Most disappointing "classic" author?

[andyandy]

I've just finished PG Wodehouse's Carry on Jeeves, now from the recommendations i've heard about Wodehouse I was expecting a literary great to rival Oscar Wilde in his wit and prose, and yet, it was incredibly ordinary.....not dreadful, perfectly readable, but not in the least bit special.....all in all a big disappointment.

so who's your most disappointing classic author? Do you agree about Wodehouse? (and is he even regarded as a classic author outside the uk?)

[Simon39759]

I don't know if you'd qualify Lovecraft as a 'classic' but, for me, he is really undeserving of his stellar reputation.
I find his writing to be quite terrible, both pedantic and yet, clumsy, like he tried to use and reuse the few very pedantic words he knew without actually really understanding their meaning.
His stories are a bit better and certainly, they were innovating for the time... For the time, people had done it better, I think, since then.
And of course, the bigotry that sometime ooses from some of his story is quite irking.

[plumjam]

Ouch.. I heartily disagree.
IMO Wodehouse was the greatest English language writer of the 20th Century, both in terms of quality and sustained output. He is somewhat overlooked in the 'classic author' stakes because his writing is funny, and probably also because (another thing I like about him) he is clearly not trying to be a classic author.
He is laugh-out-loud funny which is a rare talent. Not only that but he manages to write in a way which plants an almost permanent smile on my face while reading.
No other author has done that. Oscar Wilde or Evelyn Waugh don't come close. Nothing I ever read of Oscar Wilde ever made me laugh.

The main reason I'm glad to have English as my mother tongue is that I can read and appreciate Wodehouse in the original.

Oh, and his nickname to his nearest and dearest was Plum ;)
So there!

Not something very amenable to argument though. You gets it or you doesn't.

[Alice Shortcake]

I love P G Wodehouse but I have to say that his plots aren't terribly imaginative - there's a limit to the number of imposters Blandings Castle can hold! And there's a certain haziness as to when some of his later works are set - having been told that Lord Emsworth went to school in the 1860s it comes as something of a shock to find him still alive in the era of TV and supermarkets....

My own most disappointing classic authors would have to be Henry James and J R R Tolkein, both of whom I find unreadable.

[Professor Yaffle]

Charles Dickens. From adaptations, I think he wrote some really good stories, but when reading the originals, I find him unreadable.

[andyandy]

interesting that Wodehouse is getting support, maybe i chose a bad example of his books, or maybe his writing just isn't my thing....:)

in return i'd heartily disagree about Tolkein and Dickens - both of them are genuine geniuses....

i've not read Lovecraft, maybe a good thing ;)

[HansMustermann]

I guess it's a personal tastes thing.

For me too the greatest disappointment was Tolkien. I like fantasy, and have read and liked a lot of novels in the genre. So eventually I get curious, after everybody was telling me how utterly absolutely great LOTR is, and how everyone else from Feist to Pratchett ripped off Tolkien, etc. You get the idea. Plus, the sheer size of the following he has... a few million LOTR fans can't all be wrong, right?

Maybe I approached it with too high expectations after all that hype, I dunno.

But for me it was boring to heck and back. Now I'm not opposed to _some_ describing the setting where something happens. It helps imagine it. But Tolkien was describing stuff just for the sake of describing it. There are places where nothing happens except some Hobbit singing a song, but it's described in painstaking detail for several pages before that song, plus every funny shaped tree, rock, bend in the road, etc, on the way there.

It was almost like reading the travel log of someone's hike through the woods (and through a mine, and...), with the exception that now and then the plot actually gets advanced a notch.

[andyandy]

But Tolkien was describing stuff just for the sake of describing it. There are places where nothing happens except some Hobbit singing a song, but it's described in painstaking detail for several pages before that song, plus every funny shaped tree, rock, bend in the road, etc, on the way there.

It was almost like reading the travel log of someone's hike through the woods (and through a mine, and...), with the exception that now and then the plot actually gets advanced a notch.

This is a guy who created his own language for his books - he was nothing if not thorough :D

I wonder about LOTR and The Hobbit - I read both of them about 5 times as a child, alongside Dahl and Blyton they were my favourite books. Would i still enjoy them the same as an adult? I'm not sure.......but in my memory they're amongst the best books ever written.

[HansMustermann]

Well, he gets credit for that. But at times it feels like the actual storytelling takes second place to just letting him introduce that language and describe the geography he invented.

In a sense, it's sorta like the reverse of Eugene Ionesco's story. Quoth Wikipedia about Ionesco:

At the age of 40 he decided to learn English using the Assimil method, conscientiously copying whole sentences in order to memorize them. Re-reading them, he began to feel that he was not learning English, rather he was discovering some astonishing truths such as the fact that there are seven days in a week, that the ceiling is up and the floor is down; things which he already knew, but which suddenly struck him as being as stupefying as they were indisputably true.

This feeling only intensified with the introduction in later lessons of the characters known as "Mr. and Mrs. Smith". To his astonishment, Mrs. Smith informed her husband that they had several children, that they lived in the vicinity of London, that their name was Smith, that Mr. Smith was a clerk, that they had a servant, Mary, who was English like themselves. What was remarkable about Mrs. Smith, he thought, was her eminently methodical procedure in her quest for truth.

Here Ionesco feels like he's discovering a whole story in a beginner's book on English. With Tolkien, well, I'm getting that sensation in reverse :p

As I was saying, I'm not opposed to some description to set the stage or mood. But that's the catch: it damn better serve to set a stage or an important mood twist.

As a rule of thumb, if you're on the 3'rd page of describing a location, it darn better be the stage for something _epic_. If I wade through that much description of one place, I expect every rock and tree in that description to be used in the grand scene or battle that'll happen there. If on that third place there's a description of a tree with a branch above the road and the nearby bubbling brook, then I want drow assassins or orcs waiting in ambush on that branch. Otherwise don't waste my time with one particular branch out of the literally millions that the party could see in those woods.

[fuelair]

Ouch.. I heartily disagree.
IMO Wodehouse was the greatest English language writer of the 20th Century, both in terms of quality and sustained output. He is somewhat overlooked in the 'classic author' stakes because his writing is funny, and probably also because (another thing I like about him) he is clearly not trying to be a classic author.
He is laugh-out-loud funny which is a rare talent. Not only that but he manages to write in a way which plants an almost permanent smile on my face while reading.
No other author has done that. Oscar Wilde or Evelyn Waugh don't come close. Nothing I ever read of Oscar Wilde ever made me laugh.

The main reason I'm glad to have English as my mother tongue is that I can read and appreciate Wodehouse in the original.

Oh, and his nickname to his nearest and dearest was Plum ;)
So there!

Not something very amenable to argument though. You gets it or you doesn't.

Quite love Wodehouse!! Yes there is some repetition of plot but for turn of phrase and raise of eyebrow and crush of silly moralities he would be quite difficult to equal, much less beat. I do tend to overall prefer his short fiction, but will read anything he wrote. Interestingly, if Agatha Christie had more ability in that direction, her Tommy and Tuppence stories would have become full classics in the field rather than the sidelines to her career they are generally considered to be.

[fuelair]

Re: Tolkien, it might help to know that travelogues were - and still are - popular among the classically trained and more erudite Britons (easiest evidence-The Folio Society is rife with them - an indication that they sell well among collectors and that, though not proof, is evidence they are popular reading among such persons). I quite suspect that such were in Tolkien's background.

[HansMustermann]

Fair enough. Anyone who is or was into travelogues, certainly has no reason for disappointment with Tolkien.

[Lucian]

I guess it's a personal tastes thing.

For me too the greatest disappointment was Tolkien. I like fantasy, and have read and liked a lot of novels in the genre. So eventually I get curious, after everybody was telling me how utterly absolutely great LOTR is, and how everyone else from Feist to Pratchett ripped off Tolkien, etc. You get the idea. Plus, the sheer size of the following he has... a few million LOTR fans can't all be wrong, right?

Maybe I approached it with too high expectations after all that hype, I dunno.

But for me it was boring to heck and back. Now I'm not opposed to _some_ describing the setting where something happens. It helps imagine it. But Tolkien was describing stuff just for the sake of describing it. There are places where nothing happens except some Hobbit singing a song, but it's described in painstaking detail for several pages before that song, plus every funny shaped tree, rock, bend in the road, etc, on the way there.

It was almost like reading the travel log of someone's hike through the woods (and through a mine, and...), with the exception that now and then the plot actually gets advanced a notch.

I also find LOTR unutterably dull. This is considered something akin to blasphemy amongst my fellow medievalists, who try to convince me to like it by pointing out medievally things in the books. I'd rather read the originals, which are remarkably free of sentimentality and don't consist of pages upon pages of descriptions. LOTR is medieval literature that has been swallowed by Victorianism.

[plumjam]

My own most disappointing classic authors would have to be Henry James and J R R Tolkein, both of whom I find unreadable.

I would especially agree on Henry James. The weird thing is that his brother William (philosopher/psychologist) was a wonderful writer (the clearest writer of philosophy in English, ever, I think) much better than Henry, yet Henry was the one who became the 'classic author'.

I often think that if you're too much of an enjoyable read and/or too popular with the general population you've scuppered your chances of being taken seriously as a writer. If the critics show themselves to agree with the general population then they have given away some of their cachet, it seems.

[Andronicus]

My least favorite "classic" author is Faulkner. I love Hemingway, like Fitzgerald, but can't get into Faulkner's work.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Shakespeare, especially Romeo and Juliet. Mostly for plot stupidity.

[Lucian]

Shakespeare, especially Romeo and Juliet. Mostly for plot stupidity.

Well he borrowed most of his plots.

[Pure Argent]

I don't know if you'd qualify Lovecraft as a 'classic' but, for me, he is really undeserving of his stellar reputation.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot live in a forum with someone who thinks this. "Cthulhu fhtaghn" and all that.

Now I just can't decide whether to leave the JREF or to put you on ignore.

Decisions, decisions... :cs:

[dasmiller]

I don't know if you'd qualify Lovecraft as a 'classic' but, for me, he is really undeserving of his stellar reputation.
I find his writing to be quite terrible, both pedantic and yet, clumsy, like he tried to use and reuse the few very pedantic words he knew without actually really understanding their meaning.
His stories are a bit better and certainly, they were innovating for the time... For the time, people had done it better, I think, since then.
And of course, the bigotry that sometime ooses from some of his story is quite irking.

You know, I'd read a couple of his books, and thought they were sort of hit-or-miss, but then I had a deeply weird nightmare that had a very Lovecraftian feel to it.

So I feel an obligation to temper my criticism.

[Beanbag]

The problem with Shakespeare is they make you read it -- it's a play, fer cat's sake. It is supposed to be seen and heard, not read. A printed page is NOT the proper medium for Shakespeare. Reading it is akin to somebody trying to develop an appreciation of Dante's Inferno presented via Morse code, or Swan Lake performed by the Green Bay Packers.

Beanbag

[aggle-rithm]

I guess it's a personal tastes thing.

For me too the greatest disappointment was Tolkien. I like fantasy, and have read and liked a lot of novels in the genre. So eventually I get curious, after everybody was telling me how utterly absolutely great LOTR is, and how everyone else from Feist to Pratchett ripped off Tolkien, etc. You get the idea. Plus, the sheer size of the following he has... a few million LOTR fans can't all be wrong, right?

Maybe I approached it with too high expectations after all that hype, I dunno.

But for me it was boring to heck and back. Now I'm not opposed to _some_ describing the setting where something happens. It helps imagine it. But Tolkien was describing stuff just for the sake of describing it. There are places where nothing happens except some Hobbit singing a song, but it's described in painstaking detail for several pages before that song, plus every funny shaped tree, rock, bend in the road, etc, on the way there.

It was almost like reading the travel log of someone's hike through the woods (and through a mine, and...), with the exception that now and then the plot actually gets advanced a notch.

What was the deal with that whole hobbit insurrection at the end of LOTR? Anticlimactic, pointless, boring...just a few words to describe a subplot that seemed like it belonged in a different book.

[fuelair]

It's point was to show that no matter how isolated/out of the way/off the beaten path/peaceful and uneventful a place may be, there are situations so large the people there ultimately cannot avoid those situations and must either be destroyed by them or find it in themselves to kick some magic butt all the way back to hell or it's equivalent.
Merry and Pippin got to make it the ass kicking instead of the arse licking!!

That's why we fans wanted it in the movie (and let's not even get into the Bombadil loss which was good enough for Babylon Five's LOTR riffs).

[fuelair]

I'm sorry, but I just cannot live in a forum with someone who thinks this. "Cthulhu fhtaghn" and all that.

Now I just can't decide whether to leave the JREF or to put you on ignore.

Decisions, decisions... :cs:

Just let him meet the master by the shores where Dagon rules!!

[dasmiller]

The problem with Shakespeare is they make you read it -- it's a play, fer cat's sake. It is supposed to be seen and heard, not read. A printed page is NOT the proper medium for Shakespeare. Reading it is akin to somebody trying to develop an appreciation of Dante's Inferno presented via Morse code, or Swan Lake performed by the Green Bay Packers.

Beanbag

Plus it's hard to appreciate Shakespeare if you haven't read it in the original Klingon . . .

Actually, I think a lot of 'classic' literature gets forced on us in high school (U.S.) when we really are too young to enjoy it.

Now that I think of it, though, I re-read Siddhartha again last year, and was very underwhelmed. I think I actually liked it better when I was 17.

So I'll nominate Herman Hesse.

[poeatszeitgeist]

Charles Dickens. From adaptations, I think he wrote some really good stories, but when reading the originals, I find him unreadable.

Ditto. Though, for somewhat different reasons.

I found his plot "coincidences" to be a little bit too much to swallow sometimes.

My least favorite "classic" author is Faulkner. I love Hemingway, like Fitzgerald, but can't get into Faulkner's work.

Oh my gasp! My most favorite, for sure. Most people hate Faulkner after The Sound and the Fury, but I've been lost down Yoknapatawpha County ever since. Seriously. It may be a mild obsession.

I guess different strokes for different folks. ;)

[Lord Muck oGentry]

James Joyce.
May God forgive him for Ulysses. A task best left to the omnipotent.

[dasmiller]

Okay, this may not fit the original intent of "classic" and I know I'm risking heresy here, but . . . some of the later Heinlein stuff - "horny old man has massive sex with beautiful young redheads" - but it's in the future, so it's SF. Or in alternate universes, so it's SF. Or it's in the present, so it's SF. Or - was there one where they'd time-traveled to the past?

It's not that the SF was bad, it's just that after a few books of the "horny old man/beautiful young redhead" thing, it was hard to maintain the suspension of disbelief.

Not that I'm opposed to the idea of-

nevermind.

[Lucian]

Oh dear, how embarrassing. Having just been rude about LOTR, I have to ask Tolkien enthusiasts a question: somewhere in The Hobbit, Bilbo wonders what use treasure could possibly be to a dragon. Does anyone know the quote offhand or in what chapter it appears?

[Cactus Wren]

I don't know if this counts as "classic", but all during my growing-up years my mother wholeheartedly recommended the works of Gene Stratton Porter, particularly Freckles. She wished desperately that she could find me a copy, but never did. Finally, a few years after her death, I found that it had come back into print and seized it with great anticipation.

My god.

The hero was raised in a Chicago orphanage. He's eighteen now, on his own, and gives his name only as "Freckles" -- because, as he explains, being an orphan he has no right to an identity of his own. Orphans and "foundlings" (code for "bastards") don't, you know: it's right and proper and admirable for Freckles to tell his first employer, "I am going to be your man and do your work, and I'll be glad to answer to any name you choose to call me. Won't you please be giving me a name, Mr. McLean?"

Note the speech pattern there: "be giving me a name". Freckles is Irish. Boy, is he ever Irish. He was raised from infancy in a Chicago orphanage, has never heard any but an American voice in his conscious life, and yet speaks with (Gene Stratton-Porter's concept of) an Irish accent. An upper-class Irish accent, yet: "Somewhere before accident and poverty there had been an ancestor who used cultivated English, even with an accent. The boy spoke in a mellow Irish voice, sweet and pure."

An inherited accent. An inherited upper-class accent. An inherited use of "cultivated English". All this in a child found battered and missing a hand, on the steps of an orphanage.

Freckles educates himself and falls in love. (With a girl who's never given any name in the story but "the Swamp Angel". Her father is "the Man of Affairs". Stratton-Porter apparently had some issues about names.) But he has to keep his love secret, although the Angel obviously loves him back. Why? Why, precisely because he is an orphan, a bastard, and an abused child. Abused children are unworthy of compassion, because they are the offspring of abusers. Coming from violent and incompassionate parents, they must carry the seeds of violence and callousness. It is regarded -- by Freckles himself, by the other characters, and clearly by Stratton-Porter -- as better and "finer" for him to make himself and his love desperately unhappy than to even think of courting her without "knowledge of honorable birth".

Freckles, of course, is no violent and callous creature. He is intelligent, passionately curious about the natural world, talented, and loving. This proves, of course, that it doesn't matter what his parents were -- right? He is himself a decent, upright, upstanding human being, courageous and compassionate, and therefore worthy of the Angel's love.

It proves no such thing.

He is a decent, upright, upstanding human being. Therefore -- his parents must have been all those things too. He is a gifted singer: therefore, "somewhere in [his] close blood is a marvelously trained vocalist". He possesses "tact and courtesy"; therefore, they must and can only be "a direct inheritance from a race of men that have been gentlemen for ages, and couldn't be anything else".

There's a happy ending, of course. Freckles is proven worthy of love, and accepts that he is worthy of love ... when it's learned that he was injured in an accident (not abused), and that he's a descendant of Irish nobility. Never -- not once -- is it suggested that he might prove himself worthy of the Angel, regardless of what his ancestors may or may not have been. Simply being a good and upright and compassionate human being is not enough.

My mother loved this book when she was a girl. I genuinely cannot see why.

(Yes, I have borrowed some of this text from my Amazon review of the book.)

[Cactus Wren]

Okay, this may not fit the original intent of "classic" and I know I'm risking heresy here, but . . . some of the later Heinlein stuff - "horny old man has massive sex with beautiful young redheads" - but it's in the future, so it's SF. Or in alternate universes, so it's SF. Or it's in the present, so it's SF. Or - was there one where they'd time-traveled to the past?

Oh, yeah. Time Enough for Love, in which horny old -- old, old, old, old, old, old, old, old, OLD -- Lazarus Long time-travels back to 1916 Missouri and has massive sex with a beautiful and young-looking redhead ... who happens to be his mother. But not until after he's had massive sex with beautiful young twin redheads who happen to be his own female clones.

[Brainster]

I used to think that Wodehouse would last forever, but I'm afraid you need a classical education to appreciate much of the humor, and fewer people are getting that every year. Yes, his plots are silly and the same McGuffins get used over and over again, but the writing absolutely sparkles and he's brilliant at devising scenes.

I'm not sure I have a classic author that I found disappointing. Thomas Hardy, perhaps, although I did enjoy Mayor of Casterbridge.

[patchbunny]

Could not stand Lord of the Rings. Terrible, terrible trilogy. Also had to fight my way through Mutiny on the Bounty. And let's not get into how bad Moby Dick was And don't even start with Shakespeare. Gads, I hate his work.

Been trying to get through Wilkie Collin's Moonstone. Started reading it three times, but it's since been stolen from my car. Need to get around to buying another copy. Not terrible, just slow and I get distracted by other books. I'm currently going through Ian Flemming's works again. Been so long I don't recall the plot lines anymore.

