The reader's expectations of the classics - some thoughts.

[MarkBastable]

First, I think that one has to get away from the idea that liking something and it being good are the same thing. It's entirely possible to know - intellectually, historically, analytically - that Jane Austen was a talented, influential and important writer, but at the same time say that you find her difficult to read, irrelevant and attitudinally irritating.

So: you're not necessarily going to like all the classics, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to see why they are classics.

Second, one has to get away from the idea that all the classics are any good at all, in the modern context. They're not, necessarily. Some are only historical artefacts. If you were a student of architecture, you might study, say, the public baths at Pompeii and be impressed by the style, the technology, the design techniques and so on; you'd learn a hell of a lot about how people lived in those days, and about the role of that building in the society that constructed it. That wouldn't necessarily mean that you'd expect ever to design baths in that way today or that you'd to be able to sell such a concept to a corporate investment fund.

Similarly, you don't read Moby Dick, for instance, in the expectation that it will compete with Silence of the Lambs. It's not punchy in the way we prefer these days. It's heavily over-written, by our standards, and it's discursive to the point of being unintelligible to a modern readership. It's a historical artefact - an important relic that tells us about our literary past.

So: you don't necessarily expect from the classics the reading experience you would demand from a book published today.


Third: you can never have the experience of a classic book that was had by someone who read it back then.

I once attended a lecture by Jonathan Miller (director, writer, doctor, critic, comedian, journalist, probably brain surgeon too) in which he pointed out that although it might be fun to present Shakespeare in the round, in Elizabethan dress, at a replica of the Globe Theatre, piping in the authentic smell of a fifteenth century urban street and swigging pints of mead, one shouldn't at any point imagine that what one was getting there was the authentic Hamlet experience just as the opening night audience got it. When those people got it, all the surrounding stuff was just their life. They didn't even notice it. When you attend such an event today, you're aware of the artifice and you're making an effort to assimilate it.

In just the same way, it's not possible to read, say, Frankenstein or Bleak House or Uncle Tom's Cabin as it would have been read then, because you bring to those novels attitudes towards science and poverty and race that were not at the time part of the common attitudinal vocabulary. You have thought things and you believe stuff and you know truths that could not have been thought and believed or known by someone who read those books the day they were published.

Why does that matter? Well - because one of the things that makes those book classics is the effect they had on the readership. They had an impact that contributed to their status and their reputation. But they can never have that effect on you - almost by definition. So you're never going to appreciate in them the very thing that makes them classics.

I noticed this a lot when reading the one-star reviews of The Catcher in the Rye on Amazon. A lot of reviewers couldn't understand why the self-obsessed ramblings of a privileged adolescent boy should be of interest to them. They're surrounded by media that constantly transmit the ramblings of privileged adolescent boys - on MTV, in the magazines, on reality shows. Those readers just cannot imagine a world in which The Catcher in the Rye was an extraordinary and ground-breaking book. People say it wouldn't get published today - and they're right. But it wouldn't be necessary today. Some classics are classics because of what they did when they did it. You don't read them because they are relevant now, but because they were relevant then.

So: you don't necessarily expect from the classics the reading experience you would have got if you were around at the time.

Fourth: the 'classics' is a hugely inclusive phrase. It just means anything older than about fifty years that's still in print. It covers work as diverse as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm. The Iliad and To the Lighthouse. The Lord of the Rings and The Code of the Woosters.

Leaving aside all the arguments of history, quality, context and culture, you'd have to be a pretty weird person to like all that stuff, wouldn't you?

[Lynne50]

Bravo, Mark!! I think you are the first person to really put 'classics' in some perspective. Maybe that's what's missing these days in schools, the historical backgrounds of these books.

And what ever happened to Jonathan Miller? I would see him on TV from time to time and always enjoyed his comments. I bet that was a very interesting lecture.

