If you had to burn a book...

[Mimi]

CBRetriever wrote: "that one was pretty good when narrated by..."

I'll just have to take your word for it because there is no way I will revisit this book, not even for Jeremy Irons on audiobook.

[Dj]

Ryan wrote: "Astrophysics for people in a hurry....... by Neil Degrass Tyson"

Wow that is harsh. What was it about the book that made you feel it was worthy of being flamed.

[Dj]

CBRetriever wrote: "Mimi wrote: "Yeah, I'm also curious. What was it about this book that made you want to burn it?

For me, it's Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov."

that one was pretty good when narrated by..."

Somehow that just makes me feel creeped out. I think I will avoid that particular book in all its formats. Admittedly that is just me though.

[Mimi]

You're probably not alone in that. I most likely would've given this book wide berth if it hadn't been assigned reading for a class. Thinking back on it now, I should've gone with the cliff notes instead.

[CBRetriever]

while I didn't like the subject, it was an interesting character study of three warped characters

[Esther]

Mimi wrote: "Yeah, I'm also curious. What was it about this book that made you want to burn it?

For me, it's Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov."

I thought Lolita was creepy but wasn't bothered by it because despite being written from Humbert's POV I never felt that the writing gave the vaguest hint of approval of his behaviour.
Some writers describe sex, pain or violence in such a way that you feel sullied by their dirty little fetish.
For me this was not the case with Lolita.

[Esther]

Ryan wrote: "Astrophysics for people in a hurry....... by Neil Degrass Tyson"

I haven't read this because I am constantly disappointed by Neil Degrass Tyson. He is the darling of the internet but whenever I watch or listen to him it feels like he never gets to the point. He surrounds everything with jokes and trivia and explaining science with metaphors like I am a 10 year old. I just get bored and then annoyed when I realise I have listened for an hour to maybe learn something I could have looked up in 5 minutes.

But then that is my complaint with most modern edutainment . It is all sensation and drama and very little real fact.

[Esther]

John wrote: "Do you also feel that way about StarTalk? "

I started with Star Talk and realised after a while that I was wasting my time on something that was neither amusing nor clever. Some of their humour just seemed so contrived and forced.

[Mimi]

Esther wrote: "I thought Lolita was creepy but wasn't bothered by it because despite being written from Humbert's POV I never felt that the writing gave the vaguest hint of approval of his behaviour.
Some writers describe sex, pain or violence in such a way that you feel sullied by their dirty little fetish.
For me this was not the case with Lolita."

I hear this a lot from various people over the years, but the story being told from Humbert's POV will always be a sticking point with me. That's the thing that made it especially creepy. Maybe as 3rd person it might not have been so creepy, but being in Humbert's head while he waxed "poetry" about Lolita was too disturbing for me.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

I really enjoyed Astrophysics for people in a Hurry.

[Cheryl]

MrsJoseph wrote: "I really enjoyed Astrophysics for people in a Hurry."

Me too. It's not a bad summary for ppl like me who know some of the stuff, and a reasonable intro. for newbies. Anything that gets more ppl interested in science is a good thing... just bc Ryan thinks it beneath him doesn't make it burnable, imo.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Easy now. He hasn't said why. And it wouldn't be the first popular book someone has cast on the pyre simply because it irritated them! This is a free for all! Historians would weep! lol

[Cheryl]

He did say why. Then deleted his comment. But we can see some of it reproduced in responses.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Cheryl wrote: "He did say why."

Oh, did it get deleted? I don't see it.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Strange, the only things I see about it are other people's responses to his selection. And please, we've gone a goodly while now without any of this becoming personal. I believe something changed, but it seems to have been removed so if something was said that should be addressed more directly, please feel free to message me about it. Otherwise, let's move on!

[BobJosh]

Symphony of ages series. Every book of it.

[Olga]

I'd say, The 100 because it disappointed and angered me so freaking much I still rant about it sometimes and with great passion, too. Except... I still have it, I didn't burn it nor I plan to, I just want to give it away or I don't know, leave it at Starbucks - maybe someone will like it and take it home.

[Karin]

CBRetriever wrote: "any and all political puff/tear down pieces like

The Destruction of Hillary Clinton
What Happened
[book:Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance|88061..."


ETA: I'd like to impose a 20 year from the end of a politician's term(s) in office or until they die before releasing any and all books by and about them>/b>

Yes, I like that idea of 20 years from the end of a politician's term(s) in office!

Plus the other point.

[Karin]

Esther wrote: "Ryan wrote: "Astrophysics for people in a hurry....... by Neil Degrass Tyson"

I haven't read this because I am constantly disappointed by Neil Degrass Tyson. He is the darling of the internet but ..."

This is good to know. I haven't read any of his books, but after reading a review had put this on my tbr. I was hoping it would be along the same lines as A Brief History of Time, but evidently not.

Also, it's good to "see" you again!

[Karin]

Karl wrote: ""English teacher told me this was a classic"

"Classic" is a good excuse for reading garbage."

I am snickering, because some classics are complete and utter garbage and I cannot understand why they are classics. That said, I do actually like some classics--where would we be without scifi classics? Plus I like some others.

[Plaidchuck]

What classics are utter garbage? Bracing myself for this one.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Gary wrote: "What classics are utter garbage? Bracing myself for this one."

"ALL OF THEM."

--Someone, probably

;-)

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Allison wrote: "Gary wrote: "What classics are utter garbage? Bracing myself for this one."

"ALL OF THEM."

--Someone, probably

;-)"


Well, maybe not ALL of them...

But, like, most... ?

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Someone quick call dibs on hating the ones Colleen didn't hate so the balance restores itself!

I am teasing, of course. I couldn't finish 1984. I tried. After 3 attempts, a grand total of 70 pages read or re-read and 7 naps, I realized I didn't have time for all those naps and moved along.

I don't think I'd burn it, though. The irony alone might cause some sort of cataclysm.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

I remember liking 1984, but I haven't read it since high school.

I also enjoyed Animal Farm, though found it heavy-handed when I read it as an adult.

I still loved To Kill a Mockingbird, on later reading - perhaps even more than originally.

But... I find LotR overrated. Wuthering Heights was terrible. Pride & Prejudice is better in movie form. Dracula, sadly, was boring AF - though I did like Frankenstein, perhaps because it was so different from the movies.

There's actually a whole slew of classics I've never read, and are never likely to read, so I can't, really, say that I hate stuff.

Oh, Dickens is a snoozefest. Always. Even Christmas Carol, which is the only barely readable one (but I love the movies).

Even Sleepy Hollow was disappointing to me.

And Alice in Wonderland.

Basically any story that I knew as a kid and later read the book, I almost invariably didn't like.

[CBRetriever]

LotR was wonderful

Wind in the Willows? I don't understand the appeal. Ditto for The Old Man and the Sea or Winnie the Pooh.

Most classics are considered that because they either changed the world of literature, stood the test of time, continue to inspire people, express the time of their writing in theme and style (usually the real reason people find them boring), and books that are the first of their kind.

[Karin]

Gary wrote: "What classics are utter garbage? Bracing myself for this one."

The ones I hate, naturally, and my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek, but honestly, I do wonder why some books are called classics--is it because they are old or because they are timeless and well written?

To be honest, I can't remember all of the classics I've ever read, and not all the ones I hate are utter garbage, but one I would say is is The Hotel by Elizabeth Bowen and, honestly, although many people love it, I could barely make myself suffer through Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. I think her mother was a far better writer, and none of Mary Wollstonecrafts Shelley's other books ever did well; I think it was the sensationalism of Frankenstein that made it so popular, not her writing ability.

But I like The Old Man and the Sea and can see why very young children like The Wind in the Willows even if I don't care for the latter as an adult.

Charles Dickens is hit and miss--some I like and are quite funny, others are booooorrrrrrring--it's all very dense and was written as serials where he was paid by the word.

[Esther]

I enjoyed most of the books I read at school though I never actually finished a Dickens until I was in my 20s. I much prefer the TV adaptations!
I didn't actually read Frankenstein at school and although I thought it was interesting the overly flowery language made it drag for me.

My problem at school was the poetry - almost total snooze fest.

[Bree]

I enjoyed Frankenstein - in fact I think there’s an actual paper copy of it somewhere on my bookshelves!
I would nominate all except the first volume of Wheel of Time. Many, many hours of my life that I’ll never get back. But the first volume sucked me in to read the rest... and I would read it again (and I think I have... pretty sure it has a physical presence as well...)

[Shomeret]

Karin wrote: "Gary wrote: "What classics are utter garbage? Bracing myself for this one."

The ones I hate, naturally, and my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek, but honestly, I do wonder why some books are ca..."

I'm a content person rather than a style person. If I am interested in the content of a book, I will keep reading. The only Dickens I really love is A Tale of Two Cities. It deals with a favorite historical period of mine. But I am huge fan of Alexandre Dumas and Victor Hugo.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Shomeret wrote: "But I am huge fan of Alexandre Dumas and Victor Hugo. "


Speaking of Dumas I recently read The Three Musketeers for the first time, and rather hated it. I always considered myself a "fan" of the Musketeers - again, via movies and shows - but found the book, itself, rather lacking and the characters detestable.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

I adored LotR the first few times I read it, now its boring but I've read it multiple times.

Hated Wuthering Heights and all of bronte + austen. Pride & Prejudice can go jump.

Hated Moby and Billy Bud, actually enjoyed a lot of the Shakespeare.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

I like Shakespeare, in general - though I'm not huge on the histories - but, as a thespian, I believe the only real way to appreciate Shakespeare is to see it performed.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Melville, I say like Seinfeld says Newman.

I had to read so many of his stories and I just do not like them. Maaayyybe Benito Cereno had some redeeming qualities. The rest can DIAF.

[Al]

Gary wrote: "What classics are utter garbage? Bracing myself for this one."

I slogged through 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. I tried to like it, but Vern's digressions into the Professor's oceanography observations bored me to tears.

I'll stick to the Disney flick. They took a boring book and made it exciting.

[Dj]

Allison wrote: "Strange, the only things I see about it are other people's responses to his selection. And please, we've gone a goodly while now without any of this becoming personal. I believe something changed, ..."

My view of most of the comments are they are personal opinion on various books. Since the enjoyment (or not) of a book is, in my point of view, much like the enjoyment of music or food something that is based on the individual, there is no reason to try and change the view. It would be difficult at best and impossible at worst. Reasons are interesting, but really required.
Just sayin.

[Dj]

Allison wrote: "Someone quick call dibs on hating the ones Colleen didn't hate so the balance restores itself!

I am teasing, of course. I couldn't finish 1984. I tried. After 3 attempts, a grand total of 70 pages..."

I remember reading 1984 and finding it a very difficult book. Then in the Army I was in a lecture given by a General that had been kidnapped in Italy. While being held captive he only had 1984 to read. He recommend never reading it under those conditions.
I could very well understand.

[Karin]

colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "I like Shakespeare, in general - though I'm not huge on the histories - but, as a thespian, I believe the only real way to appreciate Shakespeare is to see it performed."

And the second best way is to listen to a full cast audiobook recording done with actors who are trained in Shakespeare! You miss the sight gags or things, but it's much better than simply reading it.

I prefer his comedies.