Read The Historian, similar premise...terrifying.Blindswordmaster said:
With J.D.Salinger dying, lots of pseudo-critics attacked lots of pseudo-intellectuals for holding a great writer up as a great writer. Hate breeds.Pyromaniac1337 said:
Books that weren't all that good.
- Thread starter Blindswordmaster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I agree totally. However...see the One Man Lord of the Rings show. It's wonderful.Valksy said:
Books I hated:
Thomas Bloody Covenant - Dear god that was atrocious.
Even a Doctor Who story called Blood Heat(?) - atrocious misuse of the licence to bully the Doctor and his companions. It's just a 200 page torture scene.
i just realised, twilight did used to be such a cool word, like the twilight princess and all that lark.bleachigo10 said:
To kill a mockingbird: Horribly boring, and the plot never seemed to go anywhere. It was less entertaining than reading a documentary on racism in the early part of the twentieth century, and more pretentious.
Harry Potter: they may have been good compared to most children's books, but were illogical, full of plot holes, and just plain STUPID when compared on any adult level. Why I read all seven of them I have not the faintest idea.
The Giver: or, as I like to call it, "Baby's first dystopia."
Animal farm, which, while being a good enough metaphor for the soviet union, disturbed me so much as a child when I read it, that I wrote a fanfic where all the characters die in a nuclear strike.
Fahrenheit 451: yes, it made important points at first, but when it degenerated into essentially a rant about television making people stupid, it pissed me off so much that I actually thought the ending was an appropriate coda.
Plato's Republic: Hitler aint got nothing on Socrates!
Harry Potter: they may have been good compared to most children's books, but were illogical, full of plot holes, and just plain STUPID when compared on any adult level. Why I read all seven of them I have not the faintest idea.
The Giver: or, as I like to call it, "Baby's first dystopia."
Animal farm, which, while being a good enough metaphor for the soviet union, disturbed me so much as a child when I read it, that I wrote a fanfic where all the characters die in a nuclear strike.
Fahrenheit 451: yes, it made important points at first, but when it degenerated into essentially a rant about television making people stupid, it pissed me off so much that I actually thought the ending was an appropriate coda.
Plato's Republic: Hitler aint got nothing on Socrates!
Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Dafoe (sp?) and Dune Messiah by Frank Herbert.
Don't get me wrong either, I love reading at times, and yes some of these get boring, but those two...URGH. I loved Dune and felt that when you're able to skip half the story and STILL have a good idea of what was going on at the end, it's bad writing.
Crusoe was just...annoying. I hated it, not because it was boring but because I just didn't like the guy. I couldn't feel sorry for him because he washed up with pretty much the whole ship. Hell, CASTAWAY had more stuff to do then this man did when it came to survival!
and I think most of us have a different view of how things are, compared to when they were written. Dracula would've been better but it at least set the stage for the badass vampires later on.
Don't get me wrong either, I love reading at times, and yes some of these get boring, but those two...URGH. I loved Dune and felt that when you're able to skip half the story and STILL have a good idea of what was going on at the end, it's bad writing.
Crusoe was just...annoying. I hated it, not because it was boring but because I just didn't like the guy. I couldn't feel sorry for him because he washed up with pretty much the whole ship. Hell, CASTAWAY had more stuff to do then this man did when it came to survival!
and I think most of us have a different view of how things are, compared to when they were written. Dracula would've been better but it at least set the stage for the badass vampires later on.
I found Oliver Twist a bit of a difficult read. I couldn't get through a few pages without considering it a bit boring.
I definetley agree, it had quite a weak plot and was boring beyond measure.Kryzantine said:
OP: Atlas Shrugged. I slogged through that 1000+ page book just to learn more about Objectivism (Which I did) but christ on a cracker was it boring, preachy, and predictable. Rand lets her eagerness to showcase her new philosophy get in the way of telling a decent narrative. The Fountainhead isn't as bad, but I just couldn't finish it after reading Shrugged.
Brave New World by Alduos Huxley wasn't bad, but that stream of conciousness style (I think is what he uses) really got hard to understand sometimes.
EDIT: I've forgotten my most hated book of all time: For whom the Bell Tolls by Earnest Hemingway. I was going to read it for a school assignment because I thought it sounded interesting. I was mistaken. Hemingway just had to describe EVERY LITTLE GOD DAMN THING and nothing was happening in the middle of a civil war, I don't need action every second, but come on Hemingway! Give me something! It was esentially a romance novel set during the Spanish Civil war yet had next to nothing to do with it.
Most everything that popped up in English class but Life of Pi takes any and all accolades of useless. There are so many things wrong with the logic of this book combined with bad writing.
Contrary to most people on this thread, I liked Dracula. I think it had great pacing.
Contrary to most people on this thread, I liked Dracula. I think it had great pacing.
I quite liked Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men", I read it a couple of years back and wrote an essay that managed to surprise the bejeesus out of my English teacher, which started up a whole train of them. I watched the movie with Gary sinise too, that was pretty good.maninahat said:
OT, while I'm at it:
I was actually quite disappointed by "Do androids dream of electric sheep", the novel Blade runner was based on. The movie actually made me think alot more than the book did, and the book over complicated things (Like the part with the mood organ, which made no sense in the context of the novel), and the grand finale when he takes down about 4 androids at once didn't really feel like it had an impact. I suppose the messages between both films are supposed to be different though. The book's meant to warn us that if we don't change our ways, then we will live in a world where farmyard animals will be status symbols and cost a fortune, whereas the film looks closer at human nature, as towards the end of the film the androids really do become indiscernable from humans, particularly Roy Batty. But still, the book didn't leave me wanting to read it again.