There is a difference between a book worth noting and discussing because of its literary relevance and a book worth reading. There's also a difference between a book worth reading and an enjoyable book, although they might have some overlap.
There is a difference, but I would argue that literary relevance is a sufficient but not a necessary criterion for a book to be worth reading.
That's your opinion, and you are welcome to read those books because of it. It's not sufficient for me. If I can extract the lessons of the book by summary and discussion, then there is no point in reading a bad book.
There is a difference between a book worth noting and discussing because of its literary relevance and a book worth reading. There's also a difference between a book worth reading and an enjoyable book, although they might have some overlap.
There is a difference, but I would argue that literary relevance is a sufficient but not a necessary criterion for a book to be worth reading.
That's your opinion, and you are welcome to read those books because of it. It's not sufficient for me. If I can extract the lessons of the book by summary and discussion, then there is no point in reading a bad book.
I would say you can't seriously talk about a book without reading it, though you may reference it in a discussion of that period of literature or history, but then I'd be a massive hypocrite.
All classics are not bad. All classics I don't like aren't bad. However, I dare any of you bourgeois intelligentsia to defend anything that came out during the Regency period as anything but Bourgeois Blues.
Aside: Greg, stop using "bourgeois" during intellectual discourse. It feels pseudointellectual and dated. Talk about classism in the framework of high vs. low classes if you must, and recognize that the life you live is likely the same "bourgeois" lifestyle that the people who coined that term despised.
Now, if you want to talk about class posturing (i.e., people buying knock-off bags to wear to job interviews; people pretending to know but not critically appreciating art; practiced cultural pseudointellectualism), the term "bougie" is acceptable. However, use at your own risk.
Not hating on you, just giving you some critique on the way you converse (relevant to your "making friends" comment in the other thread).
Classics are always valuable and beyond criticism.
I did think this line was a little weird.
It doesn't matter if you don't like Moby Dick - if you don't appreciate it, you're an unwashed pleb.
But this line pretty much epitomizes the way I feel about so-called "classics." It's in line with what Rym's been saying, if we're still talking about it, there's something there.
If you are unwilling to be challenged by a work, then don't complain when you can't grasp its reward.
Agreed. Perhaps the unifying element of the "classics" is that people are still writing criticisms of them hundreds of years after their publication. I mean, people have been writing about Don Quixote for longer than the USA has existed as a nation. That's probably a pretty important book.
Pete, I never read the paper on GFP that won Chalfie et al. the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, but I trust that it's worth reading despite the phenomenal strides made in the field in four years. It's valuable for the same reason Linus Pauling's paper on the alpha helix motif (which was published in the 1951 and has the added value of being really funny) is still valuable. Fiction is as much about the shift in human cultural dynamics and ideologies as anything else; these books are important and appreciable as milestones in human art in the same way that obsolete papers and papers we reference with a sly "It's commonly known..." are important and appreciable in the sciences.
Talk about classism in the framework of high vs. low classes if you must, and recognize that the life you live is likely the same "bourgeois" lifestyle that the people who coined that term despised.
Well, Debs would've hated me, but that's due to my lack of activity rather than my wealth; he allied himself with Rose Pastor Stokes, an aristocrat who "used her wealth to boldly go out and plead the cause and was rewarded for her high bravery with 10 years in the penitentiary." Lenin would have understood my position, and respected me for trying to explain to the proletariat (read as: friends and associates from my urban public school) their exploitation. Hell, Marx himself was born into a mercantile family.
Besides, for all my socialist rhetoric, I've never claimed that I'm the one being oppressed.
Some of this discussion reminds me when Rubin criticized some of the Classic Sci-fi authors of using extremely over used concepts only to realize that it was the first time those concepts were used and thought of.
I am not denying that many "classics" have some value; I bristle at the veneration of those works above other works in a similar vein solely on the basis of being a classic.
The Origin of Species is an invaluable, landmark work in th development of modern evolutionary theory. It's also flawed, and subsequent works have actually made its ideas more useful. Further, you don't have to actually read it to understand evolutionary theory; we've progressed so much beyond Darwin's initial understanding that the work is almost entirely a historical artifact. A museum piece. It has value, no doubt - but studying it while dismissing or placing a lesser emphasis on more contemporary works will leave you in the dark.
