this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024

11 points (82.4% liked)

Fiction Books

1443 readers

1 users here now

The discussion of fiction books! Please tag spoilers and follow instance rules.

To find more communities on this instance, go to: !411@literature.cafe

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

gabe@literature.cafe

What book that everyone seems to love do you dislike? (literature.cafe)

submitted 2 years ago by gabe@literature.cafe to c/fiction@literature.cafe

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] myrdinn@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

The bible

[+] CherryClan@beehaw.org 9 points 2 years ago (4 children)

[deleted]

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think a lot of it is being at a certain age. When you're young you're configured to see magic everywhere. The video games you played when you were a kid, the places you went, the stuff you read... it's all important. It's wide and magical. It has this quality that's not replicable. I talked with people about the games I played when I was about 10 years old, and they felt exactly the same way about the games they played when they were 10.

Sometimes it's true. The Lord of the Rings books are still magic as an adult (actually more so). But I had the exact same experience reading HP; it's fine. It's perfectly serviceable, but I think I missed reading it at the age where it would have triggered the pure magic response, so I don't get it the same way.

[–] gabe@literature.cafe 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A big aspect of it is likely nostalgia and the influence it had on many people who were learning to solidify their literacy. I think that's also why it is so hard for people to break from it as well today.

[–] Wooster@startrek.website 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I’m mostly in the same boat.

Hogarts was interesting to me. Clearly a lot of thought went into the primary setting and all the fantasy and non-Euclidean elements.

But the titular protagonist himself was almost surgically devoid of character. Harry Potter was not special. His parents were special. And as dysfunctional as his foster family was, they still had drives and personality.

Harry Potter, in the books I read, was not important to the plot in the slightest. The plot just happened around him.

[–] The1029@literature.cafe 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I've never really thought about it like that, but have to agree with you. Harry is completely devoid of character. As someone who fell in love with reading/fantasy as a result of these books, I loved the wizarding world. I didn't really have any care for Harry, or even much for the story that he's a part of - just the setting, and the other characters.

I wonder if Harry's transparency makes it easy for a young reader to project their own personality onto him, and kind of 'roleplay' their way through the series? I think the fact that the wizarding world is 'bolted onto' reality facilitates this - it feels almost tangible. May explain why nostalgia is so high among this particular group - it was an experience, not just a story.

Does this make Rowling a genius? Or do her books just benefit from the side-effect of her writing a bad MC?

[–] Wooster@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

I would argue that offering fans a template goes miles towards to how… sandboxy the series becomes. (For want of a better term)

For Harry Potter, it was the whole academic experience. How you got admitted, the personality tests; things that enable a safe starting point and allow the fans to go in their own direction.

With Kingdom Hearts back in the day, it was Organization OCs with powers and weapons that followed a template. Similar with Steven Universe and minerals and weapons.

[–] redtree3@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago

I came here to say HP too. The voice/writing style it's in is not for me, at least the first book. I couldn't get past the second chapter back when I tried to read it.

[–] Wooster@startrek.website 5 points 2 years ago

Dracula, I suppose?

I’m fond of some of the vampire lore the story created that pop culture has completely forgotten… but after Dracula goes on a cruise, the book becomes criminally repetitive and goes absolutely nowhere.

[–] toasteecup@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Romeo and Juliet

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 3 points 2 years ago

Had to read Little Women at school and found it unbearably boring. So boring I almost forgot everything in it, which is unusual. Only thing I remember is that Jo was an interesting character. My classmates seemed okay reading it and some even liked it, but for me every page turned was "oof there's still more pages still, oof".

[–] EntropicalVacation@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The Secret History by Donna Tartt, The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt (no, I’m not reading anymore Donna Tartt), Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Gone Girl wasn't good for me either

[–] TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

The Fault in Our Stars

[–] cafuneandchill@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago

Probably Dune. Tried to read it severl times, and each time it's a boring slog with characters that are hard to relate to. Maybe I just like personal journey stories over big political ones

Another book that I've had trouble reading through is Neuromancer. I get that it's cyberpunk and all that, but it just doesn't really have a grip on me

[–] Papanca@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Three Body Problem

[–] gazter@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago

I agree- I found it disjointed and shallow.

[–] Jank@literature.cafe 2 points 2 years ago

Anything Cormac McCarthy.

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The Old Man and the Sea. A junior high teacher assigned it as an individual project, and I was bored out of my mind. After one of my own university students recommended it a few months ago, I tried it again. Forty years has not improved my opinion of it.

Come to think of it, even teaching an intro lit & philosophy course, I still think any book that’s only in print because it’s on a reading list is probably garbage.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I do beg to differ. I went through a period when reading "reading list" books was about all I wanted to do.

Pearl Buck "The Good Earth" Zora Neale Hurston "Their Eyes Were Watching God"

Just two faves if you want to try them out.

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I should’ve noted that YMMV. :)

Thanks for the recommendations. When there’s time to read for fun, I’ll try to check them out.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

Oh, well you did say that's only in print because it's on a reading list. I think these books would be in the print regardless so... your point stands.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

Ready Player One. It has a lot of really problematic stuff in it, the entire plot was "This kid remembers the 80s so he's the chosen one," and countless people you used to respect love it

[–] PlanetOfOrd@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

It wasn't terrible by any means. But I kept being told how-fast paced and gripping it was.

The fastest the pace went was the main character ducking behind a barrier in a very brief firefight.

I'm not one of those action junkies, but I was kind of expecting more.

[–] kionay@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I heard a lot of people liked Watership Down, so I got it digitally. I tried to like it, I really did, but I just couldn't... I don't know, care? It just started feeling like a labor to read it so I stopped about 20% of the way in.

Idk maybe one day I'll give it another try.