The books you hated!

[RainyWetDayGuy]

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

 

[TheWritingGroup]

My school's teaching of Shakespeare is a mystery to me, now that I'm an adult. It's as if they tried to teach about Steven Spielberg by reading his scripts. Why would you do that?

-Billie

 

[Kumquatqueen]

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.

The first three books are solid kids' fiction, aimed at 7-10 year olds and managing to merge together all the tropes of kidfic - magic, boarding school, food, magic creatures, a Chosen One, in a marketable way not done since Enid Blyton did all those separately (for non-Brits, in 1980 a kids section in a bookshop would be 75% Blyton, 25% everything else). Jill Murphy's Worst Witch was too simplistic (but a good kids TV series resulted), Diana Wynne Jones too complex; Rowling got the mix just right.

Unfortunately she got the idea after the third one and the next one took forever, that the books should grow up with the fans, which seemed to mean more double crossing, spies, death, and love (sex), and getting longer and more despairing. And her editors went along with it, because they were raking it in and just wanted her to finish the series.

The first three films were excellent too. And I've been dragged to HP Studios three times and enjoyed myself each time. But then they get bloated and more importantly, try to be more meaningful and significant than they should be. There just isn't that foundation of planning to make it work. Out of all the kids I know, they all read the books or watch the films up to no.5, then mostly don't bother with the last ones, certainly not more than once. They're left not really caring what happens.

Partly they all know who wins, but also the last 3 films are boring as hell. Go fetch the McGuffins. They're worse than the Sword of Shannara, Something Else of Shannara, and Yet Another Fucking Thing of Shannara, as I dubbed the first trilogy, last time I was stuck for a fortnight sans internet...

The Fantastic Beasts film was quite fun, particularly the beasts. Then the sequel forgot to put the beasts in and was a mess of 'Nazis are bad and magic Nazis would be worse', which I only finished watching because I was on a plane. And all the under 13s I knew just weren't interested in the third one. Some adults I know enjoyed the spectacle of Cursed Child, but all the kids said it looked nice but totally contradicted all the books.

Give it another decade and I bet HP will be one of those many series where the first 1-3 remain famous but only collectors seek out the others. And Warner Studios will expand into a wider bunch of films and How They Were Made.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm chagrined at all the Shakespeare hate! Shakespeare was NOT the equivalent of James Cameron. Cameron is a very skilled maker of popular movies. Emmerich makes profitable shlock. Shakespeare was one of the most gifted and accomplished-- maybe THE most accomplished--dramatists AND poets in the history of the English language. He is widely regarded as being at the pinnacle of those two arts. Nobody would say that about Cameron or Emmerich.

 

[WhiteTailDarkTip]

They're worse than the Sword of Shannara, Something Else of Shannara, and Yet Another Fucking Thing of Shannara, as I dubbed the first trilogy, last time I was stuck for a fortnight sans internet...

Absolutely with you on Terry Brooks. According to Wikipedia he's up to 33 books, not including grapic novels et al. I thought Sword of Shanarra was tripe the first time I read it. Mind you, not far behind was the first(!) miserable Thomas Covenant trilogy. Between them they put me off fantasy for years

 

[HordHolm]

I'm chagrined at all the Shakespeare hate! Shakespeare was NOT the equivalent of James Cameron. Cameron is a very skilled maker of popular movies. Emmerich makes profitable shlock. Shakespeare was one of the most gifted and accomplished-- maybe THE most accomplished--dramatists AND poets in the history of the English language. He is widely regarded as being at the pinnacle of those two arts. Nobody would say that about Cameron or Emmerich.

I don't think there's much Shakespeare hate going on here... it's more like disappointment at the way it was taught to us as teenagers, thrown in at the deep end and expected to a) understand language which is about as close to being a different language as one can get without it actually being one and, b) having something which is a live art form put in front of us as a dry text, without the life that performance gives it. I mean, think of your favourite film, the most enjoyable one you've ever seen, now instead of showing that to a dear friend, instead just give them 90 pages of script and tell them they have to appreciate its genius or they just don't know culture. It's not going to work, but that's the way Shakespeare (and to be fair, it isn't only him, either, but with him the language is an extra stumbling block) is presented to 13/14 year olds. Honestly, I think its a miracle any of them come away with any actual appreciate of the man...

