Great Literary Works or Socialist Rants?

[AnOldSapper]

It struck me recently how many "Great Literary Works" are little more than socialist rants bemoaning the living conditions of oppressed workers. While certainly relevant in the time they were written, these do not have the enduring, timeless quality requisite to keep them atop the lists of "Greatest Books". I am curious as to why, in an age when the proletariat no longer suffer from starvation, but are the most likely in our society to be morbidly obese, we still hold these works up as tomes of enlightenment.

To preempt any response concerning my own political bias, no one can survive 20 years of military service without being something of a socialist. I like chocolate milk, too, but never saw a need to bathe in it and don't continue to espouse it's virtue beyond it's expiration date.

That being said, Dickens, who is easily among my favorites, is nevertheless so filled with socialist themes that his writing can become unbearable. If "Oliver Twist" isn't a rant against the bourgeois, neither is the Communist Manifesto. The redistributionist literature circulated at communes in California is more subtle than "A Christmas Carol".The worst culprit, however, at least that I have encountered so far, is Victor Hugo. Les Miserables broke my heart, not because of the destitute conditions of the characters, but because it slowly occurred to me that the title referred to the readers. The conditions the impoverished lived under in 19th century Paris are interesting from an historical point of view, yet bear little resemblance to the conditions of today when those without means live comfortably off the state. I would like to think that Hugo's popularity might lie in the belief that his work was beautifully crafted, yet he was wantonly excessive in verbosity, a malady from which I, myself, have been said to suffer. It takes one to know one.

Additionally, several other authors have come up as I have researched this topic. Please keep in mind that when I say "Research" I mean "Google" rather than any form of serious inquiry and that in said "Research", Wikipedia is considered a serious source. Robert Louis Stevenson, at least in his early years, was an avowed socialist as were H.G. Wells and Jack London. Mark Twain, also, was a very active socialist and his political thought permeates his writing. I think it odd that this is never mentioned.


I have a couple or working theories ( "Working theories" being the term I use to describe my disjointed thoughts)as to why, despite their lack of relevance, we still elevate these rants far above their merit. One is that our institutions of higher learning are so filled with academicians overly enthralled with collectivism that they still see the world through a 19th century lens. Another is that once something or someone has acquired a reputation for greatness, deflating that reputation is akin to blasphemy. It took a long time for Custer to be seen for the thug he was. The third "Working Theory", so sublime that it would have certainly taken its place among the most profound thoughts of our lifetime, has escaped me and will remain forever lost along with whatever it was I was supposed to pick up from the grocery store.

I thank you, gentle reader, and look forward to your response.

[kiki1982]

But just think about how useless people's jobs are these days. You've got a degree, you get nowhere, as everyone has one. Professor Ken Robinson called it 'intellectual inflation' in 2006. Where people are not literally starving today, many are starving in another way. They are deemed useless despite the work they do. Really not-so-intelligent people who formerly would get a job as casheer or stacking shelves, are now unemployed because students without work experience take over their jobs for the minimum wage. I find that sad. The student does not want the job as it is mindnumbingly boring and the other one is not allowed to get it, because there are more intelligent people on the market. What do we get with this?

I think, when people read Les Misérables, that frustration is what they feel when seeing Jean Valjean struggle against common misconception, or that is what I feel. Dickens's work is more relative to 19th century England alone, in my mind, but Hugo is more universal. He appeals even if one is not interested in 19th century conditions or society. About his book he said that 'as long as there exists, by law or custom, social damnation, artificially creating hell in full civilisation and making divine destiny of human fatality; [...]; books like these cannot be useless.' Social mobility is now less than in the seventies. Why? Because it is not what you know, what you can do even, it is the people you know, because everyone seems to know and be able to do what everyone else can do and knows. They do not allow people to learn anymore. That is the greatest loss.

Oh my God, I start to sound like Hugo now. :blush:

[mal4mac]

It struck me recently how many "Great Literary Works" are little more than socialist rants bemoaning the living conditions of oppressed workers. While certainly relevant in the time they were written, these do not have the enduring, timeless quality requisite to keep them atop the lists of "Greatest Books". I am curious as to why, in an age when the proletariat no longer suffer from starvation, but are the most likely in our society to be morbidly obese, we still hold these works up as tomes of enlightenment.


Could you name some of these "Great Works" and give examples of socialist ranting? In my experience, very few great works involve socialist ranting.

Dickens is in no way a socialist ranter. He often considers the plight of the disadvantaged, and this can, indeed, be almost unbearable - in a good way. No other writer is better at generating empathy for the poverty stricken worker, or for a child with a wasting disease in an uncaring society. There were riots at the New York docks with people trying to obtain the latest part of the Old Curiosity Shop, because they found unbearable what was happening to Little Nell. That's down to Dickens being a great, humanist writer - not a socialist ranter.

Have you read Barnaby Rudge? Dickens portrays one of the more reprehensible characters (the locksmiths apprentice) as a kind of proto-Stalin -a socialist ranter of the worst sort. I've met a lot like him in 'the academy' :-) The locksmith himself is a one of Dickens' typical caring capitalists. Dickens comes across as much more of a 'caring conservative' or 'nice liberal' than a socialist (ranting or non-ranting...).

Can you point to any socialist ranting in the canonical works of Robert Louis Stevenson, H.G. Wells, or Mark Twain? Being intelligent men-about-town it would be very surprising if they hadn't flirted with socialism at some stage - didn't we all? But I can't see any socialist ranting in Treasure Island, War of the Worlds, or Huck Finn.

Our institutions of higher learning might be filled with academicians overly enthralled with collectivism, or 'the forces of resentment' as Harold Bloom calls them, or 'trendy lefties' as they're called in the UK, but they are more likely to quote Heidegger, Foucault and other impenetrable non-great writers, not truly great writers Like Dickens or Twain.

You have already said how much you like Dickens - why would you want to deflate his reputation? In fact, the trendiest 20th century academicians tried to kill Dickens' reputation - but couldn't - instead they killed themselves. Better academicians are doing something to restore the academy by pointing out that he *is* truly great.

P.S. most of the world's population are still living in Dickensian conditions - think of India and Africa...


Dickens's work is more relative to 19th century England alone, in my mind, but Hugo is more universal. He appeals even if one is not interested in 19th century conditions or society.

I don't see that at all! Dickens is still very popular now, and not just in England.

"These emotions are universal in any culture, we all feel love, anger and the shackles that are placed on us every day so I think anyone would be able to connect with it. Whether it's in India or England it's a universal idea. It just tells you how relevant someone like Dickens is." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-12430289

[kiki1982]

Hugo writes in symbols, Dickens writes in examples. His stories appeal yes (they also appeal to me, though not in writing), can be related to modern India, Latin America in some cases, Africa, but they can not be extended to other issues but those described in the story. Hugo is much more diverse. He does not write a story, he writes of man and the society which man has made and is making itself. He writes about Notre Dame, not as a church, but as a symbol of both modern and old France. He writes about Thénardier, not as a crook, but as a man struggling to find his place and eventually not succeeding, taking his wife and children into damnation too. Dickens's story of Oliver Twist is the story of an unfortunate boy as there were many, but it is no more than a story about street children in India nowadays maybe. The story of Scrooge is one of regret, loneliness, but he is no everyman. Dickens's power lies in the touching examples he puts in front of the reader, Hugo's 'examples' are not examples, but arguments which discuss their subject.

That is what I see.

[AnOldSapper]

Initially, allow me to thank all of your for your replies. All of your answers were well thought out, completely rational and a pleasure to read.

If I do not defend the position I took, it is simply for this reason: the position is indefensible. Please allow me to digress a bit so that I may explain myself.

I live in the South Carolina midlands, an area so poverty stricken that "Dickensian" is an apt description. I drive through neighborhoods (If they can even be called that) every day that are so squalid as to be barely habitable. I see children whose one possible salvation is some form of education, yet I know that only one in a hundred will ever rise above their conditions. It is a poor testament to our society that, for all of our wealth, we cannot provide a child with clean drinking water. More tragic still is all of the political hair splitting that impedes any chance of progress that might benefit these people who are so completely devoid of hope. My neighbors, dear friends, are Les Miserables.

I think, often, that these people need a voice, someone who will, at least, eulogize them. I hear them defamed daily and spurned as the cause rather than a symptom. This infuriates me, yet I have no recourse and no outlet for my anger. Thus it is that I return to Dickens or to Hugo or to whomever else I can find that truly understood. Their voice can be found in the pages of 19th century literature. Ironic, isn't it, that we have to cross two centuries and an ocean to find someone to speak for them?

This is why I think the books I referred to as "Rants" are still as relevant today as the day they were first published. The Authors "Got it". They understood the human condition and plight of the desperate soul. Yet I hear comments like I heard yesterday, that attempting to educate the destitute is all...a big...waste of time.

Be assured, friends, that I will follow up on all of the references you've provided and, likewise, refer others to them as well. I thank all of you for your time.


Incidentally, I was one of those destitute children not too long ago, living in a house with no electricity, no running water, no food and nobody to speak for me.

[prendrelemick]

On a shallower note, they are great literary works because of the quality of the writing. The political slant doesn't matter. Is Jane Austin any less Literary than Dickens because of her subject matter?

[AuntShecky]

First of all, I would urge you to re-check your sources.
According to this web page, as a movement socialism didn't really take off in England until the 1880s:
http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/about/history/

This would make its appearance a few decades after the publication of Oliver Twist (1837) and A Christmas Carol (1843.)

The Communist Manifesto did not exactly coincide with the two Dickens novels you cited, as the Marx and Engels work was not published in England until 1848.

Your opening thread did not cite direct evidence and primary sources to show how Dickens, Hugo, Twain et al. directly subscribed to socialist theories.

Secondly, it has been said that one of the ways literature can be considered "great" is in its ability to reflect the society in which it was created. Dickens fully captured the misery, impoverishment, oppression which were the horrendous by-products of the Industrial Revolution in England. These are the very societal ills which social reformers say that they wish to remedy. Merely expressing these issues in a work of literature does not necessarily make the writer a card-carrying socialist.

