NationStates Jolt Archive

Anything by Charles Darwin.

Verbose.:rolleyes:

i didnt know darwin wrote novels.

The Art of Questioning by Dennis Palmer Wolf (http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/workshops/artofquestioning.html)Ah, I liked this article. The examples of questions in it were fine.

Ah, I liked this article. The examples of questions in it were fine.

It really is quite true too...good questions lead to insight...poor questions lead to bored students

Vanity Fair.

I could never find where I'd finished reading because the entire story seemed identical. And every now and again there'd be long rambling rants about how servants were people too.

Moby Dick is one of the most boring books I've ever read.
Ever read David Copperfield?

Ever read David Copperfield?

I've read an abridged version, which was actually a good read. It has a great story, it's just as digestible as hot bricks. And I never got past page 19 of the full version.

A tale of two cities.


Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities.
Thanks.

As for books having symbolism, I think sometimes the author intends on it and sometimes they don't. And, sometimes readers add a "message" that really just isn't there.

Years ago I wrote a book (not published)...and I had readers finding "meanings" in it that I never intended on--and even inventing some that just weren't there at all. It was very aggravating! And, sometimes when I *did* intend to use symbolism, it was missed. But the invented-meanings phenomenon was much more common.

I think that a lot of famous or "classic" books have no more intended meaning than mine did. I think many writers enjoy building their story's world for its own sake. Like the mountain climber's climbing "because it's there," to an author, writing stories is enjoyable in and of itself.

(Of course, if they're somewhat coerced by a contract that says they have to write X books/year, then there may be an obvious "I wrote this because I HAD TO" suckage permeating the result...)

Or must literature be an escape from reality?It's preferred. Same with movies and all other entertainment.

If I want to see mundane RL, that's what "outside" is for!

Fergi America;13436781']Thanks.

As for books having symbolism, I think sometimes the author intends on it and sometimes they don't. And, sometimes readers add a "message" that really just isn't there.

Years ago I wrote a book (not published)...and I had readers finding "meanings" in it that I never intended on--and even inventing some that just weren't there at all. It was very aggravating! And, sometimes when I *did* intend to use symbolism, it was missed. But the invented-meanings phenomenon was much more common.were their interpretations entirely not supported by the text, or were they just unintended interpretations? The text will usually have things the author didn't intend

It's preferred! Same with movies and all other entertainment.

If I want to see RL, that's what "outside" is for!
It doesn't have to be a dichotomy between "entertainment" and "real life". There is more to literature (and good movies, etc) than just their diversion value.

Fergi America;13436781']It's preferred. Same with movies and all other entertainment.

If I want to see mundane RL, that's what "outside" is for!Literature and movies can be an escape from your reality into a different reality.

Or must literature be an escape from reality?

Depends on how you spin it, really.

I don't mind "realistic" literature; literature that deals with believable plots, characters who act normally, logical consequences to actions, and imperfect resolutions. I also don't mind fantasy, science fiction, etc., if they stay "true to humanity" (provided humanity is the race in question). Finally, I don't mind completely escapist and unrealistic literature, as long as it doesn't intend itself to be taken seriously. (Escapist literature attempting to pass itself off as contemplation material is right out.)

I note here that "realistic" doesn't necessarily refer to "needlessly pessimistic and downbeat", contrary to the opinions of some writers. It also doesn't refer to "realistic" stock characters such as the drug-addicted parent/child, child with terminal illness, mentally disturbed war veteran, inner-city pauper, et cetera. A lot of these are not really all that common in real life, and those that are common have plenty of books about them already. And writers do not achieve greater realism by talking about the sex lives of their characters, adding needless detail about their favorite colours or foods, or sprinkling the dialogue with gratuitous swear words.

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens.

Long, boring, and ultimately pointless. It had no redeeming literary qualities whatsoever, and made consider murdering the main character on multiple occasions.

Well, Great Exoectations was boring up to the Genesis device and Robot Monkeys anyways... :D



My personal most hated was Of Mice And Men, it was terrible...

I wasnt too fond of Catcher in the Rye until my friend kinda explain a little of Holden Caulfield's psyche to me

The Scarlet Letter. Ugh.

