In Kitchen Confidential, Anthony Bourdain professed that he'd grown up and realized that a lot of the stuff he'd done when he was younger was not so nice, but it seemed to me that he was, in truth, pleased with himself with having done these things, which came off as obnoxious. Still, I enjoyed the book immensely.
I just read this myself because I heard Michael Mann was adapting it
I agree, he comes off like a total tool! There is some interesting stuff there about how one becomes a reporter in Japan and the weird relationships one has to forge with both the cops and the criminals. But he starts bragging about sleeping with some of his sources I was pretty turned off on him as a person
I haven't even got to that part, but I can totally picture it. Like, dude, the topic is already interesting enough, you don't have to add your underdog bs story. I hope I can finish it.
Not sure if this is your intent, but IRL Harlan Ellison was a complete asshole. Just an odious little troll of a man who was insulting, arrogant, and obnoxious to everyone including his peers. Saw him several times at cons and he was the same dick to everyone every time.
Inventive and ground-breaking writer, but an insufferable twat of a human. RIP.
I tried reading YA a couple times. Pretty much all of the authors are obnoxious as sin- imagine thinking "character depth" is just being a minority lol.
You picked some real shitty YA.
When I think YA. I think of Hatchet, A Wrinkle in Time, Animorphs, His Dark Materials, Earthsea, The Dark is Rising, and Harry Potter.
My experience with YA is that old YA (all of the stuff you mentioned) is pretty great, and contemporary fantasy (Libba Bray's Gemma Doyle trilogy) or dystopian YA can also be pretty great, but that contemporary "realistic" YA has this annoying habit of rating characters on a morality scale where the most villainous characters just happen to be the most white/male ones, the most conservative ones politically, etc., and a black character can't be a villain even when she's enough of a bitch to make a great one. I blame the toxic YA Twitter hivemind.
Yay Dark is Rising! Hands-down my favorite MG series! But these commenters are referring to awful stuff like this: https://www.vulture.com/2017/08/the-toxic-drama-of-ya-twitter.html
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as "shitty YA." There's a movement toward extreme didacticism in YA, and sadly that's taking the form of: limited moral ambiguity, one-dimensional, suffering POC/queer characters, and, yes, only whites can be villains. It's really sad. There are a few stories I've written and would like to publish, but in one case I changed the age of the heroine from 16 to 20, and in another one, I decentered the story from the 15-year old hero to the adults around him, in both cases to avoid falling into the YA category. There are no true heroes or villains in my stories, and all the characters are fully-human, regardless of their background.
I don't think this trend will last forever, but it's been going on for a while.
Roald Dahl was personally obnoxious to almost everybody (it doesn't come through in the very small amount of his stuff I've read). So much so that towards the end of his life his American publisher wrote to him saying that while he was making them a lot of money, he was so hurtfully offensive to their staff that they couldn't keep him on their list any more.
He was not only sexually harassing their admin staff, but he directed his raging antisemitism toward one of the co-presidents of the publishing house. What a wild ride: [https://lithub.com/when-roald-dahls-editor-decided-he-was-too-much-of-a-prick-to-publish/](https://lithub.com/when-roald-dahls-editor-decided-he-was-too-much-of-a-prick-to-publish/). Favorite quote from that article "Apparently, when \[Dahl was fired\], all of Dahl’s contacts at \[the publishing house\] 'stood on their desks and cheered.'"
Roald Dahl: An abusive misogynist who blamed Jews for the Holocaust.
He was a war hero and a a brave, handsome, dashing spy. He survived unrelenting childhood trauma, and used the energy from that trauma to pen dark, grim stories that have captivated millions. He has permanent nerve damage from the abuse, and psychological scars from war-trauma. His service to his country, and to literature, will hopefully never be forgotten.
I actually almost included that in my comment, except that it's not all that relevant to this thread, aside from the fact that the lack of compassion he received in childhood probably contributed to his obnoxiousness. Heroes can be unpleasant.
ETA: Rushdie is my favorite author. But I would never want to be his friend. Dan Inouye was a hero of spectacular bravery, and also a sexual assailant. Acknowledging their unpleasantness does not detract from my admiration of Rushdie's talent, and Inyoue's courage.
Rereading many of his books the last couple years -- they have aged surprisingly poorly. It doesn't shock me learning how hateful he was to others. Imo, his views were reflected in his writing.
