Mostly because funny is always more interesting than unfunny, unless we're talking about funerals or war or things that are inherently not funny- books are not those things. I happened to have amazing high school teachers who made us do silly things like recite speeches from Shakespeare while wearing home made costumes (I remember one student who became so impassioned by Shylock's monologue in Merchant of Venice that he TOSSED a DESK at the TEACHER) and such like. Funny= attention getting= I liked those books. Ya dig?
So. There's that. There's also the more Important reason: reverence makes people not read these books, myself included. When people say things like "Oh, well, Finnegan's Wake IS impossible to understand and takes forever and was written by someone who was probably insane but he was a GENIUS and we must WORSHIP AT HIS LITERARY ALTAR and READ ALL HIS THINGS TO BE SMART," my reaction is: you are a prig and that book sounds like torture and you can't make me. Insert the name of any classic into that initial sentence, and you're likely to get a similar reaction from wide swaths of people who would otherwise read them.
Reverence can also make us dishonest. When people are all CHARLES DICKENS IS INFALLIBLE, readers feel like they can't comment on his wordiness, or his ridiculous portrayal of some women, or whatever because Not Liking The Dickens means you're stupid or you don't "get it." No one wants to feel stupid, so they just don't read the book. Or they read it, and keep their opinions to themselves- this stifles conversation that can lead to a deeper, more complex understanding of the work. I give you two fake conversations as an example:
FAKE CONVERSATION ONE
Reader: I read Pride and Prejudice, and I didn't like it. Everyone is so annoying.
Snob: JANE AUSTEN IS A GOD AND YOU, MERE MORTAL, ARE AN IDIOT.
Reader: *runs off to never, ever read Jane Austen again*
FAKE CONVERSATION TWO
Reader: I read Pride and Prejudice, and I didn't like it. Everyone is so annoying.
Other Reader: I can see that. I think Austen sort of intended it that way, though.
Reader: Oh, really? Never thought of that.
Other Reader: Yeah man, Austen is a TOTAL smart ass.
Reader: I LOVE SMART ASSES! MORE AUSTEN!
See? So that's basically why I push the irreverence here. More funny minus hero worship (even if it's warranted) can equal greater perceived accessibility and more conversation. Fun for all! We have to break down this idea that not enjoying something or not personally liking a work means that you didn't get that work. It's possible to understand the intricacies behind something and still think it's boring- and this is the space where people can come have that exact conversation.
Caveat: None of this is to say that I don't value literary criticism because I TOTES DO and I read plenty of it, but that's just not what this blog is about, capish?
FAKE CONVERSATION ONE
Reader: I read Pride and Prejudice, and I didn't like it. Everyone is so annoying.
Snob: JANE AUSTEN IS A GOD AND YOU, MERE MORTAL, ARE AN IDIOT.
Reader: *runs off to never, ever read Jane Austen again*
FAKE CONVERSATION TWO
Reader: I read Pride and Prejudice, and I didn't like it. Everyone is so annoying.
Other Reader: I can see that. I think Austen sort of intended it that way, though.
Reader: Oh, really? Never thought of that.
Other Reader: Yeah man, Austen is a TOTAL smart ass.
Reader: I LOVE SMART ASSES! MORE AUSTEN!
See? So that's basically why I push the irreverence here. More funny minus hero worship (even if it's warranted) can equal greater perceived accessibility and more conversation. Fun for all! We have to break down this idea that not enjoying something or not personally liking a work means that you didn't get that work. It's possible to understand the intricacies behind something and still think it's boring- and this is the space where people can come have that exact conversation.
Caveat: None of this is to say that I don't value literary criticism because I TOTES DO and I read plenty of it, but that's just not what this blog is about, capish?
I APPROVE OF THIS LIKE A BILLION TIMES
ReplyDelete"Mostly because funny is always more interesting than unfunny"
Yes. Yesssssssss. And fake conversation 2. And Maggie Smith gifness. This post is all my favorite.
Maggie Smith is the queen of my heart.
DeleteI would like to second Alice's approval times a billion because yes, yes and yes. This is amazing.
DeleteI also approve :D
ReplyDeleteAlyson
http://for-the-reading.blogspot.com
Huzzah!
DeleteI struggle with Hemingway. I want to like him on my own terms, because I believe there's something there I'm not seeing. But I really hated his work in school. Eventually I might have to concede that his stuff isn't a fit for me. No shame in that! But I want to try a few stories and a couple novels first, and definitely A Moveable Feast.
