LEAST favorite book

Zara Sahana 007 wrote:

karin-chan wrote:

Zara Sahana 007 wrote:

karin-chan wrote:

Well, Twilight is certainly at the top of my list! ESPECIALLY Breaking Dawn. I thought you couldn't get any worse in the Twilight series, and then the 4th book came out *sigh* But I actually hate most if not all classics. This includes Wuthering Heights which was one of the most boring books I have had the misfortune to read, Moby Dick, whcih was also insanely boring, Hawthorne Heights, and The Scarlet Letter. But, all in all, I think Twilight tops all of them!

I didn't know that you disliked classics in general. Are there any notable ones out there that you like or are okay to?

Well, Pride and Prejudice and Crime and Punishment were pretty decent. But, in general, I tend to hate most classics. I know they're classics and are supposed to be so wonderful, but I can't see WHY they're classic. I, myself, enjoy more difficult books, but most classics I've read are just boring!

I LOVED both of those books. Pride and Prejudice is timeless and Crime and Punishment is so complex. Rodion Raskolnikov has got to be one of my most favorite literary characters of all time. He's brilliant, but confused. Kind of mental, but logical and cunning. He's kind of paradoxical...

I'll have to agree with you on all of that. Those are really the only two classics I actually enjoyed!

karin-chan wrote:

Zara Sahana 007 wrote:

karin-chan wrote:

Zara Sahana 007 wrote:

karin-chan wrote:

Well, Twilight is certainly at the top of my list! ESPECIALLY Breaking Dawn. I thought you couldn't get any worse in the Twilight series, and then the 4th book came out *sigh* But I actually hate most if not all classics. This includes Wuthering Heights which was one of the most boring books I have had the misfortune to read, Moby Dick, whcih was also insanely boring, Hawthorne Heights, and The Scarlet Letter. But, all in all, I think Twilight tops all of them!

I didn't know that you disliked classics in general. Are there any notable ones out there that you like or are okay to?

Well, Pride and Prejudice and Crime and Punishment were pretty decent. But, in general, I tend to hate most classics. I know they're classics and are supposed to be so wonderful, but I can't see WHY they're classic. I, myself, enjoy more difficult books, but most classics I've read are just boring!

I LOVED both of those books. Pride and Prejudice is timeless and Crime and Punishment is so complex. Rodion Raskolnikov has got to be one of my most favorite literary characters of all time. He's brilliant, but confused. Kind of mental, but logical and cunning. He's kind of paradoxical...

I'll have to agree with you on all of that. Those are really the only two classics I actually enjoyed!

You know, Karin-chan, I kind of see what you are saying. Some of the classics I've read felt like they were just droning on and on about something, even though I like the plot and characters. I'm sure I like more classics than those two, but there are plenty of books that I don't necesarily hate, so to speak, but rather am bored with.

Do any of you have that kind of feelings towards any books?

BeautyBlitz wrote:

denizenofevil wrote:

Zara Sahana 007 wrote:

karin-chan wrote:

Well, Twilight is certainly at the top of my list! ESPECIALLY Breaking Dawn. I thought you couldn't get any worse in the Twilight series, and then the 4th book came out *sigh* But I actually hate most if not all classics. This includes Wuthering Heights which was one of the most boring books I have had the misfortune to read, Moby Dick, whcih was also insanely boring, Hawthorne Heights, and The Scarlet Letter. But, all in all, I think Twilight tops all of them!

I didn't know that you disliked classics in general. Are there any notable ones out there that you like or are okay to?

I found Moby Dick really boring but I actually liked Scarlet Letter. Sure, it was kinda slow but the story and language is beautiful. I like classics but I HATE fantasy books. They're all exactly the same to me and I find it ridiculous that most of the names are unpronounceable.

denizen, should you ever find it in yourself to give another fantasy series a try then you must give The Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind a try, I think you will find MOST of his names pronounceable. The main characters names are Richard and Kahlan. Also there is Zed, Agie, Rachel, Chase, Anne, Nikki, Cara, Denna, etc etc etc. They are also VERY well written and are, in my opinion, the most amazing fantasy series I have ever read. I used to be a fantasy hater until I read these.

That, I shall do. I just wish i had more time to read. I can't wait for Christmas break to start. Then I could actually get started on my really long booklist.

