"Classics" that you can't stand

[Random Precision]

The latest in a surge of threads by RP as he becomes ever more desperate in his quest to avoid studying for finals...

So, what "classics" of literature are there that you can't fucking stand?

For me:

Catcher in the Rye. Ugh. I don't really know what more to say about it than that.

On-the-fucking-Road by Jack fucking Kerouac. The triumph of pseudo-intellectual hipsterism as a lifestyle, which made it forever inescapable in this country. Add to this The Dharma Bums for flagrant abuse of Eastern religions.

Heart of Darkness by Conrad- I really wanted to like this but his prose is way too dense and when I got to the end it was sort of an anticlimax. I didn't think he described "the horror" that well at all. I thought the movie Apocalypse Now! did a lot better with the same theme.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Great Gatsby.

A boring story about rich people and their boring lives.

[which doctor]

On the Road was pretty awful, a trend I've noticed continues throughout most of beat literature.

I thought Heart of Darkness was alright, but it was dense, and I think its one of those books you need to read several times over in order to understand well.

David Copperfield was a miserable reading experience. It was for a class and I read the first 300 pages, saw there were about 500 more and just gave up.

I didn't see what was so great about Slaughterhouse Five, or any Vonnegut for that matter. He's a funny writer and easy to read, but I don't think he goes much beyond that.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The pictures in Breakast of Champions were amusing.

Like when he said "This is what an asshole looks like", and drew an asterisk.

[Random Precision]

On the Road was pretty awful, a trend I've noticed continues throughout most of beat literature.

Indeed. Respect for saying this.


I thought Heart of Darkness was alright, but it was dense, and I think its one of those books you need to read several times over in order to understand well.

Meh. Maybe if I'm stuck on a deserted island with only that book, I will give it another shot.


David Copperfield was a miserable reading experience. It was for a class and I read the first 300 pages, saw there were about 500 more and just gave up.

Oh yeah, I totally forgot A Tale of Two Cities. "Don't try to change anything cause you'll just make it worse" literature at its apex. Also reading Dickens I kind of felt like he had just gone to creative writing school, and was trying to write a book where he used all the neat concepts he learned about like metaphor, irony etc


I didn't see what was so great about Breakfast for Champions, or any Vonnegut for that matter. He's a funny writer and easy to read, but I don't think he goes much beyond that.

Breakfast of Champions is far from his best. In fact in his essay in Palm Sunday where he grades all his novels he gives that one a C-. I think his best ones are Sirens of Titan, Cat's Cradle and Slaughterhouse Five, though I could not really say what I think is "great" about them. They just feel very genuine.

[which doctor]

Breakfast of Champions is far from his best. In fact in his essay in Palm Sunday where he grades all his novels he gives that one a C-. I think his best ones are Sirens of Titan, Cat's Cradle and Slaughterhouse Five, though I could not really say what I think is "great" about them. They just feel very genuine.
Actually, I meant to say that Slaughterhouse Five was the book I didn't like, not that Breakfast of Champions was much of an improvement. The only other Vonnegut I've read is Bluebeard which I thought was better than both S5 and BoC.

[Led Zeppelin]

Catcher in the Rye. Ugh. I don't really know what more to say about it than that.

Oh, yes, I thought that was horrible as well. Couldn't get past the first few pages; the writing style was like the sound of nails scraping a chalkboard.


On-the-fucking-Road by Jack fucking Kerouac. The triumph of pseudo-intellectual hipsterism as a lifestyle, which made it forever inescapable in this country. Add to this The Dharma Bums for flagrant abuse of Eastern religions.

I borrowed that book a couple weeks ago and am a couple dozen pages into it, and think it's pretty decent. The writing style is pretty good and it has some really wonderful sentences in it, but the whole everyday speech type of writing can get annoying.

One sentence that I thought was great was this one, for example:


They danced down the streets like dingledodies, and I shambled after as I've been doing all my life after people who interest me, because the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones that never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!"

[UndergroundConnexion]

1984 and Lord of the Flies.

1984 not so much for political reasons, but I fucking detest the atmosphere the book creates and conveys to the reader. Lord of the Flies because I is my intimate belief that the story and it's characters are silly.

[Invader Zim]

Anything written, or supposedly written, by Shakespeare. A load of tedious drivel that has bored millions children across the globe.

[Kassad]

Random, you fucking kill me, man. I love Catcher in the Rye and Heart of Darkness. I think Conrad/Marlow in Heart of Darkness not divulging into the 'horror' allows a lot of room for interpretation. Was Kurtz horrified by what he was leaving behind or what he had become? It made it interesting for me, at least.

And death to whoever doesn't like Vonnegut and Slaughter-House-Five. He's one of my favorite authors. Speaking of that book and the asterik asshole mentioned above, after Christmas I'm getting 'So it goes' with the asshole under it tattooed on my upper back.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was just plain dull. I think the message was kind of stupid and Huckleberry was just as annoying at the beginning as he turned out to be in the end. Dumb story. Besides that, I am a pretty big fan of classic novels and such. I'll try to think of other ones.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Catcher in the Rye is amazing, as is Heart of Darkness.

I can't stand most Jane Austen novels because they're tedious and boring. I also strongly dislike anything by Edith Wharton for the same reasons. I don't know whether Ian McEwan's novels have reached classic status yet, but they're all pretentious. VERY pretentious.

[un_person]

I think that the Beat generation had some very gifted poets among them of course would be Allen Ginsberg, in doubt? Read Hadda Been Playing On The Jukebox.

Also, anyone who defends Vonnegut is a friend of mine.

[hugsandmarxism]

And death to whoever doesn't like Vonnegut and Slaughter-House-Five.

Sirens of Titan was better.

[which doctor]

Speaking of that book and the asterik asshole mentioned above, after Christmas I'm getting 'So it goes' with the asshole under it tattooed on my upper back.

That's an awful idea. "So it goes" was probably the most annoying part of reading Slaughterhouse Five

[Random Precision]

Sirens of Titan was better.

I wrote a philosophy paper on that comparing it to Spinoza's universe

fucking ace

Also I'm starting to regret the door I opened with this thread.

[black_tambourine]

Henry. Fucking. James.

[RHIZOMES]

As an English major I am forced to do two papers in pre-20th century English literature (in keeping with how Eurocentric the academic discipline is). Come back to me in 2 years for that question since I plan to put them off as long as possible.


Anything written, or supposedly written, by Shakespeare. A load of tedious drivel that has bored millions children across the globe.

omg this^


Catcher in the Rye is amazing, as is Heart of Darkness.

I can't stand most Jane Austen novels because they're tedious and boring. I also strongly dislike anything by Edith Wharton for the same reasons. I don't know whether Ian McEwan's novels have reached classic status yet, but they're all pretentious. VERY pretentious.

Actually yeah, I loathe Pride and Prejudice. Again it's the whole "boring story about rich people and their boring lives" thing Explosive Situation mentioned earlier. When I had to study it last semester the lectures were like zzzzzzzzzzzz oh no they thought they didn't like each other at first how exciting zzzzzzzz

[brigadista]

not a classic and none should ever be but while we are talking pretentious- two words= martin amis

i personally dont like dickens imho zola towers above him..

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd like to second dislike of Lord of the Flies (did anyone read about his new biography? Apparently Golding raped a high school student when he was in college and he pitted his students against each other as his "research" for Lord of the Flies). Also 2nd dislike of: Jane Austin, Cather in the Rye, Great Gatsby, and On the Road and most beats(I like Ginsburg's long-poems though).

I'd like to denounce the Shakespeare, Vonnegut, and Twain haters though:lol:. If you dislike "tha Bard", it's only because you haven't had to read Milton, Dante or other Elizabethan stuff like Marlowe.

1. Anything written by a Bronte - I'd rather read the Heathcliff comic (Garfield even) than read about Heathcliff the lame-o.

2. Scarlett Letter.

3. Naked Lunch

4. Anything by Milton

5. Red badge of Courage

[Axle]

A Farewell to Arms, Frankenstein and Hamlet*.

Ah, memories of high school English classes...

*I'm not a fan of Shakespere, but I didn't mind Julius Ceasar.




EDIT: And for the love of God, absolutely ANYTHING by Tolkien.

[Led Zeppelin]

A Farewell to Arms

Oh, yeah, that book was pretty shit.

[CELMX]

Ben Hur
*shoot me* :blink:

and Shane
wonderful book, awful movie

[Axle]

Firstly, they're not usually considered "classics". Secondly, ban for Tolkien-hating.

Are you serious? If anything, I would call The Lord of the Rings trilogy "classics"...dull and tedious though they are :lol:

[ZeroNowhere]

I'll third 'Lord of the Flies'. Also, I dislike 'Animal Farm' because I generally find allegory, especially when blatant, quite distasteful. Incidentally, so did Tolkien, who I think is a good, if somewhat overrated, author.


HamletGet thee to a nunnery.

