their name and what they did to deserve their punishment. He moves on, and repeat. For something that had a lot of influence, this book is pretty tedious."
"when I read it almost 10 years ago, I HATED this book. Talking about circles of hell. I felt like I was in a circle of hell trying to get through this book."
"This book is the Journey of Dante Aligheri and his Journey through the 9 circles of hell. Each Circle contains diffrent sinners and as Dante goes deeper in, it'll get worst. Dante goes through hell, and when he gets out, he'll try desperately to find his long lost love Blanche."
"I would like to give Dante`s Hell , tow Stars for putting Muhanned in the ninth gulf of hell , because this is the place he deserve :D"
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
August Strindberg - Miss Julie
"That was awful! This was definitely the worst play I have ever and probably will ever read."
"Miss Julie is a short play written by August Strindberg. I think that after the author wrote this book, they should have forever stopped writing. Everything about it is dumb. It is basically about the counts daughter, Julie, who is so 'scandalous' that she just HAS to seduce her fathers valet. This whole play could of been less of a waste of my time if she just wasn't a prostitute. I gotta give it to the man Jean though, he put her in her place. He twisted her mind with tales of love, passion, and dreams. Then crushed her dreams of running away with the snap of his finger. I was happy the play ended how it did. So that bratty girl finally stopped talking. NEVER read this book. Seriously, eat nails before you read this."
"August Strindberg was an author of short stories. He wrote 'A Doll's House,' which was another short story that I read and I actually liked it. 'Miss Julie,' is a play about a woman name Julie who drove her fiance to break off their engagement and she tried to seduce her father's valet during the course of a Midsummer's Eve. She successfully seduced him and wanted him to leave and run away with her. There isn't too many current events have connection to this story, which was why I found this so boring ... Julie was still evil because she tried to seduce someone's man! Christine was good, mostly because she was barely in the story."
"The characters are definitely 'out there', so if you're into that kind of thing, then Miss Julie may be something you'd like to read."
"an overly sentimental piece of juvenalia"
"How can this be a great 'modern' playwright when
the views and themes of this major play have a better part
for the 17th century than the 20th?
I thought about it and if it was produced in San Francisco
even with it's respect for the arts, on merits
the play would be jeered."
BONUS NEWS: ENGLISH MAJORS NOW LITERALLY DEFINING THEMSELVES BY WHAT THEY DON'T READ
"Miss Julie is a short play written by August Strindberg. I think that after the author wrote this book, they should have forever stopped writing. Everything about it is dumb. It is basically about the counts daughter, Julie, who is so 'scandalous' that she just HAS to seduce her fathers valet. This whole play could of been less of a waste of my time if she just wasn't a prostitute. I gotta give it to the man Jean though, he put her in her place. He twisted her mind with tales of love, passion, and dreams. Then crushed her dreams of running away with the snap of his finger. I was happy the play ended how it did. So that bratty girl finally stopped talking. NEVER read this book. Seriously, eat nails before you read this."
"August Strindberg was an author of short stories. He wrote 'A Doll's House,' which was another short story that I read and I actually liked it. 'Miss Julie,' is a play about a woman name Julie who drove her fiance to break off their engagement and she tried to seduce her father's valet during the course of a Midsummer's Eve. She successfully seduced him and wanted him to leave and run away with her. There isn't too many current events have connection to this story, which was why I found this so boring ... Julie was still evil because she tried to seduce someone's man! Christine was good, mostly because she was barely in the story."
"The characters are definitely 'out there', so if you're into that kind of thing, then Miss Julie may be something you'd like to read."
"an overly sentimental piece of juvenalia"
"How can this be a great 'modern' playwright when
the views and themes of this major play have a better part
for the 17th century than the 20th?
I thought about it and if it was produced in San Francisco
even with it's respect for the arts, on merits
the play would be jeered."
BONUS NEWS: ENGLISH MAJORS NOW LITERALLY DEFINING THEMSELVES BY WHAT THEY DON'T READ
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Paul Feyerabend - Against Method II
"he was using an extremely offensive language and showed extreme contempt for scientists not reading philosophy when he obviously never bothered to get any real insight on science himself, in order to mask his trivial points for philosophy of science."
"I believe those remarks could be summarized more concisely if he had said 'I Paul Feyerabend am an idiot'. I love philosophy but hate philosophers because very little philosophy comes from professional philosophers, it comes from scientists and mathematicians. Every time I think I’m being too hard on philosophers somebody mentions a person like Feyerabend and I remember why I dislike them so much."
"I guess Feyerbrand was looking the other way when scientist said microscopic animals caused disease, lightning was just electricity, condoms will prevent HIV, and cigarette smoking caused cancer."
"Sorry, you can have your own beliefs, but you can't have your own reality. Science studies reality, science is NOT a democratic process, you can't vote to defy gravity. You can try, good luck wth that.
