Could someone help me understand "classic" literature

[Leland Gaunt]

After yet another year of clashing with my English teachers and their curriculum choices, I am fed up. I have been told year after year that these stories were top of the line and that they would inspire/move me. Year after year they have not lived up to this standard. Is it the books? The teachers? Or is it me? In any case I'd like to know what exactly sets these books and authors above the others. Any help or constructive critiscm is appreciated.

Oh and a few examples of the authors giving me trouble. Hawthorne, Alighieri, Shakespeare, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.
I have enjoyed Orwell, Twain, and Steinbeck.

[mtpspur]

I'm with you on Wharton. A duller book then Ethan Frome is hard to come by. As to Hawthorne a duller boyfriend to wear a Scarlet Letter for could not be found. C. S. Lewis reads better if you have a background in Christian doctrines or much head scratching will ensue. I'm a cranky dinosaur so Shakspeare does not have the magic that others see in him but his sense of having a feel for the popular entertainments and what motivates mankind keep his plays moving along. I tend to enjoy his villians better then his heroes. Never read Dante and have never been tempted. Personally I prefer Haggard or Dickens or Stevenson WHEN the mood strikes me. Hope this helps.

[tiredstudent]

hawthorne is an incredibly difficult author to understand, so no hard feelings there. C.S. Lewis, i enjoyed... but to each his own i guess. Shakespeare? those are PLAYS, and were always meant to be seen, not read. Reading them takes the life right out of the play and leaves it dull and boring and confusing. Go see a good shakespeare play... maybe it can kindle a 'shakespeare fire'...lol

[billl]

I think Shakespeare probably could move or inspire you if you read the right play AND could get into the language of it. Dante is also wrapped in a language issue. Both of these are written as poetry. On top of that, Dante is translated, and refers to people and religious themes you might not know much about.

So, for the Shakespeare, I had to get into the new words and the different sort of language/structure of the sentences. Getting better at THAT has to become enjoyable, something interesting in itself, in my opinion. Perhaps you have worked along those lines, and have even gotten the hang of how to read it and understand what's going on pretty well, but you still don't like Shakespeare? But if the language is obstructing the story or overly-frustrating, then I'd suggest it might be worth the effort to stick with it and get the hang of it. And maybe see a play, or movie adaptation.

I'm guessing you are in high school. I read Dante in the university in a class that was simply about Dante. It was a while ago, but it was really great--but maybe having an interesting professor go through it with the class helped a lot--in fact, I am sure it did. As far as being inspiring or moving, well, maybe it was here or there, but I was mostly impressed by how much there was in those books, what things might 'mean', and with just how incredibly visual it often was.

[stlukesguild]

Leland... I'm sorry, but it's you. Dante, Shakespeare, Hawthorne, etc... are among some of greatest writers... indeed Shakespeare and Dante virtually divide Western literature between them. The problem, however, is that any art form is essentially a language... and that language and its vocabulary must be learned and understood before you can really begin to appreciate it. After having read any number of older works of prose and poetry I laugh at the notion that Shakespeare... let alone Hawthorne... is difficult to read. But as with most things in life, practice makes perfect. Shakespeare and Dante both place far greater demands upon the average reader (demands that are more than rewarded) that are not as challenging as more recognizable language found in the work of many more recent writers... or the works of the writers most of us grew up reading as children... and many of the works of the more commercially popular writers. Of course I might add that it could also be the teacher (although as a teacher myself I probably shouldn't make such suppositions). A good teacher should attempt to instill a love of reading in you... should help you to develop a grasp of older prose and poetic forms... but ultimately it is up to the individual and you must decide whether the pleasure to be gained is worth the struggle. You can certainly stick with Harry Potter and Dan Brown and other writers that pander to the audience with easy art... just as you can stick with Lady Gaga or the latest summer block-buster and avoid music or film or art that might demand a bit more of you... art that might challenge you... art that might avoid the usual cliches. The decision is yours.

You mention having liked Steinbeck and Twain... both good writers... but not the and breadth of Shakespeare and Dante. Don't be quick to give up on them. At the same time... don't assume that your first opinions are your last. As you grow and gain in experience... including the experience of reading... you may find your opinions change. For now I would advise you to build off those writers among the "classics" that you do admire. Look into Hemingway's stories, Poe's tales, Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky (start with the short stories), Aldus Huxley. Also seek out the best examples of whatever genre you like to read: science-fiction, mysteries, ghost stories, etc... But every so many books... challenge yourself; try some poetry or perhaps Lewis Carroll in order to develop a love of language. Pick up a Greek play or one by Shakespeare and push your self and your expectations.

While I am on this, I might point out that the idea that Shakespeare should be seen performed and not read is absolutely absurd. His mastery of language, the difficulty of some of his concepts and metaphors, his use of word play, etc... are all best served through reading. Seeing a good live performance, on the other hand, can certainly help to pull things together... and lead to a better concept of the flow of the language.

[Leland Gaunt]

@mtpspur- Yes it does help, there is at least someone else out there that shares some of my opinion.
@billl and tiredstudent- You bring up a fair point I will make sure to go see a play of his.
@stlukesguild-
Your passion is great. But then again so is mine, reading has been a central component of my life for as long as I can remember, whether it was reading Greek mythology with my grandmother, or tackling books like Little Women and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in grade school. I hate to sound as if I am bragging, but reading is my passion. So please do not reduce me to Dan Brown and Harry Potter right off the bat, and by no means am I a fan of Lady GaGa or for that matter anything that is played on the radio. I think any discussion between the two of us will be much more productive if you don't make rash assumptions of who I am. Thank you. In regards to Dante, I really don't find myself identifying with any themes within Dante as I am an agnostic atheist, and find most everything within that poem to be petty and depressing. On the other hand I think that I will give Shakespeare another go. I have already read War and Peace, Dickens has been a consistent figure in English classes, I like Poe's poetry, Crime and Punishment is on my summer reading list, and I will look into the others that you have mentioned. In regards to genres, I am a long time fantasy fan and my favorites are Martin, Abercombie, Rothfuss, and Lovecraft. Recently though I've been reading philosophy and political theory: Nietschze, Marx, Locke, Mill, Hobbes, Paine, and Shapiro so far. I'd be happy to receive any recommendations.

[spookymulder93]

Just because everyone else loves it doesn't mean you have to. Enjoying a work is subjective. That's like me telling you that Beethoven is more enjoyable than Black Sabbath, which would be a total lie.

[Leland Gaunt]

I agree, but my grade is dependent on my ability to interpret it just like my teacher. I also have to be able to stay awake while writing my 3rd essay of the week about the novel and what various symbols supposedly mean.

[spookymulder93]

I agree, but my grade is dependent on my ability to interpret it just like my teacher. I also have to be able to stay awake while writing my 3rd essay of the week about the novel and what various symbols supposedly mean.

You're going to do A LOT of stuff that you don't want to do in school. Actually, you're going to have to do A LOT of stuff that you don't want to do in life.

What that means is fake an interest in it or at least enough interest to get you a passing grade and never look at the novel ever again.

[Leland Gaunt]

Oh is that so, am I going to have to things I don't want to in life. Things like working 30 hour weekends for the past 10 months, sacrificing your social life so you can go to college. Forcing yourself to drudge through school for 35 hours a week, a school that offers 2 classes that even interest you mildly. Coming home to yet another parental disagreement, and only falling asleep after the caffeine, that you are addicted to, wears off. And waking up 4 and half hours later to do it all again. I have by no means lived the hardest life, but then again it hasn't exactly shown itself to be a cakewalk. I am not asking for sympathy or pity just some advice. I posted here to see if perhaps I had been missing something that could help me get through English class, and in fact I have been given some reasonable advice (thank you first three to respond) but some feel the need to dole out advice that would be considered patronizing even to a 12 year old. I'll thank you to keep your life lessons to yourself.

Edit: Sorry if I'm acting defensive. Just feeling a little on edge tonight.

[spookymulder93]

Oh is that so, am I going to have to things I don't want to in life. Things like working 30 hour weekends for the past 10 months, sacrificing your social life so you can go to college. Forcing yourself to drudge through school for 35 hours a week, a school that offers 2 classes that even interest you mildly. Coming home to yet another parental disagreement, and only falling asleep after the caffeine, that you are addicted to, wears off. And waking up 4 and half hours later to do it all again. I have by no means lived the hardest life, but then again it hasn't exactly shown itself to be a cakewalk. I am not asking for sympathy or pity just some advice. I posted here to see if perhaps I had been missing something that could help me get through English class, and in fact I have been given some reasonable advice (thank you first three to respond) but some feel the need to dole out advice that would be considered patronizing even to a 12 year old. I'll thank you to keep your life lessons to yourself.

Edit: Sorry if I'm acting defensive. Just feeling a little on edge tonight.

You're going to get A LOT of patronizing advice in life.

What that means is take the advice with a handful of salt and read that novel.

LOL.

[stlukesguild]

Your passion is great. But then again so is mine, reading has been a central component of my life for as long as I can remember, whether it was reading Greek mythology with my grandmother, or tackling books like Little Women and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in grade school. I hate to sound as if I am bragging, but reading is my passion. So please do not reduce me to Dan Brown and Harry Potter right off the bat, and by no means am I a fan of Lady GaGa or for that matter anything that is played on the radio. I think any discussion between the two of us will be much more productive if you don't make rash assumptions of who I am.

I have made no such assumptions. Lady Gaga, Dan Brown, etc... were but examples of highly accessible and less-than-challenging works of art... works that do not demand a great deal of the audience but rather pander to them. You came to this board wondering about your inability to appreciate Shakespeare, Dante, etc... I merely suggested that these writers may demand that you invest more effort than you are used to... although I would almost assume that if you can appreciate Nietzsche, Shakespeare should present you with no real challenge.

You may indeed have read far more than I presumed... although one might point out that with Dante we are talking about a 13th century Italian poet and with Shakespeare we have a poet/playwright of 16th/early 17th century England. The language, the poetic structures, the use of metaphors, symbols, etc... may be well removed from much that you have read. It wasn't really until I had a good deal of experience in reading poetry... including earlier poets... that I found Shakespeare and Dante really resonated. Of course... you may just not like them, and there is nothing wrong with that... as long as you can discern a personal dislike from a larger value judgment (ie. Shakespeare doesn't do much for me... thus Shakespeare is overrated).

With regard to Dante and your inability to relate to his themes... I would question whether the ability to relate is something to make aesthetic judgments based upon. In other words... do you read only to reinforce your own ideas, beliefs, thoughts, experiences... even prejudices? Part of the value of reading is the ability to experience other ideas, beliefs, thoughts, cultures, etc... I am not Muslim, and yet the strongest book I have read in the last few years was Firdawsi's Shanameh... which is something of Persia/Iran's Odyssey and Divine Comedy all wrapped into one. I remember being absolutely infuriated again and again by the ideas Plato put forth in The Republic. I repeatedly scrawled angry retorts in the margins... but reading him was an experience I would not have missed. It was like engaging in a dialog with a brilliant mind... and I could not deny his brilliance no matter how much I disagreed with what he had to say. Beyond saying this, I might note that Dante's themes are virtually an entire universe. His is not but dry theology... he deals with passion, love, deceit, murder, history, politics, theology, death, spirituality, and so much more. His characters and their narratives and the intensely sensual/sensory manner in which he portrays them include many of the central characters and narratives to Western literature. They have repeatedly been the subject matter of painters, poets, novelists, composers, etc... This is something to consider before dismissing his work offhand.

...some feel the need to dole out advice that would be considered patronizing even to a 12 year old. I'll thank you to keep your life lessons to yourself.

Again... it is impossible to offer any real critique of your reading or suggestions to improve this without a greater case history of your reading, as it were. You are the one who came here asking for the opinions of others. Believe it or not some of those here may have already gone through the same sort of struggles and experiences as you... as some here may have actually have more experience with literature than you. Certainly, you are free to make of my opinions...take them or leave them... as you will.

[Leland Gaunt]

@spooky-Ugh its a never ending circle. lol
@stluke- I understand that reading can introduce you to new ideas, but in Dante's case they were for the most part the lessons of my childhood (raised a Roman Catholic) but with more detail.Though I still have my doubts you have convinced me to study poetry more intensively, and revisit the Divine Comedy. As for recommendations, if you happen to know of any prominent anarchist theorists that would be great. I'd like to once again apologize to anyone I got snappy with, I regret doing so. This seems to have quickly devolved into an irritable me ranting at people over the internet.

[stlukesguild]

Surely, there's no greater "anarchist" than William Blake.:biggrin5:

[billl]

Oh, yeah. Blake is pretty easy to appreciate. I was very lucky to pick that at random for some high school assignment.

[ktm5124]

@spooky-Ugh its a never ending circle. lol
@stluke- I understand that reading can introduce you to new ideas, but in Dante's case they were for the most part the lessons of my childhood (raised a Roman Catholic) but with more detail.Though I still have my doubts you have convinced me to study poetry more intensively, and revisit the Divine Comedy. As for recommendations, if you happen to know of any prominent anarchist theorists that would be great. I'd like to once again apologize to anyone I got snappy with, I regret doing so. This seems to have quickly devolved into an irritable me ranting at people over the internet.

Well you did come across as overly-defensive in this thread, but I think that's a symptom of your age (no offense). However, you show a good deal of maturity in this post :-)

The authors that are troubling you are all very remote from the life of a modern-day adolescent. As much as you're going to hate me for saying this, literature is better understood and appreciated with a little life experience. When you experience the themes of a work of art for yourself, or when they are somewhere on your horizon, your appreciation of that work may change. I think this is why Romeo & Juliet is Shakespeare's most accessible play - its main theme is universally accessible to all ages.

Also you should ask yourself - when you read a novel/play/poem, are you looking for immediate gratification, e.g. the gratification of a thrilling plot, of suspense, of one brilliant idea after another? Sometimes the joy of reading a text is to be found under the surface of the composition. Sometimes it is to be found in retrospect, because it is only when you finish a text that you know its true shape and structure. This doesn't apply so much to Shakespeare, as Shakespeare's plays were meant to be entertaining, but it applies to many 19th and 20th century writers you might come across (including, for example, Hawthorne).

To give some more concrete suggestions --

Regarding Shakespeare, I would recommend watching the various plays on film that are out there. I highly recommend the following:

Richard Burton / Elizabeth Taylor's The Taming of the Shrew
Derek Jacobi's Richard II
Laurence Olivier's Richard III
Laurence Olivier's Hamlet

(I refer to the films here by the starring actor.)

Watching a Shakespeare play, especially those that star world-class actors, can show you how funny and dramatic a scene or soliloquy can be, so that when you read it you have a new appreciation. Not only that, but watching one Shakespeare play can help you read another; the more you see how Shakespeare is acted out, the better you become at reading him.

Regarding Hawthorne:

I suggest reading some scholarly articles. If you can get access to jstor.org, that will prove invaluable. You won't be able to access it from home; you'll need to find a library that has a subscription. It's where academia looks for scholarly articles on the web.

You can also find criticism on Hawthorne in any local library. Next to The Scarlet Letter there should be books written on The Scarlet Letter. Try picking one of these up and see what you get from it. Also, if you have a critical edition of TSL, see what you can glean from the introductory essay.

Sorry for such a long post. =/

[Featchy]

Stick with Shakespeare; he’s undoubtedly the greatest writer in the English language, and eventually you’ll develop an ear for him.

Dante, like any poet, is best approached in his own language. Translation can only do so much.

The problem with Hawthorne is Hawthorne, and by that I mean he has aged badly and is dull.

[mal4mac]

Shakespeare? those are PLAYS, and were always meant to be seen, not read. Reading them takes the life right out of the play and leaves it dull and boring and confusing. Go see a good shakespeare play... maybe it can kindle a 'shakespeare fire'...lol

I disagree that reading them takes the life right out of them! Many great Shakespeare critics, like Harold Bloom, recommend reading them *rather than* watching them, because so many directors make them dull, boring and confusing. Also reading allows you to slow things down so you have time to understand difficult passages. To 'get' Shakespeare you need notes, but too many versions have too many notes that are excessive, dull, boring and confusing. So look, or ask here, for recommendations. I like the RSC Complete Shakespeare edited by Bate & Rasmussen - which is now coming out in 'individual play' versions if you can't face the 'complete'...

Given the authors you say you like, Macbeth might be a good play to start with. Try and get hold of Polanski's film version if you need some live action inspiration.

The key to Dante is finding a good translation with great notes - I'm reading Mandelbaum's Everyman translation and greatly enjoying it. The biggest problem is coming to terms with the Italian 'characters' and history. But if you make the hard slog through the notes to 'get' these aspects, Dante eventually repays you with wonderful imagery, poetry and philosophy.

Hawthorne, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.

Apart from Dante and Shakespeare your rating of Orwell, Twain, and Steinbeck as more worthy than Hawthorne, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis seems spot on!

To really wind up your teachers ask them why C.S. Lewis is on the syllabus and not Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, D.H. Lawrence, Jane Austen, George Eliot... there are so many English writers who are ranked above C.S. Lewis that I'm flabbergasted that he's the 'representative Brit'. Are your English teachers fundamentalist Christians? Maybe they are letting their religious fervour overcome their literary sensibility?

[keilj]

After yet another year of clashing with my English teachers and their curriculum choices, I am fed up. I have been told year after year that these stories were top of the line and that they would inspire/move me. Year after year they have not lived up to this standard. Is it the books? The teachers? Or is it me? In any case I'd like to know what exactly sets these books and authors above the others. Any help or constructive critiscm is appreciated.

Oh and a few examples of the authors giving me trouble. Hawthorne, Alighieri, Shakespeare, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.
I have enjoyed Orwell, Twain, and Steinbeck.

Don't get discouraged – I found Hawthorne, Shakespeare and others to be very uninspiring as well. Whereas Twain and Steinbeck are my absolute favorites

In all seriousness, my high school and college English and Lit classes nearly turned me off from reading books altogether. After having to slog through stuff like Beowulf, Shakespeare plays, and Faulkner – and being told by Lit teachers how "amazing" they were – I was left with nearly no interest in classic literature

It was only after I graduated college, and started looking into some authors like Twain, Steinbeck, Sinclair Lewis, and F Scott Fitzgerald that I really started finding book that really moved me and struck a chord with me – books that will stay with me forever.

My other problem with many Lit teachers is their choice of books. For example, I found Tender is the Night to be much better than The Great Gatsby, and I found For Whom the Bells Tolls to be much better than The Sun Also Rises. So spending weeks of class after class analyzing every line of The Sun Also Rises, can also turn you off to a great author like Hemingway


You're going to do A LOT of stuff that you don't want to do in school. Actually, you're going to have to do A LOT of stuff that you don't want to do in life.

What that means is fake an interest in it or at least enough interest to get you a passing grade and never look at the novel ever again.

I agree with the above

But the frustrating thing is - when you are forced to do Algebra - you don't have to listen to the teacher, and some students, soliloquize about how beautiful and emotive and inspiring Algebra is - whereas when you take a Lit class, you do


Leland... I'm sorry, but it's you. Dante, Shakespeare, Hawthorne, etc... are among some of greatest writers... indeed Shakespeare and Dante virtually divide Western literature between them. The problem, however, is that any art form is essentially a language... and that language and its vocabulary must be learned and understood before you can really begin to appreciate it. After having read any number of older works of prose and poetry I laugh at the notion that Shakespeare... let alone Hawthorne... is difficult to read. But as with most things in life, practice makes perfect. Shakespeare and Dante both place far greater demands upon the average reader (demands that are more than rewarded) that are not as challenging as more recognizable language found in the work of many more recent writers... or the works of the writers most of us grew up reading as children... and many of the works of the more commercially popular writers. Of course I might add that it could also be the teacher (although as a teacher myself I probably shouldn't make such suppositions). A good teacher should attempt to instill a love of reading in you... should help you to develop a grasp of older prose and poetic forms... but ultimately it is up to the individual and you must decide whether the pleasure to be gained is worth the struggle. You can certainly stick with Harry Potter and Dan Brown and other writers that pander to the audience with easy art... just as you can stick with Lady Gaga or the latest summer block-buster and avoid music or film or art that might demand a bit more of you... art that might challenge you... art that might avoid the usual cliches. The decision is yours.

You mention having liked Steinbeck and Twain... both good writers... but not the and breadth of Shakespeare and Dante. Don't be quick to give up on them. At the same time... don't assume that your first opinions are your last. As you grow and gain in experience... including the experience of reading... you may find your opinions change. For now I would advise you to build off those writers among the "classics" that you do admire. Look into Hemingway's stories, Poe's tales, Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky (start with the short stories), Aldus Huxley. Also seek out the best examples of whatever genre you like to read: science-fiction, mysteries, ghost stories, etc... But every so many books... challenge yourself; try some poetry or perhaps Lewis Carroll in order to develop a love of language. Pick up a Greek play or one by Shakespeare and push your self and your expectations.

While I am on this, I might point out that the idea that Shakespeare should be seen performed and not read is absolutely absurd. His mastery of language, the difficulty of some of his concepts and metaphors, his use of word play, etc... are all best served through reading. Seeing a good live performance, on the other hand, can certainly help to pull things together... and lead to a better concept of the flow of the language.


you seem to be missing the very important point - that people have different tastes.

I would argue that Shakespeare - as Twain put it - is chloroform in print. But I understand that plenty of people like Shakespeare, Faulkner, etc. I don't try to argue that Steinbeck has more breadth than Hawthorne, for example

[stlukesguild]

Do not underestimate Hawthorne. He brings something quite unique.. an obsessive Puritan guilt... to American literature. Personally, I far prefer his short stories.

you seem to be missing the very important point - that people have different tastes.

Yes... everyone has personal tastes... but these do not alter the merits of a great work of art. I recognize the brilliance of James Joyce... but he does not resonate for me anywhere near the level that Proust, Kafka, or J.L. Borges. But I recognize that saying that I like or don't particularly like a given work of literature is not the same as making an objective value judgment such as "Hawthorne is boring" or "Shakespeare sucks"... especially when such judgments go against the larger-held opinions (and these are the closest we get to objective "facts" or "truths" in art). One must certain be prepared for disagreements when making such judgments. To simply state "Shakespeare just doesn't move me," you have put forth a statement of fact; there is no implied value judgment of Shakespeare's work. To suggest that "Shakespeare is 'chloroform in print' " is a statement of another nature, altogether and you may find that others will challenge your judgment.

[keilj]

you seem to be missing the very important point - that people have different tastes.

Yes... everyone has personal tastes... but these do not alter the merits of a great work of art. I recognize the brilliance of James Joyce... but he does not resonate for me anywhere near the level that Proust, Kafka, or J.L. Borges. But I recognize that saying that I like or don't particularly like a given work of literature is not the same as making an objective value judgment such as "Hawthorne is boring" or "Shakespeare sucks"... especially when such judgments go against the larger-held opinions (and these are the closest we get to objective "facts" or "truths" in art). One must certain be prepared for disagreements when making such judgments. To simply state "Shakespeare just doesn't move me," you have put forth a statement of fact; there is no implied value judgment of Shakespeare's work. To suggest that "Shakespeare is 'chloroform in print' " is a statement of another nature, altogether and you may find that others will challenge your judgment.

I think we pretty-much agree. There are certainly works of art that are great - beyond what opinion or someone's personal judgment says about them - they stand on their own

And, as you said, some art just does not resonate with some people - despite how highly regarded that art might be.

Which goes back to the original point - that a lot of Lit teachers are proffering books that resonate with them. Yes, some of these books might be highly regarded as well - but when you take a class, and you HAVE to read these books which do not resonate with you, it can be a turn-off.

So where we might disagree is that I don't think the original poster has bad or unrefined taste - I think he just needs to keep looking for books that resonate with him, and look beyond what Lit teachers hold as "marvelous" or "essential"

[kelby_lake]

I wonder how much Shakespeare so-called Shakespeare haters have actually read and which ones?

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them. Sometimes a more sceptical view of a piece of literature can be more useful than just saying 'I liked it.' There's obviously something in them- you just need to find out what. Listen to what your professors say but form your own opinions based on the text.

Shakespeare is worth reading and watching but you need to 'learn' his language, which after some practice shouldn't be too hard. Read versions of the texts which have good notes- if you get school textbook versions, even better. A few sonnets would be good too.

[keilj]

I wonder how much Shakespeare so-called Shakespeare haters have actually read and which ones?

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them. Sometimes a more sceptical view of a piece of literature can be more useful than just saying 'I liked it.' There's obviously something in them- you just need to find out what. Listen to what your professors say but form your own opinions based on the text.

Shakespeare is worth reading and watching but you need to 'learn' his language, which after some practice shouldn't be too hard. Read versions of the texts which have good notes- if you get school textbook versions, even better. A few sonnets would be good too.

unfortunately the same could be said of someone who claims Twain and Steinbeck don't have breadth

[kelby_lake]

unfortunately the same could be said of someone who claims Twain and Steinbeck don't have breadth

It could probably be said of pretty much any author but it's worse with Shakey, considering his output and influence on modern culture.

I liked Of Mice and Men- was in the middle of reading another Steinbeck, a road trippy one, and I liked the film version of East of Eden so may find time to read the book.

Not that keen on venturing into Twain- I prefer Bierce's satire and Coward/Wilde and from what I've heard, it seems to resonate more with Americans than with Brits. But I wouldn't say definitively that it didn't have much 'breadth', although I haven't heard anyone claim that it has 'breadth'- not necessarily to its detriment.

[spookymulder93]

I wonder how much Shakespeare so-called Shakespeare haters have actually read and which ones?

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them.

What does that mean?

I don't like Bob Dylan but a lot of people do. Does that mean I need to appreciate his music? I mean he did have a huge influence over a lot of other musicians.

[keilj]

It could probably be said of pretty much any author but it's worse with Shakey, considering his output and influence on modern culture.

I liked Of Mice and Men- was in the middle of reading another Steinbeck, a road trippy one, and I liked the film version of East of Eden so may find time to read the book.

Not that keen on venturing into Twain- I prefer Bierce's satire and Coward/Wilde and from what I've heard, it seems to resonate more with Americans than with Brits. But I wouldn't say definitively that it didn't have much 'breadth', although I haven't heard anyone claim that it has 'breadth'- not necessarily to its detriment.

Twain is interesting. When you read some of his lesser-loved stuff, like Letters From Earth, his autobiography, or some of his short stories like A Cure for the Blues or A Californian's Tale, you'll see that he, unlike any other authors I have read, stared down the truths of life and human nature, right down to the bone. It took staggering courage to write some of the things that he did

(but now I am just proselytizing)

[Quark]

I'd like to know what exactly sets these books and authors above the others. Any help or constructive critiscm is appreciated.

Oh and a few examples of the authors giving me trouble. Hawthorne, Alighieri, Shakespeare, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.

It would take too many words to explain why each of those writers produced good literature, but I think you could discuss one or two. Let's take Wharton first. Probably her finest novel is The House of Mirth (1905). If you're in a class that reads that work, you'll probably talk about at least these three things: narrative, marriage, and social codes. The story is considered one of the best crafted because it does a great job building the expectations of the reader and then pulling the rug out from under them. Wharton is writting to a audience that hungered for social success and high society. Throughout the novel, she places her heroine in situations that tease the reader with glimpses of the readers' fantasy. But, toward the end, the heroine's failures mount and she falls into the opposite extreme of poverty and disrepute. If you're trying to understand how stories build the expectations of readers and use them to create effects, this is one of the best novels to look at. Another idea that's very present in the book is marriage. So much of Wharton's writting is a meditation on how marriage has become a purely legal contract. The House of Mirth is a satire of this idea. So you're supposed to be thinking about what marriage is, how its established, and what its purpose is. You're also supposed to notice that Wharton's heroine doesn't play by the rules, and how that tears apart her own life and those around her. Just by reading the novel you can learn a lot about narrative, marriage, and social rules. These are some of the reasons why you might have to read her books in a class.

Of course, none of that may be immediately relevant to your life, and the book might be a bore to get through. But, if you're trying to be an articulate and educated person, you probably want to engage with these ideas at some point in your life. After all, people still get married and are confronted with the same problems Wharton's heroine are. And they still tell stories about it. That's why people still assign her books. I could go through and talk about other of her works or some of those other writers, but I don't have time to write out something about all of them. I haven't even read much of C.S. Lewis. If you want to get specific about what exactly you were reading and what you thought didn't work about these books, that might help.

Now this:


some art just does not resonate with some people - despite how highly regarded that art might be.

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them.

"Resonate," "appreciate," and "like" are all a little vague. I get the sense that you're trying to draw some important distinctions here, but many would see these words as largely synonomous (at least in this context).

[stlukesguild]

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them.

What does that mean?

I don't like Bob Dylan but a lot of people do. Does that mean I need to appreciate his music? I mean he did have a huge influence over a lot of other musicians.

What that means is that there is a difference between saying "I don't like Bob Dylan" and "Bob Dylan sucks. He can't sing, and his lyrics are atrocious."

Taken with regard to literature, saying "Shakespeare is boring" pretty much cuts you off from ever wanting to read his work again... after all, if his works are boring, why would you want to waste your time? Merely admitting, however, that Shakespeare has not resonated with you leaves open the very real possibility that you may eventually come around to liking him.

[Leland Gaunt]

Well I guess William Blake it is! Though something about stlukes grin tells me he is in some way involved with The Divine Comedy.


Also you should ask yourself - when you read a novel/play/poem, are you looking for immediate gratification, e.g. the gratification of a thrilling plot, of suspense, of one brilliant idea after another? Sometimes the joy of reading a text is to be found under the surface of the composition. Sometimes it is to be found in retrospect, because it is only when you finish a text that you know its true shape and structure. This doesn't apply so much to Shakespeare, as Shakespeare's plays were meant to be entertaining, but it applies to many 19th and 20th century writers you might come across (including, for example, Hawthorne).
Well I alternate between "heavy" and "light" reading. For example last month I first read H.P. Lovecraft after I had finished that I read John Stuart Mill and finished up with a book on lucid dreaming. So I guess before I read a book I've already decided how I am going to approach it.


The key to Dante is finding a good translation with great notes - I'm reading Mandelbaum's Everyman translation and greatly enjoying it. The biggest problem is coming to terms with the Italian 'characters' and history. But if you make the hard slog through the notes to 'get' these aspects, Dante eventually repays you with wonderful imagery, poetry and philosophy.

Hawthorne, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.

Apart from Dante and Shakespeare your rating of Orwell, Twain, and Steinbeck as more worthy than Hawthorne, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis seems spot on!

To really wind up your teachers ask them why C.S. Lewis is on the syllabus and not Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, D.H. Lawrence, Jane Austen, George Eliot... there are so many English writers who are ranked above C.S. Lewis that I'm flabbergasted that he's the 'representative Brit'. Are your English teachers fundamentalist Christians? Maybe they are letting their religious fervour overcome their literary sensibility?
I read that very same translation of Dante, but I felt nothing. Though to be completely honest I think I am letting my atheism cloud how I view whatever phillosophy he has to offer, I suppose where he is trying to teach morality I just see the faults in his religion. As for imagery I guess the various methods of eternal torture, were well described (see there, I just did it again). Poetry is something I have only found a very recent interest in, so like I told stluke, I will delve into poetry some more and read Dante afterwards.
Lol, I think I've given my teacher enough grief already. Actually, I've heard those names mentioned in conversations about my Senior Lit class, so maybe things will improve.

But the frustrating thing is - when you are forced to do Algebra - you don't have to listen to the teacher, and some students, soliloquize about how beautiful and emotive and inspiring Algebra is - whereas when you take a Lit class, you do
Consider this stored and ready for use on my next English teacher.
I agree with just about every single word in your post.

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them.
Why?

He brings something quite unique.. an obsessive Puritan guilt
To each his own, I suppose. I find nothing interesting about that (though I'm sure you will have a convincing reason as to why it should:biggrin5:), in fact it irritates me a little. Irritates me almost as much as the character Dimmesdale.

Edit: Sorry Quark missed you in my initial response. My main grievance is that I do not need the books to think about the issue, and more often than not the books chosen are just going over old ground that no longer brings up a powerful response.

[stlukesguild]

"Resonate," "appreciate," and "like" are all a little vague. I get the sense that you're trying to draw some important distinctions here, but many would see these words as largely synonomous (at least in this context).

Quark, I don't see the words as completely synonymous... at least in how they are being employed. By "like" I assume one is speaking of enjoying the work on a personal level... taking pleasure in it. By "appreciate" I would think we are speaking of recognizing the aesthetic merit of a work... even if it doesn't speak directly to you... even if you don't particularly "like" it.

[stlukesguild]

unfortunately the same could be said of someone who claims Twain and Steinbeck don't have breadth

I would question that assertion as well. The fact that Shakespeare is the greater writer and that I personally enjoy his work more than Twain or Steinbeck in no way should be mistaken for a suggestion that Twain or Steinbeck are poor or minor writers. I Once loved Steinbeck... although now I would probably lean more toward Hemingway's and Flannery O'Connor's short stories and Faulkner's novels. Neither do I question Twain's achievements... although I lean far more toward Poe, Hawthorne, Emerson, Melville, and their heirs.

[spookymulder93]

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them.

What does that mean?

I don't like Bob Dylan but a lot of people do. Does that mean I need to appreciate his music? I mean he did have a huge influence over a lot of other musicians.

What that means is that there is a difference between saying "I don't like Bob Dylan" and "Bob Dylan sucks. He can't sing, and his lyrics are atrocious."

Taken with regard to literature, saying "Shakespeare is boring" pretty much cuts you off from ever wanting to read his work again... after all, if his works are boring, why would you want to waste your time? Merely admitting, however, that Shakespeare has not resonated with you leaves open the very real possibility that you may eventually come around to liking him.
That makes sense. I actually heard a good Bob Dylan song the other day. It took me by surprise.

[Petrarch's Love]

After yet another year of clashing with my English teachers and their curriculum choices, I am fed up. I have been told year after year that these stories were top of the line and that they would inspire/move me. Year after year they have not lived up to this standard. Is it the books? The teachers? Or is it me? In any case I'd like to know what exactly sets these books and authors above the others. Any help or constructive critiscm is appreciated.

Oh and a few examples of the authors giving me trouble. Hawthorne, Alighieri, Shakespeare, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.
I have enjoyed Orwell, Twain, and Steinbeck.

Leland--I think there are two points here that others have brought up as well. One is that it is possible that some of these authors just aren't your personal cup of tea and, as others have said, there is no reason you have to love any particular writer. At the same time, as others have pointed out, literary tastes and appreciations change a lot as people grow and learn and experience things in life, and it's possible that, for any number of imaginable reasons, you simply aren't at a place in your life now that allows you to appreciate these works. I say this partly because you are clearly still in high school and I've found that many people at your age don't yet appreciate some of the writers you mention but do develop an appreciation later in life. I don't mean by this to suggest that you aren't well read or a committed and intelligent young person, but time and experience simply do make a difference, so you probably haven't reached the same point as you will have as a well read person ten years from now. I am similarly aware that well read people ten or twenty years older than myself have acquired certain insights and ways of appreciating literature that I just don't have access to at this point in my life. So, it's less a matter of whether you're grown up enough or not and more a matter of the fact that we are all always learning, and I would also say something similar to someone of almost any age who was having trouble getting into these authors. The writers that speak to us most may change throughout our lives and there are some works that won't mean anything to a person now that they will have a deep appreciation for ten years from now, whether because of their own life experience, or their development as a reader, or the introduction of new ideas or ways of appreciating the world during that time. So, you may not like some of these things now, but may find yourself liking them in the future (or not...who knows). I know this has been true for me.

I would add to this that, regardless of what your personal opinion of these works is (and that is your own), there is a reason that they are on your class syllabus. They are works that really have succeeded in moving, entertaining, changing huge numbers of people for hundreds of years now, and even if they are not to your taste, it may be worth giving them a closer look to see if you can't understand why they have had this great appeal to generations of people. The way I think about it is in terms of a distinction between liking something and respecting something. There are plenty of books and authors that I don't really like or identify with but I respect them for their artistic merit, for the insights into human behavior they deal with etc. For example, I can't say that I really like Faulkner. I don't identify with his themes, I don't know that I really like his plots or his characters in the way I enjoy other works. When I first read him I think I actually threw The Sound and the Fury across the room in frustration. However, I realized that there were other people who were getting something profound out of Faulkner and that interested me. I made myself read his works with real attention in an effort to see if I could understand anything of what the appeal was. As a result I developed a very real appreciation of Faulkner's use of language, and the things he does with narrative are amazing. I also discovered that part of what I do find interesting in his work is the fact that I don't identify with his themes or his characters. Part of what we can get out of a well written work of literature is the reward of both facing the challenge of struggling with and really understanding a work that is not one that you are naturally inclined toward and, along with this, of gaining insight into the concerns and workings of a mind that is very unlike your own. I still don't know that I would say I necessarily like Faulkner, but I have found things that I respect about his work, a respect that comes from a genuine appreciation of certain aspects of his writing and thinking. So, I would begin by framing your question much less in terms of only what you like and think in terms also of what you can have respect for and learn from without necessarily finding that it suits your own personal taste.

All of this, however, is a very large level response. There's really no way to address your question adequately without knowing what it is about these authors that is turning you off, and the only way to know that is to talk about the literature itself. I'm a college literature instructor who specializes in Medieval and Renaissance literature, so of your list of writers you're not too keen on, I'm most familiar with Dante and Shakespeare. If you like, post a passage from something you've read by one of those two and tell us all what it is you don't like or don't get about that passage. This will be a better way for myself and others on the thread to address what particular problems you are having with these writers and their poetry.

[Leland Gaunt]

Leland--I think there are two points here that others have brought up as well. One is that it is possible that some of these authors just aren't your personal cup of tea and, as others have said, there is no reason you have to love any particular writer. At the same time, as others have pointed out, literary tastes and appreciations change a lot as people grow and learn and experience things in life, and it's possible that, for any number of imaginable reasons, you simply aren't at a place in your life now that allows you to appreciate these works. I say this partly because you are clearly still in high school and I've found that many people at your age don't yet appreciate some of the writers you mention but do develop an appreciation later in life. I don't mean by this to suggest that you aren't well read or a committed and intelligent young person, but time and experience simply do make a difference, so you probably haven't reached the same point as you will have as a well read person ten years from now. I am similarly aware that well read people ten or twenty years older than myself have acquired certain insights and ways of appreciating literature that I just don't have access to at this point in my life. So, it's less a matter of whether you're grown up enough or not and more a matter of the fact that we are all always learning, and I would also say something similar to someone of almost any age who was having trouble getting into these authors. The writers that speak to us most may change throughout our lives and there are some works that won't mean anything to a person now that they will have a deep appreciation for ten years from now, whether because of their own life experience, or their development as a reader, or the introduction of new ideas or ways of appreciating the world during that time. So, you may not like some of these things now, but may find yourself liking them in the future (or not...who knows). I know this has been true for me.

I would add to this that, regardless of what your personal opinion of these works is (and that is your own), there is a reason that they are on your class syllabus. They are works that really have succeeded in moving, entertaining, changing huge numbers of people for hundreds of years now, and even if they are not to your taste, it may be worth giving them a closer look to see if you can't understand why they have had this great appeal to generations of people. The way I think about it is in terms of a distinction between liking something and respecting something. There are plenty of books and authors that I don't really like or identify with but I respect them for their artistic merit, for the insights into human behavior they deal with etc. For example, I can't say that I really like Faulkner. I don't identify with his themes, I don't know that I really like his plots or his characters in the way I enjoy other works. When I first read him I think I actually threw The Sound and the Fury across the room in frustration. However, I realized that there were other people who were getting something profound out of Faulkner and that interested me. I made myself read his works with real attention in an effort to see if I could understand anything of what the appeal was. As a result I developed a very real appreciation of Faulkner's use of language, and the things he does with narrative are amazing. I also discovered that part of what I do find interesting in his work is the fact that I don't identify with his themes or his characters. Part of what we can get out of a well written work of literature is the reward of both facing the challenge of struggling with and really understanding a work that is not one that you are naturally inclined toward and, along with this, of gaining insight into the concerns and workings of a mind that is very unlike your own. I still don't know that I would say I necessarily like Faulkner, but I have found things that I respect about his work, a respect that comes from a genuine appreciation of certain aspects of his writing and thinking. So, I would begin by framing your question much less in terms of only what you like and think in terms also of what you can have respect for and learn from without necessarily finding that it suits your own personal taste.

All of this, however, is a very large level response. There's really no way to address your question adequately without knowing what it is about these authors that is turning you off, and the only way to know that is to talk about the literature itself. I'm a college literature instructor who specializes in Medieval and Renaissance literature, so of your list of writers you're not too keen on, I'm most familiar with Dante and Shakespeare. If you like, post a passage from something you've read by one of those two and tell us all what it is you don't like or don't get about that passage. This will be a better way for myself and others on the thread to address what particular problems you are having with these writers and their poetry.
As I have thought about it more I have come to realize that it has more to do with the way it is being taught, now I don't want to demonize my teachers for they are quite passionate but that is part of the problem. They build up my expectations and they inevitably fail to meet the high hopes I had for the books. It also has to do with how assignments are given. We are given x number of pages to read. We are also told to pay special attention to certain parts of the assignment. So I read and reread that section. Next day in class I have to sit through first a student and then the teacher (who is melodramatic and likes to perform her own little one woman plays) go through the same passage and it quickly becomes both tedious and redundant. Sometimes we are given problems almost in equation form, person x has come to conclusion z, tell me y, so x+y=z. Or this(x) symbolizes that (z), tell me why (y). I'm so busy looking for the "right" answers that I don't take the time to enjoy the characters, setting or anything else that would emotionally involve me within the story. Consequently I have been so turned off of a few works that the likelihood of me ever picking it up again at a later date to see if my opinion of it has changed, is very unlikely.
Dante is the exception here, as I read it on my own time. As I have mentioned before Dante was one of my first poems, in fact the first that went beyond 2 pages. Also, it is hard for me to relate to any of the moral lessons which seemed either basic (don't kill), or petty (don't give bad advice). Then again I could be completely missing deeper points and underlying themes. And then there was the occasional silliness. Like how the 2 of the 3 mouths of the devil are spending eternity gnawing on Cassius and Brutus. That was almost as bad as Tolstoy's concept of history in War and Peace.
On the overall I find myself drifting away from taking novels and fiction seriously. In fiction, I now tend towards stories with lots of adventure, maybe with an overarching theme of power but that is not the real reason I read it. I prefer philosophy and political theory for my serious reading.

[Wilde woman]

Sometimes we are given problems almost in equation form, person x has come to conclusion z, tell me y, so x+y=z. Or this(x) symbolizes that (z), tell me why (y). I'm so busy looking for the "right" answers that I don't take the time to enjoy the characters, setting or anything else that would emotionally involve me within the story.

Well, that's certainly a reductionist approach to literature. So I can see why you would get frustrated.

But as others have already said, it really takes time, experience, and effort to appreciate the "really old stuff", as my students call medieval and Classical literature. I'm glad you're learning to like Dante. And as I've learned, you don't need to be Christian to appreciate him.

[blazeofglory]

Reading a book of classics demands of us, first and foremost, great perseverance or else we never can appreciate them. The first great classic I read was Milton's Paradise Lost and I did not like the book until I read it 10 times. Now I do not have to read ten times to comprehend a classic for now I am mature enough to understand the classics, and I can enjoy them better. I read the classics then out of my inquisitiveness thinking that the philosophy that there must be mystifyingly gratifying. Now I read it for its great theme and poetic beauty, aesthetic excellence. Everything gratifies me of it. I read Ulysses, notwithstanding the fact that I dropped the book losing patience so many times, yet I always thought that there is a splendor there in the book, an artistic beauty unfound in most books, something novel, ingenious and of course full of mind's eye. While flicking through half of the book I found not a single sentence or theme redundant. Everything is well packed, well written, and phrased and if I cannot comprehend the book it is my slipup, or my erudition is wanting and of course I have to hone my ability. When we fail to fathom the complexity of a book we must think we will have to perfect our competence rather than blaming the text. As a student we generally tend to blame the authorities recommending the syllabus. But we forget our incompetence

[JCamilo]

@spooky-Ugh its a never ending circle. lol
@stluke- I understand that reading can introduce you to new ideas, but in Dante's case they were for the most part the lessons of my childhood (raised a Roman Catholic) but with more detail.Though I still have my doubts you have convinced me to study poetry more intensively, and revisit the Divine Comedy. As for recommendations, if you happen to know of any prominent anarchist theorists that would be great. I'd like to once again apologize to anyone I got snappy with, I regret doing so. This seems to have quickly devolved into an irritable me ranting at people over the internet.

Dante have little to do with modern Roman Catholic, his catholicism is medieval and does not help much that he mixes classical literature in his Comedy. And I am atheist (not agnostic atheist, I am no chimera) and I have been reading Dante since I was a kid. Simple because reducing Dante to the christianism is the biggest mistake one can do. There is plenty of themes who are universal and the religious allegory (the simple fact they are an allegory should help anyone to free them to the exactly particular original significance) is just a aspect of it.
When I think about text interpretation, I think about Dante and his four interpretative layers. If I think about reading love, Dante and his classicism. If I think about influence, Dante and Virgil. If think about friendship, Dante and Virgil again. If I think about idealist love, Dante and Beatrice. Democratization of literature, Dante and his decision to abandon latim. And of course, his main theme, which is love for reason and philosophy. None of those are somehow limited to the catholic from 700 years ago writer, so I have no idea how any experience but the experience of reading it matters.

[keilj]

I would add to this that, regardless of what your personal opinion of these works is (and that is your own), there is a reason that they are on your class syllabus. They are works that really have succeeded in moving, entertaining, changing huge numbers of people for hundreds of years now

The same could be said of lesser-known works by Twain, Fitzgerald, so on. In fact, it could probably be said tenfold if these lesser-known works had been included on more syllabi - instead of the same old "cornerstone books" being included time and time and time again

[kelby_lake]

What does that mean?

I don't like Bob Dylan but a lot of people do. Does that mean I need to appreciate his music? I mean he did have a huge influence over a lot of other musicians.

'Appreciate' means that although you might not necessarily count the book as a favourite but you understand the technical achievements/its place in a literary movement/its influence...etc. So although you may not enjoy the book as a whole, you can appreciate that it is of some merit.

I don't like Dylan's voice but I can appreciate his lyrics. If you are unable to appreciate any classic, you miss out. Granted you may not have time to read a certain work as the subject matter does not appeal but you shouldn't badmouth it.

[Leland Gaunt]

Reading a book of classics demands of us, first and foremost, great perseverance or else we never can appreciate them. The first great classic I read was Milton's Paradise Lost and I did not like the book until I read it 10 times. Now I do not have to read ten times to comprehend a classic for now I am mature enough to understand the classics, and I can enjoy them better. I read the classics then out of my inquisitiveness thinking that the philosophy that there must be mystifyingly gratifying. Now I read it for its great theme and poetic beauty, aesthetic excellence. Everything gratifies me of it. I read Ulysses, notwithstanding the fact that I dropped the book losing patience so many times, yet I always thought that there is a splendor there in the book, an artistic beauty unfound in most books, something novel, ingenious and of course full of mind's eye. While flicking through half of the book I found not a single sentence or theme redundant. Everything is well packed, well written, and phrased and if I cannot comprehend the book it is my slipup, or my erudition is wanting and of course I have to hone my ability. When we fail to fathom the complexity of a book we must think we will have to perfect our competence rather than blaming the text. As a student we generally tend to blame the authorities recommending the syllabus. But we forget our incompetence
The authors are not perfect, you are holding them up to an undeserved status. In my mind anyway. This may just be me but if I read a book 10 times, I would force myself to like it. That way I wouldn't feel as if I just wasted an enormous amount of time.

Dante have little to do with modern Roman Catholic, his catholicism is medieval and does not help much that he mixes classical literature in his Comedy. And I am atheist (not agnostic atheist, I am no chimera) and I have been reading Dante since I was a kid. Simple because reducing Dante to the christianism is the biggest mistake one can do. There is plenty of themes who are universal and the religious allegory (the simple fact they are an allegory should help anyone to free them to the exactly particular original significance) is just a aspect of it.
When I think about text interpretation, I think about Dante and his four interpretative layers. If I think about reading love, Dante and his classicism. If I think about influence, Dante and Virgil. If think about friendship, Dante and Virgil again. If I think about idealist love, Dante and Beatrice. Democratization of literature, Dante and his decision to abandon latim. And of course, his main theme, which is love for reason and philosophy. None of those are somehow limited to the catholic from 700 years ago writer, so I have no idea how any experience but the experience of reading it matters.
It's funny how medieval catholicism influences modern catholicism. Maybe this stems from the fact that I haven't studied the book in a scholarly manner but I'm having a hard time figuring out what your trying to say. What kind of love? Influence over what? I have read of far more convincing friendships. Idealist love, if I wanted to see any of that I'd just take a quick trip to the junior high school. Why should I have to put up with it in classic literature? Whatever trails he blazed outside of the book does not make up for shortcomings within the book. I see little reasoning employed within The Divine Comedy.Philosophy? Seemed like pretty standard issue stuff to me. And my experience of reading it was unpleasant, that is how I judged it, as an unpleasant reading experience.
Also, if you are not agnostic atheist what are you: explicit, ignostic, Theravedic Buddhist, what?

[keilj]

The authors are not perfect, you are holding them up to an undeserved status. In my mind anyway. This may just be me but if I read a book 10 times, I would force myself to like it. That way I wouldn't feel as if I just wasted an enormous amount of time.



I have to agree

If something has to be read 10 times before it can be enjoyed - I would question how good that work really is.

I can understand trying a book, and perhaps having to make a 2nd or 3rd pass at it to realize that you really like it, or that it is good.

[spookymulder93]

I have to agree

If something has to be read 10 times before it can be enjoyed - I would question how good that work really is.

I can understand trying a book, and perhaps having to make a 2nd or 3rd pass at it to realize that you really like it, or that it is good.

2 times maybe. If I don't like it on the second time then it's time to move on. Life is too short to waste that much time.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Multiple readings are essential for most classic texts, especially in poetry. Of course I go by Wilde's saying that if a book is not worth reading more than once, it is not worth reading at all. Great works tend to naturally yield to us their secrets (as it were) over time, as we mature certainly and get the life experience that is often important, not just to necessarily understand the text, but to be able to really feel what a work is transmitting to us.

I'm sorry but to dismiss the likes of Dante after a brief read is not to have read him at all. I've only read the Commedia once with notes in one translation and I fully understand that I have hardly done more than scratch the surface here. I've read Paradise Lost about four times completely and always dip into it from time to time, and likewise, I probably have nothing much more than a foothold. You really can't be hasty with these sorts of works, they are lifetime reads for many people. Not getting something from epic works such as these is hardly anyone's fault, not a teacher's or a student's, but is simply part of the investment needed to appreciate such works. With works such as these we are all little better than eternal students.

[JCamilo]

It's funny how medieval catholicism influences modern catholicism.

Of course, but its not the same at all. Most modern Catholics have no knowledge of Dante at all to replace the experience to reading.


Maybe this stems from the fact that I haven't studied the book in a scholarly manner but I'm having a hard time figuring out what your trying to say. What kind of love?

Love for literature, its a major theme on Dante and nothing a modern catholic family represents.



Influence over what?

The notion of past authors influence is also a major example of what you find in Dante.


I have read of far more convincing friendships.

The point is that you haven't "read" this friendship.


Idealist love, if I wanted to see any of that I'd just take a quick trip to the junior high school.

Sure, and there Lady Gaga and Dan Brown may be found.


Why should I have to put up with it in classic literature?

It happens you know, some authors that became classic wrote about it. Of course, that Beatrice is the most famous muse of all literature must have no bearing on that.


Whatever trails he blazed outside of the book does not make up for shortcomings within the book.

You mean you could not see it. Sometimes it happens, I do not see something in a book, then i Notice the undeniable historical influence of the book and I do not need to ask, It was my problem.


I see little reasoning employed within The Divine Comedy.
Philosophy? Seemed like pretty standard issue stuff to me.

So standard that you saw little of it.


And my experience of reading it was unpleasant, that is how I judged it, as an unpleasant reading experience.

So, why were you upset with Stlukes? He was right, the question was you or your experience.


Also, if you are not agnostic atheist what are you: explicit, ignostic, Theravedic Buddhist, what?


Just atheist.

[PeterL]

I suspect that your problems with your literature courses are with the teacher. It souldn't be surprising that someone doesn't like Hawthorne; he wasn't that good of a writer, and his writings have not aged well. He should be taught as someone who served an important place in making American literature something of substance. Poe didn't like Hawthorne, and the two were contemporaries. As I recall high school literature, it was set up to show development in literature styles and types. If the teacher doesn't really understand that, then the course would be horrible. In college courses there will be more authors that aren't very good, but they are supposed to be important; although no on can clearly explain why they are important. You'll have to get used to Shakespeare. I agree that he isn't all that good, but for something written 400 years ago, it isn't all that bad, except for some of the history plays.

[JCamilo]

Just a note, Poe liked Twice-told Tales and was full of compliments to Hawthorne, who indeed, have much to do with Poe short stories rules.

[Vautrin]

After yet another year of clashing with my English teachers and their curriculum choices, I am fed up. I have been told year after year that these stories were top of the line and that they would inspire/move me. Year after year they have not lived up to this standard. Is it the books? The teachers? Or is it me? In any case I'd like to know what exactly sets these books and authors above the others. Any help or constructive critiscm is appreciated.

Oh and a few examples of the authors giving me trouble. Hawthorne, Alighieri, Shakespeare, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.
I have enjoyed Orwell, Twain, and Steinbeck.


I had a similar problem one semester. Not only was I not inspired, but nothing I read made any sense whatsoever. I almost felt as if these books were written in a foreign language. I was on the verge of changing majors.

Until one day I went to see my professor about a certain assignment. As I was pointing out to him a passage in a novel that was giving me considerable trouble, he suddenly nodded his head and grinned. He then took my book into his hands and turned it right-side up. To my embarrassment, it turned out I had been reading all these books upside down the entire time!!!

Hope this helps.

[keilj]

I had a similar problem one semester. Not only was I not inspired, but nothing I read made any sense whatsoever. I almost felt as if these books were written in a foreign language. I was on the verge of changing majors.

Until one day I went to see my professor about a certain assignment. As I was pointing out to him a passage in a novel that was giving me considerable trouble, he suddenly nodded his head and grinned. He then took my book into his hands and turned it right-side up. To my embarrassment, it turned out I had been reading all these books upside down the entire time!!!

Hope this helps.

the sad thing is, some of the books we've been talking about might be more interesting if read upside down :ihih:

[stlukesguild]

It's funny how medieval catholicism influences modern catholicism. Maybe this stems from the fact that I haven't studied the book in a scholarly manner but I'm having a hard time figuring out what your trying to say. What kind of love? Influence over what? I have read of far more convincing friendships. Idealist love, if I wanted to see any of that I'd just take a quick trip to the junior high school. Why should I have to put up with it in classic literature? Whatever trails he blazed outside of the book does not make up for shortcomings within the book. I see little reasoning employed within The Divine Comedy.Philosophy? Seemed like pretty standard issue stuff to me. And my experience of reading it was unpleasant, that is how I judged it, as an unpleasant reading experience.
Also, if you are not agnostic atheist what are you: explicit, ignostic, Theravedic Buddhist, what?

You began this thread asking for help with understanding classic literature. A half dozen members who have far more experience than you in reading classic literature have made any number of quite diplomatic suggestions... and you continue to blow them all off. Dante is laden with shortcomings? Funny... the Divine Comedy is seen by a great many literary scholars and readers as perhaps the single greatest literary achievement in the West... and one of the most polished. You admit that this is the first poem longer than two pages that you have read... and yet you somehow feel confident to dismiss the work as weak philosophy (and no doubt you've read Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and the other Greek and Roman philosophers that Dante was engaged in a dialog with), weak expressions of love and friendship, and lacking in logic. So everyone else must be wrong?: your teachers, all the professors over the ages who studied Dante, all the subsequent writers whose writings built upon him... from his own era to T.S. Eliot, J.L. Borges, James Joyce, Eugenio Montale, and any number of other Modern and even contemporary writers... to say nothing of the array of composers and painters and artists in every genre who have drawn inspiration from Dante.

Seriously, I suspect you really don't want help... and you never did. You simply want others to agree with you. You want to argue that the fault is all with Dante or Shakespeare... and with your teachers... and with all those ignorant academics and professors and lovers of literature who have made Shakespeare and Dante the cornerstones of Western literature. We here have all acknowledged that you need not like Dante or Shakespeare or any writer... but that's not enough. With your profound grasp of literature you want to argue with those who have read far more than yourself in the hope that they will come around to sharing your opinion: "yes, junior... you are right... Dante does suck... and your teachers and all those dry academics... they don't know what they are talking about..." Diplomacy only goes so far before one is tempted to suggest that perhaps you are simply in over your head.

[stlukesguild]

I had a similar problem one semester. Not only was I not inspired, but nothing I read made any sense whatsoever. I almost felt as if these books were written in a foreign language. I was on the verge of changing majors.

Until one day I went to see my professor about a certain assignment. As I was pointing out to him a passage in a novel that was giving me considerable trouble, he suddenly nodded his head and grinned. He then took my book into his hands and turned it right-side up. To my embarrassment, it turned out I had been reading all these books upside down the entire time!!!

:rofl::smilielol5::hurray:

[stlukesguild]

Just a note, Poe liked Twice-told Tales and was full of compliments to Hawthorne, who indeed, have much to do with Poe short stories rules.

Just imagine... JCamilo defending the canon. Will miracles never cease?:eek::biggrin5:

[JCamilo]

Just a note, Poe liked Twice-told Tales and was full of compliments to Hawthorne, who indeed, have much to do with Poe short stories rules.

Just imagine... JCamilo defending the canon. Will miracles never cease?:eek::biggrin5:

What? When? I just stabilished a fact with the obvious aim to ridicularize north-americans. Yes, defending Poe, the ever under-rated most influential american writer ever and bringing Hawthorne short stories, not his romances, is a jab in the jaw to american silly obssession for the great american novel and the incapacity to understand the best stuff ever wrote there is small like a whale.
Yes, I am much more subtle than JBI. :biggrin5:

[Petrarch's Love]

As I have thought about it more I have come to realize that it has more to do with the way it is being taught, now I don't want to demonize my teachers for they are quite passionate but that is part of the problem. They build up my expectations and they inevitably fail to meet the high hopes I had for the books. It also has to do with how assignments are given. We are given x number of pages to read. We are also told to pay special attention to certain parts of the assignment. So I read and reread that section. Next day in class I have to sit through first a student and then the teacher (who is melodramatic and likes to perform her own little one woman plays) go through the same passage and it quickly becomes both tedious and redundant. Sometimes we are given problems almost in equation form, person x has come to conclusion z, tell me y, so x+y=z. Or this(x) symbolizes that (z), tell me why (y). I'm so busy looking for the "right" answers that I don't take the time to enjoy the characters, setting or anything else that would emotionally involve me within the story. Consequently I have been so turned off of a few works that the likelihood of me ever picking it up again at a later date to see if my opinion of it has changed, is very unlikely.

Not knowing your literature teacher, I can't judge exactly to what extent you are right. It is possible that her teaching is not the most inspiring. That said, I think the key word in your response is "expectations." I think you are right that you have inflated expectations, though not possibly in the way you are thinking. Your problem may partly lie in what you are expecting from your learning experience. I would think about this in two ways. First, remember that your teacher is only human. From your teacher's point of view she is facing a large and varied group of people, all who are at different points of understanding and ability and she is trying to find ways that she can ensure that all these students come away with a basic understanding of these texts and some sort of interpretative or analytic skills. This may mean that she needs to cover things in a way that may seem redundant or boring or reductive to some in order to make sure that she gets through on some level or another to all. You say that your teacher is enthusiastic and really trying to get you excited about her subject, which sounds like a teacher who, at the very least, is making a good faith effort. As such, as a human being trying her best at what is not an easy job she does deserve basic respect. This doesn't mean that you have to agree with or even like her teaching, but you're not being productive for either yourself or her if you end up using her as the scapegoat for your own lack of appreciation for literature (I don't know to what extent this is true, but you've made allusions to clashing with your teachers and other comments that make it sound like you're frustrated with and actively criticizing your teacher a fair amount).

This brings us to the second point about expectations, which is that you may even be absolutely right that your teacher is not the greatest or most inspiring lit. instructor. You may be right that she is teaching in a reductive fashion. You may have perfectly legitimate reasons for being frustrated with the way classes are conducted (and I don't know if any of these things is actually true or not). Even if this is the case, however, it does not give you a legitimate reason to dismiss the literature that is being taught in that class. As several people on this thread have been saying, part of the reward of sophisticated works of literature, part of the way they teach us to be better thinkers and help us to expand ourselves, is that they require the reader to put effort in, to struggle with, spend extended time with, really get to know the work on all its levels. If you expect that your class is supposed to give you everything to get you to a full and sophisticated understanding of what you are reading, then you probably will be disappointed, because such reading requires you to step up and do a lot of work yourself.

I am sorry to hear that your classroom experience has made you reject some works of literature, and I recognize that this could be partly because you're fed up with a teaching style you find frustrating. I have certainly been in classes with teachers I find frustrating, reductive, boring etc. However, it also sounds as though you are rejecting some of this literature partly because you are allowing that way of teaching to shape your whole understanding of the text, when it sounds like what your teacher is doing is only addressing one level or layer of the text that she hopes will be helpful. Saying that analyzing a book at any level makes it impossible to enjoy the reading experience is a little like saying that learning music theory and technique to play the violin or the guitar ruins a person's ability to appreciate music just for fun. Analysis and enjoyment are not mutually exclusive. If the analysis you are doing in class is not helpful, then that could be for two reasons. One is that you are bored because you already get all the symbolism etc. and you want to move on from basic or even reductive analytical points to more interesting things. If this is the case, then you really don't have a problem. You can just go ahead and perform the easy in class assignments and answer the facile questions and then move on to thinking about more complex issues in the book on your own. The other possibility is that you don't understand the type of analysis the teacher is trying to get you to do. If this is the case then you need to stop blaming the teacher, the book and all sorts of other things and address the things that you don't understand. This may mean telling the teacher (in a respectful way that is open to communicating) that you don't understand her approach and asking for more explanation. Or, if you can't seem to communicate with your teacher then you can ask particular questions of people here or other students who do well in the class etc.


Dante is the exception here, as I read it on my own time. As I have mentioned before Dante was one of my first poems, in fact the first that went beyond 2 pages. Also, it is hard for me to relate to any of the moral lessons which seemed either basic (don't kill), or petty (don't give bad advice). Then again I could be completely missing deeper points and underlying themes. And then there was the occasional silliness. Like how the 2 of the 3 mouths of the devil are spending eternity gnawing on Cassius and Brutus. That was almost as bad as Tolstoy's concept of history in War and Peace.
On the overall I find myself drifting away from taking novels and fiction seriously. In fiction, I now tend towards stories with lots of adventure, maybe with an overarching theme of power but that is not the real reason I read it. I prefer philosophy and political theory for my serious reading.


This is a highly simplistic reading of Dante. Reading the inferno as a straightforward succession of moral lessons would indeed be worthy of a circle in and of itself. :reddevil: If you're a fan of philosophy and political theory then there really should be a lot in Dante to sink your teeth into, but it may take more time and background knowledge to get to these other layers of meaning at work.

Again, the only way you're really going to get better at reading classic literature, as you say you would like to in your OP, is by discussing it, so post a passage from a writer that you don't like/don't understand for us all to really talk about. Otherwise I know I can't be of any more help.

[keilj]

You guys can't blame Lit teachers for everything - some books are just %@$# dull

War and Peace is often considered the best novel ever written - yet many agree that it has hundreds of pages of unnecessary exposition

[Petrarch's Love]

The same could be said of lesser-known works by Twain, Fitzgerald, so on. In fact, it could probably be said tenfold if these lesser-known works had been included on more syllabi - instead of the same old "cornerstone books" being included time and time and time again

I never said the same couldn't be said of Twain or Fitzgerald. Both these writers are commonly included on syllabi, so I don't quite get your point. I'm not arguing that people should read nothing but Shakespeare or Dante. I'm arguing that someone may get a lot out of being open to exploring and really spending some time with Shakespeare or Dante. I would have no trouble with saying the same thing about Twain or Fitzgerald or any number of other writers.

[keilj]

I never said the same couldn't be said of Twain or Fitzgerald. Both these writers are commonly included on syllabi, so I don't quite get your point. I'm not arguing that people should read nothing but Shakespeare or Dante. I'm arguing that someone may get a lot out of being open to exploring and really spending some time with Shakespeare or Dante. I would have no trouble with saying the same thing about Twain or Fitzgerald or any number of other writers.

I don't always have a point

Naw, my point was - it seemed like the suggestion that books are on many syllabi because they are very significant to literature could be turned around. In other words, perhaps these books are considered "important" by so many, because the books just appear again and again on syllabi year after year. So, perhaps if Roughing It by Twain appeared over and over instead of Tom Sawyer (Roughing It being a far better book in my opinion), then Roughing It would be considered a "must read" for anyone with any literary taste

So perhaps a book isn't essential because it is taught over and over, perhaps because it is taught over and over, the public begin to believe it MUST be terribly essential

[stlukesguild]

Oh Gawd! Another conspiracy theorist.:crazy::rolleyes:

Shakespeare and Dante aren't on the syllabi because of any merits of their writing, but rather because all those ignorant teachers just followed whatever their predecessors told them was good without ever thinking for themselves. And the vast worlds of critical writings on Dante and Shakespeare? The subsequent works of literature, art, and music inspired by them? All mere anomalies... signs of the brain-washed or brain-dead of academia. :willy_nilly::icon_bs::crazy::mad2:

[stlukesguild]

What? When? I just stabilished a fact with the obvious aim to ridicularize north-americans. Yes, defending Poe, the ever under-rated most influential american writer ever and bringing Hawthorne short stories, not his romances, is a jab in the jaw to american silly obssession for the great american novel and the incapacity to understand the best stuff ever wrote there is small like a whale.

While I would counter that there are any number of great American novels... if not "The Great American Novel"... including one about a whale... I will concur. The short-story as a genre of real achievement in American literature (Hawthorne, Poe, Ambrose Bierce, Henry James, Melville, Stephen Crane, Faulkner, Hemingway, O'Connor, Barthleme, etc... is far too often ignored in the focus upon the novel. Of course the novel is what many students are taught IS literature and the analysis of the elements of the novel: plot, character development, setting, etc... is something that doesn't always translate to short stories... to say nothing of essays or poetry. But even here... one needs only look at how central the novel is. How many discussions are there about Melville's or Crane's poetry? About Emerson's poetry or essays (as central as the latter are) to American literature? And how many discussions about American poets in general? Of course there is that American penchant for BIG...

and novels are BIG... poems and short stories aren't.

Yes, I am much more subtle than JBI

Indeed.:biggrin5:

[Leland Gaunt]

You began this thread asking for help with understanding classic literature. A half dozen members who have far more experience than you in reading classic literature have made any number of quite diplomatic suggestions... and you continue to blow them all off. Dante is laden with shortcomings? Funny... the Divine Comedy is seen by a great many literary scholars and readers as perhaps the single greatest literary achievement in the West... and one of the most polished. You admit that this is the first poem longer than two pages that you have read... and yet you somehow feel confident to dismiss the work as weak philosophy (and no doubt you've read Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and the other Greek and Roman philosophers that Dante was engaged in a dialog with), weak expressions of love and friendship, and lacking in logic. So everyone else must be wrong?: your teachers, all the professors over the ages who studied Dante, all the subsequent writers whose writings built upon him... from his own era to T.S. Eliot, J.L. Borges, James Joyce, Eugenio Montale, and any number of other Modern and even contemporary writers... to say nothing of the array of composers and painters and artists in every genre who have drawn inspiration from Dante.

Seriously, I suspect you really don't want help... and you never did. You simply want others to agree with you. You want to argue that the fault is all with Dante or Shakespeare... and with your teachers... and with all those ignorant academics and professors and lovers of literature who have made Shakespeare and Dante the cornerstones of Western literature. We here have all acknowledged that you need not like Dante or Shakespeare or any writer... but that's not enough. With your profound grasp of literature you want to argue with those who have read far more than yourself in the hope that they will come around to sharing your opinion: "yes, junior... you are right... Dante does suck... and your teachers and all those dry academics... they don't know what they are talking about..." Diplomacy only goes so far before one is tempted to suggest that perhaps you are simply in over your head
I have never once said that Dante sucks, that my teachers were dry, or that I think I am better than the various esteemed people you mentioned. You are too intelligent to fall into the strawman fallacy. I am sorry but the fact that many respectable people view the material in a positive light, is not enough for me. But it was enough for me to question my initial judgement, and I came here to understand it better. I was received with plenty of good advice like persist and grow as a person, I vowed to do both and to also study poetry more in an attempt to increase my chances of reaching understand. But I have also received vague praises of the poem. Please do show me examples of logic, deeper meaning, passages of particular beauty etc... The thought that I missed something on my first read excites me, almost as much of learning more philosophy. It is to these insufficient anwers that I post my criticisms, that were answered with bunk. I truly do want to improve my understanding of literature.

Not knowing your literature teacher, I can't judge exactly to what extent you are right. It is possible that her teaching is not the most inspiring. That said, I think the key word in your response is "expectations." I think you are right that you have inflated expectations, though not possibly in the way you are thinking. Your problem may partly lie in what you are expecting from your learning experience. I would think about this in two ways. First, remember that your teacher is only human. From your teacher's point of view she is facing a large and varied group of people, all who are at different points of understanding and ability and she is trying to find ways that she can ensure that all these students come away with a basic understanding of these texts and some sort of interpretative or analytic skills. This may mean that she needs to cover things in a way that may seem redundant or boring or reductive to some in order to make sure that she gets through on some level or another to all. You say that your teacher is enthusiastic and really trying to get you excited about her subject, which sounds like a teacher who, at the very least, is making a good faith effort. As such, as a human being trying her best at what is not an easy job she does deserve basic respect. This doesn't mean that you have to agree with or even like her teaching, but you're not being productive for either yourself or her if you end up using her as the scapegoat for your own lack of appreciation for literature (I don't know to what extent this is true, but you've made allusions to clashing with your teachers and other comments that make it sound like you're frustrated with and actively criticizing your teacher a fair amount).

This brings us to the second point about expectations, which is that you may even be absolutely right that your teacher is not the greatest or most inspiring lit. instructor. You may be right that she is teaching in a reductive fashion. You may have perfectly legitimate reasons for being frustrated with the way classes are conducted (and I don't know if any of these things is actually true or not). Even if this is the case, however, it does not give you a legitimate reason to dismiss the literature that is being taught in that class. As several people on this thread have been saying, part of the reward of sophisticated works of literature, part of the way they teach us to be better thinkers and help us to expand ourselves, is that they require the reader to put effort in, to struggle with, spend extended time with, really get to know the work on all its levels. If you expect that your class is supposed to give you everything to get you to a full and sophisticated understanding of what you are reading, then you probably will be disappointed, because such reading requires you to step up and do a lot of work yourself.

I am sorry to hear that your classroom experience has made you reject some works of literature, and I recognize that this could be partly because you're fed up with a teaching style you find frustrating. I have certainly been in classes with teachers I find frustrating, reductive, boring etc. However, it also sounds as though you are rejecting some of this literature partly because you are allowing that way of teaching to shape your whole understanding of the text, when it sounds like what your teacher is doing is only addressing one level or layer of the text that she hopes will be helpful. Saying that analyzing a book at any level makes it impossible to enjoy the reading experience is a little like saying that learning music theory and technique to play the violin or the guitar ruins a person's ability to appreciate music just for fun. Analysis and enjoyment are not mutually exclusive. If the analysis you are doing in class is not helpful, then that could be for two reasons. One is that you are bored because you already get all the symbolism etc. and you want to move on from basic or even reductive analytical points to more interesting things. If this is the case, then you really don't have a problem. You can just go ahead and perform the easy in class assignments and answer the facile questions and then move on to thinking about more complex issues in the book on your own. The other possibility is that you don't understand the type of analysis the teacher is trying to get you to do. If this is the case then you need to stop blaming the teacher, the book and all sorts of other things and address the things that you don't understand. This may mean telling the teacher (in a respectful way that is open to communicating) that you don't understand her approach and asking for more explanation. Or, if you can't seem to communicate with your teacher then you can ask particular questions of people here or other students who do well in the class etc.
Though everything about my teachers has been true, I appreciate you reserving judgement. I am sorry if it seems as if I have been berating my teachers, what usually happens is after an essay I will add an extra paragraph where I express my opinion of the book. To which they give an enthusiastic but unsatisfactory response. So I thought it over, and decided that it was a combination of factors. Which is why I used an OP that allowed for all three, and I have received answers that only validate my initial opinion. I have found that this is the best way for me to form a reasonable opinion, that is to discuss topics with knowledgable individuals who have differing opinions. I am able to decide what arguments are valid through how they are refuted, and up to this point most of the answers I have been given supporting the book have not been convincing. I have on multiple occasions stated my intention to utilize the ones that were. With symbols my main problem is I find most of them to be unnecessary. For example while reading Ethan Frome, we were told that the cat represents Zeena's presence between Mattie and Ethan when they are alone. Unneeded, the fact that Zeena would continue to separate the two, even when not actually present, is obvious. So the cat is just a cat, and the ten minutes spent discussing the cat have been a waste. I have only completely rejected one work, and that is The Scarlet Letter. The rest I have just been deterred from.

This is a highly simplistic reading of Dante. Reading the inferno as a straightforward succession of moral lessons would indeed be worthy of a circle in and of itself. If you're a fan of philosophy and political theory then there really should be a lot in Dante to sink your teeth into, but it may take more time and background knowledge to get to these other layers of meaning at work.

Again, the only way you're really going to get better at reading classic literature, as you say you would like to in your OP, is by discussing it, so post a passage from a writer that you don't like/don't understand for us all to really talk about. Otherwise I know I can't be of any more help.
Actually, the burden of proof is on you. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, it is up to you fellows to prove that the something does indeed exist.

Love for literature, its a major theme on Dante and nothing a modern catholic family represents.
The notion of past authors influence is also a major example of what you find in Dante.
The point is that you haven't "read" this friendship.
Sure, and there Lady Gaga and Dan Brown may be found
You mean you could not see it. Sometimes it happens, I do not see something in a book, then i Notice the undeniable historical influence of the book and I do not need to ask, It was my problem.
So, why were you upset with Stlukes?
Just atheist.
His love for literature, and his expression of it in the poem, in no way enhances the poem.
I could care less who influenced him, what matters is what he has written down.
I haven't read of numerous friendships. Why this one over the others?
I tend to avoid all three, why should I venture to somewhere that contains them? Also, is that an agreement that idealistic love is juvenile. because I don't see any other way to spin it.
I reiterate, this does not affect the actual content of the poem.
I was only upset with him in the beginning, and I made a complete *** out of myself. For which I apologized.
How wonderfully broad, you being just an atheist.

[Quark]

Actually, the burden of proof is on you. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, it is up to you fellows to prove that the something does indeed exist.

Okay, that's true, but you're not being terribly forthcoming about what you think would be proof. What is it that you're looking to get out of literature that you're not getting? Why does Orwell work for you, but not any of the others? You need to spell this out a little more. Otherwise, posters are just shooting in the dark. Give some examples of good literature and bad literature from these writers. You can't expect direct and concrete answers to vague, hopelessly large questions. Say a little more about what you think you're missing (obviously it must be something since you started a thread with "help me understand" in the title) and give some examples.

[Quark]

Sorry Quark missed you in my initial response. My main grievance is that I do not need the books to think about the issue, and more often than not the books chosen are just going over old ground that no longer brings up a powerful response.

Well, it's not quite so simple in the novel. It's not as though Edith Wharton just wrote on a page "think about marriage"--in which case, it would be superfluous. Instead, she wrote what's considered some of the most intelligent discourse on the subject and framed it in a larger narrative with dramatic situations. The idea is that you're seeing is how people talk about the issue and how it's conceived in a person's mind. Through reading the novel you begin to understand how others might view the issue and how they might talk about it. That's why I mentioned that it's helpful to read this if you're looking to be educated and articulate. Yeah, you can sit alone and think about marriage and what works for you, but that's not going to help you talk about the issue in a larger social context and understand where others are coming from. That's just one small thing to learn from the novel. I fixated on marriage and narrative in my post because the points I made are some of the most unequivical observations one can make about the book. Basic thematic and formal analysis are usually pretty safe. There's much more one could talk about, though: perspective, irony, gender, class, wealth, etc. The novel weaves quite a lot together. And, yeah, you could think about that all yourself, but I don't think you would get very far outside your own experiences with those topics.

I'm starting to think this is a all a bit of waste, though, as it seems like you're asking for something that's impossible to deliver in a post: the significance of several of the greatest literary figures. Usually, the answer to this question is gradually unfolded over the course of months in a class. There's no concise answer to why Wharton, Dante, or Shakespeare are great. I can tell you some things that frequently come up in discussion of these authors (in fact, I already did for Wharton), but no one has time to walk you through the marriage as it's presented in Wharton or philosophy as its presented in Dante. If you want to get specific about an author, work, or even a passage, maybe I can do some good. But this is going to go nowhere the way things are now.

[mal4mac]

Leland - why not start with the first canto and say why it doesn't work for you. Be specific!

[JCamilo]

His love for literature, and his expression of it in the poem, in no way enhances the poem.
I could care less who influenced him, what matters is what he has written down.
I haven't read of numerous friendships. Why this one over the others?
I tend to avoid all three, why should I venture to somewhere that contains them? Also, is that an agreement that idealistic love is juvenile. because I don't see any other way to spin it.
I reiterate, this does not affect the actual content of the poem.
I was only upset with him in the beginning, and I made a complete *** out of myself. For which I apologized.
How wonderfully broad, you being just an atheist.

Does not enhance the poem? His option for Virgil is not empty. Every aspect of the symbols (Virgil being one of them) used was calculated, it is part of the structure of the poem. Not to mention his farewell to Virgil, the knowledge that Virgil, as great as he is, could not achive Heaven... Not to mention the meeting in Limbo, and of course, the number of references that were necessary, you know, the define this style that was the union with classicism and medieval thinking (You just have the prime example of literature)... And by the war, read well: I gave you examples of themes who are not related to Catholicism, if his enhance (It does) or not the poem, is irrelevant. The matter is: The Comedy is way beyond just what would interest some catholic.
And if you do not really care about the matter of influence (and again, a theme so obvious) you will are ignoring one of (if not the) most important forces of creation in literature. You are just not reading.
Because the form its presented, because it is a friendship were we see two of the major poets, because itis a friendship that survived hell. And again, does not matter why, what matters is that you should consider that if you read the book and saw only what a catholic family would teach, then you read it very superficially.
You suggested to go to high school after idealistic love. Not me. And frankly, that was pedantic, the themes of humanity are present in the mediocre and in the sublime. You can find Shakespeare in high school, but you cannt find it how Shakespeare did. And this agreement was done by whom? I do not remember to have signed it. After all, what Dante and Beatrice have of juvenile? Or the medieval love we find in the knights ballads or in the story of Abelardo and Heloise? It would need some guy to create Romeo and Juliet and the romantic reading of it to link idealistic love to juvenile passions but it existed before and had nothing to do with Stephanie Mayer.
I would like to remember you that "what does not affect" the contect of the poem is your claim that you saw no philosophy there, no reason. Considering the main theme in Dante is philosophy and reason, the afirmation that it does not affect the contect of the poem is hilarious. It would be akim to removing Beatrice from the book...
Yeah, you know, when you have no faith, you do not need to be anything else. Much less agnostic, it is kind of a intelectual chimera... but hey, I can be a purple Atheist if we need teams for the World Cup.

[Leland Gaunt]

Well, it's not quite so simple in the novel. It's not as though Edith Wharton just wrote on a page "think about marriage"--in which case, it would be superfluous. Instead, she wrote what's considered some of the most intelligent discourse on the subject and framed it in a larger narrative with dramatic situations. The idea is that you're seeing is how people talk about the issue and how it's conceived in a person's mind. Through reading the novel you begin to understand how others might view the issue and how they might talk about it. That's why I mentioned that it's helpful to read this if you're looking to be educated and articulate. Yeah, you can sit alone and think about marriage and what works for you, but that's not going to help you talk about the issue in a larger social context and understand where others are coming from. That's just one small thing to learn from the novel. I fixated on marriage and narrative in my post because the points I made are some of the most unequivical observations one can make about the book. Basic thematic and formal analysis are usually pretty safe. There's much more one could talk about, though: perspective, irony, gender, class, wealth, etc. The novel weaves quite a lot together. And, yeah, you could think about that all yourself, but I don't think you would get very far outside your own experiences with those topics.

I'm starting to think this is a all a bit of waste, though, as it seems like you're asking for something that's impossible to deliver in a post: the significance of several of the greatest literary figures. Usually, the answer to this question is gradually unfolded over the course of months in a class. There's no concise answer to why Wharton, Dante, or Shakespeare are great. I can tell you some things that frequently come up in discussion of these authors (in fact, I already did for Wharton), but no one has time to walk you through the marriage as it's presented in Wharton or philosophy as its presented in Dante. If you want to get specific about an author, work, or even a passage, maybe I can do some good. But this is going to go nowhere the way things are now.
Well that's just it, I do talk with other people about these things. And I believe that their opinions are more important than a character in a book. Otherwise I think that you are right. I have presented a hopelessly broad question, that would take a great deal of time for someone to answer. I just hope that one of the few English courses I take in college has some of the answers, and I still do plan on reading Dante at least one more time in my life.I thank those of you who did give me reasonable answers and pointed out the faults in what I was saying.

Does not enhance the poem? His option for Virgil is not empty. Every aspect of the symbols (Virgil being one of them) used was calculated, it is part of the structure of the poem. Not to mention his farewell to Virgil, the knowledge that Virgil, as great as he is, could not achive Heaven... Not to mention the meeting in Limbo, and of course, the number of references that were necessary, you know, the define this style that was the union with classicism and medieval thinking (You just have the prime example of literature)... And by the war, read well: I gave you examples of themes who are not related to Catholicism, if his enhance (It does) or not the poem, is irrelevant. The matter is: The Comedy is way beyond just what would interest some catholic.
And if you do not really care about the matter of influence (and again, a theme so obvious) you will are ignoring one of (if not the) most important forces of creation in literature. You are just not reading.
Because the form its presented, because it is a friendship were we see two of the major poets, because itis a friendship that survived hell. And again, does not matter why, what matters is that you should consider that if you read the book and saw only what a catholic family would teach, then you read it very superficially.
You suggested to go to high school after idealistic love. Not me. And frankly, that was pedantic, the themes of humanity are present in the mediocre and in the sublime. You can find Shakespeare in high school, but you cannt find it how Shakespeare did. And this agreement was done by whom? I do not remember to have signed it. After all, what Dante and Beatrice have of juvenile? Or the medieval love we find in the knights ballads or in the story of Abelardo and Heloise? It would need some guy to create Romeo and Juliet and the romantic reading of it to link idealistic love to juvenile passions but it existed before and had nothing to do with Stephanie Mayer.
I would like to remember you that "what does not affect" the contect of the poem is your claim that you saw no philosophy there, no reason. Considering the main theme in Dante is philosophy and reason, the afirmation that it does not affect the contect of the poem is hilarious. It would be akim to removing Beatrice from the book...
Yeah, you know, when you have no faith, you do not need to be anything else. Much less agnostic, it is kind of a intelectual chimera... but hey, I can be a purple Atheist if we need teams for the World Cup.
To me it was, I felt very little attachment to any of the characters. The environments they went throught were far more interesting than the people travelling through them. I had no clue that we were arguing if Dante was meant exclusively for Catholics, maybe that explains your use of unimportant themes. I care little for how the literature came into creation, I care just for what the literature is, and if the iterature is about what influenced it then it is most probably tedious and boring. I did not enjoy the form in which it was presented, them being poets does not affect the strength of their friendship, and hell is something the best of friends usually goes through figuratively, they only stand out in that they went through literally. Not even high school, younger I am talking 11-13 age group. The idealistic love, is the juvenile part. Couldn't say abot the knight as I have not read of him, but if the story is about idealistic love then I will likely pass. Lol, are you suggesting I read Twilight. When I said that it did not affect the content, I was referring to how it changed literature after it. Any philosophy and reason employed within the book would change the content. So you claim that they exist show me a passage where there is reasoning. It is not about teams, calling yourself atheist is unacceptable for the same reasons that calling yourself a theist is unacceptable. The terms I listed before are expansions upon the terms atheist and theist, and if you choose not to use them that just tells me you are either scared to reveal your true feelings upon the subject or that you have not thought about the subject enough. Also, it seems that you have been misinformed as to what the term agnostic means. You should know that you cannot be agnostic, just by itself, it needs supporting terms to fully explain your actual beliefs (or lack thereof). But this is neither here nor there. If you would like to continue this discussion just PM me, but let us not hijack this thread (even though it seems to be coming to a close).

[Petrarch's Love]

I have never once said that Dante sucks, that my teachers were dry, or that I think I am better than the various esteemed people you mentioned. You are too intelligent to fall into the strawman fallacy. I am sorry but the fact that many respectable people view the material in a positive light, is not enough for me. But it was enough for me to question my initial judgement, and I came here to understand it better. I was received with plenty of good advice like persist and grow as a person, I vowed to do both and to also study poetry more in an attempt to increase my chances of reaching understand. But I have also received vague praises of the poem. Please do show me examples of logic, deeper meaning, passages of particular beauty etc... The thought that I missed something on my first read excites me, almost as much of learning more philosophy. It is to these insufficient anwers that I post my criticisms, that were answered with bunk. I truly do want to improve my understanding of literature.

Though everything about my teachers has been true, I appreciate you reserving judgement. I am sorry if it seems as if I have been berating my teachers, what usually happens is after an essay I will add an extra paragraph where I express my opinion of the book. To which they give an enthusiastic but unsatisfactory response. So I thought it over, and decided that it was a combination of factors. Which is why I used an OP that allowed for all three, and I have received answers that only validate my initial opinion. I have found that this is the best way for me to form a reasonable opinion, that is to discuss topics with knowledgable individuals who have differing opinions. I am able to decide what arguments are valid through how they are refuted, and up to this point most of the answers I have been given supporting the book have not been convincing. I have on multiple occasions stated my intention to utilize the ones that were. With symbols my main problem is I find most of them to be unnecessary. For example while reading Ethan Frome, we were told that the cat represents Zeena's presence between Mattie and Ethan when they are alone. Unneeded, the fact that Zeena would continue to separate the two, even when not actually present, is obvious. So the cat is just a cat, and the ten minutes spent discussing the cat have been a waste. I have only completely rejected one work, and that is The Scarlet Letter. The rest I have just been deterred from.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, it is up to you fellows to prove that the something does indeed exist.

Leland--I will start with your last point first, which I think brings us to the heart of the matter. You have misunderstood my suggestion and my position entirely. I am not interested in you proving or disproving anything, and thinking in terms of having something to prove is an unhelpful way to approach the study of literature. Of course it is going to be easier to state that a book is just %@$# dull, as someone did in a post above than it is to discuss in depth the multiple layers and nuances of a complex work of literature. Talking at this broad level in terms of a debate is not going to get anyone anywhere. The approach to take is one of an explorer, looking carefully at the text and working out what you like and don't like, what is interesting and what frustrates you, thinking over why you have those responses, what the author is doing and so on.

By asking you to post a passage and your position on it I was not challenging you. I was giving you the same respect and expectations that I have for my university students and for my scholarly colleagues. If either my students or a scholarly acquaintance is having trouble with a passage from Shakespeare, say, and wants my help with it, that person will come prepared to give me an example of where they are having problems with the play or poem and to give me their position on the passage in terms of what they do understand, where they are confused, what specifically they don't like or what they do etc. I don't care if you start out by talking about everything you hate in a particular passage, but you have to start out by saying something that will give me a clue as to what your exact opinions are, what you do and don't seem to be getting about what you are reading and what it is you are having problems with, or I won't know where you are or how to help you learn. As Quark said above, teaching someone how to read and understand complex literary works is not something that is going to happen by magic in one post, but usually takes an extended amount of time in a class to really begin to develop. It's a lot of work for the person doing the teaching. To be perfectly frank, I am a very busy professional scholar and teacher with plenty of students who are eager to learn from and communicate with me, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend hours stabbing in the dark trying to figure out what your exact issues are and what will make you interested in literature.

I believe that you do have a genuine interest in learning, but I think, again, that you have expectations that someone is going to deliver all of this to you (or at least you're coming across like someone who does), when there really is some burden on you, not to prove or disprove anything, but to get down to the specifics and explain your position on something so that myself and others on this thread can discuss literature with you. Tell you what, since I can see you're frustrated and you did ask for passages to understand better, I'll meet you part way. I think it's best to discuss a work in English to start, since dealing with issues of translation can be a problem, especially for poetry and especially for someone who hasn't had a lot of experience exploring poetry, as you say you haven't. What Shakespeare have you already read? Either select a passage from what you've read or give me the titles of the plays or poems and I'll pick out a passage from that work for you to respond to so that we can get a real discussion going on this thread. Sound like a plan?

[Leland Gaunt]

Petrarch- See my post above for an answer to most of your post. I no longer expect you to explain why Dante is a triumph in literature. I realize that this is an unfair task to ask of someone. In regards to me posting passages that I did not like, this would be terribly hard. It's not that I hated anything in particular, the poem simply did not move me and I saw nothing resembling some of the claims that others have said were in the book (philosophy, reason). I was a very gray and uninteresting read.
As to discussing another work, I'd be glad to. Unfortunately I do not have any copies of Shakespeare on me, but let me see what I have in my bookbag at the moment. I will repost in just a minute.

Edit: Damn, I only have Steinbeck, Twain, and Tolstoy laying around the house. I liked all three, well except of course Tolstoy's concept of history, unless of course you can defend this. I'm sorry to have things fizzle out like this, but I will attempt to get my hands on The Scarlet Letter as soon as possible.

[Petrarch's Love]

Hi Leland--The complete works of Shakespeare and of many other authors are all available here on this site. :)

[Leland Gaunt]

Haha, I should really learn to utilize my resources.

Edit: I will look through the Scarlet Letter after I return from work around 8, and will post after that.

[Jozanny]

Leland,

If we can put aside the issues of personal taste, since we all have those, one might ask the question, which you seem to be asking, is, what is the use of aesthetic appreciation? It does not make us better people. Hitler had something of an aesthetic education, and yet he wanted to cleanse the world pure for his view of Germanic genotypes being the only right kind of humanity. Scratch that.

So what does it do then, to be able to appreciate Dante as the supreme poet, or to see that Shakespeare paved the way to reflect humanity back upon us, or that Mozart enabled music to express passions with so many variations that it still speaks to the trained ear?

My answer is that it enables perception of our achievements and our nature, and some of us base how we live our lives on it, though most of us won't. I don't know what engenders your enthusiasm. Hockey? Video games--whatever-- your aesthetic choices are still involved with what you care about. Maybe the *literary* is bunk, and that is fine, but as Petrarch is perhaps attempting to convey, maybe you should not be so impatient to limit your horizons at this point in your life.

[JCamilo]

To me it was, I felt very little attachment to any of the characters. The environments they went throught were far more interesting than the people travelling through them. I had no clue that we were arguing if Dante was meant exclusively for Catholics, maybe that explains your use of unimportant themes.

You consider some of the main themes as unimportant and is focused on the catholic aspects of Dante. It is like someone refusing to read Homer because you did not believe in Zeus. Those themes I listed are among the most relevant themes and frankly, if you argued there is little it could add to your catholic education, there "importance" of the theme is of little relevance to dismiss your argument.


I care little for how the literature came into creation, I care just for what the literature is, and if the iterature is about what influenced it then it is most probably tedious and boring.

Most of it and of course, it is not boring.


I did not enjoy the form in which it was presented, them being poets does not affect the strength of their friendship, and hell is something the best of friends usually goes through figuratively, they only stand out in that they went through literally.

As it was said, you lack the experience to deal with this kind of text (which should give you the hint that reading manifests outside the text) and this affects your enjoyment. However, you are already full of certains and judgements that someone without such experience should have dropped off.


Not even high school, younger I am talking 11-13 age group. The idealistic love, is the juvenile part. Couldn't say abot the knight as I have not read of him, but if the story is about idealistic love then I will likely pass. Lol, are you suggesting I read Twilight.

Its you who used high school (In my country this therminology does not even exists) but again, you talk about an agreement that does not exists, only reflects the lack of information about literature and do resemble a twilight version.



When I said that it did not affect the content, I was referring to how it changed literature after it. Any philosophy and reason employed within the book would change the content. So you claim that they exist show me a passage where there is reasoning.

Tsc. The book is about philosophy and reason, Beatrice affects the content, its a prime example of humanism, if you want more just read something like Il Convivio.


It is not about teams, calling yourself atheist is unacceptable for the same reasons that calling yourself a theist is unacceptable. The terms I listed before are expansions upon the terms atheist and theist, and if you choose not to use them that just tells me you are either scared to reveal your true feelings upon the subject or that you have not thought about the subject enough. Also, it seems that you have been misinformed as to what the term agnostic means. You should know that you cannot be agnostic, just by itself, it needs supporting terms to fully explain your actual beliefs (or lack thereof). But this is neither here nor there. If you would like to continue this discussion just PM me, but let us not hijack this thread (even though it seems to be coming to a close).

No need to continue this, someone who believes in no deity cannt be also someone which consider such belief (or in the existence) a possibility. I do not need to discuss this.

[Leland Gaunt]

My answer is that it enables perception of our achievements and our nature, and some of us base how we live our lives on it, though most of us won't. I don't know what engenders your enthusiasm. Hockey? Video games--whatever-- your aesthetic choices are still involved with what you care about. Maybe the *literary* is bunk, and that is fine, but as Petrarch is perhaps attempting to convey, maybe you should not be so impatient to limit your horizons at this point in your life.
I understand what you are saying, except on the point of my impatience. I don't believe I'm trying to limit horizons, in fact anything but that. I have been tying to broaden my horizons for the entire year and have discovered many things that I love, like backpacking (the most intensely emotional experience I have ever had). I think of it less as limiting myself and more as a way to focus my interests, and I also think that we all "limit" ourselves and much of it is probably done while still young. So, no, I don't think that I do appreciate literary aesthetics, all that much, or maybe it's just with works like Dante. I suppose I'll find out as I continue reading. Thank you for your post, it was the most illuminating response to why people love these books so much.

You consider some of the main themes as unimportant and is focused on the catholic aspects of Dante. It is like someone refusing to read Homer because you did not believe in Zeus. Those themes I listed are among the most relevant themes and frankly, if you argued there is little it could add to your catholic education, there "importance" of the theme is of little relevance to dismiss your argument.
Most of it and of course, it is not boring.
As it was said, you lack the experience to deal with this kind of text (which should give you the hint that reading manifests outside the text) and this affects your enjoyment. However, you are already full of certains and judgements that someone without such experience should have dropped off.
Its you who used high school (In my country this therminology does not even exists) but again, you talk about an agreement that does not exists, only reflects the lack of information about literature and do resemble a twilight version
Tsc. The book is about philosophy and reason, Beatrice affects the content, its a prime example of humanism, if you want more just read something like Il Convivio.
No need to continue this, someone who believes in no deity cannt be also someone which consider such belief (or in the existence) a possibility. I do not need to discuss this.
They really are quite irrelevant.
It really was boring.
My experience with the type of texts is only part of the answer. And you have an extremely unrealistic idea of what it means and what it should mean to be young.
What agreement?
Finally! Thats an answer to one of my questions, even though humanistic thought is one of my least favorite.
Ah, it is as I thought you have no clue what agnostic means. It means you lack knowledge of God/ don't believe that the knowledge exists. So an agnostic atheist is one who claims no knowledge of God and does not believe in God. You can also be an agnostic theist. Answer me just one question, do you not believe in God, or do you believe God doesn't exist. The difference is enormous.

[Jozanny]

Leland,

Here is a bit of a shocker: I am not an expert on Dante, and the only parts of The Divine Comedy I know well are the opening cantos of The Inferno, but I know enough about the history of Italy, and the Italian Renaissance, to know how revoluntionary his work was, and why, even if all those footnotes on his enemies can exasperate--and it was only after school that one of my goals is to understand him in his own language to the best of my ability (I am Italian and while not fluent the tongue comes easy to me.)

Petrarch and luke have the better training to defend him than I do, as I could not advance fully afield to teach, but with Dante one better understands the arc of Italian influences, through English literature and beyond.

Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them; it is an old saying as cliched as the hills, but contains a basic truth. Dante himself was vicious and unpleasant; he is rumored to have beat a man for reciting tersa rima inaccurately, but without Dante the whole of our western heritage, the best of it, collapses--and it takes study to grasp these issues, regardless of any one instructor's talent, or lack thereof, to offer it.

If you reject this, that is your choice, and I am certainly not going to offer you an apologia for it, but will not condemn it either.

[Leland Gaunt]

Leland,

Here is a bit of a shocker: I am not an expert on Dante, and the only parts of The Divine Comedy I know well are the opening cantos of The Inferno, but I know enough about the history of Italy, and the Italian Renaissance, to know how revoluntionary his work was, and why, even if all those footnotes on his enemies can exasperate--and it was only after school that one of my goals is to understand him in his own language to the best of my ability (I am Italian and while not fluent the tongue comes easy to me.)

Petrarch and luke have the better training to defend him than I do, as I could not advance fully afield to teach, but with Dante one better understands the arc of Italian influences, through English literature and beyond.

Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them; it is an old saying as cliched as the hills, but contains a basic truth. Dante himself was vicious and unpleasant; he is rumored to have beat a man for reciting tersa rima inaccurately, but without Dante the whole of our western heritage, the best of it, collapses--and it takes study to grasp these issues, regardless of any one instructor's talent, or lack thereof, to offer it.

If you reject this, that is your choice, and I am certainly not going to offer you an apologia for it, but will not condemn it either
Though I do not understand what this has to do with my response to your post, I will still bite. However revolutionary it is, it still does not make it a good piece of work. Das Kapital was revolutionary, but most mock it, and rightly so. I do not care about Italian influences in English literature, I care about each individual work by itself, and judge it as an individual work. I do reject that, it is a ridiculous assertation. The best of western heritage, all comes from one man. What utter bollocks. Don't try to paint the West as a monolithic entity.

[Jozanny]

Given that response, I will follow in Quark's wake, and cede the field. If you despise it all then what are you looking for here?

As Quark knows, I find the work of Dickens hard to love, and yet as Petrarch does with Faulkner, I make the effort to still read the novelist and appreciate what he was in the Victorian era without damning him--it resides in my love of scholarship for its own sake, which, as I've indicated, isn't for everyone. Since you love backpacking, maybe you should check out Stegner; his work deals with demythologizing the western frontier.

[stlukesguild]

Actually, the burden of proof is on you. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, it is up to you fellows to prove that the something does indeed exist.

Actually, in a dispute such as this... when one person with limited experience in the field is challenging the accepted judgment of the larger portion of experts in the field (academics, writers, and common readers in Virginia Woolf's sense of the term) the basis of proof is upon the person who is challenging the accepted values. Beside which, quite frankly Dante has no need forme or anyone else to defend him. His position in the canon of classic literature is quite secure regardless of the complaints of any number of high-school and college literature students.

Though I do not understand what this has to do with my response to your post, I will still bite. However revolutionary it is, it still does not make it a good piece of work. Das Kapital was revolutionary, but most mock it, and rightly so. I do not care about Italian influences in English literature, I care about each individual work by itself, and judge it as an individual work. I do reject that, it is a ridiculous assertation. The best of western heritage, all comes from one man. What utter bollocks. Don't try to paint the West as a monolithic entity.

The utter bollocks is the sophomoric notion that any work of art exists in a vacuum or that its merits are solely measured on an individual basis. How is that even possible? To offer up a judgment of any individual work there must be some concept of what the standards for "good" and "bad" are. How are these standards developed if not in comparison. T.S. Eliot in his seminal essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent offered a view of the relationship of the writer to tradition and the influence of earlier writers:

Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense, which we may call nearly indispensable to anyone who would continue to be a poet beyond his twenty-fifth year; and the historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence; the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the whole of the literature of his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order. This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal and of the timeless and of the temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional. And it is at the same time what makes a writer most acutely conscious of his place in time, of his contemporaneity.

No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead. I mean this as a principle of æsthetic, not merely historical, criticism. The necessity that he shall conform, that he shall cohere, is not one-sided; what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new. Whoever has approved this idea of order, of the form of European, of English literature, will not find it preposterous that the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past. And the poet who is aware of this will be aware of great difficulties and responsibilities.

Some one said: "The dead writers are remote from us because we know so much more than they did." Precisely, and they are that which we know.

A work of art attains the status of a literary classic because of its impact upon (and the opinions of) subsequent writers, readers, critics, and other literary experts or academics. Your analogy with Das Kapital is completely misleading because Das Kapital has never been accepted as a major literary creation. Its influence was political, not literary. One might just as well suggest that Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica are major works of literature because of their influence on the sciences.

The Comedia has attained a preeminent level of esteem as a work of literature among critics, literary academics, writers, and readers and yet you would argue that the work is grossly flawed or fails to meet certain standards based upon what? Your own personal opinion? We have all granted you that. No one can be made to like something. It is doubtful that they can even be convinced by logic into liking something. But you are not simply stating that you personally dislike the work... rather you are suggesting a range of flaws that suggest the fault is in Dante... and again this criticism is based upon what? Your own deep reading of literature?:frown2:

[LitNetIsGreat]

:lol: What is it with youth and their need for instant gratification? This thread reminds me of one of my favourite fables:

There were two wolves upon a hill. An old wise wolf and a young rash snappy wolf. They looked down upon a big green field and spotted two nice fluffy sheep. The young wolf said "let's run down and get one" to which the old wolf replied "let's walk down and get them both". :biggrin5:

Really though you are expecting too much too soon, literature of this type just does not operate on that sort of level as I said before. It might be best to read a little more before taking on one of the cornerstones of Western literature. Just a suggestion like...

