The books you hated!

[MelissaBaby]

“Babbit,” Sinclair Lewis

I had to read Babbit for a class. My reaction was "This crap won the Nobel Prize???"

 

[ColeyD]

Gullivers travels is well up there!

 

[onehitwanda]

we went to a screening of the classic 1968 Zefferelli film and that brought the story to life for me

yes, I suspect I know which scene did it...

 

[SimonDoom]

yes, I suspect I know which scene did it...

Romeo and Juliet wouldn't pass Literotica's "under-18" rule. And the actors who played the two lead roles were 16 at the time. No way that would happen today.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Since it's kind of topical, I rather loathed Wicked. I don't know how much it got changed for the musical or the upcoming film, but I enjoyed almost nothing about the book. The author's MO feels a little skeevy to me, but aside from that, I found his approach to be somewhat akin to de-colorizing an imaginative piece of children's literature in order to make it seem more 'adult' and grim. He took Oz and turned it back into Kansas, and a rather sleazy Kansas at that. In the genre of mainstream fanfiction, its popularity is somewhat distressing and baffling to me.

They gave out free copies of the first few chapters, when Wicked came to the theatre in London. It was total dross. Eventually took a kid to see it. It works as a spectacle, and the cast sang their little hearts out, but the plot is a pile of bobbins (often a problem with prequels because there's a fixed end point everyone knows about), with some rather nasty views on disability.

I read all 14 Oz books back in the day, and they suffered from being very much referring to local politics at the time of writing. I've read enough expert commentary to believe that the piss-taking of the idea of an army of girls was intended as satire, but a century later it just comes across as misogyny. And a fair few of the books just as twee twaddle. Wicked was worse.

The Mayor of Casterbridge. We had to read it in English at school and my dad was so pleased because he was a huge Thomas Hardy fan. At the time I liked fast-paced SF so I found it stodgy and dull and he couldn't understand why I didn't like it.
School almost managed the same feat with Romeo and Juliet. However, we went to a screening of the classic 1968 Zefferelli film and that brought the story to life for me in a way that the text couldn't, even if the director pruned about half the dialogue!

We had to do Mayor of Casterbridge too, and everyone complained we weren't doing Kill a Mockingbird like the previous 10 years. Teachers said they were bored rigid of TKAM and explaining the social milieu and dialect to teens who mostly had never been to America let alone the south, but more to the point, it's hard to write essays about. Racism is bad. Yeah. Er... So they told us to each take a copy, or failing that, watch the film, but trust them on Mayor.

After the first couple lessons, we really got into next week's exciting episode. I recall us being asked about 'this week's big revelation' and us all being silent. "She's pregnant, you bunch of dingbats!" Teacher explained the clue was "there was something unexplainable in her expression" or similar, and gave a long lecture on the concept of subtlety. Great stuff. Shame other Hardy novels are so depressing with drippy characters being crap. Just don't read Jude the Obscure. You'll be better for it.

R&J isn't one of the best Shakie plays, and again isn't great to write about - I managed to avoid any coursework on it by doing a decent exam essay. We did watch a good film of it - I thought it was the Leo diCaprio one, but that didn't come out for another few years. But at least our teacher was good at explaining all the dirty jokes so it was enjoyable enough if you didn't have to write about it.

 

[Writer61]

Oh yes, Shakespeare at school... A real killer IMO (my particular torture was MacB). And I do understand, to an extent, the desire of Eng Lit specialists who put these courses together to pull apart a text and find out what the meanings are, what the language is saying.

Being forced to read and dissect something at school is not a good start. It was my first exposure to Shakespeare, and it did not go well until we were taken to see a professional performance of one of the set texts. Seeing one of the plays "for real" was a revelation.

 

[HordHolm]

But for heaven's sake, show a little humility when speaking of one of the greatest minds ever to walk the earth.

I have no beef with Shakespeare, only with the way the English school system decided to introduce him to me in the 1980s.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I have no beef with Shakespeare, only with the way the English school system decided to introduce him to me in the 1980s.

If I were queen for a day, students would watch one of the plays as performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company or other more or less "as written" productions.
THEN read it and discuss.
Then watch one of the more modern versions and play compare and contrast.

