# Classical Literature in General



## KeshKesh7 (Mar 24, 2008)

Call me communist but I hate, hate, HATE classical literature. 
 For the most part it's bad plots, stiff dialogue, unrealistic action, and bad writing in general. Either you can't understand it or it's the most boring thing in existance. 
What are some actual GOOD classics? 
Maybe I should say what I've actually read: 
Edgar Allen Poe (although I like his poems), Jane Austin (she'd never make it today and you know it), Charlotte Bronte, Nathanial Hawthorne, Bram Stoker...
I usually read the first page and if that don't hook me, I don't read it. My library has a classical section of paperbacks and I usually browse them, pick a couple out, then put 'em back.
On that note, what are some actually GOOD books? The only book that I liked that comes close to classical literature is 1984. Yeah. 
It's actually frustrating not to have found something I like. I'm positive SOMETHING is out there. At least two. I'm not that big of a snob, haha.


----------



## For me with Squalor (Mar 24, 2008)

Have you actually soldiered on and read through any of those books that you above dismissed after one or two pages?
(Don't even think about War and Peace) Thing is they are classics for a reason, and they are not easy to read because we don't live in the same time as the writers its something you have to get used to, its not all that difficult if you start a book with the right attitude. 
Also if you can't get through Little Women and 19th century soap operas, then try some 20th century stuff, the Beat movement, Salinger, Kundera, (I like Heller but most don't) Vonnegut is a must, and Douglas Adams just for some fun. Of course Orwell and Golding and all other curriculum writers are worth reading. Just some thoughts........


----------



## KeshKesh7 (Mar 25, 2008)

I read most of Dracula, got halfway through Jane Eyre, tried to finish Nathanial Hawthorne, and barely started Poe. 
I love the history part of the stories -- I just can't get past the writing.


----------



## KeshKesh7 (Mar 25, 2008)

And it's not that I don't understand it -- as a Creative Writing major we've covered that hundreds of times.


----------



## NightOwl (Mar 25, 2008)

It really depends what you define as 'classic'.  If you are put off by Victorian language/style from the outset, it is unlikely that you will persevere with anything from this era for long enough to get into it.  Which seems a shame because you would probably find some things you like if you gave them more of a a chance to develop.  Maybe try something like 'Frankenstein'.  I found that quite accessible.

Other than that, if you liked '1984', have you read 'Brave New World'?  It's not that old, (1930s??) but it is a 'classic' imo.  It's another spin on the dystopian future thang and a cracking read.


----------



## sekrg (Mar 26, 2008)

I think you just need to find your niche in the classic genre. 1984 is one of the definitive novels of the 20th century but I personally like Orwell's other novels. If you like that socialist view of class ridden English life in the 30's then you may enjoy 'Keep The Aspidistra Flying' and George Orwell's other works. Aldous Huxley wrote 'A Brave New World' and writes in a similar style to Orwell. One of the greatest pieces of American literature would be John Steinbeck's 'Of Mice and Men.' Have you read Anton Chekhov? Chekhov was a Russian dramatist who paid little attention to plot and allowed the reader to interpret the characters and story. Classic is not necessarily Victorian. The definition of classic is 'belonging to the highest rank or class.'  Wikipedia defines classic literature as 'literature that is considered a model of its form.' Some people believe in order for a book to be given the term 'classic' it has to be pre-1900. But many works of classic literature are from the great 20th century writers. 
I agree with you about Jane Austen. To me she was the most prolific Mills and Boon writer of Georgian England.


----------



## shraga (Mar 27, 2008)

I had a classical literature phase in high school (mainly because that was all my high school allowed me to read) I enjoyed Jane Austin despite the fact that every book of her's is a soap opera. Certain books I found that I had to push my way through and some just weren't any good.
But some were great. Treasure Island was a great book while "A seperate peace" was horrible.
Every day and age had its good nd bad writers. 
Classics become classic because everyone says so not because they are good.
Try A potrait of dorian gray or crime and punishment


----------



## SevenWritez (Mar 27, 2008)

The Sun Also Rises

Lord of the Flies

Catcher in the Rye (one of my favorite novels, but I'm a teenager so it 'speaks,' to me, I suppose)

Of Mice and Men (a bit stiff, but if you allow yourself to like the characters the ending is heartbreaking)

The Power of One


These are more contemporary classics, but they deserve their recognition none the less, and I'd recommend all of them. While I've never been able to get into the much older classics, I still respect the writers for what they accomplished. You have to remember these artists came from a different era, and the way things were seen and spoken then are much different when juxtaposed with the society of today. And while I don't claim to be a know-it-all when regarding the impacts of such literary works, most of said writers tended to have major impacts on the milieu surrounding them, if not the world entirely. 

