Topic: Great books you don't like?? (Read 42531 times)

KharBevNor · « **Reply #50 on:** 26 Dec 2006, 19:44 »

The difference between old-school literature and the novel is that the novel is, well, novel. That is, it tells a new tale. Not all novels focus on psychological evolution by far. The reason the Canterbury tales isn't a novel is because the plots were lifted wholesale from the Decameron and French poetry. Chaucers skill was the pointed, somewhat satirical tweaks he put on these tales, and his marvellous language and humour, but apart from, possibly, the framing narrative and the way it's all been composited, with the characterisation of the pilgrims and the social commentary that their manner of speaking and choices of tales provide. Don Quixote is all made up. That's slightly off I suppose, but hey.

Don Quixote's the first western novel. Tale of Genji is a different tradition. I suspect it might have been termed a romance had it been produced in the west, though I'm not sure, because nothing like it really cropped up in the western literary tradition for a good while afterwards. If you're to define novel in the modern way, and then work backwards globally, then I suspect it would be the first novel.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #51 on:** 30 Dec 2006, 21:49 »

Austin was mentioned earlier and i have to agree and add to that a great deal of other victorina literature. even the brontes and dickens i struggle with. the novels always tend to be, in my opinion, overlong and ponderous. instead of fascination and occasionally caustic examinations of class and society i find them pretty dull and uninteresting. i sorta enjoyed hard times and jane eyre but the farther into them i got the harder it was for me to have any motivation to continue. i guess i just haven't garnered an appreciation for the era yet.

ackblom12 · « **Reply #52 on:** 02 Jan 2007, 23:33 »

Goddamn Mother Fucking Ass Raping Bitch... "Grapes of Wrath" can suck my fucking nuts.

I read that monstrously long boring ass book for high School and I hated every fucking second of it.

Johnny C · « **Reply #53 on:** 03 Jan 2007, 02:19 »

Quote from: Johnny C on 23 Dec 2006, 11:23

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

Anyways another one occured to me. Heart Of Darkness by Joseph Conrad is a fucking terrible book. Honestly I would say I hate it more than any other book I've ever read.

camelpimp · « **Reply #54 on:** 03 Jan 2007, 02:26 »

Honestly I never even gave that book a chance. That and Faulkner.

Moo Cakes · « **Reply #55 on:** 03 Jan 2007, 05:00 »

Quote from: Storm Rider 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.

I'm definitely agreeing with you here. I read Brave New World last weekend and it just didn't hit home for me like 1984 did.

Also, I don't like Harry Potter.

bujiatang · « **Reply #56 on:** 04 Jan 2007, 03:22 »

the Da Vinci code is the second worst book I have ever read. Angels and Demons is the worst. Dan Brown cannot write action; his dialogue is terrible, his characters are flat, and his murder's mystery developed by excluding important details.

keakaha · « **Reply #57 on:** 04 Jan 2007, 10:33 »

Quote from: bujiatang on 04 Jan 2007, 03:22

the Da Vinci code is the second worst book I have ever read. Angels and Demons is the worst. Dan Brown cannot write action; his dialogue is terrible, his characters are flat, and his murder's mystery developed by excluding important details.

Dan Brown is a person who 'makes books', not an author.

It's probably not a great per se, but Robin Hobb's Farseer trilogy is tripe. I was pissed off after I finished that I'd wasted so much time reading the whole damn thing.

And awesome as Hemingway is, "The Old Man and the Sea" doesn't do it for me at all.

El Opium · « **Reply #58 on:** 04 Jan 2007, 13:59 »

I'll jump on the Austen hatin' bandwagon too, along with the Hemingway. As far as more recent authors go, I could not get into Paul Auster. I found The New York Trilogy to be by the numbers metafiction with no color or humor. I'll also second the notion that if you've gotten stuck partway through a Pynchon then you should keep slogging. Also, if you like or dislike 1984 and Brave New World, then you should read We by Yevgeny Zamyatin.

Will · « **Reply #59 on:** 04 Jan 2007, 21:10 »

Quote from: Johnny C on 03 Jan 2007, 02:19

Anyways another one occured to me. Heart Of Darkness by Joseph Conrad is a fucking terrible book. Honestly I would say I hate it more than any other book I've ever read.

I found a copy of that book in a used bookstore for $.50, so I picked it up figuring it would be at least worth reading once. Upon further review, I should have just bought some M&M's from the Jerry's Kids candy machine.

KnnOs · « **Reply #60 on:** 05 Jan 2007, 00:08 »

I had to read Gone with the Wind for summer reading one year, 900 pages of racism, plot holes and bizarre characterization.
Much as I love the stories in themselves, I can't make myself read through one of the Horatio Hornblower books
If ANYONE can get through Derrida and tell me wtf is up, I'd appreciate it

Hewittv18 · « **Reply #61 on:** 05 Jan 2007, 12:42 »

I hate Charles Dickens. Great Expectations is the same. Goddamn. Book. TWICE.

Book 1: Stupid people are mean to nice child.
Nice child helps someone.
Mysterious old lady does weird shit.

Book 2: Stupid people are mean to nice young man.
Nice young man is nice to someone again.
Mysterious old lady does more weird shit and dies.

She didn't even have the decency to commit a murder suicide.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #62 on:** 05 Jan 2007, 17:53 »

Quote from: Moo Cakes on 03 Jan 2007, 05:00

Plus, it's pretty blatantly racist, even for the 30s.

Balls it is. Brave New Worlds really NOT that racist for the 30's, and in fact it can probably be taken as an argument against racism. Remember that the feelie they watch, it's not his race but something wrong with his 'programming' or whatnot. You could even read it as a satire of contemporary attitudes about race: the hysteria that black people were coke-sniffing rape machines (what's changed). The black guy falls in love with her and kidnaps her, and she has to be rescued by white sex machines.

Besides, the point that Brave New World makes is much, MUCH deeper than what you're suggesting. Brave New World is an exploration of happiness versus free will, basically. It asks us whether it is better to be happy, but insensitive, ignorant and without any real free will (though the society of Brave New World seems very libertine on its surface, in fact it is far more insidiously controlled than Airstrip One), or whether it is better to be intelligent, sensitive and free, but to suffer the rigours of life. It's a full on satirical critique of modernism, which also happens to touch very heavily on issues of bio-ethics. What Brave New World does is expose the unfeeling meaninglessness of a world on which liesure has become king, and to warn us what lies down the path of mass culture and capitalism. It's a book that needs to be much more widely read and taken heed of.

Alarra · « **Reply #63 on:** 05 Jan 2007, 18:37 »

Quote from: Johnny C on 03 Jan 2007, 02:19

Anyways another one occured to me. Heart Of Darkness by Joseph Conrad is a fucking terrible book. Honestly I would say I hate it more than any other book I've ever read.

Yes. I would consider this the worst book I have ever read.

And I have to jump on the bandwagon against the DaVinci code. It had a relatively interesting plot, and I liked trying to piece together connections, but my god, that man is an abysmal writer.

Hewittv18 · « **Reply #64 on:** 06 Jan 2007, 12:22 »

I liked Heart of Darkness. I dunno how much you really know about the book, but my understanding was this book is largely allegorical about Conrad's life. He wrote it stream-of-consciousness, and never edited it because it was too emotionally painful for him to even read the text.

I'm not saying it's wicked good or anything, I'm just saying I enjoyed it and wanted to share some background. ^_^

Joseph · « **Reply #65 on:** 06 Jan 2007, 13:41 »

The first thing that comes to mind for me is Animal Farm. It's just utterly lacking in imagination, there's no subtlety to the storyline. I just can't think of a single redeaming feature it has. Well, other than the fact that it's short, so I didn't need to suffer through it for long (though I read it through three times to try and see if I was missing anything).

