Why is this a literary classic? (not really a rant)

[Trilby_V]

1984, George Orwell. I mean...what the heck? It has little plot, little point, little meaning, and little interest-provoking writings. Same goes with Animal farm; that wasn't as suicide-inducingly depressing, though: it trended more towards mild retardation.

Fahrenheit 451, however, was really good...Alongside breave new world, to be honest. That seemed like a pretty hot deal, right up there with Equilibrium and Bioshock.

Hmm... I dont know,I really liked animal farm, I thought about it as a critic to socialism, also I found quite amusing that it was the pigs which evolved into humans... makes us think about our nature.

On a totally unrelated note, we, good sir, have the same avatar.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

1984, George Orwell. I mean...what the heck? It has little plot, little point, little meaning, and little interest-provoking writings. Same goes with Animal farm; that wasn't as suicide-inducingly depressing, though: it trended more towards mild retardation.

Fahrenheit 451, however, was really good...Alongside breave new world, to be honest. That seemed like a pretty hot deal, right up there with Equilibrium and Bioshock.

Congrats! You are officially the most anti-intellectual person I've ever come across on the Escapist.

If you don't get the meaning or the importance of 1984 (and to a lesser extent, Animal Farm), you really don't deserve to be literate.... and you have the gall to describe your occupation as "Author".

Sickening.

 

[The_Deleted]

Anything Ayn Rand... mirite?

That woman can't write worth a damn... and she's so damned full of herself... you can just feel the self-congratulation on every dry, dull, monotonous, dragging page...

I'm just getting through Atlas Shrugged and am really enjoying it.
Sometime ago I read The Way of All Flesh, and to this day I've no idea what it was about nor do I remember a damn thing about it.

 

[Lexodus]

I thought that The Great Gatsby was terrible.

Pride and Prejudice was pretty awful, as well, but it didn't stop me from buying
http://roberthood.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/prideandprejudiceandzombies.jpg

I love that book! It's so good!

 

[GoldenRaz]

I never finished "The Fellowship of the Ring", just stopped around the part when they were in Brii, or whatever the town is called (where they meet Aragorn). Bored me to the verge of sleep. I mean, 1/6 of the book consisted of about 100 pages about how nice Shire is and how nice all the people there are. I'll rather be a stupid, spoiled brat than bored senseless.

 

[Lexodus]

Anything Ayn Rand... mirite?

That woman can't write worth a damn... and she's so damned full of herself... you can just feel the self-congratulation on every dry, dull, monotonous, dragging page...

I'm just getting through Atlas Shrugged and am really enjoying it.
Sometime ago I read The Way of All Flesh, and to this day I've no idea what it was about nor do I remember a damn thing about it.

Atlas Shrugged is really hard for me, because I have one of the originals and the paragraphing and typeface is miniscule. Prolongued exposure hurts my eyes, so I'm only about on page 200-and-something, as in
[/spoiler]"Who is John Galt?" "We are!"[/spoiler]

 

[HT_Black]

1984, George Orwell. I mean...what the heck? It has little plot, little point, little meaning, and little interest-provoking writings. Same goes with Animal farm; that wasn't as suicide-inducingly depressing, though: it trended more towards mild retardation.

Fahrenheit 451, however, was really good...Alongside breave new world, to be honest. That seemed like a pretty hot deal, right up there with Equilibrium and Bioshock.

Congrats! You are officially the most anti-intellectual person I've ever come across on the Escapist.

If you don't get the meaning or the importance of 1984 (and to a lesser extent, Animal Farm), you really don't deserve to be literate.... and you have the gall to describe your occupation as "Author".

Sickening.

What...WTF(what the flame)? It was a picture of middle-upper class life in an English socialism. I got the point(s); I merely didn't care for it. It might have been unique and innovative in its time, but given the literal hundreds of dystopian fascism stories told since then, its novelty was more or less nonexistent. Seeing as most of such stories are blatently ripping off inspired by 1984, it seemed like a tired pre-hash when I read it (See what I did there? I am and author, after all).

Liking 1984, and to a lesser extent, Animal Farm, is not the defining characteristic of a well-read, intellectual person. I merely said I prefer Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World to them, and that both of them sounded like pretty hot tickets. In wherever-the-hell-that-was in 451, strife was nonexistent (except in the case of our dear fireman, of course), at the expense of art and literature. Seeing as I'm an author, this is an especially sad scene for me, but peace is worth a high price. Both of them (not Orwell's) drove home a point for me in a manner so gritty and realistic I was able to file through a bank vault with them. Orwell's, however, were rather tame, and delivered in an unbelievable manner (especially, if like me, you were raised on a farm and are well aware that pigs place below even chickens on the intelligence ladder-- though possibly above forum trolls, such as yourself).

At risk of sounding like a flamer, I must say: I feel no anger or regret at your statement, but am merely offended by it. In particular, your claim that I am anti-intellectual and don't deserve to be literate hit far too close to home, as it were. If I were anti-intellectual, would I have spent two years of my life writing a book, or countless, irretrievable days of my youth toiling for a contrived, arbitrary academy? Would I have wasted roughly eight minutes explaining very pointedly why I am not said anti-intellectual?

If you don't get the meaning and and importance of of my well-versed opinions ( and to a lesser extent, this one), you really don't deserve to be literate.... and you have the gall to describe your occupation as...oh, wait. It says you're unemployed (I did another).

For fear of not adding to the topic at hand, I think I must add another writing to the list:

Stephen King's 'The Shining'. Not a classic, perhaps, but it is widely revered, and seems to be about your level; it dissapointed mostly due to the fact that the book I wrote got to me first, in addition to a whole host of other reasons...but, I don't want to bruise your opinion of your favorite novels.

Mine and mine alone,

H.T. Black
If you'll excuse me, I'm off to take a sauna.

 

[ShadeOfRed]

I hated The Catcher in the Rye the first time I read it. I loved Lord of the Flies and To Kill a Mockingbird the first times I read them. Upon re-reading all 3, I found that I had the exact opposite dispositions towards them.

 

[cowbell40]

Ugh I cannot agree with you more on the Catcher in the Rye thing. Absolutely horrible. I swear the author tried to make Holden as soul-crushingly unlikable as possible.

In fact, I posted this in another forum last year. Damn I really lit this book up with a passion...

"OMFG.. I want to smash Holden Caulfield's face in with a piece of copper pipe. Not only does he repeat the same obnoxious phrases over and over ("I really am", or "that killed me"), but he also has the uncanny ability to not get laid (or "neck" as he calls it, to my intense dislike). He's an underage smoker, alcoholic, and prostitute order-er, and he gets his ass kicked pretty severely twice (By his roomate and by Maurice, who is, by far, the best character in the book). Aside from that, he is contantly whining and crying about this Jane girl who has a child molesting step-dad and who's best characteristic is that she kept her kings in the back row in checkers. In the end he never even manages to call her, leaving you wondering "what point did that have at all?". Also included in this terrific failure of American Literature is the extremely uncomfortable pinch on the butt that Holden gives to his younger sister. Honestly, was the author tring to make us hate every fabric of Holden's being? I almost forgot about he was violated in his sleep by his old teacher, who let him sleep over for the night. I found this to be somewhat funny, as anything bad that happens to him is a bonus for me, but still I have no idea why it was included. Also was the random inclusion of the "F You's" written on the walls, which again served no purpose to the story (it seems that they were put there to make the book more "edgy"; it succeeds only in being random and unecessary). Oh, and one more thing: The ending is the most random, pointless, and disjointed scene of the book. I HATE CATCHER IN THE RYE!"

 

[Kogarian]

Holden Caulfield was every kid I've always wanted to slap for be a self-centered prick.

Well...the kid developed depression after his brother died. And the story kind of points out that people like you don't seem to realize how badly he was scarred by that. You just go on in your lives while some peers are left to deal with troubling issues at an extremely young age.

 

[Kogarian]

Catch-22 and Ayn Rand's writings, as mentioned. Catch-22 started out good, but turned into...well...crap. And Rand's Atlas Shrugged was terrible. She's the only author I know who can fill ten pages up with details that somehow fail to broaden any character or story. Although I agree with some of her philosophy, the book was terrible. I read books from grocery stores that were much more terrific.

 

[coldwarkid]

I couldn't agree more. I almost failed higher English because I wrote a negative analysis of Romeo and Juliet. Because my teacher (the sort of woman who would gladly dig up and marry Shakespeare) claimed she "couldn't get past the vile rubbish that clutters this essay", she wouldn't mark it. It was the cornerstone of my folio, I would either have to re-write the essay using her opinions, or...give up, really. Fortunately, another teacher marked it for me, and I got an A for the folio.

