No, it just can't have a whiny main character who I don't care about.
And how is any ani-may show/manga any different? I mean 99% of the shows have a whiny, bitch-ass, main character.
That's why I only watch the 1% without. Satoshi Kon and Tezuka characters are never little bitches, or at least they don't whine enough to make me hate them the way I hated Holden.
Any book you are forced to read for the sole purpose of writing a boring essay on it. The entire process sucks the life out of even the most interesting books.
I highly recommend re-reading old books you had to write papers on, now that you can do so as a free person. A change in the context often equals a change in the enjoyment levels.
Any book you are forced to read for the sole purpose of writing a boring essay on it. The entire process sucks the life out of even the most interesting books.
I highly recommend re-reading old books you had to write papers on, now that you can do so as a free person. A change in the context often equals a change in the enjoyment levels.
Totally untrue. Of all the books I was forced to read in school over the years, I actually enjoyed most of them.
One of the series of books I hate is th Star Wars Galaxy of fear series. It basically isn't Star Wars. It takes place in the future,in another galaxy,after the jedi are gone. They basically just slapped Star Wars onto a poorly written scifi/kids book. It's not like it's the first time though.
I also really hated Our Town. It just seemed boring and took to long to send the message. It's like the outhor just dicked around for a while and then realized he had to write a message, so he just added it to the end.
The Galaxy of Fear books were fun when I was a kid - not saying it was good, but it was basically taking the Goosebumps series, already popular with kids, and adding Star Wars, which just made it much more entertaining. If you're an adult, for god's sake, don't read them. Why would you do that to yourself?
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?
I haven't read the first two yet, but Of Mice and Men was a really good book.
I don't read books about japanese girls or giant robots; they have a massive tendency to be stupid. I do have a certain fondness for High Middle Ages-esque settings, and currently I'm reading A Song of Ice and Fire, but I have to say, for some of the praise I've seen them given, I don't think they're particularly good. They're long and shiny with some awesome and unexpected characters, but under the surface it's like there's nothing there.
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?
I read all three in sophomore of hs and I liked Gatsby and Of Mice and Men. The only i can see for still readin Catcher in the Rye is to understand the feeling of the fifties and understand history better. Honestly I would suggest Slaughter House 5 by Kurt Vonnegut. It's a really good look at American society and is a major anti-war book of the 1960s.
Sadly, the American public school curriculum has destroyed any amount of affection I would otherwise have had for a number of classic books. My 12th grade Lit class spent two months on Hamlet. By the time we were though I was so sick of critical analysis of that play, that I honestly would be fine never encountering Hamlet again in my life. The specific works ruined seem to vary greatly among my similarly-aged friends, but we can all point at least one classic that we've been soured on mostly because we had to read and analyze it in school.
For my contribution to this thread, I'd like to warn off anyone from reading the Sword of Truth series. In addition to some seriously awful writing, the plot is basically a Ayn Rand fanfiction set in a fairly boring fantasy land with lots of gratuitous S&M. Here is a pretty good list of problems with the series.
can understand (sort of) not likingThe Great Gatsby, butCatcher in the RyeandOf Mice and Menare excellent books.
I still can't standEthan Frome.
While I agree that The Great Gatsby is indeed a terrible book, I have to disagree with you about Catcher in the Rye. I think Catcher in the Rye (or anything by J.D. Salinger for that matter) was a terrible book. My reasons for disliking the book are that I really don't like the pessimistic way Holden looks at almost everything and everybody. I also don't think there was much to the story either, it was just a bunch of misadventures that are connected to each other. But that's just my opinion, feel free to disagree with me if you want to as my opinion won't change.
Of Mice and Men is my favorite book of all time. I have read it probably four times in the last 3 years. I have seen both film adaptions which I think are excellent by the way (I prefer Lewis Milestone's version over Gary Sinise's version).
Sadly, the American public school curriculum has destroyed any amount of affection I would otherwise have had for a number of classic books. My 12th grade Lit class spent two months on Hamlet. By the time we were though I was so sick of critical analysis of that play, that I honestly would be fine never encountering Hamlet again in my life. The specific works ruined seem to vary greatly among my similarly-aged friends, but we can all point at least one classic that we've been soured on mostly because we had to read and analyze it in school.
For my contribution to this thread, I'd like to warn off anyone from reading the Sword of Truth series. In addition to some seriously awful writing, the plot is basically a Ayn Rand fanfiction set in a fairly boring fantasy land with lots of gratuitous S&M.;Hereis a pretty good list of problems with the series.
