[valentinesdayyy]

*possible spoilers (if anyone cares)*

So, we finished reading this in my English class today. I thought it was terrible until the last Chapter where it actually gets interesting and surprisingly sad. Your thoughts on the book?

Also, is the movie any good?

[AccusaJalsBub]

*possible spoilers (if anyone cares)*

So, we finished reading this in my English class today. I thought it was terrible until the last Chapter where it actually gets interesting and surprisingly sad. Your thoughts on the book?

Also, is the movie any good?

Movie>book gary sinse and john malcovich are really really good in it. I studied this in my last year of secondary school for GCSE (when I was 16) and really enjoyed it, I liked the book especially a lot of the symbolism like calling the town soledad etc. But yh I like english, doing english lit at uni, start in 2 weeks :s

[soSldI4i]

The movie is good, the book, was a little bland until the end like you said

"And tend the rabbits George"

Blah, however. However in the movie, well everyone got a kick at the 'best part' Which i'm sure you can guess at to what it is.

Needless to say, I think George was a gangster with a gun.

[Sillaycheg]

Where has appreciation for great literature gone?

Next thing you know, people will be complaining about the lack of explosions in To Kill a Mockingbird, or how there aren't enough action scenes in The Great Gatsby.

[harriettvanders]

Where has appreciation for great literature gone?

Next thing you know, people will be complaining about the lack of explosions in To Kill a Mockingbird, or how there aren't enough action scenes in The Great Gatsby.

Now that you mention it...

[picinaRefadia]

Where has appreciation for great literature gone?

Next thing you know, people will be complaining about the lack of explosions in To Kill a Mockingbird, or how there aren't enough action scenes in The Great Gatsby.

To Kill a mockingbird is over rated, however great gatsby is absolutely amazing, i love the book soooo much, the redford film wasn't too bad but I hope the new dicaprio film doesn't look as meh as the trailer made it look however I like the look of certain set pieces and the real closeness of some of it to the book but from the trailer it def looks like a baz luhrmann film. But yh gatsby is amazing, did it for my eng lit AS level exam, got a band 5 (the highest band is band 6) and just loved the use of nick as the unreliable narrator, soooo good, love the depth and the limitless discussions that can be had; oh and hte heat, the heat...!!!! ;p

However if you wanna get into literature discussion; these books are american literature which can't be considered true literature like some of the classics. As being from the UK and an english literature student I have to give some snobbish like sense on this type of matter

[8jIDXQ80]

Where has appreciation for great literature gone?

Next thing you know, people will be complaining about the lack of explosions in To Kill a Mockingbird, or how there aren't enough action scenes in The Great Gatsby.

I wasn't complaining, overall I liked the book, but only because of the last 20 pages or so.

Also, I agree with to Kill a Mockingbird being overrated. I hated that book last year. I have yet to read the Great Gatsby, but I've heard it's amazing and that it's on list of books for us to read this year.

[colmedindustry]

If you want to say that the Twilight series isn't real liiterature, go ahead, but these are all good examples of old American literature. That's the main reason they are required reading for many American schools.

I'm not going to argue Shakespeare with you or anything, but to dismiss American literature as "not real literature" is on the same level as the whole "legitimate rape" scandal that went down a few weeks ago. Wrong and close-minded.

[chuecalovers]

If you want to say that the Twilight series isn't real liiterature, go ahead, but these are all good examples of old American literature. That's the main reason they are required reading for many American schools.

I'm not going to argue Shakespeare with you or anything, but to dismiss American literature as "not real literature" is on the same level as the whole "legitimate rape" scandal that went down a few weeks ago. Wrong and close-minded.

I'm not saying that they arn't real literature, I thought you would have gathered that from my posts as i like of mice and men and love gatsby however true literature is not just shakespeare but its also the works of ppl like dickens, yeats, wordsworth, jane austen, rudyard kipling, play writes like marlowe and other jacobean play writes of that era; those are the classics.

Again to give a weighted argument on literature and "classics" I have to act like the snobbish english literature studying englishman I, deep down, really am and to say american literature books like these are old... they really arn't these are more pre war post modern classics (well to kill a mockingbird was published in post war but u get the point) and yh these books arn't just studied in usa schools but also here in the uk. I would call these american literature books the pinical of american literature and required reading over classics. Just like novels like 1984, animal farm and brave new world arn't really classics but great novels none the less from a similar time period as those american novels we have been discussing; but again these are not really classics but required reading.

However american literature doesn't go that far back so for you to call them old I can kinda see justified but to me they arn't that old at all really, but then again america's history doesn't go too far back and so all its roots originate from britain and thus any good literature developed in america was always going to be around the post modern era

[economex]

Well, it all depends on how you interpret the word "classic". It seems you have a very strictly defined definition, which is fine, but you would do well to remember that the phrase "instant classic" does exist.

[StevenS]

Well, it all depends on how you interpret the word "classic". It seems you have a very strictly defined definition, which is fine, but you would do well to remember that the phrase "instant classic" does exist.

Google defines classic literature as: A classic book is a book accepted as being exemplary or noteworthy, either through an imprimatur such as being listed in any of the Western canons or through a reader's own personal opinion.

In my opinion somin to be considered classic in literature has to be part of the canon and for you anything you think is good and like can be considered classic. Thats fine we are both right but I feel from looking at literature as being a student of it my opinion on what makes a classic due to english literature being far more developed than american literature means these other great books arn't quite the classics other pieces of literature are