Five Books Nobody Should Read

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceM

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceM

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.

---

Quote:

---

Candide was just slop. Pride and Prejudice was flat.

---

And is resolved about here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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 :)

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.

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Modest Proposal

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:

Quote:

---

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".

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceM

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Modest Proposal

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juhuulian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

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.

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) :)