I also want to say that a lot of accusations of logical fallacies have been thrown around here. Alex said I was "arguing from ignorance".
The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form: • Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true. • Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven. Examples: • 1. "You can't prove God doesn't exist, so God exists." • 2. "You can't prove God does exist, so God doesn't exist."
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?
That doesn’t track the form of an “Argument from Ignorance†at all. I asked if any science fiction books books can be named that fit a definition. I did not say that no science fiction books fit the definition because I did not know of any such books.
How does the â€ÂNo true Scotsman†fallacy fit an argument that books should not be divided into “fiction†and “literature†categories or that cinema should not be divided into “movie†and “film†categories. To be true to the fallacy, an argument would need to be somewhat like, “No great work of literature could be written by an American.†That’s not what happened. What happened was that Steve reported that his library committed the (SHOCKING) sin of categorization.
Am I dreaming or have I already said something either very similar or maybe even exactly like this earlier in the discussion?
Well, I guess we agree. ^_~
Of course, we can still argue about what recent works willbecomeclassics.
That might be more interesting. I have always had a feeling that King will be remembered for some of his better books. I'm not saying that kids will be studying Pet Semetary two hundred years from now. I do think there's a good chance that they might be studying The Body or The Green Mile.
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.
Here you go, son. Nobody ever said newer is always better, nor did anyone endorse books featuring Pokemon and lightsabers. But in order to undermine Pete's argument that a modern book can stand with Frankenstein, you decide to go ahead and repeatedly build this man o' straw and burn him in effigy.
Of course there's a fallacy at both ends: Old does not necessarily mean better, and neither does new. Both are equally invalid. But the idea that no modern book can ever measure up to ye olde bookes is just silly. What about The Great Gatsby? All the King's Men? The Sun Also Rises? The Call of the Wild? American Psycho? The Dark Tower? 2001? Roots?
Statistically, an ever-increasing portion of the best books will be old, however. At the same time, new books will be less and less likely to compare to the classics.
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.
Mr. Shark brought up the Pokemons and lightsabers first. My using them afterwards doesn't make what I said a strawman argument.
I get it when you say that no one said newer is better. However, exaggeration of an argument in and of itself does not make for a strawman argument.
Finally, read a few posts above. I wrote above that I consider some modern books to be classics. In fact, I include some of the books in your list. Your attribution to me of an argument that I did not make, i.e. that "no modern book can ever measure up to ye olde bookes" is just as much the beginning of a strawman argument as the "[n]obody ever said newer is always better" objection you make because I never said that "no modern book can ever measure up to ye olde bookes".
BTW, I don't think that American Psycho or 2001 should be included on anyone's list of classics. Less than Zero would be a definite maybe.
I think part of the difficulty is that the word literature has become a status symbol.
It used to be that literature was desirable because it had literary content, not because it was called literature. As writers and readers of literature became more influential, everyone wanted to get a piece of that prestige (not necessarily caring about the content that brought that prestige), so the usage of the term literature became looser.
It's sort of like how originally the term gentlemen meant something very specific, while now it's used as a polite synonym for men in general.
That's not to say that this is a bad thing. Unfortunately, a lot of the people interested in a stricter definition of literature aren't in it for accuracy so much as they are interested in protecting their snob status. After all, the content (and therefor value) of literary works won't change if you call them something different.
After all, the content (and therefor value) of literary works don't change if you call them something different.
Unless you call it "exclusive" or "limited edition". Even that is not a reflection on the content but a reflection on the status symbol of owning that particular copy of the piece.
Not too long ago I was doing some research on the value of Stephen King books (I had one with a dust jacket misprint) and I found that there was one particular book that has four signed editions. It's not that the publisher published it four times but that King got the box of books and signed them over a four day period. Because King signs and dates when he puts his autograph on a book the "serious" collectors want to have one signed book from each day.
The site also mentioned that he got around the Richard Bachman autograph problem by pasting signatures from returned checks into the books. The publisher wanted the books signed with the Bachman name after King had declared that Bachman was dead.
My opinion on the fiction vs. literature issue is that once a book becomes a classic it gets moved to the literature section. Still no idea why none of the Dickens books were in the literature section...