Sorry, Feyerabend is an idiot on this specific issue ... It’s especially ironic to hear criticism of my criticism of Feyerabend’s criticism of Galileo when Feyerabend, being a idiot, believed that all criticisms were of equal value."
"personally, i think Feyerabend underestimates the peer review process."
IT IS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERESTIMATE THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
"I believe those remarks could be summarized more concisely if he had said 'I Paul Feyerabend am an idiot'. I love philosophy but hate philosophers because very little philosophy comes from professional philosophers, it comes from scientists and mathematicians. Every time I think I’m being too hard on philosophers somebody mentions a person like Feyerabend and I remember why I dislike them so much."
"I guess Feyerbrand was looking the other way when scientist said microscopic animals caused disease, lightning was just electricity, condoms will prevent HIV, and cigarette smoking caused cancer."
"Sorry, you can have your own beliefs, but you can't have your own reality. Science studies reality, science is NOT a democratic process, you can't vote to defy gravity. You can try, good luck wth that.
Sorry, Feyerabend is an idiot on this specific issue ... It’s especially ironic to hear criticism of my criticism of Feyerabend’s criticism of Galileo when Feyerabend, being a idiot, believed that all criticisms were of equal value."
"personally, i think Feyerabend underestimates the peer review process."
IT IS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERESTIMATE THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Friday, July 19, 2013
Ludwig Wittgenstein - On Certainty
"Reading Wittgenstein put an end to my interest in philosophy. If philosophy is about the kinds of language games that Wittgenstein played, it wasn't worth my time."
"Wittgenstein was a man who despised all things metaphysical and spiritual. He fancied himself a no-nonsense objectivist who would not be hoodwinked by false religious promises or tricked into seeing intangible ghosts ... Wittgenstein's solipsism has spiraled out of control and taken on a life of its own. For him the self is everything; all so-called objective entities spring from the subjective self, leaving us with no real objctive reality or atomic facts at all. All we are left with is Wittgenstein, the self-appointed possessor, owner, and sovereign monarch of the known universe. None of us exist unless Wittgenstein invites us into his little world, and we cease to exist the moment we exit his field of vision. I, for one, take exception to this. Hey Wittgenstein: - I exist - get used to it - I'm here to stay - you cannot expel me from the universe - the world does not revolve around you!"
"Wittgenstein was a fucking fruit loop."
"I own both the Tractatus and the Blue and Brown books and think that Wittgenstein was a fucking joke. If one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Metaphysically speaking, this means that no one should speak, and cannot speak, because all of Wittgenstein's beloved logic is based upon a group of axioms, a group of unprovables that demand that we do not speak, nay, that we do not even think."
"Wittgenstein was a man who despised all things metaphysical and spiritual. He fancied himself a no-nonsense objectivist who would not be hoodwinked by false religious promises or tricked into seeing intangible ghosts ... Wittgenstein's solipsism has spiraled out of control and taken on a life of its own. For him the self is everything; all so-called objective entities spring from the subjective self, leaving us with no real objctive reality or atomic facts at all. All we are left with is Wittgenstein, the self-appointed possessor, owner, and sovereign monarch of the known universe. None of us exist unless Wittgenstein invites us into his little world, and we cease to exist the moment we exit his field of vision. I, for one, take exception to this. Hey Wittgenstein: - I exist - get used to it - I'm here to stay - you cannot expel me from the universe - the world does not revolve around you!"
"Wittgenstein was a fucking fruit loop."
"I own both the Tractatus and the Blue and Brown books and think that Wittgenstein was a fucking joke. If one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Metaphysically speaking, this means that no one should speak, and cannot speak, because all of Wittgenstein's beloved logic is based upon a group of axioms, a group of unprovables that demand that we do not speak, nay, that we do not even think."
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Benedict de Spinoza - Ethics
"Hippy bullshit."
"I read this book after learning that he is Albert Einsteins favorite philosopher. I find Einstein's writing interesting and thought this would be brilliant. I was wrong. It is badly written and weak in philosophy."
"After reading Spinoza's supposedly great work, I couldn't help but think about the things he told me regarding God, or say, the universe. After constant pondering, I began to come to my own conclusion that most of Spinoza's propositions in Ethics are completely absurd. One of these propositions, that "God exists, is everything, and is all thoughts" (yes, even the thought that's the opposite of that thought) makes no sense to me. For if it were not absurd, then thinking "God doesn't exist, is not everything, and is not all thoughts" would be true as well, which totally goes against Spinoza's proposition on God. He also proposes that everything is infinite and that nothing is finite. But what about the size of my arm? How can that be infinite if it does not go out infinitely, say compared to, the distance of light? Spinoza then claims that it's the imagination or distinction of things that makes things finite. But according to Spinoza, nothing is finite. So how can the imagination make something finite if the finite doesn't exist? Again, the more I think about what he says in this book, the more absurd it becomes. I can tell you countless more, but I don't want to bore you. Now I'm giving this review 2 out of 5 stars because I do believe this book is very well organized and very well translated. Other than that, I can't see how this book can help clear my mind from any doubts it has already given me."