*shakes fist*....I hate you, Shakespeare....

Don't hate Shakespeare, hate the teacher. Although, Romeo and Juliet isn't one of his best, I have to admit; I honestly find it a little creepy. Did you know that Juliet is 14?

I did. It still makes me feel a little strange when I write about it, like I should be phoning childline instead of worrying about Shakespearean attitudes to suicide.

 

[pseudonick]

I did not like 1984 or Catcher in the Rye at all. Not one bit. I especially thought 1984 was terrible. So very, very dull.

Although the biggest crap-fest I have read is the Alchemist. Good god, that was some of the most contrived and boring prose I have ever had the misfortune to read. And this is from someone who generally likes magical realism.

 

[Cantrix]

I loved Pride and Prejudice when I was a child, watched the BBC version and loved that too, but afterwards the book seemed slightly flat. I couldn't work out why till near the end, after Darcy's proposed to Elizabeth again. The book happens to be on the bookshelf behind me, so I'm going to quote the response.

"Elizabeth feeling all the more than common awkwardness and anxiety of his situation, now forced herself to speak; and immediately, though not very fluently, gave him to understand, that her sentiments had undergone so material a change, since the period to which he alluded, as to make her receive with gratitude and pleasure, his present assurances. The happiness which this reply produced, was such as he had probably never felt before; and he expressed himself on the occasion as sensibly and as warmly as a man violently in love can be supposed to do."

And that right there sums up what's wrong with the writing style for me. The characters are finally, finally getting together after an entire novel of waiting around, and we don't even get to find out what she actually said? And "expressed himself on the occasion as sensibly and as warmly as a man violently in love can be supposed to do" - what, did he hug her, kiss her, or throw her to the floor right then and there? The last one is probably unlikely, but how on earth are you supposed to know?

In other words, Jane Austen needed to take a class in show-don't-tell, and I'll admit I actually prefer the TV version.

Also Catch-22. Started out well, till you realise that every single joke is a Catch-22, and it gets repetitive, boring, and you can see things coming a mile off. The author seems to be faintly smug and self-congratulatory about it too, in my opinion.

I never could stand Romeo and Juliet, but I think it would be better if it wasn't consistently held up as some romantic ideal rather than teenagers in love doing tragically stupid things.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

1984, George Orwell. I mean...what the heck? It has little plot, little point, little meaning, and little interest-provoking writings. Same goes with Animal farm; that wasn't as suicide-inducingly depressing, though: it trended more towards mild retardation.

Fahrenheit 451, however, was really good...Alongside breave new world, to be honest. That seemed like a pretty hot deal, right up there with Equilibrium and Bioshock.

Congrats! You are officially the most anti-intellectual person I've ever come across on the Escapist.

If you don't get the meaning or the importance of 1984 (and to a lesser extent, Animal Farm), you really don't deserve to be literate.... and you have the gall to describe your occupation as "Author".

Sickening.

What...WTF(what the flame)? It was a picture of middle-upper class life in an English socialism. I got the point(s); I merely didn't care for it. It might have been unique and innovative in its time, but given the literal hundreds of dystopian fascism stories told since then, its novelty was more or less nonexistent. Seeing as most of such stories are blatently ripping off inspired by 1984, it seemed like a tired pre-hash when I read it (See what I did there? I am and author, after all).

Liking 1984, and to a lesser extent, Animal Farm, is not the defining characteristic of a well-read, intellectual person. I merely said I prefer Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World to them, and that both of them sounded like pretty hot tickets. In wherever-the-hell-that-was in 451, strife was nonexistent (except in the case of our dear fireman, of course), at the expense of art and literature. Seeing as I'm an author, this is an especially sad scene for me, but peace is worth a high price. Both of them (not Orwell's) drove home a point for me in a manner so gritty and realistic I was able to file through a bank vault with them. Orwell's, however, were rather tame, and delivered in an unbelievable manner (especially, if like me, you were raised on a farm and are well aware that pigs place below even chickens on the intelligence ladder-- though possibly above forum trolls, such as yourself).

At risk of sounding like a flamer, I must say: I feel no anger or regret at your statement, but am merely offended by it. In particular, your claim that I am anti-intellectual and don't deserve to be literate hit far too close to home, as it were. If I were anti-intellectual, would I have spent two years of my life writing a book, or countless, irretrievable days of my youth toiling for a contrived, arbitrary academy? Would I have wasted roughly eight minutes explaining very pointedly why I am not said anti-intellectual?

