What's So Great About the "Classics"?

[Llama231]

The title pretty much explains it all. Certain books, movies, etc. are considered classics, supposedly because they are so good, but are they really? What is teh playground's take on this?

[kpenguin]

What.. do you want here? For us to go through each individual classic and explain why they're good?:smallconfused:

[Icewalker]

Sometimes they are fantastic, sometimes they aren't. It also depends of course on opinion, and what you're looking for. For example, while Lord of the Rings is a wonder of world creation and epic story, I didn't find it a particularly entertaining read at a lot of points.

[AstralFire]

This is far too broad a category to question. An individual classic can be questioned. (I'm not a big fan of Tolkien, for example.) The entire vague category cannot, because what is in that category varies from person to person and most have gained entry because a high number of people found value in them.

[Starscream]

I...guess it's all subjective, really.

For instance, I watch a lot of what you would call "classic cinema". I loves me some black and white films. And the cable networks seem to have...varying definitions of what qualifies as "classic".

TCM: "A classic film is one that had a significant impact in cinema as a whole, or represents the work of the time period from which it originates particularly well."

AMC: "A classic film is one that is at least five years old."

Yeah, you can probably tell which I prefer.

[13_CBS]

I never quite understood why, say, The Scarlet Letter and Moby **** are regarded as classics. :smallconfused:

But then, I've never been the type to enjoy literature all that much. I'm a shallow, shallow person. :smallannoyed:

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Meh, it totally depends.

Bram Stoker's Dracula, Count of Monte Christo, Mutiny on the Bounty, White Fang, Lord of the Rings, and any of Lovecraft's or Mark Twain's stuff are amongst my favorites.

War and Peace and Gone With the Wind however needs burned and then their ashes sunk to the bottom of the sea. Portrait of Dorian Grey also ticked me off. Phantom of the Opera and Frankenstein were only worth reading once. War of the Worlds did nothing for me (though love the radio program with a passion). Only thing of Charles Dickens I could force myself through was A Christmas Carol, which I enjoyed.

Love Fahrenheit 451 but detest 1984.

Need I go on?

[snoopy13a]

A classic is simply a work that has recieved significant praise from established critics. The critics are academics (e.g. English professors), professional reviewers, editors, etc. Classics are usually studied in an academic setting as well.

Not everyone likes a particular classic. Nor should they. Personal preference carries quite a bit of weight after all :smalltongue: Certain authors, styles, or genres may not appeal to us despite being considered great by a majority of critics. For example, if you absolutely hate romance novels, you probably aren't going to like Jane Austen.

Usually, it takes time for a work to be established as a classic. Some classics, such as The Great Gatsby, actually went out of print before being added to the "canon".

[Xallace]

So let's get specific!

I like Tolkien's ideas, his world; basically, I love Lord of the Rings in synopsis. That's why I like the movies: they're the books in synopsis. I care not for Tolkien's writing style. Twenty-Seven adjectives per verb, plus tangental explanations that I don't find interesting in the least...

On the other hand, I'm a really big fan of Grapes of Wrath in book form, but I really don't care for other media adaptations of the story.

Big fan of Lovecraft's works in most formats that they come in, while at the same time I couldn't care less for Moby **** however it's presented.

EDIT: OK, fine censorship. We'll have it your way. I don't care for Moby Richard.

[kpenguin]

I dunno why people take so much issue with Moby ****

[AstralFire]

Show off. :smallmad:

[snoopy13a]

I dunno why people take so much issue with Moby ****

Probably because it isn't easy to read. I've swung and missed trying to read Moby **** before so I don't comment on it. I have heard people rave that it is the greatest American novel though. My current project is to try and slog through Ulysses.

[mercurymaline]

Everything by Twain and Vonnegut was amazing. Fahrenheit 451 and 1984 were good. Dracula and Moby **** were alright.

War and Peace, Tree Grows in Brooklyn, and Little Women were painful. Tolkien annoys me to death. Lovecraft is pretty 50-50, either amazing or so mind numbing I couldn't finish. Great Gatsby's a tossup.

A lot of them just bore me to tears. It comes down to the author; I think there's a huge stylistic difference between Slaughterhouse Five and Grapes of Wrath. One is gripping and funny and tragic and touching, the other made me change my major so i wouldn't have to read it any damn more.

[13_CBS]

Show off. :smallmad:

Huh? Why so serious angry?

As for stuff like Moby ****...they just seemed so very uninteresting. The subject matter didn't interest me, the characters didn't interest me. Just...meh.

Since I'm not a lit major, what are the academic merits of such books? Why do people who study literature consider such books to be fine works of art?

[The Vorpal Tribble]

EDIT: OK, fine censorship. We'll have it your way. I don't care for Moby Richard.
*guffaws*


DICKDICKDICKDICKDICK

[Athaniar]

I judge media depending on whether or not I like it, not whether or not it's considered a classic or not. Some classics are good (Lord of the Rings, Citizen Kane). Some are not (2001).

[AstralFire]

Huh? Why so serious angry?

Only mock anger at him figuring out this forum's censor bypass for legitimate words. :smalltongue:

[Icewalker]

I loved 1984, Farenheit 451, Welcome to the Monkey House...Brave New World is definitely one of if not the best and most influential (to me) book I've ever read.

Lord of the Rings was good up until the second book, half of which consists of 'Sam, Frodo, and Gollum walk a very long ways.'

I haven't read a lot of the big classics, although I intend to eventually.

[13_CBS]

I have to ask, though...why do academics like it? What about, say, Moby **** makes it so highly valued in terms of artistic merit?

[Zevox]

I...guess it's all subjective, really.
Bingo.

For instance, I've had to read a number of Shakespeare plays and some of his poems in school. I had one professor who all but worshiped him. But on my end, I can only see him as the most overrated author ever, as I have never found a single one of his works that I enjoyed. On the other hand, another author that same professor all but worshiped, Geoffrey Chaucer, I found decent. Not great, but decent.

In another class, I quite enjoyed reading Bram Stoker's Dracula. On the other hand, I got halfway through Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey before deciding it wasn't worth continuing, even if it was for school. It was just that horrible. And if my professor's general comments on Austen's writing style are any indication, I'd probably react the same way to everything else she wrote.

I'm also a huge fan of Tolkien, and recently began reading Lovecraft, and have had reactions to his work varying from thorough enjoyment (The Call of Cthulu, The Colour Out of Space, and The Whisperer in Darkness stand out there) to only slight amusement (The Outsider and Celephais, for instance).

So, yeah, there's a few of my opinions. As quoted above, it's all subjective anyway. "Classics" just means there have been a lot of critics and literature professors that gave them high praise for one reason or another. Doesn't make that praise any less subjective, just more numerous.

Zevox

[Starscream]

For instance, I've had to read a number of Shakespeare plays and some of his poems in school. I had one professor who all but worshiped him. But on my end, I can only see him as the most overrated author ever, as I have never found a single one of his works that I enjoyed.

I genuinely like Midsummer Night's Dream, but yeah, I'm not overall a Shakespeare fan.

[Xallace]

Probably because it isn't easy to read.

That's part of it, but in general the story and subject matter of Moby Richard just doesn't interest me much. Themes, sure, but mostly the presentation bores me enough that it hardly matters.

Is the novel form of 2001: A Space Odyssey considered a "classic?" That's one I really enjoy, though I get the feeling the film was more influential.

EDIT:


I genuinely like Midsummer Night's Dream, but yeah, I'm not overall a Shakespeare fan.

I find that Hamlet, when performed can be absolutely amazing. When reading, it... No. In general, I'm pretty neutral towards Shakespeare's work. Now, Reduced Shakespeare Theater, on the other hand...

[Icewalker]

Heh, for 2001 Space Odyssey the film was so much more influential that the sequel books work off of the film canon not the novel canon. :smalltongue:

I love Shakespeare, so much. It takes a lot to really get into, but I really love the writing and stories and especially the language. Now, in written form, I still love his tragedies, but find the comedies must less interesting, whereas on stage they are absolutely wonderful.

[Catch]

I have to ask, though...why do academics like it? What about, say, Moby **** makes it so highly valued in terms of artistic merit?

Because it's funny. If you don't get that Melville was writing the book tongue-in-cheek, then Moby **** is going to seem dry and plodding.

First paragraph. Read it in a pretentious "old sailor" voice.


"Call me Ishmael. Some years ago--never mind how long precisely --having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off--then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can."

Melville was just hamming it up.

[13_CBS]

Because it's funny. If you don't get that Melville was writing the book tongue-in-cheek, then Moby **** is going to seem dry and plodding.


It...It was? :smalleek:

I never knew. I...never knew. :smallfrown:

(My senior high school lit teacher never mentioned it.)

[AstralFire]

My general point of view is that most literature teachers, especially the ones teaching either for APs or the ones who have not read the book, are worthless and beat the life out of a lot of books by overanalyzing things that were not meant to be analyzed. It's fine when it's done as a fun endeavor that one can pick up and leave at will...

Oh, and my personal vote for 'terrible classic'?

ANYTHING BY FAULKNER.

Tolkien's style is dry. Faulkner just gives me a headache.

[kpenguin]

Speak for yourself. In-depth analysis of, say, The Great Gatsby or The Awakening in my AP Lit class made me appreciate/enjoy the pieces more, not less.

[Catch]

My general point of view is that most literature teachers, especially the ones teaching either for APs or the ones who have not read the book, are worthless and beat the life out of a lot of books by overanalyzing things that were not meant to be analyzed. It's fine when it's done as a fun endeavor that one can pick up and leave at will...

Lit teachers analyze symbols because they can't write. What I find far more enlightening is breaking down a story and seeing how the author put it together. Sometimes it's as simple as a game of "spot the literary device."

This works on the macro-novel level (building tension, establishing character, climax, denouement) and the micro-novel perspective (point of view shifts, passage of time, scene, lighting, etc.)


Oh, and my personal vote for 'terrible classic'?

ANYTHING BY FAULKNER.

Tolkien's style is dry. Faulkner just gives me a headache.

