6 Books Everyone (Including Your English Teacher) Got Wrong

Anybody who grew up in the 1960s (and still remembers anything about it) can tell you what Lewis Carroll's classic children's book was really all about: A girl takes a "trip" down the rabbit hole and finds herself in a surreal world where animals start talking to her. After she eats some "mushrooms," everything starts to change sizes before her eyes. She meets an over-stimulated "white rabbit" and a stoned caterpillar smoking a "shitload of drugs."

We didn't really need Jefferson Airplane to clarify it; Alice in Wonderland is the Fear and Loathing of fairy tales. It became one of the most important allegories of the 60s counterculture, with scenes that accurately correspond to the sensation of every mind-altering substance known to man. The Beatles drew heavily from Carroll's work during their fucked-up phase (1962-1971, according to historians), and acid still comes in tabs with the Cheshire Cat printed on them.

What it's really about:
Lewis Carroll was the pen name of the very conservative Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, Anglican deacon and professor of mathematics. He wrote Alice in the 1860s, a time when the most radical thing taking place on college campuses was complex math. While that sounds innocent enough, Carroll thought it would lead straight to Satan. Yes, the book that launched a million acid trips was written by the biggest square in the universe for the nerdiest reason imaginable.

NERD.
All the weird drug-trippy stuff that's been misinterpreted since Woodstock is, we're sorry to say, really just an elaborate satire of modern mathematics. Dodgson was old school when it came to math, because right up until his time, math professors still taught from a 2,000-year-old textbook. That all began to change in the mid-1800s, when a bunch of irritating young people invaded academia and started bringing new concepts to math. Weird new concepts. Like "imaginary numbers" and other crazy stuff.
What incensed Dodgson was that math no longer had any real-world grounding. He knew that you could add two apples to three apples to get five apples, but once you start thinking about the square root of -1 apples, you're living on the moon. The Rev. Dodgson thought the new mathematics was completely absurd, like something you'd dream up if you were on drugs.

Dodgson to new mathematics: "Get the hell off my lawn."
So he decided to write a book about a world that followed the laws of abstract mathematics, purely to point out the batshit lunacy of it. Things keep changing size and proportion before Alice's eyes, not because she's tripping on bad acid, but because the world is based on stupid postmodern algebra with shit like imaginary numbers that don't even make any sense god dammit. "Alice" was the sensible Euclidian mathematician trying desperately to keep herself sane and tempered, while "Wonderland" was really Christ Church College at Oxford, where Dodgson worked, and its inhabitants were just as barking mad as he thought his colleagues really were.

Before there were hippies, there were beatniks: the goateed hipsters in berets and black turtlenecks, playing the bongos and writing shitty poetry. During the late 50s, these pseudo-intellectuals crowded every coffee house and jazz club with an open mic night.
Jack Kerouac is responsible for every last one of them. His semiautobiographical novel, On the Road, made being a nonconformist trendy and inspired an entire movement he coined "The Beat Generation."

Crazy, baby.
The book is about Kerouac's bromance with a former car thief with a knack for free verse, and chronicles their adventures across America, as they abandon square social expectations for a more hedonistic lifestyle filled with sex, drugs and jazz. It wasn't just a beatnik bible, either. Major counterculture icons of the 60s, like Jim Morrison and Bob Dylan, were said to have "dug it." In fact, it's generally believed that hippies are really just beatniks with worse hygiene.

And worse taste in fashion.
What it's really about:
First of all, Kerouac hated beatniks; he thought they were a bunch of posers. Anyone who wanted to be a part of "The Beat Generation" completely missed the point. In his mind, those who were "Beat" were beaten down by society's demands and struggled to find their place in the world. It was not something you chose to be because it would help you meet chicks.

As far as his time On the Road, he hated that too. Kerouac spent roughly seven years roaming the countryside looking for answers. He never found any, and it's pretty clear in the book. Yes, there were some wild times that seemed like a blast, but it got old after awhile. Nevertheless, it was that side of his character everyone celebrated even though he tried to put it behind him.
Kerouac was a Catholic who grew to have pretty conservative politics, so he was always resentful of inspiring what would become a cultural revolution. And keep in mind, Kerouac wasn't even describing events that took place during that time. Since the novel came out in the late 50s, everyone assumed he was describing the thought and feelings of that era, but the events of the novel took place almost a decade before. He wasn't even writing about the era he supposedly defined.

Friedrich Nietzsche is probably the most-recognized name in philosophy behind Socrates and Aristotle. But his notoriety with the layman is mainly due to the people he inspired -- Ted Bundy, Mussolini and Hitler. His seminal work, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, is about as cheery as anything Nietzsche ever penned. It popularized the quote "God is dead" and illustrates Nietzsche's disdain for the concept of traditional morality and his prediction that some kind of master race would soon drag itself out of the slime and rule the world.
He refers to the rightful owner of the world as the "superman" and the "splendid blond beast," and anyone with a passing interest in modern history knows exactly where that line of thinking is going.

Hitler, who might otherwise have faded out of history as just another square-mustached college dropout, picked up a copy of Zarathustra and was inspired to do a little more with his life. Some years later he distributed copies to his soldiers and went about arranging a big-budget live stage adaptation known as "the Holocaust."
What it's really about:
If Nietzsche wasn't too busy being dead, he would probably have had a few words with Hitler about the fuehrer's liberal interpretation of his work, due mainly to the fact that Nietzsche hung around with entirely the wrong crowd. His sister, Elisabeth, and good friend, composer Richard Wagner, were both as Nazi as the goose-step.

This portrait of Wagner comes courtesy of a dockside caricature artist.
After Nietzsche died, Elisabeth inherited the rights to his works and went about diligently re-editing them with a "kill all the Jews" subtext. It didn't help that Nietzsche's thought-baton was then picked up by the philosopher Martin Heidegger -- you guessed it: Nazi.
Nietzsche actually hated anti-Semites, having refused to attend his sister's wedding because she was marrying a Nazi, and even wrote that "anti-Semites should be shot." We have his sister to thank for the "blond beast" confusion. She, Hitler and decades of disapproving philosophy students interpret this as an allusion to the Aryan race. In fact, Nietzsche was just describing lions.

After all, does this look like the mustache of a racist?
And as for the "superman" thing, rather than referring to some genetically pure German dictator, Nietzsche was just making a generic statement about people who believe in the subjectivity of morals and seek to find their own values in the world -- a concept wholly incompatible with just following the whim of some guy with a hate-boner for some specific race. Interpreting Zarathustra's message as a call to raise an army and purge the world of undesirables is something akin to believing that Animal Farm was really a warning about farm animals taking over the world.

Wait, it isn't?
S Peter Davis writes for OxygenThieves and takes on 3,000 years of thought at Three Minute Philosophy.
For more regretful pioneers, check out 6 Geniuses Who Saw Their Inventions Go Terribly Wrong. Or learn about some masterpieces that the world loathed, in 6 Great Novels that Were Hated in Their Time.
And stop by Linkstorm to see some more misunderstood geniuses.
And don't forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get sexy, sexy jokes sent straight to your news feed.
Do you have an idea in mind that would make a great article? Then sign up for our writers workshop! Do you possess expert skills in image creation and manipulation? Mediocre? Even rudimentary? Are you frightened by MS Paint and simply have a funny idea? You can create an infograpic and you could be on the front page of Cracked.com tomorrow!