Kids would get a lot more out of it.

 

[HordHolm]

THEN read it, translate it, and discuss.

Is the only change I'd make.

 

[TheLobster]

Calling Shakespeare one of the greatest minds to ever walk on Earth is hilarious when the guy is basically the Elizabethan era equivalent of today’s merchants of flashy spectacles for the masses, along the lines of James Cameron or Roland Emmerich.

 

[WhiteTailDarkTip]

yes, I suspect I know which scene did it...

Actually, you’d be wrong. It was an awfully long time ago but what I remember from the film was the colour. Cinema was an uncommon luxury when I was younger and I’m fairly sure we still had a black and white television so technicolour Italy on the big screen blew me away.
Colour matters a lot to me. I’ve been to the northern Med a few times since and it’s always that same intensity.

 

[WhiteTailDarkTip]

Calling Shakespeare one of the greatest minds to ever walk on Earth is hilarious when the guy is basically the Elizabethan era equivalent of today’s merchants of flashy spectacles for the masses, along the lines of James Cameron or Roland Emmerich.

He’s proven quite durable though. I doubt they’ll be watching reruns of Avatar in five hundred years time

 

[Bramblethorn]

Romeo and Juliet wouldn't pass Literotica's "under-18" rule. And the actors who played the two lead roles were 16 at the time. No way that would happen today.

And yet Literotica has a bunch of Romeo and Juliet stories. Not sure if those got grandfathered in or what.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Calling Shakespeare one of the greatest minds to ever walk on Earth is hilarious when the guy is basically the Elizabethan era equivalent of today’s merchants of flashy spectacles for the masses, along the lines of James Cameron or Roland Emmerich.

All that tells me is that the masses had better entertainment than we do.
I doubt James Cameron will ever have a list like this:

https://nosweatshakespeare.com/resources/shakespeare-phrases/

 

[Naughtylit81]

The Great Gatsby. Supposedly the classic class division struggle but I just found it a melodramatic soap. Had some strong imagery and description and a couple of intriguing side characters (and a gay beard situation cleverly hidden) but it wasn't enough. Big bag o' meh.

I despise that book. I got in trouble in HS for voicing the opinion that it was hot garbage.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I'm going to nominate Harry Potter.

Not that I think it's a bad children's (series of) books (I'll look snobbish if I describe it as deeply mediocre, won't I?), but by the time it got popular there was a whole wave of "adults can enjoy the magic of HP as well," floating around the media. And I like to think I'm someone who is very much in touch with their inner child.

I got through the first five books or so before giving up completely. I kept having discussions with my sister that went something like...

Me: "This book is for kids."
Her: "No, no, adults can enjoy this too, really!"
Me: "So there's a werewolf running around the school grounds and there's also a new member of staff with the surname Lupine..."
Her: "Well, it's for kids."

More than anything else, I think Rowling just isn't someone who thinks logically about her world. There's a telling part at the end of the first book where the three children have to solve a chess puzzle and she doesn't even bother to tell the reader where the pieces are. Similarly, the rules of Quidditch are just...not suitable for making a proper game. These are grumbles, but all this flows into the underlying logic of the world in which there are thousands (millions?) of wizards secretly living in Britain, with their own schools and government organizations - and she just doesn't sell that this could be true.

 

[OffNSFW]

Regardless of the overall quality of the book, I don't think it's fair to point out an obvious joke as an example of bad writing.

In a vacuum, no. When the entire book is like this, yes.

Understand that I really wanted to like this book, and I did end up liking the follow-up, Anansi Boys, a bit more. But American Gods reads like someone who knows he's already done the best thing he'll ever do, and is just... trying so very hard.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm going to nominate Harry Potter.

Not that I think it's a bad children's (series of) books (I'll look snobbish if I describe it as deeply mediocre, won't I?),

(We can be snobs together then.)

but by the time it got popular there was a whole wave of "adults can enjoy the magic of HP as well," floating around the media. And I like to think I'm someone who is very much in touch with their inner child.

I got through the first five books or so before giving up completely. I kept having discussions with my sister that went something like...

