A problem with... classics

[Kell]

I'm pretty new to classics - I've spent most of my life unconsciously avoiding books written prior to 1900, so recently I decided to rectify that and make a concerted effort to try them.

For the most part I've enjoyed them, however I have found a slight problem with some of them...

I'll illustrate this particular example with Emma by Jane Austen (which I read last summer). What was it that really got my goat about this book? It was the fact that nobody ever actually DID anything! It was a continuous round of visiting neighbours to drink tea and discuss a letter that came six months ago from a distant cousin who tells all the news about visiting HER neighbours and discussing six-month old letters! I found it incredibly boring and found most of the characters very annoying.

It almost put me completely off Austen all together.

Fortunately, I tried Northanger Abbey earlier this year and loved it, which made me decide to try a few more of Jane's novels.

Anyway, I just wondered if anyone else had anything they didn't like about classics?

Or am I the only one?

[Icecream]

I found a similar problem with Jane Austen. I loved Pride and Prejudice, but I could not get to grips with Emma either Kell. Like you say it is too boring. I; not sure whether I will read the others but I might do.

Similarly I love Charles Dickens' Oliver but hated Great Expectations for similar reasons to Emma. It didn't go anywhere for half the book. I still want to read some of his others though.

[Karen]

I have a number of the 'classics' on my bookshelf waiting to be read but I've just never got around to them. Well that's not strictly true because I've started some of them, but have given up after the first couple of chapters because I just can't seem to get into them.

I'm ashamed to say that I think I've only read one classic, Jane Eyre, which incidentally I loved.

[Nici76]

I feel like the odd one out but classics have never appealed to me and I have never read one - they just don't interest me. Sorry!

[Karen]

In all honesty I can't say that they really appeal to me either, but I feel I should try and read them because...well they're classics. Does that make sense?!

[Nici76]

That makes perfect sense! You are a lot more disaplined (sp?) than me!

[Freewheeling Andy]

I'm loving War & Peace, but I think it's more because it's got so much history and substance as the basis. I've always struggled against all pre-1910 "normal books" (which means Frankenstein and Dracula and HG Wells and Robert Stephenson and Jules Verne are excepted). There's something in the language I really struggle with; and there's something in the action (or more, perhaps, both lack of action, and in the highly-strung reaction) that I rail against. It's particularly how much characters react to what in the modern idiom seem like utterly trivial events; and how much the author focuses on the psychological aspect of this reaction.

My feelings my be completely unfair, being based on very little as I struggle to read too much pre-1920 book, but that's what they are.

[Karen]

I have to say though that I really enjoyed Jane Eyre and have read it more than once. I did find the first few chapters a little weird but once I got past them it was a really good read.

Maybe I should try and perservere with another one of the classics that I own. I might actually enjoy it once I'm over the first hurdle. I think it's the old style of writing and the way in which the characters speak that put me off though - they just don't seem to flow that well.

[angerball]

I'm not a huge fan of the classics; they are too wordy for me, and the writing style is quite different to modern language, so I can't read them as quick. :irked: I would like to try a few of the more popular ones though (Pride and Prejudice in particular) to see if they change my mind. :readingtwo:

[KW]

For me, many of the classics simply plod along and are too thick with unnecessary details. A writing teacher once told us, "Today, most of the 'classics' wouldn't make it past the slush pile." ( because writing has changed that much. )

Shruggggs.

To each his own, I guess. I adored them in my teens, when I hadn't read as much as I've read in my adult life. I wonder what that means....:irked:

[Kylie]

I love classics, and for a lot of the reasons that other people don't. I adore the wordiness and different use of language. I find it very poetical and it greatly enhances my pleasure of reading.

I do find that it sometimes takes me longer to read them but I always feel very gratified at the end.

I don't really get it when people say classics don't interest them. They cover all genres so there should be something that grabs you and you can almost always be guaranteed a good read because these books have clearly stood the test of time and have been loved and enjoyed by many, many people before. Of course, some books will be enjoyed by people more than others but there should be something there to appeal to you!

