What is the worst book you were forced to read in high school?

[Keeland]

I enjoyed how the teacher would always discuss the psychological complexities of the characters and the different themes about human nature which are still relevant to us today.

They were relevant before caves were up-market — and so are the plots. Surprise! People were envious, dastardly and buffoons 500 years ago!

Shakespeare's soaps were not original. He cribbed everything he wrote, I'd bet even those tedious "Shakespeare said it first" lists.

[FPNY]

UGH..that freaking Great Expectations. I spent more energy dodging class than it would have taken to read the book. I found it dreadful....

[thatgirl]

They were relevant before caves were up-market — and so are the plots. Surprise! People were envious, dastardly and buffoons 500 years ago!

Shakespeare's soaps were not original. He cribbed everything he wrote, I'd bet even those tedious "Shakespeare said it first" lists.

OK, but leave Hamlet out of it.

Or else.



Honestly though, I don't think people believe Shakespeare's plots or themes were original, but it's the way he put them together and presented them that works for many people.

[Keeland]

Psycho is better.

[maxpowr9]

Ragged Dick and Struggling Upward [yes, that really is the name of the book].

It was written by a pedophile [Horatio Alger Jr.] and is a story about young boys finding their way in society. Mind you I went to Catholic School during the height of the child sex abuse scandal.

[Kulindahr]

Ivanhoe.

I couldn't figure out what it was about when I read it, and I still don't know. The only reason I got a decent grade on my report was that I compared a long scene where they're riding through dim woods, sort of lost, with the way reading the book made me feel -- I guess the teacher thought that was creative.

[doctorsun]

Frankenstein. It's the most painfully boring thing I've ever endured. I dreaded every overwritten word of that book and I love to read. I loved most of the books we had to read. Rebecca is still a favorite of mine. I just couldn't force myself to enjoy Frankenstein though.

[oakpope]

Are you all talking about Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' ? I remember it as a rather short book...Am I mistaken ?

[LatimerRd]

I liked all of the novels and plays we were assigned, but I liked "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" best of all. Loved it. Also loved "Dubliners".

I read "Catcher" on my own because I was told I should by an adult who should have known better, though come to think of it, she didn't say she liked it, only that she had been told that it was "very meaningful" to young people. I thought it was the worst book I had ever read. Hated it. Really hated it.

[floridaboy]

catcher in the rye is pretty bad

but you havent read NOTHING as long, dragged out, and anti-climactic than the great gatsby

it took so long for a story to develop, then in after the whole story of gatsby and the one white bitch, she leaves and acts like nothing happened. talk about a HOE

[ronboy]

I remember hating Hard Times (for These Times) by Charles Dickens. I had TWO classes that assigned it, and I still never managed to get through it. Then a year later, I saw in bed sick with nothing to read. I picked it up.. and actually liked it. No idea what happened there.

Lex

I read it in high school...hated it to death....

My favorite author.....John Steinbeck. In Grade 9, we read "Of Mice and Men." I was prepared to hate it, but loved it! In Grade 10, we were given a reading list with lots of the books mentioned here that people hated, including "Tess" "Lord of the Flies" and "Catcher in the Rye." Instead, I chose to read another Steinbeck book on the list, "Cannery Row." Again, I loved it! Since then, I have read my way through his other works. He is still my favorite American author.

[GregKII]

Oh I could go on for days. I HATE Catcher in the Rye..I can hear my teacher's voice now talking about how "misunderstood" he was. I'll tell you what he was, a homophobic, immature, little pussy, and I hate using that word. Perhaps the worst for me was the Scarlet Letter! Fuck Hester Prynne, Fuck Pearl, Fuck Dimmesdale, Fuck Chillgsworth, and all the rest of Puritan Boston..that's how I feel about the Scarlett Letter, and it was worse because I took AP English.. yikes! I sort of enjoyed the Great Gatsby, but it's one of those books that you like after you finished. When you're reading it, its sort of like taking a bite of a soggy sandwich.. and my teacher made some terrible interpretations. The only thing that seemed to be even worse than Scarlett Letter, and Catcher in the Rye, was, perhaps 1984. Kill me. As for Great Expectations. I've never bullshitted my way through something as hard, and with as much dedication as I did that book..

