Why most of the Classic books often seem boring???

[krishna_lit]

“Classic' - a book which people praise and don't read.” ― Mark Twain

This looks very right for many people. Many classics in the history are seen as boring works to read for this generation? I read on this forum that Moby Dick was a very boring book, but some days ago Google even celebrated 101th Anniversary of that book making a Google Doodle on its homepage, why would it do so if it is just a boring classic book? And like this many other books - War and Peace, Crime and Punishment and many of Charles Dickens books and many many more are marked as a tedious read. Why is that??

[Charles Darnay]

Crime and Punishment? I can understand the others on your list, but the person who thinks that Crime and Punishment is boring....well I don't know.

The reason tends to come from reputability. Taking your list as an example, we are dealing with books over 100 years old - and some people find it hard to immerse themselves in the ideologies or socio-political world that is at least somewhat foreign to them. Not to mention that our changing language - which some may praise as progress - is that of inefficiency and quick snaps: making the extreme wordiness of Charles Dickens confusing and thus boring.

Instant gratification has permeated our very selves due to the world we live in (I am speaking generally here) - and books were never intended for instant gratification.

[stlukesguild]

When a book that has attained the status of "classic"... which assumes more than a few readers have found the book important... and well written... is derided as "boring" it says more about the "critic" than it does about the book itself. As CD suggested, there are reasons that a larger contemporary audience may struggle with older works of literature: their distance from the subject matter and the thinking conveyed, the archaic nature of the vocabulary and formal structure of the language, the apparent "slowness" of reading a sprawling novel or epic in an era of instant gratification, the internet, Facebook, Twitter, etc...

My thinking is that:

1. I don't read to reinforce my own experiences, thoughts, feelings, ideas, biases, etc... Rather reading allows me to enter into the thoughts of other individuals... to engage in a dialog or intercourse with the dead/ghosts, as Kafka put it... other individual with different experiences, living in different cultures, etc...

2. The "goal" of reading isn't getting to the point or grasping the "meaning"... rather the goal of reading is to take pleasure in the experience itself. In this it is rather like life itself. I have no problem with meandering digressions and sprawling descriptions as long as they are well-written.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Classics are boring to many partly because they weren't written for us, but an audience that had longer attention spans. People who read the "classics" weren't being bombarded by TV and music and the Internet and all the little technological toys we have now; they lived a "simpler" life, and did not grow up needing or craving constant stimulation. That's why slower paced books were the norm--why long metaphor-filled descriptions of setting and character were relished. Plus, people needed to kill time with something, so a long book with copious descriptions and diversions wasn't a bad thing.

And this is not to say that we can't enjoy these books now just as they were enjoyed then. The difference is that most of us, if we are raised in any other manner than a cloistered, secluded way, have to learn to read these books in a different mode: learn to read the and appreciate the length . . . the "boringness." It takes some practice, but when you do, you'll find the genius in all those old, stuffy books.

[Jackson Richardson]

I expect most people find "classics" boring because they had to do them at school.

[cacian]

They are boring because they were written in a different era. We have moved on and the books have not.
I have yet to read a book that transends all eras.
We think speak and read differently. Thanks to the media one can read a paper like the sun with no grammar at all and then find themselves fed classic stories. I could not make head or tail of them either mysefl. I hated university choices of literay books. I thought they were dire.
I still do.

[Paulclem]

I do not agree that classic equals boring - though I can think of classics I found boring whilst appreciating their ckassicness. It is no guarantee that an individual will like a particular book. As time moves on, so does the language and focus of the readers. Literary books have modern techniques whereby the author and reader are engaged in a collaboration of tecnique. The long descriptions are less common because of the relative informedness of the readership which the author can rely upon. They are also more au fait with modernist techniques and the various crafting skills of authors. It is also true that classics need more effort precisely because of the reasons cited abovve.

[cacian]

I do not agree that classic equals boring - though I can think of classics I found boring whilst appreciating their ckassicness. It is no guarantee that an individual will like a particular book. As time moves on, so does the language and focus of the readers. Literary books have modern techniques whereby the author and reader are engaged in a collaboration of tecnique. The long descriptions are less common because of the relative informedness of the readership which the author can rely upon. They are also more au fait with modernist techniques and the various crafting skills of authors. It is also true that classics need more effort precisely because of the reasons cited abovve.

Hi Paul how do you mean 'more au fait'?
Most classics are written in a different style of language that is not recognisable today amongst the youth especially.
I think classics will eventually die out because of the language barrier and the setting in their stories are written.
When I read a book like Jane Eyre for example I feel a total detachment from it because of the language the characters the story plot and the settings.
There is nothing there for me to identify with. The question is would the youth todaycare at all whether it is a classic or not?
By the look of it I do not think they will and I truly understand why.
The aim of a book is to make one feel part of it continously which would give one a reason to want to read it.
Classics are an identity crisis because they lack that modern touch.
Any book that does not fit in within the next 100 years will get lost in translation. That is my prediction on classics.

[krishna_lit]

Hi Paul how do you more au fait?
Most classics are written in a different style of language that is not recognisable today amongst the youth.
I think classics will eventually die out because of the language barrier and the setting in which stories are written.
When I read a book like Jane Eyre for example I feel a detachment from it because of the language the characters the story plot and the settings.
There is nothing there for me to identify with. The issue with the youth today would they care at all whether it is a classic or not?
By the look of it I do not think they will and I truly understand why.
The aim of a book is to make feel part of it continously which would give me a reason to want to read it.
Classics are an identity crisis because they lack that modern touch.
Any book that does not fit in within the next 100 years will get lost in translation. That is my prediction on classics.


Hi Cacian, You sound right... It must be difficult for the reader to identify himself with the characters in the classic books anymore and that is enough to lose the nerve of reading a book because reading something interesting is all about wanting to be a part of it and when that doesn't happen there is no point in it... We do need all new classics for this generation or for all the generations yet to come...

[Jackson Richardson]

The most boring book I've read recently was by Clive Cussler, a contemporary.

This bundling together everyone pre-contemporary as "classic" is silly, as though Homer, Dante, Jane Austen, Shakespeare, Mark Twain and James Joyce are the same sort of thing. If that's what you think, then you haven't read them with any imagination. You probably find most of life pretty boring as well if you haven't that basic level of discrimination.

[kiki1982]

I think we are confusing two things here:

There are books, as Moby Dick, which has been mentioned, containing passages that not necessarily appeal to the average reader. Hugo is one of those too. Does it mean that the whole of that novel is boring? Erm, no. It can still be a mightily good novel with a slightly superfluous bit in it. That's why it is still read. I suppose War and Peace also contains such passages.

Then there are books which do not appeal to us because we just don't like them. Stream of consciousness is such a notorious genre not liked by anyone. That's fine. It is not necessarily boring. Just say you don't like it. For me personally it depends how extreme it is. Mrs Dalloway was not really my cup of tea, although the witing itself was excellent.

I don't see why you should be able to 'indentify' with characters, settings, language, etc. A novel doesn't improve by the degree you can identify with a character. If that were the case, we would better not read anything from another culture. We couldn't identify. The key to reading something strange (be it in culture or timeframe) is largely in the human aspect of things. Shakespeare's characters 'lived' 400-500 years ago, but they are so very human. What English they speak or what houses they lived in is not really of any importance.
The Classic, in other languages which are more influenced by change than English, is still there. It's not yet on its way out because of its language alone. Maybe beecause of people's concentration spans.

[cacian]

The most boring book I've read recently was by Clive Cussler, a contemporary.

