worst book ever! Showing 301-350 of 1,030

[Nell]

I agree. This book was probably the most disappointing book I've ever read. I had high hopes for it since it was considered a classic and is referenced a lot. I forced my way through to the end of the book thinking it might get better but it didn't. I initially read it for my own entertainment but I have to say that I have a strong aversion for this book and other short stories from F. Scott Fitzgerald.

[Karl]

George wrote: "By some quirk in my personal history, I'd never read Gatsby. It has many beautifully written, poetic passages, and Gatsby's demise retains an ineffable sadness that moved me in the final pages. The..."


Great points about the water imagery. You've written a great review and maybe I should go back and read Gatsby again.

[Amanda]

Jamie wrote: "What? This was the second best book that I read in high school. Macbeth takes top honors."

I agree this is one of the top books of all time! Fitzgerald did an amazing job of capturing an era and the people in that era. Definitely on my "read again" list.

[Ivona]

you people must be insane..if you couldnt connect with the characters or just didnt like them, well that certainly doesnt change the fact that fitzgerald is a damn genius and gatsby one of the most mysterious and admirable characters in literature in general.

[Danielle]

Nicole wrote: "This book is so timeless. I think a lot people don't like it because it was forced down their throats in high school. I thought it was so so in school and when I picked it up almost 10 years later ..."

You might be right. I haven't read it as an adult. I might feel differently about it.

[Jenny]

I LOVE this book! I have to say, though, that the first time I read it in high school, I don't think I really got it. It was okay, but nothing outstanding at the time.

I've read it 5 times since then (I'm now 34) and each time I get more and more from it! It has so much depth! And the way you feel about Gatsby is kind of the point. You weren't supposed to like or care about him. The story was supposed to seem shallow and unrealistic. But unfortunately, there are a lot of Americans who lived that way. In the past, and even now, in the present. I think this is a remarkable book. Not the best book ever, but very, very good.

[Kevin]

I am a bit torn on whether or not I consider this a great book or a sub-par novel among classics. The book has a strong poetic prose that I quite enjoyed,. Also, the author's use of symbolism is poignant in its own ways, such as the ambigious title 'The Great Gatsby'. I believe 'The Great' was meant to be used as a prefix, as in, 'The Great Houdini', because Gatsby was an illutionist in many ways, a man of mystery, but not a 'great' man. I found this intriguing, and its something I think a lot of people dont clue into when thinking about the title.


I found that the book could be a little dry in places, which could have been easily corrected if the dialogue had been sharpened. I found the dialogue to be dreadful at times, it was clearly not one of the author's strong qualities. The symbollic use of description is pretty good, but I would not consider it any better then the excellent prose of Steinbeck or Conrad.

Would I consider it a classic? sure. Would I consider it a great classic?...not really. There are plenty of other classics that could act as great substitutes in the classroom in place of this novel, something a little more contemporary that students might enjoy. Its clear that a lot of students loathe this novel because all of the characters are unrelatable and the metaphors go right over their heads.

[Gail]

I read this book in high school and I loved it. it was one of the few books I actually liked that I had to read.

[Geoffrey]

You beat me to the punch, Kevin. I was going to comment on the poor dialogue. Actually, the next time I visit the internet cafe with my copy of the Great Houdini, errrr, Gatzby, I will eviscerate the novel in minutae.

[Dozy]

I think it's unfair to any auther to say their book is the worst book ever, it's an insult to their work.
I don't think it's the worst book ever written, it's powerful and thought provoking and shows the truth behind the 'roaring twenties' and The American Dream. It can be hard to understand but when you get it... it's so good.

But everyone has an opinion, thats mine :)

[Karl]

Great book. Some of you are crazy!

[Morgan]

I don't think this is the worst book ever but it denfinitly wasn't anywhere near good. Try reading The Grapes of Wrath and then tell me which is the worst book. Ugh hated that book!

[☯Emily]

Morgan wrote: "I don't think this is the worst book ever but it denfinitly wasn't anywhere near good. Try reading The Grapes of Wrath and then tell me which is the worst book. Ugh hated that book!"

I have read both books and think both books were well written. Each showed the mindset of a particular era of the United States. Do they have different styles? Yes. I found The Grapes of Wrath more difficult to read, but it is still a wonderful book. However, I didn't like it when I had to read it in high school.

[Geoffrey]

Arianna
Don`t be such a smarty pants! You know what they mean when they say that.

[Bill]

O let's see. When the Modern Library editors rated the best books of the 20th century they rated The Great Gatsby #2 behind Joyce's Ulysses. When the Radcliffe Publishing Course rated the greatest books of the 20th century, they rated Gatsby #1.