Liked Lovecraft, liked HG Wells. Never got into Oscar Wilde, but wouldn't mind giving him a try. And oddly, Catcher in the Rye has been popping into my head as of late. I may pick up a copy and reread it. Not looked at that since high school.

[Lucian]

I don't know if this counts as "classic", but all during my growing-up years my mother wholeheartedly recommended the works of Gene Stratton Porter, particularly Freckles. She wished desperately that she could find me a copy, but never did. Finally, a few years after her death, I found that it had come back into print and seized it with great anticipation.

My god.

The hero was raised in a Chicago orphanage. He's eighteen now, on his own, and gives his name only as "Freckles" -- because, as he explains, being an orphan he has no right to an identity of his own. Orphans and "foundlings" (code for "bastards") don't, you know: it's right and proper and admirable for Freckles to tell his first employer, "I am going to be your man and do your work, and I'll be glad to answer to any name you choose to call me. Won't you please be giving me a name, Mr. McLean?"

Note the speech pattern there: "be giving me a name". Freckles is Irish. Boy, is he ever Irish. He was raised from infancy in a Chicago orphanage, has never heard any but an American voice in his conscious life, and yet speaks with (Gene Stratton-Porter's concept of) an Irish accent. An upper-class Irish accent, yet: "Somewhere before accident and poverty there had been an ancestor who used cultivated English, even with an accent. The boy spoke in a mellow Irish voice, sweet and pure."

An inherited accent. An inherited upper-class accent. An inherited use of "cultivated English". All this in a child found battered and missing a hand, on the steps of an orphanage.

Freckles educates himself and falls in love. (With a girl who's never given any name in the story but "the Swamp Angel". Her father is "the Man of Affairs". Stratton-Porter apparently had some issues about names.) But he has to keep his love secret, although the Angel obviously loves him back. Why? Why, precisely because he is an orphan, a bastard, and an abused child. Abused children are unworthy of compassion, because they are the offspring of abusers. Coming from violent and incompassionate parents, they must carry the seeds of violence and callousness. It is regarded -- by Freckles himself, by the other characters, and clearly by Stratton-Porter -- as better and "finer" for him to make himself and his love desperately unhappy than to even think of courting her without "knowledge of honorable birth".

Freckles, of course, is no violent and callous creature. He is intelligent, passionately curious about the natural world, talented, and loving. This proves, of course, that it doesn't matter what his parents were -- right? He is himself a decent, upright, upstanding human being, courageous and compassionate, and therefore worthy of the Angel's love.

It proves no such thing.

He is a decent, upright, upstanding human being. Therefore -- his parents must have been all those things too. He is a gifted singer: therefore, "somewhere in [his] close blood is a marvelously trained vocalist". He possesses "tact and courtesy"; therefore, they must and can only be "a direct inheritance from a race of men that have been gentlemen for ages, and couldn't be anything else".

There's a happy ending, of course. Freckles is proven worthy of love, and accepts that he is worthy of love ... when it's learned that he was injured in an accident (not abused), and that he's a descendant of Irish nobility. Never -- not once -- is it suggested that he might prove himself worthy of the Angel, regardless of what his ancestors may or may not have been. Simply being a good and upright and compassionate human being is not enough.

My mother loved this book when she was a girl. I genuinely cannot see why.

(Yes, I have borrowed some of this text from my Amazon review of the book.)

Wow, that sounds truly awful. Coincidentally, my mother's dog is named Freckles. She came from a doggy orphanage (shelter) and is of--ahem--mixed parentage. She is a good and loving dog, and that IS enough to make her worthy of love, even if she doesn't have a particularly refined, upper-class bark.

[Aitch]

Charles Dickens. From adaptations, I think he wrote some really good stories, but when reading the originals, I find him unreadable.

Same goes for me. However, I did come across a copy of Sketches by Boz ina 2nd hand book shop. Have a read of that - it's a collection of his short stuff and I found it very readable.


Actually, I think a lot of 'classic' literature gets forced on us in high school (U.S.) when we really are too young to enjoy it.


I think the same goes for the UK too. Mind, I did (a good few years ago) try re-reading books that I'd hated at school, to see how I felt about them now. With mixed results:
Lorna Doone - R.D. Blackmore - still awful
Kidnapped - R.L. Stevenson - ditto
The Mayor of Casterbridge - Thomas Hardy - actually, not a bad book
Silas Marner - George Elliot - a pretty good book (if a bit sentimental).

Being forced to read Bill Shakespeare (and learn chunks by heart) put me off him rather; until I came across some rather good versions, done by the BBC Schools Programmes department, on TV.

One thing I think we need to remember about Victorian novels is that they were, to an extent, written to fill in a lot of time (long journeys etc); which entails a lot of filler material - which could explain a lot about the travelogues and Tolkein. ;)

Oh, and I don't think much of Wodehouse either - lots of basically unpleasant people doing stupid things. IMO of course.

[JJM 777]

Shakespeare (...) Mostly for plot stupidity.
Yep Shakespeare has been the most disappointing "great and famous" writer for me. But then, also the earliest classical composers like Vivaldi have disappointed me, but in music it is easier to see the gradual global development of new interesting techniques and esthetic values. The very first classical composers did an amazing work, thinking that they had really no predecessors to imitate in style and technique. I guess Shakespeare has been given a special place in the history of literature from such a viewpoint, in context of his own era, not in context of the literary quality expectations of the modern era.

[gtc]

I also find LOTR unutterably dull. This is considered something akin to blasphemy amongst my fellow medievalists, who try to convince me to like it by pointing out medievally things in the books.

Maybe you could point out to them that there are few things more medievalish than dying of the black death but that you would not recommend it.

[lionking]

Another vote for Dickens. And I really, really tried.

[Cactus Wren]

Wow, that sounds truly awful. Coincidentally, my mother's dog is named Freckles. She came from a doggy orphanage (shelter) and is of--ahem--mixed parentage. She is a good and loving dog, and that IS enough to make her worthy of love, even if she doesn't have a particularly refined, upper-class bark.

Give Freckles a snuzzle from me.

Stratton-Porter wrote several other books, and all those I've tried are at least as bad as Freckles. A Girl of the Limberlost is based on the idea, "This is the rarest moth in the Limberlost swamps of Indiana! Habitat loss has driven it to the point of extinction! I must find every one of them I can, kill them and pin them to cards!"

I couldn't even get through the first chapter of The Harvester -- I gave up at the dog-kicking scene. (The dog-kicker is the hero. The dog is his own, and his best friend of many years' standing; it merited the kick by misinterpreting his body language. The vicious attack is treated as a minor error of judgment on the hero's part.)

And then there's Her Father's Daughter, about which I will say nothing lest I wax ranty.

[Merko]

I think Wodehouse is brilliant and entertaining but perhaps not great literature (when you've finished the book, I don't feel there's really anything that 'sticks').

Lovecraft is much underrated in my opinion. I haven't found any more recent horror author that I can even enjoy, without thinking 'Lovecraft did this so much better ages ago'.

I agree Tolkien is overrated. The story is too stereotypical and not really interesting. I did finish the books though and they had some entertainment value.

I would nominate Joseph Heller. I tried to read Catch 22 but after half the book I finally determined that what I at first thought was an overly long introduction was in fact the book.

[Simon39759]

The LOTR books are a very, very slow start, but things start to pick up once they get in the Moria.

They ARE stereotypical, but that's a bit of the idea, as Tolkien wanted to imitate the sagas from classical myth. His inspirational role to the whole genera of fantasy did not help either even a truly original work would be less so after being imitated for generations.

Meh; I enjoyed it myself, especially the last two books. But, if I had to chose, I would read a Pratchet or a Glen Cook...

[Lucian]

The LOTR books are a very, very slow start, but things start to pick up once they get in the Moria.

They ARE stereotypical, but that's a bit of the idea, as Tolkien wanted to imitate the sagas from classical myth. His inspirational role to the whole genera of fantasy did not help either even a truly original work would be less so after being imitated for generations.

Meh; I enjoyed it myself, especially the last two books. But, if I had to chose, I would read a Pratchet or a Glen Cook...

But the style and tone are completely different from the sagas. In the sagas, if a character is experiencing strong emotion, he rattles off some incomprehensible poetry (that may have something to do with how no one can tell how he feels), and then he kills the heck out of someone. That's my kind of literature.

[CptColumbo]

Ben Jonson. His plays are almost unreadable, except Volpone. They might have been hilarious to the Elizabethans, but I don't get it.

[fleabeetle]

I totally cannot stand Jane Austen. While never feeling that I -- a male -- would find her subject-matter obviously fascinating; am aware that she’s got impassioned devotees (of both sexes) by the million. I’ve thus had several tries at two or three of her novels, over quite a long space of time; and never been able to get past the first couple of dozen pages.

A big turn-off for me about Jane’s works, is something really trivial, but I seem unable to get past it: her two-centuries-ago-type use of English. Always found that intensely annoying: to me, highly stilted and “mannered”; plus, certain ways of rendering things in writing, differently from the present-day convention. For example: “somebody” or “anybody”, which we nowadays write as one word, she writes as two. Found this quite disproportionately infuriating, to the point of wanting to grab her by the throat and yell at her, “you stupid Georgian biddy, it ISN’T ‘any body’ !”

As a poster has said, “different strokes” – Jane Austen’s work must have great merit (otherwise, her following would be confined to a few eccentrics); but she’s clearly never going to be for me.

[bookitty]

This thread reminds me of Mark Twain's rant against James Fenmore Cooper. Highly recommended, btw.

Personally, I can't stand O' Henry, even his less sappy stuff. It's just too hard to read when you're rolling your eyes every third page.

Other than that, it's more authors I've outgrown. Ayn Rand used to be a favorite but these days I'd rather read comic books then plow through another 26 page pedantic dinner scene. In my early 20's, Bukowski soothed my rebel soul, now his stuff just seems sad and pathetic.

[fuelair]

I don't know if this counts as "classic", but all during my growing-up years my mother wholeheartedly recommended the works of Gene Stratton Porter, particularly Freckles. She wished desperately that she could find me a copy, but never did. Finally, a few years after her death, I found that it had come back into print and seized it with great anticipation.

My god.

The hero was raised in a Chicago orphanage. He's eighteen now, on his own, and gives his name only as "Freckles" -- because, as he explains, being an orphan he has no right to an identity of his own. Orphans and "foundlings" (code for "bastards") don't, you know: it's right and proper and admirable for Freckles to tell his first employer, "I am going to be your man and do your work, and I'll be glad to answer to any name you choose to call me. Won't you please be giving me a name, Mr. McLean?"

Note the speech pattern there: "be giving me a name". Freckles is Irish. Boy, is he ever Irish. He was raised from infancy in a Chicago orphanage, has never heard any but an American voice in his conscious life, and yet speaks with (Gene Stratton-Porter's concept of) an Irish accent. An upper-class Irish accent, yet: "Somewhere before accident and poverty there had been an ancestor who used cultivated English, even with an accent. The boy spoke in a mellow Irish voice, sweet and pure."

An inherited accent. An inherited upper-class accent. An inherited use of "cultivated English". All this in a child found battered and missing a hand, on the steps of an orphanage.

Freckles educates himself and falls in love. (With a girl who's never given any name in the story but "the Swamp Angel". Her father is "the Man of Affairs". Stratton-Porter apparently had some issues about names.) But he has to keep his love secret, although the Angel obviously loves him back. Why? Why, precisely because he is an orphan, a bastard, and an abused child. Abused children are unworthy of compassion, because they are the offspring of abusers. Coming from violent and incompassionate parents, they must carry the seeds of violence and callousness. It is regarded -- by Freckles himself, by the other characters, and clearly by Stratton-Porter -- as better and "finer" for him to make himself and his love desperately unhappy than to even think of courting her without "knowledge of honorable birth".

Freckles, of course, is no violent and callous creature. He is intelligent, passionately curious about the natural world, talented, and loving. This proves, of course, that it doesn't matter what his parents were -- right? He is himself a decent, upright, upstanding human being, courageous and compassionate, and therefore worthy of the Angel's love.

It proves no such thing.

He is a decent, upright, upstanding human being. Therefore -- his parents must have been all those things too. He is a gifted singer: therefore, "somewhere in [his] close blood is a marvelously trained vocalist". He possesses "tact and courtesy"; therefore, they must and can only be "a direct inheritance from a race of men that have been gentlemen for ages, and couldn't be anything else".

There's a happy ending, of course. Freckles is proven worthy of love, and accepts that he is worthy of love ... when it's learned that he was injured in an accident (not abused), and that he's a descendant of Irish nobility. Never -- not once -- is it suggested that he might prove himself worthy of the Angel, regardless of what his ancestors may or may not have been. Simply being a good and upright and compassionate human being is not enough.

My mother loved this book when she was a girl. I genuinely cannot see why.

(Yes, I have borrowed some of this text from my Amazon review of the book.)

Lots of this be good and honorable and upright and you shall receive a fortune and the worship of lesser men stuff. Read a bunch in elementary school (my 4th grade, or so, teacher had them in her room. Preferred reading to studying. Read SF, mythology, that, the occasional adult (for the time) item. Big reader!!

[Ron_Tomkins]

My mother had strongly recommended me Bram Stoker's Dracula, which I bought as soon as I finished the book I was currently reading at the time. And to be honest, the first chapters of the book really caught me. I enjoyed it a lot. But then..... it just became endless. It just went on and on and on and on and on and on and on with the hunting of Dracula and blablabla Carfax and blablabla the boxes, and yadda yadda yadda, we're tracing these boxes all the way down to Stockeyville and blablabla Carfax and blablabla, we're tracing this letter of whatever and so on and on and on and on and on and on....... it honestly got on my nerves. I so badly wanted it to end but it was like it never did. The only reason I didn't just quit reading is because I like to "finish my meal" when it comes to reading books.

[fuelair]

Mine (reading, not owned) were:http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_13?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=horatio+alger+books&sprefix=Horatio+Alger

[fuelair]

My mother had strongly recommended me Bram Stoker's Dracula, which I bought as soon as I finished the book I was currently reading at the time. And to be honest, the first chapters of the book really caught me. I enjoyed it a lot. But then..... it just became endless. It just went on and on and on and on and on and on and on with the hunting of Dracula and blablabla Carfax and blablabla the boxes, and yadda yadda yadda, we're tracing these boxes all the way down to Stockeyville and blablabla Carfax and blablabla, we're tracing this letter of whatever and so on and on and on and on and on and on....... it honestly got on my nerves. I so badly wanted it to end but it was like it never did. The only reason I didn't just quit reading is because I like to "finish my meal" when it comes to reading books.

From the time when most people could not afford to buy books so they rented them from lending libraries for a small fee. The books were often issued in multiple parts so one full novel could make more money for the libraries. Plus, without Radio/TV/Cinema, books were heavy in the entertainment field. Which meant the books needed to be long - frequently issued in three parts.

[Simon39759]

I didn't know that.

I remember that a lot of the first novels, in the 19th century, were printed in a serialized format in Newspapers which would have a similar effect.

[catsmate1]

James Joyce.
May God forgive him for Ulysses. A task best left to the omnipotent.

I heartily agree. He's top of my "most overrated English literature" list, even above Shakespeare and Proust.

[Skeptic]

James Joyce.
May God forgive him for Ulysses. A task best left to the omnipotent.

Ulysses is great. Finnegans Wake, on the other hand...

My personal disappointment? Moby Dick. Unutterably boring.

[dafydd]

My vote goes to Jane Austen too.I've never managed to finish one of her books.

[timhau]

Another vote for Jane Austen. Cheap romance crap is cheap romance crap, even if it's 300 years old.

This, by the way, is not only because Austen's work is boring. I find Tolstoy boring too, but I can see it has value.

[timhau]

Ulysses is great. Finnegans Wake, on the other hand...

My take on Ulysses is that it's either the work of a genius or a practical joke. Dubliners establishes Joyce as a genius, so it's a work of a genius. Finnegans Wake, well...

[Damien Evans]

Ulysses is great. Finnegans Wake, on the other hand...

My personal disappointment? Moby Dick. Unutterably boring.

I got Moby Dick for my little brother for his birthday two years ago. Neither of us has gotten more than 50 pages in.

[aggle-rithm]

It's point was to show that no matter how isolated/out of the way/off the beaten path/peaceful and uneventful a place may be, there are situations so large the people there ultimately cannot avoid those situations and must either be destroyed by them or find it in themselves to kick some magic butt all the way back to hell or it's equivalent.
Merry and Pippin got to make it the ass kicking instead of the arse licking!!



Ah. Never mind then.

[aggle-rithm]

I got Moby Dick for my little brother for his birthday two years ago. Neither of us has gotten more than 50 pages in.

I nodded off soon after "Call me Ishmael".

[Pure Argent]

I nodded off soon after "Call me Ishmael".

My high school English teacher made that joke. He was funny.

[fleabeetle]

My vote goes to Jane Austen too.I've never managed to finish one of her books.

Another vote for Jane Austen. Cheap romance crap is cheap romance crap, even if it's 300 years old.

This, by the way, is not only because Austen's work is boring. I find Tolstoy boring too, but I can see it has value.

“Austenry” – “just my take” – I’m willing to grant value to her works; just find myself allergic to them.

In the autobiography of Richard Adams, author of “Watership Down” (which by the way, I love, while finding most of his subsequent writings pretty dire): he tells of how, for a long time, he just couldn’t get into Jane Austen – not for want of trying. However, when in the army in World War II, he spent a long (non-combatant) spell at a remote outpost in the Middle East, where for most of the time – between brief bursts of frantic activity – total tedium and nothing to do, reigned. The only reading-matter on site, happened to be the complete works of Jane Austen. Bored almost to suicide-point, and deprived of any alternative, he gave “the divine Jane” one more try; and this time, bit by bit, he got keenly into her novels, and remained a devotee ever since.

In all honesty, I think that in the same situation, I’d have chosen to stay bored.

[cornsail]

Virginia Woolf for me. I found To the Lighthouse tedious and uninteresting.

I love Wodehouse and Joyce. I also disagree with the Shakespeare bashing. Plots are not his strong suit and a lot of his stuff is popcorn entertainment, but I think his execution is amazing. Especially Othello.

As for Lovecraft, I guess I'm on the fence. He has some really unique strengths as a writer, but some pretty big weaknesses as well. So when he writes in a certain style like in Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath it's just extremely unengaging, but then he has some awesome short stories.

[rsaavedra]

My mother had strongly recommended me Bram Stoker's Dracula, which I bought as soon as I finished the book I was currently reading at the time. And to be honest, the first chapters of the book really caught me. I enjoyed it a lot. But then..... it just became endless. It just went on and on and on and on and on and on and on with the hunting of Dracula and blablabla Carfax and blablabla the boxes, and yadda yadda yadda, we're tracing these boxes all the way down to Stockeyville and blablabla Carfax and blablabla, we're tracing this letter of whatever and so on and on and on and on and on and on....... it honestly got on my nerves. I so badly wanted it to end but it was like it never did. The only reason I didn't just quit reading is because I like to "finish my meal" when it comes to reading books.

Read Dracula maaany years ago, and found it a great scary read. It is one of the few books that really scared me back then in my youth. Especially when that dark shadow was first seen apparently crawling up the outside walls of the castle.

