Most overhyped classic masterpiece?

[wayspooled]

Some more for which I have never cared - Ulysses, Lord of the Flies and most particularly I dislike A Confederacy Of Dunces.

[astra]

It is funny. I just realised that albeit saying I hate classics, I do plan on reading at least two or even three?
Lord of Flies
1984
The King of Elfland's Daughter
We by Yevgeny Zamyatin

Although, I am not sure all of them are strictly "classics".

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by ahi

People here sure don't like other people who have opinions on subjects they spent anywhere between years to a lifetime studying and researching.

- Ahi

That's normal. Even if one spent a lifetime on researching something, if the way his opinion is passed on doesn't convince people of its value, doesn't teach them anything, there's no proof whatsoever that anything was learned as a result of the research.

[Sweetpea]

Personally, I find most classics overrated. Most are praised into heaven just because they're a classic, not due to writing skills. There are only a few classics which I really like to read (both in Dutch and English).

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by astra

It is funny. I just realised that albeit saying I hate classics, I do plan on reading at least two or even three?
Lord of Flies
1984
The King of Elfland's Daughter
We by Yevgeny Zamyatin

Although, I am not sure all of them are strictly "classics".

There ya go! Welcome aboard.

Enjoy!

and be sure to report back on what you think of them (regardless of how they are classified)!

[paul1403]

Many (many, many) years ago in high school I read (technically, was forced to read) a book called My Brother Jack. (I think it was published before 1960, if not then my apologies). Anyway, it is considered a classic in Australian literature. I found it mean, dark and unpleasent. I finished reading it, but loathed every page.

Paul
Canberra, Australia

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Personally, I find most classics overrated. Most are praised into heaven just because they're a classic, not due to writing skills. There are only a few classics which I really like to read (both in Dutch and English).

Don't you think, though, that most books that are considered "classics" are considered to be so because of the "writing skills" of the author? The reason that the books of authors like Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, and Thomas Hardy, to name but three, are regarded as "classics" is because they were very, very good authors.

Merely being "old" doesn't make a book a "classic" - you only have to look at PG to see that most old books were just as trashy as most modern books are; it's only a tiny minority which are generally considered to be "classics".

[wayspooled]

Yeah, and three other things too. 1) We're used to thinking of the classics as the old books.. as in "all" the old books but the truth is they're just the tip of the iceberg that's survived and some tiny fraction of the books written or even popular years ago. and 2) Writing style is individual but it also if you've noticed, is somewhat particular to the time period in which it's written and you may or may not, depending on many things about your personal experience - enjoy a writing style or it's language - and those things don't make them a poorly written book. and 3) I need more coffee because I forgot 3 while I was typing 1 and 2. :P ahem, okay yeah.. 3) We usually only read one "edit" of an older book. Of a once popular "classic" written a century ago, there may be a multitude of published edits and we can possibly have run across a bad one. And many reasons for bad editors related to the combination of money and publishers. heh, We should have a thread about stories we know about bad editing or bad publications of good books.

So I agree with HarryT when he says:

Don't you think, though, that most books that are considered "classics" are considered to be so because of the "writing skills" of the author? The reason that the books of authors like Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, and Thomas Hardy, to name but three, are regarded as "classics" is because they were very, very good authors.

note: all "you"'s are the collective "you", not the personal "you".

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't you think, though, that most books that are considered "classics" are considered to be so because of the "writing skills" of the author? The reason that the books of authors like Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, and Thomas Hardy, to name but three, are regarded as "classics" is because they were very, very good authors.

I think there are plenty of works, by good authors (of any age in time), that are called a "classic" just because they are by that author. Even though the book itself isn't worth the title "classic". Every writer has an off-day. Not all books are written equal.

But what I meant, mostly, is that people say: oh you should read Dickens (for example), while I might just not like his style of writing (maybe it's too bombastic for my taste, or not bombastic enough). But when you say you haven't read it, people look at you like you're from some barbaric tribe... In those cases, I'd say, yes, that masterpiece has been "overhyped". It doesn't say anything about how good a book is, how well written, but rather, how people think you should think about that book. (if you know what I mean...)