"An elaboratively and eloquently written heap of non-sense, albeit this is supposed to be first approbations in rationalism"
"Oh man, I hate Spinoza. He basically just took Buddhism and Westernized it, didn't he? And has been having praise heaped on him for it since?"
"His writing lacked the simplicity and clarity of enlightenment. He was still swayed by the desire to impress the academic world, and hence his writing was unnecessarily convoluted and often trivial. When a person tries to describe the nature of God with geometry and the like, it is a sure sign that he has lost the plot."
"In short, philosophy -- pure thought -- does not have to be complicated. Why say it with geometry when you can say it in plain words? More people can read or listen than can understand geometry. What's the purpose of a secret language? To keep secrets?"
"I read this book after learning that he is Albert Einsteins favorite philosopher. I find Einstein's writing interesting and thought this would be brilliant. I was wrong. It is badly written and weak in philosophy."
"After reading Spinoza's supposedly great work, I couldn't help but think about the things he told me regarding God, or say, the universe. After constant pondering, I began to come to my own conclusion that most of Spinoza's propositions in Ethics are completely absurd. One of these propositions, that "God exists, is everything, and is all thoughts" (yes, even the thought that's the opposite of that thought) makes no sense to me. For if it were not absurd, then thinking "God doesn't exist, is not everything, and is not all thoughts" would be true as well, which totally goes against Spinoza's proposition on God. He also proposes that everything is infinite and that nothing is finite. But what about the size of my arm? How can that be infinite if it does not go out infinitely, say compared to, the distance of light? Spinoza then claims that it's the imagination or distinction of things that makes things finite. But according to Spinoza, nothing is finite. So how can the imagination make something finite if the finite doesn't exist? Again, the more I think about what he says in this book, the more absurd it becomes. I can tell you countless more, but I don't want to bore you. Now I'm giving this review 2 out of 5 stars because I do believe this book is very well organized and very well translated. Other than that, I can't see how this book can help clear my mind from any doubts it has already given me."
"An elaboratively and eloquently written heap of non-sense, albeit this is supposed to be first approbations in rationalism"
"Oh man, I hate Spinoza. He basically just took Buddhism and Westernized it, didn't he? And has been having praise heaped on him for it since?"
"His writing lacked the simplicity and clarity of enlightenment. He was still swayed by the desire to impress the academic world, and hence his writing was unnecessarily convoluted and often trivial. When a person tries to describe the nature of God with geometry and the like, it is a sure sign that he has lost the plot."
"In short, philosophy -- pure thought -- does not have to be complicated. Why say it with geometry when you can say it in plain words? More people can read or listen than can understand geometry. What's the purpose of a secret language? To keep secrets?"
Monday, July 15, 2013
Jane Austen - Pride and Prejudice IV
"This is the most poorly written book I have ever read. I don't understand why anybody would ever consider it a classic..."
"Pretty much a shot for shot rip off of the West Side Story, just based in the early 1800s."
"I read it at school and, being an introvert, I hated it for its superficiality and poor values."
"I love the film adaptations (especially the 1995 BBC miniseries with Colin Firth), but you can tell those screenwriters really took some liberties with the content. It's telling, I think, when a film adaptation manages to give characters more depth than they had in the book."
"I do not think Austen was interested very much in plots, tbh, or even psychology."
"I must disagree with you about her writing being technically good. As a former technical editor, I can assure you it is not; Austen made her share of grammatical errors, so I was cringing as I was yawning my way through her stories.
I earned an English degree and read plenty of classics (greatly enjoy the Bronte sisters' works), but Austen only appealed to me when I needed something to help me fall asleep. Seriously; I had to force myself to finish P&P, the most unromantic 'romance novel' in existence.
...
For all of fans' swooning over Mr. Darcy, I was expecting there to be...well, MORE TO HIM. He is a stiff, one-dimensional character. I think Austen was having so much fun fancying-up her sentences that she didn't take the time to properly flesh out Darcy--or any of the characters for that matter. P&P had potential to be better if only it were more sharply character focused (good plot naturally flows from strong, well-developed characters)."
"this book is far too long, and contains too much flimsy-whimsy, twee, cotton-wool padding."
"Her habit of making the reader painfully aware of how irritating a character is for prattling on incessantly about inane topics by having them prattle on incessantly about inane topics for pages seems like a waste of ink. I will quote myself here: 'Really? Like we couldn’t tell after the first paragraph? Does Lydia or Mrs. Bennet really have to keep going on for another… two pages?! Ugh!'"