[mortalterror]

If you were a student of architecture, you might study, say, the public baths at Pompeii and be impressed by the style, the technology, the design techniques and so on; you'd learn a hell of a lot about how people lived in those days, and about the role of that building in the society that constructed it. That wouldn't necessarily mean that you'd expect ever to design baths in that way today or that you'd to be able to sell such a concept to a corporate investment fund.
I want it. (http://www.hearstcastle.com/tours/roman_pool.asp) I want it! (http://www.hearstcastle.com/history/pools.asp)
One more. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HearstCastle-Darter-1.jpg)

"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax-- YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I'M LIVING IN THE ****ING PAST!"- The Big Lebowski

[PeterL]

First, I think that one has to get away from the idea that liking something and it being good are the same thing. It's entirely possible to know - intellectually, historically, analytically - that Jane Austen was a talented, influential and important writer, but at the same time say that you find her difficult to read, irrelevant and attitudinally irritating.

So: you're not necessarily going to like all the classics, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to see why they are classics.

So what do you think is meant by "classic" in literature. The examples that you mentioned below are absurd. No one would in Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm among the classics except as a joke.


Second, one has to get away from the idea that all the classics are any good at all, in the modern context. They're not, necessarily. Some are only historical artefacts. If you were a student of architecture, you might study, say, the public baths at Pompeii and be impressed by the style, the technology, the design techniques and so on; you'd learn a hell of a lot about how people lived in those days, and about the role of that building in the society that constructed it. That wouldn't necessarily mean that you'd expect ever to design baths in that way today or that you'd to be able to sell such a concept to a corporate investment fund.

Similarly, you don't read Moby Dick, for instance, in the expectation that it will compete with Silence of the Lambs. It's not punchy in the way we prefer these days. It's heavily over-written, by our standards, and it's discursive to the point of being unintelligible to a modern readership. It's a historical artefact - an important relic that tells us about our literary past.

So apparently you don't like Moby Dick. While there is a small matter of looking at the great old works to see what people used to write, the classics often show us how writing should be done. Jonathan Swift was one of the greatest writers of the English language, and his writing is still excellent. People should read most of the classics to see how good great writtng.



So: you don't necessarily expect from the classics the reading experience you would demand from a book published today.

No, one expects more from the classics than from nearly all of today's writing.

[QUOTE]Third: you can never have the experience of a classic book that was had by someone who read it back then.

Of course not, someone reading now is reading now. Unless one gets a time machine running, one cannot have any of the experiences of a person 200 years ago.



Fourth: the 'classics' is a hugely inclusive phrase. It just means anything older than about fifty years that's still in print. It covers work as diverse as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm. The Iliad and To the Lighthouse. The Lord of the Rings and The Code of the Woosters.

Leaving aside all the arguments of history, quality, context and culture, you'd have to be a pretty weird person to like all that stuff, wouldn't you?

I disagree on this point. Classic literature is not determined simply by the age of the work.

[MarkBastable]

So what do you think is meant by "classic" in literature. The examples that you mentioned below are absurd. No one would in Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm among the classics except as a joke.

I dunno. I'd say it was a classic children's book. But by all means write your own list.




So apparently you don't like Moby Dick. While there is a small matter of looking at the great old works to see what people used to write, the classics often show us how writing should be done. Jonathan Swift was one of the greatest writers of the English language, and his writing is still excellent. People should read most of the classics to see how good great writtng.

I agree. I'm not saying that no classics command that kind of attention. I tend to agree with you about Swift. Also Sterne, Dickens, Maupassant and many others. I'm simply saying that not all classics will appeal to the modern taste - but that that doesn't preclude them from the canon.




Unless one gets a time machine running, one cannot have any of the experiences of a person 200 years ago.

Even with a time machine you couldn't - because of what you know and the era you come from. And I'm saying that that will have an inescapable effect on one's experience of the classics - so if one can't see what the big deal is about, say, Uncle Tom's Cabin, one should take into account the fact that one can never read it as it was read at the time.

[stlukesguild]

First, I think that one has to get away from the idea that liking something and it being good are the same thing. It's entirely possible to know - intellectually, historically, analytically - that Jane Austen was a talented, influential and important writer, but at the same time say that you find her difficult to read, irrelevant and attitudinally irritating.

So: you're not necessarily going to like all the classics, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to see why they are classics.

