Forum menu
Grapes of Wrath etc were just hard work and/or extremely boring to read.
:-O
I LOVED that book - and it has the most perfect last page ever written.
Catch 22 and Heart of Darkness are good calls. Anything by Graham Greene, Henry James and John Le Carre here.
I've found my tolerance for sticking with books has diminished advice got older . When I was 20ish I used to go into fopp records in Glasgow and you'd be able to get bukowski and Douglas Coupland and books like that for a couple of quid each and I'd read them and stick with them and force myself to finish , to be fair I really liked some of the Bukowski stuff . Now if something doesn't grab me pretty quickly I don't want to waste my time .
<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Anything by Graham Greene, Henry James and John Le Carre here.</span>
I started reading John le carre stuff after watching the film of tinker tailor soldier spy and got really into it , I love all the George smiley books .
I LOVED that book – and it has the most perfect last page ever written
I first read it nearly 35 years ago and it's not something I'll ever forget. I was on the number 73 bus just coming up to Oxford Circus and I remember thinking I want to get up and read this page to everyone on the bus. It was 30 years before I re-read the book, I was always fearful that it wouldn't have been the masterpiece I remembered, I couldn't have been more wrong, it was every bit as moving and powerful as I remembered and also just as relevant.
^ Thanks for that - I recently looked for my copy so I could re-read it (like yourself I read it some time ago and haven't read it since) however I couldn't find it so I will have to buy myself a new copy I think.
Page 4 and no mention of Sven Hassel? I somehow read several of these war books as a teenager. The worst pulp fiction ever.
I was given Along Came a Spider by James Patterson by a relative and at the time knew nothing about Patterson. After about 30 pages I got very bummed out that so many people enjoy this cliched garbage, god almighty it was awful! The best way I could describe it was if a teenager had written a shoddy fan fiction about a bad 90s Hollywood blockbuster.
Infinite Jest - David Foster Wallace. Pretentious and ridiculously long.
Gravity's Rainbow - Thomas Pynchon. Long and ridiculously pretentious
When we emptied the house of the mil after her death she had a few James Patterson books. I picked one up and gave it a try, what struck me that this book wasn’t his first novel and he wasn’t some teenager knocking out an essay for their mock GCSE English exam. He was a many times published author with about 100 books to his name and a ‘reputation’ as a brilliant exciting author (at least to the people who wrote his blurbs for him on the back cover)
Every word was utterly contrived and cliche ridden bollox. Painfull, I lasted about 30pages and could take no more.
My mother once gave me a book by Harlan Corben (sp) awful nonsense, just awful.
You're all lucky to be able to read, i had a very poor upbringing and never had the opportunity to learn, oh to one day read a book, any book.
Off topic slightly - has anyone ever taken a book back to the shop because it was bad? 🙂
Non Fiction rather than non fiction.... Many moons ago I decide to teach myself a bit of basic web design and bought a book that promised to teach you how to use Dreamweaver in a week. Three weeks later I took it back to Borders and said that basically, it was faulty - it hadn't taught me how to use the program at all, let alone in a week. So they gave me my money back. They said they'd regularly deal with returns for manufacturing faults - miss-printing, missing pages and so on but they'd never had a book return because the content didn't work.
(it was a genuine issue of cover miss-selling the contents - it claimed to cover both PC and Mac versions of the software but in fact only covered Mac specific elements about 10% of the time and the two versions had different menus and GUIs)
I'm an utter philistine when it comes to supposed great books.
My top three 'this is crap, I thought it was supposed to be amazing' books are:
Catch-22
One Hundred Years of Solitude
Notes from a Small Island
I can't get into any of them and have tried several times.
Also A Brief History of Time - but that is because my brain can't cope with it.
Tessaract by that bloke who did The Beach. No story whatsoever.
Then some book by an American sniper who was the last man standing mainly because he was protected by god and George W bush.
Stephen King is great at writing characters I think, but falls down on plot two thirds of the way through 90% of his books. Never understood why he’s classed as the king of horror either. I’m a big fan and most of his books aren’t remotely scary.
