The Worst Classics You Have Ever Read

[Kafka's Crow]

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*

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.

[Jozanny]

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.

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.

[kelby_lake]

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.

[Emil Miller]

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.

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.

[Vincent Black]

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.

[Brendan Madley]

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

[Niamh]

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)

[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...

[LitNetIsGreat]

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?

[Jozanny]

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.

[ladyflorange]

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...

[learntodiscover]

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.

[carrotcake]

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

[kelby_lake]

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

[bounty]

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