ScotchMonkey: My thoughts on "That" catagory are very much like yours, only more virulent and nasty. "That" catagory of books were used almost soley as assigned reading while I was in school.
My reaction to having been assigned "The Giver" (see shameless watered down pointless knockoff) was how one would look after having his breakfast shat on. At the time I had already read Dune, I Robot, 1984, Tale of Two Cities and The Sword in the Stone.
It felt like I was being forced to watch Teletubbies after having seen Keneth Branaugh's Hamlet.
You know, when I finally got to read Dune the first thing I thought after I finished it was. Why the hell is this such a big deal?
Don't get me wrong, it's a good book, but I don't think it's
that good. Perhaps the fault lies in the fact that by the time I read it, I had already absorbed through cultural osmosis all the "revolutionary" concepts in the book. I understand that when the book came out in the 60's many of the ideas it introduced were fresh and new, but by now they have been used so thoroughly in so many other works that when I got to them they appeared jaded and lackluster. The Marty Stu/messianic nature of Paul Atreides doesn't help either.
And then there's the whole genetic/ancestral memory thing. I realize that back then, DNA was still a pretty new discovery, and a viable MacGuffin for any insane plot idea. Nowadays we know better, and I had a hard time swallowing the concept. It doesn't get better. Herbert seems to lose his shit further with every new book. By the third one, when I got to the posession subplot, I shouted "GENES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!" and stopped reading altogether.