I need some advice.
I’m not quite sure how to read classic SF. You know the stuff that was groundbreaking with its expanse of ideas that hadn’t even been considered yet? But it was also the stuff that was very likely sexist, had cardboard characters, was completely lacking women or POC, used what we consider now to be hack tools (eg “looking in a mirror to describe the protag”), and may have protags that are total jerks.
I couldn’t finish The Stars My Destination, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever or the Book of the New Sun. I can’t root for a rapist protagonist. And I really wanted to read Stars and New Sun.
Recently I couldn’t finish Earth Abides (despite the wonderful intro by one of my favorite authors of all time, Connie Willis.) I got bored and annoyed with the elitist, “It’s the end of the world, but I’m CERTAINLY not going to hang out with whores and drunks,” attitude of the protagonist. And WTF is up with mentioning that a woman is “young enough” in her description, and leaving it at that?
For the record, this is embarrassing for me to write. It’s hard being a SF writer and not only admitting you haven’t read a classic work, but that you tried and didn’t think it was “all that” – especially when people you respect and admire tell you that it’s the best thing ever. And you don’t need to argue with me how the books redeem themselves past the problems I had- I’ve read synopses, I’ve read critiques about themes, it’s not like I’m in the dark about the redeeming qualities of these books.
My problem is: how can I appreciate the classics when I run into such painful roadblocks like this? It’s hard to read things I’m not enjoying, even for academic purposes.
Suggestions?
[Edit- comments are now closed. The comments have gone into unhelpful areas and I'm not eager to continue the conversation. Thanks to everyone who gave me something to think about.]
Share and Enjoy!
11 Responses to My Problem With Classics
Subscribe!
ISBW Endorsed Programs
New from the Murverse- ISBW Special #46 – Stonecoast Writer’s Residency January 31, 2012
- ISBW #230 – Feedback January 30, 2012
- Short Story Alert- Gimme Shelter January 27, 2012
I had a hard time with the Covenant books, too. I read the first one and thought I’d never bother with the second. I’ve got to say, though, that the second book changed my mind. Covenant is a lot more than just “a rapist” The later books do a really good job of exploring and humanizing the experience of someone who must grapple with having made a terrible, terrible mistake that he cannot undo or make up, and must go forward in his life regardless. I had a hard time rooting for him for a long time, too, but I for me it wasn’t really necessary. I also get that I’m a dude, which might change it a bit. Honestly, given the somewhat hysterical “you’re male so you’re a potential rapist” B.S. I had to deal with in my civic sexual education there was something very satisfying about Covenant.
But I digress.
It also sounds like your experience with the classics of SF is similar to my wife’s experience with the Lord of the Rings – you want to like it, but you just can’t get through it, though her problem was more stylistic. Nobody’s got a real POV in that book :-/.
I’ve had to grapple with a similar problem with non-genre classics. For example, I thought Jane Austen was categorically (*gasp!*) freaking boring and I thought Tess of the D’urbervilles was boring and disorganized. This is from someone who was not categorically unimpressed by stuff I had to read in high school. I feel no shame in holding these opinions, no matter how beloved these authors and books may be.
Anyway, I don’t see any shame in not reading what you don’t want to read. As you’ve said before, it’s much more important to stay abreast with the modern genre than it is to be educated in its history. It seems to me that a modern retake on a classic theme – or a modern story that unwittingly revives a classic theme – is much more likely to be successful than a modern retake on a story that came out last year.
I have a higher degree in Mathematics, and I can say with confidence (in so far as my opinion is concerned) that the only reason to study the classics in any field is so that you can discuss them academically. If you don’t plan on having serious academic discussions, don’t worry about it. If you think you may on occasion, then just go in knowing your bluffing or playing the weak hand (my preference, honesty in your shortcomings is always best).
That said, I agree with you. I find reading anything over 40-50 years old to be torturous. A friend of mine assured me that Asimov’s Foundation series transcended time. It didn’t. I could mention some of the complaints you made about the characters, but as someone who’s trained in science, I found the science to be absurd. The underlying premises were all based on “ancient”, i.e. pre-chaos theory, scientific thinking. The entire time I read the book, all I could think was the foundation of this story is ludicrous. I finished it, but I didn’t waste my time going on to the next one.
I agree with Mark above. There is no shame in reading what you want to read.
Even when those books came out, I’ll bet there were people who didn’t like them, and probably for more or less the same reasons.
I suspect that those who think those books are so awesome are all….well, white men and it doesn’t always occur to them to have the mental red flags come up. If someone was going around raping the white male heroes in these books, would they be classics?
