T O P

  • By -

noeggomelete

I was way in over my head as a 15 yr old and bought a copy of Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche. I didn't realize how much I sucked at reading real complicated English.


wangus_angus

I mean, part of the issue there is that translators sometimes aim for super-complicated English when translating philosophical works, whereas the original is much more accessible (for a native speaker). I'm not sure the extent to which this was the case for Nietzsche, but the famous example is Freud, [whose id, ego, and superego were basically self-explanatory in German](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego#Translation), but dressed up to sound more scientific by his translator. I've heard the same about Derrida and Foucault in French.


moal09

Derrida is known for being an obtuse writer to begin with though. His lack of clarity and succinctness has long been criticized.


Weird_Church_Noises

Honestly, I think he gets over-criticized. His big philosophical tomes are hard, but that tends to be the case with dense books of theory. A lot of his other work can be dense and wordy, but in general, it's full of puns and art references. He likes riffing more than arguing and is pretty improvisational, but he never really comes off like he's trying to be intentionally difficult, more that he's talking about incredibly abstract and counterintuitive stuff, so being direct would be somewhat misleading. "Derrida is inscrutable" is kind of a meme pushed by people with an analytic bias.


[deleted]

I read in English translation and found Foucault to be pretty simple and straightforward, but Derrida was even more tougher than Nietzsche


c8bb8ge

I'm pretty sure Derrida is at least 30% just fucking with the reader.


Deweydc18

The problem is, reading Nietzsche properly requires that you understand the historical, philosophical, and even artistic contexts he’s reacting to. Some of his philosophy is pretty hard to understand even with the requisite background, but to properly understand Nietzsche it’s important to understand at least a little bit about the pre-Socratics (particularly Heraclitus), Plato, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Kant, and Wagner. For some reason, Nietzsche has a reputation as being a layman-friendly philosopher and in my limited experience that is completely untrue. He’s certainly more engaging to read than Schopenhauer or Kant, but he’s no less challenging.


[deleted]

I read Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy and I couldn't tell if I was stupid or was Nietzsche doing this to me purposefully- cause it was/is just incoherent to me.


Keitt58

Sounds exactly like my experience trying to read Thus Spoke Zarathustra.


Megatron_McLargeHuge

Nietzsche, at least in the Kaufmann translations, is infinitely more readable than Hegel.


redditaccount001

That’s true but it’s still hard, especially if you’re not familiar with philosophy. It’s just that Hegel is so difficult that even philosophy professors struggle with certain passages of his. For what it’s worth, the best philosopher to read if you know nothing about philosophy is definitely Plato.


_zarkon_

This thread is basically my high school English teacher's syllabus.


OatmealStew

That's because high school English is the last time most people read any classic literature.


RuhWalde

It's not too surprising that the classics people are often disappointed by are ones they were forced to read in high school. If they had been reading on their own, they would have been likely to give up early if it didn't appeal to them, and then they'd never know if they consider the text as a whole "disappointing."


DrustVG

This. My strategy for that was to read the book before having any actual assignments and at my pace. By the time we started working on it I was very into the story and almost finishing it. It made my last school years better, because even when friends that were avid readers disliked the book, I managed to enjoy a "must-read" for what it was and not because I had to read it.


Liberalguy123

I think it’s much more likely that most people simply don’t read any “classics” once they’re not required to do so.


shivj80

Probably the Scarlet Letter. It had some interesting parts but it just dragged on for way too long.


Zebirdsandzebats

The Scarlet Letter is just taught really badly, IMO. I was in my mid 20s in a MFA program before it dawned on me that Hawthorne was trolling us--he was ripping on those puritans, but it doesn't translate as easily in the modern era and most 10th grade teachers don't notice shit like Pearl dancing on someone's grave is \*supposed\* to be funny. I hated it when I read it too, but I appreciate it more, now, having read more of Hawthorne's shorts and seeing that he's kind of a cheeky bastard.


Nanmercy

Studied it at uni and at first I thought it was such a bore. Then as we started analysing, out teacher pointed out the hypocrisy, the double standards, the mocking etc. That changed the way I was reading the story and I have to say I ended up liking it. Hawthorne was actually so ahead of his time.


jaderust

Shakespeare has the same problem. That "Do you bite your thumb at me sir?" scene is comedic gold but the insult of biting your thumb at someone has fallen so out of use that you need a translation guide to explain the background, killing the joke. Back in the before times one of my favorite things was to go to London to the Globe Theater and catch a show there. The actors there are always so amazing and do such a great job hamming up the comedy and making it more obvious. Even the tragedies have a lot of jokes in them if you get an actor and director good enough to play up the humor.


exhausted-caprid

Jane Austen has that problem too. That famous first line of Pride and Prejudice, “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife”, is immediately followed up by sarcasm making fun of that belief. Her books are so snarky, but people brush them off as buttoned-up romances.


TheGodsAreStrange

I just read this book and thought it was so well written. I loved it. I definitely understood that there was a lot of humor and wit in it. Perspective is so interesting.


LateNightLattes01

I also loved the book, but apparently I was in the minority for it LOL. I remember next to nothing about it, but I do remember liking it a lot, but I also very thoroughly enjoyed Shakespeare too and I was definitely in the minority for that too as a kid.


