Famous books you never cared for/understood the appeal of?

Yes, I was told the same by those that have an interest in the lifestyle. ;-)
But I think it's more to do with that I believe it is the bad writing. Not even good sex scenes can tempt me to read it because people complain about the writing so bad. But after the movie, it's now kryptonite to me. I'll just imagine those two wooden characters moving about and it severely un-inspires.

Edit: I should qualify that while I might say good fictional sex scenes, I am not saying that it is 'safe' realistic practices. Often I have had people tell me the scenes are great and the writing is bad. And yes, there are many that tell me that it is a terrible depiction of BDSM.

I actually found in reading that novel I was drawn into the world. I think when a book draws me into the setting effortlessly, then I'm a fan regardless of what the theme or plot is. But if I think on it some more, I'd say I have little recollection of Bella. And it would make sense. I do feel often that a lot of romances don't do enough for the female leads, that they are just a foil for the male characters. I know I am guilty of it myself because I enjoy writing the male POV and that is what intrigues me as a female romance reader. A strong female character is a bonus. However, I am now addressing this imbalance because I've been writing with men and letting them sort out the male characters while I practice and focus on my ladies! hehe

 

Satanic Verses: Salman Rushdie.

Wasn't what I had expected at all. Barely got through 10 pages.

Had to add "HARRY POTTER". I understand that these novels were originally aimed at children, but people would often say I should read them. Well I tried and gave up due to the authors (I am pleased she is successful) habit of narrating as if the reader is retarded.

 

I've tried to read the first Harry Potter book...and it's like the language is repelling my brain. The words bounce of my forehead and I can't absorb them. Maybe I'm the retarded one. Lol

 

I remember in high school, I couldn't stand reading Shakespear. The language is awkward and off putting, the scenery is lacking and geared more towards live-theatre than reading, and many of his plots don't translate terribly well into this century.

 

I thought the same thing about his work when I was in high school. I was slated to read Macbeth and totally avoided it, taking a zero for the unit. I couldn't get interested in it.

It wasn't until I was older that Shakespeare really got me interested. You're right in that his works are not novels, there's very little in the way of scenery but he's widely regarded for a reason. The language he uses is exquisite, once you can get passed the inaccessibility. It's almost like another language. Once you have it down, it's much easier to read, and truly enjoyable.

 

To Kill a Mockingbird. (Dunno if it has already been mention, sorry!)
The first half is the most boring and pointless thing I've ever read, they go on about irrelevent things like snow and a fire, yes they are interesting in their own right but not for this story. I know lots of people adore it for its stances on racial, social and gender gap issues but it is so boring for the first half. The most interesting characters are Boo and Scout (thank goodness she is the main character) and everyone else just makes me want either fall asleep or scream. The ending I do like, it shows the harshness of life, but people just praise it far too highly in my opinion.

As for Shakespeare, I've loved his story telling since I first read the Twelfth Night when I was eight (a simplified version), that play struck a cord with me that only a few things since have came close to. And yes, I must agree his language is alien and horrible at a first read (and a second, and a third and a...), I didn't get into that until I was about twelve or thirteen. I now adore it!

 

The Lords of the Rings trilogy. Don't get me wrong, I loved The Hobbit, and the world Tolkein created really is fancsinating. The trilogy itself though, an entire page just describing the scenery? Sorry, but it's not for me.

 

Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.

 

I hate that teachers are expected to make their students read Shakespeare. He never wrote with the expectation of being read, his work is meant to be watched, and there are so many good ways to do that. Even if the class can't get to a live performance, watching a movie version of one of his works is perfectly legitimate, and there are so very many of them. I personally love <ducks incoming rotten produce> the Romeo and Juliet starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes because, of all the versions that I've seen, that one best captures the fact that it was a high school crush, not a great immortal love, that resulted in the deaths of so many people. Likewise, I like Mel Gibson's Hamlet because he's freakin' unhinged at the death of his father. Lawrence Olivier is a great actor, but too dispassionate for my tastes.

On a live note, every year the school that I work at hosts a British theatre troupe that does a live production of one of Shakespeare's works. They have only six actors/actresses, who also serve as stage crew, so it's very minimalist and experimental, but still a wonderful thing to see.

Anyway, don't feel bad if you go to Netflix instead of the library for your Shakespeare fix. He would have wanted it that way.

 

This is a really good point. Looking back, it was one of the movie adaptations that really got me interested in his work. It was the Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet. The movie is four hours long and line for line with the play, save for a few changes. That one is fantastic. If it weren't for my having seen it, I might still be in the Shakespeare-is-overrated camp. It opened my eyes to how the language can work.

 

Oh yes, you've got to see Shakespeare, and I love seeing different interpretations of it. There's a travelling production company that I've seen quite often and their version of Twelfth Night was set in the eighties and it was brilliant. It was amazing how the actors got the language to work while still making sure that they acted within the right time period. I could go into the technicals of what I liked and didn't like but that's going off subject.

I've just thought of another- Eragon Series. They are massive fantasy books that are alright I suppose (for massive fantasy books) and the film did it no justice but they're not bloody amazing like some would have you believe. The ending is terrible and many points in the book just drag. I'm amazed I got through them all at fifteen (was it? I can't remember!) as I tried reading them again a couple of months back and nah. Just can't read them.

 

The first Eragon book was actually quite good, I suppose, even if I was a twelve year old back then who managed to point out just how cliche it was. And the second one, was also alright. And then they just dragged on and on.

 

Wasn't the series written by a 12 year old who got his start plagiarizing Star Wars?

 

A sixteen year old. But yeah

 

I have basically two books that I don't understand why they're popular. I do know what both are about.
1. Fifty Shades of Grey
2. Harry Potter

 

I think I got maybe a chapter into the first one and threw it away, it was so bad.

 

I read and enjoyed the Skeleton Crew anthology quite a lot. They were wonderfully scary and some of them were downright brilliant. I've never been able to get some of those out of my head. But I agree about the novels. They're not for me.

Eragon was awful. When I read the first one, I was interested enough. It wasn't great, but I have a soft spot for fantasy and tend to be more forgiving of fantasy writers. But the second one was so bad, I began to hate the series. I think I read a few chapters into the 3rd and stopped, though I couldn't tell you what it was about at all.

And Paolini sucks at writing fight scenes. For perspective: the gold standard, definition-of-an-epic-fight scene battle between Hector and Achilles, lasts about a page. Gilgamesh and Enkidu fight for just a couple of stanzas. It takes Beowulf around 15 lines to finish off Grendel. But Paolini wrote about a single fight that lasted for four pages. FOUR PAGES!

 

How I feel/felt about a lot of classical books.

 

All for Shakespeare appreciation - though nothing more agonising than Rozencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead.

...school parties bussed to the National Theatre, Hamlet on the syllabus. Boys asleep, drunk in aisles, the English teacher's 'ha ha, ha ha ha,' [an echo, solo] during Stoppard's wit bits.

Terrible experience for everybody concerned. [except for the actors, of course, as ever.]

 

I cannot read The Hobbit! I've tried. And because I cannot read The Hobbit, I refuse to read any of the LOTR books.

 

This one. I usually really like dystopian novels, but Fahrenheit 451 just didn't leave an impression with me.

I couldn't really get into the Lord of the Rings trilogy either. It wasn't horrible, but I found them rather slow and dry- but with moments where they would really pick up. Same issue that Domino355 had really, so much flowery description that, while well done, just seemed to slow things down for me.

I read some Hemingway too and wasn't crazy about it. I didn't like the writing style of The Old Man and the Sea, and I don't think I understand the setting and impact the particular era had on The Sun Also Rises to appreciate it.

 

We might agree on Fahrenheit 451, but this is where we disagree. I loved that book.

 

Well, as I've explained before - Hobbit, LOTR are actually mathematician's books - people who really shouldn't be welcome in a place like this - used to be common knowledge, somehow the message has become diluted.​

 

Interesting. I wonder if most writers could be put in one of two groups based on whether they liked The Old Man and the Sea or Fahrenheit 451. I liked the latter, but not the former.

 

I'm not crazy about either one.