I personally think that a great majority of us here who have recently been painted as "elitists" have no problem discerning the difference between "liking" a work of art and "appreciating" it. Mortalterror has repeatedly suggested that to him James Joyce, Marcel Proust, and even Cervantes are not all that. I personally find much of Mortal's beloved Romans to be pompous and stiff... while somewhat agree with him on Joyce... or at least I readily admit that I would far rather read J.L. Borges, Kafka, Proust, Italo Calvino (and several others) than Joyce. There's not much to challenge when one exclaims, I loved/hated it!" On the other hand, when someone makes declarations such as "Harry Potter is brilliant." "Shakespeare is boring." "Moby Dick sucks."... well that leaves one open to being challenged, doesn't it?

Second, one has to get away from the idea that all the classics are any good at all, in the modern context. They're not, necessarily. Some are only historical artefacts. If you were a student of architecture, you might study, say, the public baths at Pompeii and be impressed by the style, the technology, the design techniques and so on; you'd learn a hell of a lot about how people lived in those days, and about the role of that building in the society that constructed it. That wouldn't necessarily mean that you'd expect ever to design baths in that way today or that you'd to be able to sell such a concept to a corporate investment fund.

Similarly, you don't read Moby Dick, for instance, in the expectation that it will compete with Silence of the Lambs. It's not punchy in the way we prefer these days. It's heavily over-written, by our standards, and it's discursive to the point of being unintelligible to a modern readership. It's a historical artefact - an important relic that tells us about our literary past.

Here I must beg to differ. Because our preference or expectations have changed (and we cannot assume this is always for the better, can we?) this in no way means that a work of classic literature no longer has any merit outside of its value as a historic document. There are thousands of examples of ancient architecture, thousands of 18th and 19th century novels, thousands of frescoes from the Renaissance, and thousands of classical symphonies from the 18th and 19th century. Few of these, however, continue to resonate with an audience today. The baths of Pompeii (but even more so Hadrian's baths), Melville's Moby Dick, Michelangelo's Sistine or Giotto's Arena Chapel, and Beethoven's 3rd, 5th, and 9th Symphonies (especially) all continue to speak to an audience of art/music/literature lovers today. Perhaps no one would think to write a classical symphony in the manner of Beethoven or write a novel n the manner of Melville today... but that in no way undermines the aesthetic merit of those works. I don't read Melville, Cervantes, or Homer in order to broaden my knowledge of history and customs. I read them for the aesthetic pleasure they bring. The same is true of Beethoven or Mozart or Rembrandt. The inability to appreciate a work of art because it challenges our expectations is more of a failing on the part of the audience than it is on the part of the artist. I say this of myself as much as of anyone else. There are classic works of literature, music, art, etc... which I freely recognize as having real merits... being greatly influential, continuing to resonate with an audience... and yet they do nothing for me. I accept that without the need to prove that it must somehow be a failing of the art or the artist.

you don't necessarily expect from the classics the reading experience you would demand from a book published today.

Again... isn't that part of the problem... approaching a work of art with a set expectation as to what it shall be like... how it should unfold... what I shall experience? Isn't this what we deride as cliche... when a work doesn't surprise us... doesn't expand upon the conventions... doesn't challenge the expectations... when it really brings nothing new to the table?

you can never have the experience of a classic book that was had by someone who read it back then.

True. But you can never have the same experience yourself. If you read a book at age 16 and again at 35 and once more at 60 it will certainly be a different experience each time for the simple reason that you have changed. We read Shakespeare, he is SHAKESPEARE... the very center of Western literature... a towering figure... and this presents a very different experience from that afforded in his time... when he was but one playwright among many competing with bear-baiting for the public dollar (or shillings/pounds). This is at once good... and bad. We certainly afford Shakespeare far closer reading than was afforded by the audience of his time... but on the negative side there is such expectation that many cannot approach the works for what they are and discover the innovations and the splendors of the language and character development.

In just the same way, it's not possible to read, say, Frankenstein or Bleak House or Uncle Tom's Cabin as it would have been read then, because you bring to those novels attitudes towards science and poverty and race that were not at the time part of the common attitudinal vocabulary. You have thought things and you believe stuff and you know truths that could not have been thought and believed or known by someone who read those books the day they were published.

Why does that matter? Well - because one of the things that makes those book classics is the effect they had on the readership. They had an impact that contributed to their status and their reputation. But they can never have that effect on you - almost by definition. So you're never going to appreciate in them the very thing that makes them classics.

