As a offshoot  from Cert's "what are you reading" thread, this....

There are certain books which are considered essential reading. Books about which a degree of knowledge is required in order not to embarrass one's self in educated company.

 What self-respecting literate person would openly admit, for instance, to not having read "To Kill a Mocking Bird"? Who amongst us would be comfortable saying, "what's that "Catcher in the Rye" all about?" or "Lord of the Rings? I prefer the film!"?

Well folks, I dare to call a spade a spade, "Catch 22" is a pile of crap!!!!

Three times I've attempted to read this long winded tripe. Once I got as far as page 250 (of my paperback copy) and still I couldn't force myself to finish it. The opening chapters are, I confess, unputdownable, but they soon give way to some pretty labourious reading, which in no time becomes unpickupable.

"But Em", cry my friends in disbelief, "It's a classic, everybody knows that!" Well, "classic my arse" I say! If ever a book cried out for some merciless editting it's this one. Someone should have taken Heller to one side early on and told him less is more.

Heresy? Perhaps, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pretend to love this book just to avoid being labelled a Philistine.

So here's your chance people. Be brave (as a few of you were about "Dark Side of the Moon" a couple of weeks ago.). Which literary emporers have no clothes in your opinion? Let rip, and I'll just brace myself for the indignant onslaught of the Hellerites.

I read Catch 22 many, I repeat, many years ago. Damned if I remember anything past the meaning of the term "Catch 22" and the part were the guy gets cut in half by the propeller. Ugh!

Thats how I felt when I read Farhenheit 451... so confusing. Then I thought.. I'll see the movie, maybe it will clear some things up.. However, the movie was a lot more confusing than the book...

I haven't read Catch 22 (yet), as I prefer Scientific (Fiction or Fact) to real literature - but my other half felt moved to say this;

Certif1ed wrote: I haven't read Catch 22 (yet), as I prefer Scientific (Fiction or Fact) to real literature - but my other half felt moved to say this; I’m not a hellerite, and this isn’t an onslaught – but I adore Catch 22. Yep, its long, yep its confusing – but it is, after all meant to be: chaotic, yet completely circular. The structure of the book mirrors the concept of "Catch 22". But, hey, I’ve read some of Heller’s other junk and I’m beginning to think this was a fluke Classics that really are a piece of junk? Finnegan’s Wake gets my vote!

I think it's a chemestry thing with Heller and I.  It's not so much confussing as it's a major major bore. (get it?)

Missus giving me earache...moan.."Internet widow"..... blah blah....I'll get back to you later.

Heh! I've got two computers networked side by side, so we surf simultaneously!

Sometimes Katherine (my little one) joins in the fun...

g d mi c,z o9x8e3 vx mu cz b blorseg

threefates wrote: Thats how I felt when I read Farhenheit 451... so confusing. Then I thought.. I'll see the movie, maybe it will clear some things up.. However, the movie was a lot more confusing than the book...

Dreams walking in broad daylight
Three hun-dred six-ty five de-grees
Burning down the house

This is totally nerd crap:  Paper does not begin to alight until it reaches 451 degrees Farhenheit (Hence the name of the book). A mere 365 degree would not, therefore, Burn Down The House or even singe the curtains. Duh!

this is a dangerous thread for a contentious ba**ard like me

"Finnegan's Wake" is an amazing book with almost unlimited levels of interpretation; it's tougher to penetrate than "Ulysses" but also easier to read. When I was an undergrad, I looked forward for two years to taking the 400-level course on Joyce's work that was being offered...by the time I had the requirements to take the class, it had been replaced by a course on Toni Morrison (who is a capable writer on gender and race, but by no means comparable to Joyce). I don't love FW as much as some of my other favorite books, but if I could take one work with me to a desert island, it would certainly be in the final four. If you're a fan of Nabokov's word games or W. S. Burroughs' stream-of-consciousness, FW takes it all much deeper and adds enough historical and literary reference to keep annotators busy for decades. You don't have to like it, but it's one of the finest works ever written. Period.

danbo: I'm not sure what the lyrics do mean, but I'm pretty sure David Byrne wasn't talking about an actual fire (or even a fraternity party).  I'd have to guess that he was familiar with the book (or film), and probably could have used 451 instead of 365- the syllables are the same, so it wouldn't have changed the rhythm one bit.

