5 books everyone shouldn't read

I've been making an effort to be nicer to strangers on-line as of late and you aren't making it any easier.

I think any indictment of 'On The Road' is a reflection of one's own overall inexperience rather than an accurate crit of the text. The early comment describing the novel as a story about "some guy trying to find himself" was so short sighted and inaccurate I balked. "Sal Paradise" never found himself, it was never even the point. Ultimately he lost himself, sold his own heart out for the comforts of security that conforming to normality promises. He traded his soul and conscious but never got anything in return. It's a very clear cut case of dealing with the Devil.

The last paragraph say it all, a lifetime of regret, of wondering, of longing and questioning his own judgment. He turned his back on a friend that, for all his faults, LOVED him. Paradise didn't love any of his other friends, his women, no, but there was one person who loved him. A nut named Dean Moriarty. And because that person didn't fit into everyone's social strata Paradise turned his back on him. 'On the Road' isn't about finding ones self, it's about staying true to one's self, loyalty, and the question of redemption.

[QUOTE=tom9d;1083585]
I also loved both of Clevenger's books. I like [I]The Contortionist's Handbook[/I] a bit more, but I think they're both outstanding books.[/QUOTE]

Really? Because I thought that 'Dermaphoria' sucked. What a bunch of hokey poetry. And I have suspicions that he lifted some of the ideas from this workshop.

[QUOTE=Mad Daego;1084277]I've been making an effort to be nicer to strangers on-line as of late and you aren't making it any easier.

I think any indictment of 'On The Road' is a reflection of one's own overall inexperience rather than an accurate crit of the text. The early comment describing the novel as a story about "some guy trying to find himself" was so short sighted and inaccurate I balked. "Sal Paradise" never found himself, it was never even the point. Ultimately he lost himself, sold his own heart out for the comforts of security that conforming to normality promises. He traded his soul and conscious but never got anything in return. It's a very clear cut case of dealing with the Devil.

The last paragraph say it all, a lifetime of regret, of wondering, of longing and questioning his own judgment. He turned his back on a friend that, for all his faults, LOVED him. Paradise didn't love any of his other friends, his women, no, but there was one person who loved him. A nut named Dean Moriarty. And because that person didn't fit into everyone's social strata Paradise turned his back on him. 'On the Road' isn't about finding ones self, it's about staying true to one's self, loyalty, and the question of redemption.[/QUOTE]

Preach brother, preach.

This echoes the sentiments of David Ulin who says that "even the most frantic of Kerouac’s writings were really the sagas of a solitary seeker: poor, sad Jack, adrift in a world without mercy when he’d rather be 'safe in Heaven dead.'"

I ran across that quote on the all seeing Wiki-oracle a while back, and it really provided a good summation of the overall theme for me.

I'm not as willing to equate a lack of understanding of the novel with lack of experience, but I will say this: On the Road meant a lot more to me after I had driven across the country a few times, slept with some questionable ladies, and melted part of my brain with booze and narcotics than it did when I read it in high school.

[QUOTE=Mad Daego;1084281]Really? Because I thought that 'Dermaphoria' sucked. What a bunch of hokey poetry. And I have suspicions that he lifted some of the ideas from this workshop.[/QUOTE]

Yup.

[QUOTE=tom9d;1084268]Awesome. That is refreshing. All the young people are liberals these days.[/QUOTE]

They just stereotype conservatives in a cartoonish way, it's ridiculous.

Not all catholics are stupid, uptight, homophobic..... some are, but it's just as stupid to say that as it is to say 'All black people are poor.'

Liberal is just a 'cool' thing to be right now I guess..... :worried:

[QUOTE=tom9d;1081817]1. the catcher in the rye
2. the great gatsby
3. blow
4. me
5. fuckers[/QUOTE]

Dude, piss off. [I]Fuckers[/I] was great!

[QUOTE=Ritt;1084386]Dude, piss off. [I]Fuckers[/I] was great![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=tom9d;1081873]Hah..yes. If you are a fan of one or both of those, I am sorry :)[/QUOTE]

Don't be sorry, Gatsby sucked. But Catcher was cool.

The Palahniuk and The Hunter Thompson both love The Gatsby from what I hear, but whatever, nothing special. It's like how filmmakers can love Pulp Fiction (for example) more than regular movie fans, even though most movies are made for a diverse audience.

[QUOTE=nathaniel parker;1081877]The Naked Lunch

Catcher in the Rye

The Road

those are the only three i can think of right now...[/QUOTE]

Dammit, Nate! I hate it when you do this. If some of the other jackasses around can't appreciate [I]Naked Lunch [/I]and [I]Catcher in the Rye[/I] for the milestones in subversive literature that they are, it's no big deal. But when you say it, it lends authority to that bullshit opinion. Those two goddamn books are phenomenal!!! And when people on this board criticize them, it makes me crazy!

Does [I]The Road [/I]really suck? Isn't that the Cormac McCarthy book that everyones always going on about around here?

The Scarlet Letter, anything by jane austen, and Moby Dick have one thing in common.

I hate them. I never want to look at them again. However, I wouldn't put any of them on the don't ever read list. Same thing with 'Catcher...'
I think they all have literary merit that denies them a place on that list. Even though they suck they're important for some reason.

Ann Rand. Not a fan. Anthem was ok. Nothing amazing for me and her characters need work.
The fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged both suffer from the same thing i think Stephen King does. Lack of editing. She sells a few books (same with King) and editors stop cutting and telling them what to do. So yeah. Fuck that noise.

[QUOTE=Caligula7;1084437]

Does [I]The Road [/I]really suck? Isn't that the Cormac McCarthy book that everyones always going on about around here?[/QUOTE]

Depends who you ask. I don't think this is the thread to be asking if a book sucks. Pretty much every book mentioned in this thread has been both praised and trashed. It's all subjective, obviously.

Though I will say this, for what it's worth. I was highly skeptical of [I]The Road[/I] before reading it, because I can't stand Oprah, and I was almost looking to dislike it because it was in her book club...but I couldn't dislike it...I thought it was just outstanding writing.

[QUOTE=JCarlson;1084440]The Scarlet Letter, anything by jane austen, and Moby Dick have one thing in common.

I hate them. I never want to look at them again. However, I wouldn't put any of them on the don't ever read list. Same thing with 'Catcher...'
I think they all have literary merit that denies them a place on that list. Even though they suck they're important for some reason.

Ann Rand. Not a fan. Anthem was ok. Nothing amazing for me and her characters need work.
The fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged both suffer from the same thing i think Stephen King does. Lack of editing. She sells a few books (same with King) and editors stop cutting and telling them what to do. So yeah. Fuck that noise.[/QUOTE]

Only being a stickler because she's the man, but it's Ayn Rand, and is pronounced, "Ine", like nine without the N. I've read none of her work but have read a lot about her, and she was such a philosophical good guy.

[QUOTE=Mad Daego;1084281]Because I thought that 'Dermaphoria' sucked. What a bunch of hokey poetry. And I have suspicions that he lifted some of the ideas from this workshop.[/QUOTE]

I'm yet to read The Contortionists Handbook, but I loved Dermaphoria. Brilliant and entertaining.

If he did lift ideas from the workshop, then I'd reconsider my respect for him.

[QUOTE=Giggan;1084477]Only being a stickler because she's the man, but it's Ayn Rand, and is pronounced, "Ine", like nine without the N. I've read none of her work but have read a lot about her, and she was such a philosophical good guy.[/QUOTE]

good call i forgot that. Actually I only kinda forgot the y. I originally spelled it ann rynd but that didn't look right. I shoulda checked though. I hate getting authors names wrong

[QUOTE=tom9d;1081817]1. the catcher in the rye
2. the great gatsby
3. blow
4. me
5. fuckers[/QUOTE]

Hi everyone

Actualy it`s extremly difficult to choose the books you should not read.maybe I was very lucky and did`t meet a lot...There`s my top 5:
- Harry Potter
- lies Inc. Ph.K.Dick
- War& peace
-Klonk-klonk Golding W.
-Da VInci Code

1) The DaVinci Code might not have been so bad if I hadn't let a couple of years of hype build before I read it.

2) "Houses Without Doors" by Peter Straub. I love Straubs other books, but that one just didn't do it for me.

