Poll: Sex and Violence: Your Take on Classic Literature

[Captain Billy]

So, fellow Escapists. Ve meet again.

I've got a question for y'all, and I hope to find a friend in this, as the great majority of my peers seem to hold my opinion with universal contempt. I was homeschooled until my senior year in high school, and instead of making friends and seeing the outside world and stuff like that, I read. Mother assigned me a massive, genre and century-spanning list, and the more I read, both then and now, the more I realize how much I'm drawn to classic literature. (I should clarify here that my use of "classic" refers to works composed before the 19th century.) Dante's Divine Comedy and John Milton's Paradise Lost have been my two favorite books for almost a decade now, with things like Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida and Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf close behind. I find that the majority of more modern works, with a few exceptions, provide close imitations of their predecessors.

At any rate, my question is as follows. How do these older works stack up, for you, against more modern literature?

 

[sextus the crazy]

I like Shakespeare, but the only fiction stuff I read willingly is Heller, Vonnegut, and Pynchon, so I've got little frame of reference. That said, modern books tend to be more streamlined in their writing.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I like Shakespeare, but the only fiction stuff I read willingly is Heller, Vonnegut, and Pynchon, so I've got little frame of reference. That said, modern books tend to be more streamlined in their writing.

I just finished Breakfast of Champions! What's your favorite Vonnegut read? Anything to recommend?

OT: I've read a lot of what you call "classics" (Dante's Commedia included). I don't believe pre-19th century literature is inherently good or bad or better or worse than contemporary literature, but I'll agree to the fact that as time goes by printing is made easier and more accessible, and overall we get a larger number of books flowing through a market that used to be very, very restricted. The more and more we print, the more we're exposed to bad literature as opposed to good literature. We've never had this many books to choose from - and by extension, there's a lot of bad stuff out there. Some people defend it as "fluffy literature". I call it crap.

 

[sextus the crazy]

I like Shakespeare, but the only fiction stuff I read willingly is Heller, Vonnegut, and Pynchon, so I've got little frame of reference. That said, modern books tend to be more streamlined in their writing.

I just finished Breakfast of Champions! What's your favorite Vonnegut read? Anything to recommend?

Slaughter-house five is good. My fave is still Cat's cradle.

 

[Slitzkin]

I find 20th & 19th English literature is my niché.

Nabokov
Hemmingway
Salinger
Orwell
Kafka
Dostoyevsky

But then I do read some more 'modern' authors like Pratchet and Adams.

I find that older literature has more interesting stories and characters. However the humour of newer literature is much more my thing.

Can Kafka make me laugh? Yes...but it's not natural humour like Pratchett.

 

[Sixcess]

I read quite a lot, and several of my favourite authors - Conrad, Buchan, Conan Doyle, Lovecraft - are pre-WW2 or older, and I have some familiarity with 19th century novels - mostly the big names. However I have to admit that I do struggle with anything pre-19th century.

I've read some of Dante, Milton, Malory, Marlowe and Shakespeare, perhaps a few others... but it doesn't come naturally to me, and I usually come to them through them being referenced in other, more modern works. Not to say I don't enjoy them - but it's a different kind of enjoyment than just reading a good book, it feels more like studying really.

 

[janjotat]

I tend to read fantasy and sci-fi, so I end up normally sticking to more recent things. But when I do read classic lit I thoroughly enjoy it, I just don't read it very often.

 

[Linakrbcs]

Some good, some bad, some not deserving to be a classic (looking at you, Jane Austen!). I love fantasy, so everything classic that's kinda similar to fantasy, I tend to like. I love Shakespeare and Chaucer and Beowulf, Chaucer mostly for being proof that deep down, humans haven't changed all that much since the middle ages. Dickens is great too, though a bit cheesy at times. Walter Scott, well...in small doses and more of a guilty pleasure. Paradise Lost was pretty good, though I mostly read it for the connections to the Silmarillion.
what I like most about the classics is that they give a good insight into the mindset of a different period in history, and that's always interesting

 

[Fuzzed]

Classic lit. is classic lit. Meaning: It's old. Meaning people that are dead liked it.

 

[Agayek]

At any rate, my question is as follows. How do these older works stack up, for you, against more modern literature?

The answer to this is somewhat strange. Back then, books weren't any better or worse. What they were was more expensive to produce. What that means is that only the upper tiers of works actually got published, because publishers had to make their money back.

With modern technology, it's far cheaper to make books (meaning less have to be sold to turn a profit), so more of the "meh" stuff actually gets published. Meaning there appears to be a larger pool of "bad" books comparatively.

In truth, they're really not all that different in terms of quality.

 

[Fuzzed]

I find 20th & 19th English literature is my niché.

Nabokov
Hemmingway
Salinger
Orwell
Kafka
Dostoyevsky

But then I do read some more 'modern' authors like Pratchet and Adams.

I find that older literature has more interesting stories and characters. However the humour of newer literature is much more my thing.

Can Kafka make me laugh? Yes...but it's not natural humour like Pratchett.

