Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Can those of you who read a lot of extremely sad books explain why? Truly curious, as I really avoid them like the plague. I don't like sacharrine romance novels, but I don't purposely pick books that I know will make me cry through the whole thing either.
I don't purposely pick them either. And it's not what people are implying on this thread. They're just naming the saddest books they've read
You shouldn't avoid books that have sadness -- you're missing some of the best fiction in literature. And, as a plus, it makes you a more empathetic human being.
I think some people are actually implying that. One person said "sometimes you just need a weeper". Some posters have multiple sad books they can post, whereas it's a bit harder for me to name multiple ones since I don't enjoy reading them. I don't avoid books that have sad parts, but I do avoid books are wholly said--tearjerkers, so to speak. Some movies are like that, too. I don't enjoy it, and there is a lot of great literature out there that isn't that way.
I've read "Of Mice and Men" and "To Kill a Mockingbird", both of which are great and sad--but are not written purely to tug at hearstrings. "My Sister's Keeper", on the other hand, is. I think it's one literary rung above a Harlequin romance. Of course, YMMV.

I think for a lot of people what makes a book or a movie or whatever "good" is that it makes you feel something. It represents some aspect pg the human condition and connects you to it.
Sadness gives depth to other emotions, just watch inside out!
Sometimes im feeling down and need to connect with sadness, sometimes im feeling funny and need to connect to humor.
I'm the pp who cried for an hour after reading the outsiders. I was a teenager in a tough home situation that, despite being a wealthy white girl, connected pretty deeply to the characters because I felt like an outsider myself.
You read to connect to humanity and to feel a part of something bigger.