Yes, I know. I was being a little humorous. It obviously didn't translate well.Originally Posted by escapologist
@ Red-Headed: Conrad was Polish. I don't think it makes much difference, but I thought I should point it out, just in case
'Joseph Conrad was born in Berdyczów (now Berdychiv, Ukraine) into an impoverished, highly patriotic Polish noble family bearing the Nałęcz coat-of-arms.' ~ Wikipedia
docendo discimus
Out of curiosity, what books do you think are imaginitive and creative? Or not just empty?
No, it's me, I didn't read the whole thread very carefullyYes, I know. I was being a little humorous. It obviously didn't translate well.
'Joseph Conrad was born in Berdyczów (now Berdychiv, Ukraine) into an impoverished, highly patriotic Polish noble family bearing the Nałęcz coat-of-arms.' ~ Wikipedia
I think that there should be a distinction made between the often ironic & satirist 18th century moralising novels of Jane Austen & their seeming obsession with manners & class & the politically tendentious novels of Dickens (particularly Hard Times) & the likes of Elizabeth Gaskell.
I agree that they often lack romantic idealism & are not full of conceptual symbolism, but to give Austen her due, she had an incredible economy of expression in writing & many of her characters have value. She had classic comedic moments, quite often with the conflicts various protagonists had between illusion & reality. That & Trollope's complete appreciation of the 'usual' in his Barsetshire Comedie Humaine is what gives them their appeal to many.
I think that is the point of many of them!
To be fair to many pre-romantic novels, I think they did often touch the human condition enough for people to relate to them in many ways.
docendo discimus
It's OK, I do things like that all the time. I think it's what the edit button is for!No, it's me, I didn't read the whole thread very carefully
docendo discimus
Exactly.
When it comes down to it, terms like 'great' and 'bad' are meaningless in the practical sense. Either you should read a book or you shouldn't. Calling a novel 'great' or 'one of the best I've ever read' is really just another way of saying 'please please please read this book now'.
Whether or not Moby-Dick or Pride and Prejudice is a great novel is up to you. But to call it a book you should never read is ridiculous, mainly just for the fact that they are so beloved by so many people, that even if you disliked it, others may still enjoy it. In truth, there's no books not worth reading. I even take back what I said about Dan Brown and Stephine Meyer earlier in this thread. The only thing that matters is priority. To me, Moby-Dick should take a much higher priority in your reading list than The DaVinci Code.
The Moments of Dominion
That happen on the Soul
And leave it with a Discontent
Too exquisite — to tell —
-Emily Dickinson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVW8GCnr9-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckGIvr6WVw4
I just love aesthetic relativism. Such a brilliant philosophy... totally suited to those who fear any form of challenge or difficulty. Opinions in art are subjective... and so there can be no "good" nor "bad". Of course no artist believes this to be so... not even when considering his or her own efforts. Some are clearly better than others. All art is but opinion...? Certainly... but then some opinions are far better than others.As for "elitism"... well certainly "elitism" can have negative connotations that are connected with wealth and social status... but "elitism" also means having high standards and living up to them. It is NOT about snobbery. Indeed, I often find the opposite to be true among those who embrace an anti-intellectual stance and sneer at anything which requires intellect, concerted effort, and high standards. "Elitism" often involves the rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field; a long track record of competence in a demanding field; an extensive history of dedication and effort in service to a specific discipline, or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field. Meritocracy would be another term for "elitism". Personally, if I were faced with surgery I would wish for an "elite" surgeon... not the merely average. If I were involved in a discussion about Shakespeare here I would probably give anything Petrarch's Love had to say a greater degree of consideration due to her experience with Shakespeare and Renaissance poetry. I take the same approach to art/music/literature.
Having said that much I will admit that I have my own personal preferences and dislikes and there is no way that I like every work that has been acclaimed... and there are works that are less recognized that I personally hold far more dear. But at the same time, I recognize that there is a difference between stating something as personal opinion and stating something as fact. There is a great gap between saying "I didn't like Moby Dick. It just didn't work for me. I just couldn't get over all the digressions" and stating "The Heart of darkness was terrible." or "Candide was just slop." These are not statements of personal opinion but statements of fact... and considering that they go against the larger accepted position, they certainly open the speaker up to criticism and challenges to back up his or her position.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
It is, perhaps, presumptious to suggest that any book should not be read by others, regardless of its lack of personal appeal. It is equally questionable to suggest that certain books should be read by others. Somerset Maugham, one of the best 20th century authors, met Edith Wharton la grande dame of American literature at a luncheon in London and Maugham, despite being a polyglot and an authority on world literature, happened to mention Edgar Wallace.
