# Books you didn't "get".



## kenewbie (Dec 31, 2006)

So, the idea is to list famous and praised books that you have read but never understood what all the hype was about.

Maybe we can get some discussions going when someone list someone elses favorite book.


My nominees are:

*Salman Rushdie - The Satanic Verses
*I read this after the big controversy where it was banned in muslim countries. I never understood why it was banned, and I never quite got why it was so acclaimed among critics. It is not the worst book I have ever read (Clive Cussler's Atlantis Found reigns supreme in that respect) but i got nothing from reading it. The fact that fatwas has been issued, ten people have been killed and many hundred wounded over this book baffles me.

*Fyodor Dostoevsky - The Idiot
*One of the books you "have" to read, I just dont know why. I found it slow and contentless. Maybe there are things in the russian culture that doesn't translate well to others, but then I dont see why critics are so favorable elsewhere. The protagonist, if you can even call him that, is mostly passive throughout the book. Aspiring writers are often warned about that today, make the characters drive the story - not the other way around. Maybe this book is why.

*Franz Kafka - The Trial
*400 pages about nothing. People always claim that by removing all the specifics you are left with the timeless issues of man vs himself, but I found very little of it in the book. The specifics was indeed removed, but I found no more insight into the characters psyche because of it. Rather the oposite, I felt that never knowing what was happening made it _harder_ to understand the main character. "Kafkaesque" works in small doses in various situations, an entire novel is too much.


----------



## riversource (Jan 3, 2007)

Unfortunately i can't comment on those, having yet to read any of them, though at least i don't have to feel bad about it now! For me, i'm going to have to say;

1984
    I read it expecting to be amazed. It was boring. I'm not saying that i didn't understand it but i can't see whateveryone gets soooooooo excited about! I found it impossible to identify with any of the protagonists and it became one of those reads where you finish it to have reached the end, not to find out what happens next. Uggh.


----------



## Peejaydee (Jan 3, 2007)

I have to say I did 'get' Orwell's 1984, albeit I was quite young at the time and I would probably get a much different message from it now (political awareness, family now, etc...).

The one I never ever 'got', and have read it twice just to check I wasn't a complete twit, was Catch 22 by Joseph Heller.  One of the most bizarre and unfunny 'comic' reads I have ever had the misfortune to pick up.


----------



## huntingtonb (Jan 3, 2007)

I didn't really get the mass appeal of Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles (interview -w-the Vampire, The Vampire Lestat, etc.). I was very excited about the premise of the books because the subject matter sounded intriguing. I just found the books to be devoid of emotion to the point where I got bored. Perhaps it was the author's intention in order to convey the coldness of the vampire's existence, I dunno. I also thought they dragged on and went into way to much detail about dry stuff.
  Can someone who loves these books help me understand why they are so incredibly popular? I just got back from New Orleans and am thinking maybe I'll read one of the books now that I'm older and see if I feel differently.


----------



## riversource (Jan 5, 2007)

Peejaydee said:
			
		

> The one I never ever 'got', and have read it twice just to check I wasn't a complete twit, was Catch 22 by Joseph Heller. One of the most bizarre and unfunny 'comic' reads I have ever had the misfortune to pick up.


 
How can you not find Catch-22 to be absolutely fantastic! I'll admit to having to read it a couple of times before i could keep track of all the Majors but, in my humble opinion, it's a brilliant book!!


----------



## Anarkos (Jan 5, 2007)

huntingtonb said:
			
		

> I didn't really get the mass appeal of Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles (interview -w-the Vampire, The Vampire Lestat, etc.). I was very excited about the premise of the books because the subject matter sounded intriguing. I just found the books to be devoid of emotion to the point where I got bored. Perhaps it was the author's intention in order to convey the coldness of the vampire's existence, I dunno. I also thought they dragged on and went into way to much detail about dry stuff.
> Can someone who loves these books help me understand why they are so incredibly popular? I just got back from New Orleans and am thinking maybe I'll read one of the books now that I'm older and see if I feel differently.



Because people are stupid.


----------



## strangedaze (Jan 5, 2007)

bahahaha.

i LOVED both the satanic verses AND the trial. you were confused by the trial? satanic verses is pretty tough to wade through, but i thought the trial wasnt really dense. just fucked and weird.


----------



## lisajane (Jan 5, 2007)

There's not many books that I remember that I just didn't 'get', there were more books that I understood but bored me (ie, Pride and Prejudice; Great Expectations; Animal Farm). There are books that I tried to read as a child, and while at the time I didn't 'get' them, I'm trying them again with the knowledge and understanding I've gained as an adult (ie, now re-reading Anna Karenina).


----------



## wmd (Jan 5, 2007)

riversource said:
			
		

> How can you not find Catch-22 to be absolutely fantastic!


 
because different people have different taste


----------



## kenewbie (Jan 6, 2007)

strangedaze said:
			
		

> bahahaha.
> 
> i LOVED both the satanic verses AND the trial. you were confused by the trial? satanic verses is pretty tough to wade through, but i thought the trial wasnt really dense. just fucked and weird.


I understood the trial on an intellectual (dear god, please let me spell that word correctly now and forever and ever, amen) level so to speak. I realize what he was doing (probably because you cannot avoid having heard about the book in advance) but I didn't get why everyone made such a big deal about it.