I've read an abridged version, which was actually a good read. It has a great story, it's just as digestible as hot bricks. And I never got past page 19 of the full version.
The abridged version would be better because there wouldn't be 50 pages of single character description.

The Catcher in the Rye

I finally found it: Booklist's January 2000 Back Page, "Classics We Hate."

Call of the Wild, by Jack London

When my father tried to share this beloved classic from his childhood, my sister and I temporarily revoked his read-aloud privileges. The book bored us; it upset us; we felt our dad's taste would forever-after be suspect. Years later, I asked my Czech high-school class to name their favorite book. Their answer? Call of the Wild. Dad's still gloating. --Gillian Engberg

Cry, the Beloved Country, by Alan Paton

Yes, I know it's the book that first introduced millions of Western readers to what South African racism was like, but if you reread it today, it sounds patronizing and sentimental. --Hazel Rochman

Howl and Other Poems, by Allen Ginsberg

As Paul Goodman said when Ginsberg's claim to fame was new, it's not a howl, Allen, it's a gripe. Just a whine, I'd say, and the other poems are no improvement--alright, the one about Walt Whitman in the supermarket is tolerable. --Ray Olson

Mansfield Paris, by Jane Austen

Dear Jane: I'm a huge fan and, thanks to a graduate-school Austen seminar, have read every scrap you ever wrote. But what's up with Mansfield Park? I've tried several times to force-feed myself the book, but I just can't get around that bore Fanny Price. In the future, please stick with less-insipid heroines, like Emma. Sincerely, Mary Ellen Quinn. P.S.: Loved the movie version.

The Marble Faun, by Nathaniel Hawthorne

Hawthorne's last novel begins well--Miriam's dark past and the vivacious human faun, Donatello, instantly grab your attention--but once the trouble starts brewing, the ending is a long, long way off. And the result? Surprise! Everyone is possessed of both good and evil. --Michelle Kaske

The Old Man and the Sea, by Ernest Hemingway

My seventh-grade son, assigned to read this interminable "short" novel, was right when he said the most exciting moment in the story was when the old man peed off the side of the boat. It's so nice to see that language-arts teachers are in cahoots with video-game producers to make reading the least entertaining option for a kid's leisuretime activity. --Joanne Wilkinson

Pilgrim's Progress, by John Bunyon

Perhaps fondness for this hallowed seventeenth-century English allegory grows out of reading it within a Christian context, but for a Jew who found that she had to read it as a key to a bizillion literary allusions in works she truly loved, it came across as tedious, preachy, and smug. But, then again, I may just dislike allegories in general. --Donna Seaman

Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse

Looking back at the 1960s, it's hard to say whether we had worse taste in clothes or books. For my money, though, Hesse's terminally sappy pseudospiritual babblings don't wear nearly as well as a nice sweatshirt made from the American flag (matching bell bottoms optional). --Bill Ott

Silas Marner, by George Eliot

This tired old thing is still assigned in high school when what you really want to be reading about is sex and rock `n' roll. --Brad Hooper

Ulysses, by James Joyce

As we greet a bright new millennium, I will finally stop pretending that I've read Ulysses. I've tried, I've failed, and I'm familiar enough with the book to answer a Jeopardy question about it. I think that's sufficient, don't you? --Ilene Cooper

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum

As a children's book person, I'm sure I'm committing heresy here, but my least favorite classic is The Wizard of Oz. Having grown up in Kansas, I've never been able to see anything remotely appealing about tornadoes--or, for that matter, flying monkeys, talking apple trees, or witches, wicked or otherwise. --Stephanie Zvirin

Several of these have been mentioned. It would seem that the haters have the backing of literary people now.

I finally found it: Booklist's January 2000 Back Page, "Classics We Hate."

Silas Marner, by George Eliot

This tired old thing is still assigned in high school when what you really want to be reading about is sex and rock `n' roll. --Brad Hooper

Several of these have been mentioned. It would seem that the haters have the backing of literary people, now.

I feel I should protest at that one. I genuinely liked Silas Marner. It is an utterly fantastic book! The themes of redemption, community and local religion were woven together fantastically. The book, to read a precis, would sound like a typical morality tale, however, IIRC there are some very pointed criticisms of major institution, such as the church. So it is much more complex then first glances would suggest.

