Once upon a time there was a boy who loved a girl, and her laughter was a question he wanted to spend his whole life answering.
Prior to reading this...moreOnce upon a time there was a boy who loved a girl, and her laughter was a question he wanted to spend his whole life answering.
Prior to reading this book, Nicole Krauss was just another writer whose works I'd heard of in passing and wanted to read. What made me give her special attention was the fact that she is married to my personal hero, my literary god, the extraordinary, the one and only Jonathan Safran Foer whom I adore and idolize. Of course, I was aware of the many reviews stating how much Krauss's writing resembles that of Foer's. And since I love him so much, I couldn't help but want to give her a try. And I can't believe I waited this long to find another favorite book.
When I dove in, I realized almost instantly that those reviews were right; Krauss's writing in The History of Love reminded me of her husband a lot. But the ways in which I fell in love with both differ. With Foer, I fell hard and all at once. I fell long and deep and couldn't get back up even if I tried. He struck a chord within me, one that's very special and intimate--one that, once struck, sets free all the pent-up emotions and tells me never to let go of the person who does it. Actually, I'm still falling. But with Krauss, the process was slow and almost static, unsure--the way you learn to love again. And that's how it was; I didn't so much fall in love with The History of Love as I learned to love it. (In fact, I believe this is always going to be the way it is. Once you've found your one true love, you cannot really fall in love that same way again, but the best thing you can do is to learn to love someone.)
I am at a loss for words to say about this book. I loved it. The History of Love tells you about how a seemingly insignificant man waiting for death can make great impacts in many lives. How people struggle to fill in the gaps left by the losses of someone in their lives. How people cope with loss and loneliness. How some run away from the truth, and how others would do anything to uncover it. How love isn't really about choice, and how it can go on and you can't do anything about it. How people live. What life is. The characters are very well fleshed out and I could feel them and their earth-shattering impacts through every word. The writing is beautiful and moving. As soon as I finished this book, I--overwhelmed and bursting with emotions--wanted to read it again. Leopold Gursky lives a life larger than the space of the pages, and will live long in my memories even after the last page ends.
Sometimes I thought about nothing and sometimes I thought about my life. At least I made a living. What kind of living? A living. I lived. It wasn't easy. And yet. I found out how little is unbearable.
------------------------ This review is also posted on my blog.(less)
Apparently I don't get along well with Coetzee. I disliked/liked this book as much as Life & Times of Michael K but for some reasons I don't feel...moreApparently I don't get along well with Coetzee. I disliked/liked this book as much as Life & Times of Michael K but for some reasons I don't feel able to give it the same amount of stars. Rating to be revised? Anyway, congrats to myself! 29 days with this book.(less)
Gave me a throbbing headache. I was so annoyed by Hesse's original German prose that I had to resort to the English translation. I still need to read...moreGave me a throbbing headache. I was so annoyed by Hesse's original German prose that I had to resort to the English translation. I still need to read the German version for exam, though. Not impressed. I'd say this is quite all over the place. Tried to be profound but failed. (less)
I ended up liking it more than I had expected. Strangely, boring as it is, there's beauty in being simple. It gets better as it goes on. The ending is...moreI ended up liking it more than I had expected. Strangely, boring as it is, there's beauty in being simple. It gets better as it goes on. The ending is profound and impressive. (less)
Even though I already have two new copies of this little gem at home, I borrowed this 1972 edition from my faculty library. It's the SECOND edition. T...moreEven though I already have two new copies of this little gem at home, I borrowed this 1972 edition from my faculty library. It's the SECOND edition. The paper is all torn from the binding, but it's got this mystical feel to it. It's fascinating. I just adore old books. This book really has stood the test of time. I get something new every time I pick up this book. This will never become boring. (less)
Reread: September 6 - 16, 2012 (3.5 stars) The reading process didn't go any faster than the first time, but the pleasure from reading definitely multi...moreReread: September 6 - 16, 2012 (3.5 stars) The reading process didn't go any faster than the first time, but the pleasure from reading definitely multiplied. My teacher's discussion in class allowed me to appreciate it more. If she hadn't said anything, I would've still thought of it as an annoying, plot-less, boring book. But like most great literature, there's always something below the surface. You just have to tease out the implications and whatnots.
I reread this to refresh my memories in preparation for the upcoming final exams, but I don't think I succeeded much in this goal. As soon as I read things, I forgot them. Maybe this calls for a third reread. This should be interesting 'cause I don't know if my opinion will change again.
