Why are boring books considered 'classics?'

Cafe Society
1

OK, so I try to read books that are considered “classics,” because I would assume that a lot of people have read these books, so it’s just something I should try to do. It also makes other things (like the Simpsons and the Onion) funnier because the literary references don’t go over my head.

There are “classic” books that I’ve really liked (Slaughterhouse 5, Catch-22, Catcher in the Rye), and there are tons of “classic” books that I have never even read (nothing by Joyce, I haven’t read much Shakespeare either, but I’m not too thrilled with what I have read from him), but I’ve noticed a trend in the ones that I haven’t liked. All the books that I’ve read (that I can think of right off hand) written before ~1940 have been perfectly miserable. I don’t know if it’s just the difference in language, or what.

For example, Moby-Dick is a “classic,” but I thought it was absolutely terrible. It drags on and on, like he was being paid by each and every word he could get into the story. He starts out talking about a whaler, and then for about the next 200 pages he talks about the biology, behavior, etc. of whales (this includes calling the “leviathan” a “fish” at which point I nearly stopped reading). The concept of the story is a good idea, and I found the beginning to be real interesting and descriptive, but after that, it just gets really boring. I’d have to say that something like 80-90% of the book is completely unnecessary.

And what makes Hemingway so great? I admit I’ve only read one short story of his(Snows of Kilimanjaro), but he (the character in it I should say) seemed like a real jerk.

What I want to know is, why are books like that considered classic? They’re just boring, can someone explain who decided which books were classic, and why? Should I try to give these books more of a chance?

Please help me, I want to have culture!

2

It seems to me that you have not really read enough classics to make that generalization. I also have not read many classics, but I would probably make the opposite generalization. I think you just don’t like some specific works. I say, read some more, then you’ll have better grounds for your opinion.

3

I learned last week that Charlotte Bronte hated Jane Austen’s writing. You don’t have to like all classics, and if you get a list of the top 100 books of all time and just choose one of them, you very well might not like it. Maybe you could look for classic books that are the same genre as the modern books that you like. I’d try to suggest some, but I really hated Catch-22 and Catcher in the Rye, so I don’t think we have the same taste.

BTW, Moby Dick really was way too long. The whole time I was reading it I longed to go back in time and be Melville’s editor. I would have gleefully cut entire chapters. That book could have been so much better.

4

Didn’t Mark Twain once say: a ‘classic’ is “a book which people praise and don’t read”?
Maybe it’s better to say " a book which people quote from and don’t read".

Well I might as well admit that I have never read any of that guy’s books from cover to cover myself. But I sure find him quotable…

As for “culture”, just read what interests you. Then you’ll have a culture all of your own, and you won’t have to worry about someone else’s version of what great art is. Every 6 or 8 years everything goes out of style anyway. So by the time you have bothered to read all the classics, view all the great films, and so on - they are passé with the in crowd.

God I sound like an afterschool special, and I am probably no help at all. But I try!

5

It would also help to read “bad books.” The pop fiction and the lumpishly written stuff. It makes the classics stand out more.

6

In the case of boring children’s books, the answer is easy.
There was a boom of book clubs in the 50’s and whatever lame nothing book was chosen became known to millions.

7

Another way to look at the classics = boring issue is to remember that they were often not boring to the people who first read them. A New Englander reading Moby Dick when it came out would have felt the impact of the whaling industry in many day to day ways. The reader would probably know people who worked on whalers, or in port cities. Or the opposite, that the reader lived in the desert, and had heard of whalers, but had no chance of ever taking a weekend jaunt to Nantucket or watching a National Geographic documentary about whales. We might compare this to a novel set within Silicon Alley, with tons and tons of detail about the computer industry. Because we use computers every day, we might be more willing to wade through lots of details about computers, if only because one in ten of the details kind of impacts our daily life – “hey, I have that brand of modem!”

Of course, you, the modern day reader, might not care about this at all. Who cares about whaling? Literary scholars still disagree about whether the book = the book, or if the book = what was happening when it was written, and how people reacted to it, and what ideas did the author deliberately stick in there, and what ideas accidentally permiated the novel without specific intent on the part of the author. For me personally, thinking more about the issues outlined in the latter make me enjoy the former more.

8

I’m probably going to be flamed for this…

“Classic” is the label applied to any book that has survived many (100+?) years with a readership. That’s it, they are not classics because people thought they were wonderful, they’re classics because people still think of them, period. Many classics are boring, but since they are all that was well enough recieved to even be heard of today, there isn’t a lot to choose from. In other words, novel writing wasn’t prevelant until the last century (give or take a few decades,) so there is the limiting factor on “good” classics; since there were far fewer(than now) many of what people would consider lesser quality are included in the cannon.

