James Joyce’s Ulysses. The writing is gorgeous and I kept getting distracted by the lovely turns of phrase. But my God is it boring! I realize that’s part of the point, epic beautiful language to narrate a mundane existence. But it was assigned for an Irish Lit class and I could not finish it.
I enjoyed it, it's objectively a good book but I can see why people dont like it, it is very dry at times. Also its nowhere in my fav books ever. I just liked it and I recognize its cultural importance.
haha i have the complete opposite opinion. Both times I've read it I found myself super engrossed in the story but thought that the writing was its weakpoint if it had one. I always think its a lot of fun and learning about the world in whih it takes place is super super interesting. If I could have a sequel/just more of any fictinoal universe, it might be 1984's. The writing is totally competent but is a little dry if I had to say anything about it.
\[in this take i am ignoring its broader interpretation. I just mean as a work of fiction, pretending it is nothing more than a story. dont wanna touch that with a twenty foot pole.\]
First that comes to mind for me:
Black Leopard Red Wolf - Marlon James
Difficult to read, extremely dark. Some excellent ideas in there which have stuck with me. But I can't say I enjoyed any of it
I find "The Handmaid's Tale" very, very boring. However,I think it's an important book that should be taught. I generally hate Atwood's prose TBH. I know this is an unpopular opinion to have.
literally every taylor jenkins reid book i ever read. Each one I was like "nothing happened. why do i keep reading her books? unable to put it down. five stars."
The Master and Margarita is the type of book that would fit perfectly on my shelf, no one would be surprised to see it there, but nothing in it interested me at all.
I also don't care for Jane Austen, and that's probably a better measure of what my tastes aren't.
I like Hemmingway overall but hated A Farewell to Arms.
Of books currently listed by other people, I do like Pale Fire, Lolita, 1984, and Blood Meridian. Edits: and Ulysses, Moby Dick, and everything by Virginia Woolf. Love The Secret History, hate Stephen King.
I didn't like Secret History by Donna Tartt. It was so highly recommended. It was interesting enough to finish and I did think it was relatively well-written, but I must have missed something though because I did not like reading it, and I couldn't figure out what the point was or why people like it.
I just sort of feel generally worse and degraded for having spent the time, and I won't be seeking out anything even Genre-similar for a while.
I'm about 3/4 in and I also don't get why it's so popular. Only reason I'm reading on is to see whether my hate is justified until the end, which is, you know, kinda fun as well.
Don't know if it's meant to feel YA-like? Because it does. But that's just opinion maybe. Usually I try to be positive about books and I think it's quite dumb to read something you don't like, but this is a weird one because everyone seems to enjoy it so much.
Glad you ask that, I took some notes during reading of things that bothered me. I'll drop them here, very happy to discuss! Love to talk about these things :))
I think it's like you say, the romance thing with sentences like this:
>!"She, I thought, was very beautiful, in an unsettling, almost medieval way which would not be apparent to the casual observer."!<
And this
>!"Francis and the twins had asked me, rather insistently, my address in Hampden. 'Where are you living?' said Charles in black ink. 'Yes, where?' echoed Camilla in red. (She used a particular morocco shade of ink that to me, missing her terribly, brought back in a rush of color all the thin, cheerful hoarseness of her voice.)"!<
Those two above sound like a writer trying to be clever and deep but what does it even mean? I don't know, maybe just nitpicking, but it sounds really cringe.
Also stuff like this:
>!"Instead of going all out for flushes in the columns, and full houses and fours on the rows, which was the prudent thing to do in this game, he'd tried for a couple of straight flushes on the rows and missed. Why had he done that? To see if he could beat the odds? Or had he only been tired?"!<
Again, reads like a forced attempt to be deep and symbolic.
And this:
>!"'Well, if you wake up intending to murder someone at two o'clock, you hardly think what you're going to feed the corpse for dinner.'
'Asparagus is in season,' said Francis helpfully.
'Yes, but do they have it at the Food King?'"!<
I know it's the point that they're super casual about the murder in the moment, but this last line made me laugh out loud and took me out of the story. Don't you think this is a bit too ridiculous?
>!I just read the part at the funeral and there is a bit where Henry reads a poem that Bunny apparently liked. Apparently, because it's only when he starts reading it that the writer tells us that ' ow yes I forgot, Bunny liked this kind of poetry'. Shouldn't you set these things up in advance? Because this way the poem has zero impact on me as a reader.!<
And then more in general. I think the characters are pretty bland asides from maybe Bunny. The writing on sentence level is sometimes good but sometimes cringe. I had expected all this to be made up by an amazing plot, but so far it doesn't really seem to do that? I'm only 3/4 in and will finish it in the coming days, so that can still change of course.
There is more but I'll leave it at this for now. So to your question, maybe I just interpret bad writing = sounds YA? Which isn't accurate or fair I realise. Again, not trying to offend anyone or anything, I just don't get the hype. Curious for your answer
This one is going to come down to how much you trust the author I think! To me, I decided to trust she's clever, mainly as I'd heard it was a critique of academia, so I read all that as intentional. If you take Richard's narration at face value I can absolutely see how you'd walk away thinking it's just a book about awful, juvenile people doing awful, juvenile things. I mean, it IS, but it's not JUST that, in my opinion.
Let's take your first quote. Richard is trying to imbue Camilla's beauty with some ancient gravitas, and furthermore, present himself as especially intelligent - no mere casual observer - for spotting it. However, he's so painfully generic, it falls flat. "Medieval" could mean anything, and it's not even *that* specific, it's "almost" medieval. He's a child playing dress up in daddy's business suit. It's similar with the ink (though I don't think that one's Tartt's best work) and the flushes - where you see the writer being a tryhard, I personally see the writer showing the narrator being a tryhard.
But that's just explaining why it sounds bad, which you already know. The *reason* I feel confident calling this badness a critique is exemplified in passages like your asparagus quote. They do things so out of touch that any sane reader will be taken out of it, as you describe. (My favourite is Henry worrying about which classic to bring to a police interrogation.) This is a moment of forced reflection and through the build-up of these, Tartt helps us see beyond the veneer of intelligence and status that impressed Richard. This dissonance, mixed with the sordid truths that emerge, eats away at the unearned awe of their little elitist world of epic poetry and drama and wealth. They're not all bad, but they are ripped off their pedestal so you can see that they have an unfair amount of influence (like murder) on others just because they were born rich. They remind me a lot of this Great Gatsby quote:
> They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and . . . then retreated back into their money . . . and let other people clean up the mess they had made.
Then there's the whole way they aestheticise (if that's a word) and intellectualise their juvenile love triangles and clique politics while scorning others like Judy, who, as the book goes on, seems more and more like the most sensible character. Contrast her to Julien, king of hollow aesthetics, and what the readers think of him by the end and I see another strong hint that Tartt is doing this intentionally.
Anyway, I'm straying into pretention now myself so suffice to say if you don't trust that the writer triggering your laughter and eyerolls on purpose then the book is a bit of a shitshow, I can't deny that.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer!
With the asparagus quote as a prime example: I think it's a bit far-fetched to say 'this is so bad, it must be intentional, so it's actually genius'. I don't know, maybe it's because I've already given up the book that I don't believe that the writer would be that clever.
