10 Books You Can Do Without

[grace86]

Ugghh...

I think Pendragon mentioned The Jungle. That book made me sick to my stomach, but I still respect it. It just carried on and got worse and worse and then I began to wonder what in the world I was reading it for.

Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis, I got nothing out of that. I read probably 98% of the book and cannot remember a thing.

But then again I had to read both of these for a history class, it made for a dull semester - but I will probably venture into these again. Do not get me wrong though, I did not hate these books, they were just unbearable and not quite necessary to me.

[Manfred]

Ugghh...

I think Pendragon mentioned The Jungle. That book made me sick to my stomach, but I still respect it. It just carried on and got worse and worse and then I began to wonder what in the world I was reading it for.

Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis, I got nothing out of that. I read probably 98% of the book and cannot remember a thing.

But then again I had to read both of these for a history class, it made for a dull semester - but I will probably venture into these again. Do not get me wrong though, I did not hate these books, they were just unbearable and not quite necessary to me.

Interesting; I am just about to begin reading both of those books.

[grace86]

Well Manfred, I do hope I did not scare you out of reading them. Good luck.

[Manfred]

No, no, Grace, both of them have long been on my summer reading list, along with "Cat's Cradle," by Kurt Vonnegut and "Double Indemnity," by James M. Cain.
In fact, I began reading "Babbitt" a couple of days ago. Kind of slow going, I have to admit.

[Whifflingpin]

"The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana" - Umberto Eco. Unless you want to enter a quiz with "Italian Juvenilia 1936-1946" as your specialised subject, you can quite safely do without this book.

"A new theory of Vision" by Berkeley. I'm sure it was a work of genius, but I can do without it. You are welcome to my copy (if you send me the postage!)

Half of the books by John Irving. The other half are absolute masterpieces, so you'll have to read them all to find out which are which (unless you've read half of his books and found them all to be masterpieces, in which case you can stop reading him now.)

"Handy Andy" by Samuel Lover. Have you read it? No? Will you ever? No? That just proves that you can do without it.

Anything by H. P. Lovecraft - dull, dull, dull. Writing style modelled on the worst of the minor Victorians. Is there supposed to be suspense? Not as much as you'd need to hang a sock.

[alshadai]

1. The Davinci Code, Dan Brown - well, I suppose this one doesn't need much explanation now, does it? I despise any simple book that makes stupid people feel like they are smarter than me. I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy Angels and Demons though.

2. Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand - Only because I have never found the time to read it and I think I would be a better person if I actually did make it through. This inner battle would not be a problem for me if the book simply did not exist.

3. The Hunted, Richard Matheson - Ugh, ugh, ugh! I really did not want to read about the authors fetish of getting raped in the middle of the woods through his self inserted main character. In fact, I put it down at that point.

4. The Vampire Chronicles, Anne Rice - My 12 year old niece is being corrupted by these right now and I can't stop it One minute she's reading Harry Potter and the next minute she's reading about incestuous vampires. I don't think I would have as much of a problem with this books if they weren't always targeted to those in middle school.

5. Fanfiction - It's not a book...but still a literary style I can definitely do without.

6. The Wheel of Time, Robert Jordan - Way to take such an awesome first book and RUIN EVERYTHING TO MAKE SOME MONEY. I don't even -like- fantasy.

7. Gulliver's Travels, Johnathan Swift - Do you think this man ever meant to write a literary masterpiece? He just wanted to make some money. Seriously, he writes about things in the middle of the book that he completely forgot about in the beginning. The first modern novel? Perhaps if you think in terms of discount paperbacks.

I have to agree with the earlier John Irving comment... half are masterpieces and half are just entertaining crap. Until I find you was an absolutely horrific book but was somehow still very entertaining. Must have been all the sex. I felt like I was reading Catholic School Boys Gone Wild.

I was also very close to saying Harry Potter. I chose not to because as much as I hate to admit it...this book is actually getting kids to start reading again.

[Idril]

I have to agree with the earlier John Irving comment... half are masterpieces and half are just entertaining crap. Until I find you was an absolutely horrific book but was somehow still very entertaining. Must have been all the sex. I felt like I was reading Catholic School Boys Gone Wild.

Is that his new one? I haven't read it yet but I had planned on it. I, too, know the highest highs and lowest lows of Irving and if this new one is going to be on the level of Son of the Circus then I will gladly skip it.

[alshadai]

Is that his new one? I haven't read it yet but I had planned on it. I, too, know the highest highs and lowest lows of Irving and if this new one is going to be on the level of Son of the Circus then I will gladly skip it.

I haven't read Son of Circus. I enjoyed Until I Find You...but it took place of my guilty pleasure novel that I read once every two months. It is absolutely -filled- with sex and stereotypes!

I just finished reading some reviews on amazon regarding Son of the Circus and yes it does seem like they are along the same lines. Just replace circus members with movie stars, catholic school, tattoo artists, and prostitutes.

[Neruda]

the da vinci code can not is in the list!!! it's not literature!!

[Kelly_Sprout]

According to the Library of Congress Home Page, they have over 29 million books sitting on over 500 miles of shelf space. Hmmmm.... The ten I live without.... Let me think....

The difficulty for me is that I can't name a single book that I have ever read and then panned or regretted. There are millions of books that I have no interest in reading and there are a dozen or maybe a dozen and a half that I've picked up but never finished. These of course would include such books as my father's electrical engineering text books and virtually every dictionary I've ever held in my hands.

Now, as to books that I've read that have had an impact on my thinking, stay in my memory, and sit on my book shelves, I could name hundreds upon hundreds of them. These would include the collected works of Samuel Clemens, better known as Mark Twain, the collected works of fiction of Isaac Aismov (though his scholarly books sort of belong to the same the class of literature that my father's textbooks belong to), miscellaneous classical authors and titles, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's series about his fameous detective, Sherlock Holmes, ... well, you get the idea. I can't name just ten good books and I can't name any horrid books.

I sort of have to settle begrudgingly for naming favorite authors. Here are just a few of the many more I could list: Arthur C. Clarke, Michael Crichton, Robin Cook, Edgar Allen Poe, Jack London, Laura Engalls Wilder, etc., etc.

Oh, OK, I'll name three specific book in particular as "Must Read": "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee", "Black Like Me", and "102 Minutes".

[mono]

the da vinci code can not is in the list!!! it's not literature!!

Though I have never read The DaVinci Code, I think your comment seems debatable, Neruda, especially regarding the definition and classification of literature. Indeed, the story consists of fiction (though some would debate with this, too), it gained publication as a book, many call Dan Brown an 'author' - what classifies this as not literature?
Another member began a thread of this topic; perhaps you can visit this thread, and we can discuss this more.

[mtpspur]

Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton. Was there ever such a sad and dismal menage a trois in literature?

All other books fail as far as wanting to get rid of them. Came away with no edification of the soul or lesson learned.

Runner up: Louise de la Valierre by A. Dumas. Had read all of the 3 Musketeers saga except this portion and when I finally filled in the gap I discovered there's a reason it's not mentioned often. Another boring who cares romance of King Louis marking time until Man in the Iron Mask. Read only if you want bragging rights for "Read them all".

[Mary Sue]

Anything by Thomas Hardy. Yes, he's a great writer, I don't dispute that. But his fatalism is just too hard for me to take. In a Hardy novel nobody wins. Nobody even has a chance. The universe is a cold, uncaring place, and the Immanent Will'll get all of us sooner or later. Seemingly trivial circumstances, COINCIDENCES, will always conspire against human happiness. I myself prefer a less dead-end philosophy. I may have my illusions...but if they ARE illusions, let me keep them! T. Hardy is bad for my health.

[mono]

Anything by Thomas Hardy. Yes, he's a great writer, I don't dispute that. But his fatalism is just too hard for me to take. In a Hardy novel nobody wins. Nobody even has a chance. The universe is a cold, uncaring place, and the Immanent Will'll get all of us sooner or later. Seemingly trivial circumstances, COINCIDENCES, will always conspire against human happiness. I myself prefer a less dead-end philosophy. I may have my illusions...but if they ARE illusions, let me keep them! T. Hardy is bad for my health.

I understand what you mean, Mary Sue; many of Thomas Hardy's works have some elements of hopelessness, depression, various ethical dilemmas, and, in a way, to a lesser degree, absurdism.
Of course, I have read only two of his works, besides his poetry, Jude The Obscure and, presently reading, Tess Of The D'Urbervilles; I cannot deny his poetic style in prose, amazing twists of plot, and artistic writing styles, but can certainly see how his artform would not appeal to some readers. Then again, some of my friends say I like too much of the dark, depressing literature!

[Scheherazade]

Anything by Thomas Hardy. Yes, he's a great writer, I don't dispute that. But his fatalism is just too hard for me to take. In a Hardy novel nobody wins. Nobody even has a chance. The universe is a cold, uncaring place, and the Immanent Will'll get all of us sooner or later. Seemingly trivial circumstances, COINCIDENCES, will always conspire against human happiness. I myself prefer a less dead-end philosophy. I may have my illusions...but if they ARE illusions, let me keep them! T. Hardy is bad for my health.

Hear, hear!

I have read quite few of Hardy's books and I find myself liking them less and less by each book. Hardy spent a great a deal resenting his own life and it is possible to feel the same in his books and characters. They are, in my opinion, written so that the reader will not help saying 'Aww, poor thing(s)'. I find their helplessness and fatalistic attitude depressing (if not annoying).