Well I've never reading for an assignment to be particularly enjoyable regardless of the book because I'm thinking about the assignment instead of the book, classic literature tends to be hard to read ye olde english is a ***** to get used to, some of the works have also lost a lot of their impact having been borrowed from for centuries you've heard the basic tale a hundred times over, others simply haven't aged well. I'm not saying there aren't some good ones but a lot of classics haven't aged well writing has evolved over the years and looking back I think its for the better.
How come I don't get classic literature?
- Thread starter Simeon Ivanov
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The majority of "classic" literature is awful. The only reason a lot of it is regarded highly is because they usually did something important or different, not because they're a good read.
I think a lot of it has to do with the development of literature, which has been hugely influenced by these classics. You might not enjoy them as much, but that's only because to the modern reader, it's all been expanded upon. I wouldn't say improved, since that's fairly subjective, but certainly more accessible.
Hell, look at how much Super Mario 64 has aged, and that's only been 14 years for God's sake. Yet it was hugely influential in game design, and many of its principles are still in use. It has huge cultural context. For the same reason, reading the classics are important in studying literature. Contextualising it is important, nearly more important than the work itself on its own merit, at least I would say anyway for the most part. Though stuff like Shakespeare is still great.
Also, if you stick to the last century, you can find plenty of great books that are still really easy to read. 1984 and I am Legend are probably my favourites.
Hell, look at how much Super Mario 64 has aged, and that's only been 14 years for God's sake. Yet it was hugely influential in game design, and many of its principles are still in use. It has huge cultural context. For the same reason, reading the classics are important in studying literature. Contextualising it is important, nearly more important than the work itself on its own merit, at least I would say anyway for the most part. Though stuff like Shakespeare is still great.
Also, if you stick to the last century, you can find plenty of great books that are still really easy to read. 1984 and I am Legend are probably my favourites.
It really depends on the classic. I'm not a fan of the ones which read like political or social treatises masquerading as fiction (H.G. Wells' The Time Machine comes to mind). However, Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment and The Idiot are some of my favorite novels. They are inhabited by some of the greatest characters I have ever encountered in any work of fiction.
It seems you're not looking beyond the plotSimeon Ivanov said:
Although, this
tells me you have given it more thought, however, it smacks of some ulterior skepticism.Simeon Ivanov said:
I used to have similar thoughts on some materials, thinking sometimes it was complexity for complexity's sake, but honestly the classics are up there for a reason.
This may sound condescending but as you mature, assuming you delve more into the analytical side of things and decide to appreciate classic literature, you absolutely will see it differently. I'm not saying you have to like anything though!
You don't have to give anything a free pass, but give it a fair chance mate.
You're not stupid, everyone has their interests.
Really, if English literature isn't your thing it's totally not a big deal.
My advice is just do the best you can in your work and don't sell yourself short.
Don't feel bad. Interpreting art is all about the cultural context you have, If you haven't received the training and "codex" of cultural items and knowledge to see it the way the critics do then you can't see it. Actually that's why we have English literature classes, to teach student to know how to interpret books.
Lol, ive basically posted this same thing three times tonight. No, you shouldn't feel stupid because different things effect different people in different ways. People like different types of music, tv shows, and so on and so forth. Plus alot of people only say and indeed do enjoy classical works because it makes them feel superior.
Classic does not mean good and not liking certain classic things does NOT mean you are stupid. In addition, some classics are good, some are not and are only classics because of the breakthroughs they made.
For instance, I have recently been going through all the "Classic" movies that I had never seen.
I watched 2 movies.
The Godfather and Gone With the Wind.
The Godfather is an incredibly good movie and it holds up. Gone With the Wind on the other hand, is cheesy, badly acted and quite boring.
You are quite correct in your South Park comparison. People LOVE to over-analyze things.
You will probably find classics you like. It just takes time.
For instance, I have recently been going through all the "Classic" movies that I had never seen.
I watched 2 movies.
The Godfather and Gone With the Wind.
The Godfather is an incredibly good movie and it holds up. Gone With the Wind on the other hand, is cheesy, badly acted and quite boring.
You are quite correct in your South Park comparison. People LOVE to over-analyze things.
You will probably find classics you like. It just takes time.
