Many voluminous classic books have aged badly, are simply not worth the time, are unreadable or never deserved the reputation won when there were fewer alternatives and less knowledge and variety.
Inspired by The Atlantic article below, what is an old classic book others may not know about which you think is still timely, entertaining or meaningful?
Paradise Lost. Its just so. . . .textured. The language juat overwhelms. Every word the best possible word for that spot. So much to discuss.
How old and classic are talking here?
I have a hard time describing some of the books on that list as classics, but Middlemarch is a sure winner.
de Bello Gallico is pretty good, plenty of action and intrigue. Not a novel, of course, but in this case truth is better than fiction.
Infinite Jest was published in the 90’s, so not that old.
Yeah, Infinite Jest is a classic now? Odd. I do remember it being perhaps the first “important” book I read… and it was very satisfying… but I’m not sure it’s a classic.
Dickens’s A Christmas Carol.
And Silko’s Almanac of the Dead, also mentioned in the OP’s linked article, was published in 1991. Even if it and Infinite Jest count as “classics” by some metrics (and I wouldn’t argue with that), they’re not the sort of thing I thought of when the OP spoke of “an old classic book”.
I like a lot of 19th-century fiction and find it readable and engaging even a couple centuries further on. But if I had to pick one such work a little less famous than the novels of Eliot, Austen and Dickens that I’d still recommend as a real eye-opener and page-turner, I guess it would be Anthony Trollope’s The Way We Live Now. That might not have been the satirical novel ruthless Victorian plutocrats wanted, but it was the satirical novel they deserved.
Thanks. I can only read the start of the link. What are the 6 classics?
How about One Hundred Years of Solitude?
I was surprised the article called Infinite Jest a “classic” so added the world old. But how old is up to you - more than twenty-five years would be good!!
The link mentions Ulysses, Moby Dick, The Tale of Genji, Vanity Fair, Middlemarch, Infinite Jest and The Almanac of the Dead.
I’d submit The Lord of the Rings. I realize it is three books but can be taken as a whole. There is a lot there. More than many think supposing it to be a simple fantasy. It is cohesive in a way I find rare.
While these statements are undoubtedly true in some sense, can you provide some examples of books you think fall into these categories? Or OTOH classics you think do live up to their reputations?
I ask because we’ve had people here who said they just couldn’t understand why anyone would watch a silent movie, or one in black & white, etc. I think many people are so locked into their own tastes that something way, way outside their usual fare is almost completely inaccessible to them. But that isn’t usually a valid critique of the works in question.
The very nature of the question in the OP’s title, and the article that inspired it, implies that most, or many, classics don’t deserve their reputations. But by definition, a classic is a work that many people over a long period of time have determined rises above the ordinary and is worthy of serious consideration.
It is a truism that the value and meaning one gets out of a work of art depends greatly on the effort one puts into understanding it. Contemporary works that deal with situations, settings, and problems that the reader is already familiar with will obviously be more easily understood and appreciated than a work written centuries ago in a culture half a world away. “Getting” those works will require more preparation and effort to uncover their treasures. A quick, casual look at them might yield a judgment of “aged badly” or “unreadable.” But is that fair?
The important thing to understand about all works of art is that the basic characteristics and problems of human beings have not changed all that much in the 6,000 years of recorded history. Therefore, we may be able to find something that speaks to us today, that shines a new light on our lives in the 21st century, in a poem written by Sappho in 600 BCE, an African mask from the 12th century, or a 19th-century woodblock from Japan. All it takes is an openness to the possibility that there is meaning and value to be found, and a willingness to learn how to look for it.
Obviously, not every book or painting or poem or song will appeal to everyone, even if they are conversant in the genre. And I think one’s age has a great deal to do with one’s ability and willingness to venture into unfamiliar territory.
The first time I read Jane Austen’s Emma, at age 25, I thought it was tedious and trivial. When I reread it about ten years later, I was completely captivated and delighted by its wonderfully dry wit and humor, gorgeous language, and brilliantly perceptive characterizations. (I was also amazed and chagrined at my complete inability to have seen all that the first time through.) The 25-year-old me might have said it doesn’t live up to its reputation, but the me from 35 on (I’m 67 now) would defend its place in the pantheon of classics to my last breath.
So, to return to my opening question, for the OP or anyone else, what are some of these “classics” that don’t deserve their reputations? I think there’s a fair chance that for any work so named, there may be Dopers willing to defend it.
I’d say Finnegan’s Wake by James Joyce.
My GF is a super avid reader and loves Joyce but even she could not get through Finnegan’s Wake.
It is so difficult to parse that reading it is a real chore. So much so as to make it inscrutable for all but the most dedicated and I think the few who manage find it a badge of literary honor.
If only one in a million can understand your writing have you really written a classic?
Just my $0.02
I acknowledge that classic implies highly thought of by lots of people over some period of time. Perhaps my description was unfair or too subjective. I acknowledge I might feel differently about books I disliked years ago.
Books I didn’t much enjoy that I think fall into several of my categories include Remembrance Of Things Past (Proust), The Fountainhead (Rand) and Silas Marner (Eliot). Many people might disagree with me. I am fond of Tintin whose author was progressive for his time but in some cases still aged badly.
I particularly liked I, Claudius among many others.
All Quiet on the Western Front. Very readable and still very relatable. Essential reading for any boy coming of age.
The Tale of Genji
Moby Dick
Vanity Fair
Infinite Jest
Middlemarch
Almanac of the Dead
Cervantes’ s Don Qichotte
The first book is surprisingly hilarious. The second one is pure post-modernism 300 years in advance.
There’s an example that, for much of my life, I would have said didn’t deserve its reputation. But to be fair, I can’t honestly say I really read it. Sometime in my teens I cast my eyes over all three volumes (I can hardly believe I really stuck with it to the end), mainly because my friends were reading it, and Tolkien was “cool.” But whereas The Hobbit was a fairly simple and fun story, LOTR was an epic on a scale I was completely unused to, and I totally failed to get it.
There is no question that today I would have a much greater appreciation for it, but it’s just not to my taste. Of course, it’s entirely possible that my lack of interest in fantasy of that type was shaped by my teenage dislike of LOTR!
In college I took an eight-week preceptorial (close reading of a single work with a professor and a small class) on Ulysses, which was the most intense study of any book I’ve ever done. It was eminently worth the effort.
Around that time a took a few glimpses into Finnegan’s Wake and decided there wasn’t time enough before the heat death of the universe to penetrate that morass of Joyce’s stream of consciousness. Sorry, Jimbo, Ulysses is a masterpiece, loved Portrait, and The Dead is without question one of the greatest short stories ever. But Finnegan’s Wake? Nuh-uh.
The Brothers Karamazov.
Almost anything by Dickens.
Two that don’t make it: War and Peace and Anna Karenina.