The Most Overrated Books Showing 4,001-4,050 of 5,680

[Mochaspresso]

I don't know about shunned per se, but wasn't Sinatra quite the pop sensation in his youth?

[Karen]

Mochaspresso wrote: "I don't know about shunned per se, but wasn't Sinatra quite the pop sensation in his youth?"

Yes he was, and an actor too. But he was basically just a fantastic jazz singer, with a voice and style no one could or can match- at his peak when he was in his forties (his voice that is). My opinion, but that is his rep.

[S.W.]

Kallie, it's a conundrum. As a reader, I too love and admire the old masters and enjoy the challenge of a difficult read. As a wannabe writer, I must pay attention to modern sensibilities and cultural phenomena. A modern author must walk this tightrope. Once again, I'm not "judging" which standards are better. Excellent discussion! Now I must watch eight hours of NFL redzone while reading Ullyses.

[Monty J]

Karen wrote: "How would Sinatra be shunned? Loved him- "Summer Wind""

Oh yeah. I have one of his Capitol Records LPs with Nelson Riddle's orchestra. My mother would listen to Sinatra and Nat King Cole as she sat by her dresser at night tweezing her eyebrows, applying and removing cold cream. I smell nail polish remover when I hear them sing.

Knowing my mother's troubles, it makes me wonder how many women were able to get by just one more day lulled by the soothing words of Sinatra and Cole. It was momentary anesthesia, providing relief enough to carry on, restoring hope.

[Karen]

Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "How would Sinatra be shunned? Loved him- "Summer Wind""

Oh yeah. I have one of his Capitol Records LPs with Nelson Riddle's orchestra. My mother would listen to Sinatra and Nat King ..."

Wow, music and memories! I recently saw a great jazz clarinetist and loved the concert- I must have loved some traditional jazz when I was a child, listening to it at home or on family get togethers, the memory is so vague. And smells trigger memories also. My husband remembers his mother (a jazz singer) singing to him at 2 years old. Music and literature are powerful.

[Anne Hawn]

Janeylein wrote: "Michael, I agree - Carl Hiaasen has been one of my favorites since Tourist Season, and I just finished Christopher Moore's A Dirty Job. Dave Barry is one of my all-times too, but I much prefer his..."

I love Dave Barry also. This all brought to mind the works of James Thurber which made me go to the Kindle store and get a couple. I reread "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" when the movie came out and vowed to read more. I devoured everything he wrote along with William Saroyan and Robert Paul Smith when I was in high school and loved them.

[Renee E]

Anne, Thurber's "The Unicorn In The Garden" is one of my favorites. The wife is SO my mother, lol. I read it as a child and fantasized :D

[Kallie]

Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "How would Sinatra be shunned? Loved him- "Summer Wind""

Oh yeah. I have one of his Capitol Records LPs with Nelson Riddle's orchestra. My mother would listen to Sinatra and Nat King ..."

Nat King Cole's kind, warm voice was a comfort to me as I child. Paternal. My mother probably liked the romance and melancholy. I still enjoy listening to him.

[Anne Hawn]

Renee wrote: "Anne, Thurber's "The Unicorn In The Garden" is one of my favorites. The wife is SO my mother, lol. I read it as a child and fantasized :D"

I know what you mean! I lived in Thurber's world a lot back in those days.

I think our little conversation on Thurber provides an example of the last few posts about reading authors who provide a lot of description. When I remember Thurber, William Saroyan and Robert Paul Smith, I don't remember the plot as much as the feeling I got reading the books. I entered into their world and it did things with my mind.

I completely agree about Victor Hugo's novels. He brought me into his world and I lived there. I saw what he saw and felt what he felt...and I changed because of it.

While I was reading all the posts on this discussion I kept thinking it was something akin to what happens when I get a call from someone who knows me pretty well, but just wants information from me about something specific. I answer the phone and the caller quickly launches into the reason for the call. There is no "How are you? What have been up to? Have you called the doctor yet about that growth on your arm?" It's just, "Anne, do you have Connie's phone number?" Maybe is it my Southern upbringing, but I feel like I have been bypassed.

