A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read?

Question

I think that we can agree with MarkTwain, 'cause the most of classic literature isn't very interesting. What would you say?

Answer 1

I'm a little bit torn on that one.

On the one hand, you're absolutely right. Have you ever tried to read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" by James Joyce? It's on my list of books to read and has been for about 3 years. I've started it at least twice. It's ruddy awful. The sentence structure is horrendously complex, and the plot is all over the place.

I feel the same way about all of Faulkner's stuff. I know that it's brilliant: I can admire the language and structure, but I certainly don't enjoy reading it.

On the other hand, there are some classics that are great reads. I love all of Jane Austen's oeuvre. Her novels are as fun as any cheap romance novel, with far more interesting themes. You can deconstruct them as polemics of Aristotelian virtues, or just enjoy them as great stories.

Shakespeare is a tough read, but well worth the effort. Sure you can read it for glimpses into the human soul or enduring themes of love, illusion, truth and war, but you can also just enjoy the silliness along the way. I dare you to read (or see) the porter scene in Macbeth without giggling once.

In my experience, classics become famous for one of two things: 1) they do something new, or 2) they speak well to the human experience.

Classics of the first type can be a yawn and a half. They have to be considered in context in order to be appreciated.

The second type of classics, however, are great stories across the board. Sometimes there is difficult language or an esoteric allusion to wade through, but it's almost always worth it.

Answer 2

Mark Twain is my favorite author and I think this is a comment on people rather than literature. Also, ironic that he created some of the most memorable classic literature.

I tend to agree with the previous poster (although the name listed is the translator of 'Gilgamesh' not the author) that classic literature transcends time and gets at who we are as human beings. Yes, the language might be daunting at times, but we need to overcome intellectual laziness. I am reading a very good book right now called 'The Dante Club' by Matthew Pearl. I think there is a very appropriate passage I would like to quote:
"Till America has learned to love literature not as an amusement, not as mere doggerel to memorize in a college room, but for its humanizing and ennobling energy...she will not have succeeded in that high sense which alone makes a nation out of a people. That which raises it from a dead name to a living power."

The phrase "humanzing and ennobling" energy really resonates with me; it is through literature that I have had my most profound insights into myself and the world in general. It is by reading great works, like Gilgamesh, Beowulf, the works of Shakespeare, etc. that make me want to be a better person.

Just my two cents...please don't give up on the classics...Mr. Twain would be very disappointed.

Answer 3

Twain's statement is witty, and true to fit so many. But it's not completely true. There are people who read the classics, the number of editions of one book will show that. There are hundreds of classics that are always in print.

A professor pointed out in a literature class, it's literature classes that keep the classics in print. Otherwise people don't read them. "You won't see them on the bestsellers list on Amazon."

But as long as there is life, consciousness, and death, there will be the classics to address these. I understand not all classics are interesting, or fulfilling. I have started and put down, a number of times, Whitman's Leaves of Grass because I just don't find his poetry rewarding--all those abstract terms. But I would suggest starting with classics that are just fun to read, like those of Robert Louis Stevenson, or Alexander Dumas, or Emily Bronte. From those you learn good writing, and then develop a taste for more.

Answer 4

You may use the words "everybody" and '"nobody" but that is not appropriate. I am one of the disagree-ers with you.

In music, in art, in any of the areas of human endeavour, classics are so-called because of their 'staying' power. We still hear the Beatles on the radio because their music qualified for 'classic status.'

I would differ with you: Classics ARE interesting, but often need perseverance to read/look/listen. Our children (I have 5) need to be taught that the concept of "I want it NOW" is only going to hamper them in enjoying the finer things of life. To read a classic - Jane Eyre, Paradise Lost, what ever, demands hours of sitting and reading, uninterrupted. Only way to get there! But the rewards and blessings are dramatic - a deeper understanding of a time-honoured theme (as the other writer said) or at the very least, the ability to talk intelligently with another person who has read the same classic!

Modern-day classics? We will have to wait and see. Will Harry Potter become a classic? Will The Simpsons qualify?
Ask me 30 years from now!

Answer 5

I disagree completely. The reasons that classics are classics, is because they continue to be relevant long after the time they were written. They have themes which are always true of humans and society, and are well-written. If you go into a book with a sense of duty rather than of discovery and anticipation, you'll never get anything out of them, and you're robbing yourself. Reading is a pleasure, and Mark Twain was nothing but an inverted snob, who looked down on anything he hadn't written himself. You get out what you put in, as with anything in life. If you see reading as a chore, you'll make it a chore. If you want to have read it, then that should mean you wish you'd already had the pleasure and enjoyment which comes with making the journey the book takes you on. Books were (and are) written to be read, and a good author can transport you anywhere in the world/universe/past/future, or to wonderful imaginary places, and you have the opportunity of going along with them. Don't waste time moaning - jump in with both feet!

Answer 6

I couldn't disagree more!

Having just finished Stephen Mitchells “Gilgamesh” (the oldest of the classics) I found it to be a great book! Unfortunately most people think of a classic as some old tale that we just can’t relate to anymore. This is just not the case (I’ll use Gilgamesh as my example as it is fresh in my mind) two important themes I found most interesting in this book were the importance of friendship and how to deal with death.
The basic idea of a classic is that there is some fundamental truth that can touch us even today. You may want to reconsider the classics because they still have a lot to offer!


Mrhaggard

Answer 7

Some human cultural doings reached their highest stage of development before our times. Government, for example, reached its highest stage with a sort of constitutional feudalism and has since degenerated all the way down to sham democracy in which power is secretly held by financeers and media bosses.

But storytelling's highest development is NOW. As much as I like Chaucer, Milton, Mallory, Tennyson, Swift, and Twain, I must say that they are outdone by the best of the fantasy writers of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Anyway, the answer to your question is Les Miserables. Too long. Not all that good. The plot and subplots are decent, and it could have been great, though I don't like the contra-nature elements in the philosophy Hugo's pushing: it's basically the Christian idea of the goodness of turning the other cheek, helping those who seek to do you harm, etcetera. Phooey.

osuwidget, if you think "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" by James Joyce was bad, just try Charles Kingsley's "Hypatia." Man, talk about overly convoluted sentence structure. I got through a few pages, found that I wasn't getting enough fun out of it for my effort, and gave the book to a library.

Answer 8

A classic is a book that's stood the test of time. Most were written for the masses and not considered great literature when they were written.

Now "literature" is what your teachers force you to read. Some of those are as dull as they come.

I'm one of those authors that would rather have one kid say to another "you gotta read this one. It's good." than have a teacher push it.

Answer 9

Balderdash. Poppycock. Stuff and nonsense.

Anything is boring to people who don't know much about it or don't know how to appreciate it, and aren't up to the challenge of learning how. Classic literature is fascinating, and not just because it gives us such wonderful expressions such as balderdash and poppycock.

Ironically, Mark Twain himself is considered a classic author, and his books are very fun and engaging to read. I'm sure he'd appreciate the humor in that.

Answer 10

To me a classic is a book that has stood the test of time. Sometimes the language can be very difficult to wade through, but some books have had their language modernised (Les Miserables did).