Just because a book is regarded as great literature doesn't mean everyone will enjoy it. Same goes for movies; you look at the AFI lists and Citizen Kane is always at the top, but I hate that movie. Doesn't mean it isn't a great movie, just that I don't like it.

Also, a lot of these people might not be the best judges. People who think the Harry Potter and Twilight books are great reads should remember that the classics are on a different level. Don't get me wrong, I like Harry Potter too, but it just isn't the same type of book as Ethan Frome or The Great Gatsby

On another note, the grammar in some of the reviews is terrible. Doesn't give a lot of faith into their abilities as literature reviewers.

People have meaningless, petty opinions that drive their review? Wow, this would be news except that Yelp has been demonstrating this for years.

"The soup was great, but the waiter gave me a dirty look the third time I sent it back. 1 star."
"There was gum on the sidewalk outside the bookstore and it stuck to my shoe. 1 star."
"OMG I like totally ran into Tom Cruise at the Wendy's on Third St, 5 stars!"

A lot of those books are simple and boring as hell to modern readers, just like music from 1950 will sound simple and cheesy to most modern listeners. Their themes and literary devices may have been super-unique and exciting to people of the time, but we've all read them (or seen them in film, on TV, or Christ in comic books) over and over. Many of those books may get points for doing it first, but in most cases it's been done better since.

In a lot of cases those books are circularly beloved classics. They're classics and people love them because they're...classics, and people think they should love them lest they be labeled philistines.

There are way more "classic books" than there are great, unique, timeless books.

Well, in all fairness, she didn't 'just' die in a war, she is an example of one of the millions of *civilians* that got slaughtered, based solely on religion.

I have no doubt that the book was boring, plodding, and pointless to you. Let's face it, it was written by a teenage girl who never expected anyone to read it, 95% of the book is detailing spending time in close confines with her family, locked in a small room and experiencing nothing new and nothing exciting.

The book only becomes interesting if you know and appreciate the 'back-story'. I assume that most people reading it, even those stuck in high school lit or history classes, will at least know the back story. Intellectually, they understand what the book is about and why they're confined and why they must be quiet. But I have my doubts whether the average high school student takes that information into account when actually reading it. It is only through that knowledge that there is any real tension in the book. Saying "We heard the troops downstairs today, it was scary" isn't very good literature, unless you appreciate that while she was writing it, there actually were troops downstairs that would have arrested and eventually killed her and her family. If the voice you hear in your mind when reading it isn't a terrified 13 year old girl, you'll never really understand the book.

Definitely the case -- "best" and "favourite" don't necessarily overlap at all. Quintessential film example, that everyone seems to agree on: Hawk the Slayer.

Almost every review says essentially the same thing (and so do I): "This is absolutely the most fascinating utterly terrible movie I've ever seen. It is B-movies incarnate. It's so dreadful it makes my brain smoke and my eyes bleed. I love it and have watched it 50 times."

One thing I did notice about the Amazon reviews, is that the negative reviews seemed to be mostly from non-readers, judging by the grammar and -- well, impatience. They evidently didn't read these books by choice, but rather by coercion (probably school). I've read some of them by choice and a few by coercion (school) but I'm a reader, and that tilts things differently.

This is one of those things that many don't seem to realize. A book (or movie or whatever) may be great without you actually liking it. You see this in reviews all the time : "Worst movie evar! I was bored all the way through it." Reviews like these conflate the writers opinion with some kind of consensus opinion that has formed over time and usually built from thoughtful consideration of the subject. We all do it to some extent, but with time and education (good self education counts), we can separate out our personal reaction from a considered critical reaction.

For example, I quite like the movie "Jumping Jack Flash". But I also know that it is far from being a great film. On the other hand, "Rashomon" is a very very good film indeed, but I find it difficult to watch and don't like it all that much, though I can appreciate why it is considered great.

If the sky is filled with a sufficient number of projectiles, there would be no place to dodge to... And they still have to be able to fly, which (ignoring weight issues) means there has to be plenty of clearance for them to move. So on their approach to the mountain (flying low enough to accurately deliver a ring into the lava - not just onto a ledge somewhere) they'd be subject to thousands of arrows, which they couldn't hope to survive. The eagles couldn't make it in safely until Sauron's forces were seriously weakened.

The Nazgul didn't get flying mounts in the beginning because they weren't going into combat. They were moving, to the extent possible, in secret. They didn't need flying lizard things, and if they had set out on flying lizard things in the first place, then everyone within sight of their flight path would have been immediately alerted to their actions.

If Sauron had looked to the Northwest and seen a dozen eagles flying his way, he would have sent out the flying lizard things immediately - and, knowing that a force like that couldn't be a threat to him in a straight fight, he probably would have worked out the enemy's plan, too, and fortified the mountain.

Evereybody? Really? I like them - they might be dated, but would still be in my top-50 list of their genre.

To make a analogy that people like you might understand: "If not everybody can use an OS, it is not a useful OS." See the fault in the reasoning?

Pretty much. The article could also have been entitled "People suck - reviews prove it again."

That said, I always find these articles entertaining - and a useful reminder of how petty, small-minded and stupid some people can be. There is no need for everyone to like every classic out there, but people should have at least the cognitive capacity to understand why classics are classics. Sadly, that cognitive capacity is exactly what's missing in these dismissive reviews.

Not everyone has asperges.

Was it the 'movie version' of the LOTR, with the story converted to dialog from the movie and 20 glossy pages of pictures in the middle? I've seen such atrocities, though I can't recall if it was for LOTR or just other movies. I can see how, through shock and disgust, one might utter such a line not realizing how it would sound out of context.

Riiiiiing. Wrong! First of all, "which people"? the unwashed masses? The American Idol crop, pick your poison. And second, art is defined by taste. And taste is different. I may tell you one thing, what you believe is a great work of art, I believe is pusillanimous piece of shit.

Unless the goal of the work is not enjoyment. Sometimes the goal of a work of art is to capture something else -- shock, misery, revulsion, whatever.

Well, the bible has no dramatic arc, a completely chaotic interest curve, way too many characters that are usually killed off, a horribly convoluted language, and more plot holes than an unpatched IE 6 has attack vectors. It’s just all-around bad fiction. A typical popular mass media production with way too many authors and script doctors. And on top of that it tries to transport a very unhealthy agenda for a particular delusional world provider company.
If it weren’t for the religious schizophrenia, it would be long forgotten.

The typical "This book was boring" post is what happens when you *force* people do anything.

In my opinion, the worst thing you can do to the Classics is to foist them on children.

Children aren't mentally prepared to tackle the deeper issues that earned these books the title "classic." They don't get anything out of them- I certainly didn't. At best, a kid slogs through the book in order to memorize enough names and events in order to pass the test/write the paper, and then moves on. At worst, the child extrapolates the displeasure to be found in reading *this* book to *all* books.

I am a total bookworm. I always have been. I read probably 50 novels a year through middle and high school. I had a city library card before the school made us sign up for them. But required reading in grade school put me off of the Classics and nonfiction and any books with real substance until just recently, and I graduated from high school seven years ago. Even children's books were ruined for me, in some ways. I was first introduced to the Chronicles of Narnia hand in hand with a lecture about identifying symbolism in literature. We read the book as a class and pointed out every Christian symbol and motif to be found (and there are many). I was never able to enjoy those stories as just stories; to me, as a non-Christian, they are and have always been Christian propaganda. To my classmates who found those books before English 2, they are cherished childhood memories.

I recognize that there might be some deep and important message to take away from The Grapes of Wrath, All Quiet on the Western Front, or Lord of the Flies. But all I remember are stories so boring that my classmates prevailed upon the teacher: "If it's so boring that even she (me) won't read it, why do we have to?" I recall little to nothing of the events or characters of those books, but I do get a bitter taste in my mouth thinking about it.

Few people ever enjoy something they have been forced to read.

Then why do you talk about it? Here's why people tell you that they pity you when you them that: because they really do pity you. You have absolutely no idea what role stories play in human development. It's a sad state to be in, doubly so because you have no idea what you're missing.

