NationStates Jolt Archive

What books have you treid to read in your life that for some reason or another you just couldn't bring yourself to finish reading? Why couldn't you?


The most recent book I could not finish was The Catcher in the Rye. It was boring and the writing style annoyed me. I realize it was deliberate, but it was like the aimless ramblings of a 15 year old kids endless attempts at getting tail from anyone who'll put out. By chapter 10 I was so bored that I realized why so many serial killers have copies of it... it litterally makes brutal murder sound like a wonderful pasttime when compared to that book!

Other books:

Harry Potter Series, I couldn't stand the style once again. It was like being scholded.

War and Peace, too long, too boring, too dry, too drawn out. After falling asleep while reading it (a first for me) several times I gave up.

I can't remember the name now, but I think it was the novel Spill, which the movie is loosely based on. Perhaps I am wrong, but the basis of the plot is that someone introduces a chemical into the water supply of a small town to see if they can control people's minds; and they turn it into thier own personal playground.
After the Antagonist of the story tested his chemical by forcing an entire family to watch while he raped the mother and then had the father brutally murder his own children in various ways I shall not describe I returned it to the bookstore. I could not stomach that...

To anyone who considers reading the phone book: Don't. I can just tell you how it ends.

I couldn't finish Catcher in the Rye, either. From a young age I'd gotten it into my head that it was some kind of Cold War thriller; that the "Catcher in the Rye" was some kind of spyhunter or a reference to thwarting defectors in Eastern Europe. You can imagine my disappointment when I actually sat down to read it.

I abandoned Nostromo as well. I found Conrad's style much too sweeping, too self-conscious, and didn't allow me to get into his characters. I might give that one another try, though.

Obama Nation

I couldnt read the oddessy. I know it's a classic and all. i just couldnt stand to read it. and what i did read i didnt understant. through a little research i figured out the story. but the book it'self i just couldnt stand to read.

Dante's Inferno. Lost my copy of it.
Never could get around to it when I had it, for some reason, and now I'm too cheap to buy another copy.

I couldn't finish Catcher in the Rye, either. From a young age I'd gotten it into my head that it was some kind of Cold War thriller; that the "Catcher in the Rye" was some kind of spyhunter or a reference to thwarting defectors in Eastern Europe. You can imagine my disappointment when I actually sat down to read it.
I can imagine. How did you get the spyhunter idea?

I abandoned Nostromo as well. I found Conrad's style much too sweeping, too self-conscious, and didn't allow me to get into his characters. I might give that one another try, though.
I liked Heart of Darkness, but have heard his novels aren't much fun to get through. I don't know if his style just doesn't work for pieces that long, or if he wasn't able to shape a novel as well as a short story or novella.

I could not finish Moby Dick. What I did read was well-written, and I even enjoyed reading it. But the plot moves so slowly I had no incentive to continue and when something else came up I could easily drop it.

Oliver Twist. My copy is currently laying off the side of a mountain in Switzerland. Hate Dickens, got angry, threw it off a bus.

'Pride & Prejudice.' Was assigned to read it for high school. I hated it, so very, very much that I asked to do another book. I offered to do two books, until finally I just got a copy of cliff-notes and aced the test. The teacher figured that out, but since it wasn't against any policy, I won out. The next year, when I faced one of the Bronte sisters, I just handed the book in, and got the right to do Beowulf instead.

Also, take note of the fact that Beowulf deserves Italics, whereas 'Pride & Prejudice' doesn't even get the double quotation marks. There is a reason for this. That reason is called value. Beowulf has value. Lots of value. 'Pride & Prejudice' does not. I will defend this statement to the end.

Also, take note of the fact that Beowulf deserves Italics, whereas 'Pride & Prejudice' doesn't even get the double quotation marks. There is a reason for this. That reason is called value. Beowulf has value. Lots of value. 'Pride & Prejudice' does not. I will defend this statement to the end.

I disagree with your literary taste, but am intrigued by you typographic concept of value. Or should I say value?

"The Secret History" by Donna Tartt. The writing style pretends to be classy, but comes off as snooty. It practically talks down to you--in Greek. Plus, the plot is so predictable I knew what the major twist was by a quarter of the way through the book.

My dad gave me some book, a novel... a thinly veiled discussion of finances and taxes actually. Luckily I caught on quick and stopped reading before the end of the first chapter. Fuck bureaucracy.

The Bible.

Boring. As. Shit.

V. by Thomas Pynchon. Dense...very. very dense.

I can imagine. How did you get the spyhunter idea?

I'm not sure exactly, it was an impression I got long before I was old enough to actually read the book. I had a strong mental image, though, of people fleeing through rye fields in the dead of night to get across the Iron Curtain. The "Catcher", I imagined, was some Soviet counteragent.

Actually, that's pretty Holden Caulfieldesque if you stop and think about it.


