'Why are classics classic?

My biggest thing is why classics are classic. Most people can not relate to them and either are bored or think they are awful. I cannot even get through most classics because the language is so archaic that it just makes me shake my head and throw the book. (Classics are great for target practice though. lol) The only classics that I have liked are Dracula and Dr. Heidegger's Experiment. I did not like The Scarlet Letter which I was forced to read for English and I could not even finish Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, all Shakespeare plays except Romeo and Juliet (which I still don't think I fully understood aside from the double death and tortured love).

Also I reserve my opinion on Frankenstein because I have yet to read it but I think I will start it now just so I can include it on my list of "classics: what I think"

SO WHY ARE THEY CLASSICS?

Do you agree or disagree with them being called classics? Which books should be classics and which should not?

- Jessa

I'm with you, JBookLover. I, too, read The Scarlet Letter in high school, and also read The Grapes of Wrath in my freshman college English class. I ended up reading the Cliff's notes for Last of the Mohicans. Granted, they are all great works, but, like you said, the language is so archaic, and it's so hard to relate to most of them, that I don't find them "classic" at all. I've tried to read Mythology so many times, but just can't get through it. I'm not really sure what makes a book a "classic", per se, but I think whoever decides that uses the same thing to determine classic movies. I mean, seriously. I sat down one night in an attempt to watch The English Patient, but I really just wanted to kill myself instead of finish it, and I'm not one to stop watching a movie just because it's bad. Almost always, I'll continue it because I can't stand to not finish a movie. But I digress...
Anyway, point being...I throughouly agree (or is it disagree??) with you about books that are deemed classics. Maybe "classics" means old, boring, books with archaic language and things you won't understand or relate to. If so, then they are appropriately named.

LOL I have always wondered this question? Although I do enjoy a few of what is called modern classics, Flannery O'Connor, a couple of John Steinbeck books, and I like William Faulkner short stories. Grapes of Wrath gave me a sick headache reading it. I fell asleep after only reading 10 pages into Jane Eyre.

Classics are classics for two main reasons -

1. they have stood the test of time
2. they have something more to say than Peter loves Mary

JBookLover - I think it is funny that you complain about the language of classics and then state one of the only classics you like is Dracula. Dracula is actually quite poorly written, the reason it is a classic is more to do with it's cultural impact. (And even then, the Dracula we all know and love really comes from the movies). I understand your complaints about language, I picked up one of those Outlander books you like and, being Scottish, found it unreadable due to mediocre (and completely inaccurate) Scots accent.
This is an important line - "which I still don't think I fully understood aside from the double death and tortured love" - classics make you think. They require a little work on behalf of the reader.

If you want books to be little more than McDonalds for the brain, then don't read the classics. If you want something more substantial, and are willing to make an effort, then classics will repay you.

Try a classic that is easier to read - something by Jane Austen of The Great Gatsby, for example.

Firefly7522 - is The English Patient a great film? It does look lovely but.... I would argue it's not a great book, while it has aspects to admire, it is ruined by it's ending.

Anyway, it's horses for courses. If people prefer to read Robert Ludlum or Marian Keyes instead of Dostoevsky, that's fine by me, I just prefer something a little more substantial.

ps....I'm sorry if this reads a little like an attack on anyone, it's not meant to be so.

Reading books in school is very seldom a good way to enjoy them - you don't get to read at your own pace and have to keep stopping to "discuss" bits, and you can't skip dull passages. And the memories of being forced to write x000 word essays compare and contrasting themes are enough to scare anybody for life.

But I digress.

in my humble Opinion there are a lot of reasons why Classics are classics, becasue:

They depict the era they were written in so well that anybody can understand what life was like at the time. They are real insights into history, even though they are complete fiction.

They also deal with the unchanging human constants - lover's quarrel, soldiers die etc etc.

Just being old isn't good enough to make it a classic.

Some are classics for being the first widely known about book on a topic - everybody who writes about that topic afterwards is based partly on the original work. dracula inspired a raft of horror/vampire fiction for example. Tolkien for fantasy worlds. There were obviously works before but these were the most widely known. the inspiration.

It doesn't make them good, per se, but they should be read to acknowledge the originallity and to see how other authors have intrepted what had gone before.

In my experience a classic is a book that the cultural elité says is a classic. In some ways those books form a shared cultural heritage, typical of the social or geographical sphere that spawned them. Sweden (where I live...) have Strindberg, Heidenstam etc. and the english-language sphere has Austen or Steinbeck etc.
Some of the books called classics are common for the western hemisphere. I'm thinking of Shakespeare and maybe Goethe. Others are not looked on as classics in Sweden, but well known and read as part "becoming a man" or "getting som cultural cred". I'm thinking of Hemmingway, Melville etc.

There are a lot of books that handles big issues, beyond what the plot's nominally about - this is not somthing that is typical for the "classics".
There are alot well-written books that are not classics. There are books that depict their time or a time gone in a vivid way that are not classics.
And there are classics that are shallow, badly written, and about people not getting along with each other (which seems a major plot line to me).
And some of the writers where famous in their own time - they became classics while alive, and not because of any qualitative worthiness but becase they where spectacular individuals, or very highranking polemics.
Today we read them because it is deemd a must if you aspire to be a part of the establishment. Not to know who Hamlet was is like not knowing who is president of the United States, even if you're not american and not interested in politics or literature or the past intrigues of the danish court. And in my mind, that's what a classic is - something that helps denominate what we are and which cultural sphere we belong to.
In that way they have a quality, but as cultural markers, not as literature.

I can remember expressing a similar sentiment to a high school teacher, tellng him I really was only interested in literature of the last century at the most. His reply, which I still remember, was "well, that's safe". It cut me to the quick.

Probably 97 or 98% of the novels walking out of the average Barnes and Nobles in the United States are contemporary American-written novels that are easily accessible to almost any American reader. They reflect today's culture and today's issues and today's prejudices. Most of them will be forgotten, not because they are particularly bad, but more often because there are several hundred other works just like them, of which only one or two will survive. And there are lots of people who basically read one book, one style of writing, over and over again.

I'm not particularly concerned with why one book is a classic and another is not (there is an interesting discussion in the "Canon" group on some of this). However, I do think reading broadly from different eras and cultures sheds much light on the world and is just more interesting. It gives us different perspectives, shows us how language has been used in different times and places, and reveals the shear inventiveness of many writers. Look hard at what came before Shakespeare, for example, or Dante, to see just how inventive and original they were. Are words archaic? Well, try to think of that part as an interesting puzzle, a little window on the development of language. Up above I said I was "cut to the quick" - I'm sure it was understandable, but where does that phrase come from, and how did it make it into the language?

Or, one can just be like all the other people who walk into Barnes and Noble to buy another novel just like the last one they read. This is, at least, better than most television.

I agree that some books as more important for their cultural impact than their literary value but the majority of classics also have literary merit. (Obviously these are going to change from country to country with a few major works accepted in most countries).

Shakespeare's work was popular in it's time but it was only afterwards that it was appreciated for the use of language. It was his use of language that saved his work, without this merit nobody would have been interested in him. There were any number of contemporary poets and playwrights who are now forgotten, or only read by academics.

If is just down to cultural impact then the Sherlock Holmes stories, Peter Pan, etc would be seen as the major works of their time. Yet nobody claims this for them because we can see their cultural merits while acknowledging their literary issues. As with Shakespeare, there were a number of contemporaneous famous characters that haven't survived to this day because they had no lasting value.

I know I said above Dracula was quite poorly written but it does have a mythic power that many other works don't possess. There were vampire works before Dracula but none of them harnessed this power, hence they are forgotten.

My apologies if you have seen me post this link before, but I have to post it everywhere I see the misconception spread that classics are only read by a small elite and are forced onto unsuspecting students.

Classics are classics because they are popular through the ages. A new Dan Brown may outsell any other book, but typically does so only for a few years. After that, interest wanes. Jane Austen on the hand has been selling 100,000 copies of Sense and Sensibility each year in the US, and that is excluding copies forced onto university students.

Great article, branko. Thanks.

I do not say that classics only are read by a small elite. Almost everyone I know of has read Dostoyesky, Tolstoy, some Shakespeare (mostly Hamlet, or they have at least seen a play, most commonly Romeo and Juliet or King Lear).
Neither did I say that their _only_ impact was cultural. I only say that people ramble on about thier literary quality and their depth without even sending the slightest thought to the other aspects that make a work "classic". I prefer to read works about ideas, works that inspires the thought, works that tells more than one story, and I have no problems with "difficult" language. Quite the opposite, as sf and nonpopularized nonfiction often put some demands on the readers brain activity, and that's what I mostly searches for. I don't look at myself as part of some elitistic minority, but I understands some of the workings of cultural finish and how we use things around us to construct our own image - how people looks at us. And reading the right books, or at least displaying them in a bookcase where everyone can see them, is part of the action.
My previous piece was also inspired from the other "classics" thread here - it does not contain more than the odd work considered a classic work from a swedish viewpoint, and that in particlar made me go off on the "cultural" aspect.

No one I know of should even in his or her worst nightmare consider Dan Brown a classic, but neither do any I know consider Austen a classic...

Nice article, by the way, but I still wonder what pushes a work from being just ordinary literature to the stack marked "classics". It's well and nice to say "books that win in the long run", but I'm sure that's not the only answer...
Is there any statistics on how many actually have read all these classics they have carried home?

I went off a bit, I know but I have a 3 year old to look after - writing at the same time can be problematic!

I guess my biggest thing is that I don't appreciate people telling me which books are good and that if I don't agree with them then I'm stupid or something (English teachers are bad about this). For me, a lot of the enjoyment of a novel has to do with the subject matter being dealt with. For example, I don't care for Faulkner because I'm not particularly into Southern families made up of bigots, whores, and psychos. I don't care for Hemingway because I'm not into bullfighting or big-game hunting. I don't particularly like Austen because her books are basically glorified romance novels. You get the idea.

One factor you must take in understanding some of these classics is that for years, novels were one of the few (and for a while, cutting edge) forms of media. Themes and issues were presented through novels rather than documentaries or magazines.
One reason some of them seem hard to get through now is that we are used to being able to get instant entertainment gratification.
I think the question is a good one: "Why are classics classic?" If you don't understand why a novel has stood the test of time, read it carefully. Why are we still discussing it today? Why do they teach it in school? It isn't necessarily to teach about Southern families or bull fighting. It's about the universal themes that it explores.

Classics are a totally different animal than a book you want to breeze through. I like them both but knwo I am going to get something different from each one.

Quick: the sensitive part under the fingernail.

jargoneer, I honestly couldn't tell you about The English Patient. I didn't get through it. In my defense, though, I was only about 17 or 18 when I saw it, and not exactly into "classic" movies. Maybe I'll try it again sometime now that I'm a little older and more mature.

Addressing what others have said, I agree that classics are classics for more reasons than one, the main reason being that, yes, they HAVE stood the test of time, and they do deal with topics that are more substantial and intellectual than your average best-seller these days. I also agree that, due to these factors, they require time, thought, and perseverence to get through to really appreciate and understand what they are really about.

For me, classics just don't hold much appeal. That being said, I am only 25 years old, and my interests have changed several times over since I've been reading, so who's to say if, in a couple of years, my interests start leaning me towards Hemmingway, Faulkner, etc. As of right now, I read books to escape, to enter a world that's more exciting (or at the very least more fun) than my own, much the same way I choose the movies or tv shows I watch. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy a good, thought-provoking Oscar film or classic novel every once in a while. Let's just say it's not part of my daily literary diet.

I guess the best thing to do is to say "To each his own." What one person deems a "classic," or, at the very least, a great novel, may in comparison be extremely tormenting to get through for someone else, and vice versa. Everyone's got a favorite 'flavor' and shouldn't be knocked or looked at in bad taste just because their choice may not be one someone else deems "intellectual reading."

In response to Precipitation, I believe English teachers are not deciding for you what is good and what is not. A classic is a book which has a message, or idea, which is relative and important. The main goal of the writers back then was not to tell a good story, although Jane Austen still tried. However, when I tell my English teacher if I enjoyed or did not enjoy the book that we are reading, for example Walden, which I did not enjoy. He says he doesnt care whether I enjoyed it or not. Instead he cares, If I got the point of why the author wrote it, How he wrote it, and hat made it successful, if successful at all. Never does the words, it was good, go through my mouth during English. However I still do have opinions on them which I share at here, haha.
Not meant to attack that though Precipitation. Just showing my view.

"cut to the quick" - I'm sure it was understandable, but where does that phrase come from, and how did it make it into the language?

The quick is the flesh (as in 'the quick and the dead', quick means 'living'). You can cut to the quick anywhere, not just on your fingers *g*, although it is also the name for that sensitive part normally protected by the nail, so you can say 'nails bitten to the quick' and mean either flesh or that specific part of the nailbed.

" Instead he cares, If I got the point of why the author wrote it"

That may have been the case a while ago, but a lot (all?) of the authors I've heard talking on this point vigorously deny that they wrote about anything. There was no point. They created some characters and placed them in a situation, and were often surprised by what happened.
By way of example tolkien is often thought to have been talking about the world war in Lord of the Rings but he and all his notes and his son vigourously deny this.
So whilst a point may be observable in any given writing it is seldom put there by the author, so they can't be classics because of this!

So what are people looking for in a novel? Simply a book about people like yourself? Those Faulkneresque dark southern characters are interesting and challenging, even if they may not be anyone you'd seek to emulate or even just invite to dinner.

For me, part of reading is challenging the imagination. It is not always comfortable or easy.

And, BoPeep, thanks for cutting to the chase so quickly. I find phrases like these fascinating.

So whilst a point may be observable in any given writing it is seldom put there by the author, so they can't be classics because of this!

While I don't agree that "points" are seldom put in books by their authors, that's not really germane. It is not the authors who designate a book "classic" -- it may be someone who perceives a "point", whether it existed in the author's mind or not.

Bear in mind, too, that the designation of "classic" is not valid until some time has passed. (That means that the term "modern-day classic" is just puffery.) With the passage of time, a "point" might be truly seen in a work which was not necessarily intended by its author. He or she might simply have been telling a story or defining the then-current scene and letting the then-modern characters perform in it, but the significance of this story for the time and place may tell later generations more than the author intended, and be worth preserving generation after generation.

However, it is not hard to identify books where the author did have a point and which are probably looked to as classics by some authorities because they make the point better than other works. Think of these "points", and identify representative classics:

The horrors of war.
The small-mindedness of local clergy.
Viciousness of slave-masters or industrialists.
Meanness of unwilling foster parents.
Redemption of the wicked.
Unfailing fall of the high and mighty.
... on and on, and on.

This is only to address your comment about author‘s intentions, for I don’t accept the position that a classic is a classic because it makes a point , etc, even ‘though that may be one criterion.

(edited to close a tag)

My original proposition was not that, that is what makes a classic. What I was saying, was that A Classics is not a classic because it is good or funny. Also I do not agree Reading Fox, authors do put points into their writing. Lord of the Rings, is not really a classic. Many books do have points in it. 1984 does have a point, so does A Tale of Two Cities.

Sometimes it seems to me that a book is classic simply because the English teachers have already developed a curriculum for it. There are books in the canon that I really think have outlived their usefulness. I'm sure there are books that are considered canon for a time, and then are abandoned. I wonder if anyone has written a thesis on this.

