Classics that aren't Boring

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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.

And, hey, wherever the conversation may go, it's all good. Let's discuss whatever may come up!

[stlukesguild]

Why on earth would you major in English and actually think of teaching something that you find boring? Seriously, I feel for your students. One would hope that one's teacher... in whatever discipline... would bring a love and passion of his or her subject to the students.

From what you have written ("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...") I would say that in reality you simply don't like or understand reading. The goal of literature isn't to get to the end ASAP... to grasp the "meaning"... like life itself, the journey is the goal. Those who love literature relish language, the well-chosen word, the turn of a phrase, the approach that is at time direct and at other time oblique.

How many students will you be able to turn on to reading and literature when you yourself can't find a classic that you don't imagine as boring?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I didn't know being an English teacher meant I had to love every single classic that is now considered a canonical work. I love Edgar Allen Poe, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Conrad (I did enjoy The Secret Agent and Heart of Darkness is one of my favorites, something I've read five times), much poetry (particularly Yeats), Frankenstein, Orwell, H.G. Wells, Homer, Bradbury, and others I can't think of. Is it wrong that I find SOME classic literature boring? I find it absurd to suggest that I don't have a love of reading because I find Hemingway dull. If anything, a more realistic grasp on literature, as in to have an idea of what many students may enjoy, is going to help me instill a love into them because I won't constantly trying to shove Dickens and Moby Dick down their throats.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I've read many classics I've enjoyed, and I've read many I haven't. I'd like to read more I enjoy, rather than read more that I don't. I'd like to read more of them not only to expand my knowledge, but have something canonical, and interesting, to give my students, rather than the latest Nicholas Sparks schlock that they read in droves.

I don't get a ton of time to read pleasurably these days. So, when I do get the time, I'd like to do just that, read pleasurably. Sorry if my disliking War and Peace or some other long winded masterpiece disqualifies me from having a love of reading.

[lichtrausch]

How about The Woman in the Dunes by Kobo Abe? It's not too long and it moves along at a good pace if I remember correctly.

[Seasider]

American Classics you didn't mention :-
John Steinbeck esp Of Mice and Men and Cannery Row
Theodore Dreiser esp Sister Carrie and An American Tragedy (he can be a bit long winded but worth persevering with)
Upton Sinclair The Jungle
A Confederacy of Dunces John Kennedy Toole
John Dos Passos USA Trilogy
Willa Cather My Antonia
Anything by James Thurber

[B. Laumness]

Teaching is not only about sharing books that you enjoy, it consists in showing the literary qualities of a work, how it produces effects and emotions, how it conveys a particular vision. The goal is not to say “I like” or “I dislike”, but to understand the books, to obtain a cultural knowledge, to reflect upon one’s self, to form critical thinking, to discover new values, beliefs, sensations… new worlds, so that literature is a treasure, not always easy to find and appreciate; it’s not simply for fun, it’s not an escape without relation with your own reality. If you understand a work, especially if this is a hard one, you finally like it, because it demanded efforts to see and recognize its literary qualities. You may very well teach authors whose conceptions are far from your sensibility, but are important in the history of literature. Classic means always modern, always interesting, always questioning your actual world. That doesn’t mean that all the ancient authors are classic; some lose their interest with the decades and the centuries. One of your tasks as a (future) teacher is to contribute, along with critics, academics, writers, to the evaluation of what is good to read nowadays and what responds to the above-mentioned purposes. In that aim, a very recent book is rarely a good choice, for many reasons you have already guessed, mostly because the teacher has to lead his student far from the present day if he wants him to acquire a good understanding of his language and his history, to become an historical person capable of being a conscious and active part of the world of today and of tomorrow. In France, Molière’s Dom Juan was long time judged a minor work, at least not his masterpiece (in prose and not in verses, not really a comedic play, not an invention of the writer…), and now it is the play that is the most studied in high school. In the 19th century, Racine was praised particularly for Athalie; now it’s Phèdre. At the university, Victor Hugo was not well considered during some decades, maybe because his genius was so obvious that it tended to be suspicious: how can a poet write a hundred good verses in one morning when it takes weeks and months to Mallarmé? And some said his ideas were a little dumb (Humanity, Progress, etc.), firstly Baudelaire, and this one is still an authority. Now, his works are more studied again.

