Themes for a 2011 Masterpiece

[TacoButt]

Let's say a hypothetical author is writing a novel destined to be a timeless classic. She or he is almost finished with it now!

It's a "culture bearing" book like much of the classic literature...ever relevant but also capturing the cultural essence of the age in which it was conceived.

What do you think would be some of the themes and situations in the novel?

...and no, I'm not a down-and-out novelist trawling for ideas. :hand:

[AlfredtheGreat]

Obviously, it would be how a person chooses to live out there final year on Earth before the Apocalypse (2012). Obviously.

[TacoButt]

Obviously, it would be how a person chooses to live out there final year on Earth before the Apocalypse (2012). Obviously.

Obviously...:) Lots of opportunity for irony there too..."an enduring message of impending doom". :D

[laymonite]

How about a novel that is written entirely in Twitter messages?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think it will be about how an up-and-coming, folksy politician overcomes all odds and ran for senate even though she's a witch. It could be a trilogy.

[arrytus]

is anything of our ephemeral culture possibly going to be not only cherished by future generations but even perdurably relevant or enlightening? i can't help thinking they'll look back at our realism fiction and find it all terribly shallow. of course i'm likely wrong- someone will write a devastating yet witty dystopian novel about a commercialistic ethos which will be exemplary and yet which whom are of such a generation will come to repudiate simply because it makes our salient features so despicable or vapid.

[hanzklein]

I've actually been wondering this myself - is writing dead? In the past 20 years I can't think of any novels which will be timeless except a handful, and those few are criticizing their own times.

[TacoButt]

of course i'm likely wrong- someone will write a devastating yet witty dystopian novel about a commercialistic ethos which will be exemplary and yet which whom are of such a generation will come to repudiate simply because it makes our salient features so despicable or vapid.

I suppose this is at the heart of why I asked this question. The real question I have is, "What does our culture have to say about life that is enduring and filled with beauty and wisdom?"

What would the opening line be, "Call me Snooki?"

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I've actually been wondering this myself - is writing dead? In the past 20 years I can't think of any novels which will be timeless except a handful, and those few are criticizing their own times.

A novel can't be timeless until some time passes. We won't know if anything contemporary will be a good period piece until at least 50 years down the road, and that still isn't enough.

Anyways, to be serious, I think some of the themes that could be used that could really capture our current culture would be technology (specifically communications technology--i.e., internet, cellphones), media created political division (or, political division in general--not a theme unique to our time, but still relevant), economic uncertainty, and mass apathy towards important issues--sure, people say they are worried about this or that, or stand for this or that, but barely anyone does anything about it. And, maybe for some humor, throw in reality TV.

[AlfredtheGreat]

It's hard to feature technology because of how rapidly it changes. Like in Imperial Bedrooms Bret Easton Ellis references Myspace and that makes the writing feel dated. So it's hard to write about how technology influences our lives because it will quickly become dated.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

True, but something being dated is what makes a period piece a period piece. Everything in The Great Gatsby is dated, but that's why it's so important; it gives us a view into the Jazz Age.

[Alexander III]

To be honest themes rarely make a book great, I mean the same themes found in harry potter are found in most classic buildungromans. It is always about the quality of writing, rather than any themes, the relevance to society come naturally by it's self.

[laymonite]

Quick question. Since "he or she is almost finished with it now," I'm curious as to what the actual chosen themes are!

Seriously, though, I was thinking along the lines of Alexander III when I jokingly suggested the form of Twitter messages for the work--this being, of course, a ha-ha mimetic device or whatever. Themes emerge on their own when you focus on humanity as you know it (your concept being shaped by your cultural milieu) and on the prose itself. I agree with Nabokov that the purpose of the novel is aesthetic bliss, but I don't believe that's all it's good for! If a human being, who is part of the stitching of this organism we call culture, is writing from within him/herself (as opposed to writing for the sole purpose of entertainment), then there is no way all that is produced is simply aesthetic bliss.

[Drkshadow03]

To be honest themes rarely make a book great, I mean the same themes found in harry potter are found in most classic buildungromans. It is always about the quality of writing, rather than any themes, the relevance to society come naturally by it's self.

I don't entirely agree with this. It also comes down to how memorable are the characters, how memorable is the story dealing with the theme, and the approach to the theme itself. We could all write a story with a theme about the regret of growing up and we'd all not only write very different stories with very different plots with very different characters to explore that issue, we'd also all probably have sightly different things to say about the issue itself, even though, we're all technically writing about the same theme.

[JBI]

I somehow doubt it will be in the novel form, perhaps in the form of film, but the novel is quite exhausted as a form.

[Hyacinthine]

I somehow doubt it will be in the novel form, perhaps in the form of film, but the novel is quite exhausted as a form.

I disagree. I think artists of every sort from many ages have moved forward with what they do partly in response to the feeling that everything has already been done... and they're always wrong. Even physicists in the past have stated that everything's already been done. It's possible you're right,but I'd guess for a different reason than you suppose. If the novel form is on its way out when it comes to things that achieve newness and greatness, I doubt that it's because it can't do those things; rather, it would be because fewer and fewer people are taking time to sit down with books that are anywhere on the same metaphorical continent as greatness, let alone within a few miles of it. Even then, I think enough people are still reading with enthusiasm that the novel still has the potential to be transformative and transformed.

[Alexander III]

I don't entirely agree with this. It also comes down to how memorable are the characters, how memorable is the story dealing with the theme, and the approach to the theme itself. We could all write a story with a theme about the regret of growing up and we'd all not only write very different stories with very different plots with very different characters to explore that issue, we'd also all probably have sightly different things to say about the issue itself, even though, we're all technically writing about the same theme.

Yes I agree with you the character development is just as important as beautiful prose, however I find that characters can only be well crafted trough the writers sole tool, his prose, so it is a weird little spiral.


I somehow doubt it will be in the novel form, perhaps in the form of film, but the novel is quite exhausted as a form.

That's the same thing which all the little academics at the end of the 19th century said, then came modernism which revolutionized the form. However in some way I agree with you, I think the more accurate saying would be:

The contemporary writers we have today have exhausted their potential with the novel form

However the future generations shall re-invent and expand the beauty of the novel, or maybe thy main form shall move away from the novel to something else. But you seem to underestimate the genius of future generations.

I do however believe that metered and rhymed verse shall not return as the main form for a very long time, if it ever does return.

Nonetheless the form is minimal importance; Shakespeare used theater, Dante the epic, Keats the lyric and Proust the novel, and they all created works of genial beauty.

[JBI]

It isn't exactly revolutionized, in the sense that a 20th century novel in many ways doesn't resemble a 19th century, the term "anti-novel" has been used for many - the "modern" novel is not the epistolary novel of Pamela, or the romances of Walter Scott keep in mind. What we do see is a need for a new form - I simply think the novel will be remade/reconstructed/superseded, it already has headed that way, with the new big players bending the form radically (a great example is the verse-novel Autobiography of Red).

Your argument is a semantic one - my argument was that the form of fiction in the manner we have today isn't working. Quit calling me a hack like those 19th century people(who?); those 19th century people were right, writing in omniscient has been out of fashion for a while, and it is the modernist novel that we follow, Tom Jones all but abandoned in favor of newer ideas of fiction.

The whole idea of whether the bulk of "literary" novels written in the last 40 or so years even function as novels is debatable in itself anyway, according to the original definition the answer is No.

[Paulclem]

An interestng concept I came across a year or so ago was the idea of authoring your own reading. E-books can now give a kind of 3d textuality to to what was in the past a static text. It's not a radical concept - we all do this when we surf and want to find out more about what is being said. We then drill down to find this info. What might be a new idea might be for an author to provide a multi-layered text with a core narrative holding it together. It could also link out to relevant texts for more info. A reader could them read the core text and select the aspects they want to follow up.

If we add tis to JBI's comment you could then have a multimedia book uniting text and vision.

[Alexander III]

It isn't exactly revolutionized, in the sense that a 20th century novel in many ways doesn't resemble a 19th century, the term "anti-novel" has been used for many - the "modern" novel is not the epistolary novel of Pamela, or the romances of Walter Scott keep in mind. What we do see is a need for a new form - I simply think the novel will be remade/reconstructed/superseded, it already has headed that way, with the new big players bending the form radically (a great example is the verse-novel Autobiography of Red).

Your argument is a semantic one - my argument was that the form of fiction in the manner we have today isn't working. Quit calling me a hack like those 19th century people(who?); those 19th century people were right, writing in omniscient has been out of fashion for a while, and it is the modernist novel that we follow, Tom Jones all but abandoned in favor of newer ideas of fiction.

The whole idea of whether the bulk of "literary" novels written in the last 40 or so years even function as novels is debatable in itself anyway, according to the original definition the answer is No.


If It was insinuated in my post that you were a hack , my apologies I don't mean that at all.

I think this is an issue of semantics, as in fact we are describing the same thing. You call the evolutions of the novel new forms, I merely view them as the same form continuing and evolving.

[stlukesguild]

I somehow doubt it will be in the novel form, perhaps in the form of film, but the novel is quite exhausted as a form.

I think they started announcing the death of painting sometime shortly after the birth of photography... yet amazingly it carries on.

I also remember an intriguing quote in one of John Barth's essays in which the writer bemoaned the fact that literature as a whole was exhausted. All the great books had already been written and he, unfortunately, had been born too late. And who was he? An Egyptian writer of many centuries BC.:sosp:

[TacoButt]

An interestng concept I came across a year or so ago was the idea of authoring your own reading. E-books can now give a kind of 3d textuality to to what was in the past a static text. It's not a radical concept - we all do this when we surf and want to find out more about what is being said. We then drill down to find this info. What might be a new idea might be for an author to provide a multi-layered text with a core narrative holding it together. It could also link out to relevant texts for more info. A reader could them read the core text and select the aspects they want to follow up.

If we add tis to JBI's comment you could then have a multimedia book uniting text and vision.

This is a fascinating idea. So the format for the reader AND writer is an organic layering PROCESS rather than a static, single-level book experienced from page 1 to the end?

This seems almost a game-like architecture as opposed to narrative. Am I getting the right idea?

This gives me an idea for a 21st century epic poem which is a tale and an omniverse in which anyone could add content. The content could be prose, video, poetry, audio, or multi-player game. As its mythology, symbolism and thematic character evolves, it becomes like a cultural mirror that we hold up to ourselves.

An individual can provide their own literary "path" through the tale via social media for example. It would say, "this is who I am in relation to the tale."

Wow, this French Roast coffee is good stuff. :crazy: Sorry for the digression.

