Unpopular opinions about books -

[Quijibo69]

Imaginary Friend, it's pretty much like a shitty Stephen King book with an even more retarded ending.

 

[Bastard_Call]

I don't think books are dying. If stats say otherwise, I'd imagine that book piracy, audiobooks and people just reading old stuff is the culprit.

Not to mention the general quality of books that large publishers tend to push. Anything worth reading these days is either niche or old.

 

[nigger of the north]

You had my curiosity, but now you have my FULL attention.

We had the usual cadre of freaks in the class - prime fodder for the English department of any elite university. Two 'non binaries' excluding the previously mentioned professor, one turbo dyke, a couple of soy faggots, various fat girl danger hairs, and one I suspect MtF troon (never confirmed, but I had a strong ass suspicion.)

I savaged the book in the discussion, and had to deal with all the interjections from the above idiots. This was early on in the academic year, and I noticed I was treated distinctly more coldly for the remainder, with the exception of one guy who was relatively normal. Not that I gave a shit, I was there for the paper.

Liberal arts, not even once.

 

[Bad Gateway]

Imagine having books in your house instead of just one original gen Nook.

 

[DarkSydeHyde]

Imagine having books in your house instead of just one original gen Nook.

Sentimental value.

 

[Hazel Motes]

1984 and Animal Farm are Orwell's worst works. Coming Up For The Air and Keep the Aspidistra Flying are his best.

American Psycho the novel is better than the film, despite its legendary status.

Roots should have featured more Buck Breaking.

 

[Autumnal Equinox]

One of my favorite Stephen King books is actually nonfiction. Danse Macabre rarely gets mentioned by fans, but it’s a great time capsule of horror from the 50s to the late 70s and King does an excellent job of delving into why audiences have appreciated horror throughout the centuries. It’s definitely worth a read, and a shame it doesn’t get mentioned more. I’d like to see him write a follow up to it examining more contemporary horror media

 

[Fortunato Brown]

I don't really get why Haruki Murakami's stuff is so popular.

 

[Fictional Character]

I don't really get why Haruki Murakami's stuff is so popular.

Never underestimate the midwit demographic.

 

[The Potatomatic 2000]

I don't really get why Haruki Murakami's stuff is so popular.

I used to work with a guy who was a huge fan. He was the most delightful, adorable, weirdo older dude ever, I just loved him.
Funny enough, he was more entertainment than Murakami's books themselves to me.

 

[Fortunato Brown]

I used to work with a guy who was a huge fan. He was the most delightful, adorable, weirdo older dude ever, I just loved him.
Funny enough, he was more entertainment than Murakami's books themselves to me.

That's funny you say that. I do tend to find people who like Murakami to be very fun people. Again, his books just don't make sense to me. I guess they're more about an atmosphere than actual plot?

 

[6MillionCoofs]

I guess they're more about an atmosphere than actual plot?

Yes, amosphere, spiritual stuff. And the work tends to be presented in a not straightforward way. Far more character focused than plot.

It doesn’t surprise me fans are more fun to be around. His books are a quirky fun time.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I am sure this is mentioned but I do not understand popularity of Catcher in the Rye. I read it many times because I am told it is amazing American book. I just want to smack the little shit. I would not mind it but many times people try to explain to me the book as if they can say the right things to make me like it.

Also, I do not understand why "Of Mice and Men" is popular. It is depressing as fuck book. "Crime and Punishment" is a romantic comedy compared to Mice and Men.

I am not sure if he is popular, but PK Dick I like a lot. The movies they made of his books are never good generally, but his books I enjoy. "A Scanner Darkly" was first American fiction I ever read.

People like things that make them feel strongly. Of Mice and Men is depressing but that's a strong feeling, memorable.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

The only thing that really matters is if you enjoy a book. Sure Eragon wasn't super well written, sure it has its problems, but tween and teen me loved the series.

 

[PaleTay]

The extreme majority of writers cannot write subtle evil or craziness.

 

[DarkSydeHyde]

After reading through Dune 1-3 and starting God Emperor I think Dune could be a lot better if it was straight-up fantasy novel.
And with less:
>muh precognition power
>muh built-in assassin's creed's
>muh plans within plans within plans
>muh top-notch human specimen and shiet

 

[Dandelion Eyes]

"Fahrenheit 451" is overrated. People love talking about how it predicted modern SJWs, but that's just a coincidence, cause it's main point is not censorship, but Bradbury's fear of technology.
I mean, think about it, why are only books being destroyed and not anything that could possibly be offensive, like cinema and music? It's like he implies that the fact that they're printed on paper somehow makes books special. I guess "50 shades if grey" is a more thought-provoking piece of media, than, say, "Citizen Kane".

Or why wouldn't literature be integrated into this system providing quick entertainment to the masses? Or do books somehow lose their magical thunkful property when they aren't stored on paper(e-books weren't around yet, but microfiche and audiobooks were already available, I think)? Or how do people study to design and produce the marvels of technology they have if books are banned?

Anyway, once you start thinking about it, its premise starts sounding questionable. However, book-burning sounds really dramatic.

 

[Dagobert]

"Fahrenheit 451" is overrated. People love talking about how it predicted modern SJWs, but that's just a coincidence, cause it's main point is not censorship, but Bradbury's fear of technology.
I mean, think about it, why are only books being destroyed and not anything that could possibly be offensive, like cinema and music? It's like he implies that the fact that they're printed on paper somehow makes books special. I guess "50 shades if grey" is a more thought-provoking piece of media, than, say, "Citizen Kane".

Or why wouldn't literature be integrated into this system providing quick entertainment to the masses? Or do books somehow lose their magical thunkful property when they aren't stored on paper(e-books weren't around yet, but microfiche and audiobooks were already available, I think)? Or how do people study to design and produce the marvels of technology they have if books are banned?

Anyway, once you start thinking about it, its premise starts sounding questionable. However, book-burning sounds really dramatic.

I think you're kinda going in a bit too literal. It's stated that all media has had anything challenging/offensive/thought-inducing stripped out of it. Theater, for example, is directly referenced to undergoing this process with this line from Captain Beatty:

Empty the theatres save for clowns and furnish the rooms with glass walls and pretty colours running up and down the walls like confetti or blood or sherry or sauterne...

To my understanding, books just receive special ire because when Fahrenheit 451 was written (1953) they were the only method of mass-media consumption that you typically would physically own and thus couldn't be guaranteed to be under such controls. Audiobooks and microfilm existed in some capacity at the time, but they were far less prevalent so they don't receive attention. All other media presented is broadcasted too you, thus entirely able to be controlled and thus guaranteed to be "acceptable."

Also not all books are banned. Comic books, trade journals and sex-magazines are all referenced by Captain Beatty in his big speech as still existing after all. What was banned was literature that requires thinking or engagement.

At times it does come across as a bit technophobic, I do actually agree with that point, but I think that Bradbury was more trying to criticize how new technologies were being used than necessarily the existence of new technologies overall.

 

[Steamboat_Bill]

At times it does come across as a bit technophobic, I do actually agree with that point, but I think that Bradbury was more trying to criticize how new technologies were being used than necessarily the existence of new technologies overall.

A lot of the great sci-fi writers are ones that don't think technology is inherently virtuous. Bradbury was like that - see "The Veldt," for example.

 

[AnOminous]

A lot of the great sci-fi writers are ones that don't think technology is inherently virtuous. Bradbury was like that - see "The Veldt," for example.

William Gibson and many of the OG cyberpunks were overtly technophobic to almost Uncle Ted levels.