Printable View
My dad liked the book but it really didn't appeal to me, primarily because of the ridiculous way that that and the extract I read from Ulysses was written. If they count as great literature, I'm counting Mr Men along with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Inderjit Sanghe
Uncle Tom's Cabin.
The Scarlet Letter. Toilet paper is better than that piece of crap.
are you serious about this? I don't think it's just a piece of crap or some kind of a toilet paper(even though this is not one my favorite classic, I just can't consider this as a toilet paper as you do).. I totaly disagree with this.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Michigan J Frog
Even if the poster is serious, the criticism clearly is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by eyemaker
Perhaps toilet paper was too harsh.
Let's just say I would rather read one of the modern best sellers than that book. And if all books were written like that one, I would completely give up reading.
On second thought, never mind, I did mean what I said. At least toilet paper has some use.
Serious criticism about the book? sure.
That book felt like a daytime tv soap opera. At no point was I touched by anything in that book. It was not insightful, it was poorly written, the author would've done better to just write an essay. It had no artistic value, it was insufferably didactic, and soon after reading that book I dropped the class that had assigned that as a reading assignment.
The teacher actually tried to defend the book, and it really all came out absurdly funny, she even wore a damn scarlet letter t shirt, and after that, nobody really took the class seriously anymore.
As opposed to books that inspire people to become involved in literature, that book repels people away from it. Had I not read a good number of books that are worth something by that point, I probably would've not wanted anything to do with literature with the rest of my life.
I mean, really, can there be a shallower book with more pathos.
The book is not worth anything. I can't think of a good writer who was truly influenced by that book. I dismiss most of American Fiction. The ones I don't dismiss were written by American writers not influenced by that book. It is useless. It has no value (at least no positive value) to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesian
And really, that's the only classic I would say that about. I dislike many other classics, but that book is really a waste of paper.
On second thought maybe it has some value. It could be shown to people so they wouldn't write or think like that.
Keep in mind that all these are my opinions, very strong perhaps, but I did not look to to incite an argument, although the toilet paper comment might suggest otherwise. That was not an exaggeration, nor was there any purpose behind that statement. But after all these forums are for discussions, although from the looks of it I doubt either one of us will be convinced by each other. But, here goes nothing.
The Scarlet letter is pathos, it is extremely dramatic over nothing. Had I not read introduction/author's background I would've thought that the author indeed wrote this book to mock a similar type of work. But the author was serious. That pretty much explains the soap opera comparison.
Certainly all fiction are written with ideas behind them, but this book almost shoved them down your throat. Sentences were just shortcuts to get to the next idea. After finishing it one feels like it was an essay, and not a novel. The book almost has a holier-than-thou air, it was making itself seem more important than it really was, at every opportunity. Flipping through the pages you can sense an unbearable smugness.
It was poorly written in that, the characterizations were completely ludicrous. They are nothing more than symbols. The plot itself was outrageous, and the storytelling was, essentially, boring. The story was simply unreadable, and it was unreadable with no purpose. The ideas it tried so damn hard to express were shallow. It was not touching at any point. A play is less dramatic than this book. Nothing in it was profound, nothing in it was interesting. I almost laughed after finishing the book. I looked at is a joke.
Anyhow you probably will disagree with all of this, as I can see your Henry James sig, and from that have a good idea of what school of literature you're interested in studying.
And let's just say there's a small chance of me ever taking that type of writing seriously, and leave it at that.
And we could go back and forth about this, but I doubt you would want to. You would most likely dismiss me as an idiot after reading that post, perhaps be enraged by it or scoff at it, but, I still maintain that The Scarlet Letter is the worst classic, and perhaps the worst book I have ever read. I do not think that it should be considered literature, and its value to me is even lower than a best seller.
And now I have business to attend to, but I would revisit this page when I have time, if you do indeed want to continue this discussion, although I see little purpose in doing that.
