What's the deal with recommending classics?

Question

Whenever anyone, teen or adult, here asks for book recommendations, there's always that someone who recommends Wuthering Heights or To Kill A Mockingbird or other classics, and I don't understand why. They are not the best books, some of the language used is hard to comprehend. And yes I have read them, and hated them (except P & P).

Those books were groundbreaking at the time when they were written, but time has moved on. So why do you recommend them when there are better modern books , ones that actually deal with today's issues , not last centuries...?

Basically, why live in the past?

Answer 1

That is a very uneducated way to look at it.  These classic books actually have depth and meaning.  They're books that deal with more than just the times, they deal with the human condition and deeper philosophical questions.  Books that are written lately are written to make money, not to explore, debate, imagine and wonder.  They're all about money, shallow relationship problems, s*x and other things of the sort.  Basically, each book on the shelf lately is not so different from the one next to it, especially as it pertains to young adult sections.  That's why we read it, instead of things like "Twilight" and "The Clique" and "Gossip Girls".  You should try it too- just because you didn't like Wuthering Heights or To Kill a Mockingbird doesn't mean that you won't like other classics, like Jekyll and Hyde or Frankenstein.  

Answer 2

True classics are not classics simply because they are enjoyable books. What makes a book a classic is dealing with timeless themes that are still applicable to modern times.  The word choice of those authors may seem dated and thereby sometimes difficult to read, but the value of the book is still there both in entertainment value and educational or historical importance. There are many, many wonderful modern books to read, but not at the expense of never reading the classics. There is time for both!

Answer 3

I have to agree with EvilEDD on this one.  Classics have stood the test of time.  I enjoyed Jane Eyre as a 9 year old.  I still love it even now at nearly 40 years later.  

Todays modern books will be mostly forgotten in years to come and can you seriously see the Twilight series being around in 200 years time?

If you find the lauguage difficult can I suggest what I have done in the past - listen to the audio version and if its unabridged read the book along with the audio, this makes it easier to follow.

Answer 4

Reading a Classic is not "living in the past".   Books are called classics because they have stood the test of time, and still have something to say to us.  To Kill a Mockingbird was written in my lifetime. In the opinion of a lot of people who have read a lot of books, it remains one of the best books about racism in America ever written.  And if you find its language hard to comprehend, you need to improve your language skills.

Answer 5

You know the addage "True Classics Never Go Out of Style"? Well, it's true. People recommend them as good books because despite the passing of time, people still consider them GOOD BOOKS. And I'm NOT saying this personally about you, but I think a lot of people find these books "hard to comprehend" because they are lazier readers compared to that time. It's worth the read; sometimes it just takes more time.

Answer 6

Well, obviously "time has NOT moved on" because they are still classics. And, just because the writing may be a little challenging doesn't mean that you should shy away from classics; most of them have the most original plots out there, compared to some of today's books that are just the same stupid story.

I like to recommend them because some of the situations are the same, no matter what time period. To Kill A Mockingbird deals with racism: there is racism in today's world, is there not?

The fact that you say you like Pride and Prejudice totally disproves your point, because you are saying that you enjoy the book, and possibly relate to the plot or to some of the characters. The way you feel about P&P is the same way other people feel about other classics.

Answer 7

That is your opinion. Not everyone loves the classics. But most people recognize their worth in the literary world. I agree that Wuthering Heights is awful. But To Kill A Mockingbird is an amazing book. Just because you  think modern books are better, doesn't mean everyone else agrees.

But what books are suggested depends on the question. If you want only modern books, say that. If the question doesn't have specific parameters, then we can suggest whatever we feel the asker might enjoy.

Answer 8

erm, sor-RY but some classics are easy to read- to kill a mockingbird, as you mentioned, is one of them. the characters are wonderful, the plot is great. i think those things go beyond the time when it was written.

besides, they are beautifully written, some of them, and if you're a reader looking for a challenge and some depth, i think les miserables would be far more suited to you than twilight.

we're not 'living in the past', we're enjoying the fruits of what the past has given us in the form of great books.

*celebrindal*

Answer 9

To be honest i think everybody starts reading the pulp novels for enjoyment and always will, I think the reading the "Classics" are something a lot of readers who have read for a long time feel they have too get round to doing, just like many cinema lovers will sit through Citizen Kane, maybe just too see what all the fuss was about.

I have tried myself to read some classics, with mixed results, I couldn't get through "To Kill a Mockingbird" as it kept reminding me of school. However "1984" and "Animal Farm" i really enjoyed, each too there own I say, You got to remember there classics for a reason, some books shouldn't be forgotten.

Answer 10

To Kill A Mockingbird is dull.

Don't be so ignorant- clearly they are some of the best books, hence the popularity. You not understanding them does not make them bad books. It means you need to work on your vocabulary.

And you're naive to say that classics only deal with 'last century's issues' or 'uncool' things- Lolita, considered a classic, is about paedophilia and is certainly relevant today.

Pride and Prejudice is good but it was never groundbreaking :)

A lot of modern books are based on classics, except dumbed down. Which books do you like, may I ask?

Basically get your head out of the sand and invest in a dictionary. You not understanding them is due to your ignorance/lack of interest, not to them being bad books.

EDIT: You're wrong for saying people don't think the same as they did back then. It is society that thought differently, not people.

They are books, okay? Just as one cannot shun all modern books just because they didn't like/relate to one, you can't dismiss all the classics simply because you didn't relate to some. Why not try modern classics then- written in the 20th century? You might feel more of a rapport with them.