I liked Heart of Darkness, but have heard his novels aren't much fun to get through. I don't know if his style just doesn't work for pieces that long, or if he wasn't able to shape a novel as well as a short story or novella.


I haven't read Heart of Darkness yet; I read Lord Jim and really didn't enjoy it. I'm a little gunshy about attempting HoD just because I want to like it but I'm very worried I won't.

'Pride & Prejudice.' Was assigned to read it for high school. I hated it, so very, very much that I asked to do another book. I offered to do two books, until finally I just got a copy of cliff-notes and aced the test. The teacher figured that out, but since it wasn't against any policy, I won out. The next year, when I faced one of the Bronte sisters, I just handed the book in, and got the right to do Beowulf instead.

Also, take note of the fact that Beowulf deserves Italics, whereas 'Pride & Prejudice' doesn't even get the double quotation marks. There is a reason for this. That reason is called value. Beowulf has value. Lots of value. 'Pride & Prejudice' does not. I will defend this statement to the end.

Well, aren't you just the supreme pretentious arbiter of taste? Listen, Skeezix, it's a book, it gets the italics whether you choose to agree with it or not. Your existential protest is about as pointless as...wait...I can't think of anything more pointless.

I couldn't finish Catcher in the Rye, either. From a young age I'd gotten it into my head that it was some kind of Cold War thriller; that the "Catcher in the Rye" was some kind of spyhunter or a reference to thwarting defectors in Eastern Europe. You can imagine my disappointment when I actually sat down to read it.

I finished it, but I had to (lit. class).

I wanted to stop reading it because I thought Caulfield was a huge twat.

Memoirs of a Geisha. I was hoping for smut :(

Blood Meridian. It was for an American Lit class I took last spring. I'm just not a fan of westerns and by the time that I even tried to read it, it was spoiled so badly that I would have rather read the Hemmingway pieces that I said were like mild torture to the instructor. I will give the writer credit in the sense that his grasp on language was brilliant and worth comparing to Anthony Burgess. I'm just not a fan. Needless to say, when the prof made the comparison between "The Kid" and Harry Potter and the antagonist of Blood Meridian to Voldemort, I kept making sarcastic remarks in my notes.

I can't remember the name now, but I think it was the novel Spill, which the movie is loosely based on. Perhaps I am wrong, but the basis of the plot is that someone introduces a chemical into the water supply of a small town to see if they can control people's minds; and they turn it into thier own personal playground.
After the Antagonist of the story tested his chemical by forcing an entire family to watch while he raped the mother and then had the father brutally murder his own children in various ways I shall not describe I returned it to the bookstore. I could not stomach that...

I think the book you are talking about is Night Chills by Dean Koontz. And...yeah. The guy should have just sold out and stuck to the romance novel genre. I have no idea how he got so popular.

Wind in the Willows was one I tried to read several times when I was a kid. Couldn't seem to hang on long enough to care. I tried, too. I don't like to leave a book unread.

It took me a lot to get through the Hobbit and the first Lord of the Rings book. I just don't get Tolkien.

Well, aren't you just the supreme pretentious arbiter of taste? Listen, Skeezix, it's a book, it gets the italics whether you choose to agree with it or not. Your existential protest is about as pointless as...wait...I can't think of anything more pointless.

lol! Such anger.

I think the book you are talking about is Night Chills by Dean Koontz. And...yeah. The guy should have just sold out and stuck to the romance novel genre. I have no idea how he got so popular.


I like most of his novels, but that one went too extreme. Even if your not a fan of Dean Koontz... Odd Thomas and Forever Odd are probably his best books.

I like most of his novels, but that one went too extreme. Even if your not a fan of Dean Koontz... Odd Thomas and Forever Odd are probably his best books.

Maybe I'll try those. Most of his stuff just seems like a neat idea that was poorly researched.

I will never not finish a book. Even if I hate it, I will finish it.

I will never not finish a book. Even if I hate it, I will finish it.

Well I admire your dedication. I couldn't finish Night Chills not because it was bad, but because it litterally struck a chord that made me morally object to the subject matter.

I disagree with your literary taste, but am intrigued by you typographic concept of value. Or should I say value?

Well, aren't you just the supreme pretentious arbiter of taste? Listen, Skeezix, it's a book, it gets the italics whether you choose to agree with it or not. Your existential protest is about as pointless as...wait...I can't think of anything more pointless.

Hey! I tried my absolute hardest on Jane Austen. I'm sorry that Homer and the old Saxon bards are more intriguing than Ms. Austen. Sue me.

House of Leaves...eventually it just got to be tiresome flipping around in the damn book more than I would in a Choose Your Own Adventure. If you're going to be that way, you gotta dedicate some ink to being actually interesting. The whole book seems like a way for lit guys to be cool-how many times can you mention that tattoo artists liked the book? What I've learned is not to take book advice from tattoo artists...