[Paulclem]

This is a fascinating idea. So the format for the reader AND writer is an organic layering PROCESS rather than a static, single-level book experienced from page 1 to the end?

This seems almost a game-like architecture as opposed to narrative. Am I getting the right idea?

This gives me an idea for a 21st century epic poem which is a tale and an omniverse in which anyone could add content. The content could be prose, video, poetry, audio, or multi-player game. As its mythology, symbolism and thematic character evolves, it becomes like a cultural mirror that we hold up to ourselves.

An individual can provide their own literary "path" through the tale via social media for example. It would say, "this is who I am in relation to the tale."

Wow, this French Roast coffee is good stuff. :crazy: Sorry for the digression.

Fantastic. It sounds like a literary version of World of Warcraft. Imagine: a Sims version of Jane Austin; a Sci Fi space opera that you can also play as a space shooter; a First Person Chandler.

Even without the game element I think the textual layering would be good.

[stlukesguild]

I'll stick with Yeats:

“Sex and death are the only things that can interest a serious mind.”:D

[kelby_lake]

It will be about how poor we all are :)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I simply think the novel will be remade/reconstructed/superseded, it already has headed that way, with the new big players bending the form radically (a great example is the verse-novel Autobiography of Red).



Forgive me my ignorance, but who are the "big players" and how are they bending the form?

[arrytus]

This is a fascinating idea. So the format for the reader AND writer is an organic layering PROCESS rather than a static, single-level book experienced from page 1 to the end?

This seems almost a game-like architecture as opposed to narrative. Am I getting the right idea?

This gives me an idea for a 21st century epic poem which is a tale and an omniverse in which anyone could add content. The content could be prose, video, poetry, audio, or multi-player game. As its mythology, symbolism and thematic character evolves, it becomes like a cultural mirror that we hold up to ourselves.

An individual can provide their own literary "path" through the tale via social media for example. It would say, "this is who I am in relation to the tale."

Wow, this French Roast coffee is good stuff. :crazy: Sorry for the digression.

This is gonna sound pretentious perhaps but my last novel I tried to write it with amphibolies throughout and with ambiguous events so that the reader would have to decide for himself what actually happened. It also would show prejudices in reading as there were 'obvious' ways at times to read the amphibolies yet which a more descrying eye would see could be interpreted another, perhaps thusly deeper way.... but for all that, I'm still not a very good writer and it's more the idea of the biases we bring which seems to pre-textually determine the content for most people.

[Paulclem]

This is gonna sound pretentious perhaps but my last novel I tried to write it with amphibolies throughout and with ambiguous events so that the reader would have to decide for himself what actually happened. It also would show prejudices in reading as there were 'obvious' ways at times to read the amphibolies yet which a more descrying eye would see could be interpreted another, perhaps thusly deeper way.... but for all that, I'm still not a very good writer and it's more the idea of the biases we bring which seems to pre-textually determine the content for most people.

I think it would take skill on both sides to become used to a new textuality. If you compare the narrative method of Dumas with say Salman Rushdie, Rushdie's is much more compex and makes the reader work harder. One of Dumas' contemporaries would have trouble following Rushdie, yet we can cope with it as we have developed on from a simple narrative style. It would just take a bit of time.

[JBI]

Forgive me my ignorance, but who are the "big players" and how are they bending the form?

Well, the first big players are the modernists, who basically destroyed the 19th century form, and created the serious novel - but the structure itself had an echo, so we still call works like Ulysses novels, even though they lack in resembles to the original novels of Tom Jones. From there we hit the post-WW2 world, where gimmicks became fashionable, so you have people as early as the 60s writing anti-novels, which basically destroy the trajectory of the novel narrative form - namely, hero goes into society, has a struggle, and emerges, or dies - the construct we have since the 18th century. resolution, climax, plot, character - all of these were eventually broken down, much of the time by meh artists.

Into the last decades of the 20th century though, there were 3 movements really from what I can gather - popular fiction, namely best-sellers which adhere to a sort of limited third person narration most of the time, and stick to a simple trajectory by means of cliff hangers, what I would call tier two books, in that they are good novels, but lack any sort of structural advancement, namely books that are good, perhaps win a Pulitzer or the equivalent, and then people forget about them, not because they are bad, but because they aren't new enough, or innovative enough to make any real progress in the form. Then you have your third type of novelists who write in extremely experimental styles most of the time, who really take a crack at the structure of the novel itself - the best example would be the introduction of metafiction as a central trope, which undermines the credibility of the novel itself, something detrimental to the structure of the narrative as a whole - something like Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle would be an early example of this rather hit and miss mode, but something like Blood Meridian, or even Pale Fire are equally as valid. There is not much novel in Pale Fire, for instance, and in something like Calvino's mature work, or even in Marquez's Hundred Years of Solitude - the question of the novel has been bending for a long time now - the old Tom Jones, or even the old Cervantes model has been pretty much broken out of.

Ok St. Lukes, you make the argument about painting, but is painting in the traditional sense still there, or have new modes totally broken it apart? Arguably photography did bring the death of realism, and a sort of death to portrait painting, but that fallacy is derived I think from our idea of portraits being the least bit true, which is not the case.

I beg to question though, who is reading novels in the traditional sense of the word and calling them classics, and, at what point does a prose narrative become, or cease to be a novel? We clearly aren't really reading in the same way we used to, and we certainly do not take novels as seriously as we used to (Zola even claimed to be "scientific" in his writing,something which we clearly do not take seriously) so what is left of the novel even now? We have just renamed works novel, and stopped reading what we once called novels.

