Literary Exploration discussion

Let's face it. We've all read a book and thought... did I really just waste my life reading this? or maybe you don't even finish it because you lost hope it would improve.

which books would you not recommend at all or can't imagine how people actually enjoyed it or consider it a decent book?

Personally, no offense, I have no respect for the Twilight series. The dialogue is not well written, the plot doesn't make sense, characters are pretty static and not well developed, and frankly I don't even think the story is even appropriate for younger audiences. Yes girls let's get an obsessive jealous boyfriend and have his baby, it's ok he says he loves you and his entire life is about you, never mind that he wants to eat you... haha Im sorry I'm rambling.. anyway... any books you hated?

I hated "50 Shades of Grey." I thought it was poorly written--the dialogue was mind-numbingly stupid, the characters were basically caricatures, and the entire thing just gave me a headache from all the time I spent rolling my eyeballs in disbelief. I am not opposed to erotica in any way. I am, however, opposed to crappy novels that include lines like “My inner goddess jumps up and down with cheer-leading pom-poms shouting yes at me.”

I haven't read it but I have heard many reviews like yours so I don't think I will. It's not my thing anyway. At least if there was a good plot and deeply developed storyline that's better written to back up the rest of it then it could still stand a chance.

I hated and was bored to tears by Moby Dick. I know it is a classic but I thought it was awful.

I haven't read the "Twilight" series, either. I just don't have an interest in sparkly vampires! Plus, I agree with what you said about it not being appropriate for young girls. I have two sons myself, but my friends who have teen-aged daughters are appalled at the message that the book is sending out about obsessive love and unhealthy relationships.

Lorilee wrote: "I hated and was bored to tears by Moby Dick. I know it is a classic but I thought it was awful."

I agree! The book may be a classic, but it is boring. I often thought that Why Read Moby-Dick? must not be very lengthy.

I read The Homecoming Masquerade and Bloom - and I have no idea why.
The first one is one of those twilight-inspired books with vampires. The only improvement is that they don't sparkle and are evil, but it still doesn't lessen the fact that it's boring. The plot it horrible; nothing at all happens. Really, there is no plot (it can be summed up in one sentence: "Girls wearing black to homecoming will have to compete to become vampires. BTW, vampires are evil.") and I don't know why I picked it up in the first place.
The second one, Bloom, has so stupid characters that I think my IQ suffered from it. The whole book the protagonist whines that she has an oh-so-perfect, popular boyfriend but doesn't love him and how she really likes the unpopular sidekick, but she wants her life to be "perfect" and therefore has to stay with her boyfriend. Hello?

Okay, that was me ranting. I just feel the need to add that usually there is always something I like about a book. Well, usually...

haha Marlene I loved your explanation as to why you hated those books. Very good points put in a very funny way.

Thank you. I think I even wrote a review for one of them (Bloom?), but I don't know for sure.
But at least I know why I read Bloom. It's one of those romance novels you decide to read when your boyfriend breaks up with you. Why I read The Homecoming Masquerade... Sleep-walking to my Amazon-account to order it? Somebody gave me drugs? Honestly, I have no idea.

Okay, found the review:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

I'm not usually one who hates books. I think the hatred of a book shows more of a problem with the reader than any problem with the book. (Like how in middle and high school, there are always kids who complain that a book is "stupid", when it's obvious that the problem is that the kid doesn't understand it.) I got all the way through secondary school before having to study a book that I hated.

The book that I hate is one of the first ones I was assigned to read as a freshman in college-Detained by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o. It's a memoir by an African writer who was put in prison because the government didn't approve of him. I've read plenty of dissident literature before: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's, Vaclav Havel's, Czeslaw Milosz's. I read a lot of books about the Resistance during WWII. Jean Moulin was my first crush (along with Bo Duke from "The Dukes of Hazzard. It's hard to remember who was first.)

