"I liked the book = it's GREAT; I disliked it = it SUCKS"

[InvisibleCities]

Do you sometimes find yourself pondering this problem? I think it even has a name in literary studies (personal fallacy, perhaps? Feel free to correct me!)

What I mean is - are you the person who automatically considers all the books you have liked to be good and all the ones you've hated to be bad?

Or are you sometimes willing to admit that a particular book you have liked couldn't really be described as a work of high quality, or that a book you have disliked or hated has certain merits?

I honestly think it's a widespread problem when it comes to talking about books. Many people simply operate on the principle "If I liked it = it's a masterpiece!" and the discussion ends as far as they're concerned. (I have to admit I've been guilty of that in the past. I mean, who hasn't?) And vice versa - "If I hated it = it's crap and that's the Objective Universal Imperishable Truth (TM)".

Then again, it's obviously a problem that, in the end, all literary (and indeed all artistic) judgements are subjective, so nobody can really prove anything to anyone beyond all doubt. Then again we (or should I say, our culture) obviously like proclaiming some works good and some bad, and there is obviously a need for that, as well. Then again - could anyone really prove that Crime and Punishment is a better novel than, say, Ulysses? Or - and here is the million dollar question - could you prove to a 13-year-old girl who is a LIKE TOTAL OMG fan of Twilight that Twilight is vastly inferior to Tolstoy?

Anyway - please, feel free to discuss!

[JBI]

All books I like are Good - to me - and to me, is all that matters to me.

Seriously, who cares if others like something you don't - the Canon of books is not decided by one person's taste. I doubt any single author has the power to move canonical readings anymore - the last I can think of who is alive is C. T. Hsia who basically built the modern Canon of Chinese literature, but aside from him, even Harold Bloom did not have the influence of T. S. Eliot.

We live in a world where the only thing that matters is personal taste. Generally good books will find a niche. IF you don't enjoy a work, and it is not required for your education, why should you read it? That's my opinion.

Then again, we should give works a chance, and try to learn how to read them properly, but in the end it is all a subjective decision of whether reading a certain book is enjoyable.

As for Twilight and Tolstoy - if Twilight's readers enjoy Twilight and do not enjoy War and Peace - so be it, let them read it. If they tell me how good it is, however, that is where we draw the line, and need to criticize.

[InvisibleCities]

All books I like are Good - to me - and to me, is all that matters to me.

But - does it work vice versa? All books that you dislike - are they (automatically and for you, objectively) Bad?


the Canon of books is not decided by one person's taste.

That's true - but it is more or less decided by some kind of a cultural consensus, isn't it?

Also, aren't these two thoughts of yours:


We live in a world where the only thing that matters is personal taste.

and


As for Twilight and Tolstoy - if Twilight's readers enjoy Twilight and do not enjoy War and Peace - so be it, let them read it. If they tell me how good it is, however, that is where we draw the line, and need to criticize.

mutually contradictory?

If all that matters is personal taste, on what grounds can we criticize someone who claims that Twilight is better than Tolstoy?

And on what grounds can we say that Tolstoy is better than Twilight?

[MorpheusSandman]

That's true - but it is more or less decided by some kind of a cultural consensus, isn't it?Pretty much. Every standard is just a bunch of people from some culture/sub-culture getting together and saying "this is what we like, this is what we don't like" and creating standards to measure things by. The canon is synonymous with which standards last across generations, and there are multiple arguments out there as to why some last longer than others (and they can involve things like class and various social prejudices including gender and race). I think canons are valuable, but we also have to realize that at the root they are merely a consensus on what a certain collective of certain people thought were good and not think that they are actually some objective, impersonal standard for absolute quality.

As to your initial question, it's really simply a matter of comparing one's own individual standard of qualities with others that are out there. If one says "I like this book, but I realize it's not actually good" all they mean is "this book succeeds on my standards, but not on the collective standards of other people whose opinion seems to matter". The reverse is obviously true as well. I tend to think that "good" and "bad" are rather useless umbrella signifiers when it comes to art, and it's much more productive to be reductive about determining what qualities appeal to what kind of people. EG, Joyce tends to appeal to people who love the elasticity and malleability and playfulness of language. Does that make him objectively good or bad? Well, it all depends on how much you care about an author using language in those ways. As Hamlet said: "There's nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

[mal4mac]

All books I like are Good - to me - and to me, is all that matters to me.

Seriously, who cares if others like something you don't - the Canon of books is not decided by one person's taste. I doubt any single author has the power to move canonical readings anymore - the last I can think of who is alive is C. T. Hsia who basically built the modern Canon of Chinese literature, but aside from him, even Harold Bloom did not have the influence of T. S. Eliot.

We live in a world where the only thing that matters is personal taste. Generally good books will find a niche. IF you don't enjoy a work, and it is not required for your education, why should you read it? That's my opinion.

You say that *one* critic can't define the canon today, but Eliot and Bloom, and all the other big names, would probably agree on the central canonical texts. One critic is not that important, it's consensus amongst critics that is important.

If most of the great writers and critics hold that Ulysses is a great novel, and you don't like it, and say it isn't a great novel, then you simply have to admit you are in a minority, and should withhold judgement. You can't say "it isn't a masterpiece", you can only say "I don't like it", perhaps adding, "critics X, Y and Z" also don't like it".

If the only thing that mattered was personal taste how would you be persuaded to try new things, or why would you try hard to like something? For instance, Shakespeare's language poses difficulties to schoolkids, so should they just be allowed to read Stephen King instead, because it doesn't agree with their immediate personal taste? I'm glad my teachers persuaded me to persevere, against my initial personal taste. Suggesting that Shakespeare was considered the greatest writer by "those in the know" certainly helped persuade me.


I think canons are valuable, but we also have to realize that at the root they are merely a consensus on what a certain collective of certain people thought were good and not think that they are actually some objective, impersonal standard for absolute quality.


