“The Bookworm’s Table” – Claude Rauget Hirst |
Inspired by a recent Slate article that asked prominent book people to name which books they don’t think are that great, I thought I’d turn it over to you.
Which books should be removed from the canon? Which classic books that everyone is expected to read just aren’t that great?
Speaking personally, I’m a big fan of James Joyce’s Ulysses, which I think is an amazing technical achievement. Finnegan’s Wake, on the other hand, just felt like gibberish.
What about you?
david elzey says
okay, while i get that most of what this list is comes down to personal tastes, the point and purpose of the canon is… what exactly? to make sure we all have a foundation by which we can discuss, compare, and understand other literature? is that a fair enough assessment?
so while, yes, MOBY DICK is the book that literally destroyed my first attempt at grad school, i do recognize its historical importance in american literature. should everyone know the story and its importance? yes. should everyone read it? no.
perhaps what is required is a pair of parallel canons, the books you know and the books you "should" read.
for me, MOBY DICK must go. heave-ho, heave-ho!
Himbokal says
Wow. I'm into everybody being subversive. I started the summer with 20 books to read. I'm on #18. I have 2 left: Moby Dick and Heart of Darkness. These comments have not been reassuring (though they may explain why those two got shoved to the back of the line).
Classics I'd take off the Canon(that's just take off the Canon not burn or actively tell people not to read):
Far From The Madding Crowd-read it just to say I'd read Hardy.
Pride and Prejudice-Okay, but I'd recommend House Of Mirth over this any day.
Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man-Like somebody else said: turned me off Joyce totally. Maybe I'd appreciate it if I read it now.
Mrs. Dalloway: Huh?
As for newer stuff that has whiffs of becoming canonical:
White Noise-DeLillo. Wake me when he's done being deep and ironical.
Alyson says
-Amazed at all the Moby Dick hostility-
I don't much believe any book could or should be chucked from the "classics." Already I've seen many of my favorite books highlighted in the posts above (Les Miserables, Wuthering Heights, Frankenstein)–but really, what everyone seems to have in common is a bad English class experience. My tenth grade English teacher would have thoroughly ruined To Kill a Mockingbird had I not already read it (and loved it)…to often, it's not the book, its the way you were dragged through it against your will.
So, if I had to strike a book from the "required reading" canon, I'd be glad to be rid of Great Expectations. The whole assignment was intolerable–and I love Victorian fiction. Dickens' ego is apparent between every overstuffed adjective in that novel.
Atthys Gage says
I love how varied these responses are. Taste is a remarkable and inscrutable phenomenon.
But still, come on people! Lolita is a magnificent book. It really, really is. Likewise Moby Dick, though I will agree that Catcher in the Rye is pretty trivial.
Don Smith says
Faulkner's "Absolom, Absolom"… I knew I was in trouble after that first sentence.
E.B. Fyne says
I do think it's important to distinguish between books you consider well written (and have historical significance), but you just don't like, and books you feel are badly written. There many well written books that I did not enjoy reading. But I still appreciate their value.
Heather Hawke says
I am such a geek! I love so many of the listed: Silas Marner, almost all Dickens, Wuthering Heights…but I do admit I was never able to get through Ivanhoe or Anna Karenina despite multiple tries.
Bonnie says
I remember Ethan Frome being horrible.
Lisa Lane says
I think many books sit on the canonical fense because so many people fail to understand them. For example, I hated Faulkner's AS I LAY DYING until I figured out the brilliant, hidden key to the story that only careful deconstructionism could uncover.
With that said, I would remove MOBY DICK from the canon. Melville writes some good short fiction, but he's just too long-winded for his own good. I'd also add any post-Civil War book that uses excessive manipulation of phonetics in its attempt to capture slack-jawed southern dialect. I just can't stand that.
As far as winners I'd fight to keep in the canon, my votes would go for anything by Wells, Orwell, Vonnegut, Pope, or Salinger.
Gerhi Janse van Vuuren says
You shouldn't be reading any books in a cannon.