This bundling together everyone pre-contemporary as "classic" is silly, as though Homer, Dante, Jane Austen, Shakespeare, Mark Twain and James Joyce are the same sort of thing. If that's what you think, then you haven't read them with any imagination. You probably find most of life pretty boring as well if you haven't that basic level of discrimination.

True imagination is clue but one must remember we do not all read and have the same imagination.
My imagination swithes off with Dante. This is a not a voluntary choice it is how I feel it makes me.
My imagination finds other things more interesting that you would not find interesting yourself.
It is how the world works.
To stereotype readers into on type is an error and to expect a writer to execute for all is even more of an error.

[Volya]

I think it is partly due to the difference in language between now and the past (even if they are written in the same language). For example in class we had to study Jekyll and Hyde. 80% of the class didn't bother reading it because apparently it was too boring, and they claimed they 'couldn't understand' what it was about. Instead, they just read a sparknotes summary (and the fact that most of them still manage to get A's just tells you something about the education system :mad2: )

[mal4mac]

“Classic' - a book which people praise and don't read.” ― Mark Twain

This looks very right for many people.

It doesn't look right to me, at least today. Who do you know who goes around praising books they don't read? It might have been true for certain parts of 19th century America, where charlatan teachers were rampant, needed the money, and got away with singing the praises of books they hadn't read so that ignorant townsfolk would hire them. That's the kind of academic cheat that Twain is probably attacking... along with any townsfolk who may try to social climb without putting in the reading hours.


Many classics in the history are seen as boring works to read for this generation? I read on this forum that Moby Dick was a very boring book, but some days ago Google even celebrated 101th Anniversary of that book making a Google Doodle on its homepage, why would it do so if it is just a boring classic book? And like this many other books - War and Peace, Crime and Punishment and many of Charles Dickens books and many many more are marked as a tedious read. Why is that??

You will find every kind of view on this forum! Personally I have read all the books you mention, including most of Charles Dickens major novels, and I found them all excellent reads, the best evening's entertainment one could ever have... apart maybe for C&P which I found very dark and very long winded... still worthwhile though...

[mal4mac]

There are books, as Moby Dick, which has been mentioned, containing passages that not necessarily appeal to the average reader.

Like what? I heard this criticism before I read the book and steeled myself for the "detailed whaling sections" and "complex Biblical allusions". But I needn't have worried. I'm an average reader, but I had no problem with the book at all! (The Wordsworth version had some good notes to get me over any slightly rough patches... but I hardly used them...)

[kelby_lake]

When I read a book like Jane Eyre for example I feel a total detachment from it because of the language the characters the story plot and the settings.
There is nothing there for me to identify with. The question is would the youth todaycare at all whether it is a classic or not?
By the look of it I do not think they will and I truly understand why.


Jane Eyre is actually one of the more popular classics, particularly amongst the youth today. Film adaptations will help turn younger people back to classics which may initially seem daunting. There will always be people who read and whilst there are, the classics will live on.

Every novel requires you to suspend disbelief and enter a world not like your own. For example, we don't live in a world of witches and wizards but when we read Harry Potter, we accept this world. As for there being nothing to identify with, that's nonsense. Jane Eyre is (simplistically) about a neglected plain girl who struggles virtuously through many hard times and is ultimately rewarded by love. We still have plain girls, neglect, struggle and love in this modern world.

[kelby_lake]

I think it is partly due to the difference in language between now and the past (even if they are written in the same language). For example in class we had to study Jekyll and Hyde. 80% of the class didn't bother reading it because apparently it was too boring, and they claimed they 'couldn't understand' what it was about. Instead, they just read a sparknotes summary (and the fact that most of them still manage to get A's just tells you something about the education system :mad2: )

Jekyll and Hyde is an easy read. There are some lazy students out there.

[Lokasenna]

Jekyll and Hyde is an easy read. There are some lazy students out there.

It's also ridiculously short. I fear anyone who couldn't be bothered to finish reading it might actually qualify as clinically dead.

Whilst it is true that a lot of people these days prefer 'easy' reads - of the airport-lounge-paperback variety - whenever I go into a bookshop there is nevertheless always a prominent and sizeable display of the Classics. Sure, it may be dwarfed by the True Crime, Romance, Sci-Fi and Young Adult sections, but they must at least do a reasonable trade in them or they wouldn't bother displaying them at all.

[cacian]

“Classic' - a book which people praise and don't read.” ― Mark Twain
I am not sure I understand what this quote is actually implying.
For me a classic is a book that many hear and know about but do not all like.

[kelby_lake]

It's also ridiculously short. I fear anyone who couldn't be bothered to finish reading it might actually qualify as clinically dead.

Whilst it is true that a lot of people these days prefer 'easy' reads - of the airport-lounge-paperback variety - whenever I go into a bookshop there is nevertheless always a prominent and sizeable display of the Classics. Sure, it may be dwarfed by the True Crime, Romance, Sci-Fi and Young Adult sections, but they must at least do a reasonable trade in them or they wouldn't bother displaying them at all.

I think more people read them than we think. In today's society, people don't have time to read bad books. The classics "guarantee" a good read. When we pick one up, we know that it will be well-written and clearly there must be something good in it otherwise it wouldn't have survived. BBC costume dramas have boosted readership as well.

[kelby_lake]

I am not sure I understand what this quote is actually implying.
For me a classic is a book that many hear and know about but do not all like.

That's basically a paraphrase of the quote. Twain is saying (whether in jest or not) that many people are aware of the "worth" of classics without having read them and without any intention of doing so.

[cacian]

Jane Eyre is actually one of the more popular classics, particularly amongst the youth today. Film adaptations will help turn younger people back to classics which may initially seem daunting. There will always be people who read and whilst there are, the classics will live on.

Every novel requires you to suspend disbelief and enter a world not like your own. For example, we don't live in a world of witches and wizards but when we read Harry Potter, we accept this world. As for there being nothing to identify with, that's nonsense. Jane Eyre is (simplistically) about a neglected plain girl who struggles virtuously through many hard times and is ultimately rewarded by love. We still have plain girls, neglect, struggle and love in this modern world.
Hi Kelby allow me to voice my views, with all due respect to you, in the way I know for hope is not hope
if it is not for daylight and sunshine. :p
I think the reason Jane Eyre is popular is because of TV media in other words. Turning a book into a film is what makes it popular usually.
The same with HP. If it was not for the media frenzy about it it would have gone both ways.
I think there is a book for everyone and not everyone is a book of the same.
Funny you talk about Jane Eyre as some king Pretty woman type of idea.
That life is hardship and the reward is love and money.
We all know that is not true.
Love and money is not the answer to happiness.
I find Jane as a character rather sipid and restricted. I find nothing interesting nor vivifyin about a restriction and even more less about neglect that does not tell me anything about me.
We have all suffered neglect and hardship of some sorts but we do not meet love personified as a reward. We are all capable of loving but wethere we are capable of living and it is another subject all together.
Life is no a weakness but rather an incentive for us to make something out of it. 'Life is too short' I am not sure I agree. Life is bigger then one could ever imagine only people are small in their way of thinking in achieving a meaning from life. I think are people a weakness to themselves. Life is are hardship together just does not ryhme.
And so Jane Eyre for me is weakness of an idea, an esconded one, that does not ring a life a reality to me.

[cacian]

I think we are confusing two things here:

There are books, as Moby Dick, which has been mentioned, containing passages that not necessarily appeal to the average reader. Hugo is one of those too. Does it mean that the whole of that novel is boring? Erm, no. It can still be a mightily good novel with a slightly superfluous bit in it. That's why it is still read. I suppose War and Peace also contains such passages.

Then there are books which do not appeal to us because we just don't like them. Stream of consciousness is such a notorious genre not liked by anyone. That's fine. It is not necessarily boring. Just say you don't like it. For me personally it depends how extreme it is. Mrs Dalloway was not really my cup of tea, although the witing itself was excellent.