1. Anything written by a Bronte - I'd rather read the Heathcliff comic (Garfield even) than read about Heathcliff the lame-o.I haven't read everything written by a Bronte, though Emily was quite bad. As was Jane Austen.

Though the worst thing occasionally considered a classic is probably T.S. Eliot's writings.

[Holden Caulfield]

As I tell my English Literature Studying House-mate when trying to belittle his degree:

I don't read story books

[BOZG]

1. Anything written by a Bronte - I'd rather read the Heathcliff comic (Garfield even) than read about Heathcliff the lame-o.

If I ever meet you, remind me to smash your face into the concrete repeatedly. I hope you die a horrible painful death you pitiful excuse for a human being. Die fucker, die!

[Glenn Beck]

Crime and Punishment. Fuck your christian proto-hipster bullshit, dostoevsky. I won't ever get those hours back.

[RHIZOMES]

3. Naked Lunch

I tried reading it at 14.

I was like, WUT


Firstly, they're not usually considered "classics". Secondly, ban for Tolkien-hating.

Tolkien sucks ass, despite all of the reactionary messages and shit story in Narnia at least C.S. Lewis is readable.

[Revy]

The Time Machine by H. G. Wells.

In this case, the movie is far better than the book. (though there is more than one film version).

[Random Precision]

Random, you fucking kill me, man. I love Catcher in the Rye and Heart of Darkness. I think Conrad/Marlow in Heart of Darkness not divulging into the 'horror' allows a lot of room for interpretation. Was Kurtz horrified by what he was leaving behind or what he had become? It made it interesting for me, at least.

And death to whoever doesn't like Vonnegut and Slaughter-House-Five. He's one of my favorite authors. Speaking of that book and the asterik asshole mentioned above, after Christmas I'm getting 'So it goes' with the asshole under it tattooed on my upper back.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was just plain dull. I think the message was kind of stupid and Huckleberry was just as annoying at the beginning as he turned out to be in the end. Dumb story. Besides that, I am a pretty big fan of classic novels and such. I'll try to think of other ones.

you have horrible taste in literature. Therefore I will have to take back the promotion to global mod. Sorry, it is nothing personal. :)

[Sasha]

ulysses.....

pretentious shite

[Sasha]

shakespear is good on the other hand...

but than i have an background in theater, gotta love the bard

[Ravachol]

1984 and Lord of the Flies.

1984 not so much for political reasons, but I fucking detest the atmosphere the book creates and conveys to the reader. Lord of the Flies because I is my intimate belief that the story and it's characters are silly.

I actually loved the claustrophobic desperate atmosphere of 1984, but I guess that's just me.

What I CAN'T stand however, is most Dutch literature, including 'The Discovery of Heaven' and 'Amongst professors'. I utterly detested those petit-bourgois works.

Also, bloody Jane fucking Austen.



1. Anything written by a Bronte - I'd rather read the Heathcliff comic (Garfield even) than read about Heathcliff the lame-o.


I fully agree.



4. Anything by Milton


If we are talking about John Milton here, I strongly disagree, I actually like his works.
I've always seen Milton as comparable to the Dutch Vondel, who's works I actually enjoyed as well.

[Sasha]

vondel?

wie is het die zo hoog gezeten,
zo diep in het grondeloze licht,
van tijd nog eewigheid gezeten,
nog ronden zonder tegenwicht bij zich bestaat.

not my cuppa...


What I CAN'T stand however, is most Dutch literature, including 'The Discovery of Heaven' and 'Amongst professors'. I utterly detested those petit-bourgois works.

this on the other hand, so true so true

[Revy]

Utopia by Thomas More.

I remember reading this, I think it was even before I became interested in socialism (I say that only because Thomas More is seen by many as a proto-socialist). I first heard of it when watching Ever After, a movie based on Cinderella, where Drew Barrymore's character in the Renaissance period absolutely LOVES the book.

It's incredibly dystopian. The "utopia" even has slavery. Not much else I can remember, they also have war.

[Random Precision]

Firstly, they're not usually considered "classics". Secondly, ban for Tolkien-hating.

Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion are written in the most impenetrable prose I've come across leaving aside postmodern theorists. Plus LOTR is revolting petty-bourgeois reactionary crap.

The Hobbit was good for a children's book, and the LOTR movies are fairly entertaining, but eh. Tolkein was a disgusting excuse for a human being.

[Vanguard1917]

I finished reading Hemingway's Fiesta (The Sun Also Rises) and i couldn't figure out what the fuss is all about. I couldn't care about any of the main characters and the story itself seemed a bit vacuous (a bit like how i found Kerouac's On the Road).

But i'm no Georg Lukacs, so what do i know.

[hugsandmarxism]

Ban yourself and do us all a favor

Never got into Tolkien either. :p

[RedScare]

Wuthering Heights. Just make it go away.

[Ravachol]

Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion are written in the most impenetrable prose I've come across leaving aside postmodern theorists. Plus LOTR is revolting petty-bourgeois reactionary crap.

The Hobbit was good for a children's book, and the LOTR movies are fairly entertaining, but eh. Tolkein was a disgusting excuse for a human being.

I actually love both LOTR and the Silmarillion, but then again, I'm a sucker for stuffy ivory tower prose. LOTR isn't really petit-bourgois, if anything, it's feudalist, get your class distinctions right :p

Secondly, Tolkien is a product of his time, a conservative Catholic who happend to have a penchant for Nordic, Celtic and Slavic mythology. Doesn't make him a saint nor a sinner. I enjoy LOTR and Tolkien's works for their style of writing and theatrical themes, not for their political content, which isn't that prominent either.

[Random Precision]

LOTR isn't really petit-bourgois, if anything, it's feudalist, get your class distinctions right

The petty bourgeoisie is/was a backward-looking class, and feudalism is often the thing they look backward to.


political content, which isn't that prominent either

I think it's pretty obvious. It's permeated with rage against the breakdown of the idealized feudal order. I would argue that his villains can be seen pretty easily as a representation of his horror at modern industry, which is anathema, or should be, to any genuine revolutionary.

Plus the screamingly obvious racism of pasty-as-hell elves, white men, Scottish hobbits, Nordic dwarves = good, brown/black/"Eastern" men, black orcs etc. = bad.

[RHIZOMES]

I actually loved the claustrophobic desperate atmosphere of 1984, but I guess that's just me.

What I CAN'T stand however, is most Dutch literature, including 'The Discovery of Heaven' and 'Amongst professors'. I utterly detested those petit-bourgois works.

I think it's true in most places that fiction novels have petty-bourgeois outlooks, since that's the class position most authors find themselves in due to the nature of their profession.


Also, bloody Jane fucking Austen.

People had a go at me in my English paper last semester for not liking "Pride and Prejudice" because it was "girly". No, I hate it because it's about a bunch of 18th century boring rich people doing their pointless little bourgeois marriage rituals. Zzzzzzz. There's plenty of shit I like that is "girly". I just hate books that place meaningless twaddle to be of the utmost importance.


Secondly, Tolkien is a product of his time, a conservative Catholic who happend to have a penchant for Nordic, Celtic and Slavic mythology. Doesn't make him a saint nor a sinner. I enjoy LOTR and Tolkien's works for their style of writing and theatrical themes, not for their political content, which isn't that prominent either.

Does supporting the Spanish Nationalists in the civil war make him a "product of his time"? I never got the "product of their times" argument to explain reaction, there were plenty of progressives back in those times, it's just bourgeois history likes to gloss over them.

Oh yeah speaking of impenetrable prose, I tried reading "For Whom The Bell Tolls" for a high school English research assignment on fascism. I got a 3rd of the way through it before I was like nah fuck this

[Revy]

What about "War and Peace"?
Is that any good?

Wikipedia says:

Epic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_poetry) in scale, War and Peace delineates in graphic detail events leading up to Napoleon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon)'s invasion of Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia), and the impact of the Napoleonic era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_era) on Tsarist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsarist) society, as seen through the eyes of five Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) aristocratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy) families.

[black_tambourine]

War and Peace is fantastic, as is everything else by Tolstoy.

[bcbm]

People had a go at me in my English paper last semester for not liking "Pride and Prejudice" because it was "girly". No, I hate it because it's about a bunch of 18th century boring rich people doing their pointless little bourgeois marriage rituals. Zzzzzzz. There's plenty of shit I like that is "girly". I just hate books that place meaningless twaddle to be of the utmost importance.

it isn't placing it as of the utmost importance though. jane austen is satirizing the entire process.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I tried reading it at 14.

I was like, WUT



Tolkien sucks ass, despite all of the reactionary messages and shit story in Narnia at least C.S. Lewis is readable.

Ah yes, I forgot about Naked Lunch. I ''read'' it when I was twelve and it's probably caused me permanent damage. But I do use the term read quite loosely.

I'm adding to my list White Noise by Don DeLillo - it goes under the pretentious book heading along with Ian McEwan's stuff. Anything by Paulo Coehlo because it's supposed to be inspiring but makes me think of New Age healers trying to write a story. I still haven't made my mind up about Ulysses because I only read about 60 pages before deciding that I needed to lie down in a dark room.

