Article on Readers Versus "Book People"

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by issybird

High-hatting people isn’t going to convince them to give The Scarlet Letter a try.

No joke, it was the TV series Mama's Family (a cheesy stupid syndicated sitcom) that made me want to read The Scarlet Letter. Thelma is assigned The Scarlet Letter and has all the usual complaints. Her friend Iola describes the book in the most pot-boiler, soap opera terms, which made the book more approachable to Mama. I admit, the synopsis intrigued me and I read the book and wound up loving it (though I think I prefer House of the Seven Gables).

There's some value in approaching the classics a little less seriously.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

There's some value in approaching the classics a little less seriously.

Mostly, classics got that way because people liked them in the first place.* Over time, the situations and the language may become more challenging, but there’s something there that won people over initially.

*There are exceptions of course, hence the mostly. Finnegan’s Wake, anyone? Not that no one enjoys it; I recently finished Up in the Old Hotel by Joseph Mitchell and he said he read and reread it compulsively.

[SeaBookGuy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

No joke, it was the TV series Mama's Family (a cheesy stupid syndicated sitcom) that made me want to read The Scarlet Letter. Thelma is assigned The Scarlet Letter and has all the usual complaints. Her friend Iola describes the book in the most pot-boiler, soap opera terms, which made the book more approachable to Mama. I admit, the synopsis intrigued me and I read the book and wound up loving it (though I think I prefer House of the Seven Gables).

There's some value in approaching the classics a little less seriously.

Trollope's The Way We Live Now and Balzac's Cousin Bette are soap operas as well.

As for online book discussions, I am active in those; however, I tend to read little "mainstream" stuff, nor am I interested in fantasy or science-fiction, so like-minded readers are not thick on the ground for me.

I do discuss books at Instagram, though honestly it's a lot about posting pretty pictures of one's TBR often. "Gave me all the feels" makes me cringe, but I'm an old goat. Social media can be useful for books where I'm on the fence, so can dig a bit deeper with folks I know as to whether I'd actually like the book or not.

[kandwo]

Originally Posted by issybird

Mostly, classics got that way because people liked them in the first place.* Over time, the situations and the language may become more challenging, but there’s something there that won people over initially.

*There are exceptions of course, hence the mostly. Finnegan’s Wake, anyone? Not that no one enjoys it; I recently finished Up in the Old Hotel by Joseph Mitchell and he said he read and reread it compulsively.

I enjoyed it, until I realized that there was an actual plot buried somewhere in there!

Sadly, my copy is far away in physical book form, so I can't enjoy it. I had forgotten all about that book until you mentioned it!

I do tend to enjoy the sound and structure of words more than their meaning, and their semantic meaning more than their contextual meaning, and so on. Perhaps you have to be that way to enjoy it. I view language as an art form no different from painting. I find it ridiculous to think that the primary function of language would be for communication, considering what a poor job it does of it. For me, language is first and foremost about beauty - euphonic constructs, intricate patterns - it's music, it's jazz.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by kandwo

I like her point about people bashing the classics. I've grown up in an anti-elitist environment, where reading classics was frowned upon, genre literature was good, etc. I found that sort of sentiment highly detrimental and it was a breath of fresh air discovering the likes of Dostoevsky on my own.

I didn't like mot of the classics I read in school. That's why a lot of people won't read them or try to find ones they may like. School puts them ff and I can fully understand that. Teachers pick the worst ones and then make us read them. The books read in school should be more relevant and better books. I did read The Brothers Karamazov in school and I really disliked it. There were other books I disliked. I also disliked Shakespeare. So I do think it;s the fault of the teachers for picking rubbish. Not everything was rubbish, but most was.

If I had picked classics myself, I could have stopped reading any I didn't like and found ones I liked. But I do feel that schools turn kids off to the classics so they don't want to find ones they like and I think also because of schools picking classics that are not good, they can and do cause kids not to want to read for pleasure.

I think it's good reading those kinds of books in school. They're supposed to make you think and confront your ideas about the world and the people who inhibit it. Then discuss those thoughts presented to you with others in class. Of course, this all falls apart if your classmates are not up for having a constructive discussion or are unprepared or the teacher doesn't know how to lead the class; but that's true for any subject. School is supposed to make you think, especially in ways that you wouldn't stumble upon on your own (otherwise what's the point?).

I'll disagree. If you want kids to confront their ideas about the world, you have to have them reading books that are more relevant to the world as it is now and not as it was. That's part of the problem. Teachers need to pick more modern books that kids can relate to in some way.

[Quoth]

Or, JSWolf, stuff not appropriate for age (or culture) thus spoiling it for you as an adult.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I didn't like mot of the classics I read in school. That's why a lot of people won't read them or try to find ones they may like. School puts them ff and I can fully understand that. Teachers pick the worst ones and then make us read them. The books read in school should be more relevant and better books. I did read The Brothers Karamazov in school and I really disliked it. There were other books I disliked. I also disliked Shakespeare. So I do think it;s the fault of the teachers for picking rubbish. Not everything was rubbish, but most was.

You might dismiss two of the great authors in the western canon, Dostoevsky and Shakespeare, as rubbish, but not with a lot of credibility. It can be a bad idea to generalize from one’s individual experience, even more so when it’s not based on facts or reason.

