Rediscovering the classics

[Queersetti]

The new translation of Don Quixote by Edith Grossman is well worth reading.

 

[theGatsby]

The new translation of Don Quixote by Edith Grossman is well worth reading.

Hmmm I'll have to check this out. I like the story but struggled through the translation I was forced to read in school.

 

[Queersetti]

Hmmm I'll have to check this out. I like the story but struggled through the translation I was forced to read in school.

Then this is for you. It's very readable, without losing any depth.

 

[lilminx]

I can read most things by Poe repeatedly. DC bought me his entire works for Christmas.

Maybe I'll get cracking on it tonight.

 

[Wrong Element]

Virtually every day anymore, there's something on the front page of the paper that reminds me of Catch-22. I've been thinking it may be time to read it again.

 

[medjay]

I've got to fall in line with the Professor on this one. I think it might be a bit early to consider King a "classic."

That's true. But like I said, I never implied or intended to adhere to an etched in stone definition of "classic". Perhaps I could have used another word but I don't think it's really neccessary. This is just a thread to talk about books people like.

I shared a list of books that I enjoyed recently and I suppose that set the initial tone. Sorry if the list was full of selections that others might have considered unrefined; I haven't had time yet to peruse the highbrow section of the bookstore.

 

[kotori]

...Right now I'm re-reading The Portrait of Dorian Gray because I pulled out my old copy to lend to my cousin for school so she would have my notes...

You should try The Picture of Dorian Gray sometime too. That's another good one.

 

[PinkOrchid]

 

[Rambrat]

I LOVE "The Catcher in the Rye"!

A must read..."Lust for Life" one of my all time favorites

Stephen Kings "It" was good...also loved "The Stand"

"Sea Wolf" Jack London...great story

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Originally posted by medjay
Whoa! We both know that literary criticism is as subjective as anything. Don't even try to insult me by implying that I'm ignorant. I'd expect more from you considering that healthy debate we had some time ago about the merits of performance art (the thread about the dead baby eater, remember?) when you made it clear that all art is subjective and should not be held to rigid standards.


Well, I don't think that literary criticism is "as subjective as anything," and I would never say that "all art is subjective." What I probably said (and I'm not good at searching for things, so I won't go back and try to look for that thread) was that the definition of art, the distinction we draw between art/not-art, keeps changing, and thus it is very difficult to apply rigid standards of evaluation. That's not quite the same as saying it's all subjective.

Indeed, my objective in asking why King's work, for example, deserves to be labelled a "classic" was to try to discover what standards people apply when they call a literary work a "classic" nowadays. "Classic," as I said before, implies to me that a work has some qualities or merit that will be recognized over time. Based on what others have said, this seems to be a shared viewpoint--i.e., you and others have said, for example, that King's work will have appeal to future readers. But I'm not sure why someone thinks that, except for the fact that he's popular now (i.e., for the last 20-30 years). I still have no idea why he's so popular now or why someone would think that because he is popular now, he will always be popular, and that such popularity makes his work "classic."

To me, this translates into saying: To be considered a "classic," a book must be very popular with readers for a few years.

But that clearly doesn't work, since there are lots of books that meet that criterion but which aren't recognized as "classics." There must be something more, or the definition of classic simply becomes equal to mass-marketability and appeal. Fashion, in other words.

Maybe that's what has happened. I dunno, and that's why I'm curious about it.

And, no, I don't think you're stupid--quite the contrary. I just thought your insult deserved another 'spin.' I understand that you hadn't intended to get into a discussion about 'classics' now, but about 'favorite books'. But academics and literary snobs like me would rather think about the former, and don't really care too much about the latter, and so that's what caught my eye.

And thus you prove my point. Dickens is considered classic and is taught in schools all over the country. And he's a perfect comparison to King.

Well, you evidently missed the part where I said that Dickens' reputation has fluctuated over the years. Nowadays, I think a lot of people--both inside and outside the academy--are scratching their heads and wondering, "How in the hell did this guy ever get to be considered a 'classic'?" But maybe you're right; maybe King's work will share a similar fate, with some regarding him as "classic" and others regarding him as a prolific scribbler who could tell an interesting story on occasion.

 

[medjay]

To me, this translates into saying: To be considered a "classic," a book must be very popular with readers for a few years.

But that clearly doesn't work, since there are lots of books that meet that criterion but which aren't recognized as "classics." There must be something more. . .

Why is it that when a work of art achieves a certain measure of popularity or mass appeal it is automatically deemed unworthy of respect or acknowledgement? By what criteria are academics such as yourself really judging these works? It seems to me that if a work does not fit into the elitist confines set up by a select few, it is dismissed out of hand which is quite unfair to many talented artists.

