I found it to be philosophical claptrap and pretty much a waste of paper. But that probably means that I “didn’t get it”.
[Robert Pirsig voice]
Sometimes what you get out of a book is what you bring to it.
[/Robert Pirsig voice]
dropzone, you lied! you didn’t leave at all. 
I also meant ‘required’ in a similar vein as xanakis.
obfusciatrist, don’t know that will mean much, but I hated it the first 3 times I tried to read it. But like xanakis I found I retained just enough to keep me wanting to understand it better.
I finally slowed my reading pace, comprehension went way up (which is key) and now, like some others here, I re-read it once a year or so.
I read and liked ‘The Way of the Peaceful Warrior’ as well, though to those interested I would also suggest ‘The Snow Leopard’. Not as deep as ‘Zen…’ but a better narrative.
So, it isn’t possible that I pretty well understood what Pirsig was saying and just disagreed that it was insightful or important. Is it possible for me to understand and still think it is mostly bunk?
I didn’t like, I think I understood it. The many discussions I have had of it led others to believe I understood it. I still think it is crap.
I’m open to the idea that if I reread it in 10 years that my response will be different. But the fact that I don’t/didn’t like it, does not inherently mean I didn’t understand it.
Obfusciatrist,
A thousand pardons.
I re-read your post and saw that you were being facitious. Missed that the first go around.
I’m sure many folks quicker on the up-take than I can read and thoroughly comprehend it in one reading. And, of course, you are free to think it’s crap.
I was speaking from my own experience. I thought it was crap my first read, but upon re-reading I understood I didn’t “get it”.
And, I was also looking for answers, you might be a much more centered guy.
Didn’t mean nuthin’. Just trying to help.