BS: What books would you NOT reread?

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: keberoxu
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 09:38 PM

I had to find out how the darn thing ended! The book was well-written enough to keep you turning the darned pages...

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 07:40 PM

Well I don't understand that. As a non-reader of fiction who's tried to read fiction, I find that I know after ten pages whether I need to just ditch the book and seek out something a bit more life-affirming. Try Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante in E flat K.364. Why would you flagellate yourself by sticking with something so cold and negative?

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: keberoxu
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 07:06 PM

The book "Damage" on which the Miranda Richardson/Jeremy Irons film was based -- I didn't go near the film after looking at the book. It is brilliant, as a well-made watch/clock is, and a cold and heartless bit of writing. Reading it left me feeling chilled to the bone.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: fat B****rd
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 07:01 AM

"The Klansman" by William Bradford Huie. Not a criticism of the author. I just found it upsetting.
Yours wimpishly
Charlie

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 08:39 PM

Cor, I never read fiction so I can hardly answer this. The non-fiction books I read I tend to dip in and out of, so I can't really discard any of them. I suppose there must be something wrong with me.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 08:27 PM

I read quite a few Nevil Shute novels also, Trustee from the Toolroom was fascinating. On the Beach was a thoughtful and remarkable book - but I agree, reading it once was enough. :)

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: michaelr
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:42 PM

Mein Kampf.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:42 PM

Given that there only seem to be two copies of Dick's brother's roman à clef for sale anywhere in the world, at rather silly prices, it doesn't look like many people have to worry about picking it up by mistake:

Rufus Miles: Marsh Heirs

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Gurney
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:29 PM

'On the Beach' by Nevil Shute. Ive read all of the rest and enjoyed them, but this post-apocalyptic novel, concerning the last hopeless, dying humans on Earth, ruined my sleep for a long time.

Kim C, I re-read and sold my old Louis Lamour paperbacks recently, and got a good price for them. There was a small bidding war.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 02:08 PM

the naked lunch

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Mo the caller
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 01:12 PM

There are books I find myself rereading by accident. Looking at the first page at our dance club charity bring & buy, not recognizing it till after I've bought it again.
I usually finish books even if I wonder why afterwards, but The Popes Rhinoceros has been on my bedside table for weeks - about 2 chapters in - I've no idea what it's all about. It's going back for someone else to plough through.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: fat B****rd
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 12:23 PM

It may be some sort of heresy, but, I tried a few pages of "The Girl On The Train" and found myself disliking the narrator intensely. Maybe that was the author's intention. If so she succeeded admirably in my case. I notice the film version has been moved to America and has an attractive leading lady.
Yours, getting older and crabbier
Charlie

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 12:08 PM

There are still people who haven't read these novels. Please don't offer up spoilers.

Jim said "Re-reading is difficult and even counterproductive" - to which I must disagree. Re-reading is very productive and allows one to do a "close reading" of a text. Particularly useful for scholars.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Mo the caller
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 10:56 AM

I do hate the way you can see Hardy's characters setting themselves up for their downfall. Far too true to life.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Senoufou
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 09:23 AM

I know Jim, and there are some absolutely wonderful passages in his novels. The Woodlanders, for example, gives a detailed account of a woodcutter's life in the forest, 'Tess' about dairying and so on, and I'm a country person myself. But oh dear, 'Jude The Obscure'! And 'Tess Of The D'Urbevilles'! And 'The Return Of The Native'! All describe a cruel twist of fate which causes tragedy and sorrow. I couldn't handle reading those again, I'd need a box of tissues and some anti-depressants.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 08:50 AM

"Anything by Thomas Hardy. Studied him at Uni. Miserable bugger."
Sorry, couldn't possibly agree.
Hardy's novels throb with English rural life - sunshine and scabs.
Moving and humane, yes, miserable, no.
All down to personal taste I suppose.
There's a difference between reading for enjoyment and and 'studying' - I know people who hate Dickens, Shakespeare, Salinger, Cervantes... for exactly the same reason
Ask any Irish ex-pupil over a certain age what they think of Peig Sayers - then duck - wonderful, courageous woman who wrote one of the finest autobiographies of Irish island life.
It's all down to how these authors are taught.
I love Hardy and have read all his books twice.
Traditional singer, Walter Pardon, doted on his books and read all of them at least half-a-dozen times - except 'Tess', which upset him too much.
He once told us that the two greatest crimes in English literature were "the hanging of Tess and the drowning of Maggie Tulliver.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Senoufou
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 07:56 AM

Anything by Thomas Hardy. Studied him at Uni. Miserable bugger.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 07:33 AM

Marsh Heirs, a completely inaccurate description of my childhood written by my brother, a fantasy in which i appear cast as a juvenile delinquent, feckin cheek

