The Classics

[alicialiv]

My sister and I were discussing yesterday that our present and past English teachers tend to dislike passionately popular novelist such as Daniel Steele, Nora Roberts, Stephen King,etc. and without explaining why they dislike these authors, everyone agrees with them or laughs (our classmates). Personally, I have never read any of these author's books. I do not believe my teachers have read them either. Are they simply judging a book by its author? I understand that their books are not The Classics but should we shun books simply based on the fact that they are not full of literary commentary, alluisons, and such? I guess my main concern is that out teachers outwardly proclaim they hate these books without ever picking a single book up. What is anyone else's opinion on the matter? Has anyone witnessed similar situation?

[Pensive]

alicialiv, this makes me boil as well. I hate when people gives their opinion so decidedly without even reading the book.

This problem has occured infront of me several times. Not only in classroom, but in other fields as well.

Even some people here in the forum(no offense to them) believe that "novels" other than "classics" are pieces of litter or children books. Specially fantasies and sci-fictions are critisized by people who think that they knows a lot about literature.

[The Unnamable]

While I understand your objections, it is far more common for those who have not read ‘the classics’ to decry them without ever reading them. Besides, on a forum called ‘The Literature Network’, it’s hardly surprising that people will prefer Dostoevsky to Stephen King.
We all have to make decision about what we read and digest, as there is so much around us. I haven’t read every King novel because there’s simply not enough time. I’ve read enough to know that it has little to offer me. I’ve never taken heroin or murdered anyone either so perhaps I shouldn’t criticise the practices? As one of the teachers who would serve you up Milton before Nora Roberts, I’ll try to offer you an explanation. Here’s George Steiner on what it is that differentiates a ‘classic’ from the rest:

“I define a 'classic', in literature, in music, in the arts, in philosophic argument, as a signifying form which 'reads' us. It reads us more than we read (listen to, perceive) it. There is nothing paradoxical, let alone mystical, in this definition. Each time we engage with it, the classic will question us. It will challenge our resources of consciousness and intellect, of mind and body (so much of primary aesthetic and even intellectual response is bodily). The classic will ask of us: 'have you understood?'; 'have you re-imagined responsibly?'; 'are you prepared to act upon the questions, upon the potentialities of transformed, enriched being which I have posed?'."

[PeterL]

I was going to write something of some length, but that quote from George Steiner that The Unamable posted says it well enough.

There is popular fiction that has the potential to become classic, and some of the classics were popular fiction.

[byucougs]

So my question is this: Is there such a thing is a modern classic? Could such books as Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Wizard of Oz be considered a classic. What about Steinbeck? He seems very modern. Is he a classic author? Just some questions to ponder.

[MikeK]

A good way to distinguish between classics and run-of-the-mill popular novels is that classics leave a lasting impression while non-classics leave you soon after you put the book down. Classics get better each time you read them(there's more depth), while non-classics seem less interesting each time(you've discovered all there is to know the first time).

Does that mean that you should only read books written by someone you study in college? Of course not. I've thoroughly enjoyed many Stephen King books. I find almost nothing more enjoyable than reading a Peter DeVries story. I disagree with people who think that you're wasting your time if you're reading anything other than Elizabethan drama or Romantic novels. But let's face it, everyone is constrained by time. We can't read everything we'd like to, and we must make choices. So if someone were to ask me, I'd always point them to Dostoevsky or Dickens before King or Creighton.

[Virgil]

My sister and I were discussing yesterday that our present and past English teachers tend to dislike passionately popular novelist such as Daniel Steele, Nora Roberts, Stephen King,etc. and without explaining why they dislike these authors, everyone agrees with them or laughs (our classmates). Personally, I have never read any of these author's books. I do not believe my teachers have read them either. Are they simply judging a book by its author? I understand that their books are not The Classics but should we shun books simply based on the fact that they are not full of literary commentary, alluisons, and such? I guess my main concern is that out teachers outwardly proclaim they hate these books without ever picking a single book up. What is anyone else's opinion on the matter? Has anyone witnessed similar situation?

College professors can be overly intellectual, and frankly they themselves don't know why some things are classic and some aren't; they have a curriculum and if it's not part of it somehow it must be superficial. But that doesn't mean that there aren't reasons for considering something a classic (commonly referred to as being part of the cannon) and something that isn't. these are several considerations:

(a) craft and style. Did the writer create a most perfect structured work with the most elegant of writing style? Robert Louis Stevenson comes to mind here.

(b) Originality of ideas. Has the writer thought through and expressed ideas, especially those that reflect the human condition, that no one else has presented? Golding's Lord of the Flies suddenly just came to mind.

(c) Aestheic vision. Has the author constructed a work whose aesthics refelcts his society and the world view of his times. Dante's Divine Comedy is the absolute best example.

(d) Originality of artistry. Is the writer just writing the same old story but with different names and settings? Or has he taken a story (and there are only a small amount of story types to choose from) and cast in in a new way to amke it interesting? Joyce's Ullyses comes to mind here.