This really annoys me. They find deep meaning in everything. A dragon isn't a metaphor for the repressive religious dominance at the time, the author probably thought "You know what would be awesome...a giant dragon. Hell Yeah!"Phlakes said:
OT: I tried reading H.G Wells Man in the Moon and I got through it, but it sucked. I think that the classics are ones that were amazing or revolutionary in their time and have paved the way for modern literature.
A fair few of these works are outdated in terms of more specific subject matter and setting, their language being stiff and alien, and their overall themes having been reused endlessly. And, perhaps most importantly there being a far greater selection not only of books, but also many others mediums these days to choose from; When you can pretty much find something exactly to your individual taste, why bother with what all kinds of different people 200 years ago had to be content with?
Many of these works were from a time when there weren't all that much on the market (certainly not compared to nowadays), and hence they had it easier both in achieving widespread popularity, and in becoming hot topics for discussion and analysis across society, something that ultimately secured their lasting recognition. They simply had it a lot easier in their time, due to less competition from others books, and also none at all from radio, TV, and various digital mediums yet.
Modern literature - aside from standing on the shoulders of giants - have it much harder in achieving this widespread societal discussion of them, and hence there aren't as many of them which become cultural heritage classics; even when perhaps superior to the old ones.
Many of these works were from a time when there weren't all that much on the market (certainly not compared to nowadays), and hence they had it easier both in achieving widespread popularity, and in becoming hot topics for discussion and analysis across society, something that ultimately secured their lasting recognition. They simply had it a lot easier in their time, due to less competition from others books, and also none at all from radio, TV, and various digital mediums yet.
Modern literature - aside from standing on the shoulders of giants - have it much harder in achieving this widespread societal discussion of them, and hence there aren't as many of them which become cultural heritage classics; even when perhaps superior to the old ones.
You might wish to avoid a degree in English. With a moderate class load, I was regularly reading 3-4 books a week my last two years. That's not an outrageous amount of reading if you pursue a degree in English lit.Simeon Ivanov said:
There is a wide variety of "classic material". With your metalhead background, you might like Norse mythology or Beowulf, existentialist or nihilist authors like Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky and Camus, or more swashbuckling adventure like Dumas. If you want, PM me the list of books, and I'll make suggestions. Or just look them all up on Wikipedia and pick ones whose plots seem the most interesting. A lot of metal songs reference classic motifs or stories so there should actually be quite a few things of interest. You might get more out of your music after reading some of those.
This could be a reading skill issue. When you read, do you focus on the text itself, or see the story? Many experienced readers often transcend the text and are able to subconsciously process the text, leaving them free to imagine that they are viewing the action as in a film. This is not an easy skill and will require a lot of reading. You may wish to practice with either easier reading material (say several grades lower than your normal reading level) or with text that have movie adaptations. The main thing is to read often. As with practicing dribbling a basketball/soccer ball or throwing a baseball/football, at first, you really need to think about what you are doing, but after enough practice, it just happens automatically. Reading is a skill that works the exact same way.
Knowing the context that the text is trying to impart is a huge help. For instance, Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey seems kinda boring. But once you realize it is a satire of gothic novels, some of the boring parts become hilarious, particularly if you've read things like The Monk and The Italian, which it is mocking. Hamlet is largely about a man trying to find his place in the world, his rightful role usurped by another man. (He is a prince, his father, the king, dies, but instead of Hamlet becoming king, his uncle takes over) He's trying to figure out if doing the right thing is worth what it will cost him in the face of everyone he cares about turning on him. His girlfriend sides with her dad against him. His schoolmates side with his uncle. He just wants to do right by his dead dad. He is transitioning from a child to a man, figuring out what value he should give the things in his life. Great fare for a 16 year old. _IF_ you are going or have gone through anything similar.
Not at all. You should feel stupid if you give up on all literature because Don Quixote's mad fixation on wanting a world that is more exciting and mystical than the boring reality in which he resides doesn't float your boat.
It may or may not hold up for today. Or even just for you. I find The Scarlet Letter obnoxious because I have contempt for a society that makes that big of a deal out of premarital sex. It makes the whole story blase for me. "No way! Religious leaders can abuse their power and youngsters have sex?!" *eye roll* Ugh. and Animal Farm. "Here is an exceedingly thinly veiled critique of the Russian Revolution." Um, great. How about I just read this history book? Others may love those two books.
