Five Books Nobody Should Read

[Jozanny]

Rowling as a serial killer? A bit rich, and I am not sure how she would take that, but aside from the aesthetic debate about Potter, she is an incredibly lucky author. I have published and suffered well over twenty years, and I am still running this treadmill, lucky if I get in some online sci-fi penny zine even for a token amount. But Rowling went from being a welfare mother to a woman who is nearly a franchise unto herself. I admire her achievement. Don't know if I will ever find time for the books, but would enjoy doing her biography, seriously.

In the modern era hers is a rare feat, and her literary agent was no doubt a marketing genius.

[Anna_MAlkovych]

Jozanny, the world of writing seems to be difficult and severe, especially now, when people tend to watch - not to read, I also wish some of my work being at least published, but I do not think mine are worth a penny, well the last Harry Potter book wasn't too- maybe I hae a chance

[DanielBenoit]

The fact of the matter is that each book has its own value to the person who finds it valuable. And to say that someone is "ignorant" because they didn't like Candide is just...despicable. Seriously, just because literary critics have liked a book for ages doesn't necessitate its quality. IceM has contributed to other topics with intelligent discourse, so obviously his dislike of Candide and Melville has not affected his functionality as an intellectual.

Yes, but to dismiss a book as bad because it's 'boring' is a groundless criticism. Frankly I found Sense and Sensibility boring, but I have enough common sense to detect its many virtues. 'Boring' and 'exciting' are far too subjective to serve as a basis for a criticism of an entire novel. Any person with common sense can see Moby-Dick whether you enjoyed it or not, as a great novel.

Anyway, I think all books are worth reading. But if you want to save time in your life so that you won't die having not read Moby-Dick or Don Quioxte, skip Dan Brown and the Twilight books. Believe me, you're not missing anything.

[glover7]

Yes, but to dismiss a book as bad because it's 'boring' is a groundless criticism. Frankly I found Sense and Sensibility boring, but I have enough common sense to detect its many virtues. 'Boring' and 'exciting' are far too subjective to serve as a basis for a criticism of an entire novel. Any person with common sense can see Moby-Dick whether you enjoyed it or not, as a great novel.

Anyway, I think all books are worth reading. But if you want to save time in your life so that you won't die having not read Moby-Dick or Don Quioxte, skip Dan Brown and the Twilight books. Believe me, you're not missing anything.

I don't think the argument here pertains only to a book's "exciting" factor. I believe that it has to do with personal preference. How can you say that "exciting" is subjective when "great" is an equally subjective and even more ambiguous term?

If excitement is how people derive greatness from a book, then your argument becomes invalid.

Personally, I will never admit that Moby Dick is a great novel because I don't think it is. It's my personal opinion, and you can't alter it by suggesting the words of the long-established "canonites."

[IceM]

I think that might be because some people mistake 'fun' for 'good'.

Candide was terribly written. Heart of Darkness had 0 impact on me as a reader who looked forward to reading that novel. Pride and Prejudice lacked any meaning to me as a reader, the plot was terribly predictable, and there was no thematic relevance to me as a reader. Moby Dick, while brilliant in some parts, just proved too tedious. I read that twice.

Have I made that distinction for you now?

and 2 through 5 of those posted by IceM. It appears as if these posters were made to read these in school and still resented this. It certainly tells you something when someone dislikes a classic which has been recomended by scholars and other literary pondits. What you don't like can make you appear grossly ignorant as well as what yiu like.

For clarification, I read all of these because I was interested in them. And I'm sorry that poorly written classics don't appeal to me. Candide was just slop. Pride and Prejudice was flat.

But I love Dante's, Dosteovsky's, Dickens', and Crane's works (most of which are critically acclaimed). Shakespeare, (although his works are plays) is a great work, and essays from Thoreau and Emerson (ALL critically acclaimed) are other favorites. Now that I've demonstrated a similar taste to that of your "scholars and pondits" does that justify my opinions of these novels? Or am I still "grossly ignorant?"

Sigh. I don't know how many times I have repeated this since I joined this forum, but I find these complaints about Melville nearly heartbreaking. He almost single-handedly put American Literature on the map, and I tend to agree with the essayist in my Columbia History of American Poetry edition that Moby Dick is pretty much the American epic, that it is a master prose poem, doing for the American national identity what Dante did for Roman Catholicism as the epicenter of Imperial legacy.