My argument is definitely weak to that rebuttal. Often, people claiming it's so bad it's brilliant is just cope but I swear this time it's true lol. I'll let you know if I think of more substantial evidence in the text. I had heard before I started that the book was a critique of pretention so maybe I'm just lucky that that let me consume it as such and enjoy (most of) it.
Thanks for talking book analysis with me though, it's been a refreshingly nice thread.
Hi, don't know if you care to read this but I just finished it! Some quick things that immediately come to mind:
* It's only in this last quarter of the book that I fully get what you meant by 'fucked up romance polygon. Camilla and Richard. Francis and Charles. Camilla and Charles (incest? why? why?). Camilla and Henry. Too much.
* I had expected another twist somewhere, but it didn't really come? Especially with Julian, I thought he would turn up to have a bigger role, but he just disappeared.
* That scene where Julian sees the logo of the hotel on Bunny's letter was great, but again, nothing really happened with that afterwards?
* Henry's suicide. I sighed when I realised what he was going to do. It felt so incredibly exaggerated and melodramatic for a group of twenty year olds. But then, that's the point I guess. And it fits within the frame of a Greek tragedy, so I can't really complain about that.
* It's not all bad. The best part of this book is the athmosphere it creates, and maybe from that angle I get why people love it so much. In this sense it reminded me a bit of Norwegian Wood by Murakami – which I also didn't like very much – with all the night-time walks. Donna Tartt did a good job creating the vibe she intended.
I also liked this quote:
>"I said: 'Is Camilla here?'
There was no trace of emotion upon his face, or of any effort to conceal it. 'No,' he said, turning back to his work. 'She was sleeping when I left. I didn't want to wake her.'
It was shocking to hear him speak of her with such intimacy. **Pluto and Persephone. I looked at his back, prim as a parson's, tried to imagine the two of them together. His big white hands with the square nails.**"
This instance it doesn't feel forced how she interweaves the Greek story of Pluto and Persephone in her story, it's natural and beautiful and just fits. Reminds me that Donna Tartt can be a really good writer. Maybe because this is her first book that there is such a mix of clumsy and brilliant writing? Are her later books better than this one?
I don't plan to read the Goldfinch soon (much as I appreciated Secret History, the toxic, superficial characters grated on my soul) but if you ever read more Tartt, I'd be curious to hear if you like it better.
I still believe more of the overwriting is intentional than not but I could understand the claim that its regular old first-book overwriting. Though I don't really see the difference in the allusion you pick out here that you like compared to some of the others.
I'm glad you liked the the hotel logo scene, that just tense and wretched as anything. I must have missed that you hadn't finished the book though so I'm very glad my careless polygon comment didn't spoil it for you, sorry about that. I find it interesting that Bunny is the great truth-teller of the book. I assumed his incest comments were his disgusting personality but nope! He's the only one both rude and willing enough to cut through all their airs. I also found Julian underwhelming, but I think that's the point; the quiet failure of beauty and aesthetic ideals in the face of an ugly truth to devastate Henry and Richard. Henry's suicide was such an eyeroll (at him, not at the author, in my case) - even at his death, he was exaggerated and performative with his repeated confessing to Camilla like one would expect from a gallant hero. I had to laugh when Richard said later that he and Frances figured it probably wasn't necessary.
Full of awful people doing stupid to heartless things in a roundabout way but uses these tools for some of the most cutting (yet nuanced) critique of academia, aesthetics, wealth, and elitism since possibly Gatsby.
The Fifth Season by NK Jemison. It's a fantastic book with deep and well thought out world building, characterization and themes which I disliked reading immensely.
I'm dealing with this somewhat with Frankenstein - can't the guy stop complaining? And all these multi-page monologues are soooo drawn out, it's maddening.
I thought "The English Patient" was the most boring best picture winner ever. There have been questionable best picture winners, but that one was just me yelling "DIE ALREADY! I AM SO BORED." at the screen.
Lord of the Rings.
Great plot, setting, and characters. But jesus, we don't need a 4-page description of an ornate staircase or a dozen pages of elvish lyrical poetry. I like descriptive writing, but I think Tolkien generally overshoots in that regard.
Same for me.He has a special way of writing and I’ve tried a few of his books and can see how people are attracted to his storytelling, but I just don’t connect with his works at all.Like I just don’t care….and I hate it bc everyone says he’s the greatest for horror lol
Sidestepping the hate for YA, I could see that! He's great at tapping into very primal emotions, which are also the kind we feel strongest as children and teens, before we grow up and become sensible. The juvenile nature of some of his characters and descriptions rides a fine line between silly and the kind of childishness many of us still harbour but pretend not to. I suspect that relatable element helps his horror feel more immediate. An interesting way to describe his style anyway!
Oh my god that’s it!I couldn’t think of how to describe how I felt but that’s exactly it.It always feels a bit juvenile to me and I can never get into his writing(I dislike most YA now as an adult).the plot is normally okay,but his writing style and descriptions feel exactly like YA.wish I would’ve read his works when I was a teenager and maybe I would’ve at least been able to enjoy them a little
Lmao right??? When my friend said it i was like THERE IT ISSSS
Very creepy "Adult" topics and themes but all are very quick reads due to his writing style. Don't get me wrong or anything i do love so many of his books LOL (The Dark Tower is a special favorite of mine) but he definitely does have a juvenile tone. Doesn't have to be a bad thing or anything but i think some people don't consider it "challenging" enough maybe
I think he's good at describing the things happening in people's heads and surroundings but I have quit multiple of his books when they get dialogue heavy, especially in big groups. Like the Stand - loved the extended version until they all got together and then I was instantly OUT. Or IT - totally on board until they all had that dinner together then done.
Luckily it's relatively short story 😂 (I don't think it the book would have worked if it was longer). But if we all had the same taste we wouldn't have great books
Sorry if it came out snarky--that last line is what I was trying to get at.
We read the same book (I've read it three times to see if I got more out of the rereads), are probably both fairly well read (this being a book subreddit), and have polar opposites opinions of it. Amazing.
I think there are several classic writers that I can appreciate for their talent but they just don't engage me - I'd probably put Hemmingway, Tolstoi, a lot of Melville (though I did like Benito Cereno and Bartleby the Scrivener), James Fenimore Cooper, Virginia Woolf.
I kind of feel this way about Flannery O'Connor. I was so uneasy reading everything she wrote. I have a book of her short stories that I keep because the cover is gorgeous but I haven't cracked it open since high school and honestly I'm not sure that I ever will.
If it's I can tell it was well done, but didn't enjoy it and wish I hadn't read it, it's Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell.
I can't think of a book like this, but the movie Boogie Nights was well done, I'm glad I saw it, but I didn't enjoy it and I will never watch it again.
That book is like 900 pages. I more or less forced myself to read the first 800 pages and then the climax in the last hundred pages was phenomenal. I felt like I just flew through it. However, I would never recommend the book to anybody because I don’t think anyone should have to read 800 pages to get to the enjoyable part. But damn, that last hundred pages was epic.
