You must log in or register to comment.
The poisonwood bible. I loved it in high school, because I was an oppressed little atheist/agnostic with hyper religious parents at a christian school. It was brilliant, vivid, groundbreaking, and wild in its defiance of cultural norms…
and now it’s just a sort of sad story of how the christian mindset mirrors colonial/empire ambitions and everyone gets hurt.
I could not get through Lord of the Rings or Dune when I tried to read them as a teenager. But I recognized that these were good books that I needed to give another try. Read them again after college and loved them. (Got through all of the original Frank Herbert Dune books, I don’t think any of Brian Herbert’s follow ups had been written yet, I don’t know that I would have read them anyway)
Most of the other books I couldn’t finish as a child, I recognized as garbage (Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, for one), and have seen nothing to change my mind about them to give them another try.
That’s odd; I’m almost the opposite. I definitely enjoyed lord of the rings more as a teenager, and struggle to really even appreciate them now. I still like the world, but the writing just seems off.
It’s like reading the bible when you’re an adult and realizing the evil character is God.
When I was a kid I absolutely loved the Narnia series, to the extent that I was depressed when I finished the last one. As a young adult I tried to reread the books and was stunned at how heavy handed the Christian propaganda was.
The first ever book I read in a foreign language, turned out to be a lot different from what I remembered when I picked it up and re-read it maybe 2 decades later after having mastered that language.
Kind of happened to me with with The Mists of Avalon. I started reading it and was like ‘meh, this is sooo boring and sooo long, I will never finish it’ and I started reading something else. I went back to it couple years later and loved it. I never re-read books though. Even the books I read 20 years ago I remember so well reading them again feels pointless. I remember all the good parts, character names, some of the dialogs. I would constantly feel the urge to skip parts I already know.
the problem with this book is the author unfortunately
I read Catcher in the Rye pre-high school and thought Holden was great because he recognized everyone for being fake, then I read it in HS and decided Holden was a whiny brat that needed to STFU. Then I read it as an adult and realized he was just a traumatized kid trying to cope.
This was the book I consistently hated at every age.
I could see that he was a traumatised, lonely child. At the same time, he continuously engages in self destructive behaviour while having a superiority complex.
I guess for the time this sort of story may have been groundbreaking, but the fact that Holden never faces any sort of reckoning makes it boring and infuriating. It needed something legendary, like the “it’s you” moment from Bojack Horseman.
Has anyone watched that Rupert the Bear cartoon recently?
Most racist shit I ever saw. Turns out a vestige of my childhood was Rupert hanging out with his Asian friend Ping Pong and a bunch of long nailed, thin moustached “Chinamen”. Gollywogs level stereotypes and bullshit.
It’s rare to be actually, physically agog.
I remember Rupert the Bear being great when I was a child. Let me pull up some episodes real quick
they left out “i loved this book when i read it as a teenager, and only noticed the nationalism/sexism/racism when i grew up”
for me: alas, babylon
When I was a teenager, the Ender’s Game series was about exceptionally smart children. As an adult, it’s about eugenics and forgiving Hitler.
I thought it was about empathy and humanity. Kids are abused into committing what would be considered war crimes if they were against other humans. At the end, if I recall, Ender finds and saves the last queen of the species and feels a profound empathetic connection.
The dynamic between his brother and sister, a sociopath and an empath, indicate the balance between both being a major theme.
another book i loved when i was stupid(er).
doesn’t help that orson scott card is still a raging homophobe. brandon sanderson is also a mormon, but (it looks like) he was able to grow the fuck up and stop being a bigot
I don’t think this is fair. Even the concept of society labeling “thirds” is portrayed as something disturbing.
And the sociopath brother becomes the hegemon of the planet earth if I recall correctly, and this also is not a good thing, but more seen as a dystopia reality. The military isn’t seen as good, but manipulative.
Are the children bred as soldiers or to be leaders in society ever portrayed as good? it reads as tragic.
Is Hitler the queen of the hive in your eyes or Peter? Because Peter definitely isn’t seen as positive and the hive is a different form of existence that eventually leads to the message that different species despite all origins or existence in a hypothetical can eventually come to coexist if mutual understanding is somehow found.
(I’m queer and Card is a bigot who can eat it, but I don’t think any of it really shows in his writing.)
Is Hitler the queen of the hive in your eyes or Peter?