Once I realized I was never going to get any real information about what was going on, I got really bored and just made myself finish the book as soon as possible so I could read something else. I know the absence of information was the entire point of the book, but why everyone likes it is still a mystery to me.

Satanic verses however I really didnt get on any level. I dont understand what all the controversy was about. He writes good, thats all I ever got from it 

k


----------



## red lantern (Jan 6, 2007)

As others have said everyone's tastes are different but I never got Wuthering Heights. Pehaps because it was forced upon me at school. I don't which was worse the movie or the book. I don't know who suffered more poor Heathcliff or the women in his life.


----------



## Peejaydee (Jan 7, 2007)

I suppose it was the fact that I'd heard so much about Cathc 22 being one of the most satirical novels ever written, ete, etc, that made me so disappointed by it.  I actually found it bizarre and more like a protest novel than anything funny.  Now that I'm older, I look back and I know that is, and was meant to be, all of those things.


----------



## Garden of Kadesh (Jan 11, 2007)

Dune, by...Frank Herbert? Something like that. 

I didn't really give it much of a chance though.


----------



## kenbob (Jan 16, 2007)

Garden of Kadesh said:
			
		

> Dune, by...Frank Herbert? Something like that.
> 
> I didn't really give it much of a chance though.


 
you have GOT to re-read Dune! an absolute scifi classic! the style of writing and the huge scope of the novel tower above azimov and clarke. (in my opinion)


----------



## playstation60 (Jan 16, 2007)

I couldn't make it through Dune.  I got bored.  SO many times.  I would give it shot after shot, and after making it half way and still being entirely bored it has been placed on my bookshelf to spend the rest of eternity.  Same goes for Battlefield Earth.  For a novel with over 1000 pages, you would think that the man could put something interesting in it!


----------



## mswietek (Jan 16, 2007)

One book I did not get, but hope to try again was Donald Barthelme's Snow White.  I really enjoyed The Dead Father, but Snow White was just impenetrable to me.

Michael


----------



## quarterscot (Jan 16, 2007)

This may be a blindingly obvious comment to which everyone responds "Well, duh." But I've just finished reading The Da Vinci Code. And by God, is that not the biggest pile of poo ever? Like being trapped in an elevator for 10 hours while the most boring, pedantic nerd in Christendom lectures at you without pause.


----------



## kenbob (Jan 18, 2007)

quarterscot said:
			
		

> This may be a blindingly obvious comment to which everyone responds "Well, duh." But I've just finished reading The Da Vinci Code. And by God, is that not the biggest pile of poo ever? Like being trapped in an elevator for 10 hours while the most boring, pedantic nerd in Christendom lectures at you without pause.


 
agreed


----------



## mswietek (Jan 18, 2007)

I agree as well.  The problem is that I "get" the book, I just didn't care for it.  If not for the fact that it's portrayal of Christianity is controversial, I doubt we would have sold at all.  The problem is that most people who love the book, don't think I "get" it when they hear my criticism.  Or they think I am just disturbed by its message.

Michael


----------



## Raging_Hopeful (Jan 18, 2007)

> This may be a blindingly obvious comment to which everyone responds "Well, duh." But I've just finished reading The Da Vinci Code. And by God, is that not the biggest pile of poo ever? Like being trapped in an elevator for 10 hours while the most boring, pedantic nerd in Christendom lectures at you without pause.


*laughs hysterically, clutching the ground for dear life*


----------



## kenbob (Jan 19, 2007)

i know were getting slightly off thread here, but i just have to say that another bad thing to come from the davinci code is the copycat novels wanting to cash in on the phenomenon. i recently had the misfortune to read a book called the righteous men, by a chap called sam bourne (this is a pen name, probably chosen for its similarity to dan brown) it follows all the same rules; plot structure, short chapters mystical religious societies etc. It was also bloody awful. in my opinion, this is not creativity, but an exercise in making money. the writer and publishers should be ashamed of themselves. that said, the tons of money from sales should bring them some comfort.

i would like to point out that i did not buy this book! my sister lent me it.


----------



## Tundra Belle (Jan 24, 2007)

Dear Lord, 

Thank you for the circle of literary brilliance in which I find myself, which realizes that Dan Brown sucks as a writer, in spite of the fact that he may have inadvertently stumbled onto a potentially intriguing plot line. Please, Lord, may I never again be forced to read a character who admires their own steely gaze and strong chin in a mirror only two seconds out of a deep sleep.

Amen,


----------



## lisajane (Jan 25, 2007)

I never even read the Da Vinci Code. I refused. I was dragged kicking and screaming to the movie and I didn't get the movie, nor did I want to.

And for once, saying that about a book and a movie, that feels bloody FANTASTIC.


----------



## gotfaith99 (Feb 2, 2007)

I didn't get the ending of _The Lovely Bones_. But it was an excellent book. And also, when I read the first _Artemis Fowl_, I didn't understand it either. But I was younger.


----------



## Kane (Feb 2, 2007)

I never read the Da Vinci code, and never would have watched the movie, but one of my brother's got it for me and my other brother last Christmas, so we were kind of obligated.  It wasn't horrendous, but it wasn't good by any stretch of the imagination.

I just finished American Psycho.  I got it, but I didn't care for it.


----------



## coral (Feb 3, 2007)

I fell asleep in the movie 10 minutes into it, so reading the book did not interest me in the slightest.

Kane: I'm glad you finished American Psyco, so sorry you didn't like it


----------



## Kane (Feb 3, 2007)

It was all right.. just not my cup of tea I 'spose.


----------



## Artlessly Yours (Feb 15, 2007)

I'm surprised no one yet has mentioned Faulkner's "The Sound and The Fury"

Everyone in my AP English course thought it was a wonderful novel and a worthwhile read. 

Not only was I unable to get into it, but I also was bored and very confused at times. Did anyone get this book at all?


----------



## Addison (Feb 16, 2007)

I get Faulkner alright, but I've never understood the appeal of Steinbeck. I've tried _Grapes of Wrath_, _Cannery Row_, and _The Pearl_, but only ever made it through the latter, and that because of its brevity.


----------



## SarahS (Feb 16, 2007)

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (oh, just kidding, never actually read it).  Could never get myself into Wuthering Heights, or A Room With a View.


----------



## Akumu (Feb 16, 2007)

The Trial by Franz Kafka is one of my all-time favorites, and is really easy to "get" in my opinion. First off, it's not really about Man vs. Himself or whatever you call it (I heard this mentioned earlier in the thread), but about Man vs. the system. Or better yet, the lack of man's desire to fight the system even when, quite extremely in Jozef K.'s case, his life depends on it.

Someone said that the "lack of information" in the book was disconcerting for some reason. The only information that lacks are the trivialities such as names and places, descriptions of people or people who look entirely the same (and, mind you, this is specific to some other, if not all works by Kafka) which aren't at all important to understand the plot line. You must understand that this is not a crime novel, and it is not important at all what crime Jozef K. has committed (although to the more lucid reader, his "crime" should be clear after reading the book). To understand the book, I'd recommend reading the chapter in the church once again; the story the vicar tells Jozef is crucial to understanding the point of the whole novel. So if you feel you didn't understand the novel, even if you've already read it ages ago, I'd recommend reading it again and paying special attention to this specific part.

Happy reading.


----------



## Cipher2 (Feb 17, 2007)

The Trial...that has reminded me that I never finished it. I have liked the short stories and 'fragments' from Kafka previously, maybe I should try again.  Sorry, lost the point of this post.


----------



## Rob (Feb 17, 2007)

mswietek said:
			
		

> One book I did not get, but hope to try again was Donald Barthelme's Snow White.  I really enjoyed The Dead Father, but Snow White was just impenetrable to me.


I haven't read any of his longer stuff, but I've read a fair number of his short stories lately and for the most part loved them.

Cheers,
Omni


----------



## seravance (Feb 17, 2007)

House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski .

I heard so many great things about this book, like how weird and messed up it is and how everyone should read it. I started it and didn't see the big deal. The gigantic, irrelevant footnotes just annoying and never made it very far. I'm sure I'll pick it up again soon and try to finish it (just because I bought it and not reading it would be an even bigger waste of money.)

Some of Chuck Palahniuk's books. I liked Fight Club and Invisible Monsters, I couldn't stand Diary, barely made it through Choke and couldn't finish Lullaby. I don't know what the big deal is about him, he has a few decent novels and then some that don't even come close to entertaining (Diary). He describes things that could (should) be left alone and goes on about pointless things. He has an interesting writing style, but I just don't get some of his books or all the hype surrounding him.


----------



## Varine (Feb 24, 2007)

The entire Foundation series by Asimov (I believe). Although I read them when I was small and immature, I failed to see what was happening in any of them. Perhaps my interest was lost, but I would get to a point and just sit there and say WTF? And then continue on in a similar fashion chapter by chapter.


----------



## quarterscot (Feb 25, 2007)

I really enjoyed the Foundation books when I read them, though suspect I wouldn't now. They're probably not written for the "small and immature." More for the teenage and somewhat pretentious.


----------



## Wilderness (Feb 25, 2007)

The Scent of your breath by Melissa P. 
WEIRDEST book ever...but fantastic. I get it but I dont. I will forever be mystified. (But I still recommend it)

Lani


----------



## Kelly Cyr (Feb 25, 2007)

I read Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code to find out why the book sold 65 million copies (what the publisher claims anyways). He knocked down the Catholic church very well saying they had no love for the feminine mystique. I found that laughable for how many churchs are there that are named after the Blessed Mary? Thousands and worldwide. Yes, the book moved fast and was all mystery based, but the analytical reasons he stated were all wrong, if not very far-fetched. So I figured the book sold because of his controversial claims of Jesus and Mary Magdalene's relationship and the DaVinci masterpiece of supposedly the figure by Jesus in the Last Supper was Mary Magdalene. His writing was very imaginative but the last chapter was very disappointing. It was just a lead-in to his next sequel of the book. The book sold 65 million copies. Why? Because it had great promotion and publicity or what? Anyone have a clue? Because it was not a great book, yet the trailer of the movie, you thought it was the most distinguished work there was.
Baffled,


----------



## Ilan Bouchard (Feb 25, 2007)

Catch-22 was one of the only books I've ever read that I didn't finish.  It seemed every situation was inherently the same; the premise of a catch-22 was interesting for the first few chapters but after a while the book was repetitive, repetitive, repetitive.  I only made it halfway through.