"1984 does have a point"

A very resonant point can certainly be found reading it today. I'm not convinced that Orwell set out to write a story with that in mind though.

The trouble is that, as has already been rightly pointed, out a classic is a book that stands the test of time, hence the authors are dead and not available to be asked why they wrote a specific work.

The only works I can think of where I'm sure the author was making a point first and a book around it is Pratchett's later diskworld books. And even then its more a setting than a theme.

artisan's comment "It is not the authors who designate a book "classic" -- it may be someone who perceives a "point", whether it existed in the author's mind or not"
is certainly true and I will allow this thread to resume its proper course.

Orwell definitely wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four to make a point. Look at the rest of fiction, and his non-fiction, Orwell was very politically engaged writer. If we can accept that an everyday writer like Pratchett is writing to make a point then if it seems self-evident that a great writer like Orwell will be doing the same.

Just because a writer is dead, it doesn't mean we don't know the reasons behind a particular work. There are notes, revised manuscripts, and correspondence, for example, that can reveal the writer's intentions.

The idea that the writer doesn't 'understand' his own text is really a version of Barthes' 'Death of the Author' theory where Barthes posits that the author (his aims, background, etc) is unimportant and only the text is important, and it is only by studying the text in detail can truth be revealed. (This is a very simple explanation but does anyone really want another 750 on French literary theory).

The horrors of war.
The small-mindedness of local clergy.
Viciousness of slave-masters or industrialists.
Meanness of unwilling foster parents.
Redemption of the wicked.
Unfailing fall of the high and mighty.

This sounds like life in 2006!

I think a classic book represents or reflects the times, people, and issues in which it was written and endures through milleniums. It's a portrait in time. Thus, while Moby Dick will always be a classic, Danielle Steele will never be.

It's a portrait in time. Thus, while Moby Dick will always be a classic, Danielle Steele will never be.

Yet, Dickens works (among others) were published, serialized, first in the popular magazineof his day. He was, probably, about as close to a Danielle Steele as could have been published in that era.

Re: 17

I suppose you're right, thibs53, but if I don't enjoy something I'm not likely to get anything out of it. When an author writes a novel, he or she is inviting people to read it, not forcing them to. Teachers are really the guilty party here. They treat "great" writers as if they were gods. Despite the fact that I have a BA in English, I still don't "get" literature.

I agree it is hard to enjoy something you can't stand to read, like sitting in a puddle on a cold day, it sucks. However I also believe some writers are treated as gods, can we not criticize Dickens or Thoreau. (Especially Thoreau)

This is a great thread. I've read some good definitions of a classic and some valid opinions on author motivation.

I first started reading classic novels because I was curious about what constituted a 'classic' and so ploughed into Penguin's list headlong at the age of 16. Over three years I read authors in blocks - Lawrence, Hardy, Waugh, Sartre, Steinbeck, Forster, Camus, Tolstoy etc. During that time I went from an angry teen who antagonised her English teacher to an eager student. What impressed me was the style, narrative flow and plotting skills of these authors. Their mores had a timeless quality, even if I didn't share them. Classics tend to be books you can't switch off from: they're multi-layered and memorable. When I read War and Peace at 18, I carried it everywhere with me and 'lived in' that novel: when I finished it I had to read it again immediately.

Classics are well-crafted and invariably do contain an over-riding philosophy or 'point'. Some passages can be as lyrical as poetry. Characters develop throughout the story and are memorable in their own right. The same cannot be said for 'ordinary' novels.

This is easy to demonstrate if you read a true classic, then something like Martina Cole straight afterwards as I did recently. Cole suffered badly compared to David Copperfield and positively withered next to Patrick O'Brian, who might not be considered a classic yet but is a marvellous writer. So to those who complain about their English teachers' choices I'd say read some more before you dismiss classics - they might surprise you, as Tolstoy did when I read him at 18 and still does. The revelation that someone long dead has the same feelings, desires and dreams as yourself is a humbling first step on the road to being an adult.

Incidentally, I am now an English teacher myself: oh the many ironies of life!

Just finished Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi:

"... most great works of the imagination were meant to make you feel like a stranger in your own home. The best fiction always forced us to question what we took for granted. It questioned traditions and expectations when they seemed immutable."

Not that I've been known to read a lot of classics, but I think this is a great definition of a classic. It may not be easy to read, it may make you uncomfortable but a classic is a novel that makes you look at things in a different way.

It seems to me that American teachers of English in particular are geared to forcing classics down teenagers' throats for the sake of it 'he didn't care whether I liked it or not' - that's a disgrace! Surely the first duty of an English teacher is to enthuse their pupils with a love of reading. And I write as a school librarian with a BA in English. If I thought any taecher in my school had that attitude I'd be horrified.
The English curriculum in the UK has changed drastically recently and more 'interesting' authors have been added.

I think classics are often wasted on the young simply because they don't have enough life experiences to appreciate what the authors are trying to say...how many teens have been in a Romeo and Juliet situation, really? And the older the book the more research has to be done on how people lived at that time to understand what is happening e.g. agricultural details in Hardy; day-to-day life in Elizabethan England of Shakespeare, and so on. Difficult for a teen in mid-USA or inner city London to relate to this.

So it's still ok for us country folk to read Hardy? ;-) (I did Tess and some of his poetry for A level and thoroughly enjoyed it!)

I also think more teens than you'd imagine have been in something approximating Romeo and Juliet's situation - it just requires a little recasting and imagination. West Side Story brought it home to a generation of American teens; the Baz Luhrmann remake spoke to more recent teens. Lots of us had a teenage crush on a boy or girl who was somehow 'not suitable' or permitted, whether that judgement was passed by our parents, our friends, our school rivalries, whatever. Most of us drew the line at eloping and committing suicide, but that's partly what literature (film, theatre) is for - teaching us what's not a good idea just as much as what is.

I love Austen, Dickens,and Shakespeare, but admit that I have to readjust my mind to the "archaic" language. However, once my mind is readjusted, the stories entrance me. Yes, as one poster said, Jane Austen novels are, in many ways, glorified romances. But, to me, they also describe a way of life and culture that has pretty much gone the way of the dodo bird. People would actually WALK places, and visits may last for a week or more. It isn't that I particularly desire those things in my life, but it is fascinating to read about. I also had fun digging around to find out what "Michaelmas" was.

Don't like Hemmingway at all. I read "The Sun Also Rises", and wondered why I wasted my time.

Having just read all of these posts, even at 2:00 am, I love that this entire discussion is happening.

I think that when we designate a work of literature a "classic", we are acknowledging that the work is able to inspire discussion from multiple class/cultural/age-groups over time. Classics aren't always the most popular of their times, nor are they always the best written, but something about them grabs people's attention regardless of the usual borders and boxes that divide the world. The very fact that so many people from such diverse backgrounds can form strong opinions about Austen or Goethe or Shakespeare after a century, or two, or five, has passed contributes to the position of the work as a classic.

I teach English and Mythology at a local community college, and I can tell you that my students don't always like what they have to read. And yes, I still make them read it. Because we read classic literature, and mythology for that matter, to inspire thought, especially critical thought. Often, the books that best generate thought and discussion are those books that have been capturing attention across generations by asking questions or dealing with issues that appeal to the common human experience.

Sometimes we don't connect with classics on the level of personal enjoyment. I was never all that thrilled about Catcher in the Rye, which some other folks swear is the best book ever written. But I can still appreciate it for the passion it continuously inspires in others.

And that, really, is the point. It's not necessarily about what the author intended to put in the book. It's not necessarily about the quality or purity of the writing. It's about what the readers take from the book, because it is ultimately the readers who designate something a classic.

Of course, it could also be luck. After all, if Shakespeare's friends hadn't published the First Folio after his death, if Christopher Marlowe hadn't died at such a young age, if Ben Jonson hadn't been such an a**hole, we might be revering an entirely different Renaissance bard.

I do appreciate everyone who has taken the time to explain "Why are Classics, classic?". I asked my dear sweet hubby this question not to long ago and he spent the next 3 hours giving me his short version of it. I still didnt have a clear answer. I can promise this, I will most likely go to my death bed without having read books like Moby Dick or War and Peace but I can live with it. I will try and read some of William Faulkner novels though.
Kathy

I have to admit to not reading Moby Dick and several other 'classics' that are not considered canon works in England. I'm glad I read The catcher in the rye when I was 17: I can't empathise so much with the main character now. Several novels with 'classic' designations are stinkers, or at least lesser works by great novelists which get swept up in the same covers: not all D H Lawrence's novels stand the test of time. As I become older I fall in and out of love with authors - Woolf's unreadable at the moment, as is Lawrence, Turgenev and several others I raved about in my teens.

I have to say it's not just children who are force-fed classics: if I have to teach Macbeth to one more group of 14 year olds I will have a complete head fit. Ditto Romeo and Juliet, Lord of the flies and Of mice and men. Sadly, teachers don't have a lot of control over the National Curriculum prescribed texts. Grrr.

Re: Precipitation

Posted by Precipitation:
"Teachers are really the guilty party here. They treat "great" writers as if they were gods."

What do you propose teachers should do? Let their students read whatever they want? At some point someone has to be responsible for developing a curriculum and assigning certain works, and English curricula in the US tend to follow a chronology, and works that are supposed to represent ideology/movement/style of a specific period are typically assigned. A student may not enjoy reading the assigned book, but--for the most part--it is typically hard to deny the importance of such a work, whether it is agreeable to each individual's reading taste or not.

Posted by Precipitation:
"Despite the fact that I have a BA in English, I still don't "get" literature."

What can you possibly mean by "get?"

re: mlfhlibrarian

posted by mlfhlibrarian:
"The English curriculum in the UK has changed drastically recently and more 'interesting' authors have been added."

What can you possibly mean by "interesting authors?" Are you insinuating that classic authors aren't interesting? If so, that is absolute rubbish, and quite the opposite of the truth.

posted by mlfhlibrarian:
"how many teens have been in a Romeo and Juliet situation, really?"

What a silly reason to dismiss a work. Are you advocating that teachers should only assign works to teenagers that they can directly relate to? And how do you relate to something, anyway? Must you have a common experience with the work? What do you think would be suitable assigned reading for a teenagers? "Catcher in the Rye" perhaps? Ah, but wait, that's considered a classic. Strike that one, not "interesting" enough. And I'm not even willing to accept your premise that a number of teens wouldn't have experiences similar to those in "Romeo and Juliet."

Frankly, your post seems to be full of hollow words that aren't really saying anything. Your argument seems to be supported by arbitrary labels and very little substance. What exactly is your solution to which works should be assigned to teens? "Interesting" doesn't seem to be a sufficient solution.

And I will note that the word "classic" does make me quite queasy, and it is an inadequate term that encompasses thousands of years of diverse literature, but I am using the term in a manner consistent with how I understand most of the people in this thread to be using it.

I enjoyed Macbeth when I did it at school at about that age. Blood gore guts ghosts and visions whats not to enjoy. Of course the dry analysis was not fun but at least the play was. Interesting" might not be be a sufficient solution but it is an essential part of that solution.

An uninteresting classic is an oxymoron. I suspect most pupils rebel at Lord of the Flies not because it uninteresting but because it cuts too close to the bone.

In what way are classics important Samidat what do they offer that makes it worth the extra effort to teach something agreeable to each individual's reading taste. I can think of plenty of books that i think everyone should read and plenty of types of books that I think everyone should read. far more than would fit into a school curiculum. So it seems to me that picking the books that appeal to the most people is the obvious strategem in teaching to read and enjoy it, in giving them the tools they need to tackle their individual hoice of books and making them aware of those choices.

The argument against using classics in school is that it puts children off reading because they are too difficult, so books like Harry Potter should be used instead. However, as I said in another post, there is no real evidence that giving children contemporary books makes them want to read more. Children are just like adults, some want to read, others don't, it's as simple as that.

Regarding getting kids to read:

I'm paraphrasing here, but there was some kind of recent study that said the best indicator of whether a child will be a "reader" or not is his/her parents' attitudes toward reading ...

Freakonomics has an interesting chapter on what does and doesn't influence a child to read - having *undefined number of* books in the home does, reading to your child doesn't. (A relaxed-but-omnipresent positive attitude to reading, in other words, does better than enforced reading, particularly if the child sees no other model of reading on the parents' part.)

Don't misunderstand me: I love the texts I teach. However, one's enthusiasm can wane; KS3 English has meant five months of Macbeth every year for the last fifteen years. I studied it myself (memorising quotes for the O' Level exam) for two years at school. Can you see how even such a great play might wear thin?!

I agree that introducing 'popular' fiction into the curriculum is not always a good idea. There are several areas of GCSE English where teachers have some control over texts and approaches - most attempt to introduce 'relevant' literature or 'themes' to those who are reluctant students. Surprise, surprise: the reluctant student is still reluctant even when the curriculum is being bent into shape for them. We have to admit that for some children reading is not a pleasure, no matter how hard we try to accommodate their experiences and 'hobbies' in our choice of texts and essay themes. One of my colleagues was dismayed when a former student enthused about a novel she'd 'done' with him, only to go on to say it was the only book he'd ever read: the pleasurable experience had not predisposed him to seek further texts or other authors!

I always find Lord of the flies and Of mice and men relevant to the children I teach: bullying has never gone away nor have abusive power relationships and the children recognise these themes in these texts. Students draw different inferences from Shakespeare every time I study his plays with a new group - the Sonnets seem to be the best 'in' with Elizabethan language. I don't think the 'canon' is irrelevant and struggling with 'archaic' language is a valuable lesson in how complex and rich English is. The 'translations' of Shakespeare we sometimes give students prove that the original is best: more succinct, more rich, more memorable and more poetic. Populist YA novels often date awfully fast, especially the dialogue (nothing ages so fast as slang) and mores. We have to offer them texts that have stood the test of time.

Fantastic post, Hera.

sandragon -- I don't agree that Nafisi's definition fits most classics with which I am familiar. Nothing in Oliver Twist, for example, forced me to question anything, let alone "traditions and expectations", nor did it "make me look at things in a different way". It merely told a good story and taught me something about class structure in England at that time. I am not saying this to argue but only to disagree with that definition. Maybe others disagree.

Re: 42

In English classes during the first semesters of my junior and senior years, my teachers allowed us to read whatever we liked as long as the books were on an appropriate reading level, and we were reading a certain number of pages per week. I would always triple or quadruple the required number of pages, and I really enjoyed it.

What I mean by not "getting" literature is that I cannot wrap my head around the concept of reading books you hate. I had a professor who said that she loved reading books she hated, which made absolutely no sense to me.

kageeh, I can understand that different people get something different out of different novels. With your example, didn't the fact that orphans were once (and still in some countries) treated so horribly make you 'squirm'? Oliver Twist (although I didn't read the whole thing, it got too depressing) made me think about class structure, as you mentioned, but also in relation to situations today. It made me think more about homeless, children or otherwise, on the streets today and wonder what their backgrounds are, why they are in the situations they are. Oliver Twist made me notice, look at in a different way, something I hadn't really paid attention to before.

Maybe a classic for one person is not a classic for another.

Not sure if I'm being clear. Going to blame it on lack of sleep.

