Novels that are supposedly classics that you don’t get

[Robert]

Catch-22. I found it unfunny and the amorality really offputting.

The Catcher in the Rye. It’s supposed to be about Awakening into the adult world. I found it to be about a whiny teenager whining self-piteously.

 

[kingusama92]

The Lord of the Rings.

Pages of tedious descriptions that make your head spin.

 

[sjahmed23]

Waiting for godot

 

[Cricket lover 27]

Moby Dick- Couldn’t even finish it

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Does epic poetry like Homer’s Odyssey count?

 

[pillionrider]

Gabriel Garcia Marquez, some novel whose name I've forgotten because it put me off him thankfully, early on.

Waiting for godot

Waiting for [MENTION=136588]CricketCartoons[/MENTION]

 

[The_Odd_One]

Fahrenheit 451

Novel with the the most obnoxious main character of all time

 

[The_Odd_One]

The Lord of the Rings.

Pages of tedious descriptions that make your head spin.

It is a little slow in the beginning but if you can get past half of the first one, it's non stop action going forward.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Catch-22. I found it unfunny and the amorality really offputting.

The Catcher in the Rye. It’s supposed to be about Awakening into the adult world. I found it to be about a whiny teenager whining self-piteously.

Tale of two cities. "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times" will not even get a qotw on PP, yet anglophiles get litgasm whenever they read it. Dickens is glorified only because he wrote about poor england. English writers are best when they do humour or fantasy..when they write about reality the product is boring substandard fare like dickens..who seem to have an obsession for poor orphans.

 

[Robert]

The Lord of the Rings.

Pages of tedious descriptions that make your head spin.

One thing I love about Tolkien is the glorious power of the prose.

 

[Robert]

Tale of two cities. "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times" will not even get a qotw on PP, yet anglophiles get litgasm whenever they read it. Dickens is glorified only because he wrote about poor england. English writers are best when they do humour or fantasy..when they write about reality the product is boring substandard fare like dickens..who seem to have an obsession for poor orphans.

He had a social conscience. I found it LOL funny in places. It was hard going at times for me, but again has wonderful prose, vivid characters - loved Mr Cruncher the Resurrection Man - and is eminently quotable.

 

[Robert]

Moby Dick- Couldn’t even finish it

I finished it. Hard going.

 

[Chrish]

Tolkien is considered mediocre writer in literary community. It’s laymen like us who have impression of Lord of the Rings as the classic for some reason.

Fantasy as a genre suffers from being labeled as cheap entertainment. Classics are supposed to be intellectually challenging with hidden social/ political commentary.

 

[ManFan]

The Catcher in the Rye.

Terrible writing.

 

[guvi]

the fountainhead... reading it, was like swimming across a sea of goo...

 

[Itachi]

Waiting for godot

With respect to that particular book, if you didn't get it, it means you fully comprehended it.

 

[161]

The Great Gatsby ... WTH is the point of this novel.

I was 12 when I read it ... maybe too young to understand.

 

[Technics 1210]

The Lord of the Rings.

Pages of tedious descriptions that make your head spin.

This.

I would add the Hobbit too.

Too much waffle for more liking.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I dont get why novels spend so much time on descriptions.

To a certain extent its ok.

Beyond that is boring.

 

[barah_admi]

The Great Gatsby ... WTH is the point of this novel.

I was 12 when I read it ... maybe too young to understand.

I was agreeing with some of the stuff I came across here but not The Great Gatsby. It is such a well written analogy of the greed and excess of 1920s America, and the way the powerful and the wealthy use the rest of us as playthings. Gatsby's end is heart breaking and the way his lover and her husband discard everything is just as relevant now as it was back then.

It did take me a while to get through the first few pages but once I did I was hooked. One of my favourite ever reads.

Many have already mentioned some of the books I would also have mentioned (LOTR for example, even though it does get better, Catch-22 which I just found to be ugly, Moby Dick which is difficult yet I came to understand it) but I will mention a novel from a long time ago "The Three Muskateers". Maybe it is the language of the time, or maybe it is the pace at which it seems to be drawn but it was just so dull for me.

 

[shaz619]

There are many works out there which are a reflection of those times and hence the social/political commentary etc but it is ignorant to assume this is a major requirement for a classic novel or something which needs to be intellectually stimulating, it's like criticising The Lord of the Rings movies because it wasn't a documentary - are some of you guys for real ? bloody hell ) go out a bit more, talk to people is my advise

 

[shaz619]

Catch-22. I found it unfunny and the amorality really offputting.

