Walking into English class feels like walking through a museum– and not the kind with massive dinosaur bones and ancient artifacts. Everything is dusty, smells like old paper, and you can not touch anything without it possibly falling apart in your hands. I have just been assigned ‘Of Mice and Men,’ and it got me wondering if maybe classic novels are not all that people say they are. Is it actually elite fiction that changes perspective, or just one hundred pages that describe the 19th and 20th centuries in a monotonous way?

Classic novels spend too much time describing the scene, as opposed to what actually happens. If I were to turn in an essay that spent the first 3 pages talking about how the sun hit a riverbent and all the lizards that moved across the sand, Ms. Ackerman would have just tossed the paper, as I have already failed as a writer. Yet, when John Steinbeck does it, it is deemed a “masterpiece of world-building fiction”.

Coming from someone who actually enjoys reading, sometimes half of these novels are overhyped maps put into words on a page. Although reading about the trials and tribulations that took place in the 1930’s is thrilling, one can not go two chapters without a deep dive into geographical terminology regarding the Salinas Valley or the Gabilan Mountains. Marley Johnson, a sophomore at Coral Glades, says, “The details outweigh the plot. If Audible were not a thing, I would hate classics.” This shows that classics are a bore to everyone, even active readers.

There has been an ongoing argument that most of these authors are products of their work. Social media was not a factor in the early 19th and 20th centuries; writers had no choice but to be the eyes for their readers. But does that make their works good or just descriptive? Most modern books focus on the “show”, not the “tell’. Of course, the older generation classifies this as “good literature” opposed to “trashy stories”. But how is one expected to love reading older books if they are not interesting? 

Dr. Thorne, a professor from Harvard University, gives a different perspective on the issue. He claims that “The terminology in Steinbeck’s work is not just a filler; it helps build character. The setting dictates the harshness of the Great Depression. You cannot separate the ranches from the protagonists, or else it would be a horribly written book.” While his claims are true, that does not justify the unnecessary words and scenes within the book.

Despite the use of terms one hardly knows or uses, there is a reason these books have not been recycled. In between the group of descriptive words, there is a sentence that really speaks to you. It carries a weight of emotion that one cannot find in new-age writing. 

So, here is the verdict: Are classic novels well-written? Yes. But are they definitely “over-written” for today’s youth and society? Absolutely.