Most pointless book you have read

[Dark Muse]

There are various categories here for Most hated book, or most boring book, most overrated and so on. So I figured I would add another.

What is the most pointless book you have read?

It does not have to be a book you disliked or one that you thought was necessarily bad, but a book that once you got to the end of it the first though that popped into your head was "Why?"

I just finished The Day of the Locust and I did not really dislike it or think it was really badly written but I felt as if it just did not go anywhere. When I got to the end it just felt as if did not really accomplish anything at all.

The first time I read the Great Gatsby I felt that way too. I really enjoyed reading it, but when I got to the end I just wondered why exactly did that have to be written? What was the point of it.

Of course that was when I was in high school and coming back to it having to read it for a college course I did pull away more of the symbolism that was within it.

And by pointless I do not necessarily mean commercialized books that are mass produced and for no other purpose then entertainment, because typically those kind of books are not intended to have a deeper meaning to them.

[Bastable]

I agree with you totally on The Great Gatsby, it's a good read, but i don't know why everyone goes on about it's value?

For me it would perhaps be The Catcher in the Rye. I read through it after being told how it was all about teen angst and all these other meaningful themes, but i didn't get any of them, and there wasn't much of a story either. so without meaning or a good tale what was the point?

[dward1]

Crying of Lot 49. Abysmal characters, tried way too hard to be hip and postmodern and was flat-out boring.

[mayneverhave]

I agree with you totally on The Great Gatsby, it's a good read, but i don't know why everyone goes on about it's value?

For me it would perhaps be The Catcher in the Rye. I read through it after being told how it was all about teen angst and all these other meaningful themes, but i didn't get any of them, and there wasn't much of a story either. so without meaning or a good tale what was the point?

I'd have to disagree on both novels. The Great Gatsby is often considered "The Great American Novel", and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. The novel poignantly captures the underside of the American Dream, the futility in attempting to recreate the past, and also brings in themes that are shared with other 1920's works, like the Waste Land. In addition, its a fantastic period piece, and features some of the best prose I have ever read.

As for The Catcher in the Rye, it may not hold up as well as Gatsby, but its images of angst, (again) the reclamation of the past, and the changing of times are all relatable (at least to me when I first read it in high school).

The most pointless waste of time in reading, for me so far, would have to be Poe's only complete novel, The Narrative of A. Gordon Pym. The novel features some of the most cliche prose, deus-ex-machina at every turn, and points, in the end, to nothing beyond the plot. It simply is a story with no point, so I recieved nothing from actually reading the novel than I would from just reading the wikipedia plot summary. Avoid it!

[Lokasenna]

For me it would perhaps be The Catcher in the Rye. I read through it after being told how it was all about teen angst and all these other meaningful themes, but i didn't get any of them, and there wasn't much of a story either. so without meaning or a good tale what was the point?

Absolutely agreed. I really disliked that novel - people keep banging on about how it is THE coming-of-age novel, but I had absolutely no empathy or sympathy for Holden. I just couldn't relate to him, so the whole reading process became a dull exercise in futility.

[Joreads]

Muse after I read the Great Gatsby my exact words were what the heck was that for. Maybe it is me and maybe I am missing something - others are quick to tell me I am - but I just didn't get it.

[Hank Stamper]

anything by melvin burgess

[Niamh]

My encycopedia of pointless information! :brow:

[jcjp]

I agree with you totally on The Great Gatsby, it's a good read, but i don't know why everyone goes on about it's value?

For me it would perhaps be The Catcher in the Rye. I read through it after being told how it was all about teen angst and all these other meaningful themes, but i didn't get any of them, and there wasn't much of a story either. so without meaning or a good tale what was the point?

I agree that the story is inherently useless, I've forgotten some details of it over time and consider it to be rather extraneous, yet I would disagree with you highly on the meaning (one of my favorite novels ever simply for this):

Holden is meant to be taken as the typical "angst ridden" (to put it in your words) teenager at the time -- he is shown to be everything that the societal norms of the day wouldn't accept-- exactly what he as a person DIDN"T want. He says quite clearly that he wishes he could save all of the children from falling off of a cliff, as in metaphorically he wishes that he could be this knight is dashing armor but he isn't. He isn't whatever he wants to become...

The entirety of the novel is him dealing with the aspect that no matter what happens, he will always forever be this incredibly screwed up individual and his "rebellion" against that spectacularly fails.

The draw to it is that we are normally completely opposite from Holden: we live regimentally and go about our daily lives with the same repetitious flow and feeling that is contra-posed by Holden.

Hence, a man unwilling to be the hero is oft-considered to be one.

As for this thread, I would largely say that "Finnegans Wake" by James Joyce would probably be the most gratuitously masturbated-on work I've ever read (consequently the most "useless" read).

It's rather contradictory that my favoriate novel is "Ulysses" by that same exact author. I won't elaborate much in this, but suffice to say in Ulysses Joyce brings home the point that even though he wants to be Stephen Dedalus, he will forever be Bloom (which I do think he accepts that toward the end). Finnegan's wake is essentially him going into totally the flow of the mind that Stephen Dedalus had toward the beginning of Ulysses, except MUCH more in depth.

I will admit, I've only read Finnegan once and I have yet to go over much material on it (though I am reading Re Joyce now) yet it's among the most frustrating and confusing things I have ever read. I certainly welcome it with open arms though...

[Jeremiah Jazzz]

As for this thread, I would largely say that "Finnegans Wake" by James Joyce would probably be the most gratuitously masturbated-on work I've ever read (consequently the most "useless" read).