It probably isn't accurate to declare Mark Twain as a socialist simply because his works attack slavery, racism (Puddin' Head Wilson, e.g.), and imperialism.

PS I would be grateful if you would tell me just how a poor person can live "comfortably" with the help of the state. Did you know that in the U.S. over 18,000 people die each year because of lack of health insurance? Do you know how many children are homeless in this country? Have you ever tried eating well for a whole month on food stamps? Again -- check your sources.

[AnOldSapper]

Tut, tut, Aunt. Must you let little things like facts spoil a perfectly good argument? What might my reactionary colleagues say when faced with something like a well researched chronology? For shame!

[OrphanPip]

H.G. Wells was the only one of those writers who was actually a socialist though. The Time Machine was intended by Wells as a socialist critique of society. Although, most people just like the idea of a time machine so they miss the point.

[stlukesguild]

I'm tired old sap, but I must side with Auntie here. It would seem that you don't get out much. I teach in a poverty-ridden inner city neighborhood. Admittedly many of my children and parents are obese... but that is because fresh fruits and vegetables are often far more costly than high calorie junk food. Many of them own TVs and cell phones and computers... but they also walk to school each day past boarded up homes, crack heads, prostitutes, and drug dealers. Many of them have been the victims of violent crime or have a close family member of friend who has been. These grade school children can identify different gang members by clothing, and know what to do in a drive by shooting (many have experienced one of know someone who has). A great many of my students are exposed regularly to abuse of some form of another: sexual, emotional, physical... or to neglect. Much of this is due to alcohol and drugs... and the lack of education of their parents... assuming they even live with their parents. Certainly the conditions of living for a great many poor in the wealthiest Western nations is no longer as bad as it once was... but that is only because the living conditions for all has greatly increased. The living conditions for the poor... the unemployed... and the underemployed is no way some beacon of light or ideal worthy of the wealthiest nations in the world. In no way have the social messages of the great novelists lost their relevance... except to those blind (by choice or otherwise) to the realities of social inequalities that still exist.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Interesting thread.


This is why I think the books I referred to as "Rants" are still as relevant today as the day they were first published. The Authors "Got it". They understood the human condition and plight of the desperate soul. Yet I hear comments like I heard yesterday, that attempting to educate the destitute is all...a big...waste of time.

Yet the sad fact is that they have a point, in a way. It is so damn difficult trying to get through; it's an uphill struggle all the way. It's much easier educating the bourgeois than the proletarians, sadly, which of course only perpetuates the cycle of advantage/disadvantage all the more.

Edit: apparently, social mobility in the UK is now more difficult than at any time going back to Queen Victoria. An ironic yippee!

[Alexander III]

Has anyone seen Jamie's Dream School? Some people are at the bottom end of the spectrum because they are simply put; stupid. It's not always institutions or "the man", often enough the individuals are where they deserve to be. And where there are those who deserve better, the system tends to work in helping them break out of poverty (e.g Obama)

[LitNetIsGreat]

Has anyone seen Jamie's Dream School? Some people are at the bottom end of the spectrum because they are simply put; stupid. It's not always institutions or "the man", often enough the individuals are where they deserve to be. And where there are those who deserve better, the system tends to work in helping them break out of poverty (e.g Obama)

Oh god, what an annoying programme, yes I watched some of it. What I found so annoying is that these morons were given this opportunity - to meet and be taught by a lot of top people and to visit Westminster, meet the PM etc, when so many who would have loved such opportunities are constantly overlooked. Most, if not all of those morons, failed because they deserved to fail - a thousand chances are not enough for these people and (at the danger of ranting) once again I feel sorry for the overlooked majority. What a joke.

[OrphanPip]

Has anyone seen Jamie's Dream School? Some people are at the bottom end of the spectrum because they are simply put; stupid. It's not always institutions or "the man", often enough the individuals are where they deserve to be. And where there are those who deserve better, the system tends to work in helping them break out of poverty (e.g Obama)

Obama wasn't poor, he was by most measures lower middle class.

I grew up in an inner city working class neighbourhood, my parents had jobs and that made me one of the richest kids in the school. People from the working class, with working stable parents have a system that can lift them out of poverty. The only reason I could afford university was that it is publicly subsidized in Quebec. Out of around 50 people in my grade, 3 others completed university degrees. That's less than 10% of the graduates, compared to a national average in Canada of 23%. Are poor kids just 50% stupider than rich kids? I don't think so. Also, while my neighborhood has the occasional crack house, it is by no means amongst the worst in Montreal. I went to a private college after secondary school (advantage of having richer family to lend me the money), and you can trust me that a lot of rich kids are stupid ****s too, but the system doesn't let them fall through the cracks.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Probably over-simplifying the OP's post, but it seems like any story highlighting the misfortune of others (where said others don't climb their way out of said misfortunes, that is) is promoting socialism, while I think in most cases it's just realism.

I've only read one piece of literature that seemed to have a socialist rant, and that is Sinclair's The Jungle, because it ended on an actual socialist rant.

[kiki1982]

and you can trust me that a lot of rich kids are stupid ****s too, but the system doesn't let them fall through the cracks.

Oh, definitely, but guess who will get the best jobs? Right. Why? Because their family knows people which a poor kid's family does not. And the sad thing is that we all would think so if we had a company. If I, as a company director, get 50 CVs, all masters, who am I going to go for? The one with the most relevant experience as that costs me the least to train. Who has got the most relevant experience? The one which knew a person who could help them to a good work experience job and maybe allowed them to make mistakes which others would have been fired for. And so the vicious circle has recommenced. :crazy:

Isn't it disgusting that people should work for free these days to get work experience? I mean, that is exploitation of the worst sort. Needless to say that good, long work experience is only open to those who have the money. What does a person otherwise live on?

[PeterL]

I understand the opening post, and there is some reason behind it. Part of the problem is that some people never learned that many of the authors who are put forth as freat writers were not. Dickens was far from great, and he is just one of many people who managed to get things published who was not a great writer. There are other writers who were great writers who are unknown now. So keep reading until you find the good stuff and ignore what the alleged authorities say is "great".

[mal4mac]

Socialist models and ideas espousing common or public ownership have existed since antiquity. Dickens isn't a socialist ranter because he chose not to be so, not because he doesn't know about socialist ideas.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Oh, definitely, but guess who will get the best jobs? Right. Why? Because their family knows people which a poor kid's family does not.
See George W. Bush. :lol:

I understand the opening post, and there is some reason behind it. Part of the problem is that some people never learned that many of the authors who are put forth as freat writers were not. Dickens was far from great, and he is just one of many people who managed to get things published who was not a great writer. There are other writers who were great writers who are unknown now. So keep reading until you find the good stuff and ignore what the alleged authorities say is "great".
I didn't know Dickens wasn't great, but I guess stating it as fact makes it true. :rolleyes:

[Alexander III]

I understand the opening post, and there is some reason behind it. Part of the problem is that some people never learned that many of the authors who are put forth as freat writers were not. Dickens was far from great, and he is just one of many people who managed to get things published who was not a great writer. There are other writers who were great writers who are unknown now. So keep reading until you find the good stuff and ignore what the alleged authorities say is "great".

That sounds like something Charlie Sheen would say...you sir are quite clearly winning

[TheFifthElement]

Oh god, what an annoying programme, yes I watched some of it. What I found so annoying is that these morons were given this opportunity - to meet and be taught by a lot of top people and to visit Westminster, meet the PM etc, when so many who would have loved such opportunities are constantly overlooked. Most, if not all of those morons, failed because they deserved to fail - a thousand chances are not enough for these people and (at the danger of ranting) once again I feel sorry for the overlooked majority. What a joke.

Charlie Brooker (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/14/jamie-olivers-dream-school) has a slightly different view of Jamie's Dream School. Worth the read (as is everything by Charlie :D )

[Alexander III]

Obama wasn't poor, he was by most measures lower middle class.

I grew up in an inner city working class neighbourhood, my parents had jobs and that made me one of the richest kids in the school. People from the working class, with working stable parents have a system that can lift them out of poverty. The only reason I could afford university was that it is publicly subsidized in Quebec. Out of around 50 people in my grade, 3 others completed university degrees. That's less than 10% of the graduates, compared to a national average in Canada of 23%. Are poor kids just 50% stupider than rich kids? I don't think so. Also, while my neighborhood has the occasional crack house, it is by no means amongst the worst in Montreal. I went to a private college after secondary school (advantage of having richer family to lend me the money), and you can trust me that a lot of rich kids are stupid ****s too, but the system doesn't let them fall through the cracks.


Nonetheless, Lower Middle-class all the way to President, implies that if you have talents and maturity, the system can help you escape poverty. Here I am talking about the U.S.A. In countries like Italy, if your dad is no one, you will never be someone; especially in the south.

Yes, naturally there are stupid kid's amongst all classes; but I don't think that it is all equal. For the Intelligent ones born in the lower classes make it out into middle or upper class, and their children are born no longer working class but middle or upper class. Most of those left behind are the ones who are unfortunate, or simpler; thus from a genetic stand point, a child born into the lower class is more likely to be simple.

Of course in my life, I have met some huge idiots in private schools. The system however does let them fall through, many of them finished high-school with barley passing grades, the difference is that they can comfortably live off their parents money for the rest of their lives, a boy in the working class who ****s up in school because he is an idiot does not have the safety net of parents money, unlike the idiots of the upper and upper middle classes.

Also it is not simply a question of intelligence, it is one of discipline and behavior. Almost all children from middle-upper and upper classes are raised with extreme discipline, but in a positive way. When I was little my mother would say no once, then twice, then if I did it again, the slap on the face. When I was little I resented it, but now I appreciate it, My parents gave me discipline and thought me proper behavior and etiquette. IF you see the kids from Jamie's Dream school, you will realize that a major problem is simply lack of discipline and no knowledge of what is acceptable behavior. Also a huge problem seems to be arrogance, these kid's need to be reminded that respect is earned, and they don't deserve any as they have done nothing to earn it.

