Cpt_Oblivious said:
MaxTheReaper said:
Quothe I:
berethond said:
To Kill a Mockingbird. This was the worst book I've ever read.
I don't know how you can see that as a bad book.
Why do you see that as a good book? There's so many things that make it a bad book. If you're really that curious, read on. I've got a rant that's about the size of the description of Boo Radley's front porch.
The whole plot of the book revolves around "people in the south are prejudice" and the moral "prejudice and racism are wrong." No shit! Everyone knows racism is bad, and anyone who doesn't already think that will just say the book had a happy ending.The whole first 60% of the book is about jack shit nothing, and the only relevant thing for the plot that it does is identifies boo radley as a character, and he's only IN the book to be a deus ex machina at the end and possibly fortify the prejudice theme. The court trial, which is what the book is supposedly ABOUT is actually a very small part of it and it's so late in the book that the plot revolves more around some kids who grow up in a southern town than racism. The "unfair treatment" of the black man falls completely flat because he wasn't a character up until the trial. He had no character development except for "he's black" and then "he dies because he's black." I'm sorry but if there's a character who dies unfairly and I don't know anything about the guy other than his race, why the fuck am i supposed to care? Are people who are "appreciative of the arts" really so narrow minded that general consensus is "He's black, so care about him"? That in itself is a bit discriminatory.
And then there's the writing style. It's told from the naive perspective of a child, who speaks broken english. Some people find that artistic, i find that annoying. But I still haven't got to the main problem I have with this book, the strange emphasis on certain description. It spends THREE FUCKING PAGES to say "tree with a hole in it and it had some dolls in the hole" and throughout the book there's vivid description of everything that noone gives a fuck, except for one part near the very end where the main antagonist gets what's coming to him. This of course would be the ONLY instance of physical conflict in the whole entire book that's summed up in
TWO SENTENCES. It's also the only part of the book that I would want ANY further-than-basic description of. More time was spent describing the wood on the stands in the court room. But no, it's just "Redneck trips, Redneck stops moving"
This could all be excused if the book's premise was somewhat interesting to begin with, but almost all the conflict is internal. There where no fights, though there was plenty of potential for it. No deaths other than the black man who we're only supposed to care about because of the color of his skin and the two sentence guy who tripped and killed himself (on assumption.) Not even any major verbal conflict. "Atticus defended a black man in a civilised court case! that's such a big deal! He was challenging society!" You know what would have been a better more interesting way to do that? If Atticus snapped called the judge and jury out on being a racist in a forward and angry manner. You know, like, how someone on the street would do it today. But no, that would have led to verbal conflict. something far too interesting for the author to accept. Even the main conflict of racism has to be INFERRED. What is so great about it? Enlighten me on why preachy fucks hail it as the best novel of all time. [/rant]
Oh and on another note: I hate almost all the classics. As far as literature, Shakespeare is the best example of this and as far as movies, Citizen Cane.
