Li Seagull's Reviews > Prince of Thorns

Prince of Thorns by Mark  Lawrence
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
7136073
's review
Jan 22, 2012

did not like it
bookshelves: fantasy, reviewed
Recommended to Li by: Unfortunately, me.
Recommended for: Potential serial killers/rapists and murderers as a how-to manual.

** spoiler alert ** Cw: rape, other slimy shit

Well, I did it. I finished it to the last page, mostly so I could review it like this. Give me a medal, because I was very much tempted to drop it when within the first few pages, the protagonist manages to rape two women and murder a few others just 'cause. More on this later.

Anyway. Now I get to yell and scream at the book to my heart's content.

This book was the metaphorical equivalent of some /r/morbidreality bullshit. Palahniuk pulls this shit too, but at least he does it well. Lazy writing. Lazy lazy lazy lazy lazy. It's like filming a trainwreck and presenting it unedited because Oh man look at it! It's Art! It's Edgy! But it's honestly lazy and ineffective and there's just way better stuff out there than this.

Let's start with the main character. "Jorg." Asshole in a position of power, indeed. I am not protesting the use of rape as a plot device, however sickening I might find it personally. I am protesting the fact that rape, a special kind of evil, is downplayed to benefit the protagonist's standing among his men. RAPE IS NOT A MATTER TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. THIS BOOK TREATS IT AS SUCH, AND NOT NECESSARILY JUST FROM JORG'S POINT OF VIEW.

This book starts out with the plundering and burning of some small town in the country. Jorg is seen giving several less-than-stable orders to his men about what exactly they can do about the absence of material wealth, and points them in the way of several farm girls.

Cue rape scene.

Anyway. The one star is not because of Lawrence's sheer honesty and brutality in portraying the total psychopath that people even as young as fourteen years old can become from a bad childhood. His honesty was...alright. Sure.

But why is it that every white male author writes shit like this literally for the sake of being edgy and cool? This was senseless, baseless — there was simply no point. Why am I expected to simper and be sympathetic to the main character when he pulls shit like this?

There was a great quote I'm going to bring up that was directed at ASOIAF, but it will work here:
Tons of trolls have thrown out the “but THINGS WERE JUST LIKE THAT BACK THEN!” argument ad nauseum. Which is total bullshit, of course. Now with the season finale of “Outlander” (which, spoiler, also included rape) the trolls are coming back.

I just want to ask, why is it whenever producers/directors/writers want to demonstrate “gritty historic realism” it’s ALWAYS RAPE? It’s always sexual violence toward women/girls.

You know what would be gritty historic realism? Dysentery. GoT has battles and armies marching all over the place. You want to show “what things were like back then”? Why aren’t we seeing 500 guys by the side of a road puking and shitting their guts out from drinking contaminated water while the rest of the army straggles along trying to keep going? Or a village getting wiped out by cholera? Or typhus, polio or plague epidemics?


I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ANSWER WHY PEOPLE DON'T SEEM TO WANT TO DO THAT — No one wants to see that shit! And the same goes with rape, goddammit.

Anyway, let's move on to the other characters.

Wait. What other characters?

Jorg IS the main character, but, I mean, seriously, it's almost as if the most important supporting characters around him were just plot devices in living flesh and bone and nothing more. No development. Totally flat. Lifeless. Existing to only complement the already-gritty-edgy-omgimsocool vibe of the main character. What about THEIR characters, Mr. Lawrence? Don't they get any development? At all? Please? No?

Another point — one redeeming part of this book could have been female representation, but... what did you DO to Katherine, for fuck's sake?

We have her stand there as Jorg starts to strangle her near the end. That's what you do to her. Here we have that recurring motif of violence against women, where every girl is either raped or beaten and don't exist in this insipid, too-edgy plot in their own right. Thanks, Mr. Lawrence.

