Books/Films You Know Are Good But Can't Get Through

[Hamish McBagpipe]

There are a few works that I know are good but just can't get through. Joyce's Ulysses is one of them. I have read Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, enjoyed it and thought it was very good. Ulysses I've tried and tried but find almost completely indecipherable, yet modern literature is widely acclaimed to have begun on that June day in 1904.

Another one is Faulkner's Sound and the Fury. I think you need a full semester course on this one before tackling.

On the film front I know that Citizen Kane is good, but every time I've tried to watch this one it bores me to tears and I never make it through it all in one sitting. I enjoy lots of films from this era, On The Waterfront for one is in my top 10 all time, but Citizen Kane ain't.

Any picks yourselves?

One thing is that I've noticed from the other posts is that few of you really think that there is any real objectivity in appreciating literature or film. That is, I don't think many of you think you can say one piece of art actually IS better than another. I do. I don't like Citizen Kane, but I KNOW that it is better, hands down, no argument, superior to Deuce Bigelow: European Gigolo.

[STLantny]

I always went through life thinking that art is the only truly subjective thing in life.

[MCS]

As to the idea of objective greatness in literature/art/film, I've always liked this little story. It's from Penny Arcade.

[ QUOTE ]
I took a "History of Film" class once and the professor started out by saying that he didn't want to hear that we didn't like any of the movies he was going to show. "These movies are all great," he said. "If you don't like them, you are wrong. Quite frankly, if you think that the 'Mona Lisa' is a bad painting, it says more about you than it does about Da Vinci's skill as a painter."

[/ QUOTE ]

Incidentally, I started reading Ulysses yesterday. It's going fine so far and I'm sort of getting into the style.

From what I have heard, and from sixty seconds of skimming it, it seems Joyce's Finnegan's Wake is basically impenetrable.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

I'm not trying to be snobby. I find merit in what I see as the worst films and books. But at some point I think we can draw a jagged, foggy line.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

There is a quote I'm trying to find. Some critic met Joyce years later and said something like, "Joyce, I read your Ulysses. What a novel. Took me six years to read it." And Joyce says, "That's alright, it took me six years to write it."

[RacersEdge]

When you watch CK, think about how Kane looks different depending on who is talking about him. That's from a film class I took. It might give you more to think about.

[STLantny]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to be snobby. I find merit in what I see as the worst films and books. But at some point I think we can draw a jagged, foggy line.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I have never thought about it, but I just assumed, people like what they like, therefore, you think it is either good or its not. Personally, I know little to nothing about art, but I like to look at it. I always try to get to the museum in STL every couple of months when Im bored. There are some things I like, and others I just do not. Is that why people go to school for art, to learn what is good? I love Magritte, and old italian/grecko statues/armor etc, but I cant stand "modern" freako stuff. Is there a reason why I should find appeal to someone dumping on a picture of jesus? Is there something that I just do not get, that I would learn in school?

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I have never thought about it, but I just assumed, people like what they like, therefore its you think it is either good or its not. Personally, I know little to nothing about art, but I like to look at it. I always try to get to the museum in STL every couple of months when I bored. There are some things I like, and others I just do not. Is that why people go to school for art, to learn what is good? I love Magritte, and old italian/grecko statues/armor etc, but I cant stand "modern" freako stuff. Is there a reason why I should find appeal to someone dumping on a picture of jesus? Is there something that I just do not get, that I would learn in school?

[/ QUOTE ]

"To learn what is good." That's the question. And put like that how can I say yes, you should take the classes to find the merit in that picture of Christ in urine? But, for instance, Shakespeare was impenetrable (i like that one) to me upon first readings. I could only appreciate it once I had learned more about the symbolism, allegories, etc. This is not to say that I don't have any original ideas or tastes of my own but when tackling something new I'll defer to the experts for a while. Now I can read a Shakespeare play without any prior critical knowledge and appreciate it and form my own opinions on it. I have to emphasize that I don't believe the opinions of the "experts" is the answer, I distinctly remember an English prof, for example, with some totally hair-brained ideas about the Great Gatsby that were just completely wrong and misleading. But if you are a known expert on stamp collecting and I want to get into the hobby, I'll follow your lead for a while at least.

[STLantny]

Aye that makes sense. The Shakespeare example was perfect, because in high school, I was the same way, until I had a teacher (great teach) that showed us the symbolism and all the "behind the scenes/what bill was thinking" type of stuff, I just never realized it applied to art (paintings etc). But, Im fairly stupid, thats what I like Poe.