And no, just because we continue to discuss a work today does not mean it must have some merit or applicability today. That is a logical fallacy of the highest order. I could buy that they have some value as historic curiosity, but otherwise, you're saying I need to give due consideration to the humoral theory of health.
Some of this discussion reminds me when Rubin criticized some of the Classic Sci-fi authors of using extremely over used concepts only to realize that it was the first time those concepts were used and thought of.
I would have paid money to see that moment of realization. I genuinely enjoy seeing that moment where people unwittingly discover the ur-example of a particular thing.
I could buy that they have some value as historic curiosity, but otherwise, you're saying I need to give due consideration to the humoral theory of health.
I could buy that they have some value as historic curiosity, but otherwise, you're saying I need to give due consideration to the humoral theory of health.
It's OK to footnote things.
Maybe if science and literature were analogous.
Name one relevant lesson from TGG that you can't learn by reading someone else's analysis.
I could buy that they have some value as historic curiosity, but otherwise, you're saying I need to give due consideration to the humoral theory of health.
It's OK to footnote things.
Maybe if science and literature were analogous.
O RLY?
Science is ultimately the process by which ideas are vetted and communicated.
Literature, if it is of any value, conveys ideas from author to audience. We learn ideas from literature. From it, we derive values and even knowledge. Shall we go back to pre-literate societies where the oral tradition reigned? That's the ONLY way we learned things.
Literature is the conveyance of knowledge and ideas to people. Discussing literature is the process of vetting and analyzing those ideas, and determining their relevance to life.
The only difference between a literary conveyance of ideas and a scientific conveyance of ideas is that science has a particular set of guidelines applied to the ideas being communicated.
You have to understand he comes at this from the perspective of Viking age Icelandic poetics. Lots of rules with forms ranging from relatively simple to extremely complex.
Literature, if it is of any value, conveys ideas from author to audience. We learn ideas from literature. From it, we derive values and even knowledge. The only difference between a literary conveyance of ideas and a scientific conveyance of ideas is that science has a particular set of guidelines applied to the ideas being communicated.
Science is poetry.
That's cute, but is lineage not what we are talking about? You compared the outmoding of scientific texts that have since to be proven to be inaccurate to a classic work of fiction. Great pieces of literature are meant to give commentary on aspects of the human condition through their themes. I'm not even arguing for Gatsby here, whether or not you think the themes it presents are universal or not is arguably subjective, but an old work of fiction can endear the test of time because there are some parts of the human experience that persist throughout the generations. You can't simply put "man struggling with his own mortality" in a footnote in a novel and expect it to have an effective impact on the reader.
The idea that you have to read old books for any reason is not what I am arguing. I am only presenting a case for why they are not thrown out. Even if the world has changed significantly than the time of writing, there still aspects of the human condition that are universal.
You have to understand he comes at this from the perspective of Viking age Icelandic poetics. Lots of rules with forms ranging from relatively simple to extremely complex.
Why is Viking Age Icelandic Poetics worth anything anymore? Honestly, you could just footnote Bukowski with "Eddas, etc." Why go to an art museum? Why experience any art at all? Wikipedia and Google will spoon-feed me all the cultural knowledge I need. I never need to actually consume any media because I can just Google things and pretend to have understood them!
If a theme is truly universal, would not other works address that theme?
Perhaps a given work presents a unique take on a theme. That certainly can have some value. But how often do we run into a work whose take is nowhere else addressed or presented? If we claim to learn from our lineage, those ideas should carry forward.
The most universal of human conditions is to cling to the past. Stay with the familiar. We want to believe that classics can be just as relevant because it means our personal history is still relevant - that our lineage is current.
I don't doubt that some classics are read still because they address truly universal themes. But how often do you run into a classic work that truly has no subsequent iteration?
I do think it is important to demonstrate the perpetuation of some notions of the human condition throughout history. It can help to demonstrate the evolution of thought on that topic. But all too often, I see a conflation of "classic" and "direct relevance," while ignoring modern, relevant discussion about those topics.
