Life is short, people.
May 30, 2012 8:06 PM Subscribe
So, I just finished the Lord of the Rings, and good lord, what a load of tripe. What other classic, highly influential works in various genres are eminently skippable? And what should be subbed in instead?
Piqued by curiosity, given how influential it's been over movies and film (even T.V.) I read the LotR over the past couple weeks. I'll spare you my thoughts on J.R.R., whose fans I know are legion, and simply say that I reluctantly found myself on the side of that ol' stuffed shirt Edmund Wilson. Wilson, in his review, suggests an obscure work by James Branch Cabell, Poictesme, as a potential substitute. It reminded me of A.S. Byatt's vouching for Terry Pratchett over J.K. Rowling, and it made wonder what lesser-known works there might be in other genres --- heck, in other art forms --- which are overlooked in favor of influential (but shitty) predecessors. Please give me your anti-recommendations.
Piqued by curiosity, given how influential it's been over movies and film (even T.V.) I read the LotR over the past couple weeks. I'll spare you my thoughts on J.R.R., whose fans I know are legion, and simply say that I reluctantly found myself on the side of that ol' stuffed shirt Edmund Wilson. Wilson, in his review, suggests an obscure work by James Branch Cabell, Poictesme, as a potential substitute. It reminded me of A.S. Byatt's vouching for Terry Pratchett over J.K. Rowling, and it made wonder what lesser-known works there might be in other genres --- heck, in other art forms --- which are overlooked in favor of influential (but shitty) predecessors. Please give me your anti-recommendations.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Without some more concrete problem-to-be-solved here this feels like it's a bit into "beef about things you don't like or think other folks shouldn't like" chatfilter complete with I'll Go First. -- cortex
Avatar?
posted by Mr. Papagiorgio at 8:15 PM on May 30, 2012
posted by Mr. Papagiorgio at 8:15 PM on May 30, 2012
Yeah, it feels like you're coming at this wrong. Maybe help us out with something you found eminently unskippable. I personally found LOTR to be just that, but gave up on Harry P by about Chapter 2 of the second book. And I love the Terry Pratchett books, and Dune.
posted by philip-random at 8:19 PM on May 30, 2012
posted by philip-random at 8:19 PM on May 30, 2012
I think timing is really important when it comes to books. There's nothing better than the right book at the wrong time, and nothing worse than the wrong book at the wrong time -- quality has nothing to do with it.
Clearly this was not your time to read and enjoy LOTR. Maybe you would have enjoyed it a lot more when you were younger. Maybe you would have enjoyed it a lot more if you happened to stumble across a dog-eared copy while you were stuck on an camping trip with your obnoxious inlaws. Or if you were reading it to your own children and got to experience it through their eyes as you went along.
posted by hermitosis at 8:29 PM on May 30, 2012 [4 favorites]
Clearly this was not your time to read and enjoy LOTR. Maybe you would have enjoyed it a lot more when you were younger. Maybe you would have enjoyed it a lot more if you happened to stumble across a dog-eared copy while you were stuck on an camping trip with your obnoxious inlaws. Or if you were reading it to your own children and got to experience it through their eyes as you went along.
posted by hermitosis at 8:29 PM on May 30, 2012 [4 favorites]
I did not like LotR and I LOVE Dune.
posted by ljshapiro at 8:30 PM on May 30, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by ljshapiro at 8:30 PM on May 30, 2012 [3 favorites]
Response by poster: it feels like you're coming at this wrong.
Well, I'm doing that on purpose, a bit. I'm not interested so much in finding stuff that I'd love in particular as in finding out what the underrated gems and overrated bores are in particular genres. As in "if you want to get into X, everybody will tell you to experience Y, but actually Z is much better." Like "if you want to get into Elizabethan theater, everybody says to read Marlowe but actually Aphra Behn's a lot more fun for a modern reader, and her plots are better."* Etc.
There's lots of threads on ask me that are about "I want to get into X, tell me what the core classics are to start with." I'd like to know what stuff I can skip. I like lots of different things, myself, and I'm always interested in exploring new stuff.
*merely an example
posted by Diablevert at 8:34 PM on May 30, 2012
Well, I'm doing that on purpose, a bit. I'm not interested so much in finding stuff that I'd love in particular as in finding out what the underrated gems and overrated bores are in particular genres. As in "if you want to get into X, everybody will tell you to experience Y, but actually Z is much better." Like "if you want to get into Elizabethan theater, everybody says to read Marlowe but actually Aphra Behn's a lot more fun for a modern reader, and her plots are better."* Etc.
