To roll my eyes when someone says their favourite book is a classic

[Eyeroller100]

I'm an avid reader and I'm always looking for new books to read so I often ask people what their favourite books are. AIBU to roll my eyes every time someone mentions one of the classics.

I know people do love them and they may well be their faves, but I am quite skeptical as if they are saying it to make themselves sound better.

I've tried reading a lot of classics and I just can't get into them at all! They are pure effort

www.theguardian.com/books/2005/aug/20/featuresreviews.guardianreview2

I love her too. Arlington Park is brilliant.

I've tried reading a lot of classics and I just can't get into them at all! They are pure effort

Well that's your problem surely?

This thread reminded me of her book group experience.

Again, I am not actually a Bridget Jones fan. I was arguing for its inclusion as a classic novel using gasp! evidence from the text and from its cultural significance.

Carry on making intellectual snob comments by all means, you're only making yourselves look small. No one has yet given a counter argument that isn't simply disagreeing with no evidence.

To help you, why not start by attacking my implied definition of the term "classic" - what does that mean to you? What defines a classic?

I agree Hermione, after all Jane Austen's and that's all about the dating mishaps of the single women of her day. Just like Bridget Jones. Often classics are classics because they reveal something about the society of their day, and Bridget Jones shines a light on the light of urban youngish women in the late 20th Century.

What defines a classic?
It isn't up to us as mere readers, unless we are also influential academics, critics or on prize boards.
If classic and being part of the canon are the same thing then quality is the main characteristic. BJ fails on that. BJ might be an important text in the future, but for history rather than literature.

I think you are talking about two different kinds of reading.

One can be a voracious reader for the plot. This kind of reader likes light, easy books in which they can lose themselves.

Or one can read to appreciate writing as an art form. Challenging content, challenging presentation, in short what you describe as "pure effort", are what makes this kind of reading worthwhile. The point is not to have an immersive experience but to have a critical one, a thoughtful one.

Both are valid.

Hermione - I don't care enough about this subject to spend my afternoon debating "What makes a classic?", especially with someone who thinks Bridget Jones is one but suffice it to say that not all books talking about the lives of women are classics.

BJ is not a classic, like Jack Reacher books are not - both are superficial, badly written, somewhat entertaining as their only selling point, and easily forgotten.

It’s funny about Wuthering Heights. I mean, I have read it several times and I enjoyed it but some people seem to become transfixed by it.

I am likely to name a classic if asked my favourite book by someone I don’t know well as I do have a few in my top ten. It’s not to be pretentious though, it’s just that the other books or authors aren’t likely to be well-known or popular amongst people who don’t read as much. In real life I haven’t come across many David Foster Wallace fans and even prolific, well-known writers like Joyce Carol Oates and Anne Tyler don’t seem that mainstream. Whereas everyone knows of Lolita, for example, even if they’ve never read it.

Pride and Prejuduce is my favourite book - it's light reading though?
What a bonkers thread! Who gives a toss which books other people like/ read?!

I think that part of what makes a book a classic is longevity - books that are still being reprinted and are finding new readers long after they were written, or indeed after the author is dead.

I think the same applies in all the arts - in music, for example, there is a lot of new classical music being written and performed, and audiences and performers are enjoying it - but not all of it will still be being performed 100 years from now. Basically time will sift out the OK and mediocre from the good, and it is the good that will survive. Same applies to writing, pop music, poetry, painting etc.

whisky there’s a Stephen King short story where the older male character lends a variety of books to a boy. I can’t remember the name of the story or anything useful Anyway, the boy is blown away by Lord of the Flies but also enjoys a lighter, less literary tome. The boy is told that sometimes you need to read for the writing and sometimes you read for the story.

It has stuck with me because I can often see flaws in the writing in some books but find the story captivating and I still get pleasure out of good thriller or mystery novel. It’s interesting too, because King is a great reader and I’m sure he must be aware that his books will only ever be considered in the “read for the story” category - I’ve wondered whether that bothers him?

What a bonkers thread! Who gives a toss which books other people like/ read?!

Quite. There's a serious level of snobbery on this thread and a lack of understanding of what constitutes a classic/"the canon".

Academics might get to define the canon they teach - but classics, in my opinion, become so because they are loved, read, reread and rediscovered with a new relevancy in a new generation.

So I am likely wrong about Bridget Jones right now because it isn't old enough to have met that last criteria - but someone disliking it doesn't make it not a classic for a huge group of readers.

I think my takeaway from this thread is going to be to carry on reading widely, critically and with an open mind. And most importantly, enjoying myself with great art.

I hate being asked what I like reading or what I am reading. The asker then almost invariably goes on to argue about why my answer is wrong. The book is too low-brow or they hate sci-fi or because last week I was reading a trash romance or a silly action book I cannot this week be enjoying Pride and Prejudice (actually that is one classic that really did bore me!)

That and "I read at least 3 books per month"... Yay for you. Reading isn't something to be done to tick a box and say you have achieved that middle class goal for the month. Read because you enjoy it, because the story captivates you or takes you away from yourself or teaches you something or even just because you like the pictures! Don't read what I like, read what YOU like and if you don't know what you like go to the library and grab a few from each section and give them a go.... you might find trashy teen romance is your thing!

Also please don't tell me what I should read. I happily fill my bookcases and my kindle with books with no help from anyone else. I don't want to read Captain Corelli's Mandolin because you think it is great. It may well be a work of literary genius but if I am on a Black Library Warhammer week then it just won't scratch my reading itch.

no longer - really interesting post!! I am both types of reader too. I love to demolish a trashy thriller, but I also spend a lot of time reading critically.

I think sometimes the difference isn't in the books but in the attitude one brings to them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that there is no difference between a great prose stylist and someone who can barely string a sentence together. But it is possible, if not downright illuminating, to bring a critical mindset to so-called "low" or "middle" brow books. It is something plenty of good critics and cultural commentators do, too, from Marina Warner to Zizek. I suspect Stephen King consoles himself with this thought, and with his multi million pound fortune.

Agree with you whisky.
My friend (an academic) told me to read the Charlaine Harris vampire books - 'True Blood' on TV I think - because they are a comment on living in our society with a disability. Well, I read the lot but couldn't see it that way.
Stephen King talks about his place as a story rather than literary writer in his book 'On Writing'. He claims to be happy with it but I don't think he is in reality.

Black Library Warhammer reading week - those are so much fun!! I've never played the game but the books are fab.

It's interesting/ sad/ unsurprising (?) that most of the cutting/ pithy and condescending comments and put downs are coming from the 'knowledgable readers of literature'.

It does nothing but prove the point of the op (although remarks have come from both sides).

I am just so glad to see so many well-rounded and non condescending posters on this thread.

I hate being asked what I like reading or what I am reading. The asker then almost invariably goes on to argue about why my answer is wrong

I am always genuinely interested in what other people are reading. Mainly because I love trying new stuff and like a recommendation!

How can there ever be a wrong answer to "what is your favourite book?!"

Frankenstein is my absolute favourite book. The Times used to sell the paper and a copy of the classics for £1. I had £5 school dinner money (school dinners were £1.60 a day) but I still bought that paper at the weekend. I did an literature degree and a big part of that was thanks to the The Times.

I was a poor 'effnic' girl at a shit school and when I started A-Levels I remembered being pulled up for cheating on an essay. My teacher couldn't believe that I had read a certain book as it wasn't on the syllabus. It was very much a 'people like you don't read books like that'. I think that's generally the attitude some people have to classic literature, sadly. Also, in my teenage angst I almost had the Frankenstein epigraph from Paradise Lost tattooed on me. I'm so glad I didn't!

"What a bonkers thread! Who gives a toss which books other people like/ read?!"

This is a very good point - I don't ever judge someone else for what they read, but judge myself very severely for what I read. I don't have the mental energy for difficult or intellectual books, so I read mostly fairly light stuff - chick lit, science fiction and fantasy, detective fiction etc - and I beat myself up a lot for not reading more intellectual fiction and non fiction - but I know that is daft - I enjoy what I read, and it brings me pleasure and escapism, so does it matter what it is?

Nobody is saying you shouldn't read & enjoy this or that. I read a fairly eclectic range of books myself, including crime thrillers, sci-fi, non-fiction, and in recent years, quite a lot on Baroque music. Everyone's tastes are different, and nobody has to read only literature.

Re one's favourite book being one from many years ago: You might be surprised if you read it again. I was truly disillusioned when I read the #1 book on my favourites list after a 15-year interval - It's fine but would not be in my list of Top 50.

It isn't up to us as mere readers, unless we are also influential academics, critics or on prize boards.
If classic and being part of the canon are the same thing then quality is the main characteristic. BJ fails on that. BJ might be an important text in the future, but for history rather than literature.

I would disagree that literary canon (described by someone on this thread as ‘great literature’) and ‘classic fiction’ are two quite different things, though with overlaps. I don’t think academics get to decide what a classic is, any more than they or the prize-givers (or even the publishers, to a certain extent these days - see 50 Shades) get to determine what books will have the greatest cultural impact.

Many people on this thread have mentioned the works of Wilkie Collins as ‘classics’ - but they are certainly not great works, and were the trash fiction of their day. The Pursuit of Love has engaged several generations of readers - enough to keep it in print and selling and to make the Mitford sisters famous well beyond their status as the society girls of their age. In that context the impact of a Bridget Jones on the popular culture and even the language of its time makes it reasonable to ask whether it might be considered a ‘classic’ of the end of the millennium by future generations of readers.

It’s an interesting question - what of what is written today will be embraced by multiple generations in the future? Will it be the tedious Martin Amis, or the rather excellent but strictly genre John Le Carre? Which of the rightly lauded and prize laden authors like Carey, Atwood and Coetzee will be a household name? What children’s fiction will have the lasting appeal of a Secret Garden or a Ballet Shoes? Will Rowling have the same lasting impact as, say, Milne or Blyton? None of the answers have much, if anything, to do with the literary merits of the books.

But how lovely it would be to have this discussion on its merits, rather than so many people attacking or disparaging other posters and their grammar and typing rather than addressing the ideas themselves in a constructive way. I’m not saying you did - but the thread has taken a dispiriting turn today.

The irony that this thread was started by an op that was inherently snobby and is now being argued against by people being...snobby

As for what is classic/canon - even the academics and theorists can't agree on that! I did an assignment on that at uni, it's led to some quite heated arguments between certain theorists if I recall. In some cases they brought in some horrific prejudices to justify their claims eg God forbid a non-English non-White person write an incredible piece of literature!

Regarding classics are not as easy to read - to the contrary I've found several far easier to read than some popular/middle-low brow novels I've tried to read, in my case that particularly refers to Hilary mantel and Kathy Lette both of whom I'd expected to love. My experience at uni taught me not to judge a book by the blurb! I was dreading behind the scenes at the museum, waterland and passage to India (mum had watched the tv series and I'd hated it) yet when it came to it these became new favourite books and authors.

"I think sometimes the difference isn't in the books but in the attitude one brings to them" exactly - reader-response theory, the main reason most adaptations fail because each reader has imagined the characters, scenery, voices even equipment differently and partly why sue grafton was always adamant her work would not be adapted. Not even different readers but different mood/age/maturity in the same reader as several pp have noted.

As a teen I adored Jackie Collins and Jeffrey archer - not literary quality but bloody good storytelling. Let's face it (and I'm sure the pp publisher will back me up) even before kindle etc there are 1000's of books published if a book becomes a bestseller/popular it's not gong to be JUST because of advertising/hype (in fact I bet the publishers wish it were - would make their job easier) but because there is SOMETHING about it that appeals, a good plot, interesting even if unsympathetic characters, even appealing backdrops that draw the interest of readers.

Like I'm sure many teen girls of the era (80's) Jackie Collins' initial appeal was the 'rudey bits' but once you start reading them they are well paced and have some magnetic characters (which can be fun trying to work out who they're based on too).

Jeffrey archer my mum recommended as she knew I liked mysteries and twists, plenty of those in his books and not a penny more not a penny less appealed to my sense of justice and love of farcical crime capers.

However she also recommended Barbara Taylor Bradford who I couldn't bear due to the swathes of furnishing descriptions - but mum clearly loved that.

I went through a phase of reading Catherine Cookson but they are very clearly written to a formula so that grew boring fairly quickly BUT they're popular with some who may find that comforting.

In summary - each to their own - but don't judge others for their tastes (although as someone in the scene don't get me started on 50 shades crap! - purely as it concerns me it will lead to more women being abused - there are enough already!)