NationStates Jolt Archive

What are some so-called "classic" novels that you read and hated? They can be ones you read for a class, for pleasure (or displeasure :p), etc.

One that I wasn't too fond of was The Great Gatsby.

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens.

Long, boring, and ultimately pointless. It had no redeeming literary qualities whatsoever, and made consider murdering the main character on multiple occasions.

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens

(Damn, you replied fast! :eek:)

I only read his A Tale of Two Cities and was less than impressed.

Great Gatsbuy was medicore. I also loathe most of Shakespeare's famous works, such as Romeo and Juliet (Henry V is pretty solid though).

(Damn, you replied fast! :eek:)

I only read his A Tale of Two Cities and was less than impressed.

Someday you too will have my m4d ski11z. A Tale of Two Cities was certainly better than Great Expectations, to give you some reference.

Great Gatsbuy was medicore. I also loathe most of Shakespeare's famous works, such as Romeo and Juliet (Henry V is pretty solid though).

Shakespeare bored me to tears (not literally, but he came close).

Jack Kerouac's On the Road. One of the very, very few books I never even finished.

Jack Kerouac's On the Road. One of the very, very few books I never even finished.



I think you have to be an english major to appreciate that.

The Awakening by Kate Chopin. Oh my god, what a pile. A wealthy woman wants independence, asks for it, gets it, gets all emo anyway and whines vaguely through it while a heavy handed bird metaphor plays throughout. The ending is the worst fucking part. She watches a sea gull flying around who's wing is suddenly broken by what we can only assume is the invisible metaphor hammer so she decides to commit suicide.

And I didn't ruin the book for you. It did it to itself. The only benefit was it was the book that allowed me to realize I could trash the required reading in a class as long as I did it well. It was very liberating.

The Awakening by Kate Chopin. Oh my god, what a pile. A wealthy woman wants independence, asks for it, gets it, gets all emo anyway and whines vaguely through it while a heavy handed bird metaphor plays throughout. The ending is the worst fucking part. She watches a sea gull flying around who's wing is suddenly broken by what we can only assume is the invisible metaphor hammer so she decides to commit suicide.

And I didn't ruin the book for you. It did it to itself. The only benefit was it was the book that allowed me to realize I could trash the required reading in a class as long as I did it well. It was very liberating.

*adds that to "Books Never To Read" list*

I enjoyed Tale of Two Cities but have to agree about Great Expectations. My least favorite Dickens, however, is Bleak House about an interminable legal case, which really gives you the feel of what it would be like to sit through every court hearing.

Jack Kerouac's On the Road. One of the very, very few books I never even finished.
The end is the best part. Actually makes the book, instead of undoing it like stupid Awaking...
I think you have to be an english major to appreciate that.
My english professor friend isn't super keen on it. I love it, though.

Lord of the Flies. How can a story about kids that get stuck on an island and end up killing eachother be so boring? I only read it because I HAD to. The quizzes and reports on this novel made up so much of my English grade and we HAD to do this one. There was no choice. How did the guy write this book? Did he take a short story on the back of a placemat and add filler to it until it was several hundred pages long or something?

Lord of the Flies? More like Lord of the Filler.

I actually enjoyed Lord of the Flies, though I took a radically different interpretation of it then what most people did.

Agreed. Lord of the Flies sucked.

Lord of the Flies was okay. I didn't hate it, but I didn't particularly care for it, either.

Someday you too will have my m4d ski11z. A Tale of Two Cities was certainly better than Great Expectations, to give you some reference.
I agree that Great Expectationsis terrible.
At least A Tale of Two Cities tied itself together at the end and was mildly interesting.
The Awakening by Kate Chopin.
Quite so.
Piggy's death was funny, not tragic.
I found it funny as well. Which troubles me.

To add to the list, Beloved by Toni Morrison and The Trial by Kafka.
The trial was only vaguely amusing because Josef K. is a pimp.

Dickens is loathsome. There is only one book of his I finished and that was the "pickwick papers".

Shakespeare's pretty dire too.

Lord of the Flies though takes the award for worst book. Piggy's death was funny, not tragic.

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens.

Long, boring, and ultimately pointless. It had no redeeming literary qualities whatsoever, and made consider murdering the main character on multiple occasions.

Ugh...I have to teach that in a few weeks to 9th graders. For the love of LG, shoot me in the face.

I think that's the only "classic" I haven't enjoyed that I've read...but then, I'm an English major and get off on this stuff.

Lord of the Flies. How can a story about kids that get stuck on an island and end up killing eachother be so boring? I only read it because I HAD to. The quizzes and reports on this novel made up so much of my English grade and we HAD to do this one. There was no choice. How did the guy write this book? Did he take a short story on the back of a placemat and add filler to it until it was several hundred pages long or something?

Lord of the Flies? More like Lord of the Filler.

The Awakening by Kate Chopin. Oh my god, what a pile. A wealthy woman wants independence, asks for it, gets it, gets all emo anyway and whines vaguely through it while a heavy handed bird metaphor plays throughout. The ending is the worst fucking part. She watches a sea gull flying around who's wing is suddenly broken by what we can only assume is the invisible metaphor hammer so she decides to commit suicide.

And I didn't ruin the book for you. It did it to itself. The only benefit was it was the book that allowed me to realize I could trash the required reading in a class as long as I did it well. It was very liberating.

Clearly you have read On the Road once too often and it irrevocably destroyed your literature appreciation sense. http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/sleep.gif

Clearly you have read On the Road once too often and it irrevocably destroyed your literature appreciation sense. http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/sleep.gif

Yeah, it managed to make flawed characters with questionable motives still sympathetic and juxtaposed growth and self destruction and the romance with it, ruined me completely. ;p

Lord of the Flies. How can a story about kids that get stuck on an island and end up killing eachother be so boring? I only read it because I HAD to. The quizzes and reports on this novel made up so much of my English grade and we HAD to do this one. There was no choice. How did the guy write this book? Did he take a short story on the back of a placemat and add filler to it until it was several hundred pages long or something?

Lord of the Flies? More like Lord of the Filler.

We were so sick of it in my English class we found the Romantic subtext!

I tried re-writing it but created a completely different story, the original was too awful.

Not a novel per se, but anything by Shakespeare. Overrated people!

I also loathed Great Expectations. I had to read it in highschool and only got half way through before quitting in disgust. Horrid book. So many "Classics" really suck.

Great Gatsby was bad but the book I truly hated was Catcher in the Rye.

Great Gatsby was bad but the book I truly hated was Catcher in the Rye.

I agree. Someone might kill a champagne socialist hippy after reading it...

the book I truly hated was Catcher in the Rye.

BLASPHEMY!!!!! :eek:

I share your sentiments about Kerouac. Of all the Beats, including those on the fringes such as Bukowski, I find Kerouac the most dull.

Oh, c'mon-even John Clellon Holmes?

Jack Kerouac's On the Road. One of the very, very few books I never even finished.
I share your sentiments about Kerouac. Of all the Beats, including those on the fringes such as Bukowski, I find Kerouac the most dull.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, The Hobbit was decent.

I have a love/hate relationship with Alexandre Dumas' stuff. I love the stories, but the historical inaccuracy bugs the hell out of me.

Edit: By the way people, Shakespeare is drama, not novel form.

Great Gatsby was bad but the book I truly hated was Catcher in the Rye.



Agreed. That book can be summed up like this...


Bitch bitch bitch
Whine whine whine
Bitch whine moan
Not screw hooker he hired
Bitch bitch bitch
Whine whine whine
Bitch whine moan

The Lord of the Rings trilogy.




One night, you will go to sleep, and you wont wake back up...:sniper:

War of the Worlds. After The Thunderchild, it gets very boring.

The list of "I hope never to see them again" books:

Moby Dick
The Scarlet Letter
The Red Badge of Courage
Anything by Thackery
Anything by Dickens
Everything by Conrad except The Heart of Darkness.
The House of Seven Gables
Ulysses by Joyce

I did, however, love

Everything by Jane Austen
The Call of the Wild
Two Years Before the Mast
Mutiny on the Bounty
Gullliver's Travels
Kidnapped
Ivanhoe
Most of the Greeks (Antigone, Odysseus, Lysistrata, The Wasps, Oedipus Rex, etc.)
Some Romans (The Aenead etc.)

Don't attempt the Canterbury Tales.

Don't rewrite books either, you end up with a new book (see my previous post), and then you feel guilty every time you see the original about how you failed to use the original plot.

By the way people, Shakespeare is drama, not novel form.
He's still overrated. Not a bad writer, and some works are great, but most people seem to gloss over how much many of his works have aged badly, and how they have little relevance or interest to today's world.

Though I do still love The Merchant of Venice.

Hard Times by Charles Dickens

It was the worst book I've ever read. Ever.

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens.

Long, boring, and ultimately pointless. It had no redeeming literary qualities whatsoever, and made consider murdering the main character on multiple occasions.

(Damn, you replied fast! :eek:)

I only read his A Tale of Two Cities and was less than impressed.

I enjoyed Tale of Two Cities but have to agree about Great Expectations. My least favorite Dickens, however, is Bleak House about an interminable legal case, which really gives you the feel of what it would be like to sit through every court hearing.

Dickens got paid by the word. Does it all make sense now?

The Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, The Hobbit was decent.

I have a love/hate relationship with Alexandre Dumas' stuff. I love the stories, but the historical inaccuracy bugs the hell out of me.

Edit: By the way people, Shakespeare is drama, not novel form.

Yes, yes and yes. Tolkien is like Asimov. Good ideas, horrible writing. I had no idea Dumas was trying to be even vaguely accurate. I thought he was just writing cool action novels with unsubtle political commentary. And Shakespeare needs to be performed to be appreciated. Kenneth Branagh's movies are good enough if you can't see a live show.

The list of "I hope never to see them again" books:

Moby Dick
The Scarlet Letter
The Red Badge of Courage
Anything by Thackery
Anything by Dickens
Everything by Conrad except The Heart of Darkness.
The House of Seven Gables
Ulysses by Joyce

I did, however, love

Everything by Jane Austen
The Call of the Wild
Two Years Before the Mast
Mutiny on the Bounty
Gullliver's Travels
Kidnapped
Ivanhoe
Most of the Greeks (Antigone, Odysseus, Lysistrata, The Wasps, Oedipus Rex, etc.)
Some Romans (The Aenead etc.)

I can agree with that list, more or less.

Catcher in the Rye is terrible. As is the Lord of the Rings (not really the plot, the actual writing style of Tolkien is so dry it makes my eyes bleed). Anything by Mark Twain is also dire.

You people suck! Some of you have Canterberry Tales and The Scarlet Letter on here! Wtf!


And dont even get me started on mentioing LotR...;)

Dickens got paid by the word. Does it all make sense now?

I actually learned about that right after I finished Great Expectations. Made everything clear, but it's still fricking unforgivable.

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens.

Long, boring, and ultimately pointless. It had no redeeming literary qualities whatsoever, and made consider murdering the main character on multiple occasions.

Agreed 100%. It's like you read my mind.

Not to mention that the ending (at least, one of them) ultimately undermined every characterization of Pip and Estella.

Also, I wasn't too fond of To Kill a Mockingbird.

I didn't like Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. I can say that because I actually read the entire book (most people in my class quit after chapter 3).

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens.

Long, boring, and ultimately pointless. It had no redeeming literary qualities whatsoever, and made consider murdering the main character on multiple occasions.

Indeed.

Anything and everything by John Steinbeck.

I didn't like Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. I can say that because I actually read the entire book (most people in my class quit after chapter 3).



More blasphemy.


But I agree with the steinbeck comment. Kind of a tool he is.

I hate anything written by Dickens. There is just something about his stye of writing that makes me want to go postal.

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens.

Long, boring, and ultimately pointless. It had no redeeming literary qualities whatsoever, and made consider murdering the main character on multiple occasions.

Indeed.