Thomas DeQuincey had a great essay in which he compared the literature of art with that of the literature of ideas. He noted that with the literature of ideas... whether we be speaking of a mere cook book or even the most important work of scientific discourse (he used Newton's Principia) the moment a greater version comes along... even if it be merely limited to a better organization of the knowledge presented (even merely better editing, spelling, or a nicer cover), the older work is surpassed and becomes dated. This, he noted, is not true of art because it is not the ideas presented that are the center of the work of art... but the form or the way in which they are expressed. Endless writers have commented upon the issues of poverty, but Dickens brings those ideas to life with characters and plot in an manner that draws us in and continues to speak to us. By this measure, yes, Uncle Tom's Cabin is dated... because it was never a great work of literature. On the other hand, the Bible and the Qu'ran continue to resonate in spite of the fact that we may often find ourselves in disagreement with what is being expressed. But do we honestly expect from art that it only reinforce our own beliefs, thoughts, prejudices, and expectations?

I noticed this a lot when reading the one-star reviews of The Catcher in the Rye on Amazon. A lot of reviewers couldn't understand why the self-obsessed ramblings of a privileged adolescent boy should be of interest to them. They're surrounded by media that constantly transmit the ramblings of privileged adolescent boys - on MTV, in the magazines, on reality shows. Those readers just cannot imagine a world in which The Catcher in the Rye was an extraordinary and ground-breaking book.

Yet what you speak of is merely "novelty". Is "novelty" to be the measure of art? Is Picasso still admired by artists and artists merely because of his shocking innovations of form and space? Truly, if this was all that there were to his work wouldn't it be as rapidly forgotten as a joke that was hilarious the first time but somehow falls flat at the tenth hearing. Indeed, it is more than possible that Catcher in the Rye is but a minor classic... if that... and that it truly does irritate with the self-obsessed ramblings of a privileged adolescent. My guess is that 100 years from now the Harry Potter books will not be met with the same degree of worship as afforded by many today... but let's not get started on that again.:D

[JCamilo]

First, I think that one has to get away from the idea that liking something and it being good are the same thing. It's entirely possible to know - intellectually, historically, analytically - that Jane Austen was a talented, influential and important writer, but at the same time say that you find her difficult to read, irrelevant and attitudinally irritating.

Of course. So we can have the same understanding with Anne Rice. She is irrelevant and attitudinally irritating (without being influential, talented, or important) and I found very hard to read her books because they bore me to death. It is rather irrelevant if it is a 4984 years old work or something just recently written.


So: you're not necessarily going to like all the classics, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to see why they are classics.

Second, one has to get away from the idea that all the classics are any good at all, in the modern context. They're not, necessarily. Some are only historical artefacts. If you were a student of architecture, you might study, say, the public baths at Pompeii and be impressed by the style, the technology, the design techniques and so on; you'd learn a hell of a lot about how people lived in those days, and about the role of that building in the society that constructed it. That wouldn't necessarily mean that you'd expect ever to design baths in that way today or that you'd to be able to sell such a concept to a corporate investment fund.

That means that you can see why Homer used strategies related to oral literature, admire it. Not that it is not good in the moderm context or in any context. The techniques may be outdated, but the themes, significance, etc are not. That is why a Classic still a classic and well know even if unread. They exist in other works.


Similarly, you don't read Moby Dick, for instance, in the expectation that it will compete with Silence of the Lambs. It's not punchy in the way we prefer these days. It's heavily over-written, by our standards, and it's discursive to the point of being unintelligible to a modern readership. It's a historical artefact - an important relic that tells us about our literary past.

Do you understand the absurdity of saying that it unintelligible to a moderm reading to living individuals who read it? Plus, Mobdy Dick was not suited for the living audience of his own time, they also found unintelligible. Just compare with Alexandre Dumas, who pretty much settled down all rules for the moderm best sellers, and you see Mody Dick was not appealing to the masses as Count of MountChrist was, already in the XIX century.
And really, I found Kafka on the Shore heavily over-written too, it is a moderm romance.


So: you don't necessarily expect from the classics the reading experience you would demand from a book published today.

Yeah, I do not expect from Moby Dick the same experience I had with Paradise Lost either.



Third: you can never have the experience of a classic book that was had by someone who read it back then.

