• Curious about veganism or vegetarianism? Why not ask us a question? (You don't have to sign up, or be vegan or vegetarian!)

Literature Unpopular Book Opinions

Muggle

Addicted Poster
We've all got them. Unpopular or even controversial opinions about books.

What are yours?

Mine:

Ian McEwan is an arrogant, pretentious jackass. I don't like books where the author is screaming through the pages saying "Look how amazing I am at writing! Look at all my wonderful literary techniques! Oh look, here's another one! Bow down and worship my genius you mere mortal! You aren't even fit enough to lick the souls of my shoes so go and crawl back to the cave you came from."
One of my rules is that I will always finish a book even if I don't like it. I couldn't finish Atonement. I ended up chucking the book across the room I got so angry.

Wuthering Heights is awful, although I am trying to read it again.
I cannot get on with Dicken's writing style.

I am sick and tired of historical fiction written by female authors being centred around romance. OK, not all but pretty much every bestselling/well-known historical fiction book written by a female author has the same basic plot. There's a woman who strives to be more than her station in life, she falls in love with a man but they cannot be together because social status/family disapproval/war/whatever won't let them but their love is just too strong and they fight to stay together and, after a lot of hardships, in the end they manage to do it and they live happily ever after. Blah, blah, blah. And there's a few references to the time period the book is set in and some famous historical person will usually pop up (usually female) but he/she will act in surprising manner which is the only thing that separates those books from all the other god awful chick lit spew that is out there.

That felt good to rant. :D
 

Muggle

Addicted Poster
The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is far better than Wuthering Heights (and Jane Eyre for that matter but I like Jane Eyre :p )
 

Freesia

not my business.
I think RE: Brontes and Austen, well they are different. The Bronte sisters had incredible imaginations, and their books were full of atmosphere and unusual twists and turns and would have shocked/put chills up the spines/ of their readers of the day and even have that effect on me today : ) . And Wuthering Heights is one of my favourite books. I read it when I was 13 and feeling really depressed.

Jane Austen on the other hand, had very basic plotlines, and her books were about mundane daily life. Her novels were basically social commentary on the issues of the day. It can seem as if it is just a sea of big words with not much happening, but her books contain: gambling addicts, mercenary moralless people, alcoholics, horny womanising men having sex with unmarried women, teenage pregnancy (unmarried 15 year olds who end up left holding the baby), violent duels....and her books are full of unspoken and implied sex. a lot of these topics, though would be very mundane in a 2012 published book, would have been pretty racy and controversial in the days in which it was published.

Also the Bronte sisters had a lot more artistic freedom in many ways as they originally published their books under male names (and males could get away with a lot more back then). Jane Austen published her first books as "A Lady" and later used her name.
 

Freesia

not my business.
I like it, but I have a poor attention span for reading it. I do love the lovely visuals of the movie. The Hobbit is being filmed further down south, I cant wait until it comes out.
 

Dropkick

the best half of a great wit
Location
Montana
How can you not like Wuthering Heights?

To my vague recollection, the story goes something like this:

Catherine: Oh Heathcliff! I love you so much! I would die without you! Heathcliff how dare you touch me! Your just a vagabond! A tramp! Your not worthy of my spit! Heathcliff where are you going? I love you! Don't leave me! I can't go on without you! Oh, by the way I'm married. Don't leave me Heathcliff! My love for you is overwhelming! Don't touch me you scumbag, I'm a married woman. How could you marry another, Heathcliff?
She dies. Heathcliff dies.

I enjoyed it almost as much as I enjoy reading Shakespeare or those books about the sparkly vampire, the depressed werewolf, and their emo love interest.
Wuthering Heights actually is kind of a mix of MacBeth, Othello, and the Twilight books.
 

Dropkick

the best half of a great wit
Location
Montana
I hate the Lord of the Rings.
Everyone should read The Hobbit before they try reading The Lord of the Rings.
The ring trilogy is too long and involved unless you already like that type of book. The Hobbit eases you into the world of the story(s) and leaves you in a state where the ring books are much more enthralling and enjoyable.
 

Freesia

not my business.
the plots may seem fomulaic now, but back then they would have seemed fresher.

with wuthrn heigts the point of it is it is a wild, savage romance.between them, as wild as the moors themselves. i don't think i qill ever experience anything like that in my life. and it was written by a shy, quiet ministers daughter who had never married or had a partner of her own. what a,wild imagination she must have had : ) .
 

Muggle

Addicted Poster
Regardless of what Wuthering Heights is about, it can't trump the Tenant of Wildfell Hall. It really can't.The reason why it isn't as well known as Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre is that it was suppressed after Anne's death (Charlotte played a large role in that) because it was basically deemed unsuitable and shocking. Of course it was unsuitable and shocking, a women leaving her husband and taking her son with her? Completely unspeakable in Victorian Britain not to mention against the law. Not appropriate reading for women at all. :no:

Anyway, I couldn't stand Wuthering Heights when I read it. The characters just pissed me off.
 

Lord Snot

Parsley Provider
Everyone should read The Hobbit before they try reading The Lord of the Rings.
The ring trilogy is too long and involved unless you already like that type of book. The Hobbit eases you into the world of the story(s) and leaves you in a state where the ring books are much more enthralling and enjoyable.
The reason I haven't read LOTR is because I tried to read The Hobbit, several times, and I can't get through it. Should I even bother trying LOTR?

I'm big fan of Harry Potter, but J K Rowling isn't a terribly good writer.

I don't like Dickens books, because of the writing style and language. Usually I find Victorian writing charming, but not Dickens.

I can't enjoy The Canterbury Tales because I hate reading poetry or anything in rhyme. In modern translations, language is always sacrificed to make it rhyme which is a real shame. Perhaps in the original it flowed well. I would love to find a well translated prose version.
 

Muggle

Addicted Poster
The reason I haven't read LOTR is because I tried to read The Hobbit, several times, and I can't get through it. Should I even bother trying LOTR?
No. Not if you really, really, really want to.

It took me 6 years to finally get through Lord of the Rings. So many failed attempts. I did try to read the Hobbit several times but couldn't do it either.
I couldn't cope with Tolkien's writing style. Then when I was 16 something just clicked and I was able to read it. I only persevered with it because I was determined to read it because of the films. In the summer after my GCSEs I just managed to fly through LotR and then I read the Hobbit straight after it. (Took me until late last year to manage the Silmarillion though :p )

EDIT:

A really nice Tolkien book is Roverandom. I read that when I was 9 and I loved it. Farmer Giles of Ham and Smith of Wootton Major are also really good.

(You can get all three in one volume which is Tales from the Perilous Realm but that also contains Leaf by Niggle ( a fairly good story too), The Adventures of Tom Bombadil which are a load of poems of which only two are to do with Tom Bombadil (he's a character in Fellowship of the Ring. Omitted from the films. ) but they are a bit strange. Good but strange. And it also contains On Fairy Stories which is a fairly heavy (but really interesting) essay that Tolkien did on Fairyland. And there also an introduction on it all by Tom Shippey who is one of the most renowned Tolkien author and expert in the world.
So there's no real point getting it unless you really like Tolkien.

You can pick up separate copies (sort of.. Some volumes have two of the stories in them etc) of most of them, and you can definitely get Roverandom by itself.... Before I got Tales from the Perilous Realm I had them all in little books I'd found in charity shops...

I'm big fan of Harry Potter, but J K Rowling isn't a terribly good writer.
Yep! It was fine for the earlier books but with the later books as they got older, it started to grate more. (Probably because I was growing up too :p )
 

Envy

Just lazing around
Location
Sweden
I thought LOTR was pretty easy to get through.

Silmarillion, as noted before, is another story altogether though.
 

Envy

Just lazing around
Location
Sweden
I don't hate him.

His books, while probably not literary wonder-works, were a bit entertaining when I first read them.
 

Lord Snot

Parsley Provider
He's made a fortune from his books, so he's clearly popular.

I think much of the hate you're refrring to may come from hard core Catholics.
But that hate has nothing to do with his lazy reuse of the same plot.
No not from Catholics - people just think he's a terrible writer and as you said, recycles plots. It's a popular opinion among people who read a lot, instead of those who pick up a book every now and then because they've heard of a lot about it. Not being snobby there - neither group are 'better'.
 
Top