I enjoyed Tale of Two Cities but have to agree about Great Expectations. My least favorite Dickens, however, is Bleak House about an interminable legal case, which really gives you the feel of what it would be like to sit through every court hearing.

I agree that Great Expectationsis terrible.
At least A Tale of Two Cities tied itself together at the end and was mildly interesting.

Ugh...I have to teach that in a few weeks to 9th graders. For the love of LG, shoot me in the face.

I think that's the only "classic" I haven't enjoyed that I've read...but then, I'm an English major and get off on this stuff.

I also loathed Great Expectations. I had to read it in highschool and only got half way through before quitting in disgust. Horrid book. So many "Classics" really suck.

Agreed 100%. It's like you read my mind.

Not to mention that the ending (at least, one of them) ultimately undermined every characterization of Pip and Estella.

Also, I wasn't too fond of To Kill a Mockingbird.

We seem to have a consensus: Great Expectations is a horrible book!

I'm not sure... there's a list of classics that I started and never finished, in school and in my own spare time. I wouldn't call them horrible (I have read horrible books, the kind of books that deserve the fire). These books just sorta... lost my attention part way through:

Amish Adventure
Great Expectations
Picture of Dorian Gray
1984
All Quiet on the Western Front

I actually got most of the way through 1984 and All Quiet on the Western Front. Can't quite remember why I stopped reading them, but obviously they didn't interest me enough to get through to the end.

As for literature I HATED in high school?

I Heard the Owl Call My Name (shudder)
Taming of the Shrew (pretty much the only Shakespeare play I have a burning hatred for)

Can't say I was too fond of War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy. It bored me quite thoroughly.

Edit: and the Silmarilion by J.R.R. Tolkein. I only made it half-way through before I gave it up.

Anything by Conrad.

The Good Soldier, but that was just because the author tried writing in non-chronological order, and it didn't work.

The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye were just mediocre.

The best book I read for school (excluding those I picked myself) was Night by Elie Wiesel.

I personally think Shakespeare is awesome. But he's the exception to the general rule that I favor stuff written more recently.

If I ever design an English curriculum, I will include both "classics" that are actually good, as well as some good sci-fi. Ditch Conrad for some Asimov.

To add to the list, Beloved by Toni Morrison and The Trial by Kafka.
The trial was only vaguely amusing because Josef K. is a pimp.

I love those two books!
But I wouldn't exactly call Beloved a classic.

Top of my "don't ever want to read again" list are Effi Briest and Kabale und Liebe.

Let's see:

Ethan Frome
Catcher and the Rye
Old Man and the Sea
Shakespear in book form (I am fine in movie/play form)
To Kill a Mockingbird

And about every other peice of classical literature I read short of of Mice and Men.

!!!

The Duel, aka. Point of Honor. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17620/17620-h/17620-h.htm)
Or Heart of Darkness, Lord Jim, Youth...

The best book I read for school (excluding those I picked myself) was Night by Elie Wiesel.

I personally think Shakespeare is awesome. But he's the exception to the general rule that I favor stuff written more recently.

Agreed.

Great points are made in this thread. Your post is one of the main examples.

Anything by Conrad.

!!!

The Duel, aka. Point of Honor. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17620/17620-h/17620-h.htm)

Then see the movie, The Duellists.

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/021206/15140__duellists_l.jpg

http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/18/36/31/99/18472367.jpg


If you hate the above, I must say: we have tastes completely in opposition; irreconcilable.

The most depressing novel I ever read was Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton. I was so glad when I finished the last page! A black cloud of depression hung over me the whole time I read it. It only took me a few weeks to read, but it seemed like a few decades.

And apparently some Hollywood genius decided to make a movie out of it; in 1993; and Ethan Frome was played by Liam Neeson!

I definitely rate this book with two thumbs down. :gundge:

I don't know if this counts because I didn't hate it, I just couldn't handle Night. I ended up throwing up twice during that book and crying the entire time I read it. I just couldn't deal.

Also I hated Romeo and Juliet and Othello. I loved MacBeth though.

Brave New World was over rated. It should have been a short story, because the concept was cool but it just couldn't carry the plot. I just was boring.

IIRC, all his works were published chapter by chapter so you'd read a chapter and wait a week (or month or whatever) for the next chapter to be published in the next issue of whatever journal they were being published in. They were cheap, accessable, and popular topics of conversation, like today's weekly tv series. They weren't written to be jammed into a two week unit in an English class. Love the characters, great plots, but yeah, not my favorite reads.

So? Doesn't excuse the fact that they suck.

I hate anything written by Dickens. There is just something about his stye of writing that makes me want to go postal.

IIRC, all his works were published chapter by chapter so you'd read a chapter and wait a week (or month or whatever) for the next chapter to be published in the next issue of whatever journal they were being published in. They were cheap, accessable, and popular topics of conversation, like today's weekly tv series. They weren't written to be jammed into a two week unit in an English class. Love the characters, great plots, but yeah, not my favorite reads.

Brave New World was over rated. It should have been a short story, because the concept was cool but it just couldn't carry the plot. I just was boring.
It certainly drags once the 'savages' get involved.

The most depressing novel I ever read was Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton. I was so glad when I finished the last page! A black cloud of depression hung over me the whole time I read it. It only took me a few weeks to read, but it seemed like a few decades.

And apparently some Hollywood genius decided to make a movie out of it; in 1993; and Ethan Frome was played by Liam Neeson!

I definitely rate this book with two thumbs down. :gundge:

I just had to read that for English. It only took a few hours to read, but answering all of the questions we had to answer took about as long. It was mostly just boring to me, and to pretty much everyone else in the class.

Agreed. That book can be summed up like this...


Bitch bitch bitch
Whine whine whine
Bitch whine moan
Not screw hooker he hired
Bitch bitch bitch
Whine whine whine
Bitch whine moan

That's just about the best description of that pile of manure I've ever read.

I've found quite a few of the "classics" to be a bit of an edurance test (Moby Dick for example, cured my lifelong insomnia by the end of page 2) but the one I really can't stand is Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte.

Basically, poor ugly young woman meets rich ugly older guy and they fall in love. Then Jane finds out he keeps his batty first wife in the attic and leaves. Some time later she hears his voice calling her across the ether and returns to find his house burnt down and Mrs Batty dead, leaving him a free man. I had it rammed down my throat for two whole years of school, which is part of the reason I only showed up when the weather was bad. Its very long winded and depressing, and although there are some interesting ideas in there, if you look hard enough, they're not substantial enough to justify two years of education.

The Bronte sisters grew up not too far from where I live in a little old place called Haworth. It's been turned into a living museum now and ought to be interesting, with its old architecture and apothecary shops, but its desparately depressing and I can never wait to get away from it. I'm not sure whether I hate it because of the books, or whether the books are so awful because the sisters lived and wrote in that place :p

The list of "I hope never to see them again" books:

Moby Dick
The Scarlet Letter
The Red Badge of Courage
Anything by Thackery
Anything by Dickens
Everything by Conrad except The Heart of Darkness.
The House of Seven Gables
Ulysses by Joyce

I'll give you most of those, but I've found that people who don't like Moby-Dick and The Scarlet Letter usually had bad teachers and so didn't get the full experience.

Moby-Dick took me a second readthrough to really enjoy.

What are some so-called "classic" novels that you read and hated? They can be ones you read for a class, for pleasure (or displeasure :p), etc.

One that I wasn't too fond of was The Great Gatsby.

That book was horribly boring. I don't know what teachers are smoking when they read these books. They really need to update their stuff or make it more open: choose from a few books.

That book was horribly boring. I don't know what teachers are smoking when they read these books. They really need to update their stuff or make it more open: choose from a few books.

There are several things that determine the High School canon:
funding, availability, appropriateness, relevance to curricula, and sometimes, state-based standards.

However, most of these books do have incredible literary value. Often, students disliking a book is a result of a poor teacher failing to engage the students.

Mind you, I love Gatsby. And most of the books that have been mentioned in here. Thus is the life of an English major.

To Kill a Mocking Bird by Lee Harper was a waste of my time... but The Stone Angel by Margaret Laurence ...that's 300 pages of my life I'll never get back. Ugh... the whole book is just an old lady being whiny and bitchy. It's like... ok, when does the story start?

And to those who hated The Catcher in the Rye... read The Stone Angel because you couldn't appreciate good literature even if it bit you in your corpulent ass.

Love the characters, great plots, but yeah, not my favorite reads.

What was Great Expectations about?

eg.

1984 is about government corruption

Romeo and Juliet is about love

The Odyssey is about Odysseus' journey home and Telemakhos' quest

What is Great Expectations about?

What was Great Expectations about?

A boy and his abusive crush...

(i'm fishing)

What are some so-called "classic" novels that you read and hated? They can be ones you read for a class, for pleasure (or displeasure :p), etc.

One that I wasn't too fond of was The Great Gatsby.

I actually dislike most of them, because they tend to be rather outdated and I disagree with the values most of them trumpet. There are only a few I like, such as most of Shakespeare and Heart of Darkness. Charles Dickens needs to be shoot.

Didn't care much for Black Beauty, either. And Jonathan Livingston Seagull took another read for me to enjoy it.

The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger sucks ass. It is seriously fucking horrible.

A boy and his abusive crush...

(i'm fishing)

I thought so, too. But the book goes back and forth between various themes leaving me wondering "What the heck was it about?"

To Kill a Mocking Bird by Lee Harper

Harper Lee, not Lee Harper

Charles Dickens does not, in fact, need to be shot. He is dead already.
He needs to have a stake pounded through his heart.

Here is a classic old review of "A Portrait of a Lady" by Henry James: "It is thoroughly Jamesian. That is to say: Nothing happens. Nothing at all. And it takes so long not to happen. Finally, something appears to be starting to happen, so the book ends abruptly."

Here is a classic old review of "A Portrait of a Lady" by Henry James: "It is thoroughly Jamesian. That is to say: Nothing happens. Nothing at all. And it takes so long not to happen. Finally, something appears to be starting to happen, so the book ends abruptly."

The greatest review of a book I've ever read - even greater than all the in-depth ones.

And, it's funny. Surprising for a book review so old.

Here is a classic old review of "A Portrait of a Lady" by Henry James: "It is thoroughly Jamesian. That is to say: Nothing happens. Nothing at all. And it takes so long not to happen. Finally, something appears to be starting to happen, so the book ends abruptly."

That is the best book review I have ever read.

What are some so-called "classic" novels that you read and hated? They can be ones you read for a class, for pleasure (or displeasure :p), etc.

One that I wasn't too fond of was The Great Gatsby.

Anything written by Hemingway. God, I hate his style.

Catcher in the Rye is terrible. As is the Lord of the Rings (not really the plot, the actual writing style of Tolkien is so dry it makes my eyes bleed). Anything by Mark Twain is also dire.

:mad:

V. by Thomas Pynchon. Incomprehensible from start to where I finally gave up, about 2/3 of the way through.

Manhattan Transfer by John Dos Passos. Shrill, self-indulgent, pretentious, meandering and utterly devoid of anything worth reading. Perhaps good for explaining some background about the 20s, but that's about it. The tone was just too much to take.

There's been a few, Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte is the worst though. Twenty pages in and you feel like hanging yourself.

(Henry V is pretty solid though).

St. Crispin's day speech, anyone?

Hell, if someone were to provide that with the proper oratory, I'd be half willing to fight to the death for Merry Olde England.

Oh, that reminds me - Henry James. I hate him. We were assigned to each read a short story out of an anthology of his work. The introduction made him out to be one of the Great Writers of History. But I could barely understand what was going on! If you can't understand him, he's a sucky writer!

In general, I don't like fiction from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I can't understand it. Most of what I like from that period is non-fiction.

There's been a few, Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte is the worst though. Twenty pages in and you feel like hanging yourself.

You made it that far!? :eek:

I had to do coursework on it in school!!

I had to write a 1,500 word essay when all I wanted to write was three words

THIS IS SHITE!

