Books you hated and everyone else loved.

[Cock-Robin]

I was never forced to read that garbage, so I am lucky.

[IrisBrandybuck]

Aside from "DUNE", which I have mentioned before, I also disliked "Catcher in the Rye" ....

Nobody actually likes Catcher in the Rye. It's just something the Amalgamated Sisterhood of High-School English Teachers and Related Trades has determined will be imposed on innocent students.

I received the torture in college. That was where I started to learn about skimming books and still passing the class. That and Rubyfruit Jungle, which I argue to this day is not a book but a torture device.

[portia]

Yup; me too.

This one is a litte harder to explain. I LOVE SHAKESPEARE. However, the plays were never intended to be read, even someone who loves the Bard as I do avoids reading the plays. If I were teaching a High School class that included Shakespeare, I would concentrate on videos, and then assign (short) parts to some students to read in class and then we could discuss them.

I took my then 5 1/2 year old son to see "Julius Caesar." I explained the plot before hand once or twice--it is not that hard to follow-- and he followed the play and enjoyed it. But try to get High School students to read it and pulling out their teeth would be easier.

Watching or listening to him and I will be right there, but reading him, not if I cn avoid it.

[IrisBrandybuck]

I agree. We had to read a play a year in high school, a couple times it was two. But some of the teachers were smart enough to let us see the movies as well as read them (some weren't). When I was a senior I took a Shakespere class and was about the only one who enjoyed it because the teacher, who was also the theater teacher, had us read aloud or act things out. I got to college and took another Shakespere course and hated it...the teacher was obsessed with one "critic" of Shakespere and it was soooooo boring I wanted to cry.

[GlassHouse]

For the most part, if it has been labeled a 'classic' I've despised it. Frankenstein and Dracula were just plain awful. Same with everything Mark Twain ever wrote, and most of the stuff by his contemporaries. Tell you what else I disliked. Twilight. I read the first one and couldn't for the life of me figure out why people liked it. Bloody sparkly vampires...

LOL, This may be an old post but I just have to say I've rarely met anyone with such opposite tastes as you and I have.

For a few years, I made it a point to read either Dracula or Frankenstein every year around Halloween. Frankenstein being my favorite of the two.
Mark Twain, read his complete works when I was in eighth or ninth grade and have been skimming though the first volume of his (immense) auto-biography for quite a while now. I don't think it was ever meant to be read straight through.

It seems to me you have the same problem that others here have mentioned. That you just find it difficult to read anything that isn't a modern novel.
(not that there's anything wrong with that)
I wonder if you could even enjoy something like Conan Doyle's original Sherlock Homes?
but we do agree on Twilight!




BTW, have I mentioned that I hate Dune? All of them. Can't stand the stuff.

[Morwenna]

Several thoughts.

Letters: Books written as letters never bothered me. In fact, Up the Down Staircase was written as letters, and I loved that!

Plays: I agree that to get the most out of a play you have to see it performed. In college in Shakespeare class, we got to see two plays at the local Shakespeare theater (in fact the teacher chose for reading the plays that the company was producing that term). We all go SO much more out of it! Myhigh-school freshman English teacher had a bit of that sensibility herself; when we were reading David Copperfield she had us break up into little cast groups and dramatize certain scenes from the book. It was a hoot! Yes, some skits were better than others. (I was Heep [in pants; these were skirts-for-girls days] in the scene where Micawber exposes his villainy, and wrote out the script for the group I was in.

My husband read Game of Thrones and a couple sequels, but when he described parts of the plot(s) to me, I decided against it. Too much politics, weird relationships, and murder for my taste. We haven't watched the series.

I love the Harry Potter series, but if she was writing with an eye to the filming, it sure didn't show up in the last movie! I was really disappointed in the way the movie changed things about the battle of Hogwarts and its aftermath. I loved the book version.

[Arlaug]

Plays: I agree that to get the most out of a play you have to see it performed. In college in Shakespeare class, we got to see two plays at the local Shakespeare theater (in fact the teacher chose for reading the plays that the company was producing that term). We all go SO much more out of it! Myhigh-school freshman English teacher had a bit of that sensibility herself; when we were reading David Copperfield she had us break up into little cast groups and dramatize certain scenes from the book. It was a hoot! Yes, some skits were better than others. (I was Heep [in pants; these were skirts-for-girls days] in the scene where Micawber exposes his villainy, and wrote out the script for the group I was in.

You had some amazing professors.

[Úlairiii]

What a great idea for a thread!

I would say: Of Mice and Men - it's just an easy, watered down version of Grapes of Wrath (which is incredible)

Having said that, the film is awesome. I had the movie poster in my room years before I saw it (don't asked me why, it was my older brothers favourite and I guess I was trying out imitation). I have since lost this poster and am now searching the art prints on this site here.

After I had seen it, I was choosing between Of Mice and Men and Grapes of Wrath, thinking I had done the former, I opted for the latter. When I did then study Of Mice and Men at school, I was pretty disappointed with its lack of scope in comparison to Grapes.