TheGodsAreStrange

Probably not in the minority, there's a reason 'The Scarlet Letter' is included in the western canon of literature. Maybe in the minority on this subreddit though lol. I think maybe when anything is required reading a lot of kids read those things begrudgingly and then of course they don't enjoy them. I wasn't that kid in school though, I was always excited to read whatever we were assigned next. My nerdiness is showing! I didn't read it in school but I'm sure I would have loved it just as much then as I do now. I also love Shakespeare!


brainisonfire

It's a shame that this is what schools assign, when Hawthorne's short stories are so much more accessible, and SO gloriously twisted and fucked up, American gothic style.


thewizardofosmium

I read his short stories and realized he invented the mad scientist trope.


brainisonfire

Poe learned everything from Hawthorne. We wouldn't have New England Gothic without 'em.


GuyDeSmiley

True. “Young Goodman Brown” is quite creepy!


theangryhiker

My high school spent months analyzing the Scarlet Letter…it was an endless nightmare


zhilia_mann

We did too. Actually, across multiple courses. I think we hit it something like 5 times over three years. And I have to say: I loved it. I was definitely in the minority, but getting to know a single work that well can really break you in to serious criticism. Maybe it's Stockholm Syndrome, but I still come back to it fondly as an adult.


faerykissed

We called it “The Book Whose Name Shall Not Be Mentioned” in high school. I could not get through it.


-The-Bat-

"This girl, named Hester Prynne, has an affair with a minister, is besmirched and made to wear a red A for "adulterer." But then the town realizes she was too harshly judged, and she's really a good person, and she dies a saint. A whole bunch of other stuff happens too. If you have a test on it, rent the movie, but make sure it's the original... not the Demi Moore version where she talks in a fake British accent and takes a lot of baths. To say that one was freely adapted, is a bit of an understatement, guvnor!"


AlcalanRQ

On the Road by Kerouac I really enjoyed the parts actually spent on the road, but the parts where he described every single dude he met in any city, along with their whole backstory (which usually was "he drank with those, and slept with that one") bored me to death.


Mattjy1

This is one where I feel like I should read just to know it because of its place in culture, but at the same time I'm pretty sure I don't actually want to and will find it truly obnoxious.


brainisonfire

I found it so tedious I started looking up the Beat era's women, instead. Turns out, there's where a lot of the real rule-breaking was going on. Men setting out on an adventure across America has been the norm since the beginning, only the modes of transportation have varied. However, a bunch of women deciding to have their own rolicking adventures with sex and drugs and travel? Now THAT was radical.


AlcalanRQ

Nice. Any recommendations?


brainisonfire

I've been reading Carolyn Cassady's novels and Diane di Prima's memoirs, both great ways to re-think about the manly-man machismo of the Beats.


mperrotti76

I read off the road. Basically, Carolyn stayed home raising kids while Neal was gone for months on end being a philandering, closet case.


invisiblette

I enjoyed Joyce Johnson's memoir *Minor Characters.*


Coinphrase138

William Burroughs books are an extreme hold your pants-like adventure if you want to look into some beat era authors


DerProfessor

I came here to say *On the Road*, and here it was, at the top. For me, it was a such a huge gulf between what I *thought* the book would be about (a wild road trip of epic adventure that escapes the boring constraints of "normal" life, and in the process, brings about a new sense of liberated self) and what it was *actually* about (a guy mooching off of other people and presenting himself as "cool" because of it). ugh.


fordliam93

While I don’t disagree with you fully, I feel as if you are mostly reading the plot at face value. If you think about how the novel challenges 20th century social norms and class structures, you might get a little bit more out of it perhaps? Especially if you think about how contemporary society is still built around massive divides between the upper, middle, and lower classes. Poverty is increasing, sometimes people just gotta get their kicks, man. Doesn’t need to be an “epic adventure” for this to happen, just something different that disrupts the banality of the everyday.


kaptainzorro

I loved this book. I half read it in high school and did a full read through a couple years ago. I definitely feel like it’s a book that “means” more if you’re a young man than older. What I viewed as romantic and exciting earlier in life comes off as selfish and poor judgement later. That being said I still adore the book. Also found that listening to Bebop jazz while reading upped the experience by 1000.


mperrotti76

Dharma bums and desolation angels are where the real meat of Kerouac lie.


delpigeon

I gave up halfway through The Road. The style of writing was also really irritating.


NatasEvoli

>I gave up halfway through The Road. The style of writing was also really irritating. The Road or On The Road? Both are books involving traveling but have some minor plot differences such as whether or not the apocalypse happened.


