Classics that aren't Boring

Two mediums my friend - they are both equally as valid as art forms.

Yes... of course one can say the same of any literary work or text given another form... be it recitation, the theatrical production, or film. To suggest that the texts shouldn't be read (or aren't well suited to reading) because they were originally written as plays misses the fact that Beowulf and The Odyssey and a great many plays and poems were first written (if they were even written down) to be performed in an oral manner... or performed as part of a ritual... etc... is completely ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

And with something like Shakespeare's plays, why should one ever ask a high school student (or anyone else, except a scholar) to read them? They are plays. They should be watched.

---

Yes, but a bad production can put you off a play for life. And some great ones aren't performed often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Are you out there stlukesguild? Have I redeemed myself after that scathing criticism of yours?

Considering your opening post...

I always feel the need to read the "classics,"... but am usually bogged down in how boring they are.

I'm tired of reading (or attempting to read) books that take fifteen pages to describe one simple aspect of the story. It just isn't my thing. I read to escape...

...should you have expected something different? I can't imagine myself as a student art teacher making a declaration that I find the majority of "classic" paintings to be boring and need some suggestions of paintings that aren't boring.

---

Where did I say I disliked a majority of classic literature? I like the majority that I've read. I made this thread because, of late, I've had a run of bad luck, it would seem, as to my choices.

Quote:

---

I have no illusions that anyone SHOULD be expected to read a given body of literature and enjoy it simply because they are classics. To me the ultimate values of reading are aesthetic pleasure and a development of empathy... an understanding of other people, other cultures, other times, other places, other values, standards, and beliefs. Teens and young adults are notoriously self-centered and egotistic: they are the center of the world. One of the goals of the teacher in the humanities, it would seem to me, would be to introduce students to others possibilities... other ways of thinking, etc... To do this a teacher should be able to recognize the merits of exemplary art from a variety of cultures and eras even if the works are not particularly personal favorites.

---

Which I do, as I think I've mentioned. I teach literature from many different viewpoints (within the allowances of the curriculum), and ones I don't particularly enjoy (which I never tell the students).

Quote:

---

Your later posts suggest an admiration for more "classics" than your initial post admits to with your declaration of how "(I) am usually bogged down in how boring they are." Boredom is not much in the way of criticism as it is essentially a personal opinion and says more about you than the work of art. What you find boring, another might find completely entrancing. I continue to question why anyone with a professed dislike for a majority of classic literature would wish to major in literature and teach literature. I can't imagine wishing to teach classical music if I found Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Handel, and Schubert to all be "boring."

---

If you are suggesting I am lying when I said I like more classics than I originally intimated, well, there's nothing I can do about that. You will believe me or you won't, I'm not going to go to great lengths to convince you otherwise if it is the latter.

Again, I have mentioned how I do not let my personal biases completely control what my students will read. I do not reject a selection just because I do not like it. The idea of doing so is absurd.

Quote:

---

By the same token, you admit to a personal prejudice against lengthy, descriptive writing and a preference for writing that offers an "escape". What should a student who loves rich, lush, poetic descriptiveness or gritty realism expect in your class? We all have our personal prejudices and preferences, but one expects a certain objectivity from a teacher... a passion for his or her discipline... and an ability and willingness to explore a vast realm of this discipline... even beyond one's personal preferences.

---

My previous comment should suffice for this, too.

Quote:

---

My personal preferences do not include comic-book art, graffiti, Sponge Bob, contemporary fashion, car design, etc... but I am aware that I need to explore these... understand these... and be able to discuss these with students whose preferences in art may be quite removed from my own. Through an exploration of the student's own prior knowledge and interests... for example: anime and the armor of Samurai warriors... I've been able to lead students to explore a broader array of art such as Japanese Ukiyo-e prints and screen painting.

---

Quote:

---

Again... I question why anyone would wish to major in... let alone teach a topic that doesn't enthrall them:

I'm tired of reading (or attempting to read) books that take fifteen pages to describe one simple aspect of the story. It just isn't my thing. I read to escape...,

...if you have any suggestions on some classics I could read every now and then, just to keep my intellectual cred in order, so to speak...

Why major in a field in which you find so much to be but a dreary struggle? Why seek to teach a subject that you would only wish to skim lightly over... just to keep up the illusion of your academic credentials... as you put it?

