Why the classics? A case for old-fashioned reading.

A little over a month ago, Tim Wadham, director of the Puyallup Public Library tried to answer this question; Are the literary works known populary as "the classics" still relevant to readers today?
Before I continue, it's best I begin with another question; why should we even read old books in the first place?
For better or worse, the trend in today's society to focus almost exclusively on historically supressed voices.
Works by authors who are religious and/or ethnic minorites, women, and more recently, gay and lesbian are encouraged by librarians, teachers and parents.
This has resulted in reverse discrimination. In today's society, it's popular to dismiss the voices of what we consider "the classics" (or works of literature produced during the 19th and early 20th Centuries) because the authors were from the privilaged groups. With few exceptions, they were largely white, male and Western, or "Christian."
Authors Charlotte Bronte and Alexandre Dumas are among notable acceptions.
As a writer, a woman, and a minority [I'm one-fourth Hispanic], I agree that we should support all opinion. I believe in more speech, not less.
I disagree that a voice be ignored on little more than race, sex, religion or culture, even if these classifications at one point were prefered above all others. 
Yes, the classics were written by a bunch of dead white guys who were European and Christian, but their voice is equally as critical to our world as those who have historically had no voice.
Charles Dickens is one such voice.
Born in 1812 in Portsmouth, Dickens is perhaps best known for his 1843 novella, "A Christmas Carol." 
Dickens got his start in writing as a Parlimentary reporter. A journalist's perspective, combined with a childhood of poverty and hardship, imprinted upon him a social activist streak that would stay with him for the remainder of his life.
"The Adventures of Oliver Twist," Dickens second novel, was written partially as a protest to England's Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, which, according to commentator Jill Muller, "employed a ferocious satire to address...the sufferings of the poor in the new workhouses mandated" by the legislation. It is in one of these workhouses that Oliver utters those immortal words, "Please sir, I want some more."
The novel then moves seemlessly into Oliver's adventures with the undertaker, with Fagin and his gang, and with those who would become his benifactors, the gentleman Mr. Brownlow and Rose Maylie.
The reason I love the story is because it focuses not only on English life during the early 1800s, but almost a sub-culture. The plight of the poor, the homeless and the criminals. The under belly if you will, of Victorian society.
Such a perspective is rare, brilliant, and one that you could never get by reading straight, factual history alone. It's the world that Charles Dickens lived and breathed every single day, and told as only Dickens could tell it.
One of the novel's greatest criticisms is it's cardboard characters.
It's popular today to invent protagonists [the good guys] with flaws. Peter Parker in the re-boot, "The Amazing Spider-Man," Tony Stark of the "Iron Man" and "Avengers" franchises, and even Katniss Everdeen of "The Hunger Games" are known for their flaws as much as their heroism. It makes them more human, and supposedly, more real. 
The thing that bugs most critics and writers today is that Oliver has no flaws.
It was through my third reading that I realized that each of Dickens characters are not supposed to represent normal humans, but are caricatures instead.
A caricature is an exagerated representation of an individual or a group. This is often utilized most in political satires and cartoons. Obama's ears, for example, when drawn to look more like Dumbo's, is a common caricature.
Instead of being a mix of several characteristics, all the main characters in "Oliver Twist" embody a single trait. Oliver is clearly innocence, Mr. Brownlow is virtue, Fagin is selfishness, Nancy is co-dependency, Bill Sikes is cruelty, Rose is benevolance, and the Artful Dodger is craftiness.
Seen from this perspective, I began to have a greater appreciation for Dickens' creativity.
Are the classics still relevant? I believe they are. It gives you a picture of what life was like in the past - how people interacted, what they cared about and why - in a way that you could never get from reading history and facts alone. And they have given a generation a voice. Not a perfect, comprehensive voice. But a voice none the less.
They can give us a clue of what we were, and maybe offer an idea of where we are going.
Yes, they are long and laborious to read. In fact, I had to drop "Oliver Twist" for a time just to get a break. At one point, I questioned whether or not I wanted to finish it. But I'm glad I did, it was well worth it.
So I would urge children and adults alike this summer, to add one of the classics to your summer reading lists.
You'll be glad you did.

Link to Tim Wadham's original article, "Classic liturature still matters in today's world."
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/05/22/2606455/classic-literature-still-matters.html