I once attended a lecture by Jonathan Miller (director, writer, doctor, critic, comedian, journalist, probably brain surgeon too) in which he pointed out that although it might be fun to present Shakespeare in the round, in Elizabethan dress, at a replica of the Globe Theatre, piping in the authentic smell of a fifteenth century urban street and swigging pints of mead, one shouldn't at any point imagine that what one was getting there was the authentic Hamlet experience just as the opening night audience got it. When those people got it, all the surrounding stuff was just their life. They didn't even notice it. When you attend such an event today, you're aware of the artifice and you're making an effort to assimilate it.

What you are mistaking is that a classic or literature (since they represent it) is not something Static in the past. Living in a Museum where we worship them and try to copy what they have that is best. Literature changes due the interferece of the reader. A Classic changes, adapt itself (without needing a textual change, because the aesthetical emotion of art of the literature manifest itself on reading not on writing) to the new times. Of course, some texts suffer textual changes, but Don Quixote is one thing when dealt by Kafka, one when Dealt by Dostoievisky, another (or the same) when dealt by Borges. Fact is, most of the classicists here seems to search for moderm texts as well. Consider that a Classic is like eating your greatmother food. Soemthing good that you can experiment, without fear.



Fourth: the 'classics' is a hugely inclusive phrase. It just means anything older than about fifty years that's still in print. It covers work as diverse as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm. The Iliad and To the Lighthouse. The Lord of the Rings and The Code of the Woosters.

The classication of classic is arguable, indeed. It is a vulgar word today. A recently released book is labeled as classic. You have to define the meaning of the world classic when you are using.


Leaving aside all the arguments of history, quality, context and culture, you'd have to be a pretty weird person to like all that stuff, wouldn't you?

Weird is a nice way to call a lot of individuals...

[kelby_lake]

Different readers will always take different interpretations from a book and it will most likely be forever fixed in their minds as being like that. The writer's intentions count for little because the reader will really only accept an intention that they agree with, or will infer what they want.

A classic book has to have STYLE. Plots are not unique and society is not seen by just one person.

[AuntShecky]

St. Luke's Guild implication that the experience of reading a classic as a teenager can be quite different than reading the same book as an adult who has cultivated more sophisticated tastes as well as emotional maturity. If you don't think this is so, look at the horrid choices little kids make at the candy counter. Ask an adult what he or she listened to on transistor radios back in the sixties, and he'll most likely be embarrassed to tell you!

As an adolescent, one's life experiences have not developed (or perhaps hardened) enough to "get" the nuances of a specific writer, or even one's education up to that point has failed to inculcate an aesthetic sense. On the other hand, a book such as The Catcher in the Rye may garner a different response from an adolescent than it would from a seasoned adult.

Secondly, what did Ezra Pound mean when he said that "Literature is news that stays news"? Even though a good novel, say one by Dickens or George Eliot, may provide both panoramic and meticulously detailed pictures of the Victorian society in which it was created, that isn't the primary reason why we read their works. Their works are still worth reading in 2009 because they depict elements of human nature that are still very much current: greed, jealousy, ambition, etc. Some halfbaked novel written in the 1980s may be gathering dust in some remainder pile, whereas we can read a two-thousand-year old epic by Homer and still find something "new." The difference is not the "what" of the story-- it's the "how" of
the writer.

I think there is such a thing as intellectual snobbery, "elitism" if you will, however, there is also an anti-intellectual streak ingrained in the individualistic frontier spirit of the American character, a natural negative response to artifice and authority.

But there is also reverse snobbery in that some folks absolutely refuse to try to read a classic or listen to "high-brow" music, which incidentally also used to be called "long-hair" music before the era of the hirsute rock musician. Part of the blame, again, can be placed squarely in the laps of the American educational system, which disdains the teaching of literature ( since no future job skills are immediately inherent in reading the classics. And since no one teaches "elitist" grammar skills, spelling, and parts of speech any more, I wonder just what's in the curriculum of what is curiously called "language arts.")

And finally, it takes more effort and concentration to read a classic than it does to flip through the pages of a spy thriller or People Magazine. Human nature is, I'm afraid, intellectually lazy, and I'm including myself in that group. Yet, just like any other challenging activity, the amount of
effort put into an is directly proportionate to the quality of what the reader "gets out of it."

