I like science fiction too, but, with the exception of 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World, can you really name many science fiction books that is "relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries", or that is "inexhaustible", or that has significance not only to the time in which it was written?
which means that how Wolfe's book stacks up against 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World is relevant. We talked about Frankenstein in an earlier post, so that's relevant too.
I'm a little curious as to how any of Gibson's works are not ones that "have significance not only at the time in which it was written." Gibson is a forward-thinking author who predicted and commented on the direction society would travel and is currently traveling as the Information Age came to light. If that's not "classic" material, then what is? Beowulf is considered a classic, but it's little more than a hero story. It's survived and taught so long simply because it's one of the oldest surviving works in the English language. What significance does that have aside from age? You certainly can't tell me that Beowulf has more to say than any of Gibson's works.
I'm not denying the importance of classics, only that they're somehow better than contemporary writing. Numerous authors throughout history address the same topics; if a modern author addresses a given topic in a way that is more accessible to the modern reader, how is that less valid than an older, less accessible work? Moby-Dick is a very important piece of literature, but many more accessible works address many of the same issues, often in different and more directly applicable ways. Why emphasize a work that is more difficult to comprehend when other works can address the same themes in a fashion that is easier to comprehend?
EDIT: This is starting to remind me of the forum argument way back involving Ethan Frome.
Beowulfis considered a classic, but it's little more than a hero story. It's survived and taught so long simply because it's one of the oldest surviving works in the English language. What significance does that have aside from age? You certainly can't tell me thatBeowulfhas more to say than any of Gibson's works.
Beowulf is little more than a hero story? That's like saying King Lear is a story about what happens to some guy after he retires. Beowulf deals with some pretty heavy issues of man's conflict with other men, man's conflict with nature, man's conflict with himself when he inevitably fails, how people are remembered after they die, and what hope of afterlife people have. Beowulf not only has more to say than Gibson, it says it better than Gibson.
I'm not denying the importance of classics, only that they're somehowbetterthan contemporary writing. Numerous authors throughout history address the same topics; if a modern author addresses a given topic in a way that is more accessible to the modern reader, how is that less valid than an older, less accessible work?Moby-Dickis a very important piece of literature, but many more accessible works address many of the same issues, often in different and more directly applicable ways.
Name me some modern works that address the same issues as Moby-Dick in more directly applicable ways.
I had a Literature teacher who used to say that they were no original ideas or stories. That everything that holds importance right now is based on an idea or a piece of work that was made before. That why classics are classics, they laid down the work for the rest.
I had a Literature teacher who used to say that they were no original ideas or stories. That everything that holds importance right now is based on an idea or a piece of work that was made before. That why classics are classics, they laid down the work for the rest.
Ha, you think the classics are the originals? Not even close. They're just the ones that survived the test of time physically. The predecessors of all the so-called classics were written on papyrus that rotted, burned in the Library of Alexandria, lost from years of oral tradition, etc. If you think that the classics are somehow better because they are the "originals", then I hate to break it to you, they aren't the originals.
Personally, I do not judge works based on their age. In some cases, old works are better than new. In some cases, new books are better than old. Spider-Man written by Dan Slott is a thousand times better than the Spider-Man written by Stan Lee. Sure, Stan Lee's Spider-Man is old, and historically significant, and you can learn a few things from it, but it still sucks ass as far as artistic merit goes. On the same token, 1984 is way better than (insert any modern retelling of your choice). There's a reason we call shit "Orwellian".
Charles Dickens - David Copperfield: Fiction Charles Dickens - American notes: 917.3 DIC Jane Austin and Charles Dickens - Two Histories of England: 808 AUS
Pretty much everything Dickens is in the fiction area of the library.
The library only has The Inferno by Dante Alighieri and all copies are in the literature section.
Shakespeare shows up in the literature section, not fiction.
What makes it that good? Please explain how it is as good as Frankenstein, 1984, Brave New World, and Farenheit 451.
I think it is, but I have no control over whether my subjective definition of good matches yours or not. You gave a list of qualifications for the status of literature, all of which the Book of the New Sun fulfills handily.
Is it "relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries"? I believe that the nature of death and the afterlife, the question of what constitutes divinity, and the simultaneous defining power and unreliabile nature of memory should be sufficiently eternal themes to satisfy you.
Or, perhaps, you were wondering about its "inexhaustability"? Ultimately, you'll have to read it and judge for yourself, but I have seen no other author, classic or contemporary, as skilled as Gene Wolfe at slipping multiple levels of meaning into prose.
Finally, you claim that literature must have "significance not only to the time it was written." In fact, much of classic literature is considered classic because, while it may deal with themes that are still relevant today, it is representative of the time in which it was written. Beowulf is a prime example of this, as are Homer's works. More fantastic works, while perhaps less historically interesting, are if anything more timeless. When done well, the setting is not tightly tied to the time in which it was written. To understand Beowulf or the Odyssey fully requires that the reader have outside knowledge of the culture that produced them; SF makes fewer assumptions of this nature, making it in many ways less bound to the era of its author than other forms of literature. As for the significance of this work in particular, I refer you to my answer to your first requirement.
