Famous Disappointments!

Have you read a classic or a best-seller because everyone else has and it has great reviews only to find out that it's a dull snoozer? Tell us your experience!

I thought that all great/good readers should have read a Hemingway. I was 50 years old and had not! So, I did research. I read reviews. I even read some commentary by Hemingway that he thought the best book he wrote was The Sun Also Rises. That was to be the Hemingway I was to read!

To make a long story short, YUCKY! I found the book to be a dullard. Everytime they went to another cafe or talked about being short on money my eyes became glassy. These "poor" people who lived off the largesse of the U.S. relatives came up with enough money to go to a bullfight in Spain where the bullfighter became too tired to fight by spending the night with a woman and got into a fight with another of their group........sigh.............BORING does not do justice to that book!

I despise Catcher in the Rye. I've read it twice, in my late teens and again in my late thirties. I found it not just nasty-tempered, but also boring.

There are quite a few bestsellers that everyone else loved, which I couldn't even finish. But as for classics, I thought Wuthering Heights was a dreadful slog and I really couldn't stand Heathcliff and his incessant brooding.

#4--Heathcliffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff! His soul and mine are made of the same thing. Wuthering Heights is my favorite book of all time!

Another snoozer for me, much in the same vein as The Sun Also Rises was The Great Gatsby. Sigh, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Sadly, none of the 3 movies made were any better than the book!

>5 Tess_W: no offense intended so I hope none taken. I love Gatsby myself. There is probably no book that everyone would agree is wonderful.

Agreed re: The Sun Also Rises and Catcher in the Rye being utterly horrendous. Great Gatsby was a high school read, which I found quite dull, but do want to reread sometime because, adult, you know, and everyone claims it's so amazing. Along completely opposite lines, the entire world raves about HP and I read half of the first one and found it unoriginal, trite, and boring as heck.

My book club is doing Catcher in the Rye in December. My reading tastes are very different than they were when I read it years ago, so it will be interesting to see if I like it now as much as I did then.

I thought The Picture of Dorian Gray was abysmal! If I had not read it as part of OLTOB, I would have abandoned it early.

Jane Eyre: It's the only novel I've ever literally "thrown with great force," to quote Dorothy Parker.

I've read a few Georgette Heyer books and disliked all of them. I don't get the comparison to Jane at all.

>1 Tess_W: I think Hemingway fares much better as a short story writer. His hypermasculine, woe is I view of the world is best in short doses. The Nick Adams Stories is my favorite collection of his.

>3 amysisson: I've never read Catcher in the Rye, but if it's anything like A Separate Peace, I'll keep it that way.

>8 .Monkey.: Agree re: HP, although I made it halfway through #5 before throwing in the towel. I enjoyed the first three books. The kids have high-spirited adventures (derivative though they are), but once characters started dying, I stopped caring.

This happens to me often since I try a lot of things. Here's a quick list from the lowest rated books I read from the last few years -

Mrs. Dalloway - Viginia Wolfe
The Brief History of the Dead - Kevin Brockmeier
The Wind Up Bird Chronicle - Harui Murakami
The Yard - Alex Grecian
Cat's Eye - Margaret Atwood
The Woman in Black - Susan Hill
The Ocean at the End of the Lane - Neil Gaiman

All of them are popular or highly acclaimed (or both) by lots of different people, but I didn't like a one.

There are any number of classics that I found tedious when I read them as a young woman, but have found remarkable when I revisited them later in life: The Great Gatsby and Wuthering Heights both fall into this category. Gatsby is the only book I've ever considered to be "perfect."

And there are a few (a very few) that I liked when I was younger, but found pallid as I grew older--several books by Charles Dickens earned this doubtful accolade.

Catcher in the Rye I have not liked at any age.

>12 southernbooklady: My perfect book would be To Kill a Mockingbird, but I am sure there are some folks who do not agree!

Had a DNF on Wuthering Heights and Middlemarch. Wuthering Heights I got a few chapters into (hated characters) but I couldn't get past the first few pages of Middlemarch (writing style.)

Gone Girl was another I quit because I couldn't stand the characters. A Confederacy of Dunces I thought was cruel. Crime and Punishment because it had too much pontificating and internal thoughts. The Name of the Rose was too dense and The Sound and the Fury was unreadable.

I slogged through Heart of Darkness somehow. I needed the help of SparkNotes to understand it. Same thing with The Picture of Dorian Gray nor was I impressed by A Tale of Two Cities though I have enjoyed others by Dickens. Catch-22, The Great Gatsby, and The Turn of the Screw all left me wanting.

It may seem like I don't like classics but that's not it. I've been doing a lot of catch up in the last 5 years or so because I stopped reading them in my teens. There are many I adore.

Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon. Someone told me he was a genius; his genius was wasted on me.

I, too, did not like or see any point to The Ocean at the End of the Lane. I expected to like it since I loved Stardust, Neverwhere and The Graveyard Book, all by Gaiman.

The other best-seller that I wish I hadn't bothered with was The Light between Oceans by M. Stedman. This started off wonderfully then lapsed into unremitting tragedy till the bitter end.
Setting and descriptions were beautiful but the story was wrenching with no relief.

Coincidentally, I ran across this just today:

"Let's talk about the books you hate the most"

>15 nemoman:

But at least Gravity's Rainbow wasn't boring!

>14 Morphidae: Steve Leveen once quipped that there was "too much punishment, not enough crime." I quit on that one, too, even though I generally love 19th century Russian literature in all its depressing glory.

>19 LibraryPerilous: I tried Crime and Punishment because Anna Karenina wasn't all that bad. Oof, was that a mistake.

Actually, I always find these "books I hated..." threads something of a disappointment.

You always start off with high hopes, thinking "now old X is finally going to get what's coming to him", but it simply degenerates into a string of different people saying "no, A is a great book; it's B that I was never able to finish". We end up with the rather banal conclusion that whilst we all have our individual blind spots, none of the works that are touted as "great books" is universally hated. And what's more, the frequency with which books get mentioned in lists of this sort is roughly proportional to (a) the frequency with which they appear on school reading lists and (b) their length. Yawn.

My blind spot: I'm sure I have many, but the most obvious in a US-dominated context like LT is that I have trouble enjoying a lot of the Great American Novelists. Hemingway and Faulkner have never lit my fire, I'm not quite convinced about Pynchon (yet...), and I think Herzog is probably the most over-rated book I've read in recent years...

I adored Crime and Punishment *shakes fist at all you haters* :P Catch-22 ranks as one of my top 5 books of all time, and one of probably only 5 as well that I've ever reread. I thoroughly enjoyed Picture of Dorian Gray (read it a few years ago, not for OLOB, the discussion of which horrified me from the reactions to it :() and went out and got his complete works after reading it.