Re: Message 53 -- I understand what you're saying but when I read Oliver Twist in 8th grade, I didn't lose any sleep over the streets of homeless children. And maybe that's another problem with forcing school kids to read the classics. If I read the book today, it might well provoke me into thinking of the bigger picture but, in middle or high school and probably even in college, kids are mostly too privileged and too self-centered to ponder the bigger issues. Classics are designated classics by adults with much more worldly wisdom (we would like to think anyway) than the school kids who have to read them.

Don't misunderstand me: I love the texts I teach. However, one's enthusiasm can wane; KS3 English has meant five months of Macbeth every year for the last fifteen years. I studied it myself (memorising quotes for the O' Level exam) for two years at school. Can you see how even such a great play might wear thin?!

Hera, You must have done something really nasty in a past life:^)

Simon

Simon - hahahaha! Yes, I hope I had a good time in that former life: I am certainly paying for it! It's a bit like Tony in A handful of dust, doomed to read the complete works of Dickens over and over again for the rest of his life...

Samizdat - thanks. I am blushing.

I`m still thinking about Nevusmum`s message # 35 - "People would actually WALK places." -
it`s the astonished tone that I like !

As for classics, I don`t know. I do know that reading them has miserably failed to give me Eurydice-like sentence structure !

Maybe a classic is like the blues - difficult to define, but you know it when you hear it (or in this case read it). Danielle Steele isn`t Dickens and never will be, but I couldn`t tell you why not.

Teaching teenagers the classics is a weird one - at the school I attended, To Kill A Mockingbird was well received by our class, Lord of the Flies more so. Shakespeare was quite beyond most of us, and might as well have been in Chinese for all the average miner`s son got out of it - but where else would most kids encounter these titles in book form, if not at school ?

I do remember a school outing to see a production of (I think) Merchant of Venice which was staged with the original dialogue but relatively modern clothing (suits and trilbies etc) most agreed it helped us relate to it - why, I can`t explain, but I still remember it quite some years later.

I also love the film Men of Respect with John Turturro, which is the Macbeth story retold as a part-supernatural/part gangster tale. One of the few films I`ve ever bothered to video !

The best Macbeth adaptation I've seen is Scotland, PA - a relatively independent movie that takes us into a diner in the 1970s. The most "Lady Macbeth" Lady Macbeth I've ever seen. Dark and hilarious, it's as if the Coen brothers did it. Andy Dick was one of the witches. Check it out. It's worth it.

I remember not having any problems getting into To Kill a Mockingbird, Summer of my German Soldier and Lord of the Flies when they were assigned in junior high, even though they were not books I would have picked up on my own. I'm listening to To Kill a Mockingbird again on audiobook and am enjoying it all over again. I remember it changing the way I looked at parent/child relationships when I was a teen.

On the other hand, I was not ready for Wuthering Heights in high school. It scared me away from any of the Bronte sisters. Almost 20 years later I'm finally considering giving Jane Eyre a try.

Oh, please, read Jane Eyre. It's really a wonderful story.

Yes, please. Read Jane Eyre. It's a wonderful story you will never forget.

No its not. Its a trite love story. About an independant women who finds true love, and thus doesn't need to be independant any more. I wasn't impressed.
It is a classic, in that its very well written and meets several of the points made above, but really its not a wonderful story.
I much prefer the eyre affair which you should read after the original. However this will never reach classic status, unfortunetly.

I'm not the biggest fan of Jane Eyre but I don't think you can dismiss it as a trite love story. It's actually quite a strange story, the hero keeps his mad wife in the attic, and it ends with one of the lovers disfigured. Much of the work is really about the lot of women in Victorian society.
Jane Eyre is probably the only classic love story to be adapted as a horror film, 'I Walked With A Zombie'.

The Eyre Affair will never be a classic because although it is entertaining, it is nothing more than entertaining. Like all of Fforde's books, if you think about them for 5 minutes they just fall apart. A classic can stand up to scrutiny.

Wide Sargasso Sea is a classic though, a prequel telling the story of Rochester and his first wife. It is beautifully written.

See this is where I disagreed a few posts ago about author's having a piont et al. Although from our current perspective it is obvious that Jane "is about" the poor lot of Victorian women, this isn't necessarily the Bronte's point of view, because it was written in Victorian times where such things were seen as perfectly natural and the normal way of doing things. No other way of life could be considered reasonable, hence the lame ending where she runs back to be with her man.

Unless there are personal comments from the author explaining why they wrote the book?

In the end classic's are Classic for the same reason that clothes are fashionable - most people accept that that is the case.

reading_fox: although you haven't name-dropped him, I assume you're familiar w/Roland Barthes and his theory of "the death of the author"?

LOL, I think I'm all set for the Eyre saga! Several weeks ago I bookmooched The Eyre Affair because of good feedback on LT, a couple of weeks ago I picked up Wide Sargasso Sea from a library sale because it looked interesting, not realizing the connection. A couple of days ago I picked up Jane Eyre because I felt I was finally ready to give it a try. I think Fate is trying to tell me to get on with it :o)

I thought I was going to hate Jane Eyre, but I actually really liked it. My professor pointed out how it is modeled on the story of Frankenstein, just as Frankenstein is modeled on Paradise Lost. I found the "madwoman in the attic" aspect to be vastly entertaining. Like most classics, though, it is a bit long-winded at times.

Re message 64 - we know a lot about the Brontes because they wrote letters, journals, etc and we know that they were dissatisfied with women's situations, and with their portrayal in fiction. All ths sisters wanted to show that women had different emotional needs than men, and that female love was stronger, more constant, than men. If you look at their works, men are on the whole destructive, while
women are constructive. I could go on but....

"In the end classic's are Classic for the same reason that clothes are fashionable - most people accept that that is the case" - I have to believe you are saying this to provoke argument, because it is such a silly statement. Made me smile though.

re message 65 - I mentioned Barthes in an earlier post but the debate wasn't taken up.

"men are on the whole destructive" ???

Makes us sound like a bunch of daleks.

There are several posts above about reading Shakespeare, and I'd just like to point out that a serious deficiency of our educational system is that high school teachers treat Shakespeare like some novel to be read in the quiet of the school library. What are they thinking?

They are Plays, people! The best first exposure to them is watching a performance, and the best second exposure is acting them or reading them aloud. And it's far better to watch a film rendition than to read them in a closet. Like almost all poetry (since they are plays in poetic form), they need to be read aloud.

And, if you need to understand why Shakespeare is a classic, I'd recommend locking yourself in some night to see a few movies: Shakespeare in Love, 10 Things I Hate About You, West Side Story and one of Branagh's Shakespeare's (Hamlet or Much Ado); flip through any collection of sonnets as well.

He not only invented much of our language, poetry and theatre, but he did it in a way that still makes for a damn good story.

So, I really couldn't care less whether anyone considers them classics or what you call them, but Billy Boy's ouevre is one of the few writers where I just can't believe someone wouldn't find something to appreciate.

jargoneer on reading_fox: "In the end classic's are Classic for the same reason that clothes are fashionable - most people accept that that is the case" - I have to believe you are saying this to provoke argument, because it is such a silly statement. Made me smile though.

I have disagreed with some of reading_fox's positions, but I think I have to support this one. I understand the statement not to be silly at all, but to say that classics are classic because enough people believe them to be, just as certain clothes are fashionable because enough people believe them to be. The point is fairly well supported here in the topic: There doesn't seem to be any agreement on the intrinsic characteristics which produce the "classic" designation. These seem to differ for different periods, for different authors and for different works by one author.

Re message 70:

At our house two videos that are watched over and over are Much Ado about Nothing (with Branagh) and Twelth Night with Imogen Stubbs, Ben Kingsley, etc. Wonderful stories and use of language. Another movie you might mention is Renaissance Man (with Danny DeVito) which features one of the 'history' plays.

One of my fondest memories of high school was going to see a performance of Julius Caesar with my English class after our study of the play. This was especially meaningful because I had read some of Caesar's writing in my Latin class.

>70 A_musing: a big well said A_musing.

Re: 71

I believe you are correct, artisan. Material things only have value because the consensus is that they do. I was thinking the other day about gold and jewels and about how ridiculously expensive they are. Why is this stuff so valuable? Why is worth paying thousands of dollars for stuff that shines? I'd much rather have thousands of dollars' worth of books (though not necessarily classics :-)).

Thanks artisan at #71 that was precisiely my meaning - there has been no consensus in this thread.

#65 and #68 no I'm not familiar with barthes at all, never heard of him. But then I haven't studied literature at all - and have no interest in doing so. These are just some of my thoughts as the nurons fire waiting for interesting work to appear at my desk.

I'm going to bow out of this discussion now, fun as its been.

Message 71

The are no intrinsic characteristics to what makes a classic because books can contain many virtues (and probably an equal number of flaws) but the one constant in all the classics discussed here, is that they have stood the test of time in one form or another. That is why calling something an instant classic has no meaning, only time will tell. There are plenty of 'instant classics' that have been re-evaluated downwards, likewise works that failed initially have become classics because they contained something that appealed to a significant amount of (the right) people over a significant length of time.
It's the Velvet Underground story - only a few people heard them initially but many of them formed bands, who then led other people back to the source, and so on, until eventually the VU became one of the cornerstones of modern rock.
Rather than fashion, it is anti-fashion. This is not about instant gratification - classics don't become classics just because people say so but by a process of revealing their merits over time.

Re #76:
All right, we agree that there are no intrinsic characteristics common to “classics”. We agree that “instant classic” has no validity. (I’d say it is simply hyperbole, wishful thinking or ambitious marketing). Although I doubt you will see the point as an agreement, your comment, “works…have become classics because they contained something that appealed to a significant amount of…people over a significant length of time” impressed me as a different way of saying that a classic is one because enough people believe it to be. (Please forgive the elipsis omitting “the right” -- I’ll address that separately below.)

However, I am not sure I would accept, undefined, standing “the test of time” or “only time will tell” as the only constant. With no further limitation or recognition of merit, this simply means: Age. It will be obvious that there are old books which are not classics. Therefore, the “test” of time must involve a test of merit, not merely one of lasting power. It seems to me there is nevertheless a need to come to some understanding of the approximate minimum amount of time, per sewhich lies between the rejection of “instant classic” or “modern classic” and acknowledgement that a book is a true “Classic”.

Likewise, I feel unable to let the acknowledged lack of common characteristics let us simply ignore the need to define the merit implicit in the term “classic”.

To the former: I regret that my edition of The Harvard Classics is packed away, for I would be interested to examine the index to determine which was the most recent work (as of Mr.Eliot’s editorial decision) which “made the cut”. Likewise, it would be interesting to see what a recent list of “The 100 Best Books” has to contribute to the question of simple longevity. Which raises the first question: What is the most recently published work you think qualifies as a true “classic”?

To the second: We agree the constituents of “merit” may vary from one classic to another. However, there ought to be some way to define the ingredients. That is probably the central meaning of the question which is the heading of this topic. But we have seen this raises some problems. To take one characteristic as an example, one could say that the author must exhibit a significant ability at writing finely crafted text. But taste and styles of writing have changed so radically over the ages, and it is entirely possible to find classic works which exhibit really bad writing, in today‘s understanding. {I hesitate to whisper Bulwer-Lytton in this connection, but probably one must now acknowledge the “It was a dark and stormy night“ style of thing as a classic.}

While I am unable to relate to your Velvet Underground analogy, I do appreciate the “anti-fashion” reference, and I think the apparent disagreement is perhaps less than that. The previous reference to fashion being a matter of people agreeing did not involve a matter of time. (It is probable that one could find a significant agreement among women - at least in this country - as to what constitutes a “classic little black dress“ of any period.) I gather from your comment that you meant that “the right” people who are appropriate to designate a work as classic would reject a popular modern work because it was “fashionable”. I can’t disagree with the probability, although I would balk at the implication that there is a nobility of judges at work in this .

I think it is to early for any twentieth century book to be described as a classic. I think that works of equal merit are to classic works are missing gromthe canon by the merest happenstance. It is I think a great mistake to think that "Literary merit" as it is applied to so called literary fiction. has any relationship to its value as a classic at all. Classic were and will continue to be drawn from popular works.

If I was asked to name one work from the last centuary that in the unlikely civilisation still exists in two hundred years would be regarded as a classic it would be Flowers for Algernon

When I was talking about the 'right' people I wasn't talking about the 'nobility of judges' I was suggesting writers and critics who have more impact than general readers in defining what is a classic. (This comes down to the 'reading' debate - everybody can read a novel, but some people can read a novel better. By that I mean that these readers have more critical tools & understanding than a general reader - if you don't accept this then the study of literature is pointless. I am not including myself among these readers, just in case I get accused of arrogance).

Regarding the intrinsic value of books - I think the best analoy could be in cooking. A good steak dish and a good dessert do not contain anything in common other than they are enjoyable and the skill of the chefs. Authors, like chefs, can produce widely differing dishes that still tickle the palate.

I agree that tastes change radically over time, which is why some works get reassessed over time. I also agree that not all books published as classics are classics per se but may have an historical value. For publishers it is just easy to market them in their classics range. I doubt anybody would really argue that Bulwer-Lytton is a great novelist but it would be easy to argue that he is an important figure in the literature of his day. These leads to an interesting question - what readership are classics aimed at?

Simon W11 - "Classics were and will continue to be drawn from popular works". Not true, a number of works that are now considered classics when not popular when first published. For example, Moby Dick was poorly reviewed and was almost forgotten for, at least, 50 years before it slowly was recognised as a great novel. Look at popular works of recent years, are the classics of this time going to be drawn from Dan Brown, Jeffrey Archer, Barbara Taylor Bradford et al?

Simon W11 - "Classics were and will continue to be drawn from popular works". Not true,

Oh yes it is:^) Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Bram Stoker, Charlotte Brontë. How can you not agree that these were popular writers who's most popular works became classics. Classics are drawn from popular works. I make no claims to exclusivity but popular works the are the commonest source of classics and I see no reason for this to change.

...are the classics of this time going to be drawn from Dan Brown, Jeffrey Archer, Barbara Taylor Bradford et al?

I doubt it I have made my prediction as to one workthat | think could achieve classic status. I will make no other. Tou seem absurdly to think I claimed all popular works become classics. so just to be clear I do not claim all popular works become classics, Neither to I claim all Classics were popular on their original publication I think you misunderstood my main point which I see on rereading is poorly worded and I apologise. lets see If I do better this time.

literary fiction has no special claim to being the source of future classics popular works have a much stronger claim nobody after all ever declared a book that they had never heard of a classic.
I do not you notice claim that itis impossible for a literary work to become popular. But such popular genre writers as Philip K Dick or Ursula Le Guin, Larry McMurtry or John Crowley
are just as likely if not more likely to make a future canon as anyone on this years Booker longlist. (Hmm maybe I shouldcheck the list it might have for once have been ifested by people who dont count their book sales in hundreds:^)

I liked jargoneer`s cooking analogy, I thought it showed an original turn of mind.

Let`s have a competition to see who can come up with the most original analogy for the relationship between literature and fiction !

Let`s have a competition to see who can come up with the most original analogy for the relationship between literature and fiction !

Since this can be read as implying that no fiction can be considered to be literature as doggerel isn't poetry, I resist the challenge.

Re: #79:
When I was talking about the 'right' people I wasn't talking about the 'nobility of judges' I was suggesting writers and critics who have more impact than general readers in defining what is a classic. (This comes down to the 'reading' debate - everybody can read a novel, but some people can read a novel better. By that I mean that these readers have more critical tools & understanding than a general reader - if you don't accept this then the study of literature is pointless.

