# Books you're supposed to like but don't.



## Darlene Jones (Nov 1, 2011)

I'm guessing that we all have books we know we're supposed to like but don't and don't want to admit it. I'll go first. I've tried to read To Kill a Mockingbird several times and never got past the first few pages, but I did love the movie. I've also never been able to read Hemingway, but am now reading and enjoying The Paris Wife, and because of that book I want to know more about Hemingway's life - I still don't want to read his books, though.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

All my geeky friends love the Hitchhiker's Guide novels, but I merely think they are okay.  There, I said it.


----------



## Adele Ward (Jan 2, 2012)

I really wanted to enjoy Phillip Pullman but didn't like his style from the first page and only forced myself through it because I was reading it for a book club. I really like Salman Rushdie but for some reason stop about 20 pages in each time. I don't like Jane Austen or Thomas Hardy.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

The Hunger Games.  But I've always admitted my dislike.


----------



## MrPLD (Sep 23, 2010)

Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit... I've tried many times - it just doesn't resonate with me


----------



## Sean Patrick Fox (Dec 3, 2011)

The Blade Itself by Joe Abercrombie - Don't get the hype. I didn't like or enjoy any of the characters, the plot had the possibility to be interesting, but the writing was rather pedestrian.

The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan - Way too long, the writing is godawful, far too much extraneous material, childish and annoying characters. I really can't think of anything positive to say about the series.

A good chunk of the books I had to read to earn my degree in English, and a whole lot of others.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Everything I've tried by Steven King. I've tried maybe 4 of his novels and didn't finish any of them. I finished _On Writing_, but only by skipping most of the autobiographical stuff -- which I think may be an indication as to why none of his novels resonated at all with me.


----------



## Todd Young (May 2, 2011)

Dickens. I like 19th century stuff, but I find Dickens a bore. And his characters are ridiculous.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Most classics, honestly.  Even the ones I like I'm fairly mixed on as the language tends to be stiff, overly descriptive and make for a pretty dull read even if the story and characters are great.  Especially if it's something translated from another language.


----------



## flipside (Dec 7, 2011)

H.P. Lovecraft's short fiction.

The Lord of the Rings.

The Chronicles of Narnia.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Alice in Wonderland.


----------



## newportwa (Jul 18, 2009)

The Help.  I could never see why people think it is that great.  Two of my friends read it recently and they did not like it either and I guess that made me feel better!


----------



## tiaratum (Dec 30, 2011)

Wow, I thought I'd be alone in not liking The Lord of the Rings but apparently not! Personally, I blame Tom Bombadil. 

A good friend recently loaned me her beloved copy of Outlander. What an abomination of a novel.


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

The Hobbit. Couldn't get through it when I tried as a teenager and haven't tried since.

D.H. Lawrence, a lot of Hardy's work, the Iliad, War and Peace.


----------



## Steverino (Jan 5, 2011)

Ursula K. LeGuin's latest book, _Lavinia_.

It's very... er... historically accurate.

(Yawn.)


----------



## CharlieLange (Nov 22, 2010)

Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

Hunger Games, but only because I read Battle Royale (although published about a year after Hunger Games) and it is a much better read. It's probably the best 'here you are, now survive' books I've ever read, where Hunger Games did not impress me at all.

Steve Jobs by Isaacson. I'm just tired in general about hearing how great he was. I only made it half way through.


----------



## Ghost in the Machine (Dec 28, 2011)

Sean Patrick Fox said:


> The Blade Itself by Joe Abercrombie - Don't get the hype. I didn't like or enjoy any of the characters, the plot had the possibility to be interesting, but the writing was rather pedestrian.
> 
> The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan - Way too long, the writing is godawful, far too much extraneous material, childish and annoying characters. I really can't think of anything positive to say about the series.
> 
> A good chunk of the books I had to read to earn my degree in English, and a whole lot of others.


As a old D&D geek, I welcomed Jordan's series... at first. And enjoyed them at second, and gave it up as an exercise in unedited verbosity toward the end of the third book. Martin is currently doing it better, though he is starting to show a lot of slipping and seems to have also decided he needs no editing, which may doom the series. Feist managed to intrigue me through five books of his 20-some-long D&D/Bushido-based series.

I can understand the weakened publishing industry's need for franchises. They have been a long-time part of the industry, since Sherlock Holmes. But there seems to be a trend over the last couple of decades to give franchise authors who sell well a pass and not bother editing their later works with due diligence because "they sell." They are saving the industry. It isn't limited to the fantasy genre, but is widespread, from Charlaine Harris to James Patterson.

And I hate Jane Eyre.


----------



## LCLarson (Jan 3, 2012)

James Joyce - Ulysses... urk. I had to write a 5,000 word essay about it back in the 1970s but I absolutely could not plough through the darned thing, so read cheat notes about it and rambled on and on (rather like Mr Joyce, really) and got top marks for my work. I know it is brilliantly written. I know he's a better writer than I. I just couldn't read it.

