What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gimme 1 book that you read in its entirety, but absolutely hated. (1 Viewer)

When Stephen King passes, the ensuing debates about his legacy as a writer are going to be fascinating. There's no doubt that he's written a lot of mediocre books and more than his fair share of dreck. But if you pick from the upper tier, you can assemble of body of work that any author not named Hemingway or Nabakov would be proud of.
Nabakov? Hemingway?

You've got to be kidding me. King has written some entertaining novels, but in no way should he ever be compared to either of these guys.
That's what I was trying to say, albeit ineptly. King isn't either of those guys, but he's better than Tom Clancey or James Patterson. King has written a few books that I would consider genuinely good -- it's not all just cultural detritus.

In other words, I think King occupies a rung clearly below the great American authors, but he's a rung above most of the others. He's in a second tier, which is not nothing.
 
When Stephen King passes, the ensuing debates about his legacy as a writer are going to be fascinating. There's no doubt that he's written a lot of mediocre books and more than his fair share of dreck. But if you pick from the upper tier, you can assemble of body of work that any author not named Hemingway or Nabakov would be proud of.
Nabakov? Hemingway?

You've got to be kidding me. King has written some entertaining novels, but in no way should he ever be compared to either of these guys.
That's what I was trying to say, albeit ineptly. King isn't either of those guys, but he's better than Tom Clancey or James Patterson. King has written a few books that I would consider genuinely good -- it's not all just cultural detritus.

In other words, I think King occupies a rung clearly below the great American authors, but he's a rung above most of the others. He's in a second tier, which is not nothing.
HE'S NO DAN BROWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I'm not an avid reader at all. I'm surprised by how many books mentioned in here that I have read. Even more surprised that I liked most of them. slowly backs out of thread
 
The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath.

I had to read this in HS English Lit, and it was such a depressing slog from cover to cover. The fact that my teacher was so giddy and excited about the book weirded me out.

Can't really think of a book I wasn't forced to read that I didn't like but finished anyways.
 
Pride and Prejudice. Hate is too strong but I didn't like it either. I never continue books that I don't like but someone really wanted to know what I thought about it. at least I tried J Austen.
 
I'm surprised by how many books mentioned in here that I have read. Even more surprised that I liked most of them. slowly backs out of thread
Yeah these are largely odd picks for like, the worst book someone ever read. Steinbeck "unreadable?" He's the most readable dude ever!

Clive Barker - The Scarlet Gospels (2015) is my pick. This is the laughable conclusion to the HELLRAISER series and a lot of people think it was ghostwritten. It's legitimately embarrassing. I don't think Barker has any interest in writing horror these days.
 
Anne Rice - The Vampire Lestat.
She couldn't just say "Lestat". You had to hear the whole 3 word name every friggin' time. Maybe that's supposed to be clever, but it was just annoying.
The rest wasn't very good, either.
 
Last edited:
Go Set a Watchman. Also didn’t care for Portnoy’s Complaint or Run, Rabbit Run.
Yeah, that was pretty bad.

I think the "absolutely hated" in the title is a bit strong so I was trying to think of the strongest negative reactions to a full read, but there are several like Watchman that I don't get the love or and wouldn't personally recommend.
 
Only book I ever read, because I had to 42 years ago: All Quiet on the Western Front
I get that you're a caveman and all, but you've only ever read 1 book?
This is shtick, right?
Not shtick. Cliff's notes were my friend when I was assigned reading in school (except that one time we had to read in class). I get bored/distracted too easily, or fall asleep. Just don't enjoy it at all.
:shrug:

I've had 2 bosses (including my current one) who basically required I read "The Phoenix Project". I'm out.
 
Only book I ever read, because I had to 42 years ago: All Quiet on the Western Front
I get that you're a caveman and all, but you've only ever read 1 book?
This is shtick, right?
Not shtick. Cliff's notes were my friend when I was assigned reading in school (except that one time we had to read in class). I get bored/distracted too easily, or fall asleep. Just don't enjoy it at all.
:shrug:

I've had 2 bosses (including my current one) who basically required I read "The Phoenix Project". I'm out.
I feel very sad for you.
 
Also didn’t care for Portnoy’s Complaint or Run, Rabbit Run.

Roth is my least favorite of the mid-century American literary titans. The Great American Novel by Roth was one of books I considered for this thread but "absolutely hated" is a high bar.

