Debunking the idea of "classics"

[Gideonthenomad]

A classic work of art is one which those members of society with the ability to promulgate their opinions on a large scale consistently deem to be

classic over a lengthy (a few generations at least) period of time. This does not mean that a classic is objectively “better than” any other work

of art. The term “classic” can be a value judgment, but in a strict sense it is merely a descriptive term for how particular works of art are

viewed. The criteria which lead said classic work to be included in the canon are multifarious and vary from society to society, and vary within

societies according to the dominant social, political, religious, aesthetic, etc., currents of the time. In addition, judgments of whether the work

of art is “good” or “bad” while always subjective, are further complicated when the work is a classic, as unsophisticated consumers of the art

work almost invariably approach it with the knowledge that the work is a classic, and the belief that this status lends the work some

transcendent “value.” Thus, the classic benefits from a self-reinforcing process of being perceived as a classic (in the value judgment sense)

because it is a classic (in the strictly descriptive sense). This continues over time until the works acquire a sort of greater, ahistoric meaning

outside themselves, The Mona Lisa is no longer a paradigmatic work in the renaissance tradition, it is a “classic,” a short hand for artistic-ness,

genius and high-culture; Shakespeare’s plays are universal accounts of the human condition, not “mere” representative works of a tradition of

English playwriting that is, above all, English, and therefore by its nature limited to a particular time and place. This sort of thinking has fallen out

of favor in academia in the latter half of the twentieth century, but it is incredibly prevalent among those whom, at the risk of sounding

disparaging, I call “middlebrow.” This is a group that unfortunately encompasses the majority of the art consuming public.


Of course the opposite also holds: an artwork is not diminished by being historicized, all art is historic and makes the most sense in the context

for which it was created. “Universality”, as commonly applied, is a convenient fiction. Of course the set of possible artistic expression is probably

limited to a degree by humanity’s shared neurology, but a vast number of permutations exist which can each be “human” while being to a large

degree unintelligible outside of their social contexts. A parallel to language suggests itself, while linguists agree that language is “hard-coded”

into our brains, this fact will not enable a South African to spontaneously speak fluent Turkish. In much the same way, the supposedly

“universal” themes tackled by the canon (the western canon, for instance), are not necessarily relatable, or even intelligible, to all societies.

Unless one is willing to grant that these societies are less human, this appears to prove that the idea of “universal human themes,” as pertains

to art, is bunk.



Feel free to share your opinions.

[PeterL]

I agree that defining something as a classic is simply making a value judgement or a comment about personal preference. Personally, I think that Christopher Marlowe was a better playwrite than Shakespeare, but Marlowe died before he had written much, so Shakespeare is credited as the great one.

As for "universality", there are only a few things that humans bother producing works of fine art about. I am surprised that anyone would fail to relate to them, but it is also a matter of what one calls the theme.

[Gideonthenomad]

I agree that defining something as a classic is simply making a value judgement or a comment about personal preference. Personally, I think that Christopher Marlowe was a better playwrite than Shakespeare, but Marlowe died before he had written much, so Shakespeare is credited as the great one.

As for "universality", there are only a few things that humans bother producing works of fine art about. I am surprised that anyone would fail to relate to them, but it is also a matter of what one calls the theme.


Hey, thanks for responding.

My point is not that saying something is a classic is necessarily a value judgement, classics are objectively "classics" because they are defining works of a particular artistic tradition. In the case of Shakespeare, that would be a tradition that includes Marlowe and several others. The problem is people tend to think of "classic" as meaning something else, i.e. that the work has some transcendent "universal" value apart from its context in the tradition it belongs to. If you are sufficiently familiar with the values, aesthetics, etc., of the tradition that produced the work of art/literature, you can appreciate it, and maybe even be moved emotionally. But you can't then extrapolate your experience to other cultures with distinct artistic traditions.

A musical example: An Indian composer, I've forgotten who, found Mozart to be unbearable-- he simply couldn't see the appeal. Bear in mind that this was a highly regarded composer, well trained in the Indian musical tradition, probably more sensitive to the nuances of feeling music can evoke than the average person, and he listened to Mozart and was supremely unimpressed. The point is he couldn't understand it. Even the sublime harmonies of Europe's crowning musical achievement are not "Universal." By the same token, there is no such thing (in my opinion, of course) as "universal" literature.

