Highly regarded books that you hate?

[CAPSLOCKENGAGED]

I'm 160 pages in to Don Quixote, and I loved it at first, and while I still laugh at it occasionally, I feel like it is just dragging on now. I don't think I'll make it through another 700 pages of it, unless I do something like a chapter a day for the next few months.

[Maud Fitch]

Don Quixote was written in another time, another place, move on unless you are studying it for school.

I'm going to go contemporary and say that I don't like Michael Connelly's books particularly his Harry Bosch series and even though he's been dubbed "the greatest living American crime writer" I cannot understand why crime thriller readers like him so much.

[Carla Hurst-Chandler]

Most of Hemingway. ~sigh~ I know...brands me as an unwashed heathen.

I did like Old Man and the Sea. Does that offer any redemption?

[dindindin]

@Carla Hurst-Chandler Welcome to the Club. This is a comment I posted to "Overrated Authors?" 3 days ago.
"He(Hemingway) wrote the worst book I ever read, "Death in the Afternoon." But he also wrote "The Old Man and
the Sea," a childhood favorite of mine. I thought his earlier works showed a real talent. But at some point(For Whom
the Bell Tolls, I think), everything he wrote was another chapter in the Ernest Hemingway Story. It didn't matter
what the story line was, the main character was just another incarnation of Hemingway."
When I was growing up, it would have been considered heresy to speak ill of EH. But there you have it, I did.
I'm tempted to pay for my sins as an "unwashed heathen", but that would be plagiarism. I think I'll just settle for
"godless pariah." It's not that far removed from "pagan idolator" which I've been since the sixth grade.

[Carla Hurst-Chandler]

~laughing~

At least I am in good company. Actually, I could barely get through For whom the Bell Tolls...and certainly couldn't understand what alll the fuss was about.

Pagan Idolator...lol...sounds like a good story in there somewhere...

[AlysonofBathe]

I could never stomach Pamela, it's more than slightly painful. I understand that the genre of the novel was basically in its infancy, but that doesn't make reading it any easier. It's the tenses that are particularly funny - Richardson doesn't seem to get that using the present tense in an epistolary novel makes zero sense.

[primrose777]

Most of Hemingway. ~sigh~ I know...brands me as an unwashed heathen.

I did like Old Man and the Sea. Does that offer any redemption?

I was going to try Hemmingway, only because it seemed to be the literary thing to do. Have you heard of Farewell to arms? It is about Hemmingways experiences in WW2. He has always appeared heavy going to me. I think I will have to work up to him.

[Carla Hurst-Chandler]

I once read The Santanic Verses by Salman Rushdie...for that very reason. The literary thing to do. If a writer has written a book that so pissed off the Ayatollah that he gets a fatwa brought down on his head...as a writer aren't you obligated to at least go take a look see? After slogging my way through...I realized that the fatwa wasn't so much for content...but quite possibly to make sure this guy never subjected us to one of his disjointed ramblings again...

[primrose777]

I once read The Santanic Verses by Salman Rushdie...for that very reason. The literary thing to do. If a writer has written a book that so pissed off the Ayatollah that he gets a fatwa brought down on his head...as a writer aren't you obligated to at least go take a look see? After slogging my way through...I realized that the fatwa wasn't so much for content...but quite possibly to make sure this guy never subjected us to one of his disjointed ramblings again...

So funny
I dont think I will attempt that even for the sake of literature.

[DATo]

I have recently, for the third and last time, attempted to read Ulysses by James Joyce. At my disposal was an entire book of annotation written by Stewart Gilbert, an associate of Joyce who had direct access to him for erudition, and on a tip from Fran I also looked into an online podcast by some scholar who has spent 20 years deciphering this book ... all to no avail.

In one encrypted sentence of an entire book of encryptions Joyce makes allusions to three persecuted philosophers, the Book Of Genesis, and something else which I have thankfully forgotten. If you do not know who the philosophers are and do not make the connection with the other two elements the sentence has no meaning. Most of the book has no meaning unless you are willing to stop every fourth word and look up everything he refers to in an encyclopedia. Joyce once laughingly said to Gilbert, "Here is a sentence that will keep the professors guessing for a hundred years." This is not art. This is pretentious manipulation. He was intentionally making the meaning as obscure as possible. Ulysses is only surpassed in obfuscation by his next book, Finnigan's Wake. He actually had people running to the library for him to look for obscure words in all languages so he could work them into the text.

I also don't like the man himself. Joyce took advantage of everyone around him and in some cases cheated them later. He was constantly lamenting how poor he was and a wealthy benefactress, Harriet Weaver, was constantly prevailed upon for money, as were many others. Joyce, his wife, and his two children lounged in luxury in the finest hotels, ate the finest food, drank the best wine and tipped lavishly and then he'd hold his hand out for more money. But the worst thing he ever did was to cheat Sylvia Beach out of what was rightfully owed her as the original publisher of Ulysses. Sylvia owned a small bookstore in Paris at 12 rue de l'Oleon. She was an extraordinarily kind and gentle person and Hemingway once said that no one in his life was ever kinder to him - that's coming from Hemingway mind you, who rarely had anything good to say about anyone. Sylvia was barely getting by but offered to publish his book when no one else would because of censorship issues. When the censorship rules were lifted he published in America with Random House thus abandoning both Sylvia and his obligations to her.

Joyce took advantage of others, he's not going to do that to me. After reading a monosyllabic synopsis of this book I have come to the conclusion that there really isn't a story there worth reading anyway. If anyone else wishes to spend 20 years of their life deciphering this literary crossword puzzle they may do so with my blessing. There is only so much time to read and only so many books to read in a lifetime and I am unwilling to waste it reading something which was INTENDED to make reading it next to impossible and written by someone I have come to loathe.

[Carla Hurst-Chandler]

Never really looked on James Joyce in this manner. Always struck me as a pretentious bore. ~laughing~

Great Summation.

[Fran]

@ DATo
I agree with most of your post but Joyce was hardly the only writer who was an unpleasant person. I did enjoy some of the chapters of Ulysses but certainly there are a few that pretentious nonsense does not seem an unreasonable assessment.
Have you read Dubliners? .... a beautiful little book of short stories & IMHO by far his best writing.

[KindleMEsoftly41512]

Crime and Punishment --- read about a third of it --- than found myself wishing someone would hang me and put me out of my misery. I am not a lazy reader and I enjoy very much certain classic Russian Lit but this was a Crime to Punish Me!!!

[DATo]

@ DATo
I agree with most of your post but Joyce was hardly the only writer who was an unpleasant person. I did enjoy some of the chapters of Ulysses but certainly there are a few that pretentious nonsense does not seem an unreasonable assessment.
Have you read Dubliners? .... a beautiful little book of short stories & IMHO by far his best writing. :)

Carla : Nice to know I am not alone in my opinion and thanks for the comment !

Fran : Yes, I've read Dubliners and Portrait and I agree that there was a time when Joyce used his formidable powers to write what I would call great prose. Before the truth all heads must bow and I fully acknowledge the fact that Joyce was an exceptionally erudite scholar and capable writer. When Kant wrote Critique Of Pure Reason he stated that this book was not intended for the general public but only for philosophers to read. If you have ever attempted to read The Critique you would know why. Joyce made no such claims with Ulysses for the simple reason that if only scholars of the humanities read it he would make no money. I would temper my criticism of the book (if not of the person himself) if he had made such a claim. I think the reason Ulysses became so marketable in such a short amount of time was due to curiosity resulting from the fact that it had been banned in the U.S.A. and England.

It is my considered opinion that during the period that Joyce wrote Ulysses there was a movement in all disciplines of art to innovate new, and tangentially controversial styles. I believe this movement was precipitated by the (eventual) recognition and acceptance of the highly stylistic Impressionist school of painting which one could say began with the first Impressionist exhibition in Paris in 1874. You may recall that this exhibition was vilified by the critics but by the time Joyce was writing Ulysses (1920s) the paintings of the original Impressionists (Monet, Pissarro, Cezanne, Renoir, Morisot, Degas, Sisley et al) were highly collectable. I believe this motivated artists, writers and composers to follow suit. George Antheil, who also had a connection to Sylvia Beach and Joyce, composed the Ballet Mechanique which was so outrageously innovative that it literally caused riots in Paris. Others like Gertrude Stein and Picasso were lifting the bar to even more outrageous heights. I think Stein was a poser who had no talent whatsoever; but Picasso, like Joyce WAS an accomplished artist of the conventional school who could back up his innovative style with heavyweight credentials. I don't want to turn this into an essay but can you think of more modern day celebrities who may have borrowed a page from this? HINT: MUSIC - The Beatles (Long hair - VERY controversial in its day) .... SPORTS - Muhammad Ali, John McEnroe Jimmy Connors (Vocally controversial) ... SCULPTURE - Richard Serra (A sculpture installed in an American plaza was considered so controversial that the citizens demanded its removal).

The bottom line - Controversy Sells as long as the controversial innovation is backed up by a foundation of pre-existing demonstration of talent. I remember a quote from a conservative music critic with regard to The Beatles: "Their hair may be long and shaggy but it is well brushed." Q.E.D.

EDIT: Still reading Q's Legacy and so far it is DELIGHTFUL. Will have a report for you soon in the '84' thread.