Why do people not like this book?

[How to make a mojito]

The book is funny sometimes but its like easy come easy go. It ıs unbelievable that Elizabeth worked too hard for the things she left. The tour seems perfect but anyone who goes such a trip for a year would probably have many difficulties besides feeling alone and depressive. I liked it because of the culture, cuisine, city descriptions and for the moods and feelings of Elizabeth Gilbert.

[Donna]

Colleen wrote: "I really loved the book. I also read Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail and have heard similar complaints - well it's a memoir! And I don't know anybody who hasn't ..."

Well said Colleen. I very much enjoyed both books as well.

[Christine]

Jazz wrote: "I am shocked to hear there are some people out there that don't like this book. We all can't like the same things in life but to say a book is awful is a bit drastic don't you think?

I saw the mov..."


I loved the book. But hated, hated, HATED the movie. It was truly awful. It had very little to do with the book and, because of that, just didn't make sense on any level.

It just looked like the protagonist got sick of her marriage, so got divorced in order to frou frou around the world, watching football matches on TV and meditating a little, eventually ending up in Bali where she meets a guy and gets into another relationship.

It just made no sense at all.

[Christine]

Misteeyed wrote: "How about themes of narcism woven into a story of "it's all about me.""

Yes, its shocking that an autobiography would be all about the person writing it, right?

[[deleted user]]

I didn't like the book - I got about 2/3 through and couldn't get through any more. In defense of the narrator: having the ability to travel and doing so is a fantastic way to learn more about yourself. Not everyone can relate but who can relate to every book one reads? If you say, 'I can' - you either have a fantastically tragic life story or a very narrow one and it's probably the latter. All of that said, the narrator whined through the book. WOE IS ME! Give me a break.

Plus as Farah mentioned above - it got boring too.

[[deleted user]]

Roo wrote: "I've read the book, and watched the movie, in my opinion it's because the writer isn't really someone you can relate to, she leaves her husband and has different love stories with other different m..."

On second thought, maybe Elizabeth Gilbert wasn't as successful as writing the character as the book's and movie's success would suggest. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, it's rare to be completely relatable (if at all) to a character. But I think the success of a character is due to the author's ability to make the reader feel empathy with the character in question despite how different the perspectives are. Maybe Elizabeth Gilbert was given too much praise for this book....

[[deleted user]]

Overall I enjoyed the book. I like learning about different cultures and like most can't afford to travel very often so for me seeing different parts of the world through another persons eyes is fun and this book gave me that.
I also fail to see the woman as writing a book which is "all about me" as some have stated in previous comments as it is a memoir about her life...there is no other way to write it. She was on a journey to find herself and since she had the opportunity to do it by traveling then why shouldn't she? I believe that most people would if they were just handed the chance.
I could even relate to the parts that some have called whiny as she is very clearly dealing with some form of depression. Those that saw it as whiny just haven't been there and can't relate. Which is fair but don't say the book as a whole is crap just because you can't relate to the life experiences off another person. We all go through our own things and deal with our pain in different ways.
The only part of the book that bothered me was when she was in India. I found this part extremely preachy.

[Monty J]

Kelsi wrote: "She was on a journey to find herself and since she had the opportunity to do it by traveling then why shouldn't she?"

Sort of an older female version of The Catcher in the Rye. Both were on a journey of self-discovery, moving from extreme discomfort to revelation and comfort. Both in an uncomfortable whiny first-person narrative voice.

[Lara]

Kelsi wrote: "Overall I enjoyed the book. I like learning about different cultures and like most can't afford to travel very often so for me seeing different parts of the world through another persons eyes is fu..."

This sums up part of the problem for me Kelsi. I don't think I learned about the cultures she was visiting at all. She did very little narration of what life was like for those she visited, only explained how they felt about her. And yes, I would take the opportunity to do what she did in a heartbeat. I have no problem with her accepting money to go on this journey. But she whined, quite loudly and quite a lot. I can relate to depression and huge life issues. I have been there. Those of us who have had to struggle through such things without the support of a 6 figure advance to send us on our travels get a little tired of being slapped in the face constantly by someone who is begging our pity. It got old, and seemed like she felt she had to defend herself because she wasn't sure she had done the right thing.

