What from classic literature has aged well?

I'd say Edgar Allen Poe's works count as classic literature, and they've aged pretty well. And they form much of the basis of the genres of Mystery, Horror and (some might argue) Science Fiction. I mean, Conan-Doyle shameless ripped off two of his plots, for pete's sake.

Being a classic is in itself a testament to withstanding age, sooo...

I was personally blown away by the Illiad. When I first read it as a child and at high school, I didn't find it all that memorable or even strong. But now that I've been able to read the original text, I came to appreciate it. It's one of the most masterfully written passages I've read and it's a shame a lot of the subtler shades are lost in translation — not even modern Greek can capture the original text fully.

The Iliad is one where it is VERY important to get a good translation. Homer WAS a poet, after all. I believe the best recent (by which I mean in the last thirty years or so...that's recent as translations go)translation was actually done by a poet, whose name escapes me.

If you're going to read Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, for instance, try to get the translation done by JRR Tolkein. Trust me, he's got the right feel for it.

For me? Hrm... let me see.

Just off the top of my head, Dante's Inferno (Purgatorio started to lose me, and Paradiso was so dull I couldn't finish it... not sure if that says anything about me <.<), some Shakespeare (count me in as another Much Ado About Nothing fan ), Milton's Paradise Lost, the Odyssey and the Illiad, and, if 19th and 20th century authors are being allowed, just about anything by G. K. Chesterton (I don't think I've ever read another author with that kind of command of the English language), Edgar Rice Burroughs' marvelously pulpy Lost World and John Carter of Mars stories, and, if I might be allowed to stretch the definition of 'classical' a little, Alistair Maclean, the Master Storyteller.

For me, lessee... the Satyricon, Ovid's Metamorphoses, some Chaucer, Don Quixote, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Tristram Shandy, Goethe's Faust, much of Poe and Hawthorne's work, all of those. I still have yet to read The Turn of the Screw or Troilus and Cressida, but both intrigue me deeply.

A little less talked about, but William Blake's poetry is frequently delightfully twisted. "The Sick Rose", in particular, is a perfect gem of morbidity.

I love Burroughs myself, especially the John Carter stuff, but in my opinion anyhow it has definately NOT aged well...

Frankenstein is still one of my all-time favorite books.

Yeah, it is a really good book. Pity it has never been made into a film or a mini-series. There have been Frankenstein films, of course, but most of them haven't had more than a tangential relationship to the novel. Robert De Niro and Kenneth Branagah came pretty close but it had other problems than fealty to the book.

IMO, Danny Boyle's Frankenstein is the best adaptation we've ever had so far of the novel. Liberties are of course taken, but it actually stays true to the spirit and themes of the source material.

The most interesting thing about Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, to me, is the mutually destructive relationship between Victor and the Creature. 99% of adaptations completely missed the point and put too much focus on either the Monster or Frankenstein himself.

Forget about the Gothic horror trappings, let's return Frankenstein to its root as the first science fiction novel. I think a modern, Sherlock-style adapation of Frankenstein could work really well, especially when taken into context our current generations' fear of the Robopocalypse. Instead of a grotesque monster unfairly ostracized for his appearance, ADAM is an AI driven into misanthropy by humanity's own irrational hatred and fear towards any kind of synthetic intelligence. The Victor/ADAM relationship will be extensively developed, as the book's central theme still holds true to this day: Please, take responsibility for your shit.

edited 26th Aug '14 6:36:19 AM by Nightwire

Shakespeare ran on Diabolus ex Machina, definitely. Tropes Are Not Bad, at least not inherently, and while the tragedies in many cases could have been averted without a cruel twist of fate or the antagonist having a run of good luck, that's true to life all the time. How close did Gavrilo Princip come to failing to assassinate Franz Ferdinand, possibly sparing the world from World War I?

Don Quixote has aged horribly. It's full of references and parodies that very few modern readers will get, there's no plot structure of note, and it basically meanders for a very long time without developing its characters beyond its initial premise.

@apathice -

Hell yeah, high five mate!

*Is a massive Dostoyevsky fanboy*

Along with Tristram Shandy, Don Quixote may have invented every trope in the postmodernist playbook before the Romantic period that the high moderns were reacting to was even conceived. It has aged better as a commentary on the power of fiction and deception than many a novel less than a century old.

