Great Gatsby: I hate soap operas
Catcher in The Rye: There was no plot in that book!
Ethan Frome
100 Years of Solitude: See Great Gatsby
The Scarlet Letter: A whole page on a rosebush? And the whole book is like that!
Dracula: Grrr, the boringness of the first chapters is horrible
[QUOTE
Dracula: Grrr, the boringness of the first chapters is horrible[/QUOTE]
Strongly disagree with this statement. Its the middle section that puts one in sleepy haze but the castle scenes set a wonderful mood that never quite comes back to the book afterward. Just saying. Rich
The Sound and the Furry - Faulkner is so gifted, I know, but he makes me feel like I need a shower.
Make that a tub bathOriginally Posted by motherhubbard
The Sound and the Furry - Faulkner is so gifted, I know, but he makes me feel like I need a shower.
My hide hides the heart inside
Usually, I find that classics are classics for a good reason. There have been a few though, that I would not read again.
The Lord of the Flies is one book that I didn't dislike while I was reading it, but the further removed from it I am, the more I think "that really wasn't very good." It didn't seem realistic to me; Jack declined too quickly and was too much of a outliar--he was corrupt beyond what I would expect from a twelve or thirteen year old bully.
Persuasion has poisoned my mind against Jane Austen. It was just so dull. The characters are introduced, they do nothing for a while, they go somewhere else and continue to do nothing, then someone almost dies but doesn't, then nothingness continues some more. I know the novel was not about action, but really.
I didn't particurally like The Great Gatsby, either. I just found it mediocre, maybe because it wasn't what I was expecting.
"Our little systems have their day;
They have their day and cease to be:
They are but broken lights of thee,
And thou, O Lord, art more than they."
-Alfred Lord Tennyson, "In Memoriam"
I don't know if they're considered "classics" but I did not enjoy either The Godfather or The Caine Mutiny, The Godfather especially. The whole book was gratuitous, from the violence and sex to the plot itself. The movie, for whatever reason (probably the cast), was an infinitely better work. Everything was sown up and tight and necessary, whereas the book is exhaustively superficial, wandering from gunshot to sexual encounter to gunshot with little aim except the gunshots and sexual encounters themselves.
This might be a dumb thing to say, but I never liked Sense and Sensibility until I saw the movie.
This was purely because I couldn't understand what on earth such a cool woman like Elinor could find attractive about Edward. However, when I saw Hugh Grant in the role, I was enlightened as to how such a soppy fop can be attractive and endearing. Kudos Hugh.
Women and men(both dong and ding)
summer autumn winter spring
reaped their sowing and went their came
sun moon stars rain
Agreed, but I'm going to try to give it another shot some day.
I'm beginning to worry about the books from my summer reading (including both of these) winding up on this list...
That reminds me, This Side of Paradise by Fitzgerald has convinced me not to touch this author's work for a very very long time.
The protagonist is pathetic, the novel revolves around him and his two prep-school chums dreaming about being snobbery elitists and climb the social ladder. They do this everyday, and when someone else succeeds and upstages them outside their small pathetic group they whine like lil'.... well you know what.
This same protagonist also has a tendency to fall head over heals for every woman whom he catches their fancy. He instantly breaks out with the poetry, the roses, the marriage proposals everytime without failure. A real ridiculous chump.
I hope I didn't spoil any major spoilers but the book is that aimless and meaningless. These characters need a life or choke on fishbones or something.
Exactly...
I liked that book very much, it's one of my favorites and it's movie adaptation is rally great, probably the best. Everything is exactly the same, I was watching it and thinking to my self..Amerigo will say this, Micheal will say that...
At thunder and tempest, At the world's coldheartedness,
During times of heavy loss And when you're sad
The greatest art on earth Is to seem uncomplicatedly gay.
To get things clear, they have to firstly be very unclear. But if you get them too quickly, you probably got them wrong.
If you need me urgent, send me a PM
All stream-of-consciousness novels.
I must be a complete braindead. Other than the brilliant histrionic performances, camera angles and dialogues I find the plot to The Godfather extensively boring. (I know a lot of people get bashed for acknowledging this but I just had to say it... Perhaps I'll give Mario Puzo's book a look over and see if the source of the movie's adaption appeals to meI liked that book very much, it's one of my favorites and it's movie adaptation is rally great, probably the best. Everything is exactly the same, I was watching it and thinking to my self..Amerigo will say this, Micheal will say that...
My hide hides the heart inside
I would be interested to find out if there is a general divide between those who primarily consider themselves "writers" and those who primarily consider themselves "readers".
For instance, I read "The Portrait of an Artist . . ." primarily because I had read other novels and short stories that name that book as a primary influence. And it was mentioned quite a bit, so I thought, "I should read this". When I did, I found it hard to get through (the sermons in the middle particularly odd). I wonder if I were to go back and analyze the STYLE (as opposed to plot, or character development, etc.) if I would have a completely different opinion. I suppose I would.
I haven't read many of the books on this list, but from what is being said about Dracula, Moby Dick, and some others, I would think those who didn't like these books are primarily Readers. A long description of a house, or a flower, I suppose, is more interesting to a Writer than a Reader. Similarly, the amount of research put into the whaling sections of Moby Dick would probably be more interesting to a Writer than a Reader concerning the subject of research.
Although this seems very plausible and in most cases these statements would be valid.. they are incorrect when you think in terms of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. People ranging in age from 9 - 40 (and typically higher) are enthralled by the lengthy descriptions of Tolkein's tale and the thought he incorporates meticulously into each description every paragraph. I've enountered several LOTR fans who love the trilogy but are not compelled to write themselves... therefore your theory that "The Writer is interested in lengthy descriptions whereas The Reader strives to see substance in plot and continuity" is in this case, inaccurate.
In terms of classics, however, I agree with you completely.
My hide hides the heart inside
The Great Gatsby is my favorite novel! I must've read it at least three times. However, none of the Fitzgerald's other works are very good and, as mentioned, This Side of Paradise was so bad that I actually left it unfinished, which I almost never do.
I read the Spanish translation of Godfather and thought that the movies were far better.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
