Strategies for reading the classics?

[khalleron]

Sorry, astra, you don't get to make up your own definitions.

clas·sic/ˈklasik/
Adjective: Judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.
Noun: A work of art of recognized and established value.


If people are still reading Jordan 100 years from now, then his works will be classics.

Tolkien's works are not classics yet, although I do believe they will be.

I don't tell people to read Tolkien when they ask me for classics, though.

There are certainly modern books that are subjectively better than some classics, but that's not what the OP asked.

If you want to start a thread on modern books, genre of your choice, then go right ahead.

[astra]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Sorry, astra, you don't get to make up your own definitions.

clas·sic/ˈklasik/
Adjective: Judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.
Noun: A work of art of recognized and established value.

Who does define

a period of time

?

[djulian]

Originally Posted by astra

?

Usually, a classic is a book that receives the approval of more than a single generation. Hence, Moby Dick is a classic--multiple generations look at that white whale of a book and say, "Yeah, that's a freakin' novel!"--whereas "A High Handed Outrage in Utica" was popular in its time but not afterwards.

The fuzziness and confusion comes in with the fact that classics fall along a spectrum from "THE WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT WORKS EVAR!!1!" down to "Meh, kinda important."

[Namekuseijin]

@astra, do you understand the concept of a "high watermark"?

Beethoven symphonies, Shakespeare plays, Da Vinci paintings, french cuisine etc. They represent "high watermarks" in some field of human creative endeavour.

Now, you may particularly enjoy death metal, McMeals or pulp fiction better, but you know mankind has once beat these in sheer sophistication, scope, inventiveness and mastery of the craft...

so, while the concept of great may vary from individual to individual, we can certainly know when we're in the presence of something so far removed from the ordinary that it escapes personal tastes, like standing next to the millenary heights of the egyptian pyramids...

[astra]

Why live in the past? Is a 100 years or a generation’s approval is a proof of greatness? Greatness in what sense? Entertaining read? Might be. Wisdom? Hmm. A lot of 100 years old wisdom of the so called classics is inapplicable and incompatible with the modern society.
If it is merely an entertaining reading, why not to read something modern and enjoy it? Why listen to strangers, why follow somebody’s advice, why not think for yourself?
Why linger in the past?
Most important though, why insist that everybody else along with you stay there.

It reminds me of something from my home.

Spoiler:

My father is an early riser. A skylark.
My mother and I are typical owls.

My father insisted and brainwashed both of us all my long life till I turned 16 and half and left home for a university, that only lazy people sleep late. It is wrong. One must break this bad habit and wake up early. You must do like I do. Look how much I have achieved in my life. You are a lazy bunch. You should not read a book or watch TV after 23.00. 23.00 - switch off the light!
It is a known fact today, that there are different types of people with different natural internal clocks.

I see exactly the same trend in a must read classics. Some so called wise men who happened to like a certain book and have a power to force their opinion on others, who think they are superior to others, smarter than others, they decided what is classic, what and when I must read. Some people genuinely like it. Horses for courses. There is another bunch. A typical herd minded one. I will follow the rest. I won’t be different. I don’t really like this book ......but they say it is good, it is unpopular to say it is not good. Anyone who says that it is not classics, it is boring is considered to be dimwitted, stupid ....and you know what? I think I like it It is classics indeed! I believe it, honest!

[djulian]

Your list of favorite quotes gives the lie to your argument.

And arguing that a person must rise early in order to be a good person because I rise early is different than arguing that a classic work is valuable because many people have read and agreed upon its value. The first argues from a single individual's experience, the second argues from the larger experience of much of a society/culture.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by astra

Why live in the past? Is a 100 years or a generation’s approval is a proof of greatness? Greatness in what sense? Entertaining read? Might be. Wisdom? Hmm. A lot of 100 years old wisdom of the so called classics is inapplicable and incompatible with the modern society.
If it is merely an entertaining reading, why not to read something modern and enjoy it? Why listen to strangers, why follow somebody’s advice, why not think for yourself?
Why linger in the past?
Most important though, why insist that everybody else along with you stay there.

It reminds me of something from my home.

Spoiler:

My father is an early riser. A skylark.
My mother and I are typical owls.

My father insisted and brainwashed both of us all my long life till I turned 16 and half and left home for a university, that only lazy people sleep late. It is wrong. One must break this bad habit and wake up early. You must do like I do. Look how much I have achieved in my life. You are a lazy bunch. You should not read a book or watch TV after 23.00. 23.00 - switch off the light!
It is a known fact today, that there are different types of people with different natural internal clocks.