As above, his characters are wonderful.
I enjoyed pretty much everything up to IT, and disliked pretty much everything that came after.
And not scary?
Please, Pet Cemetery is utterly terrifying on the subject of grief and loss, as is The Shining on alcoholism and dysfunctional relationships.
Timing is everything.
Steinbeck is wasted on children, they don't have the life experience to relate to it.
And Catcher in the Rye is wasted on adults, because they do.
Catch-22
One Hundred Years of Solitude
Notes from a Small Island
I loved all of those! And a lot of others in this thread...
Two books that I tried to read twice and gave up twice:
Midnight's Children (felt like it was desperately trying to be Great Literature)
Brideshead Revisited (I hear enough about the aloof champagne-quaffing aristocracy in the news, I don't want to read about them for pleasure too)
And Catcher in the Rye is wasted on adults, because they do.
Ha, true. I absolutely loved that as a self absorbed 16 year old with the weight of the world on my shoulders. I imagine I would hate it beyond words now at 41!
LOTR, half a million words of overblown waffle. I couldn't stand it, never got past the first half the first book. Conversely, I quite liked the Hobbit.
People rail about the quality of writing by Rowling, but on the whole the Potter series is better, more to the point and hits the right notes for target audience at chez monkfinger, and yes, agreed, picks up greatly after the first two books. On a similar fantasy note, Le Guin is excellent.
Stephen King is awful. A one page summary of each book is more entertaining. And the plots all go wrong, as has been noted. When he actually stuck to "short" stories he was good.
Ayn Rand, just no.
Dickens, no.
I like Rushdies books in general.
People rail about the quality of writing by Rowling,
Her writing is fine.
Her editor(s) lost their nerve as she became more successful.
Anything by Shakespeare. It’s just not realistic. When was the last time you spoke in iambic pentameter, innit?
Chaucer. Some dirty bits but the guy can’t even spell. Did he even get an English O level?
Thomas Hardy. Even got the title wrong. Far From The Madding Crowd? LMAO It’s “maddening”, mate!!
Her writing is fine.
That's about the best you can say for the writing. They're decent stories with some good themes but the writing is nothing special and decidedly clunky in parts. That's not a criticism, I still like them, just an observation.
Moby Dick is excellent, although granted there are a few bits that are quite difficult to get through (mainly the "this is how a whale is chopped up bits" but I even found that interesting). My favourite quote:
"there is a Catskill eagle in some souls that can alike dive down into the blackest gorges, and soar out of them again and become invisible in the sunny spaces. And even if he for ever flies within the gorge, that gorge is in the mountains; so that even in his lowest swoop the mountain eagle is still higher than other birds upon the plain, even though they soar.”
And Catcher in the Rye is wasted on adults, because they do.
Nah, even at 16, I thought Holden was an entitled prick.
I am Pilgrim - Terry Hayes. Just utter dross, basically Dan Brown with a US military obsession. Bleurgh.
Vanity Fair - found it in a free book box and it just drags.
More votes for Zen, Bourne, Hardy. Tolkien I did because I felt I had to and won’t do again, didn’t read any of his appendices (WTF)
A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers. Not exactly an apt title. Tosh.
I read something (may have been Wilt) by Tom Sharpe a few years back. Got to the end and thought "WTF did I just invest hours and hours reading?" Utter garb!
I'm on record in this parish as resenting some crappy book by some American bloke who writes himself into his books as a chiselled, tall and handsome hero-type character. Can't remember the author now, but he can Get In The Sea as well.
I generally don't persist with crappy books, life's too short and there's loads of decent ones available.
If you disagree with any of the above, you're wrong, so have a word with yourself!
I got Grapes of Wrath for my birthday. I just need to finish 'All Quiet on the Western Front' (Erich Maria Remarque) which is still great on it's second read through 🙂
for me Harry Potter. didn't get beyond a few pages
My favourite quote:
“there is a Catskill eagle in some souls that can alike dive down into the blackest gorges, and soar out of them again and become invisible in the sunny spaces. And even if he for ever flies within the gorge, that gorge is in the mountains; so that even in his lowest swoop the mountain eagle is still higher than other birds upon the plain, even though they soar.”
