[Tearas]

Hello everyone! This is my second post on this forum, the 1st off-topic with the Malazan books, well partly off-topic, but I would like to share some thoughts and mostly, I would like to read your thoughts about what we call "classic literature". I consider myself to be a "reader", I read almost everything, (except love stories) and while I was reading "Don Quixote" it struck me... Classic literature sucks. Think about it. If we dont take into consideration the year a book was written, how groundbreaking it was for that time, the history behind and its signifigance, but just read the book, with no analysis whatsoever, can we really compare a "classic" for example "The lord of the rings" with the "Malazan book of the Fallen"? I repeat, just by reading the books. No other factors. For me the answer would be no, and the same goes for the most books I have read. Honestly the only "classic" books I have enjoyed reading are "1984" and "The Silmarillion". I am not saying I am blind or unaffected by their significance to modern literature, but for me books from the last 10-15 years are greater in every aspect than their older relatives. So, do we overestimate the classics, are we just pretentious douches or am I just plain wrong?
I tried to keep a low word count so someone would actually read and respond, for I am interested in opinions. I just hope I am not the only one interested in this.

[amphibian]

There are quite a few classic books, as deemed by the Western primary school systems, that can be read with little to no context provided by the teachers and connect hugely to a considerable chunk of the student audience.

However, I'm not sure any book should ever be read without context. That certainly isn't the point of reading the classics and usually, the teachers try to present context.

It is far more likely that the reader (you/me/whoever) doesn't connect to a classic book because of the book's unwillingness to be anything other than a book designed for young white men due to previous history and economics of book selling than it is that the classic book is bad or outdated.

I know I had problems doing that when I read Their Eyes Were Watching God as a 14 year old. Neale wrote a tremendous book, but it told the story that was freighted with cultural and contextual baggage that I didn't have the empathy or openness to appreciate. I couldn't get why it was a masterpiece and naturally, I thought I was the sole arbiter of what really was awesome.

Which I can still be, but for other people to listen to my opinions, it helps if I've really got a handle on context, am open to all kinds of things and demonstrate that I'm not just going after books designed mostly to speak to one audience segment.

Moby Dick still is the greatest English language novel ever written. Its staggeringly high level of imagery, technical skill and story make it an enduring classic. But it kind of is a guy's book.

Same goes for Huck Finn. Or Of Mice and Men.

They have a timelessness that lets them continue to connect to readers, even as the general definition of what a young white man changes over time. But on the whole, we are realizing that people of all ages, appearances and aptitudes are worth reaching with books and great ones too.

So there is room for improvement and hopefully, someone will get there some day. Much progress has been made and the curriculum changes to bring in books and writers like Housekeeping, Their Eyes, Things Fall Apart, Murakami, Rushdie and so on are helping - even if teenagers famously lack empathy.

To sum up, I think that yes, some classics used in the Western educational system are not that great, but my list of ones that are already used is much bigger than your list of two. And we need to change things so that the books we choose as classics do more than cater to the young white male.

[Studlock]

If we're talking education system then yes, they pick the same books, without context, every year that prescribe to the most powerful social class ( the education system in general, in Canada at least, is so slyly racist that when you bring it up people flip out). Outside of it I find a lot of classics to be better written fullstop. They are just better crafted in terms of prose. Content wise some books could fall away as being outdated and lacking any real relevance to modern people but I'd argue a fair amount of them still do. The Great Gatsby is pretty much a timeless novel, it touches on subjects that are still important today AND is really well crafted. That's without any context for the time period. Given context it's even better. Honestly I'm having a hard time thinking of a book that would be better to let it lie, maybe it's the scholar in me, but they are in the canon for a reason. Every single piece of literature gives a window into the past and thus context for the present. I have a hard time saying classic literature sucks.

[birthSqueeze]

I'm certainly not the best person to answer this question considering that you have to have a very large perspective on literature in general to answer thoroughly but what I would like to know is if classics don't engage us as much as newer books, why is that the case? Is it just because they wrote different back then and we're used to more modern styles? This would certainly be my guess. I didn't really enjoy very many of the classics they made me read in school but since then I have enjoyed some novels written in the early 80's and late 70's. If I enjoyed fiction from that time period then what difference does 40 or 50 years make? I don't mean to nitpick but I'd like to point out that the not relevant argument is a very, very weak argument and just makes it sound like you 're making up excuses. That's kind of like saying history isn't relevant to today's world.

[Tearas]

Firts of all, thank you all for your replies. I did not start this topic so people will try to prove each other wrong, or force their opinions. I just wanted to know if more share this or the other opinion. While the subject of a literature course can be racist and thoughts about general education interests me, I meant to compare classic with modern literature in the aspect of pure enjoyement. Entairtenment. Like when i read a book i can get a general feeling about how much I am blown away by it, by how much time I sacrifice from my daily sleep hours to read. The word "classic" though its meaning somehow faded with the use, comes from the Greek word "κλασικό" which was used to describe something that is perfect. Something that has no equal and will remain so. So in those terms... Is the classic literature without equal?

Now, about the context. I disagree that everything must be read/studied with context. I cant help but feel "guided" by it, guided towards something that i would prefer to find out at my own pace, with my own research and my onw interpretations. The main reason for that is that I think that a book has so many interpratations as its readers. They depend on the readers experiences, knowledge and general point of view. And that, for myself, is the magic behind reading. That 2 people while reading the same book come to different conclusions. The context has an absolute, probably more scientific view, that surely helps to understand a book to its fullest but berefts the reader the chance to mature alongside the characters and expand his imagination. Furthermore, if for every page you read, a page of context and analysis follows, doesnt that put a break on the emotions you are experiencing while reading?

[Grief]

I would say that something being considered classic literature is generally an indicator that it will be of a higher - or perhaps different is a better word - standard. I'm sure we all have some cases where we find the books reputation baffling, or accept that it is perhaps well constructed but not to our taste.

It's not always a simple question of entertainment value. On certain nights (most of them probably) I'd choose to watch Blade over Bladerunner.

When I first read Jim Butcher, I was very entertained. Like many others on the board, I then read a lot of Jim Butcher in quick succession.

After I finished The Brothers Karamazov, I felt exhausted.

If someone asked me if it was an entertaining book, I don't know what I'd say. But I consider it one of the most worthwhile and affecting things I've ever read.

M point is that there isn't just a single scale for how good a book is.

I find a lot of more modern books easier to read. It seems obvious why this would be the case - their prose fits the taste of the time and the context they are written in is (mostly) immediately understood. Older books can take a bit of focus just to get past this.

With classics, I find that they tend to be more thematically in depth and often require a lot more focus and attention. On top of the age barrier, this can make them feel difficult to read.

But at the same time, I think this can make them more rewarding. With no other factors except the books, my top books would be almost exclusively classics. So yeah, I guess I would say that I consider most classics to be the better books - they're like the best of every genre. Or at least, given certain criteria in that they are rarely action packed "pulp" entertainment (which I think does have it's own value, and it's own scale of good and poor but is very hard to compare with something written for such different purposes). Part of this criteria is generally excellent prose. I say generally because I don't think it's always the case, but even those where it arguably isn't tend to meet the criteria.

As Studlock says, they do tend to just be very well written (regardless of modernity), and often have human messages that are relatable with no understanding of context (though I do think having it helps).

I agree with you above that you can enjoy it, and take your own meaning away from it, without having context. I don't think it's absolutely necessary.

However, I feel like it is often enlightening to do so (though I try to do so without breaking the flow of a book - usually I'll research it separately or do a clean read and an annotated one). Without context you can miss a lot of the authors intended meaning. Shakespeare would be a good example - there are lots of hidden puns that would be completely missed by a reader who didn't understand some of the common slang and pronunciation of the time, and it seems to me like having this extra depth can only be positive. Does it make Shakespeare worse that we can't do a clean read with no prior knowledge and get all this meaning? Personally I don't think so - though it does sadden me that we may have lost further depth due to lack of understanding. It just means the reader has to make a little more effort. I'd say it's worth it in most cases.

Tangentially, why don't you read love stories?

[QuickTidal]

Studlock, on 14 September 2013 - 12:39 AM, said:

If we're talking education system then yes, they pick the same books, without context, every year that prescribe to the most powerful social class ( the education system in general, in Canada at least, is so slyly racist that when you bring it up people flip out).