[wrathofkublakhan]

Mebbe I'm a-thinking this thread is really about pre-1910 books.

I know that the Holmes books were published very late 1880's, Dickens was publishing about 30 years before that.

Was there some cultural shift? Could the use of Realism (George Bernard Shaw and Anton Chekhov) in the theater have had an impact on the writing of stories?

In any case, a classic should be a classic for a good reason - hopefully it's the writing and not because it was written in unusual circumstances.

I've loved some classics - The Jungle Books, Tarzan, The Secret Garden are all well done and good reading.
Like someone else wrote in this thread, the language can be an early challenge but is soon overcome. I know it's true for me when I read Othello or Hamlet, perchance to scream - but eventually I glom on it.

[Kell]

Like someone else wrote in this thread, the language can be an early challenge but is soon overcome. I know it's true for me when I read Othello or Hamlet, perchance to scream - but eventually I glom on it.Strangely, I've never had a problem with the language where Shakespeare is concerned - even as a kid I loved the way everything was so expressive, yet set out so rigidly (oh, that iambic pentameter!). It's later on that I seem to have a problem with language. For example, going back to Emma again - I've been assured there's a fair bit of humour in that one, but I completely missed it. Perhaps it was because the writing and language style was so new to me, or perhaps it was just that this particular book bored me, as when I listened to an audio book of Northanger Abbey, I "got" it all and loved it. And when I followed that by reading Pride and prejudice, I found whole swathes of humour.

I've always struggled against all pre-1910 "normal books" (which means Frankenstein and Dracula and HG Wells and Robert Stephenson and Jules Verne are excepted).
I know what you mean there - I read Dracula when I was very young (I think I must have been only 9 or 10 at the time) but loved it, and I recently read Frankenstein (for reading circle) and enjoyed that too. I think that genres within the realm of classics are slightly more clearly definable too: You can pick out the gothic horrors, the romances, the social comentaries, the detective/mysteries, and the sci-fi/fantasy more easily than you could with contemporary writing, which ALL seems to be multi-genre these days (not that I'm complaining either way!).

Incidentally, although I've never been a reader of romances, classic romances seem to be a different thing altogether - I adored Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice - both very romantic novels!

[clockwork frog]

If you are not into the serious classics but fancy reading something 'vintage' give Jerome K. Jerome a try. A refreshing, witty, well paced and brilliant social observer and you can find his stuff in most junk/second hand book shops for a couple of quid. I even think some of his most obvious stuff is still sold new under the Penguin 'Classics' series.
He writes in a style that manages to keep pace with modern reading and the first time I picked up one of his books was in the school library one lunch time, many years ago . I was so gripped by it that I bunked off maths that afternoon to read the book in one sitting!

[Freewheeling Andy]

Kell, I wouldn't really pin my problem down to one of genre. It's just that most of the genre-fiction that I've read, from Sherlock Holmes to Jules Verne, is basically aimed at teenage readers or was written originally in magazine form for a mass market. It's not "serious" fiction.

What I feel is that my pre-1910 problem may actually more be a problem with 19th century fiction. When I've read pre-19th century stuff then although the language is a problem, the books themselves aren't.

I may just have a problem with the Victorian mentality.

[clockwork frog]

There's something in the language I really struggle with; and there's something in the action (or more, perhaps, both lack of action, and in the highly-strung reaction) that I rail against. It's particularly how much characters react to what in the modern idiom seem like utterly trivial events; and how much the author focuses on the psychological aspect of this reaction.

I think you make some very valid points here. Writing styles and reading tastes, interlinked as they are, reflect somewhat the social climate of the day and what you have said above puts me very much in mind of my own interpretation of the Victorian psyche generally, that is to say, social, political, industrial and Imperial developement capped by a heavy duty sense of manly restriant. There are as many reading tastes as there are writing styles and it clearly makes sense that we all have certain styles for which we have empathy and others for which we have no time. It may well be, as you later said, that you simply struggle with the Victorian mindset. For my part, I have very little interest in most things written during Defoe's era.

