What makes a classic novel?

[stlukesguild]

Sorry but my harbor has been fully lost... thank God for online spell check!... I am now fully lost to the pleasures of inebriation. 12:30 AM and the Stones blasting full volume:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcCTK...eature=related

I'll pick this up at a later time...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The Stones? Really, StLukes? If there was a band I thought you wouldn't be into, it's them.

[JuniperWoolf]

Nah, it makes sense for him to like the stones. His favorite movie is Nightmare Before Christmas, now that is unexpected.

[stlukesguild]

Nah, it makes sense for him to like the stones. His favorite movie is Nightmare Before Christmas, now that is unexpected.

One of my favorites. I just love the merger of Americana with German Expressionism. My other favorites are probably pretty much to be expected: Casablanca, Dr. Strangelove, 2001:A Space Odyssey, Psycho, North by Northwest, The Seventh Seal, Persona, Virgin Spring, Vertigo, etc...

[Calidore]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]I just love the merger of Americana with German Expressionism.

Then hopefully you've seen Night of the Hunter.

[stlukesguild]

Funny you should ask. I'd only seen parts of it in passing until just a week or two ago when I finally got around to playing the video I had gotten from a friend for Christmas. Marvelous movie. Of course when I speak of German Expressionism I am thinking of the extremes of stylization that you find in the paintings of Edvard Munch:



Max Beckmann:



Otto Dix:



E.L. Kirchner:



and Emil Nolde (among many others)



as well as in such films as The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari:



Nosferatu:



M:



The Man who Laughs:



These had a major impact upon American horror films: The Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein, etc... as well as the visual dram of many subsequent films:



You can see it in Hitchcock, Orson Welles, in the Seventh Seal, its there in Coppola's Dracula, Dark City, Lars von Trier's films, and of course Tim Burton's works... which often offer up his own take upon that uniquely American campy merger of Expressionism... and Americana:



(Years ago I did my honors thesis on German Expressionism and its subsequent influence in the visual arts)

[conartist]

Tolstoy is immortal since his novels are driven by morals.


That's why Tolstoy hated Shakespeare. The great Englishman lacked such clear morals. Good does not always triumph. Evil is not always defeated in the end. And in spite of this, Shakespeare was clearly the stronger writer.

I don't think that would be enough to make Tolstoy hate Shakespeare. Tolstoy, at least according to his own writings, had no idea how Shakespearean characters were supposed to resemble real people. Lear especially he could not imagine ever existing, seeing as the old king goes from being outraged to kind to furious to stately etc almost from speech to speech. Of course, these criticisms are so weak, and anyone that was fully invested in the plays would find them so irrelevant, that Tolstoy had to be deluding himself in some sense, and perhaps was simply utterly outraged by Shakespeare's amorality ... but i still couldn't imagine it being that simplistic when he's such a creative genius ...

[conartist]

As for what makes a classic novel ... it's like asking what makes a classic piece of music or art. It's a novel that's really really good; themes, philosophy, politics only matter once you've registered that the novel's really really good. Aesthetics and the depth of characterization are what really matter.

[Drkshadow03]

As for what makes a classic novel ... it's like asking what makes a classic piece of music or art. It's a novel that's really really good; themes, philosophy, politics only matter once you've registered that the novel's really really good. Aesthetics and the depth of characterization are what really matter.

Nah, that makes no sense. Why would a theme/philosophy/political perspective suddenly only become relevant and worth discussing if a book is well-written and possesses depth of characterization? That belittles the value of themes/philosophies/politics and then it becomes a question of why discuss them at all if they're so insignificant. After all, if they only have value if the aesthetic and characters are up to par then whatever themes a book is dealing with can't really be that important or significant in the first place. Or to put it another way if the themes/philosophy/political perspective isn't worth discussing outside of the book then they probably aren't worth discussing at all.