What we need now is a Grapes film - its such an epic plot I am surprised there is yet to an established film of it already.

[Morwenna]

Well, I haven't read Grapes of Wrath, though I know some things about the story. But we had Of Mice and Men in high school, and I wouldn't call it watered-down anything! It may be short, but it's pretty grim stuff. Hubby knows much of the story but he never read it either; I picked up a copy in the last couple years so we could actually read it (again, in my case), but we haven't done so yet. It's definitely not "light" reading! It's downright depressing! Hubby would love it, because it makes one think.

[Alasséa]

I have this annoying thing about closure where I can't stop reading a book just because I hate it, so I have ended up wasting weeks of my life finishing terrible rubbish.

The most recent of these was Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall. It honestly took me about 6 months to read, because I couldn't manage more than a few pages at a time. How could such fascinating historical events be made so incredibly boring? Also, I didn't like her way of always calling Thomas Cromwell 'he'. Much of the book is made up of conversations between groups of men, so most of the time you've no idea who's said what!

'The king is angry,' he said.
'Tell him he is doing everything he can,' he snapped.
'But what if he doesn't arrive at Hampton Court before Sunday? He will have no choice but to reveal all to him.'
'And what of my wife and children?' came the cry.

So infuriating. WHY DO PEOPLE GIVE THIS BOOK SUCH ACCLAIM??

[IrisBrandybuck]

I used to be that way too...I'd plug through a book just to finish it. But then I discovered that I was missing out on reading good stuff, so I trained myself to put it down, put it away, get rid of it. Besides, often you can find out what happened on the internut.

[Morwenna]

I've put books down before and will probably do so again. My to-read pile is way too high to bother struggling with something that doesn't appeal to me. I've been known to pick up partially-read books after months or even years, though sometimes I have to re-read the beginning to figure out what's going on. But if it jogs my memory enough I can just skim that.

And not all books are on the "internut"!

[IrisBrandybuck]

That's true! So then I decide how badly I want to know what happens and go from there.

[solicitr]

Oh, yes: for me, Seamus Heaney's Beowulf translation. Entirely a subjective thing, of course, but for my taste Heaney is too colloquial and modern, calling to mind the disjunct between speech-patterns and thought-patterns that Tolkien wrote about in a letter to Hugh Brogan.

[Morwenna]

I agree about Heaney. It had such rave reviews. But when I read it (in the face-to-face version), even though I'm a rank beginner at Old English, I thought I could do better in places! Too modern, maybe. He should have gone for the poetic cognates derived from the original wherever possible. (No, I didn't pay a lot for it; I got it at a tag sale, with a damaged cover augmented by some kid's drawing a face in magic marker on the chain mail.)

[MeadowForest]

The most recent of these was Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall. It honestly took me about 6 months to read, because I couldn't manage more than a few pages at a time. How could such fascinating historical events be made so incredibly boring? Also, I didn't like her way of always calling Thomas Cromwell 'he'. Much of the book is made up of conversations between groups of men, so most of the time you've no idea who's said what!

'The king is angry,' he said.
'Tell him he is doing everything he can,' he snapped.
'But what if he doesn't arrive at Hampton Court before Sunday? He will have no choice but to reveal all to him.'
'And what of my wife and children?' came the cry.

So infuriating. WHY DO PEOPLE GIVE THIS BOOK SUCH ACCLAIM??

That was my problem with it! Who the heck was speaking! I'm glad I'm not the only one. It did confuse me. I started reading it, then felt I just wasn't getting in to it because of the way it was written and stopped about a chapter or so in. I then went back to it a few months on, got through it all and thought it not quite so bad, after all... enough to be tempted to read the sequel. But yeah, not my favourite kind of writing style.

A recent novel I started to read was about Elizabeth I when she was younger (another bestseller) and I tried starting it twice and just could not get on with it. The style of writing was even worse for me. So much blathering on in whatever-you-call-it-person style. Just get on with telling the story straight. It's not often I reject a book I've bought (at least it was cheap second-hand), but I really wasn't feeling it. I might go back to it in a few months... doubtful at the moment. It is a trend with historical novels at the moment to do it in that way of telling it from the characters' view as it happens and I realise why they do it, e.g. because 'well we all know Anne Boleyn gets beheaded so why just rewrite the events in that way. Thomas Cromwell did not know she would be killed, so let's get his views on the matter as they take shape, etc.'