Originally Posted by HarryT

Merely being "old" doesn't make a book a "classic" - you only have to look at PG to see that most old books were just as trashy as most modern books are; it's only a tiny minority which are generally considered to be "classics".

I agree completely on this.

[BenG]

Epic Pooh by Michael Moorcock.
I like Tolkien and Lewis but would have to admit their shortcomings and why Baum and Nesbit are better writers.

I thought his take on Terry Pratchett was amusing.

Is it a sign of our dumber times that Lord of the Rings can replace Ulysses as the exemplary book of its century? Some of the writers who most slavishly imitate him seem to be using English as a rather inexpertly-learned second language. So many of them are unbelievably bad that they defy description and are scarcely worth listing individually. Terry Pratchett once remarked that all his readers were called Kevin. He is lucky in that he appears to be the only Terry in fantasy land who is able to write a decent complex sentence.

[Patricia]

For me, the test of whether a book is a classic is how often it will bear re-reading. If I've got to wait for 15 minutes at the dentist's surgery, then I can open a Balzac, Proust, or Jane Austen at random and will usually discover something new, that I failed to notice in an earlier reading. (Others may find this with the great works of science fiction etc.)

Now, there are plenty of writers whose work is quite nice to read, but where most of the pleasure is extracted at the first reading - I'm thinking of the detective novels of say, Jill Churchill, Dorothy Cannell or Valerie Wolzien. Their series (particularly the earlier novels) fill the time agreeably, but yield all their fruits at once.

I'm wondering - having followed this thread - whether there are two different sorts of reading preferences. Perhaps the more extraverted reader prefers something new, because they wish to avoid boredom at all costs; whilst the more introverted reader is more comfortable with reading fewer new works, but likes greater depth, because they like re-reading. (I suspect that most of us have both traits, but have a stronger preference for one of them.)

[kennyc]

I'm in the middle of what may be the best novel I've ever read -- The Heart is a Lonely Hunter -- it just keeps knocking the wind out of me....I just shake my head in amazement at the insight the author had when writing it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Patricia

For me, the test of whether a book is a classic is how often it will bear re-reading. If I've got to wait for 15 minutes at the dentist's surgery, then I can open a Balzac, Proust, or Jane Austen at random and will usually discover something new, that I failed to notice in an earlier reading.

That's my criterion too, and for me it's Dickens, Austen, Trollope, and so on. Proust and Balzac really aren't to my taste, but obviously we all have different likes and dislikes!

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Patricia

For me, the test of whether a book is a classic is how often it will bear re-reading. If I've got to wait for 15 minutes at the dentist's surgery, then I can open a Balzac, Proust, or Jane Austen at random and will usually discover something new, that I failed to notice in an earlier reading. (Others may find this with the great works of science fiction etc.)

A good question would be: what is a classic? A book that has been around for so long? A book that has been read by so large a percentage of the readers?

Originally Posted by Patricia

I'm wondering - having followed this thread - whether there are two different sorts of reading preferences. Perhaps the more extraverted reader prefers something new, because they wish to avoid boredom at all costs; whilst the more introverted reader is more comfortable with reading fewer new works, but likes greater depth, because they like re-reading. (I suspect that most of us have both traits, but have a stronger preference for one of them.)

I love to reread my books and, like you, I will always find something new or something I had apparently forgotten all about. Or maybe I read something or heard something or seen something after reading a book, which will shed new light on the story.

[Sparrow]

There was a TV programme here recently discussing the contenders for an upcoming fiction award.

The panel discussing the shortlist made the point that the real judges would be reading the books 3 or 4 times; and thereby have a far different view of them than a reader who had only read them once.

As someone who very rarely rereads a book, I thought this was an interesting point; and maybe explains why the books that win the awards often come as a surprise.