What's the most boring book you've ever read?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

sageoftruth:

HalloHerrNoob:
Atlas Shrugged.
Its very interesting from a philosophical standpoint (not that it represents my philosophy), but Rand is just a bad writer. The characters are one-dimensional and everything is so obvious and clichee....
Also Lord of the rings....I like the hobbit, but LOTR is just too much.....filler.

I still admire you for finishing Atlas Shrugged. I tried to do that, but Ayn Rand's barely disguised conceit was too much for me. I quit after the part when Ms. Taggart recounts her past growing up as a brilliant, gifted and intellectually superior child. It wasn't hard to see that Ayn Rand was talking about herself.

I completed it, but I gotta admit that I almost completely jumped over that chapter where Galt does his big speech..its literally the whole chapter.
Yeah, as I said, its not my philosophy, but its an interesting one. I read it, the same way I read Marx. Not something I want to see adopted, but still interesting from a theoratical standpoint.

I've got a boring/terrible book to beat all boring/terrible books: Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka.

It is a 58 page mess of boring crap coupled with 164 additional pages as to why this story is "awesome."

I'm f***ing serious...

The story (or what vaguely resembles one) is about a traveling salesman who is fed up with his crappy existence and wakes up one day to find that he's changed into a giant bug (no joke, that's what literally happens) with no explanation as to why or how. There's some drama that goes on with his family that goes no where until the salesbug dies in isolation in his room a short time after his metamorphosis. The End.

I'm not sure why were were assinged to read this book other than to give us a standard of what isn't a good story. So no matter what we read, as long as it's "not Metamorphosis," it's possible to be liked or profitable. Say what you will about the Twilight series (which I hate), at least someone's getting bank for all the idiots that fell for it.

AccursedTheory:
I was bored to tears by Ender's Game when I read it over a decade ago. I found the writing dry.

Curious, I enjoyed Ender's game but share that opinion on some of the sequels. 'Speaker of the Death' specifically is still not completely read due to the poor pace I'm able to force myself through its pages.

Skeleon:

Cookiegerard:
His work is just so bad.

There's a lot of quality inconsistency with his works.
Some are truly amazing, some I can completely agree with you on. I really loved The Mound because he managed to create an entire other civilization of sorts. I also have extremely nostalgic memories of The Thing On The Doorstep, but that might just be because of my childhood, although I do think the concept is great for a very different kind of horror than he usually employs. Hm, what else? Shadow Over Innsmouth is great and the character only faints after describing the horrors. And the twist ending is just awesome. Similarily, I loved The Horror In The Museum for its build-up and nice (albeit a bit predictable) ending.
Eh, I can't fault you for having sort of given up on Lovecraft's stuff, having read a lot of his awful stuff myself, but there are a lot of great stories, too. Buried in the rubble, I suppose.

The universe he created is amazing, I just think, based off the short stories I read, that his writing style isn't that great. When you are reading a number of them in a row, and you just keep getting let down after let down because the monster is ALWAYS made indescribable for some reason, it just makes it feel as if you are reading the same thing over and over again. I like his world, but I just don't like his writing style, it feels lazy at times.

No one has mentioned The Last of the Mohicans yet from what I can see. I really did not enjoy that book. I was probably around 11 or so when I was trying to read it. I was a pretty avid reader and I liked a lot of different books but that one just did not do it for me.

The film however is one of my favorite movies, top 20 for sure. Probably because they took out all of the boring parts and just had Daniel Day-Lewis run around the woods instead. I also feel somewhat vindicated when a lot of the reviews I read on the movie seemed to indicate that many of the film critics also found the book boring.

Another vote for both Scarlet Letter, and LotR. But for me, Fellowship was an easy read (aside from the chapter specifically called "The Trees of Lorien," which is exactly what it sounds like). I started it, knowing the warnings of all the dry bits and I still finished that book in two days. What killed the series for me was toward the beginning of Two Towers, at the point where Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli first meet the exiled Riders of Rohan. Their conversation was so dry, so incredibly boring, I put the book down. Despite several attempts over the next few weeks, I just couldn't find the momentum to get past that part, and the book has stayed on the shelf ever since.

