The Worst Classics You Have Ever Read

[Adolescent09]

Have you found any classics that were simply unappealing yet according to to the general public considered some of the most outstanding literary works ever? List classics you have read that have disinterested you and made you slog through several pages of pure banality.

Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Catch-22
2. The Catcher in the Rye
3. A Streetcar Named Desire
4. slow, superfluous chapters in the middle of Moby Dick (although I love the beginning and ending)

If this topic becomes semi-successful it might even be good to state reasons why you found certain classics unappealing (without getting too controversial or starting rants).

Good day, people :)

[Aunty-lion]

Ooooh. What a great idea for a thread! Well done Adol!

I must admit that I loved Catch 22. My mother always hated it until my father read it aloud to her. She thinks that it needs to be read in a certain voice, or, a in an assortment of different voices. But it sounds like her problem with the book was more to do with not really getting all the jokes or the tone of the book in general. It sounds like you have a different issue. Is it poorly constructed in your opinion, or just not your cup of tea??

A lot of my friends recommended Vanity Fair to me, but I gave up after the first 60 pages or so because all the characters just seemed so vacant and uninteresting. I suppose that's probably the point. Does anyone have an opinion about this?? Does it get better? Should I try again?

[malwethien]

Have you found any classics that were simply unappealing, writtten poorly and devoid of a plot with any concievable substance, yet according to to the general public considered some of the most outstanding literary works ever? List classics you have read that have disinterested you and made you slog through several pages of pure banality.

Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Catch-22
2. The Catcher in the Rye

Catch-22 and Catcher in the Rye...are you serious?? These are 2 of my faovirte books! I think these 'devoid of plot with any concievable substance' is a bit harsh :D Of course that is your opinion...but I'd like to know why you think so...

[cuppajoe_9]

Middlemarch, although my claim to have read it is questionable.

[Adolescent09]

Hello Aunty-lion and thank you for replying to this topic with warm appreciation. I find it interesting that you say your mother found interest in Catch-22 after it was read to her.. I have experienced certain books boring when read softly but far more interesting when read aloud but as for Joseph Heller's Catch-22 I believe believe my main grudge against it is the in the way he seems to convolude paragraphs with details upon details which seems to be arbitrarily sloshed together... Take this paragraph for example:


Being born with a sickly resemblance to Hnery Fonda was the first of a long series of practical jokes of which destiny was to make Major Major the unhappy victim throughout his joyless life. Being born Major Major Major was the second. The fact that he had been born Major Major Major was a secret known only to his father. Not until Major Major was enrolling in kindergarten was the discovery of his real name made, and then the effects were disastrous. The news killed his mother, who just lost her will to live and wasted away and died, which was just fine with his father, who had decided to marry the bad-tempered girl at A & P if he had to and who had not been optimistic about his chances of getting his wife off the land without paying her some money or flogging her.

...Now I'm not claiming that this paragraph isn't amusing but can it seriously be called brilliant? I respect your opinion on the book and everyone else who is a die-hard fan of it and Joseph Heller's other works but I am baffled that a few people have claimed it is "the greatest classic of all time" while others have compared its humor to certain Shakespear plays.

----

I'm sorry I can't give you an opinion on Vanity Fair because I haven't read it myself. I'll try to get to William Thackeray after I overcome this mound of Joyce/Dostoevsky.

[Adolescent09]

Catch-22 and Catcher in the Rye...are you serious?? These are 2 of my faovirte books! I think these 'devoid of plot with any concievable substance' is a bit harsh :D Of course that is your opinion...but I'd like to know why you think so...

I guess Catch-22 is not my "cup of tea" as some might say it and the only part of The Catcher in the Rye I found interesting was near the very last page when Caulfield is with his little sister. The F-words were a complete turn off and made me almost rip the book from rage and Caulfield's stuck-up demeanor annoyed me. I didn't even understand the point of the book in general.. and if anything I believe the book conveys a false message by showing a protagonist who avidly smokes, drinks and excercises several attempts to get in contact with a girl who makes him feel amorous... let alone the hooker..

I'm sorry if my phrase "devoid of a plot..." has offended you or anyone else. It actually sounds a bit self-contradictory because I wanted this topic to be very open to diverse perceptions. I will see if I can edit that in my main post and thanks for replying :)

[malwethien]

I guess Catch-22 is not my "cup of tea" as some might say it and the only part of The Catcher in the Rye I found interesting was near the very last page when Caulfield is with his little sister. The F-words were a complete turn off and made me almost rip the book from rage and Caulfield's stuck-up demeanor annoyed me. I didn't even understand the point of the book in general.. and if anything I believe the book conveys a false message by showing a protagonist who avidly smokes, drinks and excercises several attempts to get in contact with a girl who makes him feel amorous... let alone the hooker..

I'm sorry if my phrase "devoid of a plot..." has offended you or anyone else. It actually sounds a bit self-contradictory because I wanted this topic to be very open to diverse perceptions. I will see if I can edit that in my main post and thanks for replying :)

Adolescent don't apoligize...of course that is your opinion and I wasn't offended. Hmmm...where to start? I think I kinda understand what you are trying to say...and I actually can't explain why I or a lot of people like these novels. Maybe you need to read it in the context they were written in? Holden Caulfield is kind of an 'icon' representing the 'coming of age' of a young man...the frustration felt by teenagers of that age...I'm no literary expert so you'd have to excuse me - or the others reading this - my explanation is mine alone and comes from my own experience of reading the novels. Catch-22 is usually seen as an anti-war novel and I think the reason why it was written so...funny and absurd is because Heller was poking fun of the war - the absurdity of it all and how nonsensical it all is. Maybe if you read the background of these novels, you will look at it in another light?

Just a thought...do you think that protagonists should be 'flawless?' Just asking since you pointed out that Holden is a protagonist that has lots of vices...so, do you believe in the protagonist who is all good and moral?

I have also read A Streetcar Named Desire...but I can't remember the story so I didn't comment on it....

[aeroport]

A lot of my friends recommended Vanity Fair to me, but I gave up after the first 60 pages or so because all the characters just seemed so vacant and uninteresting. I suppose that's probably the point. Does anyone have an opinion about this?? Does it get better? Should I try again?

I gave up near the halfway point, for much the same reasons. I was doing a project over basically any work of British literature before 1900-ish and thought I would be cool and ambitious, but it was just not the thing. However, it is definitely considered really great, and as I'm increasingly disgusted with this habit of mine of not finishing books I'll probably go back and do it sometime when there's less pressure.



I'll try to get to William Thackeray after I overcome this mound of Joyce/Dostoevsky.

I rather wonder when Joyce will appear on this thread... :lol:

[nps_marina]

What I actually like about Catch is how he starts telling you something completely off... and you wonder 'why was I reading about this in the first place?'. The Catcher in the Rye also has some of that, so perhaps we have found out your pattern, Adolescent09? ;) Just teasing.

Anyway, I have to agree on some of the ones you've already said: certainly Vanity Fair was a pain, I also dropped it after a while out of sheer boredom for whatever happened to the characters. One day they were showing the movie on TV, I watched just to see 'more or less' what happens, after all. Not that interesting.

And Middlemarch, on the other hand, interests me deeply. I have begun it a few times, but I suddenly get to the politics part and stop short- that's just so blah. But I'll have to finish it someday, just for the sake of the what-happens-next.

Definitely, though, my most-loathed classic would have to be Hemingway's Old Man & The Sea- that book was so disappointing! Supposedly one of the best things you'll read in literature... and I found it so boring...
Recently I thought of picking it up again, you know, perhaps when I had read it the first time I was too young and unappreciative; but my sister, who feels as I do about that book, shook her head vigorously.

I am open to being convinced otherwise regarding that book. So many people seem to like Hemingway, I believe I am doing something wrong...

[Aunty-lion]

I just wrote a great long post about why I love that passage from Catch 22 and I accidentally deleted it so I'm gonna just leave it for now.


I actually can't explain why I or a lot of people like these novels. Maybe you need to read it in the context they were written in?

That's a really good point.

Don't stress Adol, this is a really cool idea for a thread. I'm wondering if you didn't like the F-word in Catcher because you don't like cursing full-stop, or because you didn't think it added to the book.....

[malwethien]

I just realized that I haven't actually listed an answer. The thing with me is, when I find a book boring, I usually stop reading it, so I actually don't know what happens afterwards...ok, I have one.... The Sound and the Fury by Faulkner. I read that about halfway and thought...."huh?" James Joyce too..."The Portrait of an Artist..." and "Ulysses"

[Aunty-lion]

I gave up near the halfway point, for much the same reasons. I was doing a project over basically any work of British literature before 1900-ish and thought I would be cool and ambitious, but it was just not the thing. However, it is definitely considered really great, and as I'm increasingly disgusted with this habit of mine of not finishing books I'll probably go back and do it sometime when there's less pressure.

Yeah, well that's the weird thing, I never leave books unfinished...
Maybe I just didn't get it.

[onyx]

Have you found any classics that were simply unappealing yet according to to the general public considered some of the most outstanding literary works ever?

Yes, Wuthering Heights! Bloody boring book and movie too. Although I don't mind the Bronte family. I own all their novels, but can't say I've read any of them except Jane Eyre.

[Aunty-lion]

Yes, Wuthering Heights! Bloody boring book and movie too. Although I don't mind the Bronte family. I own all their novels, but can't say I've read any of them except Jane Eyre.

What is boring about it? I don't know if I'd say it was my favourite book ever, but I certainly didn't find it boring. I always found it quite melodramatic if anything.

[malwethien]

Have you found any classics that were simply unappealing yet according to to the general public considered some of the most outstanding literary works ever?

Yes, Wuthering Heights! Bloody boring book and movie too. Although I don't mind the Bronte family. I own all their novels, but can't say I've read any of them except Jane Eyre.

LOL onyx...why didn't you like Wuthering Heights? Was it the characters you dind't find appealing or just the story as a whole? You liked Jane Eyre better than Wuthering Heights? I'm the opposite.... ;)

[Stieg]

Yeah, well that's the weird thing, I never leave books unfinished...
Maybe I just didn't get it.

Usually my policy too, but I have left a recent string of books unread -- a Russian fantasy, an Alan Ryan horror, and Mark Gatiss (two books I've since returned to the bookstore). From a lit stance, who cares that I didn't finish these. Experiments is what I rather consider them and I have bigger and better things to move onto besides.

[bazarov]

I rather wonder when Joyce will appear on this thread... :lol:

Portrait of the Artist of a Young Man and Heart of Darkness.

[Nossa]

I don't know if it counts, but since you said classics..I'd go for ANYTHING by Ben Jonson...the guy was WAY better in poetry than he was in plays..I mean I almost always slept while reading Volpone or The Alchemist...they're just too boring!
And I really find it urgent to state that I'm a big fan of The Catcher in The Rye..lol

[Nossa]

Portrait of the Artist of a Young Man and Heart of Darkness.

Yup I almost forgot to mention Heart of Darkness...this IS one of the least interesting books ever...wouldn't try to read it again in a million years! lol

[Adolescent09]

Yup I almost forgot to mention Heart of Darkness...this IS one of the least interesting books ever...wouldn't try to read it again in a million years! lol

I couldn't agree with you more... and excuse me if I'm wrong about this but I think it was Joseph Conrad who said that Dostoevsky's The Brother's Karamazov (which is easily the greatest philosophical book I've ever read) was dull lol.... Dostoevsky's Karamzov runs to around 700 pages whereas Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness is an 80 paged novelette(or is it novella?)... It took me a fortnight to read Karamazov and three months to hollow through Heart of Darkness-- :sick:

Here is Conrad's perception on The Brother's Karamazov (I got this from the comment section at the end of the B&N classics version.):


I do hope you are not too disgusted with me for not thanking you for the "Karamazov" before. It was very good of you to remember me; and of course I was extremely interested. But it's an impossible lump of valuable matter. It is terrifically bad and impressive and exasperating. Moreover, I don't know what D[ostoevsky] stands for or reveals, but I do know that he is too 'Russian' for me. It sounds to me like some fierce mouthings from prehistoric ages. I understand the Russians have just 'discovered' him. I wish them joy

What irony...

