The Worst Classics You Have Ever Read

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Sorry...Who knows, you might even like [A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man]!

---

***SPOILERS AHEAD***

You know, I didn't think it was so bad. I could have done with one or two fewer sermons in Chapter III, but oh well... I wasn't sure I would be too impressed, since he's kind of leading the reader to sympathize with his lapse into 'sin', his repentance and spiritual reawakening, and his eventual rejection of everything. It seems like a pretty unreasonable ambition for a writer, but I think his use of fear to guide Stephen into repentance - rather than, say, contriving some kind of divine inspiration - actually works rather well. I was pretty terrified myself after those endless descriptions of Hell...
I can understand people not liking it, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

I may have to change "shiftless layabout" to reflect that.

---

Ah, very good. :lol: I really can't stand John Irving, even though he is supposed to be a modern "classic" writer. Maybe I should change my user description to reflect that...:p

david copperfield
david copperfield
david copperfield

I want so badly to say Waiting for Godot, but...I'm really afraid there might indeed be something to it. Who knows.
I seem to be developing an interesting relationship with Mr. Beckett's works - I should like to call it "love/hate", but it really seems more often than not to lean towards the latter....

I read Waiting for Godot and I loved it because I found it hilarious. All seemed so nonsensical to me. Later, in college, we had to analyse it thoroughly, and now I see quotes, references, symbolisms and frail aspects of the human condition everywhere. Even though one usually must be wary of over-analysing literary works (check Nossa's thread), I'm now quite sure that everything in that play has a purpose, and nothing is written at random, contrary to what I had originally thought. Like when I first read T. S. Eliot. Modernist writers, pfui :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesian

I want so badly to say Waiting for Godot, but...I'm really afraid there might indeed be something to it. Who knows.
I seem to be developing an interesting relationship with Mr. Beckett's works - I should like to call it "love/hate", but it really seems more often than not to lean towards the latter....

---

I have a love/hate relationship with 'godot'. And have had for six years now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

I have a love/hate relationship with 'godot'. And have had for six years now.

---

This seems all-too understandable. Unfortunately, I'm feeling that way about all of the novels we looked at in class as well, except perhaps Murphy. They're all pretty funny, but at some point they all turn into something like this: "Well, actually no, what I just said is wrong. Why would I have said that? Why do I say anything? So that I don't have to afterwards. To speak in order to eliminate the need for speech. To reach silence." Plus another hundred pages or so...
Or, even better: "Forgive me if I omit some of the important stuff. It's bound to happen. It's isn't that I want to necessarily, but I do get a bit hung up on the trivialities. But then how can I call them trivialities? What do I know and as a matter of fact what the hell do you know about trivialities. Most presumptuous. Forgive me or don't forgive me, as if I could really give a damn." ... and on and on and on.....
I would probably enjoy it all a lot more, I suppose, if we weren't covering several works each day. Beckett and Joyce have got to be the two writers least compatible with the rigor of a condensed three-week seminar...:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesian

Beckett and Joyce have got to be the two writers least compatible with the rigor of a condensed three-week seminar...:(

---

I have just had a very similar experience myself; 1 hour on Beckett alone was nowhere near enough, but combined with Conrad and Orwell this was just too much :eek: So much for 'revision' seminars...

Definetely Jean Paul Sartre's trilogy. Also Gogol's Dead Souls (mainly because it was unfinished).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesian

I want so badly to say Waiting for Godot, but...I'm really afraid there might indeed be something to it.

---

I feel the same about the Stranger; I enjoyed only two scenes from the book.

I do love Waiting for Godit. I haven't analyzed it much, but I still enjoy the story. Great humor and I would love to see this performed by actors with chemistry and great comedic timing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickAdams

I feel the same about the Stranger; I enjoyed only two scenes from the book.

---

Ah, yes. *reminisces...not fondly*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motherhubbard

The Sound and the Furry - Faulkner is so gifted, I know, but he makes me feel like I need a shower. :sick:

---

It's thoroughly rancid and so one of my favorites.

