"A Case Against Reading the Classics" by Cassandra Neace

Neace makes a couple of good points, contemporary fiction has always been wildly popular no matter the time period and there are plenty of people who have trouble reading “Classic” literature because they don’t necessarily know how to read it, but there are many things she writes that I disagree with.

“Four-letter words are more entertaining.”  There are plenty of people who disagree with this.  Sometimes sex and swearing in books is really just distracting and does nothing to further the plot or develop the character.  Often writers seem to include them for the sake of having them in the story, rather than for any literary purpose.  They have a character shout out a curse word when something goes wrong because ‘it’s realistic’ when not having the character say anything would be just as effective.

And let’s be honest: there’s plenty of sex in Classic literature.  Many of them, yes, were poetic about it, and for many it happened “off-stage”, but it was all over the place.  Lots of cheating on spouses and illegitimate children, reputations ruined and marriages destroyed because someone had extra-marital sex.  And there’s a surprising amount of explicit erotica from over the years as well (sex blogs have nothing on some of these writers).

“They [modern writers] are open about things in a way that would have been scandalous hundreds of years ago. They confront their demons, and, in doing so, make readers feel as though they can do the same. It is easier to be inspired by a familiar situation.”  

Neace also reminds us that there are seven basic plots that writers have been using over and over, and I am the last person who would ever suggest that someone can’t tell the same story again in their own unique voice, but to suggest that a reader cannot connect to a piece of literature that explores the same themes as a modern novel because it doesn’t address the same exact issue a modern reader is dealing with is absurd.  A modern reader who has moved to a new area staggeringly different from where he or she is from is still going to be able to get something out of The Witch of Blackbird Pond; someone struggling with his or her identity (no matter what that includes) is still going to be able to understand Pierre Bezukhov and Natasha Rostova while they try to figure out their place in the world; a kid being betrayed by a friend for the first time is going to be able to identify with Catherine Moreland discovering that there are people who don’t have other’s best interests at heart; a mischievous youth is going to root for Tom Sawyer and the youngest of four sisters is absolutely going to understand why Amy throws Jo’s book in the fire and that she was wrong to do it. 

Just as there are only seven or so plots in literature there are only so many themes being written about; and the reason a book becomes a Classic in the first place is because it explores one or more of these universal themes.  Just because a book isn’t about a teen lost in the underbelly of society, a world of sex, drugs, cutting and eating disorders doesn’t mean a person in similar circumstances won’t be able to identify with a character who drinks tea with her overbearing aunt or is the governess to some really snotty children or a girl who stole the shoes of a dead woman after she killed her with her house.  These stories may have been written many years ago by writers who never heard of television, computers or the Internet, but what they’ve written about has been the same for thousands of years.

“Women’s lib and civil rights made the literary landscape more interesting.”

And what she means by this is the Dead White Males aren’t the only ones writing anymore.  And what Neace writes is true: the disenfranchised, non-whites, and women often didn’t have a voice in Western Literature and it wasn’t until the 17th century or so that women were writing and by the 19th century some minorities were getting their stories told in America (did you know the first best seller written in America was by a black woman?).

But this doesn’t mean DWMs weren’t able to tell stories of the poor or minority.  Thomas Hardy wrote about a girl who was raped (in a time when “rape” didn’t exist) by her cousin, had his baby and even though it died, poor babe, she was unable to avoid the stigma that went along with her situation.  She was considered ‘promiscuous’ and was burdened with shame of it for the rest of her life.  (How much has society really changed?)  Nathaniel Hawthorne (who lamented the “scribbling women” writers of his time) wrote a story about a woman ostracized for committing adultery and the years she spends quietly outside society raising her daughter, bearing her punishment for her crimes while the man involved is never publicly punished, but punishes himself in secret. (Ok, so that one is more about the Puritans than it is women’s issues, but stil...)  Harriet Beecher Stowe set out to be somewhat objective-yet-heavily-abolitionist in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, people hate this book, but she shows all types:good and bad white people and good and bad slaves.  John Steinbeck is considered “the Classics” and all his books seem to be about the poor underclass, both displaying and glorifying their lives and times.

Also: what is considered Classic is constantly changing.  Society and academics alike have moved on from the “traditional” English and American literary canon and have broadened their horizons.  ”Classic” literature has begun to include more women and not white authors as time moves on and the number of books that “stand the test of time” has grown larger and is pulling from a more diverse field.

Most authors will never have their works labeled under “Classics”.  Many of those authors will be read and enjoyed by their contemporaries.  Many of their novels will be thoroughly helpful to readers going through the same struggles as the characters in their books, this is true just as Neace writes, but these same readers are also capable of reading something off the “Classics” shelf, identifying with the characters and situations on the pages and learning a little about life and human nature and themselves.

But all of this is irrelevant when you realize Neace’s actual thesis isn’t “Don’t Read the Classics”, but “Forcing books on readers before they’re ready for them is just going to turn them off reading”.  This seems to be the real point Neace wants to make and is a real issue English teachers and parents ought to be addressing.  You’ll survive life if you never read Silas Marner, but it wouldn’t it be nice if people weren’t turned off of it simply because it’s old?