I've only read short stories by Updike.
 
Grapes of Wrath. Steinbeck is a pretentious ***. Will never read his dreck again.
Wow. This was a slog.
Funny I loved this book when we read it in Junior year of HS. In fact I distinctly remember this being the first book we were "made" to read for English class that I actually read well ahead of the class.

I liked it so much so that I ended up reading basically everything Steinbeck ever wrote. For the most part I thought they were all hits.
Also I am eternally grateful for having read his catalogue before political tribalism became such a cultic phenomenon. I in no way walked away from my Steinbeck exposure thinking capitalism is evil and the government the savior. I did gain an appreciation for empathy, which is probably more foundational to my worldview as an adult than I gave it credit for. I didn't consider Steinbeck overly preachy and considered Ayn Rand clearly so, and I am much faster to condemn any of Ayn Rand's theme's than Steinbeck's. Despite this, I have yet to vote for a single Democratic presidential candidate. /politics reference
For the record my opinion of Steinbeck was set at 15 - at that time I cared about girls, soccer, and school. Definitely in that order. Agree on Rand, BTW. She's a blowhard.
 
Pillars of the Earth - Ken Follette's hilariously terrible attempt at softcore erotica. This book starts by setting the table with an idiotic introduction to the main characters and goes downhill from there. I should have seen the big red light flashing and cut my losses. Saying the villain is a "comic-book level bad guy" does a disservice to Thanos and his blue minions. When a friend saw it on my book shelf and asked to borrow it, I should have warned her away but was happy to be rid of it.
Weird - I liked Follette as a kid. Never read this, though (nor any "softcore erotica").
Different strokes. I loved Pillars and the sequel. I found it to be more a love story for churches and architecture than a sappy softcore love story. IMO.
 
The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath.

I had to read this in HS English Lit, and it was such a depressing slog from cover to cover. The fact that my teacher was so giddy and excited about the book weirded me out.

Can't really think of a book I wasn't forced to read that I didn't like but finished anyways.
You're just gonna luuuuvvvvv Emily Dickinson. Loathing is not a strong enough word.
 
Stephen King's 'IT' has such a poor ending. The book started off decently enough but starts to get a little uninteresting towards the end. It seems like he wrote himself into a corner and just gives us a lazy, poor ending. Total letdown. Do not waste your time.
Whoa. This is my favorite book of all-time. Have happily read all 1093 pages multiple times.

I'm racking my brain for an answer, but I truly believe every book I didn't enjoy I just stopped reading. Even recalling back to college or high school where teachers required certain books to be read, I can't remember one being really awful I hate it by the end. Maybe The Odyssey if I had to pick one but, frankly, that's because I disliked my teacher and she focused on that book for a large part of the semester.

I like books (though law school killed any desire that I have to read for "fun"). :shrug:
I can’t stand king. He is the anti Orwell. He’ll turn “the room was dark”, into 12 pages.
When Stephen King passes, the ensuing debates about his legacy as a writer are going to be fascinating. There's no doubt that he's written a lot of mediocre books and more than his fair share of dreck. But if you pick from the upper tier, you can assemble of body of work that any author not named Hemingway or Nabakov would be proud of.

For example, I would argue that It and The Stand are legitimate all-time classics that are likely to still be read 50 years from now. Probably ditto for The Shining and Salems Lot.

Or, consider the Bachman Books. These are four novellas written under an assumed name, but look at how much cultural significance is packed into a volume that most people barely even remember:
  • The Long Walk. This story has absolutely no mindshare among the general public, and it is almost never mentioned when discussing King's work, but pretty much ever male our age knows this story and has opinions about it.
  • The Running Man. The movie was great, cheesy, 1980s fun. But everybody who has read the novella remembers the click-clack of the typewriters, the envelopes, the black Irish, the airplane, etc. The book barely even resembles the movie, and while the movie is good, the book is an order of magnitude better.
  • Roadwork. Okay, not every short novel is memorable.
  • The fourth story (Rage) is no longer available for sale anywhere, but you can make a strong argument that it had more impact on American culture than any work of fiction written by any author in the second half of the 20th century.
Did The Tommyknockers suck? Yep. Does King know how to write an ending? Nope. Is the median King novel essentially an airplane book? I think so. Should Stephen King be kept far, far away from movie sets? Definitely. But there are some real gems there.
I about crapped myself about a month ago when i came across a hardcover of The Bachman books at our small town library for $1. Someone must have recently donated it.

