M Rotter said:
Hairetos said:
I hate A LOT of old things. Dunno why, and I can't say I'm biased since I don't even know they're old before I hate them. It's just one big coincidence.
I hate classic rock all the way through the obnoxious hair metal people like to play in Intro to Guitar classes. I also don't like classic metal (Megadeth, Motorhead, old Metallica, etc.). I like a lot of newer metal genres.
I hate old movies for their lack of...interesting things to do. I dunno, they're just boring.
If you've ever taken an AP English class, you'll learn that almost all of the classic books of "literary merit" run a dull gamut of the same themes. They're pretty much centered around the different types of conflict: person vs. person, person vs. self, person vs. society, which then divulge into relationship, political, ideological, etc. The fact that one AP prompt can be addressed by somewhere around 50 of these books is a testament to this. Plot's not important CUZ U SEID SUMTHNG PROFUND!
I do like Baroque classical music though. Much better than Romantic era stuff.
Most conflicts do boil down to those three (and i got the same handout) and i feel like maybe your opinion of the books is colored because that was explained like that. Sure some authors might have sat down to write a book exploring those themes, but most wrote a story that was meaningful that fit into one, two, or all three. That English handout exists because of the books not the other way around
My biggest issue is that they can get away with having sub-par plots so long as they say something interesting about something. One of the biggest examples contradicting my point is Candide, by Voltaire. It makes an obvious point, has a hilarious plot, and is short and sweet. I feel Candide embodies what books of literary merit should be. Also, The Stranger did a similar job, albeit with a far less interesting plot.
A lot of my hatred for these books comes from the fact that they're compulsory. The arguments for making them required readings are pretty much some variations of: "They're classics, you should learn them" and "It'll make you more well-read and therefore smarter". That's true, they'll probably make you smarter to some degree. Chess does that too. So does playing an instrument. Neither of these are required, however, because it's ridiculous to mandate something which should be considered a
hobby. Reading should be something kept
fun. Different people will have different reactions to different activities. It's ridiculous to expect everyone to enjoy it and even more ludicrous to force them to read these books.
Since I started taking these literature-based classes, I've not picked up a fiction book of my own desire. I've ultimately become desensitized to the most important question of reading: "is it
interesting? My friends tend to feel the same way, which I think is the sad part.
/rant about AP English.
