I think this is just another case of the tumblr-typical practice of looking at what could be a good take, and then taking it way too far. For instance, one could say instead:
âSome works of literature, especially older books and those that are often classified as classic literature, can be difficult to read or understand, and there is really no reason to feel stupid because of it. A reader might struggle with a book for a great variety of reasons, and plain stupidity is not one of them. But this can happen with any sort of book. Difficulties aside, it is absolutely fine to dislike a book, even if it is highly acclaimed, and also to point out the flaws that can be found even in the greatest works of literature. In fact, this is a necessary part of a critical discussion. Just to like something because of its fame is not the way to go, obviously. No piece of literature is absolutely perfect, and quality is not a straight scale from best to worst. Individual books have individual strenghts and individual weaknesses, and a book might be better and worse than another in different aspects. And taste is, of course, subjective. But some books are more meaningful and more intellectual than others, even if these sorts of things may overlap in bitsâalthough meaning and intellect can be found in unlikely places, and rather lacking where it is promised. But that is, again, part of what makes literature (classic and otherwise) so interesting and diverse and fun. And if you are not used to all these things, then of course it can be difficultâbut one can get used to it. All in all, one should not force oneself to read things one loathes only because everyone praises them, but one should also not shy away from a good book the moment one needs to put a bit of an effort in reading it.â
But this is tumblr, of course, and tumblr logic is:Â âIf one exteme is bad, its polar opposite must be good.â Meaning in this case:Â âIf academic elitism and intellectual snobbery are bad, than plain anti-intellectualism and discouragement from reading and learning are good.â No. That is not how it works.
And what makes a book difficult? Thatâs different for everyone! People read differently, people comprehend and understand differently, and people know different things. Even people who belong to the same generation, and people who belong to the same social groups or have roughly the same educational background. No kind of book is âinherently difficultâ to read, and only very few kinds are inherently easy. A âdifficultâ book might be much easier for some people, while they might struggle with something supposedly easier.
Also: Why an â18th century noblemanâ? This implies three things: 1. that all classic novels were written in the 18th century, 2. to be read only by noblemen, and also 3. that (the English) language was extremely different in the 18th century and people knew all sorts of things that are completely unknown to (ânormalâ) people today. Alright, Iâll leave the third point be, because that is basically what this whole take is built onâuntrue as it isâbut one and two?
Absolute nonsense to begin with, and just another sign that people think of classic literature as a very strict and limited genre. Classics can be ancient or just a few years old, they can belong to any sort of genre or none at all, they can be written for any sort of audience and in any sort of language. And whether or not a book is considered old, good, famous or popular enough to be considered a classic is often a subject of debate.
(And I wonder: Why are people lately acting as though they could only possibly be familiar with things and media and whatnot from the last few years? People always knew things that were older, and recently it seems that⊠anything thatâs more than a few years old cannot be possibly known by anyone who wasnât at least already an adult at that time. Thatâs a bit off-topic, but it just doesnât make sense to me.)
And if you read classic literature outside of academia, you will soon notice that if you donât know what something means one of three things will happen: a) you will learn what all this is about directly through the text, b) you will figure it out simply because the context will lead to a logical conclusion, or c) you will have to look it up and learn something. (And if you really donât understand somethingâso what? You are not going to get graded.)
We donât learn to read, we read to learn. I mean, yesâwe also do the former. Absolutely. But in the context of reading âinherently difficultâ books for oneâs own pleasure, learning from them has always been considered perfectly normal. Thatâs what being âwell-readâ means.
Thatâs another thing I often notice in general, and in a more concentrated way on tumblr: the cut between âintellectualâ and ânon-intellectualâ people and things. This is especially prevalent in the dark academia trend, but also among those who heavily criticise it. In the end it all sums up in the same way: a weird mixture of the notion that academia meant simply a shallow interest in arts and literature and pretty things and the notion that all intellectual pursiuts are a privilege of academics. And both these ideas are so, so wrong. And it doesnât matter if you frame it in a super snobbish or anti-snobbish way. Academic work is work, and non an aesthetic, but all people can learn and have interests and valuable thoughts and ideas.
I mean, on the other hand, there are so many tumblr posts that explain how this and that âhighbrowâ stuff is actually For The People. Another good take gone bad. This does not mean that supposedly âhighbrowâ literature is actually stupid, it means that normal people are not stupid.
But everything is so commercial nowadays. General knowledge is now called âuseless triviaâ, the Studium generale cannot be turned to profit and is therefore of no interest anymore, and everyone keeps complaining that they donât learn enough âpracticalâ things in school. In other words: unless you can turn knowledge into money, you better donât have it. People who work in academia are therefore the only people who should ever even try reading anything that asks for even the slightest bit of effort. That might be the greatest generational difference hereâfar greater than any knowledge of âpop cultureâ or whatever. Because in the past it was fairly common for people to learn and read and know things. Even if it wasnât actually in their field of work or expertise and if they couldnât really âprofitâ from it. And that is such a pity
But not back to topic:Â I donât want to make assumptions about OPâs intentionsâI think they were good, and I think it really sums up to âdonât feel bad about yourself, and âplease read what you enjoyâ. I agree with both these things. People shouldnât force themselves through books they donât like, no matter why they donât like them, and they should also not feel ashamed for struggling with a difficult read.
However, this and many other posts of a similar kind, feel so discouraging. But it shouldnât be! âIt can be difficult, donât be ashamedâ should meanâdo try it, even if it isnât easy, you can enjoy it anyway, and you will understand it better in time! And if you donât like something, then that is your independent opinion, to which you have every right in the world. But donât think that you shouldnât read books, especially if you do enjoy them, if they are hard. If it takes time, and effort, then that doesnât make your experience of reading it less valuable. On the contrary. Now if itâs really something that isnât for youâthatâs a whole different thing!
But a book might be difficult and still great fun. And a book might be a classic, and yet not that difficult or not difficult at all. Every book is different, and so is every reader. Itâs ridiculous to generalise here.
