[Jay Tea]

"The Brothers Karamazov" and "Les Miserables" (at least the first volume) both had some good parts, but overall, I thought they were pretty rough reading.

[tropicana]

I must add Of Human Bondage, by W. Somerset Maugham. Talk about dry, turn of the twentieth century literature. The only reason I was glad it had a happy ending is because it meant there couldn't be a sequel full of the protagonist's whining and idiocy.

[Insane Drummer]

Originally Posted by Mattlock

Shakespeare's A Mid-Summer's Night Dream.

It's all I've read by good ole Will, but I'm scared to read anything else. When I was reading it, it reminded me of skinny boys running around in girls pants. Horrible dialoge and poorly written.

I would advise reading Hamlet, MacBeth, or Julius Caesar. You may find one of those three more interesting.

[meatfinger]

I think Macbeth is a good one to start with. I wouldn't start with Julius Caesar, though. It can be pretty difficult in spots. It's incredible, but I don't think it's a good Shakespearean tragedy to begin with.

[tsr4e]

The Jungle by Upton Sinclair....very informative...but sooooooo boring

[thelitguy]

I've read through the entire works of Joyce, Beckett, and Proust but couldn't force myself to finish Conrad's short Heart of Darkness.

[Lightknight]

Actually, the Grapes of Wrath was so bad that I said "screw it" and winged the test for it. I don't know how I got a good grade on it, but MAN, that book was boring.

[meatfinger]

Originally Posted by thelitguy

I've read through the entire works of Joyce, Beckett, and Proust but couldn't force myself to finish Conrad's short Heart of Darkness.

Strange. Heart of Darkness didn't bore me at all.

[Robci]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Actually, the Grapes of Wrath was so bad that I said "screw it" and winged the test for it. I don't know how I got a good grade on it, but MAN, that book was boring.

Wow, really? Did you have the complete version that used the odd chapters to make use of beautiful allegory and metaphor? There have been published versions that left out the odd chapters, making it less meaningful.

As for me, I was not a big fan of the Scarlett Letter. The reason it’s a classic is understandable, but it’s a lot of boring to get the point---which I imagine was very poignant when it was published.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Robci

Wow, really? Did you have the complete version that used the odd chapters to make use of beautiful allegory and metaphor? There have been published versions that left out the odd chapters, making it less meaningful.

Nope, it was the full version. But considering the large number of others who agree with me (here in person I mean, not in this thread) about how boring the story is, I don't think there should be much surprise in me not liking it.

Though, to be honest, I had never read a book I didn't like before that one and I haven't since. Considering that this is the only book I've ever really disliked and yet I'll read several books a week, I'd like to think that gives my opinion at least some credulity.

[Robci]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Nope, it was the full version. But considering the large number of others who agree with me (here in person I mean, not in this thread) about how boring the story is, I don't think there should be much surprise in me not liking it.

The book was required reading in high school as well as an American literature course in college. I also reread it independently my freshman year. Perhaps it’s because I am from Oklahoma that I have a bit of an almost emotional tie to the book. I am also very familiar with the Californian geography in the book, having been there several years in a row. The odd chapters were absolutely incredible I thought. Steinbeck’s writing style is what captured me more than the plot. I shed a tear for Tom’s I’ll-be-there speech. Having read East of Eden and not particularly liking it, The Grapes of Wrath redeemed Steinbeck in my eyes as a great American author.

Though, to be honest, I had never read a book I didn't like before that one and I haven't since.

Wow, I must be the High Fidelity of the literature world. Hats off to you!

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Jay Tea

"The Brothers Karamazov"

I'm about 2/3rds of the way through it now, and I must say... you're crazy.

[Palivizumab]

I couldn't get into Don Quixote.

Also....
I couldn't finish the Silmarillion either.

[tropicana]

Having read East of Eden and not particularly liking it, The Grapes of Wrath redeemed Steinbeck in my eyes as a great American author.

For a long time, I though everyone liked Steinbeck. I really, really like Steinbeck. Oprah likes Steinbeck. Like I said, everyone.
East of Eden was one of the best books I read this summer. Sure, some parts of it were kind of slow, but I found it to be a very engaging read.

[meatfinger]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Nope, it was the full version. But considering the large number of others who agree with me (here in person I mean, not in this thread) about how boring the story is, I don't think there should be much surprise in me not liking it.

Though, to be honest, I had never read a book I didn't like before that one and I haven't since. Considering that this is the only book I've ever really disliked and yet I'll read several books a week, I'd like to think that gives my opinion at least some credulity.

I don't think the opinion of a few people you know gives your view credulity. It's widely considered to be an American masterpiece. I don't think the opinion of you and your buddies can invalidate that.

As for me, I haven't read it. So I'm just being contrary.