Books you should like...but don't

[dtrpath27]

Sometimes I find that there are books that are very well-regarded, very well-liked, and have stood the test of time.  In other words, there is every reason that I should like it, but I just don't.  It's not that the book is overrated or not in a genre I dislike or by an author I don't care for, it's just that I plain don't like it.  Do you find that, too?

 

For me that book is the Lord of the Rings.  Great novel, great writing, huge following, but it doesn't matter.  I'd like to like it, but book, movie, stage production, it just doesn't matter.  It's not for me.

 

What's on your should like but don't list?

Edited March 24, 2014 by dtrpath27

[CuriousGeorgette]

There are authors I have read but won't read again, some authors I just flat out refuse to read regardless of how wonderful their writing is supposed to be and more than a few books that are supposed to be wonderful, that like you, I just plain don't like BUT having said that - that is just my personal likes and dislikes and it is one of those universal laws that you can't please all the people all the time, same goes for books. Some people like 'em, some people hate 'em. 

[dtrpath27]

... that is just my personal likes and dislikes and it is one of those universal laws that you can't please all the people all the time, same goes for books. Some people like 'em, some people hate 'em. 

 

I absolutely agree.  That's why I was wondering what everyone else's "should but don't" books were.  I think it will be interesting just to see, not to try to convince them otherwise.

[CuriousGeorgette]

I absolutely agree.  That's why I was wondering what everyone else's "should but don't" books were.  I think it will be interesting just to see, not to try to convince them otherwise.

 

Ok without criticising those who do like these books / authors - this is my 'don't like/won't read' list:

 

Nabokov, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Hemingway, Steinbeck, David Mitchell, Angry Feminists, YA stuff involving boy wizards, vampires, werewolves, undead, zombies, supernatural beings, angels, demons, 'hot' faerie or dying teens, Post-Apocalyptic dystopian visions of the future where all is bleak and awful and without any hope, ghosts, gory slasher horror with googly monsters although I have and do read Poe (but that is a whole different kind of horror), anything with too much blood and gory bits, pretty much anything that has a depressed hopeless everything is awful view of the world.

Edited March 24, 2014 by CuriousGeorgette

[willoyd]

Aside from the specific authors, I don't think many of those represent books one 'ought' to like based on the definition you used in the opening post, the categories being too wide. Thus when talking vampires, there's a world of a difference between, say, "Dracula" and your average pulp fiction - the former might be regarded as an 'ought to', but I'd suggest that label doesn't apply to the latter (I'm no fan of vampire fiction, or pretty much any form of horror, but loved Dracula!).  You imply as much in your comments on Poe.

 

So, I think you're really talking about specific books?

 

For me, two jump straight to mind (I'm sure there'll be others):  1984, and Slaughterhouse-5.  I struggled with both, and disliked them intensely.

 

(Of course, there's no book that anybody really 'ought' to like - that's the joy of reading! - but the the rather iconoclastic idea behind the thread is fun!).

Edited March 24, 2014 by willoyd

[pontalba]

I don't think there is much that I refuse to read, or at least try once.  That said, I don't read "horror", or typical "romance" novels.  By romance, I mean those Harlequin mass market books put out by whoever.  A particular author I can't think of at the moment.

I don't read stories where animals are needlessly injured or killed. 

Yes, I used to cry at the Lassie movies.....when I saw them as a youngster. Won't watch now.

 

CuriousGeorgette, I think I love dystopian novels because, while they are often times bleak, they show the indomitable strength of the human spirit, and how we as humans are able to overcome, in the end, the most awful circumstances.  That does give hope, IMO.  But, each to their own kettle of fish.

[CuriousGeorgette]

I don't think there is much that I refuse to read, or at least try once.  That said, I don't read "horror", or typical "romance" novels.  By romance, I mean those Harlequin mass market books put out by whoever.  A particular author I can't think of at the moment.

I don't read stories where animals are needlessly injured or killed. 

Yes, I used to cry at the Lassie movies.....when I saw them as a youngster. Won't watch now.

 

CuriousGeorgette, I think I love dystopian novels because, while they are often times bleak, they show the indomitable strength of the human spirit, and how we as humans are able to overcome, in the end, the most awful circumstances.  That does give hope, IMO.  But, each to their own kettle of fish.

 

I used to read them, still have a few, but generally have found myself going completely off them. If I pick up one these days and read the blurb I find myself disinterested. 

 

Yes ditto on books with animals being harmed - that is so intrinsic to me that I didn't even think of it.

 

Kids being harmed - that very much depends - its hard to read, but when there is a social message or is an autobiography then I will read it, albeit reluctantly. It isn't high on my list of choices though.

 

I generally won't pick up a romance - mass produced or otherwise - out of choice, but if stuck on holiday without anything else I have been known to read one or three. They are junk, but when desperate .... so I can't say I won't EVER read them. Its like eating junk food, you know its not good for you, but once in while when there is nothing else readily available you will. It tastes awful, hurts the stomach, but it is food - kind of.

 

 

 

Aside from the specific authors, I don't think many of those represent books one 'ought' to like based on the definition you used in the opening post, the categories being too wide. Thus when talking vampires, there's a world of a difference between, say, "Dracula" and your average pulp fiction - the former might be regarded as an 'ought to', but I'd suggest that label doesn't apply to the latter (I'm no fan of vampire fiction, or pretty much any form of horror, but loved Dracula!). You imply as much in your comments on Poe.

 

 

 

So, I think you're really talking about specific books?

 

Um no - the authors I mentioned I won't read anything by them, at all, ever. Don't even try persuade me. The other categories I thought I was fairly specific. Dracula, which I have read is not in the same category as the YA books I mentioned. 

[Alexi]

Aside from the specific authors, I don't think many of those represent books one 'ought' to like based on the definition you used in the opening post, the categories being too wide. Thus when talking vampires, there's a world of a difference between, say, "Dracula" and your average pulp fiction - the former might be regarded as an 'ought to', but I'd suggest that label doesn't apply to the latter (I'm no fan of vampire fiction, or pretty much any form of horror, but loved Dracula!).  You imply as much in your comments on Poe.

 

So, I think you're really talking about specific books?

 

For me, two jump straight to mind (I'm sure there'll be others):  1984, and Slaughterhouse-5.  I struggled with both, and disliked them intensely.

 

(Of course, there's no book that anybody really 'ought' to like - that's the joy of reading! - but the the rather iconoclastic idea behind the thread is fun!).

I thought I was the only person who didn't really get on with 1984! I will try another Orwell at some point, but really didn't get on with that one.

 

As an aside, I walked past the teen section in Smiths today and was a bit disheartened - 90% of it was vampires. Obviously it's good people read, but there must be more to teen fiction than that!

[Angury]

I try not to close myself into one genre, and read as many different books as I can. Even if I don't enjoy a book, I always feel I've learnt something from it, such as certain writing styles used by the author.

 

I remember reading The Great Gatsby when I was quite young and being confused about the hype surrounding it. No matter how hard tried, I just couldn't get into it. I think I just read it at the wrong time - if I were to reread it now, I feel I would have a different perspective. I think the impact of some books depends on when you read them in your life.

 

I love the Harry Potter books because I was part of the generation who grew up with them. My parents on the other hand can't see the hype.

 

some authors I just flat out refuse to read regardless of how wonderful their writing is supposed to be

 

How come?

 

CuriousGeorgette, I think I love dystopian novels because, while they are often times bleak, they show the indomitable strength of the human spirit, and how we as humans are able to overcome, in the end, the most awful circumstances. That does give hope, IMO. But, each to their own kettle of fish.

I love dystopian novels for the exact opposite reason - they show how the world can change so suddenly, and the power people can have over each other.

Humanity can be responsible for some truly horrific acts. I'm quite a pessimistic person though.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Angury

[Hayley]

Moby Dick. I was really disappointed because I expected to like it, but after just a couple of chapters I started to get bored.  And I just couldn't understand the point behind having whole chapters of facts about whaling (a subject I found disturbing enough to start with!).

