U - Classic versus Modern literature

[owl post 1992]

Which type do you like? Do you perfer Classic over modern if you do why? And if not will you read something Classic?

Personally I like both types the different style of writing is brilliant because classic writers have a world where there is safety and quiet clamness and its nice to go there as it is quite different to the one we live in but some of there stories can be re-made for a modern audience like Pride and Prejudice is like Bridget Jone's Diary complete with a Mr Darcy.

Well I can't wait to see you opinions on the subject

[vickygirl4]

Well, that's a tough question. There are some authors of classical literature which I adore (Jane Austen, Alexandre Dumas, Maurice Druon, Victor Hugo, etc.). But there are also a lot of authors which I dislike (Charles Dickens, Hemingway {is that considered classic?}). The same is true for modern literature. Some authors (Camus, Fitzgerald, Ayn Rand, Orwell) are amazing, while others (Steinbeck, Ralph Ellison) I hate.

So I don't prefer any time period of literature above another, because all time periods have both good and bad authors, and I will gladly read both classical and modern works.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

I'd pick somewhere in the middle. It really depends on the work of literature. I LOVE greek plays - Medea is the most pwerful play I have ever read, Oedipus is great and Lysistrata is just simply hilarious, much more so than even Seinfeld or Yogi Berra or Mark Twain. I'm not the biggest fan of Shakespeare, although it is a lot better than some of the trash that is written today. I just cannot stand the writing styles of Herman Melville and Ernest Hemingway (and those styles are about as far apart as you can get!). The Sun Also Rises was officially the worst book I have ever read, topping (or bottoming?) Freak the Mighty (Oh, don't get me started on that one, either.) I guess if I had to pick a time period I like most it might be 1900-1950 that might be just because it includes Orwell who is simply amazing, and considering that I cannot stand the Lost Generation writers (although All Quiet on the Western Front was very good), I still don't know what to pick. For me, it really depends. If it's good, it's good. If it's bad - like Hemingway - it's bad. For me, quality is what matters, not time period.

[Laura Borealis]

I prefer modern literature, Orwell, Vonnegut, Huxley. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn is great. I just can't get into the classic stuff I don't know why, maybe because I find it boring, but on a side note, Jane Eyre was okay. Shakespeare is alright sometimes.

[roz]

I have to agree with vickygirl14. I love certain books and certain authors I don't really think of them as modern or classic or even as literature.

I love Vilette, Jane Eyre and anything by Jane Austen. I also love John Wyndam's books, Animal Farm and The Screwtape letters. I also dislike Dickens, Wuthering Heights and 1984 at least as much as each other.

Roz.

[Tyskater]

Probably a tie for me

[PrtVeela]

I really have no preference, I will read any book if it sounds good...or looks good, or if i've heard good things about it.

If its bad and it just so happens to be a classic or modern that doesn't mean the whole genre is bad.

[FreyaCrescent]

Agreed, PrtVeela.

I don't really mind what time period a book is from, I don't prefer one over the other. I have favourite books from all different genres, authors and times. If the idea appeals to me, or I've heard a lot of good things about a book, I'll read it. It doesn't matter whether it's considered classical or modern - I don't see that as a factor that determines a good book.

[Iorek]

I really don't care as long as it's GOOD literature.
To me, Oedipus, Richard III, Pride and Prejudice and His Dark Materials, even Harry Potter are all classics in their own right. Because I have or I believe they will endure for a long time to come.
Of course, there is classic literature which I hate and modern literature that I hate. The one thing I can't stand is someone who dimisses one or the other becauses "it's old or outdated" or "New and has no substance". Those kind of generalistaions don't makes sense.

As to your original post "classic writers have a world where there is safety and quiet clamness " (I will take that as calmness and not claminess, lol) I have to disagree.
Oedipus Rex for example, you can't get more classic than an ancient greek tragedy, but he kills his father and marries his mother. Is THAT calming?
If it is I would hate to ever read something exciting, hehe.
(Interesting debate by the way)

[FridgedSarcasma]

Oh Pride and Prejudice extraordinaire riiiight here..!!! I perfer classical....course then again Im a history freak and I cant stand the time Im leaving in...so yes...I wish I lived in the 1805ish time period....ekk!....I want the clothes...anyways back to writing

some modern stuff is good..but Classical just seems to have more life to it..does that make sense..no..oh well...Your seeing into the passed and how people thought...but today you know the different points of view and your tastes and everything..be it fantasy or mystery...but classical stuff seems to reach out more...every work has a bit of everything in it..