EDIT: So as to not get further bogged down by specifics, my chief point is this: don't dismiss an entire genre as without literary worth just because you don't know of enough examples to satisfy some arbitrary lower limit. To argue from ignorance convinces the listener of nothing but ignorance.
I'm not denying the importance of classics, only that they're somehowbetterthan contemporary writing. Numerous authors throughout history address the same topics; if a modern author addresses a given topic in a way that is more accessible to the modern reader, how is that less valid than an older, less accessible work?Moby-Dickis a very important piece of literature, but many more accessible works address many of the same issues, often in different and more directly applicable ways.
Name me some modern works that address the same issues asMoby-Dickin more directly applicable ways.Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas addresses, quite apparently, the idea of man's obsession with that he cannot obtain. He uses the familiar idea of the "American Dream" and uses it as a white whale, as the characters in the book are pursuing it relentlessly. The most obvious passage where this is brought to light is in a passage about 1/3 of the way through the book. Dr. Gonzo is wandering through a casino, remarking on the people there at 3 AM, gambling away their life savings and children's college funds at the chance to hit it big. The house always wins though, so the only thing this can lead to is ruin.
In this way, Thompson is painting the idea of the "American Dream" in a fashion similar to that in which Melville paints Moby Dick. People relentlessly pursue the idea to their ruin, their single-minded determination shutting off all other reason. It also doubles as a showing of man fighting against fate, much again in the same way as Moby Dick; casino games are designed to make you lose, so the idea of gambling away to win it big will only lead to ruin, and yet man keeps trying, fighting against fate even though it is inevitable. The inevitability is laid bare when they eventually find the American Dream, only to see that it is a blasted shell of concrete and rubble.
Thompson also touches on several social themes, much as does Melville, such as religion, racism, and the conflict between authority and those under that authority. Really, most of Thompson's works involve social commentary.
Essentially, he's digested many of the themes of Moby Dick and reassembled them in a more familiar form. That's the point I'm trying to make; it's important to study classic literature, but it's silly to think that you can force people to understand a theme through a perspective they no longer share. It is not the individual works that are timeless; it is the THEMES and ISSUES they address that are timeless. As societies change, so do perspectives on these themes and issues, so they must always be addressed anew from these newly arisen perspectives. People connect better with characters with whom they share perspective, and thus they'll better comprehend the themes. In fact, the way we view the themes and issues, and the interpretations we make on those, may very well change with a differing perspective. Thus, while it is important to study these classic works in order to establish the history of the themes, one must not study them to the exclusion of works with more updated perspectives, ones that bear more relevance to people's lives now. I have a feeling far more people understand the futility of gambling in Las Vegas hoping to strike it rich than understand the dangers of whaling.
Perspective, perspective, perspective. It's all about perspective. The lens through which we view reality colors our interpretation of events. Hence, one cannot simply eschew modern works and only study the classics; to do so would not grant a truly rounded perspective.
For more on the topic, try The Prince of Nothing series by R. Scott Bakker. The books address many underlying issues with humanity, and touch on pretty much every theme covered by Melville.
EDIT: Also, what Alex said.
EDIT THE SECOND: Also, I have a slight problem with the idea that a work must be "relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries" in order to be a classic. What of issues that have only arisen in the past century, and yet are still just as important? What of issues that have arisen in the past 20 years, but are still just as significant?
EDIT: So as to not get further bogged down by specifics, my chief point is this: don't dismiss an entire genre as without literary worth just because you don't know of enough examples to satisfy some arbitrary lower limit. To argue from ignorance convinces the listener of nothing but ignorance.
I asked you for a candidate for a book as good as a list of others and then I asked you to defend your position. That is hardly arguing from ignorance. I didn't insult you or your preferences. There is no call for you to insult me. You don't know anything about me, buddy. I've read science fiction all my life. I really like the genre, but I don't think everything I read is a classic. I'm reading Rolling Thunder by John Varley right now, and I'll tell you right now that it does not belong on a list with 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, or Frankenstein. I don't know why you think you have to presume that your favorite reading material is on a par with the classics, but if it's that important to you, fine. Just because Wolfe has written a complicated story does not mean he's written a classic, but that's okay. Consider Wolfe to be the equal of Homer, Aeschylus, and Aristophanes. But if you ask me, that's pretty ignorant.
I'm sorry, but I'm PISSED. You can call me ignorant about many things that would not bother me a bit, but I'm not ignorant about science fiction. I ask you about this one book and you say I'm dismissing the genre? Maybe that's why you think Wolfe is the same as Homer - you have a problem with reading comprehension.
Hunter S. Thompson'sFear and Loathing in Las Vegasaddresses, quite apparently, the idea of man's obsession with that he cannot obtain.
Are you serious? Okay, if you want to equate Hunter S. Thompson and Herman Melville, then I guess that's fine. While we're at it, since it's only subjective, why don't we throw Frank Miller in there too? After all, Frank Miller is a NEW writer, so he must be relevant. He must be even better than Melville, Hawthorne, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Chaucer, and Milton put together. It might occur to someone that being biased for modern writers is just as flawed as being biased against older writers, but I guess that would be ignorant.
Okay - rant aside, I'm cranky because my train was an hour and a half late tonight and this is the first time in my life that I've ever been called ignorant about science fiction. Can't you see how Hunter S. Thompson is not on the same level as Melville? I like Hunter S. Thompson. I've read most everything he's written. However, he has NEVER come up with a character as complex as Ahab. Jason came much closer to citing an important modern writer when he talked about Vonnegut and Irving.
It's not just a matter of personal preference either. Surely you must see how Green Eggs and Ham is not the same thing as The Scarlet Letter, no matter how much someone might like Green Eggs and Ham. It's like saying Bon Jovi is as good as Mozart, or Die Hard with a Vengeance is just as important as A Clockwork Orange. That's fine though. Die Hard is slightly newer, so it MUST be better, huh?
Hunter S. Thompson'sFear and Loathing in Las Vegasaddresses, quite apparently, the idea of man's obsession with that he cannot obtain.
Are you serious? Okay, if you want to equate Hunter S. Thompson and Herman Melville, then I guess that's fine. While we're at it, since it's only subjective, why don't we throw Frank Miller in there too? After all, Frank Miller is a NEW writer, so he must be relevant. He must be even better than Melville, Hawthorne, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Chaucer, and Milton put together. It might occur to someone that being biased for modern writers is just as flawed as being biased against older writers, but I guess that would be ignorant.
Okay - rant aside, I'm cranky because my train was an hour and a half late tonight. Can't you see how Hunter S. Thompson is not on the same level as Melville? I like Hunter S. Thompson. I've read most everything he's written. However, he has NEVER come up with a character as complex as Ahab. Jason came much closer to citing an important modern writer when he talked about Vonnegut and Irving.
It's not just a matter of personal preference either. Surely you must see howGreen Eggs and Hamis not the same thing asThe Scarlet Letter, no matter how much someone might likeGreen Eggs and Ham. It's like saying Bon Jovi is as good as Mozart.Jesus, I'll say it again, because you seem to be missing it. I AM NOT DISMISSING THE CLASSICS. Did you see that? Did you catch that? Should I say it again?
I'm not arguing that new writers are "better" than the classics, because I haven't set down any criteria by which we could assess "better." However, by your definitions, YES, Hunter S. Thompson's works are on par with those of Melville. I would ask just why it is that YOU can't see that. And yes, in fact, why not throw Frank Miller in there? If he has something relevant to say, why not? Once again, it's the THEMES that are timeless, and perspectives change. We always need new takes on old themes, and THOSE NEW TAKES ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE OLD.
You can't even really say that Melville is "better" than Thompson because they're two totally different writing styles. But honestly? Thompson was a modern master of writing; his characters were believable enough, and that was the point of his "journalism," and the entire underlying point of Gonzo writing: it only has to be believable, not necessarily true, in order to be relevant. By writing completely subjective "journalism" that consisted of commentary from his "experiences," he painted scenarios and made commentary that were completely believable.
Can you seriously not see the parallels between Fear and Loathing and Moby Dick? Seriously. Can you honestly tell me that you cannot see how HST describing people gambling their money away to ruin in pursuit of something elusive as the "American Dream," and Melville showing Captain Ahab casting aside all that once brought him joy in life to pursue the elusive Moby Dick to his doom, to be parallel? Honestly? I've read both books, and I'm presuming you have as well, so I'm wondering why it is you can't see this parallel? Or is it that you see the parallel but refuse to admit that it's worthwhile?
I can draw a parallel between Fear and Loathing and The Great Gatsby, if you'd like. Characters indulging in the excesses of a society that they criticize; sound familiar?
I'm not biased towards modern writers, nor am I biased towards classic writers. I would say that I'm more biased towards the modern perspective, since that's the perspective I have. I'm not talking about wanting my books to be full of Pokemon and lightsabers; I want my literature to present a fresh perspective on issues that I've already seen addressed in classic literature. That's what modern writers provide, and that's every bit as important as what the classics provide.
I'm not talking about wanting my books to be full of Pokemon and lightsabers; I want my literature to present a fresh perspective on issues that I've already seen addressed in classic literature.
I'm not criticising you in any way. If you want the lightsabers and the Pokemons, that's outstanding. After all, newer is always, always, always better isn't it? I'm sure that Anna Karenina would be much improved and much more relevant to the modern reader if Pikachu saved Anna when she threw herself under the train.
Hungryjoe: The fact that I also have a great deal of respect for science fiction as a genre was what prompted my response. I did exactly what you asked: I gave you, briefly, the reasons I considered this particular book worthy of respect. What I take issue with is your statement that no science fiction beyond that handful of titles has literary merit. I used Homer as an example for reasons of clarity (no one is arguing that the Odyssey is not classic literature, so it served as a good example of such), not comparison.
You appeared to be claiming that, because you knew of no other titles that met your criteria, no such titles exist. The intent of my final point was not to call you ignorant, but only to point out that the argument you made was of the form called argument from ignorance, and that I rarely find such arguments convincing.
No insult was intended, and I apologize for any that was taken.
I'm not talking about wanting my books to be full of Pokemon and lightsabers; I want my literature to present a fresh perspective on issues that I've already seen addressed in classic literature.
I'm not criticising you in any way. If you want the lightsabers and the Pokemons, that's outstanding. After all, newer is always, always, always better isn't it? I'm sure thatAnna Kareninawould be much improved and much more relevant to the modern reader if Pikachu saved Anna when she threw herself under the train.
I'm not referring to you criticizing me, nor did I intend that in that way. Your argument smacks of "you damn kids with your newfangled books," and the dismissive attitude towards newer authors reinforces that perspective. It seems to me that that's your take on things; the only reason that anyone could EVER claim that a newer work might somehow be more relevant than an older one is if they're some hyperactive little kid, right?
[removed the snark; it was unnecessary]
Here's my point: teaching classic literature to the exclusion of new literature on the same themes is silly. Weighting the perspectives of classic literature as being somehow "better" or more important than new literature is silly. Doing those things in reverse is also silly. Studying literary themes requires reading the interpretations of that theme throughout ALL of literary history, not just the small part with which you are familiar. Drawing connections between seemingly dissimilar works of literature is critically important for complete understanding of a theme.
Do you disagree with this assertion? Any part of it at all?
What I take issue with is your statement that no science fiction beyond that handful of titles has literary merit. I used Homer as an example for reasons of clarity (no one is arguing that theOdysseyis not classic literature, so it served as a good example of such), not comparison. No insult was intended, and I apologize for any that was taken.
Look at what I wrote:
Frankenstein is one of the few science fiction books that will be taught in schools (in my experience).
I like science fiction too, but, with the exception of1984,Fahrenheit 451, andBrave New World, can you really name many science fiction books that are "relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries", or that is "inexhaustible", or that has significance not only to the time in which it was written?
I asked if many science fiction books could be named that would fit the definition of a classic that Mr. jcc cited. I did not say that no science fiction book besides those listed has any literary merit. Further, I was saying it in response to someone complaining that Frankenstein was the only SF book assigned in school (probably high school). If the other books on the list were assigned as well, there wouldn't be enough time for many others, would there? So the question: How many others deserve to be the school reading list? I can tell you that, even though your Wolfe novel might be really, really, entertaining, and might address weighty issues, I would rather the school kid have a shot at Wuthering Heights.
Sorry. You don't have to apologize. I should apologize. I was just physically strung out because my stupid train was an hour and a half late tonight. That in itself isn't so bad, but this damn train has given me problems nearly every day for the past three weeks, and I am very, very cross about it.
reading the interpretations of that theme throughout ALL of literary history, not just the small part with which you are familiar
Can you really interpret something with which you are not familiar? And while I agree with you, I would contend that complete understanding of a theme is not exactly possible no matter what you're interpreting.
can you really name many science fiction books that are "relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries"
It's more that they seek to be relevant to the next 25 centuries.
reading the interpretations of that theme throughout ALL of literary history, not just the small part with which you are familiar
Can you really interpret something with which you are not familiar? And while I agree with you, I would contend that complete understanding of a theme is not exactly possible no matter what you're interpreting.
Of course you can't interpret something with which you are not familiar, which is why I'm arguing that you must consider ALL the writings on a topic. You have to familiarize yourself with as much writing on the topic as possible, in order to have a fully perspective on it. Ergo, you must always read, and not just read books from one time period. Perspective is not timeless. Read everything you can get your hands on, and you'll develop as complete a familiarity as you can.
And 100% understanding is impossible anyhow. I'm saying that we need to strive for as much understanding as we can get, and you're not going to do that by only studying the classics. You won't necessarily get that from only studying modern literature, either.
can you really name many science fiction books that are "relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries"
It's more that they seek to be relevant to thenext25 centuries.
And thus my reason for stating the importance of William Gibson, and similar other authors. We need to look at now and tomorrow, as well.
I won't claim The Book of the New Sun should be on every high school reading list - if for no other reason, it's a four-volume monstrosity that would consume an entire semester's reading. I will claim that it fits the definition of literature put forth by jcc, for the reasons I give above.
I do think that exposing high schoolers to science fiction/fantasy is a good idea, in order to demonstrate the possible range of written works; one of the most important duties of high school education is to foster the continuing desire to self-educate - which among other things means appreciation of literature, in some form or other. My own high school reading list included The Once and Future King and Dune; any of the works you mentioned would also fit nicely. I actually think William Gibson would work just as well, because his works have a particular relevance to anyone who's grown up with the Internet.
While I don't know of any dictionary that would support me in this, I feel the definition of classic literature that best fits how I see the term used would be something like "works of fiction that have become the subject of extended academic study". This is in part a matter of worth, but also one of chance and circumstance. It helps for the work to have been around for decades or centuries to increase the chance of it being noticed, but it's the being noticed (by a large number of those who study such topics) that matters, not the age.
