The Worst Classics You Have Ever Read

[Leabhar]

+1

i dunno if i really really really hate it, but it is probably one of the most pointless books i have ever read and instantly forgettable

That is kind of self contradictory. If it was instantly forgettable you wouldn't remember that you disliked it either.

[Michigan J Frog]

Boy are you in the wrong place. I see your new to the forum so welcome. One of the fun aspects to this site are the best/worst, underrated/overrated arguments. What's to great is no matter what you pick, someone else is standiing 180 degrees the other direction. You'll also find (oh, wait, you already have) that stronger you insult the work, the stronger the reaction you'll get.
This exchange on The Scarlet Letter is highly entertaining. Just so I keep enjoying it, Frog, I believe you wanted to say something about Henry James? Go for it. Jamesian will bite.:D
Ah, well I am glad to get a strong reaction, come to think of it. Although I am quite new to this forum, I get a feeling it's quite scattered in that there is not one or two consistent discussion but instead a couple of dropped line spread out in many topics.
And about Henry James :) maybe in another topic. His books aren't as bad as Hawthorne's, (you can say that almost about everybody) and isn't relevant to the topic because Scarlet letter takes that title by a lot.

[kelby_lake]

The Old Man and The Sea doesn't appear to have a story- it's just very boring.

[Hank Stamper]

That is kind of self contradictory. If it was instantly forgettable you wouldn't remember that you disliked it either.

the content, not the fact i had read it or whether i liked or disliked it

:crash: pedant

[Leabhar]

the content, not the fact i had read it or whether i liked or disliked it

:crash: pedant

Then the book wasn't forgettable. :D

[kelby_lake]

Well, it is if it's a blur. You can remember how it made you feel :) Like dreams- you can't really remember all of them but you can remember how they make you feel.

[WICKES]

If I had to nominate just one book it would be 'To Kill A Mocking Bird'. Dreadful novel.

[kelby_lake]

Yes! The world sees sense! What a smug load of rubbish!

[JBI]

To Kill a Mockingbird isn't a classic yet - the original audience is still alive.

[kelby_lake]

Well, people lazily refer to it as one so I guess it's a 'modern classic'

[RichardHresko]

Henry James' "Turn of the Screw."

[Jozanny]

Just so I keep enjoying it, Frog, I believe you wanted to say something about Henry James? Go for it. Jamesian will bite.:D

As would I if I thought it worth it against the naysayers, but I participate in LN for love of literature, not for smirking at it, so I am not sure what the detractors hope to gain. Disruption? Attention? (shrugs)

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think it is all but redundant to talk about a "worst classic." People change and with it attitudes to the books they have read. Largely, any faults with a classic is likely to lie with the reader, not the book.

[Jozanny]

I think it is all but redundant to talk about a "worst classic." People change and with it attitudes to the books they have read. Largely, any faults with a classic is likely to lie with the reader, not the book.

I would take this one step further Neely, although I agree with the sense of your post. The phrase worst classic is nearly an oxymoron--which is not to say that tastes do not change, or that an author may become overrated while lower stars rise--but a classic is a classic for various reasons. It may represent the epitome of its era, like Dickens "A Christmas Carol" can arguably be said to do--even though the tale makes me wince I can appreciate it for what it is, what Dickens hoped it would illuminate, even change, about Victorian society. Or it may be the pinnacle of a literary movement, such as Madame Bovary is to fictional realism, even a stepping stone to modernism, and so on.

Members should simply start five threads called "Books I want to trash!!!!" and we can keep Sche and Logos busy while they merge this and the *overrated* thread with it.:D;)

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes you are quite right "worst classic" is an oxymoron indeed. Like you, I don't particularly go for the unrealistic "change of heart" in A Christmas Carol, neither am I much fond of Dickens at all, but for me to start putting negative labels on his work would make me a fool, or more of a fool than I already am.

It is worth noting that classics as a general rule can also be labelled as such because they are the first of a type to do something, such as with Richardson, amongst the first novels, as well as the best of something. The label doesn't automatically denote the best, First/popular/best - maybe.

I remember trying to read The Turn of the Screw several years ago, several times and just gave it up in the end, thought it was "overly wordy." Then I learnt Freudian analysis and the novel totally opened up to me and I judged it in a different light. This is one of the ways that readers change over time, a novel may not work for you, which is fine, but it doesn't mean it is trash. Also some classics represent a body of work that I may not fully be at home with. For instance the Romantic poets appeal more to me than say, the Realists, but it does not make their work any less good just because of my own personal tastes.

[Jozanny]

The Turn of the Screw took me more than one reading, for sure, but it is a masterwork because the unreliability of the narration presents itself as reliable.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes that is one of the many reasons it is a masterwork though there are many large and small, you have read it through Freud I suppose, it is a classic Freudian text is it not?

[Lioness_Heart]

I generally don't like Dickens that much. It's not really to do with his writing, because I think that his characterisation is amazing for certain characters. It just really irritates me that many of his books are a bit prescriptive: his heroes go through terrible ordeals, nobly rising above them all. Their true gentility shines through and it turns out that they are from wealthy 'good' families all along... it sometimes appears that he is trying to recreate himself in these heroes, which is all very well, but in a figure that is portrayed so much as an advocate of social justice, it seems a bit hypocritical that his heroes' good qualities are due to some sort of innate good breeding.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes exactly, I don’t take Dickens seriously as a writer at all. Of course his construction of language is first rate, but the psychological reality of his characters is not, though was probably never meant to be. His novels appear to be the soaps of their day, just better written and without the awful acting.

[kelby_lake]

He is very good at characterisation. There's tons of characters in Dickens novels, each with their own quirks.

[WICKES]

He is very good at characterisation. There's tons of characters in Dickens novels, each with their own quirks.

Dickens is one of the greatest creators of characters in world literature. Harold Bloom writes that he is up there with Shakespeare and Chaucer (among the British writers), Cervantes, Tolstoy and Homer. For that alone he deserves a place in the pantheon of greats.

[Lioness_Heart]

He is very good at characterisation. There's tons of characters in Dickens novels, each with their own quirks.

That's true, but his writing might be more effective if the hero was more realistic. Although, I suppose, they do engage the reader's sympathy, which might have been what Dickens was trying to do.

[Etienne]

Well I don't think Dickens should be approached like, say, Madame Bovary. Dickens reads more like a tale, and I feel that he should be approached in such a way. Even his writing conveys this feeling, it is always tender and light. I think Dickens is one of the greatest prose writers too.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes, the creation of character through quirks and description is first rate, but they have no psychological reality. People do not spontaneously change personalities on the eve of Christmas despite being visited by ghosts. With that said I am not Criticising Dickens for this aspect because he probably never intended psychological depth merely that I don’t enjoy Dickens that much for this reason, though of course my opinions may change over time.

[Etienne]

Well even more so for Christmas Carol, it is not supposed to be a psychological study, but rather a light tale. So while I understand what you're saying, I feel it is just like saying "magic realism would be better if it was more realist". So it is not so much Dickens that you don't like rather the "genre" which he writes.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes, perhaps that would be a fair comment.

Though with the same thinking perhaps it is best not to praise the characters of Dickens at all, just the construction of his language and the enjoyable lightness of his tales?

[Etienne]

I don't praise the characters, I praise the overall work. I don't think dostoevskian characterization would be nice to have in a Dickens story ;)

Just like Dickens characters in a Dostoevsky novel would be ridiculous. And in this sense you are right that the main interest of a Dickens story is not characterization or psychology, but other vectors.

[LitNetIsGreat]

No, I agree, I wasn’t referring to you with the praising of characters, but to the above posters and to general comments I have heard before. Perhaps it would be more accurate to praise the characterisation within the particular genre itself, his characters work well within his novels, Dostoevsky’s within Dostoevsky’s.

[kelby_lake]

With that said I am not Criticising Dickens for this aspect because he probably never intended psychological depth merely that I don’t enjoy Dickens that much for this reason, though of course my opinions may change over time.

Yep, Christmas Carol is just a nice Christmassy tale. Because you don't really want misery at Christmas do you? :)
A Tale of Two Cities has more depth, in the character of Sydney Carton, the drunk lawyer who sees in rare moments of sobriety how bad he is. Then the ending is famous.

[Emil Miller]

Yes you are quite right "worst classic" is an oxymoron indeed. Like you, I don't particularly go for the unrealistic "change of heart" in A Christmas Carol, neither am I much fond of Dickens at all, but for me to start putting negative labels on his work would make me a fool, or more of a fool than I already am.

It is worth noting that classics as a general rule can also be labelled as such because they are the first of a type to do something, such as with Richardson, amongst the first novels, as well as the best of something. The label doesn't automatically denote the best, First/popular/best - maybe.

I remember trying to read The Turn of the Screw several years ago, several times and just gave it up in the end, thought it was "overly wordy." Then I learnt Freudian analysis and the novel totally opened up to me and I judged it in a different light. This is one of the ways that readers change over time, a novel may not work for you, which is fine, but it doesn't mean it is trash. Also some classics represent a body of work that I may not fully be at home with. For instance the Romantic poets appeal more to me than say, the Realists, but it does not make their work any less good just because of my own personal tastes.

I remember when I started to read serious writers (eons ago) my local library had a number of Henry James novels on its shelves. They were impressively bound but what struck me most about them was their thickness. A cursory glance through one or two told me that James was an extraordinarily verbose author who would be unlikely to interest me. Years later I decided to read some of his less lengthy works such as The Turn of the Screw and The Europeans. I discovered that his reputation for wordiness was justified but he could write a good story. Later still I bought a copy of The American in a German translation because I thought that the use of compound words in the German language would make the novel seem shorter but I was wrong; the book was still unnaturally verbose.
Can anyone explain why James, a good story teller, was so long-winded, surely even a Freudian sub-text doesn't require such verbosity.

[sharpie]

Les Miserables - too simple, too didactic, too corny.... maybe i'm missing something

[Niamh]

Middlesmarch. Dont like Middlesmarch.

[Sarida]

I'm not sure if it is really labeled as a "classic," but it is the one piece of literature that I have read so far that I wanted to burn. (It belonged to my school and was an assignment, so I decided I probably should not. . .)
Oh. . . almost forgot to write it down:
Franz Kafka's Metamorphasis. *shudder*

[HyndmanStrider]

The Great Gatsby

Don Quitoxe


Couldn't relate well to either novel.

[bazarov]

Some strange choices in this thread...

[Kafka's Crow]

I'm not sure if it is really labeled as a "classic," but it is the one piece of literature that I have read so far that I wanted to burn. (It belonged to my school and was an assignment, so I decided I probably should not. . .)
Oh. . . almost forgot to write it down:
Franz Kafka's Metamorphasis. *shudder*


Some strange choices in this thread...

Yes I am appalled as well, Bazarov. They should ban schools from forcing real literature on students. It only breeds contempt for these great books. Schools should stick with Gatsby and Dickens and James etc. Only a very few great writers survive school curricula. Jane Austen is a survivor, so is Gorge Eliot but most other great writers should be kept out of students reach. Who teaches Kafka to students? Maybe it was a German school. Still this is very indiscreet.

[Jozanny]

I remember when I started to read serious writers (eons ago) my local library had a number of Henry James novels on its shelves. They were impressively bound but what struck me most about them was their thickness. A cursory glance through one or two told me that James was an extraordinarily verbose author who would be unlikely to interest me. Years later I decided to read some of his less lengthy works such as The Turn of the Screw and The Europeans. I discovered that his reputation for wordiness was justified but he could write a good story. Later still I bought a copy of The American in a German translation because I thought that the use of compound words in the German language would make the novel seem shorter but I was wrong; the book was still unnaturally verbose.
Can anyone explain why James, a good story teller, was so long-winded, surely even a Freudian sub-text doesn't require such verbosity.

