Sign in with Facebook
E.B.K.K.'s Reviews > De bron
De bron
by
by
You're probably wondering, why read the whole darn thing (1070 pages) when you rate it a meagre 2 stars* in the end? Well, that's the secret of huge books. If you want your readers to finish your badly written book just make it huge, because first they will continue reading with the hopes of your book just having a awkward start, and by the time they reach 1/4 of the book and have realized the book is just shitty, they will continue reading anyway because they already 'came this far' and put effort in it.
So that's why. And why is this book shitty? Well it has some brilliant ideas and stuff and that's the only reason I give it 2 stars instead of 1 star. But mostly the book is boring, long-winded and full of the same old stale, annoying, '50s tropes and stock characters. The contemporary protagonist should have just been called Indiana Jones and get on with it. The newborn Israeli's are these rough, hardened workers. I kept thinking of noble savages, or in this case noble Jews. Boring stock characters who have no traits besides their 'Jewness' (sorry). The book is full of women hate as well. All female characters can be divided in two allegories: The Pure Virgin (the ones that are sweet and pure and have 'coquettish' features and are small and petite and don't mind being wed to brutish ugly Jew monsters (yes this stereotype is prominent in the book as well, the 'Jew man' who is described as animal-like and hunched and dumb) and have no other features except being a Jewess. On the other hand you have The Evil Wench, the plotting, evil, mean, manipulating and WORST of all cheating and lying traitors who will all leave their man for another just like that, or (literal quote) "shed those well-known fake, calculating female tears"(wtf?) What kind of nasty fetish did the writer have? Did his dick get stomped on by his mommy? Not to mention almost ALL females die a gruesome death. They die more often than their sad, noble Jewish counterparts. Ugh. Oh and our Indiana Jones keeps on harassing one of them to marry him even though she insistently keeps telling him no. And then he almost fights with another male for her hand. Like her opinion on the case doesn't even matter.
Judaism is described in the book as an ugly, dead tree stump, from which the final blooming branch called Christianity sprouted. It's the White Men's Burden all over again. The Jews are dumb for not realizing Judaism is a dead religion and I think the writer either secretly thought they got what was coming for them or had another fetish, maybe BDSM or a gore fetish, because they all die horrible deaths. Not a single one of the chapters ends happily.
Some other trope-y shit: greedy, manipulating Arabs (duh), money-loving American Jews (duh), The Good Innocent Catholic, etcetera etcetera. I grew so tired of it near the end of the book.
Most chapters end suddenly, and there's even a whole chapter dedicated to repeating some lame, boring Jewish Talmud laws. Yawn. I can write a book like this.
But for all the hate (and clearly I hate a lot of it lol) the book had some brilliant parts and some of it was very educative. Apart from the judging 50s moral, it gave huge insight to the history of Palestine/Israel and the Jews. Even nowadays some of it still holds true. I can't ignore this and give it one star. It's just too bad the good stuff is buried beneath So. Much. Bullshit.
Edit 6/8/22: after further consideration I have decided to change my review to 1 star.
So that's why. And why is this book shitty? Well it has some brilliant ideas and stuff and that's the only reason I give it 2 stars instead of 1 star. But mostly the book is boring, long-winded and full of the same old stale, annoying, '50s tropes and stock characters. The contemporary protagonist should have just been called Indiana Jones and get on with it. The newborn Israeli's are these rough, hardened workers. I kept thinking of noble savages, or in this case noble Jews. Boring stock characters who have no traits besides their 'Jewness' (sorry). The book is full of women hate as well. All female characters can be divided in two allegories: The Pure Virgin (the ones that are sweet and pure and have 'coquettish' features and are small and petite and don't mind being wed to brutish ugly Jew monsters (yes this stereotype is prominent in the book as well, the 'Jew man' who is described as animal-like and hunched and dumb) and have no other features except being a Jewess. On the other hand you have The Evil Wench, the plotting, evil, mean, manipulating and WORST of all cheating and lying traitors who will all leave their man for another just like that, or (literal quote) "shed those well-known fake, calculating female tears"(wtf?) What kind of nasty fetish did the writer have? Did his dick get stomped on by his mommy? Not to mention almost ALL females die a gruesome death. They die more often than their sad, noble Jewish counterparts. Ugh. Oh and our Indiana Jones keeps on harassing one of them to marry him even though she insistently keeps telling him no. And then he almost fights with another male for her hand. Like her opinion on the case doesn't even matter.
Judaism is described in the book as an ugly, dead tree stump, from which the final blooming branch called Christianity sprouted. It's the White Men's Burden all over again. The Jews are dumb for not realizing Judaism is a dead religion and I think the writer either secretly thought they got what was coming for them or had another fetish, maybe BDSM or a gore fetish, because they all die horrible deaths. Not a single one of the chapters ends happily.
Some other trope-y shit: greedy, manipulating Arabs (duh), money-loving American Jews (duh), The Good Innocent Catholic, etcetera etcetera. I grew so tired of it near the end of the book.
Most chapters end suddenly, and there's even a whole chapter dedicated to repeating some lame, boring Jewish Talmud laws. Yawn. I can write a book like this.
But for all the hate (and clearly I hate a lot of it lol) the book had some brilliant parts and some of it was very educative. Apart from the judging 50s moral, it gave huge insight to the history of Palestine/Israel and the Jews. Even nowadays some of it still holds true. I can't ignore this and give it one star. It's just too bad the good stuff is buried beneath So. Much. Bullshit.
Edit 6/8/22: after further consideration I have decided to change my review to 1 star.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
De bron.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
March 4, 2016
–
Started Reading
March 4, 2016
– Shelved
March 4, 2016
– Shelved as:
library
May 15, 2016
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 50 (50 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
Sep 13, 2021 03:47AM
Excellent review. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
reply
|
flag
I have read The Source but have found none of the faults of which you accuse it. If I had not read it, I would have believed you.
Hard to believe you read the same book that I read (years ago) but 75% thru a current re-read.
Michener wrote hefty books. Well researched books, but his characters often tended to be rather one dimensional. All his energy went into the research and striving to make the historical setting seem real. He wasn't taht great of a novelist. Look at all the books that he turned out and then look at how thick they were. The man was a machine. Characters took a backseat I believe. Also he was born in 1907 so by the time his writing career really took off he was middle-aged and probably set in his ways. When he came of age people were bigger believers in ethnic stereotypes and sexual clichés. I'm 54 and while I think I'm current and up to date my 27 year old daughter will point out to me now and again that I need to be careful of certain words and attitudes around her age group. It happens to all of us. Good review though.
Checkman wrote: "Michener wrote hefty books. Well researched books, but his characters often tended to be rather one dimensional. All his energy went into the research and striving to make the historical setting se..."Thanks for the reply Checkman! And you make a very good point. There are authors that rise above the spirit of their age, writers like Thomas Mann, whom I in 2022 greatly enjoy still. Michener is not timeless. But he is meticulous in his research.
Also, I think it is great your daughter helps you out like that, and that you are open to her advice!
You have to accept books in the spirit of the times they were written in -- in this case 1965 -- when Michener was himself in his late 50s. OF COURSE it reflects the beliefs/values of a man born in 1907! duh! and it also reflects the values and view of the middle or early 60s (it probably took 5 years to research and write, I imagine!)... it's not going to dovetail with your 21st century feminism or moral values. It just can't. It would be like expecting Shakespeare to have written his sonnets on an MacBook and for him to understand rock music and gender theory.Take this as it is; it's a fascinating history of the Middle East and Israel, with a lot of balance and nuance (and written BEFORE the 1967 war!) and it is also a very intelligent discourse on archaeology and how the past informs the present. I can't think of a contemporary 21st century book of this scope and magnitude and ambition -- can you?
Read my last comment on here Charismatic. There are plenty of older novels that do not suffer from comically stereotypically characters. This book is a joke.
E.B.K.K. wrote: "Read my last comment on here Charismatic. There are plenty of older novels that do not suffer from comically stereotypically characters. This book is a joke."Some do, some do not -- but Michener wrote unique historical novels, with incredible breath and depth. You can learn a LOT from reading them. Characterization was not his strong suit -- history and archaeology were.
If you are seeking a book with sensitive, in-depth character studies.... then no, he is probably not the author you want.
Also, if you are super sensitive about certain words or ideas... as Checkman points out.... I guess you have to self-censor what you read. (BTW: it is deeply offensive you tell him that "his daughter HELPS HIM OUT like that" as if his ideas are automatically wrong, but his daughter -- half his age -- is automatically correct on everything! Millennials and Zoomers don't hold an absolute patent on everything that is proper or OK.)
Ah, now I understand your comments. Your true colours shine through. Gently sod off if you think you can win an argument by abusing identity politics. My critique has nothing to do with sensitivity or political correctness. Also, you misunderstood my post to Checkman completely. But that's logical when you think everything is an attack.
E.B.K.K. wrote: "Ah, now I understand your comments. Your true colours shine through. Gently sod off if you think you can win an argument by abusing identity politics. My critique has nothing to do with sensitivity..."Did I say one thing about identity politics? no, I did not. It could be related to food, the internet, religion, the weather.
The point was that SHE is 27 and HE is 54 -- twice her age! -- and her FATHER -- she does not hold any expertise or knowledge that makes her the arbiter of what you can or cannot say on ANY SUBJECT.
The idea that children should be "correcting their parents" on any issue comes directly out of The Communist Manifesto -- literally -- that young people must monitor and correct parental "ideological fails". And that was a heck of a long ago -- way before modern concepts of "identity". It is about thought policing and social control of opinions and ideas.
So to repeat, since you did not understand me: it is offensive to say the daughter is HELPING OUT her father by "correcting him". And no, millennials and zoomers do NOT hold an absolute patent on truth.
Maybe you should stop embarassing yourself. I have no idea where you pulled that from. You bring in commies now? What's next lol
Read Checkman's own comment, he said himself his daughter helps him out with the changing views in society. If I understand him correctly, he is perfectly happy with her.
E.B.K.K. wrote: "Read Checkman's own comment, he said himself his daughter helps him out with the changing views in society. If I understand him correctly, he is perfectly happy with her."That's not at all what he said. You are deliberately misinterpreting it -- as you did MY comment -- because you apparently see everything through a distorted prism of "political correctness". Again, I said nothing about identity politics.
What YOU said is offensive. He didn't say he was happy to be corrected; he said he thought he was up to date and current.
Oh and yes, I meant what I said and I did not say "commies". That kind of level of social thought control is PRECISELY and SPECIFICALLY out of communist ideologies of the middle 20th century, which you'd know if you had ever studied it school or even seen a film like Zhang Zimou's "To Live".And it is very clearly YOU who are embarrassing YOURSELF, because you very deliberately misinterpreted what I said, in order to score more "PC SJW creds".
With only 16 books read, you're either trolling or genuinely daft. I'm going to ignore you. Keep replying if you want, I'll just delete your ramblings. Or maybe I'll let them stand cause it is funny as heck
I am clearly living for those massive SJW creds. On a book site. Lady, you're nuts.
E.B.K.K. wrote: "With only 16 books read, you're either trolling or genuinely daft. I'm going to ignore you. Keep replying if you want, I'll just delete your ramblings. Or maybe I'll let them stand cause it is funn..."I am not sure what is more despicable -- attacking people who comment on your reviews -- or USING their history here as a way to make utterly idiotic claims like "I've only read 16 books in my life".
Honey, that is the literal definition of trolling -- YOU are trolling ME by trying to use my history here as a weapon.
So though it is likely a waste of time, I will tell you what I tell other smug trolls -- I spent 20 YEARS posting reviews on Amazon, where I likely had 900-1000 reviews of books and films. But Amazon changed their policies a few years back, and restricted reviews to ONLY customers who purchased $50 worth merchandise every six months.
I had no desire whatsoever to do that and to enrich Jeff Bezos. So I stopped reviewing there. AFTER THAT... I think only last year... Amazon ALSO decided to eliminate all comments on reviews. THAT deleted probably 5000 or more comments I had made on reviews over 20+ years. Gone, forever.
So I moved to other sites, this among them. And I haven't remotely attempted to put all the decades-worth of books I have read here -- that would take forever. And I don't have any need or desire to "prove" to arrogant millennials like yourself what I have and have not read -- suffice it to say, my dear, I have probably read 10x as many books as you have.
You are acting like an entitled, smug, spoiled brat and deleting my comments simply serves to prove that.
E.B.K.K. wrote: "I am clearly living for those massive SJW creds. On a book site. Lady, you're nuts."All any objective person has to do IS READ YOUR WORDS. You were stating that a 27 year old should be correcting her own father on social or political issues (he actually does not say, but YOU ASSUMED it was gender/sex stuff) and I said that was rude, immature and disrespectful.
But you decided that meant I had to be attacked and deleted (yeah, that will truly break my heart... NOT) and to accomplish your nasty "doxxing", you decided to LOOK UP WHAT I HAVE REVIEWED HERE and determined that I must have only read 16 books because of course.... every person who posts on GoodReads is OBLIGATED to list every single book they have read in THEIR ENTIRE LIVES!!!
Where on earth do you get this entitled, preening sense of arrogance from? Maybe YOUR PARENTS need to start "correcting you" on your intolerant, self-serving "world view".
Possibly you do not realize this, but yes.... GoodReads is rife with people trying to prove their SJW PC creds. I guess you don't read many reviews here.
Y'all have to much free time that you can argue about smth so small for such a long time😂😂
I always bring out the best (or worst) in people Bernd 😜😌
Bernd wrote: "Y'all have to much free time that you can argue about smth so small for such a long time😂😂"People who dox or otherwise harass OTHER PEOPLE online anywhere -- but especially here, a forum for book lovers -- should be called out on their arrogance and mean-spiritedness. Criticism is legit -- name-calling, doxing, harassment are not.
Funny, Bernd, but you not only had THE TIME to read this, but THE TIME to post a comment on it -- on a book you don't seem to have read or have an opinion on.
Take your meds hon, you don't even know what doxxing is. Me looking up how many books you have listed on this website isn't it.
E.B.K.K. wrote: "Take your meds hon, you don't even know what doxxing is. Me looking up how many books you have listed on this website isn't it."It is clearly a form of doxxing. "Dox" refers to "documenting" -- i.e., looking up any sort of personal record (like address, photos, employment history etc.) on someone in order to discredit or harm them.
CLEARLY it was your intent to suggest that I have only read 16 books IN MY LIFETIME (!!!) even though I explained why I came fairly late to GoodReads (and you were not even entitled to that, but I put it there for others who might read here).
If I had to list every book I ever read in MY LIFETIME, it would take... the rest of my lifetime. And I am not obligated to ANYBODY to "prove" what I have and have not read.
You aren't the first person to do this to me on GoodReads, so I have concluded it is a way to try and discredit or shut up a critic.... as if you prove your "reader creds" by how many books you list here. That is fundamentally ridiculous, especially for anybody much over 45, who did a big percentage of their reading and reviewing before the internet even existed.
Clearly you are too immature and juvenile to take even MILD criticism of a comment here... so this conversation is over. Just keep telling yourself how superior you are to everyone else. (Snort!)
Is it over? Is it really?
Oh mate. This shit is funny as hell🤣🤣 @charismatic, if u think she is toxic, then ignore her instead of typing texts that are longer and more violent then the Bible and Mein Kampf combined...🤪🤪 Much better for your mental health and it won't make you look like an asshole. Although I can say the same for EBKK her comments. But to be fair, bitchfights are fun sometimes.🤣
Bernd wrote: "Oh mate. This shit is funny as hell🤣🤣 @charismatic, if u think she is toxic, then ignore her instead of typing texts that are longer and more violent then the Bible and Mein Kampf combined...🤪🤪 Muc..."How do you even know the gender of either of us? and seriously -- the Bible and Mein Kampf?
Dude, get a life.
By the way, doxxing means publishing someone's real name or address on the internet to incite harassment, not looking up how few books someone has read. You tell me you have read many books in your life, but frankly I wouldn't have guessed that otherwise.
Just wanted to fit in by also saying dumb things, am I allowed?🤣
Bernd, I'm honored you like our bitch fight. But I am a dude 😂
Feel at home Bernd!
E.B.K.K. wrote: "By the way, doxxing means publishing someone's real name or address on the internet to incite harassment, not looking up how few books someone has read. You tell me you have read many books in your..."Since English is not your first language, let me repeat: "dox" is short for DOCUMENT in English. It refers to ANY kind of use of information to harass someone.
Obviously publishing one's name or address or job or health status would also qualify.
How on earth could you know how many books ANY person has read in their lifetime? Are you 12 years old? Come on. Any serious reader -- heck, anyone who has graduated college (which I have) -- has read more than 16 books.
The real question is WHY ON EARTH would you think that every person who posts on GoodReads has dutifully input the ENTIRETY of the books they have read in a lifetime? Unless again, you are about 12 years old... I doubt YOU have put every book you ever read in here.
Why would you feel the need to try to "prove" someone you disagree with "hasn't read a sufficient number of books" (the correct number being determined BY YOU, and of course, other websites like Amazon DO NOT COUNT)???
Frankly, my guess is that the last book you read prior to this was a first grade primer.
See how that works?