Thing is, that might* be a lovely, inspirational quote, but it's written in such an overblown, pompous way that it means nothing at the same time as being really difficult to understand what he's on about. (Try reading it out loud to an unsuspecting victim - see what they say.) He was writing this in the mid-19th century, and there are plenty of novels which were written in the same period or earlier which are actually readable.
*Might! It can be paraphrased as a trite social media meme though..
but it’s written in such an overblown, pompous way that it means nothing at the same time as being really difficult to understand
It's because (and this isn't aimed at you, please don't be offended) language skills are being lost and reading and comprehensive ability is on the decline.
The simple fact is that when Moby Dick was written (1851) fewer people were taught to read, and those people received a better education, they used words now lost and structured sentences in ways that we now find difficult to follow. It's why it seems archaic and overblown, it's appeal is to a readership who're looking (partly) to be challenged and to increase their own ability accordingly, and to find poetry in description and use of language. As education broadened it's reach, is why simpler books (Dickens, Twain, E.A. Poe) start to become more popular, and then at the turn of the century Wilde, Conrad, and Wells start to write in much more modern style...More people can read, but only to a certain standard, and books become more popular, and so more and more simple books get published...
The Third Policeman Flan O'Brian (a friend insisted)
Labyrinth Kate Moss (bought in airport for holiday reading)
Gravity's Rainbow Thomas Pynchon (no amount of mind altering substance could ever make sense of this)
Anything by Matthew Reilly.
Pirate Latitudes by Michael Crichton
Most of Crichton's books are pretty decent (given when they were written) and Pirate Latitudes started off promisingly enough before descending into cliches and fantasy.
It’s because (and this isn’t aimed at you, please don’t be offended) language skills are being lost and reading and comprehensive ability is on the decline.
Not offended at all, because I was thinking the same about some of the 'too wordy' replies. What you say sounds snobby until you realise that reading is a skill, like anything else. Read a lot (and I don't mean airport novels) and you'll get better at finding the rhythm of the writer.
BUT I still stand by what I say - that quote is convoluted rubbish and I think it would have been even in 1851. But then I do have a problem with Victorian persiflage! 😀
BUT I still stand by what I say – that quote is convoluted rubbish
Yes and no...It seems typical of Melville to me, I haven't read a lot of his work; Typee, Moby Dick and Bartleby the Scrivener, (same as everyone else) but his style of weird adjective-noun combinations, and bible inspired passages (especially in Moby) was very popular. especially Typee which was more successful than Moby Dick, and a straightforward read as he'd not settled into his style which became very consistent through out his books and poems. You have to know your King James Bible to get much out of his references and allusions though.
You have to know your King James Bible to get much out of his references and allusions though.
Yeah, I was reading some stuff on wiki and noticed that reference. I've read tons of 19th century novels but never Melville and not any version of the Bible, so I'd be missing a key reference if I did read Moby Dick. I don't much like 19th British stuff (with the odd exception) because they insist on convolution and persiflage* so often, but I've never studied the history of writing, as such, so what you said earlier makes sense. And maybe that's the way they spoke in real life, although I think not because prose became simpler within 20 years. However, going back to that quote, he is just saying that some people are born high-fliers, but in 4 long, clumsy lines. YMMV 😀
*my favourite word, so I'm pleased to use it twice in 24 hours. I love the irony inherent in the word. 😀
I read something (may have been Wilt) by Tom Sharpe a few years back. Got to the end and thought “WTF did I just invest hours and hours reading?” Utter garb!
Just rereading Blott On The Landscape for the first time in years - great stuff. 🙂
I’m on record in this parish as resenting some crappy book by some American bloke who writes himself into his books as a chiselled, tall and handsome hero-type character. Can’t remember the author now, but he can Get In The Sea as well.
That'll be Clive Cussler, I'll warrant - now HIS stuff is bilge, pure and simple. Looping a Catalina while his mate shoots a rifle out the waist hole as they dogfight a WW1 Albatross? F*** off!
Pretty much any Pratchett book after your third one. It gets pretty clichéd and repetitive. The odd funny part but there's a definite repeat.
"A suitable boy" nope.
Any Harry Potter just no and game of thrones books are so badly written as to cause ocular pain.
he is just saying that some people are born high-fliers, but in 4 long, clumsy lines
🤣😂
Or alluding to it with more prose and poetry perhaps would be kinder. Agree with you about British 19thC , can be like a an overstuffed chair or heavy pudding. Somehow (some of) the Americans seem to be even worse for it! If you can gird your loins long enough the 18thC authors Swift and his ilk and are ruder and funnier, or in Fielding's case just obnoxious, and worth it for that alone but the language barrier can be even harder to cross.
they used words now lost and structured sentences in ways that we now find difficult to follow
Nah I don't think that's it.
Language has moved on a lot, and novels have moved on a lot just like music and art have. What was considered worthy 150 years ago isn't any more. Nowadays we expect (or should expect) shorter, more pithy and condensed prose that still contains the same imagery and beauty. This is a lot harder to write, but we're better at writing and reading it now because now, in 2021, we have the previous 150 years of novel writing and reading to draw on. When a new style evolves, the old books don't go away so we're sitting on a much bigger pile of cultural exposure than Melville was, and we all draw from that. Just look at how poetry has changed in the period.
Anyway, I googled the full quote and it works much better IMO with the previous sentence included and the second sentence ditched. The sentence about woe is beautiful because it's got a great rhythm to it; but the the last clause has too many syllables and wrecks the flow. Also, three ands.
There is a wisdom that is woe; but there is a woe that is madness. And there is a Catskill eagle in some souls that can alike dive down into the blackest gorges, and soar out of them again and become invisible in the sunny spaces.
Tessaract by that bloke who did The Beach. No story whatsoever.
Alex Garland, and yes! I read it about 20 years ago and it was so utterly pointless that I still remember it now. Which is weird 😀
Infinite Jest – David Foster Wallace. Pretentious and ridiculously long.
I finished this just so I could know that I finished it, and I've hung onto it purely to be able to remind myself that I finished it. But dear lord it was a slog; I don't see the point of it at all, and wonder how it ever got published.
The Third Policeman Flan O’Brian (a friend insisted)
I'd heard this was a classic but I'm still none the wiser wtf it's actually about. Utter pish.
Catch-22
One of my favourite books now, I reread it every few years. But the first couple of times I couldn't get into it.
I finished this just so I could know that I finished it, and I’ve hung onto it purely to be able to remind myself that I finished it. But dear lord it was a slog; I don’t see the point of it at all, and wonder how it ever got published.
To some people, the length of the book they just read is an intellectual wang extension.
I used to know someone who insisted that every long book they read was totes mazeballs.
They also insisted that every long film they watched was awesome.
If they were truly erudite, they would value quality not quantity.
I read Infinite Jest in pieces in between other stuff. It took me a year...I sort of enjoyed it I think. The actual prose was in places amazing. the foot notes (drug side-effects all that) was baffling and irritating in equal measure.
I remember finishing War and Peace with still seemingly half the book still to plow through, when I realised it was a this mad lecture on Christianity, I was like "Really?.." didn't read it in the end.
Alex Garland
Seems to have some interesting ideas...28 days later (for instance) is a great idea story intro...but they don't seem to go anywhere
That’ll be Clive Cussler, I’ll warrant
Yep, that's the one. Utter nonsense. Just Google some of the plot lines and you'll see, eg
A wealthy American financier disappears on a treasure hunt in an antique blimp (like you do);
From Cuban waters, the blimp drifts toward Florida with a crew of dead men—Soviet cosmonauts (inevitably);
Pitt discovers a shocking scheme: a covert group of U.S. industrialists has put a colony on the moon (of course they have);
Russians are about to strike a savage blow in Cuba—and only Dirk Pitt can stop them (who knew?)
Seriously, what was the literary agent smoking when this one landed on his desk?
Mind you, Cussler amassed a huge fortune, so what do I know?