Aztec, by Gary Jennings. It was a fascinating, and surprisingly accurate book, but at one point, he starts describing how a certain tribe would take the babies of their slaughtered enemies and dry them for eating...I was nursing my second daughter at the time and the book just got too disturbing. There was also sexual abuse of minors, and other very vividly described events that bothered me a little much (rituals surrounding the worship of the Xipe Totec and Tlaloc). I'd like to give it another shot in a few years because yes, it was disturbing, but not more so than other accounts of any atrocity I'd looked into over the years. I recognise that I was particularly sensitive at that time.

That's also the period of time when the sequel to the Talisman by Stephen King and Peter Straub came out...Black House. I read almost the entire book, but one of the initial scenes of a murdered child bothered me so much that I finally abandoned the book and actually gave it away. I loved the Talisman, and the basic story of Black House was okay, so who knows, I might give it another shot too some day.

What I won't ever bother trying to read again, after so many attempts...are any of Tolkien’s books. Sorry. No. I love fantasy but gods I hate Tolkien. When I was a kid, I saw the Lord of the Rings, the cartoon one from the 70s...and yeah, after that I'd try to read the books but I wasn't interested because I sort of knew how it went, and it bored me to death.

I keep trying to read Mulata by Miguel Angel Asurias because he's won a freaking nobel prize for literature and I loved some of his work on the indigenous peoples of Guatemala as well as some of his less specific political writings...but he is so far out there, I can't fucking handle it. It's like trying to read after eating peyote. It trips me out. I've literally been reading this book for 15 years.

Most everything in school.

That God awful Wheel of Time series.

I finished it, but I had to (lit. class).

I wanted to stop reading it because I thought Caulfield was a huge twat.
Yeah...I loved that book. Most people I know hated it, or were bored by it. *shrugs*

Well I admire your dedication. I couldn't finish Night Chills not because it was bad, but because it litterally struck a chord that made me morally object to the subject matter.

That book made me feel a bit icky because I got turned on by some of the sick shit Ogden got up to. And it was trashy, and not really well written anyway.

I will never not finish a book. Even if I hate it, I will finish it.
I'm the opposite. I'd say at least half the novels I've started reading, I put down to answer the phone or something and forgot they existed because, you know, they were that fascinating, so I never finished them.

I'd say the one novel I really wanted to read but made a conscious decision not to bother finishing was The Satanic Verses. Geez-gods, Rushdie is a bore.

The one history book I want to finish but keep losing my place in because it's so huge is The Cousins War.

Gormenghast. I managed to struggle through Titus Groan, but about a hundred pages into Gormenghast I realized it wasn't going to get any better. Christ on a bike, Mervyn Peake is a boring fucker.

Where to begin - Moby Dick, anything by Thackery, anything by Dickens, Der Besuch Der Alten Dame (I keep trying to read it in German and I keep getting bogged down).

I couldn't finish Catcher in the Rye, either. From a young age I'd gotten it into my head that it was some kind of Cold War thriller; that the "Catcher in the Rye" was some kind of spyhunter or a reference to thwarting defectors in Eastern Europe. You can imagine my disappointment when I actually sat down to read it.


I think you are conflating it with Spy Catcher by Peter Wright to get Spy Catcher in the Rye - a story about a dysfunctional 15 year-old member of MI5 working on counter-intelligence.

I found Ulysses by James Joyce unreadable.

I echo dislike of Catcher on the Rye; I finished it but didn't enjoy it at all. Good thing it was only a short novel :p

I read The Hobbit but found the writing style rather laboured, so never went on to read LotR, though I did enjoy the films.

I had to read Hardy's Far from the madding crowd in school and found it horribly dull. He just inspired absolutely no empathy with the characters, and the plot moved so slowly (partly that we read it in class a lot).

I think I've only not finished a book when I've lost it or something, not from a decision not to continue reading.

I couldn't finish Great Expectations. Charles Dickens style is just so... Slow. He talks (Or writes) a lot without actually saying anything. That and the plot wasn't all that great.

It's been a year since I started, but I haven't finished War and Peace
I will though, one day

That book made me feel a bit icky because I got turned on by some of the sick shit Ogden got up to. And it was trashy, and not really well written anyway.

I tend to draw a line at people smashing their own children's faces in; I know it happens but it doesn't mean it won't bother me to read a novel with that kind of stuff happening every 20 pages or so. Of course, reading of or watching ridiculous brutality hasn't ever agreed with me... I had to skip the scene in Pan's Labyrinth with the Guard Captain (or whatever he was) killing the two hunters.

It's been a year since I started, but I haven't finished War and Peace
I will though, one day

Its not worth it.

The Similarion. Its completely unreadable.

That and Bill Clintons autobiography. Ive been to more interesting math classes.

I once tried to read one of the VI Warshawski series, Burn Marks I think, and had to stop because it was appallingly written and plotted. The majority of the book as far as I could make out was "Look, it's a female private investigator! How empowering!"

