On books.

[conuly]

I must link to 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.

Comments

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

"It's got horrible dialog, no plot, gratuitous violence, but you first heard it read by a beloved kindergarten teacher?"

It is just me, but does "kindergarten" just not seem to mix well with "gratuitious violence"? *grin*

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

Sigh. Language issues today.

I meant:

"Is it just me, or does..."

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

I thought exactly the same thing when I read that sentence.

Just so's you know you're not alone.

[rho]

I think it depends on the stupid reason. I wouldn't have a problem with, say, someone disliking a book because one of the characters had the same name as their toxic ex, or because it was set in a city they went on holiday once and got really ill, or whatever.

I'll agree with you though that disliking a book based on a complete misinterpretation of what it's about is Bloody Stupid, and something that warrants repeated cluebatting.

[genepool23.livejournal.com]

I have a false allergy to mushrooms that I created just to keep people from asking me "How can you not like Mushrooms?" Like my tastebuds are deficient or something.

I agree totally with the rest, too.

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

Little Red Riding Hood
Nearly all of the Grimm Brothers stories, for that matter.

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's wrong to dislike a book for stupid reasons. I dislike books for many reasons-- not all of them are particularly good. For example, I don't like Hemingway, because my sophomore class English teacher tried to shove The Old Man and the Sea -as-Jesus down our throats (in a public school, where it is not okay to give someone a failing grade just because she's never read the Bible).

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.

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

Except that the "violent" versions of those aren't standard kindergarten fare, at least not where I've spent my life.

[lakidaa.livejournal.com]

I just hated that book.

...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.

[eofs.livejournal.com]

A wolf eating people and getting its stomach split open is kinda violent...

[eofs.livejournal.com]

As, for that matter, is a witch fattening up a little boy to eat him and him and his sister then pushing said witch into the (hot) oven and running away.

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

What I'm saying, though, is that the versions recounted in my area, at least when I was little, weren't like that.

IIRC the wolf ran away and granny hid in the closet, or something like that. (I can't remember exactly... I heard a lot of different versions.)

[eofs.livejournal.com]

I didn't even know those versions existed until about a month ago when they came up on this very journal.

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

Little Red Riding Hood is hard not depict as violent and quite scary, with Grandma and Red getting eaten. In the non-gruesome version, the wolf gets his head chopped off and Grandma and Red aren't killed by being eaten. But it's still very disturbing.

[rachelkachel]

I used to not like mushrooms, but then I decided (for whatever reason) that it would be good if I did, so I kept trying them and now I love them. Not that that has anything to do with your post really. I'm certainly not advocating that if you don't like a book you should keep reading it until you do...

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

Actually, in the version I learned, Grandma hides in the closet (or some other excuse for her absence) and the wolf is just chased away -- nobody gets eaten. (I didn't hear more violent versions than that, that I remember, until adulthood.)

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

Wow. The book I read when I was in the "listen along with the records" stage had grandma getting eaten alive, then Red, then the woodsman comes by, sees what's happened, and chops the wolf's head off with an axe. I think it was the Golden books series.

I'm 30. Maybe they tamed everything down.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I didn't just hate The Hobbit. I felt betrayed. How dare an author suck that much? He was just lazy and stupid.

You see, I was very young and I read books for the characters and cool ideas. I didn't really realize yet that some people read them for other reasons. (Part of why I hated the Narnia books too, couldn't get into them, way too dull) And I got partway through and there were suddenly multiple characters with long, weird, indistinguishable names. I stopped being able to keep clear who was doing what. When people spoke, I had no idea which character it was. Since I couldn't give each character its own bit of my brain to keep fleshing them out, there was no point in reading it.

And I felt it was simple poor writing on the part of the author to make the characters indistinguishable. This could be avoided. And if the author didn't care enough about his characters, then I most certainly was not going to.

[leora.livejournal.com]

When I was working as a substitute teaching assistant for the Head Start program in Virginia a few years ago, I was struck that in my one day there, I read 2 stories that involved the main character being eaten. I forget what the first was, but the second was The Gingerbread Man.

I was working with 4 year olds, and two of the books read out loud that day were main characters being eaten...

So, yeah, violence is given to the young.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Fairy tales have been progressively tamed down for ages now. One of the things the Grimm brothers did was tame the stories down a little to make them more palatable.

The problem is that fairy tales weren't originally meant for children.

The oldest version of Little Red I know of (and she doesn't even have her trademark color in early versions) involves a strip tease as the girl undresses and item by item the wolf tells her to throw them in the fire as she won't need them again. And it involves the wolf serving her her grandmother's blood and flesh as wine and meat. She eats them.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Oops, forgot to say... but I like the older version, because she rescues herself and runs away. She's one of only two fairy tale women that I encountered on my own that rescue anyone. And Gretel only does anything helpful after her brother is locked up and out of the way. Little Red is truly resourceful.

There is another fairy tale female who saves the day, but I tend to forget the story as I haven't read it. It just has been mentioned when I discussed how rare females who can do anything effective to save themselves are in fairy tales with another fairy tale geek.

I am glad Little Red got watered down, but I hate that it morphed from She saves herself to She just gets eaten and that's it to A big, strong man comes in and saves the day. I wish they'd watered down the sex and violence while keeping the self-rescue.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I liked the book. I'm one of the only people I know who did. I had a long car ride with my brother when I had to read it. So, I read it out loud to him during the trip. We basically MST3K'd the book the whole way, and it had a lot of room for it. It was one of the funniest books I'd ever read.

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.

[eofs.livejournal.com]

I'm 19 and learnt much the same version.

[conuly]

You had a deprived childhood.

[conuly]

That's not a stupid reason, though. It's an irrational reason which you no doubt recognize even when you say it (gee, my ex is in this book!) is irrational.