s/o Literature you hate and why

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lord of the Rings was painful to read

This. Also The Hobbit. I couldn't even get through the first chapter.

I tried to re-read LOTR last summer. I couldn't do it. It sucks so much.

I like genre fiction. I can't take Tolkein, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+2. Anything by Hemingway

Everything by Hemingway? Really

What about the short stories? "Hills Like White Elephants" and "A Clean Well Lighted Place" are devastating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Old Man and the Sea. It was so boring. Man sits in boat. And sits some more. Still sitting. Finally catches a huge fish and sharks eat it. Then end.

+678

[Anonymous]

Jane Austen novels

How many times can you tell basically the same story -- intelligent woman of modest means with silly mother ends up married to wealthy but introverted man she originally didn't like.

[Anonymous]

OMG. Old Man and the Sea. So dreadfully boring.

[Anonymous]

Ok, a few

Lolita. OVERRATED!

100 years of Solitude. More like, 1,000,000 years of sucky boredom.

I'm a big sci-fi / fantasy fan. could not read Lord of the Rings. Just couldn't do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anything Jane Austen (Ugh I was forced to read way too much of that.) The Brothers Karamazov. BORING.

Jane Austen does nothing for me either, but don't hate on Brothers Karamazov! If I recall, you get sucked in around 300 pages.

[Anonymous]

Jane Austen did not tell the same story each time. Emma was wealthy, etc. Wrong!

from a Jane Austen fan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1984

For years I heard it proclaimed as great literature and something that will really make you think.

No way. It's an ok story but the themes and concepts are so simple.

It was published in 1949 and sparked the whole idea of Big Brother is watching you. You've heard of things referred to as "Orwellian," haven't you? Pretty impressive for something so simple.

Yes, I get the reference. Yes, I get that people think it's super impressive.

And I still think it's an ok story with simple themes and concepts. And I sincerely hope you understand that before that phrase was coined and since the beginning of civilization people have understand and believed the concept of big brother watching. The idea just didn't occur in 1949....

Really since the beginning of civilization? You mean people thought Zeus or Ra was watching them? I think you're overestimating how long this concept has been around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jane Austen novels

How many times can you tell basically the same story -- intelligent woman of modest means with silly mother ends up married to wealthy but introverted man she originally didn't like.

Emma and Anne (from Persuasion) were wealthy and both their mothers were dead. They also like the extroverts.

I don't think you've actually read Austen. Watching the movies don't count.

[Anonymous]

Roth:
Can't write a multi-diminutional woman to save his life...or refuses. He's a wanker. (Never would have used that word had I not read it in the thread).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I despise James Joyce's Ulysses. It's a self-indulgent wankfest and a shitstain on human history. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes...everyone standing around declaring it brilliant and falling all over themselves to praise its profundity when it's really just a garbled crapfest.

Agree, total wankery. Also, Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The worst was Billy Budd. Ponderous.

For me I think, I didn't understand the motivation of the characters because at the time our teacher never really discussed the homo-erotic theme. And I was 14 and I didn't really even know what that was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ulysses hater here. Also, I loathe The Prairie by James Fenimore Cooper. Pages and pages and pages of describing. grass. describing. grass. Watching to grow is more engaging.

I'm sure, like a PP above, someone can claim that there is something profound about the human condition buried within it. Buried, buried, buried, smothered in thousand of unnecessary words about grass. Like the alleged value of Ulysses, buried underneath layers and layers of sloppy allusions and hundreds of pages of self-indulgent wankery.

Your use of the word "wankery" really takes away from your commentary, fyi.

I'm not pp, but how does it take away from it? It describes perfectly the receptive, masturbatory voice of the self involved style of the character and the excruciating self awareness and self congratulatory of the writers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read the pages so not sure if this has been mentioned but Confederacy of Dunces was the biggest piece of shit I've ever read. I'm shocked I finished it. No wonder nobody would publish when the author was alive. I'm sure he was a great guy, but his book is fucking terrible.

I thought Confederacy of Dunces was hilarious.