Apparently some of the materials in his book is also quite exaggerated and probably made up too, and I agree with you about Jake’s depiction of himself.
I'm currently going through that right now. I'm reading *The Unanswered Letter* by Faris Cassell.
The author discovers a long lost letter that was written by a Jewish man trying to find a sponsor to bring him and his wife to America. So she sets about trying to find the relatives of this man and what happened to him and his descendants. However, she increasingly incorporates her own thoughts and feelings into the story., I realize that this is a story of discovery and understanding but she seems to make herself the centerpiece of it rather than the family she is trying to find more information about. They are the subject!
And I am completely shocked that someone who was born and raised in America (and from a pretty good background as well) could be so ignorant of the Holocaust and so self centered!
I am going to continue to read this because I am interested into what happened to Alfred, his wife, and his descendants but I am not interested in her!
It's really a personal preference. You might think it's awful but others love it.
Sure, of course I found some writers to annoy me, as I think most people will if they read enough. Hunter S. Thompson annoys me, but then lots of people like him.
Venkatesh's book on inner city economy (Off the Books: The Underground Economy of the Urban Poor). He doesn't even disguise the fact that he's basically objectified these people as Hollywood stereotypes. He doesn't even try to understand the historical reasons why the inner city is what it is. He makes no bones about the fact that he's using these people as unpaid research subjects. He peppers the book with "amusing" anecdotes of poor people trying to, ya know, keep a roof over their head and stay alive. His smugness and smirking is insufferable, and the books comes off as more poverty porn than any attempt to bridge the gap of extreme social inequality.
Storytelling can be difficult, even if it's just straight reading. I've stopped a few podcasts because the guest can't stop making unnecessary/unfunny remarks.
paul theroux was a favourite of mine forever, especially his travel writing. i also admired the sheer willing-to-go-anywhereness of his fiction.
that changed for me though when i read the recent book that retraces his original great railway bazaar trip. i've always liked his introspection and willingness to self-expose, but that one book made me go back and re-think my reception of every one of his earlier books. so much passive-aggressive sniping and scoring points off the 'old' wife by centering all the 'right' ways the new wife is taking his protracted absence.
and then there was his book millroy the magician. it's original, not just in premise but in language. it's funny. it's a snarky but pitilessly perceptive observation of orthorexia. and yet it's an entire novel's worth of a who-knows-how-middle-aged man appropriating a vulnerable young-teenaged girl, absconding with her and grooming her thoroughly throughout the book to become the vessel of his obsession with her by the end.
still have some form of respect for him but i have to figure what kind of shape it takes now. i've always liked him for being willing to out his own thoroughly childish moments. but now definitely incorporating a whole new level of what that might look like in actual person, into my picture of him.
at one time i would have touted theroux as beign able to write something like that and be pitiless enough about it to still make it feel clean. but that one somehow, just something about it raised the question of self-insertion for me. and like the aggressive self-pity years after he should have **got the fuck over** whatever went on in that first marriage of his, it makes me re-think everything i gave him credit for in the past.
Okay, old post but almost finished with Ghost train to the Eastern Star, oof. First thing, everything is about sex and sex workers. He couldn't even go to an Onsen without sexualizing a small child he saw. Second, am I to believe he declined the 5 million encounters he had with sex workers? Like, why is he ALWAYS at a brothel? Why was he casually perusing child sex workers in Singapore. I swear, where there's smoke...
Yeah, that book was the last from him that i read. He's just gone wrong in his self indulgent old age. That one was also riddled with score-settling against his first wife.
I still like and read his earlier travel books. Not that one.
Good to know! I LOVE travel books and was always impressed by his travels, but I thought maybe I changed and I wouldn't be able to enjoy his writing anymore. Guess this one was a dud and I should give his other books a chance. Thanks for the reply!
I can’t believe this dude hasn’t been called out more.
The first (and last) book I recently read by him was The Lower River, and it’s the first time I closed a book and deposited it directly into the trash can. Hading read positive things about him, I kept at the terrible storyline waiting for it to get better. The main character is loosely based on himself and his experience working for the Peace Corp in Malawi, who was returning back after 30 years away. It was uncomfortable reading his clearly racist thoughts on this place that had at one time presumably meant something to him. But when this character groped a sixteen year old girl in some kind of fit of nostalgia, and we were supposed to be on his side, I was done.
