Subject: Why are Classics so hard to read?
Posted by: WorldBook14
Date: Sep 27 11
Does anyone else have this problem? I find it very hard to sit down and read an old classic book and understand it completely due to the style of writing.
Posted by: WorldBook14
Date: Sep 27 11
Does anyone else have this problem? I find it very hard to sit down and read an old classic book and understand it completely due to the style of writing.
53 replies. On page 2 of 3 pages. 1 2 3
brm50diboll 
|
Those classics which are difficult to read are so because they are often filled with obscure words and allusions which are difficult to understand unless one has a large and solid working vocabulary and an understanding of the historical period in which the book was written and an appreciation of some of the idiosyncrasies of the author and the genre. Then there's Spark Notes. Reply #21. Sep 20 14, 2:15 PM |
Mixamatosis
|
Old classics have a lot of meat in them which can make them very satisfying but it's different from reading lightweight modern novels. It does take more effort, but once you are enjoying them it will not seem so. The thing is to immerse yourself in the world of the classic you are reading, and do not worry about whether you understand every word. The effort will repay you and you may extend your understanding and vocabulary in the process. The test of a good book is that you don't want it to end. Reply #22. Jul 21 15, 4:14 AM |
| Mixamatosis
|
Here's a video on why you should read James Joyce's Ulysses and why it's so difficult. I haven't yet read it myself but I intend to have a go when I've finished my current books. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7FobPxu27M Reply #23. Feb 04 18, 2:27 AM |
mpkitty
|
kaddarsgirl : Not even Tom Sawyer? If not, give it another whirl. Also. his short stories are also readable, Twain ain't so bad... Reply #24. Feb 04 18, 5:14 AM |
seekernym
|
I think a big factor is that the love of a book is so very subjective. I've been an avid reader since childhood. I've read a number of 'classics' and personally found them to be drivel, with no literary value at all. The only reason I could fathom some of them being heralded as 'literary classics' was simply as an example of writing during any particular era. I do not believe that 'literary classic' equates to 'good book' for everyone. Reply #25. Feb 04 18, 5:24 AM |
| seekernym
|
Argh - no edit button. I have found SOME 'classics' to be drivel - not all. Reply #26. Feb 04 18, 5:25 AM |
Skyflyerjen
|
Don't get me started on anything concerning William Shakespeare. I would rather eat the printed page than read what he's written. My Advanced English class in my senior year was so awful because I despised so much of the reading material! Personally, it made me want to read less, which is terrible, we should encourage more reading instead of less. Reply #27. Feb 06 18, 11:17 AM |
| seekernym
|
Couldn't agree more, Skyflyerjen. Only being Washington DC adjacent made the Shakespeare portion of English lit bearable. Coincidence or not, whatever Shakespeare piece was required reading, also happened to be on stage somewhere nearby. Parents couldn't believe I was begging to go see things like King Lear on stage, and happily indulged. Reply #28. Feb 06 18, 11:56 AM |
| Mixamatosis
|
I love Shakespeare. It's most enjoyable when watching rather than reading. There are some great films out there based on his plays. There's a film called "Looking for Richard" with Al Pacino where he explores peoples' reactions to Shakespeare (and Richard III in particular) and then has a go at playing him himself. It's like taking himself from someone who doesn't really understand or appreciate to Shakespeare, to someone who enjoys playing it. Good for beginners. Reply #29. Feb 12 18, 4:28 PM |
| Mixamatosis
|
Re my comment at #23. I am reading Ulysses at the moment and it is indeed a hard book to read because it's full of random thoughts of the character that are connected but not necessarily coherent. It's a massive jump in style from anything seen before it. I can understand why it was so talked about and controversial. Meanwhile I struggle on with it.... Reply #30. Apr 09 18, 12:50 PM |
| Mixamatosis
|
I finished reading Ulysses by James Joyce. That was the biggest struggle I've ever had to finish a classic novel but I did read it all. It took me some months. It's not easy reading but I can see why it's considered groundbreaking for its time. If you find classic novels difficult to read, I don't recommend this one. Reply #31. Sep 03 18, 1:49 AM |
havan_ironoak
|
Classics become classics for a variety of reasons. Some maintain their appeal while other require special effort in order to enjoy them. Life was paced different as little as 70 years ago so any classic that is at least that old may just require that you slow down and "smell the roses." An example of one that is like that for me is Moby Dick. There is a LOT of good writing in there as well as the plot and the salient details or as some call it "the McNuggets" Also books are written much more slowly than they can be read. Some advocate that purposely limit yourself to a chapter at a time so as to allow you to reflect on what you've read. Take time to explore the words that are unfamiliar and the ideas that seem dated. To stay with food themed metaphors some books are light rose while others are a tawny port. They're not intended to be consumed in the same way. But to continue the wine metaphor, some books can "go off" or sour from too much exposure. The kinds of totalitarian state that are embodied in 1984 and or Fahrenheit 451 are spot on in some regards but widely missed the mark in other areas. This is something we know in the fullness of time but the authors couldn't have predicted when they were writing. Yet other issues such as those raised in Asimov's I, Robot seem as relevant today as they must have when it was first written. I'm not sure you'd credit Arthur C. Clark with the same prescience if you read 2001 a Space Oddesy today. Reply #32. Apr 12 19, 1:26 PM |
| havan_ironoak
|
Forgot to mention... Just to put your head in an entirely different place, before stating a classic check out the thug notes version. You'll be amazed what they mention that you might otherwise miss. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6-ymYjG0SU0jUWnWh9ZzEQ Reply #33. Apr 12 19, 1:29 PM |
| Mixamatosis
|
I find a lot of 1984 strangely relevant today still especially, double speak and double think,(politicians, news media and PR) the rewriting of history (fake news anyone?) and Big Brother watching everyone (CCTV, illicit data collections, GPS, computer hacking etc), constant war (trade wars, economic wars, and actual wars around the world). Reply #34. Apr 13 19, 7:37 AM |
Cymruambyth
|
I believe it depends quite a lot on the story being told as well as the way in which it is told, and by whom. For instance, Charles Dickens and the Bronte sisters were publishing in the same time period, and I've read and re-read most of Dickens, enjoying his deft depictions of the world in which he lived, and I can't stand the Brontes, and read them only because I had to for English lit courses in high school and university. They come across as the repressed spinsters they were! Mark Twain was writing at the same time as Thomas Hardy. Hardy bores me stiff, Twain has me rolling around on the rug. Arnold Bennett's tales of the Potteries are as interesting to me now as they were to my grandfather, I'm sure. I have read and re-read all six of Jane Austen's witty, observant books, and would rather eat spinach for every meal than read Tolstoi who moralizes far too much. I enjoy Dumas (Pere et fils) but you can keep Gustave Flaubert with my right goodwill. I'll take Chaucer and Shakespeare (except for the versions of Tristan and Isolde written by both of them) if you'll spare me from Milton. Reply #35. Apr 16 19, 7:20 PM |
kingruins
|
I generally have good luck when it comes to which classics I'm drawn to. The only one that springs to mind as something I had to put down (fairly recently) was "Dracula" by Bram Stoker because he just wouldn't get to the point. Currently I'm wading through "All the King's Men" by Robert Penn Warren. There's a good 200 page book in there somewhere, and Jack and Anne aren't in it. Reply #36. Jun 03 20, 7:02 AM |
VBookWorm
|
Classics are not hard to read at all! I hate modern books and I vowed the read only classics for the rest of my life. Reply #37. Oct 04 22, 5:33 PM |
| VBookWorm
|
Mixamatosis: In answer to your comment #34, I agree with you. '1984' by George Orwell is still very relevant today. And it was written in 1949, close to 70 years ago! Reply #38. Oct 04 22, 5:36 PM |
lordprescott
|
I personally don't find classics hard to read; maybe because I've always enjoyed reading and I do so every day. But it's a known fact that the current online culture makes reading more difficult, both online and on paper. Maryanne Wolf notes this in her book "Reader Come Home". Your brain becomes more used to flitting over little snippets of info online and many find it difficult to read books until they "train" themselves to do it all over again. Reading classics is definitely worth it; more often than not if you find it difficult then it will just get easier over time! Reply #39. Oct 22 22, 8:27 AM |
| lordprescott
|
Mixamatosis: I adore Shakespeare as well. I didn't think I would until I read and watched many of his plays for coursework. They are incredibly exciting and very well written. Reply #40. Oct 22 22, 8:28 AM |
53 replies. On page 2 of 3 pages. 1 2 3
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: