Oh look, Baranga's lazy again!

So here comes another paste from something I wrote with another purpose. This one was made for Destructoid in mid-September, and unfortunately for you I'm going to censor it here. But hey, I'll add an exclusive Gamespot fragment at the end! How awesome is that?!

*clears throat*

I'm seriously pissed off by Far Cry 2 bashing. It's not a perfect game, but for BUNNY'S sake, most gamers act like it's Turning Point or something!

So here's a rant. Please excuse the (again) disjointed ideas and the grammer, I'm cobbling it together from a few angry forum posts I made or wanted to make these days. And keep in mind that I'm a Crysis and Stalker fanboy.



With all its faults, Far Cry 2 is a much better sandbox experience than Crysis (which yes, counts as a sandbox since it allows so much freedom and gives you so many toys), and in some ways even better than Stalker's random madness. It doesn't reach Stalker's cult status because it's not cool to like a game from a major publisher.

Above: Not Cool.

They're not even gamebreaking faults - seriously, who cares that the convoy runs in circles? How is it different from Warhead's hovercraft pursuit? Are you not employing the same tactics in taking it down as if it would've just went across the map? Seriously, all I see when someone bashes Far Cry 2 is that the roads are empty, yet they're pissed when they meet another car. I see people acting like they have to fight at checkpoints and they have to pull over jeeps. They have to destroy the jeeps and then they have to repair their car. They have to drive on the exact same route every bloody time. These people only play the game to finish it, to hang another trophy to their gamer belt. If you don't experiment with the world, if you don't take advantage of the sandbox environment, if all you do is ticking off the missions on your agenda, ignoring 80% of the surrounding area, and then you start bashing the game because it's not varied - then your opinion is worthless. It's like driving in the opposite direction in a racing game - sure, you analyse the graphics and get a taste of the driving. But you're defeating the purpose of the game, you're acting against it.

Some of the complaints are contradictory. You drive too much? Well that's why there are so many checkpoints! You can blast your way through them, you can engage in Mad Max sty1e car combat, or you can plan an assault.

Oh but then you fight at every checkpoint! This is a shooter, what else are you supposed to do? What, you want civilians and neutral factions? Sure, they're cool. But here's the catch: creating a hybrid game, like Stalker, was the easy way out. There are already enough of those games. Far Cry 2 is a beast of its own, a pure shooter set in a world built for something else. It's a world that feels real, yet it doesn't act accordingly. Hence an effect that can be best described as the uncanny valley. Some people don't get over this effect, and I pity them. I don't understand why they just can't accept that only the leaders of the faction know you're working for them. You're like the goddamn Batman in Nolan's movies, everybody's against you! Why is this so hard to accept?

It's not lazyness, and it's not the famous Bethesda syndrome either. If you're wondering what the syndrome is, here's the explanation: Bethesda (or others) makes a game that fails as both an action game and as an RPG. When someone says damn, the shooting sucks ass!, Bethesda answers – yes but you see, this isn't a shooter! It doesn't matter you're shooting someone from 30 centimeters and you don't hit! When someone tries to argue that the RPG portion is downright broken, Bethesda says – yes, but this is an action game! It doesn't matter the stats are completely BUNNY'd up!

Just sayin'.

In Far Cry 2's case, it's not lazyness simply because the amount of work and details put in the game is incredible. You can't deny that. The world WORKS. It's real. TIA, as Danny Archer would say. You think they implemented the idle AI behaviour, the weather system and an economy and then didn't took it one step further because they're lazy? That's just stupid.

It's not affected by the Bethesda syndrome because everything simply works, despite what the uncanny valley tells you. The world works, the combat works, moving from point A to point B works. It's a rock-solid effort all across the board.

Ubisoft was right when it said that Far Cry has three main hooks: driving, shooting and flying. I admit the flying is a bit broken - but my God, what a pleasure it is to feel the wind rushing past your ears, to raise above the jungle or the savannah... and then to fall like a very concerned brick, because you'll land right on top of an unsuspecting enemy jeep.

I see everybody focusing on the sometimes stupid AI. How is that affecting the visceral combat? It's so raw, so filled with energy! It's a beautiful, chaotic mess. The brutal act of pulling bullets out of your wounds and cauterizing them with a bunch of matches brings the delicios cartoon logic of 1980s movies to life. This is the game you wanted to play when you watched Rambo 2: a perfect mix of tactics and butchery. I never get tired of planning my missions, and I love it when everything goes wrong and I must improvise.

Also, I don't need a storyline for going medieval on someone's ass, only a context - and the context, the background story, is good. The actual story - I write it. The missions may be a bit similar, but various elements – like the time of the day (that affects enemy behaviour) or the incredible freedom to approach them – create a very unique experience, a lot like Stalker's randomness. Not to mention that the buddy system is absolutely brilliant. Have you ever had to choose between shooting or saving your friend after, or in, or even before a new fight?
I see a lot of people wanting Valve-sty1e scripted events - they pretend they don't see the barge, the greenhouse crash, the giant cargo plane, the militia mortars, the train and so on.

Far Cry 2 loses one mark for the outrageous lack of Arnold Vosloo.

As a sandbox game, it's sometimes better than Stalker. I'll use the diamonds to prove my point. A lot of people are complaining about the diamonds, acting like it's the equivalent of banging your head in a brick and collecting a gold coin. But I don't see too many noticing the small, implicit stories that acompany them. Someone had a plane accident. A car was pulled off and the driver was executed. Someone else hid the case in a small cave and carefully masked its location. This attention to details is something that's missing from Stalker. I love Stalker. I know they nailed the atmosphere perfectly, I live in a similar environment (minus bloodsuckers – we only have the old fashioned suckers here). But, like almost everything coming from the Eastern Bloc, it's massive, impressive, awe-inspiring... and it's missing details - Call of Prypiat says it'll fix this though. The little stories Ubisoft's code monkeys created add so much to the overall feel of Far Cry 2! The best part about it is that they have the common sense to not shove every little detail down your throat. Subtlety is wonderful, as long as you notice it. But „powerleveling" through the game instead of just dicking around doesn't allow players to notice it – hence a lot of the bad word of mouth.

So many people complain about the lack of variety in the environments! I rarely see anyone mentioning the various areas that are basically standalone levels, like the Polytechnic, the Postal Office, the Airport, the Shantytown, the Fort and so many others. You can't drive 5 minutes without stumbling upon such a location! I don't see anyone praising the little details of this world. Instead I see a lot of gamers taking the fantastic world of Far Cry 2 for granted, without appreciating the titanic amount of work put into it. And a lot utter this phrase: it's the perfect example of graphics over gameplay.

This is BUNNY.

Graphics are gameplay in most games of today. Imagine Far Cry 2 in Trespasser clothes. In Source clothes. No fire propagation (which is just as important as the physics of Crysis), no weather system, no shadows, no bullet penetration... How come so many people always separate graphics and atmosphere from gameplay is a mistery to me. Some games simply don't work without proper support, and this one is one of them. I know it, I played about 15 hours on a system that only met the minimum requirements. When I finally afforded a new system, I was amazed. Instantly immersed. Something was missing from my minimalistic Far Cry 2! It was like playing Mario rendered in ASCII – sure, the idea and the basic gameplay is the same, but I'll be damned if it doesn't suck compared to the original happy, colourful Mario. I appreciate that Far Cry 2 works on lame-ass systems, but I'm telling you: it looks like a big bowl of pudding and the whole atmosphere is thrown right out the window. All that remains is the basic shooting and driving. The game was designed as an experience, and it only works when all the elements come together.

An intense and atmospheric combat scene in Far Cry 1998.

You see, every time I start Far Cry 2, it's like I'm travelling to Africa. I'd even say that the best part of the game is simply wandering around, and the combat is just for spicing it up. I boot the game very often, even for only 15 minutes. I simply don't care about respawning checkpoints or weird economy. These are the same kind of features that so many hermits accepted in Stalker – annoying, strange bits that somehow grow on you and you come to accept as natural. You don't have to turn off your brain to enjoy it, this is not BUNNY G.I. Joe. You have to accept the rules of the game. If you don't, then your brain is already shut off.

With the exception of destructible environments (seriously, wtf happened to them?), Ubisoft delivered everything that it promised. But again, gamers hyped themselves for an imaginary game and then got angry when reality didn't live up to the fantasy.

Some game developers ask themselves: how can we make this game realistic? And the end result is usually an empty shell like GTA4, that receives praise from the same type of people that treat Far Cry 2 superficially and transform it into a linear experience.

Other ask how can we make this game fun? And they create an outrageous masterpiece like Prototype or Saints Row 2 - hated by the people mentioned above.

Ubisoft asked itself how can it make the game both realistic and completely balls-to-the-wall insane. It's an experiment that succeeded.

They usually make sequels that although feel familiar, are quite different from the original. Judging by the example of Assassin's Creed 2, Far Cry 3 will be a much improved game. I'm very curious to see it.

I'm also hyped for the next game built on the Dunia engine, Avatar. It looks a bit mediocre, but so did Far Cry 2 – it looked like a goreless Soldier of Fortune, actually. I think there's no such thing as a „movie-based game curse". BUNNY games like Transformers are made with no budget, in two months by anonymous devs. Riddick, Wolverine and even King Kong proved that if there's will, the games will be at least good. I have faith in Avatar.

Many months ago, a girl told me "I know that Far Cry 2 is awesome, but you should really take some time off the computer". I listened to her back then. Later, when she decided she never wants to talk to me anymore, I returned to this game. I played the **** out of it, pouring all my rage and frustration in the little brown land of Fictionesia, acting 100% like Rambo after spoilers that Asian girl dies end spoilers. Video games as escapism at its best!

You know what?

It never works. I still dream her every night, and every time I see or do something related to this game I remember happier times. This is one of the main reasons Far Cry 2 has a special place in my heart.

Excuse the mediocrity, I'm too lazy to improve my first draft.

10. Contact, by Carl Sagan

I loved the movie based on it, so I had very high expectations for this book. My only contact with Sagan's work was a very funny and intelligent criticism of Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.

I was very disappointed when I discovered that Contact is a huge mess. I often wondered while reading it: Sagan actually liked writing it, or he did it just for the 2 million dollars received in advance?

The story is that Ellie Arroway, the director of Project Argus (aka SETI) discovers a message from outer space. The source of the message is Vega, a young star 25 light years away from Earth, which is surrounded by a huge ring of debris. The aliens send us the plans for a machine, but without specifing what it does.

Much of the book is spent debating the real purpose of the machine and the changes brought by the proof of alien existence over humanity. There are various fanatics, mostly religious, and a lot of conflicts.

It's a boring, predictable and way too pretentious work. The writing is insipid, yet strangely enthusiastic - exactly what you'd expect from a scientist trying to be an artist. The characters are boring, lifeless archetypes –a far cry from Crichton's lively, realistic archetypes I've mentioned above. Often, Sagan's characters seem to be puppets, doing things just because they're supposed to do them. Nothing comes off as natural, it's all forced.

WTF is this ****? -Jodie Foster while reading Contact.

Very, very annoying is that the book exhibits clumsy feminist ideas. I'm sure the author intended to create strong feminine characters and to present a more delicate view of the story, but it's a huge failure. Ellie is a completely unlikable character, a dumb, socially awkward heroine. The President of the USA is a woman. I guess this was a noble thing to do (in Sagan's mind, at least), but she's a complete idiot. Every time she appeared I was asking myself how, how come such an ignorant is President? Her image is basically the image of Bush Jr that you find on comedy sites, so the end result is insulting for women. The Indian scientist is the noble, sad and exotic woman - a stereotype presented in such a serious and pretentious manner that it almost ruins all her scenes.

Another large part of the book is spent on religious debates. The dialogue is absolutely horrible. Again, it's forced and it's long. Nobody speaks like that. Ayn Rand's characters are monuments of humanity compared to Sagan's lifeless rocks. The intriguing ideas presented in these dialogues are lost in the surrounding mess.

The movie repairs all the book's failures. It has good pace, strong narrative, good dialogue, good characters. Only the climax is weak, but it's light years ahead of the disaster featured in the book.

So don't read Contact. I've got a much better alternative: Stanislaw Lem's The Astronauts.

This is a book with a very similar concept, written around 1950. It's actually Lem's first book – later he became famous around the entire world for Solaris and The Cyberiad.

The Astronauts opens with the fall of the Tunguska meteorite and subsequent research expeditions, also mentioning the hypothesis about a spaceship's crash. The book then jumps at the beggining of the 21st century, in a world where Communism has won; this is a concession the author had to make in order to see the book published. In the Tunguska area the remains of a spaceship are unearthed, including an alien data record. The records are basically the ship's black box, describing its journey from Venus, and ending with a strange message: "After two rotations the Earth will be radiated. When the radiation intensity drops to half, the Great Movement will commence."

It is decided that the awesomely named Kosmokrator spaceship will be launched to Venus with an international crew of scientists to investigate the alien civilization. Most of the book is dedicated to their journey and the adventures on Venus.

Of course, the depiction of Venus and interplanetary journey is based on the science of the 1940s, but it still feels very modern. As Wikipedia says, decades later Lem wrote that „Everything is so smooth and balanced; among the heroes we have a positive Russian character and a sweet Chinese; naiveté is present on all pages of this book. The hope that in the year 2000 the world would be wonderful is indeed very childish...."

I find this smoothnes and balance to be the main attraction of the book. It's a clean, beautiful and often awe-inspiring view of the future, which reminds me a lot of Mass Effect, the latest Star Trek and especially of Sunshine. It's a very good book, recommended to any science fiction fan.

11. Stardust, by Neil Gaiman

I avoided contemporary fantasy. All the Disk Worlds and bridges to Terabithia seem to be cheap rip-offs, especially when you see hundreds of authors publishing their Amazing Fantasy Sagas in 7 volumes. I wasn't familiar with Gaiman's work.

And then I saw Coraline and Beowulf in the same day – Gaiman wrote Beowulf's script. I absolutely loved these movies, not only because of the incredible visuals, but mainly because of their stories. You can criticise Beowulf as much as you like – it's the best adaptation of the poem, it truly makes it come to life.

I then learned that the movie Stardust (which I haven't seen yet) is based on one of his books, so I bought it. This is hands-down the best fantasy book I've read since LOTR.

It's not the usual Tolkien or D&D rip-off - it's a fairy tale written in the rich and beautiful Victorian sty1e. It begins in the village of Wall, named so after an ancient stone wall east of it. There's a single opening in this wall, always guarded, which leads to the magical land of Faerie. Faerie is a world that consists of every land that was removed from the map when explorers proved it wasn't there.

Tristran Thorn is a young man that adores Victoria, an arrogant, spoiled and very beautiful girl. One evening, they watch a star falling somewhere beyond the stone wall, and Tristran promises he'll bring her the star in exchange for her hand. He crosses the wall into Faerie, and to his surprise the star is revealed to be a living, breathing girl, called Yvaine. Together, and against Yvaine's will, they begin a journey back to Wall. Numerous dangers await them, because there are others that wish to find the star. The eldest of three Lilim sisters, ancient witch-queens, seeks to consume Yvaine's heart to regain centuries of youth and beauty. Three noble brothers, which constantly plot against each other, need to find her to become the rulers of the kingdom of Stormhold...

And I saw a falling star the night after I read Stardust. Awwww...

It's a magical tale, both beautiful and sad, and also quite mature. There is humour to be found (mainly sarcastic), a lot of violence and sexual themes, hard language and even an F-bomb. It's not mature because of violence and sex – it's mature because of the themes it presents, mainly regarding identity, morality and love. It's surprisingly deep, but it's very subtle, without any „in your face" moments that ruin the immersion like in Contact.

It's easy to write about something you don't like, but very hard to insist upon something you do like. So I won't insist anymore – just read this book, and pay attention while you do it.

12. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams

What an amazing book!

It's very hard to describe the plot. It's huge, split in five volumes. The premise is that one day, the Earth is destroyed to make way for a hypergalactic bypass. Arthur Dent is rescued at the last moment by his friend Ford Prefect, which is actually an alien from Betelgeuse working on the Hitchhiker's Guide. They arrive on board of the spaceship Heart of Gold; here they find Prefect's cousin, Zaphod – the President of the Galaxy, that used his status to steal the ship, Trillian – a brilliant human astrophysicist with whom Arthur tried to speak at a party, and Marvin the Paranoid Android. Together they explore the universe in one of the weirdest and most epic odysseys ever imagined.

I haven't seen the movie, but I'm familiar with the characters. I knew that it's supposed to be a comedy space opera. It surpassed my expectations in every way possible.

While reading the book, I imagined most characters as portrayed in the movie. Sam Rockwell fits his character perfectly. Marvin, although looks a bit different, is perfect. Arthur is just like I imagined when I first read the basic premise. Mos Def IS Ford Prefect. But while I find Zooey Deschanel to be very cute (and I think Katy Perry is an improved version of her), she doesn't really look like Trillian's description from the book. So in my head, I replaced her with another girl I know.

