Why Read the Classics? (1986)(nybooks.com)
nybooks.com
Why Read the Classics? (1986)
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1986/10/09/why-read-the-classics/
168 comments
This makes me happy — sounds like some top-notch parenting, and I'm heartened to hear your kids got so into it. I may steal the "exeunt" remark to exit a boring situation...
Incredible prose
Pedantipoint: it's mostly verse.
Pedantipoint: it's mostly verse.
Later histories & tragedies tended to be more prose than verse. Those are my faves.
I think those are also mostly verse - blank verse is still verse. Although, as with all things Shakespeare, his use of prose and verse is its own subfield of study so I was able to google my way to some cold, hard numbers (in spreadsheet form, no less).
https://shakespearefactsblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/shakes...
https://shakespearefactsblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/shakes...
[deleted]
If you get the chance to see Shakespeare in original pronunciation (OP), jump on it - and take the kids. The ear tunes it in amazingly quickly, and a lot of things suddenly make a lot more sense. The jokes are jokes and the puns are puns. There are still words that, alas, didn't survive the journey from the past, and false friends whose meanings have changed drastically in the interim, but the rhyme and meter of, well, antique "pirate talk" fit the material much better than a pompous theatrical version of RP.
(Be prepared to explain a lot of off-colour puns and double entendres. Shakespeare may have written much for the the equivalent of the private boxes, but he was most definitely not above a bit of Carry On/Benny Hill for the groundlings.)
(Be prepared to explain a lot of off-colour puns and double entendres. Shakespeare may have written much for the the equivalent of the private boxes, but he was most definitely not above a bit of Carry On/Benny Hill for the groundlings.)
The "Living Shakespeare" recordings from the 1960's are 50-minute productions that can make the plays much more "accessible."
I hesitate to link this (because it's been parked for a while), but you and the OP might enjoy the text-audio integration at this site.
https://willshake.net/#Shakespeare
I hesitate to link this (because it's been parked for a while), but you and the OP might enjoy the text-audio integration at this site.
https://willshake.net/#Shakespeare
What are some great jokes/one liners/scenes that will make me laugh?
My personal favourite as a child was a popular one from Julius Caesar.
"It's Cinna! Tear him apart!"
"I am not Cinna the conspirator. I am Cinna the poet!"
"Tear him! Tear him for his bad verses!"
"It's Cinna! Tear him apart!"
"I am not Cinna the conspirator. I am Cinna the poet!"
"Tear him! Tear him for his bad verses!"
Alcohol: It provokes the desire, yet it taketh away the performance!
(I mostly appreciate that line (from Macbeth) because it's just extremely relatable.)
(I mostly appreciate that line (from Macbeth) because it's just extremely relatable.)
I thought “She is spherical, like a globe.” Was pretty funny.
A lot of it depends on context. A guy trying to be intimidating, but realizing they’re out of their league.
A lot of it depends on context. A guy trying to be intimidating, but realizing they’re out of their league.
The entire kitchen scene in The Comedy of Errors is hilarious.
> Marry, sir, she's the kitchen wench and all grease; and I know not what use to put her to but to make a lamp of her and run from her by her own light. I warrant, her rags and the tallow in them will burn a Poland winter: if she lives till doomsday, she'll burn a week longer than the whole world.
If Shakespeare's plays were written today, there would be outrage. Political correctness was definitely not a concept in 1594.
> Marry, sir, she's the kitchen wench and all grease; and I know not what use to put her to but to make a lamp of her and run from her by her own light. I warrant, her rags and the tallow in them will burn a Poland winter: if she lives till doomsday, she'll burn a week longer than the whole world.
If Shakespeare's plays were written today, there would be outrage. Political correctness was definitely not a concept in 1594.
It was very politically incorrect to practice (or worse, proselytise) Roman Catholicism.
Also punning on the Globe Theatre probably
The Pyramus and Thisbe bits from Midsummers. And basically all of Bottom with the Ass head.
There are certain things that you can’t fully appreciate until you have experienced life enough for the material to be relateable. When I was in high school and college I hated history. I classified it as a “memorize and regurgitate” busywork subject.
Now I read history for recreation and can’t get enough, largely because now that I’m older and understand enough of how society works that I can understand the chain of events better. Reading history is almost like applied psychology.
Now I read history for recreation and can’t get enough, largely because now that I’m older and understand enough of how society works that I can understand the chain of events better. Reading history is almost like applied psychology.
My experience entirely! As a science and engineering student I was drawn to the rules, laws and preciseness (precision?) of the STEM subjects. As I got into the 50's I began to take delight in European history and now I can't get enough of it. Yes, it takes a while to realize that we should exult in the 'crooked timber of humanity'.
I would add classical music and also traditional ("trad") Irish music to this. Parents would have had it on a lot when younger but not really in an annoying way. It was just there. Used to hate as a teenager but somewhere around the 20s it just all clicked and I love it. Probably listen to more of it than anything else.
Oh yeah. I always liked history but it's now a favourite pastime. The best explanation I give for my growing interest is that you learn from mistakes and history is full of them. In more so, the greater the power, the bigger the mistakes and the harsher the consequences. But really I think that's just a rationalisation for a burgeoning fascination that I can approach with greater maturity.
My wife is the niece of a history professor too. It's interesting that the more I learn the less I want to talk to him about it - perhaps because I'm always learning there's a hell of a lot I don't know. Intimidating.
My wife is the niece of a history professor too. It's interesting that the more I learn the less I want to talk to him about it - perhaps because I'm always learning there's a hell of a lot I don't know. Intimidating.
Shakespeare is good enough that they keep ripping off his plots for movies, including my guilty favourite: 10 Things I Hate About You.
One of the lines I disagreed with from the otherwise excellent column:
> Schools and universities ought to help us to understand that no book that talks about a book says more than the book in question, but instead they do their level best to make us think the opposite.
Of course, a great number of Shakespeare's works were riffs on old plots that had been done many times before, and up to a few thousand years earlier.
His genius was not the plots but in what he 'said more than the plot in question'. One could easily make a distinction between analysis of a work and reinterpretation of a work, but I still think it is foolhardy to claim that analysis and critical thinking can not create its own value, and even more foolhardy to imply that that value is in competition with the value of the original work.
Anyway, I think the better modern reinterpretations of Shakespeare tend to focus on the themes that Shakespeare added to the classic plots, than they worry about the plot specifics.
> Schools and universities ought to help us to understand that no book that talks about a book says more than the book in question, but instead they do their level best to make us think the opposite.
Of course, a great number of Shakespeare's works were riffs on old plots that had been done many times before, and up to a few thousand years earlier.
His genius was not the plots but in what he 'said more than the plot in question'. One could easily make a distinction between analysis of a work and reinterpretation of a work, but I still think it is foolhardy to claim that analysis and critical thinking can not create its own value, and even more foolhardy to imply that that value is in competition with the value of the original work.
Anyway, I think the better modern reinterpretations of Shakespeare tend to focus on the themes that Shakespeare added to the classic plots, than they worry about the plot specifics.
Its funny. I think if you took away the context of it being an old Shakespeare play, most people would find The Taming of the Shrew (which 10 Things I Hate About You is very loosely based on) fairly abhorrent.
That's common with a lot of Shakespeare. A lot of his plotlines and humour are marginal at best. If Shakespeare was alive and writing these plays today, he would be pilloried.
The Merchant of Venice is blatantly anti-Semetic. The Comedy of Errors has a whole scene that's just fat shaming for no good reason. There's plenty of other examples of things that would be problematic if written in a modern context. Obviously it wasn't problematic several hundred years ago, and we shouldn't judge Shakespeare by modern standards.
The Merchant of Venice is blatantly anti-Semetic. The Comedy of Errors has a whole scene that's just fat shaming for no good reason. There's plenty of other examples of things that would be problematic if written in a modern context. Obviously it wasn't problematic several hundred years ago, and we shouldn't judge Shakespeare by modern standards.
>The Comedy of Errors has a whole scene that's just fat shaming for no good reason.
I really don't think fat jokes are considered off-limits for present-day comedies.
I really don't think fat jokes are considered off-limits for present-day comedies.
I had the opposite experience. I saw Shakespeare plays every year as a child and enjoyed them a lot. As I got older, however, I began enjoying them less and finding more issues with the plays. I think it would be worthwhile for people to explore more playwrights rather than simply focusing so much on a single one; you never know which one will resonate with you.
As an aside, “Exeunt, followed by a bear” from The Winter’s Tale was probably one of the greatest stage directions in English literature.
One point worth mentioning is that Shakespeare was not particularly high literature for his time: these were plays written for the 17th century theatre-goers to enjoy. And they had plenty of risqué one-liners: http://mentalfloss.com/article/54442/10-shakespeares-best-di... has a list. That said, Shakespeare at his best easily outdid his peers — his tragedies particularly, although they aren’t particularly historically accurate.
I suspect some of Asimov’s and particularly Stephen King’s works will be “classics” in 500 years time.
One point worth mentioning is that Shakespeare was not particularly high literature for his time: these were plays written for the 17th century theatre-goers to enjoy. And they had plenty of risqué one-liners: http://mentalfloss.com/article/54442/10-shakespeares-best-di... has a list. That said, Shakespeare at his best easily outdid his peers — his tragedies particularly, although they aren’t particularly historically accurate.
I suspect some of Asimov’s and particularly Stephen King’s works will be “classics” in 500 years time.
It's 'exit'. 'Exeunt' is a plural, not a fancy shakesperean way to say 'exit'. Similarly, you can't really mutter 'exeunt' to yourself unless you plan to leave with other people.
One point worth mentioning is that Shakespeare was not particularly high literature for his time
I don't think this bit is accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Men_(playing_company)
One point worth mentioning is that Shakespeare was not particularly high literature for his time
I don't think this bit is accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Men_(playing_company)
Re “exeunt”— yes, sorry, I was quoting from memory and misremembered.
The point about not being “high literature” was that the plays had a very broad audience. Shakespeare’s company were asked to perform in front of royals as well, but the plays were were seen by up to 3000 people a day with the cheapest tickets being a penny (about the price of a loaf of bread - cheap even for its time). They were effectively mass entertainment for 16th century Londoners.
The point about not being “high literature” was that the plays had a very broad audience. Shakespeare’s company were asked to perform in front of royals as well, but the plays were were seen by up to 3000 people a day with the cheapest tickets being a penny (about the price of a loaf of bread - cheap even for its time). They were effectively mass entertainment for 16th century Londoners.
I've tried to 'get into' Shakespeare a number of times, and have recently started another attempt. I'm going through the plays from the beginning and quite enjoying them. I actually don't agree that the comedy is that funny, and I find the plots completely over-the-top.