I figured Swift would be too recent for you. Careful, you're becoming dangerously progressive with your literary views.
Of course, according to the Wikipedia, Swift never gave an answer. I suspect we never will arrive at one either, since this argument has been conducted since the dawn of reason in man and has yet to be resolved.
That's a whole lot of straw you're trying to mold into the shape of a man, there, Joseph.
Explain, please. Are you trying to say that I'm making a strawman argument? Why, exactly, would you say that? The argument over whether to include modern as well as old texts in the canon of classics is hardly a strawman argument. I'm not misrepresenting their side of the argument in order to tear their side of the argument down.
If you think it was a strawman argument, the people on the other side must be making a strawman argument as well.
Finally, I pointed out that the argument has been going on since at least Swift's day and has remained unresolved. How is that making a strawman argument?
You only pointed out that it had been discussed, you said nothing of its resolution. It could also be said that you implied that the older discussion of this topic was more relevant than this current one, almost to the point that we shouldn't bother.
You only pointed out that it had been discussed, you said nothing of its resolution. It could also be said that you implied that the older discussion of this topic was more relevant than this current one, almost to the point that we shouldn't bother.
I think it's safe to assume when you post a link that the people you're talking to will at least look at it. The link says the argument has not been resolved, and I don't think any of us are better at framing arguments than Swift.
You only pointed out that it had been discussed, you said nothing of its resolution. It could also be said that you implied that the older discussion of this topic was more relevant than this current one, almost to the point that we shouldn't bother.
I think it's safe to assume when you post a link that the people you're talking to will at least look at it. The link says the argument has not been resolved, and I don't think any of us are better at framing arguments than Swift.
So we shouldn't even bother trying to resolve it? We don't have to pursue it to our ruin like Ahab, but it's good to have pie-in-the-sky ideas to chase after. One can learn much when attempting to answer the unanswerable.
As for the strawman comment, your link implies that my argument is that of the "modernists," when that is not really the case. My argument is, and will continue to be:
Here's my point: teaching classic literature to the exclusion of new literature on the same themes is silly. Weighting the perspectives of classic literature as being somehow "better" or more important than new literature is silly. Doing those things in reverse is also silly. Studying literary themes requires reading the interpretations of that theme throughout ALL of literary history, not just the small part with which you are familiar. Drawing connections between seemingly dissimilar works of literature is critically important for complete understanding of a theme.
As for the strawman comment, your link implies that my argument is that of the "modernists," when that is not really the case.
That is at least partly the case. If I were guilty of the strawman fallacy, I would have
1. attributed an argument to you that superficially resembled your argument but was easier to refute, and then
2. refuted it.
That's not what happened. I mentioned Swift because I wanted to show that this argument (or one that is very, very similar) is not new. That's one of the things you learn when you read the classics.
Here's my point: teaching classic literature to the exclusion of new literature on the same themes is silly. Weighting the perspectives of classic literature as being somehow "better" or more important than new literature is silly. Doing those things in reverse is also silly. Studying literary themes requires reading the interpretations of that theme throughout ALL of literary history, not just the small part with which you are familiar. Drawing connections between seemingly dissimilar works of literature is critically important for complete understanding of a theme.
Do you agree or disagree with this assertion?
I do not entirely agree. Here is an argument that you seem to be attributing to me that I did not make: Nothing can be added to the classics. I'll always remember a thowaway joke that I heard on I Love Lucy - Lucy said that she read the classics "as soon as they came out." That got a canned laugh, the joke being that the list of classics is static.
However, the list of classics is not static. A work may be added to the list. I believe Catch-22 should be on the list of classics. It doesn't matter that it was written in the 20th century. It has sufficient artistic merit to be considered a classic. None of Heller's other books do. Similarly, I think Slaughterhouse-Five, Grapes of Wrath, The Great Gatsby, and The Sun Also Rises should be on the list.
Just because something is good or entertaining doesn't make it a classic. My main problem with your argument is that you put forward Hunter S. Thompson as a worthy challenger to Herman Melville. That's just not the case. HST is entertaining. HST might have had some worthy insights. That does not make him a Melville. Also, I don't think Gibson is good enough to be on the list. I would be much more inclined to include Neal Stephenson than Gibson. Actually, I'd be more inclined to include Stephen King than HST, but only for the novellas The Body, Apt Pupil, and Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. I might be persuaded that The Green Mile belongs as well, but that's as far as I'll go.
Maybe, to make the word "classic" have a more useful meaning, we should include the time component in some way. Say, frequency of reference over time weighted for longevity?
Thus, a work can be good, amazing, even revolutionary in its time, but cannot be considered specifically classic until it has remained widely relevant and remembered for an arbitrary time. I'd say multi-generational spans are the minimum requirement.
This definition also has the nice bonus of removing the opinion element. A classic becomes simply something which stands the test of time: it does not necessarily imply that said work is "good" or "bad."
Of course, this ruins a perfectly good flamewar...
