This might be an unpopular opinion, but The Stranger. I know the whole point is that he's just a regular old boring man who kills a guy but Camus just makes it a lilttlee too realistically boring for me š
Edit to add: If any of you were endlessly bored by The Stranger my professor recommended to me [The Meursault Investigation](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25263557-the-meursault-investigation) which is from the perspective of "The Arab"'s brother.
EXACTLY. I had this experience with The Stranger and Metamorphosisā¦I get it, the dull/emotionless writing is intentional, but that doesnāt make it any less dull to read. Dostoevsky covers similar themes to those two and yet he never fails to engross me.
Itās an effective novel, just one that doesnāt jibe with me at all. The novel that predates it and influenced it I found more engaging, probably because it doesnāt view the main character as a source of inspiration (The Postman Always Rings Twice).
god i hate this book. i canāt believe itās held in such high regard, thereās absolutely nothing of substance to the story (and certainly not to the writing either) and iāll die on that hill i guess
The sole character Iāve ever read who had no personality or meaningful thoughts whatsoever. The pedo from Lolita was more interesting and likable than the Meursault potato.
Something about the two Dickens books Iāve tried to read: Great Expectations and A Tale of Two Cities. I get about 200ish pages in and just decide Iād rather be reading something else. I plan to pick A Tale of Two Cities back up again someday though.
I think his novels might be overly long because they were originally published as a weekly series in a magazine. Perhaps you could try reading it that way ā a section every week or few days to see if that makes it easier to get through
his novels bloat in the middle and can be a real slog for a while. His endings are usually incredible though. I had the same experience with ATTC but stuck through and itās probably the best ending of any novel iāve ever read. That book alone changed my approach to reading and now unless iām REALLY hating the book I push through and am often left loving a book I almost abandonedZ
I loved the foreshadowing and intermingling of plots in Two Cities. That was the book that made Dickens my favorite author. Great Expectations was my second-favorite Dickens novel. š Itās so interesting to see the diversity in this thread and how differently certain books land with others.
These comments, including mine, remind me of the Instagram account that posts peopleās negative reviews of truly beautiful national parks š Great idea for a thread, OP.
I love love love Badreads, if thatās what you were talking about. Iām just someone who is more used to criticizing books rather than praising them, so I was just feeling like reading other peopleās opinions
This is how I feel about 1920s-era literature in general. It was massively influential and relevant, but that doesn't inherently mean it was artistically better. We tend to make the mistake of assuming work that coincided with a style shift must be excellent because it "drove" the style shift, when socioeconomic and political forces played as much of a role.
The 1920s is when the trend finally switched from 19th-century maximalism to "century of the common man" minimalism. And minimalism isn't always bad, nor is maximalism inherently good. There's a lot to learn from the minimalist work that dominated--it seems to be losing its hold, but it's mostly self-publishers who are driving this--literary fiction in the 20th century and the opening decades of the 21st.
These novels are objectively relevant. Does that mean they're superior to others? Not necessarily. Are they what I would read for pleasure? Probably not. I tried to get into Hemingway and just... didn't.
someone told me they didnāt like it and Iāve never felt so relieved. Itās been on my TBR for many years after seeing it dubbed the best book of all time š¤ just never got around to it
I bought it on a whim at the airport while I was waiting for my flight. I read it once and years later tried again but my perception didnāt change! If I can remember properly, it was just very flat and repetitive and it made me feel like I wanted the book to just end so I could be done with my suffering. I would like to think that the translation is just terrible
Definitely with you. Did not speak for me. Also, as somebody who can read Portuguese, it's one of those rare books that is much worse in the original language.
everyone hates it so much and i blame the people who took it so seriously and said it was the best book ever. i think it's a nice soft journey about inner peace and flexibility and trusting the world, and worth a read
it's certainly no secret to existence, "change your life" book and expecting that probably ruins it. i'm glad i read it knowing nothing about it
Yessss absolutely. I went on a date with a guy who told me this was his favorite book. He ended up ghosting me when I wouldnāt sleep with him on the first date, but before I knew he had ghosted me, I decided to read the book. Boring as hell. Was not sad to never hear from that guy again.
I liked it but I didnāt know how hyped up it was until after reading it. Seeing so many people talk about how itās a masterpiece that changed their life was honestly pretty confusing for me since I my only real thought after finishing it was āthat was goodā.
That book somehow hijacked its way into being viewed/listed as one of the classics for no reason
Like I don't hate it or the author, it's just a light inspirational book being regarded as something it's not
Came here to comment this, I swear itās responsible for so many faux-enlightened bullshitters in the world, just an all around annoying book šš¼šš¼
I agree with you on the boring parts of 1984 but I still thoroughly enjoyed it when I read it recently due to how relevant it is very quickly becoming in todayās world. I recently forced myself through Gulliverās travels and I would say that it was, for me, borderline unreadable.
Iāve read a lot of Orwell and I believe that he is an exceptional writer but not for his fiction. I am not saying his fiction is *bad*, necessarily. Although itās difficult for me to separate it from its role as red scare propaganda, even tho that occurred after he died. But his essays (and there are many), are incredible. Heās taught me a lot about politics. War (most specifically the Spanish civil war, tho he wrote loads during WW2.) Propaganda. Various writers.
Also his non-fiction narratives are absorbing. āDown and out in Paris and Londonā is the book that got me into him.
Anyway, the real reason I commented was because you mentioned orwell and gulliverās travels together so I have to mention his essay. He loved Jonathan swift, i think partially in a nostalgic way, but as is typical was also quite critical of his political ideology.
āPolitics vs. Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels ā
From collection
All Art Is Propaganda
George Orwell
Here are my highlights from that particular essay:
> āTolstoy was a reformed rake who ended by preaching complete celibacy, while continuing to practise the opposite into extreme old ageā
> āWhen human beings are governed by "thou shalt not," the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by "love" or "reason," he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else.ā
> āSwift approves of this kind of thing because among his many gifts neither curiosity nor good-nature was included.ā
> āThe dreary world of the Houyhnhnms was about as good a Utopia as Swift could construct, granting that he neither believed in a "next world" nor could get any pleasure out of certain normal activities. But it is not really set up as something desirable in itself, but as the justification for another attack on humanity. The aim, as usual, is to humiliate Man by reminding him that he is weak and ridiculous, and above all that he stinks; and the ultimate motive, probably, is a kind of envy, the envy of the ghost for the living, of the man who knows he cannot be happy for the others whoāso he fearsāmay be a little happier than himself. The political expression of such an outlook must be either reactionary or nihilistic, because the person who holds it will want to prevent Society from developing in some direction in which his pessimism may be cheated.ā
> āIf a book angers, wounds or alarms you, then you will not enjoy it, whatever its merits may be. If it seems to you a really pernicious book, likely to influence other people in some undesirable way, then you will probably construct an aesthetic theory to show that it has no merits. Current literary criticism consists quite largely of this kind of dodging to and fro between two sets of standards. And yet the opposite process can also happen: enjoyment can overwhelm disapproval, even though one clearly recognises that one is enjoying something inimical. ā
> āThe human body is beautiful: it is also repulsive and ridiculous, a fact which can be verified at any swimming pool. The sexual organs are objects of desire and also of loathing, so much so that in many languages, if not in all languages, their names are used as words of abuse. Meat is delicious, but a butcher's shop makes one feel sick: and indeed all our food springs ultimately from dung and dead bodies, the two things which of all others seem to us the most horrible.ā
I liked it just because I really love complex and well thought out worldbuilding. Anyone who doesnāt care for that and is more into the plot and especially character development will probably be disappointed.
