# Worst books you've ever read



## davewriter (Feb 22, 2004)

Okay, fellow writers, time to think back to your high school days (and perhaps college too.)  What were the worst books you ever had to read?

For me, it would be a Canadian offering by Margaret Laurence - "The Stone Angel." I read this in Grade 12. The worst part was having to look for imagery surrounding birds and animals for some project. I had to pinch myself every so often to keep with this book.

The book's plot, if I can call it that, is much too simple. A 90-year-old woman named Hagar Shipley is dying in some hospital, and basically complains about her life. Her mother dies giving birth to her, and she takes care of her father after the deaths of her two brothers, and then he dies. She then takes care of her husband while raising two sons, then the husband dies. (Hagar's younger son dies at some point, too.) There's this scene at some water tower which is completely forgetable, and then we're back at the hospital again, where Hagar meets this girl named Sandra Wong. (I was relieved to be just about done with the book at this point!) Hagar is about ready to kick the bucket at this point. A final scene involves her trying to drink a glass of water before she enters into eternal rest.

And you won't believe how Margaret Laurence ends this book: "And then-" WHAT A WAY TO END A NOVEL!!! "And then-" And then what, you ask? AND THEN SHE DIES!!! Ooooh, what an ending!! Christ, even my grandmother could have come up with something better than "And then-" To say I was dissatisified would be an understatement. :roll: 

But I'll admit some good came from me reading this book.  For one thing, it made me appreciate "To Kill a Mockingbird," and I didn't find THAT one enthralling either!

Then there's "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest." You won't find this one exciting as well, unless you consider a bunch of old guys trapped in and around a mental hospital exciting. I could stay with this book for the first four or five chapters before losing interest.

But believe me, "The Stone Angel" is way worse. Swear to God, the high school English curriculum is in dire need of a makeover. Get rid of all the garbage, and replace with some police and crime novels, with a lot of action and fine dialouge. Or perhaps a novel about some college boys who idolise their favourite sports hero who has a charity, and they learn about themselves as they help him and his family with fundraisers and benefits. Something that'll keep us on our toes and interested. Something that'll perhaps inspire us to do something good. Maybe then we'll have more attentive students in class.

Does anyone agree with me here?


----------



## northerain (Feb 23, 2004)

You do understand of course that you just characterized two of this century's masterpieces as ''the worst books'' you ever read.Namely the last two.


----------



## Zachary Glass (Feb 24, 2004)

*Worst Book*

AN ORDINARY WHITE BOY  I can't even remember the name of the author.  I wouldn't want to give it on the off-hand chance that somebody goes out to read it.  Don't bother.  It was horrible.  The cover sold me.  It was a white background, a twenty-something lounging on a red couch with a book or a newspaper covering his face, I can't remember which now, and I thought it was so appealing, so intriguing.  I hate when great covers hide hideous crap!  Don't read this book.  It was drivel and nonsense.  There's my opinion for the day!


----------



## Lily (Feb 24, 2004)

I'm sure there've been a couple bad books that I've read, but I think I've blocked them all from my memory. Actually . . . no.

_Memoirs of a Girlhood among ghosts_ (or something along those lines) by Maxine Hong Kingston was rather horrible, as was _Life of Pi_ by Yann Matel and _Bird by Bird_ by Anne Lamotte. I was only been able to get through two chapters of the third book before I had to put it down.


----------



## Capulet (Feb 24, 2004)

The Stone Angel is wasted on most high school children.  I didn't appreciate some of the books I was forced to read in High School.  The Great Gatsby is chief amongst these titles I've gone back to later in life and enjoyed immensely.

I'm not even going to try and explain Laurence's book to you, but it does help characterize a mindset and expectation placed upon women in a different era, or is that era so different?  An interesting read if you're looking at it in the right light, and for the right elements.  The Stone Angel isn't Batman Beyond.

I think the worst book I've ever read would have to be one by Lin Carter.  One of the Green Star series.  They're all written in a pretty oversimplified fashion, trying too hard to emulate Burroughs and coming off really sketchy because of it.


----------



## Farror (Feb 24, 2004)

uhg, Ursula Leguin's "Four Ways to Forgivness" I found it in a used book store after reading "The Wizrd of Earthsea" Imagine my disapointment in finding such an awful novel from a writer who's stuff I enjoyed...


