NationStates Jolt Archive

Am I the only one who is tired of "classic" books and required reading?

I just had to read the introduction of "The Scarlet Letter"...for those of you who don't know, the introduction is 44 pages long, and consists of nothing more than the innane ramblings of a potential scizophrenic.

Other "classical" (and by classical I mean OLD) writers include Ernest Hemmingway and his "masterpeice", "Old Man and the Sea" (you can tell the man is old because he is TALKING to a FISH!). And Mark Twain (most arrogant motherfucker in American literature), with his "immortal" characters "Tom Sawyer" and "Huck Finn" (the two earliest examples of Mary Sue and it BURNS MY EYES!).

I hear my teacher telling me that it is works like these that "change the way I think". In response, I more or less said, "If my life can be changed by a clusterfuck like Hemmingway, I might as well be as nuts as he is." More or less...

Some people may like the afformentioned authors works, and more power to them, but to me, they're of little worth. And in conclusion, (the opinion of one who has had to read a good number of the "classics" as his grade was dependent upon it) I say we abolish the "required reading" list. By limiting students to a simple list, you are denying them their own creativity. Let the students read on their own time what they enjoy. Trust me, it will make for a happier student.

Thank you for listening. This rant was brought to you by Bolol.

I agree to some extend. A good number of books simply lose relevance over the years, no matter how much literary worth and influence they used to have.

On the other hand, it's important to know at least what they are about, for the simple reason that they did shape our culture, our view of the world and our conception of ourselves. Even if you didn't read them. They altered society at some point, and to understand how society worked before and why and how it was changed, it's important to know about these books.
While I wouldn't advocate reading every single one of them (I always thouroughly despised Hemmingway) it's still essential to know at least their contents.

Meh, most stuff post-2nd century AD is pretty rubbish.

Other "classical" (and by classical I mean OLD) writers include Ernest Hemmingway and his "masterpeice", "Old Man and the Sea"

er... classical is different from classic. "The Old Man and the Sea" is a classic (arguably); something like Homer's "Odyssey" is classical. And by classical I mean REAL OLD. We're talking B.C. here. If you think modern literature like the "Old Man and the Sea" is dull then the Odyssey will probably put you into a coma :p

er... classical is different from classic. "The Old Man and the Sea" is a classic (arguably); something like Homer's "Odyssey" is classical. And by classical I mean REAL OLD. We're talking B.C. here. If you think modern literature like the "Old Man and the Sea" is dull then the Odyssey will probably put you into coma :p
Hey, don't say the Odyssey (or Illiad, for that matter) is dull! The Classical literature is better than most modern stuff! Bah, people today, no appreciation of history...

Hey, don't say the Odyssey (or Illiad, for that matter) is dull! The Classical literature is better than most modern stuff! Bah, people today, no appreciation of history...

I just said the original poster would probably find it dull, not me... Although personally I prefer Classical Sanskrit literature to Greek.

Oi, that was a generalising start of a thread.
Yeah, some 'classic' books are stupid, but a lot of modern books are too. So don't judge a book on it's age.

Hey, don't say the Odyssey (or Illiad, for that matter) is dull! The Classical literature is better than most modern stuff! Bah, people today, no appreciation of history...

I absolutely adore the true classics; The Iliad, Odyssey, Aenied et al. Epic poetry is superb, however as for classic literature, I must profess that an awfully large quantity of it, notably Dickens, Bronte and Jane "interesting" Austen, is utter, irrelevant, bilge. However, "The picture of Dorian Gray" is exquisite.

Am I the only one who is tired of "classic" books and required reading?I often have a feeling that's it the same as with art, a lot of pretentious BS on the part of those who praise it.
Luckily I didn't have to read too many of them. And mostly in as far as we had to read books, we could compile our book list ourselves (although it had to be approved).

Evelyn Waugh's Sword of Honour trilogy, Albert Camus' Outsider and Antoine de Saint-Exupery's Flight to Arras should all be required reading. Those books say much about discovering one's identity in the modern world.

