Say 5 bad things about your favourite book

Say 5 bad things about your favourite book.

He's a douche
That Arab deserved it and the justice system knew it
Edgy at times
I need more descriptions of Marie's titties
Raymond should've showed up for my boy

I can only name 4
>its main character is a fag
>it's too long
>too much dialogue
>it ended

>characters ain't the most believable sometimes
>weird dialogs every now and then
>the author tries too hard to generate humor
>sexy talk, always makes me uncomfortable
>still don't know where alaska is
It's still my favorite though.

The long repetitive descriptions of the vast southwest plains get boring. The Judge tries too hard to be esoteric at times. The kid is far too emotionally unavailable for a main character. The story doesn't lead to anything or/and is nonexistent. I'm an idiot so anything I like can't possibly be good.

Mrs. Dalloway
>no fucking chapters
>the actual party, the only semblance of plot in the entire book, was boring
>the lesbian love stuff was only like three pages
>structure lacked focus
>too short

what book?

sounds like life, man, my dude

>the typeface and format used for conversations between Minds is difficult to follow the first couple of times through
>the Affront are almost too broadly funny, bit jarring
>Darjeeling or whatever her name is flips from ice queen to being totally in love with the main character with too little progression in-between
>the pacing suffers while we hang out on Planet Party, fun as it is
>the custodian of all the mothballed warships got rekt in a very cruel offhand way and I felt sorry for him

Just to clarify, when you say "bad" do you mean it in the sense that the "negative" quality renders it inaccessible or hard to grasp, or that I myself admit that I could not accept the faults independent of the work but that the whole is greater than its parts?

Also, one of the "faults" in my favourite book is that everyone's a pedantic selfish narcissist.

my dairy desu~~

>kirghiz light part
>caroll eventyr

that's it. everything else in the book is great.

The neurotic Harvard student was more difficult to understand than the tard
Sister's a sloot
Sister's daughter is a mean sloot
Moms a cunt
Gave me the sads, Too close to my own family life desu

> Not long enough
> Perhaps a little too complex with metaphor
> Too little time on character development too much on plot
> Almost too riveting for its own good
> She should never have killed Sirius Black that way

> he's a douche
How is this a bad thing?... If Mersault wasn't as he is we wouldn't be discussing this book today, you dumb fuck

>Some of the speeches are forced in and don't feel truly organic
>The 'main character' goes missing for a large middle portion of the book
>Too much taconegro language
>Tortillas
>Ye

>Long as fuck
>They stop saying people's names when they think you've memorized them so I needed to check the beginning to remember the protagonist's name
>It tries to portray the whole "false of someone who didn't exist" and the forgeries as bad, but the whole thing is beautifully aesthetic to me.
>It's not funny most of the time
>Hemingway wasn't really Hemingway

>That Arab deserved it and the justice system knew it
That's the point though: he wasn't convicted for murder, he was convicted for his attitude towards life

Growth of the Soil is just perfect. I'm afraid I can't really criticize it.

I've been meaning to read that.

Which translation would you recommend? (assuming you don't know Norwegian)

Sex is unrealistic
Main character is unlikable
Racist
Sexist
[Spoiler]Islamophobic[/spoiler]

Bet you can't guess it

Most of the character development happens in the sequel
The plot is somewhat slow

Fuck, I'm not good at this.

Which book, if you please?

It's a joke mon chéri

>The beginning is pretty boring
>There is only one interesting character in it
>Hits too close to home
>?
>?

underground man?
stoner?

something by houellebecq?

Wrong and wrong, but I won't say the book's name, because people would shit all over me.

>Maincharacter is a dillusional asshole (this is the point, though)
>Side character is way more interesting than the main character

I give up, I don't know anymore flaws.

>it makes me feel deeply for a sister-fucker
>it demands interest in an otherwise incomplete and spotted universe
>it is utterly bleak to the point the general perception wonders if it has any message beyond spreading misery, and sister fucking
>it made me realize I was pronouncing names and various words wrong for years

couldn't think of a 5th

Duh

>too much details in ambient description
>takes too long to get good
>sometimes characters stay quiet too many pages
>to understand the lore you have to read secondary books, because the "main line" isn't enough
>somewhat slow

>obviously written by a very drunk man in an existential crisis
>every character is inevitably fucked in the head
>you need to read the sentences out loud sometimes because they are so damn long
>ii had to read the first the chapter twice because i didn't understand shit the first time around
>no one in the book is actually called Absalom, what did Faulkner mean by this?

OK here we go. Mason and Dixon

- old style letter capitalization that I didn't understand at first.
- took 30 or so pages to get used to the writing.
- the ghastly fop was my favorite part of the book.
- DUDE WEED LMAO
- didn't get to spend enough time with son and xon when they were old af.

>old style letter capitalization that I didn't understand at first
It's known as Pynchon's German phase because they capitalize nouns.

Catcher in the Rye

Kindly ones?

>inconsistencies, the author definitely should've revised the whole book before sending it to the publisher
>the middle is somewhat weaker than the rest
>some technical descriptions confused me
>characters aren't really humane
>narratively it's the second most boring and watered-down thing ever written, after In Search of Lost Time

What book?

IJ?

It's ASOIAF

No

And why is it your favourite then?

>Racist
>Sexist
>[Spoiler]Islamophobic[/spoiler]
good goy.