[zoltanspawn]

Are you all talking about Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' ? I remember it as a rather short book...Am I mistaken ?

For some of us, brevity is relative.

[doctorsun]

Are you all talking about Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' ? I remember it as a rather short book...Am I mistaken ?

Yes and the book is rather short, but it's also mind-numbingly dull and greatly overwritten.

[animalius]

Are you all talking about Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' ? I remember it as a rather short book...Am I mistaken ?

Written in today's style, yes it is short. The actual book is overwritten. Mary Shelley was bed bound for many years and isolated. You coulld clearly tell from her writing style. Written more for herself than other people.

[thatgirl]

The only thing that seemed to be even worse than Scarlett Letter, and Catcher in the Rye, was, perhaps 1984. Kill me.

Wow, really?

I loved reading 1984, along with Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World. Yay, dystopian themes.

[moniker]

People who hated reading certain books as part of an English literature class should maybe consider the reason for their hostility, namely that the purpose of the reading is to pass a test of some sort. I only began to enjoy reading literary works when I graduated from university; then I read for pleasure and did not feel pressured to take notes or think of possible exam questions. This puts an entirely different perspective on things. Most fiction was and is written with the intent to entertain an audience.

[maxpowr9]

Wow, really?

I loved reading 1984, along with Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World. Yay, dystopian themes.

Reckon Fahrenheit 451 was a book I read in middle school (along with A Separate Peace and To Kill a Mockingbird which shows how far behind the public school system is in reading), I liked 1984 and the Scarlet Letter. I find people hate The Scarlet Letter if you have a female teacher while reading it because the book is one of the most misogynistic in the English curriculum.

[xbuzzerx]

People who hated reading certain books as part of an English literature class should maybe consider the reason for their hostility, namely that the purpose of the reading is to pass a test of some sort. I only began to enjoy reading literary works when I graduated from university; then I read for pleasure and did not feel pressured to take notes or think of possible exam questions. This puts an entirely different perspective on things. Most fiction was and is written with the intent to entertain an audience.

I really and honestly just could never foresee any other context in which I'd either enjoy or learn from writing set in 18th and 19th century England about its upper class. I found it painfully dry and the great bulk of it without any historical resonance or even so much as touching upon any pertinent social issues of the time or anything else. There are exceptions of course, like Tale of Two Cities and what have you. But of the ones I read, they were the exceptions. Most were effectually glorified romance novels.

I have no desire to read more of the same either for its literary or recreational value. I simply was required to for school.

[seven2go]

Beowulf.......why I'll never know....... ......or care

[maxpowr9]

Beowulf.......why I'll never know....... ......or care

I had to read it in college and the subsequent sequel, Grendel. OMG Grendel was such drivel. He's the embodiment of teenage angst.

[GregKII]

I hated Fahrenheit 451 just as much as I hated 1984, but teachers beat the hell out of Dystopian novels to the point where it was no longer interesting.

[star-warrior]

We mostly read stuff as excerpts, IIRC, in our English classes, not that I recall much other than liking Isaac Asimov immensely. I don't recall any Shakespeare, or any of the classics.

It wasn't until I finished A-Level and went commuting to uni (45 min by train) that I had access to a good bookshops to browse in. A train companion a year younger than I was said he was taking Eng Lit, reading Aeschylus, Aristophanes other greek authors. Brekekekex, koax, koax! from the Frogs, lol. My sis did arts subjects too, so I read Bronte, Homer and Austin. Although the language in these tended to be a little archaic, I don't recall thinking it was crap. I enjoyed Wuthering Heights, not least because of the way Joseph spoke in it.

[secondmonkey]

Everything I was forced to read was a worthless piece of shit. If you have to force people to read it then it's probably not very good, is it?

I specifically remember an english class I had in 12th grade, I flat out said I'm not reading this shit, and I didn't. Got a 100% on the project and an A in the class. The english teacher was pretty useless as well. I really don't understand why we force this shit on kids that really, truely don't care? Sure, they need to learn how to speak proper english, but how does forcing shakespeare on them do that?