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

Shakespeare was one of the most gifted and accomplished-- maybe THE most accomplished--dramatists AND poets in the history of the English language.

Petruchio
Who knows not where a wasp does wear his sting —
In his tail.

Katherina
In his tongue.

Petruchio
Whose tongue?

Katherina
Yours, if you talk of tales, and so farewell.

Petruchio
What, with my tongue in your tail! Nay, come again,
Good Kate, I am a gentleman.

The man was a genius, pure and simple.

 

[cole4258]

To be honest I have never read a book that I hated. Some are much better than others but none hated. It’s all about how the author draws you into the story. Various authors have different techniques but that is what makes a good read for me.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't think there's much Shakespeare hate going on here... it's more like disappointment at the way it was taught to us as teenagers, thrown in at the deep end and expected to a) understand language which is about as close to being a different language as one can get without it actually being one and, b) having something which is a live art form put in front of us as a dry text, without the life that performance gives it. I mean, think of your favourite film, the most enjoyable one you've ever seen, now instead of showing that to a dear friend, instead just give them 90 pages of script and tell them they have to appreciate its genius or they just don't know culture. It's not going to work, but that's the way Shakespeare (and to be fair, it isn't only him, either, but with him the language is an extra stumbling block) is presented to 13/14 year olds. Honestly, I think its a miracle any of them come away with any actual appreciate of the man...

A problem with the way "Great Books" are taught (as well as "Great Art" and "Great Music") is that right off the bat you are made to feel that you're supposed to look at these things in a completely different way from the way you look at and read and listen to the stuff you really like on a day to day basis. And nothing could be further from the truth. Shakespeare is supposed to be fun. There's slapstick humor, dirty jokes, selfishness, lecherousness, nastiness, ambition, but also nobility and decency and greatness. It's a hard thing for a high school teacher to get across to a bunch of teenagers who've never read him and think they're being asked to read a different language. I think it's even harder now because attention spans are shorter than ever.

 

[HordHolm]

A problem with the way "Great Books" are taught (as well as "Great Art" and "Great Music") is that right off the bat you are made to feel that you're supposed to look at these things in a completely different way from the way you look at and read and listen to the stuff you really like on a day to day basis. And nothing could be further from the truth. Shakespeare is supposed to be fun. There's slapstick humor, dirty jokes, selfishness, lecherousness, nastiness, ambition, but also nobility and decency and greatness. It's a hard thing for a high school teacher to get across to a bunch of teenagers who've never read him and think they're being asked to read a different language. I think it's even harder now because attention spans are shorter than ever.

I agree, and that's why I think teachers have it arse-about-tit (and I'm a teacher, too, so I have some sympathy). Show it to them first, and then put the text in front of them.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

A problem with the way "Great Books" are taught (as well as "Great Art" and "Great Music") is that right off the bat you are made to feel that you're supposed to look at these things in a completely different way from the way you look at and read and listen to the stuff you really like on a day to day basis. And nothing could be further from the truth. Shakespeare is supposed to be fun. There's slapstick humor, dirty jokes, selfishness, lecherousness, nastiness, ambition, but also nobility and decency and greatness. It's a hard thing for a high school teacher to get across to a bunch of teenagers who've never read him and think they're being asked to read a different language. I think it's even harder now because attention spans are shorter than ever.

Agree. Also, even when you get the kids enjoying a book or play, having to analyse the text for themes and supporting quotes is going to end the fun for most of them.

Macbeth is generally compelling on stage or in film. Having to write a minimum of 400 words on "Lady Macbeth is the cause of Macbeth's downfall. To what extent is this true? Discuss." will kill the excitement dead.

