It's a good book judged by the objective standards of the Western Canon.
Ok... compared to Shakespeare its crap, compared to Dickens its crap, compared to Hemingway its crap, compared to JK Rowlings its crap, compared to Ovid its crap, compared to F. Scott Fitzgerald its crap, compared to Ayn Rand... its ok.
Ok... compared to Shakespeare its crap, compared to Dickens its crap, compared to Hemingway its crap, compared to JK Rowlings its crap, compared to Ovid its crap, compared to F. Scott Fitzgerald its crap, compared to Ayn Rand... its ok.
If that's your argument, it fails. You're still in the personal preference zone. If you don't like it, fine. But if you want to prove it's objectively bad, you'll have to do some actual comparison and contrast.
BTW, what are JK Rowlings and Ayn Rand doing in that list? Are you suggesting that they are similar to the other authors in the list? If so, that might very well be your problem.
I hardly ever read bad books of my own accord because I cease reading immediately if a book doesn't catch my interest within the first few pages. Usually, the only way I'll ever hate a book is if it's forced upon my as a school assignment, and, even then, I usually just read the wikipedia article. The only time in recent memory where I actually got angry at a book isA Series of Unfortunate Events 13, and not because it was poorly written, or boring or anything, but because it didn't solve any of the mysteries presented in the previous 12 novels.
Now, you were warned the entire series that it would not end well.
Seriously, the most tiresome series has to be The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan. First, the author is a dick. He thinks he's smarter than everyone else and shows it through his writing. Second, it never fucking goes anywhere. 12 books and no real conclusions. I enjoyed the first one, put up with the second one, read 3-9 out of some strange feeling of obligation and then when I heard the series was going on to 13-ish books I put down book ten and haven't opened it. Reading Robert Jordan made me a better writer by understanding how frustratingly stupid one can make characters.
War and Fucking Peace. I started it several months ago, have read about 50 pages and read at least a dozen other books. The shenanigans of Russian aristocrats could have potential, but god damn it is boring.
Ethan Fromewas a great book. I'll admit, there are no Pokemons and there are no internets, but if you'd actually read the book, you'd find that it contains a truly great, tragic story.
I think about it often. I'm not kidding. I actually think about it a lot, especially when I'm depressed or when I wish that I could have something that I can't have. When I was young, I identified with Ethan, since he wants so desperately to leave his rural home and go somewhere to study engineering.
WhenZena, Warrior Princesswas on TV, I couldn't hear the name "Zena" without thinking of "Zeena" fromEthan Frome.
Ethan Frome was slow, poorly written, and largely pointless. It was a story about a sucky man with a sucky life who lacked the courage to do anything about it, and tried to take the coward's way out. Any random Steinbeck novel is just as dark, but also contains a greater message.
If that's your argument, it fails. You're still in the personal preference zone. If you don't like it, fine. But if you want to prove it's objectively bad, you'll have to do some actual comparison and contrast.
BTW, what are JK Rowlings and Ayn Rand doing in that list? Are you suggesting that they are similar to the other authors in the list? If so, that might very well be your problem.
You said western canon, so I named people in it. JK Rowlings is there to show that even though Harry Potter is bad, Ethan Frome is worse. And even Ayn Rand, although painful to read most of the time, is at least has some redeeming qualities.
And that's not my argument, I made my argument before. And again its your personal preference, you are the one that said, "this book helped me whenever I've felt depressed enough to actually wonder about suicide. I've never thought about it seriously, and a large part of the reason why is that I don't want to end up like Ethan." That sounds like a personal preference towards the book if there ever was one.
My argument with this book is that it has no redeeming qualities. It is a poorly written story, a story that is poorly contrived, and is full of poorly created characters. It is a book that had no business being written, let alone published.
Ethan Fromewas slow, poorly written, and largely pointless. It was a story about a sucky man with a sucky life who lacked the courage to do anything about it, and tried to take the coward's way out. Any random Steinbeck novel is just as dark, but also contains a greater message.
