It is when you hate it and can hardly get through the pages. A well-paced four hundred page book is quick. A poorly-paced two hundred page book is long.
I'm not always the biggest fan either but DeLillo's Libra is really, really good. It also has the distinction of being the most sensibile Kennedy assassination conspiracy that I've ever read.
I read the 4 books in the Lord of the Rings "trilogy" two or three times in and just after college. I was happy when the moves came out, and enjoyed them. I started to re-read The Hobbit, but I just could not get into it again. I skipped to the actual series, but put the first down after 50 pages.
Dickens is the most overrated author in history. I completely gave up on Bleak House barely 10% in. What a load of shit. Don't even get me started on that David Copperfield shit which I read right through to its self-indulgent finish. I've never seen such abysmal dialogue.
Dickens is hit-or-miss for me. I could never get into Tale of Two Cities and put down Pickwick Papers just last summer, but I absolutely adore David Copperfield and Great Expectations.
The Good Earth is the one book that I have an intense hate for (not just on that list, in general). But there are some fantastic books on there; Sound and the Fury, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Song of Solomon...
I had the misfortune to have to read Great Expectations as a high school senior, as a college freshman, and then, just for good measure, as a college sophomore. Once was way more than enough.
I've had to read Chronicles of the Crusades for three different classes over a three year span. The Villehardouin portion is way better than Joinville's. Just saying.
I can't tell you how many times, as a History grad student, I have been assigned that damn book. The only thing that's assigned anywhere near as much is Gregory of Tour's History of the Franks. On a related note, I will NEVER be able to read Bocaccio's The Decameron. If you want the definition of long, dry, and overblown, that's it.
Give Michener's The Source a shot before you dismiss the genre entirely. That's one of my favorite books ever written, and the only reason I stayed with Hawaii as long as I did.
Wuthering Heights. About halfway through I put down the book and realized, "I don't care what happens to any of these whiny brats." I wanted to take everyone in that book and slap them.
Regarding Dickens - he's badly in need of a good editor. He wrote by the word, which is why his books are too long. Oh and megadittoes on the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien had a great imagination but he was not a great writer. And all the stupid songs.....Jebus, enough already.
"Stories In An Almost Classical Mode" kept taunting me until I finally decided I just didn't care, and sold it back to the same used bookstore I bought it from. It may be a fine book full of excellent short stories, maybe it was just me. But I just did not give a shit.
A Tale of Two Cities is kinda boring but The Pickwick Papers and David Copperfield are wonderful reads. I nominate Les particules élémentaires by Michel Houellebecq (sorry I don't know the English title, I read it, or TRIED to read it, in Dutch). The most god-awful pretentious rubbish I've read, or I should say tried to read, in a long, long time. I'm also struggling now to get through The Swarm by Frank Schatzing, another heavily hyped book but his writing style for some reason doesn't sit well with me. I will finish it though as I do want to know what happens in the end (which I guess is a sign of a quality book).
Your first mistake was even picking up a book by Houellebecq. The man loves his image as "controversial" way too much to ever write something worth reading. I'm a huge H.P. Lovecraft fan and tried to pick up his essay on HPL against my better judgement. It was just as I had suspected/feared, with Holla-back trying to force any piece of information into his pre-determined "outside-the-box" thesis statement. I seriously just have no respect for the man as a writer or as a person.
David Copperfield is crap. The characters are all stupid, the main character is completely uninteresting, the plot goes nowhere, and gets more and more tedious as the book goes on, the dialogue is laughable, and the whole thing is just pure self-indulgence.
I'm really interested in your opinion here, as someone has just recomended him to me as the "best living writer" today. Now I dont know what to think. Guess I'll just read him to find out for myself.
Oh My GOD this was awful. I forced myself to read through the end. And yes, I thoroughly enjoy "reality-bending" SF. This, giving a nod to the thread title, is utter rubbish...
That's really the only way to go. I would never trust another person's opinion, unless I knew their reading preferences pretty well (which you obviously don't). The thing is, a lot of people would dislike Houellebecq simply because of the language he uses (in terms of its "educational level"), but that's not really why I dislike him ( I really enjoy David Foter Wallace-for the most part- and he can be extremely stuffy). What really bothers me about Houellebecq is that he seems, to me at least, to be a contrarian solely to occupy the category. He's like an academic Don Imus or Rush Limbaugh, full of bluster to increase his ratings. And on top of that, he shoehorns and manipulates ideas to fit with his pre-conceived opinion, rather than the other way around. Its pretty obvious that I strongly dislike the man, but I would hate to dissuade you from reading something you're interested in. Your friend probably knows what you are into better than I do, and its just my opinion anyway.
One last thing. Here's one of the lines from Houllebecq's essay on Lovecraft (and the basis of most of what he writes thereafter): "Those who love life do not read. Nor do they go to the movies, actually. No matter what might be said, access to the artistic universe is more or less entirely the preserve of those who are a little fed up with the world." I shudder just reading that. If you agree with it, or like the direction that's going, jump right in. Its just not for me
How weird. I thought Great Expectations and Hard Times were excellent--haven't done much other Dickens though. I just started and put down an Irvine Welsh book the other day. Forget the title already--it was idiotic. Makes me wonder if Trainspotting was as good as cracked up to be, or just gimmicky. I've yet to make it very far into any of Rushdie's recent novels. Also have never gotten far in Love in the Time of Cholera. Should have read that one before 100 Years. Also just quit on Him, Her, and Him Again by Patricia Marx. Hysterical first 50 pages that had me recommending it to people. I quit by page 100.
I agree on Ethan Frome; to repeat one of my too-oft-used phrases, I would like to slap that man across the mouth, the whiner. I thought The Picture of Dorian Gray was a good read, though. What didn't you like about it?
The book was recommended to me. I was skeptical, but decided to give it a chance. The writing was juvenile. The conversations forced. I am embarrassed to present, The Celestine Prophecy. I didn't finish Moby Dick the first time I tried, but when I did I thoroughly enjoyed it. The first 20 or so pages of All the King's Men made me quit the book several times. Now, it is one of my favorite (top 20) novels.