Books NOT to read-

[Kiseki]

One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Luckily, I was reading this for fun so I had the option to put it down halfway through and sell it off on Amazon.

[asleepawake]

I fucking hate Kindred by Octavia Butler.

Really? Care to share your reasons? I think it's pretty fantastic!

Anyway, my answer is To Have and Have Not. Just. Awful. I'm not a huge fan of Hemingway as it is, but that one is just the worst.

Edited February 16, 2012 by asleepawake

[yank in the M20]

I wasn't really into Lawrence even though one of my fave professors specializes in him, but his short stories changed my mind--especially the collection England, My England. Anyone on the fence about him should give them a read.

As for Zadie Smith, my theory is that she's popular more for her looks than for her talent. I didn't like White Teeth, and On Beauty was repulsive!

[MelleMelville]

I think that the worst book I've ever read is What Is To Be Done? by Nicolai Chernyshevsky. I had to read it in a Comp Lit course once and it was brutal. It's so bad that its badness is almost interesting.

[Origin=Goal]

One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Luckily, I was reading this for fun so I had the option to put it down halfway through and sell it off on Amazon.

Best choice so far imho.

[coffeeplease]

The Alchemist. Had to read it in high school. Awful, awful book.

[menard]

Ah I loved An American Tragedy, though I believe our edition was closer to 900 pages! I also loved Sister Carrie, also by Dreiser.

I can however add to this list the obligatory Lord of the Flies and a Kathy Acker novel called Pussy: King of the Pirates.

As someone who seriously wants to be a Kathy Acker scholar, it pains me that she was mentioned, especially in the second reply to this thread, however, I know she's not for everyone. I would recommend not reading Villette.

[rainy_day]

I am finding myself getting strangely defensive! Haha. Confederacy of Dunces is probably my favorite book of all, and I love Zadie Smith.

I am appreciating the Pamela bashing, but I tend to study (contemporary) pop culture, so I often love what I hate.

[yank in the M20]

I am finding myself getting strangely defensive! Haha. Confederacy of Dunces is probably my favorite book of all, and I love Zadie Smith.

I am appreciating the Pamela bashing, but I tend to study (contemporary) pop culture, so I often love what I hate.

I too adore Confederacy of Dunces--seems to be quite the divisive book, who knew? And Jane Austen's appearance in this thread was a surprise.

Just out of curiosity, you didn't apply to UT-Austin, I see, though they're big in pop culture. Just wondered why. Totally not my area, just curious.

[Enzian]

I'm surprised nobody has offered up a Franzen novel yet.

I'll put in another Garcia Marquez novel: Autumn of the Patriarch. The whole thing is like 6 sentences which, formally, seems kind of fun and interesting but makes it very difficult to pause to do, you know, anything else. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what I wanted to do while reading it.

[Ablukhov]

Let the hate-fest begin (against me, of course), but I despise Jane Austen. I study the novel, but I can't bring myself to like her. Appreciate, yes. But like, never.

I'm with you.

[Grunty DaGnome]

Oh yes, Jane Austen

[antecedent]

For me, it's James Joyce. First, Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man in high school and then Finnegan's Wake. Just a world of no. I'm not sure stream-of-consciousness will ever be my thing because I discovered I need something coherent in a novel to finish it (characters, plot, story, structure) and Joyce just pushes all the wrong buttons. I will echo the dislike of Beloved (thank goodness I later read Song of Solomon and The Bluest Eye).

I gotta say, I agree on the whole Joyce thing (and felt very alone because of it - my undergrad department loved him!) though I did enjoy the poop jokes. Maybe Joyce got it right - if you're going to write several impenetrable (ha) novels, at least include enough poop jokes to help the less interested reader out.

[Jbarks]

Let the hate-fest begin (against me, of course), but I despise Jane Austen. I study the novel, but I can't bring myself to like her. Appreciate, yes. But like, never.

I do agree.

I'm not going to lie, I kind of wish Faulkner had never been born

He's at the top of my list. Try as I might, I just can't do it.