----------



## Aevin (Apr 27, 2004)

Lily said:
			
		

> Memoirs of a Girlhood among ghosts (or something along those lines) by Maxine Hong Kingston was rather horrible,



Actually, the book was titled _The Woman Warrior; Memories of a Girlhood Among Ghosts_  I read that one for school, and thought it was fine.  It was actually the most enjoyable book I read for that class, but I guess it's just a matter of taste.  I liked Kingston's use of Chinese mythology in her story about the girl's life; the two elements were almost inseparable, and you couldn't tell when she was being serious or metaphorical.  Very artistic.

I'm having trouble thinking up books I disliked.  It seems like I complain endlessly when I actually have to read the things, but currently I'm drawing a blank.

Hmm . . .  The most memorable dissapointment for me was Susan Cooper's _Seaward_.  She's a great writer; her "Dark is Rising" series was spectacular and remains one of my favorites.  But _Seaward_ was uninteresting.  She tried for a lot of life and death allegory, and it didn't . . . quite work.  

There was one memorable part, though.  These kids are climbing up a steep rock face with the terrible face of woman's statue watching them.  The trek is difficult, and they figure out that the wicked face of the woman symbolizes the difficulty of the terrain.  They reach the top, pass the statue, and look down on an easy descent.  Then, the statue suddenly rotates so that the evil face is looking at them again, and a vicious snow storm suddenly begins . . . .


----------



## Ralizah (Jun 6, 2004)

The Great Gatsby is an influential classic, yet, I hate it.


----------



## Csira (Jun 6, 2004)

Ralizah said:
			
		

> The Great Gatsby is an influential classic, yet, I hate it.



I agree with you wholeheartedly :!: I just couldn't stand all that symbolism, and it was such a pain to read through the novel and point out everything that suggested symbolism. 

~Csira


----------



## Greyhound (Jun 6, 2004)

worst book? hmmm. I'd have to say MASON & DIXON by Thomas Pynchon. This from the same beloved author of Gravity's Rainbow, and V. It was like reading Finnegan's Wake without a storyline. LOL


----------



## Lily (Jun 6, 2004)

there was a fantasy book called _Eye of the Empress_ that I just could never get through. Ugh.


----------



## Airborneguy (Jun 6, 2004)

I can't remember the writer (Jonathan something I think) but "The Relic", I read 'some' of it recently, worst bok ever, no research.  13th century people who speak just like us, horrible.


----------



## WritingWeirdo (Jun 7, 2004)

_The Great Gatsby_ and _ Crime and Punishment _  are two books that I really did not like reading, although they are classics. They were just boring.


----------



## Effectoflife (Jun 7, 2004)

Worst book I've read must be. Left Behind by LaHaye Jenkins which is tied close with The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros


----------



## Aevin (Jun 9, 2004)

I second "The House on Mango Street."  It's like, that woman may be a good poet, but she should stick to poetry.  She's got WAAAY too many metaphors just thrown in there for her own kicks.  Not good stuff, in my opinion.


----------



## Effectoflife (Jun 12, 2004)

Yeah thats what I mean also. She almost gives off an arrogant vibe, or a rehearsed one.


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jun 12, 2004)

Anything and everything by John Grisham.   What a hack.  Absolutely no insight whatsoever.  Just surface junk.  And not even good surface junk.  A pure trash novelist.  He's the literary equvilent of Britney Spears.  I see the same critique on all of his books; "the pages just flew by."  Why is this considered a compliment?   Of course it flew by, that's what happens when you don't have to stop and think about anything.  

To WritingWeirdo:  I agree with you on "Great Gatsby", completely overrated, though I wouldn't go so far as to call the worst book I've ever read.   But "Crime and Punishment" was absolutely brilliant.  All of Dostoevsky's works have great pyschological and philosophical insights (particularly "Notes from Underground").  All I can say is take pysche and philosophy courses in college, then read it again.   I think you'll be able to appreciate it on a whole other level.


----------



## Jane Jones (Jun 12, 2004)

Gods and Generals... a monotonous, anti-climatic, humdrum piece of work disguised as an epic.  I'd much prefer The Killer Angels


----------



## Fishcake (Jul 2, 2004)

Well, guess I'm the only one here who likes Gatsby (and the symbolism was quite obvious anyway, wasn't it?). 

As for the books I hated, nothing comes to mind right now...I consider some of Isaac Asimov's stories hackneyed or just badly executed, but that's all I can think of right now (then again, I haven't read all that many books).