I value the study of literature, and comments like "Moby Dick is boring" miss how much this narrative achieves, how it created the American anti-hero, which remains with us to this day, how it clashed a vigorous Old Testment Protestant order against a romantic rebellion against God.

Some things are really worth the effort people, and Melville's voice is one of those--and African Love, he did a great deal to advocate integration before the Civil War was even considered remotely possible.

Congratulations, he had a literary achievement. I'm trying my best not to scoff at your opinion, but is his rampant success with Moby Dick supposed to change my opinion? I read the book twice, hoping the 2nd time would reveal some thematic or symbolic brilliance: I found little. The book featured bright moments, sure, but all books do. I felt it just had little impact on me. Is that a crime?



I'm sorry to the last two quotees. Maybe next time I'll find a scholar or two that shares my opinions. Then maybe I'll be considered to have more literary merit next time.

[DanielBenoit]

I don't think the argument here pertains only to a book's "exciting" factor. I believe that it has to do with personal preference. How can you say that "exciting" is subjective when "great" is an equally subjective and even more ambiguous term?

If excitement is how people derive greatness from a book, then your argument becomes invalid.

Personally, I will never admit that Moby Dick is a great novel because I don't think it is. It's my personal opinion, and you can't alter it by suggesting the words of the long-established "canonites."

That's perfectly fine. And yes, 'great' and 'bad' are just as subjective, if not more ambiguous than 'exciting' or 'boring'. But there is so much to a novel than momentary thrill. If one were to compare a novel like Angels and Demons with Moby-Dick one would find that the plot, charactarization, thematic concerns are all much more complex and deep in the latter. Thus Moby-Dick is considered a great novel in literary society because of these critical conventions. They are not objective in any way, but if one is to accept these conventions then one could consider this novel or that novel to be great or not great within the context of the system we have created. So maybe in a sense calling Moby-Dick a great novel is an appeal to elitism, or at least to that system for which most of us have based our appretiation of a novel.

This can apply to any novel. For example if you like Don Quioxte first and foremost for its character-depth, plot structure, word-structure and thematic/philosophical depth, then yes, you are appealing to the system that "high culture" has set out to describe what makes a great novel.

The only reason why one would argue with you and call your claims that Moby-Dickis "boring" would be because maybe you like Don Quioxte for the reasons described above, and yet can't find those virtues in Moby-Dick. Again, Don Quioxte is merely an example.

[mal4mac]

I didn't like Don Quixote, but ten years later, with more experience, and reading another translation, I thought it was fantastic, perhaps the best novel I've ever read. How do you Moby Dick haters know that you won't like it in ten years time?

I disagree that a novel can become great through some sort of "critical convention". It can only be great if it has great aesthetic merit, i.e., it must provide pleasure -- although in some cases a difficult pleasure that you have to work hard to get!

I liked Don Quixote because it was a great pleasure to read. Part of the pleasure was obtained from imbibing the character-depth, plot structure, word-structure and thematic/philosophical depth. Part of it was visualising Sancho tossed in a blanket I'm using the system of "high culture", but only to have more fun!

[escapologist]

Candide was terribly written. Heart of Darkness had 0 impact on me as a reader who looked forward to reading that novel. Pride and Prejudice lacked any meaning to me as a reader, the plot was terribly predictable, and there was no thematic relevance to me as a reader. Moby Dick, while brilliant in some parts, just proved too tedious. I read that twice.

Have I made that distinction for you now?

I can't comment on Candide and Heart of Darkness because I haven't read them. Now, if you refuse to accept any critical conventions, as DanielBenoit said, that's fine and it means you and I see literature from different perspectives. If you do accept them, though, you must also accept that Pride and Prejudice, even if it might be guilty of the faults you mention, is a good, if a bit mild, satire of the society Austen lived in. You say Moby Dick is tedious. To me that adjective amounts to 'not fun', which does little to refute my point. Anyway, maybe it's a tad long-winded. Such were the times. But you still can't deny the strong and amazing symbolism is contains, which makes it a 'great' book.
Again, if you choose to view literature outside any conventions, my points do not apply to you and I apologise for ranting .


Another awful one- Changing Places by David Lodge. And The Brooklyn Follies by Paul Auster.

[Brad Coelho]

How about a change in thread title to 5 books I shouldn't have read, as opposed to 'nobody' should read? Making others minds up for them is always a losing proposition, much less parlaying your own subjectivity on another. My mother watches movies and reads books that I'd consider vacuous & droll, but then again, she spends her literary & cinematic time much differently than I. My favorite film, Chinatown, she’d loathe for its unhappy ending, and two books that I enjoy immensely, Tropic of Cancer & Confederacy of Dunces, she’d be disgusted w/ for their ribald tone, grotesque characterization (or complete lack there of) & probably call them flatulent farces. Does that mean I shouldn’t have read them?!

