Forums » Reading Corner » Read Thread

But don't say which is which!

I saw this really fun thread on Reddit, and I couldn't resist posing the same question on here to see what books y'all absolutely love and which ones you guys despise.

To make this fun, don't make the choice super obvious. It will be really fun to try and guess the books ourselves, so don't say which one was which until there's been a bit of discussion. Ideally, the more challenging, the better.

Also, just a note. You don't have to hate the book on the other end of the spectrum, it's ok to include a book you love and a book you mildly dislike. I know hate's a pretty strong word, and as for me, I don't really hate many books, but there are books that I dislike and probably won't read again. So even if you don't hate hate a book, but you just don't like it, still put it on the thread! It just sounds catchier that way, that's why I named the thread like that.

Mine are Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë and Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

     I know neither of these but... I'll just take a totally random guess based on title. You like Pride and Prejudice? I have a nice 50% chance of being right. I don't know your other one either but I'll just leave that one alone.

I also think you are more of a Pride and Prejudice person.

I'm going to go against the grain and say you love Wuthering Heights and hate Pride and Prejudice. Wuthering Heights is a fucking awesome novel and Pride and Prejudice, while not terrible, is a pretty meh in comparison.

I couldn't resist doing another one, so The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka and the Stranger by Albert Camus

OK Metamorphosis is Kafka doing Kafka, but the Stranger has some really cool writing. So I guess you like the Stranger.

It was the opposite for me.

I really loved the Metamorphosis because it spoke to me on a deep level. I feel like the brilliancy of Gregor Samsa's bizarre transformation is that you can derive multiple meanings from it. For me, at least, it felt like it could be a metaphor for someone going through some deep mental health struggles, like maybe depression, anxiety, or even ADHD. The transformation of a cockroach is a symbol for the person becoming something unrecognizable, and to outside observers, "ugly". I also liked how Samsa did his best to fight it as long as he could, holding on to hope, and even if the ending wasn't happy, I still felt like the story was meaningful. And at first, people do try and care, but eventually they lose some of their empathy and just want the whole ordeal to be over. The family's reaction after Samsa died was really brutal, and I feel like it's common for caregivers and family members of the person suffering from the disease to feel some aftereffects, but in the story, they only saw the event as an unpleasant experience that they had to overcome. I also think the story makes a really poignant point about how people can sometimes only be valued for the money they bring in or external things that they do, so I liked the story a lot.

The Stranger was thought provoking and a good piece of existentialist fiction, but I hated it because I feel like life isn't absurd or meaningless, it has inherent meaning. And I have heard the interpretation that maybe Camus was trying to make a case for positive existentialism, that since life is inherently meaningless, that frees one to pursue whatever they desire, but the story didn't really convey that for me, because the main character is disaffected, lonely, and anti social, but I didn't see his thoughts and feelings towards how he is. Like, maybe if we got some indication that he wants to change that, or he questions why he is the way he is, I would have liked it more, but as it is, I found myself growing increasingly frustrated because I think the point of existentialism is that since life doesn't have just one meaning, we should find our own meaning, so it should ideally be freeing and a call to progress. But instead, the protagonist surrenders himself to the vagaries of life, and sort of just rides the waves. I wish the epiphany at the end comes during the middle of the book, since I actually liked that Mersault finally felt a sense of freedom upon fully accepting that the world doesn't care about him and life is meaningless, but I wish he did something with that epiphany. I like the concept of optimistic nihilism, where it energizes someone and gives them freedom, rather than being a little depressing.

And so I was wrong ... 1:1

Oh, fun! Mine are Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by JK Rowling and Insomnia by Stephen King. I hope it's not super obvious, but it probably is, haha...

This is a good one!

My guess is Philosopher's Stone is the one you hate and Insomnia is the one you love. I haven't read Insomnia but the blurb sounds cool.

Bingo! Harry Potter pisses me off and I have a long, LONG rant I could give about it, and Insomnia is fantasy done RIGHT.

Go on the long long rant Liminal! I'd love to hear it!

Stephen King apparently was so coked up he doesn't even remember writing Insomnia.

And that boys and girls is how you do fantasy RIGHT.

Oh did you read "On writing" ?

Exactly. Mizal gets it. 90s Fantasy isn't fantasy unless the author is a little high. (And by a little high, I do mean absolutely fucked out of their minds.)

