Reading the Classics discussion
Archives
>
What is the purpose behind reading a classic?
Maybe this is the reason I've tried and failed reading so many "classic" books. I dread reading a dull book just to try to figure out the message I'm supposed to be getting. To me, reading should be a pleasant experience, not work.
In my experience, it can be both. I don't truly feel I'm reading something worthwhile unless it's challenging me some as I read it. That doesn't mean the writing is going all over the place with no sense of direction: I just put down a book because it was doing that and it made no sense to me. But if as you're reading it you feel how difficult it is but there are deep truths and questions buried in it, it becomes so rich and mentally engaging. Take The Picture of Dorian Gray that we just read: it was disturbing, on a mental and spiritual level, and some of the chapters seemed lengthy in their descriptions, but it was all to get the point across about the hedonistic mentality and what can happen to the soul of a man. That is certainly well worth reading, even if it is difficult and challenging due to the older language and subject material.Even then, though, it has to be engaging enough that you want to continue reading it. If it turns you off enough, there isn't a point to forcing your way through a book; there are just too many good books out there to do that to yourself!
I'm uncomfortable with messages and morals. Schoolteachers have emphasized messages and morals because they're relatively easy to spot and teach. The general public can understand messages and morals because they hear about them frequently on Sunday in church. But as far as I'm concerned I never, ever read a book for moral uplift unless I'm reading the Bible or theology. Some authors use their authorial talents to put across rather complex understandings and perceptions of their own, things that can only be worked out in a medium, like a book, which provides the canvas of a suitably long encounter between writer and reader. Sometimes those understandings and perceptions can be twisted into messages or morals, but I'd submit that a better comparison would be to a personally guided tour of part of the author's internal reality.
And so, to me, that's the important part: meeting a truly interesting person (the author) and learning in detail how they view the world, oftentimes in a manner entirely new and strange to me (style), or to an aspect of external reality of which I'd not known before (substance).
Mod
My aim is to read pure stories without exaggerated and unrealistic decor which is behind the story. The writers of classics generally tell us about true story with clear sentences without being simple. I think, that is why their stories have become classics. If we consider about their aims, they could just want to share some real stories with people and possibly they have not thought about money their books would bring,but they have concerned about what they could give to people.
When I read classics, and I rarely do, I read them to gain insight into what it was like to live during different time periods and to better understand the issues of those time periods. It is just interesting to learn about history through the perspectives of people who lived through it.
Mod
That is not the main reason that I read classics, but I do find that it happens. I find out a lot about the time period and issues involved in that time. It helps me to understand the present better sometimes when you can see some of the past issues were not that much different.
After (recently) studying realism in 19th century literature I gained a new appreciation for texts deemed 'classics'. We covered Dickens's "Great Expectations", Henry James's "The Turn of the Screw", Virginia Woolf's "Mrs Dalloway" and finally Michael Cunningham's "The Hours".Initially, like Denise, I somewhat dreaded reading something dull, especially 1000 pages dull (in the case of "Great Expectations"). There's something wonderful about a book that you just can't put down, and Dickens's "Great Expectations" was NOT one of those for me unfortunately. The largest reason for this is just how hard it was to relate to a character of this time period - the way they acted and spoke was a huge barrier for me, not so much the language itself - but as I continued to read and research the time period I came to understand more and more that this was someone writing about the trials and tribulations of life, the very same game of life that I subscribe to.
So, the question of 'why' did these authors write what they wrote became very interesting for me. To see (in "Great Expectations") that Dickens was writing about coming of age, living in society, love and infatuation, right and wrong, poor and rich, desires and ideals that just don't and won't work out in 'the real world' both then and now is what eventually sparked my interest.
Discovering, through the thought of an author over a hundred years passed, that life's moral dilemmas, it's catches, clichés and catastrophes are, broadly, almost identical in the way they affect us morally and emotionally is quite a personal and amazing thing to ponder. It would be awesome if realist texts existed hundreds of years prior to their conception, it would tell us a lot about ourselves.
Realist literature marked the start of what we very much take for granted - stories about life by people essentially just like you and I - the stories of life and the common goal of enduring it in varying circumstances. Of course, there was no one to read and relate to this sort of literature prior to a certain point because class differences usually meant that the everyday person was illiterate. So, it is interesting to note that there was no audience for these sorts of texts and common ideas - literature was for the wealthy.
I think this explains a large part of the appeal and purpose of reading classics (realist or not) - relating to aspects of living life and particularly moralism in an otherwise bizarre and 'different' time an place; and thus observing similarities in human nature which subsequently lead us to better understanding ourselves - or, at the very least, understanding that we are not alone with our pontifications here in 2012.
