Welcome to Gaia! ::

Depends for me.

For some reason I absolutely cannot stand Victorian style prose. Something about the voice and flow they were taught to write in during that time puts me to sleep, even books that should be interesting, such as the original novel of Frankenstein. The exception to this are a few novelists such as Kipling and Stevenson. It's a paradox, because this type stands as the only time when I would rather watch a film version than read the original work.[/rant]

I do love the older classics, such as "The Confessions of St Augustine", the works of Shakespeare, etc.

I also love classic poetry, including Victorian.

Not a huge fan of the classic stuff. The style of writing is just so obtuse that I have to read each. And. Every. Word. One. By. One--and Lord, the semi-colons! I've seen books abuse those sumbitches so bad that by the time I get to the end of a sentence I don't remember what happened at the beginning.

No, just bleh. Do not want. The mood for something more classic hits me every now and again, but I'm much more for contemporary styles.

I don't care when it was written, or by whom, so long as it's a good book.

A little bit of both for me but I tend to lean more towards the classical side of the scale. Back in history your book(s) usually only got published and became famous if they were really good. Nowadays you can get anything published, even if it's pure crap (trust me, I've read some shitty hot-off-the-presses). That's not to say that that all newer books are bad, just that the classics became classics for a reason.

I guess I like both. At times, I'll read a contemporary piece, but it HAS to look promising! Yes; I agree that there is a lot of junk out there nowadays. As others have mentioned, classics have become classics for a reason. Apparently, many people have loved them through the ages so whenever I can't find anything to read, I turn to the classics.

For some odd reason, I like old popular books (classics), but its hard to get me to even place my hands on popular contemporary literature. If the book is modern, then I want the stuff that's basically unheard of.

But, all in all, I'd say that while classics are more reliable, contemporary works are oftentimes more humorous (there certainly are exceptions, though!). I guess my choice depends on my mood.

You make it seem like there are no contemporary authors who can do historical fiction justice!
I'm sure you didn't -intend- for it to sound that way, but that's how I read that.
And I almost cried.

I will admit there is something to be said for writers like Jane Austen who captured a time period with so wit and verve that centuries later we still enjoy reading her works, but realize...
She didn't write historical fiction.
Charles Dickens with his Great Expectations and A Tale of Two Cities was not writing historical fiction when he wrote them.
They were writing contemporarily, and modern fiction for their time.
It's only centuries later that we view it as historical as it is our history, but was their present.

What I mean to say is, the great works of today will be the historical fiction of tomorrow!
But also, there are several truly historical fiction authors today that are absolutely brilliant.
Sharon Kay Penman.
Margaret George.
Those are just my two particular favorites, not even the entire list I could give you.
Just because they're not on the shelves as 'classics' doesn't make them any less note-worthy and positively genius.
I hope you venture out of the classics section long enough to take a look at some of their work! =D

I usually go for whatever strikes me at the moment. If I feel like reading Shakespeare, I will. If I feel like reading Stephen King, I'll read that.

On a side note: There are a lot of contemporary books that are either bad or just a copy of something else. There are also a lot of classics that everyone praises but doesn't read. I like good books!