Relevance of classic texts

[gjone]

What is your opinion on the relevance of classic literature and canonical texts to modern day society? Are they, in your opinion, only good for curiosity? Or are there deeper meanings?

[chasestalling]

In terms of sales and revenues, irrelevant.

In terms of influence and staying power, immeasurable.

[aabbcc]

It is not about curiosity as much as about education; yes, important. However, I consider them important to be, in general, familiar with, not important in sense that they should be adored and created myth of by the sole fact they are classics (which is way too often done). Whether they are important in today's life it is up to you, and meanings exist only if you wish to see them.

[jgweed]

While I am not sure what precisely is meant by classical texts, many of these are far more relevant to modern life than much of the babble written today to satisfy the reader on the subway. Either they touch with sure hands the common chords that harmonise humanity, or they show us a vista from a different peak we would otherwise have passed by.

There is a tendency in the present culture to dismiss much of its genealogy, but in compressing and limiting importance to the present, [and thereby redefining relevance] the trend also diminishes all the variety and much of the greatness humanity has produced.

[stlukesguild]

Relevance? In what sense? One might just as easily ask "What is the relevance of modern day society upon art?"

[Equality72521]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by relevant, but I think I understand. But, reading them could be good for curiosity, but sincerly I think that much more meaning went into the "classical texts" opposed to that of "novels" or books today. They have deeper insightful meanings than stories told today, which can be entertaining, but you truly gain no real meaning or lesson from them.

What I would consider an actual novel would be something that isn't just mere plot but has a theme that can be relevant even in future times, which a lot of classical texts are able to convey. So I guess there goes your relevance factor, it's relevant if the theme or lesson can be convey in todays life, even if it is from two hundred years ago, etc.

[JBI]

To understand America, or any country, one must track it to its developing factors. To me, the source of modern American culture seems to be Emersonian to the core. If one wishes to even begin to understand American religion, American politics, American identity, one must read Emerson, and must read his contemporaries, Melville, Hawthorne, Thoreau and Whitman. But even more than that, and this can be applied to any country with a distinct/unique cultural background/development, and it is just a 'practical reason'.

When one reads the best of the best, they are a) increasing their cognitive power, b) increasing their rhetoric power, c) gaining a cultural experience and d) enjoying a beautiful thing, which cannot be bad. One reads to increase ones intelligence, enjoy ones time, and recreate one's life. Literature even to this day seems the foundation of society (society seems incredibly shaped by what is read) and it is important to read in order to understand what life is about, and to truly have some sort of meaning.

In addition to this, those that can read or do read generally do better in life than those that don't. Those that can read the best of the best generally achieve more than those who read the tabloids. How is one supposed to take control of their life, if they have no direction. How is one to make use of one's life, if they are stuck behind a T.V. screen. How is one to even know who to vote for, if they are unable to understand the politician's rhetoric, or their platform.

But there is more than that, there is a sense of knowledge that is gained by the best of the best. An irreplaceable wisdom which comes from contemplating something over and over again. A sense of identity by understanding character, and a sense of experience by breathing in setting.

That being said, this does not apply to bad works. Bad works do nothing for the reader but waste time. It is the job of time and the critics to narrow down the field, as to enable us to enjoy the best of the best, without having to read dated rubbish, or third rate contemporary fiction.

That being said, one should also read contemporary fiction, and not just classics or canonical works. But classics and canonical works are essential to understanding and appreciating contemporary works, and also have the advantage of already being thoroughly sifted by academics, and therefore are continuously of superb quality.

[Alex Sheremet]

What is your opinion on the relevance of classic literature and canonical texts to modern day society? Are they, in your opinion, only good for curiosity? Or are there deeper meanings?

Art and literature are fairly meaningless to most of society -- perhaps, later on, they might become important, but I suspect there are greater problems to solve. The abstract rarely permeates society as a whole, unless it somehow becomes "tangible."

As for classic literature, etc., it depends on what you mean by "relevance." Certainly, most "canonical" texts as canonical on account of their quality -- there are some exceptions, quibbles, etc., but generally, good stuff is remembered. Also, ancient authors have great technical excellence.