And I could sum up the plot in three words as well

"Everyone dies miserably
The End

That you survived such an ordeal - with your sanity intact, no less - is no small feat. I salute you. :)

I was forced to read Toni Morrison's "Beloved" for a college assignment.

The only thing good I can say about it is that the movie was even worse. Long, tedious, bleh, for a ghost-story payoff.

Also, William S. Burroughs's stuff is almost completely unreadable, even if you can get past the hallucinations.

Hard Times by Charles Dickens

It was the worst book I've ever read. Ever.

It was the best of books, it was the worst of books.... Oh wait, that was A Tale of Two Cities, wasn't it?

You made it that far!? :eek:

I had to do coursework on it in school!!

I had to write a 1,500 word essay when all I wanted to write was three words

THIS IS SHITE!

And I could sum up the plot in three words as well

"Everyone dies miserably
The End

All the politically correct novels like 1984, which was utterly ridiculous, Beloved, Their Eyes Were Watching God, To Kill a Mockingbird, Cry, The Beloved Country, Uncle Tom's Cabin, which was nothing but make believe agitator propaganda that is classic because of academia's politics and especially Native Son, which I wrote possibly my best report ever in condemnation.

The most depressing novel I ever read was Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton. I was so glad when I finished the last page! A black cloud of depression hung over me the whole time I read it. It only took me a few weeks to read, but it seemed like a few decades.

And apparently some Hollywood genius decided to make a movie out of it; in 1993; and Ethan Frome was played by Liam Neeson!

I definitely rate this book with two thumbs down. :gundge:

I teach the book; my students' reward for getting through it is a project where they write the script for what would happen if the characters ended up on the Jerry Springer show... and then perform it.

They really love cutting loose after that!

Moby Dick...Hermann Melville sucks

Moby-Dick was far from fast-paced, and it was pretty dry, but I enjoyed it. To each his own, I guess. *shrug*

REPOST because of WAY-BACK TIMEWARP:

V. by Thomas Pynchon. Incomprehensible from start to where I finally gave up, about 2/3 of the way through.

Manhattan Transfer by John Dos Passos. Shrill, self-indulgent, pretentious, meandering and utterly devoid of anything worth reading. Perhaps good for explaining some background about the 20s, but that's about it. The tone was just too much to take.

What are some so-called "classic" novels that you read and hated? They can be ones you read for a class, for pleasure (or displeasure :p), etc.

One that I wasn't too fond of was The Great Gatsby.

Moby Dick...Hermann Melville sucks

The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye were just mediocre.Agreed. In the former's case, it wasn't his writing style, as Tender is the Night was so much better.
Lord of the Flies wasn't very good either.
Those three would probably be the 3 worst I can think of.
(I have yet to read Great Expectations or anything by James.)

Shakespeare bored me to tears (not literally, but he came close).

I never saw the humor in A Midsummer's Night Dream. It was like a bad SNL skit.

I didn't care too much for The Red Badge of Courage. It was okay. The Old Man in the Sea wasn't so great.

Call of the Wild was good. All Quiet On The Western Front was great. War of the Worlds wasn't bad. Forbidden Planet(I don't know if people thnk its classic) was great. The Odysee wasn't bad, a little to confusing at times, but good plot.Treasure Island was pretty good.

I've got to get around to reading 1984 rather than just countinue to know the plot and some details without having read it.

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens.

Long, boring, and ultimately pointless. It had no redeeming literary qualities whatsoever, and made consider murdering the main character on multiple occasions.

I was going to post this one too! You've perfectly summed up exactly what I hated about it. :)

All the politically correct novels like 1984, which was utterly ridiculous, Beloved, Their Eyes Were Watching God, To Kill a Mockingbird, Cry, The Beloved Country, Uncle Tom's Cabin, which was nothing but make believe agitator propaganda that is classic because of academia's politics and especially Native Son, which I wrote possibly my best report ever in condemnation.

Uncle Tom's Cabin is "make believe agitator propaganda?"

Do you live on the Moon?

St. Crispin's day speech, anyone?

Hell, if someone were to provide that with the proper oratory, I'd be half willing to fight to the death for Merry Olde England.
My prof re-wrote that speech for the Red Sox back in 2004, and they actually used it in something
I teach the book; my students' reward for getting through it is a project where they write the script for what would happen if the characters ended up on the Jerry Springer show... and then perform it.

They really love cutting loose after that!

Any tips for Great Expectations?

Not a novel per se, but anything by Shakespeare. Overrated people!


Unfortunately somepeople think its great.

Wow! No one has mentioned the novel that made me want to go find the author and beat her to death with all 400+ whatever pages...

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. HATED it. I read the whole damned thing hoping that there would be something redeeming in it at the end or something, but no. Loathed the characters, loathed the politics, in fact, I felt icky after reading it. Blech.

I love Shakespeare, but really he should be performed, not read. I wrote a thesis on that topic in a college English class, basically saying that Shakespeare should never be studied in the English department, but rather in the theatre department. Shakespeare works much better with action, blood, bawdiness, bad jokes, singing, sword fights, etc. most of which is left out in an English class.

I do agree with most of the assessments about Dickens, although personally I like A Christmas Carol, but when reading it, I do tend to skip over bits that drag.

I love Shakespeare, but really he should be performed, not read. I wrote a thesis on that topic in a college English class, basically saying that Shakespeare should never be studied in the English department, but rather in the theatre department. Shakespeare works much better with action, blood, bawdiness, bad jokes, singing, sword fights, etc. most of which is left out in an English class.

Psht...to quote The Nazz, "finding a dirty joke in Shakespeare is about as difficult as falling down when drunk".

I definatly used them in my lessons

Uncle Tom's Cabin is "make believe agitator propaganda?"

Do you live on the Moon?

She did no research and only wrote the story based on the statements from anti-slavery activists that supported John Brown and those types.

Yes. It's complete nonsense that's only considered a classic novel and required reading in school because of the bullshit PC people in charge of academia at all levels.

Unfortunately somepeople think its great.

I'm one.

There's lots to overlook in Willie, but much to love.

Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. That was awful. The plot was dumb, and I don't care if it was the local dialect and makes it seem real, I cannot stand the way they talk. I just can't. Also, The Scarlet Letter. Hawthorne spends the first 60 pages bitching about his old publisher, and then takes normal sentences and tries to encase them in as many words as possible.

I think Hemingway is a literary genius.

Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. That was awful. The plot was dumb, and I don't care if it was the local dialect and makes it seem real, I cannot stand the way they talk. I just can't. Also, The Scarlet Letter. Hawthorne spends the first 60 pages bitching about his old publisher, and then takes normal sentences and tries to encase them in as many words as possible.

I loved both, but that's just me.

They're called classics for a reason. It isn't the authors' faults that we live in the era of video games and YouTube.

That's the point Lima. They are racist books who become classics and accepted because they espouse a left-wing viewpoint. The "black" books you are referring to are certainly anti-white.

Politically correct literature in academia means that it supports a left-wing political viewpoint and despite being racist, is accepted because you are allowed to be racist against white people.

Why do you think bigots like Malcolm X and WEB DuBois are requited reading?

She did no research and only wrote the story based on the statements from anti-slavery activists that supported John Brown and those types.

Yes. It's complete nonsense that's only considered a classic novel and required reading in school because of the bullshit PC people in charge of academia at all levels.

When it comes to attacking slavery, no amount of hyperbole is too great. It does not matter whether or not she exaggerated the accounts of what slavery and racism were like: a entire nation of people were rendered first into property and then into subhuman others to be neither pitied not sympathized with.

All the politically correct novels like 1984, which was utterly ridiculous, Beloved, Their Eyes Were Watching God, To Kill a Mockingbird, Cry, The Beloved Country, Uncle Tom's Cabin, which was nothing but make believe agitator propaganda that is classic because of academia's politics and especially Native Son, which I wrote possibly my best report ever in condemnation.

I'm not sure those are really politically correct, unless you define the term to be, "anything with black people." I usually take PC to mean, "created to not offend any potential group or person." Interestingly, almost all of the books you mention were written to offend people, or at least make them uncomfortable.

That's the point Lima. That are racist books who become classics and accepted because they espouse a left-wing viewpoint. The "black" books you are referring to are certainly anti-white.

They became classics because they painted a vivid picture of the injustices faced by people of color. Do you deny that black americans have historically been oppressed? Or is it "politically correct" to even speak of such things.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. HATED it. I read the whole damned thing hoping that there would be something redeeming in it at the end or something, but no. Loathed the characters, loathed the politics, in fact, I felt icky after reading it. Blech.


Ugh, I had managed to repress the memory of reading that...... *twitch*twitch*

Yes, I know as well as anyone that slavery existed in America.

I also know that American Indians practiced slavery for decades after it was stopped in the South and that hispanics and free blacks owned slaves as well.

I'm not a person that blames whitey for the ways of the world. I don't accept racist literature as classic reading because it contains a certain topic.

Yes, I know as well as anyone that slavery existed in America.

I also know that American Indians practiced slavery for decades after it was stopped in the South and that hispanics and free blacks owned slaves as well.

I'm not a person that blames whitey for the ways of the world. I don't accept racist literature as classic reading because it contains a certain topic.

Tell me, how do any of the books you listed teach people to "hate whitey"? How are they racist in anyway? If anything, many of them still succumb to a racist depiction of African-Americans, in spite of their noble intentions.

That's the point Lima. They are racist books who become classics and accepted because they espouse a left-wing viewpoint. The "black" books you are referring to are certainly anti-white.

Politically correct literature in academia means that it supports a left-wing political viewpoint and despite being racist, is accepted because you are allowed to be racist against white people.

Why do you think bigots like Malcolm X and WEB DuBois are requited reading?

because they were significant and had massive impact on the world around them, as well as influencing dozens of other authors?

I teach the book; my students' reward for getting through it is a project where they write the script for what would happen if the characters ended up on the Jerry Springer show... and then perform it.

They really love cutting loose after that!

I don't think we're going to do anything like that. Just a packet of questions that took just about as much time as it took to read the book.

I didn't think it was a very interesting book, and I've found most of the books we've read in my classes at least somewhat interesting. It just seemed like nothing was happening in it. The only exciting thing was the sled part but that wasn't particularly interesting to me either.

Oh, that reminds me - Henry James. I hate him. We were assigned to each read a short story out of an anthology of his work. The introduction made him out to be one of the Great Writers of History. But I could barely understand what was going on! If you can't understand him, he's a sucky writer!

See, that's the problem with reviewing books and authors. All books require a certain degree of competency to understand, literacy at the bare minimum. But past the fourth grade, it's difficult to know if it is the author's style that is to blame or the reader's ignorance. There are plenty of books that I've finished reading thinking, "Well, I didn't enjoy that at all. But I can still kind of see why people consider it to be a 'classic.'" For me, The Catcher in the Rye is an example. I was really hoping that something would eat Holden Caulfield, maybe one of those ducks he's always talking about, but J.D. Salinger is still a better writer than I'll ever be. (Then again, I'm not a crazy recluse. It evens out in the end.)

EDIT: Just as a side note, I really like Henry James. But I can understand why plenty of people hate him.

Harper Lee, not Lee Harper

Shows how much I like that book. :p

I teach the book; my students' reward for getting through it is a project where they write the script for what would happen if the characters ended up on the Jerry Springer show... and then perform it.

They really love cutting loose after that!

You should do that after Oedipus Rex...

I absolutely hated Red Badge of Courage. Horrible.

I didn't hate Great Expectations, but I was disappointed. The Title made it sound a lot better than it was.

For all you people in this thread dissing Shakespeare, you can suck it.

Perhaps So-So Expectations, or maybe Pretty Good But Not Anything to Get in A Big Hoopla Over Expectations?

Exactly! :)

I didn't hate Great Expectations, but I was disappointed. The Title made it sound a lot better than it was.

Perhaps So-So Expectations, or maybe Pretty Good But Not Anything to Get in A Big Hoopla Over Expectations?

My prof re-wrote that speech for the Red Sox back in 2004, and they actually used it in something


Any tips for Great Expectations?

