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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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?

[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. :-)

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

[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

[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

[dbet]

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

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.

[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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

What?

[PhasmatisApparatus]

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

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.

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.

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.

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: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: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: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: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?

[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: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: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.