Classics

[in_the_attic]

Hello!

I have a rather odd question: Does anyone else find reading classics easier to read than reading contemporary fiction, young-adult, or anything modern? I can relate to the characters better in a classics, the stories seem more realistic, and every time I try to read something new, I end up throwing the book away, especially young-adult books. The situations just don't seem real.

It'd be nice to know if anyone else is like this! :)

-In_the_Attic

Comments

[holyschist]

There was a lot of badly written low-reading-level dreck in children's literature (what now is called juvenile/middle-grade and young adult, since the categories got split) all along. But the stuff that's stood the test of time and is still in print tends to be the good stuff. So comparing that (and I'm currently binging on Rosemary Sutcliff) to the average YA on the shelf now...well, the stuff now looks poorly written, simplistic, and simplified. I'm sure there's still some stuff there that'll be classics 50 years from now (and not necessarily the popular stuff like Hunger Games or Harry Potter, which have fine qualities but comparable reading level to some of the older stuff is not one of them), but it's hard to find it.

Classics aren't representative of the times they were written in--they're the best and most popular stuff that people thought was worth keeping in print. So if you like your reading preselected for quality, and you like the themes and styles found in classic lit, those are great reasons to read it.