In fact I think Jamie's Dream School is the best piece of propaganda for the re-introduction of moderate corporal punishment in schools, or at the very least for parents to stop being so utterly lenient and to be more strict.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Charlie Brooker (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/14/jamie-olivers-dream-school) has a slightly different view of Jamie's Dream School. Worth the read (as is everything by Charlie :D )

Brilliant artical!

[Vautrin]

.....

[stlukesguild]

I understand the opening post, and there is some reason behind it. Part of the problem is that some people never learned that many of the authors who are put forth as freat writers were not. Dickens was far from great, and he is just one of many people who managed to get things published who was not a great writer. There are other writers who were great writers who are unknown now. So keep reading until you find the good stuff and ignore what the alleged authorities say is "great".

Hmmm... I guess I'm one of those who never learned that Dickens was actually far from being a great writer.

That sounds like something Charlie Sheen would say...

Or the average 9th grader. :rolleyes:

[PeterL]

Hmmm... I guess I'm one of those who never learned that Dickens was actually far from being a great writer.


It's never too late to learn.

[JCamilo]

sometimes it is just the best of times to learn, sometimes the worst time to learn...

[kiki1982]

To me, it is clearly better to be able to say that one does not like the writings of some or other author because of clear reasons one has than to go along with the stream and find the author good because he has been proclaimed good. No-one has ever said Dickens is real sh*te, only that they do not find him as good as some of the great.

Is that a crime?

[LitNetIsGreat]

To me, it is clearly better to be able to say that one does not like the writings of some or other author because of clear reasons one has than to go along with the stream and find the author good because he has been proclaimed good. No-one has ever said Dickens is real sh*te, only that they do not find him as good as some of the great.

Is that a crime?

It's certainly not a crime. It seems that many people confuse what is good with what they happen to like. I'm not a massive fan of Dickens myself, but I can still recognise good writing. There is a difference.

[mal4mac]

Oh god, what an annoying programme, yes I watched some of it. What I found so annoying is that these morons were given this opportunity - to meet and be taught by a lot of top people and to visit Westminster, meet the PM etc, when so many who would have loved such opportunities are constantly overlooked. Most, if not all of those morons, failed because they deserved to fail...

I think it was a valid experiment. At least it showed that teachers aren't the problem!

It was quite informative to see the top people trying, and largely failing, to cope with these pupils. But I don't think it's helpful to call them "morons" or declare that they "deserve to fail". Dismiss then like that and we are just going to increase the population of muggers & druggies. There has to be some way of helping them become "reasonable" citizens.

A few pupils were willing to work - the one who stayed in the biosphere for instance - what they needed was to be separated from the noisy, disruptive ones.

Maybe we could give the disruptives anger management classes, short sharp shocks ... whatever works! More experiments needed. Dream school was a good start.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think it was a valid experiment. At least it showed that teachers aren't the problem!

It was quite informative to see the top people trying, and largely failing, to cope with these pupils. But I don't think it's helpful to call them "morons" or declare that they "deserve to fail". Dismiss then like that and we are just going to increase the population of muggers & druggies. There has to be some way of helping them become "reasonable" citizens.

A few pupils were willing to work - the one who stayed in the biosphere for instance - what they needed was to be separated from the noisy, disruptive ones.

Maybe we could give the disruptives anger management classes, short sharp shocks ... whatever works! More experiments needed. Dream school was a good start.

Really you think it was a good start and a valid experiment? I'd have to disagree and I still don't know what the point of it was, aside from producing a TV programme and further swelling the pockets of Jamie Oliver.

Yes, it showed that teachers are not the problem, but any teacher could have told you that for free.

I did enjoy certain parts of the programme, and actually my views of Alistair Campbell went up went up a notch. But beyond that it was largely pointless as a social experiment and more than annoying as TV viewing. (I also enjoyed Jamie's line "in a way the system sort of let me down, but I was lucky, I found cookery" brilliant line).

I'm afraid though, these days my patience is wearing thin regarding the type of poor behaviour and general lack of respect as highlighted by some of these students on the programme. (Don't forget also, that some of these "kids" were 17/18 years of age, time to grow up?) This is, I have to say fairly representative of the sort of behaviour you are likely to find in the majority of lower to middle state schools across the country.

Yes I want to see all students given as many opportunities as possible and certainly I would like to see a fairer education system, but I'm afraid there reaches a point when you have to let them go. Everybody deserves a second chance, but a third chance, a forth chance, a hundredth chance, a thousandth chance? All at the expense of others? Not for me.

No, my sympathy lies with the silent middle group of students who are constantly overlooked because teachers have to allocate all of their time and resources in tying to cope with appalling behaviour. My sympathy lies with those students, and those students parents, because they are not getting the education they deserve. They are the ones who are let down by the system, not the, and I'm sorry, the morons, who constantly and vindictively disrupt other students learning opportunities. My sympathy lies with them and they get nothing.

You even have to ask the question whether such constant pandering and intervention is in fact counter-productive to the misbehaving student anyway? In what work place could you constantly swear at your boss and get away with it? How in the hell is that preparing students for life in the "real world"? Maybe if we take them on yet another trip to Alton Towers or Disneyland Paris they will behave in the future eh?

No. If intervention is to work then the focus needs to be as early as possible, from primary or even nursery school age - though of course there is little funding in this area. Chasing after late teens with constant free trips and open cheque book type resources is too much, too late.

[Syd A]

PeterL is wrong about Dickens, but he's correct that many supposedly great authors were in fact not great at all. I could never understand how anyone over the mental age of ten can find The Catcher in the Rye to be a masterpiece, but go find a school teacher who doesn't think so. And what's the deal with Twain? and Faulkner? Great authors? I think not.

[kiki1982]

Well, you see, and some people ask the same question regarding Dickens.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

PeterL is wrong about Dickens, but he's correct that many supposedly great authors were in fact not great at all. I could never understand how anyone over the mental age of ten can find The Catcher in the Rye to be a masterpiece, but go find a school teacher who doesn't think so. And what's the deal with Twain? and Faulkner? Great authors? I think not.
Questioning Twain and Faulkner is a joke, right?

[stlukesguild]

PeterL is wrong about Dickens, but he's correct that many supposedly great authors were in fact not great at all. I could never understand how anyone over the mental age of ten can find The Catcher in the Rye to be a masterpiece, but go find a school teacher who doesn't think so. And what's the deal with Twain? and Faulkner? Great authors? I think not.

:mad2:

[Syd A]

Great counter-arguments, stlukesguild and Mutatis-Mutandi. Tell me, have you ever had an original thought, or would you worship any author and work you've been told is great? PeterL may have bad taste, but at least it's his own.

Only dogmatic imbeciles use arguments like "questioning X or Y is a joke, tight?" What is literature for, if not to be questioned, criticized, evaluated? I guess these lessons in literature are lost on the two of you.

[stlukesguild]

When you are new to an online forum it is quite customary to first learn a bit about those with whom you are engaging in a dialog before you begin to make snide comments about their intelligence or reading experience. You just might find yourself well out of your depth.

Personally, I quite agree with your assessment of Catcher in the Rye... it is a minor "classic" at best... quite likely a period piece that won't last (not unlike To Kill a Mockingbird... the book, not the movie). Like To Kill a Mockingbird, Catcher is quite a good book for the promotion of certain discussions at a high-school level (teenage angst, etc...)... and confronts issues pertinent to the teen reader, so I can understand its popularity among the High School curriculum. Of course you will find that neither book is taken all that seriously within academic circles or among serious literary critics.

Twain and Faulkner are something altogether different. Personally, I have no problem when an individual proclaims that they don't like a given canonical figure. I'm not overly fond of Joyce. He impresses me... but doesn't engage me. The difference is that I understand that my personal opinion and fact are not always one and the same.

Art, unlike science or mathematics, is always subjective. There are rarely clear-cut proofs when it comes to the judgment of the merit of a work of art. The closest we come in the arts is a sort of communal consensus or "experts". Just as we give greater credence to the opinions of experts when it comes to theories in science or medicine, so it is only logical that we afford greater weight to the opinions of the "experts" in the arts. The "experts", after all, are simply those who have invested a great deal of time and effort into the study, understanding, and appreciation of a given body of art. These "experts" are not limited to academics and critics, but also include subsequent generations of artists, and art lovers... or when it comes to literature... those whom Virginia Woolf referred to as the not-so-common, common readers (the informed, experienced reader).

Both Twain and Faulkner have survived for a good deal of time. Of course when compared to Homer or the Bible their survival within the canon of great literature is still up in the air. But by most standards it would seem that a good many "experts"... academics, critics, later writers, and later generations of readers have found that Twain and Faulkner continue to offer something of real literary merit. Whether you are I dislike Twain or Faulkner is irrelevant to their likelihood of survival. They both have undoubtedly weathered far more formidable critical challenges.

As for my casual manner of dismissing your "profound" and "insightful" criticism of Twain and Faulkner... we might do well to recognize that some criticism is simply not worthy of anything greater. The teenager who sputters "Shakespeare Blows" or "Mozart sucks" (or "Great authors? I think not") is not exactly worthy of a point by point rebuttal in illustration of why Shakespeare doesn't blow, or Mozart doesn't suck, etc... I might also point out that there is something ironic involved in accusing others of being "dogmatic imbeciles" for not offering a deep analysis while disagreeing with your own unsupported opinion. "Great authors? I think not." Brilliant... truly brilliant analysis. Quite worthy of Samuel Johnson, William Hazlitt, J.L. Borges, and Harold Bloom.:rolleyes:

[Syd A]

When you are new to an online forum it is quite customary to first learn a bit about those with whom you are engaging in a dialog before you begin to make snide comments about their intelligence or reading experience. You just might find yourself well out of your depth.

I judge your words. Your degrees are irrelevant to me. You seem to try very hard not to say what you're dying to say: you have a degree in English, so you think it makes you an expert. No, it doesn't.


"Great authors? I think not." Brilliant... truly brilliant analysis
That was not an attempt at analysis. It was an example of two mediocre authors who are, for some reason, considered great.