And now, the one that really surprised me. The fifth Harry Potter book, Order of the Phoenix, I think? I got to the sixth chapter or so, but nothing had really happened to that point. Harry was just being moved around to various places with people, all in secret. They were introducing people and things, but didn't explain them. It was a giant tease, with everyone continuously saying, "We can't talk about the order. It's a secret," or "We'll talk about this later." Well, after a hundred or so pages of that nonsense, I put the book away. Didn't finish the series; didn't care to. You can lead me on with promises of cool stuff that'll be explained later, but if you waste that many pages building it up with nothing else happening, then I get bored and angry, and shelf the book.

This thread makes me so very, very sad. Half of the posts I read amounted to "I don't understand the book" or just a lack of reading skills.

Someone here said Bear and the Dragon. It's not my pick for more boring, but you ain't wrong, for sure. For those who haven't read it, in the first bit of the book, a flamboyant russian pimp with a sweet ride gets blasted with a rocket launcher. Somehow, Clancy made this about as dull as finding a rock in a gravel driveway. Given his style, you might think that this was on purpose, but it's intended to be the hook that draws you into the central conspiracy (the pimp had the same car as the intended target and was killed by mistake). I LIKE political affairs and I hated this book.

The most boring book I've ever read was a young adult novel, the title and author of which I cannot recall. The protagonist, a dragon, is one of the few dragons left alive, and indeed the only dragon left in his continent, if I recall correctly. What follows is an amazingly uninteresting tale of how he, as a shapeshifting super-rich mansion dweller, gets on. Events include enslaving a man, awkward sex scenes, and the grumbles that result from a dragon pregnancy. I cannot convey how boring this book was, which is something that should never be said of a book where a man literally eats the girl he just had sex with.

HalloHerrNoob:

sageoftruth:

HalloHerrNoob:
Atlas Shrugged.
Its very interesting from a philosophical standpoint (not that it represents my philosophy), but Rand is just a bad writer. The characters are one-dimensional and everything is so obvious and clichee....
Also Lord of the rings....I like the hobbit, but LOTR is just too much.....filler.

I still admire you for finishing Atlas Shrugged. I tried to do that, but Ayn Rand's barely disguised conceit was too much for me. I quit after the part when Ms. Taggart recounts her past growing up as a brilliant, gifted and intellectually superior child. It wasn't hard to see that Ayn Rand was talking about herself.

I completed it, but I gotta admit that I almost completely jumped over that chapter where Galt does his big speech..its literally the whole chapter.
Yeah, as I said, its not my philosophy, but its an interesting one. I read it, the same way I read Marx. Not something I want to see adopted, but still interesting from a theoratical standpoint.

Can you tell me what page it's on? I've still got the book. Maybe I can get something of worth from it if I just jump right into the philosophy lecture at the end.

Nthing Dante's "Paradiso"... yes, I know it's not technically a separate book but merely part of the whole Commedia... but fuck it anyway. Butt fuck it, in fact (it could do with some loosening up). It's nothing but a bunch of unrecognizable nobodies spouting out ridiculous philosophy and downright laughable scientific fact.

No, Dante, the moon is not made of fucking gas because candles reflect equally from distant mirrors, you scientifically illiterate 13th century moron. No, I didn't make that up, that's literally the argument made in the first couple pages of Paradiso. It was so utterly dumb I had to stop reading for almost a week. As a result, "Inferno" took about 5 days to read, "Purgatorio" a full 7, and "Paradiso" took an entire month because it was so awful.