The best I can reply to this Brian, off the top of my weary head, and despite all my years of studying James, meaning that I am not going to post anything profound or terribly illuminating, is two-fold, or maybe three:

James was a Victorian American expatriate, and as such, would never explicitly say X meant Y; he wanted his audience to infer on their own *why* Millie Theale was dying of something entirely mysterious, or if the intimacy between The Prince and Charlotte was evil, and how, or why Strether would not marry Maria, or how Masie stayed innocent, or if he hints at lesbianism in The Bostonians. In short, James doesn't like to tell the reader much. He hints, and the reader infers according to how deeply or not the reader wants to.

2. He developed what critics call a "super-attenuation of manner" which pushed Victorian sensibility to extremes, and I am not sure, if, toward the end, he might have been going in his own modernist direction, if he had lived a few years longer, much like Joyce and Proust.

3. He was homosexual, and there is a roaring debate among contemporary scholars whether or not he was actively gay (keeping in mind that erotic homosexual sex was a criminal offense in James' lifetime) or repressed out of both the cultural norms of his era and his own fastidiousness. My friend Dr. Sheldon Novick created an uproar among contemporary academics when he suggests that James had an affair with Oliver Wendell Holmes. I take the fifth on the matter, but cannot help chuckling at the thought.:p

3a. But my intent in pointing this out is James may have not been EM Forster, as Forster coded his sexual orientation in his work outside of Maurice, but it does suggest James had a reason to lean toward obfuscation.

4. One of his best achievements was playing tricks on the reader about the reliability of the narrative voice in the work, re: The Turn of the Screw.

I hope this is somewhat insightful.

[kelby_lake]

Franz Kafka's Metamorphasis. *shudder*

What?! It's great!

I think there are some books that just don't stand scrutiny at school- it destroys them. The Great Gatsby is an amazing book but if you're forced to analyse it, it destroys the magic of the novel, which is key to whether you like it or not.

They can teach Mockingbird- it's pretty bad but you can write a lot of rubbish about it.

[Emil Miller]

The best I can reply to this Brian, off the top of my weary head, and despite all my years of studying James, meaning that I am not going to post anything profound or terribly illuminating, is two-fold, or maybe three:

James was a Victorian American expatriate, and as such, would never explicitly say X meant Y; he wanted his audience to infer on their own *why* Millie Theale was dying of something entirely mysterious, or if the intimacy between The Prince and Charlotte was evil, and how, or why Strether would not marry Maria, or how Masie stayed innocent, or if he hints at lesbianism in The Bostonians. In short, James doesn't like to tell the reader much. He hints, and the reader infers according to how deeply or not the reader wants to.

2. He developed what critics call a "super-attenuation of manner" which pushed Victorian sensibility to extremes, and I am not sure, if, toward the end, he might have been going in his own modernist direction, if he had lived a few years longer, much like Joyce and Proust.

3. He was homosexual, and there is a roaring debate among contemporary scholars whether or not he was actively gay (keeping in mind that erotic homosexual sex was a criminal offense in James' lifetime) or repressed out of both the cultural norms of his era and his own fastidiousness. My friend Dr. Sheldon Novick created an uproar among contemporary academics when he suggests that James had an affair with Oliver Wendell Holmes. I take the fifth on the matter, but cannot help chuckling at the thought.:p

3a. But my intent in pointing this out is James may have not been EM Forster, as Forster coded his sexual orientation in his work outside of Maurice, but it does suggest James had a reason to lean toward obfuscation.

4. One of his best achievements was playing tricks on the reader about the reliability of the narrative voice in the work, re: The Turn of the Screw.

I hope this is somewhat insightful.

Thanks for the information, it does go some way to explaining why James takes so long to get to the point. I am not sure, however, whether he participated in homosexual acts as Dr. Novick suggests, because in one of the Somerset Maugham biographies that I have read (I think it was Ted Morgan's), Maugham, a practising homosexual, once asked James why he didn't indulge in the practice, and James replied that he simply couldn't bring himself to do so.
Having read all of Somerset Maugham and most of E M Forster, who was also a practising homosexual, I can see that their comparative brevity contrasts greatly with James's circumlocution, so there may well be something in what you say about James's fastidiousness causing him to be evasive in expressing himself directy.

[Vincent Black]

I found it difficult to appreciate Dracula and Dangerous Liaisons, the middle of Dracula seems to just go on without anything happening.

And it's not just because they're epistolary novels, I loved Frankenstein.

[Brendan Madley]

I loved The Catcher in the Rye, yet hated things like For Whom The Bell Tolls. I love Dickens - he is the great storyteller.

[Niamh]

What?! It's great!

I think there are some books that just don't stand scrutiny at school- it destroys them. The Great Gatsby is an amazing book but if you're forced to analyse it, it destroys the magic of the novel, which is key to whether you like it or not.

They can teach Mockingbird- it's pretty bad but you can write a lot of rubbish about it.

They Teach To Kill A Mocking Bird in Schools over here. I didnt study it though. I did Teh Silver Sword. The Hobbit, Goodnight Mister Tom. (best point out its done for the Junior Cert, so about 15 years old)

[Stevie Ruggling]

Moby Dick put me off reading for a long time. I really struggled through it, but didn't want to give up. As a consequence, reading ever since has seemed a bit of a chore, even though I am attempting it for pleasure. Seems I may need to get back on the horse...

[LitNetIsGreat]

Moby Dick put me off reading for a long time. I really struggled through it, but didn't want to give up. As a consequence, reading ever since has seemed a bit of a chore, even though I am attempting it for pleasure. Seems I may need to get back on the horse...

Unless you are reading for study there is little point in trying to struggle through a book that is not working for you at present. There are millions of good books out there, don't discount ALL of them just because you couldn't get on with one. Take the same rule with people, if you can't get on with a particular person, do you shun the entire human race?

[Jozanny]

It saddens me to see so much hostility to Melville on The Literature Network. I dunno.

I am so weary of Dostoevsky that it may take me another 20 years to return to him with a fresh appreciation, but even though the taint of my personal prejudice, I am skilled enough, as a critic, to see the nearly revolutionary importance of Dostoevsky on fiction as a realist art. Melville carries the same importance for giving American literature a national identity, which is why Moby Dick should not be simply plunged into without preparation, and good critical notes. The whaling episodes are not just rip offs from whaling manuals available to Melville at the time. The reader needs to look at these passages in the moral context of American Calvanism Melville portrays. Go back and read the sermon on Job, and tie that in with how the ship balances its industry of consuming whales, literally and figuratively.

[ladyflorange]

I really, really, really did not enjoy To the Lighthouse. I also did not enjoy Women in Love, both of which I had to read for university, whilst studying Modernism, which I didn't understand. The analysis may not have helped, but still.
I do however very much enjoy both To Kill a Mockingbird, and Catcher in the Rye, amongst others that people hate...
It's weird how much opinions vary...

[learntodiscover]

I guess Catch-22 is not my "cup of tea" as some might say it and the only part of The Catcher in the Rye I found interesting was near the very last page when Caulfield is with his little sister. The F-words were a complete turn off and made me almost rip the book from rage and Caulfield's stuck-up demeanor annoyed me. I didn't even understand the point of the book in general.. and if anything I believe the book conveys a false message by showing a protagonist who avidly smokes, drinks and excercises several attempts to get in contact with a girl who makes him feel amorous... let alone the hooker..

I'm sorry if my phrase "devoid of a plot..." has offended you or anyone else. It actually sounds a bit self-contradictory because I wanted this topic to be very open to diverse perceptions. I will see if I can edit that in my main post and thanks for replying :)

I'm on the fence with Catcher in the Rye. As a book on the whole I enjoyed it, the really connected with holden, I felt so very depressed whilst reading it and I thought it was good that salinger was able to get me so involved. However, I absolutely understand with the swearing and the fact that he never gets around to doing what he really wants and all that smoking drinking and swearing started to get on my nerves.

Another book that didn't live up to its expectations was THE DA'VINCI CODE, I couldn't get past the first few pages and also digital fortress. My friends tried to get me to read both and I just got so bored.

[carrotcake]

I would have to say "The Old Man and the Sea"...

[kelby_lake]

I so didn't get the old man and the sea

[bounty]

jozanny....eek...i do appreciate your insight but i am sorry to say my vote here goes for moby dick...

[kelby_lake]

Well, it's good if you like whales. If you aren't completely in love with whales, it can get a bit boring.

[JBI]

Yes, but the virtuosic prose more than makes up for it.

[wonderwall]

i agree with you on Catch 22, i can never fully get into it (even though ive read it thrice!!) i find the attempts at satire lethargic and drawn out.

[Michigan J Frog]

Catch-22 is one of those books that I have read where I feel that the writer is admiring himself as he writes. One book that I didn't feel bad about picking apart.

Not good to see Da Vinci code mentioned here... people consider it a classic?

And speaking of rereading books, I still cannot see why Grapes of Wrath is considered a classic. Forget about historical significance, it's not a well written book.

[kelby_lake]

Haven't read Grapes of Wrath but I thought Of Mice and Men was well-written

[Hank Stamper]

Haven't read Grapes of Wrath but I thought Of Mice and Men was well-written

does anybody have an opinion on cannery row and tortilla flat? not read either but considering a purchase!

[Michigan J Frog]

I just don't understand why so many people like Steinback. Someone said that his books are easy to read and that's why people like him and why critics don't think too highly of him but his books are just really boring to me. I guess I might give East of Eden a try but if I don't like that books then I am completely done with Steinback. (I have a strong dislike toward The Pearl, Grapes of Wrath, and of Mice and Man.)

[kelby_lake]

East of Eden is pretty long. If you didn't like Of Mice and Men, which is tiny, then you probably won't like east of eden. Did you like the ending of Of Mice and Men?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I just don't understand why so many people like Steinback. Someone said that his books are easy to read and that's why people like him and why critics don't think too highly of him but his books are just really boring to me. I guess I might give East of Eden a try but if I don't like that books then I am completely done with Steinback. (I have a strong dislike toward The Pearl, Grapes of Wrath, and of Mice and Man.)

I personally wouldn't bother, if you didn't like three of his books why read a fourth? There are far too many good things out there why punish yourself reading for pleasure if it is not bringing you pleasure. You may find that in time you may come to like Steinbeck, you may view him in a different light as you get older, but if not, so what.

Personally I am indifferent to Steinbeck though perhaps feel that he is a little overrated.

[PabloQ]

I would take this one step further Neely, although I agree with the sense of your post. The phrase worst classic is nearly an oxymoron--which is not to say that tastes do not change, or that an author may become overrated while lower stars rise--but a classic is a classic for various reasons. It may represent the epitome of its era, like Dickens "A Christmas Carol" can arguably be said to do--even though the tale makes me wince I can appreciate it for what it is, what Dickens hoped it would illuminate, even change, about Victorian society. Or it may be the pinnacle of a literary movement, such as Madame Bovary is to fictional realism, even a stepping stone to modernism, and so on.