The thing is, I've seen enough films at this point in my life that even when I see new material, I get the sense that I've seen it before. Shakespeare's stories might be very predictable, but instead of giving much thought to the plot, you focus more on getting into the heads of the characters in the moment. They are vehicles for the universal human feelings: jealousy, love, lust, loneliness, elation, depression, mourning etc.
And then the way Shakespeare describes this is so rich. This is one way in that reading the plays is more rewarding than watching them, because in our day you need more time to parse the sentences, to look up archaic words (or those whose meaning has changed) and Classical references. But I find that putting in that work enriches my own English, and is an entertaining puzzle on its own .
The thing is, I've seen enough films at this point in my life that even when I see new material, I get the sense that I've seen it before. Shakespeare's stories might be very predictable, but instead of giving much thought to the plot, you focus more on getting into the heads of the characters in the moment. They are vehicles for the universal human feelings: jealousy, love, lust, loneliness, elation, depression, mourning etc.
And then the way Shakespeare describes this is so rich. This is one way in that reading the plays is more rewarding than watching them, because in our day you need more time to parse the sentences, to look up archaic words (or those whose meaning has changed) and Classical references. But I find that putting in that work enriches my own English, and is an entertaining puzzle on its own .
If you like Shakespeare, you might like this television series on the BBC called "Upstart Crow", written by Ben Elton (of Blackadder fame) and starring David Mitchell (of Peep Show fame) as Shakespeare.
Personally I found it hilarious, but it was a poor experience for the SO, who isn't as au fait with the bard as I am.
Personally I found it hilarious, but it was a poor experience for the SO, who isn't as au fait with the bard as I am.
In my effort to read some portion of the classics, I really experienced his observation of the difference between reading in school and reading later in life.
I couldn't believe how much more I was impacted by some of these books just 10 years after reading them in high school. Many of the plights of the protagonists just didn't stir me at all when I was in school, either because I didn't understand the historical context well enough, or because I didn't yet have enough empathy to feel their pain and loss (it's always pain and loss in the classics...)
Anyway, I highly recommend reading some of these books again as an adult. Even some of the ones I remember hating in school I ended up being engrossed by.
I couldn't believe how much more I was impacted by some of these books just 10 years after reading them in high school. Many of the plights of the protagonists just didn't stir me at all when I was in school, either because I didn't understand the historical context well enough, or because I didn't yet have enough empathy to feel their pain and loss (it's always pain and loss in the classics...)
Anyway, I highly recommend reading some of these books again as an adult. Even some of the ones I remember hating in school I ended up being engrossed by.
I reread the Count of Monte Cristo, there was a penguin edition on a garage sale table for $2. I found it much more enjoyable than I did the first time around. (it also shows you how much of our current storytelling was influenced by the themes in this book)
Is The Count of Monte Cristo a "classic"? It's great fun but I always thought of it as more of a pulpy adventure than a respected work of literature.
I am not sure, it makes a lot of '100 books to read before you die' lists[1]. Perhaps the best evidence to support it as worthy of the 'classic' moniker is perhaps the CSMonitor review [3] which points out that it has held up as a great story over several hundred years.
How would you define a "classic" and what books would you put in that definition?
[1] exemplar -- https://www.businessinsider.com/100-books-everyone-should-re...
[2] Quora discussion -- https://www.quora.com/Why-is-The-Count-of-Monte-Cristo-consi...
[3] "Dumas published the book in 1846. It is no exaggeration to say “Monte Cristo” still ranks as one of the most exciting stories imaginable, one every bit as good as anything Steven Spielberg or J.K. Rowling could ever conjure up." -- https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Reviews/2011/0206/Class...
How would you define a "classic" and what books would you put in that definition?
[1] exemplar -- https://www.businessinsider.com/100-books-everyone-should-re...
[2] Quora discussion -- https://www.quora.com/Why-is-The-Count-of-Monte-Cristo-consi...
[3] "Dumas published the book in 1846. It is no exaggeration to say “Monte Cristo” still ranks as one of the most exciting stories imaginable, one every bit as good as anything Steven Spielberg or J.K. Rowling could ever conjure up." -- https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Reviews/2011/0206/Class...
I’ve had a similar experience. I think it simply comes down to emotional maturity and more diverse life experiences. It makes it much easier to empathise with characters, as well as critically analyse the subtext.
One thing I found quite difficult however is dealing with the different writing styles. Sometimes it could be a real slog to get through books that have a dated or less contemporary style.
One thing I found quite difficult however is dealing with the different writing styles. Sometimes it could be a real slog to get through books that have a dated or less contemporary style.
I really recommend audiobooks here, it makes it so much easier to get through the 50 page sections of geneology or all-wrong speculation about the natural world that's included in a lot of classic works. So easy in fact you come to understand what role they play or why they're important.
One thing I love about the classics is that they have an entirely different set of euphemisms and implicit assumptions. They don't know what you're supposed to pretend isn't true in the modern world. You end up with, for instance, the ancient Greeks being very explicit that their early rulers were the most effective pirates and cattle rustlers. You learn a lot more about how we got where we are and why some obviously bad structures are so hard to change. Many decision makers from the dawn of writing to the present day relied on these texts as playbooks.
One thing I love about the classics is that they have an entirely different set of euphemisms and implicit assumptions. They don't know what you're supposed to pretend isn't true in the modern world. You end up with, for instance, the ancient Greeks being very explicit that their early rulers were the most effective pirates and cattle rustlers. You learn a lot more about how we got where we are and why some obviously bad structures are so hard to change. Many decision makers from the dawn of writing to the present day relied on these texts as playbooks.
I think it's mostly a problem of context and relevance coming from lack of independence in young people today.
When I read a book, it's because I have chosen to read it, I know something about it, I know where it belongs in history, and I believe it either has some relevance to me or I think it will just be entertaining to read.
When a teenager reads a book, it is often assigned, meaning that they do not know about the context of the book, it's often not at all relevant to their life, and is assigned by instructors they might already be inclined to distrust and disrespect. Sometimes the situation is made worse by certain forced critical readings of the book, or a ban on criticizing the book.
I'm not sure calling people who are constantly assigned arbitrary tasks they have little say in and whose bathroom breaks are controlled "emotionally immature" is useful or accurate, and is close to the root of the problem itself.
When I read a book, it's because I have chosen to read it, I know something about it, I know where it belongs in history, and I believe it either has some relevance to me or I think it will just be entertaining to read.
When a teenager reads a book, it is often assigned, meaning that they do not know about the context of the book, it's often not at all relevant to their life, and is assigned by instructors they might already be inclined to distrust and disrespect. Sometimes the situation is made worse by certain forced critical readings of the book, or a ban on criticizing the book.
I'm not sure calling people who are constantly assigned arbitrary tasks they have little say in and whose bathroom breaks are controlled "emotionally immature" is useful or accurate, and is close to the root of the problem itself.
The best books can be reread all through life. They have different meanings and lessons for a person during different life stages.
Maybe, but I can tell you I got nothing from reading "Waiting for Godot" as a sophomore in high school. Age is something that is hard to relate to when your 14-15. Worse philosophy tends to be a luxury when your really poor and have more immediate concerns. I might have been offended by being called "emotionally immature" at that age but i also found Jane Eyre and similar to be pointless rubbish at that age.
Although, maybe the point of a "classic" is that it should have broad appeal, but there is a difference between intellectually understanding something and being able to relate to it. I found Grapes of Wrath to be relatable, but tedious in high school, and noticed a correlation a between the amount of hate better off kids in class espoused for it vs the fact that I while I found it immensely depressing, I didn't mind it nearly as much as many of the other assignments.
Although, maybe the point of a "classic" is that it should have broad appeal, but there is a difference between intellectually understanding something and being able to relate to it. I found Grapes of Wrath to be relatable, but tedious in high school, and noticed a correlation a between the amount of hate better off kids in class espoused for it vs the fact that I while I found it immensely depressing, I didn't mind it nearly as much as many of the other assignments.
Reading for assignment is a chore, reading for pleasure is a joy.
I think you get caught up in the feeling that "this needs to be done" that you don't really get to get into the book.
I think you get caught up in the feeling that "this needs to be done" that you don't really get to get into the book.
Yep. A couple times in high school I refused to read an assigned book that I didn't want to ruin for myself. (Pride and Prejudice and Moby-Dick. Came back to them years later and still think I scheduled them correctly.) I guess the difference from some others which I actually enjoyed reading for school (Othello, Alice in Wonderland) was the ratio of effort to pulpish I-want-to-read-the-next-page quality.
Nothing sterilizes a book's emotional or intellectual impact quite like being forced to read it. It's like cultivating a person's appreciation of sushi by physically shoving it down her throat.
What's worse is that I can only unhelpfully lament the current state of literature in education -- I have no idea how we may improve the system...
What's worse is that I can only unhelpfully lament the current state of literature in education -- I have no idea how we may improve the system...
> Nothing sterilizes a book's emotional or intellectual impact quite like being forced to read it.
at the rate of one fucking chapter a week
I always remember Flowers for Algernon, a book which we read as part of English class. I devoured it in about 2-3 days and it was definitely the first book to ever make me cry. Like, that book is fucking incredible. I told the teacher next day - who (wisely) said I shouldn't share this with fellow students lest I get mocked.
4 weeks later we're being asked questions about the motivations of characters. Or what do we think the author meant by this paragraph. All in chapter 4.
I couldn't remember, I didn't care. The book had a profound interest on me and nobody else was actually reading it. Just micro-analysing all possible joy out of it. Ugh.
at the rate of one fucking chapter a week
I always remember Flowers for Algernon, a book which we read as part of English class. I devoured it in about 2-3 days and it was definitely the first book to ever make me cry. Like, that book is fucking incredible. I told the teacher next day - who (wisely) said I shouldn't share this with fellow students lest I get mocked.
4 weeks later we're being asked questions about the motivations of characters. Or what do we think the author meant by this paragraph. All in chapter 4.
I couldn't remember, I didn't care. The book had a profound interest on me and nobody else was actually reading it. Just micro-analysing all possible joy out of it. Ugh.
I personally enjoyed (and was certainly impacted by) many of the books that I was forced to read during high school. The most memorable ones for me all fell into the "modern classics" category - To Kill a Mockingbird, Animal Farm, 1984, A Clockwork Orange, Lord of the Flies, Brave New World, The Diary of Anne Frank, and so on.
Don't sugarcoat 1984 quite so much. It is an important read, but it's also good to tell a reader that "the interesting bits" happen (very roughly) 2/3rds of the way in to the book.
At least it's not The Great Gatsby (blegh) 8 chapters of annoyance and one lonely chapter of actual non-world building.