ReplyDeleteI don't tend to be funny when I talk about the classics because it's not my natural personality. But I agree that not liking a work doesn't mean a person didn't "get" a work. It would be Stepford crazy if everybody liked everything.
I'd like to add that liking a work also doesn't mean a person didn't see it deeply enough, and being serious about a book doesn't mean a person reveres it. Different personalities and approaches is all. I'd feel uncomfortable being "funny" about books because it isn't my personality -- but I can still laugh when other people do it. :)
Anyway, I agree with you. I hate to see people use the classics as a reverential thing that pushes people away from reading. Dickens was published in the newspaper! How he became mounted in stone and devoutly critiqued is the point of this post, I assume. I sometimes wonder what some of the classic authors would think about their stone-mounted legacy.
(Dickens is SOOOOOOOO wordy! But I'm beginning to like him.)
You're totally right, being serious about a book isn't the same thing as being reverent about it. In my brain, reverence implies irrationality- loving something to the point of not being open to criticism. There are tons of bloggers who discuss classics with seriousness and intelligence (and I read lots of them!) without crossing the line into counter-productive worship.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe thing with Dickens (and all victorian novelists) is that they are trying to create an entire world within the pages of their novels. EVERYTIHNG is included--money, sex, politics, art, society, food, architecture, religion, clothes, science, etc.
DeleteIn David Copperfield, for instance, it IS rather important what David ate for breakfast this morning and for dinner that evening, etc.
Victorian novels are very different from modernist novels, which are highly stylized, and, in general, more filtered (and fragmented).
It isn't until Flaubert--and his infamous saying that every line of prose should read like a line of verse--that the novel began to develop into its modernist development.
There is a richness of totality in Dickens which one cannot find in authors, like, say, Woolf or Proust (however brilliant they may be).
Dickens, like Eliot, NEEDS the space, in order to accomplish his unique novelistic objectives.
I found that I appreciated Dickens much more after approaching his novels in this way. Hope this helps!
Danny
I agree with you, Danny, and that world-building is one of the things I love so much about the Victorians. I only use Dickens as my example because he's so often touted as being boring or overly wordy.
DeleteThat exact complaint, that the Victorians are too long, that they are too descriptive, isn't something we should brush off- it SAYS something about us, doesn't it? That we can't BE with a novel for that long without twiddling our thumbs and twitching- what does that say about us, culturally?
That's what I mean when I say we have to make space for people to be bored or irritated with a "revered" book, so we can have these conversations.
Also (and sorry for posting so much!), my problem with Hemingway is that he compromises the mystic power of language for mere economy's sake. But Perhaps I haven't been reading the right books. I've only read A Farewell to Arms.
DeleteMore words doesn't always equal better art.
DeleteI read somewhere recently that Hemingway was the Impressionist of literature. I don't know if that's at all true, but I'm intrigued by the idea -- that he offers the outline of what's in his head and expects the reader to fill in the rest. When I read him in high school, I didn't have a clue there was such a thing as "style" in literature. I just thought he was very flat and boring. I'm actually pretty curious to see what I think now. I love that he was innovative with literature. I plan to read A Farwell To Arms this year. The high school novel I disliked was For Whom the Bell Tolls. I don't remember anything about it.
DeleteRe: The Victorians -- Thank you, Danny!! I realized that the modernists were very different from the Victorians, so I knew not to expect the same style. But the idea of stretching out, creating worlds through their words... I like that!
For the record, I love the Victorians (though I've read few so far.) My favorite opening in literature so far is the sprawling one in Bleak House. It's incredible! (In a non-elitist way, I mean.) :)
I'm on a Dickens kick right now. The first one I read was Oliver Twist last year, and it really felt over-the-top and sentimental. A Tale of Two Cities? My favorite work so far this year.
Anyway, I very much appreciate the clarification. Thank you, Danny! I'll remember your words as I explore the Victorians. I'm reading Flaubert later this year. Can't wait to see the differences. :D
Amanda: I do think the brush-off says something about us. We're weaned on television and instant gratification. It was a bit of a culture shock, reading Oliver Twist, but I ended up liking it. :)
Anyway, great post!
"More words doesn't always equal better art." Love that.
