What do you stubbornly refuse to read, and why?

[Jay Landsman]

I have a justified (in my mind) prejudice against Dan Brown, and will never waste a second reading the tripe that he passes off as literature. There was a show on BBC Two starring my favourite comedian right now, Stewart Lee, in which he brutally tore into the extremely poor quality of Dan Brown's prose, and convinced me to never make the effort to read his novels.

 

I also don't want to waste my time on Lee Child novels. I don't mean to come off as a snob here, but his target audience seems to be the type of people who think that Stephen King is the vanguard of modern literature. I was also irritated to find that his novels were the only ones that I knew of in the entire library next to me!

 

I will probably develop other prejudices over time, as I am quickly dismissive of anything that sets off my BS radar - so expect me to clog up this thread over time

[Freewheeling Andy]

I used to be the same with Dan Brown. But my girlfriend had a copy of each of the two famous books, so I felt sort-of-obliged.

 

And, you know what the funny thing is? My prejudices were entirely correct. It is the most astonishingly risibly bad prose I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. It is utterly, utterly, shocking. The plots, too, are spectacularly laughable, although at least enough romp-a-longy to keep reading, despite being grimly bad. The prose, though, is a real challenge unless you read it for its comedy badness value. If you're doing that you'll find nothing to beat it.

[BookJumper]

And, you know what the funny thing is? My prejudices were entirely correct. It is the most astonishingly risibly bad prose I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. It is utterly, utterly, shocking. The plots, too, are spectacularly laughable

This pretty much sums up my own Brownian experience, although even the comedy badness couldn't persuade me to finish The Da Vinci Code *shudder*.

 

You would have enjoyed the John Connelly/Mark Billingham talk & signing I attended recently; it quickly turned into a dig-at-Brown-fest, it was marvellous !

[Jay Landsman]

I think the word 'Brownian' should be used to describe terminal mediocrity. It can extend to our charismatic PM too!

[Raskolnikov]

Except the very contemporary books, out of which very few would be included in any literary quotation dictionnary in 100 years, this topic is worth for all the classics or authors defined as such.

For political, esthetical and philosophical reasons, i reject everything from Jean-Paul Sartre. But I must admit that I have read some of his ****.

[BookJumper]

Except the very contemporary books, out of which very few would be included in any literary quotation dictionnary in 100 years

I'd disagree - contemporariness doesn't make a book bad or unquotable. Excessive popularity (viz. Brown, Meyer et a.), possibly; but there are contemporary writers deserving of remembrance. Whether or not they attain it is, of course, another matter entirely.

 

For political, esthetical and philosophical reasons, i reject everything from Jean-Paul Sartre.

I must admit that I find his ideas interesting, though I don't subscribe to them; I just wish he'd been a better writer and not so excruciatingly dull.

[Ben Mines]

I would just like to lend my voice to the chorus howling down Dan Brown.

 

The most woeful plot, cardboardy characters and hamfisted dialogue I have ever encountered. Ever.

 

May someone beat him to death with his severed writing arm.

[generalkala]

I refuse to read the 'I was abused as a child and now I want to make some money off it' books as well. I just don't understand why someone would want to write a book of it.

 

I usually stubbornly avoid chick lit. I'll read it if it's a little different to the millions of titles out there, but otherwise I don't bother.

[Raskolnikov]

I'd disagree - contemporariness doesn't make a book bad or unquotable. Excessive popularity (viz. Brown, Meyer et a.), possibly; but there are contemporary writers deserving of remembrance. Whether or not they attain it is, of course, another matter entirely.

 

You are right Bookjumper / Many contemporary writters are great artists (especially in the anglo-saxon world). Fingers in my hands are not enough to count them. But the rest is doomed to be forgotten within a decade even if they a currently popular. Because of their contemporariness, most popular authors will always get the current bit of criticism, such as displayed in this thread.

