Polka Dot Rock Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitty_kitty Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I love the language and words that you do not use in everyday languauge and then using them really randonly to confuse OH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Poppy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 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 Pp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyB Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrathofkublakhan Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polka Dot Rock Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 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 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 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vickythemaster Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrathofkublakhan Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 <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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freewheeling Andy Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrathofkublakhan Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freewheeling Andy Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 But as a counter, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_literature really defines a "classic book" as (a) Good ( Famous © 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freewheeling Andy Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrathofkublakhan Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 <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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tiresias Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruth Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nici Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 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.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kell Posted July 30, 2008 Author Share Posted July 30, 2008 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nici Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueK Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 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?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ii Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 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* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freewheeling Andy Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 (edited) 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. Edited November 19, 2008 by Freewheeling Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nici Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 I think I will stick to the English classics for a time being until I have read a few more! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylie Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 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! I'm so glad you decided to give them a go, Nici! What made you change your mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nici Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFS3 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.