Least Favorite Book

[Jilvin]

What is your least favorite book, and why? It can be for any reason. You can have actually liked it but hated it because it was frustrating or sad (but still high quality), or you could have just flat out hated it because it was stupid or absurd, or poorly written.

Here are mine

Dumbest and Least Favorite- The most painful book I have ever read was "Worlds In Collision" by Immanuel Velikovsky, 384 pages of reducing my mind to nothing. Even more so than "The Genesis Flood", which was 250 pages of fallacy after fallacy.

Most Boring- War and Peace (1388 pages) is a classic for being boring, but I actually enjoyed it. I read the Old Testament, some of the Apocrypha, and the New Testament of the Bible in a 1336 page volume which used 18th century English. I have read the Book of Mormon, which is a painfully slow 568 page volume. The top for most boring must, however, go to a 1088 page volume of poetry that I read from cover to cover.

Saddest- Anna Karenina was depressing (938 pages) but I enjoyed it

[mortalterror]

The book I hate the most would be Ulysses by James Joyce. I used to keep a copy around the house to dip into from time to time and see if my opinion had changed in the interim. A few months back I was arguing with JBI on Litnet about the merits of Joyce as an artist; so I decided to look up some quotes from the novel to illustrate my remarks. I was so frustrated and outraged by the man's nonsense chicanery that I flung the book into a wall yelling, "Those aren't even words!" The next day, I sold it to a used bookstore. In retrospect, I probably should have burned it; because the evil is still out there and no one is safe. What if it should fall into the hands of children? It's corrupting influence knows no bounds.

Before Ulysses, my least favorite novel was Pride and Prejudice. I found all of the characters distasteful. Their complete absorption in, and reduction of the act of marriage to a sport for social advancement was repugnant to me on a number of levels. The girls were universally twits, and the men were stuck up bores. I can't think of a book outside of Mein Kampf with less likable characters. The father was amusing. Every now and then he'd walk through a scene and berate everybody. I liked him, but that accounted for maybe five pages of the whole book. The rest is devoted to avaricious scheming and backbiting, whining and complaining.

I actually liked War and Peace in a number of spots. However, I don't think it needs to be as long as it is, and the ending is just dreadful. Those lousy essays ruined any enjoyment I had, and there is a rather lengthy section that had me thinking "Less peace, more war." The battle of Borodino was as fine a thing as I've read anywhere. The style is fine and unusually steady for such a long book. The depth and variety of character is downright spectacular. But I've never been so annoyed by the ending of a book. You shouldn't have to wade through 1,500 pages for that. If you write a long book the ending ought to justify that extra time and effort.

Those are the three most famous books I've disliked. I've read worse things by amateurs, but that is to be expected.

[Gretchen]

The Harry Potter series by J.K.Rowling - I loved them when I was younger. Now, I recognized the awful writing, the unreliable and the flat characters, and the predictable plot. Especially the 7th one.

A Walk to Remember by Nicholas Sparks - Pathetic, horribly written, silly, and predictable. The characters were just perfect with no flaws.

The Discworld series by Terry Pratchett - It's just not funny at all. But maybe I'll give it another chance.

---Edited---
And the awful Book of Skulls by Robert Silverberg!

[bazarov]

Those books were so bad that you remember every fact from it?

[mona amon]

You have a point Bazarov. I hate Jude The Obscure but I can't remember why! :D

[JBI]

I'm tempted to say something by Hemingway, just to get Mortal's blood boiling, but unfortunately I do not hate his books.

In terms of classics, Enlightenment poets in general, the worst still living one is probably Joseph Addison.

In terms of novels, To Kill a Mockingbird, if you can call it a classic - I think it is dated, and perhaps a little to childish to last much longer, but that is maybe just me. Mockingbird offers a mediocre account of a serious issue, and posses itself off as progressive, when it clearly isn't. I find the book is just an excuse for educators to read a book on racism in the south without actually having to read a novel by an African American.

In terms of contemporary - virtually half the things I read - bad poetry and bad prose - which comes often since I read the new publications from various poetry publishers, and some new publications from contemporary Canadian publishers. Probably the worst though that I have ever encountered was Terry Goodkind (American not Canadian). A cousin of mine was reading him, and I read a chunk of his first one when I was younger - Sadomasochistic bathos to the extreme. And yet - the guy has made millions. I guess people really why buy almost anything.

[RG57]

Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie, it is a book I find crude, repulsive and detrimental to the people he has written about!

[Veva]

no offence, but the Lord of the Flies is something I hate very much, even when I see a parody for it or something, I find it revolting...don't know why

[Jeremiah Jazzz]

I dislike 'Night' by Elie Wiesel immensely.


I can't think of a book outside of Mein Kampf with less likable characters.
Despite the fact that you trashed on of my favorite books, this made up for it. :lol: :lol:

[crisaor]

I disliked Lord of the Flies as well. I found it to be lacking. Nothing worthwhile in that one.

The Decameron is another one. At first it's entertaining. But after the 3rd day or so, every tale has a repeated feel to it.

[Emil Miller]

I read Lord of the Flies many years ago and I just couldn't see what all the fuss was about. The allegory was obvious and so the storyline was tedious.
I suppose the reason that it has so often featured on school curricula is because the protagonists were school children.

[Veva]

I read Lord of the Flies many years ago and I just couldn't see what all the fuss was about. The allegory was obvious and so the storyline was tedious.

you got a point there, but I must also confess to hard feelings towards the Twilight, I am not the person for this stuff, the lovestory is just over the top for me...

[Dr. Hill]

I hated "On the Road" by Jack Kerouac. I find his writing so pretentious and boring.

[Jozanny]

Like so many "best of" and "worst of" threads in this forum, I think a least favorite book, or least favorite books, is difficult to categorize, as *least favorite* seems to denote disappointed expectations, rather than feelings of repulsion; however, bearing my interpretation in mind, my least favorite classical author of general high repute is Charles Dickens, and although I find most of his melodrama nearly forgettable, at least beyond David Copperfield, the novel which seems to betray his talent, or portend creative exhaustion, is Hard Times, which is a fairly weak novel, as far as the classics go. Henry James only got stronger and more complex with age, minus his deathbed material on the crest of Napoleon, whereas Dickens seems continually to try one's patience, with age. My academic advisor, despite having his doctorate in AmerLit, loved Dickens, and defended him to me, writer to writer, in heated conversations about the Great Victorian.

