That book was awesome

A problem I've come up with here where I live among some people, who say they like to read is the fact that most people tend to treat bad some classics like Kafka (I even read one person saying Kafka was boring) and others seem to don't understand the classic books at all, they know there is something there but they can't find it and therefore they say they don't like it. I've found out that almost like in 6 people only 2 enjoyed "Alice in Wonderland"... and then I am accused of being stuck in the past... did you ever get across this thought? Is there any "classic" book you don't personally enjoy?:)

Shakespeare is horrible.

With the sole exception of the first page of Bleak House, I cannot stand Dickens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polaris

A problem I've come up with here where I live among some people, who say they like to read is the fact that most people tend to treat bad some classics like Kafka (I even read one person saying Kafka was boring) and others seem to don't understand the classic books at all, they know there is something there but they can't find it and therefore they say they don't like it. I've found out that almost like in 6 people only 2 enjoyed "Alice in Wonderland"... and then I am accused of being stuck in the past... did you ever get across this thought? Is there any "classic" book you don't personally enjoy?:)

---

This irks me in the same way that people call black-and-white films "boring", based solely on the fact they aren't shot in colour. Of course they're entitled to their opinion, and just because something is considered a classic doesn't mean it's great by default. It's when these classics are automatically written off as boring for no real reason that bothers me.

As for classics I don't enjoy, I managed to slog through Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey and didn't really care for it.

Catcher and the Rye and The Great Gatsby were both underwhelming for me.

And depending on how broad your definition of "classics" are, I have gotten yelled at for not liking Ender's Game very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Shakespeare is horrible.

---

I agree wholeheartedly.

yeah, Catcher in the Rye is pretty obnoxious if you aren't twelve and/or like your parents

EDIT I super loved Gatsby though, fitzgerald is the bomb

I truly do sympathize. I've just finished The Great Gatsby and I have to say, it was nice! I'm reading The Catcher in the Rye and it's pissing me off like Hunter S Thompson's death. Earlier this summer i was reading Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. I loved the first bit about the Bishop and the introduction to Valjean...but after that i got kinda bored. I think it all comes down to taste. I mean I love Hunter Thompson, his :bou::bou::bou::bou: is radical, but I also love Shakespeare, his :bou::bou::bou::bou:, on stage, is awesome. Reading Shakespeare and watching it are two different things.

fewfdsfew

I thought the old catcher in the rye wasn’t bad, I mean I was able to read it, but I didn’t really feel like it was amazing or anything/understand why it’s a classic
I guess It’s the age?
Also, like MILF, dickens. I hadn’t tried to read any of that stuff until very recently, and I’m glad I wasn’t wasting my time doing it when I was younger

[Q=Nice]needlessly mentioning Hunter S. Thompson every sentence[/Q]
wtf?

I don't like Kurt Vonnegut. It's bizarre because he's very much the type of author I SHOULD love, but I don't. Granted I've only read one book of his (Cat's Cradle), but I hated it deeply and it'll take a lot of convincing for me to read another of his.

There are not many others that I dislike. I'm not a huge fan of Dickens, but I've also never tried very much of him.

I also tried Les Miserable, but considering the first hundreds of pages don't even touch upon the main character(s), I couldn't read it. I lost total interest.

I did not like Sense & Sensibility by Austen one bit. I'll try some of her other stuff sometime, and probably will have to as an English major, but that book did not make a good impression on me. On the contrary, a similar period book The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins is one of my favorite books and one of the only books I like of that style.

I absolutely despised, beyond any other book I have ever read, Heart of Darkness. It is one of the worst written books I have ever had the misfortune of having to read. It should not even have been published. It's not because of its subject matter (English colonists in the congo, controlling the Africans), because controversial and grotesque subject matter often makes the best books (Hello, LO-LITA (seriously, this L-O-L censor is getting on my last nerve), my favorite book of all time, and The Metamorphoses), but the style is just so goddamn AWFUL.

