The purpose of "Classics"

[Arkali]

I've always been under the impression that the purpose of reading The Classics is not (primarily) to enjoy the story, as you would if reading contemporary fiction.  That's not to say that there aren't enjoyable books that date back past the turn of the century... but I've always been led to believe that the reason we read these books and study them is because they offer a look at what was going on at that point in history.  What concerns did the average person have?  What were common things in their culture?  What was their viewpoint about certain current events?  Things of a nature that you don't necessarily get out of a history book.

The whole reason I'm on this rant is because I went on a free classics download spree at Amazon (I'm in heaven!) and decided to browse the reviews on some of the books.  Over and over again were kids saying they had to read it for high school English and hated it and the words were too long and hard to understand.  I somewhat uncharitably thought that it might be good for them to be exposed to new words and actually have to exercise their brains.

So, my question - am I being an old curmudgeon, or does anyone agree with me?

[Tuttle]

I've always read classics to enjoy the story and the writing - it wasn't to try to learn, it wasn't to try to exercise my mind, it was for entertainment. At the same time I find it entertaining to exercise my brain.

I can understand people wanting to read an older book for a historical reason, but I can't imagine that being the primary purpose for classics.

[Betsy the Quilter]

Not having read any of the classics, except Pride and Prejudice, as required reading, I can't really fault the young whippersnappers....

My thinking is yes, literature is a window on the era in which it is written, but additionally, to me, classics are the underpinnings of modern literature.  I would think that authors are influenced by the books they read growing up, just as visual artists are influenced by the artists before, even if it's an influence that takes the artist in a completely different direction.

Betsy

[Guido Henkel]

I don't think it's really a matter of them being lazy and not wanting to exercise their brains - at least not in that case. Let's face it, some of the "classics" are really unreadable. Back in my school days - which is a loooong time ago - I already hated reading them and I can sympathize with kids in school today who are forced to read some of the stuff for no apparent reason.

So, the value of the classics is really in the eye of the beholder. Not everything that is old is good and not everything that ranks as a classic is of quality. Hence I think it is only fair that people's concept of the classics should evolve and newer, more contemporary books be added to the list. While it can be fun to learn the mindset and life of people in the early 1900s, a solid historical fiction book usually does a better job at it than a "classic" because it operates on a more accessible, modern language level.

As for the vocabulary, why trying desperately to keep convoluted sentence structures and outdated wordings alive by forcing generations of uninterested schoolchildren to read books they do not care for? As a matter of fact, I think it turns more kids off reading than it makes them fall in love with it. Hit them with an exciting, captivating and engaging modern read and you may have fanned a lifelong passion for books in them instead of continuing the mark them with the old "books are boring" stigma.

That's what I think.

[mlewis78]

Since the purpose of school is to learn, students should be reading something challenging.  There were some classics that I had a hard time staying interested in back in high school, but does that mean that English lit teachers should teach romance or thriller novels?

If students don't read classics, what kinds of books would help them increase their reading ability and stimulate their thinking?  What books would be worthy for in-class discussion?

As an adult I now love classics, although I spend more time reading about history and politics.

[Arkali]

While it can be fun to learn the mindset and life of people in the early 1900s, a solid historical fiction book usually does a better job at it than a "classic" because it operates on a more accessible, modern language level.

Good points from all.  On this one particular point, I have to disagree, heartily.  A historical fiction book will NEVER do a better job of demonstrating mindset / culture than a book (fiction or otherwise) written by someone at the time.  How could it?  Do you honestly think someone today could write more accurately about the 18th century than someone IN the 18th century?  Really?  Yes, it may be more readable - I won't argue that.  I will argue the accuracy level, though.  Someone today would write what they think that 18th century person would feel - COMPLETE with the mindset and prejudices and worldviews of our modern society.  However hard we try, however much research we do, we cannot put ourselves in that mindset because we haven't lived it.  That is the purpose of classic literature, in my opinion - to let you walk in their shoes and see the world as they saw it. 

[The Hooded Claw]

There are multiple reasons to do anything, including read classics.  Hopefully the books are enjoyable for themselves, and they can certainly be learning experiences.

Somewhere along the line, I was taught that one of the great values in the classics was that because these books had endured and been valued so long, that was the best possible proof that there was something of value in the books--Insights into human nature or "the reason for living" being prominent possibilities.

I think that makes sense, but so do the other reasons that have been mentioned.

[Aravis60]

    I am personally one of the "I really do enjoy reading the classics" camp. I started reading older books when I was in middle school, but mostly on my own and not for class. My sixth grade teacher gave me Anne of Green Gables and I started wanting to read the books that "Anne" mentioned and read in the story. I started becoming a frequent visitor to the "Classics" section of my local bookstore.  I did have to read a few for required reading in HS and a few more in college, but for the most part, my classic reading is because I like it. One of my favorite things about the kindle is the fact that I can get out of print and hard books to find by authors like H. Rider Haggard, Anne Radcliffe, and Sir Walter Scott, usually for free.
   Classics as required reading are a sticky subject. As an educator, I can see the value of exposing kids to some of the great works of the past. It does depend of the child as well as the age. Students who are forced to read classics before they are ready for them are generally going to be turned off by the experience. With struggling readers, it is extremely important to do all that you can to keep them engaged. Assigning a book that is way above their head for independent reading is not going to do much to help them become better readers, just like asking me to read a book in French on my own will not do much for helping me learn the language. I would recognize some of the words (I had a year of French in HS and one as an undergrad) but I wouldn't be able to analyze it and pass a comprehension test.

[pdallen]

There are many reasons to read the classics: love of the language & rhetoric, brilliant characterization, vivid descriptions, plot mechanics, or even an interesting approach to narrative execution. Reading them for historical perspective has always been low on my list. Reading many of the classics does help one develop a perspective on the evolution of culture and thought. But the main reason I read classics is my love of elocution.

This said, in surveying the breadth of literature right up to the latest, it can be noted that there has been a movement in literature toward shorter paragraphs, shorter chapters, less development and description and more action. It could be argued that this change in literature is a response to the shortening of attention span usually attributed (or at least correlated) to the rise and development of the electronic media: movies, tv, video games & internet.

Even my own reading habits have changed, as I find I have less patience for books that are long winded and slow on development. Yet I still enjoy Shakespeare for the shear beauty of his language.

I remember giving my daughter a copy of Don Quixote to read as part of her home schooling program. This was a book that delighted me. I thought it was side-splitting funny. For my daughter, it was torture to read. She found it tedious in the extreme. She reads fantasy and little else. But at least she does read.

I like a good page turner. But sometimes I like to curl up with a book that will take the time and artistry to weave something of depth, similar to listening to a symphony or appreciating a painting by one of the old masters.

[tbrookside]

I don't think it's really a matter of them being lazy and not wanting to exercise their brains - at least not in that case. Let's face it, some of the "classics" are really unreadable. Back in my school days - which is a loooong time ago - I already hated reading them and I can sympathize with kids in school today who are forced to read some of the stuff for no apparent reason.

So, the value of the classics is really in the eye of the beholder. Not everything that is old is good and not everything that ranks as a classic is of quality. Hence I think it is only fair that people's concept of the classics should evolve and newer, more contemporary books be added to the list. While it can be fun to learn the mindset and life of people in the early 1900s, a solid historical fiction book usually does a better job at it than a "classic" because it operates on a more accessible, modern language level.

As for the vocabulary, why trying desperately to keep convoluted sentence structures and outdated wordings alive by forcing generations of uninterested schoolchildren to read books they do not care for? As a matter of fact, I think it turns more kids off reading than it makes them fall in love with it. Hit them with an exciting, captivating and engaging modern read and you may have fanned a lifelong passion for books in them instead of continuing the mark them with the old "books are boring" stigma.

That's what I think.

While I agree that newer, more contemporary books should be added to the list, I think the list of classics that are inaccessible to modern readers due to excessively ornate language or structure is surprisingly small.  Dickens?  Austen, maybe?

Many classics have brisk, clear prose.  Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Wharton, Crane, Kipling - not only is their prose clean and direct but in many cases their works are much shorter than the door-stops publishers feel obligated to push out today.  Not to mention the fact that decent translations of ancient works tend to be very straightforward and short as well - Caesar's prose is almost brusque when it's translated effectively, and the works of Euripides are so short that even if you get lost you don't have a lot of time to get bored or feel you're being imposed upon.

I think that many kids don't like the classics because their subject matter doesn't appeal to them, and not because of the prose.  Teenage kids [especially boys] are just not going to like stories about regret or loss or the poignancy of hindsight.  These are people at the start of their lives and they will come to appreciate that kind of material after they have their own screwups and learn from their own introspection.  You can have a teenager read The Right Stuff and be interested in it.  They aren't going to be as interested in Rememberance of Things Past.  Not because of the language, but because of the life perspective.