I've never taught it. However, I HIGHLY recommend these folks for unit plans -- perhaps they've some angle on it:

http://www.centerforlearning.org/

http://www.centerforlearning.org/ViewProductDetails.aspx?id=502&pid=571&sid=42 here it is...

I've bought a BUTTLOAD of their units -- the handouts alone are brilliant. (The lessons I tend to rewrite a bit).

I've never taught it. However, I HIGHLY recommend these folks for unit plans -- perhaps they've some angle on it:

http://www.centerforlearning.org/

http://www.centerforlearning.org/ViewProductDetails.aspx?id=502&pid=571&sid=42 here it is...

I've bought a BUTTLOAD of their units -- the handouts alone are brilliant. (The lessons I tend to rewrite a bit).

wow...you are a godsend. My old history teacher suggested teaching it as a soap opera...I wonder if maybe they could work into that...

And really...if you ever need a virgin sacrificed in your honor or anything like that...Just hit me up ;)

Psht...to quote The Nazz, "finding a dirty joke in Shakespeare is about as difficult as falling down when drunk".

I definatly used them in my lessons

When teaching A Midsummer Night's Dream my students kept snickering at Bottom's name... so I went through every possible butt joke I could think of...

"His name's BOTTOM, and he's been turned into an ASS! He is the BUTT of Puck's joke, and when it comes to figuring things out, he's always in the REAR...." etc etc etc.

I thought some of my students were going to pass out from laughing so hard at watching me standing on a chair and going through that with wild hand gestures.

She did no research and only wrote the story based on the statements from anti-slavery activists that supported John Brown and those types.

Yes. It's complete nonsense that's only considered a classic novel and required reading in school because of the bullshit PC people in charge of academia at all levels.

True. She visited one "plantation" in Covington Ky, and is documented as having talked to one old black man for one afternoon. Covington is across the river from Cincinnati and not even in the South. She did absolutely no real research whatsoever. Which is exactly why Lincoln called her "the little woman who started the big war". Her brother was a abolitionist preacher in NYC. It was all pure propaganda.

When teaching A Midsummer Night's Dream my students kept snickering at Bottom's name... so I went through every possible butt joke I could think of...

"His name's BOTTOM, and he's been turned into an ASS! He is the BUTT of Puck's joke, and when it comes to figuring things out, he's always in the REAR...." etc etc etc.

I thought some of my students were going to pass out from laughing so hard at watching me standing on a chair and going through that with wild hand gestures.

I am (slowly) working my way through Julius Caesar (well, only up through Act III). My kids are really having trouble, so I try to point out all the trashy lines and that kinda thing. Seems to almost be working. I hope.

I've never taught it. However, I HIGHLY recommend these folks for unit plans -- perhaps they've some angle on it:

http://www.centerforlearning.org/

http://www.centerforlearning.org/ViewProductDetails.aspx?id=502&pid=571&sid=42 here it is...

I've bought a BUTTLOAD of their units -- the handouts alone are brilliant. (The lessons I tend to rewrite a bit).
Sort of a CliffNotes for teachers, eh? :)

Seriously, as a student who has been in classes that used these, I urge any other teachers here to take a look at them. They're great in that the people who made them seem...well, smart, and informed about the subject. Many of our history classes used their primary source excerpts.

Sort of a CliffNotes for teachers, eh? :)

Seriously, as a student who has been in classes that used these, I urge any other teachers here to take a look at them. They're great in that the people who made them seem...well, smart, and informed about the subject. Many of our history classes used their primary source excerpts.

Teaching is learning to plagiarize without plagiarizing.

History classes should never use textbooks. And I can always use new ideas for lessons...I'm still young and idealistic after all ;)

wow...you are a godsend. My old history teacher suggested teaching it as a soap opera...I wonder if maybe they could work into that...

And really...if you ever need a virgin sacrificed in your honor or anything like that...Just hit me up ;)

Hey, anything to help a fellow pedagogue.

I never understood how people bought so much into 1984. I understand what the whole point was, but I thought the book was boring as hell and really over the top about everything. That's more like people being cloned and living in a hive than under a dictatorship.

I like Rand's books, but The Fountainhead especially I thought contained way too much preaching. I thought it would have been a lot better if she cut out a lot of that crap.

And I never got how Howard Roark was supposed to be a hero. I always thought he was an idiot and Dominique was a stupid whore, literly. Very unlikeable.

True. She visited one "plantation" in Covington Ky, and is documented as having talked to one old black man for one afternoon. Covington is across the river from Cincinnati and not even in the South. She did absolutely no real research whatsoever. Which is exactly why Lincoln called her "the little woman who started the big war". Her brother was a abolitionist preacher in NYC. It was all pure propaganda.

I've never read Uncle Tom's Cabin, and so can't vouch for it. The other books mentioned, though, were researched. Cry, the Beloved Country was written by a South African. (It didn't seem particularly anti-white, either.) Native Son was at least partially autobiographical. 1984 was of course fictional (it is based thirty-six years in the future), but doesn't bill itself as anything more than a warning against totalitarianism. It, too, isn't really anti-white.

Hey, anything to help a fellow pedagogue.

not quite there yet. Passed my MTLE (MA license test), and have just taken over my first class in student teaching this week...first formal review tuesday:(

But soon, I shall be among your ranks. And beating down your door for files ;)

Anything written by Faulkner. God I despise William Faulkner.

The "classics" you are required to read in school are all ass. Ass.
The Great Gatsby was more like A Mediocre Biography of a Man Named Gatsby.
Sense & Sensibility? This Book Makes no Sense

And Shakespeare did not write books, I don't want to ever read a damn Shakespeare "book" again.

not quite there yet. Passed my MTLE (MA license test), and have just taken over my first class in student teaching this week...first formal review tuesday:(

But soon, I shall be among your ranks. And beating down your door for files ;)

If I can pass something of use along, I will. :)
My biggest piece of advice... take your time. I used to race through my lessons and barely give kids a chance to absorb when I first started. Consciously slow down a little.

All the politically correct novels like 1984, which was utterly ridiculous, Beloved, Their Eyes Were Watching God, To Kill a Mockingbird, Cry, The Beloved Country, Uncle Tom's Cabin, which was nothing but make believe agitator propaganda that is classic because of academia's politics and especially Native Son, which I wrote possibly my best report ever in condemnation.

So, you don't like anything that has brown people in it. At least not if it is sympathetic to their plight.

You really are a caricature of an angry white boy. :(

Not true at all. But they are all average books at best and hardly ground breaking classics, except for the political viewpoint they espouse.

It's not my fault that academia chooses to heap praise on so many books because of the skin color of the author or characters.

Not true at all. But they are all average books at best and hardly ground breaking classics, except for the political viewpoint they espouse.

It's not my fault that academia chooses to heap praise on so many books because of the skin color of the author or characters.

Has it ever occurred to you that these are classics because they represent the march of progress and justice?

All the politically correct novels like 1984, which was utterly ridiculous, Beloved, Their Eyes Were Watching God, To Kill a Mockingbird, Cry, The Beloved Country, Uncle Tom's Cabin, which was nothing but make believe agitator propaganda that is classic because of academia's politics and especially Native Son, which I wrote possibly my best report ever in condemnation.


God, if this doent prove your racist bigotry I dont know what does.

:headbang:

This is a thread for intellectuals, are you lost bud?

God, if this doent prove your racist bigotry I dont know what does.

:headbang:

This is a thread for intellectuals, are you lost bud?

I for one think it's funny. :p

I for one think it's funny. :p



Ive laughed at him so much, Im starting to become immune. Its like that South Park where Carman loses the ability to laugh temporarially.

There's been a few, Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte is the worst though. Twenty pages in and you feel like hanging yourself.

Ive laughed at him so much, Im starting to become immune. Its like that South Park where Carman loses the ability to laugh temporarially.

This one? :p (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Eat_with_Your_Butt)

Uggh, so many books from english to list so little time. However, at the top I would put The Wars. Yep, thats what I needed to read about, gay sex (no offence to gays, I just would prefer to avoid reading about it). The guy doesn't even fight back for goodness sake:headbang:!

Oh, and while I enjoyed the Hoobit, Tolkens style in LOTRs reminded me of drinking sand.

First, I cheerfully and respectfully disagree with almost all of you. I love Moby-Dick, I love The Great Gatsby, I love LOTR, I love Heart of Darkness, I love practically everything Shakespeare ever wrote, I quite like Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, Great Expectations, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Lord of the Flies, The Scarlet Letter, and, honestly, the overwhelming majority of books mentioned in this thread. In short, you all are wrong and have no taste, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. :p

Only one of you gets a "hear, hear!" from me, and that's Katganistan, because I, too, have never really managed to like Hemingway much. I don't hate his books, though - I just never really like them.

Poliwanacraca is a boat against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

:)

The Old Man and The Sea seemed to be a hundred and thirty pages of a guy pissing off the side of the boat. Pass.
Heart of Darkness rules.

The greatest review of a book I've ever read - even greater than all the in-depth ones.

And, it's funny. Surprising for a book review so old.
Oh, 19th-century critics could be quite barbed. Here's Oscar Wilde (one of the most barbed!) reviewing Charles Dickens ("Old Curiosity Shoppe", which nobody has dissed on this thread yet):
"One would have to be less than human to read the death of little Nell and not laugh."

Charles Dickens does not, in fact, need to be shot. He is dead already.
He needs to have a stake pounded through his heart.

Here is a classic old review of "A Portrait of a Lady" by Henry James: "It is thoroughly Jamesian. That is to say: Nothing happens. Nothing at all. And it takes so long not to happen. Finally, something appears to be starting to happen, so the book ends abruptly."

I recently checked "Prtrait of a Lady" out of the library, thinking I would be reading something classy. Tedium, pure tedium. I think I trudged through about 20 pages of it, put it down and never picked it up again (except to return it to the library).

Only 20 pages? Nothing had hardly even started to not happen by then, it takes much longer.

Oh? How many pages before something starts to not happen?

I recently checked "Prtrait of a Lady" out of the library, thinking I would be reading something classy. Tedium, pure tedium. I think I trudged through about 20 pages of it, put it down and never picked it up again (except to return it to the library).

Only 20 pages? Nothing had hardly even started to not happen by then, it takes much longer.

The Scarlet Letter and Catcher in the Rye stick out in my head as the two books I really disliked.

Letter was seriously the most boring thing I've ever read. Even with the teacher pounding the historical context into our heads, noting the great differences between the readers and society of 1850 and the readers and society of the late 1990's, I still couldn't figure how anyone could find the book enjoyable, much less a "classic" that has to be taught to disinterested teenagers every year.

I also went back and reread Catcher several years later, on the off chance that my having matured somewhat would give me a new perspective...and I still hated it.

While it wasn't terrible, I fail to see the fuss regarding Heart of Darkness...quite an average book, really.

The Scarlet Letter and Catcher in the Rye stick out in my head as the two books I really disliked.

Letter was seriously the most boring thing I've ever read. Even with the teacher pounding the historical context into our heads, noting the great differences between the readers and society of 1850 and the readers and society of the late 1990's, I still couldn't figure how anyone could find the book enjoyable, much less a "classic" that has to be taught to disinterested teenagers every year.

I also went back and reread Catcher several years later, on the off chance that my having matured somewhat would give me a new perspective...and I still hated it.

While it wasn't terrible, I fail to see the fuss regarding Heart of Darkness...quite an average book, really.


Joseph Conrad, who wrote Heart of Darkness (on,which, incidentally, the movie Apocalypse Now is based, in case you don't know [although I'm sure everyone here does know]), was Polish, writing in English which was not his first language. Whether you consider it average or exceptional, the fact that English was his second language (and is considered the hardest language in the world for non-native speakers to learn [I'm citing the Defense Language School here]) makes it exceptional.