Whether you are I dislike Twain or Faulkner is irrelevant to their likelihood of survival

True, as is the converse: their survival is independent of the quality of their writing.


The closest we come in the arts is a sort of communal consensus or "experts".

That's the most depressing view of art I've ever read. If this were true, art would have no value. I couldn't care less what an imbecile with a Ph.D. thinks of a work of art; the only thing that matters to me is how it moves me. You seem to have no appreciation of art, only a second-hand appreciation of appreciation by others.

[mortalterror]

Personally, I quite agree with your assessment of Catcher in the Rye... it is a minor "classic" at best... quite likely a period piece that won't last (not unlike To Kill a Mockingbird... the book, not the movie). Like To Kill a Mockingbird, Catcher is quite a good book for the promotion of certain discussions at a high-school level (teenage angst, etc...)... and confronts issues pertinent to the teen reader, so I can understand its popularity among the High School curriculum. Of course you will find that neither book is taken all that seriously within academic circles or among serious literary critics.

Twain and Faulkner are something altogether different. Personally, I have no problem when an individual proclaims that they don't like a given canonical figure. I'm not overly fond of Joyce. He impresses me... but doesn't engage me. The difference is that I understand that my personal opinion and fact are not always one and the same.

Art, unlike science or mathematics, is always subjective. There are rarely clear-cut proofs when it comes to the judgment of the merit of a work of art. The closest we come in the arts is a sort of communal consensus or "experts".

I was taken by your notion of consulting the academic experts and so I ran some names through JSTOR to see how many articles would come up. Let's see if you agree with their academic rankings.

authors
Shakespeare 133125
Goethe 64517
James Joyce 62791
Dante 57764
Whitman 52073
Melville 51194
Dickens 41227
Ovid 36989
Faulkner 36392
Chaucer 35031
Voltaire 33242
Dryden 30734
Euripides 28761
Woolf 28648
Twain 28168
Racine 27157
Victor Hugo 23819
Spenser 22884
Cervantes 22695
Aristophanes 22631
Proust 21932
Baudelaire 20486
Kafka 20393
Aeschylus 20333
Hemingway 18895
Tolstoy18434
Balzac 17938
Borges 16872
Flaubert 15227
Ibsen 13100
Moliere 12650
Orwell 12073
Nabokov 8656
Salinger 5808
Leopardi 4071

titles
Iliad 26969
Grapes of Wrath 3670
Catcher in the Rye 1726
To Kill a Mockingbird 1481

According to how often they are studied in academic circles, Orwell is more important than Nabokov and Salinger is more highly regarded than Leopardi.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Great counter-arguments, stlukesguild and Mutatis-Mutandi. Tell me, have you ever had an original thought, or would you worship any author and work you've been told is great? PeterL may have bad taste, but at least it's his own.

Only dogmatic imbeciles use arguments like "questioning X or Y is a joke, tight?" What is literature for, if not to be questioned, criticized, evaluated? I guess these lessons in literature are lost on the two of you.
You didn't give anything to counter argue! You call me a dogmatic imbecile for making my statement? Here's your quote:

And what's the deal with Twain? and Faulkner? Great authors? I think not.
What wonderful criticism!

Just go away, obvious troll.

[stlukesguild]

I judge your words. Your degrees are irrelevant to me. You seem to try very hard not to say what you're dying to say: you have a degree in English, so you think it makes you an expert. No, it doesn't.

Tell me, junior, what exactly do you imagine makes anyone an "expert" in any given field? I would assume that most might agree that education, knowledge, and experience might account much toward such. I never made any claims as to my own expertise... at least not as a result of my formal education. My degrees were not in English or literature. On the other hand, I have read more than a few books... and I can recognize a critical comment worthy of serious response... and one that falls short of such.

"Great authors? I think not." Brilliant... truly brilliant analysis

That was not an attempt at analysis. It was an example of two mediocre authors who are, for some reason, considered great.

Your statement was simply your own personal opinion framed as fact... just as the above statement is. You essentially state that Twain and Faulkner "are not great writers"... "are mediocre writers"... and then you resort to personal insult when someone disagrees with your flippant opinions without offering a deep analysis. The reality is that you are the one who has taken the position contrary to accepted opinion, so it would seem that burden of proof would be upon you as to establishing a worthy argument as to just why Twain and Faulkner are so "mediocre" before I or anyone else should think to lend any credence to your opinion.

Whether you are I dislike Twain or Faulkner is irrelevant to their likelihood of survival

True, as is the converse: their survival is independent of the quality of their writing.

Ah... so the works of art and music and literature that have "survived" as it were to be recognized among the canon in a given field, have achieved this level of recognition regardless of their actual artistic merit? Or could it possibly be that there is indeed a high level of aesthetic merit to all of these works in spite of the fact that it eludes you? In other words, is it not possible that your opinion is not the end-all/be-all when it comes to judging art and that a work that you do not personally admire may still be of great artistic merit considering that others of equal or even greater knowledge and experience than yourself have seen fit to admire said work?

The closest we come in the arts is a sort of communal consensus or "experts".

That's the most depressing view of art I've ever read. If this were true, art would have no value. I couldn't care less what an imbecile with a Ph.D. thinks of a work of art; the only thing that matters to me is how it moves me. You seem to have no appreciation of art, only a second-hand appreciation of appreciation by others.

I'm starting to sense a real inferiority complex here. Anyone who happens to have put forth the effort involved in attaining a formal education or a degree in a given field is an "imbecile"? Let us hope that you don't take the same approach when it comes to choosing your doctor or lawyer. The fact that you couldn't care less about the opinions of others... especially those who might just know more than yourself... bodes well for your future learning.

Obviously, no one can force you to like a work of art that you dislike (barring the use of some Pavlovian methodology ala Clockwork Orange). No one will ever convince me to like lima beans or liver. But again, there is a difference between "liking" something and recognizing its aesthetic merits. I have made repeated reading of James Joyce... and yet his work has never resonated with me. He doesn't engage me on a level that I would expect from a writer recognized by many as one of the greatest and most influential of the 20th century. In spite of my personal opinion, I'm not going to declare that Joyce is a mediocre and that all the writers, critics, academics, and other readers who love his work are idiots and imbeciles. Indeed, I am open enough to listen to and weigh the opinions of others... even if they contradict my own experience. I have enough experience of my own to realize that my opinions concerning given works of art and artists have changed on more than one occasion.

As for my personal experience of art, again it would do you well not to assume things. My "second hand" appreciation of the arts is based upon the experience of having passionately and obsessively read a vast array of literature, and having approached music in a similar manner. It is also based upon having long engaged in discussions and dialog (formal and informal) related to the critical opinions and personal responses to works of literature and music. The "second hand" appreciation of the visual arts... primarily painting... is based upon the experience of continually looking at and reading about art... and seeing works of art in person as often as possible. It is also based upon the fact that I am a working artist and art educator. But of course you have so much more of a profound appreciation and understanding of art than myself.

[stlukesguild]

Mortal... surely you can do far better than that in your efforts at playing the devil's advocate. How do the number of scholarly articles available upon a given writer contained within an American-site at all equate to the critical opinion of a given writer? There are fewer scholarly articles upon Leopardi than Salinger available on JSTOR? What is the population of those who speak Italian vs that of those who speak English? How many scholarly articles are likely to be written on Leopardi by those who cannot read the poems in the original? And what do the numbers say about about the content? Or do all those who make the decision to write about Salinger do so because they honestly feel he is greater than Leopardi? We might as well play the same game with Google or hold a LitNet poll.

Speaking of Leopardi, there is a new translation of his poems... far more inclusive than anything I've yet seen... made by Jonathan Galassi, who also made some highly respected translations of Montale (although I personally prefer William Arrowsmith)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Stlukes, I hope you are devoting so much time to Syd because you enjoy writing those eloquent rebuttals, because you're most likely just playing into his hands. He's trolling. It's easy to tell because he picks out just a few parts of your first response to respond to (often taking them out of context) and decides to discard those that truly point out his ignorance.

[JCamilo]

Hey, doesnt everyone does it?

And do you have any doubt he likes to write as much? :D

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

And do you have any doubt he likes to write as much? :D
:lol: Not really. I don't think anyone enjoys putting so much effort into posts as much as StLukes.

[JCamilo]

Yeap,he Rejoyces much doing it. :D

[mortalterror]

Mortal... surely you can do far better than that in your efforts at playing the devil's advocate.

Eh, maybe. But sometimes it's more time consuming than it's worth. My point was just to show that while The Catcher in the Rye or To Kill a Mockingbird aren't as beloved among the academic community as say Paradise Lost, nevertheless there are still thousands of articles being written about them and hundreds of schools where they are taught. Drkshadow usually brings up JSTOR and other academic sites when he defends Tolkien and Rowling, and his argument does have some merit. The academic community is hardly homogeneous.


How do the number of scholarly articles available upon a given writer contained within an American-site at all equate to the critical opinion of a given writer? There are fewer scholarly articles upon Leopardi than Salinger available on JSTOR? What is the population of those who speak Italian vs that of those who speak English? How many scholarly articles are likely to be written on Leopardi by those who cannot read the poems in the original?

Dante, Goethe, Ovid, and Euripides don't seem to suffer too much for all that.


And what do the numbers say about about the content? Or do all those who make the decision to write about Salinger do so because they honestly feel he is greater than Leopardi? We might as well play the same game with Google or hold a LitNet poll.

Well, how would you go about demonstrating contemporary academic interest in an author, if you don't want to count the number of articles published in journals about them? I think that JSTOR is at least better than a Google search or a LitnNet poll where every high school students opinion is weighed the same as his teachers.

However, one purpose I had in mind for showing the actual quantity of academic articles per subject was to cast a degree of doubt as to their efficacy. Why is Dryden so high and Tolstoy so low? What drives the academic machine isn't only aesthetics; so we can't say for sure that just because the number of professors studying To Kill a Mockingbird is low right now that's proof of it's mediocrity.

