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

[Dawn McCullough White]

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

Dawn

[4eyesbooks]

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

[anguabell]

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

[Beatriz]

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

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

[psychotick]

Hi,

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

Cheers, Greg.

[Beatriz]

Hi,

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

Cheers, Greg.

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

[Boris Brannigan]

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

[RuthNestvold]

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

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

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

[SylviaLucas]

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

[Storymagus]

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

[JRainey]

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

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

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

[tamaraheiner]

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

[RuthNestvold]

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

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

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

[LGOULD]

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

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

[Steven Stickler]

Hi all,

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

[Geemont]

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

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

[MrPLD]

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

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

[LauraB]

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

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

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

[Iain Manson]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tony Richards]

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

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

[Pixilox]

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

[markobeezy]

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

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

[JRainey]

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

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

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

[Lursa (aka 9MMare)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Iain Manson]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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