I could not stand Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter when I had to read it in school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

I don't like Kurt Vonnegut. It's bizarre because he's very much the type of author I SHOULD love, but I don't. Granted I've only read one book of his (Cat's Cradle), but I hated it deeply and it'll take a lot of convincing for me to read another of his.

---

Hmm. If you don't like Cat's Cradle then not sure what of his you would like. If you want to try another, The Sirens of Titan would be my recommendation if you want something Sci-Fi and Breakfast of Champions if you want to see wide open beavers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

I don't like Kurt Vonnegut. It's bizarre because he's very much the type of author I SHOULD love, but I don't. Granted I've only read one book of his (Cat's Cradle), but I hated it deeply and it'll take a lot of convincing for me to read another of his.

There are not many others that I dislike. I'm not a huge fan of Dickens, but I've also never tried very much of him.

I also tried Les Miserable, but considering the first hundreds of pages don't even touch upon the main character(s), I couldn't read it. I lost total interest.

I did not like Sense & Sensibility by Austen one bit. I'll try some of her other stuff sometime, and probably will have to as an English major, but that book did not make a good impression on me. On the contrary, a similar period book The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins is one of my favorite books and one of the only books I like of that style.

I absolutely despised, beyond any other book I have ever read, Heart of Darkness. It is one of the worst written books I have ever had the misfortune of having to read. It should not even have been published. It's not because of its subject matter (English colonists in the congo, controlling the Africans), because controversial and grotesque subject matter often makes the best books (Hello, LO-LITA (seriously, this L-O-L censor is getting on my last nerve), my favorite book of all time, and The Metamorphoses), but the style is just so goddamn AWFUL.

---

I've only read Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, and I also don't see the big hub-bub. I didn't hate it at all, but it was pretty much an inferior Catch-22 by Joseph Heller (which you (not just Rye, but anyone currently reading this post) should definitely read).

Les Miserables is worth it. Thats all I have to say. It may not be the greatest book ever written, but it is certainly more than worthwhile.

As for Heart of Darkness, themz fightin' werds! Though, in all fairness, I wasn't a fan of it the first time I read it. Actually, I've yet to find a person who didn't dislike/get it the first go around (I'm assuming you've only read it once, correct me if I'm mistaken). I've read it twice since then and it has become my favorite novella to date. It's utter brilliance. The style of writing is very dense, but it makes it all the more rewarding once you break through it. I find it to be an utter masterpiece. I plan on reading more Conrad sometime. I bought a couple of his novellas at a yard sale.

As for me, Shakespeare doesn't do much for me. However, unlike Bunny, I don't hate him. The Tempest, Hamlet, and King Lear were all pretty enjoyable. I've also never been able to get into Victorian literature, though I plan on reading Jane Eyre soon... hopefully that will change my mind. It always rubs me the wrong way. I also never got THAT into The Great Gatsby, The Divine Comedy, The Scarlet Letter, The Canterbury Tales, The Old Man and the Sea (I actually did like this quite a bit, but its overrated), To Kill a Mockingbird, Watership Down, Sartre's Nausea, and I hated Plato's Republic (not necessarily literature)...


Also \o to L.olita, one of my favorite novels of all time. I adore L olita, Lo-lee-ta.

How has Steinbeck not been mentioned yet? I've read four of his books (The Pearl, Of Mice and Men, Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden), and only of Mice and Men did I like at all, and the width (107 pages) added to its merit.

Also, I like James Joyce, but his work can be hell to read.

I didn't enjoy Shakespeare that much until I read "Antony & Cleopatra" and then I started worshiping him! I got to say even though I love Dickens when I read "Oliver Twist" some parts made me almost fell asleep. Probably due to the small font and I was reading it at night. I gave up eventually because I had more to read for faculty and then never gave it a second chance. Perhaps one day... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurkSlayer

How has Steinbeck not been method yet? I've read four of his books (The Pearl, Of Mice and Men, Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden), and only of Mice and Men did I like at all, and the width (107 pages) added to its merit.

Also, I like James Joyce, but his work is hell to read.

---

Joyce and Steinbeck weren't mentioned because they're are brilliant.


I forgot to mention my ambivalence towards Dickens. Though he isn't bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurkSlayer

How has Steinbeck not been method yet? I've read four of his books (The Pearl, Of Mice and Men, Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden), and only of Mice and Men did I like at all, and the width (107 pages) added to its merit.

Also, I like James Joyce, but his work is hell to read.

---

Joyce and Steinbeck weren't mentioned because they're are brilliant.


I forgot to mention my ambivalence towards Dickens. Though he isn't bad.

---

Joyce IS brilliant, which is why I said I liked him. Steinbeck on the other hand doesn't deserve to have his name next to Joyce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Shakespeare is horrible.

---

it's funny when people are dead wrong

I really didn't like Alice in Wonderland and I thought I was going to. I appreciate Joyce but I almost fell asleep a couple of times reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. And I've never understood any of the Dickens hate - people calling him dry etc. - Dickens's sentences are so refreshing and timeless, you just gotta give him a chance peeps.

I dunno, I personally like Shakespeare, I gotta go with Keith on this. I don't LOVE him, but I like him. He's a master of wit. Taming of the Shrew makes up for any gripe I've ever had with his writing.

Let's see if my opinion changes though after a semesters worth of intensive Shakespeare study in my Shakespeare class!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Necronopticous

---

But I've been thinking about giving him another chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurkSlayer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurkSlayer

How has Steinbeck not been method yet? I've read four of his books (The Pearl, Of Mice and Men, Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden), and only of Mice and Men did I like at all, and the width (107 pages) added to its merit.

Also, I like James Joyce, but his work is hell to read.

---

Joyce and Steinbeck weren't mentioned because they're are brilliant.


I forgot to mention my ambivalence towards Dickens. Though he isn't bad.

---

Joyce IS brilliant, which is why I said I liked him. Steinbeck on the other hand doesn't deserve to have his name next to Joyce.

---

I don't understand how someone can read all of East of Eden and not be in love with steinbeck :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Took the Red Pill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Shakespeare is horrible.

---

it's funny when people are dead wrong

---

His characters, for the most part, are interchangable, especially in the majority of his tragedies. This is more a fault of his writing style, which is extremely flowery and long-winded, than a fault of his characters being incredibly similar in almost every way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

I don't like Kurt Vonnegut. It's bizarre because he's very much the type of author I SHOULD love, but I don't. Granted I've only read one book of his (Cat's Cradle), but I hated it deeply and it'll take a lot of convincing for me to read another of his.

---

Yeah, you're in trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Took the Red Pill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Shakespeare is horrible.

---

it's funny when people are dead wrong

---

yep

I really do not see how anyone can possibly enjoy Emma by Jane Austen. It is just bad. Bad, bad bad bad.

I can't stand any of Shakespeare's tragedies. Comedies, okay. Tragedies? Lame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Took the Red Pill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Shakespeare is horrible.

---

it's funny when people are dead wrong

---

His characters, for the most part, are interchangable, especially in the majority of his tragedies. This is more a fault of his writing style, which is extremely flowery and long-winded, than a fault of his characters being incredibly similar in almost every way.

---

ah, I forgot about your Doctorate of Literature and the fact that your opinion supercedes over 400 years of literary analysis. my mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

I don't like Kurt Vonnegut. It's bizarre because he's very much the type of author I SHOULD love, but I don't. Granted I've only read one book of his (Cat's Cradle), but I hated it deeply and it'll take a lot of convincing for me to read another of his.

---

Yeah, you're in trouble.

---

:tpg::tpg:? :(

I dunno. I suppose I may need to try another Vonnegut, but Cat's Cradle was a painful thing to read. If I hadn't been doing it for an optional English project (I thought it looked fantastic when I read the back cover!), I'd have given up halfway in. I guess it was a case of "fascinating story, uncharming writing and execution", to me.

Oh, and I loved To Kill A Mockingbird and the movie of it too. Oh Gregory Peck!

I'm glad to see that no one said Lord of the Flies. I really loved it. It's one of those books full of symbols and analysis that is easy to teach young High School students, with it still being very interesting. I tutored this girl with learning disabilities and this was the one book that really caught her attention and that she actually TRIED to understand and work with me with. Yet, it's enjoyable for people who really love literature too.

I dunno if she's exactly a classic, or just a very notable author, but I loved Ayn Rand as well. I'm a bit of an impatient reader because I tend to skim and read very fast, and I always pick up the important bits, though it detracts from my enjoyment of lines of description, which are often the most beautiful parts of a book (in fact, a highlighter and noting margins is my only hope sometimes in getting myself to read thoroughly and slower), but I took my time and read The Fountainhead over a month span, and I loved it.

I'm having a hard time talking about classics I dislike, there's really not too many. I usually have a good sense if I'll enjoy an author or not.

I disliked Shakespeare for a long time.

Then I read The Tempest.

I don't know why Romeo and Juliet is held up as a big deal though, as it's pretty much his worst piece. I'm not a big fan of Macbeth, either.

I actually quite enjoyed Macbeth, though I agree comedy is where his best talents lie. Hamlet was pretty great as well, it had some very beautiful and practical lines. Neither a borrower nor a lender be... this above all: to thine own self be true.

Romeo and Juliet is so-so. I think it's mostly pushed out above the rest because it's supposed to be easy to teach because teens can relate or something of that sort.

I had to read Richard III, or Henry VI, one of those, for AP English and I refused to read anymore after a while. I despised it. Thank god for Sparknotes?

But overall, I do enjoy Shakespeare, though I can't say I'm amazing at analyzing it. I prefer my literature to be a painting, not a puzzle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Took the Red Pill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Took the Red Pill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Shakespeare is horrible.

---

it's funny when people are dead wrong

---

His characters, for the most part, are interchangable, especially in the majority of his tragedies. This is more a fault of his writing style, which is extremely flowery and long-winded, than a fault of his characters being incredibly similar in almost every way.

---

ah, I forgot about your Doctorate of Literature and the fact that your opinion supercedes over 400 years of literary analysis. my mistake.

---

You also forgot we are in a thread about great pieces of literature and authors that we, personally, do not enjoy. Personally being the keyword of the entire thread.

The Scarlet Letter >:[


It made me think of a bad game with a good story.

Shakespeare is good, you just have to go beyond his "major" works. Romeo and Juliet is pretty boring. Taming of the Shrew, on the other hand, is great. King Lear is probably his only tragedy that I cared for.

EDIT: Oh yes, and The Scarlet Letter is another classic that I didn't like.

I read the first two books in the Chronicles of Prydain series, and I enjoyed them, although I want to read the rest of the series. (And the series isn't too old, 1960s ish)

I also enjoyed the Dragonlance Chronicles, although that isn't too old, either (1984)

Lots of Shakespeare hate, but that doesn't surprise me much. I love him personally, but I've always felt his work was meant to be seen, not read. Romeo and Juliet is overrated though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessweeee♪

The Scarlet Letter >:[


It made me think of a bad game with a good story.

---

I could take it or leave it.

Oh, and I don't like Lord of the Rings that much, even though I enjoyed The Hobbit. Wheel of Time was retarded too.

I also forgot to mention one particular novel I hate more than any other "significant" work. It isn't necessarily a classic or a part of school, but it has a very important place in history... and its Nikolai Chernyshevsky's What is be Done? I smurfing DESPISE this book. Holy sweet mother of Christ, this book is wretched. I'm not even talking about how I dislike it for its praise of nihilistic, materialist, Utopian socialism and 'utilitarianism'/egalitarianism. The prose itself is like a train wreck.


The only good thing about it is that it (in a way) inspired Dostoevsky to write Notes from Underground. Which was fantastic.

The Scarlet Letter has one of the best stories, but it's a difficult thing to read though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Oh, and I don't like Lord of the Rings that much, even though I enjoyed The Hobbit. Wheel of Time was retarded too.

---

Oh man YES. The LotR books are, in my opinion, vastly overrated in and of themselves (though their influence on the genre is irrefutably profound). Interesting plot but poorly written that it was just boring in parts. I tried to read it twice and stopped partway through the second book both times (and I'm a big fantasy buff).

I wouldn't really consider Wheel of Time a "classic," but the writing there was disappointing as well, with annoying, poorly developed characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Oh, and I don't like Lord of the Rings that much, even though I enjoyed The Hobbit. Wheel of Time was retarded too.

---

Oh man YES. The LotR books are, in my opinion, vastly overrated in and of themselves (though their influence on the genre is irrefutably profound). Interesting plot but poorly written that it was just boring in parts. I tried to read it twice and stopped partway through the second book both times (and I'm a big fantasy buff).

---

I would say LotR really starts living up to the hype after first third of The Two Towers. Return of the King is very satisfying. The Fellowship is pretty much impossible to read without skipping huge amounts of text.

I'll jump in on LotR, whole family loves it and I can't bring myself to read them. Only works that Tolkien did that I sorta enjoyed was The Hobbit though I had to skip quite a few chapters, and the Silmarrion which was great until it got into the elven history. In fact, Tolkien is pretty much responsible for my hatred of elves.

I have a love/hate relationship with Mark Twain. His novels are generally long winded and boring. Even Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn are just tedious and boring at times. Life on the Mississippi is one of the most boring pieces of work I ever had the displeasure of reading. His short stories on the other hand are awesome, especially The Diary of Adam and Eve which was quite hilarious. Especially Adam's experiments to determine what exactly Cain wasp; or talking about how annoying Eve was and her constant need to name everything.

I do like Shakespeare but he does have a few stories that have been played to death in the mainstream (Romeo and Juliet/Hamlet) but I actually quite enjoy all of his other pieces. Macbeth, Othello, and The Taming of the Shrew are easily some of my favorite classic plays.

There aren't a lot of classics I do like. :P I think most of it has to do with the language. I try to get passed it, and get enveloped in the story, but...ugh. I hate Shakespeare. And I hate having to annotate his works so thoroughly for classes. I hate Dickens. I hate Hawthorne. Lord of the Rings was boring and took me years to read all three of them. :P And I hate, hate, hate Mr. Franz Kafka. (I do like Sartre and Camus though. :heart:) I hated The Metamorphosis, and when I found out that I have to read it again this semester I just about died. Heart of Darkness was terrible. The Great Gatsby was eh.

Crime and Punishment was all right I suppose, if I hadn't had to annotate it like I did. Chaucer, blegh. Tess of the D'Urbervilles blegh.

I guess I just have really bad taste in literature. :) I dunno, I just...greatly, greatly prefer more contemporary fiction. *shrug*

There are a few classics that I really didn't enjoy at all and some that I loved. With a few of them that I didn't like, I KNOW that the only reason I don't like it is because I'm not really getting the message due to language or the style or whatever.

Least favorites:

Dickens (so wordy and borrring)
Shakespeare (I only like a couple of pieces and to be honest, I know that I don't enjoy them only because I can't get past the language)
Grapes of Wrath
Thoreau (oh god. boring boring boring)

Favorites:

The Scarlet Letter
Wuthering Heights
Frankenstein
The Awakening
Tess of the d'Urbervilles
The Story of an Hour

I think I'm just a big fan of the Romantic Period for plot, style, meaning. I haven't read a "classic" for a while and I'd like to get back to them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giggles

Favorites:

The Scarlet Letter
Wuthering Heights
Frankenstein
The Awakening
Tess of the d'Urbervilles
The Story of an Hour

---

Yay yay and yay. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

I actually quite enjoyed Macbeth, though I agree comedy is where his best talents lie. Hamlet was pretty great as well, it had some very beautiful and practical lines. Neither a borrower nor a lender be... this above all: to thine own self be true.

Romeo and Juliet is so-so. I think it's mostly pushed out above the rest because it's supposed to be easy to teach because teens can relate or something of that sort.

I had to read Richard III, or Henry VI, one of those, for AP English and I refused to read anymore after a while. I despised it. Thank god for Sparknotes?

But overall, I do enjoy Shakespeare, though I can't say I'm amazing at analyzing it. I prefer my literature to be a painting, not a puzzle.

---

What I find so great about Shakespeare is that adapting his work can lead to some pretty interesting things. I dunno, I hated Shakespeare for a very long time, then I read Much Ado About Nothing and it was like 'ah, so that's why he's good'. I love Antony & Cleopatra, and The Tempest.

Aside from Shakespeare, I find that most classical literature can be a bore because most people can't relate to the work. When you've read something like Harry Potter which is direct, cunning, straightforward and contemporary and THEN you read something like The Lord of The Rings - you might fall asleep. Studying a piece of literature can also hinder one's opinion of it as well, I mean reading something over and over for class can kill it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurkSlayer

How has Steinbeck not been mentioned yet? I've read four of his books (The Pearl, Of Mice and Men, Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden), and only of Mice and Men did I like at all, and the width (107 pages) added to its merit.

---

I've only read Of Mice and Men and The Pearl, with Grapes of Wrath sitting on my bookcase desperately needing my attention. However, I've been told that The Pearl isn't his best work and I didn't enjoy it myself. Of Mice and Men is fantastic though.

Heart of Darkness I found a tad disappointing, but I really enjoyed The Secret Agent by Conrad. I read The Catcher in the Rye when I was 16 and even then I thought it was grossly overrated.

There seems to be an awful lot of Dickens hate a-goin' on here but - and please don't lynch me for saying this - I rather liked Great Expectations.

I rather enjoyed The Metamorphosis by Kafka and thought it was a really clever piece. I have it in a collection of other stories by him but have never really gotten around to dipping into any others. I did the Metamorphosis in conjunction with Camus' The Outsider, which I preferred. Camus I did pursue a bit further, reading The Plague.

I'm going to reserve judgement about the Lord of the Rings at the moment. I read The Hobbit when I was about 13 and loved it. I worked my way through Fellowship of the Ring and ended up not finishing The Two Towers. It's always been something that I've promised myself I'd go back to though. I think I might enjoy it now that I'm a bit older. As for Wheel of Time, good God I ploughed through with that series up until The Path of Daggers before I gave up. I really enjoyed the first five books, to be honest, but I appear to have ran out of stamina when I reached book eight. I ended up just finding the Forsaken to be the more interesting characters and just wanted more screentime for them. Again, I was about 15/16 when I stopped with WoT. Unlike LotR, however, I don't really feel I'll ever go back to it.

I never really enjoyed Pride and Prejudice. I don't think it was really my kind of book which is why I didn't like it. I appreciated that it was well-written and the plot was good, but it wasn't exactly to my tastes. Though I like to think that Austen included Mr Bennett purely so I'd get something out of it.

Great Expectations is the old day equivalent of soap operas. I especially love how everyone praises his "vividly descriptive style" when in fact he wrote like that just to bulk up chapters to fit into the magazine it was being published in.

I have yet to find any classics I really enjoy. Even Jane Austen, who I adore in theory, bores me in practice. I require in my books a lust and excitement that it seems wasn't appropriate until fairly recently.

I think A Clockwork Orange counts as a classic now. I like that book. Oh, and Heath reminded me about Of Mice and Men. All the other books our teachers forced us to read in high school were boring.

My favorite book series is still the Dragonlance series.

Catcher in the Rye was eh. But I was expecting it too be good. The guy was a total wanker.