I agree with your post about 90%. Where i seem to differ from the masses is I have no love for his longer works or series. They have brilliant parts, but as a whole I think all of It, The Stand, and Dark Tower are bloated and meandering. Imo he is at his best in that 300-400 page range, or his short stories. Different Seasons needs a mention here too.
Rage was one of the best pieces of fiction I’ve ever read. Yes, it should be banned, but it’s incredible how insanely close he gets into the mind of a school shooter before such horrendous acts happen as a commonplace.
 
The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath.

I had to read this in HS English Lit, and it was such a depressing slog from cover to cover. The fact that my teacher was so giddy and excited about the book weirded me out.

Can't really think of a book I wasn't forced to read that I didn't like but finished anyways.
You're just gonna luuuuvvvvv Emily Dickinson. Loathing is not a strong enough word.
Ugh, you’re giving me PTSD. The same teacher assigned us Emily Dickinson afterwards. I couldn’t do it.
 
The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath.

I had to read this in HS English Lit, and it was such a depressing slog from cover to cover. The fact that my teacher was so giddy and excited about the book weirded me out.

Can't really think of a book I wasn't forced to read that I didn't like but finished anyways.
You're just gonna luuuuvvvvv Emily Dickinson. Loathing is not a strong enough word.
Ugh, you’re giving me PTSD. The same teacher assigned us Emily Dickinson afterwards. I couldn’t do it.
Because I could not stop for Death, He kindly stopped for me.

WTF?

Also, you're welcome.
 
Rage was one of the best pieces of fiction I’ve ever read. Yes, it should be banned
No it shouldn't. And it hasn't. King simply let it fall out of print. I assume he felt somehow partially responsible for subsequent school shootings, which is ridiculous, but he feels what he feels. If he thought no longer making new copies available would somehow eliminate or even reduce gun violence, he was sadly mistaken.

In any case, you can find the Bachman book (with all 4 stories); here's a copy at Amazon going for a very reasonable $225.99.
 
Rage was one of the best pieces of fiction I’ve ever read. Yes, it should be banned
No it shouldn't. And it hasn't. King simply let it fall out of print. I assume he felt somehow partially responsible for subsequent school shootings, which is ridiculous, but he feels what he feels. If he thought no longer making new copies available would somehow eliminate or even reduce gun violence, he was sadly mistaken.

In any case, you can find the Bachman book (with all 4 stories); here's a copy at Amazon going for a very reasonable $225.99.
Ah, that’s right, that was a myth.
 
Only book I ever read, because I had to 42 years ago: All Quiet on the Western Front
I get that you're a caveman and all, but you've only ever read 1 book?
This is shtick, right?
Not shtick. Cliff's notes were my friend when I was assigned reading in school (except that one time we had to read in class). I get bored/distracted too easily, or fall asleep. Just don't enjoy it at all.
:shrug:

I've had 2 bosses (including my current one) who basically required I read "The Phoenix Project". I'm out.
I feel very sad for you.
Why? I'm fine with it.
 
Rage was one of the best pieces of fiction I’ve ever read. Yes, it should be banned
No it shouldn't. And it hasn't. King simply let it fall out of print. I assume he felt somehow partially responsible for subsequent school shootings, which is ridiculous, but he feels what he feels. If he thought no longer making new copies available would somehow eliminate or even reduce gun violence, he was sadly mistaken.

In any case, you can find the Bachman book (with all 4 stories); here's a copy at Amazon going for a very reasonable $225.99.
Damn, I didn't know it was going for that much $. I will need to look again when I get home, but that looks exactly like what I just got for $1 at the library. The one I got actually looks less roughed up than that.
 
The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath.

I had to read this in HS English Lit, and it was such a depressing slog from cover to cover. The fact that my teacher was so giddy and excited about the book weirded me out.

Can't really think of a book I wasn't forced to read that I didn't like but finished anyways.
You're just gonna luuuuvvvvv Emily Dickinson. Loathing is not a strong enough word.
Ugh, you’re giving me PTSD. The same teacher assigned us Emily Dickinson afterwards. I couldn’t do it.
Because I could not stop for Death, He kindly stopped for me.

WTF?

Also, you're welcome.
Dang, now I’ve got The Yellow Rose of Texas stuck in my head. Apparently, the cadence Dickinson wrote all of her poems in matches up with that tune almost perfectly.
 