Having said that about the job of a teacher, it doesn’t mean that your whole life of reader has to focus on classics. You may read and re-read classics and always find in them a solid food. Reading the Ancients, the philosophers before Socrates, Heidegger proposed interpretations that renewed their understanding. But you may also want to walk on new paths with less known writers, with recent writers… not for fun or for escape, but because you have a thirst for discovery. The problem is: how can I find these new companions if they are unknown? And can I trust the recommendations of the journalists who don’t generally promote the literary qualities of the books, who don’t know or don’t want to identify them, so that they often recommend crap? So many books are edited each year, how can I choose? You can be helped by your friends, your colleagues, the people in the Internet whose aesthetic judgment is valuable, and by the writers themselves, for culture works like a net. So, I read Egolf’s Lord of the Barnyard by suggestion of a friend. A colleague spoke to me about Jared Diamond. Bret Easton Ellis led me to Hubert Selby. I noted recommendations of some persons here, for example Italo Calvino and Octovia Paz, whom I didn’t know.

I’m currently reading Kafka’s letters – what a poor man, a genius though! He said something like that: a book has no interest if it doesn’t hit you in the stomach and in the head, if it doesn’t force you to reconsider your perception of the world.

[Mariamosis]

Although not all of these are by English authors; here are some books that I enjoyed that I remember as being "quick paced":

King Solomon's Mines - H. Rider Haggard
The Sea-Wolf - Jack London
The Call of the Wild and White Fang - Jack London
The Jungle - Upton Sinclair
King Coal - Upton Sinclair
Pudd'nhead Wilson - Mark Twain
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court - Mark Twain
Journey to the Center of the Earth - Jules Verne
The Earth - Emile Zola

[kelby_lake]

Is it wrong that I find SOME classic literature boring? No. Nobody can like everything I find it absurd to suggest that I don't have a love of reading because I find Hemingway dull. If anything, a more realistic grasp What does that mean? on literature, as in to have an idea of what many students may enjoy It's not about pandering to them; it's about teaching them, is going to help me instill a love into them because I won't constantly trying to shove Dickens What's wrong with Dickens? Don't assume that just because you find a classic boring that your class will and Moby Dick down their throats.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I've read many classics I've enjoyed, and I've read many I haven't. I'd like to read more I enjoy, rather than read more that I don't. I'd like to read more of them not only to expand my knowledge, but have something canonical, and interesting, to give my students, rather than the latest Nicholas Sparks schlock that they read in droves.

I don't get a ton of time to read pleasurably these days. So, when I do get the time, I'd like to do just that, read pleasurably. Sorry if my disliking War and Peace or some other long winded masterpiece disqualifies me from having a love of reading.

My thoughts.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

First, let me thank everyone who made reccomendations. Much appreciated.

As to Kelby lakes concerns:

Is it wrong that I find SOME classic literature boring? No. Nobody can like everything I find it absurd to suggest that I don't have a love of reading because I find Hemingway dull. If anything, a more realistic grasp What does that mean? on literature, as in to have an idea of what many students may enjoy It's not about pandering to them; it's about teaching them, is going to help me instill a love into them because I won't constantly trying to shove Dickens What's wrong with Dickens? Don't assume that just because you find a classic boring that your class will and Moby Dick down their throats.

Like I said, what I meant by to have a more realistic grasp on literaturei is to have an idea on what students may and may not like. I plan to teach classics, even classics I don't particularly like (doing Old Man and the Sea soon), but I also want to instill a love of reading in students, and that just isn't going to happen to most of them by constantly analyzing. I'm not so arrogant as to think I will know the tastes of all my students.

I don't pander to my students. Giving them something I think they will enjoy is not pandering. It is hard enough to get them to read at all, much less giving them material that will be difficult (and don't pounce on me saying I should teach difficult material for x reasons, I DO teach it). There has to be a balance, and finding that balance is tricky.


As to B. Laumness:

Teaching is not only about sharing books that you enjoy, it consists in showing the literary qualities of a work, how it produces effects and emotions, how it conveys a particular vision. The goal is not to say “I like” or “I dislike”, but to understand the books, to obtain a cultural knowledge, to reflect upon one’s self, to form critical thinking, to discover new values, beliefs, sensations… new worlds, so that literature is a treasure, not always easy to find and appreciate; it’s not simply for fun, it’s not an escape without relation with your own reality. If you understand a work, especially if this is a hard one, you finally like it, because it demanded efforts to see and recognize its literary qualities. You may very well teach authors whose conceptions are far from your sensibility, but are important in the history of literature. Classic means always modern, always interesting, always questioning your actual world. That doesn’t mean that all the ancient authors are classic; some lose their interest with the decades and the centuries. One of your tasks as a (future) teacher is to contribute, along with critics, academics, writers, to the evaluation of what is good to read nowadays and what responds to the above-mentioned purposes.

