Some people I know avoid classics because, as others have mentioned, they hated what they were forced to read in school. Many cite Great Expectations as the novel that turned them off reading. I know some people who brag about never having actually read a single novel they were assigned in high school or college. So, the classic novel’s association with mandatory school reading is definitely a cause of avoidance for some.
Associated with that reason, another is that many people just don’t read well and therefore consider classics to be too difficult. I’d venture to say that most people who hated all the classics they were made to read in school probably are not strong readers.
I started up a book club once, and someone chose Pride and Prejudice for the first book. I thought it was fun and light. But the consensus - among people whom I consider to be intelligent - was that it was difficult. In this case, it was less about reading ability and more about the difficulty of interpreting a foreign world. Writing style is part of it, but so is historical context. Regardless of whether or not we regard them as timeless, all books are of their time and space. Pre-existing knowledge of that time and space - as well as good footnotes - can help make the journey easier, but opening a classic with an expectation of immediate understanding and an unwillingness to do some extra work can make for a frustrating and unpleasant experience. One that many people choose not to repeat. Instead, they read novels that are of their own time and place or that come with built-in road maps. I happen to read a lot of Victorian novels, to the degree that I’ve amassed enough context to slide nearly effortlessly into any Victorian novel. Pride and Prejudice was close enough in time and space to the Victorian era to be easy for me. Ivanhoe, on the other hand, was a chore.
If I were only allowed to read 10 books a year – which, not getting into the specifics many here are quibbling about, seems to be safely more than the average number of books the average person reads – I don’t know what I would do. How would I pick between classics and best sellers and local authors, between novels and essays and criticism? I would probably only read one or two classics a year. At that rate, most classics would have to remain unread by me in my lifetime. In other words, to answer part of the OP, there isn’t enough time.
I read a lot of science fiction and fantasy, so I’m used to being dropped into another world, and another time, with different customs.
However, I can’t bring myself to care about Austen’s characters. Yes, yes, I KNOW that women in that time and place HAD to marry well, or they’d starve. However, I’m not interested in the various ploys they (and their mothers) use to secure a good husband, one with the best prospects. I’m somewhat familiar with the time and place and society of Austen’s works, but she just couldn’t keep me interested.
If I read Shakespeare without notes of some sort, then most of it passes right over my head, and I don’t find the language to be enchanting. Heresy, I know. However, if someone who knows the play well reads it, and then explains what’s going on, and then reads it again, I find it utterly absorbing. And Shakespeare’s English isn’t all that far removed from the English that I use every day!
I do read and enjoy older works, and I sometimes have to remind myself about the time period. I just purchased the complete works of Arthur Conan Doyle this morning, for instance (at 2 AM for $2.99 in ebook format, wheeeeee!) and the language has changed a bit, and society has changed a lot, since those stories were written. Heck, I read all of Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe stories, and even though they were written just in the last century, writing styles have changed, and so has American society.
It looks like most people in this thread have been challenging the “read by no one” part of the Twain quote, but I’d say the “praised by everyone” bit is even less true. Perhaps in Twain’s day people didn’t openly slam the classics, but as far back as I personally can remember there have been plenty of people who are happy to say that they found various works of classic literature to be boring or stupid. There are a number of examples in this very thread.
I’m guessing you were so uninterested that you never got through a complete Jane Austen novel? Because none of Austen’s heroines are particularly interested in landing a husband with “the best prospects”, and the only heroine’s mother depicted that way (Mrs. Bennett in P&P) is clearly meant to be seen as foolish, embarrassing, and really not a very good parent. Jane Austen certainly isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but it sounds like you read the beginning of Pride & Prejudice and got totally whooshed by it.
I’ve struggled my way through most of a few of Austen’s works, not just one or two. I keep hearing about how great she is, and then I pick up one of her novels at the library, and I put it down about 2/3 of the way through. The library and bookstores are full of books that I ENJOY reading, so I’ll read them.
I feel the same way about Charles Dickens. Mostly I don’t give a shit about his characters and situations. I’ve tried to read him, and he just doesn’t hold my interest.
That’s fine, I don’t particularly care whether you read or enjoy Jane Austen’s novels or not. My point is that Jane Austen’s novels are not about “the various ploys [the heroines] (and their mothers) use to secure a good husband, one with the best prospects.” And I’m not just saying that there’s more to the novels than that, I’m saying this is a totally inaccurate characterization of Austen’s work. None of Austen’s heroines use “ploys” to land a man for themselves, and none are angling for the richest guy they can get. There are characters who behave like that in Austen’s work, but they are portrayed as pitiable at best and more frequently as either badly misguided or outright immoral.