I don't think Hemingway is good in any dosage, he was a racist misogynistic ass, which he proudly flaunts in his books, not to mention that even if one tolerated that, he's just freaking boring. Ugh, no, get him awaaaay.

I've only read one Murakami and while the writing/story wasn't bad, the end left me wondering what I had just wasted my time on. So yeah I'm not so keen on picking up his others, though tons of people find him to be so amazing. Not for me.

Oh, another hated classic: Scarlet Letter. Read it in an "Early American Lit" class in high school and haaaaaaated it. Granted, I hated almost everything we were forced to read in that class (and this coming from someone who's never, as a general rule, hated or even disliked almost any required reading; not all were loved but generally the "worst" feelings were simple ambivalence), but that one took the cake. My husband recently read it for a uni class and didn't think it was so horrible. I have less than zero desire to revisit it and see if my opinion would soften with age. Nope. It will remain hated until the end of my days. Hahaha.

I couldn't find a list of the most common recommended books for high school. So I went to *my* trusty database. It has the contents of 82 different lists including 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, AP Literature, Challenged 1990 - 2000, National Book Critics, Easton Press 100 Greatest, Everyman's, The Guardian 100, Modern Library, MLA (Museum, Libraries and Archives Council), Orange Essential Bookshelf of Modern Works, Penquin Classics, Radcliffe, NEA Teachers' Top 100, Well Educated Adult Recommended Reading List, etc.

Here are the 25 most commonly mentioned books (and what I rated them/page numbers):

1984 by Orwell, George (6/10) - 326
To Kill a Mockingbird by Lee, Harper (8/10) - 281
Grapes of Wrath, The by Steinbeck, John (7/10) - 455
Handmaid's Tale, The by Atwood, Margaret (8/10) - 311
Jane Eyre by Bronte, Charlotte (8/10) - 553
Lord of the Flies by Golding, William (5/10) - 182
Beloved by Morrison, Toni (6/10) - 175
Pride and Prejudice by Austen, Jane (9/10) - 385
Catcher in the Rye, The by Salinger, J. D. (7/10) - 214
Wuthering Heights by Bronte, Emily (DNF)
Heart of Darkness by Conrad, Joseph (3/10) - 110
Great Gatsby, The by Fitzgerald, F. Scott (4/10) - 154
Lolita by Nabokov, Vladimir (6/10) - 327
Slaughterhouse-Five by Vonnegut, Kurt (9/10) - 288
Brave New World by Huxley, Aldous (7/10) - 259
Gone with the Wind by Mitchell, Margaret (8/10) - 959
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Marquez, Gabriel Garcia (7/10) - 417
Clockwork Orange, A by Burgess, Anthony (6/10) - 213
Sound and the Fury, The by Faulkner, William (DNF)
Frankenstein by Shelley, Mary (5/10) - 209
Little Women by Alcott, Louisa May (9/10) - 485
Animal Farm by Orwell, George (6/10) - 141
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass by Carroll, Lewis (6/10) - 312
Catch-22 by Heller, Joseph (4/10) - 453
Anna Karenina by Tolstoy, Leo (5/10) - 920

My star ratings:

9/10 - 3 (Pages 385, 288, 485)
8/10 - 4 (Pages 281, 311, 553, 959)
7/10 - 4
6/10 - 6
5/10 - 3
4/10 - 2 (Pages 154, 453)
3/10 - 1 (Pages 110)
DNF - 2

I think that's a nice curve. My average for this list is 6.5 whereas my average for all books for the last 8 years is 6.75. I was surprised at how many 9/10 stars I gave for a list this small. I give 9 stars very rarely. Out of 2,209 books, I have given just 62 books (less than 3%) a 9/10 or 10/10. Whereas this list has over 10% with 9/10 stars.

I don't believe the frequency that books appear on this thread has anything to do with the commonness of appearing on school lists (I'm showing a nice bell curve of ratings) or the length of the books (the ones I liked the least tend to be on the shorter side.) Or at least that is shown to be the truth in my case.

>21 thorold: Interesting observations.

Length certainly is a factor in disliking books as is the necessity to finish the book either for school or a book group. The more time you have involuntarily invested, the more likely you are to hate something. I don't hate Les Miserables, because I put it down myself, but I loath The Naked and the Dead because I had to finish it for a class. (Ditto Herzog which I thought was incredibly insular. Why do I have to care about the problems of middle-aged male professors when there are really interesting stories about the problems of whole eras and people with actual problems like Tale of Two Cities?)

Another factor for me is the order I read the author in. I loved Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground. I bogged down in Brothers Karamozov but got through it eventually. But by the time I got to Crime and Punishment I'd worked out the schtick and I really didn't want to wallow in dark Russian depression anymore.

>22 .Monkey.: The last book I remember abandoning was 1Q84, which wasn't grabbing me and seemed too long to stick with.

>24 aulsmith: Speaking of book length, reading is a commitment. When I'm reading one book, then I'm not reading all the other books. Especially if a book is very long, I resent it when my commitment is time wasted that I could have been spending on better books, or at least books better suited to me.

I've been reading a lot of the classics over the past few years, some rereads from college, some new to me. Most of them have aged well and are perfectly suited for reading for pleasure. They are classics for a reason. Those that aren't I abandon and move on. I think it's worth it to revisit books one may not have cared for or understood completely in school. Or at least give the author another try. I absolutely hated George Eliot in school, but I intend to try Middlemarch. If that works out well, I may revisit Edith Wharton. Of course, if you want to read broadly and challenge yourself to try new authors, then you are bound to be disappointed from time to time.

Then there are other many authors I feel over and done with. Coincidentally, they all seem to be dead white guys. I was an English major, after all.

I have experienced the "English Patient" effect with several popular books. These are books that everyone else seems to be talking about and loves, and I cannot see what the big deal is at all. Remember that episode of Seinfeld when Elaine is forced to watch The English Patient? Off the top of my head, I abandoned The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Shadow of the Wind and Discovery of Witches, all pushed on me by others, and though I finished Gone Girl, I didn't especially like it. Now I have to decide if I'm going to see the movie, which is directed by David Fincher, one of my favorite directors. I did skip his rendition of Dragon Tattoo, though.

I think another factor is the age at which you read a book. I am a very different person now than I was as a high school student 50 years ago. It won't surprise me if I don't like Catcher in the Rye this time. (However, one of my all-time favorites is Rebecca which I first read in high school, so that may disprove my hypothesis.)