But, I suspect the sheer literary output of English and other modern languages far outweighs Greek, Latin, etc., in quality and range. After all, we're talking about hundreds of undeniable classics from centuries of time and multiple nations and continents against a rather small number of extant antiquities. In terms of "practical" knowledge, you're far better off, say, reading a modern Marxist analysis of ancient wars than Livy or Polybius, for obvious reasons: new historical knowledge, exacting standards for contemporary scholarship, and sophisticated critical ability as opposed to the mythologized stuff of ancient authors, whose intentions, biases, and non-peer-reviewed output might be questionable.

But, I'm a big advocate of artistic romance -- I love ancient stuff, partly for its "life across centuries" appeal, and partly for the quality of its writing.

[JCamilo]

Art and literature are fairly meaningless to most of society -- perhaps, later on, they might become important, but I suspect there are greater problems to solve. The abstract rarely permeates society as a whole, unless it somehow becomes "tangible."

.

I do not know a single long-standing society that didn't preserved culture and his main represation (Art). The religious society always had power when linked to art to express their myths, stories and philosophies. The scientific word needed a marriage with art to change the tip, the first date with the Renascense and later with the Enlightment. Not only powerful as toy of control, communication or education, Art is often so rooted inside the society that I doubt we could even be humans without it.

[stlukesguild]

To understand America, or any country, one must track it to its developing factors. To me, the source of modern American culture seems to be Emersonian to the core. If one wishes to even begin to understand American religion, American politics, American identity, one must read Emerson, and must read his contemporaries, Melville, Hawthorne, Thoreau and Whitman.

I don't disagree with you... and certainly you would be restating Harold Bloom's own assertions. On the other hand... you are Canadian. Where does one need to begin to understand Canadian cultural identity? Just curious. I've read very little by Canadian authors myself outside of Anne Carson.

[patrickbeverley]

Classics are important for two reasons:

They're nearly all good, and that's why they've survived: Hamlet and Great Expectations aren't just clever and long-lived, they're really good reads;

They have a continuing influence on culture. Kurt Vonnegut's Happy Birthday Wanda June is a great play on its own, and a great comment on late 20th-century America, but it's also an adaptation of The Odyssey. And Nick Hornby wouldn't be the good novelist he is without Charles Dickens; nor would Dickens be as good without Shakespeare, and nor would Shakespeare be as good without Plutarch and Kyd and all these people behind him. The nature of influence means you have to look backwards to understand the authors writing now. But there again, Nick Hornby is still good even if you don't read Dickens first; what matters is that he has.

[cipherdecoy]

Classics are called classics because they're timeless and have passed the test of time. They're relevant in that they develop a deeper understanding of the human condition which is something that doesn't change.

[JBI]

To understand America, or any country, one must track it to its developing factors. To me, the source of modern American culture seems to be Emersonian to the core. If one wishes to even begin to understand American religion, American politics, American identity, one must read Emerson, and must read his contemporaries, Melville, Hawthorne, Thoreau and Whitman.

I don't disagree with you... and certainly you would be restating Harold Bloom's own assertions. On the other hand... you are Canadian. Where does one need to begin to understand Canadian cultural identity? Just curious. I've read very little by Canadian authors myself outside of Anne Carson.

It's actually quite complex because Canadian literature, and Canadian identity are not actually definable, because of exterior influences. In truth, Canadian literature does not even speak for all of Canada, and is quite provincial.

Though that is true, French Canada, which is a culture of its own, is easier to place. Gabrielle Roy for prose seems the root of French Canadian culture, especially her early novels, which seem to have prophesied the Quiet Revolution.

From there it is a little tricky. One looks to the Confederation school of poetry for a 'Canadian Spirit', but none of those poets seem to be good, or even readable. Surely Bliss Carmen is dated, Sangster is boring, Lampman unenduring, and Duncan Campbell Scott a most disgusting person, with disgusting messages and motives in his poetry (which is mediocre as well). Still even if we look to later days, no definite figure emerges.