It's the sort of thing which kids should be reading really, not just a classic text for the sake of meeting some curricular requirement, but literature likely to be of emotional and character benefit. :)

Am I the only one who is tired of "classic" books and required reading?
I loathed it as much as anyone, but I'll bet almost anything that you'll appreciate you went through it as you grow older. I know I do.

It's not very different from learning a language. It's dull as hell, and often completely useless to you when you're going through it. But later on, you'll appreciate you put in an effort, because you'll have a much easier time communicating.

Examining classic litterature is no different. It - whether you realise it now, or not - teaches you volumes about your culture & history, and though such knowledge doesn't make you rich, happy or healthy, it gives you a much clearer perspective on the world.

The problem with required reading of "classic" books is the books fucking suck and are from angsty authors that no one but English professors give a rat's ass about.

If you got to read Mark Twain, you can count your lucky stars. We had to read "Sense and Sensibility," "The Great Gatsby," "To Kill a Mockingbird," and the "THe Unvanquished."

Those are only "classic" due to forced reading through the school system. William Faulkner's manner of writing gives me a headache and Jane Austen is completely unreadable.

The only book I tried to read on my own that I despised was some book I forgot the name of, may have been "David Copperfield." If it was voice instead of print, I would say Dickens liked the sound of his own voice.

The problem with required reading of "classic" books is the books fucking suck and are from angsty authors that no one but English professors give a rat's ass about.

If you got to read Mark Twain, you can count your lucky stars. We had to read "Sense and Sensibility," "The Great Gatsby," "To Kill a Mockingbird," and the "THe Unvanquished."

Those are only "classic" due to forced reading through the school system. William Faulkner's manner of writing gives me a headache and Jane Austen is completely unreadable.

I concur, but for one point, "The Great Gatsby" is brilliant.

I hate anything that isn't written in the vernacular. F*** standard, proper English, it's too elitist and confusing-sounding for my tastes

Urg - I feel your pain. To Kill A Mockingbird and anything by Thomas Hardy are my two pet peeves. Dull, in the latter case depressing, useless things in my opinion. The worst bit is TKAM is apparently quite good - and has something of a message to it - but when you have to pick it apart and analyse every sodding word it just becomes Satan in literature form. And don't get me started on Thomas Hardy, miserable, annoying loser clusterfuck... *mumbles on*

And also - 'modern' plays with no point or purpose, such as Pinters 'The Caretaker' or Becket's 'Waiting For Godot'. WHat the hell is the point of a) writing something with no purpose in which nothing happens and b) making other people sit through it?! Bastards. It's worse than friggin' soaps.

bawhh. i love huck finn. it's so cute. and i like gatsby too. lol but this year we had to read civil disobedience and walden by thoreau, and while i appreciate what it's about, he is so insane that it's too hard to wade through the pages and pages of rambling about insurance and REAL men and trees and voting and stuff.

On one hand, I fear that the loss of classics could spell the end of literature, which of course bothers me. On the other hand, a lot of these books really are boring and only survive because they are forced on us.

Incidentally did anyone else spend most of their English course wishing they could study a Terry Pratchett book (or similar)?

Incidentally did anyone else spend most of their English course wishing they could study a Terry Pratchett book (or similar)?

Good lord yes. Intersting Times or Jingo would have been immense fun, whilst Lord of the Rings would similarly have been fun.

Good lord yes. Intersting Times or Jingo would have been immense fun, whilst Lord of the Rings would similarly have been fun.
But then you might end up liking English and want to pursue it further, and everyone knows liberal arts departments in college are overstressed as it is.

I absolutely adore the true classics; The Iliad, Odyssey, Aenied et al. Epic poetry is superb, however as for classic literature, I must profess that an awfully large quantity of it, notably Dickens, Bronte and Jane "interesting" Austen, is utter, irrelevant, bilge. However, "The picture of Dorian Gray" is exquisite.

On this, I agree with you.

All the post 1700s writing until the mid 1900s is, in my opinion, rubish, the only exceptions being the Lord of the Rings and Dracula (which are BTW, NOT on the required reading list).

But the REAL classics; the Greek epics and Shakespear, now THAT'S reading. I only wish they'd let us perform Macbeth!