I think you're basically right but "merely... a certain collective of certain people" sounds like a sub-division of the communist party of N Korea. This collective actually consists of Eliot, Bloom, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dr Johnson,... that is, all the greats of literature... all great authors, not just great critics... OK it also contains some naff journalists and ridiculous scholars... but the canon, if anything, has, surely, to be the touchstone. What else could be?

[Aylinn]

If the only thing that mattered was personal taste how would you be persuaded to try new things, or why would you try hard to like something? For instance, Shakespeare's language poses difficulties to schoolkids, so should they just be allowed to read Stephen King instead, because it doesn't agree with their immediate personal taste? I'm glad my teachers persuaded me to persevere, against my initial personal taste. Suggesting that Shakespeare was considered the greatest writer by "those in the know" certainly helped persuade me.
You forget that school has also different objectives, for example, to increase children's knowledge and teach them certain skills that are necessary to anyone who lives in a developed society. It, of course, should be made as enjoyable as possible, but school doesn't exist just to entertain its students.

[JBI]

You guys missed the whole point - the canon is not personal taste. One critic cannot write the canon, as Bloom would be as an example - he merely "wrote" down a list of already established works - not done by one person, mind you, but by a critical consensus over centuries (one which was not static but dynamic). My point was, if Bloom likes lets say Clarissa, and dislikes Robert Lowell, that neither makes Clarissa an enjoyed book, or an esteemed book by most readers, and likewise does not disqualify Robert Lowell from being cherished (despite my own reservations about his work).

In that sense, we must realize not every book is for everyone, and not every poem, or essay is either - readers tend to gravitate to specific works and styles that relate to themselves. For instance, I pushed toward specific areas of Chinese literature out of interest, rather than because there was "money in it" or that they are "the highest esteemed" works.

Most readers in this sense missed Bloom's point, that the works in his list are not his "list" but merely a documenting of an already ongoing list. As for Eliot, his poetic influence tied greatly with his critical influence, and much of his critical work has been rejected, as noted by the fact that nobody reads the Shakespeare plays he liked best, and everyone reads Hamlet. My point was the power of critical personages and personal tastes. Even Doctor Johnson did not sway anybody - look at his Lives of the Poets - most of them are unknown today, except for the fact they are historically included in his lives of the Poets.

Now, back to the main point - everyone is subjective, and that clearly is the only thing that matters to readers, meaning that if Harold Bloom likes a book, it does not necessarily mean that I will, should, or have to. Keep this in mind - JBI greatly dislikes much of John Donne, JBI first admired Byron, now dislikes him, and JBI never understood Shelley. Are any of these authors bad? No, of course not. They all have their fans, but JBI does not read them, because he does not like them. Now, if I were to go to Harold Bloom, and say, Bloom, why did you include these mediocre authors on your list, you idiot! then I would be in the wrong. The same way if I were to go on these boards and yell at everyone for focusing on Jane Austen and not on J.K. Rowling, I would be in a sense, in the wrong, in that I have begun to infringe upon the subjective rights of others.

Now, when it comes to shared ground of literature, these boards more or less function as a discussion of Western literature, Western canons, and occasionally some worldly authors. The bias is of course on English language authors, and generally the genre bias is on novels, mostly Victorian or later.

In that vein, if I was to come on here looking for an in depth discussion of Twilight's heroine, I would probably be in the wrong place - most of the posters do not read this. And when such discussions are rebuffed, or garner criticism, it is mainly because the boards' oldest posters, and most vocal posters (me included) tend to be defensive of the board's main focus. That none of us will read the most popular books of the day is irrelevant. We tend to not enjoy having Twilight waved in our faces, the same way a Twilight reader would not like me to go on their forum and start blabbing about Chinese authors they've never heard of.

That being said, I am of the mind books are to be enjoyed. As are movies. I would never want to read something I did not find engaging, which is generally why I stopped reading novels seriously a few years ago.

For people that wish to find universal texts, I recommend you give up. No author is so completely universal as to not have any detractors. Shakespeare et al. included. there is no such thing as a universal or absolute canon based on an objective consensus.

Rather, there is something much greater, a completely subjective canon, based on the resonance of certain books historically over a long period of time, with their words and forms going down historically despite the changing subjective tastes and histories and experiences that follow in their wake. That is what the canon is - the ability of certain texts to be subjectively appreciated historically. The ability for people to be both willing and able to be trained to read certain works out of their time. That their is a subjective sense of value in doing so.

As for "Defending" the canon. The only one I know to actually have taken such a thing seriously is Bloom himself, clearly in imitation to an extent of Shelley, or even Philip Sidney. He tries to make it a sort of attacked item, when really it is not. There is no actual enemy of the canon, and really nothing tangible to defend. Only Bloom seems to be the one deciding "good works" are under threat, whereas I noticed that there were numerous studies on his canonical works during his "debates" and even after, without ebb. In fact, reading seems to be doing just find, reaching a far larger audience.


Now Mal4mac, sir, with all due respect, your post is almost ridiculous in the way it reads. If I do not like Ulysses, I should say I did not like Ulysses. I do not need to say it is an awful book, or worthless, or crap, but I can say I do not like it, and I did not think it very good - this is subjective, and quite frankly is completely fair. This is in fact, common criticism.

Now, if I am to call anyone who liked it an idiot, then we would be crossing the line. but lets say, there are more fans and defenders of Dan Brown than Ulysses, should you not be branded and withhold judgement upon Dan Brown then, given that you do not like his work? You see my point, you are applying a double standard to yourself because you think yourself somehow different given that you are "more educated" or "better attuned to classical tastes" or some other nonsense. I would wager many, many academics did not enjoy reading Ulysses, and would take Dan Brown over it to read any day - saying nothing of the value of either.

As for personal taste - well, Shakespeare being taught to school kids is personal taste - the taste of an established few who have warranted it necessary for education. Clearly this is subjective, as he was not always the core curriculum of English classes, or whatever. Should people be educated to read such works? Well, the subjective taste of educators and curriculum designers have said so, and quite frankly, 95% of students probably greatly don't like reading Shakespeare in class.