There may be other reasons that I can't think of. I'm not judging any of the authors you mention. Frankly I've barely read any of them. Just remember, lots of writers were put down as poor by the intellectual ellites, but over time were proven to be classics. Fundementally, if you enjoy it, read it. But don't ignore the classics either. A lot of work and discussion has gone into them by lots of people to establish their greatness.

[Charles Darnay]

I generally agree with the opinion of MikeK. Going back to the original thought, I belive that teachers shun moderns because there is so much garbage that makes publications. That is not to say that there is nothing good today, or that everything in the eighteenth century was amazing. But the novels, the classics, that live are amazing simply becasue they lived. Everyone knows of Les Miserables or A Tale of Two Cities, becasue they are widely renowned.... but how many know of "Toilers of the Sea".

Also, the problem that I believe that teachers have with today's novels is one that I have complained about several times. That is the "Hollywood" factor in literature. Books are shifting from being "good" and "well written" to simply being entertainined. Many could agree that "The Da Vinci Code" was an entertaining read and very captivating, but if in an English class you were to disect that book, you would discover that in terms of litereray content, it does not offer anything. Once again, this does not apply to all modern books, but commercailized books (written soley to make money) are becoming more popular.

[PeterL]

So my question is this: Is there such a thing is a modern classic? Could such books as Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Wizard of Oz be considered a classic. What about Steinbeck? He seems very modern. Is he a classic author? Just some questions to ponder.

Take a look at any of the many lists of the best novels of the 20th century, and you will see opinions as to what might become classics. Some already are. The Grapes of Wrath usually appears on list of the best, but I think that it has lost stature, because it is too rooted in a period.
The Lord of the Rings has some features of a classic, but the world of fiction has become too fragmented (The Hobbit is a better novel). There are many great fantasy and science fiction novels that would be classics already, if the fiction genre hadn't been subdivided, but I wouldn't include the Chronicles of Narnia.

This Modern Library's list of the top 100. Some are good choices, and some aren't, and some are just bad.
http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html

[Flora]

I often meet people, who think the opposite - anything that is elder than fifty years is not worth of their attention. They get annoyed with sentances longer than five words, and judge the book by its age, its cover, the author, saying that it doesnt have anything to do with the world we know today.
I am sure that many modern books are classics, and even if they are not yet, they will probably become in fifty years or so. I mean, the books we now call classics were mostly not called so in its own time, were they?

[EAP]

Besides, on a forum called ‘The Literature Network’, it’s hardly surprising that people will prefer Dostoevsky to Stephen King.

A prime example of implicit intellectual snobbery.


Are they simply judging a book by its author?

Aye, these authors have been typecasted into a stereotype which is supposedly devoid of any remedial features whatsoever.


I understand that their books are not The Classics but should we shun books simply based on the fact that they are not full of literary commentary, alluisons, and such?

On the contrary. It depends on what you ultimately desire out of your reading experience. For those of us who read fiction primarily for entertainment, it would be silly to overlook popular literature. The whole concept of literary merit is itself a subjective, controversial issue and one no two people can completely agree on.
What is the use of literary commentary, allusions and othersuch if at the end of the day, they leave you feeling completely nonplussed?

In her own way Nora Roberts is as important to literature as someone like James Joyce.

Meh. Personally I dislike both Joyce and Nora Jones for entirely different reasons - but that is neither here nor there.

[PeterL]

I often meet people, who think the opposite - anything that is elder than fifty years is not worth of their attention. They get annoyed with sentances longer than five words, and judge the book by its age, its cover, the author, saying that it doesnt have anything to do with the world we know today.
I am sure that many modern books are classics, and even if they are not yet, they will probably become in fifty years or so. I mean, the books we now call classics were mostly not called so in its own time, were they?

I can understand someone getting annoyed with long sentences, and I can understand people judging a book by the author, I can even understand someone judging a book by its cover; but the concept of thinking that any book more than fifty years old is not relevant to the world that we know today is absurd beyond expression. The quality of some books hasn't been noticed until they were a few decades old, and there are books that get 'rediscovered'. When one considers that all modern literature is a retelling in part of the Gilgamesh Epic, that idea becomes downright laughable.

[The Unnamable]

A prime example of implicit intellectual snobbery.

A prime example of implicit dumbing down.

Or perhaps you reject the idea of a dumbing down influence at work and instead ascribe all condemnation of its effects as the recalcitrance of an elite terrified by the waning of their power? I am not looking back in anger but forward in despair and around in disgust.

The multicultural aesthetic, to which we should all subscribe, insists that all values are now relative and the only absolute judgments to be made are those that condemn the ‘High Culture’ of the past. History itself is being rewritten as apology. I do not subscribe to view that the entire Western tradition (now dismissed contemptuously as ‘elitist’ and, of course, ‘racist’) is simply another form of white male oppression. All we have been witnessing is the replacement of an ‘elite’ system with a populist agenda through the insistence that everyone is equal and every opinion valid. The remarkable thing about this process is the way that it has advanced unchecked by the charge that there is nothing egalitarian about it.