You said western canon, so I named people in it. JK Rowlings is there to show that even though Harry Potter is bad, Ethan Frome is worse. And even Ayn Rand, although painful to read most of the time, is at least has some redeeming qualities.
And that's not my argument, I made my argument before.
Just because an author lives in the Western Hemisphere does not mean that they are included in the Western Canon. Look all you want, and I'll bet you won't find anyone who thinks Rowling is canonical.
Your "argument" about Ethan Frome is
It starts off weird, and I figured it would get better as it went along, but it just got worse and worse until the end when it reached a level of horrid unseen by even Uwe Boll.
and
All I have to say to prove that its a horrid horrid book is that he tries to kill himself by sledding, on snow, into a tree. A tree! I'm sorry but I can't feel remorse for stupid people/characters, regardless of how tragic their life is, especially when its their own damn fault.
and
It would have been a better story if he hadn't been a wuss for the entire book, unable to decide between his wife who is "sick," and wanting to run off with her nurse. Obviously his wife isn't exactly the best person for him, but come on, the entire book is just him mopping around unable to make any sort of decision. And when he finally does, it involves killing himself in the stupidest way possible. Had they actually killed themselves (in a better way as well,) it still would have been stupid, just not as stupid.
It would have been better if they had at least run off together, maybe then there is some sort of accident which leads to the same outcome as appears in the last chapter. Then at least there would be a really nice tragic irony to the end. The only thing really tragic about the book is having to read it.
None of these are literary arguments or criticisms. They are conclusions based on your personal preference. As I said before, if you don't like the book for personal reasons, that's fine; but don't call your bald conclusions arguments. Your personal opinion is not an argument and your personal opinion does not make it a bad book.
Note - Look through Bloom's canon. He considers Ethan Frome canonical. Rowling is oddly absent from his list.
Ethan Frome is the most actually bad book I've ever had to read.
Scared Stiff is the most awesomely bad book I've ever had to read because it is about three kids who stop a trailer park smuggling ring next to abandoned amusement park with pirates who were also smugglers.
I can't believe I've had to argue with someone over the fact that Ethan Frome is a bad book.
I don't know who Bloom is, but if its in there its either a joke, or he subscribes to the idea that you need to see how bad things can be before you can really appreciate something good. Most likely the later.
I can't believe I've had to argue with someone over the fact that Ethan Frome is a bad book.
I don't know who Bloom is . . .
If you'll read back, I think the actual argument is more about whether you've advanced an argument or not. You said that the reason I like the book was that I have a personal connection to it. I said that you dislike the book because you find it personally distasteful. The you said that you had made these arguments that proved it was bad. You didn't. You simply didn't. You proved that you don't like it, but you haven't proved it was a bad book.
Once again, if you'd admit that you don't like it as a matter of personal preference, just as you say I do like it as a matter of personal preference, there's no argument at all. There's no reason that you should like it just because I like it. However, your opinion doesn't make it a bad book. For instance, I don't particularly like Keats, but that doesn't make him a bad poet and it doesn't subtract from the importance of his work.
Ethan Frome is generally thought to have earned a place in the Western Canon because it is good enough to have had a significant impact on western thought. If you want to prove it is not as good as many have thought up until now, and especially if you want to prove that it is bad, you have an extraordinary burden of proof. If you merely wish to say, "I didn't like it", then say it and move on.
Maybe if you'd take the time to learn about Harold Bloom, you would develop a better taste in books.
I'm ashamed to admit it, but I almost stopped reading the first Lord of the Rings book half way, it bored me to tears, but I'm glad I carried on in the end.
Apart from that I don't think I have read any "bad books" Maybe I'm just being close minded in my choice of books, or maybe I'm just lucky
I do hate the book, which may be personal preference but its built on a foundation of the fact that it is a horrible book. I'm not the only one that thinks so, five other people just in this thread say so, I've talked to two of my friends from high school (both smarter then me, which I hate to admit,) and they both agree it was a terrible book. And from the Wiki, "The novel has been viewed negatively by some critics, such as Lionel Trilling, as lacking in moral or ethical significance." Which is what I've been saying, the book has no point, which goes into the whole its poorly written.