You know, I'm also not big on 1984, though I'm not sure why. My favourite Orwell is definately Down And Out In Paris And London.

BrittanyMarie · « **Reply #66 on:** 08 Jan 2007, 05:55 »

I know it's not a book, so please don't kill me but I HATE THE LOTTERY. Um, also Vanity Fair. I can't really discuss why I hate them, they just never hooked me.

8ilbo · « **Reply #67 on:** 08 Jan 2007, 06:03 »

Tolkien reads to me like a cross between Thomas the Tank Engine and Alice in Wonderland - the story is good, but old, the writing is just terrible. It could be (certainly for the Hobbit) that its a children's book, and I'm not a child....

Rowling of course has the opposite problem - fantastic writing and a cruddy story.

Grapes of Wrath? That was a fantastic book...studying a book is like dissecting a flower to find the bit that makes it beautiful.

Most books by Richard Dawkins are considered to be 'great', but I can't get rid of this feeling while I read them that he is a prime tart...

fetusxcore · « **Reply #68 on:** 08 Jan 2007, 06:33 »

I detest Shakespeare with a passion. Julius Caesar, Romeo & Juliet, A Midsummer's Night Dream; I just can't stand any of it.

ackblom12 · « **Reply #69 on:** 08 Jan 2007, 11:55 »

Quote from: 8ilbo on 08 Jan 2007, 06:03

Tolkien reads to me like a cross between Thomas the Tank Engine and Alice in Wonderland - the story is good, but old, the writing is just terrible. It could be (certainly for the Hobbit) that its a children's book, and I'm not a child....

Rowling of course has the opposite problem - fantastic writing and a cruddy story.

Grapes of Wrath? That was a fantastic book...studying a book is like dissecting a flower to find the bit that makes it beautiful.

Most books by Richard Dawkins are considered to be 'great', but I can't get rid of this feeling while I read them that he is a prime tart...

Honestly, It seems to me more that Tolkien was an amazing story teller and a not so amazing author.

ImRonBurgundy? · « **Reply #70 on:** 15 Jan 2007, 02:48 »

Does The Scarlet Letter count? Because if so, eeeeeuuuuaaaaggghhhh.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #71 on:** 15 Jan 2007, 03:55 »

make that all of Hawthorne

KharBevNor · « **Reply #72 on:** 15 Jan 2007, 06:24 »

hang on, did someone just say that JK Rowling was a better writer than JRR Tolkien.

GACK.

GAAACK.

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK.

*dies*

The Overachiever Bandit · « **Reply #73 on:** 15 Jan 2007, 10:10 »

One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Vasquez was absolutely terrible. Yeah sure, the guy won a Nobel Prize, but this was so much crap it's ridiculous.

E. Spaceman · « **Reply #74 on:** 15 Jan 2007, 10:44 »

Surely, you mean Gael Garcia Bernal

Tyler · « **Reply #75 on:** 15 Jan 2007, 10:46 »

100 Years of Solitude was an amazing book. Probably one of my all time favorites. The mix of history with magical surrealism with his captivating style. Spectacular.

I really was bored by Ethan Frome, however.

fish across face · « **Reply #76 on:** 15 Jan 2007, 12:13 »

I've read Love In The Time Of Cholera and 100 Years Of Solitude and found them both pretty enjoyable. Y Tu Mama Tambien is still his best, though. (to flagrantly knick E. Spaceman's joke)

Along the magic realism lines, I was bored shitless by Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children, which won the Booker of Bookers prize or whatever (the prize for being the best of the first 25 years of prize-winners...). Something a bit too cozy about it, and generally just way too waffly.

Not sure I like the style of most Bookers candidates much at all, despite them being what I read a lot after I finished studying, cos I wasn't sure how to find contemporary goodness. Actually I do really love some Ian McEwan books, but that's an exception rather than the rule. And I also just finished Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go and that was really good.

I thought everyone ever bitched about the Da Vinci Code, maybe it was highly popular but never highly rated?