While earning my degree in English-Teaching (and now I teach preschool, go figure) I read countless classics, some of which were very good, and some of which were vile beyond belief. Disliking some doesn’t necessarily mean you will dislike them all, though. If Shakespeare isn’t your cup of tea, maybe Oscar Wilde will be. And you know Ariadne’s comment strikes me funny, since I can’t stand Charlotte Bronte or Jane Austen…

9

I think context and knowledge helps. I am a somewhat daft reader, and I don’t notice things without someone ripping the book out of my hands, beating me over the head with it, and telling me. For that reason, I got a lot out of reading classics in school. For example, I didn’t like Hemingway until I’d read several stories of his in a row with a professor pointing out the themes. Then I “got” what Hemingway was doing.

After college I roomed with a former English major and when she moved her book collection in, I felt ashamed of the holes in my literature knowledge. So I started working my own way through more of them. Some I hated, some I loved. I found doing a little extra reading (be it via Cliffs Notes or whatever) helped me like some of them more. I can remember I was absolutely starving to talk to someone about Anna Karennina but no one in my circle of pals (obviously) was reading it at the time.

Wait, did I have a point? Oh yeah. I think a book club or even just a discussion guide printed in the back of the book could help immensely in your ability to enjoy “classics.” But you don’t have to love everything. Just because critics like it or think it’s important, doesn’t mean it has to be your cup of tea.

10

“There are no great writers, only great readers.”
-Vladimir Nabokov

To take Nabokov’s tack, maybe the books aren’t boring, maybe YOU are boring. (Just kidding!) Seriously though, you don’t have to like all the classics, just find those you do like, and read more of them. And then read what your favorite authors liked to read. The pool of literature is vast, you don’t have to like ALL of it.

I am surprised that you didn’t enjoy Hemingway, but I guess it depends on your personal aesthetic. I first discovered Hemingway’s works as short stories in a discarded pile of approx. 50 year old Esquire magazines. Back in those days, Esquire published the great American authors, like F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Faulkner, etc. Those stories were amazingly awesome. Try reading a few short stories before diving into the novels.

On a further note, some of the artworks I love most, I initially hated when I first encountered them. But after time, I kept thinking about them, and when I encountered them again, I discovered I had changed my opinion entirely, I loved them. So keep an open mind, even if you don’t like the material. Art doesn’t have to be pleasant or enjoyable, in order to be important.

11

Cranky said: Just because critics like it or think it’s important, doesn’t mean it has to be your cup of tea.

Yes!!

Here’s a link to an Atlantic Monthly article that makes me feel lots better about some of the stuff I like. And don’t like.

12

The main reason why people don’t appreciate classic books is that they’re not equipped to appreciate them. Either they’re taught when the reader is too young (much of Shakespeare is hard for a teenager to appreciate), or the reader is uncomfortable about anything written in a style different from what he’s grown accustomed to.

A book becomes a classic because it has elements that remain fresh and interesting as time goes by; it’s the opposite of topical. In addition, usually there is much more to the book than simply a plot and characters. This may not be noticed if you’re used to simple stories, but as you read more, you tend to appreciate the qualities that make a book a classic.

This doesn’t mean there aren’t bad classic books. But it’s a matter of growing into them. I read “Great Expectations” in high school and thought it a bore. When I reread it in graduate school, I was amazed at how great it really was.

13

Errrrrrrrr…I think I’ll address this tomorrow, when I’m better rested. What I’m thinking right now shouldn’t be posted publicly.

14

Teenagers will love Romeo and Juliet if they can get the language. And that takes practice. I’ve oddly always found Shakespeare’s good plays to be better read than seen, but keep in mind they were intended as plays, so go see them as plays.

Mody Dick. You have to like prose poetry, and if whaling isn’t of inherent interest to you, then skip the non-action chapters. See a movie of it and then read it.

James Joyce. I’ve only read Ulysses. I don’t recommend it, except for the first few chapters. It is a tough read.

Faulkner. Tough read, I found Light in August worth it.

Hemmingway? I’ve read a couple, but they were not my cup of tea. I hated Catcher in the Rye. Steinbeck is easy to read and wonderful. Twain’s Huckleberry Finn is outrageous.

I think a lot of the 20th century classics benefit from some emotional maturity and perspective of age. It is difficult if you don’t read a lot to be entertained by books, particularly if you see lots of action movies and have adolescent tastes, books really can’t hold attention. Try reading them while on the porcelin libary chair. For some reason, action thrillers have never made for classics (Illiad is recommended here, but it is really long).

First couple chapters of Genesis, Ecclesiastes are short classics. Get a good poetry anthology and read them in a circle of four friends out loud. Classics are often about the beauty of language, and quick reading or inattentive reading can destroy that. Norton Anthology of English is recommended.

It used to be that people didn’t have TV, movies, radio, internet, magazines or daily newspapers. People would go to church to be entertained by the sermon, or politician’s speeches (which were expected to last hours). A great treat was going to a concert. Next time you go on vacation, try spending a few hours in a chair reading.