3) I feel the same about the Potter books. Cool that maybe it made a few readers out of non-readers, but I don't care if people start eating lasagna just because they read an Italian cookbook either.

4) I like Richard Price (of "Clockers" fame) but his main character in "Samaritan" was easily dislikable for some reason.

5) I'm surprised no one has listed The Bible....but I won't be the first.

[QUOTE=tom9d;1084474] I was highly skeptical of [I]The Road[/I] before reading it, because I can't stand Oprah, and I was almost looking to dislike it because it was in her book club...but I couldn't dislike it...I thought it was just outstanding writing.[/QUOTE]

You know, I feel you on the whole "can't stand Oprah" thing. The book club is an interesting phenomenon, though.

I recently joined it so I could watch her interview with Cormac McCarthy. You have to join to watch it, and since it is the only time he has agreed to do a non-print interview, I signed up.

I have to give it to her. She asked him a lot of really good questions that would be interesting to a viewer that is also a writer. He answered questions about his writing methods, usage of punctuation (like why no quotations), books he likes, why he doesn't do interviews, and why he hangs out in Santa Fe with scientists and never talks to writers.

The idea that house wives across America will be reading The Road pleases me greatly.

All I am taking from this thread is
a) The Da Vinci Code sucks and
people named Ann or Anne or whatever shouldn't write books.

[QUOTE=Suthernprog;1084866]1) The DaVinci Code might not have been so bad if I hadn't let a couple of years of hype build before I read it.

2) "Houses Without Doors" by Peter Straub. I love Straubs other books, but that one just didn't do it for me.

3) I feel the same about the Potter books. Cool that maybe it made a few readers out of non-readers, but I don't care if people start eating lasagna just because they read an Italian cookbook either.

4) I like Richard Price (of "Clockers" fame) but his main character in "Samaritan" was easily dislikable for some reason.

5) I'm surprised no one has listed The Bible....but I won't be the first. :p[/QUOTE]

I listed the Bible as #1, dammit.

I read the Da Vinci Code fairly early on, before the shit hit the fan. I am still a fan, especially of any mass market item that makes people question their faith. Also true of Harry Potter, which I am currently reading. Keep in mind people Harry Potter is NOT written for adults, which is really obvious by reading the first ten pages. So for everyone here that's hating on HP, get over it.

[QUOTE=chad lott;1086728]You know, I feel you on the whole "can't stand Oprah" thing. The book club is an interesting phenomenon, though.

I recently joined it so I could watch her interview with Cormac McCarthy. You have to join to watch it, and since it is the only time he has agreed to do a non-print interview, I signed up.

I have to give it to her. She asked him a lot of really good questions that would be interesting to a viewer that is also a writer. He answered questions about his writing methods, usage of punctuation (like why no quotations), books he likes, why he doesn't do interviews, and why he hangs out in Santa Fe with scientists and never talks to writers.

The idea that house wives across America will be reading The Road pleases me greatly.[/QUOTE]

However, she got lots of people around the country to read The Secret.

[QUOTE=Caligula7;1084437]Dammit, Nate! I hate it when you do this. If some of the other jackasses around can't appreciate [I]Naked Lunch [/I]and [I]Catcher in the Rye[/I] for the milestones in subversive literature that they are, it's no big deal. But when you say it, it lends authority to that bullshit opinion. Those two goddamn books are phenomenal!!! And when people on this board criticize them, it makes me crazy!

Does [I]The Road [/I]really suck? Isn't that the Cormac McCarthy book that everyones always going on about around here?[/QUOTE]

Just being a subversive milestone shouldn't be enough to make it mandatory reading though. There's plenty of subversive books from around that time that are much better written. Naked Lunch was worthless to me because that's ALL it is, is description after description of shock. There's no character development at all! You get done with it and there's nothing to really take away with you except some cool pornographic scenes. I just needed more than that from it.
Catcher in the Rye just struck me as if I was reading some teenagers vacation inteniary. BORE-ing! and all the whining! ugh. It's an alright book for teenagers to latch onto and love but if this is still your favorite book when your 25 somethings wrong!
The Road had a couple of really great scenes in it, some with great suspense even. But there's just way, way, WAY too much of telling me how grey and ashen and leaden everything around them was on every single page! I felt like there were times McCarthy was just thinking how stupid his reader must be that they needed to be reminded every 2 minutes. I definitely don't hate it as much as the other two, but if you don't get around to reading it ever your not missing anything.

