ŷ������

Wow dude, you are nuts. Either that or have something against Daniel Suarez. This book is very entertaining if nothing else.

So having personal preferences, predilections, tastes and opinions is now indicative of one's mental capacity and/or personal feelings toward people you've never met? Wow, must've missed the memo on that one. I said he "comes off as conceited"; I didn't say he was.
Really, Edgar, that's silly. It's as if I'd gone to your shelves and deduced that you are irresistibly attracted to Christopher Moore (and what that might say about your mental acuity, I decline to venture, since that's not the point of writing reviews in the first place).

I wasn't entertained by this book. I thought it was cheesy, overwrought and derivative. That's all. I'm not nuts, pinky-promise. I have tastes, preferences and predilections. Y'know, that's sort of the point of ŷ������ (along, if you must, with leaving mildly derogatory comments on people's reviews who aren't your clone).

Saying you weren't entertained by this book is fine, but unoriginal? Name me one other book where a dead guy takes control of other people via a distributed program?

Also the defense that Edgar disagrees with you only because your review isn't inline with his is unoriginal.

Not necessarily that precise premise...but people being controlled by computers/programs has been done to death. Go ahead, tell me how "that's too broad", I don't care.

I also could care less about how original you think my defenses are. If Edgar's review isn't in line with mine, then obviously we disagree. Originality has nothing to do with it.

My contention with Edgar was his suggestion that there's some shortcoming on my part because I disliked this book. He apparently thinks I'm nuts or have something against Daniel Suarez. You're using an ad hominem-how's that for original?

I don't think you're nuts. If anything your review tends to make me think you are one of those rare people who just like to disagree with the masses because it makes you feel important.

You do this by using broad statements so that no one can disagree with you so they just call you nuts.

I mean... maybe not 5 stars... but 1 star for this book? Really... this is on par with the worst book you have ever read?

Okay, fair enough. Honest, though, I don't really care that much whether my opinions match up with these hypothetical masses. I just didn't like this book. Maybe my opinions are unpopular (although as a small irony that proves nothing, 3 people liked this review, as opposed to the zero people who liked your rather ... ahem... broad and imprecise review.) I don't think my review was all that broad though. I detailed exactly what I didn't like about this book.

Finally, 1 star, if you read the rating pop-up, means "I didn't like this book". And, (surpri-ise!) I didn't like this book. At the particular time I read this book, it was "the worst book I've read in a while". I tend to read things that I like (shocker, I know), so maybe that's why it took a while to read one as lousy as I thought this was. I read a lot though. Maybe when I dislike one even more than this, I'll come back and amend this review.

Don't hold your breath, though.

Besides the subplotting, totally disagree with you.

I'm not sure the readers of Pop. Science would even know what a Daemon is.

Nathan - speaking of "coming off as conceited"....

So you loathed this book - fine. That's your right - there's no need to attack somebody who liked it more than you did.

If that's what passes for an attack... (Y'know, more than being called nuts.)

Nathan,

Honestly? Your good opinion isn't worth enough to me to bother continuing this conversation.

You want to keep trolling people who disagree with you? That's between you and anybody unfortunate enough to respond.

That was an attack? And *responding* to your comment on my review is trolling?

If this is your idea of discussion, I'll be happy not to continue. Have a great life!

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm not going to disagree with that though I really liked the book.

I quickly went through your "read" shelf, and I want to ask you how did you end up reading "Daemon" in the first place? It doesn't seem like it'd be up your alley (which appears to be historical non-fiction, mainly).

Good question, Carlos. I don't know. I think I may have read a review of it somewhere...

You're right, I read very little fiction, and even less scifi.

Ah - great point, Carlos! That is the thing about reviews. They are half (or less) objective and half (or more) subjective. Which is fine. It's exactly what reviews are - opinions. I wouldn't review/read a romance novel, for example, because even if it was a great one, I wouldn't know because I don't like romance novels. I do understand some of what Nathan is saying though. It does have clumsy dialogue and some of the scenes aren't scenes, etc. I mentioned these things in my own review.

Nathan,

You have 499 read books. Your top rate given is only 4 stars. Of 499 books read only 6% of them got 4 stars...that's 30 of them you liked enough to give a 4 star rating.

The vast majority of the books you have reviewed (147 of them) you gave them 1 star. Those books on average made a 4 star rating.

You most certainly don't 'tend to read books you like'. As previously accused, you write negative reviews about popular books...

Write your own book or do some accomplishment prior to trying to complain about great works.

Stephen.

Point taken, re: most of my books having negative reviews. Although, you're pulling those numbers out of somewhere...