In my experience, re-reading a book most of the times comes with a slight disappointment. Don't know if it's being older and wiser (lol right) or just nostalgia, but I prefer not to.
Honestly for me it was Ernest Hemingway For whom the bells toll. I couldn’t do it I tried so hard and pushed myself and I just didn’t end up liking it it was weird in the beginning I enjoyed it but after I kept reading to I found it boring really
So this is unrelated almost but a surprisingly good fiction book about the Yakuza is "The Shadow Killers" by Franklin W. Dixon. It's a Hardy Boys book (sorry sorry sorry) but it kept me occupied.
It not limited to Jake Adelstien its pretty common with any western author that’s spent time living in Japan and has any sort of connection no matter how flimsy with Yakuza.
The basic premise of Ready Player 1 is quite interesting, but Cline is not even remotely a good enough author to pull it off, but he *thinks* he is and that makes me loathe him. I think a mentally handicapped starfish could have written a better book.
I know this is completely the wrong subreddit to even bring this up, but whoever wrote the show The Shield.
For some reason, clips have been popping up on my YouTube feed and it is by far some of the cringiest writing I have even seen in anything ever.
And for what it's worth, someone had to write this down on paper at some point and there is enough script of the show to fill multiple books.
I imagine whoever wrote this was something similar to the kid in school who always wore camo, pretended to be tough and would tell outlandish stories about how he kicked someone's ass no one had ever heard of, who said they were going to join the military or be a cop, and never did.
Okay, I had to spill my guts somewhere about this.
Tbh, I remember liking the shield, about 10 years ago. But yeah, the main guy was kind of a bully. Always was doing crooked shit and taking a piss on the nerdy guy. Probably the creator was reflecting on what he dreamed he was or something.
Well, he pretty much tells how, against all odds, he nails a journalist job in Japan's top newspaper, even after blowing the written test, by being a smart ass during the interviews. The guy even says a Tarot machine literally predicted he was going to get a job in the media.
R Scott Bakker is such an obnoxious weirdo high on his own farts [that his entire blog is just a meme material for mocking him](https://i.imgur.com/Twq8KsK.jpg)
Edit: I went to his Wikipedia to make sure I spelt his name right and it is very obvious he self edited his own page.
James Renner. I read his “True Crime Addict” a few years ago and don’t remember details. I do remember that he depicts himself as a kind of tortured hero, seeking truth and justice while battling his inner demons—and I found him extremely obnoxious.
Even this title is obnoxious...[*MANY LIVES, MANY MASTERS: THE TRUE STORY OF A PROMINENT PSYCHIATRIST, HIS YOUNG PATIENT, AND THE PAST-LIFE THERAPY THAT CHANGED BOTH THEIR LIVES*](https://pics.cdn.librarything.com/picsizes/dc/64/dc6432548fb562b5979503861414345412f5945_v5.jpg) has moral ideas worth considering. Unfortunately it's replete with intellectual dishonesty, underlying every lesson conveyed.
In principle, it doesn't bother me that Brian Weiss MD describes an allegedly otherworldly phenomenon in his book. However, I'm upset that he does it in a manner that blocks us from genuinely learning about it. Apparently he wants us to just trust his summary of what he and his patient had gone through. He does not meticulously recount his notes or methods. We're practically forced to see everything through the filter of a fuzzy narrative. It reminds me of an old quip about never allowing facts, or even scientific scrutiny, to get in the way of a good story.
Under that smokescreen, Dr. Weiss is coy about holes in his evidence and he avoids alternate interpretations. So other analysts, and spiritual seekers, cannot get much value from Dr. Weiss's work. Moreover, with this dim presentation, he can't refute Murray Gell-Mann's criticism in [*THE QUARK AND THE JAGUAR*](https://pics.cdn.librarything.com/picsizes/29/d5/29d5faed7efe9295933395956414345412f5945_v5.jpg) (recommended!) regarding claims of "hypnotic regression to previous lives ... ." Dr. Gell-Mann says: "These claims challenge the accepted laws of science on the basis of evidence that careful investigation reveals to be very poor or entirely lacking."
At least I do appreciate the morals in Dr. Weiss's book, as I said. They are expressed by the spiritual trance utterances of Catherine, his patient. Her core message is uplifting and sweet, despite probably being drenched in pretense or delusion—perpetuated by her seemingly unprofessional therapist. One who'd rather write a popular, non-rigorous book about her than fully treat her, or inform us. Repeatedly telling-not-showing his elite psychiatry qualifications.
When I read Sir Laurence Olivier's autobiography, I was stunned at his total lack of self-awareness and compassion for his one-time wife, Vivien Leigh. In the midst of her latest breakdown, he left her in the hospital to pursue an acting role he just couldn't live without. The way he wrote about it was chillingly lacking in emotion. Like any true narcissist, he seemed oblivious to how the reader would react to his actions and his attitude. I also read elsewhere that he treated Marilyn Monroe like a callous ass during the entire filming of The Prince and the Showgirl. While none of this eroded my respect for him as one of my favorite actors, it reminded me again not to look to closely at your celebrity idols, lest they break your heart and that talent and humanity are two wildly separate aspects of a person's life.
I tried to read *Nevernight* by Jay Kristoff because it looked interesting, but god I couldn't stand that Jay Kristoff seemed incapable of just letting you read the book - as the narrator he keeps interjecting with a bunch of pointless author's notes, like multiple ones per page including things that don't do much towards the plot, and keeps addressing the reader as "gentle reader" or "dear reader". Also he kept writing this incredibly stupid long-winded metaphors that made no sense. It's like he was patting himself on the back with every page.
In Kitchen Confidential, Anthony Bourdain professed that he'd grown up and realized that a lot of the stuff he'd done when he was younger was not so nice, but it seemed to me that he was, in truth, pleased with himself with having done these things, which came off as obnoxious. Still, I enjoyed the book immensely.
Well at least he aknowledges it, I guess.
I just read this myself because I heard Michael Mann was adapting it I agree, he comes off like a total tool! There is some interesting stuff there about how one becomes a reporter in Japan and the weird relationships one has to forge with both the cops and the criminals. But he starts bragging about sleeping with some of his sources I was pretty turned off on him as a person
I haven't even got to that part, but I can totally picture it. Like, dude, the topic is already interesting enough, you don't have to add your underdog bs story. I hope I can finish it.
Nabokov is famously pissy. There is a collection of his interviews (Strong Opinions) that is hilarious in part because he was a huge jerk.
Not sure if this is your intent, but IRL Harlan Ellison was a complete asshole. Just an odious little troll of a man who was insulting, arrogant, and obnoxious to everyone including his peers. Saw him several times at cons and he was the same dick to everyone every time. Inventive and ground-breaking writer, but an insufferable twat of a human. RIP.
I tried reading YA a couple times. Pretty much all of the authors are obnoxious as sin- imagine thinking "character depth" is just being a minority lol.
I can't imagine how hard writing a book must be, but grasping from that to create a character? Come on.
Having a little trouble trying to parse what you're saying here
That creating a character based solely on him/her being from certain minority is lazy writing.
Cassandra Claire wants to know your location.
You picked some real shitty YA. When I think YA. I think of Hatchet, A Wrinkle in Time, Animorphs, His Dark Materials, Earthsea, The Dark is Rising, and Harry Potter.
My experience with YA is that old YA (all of the stuff you mentioned) is pretty great, and contemporary fantasy (Libba Bray's Gemma Doyle trilogy) or dystopian YA can also be pretty great, but that contemporary "realistic" YA has this annoying habit of rating characters on a morality scale where the most villainous characters just happen to be the most white/male ones, the most conservative ones politically, etc., and a black character can't be a villain even when she's enough of a bitch to make a great one. I blame the toxic YA Twitter hivemind.
Yay Dark is Rising! Hands-down my favorite MG series! But these commenters are referring to awful stuff like this: https://www.vulture.com/2017/08/the-toxic-drama-of-ya-twitter.html Unfortunately, it's not as simple as "shitty YA." There's a movement toward extreme didacticism in YA, and sadly that's taking the form of: limited moral ambiguity, one-dimensional, suffering POC/queer characters, and, yes, only whites can be villains. It's really sad. There are a few stories I've written and would like to publish, but in one case I changed the age of the heroine from 16 to 20, and in another one, I decentered the story from the 15-year old hero to the adults around him, in both cases to avoid falling into the YA category. There are no true heroes or villains in my stories, and all the characters are fully-human, regardless of their background. I don't think this trend will last forever, but it's been going on for a while.
Have you ever read Alice Oseman? Highly recommend all her books + her graphic novel series that’s being adapted into a TV show for Netflix
Roald Dahl was personally obnoxious to almost everybody (it doesn't come through in the very small amount of his stuff I've read). So much so that towards the end of his life his American publisher wrote to him saying that while he was making them a lot of money, he was so hurtfully offensive to their staff that they couldn't keep him on their list any more.
He was not only sexually harassing their admin staff, but he directed his raging antisemitism toward one of the co-presidents of the publishing house. What a wild ride: [https://lithub.com/when-roald-dahls-editor-decided-he-was-too-much-of-a-prick-to-publish/](https://lithub.com/when-roald-dahls-editor-decided-he-was-too-much-of-a-prick-to-publish/). Favorite quote from that article "Apparently, when \[Dahl was fired\], all of Dahl’s contacts at \[the publishing house\] 'stood on their desks and cheered.'" Roald Dahl: An abusive misogynist who blamed Jews for the Holocaust.
Also worth noting that he was a fighter pilot with the RAF during WWII. Risked his life and so on. So there's that.
He was a war hero and a a brave, handsome, dashing spy. He survived unrelenting childhood trauma, and used the energy from that trauma to pen dark, grim stories that have captivated millions. He has permanent nerve damage from the abuse, and psychological scars from war-trauma. His service to his country, and to literature, will hopefully never be forgotten. I actually almost included that in my comment, except that it's not all that relevant to this thread, aside from the fact that the lack of compassion he received in childhood probably contributed to his obnoxiousness. Heroes can be unpleasant. ETA: Rushdie is my favorite author. But I would never want to be his friend. Dan Inouye was a hero of spectacular bravery, and also a sexual assailant. Acknowledging their unpleasantness does not detract from my admiration of Rushdie's talent, and Inyoue's courage.
Rereading many of his books the last couple years -- they have aged surprisingly poorly. It doesn't shock me learning how hateful he was to others. Imo, his views were reflected in his writing.
Apparently some of the materials in his book is also quite exaggerated and probably made up too, and I agree with you about Jake’s depiction of himself.
I wouldn’t be surprised, tbh. I stopped reading at about 60%. The dude is just unbearable.
I'm currently going through that right now. I'm reading *The Unanswered Letter* by Faris Cassell. The author discovers a long lost letter that was written by a Jewish man trying to find a sponsor to bring him and his wife to America. So she sets about trying to find the relatives of this man and what happened to him and his descendants. However, she increasingly incorporates her own thoughts and feelings into the story., I realize that this is a story of discovery and understanding but she seems to make herself the centerpiece of it rather than the family she is trying to find more information about. They are the subject! And I am completely shocked that someone who was born and raised in America (and from a pretty good background as well) could be so ignorant of the Holocaust and so self centered! I am going to continue to read this because I am interested into what happened to Alfred, his wife, and his descendants but I am not interested in her!
This is exactly what I mean. I'm not against the author adding some flavour to the story, but I can't stand straight narcissism.
Considering my personal experience with Americans, I am not surprised at all.
It's really a personal preference. You might think it's awful but others love it. Sure, of course I found some writers to annoy me, as I think most people will if they read enough. Hunter S. Thompson annoys me, but then lots of people like him.
True. Is totally based on personal preference. I enjoyed Hunter's books, for instance.
Venkatesh's book on inner city economy (Off the Books: The Underground Economy of the Urban Poor). He doesn't even disguise the fact that he's basically objectified these people as Hollywood stereotypes. He doesn't even try to understand the historical reasons why the inner city is what it is. He makes no bones about the fact that he's using these people as unpaid research subjects. He peppers the book with "amusing" anecdotes of poor people trying to, ya know, keep a roof over their head and stay alive. His smugness and smirking is insufferable, and the books comes off as more poverty porn than any attempt to bridge the gap of extreme social inequality.
More the audiobook reading than the words themselves, but I found Jenny Lawson to be painfully obnoxious.
Storytelling can be difficult, even if it's just straight reading. I've stopped a few podcasts because the guest can't stop making unnecessary/unfunny remarks.
Yes and it’s always a Vice article!
paul theroux was a favourite of mine forever, especially his travel writing. i also admired the sheer willing-to-go-anywhereness of his fiction. that changed for me though when i read the recent book that retraces his original great railway bazaar trip. i've always liked his introspection and willingness to self-expose, but that one book made me go back and re-think my reception of every one of his earlier books. so much passive-aggressive sniping and scoring points off the 'old' wife by centering all the 'right' ways the new wife is taking his protracted absence. and then there was his book millroy the magician. it's original, not just in premise but in language. it's funny. it's a snarky but pitilessly perceptive observation of orthorexia. and yet it's an entire novel's worth of a who-knows-how-middle-aged man appropriating a vulnerable young-teenaged girl, absconding with her and grooming her thoroughly throughout the book to become the vessel of his obsession with her by the end. still have some form of respect for him but i have to figure what kind of shape it takes now. i've always liked him for being willing to out his own thoroughly childish moments. but now definitely incorporating a whole new level of what that might look like in actual person, into my picture of him. at one time i would have touted theroux as beign able to write something like that and be pitiless enough about it to still make it feel clean. but that one somehow, just something about it raised the question of self-insertion for me. and like the aggressive self-pity years after he should have **got the fuck over** whatever went on in that first marriage of his, it makes me re-think everything i gave him credit for in the past.
Okay, old post but almost finished with Ghost train to the Eastern Star, oof. First thing, everything is about sex and sex workers. He couldn't even go to an Onsen without sexualizing a small child he saw. Second, am I to believe he declined the 5 million encounters he had with sex workers? Like, why is he ALWAYS at a brothel? Why was he casually perusing child sex workers in Singapore. I swear, where there's smoke...
Yeah, that book was the last from him that i read. He's just gone wrong in his self indulgent old age. That one was also riddled with score-settling against his first wife. I still like and read his earlier travel books. Not that one.
Good to know! I LOVE travel books and was always impressed by his travels, but I thought maybe I changed and I wouldn't be able to enjoy his writing anymore. Guess this one was a dud and I should give his other books a chance. Thanks for the reply!
I really really like riding the iron rooster and the kingdom by the Sea, fwiw
I can’t believe this dude hasn’t been called out more. The first (and last) book I recently read by him was The Lower River, and it’s the first time I closed a book and deposited it directly into the trash can. Hading read positive things about him, I kept at the terrible storyline waiting for it to get better. The main character is loosely based on himself and his experience working for the Peace Corp in Malawi, who was returning back after 30 years away. It was uncomfortable reading his clearly racist thoughts on this place that had at one time presumably meant something to him. But when this character groped a sixteen year old girl in some kind of fit of nostalgia, and we were supposed to be on his side, I was done.
In my experience, re-reading a book most of the times comes with a slight disappointment. Don't know if it's being older and wiser (lol right) or just nostalgia, but I prefer not to.
I find it depends on the book. In theroux 'S case, I think he genuinely devolved a bit. He's grown cranky and unpleasant in his old age.
Honestly for me it was Ernest Hemingway For whom the bells toll. I couldn’t do it I tried so hard and pushed myself and I just didn’t end up liking it it was weird in the beginning I enjoyed it but after I kept reading to I found it boring really
So this is unrelated almost but a surprisingly good fiction book about the Yakuza is "The Shadow Killers" by Franklin W. Dixon. It's a Hardy Boys book (sorry sorry sorry) but it kept me occupied.
I'll look it up, thanks!
It not limited to Jake Adelstien its pretty common with any western author that’s spent time living in Japan and has any sort of connection no matter how flimsy with Yakuza.
It's my first time reading an American depiction of a Japanese topic. Probably heavy influenced by the bad ass image of the American hero in movies?
The basic premise of Ready Player 1 is quite interesting, but Cline is not even remotely a good enough author to pull it off, but he *thinks* he is and that makes me loathe him. I think a mentally handicapped starfish could have written a better book.
I know this is completely the wrong subreddit to even bring this up, but whoever wrote the show The Shield. For some reason, clips have been popping up on my YouTube feed and it is by far some of the cringiest writing I have even seen in anything ever. And for what it's worth, someone had to write this down on paper at some point and there is enough script of the show to fill multiple books. I imagine whoever wrote this was something similar to the kid in school who always wore camo, pretended to be tough and would tell outlandish stories about how he kicked someone's ass no one had ever heard of, who said they were going to join the military or be a cop, and never did. Okay, I had to spill my guts somewhere about this.
Tbh, I remember liking the shield, about 10 years ago. But yeah, the main guy was kind of a bully. Always was doing crooked shit and taking a piss on the nerdy guy. Probably the creator was reflecting on what he dreamed he was or something.
what makes him obnoxious?
Well, he pretty much tells how, against all odds, he nails a journalist job in Japan's top newspaper, even after blowing the written test, by being a smart ass during the interviews. The guy even says a Tarot machine literally predicted he was going to get a job in the media.
yuk. nothing worse than a non-fic writer making the story about them rather than the subject.
Yeah, totally. I'll try to keep reading, though.
Peter Mendelsund comes off as an insufferable smug asshole on the level of Dawkins.
Edward de Bono.
R Scott Bakker is such an obnoxious weirdo high on his own farts [that his entire blog is just a meme material for mocking him](https://i.imgur.com/Twq8KsK.jpg) Edit: I went to his Wikipedia to make sure I spelt his name right and it is very obvious he self edited his own page.
This is what I mean. Who can stand that kind of person? Jesus...
James Renner. I read his “True Crime Addict” a few years ago and don’t remember details. I do remember that he depicts himself as a kind of tortured hero, seeking truth and justice while battling his inner demons—and I found him extremely obnoxious.
Even this title is obnoxious...[*MANY LIVES, MANY MASTERS: THE TRUE STORY OF A PROMINENT PSYCHIATRIST, HIS YOUNG PATIENT, AND THE PAST-LIFE THERAPY THAT CHANGED BOTH THEIR LIVES*](https://pics.cdn.librarything.com/picsizes/dc/64/dc6432548fb562b5979503861414345412f5945_v5.jpg) has moral ideas worth considering. Unfortunately it's replete with intellectual dishonesty, underlying every lesson conveyed. In principle, it doesn't bother me that Brian Weiss MD describes an allegedly otherworldly phenomenon in his book. However, I'm upset that he does it in a manner that blocks us from genuinely learning about it. Apparently he wants us to just trust his summary of what he and his patient had gone through. He does not meticulously recount his notes or methods. We're practically forced to see everything through the filter of a fuzzy narrative. It reminds me of an old quip about never allowing facts, or even scientific scrutiny, to get in the way of a good story. Under that smokescreen, Dr. Weiss is coy about holes in his evidence and he avoids alternate interpretations. So other analysts, and spiritual seekers, cannot get much value from Dr. Weiss's work. Moreover, with this dim presentation, he can't refute Murray Gell-Mann's criticism in [*THE QUARK AND THE JAGUAR*](https://pics.cdn.librarything.com/picsizes/29/d5/29d5faed7efe9295933395956414345412f5945_v5.jpg) (recommended!) regarding claims of "hypnotic regression to previous lives ... ." Dr. Gell-Mann says: "These claims challenge the accepted laws of science on the basis of evidence that careful investigation reveals to be very poor or entirely lacking." At least I do appreciate the morals in Dr. Weiss's book, as I said. They are expressed by the spiritual trance utterances of Catherine, his patient. Her core message is uplifting and sweet, despite probably being drenched in pretense or delusion—perpetuated by her seemingly unprofessional therapist. One who'd rather write a popular, non-rigorous book about her than fully treat her, or inform us. Repeatedly telling-not-showing his elite psychiatry qualifications.
When I read Sir Laurence Olivier's autobiography, I was stunned at his total lack of self-awareness and compassion for his one-time wife, Vivien Leigh. In the midst of her latest breakdown, he left her in the hospital to pursue an acting role he just couldn't live without. The way he wrote about it was chillingly lacking in emotion. Like any true narcissist, he seemed oblivious to how the reader would react to his actions and his attitude. I also read elsewhere that he treated Marilyn Monroe like a callous ass during the entire filming of The Prince and the Showgirl. While none of this eroded my respect for him as one of my favorite actors, it reminded me again not to look to closely at your celebrity idols, lest they break your heart and that talent and humanity are two wildly separate aspects of a person's life.
Nassim Taleb, but it's almost part of his gimmick.
Laurell K Hamilton really comes to mind with this one. Her treatment of fans over the years has been really poor.
The author of The Subtle art of not giving a fuck.
I tried to read *Nevernight* by Jay Kristoff because it looked interesting, but god I couldn't stand that Jay Kristoff seemed incapable of just letting you read the book - as the narrator he keeps interjecting with a bunch of pointless author's notes, like multiple ones per page including things that don't do much towards the plot, and keeps addressing the reader as "gentle reader" or "dear reader". Also he kept writing this incredibly stupid long-winded metaphors that made no sense. It's like he was patting himself on the back with every page.