Also, anything by Marcel Proust... I swear, when my literary friends say the love his works (in superior tones), I say, "You lie - you haven't read any from start to finish - you just *think* you should have read them because it impresses those who haven't read them (like me)."


----------



## Ben White (Feb 11, 2011)

Name Of The Wind.  I was really expecting to love it but dear goodness is Kvothe a huge Mary Sue.  Plus it's just boring, the plot is little more than 'stuff happens', the worldbuilding is lacking and the writing is, at best, adequate.

Bleh.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Most classics, honestly. Even the ones I like I'm fairly mixed on as the language tends to be stiff, overly descriptive and make for a pretty dull read even if the story and characters are great. Especially if it's something translated from another language.


Same here - everyone goes on about the the free classics but I tried to read some and gave up. Among the not-yet-free classics, I have always hated Catcher in the Rye but I know I'm not the only one - it's really a "love it or hate it" book... I have yet to come across someone who is indifferent or doesn't feel strongly about it one way or another.


----------



## Adele Ward (Jan 2, 2012)

I kept trying Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit and didn't like them either. Couldn't finish them. My sons really didn't like them either.


----------



## bnapier (Apr 26, 2010)

Sorry folks....but I just can NOT get into the Lord of the Rings books.

Oh, and also never saw the big deal about Catcher in the Rye, either.


----------



## Beth Dolgner (Nov 11, 2011)

I have an awful lot of "classic" books on my list...

Huckleberry Finn
The Old Man and the Sea
As I Lay Dying
(I know, this reads like a high school English class list!)
The Once and Future King


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

I struggled through the Hobbit but didn't bother with the LotR trilogy - really enjoyed the movies though which suggests it's a great story that just kind of gets lost in Tolkien's writing style, which doesn't suit everyone.


----------



## Tom Schreck (Dec 12, 2010)

For someone who loves the mystery genre this is embarrassing...Lee Child. I feel guilty even saying it.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I guess I've never thought I was "supposed to" like any particular thing.

Even the classics or 'expected to be classics' I studied in school I never felt I was required to do anything more than "appreciate" them.  And if I really didn't like them, I worked hard to explain exactly why!

So, while there are a number of books I haven't much liked, none were ones I was "supposed to".


----------



## mallington (Jun 20, 2011)

I once got through the first 70 or so pages of Book One, Remembrance of Things Past, and wanted to punch Proust in the nose.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I guess I've never thought I was "supposed to" like any particular thing.
> 
> Even the classics or 'expected to be classics' I studied in school I never felt I was required to do anything more than "appreciate" them. And if I really didn't like them, I worked hard to explain exactly why!
> 
> So, while there are a number of books I haven't much liked, none were ones I was "supposed to".


I had sort of felt the same way, but then decided I couldn't resist an opportunity to bait the King fans.


----------



## Darlene Jones (Nov 1, 2011)

Have to agree with The Help and The Girl With the Dragon Tatoo.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

history_lover said:


> I struggled through the Hobbit but didn't bother with the LotR trilogy - really enjoyed the movies though which suggests it's a great story that just kind of gets lost in Tolkien's writing style, which doesn't suit everyone.


The writing style in LOTR is very different than The Hobbit. I love LOTR, but I'm not a huge fan of The Hobbit as I don't like the writing style much. So maybe give the Kindle sample of Fellowship of the Ring a go and see if you like that style more.


----------



## Sean Patrick Fox (Dec 3, 2011)

I wasn't a huge fan of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, which I read a year or so ago, but I blazed through the second and third books (Girl who Played with Fire and Girl who Kicked the Hornet's Nest) and I liked them a lot more.


----------



## kindlegrl81 (Jan 19, 2010)

The Lord of the Rings, to my cousin's horror (I did like The Hobbit though)

Wuthering Heights


----------



## Adele Ward (Jan 2, 2012)

I couldn't get on with Wuthering Heights either. It seemed so muddled and not at all how it's portrayed in films etc. I wonder if girls still read Jane Eyre and books like that among their early full-length novels. I did love Jane Eyre when I was 12.


----------



## Jonathan Daniel - Author (Aug 3, 2011)

I agree that a lot of the classics are just tedious and boring as hell.  

Considering I write horror and have been reading it most all my life I'll probably be run out of town on a rail for saying this, but Dracula just never really did anything for me.  I got about halfway through it and just couldn't keep going.  And I hate that I feel that way, but I just didn't enjoy it.  

I'm sure there are other works but I'm having trouble thinking of them right now.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> The writing style in LOTR is very different than The Hobbit. I love LOTR, but I'm not a huge fan of The Hobbit as I don't like the writing style much. So maybe give the Kindle sample of Fellowship of the Ring a go and see if you like that style more.


My understanding is that it's overly descriptive - I can't stand that. I also axed Pillars of the Earth from my to-read list when my husband told me that Follett spends half the book describing how to build a cathedral (which he was not telling me as criticism btw, he actually loved it). I appreciate scene setting but come on, get on with the actual story. I would probably wind up skimming a good portion of books like that.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

history_lover said:


> My understanding is that it's overly descriptive - I can't stand that. I also axed Pillars of the Earth from my to-read list when my husband told me that Follett spends half the book describing how to build a cathedral (which he was not telling me as criticism btw, he actually loved it). I appreciate scene setting but come on, get on with the actual story. I would probably wind up skimming a good portion of books like that.