[QUOTE=nathaniel parker;1089208]Just being a subversive milestone shouldn't be enough to make it mandatory reading though. There's plenty of subversive books from around that time that are much better written. Naked Lunch was worthless to me because that's ALL it is, is description after description of shock. There's no character development at all! You get done with it and there's nothing to really take away with you except some cool pornographic scenes. I just needed more than that from it.
Catcher in the Rye just struck me as if I was reading some teenagers vacation inteniary. BORE-ing! and all the whining! ugh. It's an alright book for teenagers to latch onto and love but if this is still your favorite book when your 25 somethings wrong!
The Road had a couple of really great scenes in it, some with great suspense even. But there's just way, way, WAY too much of telling me how grey and ashen and leaden everything around them was on every single page! I felt like there were times McCarthy was just thinking how stupid his reader must be that they needed to be reminded every 2 minutes. I definitely don't hate it as much as the other two, but if you don't get around to reading it ever your not missing anything.[/QUOTE]

I would estimate that of early to mid 20-year-olds in this country who have a favorite book, at least 85% would say their favorite is either [I]The Catcher in the Rye[/I], [I]The Great Gatsby[/I], [I]The Kite Runner[/I] or [I]The DaVinci Code[/I].

[QUOTE=tom9d;1089278]I would estimate that of early to mid 20-year-olds in this country who have a favorite book, at least 85% would say their favorite is either [I]The Catcher in the Rye[/I], [I]The Great Gatsby[/I], [I]The Kite Runner[/I] or [I]The DaVinci Code[/I].[/QUOTE]

I can buy that estimate. it's probably the only book those 85% have read though.

[QUOTE=nathaniel parker;1089315]I can buy that estimate. it's probably the only book those 85% have read though.[/QUOTE]

That's funny. That's like when my girlfriend (who does read a lot by the way) says, "Choke is my favorite Chuck Palahniuk book..." Mind you - it's the only one she's read so far.

[QUOTE=JCarlson;1084440]The Scarlet Letter, anything by jane austen, and Moby Dick have one thing in common.

I hate them. I never want to look at them again. However, I wouldn't put any of them on the don't ever read list. Same thing with 'Catcher...'
I think they all have literary merit that denies them a place on that list. Even though they suck they're important for some reason.

Ann Rand. Not a fan. Anthem was ok. Nothing amazing for me and her characters need work.
The fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged both suffer from the same thing i think Stephen King does. Lack of editing. She sells a few books (same with King) and editors stop cutting and telling them what to do. So yeah. Fuck that noise.[/QUOTE]

ahem...

Before I respond to this, I'm curious; which Jane Austen books have you read?

some books i've struggled with:

glamorama by bee: seriously took me six months to get through it, and it is a pale imitation of american psycho, in my opinion, which is a brilliant book

the road by cormac: agree on the commentary, but i'll have to go back and try it again, couldn't get past the first 50 pages or so

kerouac? wow, i loved on the road
naked lunch - very hard at times, but a revolutionary book

and to level accusations against clevenger without proof or clarification is not cool at all - did he get an idea from something he saw or read about? so what, we all do - i have loved both of his books, was greatly inspired and helped by his intensive - i have a ton of respect for him, so i'd like some sort of expansion on that accusation

for example, there is a film out that totally rips-off will christopher baer's KMJ - he was one of the first to rent it, so he could dissect it and point out the blatant rip-offs, and post it up online IMDB - he seems like a very trustworthy person, so i doubt he stole anything from anybody

[QUOTE=wickerkat;1089419]
for example, there is a film out that totally rips-off will christopher baer's KMJ - he was one of the first to rent it, so he could dissect it and point out the blatant rip-offs, and post it up online IMDB - he seems like a very trustworthy person, so i doubt he stole anything from anybody[/QUOTE]

That was the first thing I thought of when I read that as well. But to me it didn't read as an accusation so much as a feeling. I wouldn't jump on the defensive here too quickly.

how was Naked Lunch a "revolutionary " book?
Just because it was banned??

