Some books in school I liked, some I didn't. I understand that studying them is more than fostering a desire to read and to help people better understand language, literature and its development. All good goals. I did find it was easier to study the works I enjoyed (Animal Farm, 1984, Othello) than the stuff I didn't (anything Jane Austen).
Some problems with a lot of the classics, in literature (but the general concepts can apply to other things), is that:
1) They are written from a time long past so require some interpretation.
2) They represent early development of certain literary forms and so seem clunky by today's standards.
3) They are aimed at adults with a good sense of reading comprehension (because literacy was only in the hands of the few).
Usually its a combination of the above (along with other, specific, issues with the work its self) that hamper people's enjoyment. If a work is boring because the story isn't interesting or well-told; its status as a "classic" should not mean you can't say so. Many of the great works were great in their day - the reason they are worth studying are not due to how fun they are.
One of my english teachers suggested that any reading is useful as the more you do it the better you will be. He told kids who weren't good at it to try reading comics because you can get greater context through the pictures but the stories (and language) are usually aimed at teenagers. I wonder if teaching books that are more interesting to kids would be a better idea and save the drier works for literature students and adults with more patience. You will never please everybody (hell I loved 1984 when we learnt it but about a 3rd of the class couldn't stand it - the same class did Pride and Prejudice next and the demographics switched).
Some problems with a lot of the classics, in literature (but the general concepts can apply to other things), is that:
1) They are written from a time long past so require some interpretation.
2) They represent early development of certain literary forms and so seem clunky by today's standards.
3) They are aimed at adults with a good sense of reading comprehension (because literacy was only in the hands of the few).
Usually its a combination of the above (along with other, specific, issues with the work its self) that hamper people's enjoyment. If a work is boring because the story isn't interesting or well-told; its status as a "classic" should not mean you can't say so. Many of the great works were great in their day - the reason they are worth studying are not due to how fun they are.
One of my english teachers suggested that any reading is useful as the more you do it the better you will be. He told kids who weren't good at it to try reading comics because you can get greater context through the pictures but the stories (and language) are usually aimed at teenagers. I wonder if teaching books that are more interesting to kids would be a better idea and save the drier works for literature students and adults with more patience. You will never please everybody (hell I loved 1984 when we learnt it but about a 3rd of the class couldn't stand it - the same class did Pride and Prejudice next and the demographics switched).
o any human beings ever realize life while they live it -- every, every minute?
