Printable View
Because they are so bad
I'll start it out:
1. I Never Played the Game - Howard Cosell
2. Listen America - Jerry Falwell
3. Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them - Al Franken
4. The Misfortunes of Virtue - Marquis de Sade
5. The Spy - James Fenimore Cooper
1. Any of the Twilight books.
2. Candide.
3. Moby Dick (terribly boring).
4. Heart of Darkness
5. Pride and Prejudice.
Each of these books was terribly boring, especially 2 and 3. Twilight was terribly written and incredibly pointless. Pride and Prejudice had to spice to the plot, and Heart of Darkness was just terrible.
Hmmm... and I thought Candide, Moby Dick, Pride and Prejudice, and The Heart of Darkness were among some of the best books I had ever read. Just goes to show ya...:eek2:
:) I think that might be because some people mistake 'fun' for 'good'. I guess we all do, sometimes, or we used to when we were younger.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I've been pretty lucky so far, in that I didn't read many bad books, but I would like to nominate the first four Harry Potter books (I gave up after the fourth). While they are moderately fun, they are woefully unimaginative in the sense that J K Rowling just took a bunch of stereotypes/myths/established beliefs and put them under one title instead of going to the trouble of actually making up something original. Also Bridget Jones's Diary. Again, fun, but completely empty.
I'd add anything written by Dan Brown or the Twilight series, but I haven't read them.
I read for fun, fiction is not "academic" or "intellectual" for me. I can't imagine whatever other reasons anyone would read fiction for.Quote:
Again, fun, but completely empty.
:nod: (Not to mention her debt to Ursula K. LeGuin)Quote:
Originally Posted by escapologist
You have just become my hero. :thumbs_upQuote:
Originally Posted by escapologist
and 2 through 5 of those posted by IceM. It appears as if these posters were made to read these in school and still resented this. It certainly tells you something when someone dislikes a classic which has been recomended by scholars and other literary pondits. What you don't like can make you appear grossly ignorant as well as what yiu like.
I can't think of five, but I'm not fond of Ayn Rand.
1. Twilight - Stephenie Meyer It felt totally useless to me. I could only read the first one cause my friend advised it - had to read it up to the end to say that it was crap, man that was tough not to give up reading it.
2. Any book of Dontsova or Marinina - if the first one if readable at least, the second one isn't worth the paper it is written on.
3. Devil wears Prada - well fun a bit, but then gets boring, but it is only my opinion
4. Doctor Zhivago - I tried and failed, no way I'd ever read it to the end it is the way to boring
5. The leader of the worst books I read is history of Ukraine for 11 form - no truth, it made me go furious
Yes she'd certainly be a contender.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Leaving aside commercial pap like Dan Brown et al, there are few books that I would pointedly caution people against reading. Norman Mailer's 'Barbary Shore' is pretty terrible but that's not news to anyone. Salman Rushdie's 'Fury' mistakes itemisation for intellectual activity with sleep inducing results. Ian McEwan's 'Saturday' resembles the winner of a contest devoted to dull, cliched, middle class malaise.
Only a fraction of books published find wide readership and even fewer manage lasting appeal. People read for a variety of reasons - in that sense, I can't advise against Dan Brown or Harry Potter. For this discussion, I think its best to consider books that are highly recommended usually but I/you had a terrible time with. Personally, Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones is one I regretted wasting time on and would never suggest it to anyone. I think there's a movie based on the book. It has to be better than the book.
Sigh. I don't know how many times I have repeated this since I joined this forum, but I find these complaints about Melville nearly heartbreaking. He almost single-handedly put American Literature on the map, and I tend to agree with the essayist in my Columbia History of American Poetry edition that Moby Dick is pretty much the American epic, that it is a master prose poem, doing for the American national identity what Dante did for Roman Catholicism as the epicenter of Imperial legacy.
I value the study of literature, and comments like "Moby Dick is boring" miss how much this narrative achieves, how it created the American anti-hero, which remains with us to this day, how it clashed a vigorous Old Testment Protestant order against a romantic rebellion against God.
Some things are really worth the effort people, and Melville's voice is one of those--and African Love, he did a great deal to advocate integration before the Civil War was even considered remotely possible.
That about says it all. And the books is surely worth reading if only for the brilliant passages of absolutely visionary poetic splendor.:nod:
Ugh, I hate these kinds of topics because they inevitably end up being a "let's come together to bash proletarian lliterature!" party.
The fact of the matter is that each book has its own value to the person who finds it valuable. And to say that someone is "ignorant" because they didn't like Candide is just...despicable. Seriously, just because literary critics have liked a book for ages doesn't necessitate its quality. IceM has contributed to other topics with intelligent discourse, so obviously his dislike of Candide and Melville has not affected his functionality as an intellectual.
I apologize for the rant, but I hate elitism in all its many forms.
Just forgot to say many people say that Harry Potter is no good, but it made so many children read, that it cannot be bad. Well at least 3 first books - as it moved on it started to go off the field I think. I began to see the author as serial killer.
Rowling as a serial killer? :) A bit rich, and I am not sure how she would take that, but aside from the aesthetic debate about Potter, she is an incredibly lucky author. I have published and suffered well over twenty years, and I am still running this treadmill, lucky if I get in some online sci-fi penny zine even for a token amount. But Rowling went from being a welfare mother to a woman who is nearly a franchise unto herself. I admire her achievement. Don't know if I will ever find time for the books, but would enjoy doing her biography, seriously.
In the modern era hers is a rare feat, and her literary agent was no doubt a marketing genius.
Jozanny, the world of writing seems to be difficult and severe, especially now, when people tend to watch - not to read, I also wish some of my work being at least published, but I do not think mine are worth a penny, well the last Harry Potter book wasn't too- maybe I hae a chance
Yes, but to dismiss a book as bad because it's 'boring' is a groundless criticism. Frankly I found Sense and Sensibility boring, but I have enough common sense to detect its many virtues. 'Boring' and 'exciting' are far too subjective to serve as a basis for a criticism of an entire novel. Any person with common sense can see Moby-Dick whether you enjoyed it or not, as a great novel.Quote:
Originally Posted by glover7
Anyway, I think all books are worth reading. But if you want to save time in your life so that you won't die having not read Moby-Dick or Don Quioxte, skip Dan Brown and the Twilight books. Believe me, you're not missing anything.
I don't think the argument here pertains only to a book's "exciting" factor. I believe that it has to do with personal preference. How can you say that "exciting" is subjective when "great" is an equally subjective and even more ambiguous term?Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
If excitement is how people derive greatness from a book, then your argument becomes invalid.
Personally, I will never admit that Moby Dick is a great novel because I don't think it is. It's my personal opinion, and you can't alter it by suggesting the words of the long-established "canonites."
Candide was terribly written. Heart of Darkness had 0 impact on me as a reader who looked forward to reading that novel. Pride and Prejudice lacked any meaning to me as a reader, the plot was terribly predictable, and there was no thematic relevance to me as a reader. Moby Dick, while brilliant in some parts, just proved too tedious. I read that twice.Quote:
Originally Posted by escapologist
Have I made that distinction for you now?
For clarification, I read all of these because I was interested in them. And I'm sorry that poorly written classics don't appeal to me. Candide was just slop. Pride and Prejudice was flat.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
But I love Dante's, Dosteovsky's, Dickens', and Crane's works (most of which are critically acclaimed). Shakespeare, (although his works are plays) is a great work, and essays from Thoreau and Emerson (ALL critically acclaimed) are other favorites. Now that I've demonstrated a similar taste to that of your "scholars and pondits" does that justify my opinions of these novels? Or am I still "grossly ignorant?"
Congratulations, he had a literary achievement. I'm trying my best not to scoff at your opinion, but is his rampant success with Moby Dick supposed to change my opinion? I read the book twice, hoping the 2nd time would reveal some thematic or symbolic brilliance: I found little. The book featured bright moments, sure, but all books do. I felt it just had little impact on me. Is that a crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
I'm sorry to the last two quotees. Maybe next time I'll find a scholar or two that shares my opinions. Then maybe I'll be considered to have more literary merit next time.
That's perfectly fine. And yes, 'great' and 'bad' are just as subjective, if not more ambiguous than 'exciting' or 'boring'. But there is so much to a novel than momentary thrill. If one were to compare a novel like Angels and Demons with Moby-Dick one would find that the plot, charactarization, thematic concerns are all much more complex and deep in the latter. Thus Moby-Dick is considered a great novel in literary society because of these critical conventions. They are not objective in any way, but if one is to accept these conventions then one could consider this novel or that novel to be great or not great within the context of the system we have created. So maybe in a sense calling Moby-Dick a great novel is an appeal to elitism, or at least to that system for which most of us have based our appretiation of a novel.Quote:
Originally Posted by glover7
This can apply to any novel. For example if you like Don Quioxte first and foremost for its character-depth, plot structure, word-structure and thematic/philosophical depth, then yes, you are appealing to the system that "high culture" has set out to describe what makes a great novel.