DeleteOne of my high school English teachers made us do scene dramatizations of Macbeth. My group was assigned one of the witches' scenes where Macbeth has a few soliloquies. I was "lucky" enough to get to play Macbeth. I hated all of the work at the time but I think as a result I became more appreciative of Shakespeare's plays. I wish we did more of that kind of thing with other works.
ReplyDeleteGreat post and I wanted to add that using funny as a way to say interesting things is universally great. But being irreverent without any substance to back it up is not at all interesting beyond a quick laugh.
ReplyDeleteI also agree on teachers who make you do silly things in order to engage in a fun way. Those were always my favorite and where I learned the most.
Watch the Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, if you haven't already. It's Maggie at her best.
ReplyDeleteDanny
For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like. (said Miss Brodie in her best Edinburgh voice!)
DeleteAnother great post, thanks Amanda.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I love your irreverence and I agree that it makes classics much more accessible. Plus, when you read a classic and a frustrated by A and B, but everyone else says the book is PERFECT, it's hard to ever talk about it. Then I read one of your reviews and you had the same thoughts, but you weren't scared someone would tell you that you just didn't "understand" the author's brilliance. So thank you.
ReplyDeleteYeah, so, you basically say ALL THE SMART THINGS there are to say in the whole world.
ReplyDeleteAlso, being able to take something that is so revered, look at it seriously, but talk about it lightheartedly says something of your ability to understand it. You don't say things like "This book is LE SUCK because it just sucks, boo." The substance of what you say is thick and makes people LOLZ at their computer as they catch odd looks from those sitting around them. All the while, you learn MUCH.
I find myself wanting to read many things you have disliked just to see if I feel the same.
I feel a bit at a loss for words sometimes when I try to explain why I don't fall all over myself for Jane Austen. I've only finished Pride and Prejudice so far, but I will probably try to read the others again at some point. Personally I'm more of a Charlotte Bronte fan (can you be a fan from just reading one book?).
ReplyDeleteHave you heard Bronte's criticism of Austen? It's hilarious...I don't remember it word for word, but Charlotte basically calls Jane "bloodless." (HA!)
DeleteThe next generation is always so pissy about the previous one.
DeleteGreat post.
ReplyDeleteI think where I disagree is the argument that classics aren't unapproachable.
The thing is, they kind of are.
Classics are often difficult works of literature (even if or specially when they appear simple). There are things you shouldn't understand during your first read through, you have to work at them a bit or unlock some of the cool stuff. This creates two problems:
a.) People need to be educated enough to unlock the cool stuff.
b.) They have to put effort into their "fun"
Your points about attacking the elitist attitudes concerning these works is excellent. As you said, the best thing about your blog is framing these "holier than thou" authors in a more human light.
Where I disagree is when people give shallow or silly reasons for not liking a classic because they haven't done the work. Sure, their initial gut reaction has value. But they miss out on a lot the work has to offer. There comes a point where you ask, why read them at all if it's only for fun? This doesn't turn people on to classics, it's just an argument for why you should read things you like, which no one disputes.
You're smart Amanda, so you can read these texts and make witty judgements about them. But not everyone has the background in literature or even skill in reading to tackle "Anna Karenina" and not go "Wow, this was long and there were a lot of names to remember. This classic is stupid."
Maybe this is just my own experience, but I don't often witness people who bottle up because they're worried their opinion if iconoclastic. I more see people who don't work to understand the texts, go read something else they like because it's easier, and then keep quiet later so they don't seem lazy.
Now, if someone reads something and spends time actually chewing and thinking it over, let's say an hour, and they still don't like it, all power to them. But that just isn't what's happening.
So what's the literarily righteous amount of work necessary to put in before not liking something is ok?
DeleteWhere you're comfortable in claiming, to yourself, that you understand what you've read.
DeleteNot everyone is going to put in the extra effort to uncover the stuff of literary criticism when they read classics. Most of the authors of these works didn't intend for that to even be necessary (let's not forget they were often the 'pop' authors of their day). The people who DON'T do that? Their opinions and thoughts are still valid, even if they don't "understand" the work to the extent someone else thinks they should.
DeleteYerneh, but excuse me, "understand"? I'm going to say that especially with the "classics" or other literary fiction that's considered valuable, they're often way too complex for people to "understand what they've read". At least that's what happens to me, and I still feel entitled to my opinion. Case in point, I don't think I've understood even half of what's going on in Roberto Bolaño's "Savage Detectives", but I nevertheless enjoyed it a lot and I'm not saying that to be up there with the intellectual crowd.
