Bad reviews of acclaimed books

[Denyer]

Warning: remember to rescuscitate your faith in human nature afterwards.

http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/ ... ements.php

[Professor Smooth]

Meh. No accounting for taste, I suppose. It makes me wonder if, without all the publicity and history behind these works, they really don't stand up for new readers.

[KingMob]

Maybe because the new readers in question are, y'know, stupid:

“I am obsessed with Survivor, so I thought it would be fun. WRONG!!! It is incredibly boring and disgusting. I was very much disturbed when I found young children killing each other. I think that anyone with a conscience would agree with me.”

That's on Lord of the Flies.
People missing the point. Hilarious or frustrating?

Warning: remember to rescuscitate your faith in human nature afterwards.

I think I lost that the first time I looked at a TF site on the internet.

[Eline]

Lolita (1955)

Author: Vladimir Nabokov

“1) I’m bored. 2) He uses too many allusions to other novels, so that if you’re not well read, this book makes no sense. 3) Most American readers are not fluent in French, so to have conversations or interjections in French with no translation is plain dumb. 4) Did I mention I was bored? 5) As with another reviewer, I agree, he uses a lot of huge words that just slow a person down. And it’s not for theatrics either, it’s just huge words mid-sentence when describing something simple. Nothing in the sense of imagery is gained. 6) Also, to sum it up, it’s a story about a pedophile.”

Some people just shouldn't read books.