Books you picked up and quit because you hated it.

[Clo]

It's sad that there's so much classic literature on here, because seeing as how they're pushed off into their own genre they're obviously different from other books and most of the ones mentioned are from the 1800s - early 1900s, and the writing is just different then.

Of course, I can understand that some people wouldn't want to sludge through the boring writing to get to the plot and characters, because I know I'm not willing to do that with any P.D. James books (and Children of Men came out in the 90s haha).

The thing with a lot of this stuff is that it becomes brilliant once you take into consideration it's historical and literary context, such as A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens (I saw him mentioned a few times). Also, Wuthering Heights is one of my favorite books! It's trying to get through the writing, but if you weather through it I absolutely love the dialogue and the characters, so, so much for their uniqueness. I had a two hour conversation about this book once because I nerd it up like that.

And if you say American Literature isn't good, try some Kurt Vonnegut! He's always fun.

Anyway, I couldn't get through Sword of Truth by Terry Goodkind. Yech. And Catch-22 by Joseph Heller annoyed the living daylights out of me, I put it down 1/3 of the way through to the anger of several of my friends.

[Aurey]

I just realized that my 'relatively painless' comment in regards to The Road was both vague and poorly worded. I was referring to the writing, not the actual story or mood, which were quite the opposite of painless. My bad!

Don't bother. It's horrible. The main character has no redeeming qualities much like the protagonists in The Great Gatsby.

Agreed on both counts. I didn't read very far, but I could still tell that Emma was a total bitch. Although I enjoyed reading Gatsby, the characters were all irritating, so the ending was pretty satisfactory to me.

Edit: Clo is also right! Kurt Vonnegut is great. He is an amazing storyteller.

[Clo]

Don't bother. It's horrible. The main character has no redeeming qualities much like the protagonists in The Great Gatsby.

Agreed on both counts. I didn't read very far, but I could still tell that Emma was a total bitch. Although I enjoyed reading Gatsby, the characters were all irritating, so the ending was pretty satisfactory to me.

Oh, but that was the point! You weren't supposed to like any of them. They were all terrible people. Though I did find that book a little bland, but I thought the point was nice. Bland though.

[champagne supernova]

The Soul of Rumi and On Photography by Sontag.

Only one I can think of is Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert. I don't think that it was a terrible novel, it was just taking a long time to get into, the plot didn't seem very interesting, and I had a list of other novels I wanted to read. So I just said screw it. I think I quit right before the whole thing got juicy, too. Maybe I'll pick it up again later.

Don't bother. It's horrible. The main character has no redeeming qualities much like the protagonists in The Great Gatsby.

WHAT! I agree that Madame Bovary is hard to get into, but it is not horrible. And the main character is brilliant, if highly flawed. It's like saying don't read Crime & Punishment because Raskolnikov isn't the nicest.

And there are good characters in Gatsby. Gatsby himself, for example. And the author of the entire novel. Daisy (and all of those people in that circle) are meant to be horrible as a juxtaposition to Gatsby (and hence why the entire novel becomes tragic).

EDIT: Clo, I agree with you on classic literature being pushed aside. My own personal belief is that the advent of television and the creation of the "ADD" generation made novels more condensed. These classical novels tend to examine numerous characters, themes, locations etc, whereas modern novels are much more focused, more streamlined in a way.

[Clo]

I couldn't agree more. Plus, when you get down to it, the writing is different, in almost the same way as the plots. Less condensed, very drawn out. But often times because of this, the writing itself becomes just gorgeous to read, ie Virginia Woolf. I just enjoy almost every sentence, and love the expansive nature of the writing. Though she writes more slimly than say Emily Bronte, but different years, different types of writing.

Also, I didn't really mean to say Gatsby is a terrible character -- he does have good intentions while the others don't, and he is far more innocent. Though he does make ill decisions and is still jaded and essentially "wrong".

I teach writing, and hopefully one day will teach a full fledge English classroom, so my approach to books tends to be different than other people's. Really, you have to consider your purpose for reading. If you approach old books for concise plot and entertainment, you're going to be disappointed. Before reading a book you should ask, "What type of book is this and why am I reading it?" and people tend to not do that and expect the same thing from every book they pick up.

Though I will give it to everyone, James Joyce is hard to read, haha.

[Madame Adequate]

Just because someone doesn't like a particular style, author, or piece, does not make them unable to concentrate, a halfwit who can't follow more than one plot thread at once, or in any other way a Philistine, nor does it mean modern society is incapable (except for we geniuses, of course, who can singularly overcome what has dulled the rest of them) of appreciating such things. In fact, it most probably means someone doesn't like a particular style, author, or piece.

Oh and Vonnegut is overrated. For good American lit read Hemingway or, better yet, step away from the typically beaten drums like them and Salinger and Updike and read some real gold like Asimov, Heinlein, or Le Guin. I honestly believe it's in sci-fi where some of America's greatest and most important works have come, more than is true in other countries.