----------



## swimfanatic (Mar 12, 2007)

The Redwall series was a series I was really into when I was younger. I don't remember the author who wrote it. The first one I read was really good, but as I moved on to the next one and the next one after that (he has about 50 of them), I realized that they were all the same. They're all about some animal, usually a mouse or whatever, going off to fight this evil villian, usually a badger or ferret. I got sick of them pretty quickly. 

Someone was talking about Artemis Fowl. I read that book when I was younger, too, and didn't understand it.

Animal Farm was also mentioned. It was a required read for us in 8th grade. Didn't like it at all, though I can't say that I didn't understand it. I just don't understand why it's so popular.

Finally, there's Lord of the Flies, which our English teacher is forcing us to read now. I understand it, but what I don't get is why people claim that it's so 'awesome.' It's so gruesome and unsettling that it's hardly enjoyable. A lot of the characters with good, redeeming qualities are killed off by the end of the book. Like I said, not something I enjoy.


----------



## G. Palmer (Mar 13, 2007)

The whole part of Lord Of The Flies you're meant to get is how 'gruesome and unsettling' it is. I didn't like it earlier this term when our teacher made us read it, but eventually as it got moving I really enjoyed it. It also makes some pretty disturbing observations about human nature. It is in many respects dull and boring, but it got to a point where I really enjoyed it.

I agree completely with the Da Vinci Code - I couldn't stand it (or anything by Brown for that matter)

John Grisham - I never 'got' him, I enjoyed his earlier books, though there was nothing overtly special about them besides having fairly interesting plots. I tried to read 'The Street Lawyer' but had to put it down for it's dullness (The first person writing didn't help) I enjoyed King of Torts, though it was nothing special as I said. 

I'll grant them one thing though - they're published and make money.


----------



## Vanest (Mar 13, 2007)

Addison said:
			
		

> ... I've never understood the appeal of Steinbeck. I've tried _Grapes of Wrath_, _Cannery Row_, and _The Pearl_, but only ever made it through the latter, and that because of its brevity.



I totally agree with you! When I was in high school, we were forced to read _The Red Pony_. I won't even start rambling on about how much I hated it...


----------



## Scott Tuplin (Mar 14, 2007)

Lord of The Rings, the entire trilogy. I had to read The Hobbit in school (when I was about 11 or 12) but I didn't mind because I quite enjoyed it. Then after the films came out, which I saw, I picked up copies of all three books but hardly made it past Elrond's Council in The Fellowship of the Ring. Bored me stupid. Not the classic fantasy I was expecting.


----------



## Aurora_Borealis (Mar 15, 2007)

I can't say that I didn't 'get' several of the books that I have read, just that I didn't connect with the author's opinions or the plotline/characters in general. I think that Lord of the Flies is right up there, along with The End, by Lemony Snicket, as well as several of the novels that were required reading in elementary school (the names have escaped me now). Of course, Mein Kampf would have to be one of the books in which I absolutely did not connect with the author's opinions.


----------



## Malkamazing (Mar 17, 2007)

*Blood Red, Snow White*

A few days ago I began reading this book titled: Blood Red, Snow White. Not only did it make no sense, but it was dull. After about 2 hours of reading several chapters, I tossed the book aside; not lightly, but threw it with all my strength.


----------



## wittyusernamehere (Apr 10, 2007)

I could never "get" One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. I tried about nine times to get through that book. I just... couldn't. I dunno. I'd always end up somewhere around page 100, as well.


----------



## kerr511 (Apr 13, 2007)

The Hobbit.

Read it when i was about 10, bored me then.
Read it again very recently thinking I was missing out on something, bores me now.

I seriously don't get why everyone likes Tolkien so much... sorry.


----------



## Crazy_dude6662 (Apr 13, 2007)

i only liked the hobit (havnt read it in a few years) i never bothered with the others.

the one book i cannot stand is Life of Pi.
i read the first 14 pages or so and it made no sense, i have to read it for school >.< (that means readingit before monday and writing a book report) the whole class agrees that its crap.
i mean it sounds like a great book, but it made no sense to me...i dunno maybe it will get better (if not, i'll just make up the report on what i read and leave the rest)


----------



## Winged Sandals (Apr 13, 2007)

The Chosen.

I didn't really get the point of it, heh.  It seemed like there wasn't that much of a conflict, and the conflict that did arise seemed to solve itself without much work from the characters.  That might have just been sleep deprivation on my part, though, haha.


----------



## archer88iv (Apr 25, 2007)

There is a special level of hell reserved for John Steinbeck. The only thing that man ever contributed to modern society is a method of torture probably still allowed under the Geneva Convention. Read one of his books to me aloud and I'll tell you anything you want to know.

I'll even make the [censored] up if I have to.

The man was EVIL.

Dan Brown is only diet, decaffeinated evil by comparison. I suppose I understood the movie well enough (I refuse to buy the book, and I don't know anyone to borrow it from), but I don't understand the controversy. I had no idea it was such a terrible sin to wed and bear children.