First read: June 4 - 12, 2012 (2 stars) Meh. Took me so long. (less)
I'm still mind blown by this book. Very entertaining. Nice voice with a good sense of humor. Highly educational. Surprising stuff. Intriguing memory t...moreI'm still mind blown by this book. Very entertaining. Nice voice with a good sense of humor. Highly educational. Surprising stuff. Intriguing memory techniques that actually work. Yep, I tried them. Awesome, awesome, awesome.
I might come back to give this amazing book a proper review when I can think of things to say.
I used to be a huge fan of Meg Cabot when I was in secondary school and high school. She could do no wrong in my eyes. Back in those days I would re-read The Princess Diaries series over and over and over and fantasize about meeting my own Michael Moscovitz, whom Meg Cabot successfully made me believe is the perfect guy -- my dream guy (he still is!). Those were the days... But then I grew out of teen books, and so Meg Cabot fell into my history.
I've been meaning to read Airhead since it first came out in 2008, but high school (as well as my disgusting Twilight obsession) was taking up all my spare time. And now I'm thinking that if I'd read Airhead when I was still in high school, I would've loved this book. As I told you, Meg could do no wrong in my eyes. But now that I've grown out of Meg Cabot and read and seen a lot and learned to love and hate a lot of books, I can judge this book without being biased. I didn't love it. I didn't even really like it. I found it okay and enjoyable, and then that's it.
Airhead is a story about Em Watts, who accompanies her sister Frida to the opening of a new mall, and has an accident there. Basically, a giant TV falls on her and kills her on the spot right in front of her best friend and crush Christopher and her sister. Nikki Howard, a supermodel who happened to be near the scene, fainted and hit her head so hard that it killed her brain. Em woke up in the hospital about a month later (if I'm not mistaken) in the body of Nikki Howard. A brain transplant happened. Em's brain survived while Nikki's body was still functioning. And Nikki is too precious to lose. Businesses will die if she dies. So that's why. And now Em has to live Nikki's life.
I find this brain transplant idea pretty cool. I think the story has a potential to turn out great, but sadly it didn't. Meg Cabot killed it with Em obsessing over trying to impress Christopher with her Nikki body, wondering how much impact her death has on him, and dealing with Nikki's boys drama. And when the book ends, nothing happens. Hmm, I don't like this.
I realized that this book is a part of a series, but I think that a book should be able to have a good story while standing alone too. This book simply doesn't.
Another thing I didn't like about this book is the writing. I loved Meg Cabot's style in The Princess Diaries, and I still see it in Airhead, but unfortunately it doesn't work in this. She could pull it off with Mia because Mia is always obsessive and panicked and funny, so the style of writing suits her character extremely well, whereas with Em it's just annoying. I don't see why Em has to constantly remind the readers that she's in Nikki Howard's body, she's in Nikki Howard's bedroom, she's looking at Nikki Howard's dog, and she can't believe how huge Nikki Howard's walk-in closet is, blah blah blah. I mean, come on, I get it. The excessive repetition of this name is very off-putting.
I also didn't feel connected to any of the characters at all. I don't particularly like anyone.
Sounds negative, eh? Why 3 stars then, you might ask. Well, I did enjoy parts of it, though it's quite difficult to recall what those are. It's a love/hate thing. Usually when this happens, it's just either 1 star or 3. With The Time Traveler's Wife, I ended up giving it just 1, although it did have a potential to be great, just like Airhead.
What's more, there are a lot of unanswered questions that I suppose will be answered in the second or the last book. However, I'm not sure if I want to continue with this series. The first book didn't impress me.
Actually I don't really want to review this, but since I haven't reviewed anything in a while because I just don't feel like it anymore, I think it's time I should do something about this laziness.
My brief summary of The Brief History of the Dead, which is a contemporary novel that tells a story of two worlds: the world of the living, and the word of the dead, aka "The City", goes like this: ............................................................................................
I'm not joking. I really cannot summarize it. There's pretty much nothing in the story. It's just pages and pages of "nothing" story. It goes nowhere. My feeling about the story in three words: W T F.
To make matters worse, the narrative in the book bored the hell out of me. It's not engaging. The narrative is always switching between the life stories of the dead in The City, the happenings in The City, and the journey of Laura, who is the only person left in the world after the pandemic kills everyone. At first I thought the book was only going to tell me about each and everyone of the people in The City, because for quite some time, that's all it talks about! It goes on and on about how they die, or their memories of the world of the living, and the thumping sound that they hear after they die, and whatnot. And then it says that the city is shrinking. The people in the city begin to disappear for no apparent reason, blah blah blah. And then we're introduced to Laura Byrd the survivor, who is sent by Coca-Cola, the company that she works for, to Antarctica to conduct some research, and therefore trapped in the research station there. She had two colleagues with her, Puckett and Joyce, who, after realizing that their supplies were running low and that they lost contact with the outside world, set out to try to contact Coca-Cola because they felt like they were neglected by the company. Laura waits, but they never return. And then she decides that she has to find them and contact the company.
Her journey in Antarctica is long, I'm sure, but really, does the narrative have to tell us about her every footstep? All I've ever known about her journey is that she's always thinking about someone (it's trying to say that ALL the people who remain in the city are there because they are remembered by Laura, therefore they're not gone), and that she feels cold, and that she sets up her tent to sleep in it but can't sleep because she's too tired, and that she can feel her sweat freeze on her skin, blah blah boring blah. These things recur all the time. Honestly, I don't really want to know, thank you very much.
Now, let's move on to a more interesting topic: the world-building. When I first read the back cover of this book, I was very interested indeed. "Imagine a place between heaven and earth. A city where everyone ends up after they die. This city looks like any other, with trees and houses and newspapers, where people work, drink coffee and fall in love. And here they remain, kept alive by the memories of those left behind on earth." I've always been interested in theories of afterlife, and this book promises one. The Brief History of the Dead has a really unique way of looking at it (or at least for me, as I have never come across anything like this before). In the book, when people die, they go to "the city". The City is neither heaven nor hell, it's just a place for those who are dead but are still remembered by the living. Basically, they will remain there until they are completely forgotten, or in other words, until all the people who know or remember them are dead. Some Christians who are there start losing their faith, when they don't get the heaven that their religion promises. Some keep holding on to it, for they don't know what might happen, where they might go next. Nobody knows since when The City has existed. Sounds interesting, doesn't it?
But I'm not impressed. This world is very sloppily built. In the book, the people in The City do things that they shouldn't have to do, since, you know, they're dead. Some have to go to work, while others have to beg for money on the streets. They are hungry, and they need sleep. They are in relationships with new people they meet there, and they build families consisting of people who are not blood-related. All this doesn't make one bit of sense to me. There are refrigerators and sofas and books and stuff that the living world has, but where do all those stuff come from? Who created them? It just sounds ridiculous and out of nowhere. The world-building isn't believable at all. And since it's a city, and it's also HUGE, since no one has ever been to the end of the road whatsoever, shouldn't there be a government or something? Since people in this afterlife have jobs, having a ruling government sounds reasonable, don't you think? How do all these people manage to live together without some sort of authorities? Doesn't make sense to me.
And the characters? I don't care about any of them. I think it's all this switching scenes that makes it hard to really feel connected to anyone in particular. Personally I find the characters quite flat. We don't know anything much about them. And there are just too many characters that it's hard to keep track of who's who.
I could have hated this book. So many things I don't like about it, you see. But if there's anything I like at all, it's the writing. I don't know how to explain it exactly, all I can say is that I think it's quite beautiful. The words sound confident and enchanting, but sadly, the writing alone couldn't save the book when the story isn't well-developed enough.
Although previously infuriated by Paulo Coelho's The Alchemist, I decided to give Coelho another chance. While it's right to say that I didn't hate this book as much, it didn't impress me either. It was just plain okay. And it bored me.
Veronika is a 24-year-old pretty girl. She decides to die because 1) she feels like life has nothing more to offer her. She's tired of the same things happening daily, doing the same things daily, with nothing new in her life, and 2) she realizes that one day she will be old and she doesn't want to be old. That day she overdoses on sleeping pills, expecting to die. Unfortunately, she is sent to Villete, an asylum, in time to be saved. Temporarily. The doctor, Dr Igor, tells her that she only has days to live because the pills somehow managed to damage her heart.
During her stay at Villete, she gets to know some people in there. She makes some friends and plays the piano and falls in love. Then the thought creeps in, from time to time, despite her trying to push it far away, whether she still wants to live, now that there are new things in her life and life doesn't seem so empty anymore.