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 07:30 AM

Pincher Martin., imo a complete waste of time
Most novels by Martin Amis., He doesnt seem to understand the need for a story or plot.
Maos Little Red Book, a collection of inane statements

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 04:27 AM

Re-reading is difficult and even counterproductive
I've lost count of books I have enjoyed and revisited, only to be disappointed the second time around - 'Catch 22' springs to mind.
I might read Garrison Keilor's 'Lake Wobegone Days' again - to see if I can finish it this time - I got to the penultimate chapter and gave up thinking why bother
Dreadful bore
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: CupOfTea
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 01:41 AM

I'm inclined to reread favorite books on a regular basis, but some have passed out of my inclination eventually.
When I was young, I re-read Atlas Shrugged yearly. Been unwilling to crack it for decades, likely never again (same true for the rest of Rand's novels)
I adored Ray Bradbury from about 5th grade on. His intro to "The October Country" stuck with me so much that every fall I'd go digging through boxes of books for it, but somehow reading the whole collection was no longer necessary. I do know that after my husband took a writing workshop with Bradbury at Cal Tech, and reported that Bradbury was an avowed athiest, it gave me a different slant on his writing that that made it less attractive.

Don't want to reread books that were spun out into series. So often, even if the first book is great, each one after it gets weaker and weaker till I get disgusted, even with authors I like very much, like Roger Zelazny's Amber books.

Used to reread Dean Koontz when I needed a mindless spooker. Had a whole big collection, but I think the only one I'd bother to reread of the bunch was the one about the superintelligent Golden Retrievers... the rest went to half price books.

Wonder why I haven't thrown out all sorts of old text books - any chance of a reread of those is slim to not-gonna-happen.

A batch of the above wouldn't qualify, as I had the sense not to read 'em the first time, being willing to believe Cliffnotes and lit. crit.

Joanne in Cleveland (whose overly read copy of The Last Unicorn is out on loan, and who knows if I'll ever see it again)

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Janie
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 11:20 PM

I'm with you re Lord of the Rings, Nigel. I've read the trilogy several times, starting at about age 16, and including reading it with my son twice. While I did enjoy the movies, I'm one of those who tend to prefer the book and my own imagination to the movie. It is rare that I like a movie based on a book that I love if I have already read the book.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 11:06 PM

Atlas Shrugged. I couldn't get more than about halfway through that nonsense before I had to put it down, and I usually will tough it out through a book just to see if it gets better before the end.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: ChanteyLass
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 10:02 PM

Wicked. I thought it was vile. I was amazed that it was turned into a successful musical. When I saw it, I kept thinking I would have enjoyed it more if I'd never read the book.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 08:13 PM

Having read through the thread, I didn't see anyone mention Shakespeare.
Just as well. I'm currently re-reading some of his. (No, I don't like all of Shakespeare)
Some people 'knock' authors whom I happily re-read. Well, different strokes for different folks.
A couple of comments finding Heinlein hard to read. Fair enough, if you want to re-try, try "Friday". (Nothing to do with Crusoe!)
Tolkien gets a mention as the films being better. Ok, that's an opinion. Not only would I re-read Lord of the Rings, but I do, every few years since the 60s. If you prefer the films, maybe you should try the Radio 4 dramatization. This kept me spellbound for 26 half hour episodes in the 80s. Even though I already knew exactly where the story was leading.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: keberoxu
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 05:46 PM

Janie, regarding Stephen Donaldson:

the final two books are worth looking at for the following:

The penultimate book, Against All Things Ending, fulfills two things:
Thomas Covenant finally does the merciful thing for his wife, all these books later. Also Linden's Jeremiah is finally healed.

Then The Last Dark confronts Thomas Covenant's son Roger, and Lord Foul.

He certainly was a long time getting there, though.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 05:32 PM

We've got this far and nobody's nominated the Bible?

I'd read a shelf of Mills & Boon and a Dan Brown before I'd go near that again.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Janie
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:50 PM

I had forgotten about the Thomas Covenant saga, keberoxu. As I recall, I thoroughly enjoyed the first 6 books. Started the 1st book of "The Last Chronicles...." but couldn't get into it. Never finished it and never attempted the next 3.

There are not many works of fiction I have been inclined to re-read, no matter how much I enjoyed them the first go round. The exception is books I read when younger that I either read to my son or he read to me when he was young.

Re books on tape or CD, for a number of years now I have found it difficult to concentrate or stay still long enough to read a complete novel. I find I can focus when listening to books on CD, maybe because I can listen as I go about doing chores or while driving.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: keberoxu
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:22 PM

When Stephen Donaldson finally wrapped up the Thomas Covenant saga, I started at the end and worked backwards. I could do the reading as long as I skipped a lot of pages. Can't really imagine putting up with Thomas Covenant before it was known how the series would end, but because the series took so long to complete, decades of readers were asked to do exactly that.