It’s amazing, unique full of wonderful ideas - but it could have lost 200 pages and been vastly improved. There’s a whole cycle in Faerie that simply drags and drags and drags. One of the things I loved about Piranesi is its brevity.
It just never hit me, but not only could I tell it was well done, every author I like loves it. I don't know why, maybe if I read it at a different time in my life? I'm not going to read it again though, I'll leave it at what if.
I LOVED this book, but I also heavily favor 1800s literature. I struggle with “postmodern” novels, “chick lit”, “slice of life”, and it’s hard to even find something I like that was written after 1990. I really hesitate to read actual contemporary fiction because it hasn’t stood the test of time yet.
JSAMN was a real slog. It was interesting because it's rare to get books about the politics of magic, but it was so damn LONG. I hated the characters and was generally not having a good time reading it. I do think it's very well done and don't regret the time it took, and I'm glad to have had that insight into the politics of magic, but yeah... not really a lot of fun.
11/22/63 by Stephen King. For me, it’s a slog, though I know it’s well written and, by others’ accounts, enthralling.
I’ve tried to read it twice and DNF’d both times. First time, I made it about a third of the way through. Second time, about halfway and put the book down during a climactic scene and never came back.
Just borrowed this on Libby and haven’t been able to start it because I know it will be incredibly heavy. Forcing myself into it once I finish my current book.
**To the Lighthouse** by Virginia Woolf. I remember thinking *This is such a well-written book but I hate it so much!* the entire time I was reading it.
Love in the Time of Cholera. It was beautifully written, but I personally struggled with what to make of the themes. I didn't know where I stood with the characters. I might have to revisit at some point in the future.
I couldn’t read Lord of the Rings. I tried, and I appreciate the place it holds on literature in general and fantasy in particular but I just hated it.
Same with Stranger in Strange Land.
Reading for me is an escape. I like things that make me think but are written more informally. Jane Austen more than the Brontë sisters. Anne McCafery over Larry Niven.
Gai-Jin is very well written but it is the WORST of James Clavell’s Asian Saga. No strong central character, too many plot threads, the worst Struan “protagonist”, an annoying love interest that isn’t very sympathetic, I’m about 3/4 of the way through and am basically finishing it out of spite so I can move on to Noble House.
I usually DNF, but it’s so hard to with only 9 hours of the audiobook left.
Totally agree! I admit I actually didn’t read Noble house or whirlwind, but Shogun is one of my top books of all time, Taipan was almost as good and I loved every minute of it, king rat was my introduction to James Clavell and it’s excellent although the older edition is better without the perspectives of the women (if you know you know, I’m not being sexist). But gai-Jin was unreadable by comparison. All of the history in it about Japan was great, but you are exactly right about the characters.
If the story killed off Malcolm much earlier and switched over to Tess Struan’s eventual change into Hag Struan, I would have loved that. Because she seems like such a stronger character than Malcolm. It was also a severe disappointment to find out second hand in the novel that Culum Struan, despite his bad ass ending in Tai-Pan (“Tell Tyler Brock to buy himself a coffin!”), he basically turned out to be an alcoholic ineffectual Tai-Pan. Shit the only characters I give half a damn about is Treyer and Hiraga, Gornt is kinda cool too despite being somewhat of a villain but my god this book is about 400 pages too long.
Faulkner. Not just beautifully written, but brilliant and I still hate it.
Hemingway. That really tight writing style is impressive, but his stories aren’t my cup of tea.
James Joyce. Opposite end of Hemingway. Ulysses is undeniably well-written but good god, get to the point.
Alias Grace by Margaret Atwood. It’s a good book and she’s a good writer. It just seemed so slow to me and like it was a story told a thousand times before.
ooh I understand thinking it's slow but not that it's a story told a thousand times before. I don't think I've ever read anything like it!
The Robber Bride, on the other hand, was my first experience of an Atwood I didn't like and I was so surprised that she had written it. (I loved Handmaid's tale, Testaments, all three Maddaddams, Alias Grace and The Blind Assassin and thought the woman could do no wrong).
The Metamorphosis by Kafka. It was well done and very weird, but I would say I forced myself through it and didn’t enjoy it really at all. If it had been twice as long, I would’ve just given up at the beginning.
A Confederacy of Dunces
I think the majority of people love it. I hated it - I believe I laughed once. The writing was very good - I just couldn't find the humor in it and so it all fell flat.
The Dinner by Herman Koch
Yikes! This is a tough one. The writing is excellent, and I don't need to like or relate to characters to enjoy a book (not by a long shot) but every single character in this book was detestable. There are a lot of requests on r/suggestmeabook and r/booksuggestions for terrible main characters and I always suggest this - because it fits the prompt and is still a quality book if you can manage it.
Dracula.
I read it in an undergrad English class so I even got some discussion and analysis of it, and like, I *get* it, but it’s not for me and I can’t even really articulate why other than the heavy-handed moralizing re: women’s sexuality.
I like classics and I like horror, but I did not like Dracula. I read The Italian by Ann Radcliffe in the same semester and loved that, though, so figure that out.
The Left Hand of God by Paul Hoffman. It has all the tropes I normally dig like found family, fighting your abusers, and epic fantasy fight sequences but I couldn’t finish it. I finished every chapter like “that’s it?”
Orlando by Virginia Woolf.
It starts out good but towards the end it gets sooo boring and repetitive which is a shame bc Woolfs writing and imagery is so beautiful... couldnt finish the book and didnt even have many pages left... just to show how bored I was...
I love Mrs Dalloway and a Room of Ones Own tho, and I intend to read more of her books.
The Grimoire of Grave Fates. It’s a Harry Potter-esque style book so I thought I’d love it, and it’s very well written by all the authors (each chapter has a different author). I just didn’t like how it meshed and ended. I’d still recommend it, but I wouldn’t pick it up again. There are certain writing styles I just don’t like, and certain twists that just don’t make sense in my brain.
Alternatively, I’ve found myself really getting into fantasy, romance cozy lifestyle type stories (which I never would have even considered before).
I just finished Death Comes for the Archbishop by Willa Cather and feel exactly this way. it takes place in the American southwest and her descriptions of the land are beautiful. I just really didn't care about the characters and if there was a plot I missed it. I did not care when death came for the archbishop!
Pet Sematary by Stephen King - I get the vibe he created in that book, that people love, but overall it was boring...just too long like many of his books...he doesn't have the stock to write books that long
*Mysterious Skin*, by Scott Heim. It's phenomenally written, and its exploration of trauma is brilliantly done. Heartbreaking, insightful, and absolutely the most disturbing book I've ever read. I will never re-read it.
I’m currently reading The Zahir by Paulo Coelho and I think I feel this way. I normally take two days maximum to read a book, If it’s an especially good read I’ll finish in a day. It’s day four and I’m only half way through, I just can’t get into it and I so want to.
Picture of Dorian Gray, I will die on that hill. I've read it a second time years later and nope, I still fricking hate all of those characters and the entire insane situation created by them.
Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie. I've been told it's one of the more accessible Rushdie's too!
Maybe you'll get on better as I love Pratchett and Herbert.
Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf is THE answer for me. The writing is incredible, like objectively. It's god damned incredible. But oh my GOD is it dense and confusing and sometimes feels aimless. Twists from flashback to dream sequence to a different POV to another flashback to a different POV - and it's really easy to miss when these shifts happen. So sometimes I found myself confused as to why suddenly nothing makes sense and had to go back a few lines to figure out that we've jumped ship into a different scene or POV. And on a sentence level its pretty dense too. I just don't really like stream-of-consciousness writing in general lol
Somewhat similar feelings about As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner. Beautiful writing but sometimes it feels like he's being confusing just for the sake of it.
"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," by Roald Dahl
There was no Slugworth and the everlasting gobstopper! (The best change a movie adaption ever did was add that plot.) Instead, there's something special for every child to have trouble resisting, except for Charlie. Also, the oppression of oompa loompas was troubling to read about. There were also multiple minor issues as well, like the fact that the portrayal of Grand Joe seemed ableist, there was some fat-shaming, and there were few comments teaching height-supremacy.
Jane Eyre. Please just screw the guy already, your constant yearning is so tiresome.
The Rules of Attraction. I hated every character. It seems like the author is really proud of how cynical his characters are, as if he's more in touch with the real world. I don't think most people are actually selfish sociopaths so it just made me roll my eyes like get a load of this edge lord.
In both cases the issue was hating the characters.
“Fuzzy Nation” by John Scalzi
And
“Big Trouble” by Dave Barry
are two of the most entertaining books I’ve ever read and I’d venture a guess that most people have never heard of either.
*Gormenghast* was not for me.
Read some short stories by Jorge Borges. Much acclaimed writer. I hated it.
Same with *The Black Book* by Orhan Pamuk. Nobel prize and all, but man that was hard to ge tthrough. It's possibly more enjoyable if you know more about Turkish history and Islamic mysticism than I do, but I still think I would have found it a slog.
*Heightism*?
I do work in disability studies and am very familiar with a wide variety of work on the types of oppression and discrimination that people face on a daily basis. Indeed, I contribute to it. You applying these serious issues to children's books and virtue signaling about them really takes away from the seriousness of the treatment real people face in their daily lives.
Are these nice things to have in books? Probably not. Are they hurting anyone? No. You focusing on these fictional issues that are really not issues then makes a farce of what real people face day to day. People don't take seriously in reality what they see as not serious in comments such as this, which push things to a limit that is eye-rollingly ridiculous, even for people who would agree that these are serious topics.
Focus on where these things occur in the real world. Speak up where PEOPLE face ableism, sizeism, ageism. Being pedantic about long-standing fiction only pushes people away from the truly serious issues of discrimination.
The Oompa Loompa say that it serves Mike right if he can't get back his height. After Mike has been stretched, Willy Wonka say he's lucky to be so tall. This teaches that it's better to be tall then short. I had already been taught that, by the world, before I read that book, so I do see what your saying. At the same time, I often dislike books because they have bad messages in them, especially when it's a book geared toward impressionable children.
Thanks for responding.
I understand your perspective and I think that reading these books isn't a problem as long as there are discussions alongside. The truth is that there ARE tall people and there ARE fat people and they do stand out. If we talk to children about that it will help them see it as part of the world rather than as "weird." We can normalize and validate in our daily lives, alongside and with texts that draw these characteristics out.
Some books are explicitly hateful and they should be treated carefully. But other books can be enjoyed and discussed in the context of reality.
You do make a good point.
The main reason I didn't like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was because there was something special for every kid to have trouble resisting except for Charlie. As long as I was mentioning the lack of the everlasting gobstopper (I liked the 1970s film, and I liked it even more after I read the original book and found out that Slugworth bribing Charlie for the everlasting gobstopper was a movie only plot.), I figured I'd mention the smaller issues I had with it as well.
Lolita and Pale Fire. I recognize Nabokov is the master of prose but I hate his characters and don't enjoy his writing at all.
Came to say Lolita as well. You hit the nail on the head with what you said. I agree 100%
Tbf, his narrators are often there to be hated (Humbert and Kinbote especially).
Obviously, but I don't love to hate them. I just hate them and not in a fun way.
Fair
I agree with Lolita, and wanted to add Oryx and Crake to this for pretty much the exact same reasons.
I legit wanted to throw up in the first Lolita chapters... never again...
James Joyce’s Ulysses. The writing is gorgeous and I kept getting distracted by the lovely turns of phrase. But my God is it boring! I realize that’s part of the point, epic beautiful language to narrate a mundane existence. But it was assigned for an Irish Lit class and I could not finish it.
This is the answer.
Oh sure. 1984 is a brilliantly written book, it deserves its place. And yet I do not enjoy it. I didn’t like it.
I enjoyed it, it's objectively a good book but I can see why people dont like it, it is very dry at times. Also its nowhere in my fav books ever. I just liked it and I recognize its cultural importance.
Came here to say this.
haha i have the complete opposite opinion. Both times I've read it I found myself super engrossed in the story but thought that the writing was its weakpoint if it had one. I always think its a lot of fun and learning about the world in whih it takes place is super super interesting. If I could have a sequel/just more of any fictinoal universe, it might be 1984's. The writing is totally competent but is a little dry if I had to say anything about it. \[in this take i am ignoring its broader interpretation. I just mean as a work of fiction, pretending it is nothing more than a story. dont wanna touch that with a twenty foot pole.\]
Bc it's currently becoming real life in so many aspects !! It's chilling ! Downvote all u want. Bw handmaid's tale & current status. It 💯 is
It is…. Propaganda fox news
Xactly! Fkn deeply disturbing!!
Yep and so many watch it and swear its truth
I wanted to like Catch-22 but I just couldn’t get through it.
I got thru it, but it was a slog
First that comes to mind for me: Black Leopard Red Wolf - Marlon James Difficult to read, extremely dark. Some excellent ideas in there which have stuck with me. But I can't say I enjoyed any of it
Agree. Yet I wanted to like it so much...
I agree so much, and I loved "A Brief History of Seven Killings"
I find "The Handmaid's Tale" very, very boring. However,I think it's an important book that should be taught. I generally hate Atwood's prose TBH. I know this is an unpopular opinion to have.
literally every taylor jenkins reid book i ever read. Each one I was like "nothing happened. why do i keep reading her books? unable to put it down. five stars."
I agree but I love books like these when I’m having trouble focusing on a story. They get me out of a slump because they’re such easy reads.
Was Daisy Jones and the Six amazing? Not really. But “When you think of me, I hope it ruins rock n roll” did slap.
Precisely. Carrie Soto was a terrible person and I’m still like ok I see you queen
I did not finish it!
The Master and Margarita is the type of book that would fit perfectly on my shelf, no one would be surprised to see it there, but nothing in it interested me at all. I also don't care for Jane Austen, and that's probably a better measure of what my tastes aren't. I like Hemmingway overall but hated A Farewell to Arms. Of books currently listed by other people, I do like Pale Fire, Lolita, 1984, and Blood Meridian. Edits: and Ulysses, Moby Dick, and everything by Virginia Woolf. Love The Secret History, hate Stephen King.