[Lykren]

Nonsense. People are exposed to art from different cultures all the time and are able to appreciate it. One example of an Indian composer not liking Mozart does not eradicate the experiences of those people. Merely because a work of art takes time to appreciate does not mean that its themes are culturally specific. Furthermore, I have met people with a great love for western classical music who found Mozart not to their taste. So, cultural differences are not the only possible reason the composer did not like Mozart.

I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by universality in art. It does not mean that everyone will immediately like it. It means that the work contains, for anyone who wishes to find it, an expression of a universal experience like birth, death, joy, sorrow, and so on. The process of understanding that expression is often a difficult one regardless of whether one grew up in the culture associated with the artwork or not.

[MorpheusSandman]

Meh, I think there is some truth and falsity to much of what you say, but I'm not terribly interested in going over each point in detail. Simply put, for me, classics are just work that each generation of writers/readers/critics/aesthetes/academics/intellectuals etc. encounter and continue to like enough (or be intrigued by enough) to state, directly or indirectly, that the work should be introduced to the next generation. Where I think you mostly go wrong is in assuming that those that deem works to be classic are some kind of hegemony when they're not; across generations there will be conflicting, contrasting, contradicting voices and opinions that are either influential or not; both TS Eliot and WH Auden thought Hamlet a failure, eg. Sometimes such "outside opinions" are enough to create new classics (Eliot's exalting of Donne into the poetic canon) or topple old ones. You don't have to look far to past generations to see works/authors that were considered classics to them, but not to us. So the process of "classicing" (not a word I know) is more dynamic than you seem to make it out to be. Obviously this classicing is mediated by all kinds of factors, including, as you mention, the opinions of those in power having more force than minority and oppressed voices throughout most all of history; they're also mediated by cultural standards and expectations, so, as you said, a great Indian composer will not be equipped to understand why many consider Mozart great.

All that said, I like the concept that was supported by poets like Blake and Stevens that the purpose of myth and religion is to encapsulate the feelings/thoughts of a society/culture to such an ideal degree that people literally believe them to be true, and that demythologizing and "changing" of mythologies is equally necessary because humans/societies/cultures change. The latter may seem to weaken the purpose of religions/mythologies, but it really doesn't, because very often the last remaining records we have of past societies are of myths and religions the society thought encapsulated their values enough to save from the ravages of time for as long as possible. I don't know if Shakespeare captured absolutely "universal" human truths, but I do think he captured enough things that still feel like truths to us today. When our society/cultures changes to such a degree that we no longer consider them truths then maybe Shakespeare will be forgotten or just be remembered as important relic of past societies like Homer is to us.

[nat.deezle]

Feel free to share your opinions.

Thanks.

So I'm not sure I understand your problem with the term "Classic." I'm also not sure you are accurately representing the majority opinion of what a "Classic" of literature is. If you compare the layman's opinion of a classic, I think you could find a better analogy-

A guy gets into his rental car and starts flipping through the satellite radio stations. He pauses on Leather Pants, a 70's rock and roll station. Exclames guy, "This song is a classic!"

The term classic is being used to describe both the sentimental value of the song and the fame and notoriety that comes along with what was widely, but possibly not in India, known as one of the best bands of the time. Is it necessary for Indian musicians to like Mozart or Led Zeppelin to justify a category to which it belongs? Or, to flip your reasoning, when is the last time you had a hankerin' for some chicken biryani? Does a universal standard actually have more value than the regional approval of the art in question?

I'm not going to argue with you that we may have largely forgotten the artists that were nearly as good, or arguably better, but who received less recognition for their works. But in that case, I think the accusation should fall on the systems in place which lead to record deals or the likelihood of being published. Maybe blaming the Mona Lisa for being the longest running champion on 15th century Rome's "Billboard Top 100" list is a bit misguided.

The third sentence of the OP starts "The term “classic” can be a value judgment," which is what you said you didn't say. You do go on to elaborate, but you return to that description repeatedly in your justification. You say later of the Mona Lisa, "it is a “classic,” a short hand for artistic-ness, genius, and high culture." I just think that is really far from the truth, and also reaffirms your premise that "classic" is a value judgment. And I have to reject that labeling classics becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of some kind..... it's precisely the most financially successful works of literature that receive the label. If you wanna talk about bucking the system, though, I'm bout it bout it. That's just another issue.

Basically, I think "Classic" is more a categorization of the most successful pieces of a given area and/or time period. I think it's helpful the way denominations are helpful: if you live in Utah, you don't have to sit through four dozen different Sunday services to avoid landing in an LDS church. I think it has been a useful tool in helping people get right to the "hits" of that generation, and then going on from there if such an interest exists at all. Remember, google and amazon haven't always been around.

