![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
I must link to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
yonmei's post which directed me to this other post on childhood classics various people just couldn't get into.
Until I do, let me add my bit to the fray:
Some people like to read. Some people don't - maybe it's hard for them, maybe they just prefer to do other things, maybe they never found the engaging story or they were told that what they do like to read (comics, non-fiction, romance) isn't good enough. Out of the people who like to read, sooner or later they'll find a book that they just don't like. And it's not always rational. But there's a number of books I was never able to get into. Cry, the Beloved Country? My entire class hated this. None of us, at Stuy, was able to read enough of it to pass a test. Lord of the Flies? I can never get past the second chapter. I've tried, I just *can't*. Lord of the Rings? Okay, I know why I don't like this, too much description.
It's all right not to like a book. It's also all right to not like a book, and not be able to explain why. Some people don't understand this. They look at a classic, find somebody who doesn't like it, and get upset. HOW COULD YOU NOT LIKE THIS BOOK??? *shrugs* Same way I don't like mushrooms. I. Just. Don't.
It's also all right to like a book, but for stupid reasons. It's got horrible dialog, no plot, gratuitous violence, but you first heard it read by a beloved kindergarten teacher? Great. It's terribly simplistic, presents a black and white view of morality, and has disturbingly sexist undertones (which were fine in its time, but no longer), but when you read it you remember the taste of cookies dipped in milk? Wonderful.
The only thing, as near as I can see, which isn't all right is to dislike a book for stupid reasons. Zel does NOT promote sex before marriage. In fact, the discerning reader can see that she is severely punished for having sex before marriage. Alanna is NOT a slut. She sleeps with no more than three guys in no less than three years. Tom Sawyer isn't all about that filthy N-word, nor is it all about children disobeying the authorities. And censoring the curse words out of a book about censorship? Pathetic.
*stretches*
That's a bit less coherant than I'd like. I'll try to do better next time.
yonmei's post which directed me to this other post on childhood classics various people just couldn't get into.Until I do, let me add my bit to the fray:
Some people like to read. Some people don't - maybe it's hard for them, maybe they just prefer to do other things, maybe they never found the engaging story or they were told that what they do like to read (comics, non-fiction, romance) isn't good enough. Out of the people who like to read, sooner or later they'll find a book that they just don't like. And it's not always rational. But there's a number of books I was never able to get into. Cry, the Beloved Country? My entire class hated this. None of us, at Stuy, was able to read enough of it to pass a test. Lord of the Flies? I can never get past the second chapter. I've tried, I just *can't*. Lord of the Rings? Okay, I know why I don't like this, too much description.
It's all right not to like a book. It's also all right to not like a book, and not be able to explain why. Some people don't understand this. They look at a classic, find somebody who doesn't like it, and get upset. HOW COULD YOU NOT LIKE THIS BOOK??? *shrugs* Same way I don't like mushrooms. I. Just. Don't.
It's also all right to like a book, but for stupid reasons. It's got horrible dialog, no plot, gratuitous violence, but you first heard it read by a beloved kindergarten teacher? Great. It's terribly simplistic, presents a black and white view of morality, and has disturbingly sexist undertones (which were fine in its time, but no longer), but when you read it you remember the taste of cookies dipped in milk? Wonderful.
The only thing, as near as I can see, which isn't all right is to dislike a book for stupid reasons. Zel does NOT promote sex before marriage. In fact, the discerning reader can see that she is severely punished for having sex before marriage. Alanna is NOT a slut. She sleeps with no more than three guys in no less than three years. Tom Sawyer isn't all about that filthy N-word, nor is it all about children disobeying the authorities. And censoring the curse words out of a book about censorship? Pathetic.
*stretches*
That's a bit less coherant than I'd like. I'll try to do better next time.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-24 02:38 pm (UTC)However, and I think this is the point you're trying to make-- it is okay for me to dislike a book for any reason, as long as I don't try to force others to dislike, avoid, or remove the book from an institution.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-24 02:53 pm (UTC)...um. And I totally did not notice the Jesus metaphor until I looked it up. it's too subtle.
And I just really really hate Steinbeck. and Dickens, because of stupidstupidstupid Great Expectations.
That book was Stupid. bold/cap/italics stupid.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-24 04:42 pm (UTC)But the old man is incompetent. So, comparing him to Jesus is also funny. So, Jesus was an incompetent fisherman... okay....
it's not like I had any respect whatsoever for the old man.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-24 06:50 pm (UTC)I had to slog through it, alone, all alone.