Did someone mention Stephen King? I've been summoned. Oh how we miss the coke days. Now his addiction is apparently Holly Gibney, and no one cares.

     I think that you probably hate Harry Potter, and I'm saying that because I don't know Insomnia, because Harry Potter is very popular, and because you didn't announce you didn't like it like Mizal.

This is a cool idea, but I'd have to think more about it. Life is too short and attention span too small to have fully read many books I actually hate.

The place where you're forced to read books you hate: English class. T-T

What does T-T mean?

It's a crying face.

Sure, I guess I'll play.

And then there were none - Agatha Christie.
Mistborn - Brandon Sanderson

Mistborn is not usually the Sanderson book that people hate, and And Then There Were None is famous but not the strongest Christie book, so I think you love Mistborn.

It's the other way around actually. Don't get me wrong, I do love Mistborn's world building and characters. It's just that the ending seemed to come out of nowhere. It didn't really use much of the elements that it set up. I only picked up the book at the recommendation of my cousin so I haven't really read the sequels yet.

And Then There Were None's ending was surprising too but in a good way. It could just be because I read it when I was significantly younger but I found it hard to predict how the story was going to go, which in turn made it quite an unforgettable suspenseful experience.

The Lord of the rings.

Harry Potter.

I'm guessing you love The Lord of the Rings?

I'm guessing you hated LotRs for all the visual description that assumed a functional imagination.

Fuck tom Bombadildo as well.

Lol. I thought I was the only one who disliked Tom Bombadil on CYS. Glad to see a fellow Tom Bombadil hater. But I did plan to reread the books at some point, after a recent conversation I had where I'm now curious to see him again through a different lens.

"The Name of the Wind" and "The Aeronaut's Windlass"

I'm guessing you enjoyed The Name of the Wind, and didn't find The Aeronaut's Windlass all that enjoyable. Like Mizal's one, I've only read one of the aforementioned books so I may not be the best judge, but I really loved Name of the Wind, and it's kind of a Fantasy classic. So if I had to bet, I feel like Name of the Wind is a pretty safe book to bet on.

Hehe, nope. I found the Name of the Wind pretty boring. Partly this is because the things it does well have been done before in A Wizard of Earthsea. Conversely, The Aeronauts Windless is a fast-paced steampunk adventure with very opinionated cats. How could I not love this?

Darn, there goes my perfect record.

Huh, I kind of see what you mean. Weirdly enough, Name of the Wind and Earthsea are both among my favorite fantasy novels. I guess with NoTW what kind of sets it apart, at least for me, was the 3 days idea, and the frameshift story where he went from Kvothe to Kote. I think my opinion of the series may slowly start going down the longer Rothfuss takes to write Doors of Stone, but for its potential and just the general feels, I really enjoyed it!

But Aeronauts Windlass honestly sounds awesome! I think I found a new book to add to my tbr(to be read) list.

You're weird. Name of the Wind was awesome! ^_^

I'll do two sets! I don't hate any of these books, but I was disappointed by two of them because I had really high expectations.

Where the Crawdads Sing by Delia Owens and Turtles All The Way Down by John Green

and

The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath and Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn

The first one is unfair as the books are so different, but I don't think you can be disappointed by John Green. You probably knew the main twist of Gone Girl before reading it, so this could have been the disappointment in the second pair.

Of couse the Bell Jar also has one of the greatest opening lines ever.

Heard of it of course but never read it, so I had to look up the opening line. And now I'm just very amused because someone liked the book enough to upload it chapter by chapter to a music lyrics site: https://genius.com/Sylvia-plath-the-bell-jar-chapter-1-annotated

My guess is you enjoyed Where the crawdads sing and Gone Girl

yes!

Flying Lessons by Kwame Alexander, Kelly J Baptist (lol), Soman Chainani and 6 more.

Keeper of the Lost Cities (first book) by Shannon Messenger

That took way too long to find the authors.

After reading Shifter, I'm guessing the one you enjoyed was Keeper of the Lost Cities and the one you didn't like was Flying Lessons. When I looked Keeper of the Lost Cities online, the premise seemed somewhat similar to the premise of Shifter, with the concept of kids getting fantastic magical powers and then going to a special boarding school/training camp.