NICE QUOTE
"Are you kidding me? If I want trivial and meaningless and surrealism it's my permanent option to help my mom cleaning our completely dustless wooden floor while dreaming Mr.Hiddleston will engage with me immediately"
"I have to say as a former English lit major and lifelong reader, this book does nothing for me and I thank all my teachers who spared me from this terribly over rated relic from 200 years ago"
"This was, without a doubt, the worst book I've ever read. As another reviewer said, it is very insipid. Reminds me of the stupid high school romances that happen every day. There are crushes and drama queens and unrealistic characters galore. The only advantage of reading it in my case was for the rather skilled writing, but this eventually got to be quite annoying as well, as I struggled to read faster near the end in order to finish the darn thing. I understand that it is supposed to be a representation of the time period and such, but as far as anybody enjoying the people and situations in this book, all I can say is that nobody really makes the right decision, and so much of it is sin. For instance, Mr. and Mrs. Bennet clearly do not love each other and are both terribly selfish. Throughout the whole book, marriage is referred to as a commodity and necessity of life, with the only advantages being money and maybe some short amount of happiness. Lydia is as sinful as to chase only after flirting and love at all times, and in the end commits adultery, not repenting in the least afterwards. Cute? No. It's just outright sin. Also, the parents aren't told about anything regarding Elizabeth's romance until all is settled, and then when one is told, the other must be told separately. What kind of communication between husband and wife is that? And another thing; what seems to be celebrated most in this book is lust! About 90% of it is girls thinking blissfully about men, or the other way around. I cannot view this stuff as anything more than sin. Maybe some girls find it 'romantic' or 'funny' when Mr. Bingley moves in and all the Bennet girls can think about is whether one of them can marry him. I don't. I think it's sad."
"Pretty much a shot for shot rip off of the West Side Story, just based in the early 1800s."
"I read it at school and, being an introvert, I hated it for its superficiality and poor values."
"I love the film adaptations (especially the 1995 BBC miniseries with Colin Firth), but you can tell those screenwriters really took some liberties with the content. It's telling, I think, when a film adaptation manages to give characters more depth than they had in the book."
"I do not think Austen was interested very much in plots, tbh, or even psychology."
"I must disagree with you about her writing being technically good. As a former technical editor, I can assure you it is not; Austen made her share of grammatical errors, so I was cringing as I was yawning my way through her stories.
I earned an English degree and read plenty of classics (greatly enjoy the Bronte sisters' works), but Austen only appealed to me when I needed something to help me fall asleep. Seriously; I had to force myself to finish P&P, the most unromantic 'romance novel' in existence.
...
For all of fans' swooning over Mr. Darcy, I was expecting there to be...well, MORE TO HIM. He is a stiff, one-dimensional character. I think Austen was having so much fun fancying-up her sentences that she didn't take the time to properly flesh out Darcy--or any of the characters for that matter. P&P had potential to be better if only it were more sharply character focused (good plot naturally flows from strong, well-developed characters)."
"this book is far too long, and contains too much flimsy-whimsy, twee, cotton-wool padding."
"Her habit of making the reader painfully aware of how irritating a character is for prattling on incessantly about inane topics by having them prattle on incessantly about inane topics for pages seems like a waste of ink. I will quote myself here: 'Really? Like we couldn’t tell after the first paragraph? Does Lydia or Mrs. Bennet really have to keep going on for another… two pages?! Ugh!'"
NICE QUOTE
"Are you kidding me? If I want trivial and meaningless and surrealism it's my permanent option to help my mom cleaning our completely dustless wooden floor while dreaming Mr.Hiddleston will engage with me immediately"
"I have to say as a former English lit major and lifelong reader, this book does nothing for me and I thank all my teachers who spared me from this terribly over rated relic from 200 years ago"
"This was, without a doubt, the worst book I've ever read. As another reviewer said, it is very insipid. Reminds me of the stupid high school romances that happen every day. There are crushes and drama queens and unrealistic characters galore. The only advantage of reading it in my case was for the rather skilled writing, but this eventually got to be quite annoying as well, as I struggled to read faster near the end in order to finish the darn thing. I understand that it is supposed to be a representation of the time period and such, but as far as anybody enjoying the people and situations in this book, all I can say is that nobody really makes the right decision, and so much of it is sin. For instance, Mr. and Mrs. Bennet clearly do not love each other and are both terribly selfish. Throughout the whole book, marriage is referred to as a commodity and necessity of life, with the only advantages being money and maybe some short amount of happiness. Lydia is as sinful as to chase only after flirting and love at all times, and in the end commits adultery, not repenting in the least afterwards. Cute? No. It's just outright sin. Also, the parents aren't told about anything regarding Elizabeth's romance until all is settled, and then when one is told, the other must be told separately. What kind of communication between husband and wife is that? And another thing; what seems to be celebrated most in this book is lust! About 90% of it is girls thinking blissfully about men, or the other way around. I cannot view this stuff as anything more than sin. Maybe some girls find it 'romantic' or 'funny' when Mr. Bingley moves in and all the Bennet girls can think about is whether one of them can marry him. I don't. I think it's sad."