I have to admit though I found it very hard going to begin with, and I only finished it because I had to for English Lit. But I am so very happy that I was made to finish it. I've read it since, and it is much better the second time around.

Sorry for the rant. (I don't think it is chest beating to say I am fairly well read), but Silas Marner is one of the few stories I have actually loved.

Die, punk. Neuromancer is fantastic.

The Difference Engine is (IMO) better, but also flawed. They're both wonderful though.

Meh,

I was so happy when I finally got my dirty mits on Neuromancer after having heard so many great things about it.

I found it a bit.... disappointing.

I currently going through the stage of rereading a lot of books that stuck in my memory that I read when I was a teenager. Perhaps I should reread Neuromancer next

Meh,

I was so happy when I finally got my dirty mits on Neuromancer after having heard so many great things about it.

I found it a bit.... disappointing.

I currently going through the stage of rereading a lot of books that stuck in my memory that I read when I was a teenager. Perhaps I should reread Neuromancer next

Da. I don't like all the various parts, but there are some very cool sections in it. That's actually the case with all the Gibson stuff I've read --- it's not perfect overall, but there are some truly wonderful parts.

I finally found it: Booklist's January 2000 Back Page, "Classics We Hate."
Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse

Looking back at the 1960s, it's hard to say whether we had worse taste in clothes or books. For my money, though, Hesse's terminally sappy pseudospiritual babblings don't wear nearly as well as a nice sweatshirt made from the American flag (matching bell bottoms optional). --Bill Ot

Agreed, for the underlined reasons. And I was very quickly at the stage where I just wanted to slam that book down if I'd have to suffer through another instance of " 'Oh, Siddharta!' exclaimed [character]."

The abridged version would be better because there wouldn't be 50 pages of single character description.

Wait, what?

Agreed, for the underlined reasons. And I was very quickly at the stage where I just wanted to slam that book down if I'd have to suffer through another instance of " 'Oh, Siddharta!' exclaimed [character]."

I never read Siddharta. I did read Damien and Steppenwolf. The spiritual angst, oh Lord the spiritual angst! To this day, I cannot recall plot or theme, just angst.

I do believe Hesse is overrated.

Fergi America;13436781']It's preferred. Same with movies and all other entertainment.

If I want to see mundane RL, that's what "outside" is for!

If there is absolutely NO connection with what we perceive as normal human behavior, motivations, and situations, there would be nothing to form a point of reference for understanding the book. So yes, sometimes sucky things happen to people both in real life and in books -- it doesn't mean that a piece of literature is bad because it mirrors real life. (The style, the structure, well, that's something else again. Bad writing will always be bad.)

People in this thread seem to be confusing the "likability" of a book with its worth.

If you can't understand Middle English, you're not going to like Chaucer. It doesn't mean it sucks ass.

If you're not comfortable with Elizabethan/Jacobean English, you won't like Shakespeare. It doesn't mean that the situations put forth in the plays are not relevant, well-crafted, and enjoyed by millions of people in the world for the past 400 years.

I never read Siddharta. I did read Damien and Steppenwolf. The spiritual angst, oh Lord the spiritual angst! To this day, I cannot recall plot or theme, just angst.

I do believe Hesse is overrated.

...either that, or angst is underrated ;P

Nah, seriously, my Hesse phase was when I was 17i-18, so that might explain one thing or the other. I still recall I've loved both Demian and Steppenwolf to pieces, but Demian was degraded to "nice, but angsty and nowhere near as awesome as I thought" when I re-read it. "Unterm Rad" I still rather like, and "Narziss + Goldmund" is okay, too. Unfortunately, this list exhausts all the Hesse novels I actually have here at home; during my "phase" i had made sure to read every single piece he ever wrote and I think I'll revisit the ones I recall liking once more.

The Awakening by Kate Chopin. Oh my god, what a pile. A wealthy woman wants independence, asks for it, gets it, gets all emo anyway and whines vaguely through it while a heavy handed bird metaphor plays throughout. The ending is the worst fucking part. She watches a sea gull flying around who's wing is suddenly broken by what we can only assume is the invisible metaphor hammer so she decides to commit suicide.