[Ravachol]

The petty bourgeoisie is/was a backward-looking class, and feudalism is often the thing they look backward to.


Why would they look back towards feudalism? Their class interests are rooted in small business and mercantilism, not in land-ownership and traditionalist hierarchy. The petit-bourgoise tends to be reactionary and aim for an idealized romantic past that never existed yes, but feudalism is completely opposed to their class interests.



I think it's pretty obvious. It's permeated with rage against the breakdown of the idealized feudal order. I would argue that his villains can be seen pretty easily as a representation of his horror at modern industry, which is anathema, or should be, to any genuine revolutionary.


You are partly correct on this one.
It's a highly traditionalist 'revolt against the modern world' piece of work yes and in that sense it's reactionary, I never said it wasn't, I just said it wasn't petit-bourgois.

The main forces of evil embody various things.
First of all there's Sauron who embodies supposed eastern barbaric hordes with pagan roots. They're seen as morally uneducated illeterate scavengers.
To a Catholic conservative with a Europe-focus like Tolkien, the image of 'barbaric' pagan plundering hordes embodies the traditional image of the periphery as an unexplored, wild, uncivilized area. This stands in sharp contrast with the traditionalist romantization of feudalist Europe which finds it's mirror image in Gondor and Rohan or the iddylic pastoral that is the Shire.

Then there's Saruman who seems to embody industrialism, moral decadence and general faustian modernism. Saruman embodies industrialisation, modernism,corruption and alienation.
This idea of the 'creeping corruption of modernism' was (and is) rather prevalent amongst conservatives and traditionalists.
To the conservative Tolkien, this was obviously anathema as well.

So in short, yes, his work WAS reactionary, just not petit-bourgoise. If anything, it's radically traditionalist. This isn't much better (quite the contrary actually) but it doesn't prevent me from enjoying the prose,plot and setting on a purely literary basis. I don't have to agree with the man's worldview.



Does supporting the Spanish Nationalists in the civil war make him a "product of his time"? I never got the "product of their times" argument to explain reaction, there were plenty of progressives back in those times, it's just bourgeois history likes to gloss over them.

Oh yeah speaking of impenetrable prose, I tried reading "For Whom The Bell Tolls" for a high school English research assignment on fascism. I got a 3rd of the way through it before I was like nah fuck this

Far from it, it's disgusting but as I said, what else would you expect from a conservative Catholic in the early 20th century? That doesn't make it good, it only makes it logical. I'm not defending Tolkien's politics, obviously :laugh:

I'm merly saying I enjoy his works, although certainly reactionary, for their fictive content. It doesn't mean I agree with the message implicitly contained within his work. Far from it.

[Devrim]

So, what "classics" of literature are there that you can't fucking stand?

For me:

Catcher in the Rye...On-the-fucking-Road...Heart of Darkness

You have a very different idea of what the 'classics' are than I do. The term makes me think of Dostoyevsky or Zola.


Heart of Darkness by Conrad- I really wanted to like this but his prose is way too dense and when I got to the end it was sort of an anticlimax. I didn't think he described "the horror" that well at all. I thought the movie Apocalypse Now! did a lot better with the same theme.


Random, you fucking kill me, man. I love Catcher in the Rye and Heart of Darkness. I think Conrad/Marlow in Heart of Darkness not divulging into the 'horror' allows a lot of room for interpretation. Was Kurtz horrified by what he was leaving behind or what he had become? It made it interesting for me, at least.

The impression that I got was that it was the thought of his life back in Europe which horrified Kurtz. I enjoyed the book. I think the ending of Apocolypse now was very different though it used the same words.


I can't stand most Jane Austen novels because they're tedious and boring.

Me neither, I had to read 'Mansfield Park' at school. I didn't get past the first page.


People had a go at me in my English paper last semester for not liking "Pride and Prejudice" because it was "girly". No, I hate it because it's about a bunch of 18th century boring rich people doing their pointless little bourgeois marriage rituals. Zzzzzzz. There's plenty of shit I like that is "girly". I just hate books that place meaningless twaddle to be of the utmost importance.

And not only that, but the fact that she manages to write about a period of massive social unrest in England and Europe without managing to mention it at all.

Devrim

[Random Precision]

Why would they look back towards feudalism? Their class interests are rooted in small business and mercantilism, not in land-ownership and traditionalist hierarchy. The petit-bourgoise tends to be reactionary and aim for an idealized romantic past that never existed yes, but feudalism is completely opposed to their class interests.

Not quite. The petty bourgeoisie is all about the idealized artisan and peasant in a feudal society when "things were better"...

Plus doesn't exactly work mechanically. As I said they are a backward-looking class by nature, it doesn't matter overly much whether the thing they look back to wouldn't have been friendly to them, or even if it never actually existed in the first place. Tolkien is a case in point. Plus the whole attitude of his books is resolutely middle-class, Michael Moorcock puts it pretty well:

"The little hills and woods of that Surrey of the mind, the Shire [where the protagonist 'hobbits' live], are 'safe' but the wild landscapes everywhere beyond the Shire are 'dangerous'. Experience of life itself is dangerous. Lord of the Rings is a pernicious confirmation of the values of a declining nation with a morally bankrupt class If the Shire is a suburban garden, Sauron [the 'evil' dark lord] and his henchmen are that old bourgeois bugaboo, the mob--mindless football supporters throwing their beer bottles over the fence--the worst aspect of modern urban society represented as the whole by the a fearful, backward-yearning class whose cowardly self-protection is primarily responsible for the problems England answered with the ruthless logic of Thatcherism. Humanity was derided and marginalised. Sentimentality became the acceptable subsitute. So few people seem to be able to tell the difference.

The Lord of the Rings is much more deep-rooted in its infantilism than a good many of the more obviously juvenile books it influenced. It is Winnie-the-Pooh posing as an epic. If the Shire is a suburban garden, Sauron and his henchmen are that old bourgeois bugaboo, the Mob - mindless football supporters throwing their beer-bottles over the fence the worst aspects of modern urban society represented as the whole by a fearful, backward-yearning class for whom "good taste" is synonymous with "restraint" (pastel colours, murmured protest) and "civilized" behaviour means "conventional behaviour in all circumstances". This is not to deny that courageous characters are found in The Lord of the Rings, or a willingness to fight Evil (never really defined), but somehow those courageous characters take on the aspect of retired colonels at last driven to write a letter to The Times and we are not sure - because Tolkien cannot really bring himself to get close to his proles and their satanic leaders - if Sauron and Co. are quite as evil as we're told. After all, anyone who hates hobbits can't be all bad."

Michael Moorcock, "Epic Pooh": http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=953


The main forces of evil embody various things.
First of all there's Sauron who embodies supposed eastern barbaric hordes with pagan roots. They're seen as morally uneducated illeterate scavengers.
To a Catholic conservative with a Europe-focus like Tolkien, the image of 'barbaric' pagan plundering hordes embodies the traditional image of the periphery as an unexplored, wild, uncivilized area. This stands in sharp contrast with the traditionalist romantization of feudalist Europe which finds it's mirror image in Gondor and Rohan or the iddylic pastoral that is the Shire.

Which of course brings us back to the vicious racism. For that alone I fail to understand why a revolutionary could get anything out of his books. Sure there are white people like Grima, Saruman, Denethor etc who do bad things but they are the exception and are all seen as "traitors" to the order. In contrast there are no good orcs, no good Easterners, no good Southrons, etc. That only one color is seen as important and having the will to choose to be good or bad is racism at its height.


So in short, yes, his work WAS reactionary, just not petit-bourgoise. If anything, it's radically traditionalist. This isn't much better (quite the contrary actually) but it doesn't prevent me from enjoying the prose,plot and setting on a purely literary basis. I don't have to agree with the man's worldview.

Eh to each his own I guess. Personally I'm not interested in appreciating a thoroughly reactionary, virulently racist set of books that in addition are harder to read than Joseph fucking Conrad, regardless of the high level of drama or that the author created languages just to make it more real.

[Random Precision]

You have a very different idea of what the 'classics' are than I do. The term makes me think of Dostoyevsky or Zola.

Well the books I listed are thought of as "classics" in America and American education. I wouldn't be surprised if the term means something more than "a really influential book that you're forced to read in school" elsewhere in the world though.

[Leo]

Well, I am not sure, I think American literature contributed very much on international classics which is more of an international term, at least for the Western world. Devrim is correct, when one says the classics I too think of Zola, Dostoevsky but also of Twain, London, Hemingway. I am not sure how much of a classic The Catcher in the Rye is, or whether Salinger is a world famous author such as Twain, London or Hemingway.

[Random Precision]

^^^


irrespective of whatever personal views Tolkien himself may have had

Sorry but fiction or any literature for that matter does not have an existence independent of the context it was written in. The text doesn't exist separately from its author. Thats dialectics 101.


