Topic: Great books you don't like?? (Read 42542 times)

ScrambledGregs · « **on:** 18 Dec 2006, 08:43 »

We've had similar threads on the videogame and music boards, but...keep in mind that 'great' means books that are highly rated or other people have raved about but you didn't like...anyway...

Any 'great' books you've read that you didn't like, or even hated?? Personally I remember reading On The Road and not getting past the first third of the book because I thought it was shit. Like whoever famous guy said about it, that's not writing, that's typing. Just recently I've tried my damndest to read Walden but I can hardly bring myself to read it as more than toilet material. I think Thoreau's journal of what he did everyday for two years at Walden would make for better reading, because I've always wondered how often a dude living by himself in the woods must jack off. I imagine it would be a lot.

thegreatbuddha · « **Reply #1 on:** 18 Dec 2006, 16:57 »

Basically anything written in the 19th century or before. Except Shakespeare. He's hit or miss to me.

I'm not implying that there's anything wrong with the stories themselves, I just dont care for the style of writing used in that era.

Thrillho · « **Reply #2 on:** 18 Dec 2006, 17:26 »

The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy.

Inlander · « **Reply #3 on:** 18 Dec 2006, 17:57 »

Quote from: ScrambledGregs on 18 Dec 2006, 08:43

Like whoever famous guy said about it

Truman Capote.

For me, it's the Magus by John Fowles. It's so unbearably pretentious, and the main character's a complete twat.

guywithoutsocks · « **Reply #4 on:** 18 Dec 2006, 19:10 »

Catcher in the Rye. Some people I know really like this book. Not me. Coming-of-age-story my ass, Holden Caulfield was a big baby.

Omnicide · « **Reply #5 on:** 18 Dec 2006, 19:20 »

I'd take Kerouac over Capote anyday. Truman couldn't write a soup recipe.

Writers:

Jane Austen (Dull, dull, dull)
DH Lawrence (writes like an autistic child. endless repetition, sloganeering and cheesy sex)
TS Eliot (overladen with pointless symbolism)
John Updike
Julian Barnes
Kurt Vonnegut (with the exception of Mother Night)

I've never understood the love for Catcher in the Rye either. It's meaningless.

guywithoutsocks · « **Reply #6 on:** 18 Dec 2006, 19:47 »

I like Vonnegut myself but I'll admit that sometimes I just can't take him seriously.

Off-topic, but nice avatar.

ThePQ4 · « **Reply #7 on:** 18 Dec 2006, 21:34 »

Pretty much anything classifed as "Classical Literature", with the one exception of The Wizard of Oz, because that is the greatest Classic-Lit book -ever-... I don't like the way they wrote back then. I find it easier to read books written within the last...oh, 35 years or so.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #8 on:** 18 Dec 2006, 22:34 »

You mean you find it easier to read badly written childrens books? Well, yeah.

Quote from: guywithoutsocks on 18 Dec 2006, 19:10

Catcher in the Rye.

Hell yes.

Dimmukane · « **Reply #9 on:** 18 Dec 2006, 23:18 »

Quote from: guywithoutsocks on 18 Dec 2006, 19:10

Catcher in the Rye. Some people I know really like this book. Not me. Coming-of-age-story my ass, Holden Caulfield was a big baby.

That was sort of the whole point. Holden was being what he himself called a "phony", and we're supposed to realize that and see how stupid it is and learn from it. I hated the book too. I'm not a big fan of a bunch of the older stuff. Jonathan Swift, Chaucer, and Shakespeare are okay.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #10 on:** 18 Dec 2006, 23:43 »

Jane Austen is pretty shit. Especially compared to the Brontes.

Omnicide · « **Reply #11 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 01:27 »

Quote

I'm not a big fan of a bunch of the older stuff. Jonathan Swift, Chaucer, and Shakespeare are okay.

Bugger Chaucer. 800 year old fart gags shouldn't be anyones idea of classic lit.