I see exactly the same trend in a must read classics. Some so called wise men who happened to like a certain book and have a power to force their opinion on others, who think they are superior to others, smarter than others, they decided what is classic, what and when I must read. Some people genuinely like it. Horses for courses. There is another bunch. A typical herd minded one. I will follow the rest. I won’t be different. I don’t really like this book ......but they say it is good, it is unpopular to say it is not good. Anyone who says that it is not classics, it is boring is considered to be dimwitted, stupid ....and you know what? I think I like it It is classics indeed! I believe it, honest!

I think astra might be a certain politician turned reality star.

That's certainly a fine example of word salad.

But I'll see if I can follow your 'logic' - reading something contemporary and mass-marketed makes you an individualist, but reading something that's withstood the test of time makes you a sheep.

If you say so.

Go start your own thread - 'Modern works that are better than the classics' - instead of hijacking this one.

[maianhvk]

Originally Posted by khalleron

I think astra might be a certain politician turned reality star.

That's certainly a fine example of word salad.

But I'll see if I can follow your 'logic' - reading something contemporary and mass-marketed makes you an individualist, but reading something that's withstood the test of time makes you a sheep.

If you say so.

Go start your own thread - 'Modern works that are better than the classics' - instead of hijacking this one.

What astra was trying to say is, some people like classics, some others don't. Do not pretend that everyone else loves classics because many people do, and please do not convince them to. Herd instinct doesn't apply to reading.

[astra]

Originally Posted by djulian

Your list of favorite quotes gives the lie to your argument.

Are you sure?

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind."
— Dr. Seuss

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
— Mark Twain

"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts."
— Albert Einstein

Originally Posted by khalleron

That's certainly a fine example of word salad.

I like it

Originally Posted by khalleron

Go start your own thread - 'Modern works that are better than the classics' - instead of hijacking this one.

I am in no way hijacking the thread.
If you re-read the first post, you will notice that the person who started the thread is clearly struggling with reading some classics. He tries to understand why, why so many people call it classics, when he finds the books so dull.

My answer to him is - read what you like. Don't listen to what some allegedly smart people say that we must read because it is classics. What they say worth nothing.

I am not saying that all classics are bad. I don't say even that one particular book is bad like "Dead souls" by Gogol.
What I am saying is that different people have different tastes and we should not impose our tastes on others, but that is what happens in the literature world regarding classic literature.

I am saying to the thread starter - don't you worry! You don't like it? No problem at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you. It is just not your cup of tea. It doesn't not mean you are stupid or not smart enough to

to "get into" them?

Don't waste the precious time of your life on trying to accomodate yourself to somebody else POV or taste. Read what you like because you like it, be it classics, documentary, physics, romance, urban fantasy, etc. They are on equal footing.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by astra

Read what you like because you like it, be it classics, documentary, physics, romance, urban fantasy, etc.

That's not what you said in your first post on this thread.

But if you'll look back you'll see it's pretty close to what *I* said.

I don't agree with the 'equal footing' part because a work that's been loved for generations has obvious merits that a new work does not have.

I don't think anyone on this thread has, or would, say 'read nothing but classics or else you're a moron!' as you seem to be insinuating. The question was what classics to read and how to go about it, which is the question we endeavored to answer.

I read a mix of many things, classic and modern, but the question was about classics. Your many attempts to hijack the thread to what YOU want to read are not helpful.

[astra]

Originally Posted by khalleron

The question was what classics to read and how to go about it

Because he was struggling. Hence my piece of advice.

Originally Posted by khalleron

Your many attempts to hijack the thread to what YOU want to read are not helpful.

You seem to adore the word but it is out of context here.

[djulian]

I'm pretty sure--you quote Twain, Seuss, and Einstein for example. All classic authors. And even if they argue, "Don't follow the herd," you're drawing that from classic works. I hope you see the irony in claiming the wisdom of classic writers as an argument to avoid reading classic works.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by djulian

Usually, a classic is a book that receives the approval of more than a single generation. Hence, Moby Dick is a classic--multiple generations look at that white whale of a book and say, "Yeah, that's a freakin' novel!"--whereas "A High Handed Outrage in Utica" was popular in its time but not afterwards.

The fuzziness and confusion comes in with the fact that classics fall along a spectrum from "THE WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT WORKS EVAR!!1!" down to "Meh, kinda important."

Yeah, but...

Respectfully, the problem with this is that it's essentially either an Appeal to the Masses or an Appeal to Authority -- and those are both logical fallacies.

The Appeal to the Masses argument is basically, "This is a classic because XX% of people who read it AGREE that it's a classic," where XX is some sufficiently high number. So if we can get enough people to insist that "Twilight" is a classic, or Robert Jordan's complete works, or "The Boxcar Children" is a classic, then as long as those people continue to insist that the story is "a classic" for a sufficiently long time, then thus is it so.