Hmmm, I'm not sure how true it is across the board (surely in some areas of Canada and in the past). BUT, The reading curriculum at my high-school (circa the 1990's in Southern Ontario) included a really varied selection. I read (in no particular order) from the selection we were given: IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, and TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (two books right out of the gate that deal with racism directly) and both read in Grade 9 and both had class discussions, There was also a book about an Amish community (that for the life of me I can't recall the title or author of), and THE JOY LUCK CLUB (in, I believe grade eleven) by Amy Tan... and then of course some of the usual suspects like LORD OF THE RINGS, various Shakespeare, and Dostoyevsky, and such. And that was before we were allowed to choose. For most of high-school in my literature classes there was no set curriculum, and we were allowed to choose our own books or authors to focus on. (it's how I discovered that I LOATHE Margaret Atwood. LOL!) So while I see your point, in at least the last 20 years (gods I'm old!) things have definitely been changing, at least slowly. I'm not kidding, those were the two first books I was assigned to read in school. A public school too mind you, not a private one.

And as a small note, not sure if you were aware Studlock, but just as a recent FYI I know a few teachers in the school system right now and since 2011 there has been a concerted effort to get more aboriginal content into the Canadian curriculum. Baby steps for sure, but at least something seems to be happening in that regard, and from what I've heard it's starting at a middle school level.

As to the OP: I think Amph hits upon a great point. You can't really detach the cultural norms, and specific era prose and such from Classics in the way I think you want to. That's a part of them, whether you wish it to be or not. I'll use Burroughs as an example. His Mars books, written in the early 1900's, are not only the precursor to most existing fantastical sci-fi, but are complex little tales on their own about class struggle, religion, faith, and even body chemistry and perception. I mean we are talking about a 100 year old book that basically dissects the idea of Quantum Entanglement and uses it as a story feature (John Carter's body on earth, stationary in a cave while his spirit is in another version of his same body on a distant planet...and the two stay connected). That's fucking brilliant in any era. And I challenge anyone to read that series now and not feel as if it qualifies as GREAT science fiction. It's a specific example, but a solid one.

I know this is because I'm reading it right now, but how about Herbert's DUNE? I mean, it's absolutely mind-fucking me in some passages where Paul is discovering what's happening to him. And that was written in the 60's...and it is SO unique that it doesn't even suffer from era-tropes and if I'd not KNOWN it was written in that era, I'd never have realized it wasn't a current book.

So I think while some "classics" might be overblown as to importance, you A) can't dismiss their era completely, and you have to read the right Classics that WILL challenge you in the way that modern stuff does.

If that makes any sense?

[Grief]

QuickTidal, on 14 September 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

you have to read the right Classics that WILL challenge you in the way that modern stuff does.

On this note, personal taste is still a factor. If I pick up an arbitrary classic, I'd say I have a much better chance of a book I think is really great than if I picked something up at random from any other section of the book store. But that definitely doesn't mean you'll like all of them. Don Quixote is long and dense and most people I know who don't love it have either given up or bitterly fought their way to the end.

[MTS]

Quote

can we really compare a "classic" for example "The lord of the rings" with the "Malazan book of the Fallen"?

Yes. As Amph said you simply cannot detach a book from its own contextual surroundings, nor should you. In fact, I'm curious as to what you're judging the two above books on if you remove their context. Writing style? General entertainment value? The former is a subjective comparison and the latter is an even more nebulous metric on which to judge quality. In fact there are many people who would probably make the argument that Tolkien is a better storyteller than Erikson full stop, and SE is certainly not without flaw when it comes to style (both are occasionally guilty of digressive writing, for instance). For what my own opinion is worth, I believe that what makes the above two books great are the contexts they were written in. Tolkien's legacy is weaving together a vast array of influences and legends and invigorating and popularising a genre, so much so that his influence (and counter-influence) is still very visible today (some would say too visible). Erikson on the other hand is remarkable for what he did in reacting to that context, as during the 80s and 90s fantasy was quite guilty of over-relying on Tolkien's legacy. The concepts and story of Erikson's books are so good because you yourself are aware of that context, and how his work is different, and thus refreshing. In fact, I think being aware of that context makes SE's work so much richer (noticing the parallels and divergences between Crokus and Oponn's coin and Frodo and the Ring, for instance).

Grief nailed it when he said that there isn't just a single scale for how good a book is, even among the classics. What makes The Count of Monte Cristo great is entirely different to what makes Lolita great (two books undivorceable from their context I might add). Similarly, I can look at Jane Austen's books and appreciate that she has few equals when it comes to narrative and trope manipulation, but at the same time I don't find her books particularly compelling, largely because of the subject matter. It all comes down to taste. I'd merely say you just haven't found a book in the canon that truly resonates with you as these ones do with other people.

[nacht]

In my interpretation, this is what you are asking

Quote

If a certain book is renowned as a classic, why is reading it such a boring experience to me?

Looks like you primarily read for entertainment, and it is a perfectly valid observation that "to you, a book renowned and recommended as classic is often not entertaining"
This could even apply for many people, but certainly not "all" people.

If you wondering why this is so, there are many reasons. A book is often renowned as a classic because it has had a huge influence on the future. But the tropes that often make the story special no longer have that effect especially if you read a lot (for ex. Melville's White whale). Also the language can be quite archaic (Shakespeare, Melville, James Fenimore Cooper) and can be a challenge if all you want to do is enjoy a story. Also in the modern day, movies and TV have made previous work of grand imagination seem less awe-inspiring. Reading Treasure Island may not be as much fun after watching Pirates of the Caribbean. Also the world is much faster paced now and much more integrated. A book like "Around the world in eighty days" will not have the same effect now. Also many themes like "whaling ships" and "noble english pirates" are no longer relvant. Piracy reminds us of half-starved Somalis and Whaling ships reminds us of all the poor animals that got slaughtered to light our lamps.

This post has been edited by nacht: 14 September 2013 - 07:28 PM

[Orlion]

I believe it is a matter of accessibility. Context is extremely important for this concept. Let's go with the OP's example of Don Quijote. I have been reading it in the original Spanish, know that it is lampooning a type of chivilarous literature popular at at the time, and understand that a lot of it is meant as a comedy. In movie terms, it has more in common with Airplane! then it does The Godfather. As a result, I'm finding that it is one of the funniest things I have ever read. If you are reading a translation, however, you may find the story dry. A lot of the humour can be lost in the translation So the reader does not "get it", but he does not get it because he is reading a defective product.

Fantasy often times does not have the same issues with accessibility. We are better able to distinguish the tones, often times it is set in an entirely different world so knowledge of history or current events is not necessary, and it tends to have a focus on plot as opposed to the human condition (that's not to say fantasy can not be a commentary or talk about the human condition... it's just generally secondary in purpose to escapism and plot).

[Tearas]

I really hoped that someone shared my point of view, makes me feel like I'm the outcast right now... (on a side note I also hoped someone would comment the "classic or classuck" part but then again, maybe I'm not as funny as I think I am). This topic was my idea of a conversation that I cannot make with my friends because they dont enjoy reading (their loss for both) and one that I dont want to make with people who think that "50 shades of Grey" is the best book ever written just because they havent read something else. With great dread I now realize that I stand alone on my war to redefine "classic".
Back to the topic. The friend above me mentioned finding "Don Quixote" hilarious and while I can imagine the Medieval me laughing my ass off reading it, the 2013 me couldnt help thinking "Hey Miguel, that wasnt funny"
To make a comparison with another art form: To me, the greatest artist/musician/songwritter/poet is and will be Bob Dylan. I find his music timeless and groundbreaking more and more everyday. He is for me THE "classic". On the other hand, while I can see while The Beatles are/were such a vast success, I find their music outdated and "simple".

Thank you for all the replies, clearly we have different points of view and that is a good thing. To me none is wrong, I understand and respect all your opinions and would like to read more of them. That was the point from the beginning. As with everything, it is a matter of preference and personnal taste. Subjective.

[amphibian]

There absolutely are opinions that can be and are wrong. The opinion of "I believe that 2+2=5" is wrong. It's provably (within the parameters of consensus we've established) wrong.

Things like "Harry Potter is the greatest series of books ever written" are also wrong, but they're much harder to show the opinion-holder as such. The difficulty lies in figuring out ways to nicely tell the opinion-holder that they're wrong and to simultaneously not tick them off and leave the possibility of changing their mind towards at least considering other books.

Flexibility over time is a very good thing to have - which is why evolution happens. The list of classics absolutely should evolve over time and books like The Last of the Mohicans should be left behind (very dull, sometimes absurd mish-mash of Native American culture and concepts, not particularly historically significant etc).

[MTS]

Tearas, on 15 September 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:

To make a comparison with another art form: To me, the greatest artist/musician/songwritter/poet is and will be Bob Dylan. I find his music timeless and groundbreaking more and more everyday. He is for me THE "classic". On the other hand, while I can see while The Beatles are/were such a vast success, I find their music outdated and "simple".

Is there not beauty in simplicity?

Like you said, this argument is simply coming down to personal taste. You prefer Bob Dylan to the Beatles, and 1984 to Don Quixote, and that's fine, I'm sure many people would agree with you. However, simply because something is considered 'classic' doesn't mean you have to like it, or that it's objectively better than everything else (although there's usually a correlation between the two). It simply means that the work in question has made a significant and lasting contribution to the medium, and so should be remembered for that. Using the ancient Greek definition for 'classic' isn't helpful because we don't use the word in the same way anymore, and older literature cannot be and is not without equal because as Amph said, the field is always evolving, and we're updating our list of classics. Even now you can find Erikson sitting right alongside Tolkien on lists of the greatest fantasy writers, and artists like Adele and Florence Welch for instance are joining Aretha Franklin and Kate Bush on lists of the greatest female singers.

[Una]

Classics can become classics for different reasons. Possible reasons might be:

1. They take a universal theme and express it in a compelling way. They tell us something about being a person and living in the world. They comment on the human condition, if you will. You might put anything by Dostoyevski in here. Joseph Conrad. Moby Dick. The Great Gatsy. If you read a book like this, it challenges you, then changes you, and that is pretty awesome.
2. They had far ranging influence on literature that came after. Perhaps they were the first book in the genre or they were instrumental in influencing future writers and inspired the genre. Lord of the Rings is obvious. Burroughs' Mars novels, as mentioned above. Frankenstein can be considered a precursor to science fiction as well as to horror.
3. They had historical impact and or brought attention to particular social issues at the time they were written. This is one of my favourite types. I find them a fascinating view into how people thought. They can often seem dated, but it is because of their influence that opinions shifted to the way we think today. Uncle Tom's Cabin is often criticized now, but at the time, it helped garner support for the abolishionist movement. It took reading a book to make people realize that the black slaves were actually humans with hopes and love and feelings. The Tenant of Wildfell Hall portrayed domestic abuse in quite a bit of detail at a time when such things were not discussed. Cry, the Beloved Country is a commentary on apartheid. And this one's a children's book, but Black Beauty inspired legislative reforms against animal cruelty. A children's book about a horse!
4. The writing itself is executed extremely well. Austen writes some of the most perfect comedy I have ever read. I read Pride and Prejudice for school when I was 15 years old and I still remember laughing out loud during the scene where Mr. Collins proposes to Lizzie. Really, I think it had me in tears the first time. It was written in 1813 and some surly teenager in the 1990s, far removed from the genteel English society it takes place in still found it funny. If that's not timelessness, I don't know what is. I'll have to admit that Hemmingway isn't really my thing, but he is famous for his understated style. Not a single extraneous word, but he gets his point across better in one sentence than some others do in one paragraph.
5. They experimented with the art of writing/storytelling in a way that was groundbreaking at the time. This is really not my favourite category. I'm talking about stuff like James Joyces' Ulysses or Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway, playing with POV and narrative modes. Actually, I hate this type, but there it is. I can appreciate that studying these works helps us really get down to the nuts and bolts of how storytelling works, but I don't have to like it.

There's probably more, but that's all I got for now.

The thing with classics is that they don't necessarily have to be entertaining. The can be, but they don't have to be, so that might be where some people run into trouble. What's important is that whether or not you are entertained, you should still be able to get something out of them.

[Kaamos]

(I'm probably repeating some of the abovesitting entries, but it's not one of my starriest days for serious discussion. And in all likelihood, someone will respond with more insight while I type this at my dead snail's pace. :-P)



Hmm.

I perused a lot of classics during my teens (Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Dickens, Hugo, Waltari and Aleksis Kivi and other national groundbreakers, etc.), enjoyed most of them at that time, including Don Quixote, but years have leapt onwards and point-of-view angles have shifted. I believe I should spend a year or a half among such oldies again at some point, but the TRPFH already fills Scrooge McDuck's money bin. Difficult to deem how I might perceive for instance Kamarazovin veljekset (Brothers Kamarazov) now.

The single classic I've re-read during the past couple of years was The Count of Monte Cristo. As a 15-year old? Loved it. In my late twenties? Groaned and gritted my teeth at the sparkly-warkly perfectness of the main character and the way how everyone admired him, something which I had learned to loathe till then. It's a subjective matter. I just cannot stomach the types of Eragon/Edward Cullen/Kvothe/other unbelievably-talented, divinely handsome protagonist. However, hand over characters like Pitchwife or Bartimaeus the Djinni, and I'm keen on re-reading the stories till the bindings fall apart. But, well, in the case of the Count, a classic became downgraded into a classuck.

So, what is the exact definition of a classic? Apart from the matter of standing as a pioneer of fresh ideas during its own era, it should be something that new generations discover again and again, something the message of which does not wane in a couple of decades (I would not hesitate to dump some 30-40-year-old writings beneath the title of classic), and something where new layers can be unearthed during re-reads.

Therewith, I do wonder how phenomena like Twitlight will fare in a couple of decades. I don't subscribe to the popular=good equation by default.

MTS, on 16 September 2013 - 03:05 AM, said:

Is there not beauty in simplicity?

Well, I'm one of those that do not appreciate simplicity in almost anything. And, regarding modern music, I mostly listen to Nordic/non-English bands, so I'll leave the deeper opining over Dylan/Beatles to the experts. :-D

However, I might argue that complexity of harmonies (comparable to the complexity of ideas/prose in literature) nudges music to the cardinal point of classics. Pop songs flicker into existence and die in the blink of an eye, the mass merging into one clump of "baby baby baby ooh shake yer booty" with undistinguishable melodies. One of the reasons why I ceased listening to the regular radio years back. Well, I'm mostly into metal anyway.

Here are two examples I find myself listening to over and over again, and something which years do not appear to tarnish. Both represent "complex" music in my opinion.


Jean Sibelius / Kullervo (an actual classic): http://www.youtube.c...7674559403745DB

Moonsorrow / Viides luku: Hävitetty (black/Viking metal)

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=fywRBI8r6fA
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=2xEXTBW91us

This post has been edited by Kaamos: 16 September 2013 - 08:27 AM

[Amaryl]

I do wonder inn how far does does context increase enjoyment of classics? Or better yes, In how far does context increase our enjoyment of the actual words that are written? Appreciation of a certain work, for me does increase the more context I have of it, but I still can't escape the fact that the work itself was still a chore to go through, or a piece I tossed aside. I tend to call a book good, when I enjoyed reading it, which with most of the classics that i've read, hasn't been the case. Most of it is also due to the fact, that back in school, when I was told to read a specific work, tended to chip my motivation, and as such I have very few dutch literary classics that I actually enjoyed, with an exception here and there.

Which brings me to the point; does a classic actually has to be good in our contemporary age, and still be worth reading, or is the context of the story enough to get its relative perspective and importance?

[Mentalist]

Kaamos, on 16 September 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

(I'm probably repeating some of the abovesitting entries, but it's not one of my starriest days for serious discussion. And in all likelihood, someone will respond with more insight while I type this at my dead snail's pace. :-P)



Hmm.

I perused a lot of classics during my teens (Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Dickens, Hugo, Waltari and Aleksis Kivi and other national groundbreakers, etc.), enjoyed most of them at that time, including Don Quixote, but years have leapt onwards and point-of-view angles have shifted. I believe I should spend a year or a half among such oldies again at some point, but the TRPFH already fills Scrooge McDuck's money bin. Difficult to deem how I might perceive for instance Kamarazovin veljekset (Brothers Kamarazov) now.

The single classic I've re-read during the past couple of years was The Count of Monte Cristo. As a 15-year old? Loved it. In my late twenties? Groaned and gritted my teeth at the sparkly-warkly perfectness of the main character and the way how everyone admired him, something which I had learned to loathe till then. It's a subjective matter. I just cannot stomach the types of Eragon/Edward Cullen/Kvothe/other unbelievably-talented, divinely handsome protagonist. However, hand over characters like Pitchwife or Bartimaeus the Djinni, and I'm keen on re-reading the stories till the bindings fall apart. But, well, in the case of the Count, a classic became downgraded into a classuck.

So, what is the exact definition of a classic? Apart from the matter of standing as a pioneer of fresh ideas during its own era, it should be something that new generations discover again and again, something the message of which does not wane in a couple of decades (I would not hesitate to dump some 30-40-year-old writings beneath the title of classic), and something where new layers can be unearthed during re-reads.

Therewith, I do wonder how phenomena like Twitlight will fare in a couple of decades. I don't subscribe to the popular=good equation by default.

MTS, on 16 September 2013 - 03:05 AM, said:

Is there not beauty in simplicity?

Well, I'm one of those that do not appreciate simplicity in almost anything. And, regarding modern music, I mostly listen to Nordic/non-English bands, so I'll leave the deeper opining over Dylan/Beatles to the experts. :-D

However, I might argue that complexity of harmonies (comparable to the complexity of ideas/prose in literature) nudges music to the cardinal point of classics. Pop songs flicker into existence and die in the blink of an eye, the mass merging into one clump of "baby baby baby ooh shake yer booty" with undistinguishable melodies. One of the reasons why I ceased listening to the regular radio years back. Well, I'm mostly into metal anyway.

Here are two examples I find myself listening to over and over again, and something which years do not appear to tarnish. Both represent "complex" music in my opinion.


Jean Sibelius / Kullervo (an actual classic): http://www.youtube.c...7674559403745DB

Moonsorrow / Viides luku: Hävitetty (black/Viking metal)

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=fywRBI8r6fA
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=2xEXTBW91us

Now you've made me want to go and re-read "count of Monte Christo". Again. Though "Twenty Years later" is still the greatest thing Dumas has ever writtenm as far as I'm concerned.

On topic: I guess I'm one of the people who's more likely to agree with the OP, in the sense that I read primarily for entertainment value. I've never had a fascination with "language as art", in the sense that I don't stop and try to analyze "how something is written", in an attempt to dissect the craft. As such, there's a whole series of "classics" that completely go over my head. I've read "War and Peace" in Russian, but I did not get the significance of it. it was a decent war novel, but that's about it. On the other hand, Bulgakov's "White guard" is one of my top 10 books of all time, and it is essentially the same type of expositionary novel, painting a canvass of the revolution and the Civil War. But I adore one, and am largely indifferent to the other. Similarly, "I did not recognize a lot of the subtle satire in "Master and Margarita". But I still loved the book, despite of that. I'm one of the people that can't be swayed by the argument "this book is great because of how it's written", unless there's something in it that would interest me. At the same time, if an author keeps me entertained and doesn't bore me to death with cliche themes, I may like a book even if all critics point out that it's terribly-written. All in the perspective.

So I'll echo what other, more literature-savvy people have said: classics have value. whether you can appreciate them or not depends on your tastes, and what you are trying to get out of reading. And it's good to have some background and context into what you are reading, because it will help you to understand what it is that you are expected to "get" out of this or that "classic" work.

[Use Of Weapons]

Comedy is one thing that really divides people when it comes to the classics, too. Everyone has their own sense of humour, and consider it the most sophisticated thing ever, and if there's comedy they don't get, it's not a defect in them, it's just that that kind of comedy 'simply isn't funny, y'know?'

For example, in my case, I, who am trying to read a classic work of literature a month (and completely failing), read _Pride and Prejudice_ and _Emma_. The first I considered amazing, hugely entertaining, and it had several laugh-out-loud moments. The latter I just couldn't get, and didn't enjoy it even slightly, though the beauty of the prose and the style got me through it. But others may have the opposite reaction, and I have in fact encountered them. I don't try to convince them that my view is somehow more valid, more objective, than theirs: its validity is purely personal. Divorcing quality from enjoyment is something you learn to do with exposure, I think. I can point at _Emma_ and extol its many virtues. But when it comes to choosing something to read for pleasure, give me _P&P_ or _A Civil Campaign_ (Bujold) any day.

[Kaamos]

Mentalist, on 16 September 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

Now you've made me want to go and re-read "count of Monte Christo". Again. Though "Twenty Years later" is still the greatest thing Dumas has ever writtenm as far as I'm concerned.

Heh, while it had some good moments, that was the impression I received a couple of years back. I'd have to re-read the clump myself, if I wanted to participate a detailed critical discussion, however; have raked through tens of thousands of pages of other novels since, and my memory stands limited. :-D

D'oh, and I completely forgot that I listened to quite a few stories from Lovecraft later last year, something which I'd first read as Finnish translations in my early teens and now later as originals. In this case, I believe I enjoyed them even more, disregarding his fetish with adverbs and some racist depictions (which unfortunately plague a fair amount of literature from that era). In general terms, I prefer psychological horror over splattergore, and sometimes the ancestors of modern horror perform better in this aspect.

Yeah, and enjoying literature for the sake of its language or meter...count me in. Sometimes cannot cease gushing over Kalevala or Beowulf or Kalevipoeg...apart from the Anglo-Saxon epic at least having a historical basis and clear location beneath the added dragons and whatnot, the rhythm and meter form their beauty.