nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Critically acclaimed books you hate?

BLITZ_Molloy

Everybody likes different things so it's only natural that some people hate what are generally regarded as classic pieces of literature. I'm probably going to be a bit vague cos I haven't read these books in ages.

Catcher In The Rye
The protagonist is boring, pretentious and just drifts about in a morose angsty teenage fashion. He's a mopey, self pitying little tosser and I'd rather not listen to his moaning. The 1950's dialogue is horribly dated. It feels 10 times longer than the 250 or so pages.

Lord of the Rings
Admittedly I'm not a huge fan of fantasy novels in general, but the ones that I do enjoy like Wizard of Earthsea ramble less and make a hell of alot more sense. Gandalf is the only good guy who's able to take care of himself, yet he tends to feck off at various points for no reason, despite the ring being the most important thing to him. So you've got the Hobbits left to save the world by themselves, which they do through pure luck because they're utterly powerless, or because Gandalf decides to magically reappear and save the day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

BaelNaMblath

Everything I've looked at by DeLillo, I tried to read White Noise recently and it's just awful and boring.

buck65

Libra was good though. I liked Underworld too but for the life of me can't say why. Cosmopolis (?) was utter rubbish though. One writer I couldn't be bothered with again I think.

Saturday by Ian Mc Ewan was poor fare and rightly lambasted by John Banville.
Actually Eclipse by Banville was tough going and I gave up early, The Sea was good though so I'll let him off.
I agree about B E Ellis. Loved American Psycho but Glamorama and his short stories were desperate. Palhaniuk's Stranger than fiction is quite a good read but his novels don't reall do it for me. Too unlikely maybe.
A book I recommend actually is The Sheltering Sky by Paul Bowles.

af_thefragile

Guns Germs and Steel - Jared Diamond
Biggest load of crap I've read.
He gives a very superficial and over simplistic view of historical events and what lead to them.

Denerick

af_thefragile wrote: »

Guns Germs and Steel - Jared Diamond
Biggest load of crap I've read.
He gives a very superficial and over simplistic view of historical events and what lead to them.

I only saw his documentary, but that was more than enough to put me off. Take for example his review of the fall of the Inca Empire. Such crap!

pearliefan

Jane Eyre. I found this dull, tedious, very very long and boring. Though I think a lot of that may have to do with the fact I that I was doing it for my leaving cert and my teacher hated the book and never wasted time in pointing out it's faults!

I was hoping 1984 would be amazing... but I got so bored that I couldn't finish it... seeing as I haven't read it fully I can't properly hate it but nonetheless it's not on top of my to-read list anymore!

DazMarz

I'm an English major so I've to read an excessive amount of the Classical Novels and works.

As a person, however, I'm into modern crime novels, techno-thrillers and the like, so you can imagine how I feel reading 17th Century Romance novels or so called seminal books...:o

But in my time, I have read several books that were so odious and that, while critically acclaimed by persons with far more education than I, I simply could not abide at all.

They include:

-Ulysses by James Joyce.
-The Curious Incident Of The Dog In The Night-Time by Mark Haddon
-Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte
-The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman by Laurence Sterne

And there are several more works I have studied in my time, that I cannot think of right now, but these would rise to the top...

Morlar

DazMarz wrote: »

........could not abide at all.

They include:

-Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte

What's not to like about Wuthering Heights ?

randomguy

The Shadow of the Wind.

I had never even heard of it till recently. Then read about this book that had sold 10 gazillion copies in UK alone, that was compared to works by Umberto Eco, JL Borges, AS Byatt, and Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and was liked by people who like books. I couldn't believe I'd never heard of something so lauded first time 'round. So I went out and bought it.

Completely disappointed. It was ridiculous without being fun. I recently described the writing in The Book Thief clunky in a post. The Shadow of the Wind makes The Book Thief look elegant. I finished it, just to make sure there wasn't some in-joke I was missing out on, like that it was meant to be narrated by a child or idiot. No, just a crap author. Complete tripe.

Only consolation was that I bought it second hand so only spent €2 on it. Still €2 more than it was worth.

(posted this in the sticky on books to avoid, but had meant to post it here)

Joan Fontaine

CDfm wrote: »

jimmymal wrote: »

Solitary confinement in san quentin wouldnt force me to reaquaint myself with crime and punishment.