Anyways, it doesn't seem to be the writer's and their talent-related faults, but your reluctance to delve in an older style. The novels I listed above have a style much easier to shift into, and they are all great stories. Hope you enjoy them (if you haven't already read them, that is).


----------



## Fyodor (Apr 16, 2008)

It might help if you read past the first page. When I picked up Dostoevsky's _Crime and Punishment_ I thought the first 50 or so pages were really hard to get through. But it was a book that I really wanted to read so I pushed through and I ended up really liking the book.





> Edgar Allen Poe (although I like his poems), Jane Austin (she'd never make it today and you know it), Charlotte Bronte, *Nathanial Hawthorne*, Bram Stoker...


I hated the Scarlet Letter. To me it was just too boring.


----------



## Swamp Thing (Apr 16, 2008)

Try anything by Hemmingway, try Heart of Darkness and Lord Jim by Conrad, find some of Faulkner's short stories, Orwel, which I'm sure you've read, Moby Dick by Melville might work for you, at least glance at Voltaire's Candide, though I don't think it will work for you.

I'm trying to think of things that are a little more fast pace than Dickens.  

Let us know what you discover.


----------



## Shawn (Apr 16, 2008)

Read _Lolita_ by Nabokov. I practically drool at his use of language. Until I read it, I didn't know what the beauty of words was.


----------



## RebelGoddess (Apr 18, 2008)

I get what you're saying about how you feel that:



KeshKesh7 said:


> For the most part it's bad plots, stiff dialogue, unrealistic action, and bad writing in general. Either you can't understand it or it's the most boring thing in existance.



I agree on the stiff dialogue, unrealistic action, and bad writing, but I think you're wrong about the bad plots.

Unfortunately, a lot of what was written back then had stiff dialogue and unrealistic action; the bad writing though, I think, stems from the general lack of education years ago. Many writers just wrote with no formal training at all. I mean, take the Brontes for example: Emily, Charlotte, and Anne were teenagers who most likely just sat around their kitchen table and wrote together. 

But lack of training and sub-par prose doesn't diminish the quality of the classics in my opinion.

When I'm reading a classic for the first time I definitely have to force myself through it. It usually takes me at least 2 readings, if not more!, to really enjoy the story.

As for suggestions for you, I'm not sure what to say; I have no clue what exactly you'd like. But here are some that I love:

Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury
Adventures of Tom Sawyer/Huckleberry Finn - Mark Twain
Dracula - Bram Stoker
Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - Robert Louis Stevenson

Another thing I can suggest is to re-read some of the classics you haven;t liked in the past; sometimes all it takes is time, a different point of view, and a second reading to enjoy it!

I hope you enjoy some of these!

Racheal


----------



## The Backward OX (May 14, 2008)

Fyodor said:


> When I picked up Dostoevsky's _Crime and Punishment_ I thought the first 50 or so pages were really hard to get through. But it was a book that I really wanted to read so I pushed through and I ended up really liking the book.


[ot]Lots of people make remarks similar to “It was a book that I really wanted to read”. What I’m curious about is this: How or why does anyone _want_ to do (something) when they don’t even know anything about it?[/ot]


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 15, 2008)

Did you get the impression, before having experienced it, that you might want to have sex?

With another human?


Same deal.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 15, 2008)

Who are you accusing of being human?


----------



## buyjupiter03 (May 15, 2008)

I read anything and everything I could get my hands on, and the classics in some sense were the easiest. (more likely to slide by the parents too.) I'll take the technical definition of "classic" lit. and say pre-1900s. So, some recommendations:

Jules Verne, specifically _20,000 Leagues Under the Sea_, and _Journey to the Center of the Earth._
Mark Twain's _A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court_
Dumas, pere _Three Musketeers_
Hawthorne _House of Seven Gables_ (I'd read this first and _Scarlet Letter_ bored me stiff, this one IMO is far better)

I will say this in regards to Dumas and Verne. Most of the translations I've read were Victorian so the stiff dialogue, bad writing that you don't like came through a bit more in these editions. I've heard they're re-translating Verne because of some *ahem* inaccuracies. So sometimes it's a bit of a workout reading them, depending on which translation you get.


----------



## HarmsGirl (May 15, 2008)

I love the classics. I have stuff from all centuries -- including medieval and ancient greek and roman times. I'm really into Virginia Woolf though. Her writing is just...so amazing!