----------



## Ideb8well (Apr 26, 2007)

No one mentioned _Big Fish? _That was the most confusing book/movie ever.  After reading it you say "wow, I hope the movie will explain something better", but it doesn't.  It is probably one of those books you shouldn't get.


----------



## rosenthalpiano (Apr 27, 2007)

One Hundred Years of Solitude and The Idiot are two of my favorite books. I can understand why some people might not "get" them though. The first seems to ramble on and on and on, but its brilliance lies in the way Marquez uses language. One of my favorite passages from it is this:



> They would gather together to converse endlessly, to tell over and over for hours on end the same jokes, to complicate to the limits of exasperation the story about the capon, which was an endless game in which the narrator asked if they wanted him to tell them the story about the capon, and when they answered yes, the narrator would say that he had not asked them to say yes, but whether they wanted him to tell them the story about the capon, and when they answered no, the narrator told them that he had not asked them to say no, but whether they wanted him to tell them the story about the capon, and when they remained silent the narrator told them that he had not asked them to remain silent but whether they wanted him to tell them the story about the capon, and no one could leave because the narrator would say that he had not asked them to leave but whether they wanted him to tell them the story about the capon, and so on and on in a vicious circle that lasted entire nights.



As for The Idiot, it can sometimes take a while to understand. Even Dostoevsky himself said he had trouble portraying the character of Prince Mishkin. The thing about this character is that he is supposed to be made out to have many characteristics of Jesus Christ, so that all the other characters in the book are made to look like terrible people, easily tempted by greed, sexual desires, etc.


----------



## velo (Apr 30, 2007)

I recently read Dickens' "Great Expectations" and while the writing was....well, it was Dickens so you know what the writing was....despite his eloquence I was bored to tears.  I got all the way to the end, and that is no single-afternoon-on-the-veranda read as you likely know, I still didn't give a flying turd about Pip, Estella, or any of it.  I felt some pity for Old Joe, but mostly because of the way Dickens described his shrew of a wife.  All I took away from that book was the ability to say that I've actually read it.  

The DaVinci code was not that bad of a read once I realized  I wasn't going to have any literary revelations from it and so I took it for what it was worth.  I liked the concept and the smattering of historical fact he put in the book caused me to read some more on the subject.  I read a couple non-fiction works that explore, in excruciating yet fascinating detail, the issue of JC having knocked boots with Mary M and the history is actually pretty compelling and interesting.  

I also have to say I don't get much of Kafka at all.  Probably not all that unusual.  The trial was a bore fest (FYI- it was an unfinished work edited into a novel structure after kafka's death) and even The Metamorphosis was a yawner.  Once Gregor woke up as a bug, I kept expecting something, anything...a great epiphany, something profound about the human condition, some metaphor I could glean some personal truth or meaning from.....but I got nada.  No more Kafka, thank you.


----------



## Rahvin (Apr 30, 2007)

Uh-huh, I just read Great Expectations for my English course. Bored to tears. I almost didn't finish it (and that's a big thing for me, I usually read anything, just for something to do, but this...). Dicken's writing may be technically good, but it has no emotion to it. The chacters; I didn't care about. The plot; just circular and ultimately pointless (the end is still unclear whether Pip learns his lesson). The (supposed) humour; more like depthless wit (and not very good wit at that).

I don't know why I don't like it. I "get" it, and I even write in sort of the same style. His wrting just makes me want to stop and sleep.

Actually, come to think of it, I've never actually read a book that I didn't "get". I just found most of the "classics" pretty rubbish (to me, and that's only the one's I've read). 

We had to read "Of Mice And Men" in GCSE English. That was the worst waste of a lesson I've ever experienced (especially the next two months the teacher spent getting the rest of the class - some of whom had never read a book before (I kid you not) - to finish it. Yeah, the message is nice and everything, but the actual book is pretty rubbish.


----------



## velo (May 1, 2007)

Rahvin said:
			
		

> Dicken's writing may be technically good, but it has no emotion to it.



Part of the problem for a modern reader of GE is that it deals with very antiquated subjects and that we are so far out of the societal/political/moral context in which it was written.  The Victorian era search for status (not necessarily the same as the modern quest for power/wealth) is, I would think, hard for many readers today to identify with.  I found myself thinking more about the inequities of the class system in that era than I did rooting for Pip to scrape his way out of the lower echelons of society.  There was little relevance to my life, little I could identify with, and so I was left with a blase, apathetic attitude towards Pip, Miss Havasham, and all the rest.  I think Dickens' readers of 150 years ago would have found far more in this book to identify with and care about.


----------



## Rahvin (May 1, 2007)

That's my main problem with the "classics". The morals and concerns in them are not relevant to our time and lifestyles any more. They were relevant (and probably enjoyable) when they were written - in fact they would have to have been, otherwise they wouldn't be classics now - but reading from a 21st century viewpoint, we have already learned the lessons, what remains is simply an insight into culture at the time of writing.


----------



## velo (May 1, 2007)

Rahvin said:
			
		

> what remains is simply an insight into culture at the time of writing.


Which, I will submit, is still a valuable aspect of reading them.  Although GE didn't garner my sympathy, it did give me a little more insight into that era.