The Similarion. Its completely unreadable.

That and Bill Clintons autobiography. Ive been to more interesting math classes.

I finished The Silmarillion, it was a struggle though. Took me longer than Lord of the Rings...

I tend to finish books I start, but there are a few I couldn't. One was a Star Wars novel, but it was the most boring read ever.

The Scarlet Letter

I couldn't finish Catcher in the Rye, either. From a young age I'd gotten it into my head that it was some kind of Cold War thriller; that the "Catcher in the Rye" was some kind of spyhunter or a reference to thwarting defectors in Eastern Europe. You can imagine my disappointment when I actually sat down to read it.

I can only imagine my disappointment if the opposite were the case: picking up what I thought was classic literature only to find some goofy James Bond stuff.


As for me, I couldn't finish Atlas Shrugged. If I am gonna read fantasy, I don't want the heroes giving four hour speeches and running businesses.

EDIT: Is your nation's name a reference to Thorstein Veblen?

I once had a go at reading War and Peace, but when I was about half-way I forgot that I had started reading it...
One boring book I really struggled to get through is Der Prozess by Franz Kafka. I can hardly believe I managed to finish it.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy, I read and enjoyed The Hobbit, but my enjoyment died by the end of the Fellowship, and I only got a quarter of the way though Two Towers before I finally gave up. It just seemed like much of the book was them walking to wherever the hell they were going, and the writing style didn't agree with me.

Oh, and The Shack, it just sort of disturbed me to think of God as a big black women named 'Papa', and dialogue could be incredibly confusing. It's like the Trinity never wanted to give poor Mack a straight answer...

Well, aren't you just the supreme pretentious arbiter of taste? Listen, Skeezix, it's a book, it gets the italics whether you choose to agree with it or not. Your existential protest is about as pointless as...wait...I can't think of anything more pointless.
Complaining about it on the Internet?
Hey! I tried my absolute hardest on Jane Austen. I'm sorry that Homer and the old Saxon bards are more intriguing than Ms. Austen. Sue me.
You apparently have no taste for word-play, irony or character development, but that is your fault, not Austen's.

I used to promise myself I would finish a book, and I still do my best to hold to that ideal, but two books I could not that spring to mind are The Godfather and a book by Stephen King that was called 'Wizard and Glass' or 'Wizard's Arse' or something. Can you tell I don't care what it was called? Such is my love for it.


The Godfather started and carried on brilliantly, I enjoyed the narration of the wonderfully described family politik and the mafia's dealings that was described on multi layers. I enjoyed how the story had you gripped and interested, of the history of this family and how it tried to stay alive, it was a page turner.

What a book! I thought, This is good reading.


And then inexplicably, the book went off on a tandem that began with the singer/actor and gradually got worse, in a uninteresting by-story that I saw had nothing really to do with the original story I was reading.


Sometimes in books, you come across bad patches, but you just read through them, knowing or rather, hoping, the book will pick up again to it's prior form.


Unfortunatly, thirty pages passed, then sixty and on and on and on and on, and I was throughly bored, like visually wading through a quagmire.


It never ended, boring and uninteresting and unenjoyable reading, and I finally gave up and put down the book, always swearing to read it again one day but whenever I saw the book, the reminder of my bad experience with it always deterred.


I was upset because this book had promise, it began richly and wonderfully and seemed set to carry on that way.


What a shame it deterioted into a read that was as rewarding and as enjoyable as hammering a rusty nail through your cranium.


The second book was by Stephen King, when he dabbled in Fantasy. I think it was called something akin to 'The Wizard and The Glass' or 'The Dark Tower'?, and basically concerned a man wandering around in a desert talking to himself on a vague quest.


This would be fine, but the problem was that the man was so very uninteresting, two-dimensional, and as far as I could tell, a complete and utter uninspiring dullard who was walking through the desert without any conceivable aim, that I was practically screaming in my mind at the book for something to happen, anything, anything at all.


Eventually, realising that nothing was about to happen or change anytime soon, I decided to leave that man in the desert to die for all I cared, and I abandoned the book.


I was an avid fan of Stephen King up to that point, loved his novels, his narration, his characters, but that has to be one of his most boring books.


Having read recent Stephen King books, I wager that the school of view that holds King was a better author when he had serious drinking problems is not far wrong.


In conclusion, reading these two boring books, one thing stood out at me, and that was while I was undergoing this harsh treatment as a reader I could be reading a better book, and I was not proved wrong.


The best books make you lose yourself in them, or make you think, or have you gripped, or have you care about the characters.


I have read many books since the two I have described, of various genres and both fact and fiction, and read and appreciated them all.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy, I read and enjoyed The Hobbit, but my enjoyment died by the end of the Fellowship, and I only got a quarter of the way though Two Towers before I finally gave up. It just seemed like much of the book was them walking to wherever the hell they were going, and the writing style didn't agree with me.


