Classics for Beginners discussion

I hope so :)

Layla, I am having that with Great Expectations. I put it down actually, and having felt a burning desire to start reading it again. I will do. I think it goes back to the whole idea of not being in a rush to read a classic book. It's not going anywhere, so I imagine one day I'll finish it.

First: Find a book that sparks your interest. Not all "classics" are equal, and invariably each reader has their own personal interests which will determine which books speak to you, and which you should pass on.

Second: Forget the fact that a book is regarded as a "classic." This designation is helpful in guiding us towards which books to pick up and direct our attention to. Once the book is in your hand, status, "importance," and critical reception are all irrelevant. It's down to you and the book, and your goal is just to read a GOOD book.

Finally: Don't forget to have fun and laugh along with the writer. Writers display their wit, sense of irony, appreciation for the absurd, and just plain sense of humor in various ways. If you're focused on analyzing a book, you might neglect the obvious fact that you're reading something funny. E.g. You can't "understand" a book like Don Quixote if you haven't laughed out loud several times along the way. If Kafka doesn't make you giggle, you've missed something.

Enjoy!

Great advice, Zadignose.

Zadignose wrote: "First: Find a book that sparks your interest. Not all "classics" are equal, and invariably each reader has their own personal interests which will determine which books speak to you, and which you ..."

I'd second that - people get all uptight about "The Classics" and display unbelievable intellectual snobbery. It's a book, not a sacred scroll. There is nothing wrong with disliking a classic book (I can name several that have me flummoxed as to why they could possibly have remained in print past the first year!) Don't get drawn into the whole idea that it has to be treated reverently as if it was a different species to the rest of book-kind. It isn't sacrilegious if you don't like, say, Crime and Punishment or Great Expectations, just move on and find a book you do.

My advice on how to read a Classic, or any book, is read it for nothing other than enjoyment. If you do enjoy it, then you can always come back and give it more attention later (do all of the critical analysis and any other things, if you feel you must, then; you'll see more on a second reading anyway).

I agree with not taking an analytical approach as if you look in the 'not so great expectations' thread, you can see that most people dislike the books they had to analyse and study at school/college.

I agree with that advice. I know I've been sucked into reading books for their 'literary merit' but seen little in them to qualify my reading of them.

Good advice, though sometimes for the opposite reason give above: there are a few books I was put off reading for years because they had a reputation for being "difficult", but when I decided to read them anyway, they were either not difficult at all (e.g. Don Quixote, which is long, but delightful fun) or well written enough that any slight difficulty was hugely outweighed by the enjoyment.

Yes, I admit I am usually swayed by those kinds of comments. Sometimes a book which takes a little more effort to read is well worth it but some days I can't be bothered which is when I get the YA or chick-lit books out!

I think you should start with a classic you think you'd like, and not dissect every aspect of it like you would have in school. But if there are words, or even whole passages that makes no sense to you, you should try to research that to give you a better understanding of it. I think you would enjoy it more then. For my part, I'm glad I found this group. This semester I am taking an English course at college where we have to read and analyse different literature. I almost always feel like the dissecting takes away the joy and often it seems like I don't understand much when it comes to analysing it. I also feel like I don't really have anything reasonable or correct to contribute with in discussion of literature. So that is something I have to work on and maybe I will find some useful tips here :)

Amanda, I don't think you should put yourself down by saying you have nothing to contribute. Everyone has thoughts and opinions to offer because reading comprehension is a very subjective process.

Lady Danielle aka The Book Huntress wrote: "Amanda, I don't think you should put yourself down by saying you have nothing to contribute. Everyone has thoughts and opinions to offer because reading comprehension is a very subjective process."
I agree, but often I feel like my thoughts and opinions are wrong when we are analysing it for class, because then the teacher or other students give me the impression that there is a wrong and a right way in regards to thoughts, impressions etc about the book. That is something I feel like should be changed, because like you said it is a very subjective process, but when doing it for class we're somehow expected to have a collective experience of it...

Amanda, your experience is so typical. I enjoy reading classics for pleasure. However, when I take a class in literature, there is always a "correct" way of analyzing the material. Usually the correct way is the instructor's way!

I had an English teacher who would ask what we thought of the books and then tell us we were wrong. I personally believe that each work of literature has a meaning that is unique to the reader. Maybe the author meant something in particular when they wrote the book, but an evolving process occurs when a person reads that book and integrates the words into their individual thought processes.

Lady Danielle aka The Book Huntress wrote: "I had an English teacher who would ask what we thought of the books and then tell us we were wrong. I personally believe that each work of literature has a meaning that is unique to the reader. M..."

I couldn't agree more!
Books are like paintings - the authors created them, putting their feelings and what they are into it but each one of us reads it as what we are.

That's exactly how I see it, Lucy. Art is inherently subjective.

Indeed!
There's something even more beautiful in what is subjective...

It touches each person differently, and that's the joy of the arts.

Not only touches art and literature each person differently but it also touches the individual person at different times differently, that is at least the way it works for me. It always depends on the struggle I am in at the moment or my circumstances of life: I always get something new out of literature when reading a book a second or third time or looking at a painting etc. at different times.

I also think that when writing a review, we shouldn't think we have to be so articulate more than we would for any other type of novel.

In this group or on Goodreads reviews, I am not afraid for my review to simply be something which I thought when reading a novel such as "Mr Rochester is hot!"
Though like you said, our English teachers and professors would not take this as a valid comment. It is often nice to think about the specific language chosen especially if it is poetic like Hardy for example. But there is with every book a superficial element before you dig in deeper which is where the "hot" comments come in. And to me, this is your real initial and instinctive opinion and thoughts of a piece of work.

Janice wrote: "Not only touches art and literature each person differently but it also touches the individual person at different times differently, that is at least the way it works for me. It always depends on ..."

Good point, Janice.

That is a great observation, Nicolle. I think there is a huge tendency to feel the need to be pretentious when writing a review for a classic book or a book with assumed literary merit, when honestly, our opinion is equally valid for whatever kind of book we read, and not moreso based on what we read.

Like I read all other novels: I get my favourite notebook for scribbling and a pencil to take down quotes that I evoke an emotion from me.

Some classics I would have only been able to read in a classroom. I doubt I could get through Shakespeare or Homer or Chaucer on my own.

(I may consider giving it a another try. It's been a while since highschool.)

I agree with you about Shakespeare, Joseph. I have tried to read him on my own and wow, no clue!

Marren wrote: "Like I read all other novels: I get my favourite notebook for scribbling and a pencil to take down quotes that I evoke an emotion from me."

Ditto. It's also useful when reading books with a large number of characters, some of whom might be easy to forget or confuse.

Lady Danielle aka The Book Huntress wrote: "I agree with you about Shakespeare, Joseph. I have tried to read him on my own and wow, no clue!"

Not all Shakespeare is equal. You might find the list at online lit Shakespeare helpful in choosing what to read. I'm not one for sonnets, so I will skip those. I started with one of his comedies. Then, I think finding a place where you can read aloud is helpful. For some of these really old ones, hearing the language adds to it.

There are several books out that have Shakespeare's words on one page and the opposite page has the same lines in modern English. That is really great in helping to understand what Shakespeare is talking about. Whenever I am scheduled to attend a Shakespearean play, I will read the play beforehand using that technique.

Thanks for the suggestions, Elizabeth and Emily.

I tried to read Taming of the Shrew and it wasn't even funny because I didn't understand what I was reading.

Cecily wrote: "Marren wrote: "Like I read all other novels: I get my favourite notebook for scribbling and a pencil to take down quotes that I evoke an emotion from me."

Ditto. It's also useful when reading book..."

I do the same :D

☯Emily wrote: "There are several books out that have Shakespeare's words on one page and the opposite page has the same lines in modern English. That is really great in helping to understand what Shakespeare is ..."

Barron's publishes the editions I am talking about. The series is called Simply Shakespeare and they are used in high schools to help the students understand what they are reading.

I think there are way too many books, too many classics, to worry about reading Shakespeare (or Chaucer or Homer, or...). Life is just too short. At some point in time, you might want to try another and see if you're in a good spot to explore, to take some time, to do some background reading. And maybe not, which is OK, too.

There's nothing wrong with you if you don't like Shakespeare! Plenty of us don't. I don't like reading Dickens and I know people think he is the best novelist in the world. I think his contemporaries, Elizabeth Gaskell and Anthony Trollope, are 100 times better.