The Catcher in the Rye. It’s supposed to be about Awakening into the adult world. I found it to be about a whiny teenager whining self-piteously.

Have you read DUNE ? what do you think of it

 

[Chrish]

There are many works out there which are a reflection of those times and hence the social/political commentary etc but it is ignorant to assume this is a major requirement for a classic novel or something which needs to be intellectually stimulating, it's like criticising The Lord of the Rings movies because it wasn't a documentary - are some of you guys for real ? bloody hell ) go out a bit more, talk to people is my advise

It’s not my own view.. Rather the view of people who are considered to be part of literary community. There are forums dedicated toward literature. Go and read what they think about Tolkien, Stephen King, JK Rowling etc.

For layman they are among the greatest authors who have ever lived; for experts entire body of their work can be deleted and that wouldn’t matter..

 

[marlonbrowndo]

It’s not my own view.. Rather the view of people who are considered to be part of literary community. There are forums dedicated toward literature. Go and read what they think about Tolkien, Stephen King, JK Rowling etc.

For layman they are among the greatest authors who have ever lived; for experts entire body of their work can be deleted and that wouldn’t matter..

I agree about the likes of JK Rowling etc. Mediocre writers. However I have a soft spot for Stephen king. He might not be a great novelist but I’ve still enjoyed a lot of his work and he is a master of the horror genre

 

[Chrish]

http://www.online-literature.com/fo...rd-of-the-Rings-Perceived-Amongst-Lit-Experts

 

[barah_admi]

I agree about the likes of JK Rowling etc. Mediocre writers. However I have a soft spot for Stephen king. He might not be a great novelist but I’ve still enjoyed a lot of his work and he is a master of the horror genre

I think literature, like any form of entertainment, is highly subjective, which has led us to this thread lol

 

[shaz619]

It’s not my own view.. Rather the view of people who are considered to be part of literary community. There are forums dedicated toward literature. Go and read what they think about Tolkien, Stephen King, JK Rowling etc.

For layman they are among the greatest authors who have ever lived; for experts entire body of their work can be deleted and that wouldn’t matter..

You do find plenty of literary snobs no doubt about it, I've seen them; if you're an aspiring writer I suggest you avoid their expert analysis.

But I rather pay attention to those who have danced with the gladiators then old mucker talking rubbish from his moms basement. You have to respect the likes of Stephen King and their knack for story telling, it is a great skill; those who disagree with its effectiveness are unable to comprehend it. This is why their so called literary master pieces with zero mistakes fail to resonate with the masses, not because they are too clever but because they are just too far up their own behinds mate.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Genuine question.

Why is JK Rowling considered to be a mediocre writer?

Any concrete explanations?

Or is it the case if experts say it so......

I get that literary praise and mass appeal are two separate things.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

You do find plenty of literary snobs no doubt about it, I've seen them; if you're an aspiring writer I suggest you avoid their expert analysis.

But I rather pay attention to those who have danced with the gladiators then old mucker talking rubbish from his moms basement. You have to respect the likes of Stephen King and their knack for story telling, it is a great skill; those who disagree with its effectiveness are unable to comprehend it. This is why their so called literary master pieces with zero mistakes fail to resonate with the masses, not because they are too clever but because they are just too far up their own behinds mate.

Agree.

The ability to tell an interesting story and suck you into their world is the biggest skill of a writer.

Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code was just incredible.

Not sure how it's viewed by the literary world.

 

[DeadBall]

The Lord of the Rings.

Pages of tedious descriptions that make your head spin.

You would love Stephen King then.

 

[161]

Have you read DUNE ? what do you think of it

Fantastic.

Real all six books in one summer.

Best scifi series IMO.

 

[Chrish]

Why is JK Rowling considered to be a mediocre writer?

Her prose/ style is considered to be very restricted. To an extent, what counts as good prose is subjective, although a consensus can usually be reached. Her writing suffers from overuse of adverbs (""never met an adverb she didn't like"). Her vocabulary is thought of as limited. Her reputation is that of impressive story-teller but inadequate writer. Sort of like an average writer who had stumbled upon an amazing idea.

As for world building itself, it seems interesting on surface but if you dig deeper, some of the things don't add up.

