I have read many of the classics, including numerous as part of my study towards my college certificate in Classical Literature and a whole lot more in the 22 years since simply because I enjoy reading them.

However, I don't believe that the classics are in any way vital to forming an informed world view as I've met many people who have managed to do so on a diet of pulp novels and supermarket gossip magazines or even without reading anything at all.

I am the opposite, couldn't read much for the 1st half of my life, I have raised to extremely avid readers. Yes they have both read many of the classics and much more. Literature is a big topic of discussion here.

The value of the classics is lost on those have had no exposure to them, and to those who never learned ti read.

I've never read the classics and I believe I am pretty damn well informed on many topics. Studying history and generally reading about and observing the real world might be more important.

The more you read, the more informed you are. But not having read the Classics, other than parts of the American Canon, I think I'm doing ok. I'd guess travel to be more important.

I have read widely, including msanhy of the so'called "classics." I have many, many other books and articles more informative than the classsics. What is imprtant is noty the "classics" but having read widely and deeply the thoughtful worksw of many authors.

I read most of them..it alway good too feed the brain.

Classics definitely help. But modern novels as well. I don't think children would find Gulliver's Travels interesting or relevant simply because pop-culture has changed. The text in Gulliver's Travels would likely be difficult to digest by the children of today. I mean compare it to someting like the Harry Potter books. While saying that, though, I'm sure that some children of today may find Gulliver's Travels interesting reading when they get older.

(Admittedly, I've not read Gulliver's Travel NOR any of the Harry Potters. My statement above could possibly be nonsensical. Also, I heard or read somewhere that a second part of Gulliver's Travel is much more interesting and weird than his adventures in Liliput.)

If you have never read The Dandy it Beano then you are nothing but pondlife !!!!!

Don't read books as often inpast. Try toconnect directly with people.

I voted for the last one but only because it made me chuckle.

I am well read. I love classics. That said, I don't believe they are necessary for developing an accurate or substantial world view, only to understand that the problems we face are not new, and not localized.

Pride and prejudice is widely renouned for being 'ahead of it's time' yet the main premise is something that went on for centuries before and after her time. The same with Gatsby.

The only reason they're regarded as 'before their time' is simply because back then it was frowned upon to articulate these issues in print.

In response to your OP, absolutely you can. The authors of the "classics" formulated their world view with out reading any "classics" and so can anyone.

What have been deemed to be "the Classics", aren't necessarily the end-all, be-all.
I've read a few of them. I think "To Kill A Mockingbird" is better than all of them put together. That's just me though.

One doesn't have to read the classics to be informed of their message. As a historian I am well aware of the adage about history and repetition. The classics give a reflection of the time and how they relate to the present. One small examply, the protagonist in "Scrooge" was modeled after Thomas Malthus. Malthus was the first to propose a theory of overpopulation (1798). We are still grappling with that issue today.