Five Books Nobody Should Read

[IceM]

I evaluate novels on a basis of relatively objective standards: character development, strength and relevance of both symbols and themes, plot development, and strenght of structure.

Wow this opinion is so two-dimensional, of course you didn't like Candide if you were bothering about character development... if you had simply been reading it taking it for what it is, you might have found it an extremely funny and witty book.

Character development...

Notice how character development is only 1 portion of how I consider a novel. I merely cited Pride and Prejudice to show that, while not as satirical as Candide, it achieves a greater level of practically everything component of my literary criteria. I love how you zoned in on only one dimension, however. Beautiful.

To all who read my posts though, I do not criticize "classics" for the sake of iconoclasm. When I formed my initial judgments of each novel I read, I analyzed and considered each novel seriously, as I had read most of these novels up to a year before I even joined this forum, giving me time to formulate my thoughts. I posted why I found them disappointing, as evidenced by my earlier posts.

Regardless of whether or not you disagree with my perspectives on these works, it is merely my opinion. If you choose to question them, do so. But when I am referred to as, "grossly ignorant," or, "sneer" at anything required a concerted effort, I take offence and find it necessary to defend my opinions.

Notice, I said, opinions. I expect many people to disagree with my thoughts. Just understand that I was voicing my findings, not purposely intending to be controversial.

[stlukesguild]

SLG (quote)-I just love aesthetic relativism. Such a brilliant philosophy... totally suited to those who fear any form of challenge or difficulty.

Or to those who have minds unhindered by public opinion. Could you make a more pompous statement?

Do you even know what cultural relativism entails? It has nothing to do with liking or dislike a work of art regardless of its reputation. That issue has been discussed already, but presumably you missed it with your careful reading. It is a belief that as opinions in art are subjective there can be no "good" nor "bad"... and undoubtedly no "meaning" either.

SLG- It is NOT about snobbery. Indeed, I often find the opposite to be true among those who embrace an anti-intellectual stance and sneer at anything which requires intellect, concerted effort, and high standards.

Elitism centers on exclusivity. The problem is not that people sneer at intelligence; they sneer at intellectualism, which is the sense of entitlement that people hold from believing in their own superiority.

You listened quite well during the PC lectures, didn't you? "Elitism" is just a loaded word used to undermine those who may have more experience or knowledge in a given field by suggesting that this earned advantage is akin to the unearned advantages of wealth and social status.

SLG (quote)-"Elitism" often involves the rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field; a long track record of competence in a demanding field; an extensive history of dedication and effort in service to a specific discipline, or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field.

You've given the definition for specificity of knowledge, not elitism.

I'm sorry. I didn't know that it was you who was the final arbiter upon which definition of "elitism" I was using. So you have decided that I am wrong and you are right... which would seemingly make you the "elitist".

SLG (quote)-Personally, if I were faced with surgery I would wish for an "elite" surgeon... not the merely average.

Thank you for this exemplary straw man fallacy. We're discussing art with a dynamicity of terminology, not a general use situation.

I'm continually amazed at how analogies are not understood on a site devoted to reading literature. They clearly need to teach more poetry in school.

SLG (quote)- There is a great gap between saying "I didn't like Moby Dick. It just didn't work for me. I just couldn't get over all the digressions" and stating "The Heart of darkness was terrible." or "Candide was just slop." These are not statements of personal opinion but statements of fact... and considering that they go against the larger accepted position, they certainly open the speaker up to criticism and challenges to back up his or her position.

They are not statements of fact. They are statements of opinion. It is simply implicit that IceM said "In my opinion..." When you read opinion articles on literature, the writers don't say, "I think the book exhibited poor dialogue." They say, "The book is poorly written." If you have the capacity to think for yourself, then you can recognize that the statement is an opinion, not a fact.

And if you have the capacity to think for yourself then you will also realize that if you make a statement contrary to accepted belief among those who have put forth the most effort in the study of a given field, then you had better be prepared to defend your position... especially against those "elitists" who might just know a bit more than you give them credit for.

[rimbaud]

don't know, Haven't read them yet :s

[Etienne]

Notice how character development is only 1 portion of how I consider a novel. I merely cited Pride and Prejudice to show that, while not as satirical as Candide, it achieves a greater level of practically everything component of my literary criteria. I love how you zoned in on only one dimension, however. Beautiful.

To all who read my posts though, I do not criticize "classics" for the sake of iconoclasm. When I formed my initial judgments of each novel I read, I analyzed and considered each novel seriously, as I had read most of these novels up to a year before I even joined this forum, giving me time to formulate my thoughts. I posted why I found them disappointing, as evidenced by my earlier posts.