Another one I "hate" is anything by Willa Cather. Boring!

>26 LoisB: All my ratings are recent. I don't remember how I felt about most of the specific classics I read in high school except that I hated Great Expectations with a passion (due to how a teacher taught it.) I didn't read any more classics for over twenty years because of it.

>25 sturlington:, never saw that episode of Seinfeld but you've definitely named one for me: couldn't see the appeal of The English Patient. And perhaps it's the "English Patient effect", since it was a must-read for a course!

I try and try to appreciate The Great Gatsby ... yes symbolism, yes I get the theme. Still reads as just okay to me, so why the hoopla? Bothers me because I usually can detect and appreciate especially good writing style.

I fully expect to force myself to read Ulysses sooner or later and to grit my teeth all the way. I'll feel like I've missed something if I don't submit to the torture. But Finnegan's Wake is completely out.

Edit to agree with #35 below: I tried to jump onto the Neil Gaiman bandwagon, but it left without me.

>29 Cecrow: It's funny because I actually liked the movie The English Patient, but I didn't care for the book very much.

>28 Morphidae: Oh, I had forgotten all about Great Expectations! I swear that if I hadn't developed a love of reading before high school, I probably never would have.

>27 Tess_W:

I was an A student in High School English. But I actively chose to not read the assigned, My Antonia. "No regrets, even many decades ago.

I recently read Gilead. 'Boring as all snot.

• Pride and Prejudice. Finished 100 pages. God save me from chatty, circumlocutory British prose and stories about women wanting to marry rich men.
• A Room of One's Own. Finished. Whiny.
• Gilead. Finished. My mind wandered. Often.
• Spaceman Vonnegut. I read many of his books until I got older and wised up.
• The Power and the Glory. Finished. Nothing about it seemed real.
• Song of Solomon. Finished. Not bad, but the end is a cheat.
• Neuromancer. Finished about 20 pages. I don't see the big deal.
• Ender's Game. Finished about three pages. Kids' stuff.
• Rainbows End. Finished about two pages. Just a bad writer.
• Native Son. Finished. I read it after Invisible Man and it paled by comparison.
• Death of a Salesman. Finished. Garbage.
• A Streetcar Name Desire. American drama sucks.
• John Wright. Finished several. I tried so hard to like his books. Nope. A mess.
• The January Dancer. Finished 30 pages. I wanted to like it because Eifelheim is extraordinary. Nope. Oh, all the more world building.
• The Way of Shadows. Finished all 600 pages. Too much of everything.

Nonfiction:
• On Writing Well by William Zinsser. Finished it. Just a lot of cheerleading.
• Bird by Bird. Finished it. What's this in my navel…?

If you want insight into The Catcher in the Rye, you might want to read Salinger by David Shields and Shane Salerno, the companion to the American Masters documentary.

I believe you can only read the Catcher in the Rye properly if you're between 14-18, any other age and things start to unravel... I read it a few times then and loved it, but I wouldn't dare reading it now.

Mine were Gaiman's American Gods and Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5.
Oh, Wuthering Heights too - at some point in time I was reading the Brontes and Austen, and they were all ok, except this one. Just wanted to slap them all the way through, to wake up, hehe

It seems to me reading this litany of books that were disappointments that there is a common thread -- none of these books were what their readers wanted them to be. This one had unlikeable characters, that one is about women trying to get married, another doesn't have enough plot, another has too much symbolism....they all seem to be measured against the kind of book one felt like reading, or was expecting, and fell short.

I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried a different approach -- reading not primarily looking for what you want, but for what you think the author wanted, what the author was trying to do?

Or if you've ever approached a book you disliked by looking at what it was about your own expectations or preconceptions that is interfering with your ability to connect with the story?

I do this all the time with books I don't like--partly because I'm a book critic, so it's my job, but mostly because it helps me to recognize why a book is good even if it isn't, well, good for me.

>36 southernbooklady: I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried a different approach -- reading not primarily looking for what you want, but for what you think the author wanted, what the author was trying to do?

Sure, I can do this, but it's a chore, and, unlike you, I don't get paid to do it. I read because I want to go some place else and be with interesting people. If the author's style gets in the way of immersing myself in the work or the characters aren't people I find interesting (or are simply trapped in their problems like the next person who calls me on the phone is likely to be), then I put it down.

I realize there are lots of reasons to read and lots of different experiences people want from books. That's why I question people who recommend books to me. Why do they think it's a good book for me, as opposed to a book that they liked? I avoid a lot of English Patient syndrome books that way.

>33 barney67:

Ender's Game seems like a Heinlein juvenile through most of the book, but ends pretty powerfully. In my opinion, Card's never been able to carry that level of sophistication in any of his other books.

Rainbow's End Vinge's I assume? Bad book by a generally good author. You might want to give him another try.

>36 southernbooklady: Just read your review of Banned in Boston and ordered a copy. I spent most of my life in the greater Boston area!

>35 ScarletBea: I read Catcher when I was around 18 and thought it was the worst thing ever. I still think that, from what I recall of it. One of the only books I have ever wanted to physically destroy it was so awful.

>36 southernbooklady: I disagree. Maybe that's the case for some people (well no, not maybe, I'm sure it is the case for some people), but I can dislike a story and still respect the writing and simply think "well that wasn't really for me," or whatnot. When I hate a book it's because it's bad. Either bad writing or total lack of character development or a story that just goes nowhere/does nothing, or, what have you.
I can say that Kafka on the Shore was well-written and interesting, until I got to the end when it all fell apart because almost nothing was properly wrapped up and therefore felt it was a huge waste of my time. I can also say that there is absolutely nothing redeeming about Catcher in the Rye, that it was a miserable story with a wretched character whose only claim to lasting fame is that apparently young angsty teens of a certain mindset can relate to his anger.

Yes, I have favorite types of books that I'm almost guaranteed to thoroughly enjoy reading, but I love reading, plain and simple, and will read all manner of books. They do not have to be written "for what I want" in order for me to get something out of it; reading itself is "what I want."

>39 .Monkey.:

But there are people who don't care if everything is wrapped up at the end if the journey was pleasant (I'm not one of them, but they exist). And there are people who think that Holden Caufield is a brilliant portrait of themselves at that age. (Again, not me). So are those books bad, or just bad for you because you like wrapped-up endings and people you can identify with?

Swimming against the tide, I think The Catcher in the Rye ought to be read later in life rather than sooner, or at some time when the reader possesses the maturity and wisdom and distance required to understand it. It's assigned by English teachers because it has a teenager in it. They conclude that therefore it must be a book for teenagers. Not necessarily.

On another topic, I usually read without preconceptions. As someone suggested, it does take work. And sometimes the book is too popular to insulate oneself from all the advance billing.

I believe you can only read the Catcher in the Rye properly if you're between 14-18, any other age and things start to unravel... I read it a few times then and loved it, but I wouldn't dare reading it now.

I'm definitely with Barney on this one...

At a certain age, you think Holden's great. You grow up and you think he's a bit of an insufferable prick. And then you grow up some more, and you can like him for the flawed character he is (much like me).

>39 .Monkey.: I hate a book it's because it's bad. Either bad writing or total lack of character development or a story that just goes nowhere/does nothing, or, what have you.

Which suggests that you have considered things enough to know what you mean by good character development (although I still contend to fault a book for the lack of it, if character development wasn't the author's intention, is unfair to the book).

Basically I think whether or not we like a book is not a good indicator of how "objectively good" a book is, unless we know going in what our personal tastes and prejudices are, and can account for them, or justify them, or even set them aside, if necessary--when we read. Alongside the question of what we hear as we read, there is always the question, at least in my mind, of what the author is trying to say. How well he or she does that is a factor in how I judge a book.

And yes, there are some really bad books out there. Usually, because the authors have nothing to say, and will blather on for pages saying absolutely nothing.

>39 .Monkey.: I think I've hated only one book in my life.

No, actually. I looked over my 2/10 star rated books and my DNF books and not one of them did I hate. They just weren't for me. I'm sure someone else would think they are just fine. I don't know if I'm lucky or forgiving.

Nor have I come across a "bad book." Only bad for me.

I think that one objective measure of good fiction is well-rounded characters who develop throughout the story. That's what they taught me in creative writing class and in numerous English classes. But that's not what everyone wants. Science fiction and fantasy rely more on plot than on character. So does much fiction today. I don't have a problem with that. Everyone should read what they want.

Today there are few authors who are willing to spend time crafting their prose—unlike Faulkner, Hemingway, Joyce, Henry James. Exceptions: Mark Helprin, early Cormac McCarthy, Wendell Berry, Annie Dillard.

Regarding Hemingway: Some people have better luck with the short stories, A Farewell to Arms, and The Old Man and the Sea. But don't expect to get cheery subject matter from a man who put a shotgun in his mouth.

43 -- You make a good point.

what the author is trying to say. How well he or she does that is a factor in how I judge a book.

It's like judging a nonfiction book on how well an author defends and expounds his thesis. That's one objective way of deciding between good and bad.

I was trying to come up with an example of a book I've read that has no character development to speak of but was really good. It's not a novel, but Ficciones was an amazing piece of work where the best stories thrive on exploring an idea rather than a character.

Helprin's Winter's Tale has a tepid ending, but the journey to get there was fantastic and I liked it accordingly. Neal Stephenson has written several novels criticized for their endings (e.g. Cryptonomicon) but still loved and reread for the rest of their content.

Bad writing examples ... well, before I could recognize bad writing, in early high school I liked nearly everything I read. Heard of the "suck fairy"? Don't reread things you enjoyed at that age if there's any danger of destroying a treasured memory.

Personally, I don't really care what the author is trying to do. What I care about is the effect it has on me...

I find discussion about good and bad books difficult, because I'm still not sure what defines a good book, or a bad one. Some people here seem to have an idea. So far I've heard:

• The author achieves the effect he/she was aiming for
  
• Well-rounded, developing characters in fiction
  

What else is there?

>40 aulsmith: I didn't say everything had to be wrapped up. But there has to be an actual ending. If you write a huge novel with all sorts of things going on and you simply leave them all hanging off randomly, sorry, but you didn't finish your novel. They should have been edited out, or have gone somewhere. It's one thing to leave things a bit open, and have it up for each reader's interpretation of what happens next, and whatever. But you have to finish the book.

Nor did I ever say or imply I had to identify with characters. Please don't put words in my mouth. I read books about serial killers all the time. You think I have to identify with them?? Holden was the entire focus of that particular book, him him him, and he was a nasty angsty angry brat. What on earth is there to enjoy in the book? IMHO it's pure garbage. Anyone is free to their own differing opinion. I don't see him as some sort of interesting flawed character at all. I read plenty of those. Characters should have some flaws, it's real. People aren't perfect, it's irritating reading about someone who is supposed to be "real" and is always completely unnatural. But there's a difference between a flawed character and ...well, and Holden. He's not "flawed," he's... god I don't even know what he is. But it's bad. Oh so bad.

>44 Morphidae: I promise you, they are out there. Be glad you have not found any. There are books that truly should never have been written, for any audience. Not everyone was meant to write, and with self-publishing being such a thing these days, well, a lot of people who weren't, think they should do it anyhow.
>43 southernbooklady: "although I still contend to fault a book for the lack of it, if character development wasn't the author's intention, is unfair to the book"

Well, true. But how often is that actually the case? It's very very rare to have a novel that deals with characters in such a way that they are purposely cardboard cutouts just for show. At least in my experience.

>49 .Monkey.: It's very very rare to have a novel that deals with characters in such a way that they are purposely cardboard cutouts just for show. At least in my experience.

Alice in Wonderland. Characters that were not only cardboard cut outs, they were actually cards....

>49 .Monkey.:. Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. But my partner loves Holden Caufield because he thinks he was an equally nasty, angsty, angry brat at the same age, so I was trying to find a reason for why you hated the novel other than the author didn't write it well. I think Salinger conveyed exactly the kind of character he wanted to. I hated having to read about him and I don't think school children should be forced to read the book, but I think Salinger accomplished what he set out to do.

But you have to finish the book

I was taught the same thing, but today's editors seem to have a very different idea of what constitutes "finished" than I do.

It's very very rare to have a novel that deals with characters in such a way that they are purposely cardboard cutouts just for show.

You should definitely avoid reading pre-New Wave science fiction.

>48 zjakkelien: Well, I like a book to have something to say. I'm particularly fond of books that explore how people deal with situations or people who are alien to them. I also like to read about people confronted with unresolvable moral dilemmas. There are a lot of nice fluffy books out there that put their characters through their paces and arrive at the expected end (generic murder mysteries, romances, adventure books). They're fine to read but generally forgettable and I wouldn't call them good. If they don't adequately put their characters through their paces or end up somewhere unbelievable, then I would say it's bad in the sense that PolymathicMonkey is talking about to Morphidae in post 49.

But I'm also old enough to have seen a lot of real life and if I think the author has just constructed the story to make a point without being able to give it a "lived in" feel, then I also tend to think it's a bad book.