[pat grimshaw]

Everything I was forced to read was a worthless piece of shit…
I'm not reading this shit
…we force this shit on kids …

It's useful to teach kids what words mean and when to use them.
Because if they don't they might bring the word for excrement and the word for faeces inappropriately into every sentence.

[JackinSea]

Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton -- major snoozefest

[secondmonkey]

It's useful to teach kids what words mean and when to use them.
Because if they don't they might bring the word for excrement and the word for faeces inappropriately into every sentence.

There is nothing "inappropriate" about it. They are strong words meant to imply a strong meaning. Don't like the way I talk? I don't give a shit.

Shakespeare is worthless shit, so why would I use another word to describe it? I am comparing it to excrement.

BTW - you don't even know how to spell feces.

[GregKII]

I remember reading Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy for extra credit.. NOW THAT was a good book. Who knew Russian literature could be so titillating?

[pat grimshaw]

@ post #77

Fair enough, but I suspect there won't be people in the year 2512 discussing your contribution to mankind, nor mine.

[oakpope]

Brekekekex, koax, koax! from the Frogs, lol.

Mirth

[oakpope]

There is nothing "inappropriate" about it. They are strong words meant to imply a strong meaning. Don't like the way I talk? I don't give a shit.
Shakespeare is worthless shit, so why would I use another word to describe it? I am comparing it to excrement.

If someone like you describes the most revered English author as a 'piece of shit', what do you think is the most probable outcome ? That people will say 'oh my, now that you say so, yes it's shit', or will they say 'this poor man doesn't have enough education, or subtlety or enough grasp of vocabulary to understand the pieces of a master' ?
What's your bet ?

[Gimmecat]

A toss up between Frankenstein and Huckleberry Finn (I know it's supposed to be an American classic but it bored me to tears). I loved Macbeth though.

[thatgirl]

We mostly read stuff as excerpts, IIRC, in our English classes, not that I recall much other than liking Isaac Asimov immensely. I don't recall any Shakespeare, or any of the classics.

It wasn't until I finished A-Level and went commuting to uni (45 min by train) that I had access to a good bookshops to browse in. A train companion a year younger than I was said he was taking Eng Lit, reading Aeschylus, Aristophanes other greek authors. Brekekekex, koax, koax! from the Frogs, lol. My sis did arts subjects too, so I read Bronte, Homer and Austin. Although the language in these tended to be a little archaic, I don't recall thinking it was crap. I enjoyed Wuthering Heights, not least because of the way Joseph spoke in it.

I honestly wish we'd read some Greek classics in high school. We were only taught about Greek and Roman gods and goddesses just so that we'd know what was going on when they'd be referenced in other books we had to read further down the line. For example, the Odyssey would have been doable maybe in the higher grades. It's really fun to read. The Illiad on the other hand...I did not get that one at all. It was just constant battling. So boring.

[loveguys72]

What?! I loved Huckleberry Finn! And sorry, Fuji, Shakespeare rocks.

But, All the King's Men, The Old Man and the Sea, Travels with Charley, and The Great Gasbag...er...Gatsby.....those were absolute torture. I would have happily tossed each of them into the nearest fire. And I'm a bibliophile!

[zoltanspawn]

I'm not convinced that all these books were assigned in high school.

[loveguys72]

All the ones in my post were. I recall them vividly. Rather like severe food poisoning.

[seven2go]

I'm not convinced that all these books were assigned in high school.

Having no idea how old you are I can assure you they were........at least when I went to high school they were ('69 HS grad),
I'm afraid to discover what is required now days........

[Gimmecat]

Not to be shady but I don't think anyone posted what they posted with the intention of convincing the OP or anyone on here for that matter that what they read was true. Conversely, I don't see the reason in needing or feeling compelled to convince anyone that what they posted is true or not.

[maxpowr9]

I'm not convinced that all these books were assigned in high school.

I can name all the books I read in high school...