Regardless of whether or not you disagree with my perspectives on these works, it is merely my opinion. If you choose to question them, do so. But when I am referred to as, "grossly ignorant," or, "sneer" at anything required a concerted effort, I take offence and find it necessary to defend my opinions.

Notice, I said, opinions. I expect many people to disagree with my thoughts. Just understand that I was voicing my findings, not purposely intending to be controversial.

What if I say: I didn't like Candide, because it was not written in good English (it was written in French). Would that be a good criticism? The same goes for criticizing Candide for lack of character development. Besides, comparing Candide to Pride and Prejudice is like comparing a **** and a bull.

[stlukesguild]

What if I say: I didn't like Candide, because it was not written in good English (it was written in French). Would that be a good criticism? The same goes for criticizing Candide for lack of character development.

Now, now, Etienne. No analogies. You'll be accused of using the classic "strawman" diversion.

[IceM]

What if I say: I didn't like Candide, because it was not written in good English (it was written in French). Would that be a good criticism? The same goes for criticizing Candide for lack of character development. Besides, comparing Candide to Pride and Prejudice is like comparing a **** and a bull.

Who said that was my only parameter of criticism? I listed 4 in my own quote. I mentioned character development just to respond to stlukesguild and others that the plot being boring was not my only cause of disappointment, but that I actually took time to analyze each novel specifically. Why you continue to focus singularly on character development when I have 4 components of literary analysis is beyond me.

Another disappointing book: How to Read and Why, by Harold Bloom. That one wasn't written poorly: I just had a different expectation coming in that wasn't fulfilled. Beautiful writing, but was something I didn't expect in that it merely provided multiple synopses of novels. Disappointing, really.

[Etienne]

Why you continue to focus singularly on character development when I have 4 components of literary analysis is beyond me.

"Components of literary analysis"... So wether you read Joyce, Proust, Ovid, Dante, Beckett, Austen, Rabelais, Perec, Borges or Flaubert you will judge a book by these "components of literary analysis"... This look more like a high school exercise, than a real criticism. Literature is much richer, diverse and fluid than that...

[Jozanny]

bill,

When I read Morrison or Ellison, I do not condemn these authors for making their white characters two dimensional idiots of one sort or another. I accept their narratives from within the world they are creating.

I am not telling any minority reader to shrug off history, but to simply state "this is a racist text" without any degree of contextualism, to me is almost as limiting as remaining silent in the face of true demagoguery, sorry. There are countless of narratives, classic and commercial alike, where the civilized man is integrated into the indigenous native society. Tarzan. Dances With Wolves. Richard Harris in A Man Called Horse. Treasure Island. The Man Who Would Be King. Even The Jungle Book, for that matter, is a relative metaphor for man integrating within the natural world. To castigate Conrad for taking this theme and standing it on its head to explore the corruption it causes is simply too one dimensional and a disservice to any lover of literature.

Sometimes this forum makes me feel like I actually did go to Harvard, which says something in and of itself, since I had a fair 1980's university education, nothing extraordinary.

I am not confusing any posters, simply pushing back on the imperative to brand the text as worthless due to bigotry. At the moment, I am out of patience, and I leave luke on his own to temper the reactionaries, O multitude.

[billl]

When I read Morrison or Ellison, I do not condemn these authors for making their white characters two dimensional idiots of one sort or another. I accept their narratives from within the world they are creating.

I am not telling any minority reader to shrug off history, but to simply state "this is a racist text" without any degree of contextualism, to me is almost as limiting as remaining silent in the face of true demagoguery, sorry.

Fair enough, and I get your point. I am sorry if my note about confusing posters maybe ended up looking like a jibe, but looking through the discussion, I actually thought you might have meant to be responding to someone else.

[glover7]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Do you even know what cultural relativism entails? It has nothing to do with liking or dislike a work of art regardless of its reputation. That issue has been discussed already, but presumably you missed it with your careful reading. It is a belief that as opinions in art are subjective there can be no "good" nor "bad"... and undoubtedly no "meaning" either.

Your stance is that IceM was stating a "fact" that Candide was bad. Perhaps you should do a careful reading of your own post.

You listened quite well during the PC lectures, didn't you? "Elitism" is just a loaded word used to undermine those who may have more experience or knowledge in a given field by suggesting that this earned advantage is akin to the unearned advantages of wealth and social status.

That's not what I'm arguing at all. You're putting words in my mouth, which is a prime example of your own pretentious attitudes toward people you seem to think are intellectually inferior to you.

