But that <Book> is the ultimate

[Lace Neil Singer]

I never did. XD But then, that's just me.

The only book I had to do in English that I hated with the fires of a thousand suns was The Mayor Of Casterbridge, that was one of the set texts for GCSE. I just could not get thru more than a quarter of that drivel. Luckily, I only had to memorise three out of four of the books, and the others were Animal Farm, Hobson's Choice and Romeo And Juliet, so I was cool.

[protege]

I'm one of those people who didn't enjoy Shakespeare. Why? Well, when you have to read Romeo & Juliet, Macbeth or Hamlet every damn year...and having your English teacher spend about 3 *months* on it every year...you soon get tired of it. Boring as hell, in other words

[Fryk]

Sorry, I don't even know why I typed books. I think I'll blame the gremlins in my brain.

And yes, the point of the paper was to sum up what we thought of it. It's not like I deviated from the assignment and just took the time to bitch and moan. It was a paper about what we thought. So that's what I did. She just didn't like my opinion very much. Also, in the interest of honesty, I probably was VERY sarcastic and wise-assed in it. And the reasons why I didn't like it, I probably wouldn't be so harsh about now (I thought the McCarthyism parallels were very heavy-handed, and that the writing was dry and dull. Except for Giles Corey.). My point wasn't that I was right and she was wrong. My point is that she held the book as sacrosanct. Nothing in literature should be. Even Saint Shakespeare and the Right Reverend Twain aren't going to please everyone. Freaking out o people who don't hold your opinion about them is stupid.

[jackfaire]

Specifically, Pride and Prejudice. ?

I tried to read it once was bored. Recently someone got me to watch the movie I kept falling asleep.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I generally come under a lot of criticism for not liking Jane Austen. Specifically, Pride and Prejudice. I never read it in high school, so I picked it up a few years ago because I'd heard such rave reviews about it. More than once I wanted to throw the thing across the room in frustration. How many chapters do you need to reiterate the same point?

What about Pride and Prejudice and Zombies ?

Back on topic though, I always found it infuriating when I was asked to analyze Shakespeare when it's language makes it so thoroughly difficult to understand that I would have to rely on either a dumbed-down version or another person's analysis.

I think that's kind of stupid, but hey, that's just me.

[LadyBarbossa]

I generally come under a lot of criticism for not liking Jane Austen. Specifically, Pride and Prejudice. I never read it in high school, so I picked it up a few years ago because I'd heard such rave reviews about it. More than once I wanted to throw the thing across the room in frustration. How many chapters do you need to reiterate the same point?

[jackfaire]

I also would not appreciate an essay on why you "didn't like it". That smacks of whining. .

When I was in school that was one of the aspects of every paper on a book was to explain why you did or did not like it.

[AdminAssistant]

We had to do an essay about Arthur Miller's The Crucible, so I did my essay on why I didn't like the books.

The books? It's one play, and I think it's one of Miller's finest. The whole thing is a commentary on McCarthy-ism. That said, I also would not appreciate an essay on why you "didn't like it". That smacks of whining. Far more interesting to find faults in the text, historical inaccuracies, or perhaps an argument that said it wasn't an effective commentary on Miller's own experiences with the Committee on Un-American Activities.

[Fryk]

I got into trouble in my 10th grade english class for challenging this. We had to do an essay about Arthur Miller's The Crucible, so I did my essay on why I didn't like the books. For six pages. Backed up with cited sources and quotes from the play. My teacher said she was so angry she was shaking when she read it, and couldn't finish it. The principal ended up getting involved, but hilariously, he sided with me, read and graded the paper (I got a low A on it) and told the teacher to enter the grade. He then told me to try to be less sarcastic next time, and that was that.

I do like one thing about that play though... Giles Corey. He was a puritan bad-ass.

[jackfaire]

Walden was crap. (didn't stop me from getting an A on the paper I did on it) but it was ladies and gentleman pure crap.

[Boozy]

I thought Tom Sawyer was good but didn't like anything else that Twain wrote, oh and he wrote under the name Twain I don't think it makes people sound smarter when they insist on using Clemens to show they know what his real name was.

