honestrosewater
Gold Member
- 2,133
- 6
I was simply looking at it from the point that Secular Angel is not yet an avid reader. In my opinion Shakespeare is not a good choice for someone who doesn't read a lot.
Well, I disagree, but it doesn't matter. Secular Angel asked for the *best*, not the easiest, and, in my opinion, Shakespeare is the best dramatist.
I am also of the opinion, maybe unjustified, that people who read the really old classics look down their noses at "popular" selections.
Most people who read really old classics do so because they are studying literature as a craft and so use different criteria when judging a work. In this case, a work's popularity is only one aspect of its worth; a popular book isn't necessarily good, by these criteria. But, yes, some people are snobs.
This is where what I call "Twain classics" come in. Some works are significant in their field, for one reason or another, but are not generally enjoyable. These are the kind of classics which shouldn't be recommended for someone who can't appreciate their literary significance. I don't think Shakespeare belongs in this category. Getting past the language differences isn't difficult (get a dictionary or edition with good annotations)- and there are other aspects of Shakespeare which are enjoyable from the very start, especially in Hamlet.
Yes, nothing personal
___
Er, if the above seems contradictory, let me clarify. Set these criteria:
1) Accessible, 2) Enjoyable, 3) Literarily Significant.
Secular Angel seemed to be asking for works which are 3. Suggesting something which isn't 2 might turn SA off from pursuing stated amition. The difficulties of a work which isn't 1 are offset by SA's ambition. All of my suggestion were 3 and 2. Though 2 is highly subjective, you can use general consensus as a guide. Most people who get past 1 enjoy Shakespeare.
Last edited:
,