Members should simply start five threads called "Books I want to trash!!!!" and we can keep Sche and Logos busy while they merge this and the *overrated* thread with it.:D;)
Jozanny,
This may be the best entry in any of worst/underrated threads. I'm probably some version of a sick puppy, but I get a kick our of how someone's opinion inevitably sets off a powder keg. Sometimes it's the way the opinion is expressed. Sometimes it's the work or the writer. (Ulysses or Joyce usually makes for lively debate.) My intention in provoking Froggy to take on James was to get the type of intellectual exchange that you've brought to this thread. Quite enjoyable. I don't dislike James, but The Wings of the Dove gave my nothing to cling to -- plot, character, style. I've enjoyed others of Henry James's works, but this one just bored the crap out of me.
What really entertains me is the lack of foundation behind why someone puts forth a work. I didn't like Moby Dick because I almost choked on a bone I found my fish sandwich in the cafeteria when I was 10. Sometimes these "negative" threads are like walking through a field of crap trying to find the pony, but eventually, an actual literary discussion arises.
Thank you for bringing it to this not just once (James), but twice (Melville). :thumbs_up

[Jozanny]

Jozanny,
This may be the best entry in any of worst/underrated threads. I'm probably some version of a sick puppy, but I get a kick our of how someone's opinion inevitably sets off a powder keg. Sometimes it's the way the opinion is expressed. Sometimes it's the work or the writer. (Ulysses or Joyce usually makes for lively debate.) My intention in provoking Froggy to take on James was to get the type of intellectual exchange that you've brought to this thread. Quite enjoyable. I don't dislike James, but The Wings of the Dove gave my nothing to cling to -- plot, character, style. I've enjoyed others of Henry James's works, but this one just bored the crap out of me.
What really entertains me is the lack of foundation behind why someone puts forth a work. I didn't like Moby Dick because I almost choked on a bone I found my fish sandwich in the cafeteria when I was 10. Sometimes these "negative" threads are like walking through a field of crap trying to find the pony, but eventually, an actual literary discussion arises.
Thank you for bringing it to this not just once (James), but twice (Melville). :thumbs_up

Like everything else, electronic interaction between individuals has its detractions as well as its virtues, and my love/hate relationship with online communities will probably never quite be resolved. The only reason the powers that be haven't had to lasso me and stick a bar of soap into my account, ahem, where the sun doesn't shine:D, is because I am a little too weary to wail and beat my breast daily for virtue of public display, and two, it has no real healing virtue, three, I've learned when not to push back, and four, won't allow myself to care--but posting about anything isn't all it is cracked up to be, and I am symptomatic of that as much as any other member, in not taking the time to make relatively invested arguments.

There is a difference between personal opinion and critical evaluation of merit--and that can often get lost on posting boards or comment threads--even in email groups--not that it is all bad, but it isn't all beneficial for continuing education either.

[jaywalker]

Hardy,Thomas. Depressing or Wot,mate. Brontes and ,another sacrilege, Grahame Green.

[mona amon]

I've liked most of the classics I've read, which is not to say that a lot of them weren't pretty boring in parts. But I can put up with quite a bit of boredom to get what the book has to offer, and with a classic I'm rarely disappointed.

Some classics which I was never able to get through- Boswell's Life of Johnson, Dante's Divine Comedy, all George Elliot's novels except Middlemarch.

I didn't like Oscar Wilde's Dorian Grey, I found it totally pointless. I don't even know if it's a classic.

Les Miserables disappointed me a bit. I thought it was going to be really great, and I did like quite a bit of it, but on the whole I felt it was a big , huge, silly story!

[LitNetIsGreat]

Quote:
I didn't like Oscar Wilde's Dorian Grey, I found it totally pointless. I don't even know if it's a classic.

That's one of my personal favourite, favouritistist novels, of alllll time.::bawling:

<<<< that's a picture of Mr Gray there as my avatar.

[mona amon]

Aww...Neely, I didn't mean to make you cry! If it's any comfort, some of my favourite novels like Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights and Ulysses and Catch 22 have been listed here as 'worst classics'! :D

[kelby_lake]

I found Dorian Gray hard to read as the constant wit really bugged me. Do we need an epigram in every line?!

And To Kill A Mockingbird- smug self-righteous propaganda.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Do you begrudge the man his genius? Of course anything written by Wilde is going to have natural flair and wit, but this doesn’t intrude, for me, into the text, the author remains hidden enough for the wit to be played by the characters.

Don’t forget that Lord Henry’s art is his language, just as Basil’s art is his paint brush, just as Dorian’s art is his beauty. By all means it is not a perfect novel, but it is bloody damn good.


Before I disagreed with this thread topic, now I hate it and vow to stay away.

[Christophe]

I read On The Road whilst travelling around Nepal. They both coupled each other in a a beautiful shambolic way. I'm lucky enough to travel a bit and always try to marry up the right book.

For me this question is a little hard, I don't really finish most of the rubbish, poor books should be abandoned. Middlemarch would be one of those. Most of the rest would be considered pap anyway, so I shalln't include those.

[Etienne]

I found Dorian Gray hard to read as the constant wit really bugged me. Do we need an epigram in every line?!

Yes, yes, I was slightly annoyed by that too. However, I thought that The Picture of Dorian Gray was a great book.

[kelby_lake]

I think once I reread it it will be. It's just irritating having every line as an epigram.

[muazjalil]

Care to explain why Jean Paul Sartre's Nausea so famous. I am no philosopher and i guess that was my problem. couldn't make head or tail of the book!!!

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think once I reread it it will be. It's just irritating having every line as an epigram.

Every line? That is a little hyperbole, but I suppose I know what you are getting at. If you have time read it again, I'll be interested you know what you think of it. You could even flick at random on nearly every page and find something of value there. Let's try it, for I am in a funny mood:

Flick:

Music had stirred him like that. Music had troubled him many times. But music was not articulate. It was not a new world, but rather another chaos, that it created in us. Worlds! Mere words! How terrible they were! How clear, and vivid, and cruel! One could not escape from them. And yet what a subtle magic there was in them! They seemed to be able to give a plastic form to formless things, and to have a music of their own as sweet as that of viol or of lute. Mere words! Was there anything so real as words?

Dorian Gray on the language and corruptive philosophy of Lord Henry. I like Wilde's allusion to the mystic world of music, Dorian himself being a pianist of sorts obviously seeing the world to some extent in these terms, maybe taking comfort in them having had his world rocked by the silver tongue of Lord Henry. Wilde here is a little too rhetorical perhaps, a little too many exclamations, but as ever his words flowing beautifully. I could read a shopping list forever if it was written like this.

Another flick:

Anyone you love must be marvellous, and any girl that has the effect you describe must be fine and noble. To spiritualise one's age - that is something worth doing. If this girl can give a soul to those who have lived without one, if she can create the sense of beauty in people whose lives have been sordid and ugly, if she can strip them of their selfishness and lend them tears for sorrows that are not their own, she is worthy of all your adoration, worthy of the adoration of the world.

This is Lord Henry on hearing of Dorian's affection and engagement to Sybil. What struck me here as I was typing it out, was how it both praises and laments at the same time. It is a stirring piece of writing, but underneath comes sadness that Dorian is not to be Henry's, that he has potentially lost some of his affection due to this young girl, who so realistically re-creates the beauty of Shakespeare's women. You could play around with the "adoration" part too, the real adoration is that of Henry's to Dorian's and ultimately not Dorian's to Sybil's. Also that Sybil fails so miserably to gain any adoration from the public at all, once her spell is broken by "Prince" Charming.

Wilde is often passed off as a writer of wit and social comedy, even by the top critics, but there is much more to Wilde to the writer than that, even in his comedies. Wilde is often much deeper than people give him credit for, not that I ever meant to prove that with these quotations, I was merely showing how you can find something of value on every page, or nearly every page.

[ksotikoula]

The portrait of lady by Henry James. So wordy and perplexed for no apparent reason, without any meaning and with a pathetic and masochistic ending for a so called clever heroine.

[Apocrypha75]

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.

How Ironic. I really loved Persuasion (my first Austen) but loathed Pride and Prejudice, which takes the crown for my worst classic (so far); didn't care for it one bit and struggled all the way to the end.

[kiki1982]

I am afraid I'm also not a huge fan of Dorian Gray... I think it would have been very good as a play, because Wilde certainly had a very clear idea of what the stage was supposed to look like and what the character was supposed to feel... But to me, he goes too much in detail...

Nonetheless, it is a very good and deep story. Just not well-written as a novel. (I find) Particularly Lord Henry would work very well on stage with the right manners, posture and tone of voice, but on paper to me he becomes annoying. Only because there is nothing else but his speech. If there was something else to look at, then he would become amusing.

I just find it a shame that there is nothig to be discovered in that book. It is just plain and clear that the portrait is supposed to be Dorian's soul. In my opinion, Wilde put in his story a lot of directions for the actors, but of course, it is not a piece of theatre... On the other hand, not bad writing. Very beautiful wording, and very philosophical.

[prendrelemick]

Dickens is the best and worst, Martin Chuzzlewit is unreadable. Overblown in style, too wordy and frankly boring.

A Christmas Carol, Great Expectations, Oliver Twist, all excellent.

[kelby_lake]

I am afraid I'm also not a huge fan of Dorian Gray... I think it would have been very good as a play, because Wilde certainly had a very clear idea of what the stage was supposed to look like and what the character was supposed to feel... But to me, he goes too much in detail...

Nonetheless, it is a very good and deep story. Just not well-written as a novel. (I find) Particularly Lord Henry would work very well on stage with the right manners, posture and tone of voice, but on paper to me he becomes annoying. Only because there is nothing else but his speech. If there was something else to look at, then he would become amusing.

I just find it a shame that there is nothig to be discovered in that book. It is just plain and clear that the portrait is supposed to be Dorian's soul. In my opinion, Wilde put in his story a lot of directions for the actors, but of course, it is not a piece of theatre... On the other hand, not bad writing. Very beautiful wording, and very philosophical.

I heartily agree that the theatre is Wilde's true medium, not the novel. With theatre you can excuse self-indulgence (that is what wit boils down to) and bring out the wit and style that Wilde has, whereas in novel form, it's just distracting and mildly irritating:
'Wit ought to be a glorious treat like caviar; never spread it about like marmalade', as Noel Coward said.

[Dionido]

I never managed to finisch Moby Dick; I just got too bored during those long dissertations concerning whales and whaling etc. (similar dissertations didn't bother me for example in Hugo's Notre-Dame, don't know why).

Another one I was a bit perplexed about was Tropic of Cancer by Miller. I had a bit of a hard time appreciating it's confusing and nonlinear style. (similar style didn't bother me for example in Burroughs' Naked Lunch)

Also I would mention A Farewell to Arms, I'm finishing now and still have mixed feelings about it. Will have to think about it.

[emily00]

Dickens is the best and worst, Martin Chuzzlewit is unreadable. Overblown in style, too wordy and frankly boring.

A Christmas Carol, Great Expectations, Oliver Twist, all excellent.
:alien:What? How can you not like Bleak House, David Copperfield or Dombey & Son?

(emily00 goes to lie down in darkened room with cold compress to her brow)

[kelby_lake]

I never managed to finisch Moby Dick; I just got too bored during those long dissertations concerning whales and whaling etc. (similar dissertations didn't bother me for example in Hugo's Notre-Dame, don't know why).

Also I would mention A Farewell to Arms, I'm finishing now and still have mixed feelings about it. Will have to think about it.

Agree with you on the above. I never finished A Farewell to Arms.

[meh!]

Hello Aunty-lion and thank you for replying to this topic with warm appreciation. I find it interesting that you say your mother found interest in Catch-22 after it was read to her.. I have experienced certain books boring when read softly but far more interesting when read aloud but as for Joseph Heller's Catch-22 I believe believe my main grudge against it is the in the way he seems to convolude paragraphs with details upon details which seems to be arbitrarily sloshed together... Take this paragraph for example:



...Now I'm not claiming that this paragraph isn't amusing but can it seriously be called brilliant? I respect your opinion on the book and everyone else who is a die-hard fan of it and Joseph Heller's other works but I am baffled that a few people have claimed it is "the greatest classic of all time" while others have compared its humor to certain Shakespear plays.

----

I'm sorry I can't give you an opinion on Vanity Fair because I haven't read it myself. I'll try to get to William Thackeray after I overcome this mound of Joyce/Dostoevsky.

Why on earth would anyone compare Catch-22's humour to Shakespeare?

Catch-22 is funny :confused:

On topic:

Never really got on with Thomas Hardy.

Jude the obscure... just...

I can't really communicate how much I don't care about how exactly the grass on the riverbank was being blown...

[kelby_lake]

A lot of my friends recommended Vanity Fair to me, but I gave up after the first 60 pages or so because all the characters just seemed so vacant and uninteresting. I suppose that's probably the point. Does anyone have an opinion about this?? Does it get better? Should I try again?

Vanity Fair is genius. It's 900 pages, but well worth reading.

It's a 'Novel without A Hero'- Becky Sharp is a social climber, Amelia is soppy, George Osborne is selfish, Dobbin is stupidly selfless...just like real people:

'Ah! Vanitas vanitatum! Which of us is happy in this world? Which of us has his desire? or, having it, is satisfied?—Come, children, let us shut up the box and the puppets, for our play is played out.'

[Stargazer86]

I didn't like Pride and Prejudice. I wouldn't say it was the "worst". It just didn't appeal to my taste at all and I didn't enjoy it personally.

[Page Turner]

The Sound and the Fury. I tried, I really did, but I couldn't get through it.

[mayneverhave]

The Sound and the Fury. I tried, I really did, but I couldn't get through it.

Difficulty is not an aesthetic quality.

[Page Turner]

Difficulty is not an aesthetic quality.

That's true. I've read other books that took a couple of readings to sink in but this one didn't work for me. I haven't read any other Faulkner. Can you recommend an easier intro?

[mayneverhave]

That's true. I've read other books that took a couple of readings to sink in but this one didn't work for me. I haven't read any other Faulkner. Can you recommend an easier intro?

The Sound and the Fury was the one I actually started with, but since this option is out, I would suggest either As I Lay Dying, Light in August, or some of his short stories - definitely not Absalom, Absalom!

As I Lay Dying is, I would say, just as difficult as The Sound and the Fury, only its chapters are far shorter, its overall length shorter, and these two qualities make the reading relatively easier and more enjoyable. Either way, I suggest using Sparknotes, books from the library, or maybe The Sound and the Fury hypertext that is available free online to approach the books.

[Scott89119]

For me personally, Dracula got to be a complete bore after awhile (I read it when I was very young, so maybe my perspective has changed enough for me to be entertained by it). Another classic that was a chore to finish was The Hunchback of Notre Dame- a very fine novel, but unflinchingly, pervasively tragic near the end.

[Dostoyevsky]

The Bible, no contest

[Psynema]

I never quite read any classics that I hated...but some commentary none the less

1. Great Gatsby - read it in High School, the teacher just said "its' about the recklessness of the 20s". Pretty much that was it and I couldn't really gather much more out of it - sure there's materialism/greed/lust issues, but didn't find it to be really original or thought provoking and couldn't empathise with it at all.

2. Brothers Karamazov - still a good book, but didn't find it as great as others mentioned. Non religious folk won't find as much as christians and it just doesn't feel like Dostoevsky's other works.

3. Sirens of Titan - call me dumb, I get the main idea, but nothing resonated with me - someone tell me what I missed and feel free to argue, but just seemed like a cartoon of a very tired issue beaten do death ten million times. Didn't find it original and at times felt like I was reading a children's book.

[higley]

2. Brothers Karamazov - still a good book, but didn't find it as great as others mentioned. Non religious folk won't find as much as christians and it just doesn't feel like Dostoevsky's other works.


Kind of funny considering the comment before yours. ;)

[billl]

It's been a while, maybe I've matured or something and would have a different opinion now, but a collection of Guy de Maupassant's short stories (maybe the best short story writer ever!) and a collection of Montaigne's essays (near the top in the genre!) both really disappointed me. Maybe there was too much hype. One thing's for sure, I didn't get anywhere close to reading them all so... maybe not fair.

[Tupelo]

Moby Dick!

<shudder>

[alexar]

"Now small fowls flew screaming over the yet yawning gulf; a sullen white surf beat against its steep sides; then all collapsed, and the great shroud of the sea rolled on as it rolled five thousand years ago."

Nah it ain't that bad.

Middlemarch!

Narrators do NOT know best.

[kelby_lake]

I never quite read any classics that I hated...but some commentary none the less

1. Great Gatsby - read it in High School, the teacher just said "its' about the recklessness of the 20s". Pretty much that was it and I couldn't really gather much more out of it - sure there's materialism/greed/lust issues, but didn't find it to be really original or thought provoking and couldn't empathise with it at all.


Sounds like you got a bad teacher because there's loads in Gatsby and it's certainly original. People just assume it isn't because they're used to reading loads of modern rip-offs.

It's a tragedy about the destructive power of dreams, and the death of dreams. There isn't anyone in the world who can't empathise with wishing they could recreate some lost moment of their past, or love something in vain.

[five-trey]

First off, I would like to say that I LOVED Moby-Dick. Its quite possibly my favorite novel, on level with Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. Many readers lambast it for its long chapters on marine biology and whale anatomy and such, but those chapters are essential to the novel. When you are reading about something as rare as whaling, it is a tremendous help to actually understand what goes into it. Not only do these chapters help us gain a full understanding of the exerience described, but they also immerse us further in Melville's world. Aside from that, Moby-Dick is one of the deepest books I have ever read, wreathed in allegory and meaning. Despite the constant apostrophes, Melville's characters maintain their sense of authenticity and their interactions with each other are tense and emotionally charged. As far as Melville's language, I can gush about it all day. Melville does better than Charles Dickens what Charles Dickens is so well known for; that is, the use of figurative language to create an image.


As far as works I did not quite fawn over, A Tale of Two Cities and A Streetcar Named Desire top the list.

In A Tale..., all the characters outside of Sidney Carton seem flat and two-dimensional. Because of this, it feels like I'm reading a soap opera more than anything else. Not to say that I didn't like the whole novel, but it really failed to make a great impression on me. Dickens's portrayal of the French Revolution is masterful and his prose is excellent, but the characterization is too weak.

A Streetcar Named Desire, I just could not understand. I could understand the play very well, but I could not understand what makes it great.

[valleyjune]

I liked the "Street Car..", though it's probably not my favourite of T. Williams's plays. I consider it atmospheric in a kind of dark way, but generally I prefer more light-hearted readings for the time being. I mean, I find it a little bit hard to handle the violence in all the plays of his that I've read -except "The glass menagerie" which is my favourite.

Anyway, the so-called masterpiece I could not stand reading -unfortunately, I had to, though- was "Gulliver's travels". What a bore!

[jocky]

Anything written by Jane Austin, If I had to read one more eulogy on the excruciating Mr Darcy, suicide would be a serious consideration. She does write about what she knows but, my God, her subject material is limited to say the least. You would hardly be aware that Britain was in a life or death struggle with the French, but she certainly knows all about polite conversation at the dinner table. Give me the gutsy Bronte sisters anyday. Getting that of my chest was so cathartic.

[snowangel]

Anything by William Faulkner, but especially The Sound and the Fury. Anyone how admits to writing without grammer or plot is not being innovative, they're just being an a**hole.

[kelby_lake]

A Streetcar Named Desire, I just could not understand. I could understand the play very well, but I could not understand what makes it great.

The film :) It's not as fun on the page as some of them (Cat on A Hot Tin Roof and Glass Menagerie read much better) but the film's a good adaptation, although they've watered down Blanche's misdemeanours.

[teashi]

I've had mostly bad luck with classics. I've tried to read the usual acclaimed authors and titles, I've wanted to like them, but it almost always fails with me.
Add another for 'Catch-22'. Monotonous writing, I'm not a big fan of satire, and the characters were all idiots and jerks. Think I wanted Yossarian to just die already.
Another for Jane Austen too. Bloated old-style writing that just gets in the way. Same for Dickens, especially with 'The Pickwick Papers', think that book acually gave me a headache.
Hemingway. Yep, he's boring, maybe not horrible.. The overlong sentences in 'A Farewell to Arms' were something different, so I kind of appreciate styles that aren't the norm, even if the story and writing don't interest me. Same for 'Blood Meridian', which might count as a classic.
And 'Dune' by Frank Herbert (sci-fi classic) too much royal political stuff and bland characters who act too much alike, just didn't care enough to keep reading after about 150 pages..

[rozreads]

Worst classics is an oxymoron..

[Dr. Hill]

I've had mostly bad luck with classics. I've tried to read the usual acclaimed authors and titles, I've wanted to like them, but it almost always fails with me.
Add another for 'Catch-22'. Monotonous writing, I'm not a big fan of satire, and the characters were all idiots and jerks. Think I wanted Yossarian to just die already.
Another for Jane Austen too. Bloated old-style writing that just gets in the way. Same for Dickens, especially with 'The Pickwick Papers', think that book acually gave me a headache.
Hemingway. Yep, he's boring, maybe not horrible.. The overlong sentences in 'A Farewell to Arms' were something different, so I kind of appreciate styles that aren't the norm, even if the story and writing don't interest me. Same for 'Blood Meridian', which might count as a classic.
And 'Dune' by Frank Herbert (sci-fi classic) too much royal political stuff and bland characters who act too much alike, just didn't care enough to keep reading after about 150 pages..

You just don't like good books :P

[kiki1982]

Another for Jane Austen too. Bloated old-style writing that just gets in the way.

That is probably what people will say about our contemporary writers when they are about 200 years old...

Of course it is bloated, but whether we should reproach her that is the question... But hey, this is 'the worst classics'-topic so I should not comment...

[mayneverhave]

Anything by William Faulkner, but especially The Sound and the Fury. Anyone how admits to writing without grammer or plot is not being innovative, they're just being an a**hole.

For someone who complains about grammar, they certainly don't pay much attention to their own.

As for Faulkner writing without plots, I don't see how this is at all possible. If there is one thing that Beckett has shown us: you can strip fiction down to its barest components, but there must be plot.

And that's entirely besides the point. Faulkner's novels all have plots. How can you read As I Lay Dying and not gather anything of its plot?

The Sound and the Fury's grammar is completely traditional for the bulk of the novel, and this includes the First Section, and the final two. Faulkner's grammatical innovation in the Second Section (Quentin) is a development on the stream of consciousness technique, which attempts to represent the innerworkings of the human (in this case, neurotic/diseased) mind. The mind, especially when in a state of anxiety, often does not work in complete, declarative sentences.

It is generalized statements like these, with no evidence, no argument, that cause these negative reputations to develop.

[Dr. Hill]

Don't worry, more respectable people appreciate Faulkner than attack him without warrant.

[amarna]

I confess I don't like Roman epic poetry very much for it is pompous and overloaded with florid metaphors.

[mayneverhave]

Don't worry, more respectable people appreciate Faulkner than attack him without warrant.

Hah. Yes, that was a little too vehement, I must admit.

[DisPater]

emile zola, theodore dreiser - to mention only two names.

[Lynne Fees]

Anything written by Jane Austin, If I had to read one more eulogy on the excruciating Mr Darcy, suicide would be a serious consideration. She does write about what she knows but, my God, her subject material is limited to say the least. You would hardly be aware that Britain was in a life or death struggle with the French, but she certainly knows all about polite conversation at the dinner table. Give me the gutsy Bronte sisters anyday. Getting that of my chest was so cathartic.

I think Jane Austin wanted to bring something new to the reading public - real characters in real life struggles. It's not deep on an international socioeconomic level, but her characters really bring me in so that I care about them. There's an art to that, n'est-ce pas?


I liked the "Street Car..", though it's probably not my favourite of T. Williams's plays. I consider it atmospheric in a kind of dark way, but generally I prefer more light-hearted readings for the time being. I mean, I find it a little bit hard to handle the violence in all the plays of his that I've read -except "The glass menagerie" which is my favourite.

Anyway, the so-called masterpiece I could not stand reading -unfortunately, I had to, though- was "Gulliver's travels". What a bore!

This is one of the few classics I couldn't even get through. I even read The Hunchback of Notre Dame all the way through, but could not glean the point of Gulliver's Travels.

[Josh Wardrip]

I concur on several that have already been mentioned (Gatsby, Dorian Gray, Tropic of Cancer). One that springs to mind is The Moviegoer. Percy's prose is excellent at times, but he's a bit hamfisted with his themes -- ie., the constant talk of "the search," malaise, despair, et cetera. He even directly references Kierkegaard, as I recall.

It's not an awful book by any means -- I was just disappointed, given its status. I wouldn't rate it very high in the canon of existential fiction.

[Scheherazade]

Anything written by Jane Austin,
I think Jane Austin wanted to bring something new to the reading public Who is this Austin you guys keep talking about? Related to Austin Powers by any chance?

:D

[Adderhead]

I totally disagree with you on you stating that Catch-22 is a bad classic. It is absolutely one of the best books I have ever read, in my opinion. But what makes me angry is that a small portion of the intellectual community determines what books are "classics" and which books are not. To me, there is no such thing as a "pure classic." However, I do agree with you on Catcher in the Rye. The only reason the book is considered a classic is because J.D. Salinger is a social recluse. One book considered a classic that I cannot stand is The Red Badge of Courage. It is one of the most boring books that I have ever read.

[DrkAngL]

i've gotta say George Orwell's 1984, and Shelly's Frankenstein

[blp]

Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde is pretty poor.

[Mr Endon]

Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde is pretty poor.

Really? I wonder why you think so. About that short story all I can remember is thinking I hadn't enjoyed reading it as much as I could have because I knew the ending before having read it.

[rozreads]

I should be so unfortunate as to write a "worst classic." That phase is an oxymoron.

[kelby_lake]

People are just citing books they didn't enjoy. You should cite books that you think don't deserve classic status. I found Moby Dick boring but it is sort of a classic.

[My name is red]

First of all i find this thread very useful to avoid meaningless duty-readings(if this is the right word).People always feel uncomfortable when it comes to criticize classics.
I would start with;Dead Souls and Emma.
After i finished them i got this very same feeling that i've lost a great deal of time.

[Pryderi Agni]

Anything written by Jane Austin

Hear, hear. I swear to God, if I were to become Secretary-General of the UN, I'd make dead sure to burn every copy of Pride and Prejudice that ever existed.

[hampusforev]

I suppose that I can understand why the "classics" are classics, it just makes sense. Even though I might've not enjoyed them. But kelby, the thread title is "The Worst Classics You Have Ever Read", so citing classics which you didn't enjoy makes sense, doesn't it?

I really don't care for most of Dostoevsky's oeuvre, too many names, and the text is just gravid with superfluous worrying. The murder scene in Crime and Punishment is awsome though, so I see why some people consider his stuff classic.

[kelby_lake]

A lot of the classics cited have been massacred by high schools.

[jocky]

Sorry, I am a computer illiterate, Lynne Fees I totally accept your point about Identifying with the characters, but where does Jane introduce any real personalities? Servants dont exist, politics are within a domestic environment, foreign affairs are non existent and it comes down to the wonderful qualities of the aristocracy. Who would you want to connect with, say its not Mrs Bennett! She is a quality writer but her talents were wasted. The Bronte sisters, are not better in a lterary sense, but they write about real hardship, which we can all identify with.

[EPluribusUnus]

I don't know if someone has mentioned these books already.

Of Human Bondage tops my list of books overrated and un-readable.

1984 was torturous and a little too flagitious for me.

For Whom The Bell Tolls was a beautiful story made derisory by strange medieval language employed as an explanation for Spanish vernacular. I liked the book, but I couldn't bear to read the employment of "I obscenity in the milk." and the like which were supposedly transliteration from Spanish.

I didn't see a lot of complaints about Woolf. How did she escape this list? :)

[amarna]

The worst classics I have ever read, or at least half read, is Robert Musil's The man without qualities. I started reading it three times and always lost courage and interest after 400, 500 pages. It's so awfully boring.

[jocky]

What about 'Waiting For Godot ' by Samuel Becket, clever yes, but enough to put you into a coma. How about ' Look Back in Anger ' hardly Burton's finest hour. 'The Lodger' by Pinter, how depressing was that?. Thought I would just inject a bit of levity into the argument. Even Hamlet got rid of his enemies with a bit of humour, though he came to a bad end. Literature is not always about the authors but, about the readers, sentimentality, tragedy, humour. Enjoying classics always always says more about the reader than the author. Love from Jocky.

[Mathor]

War and Peace. It just doesn't do anything for me.

[wessexgirl]

The portrait of lady by Henry James. So wordy and perplexed for no apparent reason, without any meaning and with a pathetic and masochistic ending for a so called clever heroine.

I couldn't agree more. I thought I must be missing something, as I couldn't warm to the character at all, and really didn't care what happened to her. I liked Ralph though.

[ksotikoula]

I liked Ralph though.

Yes! The men of this book were capital, the three of them (the businessman, the lord and the cousin)
which makes the heroine even more absurd for making that choice of hers. They were so wasted on her!

Now that I think of it Isabella Archer is in this respect even more stupid than Scarlett o Hara,
who couldn't see that Buttler was her man. At least Scarlett lost one, not the three of them. Lol!

[ImaginaryFriend]

Bleak house nearly drove me mad. Almost put me off dickens completely. Esther was so meek and insipid, Richard was a moron and Ava was pathetic. Dickens focused so much on trivial things like how foggy the fog was or how muddy the mud was i only made it to the end out of spite cos my mum couldnt finish it :)

ok. . . end of that rant.

The trial by Kafka was so irritating. i get where he was goiog with it and i suppose the point is that it should frustrate you but still i would never read it again. The same with 1984.

[meh!]

I can't say I was that fond of Jude the obscure. meh.

[PoeknowsProse]

Like some, I'm surprised by a few of the books that people have listed.

For me I would have to say Dracula - super melodramatic and downright tedious.

[Dr. Hill]

Who is this Austin you guys keep talking about? Related to Austin Powers by any chance?

:D

Why IS it that no one can spell Austen? Isn't this a literature forum? :sick:

[jocky]

Hands up Doctor Hill, spelled Austen wrong, however that does not detract from the point that the lady writes about absolutely nothing. Her literary talent is indisputable and I truly believe, were she alive today, she could scriptwrite for all the soaps. Why dont you answer the point? What has she contributed To English literature? I see by your Avatar that you are a Wilde fan, Oscar may have been a bit Quirky, but he dissected the class system effortlessly, humorously and ruthlessly. Ask yourself this, what is memorable about Jane? This is the literature channel, but a spelling mistake does not mean that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. Best wishes from Jocky. :)

[kelby_lake]

How about ' Look Back in Anger ' hardly Burton's finest hour.

I like Look Back in Anger, although Burton was a strange choice as Jimmy teases Cliff about his welshness. Kenneth Branagh's Jimmy Porter was much better.

[Dr. Hill]

Hands up Doctor Hill, spelled Austen wrong, however that does not detract from the point that the lady writes about absolutely nothing. Her literary talent is indisputable and I truly believe, were she alive today, she could scriptwrite for all the soaps. Why dont you answer the point? What has she contributed To English literature? I see by your Avatar that you are a Wilde fan, Oscar may have been a bit Quirky, but he dissected the class system effortlessly, humorously and ruthlessly. Ask yourself this, what is memorable about Jane? This is the literature channel, but a spelling mistake does not mean that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. Best wishes from Jocky. :)

I don't think she contributed anything to literature.

[MANICHAEAN]

"Catch 22".
Loved it. Page to page & could not put it down.
Classic in the formal sense? Perhaps not.
Heller at his solitary peak & the books he wrote after, not in the same league.

[kiki1982]

Hands up Doctor Hill, spelled Austen wrong, however that does not detract from the point that the lady writes about absolutely nothing. Her literary talent is indisputable and I truly believe, were she alive today, she could scriptwrite for all the soaps. Why dont you answer the point? What has she contributed To English literature? I see by your Avatar that you are a Wilde fan, Oscar may have been a bit Quirky, but he dissected the class system effortlessly, humorously and ruthlessly. Ask yourself this, what is memorable about Jane? This is the literature channel, but a spelling mistake does not mean that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. Best wishes from Jocky. :)

While I do agree about the nothingness of her writing, I do think there is one thing Austen actually brought us: understanding about the system of courtship and marriage. It figures in other books, but is never dwellt on. The thing about Austen is that it is only about that and like that we have a better understanding of what happens in other books and what the issues are.

There is, in my mind, also an art as to writing about nothing... But I to have to say that I found her last book better than her first. Se died to early if Peruasion was anything to go by.

[Janine]

I like Look Back in Anger, although Burton was a strange choice as Jimmy teases Cliff about his welshness. Kenneth Branagh's Jimmy Porter was much better.

kelby_lake, can't tell you how many times I have watched this production starring Branagh; I own the DVD. I just love it. One hates and loves Jimmy Porter at the same time. I never read the actual play, but I would like to. It's fantastic. I heard Burton was good in it, but I have never seen that version, have you? The actor who played Cliff in the Branagh version is great, too and of course Emma Thompson is top-notch always. By the way, it was directed by Judi Dench. How can one go wrong?

[jocky]

Point taken Kiki 1982, she did point out the historical difficulties of human and social relationships in her musings about the period she lived in. Nothingness, is perhaps a hard thing to articulate, and Jane did it brilliantlly. Still prefer the Brontes though. Good observation.

[kiki1982]

Point taken Kiki 1982, she did point out the historical difficulties of human and social relationships in her musings about the period she lived in. Nothingness, is perhaps a hard thing to articulate, and Jane did it brilliantlly. Still prefer the Brontes though. Good observation.

I prefer at least Jane Eyre (the rest I have not read yet). Austen just dwellt on the same topic all the way. I do not think she could have got into the classics list if she hadn't been of real use. Although she is witty, she is nothing more but witty. But she does it well...

[kelby_lake]

kelby_lake, can't tell you how many times I have watched this production starring Branagh; I own the DVD. I just love it. One hates and loves Jimmy Porter at the same time. I never read the actual play, but I would like to. It's fantastic. I heard Burton was good in it, but I have never seen that version, have you? The actor who played Cliff in the Branagh version is great, too and of course Emma Thompson is top-notch always. By the way, it was directed by Judi Dench. How can one go wrong?

