Top 10 books I Hate that everyone else Loves

It is called "Fault in Our Stars" because unlike Shakespeare's example there IS fault in their stars (they didn't do anything to deserve it).

I'd love to see an inverse of this list in the future.

Now I want to see James Tullos do a "10 books I love that everyone else hates" video.

Can we take a moment to appreciate the section headings give away the books without giving away the books?

John Green is a really amusing author to look back on. I (and most of my friends) really loved him in middle/high school, which in hindsight is primarily because of the way he wrote teenagers. That was how we saw ourselves, and he captured that really well. But then he'd have, like, a Big Moral for every book (people with terminal illness are more than their illnesses for TFIOS, or the manic pixie dream girl is a terrible trope for Looking For Alaska) only to have the book read like the exact opposite of that moral. I don't know how he managed to undermine his own points so fucking well but it's really hilarious Also I loved the Heir series in middle/high school so feel free to cite me as the person who liked them that you're disagreeing with :P

"It's why i got an actual job now" YOU ARE BANNED FROM THE BOOK WORM COMMUNITY! Section 3 of the book worm constitution MANDATES that all members can only live off of youtube OR book related jobs (writting, editing, publishing); a swat team will come shortly to burn your books.

My basic English class read Fahrenheit 451 and the advanced English class read 1984. It shows which book is regarded to as more complex.

thanks for the "no he just wanted people to read instead of watching tv" thing, i didn't know that before but i'm glad i know it now. i think it's fine to relate to a book your own specific way (like jkr and the death of the author approach of most fandom creators nowadays), but i hate when people replace the author's actual intent with their own ideas because they think it sounds better. if a guy wants to write ventfic about how he doesn't like tv, let the man write his ventfic!

Fahrenheit 451 has a lot of conservative themes that I think a lot of people aren't aware of. Bradbury pretty much lays his thesis bare in a conversation between the protagonist Guy Montague and the fire chief. The chief is explaining how it came to be that they started burning books. He explicitly tells Montague that wasn't government censorship. The chief explains that over time people quit reading and turned toward mindless TV. He also laments how books became increasingly controversial because of all the whiny minorities being offended that had to be catered to. In the history he lays out, the end of books happened from the bottom up with the public demanding they be gotten rid of. There's a lot more that can be said about this, but the modern equivalent would be if someone wrote a story about a dystopian future where everybody is dumb and spends all their time reading social media and getting offended by things.

I just realised that fault in our stars author is the same guy whose educational videos I've been watching on the PBS crash course channel. Neat!

"It's easier to hate something when you don't know much about it" Wise words James, wise words

To be fair, John Greens Turtles all the way really hit me. Not the plot or the final message or anything, just that one convo mc had with her friend where mc asked her if she saw her as a burden because of her mental issues, which the friend responded to without the typical 'no im fine, youre just you I understand' like talking to a scared child, but actually chose honesty. 'Yes, your mental issues do bother me and sometimes I find you infuriating, but despite that I still want to be friends with you.' A friend that's honest with even when its not convenient is a true gem.

I always saw fahrenheit 451 as a commentary on culture of entertainment, that is actually pretty relevant today. In their society people live shallow lives of being entertained 24/7, which led to low attention spans and decreased interest in "slow and boring" activities like reading books, stargazing, and taking walks outside. Over time, everything became faster paced, louder, and more violent just to hold people's attention at all. We also see the effects of this superficial lifestyle with Montague's wife and many others are suffering from severe depression. At the start of the book, Montague's wife tries to commit su!cide, and the medics who take care of her brush it off and say that many of them happen each night. While this might have not been Bradbury's original intention, it's kinda freaky how much of this stuff has happened in our world. Opinions are valid though.

It's been many years since i read the Giver in like late middle school, and concering what you said about how the world isn't that dystopian; I remeber being a little disturbed when certain girls (like 12 yo girls in the MC's class) were selected as 'mothers' bc they had wide hips or something. I just get uncomfortable thinking abut how in that world like middle schoolers (?) were selected basically just to have children, and if I remeber correctly the book also implies that the 'good lifestyle' of being a 'baby producer' isn't that glorious once their 'purpose is fulfilled'. It feels kinda dehumanazing that some of the girls are just reduced to basically their wombs

shrug not all horror books have to have bummer endings. I’d still consider pretty much everyone is dead a bummer, but sometimes it’s nice to come out the other side of a life changing, hard experience somewhat victorious. You don’t have to have a bleak ending for it to be horror. Not everything has to be oppressively dark throughout.

I've read just one of these, Fahrenheit 451, and personally I like it. Bradbury's authorial intent was basically Phone Bad: 1950s edition, which is dumb as fuck, but he accidently makes something more interesting than intended. I think there's a lot of really interesting details drip-fed to the reader, so the most interesting storytelling is actually in the worldbuilding. The characters are pretty mid but as a dystopian adventure story it gets the job done imo.

Talks about taking peasant women after a battle and burning down a village "I'm sure we've all been there at some point in our lives."

For "Into the Wild" the main point is that his parents were obsessed with material things that ended up causing a toxic relationship that negatively affected him and his sister. This is why he decided to rid himself of anything, material by giving his money away to charity, choosing to turn money down from strangers, and not wanting to stay in one place for long. The point was to experience the part of life where the awful parts of his childhood weren't present. Edit: Also he didn't have trouble making friends and was far from an outcast. The reason the story is so interesting is because Chris had everything going for him. He was Valedictorian, he was about to enter a prestigious law schools, charismatic, rich family. It is just so interesting to see a bright mind to choose to become a drifter instead of his other life purely based off the pain his parents brought him.

Even when I was 13, TFOIS didn't trick me. I saw right through it as being just teenage heartstring-pulling fluff. Maybe because I read Looking for Alaska first, but TFOIS felt really cheap. Thinking back on it, perhaps Gus' death shouldn't have happened in the book. I think it would've been more powerful if it ended with him and Hazel knowing he's back in remission and a cliffhanger of what they're going to do with their lives now, but that they'll cherish every moment or something, I dunno. I think it'd fit in more with the message than what the book actually went with.

I’m forever gonna associate TFIOS with 10 year olds making recolor ocs on instagram of characters with cancer by making them bald and giving them oxygen tubes