--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This idea is something I've always struggled with. Of course
when I was younger, people thought it a positive thing that I read books at
all. Now I look back and see that...well, let's just say that, of the 400
or so books I've read in my life, 64 of those were Animorphs. Now I find myself
reading stuff like Utopia, The Time Machine, Vonnegut
novels, Shakespeare, etc., for fun. Classics. But now that I
find myself bored out of my mind reading Le Morte D'Arthur, but
entranced by Shakespeare...and seeing the whole Harry Potter/Twilight/Hunger
Games thing going on... I feel like writing about this: What makes something a
classic?
Ever since my freshman year in high school, I have begun to
change my taste in books. That glorious winter when I read 1984, Slaughterhouse-Five,
and Catcher in the Rye will always remain as the most
enjoyable break ever. After that, I started reading more classics. Lord
of the Flies, The Hobbit, Taming of the Shrew... Heck,
the year after that I finished reading the entire Bible. The H2G2 series, the Dune series, Catch-22...
But, at the same time, I was in book club, and read some newer books. I enjoyed
them too, but it was about this time that I began to really feel the difference
that time makes.
Traditionally, classics are thought to be
"timeless." But does that really make any sense? Reading Shakespeare,
there are hundreds of little details that most editions will give footnotes
for. Explanations of what people in those times would've seen as commonplace,
but which we have to be told in order to fully grasp. Without that background,
you can't get the full effect of the words. And even when told about it, you
still have to try and keep that in mind all the time while you read. You
can still appreciate it without the background (I did so with both Taming
of the Shrew and Hamlet, and the latter is my favorite),
but not in its entirety.
Even if you look beyond that, there are other
considerations. For instance, originality is dead. Any story written now
hearkens back to another story, and that one back to another, until you reach
some classic at the foundation of that archetype (and even some classics are renditions of archetypes). If classics are generally firsts, then it would be
impossible for new books to become classics, since they're all just re-tellings
and remakes of a story we've all read or heard before. Classics are sometimes
those books that break new ground, that change a genre or change our idea of
what topics can be broached in our reading material. But now we can generally
write about anything.
Think about it this way: take any sub-par or less
known book written today that champions a modern mentality. Chances are,
if that book had been written hundreds of years ago, we'd be studying it today
as a classic of literature. Imagine if Twilight was a classic,
just because it was different! Animorphs, Incarceron, Seventh
Tower, etc. Of course, we don't see these as classics because they're
mash-ups of other themes and stories, ideas already given to us. But what if
they were the first of their genre? To say it plainly, is the original always
the best?
The real problem, of course, is that our society has
changed. Ever since Harry Potter started having movies, it seems like our
culture, especially in regard to teenagers, has just been looking for the
next fix--namely, Twilight and now Hunger Games. As I watched the movie of the
latter, I couldn't keep back the thought: what would the next one be? Cuz it
seems that's how Hollywood is thinking. Cultivate a YA sensation, and rake in
the money people will inevitably fork over.
Needless to say, I have become rather wary of YA. Sure, I
enjoy it sometimes (I'm waiting on the last Artemis Fowl book right
now, I follow the Lorien Legacies, I liked the Hunger Games--excepting
Mockingjay--and I will never tire of A Series of Unfortunate Events and
am looking forward to Snicket's next books in that universe). But overall, I
feel like YA is just made to pander to the crowd. Not so much to write a good
book, but to pull in readers and make money. Not that that's always a bad thing
(far be it from me to deny an artist the luxury NOT to be of a
starving quality), but I feel like we lose something when that's the sole goal.
There's an art in pandering, but I don't respect that as much as the art...of
crafting art for art's sake. And then selling it, lol.
There is a major difference between stories that I think
should be the deciding point of classics: the ability to Have or to
Hold. Classics Have us. They encapsulate humanity, the time
they were written in, or art itself. They Have it all, proving to
be relevant expressions of artistic genius. Other stories merely Hold
us, pulling us in for a second to take our attention and money and then put us
down so another can Hold us for a while. They don't seek to make a lasting
statement.
I don't care when a book was written, just so long as it's
good. I like to be Held by a story every now and then, but I get the most
satisfaction from finding a book that Has me. 1984, Catcher
in the Rye, A Clockwork Orange, The Picture of Dorian
Gray, Hamlet, Dune, Catch-22, Frankenstein, etc.
These are classics, and they deserve to be called that. Not because of how they
were able to change things, how they introduced new terms (such as "Big
Brother" and the eponymous "Catch-22"), how they were misfits of
literature at the time, or because they gather a following. They deserve
it because they are well-written. They are beautiful works of art,
and they will always Have us.
Not to say that I enjoy all classics. It wouldn't make sense
if I did. Nor do I think that all popular books are crap (though quite a few
are). I take a...timeless view of the literary scene. Heck, there are some
newer books I would consider calling classics (The Road, The
Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, A Series of Unfortunate Events, The
Historian, etc.). Maybe all I'm getting at is that I'm not on either
extreme: I don't completely hate newer stories, and I don't hate the idea
of classics being so darned sacrosanct. All books have something to give, every
story is valuable. But, as George Orwell so beautifully put it, some books
are "more equal than others."
Books I think everyone should read:
-1984, by George Orwell
-Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger (preferably
when your teenage angst has reached its peak)
-Catch-22, by Joseph Heller (avoid Closing
Time, lol, really)
-A Series of Unfortunate Events, by Lemony Snicket
-Dune, by Frank Herbert (and the rest of the books in
that series that he wrote. Read his son's continuation at your own discretion)
-A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess
-a smattering of Shakepeare plays (but absolutely read Hamlet, Romeo
& Juliet, The Merchant of Venice, Macbeth, and Taming
of the Shrew)
-some Kurt Vonnegut novels (probably Slaughterhouse-Five and/or Cat's
Cradle)
-some Oscar Wilde (definitely both The Picture of
Dorian Gray and The Importance of Being Earnest)
-Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley (the movies have
ruined it, and you lose a lot of the point by not reading this. Trust me,
it's beautiful)
-Waiting for Godot, by Samuel Beckett
-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas
Adams (the more of the series, the better)
-Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card (and the rest of
that universe, if you like it)
-Hatchet, by Gary Paulsen
-any of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books
-Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (it's long, but it's worth reading the whole thing)
-Fight Club, by Chuck Palahniuk (the movie's a good adaptation, but you get more out of it if you read the book as well)
No comments:
Post a Comment