And I didn't ruin the book for you. It did it to itself. The only benefit was it was the book that allowed me to realize I could trash the required reading in a class as long as I did it well. It was very liberating.



AGREED

is "Mein Kampf" considered a "classic"?

because I loathed it

along with The Feminine Mystique
:p

is "Mein Kampf" considered a "classic"?

because I loathed it

along with The Feminine Mystique
:p

A novel (from, Italian novella, Spanish novela, French nouvelle for "new", "news", or "short story of something new") is today a long written, fictional, prose narrative. The seventeenth-century genre conflict between long romances and short novels, novellas, has brought definitions of both traditions into the modern usage of the term.

I don't know whether Mein Kampf is a classic, but neither it nor The Feminine Mystique are novels.

I don't know whether Mein Kampf is a classic, but neither it nor The Feminine Mystique are novels.
I would call Mein Kampf a long piece of fictional, narrative prose :p

I would call Mein Kampf a long piece of fictional, narrative prose :p

:D I don't believe it was INTENDED to be so, however....

I feel I should protest at that one. I genuinely liked Silas Marner. It is an utterly fantastic book! The themes of redemption, community and local religion were woven together fantastically. The book, to read a precis, would sound like a typical morality tale, however, IIRC there are some very pointed criticisms of major institution, such as the church. So it is much more complex then first glances would suggest.

I have to admit though I found it very hard going to begin with, and I only finished it because I had to for English Lit. But I am so very happy that I was made to finish it. I've read it since, and it is much better the second time around.

Sorry for the rant. (I don't think it is chest beating to say I am fairly well read), but Silas Marner is one of the few stories I have actually loved.
No worries; it's nice to hear someone say something positive about one of the books mentioned. I guess the entire point of this thread is the opposite of that, but still...

The Awakening by Kate Chopin. Oh my god, what a pile. A wealthy woman wants independence, asks for it, gets it, gets all emo anyway and whines vaguely through it while a heavy handed bird metaphor plays throughout. The ending is the worst fucking part. She watches a sea gull flying around who's wing is suddenly broken by what we can only assume is the invisible metaphor hammer so she decides to commit suicide.

And I didn't ruin the book for you. It did it to itself. The only benefit was it was the book that allowed me to realize I could trash the required reading in a class as long as I did it well. It was very liberating.

I have to finish reading that. I started a while ago, and ended up with only twenty pages left but never continued.
So far everything you say seems to be true. I guess it's feminist, which is nice, but the protagonist doesn't seem like a real person. Kind of detracts from the message.

Do you think Odysseus would have lived had he been say, Trojan? Or even worse, Persian? Telling a tale to the Greeks about the great strength of one is no different than our tall tales of the "wild west". They instill a sense of national identity and pride, whether that is the explicit or implicit goal of the work.
Odysseus being Greek had nothing to do his being clever, or surviving; the other Greeks in the story are fools, and die. National identity has zero to do with the story. The character is Greek because the author is; most stories written in Poland happen to have Polish characters in them, for the same reason. And why you think Homer would have considered "Persians" as a bad thing is beyond me: Persians weren't on the Greeks' horizons then. I have to wonder if you even read the Odyssey.

What are some so-called "classic" novels that you read and hated? They can be ones you read for a class, for pleasure (or displeasure :p), etc.

One that I wasn't too fond of was The Great Gatsby.

Well, I guess I lucked out as one of the luckily ones because I never had to really read "classic" novels for the most part. Mostly, I saw the movie adaptations of the "classic" novels when it was required.

The only one I read or tried to read that I hated, was A Separate Peace. I also had to watch the film of it. Both the film and the book just bored the living daylights out of me. Was glad when that nightmare was over.

I've also noticed that some people are mentioning Shakespeare. Well therein lies the problem. Shakespeare work's are not novels, but plays and hence they're meant to be performed and not read as a few others have stated. While, some teachers just make their students read it, why I’ll never know, but at least the ones I had who covered Shakespeare were smart enough to realize it was a play and hence showed a film of the work in question. So, my experience with Shakespeare has been mostly positive.

