The Worst Classics You Have Ever Read

[five-trey]

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.

[valleyjune]

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!

[jocky]

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.

[snowangel]

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.

[kelby_lake]

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.

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.

[teashi]

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..

[rozreads]

Worst classics is an oxymoron..

[Dr. Hill]

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..

You just don't like good books :P

[kiki1982]

Another for Jane Austen too. Bloated old-style writing that just gets in the way.

That is probably what people will say about our contemporary writers when they are about 200 years old...

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...

[mayneverhave]

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.

For someone who complains about grammar, they certainly don't pay much attention to their own.

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.

[Dr. Hill]

Don't worry, more respectable people appreciate Faulkner than attack him without warrant.

[amarna]

I confess I don't like Roman epic poetry very much for it is pompous and overloaded with florid metaphors.

[mayneverhave]

Don't worry, more respectable people appreciate Faulkner than attack him without warrant.

Hah. Yes, that was a little too vehement, I must admit.

[DisPater]

emile zola, theodore dreiser - to mention only two names.

[Lynne Fees]

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.

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?

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!

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.