Mr. Shark brought up the Pokemons and lightsabers first. My using them afterwards doesn't make what I said a strawman argument.
The "Pokemon and lightsabers" bit was an allusion to this thread, wherein you expressed incredulity at the dislike of Ethan Frome. I'm pointing out the similarities in the tone of your arguments here and the tone of your arguments in that thread.
I do see, however, that you're not saying "no new books can measure up to the classics." Like Alex said, I'm in part reacting to your dismissal of an entire genre and the inclusion of only a handful of works with what you call "merit."
Which is really where I'd like to get to now. It doesn't seem like you disagree that modern novels are certainly worthy of study, or that even some modern novels will themselves become "classics" as they address themes and ideas in a manner that could be as timeless as those works of the past. Your problem with the argument then lies here:
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.
So essentially, we need to have a discussion about WHICH current works will become classics, not whether or not any current works will become classics. That sounds fair to me.
So then, tell me, how is it that you judge literary "merit?" Do you disagree, for example, with the specific parallels I drew between Fear and Loathing and Moby Dick? I can make a pretty convincing argument (I've made it in the past and managed to convince some rather incredulous literature professors), but that's really arguing around the point.
So in the end it's all about opinion. One man's classic is the next man's vaguely entertaining.
This seems to be the only reasonable conclusion. The books that will become "classics" are certainly worthy of study now, so it's important to figure out what really has literary "merit" and what doesn't, right? So then, why would you include Neal Stephenson over William Gibson? The only answer that would make sense is a difference of personal preference; we can argue about the specific merits of each author, but in the end, we'd just be quibbling over whether or not X is more valuable in literature than Y. You can't exactly get an objective answer in that sort of situation, so it makes the idea of setting objective classification a bit pointless.
The only way I could see something evolving into a "classic" is if there is some sort of large body of people who still read the work after some arbitrary length of time. But then, what happens with something like Ethan Frome, where the majority of its intended audience doesn't connect with it, or rejects it outright? How can you say that book still stands the test of time when a large number of people are unconvinced that that is the case? Are those people wrong? If so, why?
Essentially, your argument seems to be one of personal preference. "Author A should be included over Author B because I like Author A more." You can say all sorts of things about how Author A has better developed characters with more depth and complexity, but in the absence of any sort of objective criteria by which to measure those things, you're basically just arguing about taste.
So, we either need to figure out a way to classify books as being "classic" that somehow bypasses subjective arguments about "taste," which is pretty much impossible, or we need to accept that a majority of someone will decide what is and is not a classic. In the latter example, then, you have to accept that the things you once considered classics will most likely be replaced by other works that you might not think are worthy of the moniker. Hence, the Ethan Frome conundrum.
Also, I would definitely include HST in any list of authors to be considered future "classics." Sure, he was entertaining, but he used his entertaining writing to make very poignant social commentary and provoke a lot of thought about the issues of our generation (and generations past). I would include Gibson because his major recurring theme is that of the changes that occur in social interaction, culture, and societies on the whole as we become increasingly inundated with information. That's a topic that's not going to go away ever at this point, at least not until some kind of World War III breaks out.
Since when are you the tone police? If you’re so concerned about tone, maybe you should spend some time on other people’s tone in that thread.
I truly don’t understand how anyone could get the idea that I ever had the opinion that no modern books are classics. Show me where I said that, and I’ll stand on my head, film it, and post it on Youtube. I never, never, never said that. Also, if you’ll simply take the time to read what I said, you’ll see that I never “dismissed an entire genreâ€Â.
As for your parallels between Fear and Loathing and Moby Dick, I think you might need to change your tense, because I only see one. If you made others that I missed, maybe you could point me in that direction, but I only see that you made a reference to HST’s observation about the casino. Nice observation. However, one nice observation does not make a classic. If I write in this post, “Life is sometimes difficultâ€Â, does that make me the equal of Dostoevsky? No, it does not.