Keeping in mind that these are freshmen and sophomores whom I also have to teach grammar and writing to within a constricted amount of time, I plan to at least attempt to do all that you describe. Unfortunately, typing it is easier than doing it, epecially when my main battle is justy getting them to read.

[OrphanPip]

What I've found quite refreshing in recent years is reading through the "classics" of African and Caribbean literature in English.

Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart and Miriam Tlali's apartheid novel Between Two Worlds/Muriel at Metropolitan are very engaging works, that are accessible and grounded in Western literary traditions, and I've enjoyed the experience of being exposed to them.

As far as I'm concerned, with high school students I think it is easier to teach literature that is thematically accessible and engaging rather than worry too much about the literary influence and aesthetic concerns. Teaching them the ability to read critically, and form critical arguments, is enough to give them the tools to tackle more challenging works in the future.

[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.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I loved Things Fall Apart, so I'll have to check out the other story you mentioned.

Teaching them the ability to read critically, and form critical arguments, is enough to give them the tools to tackle more challenging works in the future.

I agree.

[kelby_lake]

First, let me thank everyone who made reccomendations. Much appreciated.

As to Kelby lakes concerns:



Like I said, what I meant by to have a more realistic grasp on literaturei is to have an idea on what students may and may not like. I plan to teach classics, even classics I don't particularly like (doing Old Man and the Sea soon), but I also want to instill a love of reading in students, and that just isn't going to happen to most of them by constantly analyzing I'm not saying that they should all engage in academic debates but surely they should read, discuss and question, which inevitably involves some form of analysis?. I'm not so arrogant as to think I will know the tastes of all my students.

I don't pander to my students. Giving them something I think they will enjoy is not pandering. It is hard enough to get them to read at all, much less giving them material that will be difficult Some people are just not into reading (and don't pounce on me saying I should teach difficult material for x reasons, I DO teach it). There has to be a balance, and finding that balance is tricky.
True

As to B. Laumness:



Keeping in mind that these are freshmen and sophomores whom I also have to teach grammar and writing to within a constricted amount of time, I plan to at least attempt to do all that you describe. Unfortunately, typing it is easier than doing it, epecially when my main battle is justy getting them to read.

My thoughts.

[mal4mac]

Note, I don't teach literature, I *just* read it for fun. But I think you will be doing your students a great dis-service if you don't at least introduce them to Dickens and Tolstoy.

Why do you have a thing about lengthy classics? Can you have too much of a good thing? I wish War & Peace was twice as long, and David Copperfield. Still, you should be introducing students to many authors, so perhaps "The Cossacks" and "A Christmas Carol" would be good choices for "tasters". Then, even if you don't like them much, you will give those of my ilk a love that could last a lifetime. Certainly include Conrad's Heart of Darkness as well! And one of Wells' excellent science fiction novels. You could also include Orwell's 1984, but point out his other novels are really boring compared to that! Someone mentioned Zola, I've just discovered him! Why did no one tell me about him sooner...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't necessarily have a "thing" against lengthy classics (in that I automatically turn my nose to a book because it's long), I just find, more often than not, I don't enjoy them. Maybe I have just been poor in choosing. What would you suggest for Dickens?

I'd love to introduce them to all of those, mal4mac, but there just isn't enough time. I have to factor in their reading level along with curriculum restriction (which, at this moment, is quite high). I'd LOVE to do Wells or 1984, and if I had a senior class (preferrably AP--advanced placement) I would do Heart of Darkness (I think it's a bit above the reading levels of most sophomores, and definitely most freshman).

To Kelby lake:

"I'm not saying that they should all engage in academic debates but surely they should read, discuss and question, which inevitably involves some form of analysis?"

Oh, trust me, we do forms of analysis, usually at least twice a week. Just today we looked and pathos and logos in a speech by Martin Luther King Jr.

"Some people are just not into reading"

I know. It can be quite irksome.

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