Im going to be a little different and name 3 books that MUST be read and maybe Shouldnt be read.

I love American Psycho, Last Exit to Brooklyn and Requiem For a Dream but if you've got a weak stomach or cringe at violence I wouldnt go near them. Im often telling people around here to read them but I think there is a bout only one person in Tuam I know that I would recomend them to.

[QUOTE=nathaniel parker;1089487]how was Naked Lunch a "revolutionary " book?
Just because it was banned??[/QUOTE]

The trial that surrounded the book was a landmark obscenity case. The gist was that a Boston bookseller wen to jail for selling the book in 1963. Naked Lunch was banned in the area by local law. Higher courts overturned the decision in 1966 for first amendment reasons.

One way to view the whole thing is that Naked Lunch made it illegal for local legislation to prevent you from buying books protected by the constitution. Another book may have one day done the same, but the extreme subject matter of the novel (child murder, homosexuality, drugs) pushed the subject to the national attention at lightning speed.

From a literary standpoint, the "cut-up method" used to put the book together has proven to be extremely influential in both writing and music. Bowie's Major Tom is said to have been written in a similar manner.

At the time, it was a bestseller and one of the only places the average American was likely to see a gay protagonist (there were others, for sure, but nothing with this level of notoriety).

So yeah, it was important. Does everybody need to read it? Not exactly, but flipping through it can't hurt.

[QUOTE=chad lott;1089789]The trial that surrounded the book was a landmark obscenity case. The gist was that a Boston bookseller wen to jail for selling the book in 1963. Naked Lunch was banned in the area by local law. Higher courts overturned the decision in 1966 for first amendment reasons.

One way to view the whole thing is that Naked Lunch made it illegal for local legislation to prevent you from buying books protected by the constitution. Another book may have one day done the same, but the extreme subject matter of the novel (child murder, homosexuality, drugs) pushed the subject to the national attention at lightning speed.

From a literary standpoint, the "cut-up method" used to put the book together has proven to be extremely influential in both writing and music. Bowie's Major Tom is said to have been written in a similar manner.

At the time, it was a bestseller and one of the only places the average American was likely to see a gay protagonist (there were others, for sure, but nothing with this level of notoriety).

So yeah, it was important. Does everybody need to read it? Not exactly, but flipping through it can't hurt.[/QUOTE]

WHAT CHAD SAID!!!!!!!!

I woulda said this exactly except not as well.

I for one couldn't read it last time, but someday I might. And censorship SUCKS!

I read "Places I Never Meant to Be" a two years ago and w o w.

That book convinced me that nothing should be censored. You can control what YOU read or what YOUR kids read, but no one has the right to control what everyone reads. Don't let your kids read Fight Club if you think it's horrible, but who are you to say what the kid next door gets to read?

[QUOTE=ScribblingDes;1089470]That was the first thing I thought of when I read that as well. But to me it didn't read as an accusation so much as a feeling. I wouldn't jump on the defensive here too quickly.[/QUOTE]

Well, to me it's an empty smear. Pics or it didn't happen. I have so much respect for CC, and really love his work, that I don't think it is fair or appropriate to level charges against somebody with something to back it up. Not defensive, just pissed off.

[QUOTE=chad lott;1089789]The trial that surrounded the book was a landmark obscenity case. The gist was that a Boston bookseller wen to jail for selling the book in 1963. Naked Lunch was banned in the area by local law. Higher courts overturned the decision in 1966 for first amendment reasons.

One way to view the whole thing is that Naked Lunch made it illegal for local legislation to prevent you from buying books protected by the constitution. Another book may have one day done the same, but the extreme subject matter of the novel (child murder, homosexuality, drugs) pushed the subject to the national attention at lightning speed.

From a literary standpoint, the "cut-up method" used to put the book together has proven to be extremely influential in both writing and music. Bowie's Major Tom is said to have been written in a similar manner.

At the time, it was a bestseller and one of the only places the average American was likely to see a gay protagonist (there were others, for sure, but nothing with this level of notoriety).

So yeah, it was important. Does everybody need to read it? Not exactly, but flipping through it can't hurt.[/QUOTE]

That about covers it. Great post. And it is NOT an easy read, I will say that. The movie was just as bizarre.