Yeah, if you hate descriptive books, then stay away from LOTR.

It's in a very different writing style (more dialogue, less narration etc.) than the Hobbit, but is definitely more descriptive than the Hobbit. I like descriptive books myself. I've never had much of a visual imagination, so it helps me get immersed in a world personally.


----------



## tinytoy (Jun 15, 2011)

Not to say that I am _supposed to_ have liked it, but after reading The Mill River Recluse I could not help but wonder how it earned so many good ratings. It wasn't worth reading for $0.99 or even free in my opinion.

As far as books we're supposed to like; I have so far liked all of them.  Although I won't say I _loved_ all of them. Water for Elephants would be an example of a book I didn't love but didn't despise either.


----------



## jumbojohnny (Dec 25, 2011)

For me, it's Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy, there are good bits, some great bits at times, but the rest, in fact most of the books are terrible. But try telling that to a fan, you are in line for all sorts of abuse then.


----------



## Ghost in the Machine (Dec 28, 2011)

Jonathan Daniel - Author said:


> I agree that a lot of the classics are just tedious and boring as hell.
> 
> Considering I write horror and have been reading it most all my life I'll probably be run out of town on a rail for saying this, but Dracula just never really did anything for me. I got about halfway through it and just couldn't keep going. And I hate that I feel that way, but I just didn't enjoy it.
> 
> I'm sure there are other works but I'm having trouble thinking of them right now.


See, the thing about Dracula is... it isn't a "horror" novel in the current sense. It was written as a mystery novel; at a time when the vampire myth wasn't so prevalent that a mystery about a vampire couldn't be.... well... mysterious.

The first third or so of Dracula is purely a mystery, relying on Van Helsing to solve the clues and confirm that a vampire is loose in London, tying together the mysterious deaths, Mina's anemia and the "bloofer lady" into a neat package. The second chunk of the book can be termed "horror" even by contemporary standards, and the last section as the heroes race through the Carpathians to beat Dracula to his lair is pure high adventure.

While Dracula remains one of the finest examples of an epistolary novel, it fails to interest many modern audiences because 1) epistolary novels are uncommon anymore and are a tad alien to modern readers, and 2) the "mystery" of vampirism is not at all mysterious to modern readers, thus rendering the first section of Dracula a victim of the public awareness it actually created. The same is true of Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot. A great novel back in 1978, but now everybody knows what it's about, so the slowly building tension and mystery of what is happening to the town through the first half of the novel is rendered obsolete, thus rendering the book largely ineffective.

Instead of reading Dracula as a horror novel, try reading it as that rare epistolary novel that creates real tension or as a mystery or as an adventure novel and you might be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## bjscript (Oct 26, 2011)

I got through abridged editions of War and Peace and Moby-Dick, but they were both a slog.

I got through Gravity's Rainbow by only reading ten pages a day. Great book, but odd sentence structure (which matched the idea of the book, that you heard a V-2 rocket explore, then you heard it come in, since it traveled faster than the speed of sound). Sentences in the book had a cadence of object, verb, noun (at least that's how it felt) instead of noun-verb-object.

Not sure how to categorize the singing feces.

Bill


----------



## Mit Sandru (Aug 19, 2011)

Hunger Games, because I thought having children become unwilling gladiators is cruel. However, I'm reading Catching Fire, which is better, but still cruel.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

For me, that's most books that are considered "classics" and so many people remember reading fondly.  That includes anything by Jane Austen and Charles Dickens.  Also Melville's Moby Dick.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

balaspa said:


> For me, that's most books that are considered "classics" and so many people remember reading fondly. That includes anything by Jane Austen and Charles Dickens. Also Melville's Moby Dick.


_Moby Dick_ was one of the few books (maybe the only one?) I was assigned to read in high school that I really liked, but I seemed to be in the minority then, too.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

CharlieLange said:


> Hunger Games, but only because I read Battle Royale (although published about a year after Hunger Games) and it is a much better read.


Actually, _Battle Royal_ was first published in Japan 1999 with a moved made in 2000. First English Translation in 2003. _The Hunger Games_ was published in 2008. Now who might have copied who?


----------



## CharlieLange (Nov 22, 2010)

Geemont said:


> Actually, _Battle Royal_ was first published in Japan 1999 with a moved made in 2000. First English Translation in 2003. _The Hunger Games_ was published in 2008. Now who might have copied who?


You are absolutely correct. I was going by a website stating that Collins had published in 1998, just a year earlier. I stand corrected, but still enjoy Battle Royale much more. Not because it was first but because it was better anyway.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

I never got the taste for _Green Eggs and Ham_.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

history_lover said:


> I struggled through the Hobbit but didn't bother with the LotR trilogy - really enjoyed the movies though which suggests it's a great story that just kind of gets lost in Tolkien's writing style, which doesn't suit everyone.


Same here. And good supposition as well.

The Hobbit was a snore for me. The movies had alot of action, dramatic sets, and beautiful locales...and Sean Bean and Viggo Mortensen.


----------



## AnelaBelladonna (Apr 8, 2009)

The Lord of the Rings was just painful but the movies are my favorite of all time.  I bet I have seen each of them at least 6 times and will again and again.

Also, the second half of The Count of Monte Christo.  The first half was pretty good but he had to be on drugs when writing the second half. (disclaimer: I am not being insulting, I have read that he really was on drugs while writing that book)


----------



## Elizabeth Black (Apr 8, 2011)

_The Lord Of The Rings _

_The Hobbit_

I tried reading both books and all I ended up doing was throwing them across the room in frustration.

My husband wants me to read _A Princess Of Mars_ but I'm reluctant...

My husband's book that frustrated him was _Catch 22_. I loved that book.


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was, in my view, over-rated. It almost certainly would have been rejected for publication if it had been submitted to publishers in the U.S., first, instead of Scandinavia, because of its sloooooow start. The back-story went on for almost 100 pages. 

Add to that, the pedestrian writing style (although that might have been due to the translator rather than the author), and action, when it started, that relied on shock value. 

I gave up on it after probably 150 pages. 

Another over-rated novel that became wildly popular for unknown reasons was The Da Vinci Code, with its wooden characters and clunky writing. 

Anita


----------



## TraceyC/FL (Mar 23, 2011)

I feel sooo much better now about never having read Lord of the Rings!  

I know i have something to list, but yet I think I've purged it from my brain!


----------



## Iain Manson (Apr 3, 2011)

Another vote for *Marcel Proust*. Reading Proust seems like such a good idea until you start. At which point, _not_ reading Proust seems like a still better idea.

*Garrison Keillor*. I've tried, believe me, I've tried. But I just couldn't take all the whimsy. Felt like trying to swim through an ocean of er... something hard to swim through er...

But it's sometimes worth coming back to a book. The first time I read _The Great Gatsby_, I just didn't get it. Years later I tried again, and still don't understand how I could have been so blind first time. Then there's _A Passage to India_, which similarly left me cold the first time, and knocked me out second time.

As a rule, I assume that if a great many people, not all of whom seem pretentious or stupid, love something I hate, I'm probably missing the point. But in the case of Marcel Proust, I mean to go on missing the point for the rest of my life.


----------



## TraceyC/FL (Mar 23, 2011)

Iain Manson said:


> But it's sometimes worth coming back to a book. The first time I read _The Great Gatsby_, I just didn't get it. Years later I tried, again, and still don't understand how I could have been so blind first time.


I had an excellent teacher when I read this, otherwise I might have not liked it. I have friends that think I'm strange and I can only assume it was the environment I read it in. Similar to geometry - I loved that class, and it was 100% due to the most awesome teacher.

Now I have love for A Tale of Two Cities, but cannot get into reading it again. I don't know why either, I've tried to start it multiple times and just stop. I think my brain is over crowded with adult life stuff to read it. Or maybe I didn't like it as much as I thought I did?


----------



## wdeen (Dec 29, 2011)

Moby Dick. Tried to read it four times. Just can't get through it. To easy to watch the movie and much more entertaining.


----------



## wdeen (Dec 29, 2011)

Moby Dick. Tried to read it four times. Just can't get through it. To easy to watch the movie and much more entertaining.


----------



## sixnsolid (Mar 13, 2009)

Hemingway.......all Hemingway. And Of Mice and Men. 

Clearly I am going straight to hell


----------



## MKP (Jan 5, 2012)

Most American classics. I just can never seem to find the motivation to pick one of them up when there are all kinds of new and exciting books to read!


----------



## EStoops (Oct 24, 2011)

Classics generally do nothing for me. There was a day that I was sitting and reading Mark Twain, and the best thought that has perhaps every graced my mind shot into my head and took up residence there: People didn't talk the way most American Classics were written. This impenetrable wall of text was some deliberate stylistic choice, meant to create a literate elite. It was the literary version of a secret handshake.

I finished Tom Sawyer and never deviated from popular literature from that moment on unless forced. Great Literary achievements, I've found, rarely are. At least, for me. The books that change my life are never literary titles. 

Never.


----------



## JustinHall (Jan 4, 2012)

ERAGON by Christopher Paolini, and also—dare I say it—HARRY POTTER by J.K.Rowling. 

First, Paolini borrowed much too heavily from the Lord of the Rings. Perhaps a small allusion, a small tribute to the Lord of the Rings would have been acceptable, even amusing. But every climactic scene, even minute details, complete and utter forgeries of a true and worthy masterpiece. In this respect, how can one read a book without feeling as though the world and characters were faked, just a fabrication?

As for Rowling and the best-selling series of all time, I can say I enjoyed her work the first time through—I did make it through the entire series—but once I went back to look at it with a critical eye (something I didn't do the first time) it seemed quite the opposite of a page turner. How shallow the writing for one, and also I noticed several major plot holes. What started out as a fairy tale, something magical, mysterious, became an attempt to be realistic—something entirely impossible. As fans became more demanding, it appears Rowling forgot exactly what it was she set out to write, and from there the story suffered. Something like magic cannot be realistically explained, for it contradicts the very definition of it: something unexplained.


----------



## Nancy Fulda (Apr 24, 2011)

I'm so glad I'm not the only person who can't make it through Tolkien! I mean, he's like the seminal author for epic fantasy, with some of the most ingenious concepts ever devised, and yet I can't manage to slog through his prose. How lame is that?

I thought _Eragon_ was okay, but only because I read it in German. I can't bring myself to try _Twilight_.

I did like the _Harry Potter_ books, though.


----------



## dougiebrimson (Dec 30, 2011)

As a professional writer I am ashamed to admit that I have never read any Dickens or Shakespear. I've never read any Harry Potter or Twilight books either, but I have read Lord of the Rings 9 times and The Hobbit over 20! Does that balance things out?

PS: Please don't tell anyone about my Dickens thing.....


----------



## davinci (Feb 24, 2010)

Ditto on anything written by Johnathan Franzen.  His arrogance and self-importance, his self-proclaimed literary genius drives me insane.  I loathed "The Corrections".


----------



## Sean Patrick Fox (Dec 3, 2011)

JustinHall said:


> ERAGON by Christopher Paolini, and also-dare I say it-HARRY POTTER by J.K.Rowling.
> 
> First, Paolini borrowed much too heavily from the Lord of the Rings. Perhaps a small allusion, a small tribute to the Lord of the Rings would have been acceptable, even amusing. But every climactic scene, even minute details, complete and utter forgeries of a true and worthy masterpiece. In this respect, how can one read a book without feeling as though the world and characters were faked, just a fabrication?
> 
> As for Rowling and the best-selling series of all time, I can say I enjoyed her work the first time through-I did make it through the entire series-but once I went back to look at it with a critical eye (something I didn't do the first time) it seemed quite the opposite of a page turner. How shallow the writing for one, and also I noticed several major plot holes. What started out as a fairy tale, something magical, mysterious, became an attempt to be realistic-something entirely impossible. As fans became more demanding, it appears Rowling forgot exactly what it was she set out to write, and from there the story suffered. Something like magic cannot be realistically explained, for it contradicts the very definition of it: something unexplained.


I would argue that Eragon is more derivative of Star Wars than Lord of the Rings, but either way it was not incredibly original.


----------



## EStoops (Oct 24, 2011)

JustinHall said:


> As for Rowling and the best-selling series of all time, I can say I enjoyed her work the first time through-I did make it through the entire series-but once I went back to look at it with a critical eye (something I didn't do the first time) it seemed quite the opposite of a page turner. How shallow the writing for one, and also I noticed several major plot holes. What started out as a fairy tale, something magical, mysterious, became an attempt to be realistic-something entirely impossible. As fans became more demanding, it appears Rowling forgot exactly what it was she set out to write, and from there the story suffered. Something like magic cannot be realistically explained, for it contradicts the very definition of it: something unexplained.


I loved the first four books, personally. They showed up at the right time in my life. The last three, howeve,r slogged for me, really slogged. I know this isn't popular to say, but I felt lost in bad fanfiction.


----------



## sesmith (Dec 21, 2011)

_The Scarlett Letter_

I don't have a whole lot of books to list because I'm very selective about what I read before I even start  so I haven't read most of the books listed by others here.


----------



## Sean Patrick Fox (Dec 3, 2011)

sesmith said:


> _The Scarlett Letter_
> 
> I don't have a whole lot of books to list because I'm very selective about what I read before I even start  so I haven't read most of the books listed by others here.


Oh god, +1 on The Scarlet Letter. I was forced to read it I think 5 times throughout high school and college, and it's just absolutely dreary and boring. Up the scaffold, down the scaffold. Up the scaffold, down the scaffold.


----------



## docnoir (Jan 21, 2011)

A couple of people mentioned THE GREAT GATSBY, which I think is a hack novel about bored rich people.

Coming back to it hasn't helped me like it, though. It's helped me reinforce my original thoughts about it. Still, I think it's important enough in American literature and history for everyone to take a swing at it at least once.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Agreed on The Scarlett Letter.  Hated it both times I had to read it.

Disagree on The Great Gatsby.  That was maybe my favorite book that was assigned reading in school.  Maybe the only one I've re-read since high school too!

I also liked the Millenium trilogy a lot, but do agree with whoever it was that the first 100 pages of The Girl With the Dragon Tatoo was very slow.  Thought the series was great from that point on though personally.


----------



## ZiKehimkar (Dec 10, 2011)

Another mention for The Scarlet Letter. I think that was one of the books I disliked in high school (the only other one I disliked with a passion was Beloved...it was far too graphic for me and not one I think should be taught in high school). I had a friend who did like it and could never understand why.

I echo what mooshie says about The Great Gatsby, I did enjoy that one, though I never re-read it (not surprising though, I hardly re-read books).

I hated Jane Eyre, slogged through it for class. 

I also slogged through LOTR, and while it was tough to read and often put me to sleep, I'm very glad I read it. I only loved Fellowship, the other two were much harder for me to get into. However, like others, I love the movies and they are among my favorites.

I guess I'll say Twilight, but don't think it really applies considering it's a "love or hate it" kind of book, and no one says you're "supposed to" like it.

I do agree though that the vast majority of classics I've read bored me, but for the most part, I appreciate them for what they are. 

And there's one last book I was supposed to like because a dear friend and my mother-in-law both liked which was The Left Hand of Darkness. It was another one I forced myself to read. Now, the topic of the book was mildly interesting, but that doesn't change the fact that almost nothing happened. I don't think I'm a fan of books devoid of plot, unless the characters are really interesting, which they weren't for me.


----------



## JEV (Jan 7, 2012)

I really disliked The Hours, even though it won the Pulitzer.  I'm happy to read that I am one of many who couldn't get through The Hobbit.  I also didn't at all care for The Help (but liked the movie).  Need to stay out of the "H" section I guess.


----------



## JEV (Jan 7, 2012)

I really disliked The Hours, even though it won the Pulitzer.  I'm happy to read that I am one of many who couldn't get through The Hobbit.  I also didn't at all care for The Help (but liked the movie).  Need to stay out of the "H" section I guess.


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

Adele Ward said:


> I really wanted to enjoy Phillip Pullman but didn't like his style from the first page and only forced myself through it because I was reading it for a book club. I really like Salman Rushdie but for some reason stop about 20 pages in each time. I don't like Jane Austen or Thomas Hardy.


Interesting to say you like things but can't read them. Maybe you'd like to like them? I'd like to like Madame Bovary, but I hate it. I got undreds of those.


----------



## Ergodic Mage (Jan 23, 2012)

Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan is just horrendously wordy without really saying much.
Anything by R. A. Salvatore, I'm an old time D&D gamer but his stuff just turns me off.


----------



## Sherlock (Dec 17, 2008)

I have to say the "classics".  This is an unfair judgement as I base that on the handful I was forced to read while in school.  I can't help it...someone says classic or literature and I automatically say "Blech!".   I don't agonize over it much though because there are so many other books out there still to be read.  

That being said, I did read The Three Musketeers by choice while in college and loved it.  I had a free weekend and was desperate to read something other than a textbook.  College libraries are very short on current best sellers.


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

The Grapes of Wrath and Gone With the Wind. Both put me to sleep.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

Ethan Frome.  I felt like committing sled suicide while reading it.

Dawn


----------



## 4eyesbooks (Jan 9, 2012)

I agree with The Great Gatsby and Jane Eyre.  Trying to read those in highschool was pure torture.  I just read through this entire thread and I think I'd rather be airlifted into The Hunger Games to face Voldemort and forced to eat Green Eggs and Ham than endure those books again.


----------



## anguabell (Jan 9, 2011)

I was so certain I would like _The Kingdom Beyond_ the Waves by Stephen Hunt that I got a paperback without even looking inside. I am quite ashamed of myself but after reading (and rereading) about half of it, I must admit my brain is completely unable to process the names, the plot or anything else in that book. I can't even say I hate it - it just induces some sort of a short-term coma. It is not a criticism because the fault is entirely mine. Something must be very wrong with me.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

Darlene Jones said:


> I'm guessing that we all have books we know we're supposed to like but don't and don't want to admit it. I'll go first. I've tried to read To Kill a Mockingbird several times and never got past the first few pages, but I did love the movie. I've also never been able to read Hemingway, but am now reading and enjoying The Paris Wife, and because of that book I want to know more about Hemingway's life - I still don't want to read his books, though.


Welcome to the club. I can't read Hemigway either but I do enjoy his work when I see it in the movies. I guess I just don't like his style of writing and reading him feels like a chore to me, and reading should never be a chore, it should be a pleasure.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 26, 2012)

Hi,

For me the torture began in college with Shakespear. Other then his comedies I simply can't take any of the bard, and McBeth was a personal horror. Out damned play, out I say! Also Steinbeck's Canery Row. It might be great, but it was simply too depressing.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> For me the torture began in college with Shakespear. Other then his comedies I simply can't take any of the bard, and McBeth was a personal horror. Out damned play, out I say! Also Steinbeck's Canery Row. It might be great, but it was simply too depressing.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.


I adore Shakespeare, he was the greatest ever, but I can't read him either. I just enjoy his work on the stage. Yet I love Ingmar Bergman who's famous for being depressing, and can read him with no problem, so you go figure.


----------



## Boris Brannigan (Jan 30, 2012)

For me that would be Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials books. I should have liked the message, but I couldn't care less about the characters and what happened to them. Stopped reading halfway through.


----------



## RuthNestvold (Jan 4, 2012)

Heh, I was starting to think I was the only person on earth who isn't a Harry Potter fan! *g* I read the first book, was mildly entertained, and never read another. 

I also second "The Blade Itself." Couldn't get into it at all and gave the book away. 

But I love Shakespeare. High passion! Tragic romance! Lots of people dying! Right up my alley.


----------



## SylviaLucas (Sep 14, 2011)

I couldn't get into Harry Potter either. I tried - really. I wanted to like it because everyone else was having so much fun with it, and I wanted to feel that book enthusiasm. But it just didn't take.


----------



## Storymagus (Jun 30, 2011)

I'm going to get it for this (I am an English teacher) but Shakespeare (unless Baz Lurman has had a hand in it). Sorry.


----------



## JRainey (Feb 1, 2011)

I've been practically skinned for this before, but since we're on the subject...!

Pride and Prejudice. I can't stand it. Elizabeth Bennet is such an irritating protagonist. I don't really like any Jane Austen, though. It's just not my cup of tea.

Also The Scarlet Letter. Kill it with fire. Thing is, though, I really like the concept of The Scarlet Letter. I just hate the execution. (And Pearl, for that matter. Gah, what an annoying character.)


----------



## tamaraheiner (Apr 23, 2011)

Just laughing because I agree with about 90% of your opinions. Reading is so subjective, isn't it?


----------



## RuthNestvold (Jan 4, 2012)

I love Jane Austen too, I'm afraid.  Except Sense and Sensibility. Could hardly believe that was written by the same author as Pride and Prejudice and Emma. But to my way of thinking, the real "protagonist" of a book like Pride and Prejudice is the wonderfully sarcastic authorial voice. Which was missing entirely in S&S, unfortunately. 

But as far as classics are concerned, I ditto votes upstream on Ulysses. I read the Whole Damn Thing in college. Twice. Didn't get any better the second time. 

Another ditto on The Corrections. Started it and just went bleah. Gave that one away too.  (So I never even got to the Big Revelation!)


----------



## LGOULD (Jul 5, 2011)

SylviaLucas said:


> I couldn't get into Harry Potter either. I tried - really. I wanted to like it because everyone else was having so much fun with it, and I wanted to feel that book enthusiasm. But it just didn't take.


I read the first Harry Potter book. I enjoyed it, and completely understand the charm it has for others. But I felt no need to read any of the rest of the series, or to see the movies.


----------



## Steven Stickler (Feb 1, 2012)

Hi all,

OK, I'll admit it: could not stand _Freedom_ by Jonathan Franzen. I know, all the hip folks seemed to love it but I found the characters, esp. the female ones, to be flat and uninteresting. It seemed to make all the top ten of the year lists, but I just don't see it....


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

EStoops said:


> People didn't talk the way most American Classics were written. This impenetrable wall of text was some deliberate stylistic choice, meant to create a literate elite. It was the literary version of a secret handshake.


Mark Twain is easy-peasy reading, really. He is accessible and funny. Truly, try Faulkner for an impenetrable wall. I, however, love meandering through Faulkner's the labyrinthine maze of words. What I find impossible to read are the TV-paced simple sentence works written at an 8th grade level. It's like driving in 1st and 2nd gear, never to shift up.


----------



## MrPLD (Sep 23, 2010)

Boris Brannigan said:


> For me that would be Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials books. I should have liked the message, but I couldn't care less about the characters and what happened to them. Stopped reading halfway through.


I read through it all (I was going through a major anxiety disorder at the time) but other than for the fact that I had the books in my hand it really wasn't one that greatly captured me - it was close, but not quite. Sometimes I worry I'm ill developed as a reader, since I still quite love David & Leigh Eddings


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

Storymagus said:


> I'm going to get it for this (I am an English teacher) but Shakespeare (unless Baz Lurman has had a hand in it). Sorry.


 I think a lot of people forget that Shakespeare's plays were meant to be read by actors. Not the audience. So when introduced to them in school we get the material in a way that the writer hadn't really intended.

Love English teachers, was my favorite subject in school, so I got a degree in English Literature just "for fun". I admire you for doing it for a living!


----------



## Iain Manson (Apr 3, 2011)

Let me bowl you a googly (UK), or throw you a curve ball (US).

I tried recently to read _The Crying of Lot 49_ by Thomas Pynchon (Vintage, 2000). I like Pynchon, and at first I couldn't put my finger on my reason for hating _The Crying_. And then it came to me: the small, chunky, cramped typeface is horrible to read, and it was getting on my nerves.

So I just wonder. Do we sometimes take against an author for reasons which have nothing to do with the quality of the writing - or indeed, with our capacity to appreciate it? Could it be only that the edition is poor? Or could it be that we're just not in the right mood? I wonder how many extraneous factors can come between us and our appreciation of a piece of writing?

It can certainly be that we're just not ready yet. In my previous post on this thread, I said that I could make nothing of _The Great Gatsby_ or _A Passage to India_ the first time I read them. Second time, I couldn't believe how blind I'd been.