----------



## Short Tooth (May 1, 2007)

I forget the full name of the book but it's by

Haruki Murakami, and it's called "..... and the Hard Boiled Wonderland"

Fascinating book, but I just, as the thread title says, 'didn't get it?'


----------



## Charlie_Eleanor (May 1, 2007)

Um, all that crap you were forced to read in  high school.  Among the worst (in my book): Grapes of Wrath and Billy Budd (<---the last was the worst)


----------



## Short Tooth (May 1, 2007)

lol, i've heard nothing but good things about grapes of wrath. I did love OF Mice and Men. What's so bad about grapes...


----------



## strangedaze (May 1, 2007)

Short Tooth said:
			
		

> I forget the full name of the book but it's by
> 
> Haruki Murakami, and it's called "..... and the Hard Boiled Wonderland"
> 
> Fascinating book, but I just, as the thread title says, 'didn't get it?'




hardboiled wonderland and the end of the world.

i didnt like it. at all. all that techno jibberish did nothing for me.


----------



## Short Tooth (May 1, 2007)

I found it new and exciting and while I didn't get it I kept feeling there WAS something there? Did you get what it was about? I mean he's a really well respected writer.


----------



## Charlie_Eleanor (May 1, 2007)

That whole freaking chapter about the turtle crossing the road.  I don't know.  Perhaps I was too young to appreciate it, but I don't care.  I will NEVER read it again.


----------



## Short Tooth (May 2, 2007)

Charlie_Eleanor said:
			
		

> That whole freaking chapter about the turtle crossing the road. I don't know. Perhaps I was too young to appreciate it, but I don't care.  I will NEVER read it again.


 
this is grapes of wrath?


----------



## Der_Parvenu_Meister (May 2, 2007)

I have catch 22 but the sheer size of the book leads me to believe all the " amazing" and "wonderful" claims on its cover may be over rated... it looks almost as long as the unedited version of The Stand... and I'm sorry but something that long can be quite boring at times.


----------



## Rahvin (May 2, 2007)

I've never read Catch 22, and I probably won't. I generally don't like the "classics" anyway, so the chances are I won't like this one. From what I've seen of it, it doesn't sound like my thing anyway...


----------



## Swift84 (May 2, 2007)

You people have no taste. Great Expectations is masterfully written. Dickens' turds created more beautiful sentences than this entire fucking forum.


----------



## Short Tooth (May 2, 2007)

> You people have no taste. Great Expectations is masterfully written. Dickens' turds created more beautiful sentences than this entire fucking forum.


 
Opinions and perspectives. For it's time maybe, but does it stand the test of time?


----------



## Swift84 (May 2, 2007)

Compare the work of anybody here to the sentences of Dickens and you tell me. I mean, you could very well get some opinions about how Shakespeare sucks and ask the question, "Has his work stood the test of time?" However, if you clearly understand what that question is asking, you'll realize that it's a futile and ultimately irrelevant question.


----------



## Rahvin (May 2, 2007)

I didn't question the literary integrity of Great Expectations. I just said it's not relevant anymore. It is simply a well written insight into the time it was written. The plot isn't brilliant, but the writing is good, yes.

And comapring the work shown on a writing forum for (mostly) unpublished writers to a "classic" book isn't really fair. None of us were doing it, and if you can only criticise something if you can do better then there's not much point in this forum, is there? It may as well be the "best" writer here just constantly critquing everyone's work.

The quality of books is personal opinion. Yes, Dicken's prose is technically brilliant, but I don't like it. How does that mean I have no taste? It just means I don't share *your* tastes.


----------



## Swift84 (May 2, 2007)

Any kind of technically brilliant writing should be relevant to writers today. It would be like saying that silent films are irrelevant to film today. Although films utilize sound now, it's important and relevant to know where we have come from (ironically, silent films also better reinforce the quality of _visual _more than modern films). I mean, let's just throw all history books in the garbage then if we can't relate to everything personally. 

I wasn't suggesting that the best writer should be the only critic. My suggestion was to illustrate how advanced Dickens is as a writer. If it makes you feel any better, compare his work to most reknowned modern authors, and I doubt you would find many who can match his brilliance. 

I guess when I said "no taste," I meant that some people don't seem to appreciate men and women who kick a lot of ass at something we all love doing.


----------



## Rahvin (May 2, 2007)

Ok, maybe I was a little unclear when I said "not relevant". What I meant was the oh-so-central moral message that most of them have. It's just not needed any more.

And I do belive that there are writers out there who match, if not exceed Dickens' writing. Just because they're not up on the "classics" list doesn't meant they are automatically inferior. That's the kind of elitism that I find wrong with the classics. They are classics, so they must be the best. They still have large sales figures, so they must still be very popular. However, what is overlooked is that new books, while not writing with a moral (generally) write for profit, which is (sadly) a more powerful innovative force than good intentions. This means writing must improve, or there will be no distincrion between one book and the net, bar the plot. Plus, writers have generally studied and learned from the "classics" so they can improve their own writing. And a large amount of the sales come from students who must study the book (not that that means anything)

I actually don't think Dickens' writing is that brilliant. It is technically wonderful, but it just isn't evocative or emotional enough to hook the reader. In short, I think it's boring. The plot goes nowhere (especially seeing as we already know about the antiquated moral message). 

