Anything by that dreadful Austen woman, so many times I have made an attempt to read her novels. Then I get this nauseous feeling in my throat and throw the thing away.
Printable View
Anything by that dreadful Austen woman, so many times I have made an attempt to read her novels. Then I get this nauseous feeling in my throat and throw the thing away.
Come now, come now!Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
You don't have to be so harsh now!
I am sure you will learn to like Austen, too;
Otherwise, your lady friends will never forgive you!
(OK, I know! I can't write poetry. Let's move on now! :D)
I'm a lady who is quite bothered by Austen. I can't get very far reading one of her novels. I will eventually try again in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Moby Dick
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
The great gatsby-Northanger Abbey-Silas Mariner
Great Gatsby: I hate soap operas
Catcher in The Rye: There was no plot in that book!
Ethan Frome
100 Years of Solitude: See Great Gatsby
The Scarlet Letter: A whole page on a rosebush? And the whole book is like that!
Dracula: Grrr, the boringness of the first chapters is horrible
[QUOTE
Dracula: Grrr, the boringness of the first chapters is horrible[/QUOTE]
Strongly disagree with this statement. Its the middle section that puts one in sleepy haze but the castle scenes set a wonderful mood that never quite comes back to the book afterward. Just saying. Rich
The Sound and the Furry - Faulkner is so gifted, I know, but he makes me feel like I need a shower. :sick:
Make that a tub bath :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by motherhubbard
Usually, I find that classics are classics for a good reason. There have been a few though, that I would not read again.
The Lord of the Flies is one book that I didn't dislike while I was reading it, but the further removed from it I am, the more I think "that really wasn't very good." It didn't seem realistic to me; Jack declined too quickly and was too much of a outliar--he was corrupt beyond what I would expect from a twelve or thirteen year old bully.
Persuasion has poisoned my mind against Jane Austen. It was just so dull. The characters are introduced, they do nothing for a while, they go somewhere else and continue to do nothing, then someone almost dies but doesn't, then nothingness continues some more. I know the novel was not about action, but really.
I didn't particurally like The Great Gatsby, either. I just found it mediocre, maybe because it wasn't what I was expecting.
I don't know if they're considered "classics" but I did not enjoy either The Godfather or The Caine Mutiny, The Godfather especially. The whole book was gratuitous, from the violence and sex to the plot itself. The movie, for whatever reason (probably the cast), was an infinitely better work. Everything was sown up and tight and necessary, whereas the book is exhaustively superficial, wandering from gunshot to sexual encounter to gunshot with little aim except the gunshots and sexual encounters themselves.
This might be a dumb thing to say, but I never liked Sense and Sensibility until I saw the movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by kandaurov
This was purely because I couldn't understand what on earth such a cool woman like Elinor could find attractive about Edward. However, when I saw Hugh Grant in the role, I was enlightened as to how such a soppy fop can be attractive and endearing. Kudos Hugh.:thumbs_up
Agreed, but I'm going to try to give it another shot some day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orual
I'm beginning to worry about the books from my summer reading (including both of these) winding up on this list...Quote:
Originally Posted by bouquin
That reminds me, This Side of Paradise by Fitzgerald has convinced me not to touch this author's work for a very very long time.
The protagonist is pathetic, the novel revolves around him and his two prep-school chums dreaming about being snobbery elitists and climb the social ladder. They do this everyday, and when someone else succeeds and upstages them outside their small pathetic group they whine like lil'.... well you know what.
This same protagonist also has a tendency to fall head over heals for every woman whom he catches their fancy. He instantly breaks out with the poetry, the roses, the marriage proposals everytime without failure. A real ridiculous chump.
I hope I didn't spoil any major spoilers but the book is that aimless and meaningless. These characters need a life or choke on fishbones or something.
Exactly...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyacinth42
I liked that book very much, it's one of my favorites and it's movie adaptation is rally great, probably the best. Everything is exactly the same, I was watching it and thinking to my self..Amerigo will say this, Micheal will say that...Quote:
Originally Posted by chaplin
All stream-of-consciousness novels.
I must be a complete braindead. Other than the brilliant histrionic performances, camera angles and dialogues I find the plot to The Godfather extensively boring. (I know a lot of people get bashed for acknowledging this but I just had to say it... Perhaps I'll give Mario Puzo's book a look over and see if the source of the movie's adaption appeals to me ;)Quote:
I liked that book very much, it's one of my favorites and it's movie adaptation is rally great, probably the best. Everything is exactly the same, I was watching it and thinking to my self..Amerigo will say this, Micheal will say that...