There's lots of threads on ask me that are about "I want to get into X, tell me what the core classics are to start with." I'd like to know what stuff I can skip. I like lots of different things, myself, and I'm always interested in exploring new stuff.
*merely an example
posted by Diablevert at 8:34 PM on May 30, 2012
You know, Tolstoy had this theory that Shakespeare was just an overrated hack. You might find Orwell's essay "Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool" a useful reflection on the 'generations have been fooled into liking this writer but he is really terrible and I see the truth' line of reasoning.
I'd say that you should help us out with why you found Lord of the Rings so terrible - if you loved the worldbuilding but hated the politics, or found hobbits tolerable but couldn't stand the elvish, well, those things suggest different reasons you find Tolkien skippable.
You might also enjoy Michael Moorcock's collection of essays, Wizardry and Wild Romance. He is not a fan of Tolkien either and has quite a lot to say about why and what else to read. However, he likes the incredibly sententious and boring Jeffrey Ford, so who knows?
Although this is not a different genre, M John Harrison's excellent Viriconium stories are...well, they're not overlooked because they're actually pretty widely read,...but they are partly a response to Tolkienishness and have not eclipsed Tolkien.
You could also say that Sarah Schulman's novels are eclipsed by asshole male writers of the Corrections ilk, I guess. I just don't know how to approach a question that requires me to decide what is overrated and what it eclipses, because there are all kinds of questions of audience - the people who read The Corrections aren't going to be interested in People In Trouble, etc.
posted by Frowner at 8:34 PM on May 30, 2012 [1 favorite]
I'd say that you should help us out with why you found Lord of the Rings so terrible - if you loved the worldbuilding but hated the politics, or found hobbits tolerable but couldn't stand the elvish, well, those things suggest different reasons you find Tolkien skippable.
You might also enjoy Michael Moorcock's collection of essays, Wizardry and Wild Romance. He is not a fan of Tolkien either and has quite a lot to say about why and what else to read. However, he likes the incredibly sententious and boring Jeffrey Ford, so who knows?
Although this is not a different genre, M John Harrison's excellent Viriconium stories are...well, they're not overlooked because they're actually pretty widely read,...but they are partly a response to Tolkienishness and have not eclipsed Tolkien.
You could also say that Sarah Schulman's novels are eclipsed by asshole male writers of the Corrections ilk, I guess. I just don't know how to approach a question that requires me to decide what is overrated and what it eclipses, because there are all kinds of questions of audience - the people who read The Corrections aren't going to be interested in People In Trouble, etc.
posted by Frowner at 8:34 PM on May 30, 2012 [1 favorite]
What sprang to my mind was Orson Scott Card books, that got awards and award nominations, but are regarded by many as pretty awful.
posted by forthright at 8:44 PM on May 30, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by forthright at 8:44 PM on May 30, 2012 [1 favorite]
I found Madame Bovary to be a real slog and had to force myself to finish it. Maybe I read a poor translation but I had such aan awful time with it it that I can't bring myself to give it another chance.
posted by Wantok at 8:46 PM on May 30, 2012
posted by Wantok at 8:46 PM on May 30, 2012
Best answer: I personally did not like 1984 all that much. I enjoyed the first half, and was disappointed when it ended so abruptly and switched to the second half, which I found boring.
I think "A Brave New World," which has similar themes, is a better book.
posted by imagineerit at 8:47 PM on May 30, 2012 [2 favorites]
I think "A Brave New World," which has similar themes, is a better book.
posted by imagineerit at 8:47 PM on May 30, 2012 [2 favorites]
I would politely suggest that Frowner's question about what made you dislike LOTR is worth spending a few moments on, otherwise I fear that you'll get a lot of very personal, "Well, I didn't like this supposed classic very much" sort of answers.
Like philip-random, I really like Dune (the first book) but could not get into LOTR at all—but it's hard for me to say whether I think your experience might be the same. As Frowner alludes, if it's the world-building you didn't enjoy in LOTR, then you probably wouldn't enjoy Dune, but if it was something else, then you very well might.
Put another way, I think you'd have a hard time finding a generally agreed-upon un-canon of "skippable" works. (Except Ayn Rand, of course.) It might be best to focus on "skippable for you" works.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 8:59 PM on May 30, 2012 [1 favorite]
Like philip-random, I really like Dune (the first book) but could not get into LOTR at all—but it's hard for me to say whether I think your experience might be the same. As Frowner alludes, if it's the world-building you didn't enjoy in LOTR, then you probably wouldn't enjoy Dune, but if it was something else, then you very well might.
