Classics that aren't Boring

[Mr.lucifer]

How about canterbury tales?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I read some of those a few years in college. I need to revisit them.

[oshima]

Well, I don't know if you would classify it as a classic, but I finished "Flowers for Algernon" yesterday. I couldn't put it down, there wasn't a moment that I had that feeling of "well, this is really tedious to read but I know it will pay off (looking at you, Bovary)". I highly recommend...

[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.

[Miss Floy]

If you like mysteries, G. K. Chesterton's Father Brown stories and Dorothy L. Sayers's Lord Peter Wimsey stories are excellent. In fact, anything by G. K. Chesterton is worth reading as well as terribly exciting. I just finished The Man Who Was Thursday and The Ball and the Cross. Of course, those might not be considered "classics." As for Dickens, Great Expectations was a particularly thrilling read.

[Ecurb]

Students must be sufficiently skilled readers to enjoy any book. "Classics" (after all) referred originally to Greek and Latin tomes -- all of which would be boring to those of us who don't read Greek or Latin. Similarly, high school students who can't read at their grade level (many Native Spanish speakers in the U.S., for example) will probably not enjoy Shakespeare. Wading through the unfamiliar language is a task, not a pleasure.

That beings said, there's no reason for anyone (other than a student who wants a passing grade) to read a novel that bores him. Math books, science books, even history books: perhaps. But a novel? Why read a novel except for enjoyment?

Since I just quoted C.S. Lewis in another thread, I'm reminded that he descried the distinction between "high brow" and "low brow" literature. "High brow" literature is not of a distinct class -- instead, it is simply more entertaining than low brow literature. It not only entertains the reader while he is reading, but, in many case, for the rest of his life, when he thinks about the book again, or reads it again.

[Wilde woman]

I feel your pain. I've taught a few summer high school English courses, and it is not at all easy getting freshmen and sophomores excited about literature. I think kids that age respond to texts with shock value, so I try to cater to that. The hardest part is getting the discussion started. So if the content is shocking enough, that will at least give the more outspoken kids the nudge to start a discussion.

From my experience, high school kids seem to really like dystopian literature, so it makes sense to teach either 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, or A Clockwork Orange.

Thinking back to my high school days, I really liked:

Swift's A Modest Proposal
Poe's Masque of the Red Death
Miller's The Crucible
Plath's The Bell Jar
'O Connor's A Good Man is Hard to Find
Tolkein's The Hobbit
Heller's Catch-22 (though I think it'd be difficult for freshmen/sophomores)

I'm also a big fan of revisionist literature, and introducing it is a great way of allowing the students to see that literature did not just appear out of a vacuum, that lots of writers were in dialogue with each other. It's also a nice way to make texts that may come across as boring more fun, by seeing what later writers did with them. I'd recommend:

Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Jane Eyre and Wide Sargasso Sea
Beowulf and Grendel
Medea and Bash (by Neil LaBute)
Wizard of Oz and Wicked

I feel like there's also one or two obligatory Shakespeare plays. I did R&J, Julius Caesar, and Othello in freshman and sophomore years. But I think I'd start with Midsummer Night's Dream as a nice intro to Shakespeare.

[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.

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.

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."

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 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.

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?

[YesNo]

How about canterbury tales?

The Wife of Bath's Tale is my favorite. That should get them interested.

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.

[stlukesguild]

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.

Because the texts are so complex... and poetically rich that reading the plays is essential... although watching the plays may give a grasp of the flow and how the drama and humor play out. Performance of the plays also limits our experience to the particular interpretation of the individual performers rather than to our own interpretations.

[kiki1982]

I believe The Wife of Bath and her tale and Moll Flanders could have some stuff in common...

[ceelo]

I find a lot of posts in this thread quite sad. Many of you seem to be underestimating the power of the mind, the power to formulate your own tastes, likes and dislikes.

It can be a great challenge to even get children and teenagers to read, sometimes getting them to enjoy a book.. whether it be a classic or something quite fluffy and light, is enough. In time they will develop and explore their own interests in literature.. however, they must develop an interest in reading for this to happen first. Don't be so naive, it's a well known fact that less and less teenagers seem to be interested in reading these days, do you really think a classic that would engage the average reader of literature would engage students who are reluctant to read in the first place?

[JBI]

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.

Because the texts are so complex... and poetically rich that reading the plays is essential... although watching the plays may give a grasp of the flow and how the drama and humor play out. Performance of the plays also limits our experience to the particular interpretation of the individual performers rather than to our own interpretations.

Two mediums my friend - they are both equally as valid as art forms. The question though comes down to staging and acting - Shakespeare most surely had cues and ideas, but now directors are more free - that gives a peculiar feel to it.

We have, as far as I know, one major cue that is not written, that of Pyrymus stabbing himself with the scabbard when performing the play in A Midsummer Night's dream, as the joke is the sword will not unsheathe (a traditional cue). Likewise, we usually mix the different versions to create our "Oxford" or Arden editions, basically the works of debating editors.

Our ideas of Shakespeare work on many levels. We cannot ignore that dramatic presentation is just as valid as reading. It is just that dramatic presentations are based on particular readings themselves.

[The Comedian]

I can understand how you might find some classics boring -- we all do. For some the peaceful joy of Walden has all the allure of staring at a halogen light. While others find the marriage plots of Emma as emotionally stimulating as tax-prep software. . . .

As a fellow teacher, I do understand your classroom issue -- you need to your students emotionally invested in the reading so as to encourage a life of reading and thinking that is more fruitful than the dulling effects of a 12-hour Halo session. I totally get it. . . . . (I think Wilde Woman also said as much too).

I've always found that diversity is the way to get students pulled into literature. In a good class they should all "like" (hopefully love) a book and dislike a book or short work.

As for suggestions. . . . Science fiction always seems to rally the most response, in my experience anyway. Often the metaphors are clear and the students get an honest joy in discovering them. Try 1984 or War of the Worlds, and Watership Down. Short works are also nice -- students get to read an entire book (quite an achievement for some) and not get too bored in the process. The Moon and Sixpence, The Stranger, My Antonia, and some of the Greek Tragedies ("Medea" is great). [EDIT] I've also had great luck with "Lysistrata" too -- nothin' like makin' those calloused-minded modern young men and women blush.

I'm designing an "Introduction to Literature" for college freshmen designed around Alan Moore's comic "League of Extraordinary Gentleman" in which he uses innumerable characters, plots, and allusions to Victorian literature. I plan to use this as a tease, so to speak, to introduce the more traditional works that we'll read later such as Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, The Invisible Man and some Arthur Conan Doyle stories. . .in addition to some poetry and drama associated with the theme of the comic and culture of the times.

Hope this helps!

[stlukesguild]

I find a lot of posts in this thread quite sad. Many of you seem to be underestimating the power of the mind, the power to formulate your own tastes, likes and dislikes.

It can be a great challenge to even get children and teenagers to read, sometimes getting them to enjoy a book.. whether it be a classic or something quite fluffy and light, is enough. In time they will develop and explore their own interests in literature.. however, they must develop an interest in reading for this to happen first. Don't be so naive, it's a well known fact that less and less teenagers seem to be interested in reading these days, do you really think a classic that would engage the average reader of literature would engage students who are reluctant to read in the first place?

I don't believe anyone has underestimated the ability of individuals to formulate their own tastes or preferences... or the validity of the same. Of course the majority of students develop a taste for the latest pop music, the latest films, and the latest popular fiction because that is what their peers like and that is what the giant commercial markets are pushing.

One of the roles of the teacher is to introduce students to possibilities beyond their own personal preferences and those of popular culture. It is somewhat absurd that some defend sticking with students' narrow tastes when it comes to reading, but we would not advocate such with science, math, history, etc... It is understood that contrary to Rousseau's idealistic thoughts, the student is not necessarily in the best position to decide what he or she need to learn or should be required to learn.

On one level, a standard curriculum (in literature ans in every other subject) is necessary to develop and promote shared culture in order for students to engage in in discussion as well-rounded individuals. The greatest danger to any democratic culture is ignorance and the inability to engage in real critical thinking. At the same time, the standard curriculum in the humanities is of great value in developing a sense of empathy... an understanding of other cultures, other ages, other ways of thinking, other religions, other values than one's own. The self-centeredness of wishing to read only that which one immediately relates to is part of the reason we have such tunnel-vision and inability to understand opposing or different views when it comes to politics... national and on the international scale.

Yes, building upon the students' personal likes and prior knowledge is a good way to initially lead them to alternatives and other possibilities... but you are absolutely wrong if you mean to suggest that reading Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings will lead to a life-long love of reading and eventually exploration of serious literature. There are no facts to support this, and it shouldn't be surprising. We don't find a majority students who spend their youth listening only to the latest pop music branching out into alternatives: classical, jazz, opera, blues, etc... although certainly some will.