Amazon Reviewers Take on the Classics

Not everyone is a fan of great literature. In particular, reviewers on Amazon can be quite critical of some of the best loved classics. Jeanette DeMain takes a look at some of the most hated famous books according to some short tempered reviewers. One of my favorites is the review of Charlotte's Web which reads in part, "Absolutely pointless book to read. I felt no feelings towards any of the characters. I really didn't care that Wilbur won first prize. And how in the world does a pig and a spider become friends? It's beyond me. The back of a cereal box has more excitement than this book. I was forced to read it at least five times and have found it grueling. Even as a child I found the plot very far-fetched. It is because of this horrid book that I eat sausage every morning and tell my dad to kill every spider I see ..."

Comments

Naked Lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of at least two things wrong with that title.

Re:Naked Lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of at least two things wrong with that title.

So you'll be having the black sausage then?

I can imagine the easily offended pantywaists now. "Black? BLACK? Why's he saying the sausage has to be black? RACIST!"

Everyone Has An Opinion ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

... and everyone has a particular body part. Did they honestly expect a consensus that everyone thought these classics were, um, classics? If 100 people each read 100 books we'd get a crap load of worthless reviews ... but Amazon would be happy to have sold the 10,000 books to them.

Great Literature != good read for most

[thepike]

Just because a book is regarded as great literature doesn't mean everyone will enjoy it. Same goes for movies; you look at the AFI lists and Citizen Kane is always at the top, but I hate that movie. Doesn't mean it isn't a great movie, just that I don't like it.

Also, a lot of these people might not be the best judges. People who think the Harry Potter and Twilight books are great reads should remember that the classics are on a different level. Don't get me wrong, I like Harry Potter too, but it just isn't the same type of book as Ethan Frome or The Great Gatsby

On another note, the grammar in some of the reviews is terrible. Doesn't give a lot of faith into their abilities as literature reviewers.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Anonymous Coward]

On that note, I absolutely despised Ethan Frome. Seriously, sledding into a tree is not the best way to commit suicide.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[MozeeToby]

I realized relatively recently that I have two lists in my head: One being the list of the best movies I had ever seen, and another being my favorite movies. What was surprising was how little overlap there was between those two lists. There's even movies on my 'favorites' list that I know are not very good movies, but hey I enjoy them. Personally, I can enjoy both categories, but doubtless there are art buffs who only enjoy the 'good' movies, and doubtless there are schlubs that only enjoy the 'entertaining' movies.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Paradise Pete]

you look at the AFI lists and Citizen Kane is always at the top, but I hate that movie

I didn't care for it the first time I saw it, but then I got a chance to watch it with Roger Ebert's in-running commentary (based on the class he taught) and I understood why it is so highly regarded. It's worth watching again if you can find a DVD that includes the commentary.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Reziac]

Definitely the case -- "best" and "favourite" don't necessarily overlap at all. Quintessential film example, that everyone seems to agree on: Hawk the Slayer.

Almost every review says essentially the same thing (and so do I): "This is absolutely the most fascinating utterly terrible movie I've ever seen. It is B-movies incarnate. It's so dreadful it makes my brain smoke and my eyes bleed. I love it and have watched it 50 times."

One thing I did notice about the Amazon reviews, is that the negative reviews seemed to be mostly from non-readers, judging by the grammar and -- well, impatience. They evidently didn't read these books by choice, but rather by coercion (probably school). I've read some of them by choice and a few by coercion (school) but I'm a reader, and that tilts things differently.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[bhagwad]

If people don't like a work of art, it's not a great work of art!

That goes for Citizen Kane which everyone hates as well as the horribly boring 2001: Space Odessey and Shakespeare.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[jefu]

This is one of those things that many don't seem to realize. A book (or movie or whatever) may be great without you actually liking it. You see this in reviews all the time : "Worst movie evar! I was bored all the way through it." Reviews like these conflate the writers opinion with some kind of consensus opinion that has formed over time and usually built from thoughtful consideration of the subject. We all do it to some extent, but with time and education (good self education counts), we can separate out our personal reaction from a considered critical reaction.

For example, I quite like the movie "Jumping Jack Flash". But I also know that it is far from being a great film. On the other hand, "Rashomon" is a very very good film indeed, but I find it difficult to watch and don't like it all that much, though I can appreciate why it is considered great.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[ElectricTurtle]

2001: A Space Odyssey remains one of the greatest science fiction movies ever made. I'm sorry that it didn't have enough lasers going PEW PEW and ships roaring loudly through space (which is, you know, impossible in a vacuum) to hold your interest.

Shakespeare is over-rated to be sure, but as I've grown older I have begun to realize that it's kind of like the Bible, even if you don't like the corpus it is so foundational to the Western culture that you can't allow yourself to be ignorant of it. Do you know how many phrases of Shakespeare you are probably using without realizing it?

I still don't like Shakespeare, but I respect the impact that he and Bacon have had on the fundamentals of English-speaking culture. He is for better or for worse to us what Homer was to the Greeks.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Hatta]

Then there's always the Emperor's New Clothes phenomenon. All these smart people love the classics, so I have to like them too or I won't be seen as smart. But in reality, so many of the classics survive on reputation alone. The only reason to read them is to be able to say you have read them. What exactly is a person supposed to get from a book like Ethan Frome? I mean besides nauseous.

I'll say it. I don't get fiction. As far as I can tell it serves no purpose besides idle entertainment*. When I express this opinion, I often have people saying that they pity me. That's exactly the response you'd expect from someone who believes in magical invisible robes. I for one am not afraid to point out that the emperor is bare ass naked.

*a short fable (like the Emperor's New Clothes) can be useful to illustrate a point. But please, keep it short and to the point. In most cases you're better off writing an essay or treatise if you want to communicate a point.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Marcika]

If people don't like a work of art, it's not a great work of art!
That goes for Citizen Kane which everyone hates as well as the horribly boring 2001: Space Odessey and Shakespeare.

Evereybody? Really? I like them - they might be dated, but would still be in my top-50 list of their genre.

To make a analogy that people like you might understand: "If not everybody can use an OS, it is not a useful OS." See the fault in the reasoning?

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Smauler]

The trouble is that Hawk the Slayer is only really bad compared to films that are pretty good, or average. If every film was as bad as Hawk the Slayer, you almost certainly would not like it. For a film to be so bad it's good, there's got to be a decent baseline. An example of this is government info films - Now, they're at a relatively (I use the term loosely) high standard. That's why films like reefer madness, and a whole host of other government produced media, look _so_ stupid now.

Personally, I'm a relatively big reader - However, I generally hate (or at least dislike) Tolkein and Shakespeare, though I do love loads of classic literature. I could go into why I don't like them, but that would take another post. A one word review of both would be "boring", because that's the easiest and quickest way to say that they failed to engage you.

For everyone (not parent) who is claiming kids these days don't have the attention span to watch a slow(er) moving film, you're wrong. Lost in Translation is slow as fuck, and it was pretty successful. Loads of "indie" films are slow paced, and become cult classics after being championed by teenagers and twenty-somethings. One of my favourite films of my youth was Blade Runner, which has vast swathes of dialogue (and silence too :P), and not much happening.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[neonmonk]

Not everyone has asperges.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[phantomlord]

“A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.” Mark Twain

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[julesh]

the horribly boring 2001: Space Odessey

You seem to have omitted the chemical prerequisites (i.e. you watched it while not off your head with some kind of mind-altering substance).

and Shakespeare

Shakespeare boring? Really? I'll admit I haven't seen _all_ of his plays, but those I have seen have generally been quite well paced and definitely worth watching. Just make sure you pick a genre you like (tragedies, particularly, aren't to everyone's taste, and can be quite depressing).

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I think I remember seeing that movie on TV in the 80s and quite liking it in spite of its B-movie production values and dialogue. I might have to track it down and see if it's what I remember, but it it is then, yes, I totally agree. It basically feels like somebody's well done D&D campaign, complete with picking up magical weapons and NPC henchmen. I wonder how many of the fans of this movie were into D&D. Nowadays, its natural audience would be fans of fantasy RPGs.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[shutdown -p now]

Just because a book is regarded as great literature doesn't mean everyone will enjoy it.

You know, it can be even simpler. Just because a book is regarded as great literature doesn't mean that it actually is that.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Gilmoure]

Ah, Deathstalker II.

Yup, grade D schlub but still fun.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[residieu]

So what's wrong with idle entertainment?

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Gilmoure]

We just planted some, along with onions and corn.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Leafheart]

If people don't like a work of art, it's not a great work of art! That goes for Citizen Kane which everyone hates as well as the horribly boring 2001: Space Odessey and Shakespeare.

Riiiiiing. Wrong! First of all, "which people"? the unwashed masses? The American Idol crop, pick your poison. And second, art is defined by taste. And taste is different. I may tell you one thing, what you believe is a great work of art, I believe is pusillanimous piece of shit.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Reziac]

There were plenty of other really bad films, even similar and similarly bad films, that somehow failed to achieve whatever weird magic Hawk the Slayer had. Ever seen it?

Tho I tend to agree about both Tolkien and Shakespeare -- both are -- well, boring. Same with Steinbeck, whom I loathed because I cannot remember ever being so bored with a book, other than possibly Dickens. OTOH when I was in school I used to read Henry James, Victor Hugo, and the like, and I was so fascinated by Crime and Punishment that I read the whole thing in a single sitting.

I think the difference may be that sometimes slow-moving nonetheless manages a continuous increment of *something* (and kids, being anal-retentive, will notice and obsessively catalog those tiny increments), whereas other times it's just a travelogue and doesn't really go anywhere.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Schadrach]

Now you see, I'd claim Harry Potter as a great read under one of two conditions: Either A) you are looking for an enjoyable read rather than a serious/deep one, or B) you are analyzing it in terms of either alchemy or Rosicrucian writings (especially the latter, and especially the Chymical Wedding). There are interesting parallels to make...

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Schadrach]

Unless the goal of the work is not enjoyment. Sometimes the goal of a work of art is to capture something else -- shock, misery, revulsion, whatever.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Reziac]

I'm sure there are a number of the species that I haven't seen, not really being a film buff :) Tho the aforementioned Hawk the Slayer stands out in the reviews, because it has 30 years of people saying the exact same things about it!

[goes off, looks up Deathstalker II] I see it's not much younger :) but does sound like a direct descendant :D

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Brandee07]

In my opinion, the worst thing you can do to the Classics is to foist them on children.

Children aren't mentally prepared to tackle the deeper issues that earned these books the title "classic." They don't get anything out of them- I certainly didn't. At best, a kid slogs through the book in order to memorize enough names and events in order to pass the test/write the paper, and then moves on. At worst, the child extrapolates the displeasure to be found in reading *this* book to *all* books.

I am a total bookworm. I always have been. I read probably 50 novels a year through middle and high school. I had a city library card before the school made us sign up for them. But required reading in grade school put me off of the Classics and nonfiction and any books with real substance until just recently, and I graduated from high school seven years ago. Even children's books were ruined for me, in some ways. I was first introduced to the Chronicles of Narnia hand in hand with a lecture about identifying symbolism in literature. We read the book as a class and pointed out every Christian symbol and motif to be found (and there are many). I was never able to enjoy those stories as just stories; to me, as a non-Christian, they are and have always been Christian propaganda. To my classmates who found those books before English 2, they are cherished childhood memories.

I recognize that there might be some deep and important message to take away from The Grapes of Wrath, All Quiet on the Western Front, or Lord of the Flies. But all I remember are stories so boring that my classmates prevailed upon the teacher: "If it's so boring that even she (me) won't read it, why do we have to?" I recall little to nothing of the events or characters of those books, but I do get a bitter taste in my mouth thinking about it.

Few people ever enjoy something they have been forced to read.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[NeutronCowboy]

I'll say it. I don't get fiction.

Then why do you talk about it? Here's why people tell you that they pity you when you them that: because they really do pity you. You have absolutely no idea what role stories play in human development. It's a sad state to be in, doubly so because you have no idea what you're missing.

Here's a quick introduction to why fiction is important, and why classics are classics: they allow you to share experiences that you could have never possibly had. From that, you get to build yourself a more complete image of the world, and you get to bond with those who have had those experiences, or who are telling and listening to the story. Sometimes, those stories are short, as in the many fables. Sometimes, they're long, as in the many creation myths (or Ulysses).

If you don't understand the value in that.... I'll have to agree with another poster: most people don't have Asperger's. You can either deal with that, or continue to live in your own world. Your choice.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Brandee07]

2001: A Space Odyssey remains one of the greatest science fiction movies ever made. I'm sorry that it didn't have enough lasers going PEW PEW and ships roaring loudly through space (which is, you know, impossible in a vacuum) to hold your interest.
 