So basically we're all giving up on older books because of their 'outdated' styles. Bye bye Steinbeck, Blake, Dostoyevsky, Joyce and Dickens. Also: music made before 1969 sucks because it is old and their recording technology was silly and medieval.

camelpimp · « **Reply #12 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 03:38 »

I dare say Classic Lit should ONLY be 800 year old fart jokes, but maybe that's just me.

Kaktion · « **Reply #13 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 05:01 »

I can't read Huckleberry Finn or anything by Mark Twain really without wondering what was the point of the book. The LOTR books are hit or miss with me: one read-through I adore them and the other I find myself thinking about why we had to know who Frodo lent his third favorite tea set to and who some obscure character with only two lines' great-great-great grandfather was and how many kids he had, etc. etc. Back and forth, back and forth with these books.

Omnicide · « **Reply #14 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 05:43 »

Quote from: camelpimp on 19 Dec 2006, 03:38

I dare say Classic Lit should ONLY be 800 year old fart jokes, but maybe that's just me.

Try writing an essay on it in University. "So your man here farts, which causes a girl to fall off a roof. And this symbolizes dark age serf attitudes to the then bourgeouise attitudes of the ruling class during feudalism blah blah de waffle blah..."

Dreams about cannibal rapists are less painful.

Huck Finn? It's about pre-civil war racism in America from a child's pov.

This is the only time in my entire life where a literature will ever be even vaguely useful. indulge me.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #15 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 06:26 »

Quote from: Omnicide on 19 Dec 2006, 01:27

Bugger Chaucer. 800 year old fart gags shouldn't be anyones idea of classic lit.

There's like, one fart joke in Chaucers entire oeuvre. If you think Chaucers just scatological humoutr or something then seriously fuck you, there's a few of the canterbury tales that are told by rude uncultured people or whatever and so include that and thats it. You might as well complain about the pissingly boring ones like the Monks tale. Chaucer is a fucking master story-teller and one of the sarciest, wittiest motherfuckers in the last 1000 years, barely clipping under Doctor Johnson. He invented fucking english literature. Just because you don't have a clue doesn't mean yous shoudlnt shut the fuck uop.

Omnicide · « **Reply #16 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 06:40 »

And cave paintings are better than Rembrandt because they came first. Of course there's more to Chaucer, any half-educated sod knows that. And hell yes I complain, because cultural importance or not, The Canterbury Tales are drawn-out and mediocre. Wit is fine as the icing on the cake but Chaucer, let's face it, is a cake-less motherfucker. Even without the scatology his work is a half-cut undergraduate's idea of storytelling and social commentary. The Wife of Bath, for christ's sake. Calm down. Internet rage solves nothing!

KharBevNor · « **Reply #17 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 06:44 »

I was not implying some came first shit.

Though I will point out that Rembrandt wasn't that hot. He coudln't light a fuckign scene2 to save his life. I've seen more dynamic shit than Christ on the Sea of Galilee in fucking White Dwarf.

Omnicide · « **Reply #18 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 06:57 »

Ah, substitute Rembrandt for any famed artist: Raphael, Dali, Carravaggio, Picasso, frigging Warhol (alright, maybe not Andy) take your pick. The point (I had a point?) is that Chaucher's only real relevance (to me anyway) is as a landmark of literature, lacking any real entertainment value or artistic merit in and of itself. Do you actually read ol' Geoffrey for pleasure at the end of a long day? You're a braver man than I. Still I can't say much. I read Joyce for fuck's sake. It's serious a problem.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #19 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 07:30 »

Quote from: Omnicide on 19 Dec 2006, 06:57

Do you actually read ol' Geoffrey for pleasure at the end of a long day?

Fuck yeah. His poetrys great. it's human, its completely unpretentious because he comes from an era where no one had even thought up that kind of shit. There's just something joyful, vital and fun about Chaucer. I love it.

camelpimp · « **Reply #20 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 08:21 »

Quote from: KharBevNor on 19 Dec 2006, 06:44

Though I will point out that Rembrandt wasn't that hot. He coudln't light a fuckign scene2 to save his life. I've seen more dynamic shit than Christ on the Sea of Galilee in fucking White Dwarf.

