It's like a piece of work that conveys only a message but no style.
Madame Bovary no style!? Its all style. The language is absolutely magnificent.
Printable View
It's like a piece of work that conveys only a message but no style.
Madame Bovary no style!? Its all style. The language is absolutely magnificent.
I agree even more stukes. Flaubert did an excellent masterpiece. Primarily for the stylistic precision and dispassionate rendering of psychological detail. He diligently researched his subjects and infused his works with psychological realism with the goal of achieving a prose style “as rhythmical as verse and as precise as the language of science.” That perhaps made Madam Bovary qualify as one of the World's most well-written work of art.:thumbs_upQuote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I couldn't stand Kate Chopin's The Awakening. I did manage to finish the book (thankfully it's short), and I can most certainly understand and appreciate the value that many see in it, but it just didn't connect to me.
I simply found little in the book that was relevant to my life, although it shouldn't be surprising that an 18-year-old male couldn't connect with a turn of the century feminist story. Overall, I didn't feel particularly connected or empathetic towards Edna (again, should be unsurprising) and felt that she was rather shallow in her actions and her motives for those actions than being a truly empowered individual. To me, it just felt like Chopin was skimming the surface of what could have been a much more powerful story, but didn't quite reach what she was aiming for.
Of course, I may be placing a more modern, extreme standard for "rebellion" on Edna than was truly reflective of society in her times (does that even make sense?). Regardless, The Awakening is a novel I don't intend to revisit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I am sorry, I did not mean no style in that sense.I acknowledge that literary it is a very good piece of prose, although I don't enjoy it even in that sense. Pardon me if my conception of style confused you.Quote:
Originally Posted by eyemaker
Style to me is not just the way a work it is written. Style to me does not signify words alone, poeticity... Style to me is what a writer uses to convey the message, how I, as a reader, understand what he has given me. Style is the ability of the writer to get in me, to slide in me through narrow passages... I call it style when I can not only grasp the meaning of goal of the author, but I can grasp it beautifully. Even if it's a horror story.
Maybe, as I said, I will have a different view when I grow up and re-read the book. For now, since even style is a private and personal conception, "Madame Bovary" remains one of my least favourite works of literature.
the one classic i cannot stand to read would have to be The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. i understand the impact it had during its time but throughout the book i found myself thinking "what is this?" and "when is it just going to end!". previously to it i read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, much like many other kids have done, and enjoyed it, however in Huckleberry Finn i began to loathe the character Tom Sawyer and, frankly, just wished he would die. the only character in there that i liked was jim and found, suprisingly, that he was the only smart one. i mean for god sakes it made no sense to me how tom could read so many books and yet be so stupid! i disliked it so much i refused to read, however i had to for my english class. i also found the majority of my class hated it as well.
Heart of Darkness and Lord Jim. I had to read those books for high school English, and I ended up forgetting every single word of them the second I finished reading them, they were just that boring. Plus, the guy in Heart of Darkness was supposed to become really evil and corrupt or something, right? Does it actually show that in the book? Because, honestly, I don't remember seeing anything like that. Of course, I don't even remember the basic plot.
I think the thing that's a problem with me is when they say a classic is the best example of say a love story ever, and I read it and either I don't see it at al,l or I see it, but it honestly doesn't seem that much more romantic or scary than any piece of contemporary fiction. I mean, I've read classics that I've liked, but it's never been like "Oh my God! The scales have fallen from my eyes! I now understand the true meaning of life. I'll never read commercial fiction again!" I think when you read a book that you know is a classic, that's the kind of reaction you expect to have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EPluribusUnus
Someone mentioned Austin Powers...sounds like one of his words!
Honestly, I had to look that one up on Dictionary.com. Love new words...
Sorry sometimes I'm in a hurry when I make my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
As far as "real" characters, we don't have servants per se, but we do have many, many people in service jobs. We don't have aristocracy, but we have rich neighbors, friends and family. I don't think the basic character of man and woman changes much over time, really.
Over the few pages of this thread that I read, I disagree with many choices: but, they are personal choices, so who am I to disagree with an opinion.
I love Anna Karenia, and several of Tolstoy's other works; but I didn't enjoy War and Peace. And, I know this is likely blasphemy for an english major to admit aloud, but I really, really, hate Joyce. Ulysses is the longest sentence in literature, as the old joke goes.
Great Gatsby, Cantenbury Tales.
cossack, I found The Great Gatsby a bit disappointing as well. Sure, it's the roaring twenties, but I still think the novel lacked some fundamental requirement for 'incredible novel'.
Oh, and I find Austen's and most of Bronte sisters' novels very tedious and frigid (perhaps Wuthering Heights not included). While I appreciate social observation, I'm still not at ease with some naive views (though understandable at the time).
Clarissa Something about a 1500 page book in letter form that I find undesirable.
epistolery form, and Clarissa was the longest novel in the English langugae for a fairly long time. It is probably worth reading if for no other reason than the way it affected the development of the novel and the fact that latere 18C and 19th C books often had referances to clarissa and lovelace.Quote:
Originally Posted by MSDGreen
And now I sound like a literary snob, Im really not. Its just while Richardson is rather hard to stomache I tend to find that by the end of struggling through one of his books you have learnt all sort of intresting little factoides.
letter form, while epistolary form covers a novel written entirely in letters I find the correction unnecessary. Plus I hate being corrected when my statement is fully understandable. Just a character flaw I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
The character developement was interesting in Clarissa, I thought this was a small redeeming factor. Maybe I was a bit harsh, but of all the novels I have read, Clarissa for most of it is very very dry.
The Castle of Otranto kind of fizzled for me. Redeemingly short, though.
kerouac's on the road.
YAWN.
Totally agree with you.. just finished Catch 22 and had to reopen this thread to let everyone know ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolescent09
1. The Jungle
2. Gulliver's Travels
3. Robinson Crusoe
4. Walden
The Canterbury Tales? But that's hilarious, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cossack
Wash your mouth out.Quote:
Originally Posted by weltanschauung
Don't know if this has been mentioned, but this whole "obscenity in the milk" business was Hemingway's way of getting around the censors and making it painfully obvious that he was being censored.Quote:
Originally Posted by EPluribusUnus
Old English novels are rather clumsily boring to me. I choose to read Russian and French classics and they are far better
i thought the count of monte cristo was very dull in general. the characters had little depth either. and was he selling his books by the word?
dull? :confused: Did you read an abridged version?
He published his books in newspapers per chapter. That, yes.
I cn't recall any shallow characterisation, though.
This was probably mentioned before: Dan Browns Da Vinci Code
Classic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lulim
well, I know I was dwelling on the importance of every book, still to me the worst is Marcise de Sade. In Russian his name sounds magically and I was enchanted by it only I didn't expect that his writing proved to be such vulgar.
Les Misérables.
david copperfield oliver twist and heart of darkness though I do like conrad lord jim and the secret agent were good.
I liked Heart of Darkness and Lord Jim but not The Secret Agent which I thought was abit silly, and that guy with the bomb ready to blow himself up all the time really irritated me, but then everyone gets something different out of each book I suppose.
What really put me off Conrad was when I found out how he treated his children in real life.
The 'classic' comedies have often been disappointing to me. I can think of 3 without racking my brains: Swing Hammer Swing by Jeff Torrington, The World According to Garp [can't recall author] and Travels in Nilihon by Alan Sillitoe all began brilliantly with inspired humour and the sense of an author really enjoying himself but they all seem to lose inspiration about halfway through and seemed to be a chore for the author to finish.
Heart of Darkness was miserable. I thought Candide was poorly written, and Walden was infuriatingly boring through most parts.
At least I finished Heart of Darkness though.
Ugh, Heart of Darkness is next on my list! :brickwall
cross it off then =)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nipponnay
well, I'd give u a piece of advise: don't judge the book basing on smb's opinions, read it yourself and then decide if it's worth reading, so in your place I wouldn't have been bothered)
Oh, excuse me. Of course that's not a classic. But one of the worst books I had the bad luck to come upon nevertheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I second IceMs comment on "Candide".
The worst classics I have ever read include "Pamela" by Samuel Richardson, "The Mysteries Of Udolpho" by Ann Radcliffe, James Joyce's "Finnegans Wake," and Hemingway's "Across The River And Into The Trees."
Okay, well classics that I haven't enjoyed...
1. The Sun Also Rises
2. Anna Karenina (Part 4 killed me!):sick:
3. Farenheit 451
4. Brave New World
5. Moby Dick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akeldama
Definately agree with that one it was kind of pointless...
Dickens
that is all
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinskeep
whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
I can't believe you don't like those 2. F451 is definitely either my favorite or second favorite novel. I have to read Animal Farm again to make my decision though.Quote:
Originally Posted by sinskeep
As far as worst classic I don't know. I haven't read that many classic, but I did stop reading Frankenstein because it got too boring.
Catcher in the rye (oh Please)
Far from the madding crowd (just dont care)
Charles Dicken's Great Expectations. It is one of the worst books ever and I just don't see why it is on list of the 100 books you need to read before you die.