Your writers and critics are what I intended to imply by the term ‘a nobility of judges‘. (Please note that I had not said THE nobility of judges) I can agree that “general” readers are less likely to discern what becomes recognized as a classic, but I still balk at limiting the discerning to “writers and critics”. Surely the study of literature has more point than to acquire the tools to become a writer or critic. The point, I think, is to become a discerning reader and be able to recognize literary merit. There is a large mass of these; they are not general readers, but they are not a nobility, either. They, in fact, are the market classics are aimed at.

Regarding the intrinsic value of books - I think the best analoy could be in cooking. A good steak dish and a good dessert do not contain anything in common other than they are enjoyable and the skill of the chefs. Authors, like chefs, can produce widely differing dishes that still tickle the palate.

On first reading, I thought this a terrific analogy. On further thought I see it as applying well to comparisons between, say, classic fiction (steak) and great poetry (dessert), but not so well as between classic and non-classic versions of either. If we are trying to determine what characteristics make classics classic (The test, after all, set by our initiator, JBookLover -message #1), we need to know how the great steak differs from a lesser one or a different meat dish, like a stew; how one chef achieved a good dessert, say a fine crème brulee while another produced a mediocre one.

{I think I detect more hunger here than is appropriate for the day after the great American feast day.} I think I also detect all of us dancing around the hard task of defining a classic. We now know they have different ingredients, different values. Let’s get down to cases: Identify one acknowledged classic of any genre and one non-classic of the same genre which appears to have similar ingredients, and say why they are classic and non, respectively.

{edited to close a tag}

Why is a classic a classic?

I've been fighting with friends about this subject for a lifetime, but I think I've finally boiled this down to something understandable that won't start an argument. I discovered this while discussing, "Life of Pi" in my bookclub. So here goes.

Most stories, novels, literature or what have you can, once you understand them well, be boiled down to a simple sentence. It's almost crucial that this be possible, or the author will have bitten off more than he or she can chew.

So, for instance, "The Great Gatsby" is about someone who seeks material wealth above all else, to his eventual, and inevitable, detriment.

Well, if that's F. Scott Fitzgerald's point, why doesn't he just go around saying it? "Oh, say there! People who seek material wealth above all else are eventually going to have messed up lives!"

Well, because that wouldn't be very interesting, would it? I doubt that there's a soul who would think twice about a message presented in this way. The question is, then, how can this point be made in an artistic way, perhaps even in a way that will ring true for people throughout time?

Literature is an ART. Classics become classics in literature because they are very artfully crafted. Classics get their points across not by just hitting you over the head with them, but by making you think about them. By presenting them in a beautiful (or perhaps graphic!) way, but always with an eye towards artful techique. Character development (crafting characters you love or hate), poetically descriptive language, setting a stage that's so real or exciting that you want to jump right inside the book, excruciatingly clever use of symbolism ... this type of thing.

If an author does this VERY well, and the book gains recognition, it may very well become a classic.

It's not AT ALL about just writing a good story. Writing a story with a good plot is, really, one of the easiest parts of the whole game.

Now, why don't people appreciate the classics? Because these techniques are highly sophisticated, and, since they are highly sophisticated, you don't really understand them unless you put alot of effort into studying them.

This last comment usually upsets people a great deal, because anyone who reads thinks he or she should be able to understand all literature just by virtue of the fact that they can read. They don't understand that it takes time to understand all the skills involved in reading and writing artistic literature, just like it takes a huge amount of time to understand to play a musical instrument or to make a great work of visual art.

Most people then say, "Oh, that's no fun, it's just not worth it, I just want to read!" Well, okay. That's your choice, of course. But there are people out there who have done the hard work who have decided that there are certain books out there are classics. They are seeing something that you aren't; you're missing out on something incredibly beautiful. Why deny yourself?

Re #78: If I was asked to name one work from the last centuary that in the unlikely civilisation still exists in two hundred years would be regarded as a classic it would be Flowers for Algernon

You detect civilisation? A fine-lensed eye. I am reminded of a quote from Gandhi: When asked what he thought about Western civilisation, he replied, "I think it would be a good idea."

Re #80: I would be willing to bet something by Ursula Le Guin will make the cut. Unfortunately, I think her very best work was a short story in a collection the name of which I tear myself up trying to remember. {pardon the un-Churchillian syntax}

Re #84:
Well! I withdraw my challenge. While I was composing and posting my #85, Ariel4thou has accomplished the task. Q.E.D. The topic can be declared closed as far as I am concerned. Seriously. That is one great statement in answer to the question.

But before leaving, when ariel4thou said...
Most stories, novels, literature or what have you can, once you understand them well, be boiled down to a simple sentence. It's almost crucial that this be possible, or the author will have bitten off more than he or she can chew.

So, for instance, "The Great Gatsby" is about someone who seeks material wealth above all else, to his eventual, and inevitable, detriment.
...I grabbed my copy of ShrinkLits by Maurice Sagoff, in which 70 "of the world's towering classics" are "cut down to size". This book is not to be missed. Buy it! Here's The Great Gatsby ala Sagoff:

Gatsby's bashes, in the 'twenties
Wow'd the dolce far nientes
As they quaffed the cup of youth
(Ten parts gin and one vermouth);
Gatsby hoped to bring to bed
Old-flame Daisy, who is wed
But unhappy with her Tom
He in turn has put his glom
On a mistress, name of Myrtle
(Now the plot gets really fertile)--
Daisy, driving yellow Stutz
Crashes, spilling Myrtle's guts;
Gatsby shields her, takes the blame,
George, her spouse, with vengeful aim
Shoots him in his natatorium.
At the graveside In Memoriam
Friends (fair-weather) don't appear
(Champagne pals shun watery bier) ...
High life fizzles out, forsooth,
Ten parts dream and one part truth.

They don't understand that it takes time to understand all the skills involved in reading and writing artistic literature, just like it takes a huge amount of time to understand to play a musical instrument or to make a great work of visual art.

Here is my comparison.

When looking at paintings, some study the history of art, what all the colors and symbols mean and the biography of the artist.

Others of us just like to look at pretty pictures. :)

And as I said, that's fine. It's your choice. Personally, I find my enjoyment to be much more profound when I can truly appreciate the amount of effort put into making something beautiful.

It's easy to say, "Hmmm ... pretty picture. Well, that's enough of that!" Then you walk away and completely forget about it. But what about when you're looking at Van Gogh's "Starry Night," (just a bunch of swirlies put together in a pretty pattern, right?) but instead you've looked first at Seurat's pointilism and all of a sudden you recognize that those aren't just big old daubs of paint that Van Gogh is using, they are Seurat's "points" on steriods ... and THEN you find out about how excited the western world was about the new cultural information they were getting from Japan (due to Japan opening up it's doors to the rest of the world for the first time in forever), and all of a sudden those thick dark lines of Van Gogh's pop out at you as ... mimicking Japaneses wood block prints!!!!!

Well, I don't know about you, but when I have this kind of information about the technical expression ... gosh it just means SO MUCH MORE to me than ... looking at a pretty picture.

So I guess I'm kind of an evangelist. Go ahead, be happy at looking at the pretty pictures ... or take the challenge and really FEEL what the artist is trying to convey. One experience is shallow, the other is profound. It's as simple as that.

>It's easy to say, "Hmmm ... pretty picture. Well, that's enough of that!" Then you walk away and completely forget about it.

Here is where you are mistaken. I don't look at a "pretty picture" then walk away. There are more than the two extremes. I think about the time period, about the artist, and most of all, what does the picture make me feel? What does it say to me? That hardly makes me shallow. I enjoy the painting in a different fashion.

Some read intellectually, others read emotionally. They are different, not one is bad ("shallow") and other is good ("profound") and to be honest I'm getting very aggravated with people making such judgments and wish they would get off their bloody high horses.

Agreed, morphidae, agreed.

I agree with morphidae. What one see or feels regarding a piece of art is personal, it does not have to be intellectual. This does not make the experience shallow. There is no one good/proper/correct way of feeling. The point of artwork is to reach something emotional in all of us. If the artist has done that, he's achieved his goal. A person does not need to have studied the art or the artist's history for this. Whether someone likes or does not like, for example, 'Starry Night', there is a reason for that and no other person has a right to call it a shallow one.

Just as a couple of rogue observations -

I never like it when people assume that the opposite of `shallow` is `intellectual` when it plainly isn`t.

I also find it weird when people assume they can measure `profundity` - is there some sort of `profundity-meter` you can buy, something like a geiger counter perhaps ?

Measuring how profound another person`s reaction to a book or piece of art is would require finely-developed skills indeed.

Oddly, we can all recognise `shallow` when we see it.

As you might be able to tell, I`m tired and starting to ramble, so I`ll shut up for a bit - but you have my word that I shall do so in a profound fashion !

Well, if you're thinking about the time period and the artist, then you're thinking analytically, morphidae. You're not just looking at the work without context.

Also, intellectual is not the opposite of emotional. In the process I'm describing, the intellectual ENHANCES the emotional. I feel things more deeply if I understand more about them. I guess some of the people here are are saying that makes me unique. But I really don't think so.

Anyway, the original thread stated this:

"My biggest thing is why classics are classic. Most people can not relate to them and either are bored or think they are awful. I cannot even get through most classics because the language is so archaic that it just makes me shake my head and throw the book."

So the question is, what if the picture ISN'T pretty? For instance, there are an awful lot of people out there who think Jackson Pollock is a joke. Do they really think that people who have dedicated their lives to art, and who appreciate Jackson Pollock, have just been duped? (Talk about getting off your high horse!)

Perhaps they might admit that if they studied a little and tried to understand the context of Pollock's work, they actually might come to appreciate it.

Actually, this is an interesting choice of analogies, since Pollock worked very hard to appeal to the visceral and eschewed the intellectual.

Happy posting, everyone, and try to play nice!

P.S. I knew that "What a pretty picture ... and walk away from it" comment would get me into trouble. I know there are times when you look at something and it just hits you as incredible and you DO remember it .. it's happened to me, of course, just like it's happened to most people. I was just trying to illustrate my point that you will remember it BETTER if you know more about it. This is a basic tenet of education, if nothing else.

>Do they really think that people who have dedicated their lives to art, and who appreciate Jackson Pollock, have just been duped? (Talk about getting off your high horse!

My personal philosophy is, "Just because I dislike or don't believe something doesn't make it wrong. It's just wrong FOR ME."

Therefore, if someone likes Jackson Pollock and I don't, it doesn't make them wrong and me right. It means we have a difference of opinion.

It takes a lot to piss me off. One of the rare things that does is someone taking their opinion and trying to pass it off as fact. If someone doesn't believe the way they do, it means they are somehow "lesser."

I personally don't get why people slog through what I would call "unreadable" books. But then I don't turn around and call them, for sake of an example, an boring iceberg with no feeling or soul who analyzes a book to death. I would appreciate the favor to be returned by not being called "shallow" or "common" because I enjoy lighter fare.

Thanks.

For me the success of art lies in its ability to communicate.

I think Classics are classics because they can communicate they don't need inrepretation to uinderstand.

Chaucer Shakespeare. Cervantes,Boccaccio, Dickens Austen, these peoples works became classics because they could communicate ideas and emotions across the barriers of time and language.

There are plenty of people who think classics are boring yes just as there are plenty of people who think the same of Science fiction or westerns or vampire smut. So what they still sell that is the test that shows that they are succeeding and communicating. Litrature that has to be examined careful before it succeeds in communication. is not going to surive the centuaries.

people are still reading and watching productions of Lysistrada, Two and a half thousand years after was written not because it takes an effort to understand the nuances but because even if you know nothing of ancient greece you still laugh your socks off.
,

"It takes a lot to piss me off. One of the rare things that does is someone taking their opinion and trying to pass it off as fact. If someone doesn't believe the way they do, it means they are somehow "lesser.""

Okay, I'll try one more time. We teach people to read, because, somewhere along the line, it was someone's "opinion" that knowing how to read would enhance your life.

I would posit that knowing more about what you're reading ... actually, it's another form of knowing HOW TO READ ... also enhances your life.

As a matter of fact, writers of classics know this, that's why they continue to write things in a way that, to those who haven't done the work, can seem boring, useless, unintelligible.

I am not trying to by mean by saying this. All I'm saying is that I've done the work (although I still have much more to do) and it's made my life better. It has given me great joy. Why shouldn't I pass along the good news? It's not like I'm telling people what to think. I'm just saying that, if you learn more about the process, you are likely to have a better reading experience. Perhaps you won't want to throw the book across the room because it seems stupid to you.

Only recently (and I am 50) have I come to the point that I could comfortably judge SOME books as "bad" at first read. Even still, I reserve judgment until I am sure I understand what the point of the book is, and how the author has tried to convey it. I usually assume that I don't yet have the skills to understand the book -- and that that's why it didn't make alot of sense to me. Not because of the author, but because of my own shortcomings. My understanding of the book at that point is shallow. But then, if I stick with it and really try to understand it better, usually the rewards are incredible. They are rewards that a, "for the sake of example, boring iceberg with no feeling or souls who analyzes a book to death," could ever come to appreciate.

(I'm speaking of good literature here, not about some of the genres like romance, scifi, mystery. Those are meant to be fun ... and I adore reading them from time to time. I don't spend a second thinking about them, just enjoy them for the moment. But we are talking about classics here. And yes, there are a few in these genres that have become classics.)

Look, if a book has been written well enough to be considered a "classic", it often has taken the author YEARS to write it. Can't we take a few hours/days/weeks/months (not full time of course .. just some conversations with friends, some thinking while driving the car around) of careful thought and consideration trying to figure out what they were truly trying to say? Of, perhaps, attempting to have a less shallow and more profound understanding of the author's message? This seems just respectful to me.

SimonW11 in msg 95:
" I think Classics are classics because they can communicate they don't need inrepretation to uinderstand. Chaucer Shakespeare. Cervantes,Boccaccio, Dickens Austen, these peoples works became classics because they could communicate ideas and emotions across the barriers of time and language."

I agree. I am German and only recently have begun to read the English (British) Classics in the original language (atm Austen, Shakespeare and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales). I found Chaucer actually easier than Shakespeare, because his archaic English is closer to German than that of Shakespeare!
We didn't read any of those in school, so I was approaching them with an open mind and I simply love them. Shakespeare can be sooo funny (Much ado about nothing) or dramatic (Henry V). And Austen is just lovely to read, with her portrayal of a countryside society.

re: Message 59 from sandragon

I recently read Jane Eyre for the first time after reading Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series The Eyre Affair etc. I found the plot to be interesting, and I liked the character of Jane. I don't agree with reading_fox's allegation that Jane didn't need to be independent anymore after finding true love. However, while I liked the plot, and I LOVED Jane's character, I HATED the book. The writing was flowery and overpowering, and I ended up skimming quite a bit of it. I don't feel the need to re-read it, or to recommend it to anyone.

Why are classics classic?

It's called "art."

I would agree with the sentiment expressed about communication. The great books, like all great art, engage us with a sense of the familiar. Have you ever read a passage and thought, Yes, that is exactly what that feels like!

I would also agree with the sentiment about "opinion," except for the statement about it was somebody's opinion that reading was good for you. Writing and literacy have played an immensely important role in human history. Literacy is power, which is why governments have tried to control it (including the USA in its own history). But opinion, flawed as it is, puts books into and out of the canon.

