|
|
Post by Mary Sandals on May 30, 2011 16:40:03 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of anything Faulkner really. I also couldn't REALLY get into The Great Gatsby (I like Fitzgerald's short stories much better) and I didn't really like Catcher and the Rye, either, though I love Franny and Zooey.
|
|
|
|
Post by brosephargh on May 30, 2011 16:56:13 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of anything Faulkner really. I also couldn't REALLY get into The Great Gatsby (I like Fitzgerald's short stories much better) and I didn't really like Catcher and the Rye, either, though I love Franny and Zooey. Ohh, but I actually liked Catcher in the Rye. I feel as though so many people hated the general tone of the novel...but I honestly enjoyed it, in retrospect. |
|
|
|
Post by maxporter on May 30, 2011 17:01:30 GMT -5
Lolita. I thought it was a great pile of shit, if I'm really blunt. I never, ever skip passages in books but I skipped pages of Lolita because I just couldn't take it any more. Oh god, I hate it. I felt this way about Lolita, but then I read his other books. Honestly, I think his other books are way better - I'm especially partial to Invitation To A Beheading because I love weird stuff like that - and I can't understand why everyone is so stuck on Lolita. |
|
Ariel
Armadillo Pup
Posts: 12
|
Post by Ariel on May 30, 2011 17:05:44 GMT -5
Pride and Prejudice
Novels of manners do not really do it for me. I absorbed it and I learned a little from it, but I did not enjoy it in the least.
On the subject of the overrated, Mr. Darcy is one of the most overrated characters of all time. Gag.
|
|
Dobby
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by Dobby on May 30, 2011 17:32:39 GMT -5
Ethan Frome- Edith Wharton. Don't even get me started. I despise that book. |
|
|
|
Post by Lizzie on May 30, 2011 18:10:34 GMT -5
Ethan Frome- Edith Wharton. Don't even get me started. Oh no, I actually adore Ethan Frome, but I was the only one in my whole class. I love how bitter it is I don't know, there's just something about it. |
|
|
|
Post by beasty on May 30, 2011 19:09:46 GMT -5
Chaucer. I'm sorry, but I simply cannot get into his stuff, even Troilus and Criseyde. I can appreciate it's value and interpret him, but I do not find him as funny and amazing as people say.
|
|
atimethief
Armadillo Pup
If you don't control your mind, someone else will.
Posts: 7
|
Post by atimethief on May 30, 2011 20:10:58 GMT -5
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte. I love the writing, I really do. It's very descriptive, and emotional and brilliant. But the story line ... I can't take it, Jane's not as independent as they make her seem.
Also, Mr. Rochester, couldn't stand him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silva on May 30, 2011 20:25:41 GMT -5
Unpopular opinion because it involves Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet.
|
|
|
|
Post by obstacle2 on May 30, 2011 22:09:39 GMT -5
Hemingway.
|
|
Tucker
Armadillo Pup
';..;'
Posts: 23
|
Post by Tucker on May 30, 2011 22:43:32 GMT -5
I had to read Austen's "Emma" and I did not like it at all. So now I will never say anything positive about Austen even though I have not read anything else of hers. Oh, and Faulkner. He just needs to shut the hell up  |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on May 30, 2011 23:21:51 GMT -5
Lolita. I thought it was a great pile of shit, if I'm really blunt. I never, ever skip passages in books but I skipped pages of Lolita because I just couldn't take it any more. Oh god, I hate it. Whaaaaaaat? I love Lolita -- I find the language excruciatingly beautiful, and the story enthrallingly uncomfortable. I would recommend, though, for anyone who had trouble "getting into" the story or caring a whit about the character of Humbert that they take a gander at the audiobook, read by Jeremy Irons. He does a fantastic job of conveying the novel as a dramatic monologue -- which, ultimately, is what it is -- and evoking each nuance of Humbert's oddity and humanity. So much better than his portrayal of the same role in the 1997 film (which we'll have to blame the screenwriters for). Note to self: start a Lolita book-versus-film(s) topic... Oh, and to answer the original query of overrated literature, my most enflamed example is the entire Harry Potter series. I understand that it got many people into reading, but that doesn't make it the be-all-and-end-all of popular literature -- not even within the YA sphere. |
|
|
|
Post by Mary Sandals on May 31, 2011 0:31:58 GMT -5
I too loved Lolita and consder Nabokov one of the most brilliant writers of all time, but to each their own, you know?
|
|
krista
Young Armadillo
Warrior of Words
Posts: 52
|
Post by krista on May 31, 2011 0:43:56 GMT -5
Sense and Sensibility. I can't really say I hate Austen since I've only been exposed to that book in my Brit Lit II class, but it put me off so much that I don't want to read anything else by her! :/
|
|
|
|
Post by embonpoint on May 31, 2011 8:08:50 GMT -5
Whaaaaaaat? I love Lolita -- I find the language excruciatingly beautiful, and the story enthrallingly uncomfortable. I would recommend, though, for anyone who had trouble "getting into" the story or caring a whit about the character of Humbert that they take a gander at the audiobook, read by Jeremy Irons. He does a fantastic job of conveying the novel as a dramatic monologue -- which, ultimately, is what it is -- and evoking each nuance of Humbert's oddity and humanity. So much better than his portrayal of the same role in the 1997 film (which we'll have to blame the screenwriters for). See, this is the thing. Before reading it, I thought that even if I didn't actually like it, that I would be a bit disturbed reading it or made uncomfortable by it. But I wasn't. At all. I just thought it was boring. Yeah, the language was beautiful, I guess, but he just went on and on about boring stuff; the main thing I remember from the book is a description of the road trip and it was just page after page of listing things that they saw. One page would've been fine, but it didn't end. I found it thoroughly underwhelming. I will try Nabokov's other stuff, sometime, though. |
|