I read the book when I was in middle school, and I loved it. I read all four of the books, even. They go downhill after the first two, but what book series doesn't?

I saw the movie for the first time two weeks ago. It's TERRIBLE. There's no sense of pacing at all; 10 minutes go by just staring at a guy looking a little nervous. The exposition is nonexistent, so you really have no clue what the hell is going on, especially near the end, unless you're read the book. The soundtrack is terrible, for being largely nonexistent, and then being acutely painful to listen to at times; the wailing part near the end made me mute my TV.

/endrant

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[ottothecow]

There is a differance between watching and reading shakespeare though...maybe the GP just hasn't bothered to see a worthwhile production. Many people are not huge fans of reading his plays but will enjoy seeing them performed.

The language can be an issue, and often directors modernize the language somewhat in their productions (making particularly tricky passages a little more clearer or even doing a completely modernized dialogue)

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Hatta]

You may be on to something, because I'm a very bad story teller. But i have to ask, what is the value in stories that aren't true? Aren't they just as likely to mislead as inform?

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Stradivarius]

Reviews like these conflate the writers opinion with some kind of consensus opinion that has formed over time and usually built from thoughtful consideration of the subject

Agreed that any one person's opinion is not going to be definitive.

But I think you over-estimate how much thoughtful consideration goes into making some works "classic". IMO there's a fair amount of groupthink too. After all, if you're a student, and some "expert" says X is a classic, if you come out and say "that was utter garbage", then everyone says "what the hell do you know?". Until you learn to see things the same way all the other "critics" do, at which point you become part of the club.

And there's also a bit of people reading stuff into works that the author may never have intended. There was a recent South Park episode that really hit the nail on the head with this, IMO. (I forget the episode's title, but it involves the boys writing their own controversial novel).

I don't have to love a work to recognize good craft, but there is the occasional "classic" that does kind of make you wonder what all the fuss was about. "The Catcher in the Rye" was one of those for me.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Brandee07]

Definitely the case -- "best" and "favourite" don't necessarily overlap at all. Quintessential film example, that everyone seems to agree on: Hawk the Slayer.

Oh god, that movie. Total production budget: estimated $50. It's one of the few movies that has earned a permanent place on my hard drive.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[snikulin]

Oblig South Park quote about "The Catcher in the Rye": "Kill John Lennon... Kill John Lennon..."

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Brandee07]

I'll say it. I don't get fiction. As far as I can tell it serves no purpose besides idle entertainment*.

Pretty much. But it's a far more interesting form of idle entertainment than TV or movies. Also, fewer ways to go wrong. Fiction can be poorly paced and badly written. Movies/TV shows can be poorly paces and badly written, with poor direction and terrible acting, and cheesy special effects. Also, you're not limited to a 30 minute TV show or a 2 hour movie- you can take as much time as your story needs to tell, without worrying that your audience will have to go to the bathroom and miss something important.

A lot of fiction, primarily science fiction, also can explore the future. Not insofar as the new gadgets that people will have (so many science fiction gadgets have already become real, although I'm still waiting on my flying car), but how those devices will affect our society. If AIs gain sentience, if robots become more prevalent as anything but vacuum cleaners, if people can connect to the internet straight from their brain, how will these things effect people. They are thought experiments, of a sort.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Reziac]

Haha, yep, that's about the typical review for it :D

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[ElectricTurtle]

I find it quite refreshing for a movie based on a book to be dependent on that book. Rather than rewrite for the sake of convenience (which is done in almost every other case), the viewer must either get it visually (as is the medium) or read the book (which they should anyway). Also, the movie doesn't need a soundtrack or exposition (and on that note, never read C.J. Cherryh, you would hate her). Though I agree the wailing is annoying as hell.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[NeutronCowboy]

Absolutely can they mislead. This is why you can't just "trust" a story or the one who is telling it.

But I think you're missing the point about what part of the story is truth, and what is fiction. Let's take The Iliad and The Odyssey. There are mounds of paper written about whether everything happened as it is described in the books. Some of it did, some of it didn't. But its truth - the reason that it is a classis, and that it is still read today - is in the human conditions and mind-sets that they talk about.

Here's the most obvious example: the king comes home from a siege that lasted years and took his best friends, and from an odyssey that lasted as long and took even more friends. He fought for what was right, for his family, and for his people. He fought just to get back home. And what does he find? His wife has taken up with someone else, his son doesn't know him, his house is filled with unworthy strangers. Only his dog recognizes him (and, I believe, his oldest servant).

How many times has happened? Today's soldiers face the same problems. Heck, today's consultants face the same problems. You can read The Iliad and The Odyssey, and you can see that what seems like a modern problem is actually a problem of the human condition.

The truth of the classics isn't in the facts told. It is in the human souls that they describe.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Neoprofin]

They illustrate points, they pose questions, they re-contextualize, and all in ways that are less fumbling and heavy handed than an academic treatise. Even opinionated essays frequently make use of hypothetical situations and persons to create a situation the reflects their points.

If you want to illustrate to a child what racism is do you give them a stack of tables and statistics and hope they can connect the dots, or do you let them read To Kill and Mockingbird, something which people find not only enjoyable but with a good moral? The added beauty of fiction is that it can only be used to teach lesson with some logical basis, the message is only what you decide to take from it no matter how hard the author stacks the deck. As Mark Twain once said "The difference between fiction and nonfiction is that fiction must be absolutely believable." If you want to mislead someone look at all the people in the world that deal in news and facts.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[PCM2]

You may be on to something, because I'm a very bad story teller. But i have to ask, what is the value in stories that aren't true? Aren't they just as likely to mislead as inform?

Here's a mind-blower for you: A great many of the very best stories are told from the perspective of something called an "unreliable narrator" -- that is, even within the context of a fictional (not true) narrative, what the narrator is telling you might not actually be true, or his or her interpretation of the events may be wrong. So I'll throw your own question back at you: Why would anyone want to read that?

Personally, I don't think you have Asperger's, I just think you're being deliberately pigheaded.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[bar-agent]

I didn't read To Kill a Mockingbird in school, but I have read it recently, and it seems to me that the racism is more a setting element than a plot. The "A" plot is the guy who wants to kill Atticus. The "B" plot is Boo Radley or the sister's efforts to civilize Scout, which can both be called the "coming of age" plot. The "C" plot is the trial; as far as the reader is concerned, that's just something going on in the background.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Anonymous Coward]

Why have there been a lot of flak on Slashdot lately for those with AS?

AS does not mean you are an unimaginative arse that has no definition of good or evil. Hell, even being off on the social cues also doesn't mean we are highly inhuman in our thoughts.... I would step onto school policy to help a child down from a tree that the teachers are not allowed to help, and so would many-hell all- that are even remotely functioning.... AS is not robotic sociopathy.... We feel, love, hate, rant, and geek out... We are not narrow minded, we just don't "get" things in the same way.... Literature is fantastic though, because every thought and emotion is documented, so we understand it as we should, and as you do. There are no faces on a page.... And while I will scream at CSI for doing things that cannot be done, I love Terry Pratchett.... Why? Well, in a world of fantasy, everything can happen. In this world, every frame of life is not in saturated orange and teal. Seriously, who isn't still screaming from previews of a pictures of the 80's that cannot happen? Jeans, jackets, etc, are not observably that blue, except in a muted setting, such as twilight. And faces are not that orange unless in mid-day sun. It JUST CANNOT FUCKING HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME INDOORS. No problem with a hot-tub time travel machine of some kind. Thats how a person with AS sees fiction.... We can suspend disbelief for entertainment, we can handle the force and faster than light drive, love it even, but FUCKING LOUD NOISES IN SPACE makes us twitch.....

*Breath* Right, sorry about that....

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[PCM2]

You know, it can be even simpler. Just because a book is regarded as great literature doesn't mean that it actually is that.

Yes, I suppose that can be the case, but it's unlikely. A great many of our greatest writers didn't come to be regarded as "great literature" until after they were dead. If it's all just a popularity contest, why would that be the case?

Great writers are often judged by other writers, who recognize their skill in comparison to their own. For example, I'd count Hemingway as an author whose style is so deceptively simple that many readers won't realize how difficult it is to achieve -- until they try it themselves.

There is also the problem of books that contain daring or innovative ideas, or that employ innovative narrative structures, or that contain unique characters, but which were written a century ago or earlier. The innovations will no longer be readily apparent to people who have seen them imitated hundreds of times over in popular fiction that has been published since. The reader needs to be aware enough of the historical context, both of the story and its authorship, to fully appreciate why it was hailed as "great."

And then, finally, there is the problem that many readers simply lack the sophistication to appreciate great works. Nobody likes being called stupid, so they tend to reject this idea, but the fact is that we're all born ignorant and we only gain intellectual sophistication through long and rigorous practice. Books I read and absolutely could not appreciate when I was 12 years old seem like works of genius to me now. Some people -- especially those who don't read very much -- won't gain that level of appreciation until they're in their 20s, 30s, or maybe never. That's life.

Someone who reads a book and just says, "I don't get it. That was stupid," probably didn't get very much out of the book. They should probably go back, pick a different book, and try again. Then maybe, after they read a few more books, they can go back and try the first book again and maybe this time they'll gain a different appreciation for it. Some books -- a great many books -- really are pretty bad, or at best mediocre. But books that have managed to stay in print in dozens of editions, in every language in the world, for hundreds of years probably don't rank among them.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[shutdown -p now]

Great writers are often judged by other writers, who recognize their skill in comparison to their own.

And therein lies the problem. The same work can be brilliant from writers' perspective, but absolutely awful as far as readers are concerned. It's just that the factors on which it is compared are different in those cases.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[PCM2]

Children aren't mentally prepared to tackle the deeper issues that earned these books the title "classic."

I see your point, and I too hated many of the books I was made to read in school. But if you don't twist kids' arms just a little bit, how will they even realize that this mental hurdle even exists for them to leap? That is, how will they ever understand that a book like The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe can be both an exciting, imaginative fairy tale and a work of Christian symbolism? How will they ever understand that some books that don't feature any magic lions, vampires, gunfights, or space ships can have far more real and compelling value to their lives? You think they're just going to come home work one day, turn off the TV, and say to themselves, "You know, I never read Moby-Dick"? Not if they've never even been told that Moby-Dick is a good book, they won't.

I think the real problem, quite frankly, is bad teaching. Personally, I cannot fathom what a bunch of school-age boys wouldn't like about Lord of the Flies. It's an awesome story. But if you have a teacher that's constantly pounding the podium going, "allegory, allegory, allegory... what does it symbolize? What is the meaning of the conch?" ... then you won't get anything out of it. It's kind of like screening a TV show and constantly interrupting the dialogue to make comments and ask questions. Viewers will never be able to be immersed in the fiction. For students to really get anything out of books, teachers need to do it a little more like they do in college -- they should have you read whole huge sections of the books, or even the whole book, and then start the discussion. That way you can enjoy the book first, then look at it in a whole new light. But good luck getting a class full of high school students to read books without constant prodding.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Petrushka]

I think that kind of attitude to classics is a direct consequence of how classics are chosen for schooling purposes. I don't know why, but high school curricula tend to focus on the most depressing reading they can find. Given a choice between two classics, where one is fun and/or uplifting and the other is depressing and/or horrifying, they'll always opt for the latter. Compare the following two lists:

• Madame Bovary; The Idiot; Hard Times; Jane Eyre; Heart of Darkness; Catcher in the Rye; Nineteen Eighty-Four; the Iliad

Painful, degrading; books to slit your wrists to. Even dreary in some cases. Great, maybe, but horrible. However:

• Tom Jones; Crime and Punishment; The Pickwick Papers; Pride and Prejudice; Robinson Crusoe; Dangerous Liaisons; the Odyssey; The Three Musketeers

Terrific, human, inspiring; when they're not uplifting, they make up for it by being funny. Completely different, even though two authors and one epic tradition appear in both lists.

So why not go for the second list? Actually, I think I know the reason: it's politics. Tom Jones and Dangerous Liaisons have too much sex, Marx liked Robinson Crusoe, Pride and Prejudice sends the wrong messages about gender roles, the Odyssey sends the message that vengeance is OK (obviously it isn't; vengeance is only OK in war, like in the Iliad) and so on. I guess books that encourage suicidal depression are fine, though.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[icebraining]

I wholly agree. We had to read Portuguese classics mostly, but most of them are actually quite enjoyable if you read them first without thinking about the individual elements. What I started doing (in the fifth or sixth class (year?)) was reading the books two months before they were studied in class.

