"The Classics"

My opinion on "The Classics" is as follows:

Literature is like human beings. It's relevant and up-to date when it's written, and gets better with age, up to a point. Some literature enhances the human condition, like some people do. For example, Hitler was an example of what not to do, while Obama will be an example of what we CAN do. These writings will become immortalized, just like worthwhile people. But after a certain point, just like people, most literature becomes less and less effective and up-to-date, and should eventually die simply because it is pointless to have it around anymore, just like people. Yet somehow, some people feel the need to continue to promote worthless and poorly-written literature simple because "It's a classic." The classics are the classics because they're the classics, not because they are any good. And just like people, if we keep worthless and ineffective writings around, people will eventually become so sick of them as to not ever want to see them ever again. This is the entire principle behind AP English. It belives that we should all go back to the 1800s when sexual repression was fun and suicide was in vogue. This God-be-damned class has forever raped in my mind "The Classics" and branded them as something I wish to never-ever see ever again. If I ever see another poem about death or sexual depravency, I will probably kill the person forcing it on me. Out of a unit of 24 poems (Ironically titled "Poetic Excellence"), 22 of them were about either death, sexual depravence, or suicide. I will forever hate the man known as John Donne because, quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about the fact he never had enough sex. If he was so depressed about it he should have just killed himself then and saved me from the torture of having to read his poems. And, in an even larger dose of irony, the book we use considers him "One of the most effective and timeless writers in history." Please, please take me away from this book before I burn it.

That is all, carry on.

tl;dr



:DD

I totally read it and OH GOD I SO TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU!

Also, Shakespeare should only be read when translated into modern English.

I think everything should only be read in modern english.

Agreed. What is the point of reading something if you don't understand what is trying to be said or you have to consult a translation every few seconds.

I actually really enjoyed Shakespeare once I got 'No Fear Shakespeare.' Although I still am not a huge fan of Romeo and Juliet. Romeo is a whiny girly-man. Hamlet is a whiny girly-man with AWESOME.

*can't really agree since his best story is written in shakespearean language*
But then again, I just love Shakespearean-esque literature
And Edgar Allan Poe. If anyone ever translates The Masque Of The Red Death into modern english, I'm going to die a little inside.
I just have a dislike of converting excellent novels and plays, into an unimaginative, somewhat 'dumbed-down' piece. I flipped out when holding two copies of Bram Stoker's Dracula, one with around 350 pages, the other with like 25 pages. That just hurts me on a moral level.
Well, i'ma go back to reading The Call Of Cthulhu now ^_^

Romeo was a wuss and Juliet had no spine. >_> Actually, I think her over-enlarged breasts just collapsed her spine.

Dracula was a good novel, I don't think that really qualifies as true "Old English" though. Which was probably why i liked it.

I'm still trying to find "Done with Donne" for you.

(I did enjoy A Midsummer Night's Dream, though. Especially with Puck's last line "I am sent, with broom before, to sweep the dust before the door." Our class was reading it aloud and we had taken it outside, so Puck had a dirt floor to sweep! )

I don't think 'dumbed down' is the right word for No Fear Shakespeare. I think 'understandable' is more like it. If people want to read it in the original language, more power to them, but don't make kids read things they clearly don't understand. Why do we need to learn old-english anyway? It's very name insinuates that it's outdated and unlike history, we can't really learn anything from it. It's like teaching kids to use slide-rules instead of calculators: pointless.

But yet, taking a Shakespeare play and going from 130 to 35 pages makes it lose a lot. That's why No Fear Shakespeare is the same amount of pages, just translated.

Agreed.

(because I just blacked out and don't feel like writing more)

I really enjoy Poe's works, even if I have to re-read a few lines just to make sure I get what he is saying and that I have an understanding of it. But the thing is, his stories are relatively short, I dont think there is many over 10 pages, and though hard to read, they are short and you can dedicate that time to them While shakespear is 300 some pages and I can read a modern book, 300 pages, in less than a day but will be hung up on Shakespear for a week. When I read, I have to have a full understanding of what the writter is saying, I dont like to guess what a word means, so it does take me extrondenarily long.

But once you have read several of them and have started to learn how the language has evolved over the years (and centuries) it gets easier to understand them.

(Along with getting easier to spot what is wrong with sentences like "Kindly waiteth for the hostess." lol )

At least Shakespeare is amusing some of the time. My attitude is that if it doesn't contribute something to my worldview or make me happier, I don't want to read it. XD