1. ok why is harry potter a wizard if magic is impossible. if magic is impossible which it is, then how come GK Rowlings does not make him just very good at math or fencing. why magic, if magic is not possible.

2. hogwarts is not a real place. there are too many things that make it not real, it’s obvious she made it up. how can a castle be full of wizards? castles are for kings.

3. the hat that tells you where you are going to live is stupid. why not a belt or a napkin. more appropriate.

4. is the giant man Hagrid supposed to be a pedophile? because i think that should not be in a children book.

5. dumbledore is not the most powerful wizard. that is snape who is also the bad guy. so why do we need this voltamort? what does he add? bad plotting

6. there is no magic secret train station inside the wall of another train station, i have checked all of them.

7. I heard that dumbledore dies at the end of book 4, then how come i have to read him now? why not just kill him now and get it over with, before i get invested

8. in the end of the book why does harry go back to his uncle’s house, he hates his uncle, why not go to another uncles house, or to his parents?

9. i thought daniel radcliffe was in the harry potter books??

10. sienna miller nude pictures

1. i study english because i want to be a writer and one day i think i will be one. and it’s not my place to tell another writer what to do but mr marquez, why not call the book ‘solitude century’ because thats what 100 years means and my title is better.

2. the book begins with a man about to be shot and thinking about ice even though ice isn’t really a big deal. maybe if you live in spain or whatever there isn’t much, but ice is not rare.

3. someone flies later and this is never explained. and also someone flies up to heaven and i literally dropped my book because just where the hell did that come from? marquez you can’t just get rid of a character like that, there has to be reasons. maybe she dies of something or just decideds to leave the village.

4. there are BIG deals about bananas in this book. again maybe in abroad there are not many bananas but either way just go to the supermarket. theres no need to fight and kill, they’re not even the best fruit (apple). 

5. people just go on and on and on living in this, the mother gets way too old to do anything but somehow manages. is this book meant to be realistic because it fails. all good books should be realistic. 

5. who is the main character? so many and they keep doing different things and changing their name slightly. sometimes a character dies and then later they’re walking around and calling themselves the 'son’ but does a father name his son the same name as the father’s name? no. is the answer.

6. ice is really not worth showing your son. idiot. no wonder he goes mad and tied to a tree but still lives somehow?

7. the man has sex with his aunt. mr marquez, that is disgusting.

8. so what people just grow tails now? i asked my father who knows about things and he says no they don’t, obvious research mistake.

9. can’t this be a bit shorter considering that everyone keeps dying anyway? also, how people cast magic is not explained or even showing.

10. if this village existed people would be amazed and ask for magic secrets and the dumb villagers would probably trade all the secrets for ice and bananas because they’re so amazing or something.

1. i will admit that i tried reading the book but it was like a poem and literally impossible to read because of bad spelling so i stopped and read the movie instead which is much better. you should watch the movie.

2. okay so why is grendel hating the party so much? he has nothing else to do. if he wants to be invited then don’t just kill everyone for no reason. ask them to be quiet if thats the problem. grendel doesn’t know how to solve problems and acts like he’s in the right.

3. angelina jolie would not have ugly child like grendel, even if antony hopkins was the one who gave her the baby, that wouldn’t cancel it out so badly. grendel is ugly but no explanation. disease? not told.

4. beowulf sometimes says things but then we see him doing something else. this is a mistake. its one or the other. the poet who wrote it, a man called anon, doesnt know how to write. 

5. beowulf does NOT need to be naked to fight the monster and ruined a good bit of the poem because i had to watch his bum. fine if you enjoy that but i don’t. the aliening of audience is not something anon should have done.

6. anon thinks this book is better than it is. its not one of the ‘big classics of literature or whatever’ mr anon, why did you write that on your book? arrogant arrogant man.

7. angelina jolie gives birth to a dragon. what the hell. how? that must hurt.

8. wouldnt the dragon get a bit big to live down there in the cave?

9. suddenly from once scene to the next, beowulf is like a hundred years older. ummm okay. people dont just age for no reason. is time meant to have passed? confusing again, anon.