From what I remember from reading it, a lot of the book doesn't make sense. I mean that the relationship between Ethan and Mattie, never seems to develop to the point where the suicide pact makes sense. It seemed that throughout the entire book Ethan obviously has his lust for Mattie, which he can never fulfill, while Mattie just seems to enjoy his company when they do things together. I never got the sense of Mattie really falling in love with him. So when he suddenly admits his feelings, it makes no sense for her to suddenly be in love with him there. It was as if his admittance of it, made her fall in love with him, and that's bullshit and would never happen. But then of course she's suddenly so much in love that they make a suicide pact, which is ridiculous given that she's suddenly gone insane with love for him after never showing anymore interest in him more then a friend.
And there is no point to the book, you get nothing out of reading it. It doesn't try say anything beyond the book itself. There is nothing deeper about it that one can read into, it merely is. There is no message in this book, no significance, no forced retrospective on ourselves. The closest thing it comes to any of that is a don't attempt suicide by sledding into a tree message, although that seems kind of obvious to begin with.
At least you're actually putting forth some argument now.
Just a few things:
The book was written in 1911, People didn't go around saying "I lerv you, I would die 4 u", etc. at the drop of a hat. I think a better criticism is how does the narrator know all this stuff? He's not supposed to be an omniscient narrator. He's learning things as he goes along, but he knows Mattie's innermost feelings from twenty years ago without ever having met her.
As to the point - you can read many books on a level that strips them of their significance. If you wanted to, you could say, "That stupid Animal Farm - It's just a stupid fairy story. I didn't get anything out of it. Animals don't talk!", or "That stupid Hamlet - He can never make up his mind about anything and everyone gets killed in a stupid way. Claudius doesn't do anything when Gertrude drinks the poison. How stupid is that?"
I notice you're pretty passionate about this book. Could it be that you've been moved by it? Could it be possible that you actually really like it?
Wow. I can't believe how much hate Harry Potter is getting here. Personally, I love those books to death. They are my favourite books by a longshot, and you can shoot me for it if you want, but I won't budge on that. Those books turned my life around, they did.
Now, if you want to read a bad book, try this one: The Five People You Meet in Heaven by Mitch Albom. Good idea, horrible execution. I just wanted to throw it away before I even got halfway through. I was forced to finish it though - had to do a book report on it.
Hum, I want to say the first Slayers light novel (as much a book as it may or may not be) but that had more to do with the fact that I have largely been used to reading books with 3rd person narrative more than the underlying issues with the book (as bad as Tokyopop's handling of most of not all of their LN's have been).
The Great Gatsby was painfully stupid and written so dully that even when I watched the movie after reading the book with the hope I had 'missed something' I couldn't find any redeeming qualities in the plot.
I also have beef with Cather In The Rye. and I know some people will disagree. But I simply couldn't enjoy several hundred pages of Holden bitching about how everyone was a phoney and how much he liked his little sister. Seriously, that book could be told in a chapter with better effect.
I don't see how someone can say Gatsby was dully written. I could see it not being interesting for the subject matter or not being liked. But dully written?
Also, I'd like to mention Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series as being absolutely terrible. It fails in basically every way. It's full of pointless ultraviolence, it's full of rape and attempted rape, the heroes are terrible people (although the author portrays them as heroes), and it's essentially a way for the author to disseminate his objectivist political beliefs. My favorite parts are when the hero kills peaceful protesters who are "armed only with their hatred for moral clarity" and the female protagonist encounters with a chicken that is not a chicken, but an incarnation of evil.
The absolute worst part of this is that the author takes it totally seriously, and bitches out anyone who calls it a fantasy novel (which it is). There is absolutely no humor in any part of it. This is a pretty good rundown of how terrible it is.