I'm sorry. I didn't know that it was you who was the final arbiter upon which definition of "elitism" I was using. So you have decided that I am wrong and you are right... which would seemingly make you the "elitist".

It doesn't make me elitist; it makes me capable of using a dictionary.

I'm continually amazed at how analogies are not understood on a site devoted to reading literature. They clearly need to teach more poetry in school.

Why? Because you apparently think that the purpose of poetry is the obfuscation of discussion? You've presented a logical fallacy, and I've called you out for it. Don't try to cover it with semantic analogs just because you don't want to acknowledge that -- wonder of wonders! -- someone has questioned your argument.

And if you have the capacity to think for yourself then you will also realize that if you make a statement contrary to accepted belief among those who have put forth the most effort in the study of a given field, then you had better be prepared to defend your position... especially against those "elitists" who might just know a bit more than you give them credit for.

I do give them credit. They've lived forty to sixty years longer than I have. Yet even my best professors, who are ivy league alumni, mind you, acknowledge the points that literature a.) is impractical b.) is the substance of people who would use the term for egotism and c.) should be taken on a case by case basis rather than simply as various appeals to authority.

If you want to argue literature with someone and make poor claims, then make sure you do it with someone who isn't already in the field.

[Jozanny]

I should not even go on with this, but, FYI, I have heard Achebe on the lecture circuit give his HoD critique, and the main thrust of his argument, at least to me, seems to boil down to: Conrad takes no account of African animism as a positive affirmation and celebration of life.

Fair enough, but Conrad is not an anthropologist, or even a Kantian structuralist like Levi-Strauss. He was a Gothic novelist living in the tail end of Britain's Imperial era--and as I have already noted, one cannot impose onto him the multi-cultural appreciation that we receive through the modern academic scholar.

And now I'm done. Bow and fade out.

[stlukesguild]

If you want to argue literature with someone and make poor claims, then make sure you do it with someone who isn't already in the field.



I am bowed before the superior wit, wisdom, and experience of one who is "already in the field." Junior amateur essayist and student... I am cowed. Talk about "pretentious"

[sixsmith]

"Components of literary analysis"... So wether you read Joyce, Proust, Ovid, Dante, Beckett, Austen, Rabelais, Perec, Borges or Flaubert you will judge a book by these "components of literary analysis"... This look more like a high school exercise, than a real criticism. Literature is much richer, diverse and fluid than that...

Yes. Adopting some sort of 'tick a box' approach is going to severely constrain the kind of literature you will be able to enjoy. What is remarkable, however, is that relatively respected critics fall prey to this kind of analysis. I'm thinking in particular of James Wood's recent public tantrum over the failure of Don DeLillo to create characters which resemble those of Chekhov or Flaubert.

Another disappointing book: How to Read and Why, by Harold Bloom. That one wasn't written poorly: I just had a different expectation coming in that wasn't fulfilled. Beautiful writing, but was something I didn't expect in that it merely provided multiple synopses of novels. Disappointing, really

I don't necessarily disagree with your ultimate assessment of Bloom's book Ice. But surely the disappointment of expectations (unless those expectations relate purely to aesthetic quality) is not a reason for dismissing a book. Great literature very frequently confounds our expectations, presenting us with characters, themes and prose that present the human experience afresh and broaden the boundaries of artistic endeavour.

[Red-Headed]

Well, I didn't find Candide funny either. Maybe it's a cultural thing. I sprinkled vinegar on my chips (or pommie fritters as they call them in France or something) once dining with French friends of mine. They reacted very strangely & wondered what the strange *Roast Beef was doing. I had to explain to them that in my country the sprinkling of vinegar on chips (or pommie fritters) is quite a common thing. They were quite astounded by this revelation. I thought this was rather strange for a race who eat amphibian limbs.


*A French term for an Englishman based on the slightly bizarre French notion that the English live predominantly on a diet of roast beef & mustard. This isn't strictly true as sometimes we eat Marmite sandwiches.

[glover7]

If you want to argue literature with someone and make poor claims, then make sure you do it with someone who isn't already in the field.



I am bowed before the superior wit, wisdom, and experience of one who is "already in the field." Junior amateur essayist and student... I am cowed. Talk about "pretentious"

I'll forgive you for this one because of the limitations apparent in electronic communication such as these forums. My last statement was intended ironically, as a jab at your (continued) insistence on your own superiority because of certain factors. Your age, I suppose, has something to do with it.

You've aptly demonstrated my point with this last post because you've done nothing to defend your arguments except to insinuate that I am callow and inexperienced. What a shining beacon of intellectual debate you are! Oh, that was ironic as well.