Then again, maybe that's just my opinion.

Morphidae, I love your comments!

I am an English teacher, so I have read my fill of classics and have even taught one or two (although at the middle school level, that isn't all that common). I've taken numerous English classes, obviously, and the idea of what is "classic" has been discussed and discussed and discussed . . . you get the idea.

What I will never, ever do is put the classics above other literature. There are pieces from all cultures, time periods, sexes, socioeconomic classes, etc. that have immense value to the people who read them. Who am I to judge whether a book is noteworthy or not? What speaks to me and broadens my life may not be what speaks to someone else. Should a classic make us seek more, inspire us to learn more and reach farther than we would have before? If that is the case, then The DaVinci Code would be a classic to me because I was inspired to dig deeper to learn about many different things, especially art and religion. Those things I was motivated to learn will stick with me a lot more than anything I got out of Romeo and Juliet (although I have no problem with that play or Shakespeare at all).

I think the definition of a classic has been blurred considerably by the abundance of books being published and the larger number of people who are reading. I would venture to say that those numbers are higher than in any other time in history. We may very well see a shift in the accepted canon. In fact, I think it is already starting to happen.

As an educator, I think students should be exposed to the classics (as defined by most people). As an aside, there is a trend in many areas to get away from these works and focus more on modern literature that is more attractive to the student. That does disturb me because exposure to only one era of literature will not make a person well-rounded. Students should see a variety of works from many genres, eras, cultures, etc., both classic and modern.

It's late, and if this makes no sense, I humbly apologize. (It makes perfect sense to me right now, but then, I wrote it.)

(And what did I read over the Thanksgiving break? The Broker by John Grisham. It kept me on the edge of my seat!)

(I realize that book titles should be italicized or underlined, but I am technologically challenged and do not know how to accomplish that here without going to Word, composing, and cutting and pasting. I'm just too lazy to figure it out right now. My apologies.)

(I realize that book titles should be italicized or underlined, but I am technologically challenged and do not know how to accomplish that here without going to Word, composing, and cutting and pasting. I'm just too lazy to figure it out right now. My apologies.)

Much easier than that! Either type and either side of the title (leaving out the spaces, obviously), or surround the title with square brackets, as the paragraph to the right of the message box indicates. The Broker then becomes The Broker. Double brackets for John Grisham.

Hobbitprincess - you state ''What I will never, ever do is put the classics above other literature.' But isn't the point of classics is that they are above other literature.

There is the postmodern view that everything is of equal value, but the converse of that view is, if everything is of equal value then nothing is of value. John Carey argued this view in his book What Good Are The Arts?, however he also argues that literature is a higher art form than the others, which is posits as a discussion but he is still giving higher value to one thing over another. When he has discussed this work he has also found it hard not to say that Shakespeare and Dickens are ' better' than Joe Bloggs.

The problem with everything being of equal value is that a painting of dogs playing cards becomes the equal of Picasso's Guernica, and does anyone really believe that?

The point of the exercise though, is that any piece of art can have value to an individual, be it a cheap pop song, or a trashy novel, or a painting of dogs playing cards. You can't take that value away from someone, because that is what they feel. However, what someone feels is not the true 'objective' value of the work, and it is the 'objective' factors that makes something a classic.

Take The Da Vinci Code, does it have value to some people? Yes. Does it have any characteristics that could make it a classic? Is it well-written? What does it say about society? What does it say about humanity? You would have to say no, nothing and nothing, so it is unlikely to become a classic. (On the other hand, I think the fact it has sold so well does say something about society).

The number of readers doesn't really matter as what becomes a classic or what. The general public have notoriously poor taste - are Barbara Taylor Bradford, Mariah Carey and Brett Ratner the classic artists of tomorrow?

It is i Think wrong to beleive that the quality that makes something a classic is the only criterion that makes a book. worth reading. Apples are not oranges. All that being a classic means is endurance and beyond stating that to endure an author must be able to communicate to an audience beyond his own I make no judgement. The awefull classics thread does I am sure contain books that in many respects compare poorly to other writers. Could Dickens write a realistic heroine? or avoid sentences too Labyrinthine for Theseus? not on the evidence I have seen. And it may well be that Wilde was all too right about the death of little Nell. Dickens had a great gifts and great faults That History picked him out as worthy of saving does not mean that plenty of other works were not equally or even more worthy. It means only that he found his audience and that audience continues.

Many worth while books just never find their audience. Many another finds just a fleeting audiance Though that audience may value them far more than any classic and for reasons that we could not gainsay but might well agree with.

To digress The main bar I think to future classics is the great limbo caused my long copyright period we currently have. Popular works dissappear once their immediate audience has been satisfied. and do not remerge in time to satisfy a future one.

Take The Da Vinci Code, does it have value to some people? Yes. Does it have any characteristics that could make it a classic? Is it well-written? What does it say about society? What does it say about humanity? You would have to say no, nothing and nothing, so it is unlikely to become a classic. (On the other hand, I think the fact it has sold so well does say something about society).

Isn't it pompous to assume that works are supposed to say anything about society or humanity? Very rarely does an author think, "I am going to write a novel about suburban housewives that is actually a thinly veiled allegory about the plight of sweatshop workers in China."

If you ask them, what they're writing is a novel about suburban housewives. They just came up with some characters in their head and thought of something that could happen to them. The subtext often gets added later by critics and professors, it seems.

(And I think it was somewhere here on LibraryThing that someone else already made this point. Probably elsewhere in this very group, I'm willing to bet, so my apologies to them.)

"If you ask them, what they're writing is a novel about suburban housewives. They just came up with some characters in their head and thought of something that could happen to them. The subtext often gets added later by critics and professors, it seems."

No.

Do you have a specific example of a novel in which you believe an underlying subtext has been wrongly attributed to it?

The Lord of the Rings is frequently said to be an allegory of Nazi Germany. Vehemently denied by Tolkien. You can also spin a Christian/redemption subtext out of it with little effort. Also erroneously, but quite plausibly.

How about the fact that there seem to be a number of interpretations for Frankenstein?

Industrial Revolution
Technological irresponsbility
Childbirth/Fears of death at birth of mother or child
Ethics of creating life
Moral degradation

My my, that's a lot of themes. Are you going to tell me that Mary Shelley wrote the book with the intent of addressing EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM?

No.

BoBeep: Exactly! I almost forgot about that one. And even though they're not considered classics yet, I will mention Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, which many take as a criticism of The Chronicles of Narnia, even though Pullman adamantly denies it.

"My my, that's a lot of themes. Are you going to tell me that Mary Shelley wrote the book with the intent of addressing EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM?"

Why not? That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Are you going to tell me that Shelley did not intend to address each of those themes?

Mary Shelley was an educated, articulate individual who was raised by a political genius and then married one. She certainly had all the themes outlined above firmly in the front of her mind when she wrote Frankenstein. That's why classics are classics: they have depth and can endure multiple re-readings through several generations and still say something fresh about the human condition, politics and philosophy. The authors of classics tend to be thinkers, then writers. The same cannot be said of, for example, Danielle Steel.

Classics are actually anti-elitist. Any class of person with a basic education can pick up a decent novel and get something profound out of it. That's the beauty and simplicity of excellent writing.

It is so sad to see people shortchanging literary professionals. Authors spend years writing single books. They dedicate their lives to the writing arts. Of course they weave multiple themes throughout their works of art.

Professional literary scholars dedicate their lives to reading and writing about great literature. Why do some people assume they're all idiots out to make something up?

The hubris of assuming that these people don't know what they're doing is stunning.

What's wrong with saying to yourself, "I don't understand," and trying to figure out what you're missing, instead of crossing your arms and saying, "That's stupid!"

Tolkien said he was “puzzled, and indeed sometimes irritated, by many of the guesses at the ‘sources’ of the nomenclature, and theories, or fancies concerning hidden meanings.” He wrote, “There is no ‘symbolism’ or conscious allegory in my story. Allegory of the sort ‘five wizards=five senses’ is wholly foreign to my way of thinking.”

If it's 'hubris' to believe what he says, bring it on. Who better than a well-educated professor who works with literature every day to know whether he does or does not know what he's doing?

And yet elsewhere, Tolkien discussed the major influences of Beowulf, Homer & the Kalevala on his work, not to mention many Middle English works which he studied in his academic role. He also told a Jesuit friend that LOTR is a fundamentally religious and Catholic work. Tolkien saw his own work in terms of language and myth, but he is being disingenuous when he says there is no symbolism and/or allegory, as a professor of literature he would be conscious of these permeating the story. What seems to have irritated Tolkien is the fandom that came with the increasing popularity of the work, and the way it affected his life.

Of course, there is always the other argument that Lord of the Rings is not a true classic. While it is immensely popular, and influential within fantasy (to the a detrimental state?), many believe it to have more faults than merits.

Of course, if you belief that (good) authors have nothing to say, you have to ask yourself why they are writing then. If it just to tell a story then why do they put elements in their work that can be misconstrued. Is it by accident that Joyce's Ulysses mirrors Homer's work? What is Umberto Eco playing at in The Name of the Rose, with nods to Sherlock Holmes, and Borges, etc?

It strikes me that in denying that an author has the capability to write a multi-layered work is rather like saying the Egyptians lacked the intelligence to build the pyramids, and they were actually built by aliens or Atlanteans.

Psst, he wasn't a professor of literature. Anglo-Saxon is a language first and foremost; studying the literature is only part of it.

Yes, he wrote Catholicism into the work but he also consciously removed allegorical elements and religious symbols so that people didn't focus on them and ignore the story he was relating, which was still his primary goal. What he's talking about in that quote is the imposition of reader beliefs on the text above and beyond the author's intention, and how that can be quite incorrect (see: Nazi Germany, which comes up again and again in discussion of his works).

I don't believe at all that good authors have nothing to say (and you won't see me arguing that either if you read up the thread); but we should have the capacity as readers to distinguish between readings of the text and the author's stated or clearly implicit intent. "Let's talk about T.S. Eliot's influence on Shakespeare."

BoPeep: David Lodge aside, I have to wonder if we DO have that capacity ... how many readers, of classics or anything else, literally have knowledge about what an author meant or didn't mean in a given book ... it's
not like most books come with an explanation by an author or anything like that ... that's why I think a "classic" gains that status almost purely by a kind of random chance ...

What I mean is, I bet you could think of an unappreciated author who has a book that meets all the "requirements" of being a classic, yet isn't one ... what's the difference between that book and a recognized classic? Isn't it sheer random chance?

I like to read authors' diaries. They tend to give real insight into the writers' thought processes and influences. The much-maligned (on this thread!) Dickens kept meticulous plotting charts and wrote lots of journalistic articles during his novel writing. Many Victorian novelists were explicit in their aims for their books in forewards and letters to friends. There's no ambiguity in Dostoevsky's reason for writing The Gambler. David Lodge is funny, but the joke's on him: he is, after all, a literary critic.

I don't think I'm being precious in defending literary exegesis, just because I have a degree in English and European literature. The meaning (and motivation) behind Salman Rushdie's Haroun and the Sea of Stories is perfectly blatent. Satirical novels are quite obvious in their targets and purpose, other genres less so. I won't defend some of the more outlandish literary theories, I've no time for them (I can go so far with Gilbert and Gubar and no further). The extreme fringes of Derrida et al bore me to death: I'd rather read a novel and make up my own mind, while enjoying the plotting and characters.

Re: BoPeep 114

"but we should have the capacity as readers to distinguish between readings of the text and the author's stated or clearly implicit intent."

So who determines what is "clear" and what is not? You? What should be considered sufficient evidence of an author's "intentions"? Word of mouth rumors, diaries, essays or articles in which the author explicitly states the "intent"?

Maybe I'll just have to consult you when I'm trying to determine if a literary theory or analysis is credible.

FWIW, I think this conversation became confusing when the argument against literary theory in general became conflated with arguments against specific literary theories in Lord of the Rings.

The Lord of the Rings came into it when you asked for an example of a novel which has had a subtext wrongly attributed to it. If you didn't want to discuss it, why ask?

Samizdat - what Bopeep is suggesting is what French literary/cultural critics suggested 40 years ago - the death of the author.
The argument boils down to whether you believe that the intent of the author is important or that the text exists separate from the author.
If you believe in the later approach then the existence of author notes, etc, will reveal nothing, the only source of truth is the text.
Barthes, who wrote the original DotA essay, was asking himself - how can we detect what the author's precise intentions. His answer was we cannot.

The problem with this theory, is that with the birth of the reader, the critic can read a work in a manner to reveal truths that they already wanted to find. The critic has to read dispassionately to get the true meaning but this is impossible as we are all products of our culture. There is also the issue ot time, when we read a work now we see it in terms of our cultural upbringing and not in terms of the original cultural circumstances.

On the other hand, Barthes would argue, that if you listen to the author then you may be missing the true point of the work. That, in the process of writing, the author will reveal a greater truth beyond the surface truth (s)he is aiming at, and this can only be found by analysing the text as a product apart from the author.

BoPeep said: "If it's 'hubris' to believe what he (Tolkien) says, bring it on. Who better than a well-educated professor who works with literature every day to know whether he does or does not know what he's doing?"

People have been throwing the Tolkien remarks in my face all my life. Tolkien is ONE guy ...and yes, you can find a few others. Actually, I would bet they are so few as to be statistically insignificant. You can't assume all cats are black just because you've seen one!

That being said, there are, literally, MILLIONS of volumes written by literary scholars analyzing works of writing. I am quite sure, I am absolutely, positively, sure, that sometimes they get it wrong. That doesn't mean the whole professions is full of it.

KromesTomes: I think you have a great point about unrecognized authors creating great works of art that never become known. This is really a shame, and, of course, a loss to us all. Wasn't there some famous Egyptian library that burned down in ancient times? In Alexandria, I believe. We'll never know what was lost.

It's the same thing when any work of art goes unrecognized. And this happens across genres. They say that all of Bach's scores were lying in the dust until, somewhere around 100 years later, Mendelssohn rediscovered them and began to play them publically. Until then, Bach had been mostly forgotten.

In the case of modern artists, great works don't gain recognition because our society is so market-driven. Do you think the internet will help?

Re: Message 117

So, absent implicit evidence, we have no choice but to listen to the opinions and impressions of others ... perhaps they're experts, perhaps they're not, but the more research you do, the better ... put it all together, compare it to our own impressions and study, then draw our own conclusions.

This is good work. I'll listen to anyone who has done this with the greatest amount of respect.

See, I reckon books are a bit like drinking rum. You get authors like Erle Stanley Gardner, and they are like Blackheart Rum - nobody would really call them classic, but what they do, they do well. You have people who are sort of borderline classic like Raymond Chandler, and they are like drinking Captain Morgan. The point being, the concept `dark rum` covers a wide range of drinks from `a bit like weedkiller` to `classic alcoholic beverage`.

However, your classics (Plato etc) are more like white rum. There`s good white rum, and there`s great white rum, but there aren`t really any bad ones.

Then you get people like W E B Du Bois, who I would argue are more like gold rum, being in a league of their own.

Being serious, I never feel the need to read a lot of lit crit. I do like a helpful introduction if reading, say, Plato, but sometimes I read the introduction afterwards, so it doesn`t influence my perception of the book before I`ve read it for myself (I`m the sort of person who turns the sound down on the TV during the commercials so no-one can sell me anything !)