These things are different from the book being a bad read for me, as Southernbooklady has been trying to point out. I just finished The Hours for my book club. I hated almost every minute of reading it, because I really didn't like most to the characters, but it's not a bad book. The characters are well-drawn, it's well-written (if over-written for my taste), it makes a point (which I disagree with) and it ends (though Virginia Woolf's end is at the beginning, which is a bit of artistic cheating to me). It also deals very well with a lot of previous literature, which is one reason the critics liked it so much. So it's a good book, but a really bad book for me.

Does that help?

It's very very rare to have a novel that deals with characters in such a way that they are purposely cardboard cutouts just for show.
You should definitely avoid reading pre-New Wave science fiction.

Eh. The focus is on the sci-fi, sure, but the good ones still have some sort of depth to the character, even if not much. And that's also one of those situations where it's not about bad writing (well, heh, some are, but...) but because the characters are sometimes merely support for the real story, which is about the sci-fi aspects, that couldn't be written about without some people there to interact with them. In such a case, the lack of development is ...well I don't know that I'd go so far as to say "intentional," but, it's left alone as being unnecessary to the point of the story. I'd still argue that, given the sheer volume of novels out there, the amount where this is the case (and it's not due to the author simply not having a clue how to develop the characters so just focusing on the other stuff they do know) is still very very low. Someone who reads almost exclusively that sort of thing would read a very disproportionate number of books where that's the case.

My grade twelve history class was dedicated to the theme of anti-heros in fiction. That's when I was assigned Catcher in the Rye, which I don't remember much about but am sure I didn't depise. Two others assigned in that class, that I remember: All Quiet on the Western Front and Death of a Salesman.

I wasn't much taken by the idea of an anti-hero; at that time my favourite personal reads were all fantasy fiction where a young farm boy finds a magic sword and saves the world. But I learned that they serve to make a point about society that an hero would fail to do; that heroics are sometimes illusion, and that survival is sometimes the best you can hope for. This can serve a story about how alienated teens are made to feel, as well as a story about how unheroic and hellish the actual war experience is, or how poorly corporate America treats the lowest men on the totem pole.

The idea isn't to appreciate or like the character, necessarily, but to understand their situation and how that situation may be to blame for how the character behaves and reacts.

>53 Cecrow: But I learned that they serve to make a point about society that an hero would fail to do; that heroics are sometimes illusion, and that survival is sometimes the best you can hope for.

And also that sometimes what the world values as "heroic" isn't necessarily worth valuing.

I didn't think Catcher in the Rye did any of the aforementioned at all. Just because he wanted to blame the world for his conceived wrongs didn't mean that was the case. He was just a jerky shitty kid, that's all. Even at 18 or 19 I thought that.

>55 .Monkey.:, a perfectly legitimate conclusion to come to. The little English Lit teacher in me jumps in here to ask: that tells us what about this teenager's attitude and how he'll cope as an adult? Is there a lesson to be learned from it? A larger message about cynicism, or about applying rational thinking to survive in a materialistic world?

You didn't like it and I'm not trying to make you, lol. Nobody's can make me like Midnight's Children either, another title I should have listed in my own entry above (#29). I don't believe Rushdie's book lacks for a message or fails to make its point, but I found it to be a dull and disappointing read. I'm curious if you found any merit in Catcher, despite not liking it?

>56 Cecrow: None at all. And maybe I'd find some little tidbit, were I to reread it at a more mature age now, but ugh, no, I'm quite happy to simply keep it on the mental NEVER EVER AGAIN!! shelf along with Scarlet Letter and a few others. Too much (better! :P) out there still to read to waste time going back to hated works. And don't worry, I'm all for discussions of varying opinions, even if I think people are out of their minds, in this particular case, for thinking otherwise. ;)

When I used to work in a bookstore, every time someone wanted to get Catcher in the Rye for their daughter I would do my best to convince them to get A Tree Grows in Brooklyn instead.

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn didn't age well for me; but I was shocked at how much Nathaniel Hawethorne had improved when I re-visited The Scarlet Letter in this last decade. He has quite a way with words.

>59 2wonderY: A Tree Grows in Brooklyn didn't age well for me

It holds a special place in my heart...Francie Nolan is my soul mate or something. Her determination to read every book in the local public library (starting with the "A" authors), and her habit of making a secret spot to read on the fire escape....I was that little girl!

>60 southernbooklady:, I was never a girl at all, but I really liked that novel too. ;) Much more upbeat than Catcher and just as true. One of the first titles I think of when people inquire about "comfort reads".

He was just a jerky shitty kid, that's all. Even at 18 or 19 I thought that.

Yep. A shitty jerky kid who grieves his older brother's death, etc.

Unlike diana.n, I couldn't stand Hemingway's Nick Adams Stories. I found them extremely boring.

Others I haven't been particularly impressed by:

Tolstoy's War and Peace and Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath - disliked these so much I never finished them. W&P was just too confusing - there seemed to be multiple names for every character. And TGoW was just too bleak and hopeless for my tastes.

Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy - finished these, but it was a chore. I prefer my stories to keep moving at a steady pace, not stop for long periods of time to give me a poem or a song or a lot of backstory.

Louisa May Alcott's Jo's Boys - way too preachy for my tastes. I thought the previous books in the "series" (Little Women and Little Men) bordered on preachiness, but this one was the worst.

C.S. Lewis' The Magician's Nephew, The Horse and His Boy, and The Last Battle - enjoyed the books themselves well enough, but felt the series would have been better served if they hadn't been included.

Rowling's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - I just wasn't all that impressed with the choices she made for the book.

I remember liking Lloyd Alexander's Westmark trilogy from my childhood, but hated it when I re-read it about a year ago.

I cannot stop thinking about Light Between Oceans, and my friends agree! It haunts me....

I'm glad someone else mentioned Lord of the Rings. I couldn't cope with the books or the films!

The Notebook. Beyond a doubt.

I think the reason a lot of the classics are "ho hums" is the fact you just can't get your mind around how they did things in "those days." I had saved all my Bobbsey Twins books and Nancy Drew and started reading some to my great nieces when they were younger. They were so outdated and some of the comments made about the African-American characters were no longer acceptable. I stopped. A current book I read was Stuart Woods "Carnal Curiosity." His character, Stone Barrington, just kept jumping into an out of bed with women he had met just 15 minutes before. Puhlease! And it continued throughout the book. Stone came across as a rich, modern day Superman. Puhlease! What a waste of time. I think I may put Stu-baby on my DO NOT READ ANY LONGER list. There are just too many good writers out there to waste my time on his books.