And I will acknowledge, as a writer, that I see Dickens' points, but I simply don't care for them all that much; the guilty secrets on the conscience of his characters are too operatic and overtly larger than life, and by the time you get to a novel like Hard Times, those characters are barely three dimensional fictions.

I am not sure what other authors fall into this category for me, perhaps Tolstoy and his Anna Karenina, which again, has its points, but as a woman, pisses me off more than a little--although I cannot say a classic that makes me angry is a classic to hate--that would be a bit strong. I do dislike intensely Dostoevsky's The Idiot, which is why I don't include it, because I nearly do hate it as an almost insufferable work of fiction.

I cannot think of anything modern, modernist, or contemporary, which would fit here, since, as JBI suggests, dreck is dreck.

[Dr. Hill]

A bit shocked at that post, Jozanny. None of the novels or novelists you mentioned have I ever met with disdain.

[Jozanny]

A bit shocked at that post, Jozanny. None of the novels or novelists you mentioned have I ever met with disdain.

You did read my qualifying comments on *least favorite,* did you not? If so, accept my dismay in that vein.

[Dr. Hill]

Yes, yes I did.

[mortalterror]

Like so many "best of" and "worst of" threads in this forum, I think a least favorite book, or least favorite books, is difficult to categorize, as *least favorite* seems to denote disappointed expectations, rather than feelings of repulsion; however, bearing my interpretation in mind, my least favorite classical author of general high repute is Charles Dickens, and although I find most of his melodrama nearly forgettable, at least beyond David Copperfield, the novel which seems to betray his talent, or portend creative exhaustion, is Hard Times, which is a fairly weak novel, as far as the classics go. Henry James only got stronger and more complex with age, minus his deathbed material on the crest of Napoleon, whereas Dickens seems continually to try one's patience, with age. My academic advisor, despite having his doctorate in AmerLit, loved Dickens, and defended him to me, writer to writer, in heated conversations about the Great Victorian.

And I will acknowledge, as a writer, that I see Dickens' points, but I simply don't care for them all that much; the guilty secrets on the conscience of his characters are too operatic and overtly larger than life, and by the time you get to a novel like Hard Times, those characters are barely three dimensional fictions.

I've always disliked Dickens myself, but not to an unusual extent. Like yourself, I can see what other people see in him and that cushions the blow. Some of his sentences are actually very good, and the man knows how to begin and end a book. I tried a couple of times to read his A Tale of Two Cities, but was only able to enjoy it as an audiobook, driving in my car, with my attention distracted, and not picking up on every little detail.

I believe I've read four of his books and while I'd like to complain of the flat two dimensional characters and the sensational melodrama, I have to admit that the same traits do not bother me at all in Hugo. In the same manner I don't like the dialogue in Dostoyevski's Crime and Punishment, but it's not too different from Balzac's Pere Goriot which I did enjoy. What really keeps me from liking Dickens books is probably the dated language and unintentional humor of his books. Take these examples from Great Expectations:

"So we slanted to the right (where the East was), and Joe pounded away so wonderfully, that I had to hold on tight to keep my seat."

“Do you know what I touch here?” she said, laying her hands, one upon the other, on her left side.
“Yes, ma’am.” (It made me think of the young man.)
“What do I touch?”

“I sometimes have sick fancies,” she went on, “and I have a sick fancy that I want to see some play. There, there!” with an impatient movement of the fingers of her right hand; “play, play, play!”

Or how about Hard Times?:
"I would, sir, I could see you gay again.’
‘What do you mean, ma’am?’ blustered Bounderby.

And last but not least David Copperfield:
(it is really impossible to express how he twisted this ejaculation out of himself, as he peeped round the door-post at me, showing nothing but his crafty old head);

JBI- I know you aren't a big fan of To Kill a Mockingbird, but since it's a popular favorite around here, I decided to check it out on Amazon the other day. The style is alright, not great, but there's no conflict in the first eight pages. It's been my experience that the better a book is the earlier the conflict is established, the "why we should care." I didn't see any of that in the extract of To Kill a Mockingbird on Amazon and didn't feel any desire to read more. Books like Black Boy, Invisible Man, Black Like Me, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, or Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas all seem to be supplanting To Kill a Mockingbird in the schools I've attended. So your distaste may be justified. Without having read the whole book I cannot say any more.

[Trystan]

Hmm, well now, let's see . . . "For Whom the Bell Tolls" was more than a little disappointing. With one or two exceptions (namely Pablo and Pilar), the characters not particularly deep or interesting, but rather "blank" if you follow me. The girl (Maria?) made me cringe as she just seemed so shallow. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the book - I did, but it does qualify as my "least favorite".

[JBI]

Dickens is strange because he is comical when he should be tragic. In fact he is always comical - the fact that there is suffering in a sadistic way makes his comedy. I think you are supposed to laugh at, for instance, David Copperfield getting beaten as a kid, or his mother being destroyed by her new husband. That's what makes him such a problematic author - he has no morals in terms of the way he writes, he's almost grotesque in the Bakhtin sense of the word, though I guess not as far as Rebalais was.


Either way though, this thread is going nowhere. No one's least favorite book is really dickens - they simply forget books that were so unbearably terrible. I myself shouldn't have even named any, as really those aren't the worst, or most loathed books I have read, merely ones I wished to target.

[Dr. Hill]

I love Dickens. I don't really understand why people dislike him.

[bazarov]

Hemingway generally, Portrait of the Artist of The Young man, Heart of Darkness - ale too boooring

[Emil Miller]

I love Dickens. I don't really understand why people dislike him.

Well, some people probably dislike Dickens because of his sentimentallity, a profusion of picaresque characters and a heavy concentration on social reform which, though justly deserved in Victorian times, tends to become a little tiring nowadays. However, in my view, his virtues outweigh his faults.

[Equality72521]

Lord of the Flies By William Golding
MRS. DALLOWAY by Virginia Woolf - worst book. EVER.
Harry Potter Series by J.K. Rowling
Twilight Series by Stephenie Meyer

Top 4. They all were miserably terrible!

[Equality72521]

Well, some people probably dislike Dickens because of his sentimentallity, a profusion of picaresque characters and a heavy concentration on social reform which, though justly deserved in Victorian times, tends to become a little tiring nowadays. However, in my view, his virtues outweigh his faults.

Ah well, I agree. He's my favorite author of all time. Love him!

[Emil Miller]

you got a point there, but I must also confess to hard feelings towards the Twilight, I am not the person for this stuff, the lovestory is just over the top for me...