[IceM]

That's perfectly fine. And yes, 'great' and 'bad' are just as subjective, if not more ambiguous than 'exciting' or 'boring'. But there is so much to a novel than momentary thrill. If one were to compare a novel like Angels and Demons with Moby-Dick one would find that the plot, charactarization, thematic concerns are all much more complex and deep in the latter. Thus Moby-Dick is considered a great novel in literary society because of these critical conventions. They are not objective in any way, but if one is to accept these conventions then one could consider this novel or that novel to be great or not great within the context of the system we have created. So maybe in a sense calling Moby-Dick a great novel is an appeal to elitism, or at least to that system for which most of us have based our appretiation of a novel.

This can apply to any novel. For example if you like Don Quioxte first and foremost for its character-depth, plot structure, word-structure and thematic/philosophical depth, then yes, you are appealing to the system that "high culture" has set out to describe what makes a great novel.

The only reason why one would argue with you and call your claims that Moby-Dickis "boring" would be because maybe you like Don Quioxte for the reasons described above, and yet can't find those virtues in Moby-Dick. Again, Don Quioxte is merely an example.

The problem with applying a structure of literary conventions to evaluate a work is that, while claiming to be objective, is subjective in the eyes of the reader. Relatively speaking, a strong plot structure, word structure, thematic relevance, and strength/relevance of symbolism are objective ways of evaluating a book. But some people value some aspects more than others. Furthermore, the ability to which a novel fulfills these conventions is in the eyes of the reader. Like the quote below from Escapologist, some find the symbolism in Moby Dick to be amazing and powerful. However, while literary experts can ramble about the significance of Moby Dick, the relevant themes and the impact of the book's symbolism, one must read the book for themselves to truly gauge how well-written a book is. I found 2-5 on my first post dreadful. Surely, each book has a bright spot: I admit that Moby Dick has strong symbolism, and that Candide is darkly humorous. But if a book excels in one standard, that does not instantly posit it as a great work. Moby Dick has strong symbolism, yet that symbolism cannot overcompensate for the lack of thematic relevance to me as a reader; Candide is darkly humorous, but the terrible lack of strong symbolism cannot be ignored. While some books excel in some aspects, they are utterly disasterous in others.

I can't comment on Candide and Heart of Darkness because I haven't read them. Now, if you refuse to accept any critical conventions, as DanielBenoit said, that's fine and it means you and I see literature from different perspectives. If you do accept them, though, you must also accept that Pride and Prejudice, even if it might be guilty of the faults you mention, is a good, if a bit mild, satire of the society Austen lived in. You say Moby Dick is tedious. To me that adjective amounts to 'not fun', which does little to refute my point. Anyway, maybe it's a tad long-winded. Such were the times. But you still can't deny the strong and amazing symbolism is contains, which makes it a 'great' book.
Again, if you choose to view literature outside any conventions, my points do not apply to you and I apologise for ranting .


Another awful one- Changing Places by David Lodge. And The Brooklyn Follies by Paul Auster.

As I said above, because a work excels in one or very few conventions does not warrant that same work being considered a classic. I found Pride and Prejudice poorly written. I found practically 0 thematic strength, symbolism was quite lacking, and more. (Note: I did not read these novels mindlessly, I read them from a desire to.) Applying many of the same literary conventions many other readers accept, I found little value in any of the four novels under question.

I'm more shocked that, because I have an opinion of these four novels that differs from any of those who have posted, instantly I'm "grossly ignorant," a terrible reader, and/or do not accept the typical literary conventions used to evaluate a novel. Wow. I kinda thought having a different opinion was being a free-thinker, you know, what human beings are. I beg you forgiveness. Let me see the literary light!

[Red-Headed]

Candide was terribly written.

I just thought I had read it in a bad translation. I wasn't particularly impressed by it either.

Heart of Darkness had 0 impact on me as a reader who looked forward to reading that novel.

'The horror, the horror'. (Why do I keep thinking of Marlon Brando?). Many people prefer Conrad's The Secret Agent. I have always found it a bit weird that Conrad wrote The Secret Agent as a response to Dostoyevsky's The Devils. I don't know what Heart of Darkness was a response to, if anything. I have always had a sneaking suspicion that people read far too much into it as a novel. Or, of course, I could just be a bit shallow.

