Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ayyohh911719 t1_iwydebw wrote

Well Moby Dick looks like a real charmer

0

cutelyaware t1_iwyes9w wrote

It's not like that, though the well-known rule is that it shouldn't be read by anyone under 40, and I kind of get that.

0

SquirrelAkl t1_iwyveyn wrote

Why not?

2

DukeofVermont t1_iwz1ro8 wrote

That's the dumbest rule I've ever heard. I would say that most people won't like it because they are not used to books written like Moby Dick.

It's the same reason that a lot of people HATE reading LOTR. It's slow, boring, has too many details, reads like a textbook, etc etc etc.

There is nothing wrong with the book, it's just different from what people are used to and makes them work. That second part is important because I think it's what separates good art from great art. Art that engages you, brings you in and makes you think will always be better than art that is easy to digest. Now it's vital to understand that easy art is still art and just as valuable. Filet Minion for breakfast everyday would make me puke and I'd gouge my eyes out if I had to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey every week. But when you are in the right mood and want it? It's amazing and far better then a bowl of cereal or re-watching Captain America: Winter Solider (both of which I really enjoy).

A lot of people only consume easy art and so when art (film, poetry, theater, literature, dance and even paintings and sculpture) doesn't just tell them what to think or feel they get bored and drop it. If you try to watch/read a deep film/book like you would a Tom Clancy book or a Marvel film you'll hate it. You'll miss the forest for the trees. You'll never actually understand what really going on because you only see the character actions and nothing else. "It's so boring!" is the complaint I hear the most when trying to get people to read or watch amazing things that are not paced like a Marvel film.

I personally love classic lit and classic films. So much amazing work is overlooked by many people because it is old, slower paced or made with a different purpose. A book like Moby Dick has depth and when read thoughtfully you can get a lot more out of it than just a book about a man explaining whaling and his crazy captain hunting a white whale.

I think the "don't read it if you are under 40" is idiotic but younger people have so much easy art that they haven't seen yet. A lot of people just indulge in the easy art, but by the time they are 40+ they get sick of it. Like eating candy everyday as a kid is awesome but when you are older it is gross, and there is so much better stuff out there anyway. So you turn 40 and want something new and deeper and read Moby Dick and actually engage with it whereas someone younger might just get bored and drop it.

Personally I think Moby Dick is average for the great books from the 1800s. It's much better IMHO than Les Mis, or War and Peace, but no where close to Crime and Punishment, Middlemarch, or Tom Sawyer. I'd put it in the same level as Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina and The Count of Monte Cristo. (also this is very much my personal taste and not me trying to say which is objectively better or worse).

TLDR: I've read a lot of "classic lit" so I know what to expect when I start reading but a lot of people go in blind after being told "it's amazing!" and are not ready for how different books can be.

Personally I love deeper books which really are about so much more than what happens on the page. When you can get into them it's really like nothing else. Some of my favorites are: On the Beach-Nevil Shute 1957 (post-apocalyptic survivors of nuclear war in Australia), Solaris-Stanisław Lem 1961 (Scientists try to communicate with an alien that's the size/shape of our oceans, but on a different plant so it remakes their dead loves ones). Crime and Punishment-Fyodor Dostoevsky 1866 (a man struggles to live with the effects of being a murderer), The Forever War-Joe Haldeman 1977 (a sci-fi war book that's really about the effects of coming home from Vietnam). Slaughterhouse Five-Kurt Vonnegut (a man experiences life out of order because of aliens aka finding meaning after seeing the horrors of WWII) and a light one The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy-Douglas Adams 1970s-80s - It's just silly, hilarious, funny and amazing. I love that book so much.

6

SquirrelAkl t1_ix0co6r wrote

I like your distinction of “easy art” vs “harder art”.

I am well over 40 but I pretty much only consume “easy art”. My job is mentally and emotionally demanding, I read (economics & business stuff) all day, and at the end of the day I like to be able to switch my brain into neutral and just consume entertainment.

Perhaps I’m missing out though? Perhaps what you describe is what the people who say “I love reading!” actually love about reading?

Hmmm, food for thought. Thank you.

2

DukeofVermont t1_ix2hrww wrote

Hey nothing wrong at all with having personal relaxation time. Like I said I love slow complex movies but I can't watch them all the time, just too taxing and not what I want to do after a long day.

I also think it really depends on what you are looking for. I love reading because I can really connect with characters, and find it interesting to explore how they think/feel/etc and I like loooong books because you can spend so much time with the characters.

I wouldn't say you're missing out because it might not be your thing and that's a-okay. It's like food, some people love to try new things, challenge their tastes/ideas of what food can be, explore textures, flavors, etc. But it's perfectly fine if you are not a food person and like sticking to what you like.

That said it's hard to know if you are "a gourmet" or "a cinephile" or love classic literature until you try it with an open mind. No one is ever too old to try new things and if it isn't for you there is nothing wrong with that. I love complex Lit/Film but oh boy do I have no interest in modern art. I've tried to get into it, and I can learn and understand what they are going for but I just don't like it and have zero interest in it. It's just not my thing.

I'd suggest figuring out what types of shows/films you like and find an old classic book that's on the same topic. Also not all old books are "hard art" for the snobs like me. Just like how not all new books are "easy art".

Agatha Christie's crime mysteries and Sherlock Holmes were/are the popular media of their day. Agatha Christie is the most successful author of all time with over two BILLION sales (she's only behind the Bible). Her play "The Mousetrap" opened in 1951 and has played continually ever since (but stopped for a year due to corona). They are somewhere close to the 28,000 performance now. I think they both are great because they are engaging and can really pull you in as you try to figure out what happened.

Lastly I should say that it's also super dumb shove everything into the two boxes of "easy" and "hard" art because we all know it's much more on a spectrum. But it is important to try new things, challenge ourselves and explore what it is to be human.

So try new things, but don't feel bad if it isn't for you. The world would be a boring place if we all had the same interests and tastes.

2

SquirrelAkl t1_ix2ouva wrote

Agatha Christie is a very good recommendation for me. My favourite genre of TV is “British cop drama”, so Christie will be a good place to start. I have 3 weeks off coming up over summer, so I’ll add “figure out how to use Libby and get some books out” to my list :)

2

cutelyaware t1_ix0ziov wrote

Speaking of tomes, that's quite the comment! I think it's fair to boil it down to easy vs hard books. That's sort of what I understood the rule to mean. IE it will turn people off to the book if they're not mature enough to make the effort needed. Personally I simply skipped all the expository sections on whaling as I found them both dry and disturbing, and not contributing much if anything to the story.

I also agree with your comparison to LOTR where I learned to simply skip over the songs. I thought they were terrible and didn't add to the story.

I think we're on the same page, which ironically supports the idea of not pushing heavy works onto young people who may reject them and then never discover those gems later.

2

DukeofVermont t1_ix2fo58 wrote

I think not pushing is key and properly introducing things. It's the same for literally everything, you start small and learn, but for some reason a lot of people just are thrown in the deep end of literature and hate it because they got pushed.

I think my love of classic lit is because I had an amazing 75 year old high school teacher who taught British Lit. He was super chill, it was all he taught, he was a great teacher and you knew he loved it. He did a great job explaining and introducing things so Shakespeare wasn't just reading it to read it.

It's a world of difference being introduced to something by someone who can explain, is excited and can answer questions vs my junior year English teacher who just assigned books and spent 50% of class talking about his old high school sports achievements (no joke, I hated him) and no one cared at all about anything we read.

I also taught ESL in NYC and I had my class read a simplified version of Frankenstein and they loved it. I was really surprised how well they took to it. They though the simplified Dr. J and Mr. Hyde was just okay in comparison.

1

Robodachi t1_iwz0lmn wrote

Hm I read it at 25 and liked it. Sometimes it feels like reading a wikipedia page on whales.

1

cutelyaware t1_ix0xqq5 wrote

Yeah, I thought it dragged unnecessarily with those long sections on all the details of whaling. I'm also vegetarian and really dislike that sort of thing so I simply skipped over those sections, and didn't feel like I missed anything important to the story. Same goes for all the songs in The Lord of the Rings books.

0