Fear of the Classics
When I was in my late teens/early 20’s I took it upon myself to read the Classics – as a way to educate and (possibly) improve myself. So I started collecting them and borrowing them from my local library. Of course, being rather ignorant back then (or more ignorant) I only went for the best of the well-known – Dickens, Hardy, Woolf. Almost invariably I gave up on each book and became convinced that they were simply too difficult (or just too old) for my young working class brain to comprehend. Maybe, as with other things, I was simply trying to run before I had learnt to walk upright.
So I did two things – I continued to pick up classical works and I backed off a little resolving not to be so hard on myself. As I was already reading a lot of SF, which accounted for the majority of my reading back then, I looked for classic SF and read Asimov, Clarke, Anderson, Simak, Herbert, Wyndham, Niven, Dick and other great works that I haven’t often mentioned here (having read almost everything by them decades ago). I tried Verne, and failed, but loved HG Wells and devoured most of his rightly labelled SF classics. War of the Worlds and The Time Machine remain two of my all-time favourite books. Moving away from SF I started reading classic crime from Agatha Christie and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle falling in love with the world of Sherlock Holmes. With a growing number of classics under my belt I went back to previously attempted books and failed again. I just couldn’t get into most of them and found myself yawning almost after the first few pages – they were just so slow and nothing really happened. Taken together with the often convoluted language my early 20’s brain practically switched off.
I did manage a few early victories over my aversion to classical literature – 1984 and Animal Farm by George Orwell as well as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, but I already had a stake in the SF universe so these were easy wins. Then there was fantasy with the works of Robert E Howard and, of course Tolkien. Easy wins again with books like The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings plus a hero like Conan to keep me interested. Adventures stories by Edgar Rice Burroughs, only vaguely SF, continued the thrill me many decades after they were published and I racked up an impressive collection of his works. Continuing the crime theme, and my love of all things Noir, I read Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett revelling in their delicious use of language. In the world of espionage I had Fleming’s James Bond (generally much different from the later movies) and read everything he had produced.
But about 12-15 years ago, pre-Blog anyway, I discovered something to combat my fear of the classics – a love of the classics. It was when I read Frankenstein and then Pride and Prejudice that I finally realised that, not only where the classics nothing to be afraid of, but that they were also quite excellent and often easy to read. Since then I’ve aimed at 6-10 classics a year. I’ve become a huge fan of Austen and have even managed a handful of Jules Verne novels (who I still don’t think is as anywhere as good as Wells). The plan now is to move beyond the 19th century classics and move into areas increasingly outside my natural comfort zone. Either at the end of this year or the beginning of next there’s 10 modern classics heading my way and I recently picked up the complete works of Charles Dickens which will be making their way onto my reading list in the coming months. There’s definitely a lot to look forward to and so much to catch up on! I’m actually looking forward to it….. if I don’t lose my nerve [lol].
3 comments:
I think it's a mixture of a number of things. For as long as I can remember I've been criticised for what I read - heavy on SF and Fantasy to begin with - but almost everything I read gets either a raised eyebrow or a tut from someone. A classic novel just gets a look of surprise (or shock!) which at least makes a pleasant change [grin]. Then there's the challenge of mastering something apparently difficult or 'not for the likes of me' (being from a working class background). I do suppose that somewhere (maybe not questioned enough) is the vague belief that reading the classics with at least aid me in the quest to be a 'better' person - whatever that means. But I definitely wouldn't read a book I found to be boring or purposefully obtuse just to 'show off'. I did struggle with 'Emma' by Jane Austen but persevered because I had already enjoyed her other works. I'm glad I did because it turned out that I really enjoyed it once the whole book fell into place. I do have a rather ambiguous relationship with classic literature but I'm aware enough to know that. Mostly these days I read them mostly for fun and to find out what all the fuss was about.
Some classics I try just for the challenging aspect of it. I think vintage SF is worth reading for another reason, too, the perspective. Wells, for instance, was over the MOOn for electricity in "20,000 Leagues", as was Asimov about Atomic Energy in his late-Foundation books. It's funny to see things hyped up that never come to pass, and then...things that were never anticipated COMPLETELY take over. There's no Internet in Star Trek.
I love vintage SF. It's often very funny especially when they predict things that never comes to pass and completely miss things that we live with on a daily basis. It goes to show how difficult prediction is.
BTW - Verne wrote 20K Leagues not Wells [grin]
I do like the challenging aspects of the classics. Sometimes the language style is difficult to get into but once you flick that switch it becomes much easier. I even find myself thinking in a different manner after I've read something from the 19th century (or before). It's weird too that the spelling of words can be different (when they choose not to update things!
Post a Comment