# Books you won't read because of the writing style **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 14, 2005, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590 "2005-12-14T15:09:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Brynda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e79b87/32.png) [@Brynda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brynda)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/41 "2005-12-15T01:32:25Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Yes, people, because God Forbid I should express an opinion in a thread asking for one. :rolleyes: I think there is a difference between “irritating” and “stupid.” You might see it differently, but to me, “irritating” implies “irritating TO ME” whereas “stupid” is more of a universal judgement. No “to me” implied, at least not to me. It is like the difference between “I don’t like this” and “this is terrible.” The first is clearly an opinion and it is clear that the writer is aware of that. The second implies a judgement. ---
**Author:** ![Kiros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/439d5e/32.png) [@Kiros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiros)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/42 "2005-12-15T01:37:14Z")
When I saw the topic, Twain and _Finn_ was my immediate thought. So as to incur the minimum amount of wrath possible, I’ll just say this: I was supposed to read that book a few times at various levels of education, and in none of my attempts did I find it particularly readable. (That’s completely set up as an opinion, right? :p) ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/43 "2005-12-15T01:46:20Z")
I also thought of Huck Finn, but I think the purpose behind the style is worth it. I can’t think of anything else specifically. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/44 "2005-12-15T01:58:17Z")
> [@TellMeI'mNotCrazy](#): > > I think Black House started that way, as well. Never did succeed in getting past the first few pages. Ha! I read _Black House_ recently, and that was a huge obstacle for me to overcome: Long, long passages written in _FIRST PERSON PLURAL, PRESENT TENSE_, from a disembodied POV. Ugh! “We are floating through the shabby nursing home. My, isn’t the carpet ugly? It smells of wee. Repulsed, we drift through the keyhole of the janitor’s supply closet. Oh look! This is where he hides his back-issues of _Big Black Jugs and Long-haired Thugs_. As we examine them closely, we notice that semen is not the _only_ body fluid sticking the pages together, and so we recoil from them, rushing through a ventilation duct into the recreation room on the other side of the wall. In spite of the odour of old George Mooney’s colostomy bag as he sits playing solitaire, we breathe much easier in here – that closet was one of those places with more _slippage_ than most. The recreation room is a melancholy place, and our already-depressed spirits are brought even lower by the certain knowledge that there’s twenty-four more pages written in the abominable style before the next chapter. We wonder idly if this is an instance of Peter Straub taking the piss out of Stephen King’s prose, or vice-versa. At any rate, old George Mooney has fallen asleep over his cards, so let’s drift outside and see if there’s anything more interesting there. Ah, yes, over by the hedge, we observe an enormous crow, picking through a giant turd left there in the rain by an inconsiderate dog-walker. Our blood runs cold as we hear its uncanny speech: _'Gorg! Gorg!_ Put the fucking book down. Don’t you know the Crimson King is insulting your intelligence with this tripe?’ Well, he’s got us there, doesn’t he?” ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/45 "2005-12-15T02:01:18Z")
> [@Brynda](#): > > I think there is a difference between “irritating” and “stupid.” You might see it differently, but to me, “irritating” implies “irritating TO ME” whereas “stupid” is more of a universal judgement. No “to me” implied, at least not to me. > > It is like the difference between “I don’t like this” and “this is terrible.” The first is clearly an opinion and it is clear that the writer is aware of that. The second implies a judgement. **I** found it irritating. **I** think it is stupid. “Judgements” are part of who we are, of what we are. This thread asked for a judgement - “what books do _you_ find unreadable, for one reason or another”? I, personally, adjudge the use of dialects to a point where they detract from the simple process of _communication_ to be irritating _and_ stupid. You think differently. _C’est la vie_. ---