So many of these ....I will go with Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Total waste of time.

My fav authors are Cormac McCarthy, Ken Follett, and JR Tolkien. With Blood Meridian my fav book of all time. I really hate to see Pilars of the Earth on someones list. I think Follett's work on it is magnificent.
 
Rage was one of the best pieces of fiction I’ve ever read. Yes, it should be banned
No it shouldn't. And it hasn't. King simply let it fall out of print. I assume he felt somehow partially responsible for subsequent school shootings, which is ridiculous, but he feels what he feels. If he thought no longer making new copies available would somehow eliminate or even reduce gun violence, he was sadly mistaken.

In any case, you can find the Bachman book (with all 4 stories); here's a copy at Amazon going for a very reasonable $225.99.
Damn, I didn't know it was going for that much $. I will need to look again when I get home, but that looks exactly like what I just got for $1 at the library. The one I got actually looks less roughed up than that.
You can get it cheaper on eBay.
 
The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath.

I had to read this in HS English Lit, and it was such a depressing slog from cover to cover. The fact that my teacher was so giddy and excited about the book weirded me out.

Can't really think of a book I wasn't forced to read that I didn't like but finished anyways.
You're just gonna luuuuvvvvv Emily Dickinson. Loathing is not a strong enough word.
Ugh, you’re giving me PTSD. The same teacher assigned us Emily Dickinson afterwards. I couldn’t do it.
Because I could not stop for Death, He kindly stopped for me.

WTF?

Also, you're welcome.
Dang, now I’ve got The Yellow Rose of Texas stuck in my head. Apparently, the cadence Dickinson wrote all of her poems in matches up with that tune almost perfectly.
I'd use the laugh emoji here, but I just can't.

Thanks for the earworm.
 
I've read a lot of bad books, and I've given this a lot of thought. I think that to rank one as the worst book I've ever read has to take into account time investment versus the quality and value of the book. Catcher in the Rye, for example, is an overrated and annoying book, but doesn't take much time to read. I'd describe it more as disappointing, empty or useless based on the hype it gets as Literature with a capital "L." It's just not that good or interesting. Overrated doesn't even begin to describe it.

Worst book I've ever read judged on biggest waste of my time investment would go to Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson, which by virtue of being part of a long-winded and completely unsatisfying trilogy is actually three times worse than anything else I've ever read.
 
I've read a lot of bad books, and I've given this a lot of thought. I think that to rank one as the worst book I've ever read has to take into account time investment versus the quality and value of the book. Catcher in the Rye, for example, is an overrated and annoying book, but doesn't take much time to read. I'd describe it more as disappointing, empty or useless based on the hype it gets as Literature with a capital "L." It's just not that good or interesting. Overrated doesn't even begin to describe it.

Worst book I've ever read judged on biggest waste of my time investment would go to Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson, which by virtue of being part of a long-winded and completely unsatisfying trilogy is actually three times worse than anything else I've ever read.
For those of you thinking of Infinite Jest based on the time investment/value equation, I can see the argument if it didn't resonate with you or you were frustrated by the lack of closure. I personally loved it, and could continue reading it just for the prose without it having any point at all.
 
Rage was one of the best pieces of fiction I’ve ever read. Yes, it should be banned
No it shouldn't. And it hasn't. King simply let it fall out of print. I assume he felt somehow partially responsible for subsequent school shootings, which is ridiculous, but he feels what he feels. If he thought no longer making new copies available would somehow eliminate or even reduce gun violence, he was sadly mistaken.

In any case, you can find the Bachman book (with all 4 stories); here's a copy at Amazon going for a very reasonable $225.99.
Damn, I didn't know it was going for that much $. I will need to look again when I get home, but that looks exactly like what I just got for $1 at the library. The one I got actually looks less roughed up than that.
You can get it cheaper on eBay.
Cheaper than $1??
 
I've read a lot of bad books, and I've given this a lot of thought. I think that to rank one as the worst book I've ever read has to take into account time investment versus the quality and value of the book. Catcher in the Rye, for example, is an overrated and annoying book, but doesn't take much time to read. I'd describe it more as disappointing, empty or useless based on the hype it gets as Literature with a capital "L." It's just not that good or interesting. Overrated doesn't even begin to describe it.