Wha-? Huh? Not...Like...Lord of The Rings? *Head asplodes*

Finnegan's Wake. Positively unreadable trash, but (somehow) I got through Book 1 before swearing and throwing it across the room. I will never, ever, ever touch a novel by James Joyce again.
Never.

The Iliad. A classic, but far too heavy for me.

Le Temps de secrets by Marcel Pagnol. I know I'm a heretic for not adoring Pagnol but damn, it was boring.

Two books I can recall offhand are the New Testament, and Moby Dick. I'm considering spending some free time at some point to continue with the NT, but Moby Dick was just so... Difficult to explain, but a part that stuck in my head was that stupid attempt to be all sciency with classifying fish or something of the sort.

David Copperfield.
Heavy fucking book, I got lost somewhere in another 20 page description of an ultimately unimportant character (or the same character that was already described once) so I quit.

David Copperfield.
Heavy fucking book, I got lost somewhere in another 20 page description of an ultimately unimportant character (or the same character that was already described once) so I quit.

I've heard David Copperfield is an amazing book, but it's very slow, meticulous reading. I guess that when I retire, I'll give it a try.:p

Moby Dick.

I keep getting stuck at the chapters about whale anatomy. Maybe if I just skipped those, I could get the plot read, but then I wouldn't have read the whole book, now would I?

Also, so far, the last Harry Potter book. The teenager angst just bores/annoys me too much to continue. :mad:

The Silmarillion. Blargh, it reads like the bible. Oh, also, the bible.

I've said it before and doubtless I'll say it again next time I'm asked. Anything by Kafka, shit I'd rather be slitting my wrists.

The Silmarillion or however you spell it. I got halfway through it, and to this day have absolutely no goddamn idea what I read.
The Selfish Gene, mainly because I put it down and forgot where it was. I was about three pages away from the end. I'm too annoyed by the lack of science to bother reading it again. Really, man, present a damn testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

Two books I can recall offhand are the New Testament, and Moby Dick. I'm considering spending some free time at some point to continue with the NT, but Moby Dick was just so... Difficult to explain, but a part that stuck in my head was that stupid attempt to be all sciency with classifying fish or something of the sort.
I've always found the old testament to be far more tedious then the new testament.
The Silmarillion. Blargh, it reads like the bible. Oh, also, the bible.
The Silmarillion or however you spell it. I got halfway through it, and to this day have absolutely no goddamn idea what I read.


The Simarillion was great! You-you just can't appreciate it's beauty! *runs off in tears*:p

Hmm...

I'm sure there's been a few, but honestly, I read so many books that I can never remember. I can think of a few books I've absolutely hated though.

I've always found the old testament to be far more tedious then the new testament.

Oh, the NT wasn't tough to read or anything. It was just not interesting, and I'm not really motivated to read the same story 3 more times before I get to new things (I only read Matthew's Gospel as of yet and a bit of... Uh... The 2nd Gospel. Markus' maybe?).

Also, I haven't really started reading the OT. Only read parts that were needed for Bible Studies in school, which is pretty much I believe most of the Torah (except parts that had to do with rules, such as the whole of Va'Yikra) some of Nevi'im, and some of Ctuvim.

Edit: Oh, another reason I just remembered that I stopped reading the NT was that I discovered that Hebrew wasn't the original language of the writings, and I was kind of miffed that I wouldn't be able to read the real deal, just a translation.

Finnegan's Wake. Positively unreadable trash, but (somehow) I got through Book 1 before swearing and throwing it across the room. I will never, ever, ever touch a novel by James Joyce again.
Never.
In junior high school once, on St. Patrick's Day, my angry, bitter, alcoholic English teacher decided, in honor of the holiday, to spend our entire 45-minute class period reading aloud to us from Finnegan's Wake. Of course, he didn't have time to finish it*, but...

It was BRILLIANT!!

Read "properly," that sucker is gorgeous and beautiful and amazing and transcendant. Pure literary art. Beyond expression in the way it envelopes the mind, like being carried along by a fresh, clear stream.

But I have a feeling the only "proper" way to read Finnegan's Wake is out loud while being Irish and hung over.

So, go hire a hung-over Irishman to read it to you while you get a manicure or something, and give Joyce another try.


(*I think Finnegan's Wake is one of those books you don't really have to finish to appreciate. Another is Tristram Shandy, which is my favorite novel of all time. I have finished it, but since then I have never bothered to read it all straight through from start to finish because I realized it's not structured that way. There is no beginning, middle or end to Tristram. You can start it anywhere and end it anywhere, any time you like. So now I just dip in for tastes now and then. I think Joyce may be similar. Not really "plot driven." ;))

Anna Karenina... I felt like I was going to tear my own eyes out everytime I opened that book.

I just BSed on the test for it and still pulled off a B- or something like that. This was back in high school so it's difficult to remember exactly.

