Quote:
Originally Posted by Jellby
Sure, but "classics" is not a genre. There is the common impression that a "classic" must be something serious, profound, philosophical, dealing with the eternal fears of the human being, etc. But I believe this is more what the later critics have said about the "classics". You can find adventures, mysteries, light romance, humour, and almost anything among what we know as "classics".
|
ITA! There's lots of classic (older) works that didn't aim to be serious at all. You're right. We do have the impression that all classics must be cerebral and that people who live long ago were less interested in entertainment and different genres than we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower
Er, to be edified? You might find a dictionary somewhere on t'Interweb to help you.
Entertainment is great: it's pleasant, and if you have gaping voids in your life it can momentarily paper them over, which is better than nothing. But it doesn't make you a better person. It doesn't increase your knowledge, your ability to empathise, your command of the language. Reading literature can do these. Sometimes it will entertain you at the same time (Dickens, Rushdie); sometimes entertainment is not the point of that particular work. Surely we can all agree that these things are also great?
If Pop Idol and Dan Brown float your boat, that's dandy. But if there's nothing else in your life, you really are missing out.
|
But who's to say that reading Dickens or Rushdie will make you a better person or increase your knowledge (which also begs the question "knowledge of what?")? How will I become a better person by reading
The Satanic Verses or
Little Dorrit? Maybe reading those works will make you a better reader in the sense that you will more than likely be exposed to different vocabulary, sentence structure, etc. Still, there is the chance you'll read Dickens and want to throw the book at the wall when you're done (yes, I really felt that way when I finished
Great Expectations).