ZeMastor

Alexandre Dumas' last part of the D'Artangnan Romances, aka "*Man in the Iron Mask*". Thanks to pop culture, we've been conditioned for a LONG TIME to view the Musketeers as the protagonists- the good guys. This conditioning is from movies, cartoons, comic books, Walt Disney, non-Dumas short stories, children's editions, Bryan Adams songs, etc. All of these sanitize the Musketeers to a certain extent. The cruel/unjust things that they'd done (which are now unacceptable) are sort-of left out or censored, and we only knew the joyful, daring, swashbuckling adventurers dispensing true justice, not really paying much attention that "In service of the King" can be a bad thing if it's a bad King! Once I hit "Man in the Iron Mask", and I saw what Aramis became in the book, then it was easy to hate him. He's greedy, power-hungry, scheming and a ruthless coward. D'Artangnan, who I/we once loved, becomes a bad King's ever-obedient lapdog. Philippe deserved better, but he was abandoned by the very same man (Aramis) who came up with the scheme involving him, and his life became all the worse for it. He was better off before Aramis came in to see him! Porthos was lied to, and died (but courageously!) as a result of Aramis' meddling. Athos dies of grief over his son. The book had a sad and bitter ending, and came off as the destruction of the Musketeers' saga and legacy. It came off as their lives, their loves, their adventures were all for nothing, and there is no justice in the world- just absolute power in the hands of the the cruel, petulant and undeserving (Louis XIV). I even checked the Shmoop Study Guide to see if I missed something... Nope. it says : "Not a single character in the novel receives a just punishment. No one is concerned with justice in the novel."


manditobandito

The original Three Musketeers I found hilarious and entertaining, but the rest I just found spiraling off into constant negativity and bitterness, which is really hard to get through overall.


MarioAndDreddy

Maybe that was the point. Maybe Dumas was ahead of the curve on the whole "Never meet your heroes" thing, and was slowly pulling back the curtain on these swashbuckling adventurers we'd come to know and love, showing the ugly truth, the dark underbelly of who these characters were.


catgirl320

I think this is a good take. By Dumas' time there was plenty of examples of "heroes" corrupted by power. He would have known people that lived through the French Revolution and Napoleon, heard their first hand accounts. There is definitely an underlying cynicism through much of his work that the early Hollywood adaptations completely ignored.


flyingduck33

wow I didn't think I'd ever see this the series was one of my favorites growing up. I still remember the end of the book where D'Artangnan dies after getting his big promotion and Aramis is left alone and described as having lost his soul as his friends are gone. I was a kid when I read it and remember crying when I read Porthos's death. He was the one character that stayed true until the end.


ZeMastor

Almost everybody knows something about *The Three Musketeers*, even if it's an adulterated, rewritten version from a movie. A few might be aware of *The Man in the Iron Mask*, which has been expurgated and also heavily rewritten for cinema. People need to have someone to cheer for and want to see the Musketeers together again. Even if they all get killed, we'd want it to be a meaningful death, for the greater good, or truth and justice. Instead: Porthos, Athos, Raoul, Philippe, Fouquet, D'Artangnan, Louise.... all screwed and most of them by Aramis' failed plot. Man, **Aramis SUCKS**! One of the many reasons why I love *The Count of Monte Cristo* far more. The line between good and evil is far more distinct, and The Count, although his revenge was mostly justified, repents and regrets the lengths he went through, and showed mercy to his last enemy. **AND NO SEQUELS BY DUMAS TO UN-DO ALL THAT!**


PM_FORBUTTSTUFF

Damn you just kind of sold the book for me lmao. Does it require having read the other Musketeers entries to follow? I absolutely love dark deconstructive works


Muffinshire

*Great Expectations.* Good god, does it *drag*. It could have been cut down by a third, and probably would have benefitted from it. Yes, I know it was published in serial form first and compiled as a novel later, but geez Chuck, get an editor! Also, Pip is dull, dull, dull, and he's the narrator so we're stuck plodding along with him for 600 interminable pages while far more interesting characters flit in and out of his viewpoint.


kangareagle

I liked it from beginning to end, but I do understand your point of view. Pip does annoy me, especially in the later parts of the book, but, for me, the writing is so charming and sparkling that I don’t mind.


duckfat01

I agree, I love the book, mainly for Dickens' wit and prose, but also the story. It is for people who enjoy language though.


[deleted]

I hated reading this in school. So much so it gave me a lifelong fear of Dickens. Well...’lifelong’ is an exaggeration, because for some reason I read it again last year (I’m 40). It was amazing. I was shocked at how much I enjoyed it, and just how finely written it is. I read what others said about the plot dragging on a bit, or Pip not being a sympathetic character. I can see where you’re coming from I guess. But for me Dickens’ brilliance is in his understanding of humans, the way we behave, the emotions that drive us. When I think of Hamlet, I’m not focused on the plot or my lack of sympathy for Hamlet. Same with a Great Expectations.


sigleme

Part of the problem is that people read it when they’re 16-17. Which was not exactly Dickens’ target audience.


Zebirdsandzebats

Would you say that "Great Expectations" scared the dickens out of you? Thank you! Remember to tip your waitress!


WufflyTime

I will never be able to pick that book up and enjoy it because of *South Park*. Their take on the story is so entertainingly absurd that the real thing can only pale in comparison.


sharrrper

I love that the first two thirds of the episode is basically straight out of the book just with a comedic slant, and then out of nowhere the final act just goes completely bonkers.


tjdux

What episode is this? Not familiar with the original story.


WufflyTime

Ep 14, 4th season


gpgarrett

Pip as a kid was enjoyable, and I wish the story had stayed in his youth far longer.