Joseph Conrad, who wrote Heart of Darkness (on,which, incidentally, the movie Apocalypse Now is based, in case you don't know [although I'm sure everyone here does know]), was Polish, writing in English which was not his first language. Whether you consider it average or exceptional, the fact that English was his second language (and is considered the hardest language in the world for non-native speakers to learn [I'm citing the Defense Language School here]) makes it exceptional.

I knew of the connection to Apocalypse Now, I also knew Conrad was Polish, as I read Heart of Darkness as the final project for my senior year english class.

I still maintain that it's an average book...I could theoretically write a book in Chinese, despite not being a native speaker, but if it's an average story, then the fact that I made the effort to write in in Chinese wouldn't make the story any better.

Out of all the books mentioned so far, out of those I've read, I like most of them. Lord of the Flies, Huckleberry Finn, Old man and the Sea, 1984, LotR, etc.

Hated the Scarlet letter. Just too wordy, but I think that's an issue with a whole era of literature there. I did like Frankenstein, though.

Our English department decided to skip Red Badge of Courage, though. Even they didn't want to do it. I'm also excited to start the Great Gatsby since our theme this year seems to be something along the lines of the American Dream and the various forms it takes through the books we read.

(Scarlet Letter >>> Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass >>> Huckleberry Finn >>> The Great Gatsby)

Don't attempt the Canterbury Tales.I didn't find it too bad; a little harder to read then a book in contemporary English, but at least it wasn't as dreadfully boring as the great Gatsby.

One that I wasn't too fond of was The Great Gatsby.
Full agreement. Tequila Mockingbird as well. Intentional misspelling.
Amongst the "neo"-classics, the Giver and Love in the Time of Cholera are my most hated.

i don't beat my head against works of fiction i don't thoroughly enjoy, however "classic" or "popular" either one.

there are of course many of both which are signifigantly over rated.

generally if its aimed at a mainstream market, i'll pass it by, not really seeing a whole lot of point in anything that is.

also novels are way to expensive these days, other then in second hand paperback. though there are a few authors in my favorite genre's i would buy their works off of directly if i were to encounter then at a convention or something, and i had enough spare cash in my pocket to do so.

=^^=
.../\...

I found trying to read Joyce's Ulysees a bit like wading chest deep through shit.

The Wife's Prologue and Tale from the Canterbury Tales, were terrible although Catcher in the Rye is worse.

Everytime the hero say something is 'phony' you want to kick him in the teeth.

I found trying to read Joyce's Ulysees a bit like wading chest deep through shit.Cold shit or warm shit?

Cold shit or warm shit?

luke warm

Not true at all. But they are all average books at best and hardly ground breaking classics, except for the political viewpoint they espouse.

It's not my fault that academia chooses to heap praise on so many books because of the skin color of the author or characters.
Please, for the love of all things holy, learn how to quote the person you are responding to.
The Scarlet Letter and Catcher in the Rye stick out in my head as the two books I really disliked.

Letter was seriously the most boring thing I've ever read. Even with the teacher pounding the historical context into our heads, noting the great differences between the readers and society of 1850 and the readers and society of the late 1990's, I still couldn't figure how anyone could find the book enjoyable, much less a "classic" that has to be taught to disinterested teenagers every year.

While historical context is important, it isn't vital to the understanding of any book. Read the first paragraph and unpack it...the imagery is amazing. Sadly, close reading is becoming a lost art. Notice that, while Hester is kicked out of society, she is the only one who is actually free within it, and she revels in her freedom (why else would she take a mark of shame and line it with gold?)

No, I don't love The Scarlet Letter or anything....


Oh, and never, EVER read that stupid prelude chapter unless you want to hang yourself.

While historical context is important, it isn't vital to the understanding of any book. Read the first paragraph and unpack it...the imagery is amazing.

If imagery were all that mattered, The Scarlet Letter would be a great book. In no way, however, did Hawthorne do anything to make me care about the story or any of the people involved. Why should I care about the imagery if I don't care about the characters or their situation?

Sadly, close reading is becoming a lost art. Notice that, while Hester is kicked out of society, she is the only one who is actually free within it, and she revels in her freedom (why else would she take a mark of shame and line it with gold?)

No, I don't love The Scarlet Letter or anything....

We'll have to agree to disagree, it seems.

Oh, and never, EVER read that stupid prelude chapter unless you want to hang yourself.

Too late. :p

Pride and Prejudice. Possibly because I had to read it and memorise when significant stuff happened. I prefer reading books to studying them.

The Old Man And The Sea.

Pretty much anything by Hemingway.

Judging by the responses so far, either my tastes are quite different from some of the previous posters, and/or I was assigned different stuff to read. I've forgotten a lot of the books I read during my school years, but from what I remember, these were the worst of the "required reading" lot.

My #1 Most Hated Book that I was forced to read was undoubtedly Cat's Cradle, which was assigned in high school. Such a crazy, ununderstandable thing I hadn't seen before nor since. And the parts I *did* understand were implausible as all hell.

Next book on the list: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"--and that book was so dull I don't even remember its title! And I never finished it, despite having it assigned to me in two different lit classes.

I didn't mind reading Shakespeare, for the most part, although it's not something I would seek out.

1984 was dull and stretched-out in places, so I skipped some pages, but it had enough odd aspects that I remember it. And the ending was too depressing. "Literary" value? Not that I saw, other than as an object lesson in what to avoid when writing my own stuff.

Everytime the hero say something is 'phony' you want to kick him in the teeth.
Oy, yes.

I was 14 when I first read that book, and my reaction was, "Yes, a lot of people don't say what they mean, and a lot of people aren't what they appear to be. Brilliant deduction, Mr. Catcher. Perhaps next you could share your revelation about the wetness of water?"

Fergi America;13432535']
Next book on the list: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"--and that book was so dull I don't even remember its title! And I never finished it, despite having it assigned to me in two different lit classes.


A tale of two cities.

Dickens is the perfect example of why writers shouldn't be paid by the word :)

I wasn't ever really a fan of his. Despite/because of being forced to read Great Expectation and David Copperfield

"To Kill a Mockingbird", honestly, what is it that attracts people to this book?

A lot of the ones that have been already mentioned. Anything by Faulkner, for instance (falls under the category of "What the hell is this guy talking about?"). Same goes for James Joyce. 1984 (which you could call the Sibelius's Fourth Symphony of literature: long, premonitory, and depressing). Lord of the Rings (I can't understand why it's attracted such a large and loyal following). Anything by J. D. Salinger. Anything by George Eliot. Notes from Underground and likewise Invisible Man. A Streetcar Named Desire. The Glass Menangerie. I haven't read most of the others mentioned.

I do like Shakespeare (preferably in staged form), I didn't mind To Kill a Mockingbird or Lord of the Flies, although I wouldn't call them favourites by any stretch of the imagination. I can't say I especially like or dislike Dickens (it's been ages since I read any of his stuff). And I like Mark Twain.

Shakespeare is alright but I don't like it when watching in the original language, (Mostly because I haven't a clue what they're on about)

I've never read a traditional classic novel. I may have read a few modern classics, but I'm not certain what defines a novel to be 'classic'.

Fergi America;13432535']My #1 Most Hated Book that I was forced to read was undoubtedly Cat's Cradle, which was assigned in high school. Such a crazy, ununderstandable thing I hadn't seen before nor since. And the parts I *did* understand were implausible as all hell. While the physics/chemistry of it is completely ludicrous, I'd have to say it was a fairly ok book. Of course, I wasn't forced to read it, which makes a lot of difference. It's probably the fourth or so book I read voluntarily. And I'm fond of the fragments from the book of Bokonon..

Pride and prejudice. One of the worst books I've ever read but very un- intentionally funny.

My most hated book is 'Le petit prince'.
1: It's in French.
2: It sucked big time.
3: I haven't read another book. (so one could also say it's my most liked book.)

Oh Lord...

I hated them all.

The Great Gatsby
Catcher in the Rye
Old Man and the Sea
Tom Sawyer
Huckleberry Finn
The Scarlet Letter

Hated them, all of them. Boring, pointlessly symbolic, terribly written, terrible characters. Hate them. HATE THEM!

Hate hate hate HATE THEM! [/Kefka]

The Old Man And The Sea.

Pretty much anything by Hemingway.


I respectfully disagree. For Whom the Bell Tolls and Farewell to Arms are fantastic.


I also think that people should stop saying certian books ar poorly written. You may not like the style, but to say that The Scarlet Letter or Huck Finn are poorly written is just plain incorrect.

I respectfully disagree. For Whom the Bell Tolls and Farewell to Arms are fantastic.


I also think that people should stop saying certian books ar poorly written. You may not like the style, but to say that The Scarlet Letter or Huck Finn are poorly written is just plain incorrect.

So what is your definition of "good writing"?

I like the multi-quote function, don't you, too?

One that I wasn't too fond of was The Great Gatsby.
We seem to be in the majority. I've just re-read it, and while it's not go-and-shoot-myself awful, I don't really see its appeal, either.

I also loathe most of Shakespeare's famous works
I've hated Hamlet, but something makes me think that I'll like it if I ever bring myself to re-read it.
The Trial by Kafka.

I'd like to broaden that into "anything by Kafka". Yes, I'm German, yes, my family loves his work, yes, I still hate every word of it. Maybe I'm just way too intellectually mediocre, but I don't get the fascination with it. In fact, I don't get it at all.

the book I truly hated was Catcher in the Rye.

Oh, hell, yes. It was boring and, excuse the irony, it was soooo phony.
Tolkien is like Asimov. Good ideas, horrible writing.
I like Asimov lots! (Never read Tolkien)


Also, I wasn't too fond of To Kill a Mockingbird.
I went and read that with the highest of expectations, and while it was okay enough a book, I was utterly disappointed. Nothing special to my mind.

These books just sorta... lost my attention part way through:

Picture of Dorian Gray
1984
All Quiet on the Western Front

I adored 1984 and still luke-warmly liked it when I re-read it for the third time. All Quiet on the Western Front I recall to have liked when I read it, but that's been a while.. I should read it again; I had a huge Remarque phase the summer I finished school, and I wonder whether I still like his work.. I once had the über Hesse phase, and then I re-read his stuff years later and most of it fails to fascinate me today..?
Dorian Gray was somewhat unspectacular both times I read it. Which is too bad, for some reason I always wanted to like Wilde, but so far only with the Ghost of Canterville I actually succeeded.

Brave New World was over rated. It should have been a short story, because the concept was cool but it just couldn't carry the plot. I just was boring.

I want to marry that book one day. Okay, so maybe there's a wee bit of a drag with the savage part, but apart from that, it's the most awesome book ever. After I discovered this Truth, I went out and got myself Point Counter Point and Island, both of which sucked major donkey ass.
My most hated book is 'Le petit prince'.


While I don't quite hate it, I think it's far, far overrated. The oh so acclaimed moral truths in it can quite as easily be drawn from a random collection of the inspirational quotes I daily find attached to my teabags (yes, the teabags I use come with complimentary inspirational quote tags on them).

Kafka is staggeringly dull. Obviously, there's some loss of meaning and emotion in translation, but his works are still nothing special.

Not really a classic, but Lord of the Rings = shite, and any who disagree on the matter probably didn't actually like it, but because of its sheer length feel obliged to make it up to themselves for wasting so much time on what is a low-quality mishmash of old English folk tales.

So what is your definition of "good writing"?

Having a mastery of the english language (or whatever their launguage is). I detest certian writing styles (Falkner...) but I wouldnt say that he's an "awful writer".

To say Hawthorne or Twain are bad writer is just incorrect because of their grasp and mastery of their language.


And Im hoping everyone knows that Twain didnt write Huck Finn that way because hes really a dumb hick, it was intentional and in character (sorry to anyone who knows that, Im just clearly it up in case someone doesnt).


EDIT: Case in point-
Let men tremble to win the hand of woman, unless they win along with it the utmost passion of her heart! Else it may be their miserable fortune, when some mightier touch than their own may have awakened all her sensibilities, to be reproached even for the calm content, the marble image of happiness, which they will have imposed upon her as the warm reality. ~Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter, Chapter XV "Hester and Pearl"


You may not like the style, but you cannot argue his command of the english language.