If she had spent more time having empathy for others, for the people she was visiting and their cultures, I would have been more likely to show empathy for her.

[Monty J]

Lara wrote: "Kelsi wrote: "If she had spent more time having empathy for others, for the people she was visiting and their cultures, I would have been more likely to show empathy for her. "

Herein contains something valuable in the book. The reader is forced to see the world the way the narrator sees the world. However flawed that view may be, we, assuming we are capable of it, are made aware of those flaws and are invited to learn from them.

The same is true of other first-person narratives: The Catcher in the Rye, The Great Gatsby, The Old Man and the Sea, Huckleberry Finn.

It is useful to notice the way we react emotionally to any work of art, writing especially. Are we repelled by a character because we are afraid those flaws exist within us or might lurk within us or someone dear to us, waiting to spring full-fledged at an unsuspecting moment?

[Lara]

Huck as a child has far more empathy for the people he comes across than this real life grown woman. His point of view demonstrates growth into a more mature understanding of human nature. Gilbert did not mature at all, as far as I could see.

And as narcissistic as Holden is, he is an adolescent who has experienced trauma. His point of view doesn' mature, but as he is in some sort of therapy by the end of the book, the reader is left with that possibility as well as the author's implication that Holden's emotional state is clearly not ok.

Gilbert is a grown woman, not even a fictional one. Her search for growth is to get to know herself better and indulge herself in whatever she desires, not to empathize with others. What I learned from this book is that it wasn't worth all the hype and that I'm glad I don't know this woman. Again, I didn't feel I was forced to see the world through her eyes as I have in other travel memoir or fictional narratives. I felt I was forced to see her through the world's eyes.

[Lori]

I would have ditched her at the first airport. All I wanted was for her to stop talking.

[Monty J]

Lara wrote: "Her search for growth is to get to know herself better and indulge herself in whatever she desires, not to empathize with others."

Herein lies the lesson. The success of the book proves there are a lot of women who identify with this character, flaws and all. The self-indulgence Gilbert represents is ingrained in our society, and the book is an expose of that. The sad thing is that so many think it is cool to be like Gilbert. The lesson is lost on them.

In this post-feminist era, many women have become highly evolved, leaving behind a greater number, chiefly younger ones, who are grappling with choices. groping for a value system that is both liberating and sustaining, spiritually and economically. (Similar to The Great Gatsby and The Sun Also Rises, both of which grappled with corruption, depravity and values.)

This may be one reason why The Great Gatsby proved so successful. It exposed the crass emptiness those superficial twins of materialism and self-indulgence. Gilbert is a modern rendition of Daisy.

The question of how to be "happy ever-after" is explored and left unresolved.

Literature is at its best when it holds up a mirror so society can have a good look.

As with The Catcher in the Rye and The Great Gatsby, how much we learn from EPL will be revealed over time. I am no huge fan of Gilbert, but it took guts to write it; I give her that.

[Teresa]

Lara, I agree with you, completely. How can this even be compared to fictional first-person works? This isn't a character, it's a writer telling about her experiences it what she perceives to be a very trying time of her life. Comparing this to Twain, Fitzgerald, and Hemingway is laughable. Even if I liked it, I could never go that far. Please don't treat it as if it's an important piece of literature. I seriously doubt that even Gilbert gave it that much thought and analysis.

[Monty J]

Teresa wrote: " Please don't treat it as if it's an important piece of literature."

No one that I know of has called EPL a serious work of literature, and I doubt they will. A book can resonate thematically or compare structurally with works of great literature without being elevated; it is just a tool of analysis.