[stlukesguild]

Ok St. Lukes, you make the argument about painting, but is painting in the traditional sense still there, or have new modes totally broken it apart? Arguably photography did bring the death of realism, and a sort of death to portrait painting, but that fallacy is derived I think from our idea of portraits being the least bit true, which is not the case.

Yes, painting as it was known in the 19th century imploded with the 20th and we get Cubism, Abstraction, and then non-painting (along the lines of Rauschenberg) that challenge the very notion of painting as paint applied on a flat surface. But parallel to this there were always those artists producing very good works in a more traditional manner (Andrew Wyeth, George Tooker, Edward Hopper, etc...). For a while the narrative of art history was dominated by those at the forefront of formalist innovation (the Modernist). Modernism, however, has itself imploded and under Post-Modernism the whole of art history is seen as equally valid... a palette from which to pick and choose. Many of the leading figures in painting today are clearly working within older traditions... realism:

Lucian Freud is quite possibly the leading painter today. His canvases demand $5 million each with a waiting list and his influence is seen in any number of talented younger painters:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5311668820_c1beaba4a8_z.jpg

In spite of this, in many ways Rembrandt, Velasquez, Frans Hals, and Courbet would fully appreciate his work.

Odd Nerdrum is perhaps surpassed in influence only by Freud. He has been painting Max Max Post-Apocalyptic scenes for several decades employing an old-masterly facility:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5044/5311682402_bf90c999dc_z.jpg

He has challenged the hegemony of Modernism by declaring (tongue-in-cheek) that if turds in a can are ART then he is not an artist, but rather a "Kitsch artist". Just as the Impressionists proudly wore the name given them in derision by the academy, Nerdrum is proud of the term bestowed upon him by academicized Modernism, and dozens of artists have followed him and his "kitsch" movement.

Other artists who embrace that which Modernism has deemed "kitsch" and taboo include Will Cotton who paints candy-coated, pseudo-Rococo sexual fantasies:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5003/5311668986_320e129acf_z.jpg

... and John Currin who embraces all that is taboo: sexual fantasies ala cartoons in men's magazines, Norman Rockwell, and Mannerism:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5311669172_efb503c7f3_b.jpg

Other major realist painters, such as Daniel Ludwig, continue in the tradition of Modernist fragmentation and Expressionist distortions:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5130/5311077707_2881fb2ed5_z.jpg

Still other realists began in complete rejection of Modernist distortions, abstractions, and irony. Caudio Bravo and Chuck Close both rejected Modernist Abstraction as it was taught to them in school, and instead strove to achieve the greatest photographic realism they could attain:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5311669138_19e0de22aa_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5005/5311077263_b43f292e75.jpg

Like Lucian Freud, any number of major painters insist upon painting from life... including Avigdor Arikha:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5169/5311669072_993e3f5e2c_z.jpg

Antonio Lopez-Garcia:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5287/5311077527_759a02c790_z.jpg

Painters such as Bo Bartlett:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5248/5311077503_3d194cc7ce_z.jpg

and Eric Fischl:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5005/5311669036_55626f9dd0.jpg

... ultimately ignored Modernist formalist innovations and turned instead to realist traditions of painters such as Andrew Wyeth and Edward Hopper... as well as photography and film.

Concurrent with the shift toward realism, many earlier painters have been re-evaluated. Hopper and Wyeth, who were once dismissed as sentimental and illustrative, are now recognized as being among the strongest painters of their time. The Abstract Expressionist Philip Guston rose to even greater influence following his rejection of abstraction and his return to a figuration rooted in German Expressionism, comic books, Mexican Muralists, and various other earlier sources:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5206/5311084149_e286155bee_z.jpg

Where Abstract Expressionism once dominated, figurative painters of the era such as Giorgio Morandi:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5290/5311084177_a38906d7c1_z.jpg

Balthus:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5006/5311675550_ed91cdb966.jpg

and Francis Bacon:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5004/5311675434_d9d7ed47cc_z.jpg

are recognized as being no less important... and in many ways are far more influential on the new crop of painters.

I suspect that there is just as strong of a "realist" or "traditionalist" strain among the leading novelists as in any other genre. Yes, Georges Perec and Alain Robbe-Grillet offer some intriguing formal innovations... but somehow I doubt they will outlast Saul Bellow, Gunter Grass, or Philip Roth. Nor do I believe that the Post-Modern innovations wrought by Nabokov, John Barth, Italo Calvino, or even J.L. Borges spell a break with the past. In many ways, these innovations are firmly rooted in the writing of the past... in Jonathan Swift, Cervantes, Lawrence Stern, the Arabian Nights, etc... and the manner of playing with genre, employing layers of fiction: the frame story... or the fiction within another fiction within another fiction.

Of course there will always be elements that are new... of ones time. Freud, for all his realism, is clearly not a 19th century, let alone a Baroque painter, and Gore Vidal and Gunter Grass are clearly not writing as if the 20th century never happened.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, the first big players are the modernists, who basically destroyed the 19th century form, and created the serious novel - but the structure itself had an echo, so we still call works like Ulysses novels, even though they lack in resembles to the original novels of Tom Jones. From there we hit the post-WW2 world, where gimmicks became fashionable, so you have people as early as the 60s writing anti-novels, which basically destroy the trajectory of the novel narrative form - namely, hero goes into society, has a struggle, and emerges, or dies - the construct we have since the 18th century. resolution, climax, plot, character - all of these were eventually broken down, much of the time by meh artists.

Into the last decades of the 20th century though, there were 3 movements really from what I can gather - popular fiction, namely best-sellers which adhere to a sort of limited third person narration most of the time, and stick to a simple trajectory by means of cliff hangers, what I would call tier two books, in that they are good novels, but lack any sort of structural advancement, namely books that are good, perhaps win a Pulitzer or the equivalent, and then people forget about them, not because they are bad, but because they aren't new enough, or innovative enough to make any real progress in the form. Then you have your third type of novelists who write in extremely experimental styles most of the time, who really take a crack at the structure of the novel itself - the best example would be the introduction of metafiction as a central trope, which undermines the credibility of the novel itself, something detrimental to the structure of the narrative as a whole - something like Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle would be an early example of this rather hit and miss mode, but something like Blood Meridian, or even Pale Fire are equally as valid. There is not much novel in Pale Fire, for instance, and in something like Calvino's mature work, or even in Marquez's Hundred Years of Solitude - the question of the novel has been bending for a long time now - the old Tom Jones, or even the old Cervantes model has been pretty much broken out of.

I am proud to say I knew all of this. This not to belittle what you wrote in any way, JBI. I just didn't know if there was something going on contemporarily with novelistic form that I didn't know about.

And, Stlukes, I gotta say I always appreciate when you take the time to put together these mini-lessons on art. Always very fascinating.

[JBI]

I am proud to say I knew all of this. This not to belittle what you wrote in any way, JBI. I just didn't know if there was something going on contemporarily with novelistic form that I didn't know about.

And, Stlukes, I gotta say I always appreciate when you take the time to put together these mini-lessons on art. Always very fascinating.

There is much going on, but I am rather limited in my knowledge of contemporary novels outside of Canada, and to a lesser extent, China, so I did not feel comfortable going more in depth on that.

[MANICHAEAN]

Three echos of advice from the past:

1. "I wish to keep my reader in the company of flesh and blood" William Wordsworth.

2."Do not fire too much over the heads of your readers." Anthony Trollope.

3."Novelists who write for the public are, in my opinion, no good; they've discovered who their readers are and, in submitting to their judgement, they're dishing things up like short order cooks." Graham Greene.

[Alexander III]

Three echos of advice from the past:

1. "I wish to keep my reader in the company of flesh and blood" William Wordsworth.

2."Do not fire too much over the heads of your readers." Anthony Trollope.

3."Novelists who write for the public are, in my opinion, no good; they've discovered who their readers are and, in submitting to their judgement, they're dishing things up like short order cooks." Graham Greene.

1) agree

2) disagree, for no reason should a writer dumb his work down, if the masses wont get it who cares. Joyce strived for the stars and he didn't let the fact that the average reader wasn't gonna get it, why should he care or write for the average reader when he is by no means an average writer..

3)"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money" - S.J

[MANICHAEAN]

AIII

1. I'll take it further. Books can sometimes be a pretty bloodless substitute for life. But then, thats not much consulation for those stuck with bankers hours, a stable marriage and a pension scheme.

2. Interesting point & I suppose I actually agree with you. I was thinking more of the lower strata of dumbing down. Sorry, that all sounds a bit elitist and superior. I'm reading works now in my late 60's that I found impossibe in my 20's and am thoroughly enjoying them.

3.And?

[JBI]

1) agree

2) disagree, for no reason should a writer dumb his work down, if the masses wont get it who cares. Joyce strived for the stars and he didn't let the fact that the average reader wasn't gonna get it, why should he care or write for the average reader when he is by no means an average writer..

3)"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money" - S.J

He doesn't refute that, only, his idea was to have the public instead mold their tastes around the innovations of his fiction, rather than mold his fiction around their tastes.

[mortalterror]

There are all kinds of ways to write intelligently while maintaining accessibility. Witness the success of Homer, Dante, and Shakespeare.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Shakespeare is accessible? I mean, sure it is for literary folk, but the layman?

[Drkshadow03]

Shakespeare is accessible? I mean, sure it is for literary folk, but the layman?

Sure, 5th Grade inner city kids (http://www.hobartshakespeareans.org/ourclass_mission.php), some who can barely speak English, do it every year.

[Alexander III]

Shakespeare is accessible? I mean, sure it is for literary folk, but the layman?

The only problem I see with Shakespeare is that he writes in verse no prose, so one must learn how to read poetry to read Shakespeare. Other than that he writes in a simple yet beautiful manner which was specifically create so it could be understood by the low classes of 15th century england. I suppose the use of archaic words might complicate matters, and a sexual pun every 10 lines on average might get repetitive but nonetheless he is a rather easier read than most symbolist or modernist poets, not to say they are better simply they take more time to read in order to understand.

But yea to summarize, everyone finds Shakespeare difficult at first not because he is difficult but simply because most everyone only knows prose.

[Paulclem]

Shakespeare's plays weren't intended to be read primarily. Undrstanding is easier through watching performances of the play - which is what happens befre the study of it by youngsters.

[JBI]

it's not even that, the bulk of his audience were laymen (men) and they found something in there. He is accessible on many levels, and the difficulty today is just a change of times, in terms of the first level. Then there are layers upon layers of less accessible stuff written for a second audience, but even so, he isn't difficult, in the sense that Pound's Cantos are.