The point someone made about Shakespeare being meant to be performed, not read in isolation. is convincing to me. One thing about Western culture (not always a bad thing) is, as Benjamin Zephaniah once said "We seek the meaning of life - all as individuals". You probably won`t find meaning in life by reading a book, and I don`t think you`ll come to appreciate Shakespeare until you`ve got some experience of life and people under your belt. In that sense, I think his work probably is wasted on teenagers.

Re message 121 and the Internet: I've got mixed feelings ... on the one hand, it will make it harder for works to get "lost" with things like Project Gutenberg ... but, on the other hand, I think the Internet will make it harder to get the consensus needed to label something a "classic" for this very reason ... there will be/is so much out there to deal with.

Responding to Message 110:

I am fully aware of Mary Shelley's background. But there's nothing to say that she meant to do every single one of those - especially since one of those theories is actually only voiced by a small minority of critics (or so the illustrious Internet tells me). I did Frankenstein in college and I remember being told about her mother dying when she was born, and how the anxiety and angst about that made it into Frankenstein. But there's no way of knowing how much of that was intentional - "I'm going to write a novel about how my mother's death makes me feel." - the quotes I locate from Shelley about the book relate to the Industrial Revolution stuff. Maybe she meant to tie the childbirth thing into a technology diatribe - who knows? The only reason I picked Frankenstein in this discussion was that I couldn't think of anything else I've read where there was an actual meaning I remember. I've read other books in school and been told that "this is what it means" but I don't think I really saw it. Heck, all I remember about the meaning of Anna Karenina was that Tolstoy really loved farming. At least, that's what the Professor loved to talk about the most (maybe he was trying to be humorous).

And by the way, I did see meaning in Anna Karenina, I just couldn't finish it because I found it so ponderous. Considering how the bulk of the book is really about this affair, they could have cut to the chase sooner. Instead, I remember lots of parties.

The authors of classics tend to be thinkers, then writers. The same cannot be said of, for example, Danielle Steel.

You know, we don't really don't know that. Maybe she's a thinker who's really bad at expressing herself. ;)

(And at no point am I endorsing her as having any talent. But I don't want to bash her, either. I've never read any of her books.)

Message 111:

It is so sad to see people shortchanging literary professionals. Authors spend years writing single books. They dedicate their lives to the writing arts. Of course they weave multiple themes throughout their works of art.

I am not shortchanging the authors. I am just saying that a book doesn't necessarily HAVE to have a deeper meaning. Not having a meaning doesn't make it a bad book! Lots of great books stand as good stories - and that's one of the two things I believe make them successful works.

The other? Conveying information. Can you tell a story and convey information? Sure. Do you have to? Nah.

Professional literary scholars dedicate their lives to reading and writing about great literature. Why do some people assume they're all idiots out to make something up?

I don't assume they're idiots, or even making things up. What I objected to was the digs at more modern authors calling those books crap and unlikely to become classics because they don't have a meaning. We don't know that, do we? The criticisms tend to be directed at "popular" books, which is silly given how many "classic" authors started out as the pop writers of their time. Let us invoke the name of Charles Dickens again, why not?

(You know, I actually liked A Christmas Carol when I read it in fifth grade. I can't really place why, but I doubt it was the deeper meaning. Literary criticism was definitely not on my mind when I was ten.)

The hubris of assuming that these people don't know what they're doing is stunning.

Maybe some of us are just sick of being put down for not seeing the "meaning" in every classic!

What's wrong with saying to yourself, "I don't understand," and trying to figure out what you're missing, instead of crossing your arms and saying, "That's stupid!"

Maybe because it's not that we don't understand, but rather that we don't see it. That's the funny thing about literary criticism - it's subjective.

I had to respond, but you know, I feel sort of silly now, because jargoneer and BoPeep are so much more clear and articulate and intelligent than I am right now.

Lampbane, I actually have read a few Danielle Steel books. They are terrible, formulaic and induce catatonia. The writing is equally abysmal. I gave her as an example deliberately.

As for the childbirth allegory, I think I'm right in saying Mary Shelley 'lost' a child herself. I don't read that into Frankenstein, the overwhelming allegory of Prometheus (admired by all Romantics) is explicit in the novel's subtitle and is alluded to throughout - hubris, reaching for forbidden knowledge, disobeying the gods etc. As we say in England, 'being too clever by half' - see Dr Faustus for another 'take' on this myth, or PB Shelley's poem Prometheus. I'm merely illustrating that some 'themes' in literature are stated expressly by the authors, others are obvious through their influences and most readers will get the allusion when reading the novel.

I'm sorry to hear you struggled through Anna Karenin. Tolstoy is, ironically, another didactic author who expressly used novels to propound his philosophical ideas: the nobility of the peasantry, the sanctity of Old Mother Russia and his own 'back to basics' ideas on Christianity. Again, these themes are perfectly plain when you're reading his novels. You don't need a degree in literature to see a pattern and a thread there. (I read a few of his novels before being exposed to theories of literary criticism and 'got the message' without benefit of Barthes or Derrida). :)

Edited due to awful tagging: many apologies (*blush icon on overdrive).

</I>Lots of books have deep meanings. It is not nessecary to have a deep meaning to be a classic. But I am sure plenty do. Many gain depth over the years as they give us insights into other times and places.It is the assumption that authors delibrately hide their deep meaning so that only an elite can discover it that I find objectionable. when Mellville Wrote "Call me Ishmael." or Hoban wrote
"On my naming day when I come 12 I gone front spear and kilt a wyld boar he parbly ben the las wyld pig on the Bundel Downs any how there hadnt ben none for a long time befor him nor I aint looking to see none agen."
they were setting out to tell what they saw as plainly and simply as possible. Mind you what they saw was pretty baroque:^)

C S Lewis wrote the Narnia books expecting his audiance to recognise Aslan.

The assumption that another does not appreicate a work because they do not recognise or understand say allegory or a moral stance is simply patronising.

"The assumption that another does not appreicate a work because they do not recognise or understand say allegory or a moral stance is simply patronising."

Well, you can't assume the conversation happens in a vacuum, either. For example:

"I hated this book."

"Why?"

"Because it ends sadly. I hate books that have a bad ending."

"Why do you think the author chose to write a sad ending?"

"I don't know, but they shouldn't have. It ruined the book."

I have had this same conversation and others like it too many times to count.

If I've read the same book, and thought about it carefully, I've often found that ending sadly was the only thing the author could have done if he or she wanted to maintain consistency with the book's overall theme. There was no alternative if the book was to be well-limned.

To end happily would have ruined the art.

I didn't ASSUME these people didn't recognize the art. They proved it to me.

For example, what if The Great Gatsby and Daisy had married and lived happily ever after? Such a nice cozy ending! Crumby book? Well, I guess it still would have made a good story. But the message would have been unrecognizable .. or it would have had no integrity and so it would have lost its credibiliy.

When I took my first Lit. 101 analysis course, my classmates and I all had to dragged kicking and screaming into believing the existence of the symbolism presented to us by our professor in the short stories we read. We practically threw the books at him we thought he was so full of it. Especially if there was a phallus involved!

By the end of the course, we couldn't believe we had been reading for our entire (albeit short) lives and that we had missed so much ...

Now perhaps we were the only people on earth who had this response ... maybe everybody else gets it completely, and they still hate some of the stuff they read.

As a matter of fact, I'm sure there are people who completely recognize and understand the themes of a book at first read, or even after real study, and they still hate it. More power to them. Actually, I definitely felt that way after reading Ginger Man by J. P. Donleavy.

I think it's kind of sad that there's a whole world of wondeful stuff going on out there that simply passes so many people by. Sort of like the Underworld in Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere.

But once again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they're all understanding everything they read and I just don't get it.

Why, then, do you suppose people actually go to school to study this stuff????? What a waste of time!

What a great conversation. When I read, I make one assumption.

Authors know what they are doing. They practice a craft.

All writing has meaning, including the writing in books. I don't believe we can separate language from its meaning. I believe language is one way we make meaning.

I think that literary criticism and all of its schools of thought present approaches to literature, not facts or truth. It's not like chemistry, after all. The fact that marxist and reader response and feminist and deconstructionist and whateverelsetheirmightbeist readers (scholars, critics and book lovers alike) can each find a way into and out of a book with different visions of its meaning doesn't negate all meaning. For me, it enriches the literature and is I think a natural happenstance, given the discursive nature of language (meaning, language creates more language).

Fun.

I see little difference between people who dislike books that don't have happy endings and people who dont like watching films containing sadistic Violence. It is something about which reasonable people can dissagree. So what if its nessecarry to the plot it can still spoil your enjoyment.
could you please give me an example of the symbolism you think people generally fail to see in an established classic. particularily if you think it warps their understanding of the piece.

Of course It helps if I have read it :^)

It's not fair or accurate to say some people dislike some books because they don't understand them or their symbolism or don't have the life experience to effectuate deep appreciation. A recent example of this is The History of Love by Nicole Krauss that I had to read for my book club. It was a quick read and had the skeleton of a decent story but it left me ice cold. Of nine book club members, 8 could not even finish it but one person loved it beyond all reason. I was so puzzled that I spent days reading all the online reviews and the characteristics of post-modernism. And there I found the issue. I detest post-modern books because they disdain all that I love and seek in a good book -- deep character development, a good narrative structure that draws me in and allows me to become part of the story or at least an interested observer, some introspection, and more. Others love these books and their authors are the darlings of the literary world these days -- Krauss, Jonathan Safran Foer, Dave Eggers, Michael Chabon. I have learned to avoid them all.

"could you please give me an example of the symbolism you think people generally fail to see in an established classic. particularily if you think it warps their understanding of the piece."

Hmmm. Maybe there are English professors out there who can help me with this? I'm sure there are classics you teach over and over again, so you know way ahead of time what your students will miss.

I'm NOT a trained literary scholar; I just muddle my way through.

Although I've already given an example in The Great Gatsby. It's not so much symbolism here that people might be missing, as the overall theme; if they don't perceive the overall theme, they don't understand why the book HAS to end badly in order to maintain the integrity of the piece.

Actually, this would be a great jumping off point for a book discussion site. I don't have a clue how to start that though ... does anybody else?

Kageeh: Sounds like you've done some good work! Certainly can't disagree with you!

Ariel, it would be GREAT to have a 'symbolism' thread. From the HTML tag fiasco above, you can tell I'm not the one who knows how to do Web 'Dark Arts'.

Where to start? So many, many symbolic things in novels / plays etc. Okay, Jane Eyre: the night before the doomed wedding, lightning strikes a tree in front of the happy couple - a symbol of disaster to come. Not a very 'deep' one, but just off the top of my head. The 'bloody babe' of prophecy in Macbeth, which echoes the children Macbeth has murdered and Lady Macbeth's chilling speech about dashing her suckling child's brains out. Of course, the Macbeths are childless: heirs are vital to the plot and move it along to its inevitable conclusion.

Hmm, I'll have to think about this one. Thanks! Takes my mind off grocery shopping, which I'm about to do!

"I see little difference between people who dislike books that don't have happy endings and people who dont like watching films containing sadistic Violence. It is something about which reasonable people can dissagree. So what if its nessecarry to the plot it can still spoil your enjoyment"

The difference between well-written books that end sadly and sadistic violence in movies -- well, this gets to the crux of my point --
If the book is good, the ending will tie into the overall theme, and will at least enhance, if not be integral to, the book.

In the case of the movie .. well, they call in "gratuitous" for a reason. It's just there to shock, with the ultimate goal of making money. There usually isn't a point to it. You could not watch it, or for that matter remove it from the movie altogether, and it wouldn't change the story at all.

In an earlier post, I wrote about a book called The Ginger Man by J.P. Donleavy that won the Pulitzer Prize in the mid-part of the 20th Century ... but the main character is such a creature that the book is miserable to read.

Personally, I try to force myself to look at unpleasant subjects, because I figure things don't get better unless we confront them. But that's just me.

Well As I said way back in message 78 I think it is too early to decscribe the works of Hemmingway and Fitzgerald as classics. besides I have not read them:^)

But Hera's examples rather make my point I thought. This symbolism is meant to be understood by the untrained eye, or ear in Shakespears case. The thought that it you need to know study a subject that has only existed in academia for less than a hundred years to understand art that has been created for at leas6t the last 500 years with anticedents going back thousands of years is rather bizzare.

symbolism is something we imbibe at the mothers breast. At the local production of Lysistrata last year no body had to be told what the carrots and cucumbers and other assorted veg represented.

It exists in even the most popular of works and is often the only thing that makesit memorable or for that matter objectionable. Danny Glover's Daughter chained upat the end of leathal weapons communicated any number of nasty messages. And you did not need no college education to get them.

We are all aware of the echos of meaning that reverberate through any tale though we may miss some. When I mentioned that the murderer in "The lovely Bones" died by the favourite murder weapon in heaven. i didn't get blank stares but " I missed that one meanings are assumed to exist even by people lacking much formal education.

Gratutious violence? good catch but still I say whether the violence is gratuitous or not is in the eye of the beholder. Straw Dogs or Reservoir Dogs? Both? Neither? Reasonable people might differ.

This is a great discussion ... regarding this passage from mess. 138:
"The thought that it you need to know study a subject that has only existed in academia for less than a hundred years to understand art that has been created for at leas6t the last 500 years with anticedents going back thousands of years is rather bizzare."

Not to get too Clinton-esque here, but it all depends on the meaning of "meaning" ... if you believe Barthes-type lit crit has any validity, and I happen to, then using these kinds of techniques can help you find another layer of meaning/symbolism that helps one enjoy a book.

Ah, semiotics. Language itself is a symbolic system for the concrete and abstract. Jesus' parables are allegories, Aesop's too. We humans like to see patterns and connections in things around us. Poetry's not much cop without symbolism.

I've thought of a piece of symbolism I would only have noticed due to studying the text at university, which occurs in Death in Venice. The writer, Von Aschenbach, is a very severe and 'Apollonian' figure in a 'Dionysic' setting - this is from Nietzsche's theories on the differences between northern and southern Europe in temperament and art, separating them into Classic allegories. If I hadn't been guided (by a brilliant lecturer) I would have known Mann was making a point about frenzy and excess versus restraint and reserve, but wouldn't have known where the allusion came from. The deeper intricacies of the differences between the nationalities holidaying in Venice would have been lost on me. I would also have missed the significance of the 'death's-head' figures Von Aschenbach sees throughout his journey, leading to his inevitable pitiable death in full make up and dyed hair: he becomes what he originally loathed. Fascinating novella, on any level.

What an intriguing thread! I knew it was only a matter of time until the spectre of Derrida reared his ugly head. I think we've really gotten off track from the original post, so I'm going to try to answer it. MHO only.

Classics are works which literary teachers and critics have found much to argue about. They are usually kept in the loop by English teachers who use something in their style, plotting, character development, etc. to illustrate writing technique to the uninitiated. They are reference points for further conversations for literary-minded people, including other authors.

Some people enjoy playing that game, some don't really care and only read to please themselves, some of us do both and enjoy watching the fight.

Just keep reading! ;-)

I love the idea behind the "Awful Lit" group by the way...

Agree and disagree. I find most of my reading tends toward the books that would fall into the "Classics" category, but I think for everyone, there are books that we just abhor. Moll Flanders and The Buccaneers... mehhh.