I am in favour of elites, as are you all. ‘Elite’ refers to “the best or most skilled members of a group”. If I were to have major brain surgery (and I’m sure some of you think that I have had it and it all went horribly wrong), then I would want the operation performed by the best, the medical elite. Any person whose opinion it is that such operations should be carried out with a large dessert spoon covered in custard might have an opinion but not one that I would consider valid. The day will come when we have blind airline pilots.

[Schoolmeister]

M. Unnamable, sir I have been chasing you around this site throwing my support behind you, such as it is. I do so love (proverbially of course M.) your posts. Keep up the good work! I salute you sir, to M. Unnamable, the first among us!

[EAP]

A prime example of implicit dumbing down.

Or perhaps you reject the idea of a dumbing down influence at work and instead ascribe all condemnation of its effects as the recalcitrance of an elite terrified by the waning of their power? I am not looking back in anger but forward in despair and around in disgust.

Err. Yeah, whatever. The only dumbing down influence that seems to be at work here is in the minds of certain people who believe in the importance of viewing the world through monocles of jaded cynicism. The current global situation of humankind is arguably much better than it ever was in man's history, so I cannot for the life of me, understand what you are trying to get at.



The multicultural aesthetic, to which we should all subscribe, insists that all values are now relative and the only absolute judgments to be made are those that condemn the ‘High Culture’ of the past. History itself is being rewritten as apology.

Heh. For a moment I mistook it for a passage out of Pratchett's 'Discworld'. I can only shake my head if you truly believe in this instead of dishing it out as non-sensical rhetoric.



I do not subscribe to view that the entire Western tradition (now dismissed contemptuously as ‘elitist’ and, of course, ‘racist’) is simply another form of white male oppression.

Erm, excuse me, but what are you talking about? White man? 'Racist?' Dude, you are not debating in some sort of fancy WASP competition at Harvard. None of the above is related with the topic at hand, or even its natural extension. If you really want to complain about the 'supposed victimization of white whatevers', I suggest a blog like Live Journal is a much better place.


All we have been witnessing is the replacement of an ‘elite’ system with a populist agenda through the insistence that everyone is equal and every opinion valid. The remarkable thing about this process is the way that it has advanced unchecked by the charge that there is nothing egalitarian about it.

Generalizations. Non sequiturs. Exaggeration. Sterotypical typecasting. All that is left is a pulpit, a gong and an audience of three.

Re: rest

*yawn*

You know, I have always wondered at this extreme hostility often displayed towards Stephen King and others of his ilk. Personally writers like Stephen King, Peter Straub and Jeffrey Archer are far more invaluable in my eyes compared to Dostoevsky, Joyce and other literati darlings. You want social commentary? Read 'It'. A story which is actually enjoyable alongside being thought-provoking? The Stand.

Allusions and other literary techinques? Dark Tower series is rife with them.

Strangely enough, these days, most of the people I meet seem to consider books they actually enjoy inferior to those thick-worded, multi-layered effusive tomes with which you have to force yourself to plough through page 1 and yet are harped about because of their supposed difficulty.

A book has to stand on its own, regardless of the name of its author or the era it was written in. If you find more classics to be better written than contemporary fiction, than good for you. But please don't bandy it about as a universal truth (as some people do, often evident by the scorn they heap on authors like King, Rowling, Tolkien and even Lewis) - show it for what it is, your personal subjective opinion.

[The Unnamable]

Err. Yeah, whatever...
Positively coruscating!


*yawn*
Even more impressive.

Personally writers like Stephen King, Peter Straub and Jeffrey Archer are far more invaluable in my eyes compared to Dostoevsky, Joyce and other literati darlings.
Of course they are.

those thick-worded, multi-layered effusive tomes with which you have to force yourself to plough through page 1 and yet are harped about because of their supposed difficulty.
Nobody has to force me.

[The Unnamable]

M. Unnamable, sir I have been chasing you around this site throwing my support behind you, such as it is. I do so love (proverbially of course M.) your posts. Keep up the good work! I salute you sir, to M. Unnamable, the first among us!

While it has crossed my mind (some of you will suppose this to be a very short journey) that you are a fellow satirist and that I am your target, I will assume for the time being that you are sincere. I should warn you, however, that if you are, you are putting yourself in danger of being the object of considerable scorn.

PS ‘first among us’?

[Schoolmeister]

A gentleman sir, is always sincere. And threats, veiled or otherwise, are beneath those such as us. Come let us be direct. I support you sir and wholeheartedly appreciate your threads that I have read so far. I do hope that I can respond to them on a day when it doesn't seem everyone but myself is out to chastise you for some perceived wrong, of which I can find no evidence other than their baseness. I toast you as first among us as I believe that I have a fairly good grasp of literature but sir, you have obviously surpassed me in your knowledge and I merely wished to congratulate you for your love of the written word, which I respect.