It's easily one of the twentieth centuries most impressive works of fiction. The language is brilliant, often witty, and some of the characterization insightful and at times subtle.

The worst book ever -- why? Because you didn't like it? So what?

What Fitzgerald ultimately is talking is not easy to know, and I think the answers lie in his sources -- in particular, "Heart of Darkness" by Conrad and The Waste Land by T. S. Eliot -- and his own personal obsessions -- rich girl/poor boy, Midwest/East Coast, recreating the past, etc.

The title was more his editor's choice than Fitzgerald's -- Fitzgerald preferred a variety of longer and more complicated ones. My favorite was "Trimalchio in West Egg" after a character in Petronius' Satyricon.

[Karl]

I think the thread title is symptomatic of the type of person who is the classic example of someone who hides behind the "It's just my opinion, and an opinion can't be wrong" mentality.

There is such thing as a wrong opinion. liking something or disliking something is not enough when evaluating any given piece of work. Sure, on a personal level, not liking something is enough for you to avoid anything else like it, but to para-phrase Harlan Ellison----"you are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your informed opinion".

[Bill]

I think you can say Shakespeare can't write his way out of a paper bag, and I can't prove, by purely objective criteria, that you're wrong. But to think Shakespeare isn't a great writer is, on the level of day to day discussion of literature, is absurd.

It's not just hiding behind one's opinion, it's the sense that one's impressions are what give the opinion validity.

You know, when I don't "get" a great of literature, my response is not that everyone else got it wrong but rather that it's MY problem. The same is true with art or music. I just decide it's not for me now, and I go back to it later.

And everyone won't like everything equally. Everyone's sensibilities are limited. Everyone is not capable of appreciating everything.

[Karl]

Shakespeare never failed anyone, they failed him!

[Rachel]

I've considered rereading it to see if maybe I was too young (a senior in high school) when I read it, but since that was less than 5 years ago, and I liked every single other book in high school, I don't think that was the problem.

[Bill]

So what? The issue is not whether you liked it but whether the book is any good. It's hard for me who's read Gatsby several times over the last 50 years (I'm older than you) to understand WHY you didn't connect with the book, but my point is that it doesn't matter. Huge numbers of people who have read have connected. For me, it the language, the premise, the humor, the mythologizing, and the relentless romanticizing.

[Karl]

Has anyone bothered to read the original post on page one? On comic book forums, this would be classified as a form of TROLLING.
It's a drive-by comment and thread title.

"X book and Y book are crappy" who agrees with me? and then doesn't bother providing any analysis or thoughts on why they think such a work is boring or rubbish.

[Susan]

I read it years ago. I liked it.

[Amy]

Karl, I agree with you that the OP must have know they would get a strong response with such a thread title. I don't know if I would classify it as trolling, but it certainly wasn't designed for legitimate discussion.

Many people don't like the book, that doesn't make it the "worse" book. Many people like it, doesn't make it the "best". I think people sometimes forget that best and worse is subjective. Personally, I liked the book but it's far from my favourite.

[Karl]

Heh Amy, sorry, but that's factually incorrect. Literary critics work off parameters and objective criteria, so where would a book like Twlight fit in, compared to a Joyce work?

Here's a movie example to think about. Let's switch Heath Ledger portraying the Joker, with the guy who played Kenan from Kenan And Kel.

Reflect on the above scene and tell me everything is subjective You'll probably tell me some people would still love it, but that wouldn't surprise me. Even the worst crap has its fanbase, the difference is being able to known you are reading crap and still liking it.

The KKK's subjective opinion states that any skin darker than white is inferior. That's another wrong opinion.
Hitler had strong opinions, and history chastised him and his thinking and his followers thinking, eventually and harshly.

[Karl]

I agree.

Opinions should begin where fact leaves off. If there is a fact relevant to the discussion, that is where we have agreement. Once we venture beyond fact, we can have opinions, but those that contradict facts are wrong opinions.

When the doctor prescribes a medicine, you hope that he is basing his prescription on fact. The doctor doesn't know how you'll react to a particular blood pressure medicine, but given the facts he knows about you, the doctor forms an opinion and prescribes the type that seems to fit your particular facts. That's an informed opinion. Your reaction to the medicine will prove the doctor right or wrong.

[Karl]

Opinion operates at the cognitive levels of synthesis and judgement. Those levels occur after we identify and partition the subject before us. We identify its parts, analyze it, take it apart. We can both do this and come to an agreement about what is on the table. The differences come when we reassemble the subject, adding our own creativity, imagination, thoughts and biases. If we agree on the base items first, we can argue well even if we have different opinions. If we don't first agree on the "facts", whatever the subject, we will find ourselves talking past each other, sort of like Democrats and Republicans when they get on TV.

[Sarah]

I liked it, maybe it depends on how it was taught in highschool and personal taste.

[Jason]

My vote for worst book ever goes to Wide Sargasso Sea.

[Karl]

Scott wrote: "I totally disagree about your definition of opinions as relative to fiction. If this was the case you would only judge a work on whether it was grammatically correct and didn't contradict the curr..."

The difference here is, saying "Finnegan's Wake is complete crap" is a personal opinion, not a valid critical analysis.

[R.a.]

Just to chime in re: Willie the Shake.

Truly, the best way to see / experience how great Shakespeare is / was as a writer and (emphasis) dramatist is simply to attend productions of his plays.

Akin to reading only a few Poe tales, attending one or two productions probably will not provide a true sense of his ability, range, passion, wisdom, and accessibility.

Reading the scripts is fine; but, one can become "caught up" with "literariness." Rather, experience the plays as plays . . . Ah, "There's the thing . . ."

And so, I hope to see you all at the theatre.

Kudos.

[Amicus]

Laura-lou wrote: "does anyone agree with me that this is the worst and most boring book of all time?"

No.

[Karl]

I thought you were replying to me there for a second, but different Karl.

Anyways, I don't think anybody is being snobby or anything.

So you see the value of a fun thread bashing The Great Gatsby without any back-up?

[Danya]

I read it in eighth grade, although it's required reading for tenth, so I'll have to read it again in another year. Sigh. I certainly don't think it's the worst book ever. I enjoyed it. It is definitely a product of it's time, however, and I think it takes a certain type of reader and a love for the 1920s. I liked it better than other books from that era such as The Sun Also Rises and A Farewell to Arms. Reading books in English class and being forced to write papers about them tends to ruin perfectly good novels, and if I had first read it in a class I think I would have hated it. English class has managed to ruin the Lord of the Flies, Macbeth, Animal Farm, To Kill a Mockingbird, A Farewell to Arms, Slaughterhouse Five, 1984, and countless others for me, so if you hated it but read it in class, it might just be your teacher. I think it's filled with beautiful writing and fascinating characters. It only gets boring when you're forced to over analyze it instead of enjoying it for the wonderful story it is.

[Karl]

Scott wrote: "Karl wrote: "Scott wrote: "I totally disagree about your definition of opinions as relative to fiction. If this was the case you would only judge a work on whether it was grammatically correct and..."

Not all opinions are born equal. For example,

"Lightening occurs because _________. A) Zeus is angry B) There is a buildup of electrons...."

Both answers are opinions. One has more explanatory adequacy than the other. Some of the opinions posted on this thread are better than others.

[Matthew]

That's because you didn't get a proper primer before reading it. That was my method when I was asked to teach it, make sure the students get a roadmap on how to spot all the symbols and what they mean, what the themes are, background, etc, etc. The thing you have to remember above all else is this is a book written BY an intellectual, FOR intellectuals. Hence its neither accessible nor entertaining, unless people know what to look for, then its kind of like a scavenger hunt.

[Karl]

You still haven't answered my question: What's the value in the thread starter's original post other than to say he didn't like something?

Your point about liking or disliking something is moot, as people will like or dislike something regardless of what anyone online says! Do you think Twilight fans are threatned by literary snobs anywhere?

[Karl]

Karl wrote: "You still haven't answered my question: What's the value in the thread starter's original post other than to say he didn't like something?

Your point about liking or disliking something is moot,..."

If a person is offering an opinion as a way of emoting and forming bonds with like-minded people (or antagonizing unlike-minded people), fire away. Thought is not an issue. If the opinion is being offered as an intellectual stance, then most of those who have uninformed opinions would do a service if they kept that opinion private. Intellectually, we cannot settle the question of Gatsby being "greatest" or "worst", but we can argue well in either direction. Arguing well is where the fun is.

[Emma]

ugh, yes! I HAD to read it in high school, and I absolutely despised it. It was just too boring for me - I like a lot of action. Even today, I can't remember anything about it, or even really tell you what it's about or "the main message" and such. It just left my head/mind as soon as I finished reading...

[Edward]

It's a good book about class and the idle rich. But it should not be wasted on high school students. I really don't get why they assign sublime literature with all that subtext to junior high and high school kids. They won't appreciate these books until they've actually had to earn a living. Grapes of Wrath and Lord of the Flies are two other great books wasted on youth.

[Sarah]

How dare you! Jk I love love love love this book. Although I think this maybe because I love the time period and the drama. It's almost like a soap opera only way better not as cheesy. I'm also a big fan of Fitzgerald now reading this book. I love his style. It's just beautifully written. Not many people I went to go to school with liked it though. I really like English so that might have something to do with why I like it so much.

[Danya]

Edward wrote: "It's a good book about class and the idle rich. But it should not be wasted on high school students. I really don't get why they assign sublime literature with all that subtext to junior high and h..."
Although I completely agree that it is an excellent book, I have to say that I am in high school and I honestly don't think that I was unable to "appreciate" it or understand the subtext. It is true that many people my age don't appreciate classics such as the Lord of the Flies and the Great Gatsby, but to say that is is wasted on high school and junior high students is a complete generalization. I don't think that students should be forced to read books such as this when they won't appreciate them because then they won't ever try them again, and that's a shame, but there is no one age group that is the "right" age to read any given book.

[Angela]

Jamie wrote: "What? This was the second best book that I read in high school. Macbeth takes top honors."

AGREED!

[Geoffrey]

In answer to what SCOTT wrote-

So you see the value of a fun thread bashing The Great Ga..."
No, I just think it is petty to savage someone who gave an opinion but DIDN'T necessarily give an in-depth critical reason for their opinion. You are quite free without belittling others to give as detailed and logical critical analysis for why you think it is a great book, etc.


reply | flag *


Okay, here`s a more indepth criticism of the novel`s faults.
Poor character development and inconsistencies in their depiction.
Most notably Gatsby`s character has looping holes in it. For example at the end of the novel, we learn from Gatsby`s father that his son,during his upbringing, was geared for social success and self improvement. As an example, the father presents Carroway with excerpts from the main character`s daily planner. Yet despite his arduous work at self betterment, he doesn`t know that San Francisco is not part of the mid-West.
Another glaring fault in the character`s development-we learn that when he returned from the WWI front, he had only one formal suit, his military uniform. Again, I have to ask you, for someone so hell bent on making something for himself, he never purchased attire from his soldier`s pay that would place him square in upper society. So when you finish making excuses for Fitzgerald on these two faults, I will hit you with some more.

[[deleted user]]

I liked every book that was handed to me in high school except this one. I like to think I'm pretty good at understanding why some things are a big deal even if I don't like them myself, but this book is lost to me.

[J]

There is a book called "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" which I humbly suggest some of you purchase and read. Popular fiction and Classic fiction are not the same thing.

The Great Gatsby is a timeless book. At this point in history it might be more relevant than in past decades.

If you expect your Author to hand you all the answers without any actual thinking on your part, I suggest the Twilight series as your next book selection. Frankly, that is the worst collection of books ever written.

[Hugh]

The opening of Chapter 3 alone -- one of the most cinematic descriptions in literature -- sets this book above many others. While it's easy (and absolutely hilARious) to charge that a book is "the worst and most boring book of all time" -- the fact that the charge is made without any evidence, says more about the critic than the book.

[Robert]

Bo wrote: "I've never liked it. Hated all the characters and think it's totally overrated. I don't know why it's forced on students year after year."

I have no problems with the book but taking the viewpoint of a High School English class student in the trenches for a moment, The Great Gatsby does, at least, have the virtue of being short as novels go. I inadvisedly picked The Financier by Theodore Dreiser for my elective book report in 10th grade. Gatsby does not come close for length or tedium, and The Financier is just the first volume of three on its main character! Fortunately, I was not signed up for the whole Frank Cowperwood saga. Surely Moby Dick beats Gatsby hands down as a burden for this hypothetical student and an effort harder to justify in terms of a story content that is largely an encyclopedic catalog of whaling minutiae. Just getting through the opening to the actual story in Vanity Fair makes that like reading two books for one. Count your blessings if you are assigned The Great Gatsby.

[Denney]

you sir need to reevaluate your life if you do not see the value in this book

[Steve]

I liked The Great Gatsby. But unlike some people I didn't feel obliged to like it because some list placed it as the second best book of the 20th century. Anyway, Catch 22 is easily the worst book ever written.

[Battle_slug]

I read this book some years ago and I liked it.
I am not sure if it can be rated as great literature, but it gives a sense of high society of that time. It seems a copy of atmosphere, you know. I like it. Something hard to describe to those who doesn't feel it.

Most people wrote here doesn't like it just because it has no connection with their time, their lifes. Someone said that that the reader certainly likes the book when author wrights about something that is inside reader's mind. It is the case I think.