I don't like this term "objective good". Nothing can be objectively good because "good" is an inherently subjective term. Objectively influential, sure. Objectively ground-breaking or experimental, sure. But "good" implies that it's impossible to dislike.
I don't like this term "objective good". Nothing can be objectively good because "good" is an inherently subjective term. Objectively influential, sure. Objectively ground-breaking or experimental, sure. But "good" implies that it's impossible to dislike.
The list of books I've stopped reading just because they didn't keep my attention is longer (I don't have much time to read, so if I deign a book unworthy of my time, it gets dumped onto the "revisit later" pile) than the books I consider truly terrible; that being said, here are some of the latter:
The Scarlet Letterby Nathaniel Hawthorne. Good God. Terse, dense, puritanical garbage. I fell asleep in excess of 20 times sophomore year trying to stay awake and plod through this absolute trash.
Schoolkids are often bored by things they don't understand. I'm sure you would've liked it better if Hester Prynne had ninja powers and rode on a dragon while commanding an army of giant robots.
Few thingsNothing is objectively good, and just because something is worse than something else, it does NOT mean that the first thing is good.
So Conway Twitty is just as "good" as the Beatles? How about Dolly Parton? She must be just as good as Bach, huh?
My ten year old niece thinks that Little Lulu is better than The Watchmen. Who's to say she's wrong? I have a cousin who thinks Epic Movie is better than Casablanca. Since these things are just subjective, I guess he's right as well.
I think people here are conflating good writing (technical skill) with enjoyable writing. Sure, Little Lulu might be more enjoyable to some people, but Watchmen is, technically-speaking, better.
Both Mozart and Bach are technically brilliant, but I would much rather listen to the former.
I've read a bit of Ulysses, and I found it technically brilliant. I didn't really enjoy it, though. I enjoyed a Gravity's Rainbow a lot, however.
Also, I personally don't enjoy most of the work of Dickens. It just seems kind of anti-intellectual to me. Oh, and The Grapes of Wrath > Of Mice and Men, mostly because it's more complex.
Schoolkids are often bored by things they don't understand. I'm sure you would've liked it better if Hester Prynne had ninja powers and rode on a dragon while commanding an army of giant robots.
Please don't mistake me for some moron kid who needs equal amounts of candy, soda, and Adderall to function. You saw me in the same breath state that I had gotten 112 pages into Ulysses (I intend on finishing it, but I put it on the list because the writing style is mind-boggling), and I pride myself on that fact, considering many people (including several of my English teachers) couldn't even get that far. I did finish The Scarlet Letter, as well as understood it; understood it insofar as it is an exploration of the life of sinners (Hester and Dimmesdale) and the results of their sins and guilt (Pearl, the Letters, and the torture of Chillingworth, respectively) and what that causes in a society in which to err in the eyes of the status quo is to face condemnation before all. I don't have to like it.
As for the rest of my recent reading having to do with "Ninja powers...dragon[s]...[and armies] of giant robots", maybe we should go through some of the other material I've read:
The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera - Found the characters rather unlikeable, but overall an excellent read. Part of Bloom's Canon, too.
The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle by Haruki Murakami - Simply epic and beyond words. The characters were quirky and likeable, and the overall effect was profound. Also, SURPRISE! It might be from Japan, but the thought of robots or pokemon never entered into my mind while reading it.
Cien Anos de Soledad by Gabriel Garcia-Marquez - Read it in English in 6th grade, and am presently reading it in the original Spanish. An excellent read for those of you who haven't read it; its the history of a Colombian family with just a hint of fantasy (magical realism and all that).
Collected Fictions by Jorge Luis Borges - Quite possibly some of the most important short stories ever put to text. El Zahir is profoundly disturbing, and The Library of Babylon presents an interesting scenario that feels like a vague metaphor for the internet...Decades before the concept was even thought of.
Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs - Great, but sick. Like much of Burroughs's work, I am told.
The Stranger by Albert Camus - I personally found the sheer WEIGHT conveyed by the protagonist's action to be the biggest draw; I loved it. My friend and I often use "The sun made me do it" to refer to an action with little or no reason behind it.
I could continue the list, but I won't for now. All I ask is for you to shut you mouth and stop acting as if you know me. My taste in books is rather developed (I was reading thousand page novels in 1st-2nd grade), and I don't need some dolt trying to tell me how said tastes are defined, especially with half-assed conjecture culled from base stereotyping of the fools I regrettably have called my peers.
Please don't mistake me for some moron kid who needs equal amounts of candy, soda, and Adderall to function. You saw me in the same breath state that I had gotten 112 pages into Ulysses (I intend on finishing it, but I put it on the list because the writing style is mind-boggling), and I pride myself on that fact, considering many people (including several of my English teachers) couldn't even get that far. I did finishThe Scarlet Letter, as well as understood it; understood it insofar as it is an exploration of the life of sinners (Hester and Dimmesdale) and the results of their sins and guilt (Pearl, the Letters, and the torture of Chillingworth, respectively) and what that causes in a society in which to err in the eyes of the status quo is to face condemnation before all. I don't have to like it.
Yeah, we had Cliff Notes when I was in school too. Funny thing about Cliff Notes - it's not a substitute for actual understanding or appreciation. Maybe if you had spent some time trying to understand The Scarlet Letter, you would have enjoyed it. Sadly, you seem like you were more concerned with convincing yourself that you are somehow smarter than Hawthorne. I'll tell you what: you go write a book better than The Scarlet Letter, and then I'll cheerfully listen to you talk about how bad The Scarlet Letter is all day long. Until then, you're just being a whiny little kid.
I don't have to like it.
That's not what you said at first. You said
The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Good God. Terse, dense, puritanical garbage. I fell asleep in excess of 20 times sophomore year trying to stay awake and plod through this absolute trash.
Calling something "trash" is not the same as saying "I didn't like it." Here's an example: I don't like The Republic. However, I appreciate that it is a work the likes of which I could not surpass if I live to be older than Methuselah. My dislike of it has absolutely no effect on its importance or merit. It is certainly not trash.
I could continue the list, but I won't for now. All I ask is for you to shut you mouth and stop acting as if you know me. My taste in books is rather developed (I was reading thousand page novels in 1st-2nd grade), and I don't need some dolt trying to tell me how said tastes are defined, especially with half-assed conjecture culled from base stereotyping of the fools I regrettably have called my peers.
OOOOOOOOHHHHHH, you've read a couple of books, you read books in the first grade, and you have a very self congratulatory opinion of your taste in books (conceited much?). Sorry, but I'm unimpressed.
No, I don't know you. From your tone, I don't care to know you. However, I do know that anyone who says
(I don't have much time to read, so if I deign a book unworthy of my time, it gets dumped onto the "revisit later" pile) than the books I consider truly terrible; that being said, here are some of the latter:
The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Good God. Terse, dense, puritanical garbage. I fell asleep in excess of 20 times sophomore year trying to stay awake and plod through this absolute trash.
doesn't know how to use "deign" in a sentence and doesn't know the first thing about The Scarlet Letter.
Honestly, no books come to mind that I thought were bad. There's so many great books out there that I can easily pick out a good one every time.
HungryJoe, take a fucking chill pill. Your are taking this way to seriously.
Translation: Waaahhh! I just want to trash things I don't understand without being challenged to support my opinions!
I think it's more the fact that you're acting like a condescending asshole. I do agree with your side of the argument, but I think a dose of civility would definitely improve the conversation.
Calling something "trash" is not the same as saying "I didn't like it." Here's an example: I don't like The Republic. However, I appreciate that it is a work the likes of which I could not surpass if I live to be older than Methuselah. My dislike of it has absolutely no effect on its importance or merit. It is certainly not trash.
I agree with you entirely on this point. WindUpBird said one thing earlier and then seemed to change what he meant later. He should indeed clarify the point he wants to make: does he think that The Scarlet Letter is objectively bad, or does he merely dislike it? My guess is the latter.
However, I also agree with Günter: the rest of your post was just appalling. You put words in WindUpBird's mouth and insulted his intelligence for seemingly no reason other than to be a jerk. He clearly stated that he both finished and understood The Scarlet Letter with no mention of outside aid, and he decided that he didn't like it anyway. So he wasn't thinking and mischaracterized his personal dislike for The Scarlet Letter as an objective fact about the work's quality. Big deal. Everyone makes mistakes; there's no need to get so condescending about it. Seriously, what is it with you and throwing out baseless insults that add nothing to the argument at hand?
You know hungryjoe, maybe you should say what you believe makes a book good? Like that we can understand your way of thinking rather than you insulting everyone. I'm interested in how you judge books in how they're written in terms of skill of writing as well as writing a book that is captivating. Do you like everything that is written with a high degree if literacy skill, or do you appreciate everything written with a high degree if literacy skill? Do all these books which you are defending captivate you and suck you in for hours? Are they real page turners? Or are you reading them impressed at the sill needed to craft the book? Or is the high degree of literacy skill what interests you in these books? You're always bashing us, I would like to know more about why you are.
Edit: And please don't insult me when you're giving your opinion. Unless your opinion is insulting me.
[P]ease don't insult me when you're giving your opinion. Unless your opinion is insulting me.
You people seem to be really concerned when I "insult" someone, but you don"t seem to care when someone else says that a book that has withstood the test of time is "trash". I didn't "insult" anyone in this thread unless they "insulted" a book first. As I said earlier, if someone says, "I didn't understand Silas Marner and so I didn't like it very much", I have no problem at all. That's a fair opinion based totally on personal preference. If someone says, "I didn't like Silas Marner because I have formed an actual literary argument against it", and then proceeds to make an actual literary argument not totally based on personal preference, I similarly have no problem, even though I would still try to show that person that they were wrong.
The problem I have is when someone says, "Silas Marner was stupid trash." That is an insult and no one should be surprised when another person takes up the gauntlet. If I said "Escaflowne is stupid trash", do you think no one would respond in kind? Do you honestly think anyone would let me get away with posting, "The Watchmen is stupid"?
He clearly stated that he both finished and understoodThe Scarlet Letterwith no mention of outside aid, and he decided that he didn't like it anyway.
See, I don't believe that he understood it. I can say that I understand Finnegans Wake, but that doesn't mean I actually understand it. He might say he understood The Scarlet Letter, but I submit that if he really understood it he wouldn't have called it "trash".
You know hungryjoe, maybe you should say what you believe makes a book good?
That's a hard question, and maybe a little unfair because I believe that the people in this thread who say things like, "Silas Marner was stupid" bear the burden of proof. If a person says something along those lines and cannot back up their statement with a literary argument, they should expect to draw my attention. Once again, ask yourself honestly what would happen if I posted "Ghost in the Shell is stupid" in some anime thread.
One thing I guess I could say in answer is how much I was moved by a book. I honestly think about books like The Great Gatsby, Great Expectations, Silas Marner, The Grapes of Wrath, Animal Farm, and The Scarlet Letter all the time. I can't tell you how often I'll see some news story, for instance, and think how it reminds me of Animal Farm. I'll often think how some mean old woman reminds me of Miss Havisham in Great Expectations. When I dress in the morning, I'll think to myself, "I wonder if Gatsby would approve of this tie." When a book gets into a person's head like that, it has obviously made quite an impression.
I'm with Hungry Joe. Kids these days are illiterate. You might have the mechanical ability to look at printed characters and translate them into language. But most people do not seem to have the ability to actually read, especially when it comes to books. That's why we started doing the book club. Most of you kids don't read. Part of being a geek is being generally more intelligent than the average person. A huge part of that is knowing how to read, for real.
Even though I have technically been able to read since before Kindergarten, when I could read The Cat in the Hat, I didn't learn to read for real until 10th grade. I remember in 10th grade for the first time I actually had a good English teacher. I forget his name, but he loved Mark Twain a lot. The first book he made us read was Lord of The Flies. When I read the book, I just thought it was a cool story about kids stuck on an island. He demonstrated how it was actually a microcosm of human society, and had all these things to say about human nature without literally saying them. From then on I've been able to read, for real.
Once you learn how to read, it is painfully obvious to you when someone else does not. If someone gets bored reading the classics, if they think Watchmen is a murder mystery, or if they are unable to offer literary critique beyond personal taste, then it is clear they do not have this ability. We are trying to make people realize they do not have this very necessary life skill, and encouraging them to do something about it.
Think of it like a very hard video game. Let's say you went to play Starcraft against the Korean StarCraft champions. You wouldn't think StarCraft was a very fun game. you would just get your ass handed to you repeatedly every single time. Does that mean Starcraft is a bad game? No, of course not. It just means you do not have the necessary skills to enjoy championship level Starcraft.
Much is the same with these classic books. There is a reason they are classics. There is a reason the authors are historically significant and have received so much recognition. It's because smart people who are very good at reading are able to recognize the fine craftsmanship. Even if they do not personally enjoy the works in question, they enjoy the quality of the workmanship that went into the writing itself.
If you know how to read, you will not be bored reading these books. Even if you don't have any personal feelings for the substance, you will enjoy the structure. If you don't learn how to read, and yet try to make literary criticism, you have to expect that people like Joe are going to come down on you. It would be no different than if you tried to tell Koreans that Starcraft was a boring game. You don't have to like Starcraft. But if you have necessary video game skill and knowledge, you are able to recognize how revolutionary it is, and enjoy it on a deeper level. If you can't, then it's a failing in yourself, and not a failing of the work.
Thanks very much for clarifying, HungryJoe and Scott, because now I understand both sides of the argument better. I have to agree with you two, but maybe instead of resulting to insults, you should try to better clarify your position because otherwise the discussion goes nowhere as everyone is hurling their insults everywhere. It's also important to make the distinction between finding no enjoyment in a book, and believing the book is absolute trashing. Basically, let's try to keep it a little more civil and clarify what you're talking about (I'm talking to everyone here) so that we can make accurate statements rather than huffing and puffing over misconceptions.
Thanks very much for clarifying, HungryJoe and Scott, because now I understand both sides of the argument better. I have to agree with you two, but maybe instead of resulting to insults, you should try to better clarify your position because otherwise the discussion goes nowhere as everyone is hurling their insults everywhere. It's also important to make the distinction between finding no enjoyment in a book, and believing the book is absolute trashing. Basically, let's try to keep it a little more civil and clarify what you're talking about (I'm talking to everyone here) so that we can make accurate statements rather than huffing and puffing over misconceptions.
The thing is that we are dealing with people who don't know how to read, and they don't feel bad about it. In fact, they are self righteous about it. We can't make them learn to read, they have to do it themselves. They can't fix the problem themselves if they don't accept that the problem exists, or that it is a problem. It's kind of hard to get someone to accept the fact that they don't truly know how to read without bringing them down.
You know what? Fine. Maybe it was my course. I'll go read The Scarlet Letter again. In fact, I have about a week of doing absolutely nothing in front of me, so maybe I'll put The Fall of Hyperion on hold.
Perhaps, though, I should merely adjust my argument, starting at square one with what I believed was "bad" about the book in question. It is not the story, nor by any means its allegorical merit I find bad; the former two were extremely important and enjoyable (I particularly remember enjoying the scaffold scene). However, the issue I took was not so much with the content of Hawthorne's prose; rather, it was the styling of which I took issue with. Looking at the books I was reading for pleasure at the same time that the novel in question was assigned to me (namely, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, if memory serves), I was probably used to straightforward, short, and powerful statements delivered in common language, not the winding yet descriptive statements of Hawthorne. It's somewhat difficult to enjoy long descriptions of wild rose bushes when the rest of your literature consists of men not examining plants, but consuming them with vigor.
Through hindsight, it's easy enough for me to see that Hawthorne's writing needs to be read with the knowledge that Hawthorne uses his language in the style of a Romantic; recalling Frankenstein, a book I read a year later and enjoyed greatly, the usage of words to build setting, symbolism, and imagery is quite similar. I believe that if we were to have spent time studying romanticism sophomore year instead of junior year, and indeed, were I to have looked back on what I had read with all the knowledge I have presently, I probably wouldn't have spoken so rashly. Sophomore year, I might have hated it; however, I'm willing to bet that if I read it again, I would enjoy it greatly.
So, please forgive me for speaking rather out of turn; the opinion you received (though it pains me to admit it) definitely was of a kid who didn't quite understand what he was reading at the time. However, please don't think that I don't know how to read. My understanding of books has developed quite a bit since then.
Also, about ninjas and robots: As I recall, right before sophomore year was when I discovered Snow Crash, so you might be right on that point, too. I probably would have enjoyed more it if there was a subplot about hackers with swords.
I recognize that The Grapes of Wrath is a significant book, I just personally don't like it. It doesn't necessarily make it bad, and it doesn't mean I don't understand it, I just don't like it. Much of my boredom may have come from the fact that I was reading it in English class, and we had to do a bunch of other boring stuff with it, but who knows? I think many people in this thread, myself included, would be better off posting in a "Books you don't like" thread, because much of it is a matter of preference, not quality.
I think many people in this thread, myself included, would be better off posting in a "Books you don't like" thread, because much of it is a matter of preference, not quality.
That's just it. There's no point in discussing preferences. Everyone has different taste, and is entitled to it. There is nothing to discuss. Your taste is what your taste is. End of story. "I like book X. I hate book Y." Ok, so what?
The way to have productive discussion is to examine things academically. Debate the literary merits of book X or book Y. Then there's actually something to talk about. There is a common ground upon which people can reasonable agree or disagree. If you're just going to state your taste, there's nothing to say.
I gave up on reading Clockwork Orange after the first page because of the made up language. I have to be drawn into a book within the first few pages if I'm going to enjoy reading it all the way through, the only expectations to this rule is when I was reading stuff for my degree and now masters because so many historians have a terrible writing style that if I gave up on them I wouldn't have a degree.
I gave up on reading Clockwork Orange after the first page because of the made up language. I have to be drawn into a book within the first few pages if I'm going to enjoy reading it all the way through, the only expectations to this rule is when I was reading stuff for my degree and now masters because so many historians have a terrible writing style that if I gave up on them I wouldn't have a degree.
Try reading it again with an edition that has the Nadsat dictionary in the back. It makes things oh-so-much easier.
I gave up on reading Clockwork Orange after the first page because of the made up language. I have to be drawn into a book within the first few pages if I'm going to enjoy reading it all the way through, the only expectations to this rule is when I was reading stuff for my degree and now masters because so many historians have a terrible writing style that if I gave up on them I wouldn't have a degree.
Try reading it again with an edition that has the Nadsat dictionary in the back. It makes things oh-so-much easier.
Yes, my droogie-woog, kopat a malenky bit and you'll pony real horrorshow.
I'm with Hungry Joe. Kids these days are illiterate... That's why we started doing the book club. Most of you kids don't read.
While I agree with many of your points, and Hungry Joe's points, and the book club is great way to get people to read, I don't think recommending Snow Crash is going to help anyone! Out of the 37 science fiction books I've read this year it was probably the forth or fifth worst written book.
While I agree with many of your points, and Hungry Joe's points, and the book club is great way to get people to read, I don't think recommending Snow Crash is going to help anyone! Out of the 37 science fiction books I've read this year it was probably the forth or fifth worst written book.
After having read Snow Crash, I'd hate to see what the first worst written book was like.
Try the latest new Dune books from Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson. Worse writing, with the added "pissing on my father's grave" aspect turned up to eleven.
Try the latest new Dune books from Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson. Worse writing, with the added "pissing on my father's grave" aspect turned up to eleven.
Thanks for the tip, I think I'll avoid them like Middlesbrough.
Try the latest new Dune books from Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson. Worse writing, with the added "pissing on my father's grave" aspect turned up to eleven.
You mean the prequels or the sequels? Because I found the sequels at least made up for the crapfest that was "Chapterhouse: Dune" that was Frank Herberts last book. I haven't read the prequels yet, but the sequels at least made the last book worth having been drudged through. (though they were a bit far out themselves and not as good as the original (obviously)).
The Yearling was the only book I couldn't finish out of sheer boredom. I wouldn't say it was a bad book, just dull. I actually went to my eighth grade teacher and asked if I could read another book and write an essay on it instead. She took some convincing, but I brought in three books from home and we settled on The Idiot.
@Scott: I am completely with you on teaching children to "read for real". My parents read Shakespeare, Ayn Rand, Bradbury, etc. to me when I was a child. Anything I didn't understand, we would discuss. They taught me to comprehend, analyse, and use the information I gleaned to apply to other works and ideas. We dumb down too much for children and then act like the simplest task is a huge accomplishment to boost their self-esteem. It is a detriment to the child and to society at large.
Comments
My ten year old niece thinks that Little Lulu is better than The Watchmen. Who's to say she's wrong? I have a cousin who thinks Epic Movie is better than Casablanca. Since these things are just subjective, I guess he's right as well.
Both Mozart and Bach are technically brilliant, but I would much rather listen to the former.
I've read a bit of Ulysses, and I found it technically brilliant. I didn't really enjoy it, though. I enjoyed a Gravity's Rainbow a lot, however.
Also, I personally don't enjoy most of the work of Dickens. It just seems kind of anti-intellectual to me. Oh, and The Grapes of Wrath > Of Mice and Men, mostly because it's more complex.
As for the rest of my recent reading having to do with "Ninja powers...dragon[s]...[and armies] of giant robots", maybe we should go through some of the other material I've read:
- The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera - Found the characters rather unlikeable, but overall an excellent read. Part of Bloom's Canon, too.
- The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle by Haruki Murakami - Simply epic and beyond words. The characters were quirky and likeable, and the overall effect was profound. Also, SURPRISE! It might be from Japan, but the thought of robots or pokemon never entered into my mind while reading it.
- Cien Anos de Soledad by Gabriel Garcia-Marquez - Read it in English in 6th grade, and am presently reading it in the original Spanish. An excellent read for those of you who haven't read it; its the history of a Colombian family with just a hint of fantasy (magical realism and all that).
- Collected Fictions by Jorge Luis Borges - Quite possibly some of the most important short stories ever put to text. El Zahir is profoundly disturbing, and The Library of Babylon presents an interesting scenario that feels like a vague metaphor for the internet...Decades before the concept was even thought of.
- Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs - Great, but sick. Like much of Burroughs's work, I am told.
- The Stranger by Albert Camus - I personally found the sheer WEIGHT conveyed by the protagonist's action to be the biggest draw; I loved it. My friend and I often use "The sun made me do it" to refer to an action with little or no reason behind it.
I could continue the list, but I won't for now. All I ask is for you to shut you mouth and stop acting as if you know me. My taste in books is rather developed (I was reading thousand page novels in 1st-2nd grade), and I don't need some dolt trying to tell me how said tastes are defined, especially with half-assed conjecture culled from base stereotyping of the fools I regrettably have called my peers.Good day.
No, I don't know you. From your tone, I don't care to know you. However, I do know that anyone who says doesn't know how to use "deign" in a sentence and doesn't know the first thing about The Scarlet Letter.
I think it's more the fact that you're acting like a condescending asshole. I do agree with your side of the argument, but I think a dose of civility would definitely improve the conversation.
However, I also agree with Günter: the rest of your post was just appalling. You put words in WindUpBird's mouth and insulted his intelligence for seemingly no reason other than to be a jerk. He clearly stated that he both finished and understood The Scarlet Letter with no mention of outside aid, and he decided that he didn't like it anyway. So he wasn't thinking and mischaracterized his personal dislike for The Scarlet Letter as an objective fact about the work's quality. Big deal. Everyone makes mistakes; there's no need to get so condescending about it. Seriously, what is it with you and throwing out baseless insults that add nothing to the argument at hand?
Edit: And please don't insult me when you're giving your opinion. Unless your opinion is insulting me.
The problem I have is when someone says, "Silas Marner was stupid trash." That is an insult and no one should be surprised when another person takes up the gauntlet. If I said "Escaflowne is stupid trash", do you think no one would respond in kind? Do you honestly think anyone would let me get away with posting, "The Watchmen is stupid"? See, I don't believe that he understood it. I can say that I understand Finnegans Wake, but that doesn't mean I actually understand it. He might say he understood The Scarlet Letter, but I submit that if he really understood it he wouldn't have called it "trash". That's a hard question, and maybe a little unfair because I believe that the people in this thread who say things like, "Silas Marner was stupid" bear the burden of proof. If a person says something along those lines and cannot back up their statement with a literary argument, they should expect to draw my attention. Once again, ask yourself honestly what would happen if I posted "Ghost in the Shell is stupid" in some anime thread.
One thing I guess I could say in answer is how much I was moved by a book. I honestly think about books like The Great Gatsby, Great Expectations, Silas Marner, The Grapes of Wrath, Animal Farm, and The Scarlet Letter all the time. I can't tell you how often I'll see some news story, for instance, and think how it reminds me of Animal Farm. I'll often think how some mean old woman reminds me of Miss Havisham in Great Expectations. When I dress in the morning, I'll think to myself, "I wonder if Gatsby would approve of this tie." When a book gets into a person's head like that, it has obviously made quite an impression.
Even though I have technically been able to read since before Kindergarten, when I could read The Cat in the Hat, I didn't learn to read for real until 10th grade. I remember in 10th grade for the first time I actually had a good English teacher. I forget his name, but he loved Mark Twain a lot. The first book he made us read was Lord of The Flies. When I read the book, I just thought it was a cool story about kids stuck on an island. He demonstrated how it was actually a microcosm of human society, and had all these things to say about human nature without literally saying them. From then on I've been able to read, for real.
Once you learn how to read, it is painfully obvious to you when someone else does not. If someone gets bored reading the classics, if they think Watchmen is a murder mystery, or if they are unable to offer literary critique beyond personal taste, then it is clear they do not have this ability. We are trying to make people realize they do not have this very necessary life skill, and encouraging them to do something about it.
Think of it like a very hard video game. Let's say you went to play Starcraft against the Korean StarCraft champions. You wouldn't think StarCraft was a very fun game. you would just get your ass handed to you repeatedly every single time. Does that mean Starcraft is a bad game? No, of course not. It just means you do not have the necessary skills to enjoy championship level Starcraft.
Much is the same with these classic books. There is a reason they are classics. There is a reason the authors are historically significant and have received so much recognition. It's because smart people who are very good at reading are able to recognize the fine craftsmanship. Even if they do not personally enjoy the works in question, they enjoy the quality of the workmanship that went into the writing itself.
If you know how to read, you will not be bored reading these books. Even if you don't have any personal feelings for the substance, you will enjoy the structure. If you don't learn how to read, and yet try to make literary criticism, you have to expect that people like Joe are going to come down on you. It would be no different than if you tried to tell Koreans that Starcraft was a boring game. You don't have to like Starcraft. But if you have necessary video game skill and knowledge, you are able to recognize how revolutionary it is, and enjoy it on a deeper level. If you can't, then it's a failing in yourself, and not a failing of the work.
Perhaps, though, I should merely adjust my argument, starting at square one with what I believed was "bad" about the book in question. It is not the story, nor by any means its allegorical merit I find bad; the former two were extremely important and enjoyable (I particularly remember enjoying the scaffold scene). However, the issue I took was not so much with the content of Hawthorne's prose; rather, it was the styling of which I took issue with. Looking at the books I was reading for pleasure at the same time that the novel in question was assigned to me (namely, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, if memory serves), I was probably used to straightforward, short, and powerful statements delivered in common language, not the winding yet descriptive statements of Hawthorne. It's somewhat difficult to enjoy long descriptions of wild rose bushes when the rest of your literature consists of men not examining plants, but consuming them with vigor.
Through hindsight, it's easy enough for me to see that Hawthorne's writing needs to be read with the knowledge that Hawthorne uses his language in the style of a Romantic; recalling Frankenstein, a book I read a year later and enjoyed greatly, the usage of words to build setting, symbolism, and imagery is quite similar. I believe that if we were to have spent time studying romanticism sophomore year instead of junior year, and indeed, were I to have looked back on what I had read with all the knowledge I have presently, I probably wouldn't have spoken so rashly. Sophomore year, I might have hated it; however, I'm willing to bet that if I read it again, I would enjoy it greatly.
So, please forgive me for speaking rather out of turn; the opinion you received (though it pains me to admit it) definitely was of a kid who didn't quite understand what he was reading at the time. However, please don't think that I don't know how to read. My understanding of books has developed quite a bit since then.
Also, about ninjas and robots: As I recall, right before sophomore year was when I discovered Snow Crash, so you might be right on that point, too. I probably would have enjoyed more it if there was a subplot about hackers with swords.
The way to have productive discussion is to examine things academically. Debate the literary merits of book X or book Y. Then there's actually something to talk about. There is a common ground upon which people can reasonable agree or disagree. If you're just going to state your taste, there's nothing to say.
@Scott: I am completely with you on teaching children to "read for real". My parents read Shakespeare, Ayn Rand, Bradbury, etc. to me when I was a child. Anything I didn't understand, we would discuss. They taught me to comprehend, analyse, and use the information I gleaned to apply to other works and ideas. We dumb down too much for children and then act like the simplest task is a huge accomplishment to boost their self-esteem. It is a detriment to the child and to society at large.