I disagree

I thought that Divergent was just okay. I actually thought that the books just kept getting better from that one. I was expecting something a lot more from Divergent.

Ayn Rand I had no desire to finish after a chapter or two of Atlas Shrugged. Seemed cold hearted and ruthless. Great Expectations I tried to read in school and couldn't get going on it at the time thought it was a dreadful bore. I am curious if it would be better now since my vocabuary has improved over the years but I suspect not. I tried to read A Woman of Substance when it was a bestseller around 1981 and tossed it aside after it started with the poor person marching of too the factory in the snow. Cliche rejection. A customer in the bookstore I worked in who recommended it said yes that is a bit cliche but it gets better. I didn't find out it may have. The Great Gatsby I have on the shelf but haven't got much motivated about though I think I would get something out of it. It is interesting that the Edgar Rice Burroughs stories of Tarzan we outselling the Great Gatsby about 2:1 in that era but that seems little known.

Why is it high school English teachers pick the worst "classics" for students to read? For example:
The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, an icky, depressing story. Probably turned many high school kids away from reading.
The Great Gatsby, wherein is the supposed greatness?
Heart of Darkness, a confusing, depressing snooze fest.
There are many wonderful novels and other works which might inspire young folks to read. These ain't them.

As a writer, I was raised on the maxim, less is more. Most of the hated books are simply too long. Edit down your stuff, folks.

>72 JimFennBooks: As a writer, I was raised on the maxim, less is more.

Like all rules, this one can be successfully broken.

>73 southernbooklady: "Like all rules, this one can be successfully broken."

What about this rule: "All rules can be successfully broken." Can it be broken?

I was so excited to read Fahrenheit 451 that I bought it before ever reading a page of it, which I almost never do. I usually buy books to re-read them and depend on libraries for my first reads, but I thought the premise of Fahrenheit was so good that there was no way I couldn't like it. I turned out to be highly disappointed by it. I couldn't really say why, but it just left me feeling let down at the end. I guess it just wasn't what I was expecting. I imagined more drama, more rescuing of literature, more action, and it just didn't happen.

Other books I never intend to read again mostly include the books I had to read for a Writing about the Novel class. Madame Bovary brought me very close to literally throwing it against a wall, and just thinking of The Counterlife fills me with a feeling of annoyance. I hated both of them because the characters were just whiny and irritating, especially in Counterlife, which I would use as a classroom example of "how to write an incredibly annoying, stuck-up, generally butthurt character who everybody will hate," as well as "how to spend hundreds of pages doing nothing but complaining about how being Jewish is stupid and how religion is outdated and for idiots, and then spend hundreds of other pages being angry and whiny when people say anything bad about Jewish people." Jeez, did I ever hate that character.

The Great Gatsby, wherein is the supposed greatness?

I don't know. That's actually a pretty masterly efficient work of literature. And a vicious commentary on the American Dream.

>75 athenaharmony: it just left me feeling let down at the end.

I think that was the point.

>74 cpg: Only if it is a rule. Is it? :-)

I have a LT collection named BIWTAR (Books I wanted to throw across the room).

Gaudy Night/Sayers- reading it was insidiously traumatizing. I still shudder every time I read Sayers' name.

The Daughter of Time/Tey- angered me for some reason; don't remember why. I also don't know why anyone would want to rehabilitate such a useful villain.

Supernatural Horror in Literature/Lovecraft- after I hit puberty I couldn't bear Lovecraft. Unknowable, unspeakable, unreadable.

Secrets of Mable Eastlake/Olson- wants to be the love child of Beardsley and Firbank. Reads like the dense, slightly hysteric ramblings of a coked-up drag queen BSing her way through retelling the Sunset Strip story. (I know, it should have been awesome.)

I'd also add Something Wicked This Way Comes/Bradbury. Gah!

>72 JimFennBooks: I agree! Recent example: The Goldfinch- about 150 pages too long.

I remember reading "Lord of the Flies" because it had been banned at the school I was attending (so naturally EVERYONE had to find a copy and read it). I was disappointed because I thought he blew it at the end with the deus-ex-machina - the soldiers arriving in time to save the kid. The gang should have caught up with the him and killed him - and THEN the cavalry could arrive. Too late. He used the oldest "last minute save" trick in the world - undercutting his basic premise and giving the book a cheap (and un-earned) "happy" ending.

After reading and loving "The Joy Luck Club," I was excited for Amy Tan's follow-up, "The Kitchen God's Wife." The book begins compellingly in the daughter's voice, then switches to the mother's point-of-view. And there it ended for me. I read that horrible old woman's story for a hundred pages before throwing the book against the wall. I'm sorry the character survived China to harangue her daughter (and the poor unsuspected reader) with her tale of woe. I had to quickly find something else to read to get that grating voice out of my head.

Most recently, people have been going ape over "The Orphan Master's Son," and while the writer can spin a good yarn...I really wish he hadn't chosen North Korea - a country he admits knowing virtually nothing about. The book reads like a minstrel show. Demonizing the government of North Korea (wow, what an original viewpoint - I thought EVERYONE in America loved Kim Jung Il and his relatives) and patronizing those who live their in a far worse fashion than Pearl Buck ever did in her China novels (she was criticized too, but at least she actually grew up in China).

I’ve hated very few books, as some have said, I just didn’t like some and figured they weren’t for me. Some of the ones I didn’t like and didn’t understand the hype;

Ender’s Game
Mr. Penumbra’s 24 Hour Bookstore
A Hearbreaking Work of Staggering Genius

Were all pretty terrible, although I haven’t read Ender’s Game since I was much younger. I did finish them all, I won’t say a book is bad if I didn’t finish it. I’ve changed my mind too many times by the time I’ve finished.

I recently reread Shogun....I had read it over 20 years ago and remembered loving it....oh my goodness it was a slog to read and completely stupid! I just can't imagine what I thought was good about it.

I also thought The Hunger Games was a horrible book! The writing was terrible! Heard do much hype about it. What a disappointment.

I am pretty sure the 50 Shades of Gray books are on the same level....stupid books for stupid people!

>80 Jereco1962: I have a different interpretation of the end of Lord of the Flies. The soldiers who arrived at the end are caught in the same situation as the boys on the island, just on a grander worldwide scale. There is no rescue, really. It is this realization that causes ralph's tears and end of innocence. I definitely don't see the ending as a happy one.

>75 athenaharmony: Well, I now want to read The Counterlife; and as southernbooklady said, that's pretty much the point of Fahrenheit 451. It's not meant to be a thriller, it's a rather dismal dystopia, a social commentary, a warning. Trying to bedazzle it up with pointless dramatic action would have just cheapened it.

I also have a collection of BIWTAR--I totally get that. Mine is called "Bombs--Do not read again."

My disappointment is Garrison Keillor's Lake Woebegon Days. Great oral tradition from Prairie Home Companion, but I could not like it in print.

I read The Great Gatsby for our book club and found it VERY disappointing. It was depressing and the emphasis on excess was tiring.

>oldstick - I actually enjoyed Jackson's Lord of the Rings films for the most part. The books though .... (shudder)

>Mamalesliedean - I actually liked The Hunger Games; it was the other two I didn't care too much for. I thought the second was ok, but nothing outstanding. And the third just jumped the rails as far as I was concerned. Really, I think the book would have been better as a stand-alone rather than a trilogy.

The Horse Whisperer by Nicholas Evans was a major disappointment because I'd enjoyed the novel hugely until the end. In the end Tom Booker did something totally unbelievable for his character, so unbelievable that I threw the book across the room. No kidding; I really did.

The one I fell for was Gone Girl - the "book of the summer," according to some podcaster I was listening to at the time. What a horrible story, with a hopeless ending and no one to like in the whole thing except for the female detective. I was a member of audible.com for about a year, and this was the only time that I asked for a refund on a book because I hated it so much (you can do that). I got my credit back from audible, but I'll never get back the hours of my life I wasted listening to that story.

>90 Sunrhyze: LOL, yeah, that's pretty much why I stay far far away from any book that gets that sort of hype. They're nearly always junk.

>36 southernbooklady: Like your approach! Basically read with an open mind :-)

My biggest disappointment wasn't a book but a character - Anna Karenina. I'd heard about AK being this great heroine of literature, and instead I found her cruel, shallow, narcissistic, pathetic, and generally unlikeable. I liked the book but AK's character well deserved her bloody end.

You either love or hate some characters in a novel. You admire some, abhor some.

#89. What a good thread - and the point Charles made is an interesting one. I wish I could remember the book I really hated but I didn't keep a record. However, I do know that one of the reasons for my opinion was that the characters were neither believable nor consistent.

I will find it very hard to complete this kind of fiction, and may require some time even several months to regain the interest to pick the novel and continue to find reading the book.

A novel must not be a "bore" to read.

1. Too many characters or irrelevant characters in a novel is very hard to keep track of them especially their roles are not central to the story. Maybe, the writer need to make his novel lengthy to meet the editor/publisher's criteria. A novel being "pushed" too long. Long novels such as War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy and In Search of Lost Times by Marcel Proust in several volumes or parts, I need to regain interest to continue reading these novels.

2. To take the reading of over 50 pages of a fiction to reach the anti-climax stage or to get the story becoming interesting is no good.

3. Rushed or incomplete ending . You need to follow the sequels to know the ending.Cliffhanger!

4. Characters must be unique something different, not copycats from some other fictional characters. Not stereotyped. James Bond's character is different from Jason Bourne, sharing the same name initials.

I disliked THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO. It really needed editing, and though the mystery was compelling, I didn't like any of the characters. From peer pressure, I started the second in the series but quit when the author spent two pages telling what furnishings the girl bought for her apartment.

Razzamajazz: We agree, a book must not be a 'bore' to read. You also shouldn't have to struggle to understand it; for us, reading is an escape -- the book must effortlessly transport us into the world of the characters, a world in which we enjoy being for hours on end, no matter how dystopian the atmosphere or dangerous the elements.

Writing style, characters, an interesting plot, a certain level of realism, and action all play a role.

We don't care for most classics -- apparently the style and type of story just isn't our thing -- but the most recent let-down was I Am Number Four by Pittacus Lore. We couldn't get into the main character, the narrator didn't sound authentic (ie, like a 15-year-old should), and we just didn't care about what happened to the characters.

Fifty Shades of Gray

An obscure writer shot to fame, a "Mommy" pornography.

You do not have to be a "good" writer to be rich.

A simple plot as in Twilight's trilogy stroke the right note with the young adults in vampire romance fiction genre. The Vampire Diaries have not the same popularity level as Twilight .

Just thought we'd add a note: It may be that we simply prefer genre fiction; either that, or there's always an exception to the rule. We hold Dracula -- a classic -- as one of our favourite books of all time.

I only have a few book that had a lot of hype that I did not care for: The Hunger Games series, Harry Potter, I Know this much is true by Wally Lamb, Catcher in the Rye and the last one is The Tin Drum what was that even about? That is not a lot of dislike after 40yrs of reading:)

The Tin Drum is about a biologically derived directional acoustic weapon, and about a fish of the order Anguilliformes.

As I have gotten older, I find less of a compulsion to "finish" books that I do not like. Too many books that I want to read, too little time to spend on bad ones. Sort of like a cup of coffee--life is too short to waste time drinking a bad cup of coffee just because it is there or I paid for it. I love the recurring comment in this discussion about throwing books against the wall--and here I thought it was just me!

I agree about a novel needing (in my opinion) to be enjoyable. Obviously different people are going to find different things enjoyable. But for me, it means:

-- a storyline that keeps moving most of the time and doesn't meander around

-- characters that are consistent and hold my attention

-- a style/voice that's engaging and consistent.

-- endings that feel like an organic part of the book - not too abrupt and not forced

-- a consistent internal logic that makes sense for the book

A rare find.

Very few good fiction writers, it all depends what we are looking for in the respective genre.

Sometime, we do get very disappointed with our favourite writers, not every title he/she wrote is a "hit" , and it is "a bore" to read.You can expect most of the time.

All of a sudden I want to re-read Catcher in the Rye. Why is Holden such a jerk? Does it have anything to do with feeling abandoned by his brother? (I read it several decades ago.)

I actually liked many of the books people hated. Whenever I read an Amazon review that starts,"I was forced to read this in school . . ." I know I can ignore that review. I only take interest when a reviewer tells me why s/he dislikes a book.

Unfortunately, I am rather dense when it comes to symbolism in literature, but I choose to challenge myself every so often.

To Each His Own. Natural thing to do.

Most of the serious novels and poems that go by the name of literature are depressing. There are many possible reasons for this.

Writers themselves are a depressed lot, misfits and outsiders who lead chaotic lives riddled with alcohol, drugs, divorce, and mental illness. Writing is a lonely job. You sit at a desk alone and invent imaginary worlds. It's a little bit like playing with dolls.

Ecclesiastes says that much wisdom brings much sorrow. S.T. Coleridge's mariner pronounces a similar sentiment: he returned home sadder but wiser. There is much truth in these maxims. If you are going to pursue truth, or Truth, then be prepared to duck.