Primary schools do pretty well at getting kids into Shakespeare, with edited versions and CBeebies' excellent versions for the under-fives that work for any audience (Shakespeare and a couple TV idiots are backstage, so Shakespeare explains what's happening to them as it goes along). It's when you gear up to force the kids to write about it, it goes wrong.

Sure, they need analysis skills, but analysing factual text and media articles would likely be a lot more useful than analysing literature. For starters, they might actually do it and see the point...

 

[SimonDoom]

I agree, and that's why I think teachers have it arse-about-tit (and I'm a teacher, too, so I have some sympathy). Show it to them first, and then put the text in front of them.

I was an English teacher, long ago, before entering my current profession (it feels like another lifetime). I remember trying to figure out how to teach Shakespeare to high school students. It's not easy.

I remember as a student thinking that literature was a code you had to crack, and once you did all the secret meanings would be revealed. "Great" literature is so much more fun when you let go of ideas like that and just enjoy it for what it is.

 

[OffNSFW]

Lukewarm take here--I think the classroom environment isn't a great place to be introduced to most literature or be asked to read critically, but not for the reasons most people think.

Teachers are trying to get students to broaden their horizons. That necessarily means exposure to material that may not connect, especially for an age group that doesn't have the kind of life experience reflected in a lot of literature. Most of us don't deliberately seek out stuff we might not like or might not connect with, which is why many of the bad experiences described in this thread happened in school.

Also--and this is an everything problem, not just a literature one--teachers are kind of boxed into a one size fits all method of education, which is difficult for a lot of students, given that different people learn in different ways. (How many of us learn to hate math because we struggled with it in school?) But it's especially difficult with literature, where the things that resonate with us, and the meanings of things, can be very personal. The final draft of any book happens in the head of the reader. It's impossible to mediate that experience for a room of, say, 30 students and have it land with more than a fraction of them.

The mistake we make, I think, is to assume that the problem lies with our teachers asking us to interpret the text and put our feelings into words. Those things are hard to, but they make us smarter, more engaged readers. I don't think they were wrong for that. But, again, the classroom frequently presents the worst set of conditions for that to happen.

I've revisited some of the books I didn't like in school. Some of them still don't resonate with me. (Sorry, Saul Bellows.) But some of them were just waiting for me to get my heart broken a few times.

 

[OffNSFW]

I was an English teacher, long ago, before entering my current profession (it feels like another lifetime). I remember trying to figure out how to teach Shakespeare to high school students. It's not easy.

I remember as a student thinking that literature was a code you had to crack, and once you did all the secret meanings would be revealed. "Great" literature is so much more fun when you let go of ideas like that and just enjoy it for what it is.

I love this, because it reminds me of something David Bordwell, one of my favorite film scholars, once said: "Interpretation is a matter of constructing meaning out of what a movie puts before us, not finding the buried treasure."

Obviously, this is a thread about books, not movies, but I think it applies on principle. We make meaning out of everything. It's just the kind of animal we are. But it's not like solving a mathematical proof. It's more deeply felt than that.

 

[sapphyrix]

Despite writing fetish porn on here, I typically write some pretty clean and cute YA, and I'm trying to get it traditionally published. Therefore I kind of HAVE TO read the popular YA books to know what tropes are in/out/fresh/already used, regardless of how bad those popular YA books are..........
The A Court of Thorns and Roses series? Bleeeggghhhhh. It felt like fetish porn aimed at teenagers??? Like dude, I write fetish porn and I write for teenagers, and NEVER the two shall meet. But ACOTAR and its sequels? The two met. And it's.... squicky. And not very good in other ways too. O_O;
Another big squick was a YA book I read that had first cousin incest as the romantic subplot. The MC was... young and had her first sexual awakening to her first cousin. And they had sex. And the book portrayed this as romantic the whole way and never, ever acknowledged it was incest????
Also, The Night Circus. Not YA, not squicky, but it felt like one book's worth of exercise in world building, but JUST world building. Everything felt so whimsical and mystical and stuff atmospherically, but the characters felt flat and NOTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED.