>>16309 >Very likely. >$book_by_Verne is great I find this hard to believe. I knew the name Verne and I remembered the marketing buzz about his adventures (that are supposed to be good). [*] So, many times I tried to rationalise it by saying to myself that perhaps this was Verne's first attempt at storytelling, published a posteriori, already a known author. It really seems like something a modestly gifted 15 year old would write (it's rubbish). But it turns out it's a text from mid-to-late of his publishing life.
[*] In fact I have read a couple of his most famous titles long ago. But it's been so many years (I was basically a child), that I can hardly remember anything about them beyond the main plot. Particularly, I seem to have retained nothing in the order of judgements about the texts or the author.
>shitty English translations... I didn't read it in English. I read a translation to another Romance language so that it was probably very close to the original.