[Drkshadow03]

One professor of Greek mythology commented during a lecture that it wasn't the language that throws so many modern high school students off in Shakespeare, but the copious allusions to Greek Myth. If you don't know the myth, then you're not going to get the reference and the metaphor sometimes connected with the allusion.


Gallop apace, you fiery-footed steeds,
Towards Phoebus' lodging: such a wagoner
As Phaethon would whip you to the west,
And bring in cloudy night immediately.
Spread thy close curtain, love-performing night,
That runaway's eyes may wink and Romeo
Leap to these arms, untalk'd of and unseen.

Who is this Phaethon?! What is a Phoebus? Why do English teachers enjoy inflicting me with these hardships!!!!!!!! Why am I even using the word hardship as an uneducated fifteen year old! None of it makes sense!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Shakespeare's plays weren't intended to be read primarily. Undrstanding is easier through watching performances of the play - which is what happens befre the study of it by youngsters.

Not in my experience, as teacher or student. Usually the films of his plays are shown after the poem is read, or after each act (which I feel is the best way).

In my experience with students, it's the archaic language that trips them up more than anything. I agree that it is definitely easier than other poetry of the time and modern and post-modern poems, but I don't think it is by any means an "easy" read for kids.

[kelby_lake]

The only problem I see with Shakespeare is that he writes in verse no prose, so one must learn how to read poetry to read Shakespeare. Other than that he writes in a simple yet beautiful manner which was specifically create so it could be understood by the low classes of 15th century england. I suppose the use of archaic words might complicate matters, and a sexual pun every 10 lines on average might get repetitive but nonetheless he is a rather easier read than most symbolist or modernist poets, not to say they are better simply they take more time to read in order to understand.

But yea to summarize, everyone finds Shakespeare difficult at first not because he is difficult but simply because most everyone only knows prose.

The bolded isn't true. Although a lot of it is verse, there are also prose passages. People definitely aren't used to watching verse plays and the barrier created by the idea that poetry is incredibly formal and elitest, only relevant to a minority, is a struggle to overcome for some people.

Some of Shakespeare's plays are more accessible than others. I think it would be pretty hard to make All's Well That Ends Well truly accessible for a modern audience but Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet are very accessible.

[Paulclem]

Not in my experience, as teacher or student. Usually the films of his plays are shown after the poem is read, or after each act (which I feel is the best way).

In my experience with students, it's the archaic language that trips them up more than anything. I agree that it is definitely easier than other poetry of the time and modern and post-modern poems, but I don't think it is by any means an "easy" read for kids.

I agree that it's not an easy read for kids. We used the 1968 film version of Romeo and Juliet to get across the story, structure and general themes before focusing in upon the language. Our approaches may differ, but the watching is important.

[JBI]

Meh, even if people were teaching Harry Potter, students in Canada and the US would still complain about the difficulty, or how boring it is. Simply put, I am in China where classic literature isn't just hard, it is downright frustrating at times - it is like learning Latin based on English prefixes and Suffixes - simply put, it is basically breaking down your own thought into the most rudimentary simplifications of language, then making it overtly ornate and difficult by means of subtle, complex vocabulary. Still, people here do not complain, and every kid learns it, to an extent.

Now, I think we just come from a culture, where in education if you do not like something, or do not understand something, you just complain about it - the truth is, even the teachers share the same thought - the bulk of my English teachers couldn't tell you a thing outside of the teacher's guide about Shakespeare or poetry (in truth, one of them probably set back poetry readers a few years by giving the wrong information). That isn't to say that teachers are necessarily bad, but when it comes to Shakespeare, one simply has to admit that once you figure out how it works, either by pushing through it yourself, or by having a good teacher, it isn't that difficult.

Simply put, the novel A Clockwork Orange was taught in my high school, accompanied by a dictionary for its synthetic language, as if people couldn't figure it out - everything must be dumbed down, otherwise people complain.

Watching the movie is just another dumbing down - when people watch the movie, they perhaps understand how it works - but which plays actually have good film adaptations? Even the best adaptations aren't much like the play itself - namely, Orson Welles' Othello, or Kurasawa's Samurai movies - the actual play though, will take a certain approach to actually get anywhere.

What people then do, is decide it is easier to just give the answer, rather than make people learn - they stick definitions of every allusion and easy to hard word they can find, and also stick plot summaries in there.

Then again, there is also the idea that to learn to read Shakespeare, you translated it into "Modern English" which is interesting, until you realize that Shakespeare is speaking the same language, and instead of translating, you should just read him.

[mortalterror]

There are no good Romeo and Juliet movies.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Meh, even if people were teaching Harry Potter, students in Canada and the US would still complain about the difficulty, or how boring it is. Simply put, I am in China where classic literature isn't just hard, it is downright frustrating at times - it is like learning Latin based on English prefixes and Suffixes - simply put, it is basically breaking down your own thought into the most rudimentary simplifications of language, then making it overtly ornate and difficult by means of subtle, complex vocabulary. Still, people here do not complain, and every kid learns it, to an extent.