Only John Fowles I've read was The French Lieutenant's Woman and it was awful. Almost wilfully middlebrow.. it's like if you're going to try to break from classical form then fucking go for it, go the whole modernist hog, be as ornery as Joyce or whoever. Clever little anachronisms and breaking the fourth wall and all that other po-mo shit don't cut it IMO.

Am slogging my way through Gravity's Rainbow now. It's hard going so far, so I'm oh so looking forward to the constipation bit.

I have to admit a lot of books mentioned here are "greats" that I always avoided because I thought they looked bloody hard work. Maybe I should dip in to some of them. I would like to read some Conrad, for example.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #77 on:** 15 Jan 2007, 20:48 »

Quote from: Tyler on 15 Jan 2007, 10:46

100 Years of Solitude was an amazing book. Probably one of my all time favorites. The mix of history with magical surrealism with his captivating style. Spectacular.

I really was bored by Ethan Frome, however.

couldn't have said it better myself. wharton bores the hell out of me in general, short stories and all. as for marquez, he's great and 100 years of solitude is flat out brilliant.

Barmymoo · « **Reply #78 on:** 22 Jan 2007, 03:15 »

I don't think it's fair to compare JK Rowling and Dan Brown to Chaucer... they're completely different. I wouldn't put any of them down as my favourite authors (JK Rowling in particular writes books that are like rare truffles coated in a very cheap chocolate) but they're too different to be classed together.

Chaucer is a bit dated for me; I'm ashamed of it rather but I gave up trying to read through the Canterbury Tales because it took too long to piece it together with modern life. It was a while back though, and I'm older (and hopefully wiser) now so I might have another go.

One book I forced my way through was Portrait of a Lady. I hated that book. It had some tremendous description that was about twenty times too convoluted, it had some interesting and in-depth characters who were all inexplicably obsessed with a dull cardboard cut-out of a heroine, and it had a carefully developed plot which chugged its way to the top of the story and fell rapidly to a predictably cliched doom almost immediately.

Having said that, it at the very least managed to sustain my interest. There are many books out there that I pick up and think "I've read this before..." then flick to the end to see if I finished it, and realised I gave up half way through so many times that the first chapter is imprinted on my brain and the last page is totally new to me.

And just to demonstrate my lack of years, a series that's popular amongst my peers but makes me laugh it's so bad is the one that's got titles like "I Fell Over my Hugely Large Breasts" and "He's a Sex God and he Hates Me" or whatever they are. All about some girl who keeps falling in love with guys who don't like her. She never does anything interesting and she speaks like a moron. It's teenage fiction that gives us a bad name, not teenage behaviour. We're not really like that. I hope.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #79 on:** 22 Jan 2007, 03:41 »

i wish i could agree with you on that last point. i'd say it is most definetly teen behavior that gives us a bad reputation, not teen fiction. i think the former is infintely more detrimental to us than the latter in 99% of cases.

Johnny C · « **Reply #80 on:** 22 Jan 2007, 04:13 »

Quote from: Tyler on 15 Jan 2007, 10:46

100 Years of Solitude was an amazing book. Probably one of my all time favorites. The mix of history with magical surrealism with his captivating style. Spectacular.

MEXICAN MAGIC REALISM IS AWESOME

Edith · « **Reply #81 on:** 10 Feb 2007, 17:55 »

No one mentioned Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. I realize that it's considered the first science fiction novel, and that it has a lot to say about the nature of humanity, about taking responsibility for our actions, and about the role of women in a world controlled by men. You can get pretty much all that from the movies, especially the 1931 Boris Karloff version, since the book is overwritten and drags on and on and on and on and on.

Thorondel · « **Reply #82 on:** 10 Feb 2007, 18:26 »

Jane Eyre... I hated that book. I really liked Wuthering Heights and Pride and Prejudice, but Jane Eyre just... bored me.

