[tierack]

Did you mean that you personally didn't like it? Or that it was objectively bad or unworthy of acclaim?

Yes, there are people who think that Catcher in the Rye was "a load of rubbish", but that doesn't make it so. Having a sympathetic protagonist isn't a requirement for good art; neither is not being boring to you personally at the time you first encountered it.

It's possible that now, with greater knowledge of the sweep of literary history, that you'd recognize what's good (or even great) about it.

I'm cautiously sympathetic to you. I used to think that Joan Miró was intensely overrated, but that was before I got some more schooling in 20th century painting. Now I'm happy to see his work when I visit modern art museums.

[davidw]

> It's possible that now, with greater knowledge of the sweep of literary history, that you'd recognize what's good (or even great) about it.

That's an awfully subjective field. I think Neil Stephenson is 'great', but find most 'high literature' to be a waste of time. I like various forms of visual art, on the other hand.

It's sort of like an old man here in Italy once told me when I asked him how to judge if a wine was good. He looked at me as if I were a bit daft and says "well, it tastes good". Granted, he probably had refined his taste buds over the years, but the main point was to drink something you like.

[rwmj]

When I read a book I do at least want it to be entertaining. I'm a big reader, and a fan of all sorts of novels including 'high' literature. I just found this book dull, the main character was unsympathetic, and not a lot happened. That is, though, purely my opinion of the book at the time that I read it (about 10 years ago IIRC).