From what I gather of Twilight, it seems to be primarily aimed at young girls.
This is what I had to say about it when it came up as part of another thread on American Literature.

Obviously I haven't read it, I don't have to, because the moment I see the word 'vampire' I know it is just another of the countless, and usually childish, rip-offs from Dracula....

[Jilvin]

There are also differing criterion for "dislike"

For instance, I finished "The Urantia Book"(2128 pages!), and it was so absurd that I consider it to be contrived only as a direct insult to human thought, but I judge by entertainment value, so I actually looked forward to reading it whenever I got the chance.

I guess you could say I disliked "Urantia", but does it count if I looked forward to reading it?

[Tophu]

Hmm, books I've disliked. I was actually not a fan of Catcher in the Rye for some reason, I think the protagonist was just a bit too whiny for my liking, or I didn't understand, or something like that.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm with Jozanny on the Dicken's.

[PabloQ]

I'm not exactly sure why we needed another one of these threads. There seem to be enough of the least favorite, most overrated threads to have covered all the ground that needs to be covered.
Jilvin, honestly, I don't understand your need to ask. Thanks for sharing, but you're getting the answers that everyone gets on these strings. Here's the list:
Ulysses
To Kill a Mockingbird
On the Road
Pride and Prejudice
Wuthering Heights (not yet mentioned but give it time)
Something by Tolstoy (W&P, AK, or something else)
Something by Dickens
Something by Hemingway
Middlemarch
The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit
My two least favorites (The Jungle and The Wings of the Dove)
Wait for it, you'll get all the same answers from other threads of the same vein. There really is no new discussion to be had here.
Oh, and there's a gazillion best seller factories that can appear, but as you see you already have Rowling and Meyer, you'll get Dan Brown next.
One last shot before I go wretch, MortalTerror - does reading the Amazon summary of any work really qualify you to comment? I would hope not. The high road might be to refrain from comment at all. Just a suggestion.

[mortalterror]

MortalTerror - does reading the Amazon summary of any work really qualify you to comment? I would hope not. The high road might be to refrain from comment at all. Just a suggestion.

Yes. Yes, it does. You know why? Because I'm very good at analyzing books. There it is. I've read thousands of them and so I can generally get what I need to know about a book from the first couple of sentences. In this case, I read the first eight pages. If you can't make a tentative judgement based on that large a sample, what can I tell you? You are a poor reader. You remind me of JBI who told me I wasn't giving Remembrance of Things Past a fair shake because I only read the first six hundred pages. Give me a break. If you're at a restaurant and the waiter brings out a moldy piece of steak with maggots crawling on it, do you finish the whole thing before complaining to the staff? Maybe you ought to send it back before you get food poisoning.

However, I do make it plain in my comment that I had only read the very beginning of the work and found it wanting. Within the bounds of the exposition my comments are entirely justified and I stand behind them 100%. I do not say anywhere that the book could not pick up in the middle, or that it doesn't have a spectacular ending. I've seen the movie, but I don't speculate any further about the book itself. I even concluded my remarks with the sentence "Without having read the whole book I cannot say any more." The high road might be to read the entirety of other people's comments before commenting on them yourself. Just a suggestion.

You say "There really is no new discussion to be had here." but you leave out one other type of poster in your rogues gallery: the anti-poster. On threads like these there's always somebody who says "Why do we need another thread like this?" and then tries to marginalize other people's opinions. Way to go. You've completed the thread and made it just like all the others.

[DeadAsDreams]

For Whom The Bells Toll- It really just wasnt what I expected. I havent even finished it yet, although I expect I will at some point. The book just didnt motivate me to continue reading. The characters also got on my nerves, it seemed as though they were trying their best to be deep, proverbially standing up and shouting, "look at me, I'm deep!" All the while not actually being deep.

[Basil Valentine]

Another vote for 'Lord of the Flies'. I'm sure that forcing school children to read this is partly responsible for putting so many of them off reading in later life!

I'm probably going to upset some people with this, but I also found 'Neverwhere' by Neil Gaiman a real drag. I kept hearing how good an author Gaiman was, and his name is often mentioned in connection with Gene Wolfe, one of my favourite authors. I assume the same people who like Harry Potter read Gaiman's stuff...

[promtbr]

Here we are now, entertain us.. Smells Like Teen Spirit


Given the average age of the posters, I understand the least favorite books mentioned and why...

At the risk of getting run off the forum...

Being of older pursuasion and having started reading literature when I was your age, left it totally and came back to it 30 yrs later, IMHO you would be doing yourselves a HUGE favor if you at some point come back to some of those works you mentioned. Age does amazing things to one's expectations (when picking up a work of Literature) and perspective. (duh)

(Though it would be my guess that you will probably still dislike Dicken's and Golding :sick:)

Give Italo Calvino's [I]Why Read the Classics a read some time for a better expression of the sentiment...

Not tryin' to stir things up, just adding some seasoning to an already salty post...

[wessexgirl]

I'll probably be shot down in flames, but I really didn't like The Great Gatsby. I didn't care for any of the characters at all. I realise you don't have to approve of the characters, after all I love Vanity Fair, and Becky Sharp is a *****, but I just didn't feel anything but "meh" about them all.

Incidentally, just wanted to say I love Dickens, to counter the loathers :thumbs_up.

Sorry, just editing to say I didn't mean to offend, I didn't realise my word would be asterixed out :blush:.

[Dr. Hill]

I agree with you. Great Gatsby did nothing for me, and Dickens is fantastic.

[tubagod81]

I don't see it on the list, so I'll add The Catcher in the Rye. That has to be one of the worst books I've ever read. It had no plot, whiny characters and didn't go anywhere. I read it cause everyone I talked to said it was "an american classic" and I was throughly disappointed.

[Emil Miller]

I'll probably be shot down in flames, but I really didn't like The Great Gatsby. I didn't care for any of the characters at all. I realise you don't have to approve of the characters, after all I love Vanity Fair, and Becky Sharp is a *****, but I just didn't feel anything but "meh" about them all.

Incidentally, just wanted to say I love Dickens, to counter the loathers :thumbs_up.

Sorry, just editing to say I didn't mean to offend, I didn't realise my word would be asterixed out :blush:.

By general consent, and I agree, Gatsby is the "Great American Novel" but, of course, nobody has to like it.
By the way, what was the word ?

[papayahed]

I'm probably going to upset some people with this, but I also found 'Neverwhere' by Neil Gaiman a real drag.

I'm currently reading Neverwhere and it's not my favorite Gaiman, it's a let down after American Gods.


My current least favorite is Orlando.

[Guinivere]

I don't expect anyone to know it. But if you've heard of this book stay away from it. I had to read Michael Kohlhaas by Heinrich von Kleist to pass German A-Level exams. And I absolutely hated it.
It's about this guy who looses three horses to some nobel bloke and he just goes nuts after that. Burns everything in his way.

[mayneverhave]

I agree with you. Great Gatsby did nothing for me, and Dickens is fantastic.

This was bound to happen.

I absolutely love The Great Gatsby and Dickens always seemed a hack writer to me.

[wessexgirl]

By general consent, and I agree, Gatsby is the "Great American Novel" but, of course, nobody has to like it.
By the way, what was the word ?

I don't think I can say, as it will be asterixed again, just think female dog :D.

Yes, I'm always hearing how TGG is the great American novel, but I really have an antipathy towards it, and F.Scott Fitzgerald, who dare I say it, (stands back and takes cover) I find overrated?

[PabloQ]

Yes. Yes, it does. You know why? Because I'm very good at analyzing books. There it is. I've read thousands of them and so I can generally get what I need to know about a book from the first couple of sentences. In this case, I read the first eight pages. If you can't make a tentative judgement based on that large a sample, what can I tell you? You are a poor reader. You remind me of JBI who told me I wasn't giving Remembrance of Things Past a fair shake because I only read the first six hundred pages. Give me a break. If you're at a restaurant and the waiter brings out a moldy piece of steak with maggots crawling on it, do you finish the whole thing before complaining to the staff? Maybe you ought to send it back before you get food poisoning.

However, I do make it plain in my comment that I had only read the very beginning of the work and found it wanting. Within the bounds of the exposition my comments are entirely justified and I stand behind them 100%. I do not say anywhere that the book could not pick up in the middle, or that it doesn't have a spectacular ending. I've seen the movie, but I don't speculate any further about the book itself. I even concluded my remarks with the sentence "Without having read the whole book I cannot say any more." The high road might be to read the entirety of other people's comments before commenting on them yourself. Just a suggestion.

You say "There really is no new discussion to be had here." but you leave out one other type of poster in your rogues gallery: the anti-poster. On threads like these there's always somebody who says "Why do we need another thread like this?" and then tries to marginalize other people's opinions. Way to go. You've completed the thread and made it just like all the others.

At least you read 600 pages of In Search of Lost Time before you gave up. That's not the same as reading the synopsis for To Kill a Mockingbird on Amazon. To use your example, you assume the steak is moldy based on the picture on the menu. That's hardly fair.

There is a breath of fresh air. Papayahed's least favorite book (the original question) is Orlando. I haven't heard that one before.

My intent is not marginalize anyone's opinion. That is the point. Your opinion, my opinion, your dog's opinion, doesn't matter. It's all a matter of taste. And at the end of the day, there are plenty of these threads and they really are quite the same. Give it time. Someone will eventually go after Shakespeare. I'm entertained by the threads. I just don't find them substantive. But that's my opiniion.

[Jozanny]

I'm entertained by the threads. I just don't find them substantive. But that's my opiniion.

The problem with making them substantive, Pablo, is we all are ignorant of each other's knowledge, and we're all experts on our own concerns, and those concerns may not interest others in the least. I can spend a good deal of time posting about disability culture and fine arts, or disability and emotional pain--which doesn't make me popular in the real world or in the virtual, but I cannot drop as many references to classical authors and painters as stlukesguild can, and sometimes turn a deaf ear (metaphorically speaking) when he does :rolleyes:, because one I am not actually being educated--are any of us?--and two, I may have other interests I'd like to get to.

This is not to say I disagree with you. I relish substantive over silliness, but I cannot be substantive in areas where I lack the knowledge to be so. How much more then, a young student poster who has so much less experience than I do?

[Dr. Hill]

The Great Gatsby is to books as The Godfather is to movies. Overrated beyond comprehension, and this always leaves the reader/viewer disappointed. Taken in itself, it isn't a bad book at all, but to hear it raved about leaves me expecting novel-writing equal in caliber to Crime and Punishment; wordsmithing equal in caliber to The Picture of Dorian Gray. But what I got was a shallow novel with shallow characters that did little to impress save a few well written paragraphs and a fine ending.

[lisahead]

Everyone has a right to his own opinion- however, I discount any opinion on a book that is offered by someone who hasn't read it and is relying on Amazon!
That is absolutely silly, no matter how many books you have read, or what literary critique level you profess to be in- that is , of course- JUST MY OPINION!

[Dr. Hill]

When did I say I read a synopsis on Amazon?

[lisahead]

The book I dislike the most is "The Painted Bird" by Jerzy Kosinski- I would read any book in my parent's library- came across it when I was 12-
it traumatized me and made me a lifetime ANTI WAR person.
Just awful- take my advice and avoid this book like you would avoid a book by James Patterson!Hah!

[lisahead]

Not you Dr Hill!!

[Dr. Hill]

Ah, now I see.

[Jozanny]

The Great Gatsby is to books as The Godfather is to movies. Overrated beyond comprehension, and this always leaves the reader/viewer disappointed. Taken in itself, it isn't a bad book at all, but to hear it raved about leaves me expecting novel-writing equal in caliber to Crime and Punishment; wordsmithing equal in caliber to The Picture of Dorian Gray. But what I got was a shallow novel with shallow characters that did little to impress save a few well written paragraphs and a fine ending.

Fitzgerald far surpasses Wilde in craft, says biting writer to biting critic. Dorian isn't a bad novel by any means, but its psychology is so fraudulent as to be cartoonish. We never actually experience the corruption of Gray's so-called innocence, but Fitzgerald isn't about disguising who and what he is, nor what was the essence of the roaring twenties and beyond; for that, yes, he is nearly the perfect American author for his era and his *set*. This includes Gatsby, Tender, The Last Tycoon, and mostly all of his wonderful short stories.

