5 ms·
Just my two cents (and I didn't vote on your comment one way or the other), but that's an awfully big generalization. I put down a list of my must tries on this
by telemachos 17y ago
Just my two cents (and I didn't vote on your comment one way or the other), but that's an awfully big generalization. I put down a list of my must tries on this thread, and maybe you should do the same. People vary so much in their tastes that it's easier to point to the good than say "Don't read" this or that.
- sketerpot 17y agoEven so, I think it's useful to try to remove some of the mystique around old classics. I'm not saying there isn't some great stuff there -- I'm sure there is -- but it's hard to disentangle greatness from snobbishness.
- gte910h 17y agoA great deal of classics require a boatload of history and context to enjoy. For instance: Most of Dickens is about 3x more interesting when you know the history of England for the timespan as well as the Poor laws and all that. Additionally it's very important to know Dickens was paid by the word (so if it feels like a section can be skipped, it likely can). For modern classics, you already have most of the context and history, so you don't have accessibility issues. I'm not saying "Don't read the classics" I'm saying "Start reading modern fiction which is considered a classic, even genre classics". Once people catch the reading (fiction) bug, they eventually try a classic or two.