I don't see why you should be able to 'indentify' with characters, settings, language, etc. A novel doesn't improve by the degree you can identify with a character. If that were the case, we would better not read anything from another culture. We couldn't identify. The key to reading something strange (be it in culture or timeframe) is largely in the human aspect of things. Shakespeare's characters 'lived' 400-500 years ago, but they are so very human. What English they speak or what houses they lived in is not really of any importance.
The Classic, in other languages which are more influenced by change than English, is still there. It's not yet on its way out because of its language alone. Maybe beecause of people's concentration spans.

Hi kiki you do bring some good points here.
I think it is not down to the majority to decide for the minority. Taste is a very tricky thing. We cannot all like the same and so just because a book has a stamp of classic on it does not mean I am a classic ready for it.
Reading is diverse and bigger then a book.
It is one thing to write a book and another to get it liked by all.
Imagination is such that ourselves are governed with our own senses perceptions and ideologies of what a book should be like.
I cannot possibly think what your taste in reading is like because I am not you and so it is more less so when I come to writing a book I am simply thinking for myself.
In other words a book is just that a story that you and I will see differently. It is a fact and it is not a bad thing either.
The other thing is this
What is an average reader?
Because if there is such a thing then there is an average book and an average writer. Is this a fair judgment to placate on someone who just finished his first book?

[hillwalker]

They are boring because they were written in a different era. We have moved on and the books have not.
I have yet to read a book that transends all eras.

Presumably they were 'boring' because you could not cope with the language and expressions used by the writer who was catering for a particular audience at the time. Hardly a meaningful statement on the quality of literature - if it's hard to read or describes how life was in the past it must be boring.

As for the observation that books have not moved on! What on earth are you reading? If you studied literature in university but hated the classics you were forced to read one wonders why you chose to select a subject about which you have no inkling or apparent interest. I agree that one often takes an instant dislike to any book you are forced to study in school. That's because you are not encouraged to read it in a normal fashion. Instead you are forced to analyse and interpret almost every paragraph. It's a post mortem rather than a reading. But studying literature should make you keen to explore what else has been written in that era, or by the same author, or the same genre.

Dismissing the wealth of classic writing from Chaucer to the likes of Evelyn Waugh or Sebatian Faulks as boring because it's not about contemporary life is extremely short-sighted. The most boring book I ever read was 'The Da Vinci Code' simply because the writing was pedestrian and the plot insane.

Books that transcend 'all eras'. Well, that's an impossibility. But novels like 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Birdsong' will presumably be seen as classics for many years to come. Neither describe contemporary 21st century life (which by your definition would make them boring) but both cover human issues and emotions that never change.

H

[Paulclem]

Like what? I heard this criticism before I read the book and steeled myself for the "detailed whaling sections" and "complex Biblical allusions". But I needn't have worried. I'm an average reader, but I had no problem with the book at all! (The Wordsworth version had some good notes to get me over any slightly rough patches... but I hardly used them...)

Agreed. I recently read A Don Delillo - White Noise - before plunging into Underworld. One criticism of Underworld that I read was the 50 page description of a baseball game that put someone off. Having read White Noise, I know that his description of a baseball game, for which I have no interest or particular understanding, will not be a demerit. His writing is deep enough for him to explore themes in different contexts, and it's the same with all classics such as Moby Dick.

While it's true that I don't find all classics either interesting or stimulating - Jane Austen for instance - I understand that it has classic status. They require a bit of work to access them; for example with War and Peace I read up on the conflict. (I was more interested in the war aspect). It paid off, and I really enjoyed it, as I had enjoyed Anna Karenna.

I've also seen a good classics sections in our town bookshops. They are classics because they sell well, and have something which can be appeciate across the generations.

[Paulclem]

Hi Paul how do you mean 'more au fait'?
Most classics are written in a different style of language that is not recognisable today amongst the youth especially.
I think classics will eventually die out because of the language barrier and the setting in their stories are written.
When I read a book like Jane Eyre for example I feel a total detachment from it because of the language the characters the story plot and the settings.
There is nothing there for me to identify with. The question is would the youth todaycare at all whether it is a classic or not?
By the look of it I do not think they will and I truly understand why.
The aim of a book is to make one feel part of it continously which would give one a reason to want to read it.
Classics are an identity crisis because they lack that modern touch.
Any book that does not fit in within the next 100 years will get lost in translation. That is my prediction on classics.

I mean familiar with. I know you're a French speaker. Is this a misuse of the term?

Your argument seems to be based upon the difficulty of the text, but we a reading classics that are over 1000 years old. Also, have you read any modernist texts? The use of multiple narrators, unusual narrative viewpoints and layering of image and metaphor make today's books technically challenging, if not challenging because of the language. As I said, some books require some effort, but the best of them are worth it.

[Charles Darnay]

I don't see why you should be able to 'indentify' with characters, settings, language, etc. A novel doesn't improve by the degree you can identify with a character. If that were the case, we would better not read anything from another culture. We couldn't identify. The key to reading something strange (be it in culture or timeframe) is largely in the human aspect of things. Shakespeare's characters 'lived' 400-500 years ago, but they are so very human. What English they speak or what houses they lived in is not really of any importance.
The Classic, in other languages which are more influenced by change than English, is still there. It's not yet on its way out because of its language alone. Maybe beecause of people's concentration spans.

There does have to be some personal connection - or a willingness for connection - or else you will shut yourself off. Shakespeare is a perfect example. I may have no idea what 11th century Denmark looked like (neither did Shakespeare) but I know what it is to be trapped by indecision. Shakespeare (and many "classics"') universal themes are what forge the connection.

Or sometimes it is just a willingness for it. I admit, I'm not searching for my Darcy (where'd that guy go, anyway?) but the character of Elizabeth Bennet is enjoyable enough that I can step into her world. Many (most not appreciating the satire) dismiss the drawing-room literature because there is nothing real about it to them, and thus it is boring.



I think the reason Jane Eyre is popular is because of TV media in other words. Turning a book into a film is what makes it popular usually.
The same with HP. If it was not for the media frenzy about it it would have gone both ways.

Jane Eyre was and continues to be popular despite a not-so-great movie, not because of it. It is one of those that has enough action and intrigue to not turn off the readers of instant gratification. As well, Brontë's language is fairly simple, and she is relatively sparse (for her time).

Movies can sometimes revive a book's popularity (Lord of the Rings) or prolong it (Harry Potter), but there are only rare cases where movies/tv create popularity for a book - the only large example I can think of is Song of Ice and Fire. Typically with "classics" being made into movies, what happens is that people seem to forget that the movies, being remade over and over, were once books.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Moby Dick's reputation as being such a hard book is undeserved. It gets slow, and there are diversions, but, on the whole, it's quite readable. It's become a parodic legend of itself--Moby Dick is the "white whale" for readers.

[namenlose]

Moby Dick's reputation as being such a hard book is undeserved. It gets slow, and there are diversions, but, on the whole, it's quite readable. It's become a parodic legend of itself--Moby Dick is the "white whale" for readers.

I agree. It is not only readable, but also has many elements one would expect to resonate with the general public. It has an epic scope, poetic and philosophical digressions, an impossible journey and a charismatic and megalomaniacal anti-hero.

It's comprehensible why authors such as James or Proust would be deemed difficult. The Portrait of a Lady is a masterpiece, but it is developed in a slow and introspective way, demanding from the reader a different approach towards the way novels are read. It is not driven by the action, but by the conscience of the characters, their interaction and the way they are restricted by their social reality. In Search of Lost Time do the same to some extent, though in a very different way, so reading it may be a challenging experience.