But did the author think that dragons were awesome because of his rejection of said religious dominance? Did the author choose a Western European dragon archetype or an Eastern dragon, and why one over the other? Was it a cool fight between dragons, or either consciously or subconsciously, was the author thinking about that time in his late 20s when he left Lutheranism for Buddhism? If the author didn't mean that at all, but it reminds me, the reader, of my Lutheran/Buddhist struggles, is that important?J-dog42 said:
Sure, literary analysis can become a bit of mental masturbation, with circles of analytical styles pulling all sorts of meaning from what may have been inconsequential moments or even others' analysis of those moments.
But at the end of the day, I'd rather over-think something than not think about it at all.
I don't know about that ... I mean, I read the unabridged version of Homer's Illiad and found it to be most enjoyable. I also read Watchmen in one go.HerbertTheHamster said:
Dante - InfernoTom Kulzer said:
Boccaccio - The Decameron
Miguel de Cervantes - Don Quijote
Shakespeare - Hamlet
Shakespeare - Sonnets
Molière - Tartuffe
Defoe - Robinson Crusoe
Byron - Don Juan
Goethe - Faust
Pushkin - Evgenii Onegin
Balzac - Le Père Goriot
Gogol - The Overcoat
Saint Paisius of Hilendar - Slavonic-Bulgarian History
Sofroniy Vrachanski - Life and Sufferings of Sinful Sophronius
Ivan Vazov - "Izvorat na belonogata" (I can't find the english title)
Karavelov - A bulgarian from old time
D. Voinikov - The Misunderstood civilasation
V. Drumev - Ivanko, assassin of Asen I
Well, everything translated in bulgarian sounds stupid to me ... maybe because it's my maternal language. Whatever the case, I always prefer to read books in english.Tragedy said:
Okay, so after I woke up to read 3 pages full of comments (thank you for your attention) I think I finally get it. I can't just read these classics and enjoy them, as myself. I have to put myself in a different mindset, a different era. I have to be X, Y and Z to enjoy these books. This could explain why I enjoy the analysis of the book more than the book itself ... Also, the fact that I'm being forced to read them doesn't really help me either.
The thing is, I preffer a story, to deep, hidden ideas full of symbolism and whatnot. I don't mind something to challenge my way of thinking but I don't like the fact that I need someone to tell me what those ideas are. If I can figure them out by myself, than great. If not, well ... I guess reading just isn't for me.
Regardless, thank you all for your assistance
The thing is, I preffer a story, to deep, hidden ideas full of symbolism and whatnot. I don't mind something to challenge my way of thinking but I don't like the fact that I need someone to tell me what those ideas are. If I can figure them out by myself, than great. If not, well ... I guess reading just isn't for me.
Regardless, thank you all for your assistance
1. No, you shouldn't feel stupid for not getting classic literature, although you shouldn't judge all classic lit by Quixote and Dante, which are fairly dense, willfully odd little books. I'd recommend you start at Mark Twain, who is AMAZING.
2. If a book was "good in its time", odds are it'll still be good today, or it would not have been so praised in the first place. But those books shouldn't be given a free pass because they came before more modern books - for example, while Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas and the other works of Hunter S. Thompson may be defining pieces of gonzo/pop culture journalism, I'd still say that Chuck Klosterman is a better writer than Thompson; his prose flows better, his writer's voice is more entertaining yet equally as distinct, and, let's face it, Thompson's anti-editing stance kind of hurt the quality of his books.
Uh.... I kind of veered off topic there, lol. I'll end it here.
2. If a book was "good in its time", odds are it'll still be good today, or it would not have been so praised in the first place. But those books shouldn't be given a free pass because they came before more modern books - for example, while Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas and the other works of Hunter S. Thompson may be defining pieces of gonzo/pop culture journalism, I'd still say that Chuck Klosterman is a better writer than Thompson; his prose flows better, his writer's voice is more entertaining yet equally as distinct, and, let's face it, Thompson's anti-editing stance kind of hurt the quality of his books.
Uh.... I kind of veered off topic there, lol. I'll end it here.