[At some point we'll have to clearly define what you think are the appropriate standards for elevating a work of literature as "good." I think trying to speak generally about standards for aesthetic art and literary art will get pretty messy. A novel's not a poem's not a portrait's not an abstract oil's not a stencil graffiti.]

[HSPS]

As in most human affairs, there is going to be a degree of arbitrariness in determining classics. But given the choice between teaching Shakespeare or, say, Cormac McCarthy in a class, which would you choose? One can't deny that Shakespeare, because of the endurance of his writing and the influence he has had (whether directly or indirectly) on virtually every serious English-language writer since, is at least the more important writer, even if one doesn't think he's better. There is something to be said of literature that has survived for centuries.

On the topic of universality (as I mentioned in another thread) other than psychopaths, who doesn't experience love, jealousy, friendship, guilt, sadness, regret, despair, compassion, etc.? There are always some cross-cultural disconnects, namely language. But the essence of the work, provided the translator is good, should be sufficiently conveyed, and appreciated by a vigilant and intelligent reader. As a 20th/21st century Canadian who lacks a depth of knowledge of history, I don't know much about 19th century Russia, but I can relate to Raskolnikov's self-imposed isolation from the world, his resentment, his vanity, and his guilt in Crime and Punishment. On the other hand, a work of literature can be almost completely culturally or historically dependent, but it's probably not going to be widely read or last very long if it is.

There may have been literature in the past that deserved to survive but, for whatever reason, didn't. We have to work with what we have, though, and what we have is fine--in the true sense of the word.

[Seasider]

Is"The Mousetrap" a classic? It's been running in the same London theatre for the past 62 years.

[Gideonthenomad]

Art is like language, yes, there are somewhat "universal" features in the sense that just as most languages have verbs, nouns, refer to things like food and express emotions, works of art use the "vocabulary" of their particular historic/social milieu to express concepts. The extent to which that art is intelligible, or "relatable" to a person depends on that person's degree of familiarity with the "vocabulary" with which that work is constructed, in the same way that my ability to understand Japanese depends on my familiarity with, not only the language, but the culture and common patterns of thought of Japanese society. To say art can be universal in the sense that anyone can get it if they try is somewhat misguided-- a French novel can tackle supposedly universal themes such as birth, death etc., in ways that would not make sense to someone unfamiliar with French (and in a broader sense Western) patterns of thinking.

HSPS: I agree Shakespeare is more important than McCarthy because he has had a greater impact on Western literature than McCarthy, you can't really have a satisfactory understanding of English language literature without reading Shakespeare. But this does not necessarily imply Macbeth is somehow better or more universal than Blood Meridian.

nat.deezle: quote: "Basically, I think "Classic" is more a categorization of the most successful pieces of a given area and/or time period." That's what I'm saying dude. My problem is Classic almost always gets conflated with objectively, empirically, "good" in some abstract, transcendent way. Hence the Mona Lisa example, and the Shakespeare example. "The most successful pieces of an era" are successful for reasons that only make sense within the societies/philosophical systems/what have you in which they were created.

Lykren: quote "Nonsense." I hope not :)

[mande2013]

Let's keep in mind the reputations of people like Milton, Bill, and Dante, unlike that of Cormac, have withstood centuries worth of cultural discourse. Comparing the reputation of Dante or Shakespeare to that of even Joyce of Faulkner is like comparing apples to oranges since the latter two have only endured decades worth of discourse. Perhaps after centuries worth of ink spilled on behalf of Proust or Faulkner long after we're all dead they'll be seen as the equals of Milton and Shakespeare. 400 years from now when the centuries long span of time between Shakespeare's death and Joyce's birth will seem only the blink of an eye in the eyes of future literati, Joyce and Faulkner will no longer be seen as "vulgar modernists" perpetually playing second fiddle to the beyond-reproach pre-20th century old masters. Being modernist is only relative to the era in which one lives. We might not think of Schubert as a "modernist" nowadays, or even Cezanne for that matter, but they were certainly modern for their respective eras.

If some literary Andre Bazin came along and assured us it was okay to proclaim Faulkner or Joyce the greatest writer in the history of Anglophone literature I'm sure many would feel more secure making such a statement, knowing there was a reliable intellectual source they could fall back on providing credibility to such a value judgement. The issue is people are unwilling to risk losing intellectual face and saying Shakespeare is the greatest writer in the English language is a safe choice. That's not to say he isn't actually great. He is obviously, but my argument still stands.

The problem is this whole we-can-be-as-exploratory-and-eclectic-as-we-want-as-long-as-we-don't-avoid-the-"Shakespeare's beyond reproach" 800 pound gorilla in the room. It's bourgeois and anti-intellectual in a sense, since it prohibits independent thought and encourages a certain level of conformism, which is the death of art. Shakespeare belongs in the pantheon, obviously, but perhaps it would be more useful to view him as one of a handful of say 15-20 great writers in the top tier of the literary canon, instead of allowing him to loom over our heads as that one and only which shall never be spoken of in a qualified manner.

Let's ask. Why is Shakespeare so widely taught in high schools but not Milton? Why are Hemingway, Robert Frost and Steinbeck ubiquitous but not Faulkner and Yeats? Dante in high school? Not a chance. Even Dickens and Austen seem to be disappearing from high school classrooms. You'll rarely come across Hard Times or Great Expectations pre-college these days. As for Joyce, you may have Araby thrown at you in high school if you're lucky but not much else.

[PeterL]

Art is like language, yes, there are somewhat "universal" features in the sense that just as most languages have verbs, nouns, refer to things like food and express emotions, works of art use the "vocabulary" of their particular historic/social milieu to express concepts. The extent to which that art is intelligible, or "relatable" to a person depends on that person's degree of familiarity with the "vocabulary" with which that work is constructed, in the same way that my ability to understand Japanese depends on my familiarity with, not only the language, but the culture and common patterns of thought of Japanese society. To say art can be universal in the sense that anyone can get it if they try is somewhat misguided-- a French novel can tackle supposedly universal themes such as birth, death etc., in ways that would not make sense to someone unfamiliar with French (and in a broader sense Western) patterns of thinking.



Apparently you do not understand universality in literature. The language used is of no consequence. The theme of the work is what can be universal in this sense. It is of no consequence whether a novel about the joy of motherhood (or fatherhood) is written; the content is what is universal. There are works of fiction that are not universal; Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas might be a good example, but I don't know.

[HSPS]

To say art can be universal in the sense that anyone can get it if they try is somewhat misguided-- a French novel can tackle supposedly universal themes such as birth, death etc., in ways that would not make sense to someone unfamiliar with French (and in a broader sense Western) patterns of thinking.

What "patterns of thinking"? I may just be an ignoramus, but I have trouble accepting the idea that there is such a divide between the West and the East that there is no or little hope for a cross-cultural artistic exchange. Why are there so many Eastern artists--not just writers--who are admired in the West? The biggest obstacle seems to me to be language. That is, to Western eyes, Eastern languages are relatively strange and inaccessible, so there is a lack of translators willing to take on the task.

Environment plays a role in the way a person and a group of people develop, but there aren't just differences on a culture-to-culture scale, but on a person-to-person scale as well. If you were to go into a literature class at Yale and ask what each student's favourite writers were, what kind of response do you think you'd get? Even if most of the students were American, the results would hardly be homogeneous. Granted, most of the writers mentioned would be part of the Western tradition, but I'm sure most strong literary traditions from the American to the Russian would be well-represented. There are differences in the way each person experiences the world, but there are also fundamental similarities, and the similarities are what fuel our artistic traditions.


HSPS: I agree Shakespeare is more important than McCarthy because he has had a greater impact on Western literature than McCarthy, you can't really have a satisfactory understanding of English language literature without reading Shakespeare. But this does not necessarily imply Macbeth is somehow better or more universal than Blood Meridian.

I never said it did.


nat.deezle: quote: "Basically, I think "Classic" is more a categorization of the most successful pieces of a given area and/or time period." That's what I'm saying dude. My problem is Classic almost always gets conflated with objectively, empirically, "good" in some abstract, transcendent way. Hence the Mona Lisa example, and the Shakespeare example. "The most successful pieces of an era" are successful for reasons that only make sense within the societies/philosophical systems/what have you in which they were created.

No one can say that a work that is deemed to be a classic is objectively better than one that isn't, but one will eventually reach a point where one must be honest with oneself and admit that the Harry Potter series probably doesn't deserve as much respect or attention as the works of Shakespeare. One mustn't forget that there is a reason why a work is called a classic, and that is that it moved enough people over a long enough period of time. There is no identifiable point in history where we can say that a work became a classic, rather it is a gradual, almost unconscious process. There is certainly no single sinister arbiter or group of arbiters that determine what we're allowed to like and what we're not allowed to like.