[mal4mac]

Really you think it was a good start and a valid experiment? I'd have to disagree and I still don't know what the point of it was, aside from producing a TV programme and further swelling the pockets of Jamie Oliver.

Yes, it showed that teachers are not the problem, but any teacher could have told you that for free.


Actually i was rather too supportive of teachers with my first comment - I'll moderate that to "teachers are probably not to blame most of the time" - I had some awful teachers! So I wouldn't believe anything some random teacher told me. For me, it was interesting to see some top notch people struggling and failing to engage these pupils.

As a social experiment it was only a start.

You really don't like Jamie Oliver, do you. I think he's quite inspirational, and his heart is, mostly, in the right place. Would the top people he managed to gather together have taken part if he was just "money grubbing" as you suggest.

Is the poor behaviour and general lack of respect all the kid's faults? The news just reported that 1 out of 10 headmasters have been physically attacked by parents - showing that appalling behaviour is to be found in a large segment of the population much older than 17/18

If you let these kids go, by which I suppose you mean expel them, where do they go? Robbing my garage? Assaulting me on the street? Surely its better for them, cheaper, and less stressful to all, to give them that thousandth chance rather than expelling them, giving them a grudge against society, and giving them an excuse for criminal attacks against those who have rejected them. Such chances do not need to be given at the expense of others, you can put them in separate schools or classrooms. Then you can give them a teacher like Alistair Campbell - I agree with you that he was the star - he might have found a better calling...

I agree the constant pandering and intervention could be counter-productive. Alastair Campbell seemed to have the correct approach, by excluding the disruptive from the PM trip. (Though, Jamie Oliver and the headmaster undermined him here, I thought.)

Maybe if the disruptive continually miss out on such carrots they will improve (after the thousandth time!) But you don't exclude them from school... you have to keep on engaging with them... otherwise the underclass will just expand... crime will increase... etc...

I agree focus needs to be as early as possible... but you can't just wash your hands of late teens, though I agree free trips probably aren't the answer, we don't have open cheque book resources.


Charlie Brooker (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/14/jamie-olivers-dream-school) has a slightly different view of Jamie's Dream School. Worth the read (as is everything by Charlie :D )

Brooker's satire misfires, again. C4 managed to get people involved in Dream School who really *are* top of their game. For instance, Winston and Beard are top academics, the teachers of the teachers, and generally regarded as excellent popular presenters. They are beyond satire, really, which is why Brooker, doesn't attempt an attack on them. But by ignoring such major characters, his satire just looks lame.

[Drkshadow03]

Great counter-arguments, stlukesguild and Mutatis-Mutandi. Tell me, have you ever had an original thought, or would you worship any author and work you've been told is great? PeterL may have bad taste, but at least it's his own.

Only dogmatic imbeciles use arguments like "questioning X or Y is a joke, tight?" What is literature for, if not to be questioned, criticized, evaluated? I guess these lessons in literature are lost on the two of you.

To be fair this is also what you wrote: "I could never understand how anyone over the mental age of ten can find The Catcher in the Rye to be a masterpiece, but go find a school teacher who doesn't think so. And what's the deal with Twain? and Faulkner? Great authors? I think not."

You don't really give much in the way of reasons for why you dislike Twain and Faulkner, and don't consider them to be great authors.


Mortal... surely you can do far better than that in your efforts at playing the devil's advocate. How do the number of scholarly articles available upon a given writer contained within an American-site at all equate to the critical opinion of a given writer? There are fewer scholarly articles upon Leopardi than Salinger available on JSTOR? What is the population of those who speak Italian vs that of those who speak English? How many scholarly articles are likely to be written on Leopardi by those who cannot read the poems in the original? And what do the numbers say about about the content? Or do all those who make the decision to write about Salinger do so because they honestly feel he is greater than Leopardi? We might as well play the same game with Google or hold a LitNet poll.

Speaking of Leopardi, there is a new translation of his poems... far more inclusive than anything I've yet seen... made by Jonathan Galassi, who also made some highly respected translations of Montale (although I personally prefer William Arrowsmith)

On the other hand, isn't this similar to the method that Philip G. Goulding uses in the 101 Classic music book you recommended. I remember him saying he developed his ranks by actually counting how often a particular composer is mentioned in the scholarly literature. I don't have the book in front of me to confirm that is what he did, but I remember him claiming he did something like that.

JSTOR collects journals from others countries as well. From their language and literature page talking about coverage: "The 58 titles in this collection span the literary cultures of many different countries, containing articles in several languages, including Arabic, Italian, and German." Now they probably don't collect every Italian literature journal in existence; most likely they only include a select few.

[Syd A]

The reality is that you are the one who has taken the position contrary to accepted opinion, so it would seem that burden of proof would be upon you as to establishing a worthy argument as to just why Twain and Faulkner are so "mediocre" before I or anyone else should think to lend any credence to your opinion.

This statement speaks volumes about your ability to reason. Google "appeal to tradition" and "argumentum ad populum" and see how your entire view of how literature should be judged is based on well-known logical fallacies. You have nothing to contribute to a discussion other than these fallacious arguments, something any child can do.

Inferiority complex?? Who's the one who is constantly deferring to the opinions of others? Who's the one who must take a vote before he decides whether a work of art is great or not?



You don't really give much in the way of reasons for why you dislike Twain and Faulkner, and don't consider them to be great authors

Again, this wasn't an attempt at reasoning. It was an example of how I agree with peterL's argument while I reject his Dickens example.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing personal comments will be removed without further notice.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Actually i was rather too supportive of teachers with my first comment - I'll moderate that to "teachers are probably not to blame most of the time" - I had some awful teachers! So I wouldn't believe anything some random teacher told me. For me, it was interesting to see some top notch people struggling and failing to engage these pupils.

As a social experiment it was only a start.

You really don't like Jamie Oliver, do you. I think he's quite inspirational, and his heart is, mostly, in the right place. Would the top people he managed to gather together have taken part if he was just "money grubbing" as you suggest.

Is the poor behaviour and general lack of respect all the kid's faults? The news just reported that 1 out of 10 headmasters have been physically attacked by parents - showing that appalling behaviour is to be found in a large segment of the population much older than 17/18

If you let these kids go, by which I suppose you mean expel them, where do they go? Robbing my garage? Assaulting me on the street? Surely its better for them, cheaper, and less stressful to all, to give them that thousandth chance rather than expelling them, giving them a grudge against society, and giving them an excuse for criminal attacks against those who have rejected them. Such chances do not need to be given at the expense of others, you can put them in separate schools or classrooms. Then you can give them a teacher like Alistair Campbell - I agree with you that he was the star - he might have found a better calling...

I agree the constant pandering and intervention could be counter-productive. Alastair Campbell seemed to have the correct approach, by excluding the disruptive from the PM trip. (Though, Jamie Oliver and the headmaster undermined him here, I thought.)

Maybe if the disruptive continually miss out on such carrots they will improve (after the thousandth time!) But you don't exclude them from school... you have to keep on engaging with them... otherwise the underclass will just expand... crime will increase... etc...

I agree focus needs to be as early as possible... but you can't just wash your hands of late teens, though I agree free trips probably aren't the answer, we don't have open cheque book resources.


No, I'm a fan of Jamie Oliver generally and have supported him in all the other things he has done but I think this was a step too far. When Jamie Oliver talks food I listen, but when he starts trying to improve something he has no expertise in I wonder what the point of it is.I do think at the end he realised he was out of his depth with this one though.

Yes it was interesting to see top people struggling, but then again it didn't surprise me one bit, teaching secondary is far from knowing your subject - in tough schools if you don't have discipline then you can't teach, it's as simple as that.


"teachers are probably not to blame most of the time"

If a student is constantly causing trouble across the whole range of different classes even different schools for years, how is that the fault of one teacher? For these are the sort of students we are talking about here, some of which featured in the programme, like that girl in the run in with Alistair Campbell.

She was a prime example of counter-productivity because she broke the rules over and over and in the end she still got her own way. Great lesson, completely counter-productive and typical of the softie softie approach - it just does not work, I'm been there and seen it time and time again. It fails the student in question and if fails all the rest because they wonder what's the point in following the rules. It's rewarding bad behaviour and it happens all the time. The good kid sits there tries his/her best and gets nothing. A student screams and swears at teachers, abuses other students, disrupts countless lessons over years and years and gets special treatment. Again, great lesson.

Countless pandering does not work, quite the opposite in fact it only makes things worse. I am not suggesting that we don't try and engage these students, for what do you think teachers are trying to do day in day out? But there has to reach a point when enough is enough and you have to let the student learn from life.

[stlukesguild]

On the other hand, isn't this similar to the method that Philip G. Goulding uses in the 101 Classic music book you recommended. I remember him saying he developed his ranks by actually counting how often a particular composer is mentioned in the scholarly literature. I don't have the book in front of me to confirm that is what he did, but I remember him claiming he did something like that.

From what I recall, he tallied not merely the number of articles written on a given composers, but also the size as well as the number of books, the number of recordings of a given work/composer, and the times the composer was performed in concert or on certain major radio stations. This would seem to offer input from subsequent artists (performers) and the public (as they influence performance schedules), but obviously, even that is no perfect measure. And is an ideal measure of art even possible? As Mortal pointed out, Shakespeare, Dante, Goethe, etc... don't seem to suffer much from such methodology... and it would seem that looking at Goulding's list of composers I don't see many that I find grossly out of place. Surely I have certain disagreements. The longer I listen to Handel and the deeper I delve into his work the greater his achievement appears... so that I would place him higher. Stravinsky, Prokofiev, and Shostakovitch... all great Modernists... seem overrated in contrast to the impact of Monteverdi, Gluck, Debussy, and others... but solid counter-arguments could surely be made. Again... my point in this discussion has only been to point out that what I like or what my "esteemed" opponent likes is not automatically one and the same with what is "good" or "great"... or with what the larger body of those who appreciate art like.