^^^But couldn't you argue that it's aged well because it's outlived all the works it was parodying, and is enjoyable to read in itself?

edited 26th Aug '14 11:18:08 PM by Yuanchosaan

Except, if you're not a medieval scholar, and your copy of the book doesn't come with lots and lots of footnotes, you're not going to understand what the characters are talking about a lot of the time.

Even granting that questionable premise, it's still aged poorly. Most of the book is made up of either random encounters or completely tangential stories being told by some other character in the story. The central premise of the story has aged very well, but the actual text spreads it far too thin, doesn't explore it very deeply, and lacks coherence. There's an entire chapter that exists basically just to name-drop other books that were famous at the time as the Don's friends burn them. Modern audiences aren't even familiar with most of the tropes that the book spends its time mocking.

That's like arguing I can't enjoy Foucault's Pendulum because I don't understand all the conspiracy references, or Cosmicomics because I'm only familiar with modern science. I can't read Suetonius because we've lost the context of the other historical works written at the time and I don't study Roman history. Expert knowledge isn't exclusive to classics, nor do I find it necessary for enjoyment of the text.

The question is not "do we appreciate this work precisely as its contemporary audience did?" - of course we do not! The question is "has the book aged well?", and these classics are the ones many readers still remember, find value in, and enjoy. The first time I read 1984, I was chilled. I had never read such a novel before. I don't think I understood the novel fully until I read Orwell's Diaries, essays and other works, and studied the history of that period. Despite that, the book had undeniable power. Each book may begin to date as soon as it is published; those which have aged well are the ones that affect us despite the loss of some references.

When I first looked at this thread, I thought of writing about serialised novels and how the problems of that form, or possibly what I see as weaknesses in Jane Eyre's proto-feminism and plot. Yet I know people still find value in that classic today. Many people find Romantic poetry overwrought; I adore it for the beauty of its language. This question is so very subjective. I can strive to think of a classic which is associated strongly with one zeitgeist, to the extent where it says nothing but communicate that context...but I am sure it will still speak to some people now.

On an aside note, I think it's a terrible attitude to decide a book is inaccessible to the modern reader. When I read old books (and yes, I've read Don Quixote and enjoyed it), part of the joy is learning about its context and references. I enjoy reading around works. We live in a wonderful age for it, with a concordance for every work a few keystrokes away.

edited 27th Aug '14 10:03:34 AM by Yuanchosaan

And the answer is no, for precisely the reasons I've explained. Appealing to subjectivity is a dead-end for the discussion; just coming in and saying "But I like it" holds no analytically value. If you can't say that a work has aged poorly because somebody might still be enjoying it then you can't say that it has aged well either because somebody might not be enjoying it. Let's avoid doing that.

Acknowledging reality is not "a terrible attitude". A book that requires outside sources to understand is, by definition, not very accessible. Just because you enjoy doing outside research to understand a classic novel does not mean that it should be considered by all as a reasonable prerequisite. Divorcing a work from its purpose as an entertaining piece of fiction in its own right is also a rabbit hole best not ventured down, or we can start saying that a book hasn't aged poorly because it can still be stood on when we need to reach a higher shelf.

You did not "prove" the book has aged poorly in any way. You pointed out what you see as structural problems with Don Quixote - with no proof that those are due to the time period it is written in. From what you've written, my interpretation would be that it's just a bad novel, regardless of time period.

This is why this question is subjective: everyone has a different definition of what "ageing well" means. Your definition and mine are incompatible.

If a modern book is obscure, this does not necessarily make it a bad book. My point was these books hold value despite not being fully accessible. Why shouldn't the same hold with classics?

edited 27th Aug '14 7:14:09 PM by Yuanchosaan

First off, I never used the word "prove". Second, both of the problems I've pointed out with the book can be attributed to its time period. The dated references are obvious. The structural problems can easily be attributed to the fact that novels were not a developed form of writing at the time.

My definition strives to separate personal preferences from more broadly accepted concerns. The entire concept of a book having "aged poorly" is an exploration of the expectations of modern audiences versus the expectations of the work's contemporary audience. The inability so separate a book that has aged poorly from one that is simply bad is an aspect of your definition, since it roots itself entirely in you subjective values.

Lack of accessibility and dated aspects are things that people criticize modern works for as well. Shows like Family Guy and South Park are often noted to not translate well to audiences that aren't familiar with modern American culture and issues. A modern book that heavily relies on specific niche knowledge to understand will generally be noted as being for niche audiences. Disney has recently thrown out the entirety of the Star Wars EU because they recognize that general audiences won't tolerate an Episode 7 that requires familiarity with decades of convoluted EU continuity.

