Yeah, this probably isn't the right place for it, but it is.. because this is an OPEN DISCUSSION and I am WRITING an essay. Yeah it's a stretch I'm still wrong, but I sitll hate Jane Eyre.

It's on how the plot of Jane Eyre is driven foreward, and how foreshadowing is presented by the use of the supernatural.

The funnest, most interesting topic I could think of, and it still sucks.

ah.. it feels good to say that somewhere. THANKS hatrack!

There are things in Jane Eyre that frustrate me, and I probably won't ever read it again. But I'm INTIMATELY familiar with it because I co-wrote an in-depth curriculum based on it. I'm glad that's over though.

And I'm not a big fan of the Bronte sisters in general. Jane Eyre was by far the best of the bunch.

It was the only thing in my first year English course in Female Lit that I enjoyed reading.

Bookshop owner: Balls in what sense?

Customer: Balls in the sense of...balls! (He picks a passage out of the book and quotes,) 'Reader, I married him.' What's that supposed to mean?

Bookshop owner: That's the narrator, Jane Eyre, telling the reader she married Mr. Rochester.

Liked Jane Eyre.
Absolutely hated the Invisible Man.
Loved The Inferno.
Despised Little Women.
Hated Grapes of Wrath.
Found the Great Gatsby overrated.
Loved Catcher in the Rye.
Loved To Kill A Mockingbird.
Hated Billy Bud.
Hated Great Expectations.
Liked Tom Sawyer.
Didn't like Huckleberry Finn.
Hated Moby Dick.
Loved The Illiad.
The Tragedy of Julius Caesar was good after someone "translated" it for me (which pretty much goes for all of Shakespeare).
Liked Lost Horizons.
Pride and Prejudice was OK.

So much emotion, character study, plot, as well as a discourse on humanity packed into them.

Yeah, the latest PBS adaptation has me reaching for these favs yet again.

Also, perhaps part of the reason for the dislike of LOTR is that Tolkien was more interested in defining a language system (he was predominantly a linguist) than in creating well-rounded characters and realistic plot. Just don't ever try to read the Silmarillion - very tough to get through for non-linguist types.

Anyway, I also want to add that I don't believe it is a prereq to love every "classic" or "father of" piece. I do feel it is useful to have at least read them though and to have an idea of the plot and style.

Happy reading!

The Silmarillion, on the other hand, I loved first time. Maybe it's just that I was older, maybe that I'd always liked mythology. BUT--I have to admit that the second part, the Valaquenta, really, really drags, and the second reading doesn't help it any. I think that's where most people who try to read the book get bogged down. It's probably better to consider that part simply as a reference to who the Valar were, and what their individual characteristics were. That way you can skip it altogether, and then look back at it if you want clarification on something. But the first part, while a bit slow, is very short and also quite interesting; and the Silmarillion itself is wonderful. It made me want to read LotR for a third time, and when I did lots of little references suddenly made sense. World-building is not and never will be my main interest, but really, the man was incredible.

PS: (to bring this post back on topic) I don't hate Jane Eyre. But that may be because I haven't read it yet. I know all about Rochester and what he had in his attic, and stuff like that, but I haven't actually read the doggone thing yet. I keep meaning to.

If I'd'a been beta reading "Lord of the Rings" for Tolkien, I'd'a told him to cut Bombadil and the Barrow-wights chapter. Interesting though they are, they're not important to the overall narrative. (You'd have to have the hobbits get their swords in some other way, though.)

The list includes, but is not limited to:

Jane Eyre (fell asleep reading it one day...that's how boring I found it)
Brave New World
Lord of the Flies (that book disturbed me a little bit...)