When I fail to appreciate a work which is widely considered a classic, I always suspect I'm missing something. (But, of course, that's no excuse for the pretentious assery of those who affect to enjoy books they haven't even read, and wouldn't appreciate if they did.)


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Henry James is rated as a great author, but I'm afraid I simply find him tedious. I didn't even like 'The Turn of the Screw,' and I am very much into supernatural fiction.

His _Daisy Miller_, however, is a terrific little novella. Which proves that you can never be one hundred percent against an author.


----------



## Pixilox (Jun 22, 2011)

After reading this thread I feel so much better about not enjoying the classics!  I've tried, I really have, but I just can't get into them.  My latest adventure was Catch-22.  I didn't even make it halfway.


----------



## markobeezy (Jan 30, 2012)

Pride and Prejudice (the usual complaints, too many characters & similar names. And of course, the pretentiousness)
The Catcher in the Rye (Would've been a real shocker 50 years ago)
To Kill a Mockingbird (Racism? Yaaaawn, what a worn-out subject. I'm aware, of course, that it was written when racism was a more significant issue)

I know I listed some people's favorite classics, but I'm just a bigger fan of modern literature and originality. That being said, Of Mice and Men is one of my favorite all-time books.


----------



## JRainey (Feb 1, 2011)

Tony Richards said:


> Henry James is rated as a great author, but I'm afraid I simply find him tedious. I didn't even like 'The Turn of the Screw,' and I am very much into supernatural fiction.
> 
> His _Daisy Miller_, however, is a terrific little novella. Which proves that you can never be one hundred percent against an author.


Seconded! I really don't like Henry James, except for Daisy Miller. I studied that one three or four times at university and loved it every time.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Iain Manson said:


> Let me bowl you a googly (UK), or throw you a curve ball (US).
> 
> I tried recently to read _The Crying of Lot 49_ by Thomas Pynchon (Vintage, 2000). I like Pynchon, and at first I couldn't put my finger on my reason for hating _The Crying_. And then it came to me: the small, chunky, cramped typeface is horrible to read, and it was getting on my nerves.
> 
> ...


I'm sure people do start out with prejudices sometimes, but I have read enough books that I have no preconceived notions of...never heard of the author before, for example, and did indeed dislike their books immensely...all on their own lack of merits (IMO). Also....I know that in some cases it was mostly just my own opinion because the books were quite popular. Like The Lovely Bones. Or Pearl by Mary Gordon which was my example earlier in the thread.


----------



## Iain Manson (Apr 3, 2011)

_A trawl through Amazon reviews of some classics can yield interesting results. I present the following unedited. (I thought I'd better not attribute them.)_

*Madame Bovary*
I had to read this wack siht for class and I must say, overrated garbage! why does everyone think that just cause a novel is pre-1900s its such a CLASSIC. smh. madame bovary lost.

*The Catcher in the Rye*
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone under the age of 40 because its too boring for younger people.

*Gulliver's Travels*
If you want an actual GOOD book, try Lord of the Rings or The Count of Monte Christo. Don't bother with this rubbish that somehow was published.

*A Passage to India*
After reading the first 2 pages of this thing I alsmost puked.

*Catch-22*
more of a modern day substance-less story... many charecter.. hard readering.

*To Kill a Mockingbird*
There is almost no plot, and the charecters were poorly developed and obviously fake.

*The Grapes of Wrath*
It has no climax and no plot twists.

*Huckleberry Finn*
I dont really like this book because lets face it, it needs some more spice.

*Moby-Dick*
I am quite the fan of stories which involve man eating sea creatures, such as Jaws. Moby Dick is nothing compared to such classics.

*Jane Eyre*
Basically, the whole book is about an 18th century girl whining about her upper middle class life... There is credit to be given to Jane Austen, since she wrote the book in an American household in the early 1800s, with no support from any of her family. She had to hide her writing under knitting or sewing whenever someone approached. She then had a friend publish the books she wrote, without telling her husband. Considering all that, the story really isn't that bad.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

JRainey said:


> Seconded! I really don't like Henry James, except for Daisy Miller. I studied that one three or four times at university and loved it every time.


A clear case of 'great minds think alike.'


----------



## Jeroen Steenbeeke (Feb 3, 2012)

I used to feel this way about Discworld. It's starting to grow on me though


----------



## Phyllis Lily Jules (Dec 5, 2011)

Eat, Pray, Love.

I was on a plane reading it, and saw a dozen other copies being read every time I walked down the aisle. That's when it was all the rage, and I hated it.


----------



## jimbronyaur (Feb 9, 2011)

I'll have to run after I say this...

The Hunger Games - first book.

I think the premise is awesome and I enjoy Suzanne Collins (I love the Gregor series)... but there are just so many parts in that book that seemed drawn out and honestly, it feels "filled in".  It's almost like the publisher said, "I need this book to X amount of pages so fill it."

I just feel there's so much word dump in between action and setup that it takes away.

NOW, have I read the rest of the series?  NO.  Will I?  Yes.

-jb


----------