IMHO Tolkien was merely trying to recreate the actual history of his imagined world as a parallel to what might have happened in the real world (where such forces as feudalism, modernism, industrialization really did exist).

Excuse me, but what is that kind of fiction called other than... erm... allegorical?

Tolkien may "not have intended his works to be allegorical" but he mixed in all his reactionary views, yearning for an imaginary feudal utopia and anti-industrialism is in there right along with Christian propaganda. As well as a hefty dose of racism. It's so bleedingly obvious. Not that ignoring their reactionary character is exactly a feat of strength for people like you.

[Random Precision]

That seems a little too dogmatic and deterministic. Tolkien specifically clarified that his works are not to be taken allegorically.

Ah. So his views were not incorporated into the text?


How about "historical fiction"?

Allegory, noun. 1 : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression 2 : a symbolic representation


Does a author writing about Nazi Garmeny make the author a reactionary?

No. If he presents the Hitler as a noble hero trying to save a world in thrall to the Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy, then he is reactionary.

[x359594]

...fiction or any literature for that matter does not have an existence independent of the context it was written in. The text doesn't exist separately from its author. Thats dialectics 101...

Although that view is disputed by even Marxist critics, when applied to Tolkien it should be born in mind that The Lord of the Rings was written in the 1930s and 1940s, and in fact does have an anti-fascist sub-text however regressive its idea of the good society may be.

That said, I can't get past Tolkien's prose style, though I wouldn't say that I can't stand the books themselves.

As to the classics of world literature in general, for those for whom English is our native tongue,and lacking fluency in another language, we must rely on translations, and any translation is bound to strip some nuances from the original work and may vulgarize the author's style in the bargain. If one wants to seriously engage with the classics written in a language not one's own, then we'll have to read multiple translations of any given work to arrive at a fair evaluation.

[Random Precision]

See. This is where you cannot make the crucial difference between a created alternative reality and the real world. If one wants to be dogmatic about it and insist that Tolkien was forcing his readers to read his works as an reactionary allegory, one can be so, but that is clearly NOT what Tolkien intended as he makes it clear. He makes it clear that he did not intend his body of work about Middle Earth were NOT symbols that represented the real world. He also conceded that symbolism may have crept in but was unintended.

The racism in LOTR may be unintended. It is a reflection though, of racist attitudes prevalent in Tolkien's time and it is reasonable to assume that he held some of them himself. Unintentional does not make it less reactionary.

Tolkien was a smart guy. He knew what kind of book he was writing. I find it very hard to believe that he did not know what he was doing, for instance, when he gives the third part of his trilogy a title "the Return of the King" and be unaware what kind of image that summons to mind in a Christian culture. Similarly when Galadriel gives the fellowship "seven gifts" that are seen as "magical" by the "enemy". His whole mythology system is also deeply Christian.

I'm sure this is true of the modernization that Saruman carries out as well. Tolkien knew what his views were, he knew what he was against and this appeared in his book.


Right. However the War of the Ring in LotR just forms a small part of the rest of the history of Middle Earth which is too complex and intertwined to be so simplistically reduced to particular events like Nazi Germany and so perhaps my allusion to Nazi Germany was mistaken. People need to read his background works, including the Silmarillion and other works in the History of Middle Earth to necessarily understand the enormity of Tolkien's mythology and the non-simplistic number and magnitude of events that occur.

Or they can look at Lord of the Rings, see how reactionary his vision was, and decide not to.


It was quite a feat of genius for a single man to create an entire mythology (something that cultures take centuries to do the same).

Yeah, Tolkien was a genius at languages at least. And he was very persistent. There is no denying that. At prose, as anyone who reads his books finds out, he had somewhat less of a talent.


It is only with an attitude of reading mythology that I read Tolkien's works.

Well that is of course your prerogative. As for myself I find it hard to enjoy any book that is so rife with reactionary politics and racism, let alone written in such a poorly affected style.

[khad]

^^^
I'd rather see Orcs, Sauron and Saruman as representing capitalists/fascists and the Hobbits as representing the proletariat, with Men representing the vanguard of the proletariat and Gandalf as Marx.
Oh come off it. Tolkien made it abundantly clear that the Orcs were slanty eyed chinks.

From the Two Towers:


There were four goblin-soldiers of greater stature, swart, slant-eyed, with thick legs and large hands.From his letters regarding a movie treatment of his work:


they are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes; in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_%28Middle-earth%29

[khad]

From the rest of that section in the wiki article:
I've read some of those articles. It's crap from white fanboys who want to justify their literary fetish. There is no doubt about the racism inherent in this, just as there is no doubt of the racism in Sinclair Lewis's descriptions of African orgies in the Jungle.

The entire article is put together by white Tolkien fans, with nothing of a critical opinion presented. Thus, I wouldn't believe a damn word those fucking shits say. The fascists, however, know what's what.

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Racism


In Italy, Lord of the Rings is considered fascist by some groups and Italian fascist organisations are allegedly using the book for recruiting[1] (http://www.johnreilly.info/ata.htm). Natalia Aspesi (http://tolkiengateway.net/w/index.php?title=Natalia_Aspesi&action=edit&redlink=1) from the Cannes Film Festival called the movie 'naziskn'. According to Italian website Caltanet (http://www.caltanet.it/frm/cinema/), Alleanza Nazionale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleanza_Nazionale) a right-oriented Italian political party had taken a picture from Fellowship of the Ring movie to promote a speech by his leader, Gianfranco Fini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianfranco_Fini)[2] (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Racism#cite_note-1)

[edit (http://tolkiengateway.net/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Tolkien%27s_Works&action=edit&section=2)] Evil Men

One of the clear racist elements in the Tolkien universe is the noticeable fact that all of the evil forces are the dark-skinned African and Asian influenced peoples of Easterlings (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Easterlings) and Southrons (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Southrons).
The Easterlings are usually depicted as a Mongolian and Middle-eastern culture and are always aligned with Morgoth (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Morgoth) or Sauron (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Sauron) with the single exception of Bór (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/B%C3%B3r). They are often described as being of fairly dark skin complexion, swarthy and exceedingly cruel.
The Southrons (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Southrons) (or Haradrim (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Haradrim)) however, are clearly depicted mainly as African soldiers with some Indian influences such as fighting on Mumakil (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Mumakil)-back. They are clearly stated to be black-skinned and cruel, evil, and uncompromising. They often have many piercings, tattoos and scarifications, just like many African tribes.
Other peoples who have not direct equivalent to real history are the Dunlendings (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Dunlendings) which in the narrative are described swarthy and enemies to the Rohirrim (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Rohirrim).
Another racist element is the fact that the Númenoreans (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/N%C3%BAmenoreans) who suvived the destruction of Númenor (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/N%C3%BAmenor) yet were still loyal to Sauron (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Sauron) were called Black Númenóreans (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Black_N%C3%BAmen%C3%B3reans) and mixed with the southern peoples of Middle-earth, uprising the Corsairs of Umbar (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Corsairs_of_Umbar).As for the topic of the thread. Lord of the Rings is not a classic. It's high functioning genre fiction. I'm sure that there are people here who could write work that is more riveting than that turgid tripe.

[Led Zeppelin]

^^^
I'd rather see Orcs, Sauron and Saruman as representing capitalists/fascists and the Hobbits as representing the proletariat, with Men representing the vanguard of the proletariat and Gandalf as Marx. If you ask me why, I'd say its just my choice made out of my free will. My interpretation would be equally valid as the other interpretations of people like RP. After all, as revolutionaries, we seek to destroy and dismantle the existing order to bring about justice and one can interpret the War of the Ring in a similar fashion , but that's just me.:rolleyes: You can have the last word in this though, RP.

Its a vicious cycle: Orwell demonized socialist countries as "totalitarian", which is nothing but a myth invented by liberals to equate fascism and socialism. When Marxists point out that totalitarianism is a myth conjured by liberal academics, people attack them for being totalitarians themselves. The fact is that socialist society was nothing like the dystopia portrayed in 1984. Its practically impossible for any state to exercise such a total control over individuals. By meaninglessly creating myths that were readily lapped up the bourgeois political machine, Orwell, with the best of intentions just led himself into a hole. No doubt his intentions were all good, the effects of his work on the working class has been terrible.

I suppose that the rest of us do not have the luxury of using our "free will" to interpret works of literature however we please, because we're just "leading ourselves into a hole" when we do.

Hypocrisy is astoundingly easy when one doesn't take one's own opinions into account when their deriding and criticizing those of others, that's for sure.

[khad]

There's no doubt that white supremacists take Tolkien's works to use it as propaganda for their reactionary causes, but why should we capitulate to them and concede that Tolkien was indeed a white supremacist?
What is to be gained from eulogizing a bourgeois writer who treated the proletariat with suspicion and pined for the green merrie England of olde?

I'll answer it for you: Nothing.