[Lykren]

Apparently you do not understand universality in literature. The language used is of no consequence. The theme of the work is what can be universal in this sense. It is of no consequence whether a novel about the joy of motherhood (or fatherhood) is written; the content is what is universal. There are works of fiction that are not universal; Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas might be a good example, but I don't know.

I agree wholeheartedly. Gideon seems to take a very dim view of people's ability to communicate what matters to them.

Gideon, you mentioned Japanese literature. I'm not an expert on literature of any culture, but I would like to point out that one of my favorite books is The Tale of Genji. I treasure it more than I do Shakespeare, or Tolstoy, or any number of western authors. How could that be possible, if, as you say, all cultures are so isolated as to be unable to produce works that have emotional resonance with members of foreign cultures?

[Gideonthenomad]

What "patterns of thinking"? I may just be an ignoramus, but I have trouble accepting the idea that there is such a divide between the West and the East that there is no or little hope for a cross-cultural artistic exchange. Why are there so many Eastern artists--not just writers--who are admired in the West? The biggest obstacle seems to me to be language. That is, to Western eyes, Eastern languages are relatively strange and inaccessible, so there is a lack of translators willing to take on the task.

Environment plays a role in the way a person and a group of people develop, but there aren't just differences on a culture-to-culture scale, but on a person-to-person scale as well. If you were to go into a literature class at Yale and ask what each student's favourite writers were, what kind of response do you think you'd get? Even if most of the students were American, the results would hardly be homogeneous. Granted, most of the writers mentioned would be part of the Western tradition, but I'm sure most strong literary traditions from the American to the Russian would be well-represented. There are differences in the way each person experiences the world, but there are also fundamental similarities, and the similarities are what fuel our artistic traditions.



I never said it did.



No one can say that a work that is deemed to be a classic is objectively better than one that isn't, but one will eventually reach a point where one must be honest with oneself and admit that the Harry Potter series probably doesn't deserve as much respect or attention as the works of Shakespeare. One mustn't forget that there is a reason why a work is called a classic, and that is that it moved enough people over a long enough period of time. There is no identifiable point in history where we can say that a work became a classic, rather it is a gradual, almost unconscious process. There is certainly no single sinister arbiter or group of arbiters that determine what we're allowed to like and what we're not allowed to like.

I never said there was a sinister group of arbiters. Where did you get that from?

[Gideonthenomad]

Lyrken: Either I'm not communicating my argument well enough (entirely possible) or you are attacking a straw man. I never said it is impossible to communicate across cultures, that is a ridiculous assertion that I do not and have never ascribed to. Of course cross cultural communication is possible, and the more familiar cultures are with each other (increasingly true in this globalized age) the easier such communication becomes. What I am disputing is the naive notion that because a work is a classic in a particular culture, then it is "universal" in some mystical way. The meaning of that work is diluted the further the audience consuming it is (culturally speaking) from the origin of the work. This isn't simply a matter of language/translation problems, there are concepts that don't readily translate from one society to the next.

[Gideonthenomad]

Apparently you do not understand universality in literature. The language used is of no consequence. The theme of the work is what can be universal in this sense. It is of no consequence whether a novel about the joy of motherhood (or fatherhood) is written; the content is what is universal. There are works of fiction that are not universal; Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas might be a good example, but I don't know.

You seem to be subscribing to a naively representational view of language. Or perhaps its a well thought out view, I don't know. In any case, you're wrong. The language used shapes the content. You don't start with the content and then use language to represent it, language and content go together to form the whole. All translations are imperfect.

[mande2013]

