Flaws are so much more interesting to explore than excellence. Excellence is boring - why else are heroes so rarely perfect individuals? Even superheroes have to have their Achilles' heels.
And so it is when discussing books. A great book (if participants agree) becomes: "Gee, wasn't that great?" ... "Yeah." And then crickets singing in the dark. But when a story has flaws we all have different views on exactly what those flaws were, and how they should be fixed - allowing this to the 91st post rather than the third.
I enjoyed this book. No, it's not going to be a favourite, but it was fun. The book is pretty much exactly what it pretends to be, and what its reputation has become. This makes it an easy book to pick up and read for what it is. The fact that it has flaws, even obvious ones, just means it's also fun to talk about.