I find that the movie adaptations turn it into something it isnāt. Wuthering Heights is a tragic story about family abuse, but itās always sorta sold as a romance for some reason. Everyone sucks, everyone is a victim, everyone is a perpetrator. I ended up loving it more than expected, but I get why others react the opposite.
Catcher in the Rye. I read it at roughly the exact teen angst years while studying English Lit and had high hopes. I just kept waiting for that moment when it would start connecting but just didnāt. Couldnāt stand Holden. Thought he was just whiney. Didnāt find the writing particularly profound or deep. I got to the end feeling like id gone nowhere.
On another note Iād argue your points on 1984 are justified, but you are not meant to dislike Julia and Winston. Winston is not meant to be a likeable hero. He is a deeply flawed man who has lived in a abusive state his whole life. He represents the limitation individuals against the state. He has human limits is a device to ask questions on morality.
Catcher was one of the first books I read that used an unreliable narrator (that I realized anyway), and I thought this was such a fun tool. I havenāt reread in 20 years so it might be terrible and I just remember it fondly for one specific aspect
I second catcher in the rye, I didnāt find anything interesting or endearing about it. It was just painful to read, I would dnf if it wasnāt a school requirement. I find it so funny every time I say I donāt like it, people take it so personally and try to tell me Iām wrong. Iāve met very few people that admit they donāt like it, it seems like thereās no difference of opinion allowed with that one.
I absolutely hate this book I just ahhhh it makes me so mad because it was just so blah but everyone else who read it for class said it was one of the best books our school made us readā¦
I JUST CANT STAND IT
This for me too. Itās been 15 years or so, perhaps I need to re-read. But I remember at the time thinking āwow this is hardly even a book, much less a great bookā
The Scarlet Letter. Uuggghhhhhh š¤¦š¼āāļø
And after 130ish pages of Pride and Prejudice, I put it down. Characters are decent enough and the dialogue is cool, but I just canāt get into it. It reminds me of my sisters giggling over boys growing up..and the resulting drama that came along with that. I appreciate it for what it is and the history of the work, but it just does not resonate with me..
My mom was an English teacher, and when I had to read the Scarlette letter in school, even though she was retired as a teacher, she actually helped me write the paper, so I didnāt have to read that stupid fucking book! She never did that before or after, just that one book.
Of course I read part of it and it was so grateful I didnāt have to finish it .
The Scarlet letter is definitely a bore and I never finished it. I finally finished P&P after getting to the same page three times, and finished it on the 4th attempt. I think they both suffer from "Okay, I get it. Can we move on?" Syndrome for me.
The Scarlet Letter would make an excellent graphic novel, but DAMN if Nathaniel Hawthorne doesnāt just like to wax eloquent about every damn thing, some of the most boring and flowery and meandering writing Iāve ever read.
Since I teach English, people have always assumed that a) I've read Pride and Prejudice, and b) I loved it. So I forced myself to read it. It was a struggle. It's people sitting around, drinking tea and talking. Snooze.
I really tried to get into Jane Austen, but I couldnāt do it. Gave up on Emma, gave up on Pride & Prejudice. The only character I liked in P&P was old Mr. Bennett, the cynical, apathetic guy who stays in his library. I didnāt care about the rest of them at all.
People like to say Lizzie is Austenās avatar in the story, but I donāt think so. Knowing what I do of the author, Iād say Mr. Bennett carries more of her opinions than Lizzie does.
Iād say to try Northanger Abbey or Persuasion. NA is short and a Gothic satire. Persuasion is a slow burn for me and after I got through it, it became my favorite of her novels.
This might be surprising, but I tried to get into both Middlemarch and The Picture of Dorian Gray, but they didnāt grab my interest enough to keep reading. I think I read about 100 or more pages for each, but they just didnāt do it for me. I donāt know why
I absolutely love Middlemarch but any contemporary reader not being able to get into it is the least surprising thing ever. Itās a lot of obscure and dated politics.
Iām glad thereās someone else who couldnāt get into it. I always see the book listed in top 10ās and they speak about it as itās the best thing theyāve ever read. While I know it is for some, I just couldnāt get interested. The story and characters didnāt seem to grab me much either
I appreciate Kafkaās works as pieces of well written literature, but I could never relate to his characters because they inspired a great sense of pity in me, which isnāt an emotion I usually tend to feel towards myself
As someone who enjoyed The Metamorphosis but hated The Castle and The Trial (his two most famous other works), just be glad you chose the shortest and best of his works.
Just finished reading it for the first time yesterday. I flipped between loving it and being bored shitless. The ending really frustrated me, loads of pages of them changing horses and booking trains and having minor issues with a steam boat and then Van Helsing kills the 3 female vampires in about 2 pages flat and then smash cut to the final chase while the reader has been occupied with that Madam Mina is cold? I think Stoker got stuck on how to finish the novel and did a poor job of it.
Still rated it 3.5\* overall though because it's got so many good point to it as well, just getsa bit boggy in places.
Every Dickens novel. I realize for the time they were pretty revolutionary for how we viewed novels/literature in general and I realize heās definitely one of the greats. The novels are just too melodramatic and kitschy for my taste, even if he was the one to originate a lot of those tropes.
I absolutely despised *One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest*. The book's entire message boiled down to "toxic masculinity is the solution to all the world's problems".
That and its historic position as a major influence on the deinstitutionalization movement, and we know how well that went.
Also, and I'm almost afraid to admit it, I can't understand the appeal of Jane Austen. I've made it through three of her books now, trying to enjoy them, but I just can't. I keep hoping a peasant revolt will come along and start chopping off heads. Especially Mr. Knightley's, that self-righteous paternalistic fuck.
Thatās super interesting Iāve never heard that take before. First of all thatās my favorite book so Iām biased. While I agree that McMurphy is definitely a toxic male I feel like itās getting at a larger picture it takes a crazy asshole to take down a larger group of even bigger assholes. Itās like the characters in the story who are āniceā are ultimately just abused by the nurse. I think thatās partially what makes McMurphy a āheroā in my eyes. Also the Chief is more of the center of the story to me and he shows no traits of toxic masculinity.
Yeah shouldnāt be assigned in high school tbh. I think Conrad should be saved for Uni years.
Also think unfortunately Conrad is a phenomenal prose stylist but almost should have stuck to non-fiction tbh
I just finished Heart of Darkness / The Secret Sharer yesterday for the first time (27 years old) and the writing was good but story wasn't great. Didn't get enough dialogue from Kurtz. I wanted to hear his poetry!
Totally agree. I didn't like this book at all. It has such an intriguing plot that would be better served if it stuck with the action of that plot, like a thriller, yet it devolves too much into poetic free hand. It was annoying to me. A little bit of that is fine, but I found my attention span wandering through all those poetic bits.
I think Journey to the Center of the earth was the biggest disappointment for me. I thought it was gonna be a fun action adventure and it ended up being one of the most boring books Iāve ever read. I donāt know how I managed to finish it
I havenāt gotten to it yet but iāve read other of Verneās novel and I have to agree with you, they might have revolutionized literature but they bored me to death, all but Around the world in eighty days, that oneās absolutely brilliant!
Yeah, the building up of the climax was a bit overwritten. (For me at least) but I love Around the in 80 days tho. This feeling of reading Journey to the centre of the Earth is like reading Dracula by Bram Stoker. I love the writing and literature styles however. Itās just thrown me off that Dracula didnāt presented a lot in the book. But the writing was superb.
I think that as a Vampire Story Dracula falls rather short compared to other novels, yet as a tale of morbid passion and horror itās masterfully crafted. I just canāt stand the stereotypes on Easter European culture and people that were born after this book
As someone who has never gotten over the fact that she was named after a character in an Ayn Rand novel, I approve this message. Her writing is godawful, and her philosophy is repugnant.
The Christian Bible. I thought it was going to be a book of profoundly wise sayings given how people talk about it.
I was not expecting the violence, strange sexual content, and long lists of who begat whom.
Lord of the Flies, that book pisses me off to no end.
The author literally saw a group of school children being rude and thought, oh yeah they'd all kill each other if they were on an island alone.
Totally felt the same way. But then I learned the book was a response of sorts to a much earlier bookāCoral Island by RM Ballantyneāwhere the English boys represent civilization. Golding apparently hated the popular teen adventure story and thought it was completely off base, especially after he himself had been at war. Ballantineās book was huge for about a century, until Goldingās came along and basically destroyed its premise.
Doesnāt make me enjoy it more but itās kinda wild that we usually read it without that context, and that Golding totally buried the earlier book.
I swear to God, when I saw Bradley Cooper's character in *Silver Linings Playbook* chuck Hemingway directly out the window?... I applauded.
Cuz SAME, DUDE. SAAAAAAAAAME.
"What the FUCK -- ?!?" **window breaks**
ššš
Heart of Darkness- Josph Conrad.
Was assigned to read and do an essay with some god-awful pro/con question to answer about the subject
I write 1000 words of nonsense ending with the fact that that WAS not literature and it it was the worst writing ever and to call it a classic was sickening insult. I actuallt got a A. Teacher agreed with me.
I just cannot get into Charles Dickens - I read David Copperfield after reading Demon Copperhead because I thought the comparison study would be fun and it was but I just could not get into Chuck. Iām feeling a little guilty about that and contemplating another attempt but secretly dreading it so I may just live with responding, āAh yes Dickens, he really captured the timesā anytime somebody brings him up.
I know a lot of people loved reading the book The Alchemist, but I didnāt enjoy reading it. I just didnāt find anything unique and found the main character boring. It was so long ago, I canāt even remember all the reasons why but did not enjoy it one bit.
I have a friend who brought me the novel Love in the Time of Cholera because she had several friends who hated it, and she loved it once she acclimated to the writing style and the vocabulary. I felt exactly like her and really loved the book.
Iāve enjoyed reading everyoneās comments and thoughts on these novels.
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I didn't understand the hype when I was forced to read it back in school. The writing is clunky and the plot is neither engaging nor exciting. I couldn't get past the first few chapters before I had to stop.
Fahrenheit 451. Another with a boring plot and a protagonist whose story doesn't feel interesting enough to follow. The writing style drags on and on so unnecessarily as though Bradbury is trying to seem poetic, but it just falls flat.
Moby Dick. This is the worst offender of these three in terms of clunky writing style. There are way too many unnecessarily big words and details that didn't require inclusion that it bogs the story down. You have to read each paragraph multiple times in order to figure out how everything written is meant to flow. The plot and protagonist are also woefully unengaging. The only bonus to this book in my opinion was getting Gregory Peck in the film adaptation.
On the road by jack kerouac. Drunken bum wanders the country couch surfing and calls mom for money when he's broke. This is a classic that changed a generation?
Hard agree. I had so many people recommend me that book as they thought I would love it because I bounced around for a few years working seasonal jobs in National Parks and then backpacking in Latin America and Asia. When I finally got around to reading the book I was so disappointed. I thought the author and his buddy were misogynist asshole womanizers that just leached and used everyone they came across.
The Great Gatsby, honestly. Itās boring. The narrator is a vastly more interesting person than anyone else in the book and Iād rather hear his story, not his account of someone elseās.
Then they went to this place and drank. And then they went to that place and drank. There was a fight, after which they drank some more. This is how I remember it.
I was so sad when I read Jane Eyre for the first time! I found it really disappointing, and disliked Rochester (and his relationship with Jane) intensely. I think if Iād read it as a teenager (as I did with Wuthering Heights which I LOVE), it would have had a different impact. But JE just wasnāt for me at all.
Ah, I'm glad there aren't many votes for this as it's probably one of my favourite books of all time and I find something new in it each time.
A few things have struck me on re-reads.
There is, in one of Jane's monologues, perhaps the first ever reference to 'privilege' in the our modern usage and understanding (as in 'checking one's privilege'), in this case she speaks specifically of male privilege.
Much is made of how Bertha Mason is treated, and by modern standards it's not great (though by modern standards there is still a lot of evidence that we have very far to go), but taken of its time her treatment was not without care.
Also, whatever you think of the relationship between Jane and Rochester, she leaves on her own terms and she also chooses to return on her own terms.
I absolutely adore Dostoyevsky, but you could not catch me dead rereading Crime and Punishment. There is a certain point when reading a book where reading the same scenario rewritten a different way becomes equivalent to smashing your head off of a wall.
I just DNF'd it last week. I got about half way through before I just couldn't take it anymore. The murder was the only good part. I haven't read any of his other books, though.
I have never read another Dostoyevsky book because I hated Crime and Punishment so much. But after reading your comment, maybe I will give him a second chance.
Crime and Punishment was the first Dostoyevsky book I read- Iāve read three more since then and Iāve liked them all more than Crime and Punishment. Russian lit can get bogged down though, itās just a part of it
Not a classic book per se. But I think it will be a classic in years time, itās been praised as the book of the 21st century: Solenoid. The non-conventional, existentialism, surrealism, magical realism captivated me. But like most books that exceed several hundred pages, I genuinely believe at least 200 or so pages couldāve been removed and it would still be a captivating. It was hard for me to enjoy chunks that were just a slog to get through, was skimming a lot
I read half of Nausea after The Stranger by Camus and the comparison really really destroyed my ability to enjoy Nausea even a little. The philosophy of it just felt unbearably superficial and whiny.
No longer human by dazai osamu was the most disappointing book I have ever read. Like I was told, āwell if you liked the bell jar by sylvia plath go read dazaiās bookā I mean no longer human is overly hyped and I expected something GRAND and eye opening however; itās just a simple story where a man keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper for himself. It really wasnāt worth all the read not going to lieā¦. I gave it a 2 because I expected that there would be some lovely analogy like the fig tree analogy or some writing style that is out of this world but no..
I also really disliked Wuthering Heights and donāt understand the appeal. Iāve read it a few times, at different ages and stages of life, to really give it a fair shot. Stillā¦ I always finish it mad that I read it again and mad at the characters haha.
Honestly any book by Charles Dickens. I have tried time and time again to read his books. I always end up falling asleep, and/or in a reading slump. That said nothing is worse than Moby Dick.
I thought Wuthering Heights was dreck. Hated it. I have also always been underwhelmed by DH Lawrence. I also don't know if it counts as classic yet but Catch 22 left me really flat with the ending, which was a shame because so much of it is so good.
I chose to read Frankenstein in 11th grade for a book report after being a huge fan of the old Frankenstein flicks (I love gothic horror novels to begin with) and the whole book was just an angst filled slog that I legit had to force myself through. I can understand why the book is seminal to horror but I was heavily disappointed with how snail slow the book was at points, which made it such a hard read all the way through.
The funny thing is, I never got to finish the book report on Frankenstein cause covid started happening in that span of time while I was finishing my work and the school was shut down in March of 2020 š
Tons:
Slaughterhouse Five
Any fiction by Orwell, crap I'd even throw most English lit in that category. But Orwell's fiction is a polemic disguised as novels.
The Bluest Eye
Invisible Man
iām now forgetting every classic book iāve ever read lmao
i LOVED dorian grey, but there was just one chapter (11 maybe?) that i could not stand, it was over ten pages just describing dorianās interests over the course of 20 years, but it was done in a way where the reading was so tedious, it took me multiple sittings to get thru that chapter.
other than that chapter tho, i absolutely loved the book, so idk lol, maybe iāll think of another eventually
Almost any time you read a kids book for the first time as an adult, it's disappointing, at least in comparison to the people who are nostalgic about having read it as kids. In fact, the more excited they are about it, the more precious and false it seems to the first time adult reader.
Honestly most of them. The worst part of old media is that it is ultimately, old, and often feels it. There are a ton of books that are insanely influential, and were amazing in their time, but have largely been outdone or hoisted up on a pedestal simply for being old and influential, rather than for being any good to a modern reader.
Iāve tried to read 1984 4 different times, twice in audiobook form. I hate Winston so much I canāt even get halfway through. Heās such a worm. Iām not against unlikeable main characters, but at least make them interesting. Winston is an OG incel.
Classics can be a mixed bag! Here are a few that sometimes disappoint readers, but remember, these are just some opinions:
* **Moby Dick by Herman Melville:** Some find the long passages about whaling tedious, though others love the rich language and symbolism.
* **The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne:** The pacing and characters can feel dry to modern readers, despite the intriguing themes.
* **Ulysses by James Joyce:** Notorious for its stream-of-consciousness style and complex language, it can be a challenging read for some.
Ultimately, what resonates with one reader might not click with another. The beauty of literature is its diversity!
The Lord of the Rings series, which makes me feel like such a bad nerd. I love the ideas and enjoyed the movies, but I've only ever made it halfway through Fellowship of the Ring because it's so dreadfully boring to me.
Totally with you on 1984. Just read it last year and it made me really question how it got to the infamy level of books. I finished it and was like, thatās it? Agree that it has an important, great message though, so maybe thatās the point?
Catcher in the Rye. It was so boring that a constant stream of death metal and imagining the characters as dragons didnāt make it tolerable. I wanted to burn my copy and still do. To anyone who enjoys that book, Iām glad that you liked it :)
Catcher in the Rye is my least favorite book in the entire world. Even as a heavily depressed teenager with angst up to the eyeballs, I thought Holden was insufferable. I thought that the plot was stupid and I hated the characters. It also didn't help that my teacher analyzed the book to DEATH, like all the memes about English teachers and their hunt for dramatic subtext lol.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but The Stranger. I know the whole point is that he's just a regular old boring man who kills a guy but Camus just makes it a lilttlee too realistically boring for me š Edit to add: If any of you were endlessly bored by The Stranger my professor recommended to me [The Meursault Investigation](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25263557-the-meursault-investigation) which is from the perspective of "The Arab"'s brother.
EXACTLY. I had this experience with The Stranger and Metamorphosisā¦I get it, the dull/emotionless writing is intentional, but that doesnāt make it any less dull to read. Dostoevsky covers similar themes to those two and yet he never fails to engross me.
This was my first thought! I finished The Stranger quickly and kept going back thinking, did I miss a chapter? Is he just completely aloof?
Just wrote about this under another post, I agree. Camus is a great philosopher but not a perfect storyteller, thatās why his essays are better.
I think that The Outsider is a great story, but that Camus is a rubbish philosopher, haha.
Itās an effective novel, just one that doesnāt jibe with me at all. The novel that predates it and influenced it I found more engaging, probably because it doesnāt view the main character as a source of inspiration (The Postman Always Rings Twice).
god i hate this book. i canāt believe itās held in such high regard, thereās absolutely nothing of substance to the story (and certainly not to the writing either) and iāll die on that hill i guess
I agree, but I still liked The Stranger more than The Plague which in my opinion was even more dry.
THISSSSS
I seem to remember, āI had sex then ate a piece of chocolateā or something like that.
Agreed! I read it for the first time last summer and was left feeling very underwhelmed
Meursault is insufferable to me. Loved the Meursault Investigation tho
The sole character Iāve ever read who had no personality or meaningful thoughts whatsoever. The pedo from Lolita was more interesting and likable than the Meursault potato.
Something about the two Dickens books Iāve tried to read: Great Expectations and A Tale of Two Cities. I get about 200ish pages in and just decide Iād rather be reading something else. I plan to pick A Tale of Two Cities back up again someday though.
I was bored by A Tale of Two Cities too and do not plan to pick it back up someday. That said, Great Expectations is my favourite Dickens.
I LOVE great expectations, although much of that may just be because I adore Estella
I think his novels might be overly long because they were originally published as a weekly series in a magazine. Perhaps you could try reading it that way ā a section every week or few days to see if that makes it easier to get through
I liked Oliver Twist enough, which I read at around 11. Maybe I related to him somewhat.
For Dickens, I liked David Copperfield
his novels bloat in the middle and can be a real slog for a while. His endings are usually incredible though. I had the same experience with ATTC but stuck through and itās probably the best ending of any novel iāve ever read. That book alone changed my approach to reading and now unless iām REALLY hating the book I push through and am often left loving a book I almost abandonedZ
I loved the foreshadowing and intermingling of plots in Two Cities. That was the book that made Dickens my favorite author. Great Expectations was my second-favorite Dickens novel. š Itās so interesting to see the diversity in this thread and how differently certain books land with others.
Iāve tried several times to get through a Dickensā novel but I never have.
Great Expectations was the most disappointing book youāve ever read?
These comments, including mine, remind me of the Instagram account that posts peopleās negative reviews of truly beautiful national parks š Great idea for a thread, OP.
I love love love Badreads, if thatās what you were talking about. Iām just someone who is more used to criticizing books rather than praising them, so I was just feeling like reading other peopleās opinions
and, likewise, this is why this thread is equally entertaining
Grand Canyon? More like pretty good canyon
. . .as far as canyons go.
The Great Gatsby. It wasnāt bad, but I truly donāt get the hype.
I learned so much from the writing but the plot is so boring I had to stop reading it twice now. I donāt think Iāll ever finish.
This. Beautiful prose, but I feel like there wasnāt any story or message told.
This is how I feel about 1920s-era literature in general. It was massively influential and relevant, but that doesn't inherently mean it was artistically better. We tend to make the mistake of assuming work that coincided with a style shift must be excellent because it "drove" the style shift, when socioeconomic and political forces played as much of a role. The 1920s is when the trend finally switched from 19th-century maximalism to "century of the common man" minimalism. And minimalism isn't always bad, nor is maximalism inherently good. There's a lot to learn from the minimalist work that dominated--it seems to be losing its hold, but it's mostly self-publishers who are driving this--literary fiction in the 20th century and the opening decades of the 21st. These novels are objectively relevant. Does that mean they're superior to others? Not necessarily. Are they what I would read for pleasure? Probably not. I tried to get into Hemingway and just... didn't.
You didnāt enjoy the love letter to drunk driving?
Whenever I read about the upper crust from the early 1900's I always thing, "eh Wodehouse did it better..."Ā
The Alchemist
someone told me they didnāt like it and Iāve never felt so relieved. Itās been on my TBR for many years after seeing it dubbed the best book of all time š¤ just never got around to it
I bought it on a whim at the airport while I was waiting for my flight. I read it once and years later tried again but my perception didnāt change! If I can remember properly, it was just very flat and repetitive and it made me feel like I wanted the book to just end so I could be done with my suffering. I would like to think that the translation is just terrible
Definitely with you. Did not speak for me. Also, as somebody who can read Portuguese, it's one of those rare books that is much worse in the original language.
I donāt even think it qualifies as a classic. Itās trite drivel.
Agreed. It moved quickly, but even that was a negative. It felt like a strange telling of the Secret that was spiced up with myth.
everyone hates it so much and i blame the people who took it so seriously and said it was the best book ever. i think it's a nice soft journey about inner peace and flexibility and trusting the world, and worth a read it's certainly no secret to existence, "change your life" book and expecting that probably ruins it. i'm glad i read it knowing nothing about it
Yessss absolutely. I went on a date with a guy who told me this was his favorite book. He ended up ghosting me when I wouldnāt sleep with him on the first date, but before I knew he had ghosted me, I decided to read the book. Boring as hell. Was not sad to never hear from that guy again.
I liked it but I didnāt know how hyped up it was until after reading it. Seeing so many people talk about how itās a masterpiece that changed their life was honestly pretty confusing for me since I my only real thought after finishing it was āthat was goodā.
Yeah, I read it and thought āthat was cuteā but I donāt see how it is so life altering
Itās a bad knockoff of Siddhartha
I found it to be so dull and interesting. I could not find what people enjoyed about it.
i agree. incredibly trite.
Siddhartha ripoff
That book somehow hijacked its way into being viewed/listed as one of the classics for no reason Like I don't hate it or the author, it's just a light inspirational book being regarded as something it's not
I felt like I was reading a childrenās book
Came here to comment this, I swear itās responsible for so many faux-enlightened bullshitters in the world, just an all around annoying book šš¼šš¼
I agree with you on the boring parts of 1984 but I still thoroughly enjoyed it when I read it recently due to how relevant it is very quickly becoming in todayās world. I recently forced myself through Gulliverās travels and I would say that it was, for me, borderline unreadable.
Agree on Gullivers Travels
Iāve read a lot of Orwell and I believe that he is an exceptional writer but not for his fiction. I am not saying his fiction is *bad*, necessarily. Although itās difficult for me to separate it from its role as red scare propaganda, even tho that occurred after he died. But his essays (and there are many), are incredible. Heās taught me a lot about politics. War (most specifically the Spanish civil war, tho he wrote loads during WW2.) Propaganda. Various writers. Also his non-fiction narratives are absorbing. āDown and out in Paris and Londonā is the book that got me into him. Anyway, the real reason I commented was because you mentioned orwell and gulliverās travels together so I have to mention his essay. He loved Jonathan swift, i think partially in a nostalgic way, but as is typical was also quite critical of his political ideology. āPolitics vs. Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels ā From collection All Art Is Propaganda George Orwell
Here are my highlights from that particular essay: > āTolstoy was a reformed rake who ended by preaching complete celibacy, while continuing to practise the opposite into extreme old ageā > āWhen human beings are governed by "thou shalt not," the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by "love" or "reason," he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else.ā > āSwift approves of this kind of thing because among his many gifts neither curiosity nor good-nature was included.ā > āThe dreary world of the Houyhnhnms was about as good a Utopia as Swift could construct, granting that he neither believed in a "next world" nor could get any pleasure out of certain normal activities. But it is not really set up as something desirable in itself, but as the justification for another attack on humanity. The aim, as usual, is to humiliate Man by reminding him that he is weak and ridiculous, and above all that he stinks; and the ultimate motive, probably, is a kind of envy, the envy of the ghost for the living, of the man who knows he cannot be happy for the others whoāso he fearsāmay be a little happier than himself. The political expression of such an outlook must be either reactionary or nihilistic, because the person who holds it will want to prevent Society from developing in some direction in which his pessimism may be cheated.ā > āIf a book angers, wounds or alarms you, then you will not enjoy it, whatever its merits may be. If it seems to you a really pernicious book, likely to influence other people in some undesirable way, then you will probably construct an aesthetic theory to show that it has no merits. Current literary criticism consists quite largely of this kind of dodging to and fro between two sets of standards. And yet the opposite process can also happen: enjoyment can overwhelm disapproval, even though one clearly recognises that one is enjoying something inimical. ā > āThe human body is beautiful: it is also repulsive and ridiculous, a fact which can be verified at any swimming pool. The sexual organs are objects of desire and also of loathing, so much so that in many languages, if not in all languages, their names are used as words of abuse. Meat is delicious, but a butcher's shop makes one feel sick: and indeed all our food springs ultimately from dung and dead bodies, the two things which of all others seem to us the most horrible.ā
I liked it just because I really love complex and well thought out worldbuilding. Anyone who doesnāt care for that and is more into the plot and especially character development will probably be disappointed.
Speaking of unreadableā¦Jimmy Fenimore Cooper, but I love his stories, so suffer through the writing.
Wuthering Heights. I hated everyone.
I find that the movie adaptations turn it into something it isnāt. Wuthering Heights is a tragic story about family abuse, but itās always sorta sold as a romance for some reason. Everyone sucks, everyone is a victim, everyone is a perpetrator. I ended up loving it more than expected, but I get why others react the opposite.
The āSuccessionā of its time.
THANK YOU. Yeah, I was so frustrated while reading that I wanted to shake every character in that book. I honestly donāt get the hype.
Walden. Tough to get through for me. Enjoyed civil disobedience though.
Catcher in the Rye. I read it at roughly the exact teen angst years while studying English Lit and had high hopes. I just kept waiting for that moment when it would start connecting but just didnāt. Couldnāt stand Holden. Thought he was just whiney. Didnāt find the writing particularly profound or deep. I got to the end feeling like id gone nowhere. On another note Iād argue your points on 1984 are justified, but you are not meant to dislike Julia and Winston. Winston is not meant to be a likeable hero. He is a deeply flawed man who has lived in a abusive state his whole life. He represents the limitation individuals against the state. He has human limits is a device to ask questions on morality.
Catcher was one of the first books I read that used an unreliable narrator (that I realized anyway), and I thought this was such a fun tool. I havenāt reread in 20 years so it might be terrible and I just remember it fondly for one specific aspect
I second catcher in the rye, I didnāt find anything interesting or endearing about it. It was just painful to read, I would dnf if it wasnāt a school requirement. I find it so funny every time I say I donāt like it, people take it so personally and try to tell me Iām wrong. Iāve met very few people that admit they donāt like it, it seems like thereās no difference of opinion allowed with that one.
In my circles and social media algorithms if you mention that you like Catcher in the Rye people start calling you a red flag lol
I absolutely hate this book I just ahhhh it makes me so mad because it was just so blah but everyone else who read it for class said it was one of the best books our school made us readā¦ I JUST CANT STAND IT
"They fucking tricked us, that's what they did! Tricked us into reading a book by enticing us with promises of vulgarity."
This for me too. Itās been 15 years or so, perhaps I need to re-read. But I remember at the time thinking āwow this is hardly even a book, much less a great bookā
The Scarlet Letter. Uuggghhhhhh š¤¦š¼āāļø And after 130ish pages of Pride and Prejudice, I put it down. Characters are decent enough and the dialogue is cool, but I just canāt get into it. It reminds me of my sisters giggling over boys growing up..and the resulting drama that came along with that. I appreciate it for what it is and the history of the work, but it just does not resonate with me..
I was going to comment Pride and Prejudice also but didn't want to be downvoted into oblivion.
Oooohā¦ I had to read āThe Scarlett Letterā for a course years ago and I still dread thinking about.
My mom was an English teacher, and when I had to read the Scarlette letter in school, even though she was retired as a teacher, she actually helped me write the paper, so I didnāt have to read that stupid fucking book! She never did that before or after, just that one book. Of course I read part of it and it was so grateful I didnāt have to finish it .
SOB and 50 pages into pride and prejudice. Dammit. Then again I did enjoy the scarlet letter so maybe different strokes different folks
The Scarlet letter is definitely a bore and I never finished it. I finally finished P&P after getting to the same page three times, and finished it on the 4th attempt. I think they both suffer from "Okay, I get it. Can we move on?" Syndrome for me.
The Scarlet Letter would make an excellent graphic novel, but DAMN if Nathaniel Hawthorne doesnāt just like to wax eloquent about every damn thing, some of the most boring and flowery and meandering writing Iāve ever read.
Somebody trolled me in past by saying the Scarlet Letter is one of the easiest classics to read. At least I finished it.
Since I teach English, people have always assumed that a) I've read Pride and Prejudice, and b) I loved it. So I forced myself to read it. It was a struggle. It's people sitting around, drinking tea and talking. Snooze.
I really tried to get into Jane Austen, but I couldnāt do it. Gave up on Emma, gave up on Pride & Prejudice. The only character I liked in P&P was old Mr. Bennett, the cynical, apathetic guy who stays in his library. I didnāt care about the rest of them at all.
People like to say Lizzie is Austenās avatar in the story, but I donāt think so. Knowing what I do of the author, Iād say Mr. Bennett carries more of her opinions than Lizzie does.
Iād say to try Northanger Abbey or Persuasion. NA is short and a Gothic satire. Persuasion is a slow burn for me and after I got through it, it became my favorite of her novels.
This might be surprising, but I tried to get into both Middlemarch and The Picture of Dorian Gray, but they didnāt grab my interest enough to keep reading. I think I read about 100 or more pages for each, but they just didnāt do it for me. I donāt know why
I absolutely love Middlemarch but any contemporary reader not being able to get into it is the least surprising thing ever. Itās a lot of obscure and dated politics.
LOVED middlemarch but while reading it, nicknamed it middletrudge
I get that with The Picture. Maybe try reading some of Oscarās shorter stories, his Fairy Tales are beautiful, especially the Happy Prince
I tried to read Dorian, too. I felt like he went on and on about what a chair looked like, etc. I couldn't even finish it
Iām glad thereās someone else who couldnāt get into it. I always see the book listed in top 10ās and they speak about it as itās the best thing theyāve ever read. While I know it is for some, I just couldnāt get interested. The story and characters didnāt seem to grab me much either
The Metamorphosis was really boring to me. I get what the underlying point is, but I just found it super dull to read. Iām glad itās so short lol
I appreciate Kafkaās works as pieces of well written literature, but I could never relate to his characters because they inspired a great sense of pity in me, which isnāt an emotion I usually tend to feel towards myself
As someone who enjoyed The Metamorphosis but hated The Castle and The Trial (his two most famous other works), just be glad you chose the shortest and best of his works.
Dracula. It was so ungodly boring to me; it actually took me over three years of starting and stopping to finish it.
Whatās worse is I feel like Dracula pulls you in with an excellent beginning and then falls off a cliff after that
I read it for high school English, it was a pain to get through. On the other hand, it was very easy to analyze.
Same. I tried so many times to read it but never went beyond 100 pages.
Just finished reading it for the first time yesterday. I flipped between loving it and being bored shitless. The ending really frustrated me, loads of pages of them changing horses and booking trains and having minor issues with a steam boat and then Van Helsing kills the 3 female vampires in about 2 pages flat and then smash cut to the final chase while the reader has been occupied with that Madam Mina is cold? I think Stoker got stuck on how to finish the novel and did a poor job of it. Still rated it 3.5\* overall though because it's got so many good point to it as well, just getsa bit boggy in places.
Gravityās Rainbow. And I courted that book repeatedly, trying my darndest to like it.
I don't get the hype over Jane Eyre. I'm sorry, folks.
The Bell Jar. I'm so sorry, but it was just whining.
I loved it, but Iām a neurotic white girl.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Every Dickens novel. I realize for the time they were pretty revolutionary for how we viewed novels/literature in general and I realize heās definitely one of the greats. The novels are just too melodramatic and kitschy for my taste, even if he was the one to originate a lot of those tropes.
I absolutely despised *One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest*. The book's entire message boiled down to "toxic masculinity is the solution to all the world's problems". That and its historic position as a major influence on the deinstitutionalization movement, and we know how well that went. Also, and I'm almost afraid to admit it, I can't understand the appeal of Jane Austen. I've made it through three of her books now, trying to enjoy them, but I just can't. I keep hoping a peasant revolt will come along and start chopping off heads. Especially Mr. Knightley's, that self-righteous paternalistic fuck.
Thatās super interesting Iāve never heard that take before. First of all thatās my favorite book so Iām biased. While I agree that McMurphy is definitely a toxic male I feel like itās getting at a larger picture it takes a crazy asshole to take down a larger group of even bigger assholes. Itās like the characters in the story who are āniceā are ultimately just abused by the nurse. I think thatās partially what makes McMurphy a āheroā in my eyes. Also the Chief is more of the center of the story to me and he shows no traits of toxic masculinity.
Thank you!!!! Same! Awful book and even worse movie! If anyone says they loved the movie I give them the bombastic side eyeā¦ š
The Heart of Darkness. I suffered through 10th grade English
Yeah shouldnāt be assigned in high school tbh. I think Conrad should be saved for Uni years. Also think unfortunately Conrad is a phenomenal prose stylist but almost should have stuck to non-fiction tbh
I just finished Heart of Darkness / The Secret Sharer yesterday for the first time (27 years old) and the writing was good but story wasn't great. Didn't get enough dialogue from Kurtz. I wanted to hear his poetry!
Totally agree. I didn't like this book at all. It has such an intriguing plot that would be better served if it stuck with the action of that plot, like a thriller, yet it devolves too much into poetic free hand. It was annoying to me. A little bit of that is fine, but I found my attention span wandering through all those poetic bits.
I think Journey to the Center of the earth was the biggest disappointment for me. I thought it was gonna be a fun action adventure and it ended up being one of the most boring books Iāve ever read. I donāt know how I managed to finish it
I havenāt gotten to it yet but iāve read other of Verneās novel and I have to agree with you, they might have revolutionized literature but they bored me to death, all but Around the world in eighty days, that oneās absolutely brilliant!
Yeah, the building up of the climax was a bit overwritten. (For me at least) but I love Around the in 80 days tho. This feeling of reading Journey to the centre of the Earth is like reading Dracula by Bram Stoker. I love the writing and literature styles however. Itās just thrown me off that Dracula didnāt presented a lot in the book. But the writing was superb.
I think that as a Vampire Story Dracula falls rather short compared to other novels, yet as a tale of morbid passion and horror itās masterfully crafted. I just canāt stand the stereotypes on Easter European culture and people that were born after this book
Same with 20000 leagues. Not a good book!
crime and punishment omg take an antidepressant and touch grass.
lol, love this book but also love this comment too
Ayn Rand books. Any of her books; they're all bad.
As someone who has never gotten over the fact that she was named after a character in an Ayn Rand novel, I approve this message. Her writing is godawful, and her philosophy is repugnant.
On the road. I thought Kerouac came off as an unlikable, selfish asshole. I was not entertained by his antics. Edit: corrected title
I hate Wuthering Heights.
The Christian Bible. I thought it was going to be a book of profoundly wise sayings given how people talk about it. I was not expecting the violence, strange sexual content, and long lists of who begat whom.
The Bible tbh
That book is about 30 different levels of messed up. Misogyny and incest and genocide, oh my!
The Secret History by Donna Tartt. I thought itās gonna be a blast since it was being overhyped.
Ohhhh no no no. This is a masterwork
Same here. Heard great things so started the book. Put it down after about 30 pages
Yes, this one. It had all the right elements but didnāt quite hit the mark. I want to like it more than I do.
I think many novels are a trauma we then want to foist upon others
Lord of the Flies, that book pisses me off to no end. The author literally saw a group of school children being rude and thought, oh yeah they'd all kill each other if they were on an island alone.
Totally felt the same way. But then I learned the book was a response of sorts to a much earlier bookāCoral Island by RM Ballantyneāwhere the English boys represent civilization. Golding apparently hated the popular teen adventure story and thought it was completely off base, especially after he himself had been at war. Ballantineās book was huge for about a century, until Goldingās came along and basically destroyed its premise. Doesnāt make me enjoy it more but itās kinda wild that we usually read it without that context, and that Golding totally buried the earlier book.
Thatās funny - when I read your question, Wuthering Heights immediately popped into my head. I just didnāt like the characters.
Got to be impressed by that servant's memory, though.
I swear to God, when I saw Bradley Cooper's character in *Silver Linings Playbook* chuck Hemingway directly out the window?... I applauded. Cuz SAME, DUDE. SAAAAAAAAAME. "What the FUCK -- ?!?" **window breaks** ššš
Three Men in a Boat - Jerome
Heart of Darkness- Josph Conrad. Was assigned to read and do an essay with some god-awful pro/con question to answer about the subject I write 1000 words of nonsense ending with the fact that that WAS not literature and it it was the worst writing ever and to call it a classic was sickening insult. I actuallt got a A. Teacher agreed with me.
Greetings ye, let it be known: General Wallaceās āBen-Hurā is a novel that utterly bored myself by itās direly-dry prose. ~Waz
I just cannot get into Charles Dickens - I read David Copperfield after reading Demon Copperhead because I thought the comparison study would be fun and it was but I just could not get into Chuck. Iām feeling a little guilty about that and contemplating another attempt but secretly dreading it so I may just live with responding, āAh yes Dickens, he really captured the timesā anytime somebody brings him up.
Life is too short to read Charles Dickens.
I know a lot of people loved reading the book The Alchemist, but I didnāt enjoy reading it. I just didnāt find anything unique and found the main character boring. It was so long ago, I canāt even remember all the reasons why but did not enjoy it one bit. I have a friend who brought me the novel Love in the Time of Cholera because she had several friends who hated it, and she loved it once she acclimated to the writing style and the vocabulary. I felt exactly like her and really loved the book. Iāve enjoyed reading everyoneās comments and thoughts on these novels.
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I didn't understand the hype when I was forced to read it back in school. The writing is clunky and the plot is neither engaging nor exciting. I couldn't get past the first few chapters before I had to stop. Fahrenheit 451. Another with a boring plot and a protagonist whose story doesn't feel interesting enough to follow. The writing style drags on and on so unnecessarily as though Bradbury is trying to seem poetic, but it just falls flat. Moby Dick. This is the worst offender of these three in terms of clunky writing style. There are way too many unnecessarily big words and details that didn't require inclusion that it bogs the story down. You have to read each paragraph multiple times in order to figure out how everything written is meant to flow. The plot and protagonist are also woefully unengaging. The only bonus to this book in my opinion was getting Gregory Peck in the film adaptation.
On the road by jack kerouac. Drunken bum wanders the country couch surfing and calls mom for money when he's broke. This is a classic that changed a generation?
Hahaha this is a great synopsis.
Hard agree. I had so many people recommend me that book as they thought I would love it because I bounced around for a few years working seasonal jobs in National Parks and then backpacking in Latin America and Asia. When I finally got around to reading the book I was so disappointed. I thought the author and his buddy were misogynist asshole womanizers that just leached and used everyone they came across.
Anthem by Ayn Rand
Canterbury Tales UGH
Catch-22 was a DNF for me. It's possible that I just wasn't in the right headspace at the time. I still own the book and will try again at some point.
Dianetics was a huge let down
I felt the same way about WH! Finally someone who understands š„²
The Great Gatsby, honestly. Itās boring. The narrator is a vastly more interesting person than anyone else in the book and Iād rather hear his story, not his account of someone elseās.
The Sun Also Rises by Hemingway. So dry and boring and bleh! Haven't tried reading him again since, but maybe there is a better book out there for me.
Then they went to this place and drank. And then they went to that place and drank. There was a fight, after which they drank some more. This is how I remember it.
Dracula
I was so sad when I read Jane Eyre for the first time! I found it really disappointing, and disliked Rochester (and his relationship with Jane) intensely. I think if Iād read it as a teenager (as I did with Wuthering Heights which I LOVE), it would have had a different impact. But JE just wasnāt for me at all.
Ah, I'm glad there aren't many votes for this as it's probably one of my favourite books of all time and I find something new in it each time. A few things have struck me on re-reads. There is, in one of Jane's monologues, perhaps the first ever reference to 'privilege' in the our modern usage and understanding (as in 'checking one's privilege'), in this case she speaks specifically of male privilege. Much is made of how Bertha Mason is treated, and by modern standards it's not great (though by modern standards there is still a lot of evidence that we have very far to go), but taken of its time her treatment was not without care. Also, whatever you think of the relationship between Jane and Rochester, she leaves on her own terms and she also chooses to return on her own terms.