I want to marry that book one day. Okay, so maybe there's a wee bit of a drag with the savage part, but apart from that, it's the most awesome book ever.
Considering that "the Savage part" is actually the main meat of the plot, I think you're understating that a bit. Mind you, I wouldn't call it a bad book. Its ending totally redeems the build-up. I don't think I'd ever been quite so stunned by a book before that.

I've never been one for Thomas Hardy novels though. Maybe it's just because I can't identify with the characters, or that the far-from-subtle symbolism is constantly drowning out any attempt to objectively analyse events, but I just find them a chore to read.

Anything written by Hemingway. God, I hate his style.

I have to say, I do too.

Or Heart of Darkness, Lord Jim, Youth...

Test results: candle not held.

"To Kill a Mockingbird", honestly, what is it that attracts people to this book?The decent writing, fantastic plot, and relatability of all of the characters comes to mind.

I loved 1984, and enjoyed both To Kill a Mockingbird and Lord of the Flies Also, Tolkien's stuff is fantastic, especially the Silmarillion and related works. Just think of them as a compendium of myths and legends and you'll do fine. Yes, it draws heavily on old folk tales. No, especially with his legendarium, it isn't a straight copy. And it definitely is fantastic stuff.

I'm not sure what I really hated, especially as I'm not as well read as I should be in the classics.

I'm partway through The Picture of Dorian Gray at the moment. It's pretty good, but for entertainment I enjoyed The Importance of Being Earnest more.

Cry, the Beloved Country was written by a South African. (It didn't seem particularly anti-white, either.)

It'd be pretty damn hard for it to be anti-white, given that it was written by a white South African.

It's well to remember they're called classics because they were the first of their kind. Groundbreaking. Pushing the envelope at their times. What's boring now was once shocking. What's tame now was once risky. Judge them by their context, not by their content, and certainly not by today's literary standards. They, too, will pass.

Dickens wrote most of his novels as serials in magazines, paid by the word. Mark Twain did some of that, too. No wonder they were dragged-out. But it's not their current entertainment value that counts. It's their use of the language of their eras, and how their ideas were different, exploratory, and, um, novel. They also serve as a historical thread of how writers developed the art down the decades.

You don't have to read all of a classic to see what it's about. :headbang: Get the Cliff Notes if you want to see how it ends. Look instead at what the author is doing, and how he's doing it. Read Stephen King's On Writing for a tour de force through the tools of the trade.

Most of all: Enjoy!http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
:D

I loved 1984, and enjoyed both To Kill a Mockingbird and Lord of the Flies
Hurrah!
Also, Tolkien's stuff is fantastic, especially the Silmarillion and related works.
Not really. The Silmarillion is like an encyclopedia for a universe that doesn't exist, is written in a substandard way even for Tolkein, and unless you absolutely bum LotR is of no interest.

Still, if you're into that shit, then, erm... good for you or something. Can't legislate on taste, I suppose.

It'd be pretty damn hard for it to be anti-white, given that it was written by a white South African.

Yeah, it's not like self-loathing whites and self-loathing Jews have been behind much of the literature and politics of the modern left.

Too late. :p

That will ruin the book for anyone

I'm one.

There's lots to overlook in Willie, but much to love.

Well, I think he should be judged as any other writer. You shouldn't read his plays just becuase they were written by him, you should read them for the plot,in understanding Elizibethan English and moods better, and in research of William Shakespere himself.

So if people say well its not about the plot,there idiots, what else would it be about. Any book with a poor plot and poorly devoloped characters should be judged and critized as such. I'm not saying that all of Shakesphere's works are poorly written but I can't stand people that would just respect his writing ,or anyone else's for that matter, without looking at it like any other book and/or play. Just adjust for vocabulary.

Yeah, it's not like self-loathing whites and self-loathing Jews have been behind much of the literature and politics of the modern left.

Hey, I said hard, not impossible. And Alan Paton was anything but a self-hating white.

I found trying to read Joyce's Ulysees a bit like wading chest deep through shit.

I liked the book, but that's a pretty good assessment. About a hundred pages through, I decided to stop trying to understand it, and just enjoy the language as it flows around me. (That's good advice for your analogy, too.)

Hurrah!

Not really. The Silmarillion is like an encyclopedia for a universe that doesn't exist, is written in a substandard way even for Tolkein, and unless you absolutely bum LotR is of no interest.

Still, if you're into that shit, then, erm... good for you or something. Can't legislate on taste, I suppose.

Not as much an encyclopaedia as the collected legends of said universe. That's why I like it, the stories and scope are so fantastic.

So what is your definition of "good writing"?

Good lying.
I'm not completely joking: a good writer can play with the emotions and thoughts of the reader, to the point where, at least for a while, they even act as if the events being described are true. So a great author is every politician's dream speech writer.

Fergi America;13432535']
1984 was dull and stretched-out in places, so I skipped some pages, but it had enough odd aspects that I remember it. And the ending was too depressing. "Literary" value? Not that I saw, other than as an object lesson in what to avoid when writing my own stuff.
I've always wondered how Orwell will be thought of in a hundred years. By that time, no one alive will remember the Soviet Union, and the totalitarian regimes he describes in 1984 have already been shown to be ineffective, in a state of disequilibrium. I like his writing, I just don't think his themes are as timeless as, say, Shakespeare, or even Twain.

I've always wondered how Orwell will be thought of in a hundred years. By that time, no one alive will remember the Soviet Union, and the totalitarian regimes he describes in 1984 have already been shown to be ineffective, in a state of disequilibrium. I like his writing, I just don't think his themes are as timeless as, say, Shakespeare, or even Twain.

I disagree. And that is because I am far more cynical about where the world is going.

What are some so-called "classic" novels that you read and hated? They can be ones you read for a class, for pleasure (or displeasure :p), etc.

One that I wasn't too fond of was The Great Gatsby.

I was talking with a friend about The Great Gatsby only yesterday.

He loved it but I have to ask:

"Did you like Gatsby as a person?"

Because my friend loved it, and thought a lot of it was down to how attache dhe was to the character of Gatsby, and a friend of his who didn't really care for it, didn't really like the character.

I was talking with a friend about The Great Gatsby only yesterday.

He loved it but I have to ask:

"Did you like Gatsby as a person?"

Because my friend loved it, and thought a lot of it was down to how attache dhe was to the character of Gatsby, and a friend of his who didn't really care for it, didn't really like the character.

I don't like Gatsby as a person, but love the novel

"Did you like Gatsby as a person?"Yes, he was one of the few likable characters in the book.

I think that Shakespear's wit is (at least by modern standards) enormously overrated. Yes, dear teacher, we all spot the puns. But they aren't funny.

Fergi America;13432535']Next book on the list: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"--and that book was so dull I don't even remember its title! And I never finished it, despite having it assigned to me in two different lit classes.

Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities.

Hurrah!

Not really. The Silmarillion is like an encyclopedia for a universe that doesn't exist, is written in a substandard way even for Tolkein, and unless you absolutely bum LotR is of no interest.

Still, if you're into that shit, then, erm... good for you or something. Can't legislate on taste, I suppose.

remember -- Similrillion and the many many volumes his son Christopher put out are his NOTES for LotR. They weren't really written with an eye toward them being read.

I'd like to broaden that into "anything by Kafka". Yes, I'm German, yes, my family loves his work, yes, I still hate every word of it. Maybe I'm just way too intellectually mediocre, but I don't get the fascination with it. In fact, I don't get it at all.

While I can't say I thoroughly enjoyed The Metamorphoses, it was far better than The Trial. Probably because he didn't have enough pages to screw up in.
Though there is likely a reason Kafka didn't want any of his works published.

Any lack of significant death, and I hate it. Somebody has to die.

Oh, and Pride and Prejudice. But then, I don't consider it a classic.

Beowulf on the other hand...

I'm not a literature kind of guy.

I hate Shakespeare. I don't get what's the big deal. If they want to make it readable, put it in modern English. It's not that good, anyway.

Worst book ever: Walden, by Thoreau. I had to read it once as an assignment - I simply couldn't. It's that bad and pointless. Mein Kampf was more palatable to the brain and senses than Walden.

Close follow-ups:
Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
Scarlet Letter - Nigel Hawthorne, or whatever.
Civil Disobedience - Thoreau.
Communist Manifesto - Marx.


In fact, anything by Thoreau is horrid and is a combined arms assault on the senses. Thoreau is a complete hack.

I hate almost every school book.

The things they carried. I don't care about the things they carried. Is it truth? Is it fiction? Who cares? It's boring.

The anied. It's old so I can't criticize it, right? WRONG! The whole book is propaganda.

English teachers are the worst. The one I had last year didn't even like writing and she made fun of me for reading a book about how to write better. I wouldn't have to read that book if she had actually taught us anything in class. All she did was try to get us to memorize the MLA format, as if that's the key to good writing. The English teacher I had before that never studied English in college, she studied gym, and the year after she taught me she went on to be a gym teacher. She was really nice to everybody except me because I was fat. Which would make a little bit of sense of she was my gym teacher, but she was an ENGLISH TEACHER.

English teachers always want you to find symbolism in everything. Half the time the authors admit there is no symbolism in their books, but English teachers don't care. They always make you write 5 paragraph essays, and they pretend to encourage critical thinking but if you question the 5 paragraph thing they say you have a "bad attitude."

I hate almost every school book.

The things they carried. I don't care about the things they carried. Is it truth? Is it fiction? Who cares? It's boring.

The anied. It's old so I can't criticize it, right? WRONG! The whole book is propaganda.

English teachers are the worst. The one I had last year didn't even like writing and she made fun of me for reading a book about how to write better. I wouldn't have to read that book if she had actually taught us anything in class. All she did was try to get us to memorize the MLA format, as if that's the key to good writing. The English teacher I had before that never studied English in college, she studied gym, and the year after she taught me she went on to be a gym teacher. She was really nice to everybody except me because I was fat. Which would make a little bit of sense of she was my gym teacher, but she was an ENGLISH TEACHER.

English teachers always want you to find symbolism in everything. Half the time the authors admit there is no symbolism in their books, but English teachers don't care. They always make you write 5 paragraph essays, and they pretend to encourage critical thinking but if you question the 5 paragraph thing they say you have a "bad attitude."

Exactly.

Authors write books to be read, not analyzed by anal-retentive professors.

Pretty much all the cra-- I mean, classic[ally bad] novels they made us read in english class. Some examples:

Lord of The Rings
Catcher in the Rye
To Kill A Mockingbird
Jane Eyre (which outs you to sleep faster than an ambien overdose)

I've thought it over again and have come up with a short list:
Lord of the Flies
Scarlet Letter
Frankenstein

Lord of the Flies was so boring. Most of it was just filler. I don't even know what flies had to do with anything? They must be symbolising the shittiness of the book. The author tried too hard to make it longer. Too much damn filler. Even the climax is ruined by filler.

Scarlet Letter was also boring, though not because of filler. The only interesting part was the ending.

Frankenstein was horrible. If boredom was pain and Lord of the Filler was a scratch, Frankenstein was being granted immortality before being skinned alive, salted, dipped in hydrocloric acid, and then tossed into a volcano and sinking to the earth's core, all while feeling everything and not dying. This is the kind of boredom you'd expect from the deepest, darkest, coldest frozen of hell's frozen core. It's the kind of book reserved for those who really piss God off.

Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities.



remember -- Similrillion and the many many volumes his son Christopher put out are his NOTES for LotR. They weren't really written with an eye toward them being read.

Ah, now here I must slightly disagree. Tolkien's main focus was always on his collected legend, LOTR was a bit of a side project. He always said that his main three stories were Beren and Luthien, The Children of Hurin, and The Fall of Gondolin. And those are really wonderful.

Exactly.

Authors write books to be read, not analyzed by anal-retentive professors.

Yeah! Artists hate it when you actually engage their works or think about what they've done! Read and forget, maybe mention the main characters hair. But certainly don't explore their work, that's not what they worked so hard for.