Zara Sahana 007 wrote:

karin-chan wrote:

Zara Sahana 007 wrote:

karin-chan wrote:

Zara Sahana 007 wrote:

karin-chan wrote:

Well, Twilight is certainly at the top of my list! ESPECIALLY Breaking Dawn. I thought you couldn't get any worse in the Twilight series, and then the 4th book came out *sigh* But I actually hate most if not all classics. This includes Wuthering Heights which was one of the most boring books I have had the misfortune to read, Moby Dick, whcih was also insanely boring, Hawthorne Heights, and The Scarlet Letter. But, all in all, I think Twilight tops all of them!

I didn't know that you disliked classics in general. Are there any notable ones out there that you like or are okay to?

Well, Pride and Prejudice and Crime and Punishment were pretty decent. But, in general, I tend to hate most classics. I know they're classics and are supposed to be so wonderful, but I can't see WHY they're classic. I, myself, enjoy more difficult books, but most classics I've read are just boring!

I LOVED both of those books. Pride and Prejudice is timeless and Crime and Punishment is so complex. Rodion Raskolnikov has got to be one of my most favorite literary characters of all time. He's brilliant, but confused. Kind of mental, but logical and cunning. He's kind of paradoxical...

I'll have to agree with you on all of that. Those are really the only two classics I actually enjoyed!

You know, Karin-chan, I kind of see what you are saying. Some of the classics I've read felt like they were just droning on and on about something, even though I like the plot and characters. I'm sure I like more classics than those two, but there are plenty of books that I don't necesarily hate, so to speak, but rather am bored with.

Do any of you have that kind of feelings towards any books?

Actually, I have quite a few books where I have those feelings. My Brother Sam Is Dead, is one of them. Maybe it's all books I read in class? I dunno, but Twilight is one of them too, more than just hating the series, they bore the heck out of me...

karin-chan wrote:

Well, Twilight is certainly at the top of my list! ESPECIALLY Breaking Dawn. I thought you couldn't get any worse in the Twilight series, and then the 4th book came out *sigh* But I actually hate most if not all classics. This includes Wuthering Heights which was one of the most boring books I have had the misfortune to read, Moby Dick, whcih was also insanely boring, Hawthorne Heights, and The Scarlet Letter. But, all in all, I think Twilight tops all of them!

Hmm, it seems you're not really fond of classics. In high school, every time I would read Wuthering Heights, I would always find my eyes slowly closing.

Louisa Lynn wrote:

karin-chan wrote:

Well, Twilight is certainly at the top of my list! ESPECIALLY Breaking Dawn. I thought you couldn't get any worse in the Twilight series, and then the 4th book came out *sigh* But I actually hate most if not all classics. This includes Wuthering Heights which was one of the most boring books I have had the misfortune to read, Moby Dick, whcih was also insanely boring, Hawthorne Heights, and The Scarlet Letter. But, all in all, I think Twilight tops all of them!

Hmm, it seems you're not really fond of classics. In high school, every time I would read Wuthering Heights, I would always find my eyes slowly closing.

I try to respect hardcore classics, but most of them for me have such dry writing styles. Pride and Prejudice, Frankenstein, The Scarlet Letter, are just some of the classics I have tried but failed to read.

Talkatoast wrote:

Louisa Lynn wrote:

karin-chan wrote:

Well, Twilight is certainly at the top of my list! ESPECIALLY Breaking Dawn. I thought you couldn't get any worse in the Twilight series, and then the 4th book came out *sigh* But I actually hate most if not all classics. This includes Wuthering Heights which was one of the most boring books I have had the misfortune to read, Moby Dick, whcih was also insanely boring, Hawthorne Heights, and The Scarlet Letter. But, all in all, I think Twilight tops all of them!

Hmm, it seems you're not really fond of classics. In high school, every time I would read Wuthering Heights, I would always find my eyes slowly closing.

I try to respect hardcore classics, but most of them for me have such dry writing styles. Pride and Prejudice, Frankenstein, The Scarlet Letter, are just some of the classics I have tried but failed to read.

I agree with The Scarlet Letter, but disagree with Pride and Prejudice. I sure hope that I disagree with you on Frankenstein, because I have to read that during the winter break, before the next semester starts...

What was your opinion of Frankenstein? Was it relatively easy or difficult to read?

