Star Wars. Even as a child I could just never dig it. The whole mythos bothers me, the writing is atrocious, the story cornball as all hell.... (Puts up flame-shield)
Disrespecting a "classic"
- Thread starter Dangit2019
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Actually just recently I tried to watch Serial Experiment Lain, which as far as anime goes is something akin to a "classic" work I guess in that it was supposedly groundbreaking in the method of story telling it used.
I'd just finished Paranoia agent and I like surreal horror in general so Lain seemed like the next logical choice. But five episodes in I had no idea what was going on and nothing seemed to be happening. I mean, things were obviously happening, it was clearly going somewhere, but at the same time it felt like I could have started on any episode in the series and watched them in any order. Actually I'm almost wondering if trying a Haruhi approach to it wouldn't have worked better.
In essence it's just a very minimalist anime. Gorgeously drawn, but lots of static shots, extreme closeups, little to no dialogue in an episode. And what dialogue there is is usually incredibly vague, no doubt meant to make sense as the show goes on. We know very little about the world it's set in and what we do know is told to us in long exposition dumps provided by voice over.
It's just... I want to like it. I can certainly see why other people like it. And I can see why it's considered a classic. But I just can't actually enjoy it myself. :<
I'd just finished Paranoia agent and I like surreal horror in general so Lain seemed like the next logical choice. But five episodes in I had no idea what was going on and nothing seemed to be happening. I mean, things were obviously happening, it was clearly going somewhere, but at the same time it felt like I could have started on any episode in the series and watched them in any order. Actually I'm almost wondering if trying a Haruhi approach to it wouldn't have worked better.
In essence it's just a very minimalist anime. Gorgeously drawn, but lots of static shots, extreme closeups, little to no dialogue in an episode. And what dialogue there is is usually incredibly vague, no doubt meant to make sense as the show goes on. We know very little about the world it's set in and what we do know is told to us in long exposition dumps provided by voice over.
It's just... I want to like it. I can certainly see why other people like it. And I can see why it's considered a classic. But I just can't actually enjoy it myself. :<
I never said you can't know what a BAD book is. I simply said that saying a book is bad is one thing. Saying the writer is a bad writer (or a bad design if its a video game to use your analogy) is another thing entirely. To say someone is a bad writer without knowing anything about writing is just plain silly. Taking a game I hate and saying, "this is a bad game," is completely different from me pointing at one of the developers and saying, "you're a bad developer."Father Time said:
I also read Of Mice and Men when I was 12 (or maybe 13). Never read the Red Badge of Courage, though. I'm not completely sure what your point was supposed to be.PhiMed said:
Oh, I'm positive some people like each and every book I didn't, don't, or will not. 'Cause that's how the world works. I'm sure the school has definite reasons for putting Book X in the curriculum. As I'd stated before, it just seems to be the general consensus (at the time it's being taught) that Book X is boring or otherwise not fun to read.
Some books in school I liked, some I didn't. I understand that studying them is more than fostering a desire to read and to help people better understand language, literature and its development. All good goals. I did find it was easier to study the works I enjoyed (Animal Farm, 1984, Othello) than the stuff I didn't (anything Jane Austen).
Some problems with a lot of the classics, in literature (but the general concepts can apply to other things), is that:
1) They are written from a time long past so require some interpretation.
2) They represent early development of certain literary forms and so seem clunky by today's standards.
3) They are aimed at adults with a good sense of reading comprehension (because literacy was only in the hands of the few).
Usually its a combination of the above (along with other, specific, issues with the work its self) that hamper people's enjoyment. If a work is boring because the story isn't interesting or well-told; its status as a "classic" should not mean you can't say so. Many of the great works were great in their day - the reason they are worth studying are not due to how fun they are.
One of my english teachers suggested that any reading is useful as the more you do it the better you will be. He told kids who weren't good at it to try reading comics because you can get greater context through the pictures but the stories (and language) are usually aimed at teenagers. I wonder if teaching books that are more interesting to kids would be a better idea and save the drier works for literature students and adults with more patience. You will never please everybody (hell I loved 1984 when we learnt it but about a 3rd of the class couldn't stand it - the same class did Pride and Prejudice next and the demographics switched).