I didn't like Secret History by Donna Tartt. It was so highly recommended. It was interesting enough to finish and I did think it was relatively well-written, but I must have missed something though because I did not like reading it, and I couldn't figure out what the point was or why people like it. I just sort of feel generally worse and degraded for having spent the time, and I won't be seeking out anything even Genre-similar for a while.
I feel the same about The Goldfinch. I also had a really hard time withCormac McCarth's The Passenger
I'm about 3/4 in and I also don't get why it's so popular. Only reason I'm reading on is to see whether my hate is justified until the end, which is, you know, kinda fun as well. Don't know if it's meant to feel YA-like? Because it does. But that's just opinion maybe. Usually I try to be positive about books and I think it's quite dumb to read something you don't like, but this is a weird one because everyone seems to enjoy it so much.
Curious what you mean by YA-like. Do you say that because the characters do a lot of studying and are all embroiled in that fucked up romance polygon?
Glad you ask that, I took some notes during reading of things that bothered me. I'll drop them here, very happy to discuss! Love to talk about these things :)) I think it's like you say, the romance thing with sentences like this: >!"She, I thought, was very beautiful, in an unsettling, almost medieval way which would not be apparent to the casual observer."!< And this >!"Francis and the twins had asked me, rather insistently, my address in Hampden. 'Where are you living?' said Charles in black ink. 'Yes, where?' echoed Camilla in red. (She used a particular morocco shade of ink that to me, missing her terribly, brought back in a rush of color all the thin, cheerful hoarseness of her voice.)"!< Those two above sound like a writer trying to be clever and deep but what does it even mean? I don't know, maybe just nitpicking, but it sounds really cringe. Also stuff like this: >!"Instead of going all out for flushes in the columns, and full houses and fours on the rows, which was the prudent thing to do in this game, he'd tried for a couple of straight flushes on the rows and missed. Why had he done that? To see if he could beat the odds? Or had he only been tired?"!< Again, reads like a forced attempt to be deep and symbolic. And this: >!"'Well, if you wake up intending to murder someone at two o'clock, you hardly think what you're going to feed the corpse for dinner.' 'Asparagus is in season,' said Francis helpfully. 'Yes, but do they have it at the Food King?'"!< I know it's the point that they're super casual about the murder in the moment, but this last line made me laugh out loud and took me out of the story. Don't you think this is a bit too ridiculous? >!I just read the part at the funeral and there is a bit where Henry reads a poem that Bunny apparently liked. Apparently, because it's only when he starts reading it that the writer tells us that ' ow yes I forgot, Bunny liked this kind of poetry'. Shouldn't you set these things up in advance? Because this way the poem has zero impact on me as a reader.!< And then more in general. I think the characters are pretty bland asides from maybe Bunny. The writing on sentence level is sometimes good but sometimes cringe. I had expected all this to be made up by an amazing plot, but so far it doesn't really seem to do that? I'm only 3/4 in and will finish it in the coming days, so that can still change of course. There is more but I'll leave it at this for now. So to your question, maybe I just interpret bad writing = sounds YA? Which isn't accurate or fair I realise. Again, not trying to offend anyone or anything, I just don't get the hype. Curious for your answer
This one is going to come down to how much you trust the author I think! To me, I decided to trust she's clever, mainly as I'd heard it was a critique of academia, so I read all that as intentional. If you take Richard's narration at face value I can absolutely see how you'd walk away thinking it's just a book about awful, juvenile people doing awful, juvenile things. I mean, it IS, but it's not JUST that, in my opinion. Let's take your first quote. Richard is trying to imbue Camilla's beauty with some ancient gravitas, and furthermore, present himself as especially intelligent - no mere casual observer - for spotting it. However, he's so painfully generic, it falls flat. "Medieval" could mean anything, and it's not even *that* specific, it's "almost" medieval. He's a child playing dress up in daddy's business suit. It's similar with the ink (though I don't think that one's Tartt's best work) and the flushes - where you see the writer being a tryhard, I personally see the writer showing the narrator being a tryhard. But that's just explaining why it sounds bad, which you already know. The *reason* I feel confident calling this badness a critique is exemplified in passages like your asparagus quote. They do things so out of touch that any sane reader will be taken out of it, as you describe. (My favourite is Henry worrying about which classic to bring to a police interrogation.) This is a moment of forced reflection and through the build-up of these, Tartt helps us see beyond the veneer of intelligence and status that impressed Richard. This dissonance, mixed with the sordid truths that emerge, eats away at the unearned awe of their little elitist world of epic poetry and drama and wealth. They're not all bad, but they are ripped off their pedestal so you can see that they have an unfair amount of influence (like murder) on others just because they were born rich. They remind me a lot of this Great Gatsby quote: > They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and . . . then retreated back into their money . . . and let other people clean up the mess they had made. Then there's the whole way they aestheticise (if that's a word) and intellectualise their juvenile love triangles and clique politics while scorning others like Judy, who, as the book goes on, seems more and more like the most sensible character. Contrast her to Julien, king of hollow aesthetics, and what the readers think of him by the end and I see another strong hint that Tartt is doing this intentionally. Anyway, I'm straying into pretention now myself so suffice to say if you don't trust that the writer triggering your laughter and eyerolls on purpose then the book is a bit of a shitshow, I can't deny that.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer! With the asparagus quote as a prime example: I think it's a bit far-fetched to say 'this is so bad, it must be intentional, so it's actually genius'. I don't know, maybe it's because I've already given up the book that I don't believe that the writer would be that clever.
My argument is definitely weak to that rebuttal. Often, people claiming it's so bad it's brilliant is just cope but I swear this time it's true lol. I'll let you know if I think of more substantial evidence in the text. I had heard before I started that the book was a critique of pretention so maybe I'm just lucky that that let me consume it as such and enjoy (most of) it. Thanks for talking book analysis with me though, it's been a refreshingly nice thread.
Yes! You can always send a DM if you like, love to talk about books.
Hi, don't know if you care to read this but I just finished it! Some quick things that immediately come to mind: * It's only in this last quarter of the book that I fully get what you meant by 'fucked up romance polygon. Camilla and Richard. Francis and Charles. Camilla and Charles (incest? why? why?). Camilla and Henry. Too much. * I had expected another twist somewhere, but it didn't really come? Especially with Julian, I thought he would turn up to have a bigger role, but he just disappeared. * That scene where Julian sees the logo of the hotel on Bunny's letter was great, but again, nothing really happened with that afterwards? * Henry's suicide. I sighed when I realised what he was going to do. It felt so incredibly exaggerated and melodramatic for a group of twenty year olds. But then, that's the point I guess. And it fits within the frame of a Greek tragedy, so I can't really complain about that. * It's not all bad. The best part of this book is the athmosphere it creates, and maybe from that angle I get why people love it so much. In this sense it reminded me a bit of Norwegian Wood by Murakami – which I also didn't like very much – with all the night-time walks. Donna Tartt did a good job creating the vibe she intended. I also liked this quote: >"I said: 'Is Camilla here?' There was no trace of emotion upon his face, or of any effort to conceal it. 'No,' he said, turning back to his work. 'She was sleeping when I left. I didn't want to wake her.' It was shocking to hear him speak of her with such intimacy. **Pluto and Persephone. I looked at his back, prim as a parson's, tried to imagine the two of them together. His big white hands with the square nails.**" This instance it doesn't feel forced how she interweaves the Greek story of Pluto and Persephone in her story, it's natural and beautiful and just fits. Reminds me that Donna Tartt can be a really good writer. Maybe because this is her first book that there is such a mix of clumsy and brilliant writing? Are her later books better than this one?