[Dr. Hill]

Now now. I didn't hear you say that Fitzgerald far surpasses Wilde in craft, did I? That's almost incomprehensible. Fitzgerald by no means writes as wonderfully as Wilde (check out that alliteration) and I won't budge on that one. And as for his psychological content being shallow, well, I suppose that was the whole point. It's aestheticism, the very meaning of which is to be shallow. Wilde was mocking the superficiality of his peers, as was Fitzgerald in The Great Gatsby, though I think that Wilde was much more imaginative in his critique. Attaching a boring protagonist to a novel with one interesting character, as Fitzgerald did with Gatsby, was foolish and though his technique displays the superficiality of the characters in their very shallowness within the novel, it left the work superficial itself. Whereas Dorian Gray had Lord Henry, Basil, Dorian, and Sybill to provide the reader with great interest respectively. Not to mention the infinitely more stylish and witty dialogue within Wilde's novel. It is for mere taste that I denounce Gatsby as overrated, mind, and I do appreciate it as a great novel of the 20th century; it is merely, however, not my cup of tea.

[Tallon]

I have tried on two occasions to get through V.S. Naipaul books and failed halfway through boredom.

I will never understand how anyone can dislike To Kill A Mockingbird, it is a book i will keep going back to and be filled with warmth everytime. Perhaps it is because i've read it many times since i was 12 or so, but i think it's beautiful anyway.

Fitzgerald suffers from hyperbole. I think he is wonderful, especially Tender is the Night, but i can see how someone may be underwhelmed on a first reading of Gatsby. Very good writers get you involved and interested in things that you have no empathy or experience with, and Fitzgerald does that for me.

[Jozanny]

Now now. I didn't hear you say that Fitzgerald far surpasses Wilde in craft, did I? That's almost incomprehensible. Fitzgerald by no means writes as wonderfully as Wilde (check out that alliteration) and I won't budge on that one. And as for his psychological content being shallow, well, I suppose that was the whole point. It's aestheticism, the very meaning of which is to be shallow. Wilde was mocking the superficiality of his peers, as was Fitzgerald in The Great Gatsby, though I think that Wilde was much more imaginative in his critique. Attaching a boring protagonist to a novel with one interesting character, as Fitzgerald did with Gatsby, was foolish and though his technique displays the superficiality of the characters in their very shallowness within the novel, it left the work superficial itself. Whereas Dorian Gray had Lord Henry, Basil, Dorian, and Sybill to provide the reader with great interest respectively. Not to mention the infinitely more stylish and witty dialogue within Wilde's novel. It is for mere taste that I denounce Gatsby as overrated, mind, and I do appreciate it as a great novel of the 20th century; it is merely, however, not my cup of tea.

But Wilde is a liar, overtly and blaring, which is why I have always rejected him, and always will. Fitzgerald, otoh, understands suffering with authenticity. Art is not salvation, and it is not enough for its own sake. If it was, I would be in far less pain today, in my intellectual maturity, than I was as a university mope who wanted her professor to sleep with her for a vigorous transference of imitation, if not real emotional authenticity itself.

[Dr. Hill]

Wilde is no more a liar than Dante, Swift, and Orwell. Satire will always be the truest form of art, because art is not about copying the world, it's about criticizing it.

[Jozanny]

Wilde is no more a liar than Dante, Swift, and Orwell. Satire will always be the truest form of art, because art is not about copying the world, it's about criticizing it.

Ah, but as with all literature, it is the quality of the lie itself that counts, and Dante and Swift are towering giants in comparison;).

I do not consider Orwell a great literary writer; to my mind he prefigures the modern political pundit. My problem with Wilde is that man cannot grow in aesthetic or critical maturity on wit and concealment alone; even if he had been able to live as a homosexual, he seemingly would still want for meat on the bone. Henry James's self-denial made him one of the greatest novelists, for which the modern Jamesian scholar is thankful, since they all make a living decoding James's marvelous talent with ambiguity. Wilde? Eh. He does very little but nicely flash in the pan.

[Dr. Hill]

I can hardly believe my eyes. Wilde is perhaps the greatest linguist since Shakespeare, and here you are calling him a flash in the pan! Good sir! ;)

All opinions are fine with me, but I do enjoy a good debate.

[Equality72521]

Wilde is no more a liar than Dante, Swift, and Orwell. Satire will always be the truest form of art, because art is not about copying the world, it's about criticizing it.

I must concur. Satire is legit. We're covering topics of satire in my English class and I have found I enjoy it more than most of the delectable pieces of literature that I get to enjoy.

[Jozanny]

Good sir! ;)

Is this a mild ejaculation? Or an address? I'm puzzled, and not a sir, and do not plan to prefer my own sex any time soon.... although I did learn that there is such a thing as trauma-induced homosexual coupling some years ago.

[Etienne]

I can hardly believe my eyes. Wilde is perhaps the greatest linguist since Shakespeare, and here you are calling him a flash in the pan! Good sir! ;)

All opinions are fine with me, but I do enjoy a good debate.

I'd say Saussure or Jakobson were better linguists :lol:

[JBI]

I'd say Saussure or Jakobson were better linguists :lol:

Or Chomsky.

[Etienne]

Or Chomsky.

Indeed, that could be the trinity of modern linguistics there.

[mayneverhave]

Or Chomsky.

A native Philadelphian. As was expected...

[Emil Miller]

The Great Gatsby is to books as The Godfather is to movies. Overrated beyond comprehension, and this always leaves the reader/viewer disappointed. Taken in itself, it isn't a bad book at all, but to hear it raved about leaves me expecting novel-writing equal in caliber to Crime and Punishment; wordsmithing equal in caliber to The Picture of Dorian Gray. But what I got was a shallow novel with shallow characters that did little to impress save a few well written paragraphs and a fine ending.

I'm not going to defend Gatsby for the umpteenth time, except to say it doesn't always leave the reader disappointed as you have stated. It's a certainty that the majority of the book's readers think it is a great novel.
Two years ago, a national newspaper in the UK ran a poll on which was their readers favourite book and Gatsby came top.
Trying to compare it with Crime and Punishment and The Picture of Dorian Gray shows a lack of reading experience. It would be difficult to find three more disparate authors than Dostoievsky, Wilde, and Scott Fitzgerald whose styles are so completely different that some people would be bound to reject one or other of the books because they just want to read a story and are not interested in the technicalities of writing.

[Snowqueen]

I have to agree with Gretchen these Harry Potter series have no charm.

[prendrelemick]

Many years ago I read an article in a newspaper about a infamous book. Those who read this masterpiece, (it said) had become Mass murderers or suicides. people became unhealthily obsessed by its dark hidden themes. Its reclusive author had not published a book since. It was a dangerous book, to be read at your peril.

So I was suprised to find it in my local library!