I don’t know why you’re so stuck on HST. If I was the chair of an English Department, you were an Associate Professor, and you wanted to teach HST, I’d say that would be great – in a journalism course. Maybe even in a 20th century literature course. Maybe even in a senior seminar about the Beat Generation. It just doesn’t belong with Melville.
But then, what happens with something likeEthan Frome, where the majority of its intended audience doesn't connect with it, or rejects it outright? How can you say that book still stands the test of time when a large number of people are unconvinced that that is the case? Are those peoplewrong? If so, why?
I take your assertion that a majority of people don’t connect with Ethan Frome as a case of “anecdotal evidence†that people are so quick to point out here. A large number of people I know are very happy with Ethan Frome.
So, we either need to figure out a way to classify books as being "classic" that somehow bypasses subjective arguments about "taste," which is pretty much impossible, or we need to accept that a majority of someone will decide what is and is not a classic. In the latter example, then, you have to accept that the things you once considered classics will most likely be replaced by other works that you might not think are worthy of the moniker.
It’s interesting that you’re suddenly the arbiter of what I have to accept. I'm not worried about anything that I consider a classic being "replaced by other works" anytime soon. I’d like to turn the above observation around and say that, by your own words, you’ll have to accept that HST won’t be on anyone’s classic list anytime soon.
As for your parallels between Fear and Loathing and Moby Dick, I think you might need to change your tense, because I only see one. If you made others that I missed, maybe you could point me in that direction, but I only see that you made a reference to HST’s observation about the casino. Nice observation. However, one nice observation does not make a classic. If I write in this post, “Life is sometimes difficultâ€Â, does that make me the equal of Dostoevsky? No, it does not.
Well, that was the only I parallel I could immediately recall. If I had my copy of Fear and Loathing handy, I would've made some other connections.
I'm stuck on HST specifically because it's a hard sell. If you'd like, I can pick a different specific example. The point I'm trying to get across, again, is that your lack of acceptance of HST is based on preference and not some sort of objective criteria. My acceptance of HST is also based on preference. I'm not arguing that the choice or lack of choice of any particular author is "right," "wrong," "better," or "worse." We can't apply terminology like that because what one considers to be a "classic" or a potential future "classic" is subjective. You say Neal Stephenson, I say William Gibson. We both say Vonnegut. Someone else might say no to Vonnegut. We can discuss the particulars of any authors worthiness of "classic" status to death, but it's arguing about taste.
I take your assertion that a majority of people don’t connect with Ethan Frome as a case of “anecdotal evidence†that people are so quick to point out here. A large number of people I know are very happy with Ethan Frome.
It's anecdotal on both sides. "A large number of people I know" is as anecdotal as my evidence. That doesn't really matter though; if some people connect with it, and some people don't, who's right?
It’s interesting that you’re suddenly the arbiter of what I have to accept. I'm not worried about anything that I consider a classic being "replaced by other works" anytime soon. I’d like to turn the above observation around and say that, by your own words, you’ll have to accept that HST won’t be on anyone’s classic list anytime soon.
That was a poor usage of the word "you" on my part. I'm not saying it to call HungryJoe out; I'm using it to call YOU, as in everyone reading it, out. And yes, I accept that some people will never consider HST to be classics-worthy. But some people do. So again, who's right?
Unless we can set objective criteria by which to define a "classic," we can't really say what will and won't be a classic. And thus, the idea of separating novels into "fiction" and "literature" is pointless.
Unless we can set objective criteria by which to define a "classic," we can't really say what will and won't be a classic. And thus, the idea of separating novels into "fiction" and "literature" is pointless.
Then I guess you won't mind if I say that Goodnight Moon has just as much merit as Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
How aboutRainbow Brite: Sparkling Star Sprinkles? That's just as good asFear and Loathing in Las Vegas, isn't it?
And so what if you really did say that? If the measure of a classic is whether or not a large number of people still find it relevant/important/extremely well-done after an arbitrary length of time (which is the most reasonable measure of a "classic" I've heard so far), then it doesn't matter whether your personal classics list includes Jack Fuckall and the Babyeaters of Catan Who All Hate TheWhaleShark or not. No one person is the "arbiter," as you called it, of what the classics are. The process by which a work becomes considered a classic in the minds of the general reading public is very much organic, and you can't really force it no matter how much you like or hate a given title. Some works will naturally rise above others over time, and almost all of the ones that do will tend to have some kind of merit that almost everyone can agree upon, even if the exact amount of that merit is disputed.
