What Not to Read

[ric]

Most hated book: Alice in Wonderland.

And why would you say that is?

[Caswin]

And why would you say that is?

It's hard for me to say I hated it, but I didn't like it, either.

'cept for the Dormouse.

[Carrie Ingalls]

The Red Pony!! That is immediately what came to mind. One of my all time most disliked books! It was horrible! I honestly don't remember too much of the book, I probably 10 or younger when I read it (or had it read aloud). All I remember at this point is that it was horribly depressing and this horse/pony gets sick (or maybe it was the mother of the pony) and you get a vivid description of the beast being bludgeoned to death with a sledgehammer...and my mom gave the book to me thinking it was going to be a cute story about a red pony...we both laugh about it now. I think it must have been read aloud, because I remember listening to that scene horrified and just wanting to throw up. Yeah, I wouldn't recommend it.

Also, not worth it: 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas. I honestly knew every single important thing that happens, just from looking at the pictures (10+ yrs before I actually read the book) in a copy of the Great Illustrated Classics version...so get that if you want

The Things They Carried...blech, so much foul language thank you English 102, I could have done without that.

[Steve]

I'll be honest and lay it out there: I can't stand Fellowship of the Ring: Being That Which The First Of The Three Which Makes It A Trilogy The Lord Of The Rings Which Is Not An Allegory. Based on that, you can probably figure out why. If I really wanted to experience characters walking and walking and walking... I would probably seek a guidance counselor to get me through that sad condition.

[ric]

lol dude, Lord of the Rings definitely is an allegory. I suppose the books could be seen as somewhat boring though...

[Steve]

Haha. I know it's an allegory, but all the die-hard fans freak out because Tolkien "didn't intend it to be an allegory." I'm just poking fun at the fans.

And yes, it's extremely boring.

[TigerintheShadows]

If the writer didn't intend for it to be an allegory, it's not an allegory. Just because the events in LotR are comparable to real events--and I have no idea if they are because I couldn't get past The Two Towers--does not mean that LotR is an allegory.

I will agree, though. Maybe I'm just biased because I tried to read it in the fifth grade and I wasn't really that into it, but Tolkein's writing style is very slow. I'm not really into high fantasy anyway, and high fantasy that's written like a nineteenth-century history textbook just exacerbates that dislike.

[ric]

If the writer didn't intend for it to be an allegory, it's not an allegory. Just because the events in LotR are comparable to real events--and I have no idea if they are because I couldn't get past The Two Towers--does not mean that LotR is an allegory.

"Allegory: A story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one." Tons of things are allegories, not just A Pilgrim's Progress, and not just those in which the author consciously intended them to obviously reflect an aspect of real life.

[Steve]

Wether or not it was allegorical was not the point of my post. And that debate already happened in another thread. The point is... LOTR is really boring. So don't bother reading it. Watch the movies. But not the extended versions. Unless you're home schooled. Then you're allowed!

[TigerintheShadows]

I think LotR is for certain types of readers--it's really not easy to sit through. I definitely wouldn't recommend reading it just so you can feel good about having read the book before seeing the movies. I tried that once...it didn't end well.

[bookworm]

Tons of things are allegories ... not just those in which the author consciously intended them to obviously reflect an aspect of real life.

Yes and no.

Linguistically, for something to truly be an allegory every part of it must directly relate to a part of whatever it is an allegory for. This is why, as an example we seem to be using a lot of late, the stories about Narnia, though definitely and intentionally filled with aligorical parts, are not allegories, because every point doesn’t correspond. So in this sense, it is easy to say what is and isn’t an allegory, regardless of author intent.

On the intent side then, it is true that something can indeed be allegorical ‘on accident’ as it all depends on what the reader sees in it. I would find it very hard for something to be a full allegory without meaning to be one though. So minor point perhaps, but for this discussion I think it’s important to state that no, LoTR is not an allegory. Because that’s a side subject for nitpicking here.

The real focus is whether the stories contain allegorical elements. Tolkien was adamant that they were not written that way, and he would know, so what we can say for certain is that LoTR is not intentionally allegorical. However as I said, that doesn’t mean it’s impossible for it to still be so, it all comes down to the individual reader and what they each find parallels with in their own minds.

[ric]

Linguistically, for something to truly be an allegory every part of it must directly relate to a part of whatever it is an allegory for.

I wasn't aware this was the definition for an allegory...well, whatever.

Back on topic, somewhat: I'm currently reading The Giver, and it's reminding me of why I don't like contemporary stuff. It's not very well-written, and kind of...cliche, naive, what have you. It's ok though. We'll see.

[Shennifer]

Linguistically, for something to truly be an allegory every part of it must directly relate to a part of whatever it is an allegory for.

I wasn't aware this was the definition for an allegory...well, whatever.

Back on topic, somewhat: I'm currently reading The Giver, and it's reminding me of why I don't like contemporary stuff. It's not very well-written, and kind of...cliche, naive, what have you. It's ok though. We'll see.

I happen to have liked The Giver.

[TigerintheShadows]

It was okay, but it was pretty standard issue dystopia. It doesn't help that we've read it about a billion times for no apparent reason, one of those times being the third grade when we had no idea what was going on.

[Knight Fisher]

I would rather watch an episode of Barney over reading The Giver series again.

[jelly]

Even though I don't read nearly as much as I should, I love this thread. We need more rics in the world, defending cultural and artistic integrity to the bitter end.

[darcie]

Echoing Sherlock on the first page, The Old Man and the Sea. For a rather short book, it goes on way too long. I mean, drown that guy already. I didn't love Grapes of Wrath either. And the play adaptation does NOT make it any better. Ugh, Depression Era fiction is depressing.

[ric]

Even though I don't read nearly as much as I should, I love this thread. We need more rics in the world, defending cultural and artistic integrity to the bitter end.

Indeed we do, although I certainly wouldn't put forth myself as the ideal.

Ugh, Depression Era fiction is depressing.

That must mean it's effective.

[Astronomer]

Ugh, Depression Era fiction is depressing.

That must mean it's effective.

Yeah, it's effective, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. Both The Jungle and The Grapes of Wrath weren't books I liked, but they both showed the reality of the times during which they took place.

[Stop Wooton' Around]

Ugh, Depression Era fiction is depressing.

That must mean it's effective.

Yeah, it's effective, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. Both The Jungle and The Grapes of Wrath weren't books I liked, but they both showed the reality of the times during which they took place.

I actually liked "The Grapes of Wrath" because it brings up amazing talking points. We had to read it for 10th grade English, many good discussions ensued from that book.

I find it painful for someone to suggest not reading a classic.