It's rather contradictory that my favoriate novel is "Ulysses" by that same exact author. I won't elaborate much in this, but suffice to say in Ulysses Joyce brings home the point that even though he wants to be Stephen Dedalus, he will forever be Bloom (which I do think he accepts that toward the end). Finnegan's wake is essentially him going into totally the flow of the mind that Stephen Dedalus had toward the beginning of Ulysses, except MUCH more in depth.

I will admit, I've only read Finnegan once and I have yet to go over much material on it (though I am reading Re Joyce now) yet it's among the most frustrating and confusing things I have ever read. I certainly welcome it with open arms though...

I welcome it too. I guess I love masturbation..

[JBI]

Probably some Nostalgia poetry that somehow got published.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Probably some Nostalgia poetry that somehow got published.

Agreed on the poetry front. We all know what angst looks and sounds like, we don't need more of it.

[prendrelemick]

I've read many many pointless books. You have to search through a lot of chaff to find a kernel of wheat

[andave_ya]

Waiting for Godot.

What was that all about?

[jcjp]

I welcome it too. I guess I love masturbation..

Hence why it's an acquired taste to me.

I was wondering: what aspects of it do you like?

[bounty]

yet another chance to bash a catcher in the rye! its certainly the type of book that should have a point, but i think the author, and therefore the characters, failed to deliver.

[jcjp]

yet another chance to bash a catcher in the rye! its certainly the type of book that should have a point, but i think the author, and therefore the characters, failed to deliver.

Do you dislike it because countless english teachers throughout the years have bored it into the ground?

I'd be very interested to hear your criticism...

[bounty]

Do you dislike it because countless english teachers throughout the years have bored it into the ground?

I'd be very interested to hear your criticism...

actually, i wasnt made to read the book during high school but i dont doubt that over the years, its common use created a sort of hype where i was expecting great things from the book. plus, ive constantly heard other people praising it. it had a lot to live up to.

but the short of it was, i couldnt find anything redeeming in the book, either in the main character (holden was more of an undifferentiated wanderer than an angst ridden anti-hero) or in the author's writing, which i found redundant and non captivating.

[Annamariah]

I really didn't get the point of The Great Gatsby or The Catcher in the Rye either. Both were rather easy to read, but after I finished, I didn't feel like I'd really gotten anything out of them.

[kevinthediltz]

How bout the harry potter books?
Kinda fun to read, but pretty pointless.

[jcjp]

How bout the harry potter books?
Kinda fun to read, but pretty pointless.

Yes, they are: but those aren't really novels, now are they?

[Dark Muse]

This thread really isn't amied at comercialized books that are written just for entertainment, becasue books like that typically are not suppose to have a deeper meaning behind the surface. It is sort of a given that they are pointless beyond thier ablity to entertain.


yet another chance to bash a catcher in the rye! its certainly the type of book that should have a point, but i think the author, and therefore the characters, failed to deliver.

I think it is funny how so many people hate the book. When I read it I absolutely loved it and consider it among my favorites.

[Riesa]

King James Version :p

[Annamariah]

I can add The Lord of the Flies to my list. I was really disappointed with the ending, I was waiting for something great and it never happened, the book just ended as if the author no longer knew what to do with it.

[jcjp]

actually, i wasnt made to read the book during high school but i dont doubt that over the years, its common use created a sort of hype where i was expecting great things from the book. plus, ive constantly heard other people praising it. it had a lot to live up to.

but the short of it was, i couldnt find anything redeeming in the book, either in the main character (holden was more of an undifferentiated wanderer than an angst ridden anti-hero) or in the author's writing, which i found redundant and non captivating.

That's precisely what JD Salinger wanted in Catcher in the Rye: he wanted you to be able to relate on a down-to-earth level with the main character, hence why he chose first person rather than the boring-ole' third most english writers have employed.

As stated earlier, I found it appealing that he neither wanted to be the "hero" nor any type of angst-ridden person, he just wanted the normal, everyday life of your typical American teenager at the time but he couldn't help but see the hypocrisy in all of it.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Bastable]

I can add The Lord of the Flies to my list. I was really disappointed with the ending, I was waiting for something great and it never happened, the book just ended as if the author no longer knew what to do with it.

I would have to disagree with you there, I love Lord of the Flies. I think it is a brilliant analysis of human nature, and how our moralities, and ideals and societal norms fall apart when pressed with extreme situations. It's an ultimately cynical book, one of the reasons I like it :).

[bazarov]

Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck

So...So...So...what the hell is your point?! That was my question through whole book.

[mayneverhave]

Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck

So...So...So...what the hell is your point?! That was my question through whole book.

Hah, I loath that novel as well. Good call.

[kelby_lake]

I really didn't get the point of The Great Gatsby or The Catcher in the Rye either. Both were rather easy to read, but after I finished, I didn't feel like I'd really gotten anything out of them.

Um, if you don't realise the point of Gatsby, you can't really have been reading it...
It's basically sacrificing yourself for what everyone else around you can see is an empty dream. It's the Valley of Ashes for those who never got their dreams...WE can all judge Gatsby as being a bit of a stalker who should have got over her but that's easy for us to say- 'not everybody in the world has had the advantages you've had'

Catcher in The Rye doesn't have a point- it's more about your teenage misfit kinda person- who says 'phoney' too much!

Twilight is the most pointless series.

[bounty]

That's precisely what JD Salinger wanted in Catcher in the Rye: he wanted you to be able to relate on a down-to-earth level with the main character, hence why he chose first person rather than the boring-ole' third most english writers have employed.

As stated earlier, I found it appealing that he neither wanted to be the "hero" nor any type of angst-ridden person, he just wanted the normal, everyday life of your typical American teenager at the time but he couldn't help but see the hypocrisy in all of it.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

im okay with first person narrative, i read diaries for my dissertation and despite it not being the norm in higher education, i used first person in my writing.

as to what else youre saying jc---i am not unwilling to be educated about the book and the author---maybe the opportunity will present itself someday down the road...:)

[Annamariah]

Um, if you don't realise the point of Gatsby, you can't really have been reading it...
It's basically sacrificing yourself for what everyone else around you can see is an empty dream. It's the Valley of Ashes for those who never got their dreams...WE can all judge Gatsby as being a bit of a stalker who should have got over her but that's easy for us to say- 'not everybody in the world has had the advantages you've had'.
Yes, I really have read it. But what is the point of this guy throwing his life away like that? It was far from being the worst book I've ever read, but I still don't see why it's considered a classic, it wasn't at all that good.

[Dark Muse]

His throwing his life away was symbolic, it is not just just about the "love" story for lack of a better word between Gatsby and Daisy, but it was about what Daisy represented. Mainly being Money, and how shallow she and Tom really are, and the state of American soceity with the halve's and the halves not, and old money vs. new money. Daisy was what Gatsby wanted, not just the person Daisy, but that lifestyle, that wealth. He spent his whole life reinventing himself to aquire that, and in the end he still felt empty. It did not truly fullfill him.

[Emil Miller]

Yes, I really have read it. But what is the point of this guy throwing his life away like that? It was far from being the worst book I've ever read, but I still don't see why it's considered a classic, it wasn't at all that good.

I promised myself that I would not speak on this forum again about Gatsby, having spent quite a few posts on the subject on previous threads, but I would ask you this: have you ever been in love, I mean truly in love? Because the answer to your question as to why it is considered a classic is contained therein. Whether Gatsby loved Daisy for what she represented doesn't detract from the fact that he loved her to the point that he was prepared to sacrifice himself for her despite the fact that she ultimately betrayed him. If you look back through earlier threads on this forum, you will find that Gatsby haunts it as no other characterr does.

[Dark Muse]

I do not think the story is truly meant to be genuinely romantic. It is a satire about the desire for money and what happens when people put too much emphasis on material values.

Daisy is a "thing" more than a person. Something to be acquired.

[Scheherazade]

I promised myself that I would not speak on this forum again about Gatsby, having spent quite a few posts on the subject on previous threads, but I would ask you this: have you ever been in love, I mean truly in love? Because the answer to your question as to why it is considered a classic is contained therein. Whether Gatsby loved Daisy for what she represented doesn't detract from the fact that he loved her to the point that he was prepared to sacrifice himself for her despite the fact that she ultimately betrayed him. If you look back through earlier threads on this forum, you will find that Gatsby haunts it as no other characterr does.


I do not think the story is truly meant to be geninelly romantic. It is a satire about the desire for money and what happens when people put too much emphasis on matuerial vaules.

Daisy is a "thing" more than a person. Something to be aquired.I would agree with both statements; Fitzgerald's own life is not too different either from whatever little I have read of his biography (his relationship with Zelda).

[mayneverhave]

The true pathos (for me) regarding the novel is that Daisy is largely unworthy of Gatsby's enormous admiration. What we find in Gatsby is a largely tragic figure, who, despite his dark side, is largely dominated by this romantic craving for the past, the green light on the other side of the bay. What is tragic is that Gatsby (a man perhaps capable of anything) throws his life away on something we might find not worth it.

Say what you want about the novel's satire on materialism, its summoning up of the Waste Land in the ash valley, and its paradoxical loathing and praising of the roaring twenties - the kernel of the novel is essentially the relationship between reality and fiction, with its two main characters an ambitious bootlegger whose outward personality is basically a complete construction and a woman who seems to be every social cliche rolled into one and who lacks the depth to be truly worthy of our hero's admiration.


Also, does anyone else find it funny that the multiple American inter-war novels and poems (of the roaring twenties) all feature relatively pessimistic story lines and tragic endings? I'm talking not only Gatsby but also The Sun Also Rises, A Farwell to Arms, The Sound and the Fury (which is removed from the jazz age thematically), The Waste Land, etc. Whereas "the" depression age novel, The Grapes of Wrath, ends on a note of optimistic rebirth?

[GX4146]

the moviegoer by walker percy.

[kelby_lake]

Most modern books seem a bit pointless.

[thomas212]

Most modern books seem a bit pointless.



And that is a pointless statement.

Reading moderne and classic,i find it is the one form of art that is still florishing.
I read The blue flower(1995) by Penelope Fitzgerald few days ago,try to read most Of Andrei Makine,there is countless exemple of the healt of moderne literature.

As for Gatsby,pointless might be,for once, a compliment.Love that make point is already dying of routine.

[kelby_lake]

And that is a pointless statement.

Reading moderne and classic,i find it is the one form of art that is still florishing.
I read The blue flower(1995) by Penelope Fitzgerald few days ago,try to read most Of Andrei Makine,there is countless exemple of the healt of moderne literature.


Yeah, but books are so 'trendy' now. It just seems so...either you get chick lit, book-set-in-foreign-country-and-you-will-look-clever-if-you-read-it, the 10 billionth new thriller, the 'philosophical' or 'political' book, etc...

[Mathor]

All of the books by Terry Goodkind. It sucks when people who do not know how to write are given publishing contracts.

[fb0252]

Of Mice And Men.

[higley]

I dared to cross a Patterson novel once. I watch my step now.

[Chava]

A friend of mine used to have a glden rule: "Be weary of books where the name of the author is bigger than the title". ´My english teacher once made us choke down The Crocodile Bird by Ruth Rendell; I believe on her homepage it says she strives to write two books a year. It was awful, and a complete waste of my time. I'm never reading anything in that genre again.

[Trystan]

On the Road by Jack Kerouac. I enjoyed it, but what the "point" was I don't know. Then again, I don't think books need necessarily have a "point".

[thomas212]

Yeah, but books are so 'trendy' now. It just seems so...either you get chick lit, book-set-in-foreign-country-and-you-will-look-clever-if-you-read-it, the 10 billionth new thriller, the 'philosophical' or 'political' book, etc...

No one look clever by reading books and i don't read chick lit.As for foreign countries settings,if only local literature sound genuine to you,fair enough.Every on choose his own borders.
There is many moderne novels that have the construction of classic.I mention Fitzgerald and Andrei Makine,but i could add many more Richard Yates,Amin Maalouf,Cormac Mccarthy,....that i would not call trendy.

Back to pointlessness with Jonathan Coe -the closed circle that i finished few days ago.It felt like watching a British sitcom.

[Drkshadow03]

I agree with you totally on The Great Gatsby, it's a good read, but i don't know why everyone goes on about it's value?


I wrote a blog entry (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/book-9-the-great-gatsby-by-f-scott-fitzgerald-re-read/) last year on my re-read of the Great Gatsby that you may or may not find helpful in making sense of the novel. Many of the comments here seem spot-on.


How bout the harry potter books?
Kinda fun to read, but pretty pointless.

Harry Potter recasts world myths into the framework of a boarding school coming-of-age story. The main characters are really Voldemort and Harry Potter who are mirror reflections of each other, but who ultimately take very different paths because of different choices in how they will respond to their life situations. The story is mainly about "Choice." Love and friendship (caring for others) are shown to be superior choices to controlling others fear and obedience (selfish acts). Some have pointed out that Harry always survives because of some deus ex machina, pointing this out as a flaw. However, I would argue this is partially the point. Harry isn't an overly talented wizard. He relies on his friends to survive, to solve his problems; he relies on others and that is his strength. Voldemort relies only himself, but is in fact one of the most talented wizard to have ever lived.

You also have a critique of racism, fascism, school life, and government bureacracy. It brings these issues to life again through the fantasy world that parallels our own.

I'm not trying to start another "Harry Potter - teh awesumz/Harry Potter = teh sux" thread, but I did think it was worth addressing what I think some of the point was of Harry Potter.

[Pensive]

None.

Every seemed to have a point even if it was never to read any book by the same author again! :p

[kiki1982]

m Hugo's point of view I would have to say Les Misérables, because it was supposed to come out of dust and fade away in it (the verses on Valjean's grave at the end)... Although, there he missed his own point, because it makes a point about the underclass.

But at the end you do feel like, 'what was the point of those lives anyway'...

I suppose that is to the point and pointless?:p

[Emil Miller]

I wrote a blog entry last year on my re-read of the Great Gatsby that you may or may not find helpful in making sense of the novel. Many of the comments here seem spot-on.


Thanks for the Blog entry on Gatsby. It is laid out in a way that makes it particularly pertinent to this thread: ie. First a synopsis that asks "But what does it all mean?" and then a brilliant exposition of the novel itself. For anyone who doesn't understand what all the fuss is about,a reading of the Blog will tell them.

[PabloQ]

I extremely enjoyed The Sun Also Rises but at the end of it I found myself asking why Hemingway felt the need to write it. It's been a long time since I've read anything by Hemingway, but I find his narrative powerful and compelling. I can also see why some may find his style not to their liking. However, I just couldn't see the point. I'm not sure I needed one to enjoy it, but I couldn't help reflecting on what the heck I was supposed to take away from it.

Another candidate would be The Wings of the Dove by Henry James. That novel I hated on so many levels, but at the end of it I wondered what was the point? The depths that a human being could stoop to swindle someone else out of their money? And get away with it? So what?

And while y'all are picking on poor Scott Fitzgerald, I have the similar reaction to This Side of Paradise. I loved the book and found Fitzgerald's writing to be lyrical. But in the end I couldn't see the point in the story of a young man who missed the point of his entire history as told throughout the book.

Dark Muse, thank you for this spin on the "negative" reading experience. I'd read the Hemingway and the Fitzgerald works again despite my finding them pointless.

[Dark Muse]

I also found The Case of Benjamin Button to be a pretty pointless story. I just did not get the whole point of the character reliving his life backward when it did not seem as if he learned anything from the experience of gained any insight from it.

[greenfroggsplat]

I love Jane Austen but I found Love and Freindship a little pointless. I like her style and all. So it's probably because I found it raw...

[Emil Miller]

I extremely enjoyed The Sun Also Rises but at the end of it I found myself asking why Hemingway felt the need to write it. It's been a long time since I've read anything by Hemingway, but I find his narrative powerful and compelling. I can also see why some may find his style not to their liking. However, I just couldn't see the point. I'm not sure I needed one to enjoy it, but I couldn't help reflecting on what the heck I was supposed to take away from it.

And while y'all are picking on poor Scott Fitzgerald, I have the similar reaction to This Side of Paradise. I loved the book and found Fitzgerald's writing to be lyrical. But in the end I couldn't see the point in the story of a young man who missed the point of his entire history as told throughout the book.

As a novel concerning American expats in post WW1 Europe, The Sun Also Rises has an authentic ring to the writing, but then it should do considering the author's background. I do agree with PabloQ, however, about the seemingly pointless plotline. It has been suggested on other entries to this forum that the story has a subtext relating to Eliot's The Wasteland and I couldn't see any direct connection to the poem, but perhaps that is the point of the story; ie. that life with all of its various experiences is ultimately pointless.

Similarly with This Side of Paradise, although beautifully written, the story followed the protagonist's deveopment from adolescence to adulthod without coming to a satisfactory conclusion. If he had got married or run over by a bus, at least there would have been a falling of the curtain, but the curtain just stayed up; leaving the reader to wonder what the point of the story was. Then again, perhaps point is that there wasn't one.

[MissScarlett]

The Shadow of the Wind was recommended to be as a "good mystery." After reading more than half if it, though, it just wasn't going anywhere or doing anything, so I gave up trying.

[Emil Miller]

Waiting for Godot.

What was that all about?

If you thought that Godot was pointless, what about Endgame. I attach an extract from Wickipedia's summation of the play.

The implication in the play is that the characters live in an unchanging, static state. Each day contains the actions and reactions of the day before, until each event takes on an almost ritualistic quality. It is made clear, through the text, that the characters have a past (most notably through Nagg and Nell who conjure up memories of tandem rides in the Ardennes).


Tandem rides in the Ardennes ? He had to be kidding.

[higley]

Agreed in regards to Waiting for Godot. I know I'm supposed to say I found it meaningful and emotionally tragic; I just thought the written play was boring and the stage version even more so. As far as existentialism goes I prefer Camus.

[Vicarious]

I've never found any book "pointless." I usually take something away from every novel I read, even if it just the knowledge that I will NEVER read it again because I hated it for :insert reason:

[kelby_lake]

Endgame was....weird. But I think Waiting for Godot would be more boring. The stage is not a place for your own musings.

[grotto]

Big Sur by Kerouak and The Trial by Kafka. I read both with no distaste but when they were over, I went, Hmmmm, And??

I love existentialist type novels, but I must be the only person who doesn't like Kafka. I've tried, read a few but he does nothing for me. Oh well, you can't please every one.

[ksotikoula]

"The portrait of a lady" was a pretty pointless book for me. Whatever it was that the heroine realized at the end made no difference, as she chooses to act as if she didn't know any better, so... And it was so obnoxious too with all that complicated style and long sentences that never delivered anything worthwhile. A common story said in an awfully long and worded way.

[kelby_lake]

I love existentialist type novels, but I must be the only person who doesn't like Kafka. I've tried, read a few but he does nothing for me. Oh well, you can't please every one.

If you haven't read The Metamorphosis, you must. It's Kafka at his best, and the best example of emotions physically manifesting.

[Naomily]

The Foreshadowing by Marcus Sedgwick - the synopsis was very interesting for my taste, but when I started reading it, I slowly began to dislike it. Through the beginning, I have speculated probable ideas in my mind of what the ending might be, then by the time near the climax, I just knew where it was going. I closed the book, hid it at the back of my shelf and never again let it see the light of day.

I was very disappointed. I even wished I haven't bought it. The story was a complete failure. It was predictable, the one you would label as typical. I want twists. Every book I read is expected to make me impressed and say, 'I didn't see that coming!' and 'wow!'. That book didn't even make me say anything at all! I haven't even discussed it with any of my friends and family. I won't recommend it to anyone.

[Ryan002]

Wagner the Werewolf, by Reynolds.

If you are even vaguely curious, if you see it in the discount bin, if you want to find out for yourself why the man defines "penny dreadful" and decide to read it...

Do yourself a favour and just don't. Trust me.

[Reread]

I am, unfortunately, afflicted with the common ailment of being a teenager. Thanks to well meaning, teachers, parents, friends, and librarians I have been subjected to reading books made for teenagers. My least favourites thus far have been "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" (a story in which half of the girls lose their virginity and nothing is accomplished) and the Twilight series (Buffy the Vampire episodes that not only steal their plot lines from great literature but even quote the books they steals from.) I've given up on reading books written for my age group and am sticking literary classics.

[1n50mn14]

Probably Jeam M.Auel's Clan of the Cave Bear (Earth's Children) series. The first book was neat, just to learn about plant properties, but also incredibly improbable. The heroine, Ayla, could not possible have invented as much as she did, and also be single handedly responsible for the domestication of both wolves and horses. After the first book, every single other book is just caveman pornography... and repetetive caveman pornography, at that!

There just seems to be no greater point to the story. It's all empty description, and sex, and jealousy.

[Lynne50]

Nobody said The Old Man and the Sea. I,however, did enjoy it, but I'm not sure why.

[Bakiryu]

What's the point of A Farewell to Arms? Is there one?! Curse you Hemingway!

[Emil Miller]

I am, unfortunately, afflicted with the common ailment of being a teenager. Thanks to well meaning, teachers, parents, friends, and librarians I have been subjected to reading books made for teenagers. My least favourites thus far have been "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" (a story in which half of the girls lose their virginity and nothing is accomplished) and the Twilight series (Buffy the Vampire episodes that not only steal their plot lines from great literature but even quote the books they steals from.) I've given up on reading books written for my age group and am sticking literary classics.