The most jarring thing about Detained was the self-indulgent and self-conscious tone throughout the book. Thiong'o clearly relished the role of Martyr for The Cause (not sure what The Cause actually was-although if I remember correctly, part of the problem was that he was championing the use of his tribal language (his tribe was the biggest one in his country, so it wasn't oppression of the minority by the majority) over the national language. He would often make decisions based on the symbolism of an act. I remember one incident where he was going to be taken to a visiting area to see his wife. He had to be handcuffed to be moved, which required a stand-off with authorities about whether he would allow himself to be cuffed. (I remember pages and pages of inner discussion as he wrestled with his conscience about the right thing to do.) Then he had to ruminate endlessly about whether he should let himself be un-cuffed during the visit or whether he should keep the physical manifestation of his encumbered state on his wrists. His entire imprisonment didn't resemble any hardships like you'd find in Siberia or the Lubyanka, yet this man took himself way too seriously.

Another thing that absolutely destroyed any sympathy was the antisemitism. He even went so far as to blast the Kenyan government for allowing the Israelis to refuel after the Israelis rescued the Jewish hostages at Entebbe. (He actually said he was ashamed of his government for that.)

I usually keep the books that I get for college, that was the only one that I threw away in the garbage.

Marina & Amy, you're talking about Twilight and 50 Shades as if they're different books, and it makes me wonder if you know that 50 started life as Twilight fan-fic? They had to change the character names to publish it. There's a reason they are equivalent junk!

"Hate" is a pretty strong word, though I've read plenty of books that I thought were terrible. Mickey, I disagree with you that disliking books show more of a problem with the reader. I think it's frequently a problem of bad writing.

But for the situation you cited of junior high or high school students, I think some of the problem can also be passed off to bad teaching. In my personal experience (albeit decades ago...) the formula was to have students read a book and then launch a classroom discussion about it. So you missed what you should have been looking for or understanding while you were reading. Instead, the book should have been taught, on some level anyway, before reading began. I remember being surprised when a girlfriend in another English class told me how funny she though Pride and Prejudice was. The teacher in my class had failed to explain that it was cultural satire, and we certainly didn't know better. I thought it was dull. After my friend told me that I re-read the whole thing, in a whole new light.

So, I knew 50 was a Twilight fan-fiction (which is why I refuse to read it other than the fact I heard the writing was horrible of course), but I didn't realize she even used their names. That just seems to make it even worse some how.

A book I'm not a fan of and am loath to even try and read again is Wuthering Heights because I can't stand the characters and their love/obsession story.

I have to disagree that the hatred of a book lies with the reader.

Several of the books I hate are written by a man with the main character being a woman. This has to be approached just right because there are some books where the male voice comes through the female character and that DRIVES ME CRAZY. Example: Moll Flanders.

Some books are published despite atrocious writing. It is really hard to not hate those books.

And there are some books in which the characters are just not likeable.

I agree that middle school students often would claim to hate a book they didn't understand but Regan has a good point. Some were hard to understand without the correct context. I hated Animal Farm because it did not make sense when I was 11. Re-reading it in high school I understood it and wasn't huge fan but no longer hated it.

There are books I like, but I can't stand the protagonists.
Examples:
-Ignatius (A Conferedacy of Dunes)
-Katniss (The Hungergames)
-Tally Youngblood (The Uglies)
-Heathcliff and Catherine (Wuthering Heights)

I'm sure there are a few others, but they are the ones I remembered. I even like most of these books, but the protagonists drive me crazy.

Regan wrote: "Marina & Amy, you're talking about Twilight and 50 Shades as if they're different books, and it makes me wonder if you know that 50 started life as Twilight fan-fic? They had to change the characte..."

I actually have not read "Twilight," so I don't know anything about its fan fiction. As a 45-year-old woman, I am not interested in young adult novels--particularly ones about obsessive vampires. And I only read "50 Shades" because my book club chose it as our summer reading selection (in combination with D. H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover," as we plan to compare and contrast the two). Therefore, I based my comment only on what I had read--and on what I had thoroughly disliked.

I also must disagree with the notion that hatred of a book shows a "problem" with the reader instead of with the book--and agree with you, Regan, that it is more likely an issue of bad writing. I have spent the last 20 years of my career as an editor. I can spot a crappy sentence from 10 feet away. And "50 Shades" is full of them. I don't believe that being able to recognize awkward or incorrect grammar and sentence structure, ridiculous dialogue, and thin-to-nonexistent plot development is a problem. In fact, I think it's actually beneficial as a reader.

Regan wrote: "Mickey, I disagree with you that disliking books show more of a problem with the reader. I think it's frequently a problem of bad writing."