----------



## Capulet (Jul 2, 2004)

I read the back cover, and last 10 pages of Gatsby because I had to write a book report on it.  Wasn't too bad from what I could tell.


----------



## WiCkEd (Jul 3, 2004)

_Insomnia_ by Stephen King. What can I say, I like some of his books, but this one was absolutely horrid. So incredibly boring, drawn out, and a really really lame plot. It was so bad in fact I quit reading it.


----------



## LoneWolf (Jul 9, 2004)

Sorry to say it, but I really don't like Old Man and the Sea and the Odyssey. I know The Old Man and the Sea is a classic, but i found it really kind of boring. The only exciting part was the five pages about him fighting the fish. And The Odyssey, it was hard to read (hey I was like in 8th grade then) and for that reason it was hard 2 follow, etc...


----------



## Spider (Jul 9, 2004)

I'm glad to see I'm not the first person here to count a so-called "classic" among the worst reading experiences of my life. Mine is... Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. Politics aside... no, wait. Politics in the forefront. She doesn't just shove her right-wing money-is-god philosophy down your throat, she comes out and tells you that if you disagree, you're either evil or stupid. Now, the story... I mean... come ON. How silly can you get? Corporate heads fall on some skewed times, shag like mad, then grab guns and shoot each other? Why are there no police in this book? And what's the deal with the pirate?! Pirates are awesome, granted, but WHY THE HECK WAS THERE A PIRATE?! It's just... silly. One thousand pages of silly. Who is John Galt? I wish I'd never learned...


----------



## sully474 (Jul 9, 2004)

The Giver by Lois Lowry. 

Such bad sci-fi


----------



## AdamR (Jul 12, 2004)

Forrest Gump by Winston Groom

I read the book after I'd seen the movie. The book was utterly terrible. Robert Zemeckis took what was a "good idea" of a general plot, and turned everything else about it into a masterpiece.


----------



## MidnightEyes (Jul 13, 2004)

Some book called Tears of the Tiger. I have no clue who the author is, but she doesn't deserve to be called that because there was no writing. I would've put the book down after the first page, but it was for english class. I bet they only make you read something that worthless in WV.


----------



## A_MacLaren (Jul 14, 2004)

Rhapsody, by Elizabeth Haydon. Truly awful.


----------



## spunkymonkey (Jul 22, 2004)

The worst book has got to be almost every single book we've ever been made to read in highschool!!!!! they are all bad with the possible exception of Somewhere around the corner which i loved. i also  hate obernewton. :roll:


----------



## sully474 (Jul 22, 2004)

spunkymonkey said:
			
		

> The worst book has got to be almost every single book we've ever been made to read in highschool!!!!! they are all bad with the possible exception of Somewhere around the corner which i loved. i also  hate obernewton. :roll:



That is so true. Everything you read in high school totally sucks, because you are being pushed through it, and you can't just enjoy it. I read To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, and thought it was a great book. Then I was forced to read it in high school, and it totally sucked.


----------



## Farror (Jul 22, 2004)

Hmm, I would say the play version, in french (very archaic french) of "Les Misérables"


----------



## thamior (Jul 23, 2004)

pretty much any shakespear, but by far the worst shakespear was _The Taming of the Shrew_ it was so horrible.  It was boring and left a lot to lack, the details were bare and because it was shakespear it was written with constant dialogue which i hate immensely. The worst part is that the stories moral is outdated and there was no point to it. the second worst would have been _"The Pearl"_ by John Steinbeck, it was unfortunetly very boring......


----------



## Emma LB (Jul 23, 2004)

worst... hmm... difficult, there are so many bad books I've read. The worst were Goethe's Faust part two, Fontane's Effi Briest, but I had to read those at school, otherwise I stop reading books that are terrible. List of books I stopped reading, because they were terrible: Thomas Mann's Death in Venice (uh... I was suppose to be reading this one for school, but I couldn't I hated it so much), The Mists of Avalon (got quite far on that one, but it was just so bad, i really couldn't go on), one of Rice's Vampire books, don't remember which one though and loads more others I don't recall the title of though.


----------



## Vixen (Jul 24, 2004)

Alright, I liked Gatsby (I choose to read it, before the hype) I've never disliked anything I was asked to read in shcool. I had some difficulty with Farwell to Arms, but we did so much work with it, I must have re-read it some five times, and by the end, I ahd developed a taste for Hemingway... 

The first Terry Brooks book was pretty bad, I read it anyway, but at hyperfast skim speed, and only because I knew Brooks would get better in his next books. 