Good lord yes. Intersting Times or Jingo would have been immense fun, whilst Lord of the Rings would similarly have been fun.

Ooooh good thought, although can you imagine what they might do to LotR if we let them loose on it? It seems like just the thing to be slaughtered by an intensive study, whereas there's not much you can do to demean a Pratchett book.

Personally I'd go with any City Watch book - preferably Men at Arms or Feet of Clay (Thud and some of the other newer books weren't out when I was doing the course lol - if they had then Going Postal would've been awesome).

But then you might end up liking English and want to pursue it further, and everyone knows liberal arts departments in college are overstressed as it is.

Oddly, I am pursueing English to university, Oxford for all of you:) . Even after Jane Austen and Thomas Hardy. I still love Shakespeare...

*prepares flame shelter*

On this, I agree with you.

All the post 1700s writing until the mid 1900s is, in my opinion, rubish. But the REAL classics; the GreeK epics and Shakespear, now THAT'S reading. I only wish they'd let us perform Macbeth!

We did. I played Banquo, and, if I say so myself, was not that bad.

Ooooh good thought, although can you imagine what they might do to LotR if we let them loose on it? It seems like just the thing to be slaughtered by an intensive study, whereas there's not much you can do to demean a Pratchett book.

Personally I'd go with any City Watch book - preferably Men at Arms or Feet of Clay (Thud and some of the other newer books weren't out when I was doing the course lol - if they had then Going Postal would've been awesome).

I still think you could make more out of Jingo.... but, yeah, the watch books would be good.

Oddly, I am pursueing English to university, Oxford for all of you:) . Even after Jane Austen and Thomas Hardy. I still love Shakespeare...

*prepares flame shelter*

Uuuurgh *shudders* you'd better hope that shelter's fully flame proof there friend, because what you say if just... uuurggh. :p

Damn that liberal biased educational system for trying to expand your horizons! Daaaamnnnn themmmmm!

Or is the fact you don't like the book due to the fact it doesn't paint a nice picture of Christianity?

Damn that liberal biased educational system for trying to expand your horizons! Daaaamnnnn themmmmm!

Or is the fact you don't like the book due to the fact it doesn't paint a nice picture of Christianity?

...Wha?

I couldn't care less what picture is painted. I don't read based upon my political beliefs. I don't care if the author is liberal, conservative, or even ararchic, as long as the writing is fluid, and the story is engaging, I'll read it.

I hate anything that isn't written in the vernacular. F*** standard, proper English, it's too elitist and confusing-sounding for my tastes

That's why I love Fitzgerald's work and hate anything written by Hawthorne or Melville...they just try to cram in as many pedantic terms and convoluted grammatical constructs as possible, it seems. That's also why I like Twain; most of his work is interesting because it is written in the vernacular.

Incidentally did anyone else spend most of their English course wishing they could study a Terry Pratchett book (or similar)?Unfortunately at the time I didn't know of their existence yet.
I'm making up for it these days. I never got into reading while at school. Turns out there are actually good books out there. I wish someone had shown me that before.

Or is the fact you don't like the book due to the fact it doesn't paint a nice picture of Christianity?

The Scarlet Letter isn't a criticism of Christianity, it's a criticism of the holier-than-thou attitude, the disregard for real evil, and the constant state of the fear and mental and psychological stress that accompany societies constructed on religious fanaticism. It can really apply to any society, be it Puritan New England or modern-day Iran.

The Scarlet Letter isn't a criticism of Christianity, it's a criticism of the holier-than-thou attitude, the disregard for real evil, and the constant state of the fear and mental and psychological stress that accompany societies constructed on religious fanaticism. It can really apply to any society, be it Puritan New England or modern-day Iran.


SHhhhhhh! I was trying to see if he read more then the intro! ;)

I wish I could remember reading those so I could complain.

However, classic literature, as in the heathen literature, is the bomb diggity.








I'm sorry. :(

SHhhhhhh! I was trying to see if he read more then the intro! ;)

Damn it...let's pretend he didn't see it.

...Wha?