[Cainkane1]

This is a guy who created his own language for his books - he was nothing if not thorough :D

I wonder about LOTR and The Hobbit - I read both of them about 5 times as a child, alongside Dahl and Blyton they were my favourite books. Would i still enjoy them the same as an adult? I'm not sure.......but in my memory they're amongst the best books ever written.
Aside from the fact that a hobbit riding an eagle could have tossed the ring into the volcano I liked the books. Perhaps the eagles were afraid of the Nazgul?

[Cainkane1]

I've just finished PG Wodehouse's Carry on Jeeves, now from the recommendations i've heard about Wodehouse I was expecting a literary great to rival Oscar Wilde in his wit and prose, and yet, it was incredibly ordinary.....not dreadful, perfectly readable, but not in the least bit special.....all in all a big disappointment.

so who's your most disappointing classic author? Do you agree about Wodehouse? (and is he even regarded as a classic author outside the uk?)
Earnes hemingways later works disappoint me.

[volatile]

I tried reading "Confessions of a Justified Sinner" by James Hogg but didn't make it very far before becoming horribly bored...

[MarkCorrigan]

This thread reminds me of Mark Twain's rant against James Fenmore Cooper. Highly recommended, btw.

Personally, I can't stand O' Henry, even his less sappy stuff. It's just too hard to read when you're rolling your eyes every third page.

Other than that, it's more authors I've outgrown. Ayn Rand used to be a favorite but these days I'd rather read comic books then plow through another 26 page pedantic dinner scene. In my early 20's, Bukowski soothed my rebel soul, now his stuff just seems sad and pathetic.
Jesus Christ, Ayn Rand?

I forget which book of hers I read earlier this year but I absolutely wet myself laughing throughout. It was so poorly written, it dragged, and the insane strawman idea of Communism presented made me have to look online just to be absolutely 100% sure she wasn't yanking her readers' collective chain. Sheer dreck.

[Elizabeth I]

Shakespeare, especially Romeo and Juliet. Mostly for plot stupidity.

Yep. If you're going to run away together next week, why not do it now? Why mess around with the potion and the fake suicide and the blah, blah, blah.

But I love lots of other Shakespeare, especially The Tempest and his sonnets. And The Taming of the Shrew, sexist as it is. The Burton-Taylor version is hilarious.

The problem with Shakespeare is they make you read it -- it's a play, fer cat's sake. It is supposed to be seen and heard, not read. A printed page is NOT the proper medium for Shakespeare. Reading it is akin to somebody trying to develop an appreciation of Dante's Inferno presented via Morse code, or Swan Lake performed by the Green Bay Packers.

Beanbag

True, but nothing saves Romeo and Juliet. A stupid plot is a stupid plot.

Okay, this may not fit the original intent of "classic" and I know I'm risking heresy here, but . . . some of the later Heinlein stuff - "horny old man has massive sex with beautiful young redheads" - but it's in the future, so it's SF. Or in alternate universes, so it's SF. Or it's in the present, so it's SF. Or - was there one where they'd time-traveled to the past?

It's not that the SF was bad, it's just that after a few books of the "horny old man/beautiful young redhead" thing, it was hard to maintain the suspension of disbelief.

Not that I'm opposed to the idea of-

nevermind.

Especially when it's all incest. Eeeewww.

I don't know if this counts as "classic", but all during my growing-up years my mother wholeheartedly recommended the works of Gene Stratton Porter, particularly Freckles. She wished desperately that she could find me a copy, but never did. Finally, a few years after her death, I found that it had come back into print and seized it with great anticipation.

My god.

<snipped for brevity>



My mom also adored Gene Stratton Porter. I never could get into his stuff. Maybe it was a generational thing?

My personal overrateds: Dickens (is there anything sappier than the end of Tale of Two Cities?), Hawthorne, Melville, Hemingway, Steinbeck, pick a Brontë, any Brontë.

Love Wodehouse - how could anyone not like Bertie Wooster? And I'm fascinated that anyone would criticize Jane Austen for writing as people spoke in her day. It's not as if she were writing now and deliberately set out to sound archaic. And, finally, Austen was not writing "romantic crap." She was a social critic and satirist - just look at the characters of Lady Catherine de Bourgh and the clergyman Mr. Collins in Pride and Prejudice, or idiot Marianne Dashwood, her grasping bitchy sister-in-law, or the vulgar Steele sisters in Sense and Sensibility. Austen's ability to create a sense of place and time is amazing. But then I'm a sucker for "sense of place" in a novel.

[Praktik]

Shakespeare, especially Romeo and Juliet. Mostly for plot stupidity.


I know you're angry right now, so I'm going to pretend you didnt say that...

:P

[fleabeetle]

And I'm fascinated that anyone would criticize Jane Austen for writing as people spoke in her day. It's not as if she were writing now and deliberately set out to sound archaic. And, finally, Austen was not writing "romantic crap." She was a social critic and satirist - just look at the characters of Lady Catherine de Bourgh and the clergyman Mr. Collins in Pride and Prejudice, or idiot Marianne Dashwood, her grasping bitchy sister-in-law, or the vulgar Steele sisters in Sense and Sensibility. Austen's ability to create a sense of place and time is amazing. But then I'm a sucker for "sense of place" in a novel.

As I've confessed -- "my bad, my stupid". I'm sure she's terrific; just, in my crassness, I can't cotton to her works: and at my fairly advanced age, it would take brainwashing of an ungentle kind, to make me feel otherwise. In the next life, maybe (assuming that, to be on the cards)...

[Senex]

Charles Dickens. From adaptations, I think he wrote some really good stories, but when reading the originals, I find him unreadable.

You're not the first person whom I thought was not an idiot that said this. (and the not an idiot thing translates into I usually give your opinion some weight). I'm surprised because sometimes when I've been drinking I fantasize I can covet other people's abilities. Charles Dickens is number one on my list. I love his books. He is such a brilliant writer it rattles me from writing myself. If I lived 300 years I couldn't be Charles Dickens. My favorite living writer is Larry McMurtry. If I lived 300 years and worked hard I might be as good as he is.

I think Euripides is overrated. Medea isn't all that great.

[Damien Evans]

You're not the first person whom I thought was not an idiot that said this. (and the not an idiot thing translates into I usually give your opinion some weight). I'm surprised because sometimes when I've been drinking I fantasize I can covet other people's abilities. Charles Dickens is number one on my list. I love his books. He is such a brilliant writer it rattles me from writing myself. If I lived 300 years I couldn't be Charles Dickens. My favorite living writer is Larry McMurtry. If I lived 300 years and worked hard I might be as good as he is.

I think Euripides is overrated. Medea isn't all that great.

For his works to have survived 2,500 years he has to have been doing something right.

[Senex]

For his works to have survived 2,500 years he has to have been doing something right.

Of course that is true if taken on face value alone -- but if you are spending a few hours listening to stilted text/monologues it has been my experience you are more likely to come across the odd nude scene in an Aeschylus or Sophocles show.

[Elizabeth I]

As I've confessed -- "my bad, my stupid". I'm sure she's terrific; just, in my crassness, I can't cotton to her works: and at my fairly advanced age, it would take brainwashing of an ungentle kind, to make me feel otherwise. In the next life, maybe (assuming that, to be on the cards)...

Well, I could cheerfully watch a bonfire composed of nothing but Hemingway burn (except that I hate the idea of burning books), so I understand.

[BPScooter]

I've been lost and abandoned by:
#1 Henry Miller, 2 Faulkner, 3 Thomas Hardy, 4 the guy who wrote "Green Mansions", about half of Jack Kerouac, and a few more.

Those are the ones where I either gave up altogether or skim-read. Granted some of this was a long time ago, and I'd probably profit from revisiting them in my new and elevated maturity. But at the time I remember feeling like "what's so great about this stuff?"

[CriticalSock]

Another vote for Jane Austen. Cheap romance crap is cheap romance crap, even if it's 300 years old.

This, by the way, is not only because Austen's work is boring. I find Tolstoy boring too, but I can see it has value.

Tolstoy boring?! WTF?!

I'd say Virginia Woolf, as I've started to the lighthouse a number of times, except that I really liked Orlando.

I couldn't get on with Gorky's "Mother", although his father was a good bloke :D

[Darat]

There are some of the popular authors that I find highly overrated (Dickens being right at the top of my burning pile), then there is the genre "literature" and I find most of that genre writing absolutely boring, tedious and as pretentious as hell. (Probably because I like stories and things to actually happen!)

[BPScooter]

We have to do the flipside: stuff you thought you'd hate but turned out to be Way Cool.

Plato (Crito and Symposium for me)
Shakespeare (Richard III for me)
Agatha Christie and Dorothy Sayers crime books
Inspector Morse and Cadfael in the book form

[aggle-rithm]

Jesus Christ, Ayn Rand?

I forget which book of hers I read earlier this year but I absolutely wet myself laughing throughout. It was so poorly written, it dragged, and the insane strawman idea of Communism presented made me have to look online just to be absolutely 100% sure she wasn't yanking her readers' collective chain. Sheer dreck.

That reminds me of the South Park where Officer Barbrady overcame his illiteracy, but unfortunately chose as his first book "Atlas Shrugged". He concluded that "reading totally sucks ass", adding that the book was "the most gawdawful piece of crap" he had ever seen.

[Ove]

This thread reminds me of Mark Twain's rant against James Fenmore Cooper. Highly recommended, btw.



Hear hear :D It is hillarious.
My pet hate is Ernest Hemmingway. EGAD he is boring and unfortunately some of his books was compulsory in my scool and i can say the same about Steinbeck.

[bruto]

My mom also adored Gene Stratton Porter. I never could get into his stuff. Maybe it was a generational thing?

Her, actually.

[Praktik]

Hear hear :D It is hillarious.
My pet hate is Ernest Hemmingway. EGAD he is boring and unfortunately some of his books was compulsory in my scool and i can say the same about Steinbeck.

You tried For Whom the Bell Tolls?

One of the most powerful and moving books I've read... one of the few to get the waterworks going in me...;)

I have not read any others but I absconded with a few from grandpa a few years ago...

[bruto]

I've always bogged down with Russian novelists. With the exception of Solzenytsin, I've never actually made it through a Russian novel, though I've tried a few times. I managed some Tolstoy short stories once, and found them readable, but wanted to dope-slap Tolstoy for being such a sanctimonious prig.

Never made it through anything by Faulkner except for short stories either, and similarly, though I always found Joyce readable in miniature, his novels hit me like some kind of demented high-school English teacher's poetry quiz. What's the author really trying to tell us? If he can't spit it out in plain English, who gives a ****?

I had problems with Dickens for a long time, but recently gave him another try, and found him quite better than I expected. Maybe it helps to be older.

But I'd gladly put Jane Austen and Shakespeare on my desert island list.

[Praktik]

I've always bogged down with Russian novelists. With the exception of Solzenytsin, I've never actually made it through a Russian novel, though I've tried a few times. I managed some Tolstoy short stories once, and found them readable, but wanted to dope-slap Tolstoy for being such a sanctimonious prig.

For shame! Dostoyevsky?

The Gambler? Notes from Underground?

There are a few great collections of short stories you might wanna try before those two his story, White Nights is a personal fave and high up on my list.

[Jorghnassen]

I got Moby Dick for my little brother for his birthday two years ago. Neither of us has gotten more than 50 pages in.

I used to read a whole lot when I was a kid. That novel was my Waterloo. I don't think I could manage 20 pages. I still haven't read it.

[Elizabeth I]

Her, actually.

You see how far I didn't get into it? :D

[andyandy]

For shame! Dostoyevsky?
.

i agree. Dostoyevsky is exceptional........

i've just thought of other disappointing authors:

EM Forster - passage to india was utterly utterly dull, with a 50 page literary wank-fest slipped into the plot for no reason 3/4 of the way through....

DH Lawrence - admittedly studying this at school may have coloured my impressions, but his short stories live in my memory as amongst the least interesting ever written..........

[Senex]

There are some of the popular authors that I find highly overrated (Dickens being right at the top of my burning pile)

That does it! I will no longer sit in my cozy bedroom drinking vodka and ice-tea and allow the greatest English speaking author of all time disparaged like this. I challenge everyone to read A Christmas Carol between now and Christmas. This is not his best book but it is a short story you can quickly read and it is the greatest book about turning your life around and realizing you have a second chance. No bulloney. You read that book and you will have tears in your eyes in between fits of laughter.

Who else can come up with the name Ebeneezer Scrooge? Not liking Charles Dickens is like not liking chocolate chip cookies. His brilliance is self-evident. It was the best of times.. What are you rascals smoking?

[dasmiller]

That does it! I will no longer sit in my cozy bedroom drinking vodka and ice-tea and allow the greatest English speaking author of all time disparaged like this. I challenge everyone to read A Christmas Carol between now and Christmas. This is not his best book but it is a short story you can quickly read and it is the greatest book about turning your life around and realizing you have a second chance. No bulloney. You read that book and you will have tears in your eyes in between fits of laughter.


Ahhh, so Dickens is entertaining if you drink a good quantity of vodka and iced-tea first?

I've found that I'm much more entertaining if other people drink . . . hadn't thought about extending that strategy to build up a base of loyal readers, though.

Let's run with that - if you don't think my rejoinder was funny, you obviously haven't been drinking enough

[Senex]

Ahhh, so Dickens is entertaining if you drink a good quantity of vodka and iced-tea first?

I've found that I'm much more entertaining if other people drink . . . hadn't thought about extending that strategy to build up a base of loyal readers, though.

Let's run with that - if you don't think my rejoinder was funny, you obviously haven't been drinking enough

Accept the challenge to read A Christmas Carol first and we will discuss whatever it was you thought put me in my place.

[cornsail]

I never cared for Fitzgerald, but then I only read his short stories and not The Great Gatsby.

I'd say Virginia Woolf, as I've started to the lighthouse a number of times

I never could have finished it if I wasn't required to write a paper on it for a class. It gets harder to read as it goes on, not easier.

[Professor Yaffle]

Accept the challenge to read A Christmas Carol first and we will discuss whatever it was you thought put me in my place.

With, or without, copious vodka?

[Senex]

With, or without, copious vodka?

Professor Yaffle,

You have the wisdom to end this discussion. Please spend thirty minutes reading A Christmas Carol. I will accept your judgement.

[Lucian]

That does it! I will no longer sit in my cozy bedroom drinking vodka and ice-tea and allow the greatest English speaking author of all time disparaged like this. I challenge everyone to read A Christmas Carol between now and Christmas. This is not his best book but it is a short story you can quickly read and it is the greatest book about turning your life around and realizing you have a second chance. No bulloney. You read that book and you will have tears in your eyes in between fits of laughter.

Who else can come up with the name Ebeneezer Scrooge? Not liking Charles Dickens is like not liking chocolate chip cookies. His brilliance is self-evident. It was the best of times.. What are you rascals smoking?

I'm not a huge fan of Dickens either; however, he did at least have a sense of humor (hear that, Thomas Hardy?). There are moments of sublime hilarity in some of his works. Unfortunately, these are bogged down by large swathes of sticky sentimentality, ridiculous coincidences (oh, it's the Micawbers!), vats and vats of words and a weird morality where the good are rewarded, the bad die and the semi-bad go to Australia (maybe that's just David Copperfield or Great Expectations--I always get those two confused). And no, I don't think I shall read A Christmas Carol. I want that abhorrent Tiny Tim to die so badly--in pain and humiliation with everyone rejoicing at his suffering and death, and Dickens just won't give it to me.

I suppose I should point out that, in general, I think the 19th century was a horribly bad idea, from a literary standpoint.

[Simon39759]

Not liking Charles Dickens is like not liking chocolate chip cookies. His brilliance is self-evident. It was the best of times.. What are you rascals smoking?

I prefer Oatmeal and reasins, or sugar, really, chocolate chips are my least favourite... Does that make me a bad person?

[Lucian]

I prefer Oatmeal and reasins, or sugar, really, chocolate chips are my least favourite... Does that make me a bad person?

Well, yes, I'm afraid it does. Oatmeal cookies without raisins I could accept, but choosing raisins over chocolate chips--I'm sorry, that's beyond the pale.

[dasmiller]

Accept the challenge to read A Christmas Carol first and we will discuss whatever it was you thought put me in my place.

I didn't think that I'd said anything to 'put you in your place.' I thought your post had an amusing juxtapostion of alcohol consumption and appreciation for Dickens, so I attempted to make a humorous post by drawing attention to it.

Evidently I met with only mixed success.

[Senex]

I'm not a huge fan of Dickens either; however, he did at least have a sense of humor (hear that, Thomas Hardy?).
Like Ebeneezer, you aren't totally lost. I can pull out my paperback copy of Oliver Twist and pick a page at random and laugh my ass off. Dickens is a great humorest.


And no, I don't think I shall read A Christmas Carol. I want that abhorrent Tiny Tim to die so badly--in pain and humiliation with everyone rejoicing at his suffering and death, and Dickens just won't give it to me.
Wishing evil on Tiny Tim speaks a lot more about you than it does me :rolleyes:
I didn't think that I'd said anything to 'put you in your place.' I thought your post had an amusing juxtapostion of alcohol consumption and appreciation for Dickens, so I attempted to make a humorous post by drawing attention to it.

Evidently I met with only mixed success.

My life is full of people who claim "mixed success."

[plumjam]

If you don't agree to enjoy Dickens you'll be put into a debtors prison and old Mr. Scrimpfart, who raised you from an orphan, will have to pawn his guillotine to get you out.

[Simon39759]

Well, yes, I'm afraid it does. Oatmeal cookies without raisins I could accept, but choosing raisins over chocolate chips--I'm sorry, that's beyond the pale.


Well; ok then, I just thought that it was the torturing of puppies.

[fleabeetle]

I'm not a huge fan of Dickens either; however, he did at least have a sense of humor (hear that, Thomas Hardy?). There are moments of sublime hilarity in some of his works. Unfortunately, these are bogged down by large swathes of sticky sentimentality, ridiculous coincidences (oh, it's the Micawbers!), vats and vats of words and a weird morality where the good are rewarded, the bad die and the semi-bad go to Australia (maybe that's just David Copperfield or Great Expectations--I always get those two confused). And no, I don't think I shall read A Christmas Carol. I want that abhorrent Tiny Tim to die so badly--in pain and humiliation with everyone rejoicing at his suffering and death, and Dickens just won't give it to me.

I suppose I should point out that, in general, I think the 19th century was a horribly bad idea, from a literary standpoint.

Am “torn”, about Dickens. Much talent – a lot of the time, fun to read – but find him tending to be, for my tastes, over-the-top grotesque and self-indulgently “aren’t I the funniest and most colourful author ever?” Liable to find the aforesaid, worst in that large majority of his works which are set in his own time – so enjoy more on the whole, his few re earlier historical periods: liked “A Tale of Two Cities”, and loved “Barnaby Rudge”.

[Professor Yaffle]

Professor Yaffle,

You have the wisdom to end this discussion. Please spend thirty minutes reading A Christmas Carol. I will accept your judgement.

You'll have to wait till I get a copy from the library. And I have to hurry up and read The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie for my book group first.

[fleabeetle]

And no, I don't think I shall read A Christmas Carol. I want that abhorrent Tiny Tim to die so badly--in pain and humiliation with everyone rejoicing at his suffering and death, and Dickens just won't give it to me.