In case you couldn't figure it out, I do not recommend this book.
186 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Prince of Thorns.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

January 22, 2012 – Shelved
May 19, 2012 – Started Reading
May 19, 2012 –
page 40
10.42% "Okay, so this fourteen year old boy has raped two women and killed one of his staff members in cold blood. I'm going to keep reading 'cause robin hobb says it's good, but seriously now, wtf?" (Other Hardcover Edition)
May 21, 2012 – Shelved as: fantasy
May 21, 2012 – Shelved as: reviewed
May 21, 2012 – Finished Reading

Comments (showing 1-50 of 152) (152 new)


message 1: by Helen (last edited May 21, 2012 09:30PM) (new) - added it

Helen Okay...was tempted to give this one a try just because, but I think I'll skip it now. Have better stuff on my TBR list. Fifty Shades trilogy and City of Bones are enough crappy books for this year.
Thanks for going through this until the end.


message 2: by Li (new) - rated it 1 star

Li Seagull Haha, did you read the entire fifty shades trilogy? Can't help but feel a little bit of sympathy there :P Do take very long break from crappiness, then!


message 3: by Helen (last edited May 21, 2012 09:44PM) (new) - added it

Helen Lizzy wrote: "Haha, did you read the entire fifty shades trilogy? Can't help but feel a little bit of sympathy there :P Do take very long break from crappiness, then!"

I'm about to start the third part. And then I'm done with crappy literature and back to MSTing crappy fanfics.

Actually, 50S counts as MSTing a crappy fanfic too.


message 4: by Li (new) - rated it 1 star

Li Seagull Helen wrote: "Lizzy wrote: "Haha, did you read the entire fifty shades trilogy? Can't help but feel a little bit of sympathy there :P Do take very long break from crappiness, then!"

I'm about to start the third..."


50S... the author was...enthusiastic, yes, but the writing and characterization was shit.

Do have fun. If that's possible. Heh.


message 5: by rameau (new)

rameau I'd still be tempted to read this book weren't it for the author's bad behaviour. And the fans. So, no.


message 6: by Wastrel (new)

Wastrel Interesting. I read Adam Whitehead's review (whose opinions seem mostly pretty reliable, albeit with some strangeness now and then), and he not only fave it 4.5 out of 5, but specifically praised the excellent characterisation of the secondary characters... apparently it's compelling, vivid, well-written and with a rich vein of humour!

I had no interest in reading this until your review, but I must admit the disconnect between the two reviews does make me curious...


message 7: by Li (new) - rated it 1 star

Li Seagull Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention the editor/author attacking other bad reviewers.

I definitely wouldn't recommend it to anyone, Wastrel, but that does seem odd. I found the supporting characters lacking in every way, but maybe that's just me.


Elspeth I didnt hear about the bad author behavior with this author, I guess its a good thing I had a strong distaste for this book.


message 9: by Li (new) - rated it 1 star

Li Seagull Yeah, just the editor haranguing readers about bad reviews. Nothing special.


message 10: by Kathy (new) - rated it 1 star

Kathy I had a go at reading this book. The main character Jorg is really distasteful to say the least. The rape scene you hear about in reviews is as bad as they say. If you like your characters to have no concience or morals and little in the way of human emotion then this book is for you. I know I won't be picking up book 2 in this series.


message 11: by Li (new) - rated it 1 star

Li Seagull Kathy wrote: "I had a go at reading this book. The main character Jorg is really distasteful to say the least. The rape scene you hear about in reviews is as bad as they say. If you like your characters to hav..."

Ditto on your last sentence. Ugh. Definitely not my type of read.


message 12: by Valerie (new)

Valerie Hmmm. I didn't have much interest in this (never sounded like my thing), then I heard about the bad author behavior, then my friend was telling me that she liked it in a surreal sort of "I liked this though I felt I wasn't supposed to like it" sort of way and I considered giving it a go... but after reading this + other negative reviews, I don't feel like I have to. :D


message 13: by Alex (new) - rated it 4 stars

Alex Ristea As odd as it sounds, I think I might like this one based on your review...


message 14: by Li (new) - rated it 1 star

Li Seagull Alex wrote: "As odd as it sounds, I think I might like this one based on your review..."

how so?


message 15: by Alex (new) - rated it 4 stars

Alex Ristea Jorg sounds like a guy I want to read about. With the whole doing things without regrets.