[Brittany Bishop]

I found the Franz Kafka's The Castle was one of the most irritatingly empty of plot books ever. Actually, anything Kafka wrote is on my avoid it list.

I agree on the avoidance of Tender Buttons as well!

As a Romantics scholar, I was both saddened and resigned to the appearance of my beloved Austen appearing on this list. Sad, but understood.

[lcm]

I read this thread thinking how it was silly people were putting frowny faces and getting upset when someone said their favorite novel was a "book not to read"... until people mentioned Garcia Marquez! Now I'm irrationally sad, GGM is my favorite!

I will echo the Stein comments, though. I've disliked some writing styles over the years (Dickens, Twain) but I can understand that other people may love them! What I can't understand is how Tender Buttons stood the test of time. I wish I could get into the canon by typing random words on a page! (I feel this way about most modern art, too, so feel free to tell me I "just don't get it!")

[bfat]

I was totally going to say Pamela. My god, it is awful. It was on my MA exam reading list, and I have no idea why I even read the whole thing. There are only so many times a man can attempt to rape his maid. And then, oh, he tries the new tactic of being nice to her, and surprise! She loves him, too. Ugh. SO. BAD.

Hahaha! I wrote a fun paper last summer on Shamela and all the Pamela-bashing of the mid 18th C. It was fun to legitimately go into all the reasons why Richardson sucks (at least according to Fielding).

[bfat]

The Alchemist. Had to read it in high school. Awful, awful book.

Yes.

In fact, anything and everything by Coelho. Ugh.

[ComeBackZinc]

Wow, I love tons of books that are listed here.

[RoundandRoundAgain]

As someone who seriously wants to be a Kathy Acker scholar, it pains me that she was mentioned, especially in the second reply to this thread, however, I know she's not for everyone. I would recommend not reading Villette.

Wow, another person who wants to be an Acker scholar, yay! Empire of the Senseless is the best book I've read in the last year (in fact, I wrote my undergraduate honors thesis on Abhor, gender ideology, and dreams which wound up being my writing sample for almost everywhere).

On topic: I have to say that I agree with Faulkner - in The Sound and the Fury, I was far more interested in the people who weren't narrators like both Caddys. I was also not impressed with Wuthering Heights or Jane Eyre which is basically blasphemy considering my time period, but the first hundred pages of Jane bored me to tears and I hate everyone in WH.

[Stately Plump]

For me, it's James Joyce. First, Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man in high school and then Finnegan's Wake. Just a world of no. I'm not sure stream-of-consciousness will ever be my thing because I discovered I need something coherent in a novel to finish it (characters, plot, story, structure) and Joyce just pushes all the wrong buttons.

You list "postmodernism" as one of your interests in your signature. I'm wondering what it is you like about postmodernism, if you can't stand stream-of-consciousness and need coherent structure with characters, plot, and story? Most of the postmodernism I've read has been less coherent than Portrait. I would probably put Finnegan's Wake in the postmodern category. Not trying to be a jerk, just curious

I hate everyone in WH.

So do I which is one of the things I love about the book! How powerful a book must be to engender such strong emotions from a reader! There were times when I had to put WH down out of frustration, and I would think to myself, 'what a fantastically well-done book, I hate everyone!'

Anyway, sorry for ranting. I know I come off as a pompous asshole here, I promise it's just because of the barrier of the internet (I hope it's just because of the barrier of the internet )

I didn't like Babbit by Sinclair Lewis. Had to write a paper on it. Read half the book, bullshitted the paper. Got an A on paper, decided to apply to grad school because of my ability to get As on papers I wrote about books I hadn't read

[RoundandRoundAgain]

You list "postmodernism" as one of your interests in your signature. I'm wondering what it is you like about postmodernism, if you can't stand stream-of-consciousness and need coherent structure with characters, plot, and story? Most of the postmodernism I've read has been less coherent than Portrait. I would probably put Finnegan's Wake in the postmodern category. Not trying to be a jerk, just curious

No, it's okay - I can see that it's a strange disconnect. It's probably easiest for me to say that I'm attracted to postmodern poetry from people like Amy Gerstler and Sylvia Plath because it's tighter than the prose in the genre. The wordplay, absurdity, pop culture references, and ideas of postmodernism usually has a lot to say about identity, gender roles, and community values. As someone who has become deeply interested in gender and sexuality over the past two years and the connection they have to literature from past until now, the ideas of postmodernism are central to why I enjoy reading it.

