# Books you'd never read (or finish)



## assassin (Jul 14, 2007)

If you read a lot, be it one genre or many, you're eventually doomed to come across a book that makes you wanna run screaming out the door (okay, just wince). Maybe you've only read the cover or a perhaps sentence in before putting it back on the shelf.
I know I've done it, so what books have made your 'never read' list and why?


Mine:
Eragon by Christopher Paolini - I skimmed the back of the first book when the movie came out. Watched the movie (which was great in the special effects, but poor in other areas). However, after reading all the Pern books by both McCaffrey and her son, I can't get over how similar the dragons are. And the plot kinda reminded me of Eddings' Belgariad series. Someone gimme that damn Paolini, I want his head!

All Harry Potter books by JK Rowling - I like the idea and I'll watch the movies. Just keep the books away from me.

A Game of Thrones by George Martin - Call me weird, but I like my medieval based books to not have 'fuck' in them. I find it jolting. To be fair, I did try and give this one a good long chance, reading at least three chapters before taking it back in disgust.


----------



## Johnna (Jul 14, 2007)

Island of the Blue Dolphins and Of Mice and Men: I've read them both for school, but I would never, ever read them again. I just... didn't like them at all.

What's wrong with Harry Potter? The books are so much better than the movies.


----------



## Edgewise (Jul 14, 2007)

"Lolita" by Nabokov.  His other work enthralls me, but the concept of "Lolita" just disturbs me...Nabokov may be a pedophile altogether, judging by the way he describes a particular child in "Invitation to a Beheading".


----------



## Dancer Preston (Jul 15, 2007)

Harry Potter...just doesn't appeal to me.

The only time I'd be touching anything by Nora Roberts or James Patterson is when I'm shelving them (I work in a book store). I find their work the brand name kind read my semi-illiterates, mainly middle class Americans.

Anything by anyone of the Lost Generation. Please, let's just keep them lost. I find their work whiny, simple, predictable, and their themes are those of uncool hippies.

I know people are going to attack me now, but I stand by my opinions.


----------



## Dancer Preston (Jul 15, 2007)

oh yeah, and chick lit...i will never read any chick lit. It's a degrading movement (to female writers), sharing the same shame as James Patterson in being produced for the sake of money not the art, as well as Nora Roberts for their unoriginality--c'mon, all chick lit focuses on are wealthy white women climbing the social ladder while complaining about her accessories, all the time thinking they're witty.


----------



## Shawn (Jul 15, 2007)

Edgewise said:


> "Lolita" by Nabokov.  His other work enthralls me, but the concept of "Lolita" just disturbs me...Nabokov may be a pedophile altogether, judging by the way he describes a particular child in "Invitation to a Beheading".



You're missing a masterpiece. 

I would never touch eragon... even with a fifty foot pole.

And _Lord Jim_... never again, Conrad... _never again._


----------



## Shawn (Jul 15, 2007)

Dancer Preston said:


> oh yeah, and chick lit...i will never read any chick lit. It's a degrading movement (to female writers), sharing the same shame as James Patterson in being produced for the sake of money not the art, as well as Nora Roberts for their unoriginality--c'mon, all chick lit focuses on are wealthy white women climbing the social ladder while complaining about her accessories, all the time thinking they're witty.



What about Bridget Jones' Diary... that was a good one. She's not infallible or gorgeous, either.


----------



## Rob (Jul 15, 2007)

Dancer Preston said:


> oh yeah, and chick lit...i will never read any chick lit. It's a degrading movement (to female writers), sharing the same shame as James Patterson in being produced for the sake of money not the art, as well as Nora Roberts for their unoriginality--c'mon, all chick lit focuses on are wealthy white women climbing the social ladder while complaining about her accessories, all the time thinking they're witty.


Chick-lit isn't a book, it is (for want of a better word) a genre, or sub-genre. Running down a genre you don't read is pretty pointless. Some readers want art and some want pulp. Bless 'em.

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## Chris Stevenson (Jul 15, 2007)

I haven't ready any of the Potter books and would like to out of curiosity.  For the world-building and terminology.  

I've never got through Herbert's Dune, and I know that I should have.  Way to too much politics for me.  I wanted more worm action, which was fairly sparse.