How aboutRainbow Brite: Sparkling Star Sprinkles? That's just as good asFear and Loathing in Las Vegas, isn't it?
And so what if you really did say that?
Yeah, I guess. So what? I guess that everything is just as good as everything else and since there might be a difference of opinion, that means that everything has to be considered as equal in merit. Rainbow Brite: Sparkling Star Sprinkles has just as much right to be considered a classic as Moby Dick, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, To Kill a Mocking Bird, Of Mice and Men, or Hamlet.
Similarly, Epic Movie is just as good as Dr. Strangelove and "MMM-Bop" is just as good as "While My Guitar Gently Weeps".
How aboutRainbow Brite: Sparkling Star Sprinkles? That's just as good asFear and Loathing in Las Vegas, isn't it?
No, Rainbow Brite sucks.
How can you say that? How can you make that value judgment? There is probably someone out there that finds great depth in Rainbow Brite. They're both just books. I don't understand what the difference could be.
I don't see how you can possibly not realize how often you make strawman arguments. You completey bypassed my main point about classics rising to the top over time, latched onto only the "so what if your classics list includes Rainbow Bright" statement, built it up to suggest that I had said "every work is equal in merit because everyone's tastes are different" (which I DIDN'T), and then proceeded to mock what you had built. Hmm, sounds like a strawman argument to me.
Please come back when you're ready to address the actual point I made.
How can you say that? How can you make that value judgment? There is probably someone out there that finds great depth in Rainbow Brite. They're both just books. I don't understand what the difference could be.
They can like Rainbow Brite if they want. I don't.
Unless we can set objective criteria by which to define a "classic," we can't really say what will and won't be a classic. And thus, the idea of separating novels into "fiction" and "literature" is pointless.
Then I guess you won't mind if I say thatGoodnight Moonhas just as much merit asFear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
They're both better than Ethan Frome, that's for damn sure.
How can you say that? How can you make that value judgment? There is probably someone out there that finds great depth in Rainbow Brite. They're both just books. I don't understand what the difference could be.
They can like Rainbow Brite if they want. I don't.
That's just your opinion then, which has no objective value. If someone finds artistic merit in Rainbow Brite, then Rainbow Brite is a classic to them, isn't it? Since there are differences of opinion, doesn't that mean that everyone just has to judge for him or herself?
I don't see how you can possibly not realize how often you make strawman arguments. You completey bypassed my main point about classics rising to the top over time . . .
. . .maybe because that point has already been made and agreed with multiple times in this thread.
That's just your opinion then, which has no objective value. If someone finds artistic merit in Rainbow Brite, then Rainbow Brite is a classic to them, isn't it? Since there are differences of opinion, doesn't that mean that everyone just has to judge for heim or herself?
Yes. Yes that's exactly what we're saying. What's the problem with that? People like what they like. It doesn't hurt you. And as I said before, it doesn't hurt the eventual process by which works become largely considered classics by the reading public on the whole, either. Rainbow Brite, even if it appears on one person's classics list, in the end will almost certainly not end up on a general list of the classics because it doesn't hold up in the minds of MOST people.
. . .maybe because that point has already been made and agreed with multiple times in this thread.
Then why are you two still arguing about what makes a classic if it's already been agreed upon?
That's just your opinion then, which has no objective value. If someone finds artistic merit in Rainbow Brite, then Rainbow Brite is a classic to them, isn't it? Since there are differences of opinion, doesn't that mean that everyone just has to judge for him or herself?
Yes. Yes that's exactly what we're saying. What's the problem with that? People like what they like. It doesn't hurt you. And as I said before, it doesn't hurt the eventual process by which works become largely considered classics by the reading public on the whole, either. Rainbow Brite, even if it appears on one person's classics list, in the end will almost certainly not end up on a general list of the classics because it doesn't hold up in the minds of MOST people.