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Virginia Woolf - A Room of One's Own II
"dumb ass femenist bullshit
my ex girl friend would have loved it though"
"I just can't stand Virginia Woolf. She's so annoying. She's so boring. I hate the way she refers to herself as 'one' all the time."
"I learned that Virginia Woolf felt angry and cheated regarding her limited access to education in the 16th century."
"I am not a fan of Woolf to begin with. I think she is wordy and pretension."
"you're a menopausal old cack who lives in a cave (which you probably took from your husband in the divorce settlement). Why is it that some women have to turn everything men do into a civil rights march?"
"Just kill me now
No wonder this woman took her own life. She was a nut! And talk about analyzing every living moment, she could have used a lot of it herself."
"FemmeNazi lesbian psycho bitch whore"
"written by a lesbian
I think my title pretty much says it all........i have no interest in reading about that lifestyle. I just dont approve."
"virginia woolf is a lesbian hipster bitch"
"After being forced to read this book for English class, I feel it my obligation to let people know just how bad it is. Woolf is an ardent feminist, and will go to whateer length necessary to tell her audience of the supposed atrocities committed upon society by men. According to her, men are pigs who simply suppress women to elevate themselves. Her constant self-contradiction (is she not doing here the same thing that she accuses men of?) makes her thesis difficult to believe. Her unusual style, using dashes instead of proper names, only distracts the reader. All in all, I do not recommend this book to anyone who is capable of conscious thought."
BONUS MEN'S RIGHTS BULLSHIT:
"I live in a country where feminism rules and as a consequence 67% of the claims of rape are false, usually to 'punish' some guy not interested on the woman who cries out Virginia Woolf. :)"
"If women have invaded all the previously all-male institutions, men needed to find, as Virginia Woolf might have put it, 'a room of their own'—an all-male space where men can relax with other men, free from the constant policing that accompanies political correctness, and retrieve their inner sense of their own masculinity, in the presence of other men."
SO
A GAY BAR?
my ex girl friend would have loved it though"
"I just can't stand Virginia Woolf. She's so annoying. She's so boring. I hate the way she refers to herself as 'one' all the time."
"I learned that Virginia Woolf felt angry and cheated regarding her limited access to education in the 16th century."
"I am not a fan of Woolf to begin with. I think she is wordy and pretension."
"you're a menopausal old cack who lives in a cave (which you probably took from your husband in the divorce settlement). Why is it that some women have to turn everything men do into a civil rights march?"
"Just kill me now
No wonder this woman took her own life. She was a nut! And talk about analyzing every living moment, she could have used a lot of it herself."
"FemmeNazi lesbian psycho bitch whore"
"written by a lesbian
I think my title pretty much says it all........i have no interest in reading about that lifestyle. I just dont approve."
"virginia woolf is a lesbian hipster bitch"
"After being forced to read this book for English class, I feel it my obligation to let people know just how bad it is. Woolf is an ardent feminist, and will go to whateer length necessary to tell her audience of the supposed atrocities committed upon society by men. According to her, men are pigs who simply suppress women to elevate themselves. Her constant self-contradiction (is she not doing here the same thing that she accuses men of?) makes her thesis difficult to believe. Her unusual style, using dashes instead of proper names, only distracts the reader. All in all, I do not recommend this book to anyone who is capable of conscious thought."
BONUS MEN'S RIGHTS BULLSHIT:
"I live in a country where feminism rules and as a consequence 67% of the claims of rape are false, usually to 'punish' some guy not interested on the woman who cries out Virginia Woolf. :)"
"If women have invaded all the previously all-male institutions, men needed to find, as Virginia Woolf might have put it, 'a room of their own'—an all-male space where men can relax with other men, free from the constant policing that accompanies political correctness, and retrieve their inner sense of their own masculinity, in the presence of other men."
SO
A GAY BAR?
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Virginia Woolf - A Room of One's Own
"The main arguement of the book is that if we all had a room of our own (and a rich person to fund our daily lives) then we'd all be great writers. Thanks Virginia, I'll just find myself a sugar daddy and get right on that."
"does anyone really care boo hoo cry me a river better yet a lake put some stones in your pockets and then walk into it. oh thats right thats exactly what she did.
so was it really worth all the complaining."
"I don't really like feminist writing, it seemed like she was just ranting a lot about random stuff that upset her."
"I don't like feminist apologetics. Typical rubbish."
"it's boring, and i don't understand the flow of the story.
the plot is also confusing."
"She had her own room, so her complaints ring false and annoy the hell out of me."
"Seems didactic. Irrelevant and off today's English majors list, I presume."
"This was the second or third feminist book we had to read in senior year, and I was kind of sick of writing papers on how much I, being a dude, suck."
