>called The Count Of Monte Cristo>by the halfway mark it's actually a bunch of subplots for a bunch of supporting characters with the Count appearing like a guest star>it's a cross between pulp drivel and soap opera>it's even full of filler like any random tv showI'll be done with this before the year's out, and I swear to God, I'm not reading another "YUGE" and "great" novel ever again. Waste of time after waste of time. For God's sake. This is literally the equivalent of comic books but from a few centuries ago.
i gave this a 1 star instead of 0.5 on letterboxd cause of the godtier casting
>>24983861I never watched the show itself because of nigger Haydee. I'm talking about the book. But yeah, Claifin and Irons were very well suited in their roles.
>>24983856>This is literally the equivalent of comic books but from a few centuries ago.Well, duh. Dumas was the MCU of his time. If you were expecting something deep and profound from that (literal) nigger, that's on you.
>>24983856It's just qualityslop
This is a book for children.
Check out his mansion, it almost on the level of Abbotsford.
>>24983856It's not any different than isekai slop nowadays.
>>24983856I don't get why people are surprised by this. Giant serial writers used the exact same techniques you'd find today, soap opera drama hooks, injected characters and plot points out of nowhere, stretched out fights and retarded escapes to keep the page count growing. And of course romance subplots. It's the same with all the 'adventure' classics. Not just Treasure Island or Journey to the Center of the Earth type books, but older works thought to be respectable like Ivanhoe. They'd be YA books and action sloppa today. Dickens is basically a Steven King of his day, not in the horror focus of course but in the mass market appeal, writing endlessly, most of it pretty shit, with a few gems to carry his name brand. It gets worse when you look at people like Poe, Lovecraft, PKD, who were writing pulp crap in their own time and have grown in stature since their deaths to be some kind of underrated classics. I can't even name an equivalent today because people would get too upset. It's good because it's old is a de facto judgement that keeps the literati sane. They can't face reality.
>>24984112You have managed to reach the very lowest point of the Dunning-Krueger curve, which is very impressive in itself. Literary mass market appeal today, and mass market appeal in the 1800s are very different things.>It's good because it's old is a de facto judgement that keeps the literati sane. They can't face reality.Oh nevermind, it's another /wng/ tourist coping
>>24984075Mansion? That's an old apartment building.
>>24983856In 2026, we as a society shall finally move beyond the Western Canon, seeing it for the overhyped dreck it really was all along.
>>24983856I have a feeling that this book would have a much different reputation with the normies if it weren't written 180 years ago and if it weren't written by a dude with a fancy French name. The serial nature of the book caused it to be 90% filler, its almost like watching a shonen anime. My advanced World Lit class in highschool made us read this shit over summer break (imagine assigning a bunch of 17 year olds a 1300 page book over summer break) and my teacher really liked to talk up how much of a masterpiece this surface level bullshit was.
>>24984112So how do I find the quality stuff if basically everything old gets equally praised?
>>24983856No refunds
>>24984144I don't think your point about the different mass markets is well substantiated. That's something I've always been pretty curious about. The masses are pretty harshly and rightfully judged for their tastes in all art. But in literature its blindly trusted. Even going back to the Greeks. Why believe that this stuff curated by the masses is any good
>>24984397Nta but a lot of the time it's apparent if it's mass market appeal shit within the first 50-100 pages. Once I find that to be the case with a book I'm reading I make a mental note that any praise for said author should be taken with a grain of salt.
>>24983856What does the title have to do with other characters? Even more so that other characters play a large role for the MC, they're not side stories. What a stupid argument
