Books you feel you "should" like but don't

[Top Cat]

Every so often I come across one of these. On The Road by Jack Kerouac springs to mind (great at 3 in the morning on drugs, I imagine, but in the cold, sober light of day, Truman Capote's comment about it being "typing, not writing" sprang to mind), as does every Martin Amis book I've tried apart from the very early ones and Experience. Then there's Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk: mannered twaddle of the most intellectual show-offy type. And as for every book I've been ever recommended under the description "magic realism"... Eugh!

Anyone else had similar encounters?

And, more to the point, have any of you ever "pretended" to like a book to look cool/intellectual (and be honest about this)?

[My Friend Jack]

I went through a phase about 5 years ago of trying to read a few "classics," although I was using the term rather loosely, I think! Kerouac's OTR was one that I read - and the fact that I read it all the way through suggests I thought it was OK, but the fact that I can't remember anything about it now, apart from a rough outline, suggests that I wasn't that impressed.

I also read a Graeme Greene (can't recall the title, but the film starred Trevor Howard). I quite enjoyed that, and I can recall quite a bit of it - and I haven't seen the film.

Truman Capote's Breakfast at Tiffany's was OK - again, I read it all the way through, and can remember most of it (but I have seen the film a couple of times, which helps).

In general, though, my impression of so-called classics (which tend to be the books I think I OUGHT to enjoy), has been one of vague disappointment. Nowadays, I only read for pleasure, and if it don't move me early on, I give up - life's too short to be reading stuff I don't like!

[SandyC]

Thank the Lord for you guys! Books you ought to like but don't! Where do I begin?? Have tried and failed and failed and failed and failed again (and failed some more!) to read On the Road by Jack Kerouac. I thought nothing of it really until in my local library I spotted a book DEDICATED to the BRILLIANCE of OTR?!?!?!? Obviously I must be missing out I thought and dashed home and tried (and failed again) to read OTR. Rubbish!

Reading is a gift, one that should be savoured and enjoyed, a present that can touch your heart and open your world. Its not something that includes labouring and sweating over a "classic" just because you "ought"!

In my humble opinion anyway!

[My Friend Jack]

Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. Or, one man's meat is another man's poison.

I've had countless conversations over the years about the merits of various records and books. Variations of opinion are the lifeblood of a site like this. "I respect your right to like what you want, as long as you respect my right not to."

I have to say, SandyC, that I wouldn't have been as persistent in trying to get into OTR as you were! I reckon I try Lord of the Rings about every 15 years, but I've never got to the end of Book 1! I'm about due another go in the next 12 months.

[SandyC]

Oh i'll finish the damned thing one of these days.......or else i'll burn it! ;)

[Top Cat]

Hurray! Glad I'm not alone here.

I think I've had three runs at On The Road. Got to page 70-something the first two times and actually finished it the third time, but only because I had to read it for work purposes. Look past the romance of the open road, and it's just childish drivel (and I mean childish, not childlike). There's a brilliant TC Boyle story in his book Without A Hero which takes the piss out of Kerouac and his fellow Beats. Which reminds me of another book that left me totally cold, despite being assured that it was "groundbreaking" and "mind-expanding": Junkie by William Burroughs. I think "Did the beats actually write anything decent?" is worth a different thread by itself.

Actually, I think I hate most novels with drug-taking as their central theme. I remember trying to read a Denis Johnson novel after Uncut magazine banged on about him: Awful! (Then again, I should know better: Uncut is the worst place for recommendations, since they seem keener to highlight their own obscure knowledge of American fiction than to highlight good storytelling; BGO is far more democratic and trustworthy). I think, though, that when it comes to a lot of these self-consciously intellectual, deconstructive books people get very apprehensive about slagging them off, worrying that they've missed something. The fact is: if you're a vaguely intelligent person and you're not enjoying the experience of reading, you haven't missed anything; the book is probably not for you. I'll still read so-called highbrow books but only if the plot grabs me: someone like Paul Auster, who's genuinely mysterious, but a great storyteller with it. Or, similarly, Ian McEwan. Don DeLillo has his moments, too, in between the austerity and the non-sequiturs. Overall, though, give me Salem's Lot over Midnight's Children any day!

[SandyC]

Books on Drugs? As in you dislike when they glorify the whole process and make the pusher into some sort of modern day Robin Hood? Outwitting the law to bring "goodies" to the "poor"? Me too!

