Worst Modern Literary Classic

johnnyskeleton

What is the worst book that you have ever read that is touted as a literary classic?

Mine has to be Amsterdam by Ian McEwan.

AJG

Good topic. I don't know if these would count but probably 'Atomised' by Michel Houellebecq or 'The Alchemist' by Paul Coelho.

Didn't like either for different reasons.

Valmont

Good topic but it's going to descend into a 'books I personally hate' discussion as these things inevitably do.

For example, the Alchemist, you may not have liked it but one can't argue its classic status. I didn't dislike it, but I preferred The Devil and Miss Prym as a Coelho classic

I've no serious argument with any of the classics I've read though!

AJG

I only mentioned those two as from what I can gather they are regarded as 'modern' classics. Although what defines that I don't know.

Coelho for me just came across as a poor man's Borges, Kafka or Garcia-Marquez. Those authors I felt did similar things to what Coelho tried to do except more successfully and a long time before him. I couldn't understand what the hype was about after reading 'The Alchemist'.

'Atomised' started off well but I felt just ended really badly. The narrative just tended to drift towards the end.

cousin_borat

A heartbreaking work of staggering genius by Dave Eggers. I thought it was a terrible book. Supposedly a classic.

Reading The Gathering at the moment, I must say I'm not very impressed with that either. Seeing it won the booker prize then it should count as well

Dades

Valmont wrote: »

Good topic but it's going to descend into a 'books I personally hate' discussion as these things inevitably do.

What do mean "decend"? The entire thread hinges on people hating what are known as "Modern Literary Classics"!

Of the previously mentioned, I disliked The Alchemist, but enjoyed Atomised.

I absolutely hated "Catcher in the Rye".

pretty*monster

American Psycho by Bret Easton Elis.
I love some of his other stuff but I absolutly hated this. I got what he was trying to do but I just found the book really boring.

Sconsey

Would anyone consider Breakfast of Champions by Vonnegut a classic...I was so disappointed with that book, was expecting too much I guess. I know people who loved it though so it might be just me

dudara

I don't understand "Gilead" by Marilynne Robinson which won the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for fiction. it just seemed to meander about all over the place without a truly defined narrative.

YogiBear

AJG wrote: »

Coelho for me just came across as a poor man's Borges, Kafka or Garcia-Marquez. Those authors I felt did similar things to what Coelho tried to do except more successfully and a long time before him. I couldn't understand what the hype was about after reading 'The Alchemist'.

I bought 'The Alchemist' on a friend's recommendation. I started it but got bored after a few pages. I thought maybe it would be more suited to teenagers or younger. No offence to those that enjoyed it. I didn't find it challenging & didn't hold my interest after a few pages.

BossArky

Veronica Decides to Die .... morbid waffle, probably not deemed a modern classic, but associated with The Alchemist.

The Valkyries ...jesus :eek: worst book I've read for a good while.

theCzar

"Modern classic" is an oxymoron IMO, unless you're talking modern as in pre-space age. You can't judge the classic nature of something until it proves relative outside a contempory setting.

That's always been my thinking on the subject.

Esmereldina

I second/third Atomised... one of the worst books I ever read!!!

Karlusss

I thought The Great Gatsby was crap.

Also, all of those crossover adult-child books. Not so much because they're bad for what they are, but because they're not working on a grown-up level of emotions and themes, so they shouldn't be treated like they are.

K4t

Dades wrote: »

What do mean "decend"? The entire thread hinges on people hating what are known as "Modern Literary Classics"!

Of the previously mentioned, I disliked The Alchemist, but enjoyed Atomised.

I absolutely hated "Catcher in the Rye".

It's nothing special to be honest.

Anything by Salmon Rushdie, just an attention seeker.

Esmereldina

Karlusss wrote: »

I thought The Great Gatsby was crap.

Also, all of those crossover adult-child books. Not so much because they're bad for what they are, but because they're not working on a grown-up level of emotions and themes, so they shouldn't be treated like they are.

Oh no! My favourite book trilogy of recent years is His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman. It's a much more sophisticated, intelligent and all round brilliant work of fiction that many 'adult' so called contemporary classics. Boy in the Striped Pyjamas was also brilliant as was the Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. Precisely because the writer was consciously trying to write from a child's point of view, gave them an added complexity in my view. A child's point of view is completely different from an adult's, and it requires extra imagination on the part of the reader and writer to successfully convey that perspective. Not all writers manage it successfully of course...
Another book which is written from a child's point of view (but isn't a children's book) is The Path to the spider's Nest by Calvino. Set in Italy during the second world war, it gives a more unusual perspective on what's happening, because the child narrator doesn't completely understand what's going on.

raah!