I guess my inner sadistic fantasy reader is popping up, but I like blood, eviscerations, and acts of moral ambiguity (or none whatsoever).

*shrug*


Traci I thought this was a goody-goody Disneyesque fantasy. Don't know why. Might have to read it for curiousity sake.


message 17: by Li (new) - rated it 1 star

Li Seagull Traci wrote: "I thought this was a goody-goody Disneyesque fantasy. Don't know why. Might have to read it for curiousity sake."

Huh? Well, alright then :P


Mattman I actually quite liked this book.
Though i would say the definition of the nuban and the early age mentors (the priest and the slave) could have been better expounded. But then who knows. Possibly it was intentional to keep the book a specific, easy to skim length.
For all that your reasons are valid I still thought it was a brilliant book. I don't particularly care whether a characters moral values match my own so long as it's well written and Jorg was. It's a well paced, often witty novel with an not often used idea of a completely apathetic lead. Also, I think I read Lawrence fleshs out the Katherine character in book two.


James Honestly this was one of my favourite books of this year. I thought the fact that the main character was a complete asshole was rather unique, and somewhat refreshing. Whenever most author's main characters do bad things they usually turn out to be the misled heart-of-gold types, and it was getting quite boring. Sure he's an asshole, but he's supposed to be, and you aren't supposed to like him.

You complain about the lack of development of supporting characters, but my take on that is that if he had spent a lot of time developing them, it would have defeated the point of the main character. Given that it is written in first person, character development of others depends on him actually caring about them enough to ask about their past, or their opinions. The only person throughout the book that got that kind of treatment was the Nuban, and his development was rather good I thought.

I read the free pages on amazon for the second book, and most of Katherine's actions were explained through diary entries that Jorg finds somehow. Besides, it wasn't Katherine that Jorg was strangling, I don't know where you got that from. Jorg woke from some sort of coma to find that the servant Hanna was strangling him, and he strangled her in return. Then Katherine found them, but she hesitated before stabbing him - probably because she'd spent the last few months keeping him alive - and Jorg took advantage of it by hitting her in the head with a vase.

I don't think the one star is warranted tbh, even if you didn't like the characters. The narrative itself was well written, the dialogue was consistent with the characters and the world setting itself was really cool. When books like 50 Shades exist I don't think there's a single book out there that deserves to be put on one star alongside it lol


message 20: by Bob (new)

Bob I don't understand all this hate for the book. I have read many fantasies and this one seems at the top of my list. Those of you complaining about the darker parts of the book..... DEAL WITH IT. I must say that after reading fantasy i'm tired of all those goody goody heroes and this book shows some of the harsh reality.

Also i dont understand the complaints about character development. First off all there is a struggle in Jorg and the development is done quite well. Secondly there is the Nuban, who plays a quite important role. He may not talk much, but he has a deep connection with jorg, and leads to some crucial decisions and changes in Jorg. Then there is Katharine, she is not that big of a player in this book, but as i am reading the second book, she is becoming a lot more important.

I don't understand why there are all these complaints as this book shows a more darker side, but not a worse side of fantasy. Overall I'd give this book a 5/5


Elspeth Bob, the main character is a rapist and a murderer that feels no remorse for either. Where is the mystery on why people would hate this book?
Personally I couldn't get past the main character is a rapist, I didn't WANT to empathize with him at that point.
I am sick of people asking how other people didn't care for this book.
I like gritty, I like realism, I even like noir, but I want a main character I can have some sort of emotional bond with.
Needless to say Jorg was not it.


message 22: by Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) (last edited Oct 15, 2012 03:02AM) (new)

Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) Bob wrote: "I don't understand all this hate for the book."