I saw the Burton version- there's a trailer on YouTube if you're interested. Dench's production of the play is pretty spot-on, I'd say, and Branagh captures Jimmy's antagonism and yet his...anachronism very well, not tipping over the edge between Jimmy just being a...well, I don't think I can swear here :lol:

[mollie]

War and Peace. It just doesn't do anything for me.

+ 1

I threw War and Peace in the bin three times while I was reading it, and fished it back out again because I had promised myself I'd read it. I hated every page!

[Emil Miller]

+ 1

I threw War and Peace in the bin three times while I was reading it, and fished it back out again because I had promised myself I'd read it. I hated every page!zw3

It never ceases to amaze me that people submit themselves to books for which they are temperamentally unsuited and struggle on because it has "classic" status. I haven't read War and Peace because I know what it is about and intimate family sagas set against panoramic backgrounds of historical events don't particularly appeal to me.
I much prefer to be selective in the kind of books that I read and am definitely not swayed by any feeling that I am obliged to read certain classics.
This is where the cinema is useful, I saw the American version of War and Peace and I knew I would not enjoy reading the story. Similarly, I saw the US version of The Brothers Karamazov and was bored to distraction.
My current Film Guide says that it was a rather stodgy MGM epic but, given the plot line, I fail to see how it could have been anything else.

[mollie]

I didn't think I was temperamentally unsuited to it, that's the thing. I don't have a problem with intimate family sagas set against backgrounds of historical events. I loved Middlemarch and Shirley and Jude the Obscure and North and South (not the John Jakes one :)). War and Peace irked me because I expected to find exactly what you have described, and what I read sounded like Tolstoy's Hymn to Himself (extended mix). And not in the good, Leaves of Grass sense of the phrase. I kept reading in the expectation that it would eventually stop setting my teeth on edge, but it didn't. I'm sure Tolstoy's traumatised :)

[Dr. Hill]

I love the first part of War and Peace. Then I can't do it anymore.

[Adagio]

Similarly, I saw the US version of The Brothers Karamazov and was bored to distraction.
See, now that book could never be a decent film. Perhaps you've read it and agree, but if not you should give it a go. The narration is what makes it so fantastic and is certainly something that cinema cannot capture.

[Janine]

I saw the Burton version- there's a trailer on YouTube if you're interested. Dench's production of the play is pretty spot-on, I'd say, and Branagh captures Jimmy's antagonism and yet his...anachronism very well, not tipping over the edge between Jimmy just being a...well, I don't think I can swear here :lol:

kelby_lake, cool tipping me off about the video on Youtube. I want to take a look at that Burton version. I saw the extra commentary on my DVD, with a now 'older' Branagh discussing their production; but he mentions the earlier production with Burton. He is very respectful and gracious about it. It's interesting to listen to Branagh's descriptions of their own first production of this play on stage in a huge ventue. He said it was like seeing the characters as postage stamps. I can't imagine them pulling it off in that way; nor how actors can project that far and still maintain all the emotions and the nuances of their performance. He said there were a lot of mixed reactions; some cheered and some even booed. He seemed to take it all very lightly and in good humor. I really loved the way he played it on the DVD. I know what you mean by the blanks...I can fill them in...NO, one can't use those words on here - the program would just look like this ****! :lol:

[Remarkable]

I did not like "Madame Bovary". I do get the point and I understand her, I can see where all her problems come from, how the situation evolves and why for the given conditions there is no other alternative to the ending. I just can't bring myself to read it out of pleasure. It's like a piece of work that conveys only a message but no style.

"The Sufferings of Young Verther" absolutely irritated me. I could not get the point of any of his actions. I found Verther thoroughly and unjustifiably passive, a very non-typical young person. Youth is full of energy and love, full of courage and hope!

Sometimes I wonder whether I feel this way because I have read these books while still young. Still, I have also read Joyce and Zweig at quite a young age and I am blindly in love with both of them.

In the end, maybe that was the point of both books. Maybe Verther is supposed to be inssuportable, maybe it is meant for one to get tired of him fastly. Maybe "Madame Bovary" becomes boring and ureadable for the exact purpose of illustrating Emma's dull life, for giving the example of failed expectations...

[AmericanEagle]

I had to read Heart of Darkness for English class, and I did not like it.

[stlukesguild]

It's like a piece of work that conveys only a message but no style.

Madame Bovary no style!? Its all style. The language is absolutely magnificent.

[eyemaker]

It's like a piece of work that conveys only a message but no style.

Madame Bovary no style!? Its all style. The language is absolutely magnificent.

I agree even more stukes. Flaubert did an excellent masterpiece. Primarily for the stylistic precision and dispassionate rendering of psychological detail. He diligently researched his subjects and infused his works with psychological realism with the goal of achieving a prose style “as rhythmical as verse and as precise as the language of science.” That perhaps made Madam Bovary qualify as one of the World's most well-written work of art.:thumbs_up

[Akeldama]

I couldn't stand Kate Chopin's The Awakening. I did manage to finish the book (thankfully it's short), and I can most certainly understand and appreciate the value that many see in it, but it just didn't connect to me.

I simply found little in the book that was relevant to my life, although it shouldn't be surprising that an 18-year-old male couldn't connect with a turn of the century feminist story. Overall, I didn't feel particularly connected or empathetic towards Edna (again, should be unsurprising) and felt that she was rather shallow in her actions and her motives for those actions than being a truly empowered individual. To me, it just felt like Chopin was skimming the surface of what could have been a much more powerful story, but didn't quite reach what she was aiming for.

Of course, I may be placing a more modern, extreme standard for "rebellion" on Edna than was truly reflective of society in her times (does that even make sense?). Regardless, The Awakening is a novel I don't intend to revisit.

[Remarkable]

It's like a piece of work that conveys only a message but no style.

Madame Bovary no style!? Its all style. The language is absolutely magnificent.


I agree even more stukes. Flaubert did an excellent masterpiece. Primarily for the stylistic precision and dispassionate rendering of psychological detail. He diligently researched his subjects and infused his works with psychological realism with the goal of achieving a prose style “as rhythmical as verse and as precise as the language of science.” That perhaps made Madam Bovary qualify as one of the World's most well-written work of art.:thumbs_up

I am sorry, I did not mean no style in that sense.I acknowledge that literary it is a very good piece of prose, although I don't enjoy it even in that sense. Pardon me if my conception of style confused you.

Style to me is not just the way a work it is written. Style to me does not signify words alone, poeticity... Style to me is what a writer uses to convey the message, how I, as a reader, understand what he has given me. Style is the ability of the writer to get in me, to slide in me through narrow passages... I call it style when I can not only grasp the meaning of goal of the author, but I can grasp it beautifully. Even if it's a horror story.

Maybe, as I said, I will have a different view when I grow up and re-read the book. For now, since even style is a private and personal conception, "Madame Bovary" remains one of my least favourite works of literature.

[mikemaster70]

the one classic i cannot stand to read would have to be The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. i understand the impact it had during its time but throughout the book i found myself thinking "what is this?" and "when is it just going to end!". previously to it i read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, much like many other kids have done, and enjoyed it, however in Huckleberry Finn i began to loathe the character Tom Sawyer and, frankly, just wished he would die. the only character in there that i liked was jim and found, suprisingly, that he was the only smart one. i mean for god sakes it made no sense to me how tom could read so many books and yet be so stupid! i disliked it so much i refused to read, however i had to for my english class. i also found the majority of my class hated it as well.

[varnish7]

Heart of Darkness and Lord Jim. I had to read those books for high school English, and I ended up forgetting every single word of them the second I finished reading them, they were just that boring. Plus, the guy in Heart of Darkness was supposed to become really evil and corrupt or something, right? Does it actually show that in the book? Because, honestly, I don't remember seeing anything like that. Of course, I don't even remember the basic plot.

I think the thing that's a problem with me is when they say a classic is the best example of say a love story ever, and I read it and either I don't see it at al,l or I see it, but it honestly doesn't seem that much more romantic or scary than any piece of contemporary fiction. I mean, I've read classics that I've liked, but it's never been like "Oh my God! The scales have fallen from my eyes! I now understand the true meaning of life. I'll never read commercial fiction again!" I think when you read a book that you know is a classic, that's the kind of reaction you expect to have.

[Lynne Fees]

I don't know if someone has mentioned these books already.

Of Human Bondage tops my list of books overrated and un-readable.

1984 was torturous and a little too flagitious for me.

For Whom The Bell Tolls was a beautiful story made derisory by strange medieval language employed as an explanation for Spanish vernacular. I liked the book, but I couldn't bear to read the employment of "I obscenity in the milk." and the like which were supposedly transliteration from Spanish.

I didn't see a lot of complaints about Woolf. How did she escape this list? :)



Someone mentioned Austin Powers...sounds like one of his words!
Honestly, I had to look that one up on Dictionary.com. Love new words...

[Lynne Fees]

Why IS it that no one can spell Austen? Isn't this a literature forum? :sick:

Sorry sometimes I'm in a hurry when I make my posts.
As far as "real" characters, we don't have servants per se, but we do have many, many people in service jobs. We don't have aristocracy, but we have rich neighbors, friends and family. I don't think the basic character of man and woman changes much over time, really.

[Night_Lamp]

Over the few pages of this thread that I read, I disagree with many choices: but, they are personal choices, so who am I to disagree with an opinion.

I love Anna Karenia, and several of Tolstoy's other works; but I didn't enjoy War and Peace. And, I know this is likely blasphemy for an english major to admit aloud, but I really, really, hate Joyce. Ulysses is the longest sentence in literature, as the old joke goes.

[Cossack]

Great Gatsby, Cantenbury Tales.

[feministdoris]

cossack, I found The Great Gatsby a bit disappointing as well. Sure, it's the roaring twenties, but I still think the novel lacked some fundamental requirement for 'incredible novel'.
Oh, and I find Austen's and most of Bronte sisters' novels very tedious and frigid (perhaps Wuthering Heights not included). While I appreciate social observation, I'm still not at ease with some naive views (though understandable at the time).

[MSDGreen]

Clarissa Something about a 1500 page book in letter form that I find undesirable.

[Nightshade]

Clarissa Something about a 1500 page book in letter form that I find undesirable.

epistolery form, and Clarissa was the longest novel in the English langugae for a fairly long time. It is probably worth reading if for no other reason than the way it affected the development of the novel and the fact that latere 18C and 19th C books often had referances to clarissa and lovelace.

And now I sound like a literary snob, Im really not. Its just while Richardson is rather hard to stomache I tend to find that by the end of struggling through one of his books you have learnt all sort of intresting little factoides.

[MSDGreen]

epistolery form, and Clarissa was the longest novel in the English langugae for a fairly long time. It is probably worth reading if for no other reason than the way it affected the development of the novel and the fact that latere 18C and 19th C books often had referances to clarissa and lovelace.

And now I sound like a literary snob, Im really not. Its just while Richardson is rather hard to stomache I tend to find that by the end of struggling through one of his books you have learnt all sort of intresting little factoides.

letter form, while epistolary form covers a novel written entirely in letters I find the correction unnecessary. Plus I hate being corrected when my statement is fully understandable. Just a character flaw I guess.

The character developement was interesting in Clarissa, I thought this was a small redeeming factor. Maybe I was a bit harsh, but of all the novels I have read, Clarissa for most of it is very very dry.

[aeroport]

The Castle of Otranto kind of fizzled for me. Redeemingly short, though.

[weltanschauung]

kerouac's on the road.
YAWN.

[bohn]

List classics you have read that have disinterested you and made you slog through several pages of pure banality.

Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Catch-22



Totally agree with you.. just finished Catch 22 and had to reopen this thread to let everyone know ;)

[Nemo Neem]

1. The Jungle
2. Gulliver's Travels
3. Robinson Crusoe
4. Walden

[kiki1982]

Cantenbury Tales.

The Canterbury Tales? But that's hilarious, isn't it?

[Onikeflava]

kerouac's on the road.
YAWN.

Wash your mouth out.

[husker du]

For Whom The Bell Tolls was a beautiful story made derisory by strange medieval language employed as an explanation for Spanish vernacular. I liked the book, but I couldn't bear to read the employment of "I obscenity in the milk." and the like which were supposedly transliteration from Spanish.

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but this whole "obscenity in the milk" business was Hemingway's way of getting around the censors and making it painfully obvious that he was being censored.

[blazeofglory]

Old English novels are rather clumsily boring to me. I choose to read Russian and French classics and they are far better

[chrismythoi]

i thought the count of monte cristo was very dull in general. the characters had little depth either. and was he selling his books by the word?

[kiki1982]

dull? :confused: Did you read an abridged version?

He published his books in newspapers per chapter. That, yes.

I cn't recall any shallow characterisation, though.

[Lulim]

This was probably mentioned before: Dan Browns Da Vinci Code

[mal4mac]

This was probably mentioned before: Dan Browns Da Vinci Code

Classic?

[Inka]

well, I know I was dwelling on the importance of every book, still to me the worst is Marcise de Sade. In Russian his name sounds magically and I was enchanted by it only I didn't expect that his writing proved to be such vulgar.

[Red-Headed]

Les Misérables.

[ForKnowledge]

david copperfield oliver twist and heart of darkness though I do like conrad lord jim and the secret agent were good.

[neilgee]

I liked Heart of Darkness and Lord Jim but not The Secret Agent which I thought was abit silly, and that guy with the bomb ready to blow himself up all the time really irritated me, but then everyone gets something different out of each book I suppose.

What really put me off Conrad was when I found out how he treated his children in real life.

The 'classic' comedies have often been disappointing to me. I can think of 3 without racking my brains: Swing Hammer Swing by Jeff Torrington, The World According to Garp [can't recall author] and Travels in Nilihon by Alan Sillitoe all began brilliantly with inspired humour and the sense of an author really enjoying himself but they all seem to lose inspiration about halfway through and seemed to be a chore for the author to finish.

[IceM]

Heart of Darkness was miserable. I thought Candide was poorly written, and Walden was infuriatingly boring through most parts.

At least I finished Heart of Darkness though.

[Nipponnay]

Ugh, Heart of Darkness is next on my list! :brickwall

[Inka]

Ugh, Heart of Darkness is next on my list! :brickwall

cross it off then =)
well, I'd give u a piece of advise: don't judge the book basing on smb's opinions, read it yourself and then decide if it's worth reading, so in your place I wouldn't have been bothered)

[Lulim]

Classic?
Oh, excuse me. Of course that's not a classic. But one of the worst books I had the bad luck to come upon nevertheless.

I second IceMs comment on "Candide".

[Dinkleberry2010]

The worst classics I have ever read include "Pamela" by Samuel Richardson, "The Mysteries Of Udolpho" by Ann Radcliffe, James Joyce's "Finnegans Wake," and Hemingway's "Across The River And Into The Trees."

[sinskeep]

Okay, well classics that I haven't enjoyed...

1. The Sun Also Rises
2. Anna Karenina (Part 4 killed me!):sick:
3. Farenheit 451
4. Brave New World
5. Moby Dick


I couldn't stand Kate Chopin's The Awakening. I did manage to finish the book (thankfully it's short), and I can most certainly understand and appreciate the value that many see in it, but it just didn't connect to me.

.


Definately agree with that one it was kind of pointless...

[Patrick_Bateman]

Dickens


that is all


okay, well classics that i haven't enjoyed...

3. Farenheit 451



whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

[spookymulder93]

Okay, well classics that I haven't enjoyed...

1. The Sun Also Rises
2. Anna Karenina (Part 4 killed me!):sick:
3. Farenheit 451
4. Brave New World
5. Moby Dick


I can't believe you don't like those 2. F451 is definitely either my favorite or second favorite novel. I have to read Animal Farm again to make my decision though.

As far as worst classic I don't know. I haven't read that many classic, but I did stop reading Frankenstein because it got too boring.

[Darcy101]

Catcher in the rye (oh Please)

Far from the madding crowd (just dont care)

[WildWildEast]

Charles Dicken's Great Expectations. It is one of the worst books ever and I just don't see why it is on list of the 100 books you need to read before you die.

[mal4mac]

Charles Dicken's Great Expectations. It is one of the worst books ever and I just don't see why it is on list of the 100 books you need to read before you die.

I think most Dickens novels are amongst the best books ever, definitely including Great Expectations. He usually (rightly!) get several entries in top 100 lists, from "before you die" lists to lists produced by serious critics. I'll be re-reading his major novels several times before i die, that's for sure!

[victorianfan]

As far as worst classic I don't know. I haven't read that many classic, but I did stop reading Frankenstein because it got too boring.

Frankenstein is a true horror! It gave me a splitting headache. :mad2:


Charles Dicken's Great Expectations. It is one of the worst books ever and I just don't see why it is on list of the 100 books you need to read before you die.

Based on what criteria, please? :skep:

[DonovanTalbot]

Frankenstein is a true horror! It gave me a splitting headache. :mad2:

Frankenstein not that bad, it is just Victor Frankenstein's inner dialogues are abit too wet and melodramatic combined with the Romantic prose Mary Shelley uses. I remember hating Frankenstein the first time around, I despised it, but then cruising through it the second time around without the least bit difficulty and a great deal more of enjoyment.


I found it difficult to appreciate Dracula and Dangerous Liaisons, the middle of Dracula seems to just go on without anything happening.

And it's not just because they're epistolary novels, I loved Frankenstein.


For me personally, Dracula got to be a complete bore after awhile (I read it when I was very young, so maybe my perspective has changed enough for me to be entertained by it).


Dracula ranks as one of my current favorite classics. Might well be my favorite book. I loved every word of it. Full of chilling atmosphere and unforgettable imagery. Tho, the middle parts does mildly drag as Dracula himself appears to fall off the pages and is rather spoken of in the third person but the antics of Renfield alleviate the absence of the grand bloodsucking archfiend.

[stlukesguild]

Charles Dicken's Great Expectations. It is one of the worst books ever and I just don't see why it is on list of the 100 books you need to read before you die.

Based on what criteria, please?

I wondered as much.:sosp:

[dafydd manton]

Isn't choice wonderfully arbitary! Let's face it, if we all liked the same thing, we'd all be up to our eyeballs in Mills and Boon, or Harry Potter.

[WildWildEast]

Based on what criteria, please?

It is a personal opinion I guess. :hat:Honsetly, I found the element of coincidence in this novel ruining the plot. :sick:

as for the list of the 100-books-you-need-to-read-before-you-die, it is like any other list that includes the best 100 books ever. And Great Expectations's Charles Dickens.

[grechzoo]

rabbit run :p

couldn't get through it. just didn't get on with updikes ideas.

[blazeofglory]

The worst classic I have started off never to complete and never to satisfy myself reading is Ulysses. I have began to read the book with the intent that this is always a number one and textually it could be the à la mode but I shrank back after going through some pages. I found some of the epical poems of Milton, Pope and even Shakespeare unappealing. I like War and Peace somewhat more than any fiction of Sartre for after a careful study we will be in tune with the book.
Let the book be an appetizer and let it thrill and engage and at the same time instruct us. Siddhartha for instance is a book that I find philosophical and fictionally moving. So is the Brothers Karamazov. The book that always propels my imaginative faculties and inspire and transform me all the time is the Prophet by Gibran. Kafka is at times a hard read yet it is not as intricate as James Joyce and I like the Trial despite the fact that at the outset I found the book rather tortuous

[kelby_lake]

The Trial takes some getting used to; The Metamorphosis is a better place to start.

I don't really think the point of reading classics is to try and judge their right to be a classic- after surviving so long, it's kind of a given. I think it's quite sad that people can't find anything at all to appreciate in a novel- even in To Kill A Mockingbird, I appreciate that its message and style may resonate more with younger/other readers (if you want examples of prejudice and racism, read the newspapers) and that it might be a simple introduction into more 'worthy' books.

[Three Sparrows]

I can't say I enjoyed The Good Soldier, too much "This is the saddest story I have ever heard...".

[kiki1982]

Yes, Kafka can be a handful. Yet his writing, by moments, is simply brilliant and that is still not adequately expressed actually. or at least it is in German anyway. Kafka can be very dry though, and I would understand that some people will find him insufferable, but he's got this great irony and I think once one gets it, he is absolutely hilarious.

[Rores28]

I don't know if I would say I hated these two but I found them pretty disappointing for "classics".

Dracula - good parts and some of the themes and conversations were pretty interesting but for me it just became really tedious at points.

The Invisible Man (Note: not Invisible Man) - all I can say is meh.

[Night_Lamp]

http://www.cbc.ca/wiretap/index.html?copy-audio[/URL]

For those of you how have never heard CBC's Wiretap, The best of season four has an episode called: 'The Lives of Bugs and Men', which has a great skit with Gregor Samsa and Dr. Seuss are penpals. Really funny. Sorry if my link doesn't work correctly.

[theologystudent]

Hello Aunty-lion and thank you for replying to this topic with warm appreciation. I find it interesting that you say your mother found interest in Catch-22 after it was read to her.. I have experienced certain books boring when read softly but far more interesting when read aloud but as for Joseph Heller's Catch-22 I believe believe my main grudge against it is the in the way he seems to convolude paragraphs with details upon details which seems to be arbitrarily sloshed together... Take this paragraph for example:



...Now I'm not claiming that this paragraph isn't amusing but can it seriously be called brilliant? I respect your opinion on the book and everyone else who is a die-hard fan of it and Joseph Heller's other works but I am baffled that a few people have claimed it is "the greatest classic of all time" while others have compared its humor to certain Shakespear plays.

----

I'm sorry I can't give you an opinion on Vanity Fair because I haven't read it myself. I'll try to get to William Thackeray after I overcome this mound of Joyce/Dostoevsky.
I think the Man who was Thursday to be a very strange and unpredictable novel.the first page aof the path to Rome gives a clue that G.K. is highly creative and individual.I didn't understand(I mean notice) the decadence in the novel.

:hat::sosp::cheers2:What do you think of Chesterton's politics?Is he pro law and order or not?

:hat:Do you like the path to Rome?

:hat::arf:I like Vanity Fair because of the way Becky seems to polite but is really rude because she uses
french and Long words.

:hat:I like Branaghs Hamlet because of the beautiful way he depicts Elsinore and I love conquest of Fortinbras scene.Wow:hat::sosp:

[ayesha.maya]

1) Les Miserables (tried reading years ago and then abandoned it out of sheer boredom :p. Maybe I'll try again...)

2) One Hundred Years Of Solitude (took my YEARS to finsh this one. While I liked it immensely in places, and I REALLY like Marquez otherwise (The first Marquez I read was Love in the time of Cholera at age 12 and I had lovely sappy dreams about it for weeks! I was one obsessed 12 year old...), This book, however, dragged so much it gave me a headache!)