If "the Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime" is a contemporary classic then that is my most disliked one. I know he was autistic but all that bragging was still annoying :P

Karlusss

Esmereldina wrote: »

Oh no! My favourite book trilogy of recent years is His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman. It's a much more sophisticated, intelligent and all round brilliant work of fiction that many 'adult' so called contemporary classics. Boy in the Striped Pyjamas was also brilliant as was the Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. Precisely because the writer was consciously trying to write from a child's point of view, gave them an added complexity in my view. A child's point of view is completely different from an adult's, and it requires extra imagination on the part of the reader and writer to successfully convey that perspective. Not all writers manage it successfully of course...
Another book which is written from a child's point of view (but isn't a children's book) is The Path to the spider's Nest by Calvino. Set in Italy during the second world war, it gives a more unusual perspective on what's happening, because the child narrator doesn't completely understand what's going on.

It's not the child's point of view that I have a problem with, there are fantastic novels from that perspective. But my feeling is that if kids books are more sophisticated and intelligent than modern classics for "grown-ups", there is either something incredibly wrong with our society, or a lot of people just never get past the style of books they read in their early teens.

I blame Harry Potter. It tricked an entire generation into reading again, but they never quite got to Naipaul.

K4t wrote: »

Anything by Salmon Rushdie, just an attention seeker.

I disagree so very, very strongly with this. He has written several better novels than the Satanic Verses, and it's not like he expected to have to live under maximum security for a decade after putting it out. He's probably my favourite modern writer.

Valmont

pretty*monster wrote: »

American Psycho by Bret Easton Elis.
I love some of his other stuff but I absolutly hated this. I got what he was trying to do but I just found the book really boring.

Boring? God bless your constitution! I squirm even thinking about it!

Esmereldina

Karlusss wrote: »

But my feeling is that if kids books are more sophisticated and intelligent than modern classics for "grown-ups", there is either something incredibly wrong with our society, or a lot of people just never get past the style of books they read in their early teens.

I blame Harry Potter. It tricked an entire generation into reading again, but they never quite got to Naipaul.

It's not that these children's books are better that adult books, rather that there can be children's books which can also appeal to adults and are works of sophisticated literature in themselves. I don't think there's anything wrong with accepting that, once in a while a book like this comes along. Although I liked curious Incident and Striped Pyjamas, I wouldn't go so far as to say they are modern classics. I would really be thinking more of Philip Pullman for that category.

I also wouldn't include Harry Potter in the classics category at all. Very entertaining, but not exacly the sophisticated works of literature are lookingfor!!

Karlusss wrote: »

I disagree so very, very strongly with this. He has written several better novels than the Satanic Verses, and it's not like he expected to have to live under maximum security for a decade after putting it out. He's probably my favourite modern writer.

With this I concur completely
Salman Rushdie is one of my favourite contemporary authors. Though wierdly, for a Rushdie fan, I still haven't got around to reading the Satanic Verses. I
read almost everything else he's written... I should really get around to it some day!

Prufrock

Karlusss wrote: »

I thought The Great Gatsby was crap.

I liked it. Came together at the end nicely. Didn't like The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time. Don't know if it's considered classic.

Water Sprite

Personally, I think War and Peace is rather overrated. Too huge a scope - too many confusing switch ups of scenes, too many characters we don't really care that much about, and not enough tight editing. Still...innovative for the time I suppose.

thusspakeblixa

I really dislike Colm Toibíns' ''The Blackwater Lightship''.
I just found it very boring throughout.

Amazotheamazing

Water Sprite wrote: »

Personally, I think War and Peace is rather overrated. Too huge a scope - too many confusing switch ups of scenes, too many characters we don't really care that much about, and not enough tight editing. Still...innovative for the time I suppose.

Really, I thought it was excellent, felt it was remarkably clear sighted considering what it was set out to achieve.

DapperGent

I genuinely disliked East of Eden. In particular I found the continual biblical allusion heavy handed and childish but overall I felt it was pretty pointless.

davyjose

Dades wrote: »

I absolutely hated "Catcher in the Rye".

Finally ... someone who agrees with me.