5 ms·

Because the book tells you? To my shame I've never read Dickens, but I did read the Romanian canonical authors (I am Romanian), and a lot of them, the ones I l

Because the book tells you? To my shame I've never read Dickens, but I did read the Romanian canonical authors (I am Romanian), and a lot of them, the ones I liked, gave you a very real sense of the life of the people at the time. Ion, for example, is basically a tragedy about the titular character scheming to marry a woman whom he doesn't love (but who loves him) because he's poor and she's "rich" (owns land). And the book really shows you how important and spiritually so it is for the main character (and therein, for the average farmer at the time) to work his own land, to sweat and toil over his land. How he collapses to his knees and kisses the dirt when he finally gets it etc. High schoolers can get most books with adult themes, and most books require very little context, since they are filled with passages upon passages upon passages of description. > How would you know what the characters in Pride and Prejudice are worried about if you don't know how that society is? Because they literally say it! “Not that I am afraid of myself, but I dread other people’s remarks.” “How can I promise to be wiser … if I am tempted?” “My father’s opinion of me does me the greatest honour; and I should be miserable to forfeit it.” “Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance.” Or the narrator does “To Elizabeth it appeared, that had her family made an agreement to expose themselves as much as they could during the evening, it would have been impossible for them to play their parts with more spirit, or finer success.” And from the books YOU LEARN WHAT THE SOCIETY WAS LIKE! I don't think waiting 20 years to acquire a much vaguer and much less correct understanding of the context from YouTube/TikTok/TV cultural diffusion is very wise.

RealityVoid 2mo ago
Oh, such a day, a talk about Ion on HN. I get your point, and the book does say that. It's just... For a teenager, it rarely lands. And connecting context is super important. I mean, sure Ion wanted land, but you really can't contextualize that kind of desire when your needs and desires are completely different. Maybe you were more capable of empathy or better at contextualizing what you were reading. I sure as hell was not. And only now later in like I think I am able to read and understand books. And really get them at a much deeper level. I do wonder though if without going through the motions of reading stuff you contextualize poorly if you ever gain the capability to understand. Or if it just makes no sens to engage with certain material until mature enough, in the right frame of mind and, importantly, _interested in it_.
- serbuvlad 2mo ago
  > in the right frame of mind and, importantly, _interested in it_ Very much so! I'm not saying the way school approaches books is good, I'd wish there would have been be a lot more time dedicated to reading the darn things. :) My point is that, if you find reading enjoyable and do it as sort of a hobby instead of a chore (I did, and a bunch of my friends did too, so this wasn't just a me thing), you can get a lot out of the books even at that age. Of course you understand them more later, but it also goes both ways, you also understand life situations a bit better because you've seen them before in books.
- matherial 2mo ago
  > I get your point, and the book does say that. It's just... For a teenager, it rarely lands. Basic education is weird because it has two conflicting goals. One is to get everyone to the same basic level needed to function in a society. And that's where all the incentives are - that's what you and the teachers are graded on. But another goal is to give you a taste of what's out there, so that some of the more talented kids can decide they like literature or math or physics or whatever. That second part really requires the teacher and the student to care, but the first part conspires to make that outcome unlikely. My memories from public school are that everything I'm interested in today, I'm interested in despite the efforts of the school system to make the topics appear painful and dull. So on some level, I don't think the problem is with the literature itself, or with the student's age. It's just that the setting often sucks and you kinda start with the assumption that if the teachers are making you read a book or learn some dates, it won't be a fun experience. And so it isn't.
  - RealityVoid 2mo ago
    I don't see the conflict between the two. I think you can do both. But, yes, the quality of the teachers matters a whole lot. And, sometimes, how well they relate to the kids. Because I can imagine that some people just won't click well together. Thinking back on the poor professors, I kinds of am sorry for all the crap they had to put up with. And I do believe the student has part of the blame here. Or at least, the culture the student is living in. Because if there is an air of "pff, school, who needs it?" it rubs on kids and they end up believing school is stupid, knowing things is dumb, and they just don't care about it. At least in my country, I just feel such an air of disdain for education, that, to me, just feels a problem of perception or cultural framing. Competency is cool. Knowing things is _actually_ cool.
chrisweekly 2mo ago
> "To my shame I've never read Dickens" I suggest dropping the shame; you're not missing much. IMHO Dickens is hugely overrated. Paid by the word and it shows.
- DFHippie 2mo ago
  To each his own. I love Dickens, though I haven't read that much. Dumas was also paid by the word. Still fun to read.
- jacobolus 2mo ago
  Dickens is full of extremely theatrical scenes. The characters are often a caricature, but the caricature is so finely drawn that it is tremendous fun. (Nobody should be ashamed for having read or not read some work though, or for having enjoyed or not enjoyed one.)
- zabzonk 2mo ago
  Go for "Great Expectations", "David Copperfield" and "Bleak House". If they are not great novels, I don't know what are.
  - wbl 2mo ago
    "A Christmas Carol" will never be a great novel, but there is a reason it is beloved the world over for what it is.
- thunspa 2mo ago
  I have to reply and say that this ain't so, for anyone reading this and thinking of picking Dickens up: it's worth it.
Perseids 2mo ago
You're making a good point. I was also of the opinion that these books don't land well, because I'm missing the context. And I'm actually still thinking that about quite a lot of these classics. But what I believe I'm also concluding from your comment, is that these books aren't good hooks to get people, especially teenagers, interested in the context and in the society of the time. And that is where YouTube/TikTok/TV might shine. Or a well written and narrated podcast.
johnnyanmac 2mo ago
Telling you about the great depression in Steinbeck's work is a lot different from living a few years out in the world and struggling to pay rent. Even if that's still a far cry from what actually happened 80-90 years ago. I think those are the key sensations that are missing that made me resonate with a lot more classic literature post-college rather than bumbling through English class in high school. I think you really need to spend a few years fighting your politics to really capture the politics depicted in literature. And many US grade schoolers simply don't do that.
lordnacho 2mo ago
The book can only tell you from its own reference frame. Time has passed since the book was published, a lot of relevant opinions have come out in the meantime. A publication also somewhat assumes what the reader knows, because it would take forever to explain things otherwise. With time passing, those assumptions are no longer valid.

RealityVoid 2mo ago

Oh, such a day, a talk about Ion on HN. I get your point, and the book does say that. It's just... For a teenager, it rarely lands. And connecting context is super important. I mean, sure Ion wanted land, but you really can't contextualize that kind of desire when your needs and desires are completely different. Maybe you were more capable of empathy or better at contextualizing what you were reading. I sure as hell was not. And only now later in like I think I am able to read and understand books. And really get them at a much deeper level. I do wonder though if without going through the motions of reading stuff you contextualize poorly if you ever gain the capability to understand. Or if it just makes no sens to engage with certain material until mature enough, in the right frame of mind and, importantly, _interested in it_.

serbuvlad 2mo ago
> in the right frame of mind and, importantly, _interested in it_ Very much so! I'm not saying the way school approaches books is good, I'd wish there would have been be a lot more time dedicated to reading the darn things. :) My point is that, if you find reading enjoyable and do it as sort of a hobby instead of a chore (I did, and a bunch of my friends did too, so this wasn't just a me thing), you can get a lot out of the books even at that age. Of course you understand them more later, but it also goes both ways, you also understand life situations a bit better because you've seen them before in books.
matherial 2mo ago
> I get your point, and the book does say that. It's just... For a teenager, it rarely lands. Basic education is weird because it has two conflicting goals. One is to get everyone to the same basic level needed to function in a society. And that's where all the incentives are - that's what you and the teachers are graded on. But another goal is to give you a taste of what's out there, so that some of the more talented kids can decide they like literature or math or physics or whatever. That second part really requires the teacher and the student to care, but the first part conspires to make that outcome unlikely. My memories from public school are that everything I'm interested in today, I'm interested in despite the efforts of the school system to make the topics appear painful and dull. So on some level, I don't think the problem is with the literature itself, or with the student's age. It's just that the setting often sucks and you kinda start with the assumption that if the teachers are making you read a book or learn some dates, it won't be a fun experience. And so it isn't.
- RealityVoid 2mo ago
  I don't see the conflict between the two. I think you can do both. But, yes, the quality of the teachers matters a whole lot. And, sometimes, how well they relate to the kids. Because I can imagine that some people just won't click well together. Thinking back on the poor professors, I kinds of am sorry for all the crap they had to put up with. And I do believe the student has part of the blame here. Or at least, the culture the student is living in. Because if there is an air of "pff, school, who needs it?" it rubs on kids and they end up believing school is stupid, knowing things is dumb, and they just don't care about it. At least in my country, I just feel such an air of disdain for education, that, to me, just feels a problem of perception or cultural framing. Competency is cool. Knowing things is _actually_ cool.

chrisweekly 2mo ago

> "To my shame I've never read Dickens" I suggest dropping the shame; you're not missing much. IMHO Dickens is hugely overrated. Paid by the word and it shows.

DFHippie 2mo ago
To each his own. I love Dickens, though I haven't read that much. Dumas was also paid by the word. Still fun to read.
jacobolus 2mo ago
Dickens is full of extremely theatrical scenes. The characters are often a caricature, but the caricature is so finely drawn that it is tremendous fun. (Nobody should be ashamed for having read or not read some work though, or for having enjoyed or not enjoyed one.)
zabzonk 2mo ago
Go for "Great Expectations", "David Copperfield" and "Bleak House". If they are not great novels, I don't know what are.
- wbl 2mo ago
  "A Christmas Carol" will never be a great novel, but there is a reason it is beloved the world over for what it is.
thunspa 2mo ago
I have to reply and say that this ain't so, for anyone reading this and thinking of picking Dickens up: it's worth it.

Perseids 2mo ago

You're making a good point. I was also of the opinion that these books don't land well, because I'm missing the context. And I'm actually still thinking that about quite a lot of these classics. But what I believe I'm also concluding from your comment, is that these books aren't good hooks to get people, especially teenagers, interested in the context and in the society of the time. And that is where YouTube/TikTok/TV might shine. Or a well written and narrated podcast.

johnnyanmac 2mo ago

Telling you about the great depression in Steinbeck's work is a lot different from living a few years out in the world and struggling to pay rent. Even if that's still a far cry from what actually happened 80-90 years ago. I think those are the key sensations that are missing that made me resonate with a lot more classic literature post-college rather than bumbling through English class in high school. I think you really need to spend a few years fighting your politics to really capture the politics depicted in literature. And many US grade schoolers simply don't do that.

lordnacho 2mo ago

The book can only tell you from its own reference frame. Time has passed since the book was published, a lot of relevant opinions have come out in the meantime. A publication also somewhat assumes what the reader knows, because it would take forever to explain things otherwise. With time passing, those assumptions are no longer valid.