Perhaps a lot of people can't really remember the worst books that they've ever read (as worst would imply unremarkable and boring too), but can only recall well-known ones that they didn't like?
Printable View
Perhaps a lot of people can't really remember the worst books that they've ever read (as worst would imply unremarkable and boring too), but can only recall well-known ones that they didn't like?
I've wondered if its actually possible to critically challenge any artistic canon.
Certainly... but such a criticism demands more than the personal opinion: "I found it boring", "I didn't like the characters" "I didn't like the ending." It must also be understood that a work that has survived as part of the canon has done so because a great number of literary "experts"... be they academics, critics, "common readers" in the manner in which Virginia Woolf defined the term, and subsequent writers... felt and continue to feel the work is of real merit. You may find it difficult to convince these others and of course you open yourself to their counter opinions.
I find that Erewhon by Samuel Butler is one of the dullest books I've ever read. His satire is mostly amusing; however, his writing is terribly bland. I'd categorize reading Erewhon as cruel and unusual punishment...inflicted by myself, on myself. I suppose I'm a masochist now.
Finnegans Wake and anything by Gertrude Stein. Both utterly incomprehensible.
In 'serious' literature camp. Henry James' "The Wings of a Dove" is now, for me, tying with the Bible, Lucretius, Joyce's Ulysses and Proust. Desert island reading if the island is in hell...
How can you know if something is good or bad? Who could have thought Montaigne could be so good and Lucretius so bad, or that Dickens could be so good while Henry James is so bad? Guess you just have to read fifty pages and then give up if it feels like shovelling mud on the banks of the Styx. Helps to lose opinions like "James is a classic, I *should* read him."... Doesn't make the next hundred pages any better!
Dickens is good????????????????????????
interesting....
As you like it - Shakespeare sold out
My least favorite book by far is John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. It's really a shame, too, because the book started out with this really nice poem by Bunyan. But then the man descends into this abject, ridiculous allegory. I understand, the point of the novel was to teach readers how to be good Christians, but really, it gets to be a bit much. The constant quoting of the Bible I can handle--I've really got to accept the work for what it's trying to accomplish--but I'd also been told that it also worked as an adventure novel. And it is the furthest thing from interesting in that respect.
A much better novel with a religious undertones is Journey to the West. You've got all the desire to teach people how to live morally, but at the same time you've got fun adventures filled with interesting characters. In contrast, what does Bunyan give his reader? Other than cardboard characters and heavy-handed allegories, he doesn't give much.
I'll admit, there's one redeeming aspect. Some of the phrases he used, such as the "Slough of Despond," and "Vanity Fair," were really pretty good. However, five interesting words and one good poem do not a good book make. Therefore, I'm going to have to label Pilgrim's Progress as a FAIL.
James is hit-or-miss with me. I took a class and found I enjoyed about half of what we read, and could barely finish half. Then I looked at the publication dates of the works I liked and the works I didn't like.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Turns out the works I enjoyed were all his early to middle works, while the ones I didn't like and found dreadfully boring all fit into his later period works.
They always contain works which are generally considered among those which the well-educated person should certainly read. They may not be the best, but they certainly provide a base for expanding literary capabilities. And they separate the seasoned reader from the dilletant. They also give the frustrated reader a podium for venting his/her feelings which heretofore have not been expressed.
the worst book I ever read is propably the one I was forced to read for english major... kate greenville's the secret river....
quite philosophical content but awfull stile... awfull!
and I read a book that made me skipp a houndred pages ('t was melmoth the wanderer from oscar wilds grand uncle...) and the secret river is even worse
no matter what the NEW YORKER says, don't try it!!!!
'Dharma bums' jack Kerouac, I've explained why on other threads.
'Wasp Factory' iain banks, really not my thing at all, not that I read the whole thing so maybe it got better, since some people seem to like it.
'The Lovely Bones' alice sebold, for obvious reasons.
The worst book I've ever read is a biography of Charles Wesley. I can't even think of the author. It was so badly written and just plain dull that it was a real chore to read it.
New Moon by Stephanie Meyer. **Yawn** :Yawn:
God, I read so much dire crud when I reviewed books.
One of the worst was "Beat the Reaper" by Josh Bazell, which was basically just a literary penis enlarger. I was also forced to read various chick-lit bestsellers and it made me depressed how these gender stereotypes (which I find negative), both male and female, are preserved and strengthened through books. "Bergdorf Blondes" one of them was called. Oh the HORROR!