I completely understand not liking Hamlet. Last year (11th) we spent the entire 3rd marking period on Hamlet and had to figure out what his problem is. I think it may have something to do with the teacher. If they have a passion for the work I think the student may have a similar feeling towards to book. It is also the problem that every who reads the book has to do some large research paper on the book. This will cause hatred for the book.
The irony of teaching Hamlet and the greatness of it is that everyone who takes the AP Literurature and Composition eam writes about Hamlet and the readers don't want to read it anymore so they may give a lower score do to this.
Catcher in the Rye, Of Mice and Men, Brave New World, and Our Town I all enjoyed quite a bit. I did not, however, enjoy the surrounding busy work or the essays we were forced to write. I think it is important to distance the book from the schoolwork in terms of enjoyment.
Honestly I would suggest Slaughter House 5 by Kurt Vonnegut.
Slaughterhouse 5 is one of my personal favorites. Another book I am extremely fond of is Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. I tend to be more of a SciFi gal than a fantasy fan (although I like both) and although there is tons of cruddy SciFi out there, there are some gems that provide a lot of social commentary.
Oh and Joe? If you changed all instances of "pig" to "pokemon" in A Day No Pigs would Die you would get the most gruesome story of a pokemon trainer ever. Pokemon graphically mating and the detailed description of their butchery. Dunno if that would appeal to us kids.
can understand (sort of) not likingThe Great Gatsby, butCatcher in the RyeandOf Mice and Menare excellent books..
While I agree thatThe Great Gatsbyis indeed a terrible book, I have to disagree with you aboutCatcher in the Rye. I thinkCatcher in the Rye(or anything by J.D. Salinger for that matter) was a terrible book. My reasons for disliking the book are that I really don't like the pessimistic way Holden looks at almost everything and everybody. I also don't think there was much to the story either, it was just a bunch of misadventures that are connected to each other. But that's just my opinion, feel free to disagree with me if you want to as my opinion won't change.
Disliking the protagonist does not make the book bad. Yeah, Holden speaks very pessimistically, but what's wrong with that? It's part of his character. Some people are like that. Why does that make the book worse?
Furthermore, what's wrong with a story being a sequence of connected events? That's pretty much what a story is, and as long as it reveals the character (as it does) there's nothing wrong with it.
Finally, I don't think TheWhaleShark would say that Gatsby is a terrible book, and I'd like to hear why you think it is.
Bad books. Any cursed book labeled (modern) literature on the reading lists for Dutch. For real, all the books dealt with at least one of the following: Death, angst, lost unknown family members, bullying, suicidal teens, deceit and impossible over dramatic love. The only good Dutch books I've ever read were child books about a police dog (called Wolf) when I was a little kid, and one single page describing how wonderful it was for the main character to finally take a dump again. Though I must add that book was written just after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The rest of it was a lot of nothing, with some feints at politics, spies, philosophy and conspiracies.
No, just give me a proper English book dealing with adventure, wit, fun, sci-fi, fantasy and humour. The nitty-gritty pessimist half-ways are nothing.
Is it possible that the kids think these books are bad or that they can't relate to them because the characters make mistakes? Is it possible that they're so warped that they think that, since they obviously can't make mistakes /sarcasm, they can't relate to characters who do?
I think it is just that they like escapism better than they like verbose and depressing studies of characters with real world problems. I know that while I like reading the occasional classic work of literature, I need to temper it with speculative fiction, to relax reading about places I want to see and people I want to be. I think many people just don't find putting themselves into such character's emotional worlds as enjoyable. As for myself I enjoy certain writers and playwrights like Albee, Arthur Miller, and Tenessee Williams because 1. I can enjoy the writing and dialogue in the same way someone enjoys a masterfully executed painting - for the excellent technique. and 2. Because it provides a way to see into the emotional life of people who are troubled in ways I am not. I do not so much relate to the characters as hold a sort of sympathetic fascination with them. Maybe this is the central problem with people on the forum disliking works such as "Catcher in the Rye." (But what teenager can't relate to that book at least a little bit?) They don't want to fantasize about being Holden, therefore it loses their interest. I think this is the reason why action movie blockbusters make more money than films all about subtle character drama. It's not "fun" enough and on top of that, it's harder to understand.
The worst book I have ever read is Therese Raquin, a book from the 18th century originally in french. It starts out ok, the first half is interesting. But then it starts to go downhill. The book spends literally 50 pages about how depressed they were and how they were living in such mental anguish. I read 30 pages, skimmed another twenty, and I put away the book without finishing it. The only thing I missed was the ending, which I learned about from my classmates. I understand the nature of the book, how it's based on naturalism as well as being a book for 19th century culture, but when the class has a unanimous decision that it is boring a chore to read, it makes you wonder how the english department thought it would be a great book to read during the summer.
Edit: I also just remembered about the very sexual nature of the book. It's a romance story about an afair, and there is just so many implications of sex that at one point, once of the characters started talking about the cat, and warning bells went off in my brain. Thank god there was no bestiality, it seemed like a very real possibility. In reality, the main character just wanted the cat to watch them having sex, so as to be the only soul to know their secret.
When I read Catcher in the Rye, the whole time I was pretty much thinking "fuck this asshole". Didn't enjoy it at all. Maybe if I'd read it a few years earlier, when I was still a whiny, pessimistic teenager. I thought Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar, which is often lumped in with Catcher in the Rye, was a lot better.
I'm re-reading Snow Crash. While I really enjoyed it the first time, and it still has a lot of interesting ideas, it's a pretty poorly written book. Entire chapters are pure exposition, and the dialogue is cringe-inducing.
One book I hate is The Grapes of Wrath. It is so fucking slow and boring. The writer takes way to much time to explain everything and the story isn't that great either. It's books like this that make people not want to read.
One book I hate is The Grapes of Wrath. It is so fucking slow and boring. The writer takes way to much time to explain everything and the story isn't that great either. It's books like this that make people not want to read.
Yeah, Steinbeck sucked. That's why he won the Nobel Prize for Literature. He was such a bad writer.
Yeah, Steinbeck sucked. That's why he won the Nobel Prize for Literature. He was such a bad writer.
I'm not saying I don't like Steinbeck, Of mice and men was great, I'm just saying that I didn't like The Grapes of Wrath. Just because something is given praise by someone doesn't mean it is good. It is an entirely subjective matter. To other people it is a good book, but to me it isn't. I'm not saying that no one should enjoy this book, I just believe that books like this shouldn't be taught in schools because many students already don't read much, so when they read something as slow as this it turns them off to reading.
So, what are some good books, in your opinion?
Anything by Douglas Adams, Fahrenheit 451, To Kill a Mockingbird, House of leaves, The Prince of Nothing.
Yeah, Steinbeck sucked. That's why he won the Nobel Prize for Literature. He was such a bad writer.
I'm not saying I don't like Steinbeck, Of mice and men was great, I'm just saying that I didn't like The Grapes of Wrath. Just because something is given praise by someone doesn't mean it is good. It is an entirely subjective matter. To other people it is a good book, but to me it isn't. I'm not saying that no one should enjoy this book, I just believe that books like this shouldn't be taught in schools because many students already don't read much, so when they read something as slow as this it turns them off to reading.
Well, if quick and easy reading is your preferred criteria for assigned texts, maybe we should juts have kids read Harry Potter meets My Little Pony. That would be good wouldn't it? I mean, if a book's value is entirely subjective, as you say, then J.K. Rowling is just as good as Douglas Adams, who is just as good as Hemingway, who is just as good as Shakespeare.
Oh, and I'm sorry, but even if such things are entirely subjective, I'm more likely to trust the judgment of the Nobel Committee over yours any day.
I totally don't understand people's beefs with the books that are assigned in school. It is extremely rare that I am assigned a book in which I can find nothing to enjoy. In fact, I can't think of even one instance. Generally, if a school decides to teach it then there is something to like about it.
The list of books I've stopped reading just because they didn't keep my attention is longer (I don't have much time to read, so if I deign a book unworthy of my time, it gets dumped onto the "revisit later" pile) than the books I consider truly terrible; that being said, here are some of the latter:
The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Good God. Terse, dense, puritanical garbage. I fell asleep in excess of 20 times sophomore year trying to stay awake and plod through this absolute trash.
Ulysses by James Joyce. This book wins the "Dual Nature" book award, because I honestly cannot decide if it's good, or terrible. All I know for sure is that I managed to slog through 112 pages thinking it was excellent before the bizarre, incoherent writing style punched a hole in my language center and I could NOT continue.
Every part of The Chronicles of Narnia when viewed from the Christian perspective. Read as fantasy books with NO religious pretext, they're passable and entertaining for children...That being said, once you realize that everything happening to the kids is decided based on their adherence to orthodoxy, the books become rather disgusting, ESPECIALLY in the later volumes. SPOILERS: children should NOT be killed in train crashes by a "benevolent God" when they're on the cusp of losing their innocence just so that they go to heaven. Especially in a children's book.
I mean, if a book's value is entirely subjective, as you say, then J.K. Rowling is just as good as Douglas Adams, who is just as good as Hemingway, who is just as good as Shakespeare.
They've all contributed to literature in their own way. I will not say that Rowling's writing is necessarily as "good" as Shakespeare's, but you can't deny the impact that Rowling has had in getting children to read. Once you get them into books, somehow, they'll be more favorably disposed towards reading in general. The Beatles aren't as "good" as Mozart, but they're very important in their own right.
Comments
I highly recommend re-reading old books you had to write papers on, now that you can do so as a free person.
I also really hated Our Town. It just seemed boring and took to long to send the message. It's like the outhor just dicked around for a while and then realized he had to write a message, so he just added it to the end.
I don't read books about japanese girls or giant robots; they have a massive tendency to be stupid. I do have a certain fondness for High Middle Ages-esque settings, and currently I'm reading A Song of Ice and Fire, but I have to say, for some of the praise I've seen them given, I don't think they're particularly good. They're long and shiny with some awesome and unexpected characters, but under the surface it's like there's nothing there.
For my contribution to this thread, I'd like to warn off anyone from reading the Sword of Truth series. In addition to some seriously awful writing, the plot is basically a Ayn Rand fanfiction set in a fairly boring fantasy land with lots of gratuitous S&M. Here is a pretty good list of problems with the series.
I still can't stand Ethan Frome.
Of Mice and Men is my favorite book of all time. I have read it probably four times in the last 3 years. I have seen both film adaptions which I think are excellent by the way (I prefer Lewis Milestone's version over Gary Sinise's version).
The irony of teaching Hamlet and the greatness of it is that everyone who takes the AP Literurature and Composition eam writes about Hamlet and the readers don't want to read it anymore so they may give a lower score do to this.
Oh and Joe? If you changed all instances of "pig" to "pokemon" in A Day No Pigs would Die you would get the most gruesome story of a pokemon trainer ever. Pokemon graphically mating and the detailed description of their butchery. Dunno if that would appeal to us kids.
Furthermore, what's wrong with a story being a sequence of connected events? That's pretty much what a story is, and as long as it reveals the character (as it does) there's nothing wrong with it.
Finally, I don't think TheWhaleShark would say that Gatsby is a terrible book, and I'd like to hear why you think it is.
No, just give me a proper English book dealing with adventure, wit, fun, sci-fi, fantasy and humour. The nitty-gritty pessimist half-ways are nothing.
At least this is my hypothesis.
Edit: I also just remembered about the very sexual nature of the book. It's a romance story about an afair, and there is just so many implications of sex that at one point, once of the characters started talking about the cat, and warning bells went off in my brain. Thank god there was no bestiality, it seemed like a very real possibility. In reality, the main character just wanted the cat to watch them having sex, so as to be the only soul to know their secret.
I'm re-reading Snow Crash. While I really enjoyed it the first time, and it still has a lot of interesting ideas, it's a pretty poorly written book. Entire chapters are pure exposition, and the dialogue is cringe-inducing.
Oh, and I'm sorry, but even if such things are entirely subjective, I'm more likely to trust the judgment of the Nobel Committee over yours any day.
- The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Good God. Terse, dense, puritanical garbage. I fell asleep in excess of 20 times sophomore year trying to stay awake and plod through this absolute trash.
- Ulysses by James Joyce. This book wins the "Dual Nature" book award, because I honestly cannot decide if it's good, or terrible. All I know for sure is that I managed to slog through 112 pages thinking it was excellent before the bizarre, incoherent writing style punched a hole in my language center and I could NOT continue.
- Every part of The Chronicles of Narnia when viewed from the Christian perspective. Read as fantasy books with NO religious pretext, they're passable and entertaining for children...That being said, once you realize that everything happening to the kids is decided based on their adherence to orthodoxy, the books become rather disgusting, ESPECIALLY in the later volumes. SPOILERS: children should NOT be killed in train crashes by a "benevolent God" when they're on the cusp of losing their innocence just so that they go to heaven. Especially in a children's book.
That's it for now. Maybe I'll have more later.Also, Ethan Frome still sucks.