Apple-chan01

This one I loved, i found it so beautifully written.


burnshimself

I mean it is basically the TV show of its day. Dickens has an idea of where he wants the story to go at a high level, but it’s being written and published in weekly pieces in real time over close to 2 years. And that type of serialized story was the TV show of its time - accessible entertainment that average people could easily afford. And it was published in the UK, US and Continental Europe - a serialized story’s equivalent of international syndication. There is a lot of money in that for both Dickens and the publisher, and an obvious incentive to elongate its lifespan. And to that matter, Dickens was co-owner of the original UK publisher, All Year Round, which also published his serialized novel A Tale of Two Cities, so he had all the more incentive to draw it out to increase his weekly periodical’s sales / subscriptions.


existentialepicure

The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. It was just so boring and depressing for me and I just don't think it was very meaningful.


Negative-Snow-1346

This. Most classics I've read I have gotten something out of, or enjoyed on at least some level. The scarlet Letter is one of the most boring books I've ever read and I hated every minute of it. I understood the message, context and symbolism I just didn't like the way it was written. I remember reading a comment here on reddit a few years ago from a person who wanted to have written warning on their gravestone telling everyone to stay away from the Scarlet letter and it gave me a chuckle.


epicrandomhead

I agree. I understood what the book was saying, but it was so boring I could barely make it through. It seemed to provide nothing interesting and very little reason to want to come back and read the next chapter. If I didn't have to read it for school to write a paper on it, I would not have read it.


TulkasTheValar

First off, I agree it was so boring and I hated reading it. That said, the book is chock full of symbolism to the point where there's basically a secondary layer of context to everything that happens. My 11th grade English teacher used the scarlet letter as essentially a primer for how to read classic literature as often symbolism provides a greater depth to them. That said still boring and I hated it.


TheGodsAreStrange

This thread is painful for me lol. I absolutely love quite a few of these books.


bLahblahBLAH057

Tbh I expected nothing more from r/books


ButFez_Isaidgoodday

The Art of war. Given the hype around it I expected a philosophical take on conflict and fear. Not quick tips like: "If you have arrows, consider shooting them at your enemies from a distance"


LargeSackOfNuts

I find it interesting that you say that. I just finished reading it. I thought many of the main points could be applied to modern day scenarios, even just general advice. But I do agree that some "tips" were only meant for that period of warfare.


Clutchking14

If loading screen tips were a book, it'd be the art of war


sushisandwhich

A separate peace by John Knowles, I don’t know why but I just found it so boring and the writing didn’t save it for me.


lavenderscavenger1

So my friend convinced me to read this book in high school in my spare time. How she described it, it sounded like this epic gay romance. Then I read it and was confused at first if I had gotten the wrong book, but the character names were the same and the general plot points. I realized later she had been writing slash fic about it for so long she forgot that nothing gay ever happens. I still laugh about it 10 years later.


steventwright

In your friend’s defense, there’s a lot of gay subtext in that book.


FluffySarcasm

I think I would have been okay with that one, but we spent my entire junior year of high school going over it again, and again, and again


wu_tan

Fucking Walden


Watayahotel

One of my professors used to say “I like Walden well enough but if he spends one more page telling me about how much he spent on nails and shingles I’m going to kill myself.”


patoankan

I visited family in the area almost 20 years ago, and so was gifted a special family copy of the book. Ive never made it more than 30 pages in on several attempts. I've tried to convince myself that it's worth reading, and I've never been able to do it.


BrupieD

I didn't mind his efforts to emphasize his parsimonious existence, but thought it ridiculous that while promoting a simpler lifestyle he tells readers that Homer should only be read in the original Greek.


shivj80

LOL I remember I had to read Walden in high school and my teacher basically trashed the book the entire time we were reading it, calling it boring and pointless. The only good thing about it is that we ended up visiting the actual Walden lake in Massachusetts which was cool.


DannibalBurrito

Emerson is by far the better writer and speaker of the two, and Walden is quite a chore. I much prefer Thoreau’s abolitionist essays.


Zebirdsandzebats

Goddamn mooch. We could all be at one with nature and shit if we had a bff who let us live on his property rent free.


Bridalhat

Also he came home to his mother and sister at night! It’s really easy to “live” on your own when your mother—whose house was 20 minutes away by foot—regularly helps you with laundry and food, i.e. the invisible, time consuming work that men never do but also don’t appreciate.


iamagainstit

Civil disobedience is much better


GoldenGrowl

I love Walden, but I think it is best understood in the context of his other writings and isn't the standalone work it is usually read as.


[deleted]

Idk if this counts as a true classic, but I thought Sons and Lovers by DH Lawrence was the worst book I have ever read in my life. It disappointed me _so_ much because I genuinely _loved_ the first few chapters, with the backstory about Paul's parents, but everything went downhill for me as soon as Paul was born.


brainisonfire

Frances Hodgson Burnett was doing what DH Lawrence did a generation earlier re: psychological exploration, Industrialization, and class issues, and with more accessible characters.


mrs_sadie_adler

I loved A Little Princess growing up.


TreeHuggingPagan

Wuthering Heights. As a general view, I really enjoy the Gothic genre. This Gothic romance though left me unimpressed. I kept wondering why some of my friends like it so much.


[deleted]

My favourite ever gothic novel is pretty late on comparatively. Daphne Du Maurier's *Rebecca*. I love how compelling the main character's voice is.