First there is not enough space to move your elbows and turn pages. Second, there is not enough light in there and you could damage your eyes and third… No there is no third. Just don't read in cannons.
david elzey says
something i realized while mulling this over further: i totally hated THE GRAPES OF WRATH in high school, but read it almost 20 years later and totally loved it.
so perhaps one of the problems with the canon is that we get these books before we're ready for them?
even so, still no love for MOBY DICK
E.B. Fyne says
I agree that many people (including myself)don't necessarily appreciate older books because we are too far removed the historical context. I read several of Jane Austen's books and, sadly, I found them very boring. But from what I understand, Jane Austen's books were intended to be witty and poke fun at contemporary norms. If we are ignorant of those contemporary norms, we will miss the humor.
D.G. Hudson says
Ah, the declining of the literary period. . . I think this should go to referendum. Reading the classics is an OPTION, it's only required as long as you're in school.
Books I didn't like: any of the Jane Austen or Bronte stories, but I have read some of them just for the taste, which didn't suit me.
I loved Dickens (I'd want to edit the long description passages but even so…)and the ending of Oliver Twist will always stick in my mind.
Kerouac's On the Road, IMO, was one of those books that defined the searching of a generation.
If you choose to educate yourself only on the books written in the last 30 years or less, you may have a narrow perspective, but it's your choice. Some of the classics are dead-dry and boring, but you can study the techiques of the writing. Most were appropriate in the time period they were written, and not likely to appeal to today's readers.
How can you compare The Road to Pride and Prejudice – one paints a reality that is dank and dreary but viewed with a father's love while the other highlights the rigid bylaws of being feminine in a man's world of the early 19th century.
You can educate yourself or not, in any way you choose, but allow those choices for others. Schools should go for a mix of classic and new — that would work.
Kari says
Wow…what a controversial subject. Some of my favorite books are on this list.
Anyway, I would vote for Alice in Wonderland…but maybe I am not qualified to knock it since I've never been able to get through the whole thing.
Amanda K says
@ Jesse – see, and I disagree! I feel that Shelley's warnings are all to relevant today.
But I guess that's the most important part about literature – it's up for interpretation, and after words are published they then belong to the reader.
Amanda K says
Bleck. I swear that Blogger made that spelling mistake, not me…
L.G.Smith says
I see subjectivity rears her beautiful head yet again.
JohnO says
I reread a lot of the classics when I went back for an MA in English in my 30s, which made it glaringly obvious that most of these classics were written in the "pre-visual era," when they could take their time because they didn't have to compete with film and TV. I agree with the commenter who said they need to be read in context.
Another pet theory: Some of these books are on the canon because they were "firsts" or at least earlies, such Wuthering Heights. (I found it hard to read, with unsympathetic characters and a bleak story. Maybe it exists to make English degrees seem like work instead of pleasure.)
Other observations: I read Arthur Koestler and Orwell's 1984 back to back, and thought "Darkness at Noon" was a MUCH better novel.
I always wondered if Catcher in the Rye got so much traction because it was essentially a YA before the genre formally existed.
Some Shakespeare plays are miles better than others. "Taming of the Shrew" and "Merchant of Venice" are just not that good. "Anthony and Cleopatra" is hugely underrated.
pamkwill says
Lord of the Rings. Yes, it started the fantasy genre. The idea was great. But it didn't really have a plot during the first half. He just threw everything he could think of in there about the world. And the ending was nothing. It ran out of steam. Great idea, great characters. The story really wasn't that great. (please don't everyone hate me.)
Most classic books are hard to understand today anyway.
Jasmine Blade says
Anything by Faulkner. That man has Writer's A.D.D.
Henrietta says
The Once and Future King by T.H White. Tedious!
Marilyn Peake says
None of them. I could see replacing many of them with other books for Literature classes, but it's always worth studying the classics and keeping them on a recommended list. There are some award-winning, highly recommended modern books that don't even come close in quality, and even those are worth reading. That said, there's no reason why any book shouldn't be analyzed for flaws as well as quality, and classic books are usually studied within the context of the era within which they were written. For instance, I can’t imagine having BEOWULF removed from the list of studied literature, and yet in large part it’s just an example of very early written storytelling.