I couldn't care less what picture is painted. I don't read based upon my political beliefs. I don't care if the author is liberal, conservative, or even ararchic, as long as the writing is fluid, and the story is engaging, I'll read it.

Well when teachers try edumacating students, it means introducing them to many things.

The message contained doesn't require "fluidity" Just because a writing style has changed does not negate the value of the book. Especially when considering the TV generation(My wife studied French and she actually heard a question of the King of Frances twin brother?!?!?! That was when that horrible decaprio Man in the Iron Mask came out).

Writing styles very.

Patience young grasshoppa you might like things you didn't think you would.....

Not all the classics suck. If you get a good teacher, you can get the Brave New World, the Great Gatsby, Dune (Which, while not exactly a classic, was still on one of my required reading lists), etc.
Classical literature, on the other hand, is absolutely (and without exception) un-fucking-readable. Geoffery Chaucer invented literature that was actually good for something other then toilet paper in the mid-14th century, and anyone who pretends to enjoy that stuff is only doing so to earn "N3RD P01N75."

...Dune...
I only wish my teachers would have us read Dune.

Classical literature, on the other hand, is absolutely (and without exception) un-fucking-readable.Only if you try to read it in the original writing. A good modern rewording/translation helps a lot.

Geoffery Chaucer invented literature that was actually good for something other then toilet paper in the mid-14th century, and anyone who pretends to enjoy that stuff is only doing so to earn "N3RD P01N75."It was a bit hard to read, but 'the canterbury tales' was ok. I'd have rather read another discworld novel, mind you, but it was interesting.

Am I the only one who is tired of "classic" books and required reading?

I just had to read the introduction of "The Scarlet Letter"...for those of you who don't know, the introduction is 44 pages long, and consists of nothing more than the innane ramblings of a potential scizophrenic.

Other "classical" (and by classical I mean OLD) writers include Ernest Hemmingway and his "masterpeice", "Old Man and the Sea" (you can tell the man is old because he is TALKING to a FISH!). And Mark Twain (most arrogant motherfucker in American literature), with his "immortal" characters "Tom Sawyer" and "Huck Finn" (the two earliest examples of Mary Sue and it BURNS MY EYES!).

I hear my teacher telling me that it is works like these that "change the way I think". In response, I more or less said, "If my life can be changed by a clusterfuck like Hemmingway, I might as well be as nuts as he is." More or less...

Some people may like the afformentioned authors works, and more power to them, but to me, they're of little worth. And in conclusion, (the opinion of one who has had to read a good number of the "classics" as his grade was dependent upon it) I say we abolish the "required reading" list. By limiting students to a simple list, you are denying them their own creativity. Let the students read on their own time what they enjoy. Trust me, it will make for a happier student.

Thank you for listening. This rant was brought to you by Bolol.


the problem with letting students read whatever they like which you seem to be suggesting is that most of them will read crap, being students, not having the critical capacity gained through experience, to determine what books are good to read even though they may seem initially to be boring. I think english courses should be open to sci fi and fantasy though. And after the introduction the scarlet letter is amazing, one of the most beautiful books i have ever read, and kind of stephen king in that its american gothic, therefore even better.

I think english courses should be open to sci fi and fantasy though.

We read The Hobbit in one of my english classes, and also on the syllabus a few years later was Frankenstein. There's fantasy and science-fiction for you - all in that cultural backwater which is Northern Ireland in the 1980s, as it happens.

... I say we abolish the "required reading" list. By limiting students to a simple list, you are denying them their own creativity. Let the students read on their own time what they enjoy. Trust me, it will make for a happier student.
The aim of education, Grasshopper, is not to make "happy students." The aim of education is to, you know ... make knowledgeable students. :p

The aim of education, Grasshopper, is not to make "happy students." The aim of education is to, you know ... make knowledgeable students. :p

Possibly that is what it should be, but in my experience of secondary level education that aim was subsidiary to producing good grades in examinations, and as you and I know those things are entirely different things. Interestingly enough the desire to create knowledgeable students was much more predominant in the primary and tertiary levels.