"Who is Edgar Wallace?" she replied.
"Do you never read thrillers?" asked Maugham.
"No, I'm afraid it's getting very late," said Mrs Wharton.
Alright then, will you kindly share with us the source of these 'facts' you mention. The only way we know if a book is 'good' or not before we read it is if someone tells us so. And even if that someone happens to be an 'elite' critic, or a whole bunch of them, that still doesn't make it a fact. Your comparison with surgery doesn't hold water because literary criticism isn't an exact science and thank heavens for that. As for artists themselves, they judge their own work by their own subjective standards, i.e. by how well they managed to express their ideas. Yes, we will trust a critic more than a random reader because critics evaluate works of art according to a set of standards we perceive as conventional and more substantial. Critics are able to analyse a work of art on a deeper and a more specific level, but their evaluation still doesn't count as a fact. The things that do count as facts are, for example, the existence of symbolism, figures of speech or different stylistic devices as explained by theories of literature. But no theory claims to be able to decide if a work of art is 'good' or not.I just love aesthetic relativism. Such a brilliant philosophy... totally suited to those who fear any form of challenge or difficulty. Opinions in art are subjective... and so there can be no "good" nor "bad". Of course no artist believes this to be so... not even when considering his or her own efforts. Some are clearly better than others. All art is but opinion...? Certainly... but then some opinions are far better than others.
[...]
Having said that much I will admit that I have my own personal preferences and dislikes and there is no way that I like every work that has been acclaimed... and there are works that are less recognized that I personally hold far more dear. But at the same time, I recognize that there is a difference between stating something as personal opinion and stating something as fact. There is a great gap between saying "I didn't like Moby Dick. It just didn't work for me. I just couldn't get over all the digressions" and stating "The Heart of darkness was terrible." or "Candide was just slop." These are not statements of personal opinion but statements of fact... and considering that they go against the larger accepted position, they certainly open the speaker up to criticism and challenges to back up his or her position.
Sorry guys I'm going to skip the discussion and name 5 of my own:
1. Her Victory by Alan Sillitoe [Sillitoe has written some good novels and short stories but this is definitely not among them]
2. Murder in the collective
3. The Magnificient Spinster [can't remember the author of either of those. They were two that I read during my "feminist" phase and though there were far more good books than bad The Women's Press did publish some stinkers].
4. Eyeless in Gaza by Aldous Huxley [hated all that philosophical self-indulgence that was really saying nothing at all].
Sorry, can't think of a fifth one off hand. I was going to say In Cold Blood by Truman Capote mainly because I had the misfortune to study it as an "A" level text but it's nowhere near as bad as the other 4 and doesn't deserve to be classed with them.
What are regrets? Just lessons we haven't learned yet - Beth Orton
I just love aesthetic relativism. Such a brilliant philosophy... totally suited to those who fear any form of challenge or difficulty. Opinions in art are subjective... and so there can be no "good" nor "bad". Of course no artist believes this to be so... not even when considering his or her own efforts. Some are clearly better than others. All art is but opinion...? Certainly... but then some opinions are far better than others.
Having said that much I will admit that I have my own personal preferences and dislikes and there is no way that I like every work that has been acclaimed... and there are works that are less recognized that I personally hold far more dear. But at the same time, I recognize that there is a difference between stating something as personal opinion and stating something as fact. There is a great gap between saying "I didn't like Moby Dick. It just didn't work for me. I just couldn't get over all the digressions" and stating "The Heart of darkness was terrible." or "Candide was just slop." These are not statements of personal opinion but statements of fact... and considering that they go against the larger accepted position, they certainly open the speaker up to criticism and challenges to back up his or her position.
Oh, of course. I'd definitely choose to read Moby Dick
because I wanted to be an iconoclast of Melville's work. I wanted to do my best to utterly deface Candide, so I read it. And of course, instantly I scoff at dense novels because they require a concerted effort that I apparently cannot muster. Forgive me if I consider that a tad bit foolish, maybe even ignorant.
Of course an expert's opinion will carry more merit, as they are professionals who are paid to analyze literature (or in your surgery metaphor, perform operations). I didn't realize I needed a doctorate in literature to comment on 4 books I found mediocre and highly disappointing. Should I go to Cambridge for that doctorate?