And the argument that I have to write a great book before being allowed to criticize one (this one wasn't, but again, subjective), is patently ridiculous.
Is there a particular "accomplishment" you had in mind before it's okay with you that I have an opinion? Let me know soon- I have books to review!

I pulled them from somewhere...it's called your profile. I took the time to count them cause I read this book a couple years ago and it was great...and original.

And there is nothing ridiculous about expecting you to have talent in the department where you openly degrade someone's hard work. What you have done requires no talent, no drive, no inspiration.

You sit back in your computer chair and put down works that most people have liked for all the reasons that other people like them.

You have not fooled anyone with your motives. You are not original. Every school has you in it. The guy that purposely says he dislikes what is popular simply to finally be in a conversation with someone else.

Well, I'm glad we have you to tell us whether or not we're original!

And trust me- i didn't review this book to be in conversation with you. Being in conversation with you is a slightly unpleasant, and rather boring experience. If I wanted that, I'd go back amd reread "Daemon".

:))
reading your posts is very entertaining Nathan
I love it..

especially the "Let me know soon- I have books to review! " part.

BTW I just ordered the book ..

Seriously? Unoriginal? HOW? I am asking an honest question because I thought this book was AMAZING!

I think you really missed it. This is one of the most intelligent and profound works that sets up Freedom TM perfectly. It is not just a typical sci-fi thriller, it is profound in the way The Matrix and V for Vendetta were.

Pauley McCoy, The Dixie Construct in Neuromancer - a computer program taking over the actions of the main protagonist Case.

Copyright 1984, 25 years before Daemon (which is what The Dixie Contruct was).

I'd have to agree. It fell just short of a lot of key components.

I usually know if I like a book by reading the first chapters but,if you have to swallow a 500 pages book just to know if you like it or not.
You are just plain stupid!

You are an idiot

this thread

kandake wrote: "this thread"
I have seen this non sequitur before. What does it mean? It's not even a proper sentence.

Waldo, it was meant as a label for my updates feed. This is the first time I've seen people being disrespectful to each other on ŷ������.

kandake wrote: "Waldo, it was meant as a label for my updates feed. This is the first time I've seen people being disrespectful to each other on ŷ������."
Understood.
I've seen such behaviour on a writer's forum I no longer frequent.

Have you heard about the author who stalked a reviewer, used a bottle as a weapon outside the reviewer's home, was charged and convicted for assault?

Petty matters for petty people.

that's wild, Waldo. blessings and joy to all on this thread.

kandake wrote: "that's wild, Waldo. blessings and joy to all on this thread."
Thumbs up!

I think the pushback is because he basically said”awful�� and explained nothing. It is the farthest thing from a proper critique, and especially for a first novel. Basically, he didn’t say anything with enough insight to justify his distaste and not come off as an ass. Especially the, “whether he should never write again��. The delusion and conceit is ridiculous. You are the Phil daoust that Tim Minchin sings about, except without expertise in the field at all.

Trolling much? I admit being late to party but in no way is this one star. Your comments don’t make sense with this being the first in the series. Did you mean other writings?

This thread...very entertaining. Maybe I’ll get around to reading the book sometime and have my own opinion. Keep up the good work Nate

I couldn't stop reading this thread. Its a train wreck. People replying to your review then accusing you of trolling and somehow insulting people that did like the book. Why did they even comment if they didn't want to hear an answer. There are quite a few 1-star reviews for this book so this isn't even unique. I haven't decided if I'm going to read it yet. I'm tired of wasting my time on poorly written books. I don't know what my review percentage are, but I probably leave more mediocre or negative reviews too. I save 5-stars for the books I really love. This is actually the second time today I've run across people engaging in nasty, spiteful behavior on forums I considered 'safe.' The Fantasy sub on reddit is starting to look like the rest of reddit with people replying to others with personal attacks over nonsense. I didn't expect to see that behavior on ŷ������ either. Its disappointing.

Jamie wrote: "I couldn't stop reading this thread. Its a train wreck. People replying to your review then accusing you of trolling and somehow insulting people that did like the book. Why did they even comment i..."
THUMBS UP.
Personally I believe in McLuhan's explanation Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man that all Social Media does is create a little village from the globe and break everyone up into individual tribes (trolls, haters, and "like"ers none of which adds a jot of difference to anyone else unless it is to lower the positive vibe). Then you have the warnings of the people behind social media that say they do not allow their kids on it and rarely use it themselves in spite (because) of their involvement in its creation.

I think no place is safe from this, though I expect literary groups will be one of the last to feel its effects.

Unoriginal remise? Are you HIGH? Which other story is based on the premise that a computer program was created by a man who wanted to create a better new world order than the one being developed by globalists, which is what is basically what's happening to the world now? Point just ONE out.