I agree with the sentiment of this post, but strangely enough, I can't recall very many books that I've read, that I consider a complete "waste" to have read. Even the books I didn't enjoy quite as much, I usually gained something from reading. And the thing is, you never really know ahead of time what will click for you and what won't.
And then there's the issue of "why" do you read. Are you reading for enjoyment? Well then give me Dean Koontz, Stephen King, Lee Child, David Baldacci, Vince Flynn, Clive Barker, Neil Gaiman, Charles Stross, etc. all day long. Are you reading for social commentary? Then read Ayn Rand, Tom Wolfe, Herman Melville, Ernest Hemingway, etc. Are you reading to "improve your mind" or "broaden your thinking?" Great, read David Foster Wallace, Thomas Pynchon, etc.
Classics? Sure, read classics if they have value to you. I don't think anyone should feel compelled to read classics just because somebody said they "ought" to have read them. This is where my "life is too short filter" kicks in. I'll read works I anticipate liking, or anticipate gaining some sort of value from. I won't waste my time reading something for no better reason than to satisfy the whims of some judgmental, pretentious asshole.
At the risk of sounding like a pretentious asshole, over the past few years I've been reading the classics I was forced to in high school and college and hated at the time, along with many "new" ones. Now books like Moby Dick, The Brothers Karamosov, and even Pride and Prejudice are oddly just as entertaining as the works of Koonts, King, etc. This might simply be because I love fiction but hardly ever read it anymore. Or maybe the relative excitement of everything simply increases as I become more boring in my old age.
First, when you're young, your life experiences in the world are less varied, so you can fail to appreciate many of the more subtle interactions in those works which you pick up on when you're older. That's why the classics offer so much re-readability. You're a different person each time you read them, and bring different perceptions and knowledge to bear. It's also why fantasy and science fiction has broader appeal, especially when you're younger--the real-world experience matters less, and it is the creation of these worlds that sets much of that background context that you're missing at those ages.
Second and similarly, the more you read, the better reader you become. This applies to artistic media like movies too. I remember the difference between my ability to follow the plot in movies as a kid versus as a young adult versus as an adult. Subtext and complications not appreciated at a young age become much more apparent the more "good" stuff you watch.
Take something like "Miller's Crossing". I saw this when it first came out and focused mostly on the acting and the events unfolding, but didn't really get into the motivations and missed a couple of the implications. Watching it again more recently, a whole new level opened up. I wanted to share it with my high school kid to broaden his horizons a bit, but I realized that even those plot points I took away the first time would require explanation because he doesn't really have enough experience inferring implied motivation of characters.
It seems like the "classics" become classics because they are written to appeal to all of these levels and can be revisited many times. Perhaps introducing these at a young age simply gets that first exposure out of the way, even if all the subtext is lost.
It's a shame there's no way to run a double-blind test. I remember my dad telling me how he was reading some mediocre sci-fi and then discovered that it was "actually" award-winning literary fiction (Margaret Atwood), and "caught his brain" in the middle of revising his opinion upwards.
Sure, and don't get me wrong... I'm in no way saying "don't read classics". I enjoy reading a classic every now and then, and - if anything - have been more drawn to them lately than when I was younger. All I'm saying is, don't read classics just because your "supposed to". Read them because you recognize their is some value in them for you, whether it's "cultural literacy" or maybe plain enjoyment, or maybe historical interest, whatever. OR, not. That is, if you feel you are being pressured to read, say, Madame Bovary and every ounce of intuition in your body is screaming "run for the hills", then I think it's fine to take a pass and move on to something else.
Comments
I agree with the sentiment of this post, but strangely enough, I can't recall very many books that I've read, that I consider a complete "waste" to have read. Even the books I didn't enjoy quite as much, I usually gained something from reading. And the thing is, you never really know ahead of time what will click for you and what won't.
And then there's the issue of "why" do you read. Are you reading for enjoyment? Well then give me Dean Koontz, Stephen King, Lee Child, David Baldacci, Vince Flynn, Clive Barker, Neil Gaiman, Charles Stross, etc. all day long. Are you reading for social commentary? Then read Ayn Rand, Tom Wolfe, Herman Melville, Ernest Hemingway, etc. Are you reading to "improve your mind" or "broaden your thinking?" Great, read David Foster Wallace, Thomas Pynchon, etc.
Classics? Sure, read classics if they have value to you. I don't think anyone should feel compelled to read classics just because somebody said they "ought" to have read them. This is where my "life is too short filter" kicks in. I'll read works I anticipate liking, or anticipate gaining some sort of value from. I won't waste my time reading something for no better reason than to satisfy the whims of some judgmental, pretentious asshole.
At the risk of sounding like a pretentious asshole, over the past few years I've been reading the classics I was forced to in high school and college and hated at the time, along with many "new" ones. Now books like Moby Dick, The Brothers Karamosov, and even Pride and Prejudice are oddly just as entertaining as the works of Koonts, King, etc. This might simply be because I love fiction but hardly ever read it anymore. Or maybe the relative excitement of everything simply increases as I become more boring in my old age.
There are a couple of things going on here.
First, when you're young, your life experiences in the world are less varied, so you can fail to appreciate many of the more subtle interactions in those works which you pick up on when you're older. That's why the classics offer so much re-readability. You're a different person each time you read them, and bring different perceptions and knowledge to bear. It's also why fantasy and science fiction has broader appeal, especially when you're younger--the real-world experience matters less, and it is the creation of these worlds that sets much of that background context that you're missing at those ages.
Second and similarly, the more you read, the better reader you become. This applies to artistic media like movies too. I remember the difference between my ability to follow the plot in movies as a kid versus as a young adult versus as an adult. Subtext and complications not appreciated at a young age become much more apparent the more "good" stuff you watch.
Take something like "Miller's Crossing". I saw this when it first came out and focused mostly on the acting and the events unfolding, but didn't really get into the motivations and missed a couple of the implications. Watching it again more recently, a whole new level opened up. I wanted to share it with my high school kid to broaden his horizons a bit, but I realized that even those plot points I took away the first time would require explanation because he doesn't really have enough experience inferring implied motivation of characters.
It seems like the "classics" become classics because they are written to appeal to all of these levels and can be revisited many times. Perhaps introducing these at a young age simply gets that first exposure out of the way, even if all the subtext is lost.
It's a shame there's no way to run a double-blind test. I remember my dad telling me how he was reading some mediocre sci-fi and then discovered that it was "actually" award-winning literary fiction (Margaret Atwood), and "caught his brain" in the middle of revising his opinion upwards.
Sure, and don't get me wrong... I'm in no way saying "don't read classics". I enjoy reading a classic every now and then, and - if anything - have been more drawn to them lately than when I was younger. All I'm saying is, don't read classics just because your "supposed to". Read them because you recognize their is some value in them for you, whether it's "cultural literacy" or maybe plain enjoyment, or maybe historical interest, whatever. OR, not. That is, if you feel you are being pressured to read, say, Madame Bovary and every ounce of intuition in your body is screaming "run for the hills", then I think it's fine to take a pass and move on to something else.