I despise it when people do this. It's smarmy and pretentious -- and worse, it's inaccurate. Clemens wrote and published under the name "Twain". If you're talking about his books or writing career, that is the name one should use. If you're talking about his wife and kids or something, then "Clemens" would be fine.

[AdminAssistant]

That kind of defeats the point of being an English teacher, at least, in my opinion. If you don't ever read anything cept teenage fare, then how can you broaden your horizons?

Exactly.

My HS English teacher was wonderful. There were some books we all had to read, like Huck Finn. Then we were given a list and had to choose 5 books off the list to read, and they had to be read by a certain time. There is a literary 'canon', and it's good to at least be familiar with parts of it.

I don't criticize people for not having read certain books. But I do believe in learning about the classics, especially if that's useful for your education. I am eternally frustrated by undergraduate theatre students who turn up their nose at anything written earlier than 2000. Look, kids, Neil LaBute is not a good playwright. He's a misogynistic pig who's written the same play three times. If he hadn't been the one to write a 9/11 play RIGHT after 9/11 nobody would have ever heard of him.

But, no, he's a genius. They yawn through Euripides, Plautus, Marlowe, Racine. Tennessee Williams? Eugene O'Neill? Pshaw, no, we want to read Mamet!!! *sigh*

[Cats]

I've ranted about this before in another topic, but my English Teachers in high school, especially the one senior year, were NOTORIOUS for doing this. Some books every class in the grade had to read, some were teacher chosen. And heaven forbid if you read a book the teacher never heard of! To 2 of them I had, that automatically meant it wasn't a good book.

Just because a book is generally recognized as a good book (or the author themselves), doesn't mean EVERYONE is going to like it. I hated Lord of the Flies, for example. Does that mean I think it's a bad book or that I didn't understand it? No, it just means I personally did not enjoy it in a way that is no different from the way I do or don't like certain colors.

As for Shakespeare, I do think he was a great writer...for his time (hey, there is a reason everyone knows who he was!). Language has changed, and it is difficult as-is for most people to understand earily. My main beef is teachers who EXPECT you to understand it right off the bat, or teachers themselves who didn't understand it but pretended they did (I understood more out of one read of MacBeth [which I had coincidently read before we did it in class] than my teacher did after teaching it to 5 classes a year for over a decade).

For the record, I didn't like Romeo and Juliet either. Well, I thought in and of itself is was OKAY, but I think it's overrated and misunderstood (hell, most people I know think the whole "star-crossed lovers" thing means true eternal love, when in fact, it's a love that's doomed from the start).

[Lace Neil Singer]

If you ever get over to England, head to Canterbury so you can experience the Canterbury Tales. ^^ I studied the Wife Of Bath's tale, and tho the language is a bit slow going, it is a fantastic story.

My English teacher rather than forcing the "classics" on us would make us read books we could relate to.

That kind of defeats the point of being an English teacher, at least, in my opinion. If you don't ever read anything cept teenage fare, then how can you broaden your horizons? The girls in my class at school all loved Sweet Valley High, which was the chosen reading material for teenagers back when I was one. I scorned it, and chose instead to read Tolkien, for which I was teased hugely. When we did Animal Farm for GCSE, I had already read it so many times I knew it off by heart.

The English teacher was wonderful; rather than trying to force the class to feign interest while she read aloud, she had us all read the book, taking the parts of the different characters and keeping that character for the whole time we were reading the book. We also had several classroom activities connected with the book that helped put accross its meaning in a fun way. For example, with Animal Farm, she picked out certain members of the class (I was one) and had us take it over, acting that we'd taken over the school. We got to watch the cartoon in class too, and with every book, if there was a film or TV special on it, we got to watch it.

[Fryk]

...I absolutely despise Romeo and Juliet. Bleh.

Here, here!!! I can't stand that one, either!

And Lace, I LOVE Chaucer!

Know what I hate? Early american literature. ESPECIALLY The Scarlett Letter. And most of the transcendental poets.