Books sell in the millions because they strike a chord in the public consciousness, not because they are works of literary art, as evidenced by Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird (30 mil.) and Hinton's The Outsiders (13 mil.) Lord of the Flies has sold in the millions. I doubt anyone will ever call these books great literature, but their influence and/or representational value have been remarkable.

Women buy EPL for some reason other than literary value, and it is the same with Hunger Games and Fifty Shades of Grey.

When a book sells in the millions it is saying something about the book-buying public. To dismiss it because it isn't "literature" is to risk missing something important about those with whom we share the freeways, or the bus, or whatever.

I can't get past page one of a Harry Potter book, or any book of fantasy or romance (so far), but I am curious why people read them. I still haven't finished EPL, after 3 tries, but I will. Why? Because I am interested in what light it can shed upon my fellow inhabitants of this orbiting sphere.

[Bynz]

I bought this before all the hype and I just couldn't finish this book. It was, for starters, written badly. Even if it were written better, the author seemed so self-involved, self-aware and couldn't seem to make it real for me that I was just annoyed. And I was going through a break up at the time, so it could have easily reeled me in, but I just couldn't get past the narcissism.

[Raisa]

The book plays on foreign land - figuratively and literally - and it seems foreign. It does a fantastic job at conveniently repeating the well-known clichés about the countries the narrator travels. I think more than the "it is all about me" (as commented above by most), it is about - "the other, and it will remain the other because it is not me."

[Lara]

Lori wrote: "I would have ditched her at the first airport. All I wanted was for her to stop talking."

Lori, you could write a much better book, and one day I hope to read it!

[Hanna]

I loved this book, for me it was empowering. I feel like she was trying to find herself, which is something a lot of people don't do. I read this book when I was struggling in my life and it made me realize that I can look at life differently. I don't have to travel around the world to do it (I wish I could have), but I did change myself and know that there were better things out there for me.

[Kate]

Colleen wrote: "I really loved the book. I also read Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail and have heard similar complaints - well it's a memoir! And I don't know anybody who hasn't ..."

I AGREE COMPLETELY!!! I feel like these assessments of this book are so harsh. We all have to figure out how to pay the bills- who cares if she got the go ahead from her publisher first. I am wondering if this book just makes some people feel vulnerable because they haven't had the opportunity or the desire to really have that AHA moment. I found it inspiring.

[[deleted user]]

Kate wrote: "Colleen wrote: "I really loved the book. I also read Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail and have heard similar complaints - well it's a memoir! And I don't know any..."

That's what I think too, a lot of people never reach that point in their entire lives. I am especially feeling bothered by the people that have said she is a middle aged woman going through a phase that most people go through when they are teens. Why does it matter how old she is going through the phase of finding herself? It is meant to be a lifelong journey not something you tackle at one point in your life and you are just done with it. I think a lot of people feel vulnerable when faced with the fact that they maybe haven't allowed themselves to truly go on that journey of self discovery. I also found it inspiring :)

[Monty J]

Esther wrote: "To Kill A Mockingbird and Lord of the Flies would never be called great works of literature?"

Go back and read what I wrote. You overlooked the word "great." I stand by what I said.

The Pulitzer is awarded for works of "distinction." Literary merit is not mentioned in the award, probably because the term involves personal taste.

TKM got the Pulitzer largely because of timing. The book came out on the cusp of the Civil Rights era and had the effect of shaming and shocking white America into facing its bigotry and racism.

The award was well-deserved. Harper Lee is a courageous writer, given that she lived in the Deep South and had to face her neighbors after the book was published and the film came out. She is one of my favorites and most respected.

But TKM is light on aesthetic appeal in my humble opinion, and she had a lot of help from an editor who died within a few years of TKM's publication. Even the fact that she had help cannot take away from the book's importance or my respect for Harper Lee.

The impact of The Lord of the Flies is similar. Golding admitted that he thought he was merely writing a rebuttal to an earlier Pollyanna novel about boys on a Pacific island. His book barely got published and was trounced by the literary critics because it was so poorly written. Then the reading public, battered by the effects of fascism from World War II, saw something in it even Golding himself was unaware of.

I don't think Gilbert is a bad writer, just immature. I think better books will come as she matures.

[Anne]

Roo wrote: "I've read the book, and watched the movie, in my opinion it's because the writer isn't really someone you can relate to, she leaves her husband and has different love stories with other different m..."

SOmetimes it is braver to leave a spouse than to stay.

[[deleted user]]

Anne wrote: "Roo wrote: "I've read the book, and watched the movie, in my opinion it's because the writer isn't really someone you can relate to, she leaves her husband and has different love stories with other..."

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

[Carrie]

This book changed my life. I loved it. It made me realize that I could go anywhere and do anything. That I wasn't stuck living a boring life doing mundane things that some people do. I went to school out of the country because of this book. I've become a traveler because of this book. It all just depends on where one is in their life and not everyone is going to like the same things. It's all good.

[Alecto]

Monty J wrote: I am curious why people read them. I still haven't finished EPL, after 3 tries, but I will. Why? Because I am interested in what light it can shed upon my fellow inhabitants of this orbiting sphere. ..."
This is so true. I thought the same about so many succesful books which I frankly couldn't stomach, besides Gilbert's.
A memoir is of course based on personal experience but it has to convey something else nonetheless. To me, EPL didn't convey anything beside whiney clucking and cliched descriptions of people and places.
Reading this book is like reading the stereotyped thoughts that people have before actually going through experiences and living into places, more what one expects it to be that a real experience of things.
Besides, there's something really sad to me in a woman that starts off a journey of self discovery after realizing that she's not happy in her marriage and finds enlightment and peace only whe she sticks to another man. I can't see any interesting (to me) development in that. What stays with me after reading is only the impression of a feeble woman looking for others, preferrably men, to balance her and direct her in her life and no, I can't nor am interested in relating to that and yes I think is boring and time wasting to read.
Of course it is only an opinion, my personal view, but since the original question of topic was why people do not love this book, well, here's my personal reason not to, after which I think evrybody is free and welcome to even worship both books and author. I just do not understand people saying oh if you can't relate to her experience, then you're insensitive or harsh or never experienced loss/break up/break down/depression. How about having actually gone through a lot but with a whole different attitude? Where different doesn't mean better or worse, just plain different.

[Monty J]

Alecto wrote: "...finds enlightment and peace only whe she sticks to another man."

Perhaps this is the key. There are said to be only two kinds of ending to a story--resolution and logical exhaustion. In Logical Exhaustion, the characters don't learn from their mistakes and it is clear they will keep doing what got them into trouble, ad infinitum.

Both kinds of ending exist in human nature. Some people resolve their problems and others go through life repeating the same mistakes.

Gilbert has shown us that kind of character, a woman who fails at one marriage and later "trades up" to a perceived better alternative. (Bear in mind I have only read the first third of the book but did see the film.)

This behavior may appear empty-headed, even exploitative. But either way, Gilbert has exposed for our consideration a flawed character striving mightily to find happiness and making mistakes, groping for answers in a murky world beset with self-created antagonists like greed, hedonism, narcissism.

Some will see her as a hero for taking action instead of muddling through as so many of us do, passively accepting the status quo or resigning ourselves to an unhappy lot.

Some will see her as ignorant, selfish and narcissistic and will fault the author for not supplying better solutions. Providing solutions is not the author's job; job#1 is to hold up a mirror so we can get a good look at ourselves. The best example I can think of is The Grapes of Wrath.

And getting a good look at ourselves should provoke in us a desire to come up with solutions.

EPL is "reality" literature, engaging a wide audience by showcasing flawed behavior without providing solutions. A mirror is being held up so people can see (and judge) themselves and ponder what they would do in similar circumstances.