Regards.

[FishAndChips]

I've struggled with Jane Austin. Among my favourite classics are probably Wuthering Heights (hard work but worth it) and Thomas Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles. I also enjoyed Jane Eyre. Some of those books do require a bit more effort but if i'm in the mood then I do find the language very rewarding.
That said, Wuthering Heights IMO is unnecessarily verbose in places.

[etheline]

I love classics, and for a lot of the reasons that other people don't. I adore the wordiness and different use of language. I find it very poetical and it greatly enhances my pleasure of reading.

I do find that it sometimes takes me longer to read them but I always feel very gratified at the end.

I don't really get it when people say classics don't interest them. They cover all genres so there should be something that grabs you and you can almost always be guaranteed a good read because these books have clearly stood the test of time and have been loved and enjoyed by many, many people before. Of course, some books will be enjoyed by people more than others but there should be something there to appeal to you!

I agree with everything Kylie said. I absolutely love classics. The language, the fact that these books obviously made an impact on people's lives at that particular time, and the fact that they passed the test of time. I don't know why, but it just amazes me.

[Purple Poppy]

I agree with Kylie and Etheline.
I love classics...not all of them, but most of them. The language is fantatstic and they took time to describe things properly. Jane Austens character portrayal is second to none. She knows people inside out, but then you would expect her to...

Kell said;
I'll illustrate this particular example with Emma by Jane Austen (which I read last summer). What was it that really got my goat about this book? It was the fact that nobody ever actually DID anything! It was a continuous round of visiting neighbours to drink tea and discuss a letter that came six months ago from a distant cousin who tells all the news about visiting HER neighbours and discussing six-month old letters! I found it incredibly boring and found most of the characters very annoying.

Last night I had just finished reading this post and logged off. I then snuggled down to read a library book and by coincidence found that the next chapter was about ...

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q77/Catkintails/16edited.jpg

A Riot of Writers. A RompThrough English Literature.
Terrance Dicks. Illustrated by Ray Jelliffe

I had to smile. But seriously, this is an issue about time. Cultures change over time. The pace of life is very very fast these days. If you watch films from the sixties and seventies, or TV soap operas in the early days, the pace is very slow. The reason for that is because life was generally lived at a much slower pace. Everyone (including me) is in a hurry to jam as much into a day as possible, and from the time you get up in the morning to the time you go to bed you are under constant pressure, whether you know it or not. We expect stories to be action packed. We expect to be able to communicate immediately. We expect to be able to buy something yesterday.

But 150 years ago, the world was very different. It is very sad, I feel that we cannot slow down enough to observe what Jane observes and what her characters feel and how they react. Yes, of course they scrutinise every detail of something that seems very trivial to us, but so would you if you had been around at that time.

A GP once told me to go home and destress and said that the best way to do it, she found, was to curl up and immerse herself in Jane Austen. If you can get into Austen's and slow down, it is the best relaxation, and very rewarding.Quite apart from the social commentary.

Slow down and smell the coffee....or whatever. Quantity is not quantity.

Most classics would get published today; the only drawback is the language which could be rectified. Very few writers today write with the same level of ability, the same grasp of the English language as many of the classics writers. And many classic stories, like Jane Austens are just the first of a particular genre, in her case Romance, and have been repeated in varying ways ever since.

Unfortunately, people do not change that much over time, so even if you cannot relate to the situations, you should be able to relate to the people.

I wonder how many 20th century books will pass the test of time!

Rant over ;)
Pp

[JudyB]

I love the classics and love the way that they are written. In terms of wordiness they vary with Dickens being very wordy and Zola having a modern feel to his writing. Hardy is so poetic and I love Jane Austen for her humour and the Brontes for their atmosphere - Dickens does atmosphere well also. I also love the mysteries of Wilkie Collins.

