Literary confessions.

[Elok]

Forgive me, for I have sinned. I have never read Dostoevsky, even though I know I should. No Tolstoy either. I've tried les Miserables but the book's one long string of appositives and asides, you have to keep backtracking to remember what the actual story is about. It would be wonderful if Hugo's rich writing style could confine itself to a single subject for more than two pages without digressing.

I have also hated much "art," apparently wrongly. You know my opinions on Citizen Kane; I'm sorry, I just can't see how that lout gets anything more or less than what he deserves, or why I should feel empathy for his situation.

Beyond that, I freaking hated Their Eyes Were Watching God. Hokey homespun metaphors like "something fell off the shelf inside of her. She bent over, and realized it was her image of Joe," do not constitute good writing. That's just painful to read. And that weird part where she got some sort of orgasm from watching bees and flowers around a pear tree was more disturbing than profound.

The Stranger sucks too. It did not convince me that our lives are meaningless and absurd. It merely convinced me that Camus's life was meaningless and absurd, and I could have been told that directly without being forced to read the stupid book, though it was mercifully short.

The Catcher in the Rye. Critics agree that it's badly written tripe, but they insist that its redeeming value is in its open appeal to disillusioned adolescence. No, it doesn't even have that. I was sixteen when I read it, and I was a pretty sullen kid, and even I wanted to cheer when the pimp hit him. That was the best part of the book, Maurice laying down the law. That rotten little punk deserved a beating, or maybe just to be shipped off to Vietnam so he could learn what real suffering is.

Okay, I'm done, for now at least. Thank you for listening. Feel free to contribute your own artistic outrage, provided you don't expect me to agree with you on all of it.

[Admiral]

I'll disagree with you about Catcher in the Rye. I thought that it was an unfortunate book, and the goodness of the last scene didn't even begin to make up for it. However, when I was told to read it in 11th grade English, it came out that a lot of the people in the class had read it, and many thought it to be their favorite book. So, I think it does have appeal to the angst-ridden disallusioned adolescence.

[chequita guevara]

I didn't like either On the Road or Naked Lunch.

[Bill3000]

Catcher in the Rye = worst book ever. A good second is Angela's Ashes. The latter was incredibly boring, full of hypocrisy, and had worse grammar than a damned 7 year old. Sorry, I prefer to read legable books that make sense.

[alva]

Forgive me, for I have sinned. I have never read Dostoevsky, even though I know I should. No Tolstoy either. I've tried les Miserables but the book's one long string of appositives and asides,

Crime and punishment should be at leasr 200 pages shorter, it might be even good then, Tolstoy is decent thoughI never got around reading his major works(and never will).
Less Miserables is just...pfff..lame

Boris in 3...2...1..

On the Road

[Verres]

I am yet to get beyond the first page of anything by Nietzche, Kant or any other 'fashionable' philosopher.

I have never read 'Little Women' in my life.

Stephen King bores me ****less.

I think 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is possibly one of the most over rated books ever written.

Arial (Sylvia Plath) was nonsensical crap - in my opinion. Self indulgent, no poetic talent whatsoever, imagery so obscure it was totally ineffectual, impossible to identify with even at my most suicidal. Wish she'd stuck her head in the oven during infancy.

....and to think I'm meant to be an English student. I bury my head in shame.

[Ramo]

I've never read any Kafka. Or Dickens. Nor Twain nor Hemmingway since I was too young to appreciate that decent writing. Still haven't gotten to Voltaire's Candide.

LOTR is ****e (granted, I stopped reading after Fellowship). Some interesting linguistics, but the only decent thing about it.

War and Peace was a monumental waste of time. I don't know if more recent translations are any better, but the book's crap. The other Rooskies are far better than Tolstoy (Dostoeovsky, Nabokov, Pushkin, etc.), though Anna Karenina is supposed to be better.

I've read several Anne Rice novels. Also, several Tom Clancy novels. And every ****ty addition to the Foundation series, including the ones Asimov didn't write (only the first one was any good). Frightening amounts of Turtledove. Basically, a lot of ****ty sci-fi and historical fiction.

[alva]

Kafka

The trial was the single worst thing I ever got my hands on.

[Verres]

The Trial was brilliant. As was The Castle. I'm going to leave this thread now before I start taking this too seriously

[alva]

Bleh, it put me of reading for almost a year while at the time I was reading at least 2 books a week.

[Elok]

The only Kafka I've ever read was In the Penal Colony. I'm not sure if I found it good, bad, or just disturbing.

Do try Candide, even I liked it.

I've never read Ariel, but what Sylvia Plath I have read is fun. The trick is not to expect moderate or rational work from Plath, she's a crazy person on a binge halfway between self-pity and self-loathing, that's almost all the fun of reading her.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Literary confessions.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Elok

give me, for I have sinned. I have never read Dostoevsky, even though I know I should.

I liked Crime and Punishment - maybe it helped that i was a student living in a tiny room at the time

Tolstoy either.

it took me a couple of tries to get into War and Peace. Once i did though i finished it and liked it. What can i say, im a sucker for Russian novels.

I've tried les Miserables

Never read it.

I have also hated much "art," apparently wrongly. You know my opinions on Citizen Kane; I'm sorry, I just can't see how that lout gets anything more or less than what he deserves, or why I should feel empathy for his situation.

Im sorry, was i supposeed to feel empathy? I havent, but enjoyed the film anyway. Rosebud

Beyond that, I freaking hated Their Eyes Were Watching God. Hokey homespun metaphors like "something fell off the shelf inside of her. She bent over, and realized it was her image of Joe," do not constitute good writing. That's just painful to read. And that weird part where she got some sort of orgasm from watching bees and flowers around a pear tree was more disturbing than profound.

Never saw/read it.

The Stranger sucks too. It did not convince me that our lives are meaningless and absurd. It merely convinced me that Camus's life was meaningless and absurd, and I could have been told that directly without being forced to read the stupid book, though it was mercifully short.

Didnt convince me either, but I recall enjoying reading it.

for Kane, and Stranger, you say it didnt convince you. I dont think thats what its all about. Before these are arguments, they are art. If they work as art for you, you can get something out of them without buying anyones philosophy of life.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

LOTR is ****e (granted, I stopped reading after Fellowship). Some interesting linguistics, but the only decent thing about it.

HEATHEN!!!!

[lord of the mark]

I couldnt get through Swann's Way. I tried, but i couldnt.

Mahler doesnt do it for me.

I can't stand rap. Any of it.

I thought Mystic River was overrated. Good, but still overrated. ("Bobby, ya got four haahts!" - yeah, an which one should i pahk in hahvad yad?)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Verres
I am yet to get beyond the first page of anything by Nietzche, Kant or any other 'fashionable' philosopher.

Kant is fashionable???