The Perks Of Being A Book Addict discussion
Old books are hard to understand.
date
newest »
newest »
I'm presuming that by 'Old Books' you mean pre 1900? I don't find it hard to understand them but I find that they make you think more. They are history, language, beauty and social commentary all wrapped up in neat book shapes! I love old and new books, fact and fiction alike so no I have to disagree with you. If you haven't found a classic you like then it's because you haven't found the right one yet :) Books like Pride and Prejudice are absolute snap shot of what life was like for a certain type of woman in history - unable to work in industry just hoping to marry a rich husband or become a governess, having nothing to do but sit and chat all day with equally bored women. How do we know this? because of 'old' books and the people who wrote them. In 100 years from now people will read books like 1984 and The Hunger Games and think we were all stupid obsessing about 'Evil Government' and perhaps someone will go on a web page and start a discussion about it! ha haaaaa!!!!
Agree, agree agree :) I find it hard to cope with pre 1900 books. 1. Their sentences are too long.
2. Extra details of surroundings.
3. and humour is also hard to understand
I agree that they are harder to read but definitely not impossible. I recently read "Wuthering Heights" and what I found was that it was hard to read not in the sense where I couldn't understand it but it was just took such a long time for the book to draw its point
I don't think they're necessarily hard I just think they take more effort. Classics are great. I have read many and it will always be a classic that has a better plot, character development, and in most cases a moral - than most modern day contemporary novels. I think for most if the book is work to read it's brushed off as dated or not any good. I mean think about it, if it wasn't for Treasure Island we probably wouldn't have Pirates of the Caribbean. 10 things I hate about you- Shakespeare , clueless- Emma and so forth. We all love these movies or they would not have done so well in theaters and we have the classics to thank for that.
If you cannot understand Austen (really?) or Dickens (readable though sometimes boring), or Thackery (satirical and insightful) ...then really have you even begun to understand your language?You don't know the words...are they still in the dictionary? Learn them.
If 50 word sentences, complex ideas and pages of description put you off, read more. You'll get better.
If you're talking about Dicken, sure I'm with you. He was paid by the word, hence his dwindly sentences. If you're talking Bram Stoker or William Shakespeare, I kindly disagree. There is an eloquence in the text that gives us a strong visualization of the world of the text. Yes they're old in cadence and word, but as the word changes every few years so do the text of the books. This is why we study them (*cough English major *cough) and make an effort to understand them. Many find it interesting to see the creation of words on page (read: first usage). It is also important to point out that these early plots inspired many films, tv, and current books.
Yes there are going to be some older books you just don't like, but sometimes old books can pleasantly surprise you.
PS, I prefer "“Listen to them, the children of the night. What music they make!” To "Those bats are loud!"
And "“I sometimes think we must be all mad and that we shall wake to sanity in strait-waistcoats.” To "People are craycray."
The way it was written, in the way they spoke confused the heck out of me! I didn't even get to pg 50 and I had to put it down.
So I agree that some older books are difficult to understand.