On Tackling Bloom's Western Canon [Archive]

JBI

03-02-2010, 12:37 AM

Some of the authors on that list are going to be really difficult to find in translation too.

Anne Hebert, who despite being probably the greatest French Canadian poet, and the only French Canadian on Bloom's list, is next to impossible to find in translation. She pretty much only appears in anthologies of Canadian literature.

I find it difficult to think of any one person who would be interested in every author on that list. I find Dryden and Defoe intolerably boring. On the other hand, I greatly enjoy Edmund White's fiction (a central figure in American gay lit), but find it hard to imagine most people being comfortable with the explicit homosexuality of his work.

There is actually a very sizable translation entitled Poems that should be available. There was also a shorter selection done by F. R. Scott which is very, very short, though bilingual, and probably impossible to get a hold of outside of a library.

In terms of the list - the list is rather meh - too many books that aren't essentially really. The poetry is probably the best selection of the lot, but the last Chaotic age after about 1950 gets kind of crappy. The rest of the list is rather cliché and pretty much standard, besides a bit of over-emphasis on English literature (given that he is an English reader).

Personally though, I wouldn't really want to read that list, though I have read probably 90% of the poetry outside of the modern era in his English sections. It is good as a suggestion guide, but to adhere to it?

Lets just say a strong idiom for translating from Persian, Arabic, Japanese, and Chinese has emerged, as well as a more easily and older tradition of Indian writing, and other forms. What that means is that English is really no longer, at least on this side of the world (Western Hemisphere) a European or "Western" language. In addition to that, other languages like French, have also emerged as non-specifically Western, in that they have strong traditions of translation.

What that means really is that this list, if one wishes to explore all of great literature, is a bit dated, in terms of practicality and relevance.

I like to think of the publication of Pound's Cathay as the point really in which, at least for English, the notion of Western really collapsed. Beyond that too, the code of the Bible and Roman/Greek classics has been merged, or abandoned with or for other codes and roots - the whole notion of Western literature has been dying for quite a time, and with good cause.

If you indeed try to go through the list, I would recommend skipping books that don't interest you, as you will go through it much faster - no point reading Clarissa (I think that's on the list) if you find it going nowhere, as Johnson put it, "Why, Sir, if you were to read Richardson for the story, your impatience would be so much fretted that you would hang yourself." (or something along those lines anyway).

Just read what interests you - no need to stick to somebody's list - the goal of the foundation in canons is so that you can begin to make your own mind up, not so that you can have your mind made up for you.

DanielBenoit

03-02-2010, 12:57 AM

Modest Proposal

03-02-2010, 01:13 AM

DanielBenoit

03-02-2010, 01:19 AM

JBI

03-02-2010, 01:35 AM

This post doesn't really make sense. How can the list compiling the western canon be faulted for neglecting the global canon?

That is like saying the list of the best movies neglects eight-tracks.

Read the list and follow it for what it is. Bloom admits that it is his list and that it is not complete nor concrete. He also very clearly titles it the western canon. If you are interested in reading the western canon, this list is a great place to start. If you want to find the best mini-golf courses than this list is really poor and shows Mr. Blooms litrocentric ideology...

Litrocentric my ***. The concept of East and West is hardly defined as such. What he should have said was the "French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and English canon." The Moors were far more Western in Europe than the Germans were.

As it happens though, Aristotle was from Egypt - not a Western country by this definition - and Aristotle was rediscovered through Eastern means. The emphasis on a "separate" tradition is totally contrived.

By West it really seems to mean 4 countries, and then later a fifth, the US. Hardly a representative canon of anything, besides the ethnocentricity of education in the first half of the 20th century.

To suggest, for instance, that Rumi is less important to the so called Western tradition than half of those Elizabethan poets is just a plain old insult to literature itself.

There is no real West, and therefore, there really isn't a Western canon - there is merely a world Canon, in the sense that both Europe and Asia were defined heavily by cross-Eurasian exchanges for hundreds of years. The emergence of English as a literary language comes hand in hand with the emergence of direct contact with the 'New World', but also with more direct contact with the "East."

What is there to suggest then, that Chinese Buddhist classics, which brought the emergence of tea culture, and then the porcelain trade had less of an effect on English letters as Michael Drayton - the concept of the English gentleman is so entwined with tea (sometimes even referred to in England, so I am told, by the Chinese name of Cha) that one can assume that without tea there is no literature dealing with such topics. But that is a stretch example - direct contact with Middle Eastern sources was much more defined - Erasmus himself in his adage "War is Sweet for those who don't know it" Already was playing with the exchanges. The concept of an isolated West is a fallacy - quite simply, half of Europe was controlled by foreign "Eastern" forces at one time or another.

But that doesn't push the point of argument - what is it about the so called "Western canon" that justifies it as something which should be read with the exclusion of "Eastern canons", and what about it makes it so relevant today over other traditions? That is the main flaw - the fact that for a mixed-Jewish Canadian who studies Chinese in Toronto, Western is neither more important than Eastern, nor a sense of pride or identification. And, judging by the emergence of such forms as Haiku even in very good poetry, I think it is safe to say that the US for the most part would tend to agree.

Though, from what I am told, in Europe they still in some places regard themselves as the centre of the universe, so perhaps there "Western" means something.

stlukesguild

03-02-2010, 02:36 AM

As has been said before, the list is far too focused on English literature. Now of course it is the Western Canon, but to call the list essential is to throw out most non-Western essential reading. I was just in the bookstore today looking over Bloom's list and was rather put off by the fact that the Greeks dominate the first section, whilst classical Chinese and Middle-Eastern texts are scarce, with only the most foundational texts being included (Tao Te Ching, Bhavagad Gita, etc.) For example, I didn't catch The Book of Songs, Rumi, Du Fu or Ferdowsi. Yes it is a Western Canon, but to leave these important figures out is to neglect half of the Global Canon.

This post doesn't really make sense. How can the list compiling the western canon be faulted for neglecting the global canon?

I must agree. I wouldn't be likely to fault a survey of Western Art History for not having included the Taj Mahal, Ankhor Wat, Utamaro, Hokusai, or Li Ch'eng any more than I would fault a survey of German literature for not including Proust, Dante, and Shakespeare.

The concept of East and West is hardly defined as such.

At least according to JBI. The rest of the world seems to have a set notion as to what Western Vs Non-Western culture amounts to.

The Moors were far more Western in Europe than the Germans were.

As it happens though, Aristotle was from Egypt - not a Western country by this definition - and Aristotle was rediscovered through Eastern means. The emphasis on a "separate" tradition is totally contrived.

By West it really seems to mean 4 countries, and then later a fifth, the US. Hardly a representative canon of anything, besides the ethnocentricity of education in the first half of the 20th century.

Sorry JBI, but you don't get to define what is or is not Western Civilization. We can all nit-pick about specifics; we can all rail about the exclusion of the Moorish/Islamic/Andalusian contributions to Western culture or argue that Greece is part of the East or that Egypt and the Hebrew Biblical author are not part of the West... but it comes down to what art and literature has been absorbed by Western culture and has become part of the concept of a narrative of Western Civilization. Certainly, these divisions are becoming less and less clear as a result of travel, trade, shifting populations... and the simple fact that Asian, South America, Africa, etc... are no longer so inaccessible. There is still, however, a great inaccessibility to the culture... especially to the literature... as a result of inadequate translations.

One argument against Bloom is that his list is heavily weighted toward English language literature. That is just sheer ignorance. Of course its weighted toward the literature of the English language. It was written by an English-speaking author. Just how much of the literature of France or Italy or Spain is available to the English language reader? Certainly, I have access to the most major authors of France in English translations... but how many writers of real merit who are of a somewhat lesser tier... a French equivalent of William Wilkie Collins or George Herbert or Thomas Traherne (as opposed to Shakespeare, Dickens, and Blake) are unavailable? As the language becomes more removed from contact with the English-speaking world the number of available translations decreases. How many Polish, Hungarian, or Norwegian writers are available in English? In other words... Bloom might have greatly expanded his list to include far more Spanish, French, Italian, Hebrew, and Russian writers... but of what use would this be if these works are completely inaccessible to the English-language reader? And if the access to the literature of France or Spain or Germany is so limited, just imagine how limited it is to the entire worlds of Chinese, Japanese, Persian, Indian, and Arabic literature.

There is no real West...

There's no West... there's no East... there's no France or no Germany... after all, these nationalistic boundaries are just as fluid... as indebted to the whims of history and shifting borders. But really... this is nothing but an intellectual Onanism. The vast majority of the world has a clear concept of what is included in Western Civilization and all Bloom's list offered was a list of what one reader felt were the essential works of that culture... not something insidious that suggests that the literature of the rest of the world is irrelevant or inferior. If I recall correctly, Bloom admitted his own lack of qualifications for including literature of the East. I doubt that you or I or anyone else here is more qualified. If anything, we can but offer a few suggestions confined to the few works we have read that have been well-translated.

But that doesn't push the point of argument - what is it about the so called "Western canon" that justifies it as something which should be read with the exclusion of "Eastern canons", and what about it makes it so relevant today over other traditions?

Whether you like it or not, the populations of Europe and North-America are rooted in the political systems, the philosophy, the religion, the traditions, the culture, and the population of the West. Yes, the Middle-East and Africa, and Asia have all made major contributions to Western culture... but whether you like it or not... whether you imagine we should all be embracing Chinese culture or whether I am enamored of Japanese, Persian, and Islamic culture... none of this will not change the fact that the contributions of France, England, Spain, etc... are more central to the current reality of civilization in the United States or Canada. The fact that you are "a mixed-Jewish Canadian who studies Chinese in Toronto" misses the fact you also speak English and live in an English-speaking nation (with the addition of French) under a government rooted in Western European notions of law, human rights, education, etc... which would seemingly make you far more indebted to Europe than China or India... but of course you can pull out all sorts of inane ephemera and discuss the development of all the European languages from Indo-European roots, but it seems you are merely arguing for the sake of arguing.

mal4mac

03-02-2010, 07:21 AM

http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtbloom.html

Has anyone done this? If so how long did it take? I'm on my second year now and only just beginning Middle Ages >_< I estimated 5 years initially, but I realize now it will take much longer.

I am keen on finding other readers who have done this, are doing this, or plan to do this in hopes of forming an canon-readers e-circle/support group.

I've had Bloom since it first came out, and have read it several times. I didn't, initially, take him too seriously and just used him as a vague indication of who might be worth reading, but based my reading mostly on previous happy experiences. So I've read most of Tolstoy and Dickens, and several other "great novelists" - Cervantes, Hardy, Eliot, Austen, Conrad, Joyce, Trollope,...

Bloom was a very useful steer, in that he was always nudging me to read classic authors rather than the latest trendy modern author. That vastly improved my enjoyment of reading. He was also a great steer in other ways, so I think you are right to place such great value on his book -- just ignore his list and re-read the main body of the text.

In recent years I've tried to "get into" some of Bloom's more difficult recommendations, with *some* joy. I found mixing my reading made things much easier. For instance: tackle a difficult author *and* read Dickens or Tolstoy at the same time.

To make your task doable in five years (maybe!) then forget about the list! Bloom has disowned it anyway. Concentrate on his recommendations in the main body of the book. Also, concentrate on finding "readable" translations.

Last year I evolved a resolution to read all of Bloom's 'main body' recommendations, so I'd be more than happy to join in with your group.

wessexgirl

03-02-2010, 09:57 AM

I couldn't agree more St Lukes. If you want a list deriving from the rest of the world, then don't go for the Western Canon. I really can't understand the logic behind having a go at that list for not doing what it doesn't set out to do. It's not rocket science........!

As for some of the names mentioned outside of the WC, I haven't even heard of them. Now I know I will get slated for admitting that, when I have, what I think, is a very good knowledge of literature, (after all it's my job as well as my interest). But surely only those specialising in literature from around the world would be completely knowledgeable about some of them. I'm sure if we were all studying world literature we could bandy names around, willy nilly (so to speak :D), but all it proves is that you know a few names from other cultures, but you can't seem to grasp the basic tenet of a list of the Western Canon, that it contains....wait for it.......and this may surprise you....:rolleyes5: literature from the West.

JBI

03-02-2010, 10:31 AM

What is the West St. Lukes - give me a clear border. As it is, Russia, for the most part was under the same rule as China for years. I don't see any Eastern European classics on in his canon (besides near the end), and quite frankly, the canon might as well be called The English French Italian Spanish German canon. So tell me, where is this west you speak of? Even something like manuscript illumination in the rather isolated middle ages was not immune to "non-western" influence, and we must remember that the bulk of the first stage of his canon was preserved in either Alexandria or written in what is now Israel.

And don't say according to JBI either - just because you see the world as divided doesn't mean the rest of the world does. Bloom is rather alone in his insistence of such a division, and he is certainly the exception to common trends, not the norm, though you of course have called all modern criticism nonsense or rubbish in the past, and claim to not read it, so we can't fault you for not knowing that.

The argument of a certain special place, or uniqueness, or isolated tradition of politics is arguably contrived too. Simply put, Machiavelli in his prince held the Turkish model as the prime example of successful governing. Leibniz was preoccupied too with Chinese, as he thought the language a "natural" language, and simply put, it is said that of the two books Columbus brought with him on his voyage, one was the Bible and the second Marco Polo.

But of course, this would be nothing without the fact that according to Bacon's discussed great technological findings of his era, all somehow link back to China. The renaissance itself now is being argued to have been at least facilitated by the Chinese fleets that begun arriving in 1409. But lets not reject the fact that Turkish influence had been present in Europe since well before the Renaissance.

Perhaps you are right in suggesting that, for instance, Renaissance Italian painting was a specifically Italian development, but how long will we say that lasted, and can it not be suggested that the continents direct contact with Islam facilitated it? The Doge's palace in Venice for instance, although mostly remade after severe fire, betrays a vast array of paintings featuring direct conflict with Turkey. Are we to suggest no contact was happening?

Quite simply put, I think your idea of west is anachronistic - from what I understand, such views of history have been out of fashion for a while now - that's the purpose of the canon, because quite simply, there is no more grounding for an East or West.

By extension to, we can say there is no specific tradition. What that means really, is there is nothing that isolates - the same Bible influenced all sides of the world, and the same goes for the Ramayana, or any other number of texts.

What Bloom essentially did was use linguistics to impose a strong barrier between cultures, because, quite simply, in studying literature, he favors a Freudian reading, which does not take into account other forms of cultural expression or exchange within the time periods of the texts' composition. In that sense, German becomes a Western language, whereas the Turkish-influenced clothes the people writing the texts are wearing, and the Turkish influenced music they are listening to, and the Turkish influenced food they are eating, and the Turkish influenced paintings they are viewing are seen as merely secondary, and somehow untouched, or, perhaps in Bloom's argument, inconsequential and not substantial enough to "pollute" the western purity.

As for the last bit of your argument, they speak English in India, does that make it a Western country as well? What about the West Indies, or now China, which within 50 years probably will have more English speakers than anywhere else in the world, given that everybody there studies English (though of course not very well right now).

Or why don't we take it further; French speaking Vietnamese people automatically are Western, North Africa is part of the west, as it speaks French.

Or, we could have more fun with this, lets say everywhere where the Bible reigns supreme as central text. Well, where better than Modern day South Korea - a Western country by that definition I am sure. Or perhaps it has to do with literary influence, or economic strength, or any other factor?

Tell me, what makes English a Western language, and Canada have "Western Values". Technically, the official policy of this little country here is Multiculturalism - I don't see how the Western values really factor in, or are you suggesting that the Biblical code developed in the Middle East is somehow a Western construction now, or that law in itself, and rights of humans is somehow monopolized by Europeans?

As it is, Canadian literature isn't really included in any sort of Western canon, and French Canadians are even worse off. But then again, Bloom has stated more than once that he thinks the future of American intellectual and artistic life is probably going to begin to be dominated by new immigrants coming from the so called "East", so even the ethnocentric glue keeping this scheme together, by his admission, seems to be crumbling.

Lets be honest - there has essentially been a long line of contact from Portugal all the way through to Korea since the Middle ages. The presence of Jewish and Christian places of worship in 7th century Chang'an (modern day Xi'an) China attests to it. It just so happened that the "West" as it were took a longer time benefiting from it.

milktea

03-02-2010, 12:49 PM

That's why I acknowledged it to be purely a Western canon. I am speaking in the context of the fact that if one were to use Bloom's list as a reading list for they're life, they would be deeply negligent of other cultural canons. I'm not criticizing Bloom, I'm rather in a sense criticizing the OP's choice in sticking to just the Western canon. Bloom's list is great, but not a list to live by.

Besides, if Bloom is including some non-Western writings in his 'Canon' we cannot think the analogy of movies and eight-tracks to be very genuine.

Hello? I never stated in my post that I was exclusively reading from this canon; I didn't even imply this.

Bloom included non-Western works which, according to him, influenced Western literature. And to quote Bloom's preface to the list: "The immense wealth of ancient Chinese literature is mostly a sphere apart from Western literary tradition and is rarely conveyed adequately in the translations available to us."

For the record, I'm not trying to start a Eastern slash Global versus Western canon debate, and I don't give a squat about movies or eight tracks. I just want to find others who are interested in reading Bloom's list or who have been there and done that. Can we stick to that topic please?

Edit: mal4mac, thank you for your reply. Hopefully others who are interested in even reading a part of the list won't be scared off by the OT debate going on in this thread. As I said, I've only read works from the theocratic age, but I have yet to read anything from the list that I did not like. I figure my opinion will change come the Democratic and Chaotic age (especially the latter). I don't like Dickens or James Joyce ^_^; That said, I had to read these authors to decide I didn't like them.

After reading the Bible in its entirety I find myself less patient when being subject to a bible-thumping best hits quotation session from Christians who haven't. I don't like when people argue about what they are ignorant about--the same goes for this list. For those who find this book list 'worthless', I can only assume that you have actually read the majority of books on the list to be so dismissive. If not please refrain from muddying this thread with your prejudices. I have only read a fraction and would like to form my own opinion about the majority of works listed here.

DanielBenoit

03-02-2010, 01:13 PM

Hello? I never stated in my post that I was exclusively reading from this canon; I didn't even imply this.

Bloom included non-Western works which, according to him, influenced Western literature. And to quote Bloom's preface to the list: "The immense wealth of ancient Chinese literature is mostly a sphere apart from Western literary tradition and is rarely conveyed adequately in the translations available to us."

For the record, I'm not trying to start a Eastern slash Global versus Western canon debate, and I don't give a squat about movies or eight tracks. I just want to find others who are interested in reading Bloom's list or who have been there and done that. Can we stick to that topic please?

Hey, sorry if I misread your post, it's nothing to get so offended by.

Hell, I was just criticizing reading exclusively Western works and how excluding important non-Western writers is negligent. I wasn't criticizing within the context of Blooms list (as I said before, it is a Western list) and if the OP didn't in fact imply that he was reading exclusively from Bloom's list, then I apologize.

Idk why people have to get so bent out of shape. I'm just arguing that literature has more to offer beyond the Western Canon, and since I was under the impression that Bloom had treated his list as something definitive I felt more at liberty to comment on that inconsistency.

milktea

03-02-2010, 03:28 PM

Hey, sorry if I misread your post, it's nothing to get so offended by.

Hell, I was just criticizing reading exclusively Western works and how excluding important non-Western writers is negligent. I wasn't criticizing within the context of Blooms list (as I said before, it is a Western list) and if the OP didn't in fact imply that he was reading exclusively from Bloom's list, then I apologize.

Idk why people have to get so bent out of shape. I'm just arguing that literature has more to offer beyond the Western Canon, and since I was under the impression that Bloom had treated his list as something definitive I felt more at liberty to comment on that inconsistency.

Well then, if your reading comprehension level is above that of a primate, the OP graciously accepts your apology--that is to say, more graciously than it was offered. (^_^)

I think--at least on this site--you're preaching to the choir. I figure we take for granted that a list of suggested Western works does not diminish the importance of non-Western works. No one challenged this. The issue everyone had with your post was simply that it didn't make sense. This thread will just get curiouser and curiouser if you persist in debating about the value of non-western literature on a 'is anybody reading' western canon thread.

No I did not order sushi, Mr. Delivery Guy. I ordered a pizza. Yes, I realize that sushi is delicious. No, I do not dislike the Japanese. No, I'm pretty sure my grandpa doesn't either. No, I didn't order the pizza for him. Yes, I realize that sushi is healthier. Well, I don't know the shop owner. He's a jerk who makes you work overtime? Urrh... uh... that's too bad. No, I'm not allergic to raw fish.
...
Umm... Mr. Delivery Guy, I appreciate your informative discourse on bonito fishing, but... I'd really like my pizza now.

For the record, being the OP, I'm pretty sure the OP isn't offended by your post. That said, I suggest that you think your ideas out a bit more and give what others post more than a perfunctory glance before promulgating them. ( ~o^).. <peace)

Modest Proposal

03-02-2010, 04:23 PM

That's why I acknowledged it to be purely a Western canon. I am speaking in the context of the fact that if one were to use Bloom's list as a reading list for they're life, they would be deeply negligent of other cultural canons. I'm not criticizing Bloom, I'm rather in a sense criticizing the OP's choice in sticking to just the Western canon. Bloom's list is great, but not a list to live by.

Besides, if Bloom is including some non-Western writings in his 'Canon' we cannot think the analogy of movies and eight-tracks to be very genuine.

Daniel, you've always seemed a reasonable and very intelligent person and I apologize for jumping on your post. In retrospect I see what you meant and have no problem with it.

I am more frustrated with what I believe is a growing political correctness in criticism that causes people to do one of two annoying things. First to trip all over themselves trying to not offend anyone, and hedging any points they want to make--"One might say that it is possible for a certain reader from a certain place to find Shakespeare's writing somewhat adequate..."

The other, and worse problem, is for people to abandon completely criticism that is too subjective (which is ironic because the forces in Acadamia pushing people toward this political correctitude are the same forces saying everything is subjective; you'd think that they would be fine with the most subjective criticism). The most exciting and interesting criticism is by people who don't shy from the fact that it is their opinion. Who cares if it's not everyone's opinion. Lawrence alternatingly lavishes praise and disparages Classic American works. Tolstoy famously shows his religious zealotry. Johnson offends many in his work. What is the problem? If you don't like a critic's point of view find a critic with which you agree. If there aren't any, then write your own criticism. Maybe someone's waiting for it.

I'm very tired of the messianic humanities mind-set. It is not our job to nullify all the possibilities for intolerance in the world by preaching banality. If you feel it is your job, then do it (cough JBI cough). But please don't ask me to subscribe to your religion. I've read up on it, and it doesn't hold up. I've seen it in action and it's nothing but sophistry. It leads no where.

As to the original poster. Chill out. I was trying to defend your choice of a lit guide (I didn't say a slave-master). Anyways, you should be ok with people discussing the periphery of the issues you raise. Bloom is great (in my politically incorrect and wholly subjective opinion) and I use his list to help me narrow down my next choice of reading material.

Modest Proposal

03-02-2010, 04:30 PM

Litrocentric my ***. The concept of East and West is hardly defined as such. What he should have said was the "French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and English canon." The Moors were far more Western in Europe than the Germans were.

As it happens though, Aristotle was from Egypt - not a Western country by this definition - and Aristotle was rediscovered through Eastern means. The emphasis on a "separate" tradition is totally contrived.

By West it really seems to mean 4 countries, and then later a fifth, the US. Hardly a representative canon of anything, besides the ethnocentricity of education in the first half of the 20th century.

To suggest, for instance, that Rumi is less important to the so called Western tradition than half of those Elizabethan poets is just a plain old insult to literature itself.

There is no real West, and therefore, there really isn't a Western canon - there is merely a world Canon, in the sense that both Europe and Asia were defined heavily by cross-Eurasian exchanges for hundreds of years. The emergence of English as a literary language comes hand in hand with the emergence of direct contact with the 'New World', but also with more direct contact with the "East."

What is there to suggest then, that Chinese Buddhist classics, which brought the emergence of tea culture, and then the porcelain trade had less of an effect on English letters as Michael Drayton - the concept of the English gentleman is so entwined with tea (sometimes even referred to in England, so I am told, by the Chinese name of Cha) that one can assume that without tea there is no literature dealing with such topics. But that is a stretch example - direct contact with Middle Eastern sources was much more defined - Erasmus himself in his adage "War is Sweet for those who don't know it" Already was playing with the exchanges. The concept of an isolated West is a fallacy - quite simply, half of Europe was controlled by foreign "Eastern" forces at one time or another.

But that doesn't push the point of argument - what is it about the so called "Western canon" that justifies it as something which should be read with the exclusion of "Eastern canons", and what about it makes it so relevant today over other traditions? That is the main flaw - the fact that for a mixed-Jewish Canadian who studies Chinese in Toronto, Western is neither more important than Eastern, nor a sense of pride or identification. And, judging by the emergence of such forms as Haiku even in very good poetry, I think it is safe to say that the US for the most part would tend to agree.

Though, from what I am told, in Europe they still in some places regard themselves as the centre of the universe, so perhaps there "Western" means something.

Wow JBI, you have reached a new low of misunderstanding. If you read my post that you responded to, you will find that my commenting on "litrocentric" had nothing to do with what was considered literary and even less to do with whether the Western tradition is better or even clearly defined. I was MERELY making a joke, saying someone thinking Bloom's work regarding books did not include mini-golf courses.
Get it?
The joke?
Saying the book, "The Western Canon", didn't include enough Global Canon is like saying a book about literature doesn't contain enough about golf courses.
Haha, now you get it. I can here you laughing all the way from S. California.
Or are you still just laughing because you beat us in hockey?

DanielBenoit

03-02-2010, 04:34 PM

Daniel, you've always seemed a reasonable and very intelligent person and I apologize for jumping on your post. In retrospect I see what you meant and have no problem with it.

Thanks Modest Proposal, I think all this coursework is getting to my head and I should really take one of these sometimes :chillpill:

I am more frustrated with what I believe is a growing political correctness in criticism that causes people to do one of two annoying things. First to trip all over themselves trying to not offend anyone, and hedging any points they want to make--"One might say that it is possible for a certain reader from a certain place to find Shakespeare's writing somewhat adequate..."

The other, and worse problem, is for people to abandon completely criticism that is too subjective (which is ironic because the forces in Acadamia pushing people toward this political correctitude are the same forces saying everything is subjective; you'd think that they would be fine with the most subjective criticism). The most exciting and interesting criticism is by people who don't shy from the fact that it is their opinion. Who cares if it's not everyone's opinion. Lawrence alternatingly lavishes praise and disparages Classic American works. Tolstoy famously shows his religious zealotry. Johnson offends many in his work. What is the problem? If you don't like a critic's point of view find a critic with which you agree. If there aren't any, then write your own criticism. Maybe someone's waiting for it.

I'm very tired of the messianic humanities mind-set. It is not our job to nullify all the possibilities for intolerance in the world by preaching banality. If you feel it is your job, then do it (cough JBI cough). But please don't ask me to subscribe to your religion. I've read up on it, and it doesn't hold up. I've seen it in action and it's nothing but sophistry. It leads no where.

For the most part I agree, and Bloom is right when he criticizes political correctness in literary criticism.

Modest Proposal

03-02-2010, 05:13 PM

Thanks Modest Proposal, I think all this coursework is getting to my head and I should really take one of these sometimes :chillpill:

For the most part I agree, and Bloom is right when he criticizes political correctness in literary criticism.

Not to add insult to injury for the OP by high-jacking this thread even more, but I just noticed you are in Green Bay. I'm probably headed for Madison, maybe I could get some information that a San Diegan might need for the change of scene?

milktea

03-02-2010, 08:56 PM

Not to add insult to injury for the OP by high-jacking this thread even more, but I just noticed you are in Green Bay. I'm probably headed for Madison, maybe I could get some information that a San Diegan might need for the change of scene?

Well, at least you've acknowledged the thread hijack. When I read your comment requesting that I chill out, I was going to snarkily point this out. I hang out in BBSs where people who hijack threads are caned before being reminded to get back on topic. However, I'm the newbie here, so I figured it's not really my place to preach netiquette.

I guess it would be better for me to change the title and topic of this thread and let you guys have at it. To be honest, though, I'm a bit skeptical about trusting the opinions of people who do not read carefully or argue thoughtfully. From a noob's perspective it seems like you guys are talking at each other rather than to each other, and if I had to sum up the OT debate here I could do it in 3Ps: pretentious, pedantic, and pointless. Sorry.

OrphanPip

03-02-2010, 09:14 PM

For the record, being the OP, I'm pretty sure the OP isn't offended by your post. That said, I suggest that you think your ideas out a bit more and give what others post more than a perfunctory glance before promulgating them. ( ~o^).. <peace)

He was using OP to mean "original post" not "original poster", it tends to be the normal use on this forum. It took me a bit of time to get used to.

You'll get used to Stlukes and JBI talking at each other eventually.

Edit: As to reading the list, I'm afraid it's a bit too large of a task for me.

Edit2: Or I guess not, it actually does seem he meant original poster, oh well.

DanielBenoit

03-02-2010, 09:41 PM

I guess it would be better for me to change the title and topic of this thread and let you guys have at it. To be honest, though, I'm a bit skeptical about trusting the opinions of people who do not read carefully or argue thoughtfully. From a noob's perspective it seems like you guys are talking at each other rather than to each other, and if I had to sum up the OT debate here I could do it in 3Ps: pretentious, pedantic, and pointless. Sorry.

Jeez dude, I'm not writing my undergraduate thesis with these posts, if I slip up or say something that is illogical you may point it out and correct me or have me clarify, but quit beating the dead horse.

As far as SLG and JBI go, where would litnet be without them? Yeah a lot of their posts are hijacks and endless bickering, but they are far from pointless and are very informative.

Ironically enough, ever since this thread has shifted its focus from the nature of East and West has it become rather errr, pointless.

Edit @OrphanPip: I can't even remember if OP really means "original post" or "original poster", I may as well just call them by their username if someone's going to get offended.

IceM

03-02-2010, 09:43 PM

Drkshadow03

03-02-2010, 10:17 PM

Literature is much more enjoyable if you read as you go. Given, Harold Bloom is a wonderful literary critic whose merit speaks for itself. But the thought of reading strictly what's featured in his "Western Canon" when he himself has abandoned it seems boring to say the least.

Just read whatever interests you at the time. It'd be far more enjoyable and wide-reaching than strolling through his canon, as foolish and callow as it sounds.

Oh, I don't know I do think there are some advantages to reading with some sort of plan. I had a reading plan for the Ancient Greeks where I followed a tentative list I developed. It allows one to view different treatments of the same story (such as the different treatment of Orestes in the Tragic playwrights), observe the development of the literature from Homer onward, find commonalities between themes in different works, and also learn about the culture itself through the literature. I think, especially if your trying to learn about the culture through literature, it is extremely useful to read works from the same period.

With that said, it can also be frustrating. My Roman reading list has been somewhat of a disaster; although I did cover most of the major works with a few exceptions, I had planned a far more extensive list of titles. So right now I'm just reading what I want.

However, I think one shouldn't underestimate the advantages of reading with some sort of coherent plan or guidelines.

JBI

03-02-2010, 10:26 PM

Wow JBI, you have reached a new low of misunderstanding. If you read my post that you responded to, you will find that my commenting on "litrocentric" had nothing to do with what was considered literary and even less to do with whether the Western tradition is better or even clearly defined. I was MERELY making a joke, saying someone thinking Bloom's work regarding books did not include mini-golf courses.
Get it?
The joke?
Saying the book, "The Western Canon", didn't include enough Global Canon is like saying a book about literature doesn't contain enough about golf courses.
Haha, now you get it. I can here you laughing all the way from S. California.
Or are you still just laughing because you beat us in hockey?

We are talking about Bloom's list, not the book, if you wish to discuss the book, I can give you enough insight into the mediocrity of scholarship as well as horrible misreading the book entails, as do most Freudian readings (not even Lacanian, so it is even more dated).

Besides which, I was just using your post as a starting point, there is no need to take yourself and your joke too seriously in this regard as clearly I was responding to St. Lukes and not you.

IceM

03-02-2010, 10:30 PM

Oh, I don't know I do think there are some advantages to reading with some sort of plan. I had a reading plan for the Ancient Greeks where I followed a tentative list I developed. It allows one to view different treatments of the same story (such as the different treatment of Orestes in the Tragic playwrights), observe the development of the literature from Homer onward, find commonalities between themes in different works, and also learn about the culture itself through the literature. I think, especially if your trying to learn about the culture through literature, it is extremely useful to read works from the same period.

With that said, it can also be frustrating. My Roman reading list has been somewhat of a disaster; although I did cover most of the major works with a few exceptions, I had planned a far more extensive list of titles. So right now I'm just reading what I want.