Moby Dick, on the other hand, in spite of the unusual way it experiments with different genres and techniques, is still very focused in the central hunt for the white whale and its implications, which makes it much easier for any reader to understand its structure and enjoy the novel as a whole.

[cacian]

I mean familiar with. I know you're a French speaker. Is this a misuse of the term?

Your argument seems to be based upon the difficulty of the text, but we a reading classics that are over 1000 years old. Also, have you read any modernist texts? The use of multiple narrators, unusual narrative viewpoints and layering of image and metaphor make today's books technically challenging, if not challenging because of the language. As I said, some books require some effort, but the best of them are worth it.

No it is not a misuse but I think I expected something else after 'fait' like 'directe' or something.
I see books as antiques the more the grow old the more valuable they become.
Classics don't do that for me. The older they get and the more out of touch they become.
A good antique fits in with other similar valuable and they do make cheap stuff stand out. That is my idea of a book.
Most classic feel dated to me because of plots and characters. There is nothing real about them.
If you read a book because of its language and the way it is written then that is something else.
I read a book for its ingenuity which is often hidden not so obvious and the more you read it the more you discover and so becomes a valuable asset to have.
It becomes like a reference book something I would quote in my everyday speech thoughts not just in writing.
A book like Jane Eyre lacks humour. It is very sordid at times wanting almost crying for help. I wish not to cry I justwant to read.
Humour for me is a plus and where it is lacking it is slacking.

[WyattGwyon]

“Classic' - a book which people praise and don't read.” ― Mark Twain

This looks very right for many people. Many classics in the history are seen as boring works to read for this generation? I read on this forum that Moby Dick was a very boring book, but some days ago Google even celebrated 101th Anniversary of that book making a Google Doodle on its homepage, why would it do so if it is just a boring classic book? And like this many other books - War and Peace, Crime and Punishment and many of Charles Dickens books and many many more are marked as a tedious read. Why is that??

Great works of literature have been boring to a large segment of the population in any generation—when the books are new and when they are old. It will always be so. The problem is the readers, not the books. One demographic is pretentious people who want to see themselves as cultured and well read but who don't actually have a strong affinity for literature. In an effort to excuse themselves for their lack of appreciation of great art, they seek some rational explanation for their boredom—any explanation except the obvious one.

[Paulclem]

No it is not a misuse but I think I expected something else after 'fait' like 'directe' or something.
I see books as antiques the more the grow old the more valuable they become.
Classics don't do that for me. The older they get and the more out of touch they become.
A good antique fits in with other similar valuable and they do make cheap stuff stand out. That is my idea of a book.
Most classic feel dated to me because of plots and characters. There is nothing real about them.
If you read a book because of its language and the way it is written then that is something else.
I read a book for its ingenuity which is often hidden not so obvious and the more you read it the more you discover and so becomes a valuable asset to have.
It becomes like a reference book something I would quote in my everyday speech thoughts not just in writing.
A book like Jane Eyre lacks humour. It is very sordid at times wanting almost crying for help. I wish not to cry I justwant to read.
Humour for me is a plus and where it is lacking it is slacking.

They are dated in the sense that they arre iften historically remote, but that is one of the reasons for reading them. They offer historical insight into events - War and Peace - manners and society - Emma - social inequality and change - Dickens - and systems - House of the Dead, amongst other things. They also concern common human experience masked in the idiom of the time. You may not enjoy some of them like me, but others are interesting.

[stlukesguild]

Most classics are written in a different style of language that is not recognisable today amongst the youth especially.
I think classics will eventually die out because of the language barrier and the setting in their stories are written.

Yep... we've all seen how the Bible and Homer have just disappeared. OK... let's show a bit of literary snobbishness. The reality is that some art demands a degree of effort from the audience. Some will rise to this occasion because they expect more from their reading than mindless entertainment, a lack of any ambiguity, simplistic language, and endless cliche. Others won't. Ultimately not all art is for everybody. I have find myself wondering, in consideration of your apparent aversion to classic literature, whether you have not stumbled into the wrong forum.

When I read a book like Jane Eyre for example I feel a total detachment from it because of the language the characters the story plot and the settings. There is nothing there for me to identify with.

It would seem to me that this speaks more to a failing on your part than it does of a failing on the part of the author. You assume that its all about you. You need characters and settings that you can identify with. You are looking to books to reinforce your own experiences, ideas, feelings, thoughts, etc... Is it not possible that one of the greatest values of literature is that it allows you to step outside of yourself and your life? As Anna Quindlen suggested, "Books are a means to immortality. Through them we experience other times, other places, other lives. We manage to become more than our own selves. The only dead are those who grow sere and shriveled within, unable to step outside their own lives and into those of others."

The question is would the youth today care at all whether it is a classic or not?

No... the question is why you imagine that today's youth are the measure of artistic merit?

By the look of it I do not think they will and I truly understand why.
The aim of a book is to make one feel part of it continously which would give one a reason to want to read it.

I am glad that you have taken it upon yourself to define what the "aim" of books is. We can't be expected to leave something that important up to the writers, now can we?

Classics are an identity crisis because they lack that modern touch.

How does that work? How is it that Homer and Dante were able to speak to generations of readers who lived well after them... and now you suggest that this is no longer true? Again... are you speaking for all these readers... for society as a whole... or only for yourself?

Any book that does not fit in within the next 100 years will get lost in translation. That is my prediction on classics.

I'm going to predict that we can't pretty safely ignore your prediction.

[JCamilo]

Moby Dick is not such easy read. It is dense, many pages, several characters, changes of point of view, Melville continual provocations, changes of style - it is slow on purpose. Plus the character that could have all pages for himself is hidden most of the times (Ahab). Eventually, you will come to the conclusion that books, not only classics, are boring.

[stlukesguild]

It's also ridiculously short. I fear anyone who couldn't be bothered to finish reading it might actually qualify as clinically dead.

Whilst it is true that a lot of people these days prefer 'easy' reads - of the airport-lounge-paperback variety - whenever I go into a bookshop there is nevertheless always a prominent and sizeable display of the Classics. Sure, it may be dwarfed by the True Crime, Romance, Sci-Fi and Young Adult sections, but they must at least do a reasonable trade in them or they wouldn't bother displaying them at all.

We should also recognize that the audience for "classic literature" has always been quite limited in scale. I suspect, however, that in sheer numbers, this audience has never been larger than it is today due to a near universal literacy, and an ease of access to books in general. There are more readers with a greater access to reading materials than ever. On the other hand... the percentage of passionate readers... let alone passionate readers of classics is probably not much larger or smaller in terms of the percentages of the reading public as a whole than it ever was.

[OrphanPip]

I've been convinced by Cacian to only read what I can directly identify with. If only I could find books by twenty-something white, male, homosexual, Canadians (preferably from East of Ontario).

[PeterL]

I didn't read all of the thread, but I do agree with some of the points that have been made. The language has changes, and the culture has changed, so things that were exciting to read a couple hundred years ago may not be as exciting now. But there was great writing in the past, so some things are interesting still. There are categories within "classic literati=ure" just as theree are in contemporary literature, and not everyone finds all subgenres equally interesting. I don't like romances of today or ones that were written twwo hundred years ago. I do like humorous literature, if it is well written, and that is true of things written by Tom Holt and Jonathan Swift and Twain and others.

Another thing that people often forget about literature written in the past is that it was written for the literate not for the masses. While 90% of the population is literate, only about 25% (or less) read for pleasure. Twon hundred years ago the literacy rate was maybe 35%, and many of those only read as part of work, so the target audience was about 10% of the population.