[Valmore Daniels]

I think it's like watching old black and white movies from the 30's.  It's interesting to watch from an academic standpoint, but the films are no longer relevent to current society.  Heck, I try to get my kids to watch some of my favorite movies from the 70's and 80's and they pull a sour face.

Classic literature is the same. It's very difficult to relate to the characters or plots unless you have an inherent interest in the time period, past cultures, etc.

[Thalia the Muse]

Wow, I thoroughly enjoy movies from the '30s and find them relevant -- and I feel the same about books. Does it really take that big a leap to relate to universal human concerns if they're expressed by someone who wrote more than 10 years ago? Is it really that hard to identify with stories about ambition, jealousy, striving, war, death, and love?

I think a lot of kids are turned off by assigned reading because it's often taught badly -- and I totally agree with THenkel that books could be chosen better by theme. Kids need more Jane Eyre and less King Lear. Plus, reading anything, contemporary or not, that demands something from the reader is haaaard. If your expectation from a reading experience is that it will be just like seeing a blockbuster movie with explosions on every page, it's going to be too taxing to get through Heart of Darkness. Dude! There are no helicopters in this!

[pidgeon92]

Many words are indeed hard to define. This is what I love about the Kindle, the ease of use of the dictionary. When I read a classic novel, I look up words on almost every page.

[Basilius]

I've always thought assigned reading is done backwards. They start with the classics and get slowly more contemporary. I think it should go the other way around. Get the kids used to reading first, then work your way back into books with language a tad more difficult to pick up.

But then, in my high school freshman English class, we read The Sword of Shannara and The Crystal Cave. Among others.

[Monique]

Some of the classics are harder to digest than others. And, so much depends on the teacher. Shakespeare in the hands of a bad teacher is painful. In the hands of a gifted on, it's another thing entirely.

I think a well told story with interesting characters is always relevant. That's one of the things that, imho, makes a classic a classic. Getting some kids (and adults) to let go and use their imaginations to see the connections can be difficult though. It's like Art History; we can't forget the Masters just because they didn't use cool Flash effects in the Renaissance..

All of that said, some classics are much more "accessible" than others. Which ones do you think "hold up" the best for modern readers?

[Karen Wojcik Berner]

I agree there are a few (a very few) Classics that are unreadable. However, I have found the majority to be wonderful and very relevant if you take the time to understand what they are saying. Yes, sometimes you have to decipher the vocabulary and current day references, but there is also a "the more things change, the more they stay the same" pervasiveness, a commonality in the human experience, no matter when they were written.

I think it is also fun to analyze how sentence structure and vocabulary has changed throughout the years. But, I can't help it. I'm a literature nerd. 

[Guido Henkel]

A historical fiction book will NEVER do a better job of demonstrating mindset / culture than a book (fiction or otherwise) written by someone at the time.

Of course not, but that's not the purpose either. Schoolkids are being taught a general education, as such it makes little difference whether it is a 100% accurate reflection of the times and people or not. They are not  preparing for their History Master's Degree at that point. One thing I always found wrong with school education - just like reading the classics - was the way History was taught in school. It was dry, boring and really, really bland. No one cared for it. Not a single soul. It was tedious.  As we all know it doesn't have to be that way. Make the material more tangible - again historical fiction comes to mind - and the kids would pick it up much more readily and actually immerse themselves in the world.

Ultimately, teaching has to be kept interesting, in order to get into kid's heads. As such the material has to be picked carefully and - where applicable - replaced by more accessible approaches. Education and technology has come a long way. There really is no valid reason to force 50 year old methodologies upon today's youth, just because...

[Thalia the Muse]

I agree that history and literature should not be boring -- and that history instruction on the high-school level is horrible. But "boring" and "hard' aren't the same thing, and I don't think it does kids any favors to spoonfeed them and never require them to work to grasp difficult concepts.

[Ty Johnston]

To this day, more than 30 years later, I can't stand Charles Dickens because Great Expectations was shoved down my throat for a whole semester in junior high. I believe Dickens was fantastic at creating strong plots and iconic characters (at least for his time), but I can't stand his prose. I tried Oliver Twist once in my adult years, made it three pages and tossed the book aside.

Which really is a shame, because there are tons of classics I truly love. Moby Dick is a favorite of mine, yet I've known plenty of people who can't stand it. Alexandre Dumas if one of my favorite authors, but I've had several people tell me they would not read him because his books are "too long" and "too boring."

In my opinion, most of the classics today are remembered because they were excellent literature during their time and often still resonate thematically today. There were plenty of other novels, and even short stories and penny-dreadfuls and pulps, that haven't survived in popularity through today because they weren't very good in the first place.

Should kids be exposed to the classics in school? I think so. But it shouldn't be shoved down their throats. I'm not a teacher, but I wouldn't expect a young person to wade through War and Peace and to come away enjoying it. On the other hand, they might enjoy shorter works, perhaps by the likes of Twain or Poe. And while a student's enjoyment of a piece of literature might not seem important to some, I'm thinking if students have fun with literature they will be much more likely to take away the thematic meanings behind the tales as well.

[Chad Winters (#102)]

I love to read and I loved many classics (Homer....Dumas... Dostoyevsky) but many left me with the "what were the reviewers smoking when they called this a classic" thought. I couldn't finish Moby Dick....mainly the American classics I found terrible. British classics on the other hand tended to be much more enjoyable.

[Karen Wojcik Berner]

I love to read and I loved many classics (Homer....Dumas... Dostoyevsky) but many left me with the "what were the reviewers smoking when they called this a classic" thought. I couldn't finish Moby Dick....mainly the American classics I found terrible. British classics on the other hand tended to be much more enjoyable.

I'm sorry you couldn't finish "Moby Dick." We studied it for months in my junior year of high school, and it truly is a masterpiece.

However, I do agree with you that British Classics seem to be better than the Americans. Wonder why?

[Chad Winters (#102)]

I'm sorry you couldn't finish "Moby Dick." We studied it for months in my junior year of high school, and it truly is a masterpiece.

However, I do agree with you that British Classics seem to be better than the Americans. Wonder why?

to overgeneralize: the British classics seem like good stories told well. The American ones (Faulkner, Hemingway, etc.) seem like cough medicine (tastes bad but its supposed to be good for you.)

[Guido Henkel]

I don't think it does kids any favors to spoonfeed them and never require them to work to grasp difficult concepts.

That's what Math, Chemistry and Physics are for.  Difficult concepts have no place in the teaching of the English language or History. At least in my opinion.

[Arkali]

I'm sorry you couldn't finish "Moby Dick." We studied it for months in my junior year of high school, and it truly is a masterpiece.

However, I do agree with you that British Classics seem to be better than the Americans. Wonder why?

Chalk me up as another person who much prefers British lit to American.  I especially don't care for early American stuff.

That's what Math, Chemistry and Physics are for.  Difficult concepts have no place in the teaching of the English language or History. At least in my opinion.

Maybe, if we lived in a perfect world.  Human motivation isn't always pretty, though - in fact, it seldom is.  And that's a lot of what you need to learn in both Literature and History, if you aren't just going for dates of battles and historic dates.  For the record - English language (grammar) and Literature are two entirely separate subjects.  You can learn the one by studying the other, but they aren't interchangeable, IMO.

[Tuttle]

That's what Math, Chemistry and Physics are for.  Difficult concepts have no place in the teaching of the English language or History. At least in my opinion.

But you're someone who is an English/History person - which isn't everyone.

Personally, I'm a math person  and in my mind math class is making math difficult for no reason while if it was taught right then it would be much easier. You probably strongly disagree. There are people that are very much not English people or History people, the basic concepts to you will be difficult to them. I had classmates in high school who in order to get through a Poe short story had me write out a "summary" of the story that was as long as the story, just translating it into terms they understood, and went through it with both the story and the translation with me.

In my mind /every/ class needs difficult concepts, but /none/ should have it approached as such - you need to make kids think, but making them afraid of the subject is not something to do - in any subject. If you don't challenge the students then they don't grow, but if you make them afraid to challenge themselves, then they can't grow.

One thing I think worked well for students was when I was in high school and we were reading The Red Badge of Courage. We read it, but we also read part of The Hobbit - it was an easier book and a more enjoyable one, but at the same time didn't move away from looking at war through literature (specifically the civil war - the class was American history through literature and it worked really well for even the stereotypical inner city students who seem to actively not want to learn.)

--
Am yet another person who prefers British classics to American classics in general.