Wow, from what I've read of that, it sounds like the worst book imaginable.
I personally loved both Catcher in the Rye and The Great Gatsby. They're written well. Some people might not enjoy the subject matter, just as I don't enjoy the subjects/writing of Charles Dickens, but that doesn't mean Dickens is a terrible author.
I tried to read Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson because I liked Snow Crash, and that book is terribly dull. I like the idea of a book set in that era, but it is just impossible to get through.
I tried to readQuicksilverby Neal Stephenson because I likedSnow Crash, and that book is terribly dull. I like the idea of a book set in that era, but it is just impossible to get through.
I really loved that trilogy, but I do agree: it's ridiculously long, and really hard to get into. I found it worth it, in the end, but only barely.
I would have probably thought Of mice and men was only mildly lame if I hadn't had to spend so much time writing essays on the damn thing. PS, Does this italics thing also apply to anime and the suchlike in the rest of the forum?
I would have probably thoughtOf mice and menwas only mildly lame if I hadn't had to spend so much time writing essays on the damn thing. PS, Does this italics thing also apply to anime and the suchlike in the rest of the forum?
Of Mice and Men was the only book that I have ever read that made me cry while I was reading it. If you've read the book, you should know why. If not, its really short so just go read it so you can feel like a wussy too.
So you guys don't like The Great Gatsby, Catcher in the Rye, or Of Mice and Men? Does a book have to feature tiny little japanese girls (or tiny little effeminate japanese boys) with ninja powers who pilot giant sword wielding robots before you're interested?
So you guys don't likeThe Great Gatsby,Catcher in the Rye, orOf Mice and Men? Does a book have to feature tiny little japanese girls (or tiny little effeminate japanese boys) with ninja powers who pilot giant sword wielding robots before you're interested?
No, it just can't have a whiny main character who I don't care about.
Comments
BTW, what are JK Rowlings and Ayn Rand doing in that list? Are you suggesting that they are similar to the other authors in the list? If so, that might very well be your problem.
Seriously, the most tiresome series has to be The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan. First, the author is a dick. He thinks he's smarter than everyone else and shows it through his writing. Second, it never fucking goes anywhere. 12 books and no real conclusions. I enjoyed the first one, put up with the second one, read 3-9 out of some strange feeling of obligation and then when I heard the series was going on to 13-ish books I put down book ten and haven't opened it. Reading Robert Jordan made me a better writer by understanding how frustratingly stupid one can make characters.
Except The Pearl. Fuck that novella.
And that's not my argument, I made my argument before. And again its your personal preference, you are the one that said, "this book helped me whenever I've felt depressed enough to actually wonder about suicide. I've never thought about it seriously, and a large part of the reason why is that I don't want to end up like Ethan." That sounds like a personal preference towards the book if there ever was one.
My argument with this book is that it has no redeeming qualities. It is a poorly written story, a story that is poorly contrived, and is full of poorly created characters. It is a book that had no business being written, let alone published. Thank you.
Your "argument" about Ethan Frome is and and None of these are literary arguments or criticisms. They are conclusions based on your personal preference. As I said before, if you don't like the book for personal reasons, that's fine; but don't call your bald conclusions arguments. Your personal opinion is not an argument and your personal opinion does not make it a bad book.
Note - Look through Bloom's canon. He considers Ethan Frome canonical. Rowling is oddly absent from his list.
Scared Stiff is the most awesomely bad book I've ever had to read because it is about three kids who stop a trailer park smuggling ring next to abandoned amusement park with pirates who were also smugglers.
I don't know who Bloom is, but if its in there its either a joke, or he subscribes to the idea that you need to see how bad things can be before you can really appreciate something good. Most likely the later.