A classic that I enjoyed, but couldn't bring myself to crawl through the badly translated English was Crime and Punishment. I had to read it for my AP English class in High School. I just could not do it. So, I got it on tape, and enjoyed the story immensely. The actual reading of it, though, whew!

And, if anyone bashes Heart of Darkness, I will beat you until you've the consistency of mashed potatoes.

The extra letter · « **Reply #83 on:** 10 Feb 2007, 22:19 »

I can't stand Dracula. I've tried reading it on a few occasions, but give up 3 quarters of the way through.

I also loathe "The Power of One" by Bryce Courtney. Some people think it's this great novel, but I absolutely hate it.

Enie · « **Reply #84 on:** 11 Feb 2007, 04:16 »

I'm so glad I read Animal Farm after I read 1984, the latter was much more fufilling, Animal Farm was frustratingly obvious.
Harry Potter was shite, there's nothing that can persuade me to read any further than the first book.

And Mary Poppins, after seeing the film, turns out she's a bit of a bitch in the book...also there's no songs in the book.

And I've just started reading the Da Vinci Code, should I bother to continue seeing it's so put down?

supersheep · « **Reply #85 on:** 11 Feb 2007, 04:31 »

The first Harry Potter book is shite compared to the later ones - it's basically a children's book and unashamedly so, whereas they move more towards young adult as time goes on. As for the Da Vinci Code, sure, you might as well. It is an entertaining romp, just he cannot write for peanuts - description is a minor downfall of his, for example.

Enie · « **Reply #86 on:** 11 Feb 2007, 05:04 »

That's alright, I don't like peanuts.

Valdemar · « **Reply #87 on:** 11 Feb 2007, 10:46 »

Fantasy: seconding Hobb as it is ridiculous drivel and Eddings as well. I never made through the first book.

The worst book I have read is probably a tie between John Steinbeck - The Pearl and Ib Michael - The Troubadour's Apprentice. The first one is endlessly tedious and despite the short length it feels a 1000 pages longer. To this day I feel a latent animosity against that dreadful book. The second is stream-of-conscious magic realism situated in Italy during the plague and it is unreadable drivel. He takes an childish glee in describing vulgarities(graphic sex scenes involving dwarves being one) and often goes off on long rants about the moon or the stars or some shite, the farther away from the story the better. It is a plotless mess and the worst part is that this guy is a literary giant in Denmark.

Though I suppose it is worth mentioning that they were forced down my throat in primary school.

jimbunny · « **Reply #88 on:** 12 Feb 2007, 18:58 »

I am not liking all the hating on Catcher in the Rye! I can sympathize if you were made to disect it in school - that experience came CLOSE to ruining for me what otherwise is a monument to our (I suppose I mean America's, possibly the West's) persistant cultural pathologies. I can only stand in sheer awe of Salinger's insight and sheer communicative ability, in light of this book and also Franny and Zooey.

Now, The Scarlet Letter. Different story. Made me want to bleed out my eyes. Some good parts, though.

The extra letter · « **Reply #89 on:** 12 Feb 2007, 23:40 »

Oh yeah, 1985. Some great ideas, but I absolutely hate Orwell's writing style.

Joseph · « **Reply #90 on:** 13 Feb 2007, 18:01 »

1985 was written by Anthony Burgess. Mayhaps you mean the significantly more famous 1984?

Lines · « **Reply #91 on:** 13 Feb 2007, 18:47 »

i was one of the three people in my english class in HS who liked Jane Eyre. i was also one of the few who didn't really care for Catcher in the Rye. i mean, it was well written, but i hated Holden. i wanted to smack him. i'm currently reading wuthering heights (never read it in HS like just about everyone else) and i like it. Jane Austen has good books, but i can't read them too often. and i was one of the few people who liked The Grapes of Wrath. i read it in the summer though, so i forced myself through the first third, but once i got into it, i realized i actually liked it. and we didn't have to disect the hell out of it, which might have been part of it.