[drummer]

Actually, I've never really thought about it before. I guess I don't have a preference of one over the other. If I like the premise, it will draw me to it.
Although it DOES matter who the author is. An author is like a trusted friend. They allow you to go to certain places and experience things that you wouldn't get to otherwise. But the reader needs to trust the author that they won't let them astray.
Similar to movies, the three people who know how a movie ends is the director, the screenplay writer, and the composer. Once you hear that scary music, you know something is right around the corner.
BUT have you ever seen a movie that had scary music just for the heck of it. No. The viewer would lose their trust in the composer.
Trust in the author does matter.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

classical stuff seems to reach out more...every work has a bit of everything in it..

That's because it's good literature. Modern works that are as good as that and reach out that much, etc will be considered classics in 100 years. It's the quality of the writing not the age of the text that matters.

BTW, Roz, you don't like 1984!!! Why not!!!! (Hee, hee, sorry, that's my favorite book :) )

[Iorek]

Who doesn't like 1984!?!?
lol
That is one of my favourite books, George Orwell was an excellent writer and that is a book which I can definitely see being read for hundreds of years to come.
It is defibnitely down to the quality of writing, not the age. It's just that the only classic books to survive ARE well written, otherwise they wouldn't have lasted.

[vickygirl4]

I agree, many modern books will probably survive through the ages. For example, I just read the Da Vincy Code by Dan Brown, which was a wonderful book which will probably be considered a classic in a hundred years or so. By the way. I recommend that book to everyone, it's amazing!

[Weatherby]

I don't have a preference either. I don't choose books based on what decade or century it was written. I'm not even that choosy with genres to tell you the truth.
I look more into premise, character studies and writing.

[roz]

BTW, Roz, you don't like 1984!!! Why not!!!! (Hee, hee, sorry, that's my favorite book :) )

It gave me nightmares. I was only 13 the first time that I read it and I really had nightmares afterwards. I am not saying it isn't a well written book I just don't like it.

If you want post apocalyptic depression then I would much rather read John Wyndam's The Chrysalids. (Though that migh be because it is one of only two books I've found starring a character named Rosalind. The other being As You Like it by Shakespeare from where my parents took my name)

Roz

[Quasi_EviL]

I love both. Modern and classic literature have two such extraordinarily different writing styles, it's fun to read both just to see how they differ from each other.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

If you want post apocalyptic depression then I would much rather read John Wyndam's The Chrysalids.

I'll try it. Another good one, for anyone out there, is Earth Abides by George Stewart.

[snowflake]

I like reading both types of literature, and I have no preference.
I've noticed that Orwell has been called a modern author a few times in this thread, but I consider him as a classic.

I hope you don't mind me adding a few more questions:
How do you define a Classic?
Why are some books considered classics, while others are not?

[owl post 1992]

And 51% of the readers polled by internet bookseller Amazon.co.uk did not know that Mr Darcy came from the Jane Austen classic Pride and Prejudice.

More than a quarter - 28% - did not know who he was, or thought author Helen Fielding had invented the character, Mark Darcy, for her book Bridget Jones's Diary. From the BBC

Here's a link to that news story Potter 'better known then Hamlet' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3141525.stm)

Thats what got me thinking what is better Modern or classic.

I think a classic is defined by its age like Jane Austen books are close to 200 years old and a modern is something like now or the last 50 years but certain people have said Harry Potter is a classic so its your own opinions :tu:

A book is defined as a classic if it reaches a huge audience like Harry has while a seies like the Amelia Peabody hasn't the global audience Harry has

[the_azn_stinger]

I really never tried reading "classic" books. Perhaps it's because I wasn't forced to read :whistle:

Anyways, I really like reading modern-day books. They are the best! You want to know how many books I've read this summer? Over five. :)

For my list of recommended books.. Private Message me. ^_^

I also like reading internet news articles that interests me as well. :agree:

[hesdead-dealwithit]

How do you define a Classic?