Ever Your Humble Servant

[subterranean]

The judgements towards these authors, I believe, are based on their works and not purely on the authors. So, when I have read 1 or 2 of Steele's works and I found them "unworthy", of course, I wouldn't want to waste my time to read the 3rd one, and I'd come up in to a conclusion that reading Steele's is one of the best ways to waste my time. And think, there are many unknown classics writers, whose names and works are probably known only by literature professors. We all know popularity and quality don't always relate to each other. But of course, it's good to see people value somethings based on their onw experiences not purely rely on others.

[EAP]

Positively coruscating!


Even more impressive.

What! You don't think that was positively yawn-inducing (not to mention completely out of topic)? Ooops... I forgot you wrote it.

[Nightshade]

I have this tiny tiny thing aganst lierature snobs its just plain stupid. I belive there has to be somthing good in anything that is published ok so often I cant find it and Ive waded hrough more junk reads than you can shake a stick at but if I werent open to reading anything that passes through my hands Id have missed some lovley jewels Ive picked up along the way. And come to it some of the Classics were shunned and poo-poo-ed when they were first published but are considered great today Austen and Keats being 2 who come to mind just now.
:D

[PeterL]

viewing the world through monocles of jaded cynicism.

That is a truly great phrase. I will steal it for future use.

[Virgil]

Originally Posted by EAP
viewing the world through monocles of jaded cynicism.


That is a truly great phrase. I will steal it for future use.


Peter, You're right. That is great, EAP. I too will have to steal it.

[sporkubus]

Admittedly, I am new to the classics, but I have to agree with the post in this thread that said that the classics are the books that read us. Its really hard to judge which books should be called classics, so I think its ridiculous when people seem to put down anything written before 1000 AD as worth reading. To some extent, I think a work's value as a classic is subjective. For instance, when I was in the 4th grade I read a book called "Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Paterson that completely altered my mind. It was the first book that I had ever read in which a main character had died - a character that I had become attached to, fallen in love with, and worried about throughout the book. I actually suffered emotionally after finishing the story and began (unconsciously) to ask myself questions about the world around me and about myself, and until I answered those questions I continued to suffer. This book forced me to ask these questions - it presented a truth I had hitherto not come to terms with but which was irrevocably a part of my psyche, and made me acknowledge it. Perhaps this isn't the best explanation, but this is my definition of a classic - a work that awakens in us some truth, be it emotional or intellectual, that we can realize through a combination of the facts presented in the work itself, and our own experiences and minds. For this to occur, the work cannot be so archaic that it has little relevance outside its own time period, but it still needs to be specific enough to push our intellectual and emotional buttons. This is also why not everybody agrees on which books should be called classics - the lists that we have are based either on an individual's or group's response to the works they've read, or the works that have had the widest range of impact throughout history.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

A gentleman sir, is always sincere. And threats, veiled or otherwise, are beneath those such as us. Come let us be direct. I support you sir and wholeheartedly appreciate your threads that I have read so far. I do hope that I can respond to them on a day when it doesn't seem everyone but myself is out to chastise you for some perceived wrong, of which I can find no evidence other than their baseness. I toast you as first among us as I believe that I have a fairly good grasp of literature but sir, you have obviously surpassed me in your knowledge and I merely wished to congratulate you for your love of the written word, which I respect.

Ever Your Humble Servant

Excuse me if I'm being rude, but I was looking at your writing style and have a question. You're not from the 19th century by any chance are you?

If so, it's not surprising that unnameable has surpassed you in his reading, as half of what he has read, won't have been written yet where you are!

[Xamonas Chegwe]

EAP,

Steven King is not a great writer. He himself admits it. He owns to being too lazy and avaricious to write the great novel that he would love to produce. Read the last volume of the Dark Tower where he satirises himself quite wickedly. I'm sure that he would be the first to throw his hands up in horror at the thought of being ranked above Dostoevsky.

What Steven King is though is an incredible writing technician. He has the gift for making the reader keep on turning pages long past bedtime. I have read most of his books over the years and enjoyed them. But they are not classics, not in the way that "Crime & Punishment" is. They raise important issues but do not delve deeply into them and offer insights, preferring instead to passs on to the next cliffhanger, the next shock, the next plot twist. In short, his books require much less of the reader, they carry you along, they don't require you to paddle.

Peter Straub, on the other hand, is a very fine writer indeed. Although, he can (and does) write penny-dreadfull horror tales in much the same style as King, he has also produced some much depper and more complex work - check out his collection of short stories, "Houses Without Doors" or any of his books of poetry. Even in his more mainstream works, he asks more of the reader than King. Nothing is ever obvious in a Straub novel, you need to dig things out.

Jeffery Archer, on the other hand, is utterly worthless - a liar, plagiarist and convicted perjuror, who churns out more **** than the average cattle ranch. Anyone that would rank his drivel alongside Steven King & Peter Straub, let alone Shakespeare and Dostoevsky, has no opinion worth hearing. And yes, I have read one of his books - I was young - we all have guilty secrets in our past.