A very difficult decision.

The book is funny. It's actually incredibly hilarious. But I didn't expect it to evolve like it does. From the end of the second volume onwards, it gradually turns into a more serious, deep and often depressing work – while also maintaining humour.

The volumes were written a few years apart from each other. The author mentioned that they reflect various circumstances of his life. But despite some minor contradictions, the narrative flows so beautifully and smooth that it left me with the impression that it was actually intended to evolve like this. My favourite part of the story is the one that Adams likes the least – the fourth and fifth volume. I found Arthur's love story and the part involving Random to be absolutely heartbreaking and treated with infinite delicacy.

It would've been great if he continued with the pure comedy sty1e of the first two volumes. It's even better that he didn't.

While I was reading it, I wasn't aware that he died. Although the end of the fifth book doesn't really leave room for another sequel, I hoped so much that he'd continue to write stories about these characters and their adventures! It was a very depressing moment when I learned he planned to write a sixth volume, but died before starting it. I know a fellow writer is working on it now, and reading about it made me sure it will be great, but to me only what Douglas Adams wrote is the real deal. Everything else will be just an alternate universe. It's a perfect opera, that has a perfect ending.

It doesn't matter what you like to read. The Guide is an essential book. You have to read it.

Due to the fact that I wrote way too much for a blog post, today I'll only add three books. The final three - later this week.

7. Rant: An Oral Biography of Buster Casey, by Chuck Palahniuk

I like Palahniuk. You know, the author of Fight Club. But I don't really like that book.

Anyway, Fight Club was a huge pop culture phenomenon – mostly because of the movie. It started fading about a decade after the book was published, and I have this feeling that Rant is Palahniuk's attempt at creating a new cult hit of that magnitude.

But I don't really like this book either.

Have you read any of his writings? I've read a few, but not in chronological order. It's easy to see Mr. Palahniuk is a very uneven writer. Choke, Lullaby and Haunted are great books. Diary, Invisible Monsters and, unfortunately, Rant, are... not that great.

Even his crappiest works have a lot of qualities though. First of all, they're an encyclopedia of the macabre. Tons of facts you'll never care about, but that make you look smart in front of your friends are listed in every book. There's a lot of humour to be found.The books are very easy to read– his sty1e is minimalistic and makes extensive use of verbs, without any excessive (and useless) balzacian descriptions.

Right at the beggining, we find out that Rant is famous, dead and responsible for an epidemic that killed millions and evolved into some sort of zombie invasion, 28 Days Later sty1e. His story is reconstructed from fragments of „oral histories", memories of his antourage and of people that studied his case. Rant is born with an extraordinary sense of smell and taste. As a kid, he discovers a mysterios source of gold coins that ruins his town's economy, becomes addicted to insect and animal bites (especially venomous bites) and creates diabolic pranks. During his teenage years he moves to the city and here it becomes clear that the novel takes place in a close dystopian future, where the society is split in two: the Daytimers and the Nighttimers.

The portrait of this society is a clear reference to the Eloi and the Morlocks of The Time Machine. The Daytimers are the upper c1ass citizens, an aristocratic bunch that oppresses the Nighttimers. Sirens sound the alarm at dusk and dawn, warning the two c1asses to find shelter. The Nighttimers are passible of severe punishment if they don't hide during the day, and when the epidemy spreads they're shot on sight.

Rant becomes a Nighttimer and gets involved in Party Crashing, a demolition derby that's the main occupation of unemplyoed Nighttimers. Together with a bunch of friends, including Daytimers bored of their life sty1e, he roams the streets at night and becomes more and more involved in these illegal races. Here he meets Echo Lawrence, a girl with a slight handicap that becomes his girlfriend, and together they start the epidemy. Rant's death turns the book into a bizzare sci-fi tale, inspired by some obscure theories about... something which I won't spoil.

The only known photograph of Rant.

The first 4-5 pages actually give away the plot, but this is obvious only once you finish the book. The reader's memory must work at full throttle, because the nature of the oral sty1e implies dozens of references to past chapters. Although the writing is cursive and very easy to follow, the book's labyrinthine nature may prove to be a serious obstacle for some. It's an interesting experiment though.

This all sounds good, isn't it? Well, the reality is not so bright. Palahniuk emulated Fight Club too much – the Party Crashing tries really hard to be the next Club; 3 chapters are dedicated to its rules alone! Coming for a writer renowned for his originality, this is very disappointing.

Furthermore, the similarities between Rant and others of his masochistic heroes become annoying, as is Palahniuk's obsession with the macabre and grotesque. I understand fans like his books precisely because he offers such imagery and twisted stories, but here it's simply too much and too bad. It's not a beautiful or elegant breed of grotesque, like in Haunted or Suskind's Perfume (another obvious inspiration for Rant). It's not funny either, like in Choke. It's just weird, filthy, disgusting and out of place. And this is coming from someone who scrolled all the way down through Encyclopedia Dramatica's Offended page without needing psychiatric help afterwards.

So, despite the cool narrative technique and despite the good story and characters, the accent that he puts on bad macabre elements ruins the book. I don't advise you to read it. Get Lullaby or Choke instead.

8. Sphere, by Michael Crichton

I saw the movie a few years ago. It didn't struck me as particulary good, it was just mediocre, "watchable". Some story elements were very interesting, but eventually it went nowhere. I figured the book must be better.

I only read two of Crichton's books before - The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park. Both are incredible works. He's like a modern Jules Verne, combining a lot of scientific exposition written in a very accessible manner with great action and adventure.

Sphere starts good and gets gradually worse, unfortunately.

A huge spaceship is found at the bottom of the Pacific, and a team of scientists sets out to investigate it. The depth of the coral covering the spaceship suggests it arrived there 300 years ago, but further research reveals it's an American ship that was sent back through time without any crew. On board the ship the scientists find a huge metal sphere of obvious alien origins.

A storm traps the protagonists in their laboratory at the bottom of the ocean. They continue their work, but soon weird **** starts happening. Was an alien creature trapped inside the Sphere? I think you know the answer.

The best element of the book is that a lot of it is dedicated to theories about alien life. Could an alien be immortal, thus not understanding the concept of death? Could it exhale a toxin that destroys chloroplasts, leading to the death of most life on Earth even if it exhales just once? What if it lives in more than three dimensions, so we perceive only part of it? Is alien logic similar to ours? These questions and all things related are a fantastic read.

It's a shame that the book turns into a psychological thriller about halfway through. The ending is obvious, the characters are archetypal and the action is very predictable. You've seen versions of this story countless times before, and it's not one of the best stories ever imagined...

Still, it's an entertaining work. As I've come to expect from a Chrichton novel, the action is violent, often shocking, the pacing is perfect and subtle horror elements spice up the atmosphere. So despite the predictable plot, it gets thumbs up from me. Read other books of his too!

And don't bother with the movie, watch this instead:

9. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, by Roald Dahl

I bet you didn't see this one coming. When I was a kid, in the second grade I think, our English coursebook included the integral text of Charlie, spread between chapters. I bought it this summer, curious to see how I'll interpret it now.

It's a very short book – I finished it in about one hour. The subject must be familiar to everybody: Charlie, an extremely poor boy, lives next to Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, the biggest and the best chocolate factory in the world. His family can only afford one chocolate bar per year, at his birthday. Wonka launches a competition: five golden tickets are hidden inside the wrappings of his bars, and those who find them will be granted a day-long tour of the factory and a lifetime supply of sweets. Charlie is one of the winners, and together with Grandpa Joe he visists the marvelous factory, where no human has entered in more than a decade...

These bars were made by Nestle a few years ago

It's a fairly dark tale, with many absurdist elements – reminescent of both Lewis Carrol and 19th century's fairy tales. While it certainly is fun to read, it has a major flaw; the antagonists are the other four children, each of them representing one of childhood's „sins": gluttony, spoiling, TV obsession and gum addiction. The book revolves around criticising these behaviours and punishing the bad kids in a pretty violent manner. The worst thing about it is that once they're punished, the Oompa-Loompas (the workers in the factory) sing something about their behaviour. It comes off as a very heavy-handed moralist work. Simply put, it's annoying and distracting. More subtility would have done wonders!

Anyway, despite these songs and attempts at educating the reader, the book is quite lovely. The imagery and Wonka's sarcastic dialogue are its main strong points. For such a short and (I guess) cheap book, you can't go wrong with it, especially since it's one of the landmarks of modern literature. Read it, and also read J. M. Barrie's Peter Pan books. There's no excuse to pass over these works.