However, I think one shouldn't underestimate the advantages of reading with some sort of coherent plan or guidelines.

I'm suprised I didn't consider this.

It may seem a little hypocritical in my first response, considering I asked for literature recommendations for our book club, but unless one reads for the reasons you listed, I don't really see the necessity of having a plan. Sure, it's easy to start with one. I initially started with a hitlist of all the German authors I wanted to read. But I discovered after reading a few novels, the hitlist got boring. I started reading whatever intrigued me at the moment.

Sure, these results are subjective. But when I started at German literature, I drifted into Russian, French and British novels, Greek epics and then a little Chinese poetry. This starkly differentiates from what I *would have* read with the hitlist. It may work for others, but I found it lacking.

Drkshadow03

03-02-2010, 10:36 PM

I'm suprised I didn't consider this.

It may seem a little hypocritical in my first response, considering I asked for literature recommendations for our book club, but unless one reads for the reasons you listed, I don't really see the necessity of having a plan. Sure, it's easy to start with one. I initially started with a hitlist of all the German authors I wanted to read. But I discovered after reading a few novels, the hitlist got boring. I started reading whatever intrigued me at the moment.

Sure, these results are subjective. But when I started at German literature, I drifted into Russian, French and British novels, Greek epics and then a little Chinese poetry. This starkly differentiates from what I *would have* read with the hitlist. It may work for others, but I found it lacking.

Oh, I agree. I wanted to just point out one advantage to reading with a plan.

On the other hand, there is a clear advantage to reading haphazardly so to speak. Assuming I kept to a strict plan by time period and culture, breaking it up into Ancient Near Eastern Literature, Ancient Greek Lit, followed by Roman Lit, followed by Medieval Lit, followed by Renaissance, and we assume about a year for each plan, I wouldn't touch Shakespeare for close to five years. When would I get to Dickens all the way in Victorian England? If you're really being comprehensive it also probably means you'll be reading a lot of secondary work.

The advantage of reading anything you feel like means a lot less risk of getting bored and you can cover more material across the time and cultural spectrum, even if it means it won't be as comprehensive.

stlukesguild

03-02-2010, 11:51 PM

What is the West St. Lukes - give me a clear border. As it is, Russia, for the most part was under the same rule as China for years.

C'mon JBI... you're just engaging in mental Onanism here. Give me a clear border for German art or literature. Strasbourg Cathedral in considered one of the masterpieces of the German Gothic style... in spite of the fact that it exists today in France. Matthias Grunwald is considered one of the masters of the German Renaissance... and yet his masterpiece... the Eisenheim triptych... is housed in Colmar... again France. Perhaps the greatest poem written in German in the post-war era, Death Fugue, was written by a Romanian Jew... while perhaps the most influential writer in German of the 20th century was a Czech Jew. Every "abstraction" can be found to have exceptions. The exceptions don't necessarily negate the rule as a whole. Individuals over the long course of history have accepted certain abstractions... certain simplifications... as a way of defining and organizing the confusing whole of history and cultures. The great majority of them have clearly understood what was defined by "The West" or "The East", but JBI, with his greater sophistication has deemed that no such thing exists and we should all bow before his proclamations.:rolleyes:

I don't see any Eastern European classics on in his canon (besides near the end)

Tell me JBI... how many works of medieval Polish, Hungarian, Albanian, or Romanian literature have been translated into English? Have we not already established that Bloom's Western Canon is essentially the Western Canon of an English-Speaking critic focused upon works available to the English-Language reader? Again you are nit-picking.

and quite frankly, the canon might as well be called The English French Italian Spanish German canon. So tell me, where is this west you speak of?

Yet that would seem to ignore the fact that there is also sizable number of books from Portugal, Russia, the United States, Latin-America, etc... But perhaps you should write old Harold and suggest he re-title his book The Greek, Roman, Italian, Spanish, French, German, Russian, American, Latin- American, Yiddish, with a Bit of Portuguese, Dutch, Finnish, Norwegian, Canadian, Australian, and Others too Numerous to List Here Canon. Be certain to cite your credentials as an undergrad student majoring in Chinese Studies.:smilielol5:

Even something like manuscript illumination in the rather isolated middle ages was not immune to "non-western" influence, and we must remember that the bulk of the first stage of his canon was preserved in either Alexandria or written in what is now Israel.

French art and literature was not immune from influences from Italy, Spain, England, the Romans, the Celts, the Franks, the Moors, etc... This does not negate the notion that there is a France and French culture that is distinct from Italy, Spain, etc... and their cultures.

And don't say according to JBI either - just because you see the world as divided doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

I'm sorry, JBI, but you live in a major metropolitan community... and attend a university there... both of which are unquestionably environments that blur cultural, racial, and national distinctions. Don't assume this is true of the rest of the world. Yes, boundaries are blurred more now than ever before as a result of the rapid access to international trade, travel, and communications. Yet we need only bring up tensions between the US and other Western nations and the Middle East to illustrate the fact that there are still elemental differences between cultures.

Bloom is rather alone in his insistence of such a division, and he is certainly the exception to common trends, not the norm, though you of course have called all modern criticism nonsense or rubbish in the past, and claim to not read it, so we can't fault you for not knowing that.

Unfortunately, I read too much Modern/Post-Modern literary criticism as a result of the fact that art criticism was often deeply tied to it. This is one of the reasons for the proliferation of Conceptual Art: art critics or theorists are profoundly tied to the written word; they are comfortable with "ideas" but often lack any real sensitivity to the formal elements of visual art: line, color, form, shape, texture, scale, etc... I doubt Bloom is alone in assuming that there are definite cultural divisions between East and West... between individual nations (something you are endless fond of pointing out in your usual critiques of American culture). We are not quite yet living in the "Age of Aquarius".

The argument of a certain special place, or uniqueness, or isolated tradition of politics is arguably contrived too. Simply put, Machiavelli in his prince held the Turkish model as the prime example of successful governing. Leibniz was preoccupied too with Chinese, as he thought the language a "natural" language, and simply put, it is said that of the two books Columbus brought with him on his voyage, one was the Bible and the second Marco Polo.

But of course, this would be nothing without the fact that according to Bacon's discussed great technological findings of his era, all somehow link back to China. The renaissance itself now is being argued to have been at least facilitated by the Chinese fleets that begun arriving in 1409.

Undoubtedly by those purely objective professors in JBI's Chinese Studies courses... or those who wrote the textbooks for the same. Chinese art certainly impacted Persian painting of the classical period, but it would be a real stretch to suggests a Chinese influence on the art of Europe during the Renaissance. There was little contact between European artists and the art of the Middle-East until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 resulted in an exodus of Byzantine artisans to Italy... especially Venice... and until Bellini was sent to the Ottoman Turkish Empire in 1473. I will admit, however, that Leonardo's landscapes have a mysterious quality suggestive of Chinese landscape painting. But what of the reverse? What of the Western influence upon the East. The Greco-Roman influence on Buddhist sculpture in India, Pakistan, and China can be easily documented. Seriously... if you wish to seek an influence that heads East and West check out the impact of the Scythians and their metal works upon Chinese and Celtic art.

Nevertheless... all this interweaving of cultures does not negate the concept of The West and The East any more than it negates the notion of a German or Italian culture.

But lets not reject the fact that Turkish influence had been present in Europe since well before the Renaissance.

Yes... if we consider the Turkey/Anatolia that was a trading partner and competitor with Greece (Troy?) and later fell under Greek/Macedonian rule. Islamic Turkey only slowly congealed in the 10th and 11th century before falling to the Mongols. It isn't until 1453 that the Ottoman Empire could finally seize control of Constantinople. Ironically, it was a devastating war with the Byzantine Empire that so weakened the Persian Empire (which had outlasted the Greek and Roman Empires combined) that they fell to the Islamic Arabs... and then the Mongols. Seriously, it is the unique mix of indigenous traditions with outside influences that makes each culture unique. The "one world" ideal on the other hand... isn't that what Wal-Mart amd McDonald's have to offer?

Quite simply put, I think your idea of west is anachronistic - from what I understand, such views of history have been out of fashion
for a while now...

And fashion, of course, is the true measure of the merit of anything.:brow:

As for the last bit of your argument, they speak English in India, does that make it a Western country as well? What about the West Indies, or now China, which within 50 years probably will have more English speakers than anywhere else in the world, given that everybody there studies English

And is English the first language of the majority of Indians or Chinese? If I recall right, Bloom actually did include those authors from India or the West Indies who wrote in English. Again... one might note that these works are accessible to the English-language reader... unlike the vast majority of works in Sanskrit or Chinese.

Or why don't we take it further; French speaking Vietnamese people automatically are Western, North Africa is part of the west, as it speaks French.

Uh... Camus?

Tell me, what makes English a Western language, and Canada have "Western Values". Technically, the official policy of this little country here is Multiculturalism - I don't see how the Western values really factor in, or are you suggesting that the Biblical code developed in the Middle East is somehow a Western construction now, or that law in itself, and rights of humans is somehow monopolized by Europeans?

You are just playing games, JBI. At some point in your life you will grow up and actually discover that there is more to the world than what your professors and textbooks have to say about an idealized PC world. But you continue to close your eyes to any of the clear cultural differences with regard to separation of religion and government, human rights, rights of women, religious freedoms, rule of law, etc... that exist between Western democracies and nations such as China, North Korea, Iran, etc... how can one expect you to accept the fact that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was modeled on Greek, Roman, French, and English precedents and not upon the Tao Te Ching or the Qur'an?

stlukesguild

03-03-2010, 12:00 AM

As far as SLG and JBI go, where would litnet be without them? Yeah a lot of their posts are hijacks and endless bickering, but they are far from pointless and are very informative.

Always glad to entertain.:p

Now I'm heading on over to the thread on an "Introduction to Christianity" before JBI gets there and informs us all that there is no Christianity... and there certainly is no possibility of studying Christianity without an equal exploration of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Gnosticism, Shintoism, and Flying Spaghetti Monster and anyone who says otherwise is clearly out of fashion and most certainly not a true Canadian.:D

JBI

03-03-2010, 12:07 AM

You are just playing games, JBI. At some point in your life you will grow up and actually discover that there is more to the world than what your professors and textbooks have to say about an idealized PC world. But you continue to close your eyes to any of the clear cultural differences with regard to separation of religion and government, human rights, rights of women, religious freedoms, rule of law, etc... that exist between Western democracies and nations such as China, North Korea, Iran, etc... how can one expect you to accept the fact that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was modeled on Greek, Roman, French, and English precedents and not upon the Tao Te Ching or the Qur'an?

No offense sir, but as closed minded as I am, you have yet to leave the continent. Perhaps it is you who will leave your world and realize that people in this world have far more in common.

The ideas of equality, rights of women, religious freedoms, rule of law, and other such "Western" notions emerged in many cases elsewhere far before they did in the West.

Besides which, I don't think you understand, Canada's official policy is Multiculturalism, not that we are multicultural, but that multiculturalism is the law, and respect for multiple cultures and perspectives is the adopted (on paper at least) position of the Canadian Government. In that sense, the Dao De Jing or Qur'an are equally as important to the Canadian sense of identity as the Bible or Iliad are, in a legal sense.

Besides which, just to point out, most of these "Western" values you were preaching are all found in the Dao De Jing and the Qur'an.

stlukesguild

03-03-2010, 12:14 AM

eric.bell

03-03-2010, 12:21 AM

milktea, thanks for putting this link up. I cannot say that I will follow this list in order as you are or stick to it rigidly (for, as so many of these posts have painstakingly pointed out and as Bloom, himself, admits, it is not the end-all be-all list). But I am going to pull ideas for reading from it. Because it is sometimes hard to know what all is out there to be read, when it comes to other countries, it is nice to have a cannon such as Bloom's to guide you along. Once again, thanks for putting the link up. And good luck.

JBI

03-03-2010, 12:29 AM

Yes... we all have much in common. One might even suggest that what we have in common is more elemental than our differences... but I'm not naive enough to believe that we still don't have have much that continues to separate us. Whether this is a human construct or whether this is unfashionable at Canadian institutions of higher learning is irrelevant to the fact that these cultural differences still continue to exist. Even the construct of language inherently separates us.

Linguists would disagree with that notion as well (in the sense that the difference between English and Turkish may not be as distant as we think). Generative grammar would suggest otherwise. But that isn't the point. What is to suggest that the cultural difference between Japan (whose constitution was not just modeled on "American values,", but actually written by Americans) and the United States are closer than those of the United States and Russia? What is to suggest Canada has more in common with Britain than it does with China? In what sense?

The point of the matter is not whether traditions exist, but rather, whether such a scheme of organization as "West"-"East" actually makes sense, and whether there is some coherent factor constituting a distinct tradition that stands apart from a "East" or "Non-West".

In that sense, if Bloom is seeking to define a Western canon, it would make sense that he define a West, and prove that such a notion of Western canon exists in reality as an isolated tradition, even if we accept the 5 or 6 non-Western texts he mentions at the beginning.

But of course, you haven't left this so called "Western Bubble," so though I may be locked in contemporary thought, you have yet to see a contrary viewpoint that hasn't been filtered through your own. As such, your conceptualization of French, Italian, Spanish, German, etc. is that of the translators working for you, not the traditions themselves, and your conception of these traditions in their relation to their geographic space by necessity is determined through an indirect encounter, as you have not physically experienced it.

As such, I think I could argue that it isn't my world that is a loony simulacra of reality, but rather yours, as it is a modified representational world, rather than one rooted in experience.

Quite simply put, where is the setting of Tasso's masterpiece? It isn't in Italy now is it.

JCamilo

03-03-2010, 12:54 AM

It is a bit interesting seeing a canadian and a north-american discussing each one is right about considering the rest of the world and how the other vision is so limited :D

My definition of east is something that starts with Aladdin and ends with Kung Fu. I am obviously not as insular as you two, so I will win a nobel (which I have already refused, thank you).

vaudevillian

03-03-2010, 06:16 AM

indeed an interesting discussion, yet nevertheless meaningless. I'm a born Chinese but I'll have to side with st. luke, for whatever purposes, whatever contemporary inclinations may be, there's a clear distinction between the east and the west, though it may not be presented in clear cut, but the distinction inevitably exists, throughout history from antiquity to the present.

There may be similarities between eastern and western thoughts, such as taoism and buddhism may find congenial temperament in the thoughts of Heraclities, or Cynics or Stoics, but this only proves that under similar circumstances, similar ideas and thoughts blossom just as plants would in similar climates, regardless of location.

And the Western Canon List is just as good as any others, just as Harold Bloom pointed out in the beginning of his book, we simply can't read all the books, even if one does nothing but read. If each can't be satisfied with such a list, and to be honest, this will be the case for most of us readers, each of us can satisfy by reading according to our own likings, sift those that do not appeal to our tastes, and add those that do.

indeed it is a list of WESTERN CANON, and it does its job adequately.

mal4mac

03-03-2010, 06:23 AM

I don't like Dickens or James Joyce ^_^...

Then why are you following Bloom's list? Quote:

"No nineteenth-century novelist, not even Tolstoy, was stronger than Dickens..."

He also picks out Joyce's two main novels as 2 of the 3 greatest works in "our long ebbing".

If you disagree with a guide so much, then perhaps you need another guide!

The only reason I'm sticking with Bloom is that, for me, he has been a very useful guide, whose taste is very close to mine, and he forces me to stretch. I certainly agree with him about Dickens (and Tolstoy), and "Dubliners" and "Portrait" are two of the best works I've read.

I've struggled with Ulysses, but I'm trusting Bloom as a spur to make me try harder, as he's right so often. But if you can't even agree with him about Dickens, or any of Joyce's works, then I find it difficult to see why you would even consider approaching his list.

milktea

03-03-2010, 12:30 PM

Then why are you following Bloom's list? Quote:

"No nineteenth-century novelist, not even Tolstoy, was stronger than Dickens..."

He also picks out Joyce's two main novels as 2 of the 3 greatest works in "our long ebbing".

If you disagree with a guide so much, then perhaps you need another guide!

The only reason I'm sticking with Bloom is that, for me, he has been a very useful guide, whose taste is very close to mine, and he forces me to stretch. I certainly agree with him about Dickens (and Tolstoy), and "Dubliners" and "Portrait" are two of the best works I've read.

I've struggled with Ulysses, but I'm trusting Bloom as a spur to make me try harder, as he's right so often. But if you can't even agree with him about Dickens, or any of Joyce's works, then I find it difficult to see why you would even consider approaching his list.

To answer you in short, because I like the list, and to make a short answer long:

Reason #1:
I do not live in the West. I live in the heart of Tokyo, where the only time 'Bloom' matters is during the cherry blossom season. Most English speaking book circles appropriately discuss Japanese fiction or nonfiction. I only learned of this site a couple days ago when I was looking for help reading old English typesetting, not years ago however when I was looking for a non-Asian recommended reading list. I found the canon, tried a couple books that I had been meaning to read for eons and fell in love with the list. I've been buying all of my Western books based off of the list and have yet to be disappointed.

Reason #2:
I do not base my reading preferences on academic arguments or others' opinions. I do not like Dickens but I respect him as a writer. Joyce neither and not so much either. But this is an opinion and not an argument; there is a difference. Why should I discredit an entire reading list because Bloom argued in support of a writer I don't personally like? To be honest, I had already read several books from the online list before I bought the book. When I bought the book it was for the appendix, not because I cared about what Bloom had to say about works I haven't read yet.

Reason #3:
I don't want to read a long list of works that I'm already familiar with and like or similar books along those lines. That's boring.

I like being spurred too.

JCamilo

03-03-2010, 01:45 PM

There may be similarities between eastern and western thoughts, such as taoism and buddhism may find congenial temperament in the thoughts of Heraclities, or Cynics or Stoics, but this only proves that under similar circumstances, similar ideas and thoughts blossom just as plants would in similar climates, regardless of location.

Well, actually the seeds must be taken there, so this only shows the power of oral transmition and that most likely, those ideas came flying with cows.
Anyways, I think the task proposed may be funny if you like to collect cards, but life is too short, literature too big...

indeed it is a list of WESTERN CANON, and it does its job adequately.

Frankly, not. I do not care if you say Nihao or you say hello, but Brazil, south america and portugal do belong to the western tradition and he fails there. Also his critery is very biased, several authors are excluded because "marxism" or watever.
As critic goes, JBI is right about his freudian reading. When the author is not freudian like Borges or Kafka, his criticism is limited, obtuse and unrelated. He is much better with for example Joyce.

stlukesguild

03-03-2010, 02:52 PM

Frankly, not. I do not care if you say Nihao or you say hello, but Brazil, south america and portugal do belong to the western tradition and he fails there.

Of course the question JCamilo that still begs to be answered is just how accessible is the literature of Portugal or Brazil to the English-language reader? I have only recently come across a solid translation of the Lusiads. If anything, Bloom's book could be accused of being too inclusive. The "canon" it would seem to me refers to a body of literature that has carried across cultural and linguistic boundaries. Goethe is read in England, France, Spain, and I would assume Brazil. Annette von Droste-Huelshoff is recognized among those who speak German as a major poetic figure... but she is literally unknown elsewhere. Much of this is due to the fact that she is inaccessible... her oeuvre has not been afforded good quality translations so that they are accepted or recognized within the notion of canonical literature. Bloom certainly includes any number of British and American poets whose works are probably just as unknown outside of the English-speaking world. Again, it comes down to semantics. Do we insist Bloom should have entitled the book The Western Canon for the English-Language Reader? One assumes that Italian, French, Brazilian, and Japanese critics all have their own notion of what books qualify as "canonical".

kiki1982

03-03-2010, 03:18 PM

"No nineteenth-century novelist, not even Tolstoy, was stronger than Dickens..."(Bloom)

Ok, that's another reason to think Bloom did not know what he was talking about.

Dickens???? Do not say to a Russian that Tolstoy is worse than Dickens or he will slay you!

Dickens to me is boring and he misses a deeper symbolism. He does not even get to the level of Dumas and Dumas is slightly easy. Easier than Hugo any time.

Dickens writes good and touching stories, and...? What next?

That's the point of reading. One wants a good/interesting story (what Scott called 'the most valuable quality of a writer': 'keeping the interest of the reader'), but also something more. Otherwise, one has read it once and then one has read it. That is not the signature of a good book.

Maybe Bloom missed the symbolism (that about Napoleon-horse f.i.), or his translator missed it, but to have the audacity to call one of the greatest in Russian literature worse than a mediocre (yes, sorry) Dickens? That is very very doubtful.

I would even claim that Pushkin is better than Dickens, or at least from what I have read.

mal4mac

03-03-2010, 03:31 PM

To answer you in short, because I like the list...
You are in danger of contradicting yourself. He lists almost all of Dickens' novels, no other author takes up so much of the list (except maybe Goethe...) So why would you try to complete a list which recommends so many novels by an author you dislike? There are other lists that don't include so much Dickens or Joyce -- in fact every other list I've ever seen! Fadiman, for instance. Why not use another list?

Anyway, as I say, Bloom has disowned his list, he tried to get the publishers not to include it. It was something he put together in a day and then regretted it. If you want to follow a list that someone put together through an ill considered whim, and then disowned, then you can, but it seems a bit Quixotic. (Then again, there's nothing wrong with the Don! So all power to your madness... :)

mal4mac

03-03-2010, 03:51 PM

Ok, that's another reason to think Bloom did not know what he was talking about.

Dickens???? Do not say to a Russian that Tolstoy is worse than Dickens or he will slay you!

Having read most of Dickens and Tostoy I am of the same opinion as Bloom His wealth of invention is second to none, just look at all those amazing characters and plot twists! Bloom focuses on Bleak House as 'the canonical novel' par excellence, again something I agree with. No one has presented such a phantasmagoric London and visionary England with so much energy and gusto. As Bloom says, "How can you achieve again an art in which fairy tales are told as though they were sagas of social realism?" Dickens to me is never boring. He writes the best and most touching stories, and what more could you want.

