Five Books Nobody Should Read

[Dinkleberry2010]

Because they are so bad
I'll start it out:
1. I Never Played the Game - Howard Cosell
2. Listen America - Jerry Falwell
3. Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them - Al Franken
4. The Misfortunes of Virtue - Marquis de Sade
5. The Spy - James Fenimore Cooper

[IceM]

1. Any of the Twilight books.
2. Candide.
3. Moby Dick (terribly boring).
4. Heart of Darkness
5. Pride and Prejudice.

Each of these books was terribly boring, especially 2 and 3. Twilight was terribly written and incredibly pointless. Pride and Prejudice had to spice to the plot, and Heart of Darkness was just terrible.

[stlukesguild]

Hmmm... and I thought Candide, Moby Dick, Pride and Prejudice, and The Heart of Darkness were among some of the best books I had ever read. Just goes to show ya...:eek2:

[escapologist]

Hmmm... and I thought Candide, Moby Dick, Pride and Prejudice, and The Heart of Darkness were among some of the best books I had ever read. Just goes to show ya...:eek2:

:) I think that might be because some people mistake 'fun' for 'good'. I guess we all do, sometimes, or we used to when we were younger.
I've been pretty lucky so far, in that I didn't read many bad books, but I would like to nominate the first four Harry Potter books (I gave up after the fourth). While they are moderately fun, they are woefully unimaginative in the sense that J K Rowling just took a bunch of stereotypes/myths/established beliefs and put them under one title instead of going to the trouble of actually making up something original. Also Bridget Jones's Diary. Again, fun, but completely empty.
I'd add anything written by Dan Brown or the Twilight series, but I haven't read them.

[African_Love]

Again, fun, but completely empty.

I read for fun, fiction is not "academic" or "intellectual" for me. I can't imagine whatever other reasons anyone would read fiction for.

[Red-Headed]

but I would like to nominate the first four Harry Potter books (I gave up after the fourth)....they are woefully unimaginative in the sense that J K Rowling just took a bunch of stereotypes/myths/established beliefs and put them under one title instead of going to the trouble of actually making up something original.

:nod: (Not to mention her debt to Ursula K. LeGuin)


I'd add anything written by Dan Brown.....

You have just become my hero. :thumbs_up

[dfloyd]

and 2 through 5 of those posted by IceM. It appears as if these posters were made to read these in school and still resented this. It certainly tells you something when someone dislikes a classic which has been recomended by scholars and other literary pondits. What you don't like can make you appear grossly ignorant as well as what yiu like.

[OrphanPip]

I can't think of five, but I'm not fond of Ayn Rand.

[Anna_MAlkovych]

1. Twilight - Stephenie Meyer It felt totally useless to me. I could only read the first one cause my friend advised it - had to read it up to the end to say that it was crap, man that was tough not to give up reading it.
2. Any book of Dontsova or Marinina - if the first one if readable at least, the second one isn't worth the paper it is written on.
3. Devil wears Prada - well fun a bit, but then gets boring, but it is only my opinion
4. Doctor Zhivago - I tried and failed, no way I'd ever read it to the end it is the way to boring
5. The leader of the worst books I read is history of Ukraine for 11 form - no truth, it made me go furious

[sixsmith]

I can't think of five, but I'm not fond of Ayn Rand.

Yes she'd certainly be a contender.

Leaving aside commercial pap like Dan Brown et al, there are few books that I would pointedly caution people against reading. Norman Mailer's 'Barbary Shore' is pretty terrible but that's not news to anyone. Salman Rushdie's 'Fury' mistakes itemisation for intellectual activity with sleep inducing results. Ian McEwan's 'Saturday' resembles the winner of a contest devoted to dull, cliched, middle class malaise.

[The Rainmaker]

Only a fraction of books published find wide readership and even fewer manage lasting appeal. People read for a variety of reasons - in that sense, I can't advise against Dan Brown or Harry Potter. For this discussion, I think its best to consider books that are highly recommended usually but I/you had a terrible time with. Personally, Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones is one I regretted wasting time on and would never suggest it to anyone. I think there's a movie based on the book. It has to be better than the book.

[Jozanny]

Sigh. I don't know how many times I have repeated this since I joined this forum, but I find these complaints about Melville nearly heartbreaking. He almost single-handedly put American Literature on the map, and I tend to agree with the essayist in my Columbia History of American Poetry edition that Moby Dick is pretty much the American epic, that it is a master prose poem, doing for the American national identity what Dante did for Roman Catholicism as the epicenter of Imperial legacy.

I value the study of literature, and comments like "Moby Dick is boring" miss how much this narrative achieves, how it created the American anti-hero, which remains with us to this day, how it clashed a vigorous Old Testment Protestant order against a romantic rebellion against God.

Some things are really worth the effort people, and Melville's voice is one of those--and African Love, he did a great deal to advocate integration before the Civil War was even considered remotely possible.

[stlukesguild]

That about says it all. And the books is surely worth reading if only for the brilliant passages of absolutely visionary poetic splendor.:nod:

[glover7]

Ugh, I hate these kinds of topics because they inevitably end up being a "let's come together to bash proletarian lliterature!" party.

The fact of the matter is that each book has its own value to the person who finds it valuable. And to say that someone is "ignorant" because they didn't like Candide is just...despicable. Seriously, just because literary critics have liked a book for ages doesn't necessitate its quality. IceM has contributed to other topics with intelligent discourse, so obviously his dislike of Candide and Melville has not affected his functionality as an intellectual.

I apologize for the rant, but I hate elitism in all its many forms.

[Anna_MAlkovych]

Just forgot to say many people say that Harry Potter is no good, but it made so many children read, that it cannot be bad. Well at least 3 first books - as it moved on it started to go off the field I think. I began to see the author as serial killer.

[Jozanny]

Rowling as a serial killer? :) A bit rich, and I am not sure how she would take that, but aside from the aesthetic debate about Potter, she is an incredibly lucky author. I have published and suffered well over twenty years, and I am still running this treadmill, lucky if I get in some online sci-fi penny zine even for a token amount. But Rowling went from being a welfare mother to a woman who is nearly a franchise unto herself. I admire her achievement. Don't know if I will ever find time for the books, but would enjoy doing her biography, seriously.

In the modern era hers is a rare feat, and her literary agent was no doubt a marketing genius.

[Anna_MAlkovych]

Jozanny, the world of writing seems to be difficult and severe, especially now, when people tend to watch - not to read, I also wish some of my work being at least published, but I do not think mine are worth a penny, well the last Harry Potter book wasn't too- maybe I hae a chance

[DanielBenoit]

The fact of the matter is that each book has its own value to the person who finds it valuable. And to say that someone is "ignorant" because they didn't like Candide is just...despicable. Seriously, just because literary critics have liked a book for ages doesn't necessitate its quality. IceM has contributed to other topics with intelligent discourse, so obviously his dislike of Candide and Melville has not affected his functionality as an intellectual.


Yes, but to dismiss a book as bad because it's 'boring' is a groundless criticism. Frankly I found Sense and Sensibility boring, but I have enough common sense to detect its many virtues. 'Boring' and 'exciting' are far too subjective to serve as a basis for a criticism of an entire novel. Any person with common sense can see Moby-Dick whether you enjoyed it or not, as a great novel.

Anyway, I think all books are worth reading. But if you want to save time in your life so that you won't die having not read Moby-Dick or Don Quioxte, skip Dan Brown and the Twilight books. Believe me, you're not missing anything.

[glover7]

Yes, but to dismiss a book as bad because it's 'boring' is a groundless criticism. Frankly I found Sense and Sensibility boring, but I have enough common sense to detect its many virtues. 'Boring' and 'exciting' are far too subjective to serve as a basis for a criticism of an entire novel. Any person with common sense can see Moby-Dick whether you enjoyed it or not, as a great novel.

Anyway, I think all books are worth reading. But if you want to save time in your life so that you won't die having not read Moby-Dick or Don Quioxte, skip Dan Brown and the Twilight books. Believe me, you're not missing anything.

I don't think the argument here pertains only to a book's "exciting" factor. I believe that it has to do with personal preference. How can you say that "exciting" is subjective when "great" is an equally subjective and even more ambiguous term?

If excitement is how people derive greatness from a book, then your argument becomes invalid.

Personally, I will never admit that Moby Dick is a great novel because I don't think it is. It's my personal opinion, and you can't alter it by suggesting the words of the long-established "canonites."

[IceM]

:) I think that might be because some people mistake 'fun' for 'good'.

Candide was terribly written. Heart of Darkness had 0 impact on me as a reader who looked forward to reading that novel. Pride and Prejudice lacked any meaning to me as a reader, the plot was terribly predictable, and there was no thematic relevance to me as a reader. Moby Dick, while brilliant in some parts, just proved too tedious. I read that twice.

Have I made that distinction for you now?


and 2 through 5 of those posted by IceM. It appears as if these posters were made to read these in school and still resented this. It certainly tells you something when someone dislikes a classic which has been recomended by scholars and other literary pondits. What you don't like can make you appear grossly ignorant as well as what yiu like.

For clarification, I read all of these because I was interested in them. And I'm sorry that poorly written classics don't appeal to me. Candide was just slop. Pride and Prejudice was flat.

But I love Dante's, Dosteovsky's, Dickens', and Crane's works (most of which are critically acclaimed). Shakespeare, (although his works are plays) is a great work, and essays from Thoreau and Emerson (ALL critically acclaimed) are other favorites. Now that I've demonstrated a similar taste to that of your "scholars and pondits" does that justify my opinions of these novels? Or am I still "grossly ignorant?"


Sigh. I don't know how many times I have repeated this since I joined this forum, but I find these complaints about Melville nearly heartbreaking. He almost single-handedly put American Literature on the map, and I tend to agree with the essayist in my Columbia History of American Poetry edition that Moby Dick is pretty much the American epic, that it is a master prose poem, doing for the American national identity what Dante did for Roman Catholicism as the epicenter of Imperial legacy.

I value the study of literature, and comments like "Moby Dick is boring" miss how much this narrative achieves, how it created the American anti-hero, which remains with us to this day, how it clashed a vigorous Old Testment Protestant order against a romantic rebellion against God.

Some things are really worth the effort people, and Melville's voice is one of those--and African Love, he did a great deal to advocate integration before the Civil War was even considered remotely possible.

Congratulations, he had a literary achievement. I'm trying my best not to scoff at your opinion, but is his rampant success with Moby Dick supposed to change my opinion? I read the book twice, hoping the 2nd time would reveal some thematic or symbolic brilliance: I found little. The book featured bright moments, sure, but all books do. I felt it just had little impact on me. Is that a crime?



I'm sorry to the last two quotees. Maybe next time I'll find a scholar or two that shares my opinions. Then maybe I'll be considered to have more literary merit next time.

[DanielBenoit]

I don't think the argument here pertains only to a book's "exciting" factor. I believe that it has to do with personal preference. How can you say that "exciting" is subjective when "great" is an equally subjective and even more ambiguous term?

If excitement is how people derive greatness from a book, then your argument becomes invalid.

Personally, I will never admit that Moby Dick is a great novel because I don't think it is. It's my personal opinion, and you can't alter it by suggesting the words of the long-established "canonites."

That's perfectly fine. And yes, 'great' and 'bad' are just as subjective, if not more ambiguous than 'exciting' or 'boring'. But there is so much to a novel than momentary thrill. If one were to compare a novel like Angels and Demons with Moby-Dick one would find that the plot, charactarization, thematic concerns are all much more complex and deep in the latter. Thus Moby-Dick is considered a great novel in literary society because of these critical conventions. They are not objective in any way, but if one is to accept these conventions then one could consider this novel or that novel to be great or not great within the context of the system we have created. So maybe in a sense calling Moby-Dick a great novel is an appeal to elitism, or at least to that system for which most of us have based our appretiation of a novel.

This can apply to any novel. For example if you like Don Quioxte first and foremost for its character-depth, plot structure, word-structure and thematic/philosophical depth, then yes, you are appealing to the system that "high culture" has set out to describe what makes a great novel.

The only reason why one would argue with you and call your claims that Moby-Dickis "boring" would be because maybe you like Don Quioxte for the reasons described above, and yet can't find those virtues in Moby-Dick. Again, Don Quioxte is merely an example.

[mal4mac]

I didn't like Don Quixote, but ten years later, with more experience, and reading another translation, I thought it was fantastic, perhaps the best novel I've ever read. How do you Moby Dick haters know that you won't like it in ten years time?

I disagree that a novel can become great through some sort of "critical convention". It can only be great if it has great aesthetic merit, i.e., it must provide pleasure -- although in some cases a difficult pleasure that you have to work hard to get!

I liked Don Quixote because it was a great pleasure to read. Part of the pleasure was obtained from imbibing the character-depth, plot structure, word-structure and thematic/philosophical depth. Part of it was visualising Sancho tossed in a blanket :) I'm using the system of "high culture", but only to have more fun!

[escapologist]

Candide was terribly written. Heart of Darkness had 0 impact on me as a reader who looked forward to reading that novel. Pride and Prejudice lacked any meaning to me as a reader, the plot was terribly predictable, and there was no thematic relevance to me as a reader. Moby Dick, while brilliant in some parts, just proved too tedious. I read that twice.

Have I made that distinction for you now?

I can't comment on Candide and Heart of Darkness because I haven't read them. Now, if you refuse to accept any critical conventions, as DanielBenoit said, that's fine and it means you and I see literature from different perspectives. If you do accept them, though, you must also accept that Pride and Prejudice, even if it might be guilty of the faults you mention, is a good, if a bit mild, satire of the society Austen lived in. You say Moby Dick is tedious. To me that adjective amounts to 'not fun', which does little to refute my point. Anyway, maybe it's a tad long-winded. Such were the times. But you still can't deny the strong and amazing symbolism is contains, which makes it a 'great' book.
Again, if you choose to view literature outside any conventions, my points do not apply to you and I apologise for ranting :).


Another awful one- Changing Places by David Lodge. And The Brooklyn Follies by Paul Auster.

[Brad Coelho]

How about a change in thread title to 5 books I shouldn't have read, as opposed to 'nobody' should read? Making others minds up for them is always a losing proposition, much less parlaying your own subjectivity on another. My mother watches movies and reads books that I'd consider vacuous & droll, but then again, she spends her literary & cinematic time much differently than I. My favorite film, Chinatown, she’d loathe for its unhappy ending, and two books that I enjoy immensely, Tropic of Cancer & Confederacy of Dunces, she’d be disgusted w/ for their ribald tone, grotesque characterization (or complete lack there of) & probably call them flatulent farces. Does that mean I shouldn’t have read them?!

[IceM]

That's perfectly fine. And yes, 'great' and 'bad' are just as subjective, if not more ambiguous than 'exciting' or 'boring'. But there is so much to a novel than momentary thrill. If one were to compare a novel like Angels and Demons with Moby-Dick one would find that the plot, charactarization, thematic concerns are all much more complex and deep in the latter. Thus Moby-Dick is considered a great novel in literary society because of these critical conventions. They are not objective in any way, but if one is to accept these conventions then one could consider this novel or that novel to be great or not great within the context of the system we have created. So maybe in a sense calling Moby-Dick a great novel is an appeal to elitism, or at least to that system for which most of us have based our appretiation of a novel.

This can apply to any novel. For example if you like Don Quioxte first and foremost for its character-depth, plot structure, word-structure and thematic/philosophical depth, then yes, you are appealing to the system that "high culture" has set out to describe what makes a great novel.

The only reason why one would argue with you and call your claims that Moby-Dickis "boring" would be because maybe you like Don Quioxte for the reasons described above, and yet can't find those virtues in Moby-Dick. Again, Don Quioxte is merely an example.

The problem with applying a structure of literary conventions to evaluate a work is that, while claiming to be objective, is subjective in the eyes of the reader. Relatively speaking, a strong plot structure, word structure, thematic relevance, and strength/relevance of symbolism are objective ways of evaluating a book. But some people value some aspects more than others. Furthermore, the ability to which a novel fulfills these conventions is in the eyes of the reader. Like the quote below from Escapologist, some find the symbolism in Moby Dick to be amazing and powerful. However, while literary experts can ramble about the significance of Moby Dick, the relevant themes and the impact of the book's symbolism, one must read the book for themselves to truly gauge how well-written a book is. I found 2-5 on my first post dreadful. Surely, each book has a bright spot: I admit that Moby Dick has strong symbolism, and that Candide is darkly humorous. But if a book excels in one standard, that does not instantly posit it as a great work. Moby Dick has strong symbolism, yet that symbolism cannot overcompensate for the lack of thematic relevance to me as a reader; Candide is darkly humorous, but the terrible lack of strong symbolism cannot be ignored. While some books excel in some aspects, they are utterly disasterous in others.



I can't comment on Candide and Heart of Darkness because I haven't read them. Now, if you refuse to accept any critical conventions, as DanielBenoit said, that's fine and it means you and I see literature from different perspectives. If you do accept them, though, you must also accept that Pride and Prejudice, even if it might be guilty of the faults you mention, is a good, if a bit mild, satire of the society Austen lived in. You say Moby Dick is tedious. To me that adjective amounts to 'not fun', which does little to refute my point. Anyway, maybe it's a tad long-winded. Such were the times. But you still can't deny the strong and amazing symbolism is contains, which makes it a 'great' book.
Again, if you choose to view literature outside any conventions, my points do not apply to you and I apologise for ranting :).


Another awful one- Changing Places by David Lodge. And The Brooklyn Follies by Paul Auster.

As I said above, because a work excels in one or very few conventions does not warrant that same work being considered a classic. I found Pride and Prejudice poorly written. I found practically 0 thematic strength, symbolism was quite lacking, and more. (Note: I did not read these novels mindlessly, I read them from a desire to.) Applying many of the same literary conventions many other readers accept, I found little value in any of the four novels under question.

I'm more shocked that, because I have an opinion of these four novels that differs from any of those who have posted, instantly I'm "grossly ignorant," a terrible reader, and/or do not accept the typical literary conventions used to evaluate a novel. Wow. I kinda thought having a different opinion was being a free-thinker, you know, what human beings are. I beg you forgiveness. Let me see the literary light!

[Red-Headed]

Candide was terribly written.

I just thought I had read it in a bad translation. I wasn't particularly impressed by it either.


Heart of Darkness had 0 impact on me as a reader who looked forward to reading that novel.

'The horror, the horror'. (Why do I keep thinking of Marlon Brando?). Many people prefer Conrad's The Secret Agent. I have always found it a bit weird that Conrad wrote The Secret Agent as a response to Dostoyevsky's The Devils. I don't know what Heart of Darkness was a response to, if anything. I have always had a sneaking suspicion that people read far too much into it as a novel. Or, of course, I could just be a bit shallow.



Pride and Prejudice lacked any meaning to me as a reader, the plot was terribly predictable, and there was no thematic relevance to me as a reader.

I admire Austen's wit at times, but I have always found her hard work. If however, you ever dare to utter or make a statement such as "Yes, but actually I prefer Anthony Trollope to Austen" you appear to have committed an abominable sin in the eyes of the Janeites & the literary world in general. From then on you have the terrible 'Mark of Jane' to carry on your forehead & must wander in literary oblivion & cannot dare to discuss literature with anyone as you have committed such an abomination.



Moby Dick, while brilliant in some parts, just proved too tedious. I read that twice.

I have only read it once. I must admit that I liked it. It was a bit of a failure when it was first published I believe. If you read it as an adventure novel I think you will be disappointed with it. I think that was one of the problems when it was first published. The long deviations from the main plot were a metaphysical exploration by Melville & I have a feeling that he may have wanted to write two novels but combined the ideas for Moby Dick. It is a true classic. It is a novel that cannot be rushed however. His exploration of 'whiteness' & how it seems to fill us with dread is perfectly realised. Like Conrad it is rich in allegory & symbolism & I think you have to approach it with this in mind. It beats Jane Austen anyway!

[OrphanPip]

'The horror, the horror'. (Why do I keep thinking of Marlon Brando?). Many people prefer Conrad's The Secret Agent. I have always found it a bit weird that Conrad wrote The Secret Agent as a response to Dostoyevsky's The Devils. I don't know what Heart of Darkness was a response to, if anything. I have always had a sneaking suspicion that people read far too much into it as a novel. Or, of course, I could just be a bit shallow.



If it was a response to anything, it was a response to his own brief time in the Belgian Congo. I've always been impressed by Conrad's ability to write in English considering he apparently didn't learn the language until his late teens. I tend to agree with Achebe's assessment of the novel as racist and dehumanizing towards Africans. Nonetheless, it's an interesting novel rich in material to discuss.

[Red-Headed]

If it was a response to anything, it was a response to his own brief time in the Belgian Congo.

Ah! That explains the Congo diary & maps in my edition. :lol: ;)


I've always been impressed by Conrad's ability to write in English considering he apparently didn't learn the language until his late teens.

I've never met a Ukrainian who wasn't brilliant at languages.


I tend to agree with Achebe's assessment of the novel as racist and dehumanizing towards Africans. Nonetheless, it's an interesting novel rich in material to discuss.

Didn't Conrad point out the fact that African soldiers were probably stationed in Britain with the Roman Army garrisons at the beginning of the novel? This has been proved from excavations of Roman military cemeteries discovered in the UK. I've never read anything Chinua Achebe has ever written. I doubt I ever will.

[escapologist]

As I said above, because a work excels in one or very few conventions does not warrant that same work being considered a classic. I found Pride and Prejudice poorly written. I found practically 0 thematic strength, symbolism was quite lacking, and more. (Note: I did not read these novels mindlessly, I read them from a desire to.) Applying many of the same literary conventions many other readers accept, I found little value in any of the four novels under question.

I'm more shocked that, because I have an opinion of these four novels that differs from any of those who have posted, instantly I'm "grossly ignorant," a terrible reader, and/or do not accept the typical literary conventions used to evaluate a novel. Wow. I kinda thought having a different opinion was being a free-thinker, you know, what human beings are. I beg you forgiveness. Let me see the literary light!

I'm not saying anyone should consider Pride and Prejudice a classic, I'm just saying it shouldn't be on the "books you should never read" list.

And there's no need to be defensive. No one is attacking you, and if someone said you were 'grossly ignorant', they are probably not worthy of a response from you.


@ Red-Headed: Conrad was Polish. I don't think it makes much difference, but I thought I should point it out, just in case :)

[juhuulian]

The problem i find with Pride and Prejudice/North South and all that class of stuff is that they are all built on the same frame. They may be well writen (although not so well as to make them great works of literature in my opinion) and one may be able to derive knowledge from them but honestly i think they are completely empty of imagination and creativity. They have no greater meaning behind them or anything. For me they are just tedious empty shell excuses for books...however since reading should be about pleasure (whatever that means for you) anyone who likes these books should definetly not be described as stupid or ignorant. Its all about taste (there are only very few books which are pretty much universlay accepted as good which doesnt mean that for anyone those are the only good books to read).
That is my opinion anyway...

[Red-Headed]

@ Red-Headed: Conrad was Polish. I don't think it makes much difference, but I thought I should point it out, just in case :)

Yes, I know. I was being a little humorous. It obviously didn't translate well. ;)

'Joseph Conrad was born in Berdyczów (now Berdychiv, Ukraine) into an impoverished, highly patriotic Polish noble family bearing the Nałęcz coat-of-arms.' ~ Wikipedia

[Modest Proposal]

The problem i find with Pride and Prejudice/North South and all that class of stuff is that they are all built on the same frame. They may be well writen (although not so well as to make them great works of literature in my opinion) and one may be able to derive knowledge from them but honestly i think they are completely empty of imagination and creativity. They have no greater meaning behind them or anything. For me they are just tedious empty shell excuses for books...however since reading should be about pleasure (whatever that means for you) anyone who likes these books should definetly not be described as stupid or ignorant. Its all about taste (there are only very few books which are pretty much universlay accepted as good which doesnt mean that for anyone those are the only good books to read).
That is my opinion anyway...

Out of curiosity, what books do you think are imaginitive and creative? Or not just empty?

[escapologist]

Yes, I know. I was being a little humorous. It obviously didn't translate well. ;)

'Joseph Conrad was born in Berdyczów (now Berdychiv, Ukraine) into an impoverished, highly patriotic Polish noble family bearing the Nałęcz coat-of-arms.' ~ Wikipedia


No, it's me, I didn't read the whole thread very carefully :)

[Red-Headed]

The problem i find with Pride and Prejudice/North South and all that class of stuff is that they are all built on the same frame.

I think that there should be a distinction made between the often ironic & satirist 18th century moralising novels of Jane Austen & their seeming obsession with manners & class & the politically tendentious novels of Dickens (particularly Hard Times) & the likes of Elizabeth Gaskell.


They may be well writen (although not so well as to make them great works of literature in my opinion) and one may be able to derive knowledge from them but honestly i think they are completely empty of imagination and creativity.

I agree that they often lack romantic idealism & are not full of conceptual symbolism, but to give Austen her due, she had an incredible economy of expression in writing & many of her characters have value. She had classic comedic moments, quite often with the conflicts various protagonists had between illusion & reality. That & Trollope's complete appreciation of the 'usual' in his Barsetshire Comedie Humaine is what gives them their appeal to many.


They have no greater meaning behind them or anything.

I think that is the point of many of them! ;)

To be fair to many pre-romantic novels, I think they did often touch the human condition enough for people to relate to them in many ways.

[Red-Headed]

No, it's me, I didn't read the whole thread very carefully :)

It's OK, I do things like that all the time. I think it's what the edit button is for! :lol:

[DanielBenoit]

I'm not saying anyone should consider Pride and Prejudice a classic, I'm just saying it shouldn't be on the "books you should never read" list.


Exactly.

When it comes down to it, terms like 'great' and 'bad' are meaningless in the practical sense. Either you should read a book or you shouldn't. Calling a novel 'great' or 'one of the best I've ever read' is really just another way of saying 'please please please read this book now'.

Whether or not Moby-Dick or Pride and Prejudice is a great novel is up to you. But to call it a book you should never read is ridiculous, mainly just for the fact that they are so beloved by so many people, that even if you disliked it, others may still enjoy it. In truth, there's no books not worth reading. I even take back what I said about Dan Brown and Stephine Meyer earlier in this thread. The only thing that matters is priority. To me, Moby-Dick should take a much higher priority in your reading list than The DaVinci Code.