With great trepidation I began to read.....

and what a load of tosh it was. The biggest dissappointment in my literary life, character, plot, narrative, all of it, hopeless. It was called Catcher in the Rye.

[Dr. Hill]

Is this a mild ejaculation? Or an address? I'm puzzled, and not a sir, and do not plan to prefer my own sex any time soon.... although I did learn that there is such a thing as trauma-induced homosexual coupling some years ago.
Hah, it's just an address, I assure you.

[Jason Lycurgus]

A Country of Pointed Firs by Sarah Orne Jewett--I don't have any great reason, just not my thing at all

[pjloki]

I hate to go against the trend of naming classic works but the book that I have had at the bottom of the pile is Susan Sontag's "Death Kit". I used to give copies of this friends and relatives as a joke and always got a response on the order of "Where did you find this piece of...". Even worse, the book was lent to me by a friend of mine who couldn't bother to read it himself!

[Captain Trips]

The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. That was the most boring and pointless book I have ever read, and I've read some tedious books (currently reading Wuthering Heigths, which almost as bad). Its been a couple of years since I read it but the way I remember it was that nothing ever really happened. She committed adultery and was shamed, then she had a weird kid and was shamed even more. The end.

[*Classic*Charm*]

The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. That was the most boring and pointless book I have ever read, and I've read some tedious books (currently reading Wuthering Heigths, which almost as bad). Its been a couple of years since I read it but the way I remember it was that nothing ever really happened. She committed adultery and was shamed, then she had a weird kid and was shamed even more. The end.

Ouch!! Poor Nathaniel..

[Yeahforbooks]

The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. That was the most boring and pointless book I have ever read, and I've read some tedious books (currently reading Wuthering Heigths, which almost as bad). Its been a couple of years since I read it but the way I remember it was that nothing ever really happened. She committed adultery and was shamed, then she had a weird kid and was shamed even more. The end.

I pretty much felt the same way about Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea. It was such a short book, yet I felt it took me twice as long to read it. I had to read it for a high school English class...it's been about 10 years since I read the book, but I can still remember how painful it was to press on and finish that book from beginning to end. Man goes out to catch a Marlin, tires it out, loses it to sharks, makes it back to shore, rests and begins to think of his next adventure. I'm sure there is a larger lesson to be learned through this story, but I honestly just did not care.

[Karen_Leslie]

Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye comes immediately to mind.

If I'm being completely fair, I've read worse books--I do think Morrison does have some gifts as a writer, even if I'm usually not terribly enamored of her characters or plots-- but this one stands out to me because of the huge gap between my own opinion of it and the buckets and buckets of critical acclaim it has received. Even without getting into the issue of Morrison's self-professed racial agenda, it's a banal book with symbolism about as subtle as an anvil falling from the sky.

[Captain Trips]

Ouch!! Poor Nathaniel..

To be fair I liked The Birthmark and The Minister's Black Veil, so I do kind of like Nathaniel Hawthorne, don't get me wrong. I just didn't like The Scarlet Letter.

[Pf. HS Dimple]

I always find the words DELICIOUS!!!

[mercy_mankind]

The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. That was the most boring and pointless book I have ever read. She committed adultery and was shamed, then she had a weird kid and was shamed even more. The end.

You shortened the story in one sentence. :)
i think that the intersting point in the story is the way of punishment (the scarlet letter).
A Handful of dust seems to be boring for me, I didn't finish it, but I think it is not good.

[Heddi]

I`ll take the risk of appearing provocative (and going against the rules, as I actually haven`t finished the book yet, seems like it will take years for me). The Lord Of The Rings. It`s a black and white world with no deepness whatsoever: it goes on and on and on without showing the reader why he/she should bother turning the page. Troll-like little things climbing over mountains and occasionnaly reciting loooooong pieces of boring "poetry". Give me a break.

[Joreads]

I`ll take the risk of appearing provocative (and going against the rules, as I actually haven`t finished the book yet, seems like it will take years for me). The Lord Of The Rings. It`s a black and white world with no deepness whatsoever: it goes on and on and on without showing the reader why he/she should bother turning the page. Troll-like little things climbing over mountains and occasionnaly reciting loooooong pieces of boring "poetry". Give me a break.

This is one book I couldn't finish either. I found it frustrating beyond discription. I gave up on reading and as a general rule once I start reading a book I have to finish it, I am a little compulsive that way

[Silas Thorne]

About the Lord of the Rings. I didn't get the books at first.I read it when I was 10 and got put off by all the long speeches (I should've stuck to the Hobbit), but after I studied a bit of Old English literature and then came back to it 20 years later I got into it a lot more. It isn't really a very accessible fantasy work - but then again, a lot of fantasy nowadays derives itself from it.

I found the last Harry Potter book to be a long waste of time, but finished it to see if somehow it redeemed itself-to no avail.

[Karen_Leslie]

I found the last Harry Potter book to be a long waste of time, but finished it to see if somehow it redeemed itself-to no avail.

I wasn't keen on it either-- the previous books had a formula, but it was a formula that worked. The last one broke the formula so that instead of the kids at Hogwarts, we had the kids skulking around in the woods and generally not knowing what to do with themselves. Maybe there was some kind of profound statement about leaving childhood behind there, but it also completely abandoned the charm of the previous books.

IMO the merit of the HP series is in the world that Rowling created at Hogwarts and all the little details that were a part of it, like the magical school supply lists and whatnot. The overall plot with Voldemort is very average.

[AlexisAlexis]

I would have to say that my least favorite book was Ulysses. I do think that it is a true masterpiece and I enjoyed reading some parts of it, but I would never read it for leasure again.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh boy Tom Jones by Henry Fielding, I want to shoot myself!!!!:flare:

[faithalina]

Without a doubt...Ludmilla's Broken English...made me want to slit my wrists...Vernon God Little was great and i kinda hoped this one would be equally as good...

[Mopey Droney]

Dickens is strange because he is comical when he should be tragic. In fact he is always comical - the fact that there is suffering in a sadistic way makes his comedy. I think you are supposed to laugh at, for instance, David Copperfield getting beaten as a kid, or his mother being destroyed by her new husband. That's what makes him such a problematic author - he has no morals in terms of the way he writes, he's almost grotesque in the Bakhtin sense of the word, though I guess not as far as Rebalais was.I think you would agree it's a little more complicated than that. I've always thought of him as a highly moral writer who juggles the engagement of the humor with tragic themes in such a way that by the end of the book there's no confusion of right or wrong.