 

As for Sartre, everything from his style / ideas is clumsily taken from elsewhere : Proust, Gide, etc... I like when artist pay tribute to others but not when it looks like a copy/paste. As for his Existentialism philosophical assessments : the best part of it is directly taken from Kierkegaard, the worst of it is a shallow shell.

 

In France, his artistic splendeur gave (still gives) him an aura hiding his lack of style., his writter of wrongs composure, and his moral exhibitionnism. For instance, after WW2 liberation he became the hero of resistance, calling out for decapitation of many alledged collaborator french artists. In the 50's, his communism and lust for glory blinded him by always trying to denounce/condemn people with judgmental views.

In doing so, he also tried to hide his own political non-action during WW2 (if not collaboration) with the Nazis.

[Raskolnikov]

As for Dan Brown & JK Rowling. These 2 don't play in the same schoolyard.

Dan Brown looks, for me, as a pseudo-Umberto Eco, more pretentious and dull.

JK Rowling is making magical stories for kids. She is, at least, deliberately not competing for the Nobel Prize.

I guess we all want our children to be raised under Treasure Island, Grimm's tales or Gulliver's travels imaginary worlds. That's what Rowling is trying to do in her ways. But most part of the critics against Rowling would not exist if Harry Potter had been written 100 years ago by JM Barrie...

[Freewheeling Andy]

I think that's very true about Rowling. I think it would also be true, she would be praised and uncriticised, if there weren't so many adults reading her books; it creates a fairly strong reaction seeing grown up people waiting for the latest instalment. I suspect it might also be true if her books remained of a normal length, rather than turning into larger and larger and longer and longer books.

 

These things give a patina of "seriousness" to those books, and therefore people begin to criticise them as serious books rather than as childrens' fiction.

[Chrissy]

But shouldn't children's books be consider 'serious' books? Why should the target audience define whether a book is to be discussed properly? I judge a by it's worth, not it's age range.

[Raskolnikov]

Well, again things should be balanced.

I am not ashamed to re-read Stevenson, Lewis Carroll, Anderson's tales or Jack London (some of his work are usually in children shelves).

But I must confess I currently do not read Enid Blyton.

[Freewheeling Andy]

But if you start to judge Rowling (or even Stevenson, who is, of course, a far, far better writer) on their literary merits, comparing them against "serious" fiction, they will fall short.

 

If you take them on their own merit, aimed at their regular audience, they stand up perfectly well. The trouble with Rowling is that she begins to invite (and her adult audience certainly invites) the comparison with literature written for adults. And yet there are objections when she is (justifiably) criticised on that basis, even though as books for adults, her books are actually not that great. They aren't quite Dan Brown, but they sure as hell aren't Nabokov.

[Chrissy]

They aren't quite Dan Brown, but they sure as hell aren't Nabokov.

 

I understand what you mean, yet if JKR's works had been written for an adult audience they would still fall short against many writers, as Dan Brown's books have. I enjoyed them for what they are, but have greater loves in the book world.

[Freewheeling Andy]

Oh, no. I mean, I love re-reading my Winnie-the-Pooh books, and still love reading Stevenson.

 

But I accept that I am enjoying reading a childrens book. What Rowling invites with the increasing length of her books (and what many people, including myself, do when I see lots of adults reading her books), is comparison with, and treatment as, "serious" literature.

[vinay87]

hmn.... Pulp fiction? Thrillers? I've not touched one of either in over a decade. Wow saying that makes me feel old.

 

 

I don't always look for deep meanings in books that I read, but I've observed that most thrillers and pulp fiction books aren't rereadable. And since I buy all the books that I want to read, I don't want to keep books or read books that I'm never going to want to read a second time with me. I have less shelf space as it is. Rather, I have none.

[sadya]

Stories with only fighting in them, you know, like those action movies without a real story line in them. Murder stories too, there has to be something really really special about such books if I would ever read one.