[stlukesguild]

I just love aesthetic relativism. Such a brilliant philosophy... totally suited to those who fear any form of challenge or difficulty. Opinions in art are subjective... and so there can be no "good" nor "bad". Of course no artist believes this to be so... not even when considering his or her own efforts. Some are clearly better than others. All art is but opinion...? Certainly... but then some opinions are far better than others.:D As for "elitism"... well certainly "elitism" can have negative connotations that are connected with wealth and social status... but "elitism" also means having high standards and living up to them. It is NOT about snobbery. Indeed, I often find the opposite to be true among those who embrace an anti-intellectual stance and sneer at anything which requires intellect, concerted effort, and high standards. "Elitism" often involves the rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field; a long track record of competence in a demanding field; an extensive history of dedication and effort in service to a specific discipline, or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field. Meritocracy would be another term for "elitism". Personally, if I were faced with surgery I would wish for an "elite" surgeon... not the merely average. If I were involved in a discussion about Shakespeare here I would probably give anything Petrarch's Love had to say a greater degree of consideration due to her experience with Shakespeare and Renaissance poetry. I take the same approach to art/music/literature.

Having said that much I will admit that I have my own personal preferences and dislikes and there is no way that I like every work that has been acclaimed... and there are works that are less recognized that I personally hold far more dear. But at the same time, I recognize that there is a difference between stating something as personal opinion and stating something as fact. There is a great gap between saying "I didn't like Moby Dick. It just didn't work for me. I just couldn't get over all the digressions" and stating "The Heart of darkness was terrible." or "Candide was just slop." These are not statements of personal opinion but statements of fact... and considering that they go against the larger accepted position, they certainly open the speaker up to criticism and challenges to back up his or her position.

[Emil Miller]

It is, perhaps, presumptious to suggest that any book should not be read by others, regardless of its lack of personal appeal. It is equally questionable to suggest that certain books should be read by others. Somerset Maugham, one of the best 20th century authors, met Edith Wharton la grande dame of American literature at a luncheon in London and Maugham, despite being a polyglot and an authority on world literature, happened to mention Edgar Wallace.
"Who is Edgar Wallace?" she replied.
"Do you never read thrillers?" asked Maugham.
"No, I'm afraid it's getting very late," said Mrs Wharton.

[escapologist]

I just love aesthetic relativism. Such a brilliant philosophy... totally suited to those who fear any form of challenge or difficulty. Opinions in art are subjective... and so there can be no "good" nor "bad". Of course no artist believes this to be so... not even when considering his or her own efforts. Some are clearly better than others. All art is but opinion...? Certainly... but then some opinions are far better than others.:D
[...]
Having said that much I will admit that I have my own personal preferences and dislikes and there is no way that I like every work that has been acclaimed... and there are works that are less recognized that I personally hold far more dear. But at the same time, I recognize that there is a difference between stating something as personal opinion and stating something as fact. There is a great gap between saying "I didn't like Moby Dick. It just didn't work for me. I just couldn't get over all the digressions" and stating "The Heart of darkness was terrible." or "Candide was just slop." These are not statements of personal opinion but statements of fact... and considering that they go against the larger accepted position, they certainly open the speaker up to criticism and challenges to back up his or her position.
Alright then, will you kindly share with us the source of these 'facts' you mention. The only way we know if a book is 'good' or not before we read it is if someone tells us so. And even if that someone happens to be an 'elite' critic, or a whole bunch of them, that still doesn't make it a fact. Your comparison with surgery doesn't hold water because literary criticism isn't an exact science and thank heavens for that. As for artists themselves, they judge their own work by their own subjective standards, i.e. by how well they managed to express their ideas. Yes, we will trust a critic more than a random reader because critics evaluate works of art according to a set of standards we perceive as conventional and more substantial. Critics are able to analyse a work of art on a deeper and a more specific level, but their evaluation still doesn't count as a fact. The things that do count as facts are, for example, the existence of symbolism, figures of speech or different stylistic devices as explained by theories of literature. But no theory claims to be able to decide if a work of art is 'good' or not.

[neilgee]

Sorry guys I'm going to skip the discussion and name 5 of my own:

1. Her Victory by Alan Sillitoe [Sillitoe has written some good novels and short stories but this is definitely not among them]
2. Murder in the collective
3. The Magnificient Spinster [can't remember the author of either of those. They were two that I read during my "feminist" phase and though there were far more good books than bad The Women's Press did publish some stinkers].
4. Eyeless in Gaza by Aldous Huxley [hated all that philosophical self-indulgence that was really saying nothing at all].

Sorry, can't think of a fifth one off hand. I was going to say In Cold Blood by Truman Capote mainly because I had the misfortune to study it as an "A" level text but it's nowhere near as bad as the other 4 and doesn't deserve to be classed with them.

[IceM]

I just love aesthetic relativism. Such a brilliant philosophy... totally suited to those who fear any form of challenge or difficulty. Opinions in art are subjective... and so there can be no "good" nor "bad". Of course no artist believes this to be so... not even when considering his or her own efforts. Some are clearly better than others. All art is but opinion...? Certainly... but then some opinions are far better than others.:D As for "elitism"... well certainly "elitism" can have negative connotations that are connected with wealth and social status... but "elitism" also means having high standards and living up to them. It is NOT about snobbery. Indeed, I often find the opposite to be true among those who embrace an anti-intellectual stance and sneer at anything which requires intellect, concerted effort, and high standards. "Elitism" often involves the rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field; a long track record of competence in a demanding field; an extensive history of dedication and effort in service to a specific discipline, or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field. Meritocracy would be another term for "elitism". Personally, if I were faced with surgery I would wish for an "elite" surgeon... not the merely average. If I were involved in a discussion about Shakespeare here I would probably give anything Petrarch's Love had to say a greater degree of consideration due to her experience with Shakespeare and Renaissance poetry. I take the same approach to art/music/literature.

Having said that much I will admit that I have my own personal preferences and dislikes and there is no way that I like every work that has been acclaimed... and there are works that are less recognized that I personally hold far more dear. But at the same time, I recognize that there is a difference between stating something as personal opinion and stating something as fact. There is a great gap between saying "I didn't like Moby Dick. It just didn't work for me. I just couldn't get over all the digressions" and stating "The Heart of darkness was terrible." or "Candide was just slop." These are not statements of personal opinion but statements of fact... and considering that they go against the larger accepted position, they certainly open the speaker up to criticism and challenges to back up his or her position.


Oh, of course. I'd definitely choose to read Moby Dick
because I wanted to be an iconoclast of Melville's work. I wanted to do my best to utterly deface Candide, so I read it. And of course, instantly I scoff at dense novels because they require a concerted effort that I apparently cannot muster. Forgive me if I consider that a tad bit foolish, maybe even ignorant.

Of course an expert's opinion will carry more merit, as they are professionals who are paid to analyze literature (or in your surgery metaphor, perform operations). I didn't realize I needed a doctorate in literature to comment on 4 books I found mediocre and highly disappointing. Should I go to Cambridge for that doctorate?

Out of curiousity, did you not read my prior posts? I believe I commented on the lack of either symbolic or thematic strength and relevance about Candide (not that it matters now, or else you would have noticed). To comment that I must justify myself while you've apparently been oblivious to my prior justifications demonstrates what I'm trying not to consider as presumptuousness.

Sorry for defying the literary status quo. Next time I'll just conform my opinions to that of your beloved critics, the same elitist ones I seem to be sneering at. What a joke.

[stlukesguild]

And of course, instantly I scoff at dense novels because they require a concerted effort that I apparently cannot muster. Forgive me if I consider that a tad bit foolish, maybe even ignorant.

Of course an expert's opinion will carry more merit, as they are professionals who are paid to analyze literature (or in your surgery metaphor, perform operations). I didn't realize I needed a doctorate in literature to comment on 4 books I found mediocre and highly disappointing.

I believe I commented on the lack of either symbolic or thematic strength and relevance about Candide (not that it matters now, or else you would have noticed). To comment that I must justify myself while you've apparently been oblivious to my prior justifications demonstrates what I'm trying not to consider as presumptuousness.

Sorry for defying the literary status quo. Next time I'll just conform my opinions to that of your beloved critics, the same elitist ones I seem to be sneering at. What a joke.

Out of curiousity, did you not read my prior posts?

I might ask the same. Perhaps you read Moby Dick with the same attention to detail? You will note that in no way did I say that you must like every book championed by the "experts". And while we're on this topic perhaps we should confront the issue of just who these "experts" are. It is easy to dismiss the "experts" as elitist snobs. It plays well with our democratic and egalitarian notions (of course all art it elitist... but that's another issue altogether). Politicians love to use this strategy hypocritically... bizarrely suggesting that their opponents should somehow be ashamed of having graduated with honors from a top university.. and as such they are not fit to govern because they are not a common Joe... not "down with the people".

The reality is that the "experts"... those whose opinions count the most with regard to literature are those who have invested the greatest effort into the study and appreciation of literature. This certainly includes academics, professionals, critics, and the like... but it also includes the passionate "common reader" (in Virginia Wool's sense of the term... the educated and informed reader who reads for sheer pleasure) and of course the subsequent generations of writers. These last two, indeed, are perhaps the most influential. A writer like Alexander Dumas survives in spite of his middling reputation among academics because he continues to resonate with readers. At the other end of the spectrum, James Joyce' reputation owes more to critics, academics, and subsequent writers who continue to be challenged and inspired by his work.

A work that attains a certain reputation as "great" is clearly a work that has continued over a period of time to resonate with readers... to fascinate academics and critics... and challenge and inspire writers. In spite of this, there is no guarantee that the book will resonate with any given individual reader. As I stated above, this is fine. If I say "I don't like Milton." This is a statement of personal opinion... and pretty much unchallengeable. If, on the other hand, you state, "Candide was terribly written" you have made a clear value judgment... a value judgment that is just as plainly stated as fact as the opposing opinion. This is what opens your opinion up to being challenged or questioned.

I believe I commented on the lack of either symbolic or thematic strength and relevance about Candide (not that it matters now, or else you would have noticed).

Yes... I certainly noticed, but did not choose to respond. But since you have pushed the issue let's deal with it. You suggest that Candide lacks symbolic or thematic strength. You do understand that the work is a satire upon Liebniz philosophy of optimism that suggested that this is indeed, "the best of all possible worlds" (A philosophy certainly supportive of those in power at the time... at any time... in that it suggests that the individual's place in society is "God's will" and part of a divine master plan... and thus to question one's place... or to actually think to improve upon one's standing is almost tantamount to questioning God and providence). Candide is an allegory... concerned more with questioning and challenging ideas through humor and satire taken to an absurd extreme than it is with character development.

But if a book excels in one standard, that does not instantly posit it as a great work. Moby Dick has strong symbolism, yet that symbolism cannot overcompensate for the lack of thematic relevance to me as a reader; Candide is darkly humorous, but the terrible lack of strong symbolism cannot be ignored. While some books excel in some aspects, they are utterly disasterous in others.

Now here I must clarify what point you are making. Are you suggesting that for a work of literature to be truly "great" it must be masterful upon all accounts? I would have to question this. Every work of literature does not have the same goals. Hemingway is not a failure because his writing lacks the florid and baroque splendor of Proust's poetic language. It is meaningless to criticize Baudelaire's Fleurs du mal as a result of its rigorous form which lacks the freedom of Whitman's Leaves of Grass. Shakespeare himself is not a master of every possible element that makes up writing, Hell, most of his plots are variations derived from pre-existing sources. A work of art succeeds or fails upon its own terms based upon the intentions... not against some abstract check-list of essential elements of reading. You suggest that you recognize Moby Dick's strong symbolism, yet feel that alone does not overcome its thematic relevance to you as a reader. One might ask what makes a work of literature relevant? Must it reinforce your own beliefs, thoughts, and prejudices...? Or might it achieve something more?

Again... and it may seem little more than semantics... what I am suggesting is that when you put your opinion of a work of literature in objective terms... as a statement of fact... it opens you up to being challenged. When you make such blanket statements as "Candide was terribly written" or "Moby Dick was boring"... especially without offering some examples or proof of your opinion... it strikes many as not far from declarations such as "Mozart sucks!" made by some pimply-faced teenager.:wave:

By the way... among those books that I would suggest no one should read... or perhaps no one should be directed, assigned, coerced, or seduced into reading... I would certainly include anything by the Marquis de Sade, Hitler's Mein Kampf, anything by Ayn Rand, L. Ron Hubbard, or Dan Brown.:brickwall

[Jazz_]

Wow - this got a tad off track, but I suppose the topic did encourage it ;)

I tend to value works of art (particularly literature) very subjectively - I can read Dan Brown's work and still enjoy it (despite noticing the obvious lack of "greatness"), but can still appreciate "classics" even if they don't appeal to me personally. As for Austen, she is one of my favourite authors - and I believe the ability to provide pleasure to readers should be valued as much as symbolism, thematic relevance or other "objective" measures. I'm not trying to imply that popularity makes something "great" - but it certainly takes merit away from the opinion that nobody should read it...

[JBI]

It's kind of depressing watching people misuse critical opinions. The whole notion of relativism is truth, but no scholar of literature is going to accept the "this is toss" as criticism. Truth be told, from experience, academics tend to just accept that the aesthetic merit given to a text is relative to a cultural position, which I don't think St. Lukes, or anybody can disagree with, even Harold Bloom. The problem that arises is when you question what that social opinion implies.

So, for instance, the huge best seller, Madame Chrysanthème which formed the basis of Puccini's slightly more politically correct opera, was widely regarded because of what? Or what are the aesthetic merits to this famous cartoon clip? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjLfyooJQEc

Sometimes we can clearly see the flaws in certain works, to the point where we no longer can even regard them as worth anything anymore, whereas other times, we make exception, as in the case of works like Heart of Darkness, we get beyond the cultural undercurrents.

As for formalist criticism - that generally doesn't go very far if you go against the current. Saying the prose is crap in Moby Dick isn't going to do anything, since formalist grounding is generally the most agreed upon thing, and innovation and style are respected.

[IceM]

I might ask the same. Perhaps you read Moby Dick with the same attention to detail? You will note that in no way did I say that you must like every book championed by the "experts". And while we're on this topic perhaps we should confront the issue of just who these "experts" are. It is easy to dismiss the "experts" as elitist snobs. It plays well with our democratic and egalitarian notions (of course all art it elitist... but that's another issue altogether). Politicians love to use this strategy hypocritically... bizarrely suggesting that their opponents should somehow be ashamed of having graduated with honors from a top university.. and as such they are not fit to govern because they are not a common Joe... not "down with the people".

The reality is that the "experts"... those whose opinions count the most with regard to literature are those who have invested the greatest effort into the study and appreciation of literature. This certainly includes academics, professionals, critics, and the like... but it also includes the passionate "common reader" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the term... the educated and informed reader who reads for sheer pleasure) and of course the subsequent generations of writers. These last two, indeed, are perhaps the most influential. A writer like Alexander Dumas survives in spite of his middling reputation among academics because he continues to resonate with readers. At the other end of the spectrum, James Joyce' reputation owes more to critics, academics, and subsequent writers who continue to be challenged and inspired by his work.

A work that attains a certain reputation as "great" is clearly a work that has continued over a period of time to resonate with readers... to fascinate academics and critics... and challenge and inspire writers. In spite of this, there is no guarantee that the book will resonate with any given individual reader. As I stated above, this is fine. If I say "I don't like Milton." This is a statement of personal opinion... and pretty much unchallengeable. If, on the other hand, you state, "Candide was terribly written" you have made a clear value judgment... a value judgment that is just as plainly stated as fact as the opposing opinion. This is what opens your opinion up to being challenged or questioned.

Yes... I certainly noticed, but did not choose to respond. But since you have pushed the issue let's deal with it. You suggest that Candide lacks symbolic or thematic strength. You do understand that the work is a satire upon Liebniz philosophy of optimism that suggested that this is indeed, "the best of all possible worlds" (A philosophy certainly supportive of those in power at the time... at any time... in that it suggests that the individual's place in society is "God's will" and part of a divine master plan... and thus to question one's place... or to actually think to improve upon one's standing is almost tantamount to questioning God and providence). Candide is an allegory... concerned more with questioning and challenging ideas through humor and satire taken to an absurd extreme than it is with character development.


Now here I must clarify what point you are making. Are you suggesting that for a work of literature to be truly "great" it must be masterful upon all accounts? I would have to question this. Every work of literature does not have the same goals. Hemingway is not a failure because his writing lacks the florid and baroque splendor of Proust's poetic language. It is meaningless to criticize Baudelaire's Fleurs du mal as a result of its rigorous form which lacks the freedom of Whitman's Leaves of Grass. Shakespeare himself is not a master of every possible element that makes up writing, Hell, most of his plots are variations derived from pre-existing sources. A work of art succeeds or fails upon its own terms based upon the intentions... not against some abstract check-list of essential elements of reading. You suggest that you recognize Moby Dick's strong symbolism, yet feel that alone does not overcome its thematic relevance to you as a reader. One might ask what makes a work of literature relevant? Must it reinforce your own beliefs, thoughts, and prejudices...? Or might it achieve something more?

Again... and it may seem little more than semantics... what I am suggesting is that when you put your opinion of a work of literature in objective terms... as a statement of fact... it opens you up to being challenged. When you make such blanket statements as "Candide was terribly written" or "Moby Dick was boring"... especially without offering some examples or proof of your opinion... it strikes many as not far from declarations such as "Mozart sucks!" made by some pimply-faced teenager.:wave:



Certainly I do not pertain to say that the opinions of critics are frivolous and trivial. Oh Heavens no. I mean to say that my opinions of many heralded "classics" should not be disregarded, as were demonstrated by earlier posts (excluding yours) merely because they come into conflict with those of professional literary critics. When the cause of disagreement with my opinions stem from the fact that I disagree with literary critics, that is when I attack the merit of critics. After all, their opinions are not law. So when I'm defying the "status quo" of literature and being insulted or otherwise scoffed at (once again, excluding yourself) for disagreeing with literary pondits, that's when I question their merit.

About Candide; surely I knew of that, as I had done background research of both the origins of the novel and author prior to reading Candide, Moby Dick, and the others listed. So I knew what to expect. Yet Pride and Prejudice was also a satire of the author's surroundings and society, yet it featured better developed characters, themes, and symbols. Stating that Candide was a satire cannot fully justify the terrible character development.

Great novels don't have to excel in every category of the literary conventions referenced to in other users' posts; yet they still need to be sufficient in other categories. I'm not saying Hemingway's writing is insufficient because it lacks colorful language and pages of description; not at all. I evaluate novels on a basis of relatively objective standards: character development, strength and relevance of both symbols and themes, plot development, and strenght of structure. (Yes, they are subjective in that I derive an influence as a reader, yet they are objective in that a work must not be "enjoyable" to be "well-written.")Florid diction, as you reference to, only serves to improve my vocabulary; it neither aids nor deters from my evaluations.

That being said, I analyze every book I read. I felt that 1-5, but the 2-5 in question, were either lacking in most categories, or strong in one but weak in others. Candide was successful in 0 parameters. Pride and Prejudice was only strong in plot development, yet even the plot was predictable and unoriginal. Moby Dick had beautiful symbolism but lacked in other categories. While each novel must not be masterful in each category, you surely cannot expect me to say Moby Dick was brilliant if only one component of a novel's total package is well written while the others are uneven.

And as to the themes, they must not be opinions that augment beliefs I already hold. Surely, the theme can reveal me to paradigms on subjects I have not yet experience; in some works (Mere Christianity, Slaughter-House 5) I expect it to. The themes don't have to reinforce my beliefs, as that biases my evaluation of novels. Rather, they have to be strong themes; themes that are reinforced and seem applicable to common-day life, or life itself. While that may differ from yours, or anyone else's perspective of what a theme should be, that's where my disagreement in thematic strength comes in.

[Jozanny]

luke, Rand is certainly a polemicist, but she can offer the reader a powerful mission statement, despite that her characters become mere mouthpieces.

African Love, I get a bit weary with the oppressed people syndrome going after Caucasian authors in their time who tried to deal with *difference*. As it was once pointed out in another thread, Achebe himself is an Anglophone. Is Huckleberry Finn racist? No, because the reality of the South at that time was worse than what comes out of Twain's pen in the guise of a boy tough rascal.

Twain spent seven years on this novel; it is a satiric masterpiece that exposes Southern culture as so much deadwood, and Jim is actually one of the most morally centered characters in the book. In the same vein, Conrad has the courage to raise his voice and ask if colonialism is worth what it was doing to the Western soul. It is unfair to expect Conrad to create Sidney Poitier in an era when the British Enpire still ruled most of the known world. It took great courage just to publish Heart of Darkness as a text.

If I had a chip on my shoulder about how the disabled were portrayed by 18th and 19th century writers, that tunnel vision would hinder me from getting at certain levels of interpretation. Achebe is unfair in his level of expectation and laying on the guilt. Africa and Europe have clashed and interacted since Carthage very nearly destroyed the city of Rome, and human rights were few for a very long time, human existence was brutal, and I refuse to erase that history just because 1860 to 1960 plus saw a surge of progressive liberalism.

[Modest Proposal]

It's funny this debate seems to happen very often among people of verying levels of literary education and interest. This is not to say that one is better than the other as people have different aptitudes and interests.

Anyway, I have taken the stance for the last several years that iconoclasm is not something with which one should triffle. Not that there is no place for it, but that it is something we should approach with the grace and maybe even a little humbleness. If something has lasted centuries in high esteem, rather than accept the first judgements that pop into our heads, we might first ask ourselves why it has recieved so much praise. Surely there is a level of emperor's clothing that exists in any field, but then there are MANY people who have too much common sense/dignity to succumb to this.

What I suggest is read a little criticism by people you respect about a work before you dismiss it. Maybe the reverse is not true, you don't need to rethink something you like--though there are times I've done this out of principle--. But to say that we didn't like "Hamlet", and that it is thus not good is just rediculous. One of the reasons literature as a field outside of writing exists is to point out what is worth reading and what is worthwhile in it. Surely, this should carry some weight into our criticism.

[OrphanPip]

Twain spent seven years on this novel; it is a satiric masterpiece that exposes Southern culture as so much deadwood, and Jim is actually one of the most morally centered characters in the book. In the same vein, Conrad has the courage to raise his voice and ask if colonialism is worth what it was doing to the Western soul. It is unfair to expect Conrad to create Sidney Poitier in an era when the British Enpire still ruled most of the known world. It took great courage just to publish Heart of Darkness as a text.


That isn't really what Achebe is criticizing Conrad for though. Heart of Darkness seems to project a position that the English Empire is sullying itself through colonialism by reducing itself to the savagery of the Africans themselves. At least Twain humanizes his African characters. All we get out of Conrad are disease black bodies, dogs imitating people, and at best, with the "wild woman", a noble savage.

Edit: Besides the fact that the book takes place in a Belgian colony. It should rather be Europeans instead of the English.

Edit2: I'd like to add that I do think Heart of Darkness is worth reading and is a very well written novella. I just agree that it is very much racist and we should be aware of that when reading it. It's all fine and good to discuss the symbolic use of darkness and savagery, while distancing ourselves from the fact that these are also representations of a real group of people.

[Telemann]

Congratulations, he had a literary achievement. I'm trying my best not to scoff at your opinion, but is his rampant success with Moby Dick supposed to change my opinion? I read the book twice, hoping the 2nd time would reveal some thematic or symbolic brilliance: I found little. The book featured bright moments, sure, but all books do. I felt it just had little impact on me. Is that a crime?

No, it isn't a crime for it to have had little impact on you. The book, however, was NOT a success when he first published. Not only was it not a success, it was an absolute flop in terms of popularity. It took years of scholarly opinion and work for Moby Dick to achieve the stature it now enjoys.

Ironically, I find Herman Melville's style of writing far more enjoyable than most American author's.

[DanielBenoit]

From what I've found, the whole source of this argument can be traced back to here:



Pride and Prejudice had to spice to the plot, and Heart of Darkness was just terrible.


Candide was terribly written. Heart of Darkness had 0 impact on me as a reader who looked forward to reading that novel. Pride and Prejudice lacked any meaning to me as a reader, the plot was terribly predictable, and there was no thematic relevance to me as a reader. Moby Dick, while brilliant in some parts, just proved too tedious. I read that twice.



Candide was just slop. Pride and Prejudice was flat.


And is resolved about here:



If I say "I don't like Milton." This is a statement of personal opinion... and pretty much unchallengeable. If, on the other hand, you state, "Candide was terribly written" you have made a clear value judgment... a value judgment that is just as plainly stated as fact as the opposing opinion. This is what opens your opinion up to being challenged or questioned.


Everything inbetween has been endless ramblings about elitism and textual criticism. I too contributed to the mess by bringing up my own brand of relativism in answer to IceT's criticisms. In truth, this entire debate has fired off over a slight but significant misuse/abuse of words and percpective. That's all :)

[Jozanny]

Orphan, if I can find my old paperback with my course notes I will make a thread one day in the author's list and would welcome the debate, but let me leave you with this thought: *The Lie* that Kurtz equates with the realization of the "horror" actually indicts the unnamed woman in the book who is waiting for him back home.

Something to think about. I am not saying Marlow is a saint, or even that Conrad saw things as clearly as he should, but I think the novel is more subversive than finger-pointing allows to its credit.

[stlukesguild]

About Candide; surely I knew of that, as I had done background research of both the origins of the novel and author prior to reading Candide, Moby Dick, and the others listed. So I knew what to expect. Yet Pride and Prejudice was also a satire of the author's surroundings and society, yet it featured better developed characters, themes, and symbols. Stating that Candide was a satire cannot fully justify the terrible character development.

What I am saying is that Candide is not an example of terrible character development. The author makes no real effort to develop the characters because this is not an issue that is at all relevant to his intentions. Kafka makes no attempt at character development. Neither does Borges, Poe, or many other writers. On the other hand, character development is central to Shakespeare, Dickens, Proust, Twain, and Cervantes who make every effort to create memorable characters. Seriously, I am not proclaiming Candide as one of the most brilliant books ever written. I far prefer Swift for satire in a similar vein... albeit I must admit that I am limited to responding to Voltaire's book in translation.

Great novels don't have to excel in every category of the literary conventions referenced to in other users' posts; yet they still need to be sufficient in other categories. I'm not saying Hemingway's writing is insufficient because it lacks colorful language and pages of description; not at all. I evaluate novels on a basis of relatively objective standards: character development, strength and relevance of both symbols and themes, plot development, and strenght of structure.

Again... this assumes that there are elements that are universal to every book. Yet elements such as character development and setting/atmosphere are largely missing from J.L. Borges, while Proust is all about atmosphere, setting, every last little detail... and yet there is very little plot or action in
the traditional sense of things. By way of analogy it would be ridiculous when judging a work of art to criticize a print by Albrecht Durer for its lack of color or a painting by Picasso (or Jackson Pollack) for anatomical inaccuracies.

This also brings us to the fact that there are other literary forms beyond the novel... and where the intentions of Hemingway may differ from those of Proust we find an even greater challenge to the notion of some set criteria for "good" literature when we consider poetry, drama, essays, histories, criticism, biography, etc... any one of which can be just as much a work of literature... and involve just as much invention (and even fiction) as any novel.

That being said, I analyze every book I read... While each novel must not be masterful in each category, you surely cannot expect me to say Moby Dick was brilliant if only one component of a novel's total package is well written while the others are uneven.

I don't think that I quite analyze every book I read... not consciously. But then again I have done enough of that in the past that I don't always feel the need. My primary motivation is pleasure... of course there is a certain pleasure to be derived from work that is challenging... that pushes the reader beyond his or her comfort zone and expectations.

If I were to offer my judgment upon Moby Dick, to choose but a single book or the several discussed, I would freely admit that it is not the perfect, flawless novel such as Madame Bovary, The Great Gatsby, or Lolita. It is a great sprawling and certainly flawed behemoth (intentional choice of words:D) not unlike Don Quixote or War and Peace. Like these works, Moby Dick rises above its numerous flaws simply upon the basis of its overwhelming strengths. The plot itself is quite unique, although it certainly is based upon an archetype... with the tale of a great struggle that ends in tragedy told by a sole survivor. The multitude of digressions dealing with the history of whaling might be seen as distracting and disruptive of the flow of the narrative... but then again they create a sort of tension with the constant build up and then break. They also establish the practical purpose behind this obsessive drive of the whalers... and one quite removed from the obsessions of Ahab. The characters are certainly well-developed... in spite of the fact that each also has a certain symbolic purpose. Ahab is not easily forgotten. The language shifts equally from the dramatic conveyance of the narrative to the cool, objective descriptions of whaling and ships, to the visionary... almost Biblical/Shakespearean poetic passages. This contrast, like that of the shifting narrative, further paints an image of a ship of fools with greatly conflicting purposes and objectives: those who see this journey as but business of catching and cutting up whales for profit... and the monomaniacal Ahab raging against God and nature. On the symbolic level I agree with JoZ that the work is almost unrivaled as THE American epic (and perhaps only challenged by Leaves of Grass and Emerson's Essays in terms of influence upon American literature and even an American myth). It is, as JoZ suggests, a clashing of a vigorous Old Testment Protestant order with a romantic rebellion against God. It is also perhaps one of the most brilliant expressions of rage against human powerlessness before nature and the supernatural since Job. It absolutely shatters the Romantic notions of a benign nature embraced by many European poets who never stood before the absolute untamed landscapes of the "new world". Add to this all the absolute brilliant passages of visionary power and rage worthy of Milton's Satan spitting forth from the bowels of hell:

"Oh! thou clear spirit of clear fire, whom on these seas I as Persian once did worship, till in the sacramental act so burned by thee, that to this hour I bear the scar; I now know thee, thou clear spirit, and I now know that thy right worship is defiance. To neither love nor reverence wilt thou be kind; and e'en for hate thou canst but kill; and all are killed. No fearless fool now fronts thee."

Sudden, repeated flshes of lightning; the nine flames leap length-wise to thrice their previous height; Ahah, with the rest, closes his eyes, his right hand pressed hard upon them.

"I own thy speechless, placeless power; but to the last gasp of my earthquake life will dispute its unconditional, unintegral mastery in me. In the midst of the personified impersonal, a personality stands here. Though but a point at best; whencesoe'er I came; wheresoe'er I go; yet while I earthly live, the queenly personality lives in me, and feels her royal rights. But war is pain, and hate is woe. Come in thy lowest form of love, and I will kneel and kiss thee; but at thy highest, come as mere supernal power; and though thou launchest navies of full-freighted worlds, there's that in here that still remains indifferent. Oh, thou clear spirit, of thy fire thou madest me, and like a true child of fire, I breathe it back to thee.

[Sudden, repeated flashes of lightning; the nine flames leap lengthwise to thrice their previous height; Ahab, with the rest, closes his eyes, his right hand pressed hard upon them.]

I own thy speechless, placeless power; said I not so? Nor was it wrung from me; nor do I now drop these links. Thou canst blind; but I can then grope. Thou canst consume; but I can then be ashes. Take the homage of these poor eyes, and shutter-hands. I would not take it. The lightning flashes through my skull; mine eye-balls ache and ache; my whole beaten brain seems as beheaded, and rolling on some stunning ground. Oh, oh! Yet blindfold, yet will I talk to thee. Light though thou be, thou leapest out of darkness; but I am darkness leaping out of light, leaping out of thee! The javelins cease; open eyes; see, or not? There burn the flames! Oh, thou magnanimous! now do I glory in my genealogy. But thou art but my fiery father; my sweet mother, I know not. Oh, cruel! what hast thou done with her? There lies my puzzle; but thine is greater. Thou knowest not how came ye, hence callest thyself unbegotten; certainly knowest not thy beginning, hence callest thyself unbegun. I know that of me, which thou knowest not of thyself, oh, thou omnipotent. There is some unsuffusing thing beyond thee, thou clear spirit, to whom all thy eternity is but time, all thy creativeness mechanical. Through thee, thy flaming self, my scorched eyes do dimly see it. Oh, thou foundling fire, thou hermit immemorial, thou too hast thy incommunicable riddle, thy unparticipated grief. Here again with haughty agony, i read my sire. leap! leap up, and lick the sky! I leap with thee; I burn with thee; would fain be welded with thee; defyingly I worship thee!"

Job, Milton's Satan, Tennyson's "Who trusted God was love indeed/ And love Creation's final law/Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw/With ravine, shriek'd against his creed," Faulkner, McCarthy's Blood Meridian, even Spielberg's Jaws are all wrapped up in this magnificent passage which is almost worth the entire book in itself.

Heart of Darkness seems to project a position that the English Empire is sullying itself through colonialism by reducing itself to the savagery of the Africans themselves. At least Twain humanizes his African characters. All we get out of Conrad are disease black bodies, dogs imitating people, and at best, with the "wild woman", a noble savage. I do think Heart of Darkness is worth reading and is a very well written novella. I just agree that it is very much racist and we should be aware of that when reading it.

What we need to recognize when reading any work of literature is that we do not need to agree with everything that is being expressed for us to acknowledge that the work in question is still great art. I pretty much disagree with every last thing that Plato has to say in the Republic... but it is undoubtedly a brilliant and essential bit of writing. The notion that a work of art needs to reinforce our own beliefs, experiences, ideas, and even prejudices is a sorry bit of PC thinking that ignores the possibility that other cultures (past and future) most definitely would find just as many moral flaws in our culture and our art. I, for one, would rather have individuals... including writers... air their thoughts out in the open, than put forth a false face and mouth the part line. It also ignores what Anna Quindlen recognized as an essential value of books: "Books are the means to immortality: Plato lives forever, as do Dickens, and Dr. Seuss, Soames Forsyte, Jo March, Scrooge, Anna Karenina, and Vronsky. Over and over again Heathcliffe wanders the moor searching for his Cathy. Over and over again Ahab fights the whale.Through them we experience other times, other places, other lives. We manage to become much more than our own selves. The only dead are those who grow sere and shriveled within, unable to step outside their own lives and into those of others. Ignorance is death. A closed mind is a catafalque."

[sixsmith]

Anyway, I have taken the stance for the last several years that iconoclasm is not something with which one should triffle. Not that there is no place for it, but that it is something we should approach with the grace and maybe even a little humbleness. If something has lasted centuries in high esteem, rather than accept the first judgements that pop into our heads, we might first ask ourselves why it has recieved so much praise. Surely there is a level of emperor's clothing that exists in any field, but then there are MANY people who have too much common sense/dignity to succumb to this.



Good sense on display here Modest. There is, i believe, a tendency to make bold declarations which reflect superficial reactions to a work. I've been guilty of it myself. Dismissing a work like 'Moby Dick' requires some serious and considered analysis. Naturally, the on-line forum lends itself to the off-hand repudiation so perhaps one shouldn't be too harsh. But i think you open yourself up to suspicion and attack if your appraisal of a major work is overly simplistic.

This discussion again highlights the debate surrounding the subjectivity of opinion regarding the critical assessment of literature (or art more generally). I emphatically endorse the following:


And while we're on this topic perhaps we should confront the issue of just who these "experts" are. It is easy to dismiss the "experts" as elitist snobs. It plays well with our democratic and egalitarian notions (of course all art it elitist... The reality is that the "experts"... those whose opinions count the most with regard to literature are those who have invested the greatest effort into the study and appreciation of literature. This certainly includes academics, professionals, critics, and the like... but it also includes the passionate "common reader".

[Jozanny]

Orphan, while I do not necessarily agree with your synopsis of Conrad's message in THOD, what I was referring to earlier was not the setting of the book, but the fact that Conrad nearly couldn't get it published, and was forced to make changes so that the original publishing house would take a chance on it at all. If African Love had given me some indication that she knew how much Conrad struggled to reach an audience, then maybe I would be less inclined to jump so vigorously to his defense. He was not a Polish version of Charles Dickens, and indeed, needed significant encouragement by the likes of Henry James just to keep writing.

This is what college courses are for people. The old adage of look before you leap applies. In the context of Conrad's era, the post-colonial Achebe is applying 1960's liberalism to a work of fiction when that liberalism did not and could not exist. The terms of debate were far different in 1914 than they were later in the century, but Achebe in some degree probably owes his culture and education to the unraveling of *Empire*--which had its roots in the warnings of Kipling, and Conrad's brooding.

[Etienne]

About Candide; surely I knew of that, as I had done background research of both the origins of the novel and author prior to reading Candide, Moby Dick, and the others listed. So I knew what to expect. Yet Pride and Prejudice was also a satire of the author's surroundings and society, yet it featured better developed characters, themes, and symbols. Stating that Candide was a satire cannot fully justify the terrible character development.

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

Character development... :brickwall

[glover7]

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

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


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

Elitism centers on exclusivity. The problem is not that people sneer at intelligence; they sneer at intellectualism, which is the sense of entitlement that people hold from believing in their own superiority. You often find the same level of bullying with the self-named literati as you do with powerlifters in a gym.


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Character development... :brickwall

Did you mean one-dimensional? If IceM's singular criterion for enjoying a book is character development, then who are you to judge his opinion? Nobody is up in arms against literary critics who base works on other evaluative stances, so is everyone's poor opinion of IceM dictated by his relative inexperience in reading? You're being rather catty.

[juhuulian]

Out of curiosity, what books do you think are imaginitive and creative? Or not just empty?

I know this doesnt fit now, but books (stories) i find creative or show brilliancy of imagination:
-pretty much anything by Flann O'Brien (esp. The Third Policeman and The Best of Myles (a collection of newspaper articles)

-Picture of Dorien Grey (nothing like it has to my knowledge ever been done before and is therefor original and also creative)

-Animal Farm, 1984 (I dont think i need to explain those)

-Gullivers Travels (also a one in a million book)

-Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (allthough partly based on authers experience i thing it still counts as imaginative though maybe not completely as original)

There are afcourse many more but i would say these really show imagination and definately brilliancy.

[Modest Proposal]

I know this doesnt fit now, but books (stories) i find creative or show brilliancy of imagination:
-pretty much anything by Flann O'Brien (esp. The Third Policeman and The Best of Myles (a collection of newspaper articles)

-Picture of Dorien Grey (nothing like it has to my knowledge ever been done before and is therefor original and also creative)

-Animal Farm, 1984 (I dont think i need to explain those)

-Gullivers Travels (also a one in a million book)

-Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (allthough partly based on authers experience i thing it still counts as imaginative though maybe not completely as original)

There are afcourse many more but i would say these really show imagination and definately brilliancy.

I like most of the books you mentioned, though I haven't read Flann O'Brien or Hunter S. Thompson. From your list it seems when you say imaginative you mostly mean fantasy/sensationalism--not that this is bad or less than anything else, it just seems to be your taste. The only thing I wonder, is if you think that imagination is only measured in how far a work departs from reality? I think it takes quite an imagination to make the kind of full rounded characters in the books you say lacked it. Similarly, I think imagination is required for the many and beautiful poetic passages in most cannonical writers. Really, I guess I just don't think imagination is relegated to fantasy or zaniness, I adhere more to the idea propsed by Samuel Coleridge. You might give it a look.

[billl]

Orphan, while I do not necessarily agree with your synopsis of Conrad's message in THOD, what I was referring to earlier was not the setting of the book, but the fact that Conrad nearly couldn't get it published, and was forced to make changes so that the original publishing house would take a chance on it at all. If African Love had given me some indication that she knew how much Conrad struggled to reach an audience, then maybe I would be less inclined to jump so vigorously to his defense. He was not a Polish version of Charles Dickens, and indeed, needed significant encouragement by the likes of Henry James just to keep writing.

This is what college courses are for people. The old adage of look before you leap applies. In the context of Conrad's era, the post-colonial Achebe is applying 1960's liberalism to a work of fiction when that liberalism did not and could not exist. The terms of debate were far different in 1914 than they were later in the century, but Achebe in some degree probably owes his culture and education to the unraveling of *Empire*--which had its roots in the warnings of Kipling, and Conrad's brooding.

I think Achebe would most be likely applying his view of the humans that were native to the Congo, not necessarily responding according to some liberal consensus. I don't think it is fair to lump him in with 1960's liberalism (although that might be a good place to lump some of his strident white supporters in North American and European academia, I guess), just as I don't think the people of Africa should have been expected to view things from the colonialists' perspective in 1914. It is of course important to realize Conrad's context, and that any racism in his book would most likely be due to the times, and not any particular conscious unique-to-him inclination on his part. But it doesn't mean that an African reader today or back then should just shrug it off and turn a blind eye. The racism in the book would probably be the most relevant social-historical aspect to an African, moreso than the colonialists' concerns about doing harm to their own interests, as relevant as that might be as well.

Despite the fact that Conrad might be most consciously interested in critiquing this or that facet of the colonialists, I think OrphanPip is pretty good describing the situation here:



Edit2: I'd like to add that I do think Heart of Darkness is worth reading and is a very well written novella. I just agree that it is very much racist and we should be aware of that when reading it. It's all fine and good to discuss the symbolic use of darkness and savagery, while distancing ourselves from the fact that these are also representations of a real group of people.

Also, I think you may have African_Love confused with someone else, unless you've been referring to some posts in another thread that might be getting mixed in the discussion or something.

[juhuulian]

To "Modest Proposal":
I would argue that to concieve a believable character you need writerly talent/skill. However I believe that the kind of people in say North and South are all the typical people of that time and therefor ( even though skill is needed no imagination is required). Although what you say is in a way true i think there is a definition issue here between imagination and writerly skill. This is only my own opinion of course but i believe that a person with imagination can be a bad writer and a good writer (like gaskell or austin) can have little imagination (or at least they dont show it). And yes...for me imagination is departing from reality and thinking of things that are unorthodox/ out of the ordinary. This is however not the case (i believe) in austin or gaskell (just to use 2 examples i have actually studied). This does not mean they are bad books (some people dont like this sansationalism) but to me its just boring, also the story lines are quite unimaginative (in my sense of the word) and repetitional but then again many people might like that.
Like everything its all about taste and ours just happens to differ (immensely as i see by youre name) :)

[IceM]

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


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

Character development... :brickwall

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

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

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

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

[stlukesguild]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rimbaud]

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

[Etienne]

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

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

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

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

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

[stlukesguild]

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

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

[IceM]

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

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

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

[Etienne]

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

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

[Jozanny]

bill,

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

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

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

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

[billl]

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

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

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

[glover7]

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

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



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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

[Jozanny]

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

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

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

[stlukesguild]

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

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

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

[sixsmith]

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

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


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

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

[Red-Headed]

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


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

[glover7]

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

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

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

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

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

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please keep in mind that we are here to discuss the ideas, not each other.

Posts containing personal comments will be removed without any further notice.

[Desolation]

Hmmm, this argument looks startlingly familiar...

Candide is one of my top 10 favorites, but everyone has their own opinions.

Now, just for fun, here are 5 books that I don't think that anyone should read:
1. The Bible, sorry stluke, it might have a lot of literary merit, but it also has incredibly bad results when people start to really grasp onto it, especially when it's stories and metaphors are taken literally. The Qur'an has similar problems. If we could get to a point where these books can be studied and appreciated without them becoming dogma, then that would be different.
2. The Twilight Saga
3. The Book of Mormon
4. Atlas Shrugged
5. Anything by L. Ron Hubbard

[Red-Headed]

Hmmm, this argument looks startlingly familiar...

Candide is one of my top 10 favorites, but everyone has their own opinions.

I think I may have to learn French & read it in its original. A friend of mine similarly hates Camus' La Peste even though he read it in French. I have only ever read it in translation & quite liked it. Humour is often cultural & doesn't always translate.



1. The Bible, sorry stluke, it might have a lot of literary merit, but it also has incredibly bad results when people start to really grasp onto it, especially when it's stories and metaphors are taken literally. The Qur'an has similar problems. If we could get to a point where these books can be studied and appreciated without them becoming dogma, then that would be different.


Yes, tendentious dogmatism has a lot to answer for. I'm not religious (well, maybe a bit Zen at times) but I would like to point out that the letters of Paul did influence the development of early English epistolary novels like Richardson's Pamela & Clarissa.

[Noisms]

1. The Bible, sorry stluke, it might have a lot of literary merit, but it also has incredibly bad results when people start to really grasp onto it, especially when it's stories and metaphors are taken literally. The Qur'an has similar problems. If we could get to a point where these books can be studied and appreciated without them becoming dogma, then that would be different.


I'm not a Christian, but the Bible and its contents are a cornerstone of Western civilisation. It's probably the most important single book ever written (or collated). Disagree with it if you like, but I think it's a little perverse to argue that nobody should read it.

To make a not-very-good analogy, I also wouldn't say that people shouldn't read Mein Kampf. (Not that I'm comparing the Bible to that work.) It's an odious and idiotic screed but a work of profound influence. That gives it historical interest if nothing else.

My 5 would be:

1. Amsterdam by Ian McEwan (sp?). Just a genuinely terrible and silly ending.
2. The Earthsea books. I like Le Guin, but those novels did nothing for me.
3. Any of the Malazan Book of the Fallen by Stephen Erikson (sp?). They're interminably long without pay-off, full of dislikable characters.
4. Finnegan's Wake. The emperor has no clothes.
5. Any of the Star Trek spinoff novels, especially the ones penned by William Shatner.

[Etienne]

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


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

When a French and an English discuss food, the English is bound to lose...

Come on, the only thing you can find to sneer at is eating frog legs, which, by the way, are delicious. Besides vinegar on chips is disgusting (actually many people do it here in Canada, but it's just disgusting, mayonnaise is the real deal, then you have ketchup and then salt, pepper and paprika). Whatever you order in England you'll always end up with a plate filled with brown stuff, of different shades. All food is brown in England...

Candide, you know, is like fruits, candies, pastries of all kinds of color, no brown dishes, no painting with a women walking in an alley bordered with trees, all shaded brown with perhaps a timorous dog. No, were talking about exhaltation, fun and colors here. :D

[MGK]

GOOD GOD

this thread is terrible! please, listen to NO advice given here whatsoever! ayn rand is in my opinion one of the greatest authors of all, especially her book "atlas shrugged".

PLEASE make the effort and define your own taste and opinion instead of adopting someone elses!

[Red-Headed]

My 5 would be:

1. Amsterdam by Ian McEwan (sp?). Just a genuinely terrible and silly ending.
2. The Earthsea books. I like Le Guin, but those novels did nothing for me.
3. Any of the Malazan Book of the Fallen by Stephen Erikson (sp?). They're interminably long without pay-off, full of dislikable characters.
4. Finnegan's Wake. The emperor has no clothes.
5. Any of the Star Trek spinoff novels, especially the ones penned by William Shatner.

I have never read any McEwan so I'll take your word for it. I thought the Earthsea books were juvenilia anyway, I haven't read any but I have read a few LeGuin novels. I do like her. I have heard that the Earthsea books were a very strong inspiration for the Harry Potter novels :eek: .

I admire Joyce for being able to pun in Hebrew & English at the same time in FW. I quite like it, it is hard work though. I suppose someone had to write it & it had to be Joyce. I am one of the few people on planet Earth who actually prefer it to Ulysses.

I used to love the Blish Star Trek ones when I was younger. As for anything written by Shatner...

Bill...step away from the word processor... :lol:


When a French and an English discuss food, the English is bound to lose...

Why do the French eat stale bread & jam for breakfast? I still prefer bacon, eggs & black pudding.


Come on, the only thing you can find to sneer at is eating frog legs, which, by the way, are delicious.

I can think of a lot more. I bet frog legs taste like chicken anyway.



Besides vinegar on chips is disgusting

*Faints* Blasphemy! :eek:


(actually many people do it here in Canada, but it's just disgusting, mayonnaise is the real deal, then you have ketchup and then salt, pepper and paprika).

What? No HP Sauce? I'd probably get bored with eating moose if I lived in Canada.


Whatever you order in England you'll always end up with a plate filled with brown stuff, of different shades. All food is brown in England...

Spent a long time in the UK have we? What about carrots then? OK, I admit Marmite & brown sauce are brown. It does kind of explain why it is called 'brown sauce' however.


Candide, you know, is like fruits, candies, pastries of all kinds of color, no brown dishes, no painting with a women walking in an alley bordered with trees, all shaded brown with perhaps a timorous dog. No, were talking about exhaltation, fun and colors here. :D

I'll take your word for it.

[Travis_R]

GOOD GOD

this thread is terrible! please, listen to NO advice given here whatsoever! ayn rand is in my opinion one of the greatest authors of all, especially her book "atlas shrugged".

PLEASE make the effort and define your own taste and opinion instead of adopting someone elses!

Buddy, are you on crack? Ayn Rand's prose and characters are terrible and her ideas hold almost no merit. That's not to say her novels shouldn't be read, but she is not "one of the greatest authors of all" as you proclaim.

As for books nobody should read, I would include Twilight on the list. I can't think of any other books right now, but I'm sure there's many.

[Red-Headed]

Well, if I've learned anything on LitNet recently it is to avoid books written by *Ayn Rand & some novels known as 'Twighlight'.

*I find her philosophy as a whole unpalatable, particularly her attitude to the utilitarian abomination knowns as laissez-faire capitalism.

[Etienne]

I can think of a lot more. I bet frog legs taste like chicken anyway.

Yes, yes, kind of.


What? No HP Sauce? I'd probably get bored with eating moose if I lived in Canada.

Actually, you'd probably like Quebec's poutine, chips with brown sauce and cheese.


Spent a long time in the UK have we? What about carrots then? OK, I admit Marmite & brown sauce are brown. It does kind of explain why it is called 'brown sauce' however.

Hey what do I know, they manage to make carrots and even tomatos brown!

But hey, good thing there's more to the UK than food (and high prices, damn pound) isn't it?

[Red-Headed]

Yes, yes, kind of.

I knew it! :D


Actually, you'd probably like Quebec's poutine, chips with brown sauce and cheese.

I'll try anything once. I even ate Canadian goose once. Never again, no one should have to eat goose, ever. Why are geese universally so bad tempered?


Hey what do I know, they manage to make carrots and even tomatos brown!

You must be getting snowblind or a moose has kicked you in the head.


But hey, good thing there's more to the UK than food (and high prices, damn pound) isn't it?

Yes, we have the Radio Times Christmas special. The real questions are why does Canada, a Commonwealth country, drive on the wrong side of the road & why don't you play cricket?

[Noisms]

GOOD GOD

this thread is terrible! please, listen to NO advice given here whatsoever! ayn rand is in my opinion one of the greatest authors of all, especially her book "atlas shrugged".

PLEASE make the effort and define your own taste and opinion instead of adopting someone elses!

I think it's difficult to dispute that Ayn Rand wasn't so much interested in writing novels as she was in making a political/philosophical point. That usually makes for poor fiction.

However, she is of course worth reading, because of her influence on the development of modern libertarianism. I find her books crushingly, absurdly dull and silly, but then again I could say the same about Plato. It doesn't make him any less important and the same goes for her.

[stlukesguild]

Why do the French eat stale bread & jam for breakfast? I still prefer bacon, eggs & black pudding.

I'll stick with the American stand-by: steak and eggs... preferably with Louisiana hot sauce.

no one should have to eat goose, ever.

You need to try it at a good Chinese restaurant. They hang it in a brick oven so that all the grease drips out. The end result is fabulous!

[Red-Headed]

Why do the French eat stale bread & jam for breakfast? I still prefer bacon, eggs & black pudding.

I'll stick with the American stand-by: steak and eggs... preferably with Louisiana hot sauce.

Steak for breakfast? Well, I kind of admire it in a way.

no one should have to eat goose, ever.


You need to try it at a good Chinese restaurant. They hang it in a brick oven so that all the grease drips out. The end result is fabulous!

My great-grandmother was Cantonese. There is a similar way to cook duck. I've been chased by too many geese to like them anyway. Only swans are more bad tempered & you can't even kill them as they are protected by the Crown. What the Queen wants with all of those swans I don't know. She can keep them!

[IceM]

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



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

Yeah, I realize the constraints my type of critique will bring about when I read literature. But I'm 16, and have only read major literature for 6 years. Relatively speaking, I'm a rookie. As I diverge from just heralded "classics" and start to dive into different types of authors, styles, and plot types, I'll be forced to adjust how I evaluate novels. So in this aspect, my forms of evaluation are not concrete. But literature is a lifelong experience. I shouldn't expect my forms of criticism to be determined already.

By no means am I saying to disregard Harold Bloom's work that I mentioned above. It would better serve others who are looking for book recommendations or synopses for many well-written novels. It just didn't suit what I had expected. Like I said, it was well-written, but not quite for me.

[billl]

dfloyd, I think that it might be worth pointing out that the post preceding yours wouldn't really deserve such criticism. In my opinion, anyhow. You were probably referring to others, but the timing seems unfortunate, perhaps especially so if there's any merit to what you're saying.

[OrphanPip]

bill,

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

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

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

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

I never implied that Conrad should be discarded. In fact, I said that he should be read and that Hear of Darkness is a good text. Moreover, I completely disagree with your interpretation of Achebe's criticism. I can appreciate that Achebe employs some ad hominem attacks and does display perhaps too much antagonism towards Conrad. However, I can't help but agree with Achebe that the African characters are thoroughly dehumanized. Should we be praising Conrad for merely making the observation that Africans shouldn't be treated like animals? I realize we can't blame him for not being far beyond his time, but central to Achebe's criticism is that much of the prejudiced images of Africa that appear in Conrad's work continue to be prominent in the western imagination. Just because Conrad's racism is forgivable within context doesn't mean we shouldn't address its implications.

[OrphanPip]

I still think Ayn Rand sucks.

[MGK]

I still think Ayn Rand sucks.

no problem, as its your opinion, as long as you've come to that conclusion by reading one of her books.

[Red-Headed]

I still think Ayn Rand sucks.

LOL ... There is a certain honesty in that statement. I respect your opinion. ;)

[dfloyd]

before the internet, before PCs, I thought Ayn Rand sucked, and I stll do.

[MGK]

before the internet, before PCs, I thought Ayn Rand sucked, and I stll do.


no problem, as its your opinion, as long as you've come to that conclusion by reading one of her books.

quotes are characters, you stupid forum

[Jozanny]

I never implied that Conrad should be discarded. In fact, I said that he should be read and that Hear of Darkness is a good text. Moreover, I completely disagree with your interpretation of Achebe's criticism. I can appreciate that Achebe employs some ad hominem attacks and does display perhaps too much antagonism towards Conrad. However, I can't help but agree with Achebe that the African characters are thoroughly dehumanized. Should we be praising Conrad for merely making the observation that Africans shouldn't be treated like animals? I realize we can't blame him for not being far beyond his time, but central to Achebe's criticism is that much of the prejudiced images of Africa that appear in Conrad's work continue to be prominent in the western imagination. Just because Conrad's racism is forgivable within context doesn't mean we shouldn't address its implications.

Orphan: I can respect your argument, but do not have time to address it this evening, and this is not the thread for it.

My displeasure, however, came from my concern over reactionary finger pointing (not that you are doing this) which tends to shut down mature debate. My professor made us study Conrad and Achebe side by side, and while I appreciated his sense of fair play, or even his sense of wry humor, it seems the two men are now forever joined at the hip, and I am not sure either Conrad or Achebe are served by the fusion of their opposing poles.

One day I may pick up on it in the author's list, but I have repeatedly read the novella, and I am not writing any papers on it. My mind is on other things.

[juhuulian]

I am genuinly mortified that no one has mentioned the most terrible, boring book of all:
The Phone book :)

[Red-Headed]

I am genuinly mortified that no one has mentioned the most terrible, boring book of all:
The Phone book :)

I think mathematical logarithmic table books beats the phone book. However both are more interesting & original than Dan Brown (& less predictable).

[Mathor]

1. Terry Goodkind books
2. Battlefield Earth
3. Atonement (terrible book adapted into an AMAZING movie)
4. Where The Red Fern Grows
5. The Giving Tree

you can have a successful and happy literary life and never ever try these books out.

[The Comedian]

5. The Giving Tree
you can have a successful and happy literary life and never ever try these books out.

Nice call Mathor -- if there is one book I hate reading to my kids, it's this one. The jerk in The Giving Tree needs to be hung by a tree that ain't so givin'. The last time I read it, I read it to my daughter who was four at the time. I was getting near the end and I start to cry. She looks at me, puzzled.

"Why are you crying?" she asks.

"Because he's so mean to this tree" I say.

"But the tree loves him" she says.

"Promise me you'll never, ever love anyone this way" I say (knowing she doesn't understand).

"What way?" she ask.

"You don't need to be a stump to anybody" I say.

"Keep reading" she says

So I do.

Man I hate that book. I mean -- what's the moral of that book?: the nature of "true love" perhaps. And what choices does it give us? That true love is either being a spineless chump (the tree) or a self-serving ******* (the kid) -- no kid needs to hear that. Hell, most adults don't need to hear that either. Just writing this makes me want to answer my daughter's question a different way. "Why am I crying"? -- I say "because this book shows you two ways to love and they're both wrong. The tree is no good and the boy is certainly no good. But I feel sad for both of them. But I know that I shouldn't. Or maybe I should. I don't know. But what ever it is, kid, this book shows you how not to love, but it seems like it's telling you that this is the way love goes. And it's wrong. It's just wrong."

There. That feels better.

[Modest Proposal]

Nice call Mathor -- if there is one book I hate reading to my kids, it's this one. The jerk in The Giving Tree needs to be hung by a tree that ain't so givin'. The last time I read it, I read it to my daughter who was four at the time. I was getting near the end and I start to cry. She looks at me, puzzled.

"Why are you crying?" she asks.

"Because he's so mean to this tree" I say.

"But the tree loves him" she says.

"Promise me you'll never, ever love anyone this way" I say (knowing she doesn't understand).

"What way?" she ask.

"You don't need to be a stump to anybody" I say.

"Keep reading" she says

So I do.

Man I hate that book. I mean -- what's the moral of that book?: the nature of "true love" perhaps. And what choices does it give us? That true love is either being a spineless chump (the tree) or a self-serving ******* (the kid) -- no kid needs to hear that. Hell, most adults don't need to hear that either. Just writing this makes me want to answer my daughter's question a different way. "Why am I crying"? -- I say "because this book shows you two ways to love and they're both wrong. The tree is no good and the boy is certainly no good. But I feel sad for both of them. But I know that I shouldn't. Or maybe I should. I don't know. But what ever it is, kid, this book shows you how not to love, but it seems like it's telling you that this is the way love goes. And it's wrong. It's just wrong."

There. That feels better.

I understand most of your complaint, but wonder if we are letting our frustration with the world's flaws cloud what might be the author's attempt at dealing with a spiritual concept. I think the issue is seeing the tree as an individual rather than an abstract.

Maybe this is how it is meant. The tree's joy doesn't come from standing on a hill, or holding out branches, or casting a shadow, but in enriching other lives. Now surely, the tree can be used--as we see so often in life--by those willing to take and take and take, but does this diminish the joy felt by the tree in giving of itself? I think the frustration is from an outside perspective, we see injustice and are galled by it. We imagine the indignation that the tree must feel at beind so perfectly self-less and still being asked for more. But I think the point is that above: that giving is exactly what the tree wants.

I think the issue comes when we try to apply this ideal to a flawed humanity. How can a person be like that? Should they even try? I think in some way, this is what Dostoevski was getting at in the Christic figure of "The Idiot."

So in the end, I think you are right to be wary of reading it to young ones. I don't want to encourage my own daughter to give herself up like that to one who will just use her. But I think the author is trying to get at something that is not neccessarily "wrong" as much as complicated and abstracted.

[Pryderi Agni]

I still think Ayn Rand sucks.

Well, power to your elbow for saying that! I happen to agree with ya!!

Besides that, I also think Austen's Pride and Prejudice deserves to be burned. A trashier book has never been written.

[Red-Headed]

Besides that, I also think Austen's Pride and Prejudice deserves to be burned. A trashier book has never been written.

I'm a bit reluctant to burn books, but I hear that it makes excellent ballast for ships.

I keep promising myself I will learn to love Jane Austen in time. It seems to be taking a bit longer than I expected...

[The Comedian]

I understand most of your complaint, but wonder if we are letting our frustration with the world's flaws cloud what might be the author's attempt at dealing with a spiritual concept. I think the issue is seeing the tree as an individual rather than an abstract.

Maybe this is how it is meant. The tree's joy doesn't come from standing on a hill, or holding out branches, or casting a shadow, but in enriching other lives. Now surely, the tree can be used--as we see so often in life--by those willing to take and take and take, but does this diminish the joy felt by the tree in giving of itself? I think the frustration is from an outside perspective, we see injustice and are galled by it. We imagine the indignation that the tree must feel at beind so perfectly self-less and still being asked for more. But I think the point is that above: that giving is exactly what the tree wants.

I think the issue comes when we try to apply this ideal to a flawed humanity. How can a person be like that? Should they even try? I think in some way, this is what Dostoevski was getting at in the Christic figure of "The Idiot."

So in the end, I think you are right to be wary of reading it to young ones. I don't want to encourage my own daughter to give herself up like that to one who will just use her. But I think the author is trying to get at something that is not neccessarily "wrong" as much as complicated and abstracted.

Compelling read Modest Proposal-- and I agree with most of it, all of it actually. You could even read book as a parable of Nature as beneficient provider.

The only part of your read that I'm wondering about is one part (I'm not sure where) in the book where after that ******* boy takes yet another thing from the tree, and Silverstein offers the reader the tree's usual refrain "and the tree was happy". Then he adds "but not really". That part makes me cry every time.

But that's a little trifle - I do think Silverstein was working with the idea of selflessness. Nevertheless, I still hate that book. It's good -- if it wasn't I wouldn't care as much -- but man. . . .it's rough.

[hack]

I read a book of matches that seemed, to me to have no salient point of view, and the Bible, although it started of with a bang and had some pretty good poetry somewhere near the middle, went a little L. Ron Hubbard on me at the end.

[changelingchild]

I've noticed that quite a few people on here dislike Jane Austen.
I'm a fan, but I won't try and convince you to like her.
Instead, I recommend you check out
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies or
Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters.
Both are very funny and much more exciting than the originals.
They also have hilarious illustrations.

[AuntShecky]

I'm going to have to "save" this thread because it is such a lively discussion packed with numerous and lively replies. Here, if I may, are some comments regarding the first page of replies I've managed to read so far:

--I would avoid any book by any politician of any persuasion if that book was written by anyone other than the politician himself or herself. In many cases such "autobiographies"[sic] "memoirs" haven'teven been read by the alleged author himself or herself.

--Additionally avoid books whose cover lists the "author's" name "with" someone else. Likewise, "as told to. . ."

--I wouldn't waste my time on books whose title is "The Five (whatever) You Meet in (wherever)," etc.

--Same with "novelizations" of films made directly from screenplays.

--and finally, in the movie masterpiece, Dinner at Eight (1933), there's a fabulous line of dialogue that's ahead of its time in that it's extremely Marshall McLuhanesque (remember him?): The sugar daddy-- played, I believe , by Wallace Berry-- tells his sweetie, Jean Harlow, that he's going to buy her a present. Jean replies, "Don't get me a book. I already got a book."

[Dinkleberry2010]

xxxxxxc

[bazarov]

LOL

Totally misread thread theme

1. The Old Man and The Sea
2. Grapes of Wrath

[Lumiere]

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Literary snobbery is one of the silliest sentiments on earth. Personally, I hated Twilight. I tossed it after 5 chapters. But why should I protest if someone else finds it enthralling and wonderful?

[Red-Headed]

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Literary snobbery is one of the silliest sentiments on earth. Personally, I hated Twilight. I tossed it after 5 chapters. But why should I protest if someone else finds it enthralling and wonderful?

I think it all comes down to personal taste. I like Lapsang Souchong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapsang_souchong) tea. I'm in a bit of a minority I believe.

[bouquin]

I have just finished reading THE BODY ARTIST (Don DeLillo) and would not recommend it to anyone. Same with John Banville's THE SEA and Anne Enright's THE GATHERING. Good thing they're only thin volumes.
Will get back to you for the remaining 2.

[Red-Headed]

I have just finished reading THE BODY ARTIST (Don DeLillo) and would not recommend it to anyone.

How does it compare to White Noise & Libra?

[lattywatty]

1. Twilight
2. The Great Gatsby *shudders*
3. On Chesil Beach

Can't say I hate any other books enough to list here.

[Scheherazade]

John Banville's THE SEA Oh, thanks for mentioning this!

[Sancho]

I think it all comes down to personal taste. I like Lapsang Souchong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapsang_souchong) tea. I'm in a bit of a minority I believe.

Yeah baby... Lapsang Souchong rocks! Tastes like a camping trip to me. I have to order it - it ain't big around here.

[Red-Headed]

Yeah baby... Lapsang Souchong rocks! Tastes like a camping trip to me. I have to order it - it ain't big around here.

It sells well in England, but it isn't as popular as Earl Grey & something diabolically horrible known as PG Tips (which may be a form of chemical warfare). I'm just grateful that Waitrose stock Twinnings Lapsang.

[Sancho]

Chemical warfare, good one.

Don’t you just love getting these threads off topic, veering off course, taking the road less traveled, departing the paved surface, bouncing into the rough, wandering aimlessly through cyberspace, and then waiting for the jackbooted authorities to step in and slap us back into line? I do.

Hmmm, yes, well, so anyway.

Most of the supermarkets around here (Publix, Kroger, and the ubiquitous Wal-Mart Super-Center) carry a few Twinings Teas and few herbal teas. I’ve seen Lapsang Souchong for sale in San Francisco, probably on account of the healthy Chinese population there - descendants of the guys who put the railroads in. Anyway, I think, the United States is mostly a Coffee-Country. They grow great coffee beans in Latin America and in Hawaii and ever since Sam Adams and his pals pitched a bunch of East-India-Company tea into Boston Harbor, it’s been considered somewhat un-American to drink the stuff.

[Red-Headed]

Don’t you just love getting these threads off topic, veering off course, taking the road less traveled, departing the paved surface, bouncing into the rough, wandering aimlessly through cyberspace, and then waiting for the jackbooted authorities to step in and slap us back into line? I do.

I can hear the jackboots now...


They grow great coffee beans in Latin America and in Hawaii and ever since Sam Adams and his pals pitched a bunch of East-India-Company tea into Boston Harbor, it’s been considered somewhat un-American to drink the stuff.

I think it may be considered un-English not to drink tea. Although I believe most of my fellow countrymen drink the aforementioned chemical warfare.

[Sancho]

Ah yes, clearly national pride is at stake in the coffee-or-tea decision. Oh crap, I live in Atlanta, so I’d better make it a coffee-tea-or-Coca-Cola decision.

I’ll worry about that tomorrow. Tonight it’s champagne, and the decision is: whether to go down to midtown and watch the peach drop, or to stay in and watch The Three Stooges marathon on AMC.

Woob-woob-woob-nyuk-nyuk-nyuk…I think I’m leaning towards the Stooges. I watched the Stooges down in Quito, Ecuador last year (Los Tres Idiotos) and, I’ve gotta tell ya, those guys are just as funny in Spanish as they are in English.

[ashley_bergman]

I though Dan Browns books were well thought out and incredibly well planned. I just finished The Lost Symbol, it was one of the best books I've ever read, he managed to make it fun but at the same time, everything was layed out in a way that it wasn't so easy it was boring but it was also a challenge at times for even an avid reader like myself to follow.

[Dinkleberry2010]

xxxxx

[Red-Headed]

This is a request: Please--I'm actually begging you--to get this thread back to where it belongs and to what it is about: Books that you think shouldn't be read because they are so badly written.

Ermm... OK, sorry. I read the first 20 or 30 pages of the Da Vinci Code & thought it was God-awfully terrible. Does that count?

[Sancho]

This is a request: Please--I'm actually begging you--to get this thread back to where it belongs and to what it is about: Books that you think shouldn't be read because they are so badly written.

Oh alright, but I think a list like this ought to be divided into genres. I mean, fans of The Hardy Boys mysteries would probably find Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason unreadable and vice versa.

[Dinkleberry2010]

I don't think this thread needs to be divided into genres. It goes without saying that Kant's work is not badly written, but neither is The Hardy Boys books. I read every one of the Hardy Boys books and not one of them is badly written.

[Sancho]

Well, that begs the question: What is good writing? Is it writing that follows grammatical rules? Perhaps it’s writing that follows the rules of logic. Maybe it’s writing that incorporates realistic dialog (Dan Brown gets a C-minus here). Is it writing that tackles a difficult or interesting or perplexing subject?

And who gets to decide? Maybe it’s the critics or the reading public or professors of literature or Strunk and White or Kate Turbian.

I don’t know but I think different kinds of writing may be akin to different kinds of intelligence: there’s diplomatic intelligence, mechanical intelligence, emotional intelligence, and more. There are people who can conceptualize abstract ideas and people who can not but I don’t that necessarily means one is smart and the other is not; they just have different types of intelligence. My family doctor could no more rebuild my car’s transmission than my mechanic could diagnose a difficult disease, but they’re both smart guys.

By the way, just in case there’s any question about my intelligence, I went with the Stooges marathon last night.

[Lynne50]

This may seem like a dumb question, but how can we concur on anyone's choices, if we don't read them first? That may be the appeal to some readers, to read and be able to pull apart the language. Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe English grammar teachers will enjoy a badly written story, to give them material for lesson plans.
Of course, that now brings up the question...Who ARE the literary gods that dictate good writing and bad writing? Isn't that what editors do? Someone reading a first draft of a story must think it's worth publishing, or why bother killing trees.

[stlukesguild]

Who ARE the literary gods that dictate good writing and bad writing? Isn't that what editors do? Someone reading a first draft of a story must think it's worth publishing...

Editors are far from being arbiters of good and bad writing. There are endless examples of rejection letters from editors to the greatest of writers and there's that recent experiment in which one of Jane Austen's novels (with title and names changed) was hawked around to editors who all rejected the book and only one of which actually recognized what the book was. Editors merely decide whether they think they can make money on a given work.

[englishstudent9]

teh bible

[Red-Headed]

De gustibus non est disputandum!


there's that recent experiment in which one of Jane Austen's novels (with title and names changed) was hawked around to editors who all rejected the book and only one of which actually recognized what the book was.

A/ I will bet good money that was in America.

B/ I don't blame them.

[Veho]

You would have thought that if they can't even recognise a Jane Austen novel, that they shouldn't be in the industry. Of course, not having read a Austen novel doesn't mean that they're incapable of recognising a publishable book when they read one, but surely if they're in the publishing/book field they would have come across one of the most popular authors of the 19th century.

[mortalterror]

A/ I will bet good money that was in America.
Great Britain.

B/ I don't blame them.
Neither do I. I hate Jane Austen with a passion her novels do not possess.

J.E. Luebering raised an excellent point in his article about the incident:

Should we be outraged that Austen suffered the indignity of rejection?

No. What these rejections show is that readers today don’t share the literary tastes of readers of the 1810s.
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/07/jane-austen-rejected/

[sixsmith]

.

J.E. Luebering raised an excellent point in his article about the incident:

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/07/jane-austen-rejected/

A similar hoax was perpetrated in Australia. The Australian newspaper sent the third chapter of Patrick White's 'The Eye of the Storm' (under the pseudonym Wraith Picket :rolleyes: ) to several publishers and agents. The novel was largely responsible for White receiving the 1973 Nobel. Anyhow, no one wanted a bar of it and The Australian's literary editor spent a good deal of time and print bemoaning the deplorable state of Australian publishing. The fact is, however, that White is a difficult writer, a slow burning modernist whose psychological narratives can test even the most seasoned reader. It would simply be a poor business decision for publishers in a commercial market to take him on in the 21st century.

[sixsmith]

How does it compare to White Noise & Libra?

Red,

It's smaller than 'White Noise' or 'Libra' both in size and scope: a localised meditation on grief and death. In truth, I wouldn't recommend to anyone not already possessing an affinity for De Lillo's work. But if you are a fan it's work checking out.

[Red-Headed]

Red,

It's smaller than 'White Noise' or 'Libra' both in size and scope: a localised meditation on grief and death. In truth, I wouldn't recommend to anyone not already possessing an affinity for De Lillo's work. But if you are a fan it's work checking out.

OK, thanks for the info.


Great Britain.

We have taste after all then!


Neither do I. I hate Jane Austen with a passion her novels do not possess.

I suppose you won't be interested in this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00phzvj)

Jane Austen collected songs all her life but many of them have only just come to light, in manuscripts inherited by one of her descendants. Jazz singer Gwyneth Herbert performs Austen's favourite songs, with new piano and clarinet accompaniment by David Owen Norris. At Austen's house in Chawton, Hampshire, scholars and biographers discuss how they cast a new light on one of our best-loved writers.

on Radio 4 then.

Don't get me wrong, I can admire her 18th century moralist borrowing of Fielding's dramatic presentation of action through dialogue scenes, her irony & emphasis on manners, her comedic conflicts between illusion & reality & her economy of writing. I just find her very very hard work. Maybe it's a bloke thing. :eek:

I'm pretty sure most Americans still think that the UK is like an Austen novel. I was only saying to my good friend Mr Sherlock Holmes the other day that it has never failed to amaze me that the Americans don't seem to realise that the British invented the electronic computer, radio, television, railways, the jet engine, the industrial revolution etc etc, plus we even live with the evils of 'socialised medicine' (what would Jane think?).

I think this Welsh bloke (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/AneurinBevanStatueCardiff20050707_KaihsuTai.jpg) had a lot to do with that ('evil' socialised medicine). I used to live near Cardiff & I have seen his statue. I admire Nye, I am a bit ambivalent about Austen. She was right about Birmingham though (Emma).

[mortalterror]

I suppose you won't be interested in this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00phzvj)
Not really. I feel roughly about Jazz the way I do about Jane Austen: It's a bunch of people playing music that sounds like they're dropping their instruments on the floor with a commitment to clear expression so oblique you have to crawl up inside of them to figure out what their song's really about.

[Red-Headed]

Not really. I feel roughly about Jazz the way I do about Jane Austen: It's a bunch of people playing music that sounds like they're dropping their instruments on the floor with a commitment to clear expression so oblique you have to crawl up inside of them to figure out what their song's really about.


I think we have very similar tastes, or should I say distastes!
Jazz fans look at me like I'm mad :eek: when I tell them that it just sounds like an unholy racket to me. De gustibus... right?

I listened to the program, there was no jazz on it (thank god) & it was about as interesting as reading an Austen novel. :as-sleep:

[Sancho]

Americans don't seem to realise that the British invented the electronic computer, radio, television, railways, the jet engine, the industrial revolution etc etc, plus we even live with the evils of 'socialised medicine' (what would Jane think?).



Oh yeah, well, we invented the Salad Shooter®.

Brilliant post Red. You know, over here we’re all pretty-much convinced that we invented democracy. Neither the Glorious Revolution nor the Scottish Enlightenment had anything to do with the creation our Declaration of Independence or our Constitution.

I’ve always had a warm spot in my heart for Jane Austen. My Mom (rest her soul) wrote her Master’s thesis on Austen when I was a toddler. And according to Mom, I pestered her relentlessly as she tried to write. Ain’t I a stinker?

I'm with you guys on Jazz. Well everything thing that came after Dixieland Jazz anyway. I've got a friend who calls it, "Wrong-note music."

[Red-Headed]

Oh yeah, well, we invented the Salad Shooter®.

Sounds brilliant! I think salads should be shot at regular intervals! The French are convinced the English exist purely on a diet of roast beef & mustard. Hence why they refer to us as 'Roast Beefs'. It's not true though, sometimes we have horse radish instead of mustard.


over here we’re all pretty-much convinced that we invented democracy.

I think some Greek fellas would probably disagree with you. Plato actually disliked democracy, still what did he know, wasn't he Mickey Mouse's dog?


I’ve always had a warm spot in my heart for Jane Austen.

Maybe she'll grow on me. I still say she was right about Birmingham (I am definitely going to get some stick from Brummies for this!)


I'm with you guys on Jazz. Well everything thing that came after Dixieland Jazz anyway. I've got a friend who calls it, "Wrong-note music."

I have quite a few adjectives for jazz as well...

[mortalterror]

De gustibus... right?
True, there is no disputing taste; but that is because taste is wrapped up in a person's concept of self-identity. One can refute facts, premises, or conclusions with a cool head, but delegitimizing one's sense of taste could be construed as an ad hominem attack. Which is not to suggest that it cannot be done, but must rather be done tactfully and by degrees. The careful analysis of aesthetics is one way that generations of humans have sought to work around this problem, by testing and rooting out incorrect assumptions wherever they may be. The ultimate goal of such an exercise inevitably results in a greater understanding of a text, and one's reaction to the text.

The value judgements "good" and "bad" are for most intents and purposes non-falsifiable. We give our reasons for believing a book so, and the more concrete they are, the more testable our assumptions become. For instance, I disliked reading Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice because I found it degrading to men. Austen reduced their worth to how much money they had, and made them the subjects of conquest by status climbing women.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.
Ironic or not, turn the genders around and "fortune" into whatever physical feature you desire, and the statement becomes pretty sexist.

P.S. Sorry about the rather dry explanation of things you no doubt already know. I've just spent the last hour pondering "What exactly is taste and why can't I dispute it?"

[Sancho]

I think some Greek fellas would probably disagree with you. Plato actually disliked democracy, still what did he know, wasn't he Mickey Mouse's dog?


Bah!

Plato-Pluto, Democracy-Republic, primogeniture-equality, what’s all the hub-bub?

Anyway, we’d better get back on topic before Jermac comes back in here and gets all riled up.

[wlz]

Tom Brown's School Days - a boring pile of sh##t! (And one which had to be studied.)
Anything by J. S. Foer.
Anything by Stephen King, (with the exception of 'On Writing' & Danse Macabre).
Anything by Dennis Wheatley.
Novelisations.

[Dinkleberry2010]

xxxxxx

[Red-Headed]

I disliked reading Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice because I found it degrading to men. Austen reduced their worth to how much money they had, and made them the subjects of conquest by status climbing women.

Ironic or not, turn the genders around and "fortune" into whatever physical feature you desire, and the statement becomes pretty sexist.


That's an excellent assessment of Austen, I must say I agree. Of course, women had little other means of social advancement in the early 19th century & 'marrying money' was one of their only viable options. However, I still like your analysis.


Anyway, we’d better get back on topic before Jermac comes back in here and gets all riled up.

I think I hear jackboots....:eek:

[Dinkleberry2010]

xxxxx

[L33trz]

Add the freaking Life Accoring to Garp to that list.

[Drkshadow03]

Who ARE the literary gods that dictate good writing and bad writing? Isn't that what editors do? Someone reading a first draft of a story must think it's worth publishing...

Editors are far from being arbiters of good and bad writing. There are endless examples of rejection letters from editors to the greatest of writers and there's that recent experiment in which one of Jane Austen's novels (with title and names changed) was hawked around to editors who all rejected the book and only one of which actually recognized what the book was. Editors merely decide whether they think they can make money on a given work.

I'm not sure there's a lot to be learned from experiments like this one. In fact, this really says nothing about editor's tastes. A single editor might have specifically mentioned that they realized it was Jane Austen's work, but that doesn't necessarily mean the others failed to notice since all we have is form rejections. Whether those editors did or did not know it was Austen's work is merely speculative.

Basically, I don't think it tells us anything other than it's very hard to get work accepted out of a slush pile where you're one manuscript out of thousands being read by lowly clerks, and most editors are so overworked that they often don't take the time to give personal rejections.

The problem, too, is I've seen too many people quote the Jane Austen experiment as an excuse for their genius not being recognized. "See, those editors won't publish me because they don't recognize how talent I am and only publish hacks." Meanwhile, nine times out of ten the wannabe writer saying this and quoting this experiment isn't getting published because they lack talent.

Using published works to prove editors have poor taste is a rather silly experiment. After all, some editor at some point published those works.

[Dinkleberry2010]

xxxxx

[bounty]

to WLZ a few posts above, 13 yrs after the fact, tom brown's schooldays is one of my all-time favorite books! but skip the first chapter, its terrible!

I don't remember if I posted here before. would be interesting to see how my lists compare if I did.

its presumptuous to say "nobody should read" but I can least say "vastly overrated books that suck that I wouldn't recommend to anyone."

1. moby dick
2. catcher in the rye
3. zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance
4. the accidental tourist
5. and in the meantime until I think of something else, mayyyyyyybe war and peace