[EAP]

Xamonas Chegwe,

Regarding Stephen King:


He owns to being too lazy and avaricious to write the great novel that he would love to produce. Read the last volume of the Dark Tower where he satirises himself quite wickedly. I'm sure that he would be the first to throw his hands up in horror at the thought of being ranked above Dostoevsky.

I'll, respectfully, have to disagree with both you and Mr. King here. He did produce his magnum opus, it just wasn't in the form of a single novel. :p



What Steven King is though is an incredible writing technician. He has the gift for making the reader keep on turning pages long past bedtime. I have read most of his books over the years and enjoyed them. But they are not classics, not in the way that "Crime & Punishment" is. They raise important issues but do not delve deeply into them and offer insights, preferring instead to passs on to the next cliffhanger, the next shock, the next plot twist. [b]In short, his books require much less of the reader, they carry you along, they don't require you to paddle.[b]

In the paragraph above, there seems to be to be an implicit assumption (further solidified in the comments about Straub) that a book has to require a great deal of dictionary thumping and puzzle deciphering on the reader's part to be deemed meritworthy.

I found 'Crime and Punishment' to be a boring book. Whatever extra insights it offered were probably lost in the tedium induced by the droning prose and the effort to forcibly involve myself into something my mind was finding exceedingly unstimulating. As a text-book it might offer a worthwhile prognosis into human psyche but as entertainment, it failed on all accounts.

Herein, I think, lies the main bone of contention. A novel has to have a net positive impact on me to consider it good. What is the use of trying to read for entertainment when my desired objective itself is lacking? In 'It', 'Hearts In Atlantis' and 'Dark Tower Saga' in particular, not only does Stephen King manages to weave a gripping tale but also touch upon many fundamental issues which drive our day to day interactions.

I italicize touch because an author doesn't need to write a whole book discussing the merits of, and issues pertaining to, say, friendship and the power of love. (two of the underlying themes in the Dark Tower saga)

Take the relationship between Jake and Roland for example; an issue which ultimately determines the fate of Gunslinger's quest. During it, you run the whole gamut of human emotions, ranging from distate turning into indifference, of disappointment, a growing sense of shame battling with dogged determination, fondness evolving, over the course of time, into something more - something that throws Roland into his past and another set of similarly harrowing emotional experiences. And all of this is 'shown', instead of 'told'.


'Writing Technician' or 'writer' - the difference is merely a matter of semantics - and as I mentioned earlier, depends completely on the parameters we employ to define words such as writer, author, hack, pretentious ***....etc.

Regarding Jeffrey Archer:

Heh. There are very few authors I have encountered who can write with the wry detachment of Archer and still make the story immensely enjoyable. Though, to be honest, most of his novels are regurgitating, hackneyed trash - it is in short story form that he truly excells. (Though 'Kane and Abel' and 'Fourth Estate' are impressive family saga's and books you can rely upon to pull you out of reading slumps)


But yeah, overall, he certainly is several notches below both Straub and King.

Therefore, be thankful that you don't have to 'hear' my opinions, merely reading the above paragraph is sure to leave a bad taste in your mouth. :p :)

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Therefore, be thankful that you don't have to 'hear' my opinions, merely reading the above paragraph is sure to leave a bad taste in your mouth. :p :)

On the contrary, there is no point in my being an argumentative sod without an arguee.

I like Steven King, honestly I do, the dark tower series is an incredible acheivement. But it is still light reading. It has friendship as a theme, certainly, but does it really tell us anything new about it? Or tell us something old in a unique way? I'm not sure that it does.

One of the best thing about it is the way that the writing style matures as King does (It's a shame that the last 3 books were written in a single burst after such a long delay - I would have preferred a more even spread.) When King kills Jake off in the first book, he is not meant to come back in my opinion. The whole feel of the first book is darker than almost anything else that King ever wrote - sounds a strange thing to say about a horror writer - but if you think about it, despite the body counts, most of his tales have a much more upbeat resolution and a more sympathetic central character.
By the second book though, King's writing style has settled down into the more familiar mode and Roland is softening at the edges, becoming much more human. Somehow, this jars with his letting Jake fall in book 1, so he brings him back in the third - King is Gan in this tale - he can do anything! When Jake finally dies for a second time, it's not really Rolands fault - he doesn't have to make the choice between the boy and the tower again.
I also like the "Deus ex machina" scene in the last book - the writer (real) has the writer (character) write a note and leave it where it can't possibly have been put - lovely touch - if you're going to break the rules, break em BIG!

But all of this doesn't make dark tower a great book, merely a hugely entertaining one - King will be remembered, that's certain, his phenomenal popularity guarantees it. In that respect, I would categorise him with writers such as Trollope and Agatha Christie, but not with Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Steinbeck and the like.