☯Emily wrote: "There's nothing wrong with you if you don't like Shakespeare! Plenty of us don't. I don't like reading Dickens and I know people think he is the best novelist in the world. I think his contempor..."

And I love both Dickens and Trollope, can't stand Gaskell and Austen and the Brontes. So there you have it - things appeal to each of us differently.

Elizabeth, did you ever read Moby Dick? That has to be the worst 'classic' book ever written. However, The Turn of the Screw is a very close second. Of course, that is the opinion of your humble servant.

☯Emily wrote: "Elizabeth, did you ever read Moby Dick? That has to be the worst 'classic' book ever written. However, The Turn of the Screw is a very close second. Of course, that is the opinion of your humble ..."

Have not read either, and I may (or may not) get to them.

Now see, I hated Moby Dick, liked The Turn of the Screw, and enjoy Dickens, Shakespeare, Austen and the Brontes (except Emily -- I have attempted Wuthering Heights twice and could not finish either time). It's all subjective.

And sometimes, liking a book, author or play depends on how good the instructor is (if you are still in school), or where you are in life at that particular juncture. For example, I absolutely hated The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn when we read it in high school, primarily because it was the first book we read that year, and the work against which every subsequent book was compared. When I had to read it again four years later in college I loved it. The class and instructor made all the difference.

☯Emily wrote: "There's nothing wrong with you if you don't like Shakespeare! Plenty of us don't. I don't like reading Dickens and I know people think he is the best novelist in the world. I think his contempor..."

I actually love Shakespeare. Especially if I understand what he's saying. I think his plays make excellent adaptations. They are timeless, really. I am not in a hurry to try to read any more of his stuff, but I appreciate the suggestions if I get in the mood to try again.

Heather, I agree that a good instructor definitely helped. My AP English teacher was wonderful, because she encouraged us to derive our own meaning from the books we read. To me, literature and most other art is highly subjective.

I can totally believe Dickens was paid by the word. I don't care for verbose writing and his is way too wordy for my tastes. I will try some other stuff by him, and go back to Great Expectations at some point.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Lady Danielle aka The Book Huntress wrote: "I agree with you about Shakespeare, Joseph. I have tried to read him on my own and wow, no clue!"

Not all Shakespeare is equal. You might find the list ..."

In highschool I had a fantastic teacher. He would go into character when translating the lines from Macbeth along with explaining the significance of the words in the sentences Shakespeare used.

Isn't it considered blasphemy to rewrite Shakespeare?

Heather L wrote: "Now see, I hated Moby Dick, liked The Turn of the Screw, and enjoy Dickens, Shakespeare, Austen and the Brontes (except Emily -- I have attempted Wuthering Heights twice and could not finish either..."

I started reading Confidence Man by Melville. I found his style difficult. I recall that He did not give much description to the characters. I never finished it.

English as a second language ?

Through reading the classics I have discovered that I understand a lot less of the English language than I formerly believed.

Joseph wrote: "English as a second language?"

If you want to hear something funny...my French professor in college told me she learned English by reading and listening to Shakespeare.

That is fascinating, Heather!

I began to write down all the words that I needed to look up. I must have about 40 of them so far. I am at chapter 17 of the Count of Monte Cristo. Only a hundred more chapters to go.

I am thankful I don't have to do this for a class.
Just some of the rare perks that come with time.

I hope everyone is enjoying their reading!

I think there are some people who over-analyze books. Who is to say the author didn't simply write a book for the sheer pleasure of doing so? No deep or hidden meanings or symbolism involved?

Pamela(AllHoney) wrote: "I think there are some people who over-analyze books. Who is to say the author didn't simply write a book for the sheer pleasure of doing so? No deep or hidden meanings or symbolism involved?"

I quite agree with this. In any case, I read mostly for the sheer pleasure of doing so. I might miss a lot along the way, but who is to say I would derive more pleasure if I worked harder at it?

That's a good point, Pamela. Also, I think that books are subjective. Who is to say we will all derive the same meaning, or what the author intended anyway?

One of the things I have done not infrequently, is to do a google search when the author references what sound to me to be true historical events. Wikipedia often gives me just enough background information without my having to read a dry history book.