Welcome to Gaia! ::

I haven't really read too many of the classics, but of the ones I *have* read, I've liked most of them. I read Jane Eyre this past winter and thought it was pretty good. I also liked the only two Shakespeare plays I've read, Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth, though I'll admit I probably wouldn't like them nearly as much if I didn't have anyone to explain them to me, which is what's keeping me from reading the others. I liked Huck Finn and thought To Kill a Mockingbird was okay, if a little boring, but the one classic I've read and hated was The Grapes of Wrath. I read it so long ago I can't even remember why I hated it so much--I just cringe every time it's mentioned.

Also, I don't know if 1984 is considered a classic or not, but I hate that book too.

EDIT: Dracula was another one I liked, but a little slow-paced for my tastes. I actually liked the book about Vlad the Impaler better.

I think "classic" is anything from the obvious to stuff that's required reading in schools. That's not, y'know, the official definition, but it works. If you consider it a classic it probably is.

Dostoevsky, Verne, and Asimov are yes. I don't mind Shakespeare but I don't really seek him out, either -- I love Othello and Tidus, though. I do like Dracula but it has some childhood associations for me, since I wasn't allowed to read it as a kid so I stole it from the library, hid it under my pillow, and read it by flashlight or candlelight in the wee hours of the morning when everyone was asleep. ninja

Vanity Fair by Thackeray is one I really dislike. It's a ******** brick tome and it's so, so boring.

Ah, the Literary Cannon. I have a... complex relationship with it. I mean, sometimes books end up there simply because the rock, but other times... I dunno. And the whole idea of the thing. I'm not entirely sure what I think of it.

But as for individual books: Shakespeare is fun, if you're reading it with a teacher that has some idea what they're doing, and you get the proper historical context. I mean, if you don't know that The Merchant of Venice is all about the transition from informal speech acts to written contracts, it... just looks horribly racist. And Romeo and Juliet is not an epic love story. It's about teenagers being teenagers and having horrible judgement, kind of like La Bohem, except with a family rivalry thrown in there, so everyone ends up dead.

Personally, I favor Macbeth and A Midsummer Night's Dream, not because I think they're hugely important or anything, but... Macbeth is like Hamlet with less whining, and Hamlet needs to whine less, and Midsummer Nights Dream is just a darn good romantic comedy.

Anything by the Bronte sisters is kind of delightfully weird, although I found some of the characters in Wuthering Heights to be really, really annoying.

I adore Steinbeck, as he has a wonderful narrating voice, though I'm not sure I understood a word of it. I'd kind of hate to read that in a class, though, unless the class was made of sheer awesome. That's just... not how I read Steinbeck. For me, it's kind of like listening to someone with a really pretty accent read the phone book.

I like the Victorian sci-fi writers (Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, and the like) not so much because they're good literature as because they're wonderfully Victorian. And the Victorians were all screwed up in a kind of adorable way. They're all on about their bizarre relationship with the natural world and the duality of human nature and it's just so... wrong, but in a really interestingly cute way. And yes, it's condescending, but they're dead, so it's not like they can take offense.

Charles Dickens kind of annoys the heck out of me because he's such a sensationalist and I happen to be something of a rationalist, and I don't like having my feelings jerked around by crappy logic and sentimental anecdotal evidence, thank you very much. He just paints with such a broad brush that, while it can be really effective, I really don't trust him.

Catcher in the Rye was just way too long, and I wasn't even remotely attached to the main character until like, three quarters of the way through, and there's not really all that much too it. It wasn't unpleasant, but... I wouldn't have read it if I had anything better to do. And Jane Austen probably has a good core to it, but it's wrapped in so much soap opera that it's kind of a waste of time. And yes, I just compared Salinger and Austen. I'm sure they'd be thrilled.

As to books I actually read in high school, To Kill a Mockingbird is hugely overrated, but I really like Ray Bradbury, even if he is better at short stories. I kind of feel like in high school they teach Classics Lite, which is sort of the Literary Cannon with all the interesting ideas and ambiguity taken out, and it's like... what's the point?

And last but not least, the Bible is awesome, and totally a page-turner. It's pretty well written, and it switches back and forth between being really interesting idea-wise and really, really trippy and weird. And, well, it's really fun to read. In fact, I think it's even more awesome reading it when you don't believe a word, because it's like "pffft, really? A giant burning wheel? Are you serious?"

SO ODD. I had to read only some of the books mentioned at school, so, I'll only comment on those.

I like Shakespeare, but only because I read the books for myself (A Midsummer Night's Dream and Romeo and Juliet for school; Hamlet when I was bored to death in my last vacations) before I was asked to read them.

Same for Cyrano de Bergerac.

I liked Verne, but it didn't count as I didn't read it in school.

About 1984, I didn't read it in school AND I liked it. It may have something to do with my plans for the future, but nevermind...

I have a theory about this. I think that, up until college, schools (and other "educational" institutions) actually make significant efforts to never teach kids anything, and to squash whatever natural love of learning exists in them. Not that I'm bitter or anything. Except for science centers and natural history museums. They're awesome.

But, to make the post topical, Moby d**k? Couldn't read that s**t. I got up to the whole "whales are fish because the Bible might or might not call them so" and... I just couldn't keep going. I couldn't. I mean, that was on top of Melville's intensely conservative theology and I... I just gave up. I've heard it's an awesome book, and from sources I generally trust no less, but... no. Just no.

Also, I had tried to read Moby d**k before only to find that I had an abridged copy. I mean, for one chapter, all that was written was "they sing sea shanties." I kid you not.