Steven King can tug the heart strings better than most but - in my opinion - he plays it safe, giving his audience what they want, what he knows works - rereading his books doesn't offer new insights, it's all laid out for you in easily digestible bite-sized chunks.

My favourite Steven King book is one that most never bother to read - Danse Macabre - his non-fiction treatise on the horror novel - It shows just how deeply he understands his field, it's main themes and styles - I thoroughly recommend it - especially to budding writers. Unfortunately, I have yet to read "On writing", his second - and more autobiographical - book on his craft but I intend to. Nobody knows how to write, better than Stephen King. He could do it better though. I just wonder if there's a second Richard Bachman out there, writing literary masterpieces that no-one ever reads. Maybe...



Do me a favour though. Please don't ever try and justify Jeffrey Archer to me again or I will have to kill you - be warned, I've stopped taking my tablets! :rage:

[EAP]

I have read 'Danse Macabre' - twice. Something I usually don't do with novels, let alone non-fiction. But King's writing style is such that he can make even literary (albeit a very popcorn one) analysis into a gripping page-turner.

I'll forever remain in debt of that book, it introduced me to writers like Richard Matheson, Ray Bradbury and Shirley Jackson. (King really managed to whip up my interest in Anne Siddons work. I just never have been able to get my hands on a copy though)

Regarding King's greatness: Fair enough, I can understand where you are coming from. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Have you read all the Bachman novels? Loved Long Walk almost as much as 'It' and have been thinking about giving 'Thinner' a try.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Thinner is good - scarier than a lot of Kings "own name" work in my (overworked) opinion. Nice twist too - saw it coming - but still nice.

Ray Bradbury is well worth reading - a really original style - he shares King's ability to take you back to your childhood - the root of King's power as a writer - but Bradbury can be far more surreal, even in his non-SF stories.

Have you read "On writing"? And if so, was it as good as DM?

[EAP]

Nope, haven't read 'On Writing'.

[Anna Seis]

This is only a personal opinion,
When I read a book I don't do it to escape as I believed when I was younger. Actually books help to build my reality; I think that a good book tells us something about ourselves that we didn't know -or that we hadn't conciousness of. There is a new meaning growing up from the relationship between reader and text. There are authors that enables us to build these kinds of meaning, and others that don't. Some best sellers simply are predictible, and having readed one or two of them, the reader knows that he'll not find new things.
I guess it's better judge after read.
At once, someone asked J.L. Borges why he didn´t like Goethe. And the old man said: Perhaps you like him; but I don't do it because I have readed him.
Of course he was ironic and a little bitter, but I think he was right.

[SleepyWitch]

EAP and The Unnameable what's all this bickering about?
I agree that there are loads of differences between Classics and non-Classics... I do tend to find most Classics more interesting to read than most popular fiction (at least than most popular fiction of the very low-brow, tacky sort).... BUT: i also believe people should enjoy reading... so they should read whatever it is they prefer... i don't see any point in forcing anyone to read books they don't like.. yeah, I mean, at school/univ you can force students to read Classics, and maybe they'll even like the books afterwards... but you can't force people to like them.... besides, if the Classics' message/ style/ whatever is universally valid, why don't people automatically love them? if there was something in them for EVERYONE, why doesn't everyone feel that way? if the classics were really that universal, why do loads of people have to be forced into liking them? does that mean 90% of humanity are just too daft? or does it just mean, Classics aren't that universal at all? maybe ppl who are into Classics have to call them that to make them seem more worthwhile to read? I don't see any point in that... a book doesn't have to be universal or perfectly written or whatever to be interesting to read..... besides, what do we mean when we say literature has to be about "the human condition"???? which human condition are we talking about? the situation of people in the third world who are starving and don't even know how to read and write? certainly not. or the situation of, say a Hispanic cleaning lady who doesn't know any English???? or maybe we're just talking about the condition of those who can afford to have sophisticated issues like "the human condition"?
i absolutely agree that some popular writers aren't good writers in any narrow sense at all, but if people wanna read their books, that's up to them, isn't it?
if you like Classics, Unnameable, that's fine. I mean, it's your right to like them and nobody would want to deny you that right... just because some people prefer popular lit doesn't mean their preference constitutes an attack on you.. i mean it's their business FULLSTOP... if you consider them stupid or unsophisticated, so what? what do you wanna do about it?
**********
@ alicialiv
errrr, let me get back to the topic of this thread...
yep, I've had Lit teachers like that, too... we had this godawful old hag in secondary school, who'd never read a single popular fiction book in her whole life... the problem with her wasn't so much that she didn't like popular fiction... it was more like she took for granted that Classics are the only kind of lit worth reading, but she never explained what makes people think that way... she just took it for granted... also, and that was the major problem, she didn't seem to get much of a kick out of reading classics... i mean she preeched about them, all right, but she didn't seem to enjoy reading at all... (dunno w h y she was a German Lit teacher in the first place...). i mean, if she loved the Classics so much, shouldn't she have enjoyed reading and teaching them?
this woman really spoiled Lit for me when i was in school......