Well, usually it's defined as something that stood the test of time (that's why, BTW, Orwell is usually considered a modern writer, not a classic one). I would believe in this definition but add to it - it has to both stand the test of time and provoke a variety of reactions ie Sherlock Holmes is not a classic but Shakespeare, or course, is.

Why are some books considered classics, while others are not?

Well, a book cannot really be considered a classic if it was written recently. Also, "low class" literature is almost never considered classic - which I consider unfortunate at times - what is important is the quality of the literature not the manner in which it is expressed.

[Kelpie]

I love both. Literature is pretty multi-dimensional as it reflects life itself. Not only the times in which it was written, but also the journey of literature itself. If it were not for the innovation of many classical writers, we might not have some of the brilliant literature we have today. It's constantly changing and re-shaping itself. Some stories date better than others of course.

[Mirtilla]

I love read book, When I read a book I don't pay attention if is a Classic or a Modern literature book. I have read platon but I also read Harry Potter(which is my favourite book,by the way) I also really love Jane Austen(pride and Prejudice, Emma or Persuasion), I read Charlotte Bronte(Jane Eyre) which is a classic however i have read also Orwell, and I like both of them.
I like also italian literature(probably because I'm italian, anyway) authors like Manzoni, Silone, Dante, Boccaccio, Petrarca etc. and these authors are very different from each other however I like them all.
If a book is a good book is always a good book even if it isn't a classic.
Bye
Mirtilla

[Classical_Wizar]

I don’t know I found that some books I just cant read whether it is a classic or modern book. I guess it depends on the books since I do enjoy some of the author's work but others put me to sleep.

[Classical_Wizar]

I don’t know I found that some books I just cant read whether it is a classic or modern book. I guess it depends on the books since I do enjoy some of the author's work but others put me to sleep.

[Wab]

Also, "low class" literature is almost never considered classic - which I consider unfortunate at times - what is important is the quality of the literature not the manner in which it is expressed.

Not really. Dickens was hugely popular and poplulist and consequently looked down upon. Likewise the theatre in Shakespeare's time was deemed horribly decadent adn although there are some playwrights of the era considered "better" he endured due to his popular success.

The best thing about great books is that the stories and messages hold. Hard Times is the best example I can recall at the moment.

[roz]

It is interesting to look at when a book becomes a classic too. I read an article the other day that was comparing classic childrens literature to modern stuff. They listed the Narnia books as classics. The Last Battle isn't even 50 years old yet.

Personally I think that there are only 2 questions that need to be asked when presented with a book. Is it well written and do I like the story?

I have read books that are "classics" for which the answer to both is no and the same is true of modern books that I have read.

Personally I have a tendancy to ignore both public opinion and critics. For example I don't the the Dark Materials books. I recognise that they are well written but I don't like them.

And now it is time for me to go back to reading Emma.

Roz.

[Kate Johnson]

If I like it, I'll read it. That's why I'm going to say that I don't prefer one over the other. I'm about to read Daphne Du Maurier's "Rebecca", but then I'll also read Bridget Jones, and of course, Harry Potter :D

[quietmind]

I have a bit of a hard time with classic literature, due mainly to the often older or archaic writing style. I prefer streamlined prose, and a lot of classic literature seems loaded with writing that's the equivalent of trying to get through a jungle.

Of course, there's plenty in more contemporary literature that qualifies as thick and/or convoluted as well :).

One of my favorite authors is Herman Wouk, who unfortunately isn't as well known as some of his contemporaries. His writing is streamlined, elegant and thought-provoking.

[Bouncing_Ferret]

I prefer classic literature, mostly eighteenth and nineteenth century stuff, because I'm just as interested in the historical context of the writing as I am in the story itself. The girly ones like Wuthering Heights and Pride & Prejudice are my stodgy comfort literature which I know I'll always keep going back to. Same with Dickens - so many people don't like him, but I love his work, such a funny fellow. I'm quite a keen Shakespeare fan as well (yep, big century switch there), though my favourite period for drama was the Restoration - so naughty! :p

I'm fond of a very few modern authors - Evelyn Waugh, Iris Murdoch, Daphne du Maurier and so forth I like. But really modern authors... erm, not too keen on them, excepting, of course, JKR. But now to answer the questions...