This double standard exists in all areas of art. People such as Van Gough, Picasso, Da Vinci, etc. will forever be held in higher regard than folks such as Todd Mcfarlane, Alex Ross or Luis Royo. There's no gauge that says one style of art is better than another; all have the nescessary grasp of the basics -- such as light and shadow, foreshortning, human anatomy -- that are nescessary to create good art. Why should the latter be penalized becasue they choose to work in a popular medium? Why should an author be dismissed as irrelevant if he chooses to write sci-fi, mysteries or pulp, especially if his command of language, story and structure are impeccible? Why should a musican be thought of as lesser if he plays rock or blues instead of classical?

This "criteria" has nothing to do with the longevity of a work or its quality. It's merely a bourgeois standard; bias based on genre and that's bullshit.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Originally posted by medjay
Why is it that when a work of art achieves a certain measure of popularity or mass appeal it is automatically deemed unworthy of respect or acknowledgement? By what criteria are academics such as yourself really judging these works? It seems to me that if a work does not fit into the elitist confines set up by a select few, it is dismissed out of hand which is quite unfair to many talented artists.

I agree completely. But it works both ways. Why is it that unless a work is popular or has mass appeal it is automatically deemed 'elitist' or 'snobbish' or what-have-you by the masses? By what criteria are non-academics or those untrained in the arts really judging these work? It seems to me that if a work does not fit into the lowbrow confines set up by advertising and the fashion industry so as to appeal to the greatest number of people, it is dismissed out of hand, which is also unfair.


This double standard exists in all areas of art. People such as Van Gough, Picasso, Da Vinci, etc. will forever be held in higher regard than folks such as Todd Mcfarlane, Alex Ross or Luis Royo. There's no gauge that says one style of art is better than another; all have the nescessary grasp of the basics -- such as light and shadow, foreshortning, human anatomy -- that are nescessary to create good art. Why should the latter be penalized becasue they choose to work in a popular medium? Why should an author be dismissed as irrelevant if he chooses to write sci-fi, mysteries or pulp, especially if his command of language, story and structure are impeccible? Why should a musican be thought of as lesser if he plays rock or blues instead of classical?

This "criteria" has nothing to do with the longevity of a work or its quality. It's merely a bourgeois standard; bias based on genre and that's bullshit.

I agree. Art is a weapon in the class war. And evaluative standards often have more to do with class or status anxieties than with anything inherent in the works themselves. That's sort of what puzzles me about the perpetuation of the term "classic" by people whose tastes or preferences have been disempowered by the term. The erection and maintenance of a set of recognized "classics" has been one of the things that has made people suspicious of "popular" arts and artists, after all. It's kind of peculiar to me, therefore, to see the two terms being used synonymously.

As for my position in all this, I tend to agree with Artaud: "No more masterpieces!"

 

[medjay]

I agree completely. But it works both ways. Why is it that unless a work is popular or has mass appeal it is automatically deemed 'elitist' or 'snobbish' or what-have-you by the masses? By what criteria are non-academics or those untrained in the arts really judging these work? It seems to me that if a work does not fit into the lowbrow confines set up by advertising and the fashion industry so as to appeal to the greatest number of people, it is dismissed out of hand, which is also unfair.

I don't believe a person needs to be "trained" in the arts in order to appreciate them. That's an elitist idea in itself because it implies art can only be valued on an intellectual basis and not a gut emotional one. The layman can know what he likes and what he doesn't like without the help of having been enrolled in a bunch of art, theatre, creative writing, and music classes.

As far as King is concerned, I feel the major issue is this: You simply don't care for the man's work and don't see what all the fuss is about. That's fine. You're free to express those opinions as loud as you want. The problem is, your comments were more contemptuous and snide, which I don't think is fair considering the impact he's had on literature in the last half century. (That's why I made the comment about literary snobs; because that's how you were coming off. No offense was meant.)

And I think the only time something is deemed snobbish or elitist by the masses is if it is presented that way. No one likes to be looked down on or made to feel inferior and uneducated because they're unfamiliar with or uninterested in something someone else has deemed "classic". There are plenty of classics that are universally agreed upon. There are others that are more divisive, but shoving them down people's throats and saying they can't appreciate them because they're uneducated or unversed isn't the way to endorse them.

As far as the appeal of the Top 40, pop culture stuff we have to put up with these days, you can pretty much tell what's going to last and what isn't. What's essential and what's disposable. Based on the emotional and visceral impact he continues to have on his readers, I'm fairly certain King's works will continue to exist in people's hearts and minds far longer than the feather-light stuff of someone like John Grisham or Robert Ludlum. There are many people who are appalled by this idea; their sensibilities offended by King's early pulp beginnings and unfairly-earned reputation. They'll have to get over it.

