How come I don't get classic literature?

[ntw3001]

snip

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 crazy.

Yeah, the studies are there and I won't deny that our earned methods of information storage are becoming more adapted to, and reliant on, easily-accessible written information. But what bugs me is that people seem to take some kind of moralistic stance on the subject, tut-tutting like they have some reason to believe (assume) people were Better (capital B) in the past (which they never experienced).

And teenagers did used to read books, when literacy became widespread enough to fund the production of lurid new media designed to corrupt our nation's youth [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_dreadful] (familiar?). As is clear teenage literature was neither densely-written nor thematically complex, and presented in bite-size chunks to appeal to the not-actually-a-new-thing short attention span. A lot of classic novels were also initially published in a somewhat similar serial format, but not at all for the same audience. The Count of Monte Cristo, for example, was initially published in instalments over two years. I don't know much about the relative popularity of serials against long-form novels through history, but clearly serials aren't a common way to deliver literature these days. Their market share probably belongs to TV and magazines now.

 

[Screamarie]

I'm a 23 year old with a Bachelor's in English with almost all of my studies being focused on classical literature.....and I hate it. I get it, but I hate it. What it is not the story itself that makes these stories so great. It's what is written in between the lines.

As an example, I had to read Thomas Hardy's Jude the Obscure (it's an English literary classic but do NOT read it! It will depress the hell out of you and is absolutely horrible!) It's all about sexuality, marriage, education, blah blah blah. But anyways in one scene the main character, Jude, who has just gotten married sees his wife remove some hair extensions. The way the author describes the hair is like a mermaid's tail. Mermaids were and sometimes still are portrayed as sirens to lure men away from their path in life and destroy them. So essentially the author was saying that his wife was a siren come to ruin his life. This is what classic literature is all about, what does your story say without actually having to say it, being able to imply things with imagery and symbolism.

It takes a LONG time to recongize these things and you have to know alot about the symbolism and mythology that the writer would know about based upon their country and time they lived in.

You're not an idiot for not liking it. In fact my teachers from college would tell me now and again "I hated this book, but the imagery is absolutely amazing and it speaks well on (specific issue) so we're going to read it."

And as for the books themselves...well sometimes they hold up. They mean something and they can teach us stuff. You know what they say about knowing the past and changing the future. But just like today, people of our past have called piles of shit, genius. So in the end it's all about what you like and what you can get from the book.

Honestly I'm more of a fan of stories like Harrison Bergeron. It makes a great point, but is a hell of a lot more exciting than Wuthering Heights.

 

[Loner Jo Jo]

I enjoy some classics, The Count of Monte Cristo and Frankenstein are some of my favorite books ever. However, some I cannot stand. For instance, Dickens because his writing seems so tedious to me and The Mayor of Canterbury has an unsympathetic protagonist for various reasons, in my opinion at least.

I think the problem you're coming up against is that you are just looking on the surface. There's nothing wrong with that, but that's not why these books become classics. When it comes to surface stories, sure some are still interesting, but many would be outdated because they were written so long ago and we no longer understand what life was like at that time. However, these stories are classics they speak to the human condition, something that can cross cultures and time.

However, I wouldn't say you're stupid for not liking classics. To each his own. If you don't like it, no big deal.

As an aside though, I think the fact that we're forced to read Shakespeare's plays in English class ruins him for most people. He wrote plays, not books. They are meant to be seen, not read. People complain that they are hard to understand, but if you've ever watched one of his plays, it makes so much more sense and is far more powerful than reading it ever would be.

 

[thiosk]

The classics are what everyone wants to have read,

but no one wants to read.

--The Author Formally Known as Mark Twain

 

[Panda Mania]

First off....who assigned you 20 books in just one summer? O.O They're mad. Simply mad.

