A big hat tip to Karin Bishop for highlighting this over on the Book of Face.
Even Classic novels can earn a single lonely star in reviews at Amazon and other online book retailers. Take the following comments for example:
Paradise Lost: "I thought it would at least be interesting, but it's all biblical, on top of being peotry [sic]. Waste of time."
To Kill a Mockingbird: "This book has no plot, no point, and no real characters."
1984: "Winston had zero personality, which I'm sure partially came from the oppression, but come on, he was a REBEL, a member of Dumbledore's army!!!!"
Grimm's Fairy Tales: "The writing was on a third grade level, the morals were non-existent and the stories were just BAD."
Jane Eyre: "Just because it was written yonks ago by a depressed girl living on the Yorkshire Moors does not make it good."
Dracula: "Maybe I've read too much Sookie and Twilight, but this ''classic'' of Dracula sucked. Literally."
Buzzfeed has compiled nineteen for you to gawp at.
Just for fun, I had a peek at Amazon myself, so here's one more:
Lord of the Flies: "This has to be the most appallingly atrocious writing I've ever seen in a major release."
Also: "answer me this- can you read a book where the author describes a twig for 5 pages ???if no dont bother .if the answer is yes then enjoy. to me utterly awful leaving a truley bitter taste in my mouth"
Comments
I haven't read all of them ...
... and it's many years since I read either 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or '1984' but I remember enjoying them both. I wouldn't dream of tackling 'Paradise Lost' probably for the reasons the reviewer offers.
From the age of about 10 I was rarely without my nose in a book (I was always being told to go outside to play) so I must have read some of Grimm's Fairy Tales' but they are so well known they are hackneyed. Though it has to be admitted they set the traditional plots in the first place. IIRC the brothers only collected the stories and put them into print.
Never been a fan of Victorian novels, even Dickens, so I'd probably agree with the review of Jane Eyre. George Elliot's novel are fairly predictable in that everything's going to go wrong. 'The Mill on the Floss' being a case in point. All seem very depressing particularly when compared with the romps of Jane Austen. Mary Shelley has a lot to answer for with Dracula. Just think, without that we wouldn't have to tolerate all vampire fantasy which seems to be so popular. I suppose pale and interesting characters?
I certainly think forcing children to read so-called classics is a mistake. I never managed to complete 'Treasure Island' after many attempts (for some reason first person always put me off). Let them first gain a thirst for reading even if it's only Enid Blyton or now, Harry Potter then they'll move on to other things. In my case it was my father's collection of 'racy' paperbacks by Leslie Charteris (The Saint) and Hank Janson ( sex and journalism) at around 11 or 12 :)
Rob
Sorry, but if I don't say it someone else will
Bram Stoker was the author of Dracula. He also wrote 'The Lair of the White Wyrm', that was pretty bad too, to modern tastes.
Mary Shelley wrote 'Frankenstein'.
I had to suffer through Great Expectations by Charles Dickens at school, I found it to be the worst kind of torture. I'm sure many people would find the works I do enjoy to be awful. The only thing that would be worse than the things I read would be the things I write.
To get to the point (I do have one, honestly :-) ), you can't please everyone. You probably shouldn't try to as that would lead to some awful derivative soap opera drama. Please, if you are an author, write something that moves you, something I didn't know about or I hadn't understood before.
I know I don't say thank you enough to all the writers on this site. I'm too busy binge-reading whenever I get the chance. But you are all brilliant. You all have something to say. And you are all better at it than me because at least you managed to write it coherently and publish it online.
thank you
Oops
You're right. My excuse is that they're both pretty awful books that led to some equally awful films whose only remedial feature is that they gave Peter Cushing something to do (IIRC he also played Winston Smith in 1984 on BBC TV circa 1955).
My father insisted on taking me at age around 6 or 7, I think, to see Great Expectations at our local flea-pit. He had to take me out when I screamed blue murder at the chilling scene of Miss Haversham's mouldy wedding dress and equally mouldy wedding breakfast being eaten by mice. Served him right :) Never taken to Dickens since.
I read a few 'classics' as a child and enjoyed some of them but, as you say, trying to please everyone is a recipe for disaster. Lots of excellent writers here that I never read after trying one for size but that's not their fault but mine.
Rob
...fairly predictable in that everything's going to go wrong...
Actually, pretty much *something's* going to go wrong in almost every story more *difficult* than Fun with Dick and Jane.
Indeed, something going wrong is almost an essential element of any story. Mind you, there are "experimental" stories in which nothing happens, but these typically don't get made into films, with the possible exception of Waiting for Godot.
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Sometimes you're so ignorant you don't know how ignorant you are
So, I followed the buzzfeed link and read what was there.
I almost fell out of my chair at the review of "Hunchback of Notre Dame" ! Honestly, comparing the original to the Disney move?
But my favorite was the comparison between the Vonnegut book and athlete's foot! I always knew that Vonnegut got under your skin :D
Carla Ann