<p>Yeah I liked Owen Meany, and hated Beowulf.
Scarlet wasn't bad, but Gadsby was HORRIBLE. I enjoyed Heart of Darkness, or Apocalypse Now shall I say.</p>
<p>Guh. Grapes of Wrath. I had to read it as a summer reading assignment and I hated that it was way too long. By the time I finished reading it, I was bored to tears. I can tolerate 300+ page books, but to have to read 300+ pages published with 8 pt Times New Roman font or some other serif font... I just went nuts. I could see how it was a classic, but never again will I read that book.</p>
<p>Ever.</p>
<p>if A Tree Grows in Brooklyn is considered a famous classic novel, it was pretty atrocious...</p>
<p>Portrait of a Lady...that book was hell, which is why I only read 50 pages, but still, from the beginning I can safely assume that the rest of it was torturous to read</p>
<p>bcp & mcz... i was actually supposed to read it over the course of a week, but of course i procrastinated and read it on the saturday before the monday it was due. I started it around 12 and could not put it down to the early hours of that afternoon. Afterwards I sat in my chair shocked for about 15 minutes...</p>
<p>SHAKESPEARE~~!!!!</p>
<p>i'm the first one to say that hahaha~
shakespeare sucks....</p>
<p>The Education of Henry Adams.</p>
<p>Although it does make for a great soporific...</p>
<p>What???? How can ANYONE hate Shakespeare??? I just don't understand!
Also, I liked A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. I thought it was moving and beautiful in its simplicity and sincerity.</p>
<p>^^ agrees whole heartedly</p>
<p>I don't like Henry James. At All</p>
<p>Their Eyes were watching God (I just didn't like it)
A Tale of Two Cities (too hard to read for being sucha boring book)
The Scarlet Letter (Hawthorn could write a book about how the shadow of a chair looks if he wanted to...)</p>
<p>I think it's ridiculous how people at 18 years of age think they know enough to say that books are "atricious" or "boring". I guess you can have that opinion, but I think sometimes kids just like to be pretentious by saying "I just didn't like it", as if their opinion has value, becuase it doesn't. These books endure because they speak to people. They are redeemable, even if you personally don't like them becasue they continue to make people think. Even if you think you didn't like a book, you should put it away for a few years and try it again. Maybe with a little maturity you can appreciate it (even if you don't like it).</p>
<p>An opinion can't be wrong, if you don't like it, then don't listen to it...you're entitled to your own as well. Age doesn't mean that one's opinion is invalid...young children have the most honest opinions of all. Not all 18 year olds have mentalities of 18 year olds, and many have had enough experience to have a "valid opinion." Seriously, who are you to know enough to invalidate the opinions of others based on their age? Most of the people on here are pretty well-read and are "allowed" to dislike a book. Read Portrait of a Lady, seriously, it's very hard to like. It's a slow read, achieves nothing and is totally anti-climactic. The main character is a disappointment with not enough rebelliousness in her and runs away from everything the reader would like her to do. It's depressing, it's long, it's verbose, it's terrible. I don't appriciate it and I have plenty of maturity. You're not going to like every book you read, and there's nothing wrong with voicing that opinion, especially in a thread titled "what are the WORST 'literary and famous' books?"</p>
<p>For Whom The Bell Tolls, Hemmingway</p>
<p>Mayor of Casterbridge, Thomas Hardy</p>
<p>As I Lay Dying, Faulkner
The Sound and The Fury, Faulkner</p>
<p>Not sure if its already been said... but i hated reading 100 Years of Solitude. All the characters have the same name... so damn confusing.</p>
<p>Hahaha...The crazy part is, though, that if you look on the Internet, no one else has this criticism...They all say what a beautiful, five-star novel it is...The movie was far better in portraying this than Styron was in his oftentimes perverse writing...
</p>
<p>Are you serious?
</p>
<p>yes i am. i could feel how sweet and relevant and gosh darn earnest betty smith was trying to make it, but i just didn't go for the blatant heart-string pulling. maybe "atrocious" was too strong of an adjective, but it was just too precious. i probably would have liked it more if i had read it at an earlier age.</p>
<p>shakespeare sucks
wayy to overrated
it's just fancy crap, on some literary comedy, on some unique form of writing</p>
<p>"shakespeare sucks
wayy to overrated
it's just fancy crap, on some literary comedy, on some unique form of writing"</p>
<p>I've tried to appreciate Shakespeare for a long time, but I can't convince myself that he is as great as is generally claimed. I readily admit that I may not have the education necessary to truly grasp him, but I still wonder if he would be considered 'that' great if he had written in more modern English...</p>
<p>Let me say that if I ever have to read the last third of The Adventures of Huck Finn ever again I might shoot myself in the head...</p>