"Sorry, call me everything that's wrong with men today but I did not like this book. I felt that Virginia Woolf, though justified in the idea that women needed more equality in being accepted to libraries and colleges, is still searching for what will never bring happiness. If we truly abandon everything that makes us male and female for some androgynous ideal that we'll be unhappy, besides being impossible anyhow. There is a great wrong that's been done to women through the ages, they never received acknowledgment for the labor they performed and the societies they created and I agree that almost all the blame lies on men. I find it frustrating that so many people feel the solution lies with 'equality' in some strange universe maybe, where people can somehow change genders at will or where there is no difference between them ... So go ahead Virginia Woolf, yell out whatever injustices you want, I agree with so many of them it makes me sick to think of what men have done against women through the ages, but the idea that by giving up what makes us men and women will make us happy is absurd."
"The book floats between the past and present, fiction and reality and its just flippy floopy. Woolf was crazy"
"the book sort of meandered into such abstract thinking and round about intellectualizing that I felt I was listening to a brainy fluff-head talking to hear herself talk."
"does anyone really care boo hoo cry me a river better yet a lake put some stones in your pockets and then walk into it. oh thats right thats exactly what she did.
so was it really worth all the complaining."
"I don't really like feminist writing, it seemed like she was just ranting a lot about random stuff that upset her."
"I don't like feminist apologetics. Typical rubbish."
"it's boring, and i don't understand the flow of the story.
the plot is also confusing."
"She had her own room, so her complaints ring false and annoy the hell out of me."
"Seems didactic. Irrelevant and off today's English majors list, I presume."
"This was the second or third feminist book we had to read in senior year, and I was kind of sick of writing papers on how much I, being a dude, suck."
"Sorry, call me everything that's wrong with men today but I did not like this book. I felt that Virginia Woolf, though justified in the idea that women needed more equality in being accepted to libraries and colleges, is still searching for what will never bring happiness. If we truly abandon everything that makes us male and female for some androgynous ideal that we'll be unhappy, besides being impossible anyhow. There is a great wrong that's been done to women through the ages, they never received acknowledgment for the labor they performed and the societies they created and I agree that almost all the blame lies on men. I find it frustrating that so many people feel the solution lies with 'equality' in some strange universe maybe, where people can somehow change genders at will or where there is no difference between them ... So go ahead Virginia Woolf, yell out whatever injustices you want, I agree with so many of them it makes me sick to think of what men have done against women through the ages, but the idea that by giving up what makes us men and women will make us happy is absurd."
"The book floats between the past and present, fiction and reality and its just flippy floopy. Woolf was crazy"
"the book sort of meandered into such abstract thinking and round about intellectualizing that I felt I was listening to a brainy fluff-head talking to hear herself talk."
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Ernest Hemingway - The Sun Also Rises IV
"I understand that Hemingway was innovative at the time in the way he wrote, but this book isn't that great. Sure, maybe it was great in the 1920's or whenever, but it's just not interesting. The whole book is just a lot of talk and there's all this other implied character interaction that is hard to pick up on."
"If you honestly think that people don't have a reason for hating Ernest Hemingway's writing style other than that he's boring, then you are completely inept. The fact that you find main characters drinking more than any drunk could imagine with a mix of really short and really really really long sentences compiling a STORY, that makes me feel that you're inept."
"Blah. Twelve years after graduating with a double major in English and journalism I finally got around to reading this one because I felt I should. I was not impressed."
"Horrible. Both the language and what the language was used for. Okay, I don't like Spain"
"You may like sentences like, 'There was an apple. He ate the apple. The apple was good.' But since I have a brain, I'm going to have to say... NO.
It's horrible, quite honestly ... Oh my GOODNESS, is it boring! I understand that it's metaphorical, but even so--Ernest Hemingway commits literary blasphemy by writing such a boring book with the most boring/dry prose imaginable.
I can handle boring books. I've read the Historian. Dracula. A collection of Jack London's most prominent works sits on my bedside table. Boring is fine, if it's written well. Then you can delude yourself into thinking it's an 'intellectual read'.
But this is a boring book written by a third-grader calling himself Ernest Hemingway. I wouldn't be surprised if the original manuscript was submitted in crayon."
"First of all, I feel the book is a little outdated because a lot of emotion, culture, circumstances that Hemingway tried to describe is about War World I."
"Boring, boring, boring.
Hemingway is the Seinfeld of the 20s... it's all about nothing."
"Ugh!!! Hemingway is painfully, literarily handicapped"
"Complete crap.
1920's print version of modern day Kardashian. They eat, drink, cheat on each other, use each other and then eat and drink some more."
"I want to feel when I read. I do not want to have to analyze text in order to make myself feel."
"If it wasn't for my self-diagnosed partial OCD I most likely would have have given up part way through and thrown this book in the trash, but as it stands I forced myself to finish it"
"If you honestly think that people don't have a reason for hating Ernest Hemingway's writing style other than that he's boring, then you are completely inept. The fact that you find main characters drinking more than any drunk could imagine with a mix of really short and really really really long sentences compiling a STORY, that makes me feel that you're inept."