Pride and Prejudice lacked any meaning to me as a reader, the plot was terribly predictable, and there was no thematic relevance to me as a reader.

I admire Austen's wit at times, but I have always found her hard work. If however, you ever dare to utter or make a statement such as "Yes, but actually I prefer Anthony Trollope to Austen" you appear to have committed an abominable sin in the eyes of the Janeites & the literary world in general. From then on you have the terrible 'Mark of Jane' to carry on your forehead & must wander in literary oblivion & cannot dare to discuss literature with anyone as you have committed such an abomination.

Moby Dick, while brilliant in some parts, just proved too tedious. I read that twice.

I have only read it once. I must admit that I liked it. It was a bit of a failure when it was first published I believe. If you read it as an adventure novel I think you will be disappointed with it. I think that was one of the problems when it was first published. The long deviations from the main plot were a metaphysical exploration by Melville & I have a feeling that he may have wanted to write two novels but combined the ideas for Moby Dick. It is a true classic. It is a novel that cannot be rushed however. His exploration of 'whiteness' & how it seems to fill us with dread is perfectly realised. Like Conrad it is rich in allegory & symbolism & I think you have to approach it with this in mind. It beats Jane Austen anyway!

[OrphanPip]

'The horror, the horror'. (Why do I keep thinking of Marlon Brando?). Many people prefer Conrad's The Secret Agent. I have always found it a bit weird that Conrad wrote The Secret Agent as a response to Dostoyevsky's The Devils. I don't know what Heart of Darkness was a response to, if anything. I have always had a sneaking suspicion that people read far too much into it as a novel. Or, of course, I could just be a bit shallow.

If it was a response to anything, it was a response to his own brief time in the Belgian Congo. I've always been impressed by Conrad's ability to write in English considering he apparently didn't learn the language until his late teens. I tend to agree with Achebe's assessment of the novel as racist and dehumanizing towards Africans. Nonetheless, it's an interesting novel rich in material to discuss.

[Red-Headed]

If it was a response to anything, it was a response to his own brief time in the Belgian Congo.

Ah! That explains the Congo diary & maps in my edition.

I've always been impressed by Conrad's ability to write in English considering he apparently didn't learn the language until his late teens.

I've never met a Ukrainian who wasn't brilliant at languages.

I tend to agree with Achebe's assessment of the novel as racist and dehumanizing towards Africans. Nonetheless, it's an interesting novel rich in material to discuss.

Didn't Conrad point out the fact that African soldiers were probably stationed in Britain with the Roman Army garrisons at the beginning of the novel? This has been proved from excavations of Roman military cemeteries discovered in the UK. I've never read anything Chinua Achebe has ever written. I doubt I ever will.

[escapologist]

As I said above, because a work excels in one or very few conventions does not warrant that same work being considered a classic. I found Pride and Prejudice poorly written. I found practically 0 thematic strength, symbolism was quite lacking, and more. (Note: I did not read these novels mindlessly, I read them from a desire to.) Applying many of the same literary conventions many other readers accept, I found little value in any of the four novels under question.

I'm more shocked that, because I have an opinion of these four novels that differs from any of those who have posted, instantly I'm "grossly ignorant," a terrible reader, and/or do not accept the typical literary conventions used to evaluate a novel. Wow. I kinda thought having a different opinion was being a free-thinker, you know, what human beings are. I beg you forgiveness. Let me see the literary light!

I'm not saying anyone should consider Pride and Prejudice a classic, I'm just saying it shouldn't be on the "books you should never read" list.

And there's no need to be defensive. No one is attacking you, and if someone said you were 'grossly ignorant', they are probably not worthy of a response from you.


@ Red-Headed: Conrad was Polish. I don't think it makes much difference, but I thought I should point it out, just in case

[juhuulian]

The problem i find with Pride and Prejudice/North South and all that class of stuff is that they are all built on the same frame. They may be well writen (although not so well as to make them great works of literature in my opinion) and one may be able to derive knowledge from them but honestly i think they are completely empty of imagination and creativity. They have no greater meaning behind them or anything. For me they are just tedious empty shell excuses for books...however since reading should be about pleasure (whatever that means for you) anyone who likes these books should definetly not be described as stupid or ignorant. Its all about taste (there are only very few books which are pretty much universlay accepted as good which doesnt mean that for anyone those are the only good books to read).
That is my opinion anyway...