Care to explain why Jean Paul Sartre's Nausea so famous. I am no philosopher and i guess that was my problem. couldn't make head or tail of the book!!!
Printable View
Care to explain why Jean Paul Sartre's Nausea so famous. I am no philosopher and i guess that was my problem. couldn't make head or tail of the book!!!
Every line? That is a little hyperbole, but I suppose I know what you are getting at. If you have time read it again, I'll be interested you know what you think of it. You could even flick at random on nearly every page and find something of value there. Let's try it, for I am in a funny mood:Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Flick:
Music had stirred him like that. Music had troubled him many times. But music was not articulate. It was not a new world, but rather another chaos, that it created in us. Worlds! Mere words! How terrible they were! How clear, and vivid, and cruel! One could not escape from them. And yet what a subtle magic there was in them! They seemed to be able to give a plastic form to formless things, and to have a music of their own as sweet as that of viol or of lute. Mere words! Was there anything so real as words?
Dorian Gray on the language and corruptive philosophy of Lord Henry. I like Wilde's allusion to the mystic world of music, Dorian himself being a pianist of sorts obviously seeing the world to some extent in these terms, maybe taking comfort in them having had his world rocked by the silver tongue of Lord Henry. Wilde here is a little too rhetorical perhaps, a little too many exclamations, but as ever his words flowing beautifully. I could read a shopping list forever if it was written like this.
Another flick:
Anyone you love must be marvellous, and any girl that has the effect you describe must be fine and noble. To spiritualise one's age - that is something worth doing. If this girl can give a soul to those who have lived without one, if she can create the sense of beauty in people whose lives have been sordid and ugly, if she can strip them of their selfishness and lend them tears for sorrows that are not their own, she is worthy of all your adoration, worthy of the adoration of the world.
This is Lord Henry on hearing of Dorian's affection and engagement to Sybil. What struck me here as I was typing it out, was how it both praises and laments at the same time. It is a stirring piece of writing, but underneath comes sadness that Dorian is not to be Henry's, that he has potentially lost some of his affection due to this young girl, who so realistically re-creates the beauty of Shakespeare's women. You could play around with the "adoration" part too, the real adoration is that of Henry's to Dorian's and ultimately not Dorian's to Sybil's. Also that Sybil fails so miserably to gain any adoration from the public at all, once her spell is broken by "Prince" Charming.
Wilde is often passed off as a writer of wit and social comedy, even by the top critics, but there is much more to Wilde to the writer than that, even in his comedies. Wilde is often much deeper than people give him credit for, not that I ever meant to prove that with these quotations, I was merely showing how you can find something of value on every page, or nearly every page.
The portrait of lady by Henry James. So wordy and perplexed for no apparent reason, without any meaning and with a pathetic and masochistic ending for a so called clever heroine.
How Ironic. I really loved Persuasion (my first Austen) but loathed Pride and Prejudice, which takes the crown for my worst classic (so far); didn't care for it one bit and struggled all the way to the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orual
I am afraid I'm also not a huge fan of Dorian Gray... I think it would have been very good as a play, because Wilde certainly had a very clear idea of what the stage was supposed to look like and what the character was supposed to feel... But to me, he goes too much in detail...
Nonetheless, it is a very good and deep story. Just not well-written as a novel. (I find) Particularly Lord Henry would work very well on stage with the right manners, posture and tone of voice, but on paper to me he becomes annoying. Only because there is nothing else but his speech. If there was something else to look at, then he would become amusing.
I just find it a shame that there is nothig to be discovered in that book. It is just plain and clear that the portrait is supposed to be Dorian's soul. In my opinion, Wilde put in his story a lot of directions for the actors, but of course, it is not a piece of theatre... On the other hand, not bad writing. Very beautiful wording, and very philosophical.
Dickens is the best and worst, Martin Chuzzlewit is unreadable. Overblown in style, too wordy and frankly boring.
A Christmas Carol, Great Expectations, Oliver Twist, all excellent.
I heartily agree that the theatre is Wilde's true medium, not the novel. With theatre you can excuse self-indulgence (that is what wit boils down to) and bring out the wit and style that Wilde has, whereas in novel form, it's just distracting and mildly irritating:Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
'Wit ought to be a glorious treat like caviar; never spread it about like marmalade', as Noel Coward said.
I never managed to finisch Moby Dick; I just got too bored during those long dissertations concerning whales and whaling etc. (similar dissertations didn't bother me for example in Hugo's Notre-Dame, don't know why).
Another one I was a bit perplexed about was Tropic of Cancer by Miller. I had a bit of a hard time appreciating it's confusing and nonlinear style. (similar style didn't bother me for example in Burroughs' Naked Lunch)
Also I would mention A Farewell to Arms, I'm finishing now and still have mixed feelings about it. Will have to think about it.