I usually don't leave a book unfinished but I gave up reading Henry James' Turn of the Screw halfway through.


__________________
Bill
Ford Ka Brochure 2007 by Ford Motor Company Limited UK

I couldn't finish Fahrenheit 451 and sparknoted Dracula in high school. Kate Chopin's The Awakening wasn't good either, the same idea as Madame Bovary but much worse.

Catcher in the Rye was a phenomenal book, it isn't taught very well in school. Gatsby and Madame Bovary were excellent as well.

Chaucer's 'Troilus and Criseyde': unreadable, even in modern English translation. Pity, because I love much of his other stuff.

Thackeray's 'Vanity Fair': thoroughly nasty book, in which all the supposedly likable people, including Becky Sharp, are vile.

Proust's 'Remembrance of Things Past', in the early translation published under that title. Nothing ever happens, and it's described not-happening in unbelievably tedious detail, and ridiculously long and complex sentences, some as long as a very respectable paragraph, with clauses, sub-clauses, sub-sub-clauses, parentheses, parentheses within parentheses, and hell knows what else. Somehow, I made it to half-way through the second volume (of 12), before I gave up.

MDR, above, has just reminded me of 'Madame Bovary' (nasty) and 'The Awakening' (Bovary rip-off - nasty as well, and boring into the bargain).

'Jude the (deservedly) Obscure' by Hardy. Bored the arse off me. So did 'Return of the Native' and 'Far from the Madding Crowd'. I have not read, and will not read in the future on the strength of those three, any other Hardy novels. I quite like some of his poetry, though.

I really like Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde, but I did read it alongside Henrysons Testament of Cresseid which is pure brilliance.
I could never be bothered with Heart of Darkness. Didn't find it horrifying. Dracula I also found tedious.

The French Lt. Woman, liked the film but the book no.

In fact I think I took a viscious pleasure in reading almost all of the book and then not the last three pages.

I did not enjoy The Stars My Destination too much, the story started off thrilling and intriguing but as the novel progressed Gully Foyle the cro-magnon Merchant Marine quest of revenge begins to unravel in contrivance upon contrivance. And when I learned the whos and the whys of Gully's abandonment upon that derelict spaceship flotsam jetsam ... oh ... my ... gawd. How EVIL to put me through this mild endurance challenge just to bat me on the nose and poke me with a stick!

Yarrrrrggggghhaiaiaiaia!

And my home went through some renovations recently and had stopped reading at page 207 of a 258 page book. Failed to finish it but still have my bookmark slapped between the pages.

I didn't even learn about the mystery behind the burning man... don't ask... 'less you've read the book.

Oh dear god, it would have to be Slaughter House Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Though it is very very sad that he is dead, I hated that book. Because it was a classic I picked it for a book report, thinking "hey, it's a classic, people talk about it, it's gotta be good!" So after I discovered I hated it I had to finish it, unfortunately.

I was around 15 at the time, and sometimes I think "well, maybe I was just too young to really grasp it's 'amazingness' or something" .... but nope, every time I pick it up again I still hate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orual

The Lord of the Flies is one book that I didn't dislike while I was reading it, but the further removed from it I am, the more I think "that really wasn't very good." It didn't seem realistic to me; Jack declined too quickly and was too much of a outliar--he was corrupt beyond what I would expect from a twelve or thirteen year old bully.

---

I agree entirely!!!! What was especially frustrating was that EVERYBODY else in my english class loved the book and couldn't understand why I didn't. I dont care that Jack wears a mask -- 12 year old boys dont just become murderers, and wouldn't some of the other boys have questioned him instead of being such sheep? (the only people i have met who display such lack of individual thinking were my classmates) It's like Golding was so set on teaching his lessons to us that he sacrificed the characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orual

I didn't particurally like The Great Gatsby, either. I just found it mediocre, maybe because it wasn't what I was expecting.