I read "Grits" by Niall Griffiths a couple of years, truly horrific yet compelling read. None of the humour / gilt glamour associated with Trainspotting in this book.

[Top Cat]

I just read N Griffiths' latest. Expected it to be very Welsh-like and to absolutely hate it, but, like you say, horrifically compelling. He seemed to have a lot of sympathy for his characters, without turning them into figures of squalid hipness or glamour.

[ChrisG]

Great thread!

I, too, tried to read Kerouac when younger but didn't finish the copy I had borrowed before I had to return it. Years later I thought I would try again. I came to the conclusion that I was not fated to read On the Road when the copy I bought (without looking inside) turned out to have only the cover and the inside was a John Steinbeck novel. After your comments, I'm glad of the reprieve!

I love classics, for the most part, but thought Madame Bovary was a bit overrated and Hemingway's Farewell to Arms practically left me comatose (or nauseated)! I couldn't make myself finish it (which rarely happens). I did like The Old Man and the Sea, but thought it could have used some serious editing.

I must admit that the only Ian McEwan I have ever read, Saturday, did not impress me. I thought it was trite and simplistic and the only character that rang true was the Grandfather (McEwan had the alcoholic's personality and the progression of moods through the drinking down 100%). Have heard many here on BGO praise McEwan so maybe this just wasn't him at his best?

[Top Cat]

I think the best McEwans are Enduring Love, The Cement Garden and Atonement. Some of the others can feel a bit... for want of a better word... "technical".

I'm not really thinking just about classics on this thread; more about those books that people talk about a lot and reference to intimidate people, but that you'd probably find surprisingly few people had genuinely enjoyed.

Here's another, less extreme example: the first Rabbit novel by John Updike. I've tried it twice now, and both times I've questioned myself, and wondered what everyone else is getting out of it. It seemed very clinical and soulless, and not just in an intentional way. I liked his essays about golf a lot better!

[megustaleer]

I expect to be jumped on from a great height for these, but;

Catch-22
and
Catcher in the Rye

I did struggle to the end of both, but with no pleasure.

[captain holly]

Agree with Catcher in the Rye.....I just didn't get it. :confused:

But Catch 22 is one of my favourite books.

[willow]

I was fine with On The road but Frank McCourts 'Angela's Ashes' totally left me cold. I didn't care about any of them despite their utter misery. I also disliked 'Love In The Time Of Cholera' but finished it to discuss at a bookgroup where we were split 50-50.

[My Friend Jack]

I didn't get on with Catch 22, but Catcher In The Rye is one of my all-time favourites!

[Starry]

I didn't care for Love in the Time of Cholera either. I have One Hundred Years of Solitude on my bookshelf, but I'm a bit leary of trying it now. I also have no idea what is so great about Catcher in the Rye. Although I have heard that it all depends on when you first read it. As I was in my twenties I was apparently too old for it to really speak to me :rolleyes:

I just read N Griffiths' latest. Expected it to be very Welsh-like and to absolutely hate it.

Eh? You expected to hate it just because it was Welsh-like :confused:

[Claire]

I was fine with On The road but Frank McCourts 'Angela's Ashes' totally left me cold. I didn't care about any of them despite their utter misery. I also disliked 'Love In The Time Of Cholera' but finished it to discuss at a bookgroup where we were split 50-50.

I'm with you all the way with "Angela's Ashes" - what on earth was everyone raving on about so enthusiastically??? Why was it supposed to be so unmissable?

[SandyC]

I was fine with On The road but Frank McCourts 'Angela's Ashes' totally left me cold. I didn't care about any of them despite their utter misery.

Am in 100% agreement with you Willow, despite the abject poverty and miserable conditions described, I found the writing flat and dull and couldn't summon up the slightest bit of sympathy.

There have been reports where it is claimed that the misery/poverty stricken conditions were grossly exaggerated. There was an extremely funny sketch on television some years back where the scene opens up on a brightly lit sitting room with 2 children watching the television and munching their way through a dozen bars of chocolate, the mother is sitting in front of the fire smiling happily and chatting nineteen to the dozen. Suddenly a cry goes up "Frankie (McCourt) is coming"! The characters spring into action, the chocolate is stuffed under the table, the fire is switched off, lights go off and mother wraps a dull grey moth eaten blanket around her shoulders and everyone assumes the most woe begone expressions imaginable. Frankie sticks his head around the door (surprise surprise he is dripping wet) and asks how everyone is, the mother answers "ah sure its a hard life Frankie".
Frank sighs and mutters "Tis Mammy, t'is"

I just about fell off the couch laughing! :)

Has anyone read anything by his brother Malachy McCourt? Allegedly he's a much better writer and tells a different tale than that of his brother?

[My Friend Jack]

I also have no idea what is so great about Catcher in the Rye. Although I have heard that it all depends on when you first read it.

Interesting point, Starry, I was 15 and probably just the right age.

[Top Cat]

Eh? You expected to hate it just because it was Welsh-like :confused:

Yes - can't stand him.

I hope you didn't think I meant THE Welsh! Sandy had been talking about the comparisons between Irvine Welsh and Niall Griffiths in the post above.


I gave up on Catch 22 halfway through, but I can't really remember why now. I seem to remember laughing at some of it, and then getting too busy to continue reading, but I suppose it can't have been that amazing, or I would have found some way to finish it. Perhaps the repetition got to me. Ditto with another Heller book, Something Happened. I am going to try them both again one day, though.


As far as Catcher In The Rye is concerned: I loved it. But I do suspect that is because I was so young when I read it. I don't intend to read it again and find out, though!

[Starry]

Yes - can't stand him.

I hope you didn't think I meant THE Welsh!

Aha! Now I understand - I missed the part where you mentioned Irvine Welsh! That'll teach me to read posts before I humph :D

[Viccie]

I couldn't get on with Atonement at all, thought it was full of showy tricks designed to impress critics rather than move the story along, actually I've hardly ever enjoyed a Booker prize winner or that style of book, though I've loved lots of Pullitzer prize winners.

[sebastian melmoth]

To paraphrase Joni Mitchell...i think it largely depends on the time of year or the time of man (or woman). I remember reading On The Road as a teenager (at the 1970 Isle of Wight festival to be precise, so that certainly dates me!) and loving every page. Tried to re-read it a couple of years ago and gave up before i was a quarter of the way through. The same thing happened with Flann O'Brien's The Third Policeman. I guess it only goes to show what a very subjective thing reading is. Or is it just that we we can never step into the same river twice?

[Top Cat]

I think Atonement is the only Booker nominee I've really enjoyed, apart from Tim Winton's The Riders (I urge everyone to read this - overlooking an ending that's - albeit deliberately - frustrating, it's gripping, brutal stuff).

I agree: Pulitzer judges are far more trustworthy. I loved Michael Chabon's Adventures Of Kavalier And Klay and Steven Millhauser's Martin Dressler.

[Top Cat]

Tried to re-read it a couple of years ago and gave up before i was a quarter of the way through. The same thing happened with Flann O'Brien's The Third Policeman. I guess it only goes to show what a very subjective thing reading is.

I tried to read The Third Policeman about 4 years ago. It had such little impact on me, after so many people had raved about it, I almost started wondering if there was something wrong with me.

[Cathy]

Where to start! Anything by Hardy...so miserable! I don't know why I read so many. Also anything by D H Lawrence, I just cringed the whole way through the love scenes in Lady Chatterly's Lover. I've tried to read the Lord of the Rings trilogy several times but never get past half way through the second book. I enjoyed Life of Pi, but had a really unsatisfactory empty feeling aswell, as (did I miss something?) I wondered what was the point of the story? It was interesting and captivating but I didn't feel like it really made me think differently or challenge my ideas. And I don't know if I ever felt like I ought to like this one, but I just couldn't stand Waiting for Godot. Might have had something to do with having been forced to read it. Crikey that's a long list! Sorry!

I haven't read Catch 22 ( :eek: ?) but I liked Catcher in the Rye when I read it ages ago. Jonathan Livingstone Seagull, anyone?! Something else people suggest you should read about the same time/age as Catcher in the Rye. I just couldn't buy into the whole seagull part of it though. Maybe I should rename myself 'Classics Reader' as I'm always banging on about them and don't seem to have reached the modern age yet. I haven't read anything by Hornby or Welsh and sort of feel like I ought to.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Oh I loved catcher in the Rye! It was so good! I didn't really get Birdsong, it took so long, and was boring in places. And It didn't end how I wanted it to. Book snad films like that are stressy, e.g. Casablanca.

[donnae]

Where to start! Anything by Hardy...so miserable! I don't know why I read so many.

I do like Hardy, but I think that Jude the Obscure is probably one of the most depressing books I have ever read, followed closely by Tess of the D'Urbervilles. Wonderful tale, but frustrating behaviour in contrast to today's women.

[captain holly]

Wuthering Heights ..... I'm not sure if it's because I had to study it for Eng Lit and we overanalyzed it....I loved the other books we studied though.

But it just left me cold and I found it very disturbing.

Have tried to read it again recently but just couldn't get past the first few pages.

[Emily]

Although this might be controversial, I find any book by Dickens extremely hard to read and it's only about three-quarters of the way through any of his books that I actually start to become involved. I particularly detest 'Oliver Twist', mainly as the character of Oliver is meant to be so angelic and yet is actually incredibly annoying - I hate to admit that I nearly started rooting for Bill Sykes! However, I did really enjoy 'A Tale of Two Cities.' I think all his books are very dense and complex, maybe something to do with the fact that they were first published as serials.
Have to disagree with the last post though, as I absolutely love 'Wuthering Heights', you do need to persevere with it, it starts to get really good a couple of chapters in. It is dark and disturbing, and I think the main reason I liked it so much was the fact it was so original and different from so many Victorian novels.
I can understand why you hate it though if you had to study it at school, if you over-analyse a book too much, you can begin to hate it even if you liked it in the first place. 'The Return of the Native' is the book that I think of with a shudder, even though I enjoyed it first time round, as having to study it three separate times nearly killed me!!

[megustaleer]

'The Return of the Native' is the book that I think of with a shudder, even though I enjoyed it first time round, as having to study it three separate times nearly killed me!!

I guess you haven't been listening to it on Friday evenings/Sunday afternoons on Radio4 then:p

[Hazel]

I got to page 93 of Fellowship of the Rings, and thought "Life is just too damned short" so I gave up and I am at peace with having never read the trilogy. The films were good though (!). I pretended to have read Catcher in the Rye for my English Higher class, dropped the class and now many years later, I have managed to read it several times and loved every page of it. Fathers and Sons by Turgenev is absolutely horrendous and if I live to 100 I will never, ever, attempt to read it again.

[Nancy]

Every now and then I try to read the first volume of In search of lost time by Marcel Proust but I always fall asleep after the first 5 pages.

I've belatedly come to the conclusion that (for me) it's unreadable.

I remember one particularly uncomfortable night, as a student, when my best friends were raving about Jonathan Livingstone Seagull and I felt I had to make enthusiastic noises but in reality just didn't get it! :confused: . I'm better at disagreeing with popular opinion now that I'm old...

[Cathy]

I know what you mean about Jonathan Livingstone Seagull...so boring! I had to read it out loud for a drama exam, and i got so sick of repeating 'Jonathan Livingstone Seagull'!

[looby lou]

Hello everyone This is my first post and I am quite nervous about joining all you intellectuals, but here goes: when I tried to read Catch 22 I thought that there was something wrong with me, I could not find one reedeming feature in the book, obviously I kept very quiet about this as the perceived wisdom is that it is one of the greatest pieces of writing ever. So I am really pleased to note that I am not alone, kept thinking that I would try again but don't think I will bother. More recently a great disappointment was The Little Friend bt Donna Tartt, I so enjoyed The Secret History but could not even get a quarter way through the Little friend.

[Claire]

Welcome to the forum, looby loo! I don't think you'll find toooooo many intimidating intellectuals here (at least, if there are any, they hide it well ;) )

[Cathy]

:eek: There are intellectuals here?!

[Jen]

I too struggled with Catcher in the Rye and Catch-22.

Went through a phase of trying to read classics and often had the feeling that I was passing my eyes over the words rather than reading. Anna Karenina springs to mind. More recently I had the same experience with Henry James' Portrait of a Lady.

Martin Amis is supremely overrated in my opinion. Vernon God Little was tedious. I'm sure there are many more but my memory has done me the favour of forgetting!

[Top Cat]

More recently a great disappointment was The Little Friend bt Donna Tartt, I so enjoyed The Secret History but could not even get a quarter way through the Little friend.

Same here! I gave up at around the same point. Still, as usual, I was convinced that it was me that was the problem, and not the dreary pace of the book, so I bought the audio book and gave it another go. Still boring, but I did get to the end that time - although that was probably partly because it was abridged and partly because I was driving through Lincolnshire at the time and there was nothing decent on the radio.

Perhaps we should all vote for the Most Overrated Books Ever and see what comes out on top.

[excalibur]

:eek: There are intellectuals here?!

Good God. #scurries through the constraints of the forum with an urgent, but nonetheless, fine, toothcomb# You threw me there for just a minute....... :p