Enchanted, or something like it, By Orson Scott Card (who I usaully Like) was awefull, after a coold intro. I didn't finish it. 

I liked Rhapsody, who was that who hated it? Why? 

Shadow Song, despite a cool title was the worst thing I ever attempted to read.

Anthem's ending just about unhinged me, and, well, Otherworld disapointed me, despite it's potential...

Tess Of The D-urbevilles...I just can't stand it when I know the books well written, I like the main character, but I know the endings going to be tragic, and horrible

The very last 30 pages of War And Peace, Lovely Natasha as a houswife? Shoot me.

Anything by R.L. Stein. I only one or two because my friends at the time told me to.

I guesss I avoided the forced reading bug by jumping ahead. Most of the classics that I would have to study, I'd read by my sophmore year...reviewing them after that was easy. I read The Giver in one sitting, back in the fifth grade, so when we hit it in Junior Highschool, I was bored because I got through the work too fast.  As for Faust, well, I was curious, so I looked ahead, in prep for College work..


----------



## A_MacLaren (Jul 25, 2004)

It was me! I hated Rhapsody with a passion. I got that book for free, and I still felt robbed.
For a start, it's practically Mills & Boon masquerading as fantasy. The sex is pointless and doesn't develop character. Aside from this, the plot was crappy, the characters unlikeable, and the whole 'most beautiful woman inthe world' thing was clichéd.
An awful, awful book.


----------



## bobothegoat (Jul 25, 2004)

_The View From Saturday_ had to be the worst book I've ever had to read.  Four kids in a knowledge bowl isn't too bad of an idea, it's just that the characters are all to phony.  Espcially that "Mr. Singh" or whatever his name was.  Sadly, it won a newberry award or something along those lines. :roll: 

I also didn't really like _Romeo and Juliet_ that much.  It was okay, but I still think that the real reason behind its continued "popularity" can be described in two words:  High-School Curriculum.

The Giver was frustrating for me at first when I read it in fifth grade, however I reread it again in 7th grade and saw that I really did like it.

There are others that were worse, but I can't remember them right now...  Yeah they were that bad.


----------



## Emma LB (Jul 26, 2004)

sully474 said:
			
		

> That is so true. Everything you read in high school totally sucks, because you are being pushed through it, and you can't just enjoy it. I read To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, and thought it was a great book. Then I was forced to read it in high school, and it totally sucked.



I hate nearly every book I had to read in school, but not every book. Herman Hesse's "Unterm Rad"  was really good I thought (sorry, don't know the title of the English translation). Some books are so good even the teachers can't mess them up - well, ok, that's not quite true, everyone else in the class hated the book  :wink: .


----------



## bobothegoat (Jul 26, 2004)

The main thing I hated about books in school was that you were only were allowed to read a little bit and then you had to wait.  I could read the stupid book in 3 days or less yet they give you three weeks.  Do they really expect me to read only 10 or so pages a day?


----------



## Emma LB (Jul 26, 2004)

:shock: 

You had to wait? Isn't that a bit stupid? I mean talking about a book in class you haven't even read yet?  :? 
Poor you ....
Then again we only get one or two weeks to read a 500 page novel that was written last century, and I don't even have German as a major subject, so I have loads of other things to do other than read a book like that.


----------



## sully474 (Jul 26, 2004)

Emma LB said:
			
		

> :shock:
> 
> You had to wait? Isn't that a bit stupid? I mean talking about a book in class you haven't even read yet?  :?
> Poor you ....



It sorta works like you read a chapter or two, but then you hafta stop to do useless activities that are a waste of time and the only real purpose to them is to find out who in the class has read the book. Nine times out of ten, they don't even bother to mark them.

Also, the teachers make you stop to write essays on certain aspects of the book. After like each major event, you have to write an essay, about the situation. These, at least get marked.

I think that you should go and read a couple of books, and then have the choice of either writing something that goes aloong the lines of what you have read, or do an essay. Never stop reading, and drag a book out for a couple of months, it takes all intersest away.