And I don't think that the romances of back then were popular with men, so it doesn't bother me that I didn't like Jane Eyre.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Moby Dick is not such easy read. It is dense, many pages, several characters, changes of point of view, Melville continual provocations, changes of style - it is slow on purpose. Plus the character that could have all pages for himself is hidden most of the times (Ahab). Eventually, you will come to the conclusion that books, not only classics, are boring.
I never said it wasn't hard--I said its reputation as being one of the most difficult books ever written is undeserved. It's difficult, yes, but not to the point where one can't even understand what's going on in the story, unlike something like Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow, truly difficult texts. Just because a book is slowly paced and long doesn't mean it's boring.

I've been convinced by Cacian to only read what I can directly identify with. If only I could find books by twenty-something white, male, homosexual, Canadians (preferably from East of Ontario).
Same here. Let me know if you find any books revolving around white, straight guys in their mid-20s that live in the Midwest USA who also have a rare genetic skin condition. That last part is the key.

[kiki1982]

I'll just make some geenral points, because I'm not going to scroll all the way back to do all the multiquoting...

By 'the average reader' I meant of course those who typically go to WH Smith's and consult the bestsellers shelves. Not the one who will read happily throug a digressions about whales, Waterloo or the battle of Borodino. Still, these things remain interesting, although I must admit, it'll be at least ten years before I consider reading the digression about Waterloo by Hugo again. The other two I have yet to attempt.

It depends what people mean by 'identifying with a character'. If it means complete understanding, as Pip has just suggested, then we might as well forget anything that's older than 20 years, because the world has changed big time since then. If you are talking on a mere human level, that's nearly always possible. Still the fact remains, that I can't really identify with Jean Valjean because I haven't been in prison and I don't get pursued by a mad policeman. I can't really identify with Lizzie Bennet because my main aim in life is not to find a husband and I have slightly more means to make my life than that one thing. On a human level I can identify with Jane Eyre, but on a real level not. I am not plain, obscure and little, nor am I completely alone in the world. The only thing I can do with these characters is not identify, but sympathise and try to amploy my human empathy to try and understand, although tat probably falls sadly short (in comparison with a reader who has had similar experiences).

The problem with the instant gratification approach is the fact that it cuts out any appreciation of something alien, because you cannot understand straight away.

That approach is a problem.

I have to agree with Lokasenna about Jekyll and Hyde. I really cannot understand that. I can imagine people can find it weird (cerainly if it is the very first thing you read), but claiming they can't understand. Indeed, the word is clinically dead.

[Michael Bello]

I can see why you consider some classics "boring". Some novels aren't for everyone. Many classics are quite verbose, and thus often difficult to follow. The vocabulary was drastically different, and translations of older works, like say Don Quioxte, have always been difficult to read because of the excessive wordiness. I personally enjoyed Don Quioxte because the idea appealed to me; though I'd heard the book was laugh-out-loud funny, and I didn't find it so. Mainly because my idea of humor is very different than Senor De Cervantes all the way back in the 1600's.

I also think that some of the themes and ideas of the classics have assimilated their way into our culture, so we may not find them particularly special nowadays. For example, I'm reading a lot of Beat Generation literature, and I love it because it's right up my alley, but it is nothing revolutionary for me personally. I realize that it WAS revolutionary in the 50's though, and that what makes them special. But me having the knowledge that the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and even the 00's played out the way they did after the 50's, does slightly ruin the experience because I know that people brought many Beat ideas along with them as time passed.

[mal4mac]

I found Don Quixote laugh-out-loud funny. I'm not from 17th century Spain either, but what difference does that make? Does humour have a sell by date? People differ in what they find funny, but you can't dismiss Don Quixote as "unfunny for people today" just because you don't find it funny.The beats are interesting, but (for me) seriously lacking in humour.

[mal4mac]

I'll just make some geenral points, because I'm not going to scroll all the way back to do all the multiquoting...

By 'the average reader' I meant of course those who typically go to WH Smith's and consult the bestsellers shelves. Not the one who will read happily throug a digressions about whales...


Have you seen the viewing figures for nature programmes in the UK, where lengthy digressions about whales are commonplace? I'm sure many of those viewers head off to Smith's to peruse the "thriller" shelves... and take a good look at David Attenborough's "Guide to Whales", or whatever, at the same time. Wouldn't such viewers count as average readers? Many an average male reader would find Melville enthralling, ... maybe the Biblical allusions would get a bit heavy now and again... but a few notes soon sort that out...

Can the concept of the "average reader" be used today? There are so many variations in education and interests across the general population that specifying an average reader is very difficult.

[Alexander III]

I also think that some of the themes and ideas of the classics have assimilated their way into our culture, so we may not find them particularly special nowadays. For example, I'm reading a lot of Beat Generation literature, and I love it because it's right up my alley, but it is nothing revolutionary for me personally. I realize that it WAS revolutionary in the 50's though, and that what makes them special. But me having the knowledge that the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and even the 00's played out the way they did after the 50's, does slightly ruin the experience because I know that people brought many Beat ideas along with them as time passed.

The Beats were neither new nor revolutionary in the 50's. They merely attempted to import the mostly french literary revolution which occurred in the late 1800's.

[ChicagoReader]

I agree. It is not only readable, but also has many elements one would expect to resonate with the general public. It has an epic scope, poetic and philosophical digressions, an impossible journey and a charismatic and megalomaniacal anti-hero.

It's comprehensible why authors such as James or Proust would be deemed difficult. The Portrait of a Lady is a masterpiece, but it is developed in a slow and introspective way, demanding from the reader a different approach towards the way novels are read. It is not driven by the action, but by the conscience of the characters, their interaction and the way they are restricted by their social reality. In Search of Lost Time do the same to some extent, though in a very different way, so reading it may be a challenging experience.

Moby Dick, on the other hand, in spite of the unusual way it experiments with different genres and techniques, is still very focused in the central hunt for the white whale and its implications, which makes it much easier for any reader to understand its structure and enjoy the novel as a whole.

I'm not sure I agree that it is "very focused." The chase of Moby-Dick is only the last fifty pages or so, probably less, I don't have the text on me to check. So if a reader picks up the book because they are interested in the hunt for a whale, well, they'll probably be disappointed to find that the majority of the book is absent of the chase. Yes, they are out on the ship and lowering for whales throughout the narrative, but it often is not the main focus. The reason the book is so great is its scope. It deals with the nature of humanity and our motives and beliefs, though I now see in your quote "its implications" which could mean many things, so perhaps we agree!

[cacian]

I'll just make some geenral points, because I'm not going to scroll all the way back to do all the multiquoting...

By 'the average reader' I meant of course those who typically go to WH Smith's and consult the bestsellers shelves. Not the one who will read happily throug a digressions about whales, Waterloo or the battle of Borodino. Still, these things remain interesting, although I must admit, it'll be at least ten years before I consider reading the digression about Waterloo by Hugo again. The other two I have yet to attempt.

It depends what people mean by 'identifying with a character'. If it means complete understanding, as Pip has just suggested, then we might as well forget anything that's older than 20 years, because the world has changed big time since then. If you are talking on a mere human level, that's nearly always possible. Still the fact remains, that I can't really identify with Jean Valjean because I haven't been in prison and I don't get pursued by a mad policeman. I can't really identify with Lizzie Bennet because my main aim in life is not to find a husband and I have slightly more means to make my life than that one thing. On a human level I can identify with Jane Eyre, but on a real level not. I am not plain, obscure and little, nor am I completely alone in the world. The only thing I can do with these characters is not identify, but sympathise and try to amploy my human empathy to try and understand, although tat probably falls sadly short (in comparison with a reader who has had similar experiences).