[khad]

Not sure where you got that from. I don't think I've read anything by Tolkien about the proletariat or socialism.
Of course it has everything to do with it. The shire, the elves in the forests--this has a certain mythic resonance within British culture that evokes a sense of loss for the small producerist pastoral past. Americans have their frontier cowboys, and the Brits have their Shire. It's one of the most basic modes of populism in British political thought.

And of course Sauron and his armies are associated with fire and with industry--even to the point of vat-growing their supersoldiers.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I love Tolkien. He could insert chapters on how to stew babies, and I'd probably still read it. Then again, I'm very flexible in that regard. I think people are rather generous about attaching a reactionary label to things. I think that should be done when things actually contribute negatively to social progression. I don't think Tolkien is making people oppose communism and hate minorities.

I didn't like Heart of Darkness. I don't remember if I even finished it. It was for a class. When I am forced to read something, it sometimes makes the experience less enjoyable. I still remember hating it though.

Also, I was reading the part where Breakfast of Champions was talked about. How could Vonnegut think Slaughterhouse Five was better? I've only read the two books, actually, but I thought Breakfast of Champions was significantly better than Slaughterhouse Five. Breakfast of Champions transitioned from chapters very efficiently. I read Breakfast of Champions first, and that may bias me. I don't know.

[Random Precision]

Notwithstanding Tolkien's nostalgia for "Old England", I think Tolkien's works have a profoundly anti-capitalist message in them. With anti-capitalism, there's always a chance for the far-right to appropriate it for their so-called "anti-capitalim" and that is what has happened so far IMHO with Tolkien. I still think his works can be useful for the leftist movement. When he has his characters protesting against the felling of trees and destruction of habitats by Sauron and Saruman, a clear message can be seen analogous to the modern environmental destruction and development-for-profit as well as imperialism. This for-profit "development" of modern capitalism has been disastrous for all of us, especially the people of the Third World, and one of the important agendas of the left is to stop this damage and instead change the mode of production from being for profit to being for use. Of course, Tolkien does not explicitly go into all this, but it can be easily inferred from his books.

Um, you can be "anti-capitalist" and still reactionary. Tolkien's alternative to all that environmental destruction was... to say that industry itself was the problem, and the solution was to put a stop to it. Read the "Feudal Socialism" part of the Manifesto, it pretty much has Tolkien down to a t.

But then of course, this is all an "allegory", he probably did not oppose industry in real life. He just wrote it into his books to be ironic or something. :rolleyes:

[Random Precision]

With anti-capitalism, there's always a chance for the far-right to appropriate it for their so-called "anti-capitalim" and that is what has happened so far IMHO with Tolkien.

You're still saying Tolkien is somehow "anti-capitalist" and "useful for the left", and that fascists have been appropriating him? Well it's hardly a shock that they should, he was very right wing after all. Ho hum.

[Random Precision]

simplistic minded fools who look for black and white worldviews that may be either condemning socialism like those found in that scumbag Orwell's works or praising socialism to the heavens in the works of others.

This does not seem ironic at all to you?

[Led Zeppelin]

This does not seem ironic at all to you?

Duh, of course not, because Lord Of The Rings is so cool and fun and stuff (Elves + Orcs + Ents = awesome and anti-capitalist, very useful to the left) while books like 1984 are, like, the opposite, cuz they like mess with Marxism-Leninism, and stuff. :rolleyes:

It's a joke. That's all. Just point and laugh, then move on and let the joke continue down its own merry little path.

[Искра]

Catcher in the rye
Anything written by Mark Twain or Ernest Hemingway
"Romantic" authors
Harry Potter and Narnia
Krleža
Shakespeare and the rest of middle age literature

[Искра]

I'm reading this discussion here about Tolkien and I think that its quite stupid imho.
Before I say why it's stupid I would just like to say that I like reading Tolkien and I like all of his books.
Now, Tolkien book wasn't about politics nor it was critics of modern society, so you can't compare it with Orwell. Orwell's books were political in 1st place and aesthetic/artish in 2nd.
Tolkien created his own fantasy word. He found inspiration in old English, Celtish and especially Nordic mythology. Those myths were reflection of that middle age society. So, from that point of view Tolkien was reactionary because his fantasy world was in feudalism. But, I think that its stupid to compare Orwell with Tolkien and to claim that fantasy novels are reactionary therefore fascist. Fantasy novels are not about making some political point, they are about "orcs and dragons". Off course, that all those stories are reactionary, rasistic etc. but that's not their point.. their point are "orcs and dragons". Those books and writers are not source of problem, they are some kind of "victims".

[khad]

Tolkien created his own fantasy word. He found inspiration in old English, Celtish and especially Nordic mythology. Those myths were reflection of that middle age society. So, from that point of view Tolkien was reactionary because his fantasy world was in feudalism. But, I think that its stupid to compare Orwell with Tolkien and to claim that fantasy novels are reactionary therefore fascist. Fantasy novels are not about making some political point, they are about "orcs and dragons". Off course, that all those stories are reactionary, rasistic etc. but that's not their point.. their point are "orcs and dragons". Those books and writers are not source of problem, they are some kind of "victims".
What an anti-materialist way to look at it. Of course the sociopolitical function of a work of art matters.

D. W. Griffith was rather embarrassed that the Ku Klux Klan used his movie as their national rallying cry. He was merely adapting the work of a popular writer, Thomas Dixon. Does that make him a victim too?

[Искра]

I was making only distinction between writing a book to make a reactionary (or what-so-ever) political point or writing a book which has reactionary political point "accidentally".

Those "accidents" you can only change by changing the whole system.
Tolkien's book wasn't about stuff like Sauron = Stalin, Aragon = Free world...

[Revy]

Doesn't the Orc language appear to be inspired perhaps by Turkic and Mongol languages?

[black_tambourine]

All misguided Tolkien fans should read Michael Moorcock's essay "Epic Pooh":

http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=953

[RHIZOMES]

I'm reading this discussion here about Tolkien and I think that its quite stupid imho.
Before I say why it's stupid I would just like to say that I like reading Tolkien and I like all of his books.
Now, Tolkien book wasn't about politics nor it was critics of modern society, so you can't compare it with Orwell. Orwell's books were political in 1st place and aesthetic/artish in 2nd.
Tolkien created his own fantasy word. He found inspiration in old English, Celtish and especially Nordic mythology. Those myths were reflection of that middle age society. So, from that point of view Tolkien was reactionary because his fantasy world was in feudalism. But, I think that its stupid to compare Orwell with Tolkien and to claim that fantasy novels are reactionary therefore fascist. Fantasy novels are not about making some political point, they are about "orcs and dragons". Off course, that all those stories are reactionary, rasistic etc. but that's not their point.. their point are "orcs and dragons". Those books and writers are not source of problem, they are some kind of "victims".

I think the works of art where the political undertones aren't questioned are more dangerous than overt ones. Think of kids raised on Narnia with the "Calormen" oriental stereotypes, or "Wind in the Willows" where peace is restored when the class stratification between the different animals is brought back into place. Come on. A lot of people are prone to having their ideology shaped by the assumptions inherent in a lot of art.

[RHIZOMES]

All misguided Tolkien fans should read Michael Moorcock's essay "Epic Pooh":

http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=953

Great essay. I liked this passage:


Like Chesterton, and other orthodox Christian writers who substituted faith for artistic rigour he sees the petit bourgeoisie, the honest artisans and peasants, as the bulwark against Chaos. These people are always sentimentalized in such fiction because traditionally, they are always the last to complain about any deficiencies in the social status quo. They are a type familiar to anyone who ever watched an English film of the thirties and forties, particularly a war-film, where they represented solid good sense opposed to a perverted intellectualism.Sums it up perfectly.

[CELMX]

Narnia - sickening religious analogies, shallow writing style, not very creative (it's a fucking lion that talks. no one gives a shit.), and awful, bourgeois, snobby characters

the movie was even worse

[RHIZOMES]

Narnia - sickening religious analogies, shallow writing style, not very creative (it's a fucking lion that talks. no one gives a shit.), and awful, bourgeois, snobby characters

the movie was even worse

My exam essay on it was just a communist rant, I think it might have brought my mark up. :)

[Random Precision]

All misguided Tolkien fans should read Michael Moorcock's essay "Epic Pooh":

http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=953

Fuck you, I posted that link two pages ago and no one noticed it. :(

[black magick hustla]

i hate

jane austen
wuthering heights

i dont really know what else. i generally like classics.

i dont get all the hate on kerouac's "on the road". the book is the soul of a man laid bare. whatever is that hipster degenerates do today, what kerouac was doing in the 50s was outrageous and exciting for that time. the guy wrote with such exhilarating energy that when i finished the book i wanted to fuckin jump in a car and driiiiiiiiiiive.

tolkien is really boring. however, i don't find the whole moralistic argument convincing when rejecting books/ artistic pieces. i dont read nor watch movies to reinforce my moral outlook. it is true these things shape the consciousness of men, but if one realizes the ideas behind a movie or a book and knows exactly where they come from, can't we just enjoy the movie or book? i mean when i was a kid i was a huge tolkien fan because i really liked the idea of dragons, and fucking badasses with big swords. one of the reasons i really liked the movie oldboy is that there is a scene where the protagonist beats up a whole group of thugs with a fucking hammer. i indulge in the aesthetics of destruction, nihilism, and maybe a lil' machismo. i like books where the main characters are completely reprehensible - like mccarthy's blood meridian. if there weren't deviant movies or books art in general would be much more boring.