[Kyriakos]

A vast issue, but to some degree it is analogous to whether a human has a good-looking body or not. To a significant part, it is subjective. Then again, everyone seems to be able to recognise the positive end of two polar extremes.

[mal4mac]

Now Mal4mac, sir, with all due respect, your post is almost ridiculous in the way it reads. If I do not like Ulysses, I should say I did not like Ulysses. I do not need to say it is an awful book, or worthless, or crap, but I can say I do not like it, and I did not think it very good - this is subjective, and quite frankly is completely fair. This is in fact, common criticism.


I agree with most of this, and maybe my sentence was a bit stilted and ambiguous :) But, in expressing my view on Ulysses, I was trying to cast it in the light of the canonical view. I did suggest that it is entirely valid to say "I don't like Ulysses", but I also (ambiguously) suggested that you should withhold judgement. I really meant you should withhold making a *general* judgement, like "Ulysses is rubbish."


... 95% of students probably greatly don't like reading Shakespeare in class.

I don't recall anyone complaining, most seemed to enjoy it. Maybe some thought it was a patriotic duty :)

[InvisibleCities]

Interesting thoughts!

Obviously there is nothing that is 100% Objective and 100% Universal. Obviously the canon of what is considered to be great literature that has been assembled throughout centuries by the greatest experts is also influenced by subjective judgements and issues of personal taste. The question that lurks beneath is - in what way, and how much?

So, in order to avoid going off on tangents and to clarify the original purpose of the topic, let me divert us back to what I think is an interesting thought experiment:

Why is Tolstoy (considered to be) better than Twilight?

[JBI]

Objectively speaking he is not. Twilight is far better liked by those who read - the number of contemporary Twilight readers is far greater than War and Peace readers.

[Kyriakos]

I am not sure i can really say much in regards to Tolstoy. I have only read some shorter stories of his, and not any of the novels (i tried to read War and Peace, and the first pages seemed just dead-boring and written in the most uninteresting way, a problem i also had with Zola's Nana).

I did like some of his short stories though. Particularly the one titled "The three old men". :) The death of Ivan Ilyic does have a very striking ongoing metaphor (the man being pushed further and further inside the sack, while his life on the surface becomes non-existent), but again its starting pages are written in a manner that does not seem to signify the work is important.
The Kreutzer Sonata does have a better start. I read it many many years ago (and then reread the first chapters).

I would never be of the view that Tolstoy was the best 19th century Russian writer though. Gogol was the best of that era, in my view. Dostoevsky again has many problems in his style, particularly in the massive novels, despite the worth of his ability to present the main characters in a memorable way. Chekhov (a friend of Tolstoy) pretty much has the same problems with Tolstoy in my view, again interesting stories (eg The Black Monk) but the first parts of them are just boring.

[InvisibleCities]

Objectively speaking he is not. Twilight is far better liked by those who read - the number of contemporary Twilight readers is far greater than War and Peace readers.

So if "objectively speaking" Tolstoy is not better than Twilight, as you say, does that mean that, objectively speaking, Twilight is better than Tolstoy? :D

And also - how does the number of contemporary Twilight readers as opposed to the number of contemporary Tolstoy readers have anything to do with the actual quality?

You do realize that Twilight was published 6-7 years ago, while Tolstoy's works were published a century and a half ago? Do you think Twilight will, like Tolstoy's books today, be considered a great classic in 150 years' time?

[JBI]

So if "objectively speaking" Tolstoy is not better than Twilight, as you say, does that mean that, objectively speaking, Twilight is better than Tolstoy? :D

And also - how does the number of contemporary Twilight readers as opposed to the number of contemporary Tolstoy readers have anything to do with the actual quality?

You do realize that Twilight was published 6-7 years ago, while Tolstoy's works were published a century and a half ago? Do you think Twilight will, like Tolstoy's books today, be considered a great classic in 150 years' time?

Not "better" per say, but certainly better enjoyed, given the readership.

As for longevity in regard to Twilight, I would say maybe 5 years left on it. Then obscurity will kick in.

[JCamilo]

So objectively speaking, Tolstoy is better because obscurity insist on avoiding War and Peace like most readers and like most readers will go after Twilight?

Now, I guess people insist on saying "experts opinions', but really, the canon is formed by anyone opinion, several authors and works depends on popularity to be in Canon and late critics will "discover" it, see Robert Louis Stevenson. Experts is just a class of readers.

[JBI]

So objectively speaking, Tolstoy is better because obscurity insist on avoiding War and Peace like most readers and like most readers will go after Twilight?

Now, I guess people insist on saying "experts opinions', but really, the canon is formed by anyone opinion, several authors and works depends on popularity to be in Canon and late critics will "discover" it, see Robert Louis Stevenson. Experts is just a class of readers.

Canon has little to do with the now. One of the mistakes people make is think that the canon is either tangible, or should be held up as a beacon - I have read, or know these therefore... - when it truth it is only applicable to those familiar with it, and even then, is hardly important outside of its select group of worshipers.

That being said, Twilight, as a sort of phenomenon is more popular - if we can say what is better, men wearing ruffs or wearing bow ties, the consensus now is bow ties are winning, in that they are worn by more people, regardless of the esteem given ruffs hundreds of years ago, and the historical potency of the ruff in the development of renaissance fashion. The relevance, artistry, and even the beauty of the ruff has lost its appeal to the modern bow-tie wearer, who will flock to the contemporary.

That being said, is one better or not, well, the ruff is historically relevant, and pleasant to look at in a museum, whereas the newest designers of bow ties are in vogue, so we need to go with them - does that make them better, well know.

Now, we have specific brands within this, that get mass acclaim with many people praising their works. That does not make them particularly potent products, namely the ones with the most appeal at a specific time. So the made-in-China wearing masses are not going to be all over the exclusive European models that only the elite understand, or have access to. Someone like Beyonce, or Elton John can break new ground in this way, and historically make a difference, but for the mainstream, this clothing is intangible.

Books work similarly with one exception - books happen to have the notorious ability to be relatively free. The only obstacle in reading, it seems, is necessary education - meaning the ground behind the work. This is in general the gate-keeper. In China, historically, it was more pronounced, but in reality it is as apparent in the West. Being trained to read is as important in being trained to write, when it comes to critical judgments made for select groups. The practitioner and reader, educated with a line of classics behind him or her, will necessarily be groomed to judge and create within a specific mold. For most, that mold is western literature, with the Bible in the center, and the Greeks and Romans, in the background. People who catch the references, notice the technique and the tradition, will necessarily gravitate to this type of work, and learn to appreciate it. The same way impressionist paintings are so beloved by the mass public at the expense of equally as complex and enjoyable works that are simply not understood.

Twilight is understood, in that it holds cultural resonance with a specific moment, regardless of its credibility within the tradition. At this instance, many, many people identify and enjoy reading this work, and therefore will sing its praises. They have an education and background groomed for such reading (which may include susceptibility to the mass advertisement and their friends' opinions). But regardless of the reason, they are, at this stage, in the Twilight moment, where they, with their background, will judge it good.

Does that make this invalid? Well no, it makes it irrelevant. Longevity and distribution are different things. Oral histories and myths tended to go down for centuries, whereas novels seem to fade into obscurity within 10 years - they reach more people, but do not resonate.

I think that is what some people do not understand about even such core texts as the Bible - the Bible is in essence an oral community, restricted for most of its life to the educated elite who had the access to it - at certain times restricted completely to monks and educated elites. That the book became central forces itself to the credibility of oral tradition, in that these monks kept it as the basis of their world, and therefore developed its conversation. Catholicism generally is more interesting a history than Protestantism, since it is more flexible and evolving and prone to debate and change, whereas protestantism is, in essence, a reaction rather than a revolution.

With Western literature, we see this as the norm - the trend is less about what works cover a wide space, but which works stay in the dialog, or sub-dialogs of a culture constantly changing. Many works can do both, the example being Dickens, but even then, he is beaten much by time himself, with many of his works reduced in popularity. Tolstoy as well, with his oeuvre now seeming to be limited to his two major novels, despite fringe readers of his lesser known works. Even then, in the English world, there are still very few people who have read, or can even discuss War and Peace. However, there are still some, which posits his relevance to the discussion.

Take Pope for example, the Dunciad is undoubtedly an excellent piece of Satire, but does anybody even recognize what he is talking about now? Of course not, it is too confused and specific, with footnotes to tell you whose work he is talking about. The poem begins to lose much of its flare, when you stop caring, and cheapens itself by time. It's like watching Scary Movie without getting the references - it watches like an awful penis joke.

Canons require a sort of communication - if we stop reading 18th century works, they as good as lack a place in the canon. As long as there is one reader of these works, they still hold some sort of position in the discussion. Twilight now is incredibly dispersed, especially here in China for some reason, where vampires are making a major cultural impact. It will die out, the same way Harry Potter completely died out here, in favor of Twilight - does that make it not relevant, no, but it makes it less relevant each time another person stops discussing it.

So which is greater? Space or Time? The canon argues time, but the bank argues space. Another angle would be to take specific works of time, and compare them with the authors lives - the great Chu poet Qu Yuan wrote a sort of self-elegy about his failure before supposedly killing himself. The poem has historically been well loved and much quoted, he has gone down as a hero historically, with his work being cherished for 2200 + years already. Yet I would wager, asked in a sort of viewpoint, what would have been better, your political career going the right way, and your country's survival in the face of imperial onslaught, or historical justice and fame, any of these figures would pick the former, without hesitation. The same way if you asked Fitzgerald, would you rather Gatsby flop at first and then become a classic once you die, or would you rather make it big, and then bust like before, he would have picked make it big. Twilight is living that dream - bringing its message quickly and massively, and cashing in on its brief existence.

There is no greater one - and this is all speculative. There is never a "better" in literature that is not subjective, rather the personal opinion of a person at a time is always the most important thing for the person. People should not pretend to like something to impress people. They should either like it or not.

[cafolini]

Excuse me, important. Voyager 1 reached the limits of our galaxy and entered interstellar space. It sensed and transmitted a very important thing. There was no change in the direction of the magnetic field, which is in accordance with the one world theory.

[JCamilo]

Canon has little to do with the now. One of the mistakes people make is think that the canon is either tangible, or should be held up as a beacon - I have read, or know these therefore... - when it truth it is only applicable to those familiar with it, and even then, is hardly important outside of its select group of worshipers.

Not like my "Now" had to do with any argument towards the present (and you even used a "Now" as i did in our fourth paragraph :D ), but I see what you are doing. A bit like expecting Stlukes to start posting images of kids drawning to disarm the defense of other users, you are just claiming Twilight is better according the insignificance critery because you know that your name will make people come with stick and stones if you mention anything about it. :D

Anyways, I am well aware the Canon deserves a Lovecraftian description, or maybe the old, It is what it is. Those arguments are old, I always said the canon is not a list of works, but something vague that we all know what is. I do not think actual reading is what "empowers" the canon. Twilight empowers Dracula even if no reader of twilight go to read Dracula. The next Romeo and Juliet movie will empower Shakespeare, even if nobody will read him. I am sure, Tolstoy does not need actual reading of war and peace and when a JBI mentions Pope he is adding credibility to him in the canon.

Canon is indeed an aspect of tradition and like this, it goes well with oral mechanisms, more subtle, adaptative than written tradition and of course, we still an Oral society, specially the capacity to defy geography. Last 2 century to some countries, 1 century to the world, we may have became a literary society, but orality was never abandoned. The guy who reads the books because his friend read and comment is part of canon dynamics.