I guess though, the problem is not in that, but more in the fact that Canadian Cultural Identity still really hasn't manifested itself in Canadian letters. There are the odd novelists, and fewer poets who seem to speak of aspects of Canadian identity, but no one has, nor do I think it is possible, spoken for everyone, and stood out as the Canadian Whitman, or the Canadian Goethe.
Even outside the arts and such, no one seems to be able to map out Canadian culture, to the point where they teach in schools, "America is a cultural melting pot which amalgamates all their foreigners into 'Americans' while Canada is a 'Cultural Mosaic' which gets its identities from all of its identities." Sure that statement is somewhat biased (what do you expect from government schools?), but I do not think they are far from wrong.

Still, to understand England, look to Wordsworth, to understand France look to Flaubert, or Zola, to understand Germany look to Goethe. Our cultures are made up of figureheads, who all seem to be literary, since letters affect culture more than anything else, it would seem.

[blazeofglory]

What is your opinion on the relevance of classic literature and canonical texts to modern day society? Are they, in your opinion, only good for curiosity? Or are there deeper meanings?

Classic literature birthed modern literature or to put it differently modern literature is nothing but an evolution of classic literature into new form of expression. As there is nothing new, all originate from a source and get mixed up other elements and seem a bit different. But all literature, both modern and ancient do not differ at the base. Only we go deeply we do not arrive at any difference, and any perceived difference is only cursorily seen, not deeply and profoundly in point of fact.

[patrickbeverley]

to understand England, look to Wordsworth
Oh, I do hope not.

Couldn't we have Shakespeare or Coleridge as our representative instead?

[bounty]

What is your opinion on the relevance of classic literature and canonical texts to modern day society? Are they, in your opinion, only good for curiosity? Or are there deeper meanings?

gjone, i read across the spectrum and have identified a number of personal responses to what i read---and overwhelmingly, when i read classic literature, i leave with a very strong sense of having been edified.

[stlukesguild]

JBI... just curious as to what was being put forth as the foundations of Canadian culture as independent from American or their French and British heritage. Considering the age of Canada as an independent entity its probably not surprising that a unique Canadian vision has not congealed into an artistic form. In spite of the fact that Durer, Cranach, Holbein and others (to say nothing of the Gothic sculptors and architects) had established a unique German artistic vocabulary by the Renaissance, and Bach, Handel, and several of their predecessors had established a German identity in music not long after, Goethe and the establishment of a serious body of German literature is actually quite a late-comer... considering what had already transpired in France, Britain, Spain, Italy, even Portugal. Intriguingly... for me... the US contributions to the visual arts were quite the late-comer. There were very good painters early on (Benjamen West, Thomas Cole, Thomas Moran, Kensett, Ralph Blakelock, Hugh Fitz Lane, Church, Gilbert Stuart, Thomas Pynkham Ryder, and George Inness) but essentially they were all deeply indebted to British (and to a smaller degree, French) models which they never really broke free of. Early American Modernists are equally trapped into the position of being followers of European Modernists (French and German), unlike American Modernists in literature. It isn't until the mid-20th century that the visual arts (outside of film) break free. This period... which was over-praised with some of the most grandiloquent critical prose ever written, rapidly burned itself out, and in spite of the fact that the US and especially New York remains THE market for art, the leading edge of developments in the visual arts are far more likely to be discovered in Germany (re-establishing itself after being decimated by the Nazis), Britain (quite surprising), and Asia (Japan and China beginning to fully digest the Western influences and rediscover their own voice).

[kasie]

I hesitate to ask but why is it surprising that Britain should be one of the leaders in the development of visual art?

[JBI]

JBI... just curious as to what was being put forth as the foundations of Canadian culture as independent from American or their French and British heritage. Considering the age of Canada as an independent entity its probably not surprising that a unique Canadian vision has not congealed into an artistic form. In spite of the fact that Durer, Cranach, Holbein and others (to say nothing of the Gothic sculptors and architects) had established a unique German artistic vocabulary by the Renaissance, and Bach, Handel, and several of their predecessors had established a German identity in music not long after, Goethe and the establishment of a serious body of German literature is actually quite a late-comer... considering what had already transpired in France, Britain, Spain, Italy, even Portugal. Intriguingly... for me... the US contributions to the visual arts were quite the late-comer. There were very good painters early on (Benjamen West, Thomas Cole, Thomas Moran, Kensett, Ralph Blakelock, Hugh Fitz Lane, Church, Gilbert Stuart, Thomas Pynkham Ryder, and George Inness) but essentially they were all deeply indebted to British (and to a smaller degree, French) models which they never really broke free of. Early American Modernists are equally trapped into the position of being followers of European Modernists (French and German), unlike American Modernists in literature. It isn't until the mid-20th century that the visual arts (outside of film) break free. This period... which was over-praised with some of the most grandiloquent critical prose ever written, rapidly burned itself out, and in spite of the fact that the US and especially New York remains THE market for art, the leading edge of developments in the visual arts are far more likely to be discovered in Germany (re-establishing itself after being decimated by the Nazis), Britain (quite surprising), and Asia (Japan and China beginning to fully digest the Western influences and rediscover their own voice).