When I read authors like Hugo, Tolstoy, Maugham etc. I get drawn into their world. In fact, often times it is so much that I am startled when something from my own present brings me out of the 18th century abruptly...sort of like the "literary bends." I am almost disoriented and it takes a few seconds to orient myself.

I will add a caveat though, it only works when the author is a good one. Details for the sake of details is never good.

[Renee E]

I'm with you, Anne. I don't like the "wham-bam" school of fiction.

[Monty J]

Renee wrote: "I'm with you, Anne. I don't like the "wham-bam" school of fiction."

Ditto. I need to feel something besides adrenaline or testosterone.

[Geoffrey]

Gary wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "I suspect that is because we now live in a tech, internet, tv society. Long ago, people needed the lengthy descriptions to get a good visual image of places and situations th..."

That argument doesn't resonate with me at all. The invention of photo and video would not affect how contemporary writers affect their craft unless a CD is supplied with the novel.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "The invention of photo and video would not affect how contemporary writers affect their craft unless a CD is supplied with the novel."


I have a story in the works titled "Three Photographs" based upon my interpretations/impressions of old family photos. Before these photos came into my hands I had none of my childhood. It would not be unusual for authors to use photos and videos in story research.

The technologies of image and sound reproduction give writers access to more detail. Not that it ALL has to be used, but there's a larger palette. They simply have more from which to select and can be less dependent on memory and imagination. The human eye is fallible; the camera misses nothing.

[E.D.]

Karen wrote: "How would Sinatra be shunned? Loved him- "Summer Wind""

My point was Sinatra *would* have been shunned (and surely jailed) if he'd crooned "I wanna F#*k you like an animal!". :}

[Karen]

E.D. wrote: "Karen wrote: "How would Sinatra be shunned? Loved him- "Summer Wind""

My point was Sinatra *would* have been shunned (and surely jailed) if he'd crooned "I wanna F#*k you like an animal!". :}"

Oh- for some reason I can't imagine him singing those lyrics.

[E.D.]

Karen wrote: "E.D. wrote: "Karen wrote: "How would Sinatra be shunned? Loved him- "Summer Wind""

My point was Sinatra *would* have been shunned (and surely jailed) if he'd crooned "I wanna F#*k you like an anim..."

Neither can I..., but I can't see NIN knocking off a rendition of "Summer Wind" that would be worth a damn, either. :}

[Karen]

E.D. wrote: "Neither can I..., but I can't see NIN knocking off a rendition of "Summer Wind" that would be worth a damn, either. :}"

OH, no no no no!!!

[Renee E]

Karen wrote: "E.D. wrote: "Neither can I..., but I can't see NIN knocking off a rendition of "Summer Wind" that would be worth a damn, either. :}"

OH, no no no no!!!"

But who would have ever dreamed Johnny Cash would take a NIN tune and make it his own?

[Kallie]

S.W. wrote: "Kallie, it's a conundrum. As a reader, I too love and admire the old masters and enjoy the challenge of a difficult read. As a wannabe writer, I must pay attention to modern sensibilities and cul..."

Yeah, I know. I'm a wannabe too and hearing that in workshops has always kind of depressed me so I ignore it and write what I want to write because otherwise why write?

[Renee E]

Kallie wrote: "Yeah, I know. I'm a wannabe too and hearing that in workshops has always kind of depressed me so I ignore it and write what I want to write because otherwise why write?
"



Exactly, Kallie!

[Karen]

Renee wrote:
"But who would have ever dreamed Johnny Cash would take a NIN tune and make it his own?"

Johnny Cash, I'm not surprised- that would work. I never thought Richard Thompson could make a Britney Spears song his own, but he did.
Richard Thompson - Oops I Did It Again - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4WGsMplGxU

[Kallie]

Karen wrote: "Renee wrote:
"But who would have ever dreamed Johnny Cash would take a NIN tune and make it his own?"

Johnny Cash, I'm not surprised- that would work. I never thought Richard Thompson could make..."

that's great. and this too, from way back:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlk0-...

[Karen]

Kallie wrote;

that's great. and this too, from way back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlk0-...

Oh!!! You're a fan!!!! Not many people know about him, Richard and Linda were also wonderful- I have seen RT eleven times, mostly just him and his guitar- going strong at age 64.

[Renee E]

That "Oops" cover . . . I wonder how much booze/smoke was involved in coming up with the idea to do that, lol?

But it worked out great.

[Karen]

Renee wrote: "That "Oops" cover . . . I wonder how much booze/smoke was involved in coming up with the idea to do that, lol?

But it worked out great."

Richard Thompson hasn't drank since he was young, so that song was done in 2003, he was 53.

[Kallie]

This review of Azar Nafisi's new book about American Lit adds some great insight to recent discussion:

http://tinyurl.com/ntf5xlt

[Geoffrey]

Monty J wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "The invention of photo and video would not affect how contemporary writers affect their craft unless a CD is supplied with the novel."


I have a story in the works titled "Three P..."

Monty
Yes, photography is a great aid to writers, but we're discussing descriptive narrative to which readers are responsive to. I, too, have several stories about photographs as that medium is my primary one, literature but a secondary bent, but I would not argue that photography's appearance on the scene eliminated the need for detailed description in lit. One has nothing to do with the other.

My own theory as to the partial demise of these long descriptions in novels, a la whale info in Moby Dick, etc. is that we live in a less pompous age than Victorian England, (or France, or Russia for that matter) Vanity was more common in the 19th century and pomposity along with it. Now, I know I am traversing treacherous ground here, and it sounds like a kooky idea, but when I look at people's handwriting from 150 years ago, there are many more examples of the swirls and elaborate flourishes in the capital letters,which examplify vanity, than that of the contemporary population. (I have studied graphology so even though I am a bit conceited as to my abilities to read personality from one's handwriting, I do often get it right).

When we read the Victorian novel dialogue we do notice the length to which conversers speak, often to the point of non-necessity, so my insight as to the pomposity of Victorian peoples is born out.


At any rate, it's good to read that you are influenced by photos when writing. It is my fav medium.

Along the same lines, I wonder how many writers carry a tape recorder around with them to improve their writing of dialogue. I never do, but then again I'm not principally a writer. But had I ever been I would have hoped that I did.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "I wonder how many writers carry a tape recorder around with them to improve their writing of dialogue."

I keep one with me in my backpack in case I'm trapped in a bus or subway like I have been a few times and was privy to some amazing dialog. If I had tried to write it down I might have been accosted.

One writing teacher advised me to just go and sit in a hospital emergency room and take notes, but the #19 bus in San Francisco was rich with interesting dialog on two different occasions going both directions. The late night trip was scary but priceless.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "...we live in a less pompous age than Victorian England..."

The pomposity may have something to do with the fact that most of the masses couldn't read and the only people with money to buy books were in the upper echelons of wealth. This imbalance changed over time, necessitating the democratization of literature.

But before this, it was logically the wealthy who had time to read books, or write them--Tennyson, Byron, Tolstoy, etc. They had access to dictionaries and could impress one another with their verbosity.

Then along came Hemingstein.

[Arundhati]

I am one of those people that liked Catcher In The Rye. And I guess here there are very few on that side.

Earlier, they had strongly advised me not to read it but after reading a snapshot about the book, I already had curiosity generated within. I had to read the book. Why? Because there comes a time in life, when you come across certain books that are just RIGHT for the current phase of your ongoing life. It happens. I don't know how many others have experienced this, but it happened a lot many times with me.
Holden C. was a character I could match up with, wavelength wise, without being a teenager. Doesn't mean I was equally angry and depressed at life and things related to it to like the book or jell up with the character. It wasn't necessary. There is an X-factor that made me warm inside every time I read this, and the factor is inexplicable.

I agree with the statement that the book is like an abstract painting. You need an eye to see it. No offense to those who didn't like the book. This is purely my opinion. I wish to read the book again. And again.

[Kallie]

Aru wrote: "I am one of those people that liked Catcher In The Rye. And I guess here there are very few on that side.

I had to read the book. Why? Because there comes a time in life, when you come across certain books that are just RIGHT for the current phase of your ongoing life. It happens. ... Holden C. was a character I could match up with, wavelength wise, without being a teenager. Doesn't mean I was equally angry and depressed at life and things related to it to like the book or jell up with the character. It wasn't necessary. There is an X-factor that made me warm inside every time I read this, and the factor is inexplicable."

I think your post expresses what many of us who really like the book feel when we read it. But I don't know that there are so few of us so much as that those who dislike it are really vociferous about that, which is interesting in itself.

[Kallie]

Geoffrey wrote: " Vanity was more common in the 19th century and pomposity along with it...."

I think the style is just different but there is still plenty of vanity and self-importance around, if not so much pomposity. The pompous style of writing is mostly gone and a natural style of writing preferred but the underlying vanity can still be there. Just watch some of the talking head 'experts' on the tube.

The word pompous trips me up. I don't think of pompous people as sensitive and observant. So I guess it is style you are referring to, Geoffrey. But Charlotte and Emily Bronte's styles weren't pompous, or Jane Austen's. Or Thomas Hardy's or Dickens' or Melville's (more ardent than pompous) or Conrad's. Hugo . . . was it him or his translator?

[Petergiaquinta]

Kallie wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: " Vanity was more common in the 19th century and pomposity along with it...."

I think the style is just different but there is still plenty of vanity and self-importance around"


I don't think it's "vanity" at all. It might appear to us today as vain pomposity, but Dickens, Hugo, Dumas, et al, are not writing to some elevated, intellectual upper crust of society at all. They are writing to the expanding middle class of readers in their societies, many of whom, especially in the case of Dickens, are a newly educated part of those rising middle classes, the female reader.

Among these nineteenth century novelists (James called their books "loose, baggy monsters"), I know Dickens the best, so I'll narrow my comments to him. Rather than being accused of vain pomposity, Dickens was thought to be squarely middle brow, writing for a broad audience (no pun intended there, ar! ar!) of readers. He is serialized in the popular press, and later he writes for his own serial publications read by regular folks on both sides of the Atlantic. His novels might be considered the Harry Potter or even the Hunger Games of the time.

And if we follow that line of thinking, consider the ramifications for what it means about us as readers today. It's not really a matter of the nineteenth century writers being vainly full of themselves and parading it for their readers in densely obscure passages of detail and description. It's a matter of us as twenty-first century readers being woefully inadequate to handle the prose that our social contemporaries of 150 years ago maneuvered with ease. Try having the typical reader of Twilight read a passage of Dickens. Painful...

Someone earlier mentioned Irving as a contemporary Dickensesque writer, and I think that's true to a point, and Irving even purposely strives for himself to be considered so. Donna Tartt might be another contemporary author writing in that vein (vain!!!) today. But neither fills his or her novels with the type of specific description that goes on for pages and that many of us on this thread have been describing recently. I'd say that particular niche today is filled by Neal Stephenson, king of the infodump. I don't think I've ever heard him compared in the same breath with Dickens, but it makes sense to me to do so. I don't think he'd be insulted, either.

Like him or not, Dickens is a top-five, top-ten list greatest author of the English language, despite what Henry James may have thought.

[Monty J]

Aru wrote: "I agree with the statement that the book is like an abstract painting. You need an eye to see it. No offense to those who didn't like the book. This is purely my opinion. I wish to read the book again. And again."

Nicely put.

[Mochaspresso]

I didn't mean to imply that lengthy descriptions were obsolete. I was just surmising as to why I think they are not as extensively used as they once were. I'm also not knocking immersion, but I do think there are many different levels of it. Some people need and want to be so fully immersed into a world that they are reading about to the extent where they take the time to learn Vulkan (Star Trek), Dothraki (Game of Thrones) or whatever language(s) Tolkien made up for LOTR. Not everyone needs or wants to go to that extent to appreciate those works.

Along those same lines, while I appreciate Tolkien's mastery as a fantasy writer, I often felt like I was on my way to obtaining a Ph.D in Middle Earth Elven History while reading some of his work.....a degree that I wasn't all that interested in obtaining. I suspect that is how some people feel about the whaling chapters in Moby Dick. There is a point to them.....but it just isn't always a point that every single reader cares about. I don't necessarily think this represents some sort of overall decline in literature or the appreciation of literature.

In the case of Moby Dick, I grew up on Long Island and took many a school trip to the whaling museum. I don't profess to be an "expert", far from it, but I honestly didn't need the detailed descriptions that Melville provided to be immersed. I suspect that the readers of his time probably did, though. I also think the beauty of the book is in the language usage and the way it's written more so than the actual inclusion of the whaling details. For some reason, teachers love to focus on the whaling metaphors and skim what I was interested in as a reader....the characters and the language. Hence, which is probably why I found it utterly boring the first time around.

[Kallie]

Mochaspresso wrote: " I also think the beauty of the book is in the language usage and the way it's written . ..."

Yes, I find that's true for me also, reading "Pierre . . ." You have to slow down and appreciate the language use, Melville's poetry. And reading poetry, I don't get that feeling of immersion until the second read, even from a poem I like. Slowing down takes effort.

[Geoffrey]

Mochaspresso wrote: "I didn't mean to imply that lengthy descriptions were obsolete. I was just surmising as to why I think they are not as extensively used as they once were. I'm also not knocking immersion, but I d..."

I didn't know there was a whaling museum on Long Island. Perhaps you are referring to Mystic Seaport across the sound in Connecticut?

[Petergiaquinta]

When I was a wee lad, I think my parents took me to the New Bedford Mass whaling museum. I'd like to say I went to Nantucket, but I don't know how I could've possibly gotten there. It must have been New Bedford. But wherever it was, there was plenty of scrimshaw.

[Karen]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "When I was a wee lad, I think my parents took me to the New Bedford Mass whaling museum. I'd like to say I went to Nantucket, but I don't know how I could've possibly gotten there. It must have bee..."

Yep, it must have been New Bedford- an awesome whaling museum. You could have possibly gotten to Nantucket, but you'd go over a bridge to get to Cape Cod, and then on a ferry. I don't think Nantucket has much of a whaling museum.

[Mochaspresso]

Geoffrey wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "I didn't mean to imply that lengthy descriptions were obsolete. I was just surmising as to why I think they are not as extensively used as they once were. I'm also not knock..."

There are two that I know of. One in Sag Harbor and one in Cold Spring Harbor.

http://www.sagharborwhalingmuseum.org...

http://www.cshwhalingmuseum.org/

[Geoffrey]

Hmmm. Sag Harbor, where Steinbeck spent his last days.
For all those West Coast fans who claim we Easterners don´t appreciated Steinbeck, why in the world would the master come East at the end of his life. And please don´t foolishly allude to EAST OF EDEN.

[Renee E]

Because west is where you go to live . . . and east is where you go to die? :p

[Petergiaquinta]

Nelson Algren went there to die, too!

[E.D.]

Renee wrote: "Because west is where you go to live . . . and east is where you go to die? :p"

Aawwww. Now I'm thinking about Edward Abbey....

(wipes a tear) ;{

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "Hmmm. Sag Harbor, where Steinbeck spent his last days.
For all those West Coast fans who claim we Easterners don´t appreciated Steinbeck, why in the world would the master come East at the end of h..."

This is well covered in Benson's biography. After the huge success of The Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck had enemies in his home area of Salinas and Monterrey, and nearby San Francisco was also dangerous for him. He had had death threats and was licensed to carry a pistol. People were openly rude to him and his family as well. His parents were dead and, though he remained close to his younger sister, relations with is two older sisters were not pleasant.

New York was where his children were living with former wife Gwyn, who had become a bit of a nut case. His wife Elaine, a former Broadway stage manager, had valuable social contacts in New York, which was and still is the Mecca of American publishing. It was also home of his agent, McIntosh and Otis, who handled foreign and subsidiary rights for his substantial body of work.

Writing East of Eden, arguably his best work, in New York proved he didn't need to be in the west to write productively about it. The East was seemingly where his future lay.

[Geoffrey]

I was half joking Monty. You took me seriously. I was referencing some very early postings about how we Easterners never appreciated his work. Hardly the case. But still, we Atlanters are not so aware of Vollman, nor are the Pacificars, of Dubos. Regionalism seems to still rule tastes albeit not to the degree.

[Michael]

Check out Daniel Mendelsohn's essay on Catcher from yesterday's "Bookends" feature of the NYT Book Review::

"When I reread “The Catcher in the Rye” a few years ago, I was unmoved by the emotional ferocity that had enthralled me in 1974."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/boo...

So am I still moved by the emotional ferocity because I'm essentially still a teenager unwilling to grow up? Hmm...

[Monty J]

Michael wrote: "Check out Daniel Mendelsohn's essay on Catcher from yesterday's "Bookends" feature of the NYT Book Review::

"When I reread “The Catcher in the Rye” a few years ago, I was unmoved by the emotional ..."

(Great article. Thanks for posting.)

In the above-referenced October 14, 2014, article in The New York Times Sunday Book Review, Daniel Mendelshon asserts that Holden is resisting adulthood, citing as evidence Holden's comment about a diorama exhibit with a bare-breasted squaw. Holden: “The best thing, though, in that museum was that everything always stayed right where it was. . . . You could go there a hundred thousand times, and that Eskimo would still be just finished catching those two fish, . . . and that squaw with the naked bosom would still be weaving that same blanket. Nobody’d be different. The only thing that would be different would be you.”

Mendelshon says, "The all-too-evident regret in that last sentence is striking — one of the novel’s many markers of Holden’s problem, which is a refusal to grow up."

The above illustrates a common interpretation of Holden that I find hard to support in the actual text. Practically everyone, Youtube star John Green included, parses out this passage about "that squaw with the naked bosom" and Holden's liberal use of the word "phony" as concrete evidence Holden doesn't want to grow up, while overlooking a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

There is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Holden smokes, drinks, lies about his age, critiques theater performances, frequents museums, hires a prostitute, repeatedly seeks out adult conversation with peer-level engagement, acts protectively toward children. How many examples are needed to prove Holden is experimenting with adulthood? Criticizing adults as phony means he's evaluating adult behavior, not resisting. This is engagement, not avoidance.

It shouldn't escape notice that Holden was eagerly embracing the candy of adulthood--sex, smoking, booze, nightclub music, dancing, flirting, dating, critiquing literature and the dramatic arts--while agonizing over the spinach of social hypocrisy and rationalization.

So, how DO we interpret Holden's comment about the bare-breasted Native American?

The key is in that last sentence, underlined above: "The only thing that would be different would be you." Holden is telling us he is aware that he is changing. This level of intuitive self-reflection is adult thinking. It also shows maturity to appreciate that some things don't change and never should, because they are part of our cultural identity.

Nostalgic awareness is mature thinking. Mature people want to protect and preserve cultural icons.

Think of the loss and disorientation after the Twin Towers were destroyed. Icons like the Statue of Liberty are signposts reminding us of who and where we are. Holden was feeling lost. In his agitated state he desperately needed that bare-breasted squaw to be right where she had always been. That's all he was getting at with his comment. Give the kid a break.

Holden pondered and wrote down the Wilhelm Stekel quote Mr. Antollini gave him: "The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." This is another sign he was putting a lot of serious thought into growing up.

To wax psychological, there are teenagers and even some adults, who resist growing up because their parents don't want to let go. They've been infantalized, encouraging dependency. Holden shows no evidence of having been infantalized. Quite the contrary, ending a kid to a military-style prep school could be evidence that Holden was too independent and possibly hard to control.

The evidence on the page shows that Holden was not resisting adulthood, he was aggressively embracing it.


(See my separate topic on this controversial subject.)

[Michael]

I think change can be scary at all ages, but especially for adolescents. But finding comfort in a place or scene that remains constant is fully understandable, and is certainly not in itself an indication of "a refusal to grow up." Mendelsohn is full of it.

[C. J.]

Monty wrote: "Holden smokes, drinks, lies about his age, critiques theater performances, frequents museums, hires a prostitute, repeatedly seeks out adult conversation and engagement, acts protectively toward children."

Personally for myself when I first read The Catcher in the Rye the one thing I never even thought of or even had cross my mind was that he was immature or the idea that "he refuses to grow up." I did see a lot of character in him and found him interesting. Maybe even fascinating. It's funny looking it up and not even realizing he had a mental breakdown near the end; my time with the book, I just saw that he realized he was a strong protector to his sister and couldn't help but be relieved with joy or maybe a peace.

I am actually scared to re-read it though based on a past thread from far back. Apparently some people who have read the book a second time LOVED the book as a teenager but despised it as an adult. I'd rather leave happy memories and leave it at that, not let the legacy of enjoying it leave my mind just in case that should ever happen...