Niels’s answer to “Why do people rate this book so high? Surely I am missing something.” > Likes and Comments
76 likes · Like
Spot on. If it were a five page essay for discussion in politics or philosophy class, it would be fine. As a novel, the question it raises most urgently in my min is, "Why bother?"d
Every book can be boiled down to several sentences. And it is your judgement if you like a story or not. I feel you read it wrong, though. For example, I don't read biographical or historical books for entertainment - sure, they need to be interesting to me, but interesting doesn't always mean entertaining. I've read this book pretty much instantly and the story had an impact on me that many others don't have.
(view spoiler)
Are the characters bland? Sure, but they are meant to be that. The world is like that. They are different only because of how they think.
Heavy handed? You expect subtleties when painting a world that is all but subtle?
Is the book valid only when talking about communism? Not really - you can find examples everywhere of organisations trying to exercise this kind of control, trying to shape language, ignoring or misinterpreting facts because people don't know what really happened - and may stay confused because of all the different takes on the facts. This is why the book is important for many people. It's a reference when talking about all of that.
Sure, most books can be reduced to a few sentences, but the point is that if you write a novel, the thousands of other sentences that will take the reader thousands of minutes to read should add something worthwhile to the reader's experience. Yes, I've heard the argument before, about various books, that they are boring and bland and one-dimensional because they are meant to be so. And I say, that is no justification. If one writes a novel, one ought to make it as good a novel as possible. A thrilling concept is no excuse for shoddy world-building, lame plots, cardboard-cut-out characters and sledge-hammer techniques - no matter how much you might claim it was "meant to be like that."
I didn't say that the book is bland and boring. This is your argument, not mine. I said the characters are bland and the world is one-dimensional. The book is far from that, in my opinion and it didn't stop me from caring for the characters. I found reading it an interesting experience, to say the least. Not entertaining in the "fun" aspect of the word, but gripping.
Actually, the answer to the original question is "for the same reason people rate other books high". It is a good book. Wouldn't be so well known if people didn't find it interesting. Not everyone has to, but many do.
Yes, it was me who said it was bland and boring and I stand by that, and the world-building is so shoddy that any fanfiction writer would be flamed into oblivion for it. The concept is indeed interesting and as a teenager I would have debated it endlessly in politics class and I would have been impressed by its uncompromising bleakness. As an adult with picky tastes in literature, I find the execution simply isn’t good enough.
You keep projecting your own picky taste onto everyone else. No writer would be "flamed into oblivion" because obviously the book is very much liked and majority of readers would like it, even if they didn't find it an amazing lecture. Amazing is a high standard. The Gaussian distribution applies and if something is good, most people will find it exactly that. For their own reasons. Sure, the subject may be carrying much of the weight, giving the ratings more on the "amazing" end, but I explained why I liked it and it had little to do with the actual subject and more with how it was written. Do you think that your bad experience means more than my (or anyone else's) good one?
There are books on your list, rated rather average that you found amazing. Does that make your opinion invalid? You can have a picky taste and you can say that you didn't like the book or that the book is stupid or whatever. Don't try arguing that a book is objectively bad, though, which you are implying by invoking "flaming into oblivion" by the fanfiction crowd, as if they all ahd the same taste as you do. Also, as if they were a yardstick for good literature...
And I'm not saying that you should like the book. That would be ironic... Your argument, though, was that it can be boiled down to several sentences/pages of an essay, to which the answer is: all books can (so the argument is kinda moot), and you wrote that it raises the question "Why bother", which is a question that never came to my mind while reading the book or after, so I thought you took the book for something else, like an essay on politics. Which is why I wrote that you may have read it wrong.
I have amended my original review to explain why the book is objectively, mathematically, bad. It is as bad as a geography book that claims Rome is the capital of France. It contains severe FACTUAL errors. If you and many other readers didn't notice them, that doesn't mean they're not there. This is where, as far as I am concerned, the discussion ends.
Oh yes, it does. Great review. Stemming from lack of undersanding that this is fiction, but hey, we all have flaws. So many words to miss the point... Love your commitment :D
It's an old book, and plenty of authors have touched upon the same themes in better books since.
That doesn't detract from its historical significance and cognitive dissonance will probably make you feel you got something out of it if you really try hard.
But unless you're forced to read it by your highschool teacher, your limited free time is better spend on something else
This is a subject where the only thing to do is agree to disagree.I picked it up myself, wasn't forced to read it. I didn't know what to expect, except for references to its subject matter, and I read it as I would any other book. And I didn't have to try hard or think of it as significant to like it.
I feel, though, that we are talking about different things. I'm talking about a book, a fictional story. You seem to be referring to it as a political paper of sorts. How can a work of fiction be bad only because someone else wrote better about its subject? It's not a machine that becomes obsolete with its age or because other people made better versions. Poetic Edda is old and people wrote better stories based on Norse mythology - would you say that people have no reason to like it?
