Top Ten Bad Books Everybody Reads

     I'm following up on a suggestion from a previous post.  Again, this is not a list of the ten worst books ever.  It's a list of the ten books that are most undeservedly popular.  Will I indulge some of my idiosyncrasies here?  Who else will indulge them, if I don't?  So here goes:

10. Mary Shelley, Frankenstein.  Not for the moral, which is actually more conservative than her husband Percy might have preferred, but for the clunky and confused writing.

9. James Joyce, Ulysses.  Yes, I know, it's a work of genius.  Doesn't he say so on every other page?

8. James Heller, Catch-22.  Cute and clever.  Yossarian naked up a tree.  Now I understand Vietnam.

7. Voltaire, Candide.  French stylishness be damned.  Ecrasez l'infame!

6. Theodore Dreiser, Sister Carrie.  All the length and ponderousness of a Russian novel; all the theological and intellectual depth of a Russian tart.

5. Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions.  I loved this book -- when I was thirteen.  So it goes.

4. Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale.  What happens when you smoke that scurf on the tundra instead of eating it.

3. J. D. Salinger, Catcher in the Rye.  I met a lot of preppies at Princeton.  Never saw a single one of them in a field of rye.  I must have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

2. Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto.  I've had to re-read it in the last few weeks.  It makes up for bad economics, bad history, and bad anthropology with prudishness and sheer nastiness.

1. Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet.  If you see yourself at the top of a mountain, know that it was meant to be, and that it was not meant to be.

Comments

[Kamilla]

"Theodore Dreiser, Sister Carrie. All the length and ponderousness of a Russian novel; all the theological and intellectual depth of a Russian tart."

Thank you, Tony! There is nothing like starting the day with a good, hearty laugh.

As to #4, even when I was a rabid Egalitarian, I knew it for the dreck it was. I really don't know how people can continue to read Atwood. I'd rather have a root canal.

Kamilla

[D. Ian Dalrymple]

Frankenstein - Hey, for a young woman who was only 19 when she wrote it, I'd say Mary Shelley did pretty well. Not the most elegant prose in the world, but there's some evocative power in her descriptive passages.

[James Quinby]

I'm going to throw in Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow. I made exactly one attempt to read it a few years ago and couldn't make it through. Sold it on Amazon as "nearly new, read once". I think I really wanted to like it, too.

[Daniel Propson]

Ulysses, Catcher, and Breakfast definitely belong on that list! (Each author was quite skilled, but abominably self-absorbed.)

Mary Shelley was not so skilled. I agree with Ian that she should be given a pass. She wasn't intending to write classic literature; she was letting her imagination loose on paper. It's not gloriously lucid prose, but then again, neither is MacDonald.

[Kamilla]

"It's not gloriously lucid prose"

Isn't that part of the lesson of Frankenstein? Isn't this what happens when your lover passes you around to his friends?

Kamilla

[Thomas]

Anything by Ayn Rand.

[Kevin Jones]

"I loved this book -- when I was thirteen. So it goes."

Vonnegut always seemed perplexed that his fans at his appearances were almost all teenagers and college students. "Where are the old people?" I saw him ask on C-Span once.

[Bill R]

Gee, Tony, if I'd had you for my English prof in college, I doubt I'd be practicing law now. But I'd be having a lot more fun!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>J. D. Salinger, Catcher in the Rye.<<<

Good new, all! I don't know a single teenage boy who wants to be, or even empathizes, with Holden Caufield. I don't know a single teenage girl who considers Holden attractive, or would ever consider going on a date with him. Most consider him a pathetic whiner. Of course, most of the kids with whom I associate are overachieving nerds.

[The Recusant]

Hey, lay off the Hoosiers (Dreiser and Vonnegut). I suppose Lew Wallace (Ben Hur) and Booth Tarkington are next? VBG

[The Recusant]

Hey, east coast guy, lay off the Hoosiers (Theodore Dreiser & Kurt Vonnegut). What, is Booth Tarkington and Lew Wallace (Ben Hur) next on your hit list? VBG

[Rob G]

Any votes for Virginia Woolf's "To The Lighthouse"? This is one 'classic' I found unbearably awful and tedious.

[The Recusant]

Oops...sorry for the double post...my computer apparently doesn't prefer Hoosiers either :-0

[Rob G]

No problem with Hoosiers from this quarter, Recusant. I believe every man ought to read Tarkington's "Penrod" at least once in his lifetime (thanks to Fr. Reardon for the recommendation some years ago!)

[Kamilla]

Rob,

I was thinking of another of hers, "Orlando".

Kamilla

[Rob G]

Kamilla -- after I read 'Lighthouse' I never ventured to try another of hers. Once bitten, twice shy, and all that.

[Maclin Horton]

The thing about Handmaid is that you just know Atwood was desperately passionate about it, speaking some big-time truth to power, and praying to the goddess that she would finish it before they came for her. And all this terror because of...Jerry Falwell? Ronald Reagan? the pro-life movement? This kind of left-wing wallowing in imagined political terror always seems like some weird form of masturbation to me.

I read it on the recommendation of a feminist co-worker whom I liked and didn't want to offend by admitting how bad I thought it was, so I confined myself to suggesting that maybe the paranoia was a bit much. She got a bit huffy.

I confess to having loved Catcher when I was fifteen or so. Haven't read it since but suspect I would still like it. I'll plead guilty to whatever character flaw this reveals. But ok, over-rated.

I forced myself all the way through Gravity's Rainbow after really enjoying The Crying of Lot 49. I remember asking around among friends for someone else who'd read it and could compare notes with me. When I found one, her opinion was "I thought it was a total waste of my time." I couldn't really argue with her, yet I found it intriguing and may read it again someday. But if I die first the omission won't be high on my list of regrets.

I have to put in two good words for Vonnegut: "Harrison Bergeron."

I'm trying to think of a book that should be on the list but can't come up with anything. Something by Saul Bellow, maybe? I don't see what the fuss is all about there. Philip Roth? I read a big chunk of Portnoy's Complaint in a magazine when it came out and couldn't believe the praise it was getting.

