The purpose of "Classics"

[Thalia the Muse]

History and literature are both about people, and most of the things really worth knowing about people are, IMO, not that easy to grasp.

[pdallen]

There are many old movies well worth watching. Charlie Chaplin is timeless. So are Laurel & Hardy and The Marx Brothers. And nobody will ever top Charles Laughton's interpretation of the Hunchback (there's a classic book & movie for you).

I have noticed that the young tend to shun anything more than 10 years old. I think that's more a function of the rate of technological change and the consume for gratification mentality.

Of course, many of the movies made over a decade ago don't hold up. But then, neither does most of the stuff churned out by the entertainment industry today.

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.

[Valmore Daniels]

Don't get me wrong, I think classics are worthwhile and vitally important (for many reasons) as well. My personal library contains at least 10% classics ... but that's me.  As far as pure entertainment, classics can and will fall off the average consumer's radar.

Avid readers and afficianados (like me) will devour classic novels just as readily as a new popular release, but the average reader won't.  And I don't believe force-feeding classics to my kids or anyone is the solution to create awareness.  I tried to get my teen-aged daughter to read Gulliver's Travels, thinking the reading level would be on par for her age.  She read the first two pages and tossed it aside for the latest Twilight book.  I will keep these on my bookshelf, and hope at some point she'll wander by and pick it up of her own accord.

I believe the classics should be available for when someone finds them organically; then it's a discovery and the person will delight in them.

[askenase13]

Excellent topic and comments above.  I have struggled with "classic" literature for most of my life, but loved some of it while in college.  More recently (last few years) I couldn't get through 2 long books I had previously read and loved ("War and Peace" and "Les Miserables"), and, to my surprise, I didn't like Count of Monte Christo (the tthe story wandered too much).  BUT I read Billy Budd by Hrman Melville and loved it.

I also read two stories by Henry James, and HATED them (each sentence  was a full Kindle DX page).

So where does that leave me?  I am planning to do significant classic reading next year, after I finish a one year course with lots of reading/video.  I'm not organizing my reading yet, but will jump around some- America, English, Russian, etc.  If I really struggle, I'll put it down,. but I will giove each book a major shot (at least 100 pages)  I do strugle with the difficult sentence structure, and really ca't read the chick lit stuff like Jane austen (though I do watch some of the movies with my British wife).  So, I'll see how I do in a few years.  I am interested in reading these older books.  We'll see.

[Thalia the Muse]

askenase, you might like Chekhov's stories (as Gary Shteyngart says in his book trailer, "That guy from Star Trek wrote a book!?").

[Arkali]

Avid readers and afficianados (like me) will devour classic novels just as readily as a new popular release, but the average reader won't.  And I don't believe force-feeding classics to my kids or anyone is the solution to create awareness.  I tried to get my teen-aged daughter to read Gulliver's Travels, thinking the reading level would be on par for her age.  She read the first two pages and tossed it aside for the latest Twilight book.  I will keep these on my bookshelf, and hope at some point she'll wander by and pick it up of her own accord.

See, that's kind of my point.  Gulliver's Travels is satire.  While it's possible to just read it for the story, a lot of the nuances that make it a "classic" are going to go right past most teenagers.

Anyway, it's my personal opinion that classics / literature should be taught as a a supplement to history, but still as a separate class.  That basically students should know from the get-go that they are reading XYZ to learn about society in that time period.  I also don't think it would be amiss to have a READING class with the material selected purely because it will (hopefully) appeal to the students.

[Basilius]

askenase, you might like Chekhov's stories (as Gary Shteyngart says in his book trailer, "That guy from Star Trek wrote a book!?").

You know what's funny? He actually did. Well, the other guy did. And it was only co-written.

[emalvick]

I have mixed thoughts. I hated classics when I was forced to read them in school, but I also see the value in them.  Part of my problem as a student was the push to read them at a specific pace.  For the most part I enjoyed the stories, and I did appreciate what there was to appreciate about classics from the point of view of my teachers.  I think classics are good for the point of exposing students to what preceding our modern times.  They are often more entertaining (even for students) than a history book, and one of my best literature teachers made use of movie adaptations to reinforce the concepts in the books.

The other value in all the classics is that I am inspired to keep reading them now on my own.  I don't think they are good because they are classics, but they do give me places to start from in exploring other books to read.  I loved Steinbeck, and so I have continued reading his works.  I loved reading The Inferno in college, so I finished the remainder of the Divine Comedy.  I actually loved reading in college because by then I took the attitude that I would read what I could read for the joy and let the grades come as they will (I was a science major).  The result; literature courses gave me a break from mathematical courses that I loved, and I actually did better in the classes than when I actually tried to do well in high school.  Go figure.

To add a different thought, I wonder how much the ebook world is influencing the classics?  While I bought a few hear and there in print, the fact that the are often free or cheap in digital format is fantastic.  I have become much more open about what classics I'll read or what is even out there.  Won't many people have a similar opinion.  Just as most people can find novels to enjoy in the contemporary market, I think most people know there are good finds in the classical library as well. 

[jason10mm]

I think there are plenty of classics that are very readable and interesting depending on the interests of the reader, as a kid I devoured Swiss Family Robinson, Crusoe, and Last of the Mohicans, but good luck getting me to read Jane Austin! I remember reading "The Great Gatsby" and thinking that is was written ok, but was just dull. I think that when taught in school, the historical context and social relevance of the work needs to be emphasized. Trying to hold up an erudite complex classic to a "movie on paper" modern fluff book is a losing battle.