Modern or Classics

[Pantelej]

Is modern or classical literature the best?
What do you think? I'm not really sure, both
modern and classical literature have interesting
aspects, i think. I would like to hear your aspects.

[AimusSage]

I don't think either one is the better. There is a lot of rubbish in modern literature, but I am sure their also was a lot of rubbish in more classical times. It's just that the worst is forgotten, while the good, and sometimes not so good works have survived to this day.

[PeterL]

Is modern or classical literature the best?


Yes, without a doubt.

[geetanjali]

It becomes very difficult to answer your question whether modern or classical literature is the best, because both are diametrically different & unique in their own way. They supplement each other. Personal choices may vary, I prefer the classics, likewise someone else might beg to differ. Wonder ceases to be wonder after sometime & literature evolves to suit the times.
let me put it this way, do you like your photograph at the age of two years or as it is today ? Finally, it is you & you have just growing up is`nt it ? The same applies

[Kiwi Shelf]

I like both, but I hear so much about classical books that sometimes the fun is taken out of them knowing what is going to happen. I generally stick to books that just sound interesting, but I do try and keep up with the classics. I go through spurts one way or another.

[Pantelej]

I don't think either one is the better. There is a lot of rubbish in modern literature, but I am sure their also was a lot of rubbish in more classical times. It's just that the worst is forgotten, while the good, and sometimes not so good works have survived to this day.

I agree, much of the classical literature sufferd
under censorship and much was just propaganda.
In modern literature there are many silly things,
far to much modern soap-like love stories for an example.

[smilingtearz]

~@ pantelej
y don't u add a poll on this thread?

[Rosalind]

While I agree about the downsides of classics and modern books, I'd say that separating either of them into a decisive category does both groups a great disservice. What are classics but modern books from a while ago? Ok, let’s define a classic as a book with high standards of writing and thought which addresses the fundamentals of human nature and can withstand the test of time. But many modern books are well written and deal with human nature (or similarly philosophical fun stuff), and it’s to be hoped that the good ones will not be forgotten. On the other hand, many ‘classics’ as read in schools today, are less heavy minded then some modern books. They are well written and thoughtful, yes, but if they were published today, they would be regarded much less seriously than they are. Take Dickens and Twain: both accomplished writers with a great deal to say about society and human nature, yes, but some of their most popular books are written for children. That’s certainly NOT a bad thing—the only bad thing is that the ‘classic’ treatment tends to prevent children from reading or enjoying them.

‘Classic: a book which people praise and don’t read.’
Mark Twain

[mono]

I would certainly have to agree with both AimusSage and Rosalind; the only essential differences between 'modern' books and the 'classics' merely outlines the separate time periods that happen to differ additionally in styles, beliefs, values, morals etc.
True, some 'classic' literature can seem more predictable than 'modern' literature, but surely recent literature's existence proves entirely contingent on literature prior. Which I like more, I cannot say, trying to enjoy both, though both have their strong and weak points. The evolution of literature appears more prevalent nowadays, I think, only because it has had so much time to grow, and the distinguishing of styles (fiction, poetry, plays, science fiction, fantasy, romance, etc.) also seems more obvious with more abundance.
Overall, I tend to stick more to the classics than anything else, but it does not necessarily allude to liking them more than modern works. As I said, both tend to have stronger and weaker areas, and the separation of black-and-white between 'classics' and 'moderns,' in my opinion, contains more gray than actual black and/or white.

[emily655321]

When, exactly, does a book become a classic? I agree with Mono; there's a grey area in the middle that precludes definition on either side. It's easy to define a Shakespeare as a classic, and a John Irving as modern, but what about, say, a Kerouac? Or Salinger? All of them are considered "great literature;" what separates them but relative time?

I jump back and forth between eras when it comes to preference. Writing styles and literary conventions have certainly changed throughout the years, and it depends what I'm in the mood for. Lately I've been reading more modern books, whereas throughout my childhood, and through high school, I tended to prefer literature from the 19th century.

Speaking of which, the last modern book I read was "The Cheese Monkeys" by Chip Kidd, and I'd really recommend it (lousy, lousy ending, but the rest made up for it). Apropos of nothing.

[underground]

I like both, but I hear so much about classical books that sometimes the fun is taken out of them knowing what is going to happen. I generally stick to books that just sound interesting, but I do try and keep up with the classics. I go through spurts one way or another.

same here. nowadays i only read "modern" books and only the summaries for "classics." i have a preference for the language of the "classics," but for some reason or other i already know how the stories are going to end, so it leaves me not much interest to actually read it. (maybe read a page or two just to get a sense of the setting and stuff, but other than that... no.)

[misterwisconsin]

I wouldn't say "classic" but I prefer "older" lit.

The Return of the Native probably isn't considered a "classic" but I'll read that before something modern because I prefer that style. So I guess I prefer "old" lit over "new" lit.

[Ryan_H]

Modern is better, we should be reading novels from our generation more then the classic's. The classics are good and famous but the best books are the ones usually most unread. To many people are reading the books from dead people. If you like literature, you should help it grow, help the new authors that have great talent but no one even cares to look at what they can do because you are still reading a novel that is already famous.