threaded | unthreaded | newest first

Canonical classics that secretly suck

topic posted Fri, August 19, 2005 - 2:51 PM by  Unsubscribed
Shannon cleverly suggested this topic in an earlier thread, so I'm stealing it.
posted by:
Unsubscribed
join to post
  • Lisa
    Lisa
    offline 11

    Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

    Thu, August 25, 2005 - 12:27 AM
    Atlas Shrugged. I recall a half-baked soap opera chock fulla rants. Come to think of it, the story might have been interesting if the characters mouthing such invective were Luke and Laura.
    join to post
    • the bmc
      the bmc
      offline 84

      Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

      Thu, August 25, 2005 - 9:28 AM
      "Atlas Shrugged" is only a classic if you're a crazy-eyed, Alan-Greenspan-worshipping libertarian free market fundamentalist libertarian wingnut, or someone heading up the scale in that direction.

      Ayn Rand. Ugh.

      Ob sucky classics: I will add Ethan Frome to the list.
      join to post
      • Chia
        Chia
        offline 49

        Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

        Thu, August 25, 2005 - 12:36 PM
        Agreed! I particularly love the part about "free love" for the heroine in that book.
        join to post
        • the bmc
          the bmc
          offline 84

          Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

          Thu, August 25, 2005 - 2:35 PM
          Just realized I was frothing at the mouth so badly whilst ranting about Rand that I used the word "libertarian" twice.

          Hot button? Anyone? :-)
          join to post

          • Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

            Thu, August 25, 2005 - 2:51 PM
            I have to admit, however, and embarassing as this is to admit, I found the sadomasochistic sex scenes in Rand's novels really hot when I first read them. You just don't get that in many other novels you read at age 16, back in 1976. Well, except for the ones I pilfered from my dad's night stand, but that's different....

            More classics hatage. Jane Austen leaves me cold. I simply don't care about any of her social-climbing middle-class characters and their troubles, and her writing style is, to me, tiresomely arch. I tend to like the movie revisions of her novels though.
            join to post
            • here...
              herekitty
              offline 84

              Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

              Thu, August 25, 2005 - 4:21 PM
              Since this a "classics that suck" thread, I won't belabor why I love the ones you guys are hatin' on. I'll just say I find Jane Austen hilariously funny ... and the Brontes? That was some subversive shit for the time. Critics despised them for being women who wrote "coarse" stories that were much more explicit about people's emotions and sexual yearnings than was deemed proper. So love them or hate them, they were some radical minds.

              Ayn Rand, on the other hand ... yegh.
              join to post
              • cece
                cece
                offline 222

                Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

                Thu, August 25, 2005 - 4:39 PM
                i'll second on ayn rand.

                i'm also starting "villette" again. heard it was good. we'll see. for the record. i did love "jane eyre" but was lost on "wuthering heights."
                join to post
                • here...
                  herekitty
                  offline 84

                  Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

                  Thu, August 25, 2005 - 4:54 PM
                  Maybe you could report back later on "Villette"? I'm curious what you'll make of it. It's another one I love, but it's difficult going in some bits -- emotionally wrenching. And there are some religious themes that some readers find hard to sit through. Did you start it previously?
                  join to post
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    cece
                    cece
                    offline 222

                    Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

                    Thu, August 25, 2005 - 5:03 PM
                    "Maybe you could report back later on "Villette"? I'm curious what you'll make of it. It's another one I love, but it's difficult going in some bits -- emotionally wrenching. And there are some religious themes that some readers find hard to sit through. Did you start it previously? "

                    yes, i started reading it a long, long time ago. i was a different person then. so, i thought, after some rave reviews on the "i just finished reading" tribe, that i would pick it up again. i didn't get very far. but i thought i'd plough through again. i'm quite familiar with the genre, so the religious themes or any social mores won't be difficult for me. i just hope i get through the first pages i didn't get through this time. i'll get back to you and let you know. haven't read a "classic" in a while, so it should be an interesting exercise.
                    join to post
            • Deborah
              Deborah
              offline 20

              Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

              Thu, August 25, 2005 - 5:42 PM
              Mr. Darcy makes me swoon, mostly on paper, but I'd take Colin Firth, in a pinch. ;)

              "It is some time now since I have considered Miss Eliza Bennett the most handsome woman of my acquaintance." (paraphrased as I shockingly don't have a copy)

              I have read almost all of Jane Austen's, but I haven't seen them all as I hate it when they bollocks up books I love.

              The Brontes...I always wanted to slap Jane Eyre silly and tell her to get the pretty dresses, fer crying out loud.

              It took me two and a half Ayn Rand books before I gave up in disgust at her fascism. I didn't mind the one about the railroad so much, but the architect one nearly gave me apoplexy before I put it away. I have friends who like it, and that gives me the willies. I'm petrified to watch Gary Cooper in The Fountainhead, as I fear I may lose respect.
              join to post
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

                Fri, August 26, 2005 - 8:41 AM
                It's all about Colin Firth. I actually loved the P&P miniseries so much I watched it three times in a row.

                P&P is my favorite book of hers and I too don't have a copy on hand...so I can only vaguely quote my favorite line in it, which is that when one enjoys the company of the same people for a long period of time, they remain interesting because they are always changing. Something like that.

                I do agree, if you've read one Austen, you've read them all.
                join to post
    • Sady
      Sady
      offline 22

      Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

      Thu, August 25, 2005 - 1:15 PM
      Right. I shuddered every time one of the "heroes" opened his mouth. If you skip the massive 42-page sermons about money, the book is actually only about a hundred pages long. It was sort of funny to watch it implode near the end, though, what with all the pulpy goodness about superweapons and heroes who can resurrect themselves from the dead through sheer willpower.
      join to post
  • Sady
    Sady
    offline 22

    Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

    Thu, August 25, 2005 - 4:45 AM
    Tropic of Cancer, Tropic of Capricorn, Sexus, Plexus, Nexus, and any other rambling, self-glorifying, cheap-shock-mongering volumes that Henry Miller happened to crap out along the way.

    Also: Anne Bronte. Why? Weren't Charlotte and Emily enough?
    join to post
    • Kelly
      Kelly
      offline 121

      Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

      Thu, August 25, 2005 - 9:13 AM
      I agree about the Millers, but for some reason I love William Burroughs.. go figure.
      join to post
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

        Thu, August 25, 2005 - 8:09 PM
        "I agree about the Millers, but for some reason I love William Burroughs.. go figure."

        They're both precusors and perhaps betters of the coming beat generation.

        Which remnds me, Kerouac's On the Road was a bore.

        I'll take Burrough's Soft machine or Wild Boys any day.
        join to post
        • Ipsi...
          Ipsissimus
          offline 1

          Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

          Fri, January 25, 2008 - 12:54 PM
          Agreed the Millers suck, but Burroughs?!?! Please, the crazy old fag was such a bad writer he had to cut up his writing and rearrange it just to make it vaguely interesting. Even Kerouac's sorry, whining, passive aggressive, sexually confused, morally ambiguous, drunken self could write better than Burroughs. I even kinda enjoyed a couple of Kerouac's books at points which is more than I can say about Burroughs. For that matter I'll take Bukowski over any of the beat writers any day.
          join to post
      • Sady
        Sady
        offline 22

        Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

        Fri, August 26, 2005 - 4:48 AM
        Well, Burroughs was doing something interesting with language and structure. As a structure nerd, I can appreciate that. I think that, in Miller, the author-as-character business completely cut him off from any psychological insight. His characters are two-dimensional and his voice is grating. It's like going on a blind date with a Tourette's victim, or a grown-up version of that little boy in kindergarten who got attention by flipping his eyelids inside out and pretending to eat worms.
        join to post
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

          Fri, August 26, 2005 - 10:09 PM
          "Well, Burroughs was doing something interesting with language and structure. As a structure nerd, I can appreciate that. I think that, in Miller, the author-as-character business completely cut him off from any psychological insight. His characters are two-dimensional and his voice is grating. It's like going on a blind date with a Tourette's victim, or a grown-up version of that little boy in kindergarten who got attention by flipping his eyelids inside out and pretending to eat worms."

          We're not going to agree on this, but that's ok.

          My take is that Miller is doing something interesting with structure, specifically the non-linear timeline and interior monologue. I'm also going to quibble with your assertion that "the author-as-character business completely cut him off from any psychological insight" because the author as character is character no different from any 1st person character. In the end, it's all a conceit no matter how you slice it.

          I can understand the annoyance of the voice as I have heard this many times, but I happen to like the voice mainly becasue of its brash crudeness. It is an American voice, not ugly, but lost and attempting to reconcile itself in Europe.

          Who knows maybe i just like naughty little boys.
          join to post
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Canonical classics that secretly suck

      Thu, August 25, 2005 - 8:04 PM
      I'm going to disagree about Miller. I really loved Tropic of Cancer though some of his other works you metioned aren't on my favorites list. It's all very self indulgent but I guess I fell for it.

      Unfortunately, I'm a terrible judge as I'm in love with 1930s Europe ie. Miller, Isherwood's Berlin Stories, Celine's Death on the Installment Plan, etc.
      join to post