OnlineBookClub.org

tamdlyte wrote: ↑27 Aug 2017, 19:37 Ugh... the classics... I am not a big fan of "the classics"... I think, if I had been a "school" reader, (only reading books that were assigned in school) and not a "for pleasure" reader, like I was, then I would hate reading! I am a voracious reader but could barely stomach any of "the classics." I don't know. They were just not my thing. They all seemed so very very boring to me. Good thing I knew the difference before I was turned off to reading anything all! LOL

I have also read the book and its not there for me. I am not a big fan of classics. Was the book written in order to be hard to read or what is the essence of the book. People say its interesting, but I just don't see it. Not even my teacher could ever make me sense in this book and in "Catcher in the Rye" by J. D. Salinger.

I didn't find Holden Caufield a particularly sympathetic character, but I suppose I should read it again and see what I think as and adult.
Still going through

I never had to read Fahrenheit 451 in school, so I picked it up a few years ago to see what the big deal was. I've never been so bored! Bradbury is too wordy and the story gets lost for me. At the same time, I read PKD's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and loved it! To me the two books were about the same thing: a guy disenchanted with his job who goes off the deep end trying to make sense of it (teachers can take the censorship theme of Fahrenheit and stuff it! ha!). Androids was a far more relatable book because the character was humanized with the little details.

One classic, that was very disappointing to me, was The Last of the Mohicans by James Fenimore Cooper. The movie was beautiful and one of my favorites. The book was a comedy with a goofy main character named Natty Bumppo. It was nothing like the movie and hard to take seriously. I hated it.

Personally, I find Margaret Atwood to be a vastly overrated author, especially the last 5 years or so. Timing must certainly play a large role in an author's popularity, because the wave of dystopian/circa-apocalyptic writing has definitely leant writers like Atwood a significant amount of credit. I don't discount the creativity of her writing, but the characterization and one-liners commenting on society of the past doesn't land as well as expected.

I get that Moby Dick has some great themes to it, but this is a book that you really only enjoy if you're a HUGE fan of historical whaling. Because lor knows Melville seems determined to let everyone know HE DID HIS RESEARCH on whaling.

It seems that the books I've enjoyed the most aren't any of the classics. The ones that were required reading in school are hard for me to remember. Mainly I remember how dull or hard to read they were at the time. I'm wondering if I would appreciate them more now that I'm middle aged.

Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens
Don Quixote - Miguel de Cervantes

I LOVE Adam Bede by George Eliot and almost all of Ayn Rand's works, although I have to be in a particular mood to want to read Rand. Since I'm a romantic at heart, I also loved Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice. They're good to read on slow days when you just want a little historical drama without having to think much.

I didn't enjoy The Great Gatsby, but that's the only classic I can think of where I didn't like both the writing style and content. (Also the fact that everyone holds it up on a pedestal without understanding its deeper meaning...)

Thank you for your list Ruben 92. I may already have the answer to my question based on your screen name and your photo. It was going to be how old are you.

The reason I ask is because I think it makes a difference in not how old you are when you read the books but if you are reading them closer to the time they were written. I would just be xc curious if those in their 50s and 60s would rate these as overrated or not because the book is written in their vernacular in "their time".

I think it is a rare bird these days who is a Shakespear fan!

In my opinion as teenagers we were reading the wrong classics. I think that it would have been much more interesting to get through literature with Bram Stoker's Dracula and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein sprinkled in there! I'd say Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes if not for the drug addiction.

I would say Romeo and Juliet. In reality, it's a really silly story. but as a person who is not too big on poetry maybe there is something to it that I am missing. as a love story it sucks sooooooo bad.

Catcher in the Rye is surely overrated IMO. Also 1984 by george orwell.
Underrated: the Bronte sister, who are always dismissed as some kind of "victorian chick-lit" by my male firends.

I'm going to step on some toes here, but I think Pride & Prejudice is overrated. Sense & Sensibility was better IMO.

I'm a little late to jump in here, but I'm glad to see that a thread like this exists!

I was a literature major in college, so I've read my fair share of overrated literature. What ticked me off most was having to read a lot of slave narratives. No, I'm not racist, and no, I don't think all slave narratives are unworthy of praise or of literary discussion; but for the most part, once you've read one slave narrative, you've read them all, with exceptions given to Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington. I found little value in rehashing the same themes and praising the authentic dialogue of the slave characters. So, maybe, I'm not saying that slave narratives are overrated, but why are they so often forced upon students?

I think an author who is grossly overlooked in John Steinbeck. He was never in my reading curriculum in school!! Ever!!! Others have had the privilege of reading things like Of Mice and Men and The Pearl, but not me. One book of his that I'll never stop praising is East of Eden. I hear nothing about it, though, and it's one of the most chilling and disturbing reads anyone could encounter. The characters are great, and there are so many themes and allusions to discuss. BRING BACK STEINBECK!!