Charles’s answer to “WHY is this book so loved? I mean, I didn't gain anything out of it. I'm not asking this as an insu…” > Likes and Comments
97 likes · Like
well said. It's a huge mess, many unneeded details mixed with fiction, and readers just want to sound sophisticated by expressing their admiration to this book !!!
The Alchemist was decent enough if very predictable. This runs rings around it - the writing is beautiful and the story gripping.
I suggest reading it again since you clearly didn't get it the first time.
What I "didn't get" was a coherent story. No amount of rereading will get me that.
Well said. It's a bit like the Emperor's New Clothes: everybody exclaimed how amazing the emperor's clothes were, because everybody else did and everyone wanted to sound clever, yet he was actually naked.
Well said! Couldn't have agreed more!
Personally I loved this book because I enjoyed the atmosphere it created. I even went as far as researching the locations the characters travel to. I liked how I felt reading this book; giddy, confused, and floating away from reality. I don't think it makes me sound smart, I can't really explain the book to anyone. But gosh, Murakami has a wonderful way with words. I loved Nakata, I thought he was an excellent character who much like me as a reader, is often confused but somehow following his way through the world. I know not everyone will like it, but I thought I'd put my two cents in anyways. :)
I LOVE your opinion! and totally agree with you
"The reason it is "so loved" is because people think that by reading it and by saying they love it, they will sound clever and sophisticated."
More likely people like you are saying things like this, because you can't see anything worth loving, and are afraid that people will think you aren't clever and sophisticated. :-D (No-one really cares, so you can relax, and just enjoy books you like without trying to fit some imaginary expectations and criteria :-D)
It is quite possible that different people see different things in things and experience things differently. That you can't see anything you could appreciate in something, doesn't mean there isn't anything.
you know the fact that no one gives a damn about you. by way of saying your point seemed like you wanted to tell the people which book they should value or not. He's definitely famous because of his good writing.
I just enjoyed it - every minute of it (I have the audio book). I have rarely heard anything as fascinating! As far as I can see Murakami does not have a fantastic reputation, so I am not really sure I could boast about liking it. But I did. And I shall listen to it again!!!! Personally I think this is the best Marukami, along with the Wind-up bird chronicle.
I agree with you. This book is enjoyable to read though, but there is nothing to be "gotten" from it.
What a condescending and ignorant pile of crap. Just say that you are not getting this book instead of spewing a pile of judgemental garbage.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Wael
(new)
Jul 29, 2015 12:23PM
well said. It's a huge mess, many unneeded details mixed with fiction, and readers just want to sound sophisticated by expressing their admiration to this book !!!
reply
|
flag
The Alchemist was decent enough if very predictable. This runs rings around it - the writing is beautiful and the story gripping. I suggest reading it again since you clearly didn't get it the first time.
What I "didn't get" was a coherent story. No amount of rereading will get me that.
Sums up my feelings exactly. It's one of those books that are difficult to understand so pretentious people automatically mark it off as a masterpiece. It ain't. But that's my subjective opinion, I suppose.
Well said. It's a bit like the Emperor's New Clothes: everybody exclaimed how amazing the emperor's clothes were, because everybody else did and everyone wanted to sound clever, yet he was actually naked.
I know this post is a little old but I don't understand how you can seriously believe that everyone who appreciates this book does so to seem intellectual as opposed to the myriad of other reasons people might have for enjoying it.
The whole "people only like this thing that I don't like because they want to seem smart, they don't really like it" schtick is one of the biggest signs of insecurity out there. It's the sign of someone so insecure in their own opinions they have to go to the lengths of crafting a fantasy to delegitimise every other opposing opinion just to feel confident in asserting theirs. It's ok not to like this book, a lot of the points you raise are most certainly true, and that opinion is valid, but so is the opinion that this is a good book.
I won't speak for others but I will explain to you why I enjoyed this book thoroughly, and hopefully you will be able to appreciate the concept of differing, yet equally valid, opinions:
A lot of the riddles and mysteries in this novel are, to pick a word you used, vacuous. I've no doubt in my mind that there are no legitimate answers to most if not all of the book's unanswered questions. To me this doesn't matter, as the book quite clearly makes no promises to answer these questions and I'm not of the opinion that all mysteries a book creates should be solved (quite the opposite!). It also doesn't matter that there doesn't seem to a narrative focus within the text. What I liked about this book was the mood is created and the world it created. I found it fascinating and I enjoyed the journey even if it made no sense, and even if, after ceasing to suspend my disbelief, the choices Murakami made came across as forced. The feeling of inexplicable mystery and surrealism I found very engaging even though I had to form for myself whatever meanings I sought to look for in them.
You seem to have a very arbitrary idea of what a book should be. You criticise it for having a meandering plot as if there is a set pace or tone a novel should follow, and you criticise it for seeming vacuous as if books cannot simply be enjoyable or aesthetically pleasing, as if they must have some kind of narrative coherence or plot. Books comes in all shapes and sizes and if you don't get along with books that don't answer their own questions and that meander as you put it then that's cool, I can totally see why those things would put people off. But it doesn't mean the book is objectively bad, and that anyone who likes it is just pretending to. It's a shame you didn't enjoy this as it is one of my favourite books, but I promise you, just because you can't appreciate this book, it doesn't mean others are faking it.
The whole "people only like this thing that I don't like because they want to seem smart, they don't really like it" schtick is one of the biggest signs of insecurity out there. It's the sign of someone so insecure in their own opinions they have to go to the lengths of crafting a fantasy to delegitimise every other opposing opinion just to feel confident in asserting theirs. It's ok not to like this book, a lot of the points you raise are most certainly true, and that opinion is valid, but so is the opinion that this is a good book.
I won't speak for others but I will explain to you why I enjoyed this book thoroughly, and hopefully you will be able to appreciate the concept of differing, yet equally valid, opinions:
A lot of the riddles and mysteries in this novel are, to pick a word you used, vacuous. I've no doubt in my mind that there are no legitimate answers to most if not all of the book's unanswered questions. To me this doesn't matter, as the book quite clearly makes no promises to answer these questions and I'm not of the opinion that all mysteries a book creates should be solved (quite the opposite!). It also doesn't matter that there doesn't seem to a narrative focus within the text. What I liked about this book was the mood is created and the world it created. I found it fascinating and I enjoyed the journey even if it made no sense, and even if, after ceasing to suspend my disbelief, the choices Murakami made came across as forced. The feeling of inexplicable mystery and surrealism I found very engaging even though I had to form for myself whatever meanings I sought to look for in them.
You seem to have a very arbitrary idea of what a book should be. You criticise it for having a meandering plot as if there is a set pace or tone a novel should follow, and you criticise it for seeming vacuous as if books cannot simply be enjoyable or aesthetically pleasing, as if they must have some kind of narrative coherence or plot. Books comes in all shapes and sizes and if you don't get along with books that don't answer their own questions and that meander as you put it then that's cool, I can totally see why those things would put people off. But it doesn't mean the book is objectively bad, and that anyone who likes it is just pretending to. It's a shame you didn't enjoy this as it is one of my favourite books, but I promise you, just because you can't appreciate this book, it doesn't mean others are faking it.
*narrative coherence or deeper meaning.
Well said! Couldn't have agreed more!
Personally I loved this book because I enjoyed the atmosphere it created. I even went as far as researching the locations the characters travel to. I liked how I felt reading this book; giddy, confused, and floating away from reality. I don't think it makes me sound smart, I can't really explain the book to anyone. But gosh, Murakami has a wonderful way with words. I loved Nakata, I thought he was an excellent character who much like me as a reader, is often confused but somehow following his way through the world. I know not everyone will like it, but I thought I'd put my two cents in anyways. :)
I LOVE your opinion! and totally agree with you
"The reason it is "so loved" is because people think that by reading it and by saying they love it, they will sound clever and sophisticated." More likely people like you are saying things like this, because you can't see anything worth loving, and are afraid that people will think you aren't clever and sophisticated. :-D (No-one really cares, so you can relax, and just enjoy books you like without trying to fit some imaginary expectations and criteria :-D)
It is quite possible that different people see different things in things and experience things differently. That you can't see anything you could appreciate in something, doesn't mean there isn't anything.
you know the fact that no one gives a damn about you. by way of saying your point seemed like you wanted to tell the people which book they should value or not. He's definitely famous because of his good writing.
or...they just really enjoyed the book.
I just enjoyed it - every minute of it (I have the audio book). I have rarely heard anything as fascinating! As far as I can see Murakami does not have a fantastic reputation, so I am not really sure I could boast about liking it. But I did. And I shall listen to it again!!!! Personally I think this is the best Marukami, along with the Wind-up bird chronicle.
I agree with you. This book is enjoyable to read though, but there is nothing to be "gotten" from it.
What a condescending and ignorant pile of crap. Just say that you are not getting this book instead of spewing a pile of judgemental garbage.