People also seems to think that being canonical, it shares traits with other canonical works. While this may give you a clue about the work, that something of rare quality is there, some works that had "quality", used similar techniques, etc (sometimes even by the same author) are not able to sustain the author longevity.

Anyways, the Canon is fine. The cult of the canon a waste of time.

[MorpheusSandman]

I think you're basically right but "merely... a certain collective of certain people" sounds like a sub-division of the communist party of N Korea. This collective actually consists of Eliot, Bloom, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dr Johnson,... that is, all the greats of literature... all great authors, not just great critics... OK it also contains some naff journalists and ridiculous scholars... but the canon, if anything, has, surely, to be the touchstone. What else could be?Well, I didn't mean to imply that there was some cabal that secretly got together at a single place at a single point in time and "assembled" the canon, but more along the lines of what JBI was talking about the dynamics of it being formed by readers, critics, and authors over time. However, saying the collective consists of Eliot et al whom are "all the greats of literature" is actually begging the question (and I mean that in the logical sense); it's just assuming that those authors/critics are "great" when what "great" really means is that, again, certain people at certain times and places considered them great, and these people have influence over what future generations are introduced to in "classic literature". One of the (IMO, valuable) lessons that the 20th century taught us is that if different people (in terms of class, race, gender, etc.) had the same influence/control over the canon, things would've turned out differently, and in fact we have seen a kind of splintering or perhaps multiplying of canons within the century, with each "group" forming its own canon of what literature they consider valuable, great, and worthy of being passed on.

[mal4mac]

Well, I didn't mean to imply that there was some cabal that secretly got together at a single place at a single point in time and "assembled" the canon, but more along the lines of what JBI was talking about the dynamics of it being formed by readers, critics, and authors over time.

I didn't really think you mean to imply that, but thought it would be useful to be clear about your meaning. I certainly agree that there is a dynamics of it being formed by readers, critics, and authors over time. Also, I think this means you can't have a modern canon, there hasn't been enough time to for the dynamics to settle down, there haven't been enough readers & critics to form a settled opinion.



However, saying the collective consists of Eliot et al whom are "all the greats of literature" is actually begging the question (and I mean that in the logical sense); it's just assuming that those authors/critics are "great" when what "great" really means is that, again, certain people at certain times and places considered them great, and these people have influence over what future generations are introduced to in "classic literature".

Maybe T. S. Eliot was a bad example :) His strange choice of Coriolanus as "best of Shakespeare" reflects a bankers mentality, and his preference of Pascal over Montaigne reflects his dogmatic neo-Christianity. I certainly don't think he's a great critic, but I thought the current critical consensus considered him to be so, but then that consensus is ruled by trendy modernists, or at least it was, perhaps it's waning...



One of the (IMO, valuable) lessons that the 20th century taught us is that if different people (in terms of class, race, gender, etc.) had the same influence/control over the canon, things would've turned out differently, and in fact we have seen a kind of splintering or perhaps multiplying of canons within the century, with each "group" forming its own canon of what literature they consider valuable, great, and worthy of being passed on.

I agree that this is the process for the modern canon, but if you consider authors dead for more than 100 years, there is broadly, a consensus about the canon. If you do a Google search you will find "ethnic" and "gender" gatekeepers praising the canonical authors, it's not just living white males, e.g:

"What is taught in schools generally in the West Indies is that if something is your thing, it's better than anybody else's because it's yours. It's extremely provincial, and also damaging. You prevent people from learning things. The biggest absurdity would be: 'Don't read Shakespeare because he was white.'" - Derek Walcott

Germaine Greer is a Shakespeare scholar, I'll leave you to dig out her praising of him.


Excuse me, important. Voyager 1 reached the limits of our galaxy and entered interstellar space. It sensed and transmitted a very important thing. There was no change in the direction of the magnetic field, which is in accordance with the one world theory.

Incorrect... the disputed border of our solar system with interstellar space is a much smaller distance, Voyager 1 is still far from traversing the distance to the nearest star.



Now, I guess people insist on saying "experts opinions', but really, the canon is formed by anyone opinion, several authors and works depends on popularity to be in Canon and late critics will "discover" it, see Robert Louis Stevenson. Experts is just a class of readers.

Did early critics not like Robert Louis Stevenson? Assuming they didn't, this is a good example of why it takes time to form a canon. In an over-serious age career-minded critics might be wary of praising a "light" work in case they get panned for being superficial. With time, and after career-safe critics have been seen to praise the work, less secure critics can happily praise it as well. So I don't think it's often the case of something being discovered, it's a case of eventually honesty will out. Recent examples - I read Treasure Island and the Invisible Man with great enjoyment, and both are lodged in the canon. I'm reading The Count of Monte Cristo at the moment and have ground to a halt. It started very well but now I'm finding it very tedious and still 900 page to go (!) I thought it was in the canon, but it's not in my "gatekeeper" books... Bloom doesn't list it, for instance. So my trust in the canon has again been supported, and Cristo can go back to the library tomorrow (phew!)... It was a very popular light novel, the Eastenders of its day, but my experience shows you can't trust popular opinion, even 19th century popular opinion. Some times you can (Dickens, Stephenson...), but often you can't. As my favourite critic, John Carey said, "stick to the canon, it's safer".

[JCamilo]

Dumas got paid for pages, so of course, Monte Christo is long and tedious. However it is undeaniable that is one of the reasons Dumas is in the canon. Anyways, of course there was positive views of Stevenson while he started - he was a critic himself after all - but overall he was a dan brown, a kind of genre author extremelly popular. It was only late that Henry James opinion on him started to make people understand Stevenson popularity was due to his narrative talent. But no doubt his "canonization" started with his popularity.