This definition also has the nice bonus of removing the opinion element. A classic becomes simply something which stands the test of time: it does not necessarily imply that said work is "good" or "bad."
Am I dreaming or have I already said something either very similar or maybe even exactly like this earlier in the discussion?
David Copperfield is a lot more likely to be considered great literature than The Mystery of Edwin Drood. Similarly, you only say that The Inferno was in the Literature section. That wasn't the only thing Dante wrote. What about Convivio, Detto d'Amore, or Fiore? So, no - it's not the "fame" of the author that counts nearly as much as the lasting quality of the piece.
The classics don't merely have age going for them. They are old because they are good enough to have survived. How many people know about Simon Agonistes? How many people know about Paradise Lost? The same author wrote both of those works, but Paradise Lost has survived and Simon Agonistes has largely been forgotten. Why? There is an essential difference in quality.
William Gibson may be a competent writer but he is not a great writer. Melville and Conrad, for instance, are much better writers. They both construct deeper characters, weave tighter plots, and use language and symbolism better than Gibson. That's not because they are old. That's because they are simply better. Similarly, Irving and Vonnegut are better than Gibson.
Part of the definition of a classic (at least for me) is that it does not "marginalize more modern works that may be more relevant", because it remains just as relevant or maybe even more relevant than the modern work. The classic work has withstood the test of time and has remained relevant. The modern work, however it may be adored at the time, is likely to be ephemeral and quickly forgotten.
I'd be interested to see how many people are reading Gibson in one hundred years. I'm pretty sure he will prove to be ephemeral. However, I suspect that Vonnegut will survive.
Also, the works that do have artistic merit are not necessarily that ones that are "awesome". Finnegan's Wake is not awesome. In fact, it is more than a little sucky, in that it can be very disturbing. However, it has more artistic merit than Halo: The Fall of Reach, which I enjoyed much, much more.
Comments
I'm not denying the importance of classics, only that they're somehow better than contemporary writing. Numerous authors throughout history address the same topics; if a modern author addresses a given topic in a way that is more accessible to the modern reader, how is that less valid than an older, less accessible work? Moby-Dick is a very important piece of literature, but many more accessible works address many of the same issues, often in different and more directly applicable ways. Why emphasize a work that is more difficult to comprehend when other works can address the same themes in a fashion that is easier to comprehend?
EDIT: This is starting to remind me of the forum argument way back involving Ethan Frome.
Personally, I do not judge works based on their age. In some cases, old works are better than new. In some cases, new books are better than old. Spider-Man written by Dan Slott is a thousand times better than the Spider-Man written by Stan Lee. Sure, Stan Lee's Spider-Man is old, and historically significant, and you can learn a few things from it, but it still sucks ass as far as artistic merit goes. On the same token, 1984 is way better than (insert any modern retelling of your choice). There's a reason we call shit "Orwellian".
Charles Dickens - David Copperfield: Fiction
Charles Dickens - American notes: 917.3 DIC
Jane Austin and Charles Dickens - Two Histories of England: 808 AUS
Pretty much everything Dickens is in the fiction area of the library.
The library only has The Inferno by Dante Alighieri and all copies are in the literature section.
Shakespeare shows up in the literature section, not fiction.
Is it "relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries"? I believe that the nature of death and the afterlife, the question of what constitutes divinity, and the simultaneous defining power and unreliabile nature of memory should be sufficiently eternal themes to satisfy you.
Or, perhaps, you were wondering about its "inexhaustability"? Ultimately, you'll have to read it and judge for yourself, but I have seen no other author, classic or contemporary, as skilled as Gene Wolfe at slipping multiple levels of meaning into prose.
Finally, you claim that literature must have "significance not only to the time it was written." In fact, much of classic literature is considered classic because, while it may deal with themes that are still relevant today, it is representative of the time in which it was written. Beowulf is a prime example of this, as are Homer's works. More fantastic works, while perhaps less historically interesting, are if anything more timeless. When done well, the setting is not tightly tied to the time in which it was written. To understand Beowulf or the Odyssey fully requires that the reader have outside knowledge of the culture that produced them; SF makes fewer assumptions of this nature, making it in many ways less bound to the era of its author than other forms of literature. As for the significance of this work in particular, I refer you to my answer to your first requirement.
EDIT: So as to not get further bogged down by specifics, my chief point is this: don't dismiss an entire genre as without literary worth just because you don't know of enough examples to satisfy some arbitrary lower limit. To argue from ignorance convinces the listener of nothing but ignorance.
In this way, Thompson is painting the idea of the "American Dream" in a fashion similar to that in which Melville paints Moby Dick. People relentlessly pursue the idea to their ruin, their single-minded determination shutting off all other reason. It also doubles as a showing of man fighting against fate, much again in the same way as Moby Dick; casino games are designed to make you lose, so the idea of gambling away to win it big will only lead to ruin, and yet man keeps trying, fighting against fate even though it is inevitable. The inevitability is laid bare when they eventually find the American Dream, only to see that it is a blasted shell of concrete and rubble.