[alicialiv]

When did this suddenly become a thread of wits? Thanks to everyone who ANSWERED my question by giving their opinions. I guess the idea of reading something for pleasure has become lost on literary critics who condemn 'simple novels'. Thanks again for everyones reviews!

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I don't think anyone's criticising reading for pleasure, or condemning 'simple novels', just the proposition that just because a book is enjoyable and popular, it deserves labelling as a 'classic'.

The actual dispute is about the meaning of the word classic. Does it simply describe a book written long ago, that is still popular today? Or does it imply that the book is somehow deeper and more intellectual in nature?

And ultimately, who are we to say whether a modern book is a classic or not? That task lies with future readers. Will they find that Stephen King & Nora Roberts still speak to them across the years and offer insights into their own situations? Or will some book that sold only a few thousand copies and that few of us has heard of be hailed as a 20th/21st century classic in the centuries to come?

The jury is out (and is likely to stay there for a hundred years at least!)

[The Unnamable]

Or will some book that sold only a few thousand copies and that few of us has heard of be hailed as a 20th/21st century classic in the centuries to come?

The jury is out (and is likely to stay there for a hundred years at least!)

Perhaps this is relevant to what you have said and perhaps not. To ‘celebrate’ the arrival of the Year 2000 the BBC (I think) conducted a poll for ‘Musician of the Millennium’. Mozart was second, narrowly beaten by Robbie Williams. If they conduct a similar poll for the year 3000, perhaps neither of them will be mentioned. However, if only one of them is, I know which one I’d expect to see. I love Robbie. He's so cute! :)

[Virgil]

When did this suddenly become a thread of wits? Thanks to everyone who ANSWERED my question by giving their opinions. I guess the idea of reading something for pleasure has become lost on literary critics who condemn 'simple novels'. Thanks again for everyones reviews!

No not on me. First priority is always entertainment. But, if it's only entertainment, what is there for us to discuss?

[rachel]

I have not really ever understood what classics actually means. If you talk to one intellectual it is human condition+philanthropy. another says human condition+religion. still another insists it is human condition +social lives of the time.
I don't know. But to me any book that has well formed and multi layered characters that cut deep into the heart and mind of the reader as well as allow us a peek of the way of life of a particular time and place plus is something that ten years later you can pick up and fall in love with all over again is a classic. Add to that it must, in my mind teach us something and have at least a smidgeon of good triumphing over evil.
other than that I really cannot define a classic.

[Virgil]

College professors can be overly intellectual, and frankly they themselves don't know why some things are classic and some aren't; they have a curriculum and if it's not part of it somehow it must be superficial. But that doesn't mean that there aren't reasons for considering something a classic (commonly referred to as being part of the cannon) and something that isn't. these are several considerations:

(a) craft and style. Did the writer create a most perfect structured work with the most elegant of writing style? Robert Louis Stevenson comes to mind here.

(b) Originality of ideas. Has the writer thought through and expressed ideas, especially those that reflect the human condition, that no one else has presented? Golding's Lord of the Flies suddenly just came to mind.

(c) Aestheic vision. Has the author constructed a work whose aesthics refelcts his society and the world view of his times. Dante's Divine Comedy is the absolute best example.

(d) Originality of artistry. Is the writer just writing the same old story but with different names and settings? Or has he taken a story (and there are only a small amount of story types to choose from) and cast in in a new way to amke it interesting? Joyce's Ullyses comes to mind here.

There may be other reasons that I can't think of. I'm not judging any of the authors you mention. Frankly I've barely read any of them. Just remember, lots of writers were put down as poor by the intellectual ellites, but over time were proven to be classics. Fundementally, if you enjoy it, read it. But don't ignore the classics either. A lot of work and discussion has gone into them by lots of people to establish their greatness.

Rachel - On page 1 of this thread I gave some of the considerations as to what makes a classic. I've quoted it above. As you can see it doesn't necessarily have to do with philosophy or human condition. It can, but it doesn't have to. First consideration is always the artistry. For those who insist on something abstract or overly intellectual as human condition, then I would suggest that the writer write an essay or a work of philosophy, not a work of fiction.

[rachel]

yes I can agree with that, but that is not what I have been told in school. depending upon my teacher it was always something different and I admit I gave up listening to any of them and just took what I felt in my heart to be a classic.
thank you very much. Now I am the wiser.

[mia wallace]

i tried to check out a danielle steele book from the library once when i was younger, because i thought the cover was pretty. my mom told me to put it back because it was trash. i concider her very well read, so i put it back and never bothered to read any of her books since.
but once she told me to put back naked lunch by william s burroughs and i did. but later i checked it out with my dad, and later still, i bought it.

[genghiskhan]

I understand that their books are not The Classics but should we shun books simply based on the fact that they are not full of literary commentary, alluisons, and such?


Yes.

1234567890

[genghiskhan]

So my question is this: Is there such a thing is a modern classic? Could such books as Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Wizard of Oz be considered a classic. What about Steinbeck? He seems very modern. Is he a classic author? Just some questions to ponder.