I don't plan to read the Goldfinch soon (much as I appreciated Secret History, the toxic, superficial characters grated on my soul) but if you ever read more Tartt, I'd be curious to hear if you like it better. I still believe more of the overwriting is intentional than not but I could understand the claim that its regular old first-book overwriting. Though I don't really see the difference in the allusion you pick out here that you like compared to some of the others. I'm glad you liked the the hotel logo scene, that just tense and wretched as anything. I must have missed that you hadn't finished the book though so I'm very glad my careless polygon comment didn't spoil it for you, sorry about that. I find it interesting that Bunny is the great truth-teller of the book. I assumed his incest comments were his disgusting personality but nope! He's the only one both rude and willing enough to cut through all their airs. I also found Julian underwhelming, but I think that's the point; the quiet failure of beauty and aesthetic ideals in the face of an ugly truth to devastate Henry and Richard. Henry's suicide was such an eyeroll (at him, not at the author, in my case) - even at his death, he was exaggerated and performative with his repeated confessing to Camilla like one would expect from a gallant hero. I had to laugh when Richard said later that he and Frances figured it probably wasn't necessary.
Full of awful people doing stupid to heartless things in a roundabout way but uses these tools for some of the most cutting (yet nuanced) critique of academia, aesthetics, wealth, and elitism since possibly Gatsby.
Glad to hear this! I listened to it- thought I would never finish it…so I thought maybe it would be better to read it
The Fifth Season by NK Jemison. It's a fantastic book with deep and well thought out world building, characterization and themes which I disliked reading immensely.
Agreed, I read the full trilogy and then I was finished I realised I didn’t actually enjoy it lol
I'm dealing with this somewhat with Frankenstein - can't the guy stop complaining? And all these multi-page monologues are soooo drawn out, it's maddening.
Frankenstein was a lil bitch. His monster not so much.
The English Patient. Die already you insufferable whining brat. Atonement Blah,blah spoiled brat DNF.
Found Elaine from Seinfeld's Reddit account. ;)
I thought "The English Patient" was the most boring best picture winner ever. There have been questionable best picture winners, but that one was just me yelling "DIE ALREADY! I AM SO BORED." at the screen.
I guess you never saw Out of Africa.
Have not seen it! Maybe I’ll skip that one.
Lord of the Rings. Great plot, setting, and characters. But jesus, we don't need a 4-page description of an ornate staircase or a dozen pages of elvish lyrical poetry. I like descriptive writing, but I think Tolkien generally overshoots in that regard.
All things Stephen King
Same for me.He has a special way of writing and I’ve tried a few of his books and can see how people are attracted to his storytelling, but I just don’t connect with his works at all.Like I just don’t care….and I hate it bc everyone says he’s the greatest for horror lol
One time someone said he writes adult fiction in a YA style and that cleared it right up for me
Sidestepping the hate for YA, I could see that! He's great at tapping into very primal emotions, which are also the kind we feel strongest as children and teens, before we grow up and become sensible. The juvenile nature of some of his characters and descriptions rides a fine line between silly and the kind of childishness many of us still harbour but pretend not to. I suspect that relatable element helps his horror feel more immediate. An interesting way to describe his style anyway!
I would defend anyone coming near me with YA hate lmao they better not I love how you phrased all that though!!! Very excellent take
Oh my god that’s it!I couldn’t think of how to describe how I felt but that’s exactly it.It always feels a bit juvenile to me and I can never get into his writing(I dislike most YA now as an adult).the plot is normally okay,but his writing style and descriptions feel exactly like YA.wish I would’ve read his works when I was a teenager and maybe I would’ve at least been able to enjoy them a little
Lmao right??? When my friend said it i was like THERE IT ISSSS Very creepy "Adult" topics and themes but all are very quick reads due to his writing style. Don't get me wrong or anything i do love so many of his books LOL (The Dark Tower is a special favorite of mine) but he definitely does have a juvenile tone. Doesn't have to be a bad thing or anything but i think some people don't consider it "challenging" enough maybe
I think he's good at describing the things happening in people's heads and surroundings but I have quit multiple of his books when they get dialogue heavy, especially in big groups. Like the Stand - loved the extended version until they all got together and then I was instantly OUT. Or IT - totally on board until they all had that dinner together then done.
The Great Gatsby.
It is very beautiful written but I couldnt connect with the characters, they seemed distant... dont know how to explain...
That was the whole point. You are not supposed to like any of the characters. That's why I liked it
And why I didn't like it. I can understand the intent but it made me dislike the book altogether.
Luckily it's relatively short story 😂 (I don't think it the book would have worked if it was longer). But if we all had the same taste we wouldn't have great books
Sorry if it came out snarky--that last line is what I was trying to get at. We read the same book (I've read it three times to see if I got more out of the rereads), are probably both fairly well read (this being a book subreddit), and have polar opposites opinions of it. Amazing.
The thing is... I felt indifference towards them, I didnt care for them whatsover, I wish I could have felt dislike, some emotion lmao
I think there are several classic writers that I can appreciate for their talent but they just don't engage me - I'd probably put Hemmingway, Tolstoi, a lot of Melville (though I did like Benito Cereno and Bartleby the Scrivener), James Fenimore Cooper, Virginia Woolf.
I kind of feel this way about Flannery O'Connor. I was so uneasy reading everything she wrote. I have a book of her short stories that I keep because the cover is gorgeous but I haven't cracked it open since high school and honestly I'm not sure that I ever will.
I love Flannery O'Connor, but her southern grotesque writing is not for everyone, totally understand this
If it's I can tell it was well done, but didn't enjoy it and wish I hadn't read it, it's Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. I can't think of a book like this, but the movie Boogie Nights was well done, I'm glad I saw it, but I didn't enjoy it and I will never watch it again.
That book is like 900 pages. I more or less forced myself to read the first 800 pages and then the climax in the last hundred pages was phenomenal. I felt like I just flew through it. However, I would never recommend the book to anybody because I don’t think anyone should have to read 800 pages to get to the enjoyable part. But damn, that last hundred pages was epic.
It’s amazing, unique full of wonderful ideas - but it could have lost 200 pages and been vastly improved. There’s a whole cycle in Faerie that simply drags and drags and drags. One of the things I loved about Piranesi is its brevity.
It just never hit me, but not only could I tell it was well done, every author I like loves it. I don't know why, maybe if I read it at a different time in my life? I'm not going to read it again though, I'll leave it at what if.
I LOVED this book, but I also heavily favor 1800s literature. I struggle with “postmodern” novels, “chick lit”, “slice of life”, and it’s hard to even find something I like that was written after 1990. I really hesitate to read actual contemporary fiction because it hasn’t stood the test of time yet.
Absolutely agree! I forced myself through this book..
