Great masterpieces... that suck!

[superbatranger]

Atlas Shrugged is the most pretentious piece of who knows what I have ever read. That woman just drags the most convoluted story ever for over 1000 pages.

 

[CarlsonAndPeeters]

My problem with this topic is that people aren't explaining enough. I can't take you seriously if you just say you hate "Catcher in the Rye" for being whiny or "Hills Like White Elephants" for not explaining enough. THOSE ARE THE POINTS.

How many young teenage boys do you know who aren't whiny? Have you ever played on Xbox Live? Caulfield seems far more realistic to me than most novel protagonists.

If Hills Like White Elephants explained itself, it would be two people talking about an abortion. Instead, its a beautifully crafted conversation that evokes, but does not spell out, the dynamic between a young couple. The ambiguity is essential.

This does not mean you need to like these. Everyone gets an opinion, and I am proud to have a few of my own. But if you're going to claim that a classic piece of literature sucks, you're gonna have to back yourself up.

 

[Jonluw]

I'll still have you know that, unless you create something of actual worth to society, you will be worth less than the simplest of construction workers in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention scientists; who actually contribute to the progress of the human race.

Haha, now I know you're not very bright.


Scientists operate in a vacuum, right? Yeah, go on believing that. Without the philosophers and writers who challenge an era's paradigms, there is no science. Before Columbus, Copernicus and Galileo, there was Boccaccio. Before the industrial revolution, there were Kant and Voltaire.

Plato or Descartes did as much to contribute to "progress" as any scientist did, because they expanded the barriers of thought; the same can be said for the great writers expanding the barriers of imagination.

We can only create what we can imagine. The real shift is in changing how people think. Once that is achieved, science has a fertile soil on which to grow. But nobody can strive for something which he cannot imagine.

Oh, indeed; philosophers can create something of value. Occasionally. And indeed, I didn't say it was impossible for you to create something of value to humanity with the education you have. I just said it was rather unlikely.

And sure, your argument holds true up until the 20th century. Nowadays, philosophy and science are largely separated though; as opposed to back in 500 b.c. when they were very much two sides of the same coin.
Edit: Truly, some of the old philosophers can be considered scientists.
If there is some 21th century philosopher who has contributed greatly to science, please enlighten me.

 

[jaketaz]

I am

I can't fucking stand listening to Ravel's Bolero. I find it to be so boring. People claim to enjoy the melody, and I guess it's OK. It would certainly be a lot better if it and its sister melody weren't repeated virtually verbatim for six minutes. I've heard a couple of versions, and even the most creative ones are equally boring. It is one melody on one instrument, followed by a different melody on a different instrument. Then the first one on a different instrument, then the second on a different instrument, and so on. I simply don't find the melody fun enough to be repeated all that much, and remain good.

I am so right with you there. What do you think about Haydn symphonies? I'm willing to be turned, but as it stands I just find most of them indistinguishable and really boring. His "themes" are usually just scales. Lame.

 

[Yarpie]

I loathed the book "Jazz". It was so slow and pretentious that I felt actual physical pain when trying to get through it. The very last line almost made me vomit. I guess it's supposed to be cryptic and thought provoking, but I just found it frustrating.

"The Fifth Child" by Doris Lessing is another on my most loathed list. The premise was good enough and parts are quite decent, but the execution falls on its face. Every so often the author seem to say "I can use fancy words too" and throws in some of the most obscure words you'll ever see. And again, the ending sucks.

There are also quite a few things I don't care for by Willy Shakespeare.

 

[someotherguy]

This thread = mostly young people that can't tell the difference between "there" and "they're" calling some of the most influential and greatest works of immense cultural value assorted variations of boring.

I really, really hate the internet sometimes.

Put me in the same boat as Dreck. I don't like R&J, or Great Expectations, but i'm still acknowledging their impact on the world.

 

[CrashBang]

Pink Floyd
I just don't get it. The Beatles? Yes, amazing, revolutionary. The Clash? One of my all-time favourite bands, simply incredible. But Pink Floyd? No, their music is lost to me, I find it very dull and lifeless
Radiohead
Similarly to Pink Floyd, they're dull. Their lyrics are fantastic but the music itself lacks emotion and any kind of flare whatsoever

 

[Koroviev]

Well, I never actually got around to reading it (I put it down when I encountered a sentence in the introduction that was not actually a sentence, but in fact a series of the most needlessly obscure words strung together in the name of obscene pretentiousness), but I'm going to say Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Based on what I could glean from the overwrought intro, the story is little more than a bland Victorian soap opera concerning some forsaken woman's purity. Yawn!

 

[Macgyvercas]

Snip

AWESOME! I'm not alone in my hate for Catcher in the Rye!

 

[someotherguy]

You're going a bit far here, mate. This thread has really ticked you off, hasn't it?

Your posts are offending a lot of people and you're clearly in a bad mood. I'd recommend just leaving the thread before any more damage is caused to any party. If things keep on devolving like this, somebody's going to be put on probation.

Ignorance, and the passionate defence of it, have that effect on me, sorry. But I don't react all that well to veiled threats either.

Whom am I offending, after all? People who say that emo teen-agers who cannot spell properly can judge world literature? The only thing offensive here is that kind of ignorance.

I'm not even sure how to properly articulate a response to this without getting a ban.

Here goes nothing. If you think their opinions are worthless, why are you enraged over it? If they can't spell properly, why do you care? Learn to get away from the things that bug you, and stop thinking so highly of yourself. They can state their opinions, it doesn't mean its right. I doubt they honestly believe that the things they're insulting had no impact on the world, they simply didn't like it.

 

[sokka14]

No-one who knows anything about literature would call Tolkien's books masterpieces. Yes he has created an immensely deep detailed universe, but it's written in such dull monotonous prose, and it just comes across as contrived and self-indulgent.
Except The Hobbit. That had a few redeeming qualities. Like being a decent length. And not having Tolkien's universe jammed down your throat.

 

[dorkette1990]

Any painting by Renoir. Who thought that guy was good?! Seriously, who ever thought he was any good? Calling Renoir good is like calling those awful little drawings of children with dogs good. Sure, people eat it up, but it has no lasting emotional value, it's not talented. He shows those little vanilla scenes, poorly painted and poorly designed. Same with Kincaid, the man couldn't paint himself outta a box.

 

[Nickolai77]

Edit: Truly, some of the old philosophers can be considered scientists.
If there is some 21th century philosopher who has contributed greatly to science, please enlighten me.

I'd suggest Richard Dawkins as an example of a philosopher/scientist, they do exist, but i will say he has done more to publicise science and philosophy rather than contribute to it.

It's probably best to describe these "philosopher-scientists" you elude to as "natural philosophers" (which is indeed what they called themselves) because they did not use scientific methods to uncover "truths" about the universe.

 

[Jonluw]

Edit: Truly, some of the old philosophers can be considered scientists.
If there is some 21th century philosopher who has contributed greatly to science, please enlighten me.

I'd suggest Richard Dawkins as an example of a philosopher/scientist, they do exist, but i will say he has done more to publicise science and philosophy rather than contribute to it.

It's probably best to describe these "philosopher-scientists" you elude to as "natural philosophers" (which is indeed what they called themselves) because they did not use scientific methods to uncover "truths" about the universe.

But tell me: Is he a philosopher and a scientist, or is he a philosopher whose works have contributed to science?

Edit: From what I see, he seems to be a scientist who also is a philospher and that any progress done with his philosophy is only the promotion of science, but I might be wrong.

 

[Nickolai77]

Edit: From what I see, he seems to be a scientist who also is a philospher and that any progress done with his philosophy is only the promotion of science, but I might be wrong.

I think you've answered your own question there. In a lot of his books he's explaining evolution (science) and how he thinks this disproves God(Philosophy). Science and philosophy do have a close and interesting relationship, which i think is mainly hinged upon the moral or philosophical implications of scientific advancements. For instance, my philosophy lecturer last year also sits on governmental advisory boards for bio-ethics.

That said, i agree there is a clear separation between the two subjects, but yet at the same time they do connect quite well.

 

[Jonluw]

Edit: From what I see, he seems to be a scientist who also is a philospher and that any progress done with his philosophy is only the promotion of science, but I might be wrong.

I think you've answered your own question there. In a lot of his books he's explaining evolution (science) and how he thinks this disproves God(Philosophy). Science and philosophy do have a close and interesting relationship, which i think is mainly hinged upon the moral or philosophical implications of scientific advancements. For instance, my philosophy lecturer last year also sits on governmental advisory boards for bio-ethics.

That said, i agree there is a clear separation between the two subjects, but yet at the same time they do connect quite well.

Yes, they are indeed connected; and philosphy may very well guide the direction of science. I just can't imagine philosophy directly leading to any progress being made.
For example the teacher on the bio-ethics board is helping the scientists in telling them in what direction they should take their science; but he still isn't responsible for any of the actual progress being made.

 

[krugerrand123]

Lord of the flies- I just found it boring
Avatar- It was average for me
Halo reach- I found it extremely repetitive and boring

 

[SergeMC]

there are some universally acclaimed bands that i just can't get into.
these are:
led zeppelin; although i can understand their impact on the industry, i can't listen to anything outside of stairway.
pink floyd; to me... sorry, just incomprehensible space rock. i don't get it and i think i never will.
black sabbath; i never understood why people liked ozzy's voice. and i never understood what makes tony iommi and geezer butler such awesome composers. even their albums with dio did not do anything for me.
and lastly, though it breaks my heart to say it, there are very few song by dio that i like. my respect for the man is unmatched, he is one of my childhood heroes, but his solo band, if you can call it that, never had the punch that his project with rainbow did.

yeah, that's my opinion, if you want to flame me, then flame me, i'm not worthy blah blah blah...

 

[Nickolai77]

Lord of the flies- I just found it boring

If you found that book boring you'd have jumped out of the window if you had to read William Golding's "The Spire." Basically it's about this priest who runs the construction of a new spire for a cathedral but goes mad and dies. Loads of symbols, metaphors and other hidden meanings- but plotwise is hardly a good read. The best novels, or indeed most works of art which can be called good, appeal to both the common audience and the critics- Golding often appealed to much towards the high-brow critics end of the spectrum.

 

[Qmonster]

Gone With the Wind. It's a ~3hr apology to the US South for the US Civil War. "Oh, I'm sorry we ruined your economy... that was based on the enslavement and degradation of an entire race. Our bad." *sigh*