The Worst Classics You Have Ever Read

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

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

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

1984 was torturous and a little too flagitious for me.

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Hill

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

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSDGreen

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

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

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

---

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

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

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

kerouac's on the road.
YAWN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolescent09

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

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

1. Catch-22

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cossack

Cantenbury Tales.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weltanschauung

kerouac's on the road.
YAWN.

---

Wash your mouth out.