Frankenstein...it's pretty hard, writing-style-wise. Harder than Wuthering Heights (which I love, by the way) but easier than A Tale of Two Cities (which I also love).

For me, the slow, discriptive writing style that most classics seem to have bothers me around the first couple chapters, but when I'm into the story, I barely even notice anymore. But that's just me.

Magda wrote:

Frankenstein...it's pretty hard, writing-style-wise. Harder than Wuthering Heights (which I love, by the way) but easier than A Tale of Two Cities (which I also love).

For me, the slow, discriptive writing style that most classics seem to have bothers me around the first couple chapters, but when I'm into the story, I barely even notice anymore. But that's just me.

A Tale of Two Cities...I remember that book. I loved the story but found it ridiculously hard to read (I was in 8th grade at the time). I loved Sydney Carton and cried at the end when he was at the guillotine sentenced to die. But I absolutely loathed how long Dickens took to describe something. Yes, some description is nice, but I didn't like it when he dragged out things that long. It makes it seem like he was being paid by the word (which I actually think is true...).

Yikes...I'd better get started if I need to finish by the third week of January...

My brother had to read Wuthering Heights in school and I remember that he nearly died of boredom...but my brother is odd, very odd. I haven't read many classics yet, spent to many years gobbling down Koontz, but I do have a few on my list after, of course, I re read The Count of Monte Cristo. It is a great book, a bit hard to slog through the style here and there but SO very worth it.

Magda wrote:

Frankenstein...it's pretty hard, writing-style-wise. Harder than Wuthering Heights (which I love, by the way) but easier than A Tale of Two Cities (which I also love).

For me, the slow, descriptive writing style that most classics seem to have bothers me around the first couple chapters, but when I'm into the story, I barely even notice anymore. But that's just me.

Magda, I thought I was going to end up hating Frankenstein when I read it for school a bit ago, as the letters in the beginning were boring, and the language was hard to understand. Then I got into it, however, and it's now one of my favorite books. You're right; I didn't even notice the writing style any more.

Zara Sahana 007 wrote:

Magda wrote:

Frankenstein...it's pretty hard, writing-style-wise. Harder than Wuthering Heights (which I love, by the way) but easier than A Tale of Two Cities (which I also love).

For me, the slow, discriptive writing style that most classics seem to have bothers me around the first couple chapters, but when I'm into the story, I barely even notice anymore. But that's just me.

A Tale of Two Cities...I remember that book. I loved the story but found it ridiculously hard to read (I was in 8th grade at the time). I loved Sydney Carton and cried at the end when he was at the guillotine sentenced to die. But I absolutely loathed how long Dickens took to describe something. Yes, some description is nice, but I didn't like it when he dragged out things that long. It makes it seem like he was being paid by the word (which I actually think is true...).

Yikes...I'd better get started if I need to finish by the third week of January...

]

Hmmm. A Tale of Two Cities was a bit hard to understand at times, but it's not really hard to get the general storyline. I would have to say that the idea that he was being paid by the word is pretty ludicrous. Charles Dickens and other great writers never misuse words anymore than a cook would put cyanide in the salad. Although some people may think it's a bit drawn out, the ending is worth it. I didn't really notice the language in Frankenstein being really tough. Some words aren't need looking up, but it's generally easy to follow. The Cosmic Trilogy, that was pretty tough. Some authors like using a hard vocabulary, but generally longer words convey a more clear message.

Some authors like using a hard vocabulary, but generally longer words convey a more clear message.

I don't think I agree with that statment. I think the best way to convey a clear message is to choose the right words, disregarding length completely. Sometimes the word gross can be just as sufficient as grotesque, depending on the style and the atmosphere of the rest of the story. Sometimes gross would even be more appropriate.

Yes, but sometimes authors have to use large words to portray a certain feeling, scene, etc to its fullest. It actually helps the reader increase his/her vocabulary as well. It's an author's job to allow his readers to explore the plot and characters to the fullest, and a lot of the time day to day language isn't good enough. That's when an author has to use those 'harder' words.

karin-chan wrote:

Well, Twilight is certainly at the top of my list! ESPECIALLY Breaking Dawn. I thought you couldn't get any worse in the Twilight series, and then the 4th book came out *sigh* But I actually hate most if not all classics. This includes Wuthering Heights which was one of the most boring books I have had the misfortune to read, Moby Dick, whcih was also insanely boring, Hawthorne Heights, and The Scarlet Letter. But, all in all, I think Twilight tops all of them!