[Alecto]

Monty J I do agree with your analysis in principle, yet I think you went deeper than Gilbert ever intended.
Of course it isn't the author's job to provide solutions and even if some would, I reckon the reader as a thinking individual, should prompt him/herself to develop another, more personal alternative, as a result of book "digestion".
I just do not think that was Gilbert's intention, regardless to result, but I do credit her for writing a book that led to an interesting discussion :)

[Monty J]

Alecto wrote: "I just do not think that was Gilbert's intention, regardless to result, but I do credit her for writing a book that led to an interesting discussion :) "

I agree.

I think that writers sometimes are not cognitively aware of the deeper meaning of what they are writing (e.g. Lord of the Flies). That meaning gets explored and developed by the reading public, over time. And it may or may not resonate with some unrecognized need buried in the author's subconscious at the time of writing.

[Dianna]

Navel gazing...

[Mawada]

I think because it's a little boring. I didn't hate the book but i also didn't like it. It was good but seriously, i couldn't understand the point of it. Elizabeth life was a mess: leaving her husband, her stories with men, her childish, traveling because "she wants to find herself"?, and what have she done? Nothing i think. I think the story should be about a woman wants to enjoy her life, not find her self. Her personality is so weird that i don't think she have one. You just can't understand her ways of doing things.

[Jenny]

I, too, found it awful, dreadful and, yes, whiny - poor little wealthy woman with a family who loves her who still can't manage to be remotely satisfied or grateful for anything, dabbling patronisingly in third world culture for the limited duration of her meagre concentration span.
Excrutiating!

[Ellen]

Jenny wrote: "I, too, found it awful, dreadful and, yes, whiny - poor little wealthy woman with a family who loves her who still can't manage to be remotely satisfied or grateful for anything, dabbling patronisi..."

... couldn't have said it better myself Jenny!

[Elisa Santos]

I think this is a love or hate kind of book - it sparks off various emotions.

I liked it as a on-the-road book and was envious of the opportunity she had to go on a trip, and discover herself.

I think that most violent comments about it come from people who are also envious of the trip she made, of the opportunity to indulge herselves in a bit of whalowing - we don´t get to do that, normally: you end up a marriage, you worry about pension for the kids, where to live, how to pay the bills - practical stuff. You don´t get the break (or the luxury) or taking your own sweet time, to resolve your conflicts within - some lash out in the form of not letting the kids spend the time the court agreed, with the father.

This is not a piece of world litteratue and hardly will, in a few years be called a classic, so, those who enjoyed it for whatever reasons - continue. And those who didn´t - continue also. Too many books to read, not enough time.

[JO]

Jazz wrote: "I am shocked to hear there are some people out there that don't like this book. We all can't like the same things in life but to say a book is awful is a bit drastic don't you think?

I saw the mov..."

I thought I did not like the book, but I just did not like the author. I cannot sympathize with her at all and wah wah wahing about her plight. I get we all have issues no matter how privleged we are but oh how horrid she had to sell her appartment and house and someone footed the bill for all this travel and all she had to do is write about it. I did like the travel aspect.

[Nicola]

Misteeyed wrote: "How about themes of narcism woven into a story of "it's all about me."" Agreed. It was the pure self-indulgent egocentrism of this story that left a bad taste in my mouth. But for the record I disliked the movie as well so perhaps the story is just not for me.

[Laura]

... And now she has a spot on Oprah's mega conferences to show everyone how even more wonderful she is.

I find it annoying, too -

[Carol]

When I read a book I want to be "grabbed" from the first line, the first paragraph, the first page and then the first chapter. I didn't make it past the first chapter so I can't really say anything positive about it. I tried watching the movie and couldn't get pat the trailer. I just don't get it. For those of you that loved it, I am sincerely glad you did -- but there was just something about it that got 'under my skin'

[Laura]

I actually read the whole thing, feeling chaffed under my skin. I continued reading it because it was a gift from a friend and I was being respectful but I wanted to throw it across the room - whiny, self-indulgent - self serving - only to find out my friend had not read it and also disliked it intensely. It's just one of those books and she's just one of those mercurial personalities.

