Books I Loathed discussion

Wow.

I actually prefer older books, and will always choose the oldest copy of the book I'm looking for from the library. I think they have more character. The new paperback editions just don't have the same feel as the musty old hardcovers.

That may have been me! I once complained about a book I checked out of the library because it was an old mass market paperback. (15 years is very old for a mass market paperback.) The type was much smaller than modern paperbacks and the pages had turned brown. I'm almost 50 and my poor eyes don't handle small print and low contrast well anymore. Frankly, I'd rather read an original nineteenth century book than a 15 year old mass-market paperback.

Okay, it wasn't me then. However, it does surprise me that books I could easily read 15 years ago are physically unreadable now. I guess I've gotten spoiled by the larger text in current books.

Emily wrote: "Wow.

I actually prefer older books, and will always choose the oldest copy of the book I'm looking for from the library. I think they have more character. The new paperback editions just don't ha..."

My friend is exactly like this as well, and will pick old classics simply because she loves the smell of old paper.
Personally, I love the crispness of new pages, but it doesn't go into consideration when choosing a book...

When a book that could be my child is defined as "very old", it makes me feel ancient :-D

I don't define pocket books from 90's as "very old", not even old, even though they might be that considering the general life span of a pocket book. Perhaps because part of my mother's library is pocket books, the eldest from 40's and 50's, and still, today, fully readable.

No, the book's age is not one of the criteria of why I choose to read or not read a book, unless it is for a course in literature or alike. :-D

Reminds me of a review which bashed Anne Frank's Diary, because it was a diary by a teen-aged girl, and not a dashingly well written novel :-D
Or the bashing of Orwell's Animal Farm, because animals don't behave like that in reality. :-D
Someone bashed a book with over 800 pages because it had an appendix explaining the imaginary language the author had invented for the book universe. The reviewer thought that space should have been used to tell more of the story, as the book was "too short" ROTFLMAO

But I fully understand the screaming :-D

P.S. Oh, oh, and when people say "I don't usually read books, but this is the best book ever!"

LOL Certainly :-D

I kind of not blame Stephenie. It's really not her fault that she isn't that good an author. She's just a SAHM who wanted to write. I blame the damned published who didn't only publish her book, but gave her a 3 book deal!
On the other hand, they are probably really happy for that :-D
But who would have known...

Dan Brown SHOULD know better, so no mercy for him :-D

Mallie wrote: "we decide we don't like it because the book is "bad", when really the book isn't what we want it to be"

I suppose this happens a lot. Sometimes the book is bad :-D

Oh dear...
"But what if I don't read."
"Well, bad for you, then."

I know a lot of people who don't read. None of them has studied much anything, though, as one kind of must read when studying.

LOL That's really interesting - in a school book :-D

The age of the book should have nothing to do with it. If the book was written five minutes ago and it's good, that's great.
It it was written in Bible times, that's fine as well.
As long as it's good. Although it seems that there are less and less five minutes ago books that are good.

Guitar Chick-Dolly Dagger wrote: "As long as it's good. Although it seems that there are less and less five minutes ago books that are good. "

LOL I suppose it is because it is easy to publish books today. If no book publisher will accept your book, you can always publish it through Lulu or something, and it won't cost too much... so the few good books have more and more crappy company :-)

Guitar Chick-Dolly Dagger wrote: "The age of the book should have nothing to do with it. If the book was written five minutes ago and it's good, that's great.
It it was written in Bible times, that's fine as well.
As long as it's..."

Bravo GCDD -- I have to agree. The problem also stems from the fact that many schools have dumbed down the reading lists (instead of pulling up the students) so that Freshman read junior high (or lower!) books and aren't exposed to more challenging books much less the classics.

The other part of the problem is when people practice literary relativism: I'm sorry, but "Monster" is NOT on the same literary level as "Hamlet." But students are babied and fed mush (which is also what becomes of their brains) -- and they come to the conclusion that if it isn't written less than 5 minutes ago it must be a) hard, b) boring, or c) irrelevant.

Of course, there are a lot of English teachers who have worked very hard to make literature as boring as possible -- it's called "overanalysis" -- first you have to get kids interested in reading, then you slowly build their critical skills. If you look at reading lists from high schools 40 - 50 years ago, you'd see Chaucer, Shakespeare, Aeschylus . . . today you're more likely to find "The Contender,"
"Monster," and "Harry Potter." I have to stop and cry now.

It depends on the book. I have noticed that authors like Georgette Heyer are getting a revamp and getting their books re-published and this seems to prod people into reading them again. I prefer the new titles of her books then the old ones.

But that said I do prefer hardbacks or older copies of old classics like Jane Austen and Shakespeare's plays

Mallie - This brings up another topic which interests me, and that's the gradual demise of the editing process. I'm sure many of you have noticed it.

I agree with you on this on so many levels. But as a hobby writer myself - read writes alot online stories but working towards first novel - it is very hard to edit your own work. You get used to what is you've written and no matter how many times you read over it and read over it, you still miss really simple things and even things the spell check misses - ie different spellings of correct words, or the wrong word in the wrong place, but isnt picked up cos it is spelled correctly.