At least it's not The Great Gatsby (blegh) 8 chapters of annoyance and one lonely chapter of actual non-world building.
I found I had the exact same experience with poetry. I used to had poetry, because it was something that I was forced to read in school.
Now, years after leaving high school, I actually find myself reading poetry for enjoyment. It's possible to read it and not sit there and analyse every word of every line. Sometimes it's nice to just read a poem and leave it at that, in the same way you'd listen to a song without delving into the lyrics.
Now, years after leaving high school, I actually find myself reading poetry for enjoyment. It's possible to read it and not sit there and analyse every word of every line. Sometimes it's nice to just read a poem and leave it at that, in the same way you'd listen to a song without delving into the lyrics.
Yeah, as a kid I always hated analyzing poetry. It felt similar to dissecting jokes[0]. A good poem stands on its own. I'd understand if we were in poem-writing class, there spending hours analyzing structure of a poem would make sense. But in a general class, it basically killed my interest.
(A lot of my experiences in school can be summed up by a question that was never answered: "why are we talking about this?".)
--
[0] - "Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process."
(A lot of my experiences in school can be summed up by a question that was never answered: "why are we talking about this?".)
--
[0] - "Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process."
One thing that might make it _slightly_ better, is that when I had read something for one of my language courses, they'd give us a list with a selection of books we could choose from.
So at least, you kind of can read a bit about each book and then see which one you'd like best. Still, the selection had to fit in the school curriculum so it wasn't exactly free choice. And a few of them were mandatory for everyone.
I'd say the experience still wasn't great, but perhaps was better than being forced to read book X.
Intrinsic motivation to read does make the experience a whole lot more satisfying, and as others have noted before me, reading some of those books again now makes me appreciate them more. Just recently started reading some of Tolstoy's work and I can imagine that a decade ago (in high school) I wouldn't have been able to find motivation to read anything he wrote.
So at least, you kind of can read a bit about each book and then see which one you'd like best. Still, the selection had to fit in the school curriculum so it wasn't exactly free choice. And a few of them were mandatory for everyone.
I'd say the experience still wasn't great, but perhaps was better than being forced to read book X.
Intrinsic motivation to read does make the experience a whole lot more satisfying, and as others have noted before me, reading some of those books again now makes me appreciate them more. Just recently started reading some of Tolstoy's work and I can imagine that a decade ago (in high school) I wouldn't have been able to find motivation to read anything he wrote.
"Many of the plights of the protagonists just didn't stir me at all when I was in school, either because I didn't understand the historical context well enough, or because I didn't yet have enough empathy to feel their pain and loss (it's always pain and loss in the classics...)"
This suggest that the difference had more to do with life experiences and generally amount of knowledge then with having it assigned.
This suggest that the difference had more to do with life experiences and generally amount of knowledge then with having it assigned.
While this is possibly true, I think we should not discount the fact that a lot of prescribed reading (in schools) is not age appropriate literature. If I had read 1984 or 'Lord of the Flies' during my schooldays I would not have been able to appreciate it. I read a lot in that period and I loved to read (and still do) but I seldom liked reading what was prescribed as part of the curriculum - with the sole exception of 'Robin Hood'. It was an 'abridged' version and I read it so many times because I was thoroughly entertained by the story.
I liked 1984 at high school. I loved it, my favorite book at the time.
I agree that Robin Hood and adventure should be assigned soon. The biggest risk with Robin Hood and similar books is that you get it assigned too late, when you cant appreciate story as genuinly as young people.
I agree that Robin Hood and adventure should be assigned soon. The biggest risk with Robin Hood and similar books is that you get it assigned too late, when you cant appreciate story as genuinly as young people.
Not necessarily. Depends on circumstances. Putting a book on a school or college curriculum is a form of enforced reading dictated however by people whose opinions you presumably respect.
That depends probably on whether you were a lit major or not. I can understand how someone forced into a lit class under general studies would be irritated by texts that seem uninteresting or irrelevant but if you're a literature student that's exactly what you're there for.
Half the use of the classes was getting a syllabus someone had gone to great lengths to organize around an expert knowledge of some area or string of thought.
I usually found a good deal of value, even when the author or work was not to my specific taste.
My classical literature class had a cycle exclusively on Antigone. I was and am not as enamored by that play as was my instructor and the critic George Steiner who we were asked to read. But to loathe the requirement and not focus on deriving the best possible value from that assignment would've been a waste of money.
Half the use of the classes was getting a syllabus someone had gone to great lengths to organize around an expert knowledge of some area or string of thought.
I usually found a good deal of value, even when the author or work was not to my specific taste.
My classical literature class had a cycle exclusively on Antigone. I was and am not as enamored by that play as was my instructor and the critic George Steiner who we were asked to read. But to loathe the requirement and not focus on deriving the best possible value from that assignment would've been a waste of money.
Years after college, I still really enjoy walking through a university bookstore and looking at the books in the curriculum for each major. Pretty much everything that's not a textbook is regarded as a really important book by the experts in the field, and a lot of them are quite readable for nonfiction which I assume is a result of professors wanting to keep students interested.
[deleted]
> Nothing sterilizes a book's emotional or intellectual impact quite like being forced to read it.
That depends on many factors, including the particular book, the "coolness" of the teacher, the age of the pupil, etc. Poetry finally clicked for me in my final year of high school when we were assigned one single poet I had never read before (and definitely wouldn’t have never read if he hadn’t been assigned in school). I was so fascinated by this mandatory reading that I bought the poet’s collected works, then began reading verse by his contemporaries, and so on and so forth.
That depends on many factors, including the particular book, the "coolness" of the teacher, the age of the pupil, etc. Poetry finally clicked for me in my final year of high school when we were assigned one single poet I had never read before (and definitely wouldn’t have never read if he hadn’t been assigned in school). I was so fascinated by this mandatory reading that I bought the poet’s collected works, then began reading verse by his contemporaries, and so on and so forth.
Who was it?
I've always thought that before forcing us to read a classic they should get us to attempt writing one (or, more realistically just a few pages). Get us to create a relatable character, come up with an engaging and original plot, describe a place, a situation or a character in a clear, concise, amusing, manner. Get us to realize first hand how difficult it is to do so. Then you have my attention. Now I want to know how the best do it.
This is a good idea. Although don't make me describe a real place or let me pick a place to describe.
Besides (as others have pointed out) some of the classics aren't that great. Then, there is the problem that it seems frequently the books chosen for a high school reader are chosen based on some perceived quality of the book rather than what is going to be enjoyable, relatable and readable by someone who effectively doesn't have any adult life behind them.
Worse they seem to be chosen without regard to length or readability. I had to read Grapes of Wrath over 3 weeks in HS (with everything else going on, and I know most students shared a cliff notes and prayed for a reasonable grade), but there are plenty of worse examples and the The Count of Monte Cristo in its 1000+ page unabridged addition was assigned my niece last year. I tend to be able to read pulp novels at 100 pages an hour, but older novels, Shakespeare plays etc, can easy bring it down to 30 pages an hour or less. Which for a 600 page book is a 20+ hour long drag if the novel isn't enjoyable.
Surely the instructors can find shorter novels which are easier for the kids to read and relate to. I remember reading Cannery Row a few years ago and wondering why instead of Grapes of Wrath it wasn't assigned, or for that matter I read "This Side of Paradise" and am to this day 100% convinced that any teacher that assigns The Great Gatsby to a teenage student over it should seriously be examined (actually IIRC when I read it, it seemed the sexual content in this side of paradise probably makes it hard to assign, but that is another discussion, along with the fact that Gatsby was initially a failure with mixed reviews, the reasons should be understood but apparently aren't. I hated the Gatsby assignment, but suspect that I would have found it more enjoyable in my 20's when I read Paradise, which is likely one of those books that is less meaningful to people in their 50's).
The bottom line, is that there are plenty of "classic" novels that are relatable to a wide audience (male & female, differing economic backgrounds, etc) and are short enough that a normal teenager can struggle through them even if they aren't enjoyable. The fact that it accepted to assign some of these book because everyone else is doing it is just a sign of bad instruction.
Worse they seem to be chosen without regard to length or readability. I had to read Grapes of Wrath over 3 weeks in HS (with everything else going on, and I know most students shared a cliff notes and prayed for a reasonable grade), but there are plenty of worse examples and the The Count of Monte Cristo in its 1000+ page unabridged addition was assigned my niece last year. I tend to be able to read pulp novels at 100 pages an hour, but older novels, Shakespeare plays etc, can easy bring it down to 30 pages an hour or less. Which for a 600 page book is a 20+ hour long drag if the novel isn't enjoyable.
Surely the instructors can find shorter novels which are easier for the kids to read and relate to. I remember reading Cannery Row a few years ago and wondering why instead of Grapes of Wrath it wasn't assigned, or for that matter I read "This Side of Paradise" and am to this day 100% convinced that any teacher that assigns The Great Gatsby to a teenage student over it should seriously be examined (actually IIRC when I read it, it seemed the sexual content in this side of paradise probably makes it hard to assign, but that is another discussion, along with the fact that Gatsby was initially a failure with mixed reviews, the reasons should be understood but apparently aren't. I hated the Gatsby assignment, but suspect that I would have found it more enjoyable in my 20's when I read Paradise, which is likely one of those books that is less meaningful to people in their 50's).
The bottom line, is that there are plenty of "classic" novels that are relatable to a wide audience (male & female, differing economic backgrounds, etc) and are short enough that a normal teenager can struggle through them even if they aren't enjoyable. The fact that it accepted to assign some of these book because everyone else is doing it is just a sign of bad instruction.
The unabridged Count of Monte Cristo is a blockbuster that puts Hollywood to shame in its scale. Even has a chapter on a bloodbath, that looked to me as something that could have inspired some one like Tarantino. Pirates, murders, poisoning mystery, Prison escapades, Roman banditi, political intrigue, it has all of it and more.
My two favorite chapters were the ones where Dantès talks about building up immunity to toxic substances by ingesting miniscule portions over time, and the one where he recounts the time he was in the Orient and smoked a bunch of opium. Why didn't that make it into the movie?
Similar experience with the Portuguese classics, I only got to enjoy the ones I have read before reaching the school level where they were compulsory.
Italo Calvino is a likable person, and I'm glad he wrote one of my personal classics: "Se una notte d'inverno un viaggiatore" is an extraordinary book. I've also enjoyed most of his works, especially "Le città invisibili" & "Cosmicomics". If you haven't read any of these, try them or his famous trilogy: they all have that special signature of his, but they're different enough that you might like one and not the other.
About reading the classics too early, I've experienced it, but I also had the opposite feeling. I had little pleasure reading Homer when I was a teenager, but was enthusiastic about the "Odyssey" twenty years later. The translation played a big part in that change of heart, going from prose to rimes, but I believe my age and my larger culture was necessary to fully enjoy it.