Anyway, it's like what my mom, the college English professor, always says: those books were written when people didn't have anything to do except read books, at least when it came to entertainment (alright, so that wasn't the ONLY thing to do, but still...). Those mountains of text are from a different era, one without videogames, movies, iPods, rollercoasters, TV, clubs, baseball games, etc....So of course a child of the modern age is going to have a whole different kind of experience than an original reader of the text back in its time did! And still, you'll find a lot of people who like that kind of stuff. But don't pay them too much attention if they start declaring you a unrefined doofus if you don't take to the classics. The truth is, you'll like what you like.

That said, don't give up on classic literature. Chances are you will come across something that tickles your fancy. For instance, I love Edgar Allan Poe, but I couldn't stand even two chapters of James Fenimore Cooper (speaking of long-winded...).

 

[Tragedy's Rebellion]

I've always regarded classical novels and poetry as more of an intellectual stimulation than entertainment and should be read, but you have to make up your mind which ones you like. For example, I love Hamlet and Divine Comedy, but i despise Don Quixote. I've read them translated (Bulgarian translations are horrible and the OP will probably agree) and in their original languages, and they do lose most of the magic in the translation.

It's an acquired taste, as someone already mentioned, but you do need some sense of cultural enlightenment to extract the delicious little morsels from them. I started enjoying them when i was 16 and to dispel some confusion: No, they don't actually assign them here, it's more for the teachers to show off.

 

[NightHawk21]

I've read three of the four books you mention, namely The Divine Comedy (The Inferno is only one section of a larger book), Robinson Crusoe, and Hamlet and I thoroughly enjoyed them all. That being said you shouldn't feel stupid for not liking classic literature much in the same way I believe you don't feel musically retarded for preferring heavy metal music over classical. As for you second edit, it is important to keep in mind that past works were written in a different time and often display and incorporate themes, morals and norms within society that were common at that time. That being said, it is important to judge each book individually and not just assume that since these books are classics that they are better than anything in recent years. I believe that the reason that these books are as popularly recognized as they are is that they often do something either revolutionary or they do what they intend to do but do it very well. In the case of the Divine Comedy there were quite a few things that it did in opposition to the norm at the time and as such had great influence during its era and has shaped much of society's view in relation to heaven, hell and the afterlife.

Anyways, just keep in mind that you were not the audience the author had in mind and try to put yourself into the mindset of an individual from that time. You might gather some rather insightful information about the author and his world just reading what he writes about and how he writes about it.

Also you'll get more out of the books the more classical books you read as you'll get more used to interpreting them and deciphering what they are trying to say.

 

[Saltyk]

I honestly don't know why schools make students read half the books they force upon their students. Is there a shortage of modern books that they could assign? Something written in the last 50 years that the students could actually relate to and understand? Is that too much to ask?

Old Man and the Sea is considered a classic. I consider it the worst piece of garbage I was ever forced to read. The book was only about 100 pages, but it took me a week to finish it when I can read 300-400 page books in three days. I read Battlefield Earth in under a week and that one is over 1,000 pages.

I don't know, maybe it's just me.

 

[Baneat]

snip

I remember my classmates thought I was either crazy or lying when we had to record the books we were reading.

To get that many books as homework is indeed nuts.

Problem is tracking books worthy of the time-investment down often enough to read that many of them.

 

[Ham_authority95]

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?

Influence =/= enjoyment. Simple as that.

Times have changed, what people want out of literature is different. Never feel obligated to like something just because it changed the game 100+ years ago.

No, don't feel stupid for not liking old literature. It just means that English won't be your favorite class because they shove that shit down your throat 24/7.

 

[Red Stray]

No mate, you aren't dumb. You just aren't attacking it from the right angle.
If you wade into Don Quixote expecting to be entertained you will be disappointed. It wasn't written to entertain you. I know it's a bit blunt, sorry. But that's how it is.

Enjoying older books is different. It's about the book's place in history, in your own culture, why it was so massive, so influential.
(That said, loads of classics are still amazing. To be honest you've picked a really hard bunch so far. I'll list some good ones at the end.)
I think you need an interest in the book past "omg read it or DOOM".
Find a time or place or thing you are interested in and research it.
Say - you like horror movies. Go and read Frankenstein or Dracula, because that's where horror was born.
Say - you like sci-fi. Read something by Jules Verne or HG Wells.
The fun is in all those "ooooh riiiiight!" moments when you see where director X stole this idea or that scene.