Catch 22.

I forget why but I recall a dry start which did not entice further reading.

Oh, the NT wasn't tough to read or anything. It was just not interesting, and I'm not really motivated to read the same story 3 more times before I get to new things (I only read Matthew's Gospel as of yet and a bit of... Uh... The 2nd Gospel. Markus' maybe?).

Also, I haven't really started reading the OT. Only read parts that were needed for Bible Studies in school, which is pretty much I believe most of the Torah (except parts that had to do with rules, such as the whole of Va'Yikra) some of Nevi'im, and some of Ctuvim.

Edit: Oh, another reason I just remembered that I stopped reading the NT was that I discovered that Hebrew wasn't the original language of the writings, and I was kind of miffed that I wouldn't be able to read the real deal, just a translation.

The second gospel is Mark, then Luke, then John... Then you have Acts and then all the epistles.

The OT was written in Hebrew and the NT was written in Greek... You can thank Alexander the Great for that one.

By the way, it's good to see another child of Abraham... I'm planning on moving to Israel after I finish my Ph.D.

I couldn't finish reading Hamlet. I don't know why, I just couldn't. I also couldn't finish Frankenstein.

Catch 22.

I forget why but I recall a dry start which did not entice further reading.
That makes me feel vaguely, mildly sad. Or maybe just nostalgic. Catch 22 was the first novel I ever read. I was 8. Finished it in one day. I guess the start didn't feel dry to me. I read it again when I was 25 and finished it in a week. I think the difference was I found it more depressing when I was older.

I couldn't finish reading Hamlet. I don't know why, I just couldn't. I also couldn't finish Frankenstein.
Funny, I've never been able to finish Dracula (though I'm a huge vampire fan), but I found Frankenstien surprisingly good (better than I expected it to be). I'm enjoying this thread because it's interesting to see how different readers react to the same books.

Funny, I've never been able to finish Dracula (though I'm a huge vampire fan), but I found Frankenstien surprisingly good (better than I expected it to be). I'm enjoying this thread because it's interesting to see how different readers react to the same books.

Ironic, I did finish reading Dracula. (as dry as it was):tongue:

I agree the Simarilion is really hard to read. I keep trying to read it but get bogged down right at the mythology of Bern and Luthien. *sighs*


The Last of the Moheicans, Ivanho, and The Red Badge of Courage. Both are on my list of picking up and then never finishing.

Plus I am stuck in the middle of a 18th Century British Novel class this semester. The books are uttterly boring and have more to deal with Puritanical ideas and Romance more than anything else. I hate Pamula and David Andrews. And now have to read David Simple. *groans*

Plus I am stuck in the middle of a 18th Century British Novel class this semester. The books are uttterly boring and have more to deal with Puritanical ideas and Romance more than anything else. I hate Pamula and David Andrews. And now have to read David Simple. *groans*
You mean Pamela.

Pamula is the goth vampire version. ;)

And you're not the only one who doesn't like it. You should check out Shamela, Henry Fielding's 1741 spoof of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamela

Those courses always focus on the most godawful crap of that period, when everyone knows the good books are the ones with all the sex and/or sex jokes in them, like Fielding's Tom Jones, the immortal Moll Flanders, and Sterne's A Sentimental Journey.

You mean Pamela.

Pamula is the goth vampire version. ;)

And you're not the only one who doesn't like it. You should check out Shamela, Henry Fielding's 1741 spoof of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamela

Those courses always focus on the most godawful crap of that period, when everyone knows the good books are the ones with all the sex and/or sex jokes in them, like Fielding's Tom Jones, the immortal Moll Flanders, and Sterne's A Sentimental Journey.


Yea I keep mis-spelling that particular title. :p And I had to read Shamela as well. I did get to read Moll Flanders. That's the only book I actually liked, but I did get a bit bogged down in the middle.

But I hate 18 Century British novels. I never did care for the langauge. It's antiquated and hard to read.

*sighs* Only four weeks to go till graduation.

Plus I am stuck in the middle of a 18th Century British Novel class this semester. The books are uttterly boring and have more to deal with Puritanical ideas and Romance more than anything else. I hate Pamula and David Andrews. And now have to read David Simple. *groans*
Pamela was funny at first, then it started getting tedious, and then it made me want to die. I did finish it, though, and wrote a thoroughly convincing essay comparing the use of clothes in Pamela and Robinson Crusoe.

Yeah...I loved that book. Most people I know hated it, or were bored by it. *shrugs*

What bothered me about Catcher in the Rye was that it was assumed as adolescents (we read it in school) we would feel a connection with Holden Caulfield. I didn't, and plenty of other people I know didn't either. Not everyone feels like Holden. Otherwise it was an okay book, and even better are the short stories by Salinger.

lol! Such anger.

Anger? Where? Rather annoyance that the rules of citation would be bent just because someone doesn't care for one author.