On the other side, I read quite a few of Balzac's novels when in high school, and my favorites were "Eugénie Grandet" and "La peau de chagrin". Somewhere in my thirties, I reread the latter and thought it was awful, so pretentious and pseudo-philosophical that I dropped it before the end.
Reading the classics is still the best way to travel for me. I feel I've lived many years in some kind of half-mythical Russia of the last two centuries. I saw the whole Mediterranean world through Herodotus' eyes. My years as a child were heroic thanks to Dumas and Tolkien.
Later on, classics destroyed my condescending attitude to past ages. Reading "Orlando Furioso", I was astonished to read feminist opinions by a man writing around 1500. IIRC, Arioste wrote that a woman sleeping with a man before marriage was no big deal, that they should try a few guys before choosing the best one. Another Italian classic of the same period, "La Gerusalemme liberata", had the same impact on my vision of the late Middle Age, and was an even better read. For another example, as much as I adored Shakespeare as a young adult, when I discovered the Greek theater of Euripides and Sophocles, I saw that having emotional and deep characters was nothing new.
Italo Calvino did not mention a special kind of classics that many people know in an altered way: the religious literature, and especially the Bible (not the King James). Some of these texts are boring to a non-religious reader, but other are fantastic, like Job and Qohelet. To dive in an even older world, "The Epic of Gilgamesh" and a bit of Sumerian literature gave me a strong connection to people that disappeared milleniums ago.
About reading the classics too early, I've experienced it, but I also had the opposite feeling. I had little pleasure reading Homer when I was a teenager, but was enthusiastic about the "Odyssey" twenty years later. The translation played a big part in that change of heart, going from prose to rimes, but I believe my age and my larger culture was necessary to fully enjoy it.
On the other side, I read quite a few of Balzac's novels when in high school, and my favorites were "Eugénie Grandet" and "La peau de chagrin". Somewhere in my thirties, I reread the latter and thought it was awful, so pretentious and pseudo-philosophical that I dropped it before the end.
Reading the classics is still the best way to travel for me. I feel I've lived many years in some kind of half-mythical Russia of the last two centuries. I saw the whole Mediterranean world through Herodotus' eyes. My years as a child were heroic thanks to Dumas and Tolkien.
Later on, classics destroyed my condescending attitude to past ages. Reading "Orlando Furioso", I was astonished to read feminist opinions by a man writing around 1500. IIRC, Arioste wrote that a woman sleeping with a man before marriage was no big deal, that they should try a few guys before choosing the best one. Another Italian classic of the same period, "La Gerusalemme liberata", had the same impact on my vision of the late Middle Age, and was an even better read. For another example, as much as I adored Shakespeare as a young adult, when I discovered the Greek theater of Euripides and Sophocles, I saw that having emotional and deep characters was nothing new.
Italo Calvino did not mention a special kind of classics that many people know in an altered way: the religious literature, and especially the Bible (not the King James). Some of these texts are boring to a non-religious reader, but other are fantastic, like Job and Qohelet. To dive in an even older world, "The Epic of Gilgamesh" and a bit of Sumerian literature gave me a strong connection to people that disappeared milleniums ago.
> About reading the classics too early, I've experienced it, but I also had the opposite feeling. I had little pleasure reading Homer when I was a teenager, but was enthusiastic about the "Odyssey" twenty years later. The translation played a big part in that change of heart, going from prose to rimes, but I believe my age and my larger culture was necessary to fully enjoy it.
On the other side, I read quite a few of Balzac's novels when in high school, and my favorites were "Eugénie Grandet" and "La peau de chagrin". Somewhere in my thirties, I reread the latter and thought it was awful, so pretentious and pseudo-philosophical that I dropped it before the end
That's interesting to me, I hated Balzac when I had to read it in school but I loved the Odyssey as a kid. Most of the classics I read and enjoyed as a kid (Voltaire's Contes Philosophiques, To kill a mocking bird, all the books from Maupassant, etc...) I read them for fun by myself without the school asking me to read them, on the other had I hated the books that I was forced to read (Rousseau's confessions, Balzac, Les Allumettes suédoises by Robert Sabatier)
It does show that being forced to read something does color your perception of it. I sometimes wonder what the best way to introduce literature without shoving it down student's throat but still getting them to read good classics.
That's interesting to me, I hated Balzac when I had to read it in school but I loved the Odyssey as a kid. Most of the classics I read and enjoyed as a kid (Voltaire's Contes Philosophiques, To kill a mocking bird, all the books from Maupassant, etc...) I read them for fun by myself without the school asking me to read them, on the other had I hated the books that I was forced to read (Rousseau's confessions, Balzac, Les Allumettes suédoises by Robert Sabatier)
It does show that being forced to read something does color your perception of it. I sometimes wonder what the best way to introduce literature without shoving it down student's throat but still getting them to read good classics.
I have found the opposite to be true. I had much greater faith in and patience for the literary cannnon when I was young than I do now.
I think that writing just like everything else has improved with the 20th and 21st century's obsession with design. As such, not all but the best modern writing is much more expressive, concise and communicative. There is boat loads of super high quality writing rolling off the presses each year. Having taken Carl Sagan's axiom to heart that we have a very limited number of books we can read in our lifetimes and should therefore hold them dearly, I read few books older than 200 years. It's awfully reductive I know but generally the value/lb is just lower.
I think that writing just like everything else has improved with the 20th and 21st century's obsession with design. As such, not all but the best modern writing is much more expressive, concise and communicative. There is boat loads of super high quality writing rolling off the presses each year. Having taken Carl Sagan's axiom to heart that we have a very limited number of books we can read in our lifetimes and should therefore hold them dearly, I read few books older than 200 years. It's awfully reductive I know but generally the value/lb is just lower.
> Having taken Carl Sagan's axiom to heart that we have a very limited number of books we can read in our lifetimes and should therefore hold them dearly, I read few books older than 200 years.
It's so strange how the same idea can affect people so differently.
Sagan's axiom actually made me read old books only. Bible, greek mythology, shakespeare, etc. I even learned latin to read Newton's Principia, vulgate and other latin texts. I don't think I have the patience to learn ancient greek.
Pretty much every modern literature is derivative of the bible, greek mythology, etc. So why not read the real deal?
It's so strange how the same idea can affect people so differently.
Sagan's axiom actually made me read old books only. Bible, greek mythology, shakespeare, etc. I even learned latin to read Newton's Principia, vulgate and other latin texts. I don't think I have the patience to learn ancient greek.
Pretty much every modern literature is derivative of the bible, greek mythology, etc. So why not read the real deal?
> Pretty much every modern literature is derivative of the bible, greek mythology, etc. So why not read the real deal?
The same reason we use modern computers even though they're ultimately derivative of primitive tally sticks. “Derivative of” does not mean “worse than”.
The same reason we use modern computers even though they're ultimately derivative of primitive tally sticks. “Derivative of” does not mean “worse than”.
I largely agree, but there's a broadening from visiting other times as well as other countries. Since a book is less immersive than actual travel, you need to read quite a bit of older stuff to get much of that effect. At least, I had to.
Oh absolutely. And if you really want to appreciate modern literature you need some grounding in cannpnical works.
They establish our common tropes amd metaphors. You'll get a lot more out of most modern works having that background. Hell, you'll get more out of the Simpsons
I still have a reading list of cannonical works. It's just shorter and I pursue it less aggressively. One thing I'd say too is that college lit classes and our popular notion of "classical" works both over index on books. You can get a lot more bang for the buck imo out of essays.
They establish our common tropes amd metaphors. You'll get a lot more out of most modern works having that background. Hell, you'll get more out of the Simpsons
I still have a reading list of cannonical works. It's just shorter and I pursue it less aggressively. One thing I'd say too is that college lit classes and our popular notion of "classical" works both over index on books. You can get a lot more bang for the buck imo out of essays.
> if you really want to appreciate modern literature you need some grounding in canonical works
Cultural literacy can be raised in lots of ways besides studying the musty canon. And why limit yourself to the slice of modern entertainment where the canon is prerequisite?
Deciding for yourself what art you value -- after questioning the canon, ignoring academics, critics and other authorities -- is the highest form of appreciation.
Each individual owns their experience. The author is not the authority.
Cultural literacy can be raised in lots of ways besides studying the musty canon. And why limit yourself to the slice of modern entertainment where the canon is prerequisite?
Deciding for yourself what art you value -- after questioning the canon, ignoring academics, critics and other authorities -- is the highest form of appreciation.
Each individual owns their experience. The author is not the authority.
I agree that we need to be very judicious in choosing the right books.
Somewhat related, I read Madame Bovary a while ago and the back of the book said something about it being one of the first modern novels (or something to that effect) and so I read it in that light, and it occurred to me several times throughout that if it were written today, it would be completely ignored. There were like 50-100 pages in the middle that I thought would have definitely been cut out by a modern editor. Maybe it just wasn't my thing.
It was exceptional in the time it was written and it's special for that reason, but if you want to read a romance involving a really moody lady, there's probably tens of newer better choices that are also considered "classics".
Somewhat related, I read Madame Bovary a while ago and the back of the book said something about it being one of the first modern novels (or something to that effect) and so I read it in that light, and it occurred to me several times throughout that if it were written today, it would be completely ignored. There were like 50-100 pages in the middle that I thought would have definitely been cut out by a modern editor. Maybe it just wasn't my thing.
It was exceptional in the time it was written and it's special for that reason, but if you want to read a romance involving a really moody lady, there's probably tens of newer better choices that are also considered "classics".
Precisely that may be a good reason to read the classics, as time may a good judge of lasting literary merit. Some books are valued 200/300 years after their writing, while others were of more ephemeral relevance. For the books rolling out of press today, it is difficult to make an assessment, so I read mostly older ones.
Have to say I completely disagree with this, especially with respect to 21st and late 20th centuries. We may be more concerned with design nowadays (although I'd argue mostly on a commercial level), but to extrapolate that to an improvement in the aesthetics of writing seems a gross error.
If we assume that reading great books and practicing writing is critical to becoming a great writer, we've never been in worse time for writing development. The average person grows up reading--if they read at all--Harry Potter, Twilight, etc., being inundated with inane advertising, steeped in piss-poor social media posts, etc. The most writing the average person does is work email. Contrast that to, e.g., Herman Melville, who grew up reading pretty much solely the King James Bible and the complete works of Shakespeare, and who probably corresponded with friends and family every day.
I even think the vast majority of 21st century writers would disagree with you.