Now, I think we just come from a culture, where in education if you do not like something, or do not understand something, you just complain about it - the truth is, even the teachers share the same thought - the bulk of my English teachers couldn't tell you a thing outside of the teacher's guide about Shakespeare or poetry (in truth, one of them probably set back poetry readers a few years by giving the wrong information). That isn't to say that teachers are necessarily bad, but when it comes to Shakespeare, one simply has to admit that once you figure out how it works, either by pushing through it yourself, or by having a good teacher, it isn't that difficult.

Simply put, the novel A Clockwork Orange was taught in my high school, accompanied by a dictionary for its synthetic language, as if people couldn't figure it out - everything must be dumbed down, otherwise people complain.

Watching the movie is just another dumbing down - when people watch the movie, they perhaps understand how it works - but which plays actually have good film adaptations? Even the best adaptations aren't much like the play itself - namely, Orson Welles' Othello, or Kurasawa's Samurai movies - the actual play though, will take a certain approach to actually get anywhere.

What people then do, is decide it is easier to just give the answer, rather than make people learn - they stick definitions of every allusion and easy to hard word they can find, and also stick plot summaries in there.

Then again, there is also the idea that to learn to read Shakespeare, you translated it into "Modern English" which is interesting, until you realize that Shakespeare is speaking the same language, and instead of translating, you should just read him.

Agreed, JBI. One of my goals is to change this in my classrooms. I did in my student teaching and was successful (in that I didn't dumb everything down and give them the answers ... I never gave them the answers, I made them come to the answers). Unfortunately, not many teachers do this. And hopefully I will not become some cynical pessimist that most veteran teachers seem to be. Because it is easier to just give the answer than have a discussion. Much easier. Which is exactly why I never did it. I'm surprised my students didn't hate me.

[Paulclem]

The fact is that kids do find Shakespeare difficult and struggle to see the relevance to their lives. If it takes the film versions or summaries to help them, then it's worth it for them to get a handle on it. The just read it approach will only work with a few able and appreciative unless you do supply help. As Mutatis has said, there is scope for developing your own opinions about the plays which makes them so rich. I'm not sure how Mutatis knows what most other teachers are doing though.

Do you think it's funny that on a thread about a 2011 theme for a masterpiece, the discussion tracks back to the comfortable past?

[Alexander III]

Truth is high school kids cant see the relevance and care about literature, math . sciences, history and virtually all high school subjects. They simply dont give a ****. When I say this I mean boys not girls, by high school the maturity a girl has is only achieved by a boy when he graduates from university. BUT it is ok. As at that age you are trying to figure out important stuff. An interest for academics shall come later in life.

besides in principal I dont think old will should be taught in the basic high school english class. What ?!?! why not teach them the best, why should we dumb down the system? At least if we force it they will have read it once in their lives. Well I see it like this. Imagine you are a student who doesn't give a third nipple about biology, and knows absolutely nothing about the subject. You enter biology class and the teacher begins teaching you high end theoretical bio. You have no base in bio, no interest and the teacher is teaching you the highest end of the bio spectrum. You are going to hate bio for life.

Furthermore the theory of if we force them to read it they shall have read it at least once is faulty now a days. I speak from my high school experience. There were 12 guys in my english class and 10 gals. In two years non of the guys ever read one single book we were assigned. We just went to spark notes looked up a summary and bul****ed from that point. And most of us did well in exams.

I say in high-school the people must be allured not forced into it. Shakespeare biographically specking had no life that we know of and his plays are very impersonal, as we never know or hear Shakespeare's actually voice. This means that the kids wont be able to make any connection with Shakespeare what so ever. Instead teach them famous writers who they can relate to, who they could admire: Byron and his whormongering maddened ways, Shelley and his revolutionary spirit, Baudelaire and Rimbaud the drug and liquor addled rebels, Hemingway and Fitzgerald the rebellious alcoholics with lives full of intrigue and excitement. And of all these authors, when we read here works it is not some impersonal voice speaking; it is clearly the authors voice. The kids form a connection that way and want to understand the work.

[Drkshadow03]

Truth is high school kids cant see the relevance and care about literature, math . sciences, history and virtually all high school subjects. They simply dont give a ****. When I say this I mean boys not girls, by high school the maturity a girl has is only achieved by a boy when he graduates from university. BUT it is ok. As at that age you are trying to figure out important stuff. An interest for academics shall come later in life.

This part is true. I was thinking about this last night and how during subjects I wasn't interested in I simply never did the work and would basically doodle the entire time the teacher lectured/taught.


Furthermore the theory of if we force them to read it they shall have read it at least once is faulty now a days. I speak from my high school experience. There were 12 guys in my english class and 10 gals. In two years non of the guys ever read one single book we were assigned. We just went to spark notes looked up a summary and bul****ed from that point. And most of us did well in exams.

This is true too. Although I occasionally did do the reading or read half of it.


I say in high-school the people must be allured not forced into it. Shakespeare biographically specking had no life that we know of and his plays are very impersonal, as we never know or hear Shakespeare's actually voice. This means that the kids wont be able to make any connection with Shakespeare what so ever. Instead teach them famous writers who they can relate to, who they could admire: Byron and his whormongering maddened ways, Shelley and his revolutionary spirit, Baudelaire and Rimbaud the drug and liquor addled rebels, Hemingway and Fitzgerald the rebellious alcoholics with lives full of intrigue and excitement. And of all these authors, when we read here works it is not some impersonal voice speaking; it is clearly the authors voice. The kids form a connection that way and want to understand the work.

