The Worst Classics You Have Ever Read

Les Miserables - too simple, too didactic, too corny.... maybe i'm missing something

Middlesmarch. Dont like Middlesmarch.

I'm not sure if it is really labeled as a "classic," but it is the one piece of literature that I have read so far that I wanted to burn. (It belonged to my school and was an assignment, so I decided I probably should not. . .)
Oh. . . almost forgot to write it down:
Franz Kafka's Metamorphasis. *shudder*

The Great Gatsby

Don Quitoxe


Couldn't relate well to either novel.

Some strange choices in this thread...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarida

I'm not sure if it is really labeled as a "classic," but it is the one piece of literature that I have read so far that I wanted to burn. (It belonged to my school and was an assignment, so I decided I probably should not. . .)
Oh. . . almost forgot to write it down:
Franz Kafka's Metamorphasis. *shudder*

---

Quote:

---

Some strange choices in this thread...

---

Yes I am appalled as well, Bazarov. They should ban schools from forcing real literature on students. It only breeds contempt for these great books. Schools should stick with Gatsby and Dickens and James etc. Only a very few great writers survive school curricula. Jane Austen is a survivor, so is Gorge Eliot but most other great writers should be kept out of students reach. Who teaches Kafka to students? Maybe it was a German school. Still this is very indiscreet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

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.
Can anyone explain why James, a good story teller, was so long-winded, surely even a Freudian sub-text doesn't require such verbosity.

---

The best I can reply to this Brian, off the top of my weary head, and despite all my years of studying James, meaning that I am not going to post anything profound or terribly illuminating, is two-fold, or maybe three:

James was a Victorian American expatriate, and as such, would never explicitly say X meant Y; he wanted his audience to infer on their own *why* Millie Theale was dying of something entirely mysterious, or if the intimacy between The Prince and Charlotte was evil, and how, or why Strether would not marry Maria, or how Masie stayed innocent, or if he hints at lesbianism in The Bostonians. In short, James doesn't like to tell the reader much. He hints, and the reader infers according to how deeply or not the reader wants to.

2. He developed what critics call a "super-attenuation of manner" which pushed Victorian sensibility to extremes, and I am not sure, if, toward the end, he might have been going in his own modernist direction, if he had lived a few years longer, much like Joyce and Proust.

3. He was homosexual, and there is a roaring debate among contemporary scholars whether or not he was actively gay (keeping in mind that erotic homosexual sex was a criminal offense in James' lifetime) or repressed out of both the cultural norms of his era and his own fastidiousness. My friend Dr. Sheldon Novick created an uproar among contemporary academics when he suggests that James had an affair with Oliver Wendell Holmes. I take the fifth on the matter, but cannot help chuckling at the thought.:p

3a. But my intent in pointing this out is James may have not been EM Forster, as Forster coded his sexual orientation in his work outside of Maurice, but it does suggest James had a reason to lean toward obfuscation.

4. One of his best achievements was playing tricks on the reader about the reliability of the narrative voice in the work, re: The Turn of the Screw.

I hope this is somewhat insightful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarida

Franz Kafka's Metamorphasis. *shudder*

---

What?! It's great!

I think there are some books that just don't stand scrutiny at school- it destroys them. The Great Gatsby is an amazing book but if you're forced to analyse it, it destroys the magic of the novel, which is key to whether you like it or not.

They can teach Mockingbird- it's pretty bad but you can write a lot of rubbish about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

The best I can reply to this Brian, off the top of my weary head, and despite all my years of studying James, meaning that I am not going to post anything profound or terribly illuminating, is two-fold, or maybe three:

James was a Victorian American expatriate, and as such, would never explicitly say X meant Y; he wanted his audience to infer on their own *why* Millie Theale was dying of something entirely mysterious, or if the intimacy between The Prince and Charlotte was evil, and how, or why Strether would not marry Maria, or how Masie stayed innocent, or if he hints at lesbianism in The Bostonians. In short, James doesn't like to tell the reader much. He hints, and the reader infers according to how deeply or not the reader wants to.

2. He developed what critics call a "super-attenuation of manner" which pushed Victorian sensibility to extremes, and I am not sure, if, toward the end, he might have been going in his own modernist direction, if he had lived a few years longer, much like Joyce and Proust.