Answer 11

An important part of the definition of a classic is that it survives the test of time. There are lots of good books that have been written more recently, but many (or even most) of them will be forgotten before too long.

Answer 12

I can't stand most modern books. It takes some time for me to foment with an author I like. I'm no bestselling author myself, but some of the tripe they pump out today can't keep me for more than a few pages. I've tried, I've really tried.

I started reading the classics when I was a kid, I wanted to know what all the fuss was about. I got through a few things, 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, The Secret Garden, The Arabian Nights. Maybe all that influenced me for later. I don't have a hard time reading through the language, and when I have had trouble I discovered it passes once you get into the story.

To me, there's more story there because it wan't just a story. I can't speak for all classics as I still have a long way to go, but what I can say is that they have something that's missing from most of today's novels: soul. They are more real to me than just about anything else that sells today. They don't just say what goes on they leave the reader to think. They capture humanity in its essence perfectly, and people recognise that and cling to it. Some people have the power to put into words what others may spend a lifetime trying to explain. The story may be good, but it's when it speaks to you that counts.

Don't get me wrong, some things that are made today are good, but they're not great.

EDIT - I think The Schwa hit the nail on the head!

Answer 13

Oh dear, you clearly have been reading the wrong classics.  It is so not about living in the past.  Yeah, there's some good modern books around but you can't beat books like Pride and Prejudice, A Tale of Two Cities and Jane Eyre.  I'm with you on Wuthering Heights though, I hated that one.

It's not that they were particularly ground breaking at the time, I mean, look at Dickens, he wasn't particularly original, he was just class.  Even Shakespeare used a lot of old stories, he just told them really well.  A classic is a classic because it's as good today as it was however many hundred years ago it was written.

You should watch yourself asking questions like that, it makes you sound a bit of a prat

Answer 14

Most of them have underlying meaning and depth, unlike a lot of newer books.

Answer 15

Because a good book doesn't derive its value solely from being "groundbreaking" or popular at the time. The best books are considered classics because they still speak to fundamental human concerns, even though they were written long ago.

A wise man once said, "The past is never past - it is always with us."

Answer 16

Because as many have said, they are classics. They have stood th test of time. Around 5 years back Wuthering Heights came top in a romantic fiction poll.

The other thing is they are part of the English Cannon, and will still be around when most of the current best sellers have gone out of print.

Answer 17

I honesty don't think they're that difficult.  The language really isn't that difficult unless we're talking like, Shakespeare or something.  But once somebody is in high school they really shouldn't even have much of a problem with Shakespeare as long as they are good readers and read it slowly.  I read Shakespeare in 8th grade and it was no biggie.  If we are asked to recommend good books, we won't recommend something like The Clique or Twilight or Gossip Girl, because those aren't good books.  But there are plenty of good modern books that I have recommended.  They include Memoirs of a Geisha, Running With Scissors, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, The Secret Life of Bees and many more.  But some modern books that I like are very inappropriatefor someone in middle school or around that age.  I won't recommend a book like Running With Scissors to a 12 year old, even though they'd be able to read the words.  It's still a great book, though.  =]

Answer 18

I agree. There are some really great books that are more modern. I can not relate to many classics at all. It's not the writing styles a much, but the way the characters are. I think that people have changed considerably since books like Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights were written.

There are books nowadays that deal with racism and social context, which are much easier to read and understand, and also enjoy. I will not fault people ever for reading classics. A book is, after all, a book, and as long as people are reading, what is there to complain about.

I'm glad you asked this question because it seems to me like people are always knocking others for reading things like Twilight or Harry Potter, saying we should read classics, not trashy novels but at the end of the day, a book is not just for educational purposes, but enjoyment.

I do like some historical novels, like the memoires of a geisha and others like that. I love the Twilight and Harry Potter series' and am very fond of Malorie Blackman.

I think it just depends on how you see reading. Some see it soley for enjoyment, others do not.

People shouldn't knock stories that are written now because after another century or whatever, they may well become classics too.

I personally learn more from reading modern books that older books because I relate better to it. People don't think the same now as they did when many classics were written therefore some of the points they make are not strictly relevant any more.

Answer 19

1. If the question warrants a classic recommendation, why not recommend one if it matches what the asker is requiring.

2. One of the basic (and to me, most important) characteristics of a classic is its timelessness.  The fact that you, personally, may not like the narrative style or the subject matter of most classics that you have read, doesn't make those books irrelevant in present day.  A classic like Jane Eyre is a story of love and it sends a message of love and hope.  A classic like Frankestein delves deeply into complex filial relationships not to mention the issue of messing with the natural order of things and someone playing "God".  An adventure classic like The Three Musketters deals with notions such as friendship and loyalty.  Modern issues?  War and Peace deals with the issue of invasion and war.  Little Women deals with the issue of how war affects a normal family (it may be a family from a couple of centuries ago, but still, it doesn't make it less understandable).  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn deals with the matter of coming of age, all teenagers irrespective of when they were born, can relate to that.  On top of that poverty, an alcoholic parent, etc.  I could go on and on and on.

    

3. Not all modern literature is better than a classic.

If you don't like classics because you find them boring, fine.  If you don't like them because you can't fully relate due to the time in which the action of the story takes place, fine.  Reading is as much a matter of personal taste as anything else so reading preferences are highly subjective.  However, don't disregard classics just because you, personally, do not like them.

Answer 20

Because people are sick of everyone recommending Harry Potter and Twilight. There are thousands of books in the world and yet only a few become popular.

Answer 21

Because people want to sound smart. If they recommend them, that's what it suggests.