Yes, it's good to know where we've come from, nut we also need to remember we have moved on. There is progress. Because something is a "classic" doesn't mean it is above criticism. It's just another book, although older.


----------



## velo (May 2, 2007)

Swift84 said:
			
		

> You people have no taste. Great Expectations is masterfully written. Dickens' turds created more beautiful sentences than this entire fucking forum.


Proving that you completely did not get the discussion about it.  GE is well, written, no one denies that.  And yes, the writing structure is relevant in a certain way.  The STORY isn't and that's what was being discussed.  THe moral/societal/political involved just don't matter all that much today.  Sure, one could break it down into the instinctual human desire to climb the in the hierarchy of the pack but that's not the kind of story it was.  

If you're going to assail someone's opinions, you might want to make sure you know what the fuck you are talking about first.  



> I guess when I said "no taste," I meant that some people don't seem to appreciate men and women who kick a lot of ass at something we all love doing.


There is a huge difference between appreciating CD's technical skills, his adeptness with language, and liking the damn story.  The story, to modern eyes, sucks donkey schlong.  It's too long, way too damn boring, and not once through the entire book did I give a shit.  I read the book because it was Dickens, and finished it only for that reason.  If it was a modern author, I likely would have given up on it about halfway through even though I hate doing that.



> Yes, it's good to know where we've come from, nut we also need to remember we have moved on. There is progress. Because something is a "classic" doesn't mean it is above criticism.


Rahvin, excellent points.


----------



## Swift84 (May 3, 2007)

> THe moral/societal/political involved just don't matter all that much today.


 
See, this point is based on subjectivity and the lack of an accurate worldview. So you're actually suggesting that this world has conquered all of the problems that Dickens addressed? And you actually believe that a story is no longer good if you can't relate to it personally? I think you should really clarify what you're saying if I'm not getting the drift because the drift sounds quite childish at the moment.

Finally, I didn't say Great Expectations was above criticism. Just like Hendrix's guitar playing isn't above criticism. All I'm saying is that there's a reason why both are highly revered by scores of artists. But you have to admit that just saying a story is boring doesn't give me a lot to criticize myself. The vagueness of the criticism of such a reknowned book provoked my initial response.


----------



## Rahvin (May 3, 2007)

> And you actually believe that a story is no longer good if you can't relate to it personally?


 
Yes. The point of a story is to entertain. Stories are generally not entertaining if they cannot be related to. I never suggested his writing wasn't good, though. I simply said his story wasn't. The plot (I think) is circular and lacks a finish. We can't relate properly to he charcters both because our society has moved on from that time, and because they are generally plot devices. They exist to support Dickens' social comments (which are now irrelevant, as we fully realise that these thing need changing (if they haven't already been), not as characters on their own.

If you wan't secific criticism, you'll have to wait, as I don't have the time right now (or the inclination) to go through the whole novel in-depth, not to mention that I don't have my copy with me.


----------



## Travmire (May 3, 2007)

I have to defend Catch-22 as a great, funny book.  Milo Minderbinder is possibly the funniest character ever written and every part with him is hilarious.  The other characters are great too and this book is worth reading.

As for the topic, I don't understand why anyone would want to read [SIZE=-1]Kerouac.  He was beyond boring.
[/SIZE]


----------



## Rahvin (May 4, 2007)

Hmmm... never read Catch 22, so you could be right. Never read Kerouac either, and now I don't think I will (I wasn't going to anyway, but that's kind of cemented it for me)


----------



## Moonlight99 (May 4, 2007)

Mmm, only 'Black Sunday' by Thomas Harris. Sure, it was good if you like political thrillers but what I don't understand is how he then managed to then go on and achieve the greatness which was Silence Of The Lambs. Both books are written in completly different styles.
In reply to huntingtonb's original post, I found Anne Rice's books amazing despite first reading them when I was 12. I think this proves it's just probably up to taste and what sort of things you enjoy.


----------



## velo (May 4, 2007)

Swift84 said:
			
		

> See, this point is based on subjectivity and the lack of an accurate worldview. So you're actually suggesting that this world has conquered all of the problems that Dickens addressed? And you actually believe that a story is no longer good if you can't relate to it personally?


No, what I am suggesting is that the story in Great Expectations is so *specifically* rooted in the Victorian era, with all of the myriad social mores, aspirations, and class structure, that a story about a boy turned man navigating his way through the hierarchy of that society is very difficult to relate to.  Dickens was a product of his time and his writing is integrated wholly and completely in that time.  

Compare Dickens to Shakespeare.  Shakespeare is still relevant today becuuse his plays, his writing, focused on the characters, on the emotions, on the interpersonal.  Dickens focuses too much on the external, he talks about clothing and social status and occupation and doesn't focus anywhere near as much as he should on the emotions, on those aspects of the story that *would* still be relevant.  

As I alluded to earlier, the only part of the story that came alive for me was the terrible marriage of Old Joe to his shrew wife.  Why?  Because that subplot is about the characters, it's about human emotions and the human condition, and it's something that anyone whose been in a bad relationship can most certainly identify with.  