Well, first of all, due to the age of his paintings, their appear darker than they actually were (the Mona Lisa nowadays is in need of a serious cleaning, and did not look like that at all back in Da Vinci's day). And "Rembrandt can't light a scene?" WT to the F? I don't care for his "epic" paintings, but his quieter stuff is excellent.

Also, Omnicide, you can read JAMES JOYCE and not Chaucer??? Explain that one, because I can't come up with a retort, because that is seriously flabbergasting.

elcapitan · « **Reply #21 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 14:46 »

The Gulag Archipelago. I tried, seriously I tried, and it moved me but it was so fucking boring I never finished it.

How the hell can a story about some of, if not the worst systemic human rights abuse in history be boring?

KharBevNor · « **Reply #22 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 18:26 »

Quote from: camelpimp on 19 Dec 2006, 08:21

Well, first of all, due to the age of his paintings, their appear darker than they actually were (the Mona Lisa nowadays is in need of a serious cleaning, and did not look like that at all back in Da Vinci's day). And "Rembrandt can't light a scene?" WT to the F? I don't care for his "epic" paintings, but his quieter stuff is excellent.

I was being semi-flippant, though in general I'm not so hot for Dutch Golden Age painting as a lot of people. Some Vermeers are absolutely breath-taking, but for me a lot of it lacks that 'spark', for want of a better word, that inspires me in a picture.

Inlander · « **Reply #23 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 18:46 »

Complaining about the lighting in Rembrandt is rather missing the point. Go to a gallery, get in the same room as one of his paintings - preferably one of his portraits of ordinary people he spotted on the street - and spend a good few minutes just looking at the face. There are such stories told in those faces. Then come back and tell me if you think Rembrandt is over-rated or not.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #24 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 19:34 »

I've seen Rembrandt in the gallery.

As I said, there isn't that vital spark there that engages me with his paintings. For me, though his depictions of the world might be impeccable, they are descriptions only. It's not like, say, Hogarth, where the faces just leap out at you and even though the drawing or painting might be cruder than Rembrandt, and Hogarth isn't really that far beyond my own skill level (I can at least replicate his works fairly well) I know that I could never have produced those originals. I couldn't have produced Rembrandts either, they're massively skilled works, I'm just saying that they don't grab me: I don't take inspiration from Rembrandt, and if the choice was given to me to own an original artwork by any artist, he would be far, far, far down the list.

mberan42 · « **Reply #25 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 20:29 »

I got to part 3 in Gravity's Rainbow before putting it down.

Seriously, Pynchon, what the hell? Why do I need to know that the guy was so constipated he had to stick a spoon up his ass to get the shit out? I don't need to know that, man!

bujiatang · « **Reply #26 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 20:41 »

I'm not a Hardy boy, Thomas just doesn't do it for me.

What I have been looking for is the Norton Anthology of Victorian Erotica. you read me, Victorian Erotica. 3000 pages of it.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #27 on:** 19 Dec 2006, 22:27 »

Half of its probably copperplates of table legs and ankles.

elcapitan · « **Reply #28 on:** 20 Dec 2006, 06:44 »

Quote from: mberan42 on 19 Dec 2006, 20:29

I got to part 3 in Gravity's Rainbow before putting it down.

Seriously, Pynchon, what the hell? Why do I need to know that the guy was so constipated he had to stick a spoon up his ass to get the shit out? I don't need to know that, man!

Because it keeps you off-balance, and pushes the limits as far as what was broadly publishable.

I can totally see how folks would not be able to get through Gravity's Rainbow. I, however, fucking loved it to bits.

Ravenbomb · « **Reply #29 on:** 20 Dec 2006, 09:05 »

Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. I had to read this in high school and college, and I didn't like it at all either time. I don't care how "important" it is, the book sucks.

gargoylekitty · « **Reply #30 on:** 20 Dec 2006, 12:36 »

Quote from: elcapitan on 20 Dec 2006, 06:44

Quote from: mberan42 on 19 Dec 2006, 20:29
I got to part 3 in Gravity's Rainbow before putting it down.