[Mag Master 21]

Their Eyes Were Watching God... hands down worst piece of trash I've ever read.

On the Road was painful to get through as well though.

[Mopey Droney]

Anyway, they aren't my least favorite books, but I thought Blood Meridian, White Noise and Independence Day were all bad. If these are among the best the America of the last 25 years has to offer I need to start looking elsewhere for my fiction.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Anyway, they aren't my least favorite books, but I thought Blood Meridian, White Noise and Independence Day were all bad. If these are among the best the America of the last 25 years has to offer I need to start looking elsewhere for my fiction.

I've heard really terrible things about White Noise. Who was the author?

Least favourite piece I've ever read (I may have even mentioned it here, but I don't remember) was EASILY Steinbeck's The Red Pony (and not because I'm prejudiced about the dying horse thing;)).

[Infinitefox]

Like so many "best of" and "worst of" threads in this forum, I think a least favorite book, or least favorite books, is difficult to categorize, as *least favorite* seems to denote disappointed expectations, rather than feelings of repulsion; however, bearing my interpretation in mind, my least favorite classical author of general high repute is Charles Dickens, and although I find most of his melodrama nearly forgettable, at least beyond David Copperfield, the novel which seems to betray his talent, or portend creative exhaustion, is Hard Times, which is a fairly weak novel, as far as the classics go. Henry James only got stronger and more complex with age, minus his deathbed material on the crest of Napoleon, whereas Dickens seems continually to try one's patience, with age. My academic advisor, despite having his doctorate in AmerLit, loved Dickens, and defended him to me, writer to writer, in heated conversations about the Great Victorian.

And I will acknowledge, as a writer, that I see Dickens' points, but I simply don't care for them all that much; the guilty secrets on the conscience of his characters are too operatic and overtly larger than life, and by the time you get to a novel like Hard Times, those characters are barely three dimensional fictions.

I am not sure what other authors fall into this category for me, perhaps Tolstoy and his Anna Karenina, which again, has its points, but as a woman, pisses me off more than a little--although I cannot say a classic that makes me angry is a classic to hate--that would be a bit strong. I do dislike intensely Dostoevsky's The Idiot, which is why I don't include it, because I nearly do hate it as an almost insufferable work of fiction.

I cannot think of anything modern, modernist, or contemporary, which would fit here, since, as JBI suggests, dreck is dreck.


Why do you hate The Idiot? I didn't like it(Couldn't finish it) but I'm curious why you didn't enjoy it. I disliked it just because the characters weren't too interesting to me, and the plot didn't seem to go anywhere.

[Mopey Droney]

I've heard really terrible things about White Noise. Who was the author?Don DeLillo. Right off the bat the dialog is especially ridiculous. Would a middle class housewife say this?:
"What are the people like? Do the women wear plaid skirts, cable-knit sweaters? Are the men in hacking jackets? What's a hacking jacket?"
I guess that's supposed to be funny but instead it just strikes me as painfully, self-consciously wanting-but-failing-to-be clever.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Don DeLillo. Right off the bat the dialog is especially ridiculous. Would a middle class housewife say this?:
"What are the people like? Do the women wear plaid skirts, cable-knit sweaters? Are the men in hacking jackets? What's a hacking jacket?"
I guess that's supposed to be funny but instead it just strikes me as painfully, self-consciously wanting-but-failing-to-be clever.

I'm trying to figure out in what context that would be appropriate? That is kind of brutal. You're right, it sounds like trying too hard.

Is it bad that I know what a hacking jacket is?:p

[OzBlackman]

Orlando by Virginia Woolf.

Dull, frustrating and full of unnecessary dialogue. To the Lighthouse is a far more accessible and interesting novel.

[Pewnut]

Far from the Madding Crowd by Thomas Hardy

[dfloyd]

and now you say Orlando is even worse. I guess I'll skip that one also ....
maybe just skip all the rest of Virginia Wolf. However, I've read about ten of the Thomas Hardy Novels. If you don't like Far from the Madding Crowd, I'd say it's due to immaturity.

[Veva]

and now you say Orlando is even worse. I guess I'll skip that one also ....
maybe just skip all the rest of Virginia Wolf..


My vote for that, I respect her as a writer and as a person who went through terrible things very much. But I cannot seem to understand the charm of her novels. Maybe it is becasue I am not mature enough?!:(

[Wilde woman]

Another vote for Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye. I just didn't "get" either of them and I could not relate at all to the characters. Not from lack of trying either, I assure you. I read both several times, over a series of several years and wrote some papers on them and still didn't get anything. Great American novels? Really? I just don't see it.

[kelby_lake]

Why do you hate The Idiot? I didn't like it(Couldn't finish it) but I'm curious why you didn't enjoy it. I disliked it just because the characters weren't too interesting to me, and the plot didn't seem to go anywhere.

I liked it, but then i did read it just after i got diagnosed.

[phoenix151]

Although I absolutely loved Michael Ondaatje's "Divisadero", I thought "The English Patient" was a heavy, cold, wet blanket. I would love one chapter, and then get a headache on the next. I'm very torn about this book.

[MarkBastable]

Anything by DH Lawrence, but if pushed I'll go for the one where the women chase the bulls around a field. Or possibly vice versa. Or perhaps cows. Women in Love? I neither know nor care.

I don't understand how a novelist can gain a reputation as a sensitive and profound proponent of every aspect of the human experience when he is so totally empty of even the faintest suspicion of a sense of humour. I mean, in the whole canon of DHL's work there is not a wry smile, a witty aside or - God forbid - an actual laugh, unless it's someone cackling hysterically in the midst of their sobs on account of some imagined tragedy that probably amounts to having failed to find Love despite agreeing to a blow-job.

God, I hate Lawrence.

[Emil Miller]

My vote for that, I respect her as a writer and as a person who went through terrible things very much. But I cannot seem to understand the charm of her novels. Maybe it is becasue I am not mature enough?!:(

Why do you say that it may be because you are not mature enough?
I can't see anything in her either and I am older than the majority of contributors to this website.
When I read a book, I expect to be informed AND ENTERTAINED,but a host of 'GREAT' writers featured on this forum fail miserably in the entertainment stakes. One of the few writers who combines intellectual insight with an entertaining story is Scott Fitzgerald whose Tender is the Night I am currently reading. If I were to name the writers that I think boring, I would be thought to be an utter philistine but my literary interests cover French and German writers in their original language. I have no time for writers whose works flounder in the kind of intellectual obscurantism that gives them an importance that registers with a comparatively narrow stratum of the intelligently literate population.