[cnb]

This list is certainly easier to populate than was the previous one. We all know there are plenty of books that are undeservedly popular. I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Esolen's choice of Catch-22. Had it been a quarter its length, it could have been a great little novella; as it is, it's a tedious mess.

It occurs to me that the LibraryThing Most Popular Book List might be a good place to hunt for undeservedly popular titles. The list is not based on sales, but on what people -- rather bookish people in this case -- actually have on their shelves at home. The community is by now large enough (over 20 million books catalogued) that it probably gives a fairly good idea of how popular these books actually are (again, in a fairly bookish population).

Looking at the Top 20 on that list, I would immediately identify The Great Gatsby, which I found an incredible let-down, and Life of Pi, for which I just don't understand what the fuss is all about.

[James Kabala]

Do you people still read Gibran's The Prophet? On the rare occasions that I see it mentioned, it is usually with a gloss along the lines of "a badly-written book popular in the 1920s." I would think probably more people read (or at least are aware of) The Faerie Queene, Reflections on the Revolution in France, Martin Chuzzlewit, and The Idiot.

[GL]

Anything by Ayn Rand.

I despise everything this woman stood for, but was attracted to her world view as a teenager and young adult. Fortunately, I grew up; many of those influenced by her writing have not.

[Will]

On a somewhat different tack, I'd nominate The Celestine Prophecy, which somehow sold MILLIONS of copies. I read that book when it first came out in order to discuss it with a New Age acquaintance of mine, and could not help but think Irenaeus of Lyon would have quickly given The Celestine Prophecy its just desserts.

[Antonia]

Anything at all by Thomas Mann, one of the most boring writers I have ever inflicted upon myself. (What idiot decides on the list of "great writers," anyway?) I waded through his Joseph trilogy, and it cured me forever of finishing a book just because I had started it.

Anything by Ayn Rand (truly evil worldview), or Virginia Woolf.

For sci-fi, anything by Arthur Clarke, Frank Herbert, and Robert Heinlein. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land deserves special mention both for a really silly view of reality, and for its incredibly puerile lewdness.

[Kirk]

Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises anyone?

Regarding Catch-22, I read this book when I was about 20, and loved it. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of renting and watching the movie as soon as I finished the book. Ruined the whole thing. I'll never do that again!

[Ethan Cordray]

Ah, I've read-or tried to read--nearly everything on this list. Dr. Esolen is, as usual, basically right about most of them. Some do deserve a bit more commentary, though.

10. Frankenstein certainly could have used some editing (if only the second-wave Romantic ethos had allowed such a thing), but, as others have said, I think it draws out the dark side of Percy Shelly's ideology better than he--or, it seems, his wife--realized. I find it one of the best examples of horror as a proper but attenuated moral reaction to evil. I wrote a term paper on this once, in which I wasted about ten pages clumsily trying to write that last sentence.

9. I have not read, and never intend to read, Ulysses. Lit professors like it because it keeps them in business.

8./5. I think both Catch-22 and Breakfast of Champions appeal mostly to the male adolescent mind. I'm sure that most of those who hold them in high regard do so out of fond memory. I have those memories too, but they don't give me any inclination to go back and reread them, nor to consider them "great".

7. I didn't finish Candide. Pangloss is a good character/idea, but he's about the only thing I find memorable. The plot is nothing to speak of. It would have been a much better satire if it had been a murder mystery. Maybe someone should rewrite it that way.

6. Sister Carrie is an unreadable brick. I got through about chapter three. The only thing that baffles me more than why Theodore Dreiser is still considered important is how anyone could have liked his books in the first place.

4. I've not read The Handmaid's Tale, but I rather liked Atwood's Oryx and Crake, a post-apocalyptic about the perfection of bio-engineering. It seems to generally avoid overt ideology, mostly by being mercilessly pessimistic.

3. I first read Catcher in the Rye about two years ago, around age 21. I liked it a lot, but I didn't like Holden. I felt sorry for him. I read it as an excellent satirical portrait of a very immature fellow. Some people seem to think Holden is some kind of hero, a view which I cannot understand for the life of me how one would extract from the book.

2. The Communist Manifesto has great first and last sentences. The middle bits are forgettable.

1. Thanks to Dr. Esolen, Alan Jacobs, and Anthony Daniels over at The New Criterion, I believe I've been thoroughly inoculated against Gibran.

[Antonia]

Another truly nauseating book: Lady Chatterley's Lover. It seems to be popular among literati, librarians, and members of the ACLU, as it is always raised as an example of a "great" book being banned.

[Tony Esolen]

Guys,

OK, now I will make a confession. I too dislike Virginia Woolf and won't read another novel after having to put up with Lighthouse. Nor was I all that fond of The Sun Also Rises. In both cases, I still have my doubts -- maybe there's something there that I'm not sensitive to.

All right, now that I am in confessional mode:

Top ten books that I know I should like but don't (ranked according to the gap between how much I should like them and how much they leave me cold). Sometimes I like other works by the same author (Goethe, Pirandello, Hemingway)...

10. Pirandello, Six Characters in Search of an Author.
9. Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.
8. Walker Percy, Lancelot.
7. Goethe, Faust. (My bad, my bad, my most grievoulsy bad!!)
6. Joyce, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
5. Conrad, Nostromo.
4. Hardy, The Return of the Native.
3. Woolf, To the Lighthouse.
2. James, Portrait of a Lady.
1. Flaubert, Madame Bovary.

[cnb]

Antonia wrote:
"Anything at all by Thomas Mann..."

I am tempted to pronounce an anathema, but instead let me encourage you to try again. The Joseph tetralogy is not the place to begin. His novels The Magic Mountain and Doctor Faustus are incredibly good: intellectual weight, moral seriousness, and literary grace. I also recommend The Holy Sinner, a witty re-telling of a medieval legend. He wrote a number of excellent short stories as well; everyone reads "Death in Venice", but I would suggest "A Man and his Dog" (if you like dogs) and, especially, "Tonio Kruger".

[Clifford Simon]

In the "undeservedly" popular category:

Romeo and Juliet.

Huckleberry Finn.