DeleteAmanda: But that was my whole point. If you are not going to put in the work, what's the point of reading "classics?" Because you like them? That's an argument for why you should read things you like, not why you should read classics, which no one ever disputes.
DeleteBut to approach works that are part of this cultural history and apply the same level of reading to them as you would anything else, then I feel you've missed the point entirely.
Bettina: Good point, I agree completely. My response would be to amend my previous statement by saying one must be honest in claiming they've tried to understand the work.
I don't mean to say they need to get EVERYTHING that is being said, but to make a real attempt at doing so before they can fairly claim to like it or not.
But perhaps here I am simply projecting my standards of reading on others.
*That's an argument for why you should read things you like, not why you should read classics, which no one ever disputes.*
DeleteWhat if you "like" the classics? ;)
Then read them!!!
DeleteBut it's obvious that people who "like" classics are in a minority. While some may argue it's because of the elitist attitudes around these works that prevents people from enjoying them (which is a large part of it), I'm simply arguing it's because they are more demanding to read.
If you are approaching, say, Euripides' Medea with the same effort and mindset as you would the Harry Potter series, I just don't think you'll get as much out of it.
DICKENS IS INFALLIBLE! Joking. Great post, and I wholeheartedly agree. It's amusing to me that you used Dickens as an example, because I loathed him for years based on the very reasons you mention. And I'm a Victorianist! It took several readings for me to finally get on board the Dickens Train, but I still like to poke fun at him for his utter failure to write a heroine that wasn't a ridiculous incarnation of his unrealistic Fantasy Woman. Also, his poor wife. Can you imagine being married to such an awful husband?
ReplyDeleteJillian: I liked what you said, that not liking a text is not the same as not 'getting' it. I really dislike modernism, but I always say I don't get it (truthfully, I probably don't) because I don't want people to hate on me. :)
You probably do get it- it's meat to inspire irked feelings in people who like Victoriana ;)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry, posted under the wrong profile up there. :/
ReplyDeleteAll of this. I was explaining to a friend of mine why I don't read much in the way of Jane Austen or Dickens (at this point in time, anyway, when there are so many books in my pile that I'm EAGER to read...) and she scoffed at me and basically implied that I was stupid if I didn't like it, because it was SATIRE. If anything makes me NOT want to read your favorite book, it's implying that the only reason I didn't like it was because I just couldn't grasp the subtleties and nuances of the author's genius.
I don't have anything to say, really, except that I agree on all counts and love the irreverence you've got going on over here.
ReplyDeleteAlso every time I see the word capish I immediately think of My Blue Heaven: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-EM4jVsONM
You know a post is awesome when I feel, just for a moment, the need to print it and frame it and sneak it into my professors' purses (or pockets, in case they're, you know, men/women who don't wear purses).
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with everything you said here (and in your 'in-defense-of-the-classics' post). I don't think I truly realized how fun and interesting classics can be while I was in high school. It wasn't until I hit college and had some truly awesome professors interested in making us explore the classics, rather than just reading it, that I approached reading them with a different, more open mindset.
I think this is a very smart way to describe what you do very well, and especially how you are trying to find a way of talking about classics that actually makes people want to read them.
ReplyDeleteHere's the one thing I'll throw in: it's just interesting to look through your comments section and see just how many of the responses tend to be: "Whew! Thanks for warning me! Now I'm DEFINITELY never gonna read that!"
That sentence following a 400 word review scares me. Any kind of review at all.
That's the part that usually worries me.
Excellent post, Amanda, thanks for sharing! I love your point about the irreverence allowing you (us?) to critique a classic, rather than just analyze it... I have a hard time with that when I "review" a classic, because really, I think to myself, who am I to judge Hemingway? Clearly these are great works for a reason, so if I don't like it, I don't get it. I don't really think that's true, per se, but it's far too easy to fall into that trap. So, 100 likes for this, your explanation, your blog, and your Maggie Smith gif.
ReplyDeleteAnd also for conversation #2, which sounds SHOCKINGLY FAMILIAR to me.
Great post Amanda.
ReplyDeleteI struggle with many authors but I find that the more I read, the less I struggle (but then some new-to-me author pops up and the struggle continues).
However, I found that many books which I struggle with, and even dislike when reading are much more thought provoking after I finished them.
http://www.ManOfLaBook.com
I'm awarding you the Sunshine Blog Award.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the details here; http://vsudia.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/sunshine-blog-award/