Now don't get me wrong, I do think an important relationship exists between theme and style, as well as content and expression. The best art uses its aesthetic techniques to defamiliarize us from our world and consequently help us it see whatever issues it covers in a fresh light. However, that doesn't necessarily mean theme is subservient to aesthetics and only matters if the style is up to snuff. Arthur C. Clarke explores some fairly interesting philosophical issues in his science fiction, but his writing is rather bland and simple.

Characterization is an even trickier category. What I've read of Jorge Luis Borges (Ficciones) suggests to me he is a writer that excels at aesthetics and theme, but one not particularly interested in writing what I would consider deep characters.

[JCamilo]

Nah, that makes no sense. Why would a theme/philosophy/political perspective suddenly only become relevant and worth discussing if a book is well-written and possesses depth of characterization? That belittles the value of themes/philosophies/politics and then it becomes a question of why discuss them at all if they're so insignificant. After all, if they only have value if tlihe aesthetic and characters are up to par then whatever themes a book is dealing with can't really be that important or significant in the first place. Or to put it another way if the themes/philosophy/political perspective isn't worth discussing outside of the book then they probably aren't worth discussing at all.

I suppose he didnt explained well, but I do think ideas get more persuasive and will be better remembered if the writer is good. Most of good philosophers are good writers, trainned by rules from the time of Cicero or Plato. Even complexity like Schopenhauer's text is well written. And maybe he means, a book lasts due to it, while there could be many socialist poets, Shelley remained longer...

Now don't get me wrong, I do think an important relationship exists between theme and style, as well as content and expression. The best art uses its aesthetic techniques to defamiliarize us from our world and consequently help us it see whatever issues it covers in a fresh light. However, that doesn't necessarily mean theme is subservient to aesthetics and only matters if the style is up to snuff. Arthur C. Clarke explores some fairly interesting philosophical issues in his science fiction, but his writing is rather bland and simple.

But Clarke was better than the majority of his fellow pulp sci-fic writter. He only looks as bad when we compare him with guys like Wells, Bradbury and perhaps Philip K.Dick. Anyways, this is a good example, Clarke most memorable book is a movie. Where someone with a foot on geniality gave to Clarke ideas an aesthetic power that keeps the movie much more alive than the book. It is so much that people do not notice two atheists skeptical dudes made a movie about creationism.

Characterization is an even trickier category. What I've read of Jorge Luis Borges (Ficciones) suggests to me he is a writer that excels at aesthetics and theme, but one not particularly interested in writing what I would consider deep characters.

Yes, many texts do not need characterization, a novel trait, not a literature trait. Anyways, what means deep? I see this much used if the character goes in inner thinking, dostoieviskan style. And I bet many people can say Harry Potter is not as deep as Ulysses, even if Potter's inner feeling is probally presented more than Ulysses. I would say, a deep character should be a meaningful character, and Funes, Borges himself, Asterion... are deep.

[Drkshadow03]

I suppose he didnt explained well, but I do think ideas get more persuasive and will be better remembered if the writer is good. Most of good philosophers are good writers, trainned by rules from the time of Cicero or Plato. Even complexity like Schopenhauer's text is well written. And maybe he means, a book lasts due to it, while there could be many socialist poets, Shelley remained longer...



But Clarke was better than the majority of his fellow pulp sci-fic writter. He only looks as bad when we compare him with guys like Wells, Bradbury and perhaps Philip K.Dick. Anyways, this is a good example, Clarke most memorable book is a movie. Where someone with a foot on geniality gave to Clarke ideas an aesthetic power that keeps the movie much more alive than the book. It is so much that people do not notice two atheists skeptical dudes made a movie about creationism.



Yes, many texts do not need characterization, a novel trait, not a literature trait. Anyways, what means deep? I see this much used if the character goes in inner thinking, dostoieviskan style. And I bet many people can say Harry Potter is not as deep as Ulysses, even if Potter's inner feeling is probally presented more than Ulysses. I would say, a deep character should be a meaningful character, and Funes, Borges himself, Asterion... are deep.

