Young Writers Society

Do tell!

Is your aim to read as many classic books in your life as possible or are you one of the people who could care less? What's your favourite/least favourite classic?

Classics are called classics for a reason. While some of them might be a tad to artistic for my tastes, I would still like the experience of reading it.

Oliver Twist would rank as my favorite.

Some of the classics can be bogged down with description, which is hard for me to put up with. (Low attention span.) But for some of them, like Dracula and Tom Sawyer, all the description was neat because I will probably never get a chance to visit a castle or revolutionary America.

I will have to read Oliver Twist, Emm! I've had it on my computer for ages, I just never got around too it. If you liked Oliver Twist, you should read The Scarlet Pimpernel. It's a mystery/thriller about a baronet in France, just after the revolution. It's sort of like Batman, but plausible!

I've read a bunch of them because they're free for the Kindle app, and I'm a total miser

But in general, I wouldn't seek out a book because it's a 'classic' - I'd seek it out if it looked interesting. (Which is why I've only read Pride & Prejudice & Zombies, and not the other one )

For a minute I thought you were talking about Pokemon. o.O

The Jungle. All that is to be said.

I love classics (most of them anyway) and I read all that I can get my hands on. What I love about classics is that when you've read it you can see similarities in many other works, and when you can compare the book with a movie. After reading The Phantom of the Opera I developed a new understanding for the musical, and when I read The Picture of Dorian Gray and then watched the movie I realized just how much more liberal and tolerant we are today. I basically read classics just to be able to compare it with reinterpretations of the same work.

That said, there are some classics that I think are heavily overrated. I read Kafka once, and I wont do it again. As intriguing as it was, I barely understood a thing. I had to read a massive guide to actually understand all the hidden meanings and stuff.

Anyway, I like reading classics. If not for anything else, then because I like knowing what smart people are talking about

Classics are great if I can read them without setting the book down and figuring out what every sentence means. That said, newer classics are more my thing but I won't back down if there's one that's just too good to pass up.

I have mixed feelings about classics.

While I think classics are worthwhile to read, it bothers me when they are needlessly glorified (especially by English teachers and the like). You cannot say that any classic entirely lacks faults; many are dry and their writing styles are confusing to read, possibly even for their time.

That is not to say that I hate all classics- there are many that I find to be wonderful. They allow us to take a glimpse into the past and see what issues were important in that day in time, and compare it to our own era. They allow us to observe the evolution of language, to discern the true meaning of words. They cause us to think about the themes that the author presents.

Even still, there are many classics that I find unbearable. I do believe that we have higher opinions of classics than they truly deserve, because I have seen many flaws in books that I have read lately, and yet they are treated as though they are superior to books that are released today. Even those that are considered "instant classics" are not respected as much as other books simply because they aren't old.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that modern books tend to be thrown under the rug simply because they aren't old enough, and classics are treated with unnecessary glorification simply because of their age. People are obligated to feel guilty if they don't like a certain book because it's classic. That's my experience, anyway.

That said, if they're a good read I will definitely treat them as such, but not otherwise.

I sometimes feel like one of those pretentious snobs who chooses classics over contemporary fiction. At other times, I'll hate the very existence of a classic. It's not necessarily the book itself thats the problem, as I much enjoy fiction in general. I just need to be in the mood to read it.

I simply love the Classics because they appeal to me. I treat them as I would a regular book.

I read enough of them at school. Although my definition of classic may be different from yours. Mine is any book Shakespeare or back, stuff that requires effort to read. If you counted something like "To Kill a Mockingbird," that was a fantastic book, I think I just have a different definition than you guys.

I'm an English major, so pretty much all we study is classics. They're definitely valuable, or they wouldn't still be read and taught today. Some of them can be a little long winded and overly descriptive for my tastes, though.

Personally, I was never a huge fan of the classics and although I am a huge reader, I thought people who were all about the classics were just being hipster-snobs. Not that I'm bashing classics in any way, because there is a reason they are classics. I was just never really into it.
Although, we did have to read To Kill a Mockingbird in class a couple weeks ago, and I have to say that I really did enjoy it and it opened me up to reading more classic novels. That being said, only the ones which interest me.