It depends on what you consider modern, but I'd consider some contemporary literature potential classics. Richard Russo's works, for instance.

[genghiskhan]

A good way to distinguish between classics and run-of-the-mill popular novels is that classics leave a lasting impression while non-classics leave you soon after you put the book down. Classics get better each time you read them(there's more depth), while non-classics seem less interesting each time(you've discovered all there is to know the first time).


True. I'd also say there has to be some balance between form (literary style) and function (story).

[genghiskhan]

I often meet people, who think the opposite - anything that is elder than fifty years is not worth of their attention. They get annoyed with sentances longer than five words, and judge the book by its age, its cover, the author, saying that it doesnt have anything to do with the world we know today.


This has some truth to it. There are a lot of people, at least in my experience, that think they are readers, but don't really read anything that doesn't have Fabio on the cover.

[genghiskhan]

A prime example of implicit dumbing down.

Or perhaps you reject the idea of a dumbing down influence at work and instead ascribe all condemnation of its effects as the recalcitrance of an elite terrified by the waning of their power? I am not looking back in anger but forward in despair and around in disgust.

The multicultural aesthetic, to which we should all subscribe, insists that all values are now relative and the only absolute judgments to be made are those that condemn the ‘High Culture’ of the past. History itself is being rewritten as apology. I do not subscribe to view that the entire Western tradition (now dismissed contemptuously as ‘elitist’ and, of course, ‘racist’) is simply another form of white male oppression. All we have been witnessing is the replacement of an ‘elite’ system with a populist agenda through the insistence that everyone is equal and every opinion valid. The remarkable thing about this process is the way that it has advanced unchecked by the charge that there is nothing egalitarian about it.

I am in favour of elites, as are you all. ‘Elite’ refers to “the best or most skilled members of a group”. If I were to have major brain surgery (and I’m sure some of you think that I have had it and it all went horribly wrong), then I would want the operation performed by the best, the medical elite. Any person whose opinion it is that such operations should be carried out with a large dessert spoon covered in custard might have an opinion but not one that I would consider valid. The day will come when we have blind airline pilots.

Very, very, very well said. Kudos.

[Chinaski]

The point is Stephen King etc. are all ripping yarns when you are a teenager - I read every King, every pice of sci-fi/fantasy etc I could get my hands on. You will realise that they are pants as you get older!

That's not to say there is no great contemporary fiction - but not by the authors cited at the beginning of this thread. And while I'm at it, I think people talking about Harry Potter, The Da VInce Code etc when they are older than 17 should really be on a non literature site/start reading something else. But then I'm a curmudgeonly git!

[Bookworm Cris]

I´ve read Harry Potter, Agatha Christie, Isaac Asimov, Stephen King, Danielle Steel, Nora Roberts, Judith Krantz, The Da Vinci Code, and many others criticized here for being "non-classics", or, worse, "trash".
What I think: There are books that you read only for entertainment, and, if they bring you something more, some pearls of wisdom or points for reflection, better. I include in this category Steel, Roberts, Krantz and Agatha Christie (All novels are the same novel, only changes the characters, the places, and some minor plot devices). That doesn´t mean that I don´t like these books. On the contrary, I like them a lot.
And there are books that deal with universal themes, feelings, emotions, situations that everybody has, at least once in a lifetime, or all the time (jealousy, hate, greed, all seven capital sins in this list. After all, we´re only humans). Among these, are the "classics", and I include Potter, LOTR, and all good stuff like Dickens, Austen, Steinbeck, and many others. These are books that make us think, reflect, and bring us more than words.
And in the end, each one of us chooses his list of favourite books, it´s subjective, and up to ourselves.
By the way: I like to read everything, and judge later . I´ve found some very good books, and some trash, but at least I´ve read them first.

[Chinaski]

Of cousre it's all subjective etc. etc. - but don't make out JK Rowling is in anyway a great author. It's just silly.

[WaxDoll]

Of cousre it's all subjective etc. etc. - but don't make out JK Rowling is in anyway a great author. It's just silly.
LOL… I agree. The fifth book was disappointing. I mean, it wouldn’t hurt if you tried not using the same root word three different times in two sentences. Not saying I’m any better or anything. My writing is horrific :D

[Dark Lady]

To be fair the 'Harry Potter' books are for CHILDREN and although a lot of adults (including myself) have read and enjoyed them they are never going to measure up to most of the classics because there is only so much you can do with children's literature before it becomes something most children will not understand.

Personnally I am of the opinion that it is more important that people READ - whatever that may be - than what they read because it is an experience unlike any other. It just so happened that out of all the books on my reading list at uni this semester the most recently written was the only one I really disliked (grrr Philip Roth...sorry I won't start here) and I liked all the classics on the list. However, I have loved some of the random trash I've read and disliked some of the classics ('Wuthering Heights'? - seriously? Was I missing something?). Just read what you enjoy!