Anyone actually bother to read classics anymore?

Will this thread be ignored like all my others?

Duh yes	32.6%	[ 15 ]
Never!	45.7%	[ 21 ]
whu carez i want gold	21.7%	[ 10 ]
Total Votes:			[ 46 ]

This poll closed on March 3, 2008.
No longer accepting new votes.

[Slayer Igraine]

Lord Roux

I find many people tend to read these books just to come off as well read or intelligent. Without really contemplating the books.

Pretty much summarises this thread. Oh, snap. <_< Classics threads in this forum either start as, or quickly descend into name-dropping authors and books. It's not impressive. Talk about the content, not just the titles. -_-

[Robotic Dream Weaver]

All I've been reading are classics lately.
It makes a lot of today's "youth literature" look like garbage.
The last one I finished was Huxley's Brave New World. In my opinion, it was a work of genius.

[Kurokashi-san]

I'm currently reading Dracula would have been finished by now but life keeps getting in the way.

[Lord Roux]

PrimidZelda

I adore the classics, my favorite so far is Jane Eyre.
@Lord Roux: They're set on a pedestal because they've endured and enlightened.
I love the words, mien, quagmire, lachrymose. But I rarely get to say them, I was ten and dropped long words left and right, my friend would go "What?" then I would have to explain what the words mean, so tiring, we got in a huge fight over whether "per" was a word. To this day she believes that "spiffy" isn't a word.

I recently read Animal Farm, which I enjoyed very much. I don't know why, but it didn't leave me depressed like Jacob I Have Loved did, I moped for an hour in my room before I could face my family.

Yes but my point is why have they endured? Mostly because they're taught in schools. Why are they considered enlightened? Mostly because people tell students these books are supposed to be enlightening. These days you ask most people what they think of a certain book and they regurgitate what they learned in the class room. My problem with classics is they used to encourage people to think but now they don't anymore. Now they're just formulas that people remember but never think about.

We can find the same enlightenment in books being written today. People just have to open their eyes and their minds when they read. Class rooms should be less of a lecture and more of a discussion.

[Slayer Igraine]

Lord Roux

PrimidZelda

I adore the classics, my favorite so far is Jane Eyre.
@Lord Roux: They're set on a pedestal because they've endured and enlightened.
I love the words, mien, quagmire, lachrymose. But I rarely get to say them, I was ten and dropped long words left and right, my friend would go "What?" then I would have to explain what the words mean, so tiring, we got in a huge fight over whether "per" was a word. To this day she believes that "spiffy" isn't a word.

I recently read Animal Farm, which I enjoyed very much. I don't know why, but it didn't leave me depressed like Jacob I Have Loved did, I moped for an hour in my room before I could face my family.

Yes but my point is why have they endured? Mostly because they're taught in schools. Why are they considered enlightened? Mostly because people tell students these books are supposed to be enlightening. These days you ask most people what they think of a certain book and they regurgitate what they learned in the class room. My problem with classics is they used to encourage people to think but now they don't anymore. Now they're just formulas that people remember but never think about.

We can find the same enlightenment in books being written today. People just have to open their eyes and their minds when they read. Class rooms should be less of a lecture and more of a discussion.

Awww, bless. You're a little Socrates. razz The problem with classes in schools being more like seminars is that seminars require input - they require you to do lots of work, and they only work when everyone is enthusiastic about the subject and actual wants to work. I have great seminar discussions about classical literature in my uni, but I can't imagine it happening in a high-school, as frustrating as it is for the people who really want to discuss.

[hellorebeccac]

yes, I do...

[~angel of the winds~]

Yes I love the classics and i'm finally at an age where I can actually understand them and enjoy them. I have been on a bit of a classics run lately I plan on finishing up the scarlet letter tonight. I really like the classics because of the good ol fashioned story telling they have that you can't seem to find much of today and the emotions the authors put into them.

[Sophronia bee]

I loved Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Lord of the Rings, and Dracula to name some but I also consider modern day classics ranking right up there too. Some of the classics that were pushed in school didn't really do it for me but then again, as you get older you appreciate books in a different way.

[preferences-lovely]

"classic" isn't a genre. forgive me for name dropping, o gods of the book forum, but mark twain, nathaniel hawthorne, and j.d. salinger are entirely different authors, though all considered "classic" writers. just because a book is "classic", that does not mean that all good books past a certain age will fall into the same dry language.
this inane idea that reading an old book will make you seem intelligent is old and, i repeat, inane. for example, if the average eighth grader were to read whuthering heights or even the scarlet letter (i'm name dropping, aren't i? shoot. well, it's gonna happen), they might not understand, but will brag nonetheless. i've done this myself and was ashamed for three years.
as to class seminars and the reason they fail in classrooms . . . no! in my american lit. class, for example, we discuss and all students don't only regurgitate what they think they ought have learned . . . THEY ENJOY THE DISCUSSION. believe it or not, even the underdog student wants to talk about the book. in my opinion, the drive of today's student is underrated.
i thought "classic" referred to a work of greek or latin origin? (oedipus, antigone, the oddysey, etc.)

[whateverfloats]

Slayer Igraine

Awww, bless. You're a little Socrates. razz The problem with classes in schools being more like seminars is that seminars require input - they require you to do lots of work, and they only work when everyone is enthusiastic about the subject and actual wants to work. I have great seminar discussions about classical literature in my uni, but I can't imagine it happening in a high-school, as frustrating as it is for the people who really want to discuss.

I think seminars in high school are a great idea. Perhaps not all classes, sure, but honours classes would suddenly be worthy of the name if they included more participation. I have to admit though, I dropped out of Honours English after grade 10 because of all the BS. I wish our teacher had told a few of the students that not EVERYTHING relates back to the Bible.

[Lexie casteel]

Lord Roux

PrimidZelda

I adore the classics, my favorite so far is Jane Eyre.
@Lord Roux: They're set on a pedestal because they've endured and enlightened.
I love the words, mien, quagmire, lachrymose. But I rarely get to say them, I was ten and dropped long words left and right, my friend would go "What?" then I would have to explain what the words mean, so tiring, we got in a huge fight over whether "per" was a word. To this day she believes that "spiffy" isn't a word.

I recently read Animal Farm, which I enjoyed very much. I don't know why, but it didn't leave me depressed like Jacob I Have Loved did, I moped for an hour in my room before I could face my family.

Yes but my point is why have they endured? Mostly because they're taught in schools. Why are they considered enlightened? Mostly because people tell students these books are supposed to be enlightening. These days you ask most people what they think of a certain book and they regurgitate what they learned in the class room. My problem with classics is they used to encourage people to think but now they don't anymore. Now they're just formulas that people remember but never think about.

We can find the same enlightenment in books being written today. People just have to open their eyes and their minds when they read. Class rooms should be less of a lecture and more of a discussion.

I think that most schools teach to the test and therefore, the aspect of debate is forgotten. I think that to be a classic it should not be enjoyable and enriching but also should elect debate. For instance, in the book Jr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the character Mr. Hyde is thought of as a monster, but then again is he really? A classic book does not have to be liked, there are several classic books I think are overrated but I think any book can be discussed with freedom and unfortunately I feel that the books in High School are not discussed properly, there should be a frank and open discussion about them, not just classics but any book.

[crazyanimefan]

I have made it my goal to read a great deal more classics now than ever before. I think the appreciation for classics has gone down the with generic, popular books like Harry Potter (which I do adore) and Twilight (which I so utterly loathe.) I need to find some time to pick up Frankenstein, which is the first book on my list.

[muskadillo]

Slayer Igraine

Lord Roux

I find many people tend to read these books just to come off as well read or intelligent. Without really contemplating the books.

Pretty much summarises this thread. Oh, snap. <_< Classics threads in this forum either start as, or quickly descend into name-dropping authors and books. It's not impressive. Talk about the content, not just the titles. -_-

I want to have a discussion with YOU. But I have no idea if I've read some of the books that fascinate you most. But let's see, shall we? What is a classic that you've read recently that you've found thought-provoking? (We may have to go through a list here before we find something that I've read as well...)

