How come I don't get classic literature?

[Hero in a half shell]

I think the problem is that most books today are written to tell a story, wereas books in older times (especially the classics)were written to explore philosophical ideals, push the boundaries of social acceptability, and the story was generally subject to the ideas they were pushing.

To see this I would recommend you read Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde It won't take you long, because the thing is only about 40 pages long! The plot is simplistic and there is next to no action or suspense, but it is regarded as a fantastic book because of the themes it explores in the narrative D. J. and M. H. is about the state of the human condition, the dichotomy of good and evil, what makes a person do good or bad things, and is it possible for a well adjusted person to commit horrible acts and why. The story is alright, but it is the themes that you are supposed to drink in. They are supposed to keep you thinking about them for hours, debate with others, etc. They encourage academia.

Todays books largely do not do that. You will not find an exploration in existentiallism and anarchy in anything written by J. K. Rowling, or Stephanie Meyer, but that was the whole point of the classic book "The Secret Agent" by Joseph Conrad. You will not find the subtle unnerving horror of Daphe Du Marier's Rebecca in any of the post modern literature; the idea of the main character playing second fiddle to their husbands first wife, even in as far as the book being named after her (the main character doesn't get a name)

You can't read a classic and just try and enjoy the story. You have to look deeper into the themes it is discussing, and think about them. A study guide will help immensely in this.

 

[Infernai]

I'm a 16-year old metalhead gamer

Found your problem.

People nowadays have no attention span. At all.

What are you on about? I have a very good attention spa- Oh look a butterfly!

 

[ediblemitten]

2DEEP4U

No but in all seriousness, just because I book was written along time ago, it isn't automatically good. There are plenty of over-rated old books *cough*Moby Dick*cough*, just as there are today.

 

[Tharwen]

I think the problem is that the classics have all been distilled and streamlined by modern books that borrow from them, to the extent that they all seem predictable and simplistic.

Basically, you've been spoiled by modern iterations of the same books.

 

[Tanakh]

It's an acquired taste [http://xkcd.com/915/] better suited to a time long past.

You know.

The time it was from and made for.

It is an acquired taste, like wine or videogames; like heck it's better suited for a time long past.

And by golly OP, your selection looks awful, Dante and Cervantes are not for lit noobs IMO. Take something like Frankenstein or Robinson Crusoe, or better yet The Count of Monte Cristo, it will familiarize you with the art without breaking your balls.

 

[Kargathia]

I'm a 16-year old metalhead gamer

Found your problem.

People nowadays have no attention span. At all.

Pretty sure they have the same attention span as they always did. I'm not really arguing with you, but I do hate when people speak disparagingly about 'people nowadays' as though they're fundamentally different to people in the past. Were teenagers ever the target audience for these books? Certainly novels, as a current medium of entertainment, were more popular amongst the young then than now, but does anyone really suppose there's been some grand change in the nature of mankind? Would teenagers of the past seriously have spurned video games in favour of trawling through something slow-paced and thematically dense?

Again, it's more of a tangent than really a disagreement, but... ugh. It seems depressingly common to view any time before the industrial revolution as some kind of intellectual utopia, and today as the brink of the stupidocalypse.

Teenagers of the past generally didn't read books, but even if they did they'd probably have preferred video games.

It is getting pretty clear though that the internet in specific and digital communication in general is having noticeable effects on how our minds work. I can't think of any definite results on short term memory right now, but our long term memories are changing from actually remembering everything to remembering where we can find the info.

Which means by no means we're getting dumber - we're just learning to cope with having amounts of data at our disposal that would make anyone from the 18th century batshit crazy.

I used to think exactly like that until I took this college literature class that was based heavily on discussing what we read. It amazed me all of the things, such as underlying plots or symbolism or commentary on humanity, that everyone else noticed that I didn't. Once it was pointed out, you really notice it and I think you appreciate it a lot more because you see the depth and the thought the author put into it now that it's more than just a story.

Ahhh yea, I had my teacher explaining every single little hidden meaning in some short story once. Took him 6 hours to get through 5 pages.
It proved that stories are like jokes: once you have to explain them to death, they're no fun.

 

[Sammisaurus]

I used to think exactly like that until I took this college literature class that was based heavily on discussing what we read. It amazed me all of the things, such as underlying plots or symbolism or commentary on humanity, that everyone else noticed that I didn't. Once it was pointed out, you really notice it and I think you appreciate it a lot more because you see the depth and the thought the author put into it now that it's more than just a story.