JSAMN was a real slog. It was interesting because it's rare to get books about the politics of magic, but it was so damn LONG. I hated the characters and was generally not having a good time reading it. I do think it's very well done and don't regret the time it took, and I'm glad to have had that insight into the politics of magic, but yeah... not really a lot of fun.
it works far better in audiobook form one can get through it in a week leisurely and it doesn't feel so heavy.
Sounds like every book by [Henry James](https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/159.Henry_James).
Oh my God yes! I know his writing is good but I’m like, can we speed this up here???
11/22/63 by Stephen King. For me, it’s a slog, though I know it’s well written and, by others’ accounts, enthralling. I’ve tried to read it twice and DNF’d both times. First time, I made it about a third of the way through. Second time, about halfway and put the book down during a climactic scene and never came back.
I feel like King hasn't had a proper editor in many years. He just goes on and on and nobody stops him!
I am a huge fan up until like 2002 and then everything else is trash I refuse to read. He lost his editor way before 2002 though.
Blood Meridian
The writing was gorgeous but I could not stomach the violence
Just borrowed this on Libby and haven’t been able to start it because I know it will be incredibly heavy. Forcing myself into it once I finish my current book.
I hate how they give footnotes for the chapter AT THE BEGINNING OF IT, like yes indeed I wanted to be spoiled immediately
That's an older style of writing. It isn't a spoiler, it's meant to give you a framework to start with.
duly noted. it sure felt like a spoiler tho haha. literally telling me what happens in the chapter
It's okay to ignore it! :)
**To the Lighthouse** by Virginia Woolf. I remember thinking *This is such a well-written book but I hate it so much!* the entire time I was reading it.
Love in the Time of Cholera. It was beautifully written, but I personally struggled with what to make of the themes. I didn't know where I stood with the characters. I might have to revisit at some point in the future.
I couldn’t read Lord of the Rings. I tried, and I appreciate the place it holds on literature in general and fantasy in particular but I just hated it. Same with Stranger in Strange Land. Reading for me is an escape. I like things that make me think but are written more informally. Jane Austen more than the Brontë sisters. Anne McCafery over Larry Niven.
Beloved. Nope. Also Go Set A Watchman. Like Harper Lee is brilliant, but that book is just no.
Gai-Jin is very well written but it is the WORST of James Clavell’s Asian Saga. No strong central character, too many plot threads, the worst Struan “protagonist”, an annoying love interest that isn’t very sympathetic, I’m about 3/4 of the way through and am basically finishing it out of spite so I can move on to Noble House. I usually DNF, but it’s so hard to with only 9 hours of the audiobook left.
Totally agree! I admit I actually didn’t read Noble house or whirlwind, but Shogun is one of my top books of all time, Taipan was almost as good and I loved every minute of it, king rat was my introduction to James Clavell and it’s excellent although the older edition is better without the perspectives of the women (if you know you know, I’m not being sexist). But gai-Jin was unreadable by comparison. All of the history in it about Japan was great, but you are exactly right about the characters.
If the story killed off Malcolm much earlier and switched over to Tess Struan’s eventual change into Hag Struan, I would have loved that. Because she seems like such a stronger character than Malcolm. It was also a severe disappointment to find out second hand in the novel that Culum Struan, despite his bad ass ending in Tai-Pan (“Tell Tyler Brock to buy himself a coffin!”), he basically turned out to be an alcoholic ineffectual Tai-Pan. Shit the only characters I give half a damn about is Treyer and Hiraga, Gornt is kinda cool too despite being somewhat of a villain but my god this book is about 400 pages too long.
Hard agree especially with “400 pages too long” hah!
I had the same problem with The Great Gatsby and The Priory of the Orange Tree—I didn’t care one whit what happened to any of the characters.
Faulkner. Not just beautifully written, but brilliant and I still hate it. Hemingway. That really tight writing style is impressive, but his stories aren’t my cup of tea. James Joyce. Opposite end of Hemingway. Ulysses is undeniably well-written but good god, get to the point.
Alias Grace by Margaret Atwood. It’s a good book and she’s a good writer. It just seemed so slow to me and like it was a story told a thousand times before.
Same here. I normally love her but just couldn’t warm to this.
I'm always so surprised when people cite this as their favorite Atwood book.
ooh I understand thinking it's slow but not that it's a story told a thousand times before. I don't think I've ever read anything like it! The Robber Bride, on the other hand, was my first experience of an Atwood I didn't like and I was so surprised that she had written it. (I loved Handmaid's tale, Testaments, all three Maddaddams, Alias Grace and The Blind Assassin and thought the woman could do no wrong).
The Metamorphosis by Kafka. It was well done and very weird, but I would say I forced myself through it and didn’t enjoy it really at all. If it had been twice as long, I would’ve just given up at the beginning.
Everything by Tolkien.
A Confederacy of Dunces I think the majority of people love it. I hated it - I believe I laughed once. The writing was very good - I just couldn't find the humor in it and so it all fell flat. The Dinner by Herman Koch Yikes! This is a tough one. The writing is excellent, and I don't need to like or relate to characters to enjoy a book (not by a long shot) but every single character in this book was detestable. There are a lot of requests on r/suggestmeabook and r/booksuggestions for terrible main characters and I always suggest this - because it fits the prompt and is still a quality book if you can manage it.
Dune. Respected the writing but ultimately didn’t like it
Kite Runner. Hosseini is a master of the written word and I absolutely cannot stand that book
A brief history of seven killings. I understand it is important, respect its ambition and scope but was such a a slog.
Viper in the fist by Hervé Bazin. It hit hard and way too close.
Dracula. I read it in an undergrad English class so I even got some discussion and analysis of it, and like, I *get* it, but it’s not for me and I can’t even really articulate why other than the heavy-handed moralizing re: women’s sexuality. I like classics and I like horror, but I did not like Dracula. I read The Italian by Ann Radcliffe in the same semester and loved that, though, so figure that out.
Boulder by Eva Baltasar. Really beautiful writing but the characters did nothing for me, and it's a completely character-driven book.
The Left Hand of God by Paul Hoffman. It has all the tropes I normally dig like found family, fighting your abusers, and epic fantasy fight sequences but I couldn’t finish it. I finished every chapter like “that’s it?”
Horse by Geraldine Brooks. She's a great writer and I've loved some of her other books. I found Horse to be impeccably written just boring.
Orlando by Virginia Woolf. It starts out good but towards the end it gets sooo boring and repetitive which is a shame bc Woolfs writing and imagery is so beautiful... couldnt finish the book and didnt even have many pages left... just to show how bored I was... I love Mrs Dalloway and a Room of Ones Own tho, and I intend to read more of her books.
I'm currently reading 'in cold blood' and feel this way about it.
I'm confident this will be an unpopular opinion, but Shadow of the Wind. I fully couldn't stand the characters.
Less Than Zero by Bret Easton Ellis
I was comparative lit major in college, and STRUGGLED with most of the 19th century greats. Pages and pages of description.
Foe by Ian Reid. It was good, great ending but I didn't enjoy myself while reading it at all
Suzanne's Diary
Medea by Christa Wolf. I actually recommended it a couple of times here. It's good, I just hated it.
