Most Overrated Literature

[Annie Ozone]

Dude, Heathcliff hangs Isabella's dog. Not to mention it's pretty obvious he rapes her. It's marketed as a love story, and the Olivier movie added to that in modern culture (which I do love, but as like...fanfiction). So, pretty much romance as propaganda?

Cathy II! She was cranky and sullen and amazing! Then again, one of my favorite characters ever is Scarlett O'Hara, so I am predisposed towards grouchy female leads. And Hareton, so desperate for approval from his father figure, who is Heathcliff, who is a fucking sadist. That is underdog 101, there.

I liked the nesting feel--going deeper into the layers, drawing you into this remote and rather medieval world. Lockwood was kind of a self-important douche, so most of the unreliability comes from Nelly. She's ambiguously unreliable--there are a ton of papers that have been written about her possible role as romantic rival, ally, etc.

Sorry for the wordvomit, but it gives me glee to talk with people who aren't all "Heathcliff is broody and troubled" and ignore the fact that he is actually insane.

[djcarter]

Exactement...maybe it's my male brain talking, but when I hear people say that anything about Heathcliff is romantic, I question what version of WH they read...perhaps we've stumbled upon to why I feel it's overrated. The general ideal of Wuthering Heights is too far from the actual content of the novel.

Hareton came off as weak to me. The desperation in him was unappealing. Call it callous, but I just found myself wanting him to stop trying...why reach out for approval like that to someone undeserving? I suppose this leads to the question of whether Bronte intended the reader to feel this way about the characters. I'm inclined to think she didn't however...

Interesting about Nelly, I'd have to look into that. She struck me as being far too omniscient for what her character would actually have known, and a similar deal to Lockwood, who was quite an irrelevant plot device, in my mind.

[Annie Ozone]

I think it's mostly a cultural thing--like how people use "Lolita" to mean seductress when actually she's very much the victim, in fact the perfect victim for this convoluted detective story Humbert Humbert is telling. In pop culture, you've got Darcy, Rochester, and Heathcliff as Ye Olde Englishe Heroes, and that's that. (Which, you know, it's not.)

Hareton--ever since he can remember, he's been raised by this batshit guy who hates him and his only other parental figure is this crazy drunk living on the grounds somewhere who obsessively hates the batshit guy who's raising him. Cathy II and Linton both are openly disdainful, and as far as we know they're the only other people around. His only chance for a better life is somehow getting Heathcliff to at least appreciate him. Poor dude deserves some sympathy!

I feel like the true love story in this is Cathy II and Hareton, and their recovery (and the recovery of Wuthering Heights itself) from the abuse Heathcliff perpetrated. Both Cathy I and Heathcliff are deeply unhappy, screwed-up people, and use Edgar and Isabella as pawns to attack and avenge each other, and that reverberates down to the next generation.

TL;DR- it is entirely possible I am getting my modern morality up in this Victorian novel, and also, hi, sorry for the possible threadjack!

[andy]

Jun 13, 2011 1:40:39 GMT -5 Annie Ozone said:

I think it's mostly a cultural thing--like how people use "Lolita" to mean seductress when actually she's very much the victim, in fact the perfect victim for this convoluted detective story Humbert Humbert is telling. In pop culture, you've got Darcy, Rochester, and Heathcliff as Ye Olde Englishe Heroes, and that's that. (Which, you know, it's not.)

Viewing Lolita as the completely innocent victim is very much a cultural thing as well, it goes back to the Victorian notion of women and especially young girls as desexualized, maidenly, innocent, naive, easily corrupted angels, but in Mexico, for example, the age of consent is 12 so a 12 year old girl would not be considered maidenly and incapable of sexual thoughts or desires.

[Fuck Yeah Dion]

VICTIM BLAMING! SLUT SHAMING!

[memcgeady]

Honestly...Jane Eyre. After reading Villette I just don't understand how Jane Eyre got elevated to Charlotte Bronte's best work. I don't dislike Jane Eyre but I think Villette is so much better.

[Deleted]

I first read The Lord of the Rings at the tender age of 10 and absolutely loved it. Ever since then I've been incapable of struggling past the first three chapters

James Joyce's Ulysses is just incomprehensible to me. I can't get even a sense of what the narrator/characters are saying or doing or feeling and it annoys me whenever people go on about what a masterpiece it is.

Bram Stoker's Dracula sucks. It starts off so well with the mystery and horror, and then about three quarters of the book is fainting, praying and repetitive visions of being enclosed in a coffin on a boat. The exciting bit at the end - which the whole book has been building up to - is over before it's even started, because of course it's an epistolary novel, and gets shunted into five or ten measly pages without the slightest bit of drama. It might be a wonderful metaphor for the fall from grace and innocence into sin and debauchery, but it suffers from the very Victorian trend to make everything painstakingly drawn out and apologetic.

[cyanea]

Bram Stoker's Dracula sucks. It starts off so well with the mystery and horror, and then about three quarters of the book is fainting, praying and repetitive visions of being enclosed in a coffin on a boat. The exciting bit at the end - which the whole book has been building up to - is over before it's even started, because of course it's an epistolary novel, and gets shunted into five or ten measly pages without the slightest bit of drama. It might be a wonderful metaphor for the fall from grace and innocence into sin and debauchery, but it suffers from the very Victorian trend to make everything painstakingly drawn out and apologetic.

All of this.

[Annie Ozone]

Jun 13, 2011 5:26:11 GMT -5 andy said:

Jun 13, 2011 1:40:39 GMT -5 Annie Ozone said:

I think it's mostly a cultural thing--like how people use "Lolita" to mean seductress when actually she's very much the victim, in fact the perfect victim for this convoluted detective story Humbert Humbert is telling. In pop culture, you've got Darcy, Rochester, and Heathcliff as Ye Olde Englishe Heroes, and that's that. (Which, you know, it's not.)

Viewing Lolita as the completely innocent victim is very much a cultural thing as well, it goes back to the Victorian notion of women and especially young girls as desexualized, maidenly, innocent, naive, easily corrupted angels, but in Mexico, for example, the age of consent is 12 so a 12 year old girl would not be considered maidenly and incapable of sexual thoughts or desires.

Actually, in my reading, Lo's budding sexuality is part of what made her the perfect victim. It's part of the requirement for Humbert's "nymphets" to be just coming to terms with their newly acquired femininity. Also, in case anyone thinks Lolita isn't specifically about abuse, he is her stepfather and he

SPOILER: Click to show

murders her mother specifically so he can go on a road trip with Lo. There is no universe in which Humbert Humbert falls victim to Lolita, except in his twisted mind--which, as the narrator, he's trying to convince us is the truth.

I mean, I understand that you're only trying to point out the English-speaking world's cultural sterilization of girls until they reach about 16-ish, but it can be interpreted as victim-blaming.

[Lilt]

Jun 12, 2011 9:08:42 GMT -5 shaunanigans said:

Jun 11, 2011 15:49:39 GMT -5 harleyquinn said:

I think The Scarlet Letter remains the worst thing I have EVER read. I hate it so much and I don't understand why people like it.

Agreed. I absolutely hated this book. I actually hate pretty much all American Lit, with a few exceptions. British literature forever!

This mentality makes me so sad, and I see it all the time.

We have a really, really solid cannon, guys.

[andy]

Jun 13, 2011 14:02:49 GMT -5 Annie Ozone said:

Actually, in my reading, Lo's budding sexuality is part of what made her the perfect victim. It's part of the requirement for Humbert's "nymphets" to be just coming to terms with their newly acquired femininity.

Do you have any kind of textual evidence for such a reading?

Also, in case anyone thinks Lolita isn't specifically about abuse, he is her stepfather and he

SPOILER: Click to show

murders her mother specifically so he can go on a road trip with Lo. There is no universe in which Humbert Humbert falls victim to Lolita, except in his twisted mind--which, as the narrator, he's trying to convince us is the truth.

But he's not her stepfather (he was never actually married to Charlotte) and he didn't kill Charlotte (she hit by a car while she was crossing the road outside her house).

I mean, I understand that you're only trying to point out the English-speaking world's cultural sterilization of girls until they reach about 16-ish, but it can be interpreted as victim-blaming.

It could also be interpreted as not having a painfully boxed in mentality. It's not like the vast, vast, vast majority of readers don't think H.H. was a child abuser - Nabokov was not stupid, he knew this is how his work would be received and constructed it precisely to irritate middle class mentality as much as possible. Besides, Lolita is a terribly showy book, it constantly pokes you in the face and tells you, 'look at me, how literary and constructed I am' and it does so partially because it wants to tell you, 'there's no actual victim or criminal here, you can free yourself of PCness and actually look at what American society thinks about sexuality'.

[Annie Ozone]

Jun 14, 2011 4:22:01 GMT -5 andy said:

Jun 13, 2011 14:02:49 GMT -5 Annie Ozone said:

Actually, in my reading, Lo's budding sexuality is part of what made her the perfect victim. It's part of the requirement for Humbert's "nymphets" to be just coming to terms with their newly acquired femininity.

Do you have any kind of textual evidence for such a reading?

I believe the passage where he's describing the sexual games the girls play is a good example, but also see the entire book. He sexualizes her a fair amount, yes, but she's got her own unique sexuality underneath his fantasy, and that's what makes her different from the other girls he watches, that's what he's drawn to, that's what reminds him of that "initial girl-child".

But he's not her stepfather (he was never actually married to Charlotte) and he didn't kill Charlotte (she hit by a car while she was crossing the road outside her house).

Alas, you are right! He was engaged to be her stepfather, though, and he certainly thinks about killing Charlotte all the time (the almost-drowning). My book is loaned out, so I didn't fact-check. Thanks for the correction! (Sincerely. That isn't a sarcasm-exclamation)

I mean, I understand that you're only trying to point out the English-speaking world's cultural sterilization of girls until they reach about 16-ish, but it can be interpreted as victim-blaming.

It could also be interpreted as not having a painfully boxed in mentality. It's not like the vast, vast, vast majority of readers don't think H.H. was a child abuser - Nabokov was not stupid, he knew this is how his work would be received and constructed it precisely to irritate middle class mentality as much as possible. Besides, Lolita is a terribly showy book, it constantly pokes you in the face and tells you, 'look at me, how literary and constructed I am' and it does so partially because it wants to tell you, 'there's no actual victim or criminal here, you can free yourself of PCness and actually look at what American society thinks about sexuality'.

What I think is happening here is a misunderstanding--I was mostly using Lo (and her pop culture legacy) to back up my point that Wuthering Heights is not a love story, or at least not the love story everyone seems to think it is. When you came in with your cultural analysis of Lolita, you could have been validating pop culture's villainization of Lo as the lollipop-sucking seductress out to get Humbert Humbert. Which, I think we can both agree, is not what Nabokov meant.

And to discuss your interpretation--[TRIGGER WARNING for rape and victim-blaming] I've got a problem being told "there's no actual victim or criminal here, you can free yourself of PCness and actually look at what American society thinks about sexuality" by a convicted murderer and rapist, which is what Humbert Humbert is, and who is telling the story. Humbert and Nabokov are separate entities, and Humbert is using this story, this letter to America, to justify his actions, just ignore Lo crying herself to sleep over there. As someone who deals with this exact attitude in real life all the time, counseling rape survivors, I refuse to ignore the fact that Lo certainly didn't ask for the man who caused her mother's death to groom her, rape her, and treat her like so much garbage. Nabokov is saying, "Hey, look at this guy, so erudite. Isn't it great to think he's got a point? Isn't it so easy to put the blame on Lo? Isn't that what you're doing, right now?" That's what American society thinks of sexuality, and you know it because somehow Lolita is at fault here; that, culturally speaking, this teenager who went on a road trip with her almost-stepfather is a vile seductress. That's how America sees rape survivors, particularly those who had the gall to ever express any interest in sex. They asked for it, you see, and they got what they deserved.