As a firm proponent of the "Fuck complex math" platform, I applaud Mr Carrol and his irrational hatred of necessary, yet completely f*****g frustrating, concepts.
ReplyI found the Nietzsche bit fascinating, I study theology in Ireland (just an arts course though, not the priest-y one lol) and in one of the philosophy of God bits, TSZ came up and we really didn't ever study it as an influence on Nazism. It was just a very interesting treatise on moral decline and individualism and stuff. But the whole Nazi thing, though I've never really heard it in class, is pretty fascinating against the backdrop of Hitler's racial ideology. This was also very very funny xD I like!! *thumbs up squared*
Reply...i'm scared.
ReplyIt's *so* good to see Nietzsche's work not outrageously and revoltingly misrepresented for once.
ReplyIt's astounding that even today he's usually completely misunderstood and his ideas twisted into hollow caricatures of their true sentiment and meaning.
"Thoughts Out of Season", indeed.
In the forward of my copy of Alice in Wonderland it says this was just a story Carroll made up for two young girls...
Replybaloney
Thank you for putting Nietzsche to light. Thank god (pun) at least some people now know Nietzsche's actual message
ReplyThere are platonic burgers made of beef instead of cow lips and hooves. ... There are hot dog fillings which have more in common with meat than mere pinkness, whose lucky consumers don't apply mustard /because that would spoil the taste/. It's just that people can be trained to prefer the other sort, and seek it out. It's as if Machiavelli had written a cookery book.
ReplyThumbs down for a Discworld quote? And one that links two entries on the list, too. Cracked readership, what has happened to you?
Interesting article, and I appreciate the part about Nietzsche, but the use of "postmodern" is a little anachronistic.
ReplyThat's the joke, though.
Wasn't there another Cracked article not too long ago that said Alice in Wonderland was just a pretty story the author told his underage girlfriend to entertain her and only put it down on paper after her insistence? So what's the truth Cracked?
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesMaybe it was both? =P But yes, I agree. I thought of that other article too...
You know, I was about to make this exact comment?
I'd say it was a tiny bit of both. Maybe he based the story that he was telling to the young girl on his opinion of contempory mathematics? Hard to say, really.
I think the basic story came from that lil' event in his life, but when he decided it was worth writing down, he certainly could've added this spin to it because he felt the two complemented each other and would spin together well.
Reader beware: This shall no doubt evolve into a less than brief expose on Thus Spoke Zarathustra and all the ways he's been misinterpreted, including by this article.
Reply Hide All See All 6 RepliesNietzsche. Bless me, where to begin...
What I love about this article is that it put Thus Spoke Zarathustra at number 1. What I find tragically ironic is that its reasons for being 'number one in misinterpreted books' are prolific, and thus just about any article trying to succinctly sum up the ways in which it has been are also, inevitably, going to leave much misinterpreted.
For many years I believed the endlessly consistent reports from countless people that Nietzsche was a foaming-mouthed nihilist who basically got famous for grappling his way to the top of the philosophical world by shooting everyone else's philosophies down and insisting that life is meaningless, the world is a shithole, anyone who believes in God, religion, or a soul is an idiot, and that because of all that we shouldn't hesitate from indulging in whatever impulses and vices we like; because basically life is a complete joke, if not merely an endless void of nothingness and waste.
However, upon finally deciding to read Zarathustra myself, along with biographical materials, I was enormously surprised to find a very different picture. For starters, its quite obvious by opening the book to absolutely any page at all that the man is not a reverse fire and brimstone preacher of gloom and doom nihilism. He in fact cannot to any extent contain or disguise the babbling poet in him. All of his verses are profoundly beautiful and what ultimately gets to be exhaustingly poetic. The man can find an allegory, a symbol, a sign, a divinity, a beauty in absolutely anything. It should also be obvious to anyone intelligent enough to crack the book open for themselves that the book has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with Nazism, racial superiority, or madcap eugenics enthusiasm. Truth be told I'm alot more surprised that instead of Hitler there wasn't some wild sexist dictator that decided to do away with all women citing Nietzsche as their inspiration; there's a whole lot more of insanely degrading references to women (and- hey! even a whole chapter solely for it!) than any mention of 'God being dead', let well alone anything that could be drawn on for genocide. That being said, the next point to shoot down is the perception of his atheistic views in any regard to people like Richard Dawkins'. True, in the book he generally rejects God and religion in the way any of us wouldbe likely to understand them... But let it not be said that the man wasn't spiritual. The first big surprise I got from the book after seeing what a bleeding heart poet he was was what an overwhelming praiser of life and its beauty he succeeded in being through his writing. The second was how frequently the book in fact DISCUSSED the topic of divinity, faith, and enlightenment, and- to boot- how oddly often he quoted the Bible, Lutheran adages, and constructed his story of Zarathustra's voyage to mirror stories of spiritual figures such as Moses, Jesus, and Buddha in their great quest to find the truth, and abandon the distractions and illusions woven by society so that they could become enlightened and actually save it. As it should happen to be, this is probably because his father was a Lutheran PASTOR, and so, much like Darwin- also tragically misinterpreted as a raging atheist- Nietzsche was indeed a devout Christian, up until he lost his father and beloved childhood upbringing in a traumatic way (while Darwin, for the record, reached this point when his young daughter suffered a terrible death to disease), after which he angrily rejected the idea of the all-benevolent Christian God he had been taught and began questioning the universe, his life, and the meaning of it all more deeply; rather than accepting at face value what had been dogmatically preached to him. And, ultimately, THAT is what the book is about.
The story itself leads the reader on an extremely complex journey of emotional and psychological twists and turns which almost flawlessly encompasses every stage of thought and feeling any of us is ever likely to have experienced, until, at its closing, he finally discovers that he need not seek adherence to religion nor bitter attacking of its principles, but that the divinity in life has been within him and around him all along, simply as it is, and that it is by EITHER accepting anything institutionalized religion shoves down your throat OR getting lost in your own thoughts and feelings by questioning, intellectualizing, and muddling your own perceptions that the meaning of life becomes lost.
Whew. A mouthful.
He was a studied theologian and actually incorporated almost countless parables or quotes from numerous religions (including even polytheistic Greek's Achilles) in what appears to be an attempt to reach all people, confront the problems in all religions, and offer resolution for all of them. "'Bread?' replied Zarathustra laughing. 'Bread is precisely what hermits do not have. But man does not live by bread alone..." which is from Deuteronomy 8:3, Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4, and other places in the Bible. What is interesting to note here is another vastly important point about Nietzsche: Satire. His finishes that quote by saying "Man does not live by bread alone, but also by the flesh of good lambs, of which I have two. Lets us quickly slaughter these and prepare them spicily with sage: that is how I like it.'" This is a great quote to use if you're gonna go around quoting the man for many reasons. Clearly, he knows scripture and admires it enough to use as reply to humble the 'noble guests' who happen to be asking for it in that scene. But on top of that, scripture isn't immune to him for making light of. Lastly, the whole sentence is actually a play on words mocking the hermits of which he speaks; hermits who, also in that scene, is one of. This is almost at the end of the book, after he has gone through the long journey so similarly predated by figures like Jesus and Buddha, in which he starts among men, sees their delusion and error, goes on a search for truth, starts becoming enlightened, and ultimately leaves civilization to wander and be alone among nature. Shortly after this he realizes that hermitage, too, is a folly as it not only is regressive to the helping of others but also leads people to elevated egos and over-intellectualizing (read:muddling) of the truths in life. Thus in this quote the play on words is in fact that hermits who go seeking God by rejecting bread (as 'Man cannot live by bread alone') usually love nothing more than 'slaughtering the good sheep' (good disciples of religion and religion itself) for self-indulgence. And it is shortly after this quote that Zarathustra comes to that conscience realization, among many others, and leaves his cynical hermitage to emerge as (literally in the book) the sunlight of the beautiful earth.
Just about any passage in this book is rife with satire and part of his point- which he maddeningly achieves- is to confuse the reader into not even being able to follow HIS ideas (let alone anyone else's, or any religions) and lead them to numerous interpretations so that they might create THEIR OWN truth and find their own UNIQUE meaning and destiny in life. And the best quote I have to substantiate this and end my summary of his meaning for this book is this: "If you want to rise high, use your own legs! Do not let yourselves be carried up, do not sit on the heads and backs of strangers!"
Oh, lastly... Wagner WAS Nietzsche's friend. Once. He actually parted ways with his pal due to drastic ideological differences, and not only maliciously mocks one of Wagner's operas, Siegfried, in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" itself, but dedicated his entire last body of lucid work to nitpicking all the ways he disagreed with Wagner and generally thought the man a buffoon, aptly named 'Nieztche Contra Wagner'.
THUS Spoke Zarathustra. And Zarathustra always gets the last word, cuz he's a wild card!
I can't thumbs this up enough.
tl;dr
...If you never have, I think you could honestly review books for a website or paper. Because God, I want to read this book now. That wasn't even a TL;DR post for me it was so interesting.
Holy shit.
g*******t Narwhal, you stole my comment ;_; I'm sorry, I'm sure it was very interesting what you said, but by already seeing how long this comment was I couldn't even bring myself to read the first sentence.
While Zarathustra is an incredible combination of poetry, novel, and philosophy, Beyond Good and Evil is a more straightforward explication of his thought. I'd recommend reading BGE after TSZ to shed light on some of TSZ's more difficult to interpret symbols and metaphors.
maybe he meant Celsius 451?
ReplyIt's good to know that even back then, most people didn't even bother reading the equivalent of Sparknotes before naming a book as their life's biggest influence.
ReplyOf course, the metaphor of the noble yet savage 'Germanic' lion to the warlike Germanic people isn't really that big a leap.
"His sister, Elisabeth, and good friend, composer Richard Wagner, were both as Nazi as the goose-step."
ReplyWRONG.
Just because Wagner was German, lived in 19th century and had an admirer in Hitler doesn't mean he was a freaking nazi. Do I really need to point out that nazism and antisemitism aren't interchangeable?
Jews have been discriminated since ... always and antisemitism was particularly 'popular' in Middle Ages but I have yet to hear someone characterize whole Middle Age society as nazistic.
Oh yeah, Wagner also happened to die before Hitler was even born.
Except I'm pretty sure the goose-step isn't very nazi, which was the point.
No, the goose-step is very nazi, which is the point of the metaphor. It's an awkward sentence construction because normally when people make a statement "...but X is as Y as Z," they are using contrasting terms to imply that X isn't very Y at all. The author here, however, is using complementary terms (not complimentary!) because he is saying that his sister Elizabeth was very Nazi indeed, and that is why she re-edited all his books with a nazi slant.
Wagner's politics, regardless of how fascist they are or are not, are pretty much irrelevant to the point the author was making.
What about The Great Gatsby? F Scott Fitzgerald has said it was just a story without any hidden meaning within meanings. I can't find any sources on that right now though.
ReplyThat's because he never said that. From the book: "Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther.... And one fine morning-- So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
Tell me that's not about the American Dream being lost.
canwizard, you have everything right but the term "orgiastic". It was originally intended to be the lovely (though made-up) word "orgastic". As in "orgasm", not "orgy". The only reason it's "orgiastic" in most printings is that the stupid editor decided that had to be what he "really" meant... even though it wasn't.
Think about it a bit and it becomes clear that there is a big difference in meaning between "orgastic" and "orgiastic". ;)
I'm lucky I read a version of the text that mentioned that in the annotations (and returned it to the original wording!), because I would have missed a much nicer phrasing if I hadn't... made-up word or not.
"Friedrich Nietzsche is probably the most-recognized name in philosophy behind Socrates and Aristotle"
Reply Hide All See All 5 Replies... wat? I actually just created an account on this website just to '... wat?' that sentence. Seriously, wat?
Are you saying that he is not that famous to non-philosohers or that he is, in fact, more famous that the greeks?
I think he's saying that no one knows who Friedrich is.
I think he is saying Nietzsche is a Buddhist temple.
It's kind of a hard analogy to make because nobody knows any more philosophers than Socrates and Aristotle. Nietzsche, Voltaire, and some scattered German and Russian atheists are the only other philosophers I've even heard of, Nietzsche being the most prominent.
All the philosophers I know come from that one Monty Python song. If you ain't in the song, you ain't a philosopher of any note.
Can we all just come to the conclusion that everyone (now & generations past)misinterprets what others say & write? It's basically like the game "Telephone". One person says something & by the time it gets to the last person, the saying is completely different. I blame the a**holes in the middle.
ReplyI knew #7, how could anyone not think it was for Socialism? At most half the book is about the factory conditions, SPOILER ALERT the other half is him wandering through the countryside, realizing how s**t his life was and how much better it would've been if he say became a farmer, going back to Chicago and joining the system which ruined him, before meeting the guy who raped his wife and being ruined again. When they were talking about bribes they mentioned how the Socialists would not take any, and he then goes to a Socialist convention and joins them, his story is just a great example for them and so the last 10 pages of the book is just a dialogue where the main character is silent and all the Socialist leaders talk about how they're gaining power all over the country and the last three words of the book are "CHICAGO WILL BE OURS".
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesI have no clue how anyone would say this book was about how terrible the working conditions were when that was such a small part of the story.
#7?
"CHICAGO WILL BE OURS." may be the best end to a book ever.
"CHICAGE WILL BE OURS" is four words, not three. Unless I'm missing something?
LOL so I was right about Fahrenheit 451 being about tv.My teacher told me I was wrong when we went over it in class. Also Lewis Carroll would be the best math teacher!
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesI hope for your sake you're not a little girl cause then Lewis Carroll would LOVE to be your math teacher, if you catch my drift.
@TeaOnSunday Just like that..old man in...that book by Nabokov!
PS: Yes, I actually decided to finally register to reply to that...
Lolita, papoj1. And that book is more about the dangers of unmitigated vice and a lack of self control than the child-loving.
@papoj1 I'm honored.
@canwizard. Right, Humbert Humbert is still a f*****g pedophile.
The author of this article must have NEVER read "The Prince". Satire is supposed to have a level of absurdity, not be DEAD ON FREAKING accurate! Not only that, Machiavelli goes through great pains in the book to show how contemporary events support his hypothesis'. While no one can doubt that he was a proponent of Free Republics, he was also pragmatic and was trying to gain favor with a ruler that he knew wasnt going anywhere any time soon.
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesYou probably read A Modest Proposal and thought Jonathan Swift really ate babies.
Erm it's like 400 years old, humor and satire is VERY different from that time, that's why if you ever saw some pictures of old cartoons or humor of say the 1600's you wouldn't laugh at all and might even think they were serious because the way people thought of things and spoke was much different back then.
if you had read the damned article you can see it is sarcastic
Machiavelli isn't an idiot, so his portrayal of how realpolitik works is probably pretty accurate. But that's not really the point; he's basically saying "Sure, this is how you COULD run a country, if you were a total dickwad of a d******d with all the morals and basic decency of a caravan made of dicks." It's like the muckrakers of the early 20th century; just because it's an accurate depiction of people's actions doesn't mean it's a compliment.
realpolitik is a fascinating concept. it seems obvious, but the way it is applied shows some very interesting things.
Such an interesting article :) Thanks !
Reply