In the first few chapters, Paulo Coelho wrote about himself as Dr Igor's daughter's friend. I'm not sure whether he implies or says it outright that he was also sent to a mental hospital because he wanted to be an artist (or writer I'm not sure) and therefore his parents thought he was mad. That's what I understood. So while this book is about the value of life in the face of imminent death, it also questions the way people judge 'madness'.
I really did want to like this but sadly Coelho failed me again. The translated text flows well enough, the story sounds promising. The main problem with this book for me is the way Coelho wrote it. I didn't like that he put himself in the story, because it didn't relate to anything in it. It just looks out of place and comes out of nowhere. I also didn't like it because the story was just so boring. I mean, it's nothingness. I didn't care about any of the characters. Veronika decides to die, well, that was interesting. But all that follows is all her interactions with people in Villete and stories of some patients' lives. It bored the hell out of me. And it didn't make me feel like life is so great, either.
And don't even get me started on THE ENDING. Oh dear Lord. It was terrible. (view spoiler)[In the end, it's revealed that Dr Igor lied to Veronika when he said she had only days to live. In fact, there was nothing wrong with her heart at all. She was perfectly fine and healthy. He only wanted to know whether life becomes more valuable knowing that death is imminent. It's like the author wanted to force a happy ending (she didn't have to die in 7 days) into a story that's built to end with what it promised: death. The idea that a doctor uses an innocent patient as a guinea pig for his personal experiment in hope to be famous for it one day is SICKENING. He didn't even tell her. She lived her life expecting death. It's just so wrong on so many levels. (hide spoiler)]This is one of the reasons why I didn't like this book.
All in all, disappointment. Nothingness in the form of 208 pages.
Also on my blog["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>(less)
I can't believe I only got to read this awesomeness almost 5 years after its publication. Yes, it is AWESOME. One of the best for me this year!
This mind-blowing book is about a boy named Hugo Cabret. Parentless, he lived with his uncle inside a train station in France for some time, helping him with his job by fixing the clocks in the station. One day his uncle disappeared, but Hugo keeps doing his job anyway.
In his room, Hugo has a project going on. Hugo's father, while still alive, worked in a museum, and found a broken automaton there, apparently unwanted. He began fixing it, and Hugo was also excited. But unfortunately, one day the fire broke out in the museum and almost everything was destroyed. Hugo lost his father. Somehow the automaton survived the fire. Hugo took it home and began fixing it following his father's drawings and notes in one of his many notebooks given to Hugo.
Our little Hugo is also a thief. He steals food because he's starving. He steals toys from the toy shop because he needs parts for the automaton. One day he's caught, and that's how he met Papa George, the owner of the shop, and Isabelle, his goddaughter, whom Hugo befriends. Together with some help from Isabelle, Hugo digs deep into the past of Papa George, as revealed by the automaton, and help the man get his life back.
What do I love about this book? Hmmm.. let's see. The story. Any stories with parent-less protagonists are usually good for me. I cried a little bit when Hugo thinks about his dad (don't I always?). I love how everything is perfectly tied together. When something is mentioned, it isn't just mentioned just for the sake of being mentioned, it actually has a meaning and it also plays a part in revealing the past! For example, Papa George doesn't like the sound of heels clicking, and doesn't allow Isabelle to go see any movies, because (view spoiler)[he used to make films in the past and the life he once had is haunting him (hide spoiler)]. I also love how strong the characters come out to be. The book is very cleverly written indeed!
However, the illustration is even better than the writing. It's amazing how one picture can say so much, and how much it can make you feel its power just by you looking at it. The artwork is gorgeously drawn. You can see every line and minor detail that together make perfection. So very beautiful. Breathtaking. At first I wasn't sure, but after I've finished it, I felt like I had to own a copy. I know I'll have to look at those illustrations again and again.
In short: big fat five stars. You can't get enough. Must-read. It's just so incredibly awesome.
Review also appears here.["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>(less)
Just Listen is the second Sarah Dessen book that I have read in my rather short reading life. I was blown away by the first, Dreamland, and I have to say I like Just Listen just as much. I found this gem in the library, and now want to own a copy of it. I went through all the 383 pages in 24 hours, and 3 sittings, and that says a lot for a slow, impatient reader like me.