Worst book I've ever read judged on biggest waste of my time investment would go to Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson, which by virtue of being part of a long-winded and completely unsatisfying trilogy is actually three times worse than anything else I've ever read.
That equation wouldn't apply to me because I wouldn't read something I hated past a few hundred pages. Then it is bail out time.
 
I've read a lot of bad books, and I've given this a lot of thought. I think that to rank one as the worst book I've ever read has to take into account time investment versus the quality and value of the book. Catcher in the Rye, for example, is an overrated and annoying book, but doesn't take much time to read. I'd describe it more as disappointing, empty or useless based on the hype it gets as Literature with a capital "L." It's just not that good or interesting. Overrated doesn't even begin to describe it.

Worst book I've ever read judged on biggest waste of my time investment would go to Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson, which by virtue of being part of a long-winded and completely unsatisfying trilogy is actually three times worse than anything else I've ever read.
That equation wouldn't apply to me because I wouldn't read something I hated past a few hundred pages. Then it is bail out time.
When I was a more avid reader, I always felt like I was doing the author a disservice by not finishing their work. Like I wasn't giving them a fair shake or something. That led to me finishing a bunch of books that I didn't care much for.

On one level, it's nice to have that extra cocktail party knowledge. But I'm with you now. I routinely drop books, tv shows, and even movies once I start to feel like my time is being wasted.
 
I've read a lot of bad books, and I've given this a lot of thought. I think that to rank one as the worst book I've ever read has to take into account time investment versus the quality and value of the book. Catcher in the Rye, for example, is an overrated and annoying book, but doesn't take much time to read. I'd describe it more as disappointing, empty or useless based on the hype it gets as Literature with a capital "L." It's just not that good or interesting. Overrated doesn't even begin to describe it.

Worst book I've ever read judged on biggest waste of my time investment would go to Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson, which by virtue of being part of a long-winded and completely unsatisfying trilogy is actually three times worse than anything else I've ever read.
That equation wouldn't apply to me because I wouldn't read something I hated past a few hundred pages. Then it is bail out time.
When I was a more avid reader, I always felt like I was doing the author a disservice by not finishing their work. Like I wasn't giving them a fair shake or something. That led to me finishing a bunch of books that I didn't care much for.

On one level, it's nice to have that extra cocktail party knowledge. But I'm with you now. I routinely drop books, tv shows, and even movies once I start to feel like my time is being wasted.
For me most is the time commitment. I finish most movies because it's a couple hours. I am not the fastest reader so by the time I am getting to pages 250+ I have sunk in multiple hours. I feel I've given it a fair shake at that point and I've got other things to read and watch. TV shows I am so gun shy of due to shows falling off a cliff 1/2 way through their run time and I am stuck in 20+ hours into it. With a rare exception like The Expanse, I don't even bother trying with shows now.
 
I've read a lot of bad books, and I've given this a lot of thought. I think that to rank one as the worst book I've ever read has to take into account time investment versus the quality and value of the book. Catcher in the Rye, for example, is an overrated and annoying book, but doesn't take much time to read. I'd describe it more as disappointing, empty or useless based on the hype it gets as Literature with a capital "L." It's just not that good or interesting. Overrated doesn't even begin to describe it.

Worst book I've ever read judged on biggest waste of my time investment would go to Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson, which by virtue of being part of a long-winded and completely unsatisfying trilogy is actually three times worse than anything else I've ever read.
That equation wouldn't apply to me because I wouldn't read something I hated past a few hundred pages. Then it is bail out time.
When I was a more avid reader, I always felt like I was doing the author a disservice by not finishing their work. Like I wasn't giving them a fair shake or something. That led to me finishing a bunch of books that I didn't care much for.

On one level, it's nice to have that extra cocktail party knowledge. But I'm with you now. I routinely drop books, tv shows, and even movies once I start to feel like my time is being wasted.
ironic i had to hit the button to take you off ignore to read this post.
 
When I was a more avid reader, I always felt like I was doing the author a disservice by not finishing their work. Like I wasn't giving them a fair shake or something. That led to me finishing a bunch of books that I didn't care much for.

My reading credo is if I make it past page 100, I'll finish the book.

I have zero data to prove it but I do think books have gotten longer over the years. :tinfoilhat: The short novel seems to be the sole territory of young adult fiction these days and it's rare to find a non-fiction book that's less than 400 pages.
 