Would you include Rainbow Brite on a high school reading list?
Then why are you two still arguing about what makes a classic if it's already been agreed upon?
. . . maybe if you actually read what was written you would know.
That's just your opinion then, which has no objective value. If someone finds artistic merit in Rainbow Brite, then Rainbow Brite is a classic to them, isn't it? Since there are differences of opinion, doesn't that mean that everyone just has to judge for him or herself?
It's art, not science. In art, there is no objectivity without criteria. It's also entirely subjective as to which criteria are the ones to use for any given situation.
Would you include Rainbow Brite on a high school reading list?
What? How does that follow from what I said at all? o_O
And no, of course I wouldn't. Even if I were a teacher and did put it on a list for my students, that decision would be torn down immediately, because in the minds of the school board and other teachers, I would be considered a complete wackjob (and rightly so).
Rainbow Brite's merit lies in its ability to placate 5-year-olds with pretty colours and friendship speeches. Practically no member of the academic community and the general masses would consider this anywhere near enough merit to even come close to reaching the status of passable fiction. Some very odd people might just consider that enough merit for it to make their personal list of classics (and in that case, whoever it is is very easy to impress). However, their opinion is in such an infinitesimally small minority that it could never possibly count for anything in a discussion of literature.
Of course, that brings up a much more interesting question: if only one person in the world had ever enjoyed Hamlet, would it still be a classic? This is where the "general consensus" method shows some flaws, unfortunately, even though I think it's the best measure of classics that we have so far.
. . . maybe if you actually read what was written you would know.
I did read it, and all that seems to have been written is pointless squabbling. I honestly don't see why you guys kept slinging mud when the mud pie was finished earlier. If that makes me thick, then all right, I can admit that. I make my best effort on the rare occasions I dip into these raging discussions, but sometimes I have a tendency to accidentally overlook certain things despite best efforts.
That's just your opinion then, which has no objective value. If someone finds artistic merit in Rainbow Brite, then Rainbow Brite is a classic to them, isn't it? Since there are differences of opinion, doesn't that mean that everyone just has to judge for him or herself?
Yes. Yes that's exactly what we're saying. What's the problem with that? People like what they like. It doesn't hurt you. And as I said before, it doesn't hurt the eventual process by which works become largely considered classics by the reading public on the whole, either. Rainbow Brite, even if it appears on one person's classics list, in the end will almost certainly not end up on a general list of the classics because it doesn't hold up in the minds of MOST people.
Why not? What would keep Rainbow Brite from holding up in the minds of MOST people? Why wouldn't it end up on a general list of the classics?
Would you include Rainbow Brite on a high school reading list?
What? How does that follow from what I said at all? o_O
And no, of course I wouldn't. Even if I were a teacher and did put it on a list for my students, that decision would be torn down immediately, because in the minds of the school board and other teachers, I would be considered a complete wackjob (and rightly so).
Why? Why would they consider you a wackjob? I seem to remember someone writing "People like what they like. It doesn't hurt you." If you like it, or if even one person in your class likes it, why can't you teach it?
Rainbow Brite's merit lies in its ability to placate 5-year-olds with pretty colours and friendship speeches. Practically no member of the academic community and the general masses would consider this anywhere near enough merit to even come close to reaching the status of passable fiction. Some very odd people might just consider that enough merit for it to make their personal list of classics (and in that case, whoever it is is very easy to impress). However, their opinion is in such an infinitesimally small minority that it could never possibly count for anything in a discussion of literature.
"Practically no member of the academic community and the general masses would consider this anywhere near enough merit to even come close to reaching the status of passable fiction." - People love to toss around fallacy labels. Isn't this an argumentum ad populum, or appeal to authority, or both?
"Some very odd people might just consider that enough merit for it to make their personal list of classics (and in that case, whoever it is is very easy to impress)." - Isn't this an ad hominem or strawman argument or possibly both?
"However, their opinion is in such an infinitesimally small minority that it could never possibly count for anything in a discussion of literature." - Another argumentum ad populum?
Why? Why would they consider you a wackjob? I seem to remember someone writing "People like what they like. It doesn't hurt you." If you like it, or if even one person in your class likes it, why can't you teach it?
When I said that, I was referring to people's personal lives. I'm sorry, I should have been more clear then.
Rainbow Brite's merit lies in its ability to placate 5-year-olds with pretty colours and friendship speeches. Practically no member of the academic community and the general masses would consider this anywhere near enough merit to even come close to reaching the status of passable fiction. Some very odd people might just consider that enough merit for it to make their personal list of classics (and in that case, whoever it is is very easy to impress). However, their opinion is in such an infinitesimally small minority that it could never possibly count for anything in a discussion of literature.
"Practically no member of the academic community and the general masses would consider this anywhere near enough merit to even come close to reaching the status of passable fiction." - People love to toss around fallacy labels. Isn't this an argumentum ad populum, or appeal to authority, or both?
[...]
"However, their opinion is in such an infinitesimally small minority that it could never possibly count for anything in a discussion of literature." - Another argumentum ad populum?
In a different case, the fallacy might apply. In this case, where the entire point of the matter is that the views of the masses over time is what tends to determine a classic, I don't think the fallacy really applies. Not what should determine a classic, but what does tend to determine a classic. How am I supposed to discuss a point that is true in the real world about the general trends of the masses when I'm not allowed to talk about the masses?
And don't ask me what should determine a classic, because that's really a whole separate argument and I don't have an answer to that question.
"Some very odd people might just consider that enough merit for it to make their personal list of classics (and in that case, whoever it is is very easy to impress)." - Isn't this an ad hominem or strawman argument or possibly both?
All right, would this satisfy you instead? "A few people might just consider this enough merit to make their personal list of classics." That still makes the same point as before, without the flourishes.
Anyway, I'm stepping out of this discussion now. You can take that as an admission of defeat if you want, but I'm just not in the mood to keep picking apart your arguments point-by-point anymore. There isn't much point in me trying to argue against someone who argues for a living.
Comments
Of course, we can still argue about what recent works will become classics.
This is what I said: That doesn’t track the form of an “Argument from Ignorance†at all. I asked if any science fiction books books can be named that fit a definition. I did not say that no science fiction books fit the definition because I did not know of any such books.
How does the â€ÂNo true Scotsman†fallacy fit an argument that books should not be divided into “fiction†and “literature†categories or that cinema should not be divided into “movie†and “film†categories. To be true to the fallacy, an argument would need to be somewhat like, “No great work of literature could be written by an American.†That’s not what happened. What happened was that Steve reported that his library committed the (SHOCKING) sin of categorization.
Of course there's a fallacy at both ends: Old does not necessarily mean better, and neither does new. Both are equally invalid. But the idea that no modern book can ever measure up to ye olde bookes is just silly. What about The Great Gatsby? All the King's Men? The Sun Also Rises? The Call of the Wild? American Psycho? The Dark Tower? 2001? Roots?
At the same time, new books will be less and less likely to compare to the classics.
I get it when you say that no one said newer is better. However, exaggeration of an argument in and of itself does not make for a strawman argument.
Finally, read a few posts above. I wrote above that I consider some modern books to be classics. In fact, I include some of the books in your list. Your attribution to me of an argument that I did not make, i.e. that "no modern book can ever measure up to ye olde bookes" is just as much the beginning of a strawman argument as the "[n]obody ever said newer is always better" objection you make because I never said that "no modern book can ever measure up to ye olde bookes".
BTW, I don't think that American Psycho or 2001 should be included on anyone's list of classics. Less than Zero would be a definite maybe.
It used to be that literature was desirable because it had literary content, not because it was called literature. As writers and readers of literature became more influential, everyone wanted to get a piece of that prestige (not necessarily caring about the content that brought that prestige), so the usage of the term literature became looser.
It's sort of like how originally the term gentlemen meant something very specific, while now it's used as a polite synonym for men in general.
That's not to say that this is a bad thing. Unfortunately, a lot of the people interested in a stricter definition of literature aren't in it for accuracy so much as they are interested in protecting their snob status. After all, the content (and therefor value) of literary works won't change if you call them something different.
Not too long ago I was doing some research on the value of Stephen King books (I had one with a dust jacket misprint) and I found that there was one particular book that has four signed editions. It's not that the publisher published it four times but that King got the box of books and signed them over a four day period. Because King signs and dates when he puts his autograph on a book the "serious" collectors want to have one signed book from each day.
The site also mentioned that he got around the Richard Bachman autograph problem by pasting signatures from returned checks into the books. The publisher wanted the books signed with the Bachman name after King had declared that Bachman was dead.
My opinion on the fiction vs. literature issue is that once a book becomes a classic it gets moved to the literature section. Still no idea why none of the Dickens books were in the literature section...
I do see, however, that you're not saying "no new books can measure up to the classics." Like Alex said, I'm in part reacting to your dismissal of an entire genre and the inclusion of only a handful of works with what you call "merit."
Which is really where I'd like to get to now. It doesn't seem like you disagree that modern novels are certainly worthy of study, or that even some modern novels will themselves become "classics" as they address themes and ideas in a manner that could be as timeless as those works of the past. Your problem with the argument then lies here: So essentially, we need to have a discussion about WHICH current works will become classics, not whether or not any current works will become classics. That sounds fair to me.
So then, tell me, how is it that you judge literary "merit?" Do you disagree, for example, with the specific parallels I drew between Fear and Loathing and Moby Dick? I can make a pretty convincing argument (I've made it in the past and managed to convince some rather incredulous literature professors), but that's really arguing around the point. This seems to be the only reasonable conclusion. The books that will become "classics" are certainly worthy of study now, so it's important to figure out what really has literary "merit" and what doesn't, right? So then, why would you include Neal Stephenson over William Gibson? The only answer that would make sense is a difference of personal preference; we can argue about the specific merits of each author, but in the end, we'd just be quibbling over whether or not X is more valuable in literature than Y. You can't exactly get an objective answer in that sort of situation, so it makes the idea of setting objective classification a bit pointless.
The only way I could see something evolving into a "classic" is if there is some sort of large body of people who still read the work after some arbitrary length of time. But then, what happens with something like Ethan Frome, where the majority of its intended audience doesn't connect with it, or rejects it outright? How can you say that book still stands the test of time when a large number of people are unconvinced that that is the case? Are those people wrong? If so, why?
Essentially, your argument seems to be one of personal preference. "Author A should be included over Author B because I like Author A more." You can say all sorts of things about how Author A has better developed characters with more depth and complexity, but in the absence of any sort of objective criteria by which to measure those things, you're basically just arguing about taste.
So, we either need to figure out a way to classify books as being "classic" that somehow bypasses subjective arguments about "taste," which is pretty much impossible, or we need to accept that a majority of someone will decide what is and is not a classic. In the latter example, then, you have to accept that the things you once considered classics will most likely be replaced by other works that you might not think are worthy of the moniker. Hence, the Ethan Frome conundrum.
Also, I would definitely include HST in any list of authors to be considered future "classics." Sure, he was entertaining, but he used his entertaining writing to make very poignant social commentary and provoke a lot of thought about the issues of our generation (and generations past). I would include Gibson because his major recurring theme is that of the changes that occur in social interaction, culture, and societies on the whole as we become increasingly inundated with information. That's a topic that's not going to go away ever at this point, at least not until some kind of World War III breaks out.
I truly don’t understand how anyone could get the idea that I ever had the opinion that no modern books are classics. Show me where I said that, and I’ll stand on my head, film it, and post it on Youtube. I never, never, never said that. Also, if you’ll simply take the time to read what I said, you’ll see that I never “dismissed an entire genreâ€Â.
As for your parallels between Fear and Loathing and Moby Dick, I think you might need to change your tense, because I only see one. If you made others that I missed, maybe you could point me in that direction, but I only see that you made a reference to HST’s observation about the casino. Nice observation. However, one nice observation does not make a classic. If I write in this post, “Life is sometimes difficultâ€Â, does that make me the equal of Dostoevsky? No, it does not.