The problem is that even if 99% of people agree for the next 100 years that "Twilight" is a classic and must be read, that doesn't mean that the work actually has objective value, just that it has subjective value for a large number of people. Therefore, the sentiment should not be, "Twilight is a classic that everyone should read," but rather simply "Twilight is a classic that lots of people like, so you might want to check it out."

Since the "Classics! Read 'em!" argument usually hinges on intellectualism, the Appeal to the Masses is usually modified to the Appeal to Authority -- now it's not that XX% of people think a book is a classic, it's instead XX% of qualified people. But according to whom? There's a reason why a lot of "classics!" lists are composed largely of white, western, male authors and it's *ahem* not because white, western, male authors are inherently more likely to write good stuff. It's because for a very very VERY long time, it was almost a requirement to be a white, western, male person in order to gain entrance to the Special Ivory Tower that decides whether or not Robert Jordan has attained classical status.

Beyond the issues of grandfathering-in a lot of white, western, male works and continuing to overlook the entire world of everything else, the Appeal to Authority is still fallacious because for the same reason that the Appeal to the Masses is: even if every author and professor on earth deem Twilight a classic, the BEST we can say is not "Twilight is a classic that everyone should read," but rather simply "Twilight is a classic that lots of authors and professors like, so you might want to check it out."

Incidentally, the reverse is also a problem: if we can't define a "classic" outside of fallacious Appeals to Masses/Authority, then we can't UN-classic-ify a book either. If every man-woman-jack on earth signs an affidavit that "Moby Dick" is dull, tedious, and without literary value, I would presume that YOU (you being the exception to this sudden loathing of Pick-Your-Favorite-Classic) would maintain that "Moby Dick" was STILL a 'classic' regardless of what everyone else on earth said.

(Not picking on you, I swear, just using an example. Hope that didn't sound harsh. )

Really, ultimately, "Classic" has become a word to mean (1) oldish, (2) probably taught in a class somewhere, and (3) I like it or at least felt smarter for having tried to read it. And that's.......okay. I'm alright with using the word that way. But it still means that all this "classics have objective value and are determined by strict, unassailable criteria" is so much white noise, in my opinion.

Speaking of, I recommend "White Noise" by Don Delillo as a classic. It's old, probably taught in a class somewhere, and I like it a lot.

[djulian]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

But it still means that all this "classics have objective value and are determined by strict, unassailable criteria" is so much white noise, in my opinion.

Fair points on your whole post!

I specifically agree with your statement quoted above. There are no unassailable criteria, and my own definition "accepted by multiple generations as worthwhile" is subject to plenty of debate.

I reject the appeal to authority as a defining factor for choosing classics. I prefer to accept the appeal to the masses. I think it's appropriate here because "classics" as a category remains subject to the whims of a culture. I'm not sure that the category has any type of objective meaning apart from people--no book is simply a "classic" on its own without a group of people identifying it as such. It must be a subjective label. So, I resort to the masses because I think that they're less likely to be as myopic as the tower full of old, white men. This may be a futile hope.

I don't know for sure, but I might still enjoy Moby Dick even if everyone said, "It's worthless." Heck, I enjoy Tom Clancy, and he's not achieved "classic" status (at least, I don't think he has.)

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by djulian

Fair points on your whole post!

I specifically agree with your statement quoted above. There are no unassailable criteria, and my own definition "accepted by multiple generations as worthwhile" is subject to plenty of debate.

I reject the appeal to authority as a defining factor for choosing classics. I prefer to accept the appeal to the masses. I think it's appropriate here because "classics" as a category remains subject to the whims of a culture. I'm not sure that the category has any type of objective meaning apart from people--no book is simply a "classic" on its own without a group of people identifying it as such. It must be a subjective label. So, I resort to the masses because I think that they're less likely to be as myopic as the tower full of old, white men. This may be a futile hope.

I don't know for sure, but I might still enjoy Moby Dick even if everyone said, "It's worthless." Heck, I enjoy Tom Clancy, and he's not achieved "classic" status (at least, I don't think he has.)

Yeah, I agree that the Appeal to the Masses makes the most sense for classic determination. But once we've gotten there, we also have to admit to ourselves that just because The Masses like something doesn't mean it's automatically more valuable than something most people don't like.

And, of course, once we've accepted the criteria that "classic" just means "lots of people have liked it", then there's not a real reason to read something one DOESN'T like, unless you're just very, very interested in reading things that people you haven't met recommend.

So, in summary, the OP's strategy for reading the classics should, in my opinion, be the same "strategy" zie uses for everything else: pick up stuff you think you'll like, read 50-100 pages, put it down if you don't want to continue. Rinse, repeat.