Books only lying poseurs could claim to like

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury... this was likely my own failure. I just couldn't get through the first section, narrated stream of conscious by a developmentally disabled man.

I was going to throw this out there as well. But like you, it's likely my own failure. If it's a failure to want to hurl books that feature stream-of-consciousness narrations that go on for longer than a paragraph or two, that is!

Hell, I get twitchy when whole pages in are in italics. All that implied emphasis just keeps mounting in the form of a visual crescendo with no end in site. Anxiety ensues!!

Probably just me.

I did find moments of enjoyment in Infinite Jest, though. Just not enough for me to say I "enjoyed" the whole book.

[Calenorn]

I was assigned Moby Dick the winter I was in tenth grade. The test was coming up the next day, and I was doomed. That night, a raging blizzard ensured that school would be closed the next day. There I was, snowed in, just me and Moby Dick.

I got a "B" on the test. Even after giving up on the whole thing when I encountered an entire chapter on "The Whiteness of the Whale."

"That whale was SO white...."

HOW ... WHITE ... WAS IT???

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

For me, of the three main qualifications as I saw them, long, difficult, boring, I think a book has to have at least two of them to meet the “lying poseur” level of (dis)likeability. I get The Old Man and the Sea and The Trial and others of that ilk; they’re both difficult and dull enough to make someone look squinty-eyed at a person who said they liked them. Ditto for …and Ladies of the Club; not difficult, but certainly long and boring. But Pride and Prejudice? It’s one thing not to like it; maybe social comedies of manners are not your thing, and it’s compounded by being set two centuries ago. However, you really can’t get that other people might actually like it? That is, a book has to be more than just boring to qualify. There has to be that element of turgidity.

I did read The Old Man in the Sea and it started off OK and got really boring.

I’m not singling out Jon, just a title. I rather agree with him about Infinite Jest, Gravity’s Rainbow, Naked Lunch and Ayn Rand; well chosen. But a book has to be more than just “not to my taste.”

I only put in books that are awful and ones I thought were awful. I know the difference between I didn't like it and it's awful. The problem with a book like Pride and Prejudice is the writing. However, now Pride, Prejudice, and Zombies is something Jane should have written

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

I was assigned Moby Dick the winter I was in tenth grade. The test was coming up the next day, and I was doomed. That night, a raging blizzard ensured that school would be closed the next day. There I was, snowed in, just me and Moby Dick.

I got a "B" on the test. Even after giving up on the whole thing when I encountered an entire chapter on "The Whiteness of the Whale."

"That whale was SO white...."

HOW ... WHITE ... WAS IT???

Tenth grade is too young for Moby Dick! No wonder people hate it.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

However, now Pride, Prejudice, and Zombies is something Jane should have written

Ugh, those 'take a public domain book and insert horror tropes' books were cute for about ten seconds.

[JSWolf]

Another book I read that I thought was just awful is A Passage to India by E. M. Forster. It was awful from the first chapter. The writing is terrible.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

Tenth grade is too young for Moby Dick! No wonder people hate it.

It's also too young for Shakespeare.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by issybird

Tenth grade is too young for Moby Dick! No wonder people hate it.

In junior high I was sentenced to Saturday school for something or other I did. As I was walking in I found a copy of Animal Farm laying in the grass. I picked it up and started reading it as there was no real work requirement in Saturday school. I wound up reading the book the rest of the day and finished it in the evening. It was depressing, but I loved it.

I wonder if it were an assigned book if I would have liked it as much.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It's also too young for Shakespeare.

I really enjoyed our class read of Romeo and Juliet. It helped me to get past what felt like archaic language.

[issybird]

I can think of another couple of authors. Theodore Dreiser certainly leaned to the turgid, even with his best-known books, Sister Carrie and An American Tragedy. No matter, I was quite taken by him when I was in high school and read his entire oeuvre, even the ones no one’s ever heard of. I wouldn’t do it now. Sister Carrie might hold up, but I can’t imagine the rest do.

Another that I suspect hasn’t held up and is unreadable now is Thomas Wolfe. Not Tom, although I suspect a case could be made for his books too, except for The Right Stuff.. Anyway, Thomas. Does anyone read Look Homeward, Angel anymore? And it was downhill from there. The also-ran in Max Perkins’ stable of famous writers and the others have already made the list.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I really enjoyed our class read of Romeo and Juliet. It helped me to get past what felt like archaic language.

Speaking of language. I do not see how people from the UK can say that their version of English is the true version when Olde English is the true version and everything else is something different.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I know the difference between I didn't like it and it's awful. The problem with a book like Pride and Prejudice is the writing.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Another book I read that I thought was just awful is A Passage to India by E. M. Forster. It was awful from the first chapter. The writing is terrible.

What’s wrong with the writing? You can’t just say that. Well, obviously you can and did, but unless you back it up with why, it’s meaningless. IMO, Austen’s writing is light, witty and incisive. And while I’m not a huge Forster fan, he doesn’t meet the bar for lying poseurs. The books are just not tough enough, or boring enough, or long enough. Boring alone won’t do. It’s gotta be two out of three.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Speaking of language. I do not see how people from the UK can say that their version of English is the true version when Olde English is the true version and everything else is something different.

Could we stay on topic, please, within reason and not chase ancient hares?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by issybird

I can think of another couple of authors. Theodore Dreiser certainly leaned to the turgid, even with his best-known books, Sister Carrie and An American Tragedy. No matter, I was quite taken by him when I was in high school and read his entire oeuvre, even the ones no one’s ever heard of.

I did that with Steinbeck. There's a few I haven't yet read (Cup of Gold, The Short Reign of Pippin IV) and a notable one (The Pearl). But otherwise I went through everything I could find.

Much lesser extent, I enjoyed The Scarlet Letter enough that I quickly picked up House of the Seven Gables (which I liked more than Scarlet, actually).

I wouldn’t do it now. Sister Carrie might hold up, but I can’t imagine the rest do.

Another that I suspect hasn’t held up and is unreadable now is Thomas Wolfe. Not Tom, although I suspect a case could be made for his books too, except for The Right Stuff.. Anyway, Thomas. Does anyone read Look Homeward, Angel anymore? And it was downhill from there. The also-ran in Max Perkins’ stable of famous writers and the others have already made the list.

I tried The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test and just couldn't handle the language.

An American Tragedy and Look Homeward, Angel are both on my ever expanding TBR list along with Moby Dick and War and Peace.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

What’s wrong with the writing? You can’t just say that. Well, obviously you can and did, but unless you back it up with why, it’s meaningless. IMO, Austen’s writing is light, witty and incisive. And while I’m not a huge Forster fan, he doesn’t meet the bar for lying poseurs. The books are just not tough enough, or boring enough, or long enough. Boring alone won’t do. It’s gotta be two out of three.

OK, not boring. Extremely tedious with characters you not only didn't like but would not mind if they went away forever. That's A Passage to India. It was too long given how bad it is. When a book is that bad, it's always too long.

I don't recall what it is about Pride and Prejudice I didn't like. I just know I really didn't like it.

Oh and put down any book with a half naked man on the cover that's labeled romance. Those are really awful.