Drive-by post: t loving Nutty madlessly

I loathed Dickens when I was younger, and was forced to read Great Expectations and Dombey and Son in high school. I've since read a number of other novels including Tale of Two Cities twice, and liked him. But I was sure I hated Dickens after Dombey.

I still think his plotting is wank, and far too reliant on coincidence.

My favorite Cather novel is Death Comes for the Archbishop, which I adore as less of a novel than a book about a specific place and time. Not much happens in it, but it's so there... I liked My Antonia, but Death holds first place for me.

And Hardy, despite his power, makes me want to go home and slit my wrists. Jude the Obscure depressed the hell out of me. Yes, classism, yes, bad luck, yes, tragedy. But is there no hope anywhere? And that poor poor little boy they called "Father Time". Gah.

I've wanted to try Dickens. Where should I start?

Well, the first I ever read was probably A Christmas Carol way back in elementary school. And besides that, I've only read Great Expectations. So I would recommend one of those, or the much-talked-about Tale of Two Cities. All I know is that you do not, under any circumstances, start with Bleak House.

I've wanted to try Dickens. Where should I start?

It certainly can be debated, but I'd say A Tale of Two Cities or Hard Times.

does anyone else have classics/works of the canon that they love but figure everyone else hates?

I don't know about hate, exactly, but I've heard many people complain about Middlemarch being boooring.

Yeah, it starts a little slowly, even for a Victorian novel, but it is definitely worth it. For those who love sharply-drawn characters, the portrayal of two marriages that fail for very different reasons is amazing.

It really is a "study of provincial life," as the subtitle says; very rich, with multiple strands of plot illuminating each other.

I seem to really remember hating Pip when reading Great Expectations as a kid. I enjoyed much Dickens however, so maybe should try it again.

What I personally disliked about the tone of hayden, Hec, and Michele's posts was the air of "you people are doing it wrong, sit down and listen while I explain it to you."

I specifically noted that was not my intent or motivation. I don't really remember saying anything like that, actually, though I can believe my grumpus tone conveyed some of it.

What people (and by people I mean me) are objecting to is your apparent opinion that people not interested in deep litcrit discussions of Moby Dick aren't smart enough for this thread. And no doubt you're going to deny that that's what you meant, but from where I'm sitting, that is what your argument seems to boil down to.

I did not impugn anybody's intelligence and took pains to state that explicitly. The truth is that everybody on this thread has great wells of credibility with me. With what I've gleaned from this thread I have walked into cocktail parties and started talking out of my ass about how Romances can't be categorically dismissed and Georgette Heyer this and Jennifer Crusie that. If y'all love Lois Bujold McMasters and Stephen Brust, then I believe without doubt that they are among the best in their field.

Anti-intellectual does not equal stupid by any means.

(1) Where does "disparagement" diverge from "saying you personally didn't enjoy" a specific book? I said I dislike Moby-Dick. Hayden loves it passionately. Was I disparaging? And if so, does that mean no one should express negative opinions about any book, because that will disparage someone's beloved book?

Now every single person involved in this discussion can legimately put their hand on their heart and say, "Not me! I don't hate literature. I may hate [Bovary/Faulkner/Melville] but I love love love [James/Austen/Catch22]. And that's a matter of personal taste." And it's true and that is a matter of personal taste.

However, resentment about canonical good books, and being beaten around the head with Must Read and Must Respect has fostered a vibe in here such that poor, whiny, weak Mme. Bovary gets kicked in the teeth, and punched in the kidneys every time she wanders into this thread.

There is, quite regularly, a gleeful lashing out at serious fiction that people dislike. I do think there is a cumulative effect produced by people piling on - it's just a thread dynamic - but I think the effect is real.

Think about it by the standards the Supreme Court uses in bias cases. They don't have to catch a country club making blatantly racist and exclusive policies and speeches. The court says, "Well, you say you're not racist, but you've been in existence for 80 years, 40 of those since the civil rights era, you're in the south, there is a large population of middle class black businessmen in your area and you have exactly zero black members."

Similarly in sexual harassment, there does not need to be one dramatic incident to prove that the environment is hostile. It's the cumulative effect of things.

Please note I am not comparing anybody here to a racist or a sexist. I'm only only only saying that there is not going to be one person, or policy or statement which will prove that this thread has had an anti-intellectual bias or resists critical discussion. I am saying that the fact that there aren't literary discussions here comparable to the in-depth show discussions suggests that there is some pressure which prevents it. That the continual disparagment and outright anger about how people had literature taught to them or shoved down their throats makes it difficult to talk about literature critically here.

I am, however, partially persuaded by points made here that the structure of this thread is about recs more than discussion.

(2) I didn't see any casual dismissal of the value of discussing things in depth, and it would really help me if you could point to where that happened.

The quotes that Gar gathered are a few examples of statements people have made which have treated literary fiction with disdain. It's not like a policy here. But if three or four people loudly and repeatedly state their resentment about how they were forced fed Great Books it's very dissuading.

Hmm, not sure I'm upset or relieved I basically missed the whole emotionally-charged argumentation, but I'll certainly not try chime in on that at this late date.

As for books that SHOULD BE HATED, I will bring up the one I always bring up, Ethan Frome.

eta, oy, funny timing on that post. Oh well, Hec, is it OK to repeatedly kick Ethan in the kidneys, at least?

good to know Kat, maybe I'll just return it and not finish it. I assume that doing that with "non-smart" books is ok.

I think so. Becuase the non-smart books make your brains mushy and makes you less intellectual. Better to return them all unread.

Actually, my stance is life is too short for books you don't enjoy and there are too many books in the world to read a book you don't like.

Right now, I'm still doing all of my Medal Nominees reading and it's painful. There are so many bad books out there and I can't just not read them. I have to complete all of the 300+ nominees by november.

JZ, can you share the City of Literature discussion we had last night?

As for books that SHOULD BE HATED, I will bring up the one I always bring up, Ethan Frome.

Hey, at least it's short.