Books You Don't Like.

Bittersweet Geek:

Heart-Shaped Box.:

I hated having to read the Odyssey in my freshmen English class; we were supposed to be reading it for our unit ont literary heroes, and a hero's journey and such. But Odysseus wasn't a hero, he was just a time-wasting asshole. I can't remember a single thing he did in that story that can be considered heroic, that he actually did on his own (for christ's sake, he needed help with everything, he was a horrible character).

I agree, plus what type of hero sleeps with a few goddesses/women while his wife was waiting for him? For years I might add.

Edit: Never meant to be rude or anything, just pointing that out.

I had to read the Iliad this summer. And it was all poems and songs. I just abandoned it after 10 pages. >_>

LOTR is boring because Tolkien describes and describes and describes and describes the same thing over and over again. But the plot is lovely.

I didn't like this book I had to do for English.
It was called Talking In Whispers.
So confusing, and the plot line bored me.
I got bored, and all that screamed out was Silver Lion.

PlugInTheHeadphones.:

feltbeats.:

I didn't really like The Giver. I found it quite boring and confusing. And the thought of being one of the fifty conformists of the town gives me the shivers.

I hated The Giver. It gave me the creeps and it was somewhat confusing.

I swear the old man rapes Judas or whatever the fuck the kids name is.

I generally like everything I read because I normally stick to the same topics. It doesn't matter if it's cliche either. I like some cliche books since they make me laugh at how cliche they are yet they still have a topic I love.
To get me to not like a book it must be truly, horribly, bad in my eyes. These are the only ones I can think of;


Twilight. It's demeaning. It dragged on and on. What plot was there? I could and did skip 100 pages and still knew what was happened. That much fluff makes a book horrible. I want to be sucked in and read every little word - not scan through.

The characters weren't original. You can have a cliche plot with original characters. You can still have the beautiful vampires! Everything in that book has already been done before to a T. It may just be that I love The Vampire Chronicles so much and love my vampires having that inner battle like Louis at not taking blood. (You might say Edward has that problem too. Rice did it better. How do I know? A bigger director and actors did her movie. She has more fans - both male, female, young and old). Or evil like Lestat. But I've read other vampire stories that are different and have like them just fine. Twilight never got me even interested (I always finish books no matter how boring they are - just to say I've read it.)

I just don't see how people can say this is the best vampire story they've ever read. It's not a vampire story. Amelia Atwater-Rhodes had vampires that could go into the sun so that's not what bothered me. The Cullens and whoever else was a vampire seemed like normal, outcasted people. It's a simple helpless girl needs a guy to do every little thing for her story. The only reason there were vampires was to attract people who like them. Which I really don't see why people who like vampires would read that story. It's sort of demeaning to vampires too...

Also the fact that Edward seems too cocky and self-centered/full of himself. I hate cocky guys. I hate guys that are full of themselves.

Very Much Enchanted.:

I don't really get the people who don't like Twilight because it hasn't stuck to the normal vampire stories rules. Stephanie Meyer has already said she never even thought about other vampire novels when she wrote it. Why she should have to follow the normal rules? Why can't she make vampires beautiful to draw in their prey rather then complete monsters and make them sparkle in the sunlight? Surely it's a good thing to break out of the box?

Anne Rice did the whole beautiful vampires thing. She's the one to change vampire stories forever really. Hers were the first really popular novels - if not first in general - where vampires were gorgeous. Too gorgeous to be humans (with the dirt not sticking to them, never having to take a shower, always has the flawless skin)yet still fit in with the ability to retract fangs and drew their prey like that.

I'm pretty sure Amelia Atwater-Rhodes had her vampire sparkle in the sunlight, too. To be honest, I forget. It's been years since I've read her series, but I do know the vampires did go into the sun at least once without dying.




To Kill A Mockingbird. Read it for school. I never got into it and I fell asleep reading it once.


Those are the only two I can think of. Like I said - I generally like every book I read in some way or another.

Ichabod Crane.:

Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Bronte. I had to read it in 7th grade lit.

I really love the time period, but I can't stand the book. It didn't pull me in.

I can't even take Twilight. I probably would like it if I wasn't so over publicized. It would probably help if they didn't make t-shirts with Robert Pattinson's (or whatever his name is.) face on them.

I agree with both of those.

We're reading Jane Eyre in literature this year. It's boring me to tears...

I don't like Twilight at all. I read the first book, and didn't like it. It was almost predictable to me, and it seemed too mainstream.

-don't kill me-

the Twilight series and the Uglies books
most of Meg Cabot's books, I like a few of them, though.
I actually hate most books about vampires because they just never really appealed to me
and the whole Harry Potter series. I really appreciate the author and everything (basically because kids that are my age that I know had always hated reading until they started the series) but I can't get into the books.

I don't normally read past the first few chapters if I don't like a book, but I ended up reading Twighlight and Uglies for my friend, and I used to read Meg Cabot books during the hurricanes cause that's all my mom bought me at the time.

Eragon, Anne Rice, Jane Austen, John Steinbeck, the Narnia books...
They're just not my thing. Ever.

The Odyssey. And Perseus.
Maybe I just don't like Greek myths much.
I don't hate them, I just can't really... get into them.

fornication.:

Lady_Of_Stories89:

I probubly will have many people on my back for this one but I really could not get into Anne rice's interview for a vampire......not one of my faves. I got half wat through the book and I got bored Im guessing for me it was the pace of the book and the way every little detail had to be explained to a point were I couldnt take it anymore. Well thats just me.

I never finished that book, I couldn't get past the second chapter.
I have a short attention with books(much like everything else) and I just didn't have the will to get past the boring parts.

If she only had enough detail in there for me to understand it I would have most likely been able to get through it. I got confused at a point then I put it down and never picked it up again.