[CuriousGeorgette]

 

I love the Harry Potter books because I was part of the generation who grew up with them. My parents on the other hand can't see the hype.

 

that's because they are appallingly badly written - like unreadably, and espouse questionable values, maybe as you read more good writing you will come to see this. I think we may well see these books as the nadir of children's literature, or at least I hope so, because please don't let there be worse.

 

 

 

I love dystopian novels for the exact opposite reason - they show how the world can change so suddenly, and the power people can have over each other.

Humanity can be responsible for some truly horrific acts. I'm quite a pessimistic person though

 

That's why I don't read them. They are pessimistic, they assume mankind has some kind of built in death wish and can not do anything to stop our inevitable headlong rush to self-destruction. Sure they show some survival skills - but at what cost? They all focus on and around the strong preying on the weak and that 'might is right'. They fail entirely take into any kind of account our ability as a race to learn, something we have done consistently throughout recorded history, and to change our behaviour, another thing we have done at regular intervals throughout history. Yes you can read them as some kind of warning about what will happen if, but I personally am just not into reading a pessimistic, depressing, hopeless, point of view of the future. 

 

 

 

some authors I just flat out refuse to read regardless of how wonderful their writing is supposed to be

How come?

 

Because I don't like them. Nabokov - closet potential pedophile - it's suspected and debated enough for me to not want to read a word - don't care how brilliant he is, ethically I will not! Russians - long winded and depressing and never come to a point, Steinbeck and Hemingway both needed some serious therapy and industrial strength anti-depressants and thanks but no thanks, life is not pointless and meaningless and then we all die - yay! David Mitchell - bleh - saw the movie of Cloud Atlas and had such hopes of the book, got to the end and it was like WHAT? it was so unremittingly depressing! And apparently his other books are in the same vein so yeah no thanks. 

[Angury]

that's because they are appallingly badly written - like unreadably, and espouse questionable values, maybe as you read more good writing you will come to see this. I think we may well see these books as the nadir of children's literature, or at least I hope so, because please don't let there be worse.

I never said they were well written. I used to read them as a child because they were the perfect form of escapism for me then, and I think that's the reason many kids read them. I see nothing wrong with reading a book purely for fun and entertainment - it's why I think the Dan Brown books are so popular. I don't know many people who claim they are the peak of literature, but they are good for light reading when on holiday etc.

 

That's why I don't read them. They are pessimistic, they assume mankind has some kind of built in death wish and can not do anything to stop our inevitable headlong rush to self-destruction. Sure they show some survival skills - but at what cost? They all focus on and around the strong preying on the weak and that 'might is right'. They fail entirely take into any kind of account our ability as a race to learn, something we have done consistently throughout recorded history, and to change our behaviour, another thing we have done at regular intervals throughout history. Yes you can read them as some kind of warning about what will happen if, but I personally am just not into reading a pessimistic, depressing, hopeless, point of view of the future.

Out of interest, which dystopian novels have you read? Some of what you have said does ring true to certain dystopian novels, but not to others.

 

Because I don't like them. Nabokov - closet potential pedophile - it's suspected and debated enough for me to not want to read a word - don't care how brilliant he is, ethically I will not!

I guess we see things differently. I don't really care too much about the author's background - in fact, the greater the differences between me and them, the better! It means I can view the world from a different point of view and see how different cultures and families can affect your behaviour.

Even if I don't agree with the point of view (and many times I do not), I still want to try and understand the thought processes that lead to certain actions, and why people are different.

 

Would you ever read/have you read Hitler's Mein Kampf?

 

Russians - long winded and depressing and never come to a point,

 

That is a very big generalisation to make.

Have you read any of the recent Russian literature?

Edited March 24, 2014 by Angury

[dtrpath27]

So, I think you're really talking about specific books?

 

For me, two jump straight to mind (I'm sure there'll be others):  1984, and Slaughterhouse-5.  I struggled with both, and disliked them intensely.

 

(Of course, there's no book that anybody really 'ought' to like - that's the joy of reading! - but the the rather iconoclastic idea behind the thread is fun!).

 

Yes, I meant specific books.  You know, the ones that really seem like they have a lot going for them, but you just personally can't get into them.  I think you see just what I was getting at.

 

...I remember reading The Great Gatsby when I was quite young and being confused about the hype surrounding it. No matter how hard tried, I just couldn't get into it. I think I just read it at the wrong time - if I were to reread it now, I feel I would have a different perspective. I think the impact of some books depends on when you read them in your life.

Sometimes I wonder that, too, if it's just that I read it at the wrong time.  I've found that with some, if I go back to them, I can usually at least appreciate it better.  It doesn't always mean that I like it better, though.  

[Janet]

I thought I was the only person who didn't really get on with 1984! I will try another Orwell at some point, but really didn't get on with that one.

He's one of my favourite authors, although Nineteen Eighty Four is not one of my favourites by him. 

 

For me it's definitely The Catcher in the Rye which I loathed.  I know a couple of people who feel the same way but most people seem to rate it.  People have suggested that maybe it's because I read it in my forties and not when I was at school...?

[CuriousGeorgette]

 

Would you ever read/have you read Hitler's Mein Kampf?

 

No! Not for interest, not for 'historical value', not to understand, not because it might have any half valid points. Don't care, not interested. The man was evil, responsible for some of the worst atrocities of this century and I must read what he wrote? Have you realised yet that a person puts who they are into the books they write? A mass murdering raving lunatic scum bag will put some of that into the books they write. I choose not pollute myself with that.

 

I'm not an advocate of trying everything once, whatever it is, some discernment and judgement is required otherwise you end up having done a bunch a stuff that isn't good for you at all and no its not a 'learning' experience unless you are particularly slow witted. 

 

The problem with having an open mind is that any one can put anything they like in it. 

Edited March 24, 2014 by CuriousGeorgette

[dtrpath27]

He's one of my favourite authors, although Nineteen Eighty Four is not one of my favourites by him. 

 

For me it's definitely The Catcher in the Rye which I loathed.  I know a couple of people who feel the same way but most people seem to rate it.  People have suggested that maybe it's because I read it in my forties and not when I was at school...?

 

I didn't relate much to Holden Caulfield when I read it in high school, but I think some kids really did.  I can see how some books will resonate more at different points in one's life.  I often think about that when I go back and read books that I loved as a young person.  I often come away with a different perspective than when I read it before.

[willoyd]

The problem with having an open mind is that any one can put anything they like in it.

Nice sound-bite, but doesn't stand up to examination. Just because something is open, doesn't mean that ingress is uncontrolled.

 

that's because they are appallingly badly written - like unreadably, and espouse questionable values, maybe as you read more good writing you will come to see this. I think we may well see these books as the nadir of children's literature, or at least I hope so, because please don't let there be worse.

 

If they were so badly written as to be unreadable, then nobody would read them, but they do. I've read, and continue to read, plenty of 'good writing', but also thoroughly enjoyed reading all the Harry Potter novels, several of them in tandem with my son, who has gone on, inspired by such books, to read plenty of 'good writing'. JK Rowling may not be a 'good writer' in your terms, but she is a brilliant story teller, which is why her books are so popular.

 

The other categories I thought I was fairly specific. Dracula, which I have read is not in the same category as the YA books I mentioned.

Sorry - misread your post. Of course the category doesn't include Dracula. My main point though was that none of these categories would surely constitute books that one 'ought' to read, which is what the OP was getting at.

 

Janet: I read Catcher in the Rye at school, and still hated it!

 

Sometimes I wonder that, too, if it's just that I read it at the wrong time. I've found that with some, if I go back to them, I can usually at least appreciate it better.

 

That happened to me with Lord of the Flies, a book I loathed as a teenager, but reread a couple of years ago on reaching my fifties to discover it was a far better book than I had credited it for years. It was for a long time grossly mislabelled as a children's book, and it's anything but.

Edited March 24, 2014 by willoyd

[Alexi]

that's because they are appallingly badly written - like unreadably, and espouse questionable values, maybe as you read more good writing you will come to see this. I think we may well see these books as the nadir of children's literature, or at least I hope so, because please don't let there be worse.

 

 

 

Good God, what a patronising post! Specifically "maybe as you read more good writing you will come to see this". One person's good writing is another person's flowery waffle, no matter how many books they read.

 

As willoyd has already pointed out, they are clearly not unreadable for a large part of the population, because they are extremely popular! Incidentally, I don't think she will be winning a Pulitzer any time soon, but they are wonderful stories enjoyed by children and adults.

 

Thirdly, they have got thousands of children reading - I cannot see that as a bad thing. I dislike vampire fiction and think teen fiction has become over dominated by it (as stated above), but if teenagers are reading then great! It's not for me (or you) to tell people what to like, now or in the future.

 

 

He's one of my favourite authors, although Nineteen Eighty Four is not one of my favourites by him. 

 

For me it's definitely The Catcher in the Rye which I loathed.  I know a couple of people who feel the same way but most people seem to rate it.  People have suggested that maybe it's because I read it in my forties and not when I was at school...?

Ha - you know we agree on that one! I know you love Orwell, and as we agree on so much it's part of what makes me keen to try another.

[Janet]

I totally agree, Alex.  

 

I've never read Twilight and I don't suppose I ever will, but my daughter who doesn't read much devoured them, which led her to read another popular set of books (Dysopian, but I can't remember which set!) and when she went on a recent school trip she opted for a book rather than a magazine which she has requested on similar trips.  Small steps, but ones which will hopefully lead to her reading more for pleasure.  

 

I know you like non-fiction - Down and Out in Paris and London is a good place to start with Orwell, I think.

[poppy]

Two books I should have liked but found a character in each so INTENSELY annoying that I wanted to throw the book on the floor and stomp on it, were Atonement by Ian McEwan and The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro. Both are beautifully written but I found Briony such an annoying little twerp who I was convinced knew exactly what she was doing and Mr Williams was so emotionally repressed I had the overwhelming desire to violently shake him. I know I shouldn't let a dislike of characters colour my opinion of a book, but I'm afraid in these cases it did.

[dtrpath27]

Remains of the Day seems like it should be such a good book!  It definitely fits right into this category. 

[Devi]

Harry potter for me, but Daniel Radcliffe put me off reading them. I do not enjoy him as an actor.

[bookmonkey]

Two that jump immediately to mind for me are Catcher in the Rye and The Book Thief.  I kept going with Catcher more than I probably should've because I kept thinking this is supposed to be a good book it must get better.  The Book Thief I just couldn't get into at all, I know alot of members on here have loved it.  I tried twice, thinking maybe I was just in the wrong frame of mind first time, but still didn't like it.

[Chair]

The Hobbit - my Mum made me read it because she thought I should progress to more adult books.  I struggled through it.  It did not interest me at all and it bored me to tears.  The only thing that kept me going was the easier going book I was going to read when I finished it.  (It might have been a Babysitters Club book).

 

One of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries - my Mum was doing the same thing again.  This one was not so bad as The Hobbit but I would have preferred to choose what I read unless it's for English Literature at school.

 

I choose my own books these days.  I do read and am able to read adult books but ones of my choice.

[willoyd]

The Hobbit - my Mum made me read it because she thought I should progress to more adult books. I struggled through it. It did not interest me at all and it bored me to tears.....I choose my own books these days.  I do read and am able to read adult books but ones of my choice.

Ironic that - maybe the reason you were bored by it is that it is really a children's book. (Although Tolkien denied this, he then went on to suggest it was: 'The Hobbit' was written in what I should now regard as bad style, as if one were talking to children. There's nothing my children loathed more. They taught me a lesson. Anything that in any way marked out 'The Hobbit' as for children instead of just for people, they disliked-instinctively. I did too, now that I think about it. All this 'I won't tell you any more, you think about it' stuff. Oh no, they loathe it; it's awful. (New York Times Jan 15, 1967),