A disclaimer: This is me, presenting a case and thinking about something that has been bothering me. I LOVE classics. Two of my favorite books are classics. I'm just playing a little devil's advocate here. Don't hurt me :)
Let’s face it. Tale of Two Cities, Pride and Prejudice, and Huckleberry Finn would have a CRAZY--if not impossible--time getting published in today’s world. Today’s market calls for tight writing, a tight narrative, and easy reading. Most classics (not counting their old-fashioned style) don't have these qualitites. (We can't use ‘old-fashioned’ writing as a reason against them; in their time, they were modern.)
It’s the ultimate irony: The books we call classics would be laughed at in today’s market.
Don’t get me wrong; I LOVE classics. I devour them, and I think writers would benefit SO MUCH by learning from the great writers' techniques. But imagine an agent or an editor today, reading the first 5 pages of Tale of Two Cities. They would laugh at the crazy amount of telling, and send a form rejection without ‘exploring’ the depths and awesomeness (AWESOMENESS) of that novel. To be honest, I do the same thing. I LOVVEEE classics, because I read through the hard writing and find the awesomeness that was promised. But if I picked up an unheard-of book written in the same style, I wouldn't read it, and I would put it down. I wouldn't even try to find the awesomeness in the book.
And Holden Caulfield, of J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye, would call me a phony.
This troubles me. I read Wizard of Oz so much faster than Wuthering Heights (which I'm still reading--and enjoying!) because Oz is SO EASY TO READ.
Why should some books be considered classics if they would not even be published in today’s market? Why should we read through the ‘overwriting' and search for the depths in the classics, if we wouldn’t do the same thing for the other books? Isn't it kind of hypocritical?
In a way, students are the best critics. A lot of students groan when they have to read classics in class because they know the books have their faults.
Before you come to a conclusion, really think about it. Pretend you read books for fun and never heard of any classics. You read for enjoyment. Would you pick up War and Peace, a 1,000+ page 'classic'?
I'm literally torn over this. Seriously, please, tell me what you think! EDIT from Kendra's comment below:
The irony is, the classics
would be rejected today. I still haven't found an adequate answer to why this happens, and I can't justify it.
If someone (anyone) would like to answer, I'd really love
it, because I'm torn.
Do you think the title of 'classics' is slightly hypocritical, if the books wouldn't be published in today's world? How can you justify the irony in this?
Classics are classics for a reason and it is the same with any genre of art. Do you think if someone opened a restaurant using just classic techniques, that it would go anywhere? Do you think Bach could walk into a record label and be able to compete with current artists?
ReplyDeleteI think the answer for all of these is, probably not. But all the people that are successful today wouldn't be here without the classics. They pushed boundaries and opened doors and showed people things they've never seen before. Now, they inspire. You just have to take a bit of the classics and add a modern twist, without ever forgetting your roots.
I completely agree; classics are classics for a reason. But the question is, why would we read those books if another book, written in the same style, we would put down? I know it's because classics are 'proven' but how do we know the other books don't have the same potential? Shouldn't we read/treat all books equally?
DeleteWho decided we can't write the way classics were written? They're classics because of they're awesomeness, so why did 'modernization' make the style of those classics unacceptable? If you can read a classic and enjoy it, why can't you read another and enjoy it just the same? When was it decided that only well-known classics are the exception? Who decided that they can read a well-known, but not an unknown? If someone can handle the style of one classic, why not be able to handle it with all of them?
ReplyDeleteI'm (obviously (to anyone who knows me)) not a picky reader. I read all genres, written in any style, from any era. I love Little Women, but is it really written in the acceptable manor? Not really. I loved the Little House on the Prairie books when I was younger, but when I think of it now...The writing is meh. The Outsiders is such an AWESOME book, but is the writing perfect? There's that book that's so big right now, ya know, the controversial one? (If you don't, sorry. I'm not naming it). The writing is TERRIBLE, but look at all the people who LOVE it.
Classic or not, bad writing or good, it doesn't really matter. People accept what they want to accept. They like what they like and hate what they hate. All in all, it doesn't matter how a book is written if the majority wants to categorize it as something, then that's how it is. A classic is what it is because enough people made it so, whether wrong or right.
Ah, I think I get what you mean. It's that enough people found something great within the books that determine them as classics, without counting their faults. Maybe this is the trouble/benefit today, where books have to be incredibly polished and tight to be published?
DeleteI think we read classics, because back when they were published, they were widely praised. Maybe we are trying to find what the people back then loved about them so much. We might be taking it on their word when we pick up a classic; and usually, their word is spot on. Classics are classics for a reason.
(And yes I realize that was a long comment. Sorry :/ )
ReplyDeleteTo be truthful... I groan any time I have to read a classic. I hate to tell you this SC, but I despised Catcher in the Rye... But there are SOME classics I do enjoy. However, the word count in most of those classics is atrocious. Today, an agent would either balk at the word count, or throw themselves out of the window, or start laughing. But not before sending a form rejection. The "classics" I like aren't actually CLASSICS. But classics do have their place in the world, and that's why we have to read them... So I'm also a bit torn. Perhaps leaning toward the classics-aren't-classics side because, as you said, I'm one of the students who groans when we have to read one. (:
ReplyDeleteHehe, trust me, a lot of people groan (they just don't want to admit it ;)). And you are so absolutely right; the word count IS atrocious! And they can so easily be edited down (most of them). An agent today would send a rejection, and that's the irony that troubles me so much. The classics would be rejected today. I still haven't found an adequate answer to why this happens. If someone (anyone) would like to answer, I'd really love it, because I'm torn. Thanks for your comment though; I totally agree.
DeleteCould you imagine if say, Tolkien tried to publish LOTR today?! (Yes, I know the Hobbit was published first but lets pretend). Wasn't that trilogy meant to be ONE book?! Can you imagine THAT query letter? Dear god! Epic Fantasy is struggling enough with trying to convince agents, publishers, and readers to take a chance. I honestly do not believe Tolkien could break into the very genre he created today. No way.
ReplyDeleteAnd Stephen King? The Master of Horror? My writing idol? Even if he got Carrie published, does anyone thing it would be marketed as horror? Or would it be YA paranormal? How would that have changed the King himself, if his first book was marketed in a difference genre, thus better known by that genre? Would he have continued writing the countless, brilliant horror stories he went on to write? Something as simple as redefining a book's genre can be life changing. With the more gory horror nowadays, I think they would have marketed him vastly different if he published Carrie today.
Exactly! Both of your examples are gold, and I don't know why I didn't think of LOTR. That, as one book, was about 500K! No agent would ever rep that book, not without cutting so much. And that cutting would mean cutting his extensive world-building, which means he would not be as great in epic fantasy as he is today.
DeleteI'm always astonished by the fact that King writes horror: I thought it was a dead genre, and not many agents rep it right now. Maybe that's why he got repped before this decade. It's really interesting to think about.
Classics became classics because they were done by people who pushed boundaries and helped form what the writing industry is today. Even if some of them died completely broke and didn't become famous until after the fact...
ReplyDeleteSame with music, art, movies. If Judy Garland or Gene Kelly were actors trying to break into the scene today, could they? Maybe. Maybe not. But, man, were they idols of their time and you can look back at them with a sense of wonderment because they were amazing.
I'm really picky about my classics. CATCHER IN THE RYE fascinates me on a base level, likely because of the connection to John Lennon, but the book itself wasn't interesting to me. But I enjoyed TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, and I absolutely loooooved ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST. (Hated the movie, sadly.) Love the story for GREAT EXPECTATIONS, but don't care for the writing...etc. ;) Also loved THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, for that matter.
I'm actually planning on reading FRANKENSTEIN soon, after having seen a play adaptation of it.
Ooh, Frankenstein is good :) I liked that one. And I think your first two paragraphs sum up what I (now) feel is the reason classics are classics. Thank you so much; I was lost and couldn't find an answer myself, hehe :) They were the stars of their time, and we want to experience and see why they were so great.
Delete