Wishing evil on Tiny Tim speaks a lot more about you than it does me :rolleyes:


I chime in here, with Lucian: have read “A Christmas Carol”, and – for my tastes – find it nauseatingly-gooey-sticky-super-sentimental. I revel in cynical parodies of the book: loved the “Blackadder” version in that vein. At times of special misanthropy, enjoy a (treasonous) alternative-fantasy version of my own, along the lines of: at 3 a.m., thunderous knocking on the door of the Cratchits’ house. They open up, to find on doorstep, Count Ignatieff from the Flashman books; a squad of armed-to-the-teeth “heavies” from the Okhrana; and a visibly gloating and delighted Scrooge. Ignatieff addresses them: “We’ve won the Crimean War [ I know that’s an anachronism, but what the heck, this is a fantasy] – Britain is now and hereafter, a Russian satellite. This gentleman [ indicates Ebenezer ] has told me about the rebellious sentiments harboured by you scum. You’ve got ten minutes to pack your things; then we ship you off to hard labour at Vorkuta, for the – probably short – term of your natural lives. MOVE !!” (I won’t go into detail about what happens to T.T.; but it isn’t nice.) This really is the way “A Christmas Carol” makes me feel.

[Lucian]

I chime in here, with Lucian: have read “A Christmas Carol”, and – for my tastes – find it nauseatingly-gooey-sticky-super-sentimental. I revel in cynical parodies of the book: loved the “Blackadder” version in that vein. At times of special misanthropy, enjoy a (treasonous) alternative-fantasy version of my own, along the lines of: at 3 a.m., thunderous knocking on the door of the Cratchits’ house. They open up, to find on doorstep, Count Ignatieff from the Flashman books; a squad of armed-to-the-teeth “heavies” from the Okhrana; and a visibly gloating and delighted Scrooge. Ignatieff addresses them: “We’ve won the Crimean War [ I know that’s an anachronism, but what the heck, this is a fantasy] – Britain is now and hereafter, a Russian satellite. This gentleman [ indicates Ebenezer ] has told me about the rebellious sentiments harboured by you scum. You’ve got ten minutes to pack your things; then we ship you off to hard labour at Vorkuta, for the – probably short – term of your natural lives. MOVE !!” (I won’t go into detail about what happens to T.T.; but it isn’t nice.) This really is the way “A Christmas Carol” makes me feel.

FSM bless us, every one!

[Ysidro]

A sense a certain Dickens fan here needs either more or less alcohol tonight. ;)

[Elizabeth I]

Just thought of another vastly overrated modern classic: J.D. Salinger. Catcher in the Rye is the most self-absorbed, over-angst-ridden piece of junk I ever tried to read.

[HansMustermann]

I've always bogged down with Russian novelists. With the exception of Solzenytsin, I've never actually made it through a Russian novel, though I've tried a few times. I managed some Tolstoy short stories once, and found them readable, but wanted to dope-slap Tolstoy for being such a sanctimonious prig.

Not exactly a classic, so that's probably not what you mean, but for example Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" is one of the best novels I've ever read. So at the very least I wouldn't do as broad a generalization as "Russian novelists."

[cornsail]

Just thought of another vastly overrated modern classic: J.D. Salinger. Catcher in the Rye is the most self-absorbed, over-angst-ridden piece of junk I ever tried to read.

Yeah, true.

[Ove]

You tried For Whom the Bell Tolls?

One of the most powerful and moving books I've read... one of the few to get the waterworks going in me...;)

I have not read any others but I absconded with a few from grandpa a few years ago...

Yes i have, i don't really like that kind of stories.

[fleabeetle]

FSM bless us, every one!

Amen ! Good old FSM -- he shows up a lot on the Bigfoot threads, too.

[timhau]

Tolstoy boring?! WTF?!


Yeah. The opening sentence of Anna Karenina (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27719.html) is great, but it's all downhill from there.

[Aurelian]

I had a good run of Faulkner...and just can't abide him.

Several abandoned efforts at late-career Hemingway. Thank goodness it's the library that's the holding pen for this. School/required reading got me through the early stuff.

I have had serious thoughts about trying James Joyce. I'll think about reading him next year :D

And there is Evelyn Waugh...not sure about that one.

I wonder if audio-book-stylings would help...

A.

[Achán hiNidráne]

I don't suppose Ayn Rand would count as "Classic?" I got about half through "Atlas Shrugged" and only the first couple chapters of "The Fountainhead" when I decided that I could not stand her over-the-top, comic book writing and plots.

That said, I don't think that Ms. Rosenbaum was a complete loss. Given her childhood during the Russian Revolution, I can see why became such a rabid devotee to capitalism. I can also appreciate her exaltation of the individual despite her strange rejection of altruism and the personality cult that she maintained.

Oh well, no one is perfect.

[Brainster]

The thing you have to understand is that every writer writes for his time. Yes, Catcher in the Rye seems stale and trite to us today; part of that is because times have changed. I can assure you it was revolutionary for its day.

Ivanhoe (IIRC) starts with a five-page description of a sunset that almost had me chucking it it, but it does get quite a bit better. Nowadays, no editor would let anybody other than a King or a Rowling get away with that intro.

Moby Dick is a fabulous book, but you do have to read the abridged version, which cuts out the extremely long descriptive passages.

Hemingway is way overrated I will grant you, although I do like the Old Man and the Sea, and Faulkner's best is probably the seldom-mentioned The Reivers.

[BPScooter]

It is interesting that personal taste really matters here, obviously. Maybe an author and reader click for any number of reasons, across the lines of genre and generation. I find I can learn something about a person by finding out about their tastes in music, for example, or leisure pastimes. On a deeper level, maybe writers "speak" to us when we're needing to listen to them--the things that interested us at other, younger times sometimes grow trite, and things we weren't moved by back then can come back to hold deeper significance. I guess that's why we keep on reading, eh?

[Elizabeth I]

The thing you have to understand is that every writer writes for his time. Yes, Catcher in the Rye seems stale and trite to us today; part of that is because times have changed. I can assure you it was revolutionary for its day.

Ivanhoe (IIRC) starts with a five-page description of a sunset that almost had me chucking it it, but it does get quite a bit better. Nowadays, no editor would let anybody other than a King or a Rowling get away with that intro.

Moby Dick is a fabulous book, but you do have to read the abridged version, which cuts out the extremely long descriptive passages.

Hemingway is way overrated I will grant you, although I do like the Old Man and the Sea, and Faulkner's best is probably the seldom-mentioned The Reivers.

But I read Catcher in the Rye in its heyday - or rather, tried to. I read it when all the other angst-ridden teens were reading it and proclaiming it the most sensitive, insightful study of whatever-it-was ever written. I was an angst-ridden teen myself and thought Holden just a waste of paper.

I had to finish The Old Man and the Sea - it was assigned in school - and thought it was just pointless, unless you are fascinated by however-many-pages it was of urinating over the side of the boat and obsessing over Joe DiMaggio's bone spur.

Don't know about The Reivers as a book, but someone certainly made a good movie of it.

[soetkin]

Hemingway is way overrated I will grant you, although I do like the Old Man and the Sea, and Faulkner's best is probably the seldom-mentioned The Reivers.

I read 'The Old Man and the Sea' and it scared me away from Hemingway forever. It was pointless and so dull - and I like Moby Dick in the unabridged version!

[Simon39759]

I don't suppose Ayn Rand would count as "Classic?" I got about half through "Atlas Shrugged" and only the first couple chapters of "The Fountainhead" when I decided that I could not stand her over-the-top, comic book writing and plots.

That said, I don't think that Ms. Rosenbaum was a complete loss. Given her childhood during the Russian Revolution, I can see why became such a rabid devotee to capitalism. I can also appreciate her exaltation of the individual despite her strange rejection of altruism and the personality cult that she maintained.

Oh well, no one is perfect.


Well; I am under the impression that Ayn Rand fails at the status of 'classic' because the vast majority of the readers do feel the same way as you do.

[Jungle Jim]

Just thought of another vastly overrated modern classic: J.D. Salinger. Catcher in the Rye is the most self-absorbed, over-angst-ridden piece of junk I ever tried to read.

I totally agree. My daughter read it recently for high school English class. She said she hated it for the reasons Elizabeth I mentioned above. I decided to re-read it and came to the same conclusion. Is this why Salinger stopped writing? He realized he had hoodwinked people with that book and didn't want to be found out as a hack by writing more novels.

[CORed]

Well, yes, I'm afraid it does. Oatmeal cookies without raisins I could accept, but choosing raisins over chocolate chips--I'm sorry, that's beyond the pale.

I have to agree. There's nothing more annoying than biting into what looks like a chocolate chip cookie and finding out that the "chocolate chips" are really raisins.

[ParrotPirate]

Hear hear :D It is hillarious.
My pet hate is Ernest Hemmingway. EGAD he is boring and unfortunately some of his books was compulsory in my scool and i can say the same about Steinbeck.

Another vote for Ernie here. I disagree on Steinbeck,though.

[Ron_Tomkins]

My mother had strongly recommended me Bram Stoker's Dracula, which I bought as soon as I finished the book I was currently reading at the time. And to be honest, the first chapters of the book really caught me. I enjoyed it a lot. But then..... it just became endless. It just went on and on and on and on and on and on and on with the hunting of Dracula and blablabla Carfax and blablabla the boxes, and yadda yadda yadda, we're tracing these boxes all the way down to Stockeyville and blablabla Carfax and blablabla, we're tracing this letter of whatever and so on and on and on and on and on and on....... it honestly got on my nerves. I so badly wanted it to end but it was like it never did. The only reason I didn't just quit reading is because I like to "finish my meal" when it comes to reading books.

From the time when most people could not afford to buy books so they rented them from lending libraries for a small fee. The books were often issued in multiple parts so one full novel could make more money for the libraries. Plus, without Radio/TV/Cinema, books were heavy in the entertainment field. Which meant the books needed to be long - frequently issued in three parts.

You mean I was actually reading three books in one?? :eek:

Well.... that would begin to explain why it was so incessantly, painfully, annoyingly long.

[CptColumbo]

"Mein Kampf" - Apparently it was a best seller in Germany a few years ago. I don't know what the Germans saw in it, but this author had issues.

[Praktik]

"Mein Kampf" - Apparently it was a best seller in Germany a few years ago. I don't know what the Germans saw in it, but this author had issues.

Just going through Rise and Fall of the Third Reich now and was considering going through that..

I wonder if it would be more prudent to find a really long and thorough analysis of it instead...:)

[CptColumbo]

Just going through Rise and Fall of the Third Reich now and was considering going through that..

I wonder if it would be more prudent to find a really long and thorough analysis of it instead...:)I actually also have his "Second Book," which wasn't published until recently. That one is mainly about how he plans to secure the thousand year reich, which along with the notations make it much more interesting then "Mein Kampf."

BTW it isn't that I just hate the ideas in "Mein Kampf" (their horrible in their own right), but I also hate "stream of consciousness" books like "Walden."

[Praktik]

Ya from what I hear its just really poorly written...

[bruto]

Just going through Rise and Fall of the Third Reich now and was considering going through that..

I wonder if it would be more prudent to find a really long and thorough analysis of it instead...:)It's been many years, bit I actually did take a crack at Mein Kampf once, and as I recall, it was dreadfully dull, and I did not bother to read very far. After all, we know how it came out, so to speak. I'd go for the analysis.

[Senex]

You stop flavoring your iced tea for a few days and your favorite thread goes to Hitler.

I believe fans of Dickens and people disappointed in Dickens can agree on a few things: Those disappointed in Dickens don't believe in social justice, humor (or humour:rolleyes:), or good-old linear story writing.

Avoid A Christmas Carol during the holidays (not you Proffesor Yaffle, you're obligated) at your sense of well being peril. Your holiday will suffer if you do.

Don't let the spontaneous combustion plot twist in Bleak House give you the wrong idea; Dickens is what we should all aspire to.

[Professor Yaffle]

I believe fans of Dickens and people disappointed in Dickens can agree on a few things: Those disappointed in Dickens don't believe in social justice, humor (or humour:rolleyes:), or good-old linear story writing.


Wrong, wrong and wrong.

But I am going to give it a go, promise.

[aggle-rithm]

I have to agree. There's nothing more annoying than biting into what looks like a chocolate chip cookie and finding out that the "chocolate chips" are really raisins.

Or the larval form of some unidentified insect. Which is why I never eat anything with raisins in it.

[bruto]

You stop flavoring your iced tea for a few days and your favorite thread goes to Hitler.

I believe fans of Dickens and people disappointed in Dickens can agree on a few things: Those disappointed in Dickens don't believe in social justice, humor (or humour:rolleyes:), or good-old linear story writing.

Avoid A Christmas Carol during the holidays (not you Proffesor Yaffle, you're obligated) at your sense of well being peril. Your holiday will suffer if you do.

Don't let the spontaneous combustion plot twist in Bleak House give you the wrong idea; Dickens is what we should all aspire to.I don't think that's quite fair. Dickens can be pretty turgid at times, long on description, and his plots often involve coincidences and connections that quite strain credulity. Add to that some annoying bits of moralizing, and you can hit a wall if you're not in the mood to see past it, or perhaps if you start with the wrong story. I read Oliver Twist when I was 13, and thought it wonderful, the best book I'd ever read, but it took nearly 50 more years to manage to penetrate another one, and I often wondered what spell had been cast over me that summer to allow me to wade through a book that on subsequent attempts seemed unreadable. Last year when Little Dorrit came onto PBS, my wife, who has a much greater tolerance for heavy novelistic weather (I mean, after she read Northanger Abbey, she even waded through some of the Gothics that it takes the piss out of, just to get the full flavor of the Austen story) picked up the book and read it, and enjoyed it so much that I took a crack at it too. It was terrific! I couldn't put it down. Yes, the plot was as silly as ever in many ways, but the writing was crisp, the long and usually tedious bouts of description were incisive and nearly poetic at times. The social commentary, dated and irascible as it was, was witty and, in the season of AIG and Bernie Madoff, surprisingly relevant. And theh plot, silly as it may be, unfolded in the way a really good plot should, compelling the reader to read just one more page, and then just one more chapter, etc., before shutting off the light. Somehow or other it all worked. A big long book I was sorry to see end. I followed it with Great Expectations, which, while readable, was not nearly as amusing, and while I got through it without agony, I was ready for the end when it came. You just have to hit the right book at the right time in the right mood, I guess.

One thing I have noticed, though, is that Dickens stories, however readable the books are, seem always to make watchable movies or miniseries. The characters and plots are about as well crafted as it gets. Since there were no movies back then, you have to give Dickens credit for creating the stories, even if they're not always such fun to read.

[Lucian]

Or the larval form of some unidentified insect. Which is why I never eat anything with raisins in it.

I always think of flies.

[Lucian]

You stop flavoring your iced tea for a few days and your favorite thread goes to Hitler.

I believe fans of Dickens and people disappointed in Dickens can agree on a few things: Those disappointed in Dickens don't believe in social justice, humor (or humour:rolleyes:), or good-old linear story writing.

Avoid A Christmas Carol during the holidays (not you Proffesor Yaffle, you're obligated) at your sense of well being peril. Your holiday will suffer if you do.

Don't let the spontaneous combustion plot twist in Bleak House give you the wrong idea; Dickens is what we should all aspire to.

The spontaneous combustion was the only thing I looked forward to in Bleak House. Sure it's woo, but it's fun woo. To get there though, I had to slog through a lot of this:

Fog everywhere. Fog up the river, where it flows among green aits and meadows; fog down the river, where it rolls defiled among the tiers of shipping and the waterside pollutions of a great (and dirty) city. Fog on the Essex marshes, fog on the Kentish heights. Fog creeping into the cabooses of collier-brigs; fog lying out on the yards and hovering in the rigging of great ships; fog drooping on the gunwales of barges and small boats. Fog in the eyes and throats of ancient Greenwich pensioners, wheezing by the firesides of their wards; fog in the stem and bowl of the afternoon pipe of the wrathful skipper, down in his close cabin; fog cruelly pinching the toes and fingers of his shivering little 'prentice boy on deck. Chance people on the bridges peeping over the parapets into a nether sky of fog, with fog all round them, as if they were up in a balloon and hanging in the misty clouds.


So, it was foggy then? You want me to read a million page book called Bleak House? Don't mention fog 700,000 times on the first page.

[geni]

One thing I have noticed, though, is that Dickens stories, however readable the books are, seem always to make watchable movies or miniseries. The characters and plots are about as well crafted as it gets. Since there were no movies back then, you have to give Dickens credit for creating the stories, even if they're not always such fun to read.

Probably because there are so many Dickens adaptions other there already that it's fairly easy to work out how to produce one that will work.

[Senex]

I don't think that's quite fair. Dickens can be pretty turgid at times, long on description, and his plots often involve coincidences and connections that quite strain credulity. Add to that some annoying bits of moralizing, and you can hit a wall if you're not in the mood to see past it, or perhaps if you start with the wrong story.
And which brilliant writer of fiction has avoided these foibles?

I read Oliver Twist when I was 13, and thought it wonderful, the best book I'd ever read, but it took nearly 50 more years to manage to penetrate another one, and I often wondered what spell had been cast over me that summer to allow me to wade through a book that on subsequent attempts seemed unreadable.
Aauurgh, you almost had me with your previous sentences.

One thing I have noticed, though, is that Dickens stories, however readable the books are, seem always to make watchable movies or miniseries. The characters and plots are about as well crafted as it gets. Since there were no movies back then, you have to give Dickens credit for creating the stories, even if they're not always such fun to read.
Yes, that's why they call his works classics.

So, it was foggy then? You want me to read a million page book called Bleak House? Don't mention fog 700,000 times on the first page.

You never mentioned the mud. No BS - I'm not going back and reread the book. I read Bleak House many years ago and I remember how the first pages of that book affected me. I remember the fog, the mud and the woman who had a little box she brought to the court every day and no one ever looked into her case. I thought it was a brilliant beginning. What you found slow-moving I felt hit me on the head with a two by four. I pictured that fog. Maybe I'm slow (but I'm not ;)) I just appreciate a good set up.

geniProbably because there are so many Dickens adaptions other there already that it's fairly easy to work out how to produce one that will work.
And maybe it is because he is the most brilliant English writer ever.

[fuelair]

Just thought of another vastly overrated modern classic: J.D. Salinger. Catcher in the Rye is the most self-absorbed, over-angst-ridden piece of junk I ever tried to read.

(Whispers)what about the whole darned Twilight stuff(ends Whisper).

[fuelair]

The spontaneous combustion was the only thing I looked forward to in Bleak House. Sure it's woo, but it's fun woo. To get there though, I had to slog through a lot of this:



So, it was foggy then? You want me to read a million page book called Bleak House? Don't mention fog 700,000 times on the first page.
Actually, that was a very entertaining way of opening - certainly set the scene for what was to come. But then, I had David Copperfield read to me and the rest of my fourth grade class every day by Mrs. Roberts. Thirty minutes of wonderful story that all the class waited for each day. I do not remember how long (several weeks) it took to get through, but I remember it was the only time I was completely quiet and well behaved - wanting to miss not the smallest part of the narration nor the tiniest action of the characters.:):):)

[Senex]

Actually, that was a very entertaining way of opening - certainly set the scene for what was to come. But then, I had David Copperfield read to me and the rest of my fourth grade class every day by Mrs. Roberts. Thirty minutes of wonderful story that all the class waited for each day. I do not remember how long (several weeks) it took to get through, but I remember it was the only time I was completely quiet and well behaved - wanting to miss not the smallest part of the narration nor the tiniest action of the characters.:):):)

I ask this respectfully -- when Mrs. Copperfield was dieing was there a dry eye in the classroom?