I might get punched for this. But The Shining. I mean it was OK. But honestly I had to kind of work my way to finishing it. And I love King. The Stand is one of my all time favorite books.
 
For me, that would be The Royal Family by William T. Vollmann. I only wish I'd read the NYT review before reading this book.
It is primarily Vollmann's own fixation on street prostitution that's to blame. On this subject, ''The Royal Family'' is positively corpulent with anecdote and detail, of which let the following be a representative example (although it's exceptional in being printable by this newspaper): ''Just that day on Ellis Street he'd met a stinking girl who lived in the Lincoln Hotel and who had begged him for money for epilepsy medicine, a favor he'd granted her; she'd said God bless you and kissed him with her reeking herpid lips; she'd said: If you ever need a woman. . . .''

I'm no prude, but man this guy's got issues. The Royal Family is the only book that I've ever thrown directly into a garbage can after finishing it. I'd have probably set it afire if I hadn't finished while traveling; I don't think the hotel would have appreciated it.

Whatcha got?

I’ve told this story before, but I read The Royal Family by William Vollmann and promised myself on page 950 that even though I had one hundred pages to go, if the prostitution clan recharged their energy by the drinking the Queen’s urine again, I would stop reading the book. I did. Never did find out how it finished. I’m slightly curious now, but never was before.

For me, that would be The Royal Family by William T. Vollmann. I only wish I'd read the NYT review before reading this book.
It is primarily Vollmann's own fixation on street prostitution that's to blame. On this subject, ''The Royal Family'' is positively corpulent with anecdote and detail, of which let the following be a representative example (although it's exceptional in being printable by this newspaper): ''Just that day on Ellis Street he'd met a stinking girl who lived in the Lincoln Hotel and who had begged him for money for epilepsy medicine, a favor he'd granted her; she'd said God bless you and kissed him with her reeking herpid lips; she'd said: If you ever need a woman. . . .''

I'm no prude, but man this guy's got issues. The Royal Family is the only book that I've ever thrown directly into a garbage can after finishing it. I'd have probably set it afire if I hadn't finished while traveling; I don't think the hotel would have appreciated it.

Whatcha got?

Oh my God. Have you read me say this before? I swear that I didn’t read your OP before I posted, but was going to go back and read them all. I did. And I found your gem.

eta* I really hadn't read the OP. And if you search for "Vollmann" by member rockaction you'll see quotes going back to 2013. Apparently I'll tell a yarn a sell a yarn once every couple of years. I was so damn frustrated with the ridiculousness of urine as nourishment and crack cocaine as ritual cleansing (okay, I'm making that last part—the last part—up) that it's stuck with me for a while.

That’s so absolutely ****ing wild that you’ve

-read the same book
-had a similar reaction but finished the thing

The AI is getting crafty at formulating spam ads. Now, I have to read The Royal Family by William Vollman.
 
I'm not an avid reader at all. I'm surprised by how many books mentioned in here that I have read. Even more surprised that I liked most of them. slowly backs out of thread
Unless they were required reading, even recognizing many of these books makes you an avid reader, imo.

But this is coming from a lifetime aliterate. That said, I've completed 4 books in the last couple years, which is more than the previous 30 years, combined. For the question posed in the OP, I disliked The Blue Zones, but didn't hate it. Too much anecdote, not enough science.

Maybe the topic for another thread, but how many books are you guys reading per year?
 
Only book I ever read, because I had to 42 years ago: All Quiet on the Western Front
I get that you're a caveman and all, but you've only ever read 1 book?
This is shtick, right?
Not shtick. Cliff's notes were my friend when I was assigned reading in school (except that one time we had to read in class). I get bored/distracted too easily, or fall asleep. Just don't enjoy it at all.
:shrug:
:hifive:
 
I'm not an avid reader at all. I'm surprised by how many books mentioned in here that I have read. Even more surprised that I liked most of them. slowly backs out of thread
Unless they were required reading, even recognizing many of these books makes you an avid reader, imo.

But this is coming from a lifetime aliterate. That said, I've completed 4 books in the last couple years, which is more than the previous 30 years, combined. For the question posed in the OP, I disliked The Blue Zones, but didn't hate it. Too much anecdote, not enough science.

Maybe the topic for another thread, but how many books are you guys reading per year?
maybe 1 a month? i've been a reader all my life, largely non-fiction, but not reading at the incredible pace of some other people i know.

one of my wife's friends will blow through a 400 page novel a week.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top