Classic Literature You Hate

I'm hardly in any position to judge literary quality. I just have a high school education and I mainly read books for more surface enjoyment. Complex themes and ideas, whether the prose was well-done(I don't even know if that phrase makes sense) - all that crap means nothing to me. I just want to have fun and kill time.

As a layman, I have a deferential attitude to older, well-respected books. Who am I to criticize their merits or place in history?

However it seems I'm alone in this general approach. I was reading a topic elsewhere about "The Worst Books Ever" and a fellow named a few pieces of literature I had only ever heard a lot of praise for or were part of school curriculum - namely Ulysses, The Scarlet Letter and The Giver.

So then, what books of much renown do you dislike? And why?

I'm just gonna go ahead and say The Catcher in the Rye. Never read it but my god, I've never seen such teeth-clenched hatred for an old book like that.

I have nothing to contribute about classics because I have not read any classics that I hate. I also have not read many classics because I rarely attended class in high school and haven't bothered picking them up since, so, there you go.

As far as books of much renown go, though, The Outsiders gets my vote. I cannot understand why that book is so damn loved everywhere. It is a terrible, stupid, awful book.

I feel like there are more classic short stories I had to read in college that I didn't like, but I can't really remember what they were. Oh! Bartleby the Scrivener by Herman Melville. I couldn't stand that little story!

As much as it pains me to say this, I'm not a big fan of The Odyssey. I love discussing Greek mythology, and I like the stories found within that text; but I just don't actually enjoy reading it very much. I don't like the character of Odysseus (yes, I understand why he is the way he is), and for some reason I just have trouble reading long poems. Paradise Lost is similar in that I just have trouble reading it despite the fact that I enjoy talking about it.

Despite that, I did enjoy The Aeneid when I read that, so maybe I don't know what my problem is with The Odyssey. The problem might actually reside in the fact that I had to try to teach The Odyssey to high school freshman, and that did not go over very well, haha.

How can you not like "The OUtsiders" !? You heathern!

Nah, I'm jk.. It's been years since I've read that book, but I quite liked it.

I tried reading Jane Austen novels once... It ain't happening. Screw that noise. Tom uh.. Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn I didn't enjoy either, but I'm going to re-read those just to be sure.

I'm sure there's others.. Like Dracula & Frankenstein. GAG.. I just can't think of them now

Lord of the Flies. Gosh darn it that was painful to read. I read it a grade ahead of time because I'd heard so much about it and wanted to see what it was and I hated it. I have never hated a book so much. And then they wanted me to read it again the next year? No.

Wuthering Heights.

Aptly nicknamed Wuthering troutes by my literature class. We all hated that book and I still hate it now. Love Kate Bush's tune though.

Atonement by Ian McEwan.

It's considered a modern classic but jeeeeez was it dull. I'm always wary now when a book is described as "intricate"... as that usually means I'm in for a borefest.

I find most of Shakespeare very dull but maybe thats because of all the spoilers.

Had to read Jane Eyre in school. It's been over ten years and I still hate it.

Quite a few.

The Great Gatsby, The Catcher in the Rye, The Old Man and the Sea, On the Road, Heart of Darkness.

I sound like a curmudgeon, but there's plenty of stuff I love as well!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalevala

The Catcher in the Rye

---

This I also did not enjoy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

Had to read Jane Eyre in school. It's been over ten years and I still hate it.

---

What the heck bro that was one of like three books I read in high school that I actually DID like. xD

Books I had to read in school which I did not like:

Of Mice and Men
The Grapes of Wrath
The Sound and the Fury
Heart of Darkness
Their Eyes Were Watching God
King Lear (I normally like Shakes but I couldn't stand this one)
Some book about Native Americans whose title I can't remember
Probably a bunch of others

And now, Books I Had To Read Which I Actually DID Like:
To Kill a Mockingbird
Jane Eyre
Crime & Punishment
The Brothers Karamazov (<---- favorite book)
Romeo & Juliet/Hamlet/Macbeth

Silas Marner, that was the focal book of my English Literature studies and I absolutely hated it. I never finished the book in fact, I based most of my writing on the film instead. It turns out the two differ quite a lot later in the story, but never mind. I just about got away with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

Had to read Jane Eyre in school. It's been over ten years and I still hate it.

---

What the heck bro that was one of like three books I read in high school that I actually DID like. xD

Books I had to read in school which I did not like:

Of Mice and Men
The Grapes of Wrath
The Sound and the Fury
Heart of Darkness
Their Eyes Were Watching God
King Lear (I normally like Shakes but I couldn't stand this one)
Some book about Native Americans whose title I can't remember
Probably a bunch of others

And now, Books I Had To Read Which I Actually DID Like:
To Kill a Mockingbird
Jane Eyre
Crime & Punishment
The Brothers Karamazov (<---- favorite book)
Romeo & Juliet/Hamlet/Macbeth

---

King Lear is my favorite Shakespeare :<

How did you hate Of Mice and Men! It made me so sad :(

Anything by Faulkner or Joyce. Can't understand them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

How did you hate Of Mice and Men! It made me so sad :(

---

Because the entire purpose of the book was to make people (or perhaps just me) uncomfortable and depressed and eff that.

Everything by Steinbeck and Hemingway. But special mention to my least favorite "important" book ever, The Awakening (Kate Chopin).

Pike, if you don't like King Lear, I can fix that for you with a movie recommendation. Let me know.

I'm judging all of you right now :doublecolbert:

the only "classic" literature I can think of that I actively dislike is Ayn Rand but I think everyone realises that's troute by now

Jane Eyre was the most boring book ever where nothing ever happened. Thanks, public school for droning on it from 5th grade to Junior year of High School.

The Great Gatsby. Such a superficial book. I hated Of Mice and Men as well. If the moral of the story is to kill your best friend who is also retarded, that's horrible. The Old Man and the Sea was boring. Steinbeck is overrated. Heart of Darkness was terribly boring as well. The movie was better. Andddd...mostly everything written by British authors, I hate.

....killing Lennie being "the moral of the story" is a very rare interpretation. And by rare I mean wrong and I don't know who would ever seriously think that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Pike, if you don't like King Lear, I can fix that for you with a movie recommendation. Let me know.

---

I'm game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Pike, if you don't like King Lear, I can fix that for you with a movie recommendation. Let me know.

---

I'm game.

---

Ran (1985) - IMDb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shiny

Andddd...mostly everything written by British authors, I hate.

---

Wow. That's a pretty long list. Surely you can't hate everything?

I can believe that Shiny hates most all classic British literature. Pretty much all classic British literature has the same style of being pretty slow paced.

the scarlet letter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Pike, if you don't like King Lear, I can fix that for you with a movie recommendation. Let me know.

---

I'm game.

---

Ran (1985) - IMDb

---

I had no idea that this was based off of King Lear. I feel a bit dumb now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

Anything by Faulkner or Joyce. Can't understand them.

---

The thing about Faulkner is that all of his novels have a completely different tone, and consequently some of his stuff is more difficult than others. Absalom, Absalom! , for instance, requires your complete attention and goes way off into absurd tangents of stream of consciousness. That was a difficult read. But, if you'd be willing to give him another chance, something like Sanctuary is a much less intimidating read, and is quite short.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shiny

Andddd...mostly everything written by British authors, I hate.

---

Wow. That's a pretty long list. Surely you can't hate everything?

---

Everything I've read or gotten pretty far in, but didn't finish. It's still a pretty long list. British Literature just isn't my cup of tea.

I remember I saw Ran. I fell asleep halfway through. I also fell asleep during the in class reading of King Lear. Ffffff uuu British Literature. It's a wonder I managed to get an A in that class.

Other books I dislike: Black Spring

If you want to talk about random tangents, this book has got them. Also it was always weird to imagine someone like Henry doing most of the things he claims he's done. Gross old man.

Anything by Dostoevsky
The scarlet letter (worst book ever)
Pride and Prejudice
Of Mice and Men
Othello (worst Shakespeare play, hands down)
The great Gatsby
Prince Caspian. Entirely because it isn't the voyage of the dawn treader.

Terrible, terrible, terrible

AS I LAY DYING :mad2:

George killed Lennie to save him from the people who were going to kill him once they discovered what he'd done. It was merciful and done because it was the only thing George could do to save him. It was not because of how he was or what he did. :confused: Is that not understood?

I co-taught Of Mice and Men while student teaching, and that was the first time I had actually read it. I found it enjoyable, and it provided some good discussions with the class I felt. My interpretation is the same as Shorty's here, and I felt it was pretty overt that that was the case at the end of the book. Whether or not George was a good friend or was at fault for the circumstances Lennie found himself in are debatable, but George killing Lennie was meant to be an act of mercy and love really.

Not that I have a problem with people not liking Of Mice and Men. I find it more enjoyable and readable than any other Steinbeck I've read, but we all have different tastes :D

And to mention a story I don't enjoy that will give me flack: Romeo and Juliet. I always hated that it often seems introduced as some great love story when it really isn't. The actual characters of Romeo and Juliet annoy me quite a bit. Mercutio was a cool guy though.

All of you except krissy are incorrect. The Scarlet Letter is a horrible book about passionless passion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Took the Red Pill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

Anything by Faulkner or Joyce. Can't understand them.

---

The thing about Faulkner is that all of his novels have a completely different tone, and consequently some of his stuff is more difficult than others. Absalom, Absalom! , for instance, requires your complete attention and goes way off into absurd tangents of stream of consciousness. That was a difficult read. But, if you'd be willing to give him another chance, something like Sanctuary is a much less intimidating read, and is quite short.

---

And is also really smurfed up and depressed me something endless. If you like scintillating details about horrible crimes and the horrible and not so horrible people that commit them, read that book.

(SPOILER)Also, what was up with the masturbation scene? I mean he's essentially masturbating over his step-daughter, whose reputation he's been worried about so I guess it's like veiled jealousy about her sex life? And meant to demonstrate that even Benbow is a little evil?

All the people bitching about The Scarlet Letter just make me want to read it. >> Maybe I'll try to do that after I finish my current book.

I just can't see such a revered book being as terrible as some say.

Fahrenheit 9/11... does it still count if I've never read it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

George killed Lennie to save him from the people who were going to kill him once they discovered what he'd done. It was merciful and done because it was the only thing George could do to save him. It was not because of how he was or what he did. :confused: Is that not understood?

---

I did understand this, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that I did not enjoy reading the book :p

Edit: I have not yet read Atlas Shrugged but I kind of want to. I have a feeling I won't like it but I don't like to criticize things I have not yet read (or played, or experienced, etc.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mercen-X

Fahrenheit 9/11... does it still count if I've never read it?

---

Do you mean Fahrenheit 451?

I was home schooled and the only required reading I ever had to do was a bunch of children's books when I was younger and Harry Potter and the bible when I got older so I never read ANY of the books you guys are talking about.

If The Lord of the Rings count then that's my pick. Could only make it past the first chapter and that was it.

There are occasional passages in Dickens I enjoy (The first page of Bleak House being an especially good one), and I don't have a problem with his plots and themes, but god damn I can't stand to sit down and read him.

Atlas Shrugged is pretty atrocious. However, The Fountainhead is a pretty decent book - nothing amazing but still enjoyable and not 400000 smurfing pages long.

Great Expectations bored the hell out of me. That was ninth grade, though. I don't know how I'd feel about it now.

It's unfortunate that so many people seem to have gotten turned off to classic literature by high school courses. It's a really bad environment to try and explore the themes of complex novels, I guess, particularly since teachers frequently want you to walk away with their interpretation.

I'd encourage any of you who last read a classic in high school to try it again, especially if you're in your mid-20s or later. Most of these books weren't aimed at teenagers. They were the expression's of an author's hopes, dreams, and fears, and most certainly weren't written solely to be a source for begrudgingly-produced essays. I've found a lot of satisfaction in revisiting them in my leisure time, especially with projects like Gutenburg and LibriVox.

(It's not to say that you can't appreciate classics as a teen, but it's hard to appreciate anything when you're literally forced to read it solely for a grade.)

^That is the reason that I will (eventually) give The Great Gatsby another shot, that being the only book I can think of that would fit the bill of this thread's topic for myself. It was awful in HS, but everything is awful in HS. It might be different this time.

Yeah I didn't like Shakespeare at all in HS but now that I'm old enough to actually grasp all his filthy jokes and terrible puns and stuff, I recognize why he gets to be called The Bard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoeberto

It's unfortunate that so many people seem to have gotten turned off to classic literature by high school courses. It's a really bad environment to try and explore the themes of complex novels, I guess, particularly since teachers frequently want you to walk away with their interpretation.

---

Very true, especially that last bit. Also, for me, sometimes I don't want to explore the themes of everything I read. I just like to read stuff because it's entertaining, not because it's some metaphor for the author's social climate or whatever. In English class we analyzed stuff so deeply that it made me lose enjoyment for the words on the page. Good writing is good writing regardless of when it was written. Just let me enjoy the plot already!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mister Adequate

Yeah I didn't like Shakespeare at all in HS but now that I'm old enough to actually grasp all his filthy jokes and terrible puns and stuff, I recognize why he gets to be called The Bard.

---

But you can read filthier jokes and cornier puns in other books, without needing a thesaurus or study guide on every page. And the non-Shakespeare book might even have a story set in interesting places where interesting things happen. I see why people like Shakespeare, it's interesting and important history, but I think it's a dreadful experience to read.

To be fair, Shakespeare's plays were never meant to be read either. They were meant to be watched.

I will say that, as someone who at least has a degree and certification in teaching English, I do think most teachers go about teaching literature wrongly most of the time (whether it be the fault of the teacher/school/district/standards/whatever). Having students read stuff that they have no interest in and that wasn't written with a teenage audience in mind, and then asking them to analyze every little bit about it isn't going to do much good in the end. I personally love analyzing literature and such, but I generally like doing it on my own terms with the things I enjoy. I feel like students would get a lot more out of those classes if they had a bit more freedom with what they read. Harry Potter, for instance, may not be the most complex series of books, but you can still use all of those analysis skills schools want kids to know in there than in books like The Great Gatsby. And it will probably resonate more with them than trying to figure out the only one absolute interpretation of what the green light means (or whatever is the big thing teachers like to bring up with The Great Gatsby.)

I didn't read much classic literature in high school, but the stuff I did read back then I find a lot more enjoyable now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Unne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mister Adequate

Yeah I didn't like Shakespeare at all in HS but now that I'm old enough to actually grasp all his filthy jokes and terrible puns and stuff, I recognize why he gets to be called The Bard.

---

But you can read filthier jokes and cornier puns in other books, without needing a thesaurus or study guide on every page. And the non-Shakespeare book might even have a story set in interesting places where interesting things happen. I see why people like Shakespeare, it's interesting and important history, but I think it's a dreadful experience to read.

---

But I don't need a thesaurus or study guide anymore, that's precisely why I can appreciate him more now.