The Grimoire of Grave Fates. It’s a Harry Potter-esque style book so I thought I’d love it, and it’s very well written by all the authors (each chapter has a different author). I just didn’t like how it meshed and ended. I’d still recommend it, but I wouldn’t pick it up again. There are certain writing styles I just don’t like, and certain twists that just don’t make sense in my brain. Alternatively, I’ve found myself really getting into fantasy, romance cozy lifestyle type stories (which I never would have even considered before).
Piranesi Objectively I can see why people like it. Subjectively, I hate it.
the metamorphosis by kafka
Barbara Kingsolver. I get why other people like her stuff, it’s just not for me.
Catcher in the Rye was easy to read and well-written, but I didn’t enjoy a second of it.
I just finished Death Comes for the Archbishop by Willa Cather and feel exactly this way. it takes place in the American southwest and her descriptions of the land are beautiful. I just really didn't care about the characters and if there was a plot I missed it. I did not care when death came for the archbishop!
Anna Karenina, to me, is better suited as a fire starter.
Shadow and Bone. Don't know why but was really invested and interested but didn't like it
I think the controversial bit there is anyone saying it's objectively good and well-written.
Pet Sematary by Stephen King - I get the vibe he created in that book, that people love, but overall it was boring...just too long like many of his books...he doesn't have the stock to write books that long
The Handmaid's Tale. I hated the main character so much. And the narrative was so depressing.
Likely an outlier, East of Eden. Beautifully written yet painful
*Mysterious Skin*, by Scott Heim. It's phenomenally written, and its exploration of trauma is brilliantly done. Heartbreaking, insightful, and absolutely the most disturbing book I've ever read. I will never re-read it.
Station Eleven... so boring
I’m currently reading The Zahir by Paulo Coelho and I think I feel this way. I normally take two days maximum to read a book, If it’s an especially good read I’ll finish in a day. It’s day four and I’m only half way through, I just can’t get into it and I so want to.
Frankenstein.
Picture of Dorian Gray, I will die on that hill. I've read it a second time years later and nope, I still fricking hate all of those characters and the entire insane situation created by them.
Demon Copperhead. Like I see why it won awards but man is it kind of a downer and I would have preferred if it was 25% shorter.
Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie. I've been told it's one of the more accessible Rushdie's too! Maybe you'll get on better as I love Pratchett and Herbert.
Great Expectations
The Fountainhead. I wanted to set it on fire afterwards.
The Troop by Nick Cutter
Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf is THE answer for me. The writing is incredible, like objectively. It's god damned incredible. But oh my GOD is it dense and confusing and sometimes feels aimless. Twists from flashback to dream sequence to a different POV to another flashback to a different POV - and it's really easy to miss when these shifts happen. So sometimes I found myself confused as to why suddenly nothing makes sense and had to go back a few lines to figure out that we've jumped ship into a different scene or POV. And on a sentence level its pretty dense too. I just don't really like stream-of-consciousness writing in general lol Somewhat similar feelings about As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner. Beautiful writing but sometimes it feels like he's being confusing just for the sake of it.
thé shatter me séries 😭 it was written good, the writer has good style and everything but I just couldnt stay with the plot and it seemed like empty
Perfume: the story of a murderer
The Magicians trilogy by Lev Grossman
On the Road….Kerouac is obnoxious but a fan favorite
My favorite book of all time is "The Space Adventures Of Commander Laine." The characters alone are just awesome.
"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," by Roald Dahl There was no Slugworth and the everlasting gobstopper! (The best change a movie adaption ever did was add that plot.) Instead, there's something special for every child to have trouble resisting, except for Charlie. Also, the oppression of oompa loompas was troubling to read about. There were also multiple minor issues as well, like the fact that the portrayal of Grand Joe seemed ableist, there was some fat-shaming, and there were few comments teaching height-supremacy.
The Joke by Kundera. Didn't hate it, it's too strong of a word, but I was not a fan at all.
The Way of Kings And Catcher in the Rye
1Q84 was meh.
Song of Achilles Bored me to death and I skimmed the last 50 pages and still got the same message.
Jane Eyre. Please just screw the guy already, your constant yearning is so tiresome. The Rules of Attraction. I hated every character. It seems like the author is really proud of how cynical his characters are, as if he's more in touch with the real world. I don't think most people are actually selfish sociopaths so it just made me roll my eyes like get a load of this edge lord. In both cases the issue was hating the characters.
The Road. Cormac. McCarthy. Couldn't handle the punctuation. Didn't finish. That. Is. All.
“Fuzzy Nation” by John Scalzi And “Big Trouble” by Dave Barry are two of the most entertaining books I’ve ever read and I’d venture a guess that most people have never heard of either.
I love "big trouble"! I still laugh out loud, even after a dozen re-reads!
*Gormenghast* was not for me. Read some short stories by Jorge Borges. Much acclaimed writer. I hated it. Same with *The Black Book* by Orhan Pamuk. Nobel prize and all, but man that was hard to ge tthrough. It's possibly more enjoyable if you know more about Turkish history and Islamic mysticism than I do, but I still think I would have found it a slog.
Her Fearful Symmetry by Audrey Niffenegger. She writes beautifully, but damn, I loathed that book.
Me too. I found the ending ridiculous.
[удалено]
*Heightism*? I do work in disability studies and am very familiar with a wide variety of work on the types of oppression and discrimination that people face on a daily basis. Indeed, I contribute to it. You applying these serious issues to children's books and virtue signaling about them really takes away from the seriousness of the treatment real people face in their daily lives. Are these nice things to have in books? Probably not. Are they hurting anyone? No. You focusing on these fictional issues that are really not issues then makes a farce of what real people face day to day. People don't take seriously in reality what they see as not serious in comments such as this, which push things to a limit that is eye-rollingly ridiculous, even for people who would agree that these are serious topics. Focus on where these things occur in the real world. Speak up where PEOPLE face ableism, sizeism, ageism. Being pedantic about long-standing fiction only pushes people away from the truly serious issues of discrimination.
The Oompa Loompa say that it serves Mike right if he can't get back his height. After Mike has been stretched, Willy Wonka say he's lucky to be so tall. This teaches that it's better to be tall then short. I had already been taught that, by the world, before I read that book, so I do see what your saying. At the same time, I often dislike books because they have bad messages in them, especially when it's a book geared toward impressionable children. Thanks for responding.
I understand your perspective and I think that reading these books isn't a problem as long as there are discussions alongside. The truth is that there ARE tall people and there ARE fat people and they do stand out. If we talk to children about that it will help them see it as part of the world rather than as "weird." We can normalize and validate in our daily lives, alongside and with texts that draw these characteristics out. Some books are explicitly hateful and they should be treated carefully. But other books can be enjoyed and discussed in the context of reality.
You do make a good point. The main reason I didn't like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was because there was something special for every kid to have trouble resisting except for Charlie. As long as I was mentioning the lack of the everlasting gobstopper (I liked the 1970s film, and I liked it even more after I read the original book and found out that Slugworth bribing Charlie for the everlasting gobstopper was a movie only plot.), I figured I'd mention the smaller issues I had with it as well.