Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

Sarah has a post regarding a list of classic books which has begun to float around the blogosphere. She and Tim and I are in agreement: Hogwash! (Can you say that on the internet?)

I have read 23 books on the list of 101. Some months ago I decided I hadn’t read enough of the “classics” and so, my education suffered. I’ve found that not to be the case. In fact, lists like this one are, I’m convinced, made up by someone with a PhD in Literature. Or by someone trying to get their PhD in Literature. I love literature, but can’t imagine why anyone would need a PhD in that field. Is there really any research value to be found there? Isn’t literature about appreciating the way an author turns a phrase? How does dissecting an author’s phychological makeup add to his writing? The fact that Oscar Wilde was homosexual is irrelevant to whether Picture of Dorian Gray is a good book. A book is either good, or it isn’t. If the author had three eyes and one leg doesn’t make a difference.

To me, “classic” means “timeless”. There are several books on this list which fail that criterion. Candide is a favorite story of mine, but I don’t consider it classic because it is satire written for the times. Unless you have good knowledge of the culture of Europe at the time, it can be difficult to catch all the little barbs Voltaire put in it. So, publishers add footnotes. They allow me to appreciate the story, but detract from the basic text. Any joke you have to explain isn’t a good joke. Gulliver’s Travels suffers similarly. Dante’s Inferno also fails. I made it through about 20 pages before giving up on it. If I were fluent in Italian and could read it in the original, I might come away with a different view. But I doubt it. This one is littered with footnotes to explain the story. It isn’t timeless.

Others on the list may be so timeless they’ve become staid. A Tale of Two Cities is a story that has been cut and pasted so many times now that it lacks any freshness which a new reader might appreciate. It is classic in the sense that parts have been copied forever. But that doesn’t make it a “must-read.”

Of course, Will Shakespeare makes the list. Three times. I have never enjoyed reading his plays, but I have always enjoyed seeing his plays performed. To me, they have no place on a reading list. Shakespeare is always added to provide weight to a list like this. I’m sure some people enjoy reading the plays, but they were written to be performed. That puts them in a different category.

I am a bibliophile. My own home library would make some small communities jealous. But I’ve decided most of the classics aren’t worth my time for the reasons I cited. I would much rather find a new author with something fresh to say than rehash old tales which must be explained by an editor to have relevance.