----------



## Emma LB (Jul 26, 2004)

They do that too here, work through chapter by chapter, but only with foreign books, because you need longer to read them of course and teacher has to make sure everyone's understood what it's all about. But otherwise we have to read a book in a week or so and then we're tested (the mark counts towards the final mark of the Abitur) and the teacher will ask questions such as: 'What colour sock was the main character's lover wearing the day after their 5th wedding anniversary?' Even if you've read the book it's hard to achieve a better mark than a B. I normally get a C or D in those tests despite having read the books, underlined important stuff and made notes (which I of course learned of by heart). 
Then we'll work through the book again chapter by chapter in class, but won't take long because everyone has read the book (or if they failed the test the teacher will test them orally every lesson until they can answer enough questions to satisfy the teacher they've read the book, and each time they don't the teacher gives them a bad grade).


----------



## bobothegoat (Jul 27, 2004)

We mainly have to do "character analyses," which forces us to prove that a character is an examlpe of a chosen adjective.  That or we do "lit circles" were you have to present any words you didn't understand (which often is hard if the book isn't really that hard to read), and questions about the theme, plot, etc.  Then we have to predict what will happen.  I still find it funny that we were given six weeks to get 200 pages in our "lit. logs."  I can read 100 pages in one day with out even trying to read a lot.  Anyway, I'm ranting and should probably stop...


----------



## Kaven (Aug 6, 2004)

Shadowmancer, GP Taylor. Hugely over-rated.


----------



## Smurf Mamita (Aug 18, 2004)

A Separate Peace

I don't remember the auther...but who cares? It sucked. It was so boring...

Another book that (I think) is really boring...(Everybody is going to shoot me...) is 1984 by George Orwell...I've been using that book to go to sleep at night. And by the time I get five pages read, I'm falling asleep...I never knew that my summer assignment could double over as something that could put me to sleep...lol

Anywho...


----------



## asdar (Aug 18, 2004)

I think I've got a topper for the worst book. 

Moby Dick is the worst book of all time. You could add all of the pages of every high school mandated book and they'd still fall short of the size of Moby Dick.

I know there will be people that defend the book, but I'd wager that most of them just read the kids version or the cliff notes that talk about the symbolism of the white whale and ahab.

If you took out the last five chapters of the book you'd see that neither Ahab or the white whale are even a minor part of the book. This book is huge and it's boring.


----------



## Gordash (Aug 18, 2004)

^Agreed, no symbolism is more pointless than Moby Dick's.

Another book I disliked was Lord of the Flies, way too unrealistic for me. Plus the symbolism in it has been done in more interesting ways in other books.


----------



## Emma LB (Aug 19, 2004)

Oh yeah, Lord of the Flies was stupid. It's not that I hate symbolism, but it was a bit unrealistic I thought too. Quite a few people I know really like the book, don't think i'll ever understand that.


----------



## bobothegoat (Aug 23, 2004)

I just liked the irony of the ending.  The adult comes and stops their war, but ironically he was from a warship himself.

Then again, maybe I enjoyed the Lord of the Flies because anything is better than _The View From Saturday_.


----------



## Smurf Mamita (Aug 23, 2004)

Oh yeah...that book too. Lorf of the Flies was horrible to read...damn my 9th grade teacher...


----------



## asdar (Aug 24, 2004)

I hate to admit this after all the negative comments but I liked Lord of the Flies.

I read it as an adult so maybe I got too old to appreciate the badness.

I know that a bit of it was unrealistic but I thought it was very interesting and I thought it gave some serious insight into the untamed soul of man. (or boy)


----------



## John Bradbury (Aug 24, 2004)

Tom Clancy's Shadow Watch, what a piece of crap.


----------



## bbgun (Aug 27, 2004)

I have to say A Tale of Two Cities, like the Great Gatspy, a great classic, but I hate it!

Ben


----------



## Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor (Aug 27, 2004)

I didn't really care for the three books of Paradise Lost that I read.  They were the introduction, climax and denouement too.  They weren't very enjoyable for me but they weren't badly written.

I'd put my warning stamp on it.


----------



## Capulet (Aug 29, 2004)

Smurf Mamita said:
			
		

> Oh yeah...that book too. Lorf of the Flies was horrible to read...damn my 9th grade teacher...



I liked Lord of the Flies because it had a very compelling message to relay, and it did it in an engaging manner.  To slam the book because it's "unrealistic" is to condemn every fantasy and most science fiction books to obscurity as well.  Last I saw the Lord of the Rings was a fairly highly rated set of books, despite it's lack of realism.


----------



## Quietus Mors (Sep 4, 2004)

_The Perfect Date_ by R.L. Stein is by far the worst book I have ever read.  The fact that I hate the author's style altogether doesn't help my opinion of it, either.