Madam Bovary was probably the most boring book i've ever read. i hated it. Flaubert was a waste of my time, and this was a book i chose from a list to do a project on. i gave up and got the sparknotes, which i really don't like doing, because it was that painful of a read.

Princess Leah · « **Reply #92 on:** 14 Feb 2007, 03:55 »

possibly not a great book, but a great author

the Silmarillion, seriously, was the man on crack or something, Its so unreadable

Enie · « **Reply #93 on:** 14 Feb 2007, 07:23 »

Perhaps a liiiitle off topic.
But I have to write a chapter for the beginning of "Of Mice and Men"...I was supposed to give it in about a month ago and decided now was a good time to start it.
I've had a few ideas but I find that they're stupidly simular to the first chapter Steinbeck wrote, or I can't write about it for more than half a page.
Help?!

McTaggart · « **Reply #94 on:** 14 Feb 2007, 07:53 »

Personally, I'd submit Steinbeck's first chapter verbatim. I can't imagine what good that assignment will do you at all (other than passing the course maybe). So glad I'm not in school anymore.

Was anyone else made to read The Collector in highschool and actually like it? I was the only person in my class who didn't just go "book sucked lol, why write that bit in the middle twice?". (Incidently I also failed every assignment related to the book, and the exam too).

The extra letter · « **Reply #95 on:** 14 Feb 2007, 13:27 »

Quote from: Dark Flame on 13 Feb 2007, 18:01

1985 was written by Anthony Burgess. Mayhaps you mean the significantly more famous 1984?

Yeah, that too.

Narr · « **Reply #96 on:** 15 Feb 2007, 08:13 »

This thread is the perfect opportunity for me to tear into James Joyce, as I have previously done in a thread devoted soley to "the master of stream of consciousness."

Why anyone would ever want to write in a faulty style is beyond me in the first place. I fucking couldn't stand reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man in my lit class last semester, and that one is supposedly the easiest to read out of his great books. Ten pages into it, I felt like I needed to open up my skull and rub some pumice stone soap to get the dirt off of my brain. It's total bullshit that he's considered the greatest 20th century author by lots of literary types.

I don't think Austen is overly terrible, but I just don't like her style of writing, or any style of writing in novels during that era for that matter. They do an awful lot of telling, with the narrator's voice being the exact same as the author. That kind of bothers me. I like my narrators impartial, simply filling in important details in between dialogue.

I hate Dickens with a passion, although A Christmas Carol is actually really good. It's also simply funny, which most of Dickens' other stories were not. He's the perfect example of a writer with fantastic story ideas, really poignant stuff, that just cannot write worth a damn.

Lines · « **Reply #97 on:** 15 Feb 2007, 09:02 »

you hit why i can't read Austen right on the head. it all blurred together and i couldn't tell what was going on.

Tyler · « **Reply #98 on:** 15 Feb 2007, 16:56 »

I enjoyed Pride and Prejudice and Emma. Sense and Sensibility was also fairly good. While there are not many people from that era I enjoyed, I always appreciate authors with sharp wit, which was in prevalence in her novels.

Johnny C · « **Reply #99 on:** 15 Feb 2007, 17:44 »

Quote from: McTaggart on 14 Feb 2007, 07:53

Personally, I'd submit Steinbeck's first chapter but written backwards.

Quote from: McTaggart on 14 Feb 2007, 07:53

Personally, I'd submit Steinbeck's first chapter but with no punctuation.

Quote from: McTaggart on 14 Feb 2007, 07:53

Personally, I'd submit Steinbeck's first chapter except every character is replaced with an analogous Looney Tune.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Great books you don't like?? (Read 42531 times)

ackblom12

camelpimp

Moo Cakes

bujiatang

keakaha

El Opium

KnnOs

Hewittv18

Alarra

Hewittv18

8ilbo

fetusxcore

ackblom12

The Overachiever Bandit

Thorondel

Enie

Enie

Valdemar

Princess Leah

Enie

Narr