Authors with whom I was not happy were John Buchan and Talbot Mundy. Although Mundy's   "Om the Secret of Ahbor Valley" held my interest, I was disappointed by his other books.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Cluin
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 07:14 PM

Anything by Bret Easton Ellis is all caca.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 06:16 PM

Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five. No redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Emma B
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 06:09 PM

Sorry Mcgrath but absolutely nothing could persuade me to reread Hardy's 'The Trumpet Major' which was part of our curriculum although fortunately after a lifetime of avoiding everything else by him I finally found (after hearing the Melstock Band {Bless}) 'The Ruined Maid', 'Absentmindedness in the Village Choir', 'Great Things' and several other treasures
Also forced to read 'My Early Life' by Winston Churchill - it made having teeth drawn without anasthetic preferable and helps to explain why I am a life long socialist (By the way The Ragged Trousered Philantrophists should be a must)
Do today's children have a better choice of compulsory reading?

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Sam L
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 08:49 PM

Gee, everybody hates John Barth!
It's possible not to love War and Peace!
The only Heinlein book I ever really tried to read may just be the wrong one!

My wife often finds stories I like "depressing". I don't understand her not enjoying them, and try to get her to see them differently. But I don't really know how, or what it is, exactly, so I wind up blindly coaxing her to read them less with an attitude of "there but for the Grace of God go I" and more in the spirit of "See ya see ya, wouldn't want to be ya"!

   About sex in books Kim C, a fiction prof of mine, Ken Smith, who teaches somewhere 'round there in TN last I heard, had a story in which a man "stepped out of his pants" in a sex scene. I teased him so much about it, demanding a brief yet ultimately triumphant struggle, that when it came out in his book he'd changed it. I felt a little guilty about the whole thing. It really came down to a difference in the pants we wore, me and my straight-leg jeans, him and his loose slacks. Ah well, sometimes it's not the joke that's funny, it's just funny to be such an asshole that you persist teasing with the joke.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: GUEST,Nancy King at work
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 08:23 PM

Anything in which an animal solves a mystery, such as the "Cat Who..." books by Lilian Jackson Braun.

Depressing books like "Sophie's Choice".

Over-erudite stuff like "The Name of the Rose" by Umberto Eco.

Gratuitously violent books like "Season of the Machete" by James Patterson (some violence in a novel doesn't bother me at all, but this one had absolutely nothing else. I was surprised recently when I read his "1st to Die" and "2nd Chance" -- I actually enjoyed them!).

Anything by John Barth.

--Nancy

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 11:28 PM

I have tried to read Stranger in a Strangeland at least once a year since 1969. I have given up. Heinlein who I view as god in science fiction was just writing words for words sake it seemed. Just awful.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 08:28 PM

Remains of the (friggin') Day
War and Peace
Any Agatha Christie book--I know, she's an institution. So's jail, and I don't want to do time
Any 'Harlequin' romance
Alistair Maclean's later stuff--the last of his I enjoyed was Puppet on a Chain. Liked everything before and nothing after. And thought that one was only so-so
The Horse Whisperer

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 03:46 PM

Did you hear about the hillbilly who ran out of Vaseline and used 3 in 1 oil? His wife had triplets. He said, "Damn lucky I didn't use WD 40.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 31 Oct 03 - 04:32 PM

The AStroglide? WHAT???? Am I missin out on something here?

- BDiBR

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 31 Oct 03 - 03:11 PM

Something I've noticed about these romanterotic novels is, sex never happens like it does in Real Life. Nobody ever gets poked by a pointy hipbone, nobody ever gets their back wrenched, nobody ever reaches for the Astroglide, and nobody ever mentions The Pill. And there's never a wet spot.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Cluin
Date: 31 Oct 03 - 03:04 PM

Fred has it. Read some of the bad stuff so you know how good the good stuff really is. It's just like beer, wine, whiskey...

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: AliUK
Date: 31 Oct 03 - 11:52 AM

In the early days of mass-market publishing. There were two kinds of books. The Novel and the penny dreadful. Guess which one sold the most. In the 20s, 30s, 40s and some of the 50s there were the pulps and there was "serious" literature. Guess which sold the most. From then on there have been hardbacks, paperbacks Trade paperbacks and special editions. Guess which ones sell the most. Today the lie has been blurred in a lot of cases between " literature" and "quick fiction". which has also blurred the lines between what is considered good and what is considered good. I started this thread as a bit of fun, but it has actually made me stop and think about my own conceits about what I think constitutes a good read, in the end it comes down to if I find it entertaining or not. If it engages me in some way ( ditto form films)or not. Is that the best criteria?

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 31 Oct 03 - 11:21 AM

Ummmm...ya lost me there, Sage. Are you a liberian or a professer or somethin?