3. He was homosexual, and there is a roaring debate among contemporary scholars whether or not he was actively gay (keeping in mind that erotic homosexual sex was a criminal offense in James' lifetime) or repressed out of both the cultural norms of his era and his own fastidiousness. My friend Dr. Sheldon Novick created an uproar among contemporary academics when he suggests that James had an affair with Oliver Wendell Holmes. I take the fifth on the matter, but cannot help chuckling at the thought.:p

3a. But my intent in pointing this out is James may have not been EM Forster, as Forster coded his sexual orientation in his work outside of Maurice, but it does suggest James had a reason to lean toward obfuscation.

4. One of his best achievements was playing tricks on the reader about the reliability of the narrative voice in the work, re: The Turn of the Screw.

I hope this is somewhat insightful.

---

Thanks for the information, it does go some way to explaining why James takes so long to get to the point. I am not sure, however, whether he participated in homosexual acts as Dr. Novick suggests, because in one of the Somerset Maugham biographies that I have read (I think it was Ted Morgan's), Maugham, a practising homosexual, once asked James why he didn't indulge in the practice, and James replied that he simply couldn't bring himself to do so.
Having read all of Somerset Maugham and most of E M Forster, who was also a practising homosexual, I can see that their comparative brevity contrasts greatly with James's circumlocution, so there may well be something in what you say about James's fastidiousness causing him to be evasive in expressing himself directy.

I found it difficult to appreciate Dracula and Dangerous Liaisons, the middle of Dracula seems to just go on without anything happening.

And it's not just because they're epistolary novels, I loved Frankenstein.

I loved The Catcher in the Rye, yet hated things like For Whom The Bell Tolls. I love Dickens - he is the great storyteller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

What?! It's great!

I think there are some books that just don't stand scrutiny at school- it destroys them. The Great Gatsby is an amazing book but if you're forced to analyse it, it destroys the magic of the novel, which is key to whether you like it or not.

They can teach Mockingbird- it's pretty bad but you can write a lot of rubbish about it.

---

They Teach To Kill A Mocking Bird in Schools over here. I didnt study it though. I did Teh Silver Sword. The Hobbit, Goodnight Mister Tom. (best point out its done for the Junior Cert, so about 15 years old)

Moby Dick put me off reading for a long time. I really struggled through it, but didn't want to give up. As a consequence, reading ever since has seemed a bit of a chore, even though I am attempting it for pleasure. Seems I may need to get back on the horse...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevie Ruggling

Moby Dick put me off reading for a long time. I really struggled through it, but didn't want to give up. As a consequence, reading ever since has seemed a bit of a chore, even though I am attempting it for pleasure. Seems I may need to get back on the horse...

---

Unless you are reading for study there is little point in trying to struggle through a book that is not working for you at present. There are millions of good books out there, don't discount ALL of them just because you couldn't get on with one. Take the same rule with people, if you can't get on with a particular person, do you shun the entire human race?

It saddens me to see so much hostility to Melville on The Literature Network. I dunno.

I am so weary of Dostoevsky that it may take me another 20 years to return to him with a fresh appreciation, but even though the taint of my personal prejudice, I am skilled enough, as a critic, to see the nearly revolutionary importance of Dostoevsky on fiction as a realist art. Melville carries the same importance for giving American literature a national identity, which is why Moby Dick should not be simply plunged into without preparation, and good critical notes. The whaling episodes are not just rip offs from whaling manuals available to Melville at the time. The reader needs to look at these passages in the moral context of American Calvanism Melville portrays. Go back and read the sermon on Job, and tie that in with how the ship balances its industry of consuming whales, literally and figuratively.

I really, really, really did not enjoy To the Lighthouse. I also did not enjoy Women in Love, both of which I had to read for university, whilst studying Modernism, which I didn't understand. The analysis may not have helped, but still.
I do however very much enjoy both To Kill a Mockingbird, and Catcher in the Rye, amongst others that people hate...
It's weird how much opinions vary...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolescent09

I guess Catch-22 is not my "cup of tea" as some might say it and the only part of The Catcher in the Rye I found interesting was near the very last page when Caulfield is with his little sister. The F-words were a complete turn off and made me almost rip the book from rage and Caulfield's stuck-up demeanor annoyed me. I didn't even understand the point of the book in general.. and if anything I believe the book conveys a false message by showing a protagonist who avidly smokes, drinks and excercises several attempts to get in contact with a girl who makes him feel amorous... let alone the hooker..