[MorpheusSandman]

I think this means you can't have a modern canon, there hasn't been enough time to for the dynamics to settle down, there haven't been enough readers & critics to form a settled opinion. My feeling about "modern canons" is that they're actually "potential canons." EG, you could not really set an exact point at which "modern" becomes "classic," at what point "potential canon" becomes "canon." EG, arguably no poet has had a greater impact in the last 50 years than John Ashbery. I don't know if I'd say he's part of the "official canon" yet, but I can't imagine a scenario where a poet has that level of impact and DOESN'T ultimately become part of the canon.


Maybe T. S. Eliot was a bad example :) His strange choice of Coriolanus as "best of Shakespeare" reflects a bankers mentality, and his preference of Pascal over Montaigne reflects his dogmatic neo-Christianity. I certainly don't think he's a great critic, but I thought the current critical consensus considered him to be so, but then that consensus is ruled by trendy modernists, or at least it was, perhaps it's waning...No, I'd definitely say that TS Eliot was not only a great critic but one of the all-time greats of the language. However out of fashion he is, and however little some of his literary judgments took hold (Coriolanus over Hamlet), there's no denying his impact on critical trends in the century. TS Eliot was really the defining influence on 20th century's version of formalism that stretches from IA Richards to William Empson to modern critics like Helen Vendler and Christopher Ricks. It's true that "Theory" has attempted to displace formalism, but at best it's only succeeded in splitting up the academic approaches between "theory" and "criticism," and when it comes to the latter you'd be hard-pressed to find a more influential voice in the century than Eliot (though Empson is very close, probably).


I agree that this is the process for the modern canon, but if you consider authors dead for more than 100 years, there is broadly, a consensus about the canon. If you do a Google search you will find "ethnic" and "gender" gatekeepers praising the canonical authors, it's not just living white males, e.g:Well, I certainly agree with Walcott. I'm certainly not one of those extremists who are saying that what we consider the "Western canon" is useless because it was formed by a misogynistic, patriarchal, white, colonial society. My only point was that if through all those years women and minorities had had an equal voice the canon as we know it would probably look quite differently. You can already see this affect within 20th century literature where each segment of literary studies (eg, feminist) has their own canon. Ultimately, we have this pre-20th century canon that was formed by those means, and we should embrace it, WHILE keeping in mind why it is how it is. Keeping that in mind should not, IMO, lessen its value, but only help us understand it better.

[Vota]

I just perused this thread, and I feel like putting my two bits in.

Some books, are indeed better than other books. I'll use The Iliad and the Twilight saga as a basis for comparison. I have read both The Iliad, The Odyssey, and all of the Twilight saga. As much as I enjoyed Twilight, and man did I enjoy it, nay, love it; Homer's works are far superior. I will re-read them. It's not likely that I'll ever read the Twilight books again, though I enjoyed the time I spent with them. I absorbed every thing the Twilight books had to offer on the first read. I was in the story, I felt the emotions and lived the actions, or was right there with them, but in hindsight I was never mentally challenged. I never had to ponder anything said, scratch my head in thought, or even re-read a line to make sure I understood what was said. I never gained any critical insight that was previously lacking. Everything the books had to offer I am confident that I absorbed. There is something to be said about simplicity in writing; Plato is an awesome example, though his works are thought provoking and can be challenging mentally. I was never challenged in any way whatsoever while reading the Twilight books. It was a great ride, but that was all. It was a good one night stand, but not dating material.

I'm going to digress a little and pilfer some material from a book titled, How To Read A Book", by Mortimer J. Adler, and briefly/roughly summarize him in some of what follows. Basically, in this book he outlines criteria to be used when judging a book's worth, as well as providing reasons why there is a "canon" of books. Having read most of this book I can say that in my opinion his ideas are logical and worth using. A great book, a book worthy of being placed in a "canon" to be read for potentially the rest of time, is a book that transcends being merely enjoyable to read, but that talks about life in one way or another, in a meaningful way, and helps further and progress our knowledge and understanding of life, while spurring us to ask new questions and seek different or new answers. A book of this type is truly re-readable because it ages as you age. Things you may have missed come to light; ideas and questions you did not understand suddenly reveal themselves to you, and new things make their presence known. As you get older and gain experience, the books unravel more and more pearls and diamonds in the rough. If you add to that a wonderful story or great writing, then you have a serious candidate for a canonical work.

Going back to the The Iliad vs Twilight topic, Homer's works are timeless. They deal with love, revenge, pettiness, honor, valor, cravenness, and many other timeless aspects of the human condition. Not to mention having in all likely hood a certain degree of legitimate historical truth. Sure, Twilight addresses some of these issues as well, but when finished, you realize it was like eating cotton candy. The language is light and the topics are less filling.

A canonical book goes beyond being merely enjoyable to you or me. It is a book that can potentially raise any person's understanding and/or appreciation of life by reading it, and likely confer these benefits over repeated readings. I think Mortimer had the right idea with this viewpoint.

One might argue that Twilight could raise understanding or appreciation, but I would argue that these benefits don't occur with a person that has a decent education or life experience, or just plain has some time on this earth under their belt.

I remember reading Aristophanes' The Clouds and wondering what the hell was going on when I first began reading works from the Western Canon. I look forward to re-reading it some day.

[JBI]

how do we rank books objectively. Trick question, that's nonsensical. There is no objective criteria to evaluate. Homer is only better because people deem him so. Though I wager more people like reading Twilight than Homer.

[mal4mac]

There is something to be said about simplicity in writing; Plato is an awesome example, though his works are thought provoking and can be challenging mentally.

Rather an understatement, but I agree, there is a wonderful surface simplicity to his writing, that, at the same time, manages to be so philosophically profound that he is usually placed in the the "top three" of philosophers. (The other two, Aristotle & Kant, are not simple!) Note I say "surface" simplicity, the philosophical ramifications beneath his writing are deep and complex, reflecting Whiteheads suggestion that all other philosophy is but footnotes to Plato. Plato's dialogues would replace the Bible as my desert island book, because I think they would repay endless re-reading for depth, and continual "surface enjoyment" would remain, far more than for the Bible. I'd also keep Shakespeare, of course.