Personally, I think David Copperfield is an adult novel. I cried (and often have during Dickens novels -- but you have to consider I did read them instead of bashing them).

[Polaris]

Do poets count? Yes?

Then I wish everything Emily Dickenson wrote to be smote from the history of human language. I'm not a fan of poetry to begin with (unless it was written by guys dodging shells and mustard gas and thus had something to actually write about), but I'm sure my hatred of that miserable shut-in had just as much to do with crappy subject matter as it did the perrenial force-feeding I had of it by teachers who insisted it was the next best thing to hot tubs and horny coeds.

[bruto]

...
And maybe it is because he is the most brilliant English writer ever.Sorry, good as he is, I will not budge on Shakespeare. This is a non-negotiable, "pry-out-of-cold-dead-fingers" position, so put down that keyboard, quietly, and just walk away, and there won't be any trouble.

I think a lot of how you enjoy Dickens and some other authors depends on what you expect, and the mood you're in when you start. It can take a while to get drawn in and find the rhythm. It's almost as if you need to drop back out of the 21st century, light a candle and say all right, there's nothing better to do, no TV, no computer, just me and this book, and the world that it inhabits. Once your internal clock synchronizes with his, you're in. I feel the same way about Conrad, who on the wrong day can be like a brick wall of impenetrable prose, but on the right day you are out on that swamp or that tossing sea, you can hear the flies buzz and smell the vegetation on the lagoon and feel the dread creeping up. Hey, that reminds me, it's almost time to read Victory again!

There need be nothing wrong with the reader or the book to say "this isn't working for me today," and toss it aside. Just don't toss it too far.

[plumjam]

Sorry, good as he is, I will not budge on Shakespeare.

Et tu Bruto?

[MarkCorrigan]

I believe fans of Dickens and people disappointed in Dickens can agree on a few things: Those disappointed in Dickens don't believe in social justice, humor (or humour:rolleyes:), or good-old linear story writing.


Then you're wrong. Jesus christ, I'm hardly someone you could say doesn't believe in social justice and my sense of humour works perfectly, thank you. In fact, I ADORE Dickens' work when performed on a stage or in a (well made) costume drama, something the BBC do very well.

I cannot abide his writing. It is dull, drags on endlessly and beats you about the head with descriptions until your eyeballs want to burst. I don't CARE about every sodding detail of the fireplace the characters are stood by, I want the damn STORY.

That above quote from Bleak House is a perfect example of my why retinas want to commit suicide if I so much as pick up Dickens. Even A Christmas Carol, which is so widely regarded to me seems like poorly written dreck.

On the other hand, given that Dickens wrote these stories to be read outloud to crowds of people, you can't fault him for going on and on endlessly about every possible detail in the surrounding area. I just don't want to bloody read it.

[bruto]

Et tu Bruto?I realize, too late for an edit, that my statement might be ambiguous. It should read, "good as Dickens is, I won't budge on Shakespeare, etc." I'm an unabashed bardolater.

[Senex]

Sorry, good as he is, I will not budge on Shakespeare. This is a non-negotiable, "pry-out-of-cold-dead-fingers" position, so put down that keyboard, quietly, and just walk away, and there won't be any trouble.
I rarely ask English as a first language people who their favorite English speaking writer is for the same reason I don't ask Russians who their favorite cosmonaut is: I'm tired of hearing William Shakespeare and Yuri Gagarin. Don't laugh, you American rascals would pick Washington or Lincoln mindlessly as your favorite President when asked. Let's think out of the box sometimes and choose Dickens, Makorov and Adams (John).

Then you're wrong. Jesus christ, I'm hardly someone you could say doesn't believe in social justice
You say this as you disparage Dickens and myself
and my sense of humour works perfectly, thank you.
Oh, you're a laugh riot:rolleyes:
In fact, I ADORE Dickens' work when performed on a stage or in a (well made) costume drama, something the BBC do very well.

I'm certain you appreciate those well made costumes ;)

[Think_Tank]

For me it has to be D-H-bloody-Lawrence. We had "Sons and Lovers" inflicted on us for English GCSE, and sensory deprivation sessions would have been more interesting.

It annoyed me even more because a few years previously, the same GSCE used "The Day of the Jackal", which I've always enjoyed.

They did make it up to us in the end though - one of the two plays we had to study was Macbeth. Nothing like a bit of Scottish intrigue and murder to brighten up a dull study class :D

[Aitch]

It annoyed me even more because a few years previously, the same GSCE used "The Day of the Jackal", which I've always enjoyed.


Really? I thought it read like it was written by a third rate journalist with mild brain damage and a heck of a hangover.

[JJM 777]

Quran was a total disappointment, from all possible ways how you could measure a literary and/or intellectual work.

[Lucian]

Et tu Bruto?

Brute--it's vocative.

[Lucian]

Then you're wrong. Jesus christ, I'm hardly someone you could say doesn't believe in social justice and my sense of humour works perfectly, thank you. In fact, I ADORE Dickens' work when performed on a stage or in a (well made) costume drama, something the BBC do very well.

I cannot abide his writing. It is dull, drags on endlessly and beats you about the head with descriptions until your eyeballs want to burst. I don't CARE about every sodding detail of the fireplace the characters are stood by, I want the damn STORY.

That above quote from Bleak House is a perfect example of my why retinas want to commit suicide if I so much as pick up Dickens. Even A Christmas Carol, which is so widely regarded to me seems like poorly written dreck.

On the other hand, given that Dickens wrote these stories to be read outloud to crowds of people, you can't fault him for going on and on endlessly about every possible detail in the surrounding area. I just don't want to bloody read it.

Did you know that the first use of the word "boredom" occurs in Bleak House? I find this strangely significant.

[MarkCorrigan]

You say this as you disparage Dickens and myself


So, because I dislike Dickens' writing style, I'm all for child labour and the suppression of the poor? Are you joking?

ETA:


Oh, you're a laugh riot:rolleyes:



Excuse me? Do you know me? Do you know my sense of humour or what I find amusing? No, I rather think you're just someone on the internet who has never had a conversation with me, watched a comedy with me or even gained one iota of information on what I enjoy other than my distain for the WRITING STYLE of Charles Dickens.

Like I said, I find performances of his works to be highly enjoyable, provided they are done well, so you obviously ignored or did not understand that I find the plots, social ideals and jokes of his works to often be of high quality. It is the ceaseless descriptive writing I find annoying.

[Lucian]

I ask this respectfully -- when Mrs. Copperfield was dieing was there a dry eye in the classroom?

Personally, I think David Copperfield is an adult novel. I cried (and often have during Dickens novels -- but you have to consider I did read them instead of bashing them).

Mrs. Copperfield? David's wife? Dora? Ugh. Dry eyes, empty stomach.

To be fair, though, I really don't care for any 19th century novel that goes on and on about people's feelings. Blech.

But to slam another century, you know what I really hate? Any epistolary novel where the protagonist writes, "I hear someone coming. I must stop now and find a place to hide this....blah, blah, blah" for several pages.

[Aitch]

So, because I dislike Dickens' writing style, I'm all for child labour and the suppression of the poor? Are you joking?


Yep; and if you don't like Joss Whedon's style. you're in favour of vampires and demons running free. ;)

[plumjam]

Brute--it's vocative.

Good call

[Senex]

So, because I dislike Dickens' writing style, I'm all for child labour and the suppression of the poor?
Well you certainly are for placing that extra u and that makes you suspicious. You would have workhouses if it was up to you wouldn't you? I know you and people like you. You are incapable of being humorous. I dare you. Say something funny.


Are you joking?

ETA:

Nope.



Excuse me? Do you know me? Do you know my sense of humour or what I find amusing? No, I rather think you're just someone on the internet who has never had a conversation with me, watched a comedy with me or even gained one iota of information on what I enjoy other than my distain for the WRITING STYLE of Charles Dickens.
You are someome who needs to take what strangers think less importantly.

Like I said, I find performances of his works to be highly enjoyable, provided they are done well, so you obviously ignored or did not understand that I find the plots, social ideals and jokes of his works to often be of high quality. It is the ceaseless descriptive writing I find annoying.

And you ignored that I said you cared about the costumes :rolleyes::D

[rightbrain]

The thing you have to understand is that every writer writes for his time. Yes, Catcher in the Rye seems stale and trite to us today; part of that is because times have changed. I can assure you it was revolutionary for its day.


Interestingly, my 18-year-old daughter loves "Catcher in the Rye," so it still speaks to at least some teens. I was never a great fan of the book, even when I was young.

[rightbrain]

A big turn-off for me about Jane’s works, is something really trivial, but I seem unable to get past it: her two-centuries-ago-type use of English. Always found that intensely annoying: to me, highly stilted and “mannered”; plus, certain ways of rendering things in writing, differently from the present-day convention. For example: “somebody” or “anybody”, which we nowadays write as one word, she writes as two. Found this quite disproportionately infuriating, to the point of wanting to grab her by the throat and yell at her, “you stupid Georgian biddy, it ISN’T ‘any body’ !”


The "any bodys" aside, I find Jane Austen's writing, especially in "Pride and Prejudice," remarkably modern for its times. The heavy use of dialogue and indirect free speech (a technique Austen refined) make it seem more modern than many 19th century books, IMHO.

It does drive me crazy when people portray Austen as a romantic. There are valid reasons not to like her work (its very narrow focus isn't to everyone's taste, for example), but dismissing it as dewy-eyed "chick lit" is nonsense. She wrote compellingly about the life of women in her time (marriage was the only career a woman could have) and was a biting social satirist. She created very real, memorable characters. She has far more in common with Samuel Johnson than with, say, the Brontes.

Speaking of which, I don't get the appeal of the Bronte sisters' stuff, especially "Wuthering Heights." Heathcliff and Cathy are both pretty unpleasant characters. I've never understood why I should care what happens to them. And "Jane Eyre"--the crazy wife locked in the attic is just a bit much.

I like much of Dickens, but "Nicholas Nickleby" is one of the best cures for insomnia I've ever tried to read.

[BPScooter]

Wow! I want to go back and read some of this bad stuff. To be frank, I did go back and read Richard III (the bard) and the Plumed Serpent (D.H. Lawrence) recently enough. ****** Shakespeare kicks booty! It made me stop and thinkalot! I wasn't really convinced that anything in the Lawrence was moving or amusing. I totally understand that people of his day thought highly of him, but between us now.... not much.

I promise now and forever never to truly seek, read, or enjoy the works of........ [[henry james, henry miller]]]

Jane Austen is very, very good.

[Soapy Sam]

Is it the author or the style? Style varies with time. Scott and Dickens would both benefit from a heavy handed editor. Both have the feel of being written for serialisation and being paid by the word. Austen , from an earlier time, does not.
I confess I have yet to finish a Dickens novel - and at 54 I never expect to. It's too much to ask of an old man, when there are so many more interesting things to read.

Describing Tolkein as derivative is only true if we look at his sources. Every swords and sourcery trilogy written post WW2 is derivative of Tolkein and they're generally very bad. You must read LOTR at about 13 to appreciate it.

Twain satirising Fenimore Cooper is funny till you come to read Twain- and find him as turgid as JFC. I liked Huck Finn, but again, failed to finish it. Again, I feel it needed editing. Some novels should have been short stories.

To be honest, I find most fiction pre 1900 can be heavy going, because I lack the historical context, but do I find Dickens boring and dull because I find the era about which he is writing boring and dull, or because he actually IS boring and dull?
I think it's him.
There can be little less boring and dull than the Church of England, yet I find "Barchester Towers" entertaining and enjoyable. Why Dickens, but not Trollope? It can't be the setting. It has to be the writer.

Some styles appeal to us and others do not.
In current SF, I like C J Cherryh and do not like Doris Lessing. By no means do I say Lessing is a bad writer; she simply does not write in a way that appeals to me.

My vote for best classic English writer is Kipling, but I don't expect many here to concur.

[cornsail]

The thing you have to understand is that every writer writes for his time. Yes, Catcher in the Rye seems stale and trite to us today; part of that is because times have changed. I can assure you it was revolutionary for its day.

Would you mind explaining how it was revolutionary? I remember Holden deeming everyone phonies for unexplained reasons and drinking a lot of scotch and sodas, but it's been awhile since I've read it. Also, many writers older than Salinger have stood the test of time.

[Senex]

rightbrain says:

Speaking of which, I don't get the appeal of the Bronte sisters' stuff, especially "Wuthering Heights." Heathcliff and Cathy are both pretty unpleasant characters. I've never understood why I should care what happens to them. And "Jane Eyre"--the crazy wife locked in the attic is just a bit much.
I think the very same thing. Heathcliff reminds me of a person who once was a close friend of mine that I knew had a dark side and the shame was on me when I turned a blind eye to who he was and it bit me in the ass.

As far as women being locked in the attic -- I have yet to lock one who hasn't bitched and moaned. I happen to have a fine attic. It could be worse.

I like much of Dickens, but "Nicholas Nickleby" is one of the best cures for insomnia I've ever tried to read.

As much as I champion Dickens I have to admit I never read that book. It is odd to say you have a favorite author who has written an acclaimed novel you scratch your chin and wait for another day to read. I do believe that book may be a bit of a slog. However, I realize I have now commited myself to being a Dickens scholar so the local libraries better beware!

My book report will be forthcoming (not a threat, it is a promise).

[Elizabeth I]

Speaking of which, I don't get the appeal of the Bronte sisters' stuff, especially "Wuthering Heights." Heathcliff and Cathy are both pretty unpleasant characters. I've never understood why I should care what happens to them. And "Jane Eyre"--the crazy wife locked in the attic is just a bit much.

Actually, the crazy wife in the attic was one of my favorite things about Jane Eyre. Jane's submissiveness - based on class, not gender - drove me batty (yes, I know it was standard for the time. It still made me crazy.) Eliza Bennett might have understood that the only path to comfort and security for her and her sisters was to marry well, but she certainly never kowtowed to anybody. None of the Bennett girls did, come to think of it. Three of them were, as Mr. Bennett said, "three of the silliest girls in England," but not one of them lay down and took whatever kicks someone wanted to hand out.

[Soapy Sam]

It's notable though how dramatically Lizzie's attitude to Darcy changes after she sees Pemberley. There's a lovely moment in the recent movie version where Kiera Knightley- an excellent Elizabeth IMO- first sees the building and the thought of what she might have had strikes her visibly. I'm not sure how cynical Austen was about her heroines, but I think she had a hellishly sharp eye for character.

[fuelair]

I ask this respectfully -- when Mrs. Copperfield was dieing was there a dry eye in the classroom?

Personally, I think David Copperfield is an adult novel. I cried (and often have during Dickens novels -- but you have to consider I did read them instead of bashing them).I honestly do not remember, but I do remember thinking
that Murdstone and his sister really needed shooting (I have always - as long as I can remember - had a bad attitude towards bad people).

[fuelair]

By the by, I suppose I should clarify: from the time I discovered libraries my only limit to intake was how easy it was to get to the library and my choices were all over the place (when I discovered bookstores it was a life changing experience!). This being the early 50s, the classics were still in vogue and TV schedules were such that many kids watched the same sitcoms, etc. that their parents did (pre-Newton Minnow's vast wasteland). The teacher had no reason not to read it to us and we enjoyed being read to ( for various reasons). At that time adult did not mean not appropriate for kids (unless you lived in a big city or knew "special" people who could put together a "party"). We didn't.

[fuelair]

Sorry, good as he is, I will not budge on Shakespeare. This is a non-negotiable, "pry-out-of-cold-dead-fingers" position, so put down that keyboard, quietly, and just walk away, and there won't be any trouble.

I think a lot of how you enjoy Dickens and some other authors depends on what you expect, and the mood you're in when you start. It can take a while to get drawn in and find the rhythm. It's almost as if you need to drop back out of the 21st century, light a candle and say all right, there's nothing better to do, no TV, no computer, just me and this book, and the world that it inhabits. Once your internal clock synchronizes with his, you're in. I feel the same way about Conrad, who on the wrong day can be like a brick wall of impenetrable prose, but on the right day you are out on that swamp or that tossing sea, you can hear the flies buzz and smell the vegetation on the lagoon and feel the dread creeping up. Hey, that reminds me, it's almost time to read Victory again!

There need be nothing wrong with the reader or the book to say "this isn't working for me today," and toss it aside. Just don't toss it too far.

It helps, or informs at least, to know that word count per sentence and sentence count per paragraph have been dropping dramatically from the 18th century to now - as has the vocabulary both in number of different words and the difficulty level of that vocabulary, for novels and other "popular materials". Fortunately, starting to read in the late 40's/school in the early on 50s and exposure much earlier to "the classics" helped me be comfortable with their style. I read Greek plays and some Shakespeare on my own in High School (7-12 grade). I have never read Moby Dick and may never do so - but that is because I am neutral about allegory and already know what I consider sufficient about Whaling in the past.

Love Poe, Bierce, Gogol (of which: Bava's Black Sunday was supposedly based on The Vij by Gogol - Now, The Vij is being made under it's own name by Robert Englund w/ Christopher Lee. Will be looking very forward to that!!!) and read a cartload of books of poetry. Didn't like all, but didn't count the time as wasted.

Oh, as I like to point out to my students, sometimes knowing a goodly amount makes you seem smarter than you are (knowledge can partially make up for some missing intelligence - it's amazing how many people conflate the two).

[fuelair]

Mrs. Copperfield? David's wife? Dora? Ugh. Dry eyes, empty stomach.

To be fair, though, I really don't care for any 19th century novel that goes on and on about people's feelings. Blech.

But to slam another century, you know what I really hate? Any epistolary novel where the protagonist writes, "I hear someone coming. I must stop now and find a place to hide this....blah, blah, blah" for several pages.and then winds up with his head eaten off and his blood running down the open final page of his MS.:D!!

[fuelair]

Speaking of which, I don't get the appeal of the Bronte sisters' stuff, especially "Wuthering Heights." Heathcliff and Cathy are both pretty unpleasant characters. I've never understood why I should care what happens to them. And "Jane Eyre"--the crazy wife locked in the attic is just a bit much.
.

But both have lead to astonishingly vulgar but humorous rewrites in the last 15-20 years!! (Jane leaving the school with a bloody reminder of 12 of the best to send her to the place with the attic per ex.)

[Ove]

Speaking of Shakespeare (whom i have never read) i clearly remember an interwiew with Laurence Olivier some years ago. The talk was about "The Bard" and Olivier said that he felt sorry for young people being forced to read Shakespeare in scool because the works was never intended to be READ. It is plays, they are written for the stage and they should be experienced as such.
I have seen several of the plays and enjoyed them a lot and i can see Olivier's point, what works good on a stage can be horrible to read.

[Praktik]

I LOVED reading every Shakespeare play I ever read... but I do have an active imagination and love that style of english...

[fuelair]

I LOVED reading every Shakespeare play I ever read... but I do have an active imagination and love that style of english...
That's the trick - you have to see in your mind what you are reading - if you can't, reading is from dull to pointless. If you can, :):D:):D:):D!!!

[Lucian]

Speaking of Shakespeare (whom i have never read) i clearly remember an interwiew with Laurence Olivier some years ago. The talk was about "The Bard" and Olivier said that he felt sorry for young people being forced to read Shakespeare in scool because the works was never intended to be READ. It is plays, they are written for the stage and they should be experienced as such.
I have seen several of the plays and enjoyed them a lot and i can see Olivier's point, what works good on a stage can be horrible to read.

