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

[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

[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.

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!"

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?

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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: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: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: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.

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: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.