That being said, I don't think many people can deny that Joseph Conrad did incorporate a certain degree of eloquence in his writing but just wasn't able to use his great vocabulary to his advantage like exceptional classic-writers Dickens, The Bronte Sisters and Dumas.

[Nossa]

I know!! I mean seriously, reading his remarks on The Brother's Karamazov made me think ONE thing..."look who's talking" lol

[Adolescent09]

LOL... glad we share a similar view on this matter, Nossa. Nice to meet you :)

[Aiculík]

Uh... in fact, there's quite a lot of classics I don't like:

Catch 22
Catcher in the Rye
Moby Dick
Anna Karenina
Sophie's Choice - that book almost destroyed my life. My teacher thought it was the best book of the 20th century... and I dared to disagree... (I tried to read it several times, but I never got beyond page 10.)

Plus, Dickens, Austen and Henry James - yes, all their works. Real pain to read them.

[Adolescent09]

Catch 22, Catcher in the Rye... Moby Dick (some chapters in the middle)

I'm glad you agree with me to an extent Aiculk but I must disagree with your views on Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, Dickens, Austen and James.

I have been enthralled by their works for several years. Nice to see you posted though :)

[Niamh]

Middlemarch, although my claim to have read it is questionable.
you took the word right out of my mouth cuppa. I too do not like Middlesmarch and my claims to have read it are also questionable!:p

Have you found any classics that were simply unappealing yet according to to the general public considered some of the most outstanding literary works ever?

Yes, Wuthering Heights! Bloody boring book and movie too. Although I don't mind the Bronte family. I own all their novels, but can't say I've read any of them except Jane Eyre.

most hated Evil book. Wuthering Heights:sick:

[Aiculík]

Yes, we agree in some points... but I like Heart of Darkness. :) It's in my top 50, in fact.

[aeroport]

Portrait of the Artist of a Young Man and Heart of Darkness.

Ah! Don't say that - I'm reading Portrait for class next month!

[kandaurov]

I must've been lucky, for I can't say that I've been displeased after reading a classic. The closest I got to that was two days ago, after reading Sense and Sensibility... but even after that, I still managed to find it interesting. My reading experience of it was what can best described as being traumatic, but I still like the impression that lingers after the read. Weird, I know.

Oh, I found Wuthering Heights a treat. It surprised me, I thought it would be much more conventional (and a third as complex in terms of narrative). The film adaptation, however, is appalling, to say the least...

Hm, I'm planning on reading Heart of Darkness and Portrait of a Young Man as an Artist... should I drop them and read something else? :p

[grace86]

So many HoD critics. I admit it wasn't one of my easiest to get through. It did take me forever to read it. Some points were rather dull, but overall I am very happy I read it.

HoD, I have trouble describing what I liked about it. I liked that it WASN'T an adventure. Maybe some who didn't like it thought it was?? I liked that it was a frame story, kind of like the reader was walking in on a story. Hmm...don't know, but it does deserve some credit.

But I don't like how Conrad bashed Dostoevsky, he's one of my favorite authors, in that case, I am not sure Conrad had a place to speak.

Hmm...in regards to my choices, I didn't particularly care for Austen's Sense and Sensibility (but will reread it)

and then Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man...3/4 though this book I really had trouble figuring out what was going on, and what the point was.

You know, there was once upon a time when I would have included Fahrenheit 451 by Bradbury because I saw the play done rather badly, but on reading it, there's really no way I could put it in this list.

But I was told you either love Fahrenheit 451 or you hate it.

[Geoffrey]

I think the real problem is that certain books are considered to be in the 'literary canon' while others aren't... 'classic' books really just represent the whoever is deciding they're classic, not the actual quality of the book... which is why I guess we get lists like these...

But anyways, I didn't really like Heart of Darkness (to racist for me) as well as Jane Eyre (I hate the way Bronte writes dialog). hmm, oh yeah, Faulkner - The Sound and the Fury. That books killed me... in a bad way.

[Idril]

hmm, oh yeah, Faulkner - The Sound and the Fury. That books killed me... in a bad way.

I felt the same way about that book. It was the book where I decided that Faulkner simply wasn't for me.

[mtpspur]

Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton. Not a likeable charcater in the whole book. Had Ethan been born with a spine the story would never have been written.

[scotpgot]

Although I feel completely ill-equipped to pass judgment on any "classics", I will name two that I did not care for.

"Portrait of the Artist . . ." I found it difficult to get through this one. I think the style bothered me. However, I'm suspicious my mind might be changed by a 2nd or 3rd or 4th reading.

Also tried, unsuccessfully, to get through "Wealth of Nations". Bad idea. Too dry. Too old.

[bazarov]

Ah! Don't say that - I'm reading Portrait for class next month!

Sorry...Who knows, you might even like it!

[F.Emerald]

Wuthering Heights, Heart of Darkness.

[grace86]

Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton. Not a likeable charcater in the whole book. Had Ethan been born with a spine the story would never have been written.

Haha...that makes me smile for some reason :p Maybe cuz I voted for Age of Innocence instead!

[kenikki]

Frankenstein - Shelley. BUT only on the basis, I was forced to study it intensively for university. I will read it leisurely in the future as I am sure it cannot be that bad.

[metal134]

I must agree with the people who have said Heart of Darkness. I don't actually think it's a bad story, but I don't think Conrad did a very good job at making me care about what was going on. The events in the novel just didn't seem to be portrayed with any kind of significance attached to them.

[drunkenKOALA]

Catcher in the Rye
I really liked this one. The profanity or the protagonist's vices didn't really bother me in the least.

Heart of Darkness
I remember Chinua Achebe had some pretty harsh things to say about Conrad that I wouldn't disagree with. But I still liked this novel, because it was insightful, even though in a somewhat rascist, Eurocentric way.

Wuthering Heights
This one was alright. I enjoyed it, despite its being a bit too melodramatic. For me it's a bit better than Jane Eyre.

Now, to what I don't like: Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. True, I don't think I understood what was going on most of the time. And I don't think I will like Ulysses either.

Oh I also didn't like This Side of Paradise, Tender is the Night, The Beautiful and the Damned (F. Scott Fitzgerald) and The House of Mirth (Edith Wharton). But I don't know if these are considered great classics.

[Adolescent09]

I loved Wuthering Heights. Exceptional writing style especially under the pressure of sexism a woman had to endure at Emily's time.

[kilted exile]

Anything by that dreadful Austen woman, so many times I have made an attempt to read her novels. Then I get this nauseous feeling in my throat and throw the thing away.

[Scheherazade]

Anything by that dreadful Austen woman, so many times I have made an attempt to read her novels. Then I get this nauseous feeling in my throat and throw the thing away.
Come now, come now!
You don't have to be so harsh now!
I am sure you will learn to like Austen, too;
Otherwise, your lady friends will never forgive you!

(OK, I know! I can't write poetry. Let's move on now! :D)

[grace86]

Come now, come now!
You don't have to be so harsh now!
I am sure you will learn to like Austen, too;
Otherwise, your lady friends will never forgive you!

(OK, I know! I can't write poetry. Let's move on now! :D)

I'm a lady who is quite bothered by Austen. I can't get very far reading one of her novels. I will eventually try again in the future.

[bouquin]

Moby Dick
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

[THX-1138]

The great gatsby-Northanger Abbey-Silas Mariner

[Hyacinth42]

Great Gatsby: I hate soap operas

Catcher in The Rye: There was no plot in that book!

Ethan Frome

100 Years of Solitude: See Great Gatsby

The Scarlet Letter: A whole page on a rosebush? And the whole book is like that!

Dracula: Grrr, the boringness of the first chapters is horrible

[mtpspur]

[QUOTE
Dracula: Grrr, the boringness of the first chapters is horrible[/QUOTE]

Strongly disagree with this statement. Its the middle section that puts one in sleepy haze but the castle scenes set a wonderful mood that never quite comes back to the book afterward. Just saying. Rich

[motherhubbard]

The Sound and the Furry - Faulkner is so gifted, I know, but he makes me feel like I need a shower. :sick:

[Adolescent09]

The Sound and the Furry - Faulkner is so gifted, I know, but he makes me feel like I need a shower. :sick:

Make that a tub bath :sick:

[Orual]

Usually, I find that classics are classics for a good reason. There have been a few though, that I would not read again.

The Lord of the Flies is one book that I didn't dislike while I was reading it, but the further removed from it I am, the more I think "that really wasn't very good." It didn't seem realistic to me; Jack declined too quickly and was too much of a outliar--he was corrupt beyond what I would expect from a twelve or thirteen year old bully.

Persuasion has poisoned my mind against Jane Austen. It was just so dull. The characters are introduced, they do nothing for a while, they go somewhere else and continue to do nothing, then someone almost dies but doesn't, then nothingness continues some more. I know the novel was not about action, but really.

I didn't particurally like The Great Gatsby, either. I just found it mediocre, maybe because it wasn't what I was expecting.

[chaplin]

I don't know if they're considered "classics" but I did not enjoy either The Godfather or The Caine Mutiny, The Godfather especially. The whole book was gratuitous, from the violence and sex to the plot itself. The movie, for whatever reason (probably the cast), was an infinitely better work. Everything was sown up and tight and necessary, whereas the book is exhaustively superficial, wandering from gunshot to sexual encounter to gunshot with little aim except the gunshots and sexual encounters themselves.

[Aunty-lion]

I must've been lucky, for I can't say that I've been displeased after reading a classic. The closest I got to that was two days ago, after reading Sense and Sensibility... but even after that, I still managed to find it interesting.

This might be a dumb thing to say, but I never liked Sense and Sensibility until I saw the movie.
This was purely because I couldn't understand what on earth such a cool woman like Elinor could find attractive about Edward. However, when I saw Hugh Grant in the role, I was enlightened as to how such a soppy fop can be attractive and endearing. Kudos Hugh.:thumbs_up

[aeroport]

I didn't particurally like The Great Gatsby, either. I just found it mediocre, maybe because it wasn't what I was expecting.
Agreed, but I'm going to try to give it another shot some day.


Moby Dick
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
I'm beginning to worry about the books from my summer reading (including both of these) winding up on this list...

[Stieg]

That reminds me, This Side of Paradise by Fitzgerald has convinced me not to touch this author's work for a very very long time.

The protagonist is pathetic, the novel revolves around him and his two prep-school chums dreaming about being snobbery elitists and climb the social ladder. They do this everyday, and when someone else succeeds and upstages them outside their small pathetic group they whine like lil'.... well you know what.

This same protagonist also has a tendency to fall head over heals for every woman whom he catches their fancy. He instantly breaks out with the poetry, the roses, the marriage proposals everytime without failure. A real ridiculous chump.

I hope I didn't spoil any major spoilers but the book is that aimless and meaningless. These characters need a life or choke on fishbones or something.

[bazarov]

100 Years of Solitude: There was no plot in that book!



Exactly...



The Godfather especially. The whole book was gratuitous, from the violence and sex to the plot itself. The movie, for whatever reason (probably the cast), was an infinitely better work. Everything was sown up and tight and necessary, whereas the book is exhaustively superficial, wandering from gunshot to sexual encounter to gunshot with little aim except the gunshots and sexual encounters themselves.

I liked that book very much, it's one of my favorites and it's movie adaptation is rally great, probably the best. Everything is exactly the same, I was watching it and thinking to my self..Amerigo will say this, Micheal will say that...

[rafaelnadal]

All stream-of-consciousness novels.

[Adolescent09]

I liked that book very much, it's one of my favorites and it's movie adaptation is rally great, probably the best. Everything is exactly the same, I was watching it and thinking to my self..Amerigo will say this, Micheal will say that...