Yes I was about to draw our attention back to the thread title.

For me Classics are works that continue to be read long after their sell by date nothing more nothing less.

Sometimes they come to act as referance points for literati and intellectuals because of this. Other times it is because they act as such reference points that they gain the chance to become classics. but It is not their performance when viewed through literery theory that gives themthat status. It is being published and read that gives them that status.

Death in Venice falls outside my personal definition on age grounds. The classical status it seems likly to gain though is because it is "fascinating... on any leve"

Symbolism can be obscure noticed only by a few but this will in the long term and only the long term counts with classics drag a work down. classics cannot afford to be obscure.

Looking at the early works we can see this in action. they become less and less popular as our symbolism changes Faerie Queen has become so obscure that it cannot be read without footnotes. its audience has faded almost exclusively to the academic. we find The Bronte sisters or Mary Shelly's symbolism still meaning full and the works continue to sell.

This is going back quite a few messages.

I just wanted to point out that just because I believe that there are sometimes valid literary themes or a legitimate “deeper meaning”—I hesitantly use this phrase, but do so in a manner consistent with its use throughout this discussion—that the author never explicitly articulated or that may not necessarily be gleaned from the author’s life, does not mean that I am advocate a deconstructionist approach. There is a significant difference between believing that the author intended a theme or a “deeper meaning” that they never explicitly stated and believing that the fictional text can be entirely separated from the author who wrote the novel. I believe that the argument of Barthes and Derrida has its merits, but where I begin to disagree with Barthes is his assertion that the origin of the narrative is unknowable. My contention is that the origin is knowable, but that the origin isn’t necessarily relevant.

An example: I’ve recently been reading Richard Ford’s “The Sportswriter.” In “The Sportswriter,” (written in the first person), there are a number of comments regarding race that seemed somewhat questionable; i.e. the use of the word Negro (set in the 80s) and a curious comment about an argument between a black man and a white teenage girl. Knowing very little about Richard Ford, I immediately went to google him to find out about his background and whether the use of these questionable comments concerning race actually reflected his own values or if they were characteristics he was attributing entirely to his protagonist, which were not meant to reflect his own attitudes toward the subject. After searching for a couple of minutes I suddenly realized that it didn’t matter; regardless of whether Ford meant for it to reflect his own values or not, they were the values of the actual character that he created, and Ford’s own personal life is irrelevant to the reading of the novel.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that we should ignore an author’s explicitly stated themes, symbols, and theories and parallels that we can draw between the author’s text and the author’s own life (which can help enhance an understanding of the author’s intent, but may not necessarily inform on the actual fictive text); however, I do not believe that the explicitly stated should be the end point for the discussion of a text.

And I must say that I have greatly enjoyed this conversation. Thanks to all who have contributed such carefully constructed ideas.

Re: 132

"I detest post-modern books because they disdain all that I love and seek in a good book -- deep character development, a good narrative structure that draws me in and allows me to become part of the story or at least an interested observer, some introspection, and more. Others love these books and their authors are the darlings of the literary world these days -- Krauss, Jonathan Safran Foer, Dave Eggers, Michael Chabon. I have learned to avoid them all.

While the characteristics of a "postmodern" novel have been the subject of many a boring debate, I don't think you can make much of a case that an essential characteristic of postmodernism is a lack of "deep character development." A postmodern novel may employ a number of different narrative techniques (some would call them gimicks), but to say they are devoid of character development is either short-sighted or flat-out wrong (and possibly both).

I also find the list of names that you offered as an example of postmodern writers not to be representative of the best postmodern writing; even if you're intending only current postmodern writers, the list of the most serious postmodern writers would have to include Barth, Pynchon, Wallace, Vollmann, Powers, Coover, etc., not to mention earlier writers like Barthelme and Gaddis. The writers you mentioned seem--to me at least--to be the not-so-serious, gimicky, quasi-postmodernists...not to say I don't often find some of their books enjoyable. But even admitting that authors like Eggers, Foer, and Chabon often employ gimicky narrative devices doesn't mean I think their novels are devoid of character development.

Inevitably a classic raises the level of debate. You come into conact with a differnet culture a different way of looking at a world where people fill diiferent roles. to read Austen or Dickens or Trollope is to be educated and I would hazard that the majority of classics raised the level of debate at the time they were pubished as well. . Works that present a new idea to the world are more likely to endure than derivative works. Of course some of those big ideas seem hackneyed now The Decamarons big idea seems to be that it's alright to tell naughty stories about nuns:^)

I think this has lead some people wrongly to assume that any work that raises the level of debate is a classic. They further assume that the subject of that debate is Literary theory. Hence anything that raise the debate in this field is a classic.

But in the past that debate could have been in any area.

I think everybody on this thread realises that any book can be debated, not just classics. Nor does anyone think that the debate is literary theory - literary theory exists to illuminate the text and therefore adds to the debate. What a reader's position is on literary theory can also reveal some of their preferences.

I'm not sure about the idea that works need to have a new idea. There are great novels that don't have anything particularly original to say but their greatness comes from how it is said. (Which I suppose leads us back to symbolism). That is why they don't become hackneyed.

You could see The Decameron as a book which has as it's central idea naughty stories about nuns, or you could see it as one of the pivotal works in Western Literature.
To help decide, go here -
The Decameron Web

Re Message 138 - if it's too early to consider any Fitzgerald work a classic, what does it mean that The Great Gatsby is regularly listed in the top five best novels of the 20th century? (The fact it also flopped on initial release belies, again, the argument about a classic needing to be popular when first released).

In terms of symbolism, there are the billboard eyes watching over everything (representing a dead god overlooking the moral decay of society) and the Valley of Ashes.

Samizdat - I agree with your list of the leading postmodern writers but I would like to add a few to show it is not just in America - Eco, Calvino, Pamuk, Nabokov, Angela Carter, and so on.

samizdat (#145) -- I would love to argue/discuss The History of the World with you if you have read it. The only semi-developed character was Leo but I still never understood his reasons for never properly introducing himself to his son during one of their many encounters and then regretting not knowing him for the rest of his life. Every action or non-action was very obviously just a building block.

And I should have mentioned gimmicks myself. The literary gimmicks (99% blank pages, one-word sentences, cutesy trite symbolisms (to name a few of the more grating ones) made me want to choke the author. Each one screamed "Look at me! I'm a writer. Aren't I simply adorable?" I guess I don't appreciate writers playing games with me. I want a good story with characters I can relate to and at least somewhat understand. I thought Leo was a putz.

Re: 147

Jargoneer: Good additions to the list, I nearly included Eco, Calvino, and Nabokov myself, but since their legacies are often blurred between modernism and postmodernism, I left them out for the sake of clarity. And if you're going to take them into consideration, I would also add Borges.

Re: 148

Kageeh, I have not read "The History of the World," so I would not be able to comment. I have, however, read Chabon's "Kavalier and Clay," Eggers' "You Shall Know Our Velocity," and Foer's "Everything is Illuminated" and "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close." It's been a while on some of them, but I could probably dust them off if you would like to discuss them.

I admit, these guys tend to employ somewhat gimmicky narrative techniques (I'd say Foer and Eggers moreso than Chabon), but I do find their books entertaining and would consider each of the works I listed above to enjoyable (albeit not earth-shattering) books, and I wouldn't say that they are necessarily lacking character development. I do, however, understand why some people dislike the narrative tricks, and I think it comes down to personal preference, and even my patience for them sometimes wanes.

Jargoneer I did not say that the central Idea of The Decamaron was naughty stories about nuns. It was the idea that it was alright to tell naughty stories about nuns. It redefined literature.

that The great Gatsby is listed as one of the top five novels of the twentieth century means exactly that. Cheer up barring pestilence plagues and omnibuses I will be acknowledging it as a classic soon enough.

How thenwould you define a classic?

I have not made the argument that classics are always popular on first release. I have made the argument that works that are popular on first release are more likely to become classics.

Thanks to you and everyone else btw for a good discussion.

Tolkien was not intending to talk about the First or Second World War, but certainly his experiences in the First World War did colour the book.

Priscilla Tolkien has said that she believes that the Dead Marshes were based on her father's experiences on the battlefield for example.

What Tolkien did intend to do was create a mythology for the English people. Tolkien believed that the Norman conquest of 1066 destroyed the indigenous English myths, and he set out to give them a new set.

Beowulf is not English, it's a Scandinavian tale written in Old English. King Arthur's origins lie in Celtic stories, and then it was taken up and heavily altered by the French, etc.

The fact that so many people could relate The Lord of the Rings to the Second World War speaks to its mythic qualities.

It sounds like your biggest problem is that you're missing what the books are really about. You're not actually reading the books if you think you're reading carefully enough if Hemingway is strictly "bull-fighting or big-game hunting" and Faulkner is only about Southern families. It's perfectly alright not to like a book -- saying a book is a classic doesn't mean you're expected to fall in love with it, but it has become a classic for more, I hope you realize, than just the details it contains. It's about the writing, the overall message it sends. The language has changed so much that its harder and harder to really grasp meaning. What I think isn't ok is to mislabel books based on your own prejudices and biases. If you don't like it you don't like it, but don't try to justify it by labeling the books as "psychotic" or "gloried romance novels."

I disagree completely, lampbane. Classic artists -- Shakespeare, Faulkner, Tolstoy, all had bigger ideas in mind then just a simple plot. There was a poster above that claimed that all works can be boiled down to one simple sentence. An true artist, and this is not counting someone like the author of the Da Vinci Code is after something much larger and much more allegorical than "suburban housewives." If not, they are not a true artist. Would you say the same thing about artists all around -- painters, musicians? Did Bach and Beethoven only want to make "pretty tunes?" For some reason, it seems, writing and literature as an art has been forgotten when really it's the most accessible and popular craft.

Just when this conversation seems doomed to start again, like six months after we last had it, this appears in the news:

Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451 Misinterpreted

Now, Bradbury has decided to make news about the writing of his iconographic work and what he really meant. Fahrenheit 451 is not, he says firmly, a story about government censorship. Nor was it a response to Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose investigations had already instilled fear and stifled the creativity of thousands.

This, despite the fact that reviews, critiques and essays over the decades say that is precisely what it is all about. Even Bradbury’s authorized biographer, Sam Weller, in The Bradbury Chronicles, refers to Fahrenheit 451 as a book about censorship.

Bradbury, a man living in the creative and industrial center of reality TV and one-hour dramas, says it is, in fact, a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature.

lampbane,

I saw that and I actually think it's kind of amusing. Because if that's really what he was trying to do, then I think he failed spectacularly. Because, regardless of his intent, what he wrote was a book about censorship.

Ok, yes, I would not want to be the Person Whose Art Was Always Misinterpreted, but with something like that, it gets to a point where what you may have intended is less important than what the world perceives.

I read the L.A. Times piece that Lampbane links to. It seems that, among other things, Bradbury has got old and a bit cranky -- which in no way diminishes his lifetime literary achievment.

There is considerable irony in Bradbury's view that the great evil to be feared was the public addition to popular entertainments, such as TV, at the expense of high culture. Ironic, because Bradbury's work sits squarely in the sci fi - fantasy genre, itself a major subset of popular entertainment.

I can accept Bradbury's statement that government censorship was not what he was aiming at in Fahrenheit 451. The dystopian view that the public will very willingly dull itself into cultural impotence has a long and persuasive history. Consider for example Huxley's Brave New World. That strain, 'we'll do it to ourselves,' seems more prescient now than the Orwellian, 1984, 'the state will do it to us' strain.

An author can, of course, misunderstand the impact his work has on readers. Shirley Jackson, who knew this, was nonplussed by the reaction to her mordant little story The Lottery.

And, famously, Upton Sinclair recognized that his novel The Jungle was received by the public in a way he had not intended. He wanted to evoke public outrage at the working conditions in the Chicago stockyards and packing plants. Instead, the public was shocked at what the story told them about the products coming out of those places. As Sinclair put it, "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."

I read Jude the Obscure in my 40s, and after picking up the rhythm of the language, realized that a classic is the only way to truly live the period. Modern historical writers often do a wonderful job with facts and style, but they have NOT lived it. Thomas Hardy did... Emile Zola did, Charles Dickens did... They write from their own historical perspective, but take their ideas from the books and periodicals and folk tales of the day. I can't explain my fascination with "classics" any more than that. My desire to actually be there is probably while I love and collect old magazines and newspapers. I read incessantly, and have read many of the most popular books over the years, but my heart is in the past. I also read a lot of non-fiction for the same reason.

The simplest definition I know of what makes a classic a classic is the test of time. If a book is still being read and published generations, or centuries, after it was written, well, then, we have to call it a "classic". The question really is what gives a book staying power? Sometimes it's because it is the first of its kind, or because it was an important book about a certain topic, but for me the books that deserve the name classic are those that have endured because of their ability to reveal something about human nature in a profound and beautiful way. The language may be archaic (if the work was written 400 years ago and you are reading it in the original, this is to be expected). But a writer like Shakespeare is so fine, so amazing, it is worth spending time learning his language rather than expecting him to write like a 21st century novelist. Classics do often require effort (a cardinal sin in 21st century America, I know), but the effort pays off incalculably. Often, too, once you get used to the 16th-century or 19th-century or early-20th-century idiom, you find that these books are highly entertaining (the major 21st-century American virtue) as well as profound. Jane Austen is a good example, but Shakespeare is too. I read Jane Eyre for the first time just a couple of years ago (at the age of 49) and was surprised how much I liked it, despite it being "outdated" in many ways.

Also, I never worry too much if I don't finish a book. I never finished Moby Dick, though I loved the writing. Part of the reason I didn't finish it may be Melville's problem (his obsession with detail), but part of it is mine (my 20th-century impatience). But I did like the book, and hope I will read it again one day.

Great discussion!

I've never really thought about whether a particular work "deserves" classic status or not. I equate it to those "1000 Books/Films/Beaches/Dining Experiences You Must Have Before You Die" lists. Lists of classics are made and evolve over time and every generation will dispute the relevance of some inclusions just as others will fight to the death for their own favourites.

I think the problem, if there is one, arises when someone feels that they "should" read something because it is a Classic. Or, to put it another way, when someone believes someone else "should" read a certain book and has no qualms in passing this opinion on!

I love Jane Austen's works, for instance (so bitingly funny), but couldn't get through Jane Eyre (although, found Wuthering Heights wonderful - I think it's like a 19th Century Bold & Beautiful in some ways).

And yes, some classics are more difficult to read than others. But, when I look at a Titian painting I am not seeing what its original audience did, I do not inherently understand its 'language' and the symbolism but I do know whether I think it is beautiful/interesting (to me) or not.

And sometimes, a Classic just means the text is out of copyright and a publisher can make more money out of every sale :)

Chopstickninja (message 160), you make an excellent point when you say the problem comes when someone feels obligated to read a certain book. That sense of obligation is a killer of fun. Which is a big part of the problem why people dread reading the classics the heard about in school, even when the teacher knows her or his job and tries to bring these great works to life for the student. The mere fact of being made to read such and such a book in itself predisposes the student to dislike it. Students do need guidance, I think (that's a large part of education), but they also need to have the feeling that they are making their own discoveries.

part of the problem in getting people to agree on all the same "classics" is due to so many differing tastes; people read a classic in a genre thay don't normally read or enjoy, and they judge the book as a story they didn't like instead of appreciating the quality of writing and the power of the thoughts/emotions/images that made it worthy of classic status. Instead of trying to read a type of story you don't like, i.e. romance or historical, open the book at random and notice the word choice, the phrasing, the way a scene or a character is presented and comes alive in the mind's eye without needing to know the plot.... just an idea....

