Why are the Classics... Kind of Boring?

Remove all ads!

Methinks that AMaster was being a wee bit facetious with his 700 page book comment. I've heard several news items here in Canada that despite the recession book sales are brisk. I think people like to read, but we want reading that is much more escapist. We are inundated by grim material every day on the news and I would opine that we think we are much more educated and intelligent than generations past. So we don't want books that have too much deep and profound insight into the human condition -- we want action, spectacle, and entertainment.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it explains why people used to such reading feel a little gobsmacked when faced with a slow paced analysis on the meaning of life.

 

or Colleen McCullough. Both great writers in my opinion.

 

I prefer Julie McCullough -- oh wait, she wasn't an author.

 

Huh? Many of the favourite authors of SPers write novels over 700 pages. There are no Steven Erikson books with less than 700 pages and he's a consistent favourite on this site.

 

The last one was over 800 pages and sooooo boring it felt like 8000.

 

I don't like Dickens but his friend Wilkie Collins wrote some very good novels like the Moonstone or the Woman in White which are entertaining "classics" with a very interesting narrative structure.

 

I've read all of Dumas' Musketeer books. They're great reads once you get used to his verbose writing. The Count of Monte Cristo has been on my "to read" pile for quite a while though.

I like Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men which was the only book we studied in school that I like.

I also like Anthony Burgess but perhaps he's too modern to be a "classic" author.

I've read Moby Dick as well but I'm less of a fan of it - it's 150 pages of well-crafted novel interspersed throughout a 350 page instruction book on whaling.

I've found the few Sherlock Holmes stories I've read to be smug and silly.

Read a bit of Edgar Rice Burroughs - his plots are ridiculous but they're fun.

Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass are extremely intelligent, witty and imaginitive.

 

I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned (or read?) Don Quijote. Ironic, funny, kind of sad and not awfully long-winded - not bad for a 400 year old book . I had to read a lot of classics during my literature studies, and DQ felt like a breath of fresh air between, say, Dante and Tolstoi.

 

That comes from being paid by the line. Great writers had to make a living you know.

 

It also explains why he was so fond of two-page dialogues that consisted almost exclusively of short five-word retorts, back and forth. It might make his dialogue flow quickly and entertaining, but the real reason he did this was money

 

Don Quixote is pain. It just goes on and on and goes nowhere!

 

Is it supposed to go Elsewhere?

 

I never really thought of that, but it really makes sense. I love the way his characters always respond "Zounds!". I think the worst example of Dumas spinning something out is a chapter in Twenty Years After devoted to a background character's macaroni recipe - it has nothing to do with anything else in the book. Still his writing is so light-hearted and fun that I don't mind him going off on tangents.

 

I love classic literature! David Copperfield was an amazing book, powerful and funny--who can forget Mr. Micawber! And Mr. Murdstone...grrrr.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I mean, c'mon, everyone is 'ejaculating' all the time! And how lovable would Data of ST:TNG be if he had not had Sherlock Holmes's persona to adopt? Not nearly so endearing, I dare say! And what a dick Sherlock is! An amazing, inspiring, wonderous...jerk!

I'm a full grown man who tore through Pride and Prejudice like a lonely betty reading a dime-store romance on a weeknight. Great book!

East of Eden was strange, yet gripping. His "evil" characters are enthralling.

Moby-Dick...bleh. If that book is being foisted on young adults as part of their required education, that mistreatment must stop. First of all, it is morbidly opaque. Secondly, it is three-quarters a treatise on late-colonial whaling and one-quarter a philosophical statement. Moby-Dick is a book for experienced readers, certainly not for young adults. I have very mixed feelings towards that book. I am glad I read it, but will certainly never do so again. I would also not recommend it to anyone...unless you are into hunting whales or very round-about ways of being exposed to philosophy.

Does Catch-22 count as literature? Because I am reading it right now...and WOW. Such a good book! I think it is going to take its rightful place as my favorite book of all time. Joseph Heller...who knew.

 

I'm pretty sure Queequeg would disagree but I get what you're saying. Most classics are wasted on people because they are not ready to read them yet. Nothing wrong with that, literature is an acquired taste.

 

When I was in the literary studies program in college I was in a class with guy who was making MD his life's study; he loved the book that much! In my humble opinion, it contains one of the most gripping moments in all of narrative literature. It is the scene in which Ahab nails the coin to the mast of the Pequad.

