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

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I was inspired to make this after seeing a few posts in the "last book you read" topic. What books are considered by scholars to be "great literary classics" but you read them and can't figure out what anybody sees in them?

For me, there are two books that stand out. The first one is "The Catcher in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger. I read the book in my junior year of high school, and I couldn't figure out what everyone (not just scholars) saw in it. To me, it was just a kid talking about how everyone except for him pretends to be someone else and...that's it. The book doesn't even have a real ending to leave you feeling satisfied that the book was a rounded story. It just...ends. I've read books that did that well ("Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" being a prime example), but in this book it just...didn't leave me feeling like I read a full book.

The other one is "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen. I suppose I'm a bit harsh on it, being the opposite of the target demographic, but it bored me to tears. It's supposed to be a tale of true romance and looking deeper into people to find themselves, and I suppose it was revolutionary when it was written. Problem is, it was written in the 19th century. I've seen the story too many times to be fresh, and outside of the "novelty", the book doesn't really have much going for it. The characters seem flat, with one-note personalities, and the plot moves way too slowly to hold my interest. However, that's just my opinion.

Again, what other books have you read that were "classics", but you found to be dull or flawed? If you want to take me to task for what I wrote, go ahead as well.

 

[Horticulture]

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

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

The Catcher in the Rye is not about the plot, it's about the character of Holden Caulfield. He's an easily related to character for just about everyone in some way or another. I do think that the fact that you read it for school, OP, proves that they tried to use it as English education and not as philosophy or just a good night's read.

I think that was the problem I had with it. Holden Caulfield was every kid I've always wanted to slap for be a self-centered prick.

 

[Berethond]

Into Thin Air
Great Expectations
To Kill a Mockingbird. This was the worst book I've ever read.

 

[JanatUrlich]

1984

I get it was awesome in the 40's and radical, but I got bored reading it D=

 

[Pimppeter2]

To Kill a Mockingbird. This was the worst book I've ever read.

Same here

 

[DarkFenix]

I like the great gatsby. Something about living back in that time with parties, people with some class and a lack of media to try and absorb your every waking moment sounds incredible.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Arrers]

1984

I get it was awesome in the 40's and radical, but I got bored reading it D=

I haven't even read 1984 and I'm already bored of it. Everyone that I know who's read has told me almost everytihng about it.

 

[Arcade_Fire]

Age of Innocence.

I don't know if anyone else has had the misfortune of being subjected to this monstrosity of a novel, but it made me want to go back in time and kill Edith Wharton.

Seriously - it's one of those books where every time a character walks into a room, the author has to spend 3 pages describing the room. And then on paragraph describing what happens in that room. And then we never see that room in the novel ever again. Take that and multiply is out to 2000 shit-tacular pages about annoying rich people who want to be together but just can't for some reason, and you have the Age of Innocence.

Fucking terrible.

 

[Whiskyjakk]

1984

I get it was awesome in the 40's and radical, but I got bored reading it D=

Yeah same here, I didn't know how boring a totalitarian future could be made until I read this book.

Don't know if the Silmarillion counts as a literary classic but I think somebody should have told Tolkien that just because you can invent a language and meticulous mythological history to accompany your fantasy novel doesn't mean you should.

 

[jim_doki]

books are the best snapshot we have of a life we weren't around for. Nostalgia plays a big part in this

 

[thiosk]

The classics are books that everyone wants to have read but no one wants to read.

-samuel clemens

 

[HardRockSamurai]

I thought The Catcher in the Rye was okay; it did get a little bit preachy, but at least it was readable!

As for Pride and Prejudice, that book can go fuck itself!

 

[Lusperus]

The great gatsby, if you go to like the third chapter, then the story picks up.

 

[sgtshock]

I know this is cliche, but William Shakespeare. Many teachers seem to subscribe to the belief that reading a dead form of English somehow will enlighten and sophisticate readers. Unfortunately, all it does is confuse and aggravate students. The ironic thing is that the teachers who preach Shakespeare's outdated English are usually the same ones who will tell you that your paper is unreadable because you misused a comma.

Also, Jane Eyre. I read this a while back, so I can't remember that much about it, except that it was pure, concentrated monotony. I remember entire paragraphs dedicated to the appearance of a garden, or a room. Maybe it had a strong message about feminism, but the woman couldn't write worth a damn.

 

[Ancalagon]

The other one is "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen. I suppose I'm a bit harsh on it, being the opposite of the target demographic, but it bored me to tears. It's supposed to be a tale of true romance and looking deeper into people to find themselves, and I suppose it was revolutionary when it was written. Problem is, it was written in the 19th century. I've seen the story too many times to be fresh, and outside of the "novelty", the book doesn't really have much going for it. The characters seem flat, with one-note personalities, and the plot moves way too slowly to hold my interest. However, that's just my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly about Pride and Predjudice. I've quoted them before in my Austen rage, but two statements from other authors sum it up better than I ever could:

"A carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but no glance of a bright, vivid physiognomy, no open country, no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck".

Charlotte Brontë

"Every time I read Pride and Prejudice I want to dig her up and hit her over the skull with her own shin-bone".

Mark Twain