Some problems with a lot of the classics, in literature (but the general concepts can apply to other things), is that:
1) They are written from a time long past so require some interpretation.
2) They represent early development of certain literary forms and so seem clunky by today's standards.
3) They are aimed at adults with a good sense of reading comprehension (because literacy was only in the hands of the few).
Usually its a combination of the above (along with other, specific, issues with the work its self) that hamper people's enjoyment. If a work is boring because the story isn't interesting or well-told; its status as a "classic" should not mean you can't say so. Many of the great works were great in their day - the reason they are worth studying are not due to how fun they are.
One of my english teachers suggested that any reading is useful as the more you do it the better you will be. He told kids who weren't good at it to try reading comics because you can get greater context through the pictures but the stories (and language) are usually aimed at teenagers. I wonder if teaching books that are more interesting to kids would be a better idea and save the drier works for literature students and adults with more patience. You will never please everybody (hell I loved 1984 when we learnt it but about a 3rd of the class couldn't stand it - the same class did Pride and Prejudice next and the demographics switched).
OhJohnNo said:
I just...couldn't find anything to like about the side plots in that book. The main interesting mystery, to me, was what these poor little Hobbits were going to deal with on the way to destroy this evil thing. That was the sales pitch of the book, and everything else felt *so* irrelevant to the "main plot" of the book, that I felt like I was reading an entirely different story.
Nuance implies subtlety. Tolkien's side plots are about as subtle as a brick to the face. He's writing about two or three books between the *same covers.* It's...I don't know, weird. I like it when all the plots gather together and make sense in the end, but really, I didn't find that much to tie the plots in LotR together in time for me to care.
*hugs*Dangit2019 said:So, about a week ago, my English class finished reading Our Town by Thorton Wilder. I was first intrigued by the play as I usually am by required reading books, and like the other books I gave it a shot.
It sucked. Please note this is coming from somebody who has loved every book that a teacher has put before him. I just want to clarify a few reasons why so I can get this out of my system. Also, this is going into spoiler territory (not like you should care).
The book has no conflict. That's the first thing you need to know. There is literally no turns of the plot, nay, any plot until the 3rd act. Now, I'll give the play credit for focusing a lot on characterization, but when that's all that's happening for 2/3rds of your book, then you're doing it wrong.
The big allegory/twist/pretentiousness-ball of the play is that the first 2 acts show normal life in childhood and adulthood respectively, and the 3rd act turns around and shows the harsh reality of death to prove a lesson about living life to its fullest and appreciating every day and not taking things for zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Now, while I will say that this turn in the story is pretty novel, I just feel like it can't excuse the rest of the play being senseless build-up. Not to mention a twist that gets extremely cheesy in its delivery.
You get the idea.
Maybe I wouldn't be so mad at the book if the author wasn't so damned pleased with how genius he was.
Oh fuck you.Emilyo any human beings ever realize life while they live it -- every, every minute?
Stage Manager: No. The saints and poets, maybe ? they do some
You see, it's one of those "classics" which are only considered so because they're old, and have a criticism proof flame shield of saying "you just didn't get it" or "you don't appreciate life like he did" to anyone like me who points to this as a bunch of crap. Don't get me wrong, people should live life to its fullest; but using that universally condoned lesson to block out any sense of critical writing isn't acceptable, at least not in my standards
tldr: What "classic"/required reading books do you hate, and (in detail) why? Please don't just say it sucked and walk away.
I HATED Our Town. And no one else agreed with me.
Let's see... there's a lot...
There's more but it's late and I'm tired.
- Lord of the Flies (waaaaaay to much symbolism; almost to the point where there was more of it than interesting plot)
- David Copperfield (I know Dickens was paid by the word but it doesn't make the description any less monotonous)
- To Kill a Mockingbird (just didn't think it was all that interesting; I might like it now as I've grown intellectually but I don't want to try again)
- Lord of the Rings (willing to try again though)
- David Copperfield (I know Dickens was paid by the word but it doesn't make the description any less monotonous)
- To Kill a Mockingbird (just didn't think it was all that interesting; I might like it now as I've grown intellectually but I don't want to try again)
- Lord of the Rings (willing to try again though)
There's more but it's late and I'm tired.