**Author:** ![Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/bc8723/32.png) [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unauthorized_Cinnamon)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/46 "2005-12-15T02:03:52Z")
Gah, \*About Schmidt \* did the same thing with the dialog, and it drove me up the freaking wall. It was so much work to figure out what the hell was going on, and I just gave up after a chapter or two. I can understand something like _Riddley Walker_, (which from the description above sounds more like a really long poem than a prose novel), where messing with language is part of the point. But eschewing punctuation and capitalization without good reason is not only pretentious, but goddamn hostile to the reader, and I don’t need that, thanks. I was surprised that I couldn’t get through _Sock_, by Penn Jillette. The style struck me as very affected and grandstanding, and it undermined the tone of the actual plot. Add to that the facts that the main character seems to be a Mary Sue and that Jillette rides his personal hobby horses all over the story, and I just brought it back to the library unread. I just re-read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe for the first time in 20+ years, and boy, C.S. Lewis was absent the day they taught, “Show, don’t tell.” But I guess it doesn’t qualify because I read it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![celestina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/258eb7/32.png) [@celestina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/celestina)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/47 "2005-12-15T02:06:08Z")
What? No one’s put in a plug for James Joyce’s _Ulysses_ ? If not, then let me do so now. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not dissin’ modernist writers. I just happen to think that there are better ones out there than Joyce, and some of Joyce’s other works like “Araby” are okay. I really have to wonder what drugs Joyce _and_ his editor were on to let him publish that monstrosity. I’ve heard snooty faluty folks say that _Ulysses_ should be experienced and enjoyed for what it is, rather than trying to figure out what’s going on. Well, I say, hmphff. I frankly have better things to do with my time. And, while I’m kickin’ Joyce down, _The Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man_ because it’s the only book I’ve ever known to make one of my sibling’s cry because she couldn’t understand what the hell was going on. :mad: Oooh, and I want to give a special shoutout to William Faulkner’s _The Sound and the Fury_. I got halfway through the text, and when I came to all of that stream-of-consciousness crap, I put it away. I will say, though, that Faulkner’s _Go Down, Moses_ is not so bad. I could figure out what was going on in that text, and I’ve got some major problems with his handling of some things, but I’m not going to get into that right now. I imagine if I’d stuck with _The Sound and the Fury_ , I would have figured out what was going on, but I just didn’t really give a shit about any of the characters. I’m sure other texts will come to mind. Meanwhile, enjoy. 😃 Feel free to join in on bashing Joyce and Faulkner. ---
**Author:** ![Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/bc8723/32.png) [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unauthorized_Cinnamon)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/48 "2005-12-15T02:32:40Z")
Oh, I forgot to add that I think _[The Door](http://eserver.org/fiction/the-door.html)_, by E.B. White (yeah, the \*Charlotte’s Web \* guy) makes good use of crazy (heheh) language, and in the end is quite readable, or at least re-readable. It has a special place in my heart, because it was the first reading assignment in my first serious literature class, and at the tender age of 12, having been used to typical elementary school fare, I was absolutely knocked on my ass by it. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/49 "2005-12-15T03:11:01Z")
**Larry Mudd** , that was brilliant. I, too, found the first part of _Black House_ hard to slog through, but it did indeed get better. My own contribution to this thread is _The Handmaid’sTale_ by Margaret Atwood. A major offender in the present tense stream of consciousness category that people are rightly decrying. ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/50 "2005-12-15T03:23:41Z")
David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest. The book’s nothing more than the crapping of a glorified grad student. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/51 "2005-12-15T04:09:29Z")
The much-praised _The Plot Against America_, I do not like authors who use words just show them off like prized items in a collection. I make an exception for Winston Churchill only. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/52 "2005-12-15T04:31:58Z")