I'm sorry if my phrase "devoid of a plot..." has offended you or anyone else. It actually sounds a bit self-contradictory because I wanted this topic to be very open to diverse perceptions. I will see if I can edit that in my main post and thanks for replying :)

---

I'm on the fence with Catcher in the Rye. As a book on the whole I enjoyed it, the really connected with holden, I felt so very depressed whilst reading it and I thought it was good that salinger was able to get me so involved. However, I absolutely understand with the swearing and the fact that he never gets around to doing what he really wants and all that smoking drinking and swearing started to get on my nerves.

Another book that didn't live up to its expectations was THE DA'VINCI CODE, I couldn't get past the first few pages and also digital fortress. My friends tried to get me to read both and I just got so bored.

I would have to say "The Old Man and the Sea"...

I so didn't get the old man and the sea

jozanny....eek...i do appreciate your insight but i am sorry to say my vote here goes for moby dick...

Well, it's good if you like whales. If you aren't completely in love with whales, it can get a bit boring.

Yes, but the virtuosic prose more than makes up for it.

i agree with you on Catch 22, i can never fully get into it (even though ive read it thrice!!) i find the attempts at satire lethargic and drawn out.

Catch-22 is one of those books that I have read where I feel that the writer is admiring himself as he writes. One book that I didn't feel bad about picking apart.

Not good to see Da Vinci code mentioned here... people consider it a classic?

And speaking of rereading books, I still cannot see why Grapes of Wrath is considered a classic. Forget about historical significance, it's not a well written book.

Haven't read Grapes of Wrath but I thought Of Mice and Men was well-written

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

Haven't read Grapes of Wrath but I thought Of Mice and Men was well-written

---

does anybody have an opinion on cannery row and tortilla flat? not read either but considering a purchase!

I just don't understand why so many people like Steinback. Someone said that his books are easy to read and that's why people like him and why critics don't think too highly of him but his books are just really boring to me. I guess I might give East of Eden a try but if I don't like that books then I am completely done with Steinback. (I have a strong dislike toward The Pearl, Grapes of Wrath, and of Mice and Man.)

East of Eden is pretty long. If you didn't like Of Mice and Men, which is tiny, then you probably won't like east of eden. Did you like the ending of Of Mice and Men?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michigan J Frog

I just don't understand why so many people like Steinback. Someone said that his books are easy to read and that's why people like him and why critics don't think too highly of him but his books are just really boring to me. I guess I might give East of Eden a try but if I don't like that books then I am completely done with Steinback. (I have a strong dislike toward The Pearl, Grapes of Wrath, and of Mice and Man.)

---

I personally wouldn't bother, if you didn't like three of his books why read a fourth? There are far too many good things out there why punish yourself reading for pleasure if it is not bringing you pleasure. You may find that in time you may come to like Steinbeck, you may view him in a different light as you get older, but if not, so what.

Personally I am indifferent to Steinbeck though perhaps feel that he is a little overrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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.

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;)

---

Jozanny,
This may be the best entry in any of worst/underrated threads. I'm probably some version of a sick puppy, but I get a kick our of how someone's opinion inevitably sets off a powder keg. Sometimes it's the way the opinion is expressed. Sometimes it's the work or the writer. (Ulysses or Joyce usually makes for lively debate.) My intention in provoking Froggy to take on James was to get the type of intellectual exchange that you've brought to this thread. Quite enjoyable. I don't dislike James, but The Wings of the Dove gave my nothing to cling to -- plot, character, style. I've enjoyed others of Henry James's works, but this one just bored the crap out of me.
What really entertains me is the lack of foundation behind why someone puts forth a work. I didn't like Moby Dick because I almost choked on a bone I found my fish sandwich in the cafeteria when I was 10. Sometimes these "negative" threads are like walking through a field of crap trying to find the pony, but eventually, an actual literary discussion arises.
Thank you for bringing it to this not just once (James), but twice (Melville). :thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PabloQ

Jozanny,
This may be the best entry in any of worst/underrated threads. I'm probably some version of a sick puppy, but I get a kick our of how someone's opinion inevitably sets off a powder keg. Sometimes it's the way the opinion is expressed. Sometimes it's the work or the writer. (Ulysses or Joyce usually makes for lively debate.) My intention in provoking Froggy to take on James was to get the type of intellectual exchange that you've brought to this thread. Quite enjoyable. I don't dislike James, but The Wings of the Dove gave my nothing to cling to -- plot, character, style. I've enjoyed others of Henry James's works, but this one just bored the crap out of me.
What really entertains me is the lack of foundation behind why someone puts forth a work. I didn't like Moby Dick because I almost choked on a bone I found my fish sandwich in the cafeteria when I was 10. Sometimes these "negative" threads are like walking through a field of crap trying to find the pony, but eventually, an actual literary discussion arises.
Thank you for bringing it to this not just once (James), but twice (Melville). :thumbs_up

---

Like everything else, electronic interaction between individuals has its detractions as well as its virtues, and my love/hate relationship with online communities will probably never quite be resolved. The only reason the powers that be haven't had to lasso me and stick a bar of soap into my account, ahem, where the sun doesn't shine:D, is because I am a little too weary to wail and beat my breast daily for virtue of public display, and two, it has no real healing virtue, three, I've learned when not to push back, and four, won't allow myself to care--but posting about anything isn't all it is cracked up to be, and I am symptomatic of that as much as any other member, in not taking the time to make relatively invested arguments.

There is a difference between personal opinion and critical evaluation of merit--and that can often get lost on posting boards or comment threads--even in email groups--not that it is all bad, but it isn't all beneficial for continuing education either.

Hardy,Thomas. Depressing or Wot,mate. Brontes and ,another sacrilege, Grahame Green.

I've liked most of the classics I've read, which is not to say that a lot of them weren't pretty boring in parts. But I can put up with quite a bit of boredom to get what the book has to offer, and with a classic I'm rarely disappointed.

Some classics which I was never able to get through- Boswell's Life of Johnson, Dante's Divine Comedy, all George Elliot's novels except Middlemarch.

I didn't like Oscar Wilde's Dorian Grey, I found it totally pointless. I don't even know if it's a classic.

Les Miserables disappointed me a bit. I thought it was going to be really great, and I did like quite a bit of it, but on the whole I felt it was a big , huge, silly story!

Quote:
I didn't like Oscar Wilde's Dorian Grey, I found it totally pointless. I don't even know if it's a classic.

That's one of my personal favourite, favouritistist novels, of alllll time.::bawling:

<<<< that's a picture of Mr Gray there as my avatar.

Aww...Neely, I didn't mean to make you cry! If it's any comfort, some of my favourite novels like Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights and Ulysses and Catch 22 have been listed here as 'worst classics'! :D

I found Dorian Gray hard to read as the constant wit really bugged me. Do we need an epigram in every line?!

And To Kill A Mockingbird- smug self-righteous propaganda.

Do you begrudge the man his genius? Of course anything written by Wilde is going to have natural flair and wit, but this doesn’t intrude, for me, into the text, the author remains hidden enough for the wit to be played by the characters.

Don’t forget that Lord Henry’s art is his language, just as Basil’s art is his paint brush, just as Dorian’s art is his beauty. By all means it is not a perfect novel, but it is bloody damn good.


Before I disagreed with this thread topic, now I hate it and vow to stay away.

I read On The Road whilst travelling around Nepal. They both coupled each other in a a beautiful shambolic way. I'm lucky enough to travel a bit and always try to marry up the right book.

For me this question is a little hard, I don't really finish most of the rubbish, poor books should be abandoned. Middlemarch would be one of those. Most of the rest would be considered pap anyway, so I shalln't include those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I found Dorian Gray hard to read as the constant wit really bugged me. Do we need an epigram in every line?!

---

Yes, yes, I was slightly annoyed by that too. However, I thought that The Picture of Dorian Gray was a great book.

I think once I reread it it will be. It's just irritating having every line as an epigram.