But please, mansplain why people, particularly women, shouldn't have a problem with unfettered rape.

Those of you complaining about the darker parts of the book..... DEAL WITH IT.

She did. She read it, didn't like it, and posted a review. The rest of us who wouldn't appreciate this kind of book aren't reading it thanks to her warning us. She didn't go trolling four and five star reviews (or create a troll account) to tell them their opinion is wrong.

I don't understand why there are all these complaints as this book shows a more darker side, but not a worse side of fantasy.

If you don't get it, then go on and read your rapey fantasy. No one is stopping you. You have no right to get pissy because someone else chooses not to. Deal with it.

Overall I'd give this book a 5/5

You seem to be confused. This is Lamora's review. This is for her opinion. You have a review space, that is where you review a book. Not trolling someone else's.


message 23: by Li (new) - rated it 1 star

Li Seagull Alicia wrote: "But please, mansplain why people, particularly women, shouldn't have a problem with unfettered rape."

LOL! Well said!


message 24: by [deleted user] (new)

Bob wrote: "I don't understand all this hate for the book. I have read many fantasies and this one seems at the top of my list. Those of you complaining about the darker parts of the book..... DEAL WITH IT. I ..."

This is not your review. You do not get to tell someone how to rate a book, or what to think about a book. people are never going to agree. People are not going to like everything you like, and that does not give you the right to openly attack them and belittle their opinion.
DEAL WITH IT.


message 25: by [deleted user] (new)

James wrote: "Honestly this was one of my favourite books of this year. I thought the fact that the main character was a complete asshole was rather unique, and somewhat refreshing. Whenever most author's main c..."

James, write your own damn review. You don't get to tell his reviewer how to rate her book. Grow up.


message 26: by Eva Rose (new)

Eva Rose Thank you for this review Lamora, I was going to pick up this book because the cover suggested some dark fantasy but I never thought I was going to read that kind of depravity. I am so glad you voiced your opinion regarding this book, don't ever take it down just because some people do not understand their place and come in here trolling your review.


James Lyn wrote: "James wrote: "Honestly this was one of my favourite books of this year. I thought the fact that the main character was a complete asshole was rather unique, and somewhat refreshing. Whenever most a..."

I did, but if I read another persons review and want to discuss their views on it, that is my prerogative.

The entire point of the comment section on reviews is so people can . . . you guessed it, comment on reviews. Particularly in order to discuss their contents.

People have the right to discuss their opinions. Deal with it and grow up.


James Alicia wrote: "Bob wrote: "I don't understand all this hate for the book."

But please, mansplain why people, particularly women, shouldn't have a problem with unfettered rape.

Those of you complaining about the..."


This book isn't 50 Shades of Grey. The rape aspects aren't all glossed over or glorified in any way. They are out there in the open.

The entire point of the character is that he is an arsehole who is mentally screwed over by traumatic events early in his life.

Personally, I can empathise with him - that doesn't mean his actions are excusable, but that they are in a way understandable. He had his innocence taken away when he was just a child, he was exposed to what humanity can do when it is truly depraved, and was irreparably damaged by it. Towards the end of the book he was beginning to mentally show some shreds of regret and humanity, and I'm looking forward to reading the next ones and seeing those parts of him develop.

Also, has anyone noticed that when you have bastards like this in novels, but they aren't the main character, people generally don't have a problem with it? Take Gregor Clegane from A Song of Ice and Fire for example. People don't say "I don't like those books, they have that evil git in them." As far as I can see the only difference here is that there is a change of perspective on who is telling the story.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) Lamora wrote: "LOL! Well said!"

Haha, I just realized that this is your review. Sorry about that. I'm so used to seeing Elspeth responding to the insipid trolls in her review I immediately defaulted to thinking it was hers.

James, the person here who needs to grow up is you. Lamora doesn't agree with your view of this book. So instead of acting like a grown up and letting it go, you're in her space telling her that her opinion is wrong because it doesn't coincide with yours.

"I don't think the one star is warranted tbh, even if you didn't like the characters." Yes, YOU don't think it does, too bad for you she does and this is her review space. There is any number of reasons a person will give a book one star, and that is their prerogative. The review comments are not a place for you to diminish the reviewer's opinion because it is not your own. They are not there so you can troll and harass a reviewer (hence the lovely delete button we're given).

You don't want to discuss this book, you want to browbeat Lamora into thinking the same way you do. You're going to have to join the real world and understand that not everyone will. And as much of a piece of shit as it is, at least Fifty Shades treats rape as what it is.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) James wrote: "The entire point of the character is that he is an arsehole who is mentally screwed over by traumatic events early in his life."

And there would be that mansplaining I was talking about.

Honey, I haven't read this book and I have no desire to and yet I understand the nature of the character and the purpose of his actions. What you seem to be incapable of understanding is that not everyone likes reading about certain things.

I am sick to fucking death of having to listen to men basically say "so what, big deal?" when it comes to rape. Especially men defending rape in fantasy. I can accept reading it in fiction, in certain cases, but some people don't want to. Some women don't want to. Some have been sexually assaulted, have almost been, have had friends/family who were and it triggers them. Some absolutely do not like to read violence against women period. Some are also sick to fucking death of the callous treatment it gets in books such as this as it's a very lazy, easy go to for psychopath behavior.

And what is your deal with Fifty Shades? That's an erotica. This is fantasy. That was a piece of shit Twilight fan fiction. This is supposed to be a real book. And, you know what, even if she gave this book one star, and gave that one five stars it is still not your place to come in and tell her what she should think and how she should have rated them.


James Alicia wrote: "Lamora wrote: "LOL! Well said!"

Haha, I just realized that this is your review. Sorry about that. I'm so used to seeing Elspeth responding to the insipid trolls in her review I immediately default..."


At no point did I say that her opinion is wrong. I said that mine was different, yes, but never that hers was wrong. You quoted one piece of what I said, so lets look at that: "I don't think the one star is warranted tbh, even if you didn't like the characters."

You are right in that this is MY opinion. I then backed it up with MY reasoning: I enjoyed the narrative, the world setting and the dialogue. If anyone wants to discuss those reasons, or explain why a dislike of the characters and their actions makes MY reasons irrelevant, I will happily listen - well, read - and politely discuss it. I may not agree with their point of view, and those who don't like this book may not be convinced by my arguments either - but the discussion itself is the interesting bit - at least to me.

You rightly say there are any number of reasons a person will give a book one star - and if I want to discuss those reasons, why shouldn't I? If Lamora is not interested in such a discussion, she doesn't have to reply to me, in which case the matter gets dropped, indeed it did so - it took over a month and a half for someone else to comment on the review.

My "grow up" comment was not directed at Lamora. It was directed at Lyn, who told me to grow up over a strawman argument - namely "you don't get to tell someone else how to review their book" - something I never did at any point. Lamora answered Bob's points with her own well written arguments, and did not insult him personally, unlike Lyn.

I have no interest in "browbeating" anyone. What I would like is a real discussion about a book that interests me where people like Lyn and Nina Rose don't try and stop other people from voicing their opinions simply because they differ from their own.

As for "Fifty Shades treats rape as what it is" - I would argue that it is THIS book that does that, not 50 Shades? 50 Shades treats rape as the right of a man in a relationship as long as they are good looking. "Good looking man wants sex, woman doesn't want sex, good looking man deserves sex because he is good looking" is the attitude of 50 Shades. The attitude of this book is that "rapists are arseholes," which in my opinion is a much more realistic view.


message 32: by rameau (new)

rameau James wrote: "Personally, I can empathise with him - that doesn't mean his actions are excusable, but that they are in a way understandable. He had his innocence taken away when he was just a child, he was exposed to what humanity can do when it is truly depraved, and was irreparably damaged by it."