[Искра]

I think the works of art where the political undertones aren't questioned are more dangerous than overt ones. Think of kids raised on Narnia with the "Calormen" oriental stereotypes, or "Wind in the Willows" where peace is restored when the class stratification between the different animals is brought back into place. Come on. A lot of people are prone to having their ideology shaped by the assumptions inherent in a lot of art.
I never claimed that we shouldn't question something I was just saying that writers, who don't write because of political causes, aren't usually what they write about.
For example you could put Tad Williams in same category with Tolkien, but as I actually met him, I could say that he's no reactionary right-winger, he's just a "common American liberal".
Writers find inspiration in the system they live. We should band faire tails then, because they are reactionary. Instead of taking a shit of each work individually we should change the whole system and then people will write about different things.

[RHIZOMES]

tolkien is really boring. however, i don't find the whole moralistic argument convincing when rejecting books/ artistic pieces. i dont read nor watch movies to reinforce my moral outlook. it is true these things shape the consciousness of men, but if one realizes the ideas behind a movie or a book and knows exactly where they come from, can't we just enjoy the movie or book? i mean when i was a kid i was a huge tolkien fan because i really liked the idea of dragons, and fucking badasses with big swords. one of the reasons i really liked the movie oldboy is that there is a scene where the protagonist beats up a whole group of thugs with a fucking hammer. i indulge in the aesthetics of destruction, nihilism, and maybe a lil' machismo. i like books where the main characters are completely reprehensible - like mccarthy's blood meridian. if there weren't deviant movies or books art in general would be much more boring.

Well I did like the LotR films. Also I fucking love Disney despite spotting about a million reactionary overtones in every movie.

[x359594]

...i dont get all the hate on kerouac's "on the road". the book is the soul of a man laid bare. whatever is that hipster degenerates do today, what kerouac was doing in the 50s was outrageous and exciting for that time. the guy wrote with such exhilarating energy that when i finished the book i wanted to fuckin jump in a car and driiiiiiiiiiive...

Kerouac's greatness for me is his prose style, his exploration of consciousness, and appreciation of the world in which he lived in all its radiant beauty and ugliness.

The version of On the Road published in 1957 was bowdlerized and truncated, and this is the version that most people have read, so it's more interesting for its content than its language (though the language does shine through in certain passages.) You have to read On the Road: The Original Scroll published in 2007 to really appreciate Kerouac's prose style.

The evidence of the scroll shows that On the Road was a transitional work, with Visions of Cody and the piece "October in the Railroad Earth" (included in the collection Lonesome Traveler) representing Kerouac's mature style, that he called Spontaneous Bop Prosody. This description is particularly apt when Kerouac uses a long line and the way he pharses it.

[Rjevan]

Actually I like Shakespeare, damn hard to read (at least for a German) but really not bad, Macbeth is best imo.
And Dostoevsky: I also think his bold christian attitude harms his works and it's out of question that he was reactionary as hell but nevertheless I LOVE Dostoevsky!!! Great writing style, cool stories, complex and fascinating characters, interesting philosophical questions - really awesome! By the way, "The Posessed" is about evil anarchists, socialists and nihilists who are drawn to a small city (where the charismatic, emotionless and misanthropic student lives who influenced all of them) full of bourgeois hypocrites and lure it on to destruction. ;)

Anyway, what I really hate is stuff by Goethe! Especially "Faust" and "Iphigenie in Tauris"!!! Goethe has been labeled "the most overrated author in the whole world" by various authors, and I totally agree! The reason why he is so famous is just that he perfectly knew how to present himself as genius and merchandise his shit. While "Faust" is already a troture to read, "Iphigenie" has to be one of the worst things I ever read; concentrated boredom, combined with totally pathetic and hysteric characters, behaving about as realistic as Donald Duck.

And speaking of concentrated boredom and worst things I ever read, one shouldn't think it's possible but Theodor Fontane's "Effi Briest" even beats "Iphigenie"! It's all about a girl who gets married to baron Geert Freiherr von Innstetten (argh, those names!) and experiences supernatural boredom because her husband is away most of the time and she is all alone and doesn't know what to do with her time. And this is expressed in a brilliant way, really you can feel the supernatural boredom as if you were Effi herself!

[Kassad]

Is A Separate Peace considered a classic? That book just made my brain want to fall out my ear.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There is no doubt about the racism inherent in this, just as there is no doubt of the racism in Sinclair Lewis's descriptions of African orgies in the Jungle.Correction: Upton Sinclair. It's Ok I always get Irving Welsh and John Irving's names confused.

Just to add my two cents on the Lord of the Rings debate: while it's possible to have a political critique of the assumptions of a work of fiction, unless the fiction is overtly political in the sense that it is an fable like "Animal Farm" or an allegory where things are 1 to 1 in meaning, or a political tract like anything by Ayn Rand or Upton Sinclair's muckraking novels, it's quite possible for readers to identify with the story beyond their historical context.

Macbeth, for example, was all about slandering James 1st's Scottish political enemies while making his family look like "good, civilized" scotts. Unless you are taking a history course, no one reads the story this way. Shylock was not supposed to be a sympathetic character originally - he was a ridged and petty buffoon - but now he is always read with sympathy because feudal era anti-jewish regulations and repression is well known and rightfully seen as wrong.

With Lord of the Rings, while Tolkien was definitely seeing the story through his views of World War II and wishing for some return to some "pre-industrial golden age", but the books didn't become popular until the 1960s, so I don't think people were reading it that way. When the 2nd movie came out, all the reviewers in the US, said that it was an allegory for Bush trying to rally other nations to support his crusade against "dark powers rising" in Iraq. Viggo Mortenssen, bless him, went on his publicity tour with anti-war shirts and made the argument that the "dark force" threatening the world was not Iraq or Al Quieda, but the US itself... the all-seeing power trying to rule the world. The hobbits, humans, and other "good" creatures were, according to Viggo, were the Afghanis and Iraqis.

So while it's important to have a critique based on the real historical and political content of literature, it's just as important to recognize that good lit is not material and lives beyond these specific contexts. Also we should not dismiss someone's attraction to a particular work done by a reactionary as some kind of attraction to reactionary ideas.

[Invader Zim]

The text doesn't exist separately from its author.

Not that I agree with them, but there is a school of thought that disagrees:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm

As for LotR, some people here are reading way too much into it. The books are just fantasy about good vs. evil. No doubt, when read in the context of a a middle class member of the intelligentsia in war time Britain we can see where some of the themes in the book emerge, but I don't think it matters. Personally I think the books are boring, too much wandering around describing the scenery for my tastes. But if you guys want to spend your analysing LotR to uncover the authors allegedly reactionary politics then good luck to you, but I don't think anyone else cares and I think you have missed the main point of the books.

[Random Precision]

As for LotR, some people here are reading way too much into it. The books are just fantasy about good vs. evil. No doubt, when read in the context of a a middle class member of the intelligentsia in war time Britain we can see where some of the themes in the book emerge, but I don't think it matters. Personally I think the books are boring, too much wandering around describing the scenery for my tastes. But if you guys want to spend your analysing LotR to uncover the authors allegedly reactionary politics then good luck to you, but I don't think anyone else cares and I think you have missed the main point of the books.

It is exactly because "it's just fantasy about good vs. evil" that we are discussing its politics. Read the Michael Moorcock essay posted somewheres above.

[Invader Zim]

It is exactly because "it's just fantasy about good vs. evil" that we are discussing its politics. Read the Michael Moorcock essay posted somewheres above.

I read the first page, but it is as dry as a 1940s civil service document. But thanks, next time i want to put myself to sleep I shall turn to this article vastly over analysing LOTR. Moorcock should stick to writing novels and cease moonlighting as a critic come analyst.

[Angry Young Man]

Oh good a place where I can rant lyrical about how much I hate Wordsworth. Fucking nursery rhyme from an uncommitted radical-turned committed reactionary.

[Random Precision]

I read the first page, but it is as dry as a 1940s civil service document. But thanks, next time i want to put myself to sleep I shall turn to this article vastly over analysing LOTR. Moorcock should stick to writing novels and cease moonlighting as a critic come analyst.

Um, you are a history student right? Shouldn't dry 1940s civil service documents be cake to you?

So let me get this right. First, LoTR does not have any politics, it is a simple tale about good and evil. I link you to something that demonstrates why that kind of story is political. You dismiss it as "over-analyzing". :rolleyes:

I guess you can't convince anyone who refuses to listen.