One of the things I like best about reading the classics is that through them you can learn so much about life during that time - although works of fiction they do have a historical truth about them (for example there are things that I think of as modern that were actually in existance during the 19th century) and it's also interesting to look at the language and see how much it has changed or how they articulate for example, a medical condition, before it has reached the point of being given a recognisable label it's interesting to see how they articulated depression - the language can be very telling.

[Sedge]

I wouldn't normally have ventured into classics, but I recently decided to delve into the wife's bookshelves and read Wuthering Heights. I must say it was a lot more impressive than I was prepared for, so I've now moved onto The Mill On The Floss.

Once you get into it, the style of writing is quite soothing and the characterization is brilliant!

[Icecream]

Well said PP. I like the language i classics. I think it is good, although if at first challenging, to read the language that these people used. It is cultural and part of our heritage which should not be lost, but above all I find it most interesting.

[kitty_kitty]

I love classics - i love the language and the stories can be fantastic.

I find that i have to sit down and get used to the language etc.

I do feel a bit proud of myself for reading them though :lol: and a part of me feels like i should read them too

[FishAndChips]

I wouldn't normally have ventured into classics, but I recently decided to delve into the wife's bookshelves and read Wuthering Heights. I must say it was a lot more impressive than I was prepared for, so I've now moved onto The Mill On The Floss.

Once you get into it, the style of writing is quite soothing and the characterization is brilliant!

Oh good luck. I did MOTF for A Level and found it hard going! Silas Marner is quite good, and a lot shorter. I should probably try some more George Eliot.

[Fiona]

I want to read more classics - particually those by Austen (read P&P) Gaskell and Henry Fielding. I read Tom Jones as a kid but I'd like to read it again as an older person.

I've never got on with Dickens stories really - but one day I shall read Bleak House and Great Expectations as I did kinda get into those once but never really took it beyond a few pages at the time.

I'd like to read War and Peace, but the size is beyond scary and perhaps one day finish reading Crime and Punishment. I enjoyed it, but Russians have about 5 different names for themselves and two people I suddenly realised was one.

I love Dumas though - the 3 Musketeers and especially The Counte of Monte Cristo. I'd say Dumas is the best and easiest classical author to get into - possibly as it is translated and maybe not as heavy as the original French (going you can read French)

Classics I do find hard going and you need a bit more commitment to them.

[Polka Dot Rock]

At the moment, I'm having a bit of a problem with the classics: I suddenly can't read them!! :( Not a happy bunny...

I started The Mill on the Floss (George Eliot) yesterday but I just lost the will to read it. I just wasn't in the mood.

Has anyone else had this? I just thought it was because I wasn't in the mood for reading, but I started a contemporary book and I was fine!

[kitty_kitty]

I love the language and words that you do not use in everyday languauge and then using them really randonly to confuse OH

[Purple Poppy]

PDR said...
Has anyone else had this? I just thought it was because I wasn't in the mood for reading, but I started a contemporary book and I was fine!

I think you have answered your own question. You have to be in the mood for a particular book, be it classic or otherwise. I have done the same, started a classic and then decided that I'd prefer something more contemporary, only to go back to the original book a week or two later.
Just your mood PDR IMHO :friends0:

Pp :)

[JudyB]

At the moment, I'm having a bit of a problem with the classics: I suddenly can't read them!! :( Not a happy bunny...

I started The Mill on the Floss (George Eliot) yesterday but I just lost the will to read it. I just wasn't in the mood.

Has anyone else had this? I just thought it was because I wasn't in the mood for reading, but I started a contemporary book and I was fine!

I agree with PP you definately have to be in the mood for a classic novel and I have to also be in the mood for a contemporary one also. I find also it can be hard to be in the mood for the classics when the weather's hot - think they are very often curling up on a dark evening books.