Basically, in this book he outlines criteria to be used when judging a book's worth, as well as providing reasons why there is a "canon" of books. Having read most of this book I can say that in my opinion his ideas are logical and worth using. A great book, a book worthy of being placed in a "canon" to be read for potentially the rest of time, is a book that transcends being merely enjoyable to read, but that talks about life in one way or another, in a meaningful way, and helps further and progress our knowledge and understanding of life, while spurring us to ask new questions and seek different or new answers. A book of this type is truly re-readable because it ages as you age. Things you may have missed come to light; ideas and questions you did not understand suddenly reveal themselves to you, and new things make their presence known. As you get older and gain experience, the books unravel more and more pearls and diamonds in the rough. If you add to that a wonderful story or great writing, then you have a serious candidate for a canonical work.


Is Aristotle's Poetics a wonderful story or great writing? Is Treasure Island profound enough for Adler's canon? Both these books would usually make the canonical lists.... they are on Harold Bloom's, for instance. I think we all need to do some light reading sometimes, therefore we should have a canon of lighter works. Then we might turn to Treasure Island rather than Twilight in our lighter moments. And wouldn't that be better?



Going back to the The Iliad vs Twilight topic, Homer's works are timeless. They deal with love, revenge, pettiness, honor, valor, cravenness, and many other timeless aspects of the human condition. Not to mention having in all likely hood a certain degree of legitimate historical truth. Sure, Twilight addresses some of these issues as well, but when finished, you realize it was like eating cotton candy. The language is light and the topics are less filling.


... while Treasure Island is a healthy snack just as tasty as cotton candy.



A canonical book goes beyond being merely enjoyable to you or me. It is a book that can potentially raise any person's understanding and/or appreciation of life by reading it, and likely confer these benefits over repeated readings. I think Mortimer had the right idea with this viewpoint.


What's wrong with it just being enjoyable, as long as it doesn't diminish one's understanding?



One might argue that Twilight could raise understanding or appreciation, but I would argue that these benefits don't occur with a person that has a decent education or life experience, or just plain has some time on this earth under their belt.


I've only seen one film - that left me feeling irritated & diminished.

[JBI]

Mal4Mac that isn't the point. The point is simple, we can say The Iliad is a good book, and Twilight is mediocre, however, we need to always keep in mind, this is our opinion. We cannot say clearly, or objectively, since that is a nonsensical argument.

The strength of canonical works is not in their ability to be enjoyed, but rather in their ability to retain an entertainment value years after they were written. The Iliad is an example of this, despite the book never being a mass market best seller. At best, certain modern translations have had moderate sales success. Twilight did in less than a decade far more in terms of readers than most classics in all time. This book is everywhere in China, with everyone in the 16-22 crowd reading it. I don't know why, maybe it works better in translation. Another thing is this country is very susceptible to trends, and as such relies on such reasons to sell.

Think in terms of sales - at any given moment, any number of best sellers are better liked and better received than the vast majority of canonical authors. Harry Potter brought more enjoyment to readers than Homer, simply because most readers did not read Homer, but Rowling was read by hundreds of millions of readers.

Now, we can say that based on a specific aesthetic criteria Twilight is garbage and Homer is good. Yet we must realize that criteria is specific to a certain kind of reader, which is not universal, nor is it actually as popular as the "I love twilight" crowd.

[Vota]

Well, within the Western Canon there are definitely hierarchies in terms of reading difficulty. I have read The New Lifetime Reading Plan by Clifton Fadiman and the Mortimer J. Adler book. I have not read Harold Bloom's work though I have heard of it and eventually plan to pick up his book The Western Canon.

I agree that a book can be a great story, and/or have wonderful writing, but not be particularly deep in the philosophical sense, and still be considered canonical. At this point I can only guess it is because these books told a story that hadn't quite been told before, and likely did it with a higher standard of prose than most current work. I look forward to reading Treasure Island and perhaps I'll comment on it after I read it, but that is a ways away.

I keep hearing people say that you can't truly judge a books value in this thread and I'm going to have to disagree. Some things are simpler better than other things because they are purer, require greater skill to create, and myriad other possible reasons for being superior.

What's better, a little League pitcher or Nolan Ryan? There's a Twilight vs The Iliad comparison. The best example I can use for making aesthetic subjective opinions is by comparing a great book to skilled craftsmanship, as it is the easiest analogy for me to pull off. There is good painting, and bad painting. Painting requires a certain amount of skill to do well. Brushing cabinets in oil takes knowledge and technique to pull off flawlessly. A child can grab a brush and slapdash paint your kitchen cabinets, but subjectively AND objectively, the work is inferior. No A for effort.

Defining quality and worth is not an easy thing to do as they are concepts, and concepts while easy to talk about, tend to be hard to explain. There is a hierarchy in terms of quality and worth. I may not be able to eloquently state why exactly this is, but again I can fall back to my common sense, practical experience, and imagination to illustrate my point reasonably well. Let's imagine for a moment, that tomorrow the world as we know it will come to a halt by some terrible catastrophe, but all the contributors in this thread happen to know where a secret bunker is because we are part of the "cool kids club". The world comes to a halt 5 business days from now. We all pack up our most prized possessions knowing that the bunker has all the goods necessary to sustain a comfortable living below ground for say, 50 years. Super bunker. I'm guessing that many of our most prized possessions would fall under the category of books. After we have packed our stuff we then decide to have a symposium on books, and decide what books will be brought, and which will not. Even though this super bunker has all the necessities to sustain a healthy life for 50 years for all of us, perhaps the ventilation system can only handle so much paper fiber in the air circulation for whatever unexplainable reason. Suffice it to say, only a limited number of books can be brought, perhaps 250 books. Ouch. Let's also assume there are no computers or any devices with which books can be digitally read from. Which books would we all consider worthy of taking precious space in the bunker? My guess is that most of the books that would be considered worthy would be books already considered canonical, particularly Western Canon, with only a smattering of eastern books like The Bhagavad Gita, Journey To the West etc.

