Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I didn't get the hype, either.

I think the hype can be explained by your perfectly set first line. I think it is a fine book for those who love to live in this rare type of universe.

Agreed!

I wish y'all would go to my review and read it. I didn't use the word hype, which isn't precise enough, but I know what Karen meant. I did use the words acclaim and disappointment. And I tried to lay out what in the novel disappointed me.

I think it's a fine state of affairs on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ when one can write a review of a book which didn't take their breath away only to have a chorus of disparagement come their way because they disagreed with someone else's opinion. Who do we think we are criticizing a criticism? Where else but in Trump's universe would anyone think they have the right to go into a public forum where we're all rank amateurs and question something as subjective as a book review?

It's a wonder we bother to review at all.

I'm with Karen's (and James') reviews. I've found that reviews of Stoner and A Confederacy of Dunces are among the most divisive to be found on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, and I'm okay with that. As James says, we're all amateurs here, and not folks who are out to embark on careers as professional critics.
That said, I don't usually post comments on reviews which conflict with my opinions. It's a waste of my time and I probably won't change any minds. The disagreeing posts here certainly haven't changed my opinion of Stoner.

Can I just pop in to say that I didn't feel offended by anyone's polite comments here - all perfectly civilized. I appreciate a discussion, thank you all.

Then I apologize for having taken offense in your behalf. I took the gist of the comments, phrased as they were, to imply that you were at fault in your under-appreciation, or that you'd misunderstood or simply not realized the novel's values, and that you were being corrected. It's a hobby-horse of mine, no doubt too sensitively felt, that such attitudes openly expressed are impolite. On the forum to which we belong, Karen, comments like these without some kind of deference being expressed would draw the same kind of salvo.

My apologies to all. It's understandable why they let me out in public only once or twice a year.

·°­²¹°ù±ð²Ô· wrote: "Can I just pop in to say that I didn't feel offended by anyone's polite comments here - all perfectly civilized. I appreciate a discussion, thank you all."

Here I am replying to my own comment (how sad is that?). All I want to say is that I am obviously contradicting myself if I say I appreciate a discussion, but then refuse to engage in it. In my defence I'd just like to say that life is very busy at the moment.
Intellectually I can see that this is very much a reader's book - the marketing strategy was perfectly pitched at those of us who feel we have read a fair range of the classics, and wonder if modern fiction has much to offer that hasn't already been said, thus look for exciting new ways of saying. So it is rewarding if you can find an author who is new to you, whose oeuvre might promise pleasures galore - here, look, the best book you never read. Expectations are raised to a point where they can only be dashed, or at least slightly dented.

Call me morbid, having given an extra star to a book because of a death scene, but I am with you on that particular scene, Karen - memorable, having a sense of authenticity that I felt less in the rest of the novel. Like you, Henry, Paul and James hinted or wrote in the Stoner reviews, it is not that evident to find contemporary literature that compares favourably to the classics (apart from Barnes ;p), but still we try, curious to discover unknown voices we might have 'overlooked' and which resonate with us.