[JCamilo]

Well, I do not think under the definition literary expert is "american academy"unless T.S.Eliot is the entire academy...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This statement speaks volumes about your ability to reason. Google "appeal to tradition" and "argumentum ad populum" and see how your entire view of how literature should be judged is based on well-known logical fallacies. You have nothing to contribute to a discussion other than these fallacious arguments, something any child can do.
There's a difference between accepting popular opinion when it comes to something like, say, pop music where the multitude of fans like it "just because" rather than a piece of literature that has been critically analyzed by people who have studied literature, and coming to the consensus that it is, in fact, good.

Plus, you really don't seem to get debate (which is what this boards does--if you want to throw adolescent ad hominids, go to IMDb's boards, you'll fit right in), do you? You make the claim, you back it up. We do not need to "Google" anything.

[Drkshadow03]

This statement speaks volumes about your ability to reason. Google "appeal to tradition" and "argumentum ad populum" and see how your entire view of how literature should be judged is based on well-known logical fallacies. You have nothing to contribute to a discussion other than these fallacious arguments, something any child can do.


Nah, he's right actually. You claimed authors X and Y are overrated and not great (without giving any reasons to support this view). He responded basically that most experts for as long as these books have existed have seen the merit of these books, so why do you think this? The burden of proof is still on you to provide some sort of reasoning behind your dislike for those authors.

Appeal to Tradition, as well as most major logical fallacies, all have special exceptions. Simply saying something is old or has passed the test time is an appeal to tradition. After all, people can persist in accepting false claims for centuries. However, pointing a scientific theory has survived the test of time and repeated tests to falsify or demonstrate it is NOT fallacious because the emphasis is on the test (which constitutes evidence).

Literature and art, unlike science, are subjective by their nature. The equivalent version of tests and challenges exception is scholarly opinion. Scholarly opinion is not just a bunch of scholars declaring, "This is good. Now shut up you plebes" without offering any reasons. They write extensive articles and books analyzing the meaning, structure, style, and explaining the literary value of a work. When they write these articles these are their reasons for the book's value. Claiming a work has passed the test of time and has retained critical opinion is NOT fallacious since its implicit in the claim "retained critical opinion" that the opinion has reasons for thinking such a book is good. It's not a requirement that he delve into the reasons himself since you never gave yours and the burden of proof never shifted away from you.

* Note: If he responded with a simple it "passed the test of time" and "all the critics think so" AFTER you offered reasons why you think Faulkner sucks, then it would be an appeal to tradition and authority combined (and fallacious) because THEN he has to offer reasons for why your reasons aren't any good.

[Syd A]

You make the claim, you back it up.

You claimed authors X and Y are overrated and not great (without giving any reasons to support this view)
We've had this discussion before. Both you and darkshadow don't grasp the concept of burden of proof. The burden of proof (or evidence, as there is no absolute proof in art) is always on the side making the positive claim (e.g. "Twain is a great author"). The side making a negative claim ("Twain is not a great author") has nothing to prove. This is a basic concept of logic and argumentation, and until you grasp it, you cannot engage in a serious discussion. Mutatis, you committed the same error when you declared (without reasoning) that it is obvious that downloaders are thieves and then proceeded to accuse me of not proving the negative.

Mutatis made a shocking statement, claiming that questioning Twain's and Faulkner's greatness must be a joke. This is a question worthy of a religious fanatic looking for witches to burn, yet no one in this thread commented on it. This says a lot about the people commenting here.

Now, have any of you, anywhere in this thread, provided any evidence supporting your claim that Twain is a great author? I understand that you can easily provide me 10,000 references to other people making that claim, but have you ever given any arguments of your own in support of that claim? If not, why should you be taken seriously? Why am I the only one required to provide evidence?

What you do is cowardly and illogical: you hide behind others and allow them to make arguments for you, and then you accuse me of not refuting arguments you've never made!

[Propter W.]

Art, unlike science or mathematics, is always subjective. There are rarely clear-cut proofs when it comes to the judgment of the merit of a work of art. The closest we come in the arts is a sort of communal consensus or "experts".

I think it's very important to stress that this consensus is still "always subjective." I think it would be a very grave mistake to define art solely on the basis of expert opinion. Art and therefore, I believe, also its merit is entirely subjective. Experts don't have the authority to label something art or not. Sadly, scholars do it all the time and unfortunately their opinions often remain unquestioned and are generally readily accepted by us common folk (and here I refer to myself since I clearly lack the knowledge and expertise you've acquired).

This is not to say expert opinion is worthless. I certainly appreciate and value it. But the expertise of literary scholars or experts matters very little to me when I seek to define art because art, in my opinion, should always be subjective.

I find that art experts are often too narrow in their view of what art is or should be and as a result "art" becomes exclusive and I might even say elitist.

Not that I accuse you of any of this.

[stlukesguild]

We've had this discussion before. Both you and darkshadow don't grasp the concept of burden of proof. The burden of proof (or evidence, as there is no absolute proof in art) is always on the side making the positive claim...

You really don't understand how art criticism... or debate works, do you? If I declare that Michelangelo is a great artist or Shakespeare is a great writer I need not back up my claims because I am simply stating what is the common accepted belief. I may, if I wish, decide to point out reasons why I agree with this accepted opinion they are "great" but it is not really necessary, and in all likelihood it is a redundancy. The same would be true if I were to declare that Shakespeare wrote the play Hamlet or Mozart wrote the opera Don Giovanni. I do not need to cite historical data to back up my assertions because they are accepted as fact by the majority of those who are experts in the fields of musicology, literature, and history. The burden of proof is upon those who wish to convince others that Shakespeare didn't write Hamlet... that it was written by Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, Edward de Vere, or Elvis Presley... or that Mozart's music was not written by Mozart but rather was composed by a consortium of Jesuit conspirators. The burden of proof is always upon those who make a statement contrary to accepted opinion/fact.

[stlukesguild]

I think it's very important to stress that this consensus is still "always subjective."

Personal opinions are always "subjective"... of course some opinions are worth far more than others. When I am ill, I go to a physician who diagnosis my ailment and prescribes a treatment. His or her diagnosis is based upon years of intensive study, attained knowledge, and experience. In spite of this, he or she my indeed make a wrong diagnosis. What was assumed to have been a mere cold, may turn out to have been a bacterial infection, and I may need to return to the doctor who at this time may do further examinations (a throat culture, an x-ray) and change his or here prescribed treatment. If I take this experience to its logical/illogical/absurdist extreme I might say to myself: the doctor's opinion is just as subjective as anyone else'... thus why should I lend his or her opinion any more credence than I lend to that of my plumber? I continue to go to the doctor when I'm ill rather than consult my plumber... or my mother-in-law... or hold a poll of public opinions because I accept the fact that my doctor's opinion hold's more weight. His or her opinion is based upon an intimate understanding and knowledge of human illnesses and as such, he or she is likely to be correct more often.

I think it would be a very grave mistake to define art solely on the basis of expert opinion. Art and therefore, I believe, also its merit is entirely subjective.

What you or I like may be entirely subjective... what survives over the generations, what is selected as among the "essential" works to be taught... is most certainly not rooted in any single subjective opinion.

Experts don't have the authority to label something art or not.

Actually, they do. Who else do you think has this ability? The individuals who painted the cave walls at Lascaux and the clerical scribes who illuminated the medieval manuscript at Kells were not "artists"... at least they never thought of themselves as "artists" in the sense that we think of the term today. he medieval scribes would in all likelihood have merely thought of themselves as humble servants of the lord, attempting, to the greatest of their abilities, to glorify the word of God. The only real artist/creator was God and as such, whatever artistic genius they brought to their efforts was simply the result of God having inspired them. They were but a vessel through which God's will was achieved. Today, however, both the cave painters and the medieval scribes are thought of as artists and their efforts as "ART". They are accepted as "Art" because the audience whose opinions matter... the academics, the art historians, the art collectors, the curators, later generations of artists, and the informed art lovers all define these works as "ART."

Duchamp raised this very question 100 years ago when he placed a urinal in an art exhibition. The exhibition organizers had announced that every entered work of art would be accepted. Duchamp thought to play the devil's advocate and enter a mass-produced urinal. An argument ensued... when does something become art? Is something art merely because the artist makes it? What if he or she didn't even make it? Can something be art merely because the artist claims it is art? How then do we define artist? Is someone an artist merely because they declare them-self to be an artist? Duchamp recognized that art involves an audience. His urinal is art because the audience recognizes it as art. To an audience well-versed in Minimalist and Conceptual aesthetics, this is art:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5109/5676297813_56e7b848b0.jpg

To the average guy on the street, its nothing more than a neatly pile of bricks.

Sadly, scholars do it all the time and unfortunately their opinions often remain unquestioned and are generally readily accepted by us common folk...

I don't buy into the dichotomy of the "experts" vs the "po' common folk". The "experts" include not merely academics, but artists, and art lovers. If the common folk or the "masses" have little say in what is art and what is "good" art it is because they have not invested the time and effort in art... it is because art really isn't that important to them. Within the world of those who have invested a good deal in the understanding, appreciation, promotion, and preservation of art, there are continual debates and heated disagreements. Nothing remains unquestioned. However, if one is going to challenge the accepted opinion, it takes something more than a snide comment ala "Great writers? I think not."

This is not to say expert opinion is worthless. I certainly appreciate and value it. But the expertise of literary scholars or experts matters very little to me when I seek to define art because art, in my opinion, should always be subjective.

Is the angst-laden writings of a teenage girl in her diary art? ("Gee, I wonder if Billy likes me? Suzy says that Jimmy told her that Latasha told him that Billy kinda likes me. OMG! I'm just gonna die!") I can assure you that the poems I wrote in high school... all lost over the years (thankfully!) were most certainly not art... although I most assuredly thought they were at the time. Art involves a dialog... between the artist and an audience.

I find that art experts are often too narrow in their view of what art is or should be...

How so? Give me examples. From my experience those who have the greatest knowledge and experience in the arts are far more likely to appreciate and even admire works of art that your "common man" or your "masses" might dismiss out of hand and resort to the cliche of the Emperor's New Clothes.

...as a result "art" becomes exclusive and I might even say elitist.