On the other hand, "Catch-22" I could take or leave. Heller is a pretty decent writer but there have been better works on similar themes. Coincidentally (since I started by talking about Joyce), my favorite Heller piece is "Portrait of the Artist as an Old Man" in which he does a bit of self-criticism on "Catch-22" as well as poignantly portraying the shadow it cast over the rest of his life.

Now for my entry: why are so many people reading Robert Jordan? I'm a slightly sheepish fantasy fan; my feeling about fantasy fiction is similar to my feeling about prog...there's a lot of great stuff that doesn't deserve all the kneejerk criticism it usually gets, but also plenty of works that the fans like to praise inordinately. And just about every person I've talk to about fantasy fiction over the past ten years has praised Jordan...despite the fact that he's barely capable of writing his endorsement on the checks publishers send him, let alone a multi-volume work of fiction. I had the same feeling reading "Wheel of Time" that I had the first time I picked up an L. Ron Hubbard 'book'- basically, the feeling that I was being scammed.

Well I'm sure you guys won't be surprised when I tell you the actual only things I've read consistently the last few years has been Anne Rice.  And not cause I think she's such a great writer.. a great imagination... but not such a great writer.. but her books are addicting.  And after giving Louis.. Brad Pitt's face.. it made it a lot more fun to read....

I've  also read most of her erotic novels.... but they aren't really all that erotic to me... and they bored me to tears...

But her Lestat and Mayfair witches novels are very imaginative...and I just love vampire novels anyway...

ever read "The Last Days of Christ the Vampire" by J. G. Eccarius ?

how about LeFanu's "Carmilla"?

next to Stoker, they're my favorite vampire books

PERSONALLY I FAIL TO SEE WHAT THIS THRAED HAS TO DO WITH UNDERCLAD MONARCHS.

BUT I RATHER LIKE "THE WIZARD OF ID" STRIPS MYSELF

THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A MOVIE SOME YEARS AGO with the voice of PAUL WILLIAMS AS THE KING!!!  BUT IT NEVER EVENTUATED

AH!! to SEE THE KING ,RODNEY,THE WIZ, BLANCHE...ETC

gee!!what an intellectual powerhouse i am

Wizard of ID is my sort of humour Dude, excellent stuff. "The peasants are revolting", "they sure are" and all that.

There was a great one where one of the subjects was about to be hanged. "Mercy, mercy!" he pleaded to the king.

The king sent him off to the gallows saying, "They don't usually thank me!"

Also love Hagar the horrible, BC etc.

Maybe just as well the film didn't materialise, these cartoons usually lose something when they are animated. ("Garfield" "Dilbert" etc.)

James Lee wrote: ever read "The Last Days of Christ the Vampire" by J. G. Eccarius ? how about LeFanu's "Carmilla"? next to Stoker, they're my favorite vampire books

No, I haven't read either of those.. but I will now look for them.  Thanks, James!

Reply to James

Just wanted to add my own views on Finnegans Wake other than my dismissive 'junk' of before  

I haven't previously met many defenders of this book!  I took my degree in English literature and studied Joyce as one of my authors.  Only one of my tutors at Oxford loved it; a die-hard Joyce fan.  While I would never contest that Joyce is an amazing author I think Finnegan's Wake is a classic case of experimentalism being taken too far.  I've seen it with the very best of writers and, I may add, the best of bands. 

While I think it is possible to defend Finnegan's Wake for the very reasons James has, I personally find that it's lost its raison d'etre.  Is this novel really a joy to read?  It's a novel for which most people have to check the annonations twenty times every page before they can even understand what's being said!  I find this rather destroys its readability.  Let's face it, there aren't many about now who are educated to the same standard as Joyce and have the luxury of being able to understand his allusions without such aid.

