strangedaze

hardboiled wonderland and the end of the world.

i didnt like it. at all. all that techno jibberish did nothing for me.

__________________
His sins were scarlet, but his books were read.

Short Tooth

I found it new and exciting and while I didn't get it I kept feeling there WAS something there? Did you get what it was about? I mean he's a really well respected writer.

__________________
Dear mother, I'll come home again

Charlie_Eleanor

That whole freaking chapter about the turtle crossing the road. I don't know. Perhaps I was too young to appreciate it, but I don't care. I will NEVER read it again.

__________________

Short Tooth

this is grapes of wrath?

__________________
Dear mother, I'll come home again

Der_Parvenu_Meister

I have catch 22 but the sheer size of the book leads me to believe all the " amazing" and "wonderful" claims on its cover may be over rated... it looks almost as long as the unedited version of The Stand... and I'm sorry but something that long can be quite boring at times.

Rahvin

I've never read Catch 22, and I probably won't. I generally don't like the "classics" anyway, so the chances are I won't like this one. From what I've seen of it, it doesn't sound like my thing anyway...

__________________

Short Tooth

Opinions and perspectives. For it's time maybe, but does it stand the test of time?

__________________
Dear mother, I'll come home again

Rahvin

I didn't question the literary integrity of Great Expectations. I just said it's not relevant anymore. It is simply a well written insight into the time it was written. The plot isn't brilliant, but the writing is good, yes.

And comapring the work shown on a writing forum for (mostly) unpublished writers to a "classic" book isn't really fair. None of us were doing it, and if you can only criticise something if you can do better then there's not much point in this forum, is there? It may as well be the "best" writer here just constantly critquing everyone's work.

The quality of books is personal opinion. Yes, Dicken's prose is technically brilliant, but I don't like it. How does that mean I have no taste? It just means I don't share your tastes.

__________________

Rahvin

Ok, maybe I was a little unclear when I said "not relevant". What I meant was the oh-so-central moral message that most of them have. It's just not needed any more.

And I do belive that there are writers out there who match, if not exceed Dickens' writing. Just because they're not up on the "classics" list doesn't meant they are automatically inferior. That's the kind of elitism that I find wrong with the classics. They are classics, so they must be the best. They still have large sales figures, so they must still be very popular. However, what is overlooked is that new books, while not writing with a moral (generally) write for profit, which is (sadly) a more powerful innovative force than good intentions. This means writing must improve, or there will be no distincrion between one book and the net, bar the plot. Plus, writers have generally studied and learned from the "classics" so they can improve their own writing. And a large amount of the sales come from students who must study the book (not that that means anything)

I actually don't think Dickens' writing is that brilliant. It is technically wonderful, but it just isn't evocative or emotional enough to hook the reader. In short, I think it's boring. The plot goes nowhere (especially seeing as we already know about the antiquated moral message).

Yes, it's good to know where we've come from, nut we also need to remember we have moved on. There is progress. Because something is a "classic" doesn't mean it is above criticism. It's just another book, although older.

__________________

velo

Proving that you completely did not get the discussion about it. GE is well, written, no one denies that. And yes, the writing structure is relevant in a certain way. The STORY isn't and that's what was being discussed. THe moral/societal/political involved just don't matter all that much today. Sure, one could break it down into the instinctual human desire to climb the in the hierarchy of the pack but that's not the kind of story it was.

If you're going to assail someone's opinions, you might want to make sure you know what the fuck you are talking about first.

There is a huge difference between appreciating CD's technical skills, his adeptness with language, and liking the damn story. The story, to modern eyes, sucks donkey schlong. It's too long, way too damn boring, and not once through the entire book did I give a shit. I read the book because it was Dickens, and finished it only for that reason. If it was a modern author, I likely would have given up on it about halfway through even though I hate doing that.

Rahvin, excellent points.

__________________
Are you kidding Velo? Even Malone won't touch this one-adrianhayter

Carpe diem, quam minimum credulo postero -Horace

Rahvin

Yes. The point of a story is to entertain. Stories are generally not entertaining if they cannot be related to. I never suggested his writing wasn't good, though. I simply said his story wasn't. The plot (I think) is circular and lacks a finish. We can't relate properly to he charcters both because our society has moved on from that time, and because they are generally plot devices. They exist to support Dickens' social comments (which are now irrelevant, as we fully realise that these thing need changing (if they haven't already been), not as characters on their own.

If you wan't secific criticism, you'll have to wait, as I don't have the time right now (or the inclination) to go through the whole novel in-depth, not to mention that I don't have my copy with me.

__________________

Travmire

I have to defend Catch-22 as a great, funny book. Milo Minderbinder is possibly the funniest character ever written and every part with him is hilarious. The other characters are great too and this book is worth reading.

As for the topic, I don't understand why anyone would want to read Kerouac. He was beyond boring.

Rahvin

Hmmm... never read Catch 22, so you could be right. Never read Kerouac either, and now I don't think I will (I wasn't going to anyway, but that's kind of cemented it for me)

__________________

Moonlight99

Mmm, only 'Black Sunday' by Thomas Harris. Sure, it was good if you like political thrillers but what I don't understand is how he then managed to then go on and achieve the greatness which was Silence Of The Lambs. Both books are written in completly different styles.
In reply to huntingtonb's original post, I found Anne Rice's books amazing despite first reading them when I was 12. I think this proves it's just probably up to taste and what sort of things you enjoy.

velo

No, what I am suggesting is that the story in Great Expectations is so *specifically* rooted in the Victorian era, with all of the myriad social mores, aspirations, and class structure, that a story about a boy turned man navigating his way through the hierarchy of that society is very difficult to relate to. Dickens was a product of his time and his writing is integrated wholly and completely in that time.

Compare Dickens to Shakespeare. Shakespeare is still relevant today becuuse his plays, his writing, focused on the characters, on the emotions, on the interpersonal. Dickens focuses too much on the external, he talks about clothing and social status and occupation and doesn't focus anywhere near as much as he should on the emotions, on those aspects of the story that *would* still be relevant.

As I alluded to earlier, the only part of the story that came alive for me was the terrible marriage of Old Joe to his shrew wife. Why? Because that subplot is about the characters, it's about human emotions and the human condition, and it's something that anyone whose been in a bad relationship can most certainly identify with.

The *true* test of a classic is its ability to remain timelessly relevant. I think Dickens fails that test and so, while certainly a classic for its writing and its glimpse of a world gone by, it falls short of the highest order of being considered a classic and has become a classic to be read more for a technical understanding of its construction than for the meaning and context of the words.

And on a personal level, I think it goes without saying that people don't like stories they can't relate in some way to. People relate to other people so if the story is about recognizable themes and emotions common to all men then the story will be relevant. If your story is primarily about still-water kayaking then you are effectively limiting your readership to those people who can relate to still-water kayaking or kayaking in general.

__________________
Are you kidding Velo? Even Malone won't touch this one-adrianhayter

Carpe diem, quam minimum credulo postero -Horace