I have almost always disliked “classic” books of any genre, though. And of course, I was an English major. I didn’t like most of what I read, I was there for the creative writing classes
I have decided that I just don’t care, though. I don’t HAVE to like a book just because it is a “classic.” I am no longer in school. It’s not required of me to like or enjoy something I don’t like and am not being forced to read anyway. You can read a synopsis and have a general idea these days without dragging yourself through anything that reminds you of the OH JOHN RINGO NO books.
Science fiction, as a genre, doesn’t age well. I can’t read Ray Bradbury with any enthusiasm, other than Dandelion Wine which isn’t really SF. Asimov is hard for me to read now. In part it’s the outdated science and concepts and in part, as has been pointed out, the cardboard characters and male-dominated plots. I could read them as part of a course intended to trace the development of SF, but not for pleasure.
Some authors are also overrated, and not just in SF. Back in the day Mark Twain is said to have said, “I’d rather spend a week in John Calvin’s Hell than to read a novel by Mr. Henry James.” Seconded.
It’s possible that if we strip away the filter of nostalgia for a genre we love, that right now, today, is the real golden age of science fiction and fantasy. With so many creative writers honing their craft and improving their skills, I think many of them are better, and more interesting, writers than those of the past. So read what you really enjoy.
I have to agree with Chon Go. Reading the classics isn’t that important to the everyday writer. If you think the ideas are important there are many websites that will give you outlines. Try Wikipedia. The Cliff Note versions are fine for picking up ideas and trends.
I’m old enough that I read many of the classics when they were published. Even then, I couldn’t hack Thomas Covenant. It was written with all the subtlety of a chain saw massacre. Many of the other books simply detailed the mores of the times. I recently tried to go back and read some of the old Edgar Rice Burroughs books that I enjoyed as a teen. I now find them so silly as to be absurd.
On the other hand, If you can’t abide the elitist attitudes, you might consider how elitist it is to judge other times and societies by current social standards.
I’m going to offer one other view point on classics (this could be any genre) that I haven’t seen mentioned above.
First, some background – I am currently going through classic reading period of my own, trying to make it through a “college-bound” reading list my high school English teacher gave us years ago. And I’ve enjoyed all I’ve read so far (about 7), but for only one reason (and this is the point): They break me out of my filter bubble (Google TED talk by Eli Pariser on the subject)
They give me a chance to see how views have changed over time and whether I am writing too much within my own comfort zone. How much of what I believe/care about/philosophize/justify/like is based only the on the fact that I haven’t pushed myself to read/see/experience things I wouldn’t normally choose?
That said, I would not make the case that classics should be read for this reason alone, especially if there is not enough worthwhile to overcome the crap that is slapping you in the face.
Do you watch classic films? As a horror/zombie movie podcaster/soon-to-be-selling-books-about-the-subject-guy, I watch a lot of “classic” cinema in addition to contemporary films. (Hmmm . . . perhaps “classic” isn’t the best word to describe some of the older films I watch . . . anyway . . . )
When I watch a film from a different era, I try to keep in mind that the language of filmmaking was different back then. The tools, the industry, the definition of the genre – they’re all different. In an upcoming episode of our Hammer Films podcast, we talked about how Hammer Film Studios of the 50s and 60s was a machine, cranking out movies left and right at an unbelievable schedule and how today that just wouldn’t happen with a major studio due to how the industry works today (two years of development, one year of production, another for special effects and editing, etc. vs. Hammer’s crank-’em-out-every-six-months approach).
This can sometimes lead to some awkward movie-watching. However, when I keep in mind that not only the industry but the society using that industry was in such a different place, watching movies from the 1940s like King of the Zombies or Revenge of the Zombies becomes easier despite the performance of Mantan Moreland. (Moreland was a character actor known for stereotypical “black” performances in these and other films of the era, speaking in broken English, being generally cowardly, etc. His characters are definitely non-PC and borderline offensive by today’s standards, to be sure, but keeping in mind the era in which this kind of performance was not only accepted but praised by the industry and the audiences at the time.)
It takes some work to put myself in that mindset sometimes, though, and admittedly, I don’t always “enjoy” a movie like this the way I might enjoy a movie made specifically during my generation, for my generation, etc. But I find it endlessly interesting and fascinating to look at these films in this manner.
As for literature, I imagine a similar pseudo-scholarly approach could be taken. I read a lot of Robert E. Howard, who certainly had some beliefs of his own that might not fly these days, but for his time – the 20s and 30s – he created some fantastic fiction (and not just the Conan stories!). Or to go back to horror, when we actually read the original “Dracula” or “Frankenstein” or any of the classics, we have to keep in mind where the writers were writing “from.”
You mentioned “Earth Abides” – it’s a classic of the post-apocalyptic genre . . . and when you remember when it was written, who was writing it and what was important to the society publishing/consuming the book when it was released, it can become more than “just a classic book.” It becomes a piece of literary-archaeology-sociology.
Which may or may not be important as to why you’d want to read it. For my horror podcast projects (Mail Order Zombie, 1951 Down Place and my occasional appearances on the B-Movie Cast) and a zombie book project on deck for next year, it is important to me to know the “origins” of these classic and not-so-classic films. But as someone who just likes to watch movies? That can get in the way sometimes.
I’ll disagree with those who say that the only reason to read the classics is for academic discussion. That’s like saying you don’t need Darwin to discuss evolution.
At least in science fiction, the classics are where contemporary stories come from – the themes, the concepts, the boundaries (to be broken: can’t break one if you don’t know where it is), yes, even the stereotypical characters.
If nothing else, classic SF defines the tools the contemporary author uses. You can build a shed or a mansion – you still need hammer and nails.
This is an ongoing discussion that I’ve been having with various and sundry for at least the past five years. In some respects the disconnect seems to come down to two basic issues: sensibility and education.
In terms of the latter; many ‘younger’ folks are loathe to watch anything black and white (original Outer Limits, for example) even though it is possible to make a case that the writing itself was excellent. This is largely because they lack an education in HOW to watch classic TV (or film – and I venture to guess that this bleeds over to reading as well); they have no background for appreciating the lighting techniques that substituted for color, nor for the concept of visual foreshadowing, nor even for using their own imaginations to ‘fill in the blanks’. Their experience is one in which color(s) inform and foreshadow, everything is revealed (remember the sensation that Cloverfield caused by NOT showing the creature in full? Old technique updated for a modern audience.) With all of that passing the viewer by, it is no wonder the story appears to be flat, slow and boring.
Sensibility is something else entirely. Can you read Huck Finn without cringing? If not, then you’ve gone the ‘glass half empty’ route of sensibility. Unsuccessfully, I’ve suggested that folks read works that bother them in this respect to celebrate those things that take them out of the story as points of departure for their own writing. (Since Asimov’s science was so wrong – how could Foundation be written now? What could you do with story X as told by a non-whitebread male?)
The fallback position is to read this stuff like one watches Plan 9 From Outer Space: with a knowing smile, prepared to laugh and ENJOYING the disconnects as an affirmation that things have gotten better.
I’m not a classics reader either. One of those 100 top classics lists to read came out, and I was something like under 15 — all of them read in school. But after I read an author who was chiding a beginning writer for not knowing the classics as an essential part of the craft, I tried again.
I read quite a few and was so bored by all of them that it was easy for me to put down the book and forget it. I wasn’t enjoying reading while I was reading them — just felt like I was doing homework again. I do more or less understand why I don’t enjoy them, though. Classics tend to be character studies, and I like plot-driven fiction. If there isn’t enough plot for me — classic or modern — it’s a struggle for me to stay engaged. Even trying to put in the perspective of time doesn’t help me with enjoying them. I may try looking at the next one from the writing perspective. In the intro to Nosfertu, the editor noted that the author was often overlooked for his description. The book does have great description, which I enjoyed, even if I had trouble following the rest of the book.
I think this conversation says more about us than about the classics. As Derek mentioned these works were written in a different era. We are capable of reading the Odyssey and separating out the crazy viewpoints of two thousand years ago but are either unwilling or incapable of doing the same with things that were written 50 years ago. Early SF was a male dominated genre in a a male dominated world.
We need to be the ones who can contextualize these books and accept them for what they are. Are they sexist? Absolutely! Is there clunky writing? Yup! You do not read Popular Mechanics because you are looking for exquisite prose. You don’t read Asimov looking for it either. You go to the classics for the ideas. And they are there. You go for Clarke’s satellites, Asimov’s robots, Heinlein’s introduction of Military Scifi.
Understand, we are the elitist. We place expectations on others to understand and conform to our worldviews and then properly display them in their works. That is on us, not on them.
Personally, I cannot stand Thomas Covenant. But I can appreciate the moral dilemmas of a true anti-hero and appreciate it for what it is. I read through the classics and struggle through the bad dialogue and horrible pacing and flawed worldviews and … But when I read through them I recognize them for what they are. I am the one that must remove myself and my worldview and explore this writer’s world.