Are there any books you just flat out refuse to read? If so, why?

Oh dear, dear. Irony is dead and all that, huh?

On topic:
Qu'ran
>don't want to become a nonce

you're an atheist in name only if you have morals

Nice bait

I'm surprised by all the sincere responses to this meme

>hurr durr, people are only moral because they're spooked by hell!

Read Nicomachean Ethics, you dumbwit.

you're an atheist in name only if you have morals

There is literally nothing (0 things) wrong with ephebophilia. Pedophilic isnt that bad either desu, though it's still pretty bad

>should implies a moral framework
Lmao no it doesn't at all nice non sequitur

...

fuck off pedo freak

Lolita, or anything else by Nabokov
He had nothing to say; he merely said it well
Pnin was more than enough for me

American Psycho
Anything he had to say was said far better elsewhere

There's something wrong with you.

imagine how clever this neckbeard felt after writing this

Why does a novel have to "say" something at all? Can't it just be beautiful?

Anything by Ayn Rand because I don't agree with her philosophy and I haven't encountered a single person who enjoyed her work that disagreed with her philosophy.

Anything by Mo Yan because he supports censorship.

Imagine how pleased this humourless autist felt with himself after writing this.

How do you know the books don't say anything new, interesting or important if you've never read them?

I don't think it's fair to judge Pynchon on a single work, especially one of the shorter ones. I don't consider myself a Pynchon fan and I don't particularly enjoy his writing style, but I've still read Lot 49, GR, Inherent Vice, Against the Day, and Bleeding Edge, and soon I'll read Mason & Dixon. It's important to read books you don't necessarily enjoy that much to try and see what other people might enjoy about it, why it's critically acclaimed, to see what enjoyment you can possibly get from it, and to see how you can be different and better in your own writing.

My own least enjoyable reading experience was Delillo's Underworld, but still I trudged through it, and I feel I came out better for having read it.

In between these unenjoyable reads you can pepper in more fun, comfortable books, so that you're always riding an up-and-down wave of reading for fun versus reading for self-improvement.

Anyone who agrees with her philosophy and says they enjoyed her work is a fucking liar.

I agree in part with her philosophy but her books, all of them including the nonfiction, need an editor wielding a chainsaw.

Vol. 2 of The Life of a Great Sinner
I heard the direction Fyodor went with Alyosha in it and I just can't bear to take part

Are there extant manuscripts? I heard that it was just a rumor that alyosha would be a terrorist

I doubt there was ever much of anything on paper, not any manuscripts since he was writing Karamazov in installments while it was being published and died not long after finishing that

I also read V and found it incredibly dry. My to read list is long enough to avoid his work

>not reading the bible to see how stone age farmers interpreted the world

>It's important to read books you don't necessarily enjoy that much to try and see what other people might enjoy about it, why it's critically acclaimed, to see what enjoyment you can possibly get from it, and to see how you can be different and better in your own writing.
Sounds spooky.

absolutely all of them because books are for gaylords

this but unironically