Scan barcode
madhukari's review against another edition
5.0
Philosophical meditations on the state of being in love expressed in the form of a story. Reminded me of Milan Kundera's prose.
rolypolyreads's review against another edition
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
3.0
byrenical's review against another edition
1.0
Where to even start with this trash-fire of a novel? I feel this is the slightly educated version of 50 Shades. The protagonist is a selfish and completely oblivious walking red flag. He vaguely acknowledges this and immediately excuses many of his red flags by saying all humans are deeply flawed (a point he is still using 30 years later when talking about his bad characteristics that he still has).
Before I reached the half-way point I was like “this can’t be his intention, there must be some point I’m missing”. He is often described as a philosopher (now I know it’s closer to a really bad pop-philosopher) I’d assumed maybe he was intentionally making a terrible character as I’d recently read ‘Notes From Underground’ by Dostoevsky where the protagonist is a great example of an antihero, but ‘Underground’ adds insights, great observations and has a point. So I watched a talk of Botton and realised he literally thinks exactly like his terrible protagonist, which is badly.
Ironically, the word of the day on my phone just popped up;
Odious
(adjective) extremely unpleasant, repulsive
Very appropriate.
I’ll give one example that I highlighted early on. The protagonist decides to be an arsehole about his girlfriend Chloe’s shoe choice for the night for no reason, she responds,
“Why do you have to spoil everything?” and he responds,
“Because I care for you. Someone has to let you know the truth.”
“Gemma said she liked them. And Leslie would definitely like them. And I can’t imagine Abigail having a problem with them either. So what’s wrong with you?”
“Your girlfriends don’t love you. Not in the proper way. Not in the way that means you have to break bad news to someone even if it pains you terribly.”
He was terrible before this, and even more so afterwards. There is a tiny bit of truth that maybe he could be slightly more honest than some close friends, but that is not the case in this book, her friends are not mentioned outside of this quote and he doesn’t really care about the shoes besides him not liking them. He just wanted to ruin her night before it started through manipulation and this is not expanded upon afterwards like you would imagine. By the end of the book, (and I would say spoilers but it was already spoiled by being published) he goes on to say he is a martyr and a victim when she eventually cheats on him.
He quotes philosophers and psychologists to acknowledge that he has read them and to try make sense of himself or excuse his behaviour but fails miserably each time. The fact so many people don’t see through his barely veiled deceptions is pretty shocking.
I had made a lot of notes on this but honestly if you read this and find his writing relatable, insightful and not highly problematic in numerous ways then I suggest you just go to therapy or jump off a bridge and do the world a favour.
Before I reached the half-way point I was like “this can’t be his intention, there must be some point I’m missing”. He is often described as a philosopher (now I know it’s closer to a really bad pop-philosopher) I’d assumed maybe he was intentionally making a terrible character as I’d recently read ‘Notes From Underground’ by Dostoevsky where the protagonist is a great example of an antihero, but ‘Underground’ adds insights, great observations and has a point. So I watched a talk of Botton and realised he literally thinks exactly like his terrible protagonist, which is badly.
Ironically, the word of the day on my phone just popped up;
Odious
(adjective) extremely unpleasant, repulsive
Very appropriate.
I’ll give one example that I highlighted early on. The protagonist decides to be an arsehole about his girlfriend Chloe’s shoe choice for the night for no reason, she responds,
“Why do you have to spoil everything?” and he responds,
“Because I care for you. Someone has to let you know the truth.”
“Gemma said she liked them. And Leslie would definitely like them. And I can’t imagine Abigail having a problem with them either. So what’s wrong with you?”
“Your girlfriends don’t love you. Not in the proper way. Not in the way that means you have to break bad news to someone even if it pains you terribly.”
He was terrible before this, and even more so afterwards. There is a tiny bit of truth that maybe he could be slightly more honest than some close friends, but that is not the case in this book, her friends are not mentioned outside of this quote and he doesn’t really care about the shoes besides him not liking them. He just wanted to ruin her night before it started through manipulation and this is not expanded upon afterwards like you would imagine. By the end of the book, (and I would say spoilers but it was already spoiled by being published) he goes on to say he is a martyr and a victim when she eventually cheats on him.
He quotes philosophers and psychologists to acknowledge that he has read them and to try make sense of himself or excuse his behaviour but fails miserably each time. The fact so many people don’t see through his barely veiled deceptions is pretty shocking.
I had made a lot of notes on this but honestly if you read this and find his writing relatable, insightful and not highly problematic in numerous ways then I suggest you just go to therapy or jump off a bridge and do the world a favour.
ashimgarg's review against another edition
4.0
An amazing book on the realities of love in a relationship's cycle. The feelings, insecurities, fun, communication and everything that is a part of it. Got a little too sophisticated at some points, but overall I'd recommend.
Thank you Nikita for the recommendation.
Thank you Nikita for the recommendation.
hellhoundharry's review against another edition
1.0
At first I liked this book just fine. It was like a rom-com situation where a couple falls in love, and the guy is a philosopher. Cool cool, let's see where this goes. I don't mind philosophy, I read quite a bit of it myself.
But then I start to notice a pattern: The main character is an asshole! The kind of academic "intellectual" who puts up his nose because the Love of his life doesn't like Bach and reads Cosmo instead of some heavy literature. He is constantly seeing wrongs because she isn't perfect. Well boo-hoo!
And the result are fights now and then AND finally the woman breaks up with him! He whines about it. The end!
But at the end, where the book really fails for me is the characters failure to understand some philosophies. Oh sure he will quote Nietzche and Immanuel Kant among others to make his points. But then I get to the last chapter and he talks about how he read the stoics. Now I have read the stoics and what irks me is "At the heart of stoicism lay the desire to disappoint oneself before someone else has the chance to do so " and ".stoicism was simply trying to deny the legitimacy ofcertain potentially painful yet fundamental human needs. However brave, the stoic was in the end a coward at the point of perhaps the highest reality, at the moment of love."
Has this guy actually READ the stoics? Because I have and stoicism is not about self-disappointment or shunning human contact or even love! It's more about maintaining a calm center when life gets tough and deal with reality as it is right now in front of you.
I am seriously doubting he has read it, which to me was the final straw: This guy is a bad lover, he is an asshole and he is also a hack student of philosophy that doesn't understand the basic concepts when he disagrees with them!
He is Brian Griffin! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-O_ZbwwgBQ&ab_channel=MeltedCheese
But then I start to notice a pattern: The main character is an asshole! The kind of academic "intellectual" who puts up his nose because the Love of his life doesn't like Bach and reads Cosmo instead of some heavy literature. He is constantly seeing wrongs because she isn't perfect. Well boo-hoo!
And the result are fights now and then AND finally the woman breaks up with him! He whines about it. The end!
But at the end, where the book really fails for me is the characters failure to understand some philosophies. Oh sure he will quote Nietzche and Immanuel Kant among others to make his points. But then I get to the last chapter and he talks about how he read the stoics. Now I have read the stoics and what irks me is "At the heart of stoicism lay the desire to disappoint oneself before someone else has the chance to do so " and ".stoicism was simply trying to deny the legitimacy ofcertain potentially painful yet fundamental human needs. However brave, the stoic was in the end a coward at the point of perhaps the highest reality, at the moment of love."
Has this guy actually READ the stoics? Because I have and stoicism is not about self-disappointment or shunning human contact or even love! It's more about maintaining a calm center when life gets tough and deal with reality as it is right now in front of you.
I am seriously doubting he has read it, which to me was the final straw: This guy is a bad lover, he is an asshole and he is also a hack student of philosophy that doesn't understand the basic concepts when he disagrees with them!
He is Brian Griffin! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-O_ZbwwgBQ&ab_channel=MeltedCheese
unojaden's review against another edition
4.0
The best way I can describe it is a hyper-examination of love and what it means, the process of meeting someone and falling in love and possibly falling out of love. It was beautifully written, had great and artistic metaphors, and beautiful insights on the art of loving someone. Some notes from the audiobook:
- The word love can not describe that which we feel sometimes, which is why we may have doubts as to what exactly it is we are feeling.
- In the wrong hands, intimate words and moments given to someone with the promise of secrecy can be converted to a common currency, a rumor to be spread.
- I loved her body for the promise of who she was
- We may be under the illusion we call love, but if we can find someone that is under the same illusion, we create a happy symbiosis.
- Lovers depart from the regular language and nature of conversation in their discourse, instead basing it on the story that they are weaving together
- we call ourselves the same names although we are like trees and change with the seasons. We couldn't have a new name for a tree for every season and in the same way we do not change our names even though the person we are now may be unrecognizable from who we were just a few weeks ago.
- Chloe and I acknowledge that love's light doesn't always burn with the same furiosity. It is ok to not like your lover so much today and like them a little more later. Most of our issues with our lovers are just merely us projecting what has happened at the office.
Great little book
- The word love can not describe that which we feel sometimes, which is why we may have doubts as to what exactly it is we are feeling.
- In the wrong hands, intimate words and moments given to someone with the promise of secrecy can be converted to a common currency, a rumor to be spread.
- I loved her body for the promise of who she was
- We may be under the illusion we call love, but if we can find someone that is under the same illusion, we create a happy symbiosis.
- Lovers depart from the regular language and nature of conversation in their discourse, instead basing it on the story that they are weaving together
- we call ourselves the same names although we are like trees and change with the seasons. We couldn't have a new name for a tree for every season and in the same way we do not change our names even though the person we are now may be unrecognizable from who we were just a few weeks ago.
- Chloe and I acknowledge that love's light doesn't always burn with the same furiosity. It is ok to not like your lover so much today and like them a little more later. Most of our issues with our lovers are just merely us projecting what has happened at the office.
Great little book
itsexa's review against another edition
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.75
brennadonahue's review against another edition
5.0
Really enjoyed - deep-dive into human emotions & experiences, as cliche as it may sound. But this book is not a cliche in any way.
_justlillian_'s review against another edition
2.0
First third was good, then it dragged and the narrator became annoying. Chloe was also not an enjoyable character.