AIBU to think classics are bloody hard to read?

[Blackbootswithredribbons]

Now, don't get me wrong, I've read some amazing classics in my time (Lord Of The Flies, Jane Eyre etc) but it definitely hurts my brain sometimes! Amazing stories but the long, pointless descriptions, written in that old fashioned way that makes you feel a little stupid sometimes .

So, AIBU?

What interesting about this thread is that the books people find hard to read aren't (necessarily) universal.

I enjoy hard to read books sometimes, I enjoy the challenge, but I'd definitely burn out if I didn't break it up with "easier" books.

There's lots of factors affecting how accessible a "classic" is, change of language, pace, understanding context of the era, how well characters and themes can be recognised and good old enjoyment. Also how you've been exposed to them, was it for your own pleasure, a tedious study, from an engaging adaptation, exploring an author/ genre.

Some I've got into, some I haven't.

That Pride and Predjudice came out just as I started GCSE English and we studied Jane Eyre as our first text and our class had a good appetite for it. It was a good moment for exploring Jane Austin and the Brontes.

I studied Hardy's The Return of the Native at A-Level. The first section of the book was entirely about describing the moorland before the first human character was encountered. The pace was incredibly slow, and it was a couple of hundred pages in before anything of mild interest occured. It was alright in the end and a fairly intetesting subject for essays, but I've never picked Hardy up for pleasure.

Dickens, I've read some for pleasure. They can take a while to really settle into and fully grasp the role of characters.

I really enjoyed dystopias. Our core text was The Brave New World, and then we were given samples of other comparable texts and had to select one to read independently for comparative work and I chose to read many for the pure interest. The (often early) 20th century language is more accessible, but the themes (like much of Shakespeare) transcend time well. The context of 1984 being written post-war is also well-understood.

A poster above referenced Mr Rochester's wife in the attic; while no angelic character, in historical context he treated her relatively kindly with some dignity. Better to be protected with 1:1 care at Thornfield than locked away in an assylum. Other contexts such as the finer points of post-Napoleonic society are not my strong point.

Classic literature generally endures for good reason. I tend to not get on with many contemporary prize-winning novels and often find them try-hard. Some will become classics, many will not. I'd deem Harry Potter to be a recent contender as a classic because it's proving to be loved by new generations, and is likely to continue to do so because the characters and themes transcend time. There is little to date heavily in them.

There's value in reading classic texts because they have a role in understanding the world, past and present, and they are always a feature on the school curriculum in some form for good reason. Reading for enjoyment is important (whatever the text) and it's a mentally healthy passtime. Slogging through "classics" just to show how cultured you are has little merit.
Admittedly there have been some where I've ploughed on because I wanted to know that text/ story. The Lord of the Rings was one, travelling pre-kindle and having no other distractions helped I'm not morally superior for having completed that epic journey though (and I've never met made it through The Hobbit!)

I only read the Three Musketeers recently, having found an old copy. It made me want to read more Dumas!

Good points, @BogRollBOGOF.
I think it's personal taste, but many of these books have endured for a good reason.

For the oldies on this thread, I'm just going to say ... it feels so weird to be on a thread about classic books without BitofFun. RIP.

My overriding memory of reading some classics at school were "why are we reading this shite!?", and I was a book worm. It took all the fun out of reading for me, and any book that the teacher needs to explain what the author meant (seriously, how the hell did he know what the author meant?!) is not something I want to persevere with.

@Clandestin - a while ago I read David Copperfield to the dcs and I was snivelling over DC's description of his regret over his marriage to Dora. It was just so astute and moving. Yes, Dora was a class A wimp (although there was Jip...) but I think the doomed marriage was a good part of the tale. I must admit I never liked Agnes, lurking in the wings waiting for poor old Dora to pop her clogs (sorry, spoilers!).

David Copperfield is a very funny and touching book. I've never really enjoyed tv or film adaptations of them, but that recent film adaptation by Armando Ianucci was so enjoyable because he seemed to get to the heart of the novel and the language.
The casting was brilliant too, but I know many disagree.

The term long, pointless description seems made to describe Hardy and I'm glad to see I'm not alone in finding it unbearable!

Also pretty apt for Conrad. Had to read Nostromo for A Level and there was much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. If I never have to read a description of the silver mines of Sulaco that's as dusty as the mine is, it'll be too soon. I actually had dreams in later years that I had to go back and do that one again!

[quote DottyHarmer]@Clandestin - a while ago I read David Copperfield to the dcs and I was snivelling over DC's description of his regret over his marriage to Dora. It was just so astute and moving. Yes, Dora was a class A wimp (although there was Jip...) but I think the doomed marriage was a good part of the tale. I must admit I never liked Agnes, lurking in the wings waiting for poor old Dora to pop her clogs (sorry, spoilers!).[/quote]
I’m with you on Agnes. Based on Georgina Hogarth, who stayed loyal to Dickens and continued to act as his housekeeper after he’d behaved so appallingly to her own sister, too.