+5 million. I absolutely hated it. What a self obsessed idiot the protagonist was. I find when I don't like the main character there's absolutely no hope for me finishing the book. Same went for Catcher in the Rye.

That said about Catcher in the Rye, I think the reason why it's a classic is because it was groundbreaking at the time.

fontanalis

af_thefragile wrote: »

Guns Germs and Steel - Jared Diamond
Biggest load of crap I've read.
He gives a very superficial and over simplistic view of historical events and what lead to them.

Really, I found it interesting. he said himself it wasn't exhaustive but I think it's unfair to call it over simplistic. He does give some good overall general and ideas.

Pittens

A Passage to India by E.M Forster

+1

Anything by Forster, in fact. A room with a view was appalling. I agree with the Catcher in the Rye haters, and i dont get The Great Gatsby either. But I may try that one again.

To people mentioning Tolkien, Pratchett, and Brown - while I agree with the criticisms of the authors none are critically acclaimed by the Literary world. This thread is not about popular books you hate.

As for Jane Austen, the story is mere Mills & Boons. Boy meets girl, there are problems due to class or attitude, girl hates boy, boy turns out to be nicer than expected, boy has nice pad, girl falls for boy, girl an boy get together.

However ( and it is a big however) the brilliance is in the writing. First sentence sets the tone:

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in
possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife

Pittens

Netherland by Cork-born Joseph O'Neill ....the most boring heap of ****e I have had the misfortune to read in a long long time yet the literary critics fell over themselves in lavishing praise on it.

There are passages in that book, particularly towards the start, which I think should get into the hall of fame for worst writing ever. I hate the , or so I have heard it said, style of writing.

SecondTime

Pittens wrote: »

+1

Anything by Forster, in fact. A room with a view was appalling. I agree with the Catcher in the Rye haters, and i dont get The Great Gatsby either. But I may try that one again.

To people mentioning Tolkien, Pratchett, and Brown - while I agree with the criticisms of the authors none are critically acclaimed by the Literary world. This thread is not about popular books you hate.

As for Jane Austen, the story is mere Mills & Boons. Boy meets girl, there are problems due to class or attitude, girl hates boy, boy turns out to be nicer than expected, boy has nice pad, girl falls for boy, girl an boy get together.

However ( and it is a big however) the brilliance is in the writing. First sentence sets the tone:

As an avid Jane Austen fan I totally agree with you that the plots are fairly pedestrian and derivitive and that what makes the novels so fantastic is the writing - the characters are brilliantly drawn and the sardonic humour is excellent

Eliot Rosewater

Perhaps Pittens it would be easier to start out with what you do like

Talking about Tolkien, I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in the "critical acclaim" he receives. His work is of a totally different nature to what is usually considered good by critics. However I think there can be little doubt that Tolkien was very successful in what he set out to achieve. I find that most of the criticisms of his work, though valid, are founded on a misunderstanding of what he was trying to do.

Pittens

Perhaps Pittens it would be easier to start out with what you do like

But that is not what the thread is for. I did defend Austen, however.

EDIT: were I go swing off topic and defend previously attacked books or authors on this thread I would defend Dickens ( all of it), The Remains of the Day, Atonement, all of Shakespeare, and The Sea by Banville.

SecondTime

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Perhaps Pittens it would be easier to start out with what you do like

Talking about Tolkien, I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in the "critical acclaim" he receives. His work is of a totally different nature to what is usually considered good by critics. However I think there can be little doubt that Tolkien was very successful in what he set out to achieve. I find that most of the criticisms of his work, though valid, are founded on a misunderstanding of what he was trying to do.

If the answer is that he was trying to bore me to within an inch of my life then "hats off to the man" - he succeeded:D

Denerick

SecondTime wrote: »

If the answer is that he was trying to bore me to within an inch of my life then "hats off to the man" - he succeeded:D

I can take criticism of practically any author I like like a man. But I draw a line at Tolkien. If I hear one more word out of you I'll be taking it to the White Council.

Busi_Girl08

smegmar wrote: »

And before I forget the big one, critically acclaimed book that I thought was shi*e: THE BIBLE

Seriously, so many plot holes, and suddenly vengful god becomes forgiving god half way through, for no reason. what tripe

And talk about a cop-out ending!!

