The Quote Depository

FemmeFatale

O.O Skullie Did It O.O
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
435
Points
93
"I'm going to say something that won't make me popular - I don't like much classic literature.

I've read my share, but for me, every piece of classical literature commits a minimum of one fatal sin - they're not entertaining to read. They're effort. Not in the sense that you have to work to understand them (I don't mind being made to think), but rather in the words they're put together using. They don't flow well. They stuff descriptions down your throat in the least interesting way possible. They spend an inordinate amount of time describing the most boring things. I could tell you the most interesting story there's ever been, but it what's it worth if your eyes glaze over and you start thinking about what you had for lunch yesterday before I'm ten minutes in? Bugger all - that's what.

Modern writing, on the other hand, is about delivering the maximum possible amount of information in the fewest possible words. Modern authors are always looking to eliminate the flab that yesterday's authors had in abundance. You still get to know that Viktor Hark is a short, stocky man with black hair and an arm made of metal, but you don't have to read nearly as much to find it out, and what you do have to read will often advance the action at the same time. Unnecessary words get cut. No excuses. They waste the reader's time, and that's plain disrespectful."

Well said, that kind of verbosely painful writing is the reason why I hate a lot of fiction as well.

"Every piece of classical literature"....really? That disqualifies this quotes premise in my opinion.
 

FemmeFatale

O.O Skullie Did It O.O
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
435
Points
93
probably havent read kurt vonnegut or mark twain. but i agree most of them are pain to read.

Maybe you do not have understanding to appreciate. I am very well read. It is true that not all of the 'classics' are fascinating to read, but there are reasons they have survived the test of time. To brazenly say that all are bad shows a gross inability from the original author of the quote to understand the written word. Who wrote the above quote and when was it written? What qualifications does this person have to make such a broad statement?

A bold statement does not make it true.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
939
Points
133
Maybe you do not have understanding to appreciate. I am very well read. It is true that not all of the 'classics' are fascinating to read, but there are reasons they have survived the test of time. To brazenly say that all are bad shows a gross inability from the original author of the quote to understand the written word. Who wrote the above quote and when was it written? What qualifications does this person have to make such a broad statement?

A bold statement does not make it true.

to each of its own i guess?

i found it here. the person's name is joseph drocker. i don't care about his educational background, and i don't think he infers that all classic literature is bad, just not his cup of tea. and that he prefers modern literature.


while i agree it has something precious, it's just not for everyone. if you can appreciate it, good for you. but for me and the others, we would like something a lot more our palate.

let's just leave it like this, shall we?
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
939
Points
133
i edited my quote, go ahead and reply accordingly.

but as for me, my opinion still stands that it's not my cup of tea in general.
 

FemmeFatale

O.O Skullie Did It O.O
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
435
Points
93
to each of its own i guess?

i found it here. the person's name is joseph drocker. i don't care about his educational background, and i don't think he infers that all classic literature is bad, just not his cup of tea. and that he prefers modern literature.


while i agree it has something precious, it's just not for everyone. if you can appreciate it, good for you. but for me and the others, we would like something a lot more our palate.

let's just leave it like this, shall we?

Ah, nevermind, I found the quote. *rolls my eyes* I don't need to answer the quote cause other people have done a good job of it. Cheers. I'm curious though, are you Jecob Docker?
 

FemmeFatale

O.O Skullie Did It O.O
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
435
Points
93
i edited my quote, go ahead and reply accordingly.

but as for me, my opinion still stands that it's not my cup of tea in general.

Seriously, why change what you wrote because I disagree? Stand by your opinion with the passion and prowess of a Spartan or retract with the humility of a scholar? Be sure of your opinions and the reasons behind it.
 

FemmeFatale

O.O Skullie Did It O.O
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
435
Points
93
to each of its own i guess?

i found it here. the person's name is joseph drocker. i don't care about his educational background, and i don't think he infers that all classic literature is bad, just not his cup of tea. and that he prefers modern literature.


while i agree it has something precious, it's just not for everyone. if you can appreciate it, good for you. but for me and the others, we would like something a lot more our palate.

let's just leave it like this, shall we?

That was not what the quote said. I read his whole piece....he actually capitulates and says that some stuff is good. A quote taken out of context can misrepresent what the author intended to depict in their writing.

And well, it does matter what qualifications you have....if you only read 10 'classics' does that make you more informed than someone that has read hundreds? Written reviews, Essays, etc?

If you are really interested in the difference between literature and popular fiction, I can give you a very succinct response: Literature are works that have become timeless for one reason or another (if you are truly interested you can PM me for a response; for something more complete); fiction, fantasy, 'modern writing' is written to entertain. In saying that, there is fiction and non-fiction today that will become literature. That is the nature of the game. Something about a very ordinary novel takes on a timeless characteristic. A very popular author that I predict will be considered literature will be Terry Pratchett. I will stand by that and you can take it to the bank.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
939
Points
133
Ah, nevermind, I found the quote. *rolls my eyes* I don't need to answer the quote cause other people have done a good job of it. Cheers. I'm curious though, are you Jecob Docker?

nope it's not me, it's just something i googled on a whim.