Art is "elitist"... but perhaps we should define "elitist". The definition that I employ embraces the concept of meritocracy or the idea that certain individuals' views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight as a result of rigorous study or education, training, great accomplishment within a particular field, a long track record of competence in a demanding field, intelligence, and other merits. It has nothing to do with wealth or class. In other words, being part of the group who has the greatest impact upon the arts is an elective affinity. Each individual may chose that art is something worth putting forth an effort... or it is not.

[Syd A]

If I declare that Michelangelo is a great artist or Shakespeare is a great writer I need not back up my claims because I am simply stating what is the common accepted belief.

So you're simply a mouthpiece, a machine that spits out others' opinions? I already knew that, but I didn't think that you'd say it so explicitly! In this case, you're not worthy of further comments. If I want to know what you claim to think, I'll simply do a JSTOR search.


The burden of proof is always upon those who make a statement contrary to accepted opinion/fact.

You should run for public office. In the meantime, why do you read books at all? If Twain's greatness is an established fact, why bother yourself with reading his works? Either you'll discover what you already knew (Twain is great), or else you'll feel stupid, inferior, confused because your opinion differs from that of the experts or majority, who are by your definition the norm, the smart, the good. I almost feel sorry for you!

EDIT:

I may, if I wish, decide to point out reasons why I agree with this accepted opinion they are "great" but it is not really necessary, and in all likelihood it is a redundancy.
So at this point of our discussion, you finally chose to admit it: you have no idea why Twain is great, do you?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

We've had this discussion before. Both you and darkshadow don't grasp the concept of burden of proof. The burden of proof (or evidence, as there is no absolute proof in art) is always on the side making the positive claim (e.g. "Twain is a great author"). The side making a negative claim ("Twain is not a great author") has nothing to prove. This is a basic concept of logic and argumentation, and until you grasp it, you cannot engage in a serious discussion. Mutatis, you committed the same error when you declared (without reasoning) that it is obvious that downloaders are thieves and then proceeded to accuse me of not proving the negative.

Mutatis made a shocking statement, claiming that questioning Twain's and Faulkner's greatness must be a joke. This is a question worthy of a religious fanatic looking for witches to burn, yet no one in this thread commented on it. This says a lot about the people commenting here.

Now, have any of you, anywhere in this thread, provided any evidence supporting your claim that Twain is a great author? I understand that you can easily provide me 10,000 references to other people making that claim, but have you ever given any arguments of your own in support of that claim? If not, why should you be taken seriously? Why am I the only one required to provide evidence?

What you do is cowardly and illogical: you hide behind others and allow them to make arguments for you, and then you accuse me of not refuting arguments you've never made!
I think I'll just be my cowardly self (did you not read Scher's warning? I'm getting tired of being insulted) and hide behind StLuke's statement:


We've had this discussion before. Both you and darkshadow don't grasp the concept of burden of proof. The burden of proof (or evidence, as there is no absolute proof in art) is always on the side making the positive claim...

You really don't understand how art criticism... or debate works, do you? If I declare that Michelangelo is a great artist or Shakespeare is a great writer I need not back up my claims because I am simply stating what is the common accepted belief. I may, if I wish, decide to point out reasons why I agree with this accepted opinion they are "great" but it is not really necessary, and in all likelihood it is a redundancy. The same would be true if I were to declare that Shakespeare wrote the play Hamlet or Mozart wrote the opera Don Giovanni. I do not need to cite historical data to back up my assertions because they are accepted as fact by the majority of those who are experts in the fields of musicology, literature, and history. The burden of proof is upon those who wish to convince others that Shakespeare didn't write Hamlet... that it was written by Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, Edward de Vere, or Elvis Presley... or that Mozart's music was not written by Mozart but rather was composed by a consortium of Jesuit conspirators. The burden of proof is always upon those who make a statement contrary to accepted opinion/fact.
And I'll even add this: I've taken debate, and I know the "positive" and "negative" argument BS. Whatever. I think it's YOU who hide behind these silly rules. I find debate, when it comes to forums (as these are not formal, judged, and premeditated debates like those you would participate in for competition) quite simple: The person who makes some sort of claim first has to back up that claim, be it "negative" or "positive." Twain or Faulkner wasn't even an issue until you brought them up.

And, as to this:

Mutatis made a shocking statement, claiming that questioning Twain's and Faulkner's greatness must be a joke. This is a question worthy of a religious fanatic looking for witches to burn, yet no one in this thread commented on it. This says a lot about the people commenting here.
I was being flippant. I was kidding, you know, being lighthearted about something? I'm sorry I forgot to add a smiley tag. Maybe you would have then realized this and not called me a "dogmatic imbecile."


I think it's very important to stress that this consensus is still "always subjective." I think it would be a very grave mistake to define art solely on the basis of expert opinion. Art and therefore, I believe, also its merit is entirely subjective. Experts don't have the authority to label something art or not. Sadly, scholars do it all the time and unfortunately their opinions often remain unquestioned and are generally readily accepted by us common folk (and here I refer to myself since I clearly lack the knowledge and expertise you've acquired).

This is not to say expert opinion is worthless. I certainly appreciate and value it. But the expertise of literary scholars or experts matters very little to me when I seek to define art because art, in my opinion, should always be subjective.

I find that art experts are often too narrow in their view of what art is or should be and as a result "art" becomes exclusive and I might even say elitist.

Not that I accuse you of any of this.
Someone's taste is subjective, yes, but determining whether or not a piece of art has worth is not entirely subjective. There are plenty of objective points to be made for, oh, let's say Faulkner. He has an incredible ability to write complex and intriguing stream-of-consciousness, to name just one of the positive aspects in his writing. Now, many may dislike reading stream-of-consciousness writing for obvious reasons, but does that make it bad? No. I don't enjoy reading Shakespeare, but I would never claim he's overrated or wasn't a genius. He was. I just don't enjoy his work, and that is my failing, not Shakespeare's.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So you're simply a mouthpiece, a machine that spits out others' opinions? I already knew that, but I didn't think that you'd say it so explicitly! In this case, you're not worthy of further comments. If I want to know what you claim to think, I'll simply do a JSTOR search.



You should run for public office. In the meantime, why do you read books at all? If Twain's greatness is an established fact, why bother yourself with reading his works? Either you'll discover what you already knew (Twain is great), or else you'll feel stupid, inferior, confused because your opinion differs from that of the experts or majority, who are by your definition the norm, the smart, the good. I almost feel sorry for you!

EDIT:

So at this point of our discussion, you finally chose to admit it: you have no idea why Twain is great, do you?
I'd also just like to point out that Syd doesn't even attempt to refute anything here, just insults StLukes on a personal level.

Methinks someone should just ban this troll and be done with it.

[mortalterror]

Twain is a great writer because he is funny, but more than being funny he is funny in intelligent ways. He does not simply make a poop or fart joke. His poop and fart jokes make a social statement about the world. He parodies and references other aspects of high culture engaging in a dialectic with other greats such as Cervantes, Rabelais, and Shakespeare. His work Huckleberry Finn invites comparisons to Don Quixote with the Quixotic duo of Tom Sawyer and Huck. He allegorically depicts the history of America, it's slavery, wars, and customs. He depicts the outside world and it's foreign politics. He satirizes religion. Most importantly, he is rarely dull. He has a number of successful works in his oeuvre including Tom Sawyer, The Prince and the Pauper, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, Huckleberry Finn, Life on the Mississippi, Innocents Abroad, The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg, The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County, Grandfather's Old Ram, and The Private History of a Campaign that Failed. If he'd only written one great comedy he might have been a lucky flash in the pan, but his continued success proves that he knew his craft.

[billl]

EDIT:


I may, if I wish, decide to point out reasons why I agree with this accepted opinion they are "great" but it is not really necessary, and in all likelihood it is a redundancy.


So at this point of our discussion, you finally chose to admit it: you have no idea why Twain is great, do you?

There was certainly no admission of anything of the sort, as the quoted portion plainly shows.

[AuntShecky]

A LitNet thread from February of this year covered some of the same issues brought up in the replies. The essay in that previous OP covers the problem of judging works of the past by the seemingly more enlightened political and social standards of the present day. The original poster used as part of her argument a Harper's Magazine article (from 14 yrs ago!) by Vince Passaro. Passaro's main thrust is that present-day critics and educators rail at authors of classic works of literature because of resentment--perhaps even jealousy-- of excellence.

Also, many young readers proclaim that Dickens, Eliot, Faulkner et al. are "no good" simply because they don't "like" them. Perhaps this dismissal comes from the fact that they lack the experience, knowledge, and judgement to comprehend them.

Here's the thread from February:



http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59356




Part of this hypersensitivity can be attributed to the to the subjective character of our self-absorbed era, a predilection for solipsism stemming from an artificially inflated sense of self-esteem. Despite --or more likely because of -- its appearing on so many local lists of “banned books,” The Catcher in the Rye has attracted legions of devoted young readers from its initial publication in 1949 through the present day. That its author provides such a resonant voice for its adolescent protagonist/narrator attests to Salinger’s skill, but at the same time opens up a window in which his audience, flattered if not thrilled to the core, recognizes itself in Holden. The window, perhaps, is open a bit too wide, for such strong reader identification brings the unfortunate side effect of diminishing the art of this novel. While teen readers cheer at Holden’s railings against “phoniness” and worship his insistence on seemingly noble integrity, they take every single word out of Holden’s mouth as gospel and thus tend to miss some of Salinger’s comic observations and sly satire, i.e. “I don't know what I mean but I mean it.” Young readers may not have as yet reached the level of sophistication to recognize that the authenticity which they admire so much has been craftily calculated to appear genuine. It never crosses their minds that other narrators might be unreliable or that modern authors–including Salinger!– did not and do not live in an unambiguous, literal universe.