But the analysis of writing is entirely subjective, Regan. Millions of people love Twilight (for instance). If you don't, that indicates that those people who love it found something in that book that you could not.

I'll give an example: I've always been really drawn to very lyrical prose. Most of my favorite writers are poets who sometimes write prose. I don't really "get" the appeal of Hemingway's writing. It's too flat and simple. I consider that a slight disability, like being color-blind or unable to hear at certain frequencies. I can't access his books in ways that others can. After all, I've read many glowing accounts by Hemingway lovers, I know that that nirvana of perfect understanding exists between his works and some readers. It's there, but the problem lies with me. The same with the book Catcher in the Rye. It didn't do a thing for me, but I've read Pat Conroy's experience with that book. There's magic there, but, for some reason, I can't access it.

Because reading has been seen as the "smart" person's hobby, there is this huge bulk of people who pretend they are better readers than others based simply on the types of books they read. If you don't like a book, I would say it's more a failure on your part not to "get" the charm of it. There are a lot of readers who hate books more than they love books, and those are the readers that I think just use books as props in order to project into the world how smart they are, because they are too "good" for certain books, as opposed to this group who enjoyed it.

It's always been my opinion that books are to be enjoyed- whether emotionally, intellectually, socially, whatever. When I see people start using books to feel superior to others (as in "I'm such a better reader than you, because I DON'T like this book", then I think that that is a perversion of what reading is. How can you possibly be better than a person who managed to achieve that satisfaction that we all look for when we open a book?

I disagree that disliking a book relates to there being a problem with the reader and not the book. I understand the point that sometimes you may dislike it because you don't understand it or miss some important points which could make the book more interesting. That's happened to me before.
I read in high school a book in Spanish "San Manuel Bueno Martir" and hated it. Then I had to read it again for college but obviously it was discussed to a deeper level and they explained some points I had previously overlooked. I still didn't love it but I didnt hate it anymore. It interested me a lot more the second time. Anyway that point makes sense.

The next thing to consider is actual likes and dislikes. A chef can bake a cake, he can be the greatest chef to ever have baked it but a person may just not like chocolate. Maybe there's no specific reason, he or she just doesnt like the sweetness. The flavor is more than they can take. This doesnt mean the person has a problem. They just dont like chocolate. The person may dislike the cake because it wasn't baked correctly or because they just don't like chocolate as it is, either way it's a legitimate reason.

I am a person who usually tries to see a positive side to even the worst things there are and I try to learn and gain something of them. I remember reading Life of Pi when I was quite young (11?) in German and I really disliked the book. This month I will re-read it with my book-club in English (the original language) and at an advanced age with more life-experience and an interest in philosophy and theology:)
Most of the time I dislike a book(I also think hate is a very strong word!) I dislike its style of writing But I think sometimes it just was not the right time to have read the book and maybe a re-read will change my opinion! Sometimes the background makes a book more interesting, notes on books were helpful to me when for example reading Shakespeare (I really appreciate his style of writing but I think without the notes I read with The Tempest I wouldn´t have been able to understand it that well and also appreciate Shakespeare´s intentions etc.) While reading Twilight I was looking for clues that I could find in the books that indicated the author´s faith. (Although I must admit I never read all of the books: They just weren´t my cup of tea!) There are several books I disliked but at the moment I cannot really name any...

Janice wrote: "But I think sometimes it just was not the right time to have read the book and maybe a re-read will change my opinion!"

This happened to me with Emily Dickinson's poems. When I was first introduced to her in high school, I didn't like her very much. Partly because the poems they give you in high school were her more serene nature poems and partly because I simply hadn't experienced much of the emotions she dwells on.

In the intervening years, I changed, the poetry did not, which is why I'm saying that if you don't like something, the fault lies with you, not the work.

No I don't agree with that either Mickey. Sometimes bad literature is just bad literature. Yeah sure millions loved Twilight, but the majority of those are easily impressionable teens who haven't developed enough to see the flaws inherent within it.

I've read plenty of books I dislike but don't believe any there is any fault with me. Thinking there is something wrong with yourself for not liking a book is to me foolish and potentially dangerous. You should simply accept that you will never like everything written, no one will.

Kim wrote: "No I don't agree with that either Mickey. Sometimes bad literature is just bad literature. Yeah sure millions loved Twilight, but the majority of those are easily impressionable teens who haven't developed enough to see the flaws inherent within it."

Lots of people enjoyed Twilight. I did and I am neither a teenager nor an inexperienced reader. I'm a little insulted, not that you don't like something that I do, but that your attitude seems to be that my opinion is wrong and not as valid as yours. We are talking about something that is entirely subjective.

Kim wrote: "I've read plenty of books I dislike but don't believe any there is any fault with me. Thinking there is something wrong with yourself for not liking a book is to me foolish and potentially dangerous. You should simply accept that you will never like everything written, no one will."

So, since I don't really enjoy Hemingway, the fault lies with him? I don't think it's either foolish or dangerous to understand that there is a world outside of my own subjective likes and dislikes. The worth of his works are not defined solely by my reaction to them. Nothing is really gained by me being insulting to people who like Hemingway or thinking I am a better reader than his fans (because obviously to find value in something that I can't means that there's something wrong with them, according to this line of reasoning).

I never claimed that the objective was to "like everything that is written" (where exactly did I say that?) The objective is to understand that tastes are subjective and not liking a book is more likely to come from a limitation within yourself rather than the book being "bad".

I suppose in the end, we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree. I certainly don't see myself being persuaded to your views and I doubt you'll come to see things my way.

I tend to agree mostly with Mickey. The very basis of the word "hate" applies to our biases about certain books and tastes. The very fact that we "hate" a book means that we are using our own either subtle or blatant bias against a certain writing style, subject, genre, etc. That might mean we don't like a character, or the writing seems cheesy, too wordy, too over the top, preachy, slow, etc. It is almost impossible to be completely subjective about a book. I don't like books like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and The Da Vinci Code, can't for the life of me see how they are popular. But they have quite a following so people appreciate a certain writing style, even if, to me, it isn't very good.

Mickey wrote: "So, since I don't really enjoy Hemingway, the fault lies with him? "

No. Why does there have to be a fault? That is my main issue. There is no fault in not liking something. You're the one trying to invent a fault where none exists.

I don't like mushrooms, I can't stand the taste. My fiancee loves them. I'm not faulty, nor are the mushrooms or my fiancee. We just have different tastes. There is nothing wrong or faulty about that. I believe what is wrong is thinking something is faulty just for being different.

Kim wrote: "I don't like mushrooms, I can't stand the taste. My fiancee loves them."

If such an analogy holds, then your position would be something like "I don't like mushrooms. The mushrooms are at fault. They are objectively bad. If anyone likes mushrooms, it is because they don't have my sophisticated tastes."

If a person doesn't like something, then that lies in their own person, not in the something that is disliked. That's obvious.

I'm glad that you seem to be moving towards the direction where you are starting to acknowledge that people have different tastes and that such a thing is acceptable as opposed to a sign that there's something wrong with them. Nobody has the exact same tastes in books, and it's always good manners to respect that.

No my position is I don't like them, I don't think they are faulty or bad just that I don't like them. There is no need for anything to be bad or faulty.

Kim wrote: "No my position is I don't like them, I don't think they are faulty or bad just that I don't like them. There is no need for anything to be bad or faulty."

Let's go back to what you said before:

No I don't agree with that either Mickey. Sometimes bad literature is just bad literature. Yeah sure millions loved Twilight, but the majority of those are easily impressionable teens who haven't developed enough to see the flaws inherent within it.

You seem to be making the point here that there is something objectively wrong with Twilight. That it is "bad literature" and not a matter of subjective tastes and that people who like Twilight aren't as "developed" a reader as you are.

Could you explain this discrepancy? Because it seems to me like you're contradicting yourself.

Maybe you aren't such a hopeless case as I figured originally.

I will stand by the fact that Twilight was written very poorly and contains a lot of behaviours that are scary for people to be emulating. Twilight = rotten mushroom.

The Picture of Dorian Gray is a normal mushroom. I didn't like it but I don't think that is fault of the book nor of me. Merely a matter of tastes.

I strongly disliked the book Finn but mainly because I had no empathy for the main character. Usually when I dislike a book, it's because I strongly dislike the main character or it's poorly written.