Everyone dies

Pfft. How bloody original :rolleyes:

Anyways. I really didn't see the fuss about 100 Years Of Solitude.
I really liked it at the start, liked the characters, particularly Ursula and the whole Rebeca vs. Amaranta.

After a while though, I just got bored with all the characters. All the same characters over and over again. Having all the Aurelianoes and José Arcadios with the same characteristics, it just made it kind of tedious.

The characters really didn't develop at all,

except for decending into senility/insomnia induced insanity

I kind of liked the ending though, it just seemed like quite a chore getting there.

SecondTime

Denerick wrote: »

I can take criticism of practically any author I like like a man. But I draw a line at Tolkien. If I hear one more word out of you I'll be taking it to the White Council.

:D:D I'm interested to know what other authors you do like to see if we've any in common. But unfortunately that's not what this thread is for:)

OxfordComma

Hmm, where to start??

Lord of the Flies: Thought this was disappointing and totally over-rated. The idea behind the book is an interesting one, but the book somehow ends up being dull despite this.
The Lovely Bones: Very disappointing. It starts out in a very promising fashion, but quickly becomes dull and lifeless, and the ending was very unsatisfying in my opinion.
Amsterdam: Of all Ian McEwan's books, I still can't get my head around the fact that THIS one was awarded the Booker Prize, while classics like Atonement and Enduring Love weren't. It's insubstantial, uninteresting and features the most contrived and bizarre ending of any book I can think of.
Life of Pi: Another Booker Prize winner I didn't like so much. I found it a struggle to keep reading to the end - it's kind of like a Castaway rip-off in book form. And the whole message behind the book didn't really do it for me either.
Pride and Prejudice: I tried to keep reading till the end. I really did. But I just couldn't.
Macbeth: (don't know if this belongs here, but what the hell...) I'm a huge fan of Shakespeare, but I absolutely hate this play with a passion. I found it crude and nonsensical, and the characters are utterly bereft of any kind of depth, which isn't helped at all by the shortness of this play.

Edit: Forgot to mention Mrs Dalloway by Virginia Woolf.

Pittens

Pride and Prejudice: I tried to keep reading till the end. I really did. But I just couldn't.

Shes gets the boy.

MickShamrock

Catcher In The Rye.

Karlusss

1fahy4 wrote: »

Macbeth: (don't know if this belongs here, but what the hell...) I'm a huge fan of Shakespeare, but I absolutely hate this play with a passion. I found it crude and nonsensical, and the characters are utterly bereft of any kind of depth, which isn't helped at all by the shortness of this play.

Aw, seriously? Macbeth? Macbeth doesn't have depth? Lady Mac going slowly insane? No?

Macbeth's basically a hall of famer in my books.

But while we're throwing stuff under the bus, can I rid the world of all Victorian fiction, please.

psycho-hope

Had to read Emma and A Midsummer Night's dream for my junior cert, sweet jeebus they were a nightmare:(

AEG

The Gathering by Anne Enright!

OxfordComma

Karlusss wrote: »

Aw, seriously? Macbeth? Macbeth doesn't have depth? Lady Mac going slowly insane? No?

Macbeth's basically a hall of famer in my books.

But while we're throwing stuff under the bus, can I rid the world of all Victorian fiction, please.

I think the fact that I studied Macbeth for my Leaving Cert might have something to do with my opinions! But no, I really don't like the play. It's just too short and (in my opinion) poorly constructed, and I don't like the characterisation at all... I guess it's just not for me!

thenakedanddead

"To Kill A Mockingbird"

I passionately hate it.

DáireM

1fahy4 wrote: »

Hmm, where to start??
Life of Pi: Another Booker Prize winner I didn't like so much. I found it a struggle to keep reading to the end - it's kind of like a Castaway rip-off in book form. And the whole message behind the book didn't really do it for me either.

Can't agree enough, what's the big deal? It was a dull book with little depth.

Denerick

thenakedanddead wrote: »

"To Kill A Mockingbird"

I passionately hate it.

You have no soul!

Mardy Bum

DáireM wrote: »

Can't agree enough, what's the big deal? It was a dull book with little depth.

It's a pretty big deal according to most critics. One word; Innovation.