[Antonia]

Re Thomas Mann
CNB wrote: "I am tempted to pronounce an anathema, but instead let me encourage you to try again."

Like everybody, I have read Death in Venice. I didn't like that either. Holy Sinners sounds like it might be interesting, but then again, so did Joseph. But since you say that it is witty, which would definitely make it NOT like Joseph, I might try it. Thanks.

[James A. Altena]

As a teenager, I loathed "Catcher in the Rye" and "Portrait of the Arist" with a passion I can scarcely describe. (One high school Enlgish teacher told me that Joyce was the greatest influence on English literature in the 20th c. I mentioned that to another Enlgish teacher, who grimaced and said, "Oh, dear God, I hope not.")

As for Ayn Rand, I will never forget when I once glanced through the weekly movies section of a TV guide in the Chicago Tribune during the early 1980s, which offered one-sentence descriptions of the films. I practically split my gut when the reviewer noted with devastatingly dry irony of the movie version of "The Fountainhead" with Gary Cooper that it "has a certain sincerity and conviction decidedly lacking in the original."

Clifford, you're 100% wrong about "Huckleberry Finn." It truly deserves its status as the greatest American novel.

I tried but never made any headway with Thomas Mann, or German literature in general (unlike German classical music).

For overrated, how about that affliction in high school literature courses, "Silas Marner" by George Elliot?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>For overrated, how about that affliction in high school literature courses, "Silas Marner" by George Elliot?<<<

Eppy in de toal hole!

[Judy Warner]

Thanks for the Anthony Daniels link, Ethan. It is very satisfying to read such a thorough debunking of a writer I detest. Just a couple of slivers:

I quote at random:

Dip your oar, my beloved,
And let me touch my strings.

It is impossible to plumb the shallows of this.

And --

Let me leave you with a typical Gibran aphorism:

The flowers of spring are winter’s dreams related at the breakfast table of the angels.
If that doesn’t nauseate you, you must subsist on a diet of marrons glacés: though there is, in fact, a big difference between Kahlil Gibran and marrons glacés. It is that the first mouthful of marrons glacés is delicious.

As for Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain is excellent and I've never read anything else by him, so he remains high in my estimation. I agree with James about Huckleberry Finn -- great. I am glad Tony mentioned Candide, which I read in high school and detested. I didn't really understand what it was satirizing, but Voltaire seemed too pleased with himself and the book seemed silly.

I never could read anything else by Joyce, but I quite enjoyed Dubliners when I read it in freshman English.

I'll also agree with James about Silas Marner, but everything else by Eliot is a delight. I've always found Henry James more trouble than he's worth.

[Bill R]

“One high school Enlgish teacher told me that Joyce was the greatest influence on English literature in the 20th c.” James Altena

Alas, James, I fear this English teacher was right. Unfortunately. When I tried to read a few pages of Joyce, I had the uncomfortable feeling that he was putting me on. I think I was right.

Ayn Rand—the Philip Pullman of her day. “Science fiction” for radical libertarians. She could write, but you felt vaguely unclean after you read her.

“For overrated, how about that affliction in high school literature courses, "Silas Marner" by George Elliot?”

Right up there with “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” for mawkish sentimentality.

[Bill R]

"1. Flaubert, Madame Bovary."

Satan recast as a small-town Frenchwoman.

[bonobo]

6. Theodore Dreiser, Sister Carrie. All the length and ponderousness of a Russian novel; all the theological and intellectual depth of a Russian tart.

Reminds me of this passage from P. G. Wodehouse, "The Clicking of Cuthbert":

Vladimir specialized in grey studies of hopeless misery, where nothing happened till page three hundred and eighty, when the moujik decided to commit suicide. It was tough going for a man whose deepest reading hitherto had been Vardon on the Push-Shot

[D. Ian Dalrymple]

Ayn Rand (probably Atlas Shrugged) might fit on this list - though I'm not sure it qualifies since she's not often lauded in the academy.

DH Lawrence also definitely belongs on this list. I'm surprised you didn't include Women in Love or , Mr Esolen.

Antonia - Please reconsider Mann. is just a middling book in my opinion, but The Magic Mountain is wonderful.

Huck Finn is a masterpiece. I can agree with you that far, Mr Altena. But my vote for the greatest American novel is Moby Dick.

[D. Ian Dalrymple]

Apologies for my bad comment editing....

The other discreditable Lawrence book I intended to mention was Lady Chatterly's Lover.

The middling Mann was The Holy Sinner.

[Kamilla]

Tony,

I heartily agree as to Lancelot. I read it at the inisistence of a friend who was a Percy fan. I think it was meant to be therapy of some sort for me - could never figure out the attraction or why he wanted so badly for me to read that paricular one.

Kamilla

[Neil Gussman]

How could you omit Jonathan Livingston Seagull?

[DGP]

>>For sci-fi, anything by Arthur Clarke, Frank Herbert, and Robert Heinlein.

Hey! I liked *Dune.*

>>On a somewhat different tack, I'd nominate The Celestine Prophecy, which somehow sold MILLIONS of copies.

Well, if you're going by sheer numbers, there are a lot of others -- *Da Vinci Code* springs to mind. But I think the term "popular" here was meant to include the impression that the book has literary merit. No one seems to think that of DVC or *Celestine Prophecy.*

[Rhill]

Nobody's brought up the completely egregious Last of the Mohicans.

Even the horribly disappointing Daniel Day Lewisifcation of this novel is actually better than the book.

Mark Twain's essay "The Literary Offenses of James Fenimore Cooper" is all that you really need read.

[Nick Milne]

Adding enthusiastic support to the condemnation of Women in Love, The Prophet and Jonathan Livingstone Seagull.

The Sun Also Rises has the distinction of being the only book I've ever thrown to the ground in disgust, never to pick up again. It happened when Brett says she's leaving for a very long time, much to my exhausted relief, only to return on the next page. That was the end of that.

Others to contend with...

Samuel Richardson, Pamela. A long-winded, awkward, boring, preposterous piece of tripe. But it occasioned Henry Fielding's Shamela, so it can't be all bad.

Arthur Miller, Death of a Salesman. Is there some secret American reason why this is held to be so good? For my own part I simply can't understand it. (I do not use "American" as a pejorative thing, here, but rather to indicate the awareness that there might be something in the work that doesn't especially make sense to a Canadian in particular or non-Americans in general)

John Ball, In the Heat of the Night. Heavy-handed and tiresome. If it isn't being taught anymore, never mind, but still...

John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman. The sort of playfulness Fowles engages in is excellent in and of itself, but not when he's doing it.

Most (but not all) poetry that could be described as originating from the Imagist movement.

Maya Angelou.

And Ulysses does not belong on this list.

And (finally), Dr. Esolen, I'd very much like to hear your complaints against Madame Bovary.

[Maclin Horton]

I like The Sun Also Rises; I don't think Hemingway is the great writer he was once thought to be, but I think this is solid work, albeit with a sort of sentimentality, American tough-guy style, about it. Next to The Old Man and the Sea, the best of Hemingway, in my opinion. But then Old Man is probably as much as you really need. All of what's good in Hemingway is there, and none of what's bad.

I am a big Walker Percy admirer but would have to agree that Lancelot is less than most of his other novels. It's uncharacteristically dark, as was apparently the case with Percy himself at the time.

And I did like Ulysses the one time I read it, in grad school, with the help of a guidebook called The Bloomsday Book. I think it's a genuinely great achievement. But I'm not sure I'll ever go to the trouble of reading it again.

[Ethan Cordray]

Mr. Milne, I actually do think there's a uniquely American reason Death of a Salesman is well-regarded. To me, it seems to be about quintessentially American themes: excessive competitiveness, the hatred of ordinariness, the anxiety of feeling that one's identity is dependent on what one does rather than who one is. I'm not surprised to hear that such things might not resonate as much with other national cultures, even our close northern neighbors.

[Ethan Cordray]

Mr. Horton, as to Ulysses, I have a rather strong aversion to reading any book that requires a companion guide. Maybe that's why I'm a Protestant :-) (This is only a joke, not an invitation to thread hijacking! Please no one follow up on this!)

[Bill R]

"Mr. Horton, as to Ulysses, I have a rather strong aversion to reading any book that requires a companion guide. Maybe that's why I'm a Protestant :-)"

Such as a study Bible, Ethan? ;-)

[Ethan Cordray]

>>For sci-fi, anything by Arthur Clarke, Frank Herbert, and Robert Heinlein. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land deserves special mention both for a really silly view of reality, and for its incredibly puerile lewdness.<<

Antonia, I've actually enjoyed works by all three of those authors, though the vast majority of Clarke and Herbert do match your evaluation.

For Clarke, I liked 2001 but not really any of its sequels, and Childhood's End is an incredibly contrived exercise in anti-humanism.

For Herbert, I greatly enjoyed Dune, and then I made it about half a chapter into the first sequel before I gave up, realizing that he had apparently decided to abandon the idea of creating sympathetic characters.

As to Heinlein: he varies greatly from book to book. Starship Troopers is a bona fide classic that should be taught in schools. Stranger in a Strange Land is male sexual fantasy transmuted into cheesy utopianism (rather like Percy Shelly's ideas, actually). The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is about half and half of each. Citizen of the Galaxy is also very good, as is The Puppet Masters and several of his juvenile novels. In general, earlier Heinlein is less flaky than later Heinlein.

It would be nice to have a dedicated Sci-Fi thread. Given how much Science Fiction proceeds from materialism or attacks Christianity, it would be fun to have a list of works that come from a Christian foundation, or at least take it seriously.

[Peter Gardner]

The SF thread idea sounds wonderful; could we wait until after finals week, please? Mere Comments is tempting enough as it is...

[David Pence]

A sci-fi thread would be great. And while we're at it might I suggest as a further list: Guilty Pleasures, or Pure Trash That I Have Loved. It gives away my age but I would admit Mika Waltari's The Egyptian into that particular Hall of Shame.

[James A. Altena]

I agree with Mr. Horton and Ethan re: "The Sun Also Rises" and "Death of a Salesman" (though for the latter I prefer "The Crucible," perhaps because of the Pulitzer Prize winning opera made of it by composer Robert Ward; I saw a superb staging of the latter by the Chicago Opera Theatre, the local "second string" opera company behind Lyric Opera of Chicago, some 20 years ago). [There is also Carlisle Floyd's fine operatic adaptation of Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men", though Floyd's opera "Susannah", for which he wrote his own libretto, remains *the* great American opera.]

I've never read "Moby Dick", probably becasue I'm waiting for a translation from sailorese to English. :-)

I actually used "Candide" and "Uncle Tom's Cabin" as supplemental textbooks in freshman history survey courses I taught. Neither is great literature, but both make very good windows into their times and milieus. (I also used Boethius' "Consolation of Philosophy" -- I was greatly surprised at the enthusiastic response to that work -- "The Federalist Papers", and Jane Addams' "Twenty Years at Hull House". Had a class not been cancelled due to lack of enrollment, Machiavelli's "The Prince" would have joined that list.)

I'm afraid I'll leave the sci-fi thread to others. The genre has always bored me almost to tears.

Here'a another candidate for overrated, one that will get me into trouble -- anything by William Faulkner.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>A sci-fi thread would be great<<<

But please, call it "SF", otherwise everyone will think you are a Trekkie.

[Rob G]

Here's a vote in defense of 'Silas Marner.' I didn't like it when I read it in high school, but when I reread it a few years ago I found it to be quite good. Then again, I am unapologetically an old softie.

As far as Hardy goes, I've read all the major novels and most of the short stories, as well as a fair amount of his poetry. I'd disagree with Tony on "The Return of the Native," and replace it with "Jude the Obscure," with its awkward combination of OTT mawkishness and Voltairesque anti-clericalism. I can understand how it may have been a challenging and 'dangerous' book when it first appeared, but now it just all seems rather silly. IMO, with "Tess of the D'Urbervilles" Hardy covered the same themes much more successfully, in part because he was far less heavy-handed with them.

[Bobby Winters]

>>I like The Sun Also Rises; I don't think Hemingway is the great writer he was once thought to be, but I think this is solid work, albeit with a sort of sentimentality, American tough-guy style, about it. Next to The Old Man and the Sea, the best of Hemingway, in my opinion. But then Old Man is probably as much as you really need. All of what's good in Hemingway is there, and none of what's bad.<<

"...his hands had deep creased scars from handling heavy fish on the cords. They were as olds as erosions in a fishless desert."

One of my personal favorites.

[Rob G]

"Old Man..." was the book that introduced to me the pleasures of reading. I read it in junior high, loved it, and have been an avid reader ever since. I had read books before that, obviously, but had never really enjoyed the act of reading itself until then.

[Peter Gardner]

I say SF and I'm a Trekkie!

I didn't care for Tess of the D'Urbervilles, but mainly because it frustrates my engineer mind to have that straightforward of a problem go by without yelling the obvious solution out to the characters.

[Rob G]

Which problem, Peter?

[W.E.D. Godbold]

The action in Starship Troopers is decent (I'm reading it for the first time now), but the "scientific" morality that has solved all problems is really lame and awfully preachy (and, when you take it to its logical endpoint, inhuman). Heinlein wrote it in 1959 so I suppose he can be forgiven for falling hook, line, and sinker for the "promises" of logical positivism. He also has a goofy (to me) planet where "evolution" doesn't occur because it's protected from cosmic rays or some such. I don't like SF that treats of biological topics because they don't get their biology right. Which then makes me wonder if they get any of their science right and it just sounds good 'cause I'm ignorant, too.

[Tom]

It's hard to imagine any worse, widely-studied writing than that of Virginia Woolf. No one takes The Prophet seriously, but page after tedious page is churned out about this hideous woman.

And let us not forget her reaction to T.S. Eliot's conversion, recounted in one of her letters: “I have had the most shameful and distressing interview with dear Tom Eliot, who may be called dead to us all from this day forward. He has become an Anglo-Catholic believer in God and immortality, and goes to Church…there’s something obscene in a living person sitting by the fire and believing in God”. Woolf also said that, because of his faith, Eliot "had less credibility than a corpse.” (See also, Literary Converts, Pearce)

Fascinating, how she repeatedly equates belief with death, when she willingly embraced the latter.

[windmilltilter]

James-
I just read Moby Dick this summer, seeing its absence as a major gap in my education. As for the "sailorese", give it it a bit. I've heard people complain about these chapters, but they pace the novel brilliantly, and I found them fascinating in their detail.

Never was much of a fan of Billy Budd though I wouldn't say it was awful.

Dr. E-
I'm with you on Flaubert's Madame Bovary-the only book Ive ever read with hateful antagonist, but no protagonist.

Anyone else wither at Wuthering Heights?
Or find unbearable Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being?

Also, a few detested poets: anyone from the Beat movement, H.D., and the majority of Wallace Stevens.

[Kevin]

Whitman, of course, would be the worst poet who is typically venerated as a knee-jerk reaction.


Here's a good idea for another thread, though: How about books that are actually good but that are routinely denigrated because it's chic to do so? And I don't mean just those books the lot who would pretend to like Whitman do so with; what about those "our" type would/do?

[GL]

I really enjoyed The Old Man and the Sea. I can't bear to read anything else the man wrote. I find reading most of his works painful.

[Don R]

Alan Jacobs wrote a review of Gibran's Collected Works that's in the Nov. 2007 issue of First Things. It's one of the few First Things articles I've read that made me laugh out loud.

[Scott Walker]

Don't be so hard on Heinlein's 1959 take on slow evolution on Sanctuary; he was likely faithfully reflecting the contemporary science. It's possible to enjoy "Between Planets" or "Podkayne Of Mars" even though we now know that Mars has no canals and Venus is not a Jurassic swamp of a planet. Speaking of SF, does nobody here read Larry Niven? The Known Space series of short stories is first rate. Yes, lets have an SF thread!

[James Kabala]

I would add The Bell Jar (or anything by Sylvia Plath, really).

[Kevin]

Thank goodness I have only read one of those!

Unfortunately, that situation probably results more from my lack of exposure to "English & literature" departments, as a result of being an engineer - I usually get to read just what I want to - which may not be to my ultimate benefit either!

[Peter Gardner]

Also, with regards to the evolutionless planet, the information is given from the perspective of a soldier with a high school education, and no indication of any particular interest in biology. Considering how casually the information is given, it's hardly presented as precise science, even within the novel's universe.

[Michael Prince]

Three words: On The Road

[Nick]

Ethan,

I'm surprised you liked Catcher in the Rye. I read it in HS (all those long years ago) and my memory of it is limited. That is, I remember our English teacher leading us to the quad so that we could read in the outdoors and me surrounding myself with a few girls that I read the story to. They thought it was funny that I edited the book for them. I thought it was great that they were willing to listen to me. The story though? Other than a vague recollection that Holden was a twit nothing stuck. Good stories should stick even if girls are causing a distraction. Its a rule to live by.

Dr Esolen,

Someone else commented on Romeo and Juliet. I'm a little surprised this didn't make it in your top ten. Is there anything redeemable about it? Stupid teenager A falls for stupid teenager B. Bad things ensue. Stupid Teenagers eventually botch a plan to fool parents and proceed to a really stupid double suicide. Every time I'm forced to sit through a production of the play a really evil part of me thinks, "good riddance, the world is a better place without you".

James,

You should give SF a try. If you could give me a hint as to what you've read and disliked I'm sure more than a few of us could give good suggestions. Your general fiction tastes seem to be pretty close to mine so I might be able to help.

Antonia,

As others have pointed out you're probably reading "Older Heinlein". He was, sadly, a product of the sixties and libertarianism. Therefore, as he adopts the drugs and sex culture of that time his writing declines. Starship Troopers is good in that it discusses duty and an interesting take the citizens role in government. The book differs from Heinlein's discussion of it later in life and it might be worth it to read up on the differences between the two.

[Anne]

Anything by Anne Sexton or Tennessee Williams.

[Joe Long]

"As others have pointed out you're probably reading 'Older Heinlein'. He was, sadly, a product of the sixties and libertarianism. Therefore, as he adopts the drugs and sex culture of that time his writing declines..."

Even worse than a "product" of the sixties, he was a product of earlier, saner decades - a good, forthright libertarian American, whose later writing demonstrates what excesses that philosophy can lead to outside of its political milieu and uninformed by a bleak, Christian view of human nature. I don't think he ever adopted the drug culture; and his sexual libertarianism was "free love" more like the wistful "why-must-there-be-jealousy-in-human-nature?" variety from nineteenth-century cults, than the "get stoned and screw"-Woodstock type. Perhaps more pathetic, in its way, but surely less modern.

I vote for the SF thread, too. And I am very glad I suggested this one, for Dr. Esolen's dismissals of those ten books are absolutely terrific.

RHILL is very wrong about "Last of the Mohicans": it may be bad (I read it young, and loved it then - to the point where I read the superior prequel "The Deerslayer" and the laborious sequels, too...) and Mark Twain certainly did a job on it - but even if it was ten times worse than I remember, it deserved better than to become a "Vietnam Antiwar Movie Set in the French And Indian War, Starring A Romance Novel Cover Model". (Though Chingachgook had one really good two-handed war-club fight scene...)

I told a high school English teacher than when Thomas Hardy was writing, exciting, adventurous things were happening everywhere in the entire world except one small section of England where he set all of his stories - and I insisted on the superiority of Rudyard Kipling. I suppose I could be forgiven for being such a Phillistine in junior high - if I didn't still hold the same opinion today. But it was "Tess" who did me in, and who will be my nomination for inclusion on the worst-most-popular list.

[Rob G]

Highly unusual for me, Joe, but I'll have to disagree with you not once, but twice here! I've already mentioned "Tess" above (I've read it three times); and although I realize the film of Last of the Mohicans is only very loosely based on the book, I think the movie is quite good -- maybe not as an adaptation, but as a 'stand alone' adventure pic.

[Bobby Winters]

>>
Someone else commented on Romeo and Juliet. I'm a little surprised this didn't make it in your top ten. Is there anything redeemable about it? Stupid teenager A falls for stupid teenager B. Bad things ensue. Stupid Teenagers eventually botch a plan to fool parents and proceed to a really stupid double suicide. Every time I'm forced to sit through a production of the play a really evil part of me thinks, "good riddance, the world is a better place without you".<<

My wife hates the play for the same reasons. When what's-his-name died in the middle and pronounced a "curse on both your houses" I lost interest.

[Michael]

Mr. Winters,

That's because Mercutio (the "what's-his-name" in question) is the only character that made the play remotely interesting. Tragic love stories on screen are members of base pulp today, but somehow Romeo and Juliet is supposed to be better? It belongs on Lifetime.

I will give it this, though: Shakespearian dialogue is leaps and bounds ahead of Danielle Steele.

For the record, I find Baz Luhrman's rendition on screen (Romeo + Juliet), set in the modern day, starring Leonardo Dicaprio and Claire Danes, to be quite good...more for Luhrman's interpretive flair than Shakespeare's play itself.

A horrible book that everyone reads? I'll have to get home from work and take a gander at my bookshelf to assess the situation.

[maria horvath]

I'd like to throw into the pile any fiction (and non-fiction, as well) by Sartre, and the novels of John Steinbeck, Hermann Hesse and those fashionable trendy Brits like Martin Amis and Ian McEwan.

Oh, and most if not all the books pushed by Oprah, especially the touchy-feely woman-as-victim sagas.

[Michael]

Ms. Horvath--

I'm not sure if I'd throw Steinbeck in its entirety on the pile; Travels with Charlie was On the Road, except 10x better. I could do without The Grapes of Wrath, but I found Of Mice and Men to be a good little novella.

Books on my shelf I just spied: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig, Like Water for Chocolate by Laura Esquivel, and Lost Horizon by James Hilton. Oh, and London's White Fang, which has nothing on The Call of the Wild.

Mr. Altena--

Hard SF or science fantasy? As you know from our tiff regarding Star Wars on a thread that took a right turn to talking about movies, I'm a science fantasy fan, but there is a considerable difference between that genre and good, hard SF like Ray Bradbury and Aldous Huxley. I don't know how you made it through without being remotely intrigued by Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451, to say nothing of Bradbury's Martian Chronicles or Something Wicked this Way Comes.

Herbert's series falls somewhere in between hard SF and science fantasy, as does most of Heinlein's work and Lewis' Space Trilogy. The book has been mentioned before, and I honestly think you'd find the prose style a bit distasteful, but Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash is about the only modern SF novel I like, set in the near-future and, like a good SF should, building upon present techologies to envision how they affect our living and society.

[Jerry]

I have to say that I like Catcher in the Rye, and yes maybe that does betray a character flaw on my part. I can't help it. If for no other reason, I think the narration is very funny. He is continually passing judgment on the world and everybody around him based on his own skewed standards. Who can't relate with the feeling that you may be the only person in the world who isn't a phoney? Of course that is a completely unrealistic and unhealthy attitude, but it is entertaining the way he complains about it. I don't know. There was a good article on The Catcher in the Rye in Touchstone a while back.Check it out

[Nick]

Micheal,

It may be argued that Mercutio is the only character in the whole play other than the nurse. At this point I'm thinking about demanding the entry on the top ten. It has got to be more widely read and worse than Frankenstein.

[Clifford Simon]

James,
Well, you ain't in trouble with me. In high school, I spied a book on my English teacher's shelf, appearing to be an anthology: "The Best of Bad Faulkner." Naturally I didn't touch it. (We had to read "The Sound and the Fury" unabridged.)

--

I think I was the one who mentioned R&J... The poetry (sonnets in dialog, et cetera) is worth it, from the standpoint of a technical accomplishment, if we agree that the plot has nothing especially worthwhile about it. Shakespeare was in the business of entertaining the groundlings, after all. My point is that Shakespeare wrote so much else, but for so many, he is foremost associated with Romeo and Juliet.