[Il Medico]

Oh good a place where I can rant lyrical about how much I hate Wordsworth. Fucking nursery rhyme from an uncommitted radical-turned committed reactionary.
Fuck Wordsworth.

[eyedrop]

I actually like some of my country's classical authors, the 3 big are Henrik Ibsen, a bohemian quasi-anarchist highly sceptical of his days social roles, Knut Hamsun, which apparently was quite progressive in his youth (A quick google search claimed he had anarchist sympathies in his youth) before he opportunistically turned nazi friendly during the occupation and Jens Bjøneboe which was an open anarchist and one of my big inspirations.


It's actually quite curious how so much of Norways literary heritage is of an anarchistic heritage considering anarchism has always been exceptionally weak here.

As for english classics... I've never read much of it at all, at school we read stuff like sadie smith and such so I never had to read shakespeare and such shit. I am reading a Wilde book now and I'm finding it quite pleasant.

[Invader Zim]

Um, you are a history student right? Shouldn't dry 1940s civil service documents be cake to you?

So let me get this right. First, LoTR does not have any politics, it is a simple tale about good and evil. I link you to something that demonstrates why that kind of story is political. You dismiss it as "over-analyzing". :rolleyes:

I guess you can't convince anyone who refuses to listen.


Um, you are a history student right? Shouldn't dry 1940s civil service documents be cake to you?

Like any form of work historical research has its some aspects that are enjoyable and others that are not. 1940s civil service documents fall into the latter.


First, LoTR does not have any politics

I never said that. While I linked to Barthes, that doesn't mean i agree with him. I don't think that authors can avoid injecting something of themselves into their work, and that does not exclude elements of their politics. But the point is the politics aren't the theme of the books, rather they strike me as a by-product of the period and the class of the author.


it is a simple tale about good and evil.

Which it is. Tolkein's wistful reminice about an idea of an England that never existed, under attack from the destructive elements that seemingly came hand in hand with the forces of industrialisation, is hardly key to the plot. Yet you, and others, seem to want to make it some massive elephant in the corner when, as far as I am concerned, it just isn't.


I link you to something that demonstrates why that kind of story is political. You dismiss it as "over-analyzing".

Indeed. You suggested an article which, in my opinion, misses the forrest for the trees? Is that allowed or do you put stock by the appeal to authority fallacy?

[Dimentio]

The Heart of Darkness isn't about metaphysics. Rather, it is meant as an explicit self-therapy book/critical 1984-esque description of King Leopold's Congo... (1887-1908)

[Kovacs]

Frankenstein made me want to vomit into my palms and fling the carroty mess at Shelley. I know the narrator is supposed to arouse disdain and revulsion. But did she have to do such a thorough job? The character of Dr. Frankenstein is a morally objectionable coward who wants hoofing right in the head and the book leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Then their is what Frankensteins monster reads to become 'civilised'

Sorrows of werter, plutarchs 'lives' and paradise lost. So we have a wet blanket with a notion of heroism and a victim complex. So nauseating.

[Weezer]

The Pilgrim's Progress

Eh.

[Invincible Summer]

HP Lovecraft... maybe my definition of "horror" or whatever is too modern or something, but nothing in Lovecraft even remotely creeps me out. It's just a lot of tedious description and hardly anything happens.

The movie "Herbert West - ReAnimator" is quite excellent though.


And the LOTR books are terrible. Again, the movies are much better and get to the point.

Considered a German lit "classic," Thomas Mann's "Death in Venice" was a boring fuck of a story. It's basically some pedophile who sits around looking at things.

Lots of Shakespeare is also tedious, I'd rather watch theatrical productions of it.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

It is my intention to make a thoughtful response to the arguments contained in "Epic Pooh" by Michael Moorcock. I presume I will fail. Nonetheless, I had difficulty getting get past the first page. He critiques Tolkien's writing, and he can't even write a clear essay.

He quotes random things and then says they are somehow contributing to some sort of conservative agenda. Any decent academic knows that a quote needs to be followed with an explanation of why the quote is significant. He throws random things at the reader, and they make no sense whatsoever.

For those who haven't the desire to read his essay, I will spare you the pain of it. Here is the start of his ridiculous argument:

Premise 1: Tolkien uses a literary style associated with a time period that was very conservative.

Call the presses people. Look at that guy over there. He holds his fork like the English monarchs of old. Grab him before he tries to create a feudal state!

Oh, Tolkien's writing style is also like a children's book. It's trying to lure us all into a false sense of security. Don't be fooled. His character, Gandalf, is a white man in grey clothing (like a certain group of conservative political leaders). He claims he knows what's best for us. Clearly, the presence of an authority figure respected for his "deeds" and "expertise" is a clear justification that of authoritarian government.

Gandalf wasn't taxing Hobbits without their permission. He wasn't making them obey laws that weren't in their interests or imposing some sort of tyranny. Page one complete. Let's see if this guy gets an better.

No, I can't finish this essay. It's one of the worst written things I've ever read. I'll read a critique of Tolkien by someone who doesn't over-exaggerate, has continuity in his arguments, and can present their points clearly. Maybe I'm exaggerating. But honestly, this guy doesn't show Tolkien any charity. It's appropriate to be respectful of someone when critiquing them. He assumes the worst whenever he quotes anything about Tolkien.

Really, I've read essays by 11th grade students better than that. I'd go as far as to suggest someone blindly give it to an English professor to grade. It won't do well.

***

Here is the deal. Tolkien was more conservative than he was liberal. So was Lewis. That's not an amazing fact. Tolkien was also fairly privileged, white, "good stuck." Insert reactionary stereotype here.

Books have subjective qualities. Within the fantasy community, Tolkien is widely considered an amazing author. He is one of the best fantasy authors of all time. He is also not a fascist.

Why do people hate Tolkien? For one, he is overpraised. He is great, but anyone popular inevitably is talked about too much. People get annoyed with this. As for Revleft? We all dislike Stormfront. They have a great love of Tolkien and think he is a great champion of their views. Human psychology is often oppositional. If Stormfront started a forum on loving bananas, half of Revleft would stop eating them. Most of them wouldn't realize that's the reason.

So is Tolkien primarily a conservative person? Yes. Are his books most likely more conservative than not? Yes. Did he actively have a hidden conservative agenda? Maybe.

If I wrote a book about life this year called 2009, what would happen if I gave it to people in 2008. A year ago today, Revleft members are critiquing my literary masterpiece. Here is what they would say:

1. This book is obviously promoting a reactionary agenda.
2. Too much right-wing bias.

Well, that's how life is at the moment. So should we hate life? In some respects, yes. But we can't put life down. Would we miss something by focusing on the "general" fact that life is reactionary, in many ways? Yes, we'd miss the good things in life.

When I read Tolkien, I love the characters. I love the description of environments where pollution is not an issue. I love how people band together when times are difficult. I love how it promotes the idea that one person can make a difference. I love how war is not desirable, but if it's inevitable, you might as well kick some ass in the process.

I love how Tolkien's work has so much depth that people on a forum can go back and forth examining it for political ideas.

If you focus on everything bad about Tolkien, you're missing a great piece of fantasy. If you focus on Tolkien in such away, you probably apply this kind of attitude toward many things. It's non-productive, in my view.

Tolkien's not making little kids become Nazis. He isn't stopping the communist revolution or setting back feminism. Examine the pro and cons of Tolkien. Challenge yourself to think about everything when reading a book.

Really, if you have a sufficient imagination, you can find a problem with almost any book. Yes, I will still agree Tolkien is mainly conservative (not for the reasons in the essay).

Here is another interesting fact. Despite the evil shown by the Orcs, they are also victims of their past. It's no secret that many minorities utilize crime because of their situation. Clearly, crime isn't always legitimate. Sometimes things go too far. We all recognize this. Look at the corrupt white man in Saruman? A good-intentioned person whose fear made him turn to evil. A person whose oratory skills seem to manipulate others to do their bidding. We don't get a good glimpse of Sauron. What's he up to? It's left up to the imagination.

And the Dark Riders. Power can corrupt people? A leftist message? I like to look for the good in novels. That allows me to improve myself and reinforce the positive views I hold.

Maybe me focus on positivity is letting Tolkien and others seep into my mind with their reactionary views. I'll be skeptical as I fall asleep with my copies of The Manifesto and LOTR on the bookshelf in my room.

I feel like a little kid defending Santa. It was fun, though.

[Plagueround]

That's an awful idea. "So it goes" was probably the most annoying part of reading Slaughterhouse Five

I am going to find you, cut out your heart, and drink your blood. Vonnegut is amazing.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Man, JRR Tolkien sure is one controversial guy! And here it was I just thought he was some old Catholic geezer with a penchant for Saxon traditionalism and tea. And probably aged parchment and smoking pipes in a brooding manner and shit like that.