I almost gave up on The Stand, the long version.  I did finally make it through, in bits and pieces.  Took me nine months.

Chris


----------



## Labyrinth (Jul 15, 2007)

I never finish reading a harry potter book, but I don't feel like it either.


----------



## Scurry Inertia (Jul 15, 2007)

Childe Morgan by Kathryn Kurtz. Because i couldnt get through its ugly prequel.


----------



## Rahvin (Jul 15, 2007)

I've read the Harry Potter books, and would dearly love to never have done it.

Others... most of the classic literature I've read has been utter rubbish (Of Mice and Men, Shakespeare, Great Expectations...), and if I didn't have to read them for college I would never touch them. Ever.

Oh yeah, and poetry. Writing it's fine (even if I never would), but having to study it has left me with a complete and utter loathing for it.


----------



## Amour (Jul 16, 2007)

Edgewise said:


> &quot;Lolita&quot; by Nabokov.  His other work enthralls me, but the concept of &quot;Lolita&quot; just disturbs me...Nabokov may be a pedophile altogether, judging by the way he describes a particular child in &quot;Invitation to a Beheading&quot;.



 It's nice to see that, while his work &quot;enthralls&quot; you, you understand nothing of the master responsible for the works, or the works themselves.. What you just said is a main reason that Lolita has been a &quot;banned book&quot;.  





Shawn said:


> You're missing a masterpiece.
> 
> I would never touch eragon... even with a fifty foot pole.


  I second that.   





Rahvin said:


> I've read the Harry Potter books, and would dearly love to never have done it.
> 
> Others... most of the classic literature I've read has been utter rubbish (Of Mice and Men, Shakespeare, Great Expectations...), and if I didn't have to read them for college I would never touch them. Ever.
> 
> Oh yeah, and poetry. Writing it's fine (even if I never would), but having to study it has left me with a complete and utter loathing for it.



 Wow. So.. You don't want any part in anything worth reading?  //  Eragon, Maximum ride (read the first two pages and immediately drove to the book store to return it.. Compelling choices relatives make for presents..) or anything James Patterson has "written", and The secret (Now that's rubbish..).


----------



## Edgewise (Jul 16, 2007)

"It's nice to see that, while his work &quot;enthralls&quot; you, you understand nothing of the master responsible for the works, or the works themselves.. What you just said is a main reason that Lolita has been a &quot;banned book&quot;. "

Excuse me for not clicking my way to wikipedia to find out whether he is a pedophile or not.  It really doesn't matter to me, being that I love his work.  Which leads me to my next point...

Who said I don't understand his work?  That claim is completely unsubstantiated, especially considered how you don't know me.  I won't even begin to adress your outrageous insult comparing me to people who wish to ban books.  Did I say I wanted Nabokov, or any other author for that matter, to be banned?  Get your head out your ass and read between the lines.


----------



## Joelle (Jul 16, 2007)

I love Harry 

In response to the thread..anything by Nicholas Sparks or Sarah Dessen.


----------



## Mike C (Jul 17, 2007)

Dancer Preston said:


> oh yeah, and chick lit...i will never read any chick lit. It's a degrading movement (to female writers),



That's pretty harsh, and inaccurate. You obviously haven't read much, if any. In fact it's only really the 'chick-lit' label that's degrading, as most is about empowering, not degrading, women.

If you want to see just how good  - and dark - 'chick lit' can be (although I think Martha would string me up for referring to it as such) then I'd urge you to read 'The Bitch Goddess Posse' (Bitch Goddess Diary in the UK) by Martha O'Connor. It'll change how you think about the genre. I promise.

As for me, I'll read anything; I'm a book junkie. Through choice I wouldn't read any more high fantasy or space opera, Patterson or Clancy, King or Archer, but if there's nothing else available, who knows?



Edgewise said:


> but the concept of "Lolita" just disturbs me...



Then you should read it. Books that disturb are books that stimulate thought.


----------



## raymondstary (Jul 17, 2007)

"The Awakening" by Kate Chopin. It's not literature, it's crap. The symbolism is trite and the characters unsympathetic.


----------



## raymondstary (Jul 17, 2007)

Mike C said:


> Then you should read it. Books that disturb are books that stimulate thought.


