Disrespecting a "classic"

[FalloutJack]

It doesn't matter to me if...

Paradise Lost
Moby Dick
House of Pancakes Leaves
House of Seven Gables
The Odyssey

...are considered classic. If I can't get into them, if they bore me to tears, you have no hope of changing my views on them. House of Leaves is especially guilty because the whole setup of it is hackneyed at best. No, I'm sorry, but throwing a a few different stories into a paper shredder and then gluing them back together does not a book even make.

I real classic is more universally accepted, not meant to be inaccessable unless you can figure out the sub-sub-sub-subtext and/or stay awake during the chapters in which we explain in Moby Dick how water is wet. And how exactly is it that John Milton wrote about Adam and Eve having sex and MADE IT BORING?! At least The Odyssey's repitition holds fast with the understanding that vocal tales used that as a memory-jumper to keep on task.

Some things are not classic. Hell, some aren't even that good! You have to get on with your lives.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

Basically, Jane Eyer and Pride and Prejudice.

They were such chick novels that it was unbearably dull. Nothing, but pointless drama and twists that are neither surprising or integral to the plot.

Not surprised that all the girls loved the books and all the guys hated them.

 

[ShogunGino]

All that being said I gotta take a shot at the kids here who like the prequels more than the original trilogy of Star Wars movies. Really ya'll, effing really!?

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/

Please watch these, that you might grow and understand the error of your ways.

The prequels have their many problems, undoubtedly, but if any of those people who nit-pick those movies to the absolute tiniest details would turn such a critical eye to the original trilogy, they would also find numerous lame flaws.

I really don't think the original trilogy has aged well. It has from an audio/visual standpoint, but the characters are incredibly stock, especially in New Hope, and the plot format, the Joseph Campbell-defined one, had been around decades before it popped up, which makes it look even more cliche today. People were mostly wowed by the presentation of these movies, I don't recall many people who were in their mid-20's to 30's when they first saw it remarking on much more that the visuals and music.

Also, if Leia knew the Empire was tracking them from their escape from the Death Star, why did go straight to the rebel base where they could find them and fire a gigantic laser at them?

Furthermore, I never understood why so many people idolize Empire Strikes Back. Empire only got really good once they got to Cloud City. The only other constant piece of quality was Darth Vader, who was at his best in this movie. Other than that, the entire Hoth sequence was slow and predictable, the AT-ATs and AT-STs are top heavy, poorly designed vehicles of war, and I think Han/Leia's dialog is just as lame and poorly written as Anakin/Padme(scruffy looking nerf-herder? Oooooh, what a harsh insult), and their banter has sadly become some sort of high mark in writing couples despite it looking really lazy. Until they get to Cloud City, Han is immature to the point of absolute stupidity, especially in the asteroid field. And why didn't everyone get sucked out into space when the Falcon opened up inside the asteroid worm? They weren't wearing any suits or anything so Han, Leia, Chewie, and C-3PO should have all been dead at that very moment. No more incentive for Luke, Rebels lose, game over. That's what should have happened. Same thing that probably should have happened at the end of Aliens. And how did Luke not die from his fall after learning about his father? Such a large drop, and he's unscathed.

And while Jedi might be a considerable retread of New Hope, I think the main protagonist's actors give their best performances in this movie, and the set pieces are the most consistently entertaining. At least I think so. And the Ewoks never really bothered me. Debris from Death Star II still should have completely wiped out that section of the forest.

Really, I've heard so many rabid Star Wars fans suck on Empire's dick and cover their ears and shout "Lalalala, I'm not listening" whenever anyone tries to bring up flaws in the original trilogy that its left me a bit more bitter to the films than they deserve.

 

[repeating integers]

Well I know a guy who refuses to see Looper on the basis of "it looks boring and dumb, plus Joseph Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis are shit actors". While you may argue that Looper is not classic literature I beg to differ, it is a modern movie classic that deserves to be seen by everyone. I bet whoever disagrees that in 10+ years high-school teachers will be showing this flm to media classes to write essays on.

I saw that movie. It was definitely very good, but I thought it actually came across as a tad sexist (and I'm not usually the type of person who reads too far into things like that).

 

[SlaveNumber23]

Great Expectations. The most boring crap I've ever had to read. Sure its well written but its just incredibly dull. It was very easy to write good essays on though, I'll give it that.

 

[Nouw]

Spoiler: Count of Monte Cristo, the 2002 film.

Why the fuck are we studying this film for English? Why? WHY? This film has a completely twisted message, one that makes no sense considering the set-up. Yes, you could argue that revenge is okay and that as long as you take revenge against the people that wronged you it's going to be okay. But this was not the way to do it. This was just stupid. This was an unnecessary compromise. They obviously wanted to tone down the ending but not give the message that you should do revenge so they decided to go fifty-fifty. If they wanted to make a compromise, they shouldn't have antagonized revenge so much throughout the film. Over, and over again people tell him not to do revenge and that it will screw him over. We expect him to be screwed over because hey, why else would you have two to three characters warning him of revenge. But does he still do it? Of course he does! And what convinces him that what he did was wrong? Nothing really. His wife gets shot, she lives. What is that telling the audience? Honestly, unless you think you can really pull it off, having a straight one-way message would be better. A cliched message is better than a weak one.

Ugh, /end of rant.

I'm just really infuriated over the choices of media and literature we study. Hell, they have plans to include Twilight and the Hunger Games in the Senior end of year exams. I'm definitely looking forward to that.

I assume we are studying this film because it's held in high regard. If we're studying it for any reason otherwise, I should have just brought in my DVD of Moon and convince the teacher to make us study that instead.

 

[Spinozaad]

Probably unknown by most here, but I think Harry Mulisch, recognized by (including himself) many 'authorities' (authors, Dutch teachers, the media, etc.) to be one of the great Dutch authors of all time (generally considered to be part of The Big Three of post-WW2 Dutch literature)...

...but except for De Aanslag ('The Assault'), which is an okay book, and his non-fiction book 'De Zaak 40/61' (his report on the Eichmann trial, very good), his works are completely unreadable.

 

[Ashadowpie]

i dunno if its a Classic, but Enders Game. i had to read it in school and holy shit was a it a boring trainwreck of confusing nonsence to my brain. then again, i really really dont like Sci fi what so ever. being forced to read a book takes the fun out of reading too...

i just couldnt read it so i look up the test answers for the plots and events on the interent.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

Fucking HAAAATE The Catcher in The Rye.
The only good thing I can say about it is that it's fairly easy to read, the book isn't too long and it doesn't keep throwing fancy words at you. Everything else on the other hand is just horrible. I've never wanted to punch a protagonist so much in all my life and I've sat through Neon Genesis Evangelion. There is absolutely nothing interesting going on, some **** just bitches and moans from place to place doing nothing, learning nothing and achieving nothing! No conflict, just more bitching!

Also: Akira.
It's Ok...ish but I thought End of Evangelion made a hell of a lot more sense! I seriously had no idea what the fuck was going on!
It's something like a Shakespeare play where I only know what the fuck is going on if I Wikipedia or TvTropes if for a few minutes.

 

[PhiMed]

And sense someone mentioned Star Wars *flame shield activate* I find that the prequels are easier to sit through than the originals. Not sure why that is, there's just something about them that's more enjoyable, Darth Vader and mediclorians be damned.

http://www.troll.me/images/tg/take-that-back-now.jpg

As far as "classics" that I'm not a fan of, I'm going to have to go with The Shining. Many of my cinephile friends rant and rave about this movie, but I think it's the most disjointed, unorganized mess I've ever watched. I DEFINITELY think it's Kubrick's worst film. Yes, I'm including Eyes Wide Shut in that assessment.

 

[PhiMed]

Oh God. I have a lot of these. Literally almost every required-reading I've ever done, I disliked.

Spoiler: The List

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
The House on Mango Street
The Stranger
The Giver
Romeo and Juliet
A Midsummer Night's Dream
1984
To Kill A Mockingbird
Several Edgar Allen Poe stories, including The Raven, The Pit and the Pendulum and The Casque of Amontillado
Things Fall Apart
Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry

There are more, but those are the only ones I can remember. It's easier to list the ones I did like. Which are Of Mice and Men, Hamlet and The Great Gatsby. Especially Of Mice and Men, to which I have been known to refer as "my personal Bible."

I feel that there are too many there to go into great detail about why I don't like them. The lazy, blanket statement is that they're all powerfully boring. And that seems to be a common statement when you read these in school. There are plenty of not-boring classics. For example, the Divine Comedy or the Odyssey. Or more modern classics, like A Clockwork Orange or I Am Legend. (Some schools even teach John Green's Looking for Alaska!) I don't know about you guys, but wouldn't it be easier to learn from a book if you actually enjoyed it? Not that I'm completely sure of the educational value of any work of fiction.

I could do a few specifics, though. In the case of Romeo and Juliet, the characters might as well have been brain-dead chimps. Honestly. How can people call it romantic? It's stupid is what it is. Nobody, nobody used their head in that play. When it came to The Stranger, I was actually looking forward to some kind of adventure, having read the blurb on the back of the book. What did I get instead? A drawn-out narrative that overstayed its welcome by page three. The main character is the most stereotypically French man I could possibly think of, and the supposed "climax" is so contrived it can never possibly make sense.

The absolute worst offender on that list is The House on Mango Street. This more than any other book would I recommend you never pick up. It's told in a series of only-vaguely-related vignettes, meaning that there's no real plot going on. This makes it nigh-impossible to care about any of the characters, which really puts a damper on the almost-end of the book, where--SPOILERS--the protagonist and narrator is raped. Not that you would necessarily know, as the description of the event is vague at best. I think the worst part is that I honestly can't see where this novella fits into the educational sphere. I sure as hell didn't learn anything from it. Except that I hate it.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I couldn't make it past the second chapter of The Hobbit. Tolkein's writing is just sort of... long. I've not seen any Lord of the Rings films, though my dad adores them. Maybe I should watch that instead.

Some of the books you hated are some of my favorite books of all time. Of Mice and Men, along with The Red Badge of Courage, is part of what I used to call "Classic reading for people who don't like reading". We read Of Mice and Men in our class when I was 12.

I'm willing to bet someone in your class enjoyed the books you hated, so I doubt they picked books everyone would be bored by. Perhaps they should have consulted you when compiling the list, though.

 

[Woodsey]

I hate Blade Runner. I'll sit through a slow and contemplative film quite happily (this ***** enjoyed Tree of Life quite recently), and I love me some Sci-Fi, but my fucking god that film bored me to tears.

It's absolutely hideous too in terms of art design. The cityscapes and stuff remain wonderful, but there's something about the set and costume designs that makes me almost nauseous. So fucking eighties it hurts.

Plus To Kill A Mockingbird and Things Fall Apart. How do people dislike To Kill A Mockingbird? I can understand disliking Things Fall Apart, but To Kill A Mockingbird?

I read it for my GCSEs (when I was 15 for the non-Brits) and its one of ma faves. The problem with me, at least, is that as soon as I'm told to read something by someone else and told to do it at their pace, not my own, I lose interest. I suspect it's the same for a lot of people, which leads to the "Shakespeare is shit" reactions. (Probably not the best temperament considering I'm now doing an English Lit degree.)

Not that someone can't legitimately think it's shit - it doesn't exactly get my lady juices flowing either.

 

[Legion]

I have never liked Akira or The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

As for why...

Well Akira admittedly I watched while working night shifts (on a day off that is) and so my general lack of alertness may have led it to seem more boring than it actually was. I just didn't find it engaging. I didn't care about the characters or what was going on, I didn't like the animation and just generally found it dull.

I should probably give it another shot though.

Rocky Horror is easier. I just disliked it's style, acting, aesthetic appearance and it's non-existent plot. It's supposed to be strange yes, and I like strange, but it wasn't interesting at all.

I read it for my GCSEs (when I was 15 for the non-Brits) and its one of ma faves. The problem with me, at least, is that as soon as I'm told to read something by someone else and told to do it at their pace, not my own, I lose interest. I suspect it's the same for a lot of people, which leads to the "Shakespeare is shit" reactions.

It doesn't help either that you are often forced to read the same parts repeatedly in order to discuss it, as well as over anaylyse stupid little things just to show an exam board you are capable of looking at things from another perspective.

I have always loved reading, but I despised English in education for this.

 

[repeating integers]

I am so glad I found a fellow LotR-bored person. I thought they were so much better as movies than books. Tolkien drags on and on and on and doesn't know how to write a concise plot. Also, they were marketed as *about the Ring*, so why am I reading all this crap about Aragorn's political plot? I don't care about his politics. I care about a couple of short dudes carrying a magic ring to a volcano. That's it. That's what I want to read about. Cut down your plots, man, they are so crammed with filler. Hack it out. Go to a proper writing workshop and slash most of the stuff in those books.

Soo... you don't like nuance in works of fiction?

 

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

Star Wars. Even as a child I could just never dig it. The whole mythos bothers me, the writing is atrocious, the story cornball as all hell.... (Puts up flame-shield)

 

[Syzygy23]

I'll second Playful Pony in saying that the LOTR books sucked reading through. Tolkien was not all that great a writer. Like...sure. Describe stuff, but get to the bloddy point one of these days.

And sense someone mentioned Star Wars *flame shield activate* I find that the prequels are easier to sit through than the originals. Not sure why that is, there's just something about them that's more enjoyable, Darth Vader and mediclorians be damned.

A word to the wise: when you say that someone is not a good writer, but you don't know the difference between sense and since... well that lowers my opinion of you quite a bit. Dislike a work all you like, call a book bad all you like, but don't call someone a bad writer without being an excellent writer yourself. Otherwise you're just spouting platitudes at best, and showing everyone that you know nothing about what you're speaking of at worst.

You don't need to be a poopsmith to know shit when you see it.

 

[Raine_sage]

Actually just recently I tried to watch Serial Experiment Lain, which as far as anime goes is something akin to a "classic" work I guess in that it was supposedly groundbreaking in the method of story telling it used.

I'd just finished Paranoia agent and I like surreal horror in general so Lain seemed like the next logical choice. But five episodes in I had no idea what was going on and nothing seemed to be happening. I mean, things were obviously happening, it was clearly going somewhere, but at the same time it felt like I could have started on any episode in the series and watched them in any order. Actually I'm almost wondering if trying a Haruhi approach to it wouldn't have worked better.

In essence it's just a very minimalist anime. Gorgeously drawn, but lots of static shots, extreme closeups, little to no dialogue in an episode. And what dialogue there is is usually incredibly vague, no doubt meant to make sense as the show goes on. We know very little about the world it's set in and what we do know is told to us in long exposition dumps provided by voice over.

It's just... I want to like it. I can certainly see why other people like it. And I can see why it's considered a classic. But I just can't actually enjoy it myself. :<

 

[217not237]

Apocalypse Now is my least favorite film of all time. The characters have no real personality, the entire plot is pretty much "Let's go to the place where there is a plot" for the first two hours, and no actual development happens until the end. I can understand why people like it-- actually, no, I can't. I have no idea why Frances Ford Coppola is such a respected film-maker when his films are just so mediocre and bland.

Blade Runner was... meh. Not really all that interesting overall.

Memento was my least favorite Christopher Nolan film. It was way too confusing, and I just didn't care about the characters.

Apocalypse Now (especially the Redux version) may be a long film to get through. If you're just taking the film as you see it I can see why one might not like it. If you read up about it (specifically about Kurtz and his motivation for doing what he is doing) it's pretty damn good. For the little screen time he has, his character is still the most interesting.

Yeah, Kurtz was literally the only thing I thought was interesting about it. As for the 2 hours it goes without him, though... The horror... The horror...

 

[Mark Hardigan]

I'll second Playful Pony in saying that the LOTR books sucked reading through. Tolkien was not all that great a writer. Like...sure. Describe stuff, but get to the bloddy point one of these days.

And sense someone mentioned Star Wars *flame shield activate* I find that the prequels are easier to sit through than the originals. Not sure why that is, there's just something about them that's more enjoyable, Darth Vader and mediclorians be damned.

A word to the wise: when you say that someone is not a good writer, but you don't know the difference between sense and since... well that lowers my opinion of you quite a bit. Dislike a work all you like, call a book bad all you like, but don't call someone a bad writer without being an excellent writer yourself. Otherwise you're just spouting platitudes at best, and showing everyone that you know nothing about what you're speaking of at worst.

That's nonsense.

Have you ever made a video game? No? Oh I guess that means you can't possibly know what a bad video game is then.

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/09/28

Same thing with music, movies and literature.

I never said you can't know what a BAD book is. I simply said that saying a book is bad is one thing. Saying the writer is a bad writer (or a bad design if its a video game to use your analogy) is another thing entirely. To say someone is a bad writer without knowing anything about writing is just plain silly. Taking a game I hate and saying, "this is a bad game," is completely different from me pointing at one of the developers and saying, "you're a bad developer."

 

[The_Echo]

Some of the books you hated are some of my favorite books of all time. Of Mice and Men, along with The Red Badge of Courage, is part of what I used to call "Classic reading for people who don't like reading". We read Of Mice and Men in our class when I was 12.

I'm willing to bet someone in your class enjoyed the books you hated, so I doubt they picked books everyone would be bored by. Perhaps they should have consulted you when compiling the list, though.

I also read Of Mice and Men when I was 12 (or maybe 13). Never read the Red Badge of Courage, though. I'm not completely sure what your point was supposed to be.

Oh, I'm positive some people like each and every book I didn't, don't, or will not. 'Cause that's how the world works. I'm sure the school has definite reasons for putting Book X in the curriculum. As I'd stated before, it just seems to be the general consensus (at the time it's being taught) that Book X is boring or otherwise not fun to read.