|
I am fascinated by the differences of taste displayed here. I suspect that what one likes has to do with one's age, one's education, one's basic culture and one's previous reading experience.
For example, Tom Jones is mentioned as a boring book. I first read it (outside school) at the age of 16 and was charmed by it. But that was just after I had ploughed through Samuel Richardson's Pamela, which I found deadly and immoral, though posing as deeply moral. Fielding, by contrast, seemed humane and humorous. I immediately went on to borrow others of his works from our excellent public library. Fielding's novel writing started because he hated Richardson's moralising and wanted to satirise it. He produced two satires on Pamela: Shamela and Joseph Andrews. The first is very slight, but the second developed into a full-blown novel as he obviously got involved in the subject.
I can see why people might not like Tess or Jude. I think it may be partly because they give a very graphic account of a world that no longer exists and to which it may be hard to relate. I find Jude (like 1984) so painful that it is hard for me to read it. I get the same reaction with some music: Schubert's Winterreise for example.
Heart of Darkness contains some beautiful writing, but the story seems to go nowhere. I find it unlikeable but would not say it is a very bad book.
I would agree that The Da Vinci Code is a stinker, not because of the silly story but because of the leaden writing. But, as far as I am concerned, the champion bad writer is Jeffrey Archer (or "Archole" as Private Eye calls him). I understand that his plots are very good thrillers, but his writing is so clunky that I have never got beyond the first page of one of his books.
|