This story is basically about a high school girl named Annabel Greene. Annabel is a model, and from the outside looking in, she looks perfect, so people usually jump to conclusions that her life is perfect. But yes, looks can be deceiving. Annabel is scarred. She has a story she would never tell, and by keeping it in, she decides to hurt herself, rather than let it hurt the people she cares about. She has lost two best friends, Clarke, by ditching her just one night for the girl who later became her new best friend, Sophie. Apparently, Sophie wasn't a very good friend, but Annabel stuck with her because she thought tolerating Sophie was worth this entirely new fabulous world she was now a part of, the word she would otherwise never come across had she still been best friends with Clarke. And then their friendship ended one night, I'm not going to say what happened because that's the biggest mystery of the book. Sophie jumped to conclusions and then their friendship was over. Afterwards Annabel is still haunted by what happened that night, and her life changed. She has no best friend now, no one. Until that day Owen reaches out his hand and saves her.
I love the complexity of Annabel's life. There isn't just what's going on with her life at school, but also her life at home. All the falling out and conflicts, the sisterhood and family. They make this book seem so real. Most characters have voices of their own, and they're very believable. I had vivid pictures in my head as I read. As the pages went on and on, I came across a lot of things: modeling, music, eating disorder, family, friendship, loss, sadness, anger, secrets, therapies, etc. I personally understand Annabel. She's not good at confrontation, so she doesn't confront at all. She keeps all these things inside, she never talks about it, so when she tries to, she can't exactly say it. I also love the concept of the glass house. People look at it and think they see everything, but they don't. They see a family sitting together at a dinner table and think they're a happy family, but they aren't. Everything looks too perfect to be understood as something else.
I love Sarah Dessen's writing. I do. She's excellent. She has that power with words that always keeps me reading even if it's 3 am in the morning. She did that to me with Dreamland, and now also Just Listen. I would read a hundred pages on end and found it hard to put the book down. Dessen's descriptions are outstanding. She's great at describing feelings, her words are perfectly strung together. Her writing flows on and on, making it hard to stop at one point, and not read the whole book in one sitting without moving. There are some pages that set butterflies loose in my stomach, there are pages that made me cry. And you know how I feel about books that make me cry.
Without any doubt, this one is another excellent Dessen book. Looking forward to reading more of her work! She might as well just be one of my favorites now. :-)
New Moon is a sequel to the famous first novel of the Twilight saga, that is Twilight. Having read Twilight for the first time in 2008, I am ashamed to admit that I was crazy about it for months. But when I read it again, I couldn't see why I'd even liked it in the first place. Now, three years later, freshly freed from final exams, I wandered around aimlessly in the library. Then New Moon caught my eye. Not because it's pretty or anything, but because there are 3 or 4 thick copies of it lined up on a library shelf. I decided, what the hell, and picked it up.
I was struggling so much trying to get it over with this book. Not gonna lie, it was real torture. The story drags on for too long, if you can't tell by the thickness that is over 500 pages, and most of the time the story is just boring. And it also bugged me so much. Here are some things that annoyed me:
1) Bella keeps talking about the hole in her chest throughout the book! What's with that? That phrase really doesn't have to show up every few pages, you know?
Now, with the help of my e-book version of this book, I'm going to show you just what I mean.
Not only the hole in her chest that she so often mentions, but it looks like Bella is specially attracted to holes. There are other no less than 10 mentions of the entrance hole, too, to where the Volturi live. So much for Bella's holes...
2) Bella's not-until-this-that-I-realized-that. All. The. Friggin'. Time. Seriously, Bella, you're incapable of realizing your physical state or what? Or even the environmental changes? The word realize is well too overused in this novel that it bugged me.
3) The idea that a teenage girl finds it hard to keep on living with the depart of her boyfriend. Isn't that disturbing?
I got annoyed so many times by acknowledging Bella's thoughts. The writing style is lacking on so many levels. I think the Twilight saga would've been great had it been written by someone else.. you know? I think my problem is Stephenie Meyer. I just don't like the way she writes. And although there are so many annoying parts, there are parts that are entertaining enough. So I would say that it's not that bad, but bad enough to be considered one of the books I regret having spent time with, and definitely one of those I have no intention whatsoever to lay my hands on again.