The problem with the instant gratification approach is the fact that it cuts out any appreciation of something alien, because you cannot understand straight away.

That approach is a problem.

I have to agree with Lokasenna about Jekyll and Hyde. I really cannot understand that. I can imagine people can find it weird (cerainly if it is the very first thing you read), but claiming they can't understand. Indeed, the word is clinically dead.

Yes you are very right and it all depends again on what you want from a book.
I guess if you are looking for a past then a book of history might do the job just better then an austen book because it gives you the facts rather and a plot with impressions or cliches from a past that might not be true.
I do not see quite see the point of setting a book in a regency era if all there is to know about it is snobbery gentry money and idiocy and mockery.
A book written in set era must at least try and give a balanced idea of everyone and everything to ensure we do not get the wrong idea of the stick. I do not think it is right that a writer mocks one area of the set and then tell us the rest is all a bed of roses a fairy tale that ends with the poor marrying the rich after much despise from both parties. It is causes discourse and is not very honest.
This where I think lots of books are written with prejudice in mind a kind of snobbery in itself.
Not all rich people are bad or stiff upper lip and not all poor are uneducated or lacking in manners and of course not all live in mentions and rode horses. If the setting of a book is unrealistic and it is about a specific culture/class then it does make it personal.
A story is never personal. It is just art something to read and wonder about.
I think if a love story is to be written then simplicity encouragement and humour is much needed rather pointing fingers at who is rich and who isn't and mocking for the sake of humour is particularly not appealing if characters are clichéd and are made to suffer as a result of it.

[namenlose]

I'm not sure I agree that it is "very focused." The chase of Moby-Dick is only the last fifty pages or so, probably less, I don't have the text on me to check. So if a reader picks up the book because they are interested in the hunt for a whale, well, they'll probably be disappointed to find that the majority of the book is absent of the chase. Yes, they are out on the ship and lowering for whales throughout the narrative, but it often is not the main focus. The reason the book is so great is its scope. It deals with the nature of humanity and our motives and beliefs, though I now see in your quote "its implications" which could mean many things, so perhaps we agree!

Yes, the book is digressive, but the plot is easy to follow, and though many of the incidents in the book are not directly related to the hunt for Moby Dick, I think it's ultimately possible to follow them as part of the main story. I don't think it's as direct or focused as Madame Dovary, but it is not as difficult as The Portrait of a Lady, In Search of Lost Time or Ulysses either. I don't think we disagree at all.

[tonywalt]

I agree with Mutatis. Books written in the pre-electronic technology such as Proust's Rememberance or Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby (both 1920's) are much different (copius descriptions and slower moving plot) than post WWII books written when cinema and tv began to take hold. Writing changed more in the first half of the 20th century than any other period that I can say. If you read the Great Gatsby and then read Catcher in the Rye (one of the first of many well known post WWII books (I will not say post modern, but I really want to) you can see the difference in style. There are exceptions such as Crime and Punishment, but there always will be some exception.

If the Great Gatsby was released today how well would it do? And how well would Madame Bovary do?

[kelby_lake]

Gatsby's very readable, I think it would do fine.

[JCamilo]

How well did Gatsby when was first released? Or Bovary? Classics weren't books that lost the popularity, some are overall ignored and didnt string a chord with their own readers. Moby Dick basically destroyed Melville career and drove him nuts.

[TenderButtons]

Well, I'm not energetic enough at this time of night to read all the posts, but your question is an interesting one.

I don't mean to seem elitist when I say that I believe that a large part of the perceptions of literature and many other art forms have to do with the quality of education you receive in an art form. Most people are capable of cultivating this kind of knowledge at least partially on their own. You do have to learn to appreciate what there is to be appreciated about literature--take it for what it is, without trying to make it conform to your expectations of what it should be. I did glimpse where someone said that reading is an experience that isn't always interested in "meaning". Perhaps keeping a reading journal and making notes as you read along might help to keep track of thoughts that come up as you have them? That might seem a bit too much like homework to people who are reading for pleasure--but if you find the classics boring anyway, why are you trying to read them solely for pleasure? If that is truly your goal, and you aren't getting pleasure out of the experience maybe it is best to put the book down, walk away, and move on to the next.

I should say that some people are able to get pleasure out of this kind of work that doesn't require them to think about the book in that way--I don't want it to sound as if I'm saying that the classics have no pure merits of entertainment on their own!

[kiki1982]

Some of the classics were not popular or considered scandalous, but I would contend that most of the things we consider 'classics' now must have been popular or scandalous enough to have earnt a place in the general mind at least. For an unknown novel, it is pretty difficult to gain a status at all. Classics can be periodically forgotten, because they are deemed unfashionable or something, but I would say no more than that.

That said, though, I don't have any proof of that.

[Pierre Menard]

The Beats were neither new nor revolutionary in the 50's. They merely attempted to import the mostly french literary revolution which occurred in the late 1800's.

Too true. I'm sick to death of people I know telling me how revolutionary The Beats were, when they really, really weren't.

[mal4mac]

I agree with Mutatis. Books written in the pre-electronic technology such as Proust's Rememberance or Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby (both 1920's) are much different (copius descriptions and slower moving plot) than post WWII books written when cinema and tv began to take hold.

Proust is famously slow moving compared to books from any era, e.g. Don Quixote is far faster. Gatsby is also an exercise in tedium. I'm reading Sherlock Holmes stories at the moment and they move along really quickly, Jekyll & Hyde is also a quick read; these exemplars move along at a similar pace to modern thrillers, and usually have much more going for them (that's the reason they are classics...) I also disagree about Crime and Punishment being fast moving - there are certainly some interesting events, but I thought it was, generally, more slow moving than Tolstoy or Dickens.

[mal4mac]

Yes, the book is digressive, but the plot is easy to follow, and though many of the incidents in the book are not directly related to the hunt for Moby Dick, I think it's ultimately possible to to follow them as part of the main story. I don't think it's as direct or focused as Madame Dovary, but it is not as difficult as The Portrait of a Lady, In Search of Lost Time or Ulysses either. I don't think we disagree at all.

I certainly agree with what you are saying here. The plot is very easy to follow as it's mostly about the whaling voyage of one ship, so although it's not all taken up with the hunt for Moby Dick everything is "kind of", if not directly related, so you get hunts for other whales, incidents with other ships, digressions on whale anatomy, etc., that make sense in context

Is "The Portrait of a Lady" as difficult as In Search of Lost Time or Ulysses? I've been meaning to tackle early James as I found late James as difficult as Proust (and gave up...)

[kelby_lake]

Some of the classics were not popular or considered scandalous, but I would contend that most of the things we consider 'classics' now must have been popular or scandalous enough to have earnt a place in the general mind at least. For an unknown novel, it is pretty difficult to gain a status at all. Classics can be periodically forgotten, because they are deemed unfashionable or something, but I would say no more than that.


Well, Lady Chatterley's Lover was banned until 1960 (maybe that's a "modern classic" though). I don't know how popular the classics were around their time- scholars can bring work out of obscurity. And of course, back then the lesser works of a writer we now consider classics would just have been dismissed but now we adopt them as flawed classics (I think Hard Times fits into this category). Some stuff is just ahead of its time.

[namenlose]

Is "The Portrait of a Lady" as difficult as In Search of Lost Time or Ulysses? I've been meaning to tackle early James as I found late James as difficult as Proust (and gave up...)

I would not say so. If you like for instance novels like Middlemarch and The Mill on the Floss, you might like The Portrait too. James, like Proust, is a subtle novelist, but his works are much closer to the traditional nineteenth century novel than In Search of Lost Time is. If The Golden Bowl is the book which put you off, I may assure you that the James of The Portrait is an entirely different writer from the one you may have found there. It's my favorite among his works, and I personally think it's easier than The Wings of the Dove and The Ambassadors. There's the possibility that the narrative may be too slow for you, but I recommend you read it before giving up completely on his work.

[mal4mac]

I would not say so. If you like for instance novels like Middlemarch and The Mill on the Floss, you might like The Portrait too.

Thanks, I liked Middlemarch and The Mill on the Floss, so I'll keep it on my list.

Isn't the jury still out on Lady Chatterley's Lover? :)

I recently started re-reading Lawrence 'from the beginning', but gave up at 'the Rainbow' - too tedious. I re-enjoyed "Sons and Lovers", though, and might give "Women in Love" another go, which (if I recall correctly) is a bit livelier than 'the Rainbow'.

If you like a lot of ideas & action in your novels, and can stand a few wooden characters, then Aldous Huxley is interesting & enjoyable. Besides the obvious BNW, "Point Counter Point", "Time must have stop", "Island", stand out.

[kelby_lake]

I recently started re-reading Lawrence 'from the beginning', but gave up at 'the Rainbow' - too tedious. I re-enjoyed "Sons and Lovers", though, and might give "Women in Love" another go, which (if I recall correctly) is a bit livelier than 'the Rainbow'.


Women in Love is fun. That's the one with the naked wrestling!

[JBI]

The reason why most classics often seem boring is that most of them are boring. Not every book connects with everybody - everyone is different, and has different tastes, and undoubtedly, many classics will be deemed boring, the same way not everyone likes all flavors of food. Time in one's life is also a factor - How much have you read, how much do you want to read of it, etc. I cannot read novels like I used to. I do not like 18th century fiction. I will, however, not dismiss these texts on the grounds that I think they are boring, as perhaps someone else may think what I read boring and try to dismiss it. The goal of reading is to connect to a book, and enjoy it, not to like every book that someone else liked.

You are not supposed to like every classic, and not supposed to like every classic in every part of your life. The idea that tastes mature is one thing, but they also adapt to what is going on around you. A perfectly excellent classic can be loved in youth and detested in adulthood on personal grounds. The goal is to not dismiss works simply because one does not like them.

[JCamilo]

Yes and sometimes the author wants to be boring. Melville wanted to portrait the boredom of the hunting, he did slowed the pace of the book on purpose. The book is boring because it is. Just masterfully boring.

[Aylinn]

Those who consider classic books boring are usually pupils who are obliged to read them for classes. They don't connect with them, they often don't understand them. No wonder they are bored by them.

Besides, classic books are more demanding than the simple entertainment one can get on TV. I have noticed that some people have problems with such a simple task as recognizing a metaphor. They try to take everything literally, even if it is obvious that it should not be. I have hard time imagining them reading classic books or poetry and getting anything out of it, apart from the feeling of confusion and/or boredom.

[namenlose]

Yes and sometimes the author wants to be boring. Melville wanted to portrait the boredom of the hunting, he did slowed the pace of the book on purpose. The book is boring because it is. Just masterfully boring.

While you may be right on that point, If the slowdown of the pacing and the supposed boredom intended by the author contribute to the aesthetic eminence of the work, I believe it is questionable if the book is indeed boring in the sense the OP expressed. I tend to agree with you about Melville wanting to portray the slowness and the weariness of the hunt, but I think the final effect is positive, since it helps to build the characterization of the novel and gives it a greater sense of reality. Perhaps Moby Dick could be called boring, but not in the same sense a bad book is boring. I wonder if slow or dense would not be better ways to describe it.

[mal4mac]

Those who consider classic books boring are usually pupils who are obliged to read them for classes. They don't connect with them, they often don't understand them. No wonder they are bored by them.


That's true, but I also think many people who read classics for fun, and usually find classics exciting, find some classics boring. But different people find different classics boring; I find Ulysses & Proust boring, others find Dickens boring.



Besides, classic books are more demanding than the simple entertainment one can get on TV. I have noticed that some people have problems with such a simple task as recognizing a metaphor. They try to take everything literally, even if it is obvious that it should not be. I have hard time imagining them reading classic books or poetry and getting anything out of it, apart from the feeling of confusion and/or boredom.

But, should the classics be more demanding that a Quantum Physics textbook? This was my experience with Ulysses. Though reading Sherlock Holmes is as easy as watching CSI, for me. It's interesting how different the demands are between books deemed to be classics of literature - other subjects (physics, philosophy....) are hard all the way through... literature gives you many fun, easy reads.

[JCamilo]

While you may be right on that point, If the slowdown of the pacing and the supposed boredom intended by the author contribute to the aesthetic eminence of the work, I believe it is questionable if the book is indeed boring in the sense the OP expressed. I tend to agree with you about Melville wanting to portray the slowness and the weariness of the hunt, but I think the final effect is positive, since it helps to build the characterization of the novel and gives it a greater sense of reality. Perhaps Moby Dick could be called boring, but not in the same sense a bad book is boring. I wonder if slow or dense would not be better ways to describe it.

The OP didn't said classics are boring = bad, only people have the idea that being boring = bad. Of course, the Melville trick is genial, but you can only have this sense, when you understand Moby Dick as a whole. Until it, many people may have turned their spirt into "what boring book" and we know, how you feel while working will have influence in the future reading.

Several classics can be boring. I dare people to say medieval classics with their sequence of battles descriptions is not potentially boring. The emotional tone of Rousseau books, cannot be boring? The Rhymed narratives of Longfellow? The self-help Meditations of Marcus Aurelius?

I think people do not get, nobody likes all classics. I find Victor Hugo Miserables boring. I have no patience for long novel narratives those days. I had more in the past, I may had in the future. Acknowledging the boring nature of classics is a great step towards understanding what is reading.

[namenlose]

The OP didn't said classics are boring = bad, only people have the idea that being boring = bad. Of course, the Melville trick is genial, but you can only have this sense, when you understand Moby Dick as a whole. Until it, many people may have turned their spirt into "what boring book" and we know, how you feel while working will have influence in the future reading.

Several classics can be boring. I dare people to say medieval classics with their sequence of battles descriptions is not potentially boring. The emotional tone of Rousseau books, cannot be boring? The Rhymed narratives of Longfellow? The self-help Meditations of Marcus Aurelius?

I think people do not get, nobody likes all classics. I find Victor Hugo Miserables boring. I have no patience for long novel narratives those days. I had more in the past, I may had in the future. Acknowledging the boring nature of classics is a great step towards understanding what is reading.

I see where are you coming from when talking about Melville, but I never said there was a classic liked by all. I also find questionable your claim — if I understand it — that a classic is boring for having traits which may not please someone, or that may be found boring. Of course they might be boring for someone, but then every book is boring, and what qualifies each as such may be anything. Many may not like Moby Dick because of the digressiveness, but many may not like it because of its tragic nature.

You are right about the OP does not having stated that boring equals bad, but there was a suggestion that the books found boring were deemed negatively because of this. Judging from the example of Melville, someone may be bored by the slowness of the pacing, but other reader may be pleased by its final effect. The latter will probably be the one who gained more from it, even though the former is not to blame. He had a motive, and pehaps the book does not even appeal to his taste. However, is it fair to say Moby Dick is boring because of the taste of some readers or the inexperience of others? It was written to be read and appreciated in some way, as were the other books you mentioned.

Since the OP says "most" classics, I don't think he is refering primarily to the readers of classics which don't like some of them, but to the readers who don't like classics as a whole. I may be wrong, though, but even if this is the case, it raises the question of why most classics are remembered for its bad qualities — or the ones which may not please — rather than for its virtues by the general public .