Yeah! Artists hate it when you actually engage their works or think about what they've done! Read and forget, maybe mention the main characters hair. But certainly don't explore their work, that's not what they worked so hard for.

I'll leave it to Fred Reed to answer that (emphasis is mine):

Suppose you want to learn Twain. A fruitful approach might be to read Twain. The man wrote to be read, not analyzed tediously and inaccurately by begowned twits. It might help to read a life of Twain. All of this the student could do, happily, even joyously, sitting under a tree of an afternoon. This, I promise, is what Twain had in mind.

But no. The student must go to a class in American Literature, and be asked by some pompous drone, “Now, what is Twain trying to tell us in paragraph four?” This presumes that Twain knew less well than the professor what he was trying to say, and that he couldn’t say it by himself. No. Not being much of a writer, the poor man needs the help of a semiliterate drab who couldn’t sell a pancake recipe to Boy’s Life. As bad, the approach suggests that the student is too dim to see the obvious or think for himself. He can’t read a book without a middleman. He probably ends by hating Twain.

I'll leave it to Fred Reed to answer that (emphasis is mine):

Really, the guy is going to use Twain to try and make that point?

Thanks dude, that made my day.

Really, the guy is going to use Twain to try and make that point?

Thanks dude, that made my day.

Good, now if you have nothing useful to add, you can exit the way you came in. :)

Yeah! Artists hate it when you actually engage their works or think about what they've done! Read and forget, maybe mention the main characters hair. But certainly don't explore their work, that's not what they worked so hard for.Exploring work is good. "Symbolism" isn't. The author of to kill a mockingbird got angry whenever anyone said there was symbolism in her work. She wrote the book to make money. So did most other authors. To kill a mockingbird is a good enough book without having to make stuff up about it.

Exploring work is good. "Symbolism" isn't. The author of to kill a mockingbird got angry whenever anyone said there was symbolism in her work. She wrote the book to make money. So did most other authors. To kill a mockingbird is a good enough book without having to make stuff up about it.

So you're going to try and tell me that she accidentally divided the book into two sections, just happened to draw parallels between the children and their reaction to Boo Radley and the trail of Tom Robinson?

That perhaps Harper Lee is an idiot savant?

Worst book ever: Walden, by Thoreau. I had to read it once as an assignment - I simply couldn't. It's that bad and pointless. Mein Kampf was more palatable to the brain and senses than Walden.

Civil Disobedience - Thoreau.

In fact, anything by Thoreau is horrid and is a combined arms assault on the senses. Thoreau is a complete hack.I can agree that Walden wasn't that great, but Civil Disobedience was fantastic.

To kill a mockingbird is a good enough book without having to make stuff up about it.
Actually, that one makes my list of classic novels that are crap.

And I'd also add Anne Frank's Diary (not so much a novel, but you know what I mean). Excuse me, but I'm not a fan of emo teenage girls whining about their mothers, regardless of their situation. And when I said as much in an essay for German class on the book, I made the nomination for village nazi too, which made for a fun few weeks. :rolleyes:

I hate almost every school book.

The things they carried. I don't care about the things they carried. Is it truth? Is it fiction? Who cares? It's boring.

The anied. It's old so I can't criticize it, right? WRONG! The whole book is propaganda.

English teachers are the worst. The one I had last year didn't even like writing and she made fun of me for reading a book about how to write better. I wouldn't have to read that book if she had actually taught us anything in class. All she did was try to get us to memorize the MLA format, as if that's the key to good writing. The English teacher I had before that never studied English in college, she studied gym, and the year after she taught me she went on to be a gym teacher. She was really nice to everybody except me because I was fat. Which would make a little bit of sense of she was my gym teacher, but she was an ENGLISH TEACHER.

English teachers always want you to find symbolism in everything. Half the time the authors admit there is no symbolism in their books, but English teachers don't care. They always make you write 5 paragraph essays, and they pretend to encourage critical thinking but if you question the 5 paragraph thing they say you have a "bad attitude."

As long as we're making sweeping generalizations, teenagers are lazy, unimaginative people who are more interested in smoking weed, drinking until way past stupid, getting laid and playing video games than dealing with the fact that after twelve years of whining and day care, the big bad world doesn't care that they don't feel like working, they don't feel like paying bills, and they don't know that "I am uneducated because I didn't bother" is not the same as "this is boring" or "the teacher's no good." If it's so boring, it must be easy -- yet those who complain of boredom often couldn't pass the class if their life depended on it because small details like thinking, reading, writing, responsibilities and deadlines somehow escape them. But by Josh, if there were classes in texting and Halo 3, they'd be Ph.Ds!

And they would have learned something just as relevant for real life as they would have if they had payed attention in normal school!

English teachers always want you to find symbolism in everything. Half the time the authors admit there is no symbolism in their books, but English teachers don't care. They always make you write 5 paragraph essays, and they pretend to encourage critical thinking but if you question the 5 paragraph thing they say you have a "bad attitude."
Not a generalization. Based on 14 years of different English teachers.

I don't even know what flies had to do with anything?
Lord of the Flies is one of the titles or alternate names for Beelzebub, a devil.

Scarlet Letter was also boring, though not because of filler. The only interesting part was the ending.
The language is pretty dense, I'll admit. But I like the idea: woman 'shamed' by others lives a more fulfilling life than they ever will -- and in the end is respected and looked to for help.

Frankenstein was horrible. If boredom was pain and Lord of the Filler was a scratch, Frankenstein was being granted immortality before being skinned alive, salted, dipped in hydrocloric acid, and then tossed into a volcano and sinking to the earth's core, all while feeling everything and not dying. This is the kind of boredom you'd expect from the deepest, darkest, coldest frozen of hell's frozen core. It's the kind of book reserved for those who really piss God off.

I can't disagree with you -- I picked it up for pleasure and never got past the first few chapters. Maybe in a different frame of mind, I'd have enjoyed it.

The language is pretty dense, I'll admit. But I like the idea: woman 'shamed' by others lives a more fulfilling life than they ever will -- and in the end is respected and looked to for help.
And you were harassing him for making a "sweeping generalization" saying all English teachers wanted you to find the symbolism in things and not two posts later...

Exploring work is good. "Symbolism" isn't. The author of to kill a mockingbird got angry whenever anyone said there was symbolism in her work. She wrote the book to make money. So did most other authors. To kill a mockingbird is a good enough book without having to make stuff up about it.

1) Where did the author (Harper Lee) state this? Source, please.

2) If picking up a pear and saying, "This is a pear. What are the qualities it has? This one is juicy, and crisp, and is an example of other pears of its type," is "making things up", it's a very strange reality you're experiencing.

What do you think the book is about? 150 pages long?

And you were harassing him for making a "sweeping generalization" saying all English teachers wanted you to find the symbolism in things and not two posts later...

...she gives a pretty accurate two sentence synopsis of the plot?

...she gives a pretty accurate two sentence synopsis of the plot?
If only that was all of it I had had to put up with in 9th grade...

So you're going to try and tell me that she accidentally divided the book into two sections, just happened to draw parallels between the children and their reaction to Boo Radley and the trail of Tom Robinson?

That perhaps Harper Lee is an idiot savant?

It's not uncommon for writers to do things for much less (or more) complicated reasons than their readers believe. Or for readers to find parallels in a work that may exist, but were not intended by the author.

You're posing a bit of a false dilemma there.

And you were harassing him for making a "sweeping generalization" saying all English teachers wanted you to find the symbolism in things and not two posts later...

Harassing him? Get a grip.
Those pants you claim not to be wearing seem like they must be in a twist.

Also:
SYMBOLISM: Frequent use of words, places, characters, or objects that mean something beyond what they are on a literal level. http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/lit_terms_S.html

Now, did I say a word even remotely related to symbolism? If I had discussed the meaning of the A, the meaning of the colors it was worked in, the association of gold thread she put around it (to make it stand out) with treasure and its heraldic meaning of nobility and purity, then perhaps your post would have some point to it.

At least know what literary technique you're talking about when you criticize someone for using it, to avoid looking utterly ridiculous.

However, at the top I would put The Wars. Yep, thats what I needed to read about, gay sex (no offence to gays, I just would prefer to avoid reading about it).


I don't really like straight sex, personally. But, as long as it is done for lot and.or meaning having sex in it by no means makes a book bad.

What do you think the book is about? 150 pages long?
Fuck that took me a second. I really should have gone to sleep long long ago...
It's not uncommon for writers to do things for much less (or more) complicated reasons than their readers believe. Or for readers to find parallels in a work that may exist, but were not intended by the author.

You're posing a bit of a false dilemma there.
For a second I'll contradict myself to agree with you slightly, if only to dismiss or at least diminish the relation between author's desire and critical analysis. In Death of the Author Roland Barthes argues that it is too limiting to try and consider the author's intent and in fact pointless. In effect, the book creates the author instead of the other way around-that once the book is created it is free of author's intent and in the hands of the reader. In that respect, Lee could want me to read Mockingbird as a slapstick comedy, it doesn't matter to how I or any other critical reader engages with it.

However, it is clownish to look at Mockingbird and assume that the clear parallels between the two halves of the book are mere accident. And as such I exagerated the extent of things because, frankly, if Harper Lee didn't notice she was doing that it's hard to qualify her as anything other than an idiot savant since it is so remarkably clear (which is why it is taught in school, it is the easiest book to see structure in this side of There's a Monster at the End of This Book).

So, I'm not prepared to assume that Harper Lee was that stupid. However, whether the author intended it or not is irrelevant to criticism.

High School teaches easy to interpret books like Mockingbird to introduce critical reading to students who are not accustom to it. You learn critical reading because you live in a world of information and even when you are consuming 'non-fiction' you are being told a story. If you don't engage with that story, to think critically about it and instead let it happen to you you are allowing yourself to be lead along by the nose. No, you're ability to see the parallels between Boo Radley and Tom Robinson won't directly correlate to some 'real world' application, but neither do all drills an athlete does during practice, instead they build the muscles he or she will need later.

For a second I'll contradict myself to agree with you slightly, if only to dismiss or at least diminish the relation between author's desire and critical analysis. In Death of the Author Roland Barthes argues that it is too limiting to try and consider the author's intent and in fact pointless. In effect, the book creates the author instead of the other way around-that once the book is created it is free of author's intent and in the hands of the reader. In that respect, Lee could want me to read Mockingbird as a slapstick comedy, it doesn't matter to how I or any other critical reader engages with it.

So, I'm not prepared to assume that Harper Lee was that stupid. However, whether the author intended it or not is irrelevant to criticism.

I'm not prepared to assume that Harper Lee was that stupid either. But in addition, I'm not prepared to assume that stupidity is required to miss basic features of one's own work. As a writer and a reader and an editor, I've found that it's quite common for an author to have a bit of a blind spot with regard to their own work. They're often too close to the work to see what someone looking at it from far away can see with ease.

High School teaches easy to interpret books like Mockingbird to introduce critical reading to students who are not accustom to it. You learn critical reading because you live in a world of information and even when you are consuming 'non-fiction' you are being told a story. If you don't engage with that story, to think critically about it and instead let it happen to you you are allowing yourself to be lead along by the nose. No, you're ability to see the parallels between Boo Radley and Tom Robinson won't directly correlate to some 'real world' application, but neither do all drills an athlete does during practice, instead they build the muscles he or she will need later.

I'm not going to disagree with that. I wouldn't have an English degree if I did. And I think the importance critical reading is vastly underestimated in the US education system, but that's a topic for another thread.

Almost everything I dislike has to do with writing style (and having been forced to read them by the school board requirements of the day), not what they may or may not have symbolized. There is also the occasional book that is simply no longer relevent and has no modern context.

Moby Dick- an angst-ridden whale hunter, Captain Ahab, wants to get revenge on the whale that crippled him (The whale is, arguably, smarter than he is). To this end, he endangers everyone with him. The only survivor (Ishmael) is not an innocent. The innocent (Queequeg) dies with everyone else. No symbolism here, right? My problem with this book was the writing style, it's turgid and sluggish; I prefer leaner prose.