Sorry for the hijack, as this isn't my board:  I'm force fed prog by Certified  

Verity

hehe- thanks for the candor Verity

I guess being of Irish descent helps  but I admit I have a personal bias towards experimental works (books and music alike)...but I definitely agree that FW is pretty convoluted and dense even for lit nerds like me. I do get a lot of honest pleasure from it, though, and it really isn't any more difficult to follow than Faulkner's "Sound and Fury", or the more stream-of-consciouness sections of "Ulysses". I actually believe it's an easier read than "The Canterbury Tales" or "The Inferno", both of which depend on loads of extra references to make them comprehensible. I'm definitely not saying I'd recommend FW for casual reading, either for the general public or more accomplished readers.

BTW I love Johnny Hart's "B.C." strip, and I hope they never make an animated film version

Certif1ed wrote: g d mi c,z o9x8e3 vx mu cz b blorseg

Tell Katherine that James Joyce couldn't have said it better

James: Couldn't agree more about FW, although on a slightly pedantic note, it's "Finnegans Wake", not "Finnegan's Wake" (Cert's used both versions in his post). The ultimate literary word play in my opinion. The title appears to mean "the party thrown after Finnegan's funeral", but actually means "oppressed members of the Finnegan familly awaken after the oppressive bastard's death". What a difference an apostrophe makes!

Later, if I feel up to it, I shall give my views on sci-fi fantasy in general, though "contentious" doesn't even begin to describe them.

emdiar wrote: As a offshoot  from Cert's "what are you reading" thread, this.... There are certain books which are considered essential reading. Books about which a degree of knowledge is required in order not to embarrass one's self in educated company.  What self-respecting literate person would openly admit, for instance, to not having read "To Kill a Mocking Bird"? Who amongst us would be comfortable saying, "what's that "Catcher in the Rye" all about?"

Hi, Emdiar! Good topic!

 Well, I'm "self-respecting" and "literate" (English Specialist's degree, U of T), but I will openly and unabashedly admit that I have never read To Kill a Mockingbird or Catcher in the Rye. I don't think that any single literary classic is "essential" or "required" reading in order to qualify as "well read." (Though a working knowledge of the Bible, Greek mythology, and some Shakespeare might qualify as a "necessary" foundation for getting all one can from Western literature.) 

I concentrated heavily on British literature in getting my degree, and while I've read some classic American fiction from the "canon," one cannot be expected to have read every novel that is regarded as "canonical."

Perhaps a minor, quibbling point, but there you have it. My humble opinion.

Now (critical acclaim and literary merit or "importance" aside), I believe that taste (whether in music, beauty, art, food, film, or books, etc.) is highly individual, and this applies to classic literature fully as much as it does to newer works. I certainly did not equally enjoy everything that I was required to read at university  -- far from it! Upon perusing Joyce, I was immediately put off, and when in my 20s, I tried to read War and Peace, but couldn't get into it. I also find Moby Dick to be daunting -- maybe one day!

Love that Tom Jones, Don Quixote, Vanity Fair, Barchester Towers, Jane Austen and Dickens, though!

There's a big difference in credibility and validity between "I really don't like this" and "This is crap that never should have been regarded as great, or important! What were they thinking when they put this on the course list?" 

In closing, nice to "talk" to you, keep reading, and there's no shame in not having enjoyed -- or even read -- every work that is widely hailed as a "classic." 

Take it easy,

Peter

To Peter, thankyou very much for your response, which I particularly value as I believe you have "retired" from debate. (only semi-retired I hope!)

I hope you don't take me for some sort of literary snob, in fact the whole point of this thread is to debunk such snobbery. My opening statements and choice of phrase ("piece of crap", "longwinded tripe..."etc) are somewhat provocative I admit. I was trying to encourage others, by example, to be brutally heretical where they feel it is deserved. It is certainly not my assertion that lovers of Heller are tasteless, or god forbid, stupid.

Catch 22 is not the only book I've thrown down in disgust, but it is the most universally acclaimed. There are also many, many worthy books which I have not read, and probably never will. What's more, I'd have more than a little trouble recounting accurately the plots of a great many so called classics I have read, to "educated company" or otherwise. My spelling is also useless!

Appreciation of literature, like all art, can only be subjective. I know what I like, and I like w.....you know the rest!

all the best,

emdiar.

When you read, outside educational requirements, what do you PREFER? To be cerebrally stimulated or entertained? Even both... I've found some text books to be thought provoking and entertaining. A rare phenomenon?

What books do both? I really wanna know. 

(this is me, not Verity!)

I'm mad about Terry Pratchett's Discworld as well, Jim - there's something about the relish Pratchett writes with that is really infectious!

As far as the original point goes, I agree up to a point - most of the "classics" I have read have proved to be a struggle - it's like the author didn't have the sense of actually enjoying writing this muck...

...but on the other hand, you get out what you put in - so if you stick with a book like "Ulysses", you then have the credibility point of being able to say that you've read it. You could always lie, but then people could catch you out by asking questions. "Ulysses" seems very pretentious to me - but maybe that's because I didn't study Joyce - or indeed any English literature at a particularly high level. I recognise and admire the creativity in the stream-of-consciousness style, especially that famous penultimate chapter with the single punctuation mark that was probably a squashed fly on the proof copy - but having never studied Latin or the Greek classics or anything much apart from music, much of it went over my head. Does a book like this really hold much value for the average reader?

As all writers are different, and everyone gets different things out of books, I don't think it's fair to say "The Emporer has no clothes" applies to all "classics" or books that we are force-fed at school; "Animal Farm" was presented to us on the English curriculm shortly after we had studied the Russian Revolution in History. As a consequence, the metaphors were painfully paper thin and many of us wondered what was so great about it.

The other thing with the "classics" is that if you keep at them long enough, one or two can actually surprise you and capture your imagination in some way - and that can be very satisfying. "Don Quixote" seems an incredibly modern and relevant parable, considering it was first published in its entirity at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

Left to myself, however, I will happily re-read my Pratchett collection all over again

I guess I have three ways to read- for pure comfortable immersive escapist pleasure (re-reading Tolkien, Earthsea, or Narnia for the nth time, Lovecraft, Dickens, Kerouac, Dunsany, ghost stories- I love Marvin Kaye's compilations!), for pleasure with a bit of fun and challenge added (Hunter S. Thomspon, W. S. Burroughs, Nabokov, Vonnegut, Beckett, Ibsen, Henry Miller, Lem, any poetry), and for the intense pleasure of mental excercise and study (Kierkegaard, Howard Zinn, Nietsche, religion, history, science...and occasionally political science). I'd have to admit that much of my pleasure with Joyce comes from an overlap of the latter two- fun and rewarding like a murder mystery or translating a secret code, but also the satisfaction of mental discipline. A psychiatrist would probably say that I have a working-class Catholic urge to suffer for my enjoyment .

Oh, there's another category: on the toilet I usually read guitar and PC mags and catalogs...sometimes cartoon books (I'm a big fan of Calvin & Hobbes, Bloom County, and Windsor McKay's Little Nemo)

I'm like that with music;

On one hand, I like to listen to music for the sheer pleasure of it - just drifting into the soundscape and allowing my mind to wander within it.

On the other, I particularly enjoy disassembling the music, looking for influences from other artists - or even evidence of plagiarism, the application of "classical" music rules (a la Annie O Warburton) or rules of song structuring or soundscape evolution, and technical devices or bluff vs musical embellishment. That's probably why I like prog so much - the "secret codes" are much more in evidence here!

One thing I find particularly challenging is picking apart the production techniques that are commonly used to hide the majority of artists' lack of actual musical training or ability. You just don't hear that on recordings of "classical" music; for example, I don't think Caruso ever used Antares... (talking about emporer's new clothes ).

