>>/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.

Btw, it was pic related.