To me reading classics rather than other "fun" books is similar to watching the history channel rather than "fun" tv shows. Often they can be difficult to get through and not always as exciting as their "fun" alternatives, but the feeling afterward that you got something meaningful out of the experience makes it worth it.
I don't know. I read them because I'm interested in what people's life were like back when neither me nor my parents had existed. Somehow feels like time travel to me, and I love that feeling. And they also improve writing skills, which helps a lot when you are in college and pressured by all the term papers.
Shannon wrote: "To me reading classics rather than other "fun" books is similar to watching the history channel rather than "fun" tv shows. Often they can be difficult to get through and not always as exciting as ..."I'm addicted to the history channel.... :)
But yes, sometimes the more "work" books are more challenging than fluff, but I feel so much more educated and broader minded (yes, I meant to say "broader") after reading them, like I've really stretched my horizons, and that is the best feeling in the world. Then I go back to reading fluff so my mind can relax. :)
I find that I read classics because there is something quite romantic and curious about a book (written many times by an unknown nobody of that time period)that has been read by so many other people and has had so many different opinions of it. I love classics because for the most part, they are not simply "teen-reads" or your average high school gossip girl book for dummies who have nothing better to read, they are well-written and carry an underlying theme, usually about the depth of people and teach you something about yourself when you finished them that you never really knew. And of course, there are so many different genres in that one title "Classics" that whether you are a Steinbeck or Austen fan, or enjoy books like Brave New World or Fahrenheit 451 or Little Women, you can find something you'd enjoy. And of course it improves your writing skills as well when you fill your mind with well-written books!!
I discovered how much i enjoy reading classics through the Brontê-sisters and I am still discovering "new" old authors I really like. For me it is about reading something that I feel has substance if you know what I mean, I like the books that has the audacity to introduce and communicate new opinions and philosophies - something I feel can be hard to come by in modern literature. Of course there is a reason why the books are classics - they have a value in them either for criticism of society, the authors language or simply the plot etc. For me it's reading something well-written and also loosing myself in a world that isn't inspired by modern-day society, something that challenges me and entertains. But I often find that after reading a heavy classic I need something lighter just for relaxation before moving on to something new and challenging. Haha and of course it is fun to "boast" about having read a particular book from time to time :)
Eline wrote: "I discovered how much i enjoy reading classics through the Brontê-sisters and I am still discovering "new" old authors I really like. For me it is about reading something that I feel has substance ..."Haha, I'm glad you came out and said that.... I think we all like having the bragging rights, but no one wants to come out and say that's one of the reasons for reading classic literature!
I don't think one's interest in reading the classics- or any book, for that matter- should lie vested solely in gleaning some moral or ethical lesson. If I am reading a circumstantially sparse novel, I can enjoy it as much as a novel with a sensational plot because of the author's command of language. At this stage in my reading, I do read more to note authors' style, structure and conventions (or dismissal of) than I do to, as others surely do, become a better person, learn of something that would otherwise remain unknown, inform themselves of other cultures/time periods, etc.For example, one author (or critic whose name escapes me) criticized Nabokov as an author with nothing to say, but that is precisely what I love about Nabokov. His novels are works of postmodern genius. He remarked that it is peculiar how, regardless of your setting, circumstance, age and so on, when you open a book, everything is just as it has been when you last visited the page- everything is unmoved, unchanged. Nabokov sought to write novels wherein everything has changed when you revisit the book. There are groups of scholars dedicated to studying Nabokov and the numerous interpretations to be derived from just a single book, most notably Lolita and Pale Fire.
I'm not criticizing those of you who read to be taught a lesson as an undeniable faculty of the novel- the "integrity of the novel" as Kundera put it- is exposure to knowledge and the revelation of that which we may already have known and is now confirmed. "Literature," as Robert Harrison stated, "reveals us to ourselves," and, I paraphrase, seeks to express what philosophy costumes in obscure and abstract phrases.
Also, my final point, as Gogol lets us know: "It is dull in this world, gentlemen!" Novels, however arguably unfortunate, can be a substitute for first-hand experience and a lived life itself (as many socially-secluded authors know).
I decided to join this group precisely because there are so many classic books that I haven't read. They are often mentioned in discussions and are can be used as reference points to something else. Also, a lot of these books are a challenge to read and I like books that provoke thought and incite discourse.
Classics teach us new words, challenge the brain to think differently, and help us make sense of difficult old style language.
i read them because they 'speak' to me. i love the mystery involved with reading a well written classic. my favorite novel of all time is mary shelly's 'frankenstein', an instant classic when it was published. every time i read it, i feel new emotions for the characters.
I agree with Brandon. The way the language is used in alot of these classics is what I find beautiful.
Probably the wrong place - but looking at the nominations for the August read (I wasn't quick enough to get in with my nomination for Wllkie Collins' Woman in White - why was the thread closed within 5 hours, there's a list of book mentioned up the sidebar?). I have a question - why do people nominate such ridiculously long books? The Decameron and Anna Karenina are - in my opinion - too long to suggest for a book club because many people won't have the time to read a 750 page + book in the time given - but Les Miserables? All 1488 pages of closely packed type?Is one of the reasons for reading a classic merely that you get so much better value in the number of words per dollar?
Mod
The thread was closed as are all the nominations threads closed when the poll is set up for voting because there is no longer any more need for nominations once the voting has started. If you will read the comments, you can see why Jenn started the poll, because of the many repeat nominations for just a few books and if you read the comments on the poll, these are the books that the majority of members who commented wanted to read. For books to be added to the poll, they not only have to be nominated, but they have to be seconded.
True - but closed after 5 hours? Because of the time differences, most people wouldn't have had chance to even see the thread was there before it was closed.Next time, could the day and time the thread will open be announced a few days in advance?
Denise wrote: "Maybe this is the reason I've tried and failed reading so many "classic" books. I dread reading a dull book just to try to figure out the message I'm supposed to be getting. To me, reading should b..."Nothing great comes easy. That is not to say that harder books are better, but by putting in an effort in whatever you are doing (books, music, film) you might explore more, and open your mind in ways it would otherwise not have been exposed.
On-topic:
I read classics for no better reason than "many people deem these books great, there must be a reason". I have found many classics to be great, and I continue to enjoy them. There is also a part of me that likes exploring history, how peoples perception of society and all things human might have changed, how language might differ from time to time or how values are placed.
Classics can be a gateway to other times, and I find it both humbling and intruiging to be able to share experiences with people many decades ago.
I agree with Phil. Books don't have to be long to be classics. I am a Dostoevsky nut, and probably got more out of Notes from Underground and House of the Dead than I did from The Brothers Karamazov and The Idiot. I think some of Faulkner's short stories are as good as his novels. A forgotten classic is Nathanael West's Miss Lonelyhearts, 58 pages. And who could forget The Red Badge of Courage?
I personally read classics because I find that when you strip away the fluff (the time, the setting, the language even), you basically are reading people & their reactions. It's sort of like Victor said, but I like the idea of relating to people, their actions & reactions, regardless of our modern social context.
When readers feel related to a story, the idea or theme or can identify with a certain character/s, it becomes one of their favourites. If more and more people can relate to it, it becomes a classic. I read classics because I want to find out what sets them apart from others, or what is it that has inspired readers for generations, because its very likely that if most people have liked it, I will like it too. But I have figured after reading a considerable number that deciding whether a book is a classic or not, is a very subjective thing. I have been terribly disappointed after reading some very famous titles. Hmmm, I love Dostoevsky too.
I think I read classics because for the most part they are difficult. I want to be challenged to think outside of my box. I might not like the style or setting or a character or two, but it doesn't mean it isn't good for me-like, let's say, mushrooms. To use this group as an example, I joined not just because of the subject matter, but because I want to know what others have to say about the same piece of literature I read. Sometimes to validate my opinion; sometimes to question it; and sometimes to change it.
I think we read classics because every once in a while we lose track of what is good, and we have to go back and discover it again. A classic can enlighten you. Now we can return to modern books and decide what is good.
I love classic literature because of the dual existence a modern reader can experience through reading a classic novel. Material from a classic novel can be timeless as well as in the time itself. It is timeless in the way that a person of today can relate or recognize the characters and situations presented. Even though I do not live in high russian society in an older era, I can dive deep into the soul of Anna Karenina, her strive for perfection, her pitfall into infidelity when discovering perfection was not all it was cracked up to be, the power of lust because these are feelings and complications of human experience that happen today. At the same time, I can learn about a society that I will never be able to immerse myself in. I get to somewhat experience the expectations and social scripts of Russian high society of the 19th century.
Kevin wrote: "I think I read classics because for the most part they are difficult. I want to be challenged to think outside of my box. I might not like the style or setting or a character or two, but it doesn'..."Well said. Allowing your opinion to be malleable with other perspectives is the best part :)
Mod
Next time, could the day and time the ..."
Usually, the nominations are started around the 15th of the month. I will tell Jenn and make sure that the next time the thread is open for at least a day more likely 2. I think it was just because this was the first time we got such a huge response so fast. As you can see our group has grown immensely in the last month. We just started it in December and it took until June to reach 100 members. We are doing the best we can.
I recently joined the group and I think you are doing a great job. Because I belong to too many groups (and I don't want to give any one up!) Anna Karenina will be too long a read for me right now, but I will read the side reads and join in the discussion.I read classics, most of which I have already read (I had a GREAT high school education), because reading doesn't get any better than an author who writes in such a way as to transport the reader. Sometimes I can't read Faulkner. Other times I can't put him down. There is no consistency. Just where my mind is at any point in time.
Thank you so much for this group.
Mod
Thank you and look forward to your comments in the discussions.
I agree, but another reason for me to read classic novels is that I simply got exhausted by all those girl-meet-two-mr.-rights-what-to-do young adult novels. I wanted to read something with more substance and a greater message than having the hottest boyfriend in town. Also for the writing.
classics transport you to an another era.....it gives you a glimpse of life before...many a times i have found myself lost thinking about the american civil war...whenever i pick gone with the wind...or the english gentry when i read jane austen....for me they serve as an escape..
Dolores wrote: "Phil wrote: "True - but closed after 5 hours? Because of the time differences, most people wouldn't have had chance to even see the thread was there before it was closed.Next time, could the day ..."
I understand - and I didn't mean to criticise at all. I look forward to reading whichever of the two is chosen :)
I read the classics mainly to for the story. I love to go back to that particular period and get a sense of the time. If the books have a message that is a bonus in my mind. I also love the language eventhough sometimes I may get stuck trying to figure out the meaning of what they are saying.
I read the classics mainly to for the story. I love to go back to that particular period and get a sense of the time. If the books have a message that is a bonus in my mind. I also love the language eventhough sometimes I may get stuck trying to figure out the meaning of what they are saying.
One additional reason to read classics, which I haven't seen mentioned yet (at least since I joined this group which, admittedly, was fairly recently), is that it allows one to catch and understand references to classic literature in modern culture. It's not my main motivation for reading classics, but is definitely a side perk.
I love history so I like getting an insight to a different time. I agree with the above posters, the language in the books can be so poetic and beautiful. I also like looking up words I don't know then learning something new.I am also a romantic and love the old fashioned style of courting, such as letters and calling cards.
Also most of them are classics for a reason: They are great stories.
The main reason for me is that a whole bunch of people, whether over the past 50 years, or a century, or many centuries, or two millennia - decided that something was a really good read, or a really important read. To me that's enough of an argument to read something: so many opinions are standing behind it. It makes me curious to know if I will share their good opinion of it.Another reason is that I tend to dislike most current fiction writing, so I almost have to read older stuff, and a lot of it will be classic reads.
Ditto Lobstergirl's points. Plus let's all (at least all us ebook readers) admit it, free books are great (many classics are free in digital formats) and GREAT free books are even better.
I read classics for a number of reasons. Sometimes it's because of the writer's mastery of language. Sometimes it's because the story itself is timeless. Sometimes it's because the writer makes the characters so real, so alive, that I feel I really know them. And often it's all of the above. Which is why it saddens me when I read posts on other websites where people say things like "I had to read Middlemarch in college and swore I'd never read a classic again. And I haven't and am damned proud of it. Mindless trash rocks!" Whatever floats your boat, but I've never really understood the classic = boring mindset.
I read classics because they are books that have stood the test of time, that enough people have enjoyed that they have acquired a special level of fame. This means that more often than not they combine excellent writing, good stories, good ideas. I enjoy them. I don't find 'old-fashioned' writing hard to read, I've been reading it for 40 years, maybe that helps. Not that all classics are Victorian/pre-Victorian, but many of my favourites are.
Knowledge is the reason we should read the classics.What people hundreds,if not thousands of years ago thought and did.Someday in the future,readers will be reading about us .Wonder what they'll think ?
Simply to enjoy them, but also to feel the spirit of that time.
I think I read classics because I know they're good: if they survived through time, somehow they're bound to be good. Well-written at the least... Even if I don't like them, I know I haven't lost time reading a preposterous 30-euro book that nobody will remember in two years.
There are so many reasons I love to read classics; I don't know where to start. I like seeing that thread of inspiration through authors of different time periods, like seeing a little bit of James Joyce in Faulkner, or so on. I also love how there are so many other people to share your experience with.
I agree with so much of what has been said - the opportunity to learn about people, places and ideas through characters and situations that have stood the test of time. I only wanted to add that one thing I find intriguing about classic books and stories is that they tend to have multiple layers and are more complex. If I read them at different times, I may focus on different levels of the story. Often, there is a more "personal" level of the characters and their interaction with each other. Then there is more of a "community" level at which I can understand better the ways in which the local milieu affects people and the way that the environment (be it rural or urban) informs life. And finally there is the "societal" level and experiencing the customs, laws, politics, economics, etc. Sometimes, I get a mix of all; other times (probably depending on my own experiences and priorities at the time) one layer may stand out and capture my attention.
For me, it's not just that they are of a different time and place to transport me away ... it's that they are, at the same time, able to ground me.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/9...