If you don't get the meaning and and importance of of my well-versed opinions ( and to a lesser extent, this one), you really don't deserve to be literate.... and you have the gall to describe your occupation as...oh, wait. It says you're unemployed (I did another).

For fear of not adding to the topic at hand, I think I must add another writing to the list:

Stephen King's 'The Shining'. Not a classic, perhaps, but it is widely revered, and seems to be about your level; it dissapointed mostly due to the fact that the book I wrote got to me first, in addition to a whole host of other reasons...but, I don't want to bruise your opinion of your favorite novels.

Mine and mine alone,

H.T. Black
If you'll excuse me, I'm off to take a sauna.

Well, thanks for proving my point. You didn't understand 1984. It wasn't about socialism, it was about totalitarianism. Know how I know that? ORWELL WAS A SOCIALIST! For being literate and an author, one would tend to think you'd actually READ. I mean, if you can't even grasp the big, flashing-in-neon themes of a book, what makes you think you can write one?

Anyway, 1984 is a much more sophisticated book than you give it credit for. For one, it's a more thoroughly fleshed out world with a complete setting, history, and culture. Contrast with Fahrenheit 451, which trades setting for an intense focus on the flashing-in-neon theme of the book: burning books r bad and here's why. Also, Nineteen Eighty-Four has had such a profound impact on our global society that the word Orwellian has become synonymous with any kind of totalitarian dystopia and descriptive of any real life government action that infringes on personal liberties, even though it was Orwell's last novel and was hardly representative of his entire body of work (that is, of the same influence as Kafka, Dickens, or Shakespeare). The language and concepts from 1984 have been woven into the common vernacular to such an extent that "doublethink" barely registers as a reference anymore. That's a feat few authors accomplish. And tame? Pardon me as I scoff at the idea. Did you even finish the book? Did you get to the part where he's tortured, betrays his loved one and co-conspirator, and ends up defeated, destroyed, and loving Big Brother? What about that is tame, exactly? Perhaps you can explain to me how the utter devestation of a man's psyche can be considered tame...

Basically, as a literary work, 1984 is a juggernaut, and as a work of political awareness, it is a masterpiece. Fahrenheit 451... well, that's a book for fourth graders. I didn't think it was that deep in fourth grade, at least...

As for Animal Farm, I'll grant you that it's a rather obvious satire (isn't that mostly the point of satire?) of Soviet Russia, though somewhat heavy-handed. Of course, if you know nothing of history, you probably didn't understand the book. Also, who he chose to represent which animals is hardly meant to be representative of that animal's particular level of intelligence. Growing up on a farm or not, you should not have let that be an influence on your opinion of the book. If that's what you're paying attention to, along with the "realism" of walking and talking animals, perhaps you're missing the point... again.

So could you explain to me how exactly you can, with a straight face, think of yourself as intellectual, despite completely missing the points of two of the most important books in Western literature?

And for the record, I am employed. You'll note that I don't list my birthday, either. Just because I don't list my birthday... that doesn't mean I wasn't born. Likewise, if my profile doesn't have a job listed, that doesn't mean I'm unemployed.

 

[Del-Toro]

This brings me to Hugo Victor's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and my quest to make it work within the context of a "social injustice". I basicaly milked the sort of iffy references to witchcraft to talk about the inquisition and go into a rant about how evil they were. Of course that didn't really reflect my opinions and it was done to appease the psycho liberals of our school system. Of course, I found the book itself to be incredibly refreshing largely because it was from the 19th century and so different from our time. You see, the prime reason I enjoyed the book was it's character development, I'm a sucker for good character development which is why I enjoyed Redwall (at the age of 9) and Rainbow Six (the book) so much: because all the characters were so heavily and well developed. They were "human" (the fact that Redwall was about mice notwithstanding) without being unjustifiably melancholy, the exact opposite of modern media where it's common to make a character more sympathetic by making them sadder or something along those lines, hence the advent of the "Mary Sue". This has even happened to super heroes, particularly spiderman. Pay attention and you will see something of a difference between 1960s cartoon spiderman and Toby Maguire spider man. Hugo's magnum opus is completely innocent of this and that's what makes it such a compelling read compared to the comparatively dry modern literature selection aka the Newberry and White Pine (Canadian reference for the win) selections of books.

edit.