A 15-year-old boy received a letter addressed to him from his father who had died 11 years ago. And they ended up writing this book together. This is...moreA 15-year-old boy received a letter addressed to him from his father who had died 11 years ago. And they ended up writing this book together. This is a book telling a story in a quite original way. It's both interesting and boring. I lost my enthusiasm and interest sometimes along the way because of the father's long talk, but in general this is a nice book. It made me cry a bit here and there too, bringing back the memories of my lost dad and what we did together. There's this bit about his mother being his father's true love, but it remained unclear whether he was even her true love. At some points I found the book boring, I had to force myself a few times to read on. But at some other points I found it totally heart-wrenching, squeezing tears from my eyes. There are two visible teardrops that I unintentionally let onto the pages. I can't really put my fingers on how I feel about this book, so I guess I like it. I picked it up because I've read Sophie's World by this very same author and love the said book so much. I guess The Orange Girl isn't bad, but it's not excellent either. It's just nice. (less)
The moment I finished this book I almost cried of frustration. I was so seriously disappointed by how awful the book is that I had to sit down and shut my eyes and control my in- and exhalation. My rage was only burning hotter; the book was my fuel. I know, the summary sounds interesting, and I'd been told a lot of times that The Alchemist is excellent this, amazing that. But now that I read it, I wish I hadn't.
The story is simple enough. A boy becomes a shepherd for the sake of wandering. Then he meets a man who believes himself to be a king, is told that he will find his great treasure near the Pyramids in Egypt, and off he goes. I have to point out that it is not really a tale of following your dreams, because dreams don't really play any part in this novel. What plays a great role, in fact, are omens. Omens here, there, omens everywhere! (How do you know that something is an omen anyway? It could be coincidences? I don't know..) Everyone he meets on the road seems to know what the boy is up to. They all know about his dreams (again-- not really. More like his "goals" or "aspirations") and where he's going. (What the? It doesn't even make sense!) Then he travels to the Oasis and his eyes fall upon a girl and WHAM! TRUE LOVE! (SERIOUSLY???) He meets an alchemist and they both hit the road to search for his treasure. Along the way they get caught and Santiago is to "turn himself into the wind". Days drag on and on, and he still hasn't figured out how. (I knew it!) And then the day comes where he has to prove himself, and he talks to the wind", making a miracle happen. What's more, he even talks to the sun! In the Language of The World! (WHAT????) He understands the Soul of The World too! Isn't that very touching? Then he go off to the Pyramids only to find out by "dreaming" that his treasure is somewhere else! Cool! *sighs*
I'm going to try and be reasonable and tell you why this book failed me. 1) The writing style is not good. The story is told in simple sentences. I personally have nothing against that, but the way it's written just doesn't get to me. It looks as if it's meant to resemble the style of fables, but it is nothing compared to that. However, this could be something that gets lost in translation. Maybe the writing style--word and sentence structure and whatnot--is beautiful when it's Portuguese. Although that may be true, it just doesn't work when it's English, that's for sure.
2) Coelho kept calling Santiago "the boy". The boy............... The boy...................... The boy....................... The boy............................ All. The. Time. I mean, he has a name, okay? There were times when I'd only read "the boy" that I almost forgot what his name actually is!
3) The messages and story aren't deep and philosophical as portrayed. Sure, A Fable About Following Your Dream sounds cool. But no, this story isn't really about following dreams. It isn't about a certain idea of philosophy, either. It's more about reading omens, and pursuing Personal Legends, and talking in the Language of The World, or reaching through to The Soul of The World. All of which are as deep as..... Gah! I don't know. "...when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it" would have been an inspiring quote, had it any supporting facts or evidences (not the omens, please), otherwise it would just be a cheesy line attempting to be deep but failing, and yes, that's precisely what I think it is. When something touches your inmost heart and makes you feel something special, that is deep, that is profound. When something makes you irritable and your brows furrow in extreme annoyance, that is definitely not deep. Are we clear here, Coelho?
Extremely annoyed, yes, that's what this book did to me. Everything about it bothered me so much that I had a hard time trying to finish it. Good thing it was thin. I can't believe the hype, really. My friends told me it's so great, but I find it totally awful. It's the first book I've ever rated 1 star. It's just awful.
By the way, I have been told by a friend who loves this book that the reason I dislike it is because I am not a Christian believer. Maybe that's partly why.. However, there are other problems with this book that still would make it displeasing for me, weren't I an atheist.
I hereby insist: this book is awful. It just wasn't for me. Sorry for being harsh.