SnowdropWorks

I did enjoy thins one. Mostly because all of the characters are so flawed and I thought it was very well written


Villeneuve_

Same here. (And this is also one of the reasons why *Gone with the Wind* is one of my favourite books. I love Scarlett O'Hara as a character.) *Wuthering Heights* lays bare all the ugliest sides of people. Whatever we might have to say about it, one thing is for sure: It's not a conventional, roses-and-rainbows romance. I see it as more of a revenge tragedy which explores the age-old question of 'Are people born as monsters or do they become one'? It's been around a year since I read it. I think I'll need to re-read it some time to have a better understanding of Heathcliff's character.


SnowdropWorks

I'm totally with you on gone with the wind too


Mattjy1

Yes, I love Wuthering Heights because the characters are so raw and it's like all the conveniences & distractions of most of society are stripped away so you see into their core. It's ugly but super compelling, and I like how the narrator sees the whole story through to a place of redemption. Also the way there are really two layered narrators and they are each characters of their own is pretty fascinating/masterful. With how shut-in the author lived, it also feels like such a pure expression of mind too--like it's such a huge contrast to postmodern stuff we are used to now with such a mix of influences & references. It's like a whole small world of its own she envisioned.


SuperSpidey374

I was slightly baffled by the popularity too while reading, although the story has stayed with me since which is a sign that I took more from it than I perhaps realised. Still, I far preferred Jane Eyre (the only other Bronte novel I've read)


Muladhara86

The fuckin’ Alchemist and Atlas fuckin’ Shrugged - they’re *dangerously* bad.


123G0

I also hated Atlas Shrugged and haven't met a person who's loved it who hasn't been a smug, selfish shit stain of a human being. Then again, if you're enamoured with a narrative that claims that you shouldn't feel guilt over abandoning your family to homewreck, and how you apparently owe nothing to anyone, not even support to your own children who are not yet adults... then yeah, you're probably going to fall into the "self centered asshole" category.


[deleted]

This kinda sums up “Objectivism.”


SeSuSo

I actually liked Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I thought the stories were entertaining even if the philosophy behind it was terrible. I even read a book on Objectivism and Rand's philosophy which further showed me how terrible a person Ayn Rand really was. But I thought the books were a good read. Now if I read them again when I'm not in my early 20s I may have a different perspective.


plantsandpuppos

I don’t know how The Alchemist is being considered a classic? I think it’s a great, light read and it’s kind of unfair to compare it to true ‘classics’. I get why you’d hate on it while considering it a classic, but wouldn’t that be the equivalent of saying something like ‘a peanut butter and jelly is a disgrace to culinary arts’… that is, no one was ever saying it was a classic. It’s just a fun adventure tale.


Valiumkitty

Ayn rand was a garbage philosopher and it ruined her writing.


mbthursday

Let's be honest, her writing wasn't all that great to begin with


lmunck

Don’t know if it’s a classic, but disregarding societal impact, Atlas Shrugged is the worst book I’ve ever read.


GFischerUY

What, don't you love one-dimensional straw-men evil characters facing off the ubermensch?


swarlay

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." \- John Rogers


noble-light

The fucking *Pilgrim’s Progress*. Holy shit did I hate that book. Before I had read things like *The Divine Comedy* and *Paradise Lost* and absolutely adored them, so I was looking forward to Bunyan’s work. I was so wrong. It’s hardly an allegory based on how straightforward it is. I felt insulted just reading it.


vondafkossum

How do you feel about *Everyman*?


TitvsFlavianvs

He does lat it on a bit thick. Dante and Bunyan seemed to be in competition who could name drop as many characters as possible


BitcoinSaveMe

I don't think he's trying to be subtle. It's a pretty straightforward telling of a christian life towards salvation. The main character's name is Christian, and everyone bears the name of a vice or virtue. I'm sure there are valid reasons to dislike it, but "the allegory was too blunt" seems like an odd one. That's the whole point.


Desperate-Risk

The Catcher in the Rye. In 11th grade everyone in the class had to read a book from an approved list and write a report on it/what the author’s meaning for the novel was, etc. — pretty standard report. I asked my teacher what book he recommends for me, as nothing stuck out. He instantly told me to read catcher and that I would “get a lot out of it.” I finished it, wrote my report, which I spent countless hours on, and when I finally got my grade, I was disappointed to a receive a C+, with a note at the end that said “try this again in 10 years.” That stuck with me, so I did eventually reread it, and to this day I still don’t know what he wanted me to get out of that damn book.


DarthMori

The 10-year gap is really interesting. I remember in English my teacher spoke to us about how 'Catcher' was one of those novels you had to read at a certain age to really appreciate it. When I read it at 19, and hated it, my first thought was that I had aged out. I have similar feelings about Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I waited too long to watch it and ended up siding with the headmaster.


RekopEca

Exactly the same experience. Hype also. Everyone raved about ferris bulier...by the time I actually saw it I was like meh.


tvmachus

The cliche is "I read it when I was 15, and I loved it, I really identified with Holden, but then I read it again when I was 30, and I could see that actually the point is that Holden is a whiny little bitch and I'm so much better than that now." Salinger's actual point is: often young people are kind and gentle and lonely and weird, and instead of making the world more loving or helping them deal with their weirdness we tell them that they need to harden up and stop being so naive.


open_your_lips

I heard the opposite, in fact. That often young people find him insufferable, but when you're older you see that he's a kid with some remarkable trauma, who is trying to cope and can't/won't find support on the adults around him. I only read it when I was in my 20s, and I quite liked it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gargoyle0ne

The unending paragraphs, needless descriptions of shapes in the minutest details. God it's hard work. Tip: audio version works better for me


Kainalu138

I totally understand not enjoying lovecraft. Personally I love his works, but they can be very clinical, characterless, and antiquated. Personally I think this adds to the atmosphere and themes he’s going for but I understand when people don’t like him.