Yeah, but the thought is: "Ewwww."


----------



## Mike C (Jul 17, 2007)

raymondstary said:


> Yeah, but the thought is: "Ewwww."



Then read it. You're thinking the wrong thought.


----------



## Shawn (Jul 17, 2007)

I agree... Lolita isn't about pedophilia, it's about the character.


----------



## Stewart (Jul 17, 2007)

I'll be third in favour of _Lolita_. It's not about paedophila. It's all about the language. That's all that should matter.

As for me, I'm not likely to read fantasy or sci-fi. I may, on occasion, lightly dabble, but I'm in no way getting involved in forty book series that go nowhere. Horror, maybe. But those years are well behind me now. In fact, when it boils down to it, I'm not likely to visit any genre section of a bookshop. So no crime, no thrillers, no romance. And no children's books, despite my current reading of the _His Dark Materials_ trilogy which, probably backed by my disdain for fantasy, I'm finding wholly silly and lacklustre.


----------



## Amour (Jul 17, 2007)

Edgewise said:


> &quot;It's nice to see that, while his work &quot;enthralls&quot; you, you understand nothing of the master responsible for the works, or the works themselves.. What you just said is a main reason that Lolita has been a &quot;banned book&quot;. &quot;
> 
> Excuse me for not clicking my way to wikipedia to find out whether he is a pedophile or not.  It really doesn't matter to me, being that I love his work.  Which leads me to my next point...
> 
> Who said I don't understand his work?  That claim is completely unsubstantiated, especially considered how you don't know me.  I won't even begin to adress your outrageous insult comparing me to people who wish to ban books.  Did I say I wanted Nabokov, or any other author for that matter, to be banned?  Get your head out your ass and read between the lines.



 Not sure wikipedia would do Nabokov justice, really, and when it comes down to it, what does it matter? I suggest you read "Speak, Memory", if you do so love his work, or, at the very least, pick Lolita up, and read his introduction/afterward (depending on which version you find) entitled "On a book entitled Lolita". It will rather clear up all of those preconceived notions  of yours, and perhaps enable you to overcome your avoidance of a true masterpiece of language. I would highly encourage you to take the advice set forth by Mike and Stewart.. Couldn't say it better myself. 

  Which leads me to your next point: I did. I don't know you personally, no, you are absolutely right. My statement was rather harsh and pointed, and I apologize. I simply meant that Lolita carries, and indeed showcases, a good deal of Nabokov's main themes and messages (not to mention his absolute command over language, not English, but language in general), albeit subtly, and if you do indeed marvel at his other work, Lolita should be no different. I did not, however, compare you to &"people who wish to ban books&". I said simply that your view, on this one book, was one reason that this particular book has been banned previously; that thinking the theme is vulgar and disturbing, and putting it on your &"will never read&" list, is a more common reason for the book not being read (obviously on a personal level, but also on a more educated, but no less harmful, broad level.).  No, you did not say that you wanted Nabokov, or any other author banned, but the sentiment you expressed, as I have already explained, leads to this particular book being banned. I meant no great insult, and I again offer my apologies. I do feel rather strongly on the topic, and simply wish for you to read Lolita, and judge for yourself if it is indeed &amp"disgusting&". You may find it's quite the opposite. I'm not sure the last bit of your reply was necessary, but I will certainly take it under consideration.


----------



## Edgewise (Jul 17, 2007)

Apology accepted.  My passions can become quite inflamed when I feel I am being attacked, and I apologize as well for the comment near the end of my post.  Of course, I can see your point of view about book bannings, and how it relates to "Lolita".  I don't think it should be banned any more than you do, and, given the reactions to my post, perhaps I should reconsider my bias against this particular novel.  Nonetheless, despite Nabokov's brilliant prose, I still find it difficult to reconcile my feelings about his writing with the subject of "Lolita", charecter study or not.  Oh well.  The future will tell.


----------



## Kyrie (Jul 17, 2007)

"Catcher in the Rye" I know some consider it a classic, but I just can't read it, I read the first few pages and I have to close it.

"Of Mice and Men" was also horrible, but I had a test on that one...