I know this may stand as blasphemous to some classics lovers but I really disliked The Graduate, which I just finished a few days ago. I found its dialogue to be equivalent to Twilight in quality.

IE:

Elaine?
'What.'
'Will you marry me?'
She shook her head.
'You won't?'
'I don't know', she said quietly.
'But you might?'
She nodded.
'You might, did you say?'
'I might?'
'Is that so? You might marry me?'
'What time is it.'

I kept having to resit the urge to slam the book into my own head to make the boring throb stop.

Kim wrote: "I will stand by the fact that Twilight was written very poorly and contains a lot of behaviours that are scary for people to be emulating. Twilight = rotten mushroom.

The Picture of Dorian Gray is..."

What does that make Lady Chatterley's Lover?

I don't like the idea of "hating" a book. But, I really didn't like Harry Potter. I barely read any of the first book before I gave up. I watched some of the movies, and that reassured me that reading the books would have been a waste of time.

A Great and Terrible Beauty was also a book that I didn't like. It took me 4 years to trudge through the first half. I finally gave up and gave the book to a friend. I just couldn't get into it. I dreaded reading that book.

Michael wrote: "What does that make Lady Chatterley's Lover? "

A mushroom stuffed with spinach and peas. Horrible to me but a delicacy for others.

I completely agree that there's a difference between not liking mushrooms and rotten mushrooms. One is "that's bad because I don't like it" and the other is "that's bad because there's something wrong with it."

Look, I don't like Wuthering Heights either (I just absolutely want to slap both Katherine and Heathcliff), so I might say it's bad. But I'll admit that it's not badly written, I just don't like the characters so much that I don't like the book.

Mickey wrote: "You seem to be making the point here that there is something objectively wrong with Twilight. That it is "bad literature" and not a matter of subjective tastes and that people who like Twilight aren't as "developed" a reader as you are."

This wasn't directed at me, but yes, that's the point I'm making. There is such a thing as objectively good writing and objectively bad writing. People learn to be better and more critical readers and writers. That (along with some cultural literacy) is the point of high school English. It is a skill that you (can) keep learning and developing after that.

This doesn't mean that I never read fluff, or even crappy fluff. But it is what it is, and let's not pretend that Sophie Kinsella is Hemingway or that Stephanie Meyer is Edith Wharton. And honestly let's not even pretend that E.L. James is Stephanie Meyer.

And on the matter of 50 Shades and it's fanfic origins, here's a comparison of the original piece of fanfic, Master of the Universe and 50 Shades: http://dearauthor.com/features/indust...

Regan wrote: "There is such a thing as objectively good writing and objectively bad writing. People learn to be better and more critical readers and writers. That (along with some cultural literacy) is the point of high school English. It is a skill that you (can) keep learning and developing after that."

I disagree wholeheartedly. Everybody has different opinions and tastes. If you didn't find anything of value in Twilight (for example), it doesn't mean that there isn't anything of value there. I found a lot of value.

I won't go into Meyer's writing, except to say that I am of a different opinion about her overall skills. I think she does several things very well. She captured the emotional turbulence of a young woman realistically. She built supernatural societies that were well-rounded and quite different from each other, but she also gave us individuals within that society that were in many ways not standard. I was always struck by her ability to show subtleties of a character through small interactions with others. I could go on, but my point isn't a defense of one series, but a rejection of this idea that there's objectively good writing and objectively bad writing. I found valuable things in her writing that you did not. The idea that you are a better reader simply because you couldn't is rather an interesting position, isn't it?

There's a sort of new snobbery that I've noticed in literature lately. It's not the usual "classical" snobbery where anything that wouldn't normally be taught in college courses is beneath notice or the uproar that was heard when Stephen King won an award. It's not the divide between the critically acclaimed and the popular. Most of the people that are tearing down Twilight aren't reading Shakespeare or Milton, from what I've noticed, but are reading things that are in turn not so-called "good writing" either.

The closest example I can come up with that mirrors this phenomenon is in the book To Kill a Mockingbird. The person in the story who seems the most invested in hating blacks and keeping them down is Bob Ewell, who is a pretty reprehensible character and certainly not very high on the social structure of the town himself. He absolutely needs to feel superior to blacks and becomes irate at the idea that he might not be seen in that way.