What'dja read of his? Faulkner's sense of place is incredible, but sometimes it gets away from him.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

Since I'm not a lit major, what are the academic merits of such books? Why do people who study literature consider such books to be fine works of art?
In academia, it's usually because the book has broken new ground in particular areas, in terms of just about anything you can think of that massively influenced literature (or at least a type of literature, e.g. a genre, or works in general that deal with a particular theme). To use the typical GitP example, The Lord of the Rings virtually defined the fantasy genre as we know it (although Tolkien doesn't actually get that much academic recognition; it's usually critical recognition he recieves instead).

[AstralFire]

What'dja read of his? Faulkner's sense of place is incredible, but sometimes it gets away from him.

Absalom, Absalom and the Sound and the Fury. His style literally gives me a headache; I am naturally a fast reader and have difficulty slowing myself down. Taking out all the punctuation and breaks but leaving everything spelled right is, for me, the mental equivalent of taking out the brakes on a Formula-1 racer.


Speak for yourself. In-depth analysis of, say, The Great Gatsby or The Awakening in my AP Lit class made me appreciate/enjoy the pieces more, not less.

I did say 'most'. I fully recognize that there are good ones. I think there is something wrong with the field as a whole if a highly common opinion is that it didn't matter what the author intended (even if it's supported by the text) - it just matters what you take out of the book. Interaction with a piece of literature is extremely important and vital, but let's not take that out of proportion.

[Zevox]

Speak for yourself. In-depth analysis of, say, The Great Gatsby or The Awakening in my AP Lit class made me appreciate/enjoy the pieces more, not less.
I can say the same about Gulliver's Travels. Of course, it helps that the professor for that class is the best I've ever had.

On Shakespeare, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXMfMID3VaA) is the best thing related to him that I've ever seen.

Zevox

[Catch]

Absalom, Absalom and the Sound and the Fury. His style literally gives me a headache; I am naturally a fast reader and have difficulty slowing myself down. Taking out all the punctuation and breaks but leaving everything spelled right is, for me, the mental equivalent of taking out the brakes on a Formula-1 racer.

Ah. That issue comes up a lot in the dialogue about literary "classics," because they're so darn dense. I used to be a speed reader as a kid, and I had to re-learn how to read because I was avoiding books with too much setup and missing out on the depth of the ones I actually did read. Took me a while and the instinct is still there, but now I can absorb a book more fully, even if it takes three times as long.

It's not for everyone, but apart from minimalists like Hemmingway, the majority of "classic" literature is going to be thick. Kinda like one of those concrete-style milkshakes. They're not thinned down, so you have to pull harder to get at the good stuff.

[Zuki]

I have to ask, though...why do academics like it? What about, say, Moby **** makes it so highly valued in terms of artistic merit?


I'll see if I can tackle this one, to the best of my memory. I had an American Lit professor that was especially fond of Herman Melville and his books--he'd get articles and essays published in literary magazines about the man, etc.

I really liked Moby ****, but I wouldn't have been able to get through it without his passion for the book lighting the way.

Put simply, the book is dense.

Melville did not write a tightly focused novel. Once the basic narrative is under way, every other chapter is an essay on the whaling industry, or something tangentially connected to whales and whaling. He ranges far and wide in topic and subject of discussion even when he's not writing an essay chapter, because that's the way the main character thinks. Melville jams the book full of allusions to politics, mythology, history and other literary works like an overstuffed sausage that's going to leak bits of fat and juice when you boil it in a pan. A good copy of Moby **** should probably have the author's footnotes included. An even better copy might have a few more footnotes to help the modern reader grasp a few things that are not so obvious now that we don't live in the 19th century any more.

The story is popular and enduring because it is many different things at once. Academics and those inclined to analysis can pull probably five or six different meanings or allegories out of its content. It has a memorable cast of characters. (Queequeg is awesome!) It speculates on the human condition.

As for why it is disliked or not regarded so well...well, some people probably don't like the narrative being interrupted by the essays that further develop the theme and ideas of the book. The idea of a novel being useful and educational was a popular idea at the time, and this one of the reasons they are there. Some people don't really care for symbolism in their adventure stories and just want some whales and grizzled vengeance-mad sea captains and exotic Maori headhunters. (They should probably look into an abridged version, or the movie with the script by Ray Bradbury.)

Other people might have had the book ham-handedly rammed down their throats in school by people who were passionate about it but somewhat lacking in delivery, and come to dislike it from association. It's not easy to blitz through in a weekend and then smash out a paper on.

There's also the simple fact of cultural and historical gap. The fashionable styles of writing have changed over the years, so something that was written for 19th century audiences may not be as palatable to someone used to 20th and 21st century fare, without proper context and explanation.

So, I think Moby **** is a pretty awesome book, but I wouldn't have gotten as much out of it as I did without that prof's help. I still think it's worth reading, if you can find a good annotated, non-abridged edition. Take your time with it, mull things over as you read them. It's not a book to devour over the course of a weekend or a single night.

(So, all that said, I'd like to introduce one of my favorite classics to the discussion for consideration. Is anyone familiar with the story of Journey to the West, especially the longer/unabridged versions?)

[Vaynor]

I agree that it is entirely subjective. I for one, thoroughly enjoy John Steinbeck, Kurt Vonnegut, Jules Verne, Arthur Miller, George Orwell, O. Henry, Aldous Huxley, J.D. Salinger, Herman Hesse, etc. but I hate strongly dislike works by such authors as Nathaniel Hawthorne, Charlotte Bronte, Mary Shelley, Bram Stoker, etc.

I think most of the books that are considered "classics" are very, very good, but there is also a lot of subpar material in the category.

Edit: Not terribly related, but on the topic of Jules Verne I think he is an author he is under appreciated for the most part. I see the majority of his works turned into either childish, abridged nonsense or ignored. He was one of the first (along with H.G. Wells, although significantly less so) to pioneer the science fiction genre, and his imagination continues to astound me.

[Icewalker]

@Zevox: While I don't agree with your point, the Animaniacs are ever so amazing. That's wonderful. :smallbiggrin:


My general point of view is that most literature teachers, especially the ones teaching either for APs or the ones who have not read the book, are worthless and beat the life out of a lot of books by overanalyzing things that were not meant to be analyzed. It's fine when it's done as a fun endeavor that one can pick up and leave at will...


Depends on the teacher, but this can be COMPLETELY TRUE. My lit teacher last year...dear god. It was horrific.

[Xallace]

Depends on the teacher, but this can be COMPLETELY TRUE. My lit teacher last year...dear god. It was horrific.

Yeah, I'll admit I was happier with the story of Rapunzel before my lit teacher decided to inform us that the whole thing was metaphorical and the titular character spent her life in a giant Richard.
I won't milk that further.

[Jamin]

The title of classic is far to broad a topic to say all of them suck or that they all amazing works of art. But I will say that The Great Gatsby is very bad. It is poof that writing your life story over and over is an awful great idea.

[Catch]

But I will say that The Great Gatsby is very bad. It is poof that writing your life story over and over is an awful great idea.

Actually, that's why Save Me the Waltz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_Me_the_Waltz) was mediocre. Gatsby is a legend, and will continue to be hated by high-schoolers who are beaten over the head with it.

[Dewey]

I have mixed feelings on "Classics". I hated Great Expectations, the Jungle, and the Scarlet Letter, but I love Mark Twain (especially the short comedic stuff he wrote for newspapers and such), and I enjoy Shakespeare in all of it's permutations, anything from reading the plays to the hilarity that is "The Complete Works of Shakespeare: Abridged" (http://www.reducedshakespeare.com/). i also enjoyed Animal Farm and 1984. it depends on the author's style, I guess.

[Terraoblivion]

What is wrong with classics? Numerous things. The most obvious and significant is that people have a horrible time even deciding what is a classic. Take Tolkien for example. His works are perhaps the once that have mentioned by the largest number of unique posters in this thread, yet literature teachers and scholars tend to summarily ignore him, as at least one poster has commented on. On the other hand there are writers like Dostoevsky that nobody has yet to mention, but who is considered one of the most classic and influential writers ever among literature professors.

So one of the core problems with "the classics" is a question of terminology, as it stands there is no comprehensive language for determining whether a book is a classic or not. While this does not reflect on the content of the books in any way, it does form the core of a much more significant problem. Inclusion in the favorable treatment accorded to the classics is essentially based on the whim of a relatively small group of teachers, professors, critics and editors making the ultimate choices of what to print, what to teach and what to study. As such a vague term is used in the mobilization of significant economical, educational and, at times, political forces. This is made further a problem since a work declared a classic is much more likely to have serious scholarly effort put into the interpretation, in turn uncovering more arguments for why it matters than a potentially just as significant other work from the same period.

The sheer variety of origin, nature and content of the classics also suggests that the contents of the category are essentially arbitrary. On one hand we have works such as Ulysses, a rambly, sorta poem, so infamously dense that few people have ever managed to read it. On the other hand we have The Count of Monte Cristo, a piece of 19th century pop culture written mostly by ghost writer for Dumas. If Penguin books classic series is to be taken seriously, we even have Tarzan, a piece of 1920s pulp with so much racism, animal abuse and nationalistic bravado that no major publisher would get past chapter 1 before chucking it out had it been written today. As far as i have been able to determine the only thing these works have in common is the status as being classics, with the favorable treatment that follows.

Finally by creating a loose canon of works considered to be classics has the problem of exalting older art over newer. This is not because the idea of classics say that older is better, but because the overwhelming tendency is that nothing new gets labeled a classic. This combined with the tenacity of a work considered a classic to stay there creates a risk of a large amount of books written in old-fashioned styles and primitive old movies being presented as being superior to modern creations, despite dealing with topics largely irrelevant today.

So essentially there is nothing all that great about the classics. Some individual classics might certainly entertain a given person, but the only intrinsic differences between classics and non-classics are an implicit seal of approval and availability, nothing more. Though the seal of approval does have a tendency to create a lot of snobbery about them i guess. Though why a 19th century revenge drama meant to entertain the masses is something worth being a snob about, while pop culture dealing with modern issues is not i will never know.

[TheEmerged]

RE: Authorial Intent. I think it was Alan Moore who said this best: "There is room for things to mean more than they mean." A lot of stories end up telling you more about the author than the author intended. Some authors realize this and subvert it (I'd put Heinlen in this category).