You can find many really badly written books, horrible movies, etc that people still enjoy for their own reasons. As I wrote before - sure that most of the "amazing" ratings are probably based on its cultural significance, but most people simply like it and the ratings curve doesn't differ much from any other popular book. More people have read it but that simply validates the statistics because of a bigger sample. So the question "why people like it" doesn't require a different answer than other books. But I seem to have touched a nerve there and we have someone trying to prove "mathematically" for some reason, that a literary work is bad by treating it as if it was a statement of fact, not fiction.
I'm not saying that you are not allowed to not like the book. From my perspective, it is a completely normal thing to argue about things we like or dislike even just out of curiosity - we do this all the time about music, films, books, any part of culture. I commented here simply because this answer caught my eye and was the first "negative" one I read. I thought that you are rating it based on your expectations and surrounding it hype - basically the same reason you say people like it for.
No, my point is that people rate it high because they like it's message, and other people rate it low because they're annoyed that the hype got them to spend time reading a book that really isn't very enjoyable.
Which is a pretty good explanation to the original question starting this discussion "Why do people rate this book so high? Surely I am missing something"
My point is: No you're not missing something, this book is just not for you
"Ignore they hype, move along, nothing to see here"
Thanks Niels, I think you are spot on. After reading all the different point of views on my question, I still do not want to finish the book. I am in agreement with Virtuella. For me, a great idea, even way ahead of your time, does not make a great book.
I agree. Funny you should mention the Asimovs series. My husband recommended 1984 - he is also Asimovs. Guess I won't be bothering to read them either :)
So Virtuella is discussing a sci-fi novel set 36 years after the time of writing she complains that it has "factual errors"? Obviously he didn't predict details of the real year 1984; what other factual errors did she mean?
*Entertainment
I see why you didn't like it.
I totally agree with you. It was the 2nd most boring book I have ever read and the 1st most boring was also this year! I didn't finish it and can't bring myself to CARE that I didn't finish it.
Sometimes a book doesn't need to be entertaining to be great. An amazing look into a Big Brother future with Orwellian controls over personal freedoms, where history is written and constantly changed by the present in order to keep and maintain control of you and everything else around you. It gives you a pale hope- with the hope lying with the proles, but that's it a pale and surely unattainable hope. This 'hope' leaves you feeling bereft and deflated. Making it one of the greatest, if not thee greatest, dystopian novel ever.
Exactly the same for me. 2 stars felt high when I rated it as well.
@Courtney No way! True art is entertaining!
I agree, extremely boring. I listened to the audiobook and I can never get those 11 hrs back. Dreadful.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Virtuella
(new)
Dec 28, 2014 04:10AM
Spot on. If it were a five page essay for discussion in politics or philosophy class, it would be fine. As a novel, the question it raises most urgently in my min is, "Why bother?"d
reply
|
flag
Every book can be boiled down to several sentences. And it is your judgement if you like a story or not. I feel you read it wrong, though. For example, I don't read biographical or historical books for entertainment - sure, they need to be interesting to me, but interesting doesn't always mean entertaining. I've read this book pretty much instantly and the story had an impact on me that many others don't have.(view spoiler)
Are the characters bland? Sure, but they are meant to be that. The world is like that. They are different only because of how they think.
Heavy handed? You expect subtleties when painting a world that is all but subtle?
Is the book valid only when talking about communism? Not really - you can find examples everywhere of organisations trying to exercise this kind of control, trying to shape language, ignoring or misinterpreting facts because people don't know what really happened - and may stay confused because of all the different takes on the facts. This is why the book is important for many people. It's a reference when talking about all of that.
Sure, most books can be reduced to a few sentences, but the point is that if you write a novel, the thousands of other sentences that will take the reader thousands of minutes to read should add something worthwhile to the reader's experience. Yes, I've heard the argument before, about various books, that they are boring and bland and one-dimensional because they are meant to be so. And I say, that is no justification. If one writes a novel, one ought to make it as good a novel as possible. A thrilling concept is no excuse for shoddy world-building, lame plots, cardboard-cut-out characters and sledge-hammer techniques - no matter how much you might claim it was "meant to be like that."
I didn't say that the book is bland and boring. This is your argument, not mine. I said the characters are bland and the world is one-dimensional. The book is far from that, in my opinion and it didn't stop me from caring for the characters. I found reading it an interesting experience, to say the least. Not entertaining in the "fun" aspect of the word, but gripping.Actually, the answer to the original question is "for the same reason people rate other books high". It is a good book. Wouldn't be so well known if people didn't find it interesting. Not everyone has to, but many do.
Yes, it was me who said it was bland and boring and I stand by that, and the world-building is so shoddy that any fanfiction writer would be flamed into oblivion for it. The concept is indeed interesting and as a teenager I would have debated it endlessly in politics class and I would have been impressed by its uncompromising bleakness. As an adult with picky tastes in literature, I find the execution simply isn’t good enough.