The only reason why one would argue with you and call your claims that Moby-Dickis "boring" would be because maybe you like Don Quioxte for the reasons described above, and yet can't find those virtues in Moby-Dick. Again, Don Quioxte is merely an example.
I didn't like Don Quixote, but ten years later, with more experience, and reading another translation, I thought it was fantastic, perhaps the best novel I've ever read. How do you Moby Dick haters know that you won't like it in ten years time?
I disagree that a novel can become great through some sort of "critical convention". It can only be great if it has great aesthetic merit, i.e., it must provide pleasure -- although in some cases a difficult pleasure that you have to work hard to get!
I liked Don Quixote because it was a great pleasure to read. Part of the pleasure was obtained from imbibing the character-depth, plot structure, word-structure and thematic/philosophical depth. Part of it was visualising Sancho tossed in a blanket :) I'm using the system of "high culture", but only to have more fun!
I can't comment on Candide and Heart of Darkness because I haven't read them. Now, if you refuse to accept any critical conventions, as DanielBenoit said, that's fine and it means you and I see literature from different perspectives. If you do accept them, though, you must also accept that Pride and Prejudice, even if it might be guilty of the faults you mention, is a good, if a bit mild, satire of the society Austen lived in. You say Moby Dick is tedious. To me that adjective amounts to 'not fun', which does little to refute my point. Anyway, maybe it's a tad long-winded. Such were the times. But you still can't deny the strong and amazing symbolism is contains, which makes it a 'great' book.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceM
Again, if you choose to view literature outside any conventions, my points do not apply to you and I apologise for ranting :).
Another awful one- Changing Places by David Lodge. And The Brooklyn Follies by Paul Auster.
How about a change in thread title to 5 books I shouldn't have read, as opposed to 'nobody' should read? Making others minds up for them is always a losing proposition, much less parlaying your own subjectivity on another. My mother watches movies and reads books that I'd consider vacuous & droll, but then again, she spends her literary & cinematic time much differently than I. My favorite film, Chinatown, she’d loathe for its unhappy ending, and two books that I enjoy immensely, Tropic of Cancer & Confederacy of Dunces, she’d be disgusted w/ for their ribald tone, grotesque characterization (or complete lack there of) & probably call them flatulent farces. Does that mean I shouldn’t have read them?!
The problem with applying a structure of literary conventions to evaluate a work is that, while claiming to be objective, is subjective in the eyes of the reader. Relatively speaking, a strong plot structure, word structure, thematic relevance, and strength/relevance of symbolism are objective ways of evaluating a book. But some people value some aspects more than others. Furthermore, the ability to which a novel fulfills these conventions is in the eyes of the reader. Like the quote below from Escapologist, some find the symbolism in Moby Dick to be amazing and powerful. However, while literary experts can ramble about the significance of Moby Dick, the relevant themes and the impact of the book's symbolism, one must read the book for themselves to truly gauge how well-written a book is. I found 2-5 on my first post dreadful. Surely, each book has a bright spot: I admit that Moby Dick has strong symbolism, and that Candide is darkly humorous. But if a book excels in one standard, that does not instantly posit it as a great work. Moby Dick has strong symbolism, yet that symbolism cannot overcompensate for the lack of thematic relevance to me as a reader; Candide is darkly humorous, but the terrible lack of strong symbolism cannot be ignored. While some books excel in some aspects, they are utterly disasterous in others.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
As I said above, because a work excels in one or very few conventions does not warrant that same work being considered a classic. I found Pride and Prejudice poorly written. I found practically 0 thematic strength, symbolism was quite lacking, and more. (Note: I did not read these novels mindlessly, I read them from a desire to.) Applying many of the same literary conventions many other readers accept, I found little value in any of the four novels under question.Quote:
Originally Posted by escapologist
I'm more shocked that, because I have an opinion of these four novels that differs from any of those who have posted, instantly I'm "grossly ignorant," a terrible reader, and/or do not accept the typical literary conventions used to evaluate a novel. Wow. I kinda thought having a different opinion was being a free-thinker, you know, what human beings are. I beg you forgiveness. Let me see the literary light!
I just thought I had read it in a bad translation. I wasn't particularly impressed by it either.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceM
'The horror, the horror'. (Why do I keep thinking of Marlon Brando?). Many people prefer Conrad's The Secret Agent. I have always found it a bit weird that Conrad wrote The Secret Agent as a response to Dostoyevsky's The Devils. I don't know what Heart of Darkness was a response to, if anything. I have always had a sneaking suspicion that people read far too much into it as a novel. Or, of course, I could just be a bit shallow.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceM
I admire Austen's wit at times, but I have always found her hard work. If however, you ever dare to utter or make a statement such as "Yes, but actually I prefer Anthony Trollope to Austen" you appear to have committed an abominable sin in the eyes of the Janeites & the literary world in general. From then on you have the terrible 'Mark of Jane' to carry on your forehead & must wander in literary oblivion & cannot dare to discuss literature with anyone as you have committed such an abomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceM
I have only read it once. I must admit that I liked it. It was a bit of a failure when it was first published I believe. If you read it as an adventure novel I think you will be disappointed with it. I think that was one of the problems when it was first published. The long deviations from the main plot were a metaphysical exploration by Melville & I have a feeling that he may have wanted to write two novels but combined the ideas for Moby Dick. It is a true classic. It is a novel that cannot be rushed however. His exploration of 'whiteness' & how it seems to fill us with dread is perfectly realised. Like Conrad it is rich in allegory & symbolism & I think you have to approach it with this in mind. It beats Jane Austen anyway!Quote:
Originally Posted by IceM
If it was a response to anything, it was a response to his own brief time in the Belgian Congo. I've always been impressed by Conrad's ability to write in English considering he apparently didn't learn the language until his late teens. I tend to agree with Achebe's assessment of the novel as racist and dehumanizing towards Africans. Nonetheless, it's an interesting novel rich in material to discuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Headed
Ah! That explains the Congo diary & maps in my edition. :lol: ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I've never met a Ukrainian who wasn't brilliant at languages.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Didn't Conrad point out the fact that African soldiers were probably stationed in Britain with the Roman Army garrisons at the beginning of the novel? This has been proved from excavations of Roman military cemeteries discovered in the UK. I've never read anything Chinua Achebe has ever written. I doubt I ever will.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I'm not saying anyone should consider Pride and Prejudice a classic, I'm just saying it shouldn't be on the "books you should never read" list.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceM
And there's no need to be defensive. No one is attacking you, and if someone said you were 'grossly ignorant', they are probably not worthy of a response from you.
@ Red-Headed: Conrad was Polish. I don't think it makes much difference, but I thought I should point it out, just in case :)
The problem i find with Pride and Prejudice/North South and all that class of stuff is that they are all built on the same frame. They may be well writen (although not so well as to make them great works of literature in my opinion) and one may be able to derive knowledge from them but honestly i think they are completely empty of imagination and creativity. They have no greater meaning behind them or anything. For me they are just tedious empty shell excuses for books...however since reading should be about pleasure (whatever that means for you) anyone who likes these books should definetly not be described as stupid or ignorant. Its all about taste (there are only very few books which are pretty much universlay accepted as good which doesnt mean that for anyone those are the only good books to read).
That is my opinion anyway...
Yes, I know. I was being a little humorous. It obviously didn't translate well. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by escapologist
'Joseph Conrad was born in Berdyczów (now Berdychiv, Ukraine) into an impoverished, highly patriotic Polish noble family bearing the Nałęcz coat-of-arms.' ~ Wikipedia
Out of curiosity, what books do you think are imaginitive and creative? Or not just empty?Quote:
Originally Posted by juhuulian
No, it's me, I didn't read the whole thread very carefully :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Headed
I think that there should be a distinction made between the often ironic & satirist 18th century moralising novels of Jane Austen & their seeming obsession with manners & class & the politically tendentious novels of Dickens (particularly Hard Times) & the likes of Elizabeth Gaskell.Quote:
Originally Posted by juhuulian
I agree that they often lack romantic idealism & are not full of conceptual symbolism, but to give Austen her due, she had an incredible economy of expression in writing & many of her characters have value. She had classic comedic moments, quite often with the conflicts various protagonists had between illusion & reality. That & Trollope's complete appreciation of the 'usual' in his Barsetshire Comedie Humaine is what gives them their appeal to many.Quote:
Originally Posted by juhuulian
I think that is the point of many of them! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by juhuulian
To be fair to many pre-romantic novels, I think they did often touch the human condition enough for people to relate to them in many ways.
It's OK, I do things like that all the time. I think it's what the edit button is for! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by escapologist
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by escapologist
When it comes down to it, terms like 'great' and 'bad' are meaningless in the practical sense. Either you should read a book or you shouldn't. Calling a novel 'great' or 'one of the best I've ever read' is really just another way of saying 'please please please read this book now'.
Whether or not Moby-Dick or Pride and Prejudice is a great novel is up to you. But to call it a book you should never read is ridiculous, mainly just for the fact that they are so beloved by so many people, that even if you disliked it, others may still enjoy it. In truth, there's no books not worth reading. I even take back what I said about Dan Brown and Stephine Meyer earlier in this thread. The only thing that matters is priority. To me, Moby-Dick should take a much higher priority in your reading list than The DaVinci Code.
I just love aesthetic relativism. Such a brilliant philosophy... totally suited to those who fear any form of challenge or difficulty. Opinions in art are subjective... and so there can be no "good" nor "bad". Of course no artist believes this to be so... not even when considering his or her own efforts. Some are clearly better than others. All art is but opinion...? Certainly... but then some opinions are far better than others.:D As for "elitism"... well certainly "elitism" can have negative connotations that are connected with wealth and social status... but "elitism" also means having high standards and living up to them. It is NOT about snobbery. Indeed, I often find the opposite to be true among those who embrace an anti-intellectual stance and sneer at anything which requires intellect, concerted effort, and high standards. "Elitism" often involves the rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field; a long track record of competence in a demanding field; an extensive history of dedication and effort in service to a specific discipline, or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field. Meritocracy would be another term for "elitism". Personally, if I were faced with surgery I would wish for an "elite" surgeon... not the merely average. If I were involved in a discussion about Shakespeare here I would probably give anything Petrarch's Love had to say a greater degree of consideration due to her experience with Shakespeare and Renaissance poetry. I take the same approach to art/music/literature.
Having said that much I will admit that I have my own personal preferences and dislikes and there is no way that I like every work that has been acclaimed... and there are works that are less recognized that I personally hold far more dear. But at the same time, I recognize that there is a difference between stating something as personal opinion and stating something as fact. There is a great gap between saying "I didn't like Moby Dick. It just didn't work for me. I just couldn't get over all the digressions" and stating "The Heart of darkness was terrible." or "Candide was just slop." These are not statements of personal opinion but statements of fact... and considering that they go against the larger accepted position, they certainly open the speaker up to criticism and challenges to back up his or her position.
It is, perhaps, presumptious to suggest that any book should not be read by others, regardless of its lack of personal appeal. It is equally questionable to suggest that certain books should be read by others. Somerset Maugham, one of the best 20th century authors, met Edith Wharton la grande dame of American literature at a luncheon in London and Maugham, despite being a polyglot and an authority on world literature, happened to mention Edgar Wallace.
"Who is Edgar Wallace?" she replied.
"Do you never read thrillers?" asked Maugham.
"No, I'm afraid it's getting very late," said Mrs Wharton.
Alright then, will you kindly share with us the source of these 'facts' you mention. The only way we know if a book is 'good' or not before we read it is if someone tells us so. And even if that someone happens to be an 'elite' critic, or a whole bunch of them, that still doesn't make it a fact. Your comparison with surgery doesn't hold water because literary criticism isn't an exact science and thank heavens for that. As for artists themselves, they judge their own work by their own subjective standards, i.e. by how well they managed to express their ideas. Yes, we will trust a critic more than a random reader because critics evaluate works of art according to a set of standards we perceive as conventional and more substantial. Critics are able to analyse a work of art on a deeper and a more specific level, but their evaluation still doesn't count as a fact. The things that do count as facts are, for example, the existence of symbolism, figures of speech or different stylistic devices as explained by theories of literature. But no theory claims to be able to decide if a work of art is 'good' or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Sorry guys I'm going to skip the discussion and name 5 of my own:
1. Her Victory by Alan Sillitoe [Sillitoe has written some good novels and short stories but this is definitely not among them]
2. Murder in the collective
3. The Magnificient Spinster [can't remember the author of either of those. They were two that I read during my "feminist" phase and though there were far more good books than bad The Women's Press did publish some stinkers].
4. Eyeless in Gaza by Aldous Huxley [hated all that philosophical self-indulgence that was really saying nothing at all].
Sorry, can't think of a fifth one off hand. I was going to say In Cold Blood by Truman Capote mainly because I had the misfortune to study it as an "A" level text but it's nowhere near as bad as the other 4 and doesn't deserve to be classed with them.