But don't go by what yr ol' Auntie says; consult with an expert such as Harold Bloom, notably in his works such as The Western Canon. Consult with respected critics and you'll get a better idea of what a "classic" really is.
In a way, Mark Twain was right when he said that a classic is a "book that everybody praises but nobody reads," except these days, even the praise is hard to find.

[LMK]

I read books such as Uncle Tom's Cabin, Great Expectations, Moby Dick, Treasure Island, Les Miserable, Grapes of Wrath, The Divine Comedy, etc. and find for the most part there is a classical element about it, a timelessness of the tale, a preservation of the language and style of the time in which it was written and am the better for it.

Why? Because I did experience a taste, similar to visiting a museum to imagine a glimpse of life in another time and place.

I also do understand the difference between liking a thing and appreciating it for its value as a good book, story, sonnet, poem, play, etc. However, having said that, I now say this...just because a thing is labled a 'classic' not only might I not like it, I may not agree that it is good at all!

[mayneverhave]

I now say this...just because a thing is labled a 'classic' not only might I not like it, I may not agree that it is good at all!

And that's perfectly acceptable. Though for the most part I agree with most of the standard canons on their selections of works deemed "classic", there have been a few that I found repulsive in both the sense of like and dislike and in general objective quality.

The problem is, these books have built up a fairly high reputation that exists and existed before you most likely even heard of the book, and therefore your opinion will most likely be dealt with skeptically. If 100 people read a novel and find it fantastic, and you are the only person to dissent from the general opinion, good reason is required - show us why you think mass critical opinion is wrong. If not, you get the general statement that is often uttered on this forum of "Oh the book was no good, but I'll give no cause."

[stlukesguild]

I also do understand the difference between liking a thing and appreciating it for its value as a good book, story, sonnet, poem, play, etc...

In my case I will take the work of James Joyce. I will not say that I "dislike" it... but certainly there are any number of modern writers that I greatly prefer: Proust, Eliot, Kafka, Faulkner, Borges, Calvino, even Beckett. In spite of this I cannot deny his importance as a writer... often upon the very writers I prefer. Considering his innovation, his reputation among those who seriously follow and love literature, and his influence upon subsequent artists I cannot logically assume that my personal opinion should hold sway. In other words, I can surely say, "I don't really like the work... it doesn't do much for me," but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest "Joyce is a mediocre writer" or "He sucks." Stating what you like is a personal opinion. It is largely subjective. Stating that something is good or bad is a value judgment that is more objective and assumes that you can offer up logical and intelligent proof of your statement... especially if it conflicts with the larger accepted opinions. No matter how experienced a reader one becomes, I would argue that the end purpose of reading is pleasure. Certainly I will give a work of art a chance and not necessarily go with my immediate gut response... especially if it has earned a certain reputation... part of the goal of art is in broadening our experiences and this often means going against our personal expectations or prejudices... but ultimately if the work does not resonate with me I must assume that it is simply not for me at this time... and perhaps not ever. There are far too many other "classics" out there to stick with a book that is doing nothing for me.

[LMK]

"No matter how experienced a reader one becomes, I would argue that the end purpose of reading is pleasure."

"There are far too many other "classics" out there to stick with a book that is doing nothing for me."

Do you read only for pleasure? I read for many reasons; albeit pleasure is among them. So, I don't personally agree that the end purpose of reading is for pleasure.

Why limit yourself to what someone else has labeled a classic? I enjoyed, reading The Dante Club, and perhaps enjoyed it more for the characters that were portrayed and the subject matter, but I'm sure it also had something to do with the fact that I read and appreciated (can't say I enjoyed all of) The Divine Comedy.

I, too, have put down books that didn't work for me; the voice, the content, whatever reason. Sometimes, I will give it another try after some time has passed and I find that this time I'm ready for it, sometimes, I find that it is just not meant to be maybe ever.

[stlukesguild]

Do you read only for pleasure? I read for many reasons; albeit pleasure is among them. So, I don't personally agree that the end purpose of reading is for pleasure.

So what other reasons do you read for? Note that a more complete expression of my ideas of why I read are found in an earlier post on this thread in the form of a few quotes by others who put similar ideas I share into a form beyond that of my own limited abilities.