Bloom suggests Tolstoy is just behind Dickens and no one else. So he's not really dissing Tolstoy! Your attack on Dickens I would have to place in the same category as Tolstoy's attack on Shakespeare. Most great writers and critics have rated Dickens very highly, though some would place Tolstoy above Dickens.

Does anyone know what Tolstoy thought of Dickens? I would be amused to see another vitriolic attack comparable to his attack on Shakespeare. At least Dickens didn't go quite so batty in his old age (though working himself to death in his one man shows wasn't entirely sane...)

Dostoevsky certainly admired Dickens, and drew a lot if inspiration from him.

OrphanPip

03-03-2010, 04:11 PM

Ok, that's another reason to think Bloom did not know what he was talking about.

Dickens???? Do not say to a Russian that Tolstoy is worse than Dickens or he will slay you!

Dickens to me is boring and he misses a deeper symbolism. He does not even get to the level of Dumas and Dumas is slightly easy. Easier than Hugo any time.

David Copperfield is a novel about establishing personal identity in which the title character is rarely referred to by his actual name. How more symbolic can you get :p

Dumas is the author who has no depth, there is a reason why he isn't highly regarded by French critics.

JCamilo

03-03-2010, 04:12 PM

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
Of course the question JCamilo that still begs to be answered is just how accessible is the literature of Portugal or Brazil to the English-language reader? I have only recently come across a solid translation of the Lusiads. If anything, Bloom's book could be accused of being too inclusive. The "canon" it would seem to me refers to a body of literature that has carried across cultural and linguistic boundaries. Goethe is read in England, France, Spain, and I would assume Brazil. Annette von Droste-Huelshoff is recognized among those who speak German as a major poetic figure... but she is literally unknown elsewhere. Much of this is due to the fact that she is inaccessible... her oeuvre has not been afforded good quality translations so that they are accepted or recognized within the notion of canonical literature. Bloom certainly includes any number of British and American poets whose works are probably just as unknown outside of the English-speaking world. Again, it comes down to semantics. Do we insist Bloom should have entitled the book The Western Canon for the English-Language Reader? One assumes that Italian, French, Brazilian, and Japanese critics all have their own notion of what books qualify as "canonical".

Obviously, I do not think it is possible a perfect list of the canon, he must be just some platonic ideal. We feel it, we do not follow it, because Lists are flawed and illogical. As a Borgesian you know it, they are for fun, not for logic.
But this does not change that he tried to do it and his list is flawed. Even considering the accessibility problem: because he ended using political correctness, albeit Guimaraes Rosa is as accessible as Drummond (meaning, not much) he lists one and not another and you know he is just putting it for the sake of "Well, Brazil had a good guy in XIX century, so they may have another", which is exactly what he said he would not do.
(His inclusion of Israel author obviously warm up the discussion about west and east also).
Bloom himself regrets the list, because his criteria is impossible. But the job is not adequate, rather flawed. I do not have solutions and playing with the cathegories do not appeal me, I just know when you jump from Camoes to Fernando Pessoa, something must be lost in the process and a man with Bloom knowledge (and admiration for both) knows it.

the others discussion Dickesn and Tolstoy

Dickens to me is boring and he misses a deeper symbolism. He does not even get to the level of Dumas and Dumas is slightly easy. Easier than Hugo any time.

First that is ridiculous. Dickens is vastly superior to Dumas, at least he wrote his own books :D
Dickens dramas are the very basis of popular novels, he solved several problems, taking it from upper-class novels or the adventures in Tom Jones style that all others would later copy. And Dickens, albeit using a more popular language, never lose the touch of quality. If half of the best-sellers writers that exist today had Dickens skill to write the opening lines of Tale of two cities, nobody would bother saying about the "end of literature". He is a giant, just like Tolstoy.

And frankly, you people do not understand Bloom, The Canon is a commercial attempt but his idea is about influential workers - Dickens is indeed very strong, that kind of sugar-drama dominated literature. Bloom did not ranked them by quality, he even left some of his favorites behind. You may accuse Bloom of flaws inside his own arguments (Poe is probally the most influential writer of america, either they like it or not; Dostoievisky and Chekhov are shoulder to shoulders with Tolstoy, etc) but not as something as clearly banal between Dickens and Tolstoy.

stlukesguild

03-03-2010, 04:15 PM

While I probably wouldn't place Dickens above Tolstoy, I most certainly agree that he is a great writer. Placing him beneath Dumas is ridiculous... especially when one considers that Dumas didn't even write his own books. Neither do I think that Dickens is devoid of symbolism or "meaning" beyond his mere abilities at storytelling. Even if he were, one would also have to wonder whether symbolism is something that makes one work of art inherently better than another... or is it simply thought of as such because it makes the reader feel so clever at having caught the symbolic "meaning"?

Seriously, it seems to me that one can challenge just about any critic... no matter how well-read or astute in observation... especially when his or her opinions don't concur with our own. Someone disagrees with Bloom and prefers another critic or group of critics and so Bloom must be hopelessly "out of fashion" (as if fashion is the measure of merit) or a a poor scholar. Hell, even Samuel Johnson made ridiculous proclamations such as dismissing Lawrence Sterne outright. Let's face it, no one was always right... except Oscar Wilde...

... and maybe J.L. Borges.:D

JCamilo

03-03-2010, 04:24 PM

And frankly, of all novelists (because in the end, Tolstoy is the shadow of Dostoievisky and vice-versa), the one that I think could came from the grave and demmand more attention was Flaubert, because in the end, with Dickens you end talking about several of the english novelists, french, etc who are pretty much on his havoc for that kind of drama. He is very representative, but Flaubert is just the turning point and he would link Cervantes to Joyce wonderfully, but of course, the book cannt have 39393939 pages...

wessexgirl

03-03-2010, 04:30 PM

Ok, that's another reason to think Bloom did not know what he was talking about.

Dickens???? Do not say to a Russian that Tolstoy is worse than Dickens or he will slay you!

There might be a fair few English that would do the same for Dickens :yesnod: and I'm not knocking Tolstoy, I love him too.

Dickens to me is boring and he misses a deeper symbolism. He does not even get to the level of Dumas and Dumas is slightly easy. Easier than Hugo any time.

And there's the point. You find Dickens boring, many don't.

Dickens writes good and touching stories, and...? What next?
That's the point of reading. One wants a good/interesting story (what Scott called 'the most valuable quality of a writer': 'keeping the interest of the reader'), but also something more. Otherwise, one has read it once and then one has read it. That is not the signature of a good book.

I would venture to suggest that Dickens gives us good and interesting stories, but he has also peopled them with characters which are iconic. They seem to live a life outside of the novels. Who doesn't know of Fagin, Bill Sikes, Mr Micawber, Uriah Heep, Magwitch, Miss Havisham, Smike, Wackford Squeers etc. and they are not the main or title characters of the books? No other author, apart from Shakespeare, has created such a world. Tolstoy is wonderful, but I would lay a safe bet that if you asked a cross-section of people throughout the world to name his characters, they would struggle, (apart from Anna Karenina, and perhaps a few of the cast of the epic War and Peace). There is no way he is as influential in the world of literature as Dickens.

Maybe Bloom missed the symbolism (that about Napoleon-horse f.i.), or his translator missed it, but to have the audacity to call one of the greatest in Russian literature worse than a mediocre (yes, sorry) Dickens? That is very very doubtful.

I would even claim that Pushkin is better than Dickens, or at least from what I have read.

Dickens cannot be called mediocre by any stretch of the imagination. I agree that Tolstoy is one of the greats of Russian literature, but in terms of worldwide influence, he is no Dickens. And Bloom's recognition of Dickens greatness should not be used as a stick to beat him with. He has, after all, years of experience in his field. When all is said and done, what people read and enjoy is entirely up to them, but I wouldn't go to a plumber for information, or criticism on literature, any more than I would listen to Bloom on fixing my bathroom.

JCamilo

03-03-2010, 04:38 PM

Here is the point, Tolstoy in worldwide influence is a Dickens. If wasnt enough that he is behind Dostoievisky and Chekhov, the entire novel creation in the XX was changed by the russians, at the point that E.M.Foster claimed that no novel written in english was nowhere was good as Brothers K, Crime and Punishment, Anna Karenina and War and Peace.
The big point you should not claim absolutes when there is no way you can be certain of them.

stlukesguild

03-03-2010, 04:39 PM

Obviously, I do not think it is possible a perfect list of the canon, he must be just some platonic ideal. We feel it, we do not follow it, because Lists are flawed and illogical. As a Borgesian you know it, they are for fun, not for logic.

Of course... and any such undertaking is equally doomed to failure. Where I may disagree most with the arguments put forth by JBI is in the suggestion that Bloom's list is flawed because it is "outdated" and not rooted in the latest fashionable literary theory (which will certainly seem just as outdated 15 or 20 years from now)... or in the suggestion that because such a list is flawed it has no worth. I will admit to having been introduced to any number of writers via Bloom... including (certainly) a great many less-well known English poets as Tomas Traherne (whose work I love)... but also to such non-English writers as Machado de Assis and Fernando Pessoa.

Would I suggest that one follow such a list religiously? Hell no! I wouldn't follow any critic in such a manner. I think Bloom underestimates Poe and overestimates Joyce and John Ashberry. Seriously, Bloom's is but one possible resource for the reader interested in exploring the wider world of literature. There any number of other such lists... including college reading lists that one might consider. Or with time... as one's own reading evolves... one may discover that one writer leads to another. Sometimes it is in a direct manner as in Borges piquing my interest in DeQuincy in one of his essays. In other instances it is the result of one's own branching out from something that brought a particular degree of pleasure. I found myself enamored of Baudelaire and so I sought out and discovered related poets and writers such as Verlaine, Rimbaud, Mallarme, Gautier, Nerval, etc... I found myself seduced b Borges and so I branched out into Adolfo Bioy Casares, Julio Cortazar, Augusto Monterroso, Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis, Alejo Carpentier, etc...

JCamilo

03-03-2010, 04:49 PM

I think the critics to Bloom's list must be after his own criteria, after all it is his list. His personal choice and of course, limitations. And his essays deserves some critics, but being outdated? I think Bloom seemed old because Borges, Eliot, Pound and even Derrida said what he said and usually better than him. They are better writers, so, their ideas seems more new.

kiki1982

03-03-2010, 05:03 PM

For me it remains the question why possibly Dickens is a great writer. I find a great writer not one who writes a good story alone. Sorry, cannot agree.

A good writer, as I have said, puts together a good story (whether a lot happens or not is not the thing) AND provides a deeper meaning, preferably backs it up with other things he has read. This is totally missing in Dickens apart from his preoccupation with poverty. Nothing to discover. Dickens, I agree, was a popular writer, and that is where he got his influence, but a great writer? It is not because everyone read him and knows about all his charaters that he is a great writer. It only shows how widely he is read, that is all. Hardy was much much much better. His characters are truer, his symbolic base is evident, his deeper thoughts are there to be thought of. Dickens? He repeats hiself, his characters have no deep psychological make-up (consequently, they are not really understandable, one can only look at them and try to understand), the things that happen mostly have no deeper meaning or very rarely.

