Sunday, January 21, 2018
Enjoying the Classics, pt. 1
Let's just clear the air of something right off the bat. This might mortify you, and I'm sorry about that. But here it is:
I can't stand the Beatles.
I know, I know. Maybe there's something wrong with me. I've mystified - and even downright offended - some people by saying this. But it's true. Their music just rubs me the wrong way.
That said, I understand why they're important. Their influence is enormous; they paved the way for future generations of pop music; etc. They absolutely deserve to be looked back upon fondly, and to be as seminal as they are. I understand and accept and agree with all of that.
But I don't actually enjoy their music in the least bit.
So then. If I haven't scared you away yet, I'm sure you can already guess where this is going:
What about "classic" books? Do we have to like them just because they're "classic"?
Based on my Beatles analogy, you can no doubt guess my answer to this question:
Of course you don't have to like a book just because it's a classic! Forget what your English teacher and your snooty friends and that strange guy at the bookstore said. It is okay to not like a classic. There have been plenty of classics along the way that I haven't enjoyed. In fact, I'll tell you the reason I'm thinking about this topic now:
I recently started reading 1984 by George Orwell. (...yes, for the first time. ahem...*mumbles incoherently*)
I'm about a quarter of the way in, and...well...it's really not my cup of tea so far. I haven't exiled it to the land of no return (at least not yet), but I'm really not enjoying it at all. Yesterday I told my wife that if this book were written today (instead of being a "classic" from yesteryear), I definitely wouldn't be reading it.
Much like I said about the Beatles: I understand why 1984 is important. I can see why it has been so influential. I recognize that the ideas were simultaneously both a product of their time and ahead of their time. I'm glad it exists. But none of this adds up to me actually liking it.
(Now that it's come this far, I imagine I'm probably stepping on all kinds of toes with this post - haha. Oops.)
Of course there are plenty of classics that I've read and loved along the way, for one reason or another. And there have been a fair share that - much like 1984 - ultimately weren't for me.
And that's okay.
What are some classics that you've read but haven't actually liked, friends? And what are some that you've read and do enjoy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was just thinking about this today, actually. I used to think that abridging books was somehow unfair or untrue to the author's original vision for their story, but then I read "The Phantom of the Opera" and completely understood why abridged versions exist: authors were paid by the word count, and thus included tons of extraneous, irrelevant, and boring text precisely so they could be paid more. Sure, the book may have been foundational for future work. It may have important themes. But sometimes "classic" just means "first of its kind," and firsts are rarely bests.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I actually enjoyed 1984. :P I also thoroughly enjoy Sherlock Holmes, Little Women, Call of the Wild/White Fang, A Christmas Carol, The Man Who Was Thursday, The Jungle Book, etc. etc.
The pay-per-word model is precisely what ruined Fahrenheit 451 for me. It's a solid, important story, but SO MUCH of the writing in the book is just throwaway padding for higher pay. Lame.
DeleteI, of course, enjoy Sherlock Holmes as well. A Christmas Carol and Thursday were great, too.
And one of these days I'll actually read the Jungle Book...
I'll just say it. I don't like reading Jane Austen.
ReplyDeleteHaha, it's true - she's fantastic with her characters (personality, quirks, dialogue, etc.), but not so good with all the sentences in between.
Delete