Ever pick up a classic (movie or book) and dislike it, without any particular reason?

Student Lounge College Life
81

<p>

Anyone who wants to know whether or not the information they are receiving is from a credible source.</p>

<p>If I’m going to read a book, I want to take something from it, some kind of lesson or other useful message. If all I read for is a cool story, I’m wasting my life. That is no different than watching a movie, only movies don’t take so long to finish (and don’t distract the viewer from reality for as long). Do you trust random dropout Jane McWriter to teach you life’s lessons? What gives her the authority to tell YOU what personality characteristics are or aren’t attractive? When you commit to reading a book, the author exhibits dominance over you. It’s a display of power, unless you actively fight it by critiquing the work. Authors are teachers. Would you take a class from someone who has never studied or otherwise been formally educated about what they are teaching?</p>

<p>

Funny… I would define “book snob” as someone who loves and promotes reading. They are a pretentious/snobby bunch ;), and I mean like every one of them.</p>

82

<p>damn, I forgot how anal people on this site are. unless you’re kidding. If you take reading a book that seriously i can’t imagine how you function when you go shopping or out to eat, or god forbid, have to interact with another person. </p>

<p>hey gotakun, I went to the beach 2 days ago and spent 3 hours reading “Are you there vodka? It’s me, Chelsea.” by Chelsea Handler. don’t know anything about her, but i’m pretty sure she never went to college. oh no, I fell prey to her display of power! I trusted the wrong person and learned the wrong personality characteristics. i’d better never pick up a book again, that way i don’t have to worry about someone else’s dominance and can aanal retentive and incapable of reading a book cause I take it too seriously! :eek:</p>

<p>hah oh wait, that didn’t happen. actually I laughed and enjoyed it for a couple hours, then when the sun wasn’t so intense I went swimming. the hazards of being a normal human being, ehh?</p>

<p>oh and imho “are you there vodka? it’s me chelsea” was so much better than “the scarlet letter”. I swear Hawthorne could’ve compressed that little gem into 60 pages and it would’ve been much better and far less redundant.</p>

83

<p>Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. I barely read the first page before I gave up. I think the length of the book and the fact that I had a bad case of senioritis discouraged me.</p>

84

<p>"Funny… I would define “book snob” as someone who loves and promotes reading. They are a pretentious/snobby bunch , and I mean like every one of them. "</p>

<p>I have friends who are film snobs. They are not film majors, and they know nothing about film, but they decide that certain films and even whole categories of films, or films involving certain actors, are BENEATH them and flatly refuse to view them despite knowing precisely nothing about them. And they are missing the hell out! My definition of “book snob” was derived from my definition of “film snob.” :P</p>

85

<p>@pinkstrawberry
It is every individual’s right to choose to be a tool and follow whatever teaching they want, just as it is every individual’s right to choose to waste time however they want. I just like people to think critically about their lives, which you obviously can’t be bothered to do.</p>

<p>By the way, I don’t “take reading seriously.” If the learning involved with reading was as explicit as you apparently think it is for me, I wouldn’t have spent a post explaining it to you.</p>

86

<p>Riiight, I’m wasting my entire life because I think reading books can be (and should be) fun. Instead I should refuse to read at all and have creepy theories about power-struggles and take everything too seriously. Then I can go online and be a judgmental prick to anyone who dares to read a book for fun. </p>

<p>Seriously though, every person you meet and everything you do has the potential to change your views and impact you in some way - it can be awesome or it can suck, usually it’s inbetween. So why do you have an anal attitude toward reading, and think books wield some crazy power that are meant to teach you so it’s better to disregard them entirely? To me that sounds as crazy as saying people can potentially suck so it’s better not to talk to them at all. </p>

<p>Do you need to think critically about your life every second of the day? Do you need to take away some life-changing lesson from every TV show, movie, or conversation as well? Have you never snuggled up on the couch with a good book and gotten lost in it? Can’t you ever relax?

Oh my goshh, YES, someone had to say it!!! Except I haven’t read it in years, so I can’t comment specifically about what I liked/disliked, but I remember disliking it - once Rochester gets his sight back the whole book goes to hell. And what was with that creepy woman (Grace Poole) who lived in their attic and was insane and then she randomly dies and Jane thinks this is great so she can marry the jerkface Rochester?</p>

87

<p>I wonder what lessons I learned from Harry Potter…</p>

88

<p>pinkstrawberry, I’m sorry that you can’t see that you are the one being judgmental. Just look at your post. How many times did you exaggerate? How many generalizations did you make?</p>

<p>You are right that every interaction is a learning experience, but when you meet people in real life, you have the ability to determine how credible they are (and you no doubt make that judgment with every person you meet). When it comes to books, I find that most book worms do not take credibility of the author into consideration.</p>

<p>I won’t address your post because it did not relate my viewpoints accurately.</p>

<p>

If I had to guess, the books probably convinced you that certain behaviors, morals, styles of dress, etc, were attractive. I haven’t read them to know for sure. I think a somewhat dysfunctional behavior one can learn from Harry Potter books is a prejudice against normality, you know, “muggles” and whatnot.</p>

89

<p>I think my brain just broke</p>

90

<p>@Gotakun: I’m not exaggerating, I just thought your post was so extreme I figured you were joking at first. Apparently not.</p>

<p>If I’m going to read a book, I want to take something from it, some kind of lesson or other useful message. If all I read for is a cool story, I’m wasting my life.
I assume you watch TV/movies; do you enjoy them or is that a waste too? Is anything fun for laughs a waste?</p>

<p>Do you trust random dropout Jane McWriter to teach you life’s lessons?
Most people don’t turn to books for life lessons. It’s funny you think someone needs “BA” after their name to write well or know about life. USNWR = God, right?</p>

<p>What gives her the authority to tell YOU what personality characteristics are or aren’t attractive? When you commit to reading a book, the author exhibits dominance over you. It’s a display of power, unless you actively fight it by critiquing the work.
That’s quite a little power struggle you’ve created in your head. :stuck_out_tongue: Relax for 2 seconds and realize: the author is not trying to brainwash you. You’re free to form your own opinions while reading, talking, or anything. </p>

<p>I find that most book worms do not take credibility of the author into consideration.
I’m no bookworm, but I love Harry Potter - don’t know anything about the author except she’s British. All I know is she writes good stuff, that’s enough for me. Knowing about the author can put things into better context but in fiction it’s unnecessary.</p>

<p>*a somewhat dysfunctional behavior one can learn from Harry Potter books is a prejudice against normality, you know, “muggles” and whatnot. *
Ahhh that explains it…you’re only a muggle…;)</p>

91

<p>Gogogo pinkstrawberry!</p>

<p>Also:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Best.</p>

92

<p>"but when you meet people in real life, you have the ability to determine how credible they are (and you no doubt make that judgment with every person you meet). "</p>

<p>Problems with this:</p>

<p>1) You do not necessarily have that ability.
2) One does not necessarily conduct a thorough investigation of the “credibility” of every person they meet.
3) Books allow you to access the ideas of people you would likely never meet in real life, and yes, you <em>can</em> critically think about the ideas presented in books, unless you have the intelligence of a flatworm. You actually do not just have to <em>accept</em> everything you read and make it part of your world view…</p>

93

<p>@pinkstrawberry
It’s not a power struggle I created in my head… Lol… Once you submit to the story, you are no longer critiquing it; you are just enjoying it and taking everything in. You aren’t questioning its consistency with reality, especially in the dialogue. When reading (or watching a movie), you fall into a trance and believe that the dialogue, while fiction, could actually happen, given the scenario. That is why you are then opening yourself to learn from it. This is not a conscious decision, which is where you seem to be confused. You don’t “turn to books” to learn; it just happens. How do people let it happen? By giving writers inappropriate authority.</p>

<p>You weren’t exaggerating? Funny… I don’t remember saying you were wasting your “entire” life by reading, only the portion of your life actually spent reading. That is one example of the many exaggerations of your post. You have lost credibility for not having the ability to honestly critique even yourself.</p>

<p>Also, I don’t watch TV, and when I watch movies, I either find myself critiquing them, learning from them, or only watching for a cool story. The difference is that those cool stories only waste 2 hours of my life, whereas cool stories in book form waste ?? hours.</p>

<p>@Sithis
You absolutely have the ability at all times to judge someone’s credibility. You may not always have access to the necessary information and may not always make a proper judgment, just as you may actually forget to question the credibility of your teacher altogether. My point is just that, IMO, most reading fanatics either underestimate the effects of books on their lives or overestimate the credibility of writers.</p>

94

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m a “bookworm” and I find this so true. But it’s not a reason to avoid reading. It’s a reason to read everything you can so that as many authors have a hold on you as possible.</p>

<p>It’s true that each individual book narrows your perspective for a short time unless you fight it. But all the books combined expand you as a person and a thinker. You don’t let the author’s thoughts define you, you add his/her thoughts to your repertoire and keep your own thoughts, too. If you don’t allow your thoughts to hone in and focus on another author’s viewpoint for a short while, then its much harder to adapt and change your own thoughts.</p>