[wrathofkublakhan]

Has anyone else had this? I just thought it was because I wasn't in the mood for reading, but I started a contemporary book and I was fine!

Yeah, it's happened. I bought Far From the Madding Crowd which is a very popular book on this forum. I opened the first pages and felt exhausted! It just seemed like work to me, I need to be in the right mood to read a classic.

[Polka Dot Rock]

You have to be in the mood for a particular book, be it classic or otherwise. I have done the same, started a classic and then decided that I'd prefer something more contemporary, only to go back to the original book a week or two later.
Just your mood PDR IMHO :friends0:

I agree with PP you definately have to be in the mood for a classic novel and I have to also be in the mood for a contemporary one also. I find also it can be hard to be in the mood for the classics when the weather's hot - think they are very often curling up on a dark evening books.

Yeah, it's happened. I bought Far From the Madding Crowd which is a very popular book on this forum. I opened the first pages and felt exhausted! It just seemed like work to me, I need to be in the right mood to read a classic.

*Phew!* Ah, thanks guys! I feel a lot more secure with my classic reading habits now :lol: You can forget how 'moody' reading can be.

Judy, I think there is something about summer and the classics - yet, strangely, not contemporary novels that are written in the style of classics (For example, I read Jonathan Stange... and The Crimson Petal... in sunny weather)

[vickythemaster]

I've rarely found myself not in the mood for a classic. I guess that's partly because most of the books I've read in the past few months have all been pre 1920. I love the lifestyle and language. I feel I was born in the wrong century to be honest.

I've always found with Austen that it takes allot of discipline to read up until the half way point. I don't know what happens then but something takes over. I don't know if you've become used to it or things finally start to happen but they get allot easier to read then and become much more exciting.

With Emma I think you really have to skim past Mrs Bates' lengthy speeches further into the novel. She is a very tedious woman.

[wrathofkublakhan]

<snip>I guess that's partly because most of the books I've read in the past few months have all been pre 1920...</snip>

Reading through this thread, am I right that there is some consensus that a classic is defined pre-1920? Is this something that is generally understood of which I've never seen before? Maybe there is a break down of classifications?

[Freewheeling Andy]

I don't really know what the definition is. Part of me wants to argue that "classics" is Ovid and Demosthenes and the like.

But clearly the "modern" definition is different. In my mind the "Classics" are books from the canon - the widely talked about, widely read books that are often referenced - that were written before modernism. So in my mind I use James Joyce's Ullyses (written around 1915 or so) as a dividing line. The advent of modernism and the end of the first world war appeared to thoroughly change "literary" writing, so for me its a convenient dividing line.

I wouldn't necessarily suggest anyone takes this as a sensible definition; it's merely one that I've created in my mind.

[wrathofkublakhan]

But clearly the "modern" definition is different. In my mind the "Classics" are books from the canon - the widely talked about, widely read books that are often referenced - that were written before modernism. So in my mind I use James Joyce's Ullyses (written around 1915 or so) as a dividing line. The advent of modernism and the end of the first world war appeared to thoroughly change "literary" writing, so for me its a convenient dividing line.


Breathtakingly brilliant, Andy.

This has made me do some exploration via wikipedia on Modernism. While I was fully aware of the impact via the Futurists and eventually Dada on art forms such as Dance, Theater and Music (Erik Satie, Laban, Loie Fuller, Picasso, Diaghilev come to mind) I had no real grasp of it's impact on literature.

I'd not made the connection (I think I have now tho) of James Joyce, T. S. Eliot, Sam Beckett, DH Lawrence actually applying the tenets of the art form to their work.
It kind of fits now in a new way. I remember reading the wonderful little book; Eats, Shoots and Leaves where she describes such fun things as George Bernard Shaw wanting to reject the 'b' in dumb and bomb, if I remember right Gertrude Stein wanted to ban commas and the Futurists wanted to toss out all punctuation altogether. It's much more fun to think of it now in the context of a broader art movement.

