Wow, you kids really brought the hateorade to the widely read classic novel.
It's a good thing The Name of the Wind consisted of completely original sentiment and superb prose...
I haven't read TNotW, so I can't judge it. I have, however, painfully dragged my way through TGG.
I'm not saying TGG is bad writing. I'm saying even the most amazing writing that goes on about nothing for an entire novel is boring as shit.
If I had to choose between reading this book again and reading Twilight, I would immediately pick up Twilight. Not even a moment of consideration. At least the bad writing and overwrought romance in Twilight is amusing to make fun of. TGG doesn't even have that going for it.
The Red Badge of Courage is awesome, tho, and has significant historical value in terms of changing the way that war was written about and viewed by the public.
The Great Gatsby is awesome, tho, and has significant historical value in terms of changing the way that leisure & sexually-liberated love was written about and viewed by the public.
The Red Badge of Courage is awesome, tho, and has significant historical value in terms of changing the way that war was written about and viewed by the public.
I have nothing against the setting of the book or even the storyline, it is a perfectly serviceable storyline that works in any war story. The writing style just irked the shit of me due to how unnecessarily colorful and overly descriptive it was. For that reason alone, I just grew bored with it and made it a chore to read. It was one of the few books I ever substituted Cliff's Notes for (something I'm ashamed to admit).
The Great Gatsby is awesome, tho, and has significant historical value in terms of changing the way that leisure & sexually-liberated love was written about and viewed by the public.
I would argue with you, but I can't tell what you mean by "leisure and seuxually-liberated love".
The Great Gatsby is awesome, tho, and has significant historical value in terms of changing the way that leisure & sexually-liberated love was written about and viewed by the public.
Except that The Great Gatsby sold fairly poorly at release, made minimum splash, and only resurfaced again in the fifties and early sixties. Comparing it's influence to The Red Badge of Courage, which radically shifted the tone of an entire genre, is reaching a bit.
By the time TGG had resurfaced in the public eye, it's definition of sexual liberation was more than a little outdated.
Wow, you kids really brought the hateorade to the widely read classic novel.
It's a good thing The Name of the Wind consisted of completely original sentiment and superb prose...
Classics are always valuable and beyond criticism. It doesn't matter if you don't like Moby Dick - if you don't appreciate it, you're an unwashed pleb.
^^THIS. I really don't enjoy The Scarlet Letter; it's not a fun read, per se. However, I grew up a lot when I realized that books can take effort to read and say many important and worthwhile things without being fun. Just like any other form of art, you get out what you put in.
Here's a thought: Maybe it seems like people are doing nothing for an annoyingly large amount of time in TGG because F. Scott Fitzgerald was beside himself over the apathy and hedonism of the 20s. TGG is just The Comedy in the Jazz Age.
I think declaring anything "beyond criticism" is a dangerous line of thought and extremely problematic in a great many ways. I find the traditional idea of "classic" literature more than a little distasteful in many ways, but I won't deny that most classics deserve their status. I understand a thing can be a difficult read or require effort of analysis on the part of the consumer to appreciate. While I dislike the idea that a work which focuses primarily on superficial elements are by nature inferior (I believe that roots of the "low-art vs high-art" distinction are almost entirely classist) I can definitely appreciate the value of these literary classics, individually. That there is a kind of canon of classic literature maintained entirely by a progression of close-minded old white male intellectual class is a different matter entirely.
Most of my beef is specifically with The Great Gatsby. Essentially, I think the book's reputation is, in a sense, artificial, and that it is ham-handed in it's approach. If we accept the low-art and high-art distinction for a moment, I believe it fails as low art because it's subject matter is uninteresting, and fails as high art because it's analysis of that subject matter is uninspired. It retreads well-worn ground and, again, I find it's imagery clumsy and it's message somewhat insipid.
Cool story bro, but 90yrs of literary criticism and a firm place in the Western Canon argue that TGG's reputation is not artificial and that the work is, in fact, a justifiable classic. I'll refer you to the academics on why exactly it's an important and aesthetically pleasing work.
Also, calling the roots of the Low-Art/High-Art distinction "almost entirely classist" renders your later acceptance of that distinction almost purely hypocritical. You're not saying much about the work, either.
Cool story bro, but 90yrs of literary criticism and a firm place in the Western Canon argue that TGG's reputation is not artificial and that the work is, in fact, a justifiable classic. I'll defer to the academics on why exactly it's an important and aesthetically pleasing work.
Also, calling the roots of the Low-Art/High-Art distinction "almost entirely classist" renders your later acceptance of that distinction almost purely hypocritical. You're not saying much about the work, either.
TL;DR: open_sketchbook is not smarter than every English literature professor ever.
Fine, I concede. Obviously somebody out there finds value in it. I just want to note for the record that I am not one of those people.
(As for low-art vs high-art, I direct you towards this XKCD. I believe that high-art is considered such not because of it's own values, but because it has themes or prose or is published in a manner that make it attractive to the academic class to analyze it. The idea of low-art vs high-art serves as a convenient shorthand for kinds or depth of analysis, but reflect more about the person looking than the work being looked at.)
I'm more surprised you disliked The Scarlet Letter. That shit is incredible, and yeah, it's got a density to it that can make it hard to read but it's hard to argue it's importance.
What pisses me off about The Great Gatsby is that the shit everyone talks about, how it's supposed to be this scathing destruction of the emptiness of the Jazz Age, feels totally absent to me. I've read that book several times (including quite recently, I wanted to see if there was any imagery I allude to in Hardboiled. Mission Unsuccessful.) and it's done nothing but bewilder me in that regard.
The weird thing is, I'm not one to dislike things. Of the "classics" I read under recommendation as classics, it's one of only two books I didn't enjoy. (The other was Lord of the Flies, and that was more because the Biblical parallels felt stifling. I didn't think it was bad, it just kind of sapped the fun out of reading it past a certain point. Rereading that book felt like reading a checklist of allusions.)
(As for low-art vs high-art, I direct you towards this XKCD. I believe that high-art is considered such not because of it's own values, but because it has themes or prose or is published in a manner that make it attractive to the academic class to analyze it. The idea of low-art vs high-art serves as a convenient shorthand for kinds or depth of analysis, but reflect more about the person looking than the work being looked at.)
^This. This soooo much. the concept of "classics" is one that exists to try to eliminate dissent. A group of oligarchs get to select some works that have grown detrimental in light of new social and political movements as an elite group of book that cannot be questioned.
All classics are not bad. All classics I don't like aren't bad. However, I dare any of you bourgeois intelligentsia to defend anything that came out during the Regency period as anything but Bourgeois Blues.
Oh, classics can certainly be criticized and questioned.
No one here, however, has brought up a novel criticism. The fact that we're TALKING ABOUT A BOOK FROM ALMOST 100 YEARS AGO TODAY AT ALL is a big deal. There's something up with that book.
I always find the assertion that some work of art is only artificially a classic (or similar statements) very perplexing. It's essentially arguing that people think it's great not because it's great but because people think it's great. But what is the measure of greatness other than a lot of people thinking that it's great?
Of course, popularity doesn't equal quality, but I think it's worth pointing out that any and all popularity or acclaim is artificial.
There are things that are very popular, but are not classics because they disappear and are forgotten. It's called a fad. When something sticks around for a very long time, there must be a reason for it.
Wow, you kids really brought the hateorade to the widely read classic novel.
It's a good thing The Name of the Wind consisted of completely original sentiment and superb prose...
Classics are always valuable and beyond criticism. It doesn't matter if you don't like Moby Dick - if you don't appreciate it, you're an unwashed pleb.
^^THIS. I really don't enjoy The Scarlet Letter; it's not a fun read, per se. However, I grew up a lot when I realized that books can take effort to read and say many important and worthwhile things without being fun. Just like any other form of art, you get out what you put in.
Here's a thought: Maybe it seems like people are doing nothing for an annoyingly large amount of time in TGG because F. Scott Fitzgerald was beside himself over the apathy and hedonism of the 20s. TGG is just The Comedy in the Jazz Age.
Sorry. I was being too subtle in my trolling.
The concept of a "classic" is highly overrated, and harkens back to the old tradition of preferring old knowledge over new. Things will invariably become irrelevant. It's OK. It happens. We can still extract value from "classic" literature, but the veneration of those works above newer works solely based on the fact that they've been venerated for so long is utter bullshit.
And Moby Dick sucks. You are missing nothing by not reading it.
In the interests of full disclosure, I kinda dig TGG. I was just flinging poo.
It's my personal theory that the reason that Gatsby is remembered more than, say, Tender is the Night, is because a generation of future English professors and critics were stuck in foxholes with a copy of it and nothing to do but to read it until they had sapped every bit of value out of it. I'm not saying Fitzgerald is a bad writer, but I think, of all the things of his to be remembered and venerated so highly...
There is a difference between a book worth noting and discussing because of its literary relevance and a book worth reading. There's also a difference between a book worth reading and an enjoyable book, although they might have some overlap.
TGG is worthy of discussion because it has been held up by literary scholars. That doesn't mean it's worth reading or enjoyable. However, those last two things will vary depending on the person. My personal opinion is that it isn't worth reading. Somebody else might love it and read it 5 times in a row.
Almost every other literary classic I have read has SOMETHING that happens in the story, even if the writing is dense. The Scarlet Letter and Pride and Prejudice, for example, at least have conflict and character growth. For a story to be meaningful to me, it has to actually be a story. I think what I find so annoying about TGG is that it is really more of a setting and monologue than a story.
There is a difference between a book worth noting and discussing because of its literary relevance and a book worth reading. There's also a difference between a book worth reading and an enjoyable book, although they might have some overlap.
There is a difference, but I would argue that literary relevance is a sufficient but not a necessary criterion for a book to be worth reading.
Comments
I'm not saying TGG is bad writing. I'm saying even the most amazing writing that goes on about nothing for an entire novel is boring as shit.
If I had to choose between reading this book again and reading Twilight, I would immediately pick up Twilight. Not even a moment of consideration. At least the bad writing and overwrought romance in Twilight is amusing to make fun of. TGG doesn't even have that going for it.
Next to The Red Badge of Courage, this was the bane of my High School English class; and I liked a majority of the books I read there.
By the time TGG had resurfaced in the public eye, it's definition of sexual liberation was more than a little outdated.
It doesn't matter if you don't like Moby Dick - if you don't appreciate it, you're an unwashed pleb.
Here's a thought: Maybe it seems like people are doing nothing for an annoyingly large amount of time in TGG because F. Scott Fitzgerald was beside himself over the apathy and hedonism of the 20s. TGG is just The Comedy in the Jazz Age.
Most of my beef is specifically with The Great Gatsby. Essentially, I think the book's reputation is, in a sense, artificial, and that it is ham-handed in it's approach. If we accept the low-art and high-art distinction for a moment, I believe it fails as low art because it's subject matter is uninteresting, and fails as high art because it's analysis of that subject matter is uninspired. It retreads well-worn ground and, again, I find it's imagery clumsy and it's message somewhat insipid.
Also, calling the roots of the Low-Art/High-Art distinction "almost entirely classist" renders your later acceptance of that distinction almost purely hypocritical. You're not saying much about the work, either.
(As for low-art vs high-art, I direct you towards this XKCD. I believe that high-art is considered such not because of it's own values, but because it has themes or prose or is published in a manner that make it attractive to the academic class to analyze it. The idea of low-art vs high-art serves as a convenient shorthand for kinds or depth of analysis, but reflect more about the person looking than the work being looked at.)
Further Disclosure: I was a junior in high school when I wrote that. I was young and foolish then, I feel old and foolish now.
What pisses me off about The Great Gatsby is that the shit everyone talks about, how it's supposed to be this scathing destruction of the emptiness of the Jazz Age, feels totally absent to me. I've read that book several times (including quite recently, I wanted to see if there was any imagery I allude to in Hardboiled. Mission Unsuccessful.) and it's done nothing but bewilder me in that regard.
The weird thing is, I'm not one to dislike things. Of the "classics" I read under recommendation as classics, it's one of only two books I didn't enjoy. (The other was Lord of the Flies, and that was more because the Biblical parallels felt stifling. I didn't think it was bad, it just kind of sapped the fun out of reading it past a certain point. Rereading that book felt like reading a checklist of allusions.)
All classics are not bad. All classics I don't like aren't bad. However, I dare any of you bourgeois intelligentsia to defend anything that came out during the Regency period as anything but Bourgeois Blues.
No one here, however, has brought up a novel criticism. The fact that we're TALKING ABOUT A BOOK FROM ALMOST 100 YEARS AGO TODAY AT ALL is a big deal. There's something up with that book.
Of course, popularity doesn't equal quality, but I think it's worth pointing out that any and all popularity or acclaim is artificial.
Something's up with that Dumas.
The concept of a "classic" is highly overrated, and harkens back to the old tradition of preferring old knowledge over new. Things will invariably become irrelevant. It's OK. It happens. We can still extract value from "classic" literature, but the veneration of those works above newer works solely based on the fact that they've been venerated for so long is utter bullshit.
And Moby Dick sucks. You are missing nothing by not reading it.
In the interests of full disclosure, I kinda dig TGG. I was just flinging poo.
Hard mode: Something's up with that EL James.
TGG is worthy of discussion because it has been held up by literary scholars. That doesn't mean it's worth reading or enjoyable. However, those last two things will vary depending on the person. My personal opinion is that it isn't worth reading. Somebody else might love it and read it 5 times in a row.
Almost every other literary classic I have read has SOMETHING that happens in the story, even if the writing is dense. The Scarlet Letter and Pride and Prejudice, for example, at least have conflict and character growth. For a story to be meaningful to me, it has to actually be a story. I think what I find so annoying about TGG is that it is really more of a setting and monologue than a story.