Kathy Acker is the exception in terms of prose (so far) because her novels are far more about gender, sexuality, ideological power, and all the ideas that come out of identity and what it is to be human. In Empire of the Senseless, I can pick out at least half a dozen coherent ideas that she wants to convey about humanity in spite of the occasional segues because it's less about stream-of-consciousness and more about a stream of ideas. I don't need everything in the novel to be coherent, just something about the prose that should be coherent whether it's story, plot, structure, or characters. I love nonlinear stories, character introspections, experimental structures - I just don't love them all at the same time.

I can appreciate Finnegan's Wake as an experimental novel that helped the shift from modernism to postmodernism, but the novel is difficult, frequently incoherent, and Iong. (As this post probably is at this point).

Edited February 16, 2012 by BattlingAnxiety

[skybythelight]

I may get attacked by some Joyce scholars for this, but I'm fairly certain that Joyce's intention with Finnegan's Wake was for it to in fact be difficult, largely incoherent, and long. I say that not to disagree with you, as I certainly could not make my way through it successfully, but just to point out that our feelings about it probably mean that he accomplished his goal.

I also want to emphasize Julianne's post and go so far as to say anything by Octavia Butler is skippable. I have a professor, who I absolutely love, who is unfortunately obsessed with her. I've read Kindred, Patternmaster, Wild Seed, and now Mind of my Mind... awful, just terrible.

[Stately Plump]

No, it's okay - I can see that it's a strange disconnect. It's probably easiest for me to say that I'm attracted to postmodern poetry from people like Amy Gerstler and Sylvia Plath because it's tighter than the prose in the genre. The wordplay, absurdity, pop culture references, and ideas of postmodernism usually has a lot to say about identity, gender roles, and community values. As someone who has become deeply interested in gender and sexuality over the past two years and the connection they have to literature from past until now, the ideas of postmodernism are central to why I enjoy reading it.

Kathy Acker is the exception in terms of prose (so far) because her novels are far more about gender, sexuality, ideological power, and all the ideas that come out of identity and what it is to be human. In Empire of the Senseless, I can pick out at least half a dozen coherent ideas that she wants to convey about humanity in spite of the occasional segues because it's less about stream-of-consciousness and more about a stream of ideas. I don't need everything in the novel to be coherent, just something about the prose that should be coherent whether it's story, plot, structure, or characters. I love nonlinear stories, character introspections, experimental structures - I just don't love them all at the same time.

I can appreciate Finnegan's Wake as an experimental novel that helped the shift from modernism to postmodernism, but the novel is difficult, frequently incoherent, and Iong. (As this post probably is at this point).

Thanks for not being offended

I too love Sylvia Plath. And I can definitely see not liking Joyce but liking Plath.

[truckbasket]

I may get attacked by some Joyce scholars for this, but I'm fairly certain that Joyce's intention with Finnegan's Wake was for it to in fact be difficult, largely incoherent, and long. I say that not to disagree with you, as I certainly could not make my way through it successfully, but just to point out that our feelings about it probably mean that he accomplished his goal.

Pretty much. But what he was doing was essentially the literary equivalent to other "difficult" art work of the time. While his work is clearly not for everyone, I'm pretty sure art is supposed to be difficult / challenging. In that respect, no one has really even come close to the formal innovations he was pulling off in Ulysses and Wake.

I also want to emphasize Julianne's post and go so far as to say anything by Octavia Butler is skippable. I have a professor, who I absolutely love, who is unfortunately obsessed with her. I've read Kindred, Patternmaster, Wild Seed, and now Mind of my Mind... awful, just terrible.

I also had to read a couple of her books and, given her status, I was shocked by how poor they were.