I forgot to mention that the aforementioned trend is common throughout all storywriting as well as making characters relateable by making them spout off fuck and shit every alternate word.

 

[walkingdead127]

I would say every book in English class including everything written by Shakespeare.

(except for 1984, that was good when I first read it)

 

[HT_Black]

Well, thanks for proving my point. You didn't understand 1984. It wasn't about socialism, it was about totalitarianism. Know how I know that? ORWELL WAS A SOCIALIST! For being literate and an author, one would tend to think you'd actually READ. I mean, if you can't even grasp the big, flashing-in-neon themes of a book, what makes you think you can write one?

Anyway, 1984 is a much more sophisticated book than you give it credit for. For one, it's a more thoroughly fleshed out world with a complete setting, history, and culture. Contrast with Fahrenheit 451, which trades setting for an intense focus on the flashing-in-neon theme of the book: burning books r bad and here's why. Also, Nineteen Eighty-Four has had such a profound impact on our global society that the word Orwellian has become synonymous with any kind of totalitarian dystopia and descriptive of any real life government action that infringes on personal liberties, even though it was Orwell's last novel and was hardly representative of his entire body of work (that is, of the same influence as Kafka, Dickens, or Shakespeare). The language and concepts from 1984 have been woven into the common vernacular to such an extent that "doublethink" barely registers as a reference anymore. That's a feat few authors accomplish. And tame? Pardon me as I scoff at the idea. Did you even finish the book? Did you get to the part where he's tortured, betrays his loved one and co-conspirator, and ends up defeated, destroyed, and loving Big Brother? What about that is tame, exactly? Perhaps you can explain to me how the utter devestation of a man's psyche can be considered tame...

Basically, as a literary work, 1984 is a juggernaut, and as a work of political awareness, it is a masterpiece. Fahrenheit 451... well, that's a book for fourth graders. I didn't think it was that deep in fourth grade, at least...

As for Animal Farm, I'll grant you that it's a rather obvious satire (isn't that mostly the point of satire?) of Soviet Russia, though somewhat heavy-handed. Of course, if you know nothing of history, you probably didn't understand the book. Also, who he chose to represent which animals is hardly meant to be representative of that animal's particular level of intelligence. Growing up on a farm or not, you should not have let that be an influence on your opinion of the book. If that's what you're paying attention to, along with the "realism" of walking and talking animals, perhaps you're missing the point... again.

So could you explain to me how exactly you can, with a straight face, think of yourself as intellectual, despite completely missing the points of two of the most important books in Western literature?

And for the record, I am employed. You'll note that I don't list my birthday, either. Just because I don't list my birthday... that doesn't mean I wasn't born. Likewise, if my profile doesn't have a job listed, that doesn't mean I'm unemployed.

You took the bait, you butchered my full-of-holes-as-swiss cheese argument. Congratulations. I know it was about a totalitarianism; I am well ware of the many virtues that each one brought to the literary table. I simply didn't like it, and I do believe that was the point of this topic. I also do not think that you like Stephen King novels, despite my illogical insinuation; I also prefer Fahrenheit 451 to both of them, but I think I may be biased due to my long time admiration of Ray Bradbury.

EDIT: Bugger that. 1984 is a bland, uninspired work that gets its status as a classic solely due to the fact that it was done first. THe same story with the same morals has been told before, better, and without the softcore. Just needed to get that out. Now bug off-- I've got a book-signing at three.

My most sincere apologies,
H.T. Black

P.S. Harry Potter and the Philosopher/Sorcerer's stone. I don't care for it, but it has quite the reputation nonetheless. The ball's in your collective courts.

 

[Hot'n'steamy]

I think the majority of this thread is confused what constitutes a literary classic. Comments such as I didn't enjoy catcher in the rye and I didn't find the Great Gatsby, as the main characters were unlikeable illustrate the following point; that "literary classics" are not necessarily books that are enjoyable to read, nor books that evoke stroke emotional attachments to characters, but novels that set a new precedent in the (Western) literary agenda, or succinctly encapsulate an ethos of the era.

Btw, OuroborosChoked is correct (although the literate comment was a low blow, and HT, never, never pretend to set up a straw man argument on the Internet (it doesn't work)).