worst book ever! Showing 851-900 of 1,030

[Anj]

This is not the worst book ever! I love the the motifs and symbols in the book; like the fact that the green light is hope and gatsby's dreams for the future ( his love for Daisy is just too adorable)!!! The themes are so realistic and Fitzgerald is an AMAZING writer. His technique for writing characters is simply remarkable :)

[Anj]

Amy C.C. wrote: "George wrote: "Not only is it not boring or over rated or "worst book ever" but it is the perfect American novel. You either "get it" or you do not. I have read it about once every ten years or so ..."

I agree its not the best book ever but it is still a fantastic novel ;)

[Redd]

Boohoohoo, money didn't solve your problems.


Check out my webcomic, updates every Thursday: http://reddkaiman.blogspot.com/2013/0...

[Thomas]

Redd wrote: "Boohoohoo, money didn't solve your problems."

it's not just about the money problems, Gatzby has clearly been brought up with the 'American dream' that money can, he's struggling against the realization that it can't. his self actualization isn't living up to what he'd been taught by his culture from a young age.

[Amy]

Thomas wrote:
"it's not just about the money problems, Gatzby has clearly been brought up with the 'American dream' that money can, he's struggling against the realization that it can't. his self actualization isn't living up to what he'd been taught by his culture from a young age. "

This did ring a bell to me that people nowadays might not value this book so much as the author's contemporaries did, because they've been reminded of this money-can't-buy-everything thing too often to find the work original or inspiring. What used to be new & novel has turned cliche.

Fitzgerald could be a pilot in his age, but the reputation of the work lived on only to be regarded as overrating.

[Jimmy]

it is one of the best at depicting its time period but I don't consider it to be one of the best american novels of all time like many people do. The only part I really liked was seeing the flaws in people that live larger than themselves.

[Lauren]

I think half the problem here is that everybody read it in high school.

[Szaby]

Dorothy wrote: "Gavin wrote: "Great Gatsby haters? I think I finally understand why brain addled Americans are crawling out of the woodwork to go on shooting sprees with assault rifles."

I am new to this site and..."

I agree. I've read this book by choice last year and I felt moved by the characters, especially Gatsby. The book has a great ending in my opinion, because it was not the same boring and predictable everything-for-the-best that most books I've read had. It's tragic, yet it makes the book very special.
It's still one of my favourite books and the people who hated it can't appreciate Fitzgerald's craft.

[Geoffrey]

Yes, actually we appreciate his craft, but we just don´t think the book is all that great. there are quite a few novels out there with exemplary craft, his is no anomalous misterpiece.

[Stefania]

Gatsby DOES require careful and inquisitive reading, so I can understand why many people don't appreciate it when there is a whole TON of terribly written literature today.

Call it dull, call it frustrating, call it whatever you want. What Fitzgerald does is portray a society SO accurately. You may think "So what, it was so long ago, it doesn't matter", but that's the farthest from the truth you can get. He brings such light to an understanding of why society is the way it is today.

[Suzanne]

I totally agree. I had never reaqd it and thought I should, and was astounded at how boring and lifeless it was.

[Szaby]

Stefania wrote: "Gatsby DOES require careful and inquisitive reading, so I can understand why many people don't appreciate it when there is a whole TON of terribly written literature today.

Call it dull, call it ..."

totally agree. people just want to read something easy and "fun" and not something that actually makes you put things in perspective and reflect on what you've just read.

[Ashley]

I'd like to know what books "Gatsby Haters" prefer to read. Just to do a comparison. And if you reply with any Harlequin romance novel or Fifty Shades, you deserve to be brought out back and beat with a stick.

[Szaby]

Ashley wrote: "I'd like to know what books "Gatsby Haters" prefer to read. Just to do a comparison. And if you reply with any Harlequin romance novel or Fifty Shades, you deserve to be brought out back and beat ..."

haha yea, or Twilight or any Dan Brown book for that matter.

[Amr]

Well said Ashley :-)

[Ashley]

Szaby wrote: "Ashley wrote: "I'd like to know what books "Gatsby Haters" prefer to read. Just to do a comparison. And if you reply with any Harlequin romance novel or Fifty Shades, you deserve to be brought out..."

I do like Dan Brown but you cant compare it to F. Scott Fitzgerald.

[Szaby]

Ashley wrote: "Szaby wrote: "Ashley wrote: "I'd like to know what books "Gatsby Haters" prefer to read. Just to do a comparison. And if you reply with any Harlequin romance novel or Fifty Shades, you deserve to ..."