The question is whether you can commit genocide/xenocide and still be forgiven, and it’s a theme that the series touches on over and over. The most famous genocide today is the Holocaust, so critics of Card phrase it as whether you can forgive Hitler.
I’m sure that Card has spoken specifically about this subject (whether he thinks people should forgive Hitler), as well, and while I think I remember what he said, I’m not so sure that I would simply say it.
But he’s got a history of making some provocative statements about his beliefs.
Like, he has said that an important part of his books is to spread Mormon beliefs. I remember, after reading the Ender series, I read The Worthing Saga, and midway through, felt it necessary to go look up which religion he belonged to, just because he made it so obvious that he was criticizing Christian religions. (If I remember correctly, I didn’t have to look hard to find his religion, because it was in his biography on the book jacket.)
Oh. Oh that’s makes sense thinking back on it.
Enid Blyton. Lovely concepts, but there was a bit of racism that crept in, just from the time that it was written. Even if a lot of it was largely relegated to stereotypes.
Sword of Truth series for me.
Oh this one is really something. Even as a clueless teen I still had WTF moments, and I don’t even want to read it now, I just know I will be cringing the whole time.
If I had read that series a few years earlier I probably would have liked it. It felt like the author just hated women, and I was just old enough to go “What the hell?”
Edit: It’s been a while, can’t remember if this is the one I’m thinking of or if I read a similar series at the same time.
No, I think you’re thinking of the correct one. There’s a lot of weird sexual hangups about women in there that seem odd as a teen, and disqualifyingly gross as an adult.
I remember trying this series out in my teens, having already gone trough quite a few, and I remember it being the first book I just dropped under a half trough, but I couldn’t remember why until know. I just remembered it as shallow and depressing to read.
About half way through is the weird sex torture that just comes out of nowhere. That could be why.
I don’t think I even got that far. I remember it being quite off almost immediately, I was already giving it a chance and it just did not get better.
I wish I didn’t finish it, but it was part of a book trade where a friend and I read a recommendation from each other. We don’t talk anymore.
You’re a better person for giving up.
Didn’t read it as a teenager, but had I done so I’m pretty sure that Nineteen Eighty-Four would’ve fallen into that category. The protag is insufferable and sexist as hell. Never even bothered finishing that one. After the 2nd or third clandestine meeting to fuck the manic pixie dream nympho I was struggling to care anymore.
The characters, including the main one, are more archetypal. None are supposed to be good people.
He doesn’t have to be a good person, that’s fair. I just found myself not giving a shit. He lives in a dystopian authoritarian truthless hellscape, and all he cares about is the thrill of getting his dick wet under the Party’s nose. His concerns are so small and hedonistic, I just couldn’t care less. The backdrop of the world was far more interesting, but the book goes out of its was to not actually dig into all of that too much once the scene is set early on.
I’ve come to understand that, had I carried on reading, there is some payoff where the nympho turns out to be a honeypot or something? Or both of them are being monitored and get arrested by the regime? Or whatever? That would have made it like 10 percent more interesting I guess, but it just dragged on in his misplaced priorities for far too long to keep me going. A book should not be an exercise in endurance, in my opinion.
I found it enagaging and tense, and didn’t see her as a nymphomaniac at all.
Sex represented the humanity, love, and creativity that was being quashed by the authoritarian government, and their resistance to it being as innate as the need to fuck. This is indicated by the fact that “Love” was literally a banned word. Every time they got together was a dangerous act of rebellion.
Sex represented the humanity, love, and creativity that was being quashed by the authoritarian government,
Yeah, see, that’s not how the protag’s mindset read to me. He seems almost entirely complacent about the other aspects of his and everyone else’s oppression. He even scoffs at the rumors of rebellions and mocks those who would try. The one thing he cares about is his lack of sex.
He very much read as a sexually frustrated incel type from the very beginning, lamenting that he couldn’t just sleep with whomever he wanted, not for love, but for passion and lust. Hell, doesn’t he have a rape and murder fantasy over some woman (Is it the girl he ends up sleeping with? I cant recall). Like, he’s absolutely a piece of shit. But, grain of salt, maybe I’m remembering that wrong. I cant recall a ton of details. So, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Again, passion and lust are fine. I just couldn’t give a shit about your lust when the world is a machine of lies and control. It’s far too petty a concern. Their rebellion was far too self-centered, personal and base to be compelling to me. They are entirely apathetic to Big Brother’s control over everything, even one’s own thoughts, except where it affects themselves and what they personally care about. They will sneak around to sleep together, consume smuggled luxuries, but then do absolutely nothing to benefit anyone else around them. I just dont care about people like that or want to put myself in their minds. I find it distasteful.