I must be a complete braindead. Other than the brilliant histrionic performances, camera angles and dialogues I find the plot to The Godfather extensively boring. (I know a lot of people get bashed for acknowledging this but I just had to say it... Perhaps I'll give Mario Puzo's book a look over and see if the source of the movie's adaption appeals to me ;)

[scotpgot]

I would be interested to find out if there is a general divide between those who primarily consider themselves "writers" and those who primarily consider themselves "readers".

For instance, I read "The Portrait of an Artist . . ." primarily because I had read other novels and short stories that name that book as a primary influence. And it was mentioned quite a bit, so I thought, "I should read this". When I did, I found it hard to get through (the sermons in the middle particularly odd). I wonder if I were to go back and analyze the STYLE (as opposed to plot, or character development, etc.) if I would have a completely different opinion. I suppose I would.

I haven't read many of the books on this list, but from what is being said about Dracula, Moby Dick, and some others, I would think those who didn't like these books are primarily Readers. A long description of a house, or a flower, I suppose, is more interesting to a Writer than a Reader. Similarly, the amount of research put into the whaling sections of Moby Dick would probably be more interesting to a Writer than a Reader concerning the subject of research.

[Adolescent09]

I haven't read many of the books on this list, but from what is being said about Dracula, Moby Dick, and some others, I would think those who didn't like these books are primarily Readers. A long description of a house, or a flower, I suppose, is more interesting to a Writer than a Reader. Similarly, the amount of research put into the whaling sections of Moby Dick would probably be more interesting to a Writer than a Reader concerning the subject of research.

Although this seems very plausible and in most cases these statements would be valid.. they are incorrect when you think in terms of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. People ranging in age from 9 - 40 (and typically higher) are enthralled by the lengthy descriptions of Tolkein's tale and the thought he incorporates meticulously into each description every paragraph. I've enountered several LOTR fans who love the trilogy but are not compelled to write themselves... therefore your theory that "The Writer is interested in lengthy descriptions whereas The Reader strives to see substance in plot and continuity" is in this case, inaccurate.

In terms of classics, however, I agree with you completely. :)

[drunkenKOALA]

The Great Gatsby is my favorite novel! I must've read it at least three times. However, none of the Fitzgerald's other works are very good and, as mentioned, This Side of Paradise was so bad that I actually left it unfinished, which I almost never do.

I read the Spanish translation of Godfather and thought that the movies were far better.

[kenikki]

I didn't particurally like The Great Gatsby, either. I just found it mediocre, maybe because it wasn't what I was expecting.

I agree about the Great Gatsby, It is a really good novel, the story would have been flawless if it wasn't for Fitzgerald's sloppy writing. Before I read it, of course we all know about the brilliant idea of the story but the actually text itself is rather poor.

[Stieg]

The Lord of the Flies is one book that I didn't dislike while I was reading it, but the further removed from it I am, the more I think "that really wasn't very good." It didn't seem realistic to me; Jack declined too quickly and was too much of a outliar--he was corrupt beyond what I would expect from a twelve or thirteen year old bully.


But children particularly of this age bracket can be the cruelest persons of all. Now take them, isolate them, and perhaps leave them to fend for themselves. Observe how they begin working out social order amongst themselves. Whether on a deserted island, friends in a empty schoolyard, or hanging in abandoned field for a greater length of time.

[manolia]

Some of my favourite books are mentioned and some that i definately want to read as well..Oh well. I didn't like "Madame Bovary" but i always thought that it was the translation that was bad and not the book. Maybe it's a lot better in french.


I just realized that I haven't actually listed an answer. The thing with me is, when I find a book boring, I usually stop reading it, so I actually don't know what happens afterwards...ok, I have one.... The Sound and the Fury by Faulkner. I read that about halfway and thought...."huh?" James Joyce too..."The Portrait of an Artist..." and "Ulysses"

Hehe Malwe you forgot "Emma"..:D :lol: :lol:


Then I get this nauseous feeling in my throat and throw the thing away.

Maybe it is something you ate..:D :lol:
Typical male reaction (all my male friends loathe Austen).

[chaplin]

I didn't particurally like The Great Gatsby, either. I just found it mediocre, maybe because it wasn't what I was expecting.

I actually liked Gatsby, but maybe it was just because my English teacher worshipped it and I needed a good grade.

[grace86]

I very much liked the Great Gatsby as well.

But...you guys are going to shoot me down...I didn't care for To Kill a Mockingbird. EEEP running!!! It just kind of trailed on to me.

[Pendragon]

All time worst: The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane. I have others I dislike, Great Expectations, Moby Dick, for example, but I abhor Crane or anything written by Sherwood Anderson, even if he is a local writer and actually buried up the hill from my grandfather here in town.

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/ZwinkyPen.gif

[Felixstowe]

Wuthering Heights is terribly dry book. Not bad, but can be in some places.
To Kill A Mocking Bird. That is terrible. Took me forever to read through, and with my English not being very good took a long boring time.
I hate not finishing a book, no matter how terrible.

[Adolescent09]

To Kill A Mocking Bird. That is terrible.

!!O_O!!
I found this book virtually impossible NOT TO LIKE!


Can you explain your position in further detail Flexistowe? I would like to see specifically why you didn't like it :)

[kilted exile]

Maybe it is something you ate..:D :lol:
Typical male reaction (all my male friends loathe Austen).

That is possible, but as a general rule I try to not eat anything I've made myself;)

[andave_ya]

Wuthering Heights was kinda too melodramatic for me. Moby Dick. and Gulliver's Travels. It was just too dryly whimsical for me. I've "read" it several times, getting further every time but I don't think I've actually finished it.

[marilee]

Emma and Pride and Prejudice

[chaplin]

All time worst: The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane... I abhor Crane...

Why, exactly, do you "abhor" Stephen Crane? Abhor connotes some sort of personal resentement, and it seems it would be hard to abhor someone who wrote so little.

He's not the greatest writer ever of course, but Red Badge is a nice portrait of a young soldier facing the realities of war and death, a cliche now, but done well nevertheless. He died in his twenties so his best work was yet to come, and the The Red Badge and Maggie would have been the first steps of a good, if not great, American catalogue of works if his voice hadn't been cut short.

[malwethien]

Hehe Malwe you forgot "Emma"..:D :lol: :lol:

Manolia...that's right....but technically, I have never actually read Emma ;)

[manolia]

Manolia...that's right....but technically, I have never actually read Emma ;)

Yeah i know. We've discussed a lot about that. I am just teasing you Malwe :D . My humble opinion is that you can read something else instead.

[weepingforloman]

I'd have to say that Catcher in the Rye was really not a good book- I suppose it was important in the development of English writing, but puh-lease! Not exciting at all, virtually no plot, just an insane, disgruntled, depressed boy talking about how "phony" everyone is. Also, The Old Man and the Sea- all Hemingway, actually. Most overrated author there is. Totally sparse writing, no passion or flavor to it, nothing good in it at all.

[aabbcc]

There were too many of them to even mention - the books which seem to be generally approved and liked, but which had the opposite impact on me; so here are only a couple that come to my mind amongst the first:

The Catcher in the Rye (J.D.Salinger)
I could never entirely comprehend the anglophone world's admiration for such "mediocre teensy American pseudo-classic", as one of my friends put it in words in class discussion of it; and in fact, it remains the mystery for me till the present day.

Certainly, when we studied it in our Literature class, we analysed all the symbolism in the book, references to popular culture, cut the book's contents literally in pieces as we all bloodily wanted to know what the hell is in that book that impresses the anglophone world so much (our professor was already going crazy with us, needless to mention, and was dying to move on something "more serious") and why the hell the book still seems so "dry" to us; we even read the damned book in original English instead in translation to our language, but even after all that, our opinions of the book were barely changed. Certainly we had some better and fuller picture of it and how (and why) it must be perceived by people who like it, but the book was so uncongenial with us, who grew up on and were educated in, I daresay, more "serious" literature (it was basically a black sheep in our repertoire) , that it still was for us barely something more than just another teen angsty book, just one in the row of many similar we have read outside of school - amusing, but nothing special and terribly, insanely overrated, and certainly not something that belongs to the shelf of "classics".

The Great Gatsby (F.Scott Fitzgerald)
Had it not been, very honestly, a matter of the lost bet, and had I not been "forced" to read it that way, I would have never read it as I would have probably dropped it after ten pages. Whilst I was reading it I was thinking how the book should be used to keep the fire burning in the fireplace.

Madame Bovary (G.Flaubert)
It was one of the books from obligatory school reading repertoire which I could barely bring myself to finish. Unlike the previous books listed, it at least provoked in me some slight track of interest, or some of its parts proved to be borderline amusing, so it was certainly less of a torture to go through.

Also, all the books I have read - or attempted to do so - written by Balzac, Zola or Hemingway. Especially I disliked the books by the latter, whilst Balzac and Zola were not as bad per se as boring for me.

I always try to make a clear distinction whether I disliked the book because I considered it to be very bad per se, or because it bored me to death, but I would still not argue that it is a bad-quality book as such.
The Cather in the Rye, for example, is something I truly consider to be bad book, whilst Le Pere Goriot was "only" very slow and boring.

Only my opinion, though.

[Athos]

I hated 'Tale of Two Cities' and 'Great Expectations'.

Go ahead, maul me =P.

Oh dear...I loved Emma...Knightley is my favorite character Jane Austen had ever designed, and I love the fact that Emma was the only pro-antagonist Austen created with no financial problem...We did Thorton Wilder's 'The Matchmaker' in our school and no one in the play saw the similarities but me; they all told me 'The Matchmaker' was based off of 'Hello, Dolly!' and nothing like Emma.

Stupid teenagers. =P

[kathycf]

It's been interesting reading through the thread and seeing what one person loves, another hates. I guess our likes and dislikes make us unique...:)

There have been books that I have not liked, but usually I find at least one redeeming passage in them. I had to read Ulysses for a class and I just am not a big Joyce fan. However, there are some passages in there that are quite lovely. Too few for me to love the book though.

One book I have never been able to progress through is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. I am not quite sure why....but I always get very tired after reading about 15 pages....

[NickAdams]

Animal Farm!

[Fango]

I understand why a lot of people want to trash "Catcher in the Rye", but I think it won popularity due to its unqiueness, and its sense of simplicity.

Wuthering Heights... I fell asleep myself. The beginning just didn't grab me.

I gotta tell you, I have many classics collecting dust (from the noteworthily ugly Wordsworth editions) on my shelves and I dislike every one of them in every way, shape or form. But I understand HOW it may appeal other people, so it doesn't bother me that they're considered "classics". Though honestly I wouldn't read 90% of Wordsworth classics without banging my head on a wall after the first chapter. Then again, I'm sure they're more universal ones in the mix, but I'm too young to have a good answer...

[Dorian Gray]

I just like classics in general really.

[JBI]

[rolls eyes] No offense but when I read some posts on here I can't help but wonder what some members doing here. If you don't like all these classics perhaps you should just hang out at Starbucks and discuss Stephen King.

You are just as bad as he/she is. He is entitled to dislike any author he/she wants. Just because he/she doesn't like Austen, doesn't mean he is an amateur reader, or that he doesn't like good books; it means plan and simply that his taste varies from yours.

[kilted exile]

disregard

[Dorian Gray]

A lot of people dislike Wuthering Heights. Too dramatic? I think it's beautiful writing myself.

[kilted exile]

Disregard

[Dorian Gray]

Never mind

[kilted exile]

Ok, I got angry in my last couple of posts here. Gone & forgotten

[Stieg]

Animal Farm!

I wouldn't necessarily list it here but I read this novel immediately after being walloped by 1984. The differences are monumental I basically lost touch temporarily upon finishing the latter.

[Angstyface]

My two least favourites would most likely be Great Expectations and Swann's Way.
Mostly Swann's Way-- It might be that I simply 'didn't understand the author's beautiful sense of whatever the story was about', but I found it unbearably slow.

Great Expectations just isn't my cuppa'. I found it boring. It's written, however, very prettily.

[Set of Keys]

'The Picture of Dorian Gray'. Or anything by Oscar Wilde for that matter. Unbearably glib.

[3kixintehead]

What? Catch-22? (BTW this is @ adolescent from several pages back). That was one of my favorite books.

Anyways, I suppose that I hated The Scarlet Letter the most. Monotonous unneeded detail to description is mainly why. But also because it was just a bad revenge story and not a great romance. If we're talking about literature in general, I also don't like Emily Dickenson's poetry. As a matter of fact she is my least favorite poet that I know of.

[manolia]

Animal Farm!

I was wondering if i am the only one who didn't like this book..it seems that there are two of us :D

[NickAdams]

I wouldn't necessarily list it here but I read this novel immediately after being walloped by 1984. The differences are monumental I basically lost touch temporarily upon finishing the latter.

1984 does drop a heavy shadow on Animal Farms shoulders.


I was wondering if i am the only one who didn't like this book..it seems that there are two of us :D

There has to be more. ;)

Who else thinks Yertle the Turtle is a stronger read?

[Annamariah]

I didn't like The Catcher in the Rye. Somehow it didn't make much sense... I like books that actually have a plot of some kind.

Wuthering Heights was a bit better when I read it for second time, but still there's something I don't like.

Anna Karenina was a bit too long and I found remembering the names of all the characters quite difficult...

I could list here some Finnish classics too, which I had to read at school, but no one would probably know them, so I'll just forget about them :D

(But I DO like Jane Austen's books very much :D I didn't, when I first read two of them, but now I do)

[willq9]

Confession: Based on the two works of his that I've read, I can't say I care too much for Dostoevsky. The Idiot annoyed me through both its unconvincing melodrama (Exagerated swagger may be convincing in a more fantastic, heightened reality, but in a realistic domestic setting, it comes across as almost campy) and its irritating characters. Notes from Underground.... Well, lets just say the French Existentialists would do similar things better. Sorry, but I think Nabakov may have had Fyodor pegged. Perhaps Crime and Punishment or The Bros. Karamazov would go down better?

[RaatKiRanii]

I was wondering if i am the only one who didn't like this book..it seems that there are two of us :D


I didn't like it, i just could not get over those pigs walking and dressing like people. Stupid, i know. BUT still. i will say it was oddly interesting when everyone was discussing it's theme but those "themes" never crossed my mind while reading it. Once the teacher brought it up it was like, "ohhh...yeah. i guess that makes sense."

Oh and has anyone tried reading the English Patient? Geez, now that was a boring book. No matter how many times i gave it a chance I just couldn’t get into it.

[manolia]

I didn't like it, i just could not get over those pigs walking and dressing like people. Stupid, i know. BUT still. i will say it was oddly interesting when everyone was discussing it's theme but those "themes" never crossed my mind while reading it. Once the teacher brought it up it was like, "ohhh...yeah. i guess that makes sense."

Oh and has anyone tried reading the English Patient? Geez, now that was a boring book. No matter how many times i gave it a chance I just couldn’t get into it.

Oh don't worry, i knew perfectly well what the book was talking about ;)

[Inderjit Sanghe]

I have never really liked Hemingway, Faulkner or Fitzgerald-the (in my opinion) troika of American mediocrity.

[Lote-Tree]

Oh don't worry, i knew perfectly well what the book was talking about ;)

And that was?

[NickAdams]

I have never really liked Hemingway, Faulkner or Fitzgerald-the (in my opinion) troika of American mediocrity.

Even so, you have to appreciate the fact that they, minus Fitzgerald, influenced at least three of your favorite authors. Especially Faulkner: the author who inspired Marquez to become a writer.:nod:

[Hyatt07]

The Turn of the Screw and Great Expectations

[manolia]

And that was?

Read it and see for yourself ;)

[kandaurov]

Oh, c'mon, Animal Farm is a terrific satire. Don't tell me you read it as if it were a boring fable involving pigs! And just because it's analogy is reminiscent of that of the fables and because it isn't wordy, Animal Farm should by no means be seen as a lesser novel.

This is the humble opinion of a teen, bear in mind, and even though you are more than entitled to have your opinions, I'm also entitled to differ from them ;)

[NickAdams]

For me, an allegory has to work in both its latent and manifested story.

[manolia]

Oh, c'mon, Animal Farm is a terrific satire. Don't tell me you read it as if it were a boring fable involving pigs! And just because it's analogy is reminiscent of that of the fables and because it isn't wordy, Animal Farm should by no means be seen as a lesser novel.

This is the humble opinion of a teen, bear in mind, and even though you are more than entitled to have your opinions, I'm also entitled to differ from them ;)

I didn't say that it is a lesser novel. I just said that i didn't like it at all. Can't one be entitled of his/hers own opinion?

[kandaurov]

I didn't say that it is a lesser novel.

And I didn't say you said that :) I'm just saying it should not be seen as one.


Can't one be entitled of his/hers own opinion?

You are. Didn't you read me saying precisely that, in those precise words? I'm just giving my opinion, which happens to contrast with yours. That's what keeps debates going :)

[manolia]

You are. Didn't you read me saying precisely that, in those precise words? I'm just giving my opinion, which happens to contrast with yours. That's what keeps debates going :)

Yes i agree. Here's what annoyed me a bit in your own words



Don't tell me you read it as if it were a boring fable involving pigs!

It seemed that you were presuming too much. There are certain reasons why i strongly disliked this book and the one you suggest isn't even close. Sorry if i was a bit jumpy ;)

[Dorian Gray]

Well, Animal Farm is no Dickens.

[kilted exile]

Well, Animal Farm is no Dickens.

No, it sometimes seems unfair that Dickens got so much talent and people like Austen got so little ;) :p :goof:

[kathycf]

Tess of the d’Urbervilles. Sorry Hardy fans, but that just put me to sleep. If only sleeping medication was as reliable.

Kilted, are we going to have to start calling you an Anti-Austenite? :p ;)

[NotWoodhouse]

Of Mice and Men I hate Stienbeck in general but this was what inspired most of that hatred.

[ruhbr_ducky]

Of Mice and Men shows one of the truest forms of love, how on earth could you hate it ????

[NotWoodhouse]

Because it was depressing.

[ruhbr_ducky]

a little yes, but when you really loved some one and you break up arn't you depressed but it was love so it was wonderful.

[NotWoodhouse]

I don't quite understand your logic. Love is wonderful but once you break up is the love still there?

[Dorian Gray]

Kilted, are we going to have to start calling you an Anti-Austenite? :p ;)

He's only saying that to annoy me.

Hey Angry Scotman, did you get your kilt in a twist? :P

[Annamariah]

I forgot Age of Innocence from my list. I managed to read it through, but it wasn't the least bit interesting.

[Set of Keys]

Two modern classics that hurt.

'Zazie In The Metro'- Raymond Queneau. Piss weak.

'Rabbit, Run'- John Updike. Debut novelist writes 20,000 words before thinking of idea for novel.

[Nightshade]

Tom Sawyer...( is it even called that? By Twain) Inever get past the fence incedent in the first chapter I just fall a sleep right off. Its rather ridiculous really.

[kilted exile]

He's only saying that to annoy me.

Hey Angry Scotman, did you get your kilt in a twist? :P

Quite true, and as for my kilt it has been in a permanent twist recently :p



Kilted, are we going to have to start calling you an Anti-Austenite? :p ;)


I may have to change "shiftless layabout" to reflect that.

[aeroport]

Sorry...Who knows, you might even like [A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man]!
***SPOILERS AHEAD***

You know, I didn't think it was so bad. I could have done with one or two fewer sermons in Chapter III, but oh well... I wasn't sure I would be too impressed, since he's kind of leading the reader to sympathize with his lapse into 'sin', his repentance and spiritual reawakening, and his eventual rejection of everything. It seems like a pretty unreasonable ambition for a writer, but I think his use of fear to guide Stephen into repentance - rather than, say, contriving some kind of divine inspiration - actually works rather well. I was pretty terrified myself after those endless descriptions of Hell...
I can understand people not liking it, though.

[kathycf]

I may have to change "shiftless layabout" to reflect that.
Ah, very good. :lol: I really can't stand John Irving, even though he is supposed to be a modern "classic" writer. Maybe I should change my user description to reflect that...:p

[ForKnowledge]

david copperfield
david copperfield
david copperfield

[aeroport]

I want so badly to say Waiting for Godot, but...I'm really afraid there might indeed be something to it. Who knows.
I seem to be developing an interesting relationship with Mr. Beckett's works - I should like to call it "love/hate", but it really seems more often than not to lean towards the latter....

[kandaurov]

I read Waiting for Godot and I loved it because I found it hilarious. All seemed so nonsensical to me. Later, in college, we had to analyse it thoroughly, and now I see quotes, references, symbolisms and frail aspects of the human condition everywhere. Even though one usually must be wary of over-analysing literary works (check Nossa's thread), I'm now quite sure that everything in that play has a purpose, and nothing is written at random, contrary to what I had originally thought. Like when I first read T. S. Eliot. Modernist writers, pfui :p

[Niamh]

I want so badly to say Waiting for Godot, but...I'm really afraid there might indeed be something to it. Who knows.
I seem to be developing an interesting relationship with Mr. Beckett's works - I should like to call it "love/hate", but it really seems more often than not to lean towards the latter....

I have a love/hate relationship with 'godot'. And have had for six years now.

[aeroport]

I have a love/hate relationship with 'godot'. And have had for six years now.

This seems all-too understandable. Unfortunately, I'm feeling that way about all of the novels we looked at in class as well, except perhaps Murphy. They're all pretty funny, but at some point they all turn into something like this: "Well, actually no, what I just said is wrong. Why would I have said that? Why do I say anything? So that I don't have to afterwards. To speak in order to eliminate the need for speech. To reach silence." Plus another hundred pages or so...
Or, even better: "Forgive me if I omit some of the important stuff. It's bound to happen. It's isn't that I want to necessarily, but I do get a bit hung up on the trivialities. But then how can I call them trivialities? What do I know and as a matter of fact what the hell do you know about trivialities. Most presumptuous. Forgive me or don't forgive me, as if I could really give a damn." ... and on and on and on.....
I would probably enjoy it all a lot more, I suppose, if we weren't covering several works each day. Beckett and Joyce have got to be the two writers least compatible with the rigor of a condensed three-week seminar...:(

[Behemoth]

Beckett and Joyce have got to be the two writers least compatible with the rigor of a condensed three-week seminar...:(

I have just had a very similar experience myself; 1 hour on Beckett alone was nowhere near enough, but combined with Conrad and Orwell this was just too much :eek: So much for 'revision' seminars...

[Turk]

Definetely Jean Paul Sartre's trilogy. Also Gogol's Dead Souls (mainly because it was unfinished).

[NickAdams]

I want so badly to say Waiting for Godot, but...I'm really afraid there might indeed be something to it.

I feel the same about the Stranger; I enjoyed only two scenes from the book.

I do love Waiting for Godit. I haven't analyzed it much, but I still enjoy the story. Great humor and I would love to see this performed by actors with chemistry and great comedic timing.

[aeroport]

I feel the same about the Stranger; I enjoyed only two scenes from the book.


Ah, yes. *reminisces...not fondly*

[Woland]

The Sound and the Furry - Faulkner is so gifted, I know, but he makes me feel like I need a shower. :sick:

It's thoroughly rancid and so one of my favorites.

[paulweller]

I usually don't leave a book unfinished but I gave up reading Henry James' Turn of the Screw halfway through.


__________________
Bill
Ford Ka Brochure 2007 by Ford Motor Company Limited UK (http://www.who-sells-it.com/cy/ford-motor-company-limited-uk-2014/ford-ka-brochure-2007-8761.html)

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I couldn't finish Fahrenheit 451 and sparknoted Dracula in high school. Kate Chopin's The Awakening wasn't good either, the same idea as Madame Bovary but much worse.

Catcher in the Rye was a phenomenal book, it isn't taught very well in school. Gatsby and Madame Bovary were excellent as well.

[SteveH]

Chaucer's 'Troilus and Criseyde': unreadable, even in modern English translation. Pity, because I love much of his other stuff.

Thackeray's 'Vanity Fair': thoroughly nasty book, in which all the supposedly likable people, including Becky Sharp, are vile.

Proust's 'Remembrance of Things Past', in the early translation published under that title. Nothing ever happens, and it's described not-happening in unbelievably tedious detail, and ridiculously long and complex sentences, some as long as a very respectable paragraph, with clauses, sub-clauses, sub-sub-clauses, parentheses, parentheses within parentheses, and hell knows what else. Somehow, I made it to half-way through the second volume (of 12), before I gave up.

MDR, above, has just reminded me of 'Madame Bovary' (nasty) and 'The Awakening' (Bovary rip-off - nasty as well, and boring into the bargain).

'Jude the (deservedly) Obscure' by Hardy. Bored the arse off me. So did 'Return of the Native' and 'Far from the Madding Crowd'. I have not read, and will not read in the future on the strength of those three, any other Hardy novels. I quite like some of his poetry, though.

[Lyn]

I really like Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde, but I did read it alongside Henrysons Testament of Cresseid which is pure brilliance.
I could never be bothered with Heart of Darkness. Didn't find it horrifying. Dracula I also found tedious.

[Haven]

The French Lt. Woman, liked the film but the book no.

[Haven]

In fact I think I took a viscious pleasure in reading almost all of the book and then not the last three pages.

[Stieg]

I did not enjoy The Stars My Destination too much, the story started off thrilling and intriguing but as the novel progressed Gully Foyle the cro-magnon Merchant Marine quest of revenge begins to unravel in contrivance upon contrivance. And when I learned the whos and the whys of Gully's abandonment upon that derelict spaceship flotsam jetsam ... oh ... my ... gawd. How EVIL to put me through this mild endurance challenge just to bat me on the nose and poke me with a stick!

Yarrrrrggggghhaiaiaiaia!

And my home went through some renovations recently and had stopped reading at page 207 of a 258 page book. Failed to finish it but still have my bookmark slapped between the pages.

I didn't even learn about the mystery behind the burning man... don't ask... 'less you've read the book.

[Jennyfrijole]

Oh dear god, it would have to be Slaughter House Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Though it is very very sad that he is dead, I hated that book. Because it was a classic I picked it for a book report, thinking "hey, it's a classic, people talk about it, it's gotta be good!" So after I discovered I hated it I had to finish it, unfortunately.

I was around 15 at the time, and sometimes I think "well, maybe I was just too young to really grasp it's 'amazingness' or something" .... but nope, every time I pick it up again I still hate it.

[fudgmonkees]

The Lord of the Flies is one book that I didn't dislike while I was reading it, but the further removed from it I am, the more I think "that really wasn't very good." It didn't seem realistic to me; Jack declined too quickly and was too much of a outliar--he was corrupt beyond what I would expect from a twelve or thirteen year old bully.

I agree entirely!!!! What was especially frustrating was that EVERYBODY else in my english class loved the book and couldn't understand why I didn't. I dont care that Jack wears a mask -- 12 year old boys dont just become murderers, and wouldn't some of the other boys have questioned him instead of being such sheep? (the only people i have met who display such lack of individual thinking were my classmates) It's like Golding was so set on teaching his lessons to us that he sacrificed the characters.


I didn't particurally like The Great Gatsby, either. I just found it mediocre, maybe because it wasn't what I was expecting.

I also didn't like The Great Gatsby. Again my frustration was increased by EVERYBODY else loving it including my english teacher. Pretty much its about selfish self-centered rich people and I found NO meaning into my own life and learned NOTHING from it. I remember my teacher saying that the characters are complex because "they are archetypical rich people except that they have problems" HELLO! having problems is what MAKES a rich person archetypical. when do we see rich people that dont have problems?

moby dick - boring

i loved catcher in the rye. perhaps i was lucky that the first time i read it my teacher led fairly in-depth discussions, because the second time i read it my teacher (the same one who loves fitzgerald) skipped over almost all of the things that i found important.

so maybe i would like gatsby more if it was with a different teacher?

[jon1jt]

Have you found any classics that were simply unappealing yet according to to the general public considered some of the most outstanding literary works ever? List classics you have read that have disinterested you and made you slog through several pages of pure banality.

Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Catch-22
2. The Catcher in the Rye
3. A Streetcar Named Desire
4. slow, superfluous chapters in the middle of Moby Dick (although I love the beginning and ending)

If this topic becomes semi-successful it might even be good to state reasons why you found certain classics unappealing (without getting too controversial or starting rants).

Good day, people :)


there are no "worst" classics, only worst readers of the classics. :p

[fudgmonkees]

I should also add that though Hemingway is a little dry, it is exactly his sparsity that makes his writing impressive. Fitzgerald doesn't bother to find the mot juste, he just throws all of them in there. Extra words, however flowery they may be, make writing seem juvenile to me. It's almost as though only less-sophisticated readers "fall for" the wordiness.

[Twister]

Heart of Darkness
Turn of the Screw

I did, however, like Apocalypse Now which is an adaptation of Heart of Darkness.


there are no "worst" classics, only worst readers of the classics. :p


I guess a newbie such as myself shouldn't try to tackle Conrad's work. :)

[Stieg]

Oh dear god, it would have to be Slaughter House Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Though it is very very sad that he is dead, I hated that book. Because it was a classic I picked it for a book report, thinking "hey, it's a classic, people talk about it, it's gotta be good!" So after I discovered I hated it I had to finish it, unfortunately.

I was around 15 at the time, and sometimes I think "well, maybe I was just too young to really grasp it's 'amazingness' or something" .... but nope, every time I pick it up again I still hate it.

15 is abit young for Vonnegut ... I think. I imagine he would have bored me to tears at that age. But this book when read in the correct context is a riot in short controlled bursts.

[_Shannon_]

Without a doubt- Love in the Ruins by Walker Percy....ohhhh!! how I loathed that book!

[linz]

I had the idea once of reading the most famous of the classics, after Bovary I gave up on it. The town of Flaubert's novel was dull, as were all the people in it and the descriptions of it, which was his point I suppose. I still hated it!

[Stieg]

On The Road is terribly dull and boring.

Rucksack bohemians on the road to everywhere.

[tudwell]

I didn't dislike On the Road, but it's certainly nothing great. It was entertaining and perhaps it "captured the spirit of the '50s", but as a great piece of literature it just falls on its face.

Another classic I didn't care for is The Old Man and the Sea. Hemingway's prose, especially in this novel, is just too flat and boring, and his characters cardboard.

I'm kinda surprised, though, (and I probably shouldn't be) at how many people dislike Faulkner in this thread. I can't get enough of him!

[Stieg]

Oh man, I found the constant travel and occassion soap between the characters unbelievably tedious and disorientating with the protagonist's circle of friends seperating and regathering at popular "beat" places throughout the continental States (gee, a small world it had been back then ;) ) and hookin up with different lovers and one night stands.

Plus the dialogue was so blase.

Maybe, in it's day it did "capture the spirit of the '50s" but to me downright trite.

[Video Drone]

The least satisfying book for me was The Great Gatsby. I cannot say that the book is bad, but, on the other hand, I think it was written for its time and intended for its time. Today, I see no point in reading it but for historical reasons. I don't see how it is relevant today. Perhaps I am missing something?

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Gatsby has many themes, most of which are relevant today, although the plot definitely reflected 1920's zeitgeist. People haven't changed much since then.

[Video Drone]

It seemed like a regular love story to me. Except from the 1920's. It was an interesting era, though.

[Ineverland]

On the Road was badly written and I hated Muriel Spark's prime of Miss Jean Brodie. It was dull and pointless.

[Stieg]

On the Road was badly written

Prosaic styles is the main reason I give Fritzgerald and Kerouac wide berths on the bookshelves.

[Monica]

Oh dear god, it would have to be Slaughter House Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Though it is very very sad that he is dead, I hated that book. Because it was a classic I picked it for a book report, thinking "hey, it's a classic, people talk about it, it's gotta be good!" So after I discovered I hated it I had to finish it, unfortunately.

I was around 15 at the time, and sometimes I think "well, maybe I was just too young to really grasp it's 'amazingness' or something" .... but nope, every time I pick it up again I still hate it.


I also hate this book. Generally, Vonnegut. I've read several of his books and I don't like any one of them. He is the favourite writer of my close friend and we always argue about his prose. But I just cannot make myself like his books, however hard I try.

I also couldn't manage more than a few pages of Conrad's "Nostromo", it was a sheer torture for me.

[beat wanderer]

I wouldn't say that there are many classics that I hate. There are however quite a few I didn't enjoy as much as their classics status led me to believe I would. I usually find however that reading something a second time helps alot. Once i understand the plot and other basics i can start appreciating the novel alot more the second time around. I don't always find myself entralled reading classics but there is usually always something to be appreciated about them. Some books that i didn't even like the first time around have actually become some of my favourites after subsequent readings. These include On The Road, Catcher in the Rye and Slaughterhouse 5. I guess with those three what dissapointed me was expecting too much from their classic status from what i had read previously about them. But they all grew on me in a major way after time. I also found that Heart of Darkness is an excellent book. The first time around i found it boring and foggy, but felt I was reading
something powerfull. After having to read it a few times for an essay i have found that it's one of the darkest and most powerfull books i've read. Also I loved Of Mice and Men. Yes the ending is incredibly depressing but I look for good books to move me emotionally in any way. A book doesn't have to leave me feeling good at the end for me to enjoy it. Sounds contradictory I know

Now for some of the classics i don't quite care for. Although I have only read them once each :p

Animal Farm: Although I get that it was about more than what was on the surface I still found it too simplistic. It just felt like I was reading a childrens book.

Catch 22: I actually found this book quite funny, but i found that it seemed to go no where and it felt like the humour was recycled and repetitive. I only made it half way through this one. It wasn't that it was that bad, it's just that i went on to something different and never went back. I'll read it again eventually though.

Pride and Prejudice: Although the writing itself is excellent I found that not enough happened to keep my attention. I also found that i hated most of the characters in the book with a passion. Also i grasped the irony at the start of the book but as i went on i found that I was ignoring it and taking everything that happened at face value

[manfredk]

I did not like this book very much. It's not the cruel parts in it which is dislike, but in my opinion Mr. Remarque has problems to really go on with the story. It's
something like carrying a heavy load of words, situations, relationships, but it all ends in a sort of 'making the way around it'. In German language it was the best selling book ever published. So this is a bit strange for me.

[Moira]

Oh man, I found the constant travel and occassion soap between the characters unbelievably tedious and disorientating with the protagonist's circle of friends seperating and regathering at popular "beat" places throughout the continental States (gee, a small world it had been back then ;) ) and hookin up with different lovers and one night stands.

Plus the dialogue was so blase.

Maybe, in it's day it did "capture the spirit of the '50s" but to me downright trite.

I was so looking forward to reading On the road, heard so many great thinks about the novel and i was really dissapointed. I'm glad to see i am not the only one:).

I'm not saying it's bad, it's just that it didn't do much for me.

[Virgil]

I was so looking forward to reading On the road, heard so many great thinks about the novel and i was really dissapointed. I'm glad to see i am not the only one:).

I'm not saying it's bad, it's just that it didn't do much for me.

I agree it's not a great novel. But I found it a fun read.

[Moira]

I agree it's not a great novel. But I found it a fun read.

I didn't finish it.:( I've read half of it and gave up.

[Scheherazade]

I was so looking forward to reading On the road, heard so many great thinks about the novel and i was really dissapointed. I'm glad to see i am not the only one:).

I'm not saying it's bad, it's just that it didn't do much for me.Couldn't agree more, Moira.

There have been lengthy discussion on this book if you would like to have a look:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2010&highlight=road

[hastalavictoria]

Lord of the Flies. every single second of it. absolutely the worst I have ever read. I don't even like to think about it, that's how much I hated it.

[Moira]

Couldn't agree more, Moira.

There have been lengthy discussion on this book if you would like to have a look:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2010&highlight=road

Thanks Scher,

I enjoyed the disussions:) and feel better now for not liking the novel.:lol: :lol:

[Stieg]

I was so looking forward to reading On the road, heard so many great thinks about the novel and i was really dissapointed. I'm glad to see i am not the only one:).

I'm not saying it's bad, it's just that it didn't do much for me.

Reading On The Road was the literary equivalent of viewing "realism" in film.

I still haven't finished Cat's Cradle, I would rather bang my head against stones than torture myself through Vonnegut's drivel against the religious ... see the cat, see the cradle.

[NickAdams]

Reading On The Road was the literary equivalent of viewing "realism" in film.

That's a bad thing?

[Stieg]

That's a bad thing?

Absolutely not but this novel has about as much excitement as watching paint dry. Very mundane content.

[NickAdams]

Absolutely not but this novel has about as much excitement as watching paint dry. Very mundane content.

Bland content, but how's the prose?

[Stieg]

Bland content, but how's the prose?

Didn't care for it, no milieu blasting off the pages IMO for a book of this nature. I think that is essential. Quite circular, redundant in subject matter a la "same things just different day".

[Moira]

Reading On The Road was the literary equivalent of viewing "realism" in film.

I still haven't finished Cat's Cradle, I would rather bang my head against stones than torture myself through Vonnegut's drivel against the religious ... see the cat, see the cradle.

I don't know about Cat's Cradle but i'm enjoying Slaughterhouse 5 very much at present.:thumbs_up

[Stieg]

I don't know about Cat's Cradle but i'm enjoying Slaughterhouse 5 very much at present.:thumbs_up

I loved Slaughterhouse-5 but I did not find Cat's Cradle nearly as funny and the philosophical commentary, though layered on, is too tedious and not nearly driven home as deeply than in the previous novel.

Though there is a few chapters (3 or 4) taking satirical jabs at Albert Schweitzer, his literary works, and some popular culture associated with him that ROCKED. Otherwise, the novel came across a soap box rant a dull one at that.

[Sibyl]

I didn't like Madame Bovary at all when I read it. I didn't like the plot nor Flaubert's writing style...
And I'm not too fond of Dickens either, but that's probably just because of personal taste, since long descriptions bore me.

[Brigitte]

I could never really fully appreciate Faulkner's work. I read three of his novels - three! I think it hurt me deep inside. xD I don't ever want to read a Faulkner novel again.

I read, The Sound and the Fury, As I Lay Dying, and Intruder In The Dust.
*shudders*

[barbara0207]

And I'm not too fond of Dickens either, but that's probably just because of personal taste, since long descriptions bore me.

I just skim the passages with long descriptions if they get too boring. Otherwise I love Dickens - except "The Pickwick Papers". I never finished them, although I tried several times.
Another book I couldn't finish was "The Plague" by Albert Camus. But then I generally have a problem with French authors - we just don't seem to speak the same language, if you know what I mean ...:) I prefer German, British and American writers.

[Mortis Anarchy]

Definetely Jean Paul Sartre's trilogy. Also Gogol's Dead Souls (mainly because it was unfinished).

I agree with Sartre...wow...I've only just started it a couple of days ago...

[applepie]

Grapes of Wrath was the worst for me. There was an entire chapter about dirt and a turtle. I'm sure this had some significance, but blech. I couldn't even bring myself to finish the book.

[Brigitte]

I just skim the passages with long descriptions if they get too boring. Otherwise I love Dickens - except "The Pickwick Papers". I never finished them, although I tried several times.
Another book I couldn't finish was "The Plague" by Albert Camus. But then I generally have a problem with French authors - we just don't seem to speak the same language, if you know what I mean ...:) I prefer German, British and American writers.

Ooooh yeah. The Plague kept putting me to sleep. It took me an entire summer to read. Seriously. Argh. It was when I came back to school that I learned about existentialism and lalala. It's still a boring book to me, too. :p

[quasimodo1]

Now here's an opportunity. While in university, after my third major change, it was Enligh Lit. One of the courses I signed on for was "Restoration Literature" and that was a mistake. Should have sampled it more first. It was really a dip in the quality of EL (e.g. "She Stoops to Conquer") and I voiced this in a final (essay question). Of course the prof. thought this not to be the case and failed me on that test. Although i pushed through the course...this didn't help. quasimodo1

[chaplin]

Gogol's Dead Souls (mainly because it was unfinished).

I don't see how you can criticize a book merely because the author didn't finish a work, as in Dead Souls case. That means that The Mystery of Edwin Drood, Amerika, The Castle and many others are automatically devoid of any literary merit because they were not finished. I don't agree.

[Turk]

Do i have to like a half-novel? It's very natural to get disappointed when you finish the book in the middle of story.

[ThousandthIsle]

On The Road is terribly dull and boring.

Rucksack bohemians on the road to everywhere.

Agreed! I think it was Capote who said, "That isn't writing - that's typing!" :lol:

I didn't enjoy it myself... Which is disappointing - you'd think that a text that sprang from a drug binge would have produced something that enhanced every day events, rather than dulled them down.


Grapes of Wrath was the worst for me. There was an entire chapter about dirt and a turtle. I'm sure this had some significance, but blech. I couldn't even bring myself to finish the book.

I loved the Grapes of Wrath. I think the part you mentioned was one of the chapters where none of the characters appeared, and it described the dust bowl, the famine, the earth and humanity in general. Those chapters (which appeared in between every chapter of the Joads' saga) were my favorites - I thought they depicted the tragedy and suffering of the time beautifully, and drew empathy from the reader. I hated every single one of the Joads, was annoyed when any of them had dialog, but somehow I couldn't stop reading. Someone I discussed this with once said that the Joads are not meant to be liked... Maybe, with that in mind, more people would enjoy the book?

I think the book was effective because the Joads were unlikable... I can't imagine I would be too likable under their living conditions either.

[SnowQueen189]

Alright, I didn't read all the proceeding posts, but for me Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm was the most boring story on the face of the earth!!! It made me want to rip my hair out!

I didn't like Anne of Green Gables much either, but by the 3rd one or so it got to be halfway decent (I received the entire series for christmas one year).

[NickAdams]

I'd like to toss One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest on the dung pile.
I'm going through narrative therapy with Mr. Beckett at the moment.

[chjjacks]

Finnegans Wake

I did not really care for all the 'word-play'. I understand to really get something out of it, I would have to study it more in depth. But I don't find it as impressive as some scholars. I believe Joyce said he wrote it to give them (scholars) something to write about for 200 years.

My favorite thing about it is the first and last sentence (which are the same - - begins with the end and finishes with the beginning).

[AuntShecky]

I have to admit I loved the quartet you mentioned, even the inner chapters of "Moby Dick" (they are quite funny.)
the worst "classics" I was assigned to read (back when I was in school, during the Jurassic Era) were:
Jalousie by Robbe-Grillet (if you take Ambien, etc. and have problems, just read that book. You'll be stacking zzzs
before you can say "Mon Dieu!")
and
Lord of the Flies by William Golding. God, what a boring book, and yet I hear one of the networks is basing a reality show on it! Wow.
p.s. Cf. the blog site of yours truly, w. prior permission to post from the Forum's administrator

journals.aol.com/auntshecky711/aunt-sheckys-news-without-clues

[metal134]

I can't put my finger on why, but I wasn't terribly fond of "Heart of Darkness"

[SnowQueen189]

Oh! I thought of another one! I hated The Great Gatsby. I had to read it for my lit class last year. Everyone else liked it, but for some reason I just couldn't stand it...but I did like Fitzgerald's Winter Dreams...

[metal134]

Oh! I thought of another one! I hated The Great Gatsby. I had to read it for my lit class last year. Everyone else liked it, but for some reason I just couldn't stand it...but I did like Fitzgerald's Winter Dreams...
I sort've agree with that one. I didn't hate "The Great Gatsby", but I left wondering what the big deal with it was. I thought it was OK, but I don't see why everyone fawns over it so much. And I very much like the writing of F. Scott Fitzgerald.

[Noisms]

Now here's an opportunity. While in university, after my third major change, it was Enligh Lit. One of the courses I signed on for was "Restoration Literature" and that was a mistake. Should have sampled it more first. It was really a dip in the quality of EL (e.g. "She Stoops to Conquer") and I voiced this in a final (essay question). Of course the prof. thought this not to be the case and failed me on that test. Although i pushed through the course...this didn't help. quasimodo1


God, yeah, I had the exact same experience in my English Lit. classes at university. Things really took a dip after Shakespeare died. But then again, Pilgrim's Progress was written around then, and I like that. And Paradise Lost.

Worst Classic Ever [tm] has to be The Scarlet Letter. Awful, turgid, dreary nonsense in page-long sentences full of words like "visage" and "interrim". I've never spent a longer two days than the ones I spent on that.

[libernaut]

Huckleberry Finn and Pride and Prejudice. So over rated.

[PeterL]

I can't put my finger on why, but I wasn't terribly fond of "Heart of Darkness"

I can easily understand why someone wouldn't like that. It was written by a man who didn't really understand English, and he was trying to describe situations that were dark and unpleasant.

[Video Drone]

Oh! I thought of another one! I hated The Great Gatsby. I had to read it for my lit class last year. Everyone else liked it, but for some reason I just couldn't stand it...but I did like Fitzgerald's Winter Dreams...Same here, hated the book. :crash:

[Dickens59]

Pride and Prejudice.
I keep trying to read it and can only get half way through. I just don't care about the characters. I will try other Austen though.

[Mary Sue]

Silas Marner. I remember having to read this in high school, and how bleak and depressing I found it. :bawling: I really enjoyed George Eliot's other masterpiece, The Mill on the Floss, but not this one.

[Quark]

Silas Marner. I remember having to read this in high school, and how bleak and depressing I found it. :bawling: I really enjoyed George Eliot's other masterpiece, The Mill on the Floss, but not this one.

You found it depressing? Did you to the end? Silas regains his faith in humanity and Eppie gets married. I don't think there was a happier way to end that story. The last words Eppie says are, "O father, what a pretty home ours is! I think no one could be happier than we are". The Mill on the Floss ends with the drowning of the protagonist. Which is more bleak?

That being said, I do like the Mill on the Floss better. Yet, it's not because of the mood that I like one over the other.

[Psychosis]

I can name some classics that I had to read with anger (some books I read because I'm stubborn):

- I'm sorry Virgil, but "Aeneid" is a very, very dry book... nothing to do with Homer's works (I just loved The Iliad and the Odyssey!)... this is a really boring book to read...

-"Thus Spoke Zarathustra", by Nietzsche. This was a hard book to read, though I like philosophy a lot.

- "Emma", since I'm not an Austen lover and I just can´t stand those kind of stories. :P

- "The Great Gatsby", maybe because I was too young when I read it, but the story didn't move me at all.


Strangely, books like "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man", "Heart of Darkness", "Drakula", "Moby Dick", "100 Years of Solitude" (some of the most hated book mentioned) are some of my favourite.

[Fen]

- I'm sorry Virgil, but "Aeneid" is a very, very dry book... nothing to do with Homer's works (I just loved The Iliad and the Odyssey!)... this is a really boring book to read...


I love Aeneid in fact I thought the Odyssey,which I read a few years back, really dry and Virgil much better.

On the whole I don't think I have ever hated a book. Wondered who on earth would think it was well written, let alone great literature definitely but hated no.

[the_black_skye]

I love Wuthering Heights!!!
I couldn't get through War and Peace Tolstoy...

[cipherdecoy]

The Catcher In The Rye. And as for The Great Gatsby, I also feel I'm missing something.

[Guinivere]

I hated Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen. It is so boring compared to the others. And Catherine Morland is so naive, it really gets onto your nerves.
I really love Jane AUsten's style and her wit, but this novel was just way too benign.

I also had to plough through Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks, a German classic.

[moranfan]

First and foremost, The Fountainhead. I don't know which is worse: that Ayn Rand decided to write a book about architects or that I actually read the whole thing.

[Kafka's Crow]

As I Lay Dying.

[kelby_lake]

I love The Great Gatsby, although I understand why some don't like it. It's not very jolly.

To Kill A Mockingbird is rubbish. If someone published that now, I doubt anyone would care.

The Old man and The Sea. I can't get into it. Apparantly it's one of the most profound stories ever told which is the only thing my blurb said and somehow I can't see it yet

[stlukesguild]

As I Lay Dying

Kafka... I'm surprised at this one. But then there's no accounting for taste:D. Seriously, I could never stand Steven Crane's Red Badge of Courage. Especially after being forced to read it by three different teachers who wanted to turn the experience into some grand social lesson.:sick:

[Kafka's Crow]

As I Lay Dying

Kafka... I'm surprised at this one. But then there's no accounting for taste:D. Seriously, I could never stand Steven Crane's Red Badge of Courage. Especially after being forced to read it by three different teachers who wanted to turn the experience into some grand social lesson.:sick:

I think I should re-read it and read some more by the same author and read it all with an open mind. I want to like Faulkner, honest!

[qimissung]

First and foremost, The Fountainhead. I don't know which is worse: that Ayn Rand decided to write a book about architects or that I actually read the whole thing.

I heartily agree. I despise Ayn Rand.

[naomi moon]

I really hated Madame Bovary.

It was too dry & full of unnecessary details, the end was so disappointing. ahhh!!! it simply bores you to death :lol:, I don't know how I managed to read it all.

[integrity]

Tess of the d'Urbervilles made me want to slit my throat.

I read some of Hemingway's works in my early 20's and got nothing out of them. I remember being bored to pieces. I thought he was completely overrated and that his writing was bereft of beauty. But maybe now I'd be more in tune with him - not sure. Maybe I should give him another try, as I did Steinbeck (hated him in high school - love him now).

[kelby_lake]

Have you found any classics that were simply unappealing yet according to to the general public considered some of the most outstanding literary works ever? List classics you have read that have disinterested you and made you slog through several pages of pure banality.


3. A Streetcar Named Desire


You clearly haven't watched the film.

[MissCosette]

Fountainhead, yes. Boring.

[Melmoth]

Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye, Eliot's Middlemarch, Austen's Emma... are some which come to mind...

[kelby_lake]

To Kill A Mockingbird. A patronising piece of coughing up chinese proverbs and giving us moral lessons which we are obviously so unaware of. thank god she didn't write another book.

[CathyEarnshaw]

I really loved Emma, it is one of my Austen favorites. But I could not get through Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man without constant breaks.

[Joreads]

Oh! I thought of another one! I hated The Great Gatsby. I had to read it for my lit class last year. Everyone else liked it, but for some reason I just couldn't stand it...but I did like Fitzgerald's Winter Dreams...

I didn't like it either I had to force myself to read it. Everyone I talk to loves it. I sometime wonder if people like these books because they have been classed as Classics and they feel they have to?

[Equality72521]

My classic hating is mainly directed towards Mrs. Dalloway. I really, really, really hate that book.

[kelby_lake]

I didn't like it either I had to force myself to read it. Everyone I talk to loves it. I sometime wonder if people like these books because they have been classed as Classics and they feel they have to?

Like Gatsby or not, you have to admit that the writing is beautiful. I understand that the book's quite serious and contemplative, but it's hardly the worst classic- far from it.

[WICKES]

On The Road is terribly dull and boring.

Rucksack bohemians on the road to everywhere.

To be fair, I think On the Road is a very misunderstood novel. People read it expecting a hedonistic, drug fuelled ride. In fact much of it has a rather sad, melancholy feel to it. Kerouac was by nature quite a shy, sensetive man and not the Keith Richards/ Keith Moon type extravert people imagine.

I thought it was ok, but as a Brit I really see it as a book by an American for Americans- it is about reigniting/ reinvigorating a love of and appreciation for freedom/ space/ going west... all that stuff. The problem I had with the novel was that it felt like he did all that travelling just so he'd have something to write about- that seemed kind of inauthentic. You also sense that he didn't really enjoy it much and was often lonely and depressed.

[Etienne]

Traveling is not just about enjoying, relaxing having fun and tripping. That's vacations, authentic traveling contains it's dose of melancholy, sufferings, adventure and disgust. Why, would you ask me? Because authentic freedom and discovery implies this. Not everyone who travels "travels" in this perspective, and that's a big gap in understanding some things. Traveling with everything organized, or doing only the things where you know you have fun and comfort makes one miss many things, that while may be less "enjoyable" on a purely hedonistic perspective, might be much more rewarding in an inner, intellectual, or spiritual perspective.

In the same way, an intellectual or an athlete might suffer a lot during the process of doing what he does, how is that justified when it is not to make a living (and that person could actually earn more doing something else)? It's because the person loves what he is doing and it includes this suffering, and that doesn't mean that he is always happy about what he is doing and is having "fun", but these are the things that are, in the end, the most rewarding, those in which there is a part of suffering.

Some might call it masochism, but "masochism" as typically understood might very well be only a perverted version of a certain instinctual "love to suffer" which is a basis to self-improvement. There are many other illustrations of such a concept, namely in religions, or love relations.

That was a bit longer than I expected...

[WICKES]

I have bit of a problem with Brave New World. I do like it and I love Huxley, but the idea that after a cataclysmic war/ revolution/ upheval etc the world would be taken control of by a benign council of world leaders who would rule in the best interests of everyone else seemed to me pretty optimistic. I found Orwell's vision more realistic.

If 1984 and Brave New World were the two great dystopian novels of the 20th century (funny, I've just noticed that they were both educated at Eton!) then for me Orwell's was far the superior and far more accurate.


Traveling is not just about enjoying, relaxing having fun and tripping. That's vacations, authentic traveling contains it's dose of melancholy, sufferings, adventure and disgust. Why, would you ask me? Because authentic freedom and discovery implies this. Not everyone who travels "travels" in this perspective, and that's a big gap in understanding some things. Traveling with everything organized, or doing only the things where you know you have fun and comfort makes one miss many things, that while may be less "enjoyable" on a purely hedonistic perspective, might be much more rewarding in an inner, intellectual, or spiritual perspective.


But if you read his other stuff (and a biography) you get the impression that it really brought him nothing- certainly little inner/ spiritual growth or peace. He died very bitter, lonely and unhappy. He was looking for enlightenment, that is clear, what is also clear is that he never found it. People like Hesse are more rewarding. I'd recommend Siddhartha over all Kerouac's books any day.

[Etienne]

I'll have to agree with you on Huxley, and Huxley in general, not just Brave New World. He was a great intellectual and a very interesting person, but he is in general a boring writer, the form of essay suits him much more than that of, say, a novel.

I am not saying Kerouac is the greatest writer ever or that On the Road is a work of much depth, I was only objecting to that particular sentence of your, about the point of his travels, which, maybe you are right about in the case of Kerouac. Also my post does not exclude the fact that one dies bitter and sad afterwards, take the obvious example of Bobby Fischer, the chess player, if you look after his conquest of the chess world, you might wonder what in the hell was the point of it all. However are we going to call what he did futile and useless? I wouldn't.

Some people amassed huge fortunes, and died unhappy, bitter and sad, same goes for absolutely anything. For some people hedonism might be this very quest, and many of them will die sad and bitter.

But in all these cases, it is a matter of overburdening oneself (in different ways) rather than this simple beneficial suffering I talked about.

[Hank Stamper]

My classic hating is mainly directed towards Mrs. Dalloway. I really, really, really hate that book.

+1

i dunno if i really really really hate it, but it is probably one of the most pointless books i have ever read and instantly forgettable

[Scheherazade]

+1

i dunno if i really really really hate it, but it is probably one of the most pointless books i have ever read and instantly forgettableHallelujah! :D

I can even start a "Mrs Dalloway Haters Club"!

[Etienne]

I've only read To the Lighthouse by Woolf, and even though it was good I was not so impressed, so I ain't going to join your club since I won't be reading it! Orlando looks like a very interesting book though.

[JBI]

I found Mrs. Dalloway to be breathtakingly incredible. I think though, that a lot of criticism on it is based on a mis-reading. The book in itself is a study of human vanity, tinged with a nice little King Lear subplot to add a little flavor.

[mortalterror]

I found Mrs. Dalloway to be breathtakingly incredible.

At least we agree on that much.

[book_jones]

I can't believe that people hate Portrait of an Artist so much. That book is the reason that I love literature. I picked it up in high school and instantly fell in love with the style. I used to think that it was more real than anything else I had ever read. It really felt like real life. Since then I've been an avid reader.

This was a little hard for me because my tastes are pretty broad, but I did manage to think of one.

Light in August - I absolutely adore Faulkner, but this book I found a little hard to stomach. I thought it was slow, preachy, and linear. These are all the things that Faulkner usually isn't! I also felt that all the interesting characters had much too short of a part. I would talk about it some more, but I don't want to give it away for people who are going to read it. A lot of people like it, but I'll never understand how it got on the Modern Library 100 while brilliant works like Absalom, Absalom and The Hamlet got left off.

[Etienne]

I thought Portrait was good, but that's as far a praise it gets from me, I was actually disappointed, if we were to nominate overrated books, I would nominate it.

I would personally like to nominate Hermann Broch's Death of Virgil, but my opinion is that translation had a lot to do with my disliking it so much. Some parts were good but half of it is just pointless repetitions of nice words assembled to create contradictions in order to seem profound... although I can understand how the original German could be better.

[Hank Stamper]

I found Mrs. Dalloway to be breathtakingly incredible. I think though, that a lot of criticism on it is based on a mis-reading. The book in itself is a study of human vanity, tinged with a nice little King Lear subplot to add a little flavor.

yes clearly i must have 'mis-read' it :thumbs_up

i think the reason there is a lot of criticism on Mrs Dalloway is because it is the most pointless book ever written, and if it is indeed a study of human vanity and how people can be massively superficial, it is the most tedious study of such ever conducted

[Scheherazade]

I think though, that a lot of criticism on it is based on a mis-reading. That is, no doubt, one misreading I can live with because I am not reading it again!
The book in itself is a study of human vanity, tinged with a nice little King Lear subplot to add a little flavor.I agree; it is about human vanity, in particular about Woolf's and I am not so keen on spending hours contemplating that.

Orlando is more interesting than Mrs D but that doesn't mean much, does it? ;)

I gave up on To The Lighthouse after couple of unsuccessful attempts.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

If 1984 and Brave New World were the two great dystopian novels of the 20th century (funny, I've just noticed that they were both educated at Eton!) then for me Orwell's was far the superior and far more accurate.

Bleh. Orwell and Huxley are pretty much the same in my eyes, yes in some ways 1984 can be construed as being more 'accurate', but that does not stop it being any less tendentious. Personally, I prefer Nabokov's dystopian efforts, esp. 'Invitation to a Beheading', but then again I am a Nabokov-maniac. (P.S, 1984 is artistically superior to Brave New World, which was worse than mediocre.)

On Virginia Woolf-I once tried to get through her books, most of them having the same affect as a heavy dose of soporofics, they were all pretty banal, but there is no accounting for taste, I guess.


I agree; it is about human vanity, in particular about Woolf's and I am not so keen on spending hours contemplating that.

Orlando is more interesting than Mrs D but that doesn't mean much, does it?

I gave up on To The Lighthouse after couple of unsuccessful attempt

:lol: I like you.

[aBIGsheep]

Pride and Prejudice.
Almost every gossipy woman I know adores that book. I can't get myself past the second volume.

[Equality72521]

Pride and Prejudice.
Almost every gossipy woman I know adores that book. I can't get myself past the second volume.

hahaha. Pride and Prejudice isn't too bad, I do love the Austen books I must say but some women are a lil wacked about it. :p

[Domer121]

I can't believe that people hate Portrait of an Artist so much. That book is the reason that I love literature. I picked it up in high school and instantly fell in love with the style. I used to think that it was more real than anything else I had ever read. It really felt like real life. Since then I've been an avid reader.

This was a little hard for me because my tastes are pretty broad, but I did manage to think of one.

Light in August - I absolutely adore Faulkner, but this book I found a little hard to stomach. I thought it was slow, preachy, and linear. These are all the things that Faulkner usually isn't! I also felt that all the interesting characters had much too short of a part. I would talk about it some more, but I don't want to give it away for people who are going to read it. A lot of people like it, but I'll never understand how it got on the Modern Library 100 while brilliant works like Absalom, Absalom and The Hamlet got left off.

I agree with you! I loved portrait.. granted it was a difficult read, it was well worth the time that I put into it...
And though Joyce is obscure.... I think he is rather timeless..
.
Now... I didn't like Lolita....That book drove me insane.. because after the first few chapters I just wanted to put it down,, I did eventually finish it... but I just felt as though it did nothing for me... just perhaps made me thankful that I had grown out of my "nymphet" stage....

[PabloQ]

I promise to go back and read this whole thread. Seems like fun.
I'll nominate The Wings of the Dove by Henry James. I didn't care about any of the characters or what happened to them and as an author, Mr James did little to influence me to care. He did bore the living crap out of me. Finished it just to spite Mr. James, but bloody awful.
In second place, I'll nominate The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. His abuse of his main character was way over the top. "What else can Sinclair do to this poor chap." Read on. "Oh, didn't think of that." Once you get past the socially relevant portrayal of life in the stockyards, it becomes this preachy sermon on socialism that goes beyond overbearing. I still hate it.
I've read other works by both authors that I have enjoyed, but these two works are supposed to be crown jewels in the body of work for each of them. I say Phooey.

[Kafka's Crow]

I promise to go back and read this whole thread. Seems like fun.
I'll nominate The Wings of the Dove by Henry James. I didn't care about any of the characters or what happened to them and as an author, Mr James did little to influence me to care. He did bore the living crap out of me. Finished it just to spite Mr. James, but bloody awful.
In second place, I'll nominate The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. His abuse of his main character was way over the top. "What else can Sinclair do to this poor chap." Read on. "Oh, didn't think of that." Once you get past the socially relevant portrayal of life in the stockyards, it becomes this preachy sermon on socialism that goes beyond overbearing. I still hate it.
I've read other works by both authors that I have enjoyed, but these two works are supposed to be crown jewels in the body of work for each of them. I say Phooey.

I can't even start reading a Henry James book! About the Portrait: it is a beautiful book and consistently very, very interesting. The passages about the priest and his sermons about hell-fire stand out conspicuously as boring and trite but this is a part of the design of the whole book. Stephen renounces the boring, monotonous religion and looses himself in the pursuit of the artistic excellence. Joyce books are all about language and the beauty of human expression, its possibilities and its varieties. Anybody who finds it difficult to see what all the fuss is about, get an audio reading of these books. Good readers like Cyril Cusack and Jim Norton can bring out the real art in these works, specially the former. Cusack brings young Daedalus to life:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060501790/thelibyrinth

This is what you are looking for.

[book_jones]

And so many people hate Mrs. Dalloway too? I mean, it's not even 200 pages. There are many more pointless novels that are much longer than this one. At least it only takes a few hours to read. Do any of you feel this way because you had to read the book for school? I've found that this can really change someone's opinion on a book.

[Jozanny]

That is, no doubt, one misreading I can live with because I am not reading it again!I agree; it is about human vanity, in particular about Woolf's and I am not so keen on spending hours contemplating that.

Orlando is more interesting than Mrs D but that doesn't mean much, does it? ;)

I gave up on To The Lighthouse after couple of unsuccessful attempts.

Poor Virginia!:) We *did* TTL in university, which is probably why I understand it and see it as a novel which transcends the short-comings of her style, not that I am prepared to discuss the Ramseys here--but I think Woolf leans toward an almost utopian overview which prevents the reader from really identifying with her characters.

Say what you want about Flaubert, but Emma Bovary could be my vain younger sister--whereas Orlando is almost cartoonish. Woolf got it just about right in TTL though--there is a poignancy to Mrs. Ramsey and her strength in sustaining the fable, whether or not that strength actually gets us *to* the lighthouse.

[kelby_lake]

I agree with you! I loved portrait.. granted it was a difficult read, it was well worth the time that I put into it...
And though Joyce is obscure.... I think he is rather timeless..
.
Now... I didn't like Lolita....That book drove me insane.. because after the first few chapters I just wanted to put it down,, I did eventually finish it... but I just felt as though it did nothing for me... just perhaps made me thankful that I had grown out of my "nymphet" stage....

I only really appreciated Lolita once I had read it twice because I didn't really get it the first time- but it's amazing.
I cannot bring myself to read Joyce, he annoys me. I read the first page of Portrait of The Artist as A Young Man and promptly returned it to the shelf.

[Hank Stamper]

And so many people hate Mrs. Dalloway too? I mean, it's not even 200 pages. There are many more pointless novels that are much longer than this one. At least it only takes a few hours to read. Do any of you feel this way because you had to read the book for school? I've found that this can really change someone's opinion on a book.

the relative brevity of the book does not make it any less pointless

as Graham Greene said of Virginia Woolf's understanding of human nature, it is 'paper thin'

[Inderjit Sanghe]

I cannot bring myself to read Joyce, he annoys me. I read the first page of Portrait of The Artist as A Young Man and promptly returned it to the shelf.


That is quite the prejudice! How can you dismiss an author, especially one as remarkable as Joyce, based on a page, of one of his more inferior stories?


Say what you want about Flaubert, but Emma Bovary could be my vain younger sister--

Which is kind of the point-Flaubert admitted to the fact that the story was in itself, completely banal, as were the two main characters; Flaubert prided himself on being the first novelist to mock the two main lovers in his novel.

[kelby_lake]

That is quite the prejudice! How can you dismiss an author, especially one as remarkable as Joyce, based on a page, of one of his more inferior stories?


My dad liked the book but it really didn't appeal to me, primarily because of the ridiculous way that that and the extract I read from Ulysses was written. If they count as great literature, I'm counting Mr Men along with them.

[cipherdecoy]

Uncle Tom's Cabin.

[Michigan J Frog]

The Scarlet Letter. Toilet paper is better than that piece of crap.

[eyemaker]

The Scarlet Letter. Toilet paper is better than that piece of crap.

are you serious about this? I don't think it's just a piece of crap or some kind of a toilet paper(even though this is not one my favorite classic, I just can't consider this as a toilet paper as you do).. I totaly disagree with this.:(

[aeroport]

are you serious about this? I don't think it's just a piece of crap or some kind of a toilet paper(even though this is not one my favorite classic, I just can't consider this as a toilet paper as you do).. I totaly disagree with this.:(

Even if the poster is serious, the criticism clearly is not.

[Michigan J Frog]

Perhaps toilet paper was too harsh.
Let's just say I would rather read one of the modern best sellers than that book. And if all books were written like that one, I would completely give up reading.

On second thought, never mind, I did mean what I said. At least toilet paper has some use.

[Michigan J Frog]

Serious criticism about the book? sure.
That book felt like a daytime tv soap opera. At no point was I touched by anything in that book. It was not insightful, it was poorly written, the author would've done better to just write an essay. It had no artistic value, it was insufferably didactic, and soon after reading that book I dropped the class that had assigned that as a reading assignment.
The teacher actually tried to defend the book, and it really all came out absurdly funny, she even wore a damn scarlet letter t shirt, and after that, nobody really took the class seriously anymore.
As opposed to books that inspire people to become involved in literature, that book repels people away from it. Had I not read a good number of books that are worth something by that point, I probably would've not wanted anything to do with literature with the rest of my life.
I mean, really, can there be a shallower book with more pathos.


Ah, of course. The first real American piece of fiction worth anything. Perfectly trivial. Inspiring future generations of Americans to develop something that isn't just a copy of the English. Useless.
Actually, 'if all books were written like that one', you would be used to it, no?

The book is not worth anything. I can't think of a good writer who was truly influenced by that book. I dismiss most of American Fiction. The ones I don't dismiss were written by American writers not influenced by that book. It is useless. It has no value (at least no positive value) to it.

And really, that's the only classic I would say that about. I dislike many other classics, but that book is really a waste of paper.

On second thought maybe it has some value. It could be shown to people so they wouldn't write or think like that.

[Michigan J Frog]

Keep in mind that all these are my opinions, very strong perhaps, but I did not look to to incite an argument, although the toilet paper comment might suggest otherwise. That was not an exaggeration, nor was there any purpose behind that statement. But after all these forums are for discussions, although from the looks of it I doubt either one of us will be convinced by each other. But, here goes nothing.
The Scarlet letter is pathos, it is extremely dramatic over nothing. Had I not read introduction/author's background I would've thought that the author indeed wrote this book to mock a similar type of work. But the author was serious. That pretty much explains the soap opera comparison.
Certainly all fiction are written with ideas behind them, but this book almost shoved them down your throat. Sentences were just shortcuts to get to the next idea. After finishing it one feels like it was an essay, and not a novel. The book almost has a holier-than-thou air, it was making itself seem more important than it really was, at every opportunity. Flipping through the pages you can sense an unbearable smugness.
It was poorly written in that, the characterizations were completely ludicrous. They are nothing more than symbols. The plot itself was outrageous, and the storytelling was, essentially, boring. The story was simply unreadable, and it was unreadable with no purpose. The ideas it tried so damn hard to express were shallow. It was not touching at any point. A play is less dramatic than this book. Nothing in it was profound, nothing in it was interesting. I almost laughed after finishing the book. I looked at is a joke.

Anyhow you probably will disagree with all of this, as I can see your Henry James sig, and from that have a good idea of what school of literature you're interested in studying.
And let's just say there's a small chance of me ever taking that type of writing seriously, and leave it at that.

And we could go back and forth about this, but I doubt you would want to. You would most likely dismiss me as an idiot after reading that post, perhaps be enraged by it or scoff at it, but, I still maintain that The Scarlet Letter is the worst classic, and perhaps the worst book I have ever read. I do not think that it should be considered literature, and its value to me is even lower than a best seller.
And now I have business to attend to, but I would revisit this page when I have time, if you do indeed want to continue this discussion, although I see little purpose in doing that.

[idiosynchrissy]

I have learned that my tastes have changed over the years. The first time I read Tess of the d'Urbervilles I hated it. I couldn't even finish it. That was in high school. I read it again in college, and I enjoyed it. The same with The Great Gatsby. Ulysses was probably my least favorite classic so far just because the footnotes that go with the book are about five inches thick. When you have to read a footnote for each line of prose, it's too tedious to enjoy.

[PabloQ]

Keep in mind that all these are my opinions, very strong perhaps, but I did not look to to incite an argument....
Boy are you in the wrong place. I see your new to the forum so welcome. One of the fun aspects to this site are the best/worst, underrated/overrated arguments. What's to great is no matter what you pick, someone else is standiing 180 degrees the other direction. You'll also find (oh, wait, you already have) that stronger you insult the work, the stronger the reaction you'll get.
This exchange on The Scarlet Letter is highly entertaining. Just so I keep enjoying it, Frog, I believe you wanted to say something about Henry James? Go for it. Jamesian will bite.:D