If we assume that reading great books and practicing writing is critical to becoming a great writer, we've never been in worse time for writing development. The average person grows up reading--if they read at all--Harry Potter, Twilight, etc., being inundated with inane advertising, steeped in piss-poor social media posts, etc. The most writing the average person does is work email. Contrast that to, e.g., Herman Melville, who grew up reading pretty much solely the King James Bible and the complete works of Shakespeare, and who probably corresponded with friends and family every day.
I even think the vast majority of 21st century writers would disagree with you.
What the average person is reading or writing is irrelevant to whether or not great writing is being produced.
There are vastly more people who have pursued educations and careers in literature and writing than any past point in history, including reading the classics you expect. We've gone from populations that weren't even literate, to university degrees being normal.
Plenty of people are putting out great writing. The problem has become finding it in a sea of publications.
There are vastly more people who have pursued educations and careers in literature and writing than any past point in history, including reading the classics you expect. We've gone from populations that weren't even literate, to university degrees being normal.
Plenty of people are putting out great writing. The problem has become finding it in a sea of publications.
I agree that "vastly more people who have pursued educations and careers in literature and writing than any past point in history." I don't think that necessarily means we're producing better writers than the best writers of the pre-18th century Earth, largely because exemplary writers are formed--like a Terence Tao in math--at an early age. Anecdotally Faulkner never graduated from college; Shakespeare never went to college.
Let's go back to the (overly) strong statement our parent post made:
>I think that writing just like everything else has improved with the 20th and 21st century's obsession with design. As such, not all but the best modern writing is much more expressive, concise and communicative.
Concision is more a modern trend than anything else and not an absolute good so we'll ignore it.
Name me a 21st century writer more expressive and communicative than Shakespeare. Or assuming he's too "long-tail," someone more expressive than Faulkner. And I agree this is completely subjective, so I'd think the best course of action is seeing if there is any academic consensus on the subject.
Just some quick googling, but here's an article [0] about a Stanford study showing that modern students are writing more than ever (mostly through text messages/social media). But one wonders whether text messages are (a) "prose" in the literary sense, (b) materially different enough on a mental level from just talking to someone to offer any additional benefit, (c) transferable in skills to writing a novel. The authors say that the students are good at "assessing their audience and adapting their tone and technique to best get their point across," but their test subjects are a bunch of Stanford students who are great at jumping through hoops and conforming to expectations--as shown by the fact that they got into Stanford. Not to mention that they're not comparing the papers to a sample of pre-texting papers...
Anyway, not like that article is definitive or anything.
Let's go back to the (overly) strong statement our parent post made:
>I think that writing just like everything else has improved with the 20th and 21st century's obsession with design. As such, not all but the best modern writing is much more expressive, concise and communicative.
Concision is more a modern trend than anything else and not an absolute good so we'll ignore it.
Name me a 21st century writer more expressive and communicative than Shakespeare. Or assuming he's too "long-tail," someone more expressive than Faulkner. And I agree this is completely subjective, so I'd think the best course of action is seeing if there is any academic consensus on the subject.
Just some quick googling, but here's an article [0] about a Stanford study showing that modern students are writing more than ever (mostly through text messages/social media). But one wonders whether text messages are (a) "prose" in the literary sense, (b) materially different enough on a mental level from just talking to someone to offer any additional benefit, (c) transferable in skills to writing a novel. The authors say that the students are good at "assessing their audience and adapting their tone and technique to best get their point across," but their test subjects are a bunch of Stanford students who are great at jumping through hoops and conforming to expectations--as shown by the fact that they got into Stanford. Not to mention that they're not comparing the papers to a sample of pre-texting papers...
Anyway, not like that article is definitive or anything.
Not sure this kind of comparison is meaningful.
Many modern books when I read them, I'm immersed into the world that is created, sometimes not wanting them to end. Never felt like that with Shakespeare. Another book I think that highlights this difference is Voltaire's candide, such a fast paced fantastic story, but it doesn't draw you in. But a fast paced dan brown book tends to draw me in way more than Voltaire did. But Candide is a far far cleverer book I think with a lot of things to think about. Shakespeare seems similar, great storylines with fantastic prose but just doesn't draw you in the way modern book (or scripts) do, well at least not for me.
So expressiveness? the ability to convey meanings and feeling? Most any modern novelist can do this better than Shakespeare can (for me).
Many modern books when I read them, I'm immersed into the world that is created, sometimes not wanting them to end. Never felt like that with Shakespeare. Another book I think that highlights this difference is Voltaire's candide, such a fast paced fantastic story, but it doesn't draw you in. But a fast paced dan brown book tends to draw me in way more than Voltaire did. But Candide is a far far cleverer book I think with a lot of things to think about. Shakespeare seems similar, great storylines with fantastic prose but just doesn't draw you in the way modern book (or scripts) do, well at least not for me.
So expressiveness? the ability to convey meanings and feeling? Most any modern novelist can do this better than Shakespeare can (for me).
The 20th century is so rich in good lit. Even Faulkner (you in your latter comment) is in this time period. And getting closer to today you still have solid authors: Gene Wolfe, Jim Harrison, Cormac McCarthy, Marilynne, Robinson, Susanna Clarke, China Mieville, Dan Simmons, Ursula K. Le Guin. These aren't chumps.
The 21st century is just beginning. It will shake out over time. I suspect a part of it is a minor fetishization with language that differs from what we're used to. Like a British accent can sound delightful to me even if it's not any more literate than me. The same could hold with past writing styles. So what is "blandly" written now, might not sound bland to people 50 years from now. Just a thought.
The 21st century is just beginning. It will shake out over time. I suspect a part of it is a minor fetishization with language that differs from what we're used to. Like a British accent can sound delightful to me even if it's not any more literate than me. The same could hold with past writing styles. So what is "blandly" written now, might not sound bland to people 50 years from now. Just a thought.
Some of this depends on what you read. Much of early philosophy is astoundingly relevant, particularly when you read a modern English translation with good translation notes.
Hundreds or thousands of years may have passed, and yet the lessons are as valuable today as when they were written.
With philosophy in particular, I would argue the classics are worth reading to understand how their ideas have shaped history, and how their ideas continue to shape the present and future - because at their heart what they describe is human thought and behaviour, and those are surprisingly unchanged over the interceding years.
Hundreds or thousands of years may have passed, and yet the lessons are as valuable today as when they were written.
With philosophy in particular, I would argue the classics are worth reading to understand how their ideas have shaped history, and how their ideas continue to shape the present and future - because at their heart what they describe is human thought and behaviour, and those are surprisingly unchanged over the interceding years.
As with every thread like this (seriously, tell me if you want me to stop) I’d recommend the project I contribute to: Standard eBooks: https://standardebooks.org/ . We take the Gutenberg transcriptions and prep high quality electronic editions, then proofread against the original scans to make sure all the formatting is properly represented, and finally release them as public domain again. Being limited to pre-1923 means that we’ve focused on the ‘classics’, but we’re always doing more and should break through the 200 mark shortly. Currently I’m producing a Woolf and Pepys’ Diaries (although that last one is definitely a long term project). Let me know if there’s a book you specifically want to see produced and I can add it to the list or help you produce it yourself.
That's wonderful and I will be recommending it to my friends from now on, but I've found in my experience of reading classic literature, it's at least sometimes much more useful to read such books with modern annotations, which is why I just check out annotated versions from my local libraries.
The Pepys I’m working on at the moment is stuffed full of footnotes (check the Gutenberg source); I’m currently nearing the 700th. These are being converted to a standard ePub endnote format, so compatible readers, i.e. most of them, will get popup modals with the annotation when you click on the note number.
A warning: these books are not the original editions, but edited versions with modernized spelling and grammar. The editorial changes are kept in version control so they could theoretically be reverted, but they are mixed with the technical changes so in practice this is not easy.
Some people might prefer the changes, but when I read classics I want to read something as close as possible to what the author originally wrote. Despite the name, "Standard Ebooks" are actually non-standard.
Some people might prefer the changes, but when I read classics I want to read something as close as possible to what the author originally wrote. Despite the name, "Standard Ebooks" are actually non-standard.
To clarify, SE does not modernize grammar. 99% of the (very light) modernization we do is one-to-one spelling changes for wildly archaic spellings like "shew -> show" or "swop -> swap" or "to-night -> tonight". Grammar is left alone.
Whether or not you prefer slightly modernized spelling is a matter of taste, and something I've discussed at length in previous HN comments. (So I won't repeat myself here.) At SE we take the same stance as editors going back generations, who have all been quietly modernizing spelling right under everyone's noses as a matter of course since Shakespeare's days.
Whether or not you prefer slightly modernized spelling is a matter of taste, and something I've discussed at length in previous HN comments. (So I won't repeat myself here.) At SE we take the same stance as editors going back generations, who have all been quietly modernizing spelling right under everyone's noses as a matter of course since Shakespeare's days.
Doing something like this has the advantage of reducing the distance between reader and the translator or the author, but at the same time removes context. If it’s a high Victorian translation of a Greek text, what you’re reading is from ancient Greece, but given a Victorian cast, with all the ideological implications that brings with it. I’d rather you didn’t remove that context, but I can see why you’d do it.
Fantastic project, anyway.
Fantastic project, anyway.
From Wikipedia's "grammar" article:
"Outside linguistics, the term grammar is often used in a rather different sense. In some respects, it may be used more broadly, including rules of spelling and punctuation, which linguists would not typically consider to form part of grammar, but rather as a part of orthography, the set of conventions used for writing a language."
In common usage, punctuation is often considered part of grammar. This matches well with the computer science meaning of grammar (rules for parsing), because punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence.
"Outside linguistics, the term grammar is often used in a rather different sense. In some respects, it may be used more broadly, including rules of spelling and punctuation, which linguists would not typically consider to form part of grammar, but rather as a part of orthography, the set of conventions used for writing a language."
In common usage, punctuation is often considered part of grammar. This matches well with the computer science meaning of grammar (rules for parsing), because punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence.
Of course. We do not change punctuation, with a few exceptions for some short-lived archaic constructs like comma-emdash.
We do change from single-quoted British style to double-quoted American style, but I think most everyone would agree that that is merely a presentational change that does not change the actual grammar of a sentence. (And that in and of itself was a very common thing for editors to do going back hundreds of years too!)
We do change from single-quoted British style to double-quoted American style, but I think most everyone would agree that that is merely a presentational change that does not change the actual grammar of a sentence. (And that in and of itself was a very common thing for editors to do going back hundreds of years too!)
That seems an odd thing to want to change. Do you also move proximal punctuation inside the quotes, AE-style?
‘Standard’ as in a standard imprint. The typical argument is that any print edition beyond the first is altered, especially with punctuation, according to the whims of the day. Even the first edition is rarely what the author originally wrote, having had a multitude of spelling corrections and changes from the original MS.