Most of your comments I think compliments what I said rather than contradicts. I recently read this blog post that addresses some of the issues we've all been talking about in an interesting way:

http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2011/0...tory-is-style/

[stlukesguild]

I don't think that would be enough to make Tolstoy hate Shakespeare. Tolstoy, at least according to his own writings, had no idea how Shakespearean characters were supposed to resemble real people. Lear especially he could not imagine ever existing, seeing as the old king goes from being outraged to kind to furious to stately etc almost from speech to speech. Of course, these criticisms are so weak, and anyone that was fully invested in the plays would find them so irrelevant, that Tolstoy had to be deluding himself in some sense, and perhaps was simply utterly outraged by Shakespeare's amorality ... but i still couldn't imagine it being that simplistic when he's such a creative genius ...

Geniuses are driven by the same passions as anyone else... including jealousy. Plato recognized his own inability to ever surpass Homer on purely aesthetic terms, and so he targeted him on moral terms. Tolstoy, ever the moralist, quite likely despised the fact that such an "immoral/amoral" writer should stand as the towering figure of Western literature. He made attempts to undermine Shakespeare on aesthetic terms, but as you noted, these were weak criticisms at best. There will always be animosity between the artist who imagines himself as being a visionary... a prophet... and imagines that the role of art is the ennoblement of mankind and the artist who recognizes himself as an artist and understands that Oscar Wilde was right when he declared that all art is meaningless.

[mortalterror]

When people tell me they don't like classics, I tell them that's impossible. Classics aren't just one thing. Classics are hundreds of different things. Whatever type of person you are, there's a classic for you, because a classic is just the best of whatever type of writing you enjoy. There are classic thrillers, mysteries, horror stories, and fantasies. If you like war movies, you will like The Iliad. It's got a part where one man holds off an army at the point of his spear from the wreck of a burning battleship. The same things that draw people to South Park will draw them to Aristophanes.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Nah, it makes sense for him to like the stones. His favorite movie is Nightmare Before Christmas, now that is unexpected.

While a bit of a surprise, I can get why he'd like A Nightmare Before Christimas. It's wonderfully artistic. But The Rolling Stones are just so .... oh, what's the word .... oh, yes, I have it: horrible. Simplistic, overrated, untalented, and just so boring.

[conartist]

Nah, that makes no sense. Why would a theme/philosophy/political perspective suddenly only become relevant and worth discussing if a book is well-written and possesses depth of characterization? That belittles the value of themes/philosophies/politics and then it becomes a question of why discuss them at all if they're so insignificant. After all, if they only have value if the aesthetic and characters are up to par then whatever themes a book is dealing with can't really be that important or significant in the first place. Or to put it another way if the themes/philosophy/political perspective isn't worth discussing outside of the book then they probably aren't worth discussing at all.

Now don't get me wrong, I do think an important relationship exists between theme and style, as well as content and expression. The best art uses its aesthetic techniques to defamiliarize us from our world and consequently help us it see whatever issues it covers in a fresh light. However, that doesn't necessarily mean theme is subservient to aesthetics and only matters if the style is up to snuff. Arthur C. Clarke explores some fairly interesting philosophical issues in his science fiction, but his writing is rather bland and simple.

Characterization is an even trickier category. What I've read of Jorge Luis Borges (Ficciones) suggests to me he is a writer that excels at aesthetics and theme, but one not particularly interested in writing what I would consider deep characters.

An isolated paragraph - even an isolated sentence - can make a worthwhile philosophical/social/political/whatyouwill point. Obviously I'm not saying that these things aren't worthwhile in or out of literature. I was simply talking about what is particular to a novel: characters; long beautiful rhapsodic prose. Arthur Clarke explores interesting themes, creates nothing characters and can't write well. There are no classic novels by Arthur Clarke.