I also find too much editing of my own stuff ends with me hating the story and characters, you get sick of working on the same stuff over and over again after a while.

So like you I don't see why authors don't stick to their collection of editors like glue. I have noticed recent editors doing away with their editors - authors like Rice, Hamilton, King etc and the finished result could be a lot better if passed under the fresh, keen eyes of an editor.

About Heyer - I have noticed that, her last few books are very similair and a bit kinda cliche for her. I know what her hero and heroine will look like, act like etc. Her earlier ones had more of a variation on characters and plot. That said I love her books, as much as I love Austen's stuff, I love her writing style, its unique and just lovely fluffy books to read. The Corinthian, Frederica and The Spanish Bride are my 3 fave's by her!

Mallie wrote: "So, does having thousands of mediocre books, potentially filled with poor language, punctuation, and grammar that interferes with a grasp of the book's ideas do anything positive for us besides lowering our standards and creating a broader, messier, and perhaps destructively uncritical idea of what makes a "good" book?"

Hear, hear!

Mallie wrote: "TOTALLY OFF TOPIC!

I just saw a commercial that combined the Snuggie with the Macarena -- people dancing around in ugly cheap leopard plush and singing about their Snuggie to a Latinesque beat. A..."

I saw that commercial.
I stared at the TV, gaping in shock.
Even after it was over.
That commercial was just so... wrong!

Snuggarena!

EW snuggies!
People, get a bathrobe and wear it frontways!

GAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH GOOSEBUMPS IS SOOOOO BAD!!!!!!!!!!!

I personally think it's just for kids wanting to appear cool and say they read "horror" novels.

GOOSSEEEEBUUNPPOPPPS EQUALS BLEH

I really hate the short squat mass market paperbacks in general

I'm such a book geek that I love all types of books, big type, small type, various fonts, brown pages, etc! When I see ones I'm not used to, I think, "Yay, this is cool!" and I actually enjoy the read that much more. I know...geek.

ANYWAY...I just got the Kobo eReader and it allows 5 different font sizes, and I thought I should mention that for people who like bigger print. Its pretty slick.

I have a similar love for the Kindle. And the available library is bigger.

I have the opposite experience with the Kindle. The nonreflective screen, light weight, and variable text size make it easier for me to read. The backlit ones cause me trouble.

I've experienced the same as stormhawk. Over-exposure to backlit screens give me head aches (my friend complains every time she borrows my computer because I keep the screen on the dimmest setting) but the kindle I don't have a problem with.
I really love the built in dictionary for when I come across the rare word I don't know.

War of the Worlds. SERIOUSLY, how much descriptive detail do you have to go into when you are being CHASED BY AN EVIL ALIEN???? Apparently we gotta know every little thing about every building you pass.

Oddly enough, The Time Machine was much better.

Oh, and the whole huckleberry finn thing. Because apparently a lot of deep rooted problems can be solved by CHANGING THE WORDS OF AN OLD NOVEL. WOOOOOWWWWWW, why didn't I think of that!

If I hate a book, I usually don't proceed past the first chapter--therefore, I don't HATE very many books, because I think I would have to read more than that to say I hate it. And why would I read much of a book I'm hating? but there are SOME that got past me somehow...I'll share when they come to me :) Loved Catcher in the Rye when I was in high school. when I read it again in my early 20s, I was like "oh, can it, you little whiner. Shut the fluff up. Prep skool brat. Waaahhhh, I'm a bad boy, I totally got the AX MAN, I got the AX FROM MY PREP SKOOL" Then I realized my annoyance came from JD Salinger being TOO good of a writer (so pull the stick outta your bum, I'm not dissing him.) But yes I NOW loathe catcher in the rye anyway, because the author is too good. That whiny little "alienated" brat is just too darn real :) I hate to think I once was young enough to be happy to date a boy just like him :)

OH! how could I forget. Son of Rosemary, the sequel to Rosemary's Baby. Written APPARENTLY by Ira Levin also?? The guy who brought us Rosemary's Baby and Stepford Wives copped the It Was All A Dream move at the end. Beyond stupid--it would be inconsiderate of me NOT to spoil that doozy of an ending. What a waste! a case of Stephen King Esque Career Laziness on steroids--more like comatose!

When playing the trivia game on this site, I should not have to skip over 100 Twilight questions to get to a question about another book on my read list! I'm seriously considering taking that stupid book off of my read list for that reason alone.

THAT is the typical IQ of a Twilight fan.

I was recently at a friend's house and had to play her granddaughter's Christmas gift ... each adult paired with a kid to play ... Twilight Saga Scene It.

I couldn't get a single one of the trivia questions, but was a complete wizard at the hangman-type guess the word game.

Anna wrote: I completely agree. Especially since most of the Twilight questions seem to reflect the IQ of both its author and fans. Example : True or False. Edward Cullen is a vampire. AHHH!!! "

Umm, false?

