Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Reviewers Take on the Classics

Posted by samzenpus on from the eye-of-the-beholder dept.

Not everyone is a fan of great literature. In particular, reviewers on Amazon can be quite critical of some of the best loved classics. Jeanette DeMain takes a look at some of the most hated famous books according to some short tempered reviewers. One of my favorites is the review of Charlotte's Web which reads in part, "Absolutely pointless book to read. I felt no feelings towards any of the characters. I really didn't care that Wilbur won first prize. And how in the world does a pig and a spider become friends? It's beyond me. The back of a cereal box has more excitement than this book. I was forced to read it at least five times and have found it grueling. Even as a child I found the plot very far-fetched. It is because of this horrid book that I eat sausage every morning and tell my dad to kill every spider I see ..."

2 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. What's the point of this stupid salon article? by s-whs · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Then it dawned on me. Anne Frank's "The Diary of a Young Girl"! Surely, no one could find fault with the poignant and honest writing of a young girl caught up in the evil of the Holocaust, setting down on paper her hopes, longings and yearnings -- a book that has made countless women want to become writers and which has inspired generations of readers to denounce hate and live more compassionate lives. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? But, oh, how wrong I was.

    I didn't like this book because it was boring. That's all that needs to be said. It was very very very very very very very very very very very boring. If you have to read this book shoot yourself first.

    Can you imagine being this person? It seems like a life completely devoid of any subtlety, introspection, caring or empathy.

    What a nutter! Of course someone can find fault with that book. I read part of it and I agree with the reviewer: It's very very boring. I didn't read further into this book for 2 reasons in particular: 1. It's a diary, so personal, so should not be read by anyone but the writer unless he/she authorizes it. 2. It's boring.

    That diary has only got well known because the writer died in the war. There are better and more poignant writings from people during WW2 about life during that time. There are many other diaries from that time which are not well known or not published because the writers didn't die... Why should a book be good just because it's a diary of someone who died in a war?

    At first I thought this salon article was looking for a problem where there was none, but after reading that bit about the diary (the bit about the bible is also stupid btw.) I find this salon article to nothing more than moronic uninsightful rubbish...

  2. Re:Diary of Anne Frank by wjousts · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Perhaps they should have assigned you "How to Not be a Pompous Asshole"? Then you'd learn not to insult people's intelligence just because they didn't like a book that you liked.