Another byproduct of such intense reader identification is that young people expect the same instant recognition and flattery everywhere else. They want the similar experience no matter what they read; no matter the character, these readers want to “feel” the same way Holden Caulfield does as when cares about the ducks in Central Park. Taking everything personally could be part of the answer as to why so many contemporary readers are quick to bristle and find offense even where it doesn't necessarily exist. Adolescents and hypersensitive adult readers as well–might benefit of a reminder that -- even though the themes of all good books concerns themselves with the human condition, with all of the virtues and flaws we hold in common as well as the onslaught of slings and arrows that accompany the whole of mankind--not everything you read is about you.

The experience of literature is not limited to validation and praise; more likely it tends to challenge and chastise. This is not to say that reading literature of high-quality is not enjoyable, yet reading, as Mortimer Adler so eloquently told us, is not a passive activity. It’s hard work, but like everything of any value in life, “you get what you pay for” in terms of time and effort.

[Drkshadow03]

We've had this discussion before. Both you and darkshadow don't grasp the concept of burden of proof. The burden of proof (or evidence, as there is no absolute proof in art) is always on the side making the positive claim (e.g. "Twain is a great author"). The side making a negative claim ("Twain is not a great author") has nothing to prove. This is a basic concept of logic and argumentation, and until you grasp it, you cannot engage in a serious discussion. Mutatis, you committed the same error when you declared (without reasoning) that it is obvious that downloaders are thieves and then proceeded to accuse me of not proving the negative.

Mutatis made a shocking statement, claiming that questioning Twain's and Faulkner's greatness must be a joke. This is a question worthy of a religious fanatic looking for witches to burn, yet no one in this thread commented on it. This says a lot about the people commenting here.

Now, have any of you, anywhere in this thread, provided any evidence supporting your claim that Twain is a great author? I understand that you can easily provide me 10,000 references to other people making that claim, but have you ever given any arguments of your own in support of that claim? If not, why should you be taken seriously? Why am I the only one required to provide evidence?

What you do is cowardly and illogical: you hide behind others and allow them to make arguments for you, and then you accuse me of not refuting arguments you've never made!

I admit I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is always on the initial claimant of a claim whether it is Twain is the greatest or Twain is NOT the greatest.

[JCamilo]

I admit I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is always on the initial claimant of a claim whether it is Twain is the greatest or Twain is NOT the greatest.

It is Debate 101, very popular in the internet, which says you cannot proof a negative. But not exactly useful. He is wrong simple because "Twain is not a great author" implies "Twain is a bad (or average) author", so he has a positive to provide proofs. He is just hiding behind sophistry (as it is debating) to create a polemic it does not exists.

Troll, bad troll.

[mortalterror]

It is Debate 101, very popular in the internet, which says you cannot proof a negative. But not exactly useful. He is wrong simple because "Twain is not a great author" implies "Twain is a bad (or average) author", so he has a positive to provide proofs. He is just hiding behind sophistry (as it is debating) to create a polemic it does not exists.

It's been fifteen years since I was on the debate team, and I was never very good, but I do seem to recall the positive side going first and defense going last, as is the case in our law courts. The kids would get up and say something like "Affirmed: Mark Twain is a substandard writer and should no longer be taught in schools." Then they would give their reasons for believing such. The defense would get up after the first speech, give their own prepared speech, followed by a refutation of the previous speech. Afterwards, came the cross examination and closing remarks.

I won't pretend to know what Syd A is thinking, and do not wish to put words into his or her mouth, but it may be something along those lines. Either way, neither side has made persuasive points for or against the greatness of Mark Twain and William Faulkner.

[JCamilo]

I know well what is in his way, but he is hiding behind the silly debate rule of negatives, which is only a negative due to the way he expressed himself (writing a negative sentence to defend his opinion, not a fact, which would overule anything about negatives and positives...), after all, nobody did any comments towards Twain and Faulkner greatness is becauese it was him who brought the judgment. Therefore they were mentioned as having or not socialists traits.

Plus, Debate 101 is ridiculous. Between Schopenhauer and Yale school of debate, I will get Schopenhauer and he will win.

[Scheherazade]

F i n a l____W a r n i n g

Further personalised comments will lead to thread closure as well as infraction points.

[Drkshadow03]

It's been fifteen years since I was on the debate team, and I was never very good, but I do seem to recall the positive side going first and defense going last, as is the case in our law courts. The kids would get up and say something like "Affirmed: Mark Twain is a substandard writer and should no longer be taught in schools." Then they would give their reasons for believing such. The defense would get up after the first speech, give their own prepared speech, followed by a refutation of the previous speech. Afterwards, came the cross examination and closing remarks.

I won't pretend to know what Syd A is thinking, and do not wish to put words into his or her mouth, but it may be something along those lines. Either way, neither side has made persuasive points for or against the greatness of Mark Twain and William Faulkner.

Yeah, I think in debate clubs there are rules along these lines.

As I understand burden of proof is complicated and depends on all sorts of contextual issues (as well the nature of the argument being made). This blog entry points out a great deal of these issues (http://geniusnz.blogspot.com/2008/06/where-does-burden-of-proof-lie-draft.html). Reading up further on this topic here from an introductory book on Argumentation and Debate (http://books.google.com/books?id=ZR6RxPGlOgQC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Burden+of+proof+and+argumentation&source=bl&ots=vZ3OGZ-BKK&sig=FNS6abu07RpU2nue7BmXoxhpFJM&hl=en&ei=de29TYKVKYiitgfKkdTUBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=Burden%20of%20proof%20and%20argumentation&f=false), there is a distinction between THE burden of proof and a burden of proof. The burden of proof rests on the affirmative (if both sides present equally valid arguments, then the affirmative loses because it's their job to prove a policy or concept should be accepted or not), but a burden of proof rests on whoever introduces the original assertion (negative or positive).

The basic rule is this: the one who asserts must prove.

[stlukesguild]

So you're simply a mouthpiece, a machine that spits out others' opinions? I already knew that, but I didn't think that you'd say it so explicitly! In this case, you're not worthy of further comments. If I want to know what you claim to think, I'll simply do a JSTOR search.

My opinions in response to any number of writers... or artists of any genre... can be found on this site on more than a few occasions. I have rarely posted comments disparaging "classics" that I don't like for the simple reason that I don't find such comments of any value. Racine as of yet has left me cold, as do many Roman writers (Virgil and Ovid immediately excepted) and artists. I'm not enthralled with the string quartet. Who cares? What does this say about the works of art in question or about their merit? If someone had posted a serious critical comment contrary to my thinking about an artist that I greatly esteemed, I would quite likely have offered my own contrary opinion and my own reasons backing this up... and I wouldn't have needed to resort to continued personal insults... usually the first resort of the weak-minded.

You should run for public office. In the meantime, why do you read books at all? If Twain's greatness is an established fact, why bother yourself with reading his works?

I don't read books to reinforce my own opinions or those of others as to whether a given book is good or bad. I read books for the aesthetic pleasure they bring (which may or may not mirror the esteem with which they are held by others). I read books for the experience and not to the end, for like life itself, it is the experience and not the destination nor the "meaning" that matters. I don't need to read to reinforce my own beliefs, standards, values, or even prejudices but rather I read to experience the "other": other times, other places other lives, other experiences, other ways of thinking. In most instances I have moved on from the self-centered thinking of the teenager to recognize that I am not the center of the universe and my opinions are not the same as fact. I despise almost everything Plato says, but I am still able to recognize his aesthetic brilliance. James Joyce leaves me largely indifferent, but I can still appreciate his innovations and what he brought to modernism.

Either you'll discover what you already knew (Twain is great), or else you'll feel stupid, inferior, confused because your opinion differs from that of the experts or majority...

Perhaps at some point you'll grow up enough that you'll be able to recognize that you are not the measure of all things and that not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or an idiot. At that point you might find that you can dislike a book that has been deemed a "classic" without needing to insult those who do like it... and without assuming that all those who do like it are but fools unable to think for themselves... unlike yourself.

you finally chose to admit it: you have no idea why Twain is great, do you?

What a pathetic manner of debate. You declare that Twain is a mediocre writer without making the least effort to defend your point of view, and then you take others to task for flippantly dismissing your opinion... as if you opinion was worthy of a serious point by point rebuttal. Why? Because it was YOUR opinion?

Why is Twain a good writer? Mortal covered many of his admirable points. Twain is one of the great comic writers. Like Rabelais, Cervantes, Swift, and Sterne, he brings his comedy to bear as satire and commentary upon both serious social issues and the art of writing. Twain was a master of conveying character through dialog and colloquial speech. His use of the vernacular and references to local or regional traditions did not keep his work from confronting larger universal issue: religion, morality, hypocrisy, racism, and friendship among these. His portrayal of the friendship between Huck and Tom Sawyer (as well as Huck and Jim) is equaled in literature only by the fictional friendships of Cervantes' Don Quixote and Sancho, Sterne's father, Uncle Toby and Trim, or more recently, Pynchon's Mason and Dixon. Twain is a master of wit, as capable of the devastating one-liner as Oscar Wilde. In Tom Sawyer and especially Huckleberry Finn, Twain establishes a truly American novel centered upon American history and especially the issue of slavery and racism that will continue to remain at the center of American experience and discourse. I agree with Mortal Terror's suggestion that his accumulated achievements as a writer suggest that he was a master of his art, but I would suggest that even had he written nothing beyond Huckleberry Finn he would have remained a central figure of American letters...

[Syd A]

He is wrong simple because "Twain is not a great author" implies "Twain is a bad (or average) author", ...

[EDIT: corrected typo] Wrong. The statement "Twain is not a great author" means "Twain is at most a good author", assuming we take "good" to be one level below "great".


...so he has a positive to provide proofs.

No, I don't. I concede that he is a decent author and I never claimed that he is a bad author.


I've taken debate, and I know the "positive" and "negative" argument BS. Whatever. I think it's YOU who hide behind these silly rules

The immutable laws of logic, some of them having rigorous mathematical proofs, are BS and silly, with a "whatever" thrown in for good measure. I have nothing to add to that.


Methinks someone should just ban this troll and be done with it.

Censorship - the last refuge... I know, I know, no personal attacks.


infraction points.

Ooh, what's that? Is that like a foul in snooker?