[DraPrime]

There has been a discussion on classic literature, and no one has yet mentioned Dante and his Divine Comedy? Shame on you. Shame on you all.

[Catch]

@ Terraoblivion: I dunno, that seems a lot like iconoclastic reverse-snobbery. There's got to be a way to retain a pool of quality literature without chucking all the old books out on principle.

Cultural relativity is important in a dialogue about "classic" literature, especially when now-questionable or racist themes are present. A few posters mentioned Moby ****, and it's acknowledged that Melville had anti-black sentiments, yet in Benito Cereno he shows a remarkable recognition of a former-slave ship captain. Joseph Conrad is another example. Heart of Darkness dehumanizes Africans, while An Outpost of Progress laments their suffering. Neither exonerates the authors' racism, but it's important to view the works in their respective time periods.

Frankly - and I think another poster made a similar point - pieces of writing are recognized as "classic" because they either broke new literary ground or exemplify a style, genre, technique, or idea. It's true that some books have lingered mostly because of their popularity, but I think it's narrow-minded to say that a majority or even many novels are on the list of "classics" solely based the continued pressure of literary community to "exalt old art" over new. For a musical analogue, that would like be criticizing the works of Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms and Bach because modern composers aren't getting enough recognition.

I'm not saying new art should be ignored or "old" art is universally superior, but "classics" ought to be recognized for what they were at the time of their writing.

Take Madame Bovary, for example. It's Gustave Flaubert's only novel worth reading, and while the book is rife with salvos against the bourgeoisie and True Believers in the French Revolution, it stands out for being the first novel to try and extract the author from the narration of the story. Reading Madame Bovary in 2009, it feels like Flaubert is breathing over your shoulder, and he occasionally drops second-person phrases and self-insertions, but at the time, he was doing something different. Novels before his were essentially a dialogue between author and audience in the "Dear Reader, allow me to tell you a tale" sense. By present standards, Flaubert is all over the place with his narration, but Madame Bovary is worthy of its status as a classic because it broke ground that was previously untouched.

It's important to recognize the difference between de facto classics - those venerated by age - and literature that's a prototype or invention of a new style or idea.

[Lord Seth]

I wasn't particularly fond of The Great Gatsby or Shakespeare until college, to be honest. My opinion of The Great Gatsby has gone up (it's not amazing, but it's decent) and I'm a major Shakespeare fan now. Except for Troilus and Cressida. What a waste of time that play was.

[Terraoblivion]

First and foremost i will say that i do not find all classics to be bad. Far from it, like most people without a career in literature i have only read a fraction of these works. Also of those that i do have experience with they run the breadth from outdated and without relevance to the modern day world, to genuinely entertaining works of art that still hold prominence. Likewise to use your example about music, i do indeed recognize the enjoyment i have had listening to music by several of the composers you mentioned. Similarly i do not believe that they are inherently any better than modern composers or more deserving of attention than modern composers.

My point is rather that the concept of the classic itself is counterproductive. Not only does it hide the sometimes excellent and important works that came from a period because they failed to achieve the status, the occasional "discovery" of a new classic hints at this. It also suffers the problem that it conflates a variety of questions such as wisdom, entertainment value and historical significance in one category, with the obvious problems that yields. There is also the question of what kind of significance matters the most. Is an innovative style of narration more valuable than having been read by a third of the people speaking the language a book is in?

What i am trying to say is not that old books and movies are bad. What i am trying to say is that having a muddy concept that points in many different directions absolve them of the need to justify themselves is bad. Ulysses needs to justify the attention it gets just as much as Superman needs to justify any demand for attention. At the very least the concept should be split up into a category of old art that is still entertaining and one that demands attention because it is historically interesting. That way we will avoid the absurdity of pretending that Ulysses, Canterbury and The Three Musketeers have anything material in common except for being written in western Europe before most of us were born.

Furthermore i believe that scholarly attention given to specific works and not to others need to be justified better. Rather than writing yet another analysis of King Oedipus we must ask ourselves what can be said about it that is truly new and whether that is interesting or not. Do we believe that its significance to ancient Athens has been misunderstood in the past? Do we believe that it is somehow an active force in modern society? Do we believe that Sofokles possessed transcendent wisdom into the workings of the human mind and reality that can be gleaned from his play? Do we believe that analyzing the play itself will tell us more about why it grew so influential in the 19th century? We must answer these questions first and then the question of why it is interesting. In the same vein should someone decide to analyze the first 10 years of Superman he must answer similar questions such as just what it was that was different from other comics to create a new genre or how it reflected upon life in the late 20s and the 30s.

So should anybody read Madame Bovary? If they enjoy it then of course they should. If they believe they have something genuinely new to say about narrative styles or life in the mid-19th century, then they should as well. But i also think that if someone believes that he can learn something genuinely new by analyzing Mickey Spillane or the collected opus of Tijuana bibles, that is just as worthy a scholarly pursuit and much more likely to break new ground.

What i emphatically do not believe is that art is the vehicle of a higher truth. They are a product of a writer who was a product of his society, received by an audience that is a product of their. Any sense of truth within art is ultimately one of these two: Information about the artist and the context it was created in or a feeling of it resonating with the world that the audience lives in. As such research into art must always be justified, not against the depth or wisdom of it, but against its relevance and your ability to say something new about topics greater than the work itself. Otherwise you are just stroking your own ego or finding a way to get paid to read what you enjoy in an intellectually sterile pursuit. And that is why i believe that having a corpus of classics outside the realm of entertainment is bad, it encourages a myopic focus on a few chosen works at the expense of others. While having it in the realm of entertainment is bad because it becomes a normative list of works that achieve greater prestige and accessibility than other works that might ultimately prove as entertaining, if not more, in a different time.

[Zevox]

There has been a discussion on classic literature, and no one has yet mentioned Dante and his Divine Comedy? Shame on you. Shame on you all.
Meh, I read part of that (the ever-famous Inferno). It was... decent. Not bad, fairly creative in its imagination of Hell, but not something I can give either high praise or scorn to. Might have something to do with the religious overtones and the fact that I read it only after becoming an atheist, I suppose.

Zevox

[Bariko]

I can understand the view against a solidified corpus of classics, but, in general, these books have earned their place as such. Are there more unrecognised? Absolutely, and they should be considered in study.

I get hesitant over music too, as that's more my thing. I recognise that Brahms, Mozart, etc... are truly great. They provide some of the most moving and inspirational, as well as proficient, pieces ever. I pause when I realise that what we view as "high" culture and art is fairly stagnant. Operatic love stories attended by royalty and billionaires while "common" music is left to the masses.

At the same time, in academia there is this corpus, but a good professor will deviate. In my classics courses, what we studied was selected by the professor based on his thoughts, rather than drawing solely from these defined classic works. We went from the Bhagavad Gita, to One Thousand Years of Solitude, to the movie Twelve Monkeys in the same course.

[Catch]

Okay, I can agree on the point that contemporary fiction isn't getting enough credit and that too many literature professionals wax ecstatic over what's socially declared as good. Not enough forward momentum, not enough new ideas.

But here's where my Hemingway BS-DetectorTM starts freaking out.


What i emphatically do not believe is that art is the vehicle of a higher truth. They are a product of a writer who was a product of his society, received by an audience that is a product of their. Any sense of truth within art is ultimately one of these two: Information about the artist and the context it was created in or a feeling of it resonating with the world that the audience lives in.

This feels like a Sociology 1101 oversimplification melded with a Philosophy 1101 dialogue about personal versus absolute truth. "Everything is a social construct so there's no point in taking anything seriously or at face value," and "You don't actually like or believe anything, that's just your environment talking."

Come on, now.



As such research into art must always be justified, not against the depth or wisdom of it, but against its relevance and your ability to say something new about topics greater than the work itself. Otherwise you are just stroking your own ego or finding a way to get paid to read what you enjoy in an intellectually sterile pursuit.

That's pretty condescending for an argument based on giving all works a fair shake. Isn't there something to be said for personal investigation and development? Or just learning how to write better from works written well? I might work on an essay about the doppelganger device Nabokov used in King, Queen, Knave to better understand how it works, despite the fact that it's been discussed before.

We study art to understand how and why it works, not just how it resonated with it's intended audience or how its applicable today.


And that is why i believe that having a corpus of classics outside the realm of entertainment is bad, it encourages a myopic focus on a few chosen works at the expense of others. While having it in the realm of entertainment is bad because it becomes a normative list of works that achieve greater prestige and accessibility than other works that might ultimately prove as entertaining, if not more, in a different time.

Kind of a depressing way of looking at it, don'tcha think? My use for classics, as a student, writer, tutor and (hopefully) future educator is a library of examples. If someone's struggling with point of view shifts, I'll give them some Nabokov to read and analyze. Dorothy Allison passes time remarkably well, and John Gardner has such depth and detail to his narratives that reading a passage is like watching a dream. Literature exists not only for sociological or entertainment purposes, and it seems like that's what you're missing. Many classics earned their clout from quality, and I personally keep them around so I can learn how to do what that author did. That isn't to say that my collection of reference works is composed solely of old books, but that the ones that are there are because of merit, not reputation.

Sometimes, when people say something is good, it's just because it is.

[Bariko]

Meh, I read part of that (the ever-famous Inferno). It was... decent. Not bad, fairly creative in its imagination of Hell, but not something I can give either high praise or scorn to. Might have something to do with the religious overtones and the fact that I read it only after becoming an atheist, I suppose.

I'd like to point out that Dante's work was highly politically motivated, along with the obvious religious overtones. I'm not religious myself, but I don't let that detract from my appreciation of an incredible work. I would argue that my personal beliefs shouldn't detract from the quality of works simply because they don't conform to my viewpoint.

[AstralFire]

I'd like to point out that Dante's work was highly politically motivated, along with the obvious religious overtones. I'm not religious myself, but I don't let that detract from my appreciation of an incredible work. I would argue that my personal beliefs shouldn't detract from the quality of works simply because they don't conform to my viewpoint.

You're a better person than me.