Out of curiousity, did you not read my prior posts? I believe I commented on the lack of either symbolic or thematic strength and relevance about Candide (not that it matters now, or else you would have noticed). To comment that I must justify myself while you've apparently been oblivious to my prior justifications demonstrates what I'm trying not to consider as presumptuousness.
Sorry for defying the literary status quo. Next time I'll just conform my opinions to that of your beloved critics, the same elitist ones I seem to be sneering at. What a joke.
And of course, instantly I scoff at dense novels because they require a concerted effort that I apparently cannot muster. Forgive me if I consider that a tad bit foolish, maybe even ignorant.
Of course an expert's opinion will carry more merit, as they are professionals who are paid to analyze literature (or in your surgery metaphor, perform operations). I didn't realize I needed a doctorate in literature to comment on 4 books I found mediocre and highly disappointing.
I believe I commented on the lack of either symbolic or thematic strength and relevance about Candide (not that it matters now, or else you would have noticed). To comment that I must justify myself while you've apparently been oblivious to my prior justifications demonstrates what I'm trying not to consider as presumptuousness.
Sorry for defying the literary status quo. Next time I'll just conform my opinions to that of your beloved critics, the same elitist ones I seem to be sneering at. What a joke.
Out of curiousity, did you not read my prior posts?
I might ask the same. Perhaps you read Moby Dick with the same attention to detail? You will note that in no way did I say that you must like every book championed by the "experts". And while we're on this topic perhaps we should confront the issue of just who these "experts" are. It is easy to dismiss the "experts" as elitist snobs. It plays well with our democratic and egalitarian notions (of course all art it elitist... but that's another issue altogether). Politicians love to use this strategy hypocritically... bizarrely suggesting that their opponents should somehow be ashamed of having graduated with honors from a top university.. and as such they are not fit to govern because they are not a common Joe... not "down with the people".
The reality is that the "experts"... those whose opinions count the most with regard to literature are those who have invested the greatest effort into the study and appreciation of literature. This certainly includes academics, professionals, critics, and the like... but it also includes the passionate "common reader" (in Virginia Wool's sense of the term... the educated and informed reader who reads for sheer pleasure) and of course the subsequent generations of writers. These last two, indeed, are perhaps the most influential. A writer like Alexander Dumas survives in spite of his middling reputation among academics because he continues to resonate with readers. At the other end of the spectrum, James Joyce' reputation owes more to critics, academics, and subsequent writers who continue to be challenged and inspired by his work.
A work that attains a certain reputation as "great" is clearly a work that has continued over a period of time to resonate with readers... to fascinate academics and critics... and challenge and inspire writers. In spite of this, there is no guarantee that the book will resonate with any given individual reader. As I stated above, this is fine. If I say "I don't like Milton." This is a statement of personal opinion... and pretty much unchallengeable. If, on the other hand, you state, "Candide was terribly written" you have made a clear value judgment... a value judgment that is just as plainly stated as fact as the opposing opinion. This is what opens your opinion up to being challenged or questioned.
I believe I commented on the lack of either symbolic or thematic strength and relevance about Candide (not that it matters now, or else you would have noticed).
Yes... I certainly noticed, but did not choose to respond. But since you have pushed the issue let's deal with it. You suggest that Candide lacks symbolic or thematic strength. You do understand that the work is a satire upon Liebniz philosophy of optimism that suggested that this is indeed, "the best of all possible worlds" (A philosophy certainly supportive of those in power at the time... at any time... in that it suggests that the individual's place in society is "God's will" and part of a divine master plan... and thus to question one's place... or to actually think to improve upon one's standing is almost tantamount to questioning God and providence). Candide is an allegory... concerned more with questioning and challenging ideas through humor and satire taken to an absurd extreme than it is with character development.
But if a book excels in one standard, that does not instantly posit it as a great work. Moby Dick has strong symbolism, yet that symbolism cannot overcompensate for the lack of thematic relevance to me as a reader; Candide is darkly humorous, but the terrible lack of strong symbolism cannot be ignored. While some books excel in some aspects, they are utterly disasterous in others.
Now here I must clarify what point you are making. Are you suggesting that for a work of literature to be truly "great" it must be masterful upon all accounts? I would have to question this. Every work of literature does not have the same goals. Hemingway is not a failure because his writing lacks the florid and baroque splendor of Proust's poetic language. It is meaningless to criticize Baudelaire's Fleurs du mal as a result of its rigorous form which lacks the freedom of Whitman's Leaves of Grass. Shakespeare himself is not a master of every possible element that makes up writing, Hell, most of his plots are variations derived from pre-existing sources. A work of art succeeds or fails upon its own terms based upon the intentions... not against some abstract check-list of essential elements of reading. You suggest that you recognize Moby Dick's strong symbolism, yet feel that alone does not overcome its thematic relevance to you as a reader. One might ask what makes a work of literature relevant? Must it reinforce your own beliefs, thoughts, and prejudices...? Or might it achieve something more?
Again... and it may seem little more than semantics... what I am suggesting is that when you put your opinion of a work of literature in objective terms... as a statement of fact... it opens you up to being challenged. When you make such blanket statements as "Candide was terribly written" or "Moby Dick was boring"... especially without offering some examples or proof of your opinion... it strikes many as not far from declarations such as "Mozart sucks!" made by some pimply-faced teenager.
By the way... among those books that I would suggest no one should read... or perhaps no one should be directed, assigned, coerced, or seduced into reading... I would certainly include anything by the Marquis de Sade, Hitler's Mein Kampf, anything by Ayn Rand, L. Ron Hubbard, or Dan Brown.
Last edited by stlukesguild; 12-06-2009 at 11:56 PM.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Wow - this got a tad off track, but I suppose the topic did encourage it
I tend to value works of art (particularly literature) very subjectively - I can read Dan Brown's work and still enjoy it (despite noticing the obvious lack of "greatness"), but can still appreciate "classics" even if they don't appeal to me personally. As for Austen, she is one of my favourite authors - and I believe the ability to provide pleasure to readers should be valued as much as symbolism, thematic relevance or other "objective" measures. I'm not trying to imply that popularity makes something "great" - but it certainly takes merit away from the opinion that nobody should read it...
It's kind of depressing watching people misuse critical opinions. The whole notion of relativism is truth, but no scholar of literature is going to accept the "this is toss" as criticism. Truth be told, from experience, academics tend to just accept that the aesthetic merit given to a text is relative to a cultural position, which I don't think St. Lukes, or anybody can disagree with, even Harold Bloom. The problem that arises is when you question what that social opinion implies.
So, for instance, the huge best seller, Madame Chrysanthčme which formed the basis of Puccini's slightly more politically correct opera, was widely regarded because of what? Or what are the aesthetic merits to this famous cartoon clip? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjLfyooJQEc
Sometimes we can clearly see the flaws in certain works, to the point where we no longer can even regard them as worth anything anymore, whereas other times, we make exception, as in the case of works like Heart of Darkness, we get beyond the cultural undercurrents.
As for formalist criticism - that generally doesn't go very far if you go against the current. Saying the prose is crap in Moby Dick isn't going to do anything, since formalist grounding is generally the most agreed upon thing, and innovation and style are respected.
Certainly I do not pertain to say that the opinions of critics are frivolous and trivial. Oh Heavens no. I mean to say that my opinions of many heralded "classics" should not be disregarded, as were demonstrated by earlier posts (excluding yours) merely because they come into conflict with those of professional literary critics. When the cause of disagreement with my opinions stem from the fact that I disagree with literary critics, that is when I attack the merit of critics. After all, their opinions are not law. So when I'm defying the "status quo" of literature and being insulted or otherwise scoffed at (once again, excluding yourself) for disagreeing with literary pondits, that's when I question their merit.I might ask the same. Perhaps you read Moby Dick with the same attention to detail? You will note that in no way did I say that you must like every book championed by the "experts". And while we're on this topic perhaps we should confront the issue of just who these "experts" are. It is easy to dismiss the "experts" as elitist snobs. It plays well with our democratic and egalitarian notions (of course all art it elitist... but that's another issue altogether). Politicians love to use this strategy hypocritically... bizarrely suggesting that their opponents should somehow be ashamed of having graduated with honors from a top university.. and as such they are not fit to govern because they are not a common Joe... not "down with the people".
The reality is that the "experts"... those whose opinions count the most with regard to literature are those who have invested the greatest effort into the study and appreciation of literature. This certainly includes academics, professionals, critics, and the like... but it also includes the passionate "common reader" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the term... the educated and informed reader who reads for sheer pleasure) and of course the subsequent generations of writers. These last two, indeed, are perhaps the most influential. A writer like Alexander Dumas survives in spite of his middling reputation among academics because he continues to resonate with readers. At the other end of the spectrum, James Joyce' reputation owes more to critics, academics, and subsequent writers who continue to be challenged and inspired by his work.
A work that attains a certain reputation as "great" is clearly a work that has continued over a period of time to resonate with readers... to fascinate academics and critics... and challenge and inspire writers. In spite of this, there is no guarantee that the book will resonate with any given individual reader. As I stated above, this is fine. If I say "I don't like Milton." This is a statement of personal opinion... and pretty much unchallengeable. If, on the other hand, you state, "Candide was terribly written" you have made a clear value judgment... a value judgment that is just as plainly stated as fact as the opposing opinion. This is what opens your opinion up to being challenged or questioned.
Yes... I certainly noticed, but did not choose to respond. But since you have pushed the issue let's deal with it. You suggest that Candide lacks symbolic or thematic strength. You do understand that the work is a satire upon Liebniz philosophy of optimism that suggested that this is indeed, "the best of all possible worlds" (A philosophy certainly supportive of those in power at the time... at any time... in that it suggests that the individual's place in society is "God's will" and part of a divine master plan... and thus to question one's place... or to actually think to improve upon one's standing is almost tantamount to questioning God and providence). Candide is an allegory... concerned more with questioning and challenging ideas through humor and satire taken to an absurd extreme than it is with character development.
Now here I must clarify what point you are making. Are you suggesting that for a work of literature to be truly "great" it must be masterful upon all accounts? I would have to question this. Every work of literature does not have the same goals. Hemingway is not a failure because his writing lacks the florid and baroque splendor of Proust's poetic language. It is meaningless to criticize Baudelaire's Fleurs du mal as a result of its rigorous form which lacks the freedom of Whitman's Leaves of Grass. Shakespeare himself is not a master of every possible element that makes up writing, Hell, most of his plots are variations derived from pre-existing sources. A work of art succeeds or fails upon its own terms based upon the intentions... not against some abstract check-list of essential elements of reading. You suggest that you recognize Moby Dick's strong symbolism, yet feel that alone does not overcome its thematic relevance to you as a reader. One might ask what makes a work of literature relevant? Must it reinforce your own beliefs, thoughts, and prejudices...? Or might it achieve something more?
Again... and it may seem little more than semantics... what I am suggesting is that when you put your opinion of a work of literature in objective terms... as a statement of fact... it opens you up to being challenged. When you make such blanket statements as "Candide was terribly written" or "Moby Dick was boring"... especially without offering some examples or proof of your opinion... it strikes many as not far from declarations such as "Mozart sucks!" made by some pimply-faced teenager.
About Candide; surely I knew of that, as I had done background research of both the origins of the novel and author prior to reading Candide, Moby Dick, and the others listed. So I knew what to expect. Yet Pride and Prejudice was also a satire of the author's surroundings and society, yet it featured better developed characters, themes, and symbols. Stating that Candide was a satire cannot fully justify the terrible character development.
Great novels don't have to excel in every category of the literary conventions referenced to in other users' posts; yet they still need to be sufficient in other categories. I'm not saying Hemingway's writing is insufficient because it lacks colorful language and pages of description; not at all. I evaluate novels on a basis of relatively objective standards: character development, strength and relevance of both symbols and themes, plot development, and strenght of structure. (Yes, they are subjective in that I derive an influence as a reader, yet they are objective in that a work must not be "enjoyable" to be "well-written.")Florid diction, as you reference to, only serves to improve my vocabulary; it neither aids nor deters from my evaluations.
That being said, I analyze every book I read. I felt that 1-5, but the 2-5 in question, were either lacking in most categories, or strong in one but weak in others. Candide was successful in 0 parameters. Pride and Prejudice was only strong in plot development, yet even the plot was predictable and unoriginal. Moby Dick had beautiful symbolism but lacked in other categories. While each novel must not be masterful in each category, you surely cannot expect me to say Moby Dick was brilliant if only one component of a novel's total package is well written while the others are uneven.
And as to the themes, they must not be opinions that augment beliefs I already hold. Surely, the theme can reveal me to paradigms on subjects I have not yet experience; in some works (Mere Christianity, Slaughter-House 5) I expect it to. The themes don't have to reinforce my beliefs, as that biases my evaluation of novels. Rather, they have to be strong themes; themes that are reinforced and seem applicable to common-day life, or life itself. While that may differ from yours, or anyone else's perspective of what a theme should be, that's where my disagreement in thematic strength comes in.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