Anyway, I remember reading the LoTR series when I was a kid and liking it. Now I'm wondering if liking it makes me a horrible person, though. :unsure:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Man, JRR Tolkien sure is one controversial guy! And here it was I just thought he was some old Catholic geezer with a penchant for Saxon traditionalism and tea. And probably aged parchment and smoking pipes in a brooding manner and shit like that.

Anyway, I remember reading the LoTR series when I was a kid and liking it. Now I'm wondering if liking it makes me a horrible person, though. :unsure:

It doesn't!:lol:

Reading it as a child you were probably thinking - hey a small provincial underdog and his friends have a long and scary adventure and plays and important part in stopping evil.

Now as an adult, you can read it again if you wanted and enjoy it or not enjoy it; look at the style or develop a political critique of maybe some of the reactionary points of view held by the author.

I'm not a Lord of the Rings fan, but I really liked the TV show Twin Peaks - guess what, it was created by a right-winger who likes to romanticize lilly-white small-town life and attributes all evil to some supernatural forces either in ourselves or in nature; the heroes are an FBI agent and a Sheriff. The ultimate evil is embodied by a supernatural guy who looks a lot like some random working class white rocker from the Pacific Northwest. I can look at and critique the pretty right-wing assumptions being made in the premise of the show, but I can also enjoy it because it's well-made and unexpected and the characters are kind of silly but earnest.

Great art or even well-crafted entertainment is different than a political tract. You don't need to be a leftist to see the greatness in the works of Brecht or Orwell or whoever and you don't need to be a right-winger to appreciate the works of... um, Ted Nugent (sorry, I suddenly blanked on well know right wing artists). Ok, here's a better one: you don't need to be a christian to appreciate great Renaissance painting. If a work really hits and is effective, it goes beyond the historical or political context like Shakespeare or Chaucer or DiVinci or Michaelangelo.

[Kovacs]

orcs= Industrialised proletariat

Elves= aristo's

Rohirrim= warrior caste state tools. Think Ghurkas or French Foreign Legion

Dunlanders= the Welsh

High Men (gondorians etc)= upper bourgeoisie


Hobbits= Petite Bourgeoisie

Haradrim= .....erm.....Tolkiens latent racism embedded in his class


LOTR is so ripe for analysis. I love the book, but I've no illusions about how reactionary the author was :)

[lombas]

Plato.

[lombas]

Plato.

I mean, if you could name one person who completely fucked up Western civilization until the 16-19th century... This guy could do just fine.

[Wanted Man]

Analysing LotR can be difficult. If you need any help, this page (http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/homework.htm) is good.

[Angry Young Man]

I actually like some of my country's classical authors, the 3 big are Henrik Ibsen, a bohemian quasi-anarchist highly sceptical of his days social roles.

I've only read Doll House, but I can tell very clearly that (unless he's the dramatist equivalent of one of those bands who have a boss song as a single but the rest of their album is cack) I will adore Ibsen, just because of how he made theatre from ludicrous multi-coloured dumb-shows into a critical representation of contemporary culture, warts and all.

Have you come across Joe Penhall?

[Abc]

Pilgrims Progress

[La Comédie Noire]

Funny, people always tell me Tolkien is a hard read, but I never thought so. But I am so glad there are so many people who agree Catcher in the Rye and On the Road are absolute shit.

It's not so much the books that suck as it is the atmosphere of near reverence both books have attained. No one dares criticize them and if you read them it should be a life changing experience.

[lombas]

Christianity isn't why the Roman empire fell. Bad leadership and a weak army is why it fell.

You might be referring to this work. If not, you should read it asap.

:D

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KFCAHGCML._SL500_AA240_.jpg

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Random Precision I think the exact opposite of what you said. :D

Catcher and On the Road are two of my favourite books.

[x359594]

...It's not so much the books [Catcher in the Rye and On the Road] that suck as it is the atmosphere of near reverence both books have attained. No one dares criticize them and if you read them it should be a life changing experience.

The atmosphere of near reverence is what keeps readers from seeing past these works to the more accomplished works of both authors, and in the case of On the Road the well-known version is heavily redacted and should be replaced by On the Road: The Original Scroll published in 2007.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Isn't there a LoTR section on Stormfront or am I just making that up? :unsure:

[x359594]

Isn't there a LoTR section on Stormfront or am I just making that up? :unsure:

I don't know about that, but Norman Spinrad wrote an alternate history novel called The Iron Dream where one Adolf Hitler writes a trilogy called Lord of the Swastika.

[Kayser_Soso]

Isn't there a LoTR section on Stormfront or am I just making that up? :unsure:

Yes there is. They think this movie has some kind of hidden white nationalist subtext. Yes, they are morons.


I have to say that Fight Club is overrated- the movie was actually better than the book.

1984 sucks, it's brought up by anyone of virtually any political ideology as an allegory of their opposing ideology. Animal Farm sucks too. Can you imagine how Orwell got these ideas?

Trots in Spain: ...so that's what happened in the Soviet Union.

Orwell: Oh ok. I'll go write a book about that!! Thanks.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Anything by Ernest Hemingway is garbage to me. I've read Old Man and the Sea, For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Sun also Rises, and disliked all of them intensely (why did I read them all? dont ask).

And I understand Jane Austen's cleverness about exposing hypocrisy that the wealthiest can show the merely-wealthy, but never again will I sacrifice a good nap for her writing (All of you Dickens-bashers should hold your tongues, by the way). That said, I enjoyed the Great Gatsby thoroughly.

Not a big James Joyce fan, and I'll be sure to think of more later.

[Random Precision]

All of you Dickens-bashers should hold your tongues, by the way

His books are badly written and horribly reactionary.

[Drace]

Animal Farm.
Whats worse is that its written by a socialist but yet is the #1 used book for promoting anti-communism in schools.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

His books are badly written and horribly reactionary.

Yes, yes they are. But that is besides the point.

[which doctor]

Yes, yes they are. But that is besides the point.
well then what exactly is the point?

[Invader Zim]

His books are badly written and horribly reactionary.

By what standard, ours or those of 19th century British social commentators?

[Bilan]

The latest in a surge of threads by RP as he becomes ever more desperate in his quest to avoid studying for finals...

So, what "classics" of literature are there that you can't fucking stand?

For me:

Catcher in the Rye. Ugh. I don't really know what more to say about it than that.

On-the-fucking-Road by Jack fucking Kerouac. The triumph of pseudo-intellectual hipsterism as a lifestyle, which made it forever inescapable in this country. Add to this The Dharma Bums for flagrant abuse of Eastern religions.

Heart of Darkness by Conrad- I really wanted to like this but his prose is way too dense and when I got to the end it was sort of an anticlimax. I didn't think he described "the horror" that well at all. I thought the movie Apocalypse Now! did a lot better with the same theme.

Rye was okay, but overrated. Jack Keroauc was average. Nothing happened of interest. Ever. At all. Dont know the last.

[Il Medico]

Anything by Ernest Hemingway is garbage to me. I've read Old Man and the Sea, For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Sun also Rises, and disliked all of them intensely (why did I read them all? dont ask).

You clearly have no taste. Had you said you had read, say, Across the River into The Trees and not liked it, I would just suggest you read more. But having read the works you claim and still hating Hemingway is utter nonsense. A Farewell to Arms is also a fantastic book if you feel like giving Hemingway another go.

[Pyotr Tchaikovsky]

His books are badly written and horribly reactionary.

Reactionary...he was living in the 19th century, so context is key in this case. Besides, Hard Times is pro-working class, I believe? As to his writing style, 'badly written' isn't the term I'd use. The first paragraph of The Tale of Two Cities is immortal. It was the best of times; it was the worst of times...:) His clever use of irony and metaphors was legendary.

[Old Man Diogenes]

Animal Farm.
Whats worse is that its written by a socialist but yet is the #1 used book for promoting anti-communism in schools.

It's not the books fault, the text is not understood. Not to mention I've met few teachers that actually know what Communism is, if you ask your likely to get the reply everyone gets paid the same.

[YeOldeCommuniste]

They've both been mentioned, but A Tale of Two Cities and Lord of the Flies are two that I remember being particularly painful to read.

[Bilan]

Crime and Punishment. Fuck your christian proto-hipster bullshit, dostoevsky. I won't ever get those hours back.

One of the stupidest criticisms I've ever read.

[Quail]

But I am so glad there are so many people who agree Catcher in the Rye and On the Road are absolute shit.

It's not so much the books that suck as it is the atmosphere of near reverence both books have attained. No one dares criticize them and if you read them it should be a life changing experience.

I really don't like Catcher in the Rye, and I think it is because when I picked it up I expected it to be brilliant and it just wasn't. Before I read it I somehow had the impression that everyone else who had read it thought it was great - but I can't think where that idea actually came from specifically.

I tend to like most classics. A lot of them are written very nicely. I couldn't bring myself to get through LOTR though. I found that there was too much description and it felt like the story didn't move quick enough to keep me interested. That was quite a long time ago though.