----------



## singlemanks (Sep 8, 2004)

*I'm not sure what purpose the "classics" have. . .*

I keep "Old Man and the Sea" by my bed.  If I have a bout of insomnia, one page and I'm out like a light.

And I also have to agree with Heinlein when he says that "I'm not sure what purpose Russian fiction has, but it _can't_ be entertainment."


----------



## CelticBardess (Sep 8, 2004)

Hmm....I liked _Great Gatsby_ a lot, but oh well.

However, I have to say the *WORST* book ever, is _Jude the Obscure_.  OMG, I hated that book!  I hated it!  I got to this one part that totally was the worse thing to happen, and I run downstairs and I literally throw this book onto (and off of) my dining room table.  I couldn't stand it.  I was almost sure that I wasn't going to finish it, however it was for school, so I kinda had to.  But that is the worst book ever!

-Anne.


----------



## aliceedelweiss (Sep 8, 2004)

Many people from my school(in 6th grade, i'm now in 8th) would rant about 'how good' the book holes was. pluss this is around the same time the movie came out. it was impossible to get the book at the school library, many people renting it before the movie release. Once I got my hands to it, I was stunned. Several, maybe 10-ish kids said that it was such a good book. the plot was horrar, and it was boring. then I saw the movie for a friend's birthday party, the movie was even WORSE then the book itself. but ether way,thats the only book i remember having distastful thoughts of...


----------



## Aubrey (Sep 9, 2004)

Worst book I ever read: _'Villette'_ by *Charlotte (or Emily?) Brontë*

It's a very hard read and I could never, ever pick up the plotline of the story, despite it being a classic. >&lt;

--Aubrey


----------



## Smurf Mamita (Sep 9, 2004)

i remember The Perfect Date. I thought it was good...but then, I was only about 10 when I read it. So if I read it now, it would probably suck...anyway...


----------



## feushin (Sep 27, 2004)

I can't say that there's just one book that I consider to be the worst I've ever read, because there have been plenty.  But the worst book I've tried to read recently (and am still struggling through) is _Middlemarch_ by George Eliot.  Yes, it's a notable classic and all that, but it's just - so - plain - BORING.  Every time I force myself to pick it up, within the next ten minutes I fling it away in exasperation, because it gets so dull that I get fed up with skipping pages and simply can't take it anymore!


----------



## mare (Oct 10, 2004)

Why does it seem that most of the "great classics" are unworthy reads?
Don't get me wrong, there are a few I enjoyed, Animal Farm, and Killer Angels are just the ones I think of immediatly.
I can't even take the classic Tokien books.
Maybe its the language used, maybe I'm not smart enough to "get" the Great Gatsby.  I understood what it was about, I just simply couldn't bring myself to care.


----------



## asdar (Oct 14, 2004)

I think a lot of it is the language. Every page is a chore when the language is difficult and you have to read it all. I'm not a huge fan of the Great Gatsby but I thought it was ok, mostly because it was too short to truly hate.

The language in some classic novels will many times become easier with every page. I know that for War and Peace after a while the Russian and French words became familiar and then the language wasn't the obstacle it was in the first chapters.

Another reason I think sometimes they're hard to enjoy is that it's hard to find the angle. Current writing seems to be good vs. evil, what they call moralistic. Many older books didn't focus so much on good vs. evil but rather individual challenges and emotions. It's difficult to get into a book when you don't know the goal. 

If you're just reading a book to pass the time or for enjoyment it's ok to meander but if you're studying it looking for a moral or purpose then it's frustrating. 

I don't know that this is the case but I also think that many old novels suffered from a lack of word processing power. It's relatively easy to edit a novel today with a word processing tool. It would be much less easily edited back when everything was done with paper. 

I think some of the difficulty of reading classics is simply that they're in need of a good edit that couldn't be done when they were written.

All just my opinion of course. I like classics but I know the difficulty that you're talking about, if you really want to feel it try reading Moby Dick. That book is just huge and boring. The first and last three chapters are the only ones worth reading.


----------



## October Song (Jul 15, 2005)

Brave New World by Adolus (sp?) Huxley. Definitely the worst book I've ever read. Boring and pointless. I just hated it with a passion.


----------



## ChaosCommander2020 (Jul 18, 2005)

The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros
_________________
Dark Aevin, You're totally right House on Mango Sreet. I read that shit and hated it. (for school of course.) Strong advise, Don't read it!!!!


----------