I don't like Moby Dick - it's a story about whales. I mean, what's so fun about that? I haven't ever really gotten into Scarlet Letter, so no comments on that. Oddly enough, I liked Wuthering Heights alot. In those days a lot of the books were airy fairy they lived happily ever after blah, so I liked Emily Bronte's rather terse style. To me, it is one of the most revealing and deep-striking exposes on the consequences of obsessive, violent and destructive love, which wasn't love after all, but rather intense obessiveness, in the end. Showing the good and bad parts. Cathy was a spoiled biatch, but I was attracted to her character anyways, maybe because of her excessive un-Mary Sueism. Heathcliff was a neurotic head case, who made everyone's life miserable. I mean, if he loved Cathy enough, he'd at least be nice to her daughter (a la Severus Snape?) wouldn't he? I liked Cathy the Second and Hareton though, it was nice to see them have peace at last.

Talkatoast wrote:

I try to respect hardcore classics, but most of them for me have such dry writing styles. Pride and Prejudice, Frankenstein, The Scarlet Letter, are just some of the classics I have tried but failed to read.

Pride and Prejudice would be frivolous and boring if it was plain, Lizzy meets Mr Darcy, Lizzy doesn't like Darcy, Lizzy learns to like him, but what Jane Austen brings out is the depth of character in each individual, and the satire of that time, and the wit, it all transforms into something wonderful and charming.

LuthienT wrote:

karin-chan wrote:

Well, Twilight is certainly at the top of my list! ESPECIALLY Breaking Dawn. I thought you couldn't get any worse in the Twilight series, and then the 4th book came out *sigh* But I actually hate most if not all classics. This includes Wuthering Heights which was one of the most boring books I have had the misfortune to read, Moby Dick, whcih was also insanely boring, Hawthorne Heights, and The Scarlet Letter. But, all in all, I think Twilight tops all of them!

I don't like Moby Dick - it's a story about whales. I mean, what's so fun about that? I haven't ever really gotten into Scarlet Letter, so no comments on that. Oddly enough, I liked Wuthering Heights alot. In those days a lot of the books were airy fairy they lived happily ever after blah, so I liked Emily Bronte's rather terse style. To me, it is one of the most revealing and deep-striking exposes on the consequences of obsessive, violent and destructive love, which wasn't love after all, but rather intense obessiveness, in the end. Showing the good and bad parts. Cathy was a spoiled biatch, but I was attracted to her character anyways, maybe because of her excessive un-Mary Sueism. Heathcliff was a neurotic head case, who made everyone's life miserable. I mean, if he loved Cathy enough, he'd at least be nice to her daughter (a la Severus Snape?) wouldn't he? I liked Cathy the Second and Hareton though, it was nice to see them have peace at last.

Haha whoops! I just put the name of an emo band instead of "Wuthering Heights" I respect the plot of Wuthering Heights, but I really don't like her writing style. Also, the servant (forgets his name), his dialogue was almost impossible to read! I ended up skipping whenever he talked. I was really glad that the characters had flaws, but I still didn't like the book. The writing was really boring to me. The ending disturbed me They were cousins! And I really hated all the characters, there's just nothing even remotely decent about them.

Zara Sahana 007 wrote:

A Tale of Two Cities...I remember that book. I loved the story but found it ridiculously hard to read (I was in 8th grade at the time). I loved Sydney Carton and cried at the end when he was at the guillotine sentenced to die. But I absolutely loathed how long Dickens took to describe something. Yes, some description is nice, but I didn't like it when he dragged out things that long. It makes it seem like he was being paid by the word (which I actually think is true...).

Yikes...I'd better get started if I need to finish by the third week of January...

He was paid by the word. That's why some of his novels are so ridiculously long. I love Charles Dickens, though. He's my favorite author. Most of the time I don't like having endless description, but Dickens is an exception, because his writing is so beautifully done (IMO) that the descriptions make his books all the better.

I disagree with most of you. I adore classical writing-- I don't find it to be dry or hard or anything of the sort. I hate modern writing, though. I'm not sure why-- it just doesn't sound as elegant to me. Most of the modern writing seems so basic-- I like having the big words and complicated sentences. Classical writing is beautiful to me, whereas I don't think modern writing does the English language justice. For some reason, most modern books just don't draw me in. I can't get through them easily-- I have to make myself finish them. Classics, on the other hand, draw me in to the point where I can't put them down.