Put another way, I think you'd have a hard time finding a generally agreed-upon un-canon of "skippable" works. (Except Ayn Rand, of course.) It might be best to focus on "skippable for you" works.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 8:59 PM on May 30, 2012 [1 favorite]
Best answer: This is a hard one to answer, resting as it does solely on one's subjective reactions to books. Especially given that a person's reaction to a book can very a lot over time etc. With that said:
Don Quixote - sub with The Decameron, I suppose.
Moby Dick - sub with... I got nothing. I do feel the book is unique, however much the terrible multipage digressions on whaling technique bored me.
Jane Austen in general and Northanger Abbey in particular - Different but similar George Eliot is superior in every way, in my opinion.
I like Dickens, but really both Balzac's Pere Goriot & Zola's Germinal are much better; less sentimental, more incisive, and I personally think much better prose.
Everyone talks Tolstoy for Russian literature, but Pushkin and Gogol's short stories and poetry will show you just as much of Russian culture.
Skip much of Hemingway, read Sherwood Anderson's Winesburg, Ohio, instead. Incredibly progressive. So far ahead of its time.
I find sometimes Borges tricksiness stops me from investing emotionally in his work. Italo Calvino's If On A Winter's Night has all the meta whimsy, but I also cared.
Forget Jonathon Franzen and just read Anne Tyler's shorter, better books instead.
Skip Grimm's fairy tales, read The Coloured (Red, Yellow, etc) Fairy Books by Andrew Lang instead. Beautifully written and illustrated.
Skip Henry James (not a dig on him, per se), read Edith Wharton instead.
For Victorian ghost stories, skip M.R James; read Oliver Onions, Arthur Machen, J.S Le Fanu.
For Lovecraft go with William Hope Hodgson.
If you're reading Larry McMurty, forget Lonesome Dove, read Anything For Billy instead.
Forget the Alexandria Quartet by Lawrence Durrell, read Edward Whittemore's Jerusalem quartet.
posted by smoke at 9:03 PM on May 30, 2012 [5 favorites]
Don Quixote - sub with The Decameron, I suppose.
Moby Dick - sub with... I got nothing. I do feel the book is unique, however much the terrible multipage digressions on whaling technique bored me.
Jane Austen in general and Northanger Abbey in particular - Different but similar George Eliot is superior in every way, in my opinion.
I like Dickens, but really both Balzac's Pere Goriot & Zola's Germinal are much better; less sentimental, more incisive, and I personally think much better prose.
Everyone talks Tolstoy for Russian literature, but Pushkin and Gogol's short stories and poetry will show you just as much of Russian culture.
Skip much of Hemingway, read Sherwood Anderson's Winesburg, Ohio, instead. Incredibly progressive. So far ahead of its time.
I find sometimes Borges tricksiness stops me from investing emotionally in his work. Italo Calvino's If On A Winter's Night has all the meta whimsy, but I also cared.
Forget Jonathon Franzen and just read Anne Tyler's shorter, better books instead.
Skip Grimm's fairy tales, read The Coloured (Red, Yellow, etc) Fairy Books by Andrew Lang instead. Beautifully written and illustrated.
Skip Henry James (not a dig on him, per se), read Edith Wharton instead.
For Victorian ghost stories, skip M.R James; read Oliver Onions, Arthur Machen, J.S Le Fanu.
For Lovecraft go with William Hope Hodgson.
If you're reading Larry McMurty, forget Lonesome Dove, read Anything For Billy instead.
Forget the Alexandria Quartet by Lawrence Durrell, read Edward Whittemore's Jerusalem quartet.
posted by smoke at 9:03 PM on May 30, 2012 [5 favorites]
For your atheist nonfiction about how the universe is too wondrous to waste your time on religion, skip Sam Harris and read Carl Sagan.
posted by steinsaltz at 9:10 PM on May 30, 2012
posted by steinsaltz at 9:10 PM on May 30, 2012
So true. LOTR is the literary equivalent of The Doors.
If you ignore the vocals and words, The Doors had some great bass, drums, and keyboards. Can you say that about LOTR?
posted by Napoleonic Terrier at 9:12 PM on May 30, 2012
If you ignore the vocals and words, The Doors had some great bass, drums, and keyboards. Can you say that about LOTR?
posted by Napoleonic Terrier at 9:12 PM on May 30, 2012
« Older Will buying a more expensive UPS fix my brownout... | Help my 16-year-old sell his skateboarding booklet... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by steinsaltz at 8:09 PM on May 30, 2012 [2 favorites]