Your comment about language shaping content is interesting, because I made a long post in another thread earlier about stylized prose and how I don't think stylized prose or linguistic virtuosity is a necessary cornerstone of prosaic aesthetics. The stylized prose of a Woolf or a Nabokov is fine and should be commended, but being a better prose stylist on its own does not necessarily indicate that one is a superior artist. Is Woolf a better artist than Dostoevsky or Balzac simply because she's a 'better' prose stylist? There's nothing wrong in my opinion with a work of prose being sustained by intellectual or philosophical depth or for lack of a better word, "content". If you want to work in a medium that necessarily rewards "technical virtuosity" for its own sake then be a poet. With prose, any sort of linguistic innovation or experimentation if necessitated should be in the service of something larger, say mimesis or humanity. It shouldn't merely serve to draw attention to itself. It would be like merely judging a painter on his or her abilities as a draughtsman, and we all know there's more to great painting to that. There's not only one great way to write a work of fiction. This is all just my opinion of course. Being an artist is not solely about being an aesthete. There's more to the task than mere aestheticism. The work has to display humanity, since the purpose of all art is ultimately mimesis. That's why the concept of art was originally conceived. This of course goes back to the cave drawings in southern France. Now I would say you're right that language and content shape each other. I'm not disagreeing with you there, but how do we define language? If we were to judge artists merely on "technical virtuosity" or if we were even to use it as merely a prerequisite it would be rather limiting I think. Was Sartre a "technical virtuoso"? Tolstoy? How do we define creativity in general? Do intellectual and philosophical ideas not have as much value as "virtuosity"?

Also, prose, much like jazz playing and even filmmaking to a certain extent, is a medium that rewards a certain level of improvisation and open-endedness, or say lack of self-containment, unlike "classical" music for instance. This implies one need not be overly precious, mannered, or a perfectionist. Some may disagree, but I don't think works of prose need to be self-contained, impeccably constructed, sculpture-like artifacts. Just my opinion though.

[Lykren]

Lyrken: Either I'm not communicating my argument well enough (entirely possible) or you are attacking a straw man. I never said it is impossible to communicate across cultures, that is a ridiculous assertion that I do not and have never ascribed to. Of course cross cultural communication is possible, and the more familiar cultures are with each other (increasingly true in this globalized age) the easier such communication becomes. What I am disputing is the naive notion that because a work is a classic in a particular culture, then it is "universal" in some mystical way. The meaning of that work is diluted the further the audience consuming it is (culturally speaking) from the origin of the work. This isn't simply a matter of language/translation problems, there are concepts that don't readily translate from one society to the next.

What should be so mystical about universality? Can you give an example of a concept that doesn't translate?

[HSPS]

I never said there was a sinister group of arbiters. Where did you get that from?

I guess we're even.

A work being a classic in one culture doesn't necessarily cause it to be universal, but there definitely is a correlation. Why else would Shakespeare have been translated so much? If there isn't a market for something (e.g. a translated Hamlet), people are going to spend their time on something else.

[HSPS]

mande2013:

Going back to my example regarding Crime and Punishment, it is the character of Raskolnikov, and how much I relate to him, that makes the book so powerful to me. I recently read the Constance Garnett translation, and, to be sure, her prose beautifully matched what I thought to be the general tone of the novel (better than Pevear and Volokhonsky, I might add), but as far as Crime and Punishment is concerned, the prose style is secondary to the characters. The characters in a book can be beautiful, too.

[PeterL]

Lyrken: Either I'm not communicating my argument well enough (entirely possible) or you are attacking a straw man. I never said it is impossible to communicate across cultures, that is a ridiculous assertion that I do not and have never ascribed to. Of course cross cultural communication is possible, and the more familiar cultures are with each other (increasingly true in this globalized age) the easier such communication becomes. What I am disputing is the naive notion that because a work is a classic in a particular culture, then it is "universal" in some mystical way. The meaning of that work is diluted the further the audience consuming it is (culturally speaking) from the origin of the work. This isn't simply a matter of language/translation problems, there are concepts that don't readily translate from one society to the next.

I still don't think that you understand the concept of universality; although there are works of literature that have been called "classics" that are rather caught up in a particular time and place.

On the other hand, universals exist in all cultures.

Perhaps there are paticualr works that you think of as "classics" that either are not or should not be considered classics.

[Aylinn]

I am not sure, but I think Gideonthenomad thinks about books whose understanding heavily depends on the knowledge about, for example, time period or political situation. There are books like that in Polish literature and they are considered masterpieces in Poland, but can hardly be called universal. However, I don't think they are impossible to understand, they are, but knowledge about Poland's history is necessary.

[mande2013]

It's interesting though. Why do the Russians have such a large presence outside of Russia and especially in the Anglosphere? Many of the French writers, such as Balzac, Zola, and even Stendhal have far less exposure in the English-speaking world, why? In France, Balzac is considered their 'numero un' literary figure. Yes, above Hugo even. I feel like an American student would actually have to major in French to be exposed to Balzac and Stendhal whereas as being a literature/English major would suffice for Tolstoy or Dostoevsky exposure.