Dan Brown is entertaining but his books are full of factual errors and his writting isn't very good in my opinion. plus he always follows the same formula. I've read all of his books from the Robert Langdon series and they were entertaining. the problem for me is that he's repetitive and claims to put facts in the books, but he doesn't do much in-depth research, like, lets say, Umberto Eco.

[Ivonne]

I think The Great Gatsby's appeal isn't generational so much as class-based. I was a poor girl in a rich high school, so I could really, really empathize with Jay Gatsby -- and F. Scott Fitzgerald, for that matter. I loved the novel.

[Szaby]

Ivonne wrote: "I think The Great Gatsby's appeal isn't generational so much as class-based. I was a poor girl in a rich high school, so I could really, really empathize with Jay Gatsby -- and F. Scott Fitzgerald,..."

that's a good point. it's funny because it applies to me too. maybe you're right.

[Ashley]

Szaby wrote: "Ashley wrote: "Szaby wrote: "Ashley wrote: "I'd like to know what books "Gatsby Haters" prefer to read. Just to do a comparison. And if you reply with any Harlequin romance novel or Fifty Shades, ..."

That's what I like about the Dan Brown books, the factual errors. Only with his books do I actually like doing the research behind them. And yes they are repetitive at times, but then again that's what happens when you bring the same character back in novels. I know they arent technically sequels either.

[Szaby]

Ashley wrote: "Szaby wrote: "Ashley wrote: "Szaby wrote: "Ashley wrote: "I'd like to know what books "Gatsby Haters" prefer to read. Just to do a comparison. And if you reply with any Harlequin romance novel or ..."

Maybe. It's a matter of taste anyway. I'm done with Dan Brown though, there are so many other good authors to chose from :)

[Mary]

This is my absolute favorite book of all time.

[Geoffrey]

Ashley

Your question has been addressed previously.
Brothers Karamazov is the most amazing book I ever read.
Number 2 is AS I LAY DYING

I also loved TRANSPOSED HEADS, THE CASTLE,GRAPES OF WRATH, MY ANTONIA. I would not consider myself a "hater of GG", but I do dislike the book immensely, so perhaps I am quibbling here.

I still find F`s imagery a bit hackneyed, come on..... give me a "green light".

His unveiling of the plot is beyond brilliant, his occasional sentences verge on genius, but conceptually I find him a bit limited. The book never realized its popular potential during the 20`s because it was not an outstanding book...in retrospect it sums up the 20`s as we (mis)understand them now.

[Martha]

Vickie wrote: "I agree. Totally overrated. I don't know why we still torture students with it for American literature. So many other American authors to choose from. A good take off on the book is Jake, Reinv..."

Thanks for the tip -- now I will check out this book. I guess Gatsby was okay, didn't love it, didn't hate it.

[Kim]

Definitely over rated! Tried to read this in high school, and just couldn't get into it. Read it years later, but wasn't impressed.

[Bobh]

This is not a good book to read in high school. It appeals to the teacher, but not to a student learning how to read literature. BUT, it really is an incredible book. The structure, the themes, all of it is amazing. I hated this book in high school, all that stupid "green light" crap. But i listened to an audiobook of it 20+ years out of high school, and i loved it.
The books the english lit teachers force 16 year olds to read are not books that 16 years will enjoy. Even F. Scott Fitzgerald would have hated Gatsby as a 16 yr old, and Hemingway would have hated "Sun Also Rises" at 16.
They should have you read "Monster: Autobiography of a gang member in LA" or "Crank". THOSE books will instill a deep passion for reading.

[Ashley]

We've gone over this before, the books must meet school and government requirements. If the child doesn't understand then it is the teacher who doesn't teach the book properly.

[Redd]

It's like math. This website uses logarithms to function. That would make math interesting. But they don't teach that, so you grow to hate math.



Check out my webcomic, updates every Thursday: http://reddkaiman.blogspot.com/2013/0...

[Bobh]

Ashley wrote: the books must meet school and government requirements. If the child doesn't understand then it is the teacher who doesn't teach the book properly."

"...then it's the teacher who doesn't teach properly."
Why force awkward tools on the teacher, and then blame them? Give them books that most students naturally shine to, so that class discussions spark with enthusiasm.
When baseball started, catchers didn't wear facemasks. Should we remove the facemasks from the catcher, and then say that "if they don't move their face from the foul tips, then they don't catch properly?"
Fitzgerald published Gatsby in 1925, before WWII. So you're saying that no authors have learned from Fitzgerald, and used his techniques using a relevant, topical topic that teens would enjoy? The topic of "failure of the American Dream" is completely lost on 16 year olds, as is the pining for Gatsby's lost youth through Daisy.

