But in order to argue my point I would have to do it. And I don't have that kind of energy.



Because you are misrepresenting my position with simplistic generalisations?



But at any attempt to point out good sides to the book, you dismiss it as false, shit or otherwise because your premise is that the books is bad and that therefore any interesting side to it must be strained and founded on false literary theory.



The language is not bad, and it is not great. It is perferctly fine for this type of story. Dumas is not Mallarmé, and demanding that he should before we can explore the text is ridiculous.



No. As I said in my post on the characters, this one always disappoint me on that score, precisely because the characters are too broadly painted. But that is beside the point. Must a book have exceptional language or brilliant characters to be worthy of discussion?



Again, why is plausibility the criterion? Why is that what makes the plot worthy of our time?



I have been trying to point to interesting sides to the book, but whenever I do, I am countered with my being "shit, shit, shit" or being stuck in a "pink cardigan-wearing suburban cul-de-sac".

I did not vote for this book, but I am trying to make the best of it. Simply dismissing it out of hand is entirely counter-productive.