A good example (in movies) is Mulholland Drive. I find it to be an excellent (and quite engaging) movie, but everything has a meaning, from major scenes like Club Silencio to the red lamps in the motels. Watching that in a class with stop-and-go would destroy the whole experience.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Neoprofin]

I think the world at large would tend to disagree with you, but I know that feeling. I tend to get caught on things other than what people see as the point very frequently. (For example I hated the movie "Children of Men" because I couldn't understand how the economy functioned and didn't think the domestic security situation was a logical progression.)

Wikipedia has a pretty decent section on the book as it relates to race relations though if you feel like you might have just overlooked something.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Anonymous Coward]

Why have there been a lot of flak on Slashdot lately for those with AS?

Because Asperger's syndrom does not exist, any more than homosexuality is a "syndrome." You're just someone who thinks and feels differently than others, and unfortunately for you, while being homosexual just means you are caring and loving toward one half of the population more than others, the way you think and feel makes you a repugnant, socially inept dick.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[im_thatoneguy]

Exactly which is why Citizen Kane deserves its place in history.

It changed the grammar and expression of cinema. It is a pivotal movie in how movies are made. As a side effect it's also dreadfully boring. I don't know if it used to be boring, but certainly in a modern context we've advanced forward.

In a Slashdot analogy the 8086 is a landmark processor. Its signature still is with us today. But as a processor it's not really useful anymore.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[GameboyRMH]

I think what's different about you is you're pragmatic to the point that it might be considered a mental illness.

I imagine you also wouldn't enjoy sex with a woman who's on the pill.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[moortak]

If sex in Tom Jones was the main issue Madame Bovary would be out.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Lunzo]

Poor Mark Twain, a number of his books are now considered classics!

I disagree with his comment anyway in this case. I've been reading some classics recently. Some were a slog to get through, but the majority have been enjoyable to read and most commented in a significant manner on the human condition. I think being forced to read them in school turns a lot of people off.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[UnknownSoldier]

Lord of the Flies is absolute shit. Almost anything is better (or more interesting) then that crap.

Totally agree with you! I used to systematically read the library and love findings gems hidden throughout it. Classics are classics because you are naturally drawn into them - they speak the language of the soul - not because of some snobbish English Teacher or Prof thinks they are great. Classics such as To Kill A Mockingbird shouldn't be forced fed to anyone - that's the sure fire recipe to kill any sense of discovering and enjoying them for pleasures sake. Paralysis by Analysis FTW English Teachers - way to kill another classic. I had the most enjoyment re-readings classics as 1984, Atlas Shrugged, etc. in my 20s.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[OrangeCatholic]

2001 is basically an action (suspense? horror?) movie. HAL is trying to kill them, and Dave has to fight for his survival. From that perspective, it's nearly identical to The Shining.

Not to say it doesn't have a lot of fluff, but the middle is pretty intense.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[OrangeCatholic]

I don't enjoy reading plays and certainly Shakespeare's language is difficult. I imagine it's a bit like reading code. There's a certain satisfaction in figuring it out, but it's not exactly recreational.

That said, Shakespeare supposedly is a history of the English monarchy. Considering how much the language was evolving in that period, we're lucky someone made such an emotionally indelible imprint for us.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[OrangeCatholic]

>For example I hated the movie "Children of Men"

Not a great movie - I think the director bragged about the lack of plot.

The book shines by making Theo and the Warden friends from childhood. It's much more like Star Wars, where the fate of worlds revolves around a single family coming to grips with each other.

(In the movie, the Warden is replaced by Theo's rich, industrial friend, who has a brief role obtaining a passport. But they don't keep in touch during the film.)

Strangely, the book stayed with me. I'd give it an A for effort, but it explains even less than the movie. Plotting a B, trailing to a C by the end, Star Wars encounters notwithstanding.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[OrangeCatholic]

Nowadays I'm much more aware of fiction as a potential TV/movie screenplay.

I was aware of this as a kid reading Michael Crichton, but it's become overwhelming. There are so many good movies to be made if you look at what books you enjoy.

My current picks would be these:

Haldeman's "The Forever War," where the hero relativistically travels into space battles until he becomes a 1000-year-old veteran.

Like much of real life, the trick is to be there for the beginning, and survive until people worship your experience. As you grow naturally, the world becomes more primitive through complexity that keeps the younger generation down. Imagine if you went away for 1000 years and when you came back, kids were tweeting their homies about the latest Jay-Z video. Suffice to say you would be rich and bored. This is from 1974. Things get worse.

Gibson's "Count Zero." This book has screenplay written all over it. A ten-year-old computer hacker, a thirteen-year-old love interest, numerous tactical encounters, advanced weapons, and only a semblance of AI. I have to wonder how many movies have been unofficially based on this.

If anyone can remember the names of the gangs in this book, I thought they were a hilarious (if apt) description of what Bobby was up against.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[OrangeCatholic]

I was first introduced to the Chronicles of Narnia hand in hand with a lecture about identifying symbolism in literature. We read the book as a class and pointed out every Christian symbol and motif to be found (and there are many).

Actually, it turns out that C.S. Lewis was a Christian heretic. He believed in Christianity so long as he could define it himself, for his own greater-good purposes. Calling Narnia "Christian" is like calling Obama a Marxist; rather, he will pick and choose what elements suit his immediate purposes.

In short, Narnia is far from Christian, if anything anti-Christian, an attempt to re-purpose Christianity for a new generation.

I enjoyed the Narnia books not having any idea what religious idealism was going on behind the scenes. It turns out, in the final analysis, there was no attempt at conversion. If I were a pastor, I would have hated C.S. Lewis. He was sublimely arrogant on issues of the church.

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Petrushka]

Fair point. OK, I am still left wondering then ...

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[I_M_Noman]

Not everyone has asperges.

Asperges me, Domine, hyssopo dealbabor?

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[kriston]

Okay, that settles it. I'm changing my Amazon Payphrase to "Sublime Arrogance."

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[ImprovOmega]

Asperger's syndrome is on the autism spectrum. It's like having a "light" version of autism and is proposed to be classed as such in the upcoming DSM-V. To my understanding it is its own disorder in the current DSM-IV. Don't discredit something as just "made up" or "in someone's head" just because you can't relate to it. There's plenty of study showing not only that it exists as a disorder, but also that it is treatable and shows clear and defined characteristics.

Or would you also say that autism is a "syndrome" that does not exist?

Re:Great Literature != good read for most

[Doggabone]

We just planted some, along with onions and corn.

Classic!

Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[quantumplacet]

"A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" by Betty Smith:

        This book is 3 words over and over again: MY LIFE IS BAD.

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[WrongSizeGlass]

"A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" by Betty Smith:

This book is 3 words over and over again: MY LIFE IS BAD.

I'm assuming you started counting at 'zero'. Once again the halo effect of arrays haunts our daily lives.

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[oGMo]

"A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" by Betty Smith:

This book is 3 words over and over again: MY LIFE IS BAD.

I'm assuming you started counting at 'zero'. Once again the halo effect of arrays haunts our daily lives.

It wouldn't matter, it still has 4 words. An array counted 0..3 still is said to have four elements, not three. If he'd said "word 3 is BAD", he could have gotten off with this excuse. ;-)

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[middlemen]

This book is 3 words over and over again: MY LIFE IS BAD.

Your math is bad!

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[Splab]

Yes, but off by one could mean he started counting elements at position 1 till the end, which would yeild 3.

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[Jer]

Not his math, the math of the reviewer he's quoting. Which is quoted in TFA. Which was the point of his posting the line under the subject "Greatest Opening to a book review ever:".

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[Alinabi]

I think these guys have a skewed idea of what exactly is a classic. Shakespeare is a classic. Betty Smith is just some lady I never heard of, who, I'm guessing, grew up in Brooklyn.

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[quantumplacet]

so apparently your ignorance plays a significant part in determining what is or isn't a classic?

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[Alinabi]

Yes, because, classics, by definition, have been around for a while and have made it into school curricula, hence everybody, regardless of their erudition level, has heard of them. I don't remember studying Betty Smith in school. Maybe 100 years from now she will be a classic, but as of now, she is not.

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[Anonymous Coward]

Her book is a classic.

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[Anonymous Coward]

if you consider a "word" to be 4 non-whitespace characters then the statement is correct.

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[quantumplacet]

well, it was published in 1943, so i think it fits the criteria of 'been around a while'. It was in my school curriculum, and most of the people I went to college with were required to read it in high school, so i think it fits that criteria. now

hence everybody, regardless of their erudition level, has heard of them

That's a tough one, since it is an Appeal to Popularity fallacy and this impossible to disprove, so I'll choose to just ignore it. I will agree that Betty Smith herself is not a classic novel, and will go so far as to speculate that she still won't be in a hundred years. However, her book is a classic now, without a doubt. Again, your ignorance plays no role in the significance of her novel.

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm assuming you can't read the post title.

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm assuming you can't read the post title.

Um, I think the post's title is seven words ... still not three. Whoosh!

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[Alinabi]

well, it was published in 1943, so i think it fits the criteria of 'been around a while'.

Wow, you really have a sense of history, huh? My father has been around since 1942, I guess he's halfway on his way to being a classic according to your definition of 'a while'.

Let me try to be more explicit: what I meant was that a classic is something or someone who transcends their particular historic and cultural context, whom people from different generations and different cultures find equally relevant to their lives.

You can throw all the insults you want at me, but that will not change the fact that the top two results for "Betty Smith" are this and this. Neither of those pages is longer than your average omelette recipe. That is a staggering lack of interest in a "classic" author.

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[quantumplacet]

ok, you're clearly retarded, so continuing this debate seems pointless, but i'll make one last, half assed attempt.

http://classiclit.about.com/od/atreegrows/fr/aafpr_treegrows.htm

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060736262/A_Tree_Grows_in_Brooklyn/index.aspx

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14891.A_Tree_Grows_in_Brooklyn

http://classicreads.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/a-tree-grows-in-brooklyn-schedule/

http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guides/tree-grows-in-brooklyn.html

http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9780060736262

http://www.librarything.com/work/1475

http://kimbofo.typepad.com/readingmatters/2005/11/a_tree_grows_in.html

And again, Betty Smith is not a 'classic' author, but one of the few books she wrote is a classic book. Can you really not understand that very simple concept, or are you just grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to not have to admit you're wrong?

Re:Greatest Opening to a book review ever:

[splutty]

It's quite obviously an edit made by the reviewer who originally wrote "MY LIFE SUCKS", and then forgot to actually change the word-count as well.

You'll see a lot of these things even in official documents, and sometimes it's quite hilarious :)

Grapes of Wraith

[Wyatt Earp]

I agree with it.

Re:Grapes of Wraith

[Tablizer]

"It has a nice beat and you can dance to it."

Yelp

[MrEricSir]

People have meaningless, petty opinions that drive their review? Wow, this would be news except that Yelp has been demonstrating this for years.

"The soup was great, but the waiter gave me a dirty look the third time I sent it back. 1 star."
"There was gum on the sidewalk outside the bookstore and it stuck to my shoe. 1 star."
"OMG I like totally ran into Tom Cruise at the Wendy's on Third St, 5 stars!"

Re:Yelp

[NeutronCowboy]

Pretty much. The article could also have been entitled "People suck - reviews prove it again."

That said, I always find these articles entertaining - and a useful reminder of how petty, small-minded and stupid some people can be. There is no need for everyone to like every classic out there, but people should have at least the cognitive capacity to understand why classics are classics. Sadly, that cognitive capacity is exactly what's missing in these dismissive reviews.

Re:Yelp

[antdude]

Wait, what's wrong withy Tom Cruise at Wendy's? :P

Re:Yelp

[martyros]

and a useful reminder of how petty, small-minded and stupid some people can be.

Is that why you read Slashdot too? :-)

Re:Yelp

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

My favourite:

"This [object/place/person/entertainment] wasn't bad, but I don't see why it's rated so highly. 1 star."

(Come to think of it, it would be funny if someone modded me -1 overrated for this post. :-)

Bible review?

[Notquitecajun]

Two points

The Bible "review" looks more like an attempt as a bad joke than an attempt at real review.

Bigger point - I'm not sure that some people realize when they're reading a classic that they may actually be reading something that SEEMS derivative, but may have been pretty innovative for its day. Lots of Victorian novels are like that - boring, plodding reads, but with certain concepts and styles that were original and fleshed out in later works.

The same could be said for early sci-fi. Some of HG Wells' stuff is a yawner.

Re:Bible review?

[eddy the lip]

Bigger point - I'm not sure that some people realize when they're reading a classic that they may actually be reading something that SEEMS derivative, but may have been pretty innovative for its day.

It entertained me that the review for "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" had this to say:

"It's exactly the same as any other book about a poor family with an irresponsible father and a child who manages to be alright..."

Followed by a list of three books that were written later.

Re:Bible review?

[Locke2005]

One man's "bad joke" is another man's "epic troll!" Rarely is making fun of The Holy Bible appropriate, but in this case, it was hilarious.

Re:Bible review?

[PitaBred]

One man's "bad joke" is another man's "epic troll!" Rarely is making fun of The Holy Bible inappropriate, and in this case, it was hilarious.

There, fixed that for you

Re:Bible review?

[Hurricane78]

Well, the bible has no dramatic arc, a completely chaotic interest curve, way too many characters that are usually killed off, a horribly convoluted language, and more plot holes than an unpatched IE 6 has attack vectors. It’s just all-around bad fiction. A typical popular mass media production with way too many authors and script doctors. And on top of that it tries to transport a very unhealthy agenda for a particular delusional world provider company.
If it weren’t for the religious schizophrenia, it would be long forgotten.

Re:Bible review?

[retchdog]

I remember when I was looking for a Bible, the reviews were invaluable. In particular the one for the Oxford World Classics edition which described it as a satanic trap placed by the world's secular elitist intellectuals, and to be avoided by all true Christians at all costs. That pretty much clinched it for me and I've been quite satisfied with my purchase. :-)

Re:Bible review?

[Notquitecajun]

Here's the interesting part - what would be more conducive to reality? A story that is entirely feel-good, or one with a bunch of screwups and holes?

History is rarely clean, and a "clean" story is often suspect.

Re:Bible review?

[ottothecow]

People do this exact same thing with movies as well...especially now that pacing has sped up and attention spans have decreased. Even movies that aren't that old like alien or blade runner are slow enough to make people fall asleep and complain that it was just a more boring version of themes and techniques they have seen done before. Most of these reviews sounded like high school students reading required texts--short attention spans + slightly more mature concepts + a large amount of work tacked on top (somewhere I have a listing from 10th grade of every single simile and metaphor in the scarlet letter)= OMG THIS BUK SUX

That being said, I don't think the blog author thought they were discovering anything phenomenal or profound--just writing a little pop-interest piece about something that can be an amusing past time (reading reviews written by idiots is fun for just about any topic).

Re:Bible review?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

And don't forget the very lame attempt at fan service by including lovers with donkey's organs and stallion's emissions.

Re:Bible review?

[Hurricane78]

What does the Bible have to do with reality, or history?

Also, for the quality of a story, feel-good or screwups/holes is not the question. If you take a scale of the greatness of an experience (which is a superordinate concept to feel-good vs screwups/holes), and render a graph over time, that’s what you should get, for it to be the optimal interest curve: http://navid.radiantempire.com/kb/9/65558.php

Re:Bible review?

[Hurricane78]

Whoops, the labels of the axes are mixed up. The horizontal one is time, and the vertical one is interest.

Re:Bible review?

[Notquitecajun]

If you knew history, you'd know that there's a good chunk of reliability in the Bible.

Yeah, there's a few hiccups, but as recorded history, there hasn't been much to go against it and its consistency hasn't changed all that much.

Also, one argument I like to point out is that it's got a lot of not very flattering points as a basis for religion - check out some of the Pentateuch and Judges. Not exactly what most people would want to build a religion upon...

Diary of Anne Frank

[wjousts]

Actually, I remember as a kid writing a particularly scathing review of the Diary of Anne Frank in English class (no Amazon back then). No, I'm not proud of it. But honestly, I do stick by my assertion that it's a boring book to force a teenage boy to read. I just wouldn't use the same spiteful language to express that thought now days.

Re:Diary of Anne Frank

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I remember as a kid writing a particularly scathing review of the Diary of Anne Frank in English class (no Amazon back then). No, I'm not proud of it. But honestly, I do stick by my assertion that it's a boring book to force a teenage boy to read.

Perhaps the teacher should have assigned you a picture book to review instead.

Re:Diary of Anne Frank

[wjousts]

Perhaps they should have assigned you "How to Not be a Pompous Asshole"? Then you'd learn not to insult people's intelligence just because they didn't like a book that you liked.

Re:Diary of Anne Frank

[MozeeToby]

I have no doubt that the book was boring, plodding, and pointless to you. Let's face it, it was written by a teenage girl who never expected anyone to read it, 95% of the book is detailing spending time in close confines with her family, locked in a small room and experiencing nothing new and nothing exciting.

The book only becomes interesting if you know and appreciate the 'back-story'. I assume that most people reading it, even those stuck in high school lit or history classes, will at least know the back story. Intellectually, they understand what the book is about and why they're confined and why they must be quiet. But I have my doubts whether the average high school student takes that information into account when actually reading it. It is only through that knowledge that there is any real tension in the book. Saying "We heard the troops downstairs today, it was scary" isn't very good literature, unless you appreciate that while she was writing it, there actually were troops downstairs that would have arrested and eventually killed her and her family. If the voice you hear in your mind when reading it isn't a terrified 13 year old girl, you'll never really understand the book.

Re:Diary of Anne Frank

[eddy the lip]

I find books each have their own time. How we read and relate to a book has a lot to do with where we're at when we read it. Unfortunately, when most of us our first exposed to the classics has nothing to do with this. I had a hate on for Stenibeck for years because I had to read "The Red Pony" and "The Blue Pearl" in grade 9. There was nothing I was going to relate to in these at the time, and the subject matter bored me to tears. I got over it, but it took me a while.

Some of the book selections made by the curriculum committees completely dumbfound me, not because they're bad books, but because the kids just aren't going to relate to them at the point they're introduced.

Re:Diary of Anne Frank

[General Wesc]

It was initially rejected by publishers as 'very dull' and 'a dreary record of typically family bickering, petty annoyances and adolescent emotion' (Source: 'The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives' by Leonard Mlodinow, pp 9-10).

Re:Diary of Anne Frank

[Anonymous Coward]

If the voice you hear in your mind when reading it isn't a terrified 13 year old girl, you'll never really understand the book.

You know, I read the book and enjoyed it with the back-story in mind. But I had never considered that aspect of it. Insightful. Thank you.

Re:Diary of Anne Frank

[dbet]

It's okay, she doesn't want you reading it anyway.

Re:Diary of Anne Frank

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying "We heard the troops downstairs today, it was scary" isn't very good literature, unless you appreciate that while she was writing it, there actually were troops downstairs that would have arrested and eventually killed her and her family. If the voice you hear in your mind when reading it isn't a terrified 13 year old girl, you'll never really understand the book.

I'd argue that that's not good literature, period. The book is interesting because of the historical context, but that doesn't make a teenager's diary art.

Re:Diary of Anne Frank

[Gilmoure]

Yup, never liked Steinbeck (same books in HS) until I was stationed out in Monterey and a friend sent me Cannery Row. Having a humerous book to read that was based on where I was was kinda' cool. Am now a fan. 'Course, being older, I appreciate more and more where Steinbeck's coming from.

Not providing books that are relevant to a teen is like handing a bunch of vegetables and meat to a toddler. They won't know anything about it or what to do with it.

Re:Diary of Anne Frank

[retchdog]

I guess you had the edition with the lesbian incest removed.

Re:Diary of Anne Frank

[ottothecow]

I highly doubt the reason everyone reads Anne Frank's diary in middle school is because their teachers thought it was a good book and they might like it.

My calculus book wasn't exactly a total hoot but I am still glad I read it.

Standards change.

[RightSaidFred99]

A lot of those books are simple and boring as hell to modern readers, just like music from 1950 will sound simple and cheesy to most modern listeners. Their themes and literary devices may have been super-unique and exciting to people of the time, but we've all read them (or seen them in film, on TV, or Christ in comic books) over and over. Many of those books may get points for doing it first, but in most cases it's been done better since.

In a lot of cases those books are circularly beloved classics. They're classics and people love them because they're...classics, and people think they should love them lest they be labeled philistines.

There are way more "classic books" than there are great, unique, timeless books.

Re:Standards change.

[oodaloop]

I was thinking the same thing. Citizen Cane was revolutionary as well, but boring and slow-paced today.

Re:Standards change.

[postbigbang]

Your superficiality knows no bounds.

'Classics' are examples of many things that you can learn from. One of this is that you don't like the lesson.

Instead, you eschew the lesson, believing current media is ideal. Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to make its mistakes again.

I get sick and tired of listening to, as an example, The Beatles. Each song has been played for me about 2000 times. Yet I recognize them as classics. So is Monk, REM, Led Zep, Tupak, Prince, Kraftwerk, and a thousand others. Movies are the same ways. And once a year, I play Duke Nukem I, just to remember how fun it was, but how cheezy it is now.

Learn from the classics. That's what they're there for.

Re:Standards change.

[TheLink]

> Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to make its mistakes again.

Those that learn from history are doomed to see mistakes repeated over and over again anyway - because the rest don't learn from history ;).

Re:Standards change.

[ElectricTurtle]

While as Pliny the Younger said, "Nullum esse librum tam malum ut non aliqua parte prodesset." ("No book is so bad that no part of it is useful.") That is a terribly low bar for classics.

If you believe as you appear to say that literary mistakes must be read in order to avoid literary mistakes, I suggest you try to teach art from the scribblings of toddlers. Of course when experience presents us with our own mistakes or the observation of others' mistakes in natural course certainly one should try to learn from those, but to seek out mistakes for their own sake? A waste of time, especially since there are scores of mediocre works in every era for each masterpiece.

Re:Standards change.

[postbigbang]

You have a silly line of reasoning. Most people eschew the classics because they'd rather do something else. It seems as though it might be torture to learn what Blaise Pascal said, or delve into Vonnegut.

Hemmingway isn't for everyone. Nor is Dante. To blithely avoid classics as boring represents an incredibly dismissive attitude. You don't have to masochistic and expose yourself to needless pain, rather, learn something.

Re:Standards change.

[Hatta]

A lot of those books are simple and boring as hell to modern readers, just like music from 1950 will sound simple and cheesy to most modern listeners.

Music by Charlie Parker or Louis Armstrong sounds as fresh today as it did in the 30s. Why can't literature do the same?

Re:Standards change.

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

just like music from 1950 will sound simple and cheesy to most modern listeners

Modern listeners (who like rap or country western) aren't exactly experts in the field of appreciating music.

Re:Standards change.

[Hatta]

I don't avoid classics because they're boring. I avoid them because they're pointless. I didn't learn one thing from Slaughterhouse Five. Now, Max Bohm's book Einstein's Theory of Relativity which I read around the same time was fascinating.

When I read, I *want* to learn. That's why I read non-fiction mostly. It's full of facts, you know things that actually happen. Fiction is full of made up stuff, which can be entertaining, but not really informative.

The worst is when people try to interpret fiction. As if there were some other meaning than what's on the page. I don't understand, if the author meant something else, why didn't he write that? If you write something, and two PhDs in the field can't agree on what you meant, that's a failure of communication. Why is it that the people who seem to love the language most can't express themselves unambiguously?

Re:Standards change.

[Anonymous Coward]

This translates to "People are complicated. I don't understand people. Writing about people sucks. Physics is much purer and cleaner. Why can't people be more like mathematics? Then books about people could be more interesting."

Re:Standards change.

[Silfax]

While as Pliny the Younger said, "Nullum esse librum tam malum ut non aliqua parte prodesset." ("No book is so bad that no part of it is useful.") That is a terribly low bar for classics.

I think that he was referring to the fact that any book could be used as toilet paper. Some books really are that bad.

Re:Standards change.

[Volante3192]

Hemmingway isn't for everyone. Nor is Dante. To blithely avoid classics as boring represents an incredibly dismissive attitude. You don't have to masochistic and expose yourself to needless pain, rather, learn something.

Except we do have to take English classes in High School. My senior year we had to read eightish novels. These included: Heart of Darkness, Crime and Punishment, Wuthering Heights, 1984, The Sound and the Fury, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, sections of the Bible (as literature; say what you will about the content, it's pretty much the only example of the written word in it's context) and Hamlet.

The two I enjoyed most we spent the least amount of time on. Crime & Punishment (which I had read earlier; traded someone my copy of Jane Eyre. We both got the better end of the deal) and 1984 (which we literally spent one week on).