Also, any of the long form Dickens novels (Tale of Two Cities, Great Expectations, etc.) It's so obviously padded, and then padded again, and so mind-numbingly repetitive, I have a hard time understanding how they came to be regarded as "classics". Endless, tedious, ham-handedly metaphorical descriptions so long you forget what the author was describing by the end. Dumb, mopey, boring characters who spend ages doing nothing. I would honestly teach those books in a writing class as "how not to write". Also, the cliffhanger bullshit he pulls at the end of each serial section (these were originally magazine serials, recall) is ripped straight from the worst kind of comic book and would never fly in any other author's books, yet somehow literary critics never give him any shit for it.

Basically fuck Charles Dickens. I won't say he was a hack, because the one story where he wasn't forced to endlessly stretch a story to its breaking point (A Christmas Carol) is quite well written. But the demands of the format he worked in warp the stories into bloated monstrosities good only for torturing prisoners and high school students.

While we're on the subject, fuck John Milton's Paradise Lost for roughly the same reasons as Dickens, except he didn't have the excuse of writing for serials. Maybe it was because I was reading it on my phone, but exhaustive, unsubtle metaphorical descriptions really start pissing me off when they're so damn long you forget what it was that was being described. As someone that loved both LOTR and The Silmarillion, it's definitely not my attention span that was to blame.

sageoftruth:

HalloHerrNoob:

sageoftruth:

I still admire you for finishing Atlas Shrugged. I tried to do that, but Ayn Rand's barely disguised conceit was too much for me. I quit after the part when Ms. Taggart recounts her past growing up as a brilliant, gifted and intellectually superior child. It wasn't hard to see that Ayn Rand was talking about herself.

I completed it, but I gotta admit that I almost completely jumped over that chapter where Galt does his big speech..its literally the whole chapter.
Yeah, as I said, its not my philosophy, but its an interesting one. I read it, the same way I read Marx. Not something I want to see adopted, but still interesting from a theoratical standpoint.

Can you tell me what page it's on? I've still got the book. Maybe I can get something of worth from it if I just jump right into the philosophy lecture at the end.

In my version (50th anniversary edition from signet) it starts on page 915...chapter: "this is John Galt speaking" the speech itself starts on page 923 and is basically the rest of the chapter.

Its one of those things why I think Rand is a terrible autor. It completely breaks the tension...randomly (more or less) inserting one whole chapter of philosophical lecture, completely detached from the story, while I just wanted to know what happened to the characters.
Its "show not tell" and Rand just cant do the first.

CatComixzStudios:
Oh god where do I begin?
Romeo and Juliet: I understand that it's better read as a tragedy than a love story. But the characters aren't making small mistakes and learning from them. They're doing absolutely stupid shit that makes things worse for everyone. Whatever hate-boner the families had for one another, it was dumb, that was likely the point. I guess I just wish I were more invested in the characters so the bigger message would be more effective to me.

Something I found that improved my opinion of R&J was learning a bit of the context for the story. Figuring out that Juliet was 13, but was providing the only real maturity or critical thinking throughout the story really helped my opinion of her, and the fact that Shakespeare seems to have shared your opinion of Romeo made the story in general a lot more bearable.

OT:
I also could not finish the LoTR series. Or really more than half of each book. This was actually something like 12 years ago now (oh god I'm old now) so maybe my patience will have improved with age, but to be frank then and now I find fantasy based on his stuff to be infinitely more engaging than his actual stuff. I do take certain pride in the fact that I passed the point where my father gave up (found his bookmark, the copies I was reading were the same that his dad gave to him), but I will probably never finish.

The other was something I tried to read because I was told it was a good book. Great Expectations. This one I just went 'eh' and tossed to the side after the second-ish plot thread just sort of went away without a conclusion.

Dune, can't get into it at all

EvilRoy:

CatComixzStudios:
Oh god where do I begin?
Romeo and Juliet: I understand that it's better read as a tragedy than a love story. But the characters aren't making small mistakes and learning from them. They're doing absolutely stupid shit that makes things worse for everyone. Whatever hate-boner the families had for one another, it was dumb, that was likely the point. I guess I just wish I were more invested in the characters so the bigger message would be more effective to me.