To this, to you and to the author, to all authors, I say:

Please, stop using a childhood trauma as a get out of jail free card for a character's deplorable behaviour.


James Alicia wrote: "James wrote: "The entire point of the character is that he is an arsehole who is mentally screwed over by traumatic events early in his life."

And there would be that mansplaining I was talking ab..."


The comparison with 50 Shades was simply because of the issues of rape that appear in both, and the attitudes of people towards each case. Nothing more.

Sure if women find it uncomfortable reading about rape in any circumstance then yes this book is definitely not for them.

If they are of the opinion that rape has it's place in literature as long as it is dealt with for what it is, a terrible act of violence against women that should never be excused, then they could do much worse than this book. This is where my opinion lies, and that is the sense I personally got from it. Personally I think there is nothing that is out of bounds of literature if it is handled well, that is the awesome thing about books.

At no point did I say "so what, big deal" about rape, and I never would.

Still, I don't think you are in a place to comment on the treatment of rape in a book when you haven't read the actual book.


James rameau wrote: Please, stop using a childhood trauma as a get out of jail free card for a character's deplorable behaviour.

So do you think this book would be better if the character was just a psychopath, rather than someone who suffered extreme trauma?

Or are you saying characters in books aren't allowed to act in a deplorable manner?

Or have I entirely missed the point, which is very possible.


message 35: by Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) (last edited Oct 15, 2012 04:04AM) (new)

Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) James wrote: "The comparison with 50 Shades was simply because of the issues of rape that appear in both, and the attitudes of people towards each case. Nothing more."

You will be hard pressed to find someone who hates FSoG as much as I do. Ask Rameau, she'll tell you. I have no good words to say about it. But here, I'm unsure of where you get that rape was a theme of that fic. It was in terms of the statutory rape/molestation of Edward2.0 as a child. But he doesn't rape Bella2.0. It's an abusive relationship, yes. But rape? No. (Trust me. If it were I would be all over that. In an almost gleeful way.)

The attitudes toward that fic and this book are going to be different. Period. It doesn't equate.

Sure if women find it uncomfortable reading about rape in any circumstance then yes this book is definitely not for them. If they are of the opinion that rape has it's place in literature as long as it is dealt with for what it is, a terrible act of violence against women that should never be excused, then they could do much worse than this book.

You recognize that's your opinion, good. However, the way you express it is in such a way that it demeans those who do not share it. I fall into the latter category. There is a place, especially in certain types of stories. However, I have no desire to read this book primarily because of the way in which rape is used (and Jorg's age). There are different degrees and everyone has a different threshold. That isn't wrong, and no one deserves to be talked down to because they feel that way. (By the way, there are men who don't appreciate reading it as well.)

I didn't say you said "big deal" that's why I had the word "basically" in there because it's the attitude. And that is the attitude you're projecting.

Still, I don't think you are in a place to comment on the treatment of rape in a book when you haven't read the actual book.

It doesn't seem to me you're accepting commentary on it either way as Lamora has read it. Also, considering your statements in the last few comments that line is pretty hypocritical.


message 36: by rameau (new)

rameau James wrote: "Or have I entirely missed the point, which is very possible. "

This, most likely. I don't have a clue if the book were better had the main character been an honest psychopath. That would depend on the author and his writing skills, which I'm not familiar with. Nor am I saying that characters in books can't—or shouldn't—act in a deplorable manner. I am saying that using childhood trauma, rape, abuse, and such has become a trivialised shorthand, a lazy plot device, for authors wanting to write villains. They're aiming for three dimensional characterisation and hitting smack in the middle of a cardboard characters instead.

And readers buying into these flimsy excuses can't convince me in their defences for the book(s).

As for your FSoG comments, I just want to quote Inigo Montoya to you: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Then again, I've not read that book either, so what do I know.