 

[coolkirb]

I do enjoy some Classics but you have to remember they ,might not seem that great because the writing has aged and is out of date and not understandable by the average person, also it may seem like nothing new because it was the book that originally did it and now it just seems like a cliche because other books copied or borrowed from it.

 

[The_Deleted]

You can guarantee a lot of people who claim to understand and have read this stuff haven't and are just trying to come across as superior and self important. Just do what everyone else does and BS your way through it.

In all seriousness, though, some of it just takes practice to read. You need to train your brain to reassess the use of language and phrasing. So, getting to grips with Homer or Dante will not be the same as getting to grips with Shakespeare or Dickens.

 

[teebeeohh]

it's the same with every form of media that is still being consumed long after everyone involved in its creation is dead: it was outstanding in some way for its time and thus can teach us something about that time and also about us.
And some people will just like that and most people won't. The only difference is that because language is incredibly important no matter what you do with your life we get classic literature rammed down our throats in school.

 

[Ramanthes]

Don't read classics.Read good books.If you really want to do Classics start from 20th century and move back.The Great Gatsby,Catcher in the Rye,Lord of the Flies.Try one of those (I think you'll enjoy Lord of the Flies).DO.NOT.START.WITH.SHAKESPEARE OR ULYSSES.If anything I personally find that Shakespeare makes for a terrible read ,watch English productions of his plays instead(Branagh films for example,he uses the original text).

If you don't enjoy them,it's cool.There are great books that are not (yet) considered classics.Stephen King,Jonathan Coe,Terry Pratchet are three of my favorite contemporary writers.Try to read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when possible.A great series.

Oh and disregard my previous "20th century and work your way back" comment in this particular case of a great book; Three Men in a Boat.

There you go,I just ruined your amount of free time for the rest 5 or so years.Enjoy!

 

[coolkirb]

I'm a 16-year old metalhead gamer

Found your problem.

People nowadays have no attention span. At all.

Pretty sure they have the same attention span as they always did. I'm not really arguing with you, but I do hate when people speak disparagingly about 'people nowadays' as though they're fundamentally different to people in the past. Were teenagers ever the target audience for these books? Certainly novels, as a current medium of entertainment, were more popular amongst the young then than now, but does anyone really suppose there's been some grand change in the nature of mankind? Would teenagers of the past seriously have spurned video games in favour of trawling through something slow-paced and thematically dense?

Again, it's more of a tangent than really a disagreement, but... ugh. It seems depressingly common to view any time before the industrial revolution as some kind of intellectual utopia, and today as the brink of the stupidocalypse.

Teenagers of the past generally didn't read books, but even if they did they'd probably have preferred video games.

It is getting pretty clear though that the internet in specific and digital communication in general is having noticeable effects on how our minds work. I can't think of any definite results on short term memory right now, but our long term memories are changing from actually remembering everything to remembering where we can find the info.

Which means by no means we're getting dumber - we're just learning to cope with having amounts of data at our disposal that would make anyone from the 18th century batshit crazy.

Dont forget that thanks to the internet and cellphones the english language is undergoing massive changes and will probably be vastly different in 20 maybe even ten years time

 

[OtherSideofSky]

Hello there fellow Escapists,

This summer, I have been given the task to read 20 foreign literary classics, like Hamlet, Inferno, Don Quijote, Robinson Crusoe and etc. As of writing this review, I have only read Inferno and Don Quijote.

Since they are universally regarded as solid literary gold, I tough to myself "Let's see what all the fuss is about". And ... I was underwhelmed. Inferno wasn't half-bad and I liked it's unique depiction of hell as an ironic twist to people's corresponding sin (aka contrapasso) and I tough Dante's depiction of Satan was awesome. But I didn't really see it as "Classic material".

With Don Quijote, I like the general idea - that of a mad knight living his delusional fantasies in the real world. But when I got right down to it, it was really, really dissapointing. Every time Quijote opened his mouth I wished he'd just shut the fuck up! I know the guy is crazy, but that doesn't excuse the mountain of text coming out of his mouth every time someone ask a simple question as "Are you hungry?". But that's not my main problem with the book. My main problem is that every instance Quijote was fighting an imaginary monster-wizard-giant-whatever-he-can-come-up-with, I was thinking "Hmmm ... this would make a really awesome game, or a CGI movie ... or even a cartoon <cough*Japan*cough>". My point is - This could be a really awesome spectacle, and not a mountain of text.