On the other hand, I don't know why or when profundity got equated with misery, and happiness with superficiality. I see that point of view in the press all the time. They want to show you "the real story," which is say, that the world is filled with more unhappiness than happiness, an assumption that would be awfully hard to prove.

The English Romantic Poets equated melancholy with wisdom, when it probably was just depression. Coleridge took laudanum not because he wanted to get stoned and write a wacky dream like Kubla Khan. He probably took it to stop writing poems like "Dejection: An Ode," "Despair," "Fears in Solitude," "Melancholy: A Fragment," "The Pains of Sleep," "The Suicide's Argument," and the real kicker, "Work Without Hope."

Coleridge gave up poetry to study German metaphysics. I'm not sure that was a step in the right direction.

Rainbows End by Vinge has no apostrophe. Like Finnegans Wake.

>107 IreneF: I only take interest when a reviewer tells me why s/he dislikes a book.

If a review doesn't tell you why a reader liked or disliked a book, it isn't a review. It's an opinion:

"I don't like fast food."

"I don't like fast food because it always tastes either too salty or too sweet."

>108 razzamajazz: Most of the serious novels and poems that go by the name of literature are depressing. There are many possible reasons for this.

Possible Reason number #3: The people who find them depressing are easily depressed.

On the other hand, I don't know why or when profundity got equated with misery, and happiness with superficiality.

It's an equivalency you buy into yourself when you state "most serious . . . novels are depressing."

"Serious" is not a word we tend to use in conjunction with "fun" "playful" "joking" -- hence comic fiction is rarely regarded as "serious" even when it is, unless you are Chaucer or Shakespeare.

They want to show you "the real story,"

I often hear this complaint about Children's and Middle Grade fiction: social realism = "depressing." I find it interesting that realism is often described this way even when the characters overcome whatever adversity they face.

"Realism" is a loaded word.

Given the reaction of so many people to high-school English classes, I wonder whether literature ought to be abandoned altogether. Students still need to learn grammar, usage, and composition, but they don't need fiction for that. I might also add a bit of rhetoric and logic to the curriculum.

There are so many avenues for entertainment now. Serious literature doesn't play the role in did many decades ago or in the previous century. What it is one actually learns from serious literature is a subject I have kicked around for years.

But reading fiction makes us smarter, nicer people!

http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/03/why-we-should-read-literature/

If that were true, English teachers would be the nicest, smartest people in the world. They are not.

>115 barney67: They are not.

Can you prove that? :-)

Surely we've all encountered people who wrap their literateness around themselves as a shield against the great unwashed? In other words, snobs.

>113 barney67:
Your reasoning reminds me of the logic behind the elimination of "Reading Rainbow" on public television: it wasn't teaching skills. No, it taught kids that books were fun.

116 -- Heh. Only by experience.

117 -- Well, just an opinion, you know. I doubt PBS ever taught me anything. I did enjoy Schoolhouse Rock on ABC Saturday mornings.

"Realism" is a loaded word.

I'm not sure in what sense you mean this ("Realism" in literature tends to be no such thing, though that has nothing to do with happiness or unhappiness.)

There have been numerous psychological studies indicating that "depressed" people tend to have a much better grip on what's happening around them.

Then again, as someone else once said, "Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Cry and you cry alone."

Most people tend to avoid thinking of things that make them feel unhappy, angry or sad. Which can be a form of denial or avoidance and a not very "realistic" approach to the world.

Years ago I read Davinci Code because it was such a big best seller and because everyone knew that I read so much they kept asking if I'd read it or insisting I should. So I did and I just wasn't that impressed. Probably because it's not my preferred genre.

Also recently I read a YA novel a few years ago that so many people loved, CREWEL and again I saw so much love for it but I found it very lackluster. I enjoy a good YA novel but that just wasn't for me.

I agree on Gatsby or really anything by Fitzgerald also not a fan of Hemingway. A couple other classics I disliked are:

The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison- just didn't do it for me.

The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers- this book was so depressing I just couldn't wait till it was over.

More recent books that were a disappointment though I am in the minority

The Elegance of the Hedgehog by Muriel Barbery I felt it was pretentious over the top philosophical hogwash.

And a new one that is getting a lot of buzz and it sounded like something I would love but completely fell flat is
The Secret Life of Violet Grant by, Beatriz Williams

These are just My Humble Opinion.

>121 susiesharp: I have to agree with you on Hedgehog.

I'm probably going to get boo'd for this, but my biggest disappointment is Pride and Prejudice. It was so tedious that I thought I was going to die of boredom before I finished it. I liked Wuthering Heights, though. I don't know what it is that makes me love one and hate the other.

Mood.

>124 razzamajazz: That's probably it exactly.

Mood + ambient atmosphere + no distractions

>121 susiesharp:, uh-oh, will be trying McCullers in about a month or so after putting her off for years ... I can tolerate quite a bit of depression though.

I recently read The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. I can't say I was blown away.

While it seems we're on the topic, it was suggested to me that I read The Heart is a Lonely Hunter and I, too, was disappointed. I closed the book feeling very sad and feeling like I had never grasped the point of it. Maybe it has no point, other than to illustrate the depressing nature of a very difficult period of time. It isn't something I would recommend to others.

>123 JackieCarroll: no boos from this corner. I've tried Pride and Prejudice multiple times and can never seem to get through the first 100 pages or so. It's just too heavy on description and too full of references to clothes and ornaments from the period that I just don't understand. One day, I hope to sit myself down and force myself through it, seeing as I loathed the beginning of the Harry Potter series, too, and it later became my most beloved series (waiting for the boos on that one, now).

>129 athenaharmony:

I have no problems whatsoever with "depressing" literature. If anything, I'd argue that such literature can have more to say to my existence than the stuff that's all moonbeams, lollipops and rainbows. I just didn't find the book all that engaging.

>129 athenaharmony: athenaharmony; & 131 Jesse_wiedinmyer

Agree with you both, I actually read a lot of sad books without a HEA but this one as athenaharmony said I also never grasped the point of the story.

>131 Jesse_wiedinmyer:, that is exactly what I mean. I guess I didn't manage to express myself too clearly. I don't mind "depressing" books. I learned to love Mrs. Dalloway, and I think we can agree that that's quite depressing in many ways. I disliked The Heart is a Lonely Hunter for the same reason as you: it just wasn't engaging, and I didn't see what "point," if any, it sought to make, or if it existed purely to be depressing. That would be the kind of "depressing" story I wouldn't want to read: one that's depressing for the sake of being depressing. I can find plenty of depressing things in real life.