Why is Viking Age Icelandic Poetics worth anything anymore? Honestly, you could just footnote Bukowski with "Eddas, etc."
That's not the point. The point is that it's old and different. You get to see all the ways that language and culture has changed in the last 1500 years.
Why is Viking Age Icelandic Poetics worth anything anymore? Honestly, you could just footnote Bukowski with "Eddas, etc."
Science is poetry.
You flatter poetry too much.
You have to understand he comes at this from the perspective of Viking age Icelandic poetics. Lots of rules with forms ranging from relatively simple to extremely complex.
Chafes me as a poet to know that complexity of form helps determine the quality of poetry. Chafes every English professor alive, too.
English professors aren't poets. They sure think they are, though.
And I said absolutley jack-all about complexity equaling quality. I said that poetry is a systematic approach to the conveyance of literary ideas that mirrors the systematic approach to the conveyance of empirically-derived ideas generated by science. Slow your roll, bro.
And Viking Age Icelandic poetry isn't worth that much, except as a curiosity and occasional challenging word puzzle. From a literary standpoint,, we have much more engaging poetry in modern hip-hop and rap.
Was saying that English professors know poetry. Still don't understand how you can say that the lifeblood of Western cultural archetypes, motifs, and themes are pretty much irrelevant or not worth appreciating.
I do think it is important to demonstrate the perpetuation of some notions of the human condition throughout history. It can help to demonstrate the evolution of thought on that topic. But all too often, I see a conflation of "classic" and "direct relevance," while ignoring modern, relevant discussion about those topics.
In a practical sense, I feel that these books get taught in schools because they are "safe." They're, quite literally, textbook examples of the presentation of certain themes. Perhaps some are left unchecked for too long and go from "good tool for teaching kids how to analyze literature" to useless, but I don't believe that modern or cultural relevance automatically renders a work ineffective as a learning tool.
Are we still talking about Icelandic poetry? Because I am confident that we no longer espouse Viking-age morality. And the motifs in that poetry are derived from Anglo-Saxon poetey, which are derived from far older sources.
And truth be told, we don't know which motifs are original and which were retconned in later by Christian meddling, since the Eddas weren't compiled until the 13th century.
So if archetypes and tropes that were introduced or developed by this canon of classics have an essentially irrelevant lineage, why bother studying them? I mean, why read Romeo and Juliet to understand "star-crossed lovers" when you can just read Twilight?
So if archetypes and tropes that were introduced or developed by this canon of classics have an essentially irrelevant lineage, why bother studying them? I mean, why read Romeo and Juliet to understand "star-crossed lovers" when you can just read Twilight?
Romeo and Juliet is trite garbage and you know it. Twilight is way more relevant to modern Mormons. Probably more their reading level too.
I don't know where you're pulling the "irrelevant lineage" bit from. I just said that classics help us study the evolution of thought on a topic. There is a difference between studying a lineage for the sake of learning how we came to be and considering a work for its current social applicability.
While knowing the origin of "star-crossed lovers" and how it carried through to today is interesting, I would be hesitant to call it necessary. Studying that lineage without consideration of where to go next is meaningless. It's great to study history and know where you're from - but where are you going?
I do think it is important to demonstrate the perpetuation of some notions of the human condition throughout history. It can help to demonstrate the evolution of thought on that topic. But all too often, I see a conflation of "classic" and "direct relevance," while ignoring modern, relevant discussion about those topics.
In a practical sense, I feel that these books get taught in schools because they are "safe." They're, quite literally, textbook examples of the presentation of certain themes. Perhaps some are left unchecked for too long and go from "good tool for teaching kids how to analyze literature" to useless, but I don't believe that modern or cultural relevance automatically renders a work ineffective as a learning tool.
Fair enough. As a tool of learning, they can be useful, and many of them present their themes in isolation. I still detest the worship of classics; it's as if modern thought is meaningless.
Comments
Now, if you want to talk about class posturing (i.e., people buying knock-off bags to wear to job interviews; people pretending to know but not critically appreciating art; practiced cultural pseudointellectualism), the term "bougie" is acceptable. However, use at your own risk.