This I don't agree with. First off The Great Gatsby is taught in many HS. So are some of Hemingway's novels, usually in the honors/AP classes. Having known some of those students, they didn't particularly enjoy them. Also, having just recently read The Sun Also Rises and A Farewell to Arms, those books are difficult in different ways (such as how much is implied in situations and figuring out who is speaking in dialogue and what exactly they are talking about sometimes). I would've disliked those novels intensely at that age.

You're making a lot of questionable assumptions.

As I already pointed out, Shakespeare is understandable and enjoyed by 5th Grade students in inner city schools. One of the reasons these kids enjoy Shakespeare and literature is because they think about how it relates to their lives and they're taught how to read it properly. Not to mention they're actually performing it (giving them more of a vested interest to understand the characters and materials better). Also, I think 5th graders are more open to learning. Shakespeare is the complete opposite of what you just said. He is one of the most relatable authors out there.

Problem is simple. You need better teachers who can actually inspire children to have an interest in the materials and help them understand how Shakespeare and all sorts of literature can connect to their lives. Maybe teach Shakespeare earlier in 5th grade when students are more open to learning. My copy of Romeo and Juliet has left my library 3 times this year, all to 5th graders.

[Hyacinthine]

Agreed, JBI. One of my goals is to change this in my classrooms. I did in my student teaching and was successful (in that I didn't dumb everything down and give them the answers ... I never gave them the answers, I made them come to the answers). Unfortunately, not many teachers do this. And hopefully I will not become some cynical pessimist that most veteran teachers seem to be. Because it is easier to just give the answer than have a discussion. Much easier. Which is exactly why I never did it. I'm surprised my students didn't hate me.

I think that most students [secretly] like and respect and even prefer teachers who do not just give them the answers. There is no chance of providing a spark of passion by giving the answers, but that chance does exist when you push your students, even if it's just a chance rather than a given. The ones who have the capacity to care about these things will appreciate you. The ones who don't, well, giving them the answers outright wouldn't do anything for them either.

[kelby_lake]

There are no good Romeo and Juliet movies.

West Side Story? R and J is good but not one of Shakespeare's best. It doesn't have the complexities that some of the other tragedies have.

[kelby_lake]

I think that most students [secretly] like and respect and even prefer teachers who do not just give them the answers. There is no chance of providing a spark of passion by giving the answers, but that chance does exist when you push your students, even if it's just a chance rather than a given. The ones who have the capacity to care about these things will appreciate you. The ones who don't, well, giving them the answers outright wouldn't do anything for them either.

Agreed. Students want to feel clever. Treating them as if they are incapable of interpreting literature for themselves and deciding which 'rank' the student belongs in is hardly going to encourage them that education is a good thing. Students who have the misfortune of being shoved into a lower rank won't do the work because they believe that they are forever stuck in that rank. Quite a few students shoved in a high rank will do the mimimum needed to get them an A because they know that they are a 'top student'.

Learning Shakespeare is like learning French. It isn't the language we speak but it bears a strong resemblance towards it. The grammar is sometimes confusing. But once you pick up the basics, it becomes easier. It's not impossible to learn- it just takes getting used to.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Truth is high school kids cant see the relevance and care about literature, math . sciences, history and virtually all high school subjects. They simply dont give a ****. When I say this I mean boys not girls, by high school the maturity a girl has is only achieved by a boy when he graduates from university. BUT it is ok. As at that age you are trying to figure out important stuff. An interest for academics shall come later in life.

I disagree. It isn't that they can't see the relevance. They can. They just choose to ignore or disregard it. It's the old "this doesn't apply to me or my future" mindset.

And, while girls do mature faster than boys, it is only in some ways. They have the potential to act more adult, and some do, but not all. Boys are goofier and tend to laugh a lot more and fart and poop jokes (but, who doesn't?), but girls can be down right mean. Mature or not, girls can be way more vindictive than boys. Plus, some boys are more mature than some girls. You can't paint all boys or all girls with one brush.


I think that most students [secretly] like and respect and even prefer teachers who do not just give them the answers. There is no chance of providing a spark of passion by giving the answers, but that chance does exist when you push your students, even if it's just a chance rather than a given. The ones who have the capacity to care about these things will appreciate you. The ones who don't, well, giving them the answers outright wouldn't do anything for them either.

They do. At the end of my student teaching, I handed out evaluations on my teaching to be done anonymously. I got a lot of positive responses. They liked the discussions and said they learned a lot. How much of it was brown-nosing I don't know, but it felt good nonetheless.

[Paulclem]

In the UK it was revealed that the 11 plus exams, last held in the 1960's before the advent of the comprehensive system, were weighted in favour of boys. It's long been known that not only do girls generally mature faster, but that aside, they are academically more advanced than their male peers. There have been efforts over the past decade to improve boys' reading ability.

That's why the Goosebumps series was so well received in the 90's.

[kelby_lake]

In the UK it was revealed that the 11 plus exams, last held in the 1960's.

I guess you mean as a compulsory thing. Grammar school entry still requires passing and getting a good mark on the 11-plus.

[Paulclem]

I guess you mean as a compulsory thing. Grammar school entry still requires passing and getting a good mark on the 11-plus.

That's right. the comprehensive system was supposed to equalise education, and to equalise the former two tier system. Not all the grammar schools went, and so to gain entry they still had the 11 plus exams. Most people went on to a comprehensive. I think they qwere trying to modernise away from the factory fodder system that had existed with the 11 plus.