<p>Unless it’s Dostoevsky. Then you simply succumb.</p>

95

<p>It’s like listening to a friend talk about her beliefs. Just because Rose is telling me all about how she hates pessimists doesn’t mean that I will subscribe to that belief. She has the authority to tell me about her beliefs by the mere fact of her existence, as expression (including of what personality characteristics are or aren’t attractive) is a right of hers. I don’t have to listen, but I choose to because I find what Rose is saying interesting. When Rose finishes talking–now mind you, I haven’t been sitting here critiquing it because that would spoil my impression of the whole–I then go “Huh. That was interesting. I didn’t have to critique it, but I end up still disagreeing.” Did I give her power by listening to her? Maybe. But her views rolled off of me like water off of a duck’s back, and there we go, I was entertained, and now understand more about why other people hold some of the beliefs they do, but I didn’t have to get all anal about refusing to be influenced by Rose’s views. Now let’s imagine that Rose and I weren’t having a conversation–that was a message that she left me in a voice mail. Everything I said holds true, right? Now the voice mail is transcribed and published. Still holds true, right?</p>

<p>Also, as to your point about movies. Movies require much less brain muscle than books, and I like exercising my brain muscle. Having to do a bit of unconscious work to be entertained requires activity, and I prefer activity (often) to passivity. And there are many books that I, at least, (I’m a pretty fast reader) can read in 1.5-2 hours. Mostly not the “classics,”–more likely a short (~200 page paperback or ~120 page hardback, as hardbacks tend to have bigger pages) murder mystery or something of that nature.</p>

96

<p>I wish I could edit my original post, because I just found this article I wanted to share with you guys:</p>

<p>[EDGE:</a> Closing the book on a bad read - Washington Times](<a href=“EDGE: Closing the book on a bad read - Washington Times”>EDGE: Closing the book on a bad read - Washington Times)</p>

<p>Something I needed to read.</p>

97

<p>Okay, I love classics but when I can’t finish a classic, the book then really ****es me off. </p>

<p>I noticed in this thread that people who loved the Great Gatsby hate the Scarlet Letter and vice versa. I am one of those people who loved The Scarlet Letter and HATED The Great Gatsby. I only read up to the fourth chapter after Gatsby is just “oldsporting” his entire dialog. I actually really didn’t know anything about the book after that though people told me what kind of happened in the end. Totally BSed the essay and OERS in my AP Eng Lang class and got a 85 and 75 on it respectively. I got a 100 on my Scarlet Letter essay though. </p>

<p>I also couldn’t finish watching Anna Karenina. God, I was so excited about it too. I loved the first few chapters but when Anna and that one guy started becoming the focus of the story, I hated it. I thought their relationship was boring. Then I watched the movie w/ Greta Garbo and loved it. LOL. </p>

<p>I read “Farewell to Arms” by Hemingway. I thought Twilight was better and I want to punch Stephanie Meyer in the face for writing it. You wanna talk about pure and utter crap with dialog not even having quotation marks, flat/underdeveloped characters, rushed romance with no emotional depth that we are just supposed to accept as “true, enduring love” that really is just about superficialities and doesn’t reveal/conjure up any WW II sentiments ---- then yeah, let’s talk about “Farewell To Arms”. UGHHHH. Hemingway is awful. And when I read The Great Gatsby and found out that Fitzgerald and Hemingway were buddies, I understood why. They probably bonded over their bad characterization. </p>

<p>I always love classic movies even if they’re not the best. But the classic I’m talking about is the Golden Age of Hollywood. Stuff like Audrey Hepburn, Cary Grant, Bette Davis, Bogart, etc are the best for me. Classics like Star Wars I can kind of live without it. And oh, I did try to get into LOTR – bookwise and moviewise – I can’t get into it. Sorry.</p>

<p>And dude, I’ve had to read House On Mango Street like 10 times in my academic career. Please, I’m from NY, I can write better vignettes about immigrants/ghetto/urban life. Stupid Esperanza being all self-loathing about her name. </p>

<p>I tried to read “One Flew Over the Cuckoo Nest” but I didn’t really like the style. It was too contrived to me. And “The Portrait Of An Artist As a Young Man” — same reasons. </p>

<p>I can’t think of anything else at this moment but I’ll let you guys know. LOL.</p>

98

<p>I like both the Scarlet Letter and the Great Gatsby moderately but not a lot. Combo breaker!</p>

<p>And classic movies are great.</p>

99

<p>Red Badge of Courage</p>

<p>sucked.</p>

100

<p>Great Gatsby. Snoozefest for me. not bad, just boring. the two I really hated though were Catcher in the Rye and Tess of the d’Urbervilles. And the Outsiders! everyone else in my class loved it, but for some reason I pictured it being in Chicago. When I found out it was set in Oklahoma, I was like, “No. Stupid. Done.”</p>