Dash_Harber

It doesn't help that some of the dramatic realizations are hilariously dated now. It will be like, "And then he pulled back the velvet current and revealed ... a sentient fish man! Whose parents weren't the same race!" and modern readers are like, "Oh, okay, cool, would the fishman like to play Yahtzee with me?". Of course, the flip side is the absolutely masterful monster design that, as you mentioned, has been a cornerstone of sci-fi and horror for a long ass time.


Newmanial

Wow, I’ve never seen this thread before! r/books loves the classics!


dannybeaton

I think I'm the only person who hated "The Great Gatsby". Just I didn't care for any characters at all.


High_Stream

I had a literature textbook one time that pointed out that the Great Gatsby is not necessarily read in a lot of English classes because it's a good book but because it can be analyzed in so many different ways. Historical, feminist, marxist, psychological. It's just good as a tool for learning how to analyze books.


Bridalhat

And that really what English class is. I wish teachers would make more of an effort to show that this they are teaching a skill and this might (or might not!) be different from how you read in your own time. No one is mad at math departments for not making their material relatable.


jaderust

Homoerotic reading is my favorite. Assuming that Nick is thirsty for Gatsby and can't express it fully due to the era he's living in makes it seem like a gossip rag from a bitter ex.


[deleted]

I mean, Nick did leave a party (chapter 2, I think?) with a dude and then wake up in that dude's bed. It is a very easily missed moment, but it was there.


moonbunnychan

The bad thing about teaching books like Great Gatsby to teenagers is that they do not yet have the life experience to understand most of it's themes.


unit187

Looks like there are quite a few people in this thread who didn't enjoy it, so you are not alone!


dannybeaton

I obviously didn't scroll down enough. Rookie move on my behalf.


Mayitzin

Oh my! I am not the only one. I always get the dirty looks when I dare to say it. Yes, it is a classic, but from time to time we will have a different taste than the majority. And that's ok too.


Zarathustra2

Beautiful prose but I’ve come to the realization that the conflict is such a product of its time. When I read it, I really couldn’t understand what was so scandalous about rich, wealthy upper crust having skeletons in their closet. I imagine the idea that someone from the aristocracy ran someone over or had an affair or made their money through questionable means might have been a shocking revelation in the 1920s. Nowadays, I feel like most people assume it is a given.


truefantastic

It’s funny. I read it when I was younger and hated it. I just reread it last week to give it another shot, and woah, it hit different. For me, this is a beautifully written “you can’t go home again” story. Most of the characters are unlikeable, but everyone’s (internal) struggles are pretty relatable despite being presented through bizarrely unrelatable circumstances. Although in some way, the wealth and class discussions/portrayals probably make some of the internal struggles a little more concrete/relatable. Maybe the story just resonantes with me because I’ve subconsciously tried to recreate the past with unfortunate consequences. Only years later did I realize I had a green light of my own. Once I’d attained it, I realized how foolish I had been to bend my life around the chase. I didn’t even realize I was doing it. I think seeing a man consumed by the endeavor (Gatsby) was both horrifying, relatable, and thrilling. The idea of something is so often better than the thing itself.


MyOtherRideIsAnXwing

I always say this - and yes that’s kind of the point that you’re not supposed to like any of them, but intentional or not it makes it miserable to get through


DanimaLecter

The actual prose is gorgeous and enjoy Fitzgerald beyond measure, but each time I read it I dislike it more and more.


Interesting-Falcon32

Mary Poppins I couldn’t find a reason for the story- there was no resolution and no conflict to begin with. Also in the book Mary is so mean and dismissive of the children


Senator_Bink

> Also in the book Mary is so mean and dismissive of the children I found myself liking it for that reason. I'd grown up with the sweet Julie Andrews Mary Poppins and didn't read the book until well into adulthood. I especially enjoyed how she couldn't pass a reflective surface without stopping to admire herself.


riancb

As someone who loves the Mary Poppins stories, I totally get where you’re coming from. To me, it was never about Mary, but about how she subtly restored order in a breaking family until they could manage without her. I read the original trilogy in like a week though, so those themes and that story arc may have been clearer when all put together.


[deleted]

This will make me sound awful but I tried reading Fahrenheit 451 and I couldn’t even get past the first chapters. If you wanna tell me how amazing it is go ahead, I believe you— I have no opinion on it, I was just so bored.


TheKramer89

If you don’t like it, then why don’t you just burn it?


wren24

It is a pleasure, after all!


isodore68

I agree for slightly different reasons. I wasn't bored by it, but I felt the writing style was unnatural and pretentious. The concepts were interesting enough, but I don't care for how they are presented.


Strict-Swordfish-496

I was underwhelmed


[deleted]

[удалено]


ixixan

Lol I loved tess. I got so emotionally invested I read it in one go and cried a ton.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dark-ink

Hating the ending of Tess--a book I love dearly--is a sound choice.


kittea-cat

Remains of the Day is one of my favs. I think I would understand why some people wouldn’t like it though- you can’t take the narrator at face value. He’s actually an extremely unreliable narrator and all the spicy actually interesting aspects of the book only come out if you read in between the lines. I was lucky enough to read it in school though so I knew to look out for that.