Something I found that improved my opinion of R&J was learning a bit of the context for the story. Figuring out that Juliet was 13, but was providing the only real maturity or critical thinking throughout the story really helped my opinion of her, and the fact that Shakespeare seems to have shared your opinion of Romeo made the story in general a lot more bearable.

OT:
I also could not finish the LoTR series. Or really more than half of each book. This was actually something like 12 years ago now (oh god I'm old now) so maybe my patience will have improved with age, but to be frank then and now I find fantasy based on his stuff to be infinitely more engaging than his actual stuff. I do take certain pride in the fact that I passed the point where my father gave up (found his bookmark, the copies I was reading were the same that his dad gave to him), but I will probably never finish.

The other was something I tried to read because I was told it was a good book. Great Expectations. This one I just went 'eh' and tossed to the side after the second-ish plot thread just sort of went away without a conclusion.

Everyone knows that the main characters (R&J, especially R) were supposed to be idiots, right? The moral of the story is essentially that impatient teenage romance is dumb.

But somehow everyone latched onto it as a "great love story" in an ironic twist that probably causes Shakespeare several revolutions/second.

Also, don't hold out for Great Expectations getting any better. It doesn't. You never even really get the satisfaction of what's-her-bitch-face getting her comeuppance.

The Giver and 1984, both those books were equally shit, in my opinion (you don't have to agree).
They were just so slow and boring.
The Giver's problem was that everything was detailed in an essay, just the main character going to a house took two pages, and all he did was: go out, get on the bike, ride over there, go in.
1984 was just idiotic, to sum it up (how I see it), the main character wants to rebel, and he does that by having sex with a teenage girl (or early twenties, whatever) in a meadow... The fuck does that do on a large scale!?

sageoftruth:

AndrlCh:
I've read a lot of boring books, considering I was an English major with a Lit. emphasis, but the one book that I could never force myself to read past the first ten, grueling, soul sucking pages was The Poisonwood Bible. It has used as a spacer between my couch and the wall for the past seven years while all my other books are kept dusted and well maintained on my bookshelves.
Most boring that I've finished would probably be The Sun Also Rises. I've just never been able to quite enjoy Hemingway's writing style.

I read that once long ago. Can't remember much about it, but what made it so bad that you quit after 10 pages? I guess it was kind of a downer and the father deserved worse than he got.

From what I can remember, it had a lot to do with the writing style; the short, simplistic sentences didn't appeal to me, almost like it was trying to create a false density. Although, another factor may have been that it was part of my summer reading list for AP English, and I eventually got to the point where if the book didn't catch my attention in the first 10 or so pages I would drop it and just look up summaries. Now that I'm older and more well read, I may give it another chance; though, 500+ pages is a bit of a tall order to get through in a reasonable time nowadays.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it arleady, but I'm gonna go with the Bible. Goddamn (irony) did that book disappoint. There are entire sections dedicated to detailing family lineages in the most monotonous way possible, there are plotholes and inconsistencies in nearly every three verses (hyperbole), there are no relatable characters, and to use a quote from Yahtzee: "It's paced like an ant pushing a brick across a desert". I couldn't even finish Genesis, but believe me, I TRIED, I really did. The biggest problem with it is that it focused way, way more on telling than it did on showing, and it was written like a collection of plot summaries to much more interesting stories that just keep going, and going, and going.

Hmm, a toss-up between Tolstoy's War & Peace and Dostojevski's Crime & Punishment.

Don't get me wrong, they are great books and rightfully belong amongst the best classic literature has to offer, but they're so damn hard to read. Though ost Russian literature of the time was like that.

I found the concept and intelligence that went into 1984 to be very interesting but as a story I couldn't stomach it. Couldn't care less and the ending made me feel as if I had wasted my time.
Twilight was just awful in every sense of the word, no idea why I finished it. This was before reading twilight was something to be insulted over you see. In hindsight I see why now.

Envy Omicron:
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it arleady, but I'm gonna go with the Bible. Goddamn (irony) did that book disappoint. There are entire sections dedicated to detailing family lineages in the most monotonous way possible, there are plotholes and inconsistencies in nearly every three verses (hyperbole), there are no relatable characters, and to use a quote from Yahtzee: "It's paced like an ant pushing a brick across a desert". I couldn't even finish Genesis, but believe me, I TRIED, I really did. The biggest problem with it is that it focused way, way more on telling than it did on showing, and it was written like a collection of plot summaries to much more interesting stories that just keep going, and going, and going.

Sorry, but how can you critique future portions of the text if you couldn't finish Genesis.... which is the very first book of the text?

Moby Dick.

Keep in mind, my favorite book of all time is probably The Scarlet Pimpernel. So I'm no stranger or enemy to the classics. The first two chapters of Moby Dick are probably some of the best and most captivating writing I've ever seen. But somewhere around the chapter that debates on what exactly constitutes the skin of a whale (the thin film surrounding the blubber or the blubber too), I found myself bored enough to stop reading for a few weeks which I have almost never done any other time.

I also found the Grapes of Wrath to be mind numbing. I'm never sure why people liked it at all.

A year or two ago I was pressured into reading The Hunger Games trilogy. A short way into the first one and I was already starting to get bored and having to force myself through it. I kept wondering each time a character made a decision whether it was a decision I or any other rational person would make or a response that I would give and I just couldn't see it.
The sad part is that I actually quite liked the set up but I just don't think it was done all too well and could have been told from the point of view of a character with a much better, more likeable personality than the one it has.

Man, this thread really is an insight into the tastes of the Escapist. Seems like a lot of people here aren't fans of Literary fiction. It's a shame. I thought The Great Gatsby was fucking great, as long as your read it for what it is: the tragedy of one man who has everything but never got what he wanted.

Also shocked to see so many people say Lord Of The Rings. I've read the trilogy I can't count how many times now, and the whole "pages and pages of tree descriptions" is way, way, way overstated. Tolkien likes describing scenery, yes. Because as a general rule, when you're creating a new setting for a story, it's a good idea to describe it in enough detail that the reader can get a clear picture of it. I never understood the complaints about the dialogue either, given that Tolkien was writing in the Fifties (before Whedeonesque Buffyspeak was ever a thing) and basing his story in a medieval fantasy setting. All told, I think a lot of the dialogue (Sam's in particular) is surprisingly snappy, given the context. A bit old-fashioned, sure, but what's wrong with that?

As for books I found extremely dull... most anything by Ian McEwan. Atonement I found to be an overhyped piece of melodrama, but Saturday is the book that really turned me off him. A story revolving around a privileged London neurosurgeon who leads the most mundane life, then manages to stop a break-in in the most contrived, unbelievable fashion possible. Then follows that up with an even bigger contrivance. It managed to both be tediously dull, and to completely shatter my suspension of disbelief, which is a rare feat. How McEwan managed to rise to the top of the literati is beyond me.

CrimsonBlaze:
I've got a boring/terrible book to beat all boring/terrible books: Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka.

It is a 58 page mess of boring crap coupled with 164 additional pages as to why this story is "awesome."

I'm f***ing serious...

The story (or what vaguely resembles one) is about a traveling salesman who is fed up with his crappy existence and wakes up one day to find that he's changed into a giant bug (no joke, that's what literally happens) with no explanation as to why or how. There's some drama that goes on with his family that goes no where until the salesbug dies in isolation in his room a short time after his metamorphosis. The End.

I'm not sure why were were assinged to read this book other than to give us a standard of what isn't a good story. So no matter what we read, as long as it's "not Metamorphosis," it's possible to be liked or profitable. Say what you will about the Twilight series (which I hate), at least someone's getting bank for all the idiots that fell for it.