"For example, why would the magical world hide from muggles and how did the wizards manage to convince all other magical creatures to do that? How did every magical culture come up with idea at once? Surely there are some cultures where magic wasn't hidden. How would they even begin to do that? "

The whole muggle-wizard interaction aspect of the story was very poorly done and this is one example.

Below is the article from Harold Bloom on this subject. He is the foremost American literary critic. His views quite resonate with bibliophiles/ scholars/ professors.

http://archive.boston.com/news/glob...les/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers/

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Her prose/ style is considered to be very restricted. To an extent, what counts as good prose is subjective, although a consensus can usually be reached. Her writing suffers from overuse of adverbs (""never met an adverb she didn't like"). Her vocabulary is thought of as limited. Her reputation is that of impressive story-teller but inadequate writer. Sort of like an average writer who had stumbled upon an amazing idea.

As for world building itself, it seems interesting on surface but if you dig deeper, some of the things don't add up.

"For example, why would the magical world hide from muggles and how did the wizards manage to convince all other magical creatures to do that? How did every magical culture come up with idea at once? Surely there are some cultures where magic wasn't hidden. How would they even begin to do that? "

The whole muggle-wizard interaction aspect of the story was very poorly done and this is one example.

Below is the article from Harold Bloom on this subject. He is the foremost American literary critic. His views quite resonate with bibliophiles/ scholars/ professors.

http://archive.boston.com/news/glob...les/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers/

Thanks man.

Will check it out.

I don't see the angle of wizards hiding from muggles illogical at all.

As JK Rowling mentions in her third book, what would happen if you see YOURSELF when you go back to the time machine? You can't predict how your current or past self would react. You could attack yourself and in the process destroy your past or present, as had happened to some wizards.

Muggles & wizards were as different as chalk and cheese. They were never meant to coexist and JK Rowling does talk about wizards being persecuted by Muggles and some Muggles being attacked by evil wizards.

The decision of wizards to hide from Muggles makes perfect sense really for 2 reasons:

1. It's easier for wizards to hide themselves as opposed to the other way around.

2. Allowing wizards to showcase magic in front of Muggles can lead to unfavourable incidents for both communities. So it ain't worth the trouble. So the wizarding community decided to hide themselves and made laws punishing those who disobey it.

Also, what do you mean by magical culture?

You mean wizards, elfs, goblins, etc?

Or different wizarding communities?

JK Rowling never mentioned ALL of them were convinced about hiding from the muggles at the same time.

It must have happened naturally as the troubles were just not worth it.

 

[Robert]

Genuine question.

Why is JK Rowling considered to be a mediocre writer?

Any concrete explanations?

Or is it the case if experts say it so......

I get that literary praise and mass appeal are two separate things.

Excellent plotter. Had a grand vision and executed it all well from start to finish, unlike say GRRM whose universe has exploded and he doesn’t seem to know how to rein it back in

But derivative and with bland prose. Compare to Tolkien whose prose absolutely dazzles and stirs the soul.

 

[shaz619]

Agree.

The ability to tell an interesting story and suck you into their world is the biggest skill of a writer.

Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code was just incredible.

Not sure how it's viewed by the literary world.

Thanks man.

Will check it out.

I don't see the angle of wizards hiding from muggles illogical at all.

As JK Rowling mentions in her third book, what would happen if you see YOURSELF when you go back to the time machine? You can't predict how your current or past self would react. You could attack yourself and in the process destroy your past or present, as had happened to some wizards.

Muggles & wizards were as different as chalk and cheese. They were never meant to coexist and JK Rowling does talk about wizards being persecuted by Muggles and some Muggles being attacked by evil wizards.

The decision of wizards to hide from Muggles makes perfect sense really for 2 reasons:

1. It's easier for wizards to hide themselves as opposed to the other way around.

2. Allowing wizards to showcase magic in front of Muggles can lead to unfavourable incidents for both communities. So it ain't worth the trouble. So the wizarding community decided to hide themselves and made laws punishing those who disobey it.

Also, what do you mean by magical culture?

You mean wizards, elfs, goblins, etc?

Or different wizarding communities?

JK Rowling never mentioned ALL of them were convinced about hiding from the muggles at the same time.

It must have happened naturally as the troubles were just not worth it.

Totally agree with you mate, I am absolutely losing my mind; these so called great literary minds are criticising the nature of a genre existing to begin with never mind the content; to them a book on social commentary , politics or engineering is the epitome of great fiction Jesus Christ ) Oh god thanks for the laugh.

