HAHAHAHA! What the hell is that? I was going to say, what kind of opening to a novel is it to have a big guy who smells bad and doing nothing. That's the entire first paragraph. But ... what the hell is that? Please tell me he doesn't mean either this or this. What does this mean exactly? The more I think of this the less sense it seems to make. Are demons going to shake their heads on doomsday? What does the word 'absolutely' exactly mean here? Why the hell is 'Pit' capitalized, like it's a proper noun. If it's the name of a place in the text, you shouldn't use it as a point of comparison because it doesn't exist. Please don't tell me he means this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pitt_the_Younger Talk about lazily slapping on description because, you know, the reader is an idiot and wouldn't get it unless you spell everything out to them.
I agree with all your points, though I think the author was trying to infer that Pit=Hell, though honestly he could've just as well used 'Hell'. Not that it would've made much difference. And yeah, he does use big words to try and make the book sound sophisticated. Reminds me of another author, a certain Paolini who used big words when the little ones could've sufficed. Same with the descriptions. I would've written it as, "He shook his head glowering at Matthew." Simple and to the point. And Pandora Prisskitt. Oh God, the name! First off, why would any mother name their daughter from the woman of mythology who unleashed all the evil onto the world (unless the mother believed her daughter was nothing but trouble)? Second off, I know the Colonial times had names that sound weird to our ears, but...Pandora Prisskitt? Even they would've erupted into laughter if they heard the name. Here's the thing about names, in my opinion. Names aren't just picked out by the author for symbolism or because it sounds like it could fit the story's setting. In-story, the parents picked out that name for their child, so calling their child Pandora would imply to me that they don't see anything but misery in the years ahead. Now, it may turn out to be nothing, but if you give a character a rather well-known name from mythology or the Bible, you're going to have people wondering if it's somehow related.
He seems to be fond of alliteration to make a sentence sound punchy, but it just comes across as trite and contrived. About complex words, that's Orwell's rule isn't it? I don't generally have much of a problem with big words, but they are used horribly wrong there, and it's better to use a shorter word than a word whose use would at least make it appear you do not understand what it means. But yes, he really should have used shorter words there, to not make it sound so pretentious too. I think this is fantastically bad. I think you could make a case for it being the worst written book in the history of literature.
@PensiveQuill What I personally found funny was how adamant and defensive the author is in the reviews and other sites. She attacks the readers and argues in a way that would traumatize any PR person. @Lemex How dare you speak ill of Ayn Rand?! Her characters were highly flawed, from an objectivists perspective. Most were rather lost or even threw their inner-selfs away because they could not exist in the current social norm. Ayn Rand loved art- it was a high ideal to her. It's only natural she makes many references to it in her work. I always imagined the "dark" bums face as a Dick novella. Remember those old-timey looking detectives with the big hats? Yeah, apparently the shadows in their worlds are twice as big and manage to find themselves all over even on the most of sunniest days. Ayn Rand was no genius writer, just a scared woman who went bat-shit crazy. Though, she teaches lots of simple things that many other popular philosophers do that we seem to have forgotten. I believe she's a good reminder of it. @Link the Writer Yeah, that wasn't the best thing I've ever seen. What throws me off is all the stops and the lack of characterization. And then came the dialogue and unrealistic action...
'This is John Galt speaking'. Starts with him saying Mr Thompson, the president, no longer has control of the airwaves. What follows is about 70 pages of sleep inducing, internal organ grinding ideological rubbish. The only reason I was able to read the whole thing was with the aid of an audiobook.
What I wonder is, where are the radio operators? You'd think in their society, they'd be able to triangulate the location of John Galt and nab him in the middle of his speech 'cause he's not only the face of the rebel scum, but he just took over a huge chunk of how they controlled everyone. What, did they all just sit there and patiently wait it out? Induced into a comatose state? Just 'cause Mr. Thompson no longer had control of the airwaves doesn't mean he couldn't get his minions to track down Galt's ass in record time. Makes no sense, I say!
When a person self publishes, all you need to do is call yourself a publisher, give the company a name, pay a nominal fee for a business license, and it can look like you have a publisher when you are really only self published.
Well, it says the people who viewed this book also viewed a corrugated coffin, so I'm sure the readers knew what they were getting themselves in for...
Ok, I looked. Just scrolled down to read about the authors. I have it figured out. They are in Miami. I can't believe no one here figured this out yet. They are drug smugglers. The books are hollowed out and they use them to deliver their cocaine. No one would buy the book to read ,obviously. That is the only possible reason any one would buy the book.
Especially considering they had the full speech to do something. The shortest recording of the speech is two and a half hours long. Are we really to believe everyone on earth was so enraptured by Objectivist rhetoric that they just shut up and listened for two whole hours? Also why is it so long, wouldn't it spoil someone's appreciation of the speech if they needed to use the toilet half way through?
Must admit, that possibility did not cross my mind. Okay, having read what I've scribbled some six years ago, completely clueless about the conventions of writing fiction, and now comparing that drivel to this novel... ok, that was bad, really bad, but not this bad, I can't help but think this couldn't have been written seriously. Or the author just didn't have the full stop key on her keyboard, so all stops had to be replaced with exclamation marks.
All I remember is "I'm John Galt, and you corrupted leaders suck...blahblahblahlbah....humans should be free-thinking folks...blahblahblahblahblah...if you wanna join, pronounce this oath, ok?"
All I remember from the speech is 'Just go to sleep Lemex, your unconscious mind is still taking it in, don't force yourself. Just fall asleep'.
Mine was to open up a word document and write a parody in script-format where the chief engineer teleported to John Galt's location and they both had a wrestling match over the microphone while John kept talking.
Yeah I guess it's this element that makes it unfunny for me. Of course there are other published dogs on Amazon where the reviews are as comical as the book and there's no author defending or attacking in response. So you get the impression that maybe the author is enjoying the piss-taking as much as anyone else so it seems in jest and good taste. I went hunting and came across Moon People and How To Avoid Huge Ships. Both books have a slew of reviews which are clever and funny, giving those books their due but in a lighthearted fashion. Maybe the response to a book is what determines the laugh factor of it.
Well, off to write my stories now. These books have shown me that if anything else, I know I could not do any worse than they did.
That personal experience is reading fanfiction, and yes. Some of the best and worst things I have ever read. I will see your Antigula and raise you a My Immortal.