I would be interested to find out if there is a general divide between those who primarily consider themselves "writers" and those who primarily consider themselves "readers".
For instance, I read "The Portrait of an Artist . . ." primarily because I had read other novels and short stories that name that book as a primary influence. And it was mentioned quite a bit, so I thought, "I should read this". When I did, I found it hard to get through (the sermons in the middle particularly odd). I wonder if I were to go back and analyze the STYLE (as opposed to plot, or character development, etc.) if I would have a completely different opinion. I suppose I would.
I haven't read many of the books on this list, but from what is being said about Dracula, Moby Dick, and some others, I would think those who didn't like these books are primarily Readers. A long description of a house, or a flower, I suppose, is more interesting to a Writer than a Reader. Similarly, the amount of research put into the whaling sections of Moby Dick would probably be more interesting to a Writer than a Reader concerning the subject of research.
Although this seems very plausible and in most cases these statements would be valid.. they are incorrect when you think in terms of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. People ranging in age from 9 - 40 (and typically higher) are enthralled by the lengthy descriptions of Tolkein's tale and the thought he incorporates meticulously into each description every paragraph. I've enountered several LOTR fans who love the trilogy but are not compelled to write themselves... therefore your theory that "The Writer is interested in lengthy descriptions whereas The Reader strives to see substance in plot and continuity" is in this case, inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by scotpgot
In terms of classics, however, I agree with you completely. :)
The Great Gatsby is my favorite novel! I must've read it at least three times. However, none of the Fitzgerald's other works are very good and, as mentioned, This Side of Paradise was so bad that I actually left it unfinished, which I almost never do.
I read the Spanish translation of Godfather and thought that the movies were far better.
I agree about the Great Gatsby, It is a really good novel, the story would have been flawless if it wasn't for Fitzgerald's sloppy writing. Before I read it, of course we all know about the brilliant idea of the story but the actually text itself is rather poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orual
But children particularly of this age bracket can be the cruelest persons of all. Now take them, isolate them, and perhaps leave them to fend for themselves. Observe how they begin working out social order amongst themselves. Whether on a deserted island, friends in a empty schoolyard, or hanging in abandoned field for a greater length of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orual
Some of my favourite books are mentioned and some that i definately want to read as well..Oh well. I didn't like "Madame Bovary" but i always thought that it was the translation that was bad and not the book. Maybe it's a lot better in french.
Hehe Malwe you forgot "Emma"..:D :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by malwethien
Maybe it is something you ate..:D :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Typical male reaction (all my male friends loathe Austen).
I actually liked Gatsby, but maybe it was just because my English teacher worshipped it and I needed a good grade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orual
I very much liked the Great Gatsby as well.
But...you guys are going to shoot me down...I didn't care for To Kill a Mockingbird. EEEP running!!! It just kind of trailed on to me.
All time worst: The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane. I have others I dislike, Great Expectations, Moby Dick, for example, but I abhor Crane or anything written by Sherwood Anderson, even if he is a local writer and actually buried up the hill from my grandfather here in town.
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1.../ZwinkyPen.gif
Wuthering Heights is terribly dry book. Not bad, but can be in some places.
To Kill A Mocking Bird. That is terrible. Took me forever to read through, and with my English not being very good took a long boring time.
I hate not finishing a book, no matter how terrible.
!!O_O!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Felixstowe
I found this book virtually impossible NOT TO LIKE!
Can you explain your position in further detail Flexistowe? I would like to see specifically why you didn't like it :)
That is possible, but as a general rule I try to not eat anything I've made myself;)Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
Wuthering Heights was kinda too melodramatic for me. Moby Dick. and Gulliver's Travels. It was just too dryly whimsical for me. I've "read" it several times, getting further every time but I don't think I've actually finished it.
Emma and Pride and Prejudice
Why, exactly, do you "abhor" Stephen Crane? Abhor connotes some sort of personal resentement, and it seems it would be hard to abhor someone who wrote so little.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
He's not the greatest writer ever of course, but Red Badge is a nice portrait of a young soldier facing the realities of war and death, a cliche now, but done well nevertheless. He died in his twenties so his best work was yet to come, and the The Red Badge and Maggie would have been the first steps of a good, if not great, American catalogue of works if his voice hadn't been cut short.