[Ashley]

Because most books teenagers want to read don't follow school and government requirements.

[Eliza]

I do think it's the worst (or my least favorite) fiction book that I've ever actually read all the way through. I agree that it's a classic mostly because it defines a certain enviable set of people in a certain historical era. I kept waiting for it to get good, for me to be able to relate to the characters or for the ending to be good...

[Bobh]

Ashley wrote: "Because most books teenagers want to read don't follow school and government requirements."
You're easily led, since your opinions are made for you by authority. You need to find time alone, and come up with your own thoughts, instead of basing your argument on "authority won't let me". “The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions, but to destroy the capacity to form any.” ― Hannah Arendt

[Bobh]

Eliza wrote: " agree that it's a classic mostly because it defines a certain enviable set of peop..."
That's not why it's a classic. It's a classic because the author doesn't tell you why the characters are ruthless. The author shows you how the characters are ruthless by communicating the convictions of each character through foreshadowing, through allusion, through an unreliable narrator and through each characters choices. You could substitute 20th century LA gang members or 21st century Chinese politicians, and the structure of the novel still communicates effectively.

[Diane]

Bobh wrote: "Ashley wrote: the books must meet school and government requirements. If the child doesn't understand then it is the teacher who doesn't teach the book properly."

"...then it's the teacher who doe..."

100% agree, the theme in Gatsby is not age appropriate for 16 year olds. Something like Precious would be more relevant today.

[Diane]

Amy C.C. wrote: "Diane wrote: "Holly wrote: "Lorelei wrote: "Diane wrote: "Lorelei wrote: "I see a lot of persons complaining about reading lists at school..how boring they are, how they turned them away from class..."

I'll give Gatsby a second try. I have a much finer appreciation of lost youth, and have experienced society and its faults, I think the theme will be more personal this time around.

[Diane]

Lauren wrote: "I think half the problem here is that everybody read it in high school."

Well said, some of the books I would not have picked up and appreciated in High School are now my all time favorites. I think its the combined homework pressure, and the age relevance that turn people away.

[Meredith]

definatly!!

[Diane]

Bobh wrote: "This is not a good book to read in high school. It appeals to the teacher, but not to a student learning how to read literature. BUT, it really is an incredible book. The structure, the themes, al..."

woo..now I want to read Monster: Autobiography of a gang member in LA" or "Crank"...they sounds fascinating.

[Jason]

Crank is not good!

[Ashley]

Bobh wrote: "Ashley wrote: "Because most books teenagers want to read don't follow school and government requirements."
You're easily led, since your opinions are made for you by authority. You need to find tim..."

Uh no it's called when you're in school you read the books they assign or you fail. I'm not a rebel, yet I don't give into conformity. I'm just stating a well known fact that schools have requirements, and they rarely change. Reading classics is better than reading about crack whores, drug addicts and gang members. It's not about relating to the characters in the book, it's about reading. The novel Crank is used in drug addiction classes, you really want your 16 year old "relating" to that book. I think not. Stick with the classics.

[Marco Paulo]

I liked it actually. I guess part of it being worse is when you're forced to read it. But leisure reading The Great Gatsby is actually fun. I finished the book in one seating.

I guess the book is deep, not too mention Scott Fitzgerald's vast vocabulary, that people may see it as bad literature when in fact it is. Must be just me though... but the book had me at Gatsby's mystery.

[Alice]

Marva wrote: "Not the very worst or most boring - but it certainly tried to be."

Marva wrote: "Not the very worst or most boring - but it certainly tried to be."

Laura-lou wrote: "does anyone agree with me that this is the worst and most boring book of all time?"
I had to teach this book in a high school but I disliked it and disliked all the characters in it. I also found it boring.

[John]

Ashley wrote: "Bobh wrote: "Ashley wrote: "Because most books teenagers want to read don't follow school and government requirements."
You're easily led, since your opinions are made for you by authority. You nee..."

I agree Ashley, and it's more than a government mandate that makes them have the classic appeal, and some classics we won't like, but so what? Can we not appreciate why they are classics or their possible appeal. You hit the nail on the head good call.

[John]

I don't like many of the characters, they are shallow and easily penetrable, the plot is sometimes elusive and offpoint, but the book is still genius. Fitzgerald is truly able to capture and depict while adding so many literary allusions, symbols, and ideas that an appreciation of the book can easily occur if you dislike it.