Yep. :D

Two more "Gorky Park" (Martin Cruz Smith) and "Patriot Games" (Tom Clancy)

Okay, to keep these thematically similar, real world children's coming of age fantasy with dark elements starring a boy named William:

The Dark is Rising (1973)
Something Wicked This Way Comes (1962)

And their respective series... which you guys are unlikely to have ever read so you can't really guess at this one. That's the problem with book discussion, there are just too many books.

I think you mentioned really liking Ray Bradbury at some point, so my guess is you liked Something Wicked this way comes. I also enjoyed Something Wicked This Way Comes, so I'll guess that one. I haven't heard of The Dark is Rising, so by default I'm guessing that's the one you didn't enjoy.

Ready Player One by Ernest Cline and No Longer Human by Dazai Osamu. I think this will be pretty obvious!

You love No Longer Human by Dazai Osaka and dislike Ready Player One. I remember you quoted No Longer Human in the quotes thread.

You got it right! ^^ I think I might've made it a bit too obvious.. Though, dislike isn't a strong enough word to describe how god awful Ready Player One is.

If I am not completely mistaken there seems to be a strong tendency to mention the disliked book first, which is interesting in its own right.

Nice! Out of the 2 books, I've only read Ready Player One, but I've heard of No Longer Human by reputation, and it's on my tbr, so I figured that along with you quoting from it, was a pretty solid guess in general.

No Longer Human provides such an interesting insight on perspective! I highly recommend reading it! ^^

I like Ready Player One but it seems that isn't what you like.

It's really up to your personal taste! For me the book was gamer slop, the endless references in every sentence along with how he wrote his characters was just dissatisyfing. It honestly just seemed like his weird fantasy about gamers being awesome and cool. The premise was interesting just not carried out well! 

The Long Walk by Stephen King vs Fourth Wing by Rebecca Yarros

If you want another one (series edition):

Keeper of the Lost Cities series by Shannon Messenger vs Arc of a Scythe series by Neal Shusterman

The first one is a bit too easy.

Long Walk is the one you like, fantastic book and in my opinion the best of the Bachman books.

As for the second, I'm going to take a gander and say you liked Scythe

Considering Fourth Wing is generally considered to be one of the greatest piles of steaming horse shite to be published since 50 Shades of Grey, I'm going to take a wild gander and guess that you hated it... If you loved it, prepare to be mocked into oblivion! ^_^

For the first one, I'm going to assume that you liked The Long Walk and hated Fourth Wing because that's the only correct answer. 

For the second one, I think that you like Scythe because I remember us talking about how much we enjoyed that series on discord three or so years ago. I could be misremembering though, that was a while back. 

How about two SciFi books that start with a weird cult and end on a platform in the water: "The Rig" and "Gideon the Ninth"?

I'm not familiar with either of these, but those of you keeping them thematically similar this way do make them a lot easier to compare and discuss.

This one is an easy one. You loved Gideon the Ninth and disliked the Rig.

I remember you recommending Gideon the Ninth sometime ago in one of the reading threads, plus, it's a cool book about outer space necromancers, so what's not to like?

Yes "the Rig" really sucks. It isn't even proper SciFi. The writer clearly disdains Science and Technology; they just like using Tech as an excuse to create fairly absurd dilemmas. They compensate by having the protagonist emphasize how clever and tech-savvy he is. Unfortunately the protagonist acts pretty stupidly all the time, and when this alleged hacker is faced with a computer virus, he just says, oh sorry nothing we can do here.

By contrast Gideon is a proper (though unusual) SciFi. It sets out from simple rules and then extrapolates, just like SciFi was always meant to be.

Oh! This is fun! Okay, I see your cringey romances and I raise you... Catcher in the Rye and Lolita!

Am I an angsty little bitch or a pedophile? Debate! ^_^

This is a tricky one. I am going to guess that you enjoyed Catcher and disliked Lolita.

Wrong! Absolutely loved Lolita! Couldn't stand Catcher in the Rye.

Holden Caulfield is easily one of the most hateable protagonists I have ever come across. He is a whiny little bitch bag who constantly complains that everybody else is a "fake" and a "phony" whilst at the same time being easily the phoniest person in the book. Pretending to like a girl he hates in an attempt to get in her pants, asking her to run away with him, blowing a gasket when she says no, and then admitting that he wouldn't have actually run away with her even if she said yes. Also he looks down on literally anybody who watches movies in any capacity because books are better.

