A problem with... classics

[Guest ii]

How can you really consider yourself a reader and not have read Dickens or Austen or Shakespeare?

 

Please tell me you did that on purpose!? *goes to hit herself in the head with the sharp end of a stiletto heel sandal*

[frankie]

How can you really consider yourself a reader and not have read Dickens or Austen or Shakespeare?

 

Yes I would, even if I hadn't read any classics. I don't really see why not

[Ceinwenn]

It's important to read the classics -- because its the foundation and the basis of where we are today. Besides, these are the giants -- the words and stories that have formed our society. How can you really consider yourself a reader and not have read Dickens or Austen or Shakespeare?

 

Yes I would, even if I hadn't read any classics. I don't really see why not

 

I am an avid reader - have read over 80 - 100 books a year & have read only a couple classics & hated them both, yet, I know I am a reader. You don't need to read the classics to be a reader.

[Ben Mines]

What was it that really got my goat about this book? It was the fact that nobody ever actually DID anything!

 

This is not true of all classics. There are a lot of classics bristling with action—Moby Dick and Don Quixote immediately come to mind. In fact, I have the opposite complaint of certain classics: sometimes the action is at the expense of the psychological development of their characters.

 

Another problem with classics, seeing as you're asking, is that the author, being (almost inevitably) a man, as well as a man of his time, starts out from certain broad religious, racial, and philosophical presuppositions—not to mention that the sexism and racism is often trowelled on. In G. K. Chesterton there is one unbelievable scene where Father Brown encounters a disagreeable black man in the course of his sleuthing and remarks casually to Flambeau: "Now you know why they lynch them in America." My jaw dropped like a slab of pottery. The amicable little priest, an arrant racist!

Edited November 21, 2008 by Ben Mines

[sirinrob]

I agree with the position that many classics are written with a presumed position on religion, morals and ethics. However has anything changed since. I would contend not, though the focus may well have changed.

[jewell]

I found out of all the Jane Auten books, emma was the most difficult. I think to a large degree, the main character is meant to be quite idle because thats why she has nothing better to do than matchmake.

 

For a book that has some action in it, Charles Dickens is really good. And i found the goings on in Far From The Madding Crowd good for that too.

[BookJumper]

I agree with ii that one should not forget the great foreigners when talking about classics, and I for one raised myself on Hugo and Dostoevskij; however one needs to consider the matter of translation, which can range from troublesome to revolting, and an even greater disparity of culture than that just brought about my the passing of a few centuries. Greats, surely, but maybe not the best fodder for the uninitiated, especially if the uninitiated are already a bit suspicious of The Classics.

 

It should be made clear that no one is expected to like all classics, ever. After a language and literature oriented high-school as well as a degree in English & Philosophy and one in Shakespeare, I think it's fair to say I've read my fair share of classics. Some I loved (all of Shakespeare's tragedies minus one, J.W. Goethe's "The Sorrows of Young Werther", Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein"), some I hated (Shakespeare's Othello, H.G. Wells's "The Time Machine", Alessandro Manzoni's "The Betrothed"), some I considered overrated (Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park", Allen Ginsberg's Howl, Anthony Burgess's "A Clockwork Orange"), some I quite simply couldn't finish (James Joyce's "Ulysses", Eco's "The Name of the Rose", J.W. Goethe's rewrite of Marlowe's Dr Faustus).

 

Not everything can be to everybody's taste, and there's bound to be a number of inclusions in The Classics canon one will not appreciate, but that is of little matter. I believe that one should give these books the same chance one would give to contemporary literature, no more and no less: one does not have to respect and revere them because they're considered classics, on the other hand if they're considered classics there's bound to be amongst their vast ranks a few books you'll enjoy, and cherish.

 

In short: don't let one classic you didn't enjoy put you off all others - there are so many genres, styles and subjects swirling around in there that I just can't believe there isn't something for everyone.

 

As a side note, the opposite of forcing young people to read The Classics proves quite often productive: the more librarians told me "maybe this is a bit old for you...", the more I wanted to borrow a book.

[mollie]

Does anyone know why in some of the classics the full names of places are sometimes not entirely written in full. e.g. "they visited the county of ___shire."

 

Hope this isn't a dumb question!

[sirinrob]

In response to BookJumper the same rules apply to contemporary fiction as well.

