Classic Book Critique

You know them- those books school assigns because they're "classics" and they'll make you smarter/better educated. But are they really all they're cracked up to be?

I've always wondered this, because although I've read plenty of classics, there are very few (of those I've read) that meet the hype they're given. So what made them so great? Are they really great examples of writing? Or did someone lock them in a vault like the Mummy, hoping to get rid of them, only to have them be found in the 20th century, praised, and forced on schoolchildren? (Not that I've had any experiences like that... /;) )

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, what do you think of the classics you've read? Are they good examples of writing, or were they just popular back then? Do they demonstrate some great, important point, or are they just overly wordy, as if someone was being paid by the word? ( *cough* Dickens *cough)

Who is your favorite classic author? Who do you think doesn't deserve the hype and prestige? What's your favorite classic?




p.s. Yes, I'm sorry, I'm biased against Dickens.

The classics are classics for a reason, they're timeless. I find it hard to truly criticize books written decades ago that still hold our attention, suspend time and space, challenge our beliefs, enrich our lives, and reveal something about our nature. I guess what I'm trying to say is: every "classic" that I've read has made an impact on me. I do believe we often worship classics blindly, but that's a different issue entirely.

The thing to remember is that a classic could be written this year.

Maybe I'm just really, really picky, but I'm not such a classics fan. I think it's because the society was very different than the society we live in. Sometimes they sound too typical, with the typical main idea...
But, well, I did enjoy Wuthering heights and Don Quixote. Wuthering heights I liked because it is more... modern, in a way? And I like DonQuixote because it's a satire!

It takes a lot for a book to become a 'classic', may that be clear. There are so many books out there that may entertain the lot, but are forgotten in about 5 years to be replaced by a slightly different version of the same.

Now I'm not an expert when it comes to this, but I certainly plan on gaining more knowledge on this topic (by reading more classics of course ). I think it's important to read them at some point. They're a part of history and have shaped what is now literature. It could have gone a whole other way.

Never stop criticising though. Don't like something simply because it is labeled as a classic. We still have our opinions.

I think the word "classic" itself should be explored. I've always wondered myself "who decides what should or should not be considered a classic?" and well, only time will tell really.

While there's no doubt in my mind that certain works such as Shakespeare's and Homer's are classics and have remained relevant throughout the centuries and influential to all writers throughout the world, the line gets muddled as we get closer and closer to contemporary literature. Do we consider 19th & 20th century works like The Dubliners, The Metamorphosis, The Great Gatsby classics?

I still think it's too early to tell. Who knows if we'll still be reading Gatsby 200 years from now? (Though I personally like to think so.)

As for Dickens. While I can understand why Dickens may or may not be your cup of tea (after all, we all have our likes and dislikes) I think we can all agree that during his day, a Dickens novel was something new and engrossing. As for how it influences us today, Dickens' novels have inspired a slew of writers and thinkers (Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Georgie Orwell, Alfred Hitchcock just to name a few) and contemporary big budget movies.

But I digress xD

So while I agree that it's important to question and criticize things, I also think it's important to consider the ripples a book or a writer can make, before deciding things on just personal judgement.

@ Audy- oh, no, I agree on Dickens' popularity and on the huge impact he made.... I just know I'll never understand why. XD

I've always wondered that too... what exactly makes a book a classic? I think Inkwell has something with the timeless quality, and I know what you mean, but what exactly does that entail? It's kind of hard to pinpoint.
Personally, I think it has a lot to do with the context of the story and the way it was expressed/written.
Any thoughts?

What bothers me most is that there are never any horror classics assigned school (ok, I found one (we could make a choice), but it was the most tiresome thing I read in my life). When was the last time you had to read H.P. Lovecraft for school? Probably never.

I would say modern day classics are the ones that almost everybody has read, and general classics are things that have survived the test of time.

As a kid and teenager I didn't enjoy the classics much because I didn't understand them or why they were good, and I prefered sci-fi and fantasy or picture books. I think as I got older I enjoyed them more.

Some things are classic because of style as well as enjoyability. They become classics because they become topics of discussion and review.

Shakesphere (not in any way doubting his genius) is partly famous because in a time when the theatre was being crushed and there wasn't much work for playwrites, he kept on writing anyway. Maybe there were others of similar standard but he was the guy everybody talked about, and though there are playwrites who can mimic his talent, he was the first to do it.

Jane Austen was a well self-educated woman writing for women, and prevailed in a time when women weren't thought so highly of, mainly worked as maids, servants or housewives, and recieved minimum education - so people talked about her.

Dickens was one of the first authors to try and make his work available to the lower classes. Rather than having to purchase a full book to trawl through, many of Dickens novels were published in magazine form that could be afforded monthly. It also meant that everybody was on the same page, it opened up the market to less educated people and so; people talked.

I could list other authors, but I'm rambling. Some books are smart, or touching, or just plain contraversial XD But people talk about it and they don't stop talking. Everybody knows what it is (and that it was a novel before it hit the movies >.> )

I reckon Harry Potter will be a timeless classic for the same reason. It seems everybody has a copy on their bookshelves, and because it's easy to read and enjoyable for adults and children.

Saw this in my bi-monthly-or-so exploration of the site and felt I had something to say regarding th subject.

I was speaking with a classmate (an avid reader, by the way) about what we were reading and such, and I happened to mention that I was reading "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. She didn't know about the book or the author; I briefly explained the premise and the context of its publication. Her reply was, "Oh. I don't like old books."

I think that this stereotype is becoming more and more pervasive in today's society. Yes, part of it has to do with the changing times and an often corresponding conextual murkiness, but my opinion is that our diminished attention spans play an even greater role. I think the general opinion regarding classics is that they're boring, because they don't grab us immediately and inundate us with fifteen action sequences every chapter, or don't have at least three complicated love affairs/conflicts going on. I think it would be fair to say that in, say, Dickens' time (as he seems to be a fairly popular subject on this thread), people, writers and readers alike, had about three times as long an attention span as we do.

Another reason that action-packed fantasy and sci-fi genres are on the rage right now is that literature is having a harder time keeping up with the far more attention-grabbing technological advances such as movies, video games, soap operas, all that. People are less interested in beautiful stories of everyday life because why read things like Oliver Twist (Dickens again!) when you can spend your time reading about dragons and elves and shooting aliens? That's a common enough excuse: I don't like reading about "ordinary things" because what's the point of reading if you can't transport yourself to another world?

But that argument is faulty. The real treat of reading is the learning: not only of different time periods and the mentalities of historical populations, but of themes that you just can't get across past layers of violence and magic. There's another point: the "most important thing in writing," as per school writing guidelines, is diverging farther and farther from a powerful theme and more toward catching and maintaining your reader's attention. As a result, readers are becoming less and less accustomed to actually thinking about functions such as allegory, metaphor, historical relevance (which three should be, or rather, used to be the most exciting part of reading), and instead want the theme to be handed to them without any work on their side. So when the reader doesn't immediately understand what happened and why at the end of a [classic] novel, they dismiss the plot as boring and confusing.

I like Kafka for a reason. Especially works like The Trial, The Castle, In the Penal Colony.

Do I sound contemptful? Yes, I suppose I do. I don't like the direction that literature is taking. Even more acclaimed books, such as the Geek Squad by J. Egan, of which I've read quite a bit of, seem to be turning more toward, like, ADD-inflicted readers. Good book, just...too much a reflection of our changing preferences.