Look, you are welcome to your interpretation. But I couldn't let that go without saying what I had to say. [/froth]

[onlyaworkingtitle]

Jun 14, 2011 11:27:24 GMT -5 Annie Ozone said:

Jun 14, 2011 4:22:01 GMT -5 andy said:

Do you have any kind of textual evidence for such a reading?

I believe the passage where he's describing the sexual games the girls play is a good example, but also see the entire book. He sexualizes her a fair amount, yes, but she's got her own unique sexuality underneath his fantasy, and that's what makes her different from the other girls he watches, that's what he's drawn to, that's what reminds him of that "initial girl-child".



Alas, you are right! He was engaged to be her stepfather, though, and he certainly thinks about killing Charlotte all the time (the almost-drowning). My book is loaned out, so I didn't fact-check. Thanks for the correction! (Sincerely. That isn't a sarcasm-exclamation)



It could also be interpreted as not having a painfully boxed in mentality. It's not like the vast, vast, vast majority of readers don't think H.H. was a child abuser - Nabokov was not stupid, he knew this is how his work would be received and constructed it precisely to irritate middle class mentality as much as possible. Besides, Lolita is a terribly showy book, it constantly pokes you in the face and tells you, 'look at me, how literary and constructed I am' and it does so partially because it wants to tell you, 'there's no actual victim or criminal here, you can free yourself of PCness and actually look at what American society thinks about sexuality'.

What I think is happening here is a misunderstanding--I was mostly using Lo (and her pop culture legacy) to back up my point that Wuthering Heights is not a love story, or at least not the love story everyone seems to think it is. When you came in with your cultural analysis of Lolita, you could have been validating pop culture's villainization of Lo as the lollipop-sucking seductress out to get Humbert Humbert. Which, I think we can both agree, is not what Nabokov meant.

And to discuss your interpretation--[TRIGGER WARNING for rape and victim-blaming] I've got a problem being told "there's no actual victim or criminal here, you can free yourself of PCness and actually look at what American society thinks about sexuality" by a convicted murderer and rapist, which is what Humbert Humbert is, and who is telling the story. Humbert and Nabokov are separate entities, and Humbert is using this story, this letter to America, to justify his actions, just ignore Lo crying herself to sleep over there. As someone who deals with this exact attitude in real life all the time, counseling rape survivors, I refuse to ignore the fact that Lo certainly didn't ask for the man who caused her mother's death to groom her, rape her, and treat her like so much garbage. Nabokov is saying, "Hey, look at this guy, so erudite. Isn't it great to think he's got a point? Isn't it so easy to put the blame on Lo? Isn't that what you're doing, right now?" That's what American society thinks of sexuality, and you know it because somehow Lolita is at fault here; that, culturally speaking, this teenager who went on a road trip with her almost-stepfather is a vile seductress. That's how America sees rape survivors, particularly those who had the gall to ever express any interest in sex. They asked for it, you see, and they got what they deserved.

Look, you are welcome to your interpretation. But I couldn't let that go without saying what I had to say. [/froth]

Loving the debate, folks, but maybe shift it elsewhere? Start a Lolita thread in the Literature forum, maybe? It's a good discussion, so you shouldn't scrap it, but the Most Overrated Literature thread isn't the place (especially considering this heated conversation is proof that Lolita isn't overrated, since it inspires such a reaction from each of you).

[Olive]

Jun 14, 2011 14:08:38 GMT -5 onlyaworkingtitle said:

Loving the debate, folks, but maybe shift it elsewhere? Start a Lolita thread in the Literature forum, maybe? It's a good discussion, so you shouldn't scrap it, but the Most Overrated Literature thread isn't the place (especially considering this heated conversation is proof that Lolita isn't overrated, since it inspires such a reaction from each of you).

Thanks, I was literally just about to say that when I noticed the bottom of your post. <3

[Fuck Yeah Dion]

I think the assertion that "such such isn't overrated because it inspires discussion" is an overrated assertion.