Now, Humbert Humbert is, of course, also a hateable protagonist. I mean, the dude is just a straight up pedophile and murderer. You can't really get much more hateable than that. The difference is that the reader is very clearly supposed to hate Humbert Humbert.

Its like the difference between Bella Swan and Joffery Baratheon. They are both very hateable characters, but in Game of Thrones, the readers are supposed to hate Joffery and take some kind of twisted enjoyment in how much they hate him. In Twilight, the reader is supposed to relate to and empathize with Bella and view her as a heroine, so the fact that she is so hateable is a massive failure on the part of the author.

Maybe I might have related to Holden Caulfield if I had read the book when I was an angsty teenager, but I read it as an adult, and as such found the character completely insufferable. Maybe there is something else I could have taken away from the book. The writing was certainly good. But considering the focus of the book is on Holden's internal mental struggles, and I could not relate to or sympathize with his mental struggles since the majority of his issues seem to stem from his own delusions and biases rather then any actual problems in his life, I just couldn't get on board with it.

Now, from what I understand, a lot of people hate Lolita and think the book is disgusting because it is trying to get people to empathize with and feel sorry for a pedophile... I did not get that impression at all. Throughout the novel, Humbert Humbert is very clearly the villain and I never once felt that the author intended him to be seen as a tragic hero. He's a really bad guy. I mean, even outside of being a pedophile, he's a terrible, terrible guy. Dude is actually worse in the books than he is in the movies. He had a first wife before he married Lolita's mother that he treated like absolute shit. Obviously he treated Lolita's mother like absolute shit and (due to the whole unreliable narrator thing) may or may not have murdered her. Through his actions in the book, it is made very clear that he is not in love with Lolita and is just using her to fulfill his sick fantasies. There is absolutely nothing redeemable about this character.

Now, I guess I can see how some people would think that this novel is trying to get you to relate to and sympathize with the protagonist. Because, of course, the novel is told in first person. The character of Humbert Humbert very clearly IS trying to get the reader to sympathize and relate to him. That said, I do not think this was the author's intention because, if the author wanted us to relate to Humbert Humbert, I think he would have made him a less despisable character. Dude is literally pure evil, which I think makes him a really interesting protagonist... Plus the book is fantastically written, so there's that. ^_^

Hah I knew it.

Though disregarding everything else about him, it would be hard to sympathize with a protagonist with a dumb ass name like "Humbert Humbert" anyway.

Oh I would've guessed this one right if I hadn't glossed over it, dang it. I've never known anyone who "loved" Catcher in the Rye, more like tolerated it at best. And people who have actually read any part of Lolita know it's got a pretty sickeningly unreliable narrator and that that's the point.

Hello Avery,
I'm so happy to meet the author of the amazing story "The Price of Freedom".
It seems the writing of the second part of your story has taken a bit long.I would be very grateful if the story could be published sooner.
I can't wait for the second part.

Hmm... the thread sounds fun.
So:

1st set:
1 From Russia With Love - Ian Fleming
2. A Scandal in Bohemia - Sir Arthur C. Doyle.

2nd set. Nothing can beat the classics:
Iliad - Homer
Hamlet - Shakespeare

Never read either of the first set, so I'm skipping that one.

For the second set, I'm going to guess that they forced you to do Hamlet for your school play, where they stuck you in a potato sack and a pair of tights and you had to recite hours worth of ye olde English without having the slightest clue what the words actually meant and then one of the other kids beat you senseless with a wooden sword in the final act and it traumatized you for life.

1st set, you enjoyed a scandal in Bohemia and hated from Russia with love

2nd set you enjoyed the Iliad and disliked Hamlet. I feel like you're more likely to read the Iliad on your own since it's so big, while you probably read Hamlet in school, so maybe it wasn't as fun as the Iliad.

You are right for the first set (it was fairly obvious unfortunately) and surprisingly wrong for the 2nd set. Hamlet is my favorite from the classics.

How can anyone hate the Iliad? :(

*anyone who isn't a schizo obsessed with cartoon ponies and the dangers of verbal communication

I don't hate the Iliad, but when comparing the two, I simply like Hamlet better.

1st set: A book I hate vs one I love
2nd set: A book I like vs one I love.