Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
III. Goodreads Readers
>
Are Classics A Must Read?
Life is too short to read books that you do not like.
Classics are classic for a reason, so if you don't read them your ignorance will bring you no bliss.
Justin wrote: "Upon skimming threw Google Play Store I clicked on Books and then 'free'. I then came across some of literary's timeless classics. Books such as Frankenstein, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Tr..."These books are classics not only because they are well-written but because they deal with timeless themes regarding the human condition. I'm not big on telling others what they "should" or "should not" do, but I make an exception in this case. Yes, people should read them.
I guess those historical treatments of the human condition don't speak to me. I prefer modern treatments. I don't particularly read or write romantic fiction, but the lovelorn meanderings of Jane Austen's heroines really don't interest me and yet as I said above, I can entirely recognise her as the supreme stylist that she was.
Disagree, Sharon. They last because of the quality of the writing.
It is instructive to look at the best-sellers of some time ago. Do they last? Who here has read VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, by Jacqueline Suzanne? It was a monster best-seller in its time. But clearly it has not made the leap into becoming a classic. Popularity, even vast profitability (50 SHADES OF GRAY) do not make a classic. There has to be more.
I have always considered myself an avid reader and over my long life I have read a lot of books. Classics are always on the top as to quality and content and just the fact they reach into your being and stay. For all the comments made here, the one thing anyone who has read Classic books can tell you - is they remember those books and the authors - they stick with you. S. says reading them takes time and patience - not true. If you read for enjoyment the time is well spent and patience is not required. It's easy
Brenda says life is too short to read books you do not like - you're right. How do you know you don't like them? Bad English teachers? - maybe... but maybe you need to try again.
I read "Valley of the Dolls" and I could tell you its about drugs, but I can't recall the lead characters or the plot. I can vividly recall the characters and plots from all the Dickens' novels - David Copperfield or Oliver Twist to name only a few. That's the difference - That's the more...
I've read my share of classics, and most of them have been excellent. Some, in my opinion, remain in high regard just because they somehow made it into--and remain in--the literary canon. Just to offer an example, I just recently finished Steinbeck's
Tortilla Flat
and found the writing style to be mediocre at best. It contained all of the "amateur mistakes" readers will ream a contemporary author for making (such as relentless head popping, "telling" instead of "showing," and abusing passive voice). Of course, subjectivity plays a huge part in the judgment of any literary piece. According to many, Tortilla Flat is Steinbeck's greatest work. I beg to differ.
I love classics and think everyone should read them. Not all of them, but a nice selection. I don't know, maybe I had great English teachers in school and didn't look at it with such distaste. I may not have loved every story, but I did love learning how those stories became important. Some of those classics were written during times of oppression, war, revolutions and any other number of situations. The words were penned to create action on our parts, introspection, or in some cases some other emotional response. There was a point to the story.
In addition, many of the elements writers across the world utilize including symbolism, allegory, stream of consciousness, poetic justice, alliteration, foreshadowing, and imagery, to name a few, were perfected by the masters.
Even if you aren't a writer, the classics are a wonderful place to explore the foundations of books.
Yes, I believe they are, not only are they entertaining and informative, they give up a bit of a history lesson on the past and open a window on a style of writing that is lost to us now.
Of course the question is, who defines what a classic is? Should the classics be read? Yes! A great book is a great book. However, the choice of what to read should be more open, especially when at school.
Yes, classics are a must read, particularly those books written well before the invention of television (1907ish). The ability of Authors to describe and convey what they are thinking is unparalleled today and should be admired. Imagine, Edgar Rice Borroughs Tarzan in 1914 describing to an ignorant world what a gorilla looked like (discovered in 1902 and not widely known) or Jack London spinning adventurous tales around his personal experiences as he wandered about the world. There is simply too much to be gained not to consider classics a must read (that said, I have read but could live without Nathaniel Hawthorne).
Leigh wrote: "...Steinbeck's Tortilla Flat and found the writing style to be mediocre at best. It contained all of the "amateur mistakes" readers will ream a contemporary author for making (such as relentless head popping, "telling" instead of "showing," and abusing passive voice). ..."I'm sure you are not the first person to dislike Steinbeck, but in his defense the principles you outlined are editing preferences and not English language rules. All are currently preached to writers, but most readers are not familiar with them. I doubt they even existed when this work was written.
Aleks said: Of course the question is, who defines what a classic is?Penguin Classics do ;)
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
I think it depends on the person. Not all classics are right for the right people.However, that said, I do think people should at least watch Shakespeare (watch--not read; his plays really weren't meant to be read). There are just SO MANY REFERENCES. It is worth it.
I like the 'idea' of reading classics. However I don't like to have other people tell me what I must read or like. Generally the books we were made to read at school were awful. They were too babyish for our age group or too far removed from anything which interested us, and there was no action or discussion of any topics we would hear discussed in real life.
If you come across a classic and enjoy it, that is wonderful.
If I had never been forced to read some of the classics in school like The Scarlet Letter, Pride and Prejudice, Frankenstein, Last of the Mohicans, Wuthering Heights, etc., while I was busy reading The Flame and the Flower by Kathleen Woodiwiss and hiding it under my mattress, I might not have learned to appreciate a wider range of literature. I have read- and still read- a wide range of books. I still occasionally read a “classic.” I think reading classics helped me become a more well rounded reader in my appreciation of literature in general. I know the difference in what I am reading and appreciate a story for what it is, and what it is not- whether it is a pure “quick read” action adventure like those by Clive Cussler, or a well written classic like To Kill a Mockingbird (which I love).A few other people have commented that you tend to remember the characters, plot and/or setting of the classics. I believe that is true. I remember a lot from even those classics I read early on, but couldn’t tell you much about many contemporary books I’ve read, except whether I liked them overall or not.
Personally, I went through a Mr. Magoo phase and read quite a few classics. :)
Michael wrote: "Disagree, Sharon. They last because of the quality of the writing."I am copying and pasting what I wrote, with emphasis added this time:
These books are classics not only because they are well-written but because they deal with timeless themes regarding the human condition.
Sharon wrote: "Michael wrote: "Disagree, Sharon. They last because of the quality of the writing."I am copying and pasting what I wrote, with emphasis added this time:
These books are classics not only because..."
Timeless often within a highly restricting historical perspective when it passes down to me 200 years later I'm afraid
Christine wrote: "I'm sure you are not the first person to dislike Steinbeck, but in his defense the principles you outlined are editing preferences and not English language rules. All are currently preached to writers, but most readers are not familiar with them. I doubt they even existed when this work was written."Yes, you are spot on with that. (And I loved OF MICE AND MEN ;-) )
Just as with modern novels, one person will like some and hate others, but I think it's important to be exposed to a variety of them in school. School should be a time of being exposed to different things, whether it be chemical reactions, mathematical formulas, sports, art, languages, or classical literature. Whether to continue reading them in adulthood is up to the person, but classics fall into different genres, just as modern novels do. Romances, mysteries, adventures/thrillers, some more general literary works -- I don't like all classics, but I read them in a genre I like and find them very enjoyable.
Laurel wrote: "Just as with modern novels, one person will like some and hate others, but I think it's important to be exposed to a variety of them in school. School should be a time of being exposed to different..."Surely classics do not fall into genres. Jane Austen was not writing chicklit/romance, Dracula & Frankenstein were not 'Horror', Poe was not supernatural. Tehyw ere all just writing 'Fiction'.
The authors may not have referred to them as being genre fiction (not sure when that term came into use), but many certainly fit into our modern definition of genre. They also weren't writing their books in the hope of being studied in schools centuries later. They were writing because they enjoyed writing and in the hope of making a living -- and sometimes to make a statement about a social problem of the time. In other words, they wrote for pretty much the same reasons as authors do today. Frankenstein and Dracula are indeed horror fiction. Check out Classics of Horror: Dracula & Frankenstein here on Goodreads. Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein as part of a challenge posed by her husband, Lord Byron, and John Polidori to see who could write the best horror story. H. Rider Haggard's Allan Quatermain novels are very much an adventure/thriller series -- and many of his novels (She, for example) have a paranormal element. I think we too often put authors of the past on a pedestal and think they were more highbrow than writers of today, but they were simply writers writing in their time. Their language may be very different -- Shakespeare or Chaucer, for example, but that's the way people talked in those days. Writing styles also were different and some books are difficult for us to slug through.I remember being told in one of my college English classes on Victorian lit that the main reason Victorian novels are so long is because they were presented in serial form in periodicals of the time -- so the more serial episodes an author had, the more money he or she made. And Shakespeare was part-owner of the Globe Theatre. He wrote his plays to be performed there and to draw in a paying audience, a large share of whom were poor people and tradesmen, not intellectuals. I wonder if he would find it hilarious that he's studied in universities today.