For some readers, like myself, the story moves to the limits of meaning and in my opinion, moves beyond meaning. The book is full of symblolism, as everyone knows, with almost everything from the coffin to the coin as representive of something larger within the framework of the story. But the repeating symbol of the circle: The coin itself, nailed to the center mast at the center of the ship, which contians the equator (another circle), which is at the center of the world. It's the moment with the harpoons, that Ahab blurts out, "let me touch the aixs," that I find intriguing, regarding the total "monomanic" tilt of Ahab's vision of the world. He sees only a reflection of himself when he gazes within the universe, of which the coin, the ship, the crew, are repeating symbols. As one character believes (I can't remember who), the coin becomes the "navel of the ship," just as the ship is at the navel of the world, adrift in the universe.

That is part of the philosophical statement of the book, that accumulated "knowledge" doesn't always provide greater insight or wisdom into the subject [whaling and whales] and that it can become an "empty endeavor."

 

Yes, regarding Moby Dick, I hope I didn't belittle the work. It is certainly an amazing work of art. I just don't think it is appropriate for high-schoolers...

A scene that stuck with me was when Ishmael was aloft, clinging to the mast, or perhaps he was sitting at the bow, dangling his feet...I forget... But regardless, he was reflecting philosophically upon how we must keep our understanding adrift, never settling upon any shore... That stuck with me.

 

LNT - I agree with your observation. Ishmael has the ability to step outside of himself. He can see the world as others see it, and understands that there are different viewpoints and multiple possibilities of meaning. That makes him the exact opposite of Ahab, and in my opinion, why, at least for Melville, Ishmael attains salvation and Ahab is damned.

 

I've been quite surprised that most of posts have been focused on English literature. There is much to read elsewhere and I personally like French, German and Russian literature. Polish is great, too.

Firs of all, classic literature is quite relative thing.
To me those books that must be read by ANYONE are classics. It doesn't have any timeline connotation.

I recommend Dostoyevski's Crime and Punishment to anyone out there. Goethe is a must too. Tomas Mann is God and when talking about English and Irish writers James Joyce's Ulysses (maybe the best book I've ever read and read A Portrait... it's prelude to it and read it before Ulysses) is first to come to mind (Shakespeare is well too known - read his stuff it's good, but search for his less known works). Remember that Thomas Mann is still God and remember it well. About SF/horror/anti utopia (I've rarely found enough quality in epic fantasy): Stanislav Lem's Solaris, Herbert's Dune, Zamyatin's We Orwell's (Blair's) 1984, etc... It would be a shame not to mention Victor Hugo, Pierre Corneille, Dumas (when I was a kid I read this book on regular basis and I know most off it's parts by heart in Serbian, of course - it's my mother tongue). Read Umberto Ecco though he might not be considered classic because he's still alive

Don't forget to read Faust and many other beautiful books you have the opportunity to read.

Remember SF or fantasy is just environment, interaction among/between characters is what makes it worth reading. Books are hidden wisdom... find it and learn to live. That's why classics will neveer be boring. M

 

Of course, it shouldn't be limited to English literature but bear in mind that most posters here are fluent in English (if English is not their first language). I'm French and I could go on about French literature but it'd probably be quite obscure for most people here (although I may be wrong).

My favourite French author is definitely Albert Camus. The Stranger, the Plague and the Fall are undeniably classics. On the subject of French authors I'd have to mention authors like Baudelaire, Flaubert, Boris Vian and Antoine de Saint-Exupéry as well.

I'm a big fan of Umberto Eco's works and I'm convinced his books deserve the title of "classics" but putting such labels on a work of literature is very subjective even more so when it comes to more recent works. The same could apply to Milan Kundera's works. What I like about Kundera and Eco is that they both revise the translations of their works in French (I can't read Czech or Italian).

A few years ago I was lucky enough to go to a conference on Alasdair Gray's writings. It was thrilling to hear him read from his books (despite the fact that he had a cold). If you're into contemporary Scottish literature you may well consider Lanark to be a "classic" but I'm pretty sure many haven't read it or even heard about it.

I find it interesting that you mention Ulysses. I've read it but I must confess I didn't "get" it (despite the fact that I have a degree in English literature). I have to read it again in a few years and see if I'll be able to have a better understanding of it then.