"Adults can enjoy this too, you know?"
"So there's a werewolf running around the school grounds and there's also a new member of staff with the surname Lupine."
"Well, it's for kids."

More than anything else, I think Rowling just isn't someone who thinks logically about her world. There's a telling part at the end of the first book where the three children have to solve a chess puzzle and she doesn't even bother to tell the reader where the pieces are. Similarly, the rules of Quidditch are just...not suitable for making a proper game. These are grumbles, but all this flows into the underlying logic of the world in which there are thousands (millions) of wizards secretly living in Britain, with their own schools and government organizations - and she just doesn't sell that this could be true.

IMHO that issue runs through more than just the world-building. The series feels like it's trying to tell a moral kind of tale where the little guy with a good heart triumphs over evil and spoiled brats, echoing books like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or Lord of the Rings. Those messages get underlined by GandalfDumbledore and the like.

But when one looks closely at the story and thinks through the ramifications of certain things...the "good guys" are quite often cruel and/or selfish, and the vibe I get from those bits is not "JKR is showing how even good people can be flawed" but "JKR isn't interested in thinking through the ramifications of these things, and doesn't realise her heroes are being shitty here".

Wizarding society is capricious and unjust - Harry gets screwed over repeatedly by the shitty wizard government - and when he grows up, what does he do with his talents? He joins that government and becomes a wizard cop. The one character who does try social reform, Hermione trying to liberate the house-elves, gets mocked for it. And let's not get into Umbridge and the centaurs...

 

[WhiteTailDarkTip]

I'm going to nominate Harry Potter.
I think Rowling just isn't someone who thinks logically about her world … she just doesn't sell that this could be true.

She wrote a book full of whimsy. Steam trains from Platform 9.75 and a magical boarding school that channelled Enid Blyton, and it became an accidental best seller. Undone by her own success, she wrote a series of increasingly bloated sequels that relied on magical MacGuffins to extricate her from her own convolutions. Meanwhile she’s retelling ‘Three Get Into Trouble’ again, and again, and again …
I had to read them all to my children. Twice. (I have older and younger children. And of course we have all the films.) Even when they were younger they started to pick holes in the plotting.
That said, I think we have the Boy Who Lived and the magisterial films of the Lord Of The Rings to thank for the greater acceptability of fantasy today.

 

[Plathfan]

At risk of being burned at the stake here... I read crime and punishment Brothers karamazov and notes from the underground and found them all to be excruciatingly boring. I'm not exactly sure why, but his prose had a knack for making me not want to give a shit. Don't hurt me!

Calling Shakespeare one of the greatest minds to ever walk on Earth is hilarious when the guy is basically the Elizabethan era equivalent of today’s merchants of flashy spectacles for the masses, along the lines of James Cameron or Roland Emmerich.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

not sure I know what you mean by this

 

[Writer61]

If I were queen for a day, students would watch one of the plays as performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company or other more or less "as written" productions.
THEN read it and discuss.
Then watch one of the more modern versions and play compare and contrast.

Kids would get a lot more out of it.

Couldn't agree more. They should start with a performance (live = great, recorded = OK) and then delve into how it works.

I struggled with Shakespeare set texts (primarily Merchant of Venice, with a side-order of The Tempest) until we were taken to see a performance of it.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

If I were queen for a day, students would watch one of the plays as performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company or other more or less "as written" productions.
THEN read it and discuss.
Then watch one of the more modern versions and play compare and contrast.

Kids would get a lot more out of it.

Yes!

My middle school's English department had a Shakespeare day. One day a year they invited a local company perform one of his plays in the auditorium for the whole school. I saw them perform King Lear, Hamlet, and Twelfth night. Vivid, cherished memories.

 

[lucy_anne21]

Probably, ‘The Mayor of Casterbridge.’ By Thomas Hardy. My secondary school English literary teacher was very keen on it, and it seemed we spent forever studying and discussing it. One of the most depressing books I’ve ever read. The teacher was a lovely old dear though, and she taught me a lot, as well as introducing me to many good authors works.

Lucy.

 

[RainyWetDayGuy]

For the same reason as lucy_anne above:
The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides with Samuel Johnson by James Boswell