Nope, that's literally not how doxxing works. At least, not in the real world. But I'm sure it does in your own special world Charismatic 🤗
E.B.K.K. wrote: "Nope, that's literally not how doxxing works. At least, not in the real world. But I'm sure it does in your own special world Charismatic 🤗"OK, I just LITERALLY explained it to someone who is not a native English speaker! but of course, the fact that I AM and I KNOW what it means, and what it is derived from -- and YOU DO NOT -- counts for nothing.
Yes, what you did was not only rude, but you did it SOLELY with the intent to put me down or make me look "stupid" to others. That is why IT IS DOXXING. You didn't address what I said, you just wanted to insult me.
As I said before, you wouldn't be prolonging this argument if you had any points to make besides immature doxing and rants.
I'm prolonging this thing you call an argument solely because your replies are fucking hilarious. It's too funny how you keep making a fool of yourself with those long replies and I almost don't even have to do anything. Please keep it coming
E.B.K.K. wrote: "I'm prolonging this thing you call an argument solely because your replies are fucking hilarious. It's too funny how you keep making a fool of yourself with those long replies and I almost don't ev..."Again... must be your lack of experience with the English language. I am making a fool of YOU and most of my replies are quite short.
YOU KEEP RESPONDING, so dude... look in the mirror.
No, I really think you're making a fool out of yourself. Expertly. 😘
E.B.K.K. wrote: "No, I really think you're making a fool out of yourself. Expertly. 😘"Last time.
LOOK IN THE MIRROR.
"I know you are, but what am I" is literally the oldest and lamest children's game of all, which you'd know if your English were better and more precise.
I'm old enough and smart enough -- and yeah, well-read enough -- that your pitiful childlike insults have zero effect on me.
LOOK IN THE MIRROR.
Is it really this time? 😂 This is so precious
I love how your newest "insult" is how my English must surely be bad. First, I was an SJW, then I was a milennial, then I was doxxing. You're so desperate to not lose.
E.B.K.K. wrote: "I love how your newest "insult" is how my English must surely be bad. First, I was an SJW, then I was a milennial, then I was doxxing. You're so desperate to not lose."Assuming your photo is current, you are a millennial (or early Zoomer)... you have clearly self-identified as an SJW.
Also an admitted doxxer, as confirmed by your behaviors here. which are undeniable.
That your English is proficient, but lacking in nuance and understanding, is also plainly demonstrated here.
There is nothing here to "win". You are a total stranger to me.
Yet you keep replying to MY review.
E.B.K.K. wrote: "Yet you keep replying to MY review.""Yet YOU keep replying to MY replies.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
So you have confirmed: you are 12 years old.
Well yeah, they're comments on my review. Of course I reply.
Wow, this thread is a lot. Nice original review and amusing responses throughout :)
Adam wrote: "Wow, this thread is a lot. Nice original review and amusing responses throughout :)"Lol thanks Adam ;D
Hey E.B.K.K. - Thanks for the review! I'd poke the 'like' button a few more times if I could.
I'm interested in the whole topic of the 'Fertile Crescent' and rise of religion/civilization, so when my wife told me she'd read 'The Source' when she was 15, and suggested I check it out, I got a copy from the library.
Yes, Michener was a man of his times.
Yes, he was lousy with characterization.
But those are no excuse for the sexist imperialist religionist(?) dreck that he tries to pass off as the product of research.
Yeesh!
I get enough propaganda already.
I'm interested though, to see so much glowing praise for this book, and such strong reaction to negative review. I can only surmise what might be driving those sentiments.
Thanks again.
Eric wrote: "Hey E.B.K.K. - Thanks for the review! I'd poke the 'like' button a few more times if I could.
I'm interested in the whole topic of the 'Fertile Crescent' and rise of religion/civilization, so wh..."
Thanks for the comment Eric! And about that last thing... I can make a few good guesses.
That’s weird, I’ve always found the female characters in this story to be the strongest. It was the female character who encouraged, against the village and her husband, to move out of the cave. It was the female character who could see through the childish lust her husband had for the 15 year old prostitute.
It was the female character who, albeit it misguided, held her husband Hoopoe in contempt because she had far grander ideas of living a righteous life in Jerusalem.
It was the female character during the War of Independence that verbally scolded the rabbi who held the same belief that god will save them, and if not then it is gods will. She picked up a gun and saved them.
These are not 1950’s tropes. These are progressive and realistic visions of women held by an incredible author arguably far ahead of his time.
Wow that Charismatic person must have been dealing with some challenges in life. I hope they feel better.
Have to block this reviewer. What a mess.