Indeed, Shakespeare's plots are quite good but they are SERIOUSLY outdated. I watched a stage version of The Tempest and didn't understand a single word of it. Same with Macbeth.

Moby Dick....first of all you'd think melville would find a better name for that whale..(Chester the White,or Finnie McDeath...something)secondly he rambles on and on and on over tiny little insignificant details..AAHHG! Loved the movie...Hated the Book.


"To Kill a mockingbird..which gave me no relevent information on HOW to kill a mockingbird...But it did give me an example of how to live without judging other people..but what good does that DO ME????" ---Homer Simpson

Odysseus being Greek had nothing to do his being clever, or surviving; the other Greeks in the story are fools, and die. National identity has zero to do with the story. The character is Greek because the author is; most stories written in Poland happen to have Polish characters in them, for the same reason. And why you think Homer would have considered "Persians" as a bad thing is beyond me: Persians weren't on the Greeks' horizons then. I have to wonder if you even read the Odyssey.
Right...because I don't know Greek history and Persian history, I clearly never read the Odyssey.
Anyway, I didn't say it was explicit; the subtext can be there without the authors intent. National identity has everything to do with Greek literature. Everything, throughout Greek history, was either "Greek" or "Barbarian" (look to Medea for a perfect example).
Yes, Polish authors frequently create Polish characters. And more often than not, these characters reflect the opinion of the author (and, with oral tradition, the opinion of the audience) regarding how a Pole should act. Chekhov wrote Russian characters representing his view of what "Russian" is. Norris portrayed Jews, Mexicans, Poles, Germans, and Irish characters the way he viewed them. Homer, and the story tellers that continued the story untill it was written down, shaped the Greek hero off of what they and their audiences thought the quintessential "Greek" should be. A "barbarian" (as they would have been in the eyes of the Greeks) would never have survived, much as the "bad guy" just doesn't win.
Really, this isn't a novel concept at all.
Indeed, Shakespeare's plots are quite good but they are SERIOUSLY outdated. I watched a stage version of The Tempest and didn't understand a single word of it. Same with Macbeth.It really isn't that far off from modern English...just slight grammatical changes.

Moby Dick....first of all you'd think melville would find a better name for that whale..(Chester the White,or Finnie McDeath...something)secondly he rambles on and on and on over tiny little insignificant details..AAHHG! Loved the movie...Hated the Book.Why should he have named it something else? Considering the huge number of sex jokes and references (giving the queen the "horn of the whale", the white sperm whale erupting out of the water, shattering the ship, the entire Cassock scene which has a man dancing around inside the whales penis...)the title is quite appropriate. And Moby-Dick lies in the mundane chapters...not the action.

Anyway, I didn't say it was explicit; the subtext can be there without the authors intent. National identity has everything to do with Greek literature. Everything, throughout Greek history, was either "Greek" or "Barbarian" (look to Medea for a perfect example).
"Medea" is from a very different period, when the Greeks had just staved off an invasion and were very consciously emphasizing a Greek/Barbarian distinction which is, simply, absent in the Odyssey.
Yes, Polish authors frequently create Polish characters. And more often than not, these characters reflect the opinion of the author (and, with oral tradition, the opinion of the audience) regarding how a Pole should act.
No, it is actually quite rare for the story to have anything to do with how a "Pole" should act, rather than just being about how human beings act. Some of the characters act as humans should act, some as they shouldn't act, but the characters in the story usually happen to be from the same country as the author just because that is the setting the author knows. Apparently, you are treating *every* book as nationalistic, whether that is a theme or not? To my mind, there is a world of difference between a political puff-piece like the "Aeneid" or "Faerie Queen", both of which I can't stand, and stories which happen to be from one country or another, but could equally be from anywhere.
Homer, and the story tellers that continued the story untill it was written down, shaped the Greek hero off of what they and their audiences thought the quintessential "Greek" should be. A "barbarian" (as they would have been in the eyes of the Greeks) would never have survived
No, you're missing the point entirely. The characters who die are no less Greek than Odysseus.

Farenheit 451,

Lord of the Flies,

Pretty much any book the American school system has you read in English.