After I finished reading Ishmael for one class, I proceeded to rip the book in half, over and over, then gleefully hurled the remains into a dumpster. But then, I don't think I'd have hated the book so much if it had made more sense relating to the course (Biological Anthropology... accent on biological, professor!) and hadn't spent the entire time self-contradicting, and less about its actual philosophical differences with my own.

Also, you know you're a terrible professor when I can be unaware that I am in a class for 5 weeks due to a scheduling error (which she refused to help me transfer out of), attend 4 classes over the course of the semester, and beat the class average on everything.

[Zevox]

I'd like to point out that Dante's work was highly politically motivated, along with the obvious religious overtones. I'm not religious myself, but I don't let that detract from my appreciation of an incredible work. I would argue that my personal beliefs shouldn't detract from the quality of works simply because they don't conform to my viewpoint.
Yeah, I got some of the information about the political aspects of it in the class I read it for, but I can't really get into that without knowing a hell of a lot of detail about those politics, and I honestly just don't care enough about politics from Italy 700 years ago to research them.

As for that last, it seems to me that that assumes an objective means by which to measure the "quality" of a work. Something which I don't agree exists, as I mentioned in my first post in this thread ("It's all subjective").


At the same time, in academia there is this corpus, but a good professor will deviate.
Oh yes. I mentioned in a previous post that I had a class where I read Dracula and Northanger Abbey - well, that class was being run by my single favorite professor ever, and he is like that. In addition to those two "classics," we read a pair of much more modern novels, Gloria Naylor's Linden Hills and Stephen King's Carrie (both of which were great), plus an obscure old novel called Zofloya by Charlotte Dacre (which was pretty good, other than the ending). In another class that same professor ran we read classics like Gulliver's Travels and The Dunciad alongside poetry by Earl of Rochester John Wilmot, some of which would be shocking to many people even by today's standards; a mock conduct book called An Essay on the Art of Ingeniously Tormenting (it is exactly what it sounds like); and John Gay's mock-epic poem Trivia, Or the Art of Walking the Streets of London.

Zevox

[Terraoblivion]

Bariko: Yet there are more academic books in English about even the most obscure Shakespeare play than there is about comic books. Now i am not a comic book fan never even having read an American comic book, but the sheer size of a print run of comic books in their best years should be enough to show that they are relevant to study. Not just good things are worthy of study, bad things are too. Significance is the deciding factor in what is useful to study. If 50 million people read something then learning what those 50 million people get out of reading it is relevant and important.


This feels like a Sociology 1101 oversimplification melded with a Philosophy 1101 dialogue about personal versus absolute truth. "Everything is a social construct so there's no point in taking anything seriously or at face value," and "You don't actually like or believe anything, that's just your environment talking."

Come on, now.


Except that is not what i was saying. I was saying that specifically art does not hold a higher truth. It does hold much truth, but that is entirely mundane truths. At the fundamental level it holds the truth of what is plainly said, if it says that a woman wore a red dress than if anybody got the impression that she wore a blue dress they are plainly wrong. That is self-evident. What i was saying, and what might have needed to be clearer, is that when King Oedipus says that going against fate is doomed to failure, then that is not the truth. Or rather it is the truth that King Oedipus says that, it is also the truth that Sofokles wanted to convey this, but it is not the truth that attempts to go against fate is doomed to failure. When Freud says that what King Oedipus says is that all boys inevitably desire their mother and need to resolve that, then it is plainly true that Freud wanted to use King Oedipus as an example of that. What is not plainly true is that all boys growing up desire their mother, King Oedipus can neither prove nor disprove that.

The truth that art is lacking is any empirical foundation to talk about the world at large. It speaks many truths about the artist, the way it is received speaks many truths about the audience. But a work of art does not tap into a higher wisdom about the workings of the universe, nor does it directly show the human mind. It shows the artist perception of the workings of the universe and the human mind filtered through the medium used and the understanding of the audience. Ultimately art does not speak higher truth, it speaks truth, but it does not explain the great mysteries of the world. At most it gives compelling arguments.


Isn't there something to be said for personal investigation and development? Or just learning how to write better from works written well?

These are both essentially training exercises, not actual research. It is the same when i, as a history major, write a paper on the Nanjing Massacre. I am not doing groundbreaking research or most likely even an interesting reinterpretation of what is known. I train my skills at academic writing and at the analysis of historical texts to base my paper on. When a history professor checks out the collected corpus of Danish tabloids in the 1950s for the first time in the history of the library. When a professor reinvestigates the documents relating to Hitler's suicide in order to reinterpret the events he is doing research, even if it might be somewhat unimaginative research.

If art historians and literature professors solely analyze literature for their own enjoyment and growth they are not academics. They are not seeking to answer questions about human psychology, society or the nature of the world. They are merely highly trained hobbyists paid to pursue their hobby. Art is not divorced from the society it was created in or the human minds that created it or, indeed, the very medium it is made in. Likewise the audience a blank slate when they witness the work of art. All these complex processes and influences on the art is where you find greater knowledge about the world when you study it. Not in viewing it as an isolated phenomenon working solely on its own rules and for its own purposes.


That's a pretty depressing way of looking at it. My use for classics, as a student, writer, tutor and (hopefully) future educator is a library of examples. If someone's struggling with point of view shifts, I'll give them some Nabokov to read and analyze. Dorothy Allison passes time remarkably well, and John Gardner has such depth and detail to his narratives that reading a passage is like watching a dream. Literature exists not only for sociological or entertainment purposes, and it seems like that's what you're missing. Many classics earned their clout from quality, and I personally keep them around so I can learn how to do what that author did. That isn't to say that my collection of reference works is composed solely of old books, but that the ones that are there are because of merit, not reputation.

I have to admit to not being entirely sure what you are trying to say here. Is it that the foremost purpose of art is to train others to make art? Because that seems like an awfully regressive spiral, divorced from any true meaning. If art is not entertaining or decorative, which is of course highly subjective, then what is the purpose? You state quality as the purpose but what is the metaphysical nature of this quality if it is divorced from the entertainment or decorative value of the given work? Now i will not deny that some works of art possess far greater technical quality than others, i could not possibly hope to write anything as technically well-written as the books you used as an example. Just like i would never be able to paint as well as Leonardo da Vinci or play the guitar like Jimi Hendrix. As such works of art that possess great technical quality has a value as an inspiration and a teaching aid for others, however, if art loses the focus of connecting with the population at large it loses its justification for wider recognition and becomes a hobby for those creating it.


Sometimes, when people say something is good, it's just because it is.

And what good does it do if nobody reads it and most of those who do don't see the quality? :smalltongue:

[Catch]

I have to admit to not being entirely sure what you are trying to say here. Is it that the foremost purpose of art is to train others to make art? Because that seems like an awfully regressive spiral, divorced from any true meaning.

No. One purpose of keeping a library of classic works is for reference, to better understand what makes those works effective or successful. My copy of King, Queen, Knave is full of notes and underlined passages because I wanted to keep track of how Nabokov subtly shifted between three protagonists. Without getting into a long-winded discussion about the purpose of art (almost too late), I think there's something to be said for the study of technique.

As a trumpet player, I listened to Wynton Marsalis because he was an excellent jazz musician and I wanted to hear what I could learn from his playing. An old high school friend of mine used to copy and imitate the pages from his manga books to improve his body proportions. My father, as a fly fisherman and instructor, goes to casting demonstrations to learn better metaphors for teaching.

It's not that art exists solely to make more art, but recognizing quality is important so we can learn from it.


If art is not entertaining or decorative, which is of course highly subjective, then what is the purpose? You state quality as the purpose but what is the metaphysical nature of this quality if it is divorced from the entertainment or decorative value of the given work?

You're devolving into existentialism here, and I'd like to get this discussion back into practical reality before I have to get my Super Soaker (http://xkcd.com/220/). Art is entertaining and decorative, but it's also instructional. Quality art comes from observing quality art, analyzing how it works and then using that knowledge to create something new and personal.


Now i will not deny that some works of art possess far greater technical quality than others, i could not possibly hope to write anything as technically well-written as the books you used as an example. Just like i would never be able to paint as well as Leonardo da Vinci or play the guitar like Jimi Hendrix. As such works of art that possess great technical quality has a value as an inspiration and a teaching aid for others, however, if art loses the focus of connecting with the population at large it loses its justification for wider recognition and becomes a hobby for those creating it.

Okay, so you're coming back to the question of "how does my (or your) work contribute to society or a community?" That's valid, but it doesn't really get at the heart of what art is to most artists. If you're writing to present an idea, or plant a thought garden or examine a political scenario, then the question of societal relevance is a fair one.

But most people write for themselves. Paint, play, sing, dance. We do it because we're selfish little apes and we want to show how we feel. You can call it a hobby, and if you don't make any money, it very well may be. But there are plenty of artists who created what they wanted, for no other reason than because they wanted to, and became hugely successful from doing it their own way. JK Rowling and Tolkien wanted to create a world. John Gardner wanted to exorcise his personal demons. James Joyce just freakin' loved Ireland.

You don't have to try to connect to anyone or anything. If your art is full of heart and talent, it'll speak for itself.


And what good does it do if nobody reads it and most of those who do don't see the quality? :smalltongue:

Pearls before swine.

[Bariko]

Bariko: Yet there are more academic books in English about even the most obscure Shakespeare play than there is about comic books. Now i am not a comic book fan never even having read an American comic book, but the sheer size of a print run of comic books in their best years should be enough to show that they are relevant to study. Not just good things are worthy of study, bad things are too. Significance is the deciding factor in what is useful to study. If 50 million people read something then learning what those 50 million people get out of reading it is relevant and important.

Okay, so, I'm not exactly sure what part of my post you're referring to. It may be the admittance that the corpus exists, but can be circumvented. If that's so, then, okay, you're right. The analysis of the English language has yielded an intense study on the works of a prolific playwright centuries ago. Just as studies in China lead students to read their Four Great Novels (Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Water Margin, Journey to the West, and Dream of a Red Chamber) more than they would to studies of contemporary poetry.

This is an unfortunate part of how academia works. Things which have been established as fundamental points in a field of study are broadly preached and taught. But generally, anything significant has its own area. There's a course at the university up the road on comic books. Hell, there's an entire course on Twilight this year. Significance is obviously a factor, even in academia.

But study of something isn't what makes it a great thing. Greatness is. If you hear a bad song, almost everyone will agree it is a bad song, even if they like it. Just like people will agree that something is excellent, regardless of their personal opinions (often, not always). Twilight is a cultural phenomenon, a pop smash, and a wave sweeping the English language. It is full of LDS/Mormon allegory and things made up whole cloth to change the nature of vampirism for this new book series. I took the time to analyze these books, out of my own personal curiosity, and definitely not for enjoyment. Stephenie Meyer has created a work which has sold immensely well, is popular, and influential on culture. It is not well written, and I highly doubt it will attain the level of greatness we ascribe to other things. Its effect will not be as long lasting as Tolkien, nor as academically focused as Dostoyevsky. Culture will rebound from her influence in a relatively short time, and they will be forgotten books. If you wish, replace Twilight, Meyer, and Mormon with DaVinci Code, Brown, and Masons. The rest reads the same.

In short, I think you're arguing that only things we call "great" or "classics" are studied, when in fact that's not true. They're the ones which are continuously studied. But being studied does not mean that the subject is great, or vice versa.

[Terraoblivion]

No. One purpose of keeping a library of classic works is for reference, to better understand what makes those works effective or successful. My copy of King, Queen, Knave is full of notes and underlined passages because I wanted to keep track of how Nabokov subtly shifted between three protagonists. Without getting into a long-winded discussion about the purpose of art (almost too late), I think there's something to be said for the study of technique.

As a trumpet player, I listened to Wynton Marsalis because he was an excellent jazz musician and I wanted to hear what I could learn from his playing. An old high school friend of mine used to copy and imitate the pages from his manga books to improve his body proportions. My father, as a fly fisherman and instructor, goes to casting demonstrations to learn better metaphors for teaching.

It's not that art exists solely to make more art, but recognizing quality is important so we can learn from it.

I am not denying any of this. The problem is that the community of people studying art are solely studying based on the quality of art and not all those other reasons there are to study art. The study of technique is a means to learn trade, like masonry or carpentry. It works with different tools for different purposes, but ultimately it is a trade. I will readily admit to not knowing the didactics of this trade as i never studied it or taught it. However, i do know academics. And to the academic study of art, being a manifestation of human culture and psychology as it is, a qualitative ordering of human creations based not on criteria relevant for academic study.


Okay, so you're coming back to the question of "how does my (or your) work contribute to society or a community?" That's valid, but it doesn't really get at the heart of what art is to most artists. If you're writing to present an idea, or plant a thought garden or examine a political scenario, then the question of societal relevance is a fair one.


You would be right if i was talking about why artists create art. It can be an interesting topic of study as the reasons for creating art varies from person to person and has varied throughout history. However, i was talking about why we should study it in an academic sense. We have been talking at cross purposes. What i have gathered from what you have said has been that you study art for the purpose of learning how to make art. This is a reasonable pursuit, that i must honestly admit that i had never truly thought about before. However, ultimately we should also study art to learn about the context of its creation and its reception, including what the artist was feeling and why the artist was creating it, though the larger perspectives of society is in my opinion a more relevant topic of study than the individual artist.

And again when i said it was a hobby, i was referring to the study of art if it doesn't produce knowledge of anything greater than how to produce art that is not beholden to anything but a given artist personal desires. I wouldn't even have a problem with that if these people didn't also sit as editors and publishers and have a hand in deciding what gets published, as well as a privileged role in public debate. Basically i think that people studying art has the same responsibility as everyone else to justify their work. Historians need to justify that history matters and that not everyone is equally good at analyzing it, economists need to prove that they can make any kind of prediction about the economy and so on. People studying art need to explain how they are contributing understanding of the world.


Pearls before swine.
Or one subculture making its preferences out to be objective measures of quality. :smalltongue:

Although in honesty, i do believe there is some of that going on. Just not enough that it can explain why several Danish writers who on average sell fifty copies of each of their books are all treated as celebrities by the serious media and are the sole people chosen to be read in Danish class.

Also i owe you both a partial apology and thanks, Catch. I had completely and utterly failed to recognize the didactic angle of the study of art. My academic background doesn't lend itself to that kind of study, focusing on seeing everything as a source to learn about its context, and i have never had any kind of talent for art, so i haven't tried my hand. It went over my head, so i apologize for insulting your field of study there and thank you for teaching me something i didn't know.

This is not to say that i believe that a concept such as classics is a good thing in general even if it has its place, for the specific purpose of helping people learn to write or paint or whatever art is at hand. In other fields, and especially in regards to studying art as a cultural phenomenon, it is blinding and serves to hide important angles that could yield valuable knowledge about human society. And in daily social life it comes off more as a normative way of telling people what they "should" read or listen to. But like i said you have convinced me that having examples of exemplary works to use in learning how to create art is valuable.


This is an unfortunate part of how academia works. Things which have been established as fundamental points in a field of study are broadly preached and taught. But generally, anything significant has its own area. There's a course at the university up the road on comic books. Hell, there's an entire course on Twilight this year. Significance is obviously a factor, even in academia.

While i do not know the details of what is taught in either of those classes, not knowing which university you are referring to and there being nothing much about the Twilight course in the article. The first one might be an actual worthwhile course, while the second one seems like a quick way of making money for the university, though i might be wrong. The reason why i am proposing studying that which is bad as well as that which is good, is not to study its artistic merits or anything of the sort. It is to study it in the context it has been created and received in. What sort of culture has stories about men in ridiculous clothes fighting gorillas be so interesting that millions of magazines are sold every week for more than a decade? What exactly is it about a book featuring a girl without personality falling in love with a sparkling vampire that resonates so greatly in the culture of the first decade of the new millennium?

This further leads on to the greater point that in-depth analysis is not necessarily the best way to study everything. Demographic research of the audience, comparison with other media and all those other ways that social scientists and historians puts phenomena into a wider perspective are likely to be at least as useful when studying these topics as traditional literary analysis. It can be useful for other kinds of works that have longer, more comprehensive histories of being studied. And in such a sense the transience of the book's success is essentially immaterial, what matters is how it existed in the context you are studying.

It is all about what you want to know. If you want to know the details of how something is written to use it in education, you need an extremely in-depth, detailed analysis and nothing else. If you want to study how it reflects upon the artist's mental health you need biographical data of the artist and would likely also need a broad knowledge of stylistic elements of the period the work was created in. If you want to know what it means to the audience you need data about the audience as well as comprehensive knowledge of both their context and that of the work.


If you hear a bad song, almost everyone will agree it is a bad song, even if they like it. Just like people will agree that something is excellent, regardless of their personal opinions (often, not always).This sounds rather optimistic to me. Lots of things that were said to be destined for everlasting glory by accomplished people who had studied the medium deeply has been forgotten since. I don't have time to look any examples up at the moment, but if you give me until tomorrow i can. Likewise lots of things that have later been described as some of the greatest works ever were scorned as being utterly atrocious when they were made. Non-classic music*and movies present some of the more obvious examples, given how under attack they were when they originated and considered to be utter trash.

*What is this called in English anyway. Rhythmic music like in Danish?

[Mystic Muse]

you know you're a terrible professor when I can be unaware that I am in a class for 5 weeks due to a scheduling error (which she refused to help me transfer out of), attend 4 classes over the course of the semester, and beat the class average on everything.

can I sig this?

also some classics are good some are bad. I liked Oliver twist and a christmas carol. (the unabridged versions) but did not like hard times. hard times I skipped 50 pages which is half the first part and only one thing about the plot changed.

I've also read some books that aren't classic and also aren't worth reading. "Cheated." was far too anti-climactic and in "underworld" I honestly wanted the "rocks fall everyone dies." joke to happen because I didn't really care about the characters.

(note. titles may be the titles of actually good books instead of the ones I read.)


I unfortunately have not read as many classics as I should. I plan on re-reading the inferno and I need to start call of cthulhu.

[Bariko]

Sorry, I should've included a bit more. The comics course is, if I remember the exact name right, The history and Evolution of Comics into a Modern Art Form. And the Twilight course is The Adaptability and Mutability of Popular Culture (it focuses on current popular trends each time it is taught). So, basically, I'm saying that these aspects of things are studied. Professors and classes look at how culture revolves around things, and how new media finds an audience, learns to resonate, etc... Courses are not taught solely about great works with no regard for society. An English Literature class will focus on English Literature, Shakespeare, Swift, etc... But a class on the cultural significance of current popular trends, which does indeed exist, seems to be what you're saying doesn't exist.


In short, I think you're arguing that only things we call "great" or "classics" are studied, when in fact that's not true. They're the ones which are continuously studied. But being studied does not mean that the subject is great, or vice versa.


If you'll excuse me, I've got to get at least some sleep tonight.

*The music in English would be called different things by different people. Suffice it to say, I know you're referring to non-classical (orchestral) music.

[Terraoblivion]

Not sure i'd consider a single, presumably undergraduate, course to constitute academic study. Especially not when the fields in question are almost entirely barren of research in the first place. While such courses can teach interesting information being just two courses at two separate universities makes it likely that it is either a basic introductory course very light on actual academic content and rich on information or a course used to exemplify the academic principles behind a larger discipline. However, a field is not the topic of meaningful academic significance if it lacks research, it is merely a potential field of academic significance. Also two courses look rather small compared to the fact that most universities around the world, whether in China or Bolivia or Sweden has courses in the Iliad and the Odyssey as well as English, German and French literature. Few have courses in Lithaunian literature or Vietnamese or what have you of countries not considered important enough to have their own major.

[Bariko]

Ah, you caught me before sleep one last time.

So, you're saying that equal study should be given to every form of literature/art? A commendable notion, honestly admirable. But if you're going to look at things like that, you have to consider history. The Greek epics are some of the oldest and most divulged stories in the world. You have to factor in the dominance of the Mediterranean area by Greece, and the subsequent military domination by the Romans, while the Greek culture retained its pre-eminent status, this time backed by the might of the Roman Empire. The epic of Gilgamesh from Sumeria is supposed to be the oldest written story in the world, and influences several later tales and myths. Indian literature comes from the oldest civilisation on the planet. French and German literature can be argued to have shaped the course of Europe in some instances, fiction or non-fiction alike. Chinese culture was so dominant in ancient Asia that many of the tales of neighbouring countries are based heavily on the Chinese origins.

I can understand your point of view that studying all art should be the goal, but then we arrive at logistical issues. Does a university offer a course on 16th-18th century Afghan literature if it has to cut a course offering studies on modern Arabic literature? Is there sufficient student interest at X university to offer a course on how modern writing in Lithuania influences their popular culture? At a North American university, is it a good idea to offer more courses on French Literature than on Estonian Film Culture?

There is an infinite amount of things to learn and study, I agree. If I could learn about what films and cultures power North Korean society, I'd do it. But there's simply no school or university large enough to teach everything.

[Terraoblivion]

I know that the conservatism of the public at large as well as the sheer mindboggling scale of accumulated human culture is enough that we will never be able to teach everything. That does not mean i believe we can't try harder to diversify. Universities cooperating goes a long way to achieve that, so that five tiny German departments in a single area can be unified to a single larger one, freeing up resources to have a professor in Czech and one studying the anthropology of the Malinese carpet industry. I know, it was how my school could afford having those two specific fields. Similarly it is not strictly speaking necessary to have quite that many people teaching the Greek classics. Those courses are rarely popular, majoring in it even rarer. By consolidating them a lot of resources could be freed to educate and hire people specialized in smaller fields.

Of course we will never achieve studying of everything, but that does not mean we need to celebrate our tunnel vision and hold the study of some works of art and some countries to be so important that they must be taught in every single university. Not to mention the streamlining that goes on in high school. Seemingly everyone reads Lord of the Flies, though the exact nature beyond that varies from country to country. We read tons and tons of Paul Auster here for example, while Salinger seems popular among high school teachers in the US.

[Eldan]

Classics, eh?

We mostly read the german ones here, of course. I might have been the only person in my class who genuinely liked Goethe, but I still think Faust was awesome. Schiller was pretty cool sometimes, I liked Die Räuber.

Gotta read some english classics sometime. We never read many in english class.

[Jayngfet]

In general a classic is something a lot of people liked enough that years after it was debuted and other works released at the same time faded into obscurity.

An important distinction is that classics aren't necessarily good or deep or very very old.

After all, odds are with it's huge fanbase harry potter will be going down in history next to tolkien, much to my(and everyone else who appreciates J.R.R.'s work) chargrin, at the same time a lot of classic anime doesn't deal in deep themes every few minutes, Mazinger will no doubt be going right next to devilman, much to Go Nagai's chargrin. At the same point Neon Genesis Evangaleon is, to lots of people, deep and addicting, but it's from the mid to late 90's.

Do you have to like anything I've listed? Of course not, that's the point.

[Myshlaevsky]

What's So Great About the "Classics"?

Nothing, really. There's no accepted definable step from any normal book to a "classic" one. It's a label that carries no weight other than that of people's opinions. Sometimes many, sometimes few.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Cultural history.

The "classics" of literature are taught to people to teach the values and artistic styles prevalent at various points in history - in the case of the literal Classics, those of Greece and Rome during their heydays, but this is also true of works that are incorrectly referred to as Classics like Shakespeare, Voltaire, or Tennyson.

Classics aren't necessarily good, whether subjectively or objectively - most of Shakespeare is either propaganda or dumbed-down entertainment for yokels designed to fill up theaters rather than be High Literature, for example - but they do tell us a lot about the culture that produced them.

[Thrawn183]

Old Yeller. A boy and his dog, does it get any better?

I also may have liked To Kill a Mockingbird.

[Myshlaevsky]

Classics aren't necessarily good, whether subjectively or objectively - most of Shakespeare is either propaganda or dumbed-down entertainment for yokels designed to fill up theaters rather than be High Literature, for example - but they do tell us a lot about the culture that produced them.

While I would agree with this, I'll also state that the three most affecting and impressive books I have ever read would all have been considered "classics" and so I would greatly recommend trying any "classic" out because, in my experience, they're more often good than not. These books weren't particularly supportive or indicative of my current cultural values, either. I'd also say that it's very rarely justified to criticize a book you've never read (this is not directed at anyone).

However, I also like Shakespeare, so that apparently puts me in a minority in this thread. :smallbiggrin:

[AstralFire]

I like Hamlet, I loved King Lear, I'm iffy on Merchant of Venice, the only reason I didn't burn Romeo and Juliet was because it was a school copy.

[DeafnotDumb]

I like Hamlet, I loved King Lear, I'm iffy on Merchant of Venice, the only reason I didn't burn Romeo and Juliet was because it was a school copy.

I have a burning desire to see Romeo and Juliet performed as a dark comedy. It's the only way to save the plot from the melodrama of the titular characters' relationship.

Also, reading Shakespeare can be rather dull. It's important to see his works performed - it's the delivery of the lines that make all the difference. Reading a play is like watching a play where the actors don't move and speak in monotones. I know the best way to enjoy Shakespeare is on stage and I'm deaf.

[PhoeKun]

Nothing, really. There's no accepted definable step from any normal book to a "classic" one. It's a label that carries no weight other than that of people's opinions. Sometimes many, sometimes few.

A Classic (as has been mentioned by Nerd-o-rama) is a piece of ancient Greek or Roman literature, and nothing more or less. It's very easy to define, although it does very little in the way of actually saying anything about a work, although you can generally assume any surviving works of Greece represent an important part of the culture or to literature itself, given that it only survives through the painstaking transcription efforts of various sects of monks leading up to the modern age. But that's really neither here nor there.

One step up the Ladder of Terminology Dilution, and we come to the Literary Canon, the selection of books throughout human history that are perceived by academia to be the best of the best, and worthy of everyone's time and attention at some point in their life if they are at all serious about literature. This isn't exactly the most technical of definitions, but the Canon is the agreed-upon "best of the best" by people who have devoted their lives to the study of such things. This is where all the talk of groundbreaking techniques and significance of culture go... eventually.

Moving down the line. We're getting more subjective as we go along here... our next stop is at works which withstand the test of time, while their contemporaries faded into obscurity behind them, and live on in the hearts of the people who experienced them. We're more or less under the purview of the "Common Man" now, although this is really more a limitation on time than it is anything else - people have a strong tendency to be drawn towards the stuff that is generally better than the rest (particularly after hype dies down). It is, after all, people who decide what winds up being culturally relevant when still other people look back on their lives to find out what they (and eventually we) were like. So yes, you decide what the classics will be... just not what they are.


Final stop, everybody get ready to get off the train (it's a train now, not a ladder, I can't hear you, shut up). Most diluted, most useless, most subjective portion of the word "classic", now essentially meaning "something you really like". It goes hand in hand with the realization that opinions are never provably wrong, and goes on to insist that all opinions are by necessity equal. Other extra baggage we've picked up at this point includes such gems as the belief that the author's word counts for less than the readers', or that every last rock, tree, and punctuation mark has deep symbolic meaning and that only a moron reads what's actually written on the page. And I really believe that a lot of contempt for academia and the word "classic" comes from this sort of behavior, and that if it would just go away (or at least be more quiet and do it over there in that corner), people would be a little less angry about the whole thing.

...Or maybe not, and it's really just the Information Age railing against the idea that things take time to determine. Or maybe it's offense being taken at the idea that something they enjoyed won't be considered culturally relevant later, or against the idea that cultural relevance might be more useful or better than personal enjoyment on whatever sort of objective-ish scale we can come up with for judging works of creativity. Or maybe a wizard did it.



Classics aren't necessarily good, whether subjectively or objectively - most of Shakespeare is either propaganda or dumbed-down entertainment for yokels designed to fill up theaters rather than be High Literature, for example - but they do tell us a lot about the culture that produced them.

Shakespeare wrote plays to sell tickets at the Globe. But regardless of his intended audience or less than noble aspirations towards the world of art, it has to be said of the man (assuming you believe he exists, and is not just a myth... :smallsigh:) that he was an incredible manipulator of the English language. His ability to pun is transcendent, and his wordplay stands out as some of the best ever seen in modern English. More than just learning about the culture of his day, Shakespeare has a lot to teach us about language, and how to control it. Although if you want to look at him strictly on the merits of his storytelling... <.<

[Nerd-o-rama]

True enough. Shakespeare was a master of the language of his time, if not of plotting or characterization.

[Myshlaevsky]

Lots of interesting stuff.

I hadn't even considered that the OP was approaching it from such a strict angle, to be honest. It's only upon reading your post that I realise I have an intense and venomous dislike to the classification of writing by the time period and class involved. Fair enough, though, I guess that is what I was reading in Classics class. Thanks for the information.

[Lycanthromancer]

also some classics are good some are bad. I liked Oliver twist and a christmas carol. (the unabridged versions) but did not like hard times. hard times I skipped 50 pages which is half the first part and only one thing about the plot changedA Christmas Carol, Abridged? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwr5saGUvS0)

[LtKillroy]

Books have been written for centuries, movies for about 7 decades, music has been made for centuries or longer, modern music in the last 5 decades. Why should we limit ourselves to what has come out in the last decade or whatever you consider a classic?

[Aptera]

I really enjoyed, Dante, and honestly I found the many political parts to be some of the best. Really powerful and just so interesting to have a man be able to write so amazingly about something so petty. I tihnk its really a personal kind of thing.

[Tirian]

A Christmas Carol, Abridged? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwr5saGUvS0)

Hamlet in fifty seconds! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2Jzkop04P4).

[Lioness]

I haven't read a lot of classics, but the ones I have, I've mostly enjoyed.

I think many of them are classics because they may have

A clear concise writing style. Easy to read. Logical plot progression, etc. Basically things that aid in the enjoyability of the book
Interesting themes presented in interesting ways
Cover of a particular event/person in an informative but entertaining way.


etc.

However, not all classics are interesting, etc.

A few of the not-quite classics, but still literature books:

To Kill A Mockingbird: Good themes. Interesting perspective. Good writing style. Perhaps a little slow to start.