Mystery Robin says
Doesn't Nathan love Moby Dick?
It pains me to see some favorites on this list like Wuthering Heights and Huck Finn and Frankenstein…
but personally, I feel kind of scarred for life having read Lord of the Flies in 10th grade. I definitely think that should be optional in high school curriculum. Let those who love it find it, and let the rest of us stay the h*ll away!
Mostly, though, I love the classics.
Gail Shepherd says
You guys will have to pry Thomas Hardy and Melville out of my cold, dead hands. I could definitely have done without Pamela, though.
M. S. Steed says
Whuthering Heights. I read it just to get it over with — and my first thought after was: "What on Earth did I just READ?"
The Call Of The Wild — I think I read that for school, and it was painful.
I haven't read many classics (yeah, home schooling meant it was never required).
Amy Tripp says
Anything by the Bronte sisters… *snore*
rachelslessonslearned says
I'm sorry, Nathan, I know that this will be blasphemous to you, but I have to say "The Great Gatsby", no hesitation. I hated that book. HATED. I found the characters irritating (if the word emo had existed then, that's what I would have called them), the plot unoriginal, and the writing uninspired. Don't get me started on the insipid closing.
SIGH. yeah, The Great Gatsby needs to go. Sorry.
Anonymous says
Anything by Saul Bellow or Graham Greene…BOR-ing. Saul can't go a paragraph without name dropping, and Greene was the inspiration for LeCarre only because he must have thought to himself, bloody hell, I can do better than that.
david elzey says
i so don't want to get into questioning anyone's choices or reasons, but i'm curious about GATSBY'S plot being called unoriginal. at the time it was written, what other books had the same plot?
sincerely curious…
Amber Cuadra says
I hated Moby Dick. I think that's the only book I've ever said I outright hate. I also don't really care for the Chronicles of Narnia as a whole. The stories are okay, but I can't stand the writing. (I don't know if they count as a classic, but I'll put them there anyways). And to be honest, I think I'm the only girl alive who has only read five chapters of a Jane Austen book. I couldn't get through it. I'm going to try once more to read one, but I don't know if I'll be successful.
Jaime Morrow says
Removed from the Canon OR shot out of a cannon? Hmmm…
I flipping detested Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad (as somebody else mentioned, I might actually be able to get behind burning that thing). I could shoot it out of a cannon easily 🙂
Also didn't love Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller, but that could have a lot to do with the fact that my dad's a salesman…
Margo Lerwill says
LOL. I love that some people are naming books that others adore. Subjectivity at its finest.
I loved The Iliad and Heart of Darkness, but I wouldn't feel awful if every copy of Lolita and everything James Joyce ever wrote suddenly went inexplicably missing.
And The Mists of Avalon, I'd definitely 'misplace' the Mists of Avalon. It's not technically a classic, but you wouldn't know that from my lame social circle.
Nathan Bransford says
mystery robin-
I do love Moby-Dick. This has been a painful thread to read.
Though I must say I agree with those who mentioned The Scarlet Letter. I like some of Hawthorne's writing but felt like TSL was so over the top in just about every way.
KAWyle says
Frankenstein. Terribly written (as well as anti-science). Only saving grace is the moments of unintentional hilarity (like the monster reading The Sorrows of Young Werther).
Bless Me, Ultima. Ponderous, pretentious — except for a couple of scenes that seem to have been written by a different author.
David Copperfield. There are better Dickens books to assign (Great Expectations, or Tale of Two Cities — I think many students would get caught up in the latter).
Dave says
Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury." How that stream of randomness came to be considered literature eludes me.
Mister Fweem says
GRATE EXPECTATIONS by Edmund Wells.
And shocked, just SHOCKED that anyone would want to expunge Orwell. No, sir or madam, that is just wrong. Plain wrong.
And to the person who listed SILAS MARNER? Pooh to you. Without that book, we would not have Steve Martin's "A Simple Twist of Fate."
Torre - Fearful Adventurer says
I had to laugh at the comment above: "Frankenstein. Terribly written (as well as anti-science)." Questioning science was the whole point, and it's even more relevant today because of that.
I tried and I tried, but I couldn't enjoy Love in the Time of Cholera. I got to the last pages and I wanted to break something out of boredom, pent-up frustration and disappointment. It was like never-ending fever dream, apart from this one line: "This soup tastes like windows."
Eddie says
I knew I shouldn't read the comments on this post. I wonder how many people have actually and truly read the books they've decided to chuck from the canon.
I can't say I'm surprised, though. On the "Which quality is most important for a writer" post, only 5 comments out of 159 mentioned HUMILITY.
I don't like Jane Eyre. But I've still read it completely three times. I respect it and understand that it is significant and a great literary accomplishment. I'm familiar with the literary and philosophical tradition that it interacts with and responds to. And I absolutely think everyone should read it. It deserves its place in the canon, even though I bloody well don't care for it myself.
I think it takes a lot of gall to nominated ANY canonical book for this because it's not a question of how much you enjoyed it or if it gratified you. It's a question of whether or not the book deserves to be read widely, whether or not it has something substantial to offer the great conversation that has passed to us from thousands of years ago. To claim a book has nothing worthwhile to offer because "I'm just not that interested" or "I have no desire" or "it's torture" (read: it requires too much of my brain) is so lazy and puerile. Ugh.
MJR says
As an English major, I had to read George Eliot's Middlemarch twice and it was a bore both times. Some of Virginia Woolf's novels I found pretty boring (Mrs. Dalloway)…I don't think I'd re-read The Brothers Karamazov, but at least I can say I read it.
Beth says
The Diary of Anne Frank. It is not so much the agonizing saga of a Jew in hiding as it is the ramblings of a whiny little girl.
My mother would say "The Giver," but that's because I don't think she "gets" it. *I* think "The Giver" is fabulous.
Maya says
I vote for THE SUN ALSO RISES because all of the blatant anti-semitism keeps it from classic status.
My husband has spent the last 3 years plodding through Finnegan's Wake; in fact, it's his Everest. He has a companion book longer than the original text containing all of analysis and footnotes. He claims that it is a worthwhile endeavor, and maybe it is. He should win a medal if he ever completes it!
Just Another Day in Paradise says
You folks have no heart. You would do away with some of my favorite characters: Holden, Heathcliff, Cathy, Ahab and Ishmael. Like I said earlier books should come with a "mental health warning" when necessary,no matter what era. Thank you for the nightmares Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Stoker.
Emily Strempler says
To Kill a Mockingbird was very boring and Kafka's Metamorphosis was so absurdly hard to get through that I press ganged my mom into forcing me to listen to it read aloud. Those are the main ones I would get rid of.
Carmen Webster Buxton says
One man's clunker is another man's classic. There is no book everyone in the world loves.
Jim Oliver says
The Sun Also Rises. I never made it out of Paris. This surprised me, because I loved For Whom the Bell Tolls.
Susie says
I don't think the books in the so-called 'canon' are the problem–I think the problem is that the western canon is still widely priveleged above non western literature. Why not read Sundiata, or Chinua Achebe's "Things Fall Apart?" What about "The Diary of Lady Murasaki?" These elegant texts may help forge a new understanding of what makes great books stand the test of time.
Mira says
Some of these are funny, and some are very painful. Dismissing the Diary of Anne Frank? Lolita? Pride and Prejudice? Ah, a stake through my heart.
But an enjoyable thread nonetheless, despite the fact that I really think we're just sharing what books we don't like for the most part.
Bryan Russell says
You folks are killing me. No Moby Dick? No Joyce? (Though Finngegan's Wake is almost gibberish, and intentionally so, in my opinion – Joyce wanted to create a literary puzzle, I think, and did just that). No Austen? No Conrad?
I hope none of you are in public office. Think of the poor Canon! All those Dead White Guys rolling in their graves!
Killing me, I say. Especially Bane. But then he's a Lakers fan, so what can you expect?
Anonymous says
I'd have to go with The Bible, and Gone with the Win. Both were way over the top for me. One's way too dramatic and the other needed a good revision before it went to print.
Bryan Russell says
I do, however, like that idea of who you'd like to put in the Canon…