[Tony Esolen]

Nick,

About Madame Bovary: I just can't stand reading works in which everybody is either wicked or weak or stupid. Vanity Fair is about as far as I can go down that road -- I liked the novel a great deal, but I haven't read it again (though I have seen an excellent BBC film version of it recently).

Clifford and Nick,

I'll disagree with you heartily about R & J, and about Shakespeare's desire to please the groundlings. You want silly shtick aimed at the groundlings, check out The Jew of Malta. Show me a single scene that people say is tossed in for the groundlings, or even a forty or fifty line passage, and I'll show you five or six things going on in there that relate in five or six ways to five or six of the play's main issues. Shakespeare never digresses ...

Romeo and Juliet is not a play celebrating young love; it is a play working one of the central themes in all of Shakespeare's plays -- I mean the relationship between time and the moral order. On some level we have to like the young 'uns, even as we recognize the silliness (sometimes sweet silliness, but more often dangerous silliness) of their young passions. Much to blame are all those around them in Verona -- and I don't just mean that the Montagues and the Capulets are feuding. It's more than that -- it's something that we moderns have an extraordinarily difficult time imagining, that one's sin disrupts a natural order, that it puts one strangely out of time, always too early or too late, always cutting against the grain of time and eternity. Friar Lawrence attempts -- he's wrong to do so -- to use the weapons of disorder against disorder, and fails terribly, because of an "untimely" quarantine; but he's prompted to do that because of the haste of Capulet himself. The old man tells Paris he has to win Juliet's love -- Paris wants the marriage to be in five minutes -- and before the scene is over he's disowning Juliet for not wanting to marry the boy in, well, five minutes. THAT issue is at the heart of the play -- as it is also in, for instance, The Winter's Tale and The Tempest.

[David Fischler]

I'm actually kind of surprised no one has mentioned Finnegan's Wake. As I commented on my own blog, I have no patience with a book that requires a 12:1 ratio of reading time between annotations and text in order to make the slightest sense out of any of it.

[Ethan Cordray]

I said "Sci-Fi" because I meant "Science Fiction," not fantasy, which I wish would be more commonly distinguished from its sibling. I dislike "SF" as a general catch-all term, even when it's bacronymed as "Speculative Fiction." I prefer "Imaginative fiction" to distinguish such things from "realistic fiction." I also happen to prefer imaginative fiction to realistic fiction in most respects. I mostly want a Sci-Fi thread so that I can praise The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell, and a fantasy thread so that I can extol Gormenghast by Mervyn Peake.

While I don't think Romeo and Juliet is at all a bad play, it's far from Shakespeare's best, and it's definitely over-taught, so I would say it qualifies for this sort of list (though not, I dare say, for the top ten).

As to a few of the other topics raised, in no particular order:

Faulkner varies in quality. If you don't like his novels, try his short story "Dry September." The idiosyncrasies of Faulknerian style are much more effective over a short stretch.

Jerry, the dear friend who recommended Catcher in the Rye to me (without her urging I would not have picked it up) also found it hilarious. My theory is that the two possible mature reactions to Holden are laughter and pity. The book will be a disappointment if one goes into it expecting to feel something more than these, such as admiration.

Michael Prince, you're right about On the Road. It reads as though it was written on a continuous roll of paper in a single three week binge. :-) One goodthing about it: it made the beatnick life look sufficiently tedious that it dampened my adolescent yearning to jump a freight train somewhat (though not entirely, even to this day...).

Kevin, you are quite right about Whitman. What a hack.

Another one to add: The Awakening by Kate Chopin. Another wannabe feminist masterpiece that makes you hate the protagonist.Iin 10th grade I actually once got an A on a paper trashing it.

[Nick Milne]

"Also, a few detested poets: [...] H.D."

Even Trilogy?

"Nick,

About Madame Bovary: I just can't stand reading works in which everybody is either wicked or weak or stupid."

Why not?

[NJI]

Nick Milne, if it helps any, I'm American and I despised Death of a Salesman.

"Top ten books that I know I should like but don't."

Good idea, Dr. Esolen... you should start a confession thread. We can console each other for our poor taste. :-D I have to say it's nice to know I'm not the only one on your numbers 1, 3, 4, and 9, although I'd have to replace some of the others - especially Goethe - with Conrad's Heart of Darkness, Shakespeare's Othello, and Tolstoy's War and Peace - although I'm not sure if I should apologize for that last, since I've never been able to understand why 1500+ pages of bad soap opera is considered a work of art. (Read it last year and was afraid to try any more Tolstoy... fortunately Anna Karenina cured me.)

Kafka's Metamorphosis belongs on one of these lists... I just haven't decided if I despise it for good reasons or not. (I'm leaning towards "I have good reasons - it's terrible.")

[James A. Altena]

Michael,

Your query on sci-fi and SF deserves a more detailed response, which I'll give in due course.

NJI,

Alas, if you think that "War & Peace" is merely "1500+ pages of bad soap opera," you may be incurable. Just as Huck Finn deserves its status as the greatest American novel, W&P deserves its status as the greatest novel by anyone, period. (Admittedly one could do without some of Tolstoy's tendentious efforts at historical essays interspersed. Ditto for their even worse counterparts in Hugo's "Les Miserables.") It may help to have read it (as I first did, in fifth grade) in an abridged version (about 40%) of the original before tackling the whole enchilada. (My unabridged edition has a helpful 32-page pamphlet with all the family trees and a chapter by chapter outline of who appears in which chapters. Can't keep the players straight without a scorecard....)

W&P always brings to mind the famous misplaced grammatical referent in one English translation (from the final chapter): "Natasha removed her breast from the baby's mouth, handed it to the nurse, and walked out the door." :-) !!!

We are likewise of different minds about "Heart", "Otello", and "Metamorphosis" (the opening sentence of which is priceless in its shocking simplicity).

I join Tony's defense of R&J, though I'm not particularly fond of it. (Lear is my candidate for single greatest original work of fiction in English in any genre.) In the category of works I should like but don't (this will scandalize Tony) I'd have to put all of the so-called "pastoral" plays. But it's also been almost 30 years since I read them, so I should give them another chance.

Jumping tracks, in the catgory of great music I should like but don't, place Verdi's "Un Ballo in Maschera", Rachmaninov's 2nd Symphony, Stravinsky's "Le Sacre du Printemps" (ugh!!!), and almost anything by Chopin.

[NJI]

I don't know... I may have to just be uncurable, then. :-D I've read it twice, Norton Critical Edition and an unabridged translation I picked up at my local library, and it just kills me.

As far as Heart and Othello... I don't think we're of different minds, as I recognize that they're both very good... particularly Othello. I just have a hard time reading them... they don't grab me the way Lear does. (And I'll second your candidacy of "single greatest original work of fiction in English in any genre" without hesitation.)

Metamorphosis... the opening sentence is, indeed, priceless... but I struggle finding much else of value in the book. Feel free to point me towards some items of interest... I own the book, I'm willing to re-read most things, and you've got my e-mail. :-D

I'm right with you on Rachmaninov's Second. But Chopin... alas, my friend, I fear you may be as uncurable in music as I am in literature. :-D

[Daniel Propson]

The Metamorphosis, despite its limitations, is a very fascinating story. If you look closely, the story is richly textured, like all great literature. My English translation reads, in the final line, that Gregor "took from his nostrils" his last breath, a perplexing phrase, considering that bugs don't have nostrils.

As for Romeo and Juliet, I don't think enough blame can be laid upon the Friar for the debacle, and that is part of Shakespeare's point. It isn't only the lovers who are being stupid; it's their advisors, who encourage secrecy out of cowardice. The play itself emphasizes how quickly infatuation can weaken virtue, and how the role of society is to protect teenagers from themselves.

The way most modern teachers teach it, though, makes it less than worthless.

[Rob G]

'In high school, I spied a book on my English teacher's shelf, appearing to be an anthology: "The Best of Bad Faulkner."'

Actually, Clifford, the "Bad Faulkner" book is from a contest for badly written faux Faulkner -- parodies written to mimic him. Of real Faulkner I've only read "The Bear" and "As I Lay Dying" so far, but I enjoyed them both.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Alas, if you think that "War & Peace" is merely "1500+ pages of bad soap opera," you may be incurable. <<<

More like 1200 pages of GOOD soap opera, plus 300 pages of unbearably smug historical digressions and speculations,

[windmilltilter]

Nick,
Yes even "Trilogy". Maybe I should say especially "Trilogy." I can almost barely stand her "Sea Garden."

To be honest, I thought more people would give me guff about Wallace Stevens, poetry's one-trick pony.

[Bob]

No argument about Stevens here.

What about House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros? If you're in school at all, you'll get that shoved down your throat at every turn (what kind of mixed metaphor is that???). Typical case of promotion by means of being a woman minority.

[Maclin Horton]

Well, it crossed my mind, Windmilltilter (re Stevens), because the Stevens that I really like I really like. But it's a fairly small number of poems, and I always had a lot of trouble pushing through any that were longer than a few dozen lines, with the exception of "Sunday Morning."

I used to know a poet (Everett Maddox, RIP) who wrote a poem called "13 Ways of Being Looked at by a Possum." I thought it was as good as Stevens.

[Michael]

Bob--

House on Mango Street ranks right up there with anything by Toni Morrison. And that's not a compliment.

[antonia]

Rob G: Thanks for sticking up for Silas Marner. I actually nominated it for the Top 20 Good Books Noone Reads thread. I think people hate it because they are forced to read it before they can perceive its subtlety or appreciate its simplicity.

Windmilltilter: I can't stand Wuthering Heights either.

I'd like to nominate the whole genre called Theatre of the Absurd. I was forced to read La Cantatrice Chauve (The Bald Soprano) in 3 separate classes - Augh!

[Michael]

Antonia--

I have a soft spot for Samuel Beckett, so I can't allow the entire genre of Theatre of the Absurd. The absurdity of Waiting for Godot is that it's so true. What is more ridiculous than making conversation about none of the important things, when the chiefly important thing awaiting us at the end we do not take the time to pursue, but rather continually demand that He come to us?

[Christopher Johnson]

If you've spent any time in the Midwest, Huckleberry Finn is unreadable, Important Points being shoved down your throat every few pages or so whether the "story" needs them or not. Twain, who wrote much better books(see Life on the Mississippi), was considered great because he was the Northeast's view of what Midwesterners were like and because he died in New England. If you want to understand the American Midwest, read the memoirs of Ulysses Grant, the greatest Midwestern writer who ever lived. End of story.

[James Kabala]

Isn't Huckleberry Finn more about the South than the Midwest? As a slave state, Missouri was considered Southern in the ante bellum period, and once Huck and Jim miss the turn at Cairo, anything that could be considered Midwestern is left behind. The Grangerfords are Southern, the Duke and the Dauphin prey mainly on Southerners ("If that don't fetch them, I don't know Arkansaw!"), the last third of the book takes place in Louisiana, and in short the book has very little to do with the Midwest.

[Clifford Simon]

Tony,
I think I remember that my English teacher said that the Porter in Macbeth was tossed in for the groundlings. If your defense is true, then I'm getting the sinking feeling that I've been pornogogued... but that's another thread.

[Kevin]

Does anybody know who this Rumi fellow is? Go to any bookstore and what paltry selection of poetry they have will invariable be 10% Rumi. It looks like it's some lame, pseudo-mystical Arabic poetry of the sort it's popular to praise breathlessly but never actually read much. Am I wrong?

[James Kabala]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumi

Apparently he was a Persian poet of the thirteenth century.

[Michael]

Kevin,

According to Wikipedia, Rumi was a 13th century Persian poet. Having never read his work, I don't know how mystical (pseudo- or otherwise) his work is, but to call it "Arabic" is a tad inaccurate, though culturally, both would fall under the Islamic hegemony. Apparently, he was a proponent of Sufism, e.g. Islamic mysticism in the vein of Jewish Kabbalah. He was and is quite influential on the culture and subsequent poetry from within the Caliphate.

BBC named him "the most popular poet in America." Go figure.