Thompson also touches on several social themes, much as does Melville, such as religion, racism, and the conflict between authority and those under that authority. Really, most of Thompson's works involve social commentary.
Essentially, he's digested many of the themes of Moby Dick and reassembled them in a more familiar form. That's the point I'm trying to make; it's important to study classic literature, but it's silly to think that you can force people to understand a theme through a perspective they no longer share. It is not the individual works that are timeless; it is the THEMES and ISSUES they address that are timeless. As societies change, so do perspectives on these themes and issues, so they must always be addressed anew from these newly arisen perspectives. People connect better with characters with whom they share perspective, and thus they'll better comprehend the themes. In fact, the way we view the themes and issues, and the interpretations we make on those, may very well change with a differing perspective. Thus, while it is important to study these classic works in order to establish the history of the themes, one must not study them to the exclusion of works with more updated perspectives, ones that bear more relevance to people's lives now. I have a feeling far more people understand the futility of gambling in Las Vegas hoping to strike it rich than understand the dangers of whaling.
Perspective, perspective, perspective. It's all about perspective. The lens through which we view reality colors our interpretation of events. Hence, one cannot simply eschew modern works and only study the classics; to do so would not grant a truly rounded perspective.
For more on the topic, try The Prince of Nothing series by R. Scott Bakker. The books address many underlying issues with humanity, and touch on pretty much every theme covered by Melville.
EDIT: Also, what Alex said.
EDIT THE SECOND: Also, I have a slight problem with the idea that a work must be "relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries" in order to be a classic. What of issues that have only arisen in the past century, and yet are still just as important? What of issues that have arisen in the past 20 years, but are still just as significant?
I'm sorry, but I'm PISSED. You can call me ignorant about many things that would not bother me a bit, but I'm not ignorant about science fiction. I ask you about this one book and you say I'm dismissing the genre? Maybe that's why you think Wolfe is the same as Homer - you have a problem with reading comprehension. Are you serious? Okay, if you want to equate Hunter S. Thompson and Herman Melville, then I guess that's fine. While we're at it, since it's only subjective, why don't we throw Frank Miller in there too? After all, Frank Miller is a NEW writer, so he must be relevant. He must be even better than Melville, Hawthorne, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Chaucer, and Milton put together. It might occur to someone that being biased for modern writers is just as flawed as being biased against older writers, but I guess that would be ignorant.
Okay - rant aside, I'm cranky because my train was an hour and a half late tonight and this is the first time in my life that I've ever been called ignorant about science fiction. Can't you see how Hunter S. Thompson is not on the same level as Melville? I like Hunter S. Thompson. I've read most everything he's written. However, he has NEVER come up with a character as complex as Ahab. Jason came much closer to citing an important modern writer when he talked about Vonnegut and Irving.
It's not just a matter of personal preference either. Surely you must see how Green Eggs and Ham is not the same thing as The Scarlet Letter, no matter how much someone might like Green Eggs and Ham. It's like saying Bon Jovi is as good as Mozart, or Die Hard with a Vengeance is just as important as A Clockwork Orange. That's fine though. Die Hard is slightly newer, so it MUST be better, huh?
Okay - rant aside, I'm cranky because my train was an hour and a half late tonight. Can't you see how Hunter S. Thompson is not on the same level as Melville? I like Hunter S. Thompson. I've read most everything he's written. However, he has NEVER come up with a character as complex as Ahab. Jason came much closer to citing an important modern writer when he talked about Vonnegut and Irving.
It's not just a matter of personal preference either. Surely you must see howGreen Eggs and Hamis not the same thing asThe Scarlet Letter, no matter how much someone might likeGreen Eggs and Ham. It's like saying Bon Jovi is as good as Mozart.Jesus, I'll say it again, because you seem to be missing it. I AM NOT DISMISSING THE CLASSICS. Did you see that? Did you catch that? Should I say it again?
I'm not arguing that new writers are "better" than the classics, because I haven't set down any criteria by which we could assess "better." However, by your definitions, YES, Hunter S. Thompson's works are on par with those of Melville. I would ask just why it is that YOU can't see that. And yes, in fact, why not throw Frank Miller in there? If he has something relevant to say, why not? Once again, it's the THEMES that are timeless, and perspectives change. We always need new takes on old themes, and THOSE NEW TAKES ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE OLD.
You can't even really say that Melville is "better" than Thompson because they're two totally different writing styles. But honestly? Thompson was a modern master of writing; his characters were believable enough, and that was the point of his "journalism," and the entire underlying point of Gonzo writing: it only has to be believable, not necessarily true, in order to be relevant. By writing completely subjective "journalism" that consisted of commentary from his "experiences," he painted scenarios and made commentary that were completely believable.
Can you seriously not see the parallels between Fear and Loathing and Moby Dick? Seriously. Can you honestly tell me that you cannot see how HST describing people gambling their money away to ruin in pursuit of something elusive as the "American Dream," and Melville showing Captain Ahab casting aside all that once brought him joy in life to pursue the elusive Moby Dick to his doom, to be parallel? Honestly? I've read both books, and I'm presuming you have as well, so I'm wondering why it is you can't see this parallel? Or is it that you see the parallel but refuse to admit that it's worthwhile?