3) Vilette (meh)

4) Mansfield Park (Thought it was very appropriate for its time, and probably much more accurate in that respect than P&P will ever be! But god, it was an awful read!! I don't usually take an instant dislike to protagonists unless their as goody-two-shoes, priggish, judgemental and moralistic and dear Fanny Price and Cousin Edward :sick: )

Incidentally, I really liked Catcher in the Rye- it reminded me of my brother who is 16 and going through this VERY angsty teenage the-world-is-****-hole phase right now :yesnod:

LOVED Streetcar (very very sexy!)- though seeing Brando in the role soon after reading the play might have helped in that regard.

[mastermind23]

Catcher in the Rye is just terrible imo.

[OrphanPip]

I love Fielding, but I find Tom Jones to be an excruciating read. Joseph Andrews and Shamela are quite readable though, and the Author's Farce is one of my favourite plays.

[mal4mac]

Ulysses, "the" Bible

[Yulehesays]

The Grapes of Wrath. What's the appeal?

[YesNo]

I agree with mal4mac except that I haven't actually read Joyce's Ulysses and so I figured it doesn't count in my case. I did get through the first chapter, about 50 pages, and enjoyed the first 20 pages or so--well, maybe the first 10 pages. I skimmed through the rest--quickly--enough to convince myself that it didn't get any better and stopped.

The classic that I actually read and love to hate and label as the "worst" is Eliot's The Wasteland. If I were an expert and more well-read, I'd probably be able to come up with many more titles to hate.

[Lykren]

I wouldn't actually apply the word hate here, but I found it pretty hard to enjoy Tristram Shandy.

I also thought Gulliver's Travels was a shoddy bit of writing. So was Ivanhoe.

[hannah_arendt]

1) Les Miserables (tried reading years ago and then abandoned it out of sheer boredom :p. Maybe I'll try again...)

2) One Hundred Years Of Solitude (took my YEARS to finsh this one. While I liked it immensely in places, and I REALLY like Marquez otherwise (The first Marquez I read was Love in the time of Cholera at age 12 and I had lovely sappy dreams about it for weeks! I was one obsessed 12 year old...), This book, however, dragged so much it gave me a headache!)

3) Vilette (meh)

4) Mansfield Park (Thought it was very appropriate for its time, and probably much more accurate in that respect than P&P will ever be! But god, it was an awful read!! I don't usually take an instant dislike to protagonists unless their as goody-two-shoes, priggish, judgemental and moralistic and dear Fanny Price and Cousin Edward :sick: )

Incidentally, I really liked Catcher in the Rye- it reminded me of my brother who is 16 and going through this VERY angsty teenage the-world-is-****-hole phase right now :yesnod:

LOVED Streetcar (very very sexy!)- though seeing Brando in the role soon after reading the play might have helped in that regard.

I think that "100 anos de soledad" is one of the best novels ever written.

[mona amon]

The Grapes of Wrath. What's the appeal?

:iagree:
But then I skipped every alternate chapter!

[Desolation]

"Worst," of course, is a silly word. Rather, here are some undeniably great works that I personally did not enjoy:

War and Peace (first half had me hooked, second half was a slog)
The Grapes of Wrath
Paradise Lost
Catcher in the Rye
Uncle Tom's Cabin
Naked Lunch
The Trial
The Castle (honestly, I don't like Kafka...which is strange, since I like everything he's associated with...maybe it's a translation issue)
The Power and the Glory
Sister Carrie
1984
Dubliners (other than "The Dead" - which was amazing)
Walden

[kiki1982]

The Castle (honestly, I don't like Kafka...which is strange, since I like everything he's associated with...maybe it's a translation issue)

Kafka is an acquired taste.
What was wrong with it? If it was slogging, heavy, looooong, repetitive, bad/turse in style (not really beautiful, he doesn't care about that, it's factual), chaotic (wanting to cram everything and anything in one sentence) and weird and surreal, then it wan't a translation issue.
In fact, most parts of Kafka translations I have read, tone it down a fair bit. He can go on and on and on and on and on and, oh yes, ON. But he can be hilariously funny (that story of Momus there, for example, about the little grain in the mill was hilarious because he was telling K that in fact he had unmasked them all, but sadly K was asleep by then :lol:). Sometimes, the officials remind me distinctly of Sir Humphry in Yes Minister. For themselves, they make perfect sense, and looking at it from their point of view, it also makes sense, only their sense isn't really the rest of the world's.

His short stories are better though. As he doesn't have so many pages he is free to fill, he remained concise, if that exists in Kafka.

[Desolation]

I've read (or rather tried to read) three different translations of The Castle, two of The Trial, three of his collected stories, and some of his diaries...I really, really want to like Kafka. I love absurdism, surrealism, modernism, and existentialism, all of which Kafka is associated with. Weird, chaotic, and long-winded work for me (I am a Pynchon fanatic, after all). So Kafka always seemed like he would be a perfect match for me. I don't know why, exactly, but his works have just never moved/interested me. It's a shame - I feel like I'm missing out on something amazing.

[FenwickS]

I've found Moby Dick tedious and unrelenting with uninteresting cetological descriptions. I felt like I had whale oozing out of my ears!

[Hal]

i enjoy reading classics and I am a budding scholar of literature, however, many classics are not to be read for enjoyment. They are to be read because they are seminal texts in the evolution of letters. Middlemarch is not a joy to read anymore than Ulysses is. Parts of Moby Dick are really painful. But I think even the most difficult and boring of these books teach us something.

[kev67]

The Grapes of Wrath. What's the appeal?

I did not enjoy that book much neither. As I was reading it I thought that Woody Guthrie handled that subject much better. Then I learnt it was The Grapes of Wrath that inspired Woody Guthrie to write those dustbowl songs, so I will have to let Steinbeck off.

Recently finished The Lord of the Flies. I thought it was powerful writing, psychologically astute, but deeply unpleasant. It was an effort to start each chapter. It is often used as a set text for school exams, but its effect seems to be to put a lot of kids off reading.

I am concerned Catch-22 has been mentioned so often. I have that waiting on my bookshelf to be read. I started it aged 14 when I was in hospital, but I did not think much of it and put it down. I was more interested in real air battles at the time, and did not like this clever-dicky stuff. It is quite a thick book too, so it will prove a chore if I don't get on with it again. Still, it's one of those iconic books that everyone's heard of, even if they have not read it. At least it should be a good companion piece to that other war-is-insanity novel, Slaughterhouse Five.

[Adolescent09]

Recently finished The Lord of the Flies.

How it is possible for anyone to like any part of 'The Lord of the Flies' whether it be the writing, the characters, the message or even the title is completely beyond me, but I respect your opinion.

I loved 'The Grapes of Wrath' but preferred 'East of Eden' and I absolutely adore Steinbeck's 'The Moon is Down' which to me is hands down one of the most underrated and least read war novellas sketching the emotional toll of war. Specifically World War II, but applicable to war in general. It might even be my second favorite novella overall after Hesse's Siddhartha.

[lichtrausch]

I've read (or rather tried to read) three different translations of The Castle, two of The Trial, three of his collected stories, and some of his diaries...I really, really want to like Kafka. I love absurdism, surrealism, modernism, and existentialism, all of which Kafka is associated with. Weird, chaotic, and long-winded work for me (I am a Pynchon fanatic, after all). So Kafka always seemed like he would be a perfect match for me. I don't know why, exactly, but his works have just never moved/interested me. It's a shame - I feel like I'm missing out on something amazing.
It must be a translation issue. I read Kafka in the original and he taught me to love absurdism and surrealism.

[Yulehesays]

I did not enjoy that book much neither. As I was reading it I thought that Woody Guthrie handled that subject much better. Then I learnt it was The Grapes of Wrath that inspired Woody Guthrie to write those dustbowl songs, so I will have to let Steinbeck off.

Recently finished The Lord of the Flies. I thought it was powerful writing, psychologically astute, but deeply unpleasant. It was an effort to start each chapter. It is often used as a set text for school exams, but its effect seems to be to put a lot of kids off reading.

I am concerned Catch-22 has been mentioned so often. I have that waiting on my bookshelf to be read. I started it aged 14 when I was in hospital, but I did not think much of it and put it down. I was more interested in real air battles at the time, and did not like this clever-dicky stuff. It is quite a thick book too, so it will prove a chore if I don't get on with it again. Still, it's one of those iconic books that everyone's heard of, even if they have not read it. At least it should be a good companion piece to that other war-is-insanity novel, Slaughterhouse Five.

I am glad I am not the only one who feels this way about The Grapes of Wrath. I can see it's a great book, but I didn't enjoy it.

I read the Lord of The Flies and can't really remember what I thought of it because I was only about 15 when i read it. For this reason I'm re-reading it as soon as I finish Ellman's biography of Joyce.

Catch-22 is another one that didn't thrill me. Parts were funny, and I did enjoy it, but I wouldn't rate it as a classic or something that's a must-read.

[mal4mac]

I agree with mal4mac except that I haven't actually read Joyce's Ulysses and so I figured it doesn't count in my case. I did get through the first chapter, about 50 pages, and enjoyed the first 20 pages or so--well, maybe the first 10 pages. I skimmed through the rest--quickly--enough to convince myself that it didn't get any better and stopped.

I think reading fifty pages is more than enough to have an opinion... I haven't read much more of Ulysses myself. I don't read novels, in full, if I don't like them, and consider it an an act of masochistic idiocy to do so! There are dozens of modern novels that I gave up on very quickly (e.g., yesterday, I managed about ten pages of Chris Cleave's "Gold" before giving up...)

P.S. Use the library and then you don't find yourself thinking, "I spent 10 quid on this, so I'll force myself to read it..."

[YesNo]

Reading 50 pages, or the first chapter, was probably a mistake and I did it twice which means I'm a slow learner.

In a separate thread, Finnegans Wake was discussed and conveniently it is on the internet in full, free display. I don't think I read more than 50 words of that before giving up. So maybe I'm improving.

[Ughek]

I've found Moby Dick tedious and unrelenting with uninteresting cetological descriptions. I felt like I had whale oozing out of my ears!

I agree with you. That's the first book that came to mind when I read the thread title. There's a good book hidden in there somewhere, though.

[mona amon]

I think reading fifty pages is more than enough to have an opinion...

This may be true of some books or even most books, but not Ulysses. When I first read I liked the first three chapters, but was getting a bit tired of Stephen's stream of consciousness, then in chapter four there was Bloom and his pork kidney and I knew I was hooked. After that each chapter is so different from the others that one never gets bored (bemused maybe), so I think just the beginning chapters are definitely not enough in this case.

[Desolation]

I don't know...There were years, before I felt ready to read the novel in its entirety, when I would just read the first 3 episodes of Ulysses over and over again. If they were enough to convince me that I would love the book, I don't have any qualms about saying that they're enough to convince others that they won't like the book.

Stephen's scenes are still my favorites - especially episode 3 (the infamous "ineluctable modality" on the beach episode, with the most heavy stream of consciousness).

[Yulehesays]

This may be true of some books or even most books, but not Ulysses. When I first read I liked the first three chapters, but was getting a bit tired of Stephen's stream of consciousness, then in chapter four there was Bloom and his pork kidney and I knew I was hooked. After that each chapter is so different from the others that one never gets bored (bemused maybe), so I think just the beginning chapters are definitely not enough in this case.

I had a very similar experience while reading Ulysses the first time. I loved the opening but was feeling a bit baffled after Proteus. Then when I read about Bloom's pork kidney sizzling on the pan I knew I was going to love it! That chapter made me so hungry