But yes, we do do this (sympathetically to my mind), and yes, it’s all marked as editorial in the commit history. It’s not trivial to untangle, but it’s not impossible by any means. We also list the sources used to build the books which include the transcriptions and scans if you want to find the unaltered versions.
(for what it’s worth, by far the most common adjustments are to-day to today, to-morrow to tomorrow, and good-night to good night)
But yes, we do do this (sympathetically to my mind), and yes, it’s all marked as editorial in the commit history. It’s not trivial to untangle, but it’s not impossible by any means. We also list the sources used to build the books which include the transcriptions and scans if you want to find the unaltered versions.
(for what it’s worth, by far the most common adjustments are to-day to today, to-morrow to tomorrow, and good-night to good night)
I really enjoy SE, and I just found out about these corrections. Not really sure what to think about them but for trivial things like to-day I don't really see the point of correcting it since it's obvious to understand and gives some free authenticity. Just my 2¢; thanks for the project as a whole.
Thanks for posting, awesome resource! I was surprised to see recent science fiction works and authors, like Phillip K. Dick and Algis Budrys, which I would expect had been published well after the 1923 copyright deadline.
They are, but there was a point in the 50s I believe when copyright in the US had to be renewed, and that didn’t happen for a bunch of sci-fi and pulp.
Also see LibriVox[1], where volunteers convert public domain books (many of them from Project Gutenberg) to freely-available audiobooks.
[1] - https://librivox.org/
[1] - https://librivox.org/
This is amazing. Thank you.
In your experience what’s the most convenient e-ink device for free ebooks? Ie Kindle is optimized for amazon so probably not the most convenient for this.
In your experience what’s the most convenient e-ink device for free ebooks? Ie Kindle is optimized for amazon so probably not the most convenient for this.
It’s not the easiest to get SE books onto Kindle unfortunately, though we obviously supply them. I personally read on a Kobo, and I think they’re starting to be available in the US now? You can just drag and drop our kepubs into the mass storage and it’ll import them. Apple Books works well too if you’ve got an iDevice (although there’s a lingering bug with forced page breaks that I really need to fix).
Are the books supposed to work with Kindle Paperwhite? I am trying to email it to my account and Amazon is saying that it cannot be converted. Super cool project!
Have you read https://standardebooks.org/help/how-to-use-our-ebooks and tried it yet? Your device is listed!
I have yes. Emailing the file to an address associated with the Kindle is also a standard way to upload a book. That's why I was thinking that this must be some sort of bug. BTW I tried to upload Pride and Prejudice.
Might be late / irrelevant but a while back amazon was failing to convert anything i emailed to my kindle and it turned out to be that i wasn't specifying a subject line in the mail. once i did that the very same files started working.
Thank you! We homeschool and use a “classical” program focused primarily on grammar, rhetoric, and logic. Resources like yours increase our children’s access to classical literature while helping us reduce book costs (which can be surprisingly high).
This is a great project!
Sadly SE has a focus on ePub and similar formats. These are impossible from a typographical standpoint. Text in ePub reader apps always comes out with a ragged right or impossible word breaks.
Latex with the microtype package is the only solution that does text justification on the level of a human professional. Can’t SE convert to that and provide PDF for common screen sizes?
It would be so easy if only Project Gutenberg had a standardized master source format. So conversion tools can be built around that. But all efforts in that direction were killed of by trolls in the community.
Latex with the microtype package is the only solution that does text justification on the level of a human professional. Can’t SE convert to that and provide PDF for common screen sizes?
It would be so easy if only Project Gutenberg had a standardized master source format. So conversion tools can be built around that. But all efforts in that direction were killed of by trolls in the community.
All the source files of standardebooks.org books are up on Github, it might be possible to write a script to automatically convert the files to LaTeX.
Pandoc [0] could probably do most of the heavy lifting, starting from the ePub files (after all, an ePub is just an archive containing HTML, CSS, images, and metadata)
[0]: http://pandoc.org/
[0]: http://pandoc.org/
I spent a lot of time with Gutenberg epubs in a former life, and I found that their quality was far better than most other digitizers with comparable scale. However, the tables of contents were extremely inconsistent and I had to essentially rewrite them to get anything like a usable outline.
SE looks interesting. I don't have an epub reader handy but I will definitely be back to understand the motivation (knowing it's a lot of work to do this sort of thing).
SE looks interesting. I don't have an epub reader handy but I will definitely be back to understand the motivation (knowing it's a lot of work to do this sort of thing).
SE books all have rebuilt ToCs, yes. Gutenberg’s ones follow the presentation of the original scans, which basically isn’t useful for an ereading experience.
Another good reason to read the classics is to maximize the number of "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra"'s(1) you have with the people in the culture surrounding you. Note that may mean depending on where you are, you might need different classics.
(1) And if you understood that reference right away, you got the point!
(1) And if you understood that reference right away, you got the point!
Yup, Star Trek is probably much more of a common ground these days than ancient Greek literature. Don't know if it's a good or a bad thing though.
Depends on age and cultural background. When I deal with non-technical folks of various ages, there's an OK (but not great) chance that they've read some classic literature that I enjoy. Unfortunately a lot of those were forced readings in high school, but it definitely depends on the individual.
As much as I love Star Trek (particularly TNG), I'd say it's far, far less popular among folks in their early 20s these days than the classics. Probably why they're called classics :)
As much as I love Star Trek (particularly TNG), I'd say it's far, far less popular among folks in their early 20s these days than the classics. Probably why they're called classics :)
[deleted]
:).
But the truth is, that makes Harry Potter and Game of Thrones much more of a "classic" than Shakespeare.
Shared cultural context is something I believe we're losing anyway, or at least it's not scaling well with population size and civilization - these days they're just so many books being published, along with movies and TV series, that it's increasingly difficult to find things you've both read/watched with random people. Schools in a given country are forcing the same set of literature on people partly in order to ensure a shared cultural context, but as we all know (and as is discussed elsewhere in this comment thread), this only makes people know the titles but not read the books themselves.
But the truth is, that makes Harry Potter and Game of Thrones much more of a "classic" than Shakespeare.
Shared cultural context is something I believe we're losing anyway, or at least it's not scaling well with population size and civilization - these days they're just so many books being published, along with movies and TV series, that it's increasingly difficult to find things you've both read/watched with random people. Schools in a given country are forcing the same set of literature on people partly in order to ensure a shared cultural context, but as we all know (and as is discussed elsewhere in this comment thread), this only makes people know the titles but not read the books themselves.
I dunno. I think there's still a long way to go before Hogwarts is more generally recognizable than Romeo and Juliet.
Still, there's probably some fascinating anthropology to be had in the idea of fandom as a new form of nationality.
They say dual citizenship is possible but I'd steer well clear of the dmz between Trek and Wars.
Still, there's probably some fascinating anthropology to be had in the idea of fandom as a new form of nationality.
They say dual citizenship is possible but I'd steer well clear of the dmz between Trek and Wars.
> Still, there's probably some fascinating anthropology to be had in the idea of fandom as a new form of nationality.
I agree. If you think of it, meeting people who identify more with a fictional culture from a TV show more than with any existing one, that's... something new, I think. Can't think of any analogue in past periods in history.
> They say dual citizenship is possible but I'd steer well clear of the dmz between Trek and Wars.
Been there, can confirm. Not pretty :).
I agree. If you think of it, meeting people who identify more with a fictional culture from a TV show more than with any existing one, that's... something new, I think. Can't think of any analogue in past periods in history.
> They say dual citizenship is possible but I'd steer well clear of the dmz between Trek and Wars.
Been there, can confirm. Not pretty :).
If you think of it, meeting people who identify more with a fictional culture from a TV show more than with any existing one, that's... something new, I think.
Religion, Christianity in particular, seems a close analog.
Religion, Christianity in particular, seems a close analog.
We had Charles Dickens's Great Expectations in school. I was mesmerised by the incredible storyline and the shocking twist at the end.
It introduced me to western classic literature for the first time and I was really impressed.
Then in college, there was an ongoing bet that who could finish the entire unabridged version of War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy. It tool me three months to read the whole of it. It changed me as a person and made me aware of the fact that the problems faced by humans haven't really changed over the centuries, but only their manifestation has changed as per the present times.
And what about The Count of Monte Cristo and other books by Alexander Dumas.
The list goes on ...
Then in college, there was an ongoing bet that who could finish the entire unabridged version of War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy. It tool me three months to read the whole of it. It changed me as a person and made me aware of the fact that the problems faced by humans haven't really changed over the centuries, but only their manifestation has changed as per the present times.
And what about The Count of Monte Cristo and other books by Alexander Dumas.
The list goes on ...
I had the exact opposite experience reading Great Expectations in high school. To such a degree that even I recognize that my hatred of it is uncharacteristic of me.
"Why should we read the classics?" is what I ask. I've read a number of "classics" that were just not worth the struggle of figuring out the antiquated vocabulary and sentence structure. The vernacular changes over generations and figuring out what they meant versus what I understand is just not worth the time. I can read a few current books vs 1 classic. Yes, some are worth the trouble but most are not.
Maybe there's a business in updating classics into modern versions. It has been done with Shakespeare and we see it all the time with movies. Why not others?
Maybe there's a business in updating classics into modern versions. It has been done with Shakespeare and we see it all the time with movies. Why not others?
It should be done with others!
Except, how many times are those others merely updating Shakespeare into their contemporary times? Maybe everything is just continuously updating Shakespeare at this point.
I jest, I jest.
Or do I?
Except, how many times are those others merely updating Shakespeare into their contemporary times? Maybe everything is just continuously updating Shakespeare at this point.
I jest, I jest.
Or do I?
I wonder why they're considered "classics"?
Because reading older works may give one an appreciation of their time.
> "A classic is something that persists as a background noise even when the most incompatible momentary concerns are in control of the situation."
The article is more poetic than informational. I am so used to technical readings that I translate the sentences into something more concrete, maybe more journalistic.
I guess that this sentence means that "classic books" define our cultural background, differences between the east and the west, between countries and cultures independently of what you can see now on the news.
Translating it into more plain concepts allows for a better understanding. With this new wording, I can reflect on how current events, video games, streamed videos are shaping our society and will be identified in the future as "classic".
> Every reading of a classic is in fact a rereading.
I interpret this as you have already "read" the classic as it is part of other works that you have read or seen. That our culture has been influenced by "classic" works to the extend that you can feel like you have read them before.
> The classics are the books that come down to us bearing upon them the traces of readings previous to ours, and bringing in their wake the traces they themselves have left on the culture or cultures they have passed through
This confirms my previous interpretation. But, I have then to open the question. Do "classics" shape society or are only a result of it? If a "classics" was never written our society will be different our we will just miss a recorded piece of cultural history?