[BookJumper]

In response to BookJumper the same rules apply to contemporary fiction as well.

I am very well aware of this, which is why I said,

 

I believe that one should give these books the same chance one would give to contemporary literature, no more and no less

 

No?

 

And,

 

Sorry Mollie: no idea... I could maybe hazard a few guesses but they would be that, guesses.

 

Maybe it's simple transcription of the writer's shorthand - if Hugo's printer knew what town was meant by "M. sur M.", he might not have felt that the readers needed it to be spelt out (Montfermeil sur Mer); conversely it might be that some names were purposefully hidden but not really for political or social reasons.

 

As I said, wild guesses.

[mollie]

 

Sorry Mollie: no idea... I could maybe hazard a few guesses but they would be that, guesses.

 

Maybe it's simple transcription of the writer's shorthand - if Hugo's printer knew what town was meant by "M. sur M.", he might not have felt that the readers needed it to be spelt out (Montfermeil sur Mer); conversely it might be that some names were purposefully hidden but not really for political or social reasons.

 

As I said, wild guesses.

 

Thanks BookJumper. I was thinking along the same lines with purposely hidden as well. I found it irritating because I wanted to know which county they were in!

[Bel-ami]

Thanks BookJumper. I was thinking along the same lines with purposely hidden as well. I found it irritating because I wanted to know which county they were in!

 

This has long puzzled me as well. I like your explanation BookJumper I always assumed that the suppression of characters' names in fiction was to give some credance to them - as though the author was protecting their identity (for political/social reasons as BookJumper refers to).

[tdaonp]

Reading classics does not only require an appreciation of writing skill. It also requires one to transport oneself to an earlier time. A time before TV and DVD's. A time when reading for hours on end was all there was to do for a well brought up young person, especially ladies, who had little else to do.

 

If you watch a soap, what happens most of the time? Nothing too unpredictable and it doesn't matter which soap series you watch, in construct they are all the same. What will be said in future about soaps (when other forms of entertainment have developed)?

 

So, books were a way of entertaining people and to make sure your books sold you never strayed too far from the well established paths. And don't forget that we only read a couple of writers now from a time when there were many more. As you will find out from many authors mentioned in books by Austen, Elliot, Dickens etc. They just stood out because they wrote well (style), they understood marketing (although it wasn't called that I'm sure) and they sometimes, but not with every book, wrote something that stood the test of time. Either by their strength of observation or by their ability to tell a compelling story. That not every book stands the test of time is only to be expected. Don't judge a book by its cover and don't judge an author by just one book.

 

Henk (tdaonp)

[RickyR]

When reading classic novels it is important to appreciate the time period in which they were published. For example: We live in a much more visual world today due to the invention of television etc. so classic novels pre-1900 had to be more discriptive to stimulate the readers imagination.

 

Anyway I just wanted to ask a question: has anyone ever read Caleb Williams by Mary Shelly's father William Godwin? I find this book very confusing and incoherant.

[BookJumper]

Anyway I just wanted to ask a question: has anyone ever read Caleb Williams by Mary Shelly's father William Godwin? I find this book very confusing and incoherant.

Nope, sorry. It was suggested reading for a Romantic Lit module in uni but it didn't seem like my kind of thing at all so I didn't bother. Sorry!

[Green_Shoe]

I agree with RickyR. Our world is different today.

Old books can be compared to many old movies where everything is just static and everything happens so slowly.

But it still doesn't make some of the classical novels more interesting to a modern reader. Most of these books tell us about some ritch young ladies that had generally nothing to do so they made a mountain out of a molehill.

Somebody is able to handle it, somebody finds it extremely boring. In any case - it's a matter of taste.

[sirinrob]

When reading classic novels it is important to appreciate the time period in which they were published. For example: We live in a much more visual world today due to the invention of television etc. so classic novels pre-1900 had to be more discriptive to stimulate the readers imagination.

 

Anyway I just wanted to ask a question: has anyone ever read Caleb Williams by Mary Shelly's father William Godwin? I find this book very confusing and incoherant.

I agree it is confunsing, mainly due the style of writing. I've found you have to read it carefully.

[busy91]

I read a good amount of classics, mostly written by British authors prior to 1900. Some of them I love, and the stories are good, some just drag on, and like you said, nothing happens (or things take too long to happen).