Everything else was dull and uninteresting to me, but because of the class, I was required to read them. All I acquired was a further dislike for the 'classic' novel.

Re:Standards change.

[postbigbang]

Not my cup of tea.... but 1984 was fun, if only to have also lived through it, too.

But I can't speak to your teacher, or how the material was treated. Too bad you didn't enjoy them. There are better, IMHO.

Re:Standards change.

[Schadrach]

You reminded me of my senior English class in high school. At one point, we were given two "World War II" books in sequence, and part of the point was the contrast. I can't remember the title of one of them offhand, it went into huge amounts of detail piecing together vivid description of where the story was happening, but then very little actually happened. As in over a page of describing a building only to have them walk through it into another page of description. The other was Slaughterhouse V.

The idea that Vonnegut could be torture seems odd to me, though Dante could depend on your translator, I suppose.

Re:Standards change.

[mdarksbane]

The worst moment is when you're reading a classic and suddenly realize you know the ending because you've seen the exact same plot (under a different name) fifty times growing up in different cartoons, sitcoms, and other series. Much classic literature is more commonly experienced as sort of a TV folk tale any more.

Re:Standards change.

[Gilmoure]

It can. Just not to everyone. I can't stand Faulkner but really like Steinbeck and some Hemingway.

A good place to get an idea on why 'the great books' are great is The Western Canon by Harold Bloom. Yeah, yeah, an old white guy going on and on about books mostly written by old white guys. Still, he explains pretty well and easily understood why he thinks they're important and what's interesting about them.

Re:Standards change.

[Volante3192]

That's the problem with English classes though, IMO.

Some people will just not like the material, no matter how it's presented. So how are you supposed to get something out of material you dislike? Not only that, you HAVE to get something out of it. You can't write a 5-7 page paper on why this book bored you to tears. (I've tried. It did not go over well.)

There's just too much "you must read This Title" and not enough "you must read" in English classes.

I've read Dante. I like Dante. Or Clarke, Burgess, Dumas. Maybe there just needs to be more modern works. Instead of analysing Shakespeare for a play (cause...honestly, there was a point I believed he was the only person who wrote plays. Ever.), how about some Mamet or Sondheim?

Instead of Dickens or Faulkner, how about Cormac McCarthy? And I see nothing wrong with putting some popular works in there too. Crichton, and yes, even Rowling.

Humanity didn't stop writing after the 1950s, but that's all that's ever taught, it seemed for me.

Re:Standards change.

[Stradivarius]

I've read several classics precisely because they're supposedly classics.

Sometimes they're great. Sometimes... they're not. Not just in terms of "did I like it", but "could I find notable artistic merit".

It reminds me of the studies about how people evaluate the taste of wine. If you put the same wine in two bottles, and tell people one is a $5 bottle, and the other is a $50 bottle, the tasters will rave about the delicacies of the "$50" wine and pan the "$5" wine. Even though it's the same wine

I've come to the conclusion "classic" works of art have the same phenomenon. Some really are great works. Others just got a nice label at some point in history and nobody's bold enough to admit the "classic" is just average.

Re:Standards change.

[ElectricTurtle]

I agree that there needs to be more "switching up" in literature, if for no other reason than the "core" classics get over-analyzed. There just isn't any more blood in those stones after millions of freshman papers.

It doesn't surprise me that you once labored under the idea that Shakespeare was the only playwright, considering how many people think Anton Chekhov was a guy on Star Trek.

I don't think that 'more modern' is necessarily the answer. There is so much literature from every age that is ignored. Lucian of Samosata wrote a lot of really entertaining (Symposium) and seriously thought-provoking works (Hermotimus), but even in ancient literature classes he is barely touched (I think from habit, as when Western society was more explicitly Judeo-Christian there wasn't much place for Lucian's anti-Christian views and his general irreverent ribaldry). Some ancient works that were once mainstream and considered fundamental are now ignored, such as the second book off of Gutenberg's own press after the Bible: Cicero's De Officiis.

I could go on and name others, but alas I have a train to catch.

Re:Standards change.

[bar-agent]

When I read, I *want* to learn. That's why I read non-fiction mostly. It's full of facts, you know things that actually happen. Fiction is full of made up stuff, which can be entertaining, but not really informative.

That depends on the type of fiction you read. I learn a hell of a lot from fiction. From hard science fiction, I have learned about quantum physics, chronology protection theories, and what relativity and wormholes mean in practice. From fantasy, I have learned politics, medieval technologies, and Objectivism. From mainstream fiction, I have learned about multiple personality disorders and interpersonal dynamics. From military fiction, I have learned tactics and leadership styles. I don't read many mysteries or romances, but they have their lessons to teach, too.

A lot of fiction is made-up junk, but a lot of other fiction involves research and interviews and thought experiments that are both enlightening and entertaining. You just have to read the books that make you think.

Re:Standards change.

[daeley]

When I read, I *want* to learn. That's why I read non-fiction mostly. It's full of facts, you know things that actually happen. Fiction is full of made up stuff, which can be entertaining, but not really informative.

Yes, because non-fiction books are always completely true.

Here's something for you: sometimes, lies are truer than the supposed truth. Sometimes, you can learn more from something that never happened and never could, than you can from something that really did.

Re:Standards change.

[OrangeCatholic]

>Everything else was dull and uninteresting to me, but because of the class, I was required to read them.

If it makes you feel any better, we made sport of passing reading tests in H.S. English. The idea is that you don't read a single page of the book, but you get a passing grade (D or better) on the comprehension exam.

I assure you, it wasn't hard, and those who failed (by way of actually reading the book) were heavily mocked.

Re:Standards change.

[yukk]

Yes, we know Hatta. You have no imagination and absolutely no capability of reading meaning into words. If someone wrote, "Jimmy's dog is red" you'd complain that dogs can't really be red. If they then went on to imply that Jimmy's friend was Red, then you'd get all upset because they were speaking nonsense when in fact there may have been hints there that Jimmy's friend had communist leanings. If later on the story revealed that Jimmy's friend shared everything he had with all his friends and struggled throughout his life to help everyone and ended up broke and bereft you'd complain that the story didn't have a happy ending rather than see that it was an allegory about Soviet Russia and how communism won't work because the greedy will take and take and so on. We hear you. You don't understand fiction. That's okay. Go read non-fiction. Let someone spell things out for you in plain words. If that is what you enjoy then that's perfect for you. Personally, I enjoy fiction but I'm not going to tell you that all non-fiction is bunk. I read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and enjoyed that. I even got my wife to read it, though lacking some of the grounding to understand it she struggled a bit with the concepts. It might not have been a good decision of mine though it worked out okay. Maybe you need to better pick books to read. You know what you like and you don't like to stray, so read your books and leave us to read ours.

Re:Standards change.

[yukk]

just like music from 1950 will sound simple and cheesy to most modern listeners

Modern listeners (who like rap or country western) aren't exactly experts in the field of appreciating music.

Modern listeners (who like pop music) aren't exactly experts ... I remember a skit I saw recently by a group that did a medley of about 30 hit songs using only 3 chords for the whole thing. I wish I could find a version of it online but my search-fu is failing me.

Would Classics become Classics today?

[siuengr]

I think there are many classics that are classics simply because there there were limited availability of source material and reviews. There are so many more books, movies, etc., and opinions about that material today, is there ever going to be a consensus of a modern classic. It has previously been much easier to suppress dissenting opinions of material. Now that everyone has a voice that can be heard, will have modern classic?

Re:Would Classics become Classics today?

[glwtta]

Now that everyone has a voice that can be heard, will have modern classic?

Of course! Now that everyone can weigh in with their unique point of view, we'll have a truly representative and democratic process for selecting the classics of our time.

And the people have already spoken: the great works being produced now, those that will stand the test of time and will still be read by future generations, are written by Stephenie Meyer and Dan Brown.

(By the way, do you really think that most classics are considered that because of "suppressed dissent"?)

Re:Would Classics become Classics today?

[siuengr]

My question is, will the Dan Brown books actually stand the test of time. Are our kids going to be reading the Da Vinci Code in high school instead Catcher in the Rye. I don't really see that.

Re:Would Classics become Classics today?

[Volante3192]

We can still hold out hope for Cormac McCarthy.

What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[s-whs]

Then it dawned on me. Anne Frank's "The Diary of a Young Girl"! Surely, no one could find fault with the poignant and honest writing of a young girl caught up in the evil of the Holocaust, setting down on paper her hopes, longings and yearnings -- a book that has made countless women want to become writers and which has inspired generations of readers to denounce hate and live more compassionate lives. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? But, oh, how wrong I was.

I didn't like this book because it was boring. That's all that needs to be said. It was very very very very very very very very very very very boring. If you have to read this book shoot yourself first.

Can you imagine being this person? It seems like a life completely devoid of any subtlety, introspection, caring or empathy.

What a nutter! Of course someone can find fault with that book. I read part of it and I agree with the reviewer: It's very very boring. I didn't read further into this book for 2 reasons in particular: 1. It's a diary, so personal, so should not be read by anyone but the writer unless he/she authorizes it. 2. It's boring.

That diary has only got well known because the writer died in the war. There are better and more poignant writings from people during WW2 about life during that time. There are many other diaries from that time which are not well known or not published because the writers didn't die... Why should a book be good just because it's a diary of someone who died in a war?

At first I thought this salon article was looking for a problem where there was none, but after reading that bit about the diary (the bit about the bible is also stupid btw.) I find this salon article to nothing more than moronic uninsightful rubbish...

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[lbalbalba]

Why should a book be good just because it's a diary of someone who died in a war?

Well, in all fairness, she didn't 'just' die in a war, she is an example of one of the millions of *civilians* that got slaughtered, based solely on religion.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in all fairness, she didn't 'just' die in a war, she is an example of one of the millions of *civilians* that got slaughtered, based solely on religion.

Anne Frank died of typhus, having been sent to a concentration camp because of her religion. Don't confuse her with those who were gassed because of their religion.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[ElectricTurtle]

Well, in all fairness, she didn't 'just' die in a war, she is an example of one of the millions of *civilians* that got slaughtered, based solely on religion.

What manner of deficient and/or revisionist history are you being taught? She and others like her were killed because of race, not religion. Christians and atheists who were ethnically Jewish were killed right along with the orthodox Jews.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[ElectricTurtle]

Of course, institutionalized, systemic neglect during captivity that was intended to be fatal is so obviously different from direct lethal action. Thanks for pointing it out.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[lbalbalba]

She and others like her were killed because of race, not religion.

Oh Im sorry, I was under the impression that 'Jewism' was a religion, and not a race. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was it again that the Jewish race was so abhorred? Surely it had NOTHING to do with ... the main religion of most of Europe for over 1000 years... ::eye roll::

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[Dhalka226]

Which makes it an interesting historical analysis from inside horrible events but not necessarily a good book, even when one evaluates it from a literature perspective and not purely on entertainment value (which is what I suspect most do when they talk about a "good book"). Reading it in history class might make sense, if a teacher has allotted that much time to covering the war; reading it in English class, much less so.

I suppose technically calling it a "classic" is not wrong. It certainly is one of a kind, and I doubt WW2 is going to be fading from our memories any time soon so it will always maintain a sort of impact as being a first-hand account of the terrible events. That said, it's not a classic in typical terms. There is no great literary device, no pioneering approach. The writing is good, but not so good as to be singled out as among the best ever. Even the subject matter is rather mundane, being as it is a diary. Its sole value is in the fact that it was written from inside terrible circumstances.

Great historical document? Yes. Worthy of historical review? Yes. Worthy of great acclaim as literature? Now you've lost me. In that sense I stand with the grandparent post.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[ElectricTurtle]

The religion is Judaism. The ethnicity is Jewish.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt WW2 is going to be fading from our memories any time soon

Well, me being somewhat more cynical than you are, Sir, would like to argue that we have forgotten the atrocities of WW2 already, as can be witnessed by current World events.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[MaskedSlacker]

Religion had nothing to do with it. More than 1 Jewish Grandparent in Nazi Germany meant you were Jewish, even if you were Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or whatever.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[lbalbalba]

The religion is Judaism. The ethnicity is Jewish.

Ah. Thank you very much. Guess I need to go and study my English lessons now. :P
(Would mod parent up if I could)

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[lbalbalba]

Religion had nothing to do with it.

Yeah, Im sorry that I got Judaism (the religion) mixed up with Jewish (the ethnicity), as another poster kindly pointed out. Guess that implies that I really don't care what ethnicity you are or what religion you have, whatsoever. :P

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[MaskedSlacker]

Guess that implies that I really don't care what ethnicity you are or what religion you have, whatsoever.

No, it mostly implies that you don't care about knowing history. :P (Does the smiley make me less snarky, more, or just retarded ;) ?)

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[lbalbalba]

yes, the smiley *does* make you more retarded. :P

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[Hurricane78]

Exactly. They should get slaughtered, no matter which religion they’re infected with! ;)

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[Stormwatch]

No, the "jews as race" view is the wrong one -- the nazis just happened to believe the same bullshit as you do. See an interesting rebuke here.

European history is in large part a story of invasion, conquest, and the resulting ethnic and sexual mixing. Some Jews may still hold to the myth that their ancestors managed to hold themselves aloof from all of this homogenizing, but this is to choose mythology over history. After all, if the myth of racial purity were true, modern European (and American and Australian and South African, etc.) Jews would look (and act) just like those Jews whose ancestors remained in the Middle East and never joined the Diaspora. But instead, those Middle Eastern Jews look and act very much like (surprise!) Arabs. I've been told (but never confirmed) that there are very old Jewish communities in the Orient whose members look quite Oriental. Then there are the Falashas of Ethiopa, Jews who claim to trace their ancestry directly back to the Jews of biblical Israel; they are quite black. Even the Levantine nose is not universal among European Jews. It is, on the other hand, common in the Levant, and not just among Levantine Jews.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. Jews are not a race, black is a race, white is a race. It's a fucking religion, nothing more. Try this: go and find some DNA that shows Jewishness, or a Jew gene. You can't. They don't exist.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[ElectricTurtle]

Races do exist, regardless of "purity". I don't think race is important, even in a positive sense let alone a negative, but that doesn't mean that races do not exist or are irrelevant. Society makes them relevant (call it bullshit if you like, that just means any social construction is bullshit, which is most everything, so enjoy your world view). Jews (mixed or not) look at their racial/ethnic background as a unifying force and something positive of which to be proud. Antisemites look at that background (once again, mixed or not , plenty of people who were barely Jewish at all went to the camps) as something to be hated an feared. Society makes these positive and negative perspectives real (whether or not they should be counted important), and you ignore them at your own ignorant peril.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[ElectricTurtle]

That does not remove that fact that Christian and atheist Jews were killed by the nazis because of perceived racial heritage. Even if that were not a valid construction, which by itself is retarded and bigoted, like saying Koreans aren't a race because they've been overrun by the Japanese and Chinese too many times and there is no "Korean gene", it would not alter the fact that they were treated as a race by others and treat themselves as a race. They are a de facto race, even if your own parameters do not allow it, and that is expressed in positive and negative ways throughout social history.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[Stormwatch]

Jews (mixed or not) look at their racial/ethnic background as a unifying force and something positive of which to be proud.

Which is another load of bullshit. You can't be proud of being jewish, let me tell you why:

First thing: you must only be proud of achievements. Belonging to a religion or ethnicity is not an achievement. Just as well, you can't be proud of being black or white, there was no choice or effort, you're simply born into it. If anything, getting out of your family's religion is the true achievement: rejecting labels, debunking the irrational, and standing against your parents' judgement -- now that takes some intellectual work and courage.

Second: even with achievements, you can only be proud of those to which you contributed significantly. For example, an athlete from your country wins a gold medal. Do you feel proud? Well, why? The only people who have the right to be proud are: the athlete himself, the coach and the support team, and perhaps their immediate families, who truly supported them in their careers. You can admire someone else's achievement, not feel proud of it -- because it's not yours.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[ElectricTurtle]

You're still not getting it. It doesn't matter that you don't agree with these practices, I don't necessarily agree with them either, like I said, I don't think race is important, but that doesn't make these things go away. These are real things in society, they are not going away, and just yelling "bullshit!" at them won't change anything. If anything you make the post-racial mindset look bad.

You say, 'you can't be proud of being Jewish' like you're king of the world. Some people choose to actively separate themselves from their native culture, that's their prerogative, other people relish their culture, that too is their prerogative.

You oversimplify racial/cultural/ethnic pride as simple "belonging". Races/cultures produce particular kinds of visual art, music, literature, architecture, etc. These form a real, physical shared identity that is perpetuated from generation to generation. Apostasy is great, I know, I've done that, but it doesn't mean anything to race. Rejecting labels is only productive insofar as one can look beyond stereotypes, otherwise labels and categories are fundamental to an organized understanding, and standing against your parents' judgement only makes sense when they are wrong. Many teens rebel for the sake of rebellion alone, in in their inexperienced indiscretion burn themselves. None of that has anything to do with race or culture.

Achievements do not happen in vacuums. I'm a hardcore individualist, and while each is due credit for their ultimate products, no man is an island, people are shaped and developed within families, communities, nations, and racial/cultural social constructs. Which segues well into what a terrible example your second point is. Who do you think funds many Olympic athletes? Taxpayers, especially in authoritarian countries. If I paid for everything an athlete has, paid for the coach and the support team, I think perhaps I should share a bit of credit, even if I didn't physically do the task itself. After all, remove all of that, and you don't have a medalist anymore, just another undiscovered raw talent waiting in line to make the median income in a cube farm who maybe plays little league on weekends. People are interconnected, financially, socially, culturally, legally, etc. This doesn't necessarily lead to any entitlements, reduction of freedoms, or creeping responsibility as many liberals would contend, but denial of shared identies/background/experience and the interconnection inherent in human society is nothing short of ignorance or madness.

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[angus77]

You mean race, not religion. If she'd converted to Christianity, do you think it would've saved her?

Re:What's the point of this stupid salon article?

[yukk]

Oh please. Jews are not a race, black is a race, white is a race. It's a fucking religion, nothing more. Try this: go and find some DNA that shows Jewishness, or a Jew gene. You can't. They don't exist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7346496/View-from-the-Lab-Who-is-a-Jew-DNA-can-hold-the-key.html Haha ... moron. Just because you think something, doesn't make it true.

Classic does not equal exciting

[Drakkenmensch]

Innovation is not always the same as entertainment. I had to read Madame Bovary as a college student, and while it is considered both a classic and an example of the great novels of its time, it has all the excitement and interest of being fed a heaping bowl of broken glass, one tiny spoonful at a time.

Re:Classic does not equal exciting

[glwtta]

it has all the excitement and interest of being fed a heaping bowl of broken glass, one tiny spoonful at a time

Not to nitpick, but that sounds like it would be fairly exciting. It certainly wouldn't be pleasant, but I doubt you'd be bored during that procedure.

Re:Classic does not equal exciting

[PCM2]

I had to read Madame Bovary as a college student...

Then you are truly lucky. When I took college English classes (recently, since I never went to college after HS), we were exposed to a little bit of classical writing, in the form of Shakespeare ("Hamlet," naturally, because nobody's ever been exposed to that one before) and a short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne (yuck). As for novels, though, I don't recall being assigned anything that didn't fall under the categories of fiction about immigrants of non-European ethnic origins, fiction about the gay and/or lesbian experience, and graphic novels. All very innovative and non-traditional, to be sure, but nothing written before 1997 and nothing that could approach the vast backlog of classics available. In short, it seems English departments have been assigned the parallel role of "empathy and diversity training," which has since become more central to the curriculum than teaching kids about the English language. (I also found it curious that the instructors put almost no marks on students' papers, merely grades; they insisted that it was not their job to teach you how to write, but that you were supposed to learn from your mistakes and "work harder.")

Re:Classic does not equal exciting

[JimFive]

I just finished Madame Bovary last week, and college was more than 15 years ago. While it isn't an exciting book and it isn't supposed to be, it is a sensual book. Emma Bovary is like Don Quixote. She has a world view that has been so twisted by reading books (romantic fiction) that she doesn't recognize the love and happiness that is in her life. Her attempts to live out her fantasies lead her into a descending spiral of immorality, madness and death. What is boring about that?

Note, however, that Don Quixote was a defense of secular literature disguised as an attack on secular literature, while Madame Bovary was an attack on the over-education of women (Or at least, that's what Flaubert argued at his trial).
--
JimFive

Re:Classic does not equal exciting

[yukk]

I had to read Madame Bovary as a college student...

Then you are truly lucky. When I took college English classes (recently, since I never went to college after HS),

Never ? You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

LOTR

[CompressedAir]

Why does it take three books for some guys to walk to a volcano?!?

Re:LOTR

[ColdWetDog]

Why does it take three books for some guys to walk to a volcano?!?

Because they are vertically challenged, you insensitive clod. They don't walk very fast.

Re:LOTR

[Anonymous Coward]

And then they use eagles to fly back. Why couldn't they just use...GAH!!!

Re:LOTR

[vlm]

Why does it take three books for some guys to walk to a volcano?!?

And its such a rip-off of DnD and pretty much every paper and pen or computer RPG...

Seriously though, I did overhear in a bookstore, one patron telling another, "look, they turned the LOTR movie into a book!". Then again it was 1/2 price books, which is kind of the Walmart of the book world.

Re:LOTR

[Locke2005]

Obviously, with it's obvious obsession with jewelry, the book's target audience was women.
(My wife didn't care who won the Superbowl until she found out all the members of the winning team get rings!)

Re:LOTR

[Shivetya]

The same reason it will take three or more attempts to get the Extended version out on Blu-Ray

Because there is money in it.

Re:LOTR

[Tetsujin]

And then they use eagles to fly back. Why couldn't they just use...GAH!!!

I think the 30,000 orcs with bows and arrows, flying ringwraiths, etc. would have shot them down. :)

Re:LOTR

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so we give the eagles some under armor for the stray arrow, but for the most part I'd imagine they could fly higher than the average orc fired arrow. Plus they'd have the agility to dodge larger projectiles that take time to aim.

The Nazgul didn't get flying mounts til the elves drowned their horses in the river.

Re:LOTR

[ElectricTurtle]

If I had overheard that, they would have turned to find out what the loud smacking sound was... I probably would have facepalmed hard enough to leave a mark. And I don't even like LOTR.

Re:LOTR

[Tetsujin]

Ok, so we give the eagles some under armor for the stray arrow, but for the most part I'd imagine they could fly higher than the average orc fired arrow. Plus they'd have the agility to dodge larger projectiles that take time to aim.

If the sky is filled with a sufficient number of projectiles, there would be no place to dodge to... And they still have to be able to fly, which (ignoring weight issues) means there has to be plenty of clearance for them to move. So on their approach to the mountain (flying low enough to accurately deliver a ring into the lava - not just onto a ledge somewhere) they'd be subject to thousands of arrows, which they couldn't hope to survive. The eagles couldn't make it in safely until Sauron's forces were seriously weakened.

The Nazgul didn't get flying mounts til the elves drowned their horses in the river.

The Nazgul didn't get flying mounts in the beginning because they weren't going into combat. They were moving, to the extent possible, in secret. They didn't need flying lizard things, and if they had set out on flying lizard things in the first place, then everyone within sight of their flight path would have been immediately alerted to their actions.

If Sauron had looked to the Northwest and seen a dozen eagles flying his way, he would have sent out the flying lizard things immediately - and, knowing that a force like that couldn't be a threat to him in a straight fight, he probably would have worked out the enemy's plan, too, and fortified the mountain.

Re:LOTR

[Sulphur]

all the members of the winning team get rings

What do the rings enable them to do?

Re:LOTR

[Locke2005]

What do the rings enable them to do? Get laid more times in a week than the average slashdot reader does in their whole life.

Re:LOTR

[Lostlander]

They had the mounts available they simply did not use them as the dark lord had not yet prepared his armies and flying ringwraiths would have alerted his enemies.

Re:LOTR

[RafaelAngel]

They've also have flat feet.

Re:LOTR

[MiniMike]

Seriously though, I did overhear in a bookstore, one patron telling another, "look, they turned the LOTR movie into a book!". Then again it was 1/2 price books, which is kind of the Walmart of the book world.

Was it the 'movie version' of the LOTR, with the story converted to dialog from the movie and 20 glossy pages of pictures in the middle? I've seen such atrocities, though I can't recall if it was for LOTR or just other movies. I can see how, through shock and disgust, one might utter such a line not realizing how it would sound out of context.

Re:LOTR

[Hurricane78]

Typical for that type of fiction. Remember Moses? It took him 40 years to walk from Egypt to the holy land. That’s what? 10 meters a day??
It would have made sense if he was stoned as hell... Euuuughhh.... *ehuhuhu*... allright, let’s get going... euuhh... how’s this working again? First the right foot... no...uum.. the left... uuum... both?... *poof* ouch! stupid stone!... euuhhh *tectonically walks along...sloooooowwlyy*...

Re:LOTR

[Sulphur]

And in the darkness, bind them.

Re:LOTR

[Opyros]

The Nazgul didn't get flying mounts in the beginning because they weren't going into combat. They were moving, to the extent possible, in secret. They didn't need flying lizard things, and if they had set out on flying lizard things in the first place, then everyone within sight of their flight path would have been immediately alerted to their actions.

But Tolkien's notes said that the idea of mounting Nazgul on the Fell Beasts was completely new at the time of the War of the Ring (these still-unpublished notes, kept at Marquette University, are excerpted in Hammond and Scull's The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion).

Re:LOTR

[spiralx]

Pretend they're virgins?

Re:LOTR

[Tetsujin]

The Nazgul didn't get flying mounts in the beginning because they weren't going into combat. They were moving, to the extent possible, in secret. They didn't need flying lizard things, and if they had set out on flying lizard things in the first place, then everyone within sight of their flight path would have been immediately alerted to their actions.

But Tolkien's notes said that the idea of mounting Nazgul on the Fell Beasts was completely new at the time of the War of the Ring (these still-unpublished notes, kept at Marquette University, are excerpted in Hammond and Scull's The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion).

It still doesn't mean that they couldn't have been mustered in time to drive off the eagles.

At any rate, sitting in Rivendell trying to decide whether to summon the eagles (who might not come) for a head-on charge straight for the mountain, neither Gandalf nor any of the others there could have known what might have been awaiting them had they tried such a reckless move straight into the heart of the enemy's territory. They also didn't yet know that Denethor was coming under Sauron's control, and would have possibly, unwittingly provided early warning via the palantir. They would have sacrificed any hope of secrecy - and secrecy was the one thing that gave them hope of success.

Gandalf himself also didn't dare to bear the ring - this means Frodo would have had to come with. As the burden began to weaken him, could they really trust that he wouldn't drop it, or fall? If they lost the ring from that height they'd never find it again.

And it still leaves the problem of what happens when they actually reach Mordor. They'd be seen in advance. There's a fair chance Sauron would know they had the ring with them, and with no secrecy to their movements a good chance he'd figure out what they were up to. To dispose of the ring they'd still have to land on the mountain and drop the ring in personally - just tossing it down would carry too great a risk of it landing on rock instead of in lava. So they'd be met with Sauron's entire army.

Re:LOTR

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinky.

Re:LOTR

[Locke2005]

Oh... so THAT explains the Reggie Bush/Kim Kardashian breakup!

Re:LOTR

[Neoprofin]

The correct answer to "Why didn't the eagles just fly it in?" is "Because it's a story, if the eagles just flew it in there would be no story."

The answer is not a long winded apologist rant about how that never would have worked, because it would have.

Re:LOTR

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that an african or a european eagle..?

Re:LOTR

[UnknowingFool]

You're right. How it should have ended.

Re:LOTR

[dwarfsoft]

I was given one of these atrocities for Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. I guess they subscribed to the "picture tells a thousand words" philosophy.

Re:LOTR

[Scarletdown]

Why does it take three books for some guys to walk to a volcano?!?

Because had they done the sensible thing, it would have been a very short story.

Re:LOTR

[Tetsujin]

The correct answer to "Why didn't the eagles just fly it in?" is "Because it's a story, if the eagles just flew it in there would be no story."

The answer is not a long winded apologist rant about how that never would have worked, because it would have.

I think I've made a pretty good case for why it wouldn't. They'd be seen far in advance, and even if they couldn't be shot down on approach, their destination would have been worked out. They'd have to land on the mountain in order to be sure of disposing of the ring, and they'd be met with 10,000 orcs.

You can call it an apologist rant or whatever - and really, what could possibly be more dorky than arguing plot points in LoTR? But I hear this complaint about the plot all the time, and I don't buy it. If they tried to fly into Mordor, Mordor would be put on defensive footing and their little run to the mountain would be doomed.

Re:LOTR

[Anonymous Coward]

The Eagles just didn't really want to get involved at first. They didn't see it as their war. While they were initially happy to provide logistic support they really didn't want to get involved in the fighting. Only once all the hard work was done did they turn up and 'save the day'. Some say that they would have become involved eventually. Others say it was pretty obvious that until they were directly attacked at Pearl Harbour the Eagles preferred to let the other races of Middle Earth do the fighting and dying on their behalf.

Trolls, go back to your bridge!

[jandrese]

Frankly, bad reviews like that smell a lot like trolling. Someone is trying to make people angry and have them post counter-reviews just because they think its fun. An asshole is still an asshole be it on the Usenet, in the Youtube comments section, or on an Amazon book review.

Re:Trolls, go back to your bridge!

[Lunix Nutcase]

Trolling they may be, many of these classics are downright awful anyway.

Re:Trolls, go back to your bridge!

[Lunzo]

I'm not sure why people troll youtube comments though. The only people who post comments are other trolls so it kind of defeats the point.

Re:Trolls, go back to your bridge!

[crayz]

As with any comedy, some of its great and some of it fails, and a lot is in between. But some of the people on Amazon are basically review comedians, and they're really really good. And maybe the best funny-per-word ratio, of uranium ore:

I purchased this product 4.47 Billion Years ago and when I opened it today, it was half empty.

What?

[PhasmatisApparatus]

What world did I wake up in where Charlotte's Web is considered "great literature"?

Re:What?

[Locke2005]

I think a 3 word quote would make a much more concise review: "That's some pig!"

Re:What?

[pizza_milkshake]

You may like fwfr.com

Re:What?

[jte]

Perhaps because E.B. White is one of the best American writers of the 20th century. There's a reason Charlotte's Web and Stuart Little are still widely read after 50 years - he makes it look easy.

"I eat sausage every morning"

[Anonymous Coward]

you sure do!
madam, you have a reputation for being excellent at "sausage eating"

Good pick

[oldhack]

Another story by samzenpus, for idle section as usual.

But I actually RTFA this time, and was quite amused. Good pick, samzenpus.

I find it reassuring that some hate the classics.

[bareman]

Poorly articulated angry tirades aside, it's good to see that some vestige of varied opinions might remain despite our overly homogenized wal-mart, mcdonalds, abercrombie & fitch society.

I learned a lesson a while back that just because millions of people like something, it's not necessarily good. "I know what you did last summer" was a horrible awful film and yet millions loved it.

I also find it more valuable to look at the reviews from people who hated a product I'm considering buying to see if their reasons for hating it might be a reason I might not like it.

This is what people exist for

[Deisatru]

For some people, hating and bashing things be they foods, books, music etc.. that others like is all they live for. Their own self-loathing is expressed in hating everything others cherish. Its a fact of life. Drawing attention to these people goads them on. Ignoring them may or may not make them go away.

Re:This is what people exist for

[Anonymous Coward]

Either that, or your novel just wasn't very good, and you should learn to take criticism better.

Judging Art Is A Fool's Game

[SplicerNYC]

Especially when an emotional response is evoked. The fact is that the person viewing/hearing/perceiving the art is as important as the art itself. If a person can hear Mozart and think it's beautiful and another person hears the same thing and thinks it's ugly -- who is right? How can they both be right? But they are.

Re:Judging Art Is A Fool's Game

[johncadengo]

But that's not our goal at all. You're looking at one tiny aspect, and without detail, of judging art.

There are plenty of criteria for judging art. You can examine, for example: skill and technique, fulfillment of author's intent, uniqueness, meaning, and beauty.

And indeed, beauty is subjective. But there are things to look for: shapes, pattern, and symmetry in art; alliteration, repetition, and metaphor in poetry; plot, fluidity, and symbolism in novels, and so on.

These things you look for when talking about beauty in a review are the things common to most works which are found beautiful by the vast majority of people. The point of a review on Amazon is not that you're reviewing things to tell people your opinion merely for the sake of sharing your opinion, but to give them some idea of how much they would appreciate it for themselves--to see whether they'd be willing to buy this work of art, movie, novel, etc.

Re:Judging Art Is A Fool's Game

[glwtta]

So, if the only worth of art is in the perception of an individual, does that mean that skill and talent are completely irrelevant? Or don't exist at all?

Re:Judging Art Is A Fool's Game

[Tetsujin]

To some extent what you say is true - but if one approaches the problem intelligently, a review can still yield useful information. A lot of reactions will be very common across a large portion of the audience - and certain technical matters of how the piece comes together can be judged at a purely objective level. In the context of a book, these technical matters could include the soundness of the plot (i.e. any glaring plot holes) and how well the characters are presented and developed...

Re:Judging Art Is A Fool's Game

[bhagwad]

You can examine, for example: skill and technique, fulfillment of author's intent, uniqueness, meaning, and beauty.

Citizen Kane fulfills all of these criteria (except for beauty) and it's still a crappy movie.

Re:Judging Art Is A Fool's Game

[Krahar]

The only worth of anything is the worth that someone finds in it. Worth only exists in the combination of a thing and of someone valuing that thing. Skill and talent are worth something because we find worth in them, and you object to them being worthless precisely because you find worth in them. This does nothing to devalue the things that you love. On the contrary, it liberates you to not worry what everyone or anyone else writes in a review - what matters is the worth you found in a book, a painting or a warm jacket. They are not providing data on the objective worth of what you love, so you do not have to feel threatened. A lesson the writer of this Amazon reviews story has not taken to heart, clearly.

Re:Judging Art Is A Fool's Game

[donaggie03]

You can examine, for example: skill and technique, fulfillment of author's intent, uniqueness, meaning, and beauty.

Citizen Kane fulfills all of these criteria (except for beauty) and it's still a crappy movie.

. . which is why it is still considered a classic, despite it's crappiness.

Re:Judging Art Is A Fool's Game

[xmundt]

Greetings and Salutations...
        It would be more useful for you to write "...it's still a crappy movie because...." and list a few reasons to support your claim.
        Citizen Kane has been one of my favorite movies for decades for several reasons. First off, there is the artistry of it. Orson Welles had an amazing understanding and control of the parameters of perspective, angle and the use of a mono-chromatic medium. His subtile use of these added a huge amount to the impact of various scenes, without screaming "look at me! I am a special effect!" as is often the case in current movies.
          Then, there are the philosophical themes explored, of how obsession can destroy not only the person in its clutches, but, the people around them, and, often causes the obsessed person to become isolated and alone in the world, as they lose the ability to understand that opposition to a policy or action is not a personal attack.
          With a little work, it is easy to produce a lengthy essay discussing the film and its levels of meaning - Far more than one could post here. Perhaps that is the definition of a "classic" piece of art....that it DOES have level after level of meaning that can be examined...
          Regards
          Dave Mundt

But everyone else is doing it!

[chinakow]

Just because it is a, "classic," doesn't mean I have to like it.

Re:But everyone else is doing it!

[klapaucjusz]

Just because it is a, "classic," doesn't mean I have to like it.

No, but you're expected to understand why it's a classic. Not just say "it's got too many pages".

Re:But everyone else is doing it!

[shutdown -p now]

No, but you're expected to understand why it's a classic.

Something's got to be called that, and eventually all the spots are taken up?

Seriously, "expected" - by whom?

Re:But everyone else is doing it!

[Gilmoure]

Don't forget all those letters and marks all over all of the pages. I think they have some bearing on why it's not liked. But yeah, lots of pages; bad, definitely bad.

Re:But everyone else is doing it!

[yukk]

Just because it is a, "classic," doesn't mean I have to like it.

No, but you're expected to understand why it's a classic. Not just say "it's got too many pages".

tl;dr

Re:I find it reassuring that some hate the classic

[glwtta]

Poorly articulated angry tirades aside, it's good to see that some vestige of varied opinions might remain despite our overly homogenized wal-mart, mcdonalds, abercrombie & fitch society.

I love your optimism, but I'm pretty sure that hating anything that the Ivory Tower Elites try to shove down your throat as "classics" is firmly part of the psyche you describe.

A fucking nasty tree grows in Brooklyn

[Tetsujin]

"A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" by Betty Smith:

        This book is 3 words over and over again: MY LIFE IS BAD.

It's hardly surprising. The tree referenced in the title is Ailanthus altissima - a tree foolishly nicknamed "The Tree of Heaven" (why??) To me, they are known, and always shall be known, as "Accursed Devil Trees". (We have one in the backyard and every now and then more sprout up... We called them "Devil Trees" before we identified them - so imagine our surprise to learn that they're called "Tree of Heaven"...)

So why the hate campaign against the Devil Trees? A couple reasons. First off, they stink. Literally, I mean. They smell bad, especially if you cut them or handle them. Second, they spread like wildfire... Particularly in areas where there's not a lot of established tree growth. One mature or semi-mature devil tree will send out root suckers to start more new devil trees. And once they sprout, they grow quickly. We had one that grew to about ten feet tall in about six months. It doesn't take long for new growth to grow tall and strong. And if you cut them, they only spread themselves more aggressively...

They're basically obnoxious, disgusting, and aggressively invasive. If you look around at the sides of highways and in people's yards and so on, they are very common. Fortunately, this is why we have herbicides.

Re:I find it reassuring that some hate the classic

[Lunix Nutcase]

Except I've talked to many of those same elites in that tower and many of them find many of the classics just as boring as the plebes do.

Charlotte's Web Is A Classic?

[reallocate]

Hmmm...

Re:Charlotte's Web Is A Classic?

[julesh]

I'd say any book people are still reading in significant numbers over 50 years after it was originally published is a classic, so, yes, Charlotte's Web is a classic.

Re:Charlotte's Web Is A Classic?

[Rastl]

I'd say any book people are still reading in significant numbers over 50 years after it was originally published is a classic, so, yes, Charlotte's Web is a classic.

I'd say any book people are still reading in significant numbers over 50 years after it was originally published is:

1. Required reading for a class
2. Currently in release as a motion picture (no comment on the quality of said motion picture)
3. Incorporated into some kind of viral video
4. Actually well written and enjoyable

Pick any one of those options.

Just because it's being read doesn't make it a classic. That's an arbitrary designation by people who's livelihoods depend on being able to do things like put out lists of classic books. Personally a number of the "best authors evar" don't do anything for me and I won't voluntarily read anything from them. There are authors who were their contemporaries but never made the classic hurdle that I read frequently.

Re:Charlotte's Web Is A Classic?

[darkwing_bmf]

Coincidentally, I just gave this book as a birthday present to a 9 year old. She said she likes it so far (chapter 5).

Re:Charlotte's Web Is A Classic?

[reallocate]

Popularity over many years is a good criterion, but not, I think, the only one. For example, most of Agatha Christie's mysteries are more than 50 years old. While many of them are considered classics of their genre, few would consider them classic literature. Ditto the Holmes stories: Compelling reading for many for a century or more, but neither Conan Doyle or Christie demonstrate the technique or deal with the range of ideas or emotions I'd consider necessary to elevate a novel into "classic" status.

For example, I'd nominate Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's "Half of a Yellow Sun" as a classic, even though lt was first published in 2006.

Re:Charlotte's Web Is A Classic?

[julesh]

Popularity over many years is a good criterion, but not, I think, the only one. For example, most of Agatha Christie's mysteries are more than 50 years old. While many of them are considered classics of their genre, few would consider them classic literature.

I'd say there's a difference between being simply a "classic" and being "classic literature", just as there's a difference today between something being simply a book and being literature. "Literature" (or, rather, "literary fiction") is possibly best thought of as its own genre, albeit one that lacks the easy-to-identify conventions that most other genres have.

5 times? WTF

[Tablizer]

"I was forced to read it at least five times and have found it grueling."

Reviews by somebody who failed the same class four times are probably suspect.

Re:5 times? WTF

[bananaquackmoo]

You underestimate the absolute stupidity of the educational system. You will be forced to read certain books many times, because each teacher can chose whatever book they want, so they often chose the same books. They also expect you to re-learn the book with their interpretations and the details that are important to them, so you can't just recycle what you learned or tell them you already read it, they don't care.

Re:5 times? WTF

[dargaud]

Reviews by somebody who failed the same class four times are probably suspect

In English class I had to study Richard III 3 years in a row, with different teachers. Due to class mixings I was the only one in the school this happened to. Needless to say, I've hated Shakespeare ever since.

Look at the language used by the reviewers.

[greensasquatch]

I noticed this years ago, that If you look at the language used by the reviewers you can see that they are usually done by children and teenagers. The reviews usually happen during school months, and large blocks of them happen within a few days. It seems like teachers are having students review books online as part of a class project. Most of these books are required reading in many schools. The typical "This book was boring" post is common when you force today's kids with zero attention span to read something that doesn't' involved robots or anime.

Re:Look at the language used by the reviewers.

[mdarksbane]

The typical "This book was boring" post is what happens when you *force* people do anything.

Re:Look at the language used by the reviewers.

[Sulphur]

Don't miss the virtual library card "Ex Hubris."

Joe Pesci's Review

[Tablizer]

"To be or not to be? What the hell is that, a room number? Text message? Do I look like a texter too you? Here's my texting device [waves gun]. Or is that some of that, what's it called, Boolean logic? Do I look like a logic professor to you? You want logic? The logical question here is to be dead now or to be dead later."

Great Reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

...It is twice as worse as 1984. To put it bluntly, DON'T READ ANY GEORGE ORWELL. Your just waisting your time.

These are some quality reviews.

Re:Great Reviews

[Gilmoure]

It's 3968?!!!

You Can't Please Everyone

[Jess (geek-chick)]

Cynical-C has done a few of these, where he posts one star reviews of commonly accepted "greats". His list includes not only books, but also movies like Jaws, and albums like Revolver. Amusing stuff.

Re:I find it reassuring that some hate the classic

[Anonymous Coward]

I second that opinion. Just because the rest of the world is going one way, does not mean you have to also. Some people say they enjoy the classics because it seems like the cultured thing to do. They don't want to appear boorish in front of their pretentious hipster friends. Pretty soon everyone is saying a book is a 'classic' just because they don't want to be the one person who is not enlightened enough to enjoy it. Somebody has to say the Emperor has no clothes.

Take Infinite Jest, and Catcher in the Rye. How can anyone who actually read these books say they are a 'classic'. Sure maybe 50 years ago with Catcher. But what is the excuse for Infinite Jest. And remember most of the critics gave bad review to Moby Dick in it's day. (go figure).

So read what you like, and review accordingly.

Best example: Catcher In The Rye

[Hurricane78]

A book that everyone calls a great classic book. But that actually is a really crappy depressive shit of a book. Just because everyone says it’s s great, everyone else parrots it on.

Sometimes, that old perception is just wrong.

Re:Best example: Catcher In The Rye

[dwarfsoft]

When I was forced to read that book in English I thought that it was the worst thing ever.... Then they introduced me to Sylvia Plath. Only then did I laud the absolute genius of The Catcher in the Rye. Simply put: ANYTHING is better than Sylvia Plath. </obvious bias>

Re:Best example: Catcher In The Rye

[penguinchris]

Catcher in the Rye is a classic because most people read it as a teenager and can identify with the main character. It becomes a highly personal and emotional (yes, depressing) book. Most people who read it in their 20's or later probably won't get it, and simply take it at face value (not that it is as valueless as you seem to think).

I only read it once, at 13 or 14, and I thought it was great and loved Holden Caulfield's sentiments against the phonies and the system and all that... because at that age that's exactly how I felt about the world too. Most people go through a phase like that as a teenager, and most people read the book as a teenager, so it works out.

Re:I find it reassuring that some hate the classic

[Volante3192]

And remember most of the critics gave bad review to Moby Dick in it's day. (go figure).

Bah, Moby Dick deserved it.

Although in it's defense, if I'm ever stuck on a whaling ship I sure as shit will know how to skin and de-blubber a whale.

Really, nobody's said it?

[BumpyCarrot]

Your mom eats sausage every morning!

There have always been idiots

[catchblue22]

Idiots will never go away. There have always been people with all the intellectual and spiritual inner life of a blueberry muffin. The difference is that today, these people have "self-esteem", and a platform to shout their ill-considered ramblings to the world.

Robocop

[Culture20]

I agree with it.

I'll buy that for a dollar!

Re:I find it reassuring that some hate the classic

[Gilmoure]

I don't like anything if it's popular. So there!

Re:LOTR & Moses

[xmundt]

Greetings and Salutations....
          There is a difference between following the shortest path between two points and, essentially, being sent to "Time out" for being complaining and rebellious. My understanding of the texts is that the people of Israel were grumpy and undisciplined after being freed from slavery under the Egyptians, so, this 40 year walk was a learning experience and a way to build a cohesive community.
          Regards
          dave mundt

Grapes of Wraith?!?

[Locke2005]

I thought wraiths, being spirits of the departed, no longer ate grapes... WTF?!?

Example:

[pizza_milkshake]

You can't please all the people all the time.

Charlotte's Web...

[Chris Parrinello]

would have been a shorter book if the web said "Eat Pig".

Yeah, but what about the good reviews?

[Kitkoan]

Like this review of The Secret?

Oh, you've only wrote about half the "excitement"

[NotSoHeavyD3]

You know, the first half of the procedure as the glass goes in. You have to wait a day or 2 for the second half.

Well that's not much of a standard.

[NotSoHeavyD3]

I mean you can always point out no matter how terrible the book is you can always rip out a few pages and use them to start a fire.

Dorothy Parker on Winnie the Pooh

[Quenyar]

Dorothy Parker had a column in the New Yorker called "The Constant Reader" in which she provided short reviews of many titles. When "The House at Pooh Corner" by A.A. Milne appeared in 1928, her review was especially terse and priceless: "Tonstant Weader Fwowed Up!"

That's true of Hemmingway

[NotSoHeavyD3]

I read Old man and the Sea and all I could think was Hemmingway got contracted for a novel of at least 100 pages so he took a 20 page short story he wrote one day when he wasn't drunk and padded it out alot by repeating writing "Gee, the sea looked nice today." Either that or he wanted to get across that fishing is boring and nothing happens most of the time by writing a book that was boring and nothing happened most of the time. (Seriously though, I can't believe that thing won a Nobel prize. oh well "De gustibus non est disputandum")

How about these classics with no 1 star reviews

[shoor]

I'm a little late getting into this thread so probably nobody will read this. But, I decided to try and think of some classics that wouldn't have negative reviews. First that came to mind was "Vanity Fair" by Thackeray. There are so many editions that after going through 2 pages of editions looking for 1 star reviews, I quit. Thackeray, like Dickens wrote for magazines that paid by the word. So in the magazine form he was very wordy. But unlike Dickens, when the book form came out, he would edit out some of the wordiness. I don't think it's a perfect book, but find it hard to believe anybody seriously would give it only 1 star, and maybe nobody did. Next I thought of Thomas Hardy. Sour enough to get some flack from his Victorian/Edwardian contemporaries and maybe more suited to modern tastes. "Jude The Obscure" got some 1 star reviews as being too depressing. But the first 3 editions on Amazon's list for "Far From The Madding Crowd" did not turn up any 1 stars.

Describing the work(s)

[Anonymous Coward]

There are several adjectives ascribed to literature being discussed in this thread which may or may not overlap... Classic, Great, Famous and Popular among them. A work described as one of these does not preclude that work from an other of those decriptions. Nor should one assume inclusion of one type due to the use of another.

It's the passage of time and the scholarly concensus that prove these modifiers... The Illiad might be considered as a great and famous work of classic literature which is popular among historians and students of culture, where Anne Frank's The Diary of a Young Girl is a great work which has become popular and famous but is not classic in a literary sense.

If you like the work, good for you. Your opinion does not make it any less classic, great or famous. Your opinion may, possibly, define its popularity.

An example

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

Case in point: your comment is just a 5, insightful comment on Slashdot, but the last line made me cry, because I heard the terrified 13-years-old girl.

Re:Great Reviews [1984]

[Tablizer]

1984 has a horrible chapter that rambles on about atomic weapons in a way almost completely unrelated to the main story. It's as if

<begin Orwell's drugs>.......<end Orwell's drugs>

A negative review of Orwell

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I noticed a negative review of Orwell's 1984. Clearly this is a governmental conspiracy to sink this book and enslave us. It's part of their fiendish plan:

1) Post negative reviews of 1984 on popular sites
2) ???
3) World domination!

Re:Oh, you've only wrote about half the "excitemen

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I'm not sure that your life would last a day or two after such a procedure.

Re:I find it reassuring that some hate the classic

[JimFive]

Bah, Moby Dick deserved it.

I agree. Although if you take out all of the chapters about whaling, and all of the chapters about whale anatomy, and all the chapters about the history of whaling, and the travelogues--you get a nice short story about an insane sea-captain chasing death.

My copy of Moby Dick has some of the reviews printed at the end and my favorite says something like: "Melville wants to show the world the extent of his talent, and he does so."
--
JimFive