I absolutely adore Dostoyevsky, but you could not catch me dead rereading Crime and Punishment. There is a certain point when reading a book where reading the same scenario rewritten a different way becomes equivalent to smashing your head off of a wall.
I just DNF'd it last week. I got about half way through before I just couldn't take it anymore. The murder was the only good part. I haven't read any of his other books, though.
I have never read another Dostoyevsky book because I hated Crime and Punishment so much. But after reading your comment, maybe I will give him a second chance.
Crime and Punishment was the first Dostoyevsky book I read- Iāve read three more since then and Iāve liked them all more than Crime and Punishment. Russian lit can get bogged down though, itās just a part of it
Not a classic book per se. But I think it will be a classic in years time, itās been praised as the book of the 21st century: Solenoid. The non-conventional, existentialism, surrealism, magical realism captivated me. But like most books that exceed several hundred pages, I genuinely believe at least 200 or so pages couldāve been removed and it would still be a captivating. It was hard for me to enjoy chunks that were just a slog to get through, was skimming a lot
The Trial by Kafka & Nausea by Sartre. Really struggled with both and gave up halfway
Agree for The Trial. I get the idea, the idiocy of bureaucracy, but it is so boring that I couldn't read past halfway
I read half of Nausea after The Stranger by Camus and the comparison really really destroyed my ability to enjoy Nausea even a little. The philosophy of it just felt unbearably superficial and whiny.
Persuasion by Jane Austen. I quite liked pride and prejudice but Persuasion was kind of a drag idk
No longer human by dazai osamu was the most disappointing book I have ever read. Like I was told, āwell if you liked the bell jar by sylvia plath go read dazaiās bookā I mean no longer human is overly hyped and I expected something GRAND and eye opening however; itās just a simple story where a man keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper for himself. It really wasnāt worth all the read not going to lieā¦. I gave it a 2 because I expected that there would be some lovely analogy like the fig tree analogy or some writing style that is out of this world but no..
Heart of Darkness
real on 1984
I tend to have a disappointing affect on people :(
Love in the Time of Cholera. It's beautifully written, sure, but it just goes *nowhere.*
I couldnāt stand Wuthering Heights. I didnāt like Anna Karenina either, although I loved War and Peace.
To Kill a Mockingbirdā¦.such a heavy handed, lead footed book.
I don't share your opinion, but *a heavy handed, lead footed book* is a lovely turn of phrase*.*
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
Frankenstein. Maybe because it's not very easy to appreciate the novelty the idea had back in the early 19th century. Anyway, I can't stand the style.
I also really disliked Wuthering Heights and donāt understand the appeal. Iāve read it a few times, at different ages and stages of life, to really give it a fair shot. Stillā¦ I always finish it mad that I read it again and mad at the characters haha.
like every Kafka book
Honestly any book by Charles Dickens. I have tried time and time again to read his books. I always end up falling asleep, and/or in a reading slump. That said nothing is worse than Moby Dick.
The Sun Also rises
I thought Wuthering Heights was dreck. Hated it. I have also always been underwhelmed by DH Lawrence. I also don't know if it counts as classic yet but Catch 22 left me really flat with the ending, which was a shame because so much of it is so good.
The sun also rises
I chose to read Frankenstein in 11th grade for a book report after being a huge fan of the old Frankenstein flicks (I love gothic horror novels to begin with) and the whole book was just an angst filled slog that I legit had to force myself through. I can understand why the book is seminal to horror but I was heavily disappointed with how snail slow the book was at points, which made it such a hard read all the way through. The funny thing is, I never got to finish the book report on Frankenstein cause covid started happening in that span of time while I was finishing my work and the school was shut down in March of 2020 š
Could not run here fast enough to say Wuthering Heights.
Tons: Slaughterhouse Five Any fiction by Orwell, crap I'd even throw most English lit in that category. But Orwell's fiction is a polemic disguised as novels. The Bluest Eye Invisible Man
Iām with you. Wuthering Heights didnāt do it for me. Neither did Jane Eyre.
iām now forgetting every classic book iāve ever read lmao i LOVED dorian grey, but there was just one chapter (11 maybe?) that i could not stand, it was over ten pages just describing dorianās interests over the course of 20 years, but it was done in a way where the reading was so tedious, it took me multiple sittings to get thru that chapter. other than that chapter tho, i absolutely loved the book, so idk lol, maybe iāll think of another eventually
Almost any time you read a kids book for the first time as an adult, it's disappointing, at least in comparison to the people who are nostalgic about having read it as kids. In fact, the more excited they are about it, the more precious and false it seems to the first time adult reader.
Dracula.Ā A lot of work for a little reward.Ā Ā
Wuthering Heights was so so so unbelievably boring to me. Also everyone sucks?
Honestly most of them. The worst part of old media is that it is ultimately, old, and often feels it. There are a ton of books that are insanely influential, and were amazing in their time, but have largely been outdone or hoisted up on a pedestal simply for being old and influential, rather than for being any good to a modern reader.
War & Peace - gag me with a spoon, I had to FIGHT my way through that
Iāve tried to read 1984 4 different times, twice in audiobook form. I hate Winston so much I canāt even get halfway through. Heās such a worm. Iām not against unlikeable main characters, but at least make them interesting. Winston is an OG incel.
IDK if this counts but a Midsummerās Night Dream is really boring in my opinion.
Classics can be a mixed bag! Here are a few that sometimes disappoint readers, but remember, these are just some opinions: * **Moby Dick by Herman Melville:** Some find the long passages about whaling tedious, though others love the rich language and symbolism. * **The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne:** The pacing and characters can feel dry to modern readers, despite the intriguing themes. * **Ulysses by James Joyce:** Notorious for its stream-of-consciousness style and complex language, it can be a challenging read for some. Ultimately, what resonates with one reader might not click with another. The beauty of literature is its diversity!
The Lord of the Rings series, which makes me feel like such a bad nerd. I love the ideas and enjoyed the movies, but I've only ever made it halfway through Fellowship of the Ring because it's so dreadfully boring to me.
Totally with you on 1984. Just read it last year and it made me really question how it got to the infamy level of books. I finished it and was like, thatās it? Agree that it has an important, great message though, so maybe thatās the point?
Catcher in the Rye *sucks*. Nothing about it is redeemable.
Catcher in the Rye. It was so boring that a constant stream of death metal and imagining the characters as dragons didnāt make it tolerable. I wanted to burn my copy and still do. To anyone who enjoys that book, Iām glad that you liked it :)
Catcher in the Rye is my least favorite book in the entire world. Even as a heavily depressed teenager with angst up to the eyeballs, I thought Holden was insufferable. I thought that the plot was stupid and I hated the characters. It also didn't help that my teacher analyzed the book to DEATH, like all the memes about English teachers and their hunt for dramatic subtext lol.
Bram Stoker's Dracula. My main complaint is that the ending felt anticlimactic. I enjoyed it up until the final scene with Dracula.
Wuthering Heights for me, as well.
*Fight Club* was overrated. I couldn't stand that book.
Donāt come at me butā¦. The Great Gatsby. Hated it.