And going back to the criticisms regarding the technical aspects of writing, assuming these are valid; you can have the most perfectly written sentence but it does absolutely zilch for the reader. You either have it or you don't, most of the people who criticise those writers I find are mostly failures or those who have a very narrow / niche audience when it comes to their own content if it indeed is what we call fiction

 

[barah_admi]

Just had a read through on JK Rowling and I have to agree, too much snobbery in the literary community. he created a very successful, fictitious universe which dragged in millions of children around the world that must account for something. The same can be said for a number of other books which are mass appeal and not exactly considered literary classics.

Stephen King is exceptional in his writings, The Shining, The Stand and a few others are absolute classics in my opinion.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Obviously some people or on this thread need to stop reading children’s books and maybe get into some real literature

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think most of the classic literature I read was when I was at school and you were given it as assignments for English studies. I don't usually do it voluntarily so my knowledge isn't great. The LOTR I never finished, just got bored with it, but I loved the films.

 

[shaz619]

I think most of the classic literature I read was when I was at school and you were given it as assignments for English studies. I don't usually do it voluntarily so my knowledge isn't great. The LOTR I never finished, just got bored with it, but I loved the films.

Same here such as of mice and men, great expectations etc in the UK we are very fortunate in that regard with so many pioneers originating from these shores and often their works are exposed to us from a very early age. Clearly though quite a few hacks in this thread potentially due to poor schooling or a very low IQ can't comprehend the nature / purpose of genre's such as fantasy and horror for example or even be able to tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction topics; this is why they are unable to comprehend the art of story telling and that will also reflect in their questionable choices when it comes to entertainment in general.

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

Is Fountainhead considered a novel ? Such an overrated book

 

[Obaidd]

I found To Kill a Mockingbird boring, even childish. Couldn’t even finish it although I make it a point to finish what I start.

 

[Robert]

I think most of the classic literature I read was when I was at school and you were given it as assignments for English studies. I don't usually do it voluntarily so my knowledge isn't great. The LOTR I never finished, just got bored with it, but I loved the films.

The films did a few things better than the book - the Balrog for instance - but the big spider in the book was much, much scarier. Also the book’s ending was more satisfying with a de-powered Saruman taking over the Shire and the very last stroke of the war falling at the door of Bag End. Tolkien brought it all in a big circle.

 

[Robert]

I found To Kill a Mockingbird boring, even childish. Couldn’t even finish it although I make it a point to finish what I start.

It was told from a child’s point of view.

My word, I thought it was pretty much the perfect novel. A story of childhood starting to learn of the adult world, and a gripping courtroom drama.

 

[Obaidd]

It was told from a child’s point of view.

My word, I thought it was pretty much the perfect novel. A story of childhood starting to learn of the adult world, and a gripping courtroom drama.

I guess that was the purpose of this thread. Perhaps I was too old to read it; I tried reading it in my twenties.

You’ve mentioned The Catcher in The Rye in OP. I think people, including myself, like it for the way it’s narrated by the protagonist. “It killed me. It really did.”

 

[TM Riddle]

The Lord of the Rings.

Pages of tedious descriptions that make your head spin.

Take that back. NOW!

 

[Nikhil_cric]

The likes of Tolkien and Rowling were fantasy writers who created worlds that captivated millions of young readers. They may be overrated to an extent but they were extremely influential in that genre .Frodo and Harry are pretty much household names.

Not a Dickens fan at all though. Copperfield, Great Expectations, Oliver twist - It all gets blurry and quite pointless.

 

[James]

Anything by Tolkien, just dreadful.

 

[Robert]

The likes of Tolkien and Rowling were fantasy writers who created worlds that captivated millions of young readers. They may be overrated to an extent but they were extremely influential in that genre .Frodo and Harry are pretty much household names.

Not a Dickens fan at all though. Copperfield, Great Expectations, Oliver twist - It all gets blurry and quite pointless.

Not just young readers. Christopher Lee said he re-read the trilogy ever year. I couldn’t do that because I read the print off the thing decades back but I can see how people still get lost in it and I find myself exploring the Tolkien Gateway site for the ancient tales of the legendarium.

Old JRR set out to write a myth for the English. The Welsh have their Mabinogion, the Saxons their Siegfried, and the Celts who occupied what came to be England their Morrigan and Cernunnos and Wild Hunt, but the English had nothing until the monks came with the foreign religion called Christianity.