Hey! I tried my absolute hardest on Jane Austen. I'm sorry that Homer and the old Saxon bards are more intriguing than Ms. Austen. Sue me.

Does that justify not typing an Austen title in italics? If it's a book title, it gets italics.

What bothered me about Catcher in the Rye was that it was assumed as adolescents (we read it in school) we would feel a connection with Holden Caulfield. I didn't, and plenty of other people I know didn't either. Not everyone feels like Holden. Otherwise it was an okay book, and even better are the short stories by Salinger.

Agreed. I found Holden to be a whiny bitch.

Pamela was funny at first, then it started getting tedious, and then it made me want to die. I did finish it, though, and wrote a thoroughly convincing essay comparing the use of clothes in Pamela and Robinson Crusoe.


That's ironic, I plan to write an essay on clothing in the 18th century as well. Primarly using Pamela.

What bothered me about Catcher in the Rye was that it was assumed as adolescents (we read it in school) we would feel a connection with Holden Caulfield. I didn't, and plenty of other people I know didn't either. Not everyone feels like Holden. Otherwise it was an okay book, and even better are the short stories by Salinger.

Have the kind of people who try to blame Judas Priest, Marilyn Manson or Grand Theft Auto games for all societal problems ever tried to blame Catcher in the Rye?

Have the kind of people who try to blame Judas Priest, Marilyn Manson or Grand Theft Auto games for all societal problems ever tried to blame Catcher in the Rye?

There was whatshisname, the man who killed John Lennon. He said he was trying to emulate Holden Caulfield.

EDIT: Now I remember, Mark David Chapman was the guy who killed John Lennon.

Have the kind of people who try to blame Judas Priest, Marilyn Manson or Grand Theft Auto games for all societal problems ever tried to blame Catcher in the Rye?
Yes, I believe they have. I remember lots of controversy over whether kids should be allowed to read it or if it was a "bad influence."

In general, I try to force myself to finish books. Ones I haven't:

The Bostonians and Washington Square - Henry James. He bores the pants off me: the moment I start reading him, my underwear just zing across the room.

Underworld by Don DeLillo, twice. I fucking loved this book, but it's so big (~950 pages) that twice I set it down, and then found when I returned to it I'd lost track of things. But I did eventually get back and finish the whole thing.

The Lord of The Rings. Finished the first, midway through the second my will collapsed. Utterly banal.

Aesthetics by G.W.F. Hegel. I tried, I really did.

Doktor Faustus by Thomas Mann. Snooooore. The Faust story's been done better, and not about inscrutable composers whose music I dislike.

I tend to draw a line at people smashing their own children's faces in; I know it happens but it doesn't mean it won't bother me to read a novel with that kind of stuff happening every 20 pages or so. Of course, reading of or watching ridiculous brutality hasn't ever agreed with me... I had to skip the scene in Pan's Labyrinth with the Guard Captain (or whatever he was) killing the two hunters.

Yeah, agreed. I don't watch gory movies, and even books with really descriptive gore tend to really put me off. It lingers too long with me.

Mallory's "Le Morte d'Arthur" has proven to be more bite than I can chew time and time again.

The Lord of The Rings. Finished the first, midway through the second my will collapsed. Utterly banal.

Why do you hate freedom?:(

Yes, I believe they have. I remember lots of controversy over whether kids should be allowed to read it or if it was a "bad influence."

Hasn't Catcher in the Rye been on the banned book list? I've read it, I can see why some might think it belongs there. Course I am a gal, and the book seemed mainly for young adolscent boys. I struggled trying to read it and didn't care for the book at all, but I can see the appeal for a 'young adolscent guy.'

Why do you hate freedom?:(
Funny! You should totally copyright that joke; I doubt it's been used before.

Can't make it through anything by Deepak Chopra or L. Ron Hubbard.

Hasn't Catcher in the Rye been on the banned book list? I've read it, I can see why some might think it belongs there. Course I am a gal, and the book seemed mainly for young adolscent boys. I struggled trying to read it and didn't care for the book at all, but I can see the appeal for a 'young adolscent guy.'
Now that you mention it, I believe it is a perennial favorite with the book banners.

House of Leaves...eventually it just got to be tiresome flipping around in the damn book more than I would in a Choose Your Own Adventure. If you're going to be that way, you gotta dedicate some ink to being actually interesting. The whole book seems like a way for lit guys to be cool-how many times can you mention that tattoo artists liked the book? What I've learned is not to take book advice from tattoo artists...

I'm borderline on that one. I like the aspect that it's two stories in one; the one about the house itself and the story of Truant. It's been a while since I read any of it because after the chapter where Truant talked about the pekinese, I couldn't read on because it made me angry and disgusted. On the other hand, I'm mostly interested in finding out more about the house and if it were just some odd psychological episode or if what happened with the house actually happened. Besides, it's not like any other book that I had opened. Even the choose your own adventures variety.