[Slayer Igraine]

_untainted_lovely_

"classic" isn't a genre. forgive me for name dropping, o gods of the book forum, but mark twain, nathaniel hawthorne, and j.d. salinger are entirely different authors, though all considered "classic" writers. just because a book is "classic", that does not mean that all good books past a certain age will fall into the same dry language.
this inane idea that reading an old book will make you seem intelligent is old and, i repeat, inane. for example, if the average eighth grader were to read whuthering heights or even the scarlet letter (i'm name dropping, aren't i? shoot. well, it's gonna happen), they might not understand, but will brag nonetheless. i've done this myself and was ashamed for three years.
as to class seminars and the reason they fail in classrooms . . . no! in my american lit. class, for example, we discuss and all students don't only regurgitate what they think they ought have learned . . . THEY ENJOY THE DISCUSSION. believe it or not, even the underdog student wants to talk about the book. in my opinion, the drive of today's student is underrated.
i thought "classic" referred to a work of greek or latin origin? (oedipus, antigone, the oddysey, etc.)

Attempt at irony appreciated but alas, no, not name-dropping. Name-dropping requires you to be mentioning them just to show you know them and/or how smart you are. If you're actually using it to make a point, then it's not. Which I'm sure you knew.

I thought we had good discussions in classrooms too, then I got to uni and realised actually, they'd been crap. People DO regurgitate books, sparknotes, etc. they also come up with controversial readings with no evidence, textual or otherwise, to back them up. For example, one classmate in highschool wanted to interpret Blake's poem The Sick Rose as being about vampires (yes there were people that obsessed before Twilight). I don't agree with that interpretation, but hey, if she can find evidence in the text to support it, why not. Alas, she couldn't. But the whole class were enamored with the idea. Tends to happen a lot less at uni, lecturers will be more demanding in asking you to justify your reading of text. Of course it will work in some classes, but I don't think it will work in the grand scheme of thinks as it were.

Also, yes that is what 'classics' refers to, but lots of people, if you told them you studied that would either assume that meant you studied 'Mozart and all that" or anything the Oxford press chose to bind in their illustrious covers.

[Slayer Igraine]

muskadillo

Slayer Igraine

Lord Roux

I find many people tend to read these books just to come off as well read or intelligent. Without really contemplating the books.

Pretty much summarises this thread. Oh, snap. <_< Classics threads in this forum either start as, or quickly descend into name-dropping authors and books. It's not impressive. Talk about the content, not just the titles. -_-

I want to have a discussion with YOU. But I have no idea if I've read some of the books that fascinate you most. But let's see, shall we? What is a classic that you've read recently that you've found thought-provoking? (We may have to go through a list here before we find something that I've read as well...)

Oscar Wilde's Lady Windermere's Fan (short, and can be read online if you're interested and haven't already read it). I think it caught my attention because of the excellent use of all-pervasive irony in it, and the use of the fan caught my attention as fitting very well with Aristotelian ideas of what makes a good play (a good tragedy, but I'd probably class this as a tragi-comedy), which in turn got me thinking why certain formulas work so well and really appeal to us. I thought about whether he could change the ending of the play to have one big recognition & reconciliation scene and then decided no, that would make it too twee and cliche, and destroy the noble idea Mrs Erlynne comes to represent - and would of course, destroy much of the irony.

Of course, anything with irony involved should automatically put you on your guard - if you're lulled into believing you're on the same footing as the author, sharing a private ironic joke with him, then you're likely to find yourself the butt of the next ironic joke, so I started thinking about a larger ironic context to the play, wht is Wilde mocking here? The Puritan being held as an ideal, how quickly the Puritan starts to doubt? Our own quickly changing allegiances from lady Windermere to lady Erlynne? Or is the larger irony a reverse-irony? That Wilde knew the half-intelligent observer would look for a greater irony, so deliberately did not include one? The irony is that there is no irony where we expect it.