Possibly, part of Dickens's influence is down to the language he wrote in. Everyone who learns English gets Dickens, anyone for that matter, with a little knowledge of English (I read A Christmas Carol of his after 2 years of English class) can read Dickens. Who is able to read Tolstoy? The whole of Russia (and you bet that they had to in Soviet times) and the few mad peolple who learn Russian. And then there are the translations, which are not all very good. So it is doubtful if all of his deeper meanings really get across.

I just do not find Dickens at all impressive. I am not shy of a good story for the mere story alone as I am one Dumas-fan, but really, at least Dumas's characters have a personality! Dickens's characters seem to be monodimensional drawings with no deeper nature rhan the line they are drawn with. I grant everyone the fact that he writes nice stories, but personally I cannot keep my interest going for as long as a book. I love the films, just cannot get the courage for 600 pages of it. And boy, have I tried.

Ok, Dickens mediocre, is my opinion, but I am not alone in my critique.

Drkshadow03

03-03-2010, 05:58 PM

Ok, Dickens mediocre, is my opinion, but I am not alone in my critique.

But, but -- nobody is allowed to have an opinion unless they've checked with me first!

The Dickens novels I've read (Great Expectations and Hard Times) I think should also be read as kind of satire of Dicken's society, usually some aspect. Here are my thoughts on Hard Times (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/hard-times-by-charles-dickens/). I'm failing to see how Dickens doesn't incorporate symbolism into his story given the copious amounts of religious allusion to be found in Hard Times.

LitNetIsGreat

03-03-2010, 07:07 PM

Hardy was much much much better. His characters are truer, his symbolic base is evident, his deeper thoughts are there to be thought of. Dickens? He repeats hiself, his characters have no deep psychological make-up (consequently, they are not really understandable, one can only look at them and try to understand), the things that happen mostly have no deeper meaning or very rarely.

I must say that I have some sympathy with this position of Hardy over Dickens, and in Dickens in general here, as I am not a fan. However, how much of this is clouded in my own love of Hardy and general uninterested approach to Dickens to judge them dispassionately, I don’t know. The problem of comparing Hardy to Dickens in terms of quality is that Dickens produced a far greater body of work than Hardy. Also Hardy is particularly weak in some of his earlier work, take A Pair of Blue Eyes, I have read this twice and can find little of the brilliance that is in Tess and none of the genius that is in Jude. Again though, my love of Hardy clouds my judgement to be really dispassionate here, but I know and fully acknowledge that.

I can certainly see Dickens’s technical skill, his ability to craft good sentences, to create character and set the scene, but the problem is that I am just not interested. I don’t believe in his characters, even if they are not to be believed in, I just don’t have time for little Pipsqueak and that annoying pickpocket, I’m not interested. Northrop Frye hits back at me here though with this good point:

In literature, as in painting, the traditional emphasis in both practice and theory has been on representation or “lifelikeness”. When, for instance, we pick up a novel of Dickens, our immediate impulse, a habit fostered in us by all the criticism we know, is to compare it with “life,” whether as lived by us or by Dickens’s contemporaries. Then we meet such characters as Heep or Quilp, and , as neither we nor the Victorians have ever known anything much “like” these curious monsters, the method promptly breaks down. Caricature (as though caricature were easy); others, more sensibly simply give up the criterion of lifelikeness and enjoy the creation for its own sake.

However, that is exactly what I do struggle with to enjoy the creation for its own sake. For me the novels of Dickens set in a real unreal world don’t work, they just annoy. This is just a criticism from my personal palate and I can see why he is rated, as what he does with caricature and language is first rate, but like that other Victorian, quite simply, I am not amused.

mortalterror

03-03-2010, 07:27 PM

milktea

03-03-2010, 11:02 PM

You are in danger of contradicting yourself. He lists almost all of Dickens' novels, no other author takes up so much of the list (except maybe Goethe...) So why would you try to complete a list which recommends so many novels by an author you dislike? There are other lists that don't include so much Dickens or Joyce -- in fact every other list I've ever seen! Fadiman, for instance. Why not use another list?

Anyway, as I say, Bloom has disowned his list, he tried to get the publishers not to include it. It was something he put together in a day and then regretted it. If you want to follow a list that someone put together through an ill considered whim, and then disowned, then you can, but it seems a bit Quixotic. (Then again, there's nothing wrong with the Don! So all power to your madness... :)

How am I in danger of contradicting myself? Do you believe that when a person dislikes a vegetable the nutritional value of said vegetable is negated? Would you stop eating a delicious meal if a vegetable you didn't like was on the side of your plate?

In simple English: I found the list, I tried the list, I liked the list. If I change my mind as the so-called Ages progress, I'll stop. I'm not pricking my thumb or making oaths here; I'm just reading books. And I am looking for other readers who are interested in the books on the list to motivate me to continue reading Western books in a land where they don't matter. I'm not interested in discussing Bloom or his opinions or even the value of the list as I take for granted that those who think the list is a bad one won't be interested in discussing the books that I am currently enjoying.

If I found another list, tried another list, and liked another list then I would have posted a different list. I found this list first. It's a LONG list. If I finish or quit the list, then I'll switch. Is there something wrong with being content?

As for Bloom disavowing his list, so what? My friend recommended a Japanese show to me and then decided she hated it after I got addicted to it. Just because she introduced me to the series does not and did not obligate me to stop enjoying it when she changed her mind. Furthermore, I doubt Bloom disavowed his canon because he thought the majority of the books that he listed were not worth salt. To date, every.single.work I've read from this list has had distinct merit and was thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated.

Bloom and his opinion matter in your world. They do not in mine. We are reading these books for different reasons. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from prescribing your personal Bloom reading rules to me and promise you that I will be as courteous to you.

I'm currently reading the Qur'an, The Prison of Love, and Callimachus (from the list). I'd love to talk about Berner's translation of The Prison of Love with you Mal4mac. I'm sure you understand now that there is no one offline I know of who has read this work, so I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts. Later, I'd also like to talk about the Qu'ran. I'm only on the fourth surah though, and perhaps it's the translation I have, but it doesn't suck me in like the Bible, which is one of my favorite books; it's fascinating nonetheless.

For those who have inferred from this post that I have become a chaste nun of the Bloom order: I am also reading 台所 (novel), 虹 (poetry collection), A General Theory of Love, and an English translation of Mishima's Forbidden Colors. So please stop with the "why are you reading only this list?" comments >_<;; they are annoying.

JCamilo

03-03-2010, 11:39 PM

If there is a comparison to be made, then I think that Dickens and Tolstoy make for an awkward match. Hugo and Dickens have many more points of similarity with which to make aesthetic judgements vis a vis how they stack up. Tolstoy is a different kind of animal operating under very different principles.

Yet, it makes a lot of sense comparing unequal objects. It does not hurt. However, "dickens is mediocre" seems almost as pointless as people who come here "I did not liked Dom Quixote, I see nothing interesting there, it is mediocre."

By the way, the "Non psycological" depth of dickens can be said of Cervantes... Ok, Cervantes is mediocre...

milktea

03-03-2010, 11:51 PM

no other author takes up so much of the list (except maybe Goethe...)

You are wrong. I have no idea how you even came to that conclusion.

Author(s) / Recommended Works
Dickens / 14
Plato / 35
KJV / 66 (various authors)
Shakespeare / 42 + sonnets
Pushkin / 17 + poetry

I'm sure I don't have to argue why 35 and 42 are greater than 14, right? Or are you talking about physical space on a page? (.___.)? If so, then yeah, Dickens does take up a noticeable amount.

Quark

03-04-2010, 12:29 AM

I am keen on finding other readers who have done this, are doing this, or plan to do this in hopes of forming an canon-readers e-circle/support group.

I'm just reading books. And I am looking for other readers who are interested in the books on the list to motivate me to continue reading Western books in a land where they don't matter.

A bookclub or e-circle--or whatever you want to call it--is a good idea. You can usually find a person or two read something with you. In fact, I'm waiting for two bookclubs to get off the ground. One on DH Lawrence's short stories:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37250&page=208

And another on the poetry of Leopardi:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50876&page=9

Usually, though, these bookclubs approach one or two short texts at a time. To ask anyone to do more is a little much. I doubt you're going to find many people reading the entire Bloomian canon. That's quite an albatross to hang around your neck. You might be better off trying to start bookclubs or e-circles around each text as you get to it. Announce it a week or so before you get there, and see if anyone is interested. When you get to Dickens--which apparently there's multiple thousands pages of that author on the list--I'd be glad to start a thread on one or two of those novels. Right now, I'm actually reading Dombey and Son--a much under-appreciated novel as I'm discovering. Later on, I'll probably look at Little Dorrit and Nicholas Nickelby. If you ever get to the Victorians, let me know, and we might be able to get a discussion going. That's just me, though. There are plenty of posters on LitNet who would read other works on that list. But, you have to let everyone know what text you want to look at and see if there's interest. You might also have to bend to popular demand and discuss some of the works out of order, if want to get a larger group involved in the conversation. I doubt you're going to find many people who are at the exact same place in the exact same list as you. But, if you're searching for a good discussion on a particular text, I think you can get it on LitNet: you just have to let people know ahead of time what it is and when you'll get to it.

Oh, and I'm serious about the Dickens. PM me when you start reading his novels. Some of his earlier novels intimidate readers because of their size, but they're worth the effort.

milktea

03-04-2010, 01:13 AM

Oh, I don't know I do think there are some advantages to reading with some sort of plan. I had a reading plan for the Ancient Greeks where I followed a tentative list I developed. It allows one to view different treatments of the same story (such as the different treatment of Orestes in the Tragic playwrights), observe the development of the literature from Homer onward, find commonalities between themes in different works, and also learn about the culture itself through the literature. I think, especially if your trying to learn about the culture through literature, it is extremely useful to read works from the same period.

With that said, it can also be frustrating. My Roman reading list has been somewhat of a disaster; although I did cover most of the major works with a few exceptions, I had planned a far more extensive list of titles. So right now I'm just reading what I want.

However, I think one shouldn't underestimate the advantages of reading with some sort of coherent plan or guidelines.

To piggyback on this comment, reading the books in an ordered manner gives one a more in-depth view and understanding of the intertextual relationships between works. It also improves one's retention of a work... and can turn them into a history buff as well ^_^

Reading Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides shortly before reading The Frogs will leave a stronger impression and make you laugh a hell of a lot harder than if you read Dickens, Vonnegut, Pushkin and then The Frogs. For anyone who disagrees with me, first challenge yourself and try it.

kiki1982

03-04-2010, 04:37 AM

But, but -- nobody is allowed to have an opinion unless they've checked with me first!

I did not say that. I only said that Dickens has been criticised for what I said.

I must have the same problem as Neely then. I just cannot get interested.

Others are welcome to have another opinion, but I thought that a leading critic would have thought about those other opinions first before putting one of the greats in Russian literature under one that not everyone agrees on.

Hugo and Dickens? The difference cannot be greater. At least in his later work, Hugo's characters are very lifelike, which cannot be said about Dickens. As Neely quoted, they are caricatures. Hugo never wrote about caricatures, because the real issue occupied him so much.

wessexgirl

03-04-2010, 05:13 AM

I did not say that. I only said that Dickens has been criticised for what I said.

I must have the same problem as Neely then. I just cannot get interested.

Others are welcome to have another opinion, but I thought that a leading critic would have thought about those other opinions first before putting one of the greats in Russian literature under one that not everyone agrees on.

Hugo and Dickens? The difference cannot be greater. At least in his later work, Hugo's characters are very lifelike, which cannot be said about Dickens. As Neely quoted, they are caricatures. Hugo never wrote about caricatures, because the real issue occupied him so much.

Dickens cared very much for the real issues. He may have written caricatures, but they are in satires. He wrote with a purpose, to shine a light on society's ills and make a difference. If he can do that by making larger-than -life characters which hit you between the eyes, and grab your attention, then he succeeded. Obviously you and Neely don't feel that he worked for you, but he is certainly not the lesser writer than Hugo for it. Characters and situations were extensions of real ones e.g. Fagin and the pickpockets, Mr Micawber etc. based on real people. I don't think he should be castigated for giving them extra colour, he was a writer. The dismissal of Dickens on the grounds that he wrote caricatures is not, I think, a reasonable reason to consider him a mediocre writer.

kiki1982

03-04-2010, 05:28 AM

milktea

03-04-2010, 05:54 AM

kiki1982

03-04-2010, 06:19 AM

I know this doesn't add much to the argument, but I have to agree with you kiki. You pretty much described in one of your earlier posts my exact opinion of Dickens. I'm not well read on Tolstoy, but I found his characters in War and Peace have far more depth than any Dickens work I've ever read. I liked Hugo when I was a child, but haven't read him since. I probably would not like him now ^_^;;

On Hugo:

I don't know if you wouldn't like him. Try ;)

Nono, seriously.

It depends what you have read. He seemed to be a very much concerned and engaged man. Mayb you get something different out of it now.

milktea

03-04-2010, 08:13 AM

When I was about 10 or somewhere around that age, I read Les Miserables and the Hunchback of Notre Dame. I remember enjoying them immensely. My taste in literature has changed a lot. Hugo's listed in the canon, so there is no question that I will be giving him another try. I'll find out then whether my assumption proves true or false.

Edit: BTW, I think you were the kind poster who helped me out with my typesetting woes. I really am grateful to you *^_^*

kiki1982

03-04-2010, 09:30 AM

It seems so, yes ;).

I didn'tseeyour repla anymore on that topic, but I have retrieved it your statistics.

Glad to be of help. I wouldn't have guessed at 'uniust'. :eek:

We had some nce discussions on Hugo's Misérables on his own forum. Have a look through it, because, to be fair, it is inconceivable what the man put in his magnum opus. (and that were his own words for that book)

OrphanPip

03-04-2010, 10:17 AM

I was only comparing the two here. Somebody said that Hugo had more in common with Dickens than Tolstoy. That was my only point.

I see the point about satire, but to be fair, Dickens does not go all the way. Some of his work is entertaining as a satire should be, but other parts are too serious to be part of a satire. If there comes real emotion, it is hard to enjoy it, because our character is a caricature. Consequently, we cannot feel too deep with it because we don't know it.

I think calling Dickens works satire isn't quite accurate. There are satirical elements to his novels in the depictions of certain characters which represent people who hold popular opinions.

What I believe is central to the Dickensian style is the contrast between the idealized characters and the harsh social reality. It is mostly fantasy, but we inevitably get drawn into the social realism of it. Sissy Jupe in Hard Times may seem too kind, too perfect, and too insightful for readers so accustomed to realist fiction. However, the realities of factory life, reform of schools, poverty in London are all depicted in that novel. Dickens bridges that gap between realist novelist like Tolstoy, and the picaresque and epistolary novelist like Fielding and Richardson. He takes the idealized characters out of those earlier novels and he places them in very real situations, which gives them a certain realism. He was always concerned with real issues, it was never just about telling a delightful story (Apart from the Christmas stories). Oliver Twist is a fun underdog story where everything turns out pretty much perfect, but it was also a real critique of the slums of London. Hard Times likewise contains critiques of the Utilitarian philosophy of the time and the injustice of the new divorce laws which made divorces legal for those with large sums of money; the near perfection of Sissy Jupe serves to emphasize the injustices inflicted on her.

Drkshadow03

03-04-2010, 02:11 PM

I think calling Dickens works satire isn't quite accurate. There are satirical elements to his novels in the depictions of certain characters which represent people who hold popular opinions.

What I believe is central to the Dickensian style is the contrast between the idealized characters and the harsh social reality. It is mostly fantasy, but we inevitably get drawn into the social realism of it. Sissy Jupe in Hard Times may seem too kind, too perfect, and too insightful for readers so accustomed to realist fiction. However, the realities of factory life, reform of schools, poverty in London are all depicted in that novel. Dickens bridges that gap between realist novelist like Tolstoy, and the picaresque and epistolary novelist like Fielding and Richardson. He takes the idealized characters out of those earlier novels and he places them in very real situations, which gives them a certain realism. He was always concerned with real issues, it was never just about telling a delightful story (Apart from the Christmas stories). Oliver Twist is a fun underdog story where everything turns out pretty much perfect, but it was also a real critique of the slums of London. Hard Times likewise contains critiques of the Utilitarian philosophy of the time and the injustice of the new divorce laws which made divorces legal for those with large sums of money; the near perfection of Sissy Jupe serves to emphasize the injustices inflicted on her.

In all fairness to Kiki, I'm the one who connected Dickens with satire when I wrote:

The Dickens novels I've read (Great Expectations and Hard Times) I think should also be read as kind of satire of Dicken's society, usually some aspect. Here are my thoughts on Hard Times. I'm failing to see how Dickens doesn't incorporate symbolism into his story given the copious amounts of religious allusion to be found in Hard Times.

Although, you'll notice I do say "some aspect [of his society]" and a "kind of satire." The reason being I realize his works aren't pure satire, but there is a lot to his works that are satirical, but I can't put my finger on it how I would describe Dicken's novels.

kiki1982

03-04-2010, 02:17 PM

His work is also argued satirist by others though.

OrphanPip

03-04-2010, 02:31 PM

His work is also argued satirist by others though.

That's all swell and good, but Dickens uses satire in his novels, the novels themselves aren't strictly satires.

mal4mac

03-04-2010, 02:31 PM

Dickens dramas are the very basis of popular novels, he solved several problems, taking it from upper-class novels or the adventures in Tom Jones style that all others would later copy. And Dickens, albeit using a more popular language, never lose the touch of quality. If half of the best-sellers writers that exist today had Dickens skill to write the opening lines of Tale of two cities, nobody would bother saying about the "end of literature". He is a giant, just like Tolstoy.

I'm reading Tom Jones at the moment, and read Nicholas Nickleby recently, and you are right about the 'adventure style'. They are very similar -- all that dashing about the country; long stretches jogging around London society; rising from poverty; 'making their fortunes'; giving aristocrats come upances, 'wowing the ladies', and so on... But Dickens is superior. I'm having trouble getting through Tom Jones, but it has very good patches, and is certainly worth reading.

The opening to Bleak House is even more amazing, I think. The symbolic use of London fog to represent the fog of law, as well as being a superb piece of literal scene setting is fantastic. Who said Dickens couldn't generate symbolic meaning? Pah.

OrphanPip

03-04-2010, 02:42 PM

I'm reading Tom Jones at the moment, and read Nicholas Nickleby recently, and you are right about the 'adventure style'. They are very similar -- all that dashing about the country; long stretches jogging around London society; rising from poverty; 'making their fortunes'; giving aristocrats come upances, 'wowing the ladies', and so on... But Dickens is superior. I'm having trouble getting through Tom Jones, but it has very good patches, and is certainly worth reading.

Fielding's influence is really distinctly there in the earlier Dickens novels, which I'm not overly fond of. I also had great difficulty getting through Tom Jones at times.

mal4mac

03-10-2010, 09:22 AM

Or with time... as one's own reading evolves... one may discover that one writer leads to another. Sometimes it is in a direct manner as in Borges piquing my interest in DeQuincy in one of his essays. In other instances it is the result of one's own branching out from something that brought a particular degree of pleasure. I found myself enamored of Baudelaire and so I sought out and discovered related poets and writers such as Verlaine, Rimbaud, Mallarme, Gautier, Nerval, etc... I found myself seduced b Borges and so I branched out into Adolfo Bioy Casares, Julio Cortazar, Augusto Monterroso, Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis, Alejo Carpentier, etc...

Using this approach is there not a danger of getting trapped in a cluster of hills surrounding one peak, and forgetting to strike out and look for other mountains? A synoptic critic like Bloom points squarely to the mountains. As a personal example, I was trapped in the the hills of the 19th century novel. Having Bloom twisting my arm to read Cervantes, Montaigne, Dante et.al. introduced new ranges of thought to me. I needed crampons & ropes to attempt these peaks, but with Bloom as lead sherpa, my mountaineering made some progress...

mal4mac

03-10-2010, 09:35 AM

Dickens cared very much for the real issues. He may have written caricatures, but they are in satires. He wrote with a purpose, to shine a light on society's ills and make a difference. If he can do that by making larger-than -life characters which hit you between the eyes, and grab your attention, then he succeeded. Obviously you and Neely don't feel that he worked for you, but he is certainly not the lesser writer than Hugo for it. Characters and situations were extensions of real ones e.g. Fagin and the pickpockets, Mr Micawber etc. based on real people. I don't think he should be castigated for giving them extra colour, he was a writer. The dismissal of Dickens on the grounds that he wrote caricatures is not, I think, a reasonable reason to consider him a mediocre writer.

So true! Edgar Allan Poe agrees with you ["The Old Curiosity Shop" review]:

"We have heard some of them called caricatures- but the charge is grossly ill-founded. No critical principle is more firmly based in reason than that a certain amount of exaggeration is essential to the proper depicting of truth itself. We do not paint an object to be true, but to appear true to the beholder. Were we to copy nature with accuracy the object copied would seem unnatural. The columns of the Greek temples, which convey the idea of absolute proportion, are very considerably thicker just beneath the capital than at the base. We regret that we have not left ourselves space in which to examine this whole question as it deserves. We must content ourselves with saying that caricature seldom exists (unless in so gross a form as to disgust at once) where the component parts are in keeping; and that the laugh excited by it, in any case, is radically distinct from that induced by a properly artistical incongruity- the source of all mirth. Were these creations of Mr. Dickens' really caricatures they would not live in public estimation beyond the hour of their first survey. We regard them as creations- (that is to say as original combinations of character) only not all of the highest order, because the elements employed are not always of the highest. In the instances of Nelly, the grandfather, the Sexton, and the man of the furnace, the force of the creative intellect could scarcely have been engaged with nobler material, and the result is that these personages belong to the most august regions of the Ideal."

Hmmm... why doesn't Bloom like Poe?

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/poe/dickens.html