Assuming it's still even considered a classic, InuYasha. The story has a lot of potential, but the writers have no idea how to shape it well. At least three of the heroes (InuYasha, Kagome, Shippo) have a tendency to be very annoying, the main villain, Naraku, is a Villain Sue who is too stupid to use his overwhelming advantage to kill the heroes while he has the chance and the plot drags after the Band of Seven arc. I've heard Ranma 1/2 is the better work, but from what I've heard, I'm not holding my breath. Honestly, I don't see why Rumiko Takahashi gets the praise she gets, when she comes across as an average writer, at best.
You bring up valid points, the original trilogy is not perfect, and there are plot holes, but they are still better movies. The writing is better, the characters actually evolve in front of you rather than off screen. The scripting is terrible; I was in middle school when episode 1 came out and was absolutely convinced I could write a better script. The special effects and use of models rather than cgi is far more compelling. I'm not going to nitpick anymore, plinkett does it better, but it is my strong opinion that the original trilogy are simply better movies.ShogunGino said:
I can't seem to get into anything Austen, it just doesn't click.
I also find Atlas Shrugged so dull as to be impenetrable, which may, if I am lead to believe rightly, be to my advantage.
I also find Atlas Shrugged so dull as to be impenetrable, which may, if I am lead to believe rightly, be to my advantage.
Finnegan's Wake, definitely. It's one of these "higher education" classics that always gets you marks if you can mention it. It's one of those books you *have* to mention at least once if you're around a literary group of a certain type, or else you have no cred in their eyes.
I specialize in Horror and Popular Literature. I've read my classics in order to have something that vaguely *approaches* a developed culture, but James Joyce is one of those guys I'm left scratching my head at. Most of what he does is long and overly descriptive, and I *guess* "Finnegan's" has the author's love of word games and new constructions giving it some credit, but I honestly feel like some of my lit geek friends are the kind of guys who think that making a drinking game out of the number of times Joyce will force you to hit the dictionary or thesaurus is fun.
I'm not one of those types of lit geeks. Give me a book, I want to read it cover to cover and not stop every five minutes to go and consult this word or that quotation somewhere. That just annoys me to no end. I mean, it's more or less expected, as some authors might have a greater level of vocabulary I can profit from, but Joyce? He's not putting his vocabulary to any commendable use - he's puking words all over the goddamn page!
Jack Kerouac more or less has the same problem. I've read "The Subterraneans" cover to cover, but the only thing I was left with after I was done was a pretty acute sense of "Dafuq did I just read?".
Although, for the worst of all cases of Reader's Dislocation, I'd say you have to check out William Burroughs' "The Naked Lunch". That shit be whack, seriously.
I specialize in Horror and Popular Literature. I've read my classics in order to have something that vaguely *approaches* a developed culture, but James Joyce is one of those guys I'm left scratching my head at. Most of what he does is long and overly descriptive, and I *guess* "Finnegan's" has the author's love of word games and new constructions giving it some credit, but I honestly feel like some of my lit geek friends are the kind of guys who think that making a drinking game out of the number of times Joyce will force you to hit the dictionary or thesaurus is fun.
I'm not one of those types of lit geeks. Give me a book, I want to read it cover to cover and not stop every five minutes to go and consult this word or that quotation somewhere. That just annoys me to no end. I mean, it's more or less expected, as some authors might have a greater level of vocabulary I can profit from, but Joyce? He's not putting his vocabulary to any commendable use - he's puking words all over the goddamn page!
Jack Kerouac more or less has the same problem. I've read "The Subterraneans" cover to cover, but the only thing I was left with after I was done was a pretty acute sense of "Dafuq did I just read?".
Although, for the worst of all cases of Reader's Dislocation, I'd say you have to check out William Burroughs' "The Naked Lunch". That shit be whack, seriously.
I just couldn't get into the Godfather I tried... I really did.
Perhaps its because I heard all the lines in other movies that ripped it off.
2001 Space Odyssey was sort of cool, but was boring to me too. Then again I was a little kid I should go back and watch it again. I loved 2010 Space Odyssey it made me sad.
Perhaps its because I heard all the lines in other movies that ripped it off.
2001 Space Odyssey was sort of cool, but was boring to me too. Then again I was a little kid I should go back and watch it again. I loved 2010 Space Odyssey it made me sad.