>>24854107
Imagine writing a review calling Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 'Life Changing'.

Imagine being that person.

>>24854279
Maybe they mean it inspired a love for juvenile trash that ruined their lives forever.

all awful

>rich dad, poor dad
based

>>24854279
>most well selling and known book series of all time
Yeah there's nothing to learn from that

>>24854334
I mean, if your idea of 'life changing' is that it got your millennial kid to read something instead of playing videogames all day, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, the book has value, but it's the sort of value that flavorologists study in a lab so that they can make new cheeto flavors that would kill medieval peasants. It's not a complex or deep work of literature.

I saw a kid named Holden in B&N the other day. Didn’t know kids were named that. I said “cool name”. I 80% meant it.

>>24854279
Better than reading Catcher in the Rye and calling it life changing.

>>24854510
you are a phony

Normies were a mistake

>>24854107
>Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
I was very disappointed when I discovered this was not about motorbike maintenance.

>>24854334
It's not even a high percentage of people calling it life-changing. Not even the reviewers agree with that.

Methodology? If it's just searching for the words "life-changing" how do they filter out stuff like "In this book, Harry Potter begins his life-changing adventure"?

>>24855242
Actual anon who isn't braindead.
Even things like "I was told this book would be life-changing, but it's just self-help trash" would count if it's just a search for keywords. Even a quote of the blurb of a self-help book would probably contain life-changing in it.
This is why I hate infographics and statistics and a good chunk of scientific papers. You can infer anything from arbitrary data if you pick the right angle.

I hate Hylics bros,