Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

With centuries, you add one, not subtract. Dumas was firmly a nineteenth century writer, though his works were set earlier than his time (Comte in 1810s-1830s, ergo, early 19th century Mousquetaires in the 17th century.) Cinematic brain candy it may be, but Napoleon was not in the 1600s!

Aw, crap...

Well, on the topic of what the original question was about, I can't stand Hawthorne, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Jane Austen, James Patterson, and some other authors that it's probably good I can't think of right now. Though most of those are based on only reading one book by their respective authors, so I can only really pass judgement on Patterson as being one of the worst famous authors ever.

I can't think of any books that everyone likes that I don't like, but I'm sure if I think about it long enough I'll come with some. But I don't like the Beatles. And Jonny Lingo, but you knew about that already.

I hate James Patterson. And don't really care for Christopher Paolini either.

Although I'm recently in love with Brandon Sanderson.

I don't think Jonathan Safran Foer is all that great.

I HATE THE SCARLET LETTER AND CATCHER IN THE RYE SO MUCH I MUST TYPE IN ALL CAPS!

Whoa, Billy Mays, calm down!

I hate Scarlet Letter, too. And The Good Earth. And Count of Monte Cristo. And just about every other book I was forced to read in high school.

Also Les Mis (I even read the abridged version, and I was STILL bored out of my mind!)

I read the Count of Monte Cristo for fun, and I loved it. I think the context you read it in does make a difference. It would be way too long as an assigned reading book.

Giovanni Schwartz wrote: Also Les Mis (I even read the abridged version, and I was STILL bored out of my mind!)

The abridged version we have at home is no good compared to some of the other abridgments. It doesn't even give you the history of the bishop at the beginning! And that is my favorite part of the story.

On the subject at hand, I don't like Steinbeck or Hemingway.

I LOVE Steinbeck. But I'm sure we could've guessed that.

I don't care at all for Jane Austen, or any Bronte. I hate Tolkien. I see the value in, but don't really care for, Faulkner. I love Thomas Hardy, which is another lots of people hate.

Why do you hate Tolkien, may I ask?


EDIT: I also don't especially love reading Tolkien, but I wouldn't say I hate him. I definitely appreciate him for the good he did to epic fantasy. And he was a freaking cool linguist, which is still one of my pet interests (not that I DO anything with that, mind you.)

Everyone seems to like C. S. Lewis, I haven't liked anything I've read of his, and I've read a lot of his stuff in an attempt to find one I like.

I'll also ditto those who dislike The Scarlet Letter.

But I love Wuthering Heights to the point of obsession.

Giovanni Schwartz wrote:Why do you hate Tolkien, may I ask?

Because it comes almost exclusively from things which he was already familiar with as a scholar, and then adds page after page of useless description with very little in the way of real substance. The conflict is trite, the resolution is incredulous, and the characters overly archetypal. Nowhere is there a dynamic character or relational conflict. And the worst part? This almost nothing of a plot is stretched out over THOUSANDS of pages.

Yarjka wrote:Everyone seems to like C. S. Lewis, I haven't liked anything I've read of his, and I've read a lot of his stuff in an attempt to find one I like.

I'll also ditto those who dislike The Scarlet Letter.

But I love Wuthering Heights to the point of obsession.

Haha, I've been reading a lot of C. S. Lewis the past few days (read Screwtape Letters yesterday and today) and . . . I'm getting tired of him. He keeps saying the same things. And he seems kind of sexist.

Dickens is a bit tiresome. So is Dumas. As for J. K. Rowling, sometimes I reread Harry Potter and it makes me sad because I can see all the inconsistencies in her books. But I refuse to dislike or disdain them.

Marduk wrote:

Giovanni Schwartz wrote:Why do you hate Tolkien, may I ask?

Because it comes almost exclusively from things which he was already familiar with as a scholar, and then adds page after page of useless description with very little in the way of real substance. The conflict is trite, the resolution is incredulous, and the characters overly archetypal. Nowhere is there a dynamic character or relational conflict. And the worst part? This almost nothing of a plot is stretched out over THOUSANDS of pages.

That's why I read the Fellowship so fast when I was 12---I skipped every page with a description on it. Next thing I knew, I was done. I maybe ought to try again.

I came to appreciate the Good Earth when I read it the second time.

I only like Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. I HATED EMMA! But I liked the movie for Emma, which surprised me because it followed the book really closely.

I also hate Tolkien. And Dickens. Snooooooooooooooozefests.

I like the Chronicles of Narnia, but I don't like any other C S Lewis stuff. And sorry, Imogen, but I absolutely love Catcher in the Rye. Probably because I feel like Holden Caulfield a lot of the time.

I love Scott Fitzgerald. Don't care for Steinbeck.

NerdGirl wrote:I like the Chronicles of Narnia, but I don't like any other C S Lewis stuff. And sorry, Imogen, but I absolutely love Catcher in the Rye. Probably because I feel like Holden Caulfield a lot of the time.

I found Holden Caufield to be a spoiled, insufferable, entitled brat, but that's probably because i went to school with guys just like him and they were all spoiled, insufferable, entitled brats.