Books you just could not finish...

Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray. I came across it when I was perusing my local bookstore for a copy of Barry Lyndon, the film of which I had enjoyed so much. But it's the same thing over and over. There was even a 15 or 16 line sentence in it describing the physical and mental growth of a teenage boy, far too descriptive for my liking and I've read plenty of Turgenev.

Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov. I enjoyed the poem and the first few chapters of the imaginary analysis by the imaginary editor were good, but it gets damn well confusing when he keeps going on about Zembla.

Dubliners by James Joyce. It didn't have the same flair as Ulysses and Portrait of the Artist or the genius of Finnegans Wake. It bored me to tears. Maybe it was the absence of Dedalus.

Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea by Jules Verne. I suspect I laid it to rest half way because the descriptions of their nightly seafood banquets was too much.

Swann's Way by Marcel Proust. It's a lovely book but the exciting moments are too few and far between. It is a pity that I have that all six novels sitting on my bookshelf right now. I hope to finish it one day.

What are yours? Please remember to explain why you think you couldn't finish it.

Jean Christophe by Romaine Rolland.




One day, I SHALL finish it. I swear. All 700+ something odd pages

Lord of the Rings took me two and a half years.

Originally Posted by Ferrets54

Lord of the Rings took me two and a half years.

Thank God! I thought I was the only one. I found it a real struggle reading the LOTR trilogy and even The Hobbit didn't cut the mustard for me. It must be Tolkien's writing style or something because it's a good tale.

Peter Jackson saved the whole shebang for me.

Generally speaking, I don't get on much with the 19th Century Russian authors either, but I do enjoy War and Peace and have read it several times.

Kafka, for some weird reason, him I like.

Originally Posted by Ferrets54

Lord of the Rings took me two and a half years.

Lord of the Rings was ok for me. It was Tolkien's other crap like the Silmarillion that incredibly boring and hard to understand.

Originally Posted by LegionnaireX

Lord of the Rings was ok for me. It was Tolkien's other crap like the Silmarillion that incredibly boring and hard to understand.

Seconded and thirded.

And War of the Worlds... oh dear God.

Catcher in the Rye, by JD Salinger; an awful book in my opinion, literally unreadable; the limited vocabulary just didn't cut it, it stopped me enyoying the book, as did the turgid writing style... And I'm gonna get crucified for saying that, aren't I...

I dare say I should slap the stupid out of you! Yes, you deserve crucifiction!

The book is the epitome of the screwed up life. I found it very moving, and enthralling, to read it.

Greeks: Crucible of Civilization

The LOTR trilogy

The Bastard

Shogun

I don't even know why I took up trying to read The Bastard and Shogun. They didn't even really interest me, and they were very very very boring.

The thing I hated about LOTR was that he explained a flippin' wagon for 5 pages in The Fellowship. The Hobbit I got through with ease, as most people have said, but LOTR. Bleh.

It took me too several years to lotr, I just found the dialouges so terribly unrealistic, the whole book was written like a bad poem.

Like many others here, I gave up on LOTR. The hobbit I got by with little trouble, but LOTR is beyond my reading skills (and attention span)

LOTR was no problem, first time I read it it took me 4 months I think (its a long time ago). The only book I havent managed to finish reading is the bible and I dont plan on finishing it... yet.

I had no problems with The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit; I read both in less than a week. I generally tend to finish books I don't like very much, as I try to look at the book's strong points and make an attempt at ignoring the weak sides. It usually works, as I can't remember a book I put down in disgust (if you except Goodkind's dribble).

Originally Posted by -apocalypsis-

I had no problems with The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit; I read both in less than a week.

I guess you didnt do much else in that week.

Originally Posted by Mathias

I guess you didnt do much else in that week.

Not really - as Lusted I'm a fast reader. I guess that is one reason why I can afford to read books I'm not too fond of, because it's not a huge investment of time.

The Mayor of Casterbridge they made me read it for my english GCSE it was somehting about a guy selling his wife and daughter then becomes someone respectable and they turn up so very very very very dull

I read the LOTR trilogy in 3 days, but im a fast reader.

The Da Vinci Code was a book i could not finish, i read a sentence before trying to burn it.

Catcher in the Rye, by JD Salinger; an awful book in my opinion, literally unreadable; the limited vocabulary just didn't cut it, it stopped me enyoying the book, as did the turgid writing style... And I'm gonna get crucified for saying that, aren't I...

Rite of Passage by Richard D'Agostino

Terrible, terrible, Davinci Code ripoff. I didn't even want the book, I recieved it as a gift and I felt obliged to read at least some of it. The man is a terrible writer, and you could tell he read Davinci Code and then started writing his book.

I got through Lord of the Rings by skimming through it. It was way too descriptive for my 10 year old brain. Especially the last half of Return of the King, I don't even remember it being in the movie. It may have been in the movie, but the story lost it's appeal for me after the last battle.

Reading the Simarillion was like reading the Bible. Never to be done for pleasure.

Spinoza's Ethics.

The Gretir Saga: Can't get beyond the familly geneology description after 1 page I am confused and lost interest

Fjodor Dostojevskij Crime and punishment i think its called in english terrible book, sorry but it is.......
Hitchhickers guide to the galaxy, so weird to weird.... :hmmm: