Point out the problems you have with a book

>Point out the problems you have with a book
>"You just didn't understand it, user"

>point out genuine misconceptions and incorrect assumptions about your interpretation of the book using valid reasoning and evidence
>"Holy shit it's just my opinion. Don't be such an autist."

Waiting for Godot isn't that hard user

>when the general consensus of a book is an obvious, fundamental misunderstanding of the message of the book

>pleb gives me his interpretation of the book
>show him wikipedia and tell him he's wrong

Example?

>thinking the middle brow redditers who edit wikipedia have any insights

the great gatsby and "muh american dream"

most obvious one I can think of is Catcher in the Rye.
The overwhelming majority is that Holden is just whiney? When it's so obviously a story about a teenager grappling with his fear of becoming an adult- and the responsibilities that entails, especially because he sees the adults around him as unhappy.

>Hamlet's major flaw is that he "thinks too much," and his "to be or not to be" speech is mainly about suicide
>Brave New World is a horrible dystopia on the level of 1984's world (but I'm not trying to be edgy and say it's a paradise)
>Holden is just "le angsty teenager" who needs to grow up
>Anything about "sincerety" and DFW

Lol...

Fahrenheit 451 is supposed to be a critique of censorship but Bradbury says its actually exploring the dangers of television, how it will shorten attention spans and have people reading less.

Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is taken as a diatribe against the meat-packing industry for how unsafe it was for consumers when in reality Sinclair was trying to bring attention to the awful conditions of workers and raise support for socialism.

>"to be or not to be" speech is mainly about suicide

What the fuck is it about then, nigger?

>Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is taken as a diatribe against the meat-packing industry for how unsafe it was for consumers when in reality Sinclair was trying to bring attention to the awful conditions of workers and raise support for socialism.

it does both desu
but most people don't actually read it all the way through and miss out on the 50 pages of Ayn Rand tier soapboxing at the end

This is because most people read Catcher in the Rye as a teenager even though it's meant to be read as an adult as a reflection on the transition from childhood to adulthood post ex facto.

This, it literally is. Hamlet's main problem IS indecision, but also the fact that the decisions he make are poor. It's a criticism of the English Court, a sort of theatre a clef, but Hamlet's neurotic tendencies are not imagined.

Agree that BNW is oversimplified in interpretation, though

>Says she loves to read
>Only reads YA

Every fucking time

You cam certainly read it as doing both, but Sinclair himself hated that it was often interpreted as the former, and stated that his sole intent in writing it was the latter.

>inb4 death of the author

Pretty good post until the last one

considering that The Jungle was largely a work of investigative journalism, Death of the Author really does play in here - his slant is pretty much irrelevant, the facts speak for themselves.

>1984 is about the dangers of mass surveillance

>Says she loves classic literature
>Only reads historical romance novels
Damnit...

The worst part is when you try to recommend a good classic to them and they say "I think I've read that one before," and promptly try to change the topic.

>user has incredibly shallow surface level criticisms which can hardly stand to even a basic reading of the text in question
>can hardly even address the points since they're so baseless
>"you clearly didn't pay attention, read it again"
>user spergs out and makes a thread about it
I've learned to stop replying instead

have you tho?

But you should explain why the criticisms are shallow, instead of dismissing them without a thought

If you're not willing to debate with someone, then you shouldn't waste your time responding to them at all

Using an example from this thread, should I really stop and explain the basic wikipedia themes of catcher in the rye to every "Holden is whiny" poster? I'm not user's personal tutor.

If you're going to reply, you should explain it to them

Otherwise, you shouldn't reply

>heart of darkness is about MUH racism
I want all high school teachers to die

Is that not a viable aspect of the overall point?

How unhappy do you have to be with your self to stick your head in the Microwave?

It's just a minor world building aspect. I consider the major aspects to be groupthink, sexuality, and how totalitarianism is ubiquitous no matter the ideology behind it (Lewis did this better imo). The novel isn't propped up on the idea of surveillance, it's just an aspect that gels with the rest of it.

What's it really about then big guy

>Holden is just "le angsty teenager" who needs to grow up
Do many people actually think this? Even my shitty 11th grade english class taught the correct meaning.

You're just being contrarian for the sake of it now. Surveillance is a huge factor in both groupthink and totalitarianism.
The reason people always point to that aspect of 1984 is simply because the similarities are most obvious, such as in the hijacked Samsung smart tvs.

Try liking the book on this board without being told "hahaha how does it feel to be an angsty teenager". Even more so, try implying that Holden actually has some valid points about the phonies etc.

Nah you guys are reading too much into it, salinger himself was famously a lot like holden.

Tolstoy took turn the other cheek to mean 'non-reaction to evil' instead of 'think for a sec before throwing violence around'.

He just said he stopped replying to them.

>Jesus literally says 'Do not resist an evildoer'
HMMMMMMMMM

Yes. Anytime Catcher in the Rye is mentioned the majority of the posts mock Holden for being a pussy. I don't understand it! The book isn't even subtle! The entire thing is just an essay on what teenagers feel. Being afraid of the transition into adulthood is as fundamental as puberty- It's like people have no self awareness whatsoever. It's exhausting and I don't get it.

>find a historical novel about the unicorn tapestries
>it's a shitty historical romance

It has nothing to do with the American dream. It's just a melodrama about some rich people. Nowhere in the book are the characters building better lives for themselves/working hard. It's just sitting around having parties, that's the antithesis of the American Dream.

>It's just a melodrama about some rich people.
I'm agreeing with you, but that's the point. probably, I haven't read it A lot of these books are just diatribes against a certain group (usually rich assholes) but people are too dense to get it.

Look it! They're rich and they're doing all the shitty things they want! I want to do that! American dream! Whoo! YOLO! That kinda shit.

It's like calling romeo and juliet a touching romance when it's just mocking idiot teenagers or Lolita being, again, a touching romance when it's about this creeping fucking pedophile trying to justify rubbing his dick against a 12 year old girl.

muh race

>the correct meaning

Yes, yes, he forgot to put "most" in front of "correct" but the statement holds true otherwise

>that's the antithesis of the American Dream.

That's the fucking point, user

Most apparent, maybe. Trying to grade correctness is the antithesis of the humanities.

existentialism
gatsby is the kierkegaardian kof