"Blah. Twelve years after graduating with a double major in English and journalism I finally got around to reading this one because I felt I should. I was not impressed."
"Horrible. Both the language and what the language was used for. Okay, I don't like Spain"
"You may like sentences like, 'There was an apple. He ate the apple. The apple was good.' But since I have a brain, I'm going to have to say... NO.
It's horrible, quite honestly ... Oh my GOODNESS, is it boring! I understand that it's metaphorical, but even so--Ernest Hemingway commits literary blasphemy by writing such a boring book with the most boring/dry prose imaginable.
I can handle boring books. I've read the Historian. Dracula. A collection of Jack London's most prominent works sits on my bedside table. Boring is fine, if it's written well. Then you can delude yourself into thinking it's an 'intellectual read'.
But this is a boring book written by a third-grader calling himself Ernest Hemingway. I wouldn't be surprised if the original manuscript was submitted in crayon."
"First of all, I feel the book is a little outdated because a lot of emotion, culture, circumstances that Hemingway tried to describe is about War World I."
"Boring, boring, boring.
Hemingway is the Seinfeld of the 20s... it's all about nothing."
"Ugh!!! Hemingway is painfully, literarily handicapped"
"Complete crap.
1920's print version of modern day Kardashian. They eat, drink, cheat on each other, use each other and then eat and drink some more."
"I want to feel when I read. I do not want to have to analyze text in order to make myself feel."
"If it wasn't for my self-diagnosed partial OCD I most likely would have have given up part way through and thrown this book in the trash, but as it stands I forced myself to finish it"
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Robert Browning - Poems
"I feel that poetry may be considered 'wack' by anyone born after 1970"
"Terrible."
"I found Browning's rythym off enough to distract me but not off enough to sound good."
"Written in very old Engligh verse--not at all kid friendly"
"The dialogue in this book is very hard to follow as it is written in a fancy verse that is not common to this time's speech."
"Terrible."
"I found Browning's rythym off enough to distract me but not off enough to sound good."
"Written in very old Engligh verse--not at all kid friendly"
"The dialogue in this book is very hard to follow as it is written in a fancy verse that is not common to this time's speech."
Friday, July 5, 2013
The Saga of the Volsungs
"it seems like a rough draft"
"sucked donkey balls"
"It's touted as being source material for Wagner's Ring cycle and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings ... merely a marketing gimmick. Read it to further your understanding of Scandinavian culture, but don't expect inspiration for an epic fantasy to blaze through your brain afterward!"
"Why don’t we have heroes like this today?"
"sucked donkey balls"
"It's touted as being source material for Wagner's Ring cycle and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings ... merely a marketing gimmick. Read it to further your understanding of Scandinavian culture, but don't expect inspiration for an epic fantasy to blaze through your brain afterward!"
"Why don’t we have heroes like this today?"
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Fyodor Dostoevsky - Notes from Underground II
"Ilike his honesty. some of his thoughts are so absurd but are real & do express the absurdity of human's thoughts. for example, It Is So real that some times CUZ Someone is angry
He tries to get rid of his fury by being mean to someone else. Also,it is so authentic that sometimes one tries to hide sth by saying the exact opposite to people."
"There are many ways to take a theme and make an existential point without boring the reader to tears."
"The question I have that makes me wonder if I don't get it is simply—why? Why does he have to be an self-obsessed asshole? Why can't he be a Buddhist?"
"Ugly. Like looking at a newly born sparrow.
I could not find any redeeming reason to read this. I did not want to be near the book after trying. I tried as he was supposed to be a great author. My memory tells me that I threw this book into the trash. I did not want it on my book shelf."
"First of all, with a name like 'Fyodor Dostoyevsky' how in the world can a guy get published? Perhaps he shouldn't be. That is my opinion."
"I HATE THIS BOOK
awful!"
"i want to put things inside you
not just sex things
important things
like my thoughts
and my books
#Notes From Underground #alt lit #alt-lit #altlit #Poetry"
SOUNDS UNCOMFORTABLE
"Fyodor Dostoevsky: the original hipster"
"For the life of me, all I could see in this novel were the ramblings of a petty, contradictory, indecisive, insufferable abomination of a narrator that severely lacked in social skills. I might appreciate the Underground Man more if he didn't come across to me as an obnoxious, delusional moron."
He tries to get rid of his fury by being mean to someone else. Also,it is so authentic that sometimes one tries to hide sth by saying the exact opposite to people."
"There are many ways to take a theme and make an existential point without boring the reader to tears."
"The question I have that makes me wonder if I don't get it is simply—why? Why does he have to be an self-obsessed asshole? Why can't he be a Buddhist?"
"Ugly. Like looking at a newly born sparrow.
I could not find any redeeming reason to read this. I did not want to be near the book after trying. I tried as he was supposed to be a great author. My memory tells me that I threw this book into the trash. I did not want it on my book shelf."