What you say is true, but doesn't take account of that change in perception. Today's authors are in the main writing conscious of what genre they work in and accordingly their market .
I doubt any author -- past or present -- who hopes others will read their work writes without taking their audience into consideration. It's the nature of the game.
Laurel wrote: "I doubt any author -- past or present -- who hopes others will read their work writes without taking their audience into consideration. It's the nature of the game."I take the opposite view. the moment one tries to write a book with an audience in mind is the moment the book loses the author's original vision. But I'm happy to agree to differ :-)
Didn't mean tailoring to a specific audience to the exclusion of everything else, but I do think it's a part of the picture. Maybe I think that way because I spent eleven years doing technical writing and audience always had to be considered. I think traditional publishers look at a book that way because they're in the business of selling books. Freedom to create the way you want is one of the benefits of indie publishing.And like you, I'm happy to differ! Happy writing!
Laurel wrote: "Didn't mean tailoring to a specific audience to the exclusion of everything else, but I do think it's a part of the picture. Maybe I think that way because I spent eleven years doing technical writ..."thank you, you too :-)
I usually find the classics really boring and it is the rare one that I find enjoyable. I don't really understand why so many of them are considered so good. They are generally overly wordy and tedious. I recently read Sense and Sensibilityand I can't for the life of me figure out why its a classic.
I do enjoy Poe and Mark Twain though.
I agree wholeheartedly, Laurel.One area where US-based readers are I think sometimes lacking is that they are not much-exposed to work of other continents or countries. I myself am not so well-read in Asian or African literature. However, I have read most of the great Russian novels and novelists (and short fiction writers such as Gogol and Chekov), and some strong writers/books from other countries such as France, Spain and Germany. Since I can read French, German and Spanish, some of these, I've struggled through in their originals as well as translations.
I just got a read from someone who stated they were bored by my fast-paced book with constant action who stated she "preferred fantasy books." I kinda think ... well it kind of IS. It IS a fantasy book. So what am I to think of this?
Most of the classics are the type of book/story you describe, Laurel. I can think of few I've read that do not fit your description. People who think they don't need to read the "classics" are cutting themselves out of an awful lot of great stories -- and often they would focus on moral or personal issues. Also, for example, War & Peace is an historical novel, which I guess a lot of people don't realize. It tells what it would be like if one's country was invaded by a terrible outside army and the only real defense was the weather. Plus it's a giant soap opera. A lot of people can't get past the first 100 pages, but I can attest, once you do ... hooked.
Also, those who are stating they "prefer contemporary literature" and find the classics "boring" - not everybody's ready for the same thing at the same time. I didn't "get" Shakespeare until I was in my 30s. I just plain didn't get his plays or language or any of it. Once I suddenly "got" it, I was like holy crackers! Not only are so many phrases in common use today from these plays, the stories are like !!! I mean these are HUGE stories and in many cases have never been outdone. And, the stories have been redone - over and over and over because they were good to begin with and they are still hooking people today. There's a reason he's so influential and it's not because Literature Teacher Says So.I had a student walk out on a 2 minute video I showed of the Laurence Fishburne version of Othello. This was not a US-born student by the way. I thought, "Walk out on ME - do not walk out on this great actor and this great playwright and film."
So it became an assignment about "What modern film or other adaptations are there of Shakespeare?" Students got extra credit for finding them, and for viewing a film or reading a book inspired by a Shakespeare play. The list got up to 4 single-spaced pages.
This is just one of the dandy internet lists of this nature:
http://screenrant.com/movies-based-on...
When you say you don't like the classics because they bore you, they did not bore the makers of The Lion King, nor Akira Kurosawa (that old Japanese BORE!) nor Baz Luhrman nor Gus Van Sant nor these film/TV audiences of millions.