I think you will agree that "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" should get full marks as an original title, but I am curious to know how you can claim that nothing is accomplished in the story when half of the girls loose their virginity.

[sixsmith]

I think you can wring a point from any novel. Even if that point is to not have a point.

[Dark Lady]

It is interesting that so many people have mentioned The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye because these were the first two books that popped into my head when I started reading this thread. I'm not surprised by Hemingway being mentioned so much either (read one of his for the first time recently).

But I think the book that I felt most cheated by when I finished it and left me exclaming, "What?...Why?...Why?...I don't understand!!!" has to be Wuthering Heights.

[teashi]

The Old Man and the Sea. Title pretty much describes the story.
I don't get all the praise for Hemingway..

[Don Quixote Jr]

What's the most pointless book I've ever read? The Brothers Karamazov, which I re-read several years ago and completely failed to get any point or message out of it. This was a bit surprising to me because I have a BA in English Lit & read & liked a lot of Russian literature in college, but I guess it's easier for some of us to like literature that we're studying and not just reading on our own. Except for D.H. Lawrence that is, I had to read one of his crappy novels for some English course and totally hated it. I can't even remember which one it was, which is fine by me.
I'm also surprised to find out that not everyone loves The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye as much as I do. Maybe I've been leading too sheltered a life these days. Anyways, The Great Gatsby certainly makes my "Top Ten American Novels" list.

[Jeremiah Jazzz]

I think you will agree that "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" should get full marks as an original title, but I am curious to know how you can claim that nothing is accomplished in the story when half of the girls loose their virginity.

:lol:

[spooky]

Factotum by Charles Bukowski...but a strange thing- after finishing that i thought that's it...i'm never gonna read any Bukowski again(factotum was my first by the way)...but now i miss Chinaski....i think i'm gonna read another pointless book by him soon...
and Tarantula by Bob Dylan....Although he is my favorite songwriter, that book was a torment...

[Zee.]

I think you will agree that "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" should get full marks as an original title, but I am curious to know how you can claim that nothing is accomplished in the story when half of the girls loose their virginity.

no they don't

[Helga]

Cal. some British author wrote it, it was cheap and the title was simple but it was very boring and left nothing...

[Madame X]

I think you can wring a point from any novel. Even if that point is to not have a point.

Good point. :smash:

[JuniperWoolf]

Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck

So...So...So...what the hell is your point?! That was my question through whole book.

Really? When I read that book, every five minutes was a revelation.

For me, I had a lot of trouble discerning a point in Joyce's Dubliners. After almost every story I was asking "so what?" (Araby especially. It took me a lot of time to figure out what the kid's problem was). If I can't figure out what the author is saying on my own, I seek a second opinion. I've learned that there's always something.


Of Mice And Men.


I can add The Lord of the Flies to my list.

WHAAA?!? I thought that the "point" of those novels were EXTREAMLY obvious (that's why they pass them out in the tenth grade).

[My name is red]

Murphy-Beckett
Even though I've enjoyed it,i thought it was pointless.Or it's just that i didn't get the point.


And i still think that Unbearable lightness of being was just empty.

[kelby_lake]

WHAAA?!? I thought that the "point" of those novels were EXTREAMLY obvious (that's why they pass them out in the tenth grade).


Some of the suggestions have been pretty stupid.

[Alarum]

Orlando, by Virginia Woolf. People consider this her most accessible novel, but to me, it was so unbelievable dense and pointless that it was agonising to finish. To the Lighthouse was far better and, in my opinion, far easier to read.

[meh!]

I found Orlando easy to read mainly because of the humour. I also didn't think it was pointless, but there you go.

I also thought Great Gatsby was excellent. The last paragraph just gives me shivers every time. That idea of all of us chasing our dreams 'against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past'. The tragedy of Gatbsy creating himself all over again to be with what is, essentially, a memory (the past) to find that his dream is gone, it's already receded, as all our dreams will that are born in our past (all of them?). It's all perfectly encapsulated there. Actually pointing out this paragraph that he does this with almost seems to degrade it.

For me the Great Gatsby is an entertaining novel, setting everything up, until the last couple of chapters when it turns into a great novel. When everything starts to unravel.

I'd be wary of calling these 'classic' books pointless, seems quite arrogant. 'I didn't get the point' is probably more accurate than it being pointless. With that in mind, i don't think I can think of one of these classics that I got absolutely nothing from. I was disappointed by Shakespeare's comedies because they're not funny...at all. 'Haha, i'm dressed as a WOMAN!'.

heh.

[Pryderi Agni]

Pride and Prejudice. Case closed. It's the stupidest book ever.

[kelby_lake]

Pride and Prejudice. Case closed. It's the stupidest book ever.

Why?....

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

Klone and I by Daniele Steel, and to think that person has made lots of money. :brickwall

[FROADS]

Factotum by Charles Bukowski

Story mainly revolves around this guy who quits jobs at the first chance he gets em', travels around the country and meets different people, and finally decides to stay in L.A to marry a prostitute.

I know what Bukowski was tryin to express but the book seems pretty pointless...Too nihilistic 4 my taste.

[Seasider]

Pride and Prejudice. Case closed. It's the stupidest book ever.
Have you read every book ever written? If not how can you make a comparison?

Pointless Books? Anything and everything by Gertrude Stein.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Less Than Zero - Bret Easton Ellis


Nothing...NOTHING!!!

[Patrick_Bateman]

Klone and I by Daniele Steel, and to think that person has made lots of money. :brickwall

What you doing reading Danielle Steele??

[LuggageFan]

The Alchemist. Not especially good writing, doesn't really have a point, and when it's finished, you're like, "That's all? I want to undo having read that book that everyone raved about."

[breathtest]

i don't think i've ever read a pointless book. even the bad books have taught me how not to write, which makes them far from pointless.

[Propter W.]

I don't know if I ever read a pointless book, but I'm certainly glad to see a lot of you didn't really "get" The Great Gatsby either.

[PrimordialBeast]

In high school, The Grapes of Wrath felt grudgingly pointless, I'm sure I'd enjoy it now though.

But, in the last few years only book I felt was pointless was Franny and Zooey by Salinger. That story did absolutely nothing for me.

[ElBennet85]

I don't think there's such a thing as a pointless book.Even the plainest story has a reason for being told.Sometimes depending on our social background,our experiences,our age even the way our brain works we can't understand what the writer wants to say or why he has written a book.That doesn't mean that the book is pointless.On the other hand there is a bad written book.A writer who doesn't know how to write.This is so disturbing.And this is a book that we don't need to read.Because in my opinion a book well written but without much plot is worth reading but a book bad written even if there is some kind of plot isn't worth the effort.

[katelbach]

I read Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe recently and it didn't seem to be saying as much to me as it was apparently supposed to. Far from pointless to countless others though i imagine.

[Emil Miller]

Fear by Ron L Hubbard.

Somebody asked me to read it and, although I knew what to expect, I dutifully complied. I would only recommended it to be read, if at all, during the silly season.

[OrphanPip]

I read Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe recently and it didn't seem to be saying as much to me as it was apparently supposed to. Far from pointless to countless others though i imagine.

Really? I think it's a brilliant novel. Though I can see how its impact and message will be less striking today, 50 years after its initial publication, because so many of us encounter these critiques of the colonial legacy far before we encounter the book. Even so, the novel is tightly structured and beautifully written.


Fear by Ron L Hubbard.

Somebody asked me to read it and, although I knew what to expect, I dutifully complied. I would only recommended it to be read, if at all, during the silly season.

I'm reasonably sure that his books only continue in print through the concerted effort of a Scientologist conspiracy.

[Rores28]

In high school, The Grapes of Wrath felt grudgingly pointless, I'm sure I'd enjoy it now though.

But, in the last few years only book I felt was pointless was Franny and Zooey by Salinger. That story did absolutely nothing for me.

Grapes is prolyl worth a re-read... I just finished it and can say I probably wouldn't have had alot of appreciation for it in highschool either, probably due to the woefully slow plot line, and the fact that I wasn't officially in the "working" world

[Rores28]

I don't know if I ever read a pointless book, but I'm certainly glad to see a lot of you didn't really "get" The Great Gatsby either.

I don't understand what people don't get... some of the stuff you have to dig a little deeper for, but the ideas of the American Dream and dreaming in general, as well as the unaccountability of the rich seem pretty clear.

[katelbach]

I can see how its impact and message will be less striking today, 50 years after its initial publication, because so many of us encounter these critiques of the colonial legacy far before we encounter the book. Even so, the novel is tightly structured and beautifully written.

I agree with you but i just basically didn't engage with the protagonist and found the story quite boring (excepting the walk through the forest in the dark which was lovely). It is well written, as you said, but it didn't leave me thinking i'd just read a brilliant novel as it didn't have me pondering themes like the end of colonialism, familial dynamics, african culture, tribal histories or ANYTHING ELSE as i thought it would. Got much more in that respect from A Bend In The River, which i also read recently. Mentioned this to my mate who is much more well-read than i am, and he had the same reaction to the book. We just didn't take anything away with us from the novel other than its craftsmanship.

[FROADS]

I read Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe recently and it didn't seem to be saying as much to me as it was apparently supposed to. Far from pointless to countless others though i imagine.

I could see how people might perceive it to be boring since it's a story about a culture so foreign to us but other than the lil differences, the novel is a world classic IMO.

[OrphanPip]

Okonkwo probably won't resonate as an engaging protagonist in the way we're normally used to. However, I think he is very much set up by Achebe as a sort of mythic, tragical hero in the same vein as Oedipus. Okonkwo's undoing is his unfaltering devotion to what he perceives as the traditional values of his society, which Achebe also does a good job of undermining, but its that same devotion that has brought him all his success. Of course, Okonkwo doesn't fully understand the culture he tries to defend at the end, and maybe his defense of the tribes values against the colonist is more than a bit personally motivated. I think we're left to wonder if we can really understand this foreign culture, which is but a small part of the vast diversity that exists within Africa. Achebe highlights commonalities at the same time reinforcing our difference. I'm reminded of Ikemafune's song before his death, the only extended piece of untranslated Igbo in the novel. It is simultaneously familiar, as a mother's song, while being distinctly foreign.