I will not argue with your opinion Epiphany, I will merely point out that Dean Koontz has an excellent grasp of the english language, so much so that he wrote entire passages of one of his books in iambic pentameter. Don't ask me what book though, I read an interview where he stated this but he did not state what novel.

I really need to start being more active around here. I miss all the good stuff.

Anyway, I haven't read a whole lot of books, especially not classics. The classics I have read, I read just to read them to find out why they were classics. I shove through them, then I find out that I love them. (Most of the time the writing is of a much higher quality than any modern writer will pull out even if it is more confusing. I like writing to be beautiful and sensibly descriptive, but I don't want to trip over long-winded trash or blunt little sentences; I need a medium.) One example of this is Wuthering Heights. That book nearly killed me, but I was determined to read it before my fourteenth birthday, and I did it. I really think it's a great story because Emily Bronte was willing to really flaw her characters and leave them pretty miserable in the end; she gave them what they deserved for the most part. (Side note: That's a problem I have-- I will flaw my characters only slightly and then leave them pretty happy; it's because I love them. I've only really worked on one novel and that's my primary issue with it. I plan on writing this for me and then never letting it see the light of day. The next thing I write, I won't make the mistake of falling in love with the characters, though it's hard not to love something you created. I'll work on that.) The writing can be a little confusing, but for the most part I didn't have a problem with it and I ended loving the book. I really liked Little Women and Pride and Prejudice! I thought they were really sweet books.
When I read a book, I usually like it. In fact, for the first twelve years of my life, I assumed you were supposed to love everything you read because I did. I never thought to hate anything I read because I didn't think you were allowed to. I still hang on to that a little bit. There are very few books that I absolutely hate. In fact, I can't really think of any. Even Twilight has its upsides. Even The Dating Game has its upsides. Come to think of it, I've yet to find a book that I despise completely. I might eventually, but at the moment, it's hard for me to pick a Least Favorite Book. I'm going to go with... Breaking Dawn. That's the worst book I think I've ever read for more than one reason. (I'll end up changing my mind, but that's what I've got right now.)

Edit: I change my mind. I'm picking Adam Bede by George Eliot. I couldn't get past page 10 the dialogue was so awful. They all have Irish accents and repeat themselves over and over. I didn't understand half of what they said and what I did understand was just pointless. Then Eliot kept mentioning the fact that a woman was a Methodist preacher and this was scandalous, over and over and over and over and over. I didn't stick around to see if there was a point to this repetition because what I did read made me want to pull my hair out. Yet, I still didn't hate it. It's Eliot's first novel and we got off on the wrong foot with Adam Bede.

My apologies. Fine, he was paid by the word, but what I meant to say was the idea that he used words just to fill a quota was ludicrous. Even though he was paid by the word, I don't think he used them unnecessarily or over abundantly. If he did, he wouldn't be the classical write he was today.

I am trying to read Heart of Darkness between others and each time I pick it up to read I am totally lost! Either I am thick or its the book! I have no idea at all what it is about even! Maybe i just need to re start it again and have a run and jump at it and see if it improves (or i catch on what its about) which ever comes soonest!!

caring carer wrote:

I am trying to read Heart of Darkness between others and each time I pick it up to read I am totally lost! Either I am thick or its the book! I have no idea at all what it is about even! Maybe i just need to re start it again and have a run and jump at it and see if it improves (or i catch on what its about) which ever comes soonest!!

Oh snap...you found Heart of Darkness hard? I've got to read that later this year in English. I sure hope I can understand the book...

Has anyone else out there read Heart of Darkness? Or Frankenstein?

Yeah, I've had to read "Frankenstein" as part of a gothic novel class. Geez, I hated it. As much as I love Percy Shelley - his wife is simply unable to produce enjoyable fiction. It is not very hard to read, though, and also easy to understand, but it is boring and creepy. It left me with a disgusted feeling.

Really? That's too bad. I really enjoyed Frankenstein as a character study as well shedding light on what atrocities humans are capable of when they encounter rejection. I enjoyed Shelley's style of writing a lot, but I guess one man's meat is another man's poison.