And in case you forgot, men get raped too.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) rameau wrote: "I am saying that using childhood trauma, rape, abuse, and such has become a trivialised shorthand, a lazy plot device, for authors wanting to write villains. They're aiming for three dimensional characterisation and hitting smack in the middle of a cardboard characters instead."

Quoted for absolute truth. It's lazy writing at its finest.


James rameau wrote: "James wrote: "Or have I entirely missed the point, which is very possible. "

This, most likely. I don't have a clue if the book were better had the main character been an honest psychopath. That w..."


Fair point, though I don't see why it shouldn't be used on the one condition that it is done WELL - which in this book I think it has been. Cliche's only become cliche's because they are used a lot, and generally that is because they work. Good writing can make good use of them, but a bad writer trying to use them gets caught out every time.

In my opinion, in this book it is the former. Others may consider it the latter, and I'm not sure how either position could convince the other, since this at least is definitely down to the readers personal taste with regard to the writing all the way.


James rameau wrote: "James wrote: "Or have I entirely missed the point, which is very possible. "

This, most likely. I don't have a clue if the book were better had the main character been an honest psychopath. That w..."


Oh and no, I didn't forget that men get raped too - but it happens a lot less, and if I see shady characters in the street at night I'm more concerned about being robbed or beaten up than I am about being raped. That's just the different attitudes for men and women, and may go some way to explain the different attitudes toward this book.


James Alicia wrote: "James wrote: "The comparison with 50 Shades was simply because of the issues of rape that appear in both, and the attitudes of people towards each case. Nothing more."

You will be hard pressed to ..."


50 Shades Darker, the first part of Chapter 15. Ana says she doesn't want sex, Christian fucks her anyway. Closest she comes to consenting is saying "Don't let me think about it." At absolute best it could be called coerced consent, the most common form of rape.

"I didn't say you said "big deal" that's why I had the word "basically" in there because it's the attitude. And that is the attitude you're projecting."

My bad, that is not by design. I don't mean to talk down to anyone - well no, I meant to talk down to Lyn in my reply to her since I felt her reply to me was pretty damn patronising and I replied in kind. But in regards to people commenting on the book itself, no it is not my intention to talk down to them and if it comes across that way then I apologise, I'll try to watch out for it.

"It doesn't seem to me you're accepting commentary on it either way as Lamora has read it. Also, considering your statements in the last few comments that line is pretty hypocritical. "

Not at all, I accept Lamora's commentary on it even if I disagree with it. Respecting someones opinion doesn't mean you can't question it.

And I don't see the hypocrisy, since I have read the book and have reviewed it on my own page. If that's not what you meant then you'll have to explain further, because otherwise I'm confused.


Elspeth Alicia wrote: "Lamora wrote: "LOL! Well said!"

Haha, I just realized that this is your review. Sorry about that. I'm so used to seeing Elspeth responding to the insipid trolls in her review I immediately default..."


LMAO!
Well trolls are contagious apparently, cause bob decided to try and prove his point on my review.
*sigh*
Silly troll, try and spread your hate and discontent somewhere else we don’t want it here.


Carol. Lamora--I have to comment, because I also have a negative review of this book, which appears to attract a number of trolls. Bob came over to mine as well to leave his ill-formed thoughts. I agree with your review and all the reasons you mentioned why you find this such a disagreeable book.


Elspeth Well looking at Bob the Sock Puppet's profile. The account is brand new he just made it this month.
*sigh*


message 44: by Li (new) - rated it 1 star

Li Seagull Elspeth wrote: "Well looking at Bob the Sock Puppet's profile. The account is brand new he just made it this month.
*sigh*"


Eh...that's rather incriminating. Ugh.



Carol wrote: "Lamora--I have to comment, because I also have a negative review of this book, which appears to attract a number of trolls. Bob came over to mine as well to leave his ill-formed thoughts. I agree w..."

