classic books you didnt like

[carrie's younger brother]

Huh? Did we read the same book? I found the old thing to be a fast paced , pot-boiling, blood-and-thunder page turner. That whole opening sequence, at the count's castle--then BLAM! Suicide seat at Whitby! BLAM! The Log of the Demeter! BLAM! The 'Bloofer' Lady! BLAM! The Staking of Lucy (whoops, no spoiler! Der...), just on and on like that, till the big chase at the end.

As for wordiness, I don't know what to tell you. I mean, compared to other 'great' works of its period, Dracula reads like a shot of Cuervo.

But to each his own, I guess.

Love Dracula and agree with you on all points.

As for it being wordy, it was written at a time when the English language was fuller; like all languages, English has evolved in the time since Dracula was written. I love reading works from that period just for the fact of them being "wordy."

 

[Dana Jean]

Gkad

Especially since we're the only 2 on this board who do not like the stand.

I was with you on this for YEARS! And back in the old old old days of the first board, the first time I expressed this opinion, Marsha actually came on for everyone to be kind and to remember everyone has an opinion because she knew before it happened that I was going to get hammered. But because she said that, I did not. (Thank you Marsha.)

I really hated the first edition of The Stand (except for the tunnel scene). That was the only redeeming part of the book for me.

But, when they added back in all the stuff they took out and made it the book Stephen intended it to be from the start, I loved it.

 

[carrie's younger brother]

I was with you on this for YEARS! And back in the old old old days of the first board, the first time I expressed this opinion, Marsha actually came on for everyone to be kind and to remember everyone has an opinion because she knew before it happened that I was going to get hammered. But because she said that, I did not. (Thank you Marsha.)

I really hated the first edition of The Stand (except for the tunnel scene). That was the only redeeming part of the book for me.

But, when they added back in all the stuff they took out and made it the book Stephen intended it to be from the start, I loved it.

Ive read both versions (the first one 3 times and the second one twice) and I still don't like it. I have to admit though, the tunnel scene and the stuff that leads up to it are the only parts I can say interest me at all. After that, it's "when will this book end!!!"

 

[@PM]

Why do you read a book five times if you don't like it?

 

[Neesy]

The shining. The bulk of it just bored me. I know saying that is like blasphemy around here but that's the way it is. I guess I don't really care for books with a very small amount of characters that get the bulk of the focus. That is one of the reasons I never got passed page 50 of misery.

So I guess that leaves Gerald's Game out of the picture for you, too
Misery I thought was cool and I was pleased when I saw the film too (to each his own - how boring a world if we all agreed on everything).

 

[The Nameless]

So I guess that leaves Gerald's Game out of the picture for you, too
Misery I thought was cool and I was pleased when I saw the film too (to each his own - how boring a world if we all agreed on everything).

I agree. (how boring of me ).

I must admit that Gerald's Game has never really jumped out at me for that precise reason. Don't get me wrong, I'd give it a go, but it's just not going to be in my to be read pile until I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Weird how I liked the girl who loved Tom Gordon isn't it?

 

[Sliced Bread]

20,000 Leagues Under The Sea. Lord that was slow. Pages and pages about species and subspecies of sea life.

 

[AudioArtist]

War and Peace. As avid reader as I've been all my life, always felt I should have read this one. I've started it probably ten times and haven't been able to get more than about 200 pages in or so before I find my attention wandering.

Yeah War and Peace was a tough nut to crack. I absolutely hated reading it because it's a fight through so much extraneous crap to get to the good parts. But the good parts are really good and I enjoyed them a lot. That whole book is juxtaposition over and over...

Joseph Heller - Everything other than Catch 22 just don't even bother.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - once I start reading a book I don't stop unless it's REALLY bad. That book kept dangling the possibility of something cool happening...didn't happen.

Salman Rushdie - I've only read 2 - Haroun and the Sea of Stories and the sequel Luca and the Fire of Life. These aren't too bad.

 

[Steffen]

Don't know if this counts, but after friends constantly nagged me about it (for years), I tried Robin Sharma's The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari. I made it through one and a half chapters but his writing style was so amateurish and all over the place I threw it aside. For a Clive Barker novel!

