Unpopular Literary Opinions

[Ripley]

But you know what's even worse? Russian is my first language, which theoretically should make the novels easier to read.

I once read a book about a character who learned Russian in order to read great Russian literature in the original language. Her response? "People, with Russian literature, something is gained in the translation."

[Margo]

Bwah. I think it works in the other direction as well - I've read Lord of the Rings in a Russian translation and liked it just fine. Tried it in English and found it unbearable.

Topic: I also don't get the greatness of Catcher in the Rye, The Great Gatsby, and Heart of Darkness (although I really like the first chapter of it).

I like romance - I go on sprees when I read as many as 5 in a row. I guess "like" is a strong word here. I can't even explain it... I may not like the books I read, but I'm irresistably drawn to how unrealistic and stupid they sometimes are. And I think my favourite genre is fantasy.

[spinsterliz]

I've always hated Judy Blume's books. I don't care how many other girls (my sister included) think she is the greatest, most realistic author ever. I was overdeveloped when I was a pre-teen, and her books cheesed me off. The characters were always like, "Woe is me, I have small boobies and I haven't got my period! Waaah!" I always wanted to tell those whiny characters that needing a bra and having your period at age 11 is NOT fun!

I also think Mary Higgins Clark's books suck rocks. "Queen of suspense" my foot. Does she still insist on having that title above her name on all her books? That's just embarrassing. I used to like her when I was a teenager, but then I realized her writing is awful. All the characters think and talk exactly the same way, whether it's a rich movie star or a homeless guy. (And don't even get me started on her daughter Carol. Nepotism at it's ugliest. All I can think is that her books sell well because people see the name "Higgins Clark" and assume it's her mother, and that's why they buy her books. My grandmother has done that.)

[Deleted]

I heartily agree Spinster Liz. I must have been in 8th grade when I would beg my mom to take me to the library and I'd load up on Mary Higgins Clark books. By the time I got to 9th grade I realized that if you have 1/2 a brain you can guess who the killer is by chapter two. It's never the most evil person, he's a red herring. It's almost always the person who seems nice and friendly but has a limited attachment to the main character. Gag. So horrible. I can't believe that PAX has turned tons of those crappy books into movies.

[ernestine]

Oh my God I totally agree about Mary Higgins Clark! She SUCKS!!! I get her newest books from the library because I must read them. It's like driving by an accident... I can't NOT look.

They are so stupid and badly written and the characters are smug and unlikable and it's always always always the nice guy! Ugh! ANd all of her characters have money and butlers and they are completely out of touch. Even characters of hers who are supposed to be down and out... she can't write it realistically. It's sad, really.

There are a few old ones that I do like. I enjoyed "Where are the Children?", and "A Cry in the Night ". "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" was good too. There's one more I like, but I can't remember the name. I haven't enjoyed a book of hers in 15 years. Honestly, I can never even remember if I've read some of hers, much less remember the titles.

I can't decide if she was a better writer when I was younger, or if she always sucked, but I was a lot younger reader then. The four books of hers that I like, I STILL like as an adult, so I guess maybe it's a little of both.

[Deleted]

I liked the first couple of Mary Higgins Clark books that I read, then realized that her books were all exactly the same. So I gave up on reading them. I've never tried her daughter's books, though I've seen them in the library.
A few years ago, MHC wrote a memoir/biography type book about her childhood and marriage, that was good. Her husband died pretty young, and she brought up a large family on her own (something like 7 or 8 children); she was able to support them on her money earned from her writing.

[comfortablynumb]

Once again, I feel like I'm not worthy of these boards. You people are far above me in taste and class, I do believe. I don't like a lot of "classics". I find many of them boring. I will say I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who didn't like "Catcher in the Rye". I read it and when I FINALLY got through, I thought "WTF?". Didn't get it at all. I figure I'm too shallow for stuff like that.

I am however a readaholic. However, my reading tends to be more pedestrian prose. I like Stephen King, Sue Grafton, Patricia Cornwell (although Lucy is too unbelievable to be taken seriously IMO), James Patterson, etc. I got 2 books for Christmas and have finished them both and am looking for something else to devour.

I do read Mary Higgins Clark, but I do agree that they are pretty formulaic. Same with Danielle Steele. I read her YEARS ago, and even when I was young, I could figure out what was going to happen. I think they both need to use another template when they write anymore.

[sleepy]

I could not get into Kerouac's On the Road. Not one little bit. Borrrr-ing!

[Deleted]

dasaky said:

Once again, I feel like I'm not worthy of these boards. You people are far above me in taste and class, I do believe. I don't like a lot of "classics". I find many of them boring. I will say I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who didn't like Catcher in the Rye. I read it and when I FINALLY got through, I thought WTF. Didn't get it at all. I figure I'm too shallow for stuff like that.

I am however a readaholic. However, my reading tends to be more pedestrian prose. I like Stephen King, Sue Grafton, Patricia Cornwell (although Lucy is too unbelievable to be taken seriously IMO), James Patterson, etc. I got 2 books for Christmas and have finished them both and am looking for something else to devour.

I do read Mary Higgins Clark, but I do agree that they are pretty formulaic. Same with Danielle Steele. I read her YEARS ago, and even when I was young, I could figure out what was going to happen. I think they both need to use another template when they write anymore.

I've always felt that it's not really what you read, it's how you think of it. When I need a mental vacation, nothing cheers me up more than reading a really vapid chick lit book. However, I know that the book is crap. I just like it anyway.

The problem comes when you start saying things like "I am extremely well read. I enjoy great works of literature such as The DaVinci Code and the mysteries of Mary Higgins Clark."

That ain't right. So don't feel bad about your books. Everyone reads stuff like that.

Sleepy I also thought On the Road was horrible. I read it because Joey on Dawson's Creek was bitching about it and my theory was "If Joey hates it, I'll love it." Um, no. Not even remotely. It was boring and pointless and I really couldn't grasp what was so danged important about this book.

[spider]

I like On The Road because I read it a couple of years after my friends and I went through our own "beat phase", jumping trains around the country, traveling hither and tither with no $$ and generally being totally free. It made me nostalgic. However it also gave me insight into why it is impossible to maintain a relationship living like that, I didn't like the way many of the women in Kerouacs books are described or treated as hangers-on. Things that make you go hmmm.

Now I'm dating a climber again. Ugh. Must date stockbrokers or lawyers or someone boring like that. With a fixed abode.