What are some so-called "classic" novels that you read and hated? They can be ones you read for a class, for pleasure (or displeasure :p), etc.

One that I wasn't too fond of was The Great Gatsby.

wuthering heights and the great gatsby were horrible. i was in grade school when i read them, but have no intention of rereading them now that i am older.

anything by hemmingway... especially the old man and the sea; his dumbed down writing style should never have been used as a grammatical standard.

(of course, i should be talking with no capitalization...)

Well, I guess I lucked out as one of the luckily ones because I never had to really read "classic" novels for the most part. Mostly, I saw the movie adaptations of the "classic" novels when it was required.

The only one I read or tried to read that I hated, was A Separate Peace. I also had to watch the film of it. Both the film and the book just bored the living daylights out of me. Was glad when that nightmare was over.

I've also noticed that some people are mentioning Shakespeare. Well therein lies the problem. Shakespeare work's are not novels, but plays and hence they're meant to be performed and not read as a few others have stated. While, some teachers just make their students read it, why I’ll never know, but at least the ones I had who covered Shakespeare were smart enough to realize it was a play and hence showed a film of the work in question. So, my experience with Shakespeare has been mostly positive.

Some of us even have our students perform parts of it.

Some of us even have our students perform parts of it.

It is fun to torture your students;)

While my positive opinion does not belong in this thread, I would like to state that I thoroughly enjoyed King Lear. As well as this (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0087561/) TV/film adaptation. (which, coincidentally, is the only one I watched)

Indeed, Shakespeare's plots are quite good but they are SERIOUSLY outdated. I watched a stage version of The Tempest and didn't understand a single word of it. Same with Macbeth.

Perhaps it's a difficulty with the language. The idea of Macbeth's plot is still pretty relevant -- a person in search of power kills his way to the top, is beset by his conscience, and is finally brought low.

It was done in a modern way here: http://imdb.com/title/tt0265713/ and here http://imdb.com/title/tt0434541/

It is fun to torture your students;)

Funny enough, if you leave them choose the scenes they want to do, leave them to create their own costumes, props, and backgrounds, and leave them to practice... they actually enjoy it, invite their parents and other teachers to come see it, and can't wait to get the digital pictures (which I burn to CD for them).

Every Shakespeare play except Julius Caesar

Every John Steinbeck Novel

The Princess Bride (The movie was better)

Every Shakespeare play except Julius Caesar

Every John Steinbeck Novel

The Princess Bride (The movie was better)

You hated The Princess Bride? :(

I LOVE The Princess Bride. Both the book and the movie.

Every Shakespeare play except Julius Caesar

Every John Steinbeck Novel

The Princess Bride (The movie was better)

The only Shakespeare play I can stand is the Comedy of Errors, despite all the jokes being out of date by a few centuries. The Tempest isn't terrible either.

"Medea" is from a very different period, when the Greeks had just staved off an invasion and were very consciously emphasizing a Greek/Barbarian distinction which is, simply, absent in the Odyssey.Yes, it was a different time period. Ancient Greeks, however, were never exactly an "accepting" bunch.

No, it is actually quite rare for the story to have anything to do with how a "Pole" should act, rather than just being about how human beings act. Some of the characters act as humans should act, some as they shouldn't act, but the characters in the story usually happen to be from the same country as the author just because that is the setting the author knows. Apparently, you are treating *every* book as nationalistic, whether that is a theme or not? To my mind, there is a world of difference between a political puff-piece like the "Aeneid" or "Faerie Queen", both of which I can't stand, and stories which happen to be from one country or another, but could equally be from anywhere.You're taking what I'm saying to mean that I claim the author explicitly and consciously chooses to shape their characters to be the "Pole" or "Greek" or "Russian". What I mean is that it is inevitable. Authors are a product of their specific culture and society. The characters of Achebe's Things Fall Apart could not be Poles. They are shaped by that culture. This does not mean that the story can't be universal to humans in general, but that the characters are shaped by the authors opinions of them (this spans beyond nationality). The story itself can be from everywhere. That isn't what I'm talking about, exactly. The "Journey" archetype is well established. What I am talking about is the specific text of the Illiad/Odyssey, texts that celebrate the victory of the Greeks and the subsequent return of the hero. A Greek story (read: the specific text) for a Greek audience. The story itself is a universal: a German and a Nigerian can get the same message because it is an archetype.
Essentially, my argument is that just because the story is a universal one does not mean the story isn't, at some level, propaganda. The fact remains that Odysseus is an example of a great Greek. It's no different than the tale of Davy Crockett or George Washington: Sure, many died under them, but they were different (yes, I know, Davy died). They were brave. They were honorable. They were essentially living legends. Odysseus is that. It doesn't matter than his men died, as that isn't what a legend is about. It only matters that he was great and witty and cunning and lives.
This is all a bit more complex than I wish, and I appologise...I have a bit swarming my head right now (as in the past few days) and can't quite place the exact words that I need.