He seems almost entirely complacent about the other aspects of his and everyone else’s oppression. He even scoffs at the rumors of rebellions and mocks those who would try. The one thing he cares about is his lack of sex.
gestures wildly around at america
I think that’s the most humanizing and realistic part of the writing, honestly.
Again, fair enough. But I have no interest in reading about the sexual escapades and inner monologue of a common selfish prick, no matter how prevalent they are IRL. If you wrote a book about a Nazi soldier just trying to throw a nice Arian themed dinner party but struggling to get good Swiss cream butter for his strudels because the Allies have halted supply lines, that might be relatable on a human level too, but I dont care to read about it.
IDK dude, I don’t remember the sex thing being as played up as you’re making it seem. Might be time for a re-read
The main character opposes indoctrination in multiple ways - his love affair is contrasted with his hatred of the party. At one point he tries to join a rebellion (only to find his contact was actually a government spy,) and he keeps a diary of his thoughts when writing and having those thoughts is criminal. It’s an outlet due to the emotional repression enforced by Big Brother.
It’s supposed to make us question our opinions on censorship and crime by challenging us. Do we think anything Winston did should be illegal? Where do we draw the line on acceptable expression?
Hell, Big Brother is as much an omnipresent main character as Winston, and it’s not likeable either
If you didn’t enjoy the book, that’s valid, but I don’t think you’re seeing the forest for the trees, taking the relationship and the characters a little too literally.
Sympathizing with people you would normally never think or care about is part of why reading is such a valuable excercise.
I’m very sad about the Harry Potter series, and i loved reading it the first time around (that was shortly before the last 2 movies came out).
On the one hand, I loved reading the books - I devoured them in record time and lost quite a few hours of sleep because i just couldn’t drop them after starting with Order of the Phoenix.
On the other hand, I learned afterwards what a foul human being JKR is. I’m someone who can split the art from the artist, and normally i would just do that as long as JKR doesn’t see a penny from me, not even as PR (i borrowed the books, but i was in the cinema for the last 2 movies - can’t undo that).
But the reevaluation of the books after JKR’s twitter tirades made some themes obvious for me that are not that visible if you don’t look for them - or don’t want to. The treatment of the elves, the nearly all-white-school, the only black teacher called Shacklebolt, the using of jewish stereotypes for goblins… I am pretty angry at JKR for souring something I enjoyed, and I was pretty angry at myself for not noticing many things earlier simply because i let my guard down.
Looks like i fall into the first group, even tho i was around 30 when i read the books. Only defense i have is that i am not a native speaker and read them in english.
Yeah. That’s a rough one. I still enjoy the story, for all its problems. Read the books voraciously and enjoyed most of the movies Deathly Hallows part 1 was boring because the 1st part of the book was rather boring… trying to split the book in 2 was a bad idea.
But now can’t enjoy it. I know that she won’t profit any more if I read the books I already own or watch the movies I have on DVD, but I can’t, as much as I’d like to live through Harry’s life again. (And would probably only take a few days to do…)
I’ve come into the view over the years that Harry Potter is bad writing both in terms of ethics presented and in terms of worldbuilding. Ethically, it plays off date rape drugs as comedic, and in terms of worldbuilding too much for me to even know where to begin.
Thanks, i have to fully agree with the content of this video. It really looks like JKR didn’t write this stuff with the strict intention to spread horrible ideas, but it seems she is simply not able to think of a world without horrible ideas and shows a complete lack of desire to change something about horrible ideas - only cementing the status quo is worthwhile.
Yeah I’m reading them to my son, and right now we’re on book 5. Could have easily been titled “order of the toxic men”
I do hope you’re pointing out to him the bad parts so he doesn’t see that kind of thing as normal
Yes. He’s actually figuring out some of it too before I need to say anything.
The books definitely have many problematic elements, but IMO they’re still good. But separating the art from the artist is really fucking hard when that artist is right now a prominent political activist with (some) actual sway with her national government, and she’s also still earning money and producing new content based on that book series. And it’s not even like the books are completely unpolitical, the plot features governments, fascist takeovers and resistance fighters - it’s very apparent that she has opinions on these kinds of things and probably genuinely thinks that she’s one of the good guys, despite so clearly working against her stated cause of women’s rights and supporting straight-up fascists.