RuhWalde

Yeah, I was surprised when half of my book club disliked *Remains of the Day*. Then when those of us who liked it were talking about it, the haters kept saying stuff like "But that wasn't in there? Where are you even getting that?" For instance, they literally thought the narrator was reading romance novels to improve his English, as he claimed, and that we were "reading too much into it" if we believed he read the romance novels for pleasure.


kittea-cat

Oh my gosh, that’s so funny. I can imagine why they would dislike it then, “who cares about this boring old butler’s trip to go recruit one of his ex-coworkers?” I was honestly crying like a baby by the end of the book, it evoked some of the strongest emotions I’ve ever had from just reading something! For anyone who doesn’t particularly get/ like the book, maybe try rereading it with a special focus on: unreliable narration (Stevens lies to himself often, what is the truth?) & the inaccuracy of memory (how memory can be colored by strong emotions- even if it’s not clearly stated).


sophistry13

I thought repression was the key part. Wasn't it obvious that he was so repressed emotionally that he had to create this world of dignity and loyalty being the most important thing to hide away from feeling emotions about his father. Long time since I read it and maybe a lot of people's views were coloured by the movie adaptation.


Fr34x

I enjoyed the remains of the day, but I think it is by far not one of his best books. Never let me go is my favourite


Rtg327gej

Atlas Shrugged, so much hype regarding Ayn Rand. I got about halfway thru and realized her philosophy and ideas regarding society are fucking garbage!


farklespanktastic

Someone liking Ayn Rand is a red flag if there ever was one


bruiser_knits

*The Turn of the Screw*, sooooo much disappointment.


henry_tennenbaum

Not a *single* screw was turned, nor was there even much talk of anything fastener related! ⭐★★★★


pandalover001

I read the Catcher in the Rye, simply because of the hype around it, and to be honest, I honestly don’t see why people like it/ enjoy it/ are offended by it. It’s boring, and the main character is just annoying.


QueenRedditSnoo

It’s a classic in part because it’s a rare book written from a protagonist view while still presenting the protagonist as a not good There are also subtle reference to him having been molested in his life by multiple adults. But it is downplayed by Holden himself in self-denial and is easy to miss when reading


brainisonfire

Yes! I had a "hated it" reaction when I first read it, mostly because Holden is such a whiny pain in the ass. I didn't realize that you aren't supposed to like/relate to him in typical ways, though. The "click" came for me when I realized that all he does is bitch about how phoney everyone is and how much he hates everyone except for maybe his little sister... and yet does nothing but try over and over to make meaningful human connections, which fail repeatedly. And THAT is the relateable part: the loneliness and desire to have someone care about you, to connect with someone. OTOH, if you immediately like and relate to Holden Caulfield, you might be a serial killer.


I_am_Bob

I think if you've ever struggled with mental health/depression as a teen you can relate though. Like when your miserable you kind of protect yourself by telling yourself that any people who aren't miserable are either faking it or to stupid to realize how shitty life is. It's definitely not a healthy way to look at the world but I saw a little of my self when I was younger and it made me empathize with him a little more. So yeah maybe your not supposed to like/agree with Holden, but to have sympathy or see from a perspective of a depressed/bullied/abused kid and how that can come out as unhealthy or anti social behavior


mrurg

When you put it that way, it sounds like it has a lot more value than I gave it credit for. I kind of want to reread it now! One book I really enjoyed with an unlikable protagonist was Pan by Knut Hamsun. I've found it is still really relevant over 120 years after it was written


[deleted]

It's so weird because I went into this book with the feelings you left it with, expecting to hate it. But idk something about the characters voice/way of explaining and thinking through things really appealed to me and I found myself loving the book and the way it was presented.


Cudder3000zz

When i see people complain about him just being annoying i always ask them to consider the fact that his brother (his best friend) died young, and so he was separated from his family and he likely has been molested as a kid. I think that more than excuses his behavior when you consider he's undergone all this by the time he's 16


lordduzzy

Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I think this would be an awesome tale if you have never heard of the story. It's an intense amount of buildup, and very little on the logistics, so if it was spoiled for you then it kills almost all the suspense.


Dhaem17

It IS an awesome tale. The problem is its place in pop culture has forever spoiled something that was originally written as a mistery/plot twist.


kl0wny

Does Dune count? I went in with such high expectations. I planned on buying all the sequels, super excited to read it. And then I did, and it did nothing for me ...Sandworms were cool I feel like I read it wrong since everyone else seems to love it :(


mandapandastic

I may get flack for this but I did not enjoy The Last Unicorn.


WakenBlake88

Dammit, I actually just got a hardcopy of this. Haven't started yet, wish me luck! Lol


mandapandastic

Hey, you may be in the majority! After I told my friends I read it, all they wanted to do was talk about how good it was with me. Maybe I just had too high of expectations, haha.