Not hating on you, just giving you some critique on the way you converse (relevant to your "making friends" comment in the other thread).
If you are unwilling to be challenged by a work, then don't complain when you can't grasp its reward.
Pete, I never read the paper on GFP that won Chalfie et al. the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, but I trust that it's worth reading despite the phenomenal strides made in the field in four years. It's valuable for the same reason Linus Pauling's paper on the alpha helix motif (which was published in the 1951 and has the added value of being really funny) is still valuable. Fiction is as much about the shift in human cultural dynamics and ideologies as anything else; these books are important and appreciable as milestones in human art in the same way that obsolete papers and papers we reference with a sly "It's commonly known..." are important and appreciable in the sciences.
Besides, for all my socialist rhetoric, I've never claimed that I'm the one being oppressed.
The Origin of Species is an invaluable, landmark work in th development of modern evolutionary theory. It's also flawed, and subsequent works have actually made its ideas more useful. Further, you don't have to actually read it to understand evolutionary theory; we've progressed so much beyond Darwin's initial understanding that the work is almost entirely a historical artifact. A museum piece. It has value, no doubt - but studying it while dismissing or placing a lesser emphasis on more contemporary works will leave you in the dark.
And no, just because we continue to discuss a work today does not mean it must have some merit or applicability today. That is a logical fallacy of the highest order. I could buy that they have some value as historic curiosity, but otherwise, you're saying I need to give due consideration to the humoral theory of health.
It's OK to footnote things.
Science is ultimately the process by which ideas are vetted and communicated.
Literature, if it is of any value, conveys ideas from author to audience. We learn ideas from literature. From it, we derive values and even knowledge. Shall we go back to pre-literate societies where the oral tradition reigned? That's the ONLY way we learned things.
Literature is the conveyance of knowledge and ideas to people. Discussing literature is the process of vetting and analyzing those ideas, and determining their relevance to life.
The only difference between a literary conveyance of ideas and a scientific conveyance of ideas is that science has a particular set of guidelines applied to the ideas being communicated.
Science is poetry.
The idea that you have to read old books for any reason is not what I am arguing. I am only presenting a case for why they are not thrown out. Even if the world has changed significantly than the time of writing, there still aspects of the human condition that are universal.
Perhaps a given work presents a unique take on a theme. That certainly can have some value. But how often do we run into a work whose take is nowhere else addressed or presented? If we claim to learn from our lineage, those ideas should carry forward.
The most universal of human conditions is to cling to the past. Stay with the familiar. We want to believe that classics can be just as relevant because it means our personal history is still relevant - that our lineage is current.
I don't doubt that some classics are read still because they address truly universal themes. But how often do you run into a classic work that truly has no subsequent iteration?
I do think it is important to demonstrate the perpetuation of some notions of the human condition throughout history. It can help to demonstrate the evolution of thought on that topic. But all too often, I see a conflation of "classic" and "direct relevance," while ignoring modern, relevant discussion about those topics.
And I said absolutley jack-all about complexity equaling quality. I said that poetry is a systematic approach to the conveyance of literary ideas that mirrors the systematic approach to the conveyance of empirically-derived ideas generated by science. Slow your roll, bro.
And Viking Age Icelandic poetry isn't worth that much, except as a curiosity and occasional challenging word puzzle. From a literary standpoint,, we have much more engaging poetry in modern hip-hop and rap.
And truth be told, we don't know which motifs are original and which were retconned in later by Christian meddling, since the Eddas weren't compiled until the 13th century.
I don't know where you're pulling the "irrelevant lineage" bit from. I just said that classics help us study the evolution of thought on a topic. There is a difference between studying a lineage for the sake of learning how we came to be and considering a work for its current social applicability.
While knowing the origin of "star-crossed lovers" and how it carried through to today is interesting, I would be hesitant to call it necessary. Studying that lineage without consideration of where to go next is meaningless. It's great to study history and know where you're from - but where are you going? Fair enough. As a tool of learning, they can be useful, and many of them present their themes in isolation. I still detest the worship of classics; it's as if modern thought is meaningless.
My point's made; I'm going to go eat wings and drink beer. This was fun, dudes.