[Leland Gaunt]

Given that response, I will follow in Quark's wake, and cede the field. If you despise it all then what are you looking for here?

As Quark knows, I find the work of Dickens hard to love, and yet as Petrarch does with Faulkner, I make the effort to still read the novelist and appreciate what he was in the Victorian era without damning him--it resides in my love of scholarship for its own sake, which, as I've indicated, isn't for everyone. Since you love backpacking, maybe you should check out Stegner; his work deals with demythologizing the western frontier.
My response was not that I despised Dante. My response was that I do not respect the reasons given so far as to why I should like Dante. Why would I read something over again that I despise? What do you want out of exaggerating my statements? Thank you for the reading suggestion.

Actually, in a dispute such as this... when one person with limited experience in the field is challenging the accepted judgment of the larger portion of experts in the field (academics, writers, and common readers in Virginia Woolf's sense of the term) the basis of proof is upon the person who is challenging the accepted values. Beside which, quite frankly Dante has no need forme or anyone else to defend him. His position in the canon of classic literature is quite secure regardless of the complaints of any number of high-school and college literature students.
Nope, it is always, always, always on those that would take the position you have. Is that the only way you can win, by creating boundaries that force those with an opposite opinion into a logical fallacy? The bolded part is exactly the problem, you are putting his work upon a god-like, untouchable pedestal, and no literature is that good.

The utter bollocks is the sophomoric notion that any work of art exists in a vacuum or that its merits are solely measured on an individual basis. How is that even possible? To offer up a judgment of any individual work there must be some concept of what the standards for "good" and "bad" are. How are these standards developed if not in comparison. T.S. Eliot in his seminal essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent offered a view of the relationship of the writer to tradition and the influence of earlier writers:
No I feel that philosophy (which you have claimed The Divine Comedy to be), exists by itself and the only judge of it is yourself. Now after you have read enough philosophy and found what clicks with you then I suppose you will start comparing work, but until that glorious day each philosophy is on it's own uncompared. Fiction on the other hand does need comparison with other works, but really any fictional book that philosophizes too much will be dry and the characters will suffer for it. Since you have replaced the idea that the Western hemisphere is a monolithic entity with the same motivations, ideals, values, behavior, beliefs etc... and that all of these can be traced back to Dante with, that works can't be judged alone, as utter bollocks. Do you agree with the former? Could you please argue with your own words, I didn't realize that I was discussing the matter with T.S. Eliot.

A work of art attains the status of a literary classic because of its impact upon (and the opinions of) subsequent writers, readers, critics, and other literary experts or academics. Your analogy with Das Kapital is completely misleading because Das Kapital has never been accepted as a major literary creation. Its influence was political, not literary. One might just as well suggest that Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica are major works of literature because of their influence on the sciences.

The Comedia has attained a preeminent level of esteem as a work of literature among critics, literary academics, writers, and readers and yet you would argue that the work is grossly flawed or fails to meet certain standards based upon what? Your own personal opinion? We have all granted you that. No one can be made to like something. It is doubtful that they can even be convinced by logic into liking something. But you are not simply stating that you personally dislike the work... rather you are suggesting a range of flaws that suggest the fault is in Dante... and again this criticism is based upon what? Your own deep reading of literature?
I used Das Kapital as something revolutionary in general, as opposed to something revolutionary in literature. The point still stands. Not grossly flawed, I have never said that(really now, I have never seen so many strawmen outside of political discussion or the state of Iowa) but it did fail to meet my standards. Standards like fiction should be enjoyed for it's character, plot, and setting as opposed to it's philosophy. Philosophy texts should be judged on their philosophy and enjoyed for the ideas they present. Same for political theory. Haha, you say that as if you have presented logic into this thread. Nope I have said nothing beyond that I personally disliked the work, I have only criticised others interperation and the significance placed on it. I've yet to claim that Dante is to blame, but I reserve the possibility that he could be. I was curious as to why others like it. Moved them/meant something personal to them-excellent, it's a classic-poor, others liked it-poor, it was influential-poor. By whose standards should I judge things by, then? Yours? Great now if you could just get me a list of all the books that you have read, what you thought of them, and why you thought those things. Then we could get started.

Really though you are expecting too much too soon, literature of this type just does not operate on that sort of level as I said before. It might be best to read a little more before taking on one of the cornerstones of Western literature. Just a suggestion like...
That's fair, I'm just beginning to doubt that literature of this type is worth the time.

[spookymulder93]

That's fair, I'm just beginning to doubt that literature of this type is worth the time.

Everyone is different dude. Literature might not be your thing and even if it is you don't have to like everything that everyone else likes. If you don't like Dante it's alright, because unless your killed or die life will continue to go on and I'm sure there is a lot of other stuff out there that you DO like.

But since you HAVE to do this for a class I advice you to try to take some advice from these guys and put some of it in your paper and get that passing grade and be done with it.

[Leland Gaunt]

I already get passing grades. Besides that it's not literature I don't like, it's this sort of literature.

[billl]

...I'm just beginning to doubt that literature of this type is worth the time.


I already get passing grades. Besides that it's not literature I don't like, it's this sort of literature.


Perhaps this sort of literature isn't worth your time (at the very least, not yet), is what you were trying to say. Then the problem is how to deal with assignments. If checking out some of the discussions in the areas of this forum devoted to Dante, Shakespeare, etc. isn't enough to earn your respect for these guys, then you might be able to track down some professional critic discussing them. Really, even checking out Cliff's Notes would probably open your eyes to why some people find these writers worthwhile. (I don't want to promote Cliff's Notes, really: but I will point out that your local used book store probably has some cheap used copies of the Cliff's Notes for most of this stuff that is boring you. And they can really be surprisingly insightful, when one is disposed, for whatever reason, to not like some particular work of literature.)

[Leland Gaunt]

Perhaps this sort of literature isn't worth your time (at the very least, not yet), is what you were trying to say. Then the problem is how to deal with assignments. If checking out some of the discussions in the areas of this forum devoted to Dante, Shakespeare, etc. isn't enough to earn your respect for these guys, then you might be able to track down some professional critic discussing them. Really, even checking out Cliff's Notes would probably open your eyes to why some people find these writers worthwhile. (I don't want to promote Cliff's Notes, really: but I will point out that your local used book store probably has some cheap used copies of the Cliff's Notes for most of this stuff that is boring you. And they can really be surprisingly insightful, when one is disposed, for whatever reason, to not like some particular work of literature.)
Heh, probably should have clarified, I don't think this is worth my time. No thanks though, me reading critiques and entire forum boards would defeat the purpose of not focusing on this type of literature. Reading things over and over again, and reading about them over and over again, and spending years just trying to thoroughly figure out what a book means simply does not appeal to me. Besides that I can already perform what the teachers ask of me and complete all the assignments, so far anyway.

[billl]

OK, I was just saying, in case you were having trouble finishing the books or figuring out how to handle assignments.
(You know about Cliff's Notes, right? They are hardly a step towards over-analysis...)

[Leland Gaunt]

(You know about Cliff's Notes, right? They are hardly a step towards over-analysis...)
You certainly are persistent, and I mean that in a good way.

[OrphanPip]

Now after you have read enough philosophy and found what clicks with you then I suppose you will start comparing work, but until that glorious day each philosophy is on it's own uncompared. Fiction on the other hand does need comparison with other works, but really any fictional book that philosophizes too much will be dry and the characters will suffer for it. Since you have replaced the idea that the Western hemisphere is a monolithic entity with the same motivations, ideals, values, behavior, beliefs etc... and that all of these can be traced back to Dante with, that works can't be judged alone, as utter bollocks. Do you agree with the former? Could you please argue with your own words, I didn't realize that I was discussing the matter with T.S. Eliot.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. Philosophy, much like literature, doesn't exist within a vacuum. Most prominent philosophers are in dialogue with their predecessors and peers at some level. Plato perhaps exists within a vacuum because we have little access to what came before him, but a complete understanding of Aristotle is impossible without understanding that he is, in large part, responding to Plato. As to literature philosophizing too much, I'm not sure such a thing can really exist. Plato's writing is often studied both as philosophy and literature because of how it was written, as a dialogue. Moreover, many Existentialist chose to advocate their philosophy directly through fiction. Works like Sartre's No Exit and Camus' Outsider are interesting because of their philosophy, and I don't think this weakens their value as literature, it just makes them a different sort of literature.



Standards like fiction should be enjoyed for it's character, plot, and setting as opposed to it's philosophy. Philosophy texts should be judged on their philosophy and enjoyed for the ideas they present. Same for political theory. Haha, you say that as if you have presented logic into this thread. Nope I have said nothing beyond that I personally disliked the work, I have only criticised others interperation and the significance placed on it.

I think what you call your "standards" of literature are what is putting you at odds with others in this thread. For many, character, plot, and setting are but the surface elements of literature. Sticking to fiction, you can appreciate a novel for so much more than the quality of its basic elements. For example, I love Dickens a great deal and one of Dickens' greatest influences was Henry Fielding. Fielding's novel Tom Jones is a major piece of English literature because of its influence on the English novel, but I personally find it to be a sleeping pill at times. Nonetheless, I read Tom Jones because I wanted to gain a greater understanding of Dickens, an author I do enjoy, and I think I did achieve that at some level. Reading highly influential works increases your ability to understand the stuff that came after it, it gives you new insight into what comes after it. For many there is a lot of value in appreciating the evolution of art and looking at how aesthetics change over time.



That's fair, I'm just beginning to doubt that literature of this type is worth the time.

I'm not the kind of person who reads the Divine Comedy on a regular basis, but it honestly is hard to find an author with as huge an impact on Western literature as Dante. If you don't care about that kind of stuff you don't have to read it though.

[billl]

You certainly are persistent, and I mean that in a good way.

Glad to hear that bright yellow guardian angel is still playing a useful role.

[Leland Gaunt]

and I don't think this weakens their value as literature, it just makes them a different sort of literature.
Yes, and it is a literature that I just can't seem to get into.

Most prominent philosophers are in dialogue with their predecessors and peers at some level.
Yes, but it is not their peer's ideas that I am reading.

I think what you call your "standards" of literature are what is putting you at odds with others in this thread. For many, character, plot, and setting are but the surface elements of literature. Sticking to fiction, you can appreciate a novel for so much more than the quality of its basic elements. For example, I love Dickens a great deal and one of Dickens' greatest influences was Henry Fielding. Fielding's novel Tom Jones is a major piece of English literature because of its influence on the English novel, but I personally find it to be a sleeping pill at times. Nonetheless, I read Tom Jones because I wanted to gain a greater understanding of Dickens, an author I do enjoy, and I think I did achieve that at some level. Reading highly influential works increases your ability to understand the stuff that came after it, it gives you new insight into what comes after it. For many there is a lot of value in appreciating the evolution of art and looking at how aesthetics change over time.
I'm beginning to think that your (everyone who has responded) interest in literature is far greater than mine. I have never once felt an urge to find out by what an author was influenced by, and I only occasionaly dig deeper to understand a piece of fiction. As I have stated before the aesthetics just do not interest me.

[kelby_lake]

Leland, you really need to work on your apostrophes. 'its' for posession. 'it's' means 'it is'. Apostrophes to indicate posession with a plural noun are stuck right at the end: 'peers' ideas'

I like finding out the influences on writers I like- if only just to find other books that I might enjoy reading.

[wessexgirl]

Leland, you really need to work on your apostrophes. 'its' for posession. 'it's' means 'it is'. Apostrophes to indicate posession with a plural noun are stuck right at the end: 'peers' ideas'I like finding out the influences on writers I like- if only just to find other books that I might enjoy reading.


I would be very careful giving advice on grammar here Kelby, including spelling! :biggrin5:

[Petrarch's Love]

Milton! Thou shouldst be posting on this thread!. Anyone with the chutzpah "to justify the ways of God to man" surely could justify the ways of literature to youth. :smile5:


No I feel that philosophy (which you have claimed The Divine Comedy to be), exists by itself and the only judge of it is yourself. Now after you have read enough philosophy and found what clicks with you then I suppose you will start comparing work, but until that glorious day each philosophy is on it's own uncompared. Fiction on the other hand does need comparison with other works, but really any fictional book that philosophizes too much will be dry and the characters will suffer for it. Since you have replaced the idea that the Western hemisphere is a monolithic entity with the same motivations, ideals, values, behavior, beliefs etc... and that all of these can be traced back to Dante with, that works can't be judged alone, as utter bollocks. Do you agree with the former? Could you please argue with your own words, I didn't realize that I was discussing the matter with T.S. Eliot.

Ah, there is more on heaven and earth, Leland, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.

Of course individual works stand well on their own, but they are also in dialogue with one another. Each book, each author or philosopher is a voice in conversation with other voices. What St. Luke's and others are suggesting is not a monolithic entity at all, but a diverse, rich and heterogeneous conversation among voices from age to age that weave together to help form the fabric of the culture, art, values, behavior, beliefs and so on of our own age.

But, of course it is alright if you personally aren't getting anything out of certain works at this point in your life. You have lots of interests to explore and things to work out, and it may be absolutely true that you're not in a place where you appreciate or get much out of certain kinds of literature. That's why many people on this thread started out by saying that you probably aren't at a point in your life when this is meaningful for you, and that this is not a bad thing, but that you just need to recognize that this doesn't mean that the books themselves are not potentially meaningful works or that there may not be another point in your life when they are meaningful to you.

As I write this I can't help but think of the first line of the Divina Commedia. I'll quote the opening stanze:


Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
mi ritrovai per una selva oscura,
che la diritta via era smarrita.
Ahi quanto a dir qual era e cosa dura
esta selva selvaggia e aspra e forte
che nel pensier rinova la paura!
Tant e amara che poco e piu morte;
ma per trattar del ben ch'i' vi trovai,
diro de l'altre cose ch'i' v'ho scorte.

Midway in the journey of our life I found myself in a dark wood, for the straight way was lost. Ah, how hard it is to tell what that wood was, wild, rugged, harsh; the very thought of it renews the fear! It is so bitter that death is hardly more so. But to treat of the good that I found in it, I will tell of the other things I saw there. (Singleton's translation)

As ever, the translation of that first line, "nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita" (midway in the journey of our life) doesn't entirely do justice to the power of the original. One clear meaning of that first line is that he is literally writing this as someone midway through his life. It's often remarked that he was about 35 at the time he wrote the Inferno and that, drawing from the biblical authority of psalm 89, which numbers the years of our life as seventy ("Dies annorum nostrorum in ipsis septuaginta anni"), he would thus be in the exact middle of his life according to Medieval and scriptural tradition. However, he does not say the middle of my life, but the middle of our life, thus starting out by placing his journey in a universal context as something that could well apply to all of us. We all will reach the middle of our life. We all may enter into a dark wood.

The line need not only refer to being literally in the middle years of our life, however. An additional interpretation would be that it refers to any point when we are nell mezzo del cammin di nostra, in the middle of our path. That is, he is referring to any time in our lives when we are in the midst of things, traveling along our life's path of work and relationships and every day activities and concerns, and look around to find ourselves lost and confused in the middle of it all. In the next line the translation then says "I found myself in a dark wood", which is accurate but misses some of the nuance of the original. For example, the word for "dark" is "oscura" which evokes, not just the darkness of the wood, but the way it obscures, hides, and the word for "found" is not simply "trovai" but "ritrovai", which connotes not only finding himelf, but re-finding himself, which highlights the suggestion in the line of a reflection inward. In these two opening lines, Dante is describing a space that intrudes upon all of our paths at some time or another. Sometimes it is a short and passing moment when the awareness of your own mortality washes over you and you feel that brief and restless disconnect between your daily activity and something surrounding and permeating that activity that you don't understand. Sometimes it is that space when you lie in bed at some unreal hour of the morning and can feel some strange mixture of a calm detachment from all that makes up our customary sense of reality and an almost palpable and oppressive fear (perhaps like one form of such a moment that Phillip Larkin describes in his quite different poem "Aubade": "I work all day, and get half-drunk at night./ Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare./ In time the curtain-edges will grow light./Till then I see what's really always there:/ Unresting death, a whole day nearer now..."). Sometimes it is a whole period of a person's life, when they find themselves, in the middle of going through the business of living, thrown completely off track and wandering in the obscurity of the realization that the world does not, in fact, provide many answers combined with an awareness of "what's really always there." This is a space of reflection, of not only facing death, but facing that which "tant e amara che poco e piu morte" (is so bitter that death is hardly more so).

