A Story's Triumph Over Time

I started reading Crime and Punishment today and was surprised to discover I love it. I know I'm a total book worm, but I'm still intimidated when I pick up something labeled classic literature. Older books have such a reputation for being difficult. Sometimes it seems like that archaic language is distracting from the story (Dickens), or if the language isn't ancient the vocabulary is difficult (Joyce), or the novel seems plotless (Hawthorne), but today when I was reading Crime and Punishment, I realized I had it all wrong. Wuthering Heights is full of words people don't use anymore but it doesn't take away from the story. Archaic language isn't that bad, not if you read it enough. It grows on you and it's definitely nothing to avoid. Difficult books (like Ulysses) are supposed to be complicated and confusing. It's part of the story telling. The Scarlet Letter is one of my favorite books ever and it's pretty much plotless. Those first six pages of Crime and Punishment really got me thinking because even though that book is old, I'm already in love with it. Who would have guessed I could appreciate a story created in 1866, a time so different from the one I'm in now? I guess it's sort of like art; Michelangelo may be dead, but his paintings are still as beautiful as ever.

The idea of a story triumphing over time is so fascinating to me. It's amazing how we still can enjoy books that were written over 150 years ago because things have changed so much. Just yesterday in English class, during a discussion of Daisy Miller (published 1878) by Henry James, it was pointed out that automobiles were not available in 1878 to the general public. By "cars" James meant carriages. Parents still read their kids still Lewis Carroll's Alice stories even though they were published over 100 years ago when children didn't have Mario, Crayola, Blues Clues, Twister, Play Dough, or air conditioning. My dad used to read to me a lot and one of my favorite books was The Little House on the Prairie (1935). It's a newer classic, but still, 1935 and 1995 are two completely different worlds to a five year old. I'll probably never encounter Indian territory or have to build my own log cabin, but I think that may have been one of the reasons the book was so much fun; it's almost like reading fantasy. Now that I'm older, one of my favorite books is Les Miserables (the abridged version) by Victor Hugo. That book was published in 1862, but that I love that story. Jane Austen's novels are continually popping up on the big screen. Even the 2000+ year old stuff can be good. When I took Great Books last year, we read a lot of ancient philosophy, which I loathed. I read Aristotle, Sophocles, and Plato kicking and screaming, but Socrates, who wrote the Oedipus books, I loved.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the book was written a long time ago, it's probably still being read for a reason. Stereotyping classic or old books as difficult is lame.