[Elvish Hobbit]

I don't "hate" any book in particular, but there are definitely few books that I don't like despite appreciating the writing of the authors.
First one has to be Wuthering Heights. Started reading it in July when a TV show started in my country was said to be based on it. The show had decent, noble characters (and now the show has deviated from it completely; thank God!) so I tried to read book too, but couldn't get through it. The characters were far too dark, and couldn't find nobility in them. Though I thought writing was really good, but not the kind of book I could like. Will try it again to see if I get to like it or not.
Next one's The Notebook. Jeez! Read half of it, but seriously, where was "true love"? Many things were shallow while the writing was captivating but alas! I could not really see the depth of love there. Once the person you love is gone and you start bedding anyone like that (I recall the protogonist's description being something like that :/), and the female protagonist believed she was "in love" with both men and how she couldn't make sure who she wanted to be with. Had lost interest with their erm, erm scenes and this one thing was final thing for me, and said goodbye. But seriously, some of my friends are madly in love with it.
Twilight has to be another one. But won't count it as I've never read the book or seen the film.

[Billobob]

Hunger games catching fire. Too much drama .

[Jeanette Steigmen]

The garbage that is Twilight. I couldn't even touch the books, but I heard enough discussions to make my stomach turn. I don't understand how people can like those books.

I overheard 13 year old girls discussing these books and I actually had to say something because I was concerned. They said they thought is was so romantic that the hero climbs in the heroines bedroom window and watches her sleep. I had to explain to them that this is stalking and pre-psychopathic serial-killer behaviour. I lived in a town where someone was breaking into apartments and watching people sleep. It is NOT romantic. It is creepy as hell!

It's the same peev I have with 50 Shades of Grey (among many others), but they romanticize stalking! He followers her around and the only reason she doesn't file a restraining order is because he is rich and good looking. Soo many things wrong with this picutre. Again, I haven't actually read the books, but I really don't want to.

Those are my hate literture. Wait, they aren't literature. Ok, those are my hate.....books?

[portia]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN THAT WE NEED A "GRAPES OF WRATH " FILM???: What was that with Henry Fonda, Jane Darwell and John Caradine, directed by John Ford?

It stands op very well, and I suggest you get it and watch it!


We read "Of Mice and Men" in High School and it was great. Books don't all have to be big and wide. Some small-scope films are great and there are a couple of good ones of this. But read the book, too.

[Morwenna]

I have to wonder about Tom Jones. Back when the movie came out ('60s?) the book was all over the place, with the picture from the movie poster on the cover. And eventually I did see the movie. But at the time I bought the book, and it took me for-bloody-ever to get through it (I was in college at the time), and even though I was an English major, and even had a course in works of that time period, I thought then and still think that the style is just too darn much. Recently I was talking with a friend whose education was similar to mine, if not more detailed even, and who worked in publishing all her adulthood, and she felt the exact same way about the book.

What I wonder is, how many copies sold because of the movie, and how many of those copies ended up unread?? If we English majors had trouble with it, what about the rank and file who only bought it because of the movie??

[LadyLand]

Anne of Green Gables - oh, God! I hate the main character! I hate Anne very, very much! That's why I hate the entire book.

[Quimrill_Renctar]

Just going to through in here Hunger Games

The first two were fine, but SPOILER ALERT it seemed like the author got tired of making money during the third and totaly pitched the whole thing in the dumpster. Yes lets have a protagonist who is strung out for the hald the book, whines incessantly, and then kill off all your redemable characters! (Poor Castor and Pollux)

I may be in the minority here, just my opinion really

[Billobob]

Yeah I always thought that the hunger games focused to much on Katniss I mean sure she's very important to the books but maybe we could have seen more of the district rebels instead of seeing Karnisss moping again.
But still I did like the hunger games overall.

[Sunsilver]

Okay, this thread needs to be resurrected!

Stuff I was forced to read in school that I really disliked:

The Great Gatsby
The Sun Also Rises
Wuthering Heights
Catcher in the Rye
The Red Pony
David Copperfield - for some reason, Oliver Twist was okay, but I REALLY got bogged down in Copperfield!

Other books that some people liked, but I didn't

The Yearling - I hated that the deer had to die1
Dune - found it boring, just couldn't make sense of it.
The Golden Compass

[IrisBrandybuck]

Wuthering Heights annoyed me. I think more because many people tend to see the story of Heathclif and Catherine as some tragic, heart breaking love story. He was a brute, she was an idiot. I've read it twice...(the second time was audiobook)) and I still don't get it.

Now, Anne Bronte...SHE was a writer!

[Felarof]

Wuthering Heights annoyed me. I think more because many people tend to see the story of Heathclif and Catherine as some tragic, heart breaking love story. He was a brute, she was an idiot. I've read it twice

Once was enough for me. I once read someone's comment: "Wuthering Heights is a book I think most highly of when I'm not actually reading it." But I can't agree with that - I don't think highly of it even now I'm not reading it.

[Morwenna]

I think I really need to read Anne Bronte. She gets short-changed among her sisters. I want to know why.

[IrisBrandybuck]

Of the three she's my favorite. She just seems to be the better writer in my not so humble opinion.

[Morwenna]

Actually, I've never read Charlotte either; she was the most prolific of them (probably because she was the longest-lived), so it's rather surprising that I never read any of her works. But the one that gets the most press is Jane Eyre, and I've yet to meet anyone who likes that book! Which do you (anyone here) think is her best?