Now this could just be my imagination, but people in the Anglosphere tend to more heavily value the one-off over the oeuvre within which each individual work gains much of its meaning and significance from its place within a larger body of work that adds up to more than merely the sum of its parts. Each work on its own may seem slight, but it might not be useful to hold it against say Faulkner or Balzac that neither one of them ever created a Ulysses or a Divine Comedy, since it's the oeuvre as an entity that does the talking. Now I'd be curious to know if someone on here could deliver a convincing argument against my position in the oeuvre vs. one-off debate. Many tend to have a preference for artists who created that one staggering masterpiece that shines above all the others, but there's also something to be said about the incremental progress a writer like Faulkner or Balzac makes year by year over the course of a decades-long career. I don't think one approach is inferior or superior to the other. There's something to be said about long-term dedication to craft. Someone like Dostoevsky probably fulls somewhere in the middle along the continuum between the two extremes, but if you ask ten people what Melville's best work is they'll all say Moby Dick. Naturally, these same ten people will say The Divine Comedy is Dante's best work. But if you ask ten different people what Faulkner's best is you'll get ten different answers. That's probably why people hesitate to rate Faulkner as highly as Joyce or Proust, except on This Recording, because he doesn't have that one magnum opus you can point to as his best work. His oeuvre is his magnum opus. If you ask ten people what Joyce's best is, most, but not all, will say Ulysses.

Bunuel and Rossellini suffer from the same affliction in film appreciation circles.

[PeterL]

It's interesting though. Why do the Russians have such a large presence outside of Russia and especially in the Anglosphere? Many of the French writers, such as Balzac, Zola, and even Stendhal have far less exposure in the English-speaking world, why? In France, Balzac is considered their 'numero un' literary figure. Yes, above Hugo even. I feel like an American student would actually have to major in French to be exposed to Balzac and Stendhal whereas as being a literature/English major would suffice for Tolstoy or Dostoevsky exposure.

Now this could just be my imagination, but people in the Anglosphere tend to more heavily value the one-off over the oeuvre within which each individual work gains much of its meaning and significance from its place within a larger body of work that adds up to more than merely the sum of its parts. Each work on its own may seem slight, but it might not be useful to hold it against say Faulkner or Balzac that neither one of them ever created a Ulysses or a Divine Comedy, since it's the oeuvre as an entity that does the talking. Now I'd be curious to know if someone on here could deliver a convincing argument against my position in the oeuvre vs. one-off debate. Many tend to have a preference for artists who created that one staggering masterpiece that shines above all the others, but there's also something to be said about the incremental progress a writer like Faulkner or Balzac makes year by year over the course of a decades-long career. I don't think one approach is inferior or superior to the other. There's something to be said about long-term dedication to craft. Someone like Dostoevsky probably fulls somewhere in the middle along the continuum between the two extremes, but if you ask ten people what Melville's best work is they'll all say Moby Dick. Naturally, these same ten people will say The Divine Comedy is Dante's best work. But if you ask ten different people what Faulkner's best is you'll get ten different answers. That's probably why people hesitate to rate Faulkner as highly as Joyce or Proust, except on This Recording, because he doesn't have that one magnum opus you can point to as his best work. His oeuvre is his magnum opus. If you ask ten people what Joyce's best is, most, but not all, will say Ulysses.

Someone probably could deliver a very condemnation of your idea here, but it isn't worth the trouble. It is my opinion that novels that depend on the reader having read the author's previous works do not stand well on their own, and are not truly novels. That doesn't mean that a multi-volume work can't be good, but it is different from something that becomes a completed work in a single book.

[mande2013]

Well then the onus is on the reader, not the writer, no? This is sort of what I'm arguing. There's this notion that each novel should be this self-contained, dehistoricized entity that exists in a vacuum. But even so, I'd say Light in August does stand well on its own, even if it's not as "ambitious" as Ulysses or The Divine Comedy. That's what I'm talking about, the overvaluing of the "ambitiously" executed self-contained one-off, as if it were a cornerstone of artistic creation.

The great French filmmaker Jean Renoir said something to the effect that great art is made by artisans not artists. Perhaps it's just a French thing. Although I was born and raised in the United States, I'm half French and have been living in France for a few years, so I can probably say this, but the aforementioned "French thing" is I would say a preference for a dedication to craft ala Balzac and the organic growth of a body of work that develops incrementally over the course of perhaps decades. That's not to say Joyce and Dante aren't great artists, but the one-off does tend to be associated with 'machismo' and self-referential narcissism.