I agree. Art is a weapon in the class war. And evaluative standards often have more to do with class or status anxieties than with anything inherent in the works themselves. That's sort of what puzzles me about the perpetuation of the term "classic" by people whose tastes or preferences have been disempowered by the term. The erection and maintenance of a set of recognized "classics" has been one of the things that has made people suspicious of "popular" arts and artists, after all. It's kind of peculiar to me, therefore, to see the two terms being used synonymously.

I'm rather confused as to whether you're endorsing these rigid standards or deriding them. I agree that art is weapon of the class war and that "classic" stadards devalue popular artists. But you also seem to think some standard is necessary in order to create distictions (or to weed out the riff raff, as it were). Is this a double standard or am I just not reading it the right way?

 

[Guest]

The problem is, your comments were more contemptuous and snide, which I don't think is fair considering the impact he's had on literature in the last half century.

tell me, what schools are teaching King's novels as classic lit.?
He is nowheres near the level of legitimacy as Poe or Orwell.
He only had what, 5 successful novels and even those didnt seem to have much of an impact.

 

[medjay]

tell me, what schools are teaching King's novels as classic lit.?

Actually, we studied Eyes of the Dragon my freshman year in high school. I got an "A".

He only had what, 5 successful novels and even those didnt seem to have much of an impact.

You're joking, right?

 

[sunstruck]

You should try The Picture of Dorian Gray sometime too. That's another good one.

You know, lol I got it right on like two other threads that same day and you have to pick the ONE where I revert to obsessive correction.

I hate you now.

 

[sunstruck]

PS. Reading Hammy and Medjay argue the merits of modern fiction has made me wet.

I must leave now.

 

[Guest]

You're joking, right?

no, serious question. What exactly has King inspired, other than convincing bookstores to carry his flotsam? His stories are rehashed material from other writers, most notably Lovecraft.

 

[medjay]

no, serious question. What exactly has King inspired, other than convincing bookstores to carry his flotsam? His stories are rehashed material from other writers, most notably Lovecraft.

So what? Bashing someone for reflecting the works that influenced them is an asshole thing to do. Especially when there's really nothing new under the sun, only the way it is presented.

If you're going to penalize someone for not creating something totally original you might as well stop reading books or watching movies altogether.

Or, better yet, you can write something of your own that's superior. Make sure you let me know when your book is rocketing up the bestseller charts and leaving King in the dust.

 

[gravyrug]

no, serious question. What exactly has King inspired, other than convincing bookstores to carry his flotsam? His stories are rehashed material from other writers, most notably Lovecraft.

Well, you've already admitted you haven't read King for a long time. Now I'm wondering when you last read Lovecraft. Yes, it's obvious King read and was influenced by Lovecraft (he admits as much), but the styles are utterly different.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Originally posted by medjay
I don't believe a person needs to be "trained" in the arts in order to appreciate them. That's an elitist idea in itself because it implies art can only be valued on an intellectual basis and not a gut emotional one. The layman can know what he likes and what he doesn't like without the help of having been enrolled in a bunch of art, theatre, creative writing, and music classes.

Yes, of course, we can all go around giving our thumbs up or thumbs down to things without necessarily being trained. All we need is an opposable thumb. Are you suggesting that all literature, music, film, theatre, and art classes ought to be eliminated? I think this is a common, but somewhat incomplete, way of thinking, actually, for two reasons: (1.) unless people can explain why they like something, their evaluation is invalid, and most people cannot explain why an artwork makes them feel as they do without some kind of training; (2.) to appreciate art from the standpoint of reception is only part of the story; unless they can get some understanding of it from the point of production, they're missing quite a lot--and they can't get that without some kind of traininig.



As far as King is concerned, I feel the major issue is this: You simply don't care for the man's work and don't see what all the fuss is about. That's fine. You're free to express those opinions as loud as you want. The problem is, your comments were more contemptuous and snide, which I don't think is fair considering the impact he's had on literature in the last half century. (That's why I made the comment about literary snobs; because that's how you were coming off. No offense was meant.)

Well, King is really irrelevant to the matter, as I see it--but I can understand why you might say that. I could have picked any other author mentioned here. I've never read any of King's stuff--mainly because I don't have the time or interest, and no one has ever been able to give me a good reason why I should make time to read him. I apologize if I came across as contemptuous and snide. It worked, though. Someone took the bait, and now I'm having an interesting discussion.

I won't fault you for being contemptuous and snide in return.