[LMK]

Do you read only for pleasure? I read for many reasons; albeit pleasure is among them. So, I don't personally agree that the end purpose of reading is for pleasure.

So what other reasons do you read for? Note that a more complete expression of my ideas of why I read are found in an earlier post on this thread in the form of a few quotes by others who put similar ideas I share into a form beyond that of my own limited abilities.

I read to learn, to meet people and visit places in situations that I can never be; the woods during a fairy row (A Midsummer Night's Dream), a tour of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven (Divine Comedy), in the midst of a tragic accident and the stupidity of Jim Crowe Bigotry (Native Son), the search for understanding (Plato's Apology), absurdity (Sartre's, The Stranger), the exploration of a theatrical style (Six Characters In Search of an Author), the Chinese American intergenerational identity and anecdotal Chinese history (most anything by Amy Tan). So many other examples....

I read to clear my mind, especially when I'm stressed or working too much and need to get away; idealized and sensationalized action (this includes anything by David Baldacci or Vince Flynn), ribaldry (Tim Dorsey's series featuring Serge A. Storms) detective series (oh so many).

I read to keep up with and discuss with two of my daughters (the Twilight series, Diary of Bridget Jones, types of material).

I read to help my granddaughter explore (Where the Wild Things Are, Chanticleer and the Fox, any Junie B. Jones...book).

In book clubs, I read the selection so that I can participate; although, I am not a regular member of any book club.

I read because I breathe. It's an addiction, in part, but also a passion.

As listed above it is apparent that I do not limit my reading to those tomes that have been previously labeled 'Classics' though I have and continue to read my share of them for many reasons, some to be able to discuss, some for reasons above and probably reasons I have not stopped long enough to think about.

One of my New Year’s Resolutions (several years ago) was to read less…oh what a sad year that was… (tongue in cheek). It really was a resolution and I did read MUCH less that year.

~L

[stlukesguild]

Yet every reason that you give for reading sounds to me as if it were pleasurable. Personally... I cannot fathom wishing to invest the sort of time involved in reading a book if I find it to be mediocre... cliche... unpleasurable. There are simply too many good and truly great books out there for me to waste my time. If, for example, a particular book were to offer to teach me something about the history of a particular culture or era... and yet the work struck me as dull and poorly written, I doubt I would continue to read it. By the same token I have little use for most television (I probably watch less than 3 or 4 hours a month) because the programs simply don't engage me.
To me reading is like spending time in dialog with brilliant minds from every conceivable time and place. We might not always agree... but the conversation is never dull. If it is... certainly I can find another to spend my time with.

As for my own reading...? The "classics" form a large part of what I read... but among these there are minor classics and esoteric and little-known works. These may take the form of novels, stories, romances, poetry, histories, philosophical discussion, theological dialog, art history, travelogues, biographies and autobiographies, essays, etc... I also have a large number of books that were written within the last 50 years or so and that we cannot rightly attach the name "classic" at this point. These again include nearly every conceivable genre including science fiction, mysteries, horror, etc...

[ktm5124]

I think it all boils down to what you think of as a "classic". I think of the classics as the books that help us laugh and learn and cry the most.

By this definition, a classic is necessarily pleasurable, and if you don't experience this on the first read it is worth asking yourself why you didn't. The angel in your head called Humility might tell you that you missed something, and if you listen to others you might pick up on it next time and enjoy the book more thoroughly.

We're all human; the humor of Ulysses might not be transparent on the first read; the Iliad may not be fascinating on the first or second read; but in learning more about these books through education and maturing, one can find the lambent pleasure in a classic, the core of which was previously opaque.

But to say that classics, in the abstract, cannot be as likable or pleasurable as contemporary literature is incredibly presumptuous. You assume your own infallibility in that you are not missing something from the classics you dislike; and you assume the superiority (and perhaps omniscience) of your own literary context, as you presume that 21st century English literature has nothing to learn or enjoy from the past that cannot be spoken by the present.

Personally, I am happy to say that there are classics that I am still learning to enjoy, or learning to better enjoy. It means I get to learn very much in doing so, and be rewarded at the end!

[Paulclem]

I can think of books that are classics that I don't like - Austin and Eliot - their subject matter bores me, but I realise the traits that make the books classic.