Manolia...that's right....but technically, I have never actually read Emma ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
Yeah i know. We've discussed a lot about that. I am just teasing you Malwe :D . My humble opinion is that you can read something else instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by malwethien
I'd have to say that Catcher in the Rye was really not a good book- I suppose it was important in the development of English writing, but puh-lease! Not exciting at all, virtually no plot, just an insane, disgruntled, depressed boy talking about how "phony" everyone is. Also, The Old Man and the Sea- all Hemingway, actually. Most overrated author there is. Totally sparse writing, no passion or flavor to it, nothing good in it at all.
There were too many of them to even mention - the books which seem to be generally approved and liked, but which had the opposite impact on me; so here are only a couple that come to my mind amongst the first:
The Catcher in the Rye (J.D.Salinger)
I could never entirely comprehend the anglophone world's admiration for such "mediocre teensy American pseudo-classic", as one of my friends put it in words in class discussion of it; and in fact, it remains the mystery for me till the present day.
Certainly, when we studied it in our Literature class, we analysed all the symbolism in the book, references to popular culture, cut the book's contents literally in pieces as we all bloodily wanted to know what the hell is in that book that impresses the anglophone world so much (our professor was already going crazy with us, needless to mention, and was dying to move on something "more serious") and why the hell the book still seems so "dry" to us; we even read the damned book in original English instead in translation to our language, but even after all that, our opinions of the book were barely changed. Certainly we had some better and fuller picture of it and how (and why) it must be perceived by people who like it, but the book was so uncongenial with us, who grew up on and were educated in, I daresay, more "serious" literature (it was basically a black sheep in our repertoire) , that it still was for us barely something more than just another teen angsty book, just one in the row of many similar we have read outside of school - amusing, but nothing special and terribly, insanely overrated, and certainly not something that belongs to the shelf of "classics".
The Great Gatsby (F.Scott Fitzgerald)
Had it not been, very honestly, a matter of the lost bet, and had I not been "forced" to read it that way, I would have never read it as I would have probably dropped it after ten pages. Whilst I was reading it I was thinking how the book should be used to keep the fire burning in the fireplace.
Madame Bovary (G.Flaubert)
It was one of the books from obligatory school reading repertoire which I could barely bring myself to finish. Unlike the previous books listed, it at least provoked in me some slight track of interest, or some of its parts proved to be borderline amusing, so it was certainly less of a torture to go through.
Also, all the books I have read - or attempted to do so - written by Balzac, Zola or Hemingway. Especially I disliked the books by the latter, whilst Balzac and Zola were not as bad per se as boring for me.
I always try to make a clear distinction whether I disliked the book because I considered it to be very bad per se, or because it bored me to death, but I would still not argue that it is a bad-quality book as such.
The Cather in the Rye, for example, is something I truly consider to be bad book, whilst Le Pere Goriot was "only" very slow and boring.
Only my opinion, though.
I hated 'Tale of Two Cities' and 'Great Expectations'.
Go ahead, maul me =P.
Oh dear...I loved Emma...Knightley is my favorite character Jane Austen had ever designed, and I love the fact that Emma was the only pro-antagonist Austen created with no financial problem...We did Thorton Wilder's 'The Matchmaker' in our school and no one in the play saw the similarities but me; they all told me 'The Matchmaker' was based off of 'Hello, Dolly!' and nothing like Emma.
Stupid teenagers. =P
It's been interesting reading through the thread and seeing what one person loves, another hates. I guess our likes and dislikes make us unique...:)
There have been books that I have not liked, but usually I find at least one redeeming passage in them. I had to read Ulysses for a class and I just am not a big Joyce fan. However, there are some passages in there that are quite lovely. Too few for me to love the book though.
One book I have never been able to progress through is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. I am not quite sure why....but I always get very tired after reading about 15 pages....
Animal Farm!
I understand why a lot of people want to trash "Catcher in the Rye", but I think it won popularity due to its unqiueness, and its sense of simplicity.
Wuthering Heights... I fell asleep myself. The beginning just didn't grab me.
I gotta tell you, I have many classics collecting dust (from the noteworthily ugly Wordsworth editions) on my shelves and I dislike every one of them in every way, shape or form. But I understand HOW it may appeal other people, so it doesn't bother me that they're considered "classics". Though honestly I wouldn't read 90% of Wordsworth classics without banging my head on a wall after the first chapter. Then again, I'm sure they're more universal ones in the mix, but I'm too young to have a good answer...