One I really can’t stand, though I’ve tried more than once, is Henry James. Long, convoluted sentences that ramble on for half a page - how he is ever considered part of the canon defeats me.

Jane Eyre and Middlemarch have long been favourites, though IMO they could both do with some judicious cutting! But that’s Victorian writers for you.

I also really like Anthony Trollope, esp. his Palliser and Barchester series, and The Way We Live Now, but admittedly there are Palliser sections I tend to skip. I have recently re read Barchester Towers and still find parts of that very funny.

I first heard The Woman In White as a serial on the BBC World Service decades ago, when we were living abroad. I found it utterly gripping and absolutely could not miss the next episode - no catch-up available then!

@HoHoHoHoHoHoHo

They're "hard to read" because reading is far more accessible nowadays, as language is much simpler and more people read and write. When a lot of classics were written, reading was for learned people only - so they are written in the style of learned people rather than everyday people!

I think it also depends on the genre you usually read - I read lots of science fiction / fantasy, which usually includes lots of world building / over the top descriptions so the classics aren't quite as daunting sometimes 😂

Not really. When Dickens was writing his novels, they were published in instalments in a magazine first, sold out on publication day, and whole families would sit round the fire listening while one person read aloud. In the US people queued up to meet the ship delivering the latest instalment. What's changed since is the arrival of radio, films, TV, Internet. You need to be in practice to follow the complex prose and plots, and lots of people aren't now.

@Clandestin Villette (or Gillette) is truly timeless, isn't it? All that repressed passion and bitterness and oh, that ending. I do like to be punched repeatedly in the stomach by a book.

At the moment I'm reading What Maisie Knew, which follows a self-contained little girl used as a pawn in a vicious divorce. I wish my own mother had read it and reflected on it rather than filling my ears with poison about my father throughout my childhood!

Human nature truly never changes.

Some classics are more accessible than others. I've read loads of them and also abandoned quite a few, such as Moby Dick, which I found excruciatingly boring.

When it comes to modern books, I find some of the novels which make it onto the Booker Prize shortlist these days, completely impenetrable. For me, they aren't worth the mental gymnastics of decoding the obscure language. Others I have loved.

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER

One I really can’t stand, though I’ve tried more than once, is Henry James. Long, convoluted sentences that ramble on for half a page - how he is ever considered part of the canon defeats me.

Jane Eyre and Middlemarch have long been favourites, though IMO they could both do with some judicious cutting! But that’s Victorian writers for you.

I also really like Anthony Trollope, esp. his Palliser and Barchester series, and The Way We Live Now, but admittedly there are Palliser sections I tend to skip. I have recently re read Barchester Towers and still find parts of that very funny.

I first heard The Woman In White as a serial on the BBC World Service decades ago, when we were living abroad. I found it utterly gripping and absolutely could not miss the next episode - no catch-up available then!

I absolutely adore Henry James, but can’t get on with Trollope at all, though I’ve read several. Maybe I should try them again. Sometimes you just don’t read something at the right age or psychological moment — I had a huge thing for Hardy in my teens, but he’s paled on me in adulthood.

I’m another Conrad-hater, but I recognise it’s just a matter of taste — I can see that they’re excellent novels, they’re just not my thing. Possibly having read The Secret Agent at the wrong age.

You need to be in practice to follow the complex prose and plots, and lots of people aren't now.

Exactly. We are so used to watching things on screens and taking in written content in short, concise snippets, that a lot of people probably struggle to have the concentration or motivation to read lengthy prose. That doesn't mean it's not worth reading though.

The frequency of 'TLDR' comments on social media (including MN) is very telling. If people can't even be bothered to read a few paragraphs of something they were interested enough to click on, Dickens is going to be a bit of a challenge .

[quote WhiskyXray]@Clandestin Villette (or Gillette) is truly timeless, isn't it? All that repressed passion and bitterness and oh, that ending. I do like to be punched repeatedly in the stomach by a book.

At the moment I'm reading What Maisie Knew, which follows a self-contained little girl used as a pawn in a vicious divorce. I wish my own mother had read it and reflected on it rather than filling my ears with poison about my father throughout my childhood!

Human nature truly never changes.[/quote]
You can see why CB’s publisher was a bit dubious, though, despite its brilliance! — Lucy is so passive and reactive and so reluctant to disclose information,, doesn’t tell the reader what happened to her family, or she’s recognised someone from her youth (and possibly wouldn’t ever have told the Bretons who she was if Mrs Breton hadn’t seen a similarity with her goddaughter), won’t admit to the reader she’s in love with (insufferable) Dr John, and then, midway through the novel, she switches her affections to a crusty schoolteacher she’s been mocking for his temper and eccentricities since almost the start of her stay in Villette, and who courts her by trying to convert her to Catholicism and then secretly starting a school for her!

I adore every line, especially the set-pieces like Lucy acting in the school play, the appearances of the phantom nun, and the hallucinatory scene where she goes to the park at midnight.

It's interesting to find that I'm not the only person who finds reading novels more difficult than I used to.
I read David Copperfield when I was 14 and loved it. I remember sobbing my heart out at the end (oh, Agnes, oh my soul... etc). But when I started to re-read it a few years ago, I found myself getting impatient with it and my concentration wandered.
Similarly, Pride and Prejudice is one of my favourites, but nowadays I would prefer to watch the TV adaptation (the BBC 1995) than invest time in reading the book.
Another favourite, The Woman in White, I now also find my mind wandering when reading.

As a teenager and up to my early 50s, I always had a book on the go. Then smartphones came along. I'm sure there's a connection. Screentime has resulted in a severe dumbing down of my reading capability and my concentration span is much shorter than it used to be.

God yes!! Tess of the d'Urbervilles.... 17 pages to describe a hill!!! Argh! Kill me now!!

I love reading but honestly just cannot get on with the classics due to the above and the horrid memories of the school work that came with the classics! Put me off for life!

@lazylinguist

You need to be in practice to follow the complex prose and plots, and lots of people aren't now.

Exactly. We are so used to watching things on screens and taking in written content in short, concise snippets, that a lot of people probably struggle to have the concentration or motivation to read lengthy prose. That doesn't mean it's not worth reading though.

The frequency of 'TLDR' comments on social media (including MN) is very telling. If people can't even be bothered to read a few paragraphs of something they were interested enough to click on, Dickens is going to be a bit of a challenge .

I think this is a bit harsh. I had a very, very crunchy 80s childhood where TV was largely banned (literally all we were allowed to watch were David Attenborough, the Christmas Royal Society lectures, and - yes - Great Expectations, which frightened the life out of me). I actually found that when I started to watch films, I couldn't follow them, because I never had the exposure. I still find it difficult and I love TV and film.

Part of the reason some older books seem wordy and long is simply that conventions about syntax and punctuation changed. Back in the day, the standard 'unit' of communication was called a period: it's a lot longer than a sentence and can accommodate a lot more clauses. It's actually much closer to a natural speech pattern (and it's the reason Americans call a full stop a 'period'). Gradually, we moved over to the idea of a 'sentence' as a the standard unit. Sentences are shorter and tighter than periods and you need more of them to do the same thing.

So when you read an old book, and it seems to waffle on for hours before you come to a full stop, the reason isn't necessarily that it's written in a wordy way. It's that nowadays we expect a lot more full stops punctuating things, so we get antsy when there are fewer of them.

My attention span is definitely shorter. Smart phones and being able to constantly access information has an impact

I have to leave my phone in the other room when watching a film, it’s too tempting to start looking up information on the film or where it is set 🙄 I really don’t need to

I'm the same. The internet has really had an impact on my concentration levels. I need to be really strict with myself.

It depends which one. Silas Marner - literally dull as dishwater.

One of my O-level set books. Absolutely loved it and still do.

I love Tolstoy's stories but he can take 3 pages describing a door so I just scan that. I find a lot of Dickens' very funny but the writing isn't fab. Austen hadca way with language and plot soo I always have fun with her.

There is no compulsion to read them, though, just because they're "worthier" than modern books. Some modern literary novels are also impenetrable. Life's too short - read what makes you happy.

So when you read an old book, and it seems to waffle on for hours before you come to a full stop, the reason isn't necessarily that it's written in a wordy way. It's that nowadays we expect a lot more full stops punctuating things, so we get antsy when there are fewer of them.

That might be fair if people were reading as much literature as they used to but choosing modern novels over older ones. But I'm not sure that's the case. Lots of people say they have a shorter attention span, and the TLDR concept with articles and social media posts certainly isn't explained away by the archaic syntax and punctuation theory.

@lazylinguist

So when you read an old book, and it seems to waffle on for hours before you come to a full stop, the reason isn't necessarily that it's written in a wordy way. It's that nowadays we expect a lot more full stops punctuating things, so we get antsy when there are fewer of them.

That might be fair if people were reading as much literature as they used to but choosing modern novels over older ones. But I'm not sure that's the case. Lots of people say they have a shorter attention span, and the TLDR concept with articles and social media posts certainly isn't explained away by the archaic syntax and punctuation theory.

See, I really think the 'shorter attention span' thing is a bit dodgy. People have been saying the same for centuries and more - woe is me, this modern world is so degenerate, what a shame we don't have good memories any more, it's because we don't have proper demanding culture like in the old days.

Then if you wait another couple of centuries, that same 'degenerate' culture becomes the respectable 'proper demanding culture' again!

Now maybe we are all just getting stupider and stupider, but I don't think so. I think film and TV ask us to concentrate in different ways from books, sure. But they are demanding. And 'long reads' are becoming much more popular now than they were ten or fifteen years ago, too. There's an appetite for big, long, complicated storylines and arguments.

I just think we react to unfamiliar forms and blame ourselves, instead of giving ourselves credit.