Maybe now I'll appreciate Jack Kerouac more...

[Freewheeling Andy]

But as a counter, Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_literature

really defines a "classic book" as

(a) Good
(b) Famous
(c) both good and old
(d) both famous and old
(e) famous, good and old
(f) the best of its kind in a particular form

-

But, as far as I'm concerned, my little rule of thumb works pretty well.

As for modernism itself, I probably struggle as much with a lot of early modernism as I do with classic romantic fiction, but I'm instinctively more sympathetic to it because it rejects the traditional form, and is deliberately playing with techniques of fragmented structure and trying to fix only certain strands in the narrative and so on.

[Freewheeling Andy]

Carrying on, on the same theme, we started this talking about a problem with reading classics. It could be that I've defined "classic" as a book I have difficulty reading.

And it could be that I have difficulty reading books that aren't informed by modernism, and by the impact of the first world war which, in my mind, was really the dividing line between the slightly gentrified Victorian world, still in awe of monarchs and empire, full of traditional romance, a world of horse and cart, and a strong divide between those in nice country mansions, and salt of the earth peasants.

The first world war really seems to bring in a world of invention and machines, of cars and planes, and of a far more cynical, far less deferential attitude; and (possibly brought about by the Russian revolution of 1917), a place where the peasants and the gentry mixed far more, where there was much more social mobility.

I guess the attitudes to the way that the (largely aristocratic) generals completely screwed up the war, and how they treated the common man as cattle, as cannon fodder, with no thought to the individual, massively accelerated the views from the middle classes that it all had to change, and in literature, as in other art forms, the war accelerated massively the push to try and view the world differently.

I think the way that all this began to inform writing is where I begin to read stuff that I can get a grasp on, that I can begin to understand and enjoy; it's where I find the hook, that is missing in earlier literature.

Even though earlier books clearly have some of the elements I'm talking about (such as Dickens compassion for the working classes, and so on), so it's not a completely hard line. But I guess it's the combination of events, of political changes, and changes to literary style, that lead to me finding that as the place I begin to enjoy books.

The more I think about it, the clearer it seems; because the pre-war stuff I've read and enjoyed is broadly early-SF, either Frankenstein or HG Wells or Jules Verne, which also takes on the modern world and change; or it's pre-Victorian stuff like Swift, which is far more cynical.

Anyway, that's just some thoughts, really.

[wrathofkublakhan]

<huge snip>

The more I think about it, the clearer it seems; because the pre-war stuff I've read and enjoyed is broadly early-SF, either Frankenstein or HG Wells or Jules Verne, which also takes on the modern world and change; or it's pre-Victorian stuff like Swift, which is far more cynical.</huge snip>


This makes a lot of sense to me. A global attitude shift, revolution, the emergence of the United States as a world player, even rise of industrialization bringing workers from the fields into the cities - brought up and really created a middle class - the sense of independence and opportunity - must've had a huge impact on the point of view of authors. Much like the artists post-1912, no longer the creators are of the higher classes - works no longer necessarily by commission. I don't know if this applies to the writers but it certainly was true for the painters and musicians.

What's fun to me is the broadening awareness of the context in which these books have been written - and so, understanding that context, brings a fresh appreciation to said literature. In this, I think I might enjoy the pre-1920 classics even more.

In general though, I think the perception of a "classic" probably won't be defined so easily in the minds of most; many may think Victorian, some may think vintage, some may think arcane language. For me, I like the idea of understanding the broader scope of a style of literature and setting it within the context -- and then promptly ignoring all that: and simply enjoy the book.

[Tiresias]

I feel like the odd one out but classics have never appealed to me and I have never read one - they just don't interest me. Sorry!

You can't truly know if they appeal to you or not until you have read them! :)

[Ruth]

I like Wuthering Heights - I have a greater appreciation of it now though, than I did when I read it as a teenager. I also like Jane Austen, although Emma is my least favourite of her books. Sense and Sensibility is better, and Persuasion is a lovely lovely book.