I can draw a parallel between Fear and Loathing and The Great Gatsby, if you'd like. Characters indulging in the excesses of a society that they criticize; sound familiar?
I'm not biased towards modern writers, nor am I biased towards classic writers. I would say that I'm more biased towards the modern perspective, since that's the perspective I have. I'm not talking about wanting my books to be full of Pokemon and lightsabers; I want my literature to present a fresh perspective on issues that I've already seen addressed in classic literature. That's what modern writers provide, and that's every bit as important as what the classics provide.
You appeared to be claiming that, because you knew of no other titles that met your criteria, no such titles exist. The intent of my final point was not to call you ignorant, but only to point out that the argument you made was of the form called argument from ignorance, and that I rarely find such arguments convincing.
No insult was intended, and I apologize for any that was taken.
[removed the snark; it was unnecessary]
Here's my point: teaching classic literature to the exclusion of new literature on the same themes is silly. Weighting the perspectives of classic literature as being somehow "better" or more important than new literature is silly. Doing those things in reverse is also silly. Studying literary themes requires reading the interpretations of that theme throughout ALL of literary history, not just the small part with which you are familiar. Drawing connections between seemingly dissimilar works of literature is critically important for complete understanding of a theme.
Do you disagree with this assertion? Any part of it at all?
Sorry. You don't have to apologize. I should apologize. I was just physically strung out because my stupid train was an hour and a half late tonight. That in itself isn't so bad, but this damn train has given me problems nearly every day for the past three weeks, and I am very, very cross about it.
And 100% understanding is impossible anyhow. I'm saying that we need to strive for as much understanding as we can get, and you're not going to do that by only studying the classics. You won't necessarily get that from only studying modern literature, either. And thus my reason for stating the importance of William Gibson, and similar other authors. We need to look at now and tomorrow, as well.
I do think that exposing high schoolers to science fiction/fantasy is a good idea, in order to demonstrate the possible range of written works; one of the most important duties of high school education is to foster the continuing desire to self-educate - which among other things means appreciation of literature, in some form or other. My own high school reading list included The Once and Future King and Dune; any of the works you mentioned would also fit nicely. I actually think William Gibson would work just as well, because his works have a particular relevance to anyone who's grown up with the Internet.
While I don't know of any dictionary that would support me in this, I feel the definition of classic literature that best fits how I see the term used would be something like "works of fiction that have become the subject of extended academic study". This is in part a matter of worth, but also one of chance and circumstance. It helps for the work to have been around for decades or centuries to increase the chance of it being noticed, but it's the being noticed (by a large number of those who study such topics) that matters, not the age.
Of course, according to the Wikipedia, Swift never gave an answer. I suspect we never will arrive at one either, since this argument has been conducted since the dawn of reason in man and has yet to be resolved.
If you think it was a strawman argument, the people on the other side must be making a strawman argument as well.
Finally, I pointed out that the argument has been going on since at least Swift's day and has remained unresolved. How is that making a strawman argument?
As for the strawman comment, your link implies that my argument is that of the "modernists," when that is not really the case. My argument is, and will continue to be: Do you agree or disagree with this assertion?
1. attributed an argument to you that superficially resembled your argument but was easier to refute, and then
2. refuted it.
That's not what happened. I mentioned Swift because I wanted to show that this argument (or one that is very, very similar) is not new. That's one of the things you learn when you read the classics. I do not entirely agree. Here is an argument that you seem to be attributing to me that I did not make: Nothing can be added to the classics. I'll always remember a thowaway joke that I heard on I Love Lucy - Lucy said that she read the classics "as soon as they came out." That got a canned laugh, the joke being that the list of classics is static.
However, the list of classics is not static. A work may be added to the list. I believe Catch-22 should be on the list of classics. It doesn't matter that it was written in the 20th century. It has sufficient artistic merit to be considered a classic. None of Heller's other books do. Similarly, I think Slaughterhouse-Five, Grapes of Wrath, The Great Gatsby, and The Sun Also Rises should be on the list.
Just because something is good or entertaining doesn't make it a classic. My main problem with your argument is that you put forward Hunter S. Thompson as a worthy challenger to Herman Melville. That's just not the case. HST is entertaining. HST might have had some worthy insights. That does not make him a Melville. Also, I don't think Gibson is good enough to be on the list. I would be much more inclined to include Neal Stephenson than Gibson. Actually, I'd be more inclined to include Stephen King than HST, but only for the novellas The Body, Apt Pupil, and Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. I might be persuaded that The Green Mile belongs as well, but that's as far as I'll go.
Thus, a work can be good, amazing, even revolutionary in its time, but cannot be considered specifically classic until it has remained widely relevant and remembered for an arbitrary time. I'd say multi-generational spans are the minimum requirement.
This definition also has the nice bonus of removing the opinion element. A classic becomes simply something which stands the test of time: it does not necessarily imply that said work is "good" or "bad."
Of course, this ruins a perfectly good flamewar...