I agree with this definition; I disagree with the idea that you can objectively judge Don Quixote.

I understand your argument to be this:

• 1) Don Quixote has dated references.
• 2) Dated references decrease the quality of the work.
• 3) Don Quixote has structural problems.
• 4) The structural problems decrease the quality of the work severely (in your words, "aged horribly").
• 5) These structural problems are characteristic of the time period it was written in, and are not a stylistic characteristic of Cervantes' work.

Correct me if I have misunderstood. I disagree with you on points 2-5. With #4, I find it curious that you believe your opinion of the work is objective. I found the meandering and the characterisation effective in furthering Cervantes' aim to satirise knight-errant fiction, which is a stylistic choice that does not decrease the quality of the work. Is the argument that the episodic nature of the earlier chapters no longer appeals to a modern audience?

This discussion reminds me of the debates about Hamlet. The play is problematic in structure, the transition into some of the speeches can be jarring, Hamlet's character can be seen as lacking in heroism or inconsistent in character. Some conclude that due to these factors, the play has aged horribly. Others focus on what they see are valuable aspects of Hamlet: the soliloquies themselves, Hamlet's existentialism, the wit, the language, which have aged well and had an immense impact on modern literature. There are objective features to discuss; the subjectivity comes from weighing which affects the quality of the work more. In Don Quixote, I value the enduring philosophy of the second volume and the farcical humour of the first, which I believe are unaffected by the points you've made. Your view, as I understand it, is that these points have dated Don Quixote to such a degree that it can no longer be considered a good work.

Spreading the premise "too far thin" is an opinion that amounts to "I got bored before the book was over". That's like saying it hasn't aged well because it's too long for the modern reader's 15-second attention span. I vehemently disagree with the second assertion in the same sentence and do not understand the basis for the third.

Part of the hilarity of that scene is the fact that they are burning "dangerous books" that were ultimately almost inconsequential. Historical perspective makes it better.

Finally, the underlying satire of the entire book is the ludicrousness of the idea that reading too many books could lead to someone losing touch with reality. If that is no longer a relevant trope for you... I wish I lived in your universe.

Noaqiyeum expresses my disagreements with your list of structural problems well. A lot of the issues you see I would attribute to the novel being an episodic farce, rather than the time period. It makes as much sense to me as criticising Wodehouse's characters for being static and his plots lacking in depth.

This is your hang-up, not mine. As I've already pointed out, saying that a book has aged poorly is a statement that there is a difference in how a modern audience receives a work versus how an historical audience does. It's your conceit that you can argue a position as being objectively right by stating subjective opinions.

Meanwhile, I'll point out that none of the last decade's major hit novel series either A)relied on an intimate knowledge of four hundred year-old pop culture or B) had Don Quixote's lack of structure. These aren't things that I have to rely on my subjective opinions for. They're readily observable traits of modern literary expectations.

Episodic storytelling usually aims to tell a complete story in each individual installment. That's not the same thing as a story that has no structure. Don Quixote is neither neatly divided into stories with individual arcs with proper resolutions of their own, nor do its parts constitute a whole with such.

The "modern reader" seems fully content to maintain their attention span over lengthy series of books that take a decade or more to release. Even Twilight fans managed to consume more words than Don Quixote, many of them multiple times. Sitting through a book that is simply long is no great intellectual feat to be patting yourself on the back for. Plodding on like a recurring Saturday Night Live sketch that only has one joke being repeated ad infinitum is no great thing for a work to aspire to.

I have no problem abandoning a book that simply isn't delivering. I've read enough genuinely great fiction not to have to bother with the fallacy of thinking that there's something noble in putting up with a boring story.

I don't believe this, but I see this is what you are doing. What you have said about Don Quixote are not objective flaws.

Edit: my understanding of what it means for a classic to have aged poorly:

• The work must have had merit when it was published.
• It no longer has merit for a modern audience, or is at least highly diminished.
• The reason it no longer has merit is due to characteristics of the work which can be attributed to the time period it was written in.

I feel we are agreeing on this premise - but I don't think you've provided objective judgement for the latter two points, and thus I disagree with your conclusions.

edited 28th Aug '14 1:04:30 AM by Yuanchosaan