I agree w/you about Dracula...I'm a big fan of the Vampire genre but I could not read this book! I even struggled w/The Historian. But Interview w/the Vampire was a snap! I did however like reading The Scarlet Letter, David Cooperfield...Jane Eyre. Not so much "Moby Dick". Just read a book of short stories by Hemingway. But I must say I'm more apt to reach for something contemporary to read than a classic. I get easily bored.

I sometimes think my ability to enjoy 'the classics' stems from my enjoyment of reading history. I can often read such a book with a better understanding than the average reader of the era in which it was written; the historical context of the creation.

Imagine reading Miller's 'The Crucible' with no clue of the political witch hunts of post- WWII America? It becomes unexceptional, doesn't it?

How can one really appreciate the earliest American lit without some sense of the socio/political atmosphere of post-revolutionary America? Rip van Winkle loses alot of depth.

As someone else pointed out in this thread, the books we call classics ask a bit more of the reader than merely reading. My point is that these works speak to their times and if you can't bother to undertsand that time then you waste time reading the book.

Another thing this thread has brought to mind is an idea called cultural literacy. This is championed by E.D. Hirsch and troubles me a little because it is so popular among political conservatives.
The idea is that communication (from casual conversation to business deals) is founded on a shared cultural heritage/knowledge. The very existence of idioms which are untranslatable is exhibit A. Classics fit very well into western cultural literacy. The dilemma of Hamlet lends itself to situations we often come upon and there was a time when, at a certain social level, people could understand such a reference.
With modern higher education now reduced to a variety of career paths and the global information explosion there is much less cultural literacy and less ground for subtlety and communication beyond the words spoken.
Think, for instance, of all the biblical references that come up in everyday conversation, and where you'd be if you didn't understand their meaning and where they came from. You don't need to be a Christian to get it.
And that may be a bad example since it is so pervasive that we need not have read the Bible to understand them. Yet, how many of us don't recognize the importance of the fact that it's the LOVE of it, not money itself, which isthe root of evil?
There are better explanations than I can provide, but "Don't tase me, bro!" will be out of style tomorrow, before it is even a known phrase, totally disconnected from it's vague and impermenant origins, to most of the population.

And as if I hadn't said enough:

Many of our classics were written at a time when we weren't continually bombarded with audio/video media. There were fewer immediate distractions and there was time to devote to a book (assuming you weren't poor and could read) with complicated characters and plot and slow unfolding. Your biggest difficulty might be poor lighting.

Today,we want it now and we want to be done with it. If a boook doesn't kick into serious action by page five we get bored. If there is more than cursory description we get bored. If there are any sub-plots we get confused.

This is a really interesting discussion thread, and something which I looked into when I first went to University and encountered the theory of terry eagleton.

Classics are classics because they have been given that label to serve an agenda.

Is that fair? I'm not sure.

The canon as a construct is definitely a view, but is it substantial enough? Many works that were popular in their own time were lost and not included in the canon - usually because they weren't written by white European men. Or is this a fiction in itself propogated by hippy sociologists in the 1970s desperate to exonerate themselves from prejudices and blame 'the establishment' for everything that's wrong with culture and the world?

Classics are classics on one level because that's where they are kept in the bookshop. They are usually (but not always) over 100 years old and still make an impact in our own time. BUT I do not believe in the idea of literature which transcends time; fiction, like art, is socio-culturally and politically specific. Also, we have to be cautious about using statements like 'classics offer a real historical view of the period' as the relationship between art and life has always been more complicated that that of a mirror reflection; often art is subversive or making a particular point.

Classics for me, then, are a construct, a way of allowing people to read selected authors from 'history' which say things about 'the bigger picture.' I'd say, dig a little deeper for a richer literary vein; read Rochester over Milton, read Barbould over Bronte.

I find many translated foreign classics, like Don Quixote, Les Miserables and The Three Musketeers easier to read than their English counterparts. The reason is a modern translation "fixes" the archaic English problem that plagues so many of the English classic novels.

-- M1001

>167 media1001:: Have to disagree with you there. I've read the three weighty novels you mention, in translation, and didn't find the translations that I had made the language more modern. I got through them anyway, and got enjoyment from them -- but translation or no it was still despite some considerable excess verbiage and 'unmodern' style in each. Same for several of the classic Russian heavyweights.

The way I understand classics and would use it to define modern novels that will become classics, are novels that represent the current time during which it was written.

I would say Grapes of Wrath is one of the most recent classics, and we should wait to define any other novel afterwards as a classic at a later point in time.

I would also have to say that throwing down a book merely because you can't relate to it, or it's language is unfamiliar to you, is a sign of intellectual laziness. An aspect that ruins society.

perhaps a "classic" is a book that improves each time you read it. Re-read and save society!

kageeh: you say that "kids are mostly too privileged and too self-centered to ponder the bigger issues. Classics are designated classics by adults with much more worldly wisdom (we would like to think anyway) than the school kids who have to read them."
And then you say "it's not fair or accurate to say some people dislike some books because they don't understand them or their symbolism or don't have the life experience to effectuate deep appreciation."
Just because you were self-centred doesn't mean all or most kids are that. I read Oliver Twist when I was 11 and I did think about the "bigger issues". Likewise when I read To Kill a Mockingbird when I was 12, All Quiet on the Western Front when I was 14 and John Mills works on feminism and social equality this year. Just because I'm younger then you doesn't mean that I don't value classics. It doesn't mean that me or my peers are "too privileged and too self-centered" to understand literature as well as social and political issues.
If you think that it's unfair when other people assume its your ineptitude when you (or others) don't like a book that you shouldn't assume that younger people are too self-involved. I'm sorry that you were to self-centred to understand that other people weren't as well of as you when you first read Oliver Twist but that doesn't mean all kids are as self-centred as you were.

In the foreword to a collection of O'Connor's which I read recently a classic was defined as "a book that never goes out of print". Obviously there's no hard and fast rule, or this level of discussion wouldn't have been generated in the first place, but it seems a fairly appropriate filter in some ways (no doubt there are numerous exceptions). Sorry if I'm simply repeating what's gone before, but there were too many posts for me to finish them all.

Wow. I tried to read this whole conversation but eventually just started skimming. Really neat thread, though.

Anyway, I think I get the idea of any book that stands the test of time / has universal themes is considered a classic. But as an avid reader, writer, and high school student, I have to make a point here.

I'm an art student, and one of the first things we learned in AP Studio is that the first thing your work should do is pass the "gallery test." Maybe you've put a lot of thought into your work and it seems very complex (to you, at least) if viewed on its own. But if it's hanging in a gallery, will people stop and think about it? Or will they just glance at it and move on to more engaging works? It doesn't matter how deep what you have to say is if you can't say it in a way that makes people want to hear it.

Now, maybe I'm looking at this through a VA lens, but I feel like the same ought to apply to novels. I've pored over Oryx and Crake" and "Handmaiden's Tale," Margaret Atwood) but can't stand any of Jane Austen's work. Yet they both have universal themes and feminist ideas, yes? But the first writer makes my rage and cry and sit riveted to my chair, while the second makes my groan in boredom.

And who's to say the heroes and anti-heroes of "Watchmen" are less thought-provoking than the muscley bonehead "Beowulf"? And why are the brilliant and haunting futures of "Fahrenheit 451" or "Super Sad True Love Story," or even the hilarious, unexpectedly disarming "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" pushed into corners while we're forced to swallow crap like "Brave New World" and the only semi-interesting "1984"?

Although, perhaps reading "1984" after the "Oryx and Crake" trilogy is what made it seem less than brilliant in comparison. Well, that and "V for Vendetta." (I'm kind of an Alan Moore fan. Could you tell?)

Ooh, also, the original Ender Quintet (Orsen Scott Card), although I'd settles for just "Ender's Game" and "Speaker for the Dead." That series is the best case I can make that a book doesn't have to be about something I've personally experienced for it to be relevant to me. In fact, because it so vividly portrays people of various religions and philosophies, including mythical and fiction ones, it really made me challenge my assumptions about people and God and start asking questions about how the universe works.

I never would've done that, though, if the series wasn't so engaging with a fast pace as well as characters I cared about.

And why focus of only Ancient Greek and Christian myths? Isn't that very ethno-centric? I wish we would read about myths that shaped all parts of the human story, not just ours. I became very interested in African and Hindu myths after reading "American Gods" (Neil Gaiman).

Poetry is anybody's game, so I generally feel the more genres and styles one is exposed to, the better. I always get annoyed when people tell me they don't like poetry when they've only read, I dunno, Shakespearean sonnets. That would be like saying you don't like music after only having listened to The Beatles. They're great and all, but certainly not the final word in an entire art form.

Personally, I love classic poets like W.B. Yeats, Langston Hughes, Walt Whitman, Sylvia Plath, and e.e. cummings, with equal fervor as that of contemporary poets like Sarah Kay, Andrea Gibson, or Mark Doty. I guess Maya Angelou is also considered contemporary. T.S. Eliot. Honestly, I don't know what time period he's from, but he's a beautiful, beautiful man. Still, Langston Hughes aside, I can't think of many classic African American poets, while I can name and quote at least 15 contemporary ones off the top of my head.

See, that's another thing (aw, now I'm rambling, feel free to skim this) classics aren't very diverse. Not a lot of African-Americans or other non-whites. I think my Freshman year we read a grand total of one book by a non-white, and that was The Good Earth by Pearl Buck. It was decent, I suppose, but (and I know this is even older so it may defeat my point, but, eh) why not read classic international literature like The Tale of Genji? It's an adventure story! It's awesome, and definitely stood the test of time. It was, in my opinion, far more engaging than "The Good Earth."

I honestly think the only two books assigned for me to read that I loved were The Road by Cormac McCarthy, which is definitely contemporary, haunting, terrifying, and beautiful, and Of Mice and Men, which I liked far more than I thought I would. In the latter, the characters were incredibly compelling and heartbreaking, while in the former the style swept me off my feet two pages in, and it felt like watching an art film about the connection of two souls in the wilderness...I'm reading All The Pretty Horses now and it's just as lovely.

Of Mice and Men, although this didn't effect me I don't think, had the added benefit of being "controversial." Some parents wanted to remove it from the list, so everyone wanted to read it. I think some people were disappointed that there wasn't any sex or anything in it, but I thought it was beautiful.

You know what else is beautiful? The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien. I've had to read other war stories in the past and found them dreary (Red Badge of Courage anyone?), but "Things They Carried" was simply brilliant. Eloquent, artistic, horrifying, argument-inducing. If a teacher wanted to do a unit on war stories, I'd much rather they teach this contemporary novel than "Courage."

Which reminds me: Holocaust stories. I will never argue with Anne Frank. That was heartbreaking and compelling and claustrophobic. Holy. But why does everyone have to read Night by Ellie Wiesel? At least, in my school they do. And, come to think of it, I read "Anne Frank" on my own--it's not assigned. You know what holocaust story is brilliant that I read for my independent art class but should be for an English class? Maus by Art Spiegelman. 10 times better. Plus, it won a pulitzer. But I guess that doesn't matter if something's contemporary.

Well, maybe I've shot myself in the foot here, because I'm not about to dismiss all classics. That's dumb. I guess, though, many classics I've read I have a negative or apathetic reaction to, and I think a lot of people my age feel the same way. So, I mean, if a teacher has the choice between something engaging that'll make a student think critically and feel emotionally connected, as opposed to something that involves stumbling over the language itself or is so slow-paced that all they can think of is how much longer the chapter is. Eesh. For every classic, there's a contemporary book that's usually just as good, if not better.

Also looking at this conversation and finding it interesting...
I'll suggest a definition: a classic is a work that connects to a large number of readers outside the situation where it was written.
And a hard-and-fast rule derived out of that: any book which is read by a large number of new people after 50 years from its publication is a classic. (Not counting scholars in the readers, because scholars read all kinds of weird stuff, it's their job.)

Yes, that includes H.P. Lovecraft and Raymond Chandler, because they keep on finding new readers. They have managed to hit on something. Most contemporaries of Lovecraft have disappeared from public knowledge, some are known by connoisseurs (Clark Ashton Smith and Henry Kuttner to name a couple) and some might have some claim to a classic status themselves (R.E.Howard). It could also be said that Lovecraft as a writer is not particularly good (or at least easy to parody) but, hey, he has managed to come up with something that excites new readers 80 years afterwards.

Sometimes it is a matter of luck which books end up living over generations and which are quickly forgotten and never rediscovered. Sometimes it is even hard to point exactly what it is that attracts (in performing arts one talks about things like charisma or star quality, which are equally hard to point or define exactly, it just is there or not).

I mentioned that "a large number" which does not mean million new readers every year, but more than one or two...because a single reader can connect to anything if it happens to relate well enough to that person's life. If one is anorectic Jewish dentist living in Midwest, one can relate to a story of an anorectic Jewish dentist living in Midwest, but that doesn't mean that story has anything to give to anyone else.
Similarly, no single reader has to like, or relate to, every classic, so shouting "I found Austen boring, so they are not classics" doesn't work. Personally even while the characters of Austen stories have little in common with me extrernally, I enjoy the way she writes about nuances of social hierarchies and how people operate inside those. I can however understand that if people are not in that, Austen can be very boring (on the other hand, I find writers yammering on and on exactly how they felt like when they were sniffing madeleine cakes self-absorbed and dull).

I'm another one who's only just walked into this conversation so apologies for anything I've missed (which is quite a bit). Just have to take issue with the OP's contention that "Most people can not relate to them and either are bored or think they are awful". That is simply factually untrue - one of the earliest posts on this thread gives one definition of a classic as a book that stands the test of time and no book that 'most people' dislike can be considered a classic. Classics are books that are still read and enjoyed by thousands/millions of people many, many years after their initial publication.

I would just add, though, that I don't think childhood or the teenage years are often a good time to confront many of these books. Most of us are introduced to our first classic far too young.

#4 Couldn't agree more about Dracula. It has its place in the canon because of its cultural position rather than for the quality of the writing: bad book, great story.

I'm another one who's only just walked into this conversation so apologies for anything I've missed (which is quite a bit). Just have to take issue with the OP's contention that "Most people can not relate to them and either are bored or think they are awful". That is simply factually untrue - one of the earliest posts on this thread gives one definition of a classic as a book that stands the test of time and no book that 'most people' dislike can be considered a classic. Classics are books that are still read and enjoyed by thousands/millions of people many, many years after their initial publication.

I would just add, though, that I don't think childhood or the teenage years are often a good time to confront many of these books. Most of us are introduced to our first classic far too young.

#4 Couldn't agree more about Dracula. It has its place in the canon because of its cultural position rather than for the quality of the writing: bad book, great story.

Incidentally, that doesn't mean you have to like them all, everyone has their own taste, but most classics (Dracula and one or two others aside) can at least be acknowledged to be well-written and good writing is something that it takes many years to learn to appreciate.

173,

It is a great thread, and, you've made a great contribution. Thanks; I've enjoyed reading your views and suggestions.