15

“Everything written before 1940” is an awfully big generalization. Hemmingway, Melville, and Twain were all pre-1940, but they all have completely different styles. Heck, Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Homer were all pre-1940, too. (You have read/seen more Shakespeare than just Romeo and Juliette and Titus Andronicus, right? Most of them are pretty good.) I’ve actually never read any of the three you mentioned (although Catcher in the Rye and Catch-22 are both on my list), so I can’t really make any informed comparisons as to what else you might like, but there’s bound to be something you’d appreciate in the old stuff.

16

by Chum

You are right. I guess reading a handful of “classics” does not an make me an expert.

I was really going into a reading kick and then I read Moby Dick and remembered why I used to not like to read. Then I read High Fidelity and really liked it and got through it quick. I kind of have this idea in my head (I don’t know where it came from) that for a book to be “good” it has to be very hard to digest, like a vegetable with a lot of fiber.

jamiest, there’s another one I haven’t read, Mark Twain. I really have been planning to read him, but there’s other stuff ahead of him, and Moby Dick took up a lot of time. Now I’m back at school so I don’t have time to read “for myself.”

Chas E.

I read “Snows of Kilimanjaro” (it’s a short story) and I thought he came across as a jerk. I do admit that I need to read more of him, but that story really turned me off of him. Does he refer to women as “bitch” and “slut” in a lot of his stories? Maybe I’m just a wimp, but it’s irritating to have him doing that. In Snows the lady takes him on a safari with her money and he’s talking about how he’s just using her and thinks of her as a bitch and a slut. I wouldn’t be surprised if I was missing something, but if always thinking of women as “bitches” and “sluts” is what makes you a “manly man” like Hemingway, then I think I’d prefer to be thought of as a wimp.

Ukulele Ike, what did I say? Oh geez, be gentle, I’m just a college kid.

DPWhite, oh yeah, I’ve read Steinbeck too (I’ve read some other “classics” that I just can’t think of right now).

Chronos, Actually, I’ve never read or seen either of the stories by Shakespeare that you mentioned. I read Taming of the Shrew and saw Ethan Hawke’s version of Hamlet which led me to (please don’t flame me for this) believe that all movies based on Shakespeare should come with subtitles. I’ve also read Chaucer, and didn’t like that much either.
I’m just a kid, so all the advice about appreciating them when I’m older certainly is relevant, and I’ll keep that in mind. I guess right now I kind of have the opinion of a Futurist (art movement reference) not that I think old stuff should be destroyed, but that we do need to move on to new things. Like someone else said, Shakespeare is out of most kids league when they’re in high school, so why do they bother teaching it? I could understand an honors class, or a class that focused on Shakespeare, but why I have it in the regular English classes? I just think it would be better to try to move away from the past.

17

You’re gonna be begging for Ukelele Ike by the time I’m through with you for that comment :wink:

First, Shakespeare is not out of the average high schooler’s league, not by a long chalk. Most people have this equation implanted in their heads before they even get around to studying Shakespeare that “Shakespeare = difficult, incomprehensible language, ow, my head hurts already, make it stop.”

What people forget it, Shakespeare wasn’t writing high drama for the ages; he was writing popular entertainment for his own time. It just so happens that Shakespeare’s themes are pretty universal, and the characters are transplantable (witness West Side Story), so there is something in there for modern day readers.

It’s not really that difficult if you’re willing to really read and not just let your eye skim, uncomprehending, over the page. Don’t get too hung up on the archaic slang; start off reading for broad meaning, then go back and get the Cliff’s notes stuff, like exactly what ‘gaskins’ are. There are some great stories in there, if you don’t let yourself get psyched out by thinking, “oh, it’s Shakespeare, it’s going to be difficult,” ahead of time.

18

Some incredibly boring books are deemed classics because they marked major shifts in literature. They were pioneers in their day but to us, for example, reading a book as a straightforward story instead of a series of letters is not a big deal. Some things became classics in their time because they were hardcore political commentary, and we still read them in college, without the context, and don’t get it.

Others are classics because they are absolutely brilliant. I place Tom Jones, Robinson Crusoe, Moll Flanders, and Tristram Shandy in that class. I ended up getting a degree in Brit Lit because I loved them so much.

I never liked reading Shakespeare either. It is better performed than read.

19

Here, here on Tristram Shandy (an absolute fave, with “The Master & Margarita” & “Gargantua & Pantagruel”), as well as Tom Jones. Huck Finn is in the same vein (although the last couple of chapters really peter out).
But Robinson Crusoe? Just finished reading that. The premise is innovative, obviously a lot of literature (and other art) derives from it, but the writing and plot details left me really underwhelmed. And couldn’t really find any symbolism that made those shortcomings bearable.

20

I’ll echo what other people are saying: Just because they are considered classics doesn’t mean you have to love them.

However, keep in mind that what you seem to be sayig is, “These books are considered classics, yet I found them boring. How can they be classics if I didn’t like them?”

It works both ways: Their status as classics does not affect your liking them, and your appreciation of them (or lack thereof) does not affect their status as classics.