the problem with letting students read whatever they like which you seem to be suggesting is that most of them will read crap, being students, not having the critical capacity gained through experience, to determine what books are good to read even though they may seem initially to be boring. That is very easily solved by providing a large booklist of books that may be read, giving them points, and let each student read X points worth of books. That's how our school did it.
And for any book not on the list we could just ask the ok from our teacher.
The real problem is that to evaluate your reading of the books, the teacher have to have actually read them as well. If everyone has to read a handfull of classics, it's a lot easier (albeit less interesting)

Possibly that is what it should be, but in my experience of secondary level education that aim was subsidiary to producing good grades in examinations, and as you and I know those things are entirely different things. Interestingly enough the desire to create knowledgeable students was much more predominant in the primary and tertiary levels.
True. Perhaps I should have said that "the aim of education should be to produce knowledgable students." Better? :)

The aim of education, Grasshopper, is not to make "happy students." The aim of education is to, you know ... make knowledgeable students. :pBut one might consider students are much more receptive to knowledge if they're happy, or at least content, rather than disgruntled.

The aim of education, Grasshopper, is not to make "happy students." The aim of education is to, you know ... make knowledgeable students. :p

That may have been in our days Eut. The education "reforms" seem to be about teaching to the test.....

But one might consider students are much more receptive to knowledge if they're happy, or at least content, rather than disgruntled.

No. Given the chance for fun or learning something they considering boring; guess what they would normally choose? ;)

No. Given the chance for fun or learning something they considering boring; guess what they would normally choose? ;)The point is to make what they have to learn not be boring, fun even if possible..
Otherwise you may as well try teaching a stone wall these day.

The point is to make what they have to learn not be boring, fun even if possible..
Otherwise you may as well try teaching a stone wall these day.

I know what you mean and if we eliminate the boring stuff then Math, Science, History and English would be out the door.

We would just have Art and PE well not so much art these days as shrubby doens't see the value......

I know what you mean and if we eliminate the boring stuff then Math, Science, History and English would be out the door.?!? What makes you say that. ?
There's absolutely no reason why any of those subjects should be boring. History has a potential for great stories, conquests, myths, humorous anecdotes. One of our history teachers would generally have us hang on his every word.
Science has loads of experiments. It never gets old to blow something up in new and interesting ways. And just look at myth busters, all science, never dull. There's no reason why you couldn't do something like that in class; bust myths.
Math might be more difficult to bring, but certainly not impossible either. Loads of interesting puzzles for example.

If any course is boring, it's more likely from inadequacy in the teaching method or teacher than the subject.

Am I the only one who is tired of "classic" books and required reading?

I just had to read the introduction of "The Scarlet Letter"...for those of you who don't know, the introduction is 44 pages long, and consists of nothing more than the innane ramblings of a potential scizophrenic.

Other "classical" (and by classical I mean OLD) writers include Ernest Hemmingway and his "masterpeice", "Old Man and the Sea" (you can tell the man is old because he is TALKING to a FISH!). And Mark Twain (most arrogant motherfucker in American literature), with his "immortal" characters "Tom Sawyer" and "Huck Finn" (the two earliest examples of Mary Sue and it BURNS MY EYES!).

I hear my teacher telling me that it is works like these that "change the way I think". In response, I more or less said, "If my life can be changed by a clusterfuck like Hemmingway, I might as well be as nuts as he is." More or less...

Some people may like the afformentioned authors works, and more power to them, but to me, they're of little worth. And in conclusion, (the opinion of one who has had to read a good number of the "classics" as his grade was dependent upon it) I say we abolish the "required reading" list. By limiting students to a simple list, you are denying them their own creativity. Let the students read on their own time what they enjoy. Trust me, it will make for a happier student.

Thank you for listening. This rant was brought to you by Bolol.


You're very uncultured and unsophisticated, with no desire to improve yourself, if this post is at all true.

Dear friends, I accept your pwnage and ire...

*dies*

No, to be honest at this point, nothing that I have read that is "required reading" has appealed to me in any way. And aye, this may just be another mad rant of the Bolol, but I always feel better once I let it out.

And Grenada, I don't generally like to think of people as sophisticated and unsophisticated, or cultured and uncultured. In my mind, those things are relative. Just because I have no real love for old novels doesn't mean I am "uncultured", it means I simply have no love for old novels. It is all a matter of preference.

And dear sir, how is reading something that I obviously believe has no value for me supposed to "improve" me? Don't tell me what I am thinking, and how I am to improve myself.

Dear friends, I accept your pwnage and ire...

*dies*

No, to be honest at this point, nothing that I have read that is "required reading" has appealed to me in any way. And aye, this may just be another mad rant of the Bolol, but I always feel better once I let it out.

And Grenada, I don't generally like to think of people as sophisticated and unsophisticated, or cultured and uncultured. In my mind, those things are relative. Just because I have no real love for old novels doesn't mean I am "uncultured", it means I simply have no love for old novels. It is all a matter of preference.

And dear sir, how is reading something that I obviously believe has no value for me supposed to "improve" me? Don't tell me what I am thinking, and how I am to improve myself.


Sophistication is knowledge of things and the ability to appreciate them. Culture, as I used the word, is a similar idea.

Your teacher was correct in telling you that very good books can change the way you think, and that process of change is improvement.

Sophistication is knowledge of things and the ability to appreciate them. Culture, as I used the word, is a similar idea.

Your teacher was correct in telling you that very good books can change the way you think, and that process of change is improvement.

While I don't completely disagree, I have reservations.

Not to say I don't take advice or suggestions, far from it, I feel that culture and improvement are what you make of it. No one can tell you what is culture, and I find the very idea to be somewhat...dare I say...elitist.

Just because one thing doesn't change the way I think, doesn't mean anything will.

While I like to read, nothing I have read has really changed my outlook. Something that has however, was a movie. Sheindler's List.

Sophistication is knowledge of things and the ability to appreciate them.Even bad things?

I only wish my teachers would have us read Dune.

In my senior AP English course, our final project was to make a soundtrack for a novel we chose. A friend and I did Dune someone else in our class did Ender's Game.

"I believe the printed word should be forgiven
Doesn't matter what it said
Wisdom hotline from the dead back to the living
Key to larder for your heart and your head"

Andy Partridge, XTC "Books Are Burning"

See, "classics" are a far less boring way of learning about the triumphs and mistakes of the past without revisionist historians' meddling (like in textbooks). Try reading "Lies My Teacher Told Me" and realize that "classics" are the best way to get non-official perspective on teh vast majority of human history. If you're not interested in that, then you've got no cause to complain about making the same mistakes others already have, or worse yet, electing representatives who are as ignorant of history and perspective as you apparently choose to be.

Is it work? Yes. Can it be hard to grasp and therefore boring? Yes. Is it worth it for the accumulated wisdom to work hard to try and glean what you can? Absolutely. So choose to try a little and learn something or be willfully ignorant and fall prey to those who would manipulate you. It's true that it is your choice to make, but I'd rather be able to call "bullshit" when I see it than swallow heaping servings of it.

But that's just me. Ignorance has worked for multitudes in this nation and time and others. Choosing it makes you a member of a very popular club.

"I believe the printed word should be forgiven
Doesn't matter what it said
Wisdom hotline from the dead back to the living
Key to larder for your heart and your head"

Andy Partridge, XTC "Books Are Burning"

See, "classics" are a far less boring way of learning about the triumphs and mistakes of the past without revisionist historians' meddling (like in textbooks). Try reading "Lies My Teacher Told Me" and realize that "classics" are the best way to get non-official perspective on teh vast majority of human history. If you're not interested in that, then you've got no cause to complain about making the same mistakes others already have, or worse yet, electing representatives who are as ignorant of history and perspective as you apparently choose to be.

Is it work? Yes. Can it be hard to grasp and therefore boring? Yes. Is it worth it for the accumulated wisdom to work hard to try and glean what you can? Absolutely. So choose to try a little and learn something or be willfully ignorant and fall prey to those who would manipulate you. It's true that it is your choice to make, but I'd rather be able to call "bullshit" when I see it than swallow heaping servings of it.

But that's just me. Ignorance has worked for multitudes in this nation and time and others. Choosing it makes you a member of a very popular club.

Listen, I'm not trying to advocate ignorance. I am only professing my dislike of certain books which seem to be universally considered "required reading".

Just because I fail to see the point of a required reading list, or fail to like one of the said books does not make me ignorant or unsophisticated or uncultured or stagnant...

Just because I have a higher appriciation for Citizen Kane than I do The Great Gatzby, doesn't make that appriciation any less valid.

Was it Mark Twain who said "A classic is a book everyone wants to have read, but doesn't actually want to read"?

"The Scarlet Letter" "Old Man and the Sea"

frankly, these are TERRIBLE books. and shouldn't even be considered classics because i've never met ANYONE who liked or enjoyed them. all classic works are not like these. many classics are indeed Classics. i don't know where they come up with this list, but they need to be shot. there are so many excellent classic books out there.

Vegetarianistica']frankly, these are TERRIBLE books. and shouldn't even be considered classics because i've never met ANYONE who liked or enjoyed them. all classic works are not like these. many classics are indeed Classics. i don't know where they come up with this list, but they need to be shot. there are so many excellent classic books out there.

I didn't mind them.....

Try "The Monk" by Matthew Gregory Lewis. Old as dirt literature that is amazing.

The Monk is remembered for being one of the more lurid and "transgressive" of the Gothic novels. Featuring demonic pacts, rape, incest, and such props as the Wandering Jew, ruined castles, and the Spanish Inquisition, The Monk serves more or less as a compendium of Gothic taste. Ambrosio, the hypocrite done in by lust, and his sexual misconduct inside the walls of convents and monasteries, is a vividly portrayed villain, as well as an embodiment of much of the traditional English mistrust of Roman Catholicism, with its intrusive confessional, its political and religious authoritarianism, and its cloistered lifestyles."
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-monk

The thing to keep in mind is the purpose of primary education is not to teach people to think but to indoctrinate them into a common body of knowledge. If you want to learn to think, then you go onto college.

Everyone is expected to read "classic" literature because it establishes a ideological bond with the rest of society. There is nothing new that you are going to learn in school that hasn't been hashed, rehashed, and had all the rough edges worn off of it so anyone of limited intelligence can retain it.

1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World... would you consider these classic? Early 20th century, but fantastic books.

Classical literature, on the other hand, is absolutely (and without exception) un-fucking-readable. Geoffery Chaucer invented literature that was actually good for something other then toilet paper in the mid-14th century, and anyone who pretends to enjoy that stuff is only doing so to earn "N3RD P01N75."
Nonsense, the Iliad is the finest work in Western literature & it's been downhill ever since.

However, to get the full impact of the work you really do need to know about the oral epic style...use of epithets, standard scenes and variances from them &c...you cannot really "get" it without reading it in Greek. And once you've got that you can read the Aeneid (in Latin, obviously) and get the references to Homer.

Aristophanes is LOL in the original, with his Euripidean parodies, Carry On humour, political satire and so on; Euripides himself is genuinely shocking. Imagine putting on a play during the middle of World War 2 where a woman is about to kill her children and soliloquizes that she would rather join the Burma railway for three years than give birth...

And how about Catullus? From piss-taking over tragedy through touching funeral poems to epyllion to the notorious 97...he could turn his hand to anything. And dead at 30.

Nothing to do with earning points. Everything to do with the fact that it knocks the likes of Hardy and Austen and Eliot and Wordsworth and so on into a cocked hat.

I didn't like everything I was made to read in high school, as most people don't. However, I did like some of them, and I think that's the point.

Students have "classics" forced upon them with the hope that some small percentage of them will have their horizons broadened and possibly have their view of the world changed. Some students are just hopeless, and nothing is going to get them to enjoy reading worthwhile books.

I'm sure you're not hopeless, though, don't get me wrong. I don't know how old you are but I'm sure that some day you'll be required to read something that you end up greatly enjoying, something that deeply affects you in a positive way. And importantly, something that you would never have read otherwise.

Hard as it is to believe many students enjoy and are affected positively by books like The Scarlet Letter and the one with the old man and the fish. I haven't read either of them but there are other "classic" books that I had to read that took their place.

Of course not all teachers expect or encourage this, but then, those are bad teachers who are just going through the motions of "teaching" English.

Should modern teachers find more relevant books that students can better identify with? Probably. That doesn't mean the old ones are worthless, though, and they can and should still be effectively used.

why couldn't we read "Sapper", John Buchan, Biggles , Jerome K Jerome or H Rider Haggard. Whlie at school would of been better than stuff that I had to read at least ti would of been intresting and fun

*Note, the following is from an English teacher and therefore may be seen as heavily biased*

The idea of getting you to read the classics is because these are books that have had a prfound effect upon your culture. Some, like Twain, have started new literary styles. Some have introduced ideas. But all have left a cultural impact that you KNOW, even if you've never read the book.

Scarlet Letter for example has become a byword for shunning. Even in the newspaper today I read of someone complaining that due to his actions, he was marked with a scarlet letter (and considering this was a Japanese newspaper, that's pretty good milage).

If I mention a Trojan horse, you know what I mean, even if you've never read The Iliad.

Painting a fence invokes Tom Sawyer.

To be or not to be has been spoken by many people who have never even looked at Hamlet.

Heck, I, personally, HATE Heart of Darkness (My responce to that book horrified my professor who loves it), but that classic phrase "The horror, the horror" is now stuck in our culture whether we like the book or no.

So, yes, these are books that can change you, and they have changed the culture which is why they are important. Is there a set list... no, it changes all the time. Lord of the Rings is being viewed now as a classic, and I've heard that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is also being looked at for its effects on the culture.

So knowledge of the texts are important for you to understand their influance.

As for reading lists, alas, if students would read books without being prodded, or read books that are not romance novel, Harry Potter, or movie books, we wouldn't have to have them. But...

I had to read Moby Dick and Red Badge of Courage in high school. Moby Dick is one of the most unutterably boring books ever written - more a form of mental masturbation for the author than actual literature. and the Red Badge of Courage very nearly put me off reading any other so-called literature.

But, once I finished college and had the time to read what I pleased, I found that many of these "classics" really were classic. I found myself reading and enjoying books by Jane Austen, Owen Wister, J.R.R. Tolkien, Jack London, Joseph Conrad and many more.

The problem is in being required to read something from a school board's master list instead of being able to find the books that speak to you.

I think the problem is that a lot of English teachers these days really aren't fit to be in the classroom. At least most of the ones I've had. One of my 8th grade teachers wasn't especially fond of me - I'd constantly correct her spelling or point out grammatical errors. And apparently "I wrote too much" on creative assignments, whether there was a max amt of pages or not.

I enjoy books more when I'm not pressured to read them for an assignment or when they aren't ruined for me by bad teaching. Where I'm forced to slow my attention span down to the level of all the idiots around me who don't understand basic plot and characters and themes.

I think the problem is that a lot of English teachers these days really aren't fit to be in the classroom. At least most of the ones I've had. One of my 8th grade teachers wasn't especially fond of me - I'd constantly correct her spelling or point out grammatical errors. And apparently "I wrote too much" on creative assignments, whether there was a max amt of pages or not.

I enjoy books more when I'm not pressured to read them for an assignment or when they aren't ruined for me by bad teaching. Where I'm forced to slow my attention span down to the level of all the idiots around me who don't understand basic plot and characters and themes.

Bad spelling doesn't necessarily mean a bad English teacher. My year 12 English teacher may not have been the best speller, but DARN she knew alot about the subject!

Yes, some of the modules were boring, but we got to read some good poetry (I may have aced that section of the final examination test :D ), and also got to read Hitchhikers' Guide...

Mind, both were set texts. Thank heavens we didn't need to analyse HHGTtG to death, only consider it in a 'travel' context...

Bad spelling doesn't necessarily mean a bad English teacher. My year 12 English teacher may not have been the best speller, but DARN she knew alot about the subject!



Okay, I concede a point there. But this teacher I had was right out of college (okay, not all teachers that young are bad) and often took out her emotions on us kids. Probably because she was having marital problems with her husband too. And she couldn't teach.