But yes, I totally agree!

I went into a book store the other day and bought my girl the latest Stephen King book as a surprise gift. The clerk looked at the cover and said, "If you like Stephen King you should check out Twilight!" This was a 40 year old woman, dressed in black with streaks of blond through her pitch black hair. I proceeded to ask her, "Do you read those books?" She said, "Oh, yeah!"
I drilled her, asking her what the Twilight series had to do with any of Stephen King's work and how on earth should could draw comparison to the two. She looked at me dumb founded and was speechless.

I am growing to hate people who read paranormal romance as much as I loath the authors who write the crap.

Based on your description, it sounds like your clerk was well into her second childhood.

They are supposed to try to up-sell (make you buy something else before you leave the store), but it should make more sense than suggesting a Stephen King fan might slurp up the pablum of Twilight!

A friend of mine is a manager for one of the major chains (That's on the _border_) and would shoot one of her employees for making such a poor suggestion!

(all of her staff are readers, and they read a lot of advance copies of upcoming books. She's a great resource for what to read next.)

She was a sad lost person wishing she was a teenager again. Yeah, they are supposed to sell you more books or whatever have you, but Twilight? Based on my experience as a sales man, you are supposed to route out common subject matter. What she pulled was the equivalent of trying to sell a KIA Rio to Ford f-350 owner.

I long for the days when book store employees were supposed to be book lovers (I heard Patti Smith on Fresh Air discussing her days working for an indie book store in NYC during the 60's when reading the Times Book Review was a job requirement.)

Anyways, I'd guess the clerk in question hadn't read King and was doing her best. Although, who hasn't read him by this point. Not sure what I'd recommend either. Joe Hill or Dan Simmons? Justin Evans' A Good and Happy Child? Scott Smith's The Ruins?

I have some co-workers that read the Twilight series to see what their kids were raving about. They reported that the books were as awful as you'd expect and yet they were compelled to finish them. Like a literary bag of Doritos.

I'm not an Anne Rice fan, but I do know that her writing is better than Meyer's. Also, Meyer is a Christian. So, when people are shocked that a woman would write a girl character that is so weak, I point them in the direction of Meyer's possible influence; the bible.

haha yeah that is worse, especially in the department of treating women. Mormons are a cult and no one can tell me different.

Anna wrote: They have this tithing rule...

Yep and it's like 20 or 30% and from what little I understand, rigidly enforced. So supporting any Mormon business you can assume is funding their political agenda.


I quit reading Anne Rice long ago-like after Queen of the Damned. Being that pissed off at the Church is to me as equally tedious as writing fawning biographies of Jesus. I guess she's moved onto angels now. I have negative interest in those books but I do like her a lot and the stance she took on Catholicism.

Vanessa wrote: "I long for the days when book store employees were supposed to be book lovers (I heard Patti Smith on Fresh Air discussing her days working for an indie book store in NYC during the 60's when readi..."

I've got to say, "literary bag of Doritos" is totally the best description of Twilight I have ever heard. Thanks for the laugh, and Oh so true!

Hah! Welcome of course. I just remember my friend Jane telling me she had to read all four books in the Twilight oeuvre despite the fact they were horrible and she was so ashamed.

The NYT did a story recently that romance readers are the biggest genre segment of the e-book market. That seems to be at least partly because they can sit in public and read their bodice rippers and no one is the wiser. I know if I were reading something called "His Wicked Blade" (or.....Breaking Dawn?), I'd want to keep it on the downlow too.

I totally should! I'm such a hypocrite.

Beowulf, you are boring. So there!

Enjoyment of Beowulf may hinge on the translation. The one in most lit books is awful, Beowulf: A New Verse Translation translated by Seamus Heaney is really good.

Ketutar wrote: "Oh dear...
"But what if I don't read."
"Well, bad for you, then."

I know a lot of people who don't read. None of them has studied much anything, though, as one kind of must read when studying."
How about "have you considered a transfer?...Like, into a sweatshop or " well I don't think people in sweatshops generally have time to read but I can't think of any place (human) where people don't use words. Does SHE even know what she means? I mean, since she doesn't like words maybe she has no idea what they mean or how to use them. Let alone what might be appropriate to say to a professor.
But really, "I don't like words." Do we dare ask what she DOES like?

Sherri wrote: "I have two translations of Beowulf -- one is like reading the phone book, only without the plot and character development. The Heaney translation was a lot better, so much that I read it twice (an..."

Translation was a big part of it, though I guess I have different needs than everybody else. I was reading Heaney, and I found him incredibly boring. I thought the Raffel translation to be much more engaging than the Heaney translation. Heaney is probably the more accurate translation word-for-word, but I feel like Raffel captures the epic spirit of the thing more. To me, Heaney was like reading the phone book.

Isn't it horrible how teachers (& I'm a teacher no less) can destroy literature! Lucky for me, I discovered most of Canterbury Tales on my own & could just go for the ribald humor without grading!