---

I also didn't like The Great Gatsby. Again my frustration was increased by EVERYBODY else loving it including my english teacher. Pretty much its about selfish self-centered rich people and I found NO meaning into my own life and learned NOTHING from it. I remember my teacher saying that the characters are complex because "they are archetypical rich people except that they have problems" HELLO! having problems is what MAKES a rich person archetypical. when do we see rich people that dont have problems?

moby dick - boring

i loved catcher in the rye. perhaps i was lucky that the first time i read it my teacher led fairly in-depth discussions, because the second time i read it my teacher (the same one who loves fitzgerald) skipped over almost all of the things that i found important.

so maybe i would like gatsby more if it was with a different teacher?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolescent09

Have you found any classics that were simply unappealing yet according to to the general public considered some of the most outstanding literary works ever? 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
2. The Catcher in the Rye
3. A Streetcar Named Desire
4. slow, superfluous chapters in the middle of Moby Dick (although I love the beginning and ending)

If this topic becomes semi-successful it might even be good to state reasons why you found certain classics unappealing (without getting too controversial or starting rants).

Good day, people :)

---

there are no "worst" classics, only worst readers of the classics. :p

I should also add that though Hemingway is a little dry, it is exactly his sparsity that makes his writing impressive. Fitzgerald doesn't bother to find the mot juste, he just throws all of them in there. Extra words, however flowery they may be, make writing seem juvenile to me. It's almost as though only less-sophisticated readers "fall for" the wordiness.

Heart of Darkness
Turn of the Screw

I did, however, like Apocalypse Now which is an adaptation of Heart of Darkness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

there are no "worst" classics, only worst readers of the classics. :p

---

I guess a newbie such as myself shouldn't try to tackle Conrad's work. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jennyfrijole

Oh dear god, it would have to be Slaughter House Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Though it is very very sad that he is dead, I hated that book. Because it was a classic I picked it for a book report, thinking "hey, it's a classic, people talk about it, it's gotta be good!" So after I discovered I hated it I had to finish it, unfortunately.

I was around 15 at the time, and sometimes I think "well, maybe I was just too young to really grasp it's 'amazingness' or something" .... but nope, every time I pick it up again I still hate it.

---

15 is abit young for Vonnegut ... I think. I imagine he would have bored me to tears at that age. But this book when read in the correct context is a riot in short controlled bursts.

Without a doubt- Love in the Ruins by Walker Percy....ohhhh!! how I loathed that book!

I had the idea once of reading the most famous of the classics, after Bovary I gave up on it. The town of Flaubert's novel was dull, as were all the people in it and the descriptions of it, which was his point I suppose. I still hated it!

On The Road is terribly dull and boring.

Rucksack bohemians on the road to everywhere.

I didn't dislike On the Road, but it's certainly nothing great. It was entertaining and perhaps it "captured the spirit of the '50s", but as a great piece of literature it just falls on its face.

Another classic I didn't care for is The Old Man and the Sea. Hemingway's prose, especially in this novel, is just too flat and boring, and his characters cardboard.

I'm kinda surprised, though, (and I probably shouldn't be) at how many people dislike Faulkner in this thread. I can't get enough of him!

Oh man, I found the constant travel and occassion soap between the characters unbelievably tedious and disorientating with the protagonist's circle of friends seperating and regathering at popular "beat" places throughout the continental States (gee, a small world it had been back then ;) ) and hookin up with different lovers and one night stands.

Plus the dialogue was so blase.

Maybe, in it's day it did "capture the spirit of the '50s" but to me downright trite.

The least satisfying book for me was The Great Gatsby. I cannot say that the book is bad, but, on the other hand, I think it was written for its time and intended for its time. Today, I see no point in reading it but for historical reasons. I don't see how it is relevant today. Perhaps I am missing something?

Gatsby has many themes, most of which are relevant today, although the plot definitely reflected 1920's zeitgeist. People haven't changed much since then.

It seemed like a regular love story to me. Except from the 1920's. It was an interesting era, though.

On the Road was badly written and I hated Muriel Spark's prime of Miss Jean Brodie. It was dull and pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ineverland

On the Road was badly written

---

Prosaic styles is the main reason I give Fritzgerald and Kerouac wide berths on the bookshelves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jennyfrijole

Oh dear god, it would have to be Slaughter House Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Though it is very very sad that he is dead, I hated that book. Because it was a classic I picked it for a book report, thinking "hey, it's a classic, people talk about it, it's gotta be good!" So after I discovered I hated it I had to finish it, unfortunately.

I was around 15 at the time, and sometimes I think "well, maybe I was just too young to really grasp it's 'amazingness' or something" .... but nope, every time I pick it up again I still hate it.

---

I also hate this book. Generally, Vonnegut. I've read several of his books and I don't like any one of them. He is the favourite writer of my close friend and we always argue about his prose. But I just cannot make myself like his books, however hard I try.

I also couldn't manage more than a few pages of Conrad's "Nostromo", it was a sheer torture for me.

I wouldn't say that there are many classics that I hate. There are however quite a few I didn't enjoy as much as their classics status led me to believe I would. I usually find however that reading something a second time helps alot. Once i understand the plot and other basics i can start appreciating the novel alot more the second time around. I don't always find myself entralled reading classics but there is usually always something to be appreciated about them. Some books that i didn't even like the first time around have actually become some of my favourites after subsequent readings. These include On The Road, Catcher in the Rye and Slaughterhouse 5. I guess with those three what dissapointed me was expecting too much from their classic status from what i had read previously about them. But they all grew on me in a major way after time. I also found that Heart of Darkness is an excellent book. The first time around i found it boring and foggy, but felt I was reading
something powerfull. After having to read it a few times for an essay i have found that it's one of the darkest and most powerfull books i've read. Also I loved Of Mice and Men. Yes the ending is incredibly depressing but I look for good books to move me emotionally in any way. A book doesn't have to leave me feeling good at the end for me to enjoy it. Sounds contradictory I know

Now for some of the classics i don't quite care for. Although I have only read them once each :p

Animal Farm: Although I get that it was about more than what was on the surface I still found it too simplistic. It just felt like I was reading a childrens book.

Catch 22: I actually found this book quite funny, but i found that it seemed to go no where and it felt like the humour was recycled and repetitive. I only made it half way through this one. It wasn't that it was that bad, it's just that i went on to something different and never went back. I'll read it again eventually though.

Pride and Prejudice: Although the writing itself is excellent I found that not enough happened to keep my attention. I also found that i hated most of the characters in the book with a passion. Also i grasped the irony at the start of the book but as i went on i found that I was ignoring it and taking everything that happened at face value

I did not like this book very much. It's not the cruel parts in it which is dislike, but in my opinion Mr. Remarque has problems to really go on with the story. It's
something like carrying a heavy load of words, situations, relationships, but it all ends in a sort of 'making the way around it'. In German language it was the best selling book ever published. So this is a bit strange for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stieg

Oh man, I found the constant travel and occassion soap between the characters unbelievably tedious and disorientating with the protagonist's circle of friends seperating and regathering at popular "beat" places throughout the continental States (gee, a small world it had been back then ;) ) and hookin up with different lovers and one night stands.

Plus the dialogue was so blase.

Maybe, in it's day it did "capture the spirit of the '50s" but to me downright trite.

---

I was so looking forward to reading On the road, heard so many great thinks about the novel and i was really dissapointed. I'm glad to see i am not the only one:).

I'm not saying it's bad, it's just that it didn't do much for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moira

I was so looking forward to reading On the road, heard so many great thinks about the novel and i was really dissapointed. I'm glad to see i am not the only one:).

I'm not saying it's bad, it's just that it didn't do much for me.

---

I agree it's not a great novel. But I found it a fun read.