Freshman year
The Natural (Summer required reading)
Double Helix (Biology required reading)
Silent Spring (Biology required reading)
Faust (Theology required reading)
Romeo & Juliet
Gilgamesh
The Odyssey
Great Expectations
Ragged Dick and Struggling Upward
Lord of the Flies

Sophomore Year
Night (Summer required reading)
Gran Aventura de Alejandro (Spanish required reading)
Joshua: A parable for Today (Theology required reading)
Killer Angels (AP USH required reading)
Julius Caesar
Of Mice and Men
Interpreter of Maladies
Things Fall Apart
Road From Coorain

Junior Year
Theology Books
The Chosen
Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?
Dead Man Walking
Cry, The Beloved Country

English Books
Great Gatsby (Summer required reading)
Scarlet Letter
Billy Budd
Red Badge of Courage
Death of A Salesman
Their Eyes Were Watching God

APUSH
The Right Stuff
The Things They Carried

Senior Year
Animal Farm (Summer required reading)
Beowulf
Mayor of Casterbridge
Wuthering Heights
Pygmalion
Macbeth
1984 (Senior Paper)
---

Yeah there is a fair amount of garbage in there.

The sad part is, parents complained the curriculum was too intense and it has been toned down greatly. If you child is struggling in honors classes, they should be in the regular level then.

[secondmonkey]

If someone like you describes the most revered English author as a 'piece of shit', what do you think is the most probable outcome ? That people will say 'oh my, now that you say so, yes it's shit', or will they say 'this poor man doesn't have enough education, or subtlety or enough grasp of vocabulary to understand the pieces of a master' ?
What's your bet ?

Who said I give a fuck what the "outcome" is? I am entitled to my opinion just as much as anyone else, and I'm far from the only one who shares it. The fact is, if you must be "educated" to understand something, then there is probably something wrong with it to begin with.

If you want to read garbage like shakespeare go right ahead, I'm not going to stop you. Forcing people who dont want to, as they do in high school, is ridiculous. As others have already pointed out, shakespeare was meant to be watched, not read.

[animalius]

@ post #77

Fair enough, but I suspect there won't be people in the year 2512 discussing your contribution to mankind, nor mine.

If someone like you describes the most revered English author as a 'piece of shit', what do you think is the most probable outcome ? That people will say 'oh my, now that you say so, yes it's shit', or will they say 'this poor man doesn't have enough education, or subtlety or enough grasp of vocabulary to understand the pieces of a master' ?
What's your bet ?

Nowadays, most people can write a decent story if they want to. But back then, most people lived in shit, wrote like shit, and talked like shit. They had a choice between smelly shit and less smelly shit (aka Shakespeare).

Consider this for a moment. Suppose before you are allowed to use a phone (home phone, cell phone, etc.) you must for 4 years use the original phone that Alexander Graham Bell invented. Don't stop there. Before you are allowed to use a calculator or computer, you must for 4 years use the abacus.

And that's exactly what forcing high school students read shit like Shakespeare or Mary Shelley is!

We as society has evolved considerably since those times. In modern times, most of us talk in a linear fashion and we write very clear and concise sentences so that most other people can understand right away what it is we are trying to commune.

If someone stabs me, I sure as hell am not going to say "Oh mother, they hath slain me!" Instead, I would probably say something like "AHHHHHHHRGGEGGGGGGG SOME MOTHER FUCKER STABBED ME, HIS NAME IS ____________"

Have you guys honestly read books like Crime and Punishment or Demons by that mother fucker Dostoevsky? I mean seriously from beginning to end? I have. Trust me, that bastard should have been shot for having written such shitty shit.

The humanities is the only field in academics that allow shit like that to prosper. Many scientists have pointed this out. Sokal and Dawkins are at the forefront of making people aware how these bastards get away with writing shitty shit and get away with it in the humanities departments.

Yes, I'm referencing Fashionable Nonsense and Intellectual Impostures by Sokal.

[AshyPhoenix]

Hey... I loved Crime and Punishment. The prose may have been tough to get through, but the meanings and ideas behind the difficult phrasings were wonderful.