Joe T, you are a total looser eh? That book rocks!

BDiBR

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Oct 03 - 11:05 AM

I think there is a nuance that AliUK cast a little light on--there is a sub-category of these books that are intended to be erotic fantasy. They don't take themselves seriously, they're not high art. But the ones that Danielle Steel writes seem to me to be part of the problem of low self-esteem, not part of the solution of literacy. If young women (or even older women) are naïve enough to evalutate themselves or their lives by those oh-too-prefect heroines, or decide that there is some inner truth there that they should hang their hopes for happiness and sexual fulfillment on a man (and thereby not enacting their own agency to control their own happiness and destiny, into which a man may or may not enter) then they stumble. The erotic fantasy books are easily in the category of "escapist" reading. I read mysteries for escapist reasons, and when my kids were little amd I was looking for heavy-duty distraction I looked through the used book stores for decent romances. But they're hard to find (I even thought about writing them under a pseudonym--quick cash--except they're not easy and the cash isn't quick). As was mentioned, those writers have to keep their stories strictly within a regimented format, and that kills a lot of the creative spirit for me, at least. One wonders what would happen to the books of Anya Seton or Georgette Heyer if they entered into the book world today instead of 50 or more years ago?

We as readers in this particular discussion understand why we read a book, and choose high or low literature for a variety of reasons. When new or unpracticed readers don't have a choice in books, then the ideas they are exposed to may carry more clout, because there isn't a basis for comparison. So I cheer every time my daughter (age 15) picks up a classic from the shelf to read, and I know that when she reads a modern popular book that she has the ability to judge the book based on all of the other stuff she reads (right now, that is The Faerie Queen, in an edition I can't find to link to at Amazon). I've spoiled the kids for some of the low-brow reading, with all of the classics they've been allowed to fall in love with.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: GUEST,Joe from Espanola
Date: 31 Oct 03 - 11:02 AM

"Secret Diary of a Sudbury Skank"

It's even worse than it sounds. I ain't felt good about girls since I read it.

Joe T.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: GUEST,Jaze
Date: 31 Oct 03 - 10:24 AM

The Color Purple. Once was enough for the book and movie. I'm glad I read it and saw it but never want to again. The story was too disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 30 Oct 03 - 05:35 PM

Some of the ladies in my office have been swapping paperbacks. I have read a few of them. While some are decent stories, most are really crappy writing. And 500+ pages? What's that about? Holy mackerel, if you can't tell the story in 400, it's hard for me to stick with it.

One that I started and threw back in the pile was Yesterday by Fern Michaels. Even worse than Anne Rice.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: AliUK
Date: 30 Oct 03 - 03:45 PM

my point exactly Fred.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: Sam L
Date: 30 Oct 03 - 03:22 PM

Most offensive? Most offensive is junk dressed up as serious artistic work. Why read bad stuff? For the experience of it, to see what it is, and not be ignorant of it. I reviewed a Judith Krantz once and am proud to have made the the trek through it. The absolute worst stuff I ever read was so bad I kept thinking they must be trying to do something serious--nobody could really be that bad. It was a really strong exercise to try to understand it, one way or another, made me question what I've been taught about good writing, and was much more invigorating than reading some pretty good books could've been.

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: AliUK
Date: 30 Oct 03 - 03:09 PM

All the books that I quoted way up there at the top of the thread, I read mostly in the hope that they would get better. I even went back and reread some books that I thought might have gotten better with age ( my age that is), mostly the Hardys because I thought with my increasing interest in folk music they would go down better( they didn´t. By the way I have seen the Mellstock Band and I love their music). I think it is hope that keeps us reading bad books and watching bad movies. Maybe sometimes we can justify them by saying there so bad they´re cult!

I once got into the snobbery of putting down books like Mills and Boone (the British equivalent of Harlequin Romances) and their ilk. Ditto for westerns and war stories ( Sven Hassle springs to mind) and then I realised that any reading that anyone is doing is what keeps the people literate and keeps others writing so that people may one day produce the stuff we want to read. I´m a a fantasy/horror/SF kinda guy myself, which has never stopped me reading anything else and never will thank God, so I tend to find myself at the end of a snooty stare when I mention that I really liked the latest Eddings,Gibson or Bear even. There´s crap in all genres. What I find most offensive though ARE the Danielle Steeles of the world who do produce this stuff through some kind of computer programme. That nowadays keeps on going even after they are dead. Thank Christ that nobody in the Cartland estate decided to do that!

Subject: RE: BS: What books would you NOT reread?
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 30 Oct 03 - 02:54 PM

Louis L'Amour novels are perfectly acceptable entertainment. They're short, they're relatively clean, and the good guy always wins. Art? Nah. But there has to be room for Fun somewhere.