[promtbr]

Why do you say that it may be because you are not mature enough?
I can't see anything in her either and I am older than the majority of contributors to this website.
When I read a book, I expect to be informed AND ENTERTAINED,but a host of 'GREAT' writers featured on this forum fail miserably in the entertainment stakes. One of the few writers who combines intellectual insight with an entertaining story is Scott Fitzgerald whose Tender is the Night I am currently reading. If I were to name the writers that I think boring, I would be thought to be an utter philistine but my literary interests cover French and German writers in their original language. I have no time for writers whose works flounder in the kind of intellectual obscurantism that gives them an importance that registers with a comparatively narrow stratum of the intelligently literate population.


There is a difference between "Literature" (which I thought was this Forum's category of discussion) vs mass market fiction...

I am opening a can of worms here :D and should start invoking the Aristotlean definition of "what is art" etc,

But: lets say for discussion's sake, that the simplest OBLIGATION of art is to engage one's sensibilities..

If the most commonly accepted definition of Literature is writing that is an ART of written works, it becomes problematic, as ART does not always set out to "entertain" as in, to experience it helps one to pass ones time...

A writer of mass market fiction IS obligated to entertain, (that pretty much works in a darwinian fashion, since if his writing/work "fails miserably" to entertain, a writer of popular fiction won't survive...

How can a writer of Literature or Literary Art "fail miserably" at a pre-determined expectation (to entertain the reader) that his work has maybe made no attempt at. Granted its a question of spectrum not black and white, as there ARE works of fiction considered Literature and, even considered "masterpeices" and "classics" that are wildly entertaining to the mass population...

Not sayin' that there is not an expectation of a "tale" if there is a "teller", but not all tales are "entertaining" to all readers.

[Emil Miller]

There is a difference between "Literature" (which I thought was this Forum's category of discussion) vs mass market fiction...

I am opening a can of worms here :D and should start invoking the Aristotlean definition of "what is art" etc,

But: lets say for discussion's sake, that the simplest OBLIGATION of art is to engage one's sensibilities..

If the most commonly accepted definition of Literature is writing that is an ART of written works, it becomes problematic, as ART does not always set out to "entertain" as in, to experience it helps one to pass ones time...

A writer of mass market fiction IS obligated to entertain, (that pretty much works in a darwinian fashion, since if his writing/work "fails miserably" to entertain, a writer of popular fiction won't survive...

How can a writer of Literature or Literary Art "fail miserably" at a pre-determined expectation (to entertain the reader) that his work has maybe made no attempt at. Granted its a question of spectrum not black and white, as there ARE works of fiction considered Literature and, even considered "masterpeices" and "classics" that are wildly entertaining to the mass population...

Not sayin' that there is not an expectation of a "tale" if there is a "teller", but not all tales are "entertaining" to all readers.

Well, if for 'entertain' we substitute 'engage ones sensiblities' it clearly rests with the reader to decide whether they have been engaged or not. If some writer sitting in a garret making recondite observations on the human condition makes references so oblique that only those tuned into his particular wavelength are going to bother to understand them, he might end up lauded by his admirers, but proportionately fewer people are going to read him; whether financial considerations enter into his writing or not. He might achieve wider recognition through his curiosity value but, apart from those who do not seek to be entertained and are prepared too take him at face value, his output will fall on stony ground.
There is indeed a difference between literature and mass market fiction but on the basis that it belongs to those who do not consciously write to entertain we must exclude the likes of Dickens, Hardy, Wells, Maugham, Greene (who made the distinction by writing what he called his entertainments ) Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Dreiser, Melville, Twain etc.etc. and leave the field to Joyce, Eliot, Beckett etc. not to mention the literature of France, Germany etc.etc. I am deliberately leaving out classic literature as my interest lies primarily in the modernist school but the one writer, possibly the greatest of them all, that gives the lie that entertainment runs contrary to real literature is probably one of the best selling authors of all time and that, of course, is William Shakespeare.

[JBI]

and now you say Orlando is even worse. I guess I'll skip that one also ....
maybe just skip all the rest of Virginia Wolf. However, I've read about ten of the Thomas Hardy Novels. If you don't like Far from the Madding Crowd, I'd say it's due to immaturity.

I personally love her work, especially Mrs. Dalloway. Don't let one opinion dissuade you.

[Currer Bell]

One of my least favorite novels would have to be The Old Man and The Sea by Hemingway...Que va. Although I can appreciate the writing, the story is dull, and after having class after class discussions of the old man as a christ-like figure, I've had enough. Personally, I find The Great Gatsby to be a more fulfilling story, although that is kind of straying from the point.

[pagebypage]

A Monk Swimming : A Memoir by Malachy McCourt. I went into this one with high hopes and expectations, just finishing his brother's Angela's Ashes. Well, here is proof positive good prose writing is not an inherited trait. The memoirs are just a collection of besotted anecdotes cobbled together by a desperate publisher with no apparent underlying scheme. And the saddest part of the whole affair with the Brother Malachy is knowing that the twit really thinks he is his Frank's equal. Truly one of the most ghastly reads I've ever encountered.

[Currer Bell]

I woke up this morning and realized that the one book I truly despise is Phantom of Manhattan! A really terrible sequel to Phantom of the Opera I almost forgot existed.

[five-trey]

My Antonia - Willa Cather


Had to read it for school. Boring and depressing. I really don't like the "forlorn immigrant" stories much. As an immigrant, they are depressing to me because they bring out that nostalgic feeling of desolation that I myself experienced at one point.


I'm debating whether I should read Sinclair's The Jungle.

[sunshine_enl]

Sterne's Sentimenal Journey-I had to read it for my Travel Narrative class.I never actually finished it,I found it very difficult to read,boring and completely pointless,I don't understand why anyone would want to read it,let alone force other people to do so!
Another book which I've tried over and over again to get myself to like is Swift's Gulliver's Travels,I've never actually got as far as book4 which is supposed to be the best...

[sixsmith]

Anyway, they aren't my least favorite books, but I thought Blood Meridian, White Noise and Independence Day were all bad. If these are among the best the America of the last 25 years has to offer I need to start looking elsewhere for my fiction.

White Noise and Independence Day are certain starters in my best American fiction of the last 25 years.

As for least favourite, Salman Rushdie's "Fury" springs to mind. Intellectually shallow and mistakes itemisation for narrative energy.