Should some classics be re-written?

[Dragonsend]

I don't think classics should be rewritten, people would not be able to appreciate language in and of itself as much. I dread a world where all people learn is text slang.

[LinaMueller]

Absolutely not. That would be an heresy.

[TopaAzul062]

Definitely not. Classics are like time capsules and if they're re-written a part of history will be lost. I remember when I first read a classic, A Tale of Two Cities, my teacher was so enthused when he read the first few lines of the book to us; even if we didn't understand the intro.

After reading the book we started to understand the meaning of different sayings and situations. To top it off there are already books out there that translate classics - which irk me - to explain what things mean right off the bat. The best way to understand something that's in a book is to read through; the meanings will surface gradually.

[cdhundley]

I am not a fan of rewriting classics. They can be difficult to read, but that is part of learning and expanding our horizons. I know that when I was studying Shakespeare, I hated the language and everything that went along with it, but now my favorite quote comes from As You Like It. It was difficult to read and understand, but I am so glad I did!

I agree with this wholeheartedly. One of the joys of reading, though not necessarily for everyone, is stretching yourself and expanding your horizons. I know I enjoy books that challenge me, that force me to look things up or figure things out. I think there are a million ways we make things easier for people when people might be better served by being challenged. I don't think reading should be one of them.

[Jenna_p93]

I believe classics should most definitely not be rewritten. A classic is called a classic for a reason. It was written by someone a hundred years ago (give or take some years) and captures the essence of that time period. By having a classic rewritten, it is leaving behind a piece of culture and turning that book/novel into another sad reconstruction of today’s society.

[Dainora]

I don't think that classic should be re-written. I do understand opinions, that say that books were written for specific times, but on the other hand, making it easier to read for nowadays readers kills the authenticity of these times, we lose the opportunity to learn about those times. It's too much of superficial reading nowadays, making classic easier to reach, will just increase it in my opinion.

[paulkinyuao+]

I don't think so, guys.
They would lose their perfection , or classic hood, or whatever makes them tick.

[djr6090]

Some rewrites are better entertainment if not better literature. It was with great amazement I recognized Apocalypse Now in Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

[Juliet+1]

It's not so much a "rewriting" that is needed as it is a retelling of the story. I had to read Ovid's "Metamorphoses" in college, and it was quite a slog. Later I encountered a book by Ted Hughes that retold some of the stories in Ovid's collection in modern English. So much better! Lively, interesting, beautifully written stories -- overall a great read.

[Jyockel08]

I love The Scarlet Letter, but my students always had such a hard time understanding it. I liked to supplement some of it with adapted versions, along with the original in order to preserve the writer’s integrity of the novel.

[ratpizza]

I don't think classics should be rewritten. They capture the time period in which they were written and allow the reader to picture what it was like during the particular time frame. If they were to be rewrritten in a new time period they would lose a bit of that magic that allows a book to transport you back in time.

[nicole-adrianne]

I'd love to have some accurate and easy to read Shakespeare retellings.

[Abeerdxx]

This is a very interesting topic actually, I haven't though of it before.
In my opinion, classics shouldn't be re-written simply because they depict the times (linguistically speaking) they were written which is something I think is important. Also, I don't particularly enjoy reading modernized novels or simplified ones as it doesn't have the same effect on the reader.
I have been unfortunate enough not to know that a certain novel I read a few years ago -Jane Eyre- was simplified (made shorter and revised for younger readers), and when I read it I was kind of disappointed and simply thought that it wasn't a good read, then later on read the original work and noticed the difference.

[Nikolas Farmakis]

No, I think the whole point of classics is that they are old and have a strong sense of tradition in them.

[imaginarilily]

I'd prefer retellings of those stories, like how West Side Story is a retelling of Romeo and Juliet, or how 10 Things I Hate About You is a retelling of Taming of the Shrew. They're new works, but with classic stories at their hearts. The story's bare bones are kept which leaves room to make new material. if all a person is doing is writing the same story over again but losing the language that's part of what made the story so great then what's the point? what creativity is being used?
I get it with Sparknotes Shakespeare translations or similar items making it easier for students to study for tests though- sparknotes saved me in english this year with their Lord of the Flies notes. But otherwise the original language is part of what makes a classic a classic, and shouldn't be changed for understanding. Maybe footnotes or something similar would be helpful.