For example, and I can;t recall which chapter, but at the end of one of the chapters Nick is talking about the party and it's not making a lot of sense.. and we realize he has been drinking and the writing becomes drunkspeak. genius

[Ashley]

John wrote: "I don't like many of the characters, they are shallow and easily penetrable, the plot is sometimes elusive and offpoint, but the book is still genius. Fitzgerald is truly able to capture and depic..."

Good writing is when you have the ability to use literary allusions, symbols, metaphors etc. Authors these days explain too much instead of letting the readers mind create the picture how they want to envision it. Fitzgerald has a way of making every reader see the story differently. It's great writing that allows ongoing discussions.

[Marco Paulo]

^that exactly...

[Bobh]

Ashley wrote: "It's not about relating to the characters in the book, it's about reading. The novel Crank is used in drug addiction classes, you really want your 16 year old "relating" to that book. I think not. Stick with the classics. "

No, its all about relating to the characters. If you were to 'stick with the classics', you wouldn't even read Gatsby. Gatsby wasn't chosen as a 'classic' until the 1970s+. If you want to stick with the classics, learn latin and read Cicero. The educational leadership of this generation picks 'classics' that were not the choices of the last educational leaders, and won't be the choices of the next generations leaders. There is nothing eternal in something deemed a 'classic', and a classic isn't a classic for all age groups.

Yes, i want my 16yr old learning from Crank, how horrible the entire experience of drugs are. Crank exposes the empty happiness of drugs, just like Gatsby exposes the empty happiness of wealth. But the danger of drugs is much greater in anyones life than the dangers of chasing wealth.

What benefit is there for a 16yr old to read Gatsby? So they become more disillusioned about the future, and it's empty dreams of happiness through wealth? Young people need to read about strong, determined people who strive through difficulties, because they have no other options. If you're not learning perseverance, determination and fortitude at a young age, you'll develop reasoning skills that always conclude that you should take the easy way out.
I love Gatsby, i love fitzgerald, but very few people can learn much from that book at 16.

Since you said "..better to stick with the classics", i can tell you haven't found a book you really relate to, one that really touched your soul, and made you realize you're not alone in the world, that other people have thoughts like you have thoughts. When you find those books, life is different.

[Ashley]

Bobh wrote: "Ashley wrote: "It's not about relating to the characters in the book, it's about reading. The novel Crank is used in drug addiction classes, you really want your 16 year old "relating" to that book..."

Don't judge a book by it's cover. Don't judge me by my love of Gatsby. There is no benefit to reading "Crank" or any book like that at the age of 16. Sorry I like fantasy, books are an escape from reality. If I want reality I'll walk the streets of Chicago at night and see "Crank" live.

[John]

Bobh wrote: "Ashley wrote: "It's not about relating to the characters in the book, it's about reading. The novel Crank is used in drug addiction classes, you really want your 16 year old "relating" to that book..."

I teach Gatsby to 16 year old students. They have found it to be far more profound and thoughtful than most other material covered in class. They are also identifying style and symbolism in ways they haven't before.

Also your definition of classic is completely outdated. Yes classics refers to the Greek writings of Homer and the Latin of Virgil and Dante's Inferno etc... and they are all wonderful. The idea of a classic within the language of literature is,however, much more than a literary work of Ancient Greece or Rome (which by the way was only defined that way by an outdated understanding of important cultural relevance in western civilization) but also meaning any established work that serves as an unusual or superior example of its kind that serves as an established model or standard. This would definitely include Gatsby seeing that Fitzgerald's use of language and symbolism present the growing American identity in literature. Also if you have such a narrow minded view on what is purely classic you can't include the OLD TESTAMENT as literature, Gilgamesh, The Art of War, and so many other absolutely wonderful stories and tales from a variety of cultures beyond the Romans and the Greeks, even Beowulf or Shakespeare wouldn't be included.

Last I find it quite insulting that you would dare tell someone their status in reading. To tell Ashley that she doesn't relate to books or find one that touches her soul is an ignorant and negligent statement about her place in life based on a POST she put on a website. I personally think an apology is in order. But what do I know, I only developed that belief from Socratic dialogue in Plato's Apology.

[Ashley]

John wrote: "Bobh wrote: "Ashley wrote: "It's not about relating to the characters in the book, it's about reading. The novel Crank is used in drug addiction classes, you really want your 16 year old "relating"..."

Thank you John, but I have found there are so many narrow minded people on this thread that don't want to see the other side. In their mindset they are right and then like to criticize the choices of other people. Most of them know NOTHING of what they preach, as you have just proved. They bring no substance to this thread, put down other opinions instead of thriving on them.