The Metamorphosis is regarded as a literary classic for a number of reasons. One of the major reasons, which I'll put in tags to avoid spoilers, is just how open to interpretation it is.

Kevin Smith's My Boring Ass Life.
To be honest I know 'boring' is in the title but it's just endless diary/blog entries which 99% follow the same formula with the other 1% being mildly interesting build up and production of Clerks 2. I think it's the monotony of his life that makes it such a drag to read I got about 2/3 of the way through before I put it down.

I also found LoTR quite boring which was a shame because I really enjoy fantasy, I just couldn't engage with it.

deathjavu:

EvilRoy:

CatComixzStudios:
Oh god where do I begin?
Romeo and Juliet: I understand that it's better read as a tragedy than a love story. But the characters aren't making small mistakes and learning from them. They're doing absolutely stupid shit that makes things worse for everyone. Whatever hate-boner the families had for one another, it was dumb, that was likely the point. I guess I just wish I were more invested in the characters so the bigger message would be more effective to me.

Something I found that improved my opinion of R&J was learning a bit of the context for the story. Figuring out that Juliet was 13, but was providing the only real maturity or critical thinking throughout the story really helped my opinion of her, and the fact that Shakespeare seems to have shared your opinion of Romeo made the story in general a lot more bearable.

Everyone knows that the main characters (R&J, especially R) were supposed to be idiots, right? The moral of the story is essentially that impatient teenage romance is dumb.

But somehow everyone latched onto it as a "great love story" in an ironic twist that probably causes Shakespeare several revolutions/second.

Also, don't hold out for Great Expectations getting any better. It doesn't. You never even really get the satisfaction of what's-her-bitch-face getting her comeuppance.

Part of the thing for me was the first time I read R&J I was under the impression that they were both about 15-16 years old, but on a later read when I was convinced to give it a second chance I realised that R was something like 20 and J was 13. It completely changed the tone of the story for me. Like from 'stupid teenagers in stupid love' to 'surprisingly competent 13 year old dealing with a poorly raised manchild.'.

And yeah I just said screw it to Great Expectations. I was just not enjoying it at all.

Blood Meridian. Oy, was it ever a chore to read. Last time I bought a book on reccomendation. And you know what, the book could have been good if McCarthy put in some more character moments, rather than descriptions of the desert and the Gang's trek through it.

CrazyGirl17:
Wuthering Heights. And the fact that I had to read it for school really didn't help. Nothing. freaking. HAPPENS!

Not to mention that none of the characters have any redeeming qualities. They just spend the entirety of the novel being absolutely horrible to each other. I really hate that book.

I'm not absolutely sure, but off the top of my head? The Scarlet Letter. I couldn't stand the style. Flowery, adjective-packed run-on sentences everywhere. (I can't remember if they were technically run-on sentences, but they sure felt like it.) I've been told that kinda thing was all the rage back when it was written, tho. :P

Wuthering heights is by far and away the most boring book I have ever read. To make matters worse, I had to read it to the very end because it was part of my English literature GCSE. Any other book I don't enjoy, I can just put it down and read something else, but I obviously couldn't do it in this case. I was so glad when I finished it and got my A* grade. I haven't picked it up since, but I might try and read it again to see if I enjoy it more when I am not forced to read it.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Man, this thread really is an insight into the tastes of the Escapist. Seems like a lot of people here aren't fans of Literary fiction. It's a shame. I thought The Great Gatsby was fucking great, as long as your read it for what it is: the tragedy of one man who has everything but never got what he wanted.

Naming a classic as something incredibly boring doesn't mean people aren't fans of literary fiction. It means they've at least been reading them for some reason or another. Some of my favorite works are The Scarlet Pimpernel, The Three Musketeers, Ivanhoe, Gulliver's Travels, Robinson Crusoe, and even more recent ones like The Fountainhead (as a story about a man who couldn't be bought, not selfishness as a virtue or that kind of stuff like Atlas Shrugged is steeped in). It's only the fact that I'm such an avid reader of the classics that some of my most boring reads are amongst them.

Unfortunately, I can't say for sure if the number of classics referenced is indicative of avid readers of the classics or just America's standard fare of classic literature on reading lists.

Also shocked to see so many people say Lord Of The Rings.

As it turns out, people generally love the LOTR style or hate it. I've seen people on both sides of the fence regularly. He's extremely wordy and that can get in some people's way. If you can catch the rythm of the tale you can get entirely engrossed in it which is probably what you've been able to do. But it isn't something everyone can just get into. Interestingly enough, it makes an amazing movie for everyone.

For me it would have to be The Hobbit, it took me over a month to finish reading it because I just couldn't be assed to pick it up more than about once a week if that. It wasn't a particularly bad book, it's just that it's so fucking boring. I don't need to have the entire landscape described to me in that level of detail, it makes it hard for me to imagine my own version of it in my head.

I used to read books rather quickly before I read The Hobbit. It took me quite a while to get through Game of Thrones and now I'm having similar challenges to with Clash of Kings even though they're easier to pay attention to. I blame Tolkien.

There was this book in English class, I think it was called Strange Objects. Here is as much as I understood:

Kid goes on camp finds ring, keeps ring because people don't like him, starts having wet dreams about some Dutch chick like, 500 years ago, becomes obsessed, keeps doing weird shit like wrapping a small animal in wire and letting ants eat it down to a skeleton, then he murders an Aboriginal who somehow knows that he has the ring, then he runs away from his home because police want to get the ring back because it's a archaeological treasure, then he leaves to find his dad who has been dead for ten years.

You know the kicker? All the weird shit that happens in this book is all apparently about the ring, and NOTHING is explained. The book just ends with him leaving. Yup. Awful. Bloody awful.

Oh yeah, and that book about a bunch of teenages fighting a government with the power of love and music. Yeah. That's a thing. They even turn a flight of bombers into birds by singing and then eat some dinners.

I've managed to read most of the books mentioned so far. But the one book I dropped (although I was already 2/3s done) was Moby Dick.

For all those dropping LotR...that's understandable. But I think if you can power through the fellowship both the two towers and return of the king are easy reads and are more "action packed." I actually reread the series every 2-3 years or so.

And here's my tip for getting through shakespeare: Read it outloud with yourself and be really dramatic about it. Or do it with a friend and have some laughs while enjoying literature. Plays weren't meant to be sat down and read. They were meant to be performed with emotion.

any novel writen by stephen king. fuck the guy can waffle badly. i do like his short stories however where he gets to the point.

Reise:

Brian Tams:

And it only gets worse in the second book, Eldest.

I actually sorta liked the parts focusing on the brother...

The series had ALOT of problems but for some reason I liked it (except the ending, fuck that!) but I had a big problem with the parts with Roran. Eragon could kill a 1000 people in 2 seconds because he is a magic super being. Roran could kill 1000 people because the writer and fans liked him so he got plot armor that makes Batman's plot armor seem small and useless.

OT:
The sword of Truth (the first one). I really did try to like it but I just could not.

lacktheknack:

Glongpre:
Life of Pi. I can't even explain what happens except that there was a tiger. And he was on a boat...

Life of Pi is wonderful... ;___;

OT: "Night", by Elie Wiesel.

Don't get me wrong, it's a very important book. It's written competently, it's interesting (in the same way as a train wreck), and its subject, an unflinching stare at the atrocities of the Holocaust, is a very tragic and important one indeed.

But I felt sick reading it, had to force myself to finish, and I will never read it again.

Everyone should read it once... and only once.

I read it in nineth grade, one of the most sickening books I've ever read and I found it very well written and I commend Ellle for doing it.

OP: The Elephent Man. It was literally a book based on the movie, my entire class hated it. Even my teacher was none too pleased.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked