Books for people who hate happiness
Apr. 19th, 2015 02:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plonqI don't believe I have ever read a book that would be considered classical literature. I have read sci-fi novels over the years that are now considered classics of the genre, but I have never tackled anything that would be considered one of The Classics. Mark Twain is often quoted as having rather sardonically observed, "A classic is something that everybody wants to have read, but nobody wants to read."
I have friends who have read some of the classics (Cyrano de Bergerac, Dickens, Alexandre Dumas and the like) and they've assured me that the books are considered classics for a reason. I am told that the books are very, very good.
My problem is that I have a habit of reading the plot summaries on Wikipedia.
"Oh, hey, I think I've heard of this novel. Didn't they do a movie version of it?"
Synopsis: The protagonist, or one of the thirty protagonists brought into the story, are born into prosperity or poverty. Find their perfect match, or perhaps a mismatched person in a caste above or below theirs. Lead a life that is virtually a train wreck of bad decisions. Everyone around them are bigoted assholes, except for the one who they betray, or by whom they are betrayed. Finally the two who should have been together all along finally manage to get together and then promptly screw it up. Then there is a miscarriage, and one or more of them die from consumption. Finally, the story draws to a conclusion that's about as uplifting as a graph on infant mortality rates in the developing world, and somebody ends up living out the end of their days as a nun working with lepers.
I admit that most of the summaries I have ended up looking up are probably the darker members of the genre, but it has generally coloured my view of the classics as a whole. It strikes me as a genre that I consider, "Reading for people who feel like they don't cut themselves enough."
I have friends who have read some of the classics (Cyrano de Bergerac, Dickens, Alexandre Dumas and the like) and they've assured me that the books are considered classics for a reason. I am told that the books are very, very good.
My problem is that I have a habit of reading the plot summaries on Wikipedia.
"Oh, hey, I think I've heard of this novel. Didn't they do a movie version of it?"
Synopsis: The protagonist, or one of the thirty protagonists brought into the story, are born into prosperity or poverty. Find their perfect match, or perhaps a mismatched person in a caste above or below theirs. Lead a life that is virtually a train wreck of bad decisions. Everyone around them are bigoted assholes, except for the one who they betray, or by whom they are betrayed. Finally the two who should have been together all along finally manage to get together and then promptly screw it up. Then there is a miscarriage, and one or more of them die from consumption. Finally, the story draws to a conclusion that's about as uplifting as a graph on infant mortality rates in the developing world, and somebody ends up living out the end of their days as a nun working with lepers.
I admit that most of the summaries I have ended up looking up are probably the darker members of the genre, but it has generally coloured my view of the classics as a whole. It strikes me as a genre that I consider, "Reading for people who feel like they don't cut themselves enough."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-04-19 09:56 pm (UTC)I do remember reading The Scarlet Pimpernel as a teenager and really really liking it- the original superhero novel!- but I haven't read it as an adult, so I'm not sure if I would recommend it.
The Classics are familiar because the themes have been revisited over and over again in media. I wouldn't particularly be bothered myself if you don't enjoy them or wish to read them. :)