Once again, if you'd admit that you don't like it as a matter of personal preference, just as you say I do like it as a matter of personal preference, there's no argument at all. There's no reason that you should like it just because I like it. However, your opinion doesn't make it a bad book. For instance, I don't particularly like Keats, but that doesn't make him a bad poet and it doesn't subtract from the importance of his work.
Ethan Frome is generally thought to have earned a place in the Western Canon because it is good enough to have had a significant impact on western thought. If you want to prove it is not as good as many have thought up until now, and especially if you want to prove that it is bad, you have an extraordinary burden of proof. If you merely wish to say, "I didn't like it", then say it and move on.
Maybe if you'd take the time to learn about Harold Bloom, you would develop a better taste in books.
Apart from that I don't think I have read any "bad books"
Maybe I'm just being close minded in my choice of books, or maybe I'm just lucky
From what I remember from reading it, a lot of the book doesn't make sense. I mean that the relationship between Ethan and Mattie, never seems to develop to the point where the suicide pact makes sense. It seemed that throughout the entire book Ethan obviously has his lust for Mattie, which he can never fulfill, while Mattie just seems to enjoy his company when they do things together. I never got the sense of Mattie really falling in love with him. So when he suddenly admits his feelings, it makes no sense for her to suddenly be in love with him there. It was as if his admittance of it, made her fall in love with him, and that's bullshit and would never happen. But then of course she's suddenly so much in love that they make a suicide pact, which is ridiculous given that she's suddenly gone insane with love for him after never showing anymore interest in him more then a friend.
And there is no point to the book, you get nothing out of reading it. It doesn't try say anything beyond the book itself. There is nothing deeper about it that one can read into, it merely is. There is no message in this book, no significance, no forced retrospective on ourselves. The closest thing it comes to any of that is a don't attempt suicide by sledding into a tree message, although that seems kind of obvious to begin with.
Just a few things:
The book was written in 1911, People didn't go around saying "I lerv you, I would die 4 u", etc. at the drop of a hat. I think a better criticism is how does the narrator know all this stuff? He's not supposed to be an omniscient narrator. He's learning things as he goes along, but he knows Mattie's innermost feelings from twenty years ago without ever having met her.
As to the point - you can read many books on a level that strips them of their significance. If you wanted to, you could say, "That stupid Animal Farm - It's just a stupid fairy story. I didn't get anything out of it. Animals don't talk!", or "That stupid Hamlet - He can never make up his mind about anything and everyone gets killed in a stupid way. Claudius doesn't do anything when Gertrude drinks the poison. How stupid is that?"
I notice you're pretty passionate about this book. Could it be that you've been moved by it? Could it be possible that you actually really like it?
Now, if you want to read a bad book, try this one: The Five People You Meet in Heaven by Mitch Albom. Good idea, horrible execution. I just wanted to throw it away before I even got halfway through. I was forced to finish it though - had to do a book report on it.
I also have beef with Cather In The Rye. and I know some people will disagree. But I simply couldn't enjoy several hundred pages of Holden bitching about how everyone was a phoney and how much he liked his little sister. Seriously, that book could be told in a chapter with better effect.
Also, I'd like to mention Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series as being absolutely terrible. It fails in basically every way. It's full of pointless ultraviolence, it's full of rape and attempted rape, the heroes are terrible people (although the author portrays them as heroes), and it's essentially a way for the author to disseminate his objectivist political beliefs. My favorite parts are when the hero kills peaceful protesters who are "armed only with their hatred for moral clarity" and the female protagonist encounters with a chicken that is not a chicken, but an incarnation of evil.
The absolute worst part of this is that the author takes it totally seriously, and bitches out anyone who calls it a fantasy novel (which it is). There is absolutely no humor in any part of it. This is a pretty good rundown of how terrible it is.
I personally loved both Catcher in the Rye and The Great Gatsby. They're written well. Some people might not enjoy the subject matter, just as I don't enjoy the subjects/writing of Charles Dickens, but that doesn't mean Dickens is a terrible author.
PS, Does this italics thing also apply to anime and the suchlike in the rest of the forum?