Why Some of Literature’s Classics Are A Big NO!
‘an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea — something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to. . . .’ (Joseph Conrad).
Not all the Classics can be timeless, they do not necessarily exhibit the qualities that can make them universally acceptable and appealing. There is a lot of debate around the term classic, many assume that the books written in the past are the classics which is one of the biggest misconceptions. A Classic in literature is a work that is important in any aspect such as narrative, plot, characterization, etc., and has stood the test of time.
It must be considered that even a contemporary work can be a Classic but since much time has not elapsed to test if it has stood the test of time, it is safe not to call them a classic. A critic or reader however can surely sense if a work of art is going to be a classic in the future, for instance, I believe A Little Life by Hanya Yanagihara or My Dark Vanessa by Elizabeth Russell have what it takes to become a classic.
There are many classical works that have surely borne the burden of time but there are many things that a reader can easily notice in the narratives which make them a big NO when it comes to book recommendation. These works are often extremely racist, gender-oriented, or simply boring due to the unnecessary details that fill the pages.
I recently picked up books by Jules Verne, a 19th-century French novelist and I decided never to read anything by him. I obviously got the most famous work Around the World in Eighty Days and a sci-fi classic Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. I also read Dracula by Bram Stoker and it made me reevaluate my love for classics. I will only be reviewing these three because I don’t want to bore my reader either, please note that I will not be sharing any summaries as they are not important to the topic at hand.
Around the World in Eighty Days
I picked up the book because it is supposed to be a travelogue and I wanted to experience how a book can take you literally anywhere.
The first thing I noticed about the book was that the protagonist Phileas Fogg was not interested in visiting the places he was merely taking a round from station to station to get back to London in 80 days which annoyed me a lot considering that a travelogue is supposed to give you an insight into different cultures and peoples.
However, the most offensive character is Mr. Fogg’s servant Jean Passepartout who believes Indian natives to be extremely superstitious, cruel, and downright stupid. He disrespects their places of worship and the author somehow presents it as his simplicity and the fault of the natives. India is also shown as highly hostile to women, Phileas Fogg saves a woman from being satti and she falls head over heels in love with him while he keeps on wearing his manly shroud ignoring her feelings.
The book contains multiple offensive remarks against the natives, women, and in short, every marginalized community. The hero does not appear to be a hero but a demi-god better than every other human which is very hard to read.
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea
I don’t think any book can be as tiring and boring as Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, it surely has some amazing sections where the narrator mentions the amazing marine life under the sea. But at most points, it is filled with unnecessary details. The characters are neither lovable nor relatable, Captain Nemo appears interesting but then the interest vanishes because the reader gets literally no information about him whatsoever.
The quest under the sea seems irrational considering that there is no specific purpose for it, the search team is looking for a sea beast when they realize that it is indeed a submarine. They are abducted and spend time with the crew covering twenty thousand leagues in distance but that’s it! Nothing really comes out of this long and tiring adventure.
Dracula
I have never read a book that glorifies patriarchy more than Bram Stoker’s Dracula, it is also one of the few books which make you think the movie was better than the book. The major section of the book revolves around saving Mina Harker because she is a woman and apparently needs the help of the macho Van Helsing and Jonathan Harker.
The book presents a woman’s strength as an excuse to serve a man, everything Mina does, all her wisdom, and education is only so that she can serve or help her fiancé Jonathan. It is interesting to note that Dracula often attacks women or children because obviously, they are weak creatures and the team of men is out there saving everyone. I like the idea but I hate the execution of it, characters have to be individuals with their own personality and identity and this book sadly does not grant an individual identity unless the character is a male.
Why the Rant?
Every book is a product of its society and the period in which it is written, so it most probably reveals the people and customs of that particular age, why the rant then? why so much annoyance over a couple of books?
An artist has to see beyond the ordinary, he has to dig deep to trace out the stories and to give them a plot. The problem with most of the classics is that the author has absorbed the ideology of the masses and only projects it in his work no matter how annoying or disturbing that ideology might be.
Such authors seem to have an unselfish belief in an idea supported by the majority. Every barbarity, savagery, injustice, racism, and abuse in the world is justified by man’s unselfish belief in the idea that makes him commit those actions.
There is a huge list of books that reveal the author’s belief in damaging and horrifying ideas and the readers if fail to detect it become victims of that particular ideology, I therefore always say that not every classic deserves our attention. Most of them can be a big NO because they are promoting ideologies that are as harmful and damaging as a nuclear bomb.