----------



## Amour (Jul 17, 2007)

Edgewise said:


> Apology accepted.  My passions can become quite inflamed when I feel I am being attacked, and I apologize as well for the comment near the end of my post.  Of course, I can see your point of view about book bannings, and how it relates to &quot;Lolita&quot;.  I don't think it should be banned any more than you do, and, given the reactions to my post, perhaps I should reconsider my bias against this particular novel.  Nonetheless, despite Nabokov's brilliant prose, I still find it difficult to reconcile my feelings about his writing with the subject of &quot;Lolita&quot;, charecter study or not.  Oh well.  The future will tell.



 :-D apology accepted, likewise. Though I don't know you personally, I do rather like what I know of you, and enjoy reading your posts.. ;-) 

That's what I like to hear.. I truly do think you will enjoy it. I openly admit, I had the same reconciliatory reluctance in the back of my mind, but I think that's part of the experience. I don't believe that was unintentional. And I truly do recommend reading "On a book entitled Lolita".. This is the best link I can find : Rad Geek People’s Daily 2006-04-01 – Over My Shoulder #17: Vladimir Nabokov on a book entitled Lolita (1956), but it's less than half of the essay, and does not contain the part that nails what we are discussing on the head. Maybe I'll type it out later, if I have the time, if you would be at all interested, and if I would be doing so legally (Would posting the essay with full credit to Nabokov be in violation of copyright or anything?). Anyway, "aesthetic bliss" really is the only appropriate description. More later, I've got to run for now.


----------



## Stewart (Jul 18, 2007)

Edgewise said:


> despite Nabokov's brilliant prose, I still find it difficult to reconcile my feelings about his writing with the subject of "Lolita", charecter study or not.


 
The thing is, you seem to think the subject is paedophilia in _Lolita_. Without reading the book you can never know what angle Nabokov takes on the subject and you are just left spouting stuff that has no substance since it isn't formed from experience of the text. It's not about paedophilia. I would say that Humbert Humbert is more of an ephebophile than a paedophile. But what marks the difference between Humbert Humbert and those perverts lurking in the community just waiting to pounce on kids (as the papers would have you believe) is that he loves his Lolita. It's a love story, pure and simple. And let's not go thinking she's innocent.


----------



## Mike C (Jul 18, 2007)

Stewart said:


> It's a love story, pure and simple. And let's not go thinking she's innocent.



It is, and it's not. It's as much about the shifting of power from one to another as a love story. It's about so much that has little to do with sex or paedophilia and so much to do with the power of love and how it can corrupt.

Damn, it was so long ago I read it... need to go read it again. Damn.


----------



## Amour (Jul 18, 2007)

Stewart said:


> The thing is, you seem to think the subject is paedophilia in _Lolita_. Without reading the book you can never know what angle Nabokov takes on the subject and you are just left spouting stuff that has no substance since it isn't formed from experience of the text. It's not about paedophilia. I would say that Humbert Humbert is more of an ephebophile than a paedophile. But what marks the difference between Humbert Humbert and those perverts lurking in the community just waiting to pounce on kids (as the papers would have you believe) is that he loves his Lolita. It's a love story, pure and simple. And let's not go thinking she's innocent.



Spot on, as always.


----------



## Amour (Jul 18, 2007)

Stewart said:


> The thing is, you seem to think the subject is paedophilia in _Lolita_. Without reading the book you can never know what angle Nabokov takes on the subject and you are just left spouting stuff that has no substance since it isn't formed from experience of the text. It's not about paedophilia. I would say that Humbert Humbert is more of an ephebophile than a paedophile. But what marks the difference between Humbert Humbert and those perverts lurking in the community just waiting to pounce on kids (as the papers would have you believe) is that he loves his Lolita. It's a love story, pure and simple. And let's not go thinking she's innocent.



Spot on, as always.


----------



## Edgewise (Jul 18, 2007)

Although I already clarified my feelings on this issue, I would like to respond to this comment in particular:

"you are just left spouting stuff that has no substance since it isn't formed from experience of the text"

Do you have tastes in what you read, good sir?  I am sure you do.  Have you read every book out there?  I am sure you have not.  When purchasing novels, often all we have to go by is hearsay, experience, and reading the often brief and admitedly crappy summeries on the back of the book.  Don't tell me I am ignorant simply because I am going by A: Instinct and B: Hearsay.  I am sure you harbor your own biases about particular genres or novels which you haven't read.  Don't clobber me with self righteous bullshit when we are all in the same boat.


----------



## Dancer Preston (Jul 19, 2007)

raymondstary said:


> "The Awakening" by Kate Chopin. It's not literature, it's crap. The symbolism is trite and the characters unsympathetic.


 
Agreed.


----------



## Stewart (Jul 19, 2007)

Edgewise said:


> I am sure you harbor your own biases about particular genres or novels which you haven't read. Don't clobber me with self righteous bullshit when we are all in the same boat.


I would beg to differ on the similarities of said boat. I have no problem dismissing the majority of brazen genre novels because they are not what I prefer to read. So I'll probably never read Eddings, Goodkind, Jordan, etc. and don't care about it so much. But you have already stated that you enjoy the work of Nabokov. That makes it different. You appear to be deliberately avoiding something (that you will no doubt enjoy) based upon hearsay around its theme and content. Genre does not play into it.

But, when the hurly burly's done, it's your own choice. Make sure you don't regret it.


----------



## Destroyer (Jul 19, 2007)

Harry Potter. Can't stand it.


----------



## blodren (Jul 19, 2007)

only one book i've picked up that i haven't finished.  Slatewiper.  as for books i wish i hadn't picked up, angels and demons, the davinchi code, harry potter book 4 and onwards, catcher in the rye was a style that i found hard to digest, and only my fiance' saying it got better helped me stumble through it at last, the giver's end lacked... feeling and the following stephen king books: needful things and it.  They were not up to the level i expected from one who people claim is a master of horror 

All i can think of for now, but i'm sure there's plenty more i wish i had burned after a few pages.

en: Blodren


----------



## fmreditor (Jul 20, 2007)

The  Diviners - I tried, honest - and I'll read just about anything and everything. After all, I read teen-written fiction and poetry by the bucketload for years for my job. And if I start a book, I almost always finish it. But that one - the opening is just so incredibly long, drawn out and BORING that I never got past that. I shudder when I see a poster for it in my local bookstore evn.


----------



## schoolmarm1895 (Jul 22, 2007)

I try to finish whatever book I start hoping to find something good in it.  There have been a few times I just had to put a book down for one reason or another.  Political views I hate.  A good adventure, now that's for me! 

I hated reading in school (assigned).  Now I'd rather read than watch television. (Trying to set a good example for my kids.  Its not working on the boys.)


----------



## G. Palmer (Jul 22, 2007)

I tried, I persevered, I made it through four books and a chapter and a half of them. I can say with confidence I'm never touching a Harry Potter book again. Sorry to the fans, I think they're pretty bland. I'll inevitably see the films, simply because someone or other will drag me to them.

And as much as I remember enjoying it the first time - I won't be touching Lord of the Rings again for a long, long time.


----------



## ClancyBoy (Aug 6, 2007)

JayLampert said:


> Another one which suprised even myself was Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk. Having been a fan since Fight Club was first released I was expecting a lot more from this but my interest slowly faded away 3/4 of the way in.



Palahniuk is hit and miss.  And when he misses oh _God_ does he miss.

Hell's library contains nothing but copies of _Choke_.


----------



## Mira (Aug 6, 2007)

In the name of the rose-Umberto Eco. Got this book recommended from friends who said it was amazing, but could never get past the first one hundred pages...


----------



## Stewart (Aug 7, 2007)

Mira said:


> In the name of the rose-Umberto Eco. Got this book recommended from friends who said it was amazing, but could never get past the first one hundred pages...



That's a shame, as Eco deliberately made the first one hundred pages difficult. It's a form of penance. After that you get a rollicking murder mystery, romance, and more.


----------



## Jam (Aug 9, 2007)

It's actually rather terrible considering it's a classic in literature but I could never finish "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" and I refused to finish "The Bell Jar" as that was just a bunch of femenistic clap trap bullshit.


----------



## obscenehaiku (Aug 19, 2007)

_Slaughterhouse-Five_ _by Kurt Vonnegut. _I love his other work but I just couldn't get into it. It's supposed to be his best and all that, but I'm going to  have to disagree until further notice.


----------