[moniker]

I really and honestly just could never foresee any other context in which I'd either enjoy or learn from writing set in 18th and 19th century England about its upper class. I found it painfully dry and the great bulk of it without any historical resonance or even so much as touching upon any pertinent social issues of the time or anything else. There are exceptions of course, like Tale of Two Cities and what have you. But of the ones I read, they were the exceptions. Most were effectually glorified romance novels.

I have no desire to read more of the same either for its literary or recreational value. I simply was required to for school.

Try reading the novels of the Victorian Age's Anthony Trollope, someone not usually assigned for literature courses. You'll be surprised how relevant his characters are to modern concerns.

[animalius]

Hey... I loved Crime and Punishment. The prose may have been tough to get through, but the meanings and ideas behind the difficult phrasings were wonderful.

Don't get me wrong. I am not dissing the stories at all. Just like I would never diss the telephone technology. What I am dissing are the writing styles that those stories were used by the authors at the time just like I would never in a million years want to use the original telephone design made by Bell.

The various authors of times past were ahead of their time, and I applaud them for it. But again they used the only tool they had at the time, which was talking more to themselves than to communicate their ideas with other people.

Did you ever sit down and try to read the entire Frankenstein book by Mary Shelley? Shelley wrote that book more for herself than anyone else. It shows in the style of writing. She was isolated and bed bound due to illness for years. And during those years, she wrote that book.

Have you ever mumbled to yourself? Now, try to mumble to yourself and force others to understand you. That's exactly how it is with these authors' books.

So, again, I commend them for being ahead of their times. And I applaud their stories. But the instruments they used to commune their stories to others are grossly outdated and shouldn't be forced onto high school students.

If you have a literary mind and you love such writing styles, then god bless you go ahead and study them to your heart's content. But please, don't force it on those of us that like to communicate in a linear fashion so that most other people can understand us.

Just like if you wish to use the original telephone design by Bell or the abacus instead of a calculator, then god bless you go for it. But don't force those things on the rest of us. We like progress. We like living on the shoulders of giants!

[FanofFiction]

The Hobbit. Just not my thing at all.

[animalius]

Try reading the novels of the Victorian Age's Anthony Trollope, someone not usually assigned for literature courses. You'll be surprised how relevant his characters are to modern concerns.

Again, we are not saying those characters don't matter to modern concerns. But we are saying that the writing styles used to convey and describe those characters are horribly over written and grossly outdated. I like being able to fly to Europe in a few hours instead of using sailboats and take 3 months off my life to get there. I like using my computer and phone to communicate to my clients instead of morse code.

If you like to use morse code to communicate with your clients, god bless you for it. But don't force the rest of us to do the same.

[xbuzzerx]

Animalius I think what you're getting at (and I agree) is that writing of that time period almost to me comes off more like a way to illustrate your level of education and how complicated one could write rather than practical storytelling. At least, when I read novels from that time period I always feel like the story is secondary to writing in an overly roundabout manner. I think modern writers have evolved more and more towards smooth storytelling over intricately overwritten prose and I personally think that's a good thing-- literary snobs of course think the opposite. I think that difference is subjective and I don't think I'm a less cultured person for preferring modern writing to writing from 2 or 3 centuries ago.

[oakpope]

I suppose you consider the following as shit ?

As I ponder'd in silence,
Returning upon my poems, considering, lingering long,
A Phantom arose before me with distrustful aspect,
Terrible in beauty, age, and power,
The genius of poets of old lands,
As to me directing like flame its eyes,
With finger pointing to many immortal songs,
And menacing voice, What singest thou? it said,
Know'st thou not there is but one theme for ever-enduring bards?
And that is the theme of War, the fortune of battles,
The making of perfect soldiers.

Be it so, then I answer'd,
I too haughty Shade also sing war, and a longer and greater one than any,
Waged in my book with varying fortune, with flight, advance
and retreat, victory deferr'd and wavering,
(Yet methinks certain, or as good as certain, at the last,) the
field the world,
For life and death, for the Body and for the eternal Soul,
Lo, I too am come, chanting the chant of battles,
I above all promote brave soldiers.

Whitman.

[DigitalFudge]

I stopped reading the books they gave at the start of 10th grade.

[FanofFiction]

How did you pass english class after that point?