10. beowulf gets to be king but the place he’s king of looks pretty rubbish, is that something to be proud of? maybe that’s why he lookes so sad the whole way through the poem and misses antony hopkins. but still, he should do more and not have sex with angelina jolie, it’s his fault. anon, you make me not sympathise with beowulf AGAIN.

1. this is about a friend group of small people and tall friends, including friends. later they split up and are joined by a little man who is crazy because of the ring that a giant fire eye made. they need to go to a volcano and burn the ring (not sure why; don’t have fire anywhere else?)

2. the hobbits are historical but they did not live in little houses like it says in the book. also they keep talking about bibo having already done an adventure. um hello mr tolkin, maybe tell us that story too! why does he have that ring?

3. not realistic that they are scared of ring. the ring is awesome and turns people invisible. what does it matter if its magic? gandalf does magic all the time and noone wants to burn him.

4. do we need three books anyway? they could just hurry up and stop taking their time.

5. too many names too much confusion and the only real dwarf is boring. have you seen the film? he is funny there but here he is just boring.

6. i think that maybe lord of the rings is about world war 2 because of it being a big war with lots of evil people trying to kill nice people. it makes sense actually because i think tolkien even said thats what its about.

7. not enough swords

8. elijah wood is an okay actor but looks wrong.

9. the ending goes on for ages and peter jackson didnt know how to finish the film. they all go off on a boat. where? does it matter. no because we stay back with the fat one in his garden. exciting. what’s on the island mr jackson? what aren’t you telling us?

10. the ring keeps getting bigger and smaller. how does it do that? how does it make people invisible? nothing funny happens with people getting invisible it just seems like a very wasteful book to me. i think anyone who likes lord of the rings must be very sad and boring.

1. okay so my teacher says we had to read this for class, even though it isn’t a book but a comic like superman or batman. but this is a comic and has no powers, ok? let me say that again; this has no powers. otherwise its a very disssapointing book.

2. why are people diferent animals? the only answer is magic but there are no wizards, unless you count the main mouse as the wizard. he doesn’t say he is a wizard though. 

3. animals. why is nazis the cats and the jewish people a mouse? does this make sense to you?

4. very sad story but ruined because instead of about people its about mice. i don’t like mice so why would we be expected to like these ones just because they wear clothes and talk like people? so does mickey mouse and no one likes him.

5. okay lets pretend it makes sense for people to be animals. fine. but sometimes they do writing. cats do not have thumbs, mouses do not have thumbs, fish DON’T EVeN HAVE HANDS!

6. the story is true about what happened in germany at world war 2, but how true? if people are now animals what else is changed? is this history or a story? unfair and disrepecting of the real people who weren’t actually animals.

7. the jews should not make themselves like mice because people don’t like mice it doesn’t do them any favours. i like jewish people very much (aaron in my class is awesome, hi aaron if you’re reading this) but why put themselves down?

8. is there not such a thing as a nice cat?

9. the story does not even have a happy ending.

10. lots is in black and white even though history was colour. 

1. okay, sorry everybody but i thought i bought a sherlock holmes book and yet we follow a man called watson around. THIS IS A SHERLOCK HOMES book okay? who cares who watson is or what he’s doing?

2. watson is very stupid and sherlock is very smart. which would you rather follow? me too. bad mistake doyle.

3. had a hard time anyone would really be scared of what basically is just a big dog. even a horse is scarier.

4. sherlock holmes hides in the dark and is not very nice to his friend.

5. did you work out the mystery? i didn’t because the mystery was boring. the mystery should have been more interesting. 

6. mr. doyle always uses animals too much for the murderer weapon in the crime story.

7. the language is unrealistic and they talk about the countryside like its interesting. it isn’t. i wish they went back to london.

8. thought moriarty would be the villain and he wasn’t. so is moriarty not in any sherlock holmes. waste of character. this needs a good villain that isn’t just a dog but a person.

9. sherlock homes keeps lighting a pipe instead of smoking cigarettes and noone laughs at him. unrealistic.

10. why is watson?

1. if nobakov did have sex with a young girl which is illegal, then why tell people in this book? did he not get arrested? this country has gone to hell, anyone can just walk free man now.

2. nobody has the same name as their last name, because of it being too confusing for the others.

3. why does mrs lolita want to marry humbert? he’s boring.