I saw my friend Igor put this quote today: "Reclaim your mind and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron consuming all this trash that's being manufactured out of the bones of a dying world." - Terence McKenna
A tremendous amount of what is provided to us as pop culture is what McKenna describes, and furthermore, this is done for a REASON. It is done to make people immune to the truth. The truth of the human heart. It is done to make people forget what Faulkner said in his Nobel Prize speech in 1950.
"I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure: that when the last dingdong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking.
I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail."
How boring.
You are right, Amy -- there are a lot of great stories in the classics. Apparently even Hollywood thinks so, since they've made a lot of movies based on them. I generally prefer the book, though. I like reading the story as the author wrote it; it has almost a time machine effect for me. These are words that a person left for us and I feel them as a connection to the past. I think the same is true for works, whether classic or contemporary, from other countries. The story is a window into another kind of life and another person's mind.And you are right, too, Melissa, when you find some of them tedious. I can't stand Moby Dick (prefer the movie in this case!), but then I don't care for modern techno-thrillers either. Every other chapter or so of Moby reads like it's out of a whaling manual. Had to read it for a class, unfortunately. But you say you like Poe and Twain. Classics are like contemporary fiction -- you're not going to like every book. Just look for the ones you will enjoy.
>>I like reading the story as the author wrote it; it has almost a time machine effect for me. These are words that a person left for us and I feel them as a connection to the past. I think the same is true for works, whether classic or contemporary, from other countries. The story is a window into another kind of life and another person's mind.>>It is about time and space, Laurel. If you look at some of the early films, they are scarcely viewable today - that's because film and later TV are different media, good for communicating different, more time-specific and, I hesitate to say - more simple emotions and concepts. It's because of the medium, the sensory consumption and the time involved. A person may read at his or her own pace - and does.
And the written word impacts a different part of our brain than does a visually-consumed type of media.
http://www.asterling.com/2014/06/just...
This is true of writing as well. I believe what Toni Morrison (author of some classics in her own right) said when she said, "I write in order to know what it is I think."
The quickest way for a book to end up on the "dead" list is to call it a classic. My high school AP English students hated reading anything that wasn't published yesterday. And until recently, I thought I was the only person I know who had actually read War and Peace -- twice. It would have been good even if Tolstoi had left out the last 50 pages. I've read Crime and Punishment three times. Once in college -- I thought poor Raskolnikov had punished himself more than the state ever could. The second time I read it, I had a totally different take on it and thought he should go to prison for life. The story, of course, hadn't changed, but my perceptions had. The third time was with my AP English class. They refused to see that it's not only a damned good thriller, but can teach them something about the time and society in which it was written. Most them didn't finish it. It was "too hard". They also were not thrilled with Wuthering Heights, which I personally think is one of the all time great love stories with a little paranormal thrown in for good measure. If my students are any indication, I think it's a shame that the classics are ignored simply because the language is a little difficult or there is not a lot of blood and guts filling the pages. Unfortunately, I think a lot of readers want to just be entertained and not have to think about what they're reading. And I admit sometimes that's all I want. But I also think that if you're a writer and you haven't read at least some of the classics, you're doing yourself and your readers a disservice. I agree that not everyone will like every book, but there are so many outstanding books on the "classics" list that I can't help but think there's something there for everyone.
I also found with my AP students that they didn't understand analogies that referred to classic literature, mythology, the Bible or anything else that was not written yesterday. Which means they miss the point in a lot of modern literature. I'm not sure how or why we got away from reading some of these things in school, but I think it's really sad. One 9th grade English teacher in my school taught Romeo and Juliet by using Gnomio(?) and Julio. Forget about getting the kids to read the real thing. I was appalled, but for once in my life kept my mouth shut. Today's students have never heard of Animal Farm and have no clue about the Soviet Union. Maybe we should just take all these beautiful books and make them graphic novels. At least then they'd be read.
You make several excellent points, Janet. I'd be willing to make graphic novels of the most popular classics to give those kids who are willing to forgo anime, video games and Teen Wolf to give them a try. Back in the fifties there was a series of comics called Classics Illustrated which did, in fact, present versions of many well-known works of Western literature. Time for an update, perhaps?
Trevor wrote: "You make several excellent points, Janet. I'd be willing to make graphic novels of the most popular classics to give those kids who are willing to forgo anime, video games and Teen Wolf to give the..."Go for it. God knows it may be the only way to get some kids (and maybe adults) to read "the good stuff"!