Seriously, Pynchon, what the hell? Why do I need to know that the guy was so constipated he had to stick a spoon up his ass to get the shit out? I don't need to know that, man!

Because it keeps you off-balance, and pushes the limits as far as what was broadly publishable.

I can totally see how folks would not be able to get through Gravity's Rainbow. I, however, fucking loved it to bits.

I second the love for Gravity's Rainbow. It took a couple of tries but once I got through it I couldn't not like it. Crying of Lot 49 rocks too....

Back on topic though I ditto Ravenbomb's hating of Things Fall Apart because it was beyond dull, yet I would hardly call it a great book to begin with. Another one I hated on the high school reading list was Animal Farm. I hate it with a passion. Maybe it was the many movies in cartoon and 'RL' form based off it or the text itself though I just can't stand it.

ScrambledGregs · « **Reply #31 on:** 20 Dec 2006, 21:11 »

Quote from: Ravenbomb on 20 Dec 2006, 09:05

Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. I had to read this in high school and college, and I didn't like it at all either time. I don't care how "important" it is, the book sucks.

Yeah, there are very few "important" books that I have ever enjoyed.

Will · « **Reply #32 on:** 21 Dec 2006, 01:42 »

Quote from: guywithoutsocks on 18 Dec 2006, 19:10

Catcher in the Rye. Some people I know really like this book. Not me. Coming-of-age-story my ass, Holden Caulfield was a big baby.

I really, really hate Holden Caufield. I actually like the book alright, but the character pisses me right the hell off. He's a whining, sniveling little bitch.

camelpimp · « **Reply #33 on:** 21 Dec 2006, 08:06 »

Am I the only one who liked "Things Fall Apart?" I mean, okay, not the number 1 best book in the universe, but it was an interesting exploration of the culture, of the conflict of the early, well, meeting I suppose of the Europeans and Africans. Although, the fact that it was definately a "statement" by Achebe that "Africa had it's own old, storied cultures long before the Europeans came thankyouverymuch" is distracting...

Ravenbomb · « **Reply #34 on:** 21 Dec 2006, 09:37 »

I just think it was flat-out badly written. The characters were uninteresting, the entire first half of the book was boring (okay, I understood what he was going for, but if he wanted to show the culture and all that, he should've done something to make me care about the characters first, because the first half just KILLS the book), and it's frustrating because there COULD be a good story there. It's like he took what could've been a really good, interesting book, murdered it, and Things Fall Apart is just the chalk outline around its body.

camelpimp · « **Reply #35 on:** 21 Dec 2006, 09:51 »

To be fair, the "bad" writing I think is a rejection of the normal, European/American tradition of novel writing.

Ravenbomb · « **Reply #36 on:** 21 Dec 2006, 11:13 »

But, see, I've liked other books that were written in different styles. In the same class we read Arabian Nights & Days and that was written a lot better than Things Fall Apart.

supersheep · « **Reply #37 on:** 21 Dec 2006, 18:51 »

The Red Badge of Courage. An intimate portrait of how a person reacts to war by someone who never actually saw a war. Poorly written too, although that might just be the olde english pokling through.

Runs_With_Scissors · « **Reply #38 on:** 22 Dec 2006, 08:14 »

The Davinci Code. I'm sorry, but I read it, and I can't even remember anything from it. i'm the type of person that reads a book in 2 days or less and usually I can pretty much memorize sections of the book the first time through. This book...sucked...in my opinion. I have no urge to reread it, and that isn't normal for me. 4 times is usually my minimum for reading a book over...and that's for one I don't like. Also the book Monster...didn't even get past the first page, same with the Yearling. They were just flat out boring.

alic3sw0nd3rland · « **Reply #39 on:** 22 Dec 2006, 09:39 »

Black Like Me, that guy bitches to much.

