It would have been OK as a short story, but I agree with you.
Brilliant cartoonist Kate Beaton on Kerouac and Ginsberg. Hipsters Ruin Everything. Scroll down!
I agree with you about Shakespeare–you really have to see the plays being performed to truly appreciate them. In fact I be hard pressed to think of any playwright’s work that could appreciated simply by reading the written word–plays are meant to be performed.
Hound of the Baskerville - Boring and stuffy.
The Great Gatsby - Well written, but all the characters are super annoying.
On The Road - Shite.
I read Dune in my thirties and loved it. It did give me a greater appreciation for Lynch’s adaptation in the 1980s.
Edit: It’s totally okay not to like popular things. I wasn’t chiming in here to say you were wrong not to like it or something.
Boy, this thread is really a humdinger!
OK, so it’s popular with readers, but have any critics weighed in?
Either way, boy howdy, this thread sucks. I can’t believe anyone reads past the fifth or sixth post. 
Harry Potter ------ take your pick.
Dune by Frank Herbert even though I really like a lot of his other stuff. Same for the whole Foundation series by Asimov. Any time I spent reading any of it is time I wish I could recover and better use.
One I haven’t seen mentioned so far: Doctor Zhivago.
I had to read that three times during my undergrad education, and I still don’t get it. Not that I want to, now that I no longer have to open it again. But even the movie didn’t help me understand it. Both the movie and the book are long, boring, and incomprehensible.
My sentiments on TOAFK are similar, if not so strong (read it, voluntarily, when young). What most annoyed me about it, was White seemingly going off frequently into rambles about his personal hobby-horses, rather than attending to whatever he was trying to do in the book series. More remains in my head about the first volume, The Sword In The Stone, than about the others. Bits of that first volume, I did take to – reckon the “wizards’ duel” marvellous: infinitely better than anything thought up by J.K. Rowling. Much of the cod-medieval background, though, just silly in my view: the various nobles and lords-of-the-manor and their antics – Sir Whozis and his “wildlife park” containing anthropophagi – fatuous, nothing but.
I’ll confess that I’ve always found “King Arthur & company”, in any shape or form, rather boring. There’s mentioned (non-approvingly) in another current thread, S.M. Stirling’s “Emberverse” novel series of present and recent years – speculative fiction diving sharply into the mythic and magical: a thing I found ghastly from the start, though struggled through the first few volumes. Many Stirling fans love this series passionately; signs were seen at one time, of its coming to mirror the Arthurian legends: many devotees were ecstatic – I was the reverse.
I find anything by Jane Austen, unreadable: never compelled to read her, but I’ve voluntarily tried, repeatedly – so many people rave about her works. I’ve never got more than 15 / 20 pages into one. In part, the archaic English turns me off. Have stopped trying: it seems clear that short of a visit to a brainwashing camp, Jane is never going to be for me.
Shodan – no doubt I’m dead to you, too. Just has to be, I’m afraid…
I always wrote it off to cultural differences. My ancestry is far-eastern-European or borderline Asian and I loved both that and War and Peace. But I may be the lone person among my circle of friends who can honestly say that. I also always liked the history of it all; a Russian book smuggled into Russia? That’s just what I call neat. Nothing against those who dislike either – you are probably right. But its just one of those niche works that will always have its fans.
There are two versions of The Sword In The Stone. The first was written independently, mostly as a kids book, the other was part of the three book Once & Future King. The first is much better, since the second is way too preachy. If it has the ants, it’s the bad one.
Anything from that racist, dog-loving scribbler Jack London.
Taras Bulba by Gogol. Christ. Just no.
Oh, I dunno–I like a lot of the books mentioned.
On the other hand…
I disliked Howard’s End, though I no longer remember any details from the book at all, only that I didn’t think it was any good.
I liked The Little Prince as a child. Read it again about ten years ago and was stunned at how much I disliked it. Trite, boring, overly precious, and not anywhere near the “wisdom-filled classic beloved of generations” it is often billed as. “Half the wisdom of a Hallmark card,” is how I’d bill it.
I also used to like Once and Future King a lot more than I did when I read it a while back.
While we’re on the subject of (sort of) children’s books–I do not like The Giving Tree at all. Whereas many people, unaccountably, do. And while I do like A Wrinkle in Time, the second book in the series, Wind in the Door, is just short of unreadable.
Huh. I finished Martin Eden a couple of months ago, liked it a lot. And I’ve always dug The Sea Wolf. Haven’t read the dog books.
I take it you don’t like Rudyard Kipling, either?
Russia was his first love, though he had one other (just not his wife). Bam!
ETA: Of course I base my synopsis solely on the movie. Obviously I’m not going to read the whole thing.
It was all many decades ago – wonder whether I might even have read both versions. As per my earlier post: while on the whole I’m “thumbs down” re the whole thing, there were for me some enjoyable parts. I recall that I rather liked the bit about the appalling ants, and Arthur’s time as one of them, courtesy of Merlin – their “Newspeak” in which anything basically positive or negative is “done” or “not-done”, respectively (“Message to Control: there is a not-done ant in Sector GJ2905”).
Danielewski compared to Nabakov? I ain’t heard of that - there’s ten levels between those two writers.
Pale Fire is the standout example of this sort of thing for me, as it goes - just did not get it. Or rather I got the central conceit just fine (the fantasist editor), but didn’t find it at all interesting. Hated the poetry as well, but perhaps you were meant to. Obv I am in a minority as it’s wildly lauded as a work of genius by people who read deeply, and I should probably try it again (even if its praise does sound like turbonerds laughing at their own dungeon and dragons jokes).
House of Leaves is really flawed but has some brilliant parts IMHO - agree the whole Johnny Truant narrative is just bobbins, though, so the whole book as an integrated structure sags badly. The house of horrors, though, was really inventive for such an old trope - thought it was a bold effort for a first book.
I don’t hate Henry James or anything but am amazed such a difficult author built the reputation he did. How did he manage that? Would have thought an author writing about relatively mainstream themes would need to get some traction with your everyday readers (ie he’s not James Joyce writing some wildly ambitious magnum opus), but ain’t no way the rank and file are wading though stuff like The Ambassadors.
It’s more complicated than that: Jack London - Wikipedia
It’s a sweet story upon first reading. Upon second reading, however, you realize it’s about a severely dysfunctional relationship about a tree who loves a man who abuses that love and takes everything from the tree while giving nothing back, until there is nothing left to give (except a seat). This isn’t The Happy Prince where the statue and bird give all to help the needy; the guy here is a selfish jerk.
Is that the mitochondria one? All the sequels are lesser works compared to the first book.