> If the spark doesn’t come, that’s a pity; but we do not read the classics out of duty or respect, but only out of love.
I do not agree. I am reading "classics" books out of curiosity or even duty towards being responsible to improve my own education, and last but not least for pleasure. Different people will have different motivation.
Can anyone try to explain this other one? It sounds good, but if feels kind of bullshit. :)
> We use the word “classic” of a book that takes the form of an equivalent to the universe, on a level with the ancient talismans. With this definition we are approaching the idea of the “total book,” as Mallarmé conceived of it.
This post is an interesting read for a change.
The article is more poetic than informational. I am so used to technical readings that I translate the sentences into something more concrete, maybe more journalistic.
I guess that this sentence means that "classic books" define our cultural background, differences between the east and the west, between countries and cultures independently of what you can see now on the news.
Translating it into more plain concepts allows for a better understanding. With this new wording, I can reflect on how current events, video games, streamed videos are shaping our society and will be identified in the future as "classic".
> Every reading of a classic is in fact a rereading.
I interpret this as you have already "read" the classic as it is part of other works that you have read or seen. That our culture has been influenced by "classic" works to the extend that you can feel like you have read them before.
> The classics are the books that come down to us bearing upon them the traces of readings previous to ours, and bringing in their wake the traces they themselves have left on the culture or cultures they have passed through
This confirms my previous interpretation. But, I have then to open the question. Do "classics" shape society or are only a result of it? If a "classics" was never written our society will be different our we will just miss a recorded piece of cultural history?
> If the spark doesn’t come, that’s a pity; but we do not read the classics out of duty or respect, but only out of love.
I do not agree. I am reading "classics" books out of curiosity or even duty towards being responsible to improve my own education, and last but not least for pleasure. Different people will have different motivation.
Can anyone try to explain this other one? It sounds good, but if feels kind of bullshit. :)
> We use the word “classic” of a book that takes the form of an equivalent to the universe, on a level with the ancient talismans. With this definition we are approaching the idea of the “total book,” as Mallarmé conceived of it.
This post is an interesting read for a change.
The author of this piece is, himself, eminently worth reading.
“If On A Winter’s Night, A Traveller” is just amazing.
“If On A Winter’s Night, A Traveller” is just amazing.
Why not? They’re called classics for a reason. Should read at least some of them. Reading the best of a genre is also worth doing, along with autobiographies of people you admire.
Read Sun Tzu’s Art of War before you need to.
Read Sun Tzu’s Art of War before you need to.
People who ask "why read the classics" might not want to spend their time on something just because an authority (who decided what the classics are, and what ulterior motives did they have?) said that's what they are, or because it's good in-group signaling. For these people, addressing their concerns and making clear that there's value in reading classics beyond the potential problems, is a necessity.
I’m not sure why I would particularly need to address someone’s concerns. I’m not selling them a book nor am I forcing my choice of what is good on someone else. Take it or leave it. I’d say that is an issue which a particular person has with authority in general. “Who decided it was a classic” and “what makes them so special” and “what right do they have to impose their choice on me” are all questions that someone should answer for themselves. Likely some deep introspection about their relationship with authority is possibly required. I’m not sure.
If you ask someone what is the best book to read and they reply you now have someone’s preference for a great book rather than a mediocre one. That in essence is how a classic is determined, but at larger scale. Lots of people asked and a lot of people answered. Consensus formed and spread.
I’m fairly sure I can ask a film buff what classic movies I should watch and if I asked a lot of film buffs, some movies would begin to bubble up as being seen as commonly known classics. Others could be seen as just popular. I don’t think that would be a surprising outcome. I don’t think it needs to be much more complicated than that.
If you ask someone what is the best book to read and they reply you now have someone’s preference for a great book rather than a mediocre one. That in essence is how a classic is determined, but at larger scale. Lots of people asked and a lot of people answered. Consensus formed and spread.
I’m fairly sure I can ask a film buff what classic movies I should watch and if I asked a lot of film buffs, some movies would begin to bubble up as being seen as commonly known classics. Others could be seen as just popular. I don’t think that would be a surprising outcome. I don’t think it needs to be much more complicated than that.
[deleted]
If you're revisiting the classics I can't recommend enough Doug Metzger's Literature and History podcast [1]. It covers literature starting with Mesopostamian stories, at about the level of an undergraduate course, but is entertaining and insightful throughout. It's clearly had deep research put into every episode, but at the same time takes great effort to make the material relatable. Great stuff.
1. http://literatureandhistory.com/
1. http://literatureandhistory.com/
I’m in the other camp. Reading unpopular books has been much more valuable to me than reading popular books. If the classics are good, you’ll understand them by osmosis even without having read them.
"Understand" to what extent? Knowing the plot? The morals in broad strokes?
Popularity isn't a metric by which to prejudge content? Also, it really doesn't get less popular than the classics. And no, you will not understand them by osmosis. Lovecraft was a big influence on Stephen King but it's not like reading a Stephen King novel magically grants you the experience of reading Lovecraft. It's fine if reading older stuff doesn't appeal to you (it doesn't appeal to hardly anyone), but you don't get to pretend like you're not missing out on anything. Just own the fact that you don't like that stuff.
I’m talking about nonfiction.
Classics are not that popular. The most downloaded book on Project Gutenberg (Pride and Prejudice) has been downloaded only 32K times. Moby Dick has 15K downloads and at least 10 of those are mine.
I disagree that classics can be understood by osmosis. I'm not discounting the books you read or saying they wouldn't compare to the classics if they were better known. But there is an experience in reading something timeless that can only be experienced by reading it. And there are more experiences to reading them with age that makes them unique. They become richer instead of becoming banal.
I disagree that classics can be understood by osmosis. I'm not discounting the books you read or saying they wouldn't compare to the classics if they were better known. But there is an experience in reading something timeless that can only be experienced by reading it. And there are more experiences to reading them with age that makes them unique. They become richer instead of becoming banal.
Yeah, because everybody goes around reading Stendhal, Dante, and Balzac.
>you’ll understand them by osmosis
Nothing about the substance of the books can be understood without reading them. It's all in the details and the language, not the plots and the abstract description of their main points.
>you’ll understand them by osmosis
Nothing about the substance of the books can be understood without reading them. It's all in the details and the language, not the plots and the abstract description of their main points.
What about insights into human nature or how to live well? I agree that if your motivation for reading is the experience that will occur in your mind while reading, there can be no substitute; but if we're talking about value-conferring ideas contained in works, it seems likely that they would become common parts of culture given enough time and exposure.
>but if we're talking about value-conferring ideas contained in works, it seems likely that they would become common parts of culture given enough time and exposure.
Even if we constrained them in their "value-conferring ideas", the power of such ideas in those books comes from experiencing the emotions and subtleties involved in their storytelling.
Without that, a raw "takeaway" idea will have neither the required buildup, nor the emotional impact required to affect one hearing it.
Plus, a key part of literature is not about value-conferring ideas, but about experiencing others' lives and ways of thinking and looking at the world. This is totally lost in plot summaries.
Even if we constrained them in their "value-conferring ideas", the power of such ideas in those books comes from experiencing the emotions and subtleties involved in their storytelling.
Without that, a raw "takeaway" idea will have neither the required buildup, nor the emotional impact required to affect one hearing it.
Plus, a key part of literature is not about value-conferring ideas, but about experiencing others' lives and ways of thinking and looking at the world. This is totally lost in plot summaries.
Hmm, I mostly agree with you. To be clear though, I'm not talking about plot summaries. More like it accretes into shared cultural wisdom and values.
> you’ll understand them by osmosis even without having read them.
Depends on your goal. Reading a classic by "osmosis" may be enough to make one a dilettante, but doesn't bring about the enlightenment you would experience from reading the original book. Just like reading popular science books doesn't make one a scientist.
Depends on your goal. Reading a classic by "osmosis" may be enough to make one a dilettante, but doesn't bring about the enlightenment you would experience from reading the original book. Just like reading popular science books doesn't make one a scientist.
That explains a recent conversation from work.
“”” They want their pound of flesh. That’s from Shakespeare or something. Macbeth I think.
Me: headdesk. Merchant of Venice. “””
“”” They want their pound of flesh. That’s from Shakespeare or something. Macbeth I think.
Me: headdesk. Merchant of Venice. “””
I'm always amused by these because it signals the information source wasn't that important. Why does it matter where the phrase came from in most contexts?
Unfortunately, I've found that even with things I have fully read, I sometimes mix them up and confuse what came from where. There's just not enough distinction sometimes and it smears into a blob.
Unfortunately, I've found that even with things I have fully read, I sometimes mix them up and confuse what came from where. There's just not enough distinction sometimes and it smears into a blob.
It's not so much what from where, but if you don't know the context, how are you going to be sure that you're not unintentionally libeling your client.
I'm aware that meanings change, and culture has its own uses for expressions. But the source is there for you to examine, there's no real excuse to use it wrong. We're not (yet) at the point where we have an oral culture tradition, but we're getting damn close.
I'm aware that meanings change, and culture has its own uses for expressions. But the source is there for you to examine, there's no real excuse to use it wrong. We're not (yet) at the point where we have an oral culture tradition, but we're getting damn close.
I fear I have been on the producing end of these. I think I told someone Ophelia was from Greek mythology once.
I haven't gotten the impression that most people know classics well via osmosis, and often critiques and summaries of books (classics or otherwise) are rather imprecise, inaccurate, and biased...
Sometimes you can get some surrounding information about a work, but you generally cannot replace reading/viewing/playing the work, if only due to a basic law of information density.
Sometimes you can get some surrounding information about a work, but you generally cannot replace reading/viewing/playing the work, if only due to a basic law of information density.
For some it's better than others. I don't feel I gained a lot (besides some enjoyment, which isn't nothing) out of actually reading & seeing performances of Shakespeare, for example. A lot of that particular set of classics' importance is in the secondary effect of how it's impacted Anglophone culture, not so much in what you gain out of the original works (which to me fall in the category of, "they're fine, I guess"). Some other classics do admittedly have interesting or insightful stuff that you wouldn't have gathered second-hand from what's generally well-known about them, though, especially those where the secondary exposure is a bit less over-saturated.
Correct me if I'm wrong adamnemecek, but it sounds to me like you're referring to something like how we don't need to read Newton's Principia in order to pick up the essential ideas from Newtonian Mechanics—by participating in our culture for long enough, you're going to pick them up. Is that right?
It seems like a bunch of people are replying thinking that you meant one would pick up trivia about the classics like which Shakespearian work some quote came from, rather than some distillation of important concepts or whatever.
It seems like a bunch of people are replying thinking that you meant one would pick up trivia about the classics like which Shakespearian work some quote came from, rather than some distillation of important concepts or whatever.