The Scarlet Letter- Religious zealots exercise their zealotry. They punish a young woman who had the effrontery to have a child out of wedlock (after all, adultery is fine if you're male or don't get caught). She spends the book living with their shame and protecting her lover (the minister) from the consequences of his actions by taking the consequences for both of them. The real shame was his and the village's. Once again, the problem was the writing style and the lack of context - this book lacked relevence in the late 20th century - how do you expect a bunch of 20th/21st century teenagers to relate to a sexual morality that's been "out of style" for years? And most these days would see the minister as a sexual abuser who should be jailed.

The Red Badge of Courage- A young man joins the Union Army in a blaze of misrepresented glory and finds that war is not glorious, it's dangerous to him and everyone around him. Not to mention being dirty, disgusting and generally nasty and perhaps not as righteous as he was told, and would like to have believed, it was. He displays good sense (also called cowardice) and runs. The rest of the book is spent dealing with his angst over his fear. The book is definitely relevent today, the writing isn't.

The problem with most of the books that people hate is not the story, it's a writing style that just doesn't work today. Some of the books, like The Scarlet Letter just don't compute - the themes are so far removed from the modern world that it's as if they were written in a different language.

Yeah! Artists hate it when you actually engage their works or think about what they've done! Read and forget, maybe mention the main characters hair. But certainly don't explore their work, that's not what they worked so hard for.

And sometimes that's true. Well, maybe not as trivial as mooning over hair... but sometimes an epic saga is just meant to be an epic saga... sometimes a magic ring IS just a magic ring.

Although, of course, the real magic is: Tolkein's magic ring could be just a ring to him, and something entirely different to you... No book is complete until it is being read, but the book you read isn't necessarily the book that was written.

There's been a few, Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte is the worst though. Twenty pages in and you feel like hanging yourself.

I can't believe Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye have been mentioned numerous times, but it took six pages to finally mention this waste of paper.

And sometimes that's true. Well, maybe not as trivial as mooning over hair... but sometimes an epic saga is just meant to be an epic saga... sometimes a magic ring IS just a magic ring.

Although, of course, the real magic is: Tolkein's magic ring could be just a ring to him, and something entirely different to you... No book is complete until it is being read, but the book you read isn't necessarily the book that was written.

And while Freud said that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, ask Bill Clinton... or rather, Ms. Lewinsky. ;)

Exactly.

Authors write books to be read, not analyzed by anal-retentive professors.
Actually, no. Authors write books to impact people, to move and change them. Books are a record of human experience. As Tim O'Brien says, "The thing about a story is that you dream it as you tell it, hoping that others might then dream along with you....There is the illusion of aliveness". He also states "Even that story is made up....I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why the story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth". Truth is meant to be analyzed, same as in any other subject. Anaysis leads to deeper understanding. Would I love Moby-Dick if I took it at its surface as a whale hunt? Or does it take an understanding of the whale being all-encompasing (It is white, which is simultaneously all color and no color, etc.). Does it take my questioning of the narrators honesty (He says "Call me Ishmael", not "My name is Ishmael". He writes about scenes he could not have witnessed). Literature is written by people who love to read, most of whom analyze literature themselves...hence the concept of allusion and the British tradition of epigrams.

I hate almost every school book.

The things they carried. I don't care about the things they carried. Is it truth? Is it fiction? Who cares? It's boring.It's fine to think it's boring, but the truth v. fiction thing is the constant argument of all literature. In almost every work there is a conflict between illusion and reality.

The anied. It's old so I can't criticize it, right? WRONG! The whole book is propaganda. It is propaganda, same as The Odyssey is Greek propaganda, and the Faery Queene is British propaganda. Does that mean it can't be good?

English teachers are the worst. The one I had last year didn't even like writing and she made fun of me for reading a book about how to write better. I wouldn't have to read that book if she had actually taught us anything in class. All she did was try to get us to memorize the MLA format, as if that's the key to good writing.So because you had a poor teacher, all English teachers are the worst?
The English teacher I had before that never studied English in college, she studied gym, and the year after she taught me she went on to be a gym teacher. She was really nice to everybody except me because I was fat. Which would make a little bit of sense of she was my gym teacher, but she was an ENGLISH TEACHER.Which can no longer happen, but did previously happen in almost all fields of Education...not just English.

English teachers always want you to find symbolism in everything. Half the time the authors admit there is no symbolism in their books, but English teachers don't care.A) I've never heard an author claim that, and I'd be interested in you citing any author that has.
B) Author intent doesn't matter. What is written is generally more intelligent than who writes it. Repetition and parallelism can occur without the author meaning to put it in. It isn't their intent that matters, but how it informs our reading and understanding of the text as a whole
They always make you write 5 paragraph essays, and they pretend to encourage critical thinking but if you question the 5 paragraph thing they say you have a "bad attitude."Actually, most of us hate the 5 paragraph format as it is somewhat artificial. Unfortunatly, not all students can write an essay without that strong format guideline, and so it is still used.

I'll leave it to Fred Reed to answer that (emphasis is mine):
So you're quoting an analysis by someone who opposes analysis, rather than quoting the author. Interesting.

Exploring work is good. "Symbolism" isn't. The author of to kill a mockingbird got angry whenever anyone said there was symbolism in her work. She wrote the book to make money. So did most other authors. To kill a mockingbird is a good enough book without having to make stuff up about it.That's a lofty claim to make without a source. "Symbolism" isn't bad. Blue and grey have enormous impact upon Guest's Ordinary People, as does any number of symbols in Moby-Dick
It isn't, however, the only literary technique used in any text. If you hate symbolism, look for parallelism or allusion or the sympathetic fallacy.
As long as we're making sweeping generalizations, teenagers are lazy, unimaginative people who are more interested in smoking weed, drinking until way past stupid, getting laid and playing video games than dealing with the fact that after twelve years of whining and day care, the big bad world doesn't care that they don't feel like working, they don't feel like paying bills, and they don't know that "I am uneducated because I didn't bother" is not the same as "this is boring" or "the teacher's no good." If it's so boring, it must be easy -- yet those who complain of boredom often couldn't pass the class if their life depended on it because small details like thinking, reading, writing, responsibilities and deadlines somehow escape them. But by Josh, if there were classes in texting and Halo 3, they'd be Ph.Ds!Now, kids, what is the author of this passage trying to tell us? ;)

It's not uncommon for writers to do things for much less (or more) complicated reasons than their readers believe. Or for readers to find parallels in a work that may exist, but were not intended by the author.

You're posing a bit of a false dilemma there.The authors input generally ends when the novel goes to print. They can comment upon it, but their opinion is no more important than any other readers. I'm sure I find symbols and deeper insight the author never did (actually, I discussed San Remo Drive with the author, and brought up some points he had missed).
It may be a false dilemma, but only to counter an equally false assertion.

I can't believe Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye have been mentioned numerous times, but it took six pages to finally mention this waste of paper.
Well I never have seen Wuthering Heights on a must read list, but I consider the Brontes and Austin as authors up there on the rather gouge my eyes out than read their books list.

And who would like Gatsby? The idiot jock gets the cheerleader and goes on to be successful, instead of bagging groceries, and the smart kid who always wanted the cheerleader ends up being rich and popular but never gets the girl and bends over and takes it in the ass from them which gets him killed.

Now, kids, what is the author of this passage trying to tell us? ;)

I think she might be using satire to sardonically point out the foolishness of adhering to the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

And who would like Gatsby? The idiot jock gets the cheerleader and goes on to be successful, instead of bagging groceries, and the smart kid who always wanted the cheerleader ends up being rich and popular but never gets the girl and bends over and takes it in the ass from them which gets him killed.

And this is unrealistic how?
The idiot jock doesn't get the cheerleader? Life is fair? Those who work hard always attain their goals? People don't try to buy love? People don't let 'being popular' override their dignity and common sense? People don't pursue loves who are not interested? People don't do stupid things in the name of love?

Or must literature be an escape from reality?

The Odyssey is a travel-adventure story; I have no idea what you mind by calling it "propaganda". It is a good read, unlike the Aeneid, which wants to be like the Odyssey but the propaganda gets in the way, or the Faerie Queene, which is shite.

All three are the chronicle of either the creation of a civilization or a high point. The Odyssey (and Illiad) tout the strength of the Greeks over the Trojans, as well as the cunning, wit, and intelligence of its citizens. Propaganda doesn't mean "poor read". Quite the opposite. Though, I could make the case that nearly all literature is "propaganda" of some sort.

It is propaganda, same as The Odyssey is Greek propaganda, and the Faery Queene is British propaganda. Does that mean it can't be good?
The Odyssey is a travel-adventure story; I have no idea what you mind by calling it "propaganda". It is a good read, unlike the Aeneid, which wants to be like the Odyssey but the propaganda gets in the way, or the Faerie Queene, which is shite.

Let me add Neuromancer.

Let me add Neuromancer.

Die, punk. Neuromancer is fantastic.

The Difference Engine is (IMO) better, but also flawed. They're both wonderful though.

And this is unrealistic how?
The idiot jock doesn't get the cheerleader? Life is fair? Those who work hard always attain their goals? People don't try to buy love? People don't let 'being popular' override their dignity and common sense? People don't pursue loves who are not interested? People don't do stupid things in the name of love?

Or must literature be an escape from reality?

Which I said why would anyone want to read it? The newspaper is more entertaining than Gatsby. Though the movie was ok.

All three are the chronicle of either the creation of a civilization or a high point. The Odyssey (and Illiad) tout the strength of the Greeks over the Trojans, as well as the cunning, wit, and intelligence of its citizens. Propaganda doesn't mean "poor read". Quite the opposite. Though, I could make the case that nearly all literature is "propaganda" of some sort.

I love the Aeneid. I think it's a lot better in Latin than it is in translation though.

All three are the chronicle of either the creation of a civilization or a high point. The Odyssey (and Illiad) tout the strength of the Greeks over the Trojans
??? The Odyssey doesn't have Trojans in it. The Odyssey is the one about his journey home after the war is over. The hero is particularly clever, but there is no suggestion that it is because he is Greek that he is so clever; his crew members are also Greek, and notably stupid.

Die, punk. Neuromancer is fantastic.

Fantastically overrated waste of paper :)

Anything by Charles Darwin.

Verbose.:rolleyes:

High School teaches easy to interpret books like Mockingbird to introduce critical reading to students who are not accustom to it. You learn critical reading because you live in a world of information and even when you are consuming 'non-fiction' you are being told a story. If you don't engage with that story, to think critically about it and instead let it happen to you you are allowing yourself to be lead along by the nose.Personally, I think part of the problem with this is the way the question is asked. The question is usually "what did the author mean by this?" instead of "what might the author have meant by this?" The first question isn't particularly open to interpretation due to the objective nature of the question, but the second question is.

??? The Odyssey doesn't have Trojans in it. The Odyssey is the one about his journey home after the war is over. The hero is particularly clever, but there is no suggestion that it is because he is Greek that he is so clever; his crew members are also Greek, and notably stupid.

hence why I had "and the Illiad" in parenthesis, thus making my comment about both: the strength of the army within the Illiad and the cunning and wit of leaders in The Odyssey. The hero is (obviously) the focus of the story, told by Greeks to Greeks. Do you think Odysseus would have lived had he been say, Trojan? Or even worse, Persian? Telling a tale to the Greeks about the great strength of one is no different than our tall tales of the "wild west". They instill a sense of national identity and pride, whether that is the explicit or implicit goal of the work.

Personally, I think part of the problem with this is the way the question is asked. The question is usually "what did the author mean by this?" instead of "what might the author have meant by this?" The first question isn't particularly open to interpretation due to the objective nature of the question, but the second question is.

The Art of Questioning by Dennis Palmer Wolf (http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/workshops/artofquestioning.html)

Moby Dick is one of the most boring books I've ever read.