If I had picked classics myself, I could have stopped reading any I didn't like and found ones I liked. But I do feel that schools turn kids off to the classics so they don't want to find ones they like and I think also because of schools picking classics that are not good, they can and do cause kids not to want to read for pleasure.

Perhaps students are not the best judges of what they ought to learn? Where did the idea arise that school was for fun? Sometimes you need to eat your sprouts.

I'll disagree. If you want kids to confront their ideas about the world, you have to have them reading books that are more relevant to the world as it is now and not as it was. That's part of the problem. Teachers need to pick more modern books that kids can relate to in some way.

Just as one example, the wonderful film Clueless shows just how relevant a 19th century author can be. In any case, it’s in the teaching, not in the books. Part of what makes a classic a classic is its timelessness.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by issybird

Perhaps students are not the best judges of what they ought to learn? Where did the idea arise that school was for fun? Sometimes you need to eat your sprouts.

So true, although a good teacher can make the most boring subject fun and a poor teacher can bore the most promising of students.
Apache

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by Apache

So true, although a good teacher can make the most boring subject fun and a poor teacher can bore the most promising of students.
Apache

Or even worse a teacher with an "Agenda" who will not stop pushing it.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by issybird

Mostly, classics got that way because people liked them in the first place.

Oh yeah. My post was in agreement with your point, not arguing against it.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by SeaBookGuy

Trollope's The Way We Live Now and Balzac's Cousin Bette are soap operas as well.

So is Silas Marner. Another berated classic that I really enjoyed.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I didn't like mot of the classics I read in school. That's why a lot of people won't read them or try to find ones they may like. School puts them ff and I can fully understand that. Teachers pick the worst ones and then make us read them. The books read in school should be more relevant and better books. I did read The Brothers Karamazov in school and I really disliked it. There were other books I disliked. I also disliked Shakespeare.

I disagree with your entire post. But I will say that with Shakespeare it's better to see a performance than to read it.

Put me in the minority, but I really enjoyed when our class read Romeo and Juliet. And I remember my friend seemed to enjoy reading Julius Caesar.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Oh yeah. My post was in agreement with your point, not arguing against it.

Ditto. I was agreeing with you.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

You might dismiss two of the great authors in the western canon, Dostoevsky and Shakespeare, as rubbish, but not with a lot of credibility. It can be a bad idea to generalize from one’s individual experience, even more so when it’s not based on facts or reason.

Shakespeare isn't rubbish. But the way Shakespeare is taught in school is why he's a real turn off. School spoils Shakespeare. As for Dostoevsky, he's one I don't like regardless of school. Schools need to stop ruining books for kids by picking more appropriate books.

Perhaps students are not the best judges of what they ought to learn? Where did the idea arise that school was for fun? Sometimes you need to eat your sprouts.

Perhaps the school curriculum is too fixated on books that don't work. Just because it's called a classic does not make it appropriate to read for school.

Just as one example, the wonderful film Clueless shows just how relevant a 19th century author can be. In any case, it’s in the teaching, not in the books. Part of what makes a classic a classic is its timelessness.

Part of the problem with these old books can be the style of writing. For example, take Dracula. The story is OK but the writing is enough to put one to sleep.

[kandwo]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I didn't like mot of the classics I read in school. That's why a lot of people won't read them or try to find ones they may like. School puts them ff and I can fully understand that. Teachers pick the worst ones and then make us read them. The books read in school should be more relevant and better books. I did read The Brothers Karamazov in school and I really disliked it. There were other books I disliked. I also disliked Shakespeare. So I do think it;s the fault of the teachers for picking rubbish. Not everything was rubbish, but most was.

If I had picked classics myself, I could have stopped reading any I didn't like and found ones I liked. But I do feel that schools turn kids off to the classics so they don't want to find ones they like and I think also because of schools picking classics that are not good, they can and do cause kids not to want to read for pleasure.



I'll disagree. If you want kids to confront their ideas about the world, you have to have them reading books that are more relevant to the world as it is now and not as it was. That's part of the problem. Teachers need to pick more modern books that kids can relate to in some way.

In my experience, people who blame their school for putting them off classics for life are people who never would read them anyway.

What I find strange about your argument is school making someone dislike Shakespeare. I actively disliked Romeo and Juliet and didn't like our class discussions about Hamlet. Did that ruin Shakespeare for me? No. Why would it? He's written a range of completely different plays in a variety genres and the fact that I dislike Romeo and Juliet doesn't mean that I won't like Henry V. And even if I dislike reading his plays, I might enjoy watching them.

I've read very little Shakespeare, but that's because I'm not that interested. I want to read him some day, just not now. And I'm under no illusion that my bad experiences in school spoiled him for me.

Furthermore, there are several books that I have found boring when first trying to read them, and yet, when returning to them at a later stage in my life, have loved.

I hated, absolutely loathed Dickens in school. Still I plan to start re-reading his works (yes, even the ones that school spoiled for me).

Are people really that brittle? One bad experience and nevermore! Listening to some people reading a boring classic in school means that a person who otherwise would be an avid reader and maybe the next Shakespeare will now be put off for life!

And finally, as for your last point - isn't one of the main points with reading developing empathy and learning about other viewpoints? If you're only going to read about stuff "relevant to you" - how are you going to develop? Don't you find it useful to explore how people function in other conditions, radically different to your own? To find out what unites us as humans and what sets us apart?