[Nici76]

You can't truly know if they appeal to you or not until you have read them! :)

That is very true! Perhaps I will give one a go in the future....

[Kell]

I never thought the classics appealed to me until last year when I set myself the Classics Challenge and read a minimum of one each month. Turns out I love quite a lot of them!

[Nici76]

I feel like the odd one out but classics have never appealed to me and I have never read one - they just don't interest me. Sorry!

Well after writing this over a year ago I should now eat my words! I am on my second one and am really enjoying them! :blush:

[SueK]

As was mentioned above, I think it depends on the Classics genre. If you want a comedy of manners type of book then I think you have to depend on the writing style of the author rather than the plot (or lack of). If you are looking for a thriller then the likes of Wilkie Collins would do the trick or even the ghost stories of MR James. What style of book you would pick up in the bookstore today - the only genre probably not around in the Victorian times would seem to be the conspiracy theory (overload or what?):lol:

[ii]

I've never read through this thread before, and in all honesty I find it rather... well, sad, really. I'm not surprised but I'm sad over finding that most the most part, when people here talk of classics, they talk of the English classics (Austen, Dickens etc.). As I said, I'm not surprised, of course that's the world people know best, what with being British. But still, you cannot seriously say you like or don't like classics, simply after having a go at the English literature??

For me, and some might say for obvious reasons, the classics have always been the French, and the Russians. Of course, I know of the English, I've read many of them, and I'm in no way trying to disagree with their classification as 'classics'. They are a hugely important part of the world literature. BUT, for me, when someone asks what good classics I've read, the list in my head is about Hugo, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Flaubert and Voltaire, among others. And then maybe I remember the odd Dickens, or Wharton, who is one of my favourites.

*goes to make a note for herself to wrestle at least one non-English classic into every poll for the Classics Circle from now on*

[Freewheeling Andy]

I think that's fair, ii. I think most of my problems come from Brontes and Austen and Dickens and Hardy and that sort of stuff. I never read Flaubert or Hugo, and have only read War and Peace of Tolstoy (and loved (most of) it). And, I suppose it's relevent, my favourite modern classics are also, generally, European. I'd rather read Kafka or Boll or Sarte or Hesse or Camus or Andric than read Henry James, say.

My sensibilities are perhaps more European. I think I'd be much more likely to participate in the Classics circles if they were more varied in their focus and travelled around a bit.

That said, sometimes translations of European classics seem very functional in English, they don't seem to carry much poetry of language through and seem a bit cloddy and straight. I'm sure this is just accident. I was thinking about this the other day, though, when I saw a Naguig Mahfouz book in the shop and thought about buying it. I opened and read half a paragraph and the writing seemed deeply simplistic, bordering on trite, and I think that's probably a consequence of bad, literal, translation.

[Nici76]

I think I will stick to the English classics for a time being until I have read a few more! :blush:

[Kylie]

Well after writing this over a year ago I should now eat my words! I am on my second one and am really enjoying them! :blush:

I'm so glad you decided to give them a go, Nici! What made you change your mind?

[Nici76]

I'm so glad you decided to give them a go, Nici! What made you change your mind?

I'm not really sure! When mum passed away I suddenly thought I would like to try them and then when I saw Jane Eyre for 20p on a stall I couldn't resist!

[GFS3]

I think you need to read the classics with the right mindset. Writing has evolved -- just like a language has. We don't need as many details today and when you say, for example, "Paris" modern people immediately have a visual. But back in the 19th century most people had no idea what Paris looked like (unless they lived there) so writing needed to provide description for the setting.

So when you read the classics -- just enjoy the reading. The best advice I ever got about reading Dickens was not to worry about the plot or where the story was going. Just settle in and read it. Let it take you.

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?

[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 :roll:

[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 :roll:

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!