The *true* test of a classic is its ability to remain timelessly relevant.  I think Dickens fails that test and so, while certainly a classic for its writing and its glimpse of a world gone by, it falls short of the highest order of being considered a classic and has become a classic to be read more for a technical understanding of its construction than for the meaning and context of the words.  

And on a personal level, I think it goes without saying that people don't like stories they can't relate in some way to.  People relate to other people so if the story is about recognizable themes and emotions common to all men then the story will be relevant.  If your story is primarily about still-water kayaking then you are effectively limiting your readership to those people who can relate to still-water kayaking or kayaking in general.


----------



## davetherave (May 4, 2007)

i never really liked Dune and i didn't like lord of the rings either. Although i did like the hobbit. 

I think that epic style of writing just doesn't appeal to me, i find it boring.


----------



## Rahvin (May 4, 2007)

Dune - never read. Thought about it, but it never took my fancy. Maybe I should...

Lord of the Rings - Read it. Dissapointed, although I couldn't say specifically why. Probably just my taste in books.

Anne Rice - read most of them. They're good books, although they do cater for a narrow audience, but that's just beacause of the subject.

And Velo, You're absolutely right. It's not about the charcters, it's about the story, and the story is largely irrelevant now. It's too specific to the time it was written in.


----------



## Short Tooth (May 4, 2007)

> I think that epic style of writing just doesn't appeal to me, i find it boring


 
I agree, no matter how great the writer it comes across as pompous.


----------



## Swift84 (May 7, 2007)

> The point of a story is to entertain.


 
Well, I think that's a narrow way of thinking about stories. Or maybe it just sounds too mainstream. Anyway, I respect your opinion but find it overtly simplistic. 



> Compare Dickens to Shakespeare. Shakespeare is still relevant today becuuse his plays, his writing, focused on the characters, on the emotions, on the interpersonal. Dickens focuses too much on the external, he talks about clothing and social status and occupation and doesn't focus anywhere near as much as he should on the emotions, on those aspects of the story that *would* still be relevant.


 
But if every author only focused on characters, this would be a boring literary world. One could also argue that focusing on "emotions" is an easy ploy compared to creating a story with depth. Regardless, although I prefer certain types of writing to others, I still will not subscribe to your more streamlined views. 

Creating good characters is a worthy endeavor, and I think you didn't read Great Expectations well enough to see the characterization. It is there. 



> Because that subplot is about the characters, it's about human emotions and the human condition, and it's something that anyone whose been in a bad relationship can most certainly identify with.


 
Identifying with characters is really lame. I think not identifying with characters is more interesting. Well-written characters who hold different views and histories than me is a lot more valuable than reading and rereading boring universal experiences. If I wanted that kind of stuff, I wouldn't even bother reading. 



> The *true* test of a classic is its ability to remain timelessly relevant.


 
And you still haven't given ample evidence to suggest that Dickens' work is irrelevant. Sure, you said the story was rooted in the Victorian Period, but those class structures still exist in this world, in forms both subtle and obvious. If you can't see that, then you haven't looked hard enough.



> And on a personal level, I think it goes without saying that people don't like stories they can't relate in some way to.


 
I don't disagree that most people believe this way, but I find it superficial at best. Stories should be enjoyed for the craft and for art's sake, not dingleberry experiences that everyone can relate to. Only appreciating stories you "feel" that you can "relate" to is extremely subjective and limits your literary horizons.


----------



## Rahvin (May 7, 2007)

I realise that "the point of a story is to entertain" is a generalisation. _Most_ stories are written purely to entertain and grab readers. _Some_ stories are written with some form of deeper message. However, not many people will sit and read through a book that they don't find entertaining, just to see that message. That may well be superficial, but hey, that's society today.



> But if every author only focused on characters, this would be a boring literary world.


Most authors _do_ focus on characters. However, this doesn't stop them from having a well developed, insightful, plotline. Focusing on the characters and their development and portrayal makes the story easier for the reader to visualise and imagine. They can identify with the characters and relate their experiences to their own. 

Take (and I'm loathe to do this, especially as there's already a thread for it, but it's the easiest way of showing my point) the "Wheel of Time" by Robert Jordan. I'm not comparing that to Great Expectations, but simply using it to make a point. The world is described in incredible detail, like in Great Expectations, but _so are the characters_. The reader can easily identify with the characters, even in a fantasy setting, and this is the main reason that the series is still readable (after all, would _you_ read 10,000 pages of description?)



> Identifying with characters is really lame. I think not identifying with characters is more interesting. Well-written characters who hold different views and histories than me is a lot more valuable than reading and rereading boring universal experiences


Key part for me there is "Well written". Dickens' work, while well written overall, doesn't focus on the charcters enough for them to be well written. Identifying and not identifying with charcters is just a matter of the reader's perspective. However, what I was trying to get across with those words is that the charcters have _depth_, the reader could see tham as an actual person, not just a plot device.

Most (pretty much all) books are about the charcters. They focus on the charcters' interactions, troubles, triumphs, all that, and it is all about _the charcters_. Dickens writes about the _setting_, and the characters are simply a means of exploring that setting. (but we've covered that already, so I'll leave it there)


----------