----------



## Sayuri (May 16, 2008)

Swamp Thing said:


> Try anything by Hemmingway, try Heart of Darkness and Lord Jim by Conrad, find some of Faulkner's short stories...
> 
> I'm trying to think of things that are a little more fast pace than Dickens.



I went through six years of schooling on this stuff, and srsly, fuck Dickens (except for Sydney Carton) and Hemingway. And I wrote my thesis on Joseph Conrad, but fuck _Heart of Darkness_ too. Read _Lord Jim_, and the contemporary classics, meaning the post-1900 classics; Victorian novels are horribly boring and DO have crappy plots, unless they are on the cusp of the Victorian-Modernist movement (i.e. Thomas Hardy).

So overall, I would suggest SOME Joseph Conrad, primarily _Lord Jim_, which is one of the best novels ever written; much Thomas Hardy, who had great dramatic plots; a bit of Henry James (the shorter novels) and E.M. Forster; and Latin American and African fiction from this century, which was influenced by the British modernists but not so "intellectual" that the language interferes with the narrative--i.e., Borges, Fuentes, Allende, Marquez, Achebe, Thiong'o, etc.



RebelGoddess said:


> Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury
> Dracula - Bram Stoker



YESSSS! Two of the best books ever written, IMO. 

The difference between an old OR modern "classic" and a throwaway novel, for me, is that the former sticks with me a lot longer than the latter. It's been eleven years since I read _Fahrenheit 451_ and I still remember the television walls with the interactive soap opera, the mechanical dog with the injection, the burning of books, and the chase by the river.


----------



## Garden of Kadesh (May 16, 2008)

I very rarely read anything BUT classics lately.

Catch22 is my all time favorite. I love absurdist humour.


----------



## papertears (May 18, 2008)

I was a horrible student in high school.  Except for Alice In Wonderland and 1984, I read the Cliff Notes for all the book reports.  Oh except I dared the history coach I could read the unabridged version of Les Miserables by Hugo in 4 weeks and write a 30 page book report.  

So I guess my classics-karma came around last summer and I started just grabbing them off the library shelves out of unabashed guilt.  I started with Dickens and then of course Jane Austen and The Catcher In The Rye which I reread again recently.  Oh and there were some of the very old Sci-Fi novels in there too.  

Then somehow I ended up reading a bunch of the philosophers' books.  Crime and Punishment, something by Camus, half of War and Peace (I should really try again), some Spinoza (sorry, my memory is lousy with titles) and I was about to read Neitzche (spelling?) when I just felt like throttling myself.  

I went back Dickens--for the first time I'm attempt A Tale of Two Cities.  I've been worried it will be too sad for me at this point in my life.  But I have some  Hemmingway, Thoreau, and C.S. Lewis.    

And as someone up in the thread pointed out, theres always Douglas Adams and my trusty towel!


----------



## lilacstarflower (Jun 28, 2008)

Keshkesh7 - I can understand Jane Eyre being a bit of a struggle. I left that book for about three months once Jane left Rochester, but I went back to it eventually. There is a definite lull in that novel.

On your Jane Austen comment - that she wouldn't be published today - I have to disagree with. Yes, her novels probably wouldn't appeal to many due to the fact that she chose to write about the gentry rather than the commoner, but I think people would be drawn into the dark side of her work (e.g. pedophilia and betrayal)  and the psychology of her female characters. 

I don't find them at all stiff - I enjoy the classics more than most contemporary writers who lack the depth of detail and symbolism that make the classics...classic. A lot of them (that I have read) maybe have one sub-plot running along side the plot, but the classics are full of stories within stories.

Can you tell I enjoy them, lol!


----------



## weak sauce (Jul 30, 2008)

Shawn said:


> Read _Lolita_ by Nabokov. I practically drool at his use of language. Until I read it, I didn't know what the beauty of words was.



I've seen the movie, but I need to read the book. But what I really wanted to say is: that's the same way I felt when I first read Joseph Conrad. Some of his stories bore the shit out of me, but the way he uses words is so rhythmic and his sentences flow perfectly. I was completely shocked when I learned that English wasn't even his first language!


----------



## CountBlabula (Oct 25, 2008)

It's difficult to enjoy the work of classic authors, because they are much more intelligent than we are, and they see things we don't see, things we might not want to think about, things that might be considered boring.


----------



## dilkara (Oct 26, 2008)

If you have trouble getting into the meatier ones why not try some short stories. I was amazed by Charlotte Perkins-Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper. I picked it to study for an eng. lan. exam (because it was the shortest) but it's one of the most powerful things I've read, really good if you like the history aspect of 'classics' too.

Try Faulkner and Flannery O'connor too.


----------