Agreed. Anything to get kids away from video games and reading again is a great idea!
Mariel wrote: "Agreed. Anything to get kids away from video games and reading again is a great idea!"Kids are reading, in record numbers. YA is probably the most vibrant market segment in publishing next to romance. It's just that they're not reading books written by dead people. Force War and Peace or Remembrance of Things Past on them when they're just starting out and you'll turn them off of reading forever (as has happened to millions of adults).
The classics cannot be appreciated until a reader is ready for them. By all means, let children read (as adults do) things that interest them, but don't disparage the classics. They've stood the test of time and been long admired for cause.It seems to me that they are "must reads" for those wishing to develop cultural literacy. Of course, one must understand the time and culture in which the author lived in order to get the most from, much less judge a work.
(PS Don't disparage video games either. That IS a losing battle.)
I'm not disparaging video games - far from it. Perhaps the answer for child gamers is to marry classic with game in a fusion that gives them the chance to learn literature while playing. A good example is Dave Morris's Frankenstein, an interactive phone app reviewed here: www.inklestudios.com/frankenstein/
I don't really consider anything a "must read", since different people have different tastes. Some might not be into classic literature. But classics are wonderful resources to see where society has come from. All the great works of today have roots in the past, after all.
Yes, absolutely. Recently, I have begun to reread some classics that I had been required (or perhaps forced is the better word) to read as a kid. I'm terribly glad I'm doing this because I have a different perspective as an adult and am taking away something very new from these books. Finished To Kill a Mockingbird recently and was blown away by it (as a kid I thought it was only pretty good). I'm currently reading The Great Gatsby ; still not a favorite, but I definitely appreciate it now.
I agree that a reader has to be ready for the classics. Technology has helped me do just that. (i.e. I listened to Moby Dick, but I would have never "read" it).A tangent on video games... how about video game and books tie-ins? I just happen to have finished Myst: The Book of Atrus. Myst was a PC game with a huge following in the 1990s. Never played it but the book's mythology made me want to play it. Conversely, I'm a huge Halo fanboy and am about to read the books b/c I love the character and story of the game so much.
Sidenote: Check out my book trailer on Myst: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIW6J...
That's why movie versions are so great. I doubt many people will read the original novel, but lots of people saw LES MISERABLES on the screen. Wolverine, singing, what's not to like?
Josh wrote: "...Technology has helped me do just that. (i.e. I listened to Moby Dick, but I would have never "read" it).Listening to stories is really enjoyable . Even my kids would listen to audio book versions of stories they might never have read independently. There's just something about having a story read to you. I remember my fifth grade teacher reading The Scarlet Letter to my class. Even the boys listened (which is a tough age for that!).
I agree with this totally, in fact I'm currently on an anti-cultural snobbery crusade, which includes fiction, art, music, design, how we decorate our house or what we put in our garden. The artist Grayson Perry once said 'there's no such thing as good taste and bad taste, there's just taste.' Actually I hate the term 'literary fiction' because it implies everything else is lacking that 'literary' dimension. It's possible to write genre or popular fiction that is thoughtful and meaningful.
Jan wrote: "I agree with this totally, in fact I'm currently on an anti-cultural snobbery crusade, which includes fiction, art, music, design, how we decorate our house or what we put in our garden. The artis..."same as it is to write litfic that can be a page turner. And yet so few authors pull off either achievement. So what does that say about both?
I went to a private boarding school that had the finest library I have ever seen. It contained all of the classics along with a wide variety of contemporary works and an amazing reference library. It did not stop there - it also displayed extensive graphic novels (comic books), the complete works of Zane Grey and Louis L'Amour (paperback westerns) and Mickey Spillane (Peter Gunn series)etc. etc.We were taught that the joy was in reading. It didn't matter what we read so long as we enjoyed the books. I believe that IS what reading is all about. I have always had a house full of books and no restrictions. My sons are readers and my grandsons are readers. They love books almost as much as I do.
Apply the same philosophy to music and art and life will be truly joyful. Just my opinion...
Goodreads Authors/Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
Richard III (other topics)To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)
The Great Gatsby (other topics)
Sense and Sensibility (other topics)
Tortilla Flat (other topics)
More...
call me a literary bastard then! It's precisely because the classics don't speak to me that I turned to writing to figure out what actually might