It is from this moment of reflection, of fear, of confronting death and what is scarcely better than death, that the Divine Comedy opens up onto all the many things that crowd a person's mind at such times. Part of what we find with him in the pages that follow are reflections on the events that shape our real-life experience: politics, friendships, those we are tied to by love and those we are tied to by hatred. Another part is a looking back to the past outside our own lives. It is no accident that Virgil is his guide through the inferno. A pagan poet who wrote the great ancient Roman epic, The Aeneid hardly is the most logical choice as a moral guide through the Christian conception of hell, but Dante turns to Virgil as the author of book six of the Aeneid--who has already masterfully described the hero Aeneas' confrontation of death and journey through the pagan underworld-- because he sees in him a voice from the past who has already faced this space of reflection and fear. Dante is trying to grapple with the same things through the lens of his own world, his own religious beliefs, his own personal loves and resentments. He places himself, as an ordinary person like the rest of us facing "nostra vita," "our life" in the position of the mythical epic hero, Aeneas, and it we who now confront the space that in Virgil is braved only by the uncommon and the heroic figure. We turn to Dante as he turned to Virgil, to help us open up the complex boundaries between our own world and that "undiscovered country" we sense pressing in around the ragged edges of our world.

Well, I could go on and on talking about the DC, but my point for the moment is that it will be when you more fully know and identify with this space that intrudes upon the middle of our lives that you may get more out of a work like the Divine Comedy. It will be when you have fallen off your path a bit, when you are oppressed by questions you are fully aware there are no easy answers to, perhaps when you are exploring a more existential mode, or when you have been knocked down by some real-life event, that you may find yourself appreciating what Dante is doing in this work. For some this may not come until somewhere around the literal middle of life's path when they are older. For others it may come earlier for any number of reasons. This is not a judgment, and being in a place in your life to appreciate past literature is just that, a personal and individual state. It doesn't mean you aren't intelligent, or open to many interests, or exploring the world in many wonderful ways. It just means you aren't at the place where connecting with this sort of literature is meaningful yet. For now, the idea of learning it in high school is to make you aware of this work and give you a few practical tips for how you might think about approaching it should you ever find yourself at a point later when it does mean something to you. It's planting a seed now for a potential future harvest.

Well, I think that wraps me up for this thread, but it has got me to thinking that a discussion of Dante might be a really fantastic thing to get going. Looks like there are a lot of Divina Commedia defenders on this thread. I'm going to go start up a discussion thread and anyone who likes (including Leland!) is welcome to join in as they please. Will post a link in a minute.

Edit: Here's the link for Dante discussion purposes: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=897873#post897873

[LitNetIsGreat]

Milton! Thou shouldst be posting on this thread!. Anyone with the chutzpah "to justify the ways of God to man" surely could justify the ways of literature to youth. :beatdeadhorse5::biggrin5:

Great idea on the Dante, I've been wanting such a thing for a while, I'll follow it with interest.

[Wilde woman]

Leland, if you ignore the influences of previous writers on later ones, you're missing a huge portion of the discussion. It's ridiculous to think that great pieces of literature arise out of a vacuum. Even your favorite authors - Twain and Steinbeck - both read and loved pieces of literature in the early modern period (which you so despise). I've read a few chapters in a book which dissects some early works of Steinbeck's and show the chivalric behavior of the characters, which can be traced back to Steinbeck's reading (and rewriting) of medieval romances.

But I think I understand your point: just because a work is influenced by a renowned author does not mean that the work itself is any good. I can understand that position. But there are reasons that works like the Divine Comedy and Shakespeare's dramas are still taught now and have been such a huge influence in literature. Do some digging and you'll see that even your favorite authors have been inspired by either Dante or Shakespeare.

[keilj]

Leland, if you ignore the influences of previous writers on later ones, you're missing a huge portion of the discussion. It's ridiculous to think that great pieces of literature arise out of a vacuum. Even your favorite authors - Twain and Steinbeck - both read and loved pieces of literature in the early modern period (which you so despise). I've read a few chapters in a book which dissects some early works of Steinbeck's and show the chivalric behavior of the characters, which can be traced back to Steinbeck's reading (and rewriting) of medieval romances.



Gotta go with Leland on an author's work standing on its own. I love Steinbeck, who has influenced by Cervantes. I read and pretty much enjoyed Don Quixote - but the entire second half of the 1400 page novel was redundant and almost totally unnecessary (though still funny in parts). (I think Don Quixote is a great example because it is just the kind of novel that Lit scholars would moon over and soliloquize about)

I love Springsteen - but cannot sit through many Pete Segar songs - a big influence of his.

Often when I hear who influenced a writer, singer, so on - I say to myself, "Man, I'm glad they make much better art than their idols did."

A writer ultimately must summon his art from within him/herself as they write upon the page. It seems foolish to suggest that a book cannot be appreciated/understood on its own. And a book that needs tons of background context to be enjoyed, seems hardly enjoyable at all

[stlukesguild]

Gotta go with Leland on an author's work standing on its own.

Explain to me how it is possible that a work of art stands on its own in terms of aesthetic merit? How does an individual develop a concept of the possibilities or the standards without having something upon which to base these? You are simply restating one of the dumbest aesthetic judgments ever voiced: "I don't know much about _______ (art, music, literature...) but I knows what I likes." Why should anyone give the least attention or consideration to such an opinion?

I love Steinbeck, who has influenced by Cervantes. I read and pretty much enjoyed Don Quixote - but the entire second half of the 1400 page novel was redundant and almost totally unnecessary (though still funny in parts).

Unnecessary by what standards? How did you come to this conclusion? Or are you simply again stating your personal opinion (based on ???) as fact?

(I think Don Quixote is a great example because it is just the kind of novel that Lit scholars would moon over and soliloquize about)

There is no "kind of novel" that literature scholars find of interest. There are simply novels (short stories, plays, poems, etc...) that literature scholars, readers, writers, etc... find of more or less merit. Some of these novels are histories, some romances, some comedies, some tragedies, some profoundly serious and reverent... some are bawdy and vulgar, some are centuries old, and some were written last year. This is something that you and those who would portray literary history as some dry, monolith fail to recognize... because you are too hung up with trying to tear down what you don't understand.

I love Springsteen - but cannot sit through many Pete Segar songs - a big influence of his.

And that's fine for you. No one said "you MUST like Pete Seeger if you like Bruce Springsteen. The problem comes, however, when you presume that your own opinions are fact:

Often when I hear who influenced a writer, singer, so on - I say to myself, "Man, I'm glad they make much better art than their idols did."

A writer ultimately must summon his art from within him/herself as they write upon the page. It seems foolish to suggest that a book cannot be appreciated/understood on its own. And a book that needs tons of background context to be enjoyed, seems hardly enjoyable at all

Ah! Now you are presuming to dictate how a writer MUST create his or her art. I've always loved Bonnard's quote on painting: "You can't invent the whole of painting yourself." Yes... you can appreciate a book solely on its own terms. But what is the level of appreciation? Or are we back again to "I don't know much about ______ but I know what I like? Perhaps a better quote for this discussion might come from Lex Luthor (Superman):

Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."

Milton! Thou shouldst be posting on this thread!. Anyone with the chutzpah "to justify the ways of God to man" surely could justify the ways of literature to youth.

:beatdeadhorse5:


Indeed!:banghead:

[Jozanny]

Gotta go with Leland on an author's work standing on its own.

I think, for those of us who took our education seriously, it goes without saying that an author has to stand on their own legs, and yet, as some have conveyed, nearly all story telling is derivative.

I am actually not sure what your protest amounts to. I am a published poet, with a small collection of my own, and I may have some affinity with other confessional poets, but no conscious imitation of any with the possible exception of lyn lifshin, who I grew out of but once enjoyed her hard edged cadence--and to this extent all writers feed off each other, inclusive of Dante and Cervantes. We're like a club. Same thing goes for classic authors, but we don't see it obviously, because it all becomes textually dependent.

You contradict yourself talking about Springteen's influences, so perhaps you need to sort out your line of thought.

[Leland Gaunt]

Ah, there is more on heaven and earth, Leland, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.

Of course individual works stand well on their own, but they are also in dialogue with one another. Each book, each author or philosopher is a voice in conversation with other voices. What St. Luke's and others are suggesting is not a monolithic entity at all, but a diverse, rich and heterogeneous conversation among voices from age to age that weave together to help form the fabric of the culture, art, values, behavior, beliefs and so on of our own age.

But, of course it is alright if you personally aren't getting anything out of certain works at this point in your life. You have lots of interests to explore and things to work out, and it may be absolutely true that you're not in a place where you appreciate or get much out of certain kinds of literature. That's why many people on this thread started out by saying that you probably aren't at a point in your life when this is meaningful for you, and that this is not a bad thing, but that you just need to recognize that this doesn't mean that the books themselves are not potentially meaningful works or that there may not be another point in your life when they are meaningful to you.

As I write this I can't help but think of the first line of the Divina Commedia. I'll quote the opening stanze:
Absolutely! There is an enormous amount of things to experience in this world. This is why I get the feeling that a book isn't worth many years trying to understand, for me anyway. Hell, if I want to be honest with myself and you, what I am really looking for is a great deal of excitement in my life. That was something lacking in my first reading of Dante, but as I have said before I do plan on reading The Divine Comedy again later in my life after my priorites and perspective have changed, and you have given me some excellent cues as to when to do so. Unfortunately the same can't be said for Hawthorne(:sleep:) and that is definitely a matter of personal taste over aesthetic appreciation. If it seemed as if I was rejecting the advice that I wouldn't ever be moved by it, then my fault, because I was not contesting this point at all.

Leland, if you ignore the influences of previous writers on later ones, you're missing a huge portion of the discussion. It's ridiculous to think that great pieces of literature arise out of a vacuum. Even your favorite authors - Twain and Steinbeck - both read and loved pieces of literature in the early modern period (which you so despise). I've read a few chapters in a book which dissects some early works of Steinbeck's and show the chivalric behavior of the characters, which can be traced back to Steinbeck's reading (and rewriting) of medieval romances.

But I think I understand your point: just because a work is influenced by a renowned author does not mean that the work itself is any good. I can understand that position. But there are reasons that works like the Divine Comedy and Shakespeare's dramas are still taught now and have been such a huge influence in literature. Do some digging and you'll see that even your favorite authors have been inspired by either Dante or Shakespeare.
*ahem* A. The discussion you are referring to does not interest me at the moment B. Those are not my favorite authors (just the ones that I read in my English class), though Steinbeck might soon be C. Boy is this frustrating, having to point out again that I have never once stated that I despised anything...except for Hawthorne D. How far back should I dig to find who influenced who? Am I going to end up at the first primitive chieftain to grunt eloquently about the complexities of life? (this is a bit extreme and a tad juvenile, but darn am I tired of having to express my disinterest in the evolution of art)

A writer ultimately must summon his art from within him/herself as they write upon the page. It seems foolish to suggest that a book cannot be appreciated/understood on its own. And a book that needs tons of background context to be enjoyed, seems hardly enjoyable at all
Spot on.


P.S. Petrarch- I will get back to you on the "conversation among ages" after I have studied both history and literature some more. Thank you for the invitation, but I think I'm gonna put the ol' keyboard down for a bit. Oh and thanks again, to all who have helped, I definitely understand why people enjoy the classics then I did at the beginning of the thread. :biggrin5:

[JCamilo]

If you had no trouble you would not start a thread asking for help. And if you need help nobody is stupidy to tell you to act and do exactly what you did before, since it lead it you to trouble. So, we can only tell you alternatives, if it does not interest you, pay attention: it may be a path for you.

So, either you asked for help to receive something you have not or you are just bragging. In either case, listen, for listening you can learn and listening you wont make a silly of yourself because this river have bathed a great number of souls.

Anyways, You cannt even use the word classic without considering the power of influence (many, thanks to Dante), so this thread goes silly. More than 9 lawyers of silliness.

[mal4mac]

Petrarch- See my post above for an answer to most of your post. I no longer expect you to explain why Dante is a triumph in literature. I realize that this is an unfair task to ask of someone. In regards to me posting passages that I did not like, this would be terribly hard. It's not that I hated anything in particular, the poem simply did not move me and I saw nothing resembling some of the claims that others have said were in the book (philosophy, reason). I was a very gray and uninteresting read.

Interesting Freudian slip in the last sentence! Lay down on the couch :)

Maybe you feel the need to become a brighter reader and (somehow, anyhow) work hard to generate more interest in Dante.

Maybe you need to know more about the authors Dante refers to? And maybe even read some of them? I've read Plato, some Aristotle, and much about them, and a little about Thomas Aquinas, and I think this has helped a lot with the passages where they are invoked. I haven't read Virgil or Ovid, so the passages where they are mentioned often seem less "rich". But it's probably me who's less rich, rather than Dante...

You could start with "Aquinas:A Very Short Introduction", and other appropriate books in that excellent series, to build up *some* background.

Also read "Portrait" by James Joyce to see an atheist who is totally steeped in Roman Catholicism, then you might see that you don't have to be in the club to find it fascinating & incredibly influential...

And of course authors have to stand on their own legs, but it often helps to stand on the backs of giants.

[kelby_lake]

I would be very careful giving advice on grammar here Kelby, including spelling! :biggrin5:

Whoops :/ It's still wrong though, isn't it?

[Leland Gaunt]

If you had no trouble you would not start a thread asking for help. And if you need help nobody is stupidy to tell you to act and do exactly what you did before, since it lead it you to trouble. So, we can only tell you alternatives, if it does not interest you, pay attention: it may be a path for you.

So, either you asked for help to receive something you have not or you are just bragging. In either case, listen, for listening you can learn and listening you wont make a silly of yourself because this river have bathed a great number of souls.

Anyways, You cannt even use the word classic without considering the power of influence (many, thanks to Dante), so this thread goes silly. More than 9 lawyers of silliness.
Actually, I started the thread to find out what made the books so good and why others enjoyed them. I have received my answer, but for whatever reason some angry individual continues with this superior nonsense. Though others did help me out, you did not.

Interesting Freudian slip in the last sentence! Lay down on the couch

Maybe you feel the need to become a brighter reader and (somehow, anyhow) work hard to generate more interest in Dante.
:biggrin5: Now if only the original psychodynamic theory could be taken seriously.

[ktm5124]

Leland, you need to calm down a bit. You are coming across as the pretentious teenager with a backpack full of books who feels the need to zip open the backpack and say, "Look, here is Nietzsche!"

You are at the point of your life where you have just discovered intellectuality and, while this is an exciting find, you need to examine your motives and show some humility. Teenagers often take to philosophy so that they can contrive claims of superiority - superiority towards their parents, their schools, society, and authority in general. But this is not a healthy motive - it only serves to condone and reinforce rebellion against authority. One should read books for their enrichment, not to gain a sense of superiority...

You also need a little humility. You need to admit to yourself that you are in a hectic stage of development, with many hormones running through your body, many neural connections being formed and re-formed. You still live with your parents; you have little life experience; your attitudes and inclinations will change as you grow older. (This last bit is true for all of us.) You should recognize that, no matter whether you grow to like Dante or not, five, ten years from now you will have a different opinion of him than you do now.

Don't be so quick to toss out words like "psychodynamic", names like "Freud" and "Nietzsche". It only makes you appear as if you have something to prove, as if you must unzip your backpack full of books for every passerby.

I know you probably hate me after this critical and patronizing response. But I was your age not so long ago, and I was even more pretentious and rebellious. And I am ashamed of how I was then. But then again it is natural; it is perhaps an inevitable stage of development for those who are intellectually curious - at least in our society, with its de-emphasis on education, which gives good reason for rebellion, and little for humility...

[Leland Gaunt]

Leland, you need to calm down a bit.
Maybe it is the fact that we are using the internet and thats how, but I have felt calm beyond the first page of this thread. In the first page I was acting like a prick and was also name-dropping, but I apologized for that.

You are at the point of your life where you have just discovered intellectuality and, while this is an exciting find, you need to examine your motives and show some humility. Teenagers often take to philosophy so that they can contrive claims of superiority - superiority towards their parents, their schools, society, and authority in general. But this is not a healthy motive - it only serves to condone and reinforce rebellion against authority. One should read books for their enrichment, not to gain a sense of superiority...
I will give you that, it is true.

You also need a little humility. You need to admit to yourself that you are in a hectic stage of development, with many hormones running through your body, many neural connections being formed and re-formed. You still live with your parents; you have little life experience; your attitudes and inclinations will change as you grow older. (This last bit is true for all of us.) You should recognize that, no matter whether you grow to like Dante or not, five, ten years from now you will have a different opinion of him than you do now.
To this I will respond with a quote of my own from this thread:
"Hell, if I want to be honest with myself and you, what I am really looking for is a great deal of excitement in my life. That was something lacking in my first reading of Dante, but as I have said before I do plan on reading The Divine Comedy again later in my life after my priorites and perspective have changed, and you have given me some excellent cues as to when to do so."

Don't be so quick to toss out words like "psychodynamic", names like "Freud" and "Nietzsche". It only makes you appear as if you have something to prove, as if you must unzip your backpack full of books for every passerby.
Is there another name for psychodynamic theory? Freud was mentioned by someone else. With Nietzsche, you are correct that was intended to impress, but as I have said repeatedly I realize how juvenile that was, and have apologized for it.

I know you probably hate me after this critical and patronizing response.
I don't hate you, your just giving me your honest opinion on the matter and you speak from a point of understanding and were correct on several matters.