Of Mice and Men: No plot. Good themes. Good use of literary techniques. Well developed characters. Good portrayal of every day life in the 1940s. I can't stand it. It has no plot.

Fahrenheit 451: Good themes. Writing style a little stuffy, but it gets away with it because it makes such an interesting point. I couldn't read it a second time, but I enjoyed it the first.

A Christmas Carol: I could never really get into it. I tried to read it when I was 8 or so, and it didn't draw me in.

I love Shakespeare. It's just fun to read.

I haven't read any other classics, at least I don't think so, but I have a list from my English teacher that I'm going to get stuck into soon.

[Dienekes]

Of Mice and Men: No plot.

Come again?

[Tirian]

Of Mice and Men: No plot. Good themes. Good use of literary techniques. Well developed characters. Good portrayal of every day life in the 1940s. I can't stand it. It has no plot.

Huh. I'll grant that Steinbeck has a style of stringing together a number of ordianary-seeming events that might seem more slice-of-life than stories where the characters are fulfilling an obvious quest. Still, the plot is about how George is developing to be a landowner instead of an itinerant farm worker and how his dreams are compromised and ultimately dashed by his friendship with the quintessential idiot manchild.

(And it's about life in the 1930's. The book was published in 1937.)

[Foeofthelance]

Eh, it varies. I enjoyed reading Lord of the Rings - what I could remember that I actually read. (Part of the problem was that I was reading an omnibus edition without bookmarks. Tolkien's style also makes it hard to remember where I put it down because the "shape" of the paragraphs was pretty much identical.) Shakespeare I enjoy for the comedic value; Macbeth and Hamlet especially; R+J must have been an early attempt. And so on and so forth.

Someone mentioned the Awakening. What is it with Kate Chopin, and why is she considered a good author? I get the point of her being a "feminist" writer, but the two works I've read and seen discussed the most (Story of an Hour and The Awakening both involve women in what are essentially described as happy situations going off and killing themselves because they're married. The aesop, it seems broken.

[Dienekes]

Someone mentioned the Awakening. What is it with Kate Chopin, and why is she considered a good author? I get the point of her being a "feminist" writer, but the two works I've read and seen discussed the most (Story of an Hour and The Awakening both involve women in what are essentially described as happy situations going off and killing themselves because they're married. The aesop, it seems broken.

The Awakening. It's about a selfish woman who's married to a man who's almost as selfish and who falls for a younger man who's even more selfish. So then she kills herself.

Yeah, I never quite got how it was so popular. I will say, that Chopin did make consistent characters, and her style was very interesting.

[Thane of Fife]

I'm never entirely sure what defines a classic - Shakespeare? Dickens? Classics. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Or is that too new? Lord of the Rings might qualify, but does Conan? Dracula? Tarzan? Those seem a bit iffy.

In general, though, I would agree that the cultural insights can be pretty fascinating, and a lot of literature which lasts survives because it's good.

[Lioness]

Come again?

Well, not no plot exactly, but not much really happens. They go to a farm, someone gets killed, they leave the farm. I know it's all about the inner development, but it just didn't appeal to me. I guess I'm too used to my fantasy epics, with few literary techniques and lots of plot.


(And it's about life in the 1930's. The book was published in 1937.)

Sorry, I haven't read it in a while. I forgot that.

[orcmonk89]

<snip>

For instance, I've had to read a number of Shakespeare plays and some of his poems in school. I had one professor who all but worshiped him. But on my end, I can only see him as the most overrated author ever, as I have never found a single one of his works that I enjoyed. On the other hand, another author that same professor all but worshiped, Geoffrey Chaucer, I found decent. Not great, but decent.

<snip>

OK, queue my Shakespeare inner-geek. Shakespeare is not an author, he is a playwrite, and this is why I disagree with his reading, just as I disagree with an play's reading, in english class. He was designed to be performed, and so I really think it should either be watched or studied in drama class, where you act it out. It's so much more fun that way!

And OT: Personally, I can't stomach reading LotR, I'd much prefer to read the Hobbit. LotR just seems for too stretched-out. However, my favourite 'classic' books are 1984 and To Kill a Mockingbird. Both of those are just... fantastic. Then again, in my view it's all down to opinion.

[Jan Mattys]

Anna Karenina was the best book I ever read.

[Avilan the Grey]

We don't have the same classics you do, or rather only have a few of them.

The ones I was forced to read in school that you will recognize was 1984 (which was booooooooring, mostly because I was not interested in the "Evil Future" thing), Catcher in the rye (which almost gave me a mental breakdown by the sheer force of it's "Unreadability"), Animal Farm (we get it, communism is evil and power corrupts), Of Mice and Men (I was sick that week, so I didn't read it) and Moby (guess what it's supposed to be written here) (Easily my favorite of the bunch)

More often than not Classics seems to be books that made a political or psychological statement at the time and was a good enough read (or considered important enough) that it didn't disappeared immediately.

Of course that means that these days most people read them like I did, in school, where you did it or got a cut grade. Not the best motivator.

[thompur]

I'd like to echo the point that Shakespeare's PLAYS should be seen and heard, not simply read. As an actor, I can tell you that no other playwright is as exciting, challenging, or as enriching as The Bard.

Also realize that Shakespeare created over 5000 words in the English language.( this tidbit of trivia courtesy of the PBS series The Story of English.)

[BRC]

Shakespeare Can be read, but it should really be performed, or at the very least heard aloud.

Classics are important because they help us understand our modern culture.We read books written by our Grandparents generation because they inspired our parents generation to write the books that inspired our generation.

[Lioness]

Anna Karenina was the best book I ever read.

I really enjoyed Anna Karenina, but it moved a little bit slow for me.

[MonkeysMurklins]

As far as I can tell, a classic is any book that has withstood the test of time, for whatever reason. And that's about it. Perhaps the book is really, really good, or very influential, or pioneered some new writing technique or reinvented a genre. For whatever reason, classics are the ones that are remembered years after the regular pop culture books, even the wildly popular ones, have been forgotten. That's why not very many modern books are considered classic. Enough time hasn't gone by yet to determine if they have what it takes or not. Decades from now who knows what pop culture books will be considered classic by tomorrow's scholars?

Of course, some people say that some books are only still remembered because teachers shove them down your throat. In my experience teachers only teach the books that they love, and love is as good a reason as any for a book to be remembered. English teachers have to read a lot of books, and if they think a book is good, there must be something redeeming about it. I suppose, though, that some teachers just suck. And sometimes teachers are required by law or district policy to teach certain books. I still think my statement stands, though. It wouldn't be required if someone didn't feel that it is worthy.



Also, I believe someone mentioned The Journey to the West awhile back? I absolutely love that story. I've got an unabridged edition on the shelf next to my desk (the special shelf where I only keep books I really like or whatever I'm currently reading, vs. the shelf in my closet...). Unfortunately I can never get anyone else to read it because the translation is a little hard to swallow. I've looked for an easier to read version, but all I've found so far are children's books and an abridged version that's just as difficult, only shorter.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Also, I believe someone mentioned The Journey to the West awhile back? I absolutely love that story. I've got an unabridged edition on the shelf next to my desk (the special shelf where I only keep books I really like or whatever I'm currently reading, vs. the shelf in my closet...). Unfortunately I can never get anyone else to read it because the translation is a little hard to swallow. I've looked for an easier to read version, but all I've found so far are children's books and an abridged version that's just as difficult, only shorter.

Have you tried the Whaley translation/abridgement (Monkey: A Folk-Tale of China - ISBN 0-14-044111-5).

He only does part of the story, but for my money they are the less repetative chapters. He also removes most of the incidental poetry, which improves things.

(I also have the Anthony Yu translation - 4 volumes and a marathon effort to read...)

[Cleverdan22]

Okay. Classics.

First, I'll go with Tolkien. Loved it, for many reasons already discussed, so I won't go into that too much.

Great Gatsby was a really good book, and I managed to enjoy it even though my Lit teacher that year was generally terrible. It had interesting characters, a plot I enjoyed, and generally good writing. However, good lord, the Awakening. I HATED that book, and had the same teacher. Ugh. Terrible main character who was almost entirely unsympathetic, obnoxious side characters, crappy ending, and a plot that was as weak as the character it was based on.

Shakespeare. As I'm an actor, I don't much like people dissing on him, but I also understand while flat-out reading his books is pretty terrible, and I don't enjoy it either. Acting it or watching it be acted, is awesome, and some of the most enjoyable theatre if you have a director good enough.

What are people's thoughts on Victor Hugo, author of Les Miserables? I'm about to start reading it, as I took an interest as my school is doing a production of the musical.

[Dienekes]

What are people's thoughts on Victor Hugo, author of Les Miserables? I'm about to start reading it, as I took an interest as my school is doing a production of the musical.

Right, Les Mis. I read the entire damn thing for much the same reason as you (gotta love the musical)

The characters are more complex but also much darker. A lot of the stuff you remember from the play as being kinda upbeat or at least pretty is not (case in point, Eponine)

It is much longer, much slower, and rather dry. Don't expect to meet Jean Valjean for awhile, as the opening focuses more on Thenardier (who is even more evil, including abandoning their own son Gavroche, yes that Gavroche), Marius' father (who is, along with his son, kinda a jackass), and the priest whose name I forget (who is still pretty interesting)

Also, the change I found the most jarring is that Javert loses any religious aspects to his personality. Not a major thing, but Stars was such a good song I thought it would have some ties to the book.

As a whole I enjoyed it, but I admit I cheated. Numerous times the Hugo will discuss his views on life or anything that doesn't contribute to the plot. I generally skipped those parts.

It's a decently hard trek, I'd steel myself before going into it.

[Cleverdan22]

It is much longer, much slower, and rather dry. Don't expect to meet Jean Valjean for awhile, as the opening focuses more on Thenardier (who is even more evil, including abandoning their own son Gavroche, yes that Gavroche), Marius' father (who is, along with his son, kinda a jackass), and the priest whose name I forget (who is still pretty interesting)

Also, the change I found the most jarring is that Javert loses any religious aspects to his personality. Not a major thing, but Stars was such a good song I thought it would have some ties to the book.