If anyone in the novel has the potential to be a likeable protagonist it is Ikemafune, but of course his place in the novel does seem to represent a sort of lost potential. Similarly, Okonkwo's neighbour and friend questions some of the values of his society, but lacks the courage to challenge them. It is important that Ikemafune's undoing, and arguably Okonkwo's and Nwoye's (if his conversion can be viewed as an undoing), are products of their own society rather than the colonizer. Instead of a picture of a society of tribal barbarians rescued, or noble savages exploited, we get a complex society with a variety of different people that was simultaneously imploding while showing glimours of potential future reform. Achebe leaves open the possibility that Igbo society might have reformed and done away with some of its flaws, which made it vulnerable to colonialism in the first place, even without European intervention. But of course, at the center of that cultural dialogue is simply a personal and familial tragedy of hubris and intergenerational conflict.

Edit: Naipul is good too though, I also like Coetzee and Soyinka. It's hard as a Western reader not to group all African authors together, even when they come from very different cultural backgrounds.

[Lulim]

Does anybody know "Secrets", by Nuruddin Farah? -- I read it recently. Can't really say it is pointless. Certain is however that I didn't get the point.

[FROADS]

Okonkwo probably won't resonate as an engaging protagonist in the way we're normally used to. However, I think he is very much set up by Achebe as a sort of mythic, tragical hero in the same vein as Oedipus. Okonkwo's undoing is his unfaltering devotion to what he perceives as the traditional values of his society, which Achebe also does a good job of undermining, but its that same devotion that has brought him all his success. Of course, Okonkwo doesn't fully understand the culture he tries to defend at the end, and maybe his defense of the tribes values against the colonist is more than a bit personally motivated. I think we're left to wonder if we can really understand this foreign culture, which is but a small part of the vast diversity that exists within Africa. Achebe highlights commonalities at the same time reinforcing our difference. I'm reminded of Ikemafune's song before his death, the only extended piece of untranslated Igbo in the novel. It is simultaneously familiar, as a mother's song, while being distinctly foreign.

If anyone in the novel has the potential to be a likeable protagonist it is Ikemafune, but of course his place in the novel does seem to represent a sort of lost potential. Similarly, Okonkwo's neighbour and friend questions some of the values of his society, but lacks the courage to challenge them. It is important that Ikemafune's undoing, and arguably Okonkwo's and Nwoye's (if his conversion can be viewed as an undoing), are products of their own society rather than the colonizer. Instead of a picture of a society of tribal barbarians rescued, or noble savages exploited, we get a complex society with a variety of different people that was simultaneously imploding while showing glimours of potential future reform. Achebe leaves open the possibility that Igbo society might have reformed and done away with some of its flaws, which made it vulnerable to colonialism in the first place, even without European intervention. But of course, at the center of that cultural dialogue is simply a personal and familial tragedy of hubris and intergenerational conflict.

Edit: Naipul is good too though, I also like Coetzee and Soyinka. It's hard as a Western reader not to group all African authors together, even when they come from very different cultural backgrounds.

Well said. Okonkwo is indeed a tragic character in the mold of Greek heroes. The killing of Ikemefuna and particularly the ending where Okonkwo's tribesmen turn their back on him, has got to be some of the most heart-wrenching scenes I've ever read. Everything he ever believed in, what he based his whole life around, was destroyed. U might even say that a form of mental emasculation was executed on him

[katelbach]

The killing of Ikemefuna and particularly the ending where Okonkwo's tribesmen turn their back on him, has got to be some of the most heart-wrenching scenes I've ever read.

See that was my problem. I couldn't appreciate these moments as fully as you as i just didn't feel involved in the story at all. Similar to someone on here mentioning that they couldn't get into The Trial, whereas i couldn't get out of it! Glad to see that some of you felt so strongly about the novel though - will inspire me to re-read at some point in my life. Could be that the time/place/context for the reader (me) was as important here in responding to the novel as the content of the novel itself. I could read this again when i'm 70 and think it the greatest work of art i've ever encountered. I'm sure The Catcher in The Rye, The Stranger, Nausea, Amerika wouldn't have the same effect on me now as when i first read them at 17. That said, i should've mentioned this novel in the 'boring' rather than 'pointless' thread really. Still can't think of a pointless one.

Ooh! I can! Stephen Laws - Daemonic. Just awful. Abandoned after about 80 pages when i was aged 15. I didn't read again for 2 years. :sad:

[LuggageFan]

Ooh! I can! Stephen Laws - Daemonic. Just awful. Abandoned after about 80 pages when i was aged 15. I didn't read again for 2 years. :sad:

Very interesting that you mention him. Years ago, someone on another website suggested that Laws is a very talented writer - so I picked up Ghost Train, which I subsequently enjoyed. I wouldn't say there's anything exceptional about his writing though, but I also wouldn't say he's pointless. Thanks for posting.

[squidy]

I read the first chapter of Twilight. Does that count?
I don't really have the patience to make it through a book that hasn't become interesting after the first few chapters. But if I've actually read through an entire pointless book before, I've forgotten it.


Yeah, but books are so 'trendy' now. It just seems so...either you get chick lit, book-set-in-foreign-country-and-you-will-look-clever-if-you-read-it, the 10 billionth new thriller, the 'philosophical' or 'political' book, etc...

lol, I just started riding the bus again, and you just described the majority of what I see people reading while riding.

[WyattGwyon]

Okay, I'll play. Ulysses by James Joyce and Buddenbrooks by Thomas Mann are near the top of my list. Oh yeah, there is this guy name Proust—put his whole oeuvre in there.

Let me dispute a few choices here. Les Miserables is miraculously good. The Brothers Karamazov as well.

As for "modern literature:" I think we are living in a golden age. Revel in it.

[Snowqueen]

I guess it was Tortilla Flat, I found it very boring.