My guess is Twilight doesn't make the cut. That's the best way I can explain why some books are better than others, both subjectively and objectively. If possible, Boil it down to either/or, or a yes/no type scenario and look at the result. Often times the simple truth will be glaringly obvious once you separate out the overly complex philosophical analysis of things that don't require it because their essential truth is so easy to grasp. Red is red. Blue is blue. Sure, we can have a major discussion about why exactly these colors are colors, why red is actually red, but in reality, this is mostly mental masturbation when you consider how many other more important topics there are to discuss. Red is easily identifiable as being red. Most people agree the color red is red, that blood is red, that semi-hot metals often appear red, and dawn with her rose red fingertips sometimes heralds the day. Time to move on.

P.S. Mal4mac, I agree that my Plato example was inadequate. Of the philosophers who's works I have sampled, from Plato to Aristotle, Kant, Emerson, Schopenhauer etc, Plato is my favorite. He is eloquently simple while being deeply complex and thought provoking. I felt Aristotle was very dry, but incredibly intelligent. Kant's work annoyed me. The jargon wasn't so much the issue as he just bored the crap out of me with his writing. I read a comment in a book somewhere that his lectures were far more informal and often interspersed with humor. A pity his writing wasn't like that. Granted, I have only sampled a small portion of his work, but man did I snore through it. Emerson I find a little challenging. I think because the way he uses his words, and structures his thoughts is significantly different from my own way of thinking. That said, I have enjoyed and will re-read those essays while progressing through his other work. I found that I really enjoyed Schopenhauer's essay writing style. It seemed quite informal, yet still very intelligent. I found myself nodding in agreement as my life experiences matched up with what he was saying. I assume that his World as Will and Representation his significantly more difficult reading.

[Drkshadow03]

I think three semi-objective criteria can be established: 1) Depth of Meaning 2) Aesthetics 3) Influence

With that said, literary value is intersubjective. Any particular great work of literature might be dismissed by a single individual, but it still retains its greatness by the fact that large enough groups of reader still find value in the work, despite such dismissals here and there by select individuals.

[Vota]

Double posty post.

[JCamilo]

Objectively speaking, JBI will shrug and dismiss your arguments with no effort because you are using something extremelly vague such as reading difficulty and the canon.

Let's say reading difficulty? How is that objective if this depends on the reader's experience and knowledge? Each reading experience has an objective to fullfill. The Iliad is hard? But think about it: it was an oral poem for barbarians. Try to put them reading a novel such such many novels published today. More, how much of reading difficulty is based on a format - reading in verses was easier or harder? Reading plays? Reading concrete poetry published on the net? What to do with multi-referencial works such as Borges or Joyce? Or 1000 pages works such as Tolstoy? What about our personal habits. I read the Divine Comedy - suppose to be on the top of this herarchy when was much younger, had no problem to finish it. However, I had to drag myself to read Dom Casmuro, about the same age, maybe because it was a school duty.

And the canon. Sure, but being in the canon is not an explanation. Why The Iliad is in the canon is the question. Objetively, you can claim it is one o most enduring works of literature. But so, it is this that make it better than the Comedy? If this is a valid argument, then Aristophanes or Seneca will be authomatically better and we are doomed to never write anything better than anything in the past. The only thing we can guess is Iliad has something. We can objectively see their influence, but it is trick game. Because the influence is something accumulative. Popularity is out of question (Mass market societies do not read or consume what they most like, it is what is offered to them and it is often a confort zone).

[MorpheusSandman]

JCamilo, one thing I'd say about reading difficulty is that it's at best relative. I don't think anyone would question that reading Joyce is harder than reading Twilight because you have to know so much more to be able to comprehend even a little of Joyce, and even then you're probably not going to get all of it without breaking it down, sometimes word-by-word. Books like Twilight are meant to be relatively transparent with words and sentences and stories that are commonly and intuitively understood by the broadest possible readership. While there are certainly relative aspects to difficulty--eg, someone might find a long book more difficult than a short book, or verse more difficult than prose, or a book with a lot of historical references more difficult than a book with a lot of big words--I don't think this means there are no objective things we can say about difficulty.

All that said, I don't difficulty has diddly squat to do with objective quality.

[Hal]

Do you sometimes find yourself pondering this problem? I think it even has a name in literary studies (personal fallacy, perhaps? Feel free to correct me!)

What I mean is - are you the person who automatically considers all the books you have liked to be good and all the ones you've hated to be bad?

Or are you sometimes willing to admit that a particular book you have liked couldn't really be described as a work of high quality, or that a book you have disliked or hated has certain merits?

I honestly think it's a widespread problem when it comes to talking about books. Many people simply operate on the principle "If I liked it = it's a masterpiece!" and the discussion ends as far as they're concerned. (I have to admit I've been guilty of that in the past. I mean, who hasn't?) And vice versa - "If I hated it = it's crap and that's the Objective Universal Imperishable Truth (TM)".

Then again, it's obviously a problem that, in the end, all literary (and indeed all artistic) judgements are subjective, so nobody can really prove anything to anyone beyond all doubt. Then again we (or should I say, our culture) obviously like proclaiming some works good and some bad, and there is obviously a need for that, as well. Then again - could anyone really prove that Crime and Punishment is a better novel than, say, Ulysses? Or - and here is the million dollar question - could you prove to a 13-year-old girl who is a LIKE TOTAL OMG fan of Twilight that Twilight is vastly inferior to Tolstoy?

Anyway - please, feel free to discuss!

I think it depends what you are trying to accomplish with your reading. If you simply want to be entertained then it's fair to have these I liked it/hated it judgments. But if you're reading to understand the merits of the text, its literary tradition, what it means etc, then that should be the goal, not whether or not you liked or disliked the text.

As an English student at University I read plenty of texts that I find tedious.