 

And cheezy love stories. If a novel about love is written very well, if it has something special, then I do read it, otherwise no. What comes in mind for example is the boring Bouquette-series we have in Holland, all similar love stories with only a few differences. If you've read one of those, you've read them all while in an excellent book like "Cartography" by Kamilla Shamsie the love story is enjoyable, it's written in magical prose, almost poetry sometimes and there is a lot more going on, that has become my favorite Shamsie book.

[Univerze]

^Hey, didn't know there was another Dutchie around here. Hello!

 

I refuse to read chick lit. Those books about women in high high heels and their society life.. blahblahblah. You know, the book version of Sex and the City. And all those tv series made for women.. I don't watch those, and such books I would find even worse. Nu-uh, give me good sci-fi and fantasy any day.

 

Also, so far, I refuse to read the Twilight books. Yes, so far, since I don't discount me ever reading them as a possibility. Just to see what the fuss is about.

Oh and I have gone off most urban fantasy, they just all seem the same. I read Laurell Hamilton, and will stick to that. I have two keri Arthur books in my bookcase, and have read more in this genre, but once you know one writer's work, the rest is more of the same.

 

Anything else... ehh. Books that are too much like real life. I read for escapism, so to read books about someone getting cheated on or getting cancer (say this book that's famous here and just been made a movie of "Er komt een vrouw bij de dokter").. I am not reading those. I don't want to read about anything that I can live in real life.

[sadya]

Hey Univerz, nice to meet you, fellow kaaskoppie.

 

(well, actually I'm a kaaskoppie with a chapati background to be more accurate)

[StephenKingman]

I hate any hardcore sci-fi or fantasy books like Lord of the Rings or the Harry Potter series, i personally really dislike sci-fi and always have done so i find any books with these themes irritating, with the only exception being The Talisman by King. The Dark Tower series was painful in my opinion and i always felt King was better suited to horror and thrillers.

 

I will refuse to read the next Dan Brown book as they have all become so predictable that any suspense is evaporated- "Local genius gets drawn in unwittingly to dark ancient historic forces and hooks up with a mysterious beautiful fellow-genius to solve the mystery, all the while being chased down by a dark, muscle-bound assasin determined to reach the treasure first............change the record

[Rawr]

See, i'm torn with Mr Brown. The thing with him, he can write if he wanted to break the mould of the New York Times bestseller hype conspiracy machine.

 

He comes out with quotable and well developed sentences and fantastic character description from time to time. I seem to remember his description of Bezu Fache(?) was brilliant. He can set atmosphere, he makes the Louvre seem like an endless mysterious tomb, not that hard I know, but he does it well and compliments the mood of the story at that point. He has all the tools for a great story, that is obvious, but the dumbing down and streamlined approach plague a lot of his work, as if he is writing for movie scripts at times. His plots may be routine to a point, but they take some planning. His research, whilst inaccurate to suit the plot (which is impossible to avoid) is impeccable with relevance to his subjects, he obviously takes pride and does a ton of research.

 

I will read him but on my own terms. If he doesn't try and evolve his fiction though then I will quickly lose patience. The first four books are good reads, Digital Fortress a little off though for me. Angels and Demons is fantastic, DVC seems like a repeat but with more hysteria. Langdon doesn't seem to have any character development really, which begs the question, why bring him back, because it is convenient? I can't afford his newest release but when I can I will read and report back whether I will be reading him again

[Brida]

I refused to read The Da Vinci code because it was so popular, and it just made it less interesting and appealing. I said refused because before it was recomended to me daily for a while, and by now it's being mentioned much less, so now I don't even think of it. I have seen the film and it was ok, but I think that type of subject is more movie material than book material.

I could very well be wrong.

[Univerze]

^No I agree, I refuse to read more Dan Brown, I didn't LOVE the films, but thought they were okay, I tried to read the DaVinci Code and didn't get very far cause it bored the heck out of me.

[vodkafan]

^Oh and I have gone off most urban fantasy, they just all seem the same. .

 

Univerze, I just wondered what you meant by "urban fantasy"?