Here's a quick introduction to why fiction is important, and why classics are classics: they allow you to share experiences that you could have never possibly had. From that, you get to build yourself a more complete image of the world, and you get to bond with those who have had those experiences, or who are telling and listening to the story. Sometimes, those stories are short, as in the many fables. Sometimes, they're long, as in the many creation myths (or Ulysses).

If you don't understand the value in that.... I'll have to agree with another poster: most people don't have Asperger's. You can either deal with that, or continue to live in your own world. Your choice.

I read the book when I was in middle school, and I loved it. I read all four of the books, even. They go downhill after the first two, but what book series doesn't?

I saw the movie for the first time two weeks ago. It's TERRIBLE. There's no sense of pacing at all; 10 minutes go by just staring at a guy looking a little nervous. The exposition is nonexistent, so you really have no clue what the hell is going on, especially near the end, unless you're read the book. The soundtrack is terrible, for being largely nonexistent, and then being acutely painful to listen to at times; the wailing part near the end made me mute my TV.

/endrant

Absolutely can they mislead. This is why you can't just "trust" a story or the one who is telling it.

But I think you're missing the point about what part of the story is truth, and what is fiction. Let's take The Iliad and The Odyssey. There are mounds of paper written about whether everything happened as it is described in the books. Some of it did, some of it didn't. But its truth - the reason that it is a classis, and that it is still read today - is in the human conditions and mind-sets that they talk about.

Here's the most obvious example: the king comes home from a siege that lasted years and took his best friends, and from an odyssey that lasted as long and took even more friends. He fought for what was right, for his family, and for his people. He fought just to get back home. And what does he find? His wife has taken up with someone else, his son doesn't know him, his house is filled with unworthy strangers. Only his dog recognizes him (and, I believe, his oldest servant).

How many times has happened? Today's soldiers face the same problems. Heck, today's consultants face the same problems. You can read The Iliad and The Odyssey, and you can see that what seems like a modern problem is actually a problem of the human condition.

The truth of the classics isn't in the facts told. It is in the human souls that they describe.

Yes, I suppose that can be the case, but it's unlikely. A great many of our greatest writers didn't come to be regarded as "great literature" until after they were dead. If it's all just a popularity contest, why would that be the case?

Great writers are often judged by other writers, who recognize their skill in comparison to their own. For example, I'd count Hemingway as an author whose style is so deceptively simple that many readers won't realize how difficult it is to achieve -- until they try it themselves.

There is also the problem of books that contain daring or innovative ideas, or that employ innovative narrative structures, or that contain unique characters, but which were written a century ago or earlier. The innovations will no longer be readily apparent to people who have seen them imitated hundreds of times over in popular fiction that has been published since. The reader needs to be aware enough of the historical context, both of the story and its authorship, to fully appreciate why it was hailed as "great."

And then, finally, there is the problem that many readers simply lack the sophistication to appreciate great works. Nobody likes being called stupid, so they tend to reject this idea, but the fact is that we're all born ignorant and we only gain intellectual sophistication through long and rigorous practice. Books I read and absolutely could not appreciate when I was 12 years old seem like works of genius to me now. Some people -- especially those who don't read very much -- won't gain that level of appreciation until they're in their 20s, 30s, or maybe never. That's life.

Someone who reads a book and just says, "I don't get it. That was stupid," probably didn't get very much out of the book. They should probably go back, pick a different book, and try again. Then maybe, after they read a few more books, they can go back and try the first book again and maybe this time they'll gain a different appreciation for it. Some books -- a great many books -- really are pretty bad, or at best mediocre. But books that have managed to stay in print in dozens of editions, in every language in the world, for hundreds of years probably don't rank among them.

And therein lies the problem. The same work can be brilliant from writers' perspective, but absolutely awful as far as readers are concerned. It's just that the factors on which it is compared are different in those cases.

Exactly which is why Citizen Kane deserves its place in history.

It changed the grammar and expression of cinema. It is a pivotal movie in how movies are made. As a side effect it's also dreadfully boring. I don't know if it used to be boring, but certainly in a modern context we've advanced forward.

In a Slashdot analogy the 8086 is a landmark processor. Its signature still is with us today. But as a processor it's not really useful anymore.