[Laura]

You know, the author has a video on her website about her new novel in which she celebrates that her work is "all about me". She is at least, true to form and I never have to consider her work again.

[Carol]

My question is......how can you write a book that so many dislike and it becomes a best seller? Wish I knew that secret!

[Nathalia]

I think the secret is to write about something slightly controversial (not too controversial though, unless you want to end up with serious Media attention), that some people with similar opinions will love and the others will love to hate. It helps if it is concerning a fixed demographic, who will be potential buyers, that will get the ball rolling. At least, that's this books secret. And Dan Browns.
Twilight on the other hand was a wild card.

[Laura]

Carol - EG had a reputation before EPL - and her publishers gave her an advance for the book which funded the trip and they got her article in Oprah and the rest is history. Controversy sells books. This one had it. But EG also has something about her that fascinates people - she lives up the road from my town - in Frenchtown NJ. But she is now moving (crazy story about that) and somehow her HOUSE SALE was recently featured in the NYT. She gets fabulous press. Good or Bad - it all sells books and mystique.

[Carol]

Thank you for the background information. Makes me feel better.

[Laurie]

I find the discussion about this book very interesting. I had a unique experience reading this book. When I first picked up this book, my husband had just died and when I read the first section of the book I was able to relate so well to the author's sense of grief going though her divorce and subsequent romantic break up. Even though our situations were very different, I found many of her emotions were similar to the feelings I had. After reading the first section I put the book down for awhile. A few months later I picked up the book and read the second section of the book. Again, I related to the author's struggles and challenges. After finishing the second section, I again put the book down (I wasn't ready to face the idea of love yet). When I was ready a few months later I read the third and final section and I completely related to the author's feeling of hope for the future. For me, this book was a very personal journey through grief and back to hope and love. I understand how someone who picks up this book and reads it all the way through might see the author as self-centered, but I saw this as a story about her journey through grief and back to love and I really enjoyed it. I chose not to watch the movie, for me this book was very therapeutic.

[Amy]

I was all for Elizabeth finding herself and indulging in a little exploration, self-pity, hedonism. I foolishly assumed that the "Love" part of the title referred to learning to love herself. When I discovered it was a man, a much older man, who helped her "find herself", I was very disappointed in her as a woman.

[Elisa Santos]

Amy wrote: "I was all for Elizabeth finding herself and indulging in a little exploration, self-pity, hedonism. I foolishly assumed that the "Love" part of the title referred to learning to love herself. Whe..."

I got the other idea, altogether - my idea of the "love" in title, was that she would eventually love again, when she learned do love herself, and that´s what hapened, realy: she only got involved with a man after she went through all of the stages: indulgence (Italy) self-knowledge (Philipinnes).

[Ami]

I personally liked the book. The draw for me was her interest in her spirituality and faith, and her travels to anywhere but where I am right now. I don't quite understand why people disliked it because it was about one woman. It is a memoir about her life and her problem and her divorce. It's about her. It says so right there. Who else is she going to write about? Her pet dog Skippy? lol

It is a rare thing that I am in the minority of reviews on the like side. I am slightly mortified by this fact. I liked the stories, and I just feel a tug in my chest like I want to get closer to my own faith and experience more. Even if it's just a little bit more than what I've seen.

I feel hopeful after finishing this.

[Lisa]

I think it is because there are too many male identified women in the world. If the story was told through male eyes, I don't think there would have been such a backlash.

[Ami]

Midwestocean wrote: "I think it is because there are too many male identified women in the world. If the story was told through male eyes, I don't think there would have been such a backlash."

I think that may be part of it. I think it's mostly that people see her as a representative of a self-indulgent american woman. Because people aren't supposed to be allowed to go on a year hiatus and seek spiritual balance.

I wish I could do that. Maybe I will do that someday.