Classical literature honestly rated, part 1
Are some classical books overrated? Definitely! Do some people read classical literature and say it is good just to seem like an intellectual? Yes! Are there secretly hidden gems in the big pile of this overrated shit? Of course! I have read a great deal of classical literature and here is my honest opinion:
PS: some authors had a series, like Agatha Christie and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I’ve picked the most popular books from them.
Frankenstein, Mary Shelley: 10/10
My expectations for this book were incredibly low. I have always despised how Frankenstein and his monster were depicted in the media. Old man in a lab coat, Lightning, IT’S ALIVEEE, some green man with bolts in his head. But it was absolutely not that! Frankenstein is the story of a young man with a god complex who creates his own ‘adam’. It all turns out into some bloody murder thriller, with the best dialogue I’ve ever encountered.
A Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: 7/10
Alright, I’ve seen the tv adaptation of the book in Sherlock, but it does not compare to its original. First of all, Sherlock Holmes is an actual good character, not some asshole? He was the first literature character that I related to. And how Watson is the one writing his story down makes it feel real somehow. It is also very interesting to read how crime-scene-investigations went in that time period. (a puddle of the killer’s blood? Gross, mob it up!). But, though it is a short story it feels quite slow.
The Devine Comedy, Dante Alighieri: 5/10
So, Dante’s Devine Comedy shaped the modern view on heaven and hell. The things he described in this book were so graphic that artists based their depiction of hell on it. And truly, the storytelling is creative (Dante himself is the main character who makes a journey through the rings of hell all the way to paradise), and the descriptions are quite graphic (murders get boiled in a river of blood! yey!), but it is a very long book that feels so slow, it’s like you yourself are walking down the rings of hell yourself. I did not get further than Inferno (the first part of three, about the rings of hell) and I would rather be boiled in blood than read on.
The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald: 9/10
This… this book blew me out of the park. Before reading this I had never even touched a classical book before. The phrasing is incredibly poetic, the characters are all wonderful, the scenes are described so well it is like you are standing in the middle of them. The emotions and the mystery of the main story added to this pile of things finishes it off perfectly. But I swear if I see one more line from this book quoted by some hipster blog or stolen by that Atticus guy, I’m going to [spoiler redacted].
Les Miserables, Victor Hugo: 7/10
It took me reading this book hours every day for 3 weeks straight to finish it but man was I glad I did it! The many complicated (complicated in the good, Shakespearian sense) characters with all their own complicated (again, in a good way) storylines are iconic. Iconic, that’s the only word I can find for it. And poetic. Some lines are so beautiful and inspirational I had to underline them. But that good old Victor Hugo, Uncle Vic, HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO SHUT UP. I love the book, I do, but when I was on page 1800 reading about the history of the sewer system in Paris, I almost closed the book for good. Also, I skipped that whole Waterloo business. It was bullshit.
Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens: 3/10
I tried. I really did. I had to read an English novel for my English course and I choose Oliver Twist. I played in a musical about it, I saw the movie… but the book. Dear god. It was TOUGH. I have read a total of 5 chapters, maybe? And I have never even touched a Dickens ever since.
The Odyssey, Homerus: 7/10
I guess it depends on which translation you get, but I loved mine. I could taste the wine, sweet as honey. I could smell the olive oil on their skin. Though the book is almost entirely event-based and Odysseus cheats on his wife several times, it is overall a fun story about a likeable hero. Though, I read the Geronimo Stilton version when I was little and I liked that one far better.
Dracula, Bram Stoker: 7,5/10
Another book I thought would be horrible, based on its depiction in the media. Seduction, Crosses, a vampire seeking his lost bride. Absolutely not. Stoker is sometimes so exact in its description of horrors I got nauseous. The characters, both men and women, are likeable, and the book is set up as if it is a collection of information on Dracula and how to defeat him. Like a manual, how creative! Though, if it were up to me I’d have chosen a different set-up, with a different starting point and a different main character. But, that is just taste I suppose.
The Murder on the Orient Express, Agatha Christie: 6/10
Have you seen the movie? Did you like it? It’s exactly the movie. The main character, Poirot does some thinking aloud, but otherwise, he does not really explain his deductive thinking. This makes the book detailed on some points and vague on others.
1984, George Orwell: 5/10
The classic! The….. boring. Though the ideas that Orwell proposes of a dystopian future are perfect, the story in which it is presented is very boring. A love-affair, seriously? People are DYING George! The ending is very interesting, though.
Any play by Shakespeare: fuck off/10
Listen, I love Shakespeare. I read his sonnets, I’ve seen multiple plays and movies of Shakespeare. But to actually READ Shakespeare’s plays? What the hell! I read one scene of Hamlet (which I adore very much) and I had to lie down for a moment. “That’s just because you’re perhaps not used to reading such difficult literature” shut up you elitist jerk. English may not be my native language but I am still damn good with it. I believe Shakespeare’s plays are meant to be SEEN by the public and READ by the actors.