Yes, plays are meant to be performed, but almost all poetry is meant to be heard. Some poetry (Old English poetry, Old Norse Eddic and Skaldic poetry) was meant to be sung. Yet people still read poetry. And while seeing Shakespeare performed can be a delight, it all depends on the director, actors, stage designer, etc. ("Huh, why are those Nazis speaking Elizabethan blank verse?"). When you read it, it can be however you want it to be.

[Elizabeth I]

Speaking of Shakespeare (whom i have never read) i clearly remember an interwiew with Laurence Olivier some years ago. The talk was about "The Bard" and Olivier said that he felt sorry for young people being forced to read Shakespeare in scool because the works was never intended to be READ. It is plays, they are written for the stage and they should be experienced as such.
I have seen several of the plays and enjoyed them a lot and i can see Olivier's point, what works good on a stage can be horrible to read.

OMG, I saw a film of Othello that Olivier made in the late 60s or early 70s and it was [almost] the worst thing I ever saw - Olivier as Othello mugged so much that it was like watching Rich Little do Richard Nixon in blackface.

The worst Shakespeare I ever saw was Orson Welles' Macbeth. Apparently Shakespeare wasn't good enough for Welles, so he added a lot of his own dialogue.

[Lucian]

OMG, I saw a film of Othello that Olivier made in the late 60s or early 70s and it was [almost] the worst thing I ever saw - Olivier as Othello mugged so much that it was like watching Rich Little do Richard Nixon in blackface.

The worst Shakespeare I ever saw was Orson Welles' Macbeth. Apparently Shakespeare wasn't good enough for Welles, so he added a lot of his own dialogue.

Ooh, I saw 15 minutes of that once. I don't remember if I got as far as any of the bonus dialogue, but I do remember wondering why they lived in a ruined castle.

[fuelair]

OMG, I saw a film of Othello that Olivier made in the late 60s or early 70s and it was [almost] the worst thing I ever saw - Olivier as Othello mugged so much that it was like watching Rich Little do Richard Nixon in blackface.

The worst Shakespeare I ever saw was Orson Welles' Macbeth. Apparently Shakespeare wasn't good enough for Welles, so he added a lot of his own dialogue.Apropos of little, that was a great problem with the latest incarnation of Christie's Miss Marple. Idiot writers and/or producers who thought they could do better than the creator of the material. Sometimes you can. That was not one of those times.

[Elizabeth I]

Ooh, I saw 15 minutes of that once. I don't remember if I got as far as any of the bonus dialogue, but I do remember wondering why they lived in a ruined castle.

That temper of Lady Macbeth's, you know...

[Lucian]

That temper of Lady Macbeth's, you know...

"Out, damn'd spot! Out, I say, and take that wallpaper with you, and the ceiling will have to go as well!"

[bruto]

"out, damn'd spot! Out, i say, and take that wallpaper with you, and the ceiling will have to go as well!"



15858

[plumjam]

I prefer to read Shakespeare more than watch the play (or at least read it first).
With the book you can re-read stuff you feel you haven't understood well, and in my experience that happens pretty often with Shakespeare.
With a play you can't go back (unless DVD)

[Skeptic]

See the witches stir.
Stir, stir, stir.
What are the witches stirring?
They are stirring up trouble.
The trouble is for Macbeth.
Surprise, Macbeth!
The witches tell Macbeth he will be king.
Macbeth does not want to be king.
He just wants to be Thane of Cawdor.
Whatever the heck that is!
But Ms. Macbeth wants him to be king.
Wants, wants, wants.
You know the type.
Pushy!

---------------------

See the lady.
She is Mrs. Macbeth.
She is washing her hands.
Why is she washing her hands?
Because they are all bloody.
Eeech!
She just help Macbeth kill the king.
Because the Macbeths do everything together!
"Out, damned spot!" says Mrs. Macbeth.
Mrs. Macbeth has dirty hands, all right.
She also has a dirty mouth!

[Aitch]

The worst Shakespeare I ever saw was Orson Welles' Macbeth. Apparently Shakespeare wasn't good enough for Welles, so he added a lot of his own dialogue.

The 1971 version (directed by Polanski) was, on the other hand, pretty good.

Script by Polanski and Ken Tynan; executive producer - Hugh Hefner! :cool:

Also, for UK viewers with a morbid interest in such things, Fleance is played by... wait for it... Keith Chegwin! :boggled:

And, according to the IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067372/), Clement Freud has an uncredited role as 'Hanging Man'.


ETA Just like to say that, in my opinion, Kenny Branagh's Shakespeare films are usually pretty good too.

[Fontwell]

The thing with LOTR is that it invented a new genre (I just know someone is going to tell me it didn't!) and so by being the the first, it earns a prominence beyond its literary merits. I can remember reading it probably three times as a teenager. Even then, there were some dull parts but it was the only book I knew of which allowed me access to that kind of world. Then I came across the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and immediately realised that I'd never be reading LOTR again :)

[gumboot]

This is a guy who created his own language for his books - he was nothing if not thorough :D

Strictly speaking he created a book for his languages. :)

[gumboot]

I prefer to read Shakespeare more than watch the play (or at least read it first).
With the book you can re-read stuff you feel you haven't understood well, and in my experience that happens pretty often with Shakespeare.
With a play you can't go back (unless DVD)

One of my pet hates with performances of Shakespeare is how often (particularly with school or amateur productions) the way the actors deliver their lines make it patently clear they have absolutely no idea what they're actually saying. This makes comprehension for audiences who aren't familiar with the work almost impossible.

Every time I have ever done Shakespeare one of the most important and useful processes we did was to go through the entire play line by line and pick it apart to determine precisely what is being said. It takes hours but it makes all the difference.

If I hear another actress deliver "O Romeo, Romeo wherefore art thou
Romeo? " with wistful longing as per "Where are you, I really wish you were here right now" I think I'll scream.

[gumboot]

The thing with LOTR is that it invented a new genre (I just know someone is going to tell me it didn't!) and so by being the the first, it earns a prominence beyond its literary merits. I can remember reading it probably three times as a teenager. Even then, there were some dull parts but it was the only book I knew of which allowed me access to that kind of world. Then I came across the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and immediately realised that I'd never be reading LOTR again :)


I agree with this. I'm a huge fan of the genre, and place Tolkien very highly, but despite that I think his actual writing itself is pretty woeful. Fantasy is one of those odd writing genres where the perceived quality of a work isn't just determined by the quality of the actual story telling. The quality of the setting and all of that additional background material plays an enormous role in how it is received.

[cornsail]

One of my pet hates with performances of Shakespeare is how often (particularly with school or amateur productions) the way the actors deliver their lines make it patently clear they have absolutely no idea what they're actually saying. This makes comprehension for audiences who aren't familiar with the work almost impossible.

Word. I prefer reading him, because I can refer to the glossary or footnotes whenever needed (which is a lot). If the actors know their stuff, then at least I can pick some of the lost meaning up via intonation and body language.

If I hear another actress deliver "O Romeo, Romeo wherefore art thou
Romeo? " with wistful longing as per "Where are you, I really wish you were here right now" I think I'll scream.

Whoa, I just looked up "wherefore" and I don't get it. Lend me a hand?

[cornsail]

Tolkein was pretty big in my childhood. My 3rd grade teacher used to read us The Hobbit. My parents read me LOTR when I was 7 and then I read it again when I was 12 and then got about half way through a few years later. I it because the mileau was so awesome. Narnia was for chumps as far as I was concerned.

[BPScooter]

Is Stephen Leacock forgotten today? He was Canadian, and an ancient humorist. I'm reading him now, and his "Nonsense Novels" reminded me of good fun.

[gumboot]

Word. I prefer reading him, because I can refer to the glossary or footnotes whenever needed (which is a lot). If the actors know their stuff, then at least I can pick some of the lost meaning up via intonation and body language.

Whoa, I just looked up "wherefore" and I don't get it. Lend me a hand?


Juliet is saying "Why are you Romeo?" (i.e. "Why are you a Montague?"), "wherefore" meaning "for what reason or purpose".

It's an expression of despair at the cruelty of fate, that her one true love is her enemy. This is actually spelled out pretty clearly a few scenes earlier: "My only love, sprung from my only hate".

Too often, the line is mistaken interpreted as "where are you, Romeo?"

I've seen many performances where the actor thought Juliet was basically being a mopey teenager going "I miss you already". The mood of the scene is totally at odds with that notion - rather it's a despairing rant against the cruelty of fate, and fate of course is a major theme of Romeo and Juliet.

Obviously the actually delivery of these two interpretations would be drastically different. The following speech is often delivered in a dreamy romantic sort of voice, but rather is should be frantic, desperate, and upset.

[malbui]

Word. I prefer reading him, because I can refer to the glossary or footnotes whenever needed (which is a lot). If the actors know their stuff, then at least I can pick some of the lost meaning up via intonation and body language.



Whoa, I just looked up "wherefore" and I don't get it. Lend me a hand?

Probably displaying my ignorance here but I always read "wherefore" as meaning "why", as in the German "wofür". Juliet isn't bemoaning the absence of Romeo; she's bemoaning the fact that the boy she loves is a member of a rival family and thus out of bounds. If he were someone different, she wouldn't have all her problems.


ETA: beaten to the explanation by gumboot. At least we agree!

[Mr Clingford]

Not only do you agree, but you are both right!

[BPScooter]

Thou drag'st a dog already dead

[Ove]

Apropos of little, that was a great problem with the latest incarnation of Christie's Miss Marple. Idiot writers and/or producers who thought they could do better than the creator of the material. Sometimes you can. That was not one of those times.

I quite agree, THAT should be considered a crime. If only they had the nerve so write "Loosely based on.......".

[cornsail]

Ah, thanks. I think "maidenhead" is the only term that stuck with me from that play. :)

[fuelair]

The thing with LOTR is that it invented a new genre (I just know someone is going to tell me it didn't!) and so by being the the first, it earns a prominence beyond its literary merits. I can remember reading it probably three times as a teenager. Even then, there were some dull parts but it was the only book I knew of which allowed me access to that kind of world. Then I came across the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and immediately realised that I'd never be reading LOTR again :)

Interesting, I read Covenant and had two problems. One, he is a rapist, two he is an idiot (without spoilers, what the hell evidence does he need that he doesn't have his problem anymore), three, I really found the whole plotline derivative and the writing repetitive. But, that's just me. Reread Tolkien several times OTOH.

[Skeptic]

If I hear another actress deliver "O Romeo, Romeo wherefore art thou Romeo? " with wistful longing as per "Where are you, I really wish you were here right now" I think I'll scream.

Ding ding ding ding!!!!

Exactly. "Wherefore" doesn't mean what they think it means.

[Professor Yaffle]

Interesting, I read Covenant and had two problems. One, he is a rapist, two he is an idiot (without spoilers, what the hell evidence does he need that he doesn't have his problem anymore), three, I really found the whole plotline derivative and the writing repetitive. But, that's just me. Reread Tolkien several times OTOH.

I used to really like Covenant when I was younger, but then I read the recent start of the third chronicles and I couldn't make it past the first few chapters, the writing drove me so mad. If I read the words eldritch, inchoate or percipience one more time I would have thrown the book through a window.

[Pure Argent]

I used to really like Covenant when I was younger, but then I read the recent start of the third chronicles and I couldn't make it past the first few chapters, the writing drove me so mad. If I read the words eldritch, inchoate or percipience one more time I would have thrown the book through a window.

Aside from the repetitive vocabulary, I loved The Runes of the Earth. In my opinion, it is the best of the series.

[Perfume V]

One of my pet hates with performances of Shakespeare is how often (particularly with school or amateur productions) the way the actors deliver their lines make it patently clear they have absolutely no idea what they're actually saying. This makes comprehension for audiences who aren't familiar with the work almost impossible.

I completely agree. I used to have a grudging respect for Shakespeare, but when I starred in a school production of Twelfth Night I started to actively LOVE him, because it forced me to think of the lines in terms of what they mean and what they tell us about the character, rather than a sort of beautiful and distant poetry. We also had a brilliant man from the English department directing it, who told us that it was OK to say it in a more colloquial or casual tone of voice if it helped the comedy.

I feel like screaming every time I see a Shakespeare comedy and the actors are playing it so solemnly, as if it's Mourning Becomes Electra or something. I mean, the text doesn't suddenly crumble and die if you play it for laughs! It's a comedy! That's what you're meant to do!

As for the OP, there's a difference for me between classic authors who I actively dislike - a list headed by Laurence Durrell and Jane Austen - and ones I'm disappointed in.

I'm constantly frustrated by Franz Kafka, for example, because his ideas are dazzling and completely original, but his prose! He writes like... well, like an insurance officer, funnily enough, constantly compiling bloodless legal accounts of that time when Jenkins from Sector 4B turned into a giant bug. And I'm not closed-minded when it comes to writing styles - I can appreciate anything from the madly florid, classical, allusive style of late Melville to the simple, pacy, quietly witty work of Patricia Highsmith - but I know what I can't put up with, and Kafka is something I can't put up with.

[Lucian]

I completely agree. I used to have a grudging respect for Shakespeare, but when I starred in a school production of Twelfth Night I started to actively LOVE him, because it forced me to think of the lines in terms of what they mean and what they tell us about the character, rather than a sort of beautiful and distant poetry. We also had a brilliant man from the English department directing it, who told us that it was OK to say it in a more colloquial or casual tone of voice if it helped the comedy.

I feel like screaming every time I see a Shakespeare comedy and the actors are playing it so solemnly, as if it's Mourning Becomes Electra or something. I mean, the text doesn't suddenly crumble and die if you play it for laughs! It's a comedy! That's what you're meant to do!

As for the OP, there's a difference for me between classic authors who I actively dislike - a list headed by Laurence Durrell and Jane Austen - and ones I'm disappointed in.

I'm constantly frustrated by Franz Kafka, for example, because his ideas are dazzling and completely original, but his prose! He writes like... well, like an insurance officer, funnily enough, constantly compiling bloodless legal accounts of that time when Jenkins from Sector 4B turned into a giant bug. And I'm not closed-minded when it comes to writing styles - I can appreciate anything from the madly florid, classical, allusive style of late Melville to the simple, pacy, quietly witty work of Patricia Highsmith - but I know what I can't put up with, and Kafka is something I can't put up with.

I think it should be incumbent on actors performing Shakespeare to figure out what they're saying. That is, they should learn what the words mean ("wherefore") and muddle their way through the grammar. I mean would it kill them to hunt down the subject and the predicate of the sentences they're reciting? I sometimes wonder if some actors know Shakespeare actually wrote sentences, not just discrete lines of verse. But then they need to make it sound as if they actually speak in Tudor/Stuart blank verse all the time. I have heard actors who have clearly gone through the text painstakingly to work out the meaning and want to make sure everyone knows it. That's not a huge improvement over the "learned it phonetically" sort.

[bruto]

I completely agree. I used to have a grudging respect for Shakespeare, but when I starred in a school production of Twelfth Night I started to actively LOVE him, because it forced me to think of the lines in terms of what they mean and what they tell us about the character, rather than a sort of beautiful and distant poetry. We also had a brilliant man from the English department directing it, who told us that it was OK to say it in a more colloquial or casual tone of voice if it helped the comedy.

I feel like screaming every time I see a Shakespeare comedy and the actors are playing it so solemnly, as if it's Mourning Becomes Electra or something. I mean, the text doesn't suddenly crumble and die if you play it for laughs! It's a comedy! That's what you're meant to do!

As for the OP, there's a difference for me between classic authors who I actively dislike - a list headed by Laurence Durrell and Jane Austen - and ones I'm disappointed in.

I'm constantly frustrated by Franz Kafka, for example, because his ideas are dazzling and completely original, but his prose! He writes like... well, like an insurance officer, funnily enough, constantly compiling bloodless legal accounts of that time when Jenkins from Sector 4B turned into a giant bug. And I'm not closed-minded when it comes to writing styles - I can appreciate anything from the madly florid, classical, allusive style of late Melville to the simple, pacy, quietly witty work of Patricia Highsmith - but I know what I can't put up with, and Kafka is something I can't put up with.

I find that true of many foreign and especially East European authors, including the otherwise admirable Milan Kundera, for example, but I've never been entirely sure how much of this is attributable to the author and how much to the translator.

[Elizabeth I]

I find that true of many foreign and especially East European authors, including the otherwise admirable Milan Kundera, for example, but I've never been entirely sure how much of this is attributable to the author and how much to the translator.

After I read Name of the Rose and Foucault's Pendulum I was completely impressed by Eco's translator - the books read to me as if they had been written in English, not translated.

[Perfume V]

Translation is something I don't like to think about too much, but it must be a factor. I love everything Jorge Luis Borges ever wrote, but if I had to pick favourites I would say I liked The Book of Sand more than Fictions, which seems to be very much a minority opinion amongst fans. Looking at the editions of both these books I have, I do wonder whether this is because of the translations I've read: if so, that would be a pretty Borgesian phenomenon, since he did famously write an essay suggesting Omar Khayyám wasn't a very good poet and Edward FitzGerald wasn't a very good translator, but somehow the deficiencies in FitzGerald's approach made the Rubaiyat more beautiful than it was in the original Persian.

[bruto]

Translation is something I don't like to think about too much, but it must be a factor. I love everything Jorge Luis Borges ever wrote, but if I had to pick favourites I would say I liked The Book of Sand more than Fictions, which seems to be very much a minority opinion amongst fans. Looking at the editions of both these books I have, I do wonder whether this is because of the translations I've read: if so, that would be a pretty Borgesian phenomenon, since he did famously write an essay suggesting Omar Khayyám wasn't a very good poet and Edward FitzGerald wasn't a very good translator, but somehow the deficiencies in FitzGerald's approach made the Rubaiyat more beautiful than it was in the original Persian.Borges may be a special case, because although he wrote in Spanish he knew English and was well known as a translator himself. During his later years of blindness, his amanuensis, Norman Thomas di Giovanni, translated his work as it progressed, and Borges vetted the translations, which as I recall were released simultaneously with the Spanish versions. I recall they appeared with great regularity in The New Yorker, which is where I was introduced to Borges. Added note: I just looked it up, and it seems that the partnership with di Giovanni was so mutual that they split the royalties.

[burmballgeetar]

I'm a fan of much lit. that others don't enjoy but I do have to admit that while reading William Makepeace Thackeray's Vanity Fair, I began to believe that I'd rather be shooting myself in the face with a staple gun.

Thackeray gets my vote for worst.

[Lucian]

Borges may be a special case, because although he wrote in Spanish he knew English and was well known as a translator himself. During his later years of blindness, his amanuensis, Norman Thomas di Giovanni, translated his work as it progressed, and Borges vetted the translations, which as I recall were released simultaneously with the Spanish versions. I recall they appeared with great regularity in The New Yorker, which is where I was introduced to Borges. Added note: I just looked it up, and it seems that the partnership with di Giovanni was so mutual that they split the royalties.

Eco speaks English as well, doesn't he? He's also an Anglophile, so I was wondering if he may also have vetted the English translations of his novels to some extent.

[rsaavedra]

Translation is something I don't like to think about too much, but it must be a factor.
Translation is something I do like to think about a lot -I'm pursuing a legal translation certification myself. Maybe Borges and Cortázar deserve the highest accolades as consummate translators, but I'm more fascinated at someone like Joseph Conrad: one of the greatest novelists in the English language, even though not only English wasn't his native language, he only became fluent in it when he was already a grown up. That has always amazed me.