No, you're missing the point entirely. The characters who die are no less Greek than Odysseus.No less Greek, but ultimatly irrelevant. We only remember the heros.

What are some so-called "classic" novels that you read and hated? They can be ones you read for a class, for pleasure (or displeasure :p), etc.

One that I wasn't too fond of was The Great Gatsby.
Heart of Darkness. Easily.
Because i was *strongly coerced to* in an English class.

Indeed, Shakespeare's plots are quite good but they are SERIOUSLY outdated. I watched a stage version of The Tempest and didn't understand a single word of it. Same with Macbeth.

I've never really had a problem with Shakespeare. But then, I have a facility for languages, maybe... and Shakespearean English isn't that radical a departure.

Suprisingly; I really like Hamlet. Not a novel, but a classic none the less.

Every John Steinbeck NovelBlasphemy.

You hated The Princess Bride? :(

I LOVE The Princess Bride. Both the book and the movie.

Allow me to add my voice to the general clamour! You didn't like the book?

Suprisingly; I really like Hamlet. Not a novel, but a classic none the less.
Every English teacher I have ever had would be surprised :rolleyes:

Catcher in the Rye is terrible. As is the Lord of the Rings (not really the plot, the actual writing style of Tolkien is so dry it makes my eyes bleed). Anything by Mark Twain is also dire.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/laughing-man.gif

Every John Steinbeck Novel

I agree whole-heartedly

Lord of the Flies though takes the award for worst book. Piggy's death was funny, not tragic.

My band once did a song about the Lord of the Flies

It didn't go over very well:(

I really liked it (the book and the song)

Exploring work is good. "Symbolism" isn't. The author of to kill a mockingbird got angry whenever anyone said there was symbolism in her work. She wrote the book to make money. So did most other authors. To kill a mockingbird is a good enough book without having to make stuff up about it.

I can vaguely remember something about an author who said that his books were overinterpreted and the answer to that was (honestly!) that 'one should not stop interpreting just because the author didn't know what he actually meant'.

You know, I read Romeo and Juliet, and it just kind of reminded me of those crazy obsessive teenage girls who think they love every boy they date.

You know, I read Romeo and Juliet, and it just kind of reminded me of those crazy obsessive teenage girls who think they love every boy they date.


Thats exactly why I hated it. I taught it to my class once and me and the guys in the class just kept ripping on it. The girls didnt like my class for that stretch of a few weeks...;)

Some of us even have our students perform parts of it.

While I liked reading Shakespeare, I would have thoroughly hated to be your pupil. Sorry.

Every English teacher I have ever had would be surprised :rolleyes:
...?

Yes, it was a different time period. Ancient Greeks, however, were never exactly an "accepting" bunch. .
Homer doesn't really make any distinction between his Greek and his non-Greek characters, is my point: Hector is not portrayed as being any less heroic than any of the Greek warriors in the Iliad; in the Odyssey, princess Nausicaa is no less sweet for being non-Greek.
You're taking what I'm saying to mean that I claim the author explicitly and consciously chooses to shape their characters to be the "Pole" or "Greek" or "Russian".
What I was talking about as "propaganda" are, precisely, the cases where the author DOES, explicitly, consciously, blatantly, heavy-handedly, shape the characters in a nationalistic way, like the "Aeneid" and the "Faerie Queene". That is the distinction I was drawing. I would hope you would agree that there is, in fact, a distinction here.