Come on... those author's are so different from each other it's ridiculous. I like Hemingway and Salinger as well but Orwell, Kafka and Dostoyevsky.........That's like saying you like the Red Sox and the Yankees....

 

[Esotera]

The advantage is all the crap books have been forgotten, so you get mostly the good work. I really like the Victorian era novels or anything around the 19th century - huckleberry finn, oliver twist, etc.

 

[Fuzzed]

So, fellow Escapists. Ve meet again.

I've got a question for y'all, and I hope to find a friend in this, as the great majority of my peers seem to hold my opinion with universal contempt. I was homeschooled until my senior year in high school, and instead of making friends and seeing the outside world and stuff like that, I read. Mother assigned me a massive, genre and century-spanning list, and the more I read, both then and now, the more I realize how much I'm drawn to classic literature. (I should clarify here that my use of "classic" refers to works composed before the 19th century.) Dante's Divine Comedy and John Milton's Paradise Lost have been my two favorite books for almost a decade now, with things like Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida and Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf close behind. I find that the majority of more modern works, with a few exceptions, provide close imitations of their predecessors.

At any rate, my question is as follows. How do these older works stack up, for you, against more modern literature?

I think it's time you unburied yourself. classic works are so friggin defunk it's unbelievable. Most educational systems highly value classic literature over anything else, but those institutions are retarded. Read modern stuff. That's my take. And if you must read stuff from authors that are dead. Please choose Salinger, Faulkner, Steinbeck or Hemingway. Because they're the best. And if you want to read a play. Choose Arthur Miller.

 

[Thaluikhain]

"Classic" usually translates to "old".

There's loads of old crap stuff, though most is probably gathering dust somewhere.

Modern works at least have the advantage of being written for modern audiences. "Classical" literature, for whatever merits it has, tends to be written likely by and probably for, someone who thought the heterosexual white male was inherently superior to all others. That's not to say there's nothing to like about such works, but their shortcomings should be recognised.

 

[Fuzzed]

I like Shakespeare, but the only fiction stuff I read willingly is Heller, Vonnegut, and Pynchon, so I've got little frame of reference. That said, modern books tend to be more streamlined in their writing.

Get out of town. Modern books are great. I think it's time we stopped praising the dead over the living.

 

[Fuzzed]

"Classic" usually translates to "old".

There's loads of old crap stuff, though most is probably gathering dust somewhere.

Modern works at least have the advantage of being written for modern audiences. "Classical" literature, for whatever merits it has, tends to be written likely by and probably for, someone who thought the heterosexual white male was inherently superior to all others. That's not to say there's nothing to like about such works, but their shortcomings should be recognised.

Totally agree. Modern books for Modern times (chaplin).

 

[Fuzzed]

I like Shakespeare, but the only fiction stuff I read willingly is Heller, Vonnegut, and Pynchon, so I've got little frame of reference. That said, modern books tend to be more streamlined in their writing.

I just finished Breakfast of Champions! What's your favorite Vonnegut read? Anything to recommend?

OT: I've read a lot of what you call "classics" (Dante's Commedia included). I don't believe pre-19th century literature is inherently good or bad or better or worse than contemporary literature, but I'll agree to the fact that as time goes by printing is made easier and more accessible, and overall we get a larger number of books flowing through a market that used to be very, very restricted. The more and more we print, the more we're exposed to bad literature as opposed to good literature. We've never had this many books to choose from - and by extension, there's a lot of bad stuff out there. Some people defend it as "fluffy literature". I call it crap.

Crap, no matter the time-period, has always been available. Just look at the first book ever printed: The Bible.

 

[In Search of Username]

Worse than contemporary literature but often required to provide a context in which you can understand it. That said I find I often find twentieth-century literature better than modern stuff so I guess I like my literature kind of classic-ish?

 

[sextus the crazy]

I like Shakespeare, but the only fiction stuff I read willingly is Heller, Vonnegut, and Pynchon, so I've got little frame of reference. That said, modern books tend to be more streamlined in their writing.

Get out of town. Modern books are great. I think it's time we stopped praising the dead over the living.

Are you agreeing with me or not?

The authors I liked are all modern (60s & 70s), and they either died recently or are still alive (Pynchon).
Not to mention that I don't really read any fictional literature. almost all of the books I read are on modern war history, strategy, and cultural history. If I want a story, I'll just read some more manga.

 

[IndomitableSam]

I hate classical literature, which people find funny as I'm a librarian. I can't stand it, though. The Brontes, Austen, Pope, Milton, so and andso forth. I can't stand it. ... Doesn't mean I haven't read them, but I still hate them. Reading is escapism to me, I want to sit back and enjoy, not translate it while I read and doze over the bland plotlines. THe pacing drives me nuts and the women hardly ever break from gender roles and it frustrates me. Love and marriage are the goals of many books, which turn me off right away.

I can't say I hate everything, though, as I haven't read it all. I'm not a fan of it as a whole, but there are probably individual books and authors I'd enjoy.