Thank you :) Sorry about his also bothering you...


message 45: by [deleted user] (new)

James wrote: "Lyn wrote: "James wrote: "Honestly this was one of my favourite books of this year. I thought the fact that the main character was a complete asshole was rather unique, and somewhat refreshing. Whe..."
I don't think the one star is warranted tbh, even if you didn't like the characters.
You weren't discussing, you were trying to censor another reviewer. You don't get to tell people HOW to rate a book.


message 46: by [deleted user] (new)

James wrote: "It was directed at Lyn, who told me to grow up over a strawman argument - namely "you don't get to tell someone else how to review their book" - "

Liar.


message 47: by James (last edited Oct 15, 2012 03:11PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

James Lyn wrote: "James wrote: "Lyn wrote: "James wrote: "Honestly this was one of my favourite books of this year. I thought the fact that the main character was a complete asshole was rather unique, and somewhat r..."

Wrong. I was discussing. Why is how a book is rated not open for discussion?

I personally don't think a one star rating is warranted for a book that only seems to fail on one particular thing but does others well - since Lamora's points in the review all centered on character based criticisms, she doesn't seem to have any complaint over the writing, the setting etc.

Now maybe she disagrees, and thinks that one failure is bad enough to warrant a 1 star for a book. Or maybe she felt those other areas were bad too but never mentioned them in the review. If she gives a damn about my comment she can reply to it and explain why she chose the 1 star rating - or if she doesn't (which seems to be the case) she can ignore it and it goes away. But if I don't raise that point in my comment, how will I ever get a reply and how will it be discussed?

I never tried to censor anyone, censorship is something I hate with a passion. So stop talking bullshit.


message 48: by Li (new) - rated it 1 star

Li Seagull " personally don't think a one star rating is warranted for a book that only seems to fail on one particular thing but does others well - since Lamora's points in the review all centered on character based criticisms, she doesn't seem to have any complaint over the writing, the setting etc."

No wait stop

This book is character-driven. Not plot-driven.

If you have horrible characters for a character-driven book, everything else sort of topples along with them.

"thinks that one failure is bad enough to warrant a 1 star for a book"

All of the character inconsistencies and bad characterization do not amount to merely one failure. These things tend to add up to an unbearable final sum that makes me want to tear my hair out.

"But if I don't raise that point in my comment, how will I ever get a reply and how will it be discussed?"

While I do appreciate that you are trying to have an intelligent conversation, what normally happens is that the person who disagrees with the review brings up an important point, the reviewer rebuts it and explains their reasoning, and the disagree-er accepts that some people just see things differently than they do and returns to their own review space to rant on their own profile rather than enforcing their point of view in someone else's space.


message 49: by [deleted user] (new)

James wrote: "Lyn wrote: "James wrote: "Lyn wrote: "James wrote: "Honestly this was one of my favourite books of this year. I thought the fact that the main character was a complete asshole was rather unique, an..."
I am talking bullshit? Oh please. I never tell someone how to rate a book, or that their rating is not the right rating. You were telling this reviewer how their rating is wrong.
Blocked and ignored, I can see you have a problem being responsible for your comments, and I have little time for someone so immature that they can't see how rude and demeaning their actions are towards another reviewer.


message 50: by Helen (last edited Oct 15, 2012 04:01PM) (new) - added it

Helen @James. Did you read the rating description lately? I did. You know what it says for one star? "Didn't like it". Not "it wasn't a good book". I can rate a classic like Pride and Prejudice one star if I didn't like it, regardless of the quality of writing. People can dislike things for various reasons. I actually found this one of better-balanced book reviews. It explains problems, but in an objective way, making it clear what reviewer disliked, but leaving option for you to pick it up if you don't find the same thing problematic. I was actually tempted to try the book - becuase I love problematic stuff. But I was put out. Not by Lamora's review. But by book's rabid fanboys. Now I don't want to touch it just to spite them.


« previous 1 3 4
back to top