[dabluebery]

I try and watch any movie nominated for Best Picture Oscar. But I can't bring myself to even try to watch Master and Commander (the Russell Crowe movie) or Dances With Wolves, which won for the 1990 season.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

Heh, I think M+C is pretty damn good. Another one I'll admit that most of the critics (I suppose that's what I'm driving at) love but I can barely watch is the Deer Hunter. This is a goddamn snoozefest. Used to like it though. And, again, I like tonnes of movies from that time of the American film revival or whatever you want to call it.

[CD56]

"Great" Books I have quit 100 pages into:
Love in the time of Cholera
One Hundred Years of Solitude (tried them both thought maybe the first one was a fluke)
Ulysses
Crime and Punishment

maybe i have no taste, maybe i have no patience, who knows

[Dominic]

Moby Dick is a bore.

[john smith]

I've been trying to get through LOTR for years.

[CD56]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been trying to get through LOTR for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear they made it into a movie a while back

[mccreadj]

Godel, Escher, Bach
Don Quixote

[Hamish McBagpipe]

Phew, at least some honest answers.

[Blarg]

There is a natural tendency to fall in love with one's opinions and capabilities, and even most idiotic prejudices, and without thinking invest them with a completely inappropriate regard and authority. You see something like this happening when people give the popular rejoinder, "Well, I've never heard of that," as if stating one's ignorance was saying something definitive or putting someone else's argument calamitously to rout. In fact, a perfectly fair rejoinder might be, "Then it looks like you have little knowledge of the subject you're claiming an opinion on."

One should exercise the proper caution in declaring a particular work of art good or bad definitively rather than allowing that some things are a matter of taste. It's foolish enough for a well-educated person to let his judgment of a work's value be corrupted by his own personal preferences, but it can quickly become absurd when a person without a broad and deep knowledge makes emphatic judgments.

It is no shame to admit one is out of one's depth when it comes to many things in life; no one alive isn't. Things like art and literature can be deep and complex, and require a deep and complex understanding. It's not enough to be a nice guy, confident, or have great self esteem to be able to fully understand every sort of complex thing.

Film and literature draw on great cultural knowledge and tradition, and without a background in same, some of it is going to fly over your head pretty much no matter how smart you are. A great deal of art is metaphorical and really only comes together if you see the metaphors and know where they are going. In American and European art, probably the three great sources for the themes that get hashed out over and over are the bible and Shakespeare's works, along with the occasional nod to Greek classics and mythology. If one isn't at least somewhat versed with the major themes in these works, one's ability to understand the works built on their foundations will be partial, and because of that, one's appreciation will be partial too. In fact, much work seems arbitrary or about nothing at all until one understands the classical themes and variations and counterpoints to themes that the work is framed in reference to, borrows from, comments on, or tries to subvert. A man's step is more remarkable if you realize it's the last one in a thousand mile journey.

I've never read the bible, but have found that by reading about religion, reading mythology and folk tales, and reading some of Shakespeare's plays, I've gotten exposure to some measure of the most prevalent and important themes running through Western art and literature. I was no dumber before doing so, but with less experience and understanding, my ability to get the most out of any art, and even to understand it, much less judge it fairly, was severely lacking. With a greater understanding has come an ability to enjoy, and enjoy more, a much wider variety of books and films, because I'm a more aware part of the dialogue between artist and reader or viewer. I'm a more full participant in the process of art.

I'll always be subjective as well as objective, as is everyone else. But a certain amount of objectivity does apply to art. Without the tools, one doesn't see the whole work or have a fair chance to evaluate it, nor a chance to fairly evaluate the artist who produced it. Liking or disliking a work of art is not necessarily a valuable determiner of its true worth. Everyone likes and dislikes, and even changes their minds back and forth. But a lot of what makes one both like and understand a work of art is what one brings to it. Therefore one's judgment is as much a reflection of oneself as the artwork. When someone tells you a book is good or bad, he may be saying nothing about the book and merely telling you about himself.

The chance for objectivity comes in with some sort of background or understanding of the art and the context it was created in. With that, there's a chance for a fair evaluation. One needs very little of that to judge the worth of Deuce Bigelow, but to have a chance at objectively saying whether Citizen Kane is a good movie or not, an awful lot depends on the viewer, not the film.

Unfortunately, "good" and "enjoyable" are not necessarily tied all that closely together. There are different kinds of enjoyment, and some artists don't have enjoyment of their work as a significant motive or goal.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I always went through life thinking that art is the only truly subjective thing in life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the OP's point, but this is an outstanding post.

[jacki]

I found "Ray" unwatchable. Boring.

[KingDan]

I tried to read Atlas Shrugged and was actually enjoying it... but it came to a [censored] hault. I was on the same page for like four or five days and gave up.