Start recently and work backwards. Start from the ones most written for you, find ones you like then follow their family tree back (the influences of the book and the writer).
It's much easier to enjoy a book when you actually want to read it, rather than HAVING TO (or DOOM). So you need to get a taste for something first.

Also - don't read plays. Yet. Or do, by all means. The format makes them uncomfortable to read and more difficult to understand.

One of the good things about classics is that they're (mostly) old. So they're (mostly) out of copyright which means you can find (most of) them here...!

http://www.gutenberg.org/

a short list...

Sherlock Holmes - Doyle
Dracula - Stoker
The Time Machine - Wells
Lolita - Nabokov
Nineteen Eighty-Four - Orwell

 

[Thistlehart]

Bah, nothing wrong here. You like what you like. Though cheers to you for accepting such a task. I recommend reading during the time of day you are most awake. That'll help keep the fountains of exposition from running together. Don't do the caffeine thing, though. That'll hamstring you.

Best of luck.

 

[Aerowaves]

I find that with those things you need to constantly ask yourself "what can I learn from this?". Treat it as a text rather than something to read, and hopefully you'll find yourself in a contemplative mood afterwards. And who knows? You might even enjoy them!

I've read a few, and many classics aren't that great. Significant, yes, and sometimes interesting, but I wouldn't read them to enjoy myself. The Great Gatsby is a good example.

Also what makes a literary work a "classic" often seems to be its propensity to depress you. That's why I prefer reading contemporary fiction.

 

[headbanger97]

Because the language has changed enough that it just doesn't make the same sense that it used to. Also in todays day and age we have been exposed to enough entertainment that a lot of the books from back then just aren't that exciting. Like Jane Eyre, that book sucks, I don't care about your man troubles when there is a haunted town I need to escape from like yesterday!

 

[Rin Little]

I will admit that even as a person who loves old school literature, Don Quijote intimidates the hell out of me. And I will admit, it helps if you have someone like a teacher there to teach you the approach that the writer was using in order to write something, not to mention there to explain the style of writing of the time. What is good and acceptable now is not necessarily what was good then. I was dreading reading Wuthering Heights for one class and wound up loving it and I doubt I would have enjoyed Frankenstein as much as I did if I hadn't had the professor there to explain things to me.

 

[King Toasty]

Some doesn't age well. Many of the classics are centered around issues of the time, issues we don't have today, so they don't ring quite as well. That, or heavy reading isn't for everybody.

I strongly disagree with this, most of the works that have survived to the present day have done so overwhelmingly because the themes and ideas explored through them are nearly universally applicable. While I hesitate to get into a philosophical debate on the human condition; as a species, we haven't moved so far from where we were even a few thousand years ago.

Fair enough. I was talking about books like To Kill a Mockingbird, which deals with the rampant racism in those days. While racism is still an issue, it's nowhere near as hot-topic as the time of writing. But you have a point, most classics last because they touch on something universal and timeless. Good thinking.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

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

Also this is a very good point. A lot of classics have been retold in a form that's intended for the consumption of a newer generation. This isn't to say that modern iterations are 'dumbed down' or 'simplified', but that they trim the fat and deliver the aspects which made the classic good.

Lord of the Rings is a staple in fantasy writing, with a lot of other authors taking Tolkien lore and twisting it to their own purpose. The point is that original works have been re-told, better in some cases. While Lord of the Rings are entralling books and a good read, there's a plethora of better fantasy books out there now that do what Tolkien did without all the excess. In comparison classics can feel bloated or padded.

 

[Xanadu84]

Language can become almost completely different within 4 generations, and a lot of these classics are beyond that, with some language translations in some of them. A book written entirely in engrish would be a chore to read. A book written in the language of a few hundred years ago may be less silly, but no less difficult to understand, and attempts to modernize the writing can dive back into silly.