I think it's a bad trend when we start having books that function in ways to simply "hate" and differentiate ourselves from "bad readers". I thought once that Twilight mania died down that it might get better, but I think this 50 Shades (or whatever it is) will probably end up performing the same role. This phenomenon of having one book that is "demonized" for being bad is simply a cheap way to make people feel superior to others. It's snobbery for the Bob Ewells. It's the I-read-Stephen-King-but-Twilight-sucks crowd. You would think that people that read popular books would understand the appeal of another popular book or at least respect it as akin to their own reading habits, but the most rabid hatred comes from that corner.

Mickey wrote: "I found valuable things in her writing that you did not. The idea that you are a better reader simply because you couldn't is rather an interesting position, isn't it? "

Not a "better" reader; a more critical one.

I think we can objectively identify a well constructed or beautifully written sentence or paragraph or sentiment. And when you have a story or a book full of them, combine it with well-developed characters and a plot that isn't mere trope, we say "That's good writing."

When characters aren't functioning based on character motivation, but on what the plot need them to do to move forward, or they're two-dimensional cut-outs, and the prose is thoroughly graceless, and the plots mechanical and hackneyed, well that's bad writing.

Regan wrote: "Mickey wrote: "I found valuable things in her writing that you did not. The idea that you are a better reader simply because you couldn't is rather an interesting position, isn't it? "

Not a "bett..."
How can one "objectively identify" an opinion such as well constructed or beautifully written? Those terms seem subjective to me.

Barbara wrote: "Lorilee wrote: "I hated and was bored to tears by Moby Dick. I know it is a classic but I thought it was awful."

I agree! The book may be a classic, but it is boring. I often thought that Why R..."

I found Moby Dick difficult too, but I was kinda torn by it. On the one hand, it has some of the most amazing writing I have ever seen. On the other hand, there's too many filler chapters, like the chapters about rope.

It's the only book I recommend to people that they read the abridged version - well, maybe that and Les Miserables.

By saying a book is "bad writing" you are already making a subjective point and opinion. What is bad writing is to one person is beautiful writing to another. I say potato, you say...

People are divided on classics like The Sound and the Fury, Frankenstein, Moby Dick, The Great Gatsby. Some don't like the characters in these books, hate the writing style or prose, think the characters are flat, etc.Who's to say who is right or wrong about what is good or bad writing?

In the same way, today's Twilight, Harry Potter crowds find redeeming qualities in these books. I may not like them, but that doesn't mean these books don't have merit. It might be bad writing to me, but that doesn't make it bad writing to someone else.

Putting thread back OT. Post about the books you disliked and why you disliked them.

I didn't like March by Geraldine Brooks even though it won the Pultizer for fiction. Brooks took the iconic figure of Mr. March from Little Women and turned him into a womanizer - unforgiveable.

Actually...Stephen King is pretty bad too...

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I read "Under the Dome"... Over a thousand wasted pages...

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, pretentious ********.

oh man I totally agree with you, Georgina! I am not a fan of any book that makes you look stuff up constantly just to understand it. I have no desire to ever read Ulysses.

Nope, me neither. *Shudders*

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. I absolutely hated everything about this book. The plot, the writing style, the pictures, EVERYTHING. I dreaded reading this book. The 25 cents that I paid was far too much.

Laurin wrote: "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. I absolutely hated everything about this book. The plot, the writing style, the pictures, EVERYTHING. I dreaded reading this book. The 25 cents that I paid was ..."

I have to say, you're the first person I've talked to that did not like this book. I haven't read it yet but have really been wanting to. Would you care to share more specifically what you didn't like, besides everything?

Tiffani, it seemed so gimmicky. I thought it was going to be a book about a child dealing with losing his father because of 9/11. Instead I found it to be annoying. His learning disability seemed to be exaggerated. I didn't like the random pictures, or pages of nonsense typing. I was disturbed that the author would include pictures of a victim jumping from the towers. I just didn't like the way the author used a subject like 9/11. Normally I ain't care for books because they aren't in the genre that I normally read. I disliked that book because the writing style, and the choices that the author made. It got to be too distracting. I couldn't dig into the plot.

*don't

Sorry, I'm using swype on my tablet.