 

For example, I love The Christmas Carol, but it was short and to the point, but A Tale of Two Cities, DRAAAAGED.....but it was good when stuff picked up.

 

It is luck of the draw. I fair better with American Authors of the same time like Edith Wharton, but she too can have some slow starting books.

[Snowball Pig]

I love classics although some can get on my nerves. I don't much like Tess of the d'Urbervilles as an example as I feel the natural descriptions go on and on and....But on the whole I absolutely love them!

[sirinrob]

Just read 'Caleb williams' by Godwin. Bookjumper made a smart move in not bothering with it The writing is turgid ( even allowing for when it was written) The "whodunit" plot is slim - I guessed the truth before it was revealed. Biggest problem with it is it reads like an essay on Social Justice with a thin plot stuck on to cover that up. Sarte pulled the same trick with 'Nausea' which was at least readable - but was in fact nothing more than 'Being and Nothingness' dressed up as a novel- enough said . I dont recommend 'Caleb williams' as a read, unless you like novels from that period a great deal

Edited August 27, 2009 by sirinrob
hmm spelling errors

[BigWords]

Accepting the definition of 'classic' as given, and noting that many are still taught in schools, there is still the question of accesability that needs to be addressed. If anyone is having problems with the language, tone or age of a novel, then they should read the excellent League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics, as well as learning a bit about the Wold Newton concept.

 

With those two concepts (or single concept handled slightly differently) firmly established in popular consciousness, it should be easier to read - or re-read - many of the classics in a different light. There are many, many books which have entered modern culture in slightly altered form, and a reader shouldn't underestimate the power of a novel due entirely to age.

[Katrina1968]

What I love about classics, Austen in particular, is that very ordinariness. When you think of it, as an author, your often told to write what you know. Austen knew about the society she was born into. Doing nothing was pretty much what they did:lol: But Austen adds so much humor to her stories.

 

There are plots to her writings and very good plots they are! Emma is about a young, aristocratic busy body wanna-be match maker who suffers from too much of a sense of herself. In other words, she stepped in the "confidence" line more than once. What I liked about this particular story is how Emma is brought round to reality by her friends and her attempt to make right her wrongs.

[Guest velocipede2288]

What I love about classics, is that they transport you to another time and era. I begin to feel lilke I am living in that time, and expiencing the world of that time.

My favourites are most all of Dickens,

Sir Walter Scott.

H.G. Wells.

Henry Fielding.

Oliver Goldsmith.

Macaulay.

Harrison Ainsworth.

Anthony Hope.

I'm sure I will think of more when I have posted.

[Pilgrim]

Kell, Jane, though I like the way her characters speak and I enjoyed reading her years ago, has always reminded me of soap operas. I found myself talking in very carefully phrased sentences.

[willoyd]

Have just come to this thread (two and a bit years after it started!) as a newbie reading through - fascinating!!

 

I have a slightly different problem in reading 'The Classics'. In general terms, I love a lot of nineteenth century writing, both English (Austen, Brontes, Dickens, Trollope, some Eliot, Collins, Gaskell etc. etc.) and foreign (e.g. Zola, War and Peace etc.), but where I struggle are some of the more modern writers.

 

For instance, I've recently tried both 1984 and The Alexandria Quartet, and failed to finish either (got about half way through Justine.). I've equally struggled with quite a few twentieth century classics writers, ranging from the very early, like Conrad, through (in no particular order) Kafka Lawrence, Scott Fitzgerald, Mann, Joyce, Orwell, Hemingway, Golding, Camus and others. That's not say that I don't like twentieth century books - I definitely do! - but it seems that I struggle to relate to a higher proportion of what might be termed classics. There are exceptions - I'm starting to enjoy some of Virginia Woolf's work, and have always enjoyed lighter work like Nancy Mitford - but the label 'twentieth century classic' seems to be a bit of the kiss of death for me.

 

But then maybe it's unfair to lump books together as 'classics'; it's down to how you enjoy the individual authors, even books. After all, even as an avid fan of Jane Austen, I would be prepared to concede that Mansfield Park isn't quite up in the same ranks as the others (S&S is my runaway favourite), and I didn't enjoy Great Expectations anywhere near as much as Bleak House, nor Silas Marner as Middlemarch.