How come I don't get classic literature?

[Simeon Ivanov]

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?

EDIT 3: Here's the list:
Dante - Inferno
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

 

[Arsen]

Some writers have better tones in than others when it comes down to it.

A lot of it has to do with the age of the language. A good amount of these "classics" have been written in times where the emphasis, command, and structure of language was completely different. Stephen King did an introduction to a book with Frankenstein and Dracula. Mary Shelly and Bram Stoker. In it he said "Frankenstein is a classic...but Mary Shelly is a horrible author". Even in his book "On Writing" he complains that Lovecraft was a great author but lacked dialogue. So what am I saying? Not that you don't "get it" but it just doesn't come off as enjoyable by you. Whether the "classic" is enjoyable by modern standards is up to opinion. Judge it as you may. What other sort of things do you enjoy reading? Stick to the literary types which share the same theme with the modern things you overall enjoy.

 

[Phlakes]

I really think a lot of them are overrated. And honestly, most of the super-deep meanings and word play are in Shakespeare's writing and most of the other works were probably unintended, but as we all know, literature professors can analyze anything out of any book.

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

Then again, whether the "classic" is enjoyable by modern standards is up to opinion. Judge it as you may. What other sort of things do you enjoy reading?

I generally like fantasy books ... medieval, futuristic, ancient etc. The more it goes away from reality, the better. The same reason I play games - To escape reality for a couple of hours/weeks/months and endulge myself in fantasies.
-Also, I'm a huge fan of comedies and satires (Terry Pratchet). And I also love comic books.
-I don't mind something phylosophical as long as it's interesting

 

[Fbuh]

I have often wondered who defines the canon classics. A lot of them are, quite frankly, poorly written. I think, though, that what defines a classic is a particularly powerful example of how strong the human spirit is, whether it is through violence or love, strength or weakness.

'Classic.' A book which people praise and don't read.
Mark Twain

 

[Esotera]

Because you're not living around the time period when it was written. Language changes very quickly; Shakespeare is incredibly hard to understand unless you have a good knowledge of middle english. And there are lots of references to popular culture that it wouldn't be possible to get.

Also, modern books are better structured in my opinion. They cut the unnecessary prose and just develop characters and the story. Or at least, some of them do.

 

[Blue_vision]

I actually quite like classic literature. I guess you have to appreciate the history in it, as well as look through the age in the writing. It's usually hard to judge the writing in translations, but even then, a mediocre translator will be able to convey at least a bit of the writing style that's used. Other than that, I'd say that it's alright to not like some, or even a bunch, of "classical" novels. But then again, don't start dismissing them once you're only done 2. I'm sure if you read 2 random "good" books from today, you might not end up liking them.

Also, it goes without saying that a bunch of the "classics" are good ways of peering into the past, looking at what people's ideas were at the time, and then looking at people's ideas today.

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

Because you're not living around the time period when it was written. Language changes very quickly; Shakespeare is incredibly hard to understand unless you have a good knowledge of middle english. And there are lots of references to popular culture that it wouldn't be possible to get.

Well I am reading a translated version of Hamlet ... so I guess it looses part of it's charm ...

 

[Dimitriov]

I guess it's because you're just an uncultured philistine?

Calling English Classics, like Shakespeare, "foreign" seems rather strange to me.

As to your enjoyment, or lack thereof, I don't know what to tell you. I find classical literature not only enjoyable but generally far superior to most of the pulp crap that gets published these days, though there are certainly exceptions. My best guess is that there are some words you aren't understanding (possibly a different usage or connotation of a word that you think you are familiar with) or else phrases and even syntax and the general rhythm of language that you don't quite follow. I suspect that with greater familiarity, luckily you shall achieve just that if you do indeed read all twenty books, you will gain a greater appreciation.

Also Classical literature is wordier. People spoke, and especially wrote, more carefully and with a greater sense of the importance of language in the past; some of us think it is a genuine shame that that is no longer common.

 

[Esotera]

Well I am reading a translated version of Hamlet ... so I guess it looses part of it's charm ...

The unabridged version is considered one of literature's greatest works, ever, and having read it myself, I can see why people would say that. It definitely loses something, but gains a lot in understanding as well; the basic story is still there. And looking up what words mean every 30 seconds doesn't help charm either..

 

[Baneat]

Twenty books over like 8 weeks?

Are you cereal?

 

[Booze Zombie]

It's all about mindset, perspective, etc. Give stuff a chance, don't think it's going to be "the best", just reckon it should at least be entertaining and remember that a lot of the things were written for much more book-based generations, for different generations. Some of their ideals may no longer exist with us today, forming a disconnect that only someone very studious of the old ways of being might overcome.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Probably the literature just showing its age. Even as someone who reads quite heavily I can't bring myself to re-read a lot of classics I devoted a painful day or two to read. In a few decades writing will have evolved further and looking back at some of my favourite books today (Artemis Fowl, Playing for Pizza, the Night Angel trilogy) my kid's kids probably won't "get what's so great" about them that had me enjoying them so much.

Hell I struggle with Lord of the Rings heavily descriptive style and I like good description.

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

Well I am reading a translated version of Hamlet ... so I guess it looses part of it's charm ...

The unabridged version is considered one of literature's greatest works, ever, and having read it myself, I can see why people would say that. It definitely loses something, but gains a lot in understanding as well; the basic story is still there. And looking up what words mean every 30 seconds doesn't help charm either..

While I do have a basic understanding of the english language (thanks to years of games and TV) I certainly won't like reading a book while holding a dictionary But I dislike lenghty descriptions and unnecessarily long mountains of text instead of actual dialogue.

 

[Jack and Calumon]

To put classic literature in terms of people nowadays in a manner suited to the site, it has not aged well. Language has moved on a lot, and references that they made, words they used in classic literature were suited for the time, but not so much for nowadays. Hence why reading something like World War Z is more easy than reading Hamlet, and why you may enjoy it more. However, taking them out of their language makes it feel dumbed down, so unless you can understand classic literature flawlessly and not think about other greats of the modern age, then you can enjoy classic literature well.

Calumon: Maybe you shouldn't care and read what you like?

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

Twenty books over like 8 weeks?

Are you cereal?

Yep ... unfortunately. But it's okay, my teacher said "If you can't read all 20 of them in time, than at least read X, Y, Z etc."

 

[Jonluw]

They were revolutionary during their time and literature today wouldn't have been what it was without them. That doesn't mean they would be considered good if they came out today.

By today's standards, many of them are boring and maybe even poor (clichéd, for obvious reasons); but they're what brought those standards in the first place, and for some reason people think you should read them to understand how the world came to be what it is today (elitist bullshit if you ask me).

If you have an honest interest in seeing how these pieces shaped literature, give them a read; but if you want to read them to be entertained or just hear an interesting story you might be surprised to find that you've already read plenty of (probably even better) books like them.
It's just important to remember that the reason the books of today are better is that authors have been using, learning from and improving on the material in those works over the years.

i.e. Hand a kid of today Wolfenstein 3D and see how much fun they have with it. My guess is they'll go back to Modern Warfare after a couple of minutes.

 

[LiberalSquirrel]

Oh, OP, you break this English major's heart. Shakespeare is one of my favorite writers. Perhaps it helps that I have a decent familiarity with some of the slang of that time period. Take Hamlet, for example- he works a lot of dirty jokes into that play. And, obviously, that's not all. There's great comedy, as well as a deep plot and wonderful characterization.

Also...

Calling English Classics, like Shakespeare, "foreign" seems rather strange to me.

As to your enjoyment, or lack thereof, I don't know what to tell you. I find classical literature not only enjoyable but generally far superior to most of the pulp crap that gets published these days, though there are certainly exceptions. My best guess is that there are some words you aren't understanding (possibly a different usage or connotation of a word that you think you are familiar with) or else phrases and even syntax and the general rhythm of language that you don't quite follow. I suspect that with greater familiarity, luckily you shall achieve just that if you do indeed read all twenty books, you will gain a greater appreciation.

Also Classical literature is wordier. People spoke more carefully and with a greater sense of the importance of language in the past; some of us think it is a genuine shame that that is no longer common.

This. (Thank you for expressing something that I meant to say so well, sir/madam.) Classic literature, while "wordy" by today's standards, uses language beautifully: something I find lacking in a lot common literature. There's a sense of the poetic to classic literature: elevated, elegant language that can bring a whole new meaning to what would otherwise have been just words on paper. The works that have survived this long have survived for a reason. They are the best of their age, and they show it.

But then again, most of my favorite pieces of literature are at least 100 years old, if not more. I am more than a bit biased.

 

[Redford Blade]

Its all about History.

Don Quixote was one of the first real novels. The Divine Comedy (which includes Inferno) provides an excellent glimpse into Renaissance Italy's politics and outlooks (you have to look past the awesome descriptions of Hell to see that).

There isn't anything wrong with you for not enjoying those books as much as, say, the works of Terry Pratchett (whose books sit beside The Divine Comedy on my shelf). But it is important to understand that in their time, those books were the shiz. Like Morrowind utterly redefined how single-player western RPGs are made, many of the "Classics" led to the kind of books we have now. And honestly, many of the gags found in Pratchett's books are funnier if you've read the classics, as you can bet that he has.

 

[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.