3. does it make any sense that a well respected man and clever person like humbert would fall in love with a young girl who isn’t well respected and clever? NO.

5. the forword for the book says that lolita is dead. okay, then how is she in the rest of the story? doesn’t make sense.

6. humbert uses lots of words that don’t make sense and i think mr nabokov wants us just to all be impressed with him and tell him how clever it is. NOT GOING TO WORK MR NABOKOV

7. there is such a things as paragraph breaking, mr nabokov, learn to use it!

8. why would lolita kiss and have sex with an old man? she can find a boy her age as she tells us so why? ruined the book because of unbelievable characters.

9. interesting point; should this book be allowed?

10. the sex scenes are not described very well. we are not allowed to see what happens. this isn’t fair to the reader.

1. another tract on why it is better to conform than to be a individuaal. ridiculous soviet propaganda. ann rand needs to get laid and then she’ll feel special instead of trying to convert everyone to socialism

2. the socialist theory has been DISPROVED, science is objective, and history shows that you can contradict socialism objectively — SCIENCE — there’s a historical PROOF that socialism doesn’t work, and it was always going to not work because that is how history WORKs. if socialism wants to be convincing it needs to be aware of HISTORY!!!

3. howard rourke is a numb skull. if he has so many good houses why does he blow them up. that is like picking up a hot chick and then deciding you only want to hold hands.

4. howard rourke is terrorist and should not be building buildings

5. the main girl in the book is not even hot like in the porn magazines which makes her just a bitch because everything else she does is also annoying

6. another annoying thing about the socialists is they haven’t even understand that pinning their hopes on ann rand will only defeat them. they have no concept! of politics and revolution is immature

7. plus if they hate capitalism so much they should do something about it instead of trying to have a revolution

8. the main bad guy is called Toohey and that is not even a name.

9. why is this called the fountain’s head, it has nothing to do with water

10. water cannot have a head or it would be an animal.

1. such a stupid book. argues that we can’t see things as they are. WTF? if that’s true then you can never be sure if your honey is cheating on your or not even though I SAW HER in bed with my bro. argument destroyed, ego destroyed, worth it though, always more women around

2. kant is german from the 1920s, internet didnt exist back then but if he had he could have googled objections to his own bullshit. in any case mr smartypants failed imho at making his point. just my opinion though

3. check this out “But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience.” spoken like a true virgin, only people with real EXPERIENCE can know how important it is

4. “So far, too, are the students of metaphysics from exhibiting any kind of unanimity in their contentions, that metaphysics has rather to be regarded as a battle-ground quite peculiarly suited for those who desire to exercise themselves in mock combats, and in which no participant has ever yet succeeded in gaining even so much as an inch of territory, not at least in such manner as to secure him in its permanent possession. This shows, beyond all questioning, that the procedure of metaphysics has hitherto been a merely random groping, and, what is worst of all, a groping among mere concepts.” DOES ANYONE ELSE FEEL LIKE KANT IS JUST WHINING. i bet he doesn’t even have the balls to take me in a fight.

5. i dont know the difference between the phenomenon and the noumenon but if it’s anything like pokemon then just as i suspected Kant is such a dweeb. my charizard was level 61 before my bro stole my cartridge, anyone want to trade email me charizardlover999x_tdog (at) yahoo.com

6. philosophy in general is pretentious but Kant is the worst, he doesn’t explain his concepts. he’s a snob, he wants to hide how little he knows by using big words but i dont need big words all i need is my brain

7. i bet the 1920s had a lot of diabetes, life was sweet back then, kant has nothing to complain about.

8. categorical imperative: “turn other cheek” SOUNDS A LOT LIKE JESUS, plagiarism

9. summary of Critique of Reason: you can’t know anything because your brain is fried. your welcome

10. SO many typos, it’s not “ding an sich” it’s “ding a long” idiots.

1. stupid book about the dangers of capitalism. as if there’s anything wrong with making more money

2. ann rand was RUSSIAN why did they even allow her to come into the USA?!?

3. John Colt has a HORRIBLE LECTURE at the end of the book which makes ZERO SENSE, why not more action? maybe then i can forgive the anti-capitalist stuff, but no, instead it’s all about John Colt talking blah blah blah about A equals A — DUH!!!! what else would it be? even a baby knows that A has to equal A, otehrwise it would have to equal B or C, and then those letters would not have any MEANING.

4. the main lady Dagny is a whore. she’s like my friend Xtina from high school except even Xtina didnt put out IN THE PAGES OF A BOOK, WHERE EVERYONE CAN READ ABOUT IT

5. and the good guys are all super strong but they talk alot, I thought the point of being strong and smart was that you didnt have to spend all your time explaining things. you can just punch people. haha cool

6. also ann rand wrote about trains. WHO TAKES TRAINS? i don’t even think trains exist in Minnesotta anymore, why would they exist ACROSS THE REST OF AMERICA?

7. if ann rand wants a communist system so much why doesn’t she just go back to russia anyway? why move to the land of freedorm just to ask everyone else to change for HER? that’s so socialist in itself. i PROMISE her books will not sell.

8. “who is john colt” “who is john colt” and when you find out who he is, he rambles on and on about an engine. yea i know, he’s smart, but i don’t have to read about engines do i? i dont even have a CAR because of my unemployment benefits are not good enough

9. socialism only works in theory. in practice it is too much like centralized government, and that does not work because it doesn’t let you make money, only spend it. obiesly eventually you cannot spend money you dont have, and then you have capitalism.

10. whatever happened to Frederick Neetschey, who said THE MORE YOU GAZE INTO THE ABYSS THE MORE YOU BECOME A MONSTER. someone should say that to ann rand.

1. why is this book written like the author was on drugs? it’s not responsible

2. anyone who likes william burroughs is probably a hipster and likes to ride florescent bicycles in the street wearing a bow tie and reading Frank Kafka too

3. this whole story is about gay guys having gay sex. i’m not racist but do we really need more gay sex in books? i thought Moby Dick was enough?

4. whatever the book does is bad. why not more lesbian sex instead of gay sex.

5. i fucking love lesbians

6. it reads like a bad book and it smells like a bad book so i’m going to trust my gut and say all the signs are there, because except taste (i do not eat books since high school)

7. apparently there is a chapter in there called The Talking Asshole. i do not remember it but then again TOO MUCH GAY SEX, what is the obsession, was being gay even a choice back then…?

8. also boring. not enough talking about food, the title promised lunch and there was nothing

9. preface by JG BALLARDS is very poor, reminds me of Shakespare all formal and dialectical

10. too much use of the word ECTOPLASM i dont even know what it is, but it sounds very sci fi which i am not a fan.

1. whoever milan kundera is, he does not seem to know that his name is the same as a city in sicily. so already i know i’m dealing with an ignorant idiot

2. the main character is a doctor with a lot of sex partner. except that i know the author doesn’t have a clue about women. for starters, you cant just say TAKE OFF YOUR CLOTHES to a woman, no matter how stupid she is, she isn’t going to assume you’re speaking as a doctor and obey. so the credibility is lost.

3. the other main character is his wife and she hates being alive. why? it’s not so difficult. sometimes she’s so whiny it’s like she doesn’t realize all you have to do to “carry on liviing” is BREATHE, EAT AND SLEEP. omg. revelation? all this “wondering about how to survive” its all beside the point. just do the things you body needs and the survival is taken care of. you are welcome

4. this is set in checkoslovakia. which is incredibly ignorant. there is not such place. there is a country called CHECK and another called SLOVAKIA. they are NOT the same place.

5. the whole thing about communism is dumb. if it’s so bad over there, why not just move? problem solved, book over.

6. there is a dog called Karen. that’s fucking stupid. dogs dont have people names, if they did they would be PEOPLE.

7. the entire book is about sex sex sex. which is fine but as someone who has regular sex i can tell you it’s not that interesting. kundera obviously is a very immature man

8. what’s the point anyway of setting this whenever it was set? why not make it relevant to our times, maybe then people would care about Karen the dog (by the way, Beethoven is a better movie than this is a book because at least there you can SEE it’s a dog so it’s not confusing)

9. my professor says this is a book about the will to exist, i say my professor needs to get laid because this is obviously not a book about anything except sex

10. also i don’t believe the communists were even IN the Check Republic, it’s in the European union isnt it.

1. bukowski doesn’t use proper punctuation

2. poetry is for people who think they can poo roses, and i bet bukowski could not poo roses because that would not follow biological rules and the thorns would hurt. therefore bukowski is a fake.

3. all he does is get drunk for no reason, and he’s not even drinking interesting things, the other day i drank at least seven shots of vodka, and i was fine

4. and i hooked up with a girl called Gina

5. plus who cares about writing a book about the post office? that’s where i get my letters. so what? unles he has something to say which he doesnt, in my humble opinion

6. all he talks about is how drunk he gets. when i go clubbing at least i manage to enjoy myself, he’s just like my father, except doesnt even give good advice

7. Gina was smoking hot

8. the best thing about Postal Office is how Bukowski writes abuot his colleauges, there’s a guy where i work, that doesn’t even know how to operate a till. he thinks he can be manager, too, because he had a degree. i’m a student too, i’ll have a degree, SO WHAT? its just a degree. it means as much as the work of Lacan.

9. haha holy shit did you see how many books Bukowski wrote? people love to waist time.

10. maybe i should write a book

1. wtf! this guy doesn’t even use the same WORDS freud used, at least freud was consistent!!!!

2. if the phallus is a signifier, then how come I can pee through it? unless a signifier is NOT a machine for making road signs but then what is a signifier?

3. UNCONSCIOUS IS STRUCTURED LIKE A LANGAUGE? THEN HOW COME I CAN’T SPEAK IT? THERE ISN’T EVEN A DICTIONARY, THIS GUY IS FULL OF CRAP

4. i don’t know how to pronounce the title.

5. lol: “That the Sadian fantasy situates itself better in the bearers of Christian ethics than elsewhere is what our structural landmarks allow us to grasp easily. But that Sade, himself, refuses to be my neighbor, is what needs to be recalled, not in order to refuse it to him in return, but in order to recognize the meaning of this refusal. We believe that Sade is not close enough to his own wickedness to recognize his neighbor in it. A trait which he shares with many, and notably with Freud. For such is indeed the sole motive of the recoil of beings, sometimes forewarned, before the Christian commandment. For Sade, we see the test of this, crucial in our eyes, in his refusal of the death penalty, which history, if not logic, would suffice to show is one of the corollaries of Charity”……….  he doesn’t even understand that HE IS JUST SAYING THE OBVIOUS

6. mirrors don’t go through stages, just saying

7. if you look him up on wikpedia, you can see even LOOKS french. looks like a douche

8. if he’s so clever then why does he keep refering to Hegel? everyone already knows about those exercizes, they don’t work, i had a girlfriend who did hegel exercizes every day and the sex was no better

9. wtf is “freud’s discovery” anyway i thought freud was about dreams.

10. this is a waste of my time, this guy will have no influnce on anything. except maybe the ‘ESTABLISHMENT"

1. okay first, why is the book so popular. it doesn’t even make sense. sometimes the grammer and spellings are really not good. how did he make it thru high school? this is not american in spirit.

2. second even if the book is good which it cannot be, then how come joyce james didn’t win the Noble Price? I thought she would have been good enough, NO?

3. now the book itself. it is too long. it doesnt even have characters. all the characters are metaphors for how the odyssey is. that’s not literature

4. the odyssy is not even a good book. the iliad either. these are “classics” only because they are old… that makes my granny a classic and nobody reads her

5. my grandmother doesn’t own any books and is at least 90 years old, does that mean this is really such a MUST-READ?

6. molly bloom is a cheater and leo is weak, the onlky good character is the one at the end who has that long monologue because he at least is okay with himself.

7. Dublin is badly constructed and needs more realism, something like Middle-Earth would teach Dublin a lesson, and Scottish novels in general aren’t interesting because they only talk about potato.

8. if Joyce James really cared wouldn’t she be writing romantic comedy, so that other women could relate. this is just like it doesn’t want any readers. men don’t read women and women don’t read nonromantic books, so of course the critics love it.

9. critics call it the first great novel of the 20th century, what about the new Neal Stephenson’s book, “Read Me” (no i have not read that but i wonder why we are so abritrary in tastes)

10. anyway who cares about what leo does? he is like a boring cat