At this point, I'd have to start from the beginning though.

The Woman in Black couldnt get into it, it was about scary as the Chuckle Brothers.

Funny, I've never been able to finish Dracula (though I'm a huge vampire fan), but I found Frankenstien surprisingly good (better than I expected it to be). I'm enjoying this thread because it's interesting to see how different readers react to the same books.

The book of Frankenstein is extremely good, although the character of Frankenstein is distressingly.... not-extremely-good.

It's also my ten-year-old daughter's favourite book in the world. :)

As far as I can recall - the only book I ever actually put down and never planned to pick up again was - some might say obviously - Stephen King. "Gerald's Game" turned out to be even more turgid bollocky toss than any of the other King I'd ever read, and JUST as well written. Which is to say... not.

The book of Frankenstein is extremely good, although the character of Frankenstein is distressingly.... not-extremely-good.

It's also my ten-year-old daughter's favourite book in the world. :)
I don't think any of the characters were developed the way a modern reader would want. What surprised me most about Frankenstein was that I thought Mary Shelley succeeded in realizing depth in the ethical/moral interplay between the creature and Frankenstein. She was, to a degree, writing a "message" novel, and those often suck because the Author's Message (tm) is usually so heavy-handed and set outside the story, but I thought she did it really well. While I didn't identify with any of the characters as individual people, I did feel the emotions of the creature's anger, frustration, hope, longing, embitterment, etc.

Also, I was really surprised that, to my taste at any rate, she succeeded in writing several scenes that were genuinely scary -- sent a pleasant chill up the spine -- and that's very rare, in general, but especially for writers of that period.

Now that you mention it, I believe it is a perennial favorite with the book banners.

Which of course ensures that any time it isn't banned, English teachers will set it for their classes to read.

Ultimately, banned books get wred MORE not less.

I could not finish Stephen King's The Stand for the life of me. Which is weird because its supposed to be a modern day gothic masterpeice.

Catcher and the Rye is also god fucking awful. I finished it, but it took an incredible act of will.

Wuthering Heights. I literally fell asleep.

Another one I couldn't get into - Dream of the Red Chamber. It's supposed to be a Chinese classic. Either I got a horrible translation or it's just indecipherable.

As far as I can recall - the only book I ever actually put down and never planned to pick up again was - some might say obviously - Stephen King. "Gerald's Game" turned out to be even more turgid bollocky toss than any of the other King I'd ever read, and JUST as well written. Which is to say... not.

Oh yes, Gerald's Game... I think I got through 10 pages.... browsed around to find something to keep me interested and realized it as about a woman tied to a bed... and quit reading it.

Another one I couldn't get into - Dream of the Red Chamber. It's supposed to be a Chinese classic. Either I got a horrible translation or it's just indecipherable.

Popular among Pseudo Intellectuals because its boring nonsensical bullshit. Just like them!


It seems like Moby Dick, and Catcher in the Rye are the two most unfinished books on Nation States. Catcher because it sucks... Moby because its hard to pull yourself through the middle section intact.

A book series I couldn't finish was Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles. By the third book Lestat (arguably the only remotely interesting character in the first place) becomes a religious freak and all the rest of her vampires are content to cry, whine, and have angsty homosexual relationships... the series sucks.

This technically doesn't count since I eventually did finish it, but Looking Back by Belva Plain was an awful, awful book. You can go to Amazon.com's reviews and see that even Plain's longtime fans hated that book. I had to read it for an English class. I fell asleep reading that book several times, and decided it was better to take a 0 on a major assignment than finish the book.

Two years after I graduated from High school, I forced myself to finish it. Infuriating goddamn ending. I threw the book across the room, but I could still see it from my bed, so I buried it at the bottom of a cardboard box in my closet.

Books should not end the way that crapfest did.

'Pride & Prejudice.' Was assigned to read it for high school. I hated it, so very, very much that I asked to do another book. I offered to do two books, until finally I just got a copy of cliff-notes and aced the test. The teacher figured that out, but since it wasn't against any policy, I won out. The next year, when I faced one of the Bronte sisters, I just handed the book in, and got the right to do Beowulf instead.

Also, take note of the fact that Beowulf deserves Italics, whereas 'Pride & Prejudice' doesn't even get the double quotation marks. There is a reason for this. That reason is called value. Beowulf has value. Lots of value. 'Pride & Prejudice' does not. I will defend this statement to the end.

And thusly out of spite, your name will no longer be bolded when used in a post.

Good day!

(the fact that I was Mr. Darcy in the High School play my Freshman year has no influence on my wrath...sorta)

I couldn't finish Great Expectations. Charles Dickens style is just so... Slow. He talks (Or writes) a lot without actually saying anything. That and the plot wasn't all that great.

He was paid by the word, doncha'know.

Agreed. I found Holden to be a whiny bitch.

I believe that was the point, was it not?