[rubah]

I just started reading Madame Bovary :O I found it really engaging! Maybe the French-styled understatement is what kept you from getting into it? I was actually thinking to myself when I was reading how it might be difficult for someone unfamiliar with the culture (not that you aren't; I don't know if you are or not!) to get into the novel, not because of the things the characters do, but just the way they're related.

[champagne supernova]

Just because someone doesn't like a particular style, author, or piece, does not make them unable to concentrate, a halfwit who can't follow more than one plot thread at once, or in any other way a Philistine, nor does it mean modern society is incapable (except for we geniuses, of course, who can singularly overcome what has dulled the rest of them) of appreciating such things. In fact, it most probably means someone doesn't like a particular style, author, or piece.

We're talking about the changes of society through time. Our generation is less patient than generations beforehand. We get our messages immediately, our phonecalls immediately, our business deals done immediately, etc. We expect things done now. This is not my opinion or others here, this is a social observation made by people more experienced in this field.

And my view on television is that it has negated the need for authors to create these massively descriptive locations, as television is able to do it better than novels. Therefore, novels have changed to focus on the comparative advantages they have against moving pictures - moods, feelings, themes etc.

So, the instant need for things to be done has made novels more direct and less round-about. And moving pictures has negated the need for massive descriptions of every scene (although some authors still do this, it's not quite like Tolstoy describing every dress, curtain etc).

Personally, there are some novels I think are over-rated. Midnight's Children, for example, is one that I have temporarily put down. And this apparently the greatest novel of the 20th century. So I certainly hope that not appreciating it doesn't make someone an idiot, otherwise I'm a bit stuffed.

[The Man]

Just because someone doesn't like a particular style, author, or piece, does not make them unable to concentrate, a halfwit who can't follow more than one plot thread at once, or in any other way a Philistine, nor does it mean modern society is incapable (except for we geniuses, of course, who can singularly overcome what has dulled the rest of them) of appreciating such things. In fact, it most probably means someone doesn't like a particular style, author, or piece.

Oh and Vonnegut is overrated. For good American lit read Hemingway or, better yet, step away from the typically beaten drums like them and Salinger and Updike and read some real gold like Asimov, Heinlein, or Le Guin. I honestly believe it's in sci-fi where some of America's greatest and most important works have come, more than is true in other countries.

A lot of Vonnegut's best stuff is sci-fi, and it's awesome

I agree on Asimov, Heinlein and particularly Le Guin though.

[Clo]

I wasn't saying anyone was simple because they couldn't read it. And it's true that books are obviously different than how they used to be, this only makes sense, because everything changes, and so do how authors write books. I acknowledged some people don't want to trudge through the dryness of some older books, which is true -- because it's not a style they're into. I read pretty much everything, just a lot of classic lit lately seeing as how English holds hands with my major. Anyway.

I love Kurt Vonnegut because his messages just seem so relevant to the times, and often his approach to his message is sweet and sad and bitter. I appreciate his humanism.

Another book I put down... Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck grew weird toward the end. I didnt' have patience for the awkward symbolism. And Wonderland by Joyce Carol Oates was too neurotically aimless, though I think that was the point. But oh my god!

[Shiny]

And there are good characters in Gatsby. Gatsby himself, for example.

Gatsby is probably one of the worst characters in the novel. He woos a married woman. The author made the characters so unlikeable that the ending was so much less tragic for me.

[champagne supernova]

And there are good characters in Gatsby. Gatsby himself, for example.

Gatsby is probably one of the worst characters in the novel. He woos a married woman. The author made the characters so unlikeable that the ending was so much less tragic for me.

He woos a married woman? Come on now. Adultery? Seriously? Of a woman that he fell in love with before he had to go off to a war and who he has spent his entire life trying to get. His methods might have been impure (and that is kind of the point - an illustration of the shortcut many make to reach the American dream), but he is redeemed as a character because he did it all for love.

[Shiny]

he did it all for love.

He did it for himself because that's what he wanted. He is a self-indulgent character. Him and Madame Bovary can kiss my grits!

Oh and despite the fact that I hated The Great Gatsby, I did unfortunately complete it, but only because we had a test on it for English class.

[Slothy]

I wouldn't necessarily say I quit because I hated it, but I had to stop about half way through the Two Towers. I enjoyed Fellowship and even the first half of Two Towers, but Tolkiens writing style was just really dragging the whole thing down for me. It just felt like everything was plodding along and I couldn't force my way through anymore. Never did go back and try to read it again.

[redxiiii]

My teacher suggested I read Translated Accounts by Kevin Sampson (It won a Booker prize according to the cover) I got 80 pages in, which i classify as a good go, but its just jibberish, literally some of its just various symbols for example "@@....///!!@:cat)...'@@" and so on...