The books are good for what they are: children’s books that take you from ~8-13 years old. I loved them when I was a kid, and now it’s just hard to get through them because the writing is just average at best, and the plots are so basic they undermine the actually interesting setting and prevent it from being as mindblowing as they could have been.
I’ve read a lot of fantasy novels, there are a lot of bad ones. She’s no Pratchett, but she easily beats average for fantasy novel series - the world is fucked up but vibrant, the characters memorable and it doesn’t get boring and repetitive after the first book like so many other series.
The primary audience is definitely young teenagers, but it was really good at drawing in adults, as well.
The stories are entertaining but the messaging and world building are lazy and inconsistent. And then yeah the books are filled to the brim with the sort of casual racism borne not only of ignorance but from a lack of interest in educating yourself in the first place. It’s just full of holes which is fine for kids books, but the belligerence is grating.
That last one hits home. In high school in the early 2000’s I had to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It was awful and clunky and boring.
Smash cut up a few years ago when I turned 40 - I thought, “maybe I’ve got a different view now and this will be better”.
Nope, it’s all boomer you shit about “kids these days”.
Thank you!
I was recommended Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance a dozen times and every attempt to read it was just boring. And I thought it was me, like am I supposed to find metaphors for any of these things to enrich my life? Because it’s not working.
I never read it, but I’ve read similar pop-enlightenment literature. I think it requires that you be in this particular narrow phase of spiritual maturity where you’re open to the message, but you haven’t really learned much yet. Once you get into anything meatier, the pop stuff seems trite.
Pop spirituality ripens like an avocado
Just cause you only liked something when you were young doesn’t mean it isn’t good. Everyone talks about the perspective you gain as an adult, but people don’t talk enough about the perspective you lose along the way.
It’s also possible that it’s genuinely good for people of all ages, yet you just obsessed over it in your teens and made yourself sick of it. Like I did with Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Which I admit appeals to the cynicism of youth, but it was recommended to me by a 50 year old, it’s not just for teenagers dammit.
Some time a long time ago, I decided to sink my teeth into a nice, long, schlocky sci-fi series. I picked up Kevin J. Anderson’s Saga of the Seven Sons. I made it maybe twenty pages in before I decided it really was not for me.
Some time not as long ago, I noticed I had some Kevin J. Anderson books I’d never read. I made it maybe ten pages in before I remembered it really was not for me.
I never could finish 1984. I got maybe halfway through it and was like 25% interesting world building, 25% a sad, bitter, sexist person lamenting the way of things (particularly that be can’t just fuck every woman, but also the lying totalitarian goverment) but also having no spine to even consider doing anything about it, and 50% him sneaking around to fuck some horny manic pixie dream girl against the rules. Unfortunately, id have probably enjoyed it more if I had read it at 16
Idk, I likes that part. Ultimately Winston is flawed and weak and yet he thinks he’s making a grand defiant gesture, only to find out the party knew it all. All his secrets and triumphs where plainly and obviously known.
Effectively he builds himself up as a dramatic hero in his mind, and in narrative. The reader gets swept along, but when he falls, when he is crushed, we remember all the gross parts of his personality. We see him as the broken, pathetic man he becomes at the end lf the novel. I enjoyed how the experience of reading the text, and the experience of remembering the text tell two very different stories.
But you see how if they immediately saw the base pathetic person Winston is beyond the curtain of his own narrative, none of that really works.
Then he’s just an audience proxy, reflecting our own patheticness. :)
I’m not saying everyone has to like 1984, I’m not saying there is one concrete experience of it. I’m merely pointing out that unlikable protaganists are a choice, and there can be a strong narrative experience when that choice is made.
I’ll definitely recommend Gurgeh from The Player of Games as a great unlikeable protagonist. It helps that his friends call him on his bullshit, and that he’s quickly put in a situation where he’s one of the best people around. It helps us believe that the Culture’s idea of a doofus is quite a bit better than most civilisations’ idea of a good person.
A lot of old sci-fi books are like that, interesting world, boring (maybe not the best word for this) story.
Starship troopers. The movie has a story, unlike the book.
Ernest Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises” is just bad and I’d like anyone to try and convince me otherwise.