How do you define a Classic?
Something that has staying power. A reader must always be able to find relevance in a book, otherwise they simply won't be interested. So a book basically has to stand the test of time to become a classic. It should also be a book that can be re-read many times, and each time the reader ought to be able to gain something new from the experience. Personally, I like a book to give insight into an historical era or society, but I'm not sure that's such an enormous pre-requisite.

Why are some books considered classics, while others are not?
I suppose for the reasons I stated above, but mostly, just sheer luck. There are probably plenty of brilliant books out there that fully deserve to be canonised, but never got the chance. Events and changes in society will always influence a book's popularity, so a pretty dreadful book can be made very popular if the circumstances are right, while an absolutely great book can be completely forgotten because it doesn't exactly fit the current whims of society.

[Aranel]

I prefer modern literature, not to say that I don't enjoy the older classics such as Shakespeare and Austen, I just seem to get more enjoyment out of works of more recent times.
I do love Orwell and Wyndams 'The Chrysalids'. I also love Farenheit 451, Catcher in the Rye as well as 'Our Town' by Thornton Wilder. There are also numerous modern spec. fiction stories that I could read over and over.

[msmooney]

Just by way of clarification, what is the bound between "classic" and "modern" in literature? In history, "modern" typically means anything after the French Revolution, but a lot of the classics mentioned here were definitely written after 1789. Is there some kind of dividing line that could be agreed upon?

[morgan le fay]

Periods of British Literature
450-1066 Old English/Anglo-Saxon Period
1066-1500 Middle English Period
1500-1660 Renaissance (includes Elizabethan, Jacobean, Caroline, and Commonwealth Ages)
1660-1785 Neoclassical Period (includes Restoration, Augustan Age, and Age of Sensibility)
1785-1830 Romantic Period
1832-1901 Victorian Period
1901-1914 Edwardian Period
1910-1936 Georgian Period
1914-1945 Modern Period
1945-present Postmodern Period


Periods of American Literature
1607-1776 Colonial Period
1765-1790 Revolutionary Age
1775-1828 Early National Period
1828-1865 Romantic Period/American Renaissance/Age of Transcendentalism
1865-1900 Realistic Period
1900-1914 Naturalistic Period
1914-1939 American Modernist Period (includes Jazz Age, Harlem Renaissance, "Lost Generation")
1939-present Comtemporary Period

1950s Beat Writers
1960s-1970s Counterculture



I'd say that modern would most likely be considered anything from 1914 onward, in accordance with the British and American literary periods. So basically, anything from World War I and onward. :)

By definition, modern British writers would include WB Yeats, TS Eliot, James Joyce, Seamus Heaney, Virginia Woolf, DH Lawrence, and others. American modern writers would include Frost, Edith Wharton, Ernest Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Langston Hughes, Updike, Plath, Toni Morrison, and Maya Angelou. Depending who you ask, other writers who may be considered "canon" in modern American Lit are Grisham, Rice, and Amy Tan.

Sadly, in high school we studied mostly the canon classics, i.e. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Swift, Austen, Shelley, Dickens, James, Poe, Emerson, Thoreau, Twain, Hawthorne, Dickinson, Chopin. While I enjoy the works of most of these authors (excepting Emerson and Thoreau - wow what a pair of nutters!) we didn't get much into more "modern" writers so I can't say which I prefer more. I did enjoy Allende's House of the Spirits. I think that's one of the only "modern" works I've read besides JKR (who is not considered canon by a longshot), Fitzgerald, and Wharton.

[starutena]

Morgan- if you like reading books by "nutters" try reading A Hundred Years of Solitude by Garcia Marquez. A definately modern novel that is quite bizarre. Roll with it, it is so worth it.

When it comes to my preference concerning modern or classical works- I dont really have one. I like a ton of classical literature, but I also like modern literature as well. I also love sci-fi, some of which is "literature", like Asimov. It depends on how snooty one wants to be with the term "literature". Of course there are "classics" that I just can't stand, like Madame Bovary- oh how I wanted her to quit whinning and actually take responsibility for her life.

[Sorcha]

I like classic literature. I love the way things are described. Plus, I am a complete history buff, and literature of different periods really helps to understand what was going on and why people thought the way they did. :cool:

[roz]

We seem to be concentrating on English language authors? What about Dumas or Schiller? Or Böll or v. Horváth?

I particuarly enjoyed Horvath's Jugend Ohne Gott.

Roz.

[busy91]

When it comes to reading I prefer modern literature. I've read classics (Tolstoy, Dickens, Shakespeare, Austen) and they are interesting, but my old brain can't concentrate like it used to. I have to be in the mood for a classic. I find the era fasinating, but I also find our time just as fasinating.

[caindo]

I'm an AVID reader. It's an addiction. I'm rarely caught going anywhere w/o a book. However, I find that most of the books I read are more... modern? I suppose you could say. There are actually very few books I read that were written or published w/in the past 30 or so years (HP being an exception ;) ). I prefer reading things mostly from the 50s-60s. Any time before the 1950s just... loses my attention. I hated reading Jane Eyre. I hated the fact that it took 4 pages to describe a desk lamp. I think that I identify more w/ somewhat modern writers because I can understand the age at which their writing. Not like, AGE age. But time age. I'm a history geek and can easily understand what was going on in that period of time.
Modern writing has become too... cliche'. It's easy to predict what's going to happen in the novel. How many times have you picked up a book that you thought was going to be something new and exciting, and find that you've read something along the same lines just a few months back? No one seems as creative in this day and age.

[Ava]

I read both. Though times have changed and the manner of writing evolved, the purpose of writing (and reading) hasn't.
Life is always multi-dimensional and has never-ending details so there's still so much to write about. I'm always open-minded about anything -- be it past, present or future.:D

[Ginevra Weasley]

I'll read anything as long as it's interesting, irrespective of when it was written. I guess the thing we have to remember when comparing classics and modern literature is that the classics were the modern literature of their age.

That said, I think a modern writer who's defintely in the classic category is Gabriel Garcia Marquez- that man has a way with words, all right.

[Amina]

I think I'm sticking with what seems to be the norm on this thread in that I like what I like...

I love Shakespere and Marlow and a lot of the reformation Comedies (Farquhar etc, although he is a little Higher Brow as it were) because the former are just genius in their writing and structure, while the latter are brilliantly funny too. although Shakey makes me laugh...even some of the tragedies, especially Hamlet in places. Very witty.

I like Austen, mainly because I studied her, and some of the Bronte's, but otherwise I'm not very well versed in that 'classic' literature. A lot of my study has been more 'modern'. I love Iris Murdoch, Orwell, Steinbeck, Isabel Allende, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, J K Rowling (;)). Just lots of stuff I've read, really.

Could never get into Kerouac though...found him very hard to read. At the moment, all I seem to have time to read is textbooks...more's the pity. I miss reading for pleasure :(

EDIT: Typical me, never read the posts before hand before I post. Ginny, you love Marquez too? Excellent! I'm just reading Love in the Time of Cholera again...oh how that book makes me cry :(

I just thought of another author too...Louis de Bernieres (of Captain Correlli's Mandolin fame)...such a good writer and so much more 'surreal' than that one book. my favourite chapter in that is the Mussolini Point of View one :D

[thetwinsrock]

Unfortunately, I only read things that are uplifting and make me happy. So, I know I miss out on plenty of good literature. But, life is so depressing to me that I try and only read things that build me up. I love children's literature. I appreciate the classics, but most of what I read is more modern. I also enjoy a good biography.

[Amina]

I subscribe very much to Keats' theory - in order to understand true happiness, you must understand true sadness and melancholy.

I am not a depressive person by nature, but I do think that in reading material of that ilk you do form an understanding of that mind, and it does deepen your soul as a person too...I'm not sure if i'm making much sense...

[Alfonzo]

I like both modern and classic writing - in my opinion it is good to read a wide range of genres. Do you mean 'classic' in the truly classic sense, that is, very old literature, or classic as in the work of Dickens (for example)? I really enjoyed reading Oedipus Rex by Sophocles - it was a set text for Uni, and it is great! :D Has anyone else read and enjoyed it?