I have learned that my tastes have changed over the years. The first time I read Tess of the d'Urbervilles I hated it. I couldn't even finish it. That was in high school. I read it again in college, and I enjoyed it. The same with The Great Gatsby. Ulysses was probably my least favorite classic so far just because the footnotes that go with the book are about five inches thick. When you have to read a footnote for each line of prose, it's too tedious to enjoy.
Boy are you in the wrong place. I see your new to the forum so welcome. One of the fun aspects to this site are the best/worst, underrated/overrated arguments. What's to great is no matter what you pick, someone else is standiing 180 degrees the other direction. You'll also find (oh, wait, you already have) that stronger you insult the work, the stronger the reaction you'll get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michigan J Frog
This exchange on The Scarlet Letter is highly entertaining. Just so I keep enjoying it, Frog, I believe you wanted to say something about Henry James? Go for it. Jamesian will bite.:D
That is kind of self contradictory. If it was instantly forgettable you wouldn't remember that you disliked it either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Stamper
Ah, well I am glad to get a strong reaction, come to think of it. Although I am quite new to this forum, I get a feeling it's quite scattered in that there is not one or two consistent discussion but instead a couple of dropped line spread out in many topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by PabloQ
And about Henry James :) maybe in another topic. His books aren't as bad as Hawthorne's, (you can say that almost about everybody) and isn't relevant to the topic because Scarlet letter takes that title by a lot.
The Old Man and The Sea doesn't appear to have a story- it's just very boring.
the content, not the fact i had read it or whether i liked or disliked itQuote:
Originally Posted by Leabhar
:crash: pedant
Then the book wasn't forgettable. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hank Stamper
Well, it is if it's a blur. You can remember how it made you feel :) Like dreams- you can't really remember all of them but you can remember how they make you feel.
If I had to nominate just one book it would be 'To Kill A Mocking Bird'. Dreadful novel.
Yes! The world sees sense! What a smug load of rubbish!
To Kill a Mockingbird isn't a classic yet - the original audience is still alive.
Well, people lazily refer to it as one so I guess it's a 'modern classic'
Henry James' "Turn of the Screw."
As would I if I thought it worth it against the naysayers, but I participate in LN for love of literature, not for smirking at it, so I am not sure what the detractors hope to gain. Disruption? Attention? (shrugs)Quote:
Originally Posted by PabloQ
I think it is all but redundant to talk about a "worst classic." People change and with it attitudes to the books they have read. Largely, any faults with a classic is likely to lie with the reader, not the book.
I would take this one step further Neely, although I agree with the sense of your post. The phrase worst classic is nearly an oxymoron--which is not to say that tastes do not change, or that an author may become overrated while lower stars rise--but a classic is a classic for various reasons. It may represent the epitome of its era, like Dickens "A Christmas Carol" can arguably be said to do--even though the tale makes me wince I can appreciate it for what it is, what Dickens hoped it would illuminate, even change, about Victorian society. Or it may be the pinnacle of a literary movement, such as Madame Bovary is to fictional realism, even a stepping stone to modernism, and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Members should simply start five threads called "Books I want to trash!!!!" and we can keep Sche and Logos busy while they merge this and the *overrated* thread with it.:D;)
Yes you are quite right "worst classic" is an oxymoron indeed. Like you, I don't particularly go for the unrealistic "change of heart" in A Christmas Carol, neither am I much fond of Dickens at all, but for me to start putting negative labels on his work would make me a fool, or more of a fool than I already am.
It is worth noting that classics as a general rule can also be labelled as such because they are the first of a type to do something, such as with Richardson, amongst the first novels, as well as the best of something. The label doesn't automatically denote the best, First/popular/best - maybe.
I remember trying to read The Turn of the Screw several years ago, several times and just gave it up in the end, thought it was "overly wordy." Then I learnt Freudian analysis and the novel totally opened up to me and I judged it in a different light. This is one of the ways that readers change over time, a novel may not work for you, which is fine, but it doesn't mean it is trash. Also some classics represent a body of work that I may not fully be at home with. For instance the Romantic poets appeal more to me than say, the Realists, but it does not make their work any less good just because of my own personal tastes.
The Turn of the Screw took me more than one reading, for sure, but it is a masterwork because the unreliability of the narration presents itself as reliable.
Yes that is one of the many reasons it is a masterwork though there are many large and small, you have read it through Freud I suppose, it is a classic Freudian text is it not?
I generally don't like Dickens that much. It's not really to do with his writing, because I think that his characterisation is amazing for certain characters. It just really irritates me that many of his books are a bit prescriptive: his heroes go through terrible ordeals, nobly rising above them all. Their true gentility shines through and it turns out that they are from wealthy 'good' families all along... it sometimes appears that he is trying to recreate himself in these heroes, which is all very well, but in a figure that is portrayed so much as an advocate of social justice, it seems a bit hypocritical that his heroes' good qualities are due to some sort of innate good breeding.
Yes exactly, I don’t take Dickens seriously as a writer at all. Of course his construction of language is first rate, but the psychological reality of his characters is not, though was probably never meant to be. His novels appear to be the soaps of their day, just better written and without the awful acting.
He is very good at characterisation. There's tons of characters in Dickens novels, each with their own quirks.
Dickens is one of the greatest creators of characters in world literature. Harold Bloom writes that he is up there with Shakespeare and Chaucer (among the British writers), Cervantes, Tolstoy and Homer. For that alone he deserves a place in the pantheon of greats.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
That's true, but his writing might be more effective if the hero was more realistic. Although, I suppose, they do engage the reader's sympathy, which might have been what Dickens was trying to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Well I don't think Dickens should be approached like, say, Madame Bovary. Dickens reads more like a tale, and I feel that he should be approached in such a way. Even his writing conveys this feeling, it is always tender and light. I think Dickens is one of the greatest prose writers too.
Yes, the creation of character through quirks and description is first rate, but they have no psychological reality. People do not spontaneously change personalities on the eve of Christmas despite being visited by ghosts. With that said I am not Criticising Dickens for this aspect because he probably never intended psychological depth merely that I don’t enjoy Dickens that much for this reason, though of course my opinions may change over time.
Well even more so for Christmas Carol, it is not supposed to be a psychological study, but rather a light tale. So while I understand what you're saying, I feel it is just like saying "magic realism would be better if it was more realist". So it is not so much Dickens that you don't like rather the "genre" which he writes.
Yes, perhaps that would be a fair comment.
Though with the same thinking perhaps it is best not to praise the characters of Dickens at all, just the construction of his language and the enjoyable lightness of his tales?
I don't praise the characters, I praise the overall work. I don't think dostoevskian characterization would be nice to have in a Dickens story ;)
Just like Dickens characters in a Dostoevsky novel would be ridiculous. And in this sense you are right that the main interest of a Dickens story is not characterization or psychology, but other vectors.
No, I agree, I wasn’t referring to you with the praising of characters, but to the above posters and to general comments I have heard before. Perhaps it would be more accurate to praise the characterisation within the particular genre itself, his characters work well within his novels, Dostoevsky’s within Dostoevsky’s.
Yep, Christmas Carol is just a nice Christmassy tale. Because you don't really want misery at Christmas do you? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
A Tale of Two Cities has more depth, in the character of Sydney Carton, the drunk lawyer who sees in rare moments of sobriety how bad he is. Then the ending is famous.
I remember when I started to read serious writers (eons ago) my local library had a number of Henry James novels on its shelves. They were impressively bound but what struck me most about them was their thickness. A cursory glance through one or two told me that James was an extraordinarily verbose author who would be unlikely to interest me. Years later I decided to read some of his less lengthy works such as The Turn of the Screw and The Europeans. I discovered that his reputation for wordiness was justified but he could write a good story. Later still I bought a copy of The American in a German translation because I thought that the use of compound words in the German language would make the novel seem shorter but I was wrong; the book was still unnaturally verbose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Can anyone explain why James, a good story teller, was so long-winded, surely even a Freudian sub-text doesn't require such verbosity.