I don’t know why you’re so stuck on HST. If I was the chair of an English Department, you were an Associate Professor, and you wanted to teach HST, I’d say that would be great – in a journalism course. Maybe even in a 20th century literature course. Maybe even in a senior seminar about the Beat Generation. It just doesn’t belong with Melville. I take your assertion that a majority of people don’t connect with Ethan Frome as a case of “anecdotal evidence†that people are so quick to point out here. A large number of people I know are very happy with Ethan Frome. It’s interesting that you’re suddenly the arbiter of what I have to accept. I'm not worried about anything that I consider a classic being "replaced by other works" anytime soon. I’d like to turn the above observation around and say that, by your own words, you’ll have to accept that HST won’t be on anyone’s classic list anytime soon.
I'm stuck on HST specifically because it's a hard sell. If you'd like, I can pick a different specific example. The point I'm trying to get across, again, is that your lack of acceptance of HST is based on preference and not some sort of objective criteria. My acceptance of HST is also based on preference. I'm not arguing that the choice or lack of choice of any particular author is "right," "wrong," "better," or "worse." We can't apply terminology like that because what one considers to be a "classic" or a potential future "classic" is subjective. You say Neal Stephenson, I say William Gibson. We both say Vonnegut. Someone else might say no to Vonnegut. We can discuss the particulars of any authors worthiness of "classic" status to death, but it's arguing about taste. It's anecdotal on both sides. "A large number of people I know" is as anecdotal as my evidence. That doesn't really matter though; if some people connect with it, and some people don't, who's right? That was a poor usage of the word "you" on my part. I'm not saying it to call HungryJoe out; I'm using it to call YOU, as in everyone reading it, out. And yes, I accept that some people will never consider HST to be classics-worthy. But some people do. So again, who's right?
Unless we can set objective criteria by which to define a "classic," we can't really say what will and won't be a classic. And thus, the idea of separating novels into "fiction" and "literature" is pointless.
Similarly, Epic Movie is just as good as Dr. Strangelove and "MMM-Bop" is just as good as "While My Guitar Gently Weeps". How can you say that? How can you make that value judgment? There is probably someone out there that finds great depth in Rainbow Brite. They're both just books. I don't understand what the difference could be.
Please come back when you're ready to address the actual point I made.
And no, of course I wouldn't. Even if I were a teacher and did put it on a list for my students, that decision would be torn down immediately, because in the minds of the school board and other teachers, I would be considered a complete wackjob (and rightly so).
Rainbow Brite's merit lies in its ability to placate 5-year-olds with pretty colours and friendship speeches. Practically no member of the academic community and the general masses would consider this anywhere near enough merit to even come close to reaching the status of passable fiction. Some very odd people might just consider that enough merit for it to make their personal list of classics (and in that case, whoever it is is very easy to impress). However, their opinion is in such an infinitesimally small minority that it could never possibly count for anything in a discussion of literature.
Of course, that brings up a much more interesting question: if only one person in the world had ever enjoyed Hamlet, would it still be a classic? This is where the "general consensus" method shows some flaws, unfortunately, even though I think it's the best measure of classics that we have so far. I did read it, and all that seems to have been written is pointless squabbling. I honestly don't see why you guys kept slinging mud when the mud pie was finished earlier. If that makes me thick, then all right, I can admit that. I make my best effort on the rare occasions I dip into these raging discussions, but sometimes I have a tendency to accidentally overlook certain things despite best efforts.
"Some very odd people might just consider that enough merit for it to make their personal list of classics (and in that case, whoever it is is very easy to impress)." - Isn't this an ad hominem or strawman argument or possibly both?
"However, their opinion is in such an infinitesimally small minority that it could never possibly count for anything in a discussion of literature." - Another argumentum ad populum?
And don't ask me what should determine a classic, because that's really a whole separate argument and I don't have an answer to that question. All right, would this satisfy you instead? "A few people might just consider this enough merit to make their personal list of classics." That still makes the same point as before, without the flourishes.
Anyway, I'm stepping out of this discussion now. You can take that as an admission of defeat if you want, but I'm just not in the mood to keep picking apart your arguments point-by-point anymore. There isn't much point in me trying to argue against someone who argues for a living.