:alien:What? How can you not like Bleak House, David Copperfield or Dombey & Son?Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
(emily00 goes to lie down in darkened room with cold compress to her brow)
Agree with you on the above. I never finished A Farewell to Arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionido
Why on earth would anyone compare Catch-22's humour to Shakespeare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolescent09
Catch-22 is funny :confused:
On topic:
Never really got on with Thomas Hardy.
Jude the obscure... just...
I can't really communicate how much I don't care about how exactly the grass on the riverbank was being blown...
Vanity Fair is genius. It's 900 pages, but well worth reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aunty-lion
It's a 'Novel without A Hero'- Becky Sharp is a social climber, Amelia is soppy, George Osborne is selfish, Dobbin is stupidly selfless...just like real people:
'Ah! Vanitas vanitatum! Which of us is happy in this world? Which of us has his desire? or, having it, is satisfied?—Come, children, let us shut up the box and the puppets, for our play is played out.'
I didn't like Pride and Prejudice. I wouldn't say it was the "worst". It just didn't appeal to my taste at all and I didn't enjoy it personally.
The Sound and the Fury. I tried, I really did, but I couldn't get through it.
Difficulty is not an aesthetic quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Page Turner
That's true. I've read other books that took a couple of readings to sink in but this one didn't work for me. I haven't read any other Faulkner. Can you recommend an easier intro?Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
The Sound and the Fury was the one I actually started with, but since this option is out, I would suggest either As I Lay Dying, Light in August, or some of his short stories - definitely not Absalom, Absalom!Quote:
Originally Posted by Page Turner
As I Lay Dying is, I would say, just as difficult as The Sound and the Fury, only its chapters are far shorter, its overall length shorter, and these two qualities make the reading relatively easier and more enjoyable. Either way, I suggest using Sparknotes, books from the library, or maybe The Sound and the Fury hypertext that is available free online to approach the books.
For me personally, Dracula got to be a complete bore after awhile (I read it when I was very young, so maybe my perspective has changed enough for me to be entertained by it). Another classic that was a chore to finish was The Hunchback of Notre Dame- a very fine novel, but unflinchingly, pervasively tragic near the end.
The Bible, no contest
I never quite read any classics that I hated...but some commentary none the less
1. Great Gatsby - read it in High School, the teacher just said "its' about the recklessness of the 20s". Pretty much that was it and I couldn't really gather much more out of it - sure there's materialism/greed/lust issues, but didn't find it to be really original or thought provoking and couldn't empathise with it at all.
2. Brothers Karamazov - still a good book, but didn't find it as great as others mentioned. Non religious folk won't find as much as christians and it just doesn't feel like Dostoevsky's other works.
3. Sirens of Titan - call me dumb, I get the main idea, but nothing resonated with me - someone tell me what I missed and feel free to argue, but just seemed like a cartoon of a very tired issue beaten do death ten million times. Didn't find it original and at times felt like I was reading a children's book.
Kind of funny considering the comment before yours. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Psynema
It's been a while, maybe I've matured or something and would have a different opinion now, but a collection of Guy de Maupassant's short stories (maybe the best short story writer ever!) and a collection of Montaigne's essays (near the top in the genre!) both really disappointed me. Maybe there was too much hype. One thing's for sure, I didn't get anywhere close to reading them all so... maybe not fair.
Moby Dick!
<shudder>
"Now small fowls flew screaming over the yet yawning gulf; a sullen white surf beat against its steep sides; then all collapsed, and the great shroud of the sea rolled on as it rolled five thousand years ago."
Nah it ain't that bad.
Middlemarch!
Narrators do NOT know best.
Sounds like you got a bad teacher because there's loads in Gatsby and it's certainly original. People just assume it isn't because they're used to reading loads of modern rip-offs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psynema
It's a tragedy about the destructive power of dreams, and the death of dreams. There isn't anyone in the world who can't empathise with wishing they could recreate some lost moment of their past, or love something in vain.
First off, I would like to say that I LOVED Moby-Dick. Its quite possibly my favorite novel, on level with Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. Many readers lambast it for its long chapters on marine biology and whale anatomy and such, but those chapters are essential to the novel. When you are reading about something as rare as whaling, it is a tremendous help to actually understand what goes into it. Not only do these chapters help us gain a full understanding of the exerience described, but they also immerse us further in Melville's world. Aside from that, Moby-Dick is one of the deepest books I have ever read, wreathed in allegory and meaning. Despite the constant apostrophes, Melville's characters maintain their sense of authenticity and their interactions with each other are tense and emotionally charged. As far as Melville's language, I can gush about it all day. Melville does better than Charles Dickens what Charles Dickens is so well known for; that is, the use of figurative language to create an image.
As far as works I did not quite fawn over, A Tale of Two Cities and A Streetcar Named Desire top the list.
In A Tale..., all the characters outside of Sidney Carton seem flat and two-dimensional. Because of this, it feels like I'm reading a soap opera more than anything else. Not to say that I didn't like the whole novel, but it really failed to make a great impression on me. Dickens's portrayal of the French Revolution is masterful and his prose is excellent, but the characterization is too weak.
A Streetcar Named Desire, I just could not understand. I could understand the play very well, but I could not understand what makes it great.
I liked the "Street Car..", though it's probably not my favourite of T. Williams's plays. I consider it atmospheric in a kind of dark way, but generally I prefer more light-hearted readings for the time being. I mean, I find it a little bit hard to handle the violence in all the plays of his that I've read -except "The glass menagerie" which is my favourite.
Anyway, the so-called masterpiece I could not stand reading -unfortunately, I had to, though- was "Gulliver's travels". What a bore!
Anything written by Jane Austin, If I had to read one more eulogy on the excruciating Mr Darcy, suicide would be a serious consideration. She does write about what she knows but, my God, her subject material is limited to say the least. You would hardly be aware that Britain was in a life or death struggle with the French, but she certainly knows all about polite conversation at the dinner table. Give me the gutsy Bronte sisters anyday. Getting that of my chest was so cathartic.
Anything by William Faulkner, but especially The Sound and the Fury. Anyone how admits to writing without grammer or plot is not being innovative, they're just being an a**hole.
The film :) It's not as fun on the page as some of them (Cat on A Hot Tin Roof and Glass Menagerie read much better) but the film's a good adaptation, although they've watered down Blanche's misdemeanours.Quote:
Originally Posted by five-trey
I've had mostly bad luck with classics. I've tried to read the usual acclaimed authors and titles, I've wanted to like them, but it almost always fails with me.
Add another for 'Catch-22'. Monotonous writing, I'm not a big fan of satire, and the characters were all idiots and jerks. Think I wanted Yossarian to just die already.
Another for Jane Austen too. Bloated old-style writing that just gets in the way. Same for Dickens, especially with 'The Pickwick Papers', think that book acually gave me a headache.
Hemingway. Yep, he's boring, maybe not horrible.. The overlong sentences in 'A Farewell to Arms' were something different, so I kind of appreciate styles that aren't the norm, even if the story and writing don't interest me. Same for 'Blood Meridian', which might count as a classic.
And 'Dune' by Frank Herbert (sci-fi classic) too much royal political stuff and bland characters who act too much alike, just didn't care enough to keep reading after about 150 pages..
Worst classics is an oxymoron..
You just don't like good books :PQuote:
Originally Posted by teashi
That is probably what people will say about our contemporary writers when they are about 200 years old...Quote:
Originally Posted by teashi
Of course it is bloated, but whether we should reproach her that is the question... But hey, this is 'the worst classics'-topic so I should not comment...
For someone who complains about grammar, they certainly don't pay much attention to their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by snowangel
As for Faulkner writing without plots, I don't see how this is at all possible. If there is one thing that Beckett has shown us: you can strip fiction down to its barest components, but there must be plot.
And that's entirely besides the point. Faulkner's novels all have plots. How can you read As I Lay Dying and not gather anything of its plot?
The Sound and the Fury's grammar is completely traditional for the bulk of the novel, and this includes the First Section, and the final two. Faulkner's grammatical innovation in the Second Section (Quentin) is a development on the stream of consciousness technique, which attempts to represent the innerworkings of the human (in this case, neurotic/diseased) mind. The mind, especially when in a state of anxiety, often does not work in complete, declarative sentences.
It is generalized statements like these, with no evidence, no argument, that cause these negative reputations to develop.
Don't worry, more respectable people appreciate Faulkner than attack him without warrant.
I confess I don't like Roman epic poetry very much for it is pompous and overloaded with florid metaphors.
Hah. Yes, that was a little too vehement, I must admit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
emile zola, theodore dreiser - to mention only two names.
I think Jane Austin wanted to bring something new to the reading public - real characters in real life struggles. It's not deep on an international socioeconomic level, but her characters really bring me in so that I care about them. There's an art to that, n'est-ce pas?Quote:
Originally Posted by jocky
This is one of the few classics I couldn't even get through. I even read The Hunchback of Notre Dame all the way through, but could not glean the point of Gulliver's Travels.Quote:
Originally Posted by valleyjune