[thatpfunk]

I really, really wanted to like The Graduate (the soundtrack is one of my favorites). I could not get through it. It seemed so completely unrealistic and awkward. It did not age well.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

Blimey. Nice post. This was just a tacked on remark at the end of my OP but is a topic that I've thought about often. It is High Fidelity, I think, where we are now personified or at least identified by what we like.

I agree with your response and there is even room for much more.

[ QUOTE ]
It's foolish enough for a well-educated person to let his judgment of a work's value be corrupted by his own personal preferences, but it can quickly become absurd when a person without a broad and deep knowledge makes emphatic judgments.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is all we really see in most critical work, from meaningless forum discussions to "authoritative" analysis in academic journals. In 2+2 I rarely post in poker related forums. You guys are the experts. Me asking how to play QQ, UTG, in a MTT small-stacked, is ridiculous. The answers are already there analyzed to the minutest detail. I defer to the experts.

[ QUOTE ]
If one isn't at least somewhat versed with the major themes in these works, one's ability to understand the works built on their foundations will be partial, and because of that, one's appreciation will be partial too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. As you mentioned Shakespeare as one of our great sources for themes you also, of course, know that even his work has been recognized as probably derivative and only extreme specialist can have even near a complete understanding of some of these works. As you say, being familiar and understanding the context, derivation, etc. of art increases ones understanding and appreciation. Yet, you are saying a partial understanding of the foundations will only lead to a partial understanding of the work in question. That's the problem. I enjoy The Tempest more as I've studied the themes of the play, yet it can be read in a completely different light as I know it. In fact, it never ends with some of this stuff, even the "experts" can't agree on how some complex works should be viewed. I am not saying that I think art should come with a comprehensive Coles Notes sheet thrown at you every time. That, of course, would dispell the magic of any artistic work. But as we've agreed on, the craving for a greater understanding of the works is very rewarding.

[ QUOTE ]
But a certain amount of objectivity does apply to art.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was very close to throwing music in to my OP but it would be hopeless for someone to claim to know that Berloiz' Symphonie Fantastique is "good" but can't get through it only to have someone claim that that piece is crap anyway. Let alone the new Oasis album. But even there I think you can have some objectivity.

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, "good" and "enjoyable" are not necessarily tied all that closely together. There are different kinds of enjoyment, and some artists don't have enjoyment of their work as a significant motive or goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I frequently use this as a basic example of what I think you are saying here. I went to go see Pitch Black at the theatre when it came out and enjoyed it even though a lot of people didn't. Well, I knew what I was getting into. I didn't expect goddamn Lawrence of Arabia, I expected a mediocre sci-fi flick that turned out to exceed expectations and have many of the qualities of a far better film. It's still not that great but merit can be found in many a dog's breakfast I believe.

This discussion can expand into questions of esthetics and that have always interested me. Hamish.

[dabluebery]

Yeah, that's another one. I watched about 15 minutes of that, so I only have like 9 hours to go. I got preoccupied, but wasn't motivated to go back to it.

[Cancer Merchant]

The Bible. It's called the Good Book, even, and I still can't make it.

[Blarg]

Just see the movie.

[battschr]

I've heard good things about The Bible, but I find it unbearable.

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
but I can barely watch is the Deer Hunter. This is a goddamn snoozefest

[/ QUOTE ]
did you get to the russian roulette scene?

[tdarko]

books:

for whom the bell tolls- hemingway
catch 22- heller
anything steinbeck

movies:

LOTR
bridges of madison county
dr. zhivago

Last Tango in Paris was tough to get through the first time i saw it but i wasn't in the mood that night, now i watch it and its ok. there are tons of movies that fall into this category.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but I can barely watch is the Deer Hunter. This is a goddamn snoozefest

[/ QUOTE ]
did you get to the russian roulette scene?

[/ QUOTE ]



has to be one of the most intense scenes I have ever seen. It is a very hard scene to sit through, its that uncomfortable

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
I really, really wanted to like The Graduate (the soundtrack is one of my favorites). I could not get through it. It seemed so completely unrealistic and awkward. It did not age well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, it is still very funny and one of dustin hoffman's best performances. HIs going to San Fran was redone in almost romantic comedy since and inpsired a lot of other going a far way for the girl scenes ala say anything

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
I try and watch any movie nominated for Best Picture Oscar. But I can't bring myself to even try to watch Master and Commander (the Russell Crowe movie) or Dances With Wolves, which won for the 1990 season.

[/ QUOTE ]


Master and COmmander is definetly worth a watch all the way through, if anything for the fact that Paul Bettany kicks ass.

I don't disagree with Dances with Wolves, once all the way through is more then enough for me. Kevin Costner has a real problem doing obscenely long and boring films

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
has to be one of the most intense scenes I have ever seen. It is a very hard scene to sit through, its that uncomfortable

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, sure. Good scene. Too bad the rest can't be as good as this. Like I say, acting's great, themes explored are good, technically proficient, surely a masterpiece, but gimme my four hours back for every time I've sat through some of this boring twaddle after the first viewing.

[imported_CaseClosed326]

Gullivers Travels.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
That is all we really see in most critical work, from meaningless forum discussions to "authoritative" analysis in academic journals. In 2+2 I rarely post in poker related forums. You guys are the experts. Me asking how to play QQ, UTG, in a MTT small-stacked, is ridiculous. The answers are already there analyzed to the minutest detail. I defer to the experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's as natural for opinions to be strong as it is for them to be unexamined, and without feeling a sense of irony or circumspection. It's also fairly natural to be resistant to changing one's opinions easily, and to be reluctant to examine them or broach in one's own mind the subject of their real worth, even if one intends to put them up before the world for public scrutiny. Then when one's ideas or opinions are perhaps justifiably found wanting or even merely brought into question, an unfortunate natural first impulse is not abashed self-examination but anger, dismissal, a sense of betrayal, and sometimes to launch personal attacks. The very difficulty of not screwing up should make us listen better and think more before venturing judgments too casually and expressing them too definitively and rigidly. Most of us could use a bit of a reality check and need to loosen up a bit and not declaim too thunderingly.

[ QUOTE ]
But as we've agreed on, the craving for a greater understanding of the works is very rewarding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely. I've really enjoyed going back to things I've read earlier every so often to check if my opinion on them and understanding of them have changed much over time, especially with an eye toward what my reevaluation is saying about me, as well as the work. In particular, if I'm capable of honestly making a new evaluation, or if my personal flaws or emotional or intellectual investments in certain lines of thinking are making me dishonestly characterize a work to negate its challenges to me. I want to find and maintain the "through line" of honesty in myself as I read, so that if my evaluation of a work has changed, I can be sure how much of that changed evaluation is driven by a broader knowledge and understanding of myself and the world -- and the book itself! -- and how much by newly acquired prejudices, evasions, and rationalizations. Sometimes different parts of a work appeal to me much more than at other times, and sometimes I think it better or worse, and determining what I really think of it and understand about it, honestly, can be a way to refine my own integrity and understanding generally. Forming opinions and revisiting them is as much about the perceiver and judge as the perceived and judged.

[ QUOTE ]
I frequently use this as a basic example of what I think you are saying here. I went to go see Pitch Black at the theatre when it came out and enjoyed it even though a lot of people didn't. Well, I knew what I was getting into. I didn't expect goddamn Lawrence of Arabia, I expected a mediocre sci-fi flick that turned out to exceed expectations and have many of the qualities of a far better film. It's still not that great but merit can be found in many a dog's breakfast I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love horror films, even bad ones. I'll forgive an awful lot for a few good moments, even just a few perfect atmospheric notes. I'm under no illusion that the bad horror flicks aren't bad, and that horror is not the be-all and end-all of genres. But I give what I feel is proper credit where it is due, and am willing to sit through a lot of crap to get there. I can easily understand if others won't. On the other hand, I think a broad dismissal of the entire genre as inferior out of hand, as has often been fashionable, is a mistake, and will say so. As for me, I'm happy to take my magic where I find it.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
has to be one of the most intense scenes I have ever seen. It is a very hard scene to sit through, its that uncomfortable

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, sure. Good scene. Too bad the rest can't be as good as this. Like I say, acting's great, themes explored are good, technically proficient, surely a masterpiece, but gimme my four hours back for every time I've sat through some of this boring twaddle after the first viewing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I found it both very intense and brilliant in places ... AND very boring.

There's a certain Meryl Streep effect that can spread out and drain the energy of a whole film.

[rusellmj]

Books:
Moby Dick
The Gulag Archipelago

Movies:
All I could do to make it through Dr. Zhivago
Never made it through The English Patient.

[britspin]

For me.. The man without qualities by Robert Musil.. a classic apparently, but 800 pages of in depth musing on the state of pre first world war Austro-Hungary? I gave up 400 pages in and it still bugs me.

[ChipWrecked]

Books:

Moby Dick
Catch-22

Movie:

Lawrence of Arabia
===============================

Here's another 'Citizen Kane' film class nugget: 'Rosebud' was Wm. Hearst's nickname for Marion Davies' (delores). So, when you see the closeup of Kane's lips saying the word, that's actually some huge cunnilingus action.

The Bible: I've only read the goyim part. It starts near the back.

[turnipmonster]

gravity's rainbow, and closing time. both classics I just can't get through.