"First of all, with a name like 'Fyodor Dostoyevsky' how in the world can a guy get published? Perhaps he shouldn't be. That is my opinion."
"I HATE THIS BOOK
awful!"
"i want to put things inside you
not just sex things
important things
like my thoughts
and my books
#Notes From Underground #alt lit #alt-lit #altlit #Poetry"
SOUNDS UNCOMFORTABLE
"Fyodor Dostoevsky: the original hipster"
"For the life of me, all I could see in this novel were the ramblings of a petty, contradictory, indecisive, insufferable abomination of a narrator that severely lacked in social skills. I might appreciate the Underground Man more if he didn't come across to me as an obnoxious, delusional moron."
Monday, July 1, 2013
Fyodor Dostoevsky - Notes from Underground
"'I am a bored girl. I am a tired girl.' If you preceive that this is mockery of the way Notes from Underground opens, you are absolutely right. If Dostoevsky was trying to attain unto 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,' by Dickens, he comes immeasurable short."
"All I've got right now is Douche. Burger."
"I find it depressing. I'm sure there were some deep thoughts that I carelessly glanced over while reading it. What can I say? These books are best analyzed by those who aren't hopeless optimists like me. :)"
"All I could think of is 'why doesn't this guy just get a better attitude and get on with life?'"
"There are no words for the agony I went through to finish this."
"What a waste of 90 pages. We get it. Everything is meaningless. Human nature is rotten and awful. But if it's all so meaningless, why write about it? There's no point to anything. So why write at all?"
"A whole lotta jibba jabba."
"Ugh! That's all I can say! Ugh!"
"By today's standards, his technical ability to write is horrible ... The writing, to say the least, is amateurish by even the lowest standard. If this were to be written today, it would be patronized by publishers and (if it even made it to publication) by critics for the silly use of language. There is not a single technical description in the entire novel, and sentence structure is 5th grade Essay Contest at best. Are we really supposed to believe this man of intelligence and 'high consciousness' can't write any better than the average 10-year-old? Some will argue that the writing is intentionally bad to show the mental decay of the Underground Man. This argument may be valid, except that in the sections before the Underground Man's mental trepidation are displayed the writing is even worse ... While some of the ideas are cute (though whiney), nothing in this entire section reaches an intelligence level above common sense. This isn't a book you learn something from. This isn't a book that causes you to think about the depth of meaning. This isn't even a character study, really ... I consider it relevant too. To kids in fifth grade. If you're older than that, and this is still insightful to you, I am insulating your intelligence."
"I remind myself that reading a first, whether it's Gertrude Stein, James Joyce, or e. e. cummings, may be a tedious look backward. I don't think this would be published these days because it's not very interesting, but as an early example of its genre and style it was remarkable. From the present perspective, the narrator's whiny, snively, rumination and self-justification is a grating bore."
"A marvelous story put in way too many words just like all books from this era of Russian literature. It's best to read a summary of this book, not the book itself."
"All I've got right now is Douche. Burger."
"I find it depressing. I'm sure there were some deep thoughts that I carelessly glanced over while reading it. What can I say? These books are best analyzed by those who aren't hopeless optimists like me. :)"
"All I could think of is 'why doesn't this guy just get a better attitude and get on with life?'"
"There are no words for the agony I went through to finish this."
"What a waste of 90 pages. We get it. Everything is meaningless. Human nature is rotten and awful. But if it's all so meaningless, why write about it? There's no point to anything. So why write at all?"
"A whole lotta jibba jabba."
"Ugh! That's all I can say! Ugh!"
"By today's standards, his technical ability to write is horrible ... The writing, to say the least, is amateurish by even the lowest standard. If this were to be written today, it would be patronized by publishers and (if it even made it to publication) by critics for the silly use of language. There is not a single technical description in the entire novel, and sentence structure is 5th grade Essay Contest at best. Are we really supposed to believe this man of intelligence and 'high consciousness' can't write any better than the average 10-year-old? Some will argue that the writing is intentionally bad to show the mental decay of the Underground Man. This argument may be valid, except that in the sections before the Underground Man's mental trepidation are displayed the writing is even worse ... While some of the ideas are cute (though whiney), nothing in this entire section reaches an intelligence level above common sense. This isn't a book you learn something from. This isn't a book that causes you to think about the depth of meaning. This isn't even a character study, really ... I consider it relevant too. To kids in fifth grade. If you're older than that, and this is still insightful to you, I am insulating your intelligence."
"I remind myself that reading a first, whether it's Gertrude Stein, James Joyce, or e. e. cummings, may be a tedious look backward. I don't think this would be published these days because it's not very interesting, but as an early example of its genre and style it was remarkable. From the present perspective, the narrator's whiny, snively, rumination and self-justification is a grating bore."
"A marvelous story put in way too many words just like all books from this era of Russian literature. It's best to read a summary of this book, not the book itself."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)