Overrated Novels

[Werthead]

[mod hat]

People having lengthy discussions in a foreign language is a no-no on the board. If you want to do that, please take it to PM. Cheers.

[/mod]

[Larry.]

Huh? I only corrected someone's grammar in a single case. Strange....

[Ser Barry]

But all this is is but a bitchfest where people just toss out names of books, most of which they never really bothered to try to understand, just to say something!

Let's just say that it makes better reading than that kind of condescending clap trap.

[Larry.]

Oh? Explain, please.

[Werthead]

Oh? Explain, please.

I think Barry's point is that it is possible to read a book, to take on board what the author is trying to do, look into the deeper themes, and conclude that the book is still, subjectively, total horseshit. It is extremely easy to simply say, "You don't get it," when other people express a different opinion to your own without regard for the fact that their critical faculties may be just as fully engaged, but they've just come to a different conclusion.

[Serious Callers Only]

The value judgments are different. This maybe because they are stupid or because they just don't care*.

*the stupid ones think this too.

[Larry.]

Ah, I wasn't for sure if he was just stating that or if it was meant to be just a personal attack in lieu of addressing issues. Just giving the benefit of the doubt. Still doesn't mean that I agree with the point given, because without something stated as to why a book was (to quote you) "total horseshit," I'm going to wonder just what it was that led to that. Sometimes, people are going to think others arrived at a conclusion too hastily and when others state that belief, the one uttering the original negative comment on a book might be (on occasion, admittedly, with some at least) inclined to believe the second person's comment was meant as a personal attack. I very rarely bother with personal stuff, but I certainly will point out weak points in an argument.

That being said, frankly, is it of much value to just vent and state stuff in a fashion where others might wonder if the person criticizing a work has provided no basis for his/her statements? I would argue that it is not, thus my comment which expresses my suspicion that some have basically had knee-jerk reactions to books they had to read for a course (one that can be mistaken, of course, but without further evidence...). It's not something I'd consider along the lines of for/against my own particular views on a book (I enjoy reading well-argued critiques of books that I personally enjoyed, as I often learn things from those). But while I can see where some might jump to the conclusion that I'm somehow "looking down" on those who haven't made their case, I disagree, since I'd first have to have supreme confidence in my own views before I could even fathom looking down upon others. Now disagreeing and thinking they've made a poor case...that's an entirely different matter, one separated from my personal opinions of others as people

[Ser Barry]

I was thinking about making a post about respecting other people enough not to have them justify every stance they make before you give it some value. To not do so smacks of arrogance. I decided instead to go for the cheap laugh and ask you if it is dark up your own arse?

[Larry.]

No clue, since I suspect we're at cross-purposes. After all, respecting others doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with (or respecting) some of their choices. But then again, irony can be amusing, considering your own comments at the end. Should I respect you now or not? I'm open-minded on it.

[GoN]

But all this is is but a bitchfest where people just toss out names of books, most of which they never really bothered to try to understand, just to say something!

Threads like this deserve mockery more than most books do

If you don't like the thread, then don't read it. Believe it or not you are not the arbiter of good taste because you have a blog, or because you've read some books. Calling the people in this thread liars and/or stupid just shows us dumb people what a prick you are.

[Larry.]

*shrug* Good point.

[Kat]

I will put in my requisite inexplicable cheer for Henry James. I must've just read him at a time when I really clicked with what his strengths are. I totally understand why he's dry for so many, but there's just so much craftsmanship.

I'm still, of course, down with the Scarlet Letter hate.

I have to agree with Brudewollen on Henry James, but it's possible that I need to read something other than Portrait of a Lady, and that I'm associating this too much with the high school "Women's Literature" class I read it in--a class where the teacher gushed about how this book was the greatest thing ever, and a class in which we did not read a single book by a female author, and in fact, this was the only book we read with any significant female characters. So, indeed, possible bitterness on my part.

[Lady Blackfish]

I have to agree with Brudewollen on Henry James, but it's possible that I need to read something other than Portrait of a Lady, and that I'm associating this too much with the high school "Women's Literature" class I read it in--a class where the teacher gushed about how this book was the greatest thing ever, and a class in which we did not read a single book by a female author, and in fact, this was the only book we read with any significant female characters. So, indeed, possible bitterness on my part.

Ahh, I do love Portrait actually You and Brude will just have to puzzle at me, but I think it's a superb construction of a psychology. But I couldn't read too many books in the setting or concerned with those themes, part of my appreciation is probably due to the age when I read it (high school as well, but just for regular English class), it was that age where everything you read kind of opens up a new way of looking at things I guess, and I could totally feel that I "got it" even though it was difficult to articulate. Anyway, I'm never surprised that people don't like it, it's so formal. But I do think there are reasons it impresses. I can't read much James at a time, it's just too much, but I can't help but admire him. I can't think of one to recommend if you just can't take his style, his plots aren't really the reason to read, and his characters aren't really colorful, though well crafted, so if the craft and the internalized small-space type dramatic turns don't do it for you, I think you'll just have to pass on James.

[Guest Raidne]

Still doesn't mean that I agree with the point given, because without something stated as to why a book was (to quote you) "total horseshit," I'm going to wonder just what it was that led to that.

Fair enough. The Da Vinci code is overrated crap because:

(1) All the ideas are wholly ripped off from other books

(2) The characters are stereotypes - the self-loathing fundamentalist monk, the clever professor, the helper female character involved through her family ties, the manipulative bad guy who pretends to be on your side, etc.

(3) The plot is constructed in an artificial, commercial fashion, a la Michael Crichton before he jumped completely off the rails

(4) For the longest time people could not shut up about how awesome it was and it led shallow people to believe that they had read something deep and thought-provoking

The only thing in its favor - the lack of a predictable romance between the male and female lead, was rectified in the film.

As far as the book most-ripped on in this thread, I personally really liked The Great Gatsby, but I can see not liking it for the same reasons I can't get into Bret Eaton Ellis. The characters are just hollow representations - Nick the narrator is no more interesting or sympathetic than Clay in less than Zero. For me, the Great Gatsby's interesting as a perspective on 1920s culture, but I remember the 1980s, and they sucked. Also, some of the scenes just seem chaotic and out of place, like the scene at Myrtle and Tom's apartment. I've never felt the rest of the book was written as well as the scene with Tom and Daisy at the beginning and the party at Gatsby's.

[Larry.]

Raidne,

In a word, yes.

In a few more words, that truly does help me (and others) understand the dislike a bit more

[Humble Asskicker]

Whoa, guys. Leave Dylanfanatic alone. Some people took his kind correction of my grammar for some kind of attempt at "out-wanking me," (because of course when one person helps another the best assumption is that it's done out of the hidden motive of out-wanking the dude). But it was just that, and I appreciate his help.

Also, I'm the dude first dude to be condescending here, because you bitches need to be condescended to. So how do you like that? I'm looking at the opinion that bashes a prestigious novel, belonging to a far less prestigious person, and I'm saying that it's silly and deserves my contempt. In short I'm smarter than the people here, because I have the perspicacity to force myself to like novels that deep done I hate - no, *love* these novels - because the people in the field of literature tell me they are great.

I want you to chew over that for a moment. Suckers.

Mod Edit: Do I have to repeat myself, or just start deleting posts?

[Guest Raidne]

In a few more words, that truly does help me (and others) understand the dislike a bit more

Oh well, in that case, Atlas Shrugged sucks because it lacks structure. It starts off OK, and then kind of spirals out of control until it really goes off the rails, so to speak, at the horrible train "accident."

The heroes are too heroic - until they're almost the same character - honestly, Galt, Roark (or is that the architect in The Fountainhead?), the pirate - they're all the same person with the same traits. Good thing Dagny's female, that differentiates her and she can serve as Galt's housekeeper. Ick.

I suspect it got even worse as it worked it's way into the multi-chapter Galt speech, but I have to admit I didn't make it that far, because it wasn't even pretending to be a novel anymore by that point.

I'd still recommend reading it, just for joke material. You'll never know when you might want to tell someone that they should go set up a secret libertarian commune in the mountains and rob the world of their brilliance, i.e. that they're being a self-involved dick.

I have to admit, there are books I don't personally like that I think are deservedly classics, like Grapes of Wrath. I just don't like the descriptive chapters, but that doesn't mean they suck. Just like Mievelle's a little weird for me, but not any less talented for it.

I am kind of suspect of people who think their likes and dislikes are the arbiters of literary quality.

[Werthead]

Humble Asskicker:

When a mod asks you not to do something and you keep doing it, posts are going to get deleted. Persist, and stronger measures will be taken.

Thank you.

[Humble Asskicker]

Werthead,

I missed mormont's comment. Anyway, I'll refrain further from Spanish because this isn't a Danish thread.

[Larry.]

Raidne,

I agree, and in addition I found Rand's "philosophy" to be rather odious to see. While I could see where Objectivism would appeal to some, the "heroic" acts of selfishness were like an anathema to me. Thankfully, the poorly-structured plot, the pages of speeches that serve to derail the remnants of said plot, all of that combines with the odious "philosophy" to create something unpalatable to me.