---

I made this post first and foremost to get some suggestions on classics. I do not find the subject a dreary struggle. You assume a lot by one short post. I don't see any post that says I would "skim" over the subject. The academic cred comment was made tongue-in-cheek. But, nice job adding illusion. I guess none of us are above little ad hominem jabs.

Where did I say I disliked a majority of classic literature? I like the majority that I've read. I made this thread because, of late, I've had a run of bad luck, it would seem, as to my choices.

This is something quite different from what you suggested in your OP:

...but (I) am usually bogged down in how boring they are.

"Usually" would suggest that more often than not you are bored with the classics.

So, if you have any suggestions on some classics I could read every now and then, just to keep my intellectual cred in order, so to speak...

This phrase doesn't suggest much in a way of the love of reading classics, but rather the desire for some suggestions of some light reading that would help you to maintain the illusion of being serious about reading.

I could be wrong in this interpretation, but I doubt I'm the only one who would read such comments in this way. I think your current statement of having run into a bad run of experiences with the classics you have read recently makes far more sense or clarifies things.

If you are suggesting I am lying when I said I like more classics than I originally intimated, well, there's nothing I can do about that. You will believe me or you won't, I'm not going to go to great lengths to convince you otherwise if it is the latter.

You have no need to convince me as to your love of literature. You are the one who has made the decision to invest the time and effort in the degree with the goal of teaching. Only you can say whether this is the right path for you. I merely offered a challenge based upon your initial post.

I do not find the subject a dreary struggle. You assume a lot by one short post. I don't see any post that says I would "skim" over the subject. The academic cred comment was made tongue-in-cheek.

Again, I doubt that I would be the only one somewhat puzzled by why someone would wish to major in a subject that they are not passionate about (although money always comes into play:D) or feel that they are qualified to teach a subject that they are not fond of. This was the gist I got from your OP. As that was clearly not your intention, I apologize. As a teacher for some 15 years I have seen any number of co-workers with little or no real passion for their field of study (literature, music, art, etc...)... music teachers who cannot name one living composer outside of John Williams, art teachers who struggle with "Modern" art like Van Gogh and Picasso, English/Reading/Literature teachers that haven't voluntarily read a "serious" book in years... who have no real interest inlearning themselves... yet expect to inspire a passion for learning in others... and then there are quite a few more who haven't the slightest ability to develop a relationship with their students... who virtually hate teaching... if not children. I wish you well and hope you never fall into that category.

I apologize, too, as I do see how the use of the word "usually" would suggest me disliking the classics the majority of the time. This is true, but only recently.

In hindsight, I should've better phrased my OP, but when I do these things, I usually just slap 'em down, do a quick spell/grammar check, and hit post, for time's sake.

I agree with everything you said about teaching. And, trust me, I have not reached that cynicism and dissilusionment that seems to plague so many. Even in some of my fellow student teachers I see a disturbing lack of passion for literature. Hell, in my methods of teaching literature class, there was a student who didn't even finish reading The Absolutely True Diary of a Pat-time Indian. The damn thing took three hours to read! If she didn't read that, she sure as hell didn't read Frankenstien or Huck Finn (which I enjoyed). I doubt any of them even pick up a book more than 2o years old on a voluntary basis. One of them worships Harry Potter for God's sake!

Now I'm just ranting. In all fairness, there are others (classmates of mine, that is) more well read than me, who do read more "classics," so I guess I fall somewhere in the middle. But I can assure you I do have a passion for literature, and even when I don't enjoy a certain work, I can almost always see its virtues and appreciate it.

And, I too, definitely hope I never fall into the category you describe. If it I ever even start to think I'm leaning that way, that's the time to move on to a different profession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freudianslip

Mutatis: I know the feeling. I have an MA in English. I hate James Joyce and Jack Kerouac. I fact, I think Joyce and Kerouac are the two most overrated writers in the English language. I love Dickens, George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, Shakespeare...well you get the point. Don't worry about what you don't like.

---

I agree with you freudianslip! But I've read most of Dickens, George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, Shakespeare. Who else would you recommend? I've just discovered Zola, who I'd place in the same category. Who else am I missing? Who else do you hate? I've just attempted Henry James' Wings of a Dove, but he's in there with Joyce and Proust on my avoid list now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

I agree with you freudianslip! But I've read most of Dickens, George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, Shakespeare. Who else would you recommend? I've just discovered Zola, who I'd place in the same category. Who else am I missing? Who else do you hate? I've just attempted Henry James' Wings of a Dove, but he's in there with Joyce and Proust on my avoid list now!

---

Wilkie Collins is good--he was a contemporary of Dickens, and wrote his novels as serials, like Dickens did, so that might help keep a person turning the pages. He is famous as an early writer of detective fiction, so the stories are sort of Victorian thrillers (don't expect Stephen King, but there is some suspense and intrigue/mystery going on). Careful you don't run across spoilers if you research on Wikipedia or whatever. Collins's books are maybe not as interesting as Dickens's novels in a "literary" sense, apart from their historical role in detective fiction--but they aren't devoid of literary interest, either. I have only read one, The Woman in White, and it worked quite well for me one time when I wanted something like Dickens but not Dickens.

I was humored that someone would have the guts to say on this forum they did not like classics that were drawn out and lengthy! I agree on Mice and Men, then. It is short as well as touching. And I may have missed which class you plan to teach, but I greatly enjoyed anything Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote my high school years - especially The Scarlet Letter. Not only did I fall in love with the book my classmates did as well. Literature isn't about entertainment and being an English teacher, entertaining should not be your goal. You want to feed your students pieces that make them think, not keep them laughing. I agree that lovers of english as in love with the language, the way the author pieces words together and describes things. I can name a great many books I infatuated myself with because of simply how it was written over the actual storyline themselves.

Anna Karenina is great :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahDrago

I was humored that someone would have the guts to say on this forum they did not like classics that were drawn out and lengthy!

---

What can I say? I have massive balls.

Quote:

---

I agree on Mice and Men, then. It is short as well as touching. And I may have missed which class you plan to teach, but I greatly enjoyed anything Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote my high school years - especially The Scarlet Letter. Not only did I fall in love with the book my classmates did as well.

---

Teaching just your average sophomore and freshman English classes. And I do need to read The Scarlet Letter, one of the many I haven't gotten to.

Quote:

---

Literature isn't about entertainment and, being an English teacher, entertaining should not be your goal. You want to feed your students pieces that make them think, not keep them laughing.

---

I agree, to an extent. I don't think entertainment should be the only goal, but I don't think it should be discounted entirely. There are many pieces that can keep them entertained and also keep them thinking.

Also, I'm starting Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea on Monday with the sophomores.

try germinal by zola
interesting political piece that ends up being a page turner at the end. also has a number of very fertile discussion points on life.
very timely with the chilaen mine story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ladderandbucket

Crime and Punishment is a book I always recommend to non-classics readers. Most people seem to like it. It is a pretty gripping story.

---

Crime and Punishment is also very readable and a good introductory to Russian literature for anyone who hasn't had time to digest all of the familiar form and patronymic names used by Russian authors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

As an English major and a sort-of English teacher (student teacher, at the moment), I always feel the need to read the "classics," (I do not intend this to be a place to debate the merits of reading canonical texts, but if you do, so be it), but am usually bogged down in how boring they are.

Now, I realize this is a subjective view, but it is how I feel. I just got done reading Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent, and it was a tough go. I loved the story and the characters, but it just got so bogged down in description that it felt too plodding at points. I love "Heart of Darkness," too, but at least it is shorter--the perfect length for the ultra-descriptive style of writing, in my opinion.

Now, I'm not looking for tons of action and explosions, just a story that moves at a reasonable pace. I'm tired of reading (or attempting to read) books that take fifteen pages to describe one simple aspect of the story. It just isn't my thing. I read to escape, and I don't want to escape into a mundane world.

So, if you have any suggestions on some classics I could read every now and then, just to keep my intellectual cred in order, so to speak, I'd be much appreciative.

---

Try The Great Impersonation by E. Phillips Openheim

Hmm, coming back to this, Stephen Crane's The Red Badge of Courage might work for high school sophomores as well. It's fairly short, and deals with a character somewhat close to them in age.

I'm not sure what Americans teach in high school, in Canada we had practically no American literature in high school except for Arthur Miller.

Why not try "Jekyll and Hyde", I have just acquired a copy of "Frankstein"
by Mary Shelley, also I have "The Scarlet Letter" on my TBR stack.