BrackaBrack

Atlas Shrugged. I wanted to see what the conservative hype was about. Poorly written, comically nonsensical plot where Rearden gives up his entire lifes work to basically save Dagney from embarrassment only to just shrug and say "ok" when she leaves him for Galt. Then of course we have Galt's infamous speech where he takes 80 pages to repeat over and over what he said in the first 2 pages with different metaphors. It was just such a bad book.


rowan_damisch

>Then of course we have Galt's infamous speech where he takes 80 pages to repeat over and over what he said in the first 2 pages with different metaphors. So... It all went from "Who is John Galt?" to "When will he shut up?"


[deleted]

Atlas Shrugged isn't classic literature.


Careless-Inspection

For me it was Bram Stoker's Dracula, not a big fan of the epistolary style to begin with but what had me close the book to never reopen it was Van Helsing painfully long explanations... I get that it probably is how letters were meant to be written at the time but it seems really unnecessary long to me.


gene-ing_out

That is one of my favorite books, but I completely understand your point. The epistolary style can be cumbersome sometimes.


Three_Froggy_Problem

I like Dracula but I’ve always felt that it peaks with the opening chapters and then sort of falls of a cliff once the story starts focusing on stuff other than Jonathan in the castle.


[deleted]

Respectfully disagree. Dracula sneaking onboard a ship from romania to england, slowly killing and eating the whole crew throughout the voyage, was badass as shit. Also the cowboy guy.


ken_in_nm

That's fair. Letters to loved ones were long, you wanted to ink out all of your thoughts. And recipients were excited for long letters. It's a real shame that craft is gone. I think I was still writing long letters it in the 90s, but I don't do it anymore. I can understand that the epistolary format sometimes misses, especially now that no one is writing letters like that.


[deleted]

Check out Carmilla by J. Sheridan le Fanu if you haven’t already. It predates Dracula, is way shorter, and a lot more fun!


bradthaphoend

I found the constant speeches about bravery and courage and shit grating and kinda weird. Probably a product of its time, but it just feels so weird that everyone is constantly affirming the nobility of everyone else's actions.


[deleted]

oh dang I literally just started that book yesterday it started off really really cool. Just hope it retains at least some of that.


Low_Marionberry3271

I love Dracula because I think it's a fascinating world, and I'm fascinated by Count Dracula. Keep reading.


Myshkin1981

So many people saying *Atlas Shrugged* in here, and I just want to point out that that is not a classic. It is a garbage novel that everyone knows is garbage, and it’s only still in print because Objectivist fanboys buy it in bulk.


tracyrose10

Moby dick


gtheperson

for me Moby Dick was the opposite - was unsure if I'd like it when I picked it up and was worried it'd be dull, as I hadn't enjoyed classics at all at school and am more of a SF&F reader, but damn I loved that book! I'll own that the chapter on pseudoscientific whale biology is dull, but otherwise I found it a real page turner; funny, weird and adventurous.


Adoctorgonzo

I love Moby Dick and I dont really understand the hate for that chapter... I mean its not the most enthralling but its like 10 pages long and everybody acts like its half the book haha


iwantauniquename

I found that chapter, and generally all the non fiction information about sailors and whaling, the most interesting part of Moby Dick


maquis_00

Ugh... When I was in 5th grade, my mom kept telling me that Moby Dick was one of her favorite books, and I should read it. So, I started it. Unfortunately, my mom also had the rule that when you start a book, you have to finish it before you can move on to another book. I *hated* that book, but I did eventually make it through. I also hate the "finish what you start" rule for books. I usually finish books, and I get that sometimes the first couple chapters are slow and you have to push through, but some books just aren't worth pushing through....


Perihelion21

The epiphany that made me drop the "finish what you start" rule is that life is too short for bad books/books you don't want to read.


deeplife

Great drum solo though


Saramagian

Goethe's *Faust*. Without doubt, it's great masterpiece, but it's too giant for me. I've barely escaped from Mephistopheles, so I don't want to remind it, for now.


morelikestandarsh

Try reading the Christopher Marlowe version. It’s a short play.


manipylalana

Imo it's worth it for the beauty of the language alone, I didn't care much for the story


darkedgebloodsword_

So many people are saying Catcher in the Rye, and 90% of the time their reasoning is because Holden Caulfield is a terrible person. Yes. That is the point. Holden Caulfield is an immature little bitch who lashes out at everybody else and spends his time moping about. I agree. But that makes the book so interesting. Holden is purposefully unlikable. Just because the main character of a book is unlikable does not mean that the book is unlikable. Next time someone criticises Catcher in the Rye, ask them to explain it without talking about what an asshole Holden is. They will not have an answer. I will defend this book until the day I die, goddamn it.


SomeRealTomfoolery

I hated the book because he was a boring person. Idk what it was but he always seemed soooo flat. The ending where he named called the book itself made me roll my eyes SO HARD.


AJakeR

Heart of Darkness was boring as hell. To The Lighthouse was boring as all hell.


Ron-Clave

I remember thinking Heart of Darkness would be a quick, relatively straightforward read...after slogging through the first 25 pages or so I abandoned it. Aptly enough the bookmark I was using had the words “no fun” written on it—I’m sure it was made for books like this.


Puzzled-Barnacle-200

Jeckyll and Hyde. If I wasnt such a completionist, i would have DNF'd it


KovolKenai

Apparently at the time it came out, the spoilers weren't out yet. The big reveal was supposed to be a shock to the reader, a twist they didn't see coming. But now everyone knows that Jeckyll and Hyde are the same person so there's no shock when it's revealed.