And I think the only time something is deemed snobbish or elitist by the masses is if it is presented that way. No one likes to be looked down on or made to feel inferior and uneducated because they're unfamiliar with or uninterested in something someone else has deemed "classic". There are plenty of classics that are universally agreed upon. There are others that are more divisive, but shoving them down people's throats and saying they can't appreciate them because they're uneducated or unversed isn't the way to endorse them.


True, people don't like feeling inferior or stupid, and art is often used to make people feel that way. On the other hand, I've encountered a number of artworks that have made me feel inferior and stupid, but instead of projecting that back on the artist or artwork, I took the trouble to learn something about it.

James Joyce, when he finished Ulysses, was asked by someone to explain what the book was about. He said something like, "It took me five years to write the fucker, I expect you to take at least that long to figure it out." I can appreciate that sentiment, as well. I don't think that all art should be designed to stimulate our "guts" in quite the stimulus/response way you indicated above, so that if it makes our jollies tingle, it's good, and if it doesn't, it's bad. There are other pleasures besides those of the 'gut'.


I'm rather confused as to whether you're endorsing these rigid standards or deriding them. I agree that art is weapon of the class war and that "classic" stadards devalue popular artists. But you also seem to think some standard is necessary in order to create distictions (or to weed out the riff raff, as it were). Is this a double standard or am I just not reading it the right way?

I'm perfectly capable of articulating a position without necessarily agreeing with it. I do that all the time. It's called teaching. To paraphrase Fitzgerald's famous line, I am perfectly capable of holding two completely contradictory thoughts in my head at the same time. I confessed to you what I really believe. But I also can talk like a conservative, highbrow defender of the "classics." Doesn't mean I am one.

Whether standards are necessary or not is irrelevant. The whole point is that there are always some standards being applied, and the thing I was curious about was what standards people were applying when they called King a 'classic' author.

 

[sunstruck]

no, serious question. What exactly has King inspired, other than convincing bookstores to carry his flotsam? His stories are rehashed material from other writers, most notably Lovecraft.

And Lovecraft wouldn't have existed without Poe and Machen.

There would be no Tolkien without Homer.

The bible would not exist as it is without Egyptian folklore.

You wanna keep going?

 

[medjay]

Are you suggesting that all literature, music, film, theatre, and art classes ought to be eliminated?

I don't think that all art should be designed to stimulate our "guts" in quite the stimulus/response way you indicated above, so that if it makes our jollies tingle, it's good, and if it doesn't, it's bad. There are other pleasures besides those of the 'gut'.

No, I don't think those art classes should be eliminated. But I do think that it is unreasonable to assume someone can only be qualified to judge said arts if they are "trained" in them. If an artist creates a work in a purely emotional, passionate and instinctive frame of mind then that work should be able to be appriciated on the same basis. Likewise, many artists have no clue or tangible reason why their muse chose to move them in a certain direction. When pressed, they are often unable to explain their own work and it stands to reason that someone experiencing that work should not be expected to articulate why it moves them. (You also have artists who, when placed in this sticky situation, will just lie and tell people what they want to hear. I'm certain there are many "classic" works of art that were concieved in the midst of some drug or alcohol induced frenzy and their creators would probably laugh if they were to see the class discussions aimed at dissecting and finding meaning in what could possibly have been regarded as abominable hackwork as far as the artist was concerned.)

I do believe classes in the arts are necessary and relevant if only for introducing people to things they might otherwise have no occasion to experience. I do not believe any sort of artistic talent can taught, however. That is something inate that you are either born with or you're not (despite what schools may tell you to convince you to spend your money there). Classes and training can help you to hone your talents and teach you basic, practical foundations nescessary to that art, but if that gift isn't in you to begin with, it will never be.

I've never read any of King's stuff--mainly because I don't have the time or interest, and no one has ever been able to give me a good reason why I should make time to read him.

The whole point is that there are always some standards being applied, and the thing I was curious about was what standards people were applying when they called King a 'classic' author.

You really can't wait for someone to convince you King is worth your time. All you can do is take it upon yourself to read some of his stuff and make an informed opinion on your own. You may love it or you may hate it but at least you'll have a foundation for your stance.

If I recall, no one actually said King's stuff was classic unless you're still going by the vague definition implied by the title of the thread which, I again admit, might not have been the best choice of words.

But I do feel King will have the potential to be considered classic in the future. So do millions of others. It's a wager I would take.

 

[sunstruck]

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that King will one day be considered a classic novelist.

And I am trained to make that statement.

 

[Rambrat]

I think King is excellent...

and his work of enduring significance...

but I'm just one of the many people who probably don't count because a college professor hasn't given a thumbs up...