God Is Not Great is the ultimate case against religion. In a series of acute readings of the major religious texts, Christopher Hitchens demonstrates the ways in which religion is man-made, dangerously sexually repressive and distorts the very origins of the cosmos. Above all, Hitchens argues that the concept of an omniscient God has profoundly damaged humanity, and proposes that the world might be a great deal better off without 'him'.
I love Christopher Hitchens, I've watched countless hours of him on You Tube and he always provides witty, intelligent debate and his grasp of language is superb.

I do think that this book suffers from the lack of counter arguments that get thrown at him during his debates though, these are what usually brings out the best in The Hitch.

To say that it was an interesting read would be an understatement however at times it did get a little tedious some arguments are repeated over and over and there were one or two chapters that I couldn't help but skim read, if you are a fan of The Hitch then you should read this (the entire audiobook is on youtube as well if you are too lazy to read the actual book)



Meet Quentin P., the most believably terrifying sexual psychopath and killer ever brought to life in fiction. The author deftly puts you inside the mind of a serial killer--succeeding not in writing about madness, but in writing with the logic of madness.
I reckon that I must be completely desensitised to all things disgusting.

I have read some of the reviews most people seem to either hate the book because they were disgusted by it or loved the book because they were disgusted by it.

I just felt kind of numb to it, the book started off strongly and I was intrigued but Q____ P____ (as the narrator refers to himself throughout the book) just didn't seem to go anywhere, yeah it was interesting to see things from inside the killers mind but it just seemed extremely bland. I suppose that is what things are like in a serial killers mind though, lack of empathy, compassion, almost robotic with well practised human emotions but I just found it all a little boring.

Talk of erections, orgasms, and the like doesn't offend me, as I say maybe I have just been desensitised over the years with horror films and books....and the daily news....

It is quite obviously based on old Jeff Dahmer but just isn't anywhere near as interesting or disturbing, I wouldn't really recommend this one



When I first heard about this book I was truly excited after reading House of Leaves a few years back, when I read about the kookiness of this book my excitement grew even more.

I loved the premise of the book, two stories running together alongside each other, the constant switching ends of the book was a nice little gimmick as well, this however is actually where things start to go downhill a little.

It seems as though there was too much emphasis on the 'gimmick' aspect of the book and not enough on the actual story telling side, each page has exactly 180 characters (per rotation) which makes 360 characters per page which makes a revolution, now in order to get to the magic 180 characters you get random whishwooble floobling words thrown in just to help Danielewski hit his magic quota, another thing that happens is that some words are needlessly extended e.g. looooooooong.

I like the idea of having two unreliable narrators both telling the same story at the same time from opposite sides of the coin but I think it would have worked a lot better if it was told as an actual story rather than a poem and without the author having to work within the self imposed constraints of 180 characters per page, also I think it would have been better if there was a build up of the two main characters before they meet so you actually had a bit of a pay off from constantly flipping the book after 8 pages, so it would be as though they crossed paths and things melded together.

Its a shame because it could have been a fantastic book but unfortunately I found it to be a bit of a mess.