Why can't I see what everyone (okay, not everyone, but scholars and teachers and etc.) else sees in these books? Maybe I'm just an idiot, who knows. But how can I possibly comprehent the supposed genius behind a 400 year old piece of literature, written in 1601 by a 40-something year old british writer (Hamlet, if you haven't already guessed), when I'm a 16-year old metalhead gamer? And in what possible shape way or form can I relate to it?

I remind myself of one particular South Park episode when our heroes write the most terrible book ever and every adult regards it as a work of genius. Is this the case here? Are people interpeting these books in such a bullshit way that they make them out to be masterpieces of humanity? Or am I just an idiot who doesn't get it?

EDIT 1: Should I feel stupid for not liking classic literature?

EDIT 2: If a book is considered "good for it's time" does that mean it holds up today? And should it be regarded as better than anything in recent years?

Part of your problem, especially with something like the Inferno, is that these books can lose a lot in translation. Always make sure to read up on the different available editions of classical literature, because many publishers are still using terrible outdated translations from the Victorian era to save money, and they can really destroy your enjoyment of a book.

Part of it is that tastes have changed over time. A book becomes a classic because it represents something important in the history and development of literature, not necessarily because it's fun to read. A lot of these books also become much more enjoyable if you're reading them for a class and discussing them with a group (I mean a university level class, if you're still in high school then a group discussion might just be an annoying waste of time).

You shouldn't feel bad if these books aren't to your taste, but there's a very wide range of literary classics and I'm sure you'll find something you enjoy. Might I recommend the Penguin Classics edition of The Count of Monte Cristo? It's very long, but it's much faster paced and full of much more action than anything you've mentioned. I think it should appeal more to what a modern reader is looking for in a novel.

 

[Hosker]

I don't think you can generalise two novels to the whole of classical literature. I'm sure you'll find one you like sooner or later.

 

[mjfisher]

Classic literature was written in a time when people actually had to think...with their own mind. Not wiki or google or even the abridgment. It was written by a select few that was ahead of their time. You have to remember that people of that era didn't have the life we have. or the freedoms. If we want to ponder the heavens or even simple philosophy we can. They on the other hand would be persecuted for such thoughts. Plus we have the time and technology to do so. Back then they were more concerned about the harvest and not what Plato had to say. You are not dumb for not understanding it, you are living in another era. Think of it as another Matrix. Everything then was different than today except for the things that worked.

 

[Kargathia]

Don't read classics.Read good books.If you really want to do Classics start from 20th century and move back.The Great Gatsby,Catcher in the Rye,Lord of the Flies.Try one of those (I think you'll enjoy Lord of the Flies).DO.NOT.START.WITH.SHAKESPEARE OR ULYSSES.If anything I personally find that Shakespeare makes for a terrible read ,watch English productions of his plays instead(Branagh films for example,he uses the original text).

If you don't enjoy them,it's cool.There are great books that are not (yet) considered classics.Stephen King,Jonathan Coe,Terry Pratchet are three of my favorite contemporary writers.Try to read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when possible.A great series.

Oh and disregard my previous "20th century and work your way back" comment in this particular case of a great book; Three Men in a Boat.

There you go,I just ruined your amount of free time for the rest 5 or so years.Enjoy!

I can add The French Lieutenant's Woman to that list. The story plays a good 60 years before the date of writing, so you won't miss out too much on temporary things the author doesn't bother to explain.

The Great Gatsby had a very good movie made out of it, maybe watch that before reading?

 

[Dastardly]

- snip -

What's important to realize is:

1. Most literature deals with issues and ideas of its time -- that is to say, the time in which it is written, not set. What seemed a big deal to that audience may not be very big now. To those folks who understand the historical context for which the story was written, they can appreciate how the subject is handled, rather than just the subject itself.

2. We tend to think of interesting or exciting books as being "cinematic." Do remember that, at this time, there was no such thing as a "cinema." Stage productions were fairly limited, too. So there was less of that style of entertainment to inform more "cinematic" writing practices.

3. Also, since entertainment wasn't as widespread and readily available, you couldn't count on your audience being exposed to a ton of images, so you had to be pretty descriptive.

4. Sometimes a classic is a classic because it's old and it managed to survive, not because it's necessarily "great."

5. Sometimes a classic is considered a classic because of one particular aspect of the work, while the other aspects are marginal or forgettable.

6. Sometimes a classic is called a classic because of who created it, even. It's unfortunate, but true. We tend to take someone who made a great work of art, and then just assume all of their work was equally great. Art, subjective as it is, is far more prone to having its quality adjusted by "connoisseurs." (Beethoven wrote an opera, and it sucked ass.)

7. As you mention in your edit, a lot of these classics are considered so because of what ground they broke at the time. It's like an archaeologist getting excited about finding a tool or something. It's not that a chisel is exciting stuff today, but it might be something that was unheard of at the time.

8. Different cultures have always had different tastes. Even contemporaries differed -- French opera, Italian opera, and German opera were vastly different in how they were composed, staged, and publicized, for instance.

Don't feel bad if you don't love these classics. You don't have to, and you're not stupid if you don't. You don't even really have to understand this histo/cultural significance of them, unless that's your thing. People have a tendency to think that loving a studied classic somehow imbues them with the credibility of others who have loved it.

 

[Kryzantine]

Language nerds, perhaps. English teachers geek all over Shakespeare mostly because he toyed with language, or perhaps brought commoner conventions into his plays. I'm not sure exactly, I'm not much of a Shakespeare buff, I never actually read Hamlet. If you want a laugh, though, look up the Abridged Shakespeare Company, their mockery of his plays is certainly entertaining.

Regardless, I've been... mixed on some classics. I find that I enjoy another work from the same author more than not. For instance, everyone rags on about how Pale Fire and Lolita were Vladimir Nabakov's best works, yet I found Invitation to a Beheading to be by far the most enjoyable and my favourite. As another example, The Metamorphosis is considered to be Franz Kafka's classic work, yet I found The Trial to be much more interesting.

Anyway, perhaps to the OP: classic works are usually considered so because they were more important to the society of that time, and precisely the reason that modern audiences are mixed in appreciating them, is that we just live in a different society, where the issues that are brought up don't apply as much. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is a prime example of this. Of course it's going to get the rage when it comes out, but now that the issue that the book was criticizing has been resolved, it's merely dull, boring history now. I don't know why teachers keep insisting high school students read them, as there are better books for the purpose of teaching unique ways of using the English language. Some books just deserve to be left to the anthropology and history students - I know The Scarlet Letter and Lolita are both very intolerable and can only be appreciated from an anthropological viewpoint, and frankly don't deserve to be taught to regular high school students.

Perhaps this is the reason I prefer plays. Plays generally don't deal with societal issues, they love to play with language and they LOVE to deal with the human condition. So they never really get old. There are a ton of plays from the 40s and 50s that are literally just as enjoyable now as they were then: Rhinoceros, Waiting for Godot, No Exit, etc. One play that's considered both a classic and is still very enjoyable now would be Our Town, and I'd probably suggest that as an appeasement book. The OP states that he is a mere 16-year-old metalhead, so Act 3 should be a very interesting perspective on the nature of death.

 

[ElectroJosh]

One thing when dealing with Shakespeare (and plays in general) is that they were made to be watched as a performance. They are wordier than most films today because a lot of description needed to be stated (it couldn't be shown visually as easily).

Try watching a performance of Hamlet (I think Kenneth Branaugh's epic version of it is excellent) and you get a better appreciation.

One other thing to bear in mind is that many of these classics set the template for a lot of tropes we see today in literature, film and also video games. Heck Dante's inferno had a lot to do with shaping many of the modern ideas of hell (Paradise lost shaped a lot of people's views on Satan).

As for enjoyment I would recommend reading other books first. These require a bit of work because, at 16, it is tougher to read language that is a few hundred years removed. You also need to think of the audiences of those stories. Some of the writings came from times when literacy was not wide-spread and so the audience of the books were the scholars, thinkers and intellectuals of their day - that can be a very different audience to those who would enjoy, for example, the Twilight novels.

 

[RA92]

This thread strangely feels like a "What's so special about the SNES controller, my Dual Shock PS3 gamepad is so much better" thread...