You keep projecting your own picky taste onto everyone else. No writer would be "flamed into oblivion" because obviously the book is very much liked and majority of readers would like it, even if they didn't find it an amazing lecture. Amazing is a high standard. The Gaussian distribution applies and if something is good, most people will find it exactly that. For their own reasons. Sure, the subject may be carrying much of the weight, giving the ratings more on the "amazing" end, but I explained why I liked it and it had little to do with the actual subject and more with how it was written. Do you think that your bad experience means more than my (or anyone else's) good one? There are books on your list, rated rather average that you found amazing. Does that make your opinion invalid? You can have a picky taste and you can say that you didn't like the book or that the book is stupid or whatever. Don't try arguing that a book is objectively bad, though, which you are implying by invoking "flaming into oblivion" by the fanfiction crowd, as if they all ahd the same taste as you do. Also, as if they were a yardstick for good literature...
And I'm not saying that you should like the book. That would be ironic... Your argument, though, was that it can be boiled down to several sentences/pages of an essay, to which the answer is: all books can (so the argument is kinda moot), and you wrote that it raises the question "Why bother", which is a question that never came to my mind while reading the book or after, so I thought you took the book for something else, like an essay on politics. Which is why I wrote that you may have read it wrong.
I have amended my original review to explain why the book is objectively, mathematically, bad. It is as bad as a geography book that claims Rome is the capital of France. It contains severe FACTUAL errors. If you and many other readers didn't notice them, that doesn't mean they're not there. This is where, as far as I am concerned, the discussion ends.
Oh yes, it does. Great review. Stemming from lack of undersanding that this is fiction, but hey, we all have flaws. So many words to miss the point... Love your commitment :D
It's an old book, and plenty of authors have touched upon the same themes in better books since.That doesn't detract from its historical significance and cognitive dissonance will probably make you feel you got something out of it if you really try hard.
But unless you're forced to read it by your highschool teacher, your limited free time is better spend on something else
This is a subject where the only thing to do is agree to disagree.I picked it up myself, wasn't forced to read it. I didn't know what to expect, except for references to its subject matter, and I read it as I would any other book. And I didn't have to try hard or think of it as significant to like it. I feel, though, that we are talking about different things. I'm talking about a book, a fictional story. You seem to be referring to it as a political paper of sorts. How can a work of fiction be bad only because someone else wrote better about its subject? It's not a machine that becomes obsolete with its age or because other people made better versions. Poetic Edda is old and people wrote better stories based on Norse mythology - would you say that people have no reason to like it?
You can find many really badly written books, horrible movies, etc that people still enjoy for their own reasons. As I wrote before - sure that most of the "amazing" ratings are probably based on its cultural significance, but most people simply like it and the ratings curve doesn't differ much from any other popular book. More people have read it but that simply validates the statistics because of a bigger sample. So the question "why people like it" doesn't require a different answer than other books. But I seem to have touched a nerve there and we have someone trying to prove "mathematically" for some reason, that a literary work is bad by treating it as if it was a statement of fact, not fiction.
I'm not saying that you are not allowed to not like the book. From my perspective, it is a completely normal thing to argue about things we like or dislike even just out of curiosity - we do this all the time about music, films, books, any part of culture. I commented here simply because this answer caught my eye and was the first "negative" one I read. I thought that you are rating it based on your expectations and surrounding it hype - basically the same reason you say people like it for.
No, my point is that people rate it high because they like it's message, and other people rate it low because they're annoyed that the hype got them to spend time reading a book that really isn't very enjoyable.Which is a pretty good explanation to the original question starting this discussion "Why do people rate this book so high? Surely I am missing something"
My point is: No you're not missing something, this book is just not for you
"Ignore they hype, move along, nothing to see here"
Thanks Niels, I think you are spot on. After reading all the different point of views on my question, I still do not want to finish the book. I am in agreement with Virtuella. For me, a great idea, even way ahead of your time, does not make a great book.
I agree. Funny you should mention the Asimovs series. My husband recommended 1984 - he is also Asimovs. Guess I won't be bothering to read them either :)
So Virtuella is discussing a sci-fi novel set 36 years after the time of writing she complains that it has "factual errors"? Obviously he didn't predict details of the real year 1984; what other factual errors did she mean?
*EntertainmentI see why you didn't like it.
I totally agree with you. It was the 2nd most boring book I have ever read and the 1st most boring was also this year! I didn't finish it and can't bring myself to CARE that I didn't finish it.
Sometimes a book doesn't need to be entertaining to be great. An amazing look into a Big Brother future with Orwellian controls over personal freedoms, where history is written and constantly changed by the present in order to keep and maintain control of you and everything else around you. It gives you a pale hope- with the hope lying with the proles, but that's it a pale and surely unattainable hope. This 'hope' leaves you feeling bereft and deflated. Making it one of the greatest, if not thee greatest, dystopian novel ever.
Exactly the same for me. 2 stars felt high when I rated it as well.
@Courtney No way! True art is entertaining!
I agree, extremely boring. I listened to the audiobook and I can never get those 11 hrs back. Dreadful.
