....I'll just say I did not love the Green Eggs and ham books...Seriously, I have never really finished any books I did not find some worth in.

that hurts my heart muscle :sadvaultboy:

Another vote for Twilight. Not only is it creepy, psychologically very questionable fanfiction by a fat woman who writes her main character as a complete and scandalously blatant Mary Sue, or is it a feeble story full of plot holes, butchering the original vampire myths, but it's also extremely badly written.

I see its popularity as a symbol of all that is going wrong with the world.

Standard high school book reading experience:

1. Read book in 2 or 3 days.
2. Reflect on what an enjoyable read it was.
3. Spend 2 months discussing it and writing about it in class.
4. Reflect on how it was the worst book ever.

Indeed, the whole point is to point out how bland, dull, docile and stupid Oceania has made its citizens. I felt bad for the characters.

That's why you should read the book the night before the test, or not at all. Either one should work.

Heart of Darkness and Shakespeare .

I spend about 3-4 hours a day in traffic on the way to and from work, so I've taken to listening to audiobooks as a way to make the time feel slightly less wasted. Our library has a poor selection, so a few weeks ago I was forced to take out The Swan Thieves by Elizabeth Kostova. I was pretty lukewarm on The Historian, but beggars can't be choosers so I gave her second book a shot. Wow. I've never stopped a book without finishing it, but I came closer than ever with that thing. No part of it was believable. The author had no idea how to write believable male characters, so EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER came across as bookish woman in her mid 40s. She goes off on ridiculous tangents--do we really need to know what every character's childhood was like, and somehow, with all that information dumped on us, the characters lack any of the kind of details that would make them feel like real people. It got slightly better at the end, but that might have just been me feeling proud of myself for successfully enduring something so awful. I've read books where I get angry at the author, but I think this was my first experience where I actively pitied the author. I could write a book of equal length about all the problems I had with that thing. Good lord.

I never had any intention of reading it up until now. Your description makes me wonder if it falls into the 'so-terrible-it's-hilarious' category, like Dan Brown's ludicrous offerings.

I hate anything that's from Shakespear---specially Romeo and Juliet...that play has been done and re-done to DEATH. Also I'm left to beleve that Shakespear's characters suffar from a mild case of psychosis.

Edit: Never try to blog when you're tired---typos galore .

Mild is understating it.

It's not So Bad It's Good, unfortunately. It's So Bad It's Horrible.

I absolutely *hate* The Great Gatsby. That book seemed so pointless when I read it.

I think you just answered your own question.

I can't think of any novels I've read that I hated with a passion. As much as I hated the act of reading Silas Marner I could appreciate the story.

Of course, it all has to do with taste, and taste changes over time. I ended up loving a lot of books and movies as an advlt that I thought were boring in high school, and I've re-watched a lot of movies that I loved in high school that got a "wow, what a silly, contrived piece of crap" reaction out of me as an advlt.

Another vote for Lord of the Rings over here unfortunately. I've never managed to get past 20 pages. It's too descriptive, it makes it dull. It felt like too much hard work.

Thankfully all the books I had to study in english class over the years I enjoyed- except one. Dracula. I just found it too disjointed and confusing, the way it changed perspective all the time.

I read a book once that was so over-descriptive about absolutely nothing it made my blood boil with rage just thinking about how many pages I had left. I never did finish it. I don't think I even got halfway through. It was called "Labyrinth" by Kate Mosse. I cringe everytime I see that book in a charity-shop or library. How the hell it made the UK bestsellers list I'll never know. :facepalm:

The fact that you just spoiled it for people who might of been interested in reading the book. :stare:

Kidding of course.

The only book in recent memory that I really hated was The Catcher in the Rye, like many others have said. I understand the metaphor of him being the Catcher in the Rye and wanting to keep everyone from going into the "cruel world" that is advlt hood, but I still can't put my finger on why exactly I hated it so much. I suppose it's because of all the hype of it being an american classic or whatever, and that it's supposed to be one of the greatest books ever written. I guess I expected much more out of it.

I also wasn't a huge fan of "Of Mice & Men", but that was more so because my teacher made us spread the reading over two weeks, when you could easily read it in a few hours.

Just thought I would post this as a reference: http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/

Great Expectations - Charles dikeens

I had no problem with the plot or story.

But I hate Charles dikeens writing style. Only book I just couldn't get.

And yes it was school required.

I still can't think of a book I hate with passion, but The Last Days of Socrates (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo) comes close. Plato and I differ on a number of basic philosophical grounds, but that's something I can overcome. It's his use of dialogues as tools for character assassination that I can't stand.

There's something hypocritical about the lauded position Plato holds in so many academic institutions, when Plato ruthlessly targeted the sophists because they charged money to their students.


In my opinion you shouldn't have students read a play without seeing it preformed first. When it comes to Shakespeare I believe the only two plays I've actually enjoyed reading were Othello and MacBeth, but there are numerous ones I've enjoyed watching: The Tempest, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Much Ado About Nothing, Henry V, and probably one or two others I can't think of off the top of my head. I don't mind Romeo and Juliet, but it really is overdone. The closest I've ever come to enjoying Hamlet was The Canterville Ghost, it's just not my cup of tea.

I've read Sophocles, and I've seen Oedipus Rex preformed. Neither did anything for me.


It's a shame that so many common criticisms of her first book didn't result in any improvement with the second.

There are authors that I have difficulty reading, but I'm willing to say we're just not compatible. Umberto Eco is one example, for some reason even getting through a few pages of one of his books is like pulling teeth, even though he seems like an ideal author for me. But Kostova . . . I recognize that some people enjoy her work, and that's great, but it really does seem badly written.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhnN54tHjkI&feature=related

Agreed...

So much rand and hubbard... :sadvaultboy:

The Twilight series. Ugh.

The only Shakespeare I've read that I enjoyed was A Midsummer Night's Dream. I haven't seen any Shakespeare be performed, but I do agree that it would be much easier to watch a play and then read because when you watch it it's condensed into <2 hours.


Also, for anyone who hates the Twilight books, did you read all of them? (not defending them, read all of them and they're [censored])

Knowing them two's followers, I wouldn't be surprised if they deliberately swamped the voting.

As others have said, Antigone wasn't great but Medea probably irritated me even more.