Eliminatus said:
I have made so many attempts to get into the "classics". I promise I have. For decades now. I feel like it is a rite of passage basically as a self proclaimed "reader". Aside from the ones I was forced to read and CMC, I have rebounded off of pretty much all of them though. Hard. I finally decided last year to just give it up and admit that they are not for me and that that is ok after all. Still stings though for some damn reason.
count me as someone who generally find the classics as overrated.
I know that sounds flippant or makes me sound like ass but it kind of makes sense. "The Classics" serve a good foundation for new authors to build upon. If the classics were still the best thing written, that'd be pretty sad and boring. Writing improves as time goes on.
You can see this with individual authors on a smaller scale. When my wife looks back at some of her earlier books, she see things that she would do differently if she were to write the same book today. But that's okay. Each book is a product of the time, place, and mindset of the author when it is written. It doesn't mean that writing will always be great or relevant and that's natural.
It kind goes with the concept that there are limited amount of stories. In 1895 George Polti wrote a book called
The Thirty-Six Dramatic Situations. He said there are only 36 different types of stories/plots/dramatic situations and every single play, performance, book, story, etc. falls into one of those categories. Authors just write one of those 36 updated for their situation, time, place, etc.