Anything overly-descriptive. By which, I mean something along the lines of: "Tim looked at the _TVGuide_. It was the issue from March 7-12, 1997. It had William Shatner on the cover, and he was wearing a blue suit with silver pinstripes that made him look younger. However, the left lapel needed to be ironed, and he was standing with John Lithgow, whose black sweater was showing that, not only did he need to start using a new dandruff shampoo, but that his neck was becoming increasingly turkey-like. “Tim put the magazine down, and picked up the remote control. The TV was a Sony, manufactured in 1995. The TV had outlived two pets, his marriage, and his youngest child. There was a permanent nick on the side from where his now ex-wife had been drunk at the New Year’s Eve party (she’d worn the black dress, Halston, but it wasn’t as slimming as she thought it was) and thrown an entire plate of S’mores at Tim while he was trying to think of a way to apologize to her for saying that it wasn’t the dress that did it…her ass really WAS that big.” In the meantime, I’ve gone completely grey by the time I get done with one chapter. ---
**Author:** ![AuntiePam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/53 "2005-12-15T05:37:53Z")
Superdude 🙂 I’m okay with detailed description _sometimes_\*. It can help draw me into the story, or set a mood. But it’s hard to do well, and the writer has to know **what** to describe. Your post reminded me something else that bugs me – I’ve heard it called “to-ing and fro-ing” – excessive description of mundane activity (like walking, driving, eating, dressing, etc.). It adds nothing to the story except padding to get it to novel length. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/54 "2005-12-15T05:44:59Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > Superdude 🙂 That snippet from the upcoming “SuperReflections of Very Bored Person,” available wherever fine literature isn’t sold. > [@](#): > > Your post reminded me something else that bugs me – I’ve heard it called “to-ing and fro-ing” – excessive description of mundane activity (like walking, driving, eating, dressing, etc.). It adds nothing to the story except padding to get it to novel length. Which is what I loved about _The Princess Bride_, the book – the author actually tells you that he’s cutting out about 14 pages of someone packing their clothes. ---
**Author:** ![Bogeyman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3e96dc/32.png) [@Bogeyman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bogeyman)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/55 "2005-12-16T10:42:03Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > As they say – “Insanity is making the same mistake over and over and expecting a different result.” Why read more than one? I’ve never claimed to be sane, now, have I? 😉 Draelin’s mother was spot on, btw. ---
**Author:** ![Draelin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce73a5/32.png) [@Draelin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Draelin)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/56 "2005-12-16T15:08:29Z")
> [@Bogeyman](#): > > Draelin’s mother was spot on, btw. When the film version of _The Bourne Identity_ came out, Mom forced _me_ to reread the book so she didn’t have to. (I remembered precisely three things–he was an assassin, he had amnesia, and the chick’s name was Marie–the movie kept those three things and pretty much nothing else.) ---
**Author:** ![Cub\_Mistress](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea666f/32.png) [@Cub\_Mistress](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cub_Mistress)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/57 "2005-12-17T15:00:42Z")
_Tristam Shandy._ I tried, I really tried, but I could not make myself read more than 25 pages. I can’t stand that endlessly-wandering-around-the-story stream of consciousness style. On the other hand, I will read anything by Mark Twain. The dialect in Huck Finn is a little annoying at first but the brillance makes up for it, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/58 "2005-12-17T16:10:14Z")
I’ve posted it before, and I’ll post it again: I find Sue Grafton totally unreadable. I don’t understand her popularity, and I think there’s a special circle of hell waiting on her. ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/59 "2005-12-17T16:51:41Z")
I hate Simon Winchester’s writing. I can’t pin down exactly what it is I hate about it, but I found _The Professor and the Madman_ horribly repetetive and couldn’t read more than a couple chapters of _The Map that Changed the World_. It’s such a shame because I think his topics are terribly interesting, but there’s something about his writing style that makes me nuts. ---
**Author:** ![Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Speaker_for_the_Dead)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590/60 "2005-12-17T17:05:24Z")
I didn’t mind the dialects in _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ all that much after, oh, page 5 or so. It was a good book, but I had trouble getting through it, since it just seemed like poor Huck could never get a break. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/books-you-wont-read-because-of-the-writing-style/335590.md?page=4)