...and the 3rd category is wallpaper; the kind of music that you don't really listen to but is good to have on to enhance or dissipate the mood you're in; Good old-fashioned rock is a great outlet for aggression or bad moods - especially when combined with the guitar cranked up (I can't be doing with "air guitar" - I have to play along!).

I've left instructions that should I perish in an auto accident, my epitaph shall read: "Died searching for the perfect soundtrack." Right now I have a Nick Drake compilation, Screaming Trees' "Uncle Anesthesia", a Grateful Dead bootleg from '77, and Zappa's "Thing-Fish".

Weezer's first album gets into the car a lot, and so does Rush's "Hemispheres", David Byrne's "Rei Momo", "The Yes Album", "Close to the Edge", Leftfield's "Leftism", "Portishead" and Bjork's "Debut". I can definitely identify with the Fishbone..."The Reality of My Surroundings" was in my car for a long time, although I hate to think of how white I looked trying to sing along to "Housework"

James, don't you guys have to crawl around at 55mph? I'd get some Fripp & Eno if I was you..

On Fishbone, they win hands down in my top ten album titles list, with the incredibly astute, and theologically deep "Give A Monkey A Brain And He'll Swear That He's The Centre Of The Universe". Brilliant!

I generally have wallpaper in the car, mainly because I drive at rush hour and I'm scared about what other drivers might do. EVERY DAY I hear about at least two or three accidents on the motorways in my area ON EACH JOURNEY. I don't ever intend to be one of those statistics.

That said, if I'm driving a long way at a quiet time, on goes the Marillion and I am singing along like I'd only just become familiar with the words - which I often feel like I have!

I know what you mean about the speed cameras - they're more dangerous than not having speed cameras, IMO, because you concentrate on your speedometer instead of the road...

Once you get about 5 miles out of Vegas, where I live, you're in the barren wastelands of the Mojave desert and the speed limit is a more reasonable 70 or 80 m.p.h. in most places...and the occasional State Troopers don't tend to hassle you much unless you pass them showing triple digits. I can drive from here all the way to Phoenix and only have to slow down for three or four towns along the way (one of them is even named Nothing, Arizona).

It does get a little scary in the middle of the night when you're hundreds of miles from the next town and you see those roadside shrines people put up at the site of fatal accidents...little white crosses ringed with flowers (and stuffed animals, for the really sad ones)...

James Lee wrote:   It does get a little scary in the middle of the night when you're hundreds of miles from the next town and you see those roadside shrines people put up at the site of fatal accidents...little white crosses ringed with flowers (and stuffed animals, for the really sad ones)...

There's a nasty bend near where I live with a few such (permanent) shrines. I tell you something, that works a lot better than a poxy speed camera at tempering my boy-racer tendencies.

danbo wrote: . I have noticed, though, that the older I get the more I listen to talk radio,

Hate to admit it, but I'm a bit of a BBC World Service fan myself.

I'll tune into NPR until I get enough of the bourgeois left (I love "Fresh Air" especially, Terry Gross' voice is smart and sexy and she has great guests), and Stern and Don & Mike until I get enough of the boobs and farts .

Coast to Coast AM as much as I can get it!

I used to like Phil Hendrie while the novelty was still fresh...and I've even enjoyed Tom Lykis from time to time (as long as I look at it as humor).

emdiar wrote: James Lee wrote: It does get a little scary in the middle of the night when you're hundreds of miles from the next town and you see those roadside shrines people put up at the site of fatal accidents...little white crosses ringed with flowers (and stuffed animals, for the really sad ones)... There's a nasty bend near where I live with a few such (permanent) shrines. I tell you something, that works a lot better than a poxy speed camera at tempering my boy-racer tendencies.

Don't get many of those in NYC.. but a couple of years ago when I only had a few days to see most of New Zealand... I drove like a maniac from the top of the North Island to Rotarua... and every bend had a bunch of those little white crosses next to it.  I stopped believing in them after the first 100 miles.. and thought the New Zealand highway patrol probably put those babys there just to spook you... otherwise.. I'd say New Zealanders must be the worst drivers in the world...