Reading the classics is learning the state of civilization, learning the breath of human cruelty and understanding why it is essential to the human experience, essential to progress of the species, and is essential to the structure and formation of justice and law. The classics give one the background why things are they way they are, and why as messed up as things appear to be, they are the best we can manage. If one is not at least exposed to a few of the classics, I wonder what value foundation one has beyond their potential one sided religious up bringing. Without exposure to the classes, one is adrift in a sea of unknown pop cultural references, only picking up the severely watered down and over exploited Classic Themes when they appear on popular TV, film, and comic book quality regurgitation of their ideas.
I tend to consider myself "over read" - I have read everything published by my favorite authors, their followers and their students. When I find a voice I like, I'll finish that entire school of thought. But I'm also very extreme in my reading. I started reading very early, isolated in Christian rural Iowa as a youth, I had a severe stutter, and read the library rather than engage in the other kids I could not manage to converse without sounding stupid. So, I sorta ignored "childhood" until the end of elementary, after which I was the oddest over intellectualized little shithead one could encounter.
Why read the classics? They locate you in time and space to understand the state of society. That pretty valuable.
I tend to consider myself "over read" - I have read everything published by my favorite authors, their followers and their students. When I find a voice I like, I'll finish that entire school of thought. But I'm also very extreme in my reading. I started reading very early, isolated in Christian rural Iowa as a youth, I had a severe stutter, and read the library rather than engage in the other kids I could not manage to converse without sounding stupid. So, I sorta ignored "childhood" until the end of elementary, after which I was the oddest over intellectualized little shithead one could encounter.
Why read the classics? They locate you in time and space to understand the state of society. That pretty valuable.
I got my degree in English lit, but it's only as an adult, with the benefit of life experience, that I feel I can really appreciate so many of the books I read in college and high school. The best books seem to say something true in a way that goes beyond black and white. A truth you can only find in the experience of living.
Lots of talk about fiction books here, but what are the classic nonfictions?
This essay is required reading in many Italian high schools, especially in Liceo Classico, one of the few secondary school types where ancient Greek is still a compulsory course. After all, the questions "Why learn ancient Greek?" and "Why read the classics?" are quite intertwined.
This post is really well-timed for me.
I've been trying really hard to up my reading numbers to what I remember them being 5 or 10 years ago. As a part of that, I've been trying to keep an even spread of fiction and non-fiction.
The other day I decided I should also revisit books I remember loving as a kid that I haven't read in decades. Specifically, The Count of Monte Cristo and Mysterious Island. I started the latter the other day.
One of the things that strikes me again and again while I read this book is how much it embodies great improvisation; the characters are all "yes men" in the best possible sense of the phrase. When one character encounters a problem or has an idea, the rest are quick to say "yes, and!" to go on to cooperate to find a solution.
This is especially amazing considering that the book is set at the tail end of the Civil War.
I can't imagine a book like this being written today. The characters are so humanist in believing that they and each other can accomplish anything they set out to do; they cooperate without struggle; there are no hidden pasts or ulterior motives threatening them. It's really quite refreshing and invigorating. I wish I could read aspirational(?) fiction like this all the time and feel like my mood would be much better for it.
I've been trying really hard to up my reading numbers to what I remember them being 5 or 10 years ago. As a part of that, I've been trying to keep an even spread of fiction and non-fiction.
The other day I decided I should also revisit books I remember loving as a kid that I haven't read in decades. Specifically, The Count of Monte Cristo and Mysterious Island. I started the latter the other day.
One of the things that strikes me again and again while I read this book is how much it embodies great improvisation; the characters are all "yes men" in the best possible sense of the phrase. When one character encounters a problem or has an idea, the rest are quick to say "yes, and!" to go on to cooperate to find a solution.
This is especially amazing considering that the book is set at the tail end of the Civil War.
I can't imagine a book like this being written today. The characters are so humanist in believing that they and each other can accomplish anything they set out to do; they cooperate without struggle; there are no hidden pasts or ulterior motives threatening them. It's really quite refreshing and invigorating. I wish I could read aspirational(?) fiction like this all the time and feel like my mood would be much better for it.
I listen to Librevox podcasts when I go for my morning walk.
I have finished listening to Tacitus' Peloponesian Wars, Xenophon's Anabasis and am now on the seventh book of Plato's Republic.
There is stuff that you can't learn anywhere but classics. Take, for example, Nazi Germany. We tend to have this stereotypical image of it as evil murderous empire where everyone was either a murderer or a victim.
Heinrich Böll's "Group Portrait with Lady"[1] is a book about that period. You expect particular kind of stuff in such a book: Gestapo officers torturing dissenters. Jew hunts. Nurnberg rallies. Etc.
Then you read the book and Hitler or concentration camps and not mentioned even once. It's full of people trying to live their lives. Teenagers are in love one with another. People go to work. Try to build a business. Pay their taxes. Play piano. They have problems with their children and extramarital affairs. They have varied political opinions. They die of natural causes.
It would be pretty hard to get that kind of (very terrifying, in a way) understanding of the period through history books.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Group-Portrait-Lady-Essential-Heinric...
Heinrich Böll's "Group Portrait with Lady"[1] is a book about that period. You expect particular kind of stuff in such a book: Gestapo officers torturing dissenters. Jew hunts. Nurnberg rallies. Etc.
Then you read the book and Hitler or concentration camps and not mentioned even once. It's full of people trying to live their lives. Teenagers are in love one with another. People go to work. Try to build a business. Pay their taxes. Play piano. They have problems with their children and extramarital affairs. They have varied political opinions. They die of natural causes.
It would be pretty hard to get that kind of (very terrifying, in a way) understanding of the period through history books.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Group-Portrait-Lady-Essential-Heinric...
Nazi Germany? Only from classics? Perhaps you were born too late and too far away... I've drunk wine with people who were in the Hitlerjugend and fought in WW2. (As far as my politically and militarily uninterested informant was concerned, Hitlerjugend was mostly about camping and raft building, and fighting was mostly about keeping your head down, literally and metaphorically.)
It's 73 years since then. They are dying out.
Because it preserves the power of those who are already familiar with them.
I knew that something like this comment would crop. It's a damn shame: there's a great deal of complexity, elegance, and meaning in the world, and choosing to see literature through the hateful lens of power dynamics robs you of the change to see this beauty. One of my hopes is that we return to teaching the classics as timeless universals.
I havent heard this sentiment in literature much, but i've witnessed insulated and exclusive sentiments w/r/t other art. For example, I was once told that not knowing some rare Broadway was uncultured of me. I'm thinking:
- No, that is your culture. It is valid culture, but not the only culture. I watch films tackling other issues in other subsets of the population. Their issues may not be the mainstream issues, but that doesnt make it not part of culture.
This has nothing to do with books, or music, or art. It has to do with people who want to use beautiful art to create a wedge or power dynamic or culture dynamic rather than simply enjoy or learn from the art. And it is a dangerous behavior, because as soon as one brands others (mentally) as uncultured or of a lower class, it helps them justify unjust behaviors.
This has nothing to do with books, or music, or art. It has to do with people who want to use beautiful art to create a wedge or power dynamic or culture dynamic rather than simply enjoy or learn from the art. And it is a dangerous behavior, because as soon as one brands others (mentally) as uncultured or of a lower class, it helps them justify unjust behaviors.
> choosing to see literature through the hateful lens of power dynamics robs you of the change to see this beauty.
I enjoy selected classics quite a bit, and I've studied them in depth. One of my favorite pieces is Beethoven's Waldstein Sonata, and I can talk about it in the context of evolution of sonata form.
I also know my Duke Ellington and my Joni Mitchell, my Stevie Wonder and my Beatles -- all of which are similarly regarded as unassailable classics within certain circles of devotees.
An appreciation for the classics is completely compatible with the conviction that they are not "timeless universals", but that every last one of them is a product of a specific time and place. And the clash between canons is in fact a disgusting political and cultural power struggle.
I enjoy selected classics quite a bit, and I've studied them in depth. One of my favorite pieces is Beethoven's Waldstein Sonata, and I can talk about it in the context of evolution of sonata form.
I also know my Duke Ellington and my Joni Mitchell, my Stevie Wonder and my Beatles -- all of which are similarly regarded as unassailable classics within certain circles of devotees.
An appreciation for the classics is completely compatible with the conviction that they are not "timeless universals", but that every last one of them is a product of a specific time and place. And the clash between canons is in fact a disgusting political and cultural power struggle.
Surely there's some value in acknowledging the power dynamics inherent in any list of classics?
I happen to think that teaching the classics in most high schools is probably a mistake. An average teacher isn't going to do a very good job and you just end up with a bunch of kids that like reading a little bit less than they used to.
I happen to think that teaching the classics in most high schools is probably a mistake. An average teacher isn't going to do a very good job and you just end up with a bunch of kids that like reading a little bit less than they used to.
I’ve driven a classic car. I don’t remember any power hierarchies in play. I do remember the roof down, the sea breeze blowing through my hair and fish and chips by the beach.
I don’t think someone labelling a book a classic is much different. Except for the lack of engine sound. Damn that was a good car to drive.
Here's a corollary: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/11/read-history-of-philoso...
tl;dr read the works of thinkers who were wrong in the past, in order to expand your search space to find out what you're wrong about in the present.
tl;dr read the works of thinkers who were wrong in the past, in order to expand your search space to find out what you're wrong about in the present.
[deleted]
Fast forward 35 years. I have come to enjoy reading Shakespeare on my own.
(Why is it great literature? Incredible prose, insane plot lines, and way way underrated comedy. Some of the best comedy I have ever encountered is in Shakespeare’s so-called tragedies, a situation that very much matches my own tragedy-marred life. Reread “Hamlet”, “Richard III”, and “MacBeth” for a barrage of hilariously inappropriate one-liners.)
Anyway, a decade and half ago wife wants to take the kids, ages 7 & 9, to the Ashland Shakespeare Festival. I tell them they don’t have to see any of it. I tell them I didn’t enjoy anything but the comedies as a kid but that the staging and costumes were always good. No pressure at all; they are welcome to hang out in the hotel room with iPads or to watch TV, a luxury they lack at home.
They go see everything, including histories and tragedies. And they totally get it. Apparently my children don’t know they’re not supposed to understand the antiquated English, because halfway through their first play (“Merchant of Venice”) I am sometimes having to ask them what’s going on, and my 7 year-old patiently and correctly gives me the 411. They attend pre-play lectures and, when asked by the lecturer, read better than most actors. We go many more times in the ensuing years and it’s now among my most cherished memories.
To this day they quote Shakespeare accurately and mumble “Exeunt” under their breath when they want to get out of a boring situation.