[OrphanPip]

I agree with the distinction you make, namenlose.

I will say though that "boring" is difficult to define. I'm considering writing my MA thesis on Eliza Haywood, and I can't in all honesty say I find 18th century amatory fiction all that exciting. Yet, I find the daringness of certain aspects of the texts, both socially and formally, to be very interesting. So, I suppose I do find Haywood boring in some aspects, but I find other aspects of her work very interesting. She also happens to be one of those rare authors that can combine my interest in the actress as a public figure, as she was a former actress and a number of her novels are quite theatrical, and the emergence of the "literary" novel as a genre.

[JCamilo]

It is a bit simple I think. If we reduce the art, or the text, purpose to entertain, then being boring is the ultimate flaw. However, entertainment is quite a limited function for art. It also causes pain, fear, etc. So, what is being bored but a result of reading a book at the wrong time? Nothing but this, so, all books are boring. That will help with the majority of readers. They will affect the majority of the public as boring because they demand a reading beyond trivial at the best possible momment.

[cacian]

Those who consider classic books boring are usually pupils who are obliged to read them for classes. They don't connect with them, they often don't understand them. No wonder they are bored by them.

Besides, classic books are more demanding than the simple entertainment one can get on TV. I have noticed that some people have problems with such a simple task as recognizing a metaphor. They try to take everything literally, even if it is obvious that it should not be. I have hard time imagining them reading classic books or poetry and getting anything out of it, apart from the feeling of confusion and/or boredom.

Well yeas it is clearly a simple choice.
It is one thing to be told to read something and another to chose to read which ever you want.
If one is going to insist in making me read a book I did not chose then that will really put me off and then on top of it they want to teach it to me.
Now that is really is boredom personified.

[kelby_lake]

If one is going to insist in making me read a book I did not chose then that will really put me off and then on top of it they want to teach it to me.
Now that is really is boredom personified.

I prefer to think of it as a challenge. In life, you are asked to do a lot of things that you don't want to do or that you find boring.

[cacian]

I prefer to think of it as a challenge. In life, you are asked to do a lot of things that you don't want to do or that you find boring.

Yes I agree that challenges are important but the best challenges are the one you chose yourself. That is how I see it.
I tend to reject force especially at an intellectual level. It is bad enough I am told which religion I am born at or what food I should eat.
Intellect is about making decisions and choices and how one reaches to them.
Decisions of my own will are as important as the books I chose.

[mal4mac]

I prefer to think of it as a challenge. In life, you are asked to do a lot of things that you don't want to do or that you find boring.

In life, you *are* asked to do a lot of things that you don't want to do, or that you find boring, *but* they aren't a real challenge - like working in a bank. As with climbing Everest, I am prepared to admit that reading Ulysses is a worthwhile challenge. But both these challenges are just too difficult for me to contemplate.


Yes I agree that challenges are important but the best challenges are the one you chose yourself. That is how I see it.
I tend to reject force especially at an intellectual level. It is bad enough I am told which religion I am born at or what food I should eat.
Intellect is about making decisions and choices and how one reaches to them.
Decisions of my own will are as important as the books I chose.

I agree with this, but if you want to be a professor of literature you just have to accept what they give you - and Ulysses is likely to be one of those things.

[kelby_lake]

In life, you *are* asked to do a lot of things that you don't want to do, or that you find boring, *but* they aren't a real challenge - like working in a bank. As with climbing Everest, I am prepared to admit that reading Ulysses is a worthwhile challenge. But both these challenges are just too difficult for me to contemplate.

But by participating in an English class, you are saying that you are up for the challenge. English literature is all about challenge. You have to read challenging texts, texts that challenge each other and learn how to challenge arguments convincingly.

[tkgbtg690]

boring!!! i don't think so, classics are something to be referred to .... but to read beside the coffee, is abusing the legacy the writer has elaborated into these master creations.

[cacian]

boring!!! i don't think so, classics are something to be referred to .... but to read beside the coffee, is abusing the legacy the writer has elaborated into these master creations.

Something to be refered to as what?
What legacy do you speak of?

[kiki1982]

Yes I agree that challenges are important but the best challenges are the one you chose yourself. That is how I see it.
I tend to reject force especially at an intellectual level. It is bad enough I am told which religion I am born at or what food I should eat.
Intellect is about making decisions and choices and how one reaches to them.
Decisions of my own will are as important as the books I chose.

If the best challenges are those you choose yourself, then your definition of 'best' is different to an absolute kind of definition.
What is best for a human being/mind is not always that which he chooses.

Intellect is indeed about making decisions, but in order to make an informed decision, you need knowledge and knowledge is not always fun to gather. To make an informed decision, you mostly need more knowledge than meets the eye.
Of course, if you like that process, you'll have that challenge and you'll like it, but there are as many who don't like part of that knowledge.
If you are a literature professor, you are perfectly entitled to loathe Modernism or whatever, but you'll have to have studied it. Besides, you need to have tried before you can decide you don't like something.

In my teens I have had to read a lot of things I didn't like per se (French I detested - that's not even strong enough -, because they're list was sh*te despite the great things that have been written in the language; the lists are an insult to the French language really). In the end, to avoid the stress, I counted the days the book needed to be read in (at least, with some to spare), then divided the number of pages by the number of days and imposed a daily quota of pages on myself. That went so well, I always finished on time, even ahead of schedule. I think I should start doing it again, because I have started slacking.

If you do not force people, and certainly young ones, they don't get anywhere, because difficult stuff is not what we're after when we are children. We would never learn to read, write or count if we weren't forced. We'd all be specialist at video games or other hobbies.
Learning English with a nasty teacher was not fun for me, but boy, am I grateful they forced me for five long years. French was forced don my neck for 8. Not always my favourite, but now I can at least read in it.

[Aylinn]

That's true, but I also think many people who read classics for fun, and usually find classics exciting, find some classics boring. But different people find different classics boring; I find Ulysses & Proust boring, others find Dickens boring.
Yes, there are people who read classic books for pleasure and find some of them boring. But they are more likely to admit that a book bores them because they have a different taste or are not interested by the subject matter, etc. rather than try to claim that the book is objectively bad.



But, should the classics be more demanding that a Quantum Physics textbook? This was my experience with Ulysses. Though reading Sherlock Holmes is as easy as watching CSI, for me. It's interesting how different the demands are between books deemed to be classics of literature - other subjects (physics, philosophy....) are hard all the way through... literature gives you many fun, easy reads.
Some people may derive pleasure from reading something as difficult and challenging as a Quantum Physics textbook or may not perceive it in such a way. They may simply be genuinely interested in Quantum Physics.

[mal4mac]

Some people may derive pleasure from reading something as difficult and challenging as a Quantum Physics textbook or may not perceive it in such a way. They may simply be genuinely interested in Quantum Physics.

I have a physics degree, and derived some (hard won) pleasure from reading my Quantum Physics text. But recently I tried to read a Quantum Physics text and derived so little pleasure that I gave up. I think motivation has something to do with it. I no longer think that Quantum Physics will reveal "the mystery of existence", or get me a good job.

So, I think motivations extrinsic to the text can have a great deal of impact on the pleasure you will feel for the text. If you get a good English degree you might land a good job, therefore you have excellent motivation for doing well in the Ulysses class. Is the pleasure you feel in Ulysses, then, more about getting a good job than actually enjoying the text? Or, do you feel Ulysses might reveal "the mystery of the Universe" to you? Or, are you "getting off" on the snob value of mastering this "most difficult" text?

[ralfyman]

There are many reasons, and several have already been explained. The challenge is for readers to take effort in appreciating them. The same goes for "classics" from other parts of the world and in other media, including classical music, older films, etc.