[Elizabeth I]

Translation is something I do like to think about a lot -I'm pursuing a legal translation certification myself. Maybe Borges and Cortázar deserve the highest accolades as consummate translators, but I'm more fascinated at someone like Joseph Conrad: one of the greatest novelists in the English language, even though not only English wasn't his native language, he only became fluent in it when he was already a grown up. That has always amazed me.

The fact that he became a skillful writer in English has always amazed me as well.

[Damien Evans]

The thing with LOTR is that it invented a new genre (I just know someone is going to tell me it didn't!) and so by being the the first, it earns a prominence beyond its literary merits. I can remember reading it probably three times as a teenager. Even then, there were some dull parts but it was the only book I knew of which allowed me access to that kind of world. Then I came across the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and immediately realised that I'd never be reading LOTR again :)

All I can say to that is that every bookshop I've ever been in has LOTR, The Hobbit and usually The Silmarrilion as well.

I've yet to find any of the first chronicles of thomas covenant in any bookshop I've ever visited. But I'm still looking.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Do poets count? Yes?

Then I wish everything Emily Dickenson wrote to be smote from the history of human language. I'm not a fan of poetry to begin with (unless it was written by guys dodging shells and mustard gas and thus had something to actually write about), but I'm sure my hatred of that miserable shut-in had just as much to do with crappy subject matter as it did the perrenial force-feeding I had of it by teachers who insisted it was the next best thing to hot tubs and horny coeds.

You need to take a closer look at her writing, if that's what you think of her. To start with, she was a doubting Christian, even though she was the daughter of a minister, and some of her poems seem to have a lesbian subtext. This is the author of "Wild Nights", after all.

There's a good reason she's regarded as the saint of poetry.

It's notable though how dramatically Lizzie's attitude to Darcy changes after she sees Pemberley. There's a lovely moment in the recent movie version where Kiera Knightley- an excellent Elizabeth IMO- first sees the building and the thought of what she might have had strikes her visibly. I'm not sure how cynical Austen was about her heroines, but I think she had a hellishly sharp eye for character.

Yes, Austen was very biting, sharp and sometimes downright cruel- but not in this case.

Elizabeth is awed by the estate and thinks sadly and with astonishment upon the fact that she could have been mistress of this place, yes. However, she sadly concludes that it was for the better and that if she had married Darcy, her beloved uncle and aunt would have been forever lost to her, as they were middle class gentry. The movie conveys this very well.

The reason she changes her mind toward Darcy at Pemberley is because she meets his sister and his former nanny for the first time and realizes what a good human being Darcy really is.

And her mind had already been changed about Darcy way before this, when she found out the true story of what happened with Jane and Mr. Bingley and the true story of Wickham and Darcy.

[Mr Clingford]

...As for the OP, there's a difference for me between classic authors who I actively dislike - a list headed by Laurence Durrell and Jane Austen - and ones I'm disappointed in.
What is about Laurence Durrell you dislike? You are the only person I know who has read any (Alexandria Quartet, I presume?).

[båtsman]

As was earlier stated, Dracula is way too long and I was disappointed at how weak Dracula was. Not in any way as strong as he was portrayed in the films I saw when I was young.

Another book that disappointed me is Brave New World by Huxley.

[fleabeetle]

What is about Laurence Durrell you dislike? You are the only person I know who has read any (Alexandria Quartet, I presume?).

Going off at a bit of a tangent – I being a definite non-intellectual: as regards Durrells and their writings, I greatly prefer Gerald, to his brother Lawrence. I refer to GD’s non-fiction works; not to his novels, which he admitted, I believe, to regarding as garbage – but for some reason people liked and bought them, so he churned them out to make money to support his nature-and wildlife-conservation doings. Having read a little bit of GD’s fiction; and an infinitesimal ditto (all I could stand) of LD’s “Quartet”; I’d rate them (for my tastes) as equally lowbrow-awful, and highbrow-awful, respectively.

[Jorghnassen]

All I can say to that is that every bookshop I've ever been in has LOTR, The Hobbit and usually The Silmarrilion as well.

I've yet to find any of the first chronicles of thomas covenant in any bookshop I've ever visited. But I'm still looking.

Why would you keep looking? I love the concept of the fantasy genre, which is why I pretty much haven't read anything but Tolkien. After LOTR, which was meant to be one, albeit large, book, it seems no one in fantasy managed to tell a complete story in a single book. OK, admittedly I did read all seven Narnia and Harry Potter books, but I couldn't keept interest after a single book of any other fantasy author. I guess I really like mythology and the matter of Britain more than modern fantasy. I'd take Chrétien de Troyes and Robert de Boron over, say, Marrion Zimmer Bradley or Michael Moorcock any day.

[Skeptic]

I feel like screaming every time I see a Shakespeare comedy and the actors are playing it so solemnly, as if it's Mourning Becomes Electra or something. I mean, the text doesn't suddenly crumble and die if you play it for laughs! It's a comedy! That's what you're meant to do!

"Comedy" then (e.g., "The Divine Comedy") didn't necessarily mean a funny play (thought it could be funny). It could mean any play with a "happy ending" in the sense that the good guys win.

E.g., "The Merchant of Venice" is a comedy not because it's supposed to be funny, but since the good guy gets the girl, and she and her father convert to Christianity -- which, for Shakespeare and his audience, was a happy ending for them, too, since now they believe the true faith.

[Lucian]

"Comedy" then (e.g., "The Divine Comedy") didn't necessarily mean a funny play (thought it could be funny). It could mean any play with a "happy ending" in the sense that the good guys win.

E.g., "The Merchant of Venice" is a comedy not because it's supposed to be funny, but since the good guy gets the girl, and she and her father convert to Christianity -- which, for Shakespeare and his audience, was a happy ending for them, too, since now they believe the true faith.

While your definition of comedy is accurate, the Shakespeare plays are also divided into modern categories--comedies, tragedies, histories and romances*--that don't necessarily fit the Renaissance definitions or categories. And the "happy ending" in some of the comedies, esp. All's Well and Measure for Measure, are highly dubious.

ETA "Romances," for instance, are not included in the First Folio. The Tempest and The Winter's Tale are included among the comedies, and Cymbeline among the tragedies. Pericles, a collaboration, isn't in the First Folio. And the comedies were supposed to be funny in a way that The Divine Comedy was not.

*And no one seems to know what to do with Troilus and Cressida.

[fuelair]

All I can say to that is that every bookshop I've ever been in has LOTR, The Hobbit and usually The Silmarrilion as well.

I've yet to find any of the first chronicles of thomas covenant in any bookshop I've ever visited. But I'm still looking.

Good luck with that! If really interested, Amazon might have somewhere.

They do. I read the first Trilogy, dozed into the second - I may have made it all the way through, but..

Glad to hear from some Amazon reviewers that Donaldson/Brooks proved Fantasy was viable. Could have sworn that a rather large number of people had been proving it all along and that B&D just tapped it up a small notch for a little while, but Hey.................

[fuelair]

As was earlier stated, Dracula is way too long and I was disappointed at how weak Dracula was. Not in any way as strong as he was portrayed in the films I saw when I was young.

Another book that disappointed me is Brave New World by Huxley.Maybe you read it too young or in the wrong era (though between 2000 and 2008 was good!! (for 1984 too). I didn't read BNW until I was 13 or 14 so...:)

[bruto]

You need to take a closer look at her writing, if that's what you think of her. To start with, she was a doubting Christian, even though she was the daughter of a minister, and some of her poems seem to have a lesbian subtext. This is the author of "Wild Nights", after all.

There's a good reason she's regarded as the saint of poetry.



Yes, Austen was very biting, sharp and sometimes downright cruel- but not in this case.

Elizabeth is awed by the estate and thinks sadly and with astonishment upon the fact that she could have been mistress of this place, yes. However, she sadly concludes that it was for the better and that if she had married Darcy, her beloved uncle and aunt would have been forever lost to her, as they were middle class gentry. The movie conveys this very well.

The reason she changes her mind toward Darcy at Pemberley is because she meets his sister and his former nanny for the first time and realizes what a good human being Darcy really is.

And her mind had already been changed about Darcy way before this, when she found out the true story of what happened with Jane and Mr. Bingley and the true story of Wickham and Darcy.

I think there's one other aspect of this, which we modern folk may not see eye to eye with those of Austen's time, and that is that in Elizabeth's eyes, the taste, good husbandry and elegance (as contrasted, for example with Lady Catherine's ostentation) she sees in Pemberly are assumed to be largely to Darcy's credit as master, and a reflection of his character.

[Mr Clingford]

Going off at a bit of a tangent – I being a definite non-intellectual: as regards Durrells and their writings, I greatly prefer Gerald, to his brother Lawrence. I refer to GD’s non-fiction works; not to his novels, which he admitted, I believe, to regarding as garbage – but for some reason people liked and bought them, so he churned them out to make money to support his nature-and wildlife-conservation doings. Having read a little bit of GD’s fiction; and an infinitesimal ditto (all I could stand) of LD’s “Quartet”; I’d rate them (for my tastes) as equally lowbrow-awful, and highbrow-awful, respectively.
Thanks for the reply.
I read recently the book by Margo Durrell about her time running a B and B after WWII and it was worth a read.

I read a lot of Gerald's output when I was 11/ 12 years old and loved both the animal and fiction stories - I'm not sure what I would think now of the fiction.

What do you mean by "highbrow-awful", especially the awful part?

[båtsman]

Maybe you read it too young or in the wrong era (though between 2000 and 2008 was good!! (for 1984 too). I didn't read BNW until I was 13 or 14 so...:)I actually didn't read BNW until this summer, and I'm 20. I remember that I liked 1984 much more, but that I read when I was 16-17. We didn't talk about Huxley and BNW in school until the last year (when you're 19) or something, so I had never really heard of it before.

Anyway, Huxley just want to show how bad sex and modernization is, he link them both together to show how unnatural it is. The book is just pretentious and boring.

[Damien Evans]

Why would you keep looking? I love the concept of the fantasy genre, which is why I pretty much haven't read anything but Tolkien. After LOTR, which was meant to be one, albeit large, book, it seems no one in fantasy managed to tell a complete story in a single book. OK, admittedly I did read all seven Narnia and Harry Potter books, but I couldn't keept interest after a single book of any other fantasy author. I guess I really like mythology and the matter of Britain more than modern fantasy. I'd take Chrétien de Troyes and Robert de Boron over, say, Marrion Zimmer Bradley or Michael Moorcock any day.

Um, maybe because I want to read them?

[fleabeetle]

Thanks for the reply.
I read recently the book by Margo Durrell about her time running a B and B after WWII and it was worth a read.

I read a lot of Gerald's output when I was 11/ 12 years old and loved both the animal and fiction stories - I'm not sure what I would think now of the fiction.

What do you mean by "highbrow-awful", especially the awful part?

“Last point first” – to be honest, that I’m a Philistine; tend to go for undemanding fiction, more than the stuff with reputed intellectual merit. Have enjoyed some of the “heavies”; but rather more, have been unable to get anywhere with. LD’s “Alexandria” stuff – brief attempt, too long ago, to remember any details; but it struck me as, for one thing, infuriatingly “mannered” and arch and poser-y. I have encountered the same reaction to it, from a couple of people who were true serious-literature buffs; but found this material by this guy, unreadable.

I enjoyed Lawrence D.’s “Bitter Lemons” – non-fiction, semi-autobiographical, about Cyprus and his time spent there – straightforwardly written, and full of interesting stuff. Seemingly, it’s his belles-lettres I can’t handle.

Mention of Margo’s book, brought back to mind my past hearing of it (never tried it). Seems that all the Durrell siblings turned out as writers of one kind or another, except the third brother, Leslie. IIRC from “My Family and Other Animals”, he was the tunnel-vision, not-too-bright, one, interested only in guns and hunting – not a likely candidate for authorship.

[Jorghnassen]

Um, maybe because I want to read them?

Spare yourself the trouble! It's probably more worth it to rediscover Robert E. Howard or abandon fantasy altogether. I'm personally inclined to try M.R. James' ghost stories instead...

[fuelair]

I actually didn't read BNW until this summer, and I'm 20. I remember that I liked 1984 much more, but that I read when I was 16-17. We didn't talk about Huxley and BNW in school until the last year (when you're 19) or something, so I had never really heard of it before.

Anyway, Huxley just want to show how bad sex and modernization is, he link them both together to show how unnatural it is. The book is just pretentious and boring.

Re: Huxley - you might want to look up a bit of info on the times he lived in and the culture of his location. My way of saying most - even good science writers/scientists - are products of their time.

[båtsman]

Re: Huxley - you might want to look up a bit of info on the times he lived in and the culture of his location. My way of saying most - even good science writers/scientists - are products of their time.I have no doubt about that. But that doesn't help the book from being boring.;) I like the setting, but not how the book develops.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Speaking of translations, I don't know if this counts as a response to the thread question, but I once took a graduate seminar in "The Epic", and my assignment turned out to be Ariosto's Orlando Furioso.

The first translation I got was Harington's. I found a copy in the school library printed in around 1910, and I discovered that most of the pages had never been cut apart. (That is, 100% proof that in all that time, no one had ever read this book.)

Harington's translation preserved the Ottava Rima. I'd just started reading it, when I got sick with the flu. (If you don't know the opening scene, a damsel in distress is rescued from an Orc or Dragon or some such by a knight. After he wins the fight, the knight prepares to rape the woman, but as he's struggling to get out of his heavy armor, she escapes.) I had horrible fevered dreams of that very funny scene all set against the daunting task of reading this very difficult translation.

When I got better, I returned the book to the library (pages still not cut apart) and read a modern prose translation.

[bruto]

Speaking of translations, I don't know if this counts as a response to the thread question, but I once took a graduate seminar in "The Epic", and my assignment turned out to be Ariosto's Orlando Furioso.

The first translation I got was Harington's. I found a copy in the school library printed in around 1910, and I discovered that most of the pages had never been cut apart. (That is, 100% proof that in all that time, no one had ever read this book.)

Harington's translation preserved the Ottava Rima. I'd just started reading it, when I got sick with the flu. (If you don't know the opening scene, a damsel in distress is rescued from an Orc or Dragon or some such by a knight. After he wins the fight, the knight prepares to rape the woman, but as he's struggling to get out of his heavy armor, she escapes.) I had horrible fevered dreams of that very funny scene all set against the daunting task of reading this very difficult translation.

When I got better, I returned the book to the library (pages still not cut apart) and read a modern prose translation.Speaking of translations. I had a similar experience with the Odyssey. As a kid in high school, I had to read it, and trudged through some one of the standard translations, probably Fitzgerald. Later, thinking I might get something more out of it as an adult, I slogged, painfully, into, but not through, another, even less engaging than the first. When my stepson was in school many years later, he was assigned the Odyssey in the Robert Fagles translation. Wow! What a difference.

[soetkin]

Also speaking of translations, I have Cees Nooteboom's 'Roads to Santiago' in both the original dutch version and the english translation by Ina Rilke. I'm Dutch-speaking but I vastly prefer the translation; it's more poetic and reflects -to me- the estrangement and dream-like quality the author experiences during his travels.
:con2:
Oh well...

[Aitch]

Speaking of translations. I had a similar experience with the Odyssey. As a kid in high school, I had to read it, and trudged through some one of the standard translations, probably Fitzgerald. Later, thinking I might get something more out of it as an adult, I slogged, painfully, into, but not through, another, even less engaging than the first. When my stepson was in school many years later, he was assigned the Odyssey in the Robert Fagles translation. Wow! What a difference.

Oh, I rather liked Fitzgerald's translation. Mind you, I came to it after E. V. Rieu's, so that's probably not surprising.

Will keep an eye out for the Fagles one. Thanks.

[rightbrain]

I think there's one other aspect of this, which we modern folk may not see eye to eye with those of Austen's time, and that is that in Elizabeth's eyes, the taste, good husbandry and elegance (as contrasted, for example with Lady Catherine's ostentation) she sees in Pemberly are assumed to be largely to Darcy's credit as master, and a reflection of his character.

Yes, it showed that he had good taste and was a good steward of his family's estate, and thus a good son and brother. It's clear from her books that Austen had little use for people who fritter away the family fortune (perhaps because she had so little money herself).

There's an amusing scene in the movie "Miss Austen Regrets" in which her niece's would-be fiance tells Jane he admires her novels. She rolls her eyes, skeptical that he's actually read them, until he says that he finds it interesting that Elizabeth Bennet only falls in love with Darcy after she sees Pemberley. Austen smiles.

[CptColumbo]

Translation is something I don't like to think about too much, but it must be a factor. I love everything Jorge Luis Borges ever wrote, but if I had to pick favourites I would say I liked The Book of Sand more than Fictions, which seems to be very much a minority opinion amongst fans. Looking at the editions of both these books I have, I do wonder whether this is because of the translations I've read: if so, that would be a pretty Borgesian phenomenon, since he did famously write an essay suggesting Omar Khayyám wasn't a very good poet and Edward FitzGerald wasn't a very good translator, but somehow the deficiencies in FitzGerald's approach made the Rubaiyat more beautiful than it was in the original Persian.A few years ago I read Farewell Party by Milan Kundera and really liked it, then I read the Unbearable Lightness of Being and hated it. I hope that it was due to the translation.

[bruto]

A few years ago I read Farewell Party by Milan Kundera and really liked it, then I read the Unbearable Lightness of Being and hated it. I hope that it was due to the translation.I had the same problem after reading The book of Laughter and Forgetting, which did not prepare me for the Unbearable Heaviness of Reading that followed.

[novice skeptic]

I often think that if you're too much of an enjoyable read and/or too popular with the general population you've scuppered your chances of being taken seriously as a writer. If the critics show themselves to agree with the general population then they have given away some of their cachet, it seems.

I agree. My favorite "classic" writer is probably Dumas, who sometimes gets dismissed for writing "fun" "adventure stories". If only he would have written duller pieces he might be more highly regarded.

[CptColumbo]

i had the same problem after reading the book of laughter and forgetting, which did not prepare me for the unbearable heaviness of reading that followed.lol! :)

[Soapy Sam]

Yes, it showed that he had good taste and was a good steward of his family's estate, and thus a good son and brother. It's clear from her books that Austen had little use for people who fritter away the family fortune (perhaps because she had so little money herself).

There's an amusing scene in the movie "Miss Austen Regrets" in which her niece's would-be fiance tells Jane he admires her novels. She rolls her eyes, skeptical that he's actually read them, until he says that he finds it interesting that Elizabeth Bennet only falls in love with Darcy after she sees Pemberley. Austen smiles.

Hah! I haven't seen that.
I'd point out that Darcy was not the steward of the Pemberley estate. He employed a steward and himself , as we know, was often absent. I recall the first time I read the book wondering (when Elizabeth first hears Wickham's tale of woe) why The senior Darcy and Wickham had not groomed Wickham junior for the steward's position. Of course, it soon becomes evident that Wickham couldn't be trusted in any such post.

In the context of this thread, I suppose the great compliment to Austen is that folk like us in the 21st century still see fit to argue about her characters' motivation.

[bruto]

Hah! I haven't seen that.
I'd point out that Darcy was not the steward of the Pemberley estate. He employed a steward and himself , as we know, was often absent. I recall the first time I read the book wondering (when Elizabeth first hears Wickham's tale of woe) why The senior Darcy and Wickham had not groomed Wickham junior for the steward's position. Of course, it soon becomes evident that Wickham couldn't be trusted in any such post.

In the context of this thread, I suppose the great compliment to Austen is that folk like us in the 21st century still see fit to argue about her characters' motivation.Indeed, Darcy would have a steward, as well as a housekeeper and a veritable army of servants and attendants who did everything but chew his food, and this is one of the aspects of the whole world view that we might find difficult to get into now - that he would be seen anyway as the master and guiding creator of his environment, even though he was hardly present at all, just as one might credit the king with the prosperity and well-being of his people.

As for Wickham, the story suggests that he was expected from an early age to rise above his father's station. The elder Wickham was still essentially a servant, albeit a highly placed and worthy one. Sending the son to university and grooming him for the clergy jumped him up a class, and he seems to have stayed there even though he was clearly unworthy and threw it all away.

[Senex]

A sense a certain Dickens fan here needs either more or less alcohol tonight. ;)

Yeah, yeah, you wished to say "I sensed..."

Anyway all you rascals who never read this brilliant book are in luck. You can read it for free or just look at a few pages of the original manuscript thanks to the NYTimes. Check this out, no BS. See how the greatest writer goes about his business. I linked to the article that links to the original manuscript. Check it out. Your favorite author pales in camparison.

It is a timeless tale and it may not be too late for many you to repent (but I have my doubts about af ew of you ;) )
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/a-christmas-rewrite-as-dickens-edits-dickens/?scp=2&sq=dickens&st=cse

[luchog]

Reading this thread, it struck me strongly how much of the "disappointment" and general dislike of certain authors is based on three things: cultural dissonance, values dissonance, and language drift.

The last one is, perhaps, the most understandable; since it's hard to appreciate the beauty of usage of a language that one is not strongly familiar with. Conventions change so much and so frequently that what is common, natural language for one period can seem artificial and stilted in another. This is particularly true for literary conventions.

Cutural and values dissonance can also make a huge difference in how a work is perceived. The classic example is Sophocles' Antigone. When the play was written, Antigone's main conflict would have been seen as being between familial and social duties -- that is, failure to honour a deceased family member, versus disobeying a rightful ruler. Modern audiences would sympathize more with Antigone's relationship with her dead brother, and see the main conflict as between familial sentiment and oppressive state; with an additional conflict for Cleon, condeming Antigone and her brother to dishonorable deaths, or declaring himself above the law, and therefore an abhorrent tyrant. Interestingly, Nazi Germany sympathized more with the plight of Cleon, the king.

Another problem with cultural dissonance is that many works are no longer recognized for being satirical in nature, since the aspects of society and/or literature that they were satirizing no longer exist. For example, few people understand that Alice In Wonderland was originally a satire of certain forms of Victorian literature that have since disappeared.

Literary conventions tend to be highly cultural. While many Europeans and Americans consider Russian literature to be excessively long-winded and verbose; that is a convention which is strongly appreciated in it's native land. Likewise with the tendency of certain authors, such as Tolkien or Golding, to engage in long, highly detailed scenic descriptions. Particularly those influenced by medieval literature. (While others have referred to this quality negatively, this is one of the things I like about Tolkien.)

Most of the rest of the comments appear to be based entirely on taste. "I don't like this author, because I don't like this type of literature." Certainly understandable, but not a valid basis for criticism.

Completely aside from matters of taste, what I find unpardonable sins in literature (aside from poor use of language) are clearly contrived plots, mawkish sentimentality, deus ex machina or internal inconsistency, underdeveloped and/or unsympathetic characters, "Mary Sue"-ism and author tracts; and use of plot devices and "twists" which rely on either concealing information from the reader that a reasonable observer would normally have access to, or introducing non sequitor elements in an otherwise consistent narrative.

Examples:
I never read the Sherlock Holmes books until well into adulthood; and was disappointed in them due to Doyle's trick of concealling what could be considered fairly easily observable information; and his hinging the entire resolution on one obscure detail whose relevance could only be determined through extensive study in a highly abstruse and specialized field. I find many non-Doyle Sherlock Holmes books much better written. It doesn't help that Doyle, a dedicated supernaturalist, originally wrote Holmes as a pastiche of the rationalist mindset, rather than as an exemplar of it.

Dickens, mainly for his mawkish sentimentality and contrived plots. I actually found A Christmas Carol to be one of his least objectionable books.

I actually enjoy reading Shakespeare; but often do so out loud, since it makes a huge difference (as others have mentioned, Shakespeare was intended to be performed, not read). Some have complained about Romeo and Juliet as being a "stupid plot". Well, yes; but only because they're not reading it right. That is, they're reading it through a modern filter, and in mind of modern staging conventions. When performed, Romeo and Juliet are typically cast as the same, or similar, ages; typically mid-teens. One of the deaths in the story is also often dropped. If you carefully read the play, it states clearly that Juliet is 13, and strongly implies that Romeo is in his early 20s. One of Romeo's murders is also typically dropped from most staging. So instead of the story of two star-crossed emotional teens; it's actually the story of a naive girl, emotionally manipulated by an unstable man who kills two people for no other reason than an uncontrolled temper. It's a completely different story when you keep that in mind.

I find that James Joyce similarly benefits from being read out loud, preferably with a strong Dubliner accent. That said, I still haven't managed to finish Ulysses.

Ayn Rand, despite what many people think of her philosophy; wasn't quite as bad a writer as often protrayed. It helps to keep in mind that her novels are not standard narratives; but rather morality plays based on broad archetypes. Their main flaw is her tendency to send her characters off on interminable and unnecessary diatribes; disrupting the flow of the story. For a better example of the sort of bad writing Rand is accused of; check out her disciple Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. Now that's some seriously bad writing.

I have a lot of trouble with classic sci-fi due to the cultural and values dissonance inherent in much of it; but Heinlein's later work fails on the sheer Mary Sue-ism of the writing. The Number of the Beast is little more than Heinlein writing his own Mary Sue fanfiction.

Azimov's Foundation series has been highly recommended to me by many; but even as a teen I found it overly simplistic, with cardboard characters and contrived plots.

[luchog]

The thing with LOTR is that it invented a new genre (I just know someone is going to tell me it didn't!) and so by being the the first, it earns a prominence beyond its literary merits. I can remember reading it probably three times as a teenager. Even then, there were some dull parts but it was the only book I knew of which allowed me access to that kind of world. Then I came across the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and immediately realised that I'd never be reading LOTR again :)

I found them both to be highly enjoyable in dramatically different ways.

Tolkien and Robert Howard were about equal in the founding of Fantasy as a genre; with Tolkien producing the High Fantasy sub-genre, and Howard effectively creating Low Fantasy (aka "sword and sorcery").

BTW, if you liked Covenant, have you read any of Donaldson's other works, like Mordant's Need, or the Gap cycle?

[BPScooter]

Luchog, that says it all for me. Your paragraph about unpardonable literary sins is so true. I think the reason to read Sherlock Holmes is to allow one to appreciate the parodies. Dorothy Sayers and Agatha Christie are very wholly-immersed English language users in the detective genre, and it shows. Taken with a dose of P.G. Wodehouse, I'd recommend these to any English speaker.

[luchog]

Forgot to mention Melville: While his literary worth is probably well-earned through the body of his work; I found the unabridged [/i]Moby Dick[/i] to be vastly overrated. Remove the pointless, uninteresting, display-of-ignorance digressions; and the rest is better, though not necessarily good.

[Lucian]

<snip>

Literary conventions tend to be highly cultural. While many Europeans and Americans consider Russian literature to be excessively long-winded and verbose; that is a convention which is strongly appreciated in it's native land. Likewise with the tendency of certain authors, such as Tolkien or Golding, to engage in long, highly detailed scenic descriptions. Particularly those influenced by medieval literature. (While others have referred to this quality negatively, this is one of the things I like about Tolkien.)

Except medieval literature isn't like that. Much of the medieval literature Tolkien draws on is much sparer and more economical. The endless ramblings and sentimentality come from the nineteenth century.

Most of the rest of the comments appear to be based entirely on taste. "I don't like this author, because I don't like this type of literature." Certainly understandable, but not a valid basis for criticism.

Fair enough, but is anyone claiming their opinions are based on anything but preference or taste?

<more snip>

I actually enjoy reading Shakespeare; but often do so out loud, since it makes a huge difference (as others have mentioned, Shakespeare was intended to be performed, not read). Some have complained about Romeo and Juliet as being a "stupid plot". Well, yes; but only because they're not reading it right. That is, they're reading it through a modern filter, and in mind of modern staging conventions. When performed, Romeo and Juliet are typically cast as the same, or similar, ages; typically mid-teens. One of the deaths in the story is also often dropped. If you carefully read the play, it states clearly that Juliet is 13, and strongly implies that Romeo is in his early 20s. One of Romeo's murders is also typically dropped from most staging. So instead of the story of two star-crossed emotional teens; it's actually the story of a naive girl, emotionally manipulated by an unstable man who kills two people for no other reason than an uncontrolled temper. It's a completely different story when you keep that in mind.

I also enjoy Shakespeare, and don't have a problem with Romeo and Juliet. Yes, there are plot problems, but, as I believe I said above, most of Shakespeare's plots aren't original (there is no known source for the main plot of The Tempest, but otherwise, they all have sources). There are other things to admire. Where does the play say Romeo is in his 20s rather than his teens? Which killing is left out? The killings of Tybalt and Paris are not unprovoked. He tries to avoid them. Where does he manipulate Juliet? To me, they both seem like hormonal teenagers.

[hgc]

As was earlier stated, Dracula is way too long and I was disappointed at how weak Dracula was. Not in any way as strong as he was portrayed in the films I saw when I was young.

Another book that disappointed me is Brave New World by Huxley.


Wow, two of my favorite books. I am disappointed by neither Stoker nor Huxley.

I sure don't know what you're talking about with Dracula being weak. I think he's pretty badass in the novel. He just has a few things he can't do, like crossing running water except at the slack or flood tides or entering a home uninvited. For crying out loud, he...... killed the entire crew of a ship and sailed the ship into port alone in a giant storm that he cooked up... controlled a fly-eating lunatic in an asylum from afar... brought the voluptious Lucy Westenra into his undead harem... so much badass in one book is rare.Not weak.

[GreyICE]

Charles Dickens. I went about 3 posts before I saw his name, and yeah. The man is utterly unreadable, the height of garbage.

P.S. If anyone wants some good, non-Tolkienesque fantasy, feel free to PM me. Tolkien was not the first fantasy writer, he's not the best fantasy writer, he just popularized it. He's basically J.K. Rowling with more blather and bad poetry.

[luchog]

Except medieval literature isn't like that. Much of the medieval literature Tolkien draws on is much sparer and more economical. The endless ramblings and sentimentality come from the nineteenth century.
I'd hardly call Chaucer spare or economical.

The sentimentality doesn't come exclusively from the 19th Century. Actually, it exists in quite a lot of early Anglo-Saxon work as well; simply in a different form.

Fair enough, but is anyone claiming their opinions are based on anything but preference or taste?

There are a lot of value judgements being made. "Bad", "unreadable", "tedious", "overrated" are all value judgements. This is considereably different from saying "I don't like this".

I also enjoy Shakespeare, and don't have a problem with Romeo and Juliet. Yes, there are plot problems, but, as I believe I said above, most of Shakespeare's plots aren't original (there is no known source for the main plot of The Tempest, but otherwise, they all have sources).

I'm not sure what prompted this, since I never said otherwise. The fact that he draws on historical sources for the majority of his stories is well known. It's fairly common throughout the history of literature, and hardly anything to complain about.

There are other things to admire. Where does the play say Romeo is in his 20s rather than his teens? Which killing is left out? The killings of Tybalt and Paris are not unprovoked. He tries to avoid them. Where does he manipulate Juliet? To me, they both seem like hormonal teenagers.
If you'd bothered to actually read my post, I said it was strongly implied, not stated. There are several places; but I am at work, so don't have time to go into an in-depth critique. It's been done better, and should be easy to find. In many stagings, the killing of Paris is left out, since it's more clearly more of an act of aggression. Although we may see the killings as "provoked", they are far from unavoidable; that's a modern interpretation.

[Elizabeth I]

Some have complained about Romeo and Juliet as being a "stupid plot". Well, yes; but only because they're not reading it right. That is, they're reading it through a modern filter, and in mind of modern staging conventions. When performed, Romeo and Juliet are typically cast as the same, or similar, ages; typically mid-teens. One of the deaths in the story is also often dropped. If you carefully read the play, it states clearly that Juliet is 13, and strongly implies that Romeo is in his early 20s. One of Romeo's murders is also typically dropped from most staging. So instead of the story of two star-crossed emotional teens; it's actually the story of a naive girl, emotionally manipulated by an unstable man who kills two people for no other reason than an uncontrolled temper. It's a completely different story when you keep that in mind.

How does that answer the "if you're going to run away next week, why not run away today and avoid all the sleeping potions/fake suicide/real suicide complications" question? That's my complaint with the plot - all the tragedy hangs on one stupid decision for which I can see no reason in the culture of the time or anything else. I will admit that adolescents are frequently illogical in their thinking, but they are also impulsive (and I don't think they were any less so in R&J's or Shakespeare's time) so that just makes the "wait a week" thing even more pointless and less likely.

"Wait a week" and agonize over it and come up with really silly non-solutions sounds a whole lot more like Hamlet or even Macbeth.

[Lucian]

I'd hardly call Chaucer spare or economical.

Well true, and Langland and Gower could go on for years. And Malory. But, I think he was also influenced by the novel as it developed over the centuries.

The sentimentality doesn't come exclusively from the 19th Century. Actually, it exists in quite a lot of early Anglo-Saxon work as well; simply in a different form.

No, the Victorians didn't invent sentimentality. They sure enjoyed it though. I honestly don't see Old English literature as being "sentimental." There's a fair amount of whinging (The Wanderer and The Seafarer) for instance, but I don't see it as sentimental exactly. Semantics, I guess.

There are a lot of value judgements being made. "Bad", "unreadable", "tedious", "overrated" are all value judgements. This is considereably different from saying "I don't like this".

True. I guess I just assumed that the value judgments were opinion, but you're right in that in some cases they are stated rather directly.

I'm not sure what prompted this, since I never said otherwise. The fact that he draws on historical sources for the majority of his stories is well known. It's fairly common throughout the history of literature, and hardly anything to complain about.

Sorry, the thing about plots wasn't directed to you specifically, but rather to what you had mentioned other people were complaining about in regard to R & J.

If you'd bothered to actually read my post, I said it was strongly implied, not stated. There are several places; but I am at work, so don't have time to go into an in-depth critique. It's been done better, and should be easy to find. In many stagings, the killing of Paris is left out, since it's more clearly more of an act of aggression. Although we may see the killings as "provoked", they are far from unavoidable; that's a modern interpretation.

All right, but I just don't remember where it is implied that he's in his twenties. As for the killing of Paris, yes I guess it is sometimes left out (e.g. Zeffirelli). I wasn't sure which killing you meant. Paris's death doesn't have a direct impact on the plot (unlike Mercutio's or Tybalt's), so could be left out for time or to focus on the deaths of R & J. Lady M's offstage death is often omitted, as well, even though it evens out the number of dead (2 Capulets, 2 Montagues, 2 members of the prince's family--if I'm counting correctly). How one interprets Paris's killing is, well, a matter of interpretation.

[fleabeetle]

For example, few people understand that Alice In Wonderland was originally a satire of certain forms of Victorian literature that have since disappeared.


Just honest curiosity here -- could you elaborate? I was aware -- taking in both "Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" -- that some of the verse items were comic parodies of various highly solemn / unintentionally silly pieces of same, at the time held in high esteem and often force-fed to children. For instance, "How Doth the Little Crocodile", "Speak Roughly to your Little Boy", and " 'Tis the Voice of the Lobster", are "mickey-takes" of mega-didactic religious items (by Isaac Watts inter alia?); and "You are Old, Father William", and "A-Sitting on a Gate", likewise of painfully banal "super-serious" poems by Southey and Wordsworth, respectively. Is there, in the books, satirising of other stuff of dubious quality which was much admired at the time of writing?

Frankly, I would take a lot of convincing that the Alice books are not, first and foremost, just splendid nonsense for its own sake, written to entertain; but details of the satire element, are interesting.

[Skeptic]

Just honest curiosity here -- could you elaborate? I was aware -- taking in both "Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" -- that some of the verse items were comic parodies of various highly solemn / unintentionally silly pieces of same, at the time held in high esteem and often force-fed to children.

I think that was his point...

[luchog]

No, the Victorians didn't invent sentimentality. They sure enjoyed it though. I honestly don't see Old English literature as being "sentimental." There's a fair amount of whinging (The Wanderer and The Seafarer) for instance, but I don't see it as sentimental exactly. Semantics, I guess.
"Sentimental" as a technical term in literary criticism has a somewhat different meaning than in standard English. It refers to an emphasis on "sentiment", that is, internal feeling/emotion vs. external action. Although sentimental fiction was beloved of the Victorians, it was at least as popular among the 18th century Romantic writers. Sir Walter Scott is a well-known example.

All right, but I just don't remember where it is implied that he's in his twenties.

There are about three locations that, when taken together with their context, imply a level of experience considerably higher than Juliet's stated 13. Romeo is referred to in the play as a "young man" and "worldly"; which typically would not apply to anyone younger than about 16-18. One of the primary sources from which Shakespeare derived the story is Bandello's Giulietta e Romeo, which explicitly stated Romeo's age as early 20s.

Mercutio is Romeo's closest friend, and is also clearly a young adult rather than a hormonal early teen. At the beginning of the play, he is also infatuated with Rosaline, who is clearly much older than Juliet, closer to Romeo's age. Convention of the time was that men would typically be a few years older than the women that they married -- between 2 and 5 years on average. Source literature typically placed Juliet's age at 16; but there is some consensus that Shakespeare lowered her age to 13 for effect, as the minimum age of marriage for Elizabethan women was 14.

As for the killing of Paris, yes I guess it is sometimes left out (e.g. Zeffirelli). I wasn't sure which killing you meant. Paris's death doesn't have a direct impact on the plot (unlike Mercutio's or Tybalt's), so could be left out for time or to focus on the deaths of R & J.

Not on the plot, but it certainly speaks to the character of Romeo.

[luchog]

Frankly, I would take a lot of convincing that the Alice books are not, first and foremost, just splendid nonsense for its own sake, written to entertain; but details of the satire element, are interesting.
It combines a great deal of "nonsense for it's own sake" with jabs at Victorian social attitudes and conceits, and authoritarian pomposity and moralizing; much of which can be seen in the poetry, but also in many of the characterizations, which are clearly unflattering exaggerations of upper-class pretentions. "Through the Looking Glass" contains much more social satire than "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"; particularly of what Carroll saw as the more absurd aspects of Victorian custom.

[fleabeetle]

With you – was likely, a bit mis-picking-up your words, and too much focusing specifically on “lit crit”. Carroll’s general targeting of things Victorian which not-agreed-with: I get the impression from the books, that he was for his time distinctly progressive as regards the treatment of children, and their education – come to mind, Alice’s dialogues with the Ugly Duchess and the Red Queen – satirising some of the worse aspects of governesses and their dealings with their charges? Plenty more social satire in the books, I’m sure – much of which will have gone over my head.