Raquelita · « **Reply #40 on:** 22 Dec 2006, 22:24 »

Quote from: Runs_With_Scissors on 22 Dec 2006, 08:14

The Davinci Code. I'm sorry, but I read it, and I can't even remember anything from it. i'm the type of person that reads a book in 2 days or less and usually I can pretty much memorize sections of the book the first time through. This book...sucked...in my opinion. I have no urge to reread it, and that isn't normal for me.

Ditto. I still don't see what all the fuss is about. I think the only reason it was such a bit hit is because of the religious "controversy" it stirred up. The movie, however, was far more entertaining. I actually kinda liked it.

As for other big books I couldn't get into, I think my prime example would have to be Little Women. It was huge among the kids I went to school with, but I just didn't find it interesting.

supersheep · « **Reply #41 on:** 22 Dec 2006, 22:43 »

The Da Vinci Code was just one of those huge breakthrough things. It was easy to read, it had a gripping story. And it was one of the worst written books I have ever read in my life. Seriously, there are a good few forumites who are significantly better writers than Dan Brown.

Storm Rider · « **Reply #42 on:** 23 Dec 2006, 09:58 »

I've got a sort of love-hate relationship with Brave New World. I think the points he makes are interesting, and it's especially spooky to see how prophetic his predictions turned out, but the book just drags a lot for me, and the characters just seem flat to me. Maybe it's just because I disagree with him politically, or because I subconsciously compare it to 1984, which is a superior book on every level. But it seems to me when you distill it down to its basic arguments (too much sex, mass production is ruining art, religion is becoming meaningless, etc.), it just seems to be the intellectual equivalent of some guy yelling at the teenagers to get off his lawn. Plus, it's pretty blatantly racist, even for the 30s.

Johnny C · « **Reply #43 on:** 23 Dec 2006, 11:23 »

Catcher In The Rye is quite a fun book. You guys are doing it wrong.

I haven't been able to properly read 1984 or A Brave New World. The former is too damn bleak and I can't stand Huxley's writing style.

If anyone in here says they can't read Steinbeck I may cut them.

Storm Rider · « **Reply #44 on:** 23 Dec 2006, 11:37 »

The bleak style of 1984 is one of the many, many things that makes it so great. It's depressing, but that lends to its realism and just strengthens the emotional impact of the later action of the book.

I really, really love that book.

Johnny C · « **Reply #45 on:** 23 Dec 2006, 22:16 »

Which is fair - I've read a good chunk of it and what I read was really good, it's just that I can't bring myself to finish it.

Oh and I didn't think Chaucer invented literature. Poems and stories were around before he was, and I thought the consensus was that the first modern novel was Don Quixote.

supersheep · « **Reply #46 on:** 23 Dec 2006, 22:27 »

Don Quixote is a good two hundred years after Chaucer. Also, Chaucer was (well according to wiki anyways) the first author to demonstrate the power of the vernacular, at least in English. And I can't think of much that came from pre-Chaucerian times - Gawain and the Green Knight is the only one I can really think of that made much of an impact.

Johnny C · « **Reply #47 on:** 23 Dec 2006, 22:57 »

The first modern novel was Don Quixote.

Quote from: The Wikipedia

Don Quixote is often nominated as the world's greatest work of fiction. It stands in a unique position between medieval chivalric romance and the modern novel. The former consist of disconnected stories with little exploration of the inner life of even the main character. The latter are usually focused on the psychological evolution of their characters.

camelpimp · « **Reply #48 on:** 24 Dec 2006, 01:19 »

Tale of Genji is considered the first novel, right? But how is Don Quixote that different to be the first "modern" novel? Other than being western?

supersheep · « **Reply #49 on:** 24 Dec 2006, 01:28 »

I think you may have hit it on the head with that one...

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Great books you don't like?? (Read 42542 times)

ScrambledGregs

guywithoutsocks

Omnicide

guywithoutsocks

Omnicide

camelpimp

Kaktion

Omnicide

Omnicide

Omnicide

camelpimp

bujiatang

Ravenbomb

gargoylekitty

ScrambledGregs

camelpimp

Ravenbomb

camelpimp

Ravenbomb

alic3sw0nd3rland

Raquelita

camelpimp