I also attempted Ayn Rand. That was a meh.

 

[Susan Hood Parker]

While I read a lot, don't consider myself well-read. So, found those books that I'd always heard about but never read on a site for free called Project Gutenberg. Loved reading most of the classics, Frankenstein & Dracula. Personally, I love Jane Eyre & the Jane Austins. Some books that I didn't find there so bought for $1 or so on Amazon, were Brave New World, which I found annoying, don't like that world. And Catcher in the Rye, which I didn't like (teen angst), but found the writing style different than anything I'd read.

 

[Senor_Biggles]

I really didn not like Frankenstein. Fine with Dracula and The strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, but Victor Frankenstein is the whiniest protaginist I have yet come across.

 

[Pucker]

Why do you read a book five times if you don't like it?

This reminded me of the Seinfeld episode where George asks Jerry to get his books back from his (George's) ex-girlfriend and Jerry wonders aloud why people read books more than once: "Actually, the second time you read Moby Dick, Ahab and the whale become good friends."

Of course there are reasons to re-read. Maybe you missed something. Maybe you're worried that everyone else is "getting" something that you're not. Maybe you really want to like it and you think it will grow on you. I've read more than one King story that grabbed me better the second time, although I confess I have not gone back for thirds on those that didn't.

Maybe we should be praising carrier's younger brother for persistence.

; )

 

[Tiny]

the scarlet letter ...uuumm...no.
Im not sure if I should include it or not because I didnt get 12 pages
into it before I gave up. Its like the Jane Austen and Tess of the Vanderbuilts
...to me. yawn.

 

[Dr V]

Dostoyevsky. Thomas Pynchon (is he a classic? not sure). Everyone else I am/was glad to read at some time or another.

 

[sam peebles]

Sure, Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow is a modern classic.

For my part, I couldn't stand:
On the Road - would not take another ride
The Fountainhead - greed good, altruism bad
A Separate Peace - 'nough said
The Scarlett Pimpernel - definitely NOT the progenitor of MY superheroes
Strange in a Strange Land - awesome set-up, disappointing follow-through

In regards to the Bible, Homer Simpson always had a quote I loved:
"Oh, everything's too damn expensive these days. Look at this Bible I bought--fifteen bucks! And talk about a preachy book! Everyone's a sinner..." Points at a page in the book. "...except for this guy."

That's all I can of right now off the top of my head.

 

[Tery]

The Fountainhead - greed good, altruism bad

Good call. Add Atlas Shrugged to the list for the same reason.

I found Dracula to be boring and wordy.

 

[Doc Creed]

I couldn't finish An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser. Dry and lusterless.

 

[doowopgirl]

This reminded me of the Seinfeld episode where George asks Jerry to get his books back from his (George's) ex-girlfriend and Jerry wonders aloud why people read books more than once: "Actually, the second time you read Moby Dick, Ahab and the whale become good friends."

Of course there are reasons to re-read. Maybe you missed something. Maybe you're worried that everyone else is "getting" something that you're not. Maybe you really want to like it and you think it will grow on you. I've read more than one King story that grabbed me better the second time, although I confess I have not gone back for thirds on those that didn't.

Maybe we should be praising carrier's younger brother for persistence.

; )

I read Moby Dick once and never, ever again. There are reasons to re read books you like, but not if you don't. There are too many books you like to spend time on ones you don't.

 

[Pucker]

I read Moby Dick once and never, ever again. There are reasons to re read books you like, but not if you don't. There are too many books you like to spend time on ones you don't.

Well now, see ...

Moby Dick is a good example of a story I like that is not necessarily easy to read. And you're certainly right about there being too many stories and not enough time.

 

[Neesy]

I agree. (how boring of me ).

I must admit that Gerald's Game has never really jumped out at me for that precise reason. Don't get me wrong, I'd give it a go, but it's just not going to be in my to be read pile until I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Weird how I liked the girl who loved Tom Gordon isn't it?

That's true. Will you be getting The Bazaar of Bad Dreams? I have asked Santa for it, and I might get it (even if I was a naughty girl).

Spoiler

I hope hubby buys it for me - last year he bought me Carrie, as he knew it was one book I did not own!