I wasn't really talking about art, but cultural trends. Goethe seems to be the model of the German 'spirit' as I take it, because of his timing. Romanticism was really, in my opinion, the foundation of nationalism as we see it in Europe, and then later in the U.S. After all, Longfellow's popularity in his own day seems rooted in the fact that he was American, and not British, being that the market was looking for an American identity, and he fit well enough (though they over-estimated his artistic abilities).

As for other art forms, they shape the aesthetic of a nation/region to some extent, but I feel literature has a deeper impact (especially historically) because it can be read anywhere. There were plenty of copy-cat suicides after Goethe published his Werther, but I don't know of any sway to imitate a painter, or a sculptor, or an architect. A Building may develop itself into a unique art-form that can sway people, but it can't be brought into every living room the same way Rousseau's Julie was, or the way Scott's novels were.

That being said, the reason there is no defining figure in Canadian literature, is because Canadian nationalism, historically, was tied to British nationalism. The Canadian constitution wasn't even brought home to Canadian power until 1982 (though Canadian independence seems to have evolved somewhere between World War 1 and World War 2 on the primary level, and then further after World War 2 on a higher level).

Canadians watch American television, eat in American fast food chains, read a mix of Canadian and American news (you don't find nearly as much Canadian news in American papers as you do American news in Canadian papers), and read books mostly from America, with British ones thrown in. In truth, Canadian literature was not even a real subject in universities until the last 30 years, despite the fact that there have been some major Canadian critics (Northrop Frye comes to mind first, of course).

When thinking of Canadian literature, everyone looks for common trends, uniquenesses that are apparent throughout Canada, the same way you can decipher movements within European literature, styles and trends within countries, and major influences that are a countries own.

In terms of poetry, Whitman seems to have enveloped Canada, as did the American Modernists, to the point that it is difficult to distinguish (except for the fact that there really isn't as strong a poet in that time period as there were in the U.S.). In truth, Canadian literature seems to be, up until around 1950, a mix of both American and British influences (this is excluding French Canada again, which seemed to manifest itself into its own form as early as 1920).

In prose, there are some big names who have influence, one looks to someone like Robertson Davies as a major figure, but even then he was too late to have the impact needed to stop American literature from becoming the Canadian norm (it takes time to develop a Canadian canon, and in this day and age it is far different) and secondly, his influence seems to be immense in Ontario, but rather silent elsewhere. There are other figures, Gabrielle Roy seeming to me to be the second best bet, but even she didn't gain as big a following in Canada as lets say Faulkner, or Virginia Woolf.

There have been critics who have tried to define Canadian literature (Frye seems to have joked about doing so in his own work) such as Atwood, though her attempts have been unscholarly at best, laughable at worst. Really, there are brief sparks of Canadian uniqueness, but they all seem to be just sparks, or temporary things. Nothing quite sticks the same way American or British letters do.

That being said, that does not mean one should read from only their country, on the contrary, though it does mean one should keep country in context when reading, which is essential to understand the work. As it is, language seems to be the most important developer of trends, and then politics. American and British literature are different because of a traditional British colonial self superiority, and because of American pride and nationalism. A country like Canada lacks both of those, and a unique language of its own, so it merely just pastiches all its indigenous groups' literature as "Canadian Literature" and doesn't define itself (though, you can still learn about an individual group/time in Canada by flipping through their literature, and French Canada has developed itself into its own trend, despite English Canada's refusal to do so).