The title of this post is a quote from my paternal grandmother who was a vivacious reader of just about everything. She was the one that introduced Harry Potter to my mother before my mother read it to us. Her collection of books was a great legacy and her ability to talk about books was always a delight. I was looking forward to such a discussion when I called her to tell her that I had finished Bram Stoker's Dracula.
"Grandma! I finished reading Dracula!"
"Oh."
(pause) "Aren't you proud. I read a classic."
"Just because it's a classic doesn't mean it's good."
(pause followed by me chuckling) "So, Grandma. I take it you didn't like it."
"Nope."
That's a pretty accurate account of how the "discussion" went. Personally, I loved Dracula. I found it interesting and intriguing and more than a little suspenseful - particularly since I knew what Dracula was and could see the writing on the wall. I remember wanting to scream at Johnathan Harker, "He doesn't have a reflection!! This man is not normal! Get out of there!!!" but of course he wouldn't have heard me.
Dracula is considered a classic, and it's one of the few books that I've read that have that distinction. 11th grade English was not a good class for me. The only book I actually finished was The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Didn't read Huckleberry Finn (Twain), The Scarlet Letter (Hawthorne), or anything else that year. So, you could say that my experience with "great American Classics" is..... unfinished. I've read and seen more Shakespeare than many, but a deficiency of Dickens. I feel quite familiar with Austin but have only read Jane Eyre from the Bronte sisters' works. And my Classical (Greek and Roman) literature is even more lacking than my Dickens. I would say of my classic (and classical) literature education that I know what I should have read, but haven't actually done so.
Which launches me into my musing of what constitutes a "classic" and what should we be reading. "Classic book" even has its own Wikipedia page. For many, it's what we should be reading. Books that young people should be exposed to in order to "learn literature." However, there is some pretty heated debate about that. If you're looking for entertaining discussions on this, click the links to read and listen by authors I enjoy over at Monster Hunter Nation and Do I Dare to Eat a Peach who have something to about it.
For myself, a classic book is one that has longevity. Something that has stood the test of time, for one reason or another. They may be message fiction (have a particular agenda or moral lesson in mind - Scarlet Letter, 1984, and Lord of the Flies I'm looking at you.) It might be genre altering (The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings come to mind, not to mention Asimov's work). It might be well written and compelling (King Lear, Macbeth, and Julies Caesar are just three of the many works - three that I'm more familiar with than others). These works have been through a lot and are still read and meaning and enjoyment is found within them.
What I find difficult to fathom is when someone will say "That isn't a classic because it's (a genre fiction)" or "(book title) is an instant classic." The definition of "classic" used in these statements must differ from might significantly. Standing the test of time, gaining a kind literary immortality, happens to many different kinds of books. J.R.R. Tolkien practically invented modern fantasy - one of the key staples to genre fiction. For the second, can anyone project what the next "classic" will be? In 1952 the movie "Singin' in the Rain" was released. Looking at the Academy Awards for 1953 the movie was involved with only two categories: Best Actress in Supporting Role (Jean Hagen in the role of Lina Lemont) and Best Music, Scoring of Musical Picture and it didn't win either of them. Based on that, one might think that "Singin' in the Rain" might fade from time. But when was the last time you talked to someone who saw "American In Paris" the show that won Best picture the year before? "Hans Christian Anderson" with Danny Kaye was nominated for more awards and is a wonderful movie, but is virtually unknown in popular circles. Yet, "Singin' in the Rain" has drawn audiences of many ages for years since. I only want to show that you can't say what will become a classic and what won't. Not until the time has passed and we look at what people are still reading.
And what should we be reading? Why are classics considered so important to read? With how long this post has gone, that is a question for another time. But in the meantime - What do you think people should read?
"Grandma! I finished reading Dracula!"
"Oh."
(pause) "Aren't you proud. I read a classic."
"Just because it's a classic doesn't mean it's good."
(pause followed by me chuckling) "So, Grandma. I take it you didn't like it."
"Nope."
That's a pretty accurate account of how the "discussion" went. Personally, I loved Dracula. I found it interesting and intriguing and more than a little suspenseful - particularly since I knew what Dracula was and could see the writing on the wall. I remember wanting to scream at Johnathan Harker, "He doesn't have a reflection!! This man is not normal! Get out of there!!!" but of course he wouldn't have heard me.
Dracula is considered a classic, and it's one of the few books that I've read that have that distinction. 11th grade English was not a good class for me. The only book I actually finished was The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Didn't read Huckleberry Finn (Twain), The Scarlet Letter (Hawthorne), or anything else that year. So, you could say that my experience with "great American Classics" is..... unfinished. I've read and seen more Shakespeare than many, but a deficiency of Dickens. I feel quite familiar with Austin but have only read Jane Eyre from the Bronte sisters' works. And my Classical (Greek and Roman) literature is even more lacking than my Dickens. I would say of my classic (and classical) literature education that I know what I should have read, but haven't actually done so.
Which launches me into my musing of what constitutes a "classic" and what should we be reading. "Classic book" even has its own Wikipedia page. For many, it's what we should be reading. Books that young people should be exposed to in order to "learn literature." However, there is some pretty heated debate about that. If you're looking for entertaining discussions on this, click the links to read and listen by authors I enjoy over at Monster Hunter Nation and Do I Dare to Eat a Peach who have something to about it.
For myself, a classic book is one that has longevity. Something that has stood the test of time, for one reason or another. They may be message fiction (have a particular agenda or moral lesson in mind - Scarlet Letter, 1984, and Lord of the Flies I'm looking at you.) It might be genre altering (The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings come to mind, not to mention Asimov's work). It might be well written and compelling (King Lear, Macbeth, and Julies Caesar are just three of the many works - three that I'm more familiar with than others). These works have been through a lot and are still read and meaning and enjoyment is found within them.
What I find difficult to fathom is when someone will say "That isn't a classic because it's (a genre fiction)" or "(book title) is an instant classic." The definition of "classic" used in these statements must differ from might significantly. Standing the test of time, gaining a kind literary immortality, happens to many different kinds of books. J.R.R. Tolkien practically invented modern fantasy - one of the key staples to genre fiction. For the second, can anyone project what the next "classic" will be? In 1952 the movie "Singin' in the Rain" was released. Looking at the Academy Awards for 1953 the movie was involved with only two categories: Best Actress in Supporting Role (Jean Hagen in the role of Lina Lemont) and Best Music, Scoring of Musical Picture and it didn't win either of them. Based on that, one might think that "Singin' in the Rain" might fade from time. But when was the last time you talked to someone who saw "American In Paris" the show that won Best picture the year before? "Hans Christian Anderson" with Danny Kaye was nominated for more awards and is a wonderful movie, but is virtually unknown in popular circles. Yet, "Singin' in the Rain" has drawn audiences of many ages for years since. I only want to show that you can't say what will become a classic and what won't. Not until the time has passed and we look at what people are still reading.
And what should we be reading? Why are classics considered so important to read? With how long this post has gone, that is a question for another time. But in the meantime - What do you think people should read?
No comments:
Post a Comment