That was not what the quote said. I read his whole piece....he actually capitulates and says that some stuff is good. A quote taken out of context can misrepresent what the author intended to depict in their writing.

And well, it does matter what qualifications you have....if you only read 10 'classics' does that make you more informed than someone that has read hundreds? Written reviews, Essays, etc?

If you are really interested in the difference between literature and popular fiction, I can give you a very succinct response: Literature are works that have become timeless for one reason or another (if you are truly interested you can PM me for a response; for something more complete); fiction, fantasy, 'modern writing' is written to entertain. In saying that, there is fiction and non-fiction today that will become literature. That is the nature of the game. Something about a very ordinary novel takes on a timeless characteristic. A very popular author that I predict will be considered literature will be Terry Pratchett. I will stand by that and you can take it to the bank.

the thing is, even i can disagree with the opinion of those informed people, if what they described in their essay is not something i want to read in a fiction.

i may not be a well-read person, but i know what i want to read, and i had enough of people breathing my throat about books i 'have to read' but can't like no matter what.

just because they are timeless will not change whether i like it or not, but at least i can appreciate what makes them timeless although some of them aren't probably worth the appreciation. some of the classic authors are deemed overrated by critics, like leo tolstoy.


personally i haven't gotten to read Tolstoy, and judging by how the works is 'preachy' it turned me off even more.

while I'm not a fan of Tolkien's stories, although I'm inspired by his worldbuilding. he's the Author I can respect for his dedication and i think he's worth all the appreciation.

hemingway is also one of the authors i respect, since he built up the simple writing style that became a thing in modern fiction, and i also read about how he went to his favorite places to really portray the scenery. while i haven't really found his stories my cup of tea, he did inspire me to an extent.

but i guess my hats went to kafka, since his beliefs in writing made me who i am now. i couldn't get into all of his works, but those that i did, i enjoy it.

it's a shame how he's so unnoticed when he was alive, and how tragic his life went.

it boils down to my preference as well. and these well-informed critics do have their preferences.

but if we did match up in our thinking and i happen to enjoy their essay, i might have gotten something valuable in my pursuit of stories. though it's not something i usually did.

Seriously, why change what you wrote because I disagree? Stand by your opinion with the passion and prowess of a Spartan or retract with the humility of a scholar? Be sure of your opinions and the reasons behind it.

it's just a habit of mine, i tend to just post what i want on a whim and edit it later.

back in the days, i did read a lot of classic, with a few bits of modern fiction. stuff like kafka, italo calvino, vonnegut, haruki murakami, theodore sturgeon. i also read most of the novels from my school library way back, the illustrated ones like from dickens and twain, to name a few.

when i think about it, the writing's probably not an issue if i can actually get engrossed in the story. and the abridged version's actually easy enough to read, even when english isn't my first language.

take more than human by sturgeon for example, while the language used was complex and i barely understood it back then, i managed to read to the end 'cuz the concept and idea behind it was just amazing.

so i guess, it's all about how the writing isn't to my taste. but even if the writing is simple, if the writing isn't engaging enough for me, i wouldn't bother reading it.

in the end i was wrong, i probably didn't like a lot of classic, as i didn't like a lot of stories. i don't care if they became timeless, I enjoy it because the story personally appeals to me. like i could relate to the story's ideals, the characters, their struggles, joy and such.

because reading is a commitment, if i were to do it, i'd rather read my ideal story, or something close to it. because i don't want to waste even a bit of my time feeling stressed and bummed, waiting for something that's probably not going to come.

so yeah, it boils down that I just don't like the usual writing style in classics, but that doesn't mean a lot of them are the same. take hemingway, for example. and to say, it's not that modern writing can't be filled with complex language and spam of descriptions either.

as for the rest, i'll just treat it like any other story. timeless classic or not, i won't bother with it, if i know i won't like it. because my free time is limited, and i want to use it to enjoy something worthwhile for me.
 
Last edited:

FemmeFatale

O.O Skullie Did It O.O
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
435
Points
93
nope it's not me, it's just something i googled on a whim.



the thing is, even i can disagree with the opinion of those informed people, if what they described in their essay is not something i want to read in a fiction.

i may not be a well-read person, but i know what i want to read, and i had enough of people breathing my throat about books i 'have to read' but can't like no matter what.

just because they are timeless will not change whether i like it or not, but at least i can appreciate what makes them timeless although some of them aren't probably worth the appreciation. some of the classic authors are deemed overrated by critics, like leo tolstoy.


personally i haven't gotten to read Tolstoy, and judging by how the works is 'preachy' it turned me off even more.

while I'm not a fan of Tolkien's stories, although I'm inspired by his worldbuilding. he's the Author I can respect for his dedication and i think he's worth all the appreciation.

hemingway is also one of the authors i respect, since he built up the simple writing style that became a thing in modern fiction, and i also read about how he went to his favorite places to really portray the scenery. while i haven't really found his stories my cup of tea, he did inspire me to an extent.

but i guess my hats went to kafka, since his beliefs in writing made me who i am now. i couldn't get into all of his works, but those that i did, i enjoy it.

it's a shame how he's so unnoticed when he was alive, and how tragic his life went.

it boils down to my preference as well. and these well-informed critics do have their preferences.

but if we did match up in our thinking and i happen to enjoy their essay, i might have gotten something valuable in my pursuit of stories. though it's not something i usually did.



it's just a habit of mine, i tend to just post what i want on a whim and edit it later.

back in the days, i did read a lot of classic, with a few bits of modern fiction. stuff like kafka, italo calvino, vonnegut, haruki murakami, theodore sturgeon. i also read most of the novels from my school library way back, the illustrated ones like from dickens and twain, to name a few.

when i think about it, the writing's probably not an issue if i can actually get engrossed in the story. and the abridged version's actually easy enough to read, even when english isn't my first language.

take more than human by sturgeon for example, while the language used was complex and i barely understood it back then, i managed to read to the end 'cuz the concept and idea behind it was just amazing.

so i guess, it's all about how the writing isn't to my taste. but even if the writing is simple, if the writing isn't engaging enough for me, i wouldn't bother reading it.

in the end i was wrong, i probably didn't like a lot of classic, as i didn't like a lot of stories. i don't care if they became timeless, I enjoy it because the story personally appeals to me. like i could relate to the story's ideals, the characters, their struggles, joy and such.

because reading is a commitment, if i were to do it, i'd rather read my ideal story, or something close to it. because i don't want to waste even a bit of my time feeling stressed and bummed, waiting for something that's probably not going to come.

so yeah, it boils down that I just don't like the usual writing style in classics, but that doesn't mean a lot of them are the same. take hemingway, for example. and to say, it's not that modern writing can't be filled with complex language and spam of descriptions either.

as for the rest, i'll just treat it like any other story. timeless classic or not, i won't bother with it, if i know i won't like it. because my free time is limited, and i want to use it to enjoy something worthwhile for me.

Whoa Nelly. This is the internet, where using the concise language you advocate in modern writing is the recommended form of communication. This verbosity, isn't it what you associate with literature? *blinks*
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
939
Points
133
Whoa Nelly. This is the internet, where using the concise language you advocate in modern writing is the recommended form of communication. This verbosity, isn't it what you associate with literature? *blinks*

i don't think using simple english is verbose? to me, verbose is only when you spam ornate-or difficult words like i don't know cantankerous, verisimilitude or quixotic. nor sure though.

well, just trying to get my point across. you wanna read it, fine. if you don't, feel free to move on.
 

FemmeFatale

O.O Skullie Did It O.O
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
435
Points
93
i don't think using simple english is verbose? to me, verbose is only when you spam ornate-or difficult words like i don't know cantankerous, verisimilitude or quixotic. nor sure though.

well, just trying to get my point across. you wanna read it, fine. if you don't, feel free to move on.

In their day the people that could write and had the time to do so thought they were being eloquent or clever. Much like a Stephen King or Anne Rice, Neil Gaimen, etc.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
939
Points
133
In their day the people that could write and had the time to do so thought they were being eloquent. Much like a Stephen King or Anne Rice, Neil Gaimen, etc.

these names sound pretty recent. i think i knew stephen king's the shining from that meme.

at first i thought you're referring to those who still write about the great depression and the jazz era. and when i think about eloquence, Shakespeare was the one that came to mind first lol

not that it's any wrong. each author has their own voice and these names are ones that made it work. if they made it, i guess they can just put their smug glasses 'cuz haters gonna hate.
 

FemmeFatale

O.O Skullie Did It O.O
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
435
Points
93
these names sound pretty recent. i think i knew stephen king's the shining from that meme.

at first i thought you're referring to those who still write about the great depression and the jazz era. and when i think about eloquence, Shakespeare was the one that came to mind first lol

not that it's any wrong. each author has their own voice and these names are ones that made it work. if they made it, i guess they can just put their smug glasses 'cuz haters gonna hate.

Great Depression? Jazz? They are all modern writers that write with eloquence. It has nothing to do with historical setting. Check out their biographies.
Funny enough, Shakespeare was not meant to be eloquent at all...he was more like pulp fiction and the topics he wrote of were things everyone knew about...well mostly. Literature is funny like that.

Seriously though...if you answer you may want to PM me cause we are taking over this thread. :)
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
939
Points
133
Great Depression? Jazz? They are all modern writers that write with eloquence. It has nothing to do with historical setting. Check out their biographies.
Funny enough, Shakespeare was not meant to be eloquent at all...he was more like pulp fiction and the topics he wrote of were things everyone knew about...well mostly. Literature is funny like that.

Seriously though...if you answer you may want to PM me cause we are taking over this thread. :)

eyy

guess i'll do that, if i had something up :D /
 

FemmeFatale

O.O Skullie Did It O.O
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
435
Points
93
“I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best.”
― Marilyn Monroe

Heh, I've seen this quoted many times, in bits and pieces, and apparently it's a full quote. She is someone I wish I'd met.
 
Top