As a whole I enjoyed it, but I admit I cheated. Numerous times the Hugo will discuss his views on life or anything that doesn't contribute to the plot. I generally skipped those parts.

It's a decently hard trek, I'd steel myself before going into it.

Yeah, I've done some background checking on this. Although, in the musical, Eponine just seemed like a big ol' creeper to me. And doesn't Thenardier move to America to become a successful slave trader in the book? But yeah, I think I'm prepared to take the plunge.

[Dienekes]

Go for it then. Once I got into it I enjoyed myself, it's just getting into the mindset I found a bit difficult at first.

The first hundred or two pages are the hardest (though I've heard others disagree), after that enjoy

[Fawkes]

Now I really want to abridge Moby ****. I love the book, but hated reading it.

Meanwhile, my American Lit class is crushing my soul. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (which was good), followed by Light in August, Their Eyes Were Watching God, and now Beloved. So... depressing...

[Kalbron]

Reading Shakespear is the single most horrible event that occurs to many people during their highschool years.

Watching a good production of Shakespear is one of the more enjoyable things those same people will experience at the same time.

The man was the Hollywood of his era and a playwright for crying out loud. His works aren't meant to be read they're meant to be experienced!

[Fawkes]

Reading Shakespear is the single most horrible event that occurs to many people during their highschool years.

A bit of the hyperbole, there.

[Dienekes]

Now I really want to abridge Moby ****. I love the book, but hated reading it.

Meanwhile, my American Lit class is crushing my soul. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (which was good), followed by Light in August, Their Eyes Were Watching God, and now Beloved. So... depressing...

Hahhh, you're taking almost exactly my class from a few years ago. (except Light in August, we had some book about two lovers who failed to kill each other via sled, I think it was called Ethan F-something)

I got called a racist for awhile but I stand by my convictions. There Eyes Were Watching God and Beloved are some of the most annoyingly uninteresting works I have ever had the misfortune of being graded for reading. Also for Beloved... those poor poor cows.

[Fawkes]

Hahhh, you're taking almost exactly my class from a few years ago. (except Light in August, we had some book about two lovers who failed to kill each other via sled, I think it was called Ethan F-something)

I got called a racist for awhile but I stand by my convictions. There Eyes Were Watching God and Beloved are some of the most annoyingly uninteresting works I have ever had the misfortune of being graded for reading. Also for Beloved... those poor poor cows.

I believe you're talking about Ethan Frome.

And I agree, I thought TEWWG was terrible. I haven't read enough of Beloved to judge it accurately, but I don't like what I've seen so far at all.

[Dienekes]

I believe you're talking about Ethan Frome.

THAT'S IT!

I always thought it takes a special kind of person to fail a double suicide... with a sled.

Or to even attempt a double suicide with a sled.

[Lord Seth]

Shakespeare is better studied in college. I didn't really get into any of the plays in high school but when I took a college class on it I fell in love with them, though that may have partially been the professor.

[Kneenibble]

Reading Shakespear is the single most horrible event that occurs to many people during their highschool years.

Watching a good production of Shakespear is one of the more enjoyable things those same people will experience at the same time.

The man was the Hollywood of his era and a playwright for crying out loud. His works aren't meant to be read they're meant to be experienced!

Nah, not necessarily. I've taken some very expensive naps in my day, since big theatres tend to charge a lot for their Shakespeare productions -- supposedly "good" productions with big sumptuous period sets and costumes, and even competent acting can't leaven baroque direction.

There was a flourishing industry of publication and readership in Shakespeare's time and after for plays -- of both the commercial and the closet varieties. There was a market for Shakespeare's (and many others') quartos as a consumer item to be read privately even when a person could pay tuppence to go and see it or another of the writer's works on a stage.

Studying the plays as literary objects is valuable and has a historical precedent, a precedent contemporary to their author... and while you're right to qualify good productions, those are few and far between.

[SatyreIkon]

Also realize that Shakespeare created over 5000 words in the English language.( this tidbit of trivia courtesy of the PBS series The Story of English.)

So what? Those were the days of the Inkhorn terms. Everyone liked to create new words then. And by the way, some scholars still think (and I tend to agree) that Shakespeare just snatched up words in the streets - or, more likely, the pub :smallbiggrin:

Still, Shakespeare is fun to read - if you got time and enjoy the art of language, otherwise his blown-up style can be excruciating. (But there are worse authors...)

Other classics:
Tolkien - well, he IS the godfather of fantasy literature, but for my tastes, he is overblown in a horrible Wagnerian way - just TOO MUCH of EVERYTHING!

Poe - if you want to learn about effective terror and clever storylines, here it is! Especially "The Cask of Amontillado", "The Pit and the Pendulum" (one of THE classic horror tales!) and "The Tell-Tale Heart" (insanity!).

German literature also has a lot of great classics - think of "Faust" (Mephisto's lines are sidesplitting sometimes, and Faust's self-absorption makes him a great and complex character!), Heinrich Böll's "The Clown" or Hermann Hesse's "Steppenwolf".

And finally take Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales - a unique mix of beautiful images, great characters and dirty jokes (the Reeve's Tale)! :smallbiggrin:

[Avilan the Grey]

Shakespeare in the original language is very difficult, and it mostly have to do with the fact that he is a "generation" older than most. If I understand it correctly it was about another century before English became what it is today (Swedish evolved even later; all of a sudden around 1750, it is all perfectly clear and anyone can understand it without problem who knows modern Swedish).

At least we don't have any major historical figures that requires us to learn and understand 16th century Swedish.

[Dervag]

Shakespeare in the original language is very difficult, and it mostly have to do with the fact that he is a "generation" older than most. If I understand it correctly it was about another century before English became what it is today (Swedish evolved even later; all of a sudden around 1750, it is all perfectly clear and anyone can understand it without problem who knows modern Swedish).

At least we don't have any major historical figures that requires us to learn and understand 16th century Swedish.That's about right.

1700-vintage English has a lot of strange vocabulary and style conventions, but you can read it; it is grammatically modern. 1600-vintage English still used archaic grammar for some things.

What makes it worse is that one of the things Shakespeare was good at was using lots of clever puns and literary allusions. Which is impressive, but since most of those puns relate to words that no one has used in four hundred years and to stuff that by modern standards is ridiculously obscure... it gets in the way of comprehension unless you're already a very educated person who happens to know most of that stuff.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

Shakespeare is really not that difficult to read though, but this does actually vary between editions of the script; many people don't realise that the spelling in most Renaissance literature has been updated to more closely fit modern English (take a look at an original manuscript of a Shakespeare play and you'll see what I mean), plus there are those editions with notes on the side for completely foreign vocabulary and puns beyond comprehension (of which there are in fact surprisingly few; most of Shakespeare's wordplay makes sense today). As for Shakespeare making up words, this was also very common at the advent of the printing press, with his plays continuing an earlier trend.

I will reiterate that it is far better to see them in performance than to read the script; sometimes it can be difficult to comprehend what exactly is happening, especially if you're reading it for the first time, since these are, after all, plays, not novels. And say what you want about Shakespeare's plots; he was a master of the English language and he wrote genuinely good theatre.

[Kneenibble]

If you are taking a look at an original manuscript of a Shakespeare play, then the non-editorial spelling is probably not the kind of thing that will surprise you. :smallwink:

[Lord Seth]

I will reiterate that it is far better to see them in performance than to read the script; sometimes it can be difficult to comprehend what exactly is happening, especially if you're reading it for the first time, since these are, after all, plays, not novels. And say what you want about Shakespeare's plots; he was a master of the English language and he wrote genuinely good theatre.The thing, though, is that while it's often more entertaining to watch the plays (provided it's being done by a competent group), in a class the purpose is to study them, and studying the individual words or phrases is much harder if it's being watched rather than read.

The other thing is that whenever you see a play of Shakespeare, what you're watching is how one or several people interpret the play, and many are "updated" in some way. Because the purpose is to study Shakespeare rather than being entertained (though it is of course possible to be entertained by the studying), we want to get the closest to "pure Shakespeare" as possible and the closest we can get to that is by reading the plays. It isn't like a movie where you can sit down and see the scene unfold exactly as it originally did.

EDIT: That's another reason why I think studying Shakespeare works better for college. If you're studying Shakespeare in college, odds are it's because you actually want to study it or at least are interested in things like that; an Engineering major, for example, is unlikely to take a class that has you studying Shakespeare. In high school, though, you don't have as much choice in what classes you take (or at least that's how it was at my high school in terms of English classes), so you can end up studying Shakespeare when you'd probably rather see the plays for enjoyment.

[snoopy13a]

Shakespeare usually wrote in iambic pentameter which can be difficult to follow in itself. On the rare occassions that he used prose (such as the rude mechanicals in A Midsummer Night's Dream) it becomes much more approachable.

[Harr]

There's a good amount of misconception throughout this entire thread.

A "classic" work is a work that is either:

1) The first one to distill and perfect a certain theme, or a certain style of writing, to such a degree that all subsequent works that explore the same theme are expected to imitate it to some degree OR can expect to be compared to it to some degree;

or

2) If not the first, then the first one to become widely known as such.

Examples: Romeo and Juliet distilled the "doomed lovers" theme to such a degree that any story about doomed lovers and their fate nowadays can expect to be compared to it. Tolkien's work perfected high fantasy to such a degree that all fantasy works of today are considered derivative of them, and comparable to them, to at least some extent.

Whether someone personally likes, loves, or hates a certain work has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's considered a classic or not. Nor does any kind of critics' reception or reviews, favorable or negative. In any way.

People who come and comment that they don't like such and such work that is considered a classic are completely and flatly missing the point. Just because you don't like Tolkien doesn't stop his work from defining all modern fantasy literature that came afterward. And that is why it's worth studying, regardless of whether you personally like it or not: Because they provide the baseline from which to judge every other work in the same theme or style, NOT because you're supposed to automatically like or enjoy them, or any silly egocentric idea like that.

Summary: A "classic" work is one that is supposed to be seen as "This is the baseline against which you can judge other stuff", not "OMG dude, you're supposed to totally love this no matter what!!"