In theory, there's the possibility the one-off could just be a fluke, but when looking at an oeuvre, you know nothing's a fluke.

[Gideonthenomad]

Someone probably could deliver a very condemnation of your idea here, but it isn't worth the trouble. It is my opinion that novels that depend on the reader having read the author's previous works do not stand well on their own, and are not truly novels. That doesn't mean that a multi-volume work can't be good, but it is different from something that becomes a completed work in a single book.

Actually, a writer's works are inseparable from the larger context of his/her oeuvre, in addition to the historical/social/political circumstances surrounding the production of said work. There's no question of a work "standing alone," works don't exist in a vacuum, and it's naive to assume that they do. The tendency for people (mostly in the English speaking world) to value the magnum opus as some sort of be-all end all is a misguided cultural bias. You can't understand Ulysses without being familiar with Joyce's previous work, and the context of the modernist movement in which it arose.

[mande2013]

Actually, a writer's works are inseparable from the larger context of his/her oeuvre, in addition to the historical/social/political circumstances surrounding the production of said work. There's no question of a work "standing alone," works don't exist in a vacuum, and it's naive to assume that they do. The tendency for people (mostly in the English speaking world) to value the magnum opus as some sort of be-all end all is a misguided cultural bias. You can't understand Ulysses without being familiar with Joyce's previous work, and the context of the modernist movement in which it arose.

Well this is sort of what I'm saying, as well. Also, not all eras necessitated or necessitate a revolution in art. The first fifth to third or so of the 20th century indeed called for a revolution in almost all art forms. Now I won't get too verbose with this concept at the moment, but it's worth discussing. Not all epochs call for radical experimentation in art but all epochs do call for art.

To play devil's advocate, some might argue an artist's diligent dedication to craftsmanship with incremental improvements over the course of a lifetime might be akin to taking the path of least resistance, since it's a "work hard instead of work smart" way of concealing one's inability to create a staggering magnum opus with one stroke of the brush. You might say anyone could eventually produce Crime and Punishment or Cousin Bette with enough deliberate practice and diligence, but the same couldn't necessarily be said of the eureka moment-necessitating Ulysses or Rite of Spring. In other words, it doesn't really require innate brilliance to construct a consistent body of work as Balzac or even Dost did.

But I also think the Anglophone intelligentsia is just far more easily flattered by 'modernism' than the French intelligentsia is.

But Gideonthenomad, it's also possible that if we devalue the magnum opus and say dedicated craftsmanship is sufficient it won't provide artists with something to aim for, and thus great art won't get made. So if we send the message that the magnum opus shouldn't be the be-all end all then there'll be no incentive to aim for the sky. Now I realize my devil's advocate points may seem like "middlebrow" thinking, but perhaps that's the point. ;-)

[JHG]

Good and entertaining discussion.

Seeking a consensus - I think we could agree that generally, the definition of a "classic" is limited by language. But just as well, it is definied by a limited cultural view as well as a bias towards the preferences of the established academic instutution. In short, a loaded term.

[Gideonthenomad]

Well this is sort of what I'm saying, as well. Also, not all eras necessitated or necessitate a revolution in art. The first fifth to third or so of the 20th century indeed called for a revolution in almost all art forms. Now I won't get too verbose with this concept at the moment, but it's worth discussing. Not all epochs call for radical experimentation in art but all epochs do call for art.

To play devil's advocate, some might argue an artist's diligent dedication to craftsmanship with incremental improvements over the course of a lifetime might be akin to taking the path of least resistance, since it's a "work hard instead of work smart" way of concealing one's inability to create a staggering magnum opus with one stroke of the brush. You might say anyone could eventually produce Crime and Punishment or Cousin Bette with enough deliberate practice and diligence, but the same couldn't necessarily be said of the eureka moment-necessitating Ulysses or Rite of Spring. In other words, it doesn't really require innate brilliance to construct a consistent body of work as Balzac or even Dost did.

But I also think the Anglophone intelligentsia is just far more easily flattered by 'modernism' than the French intelligentsia is.

But Gideonthenomad, it's also possible that if we devalue the magnum opus and say dedicated craftsmanship is sufficient it won't provide artists with something to aim for, and thus great art won't get made. So if we send the message that the magnum opus shouldn't be the be-all end all then there'll be no incentive to aim for the sky. Now I realize my devil's advocate points may seem like "middlebrow" thinking, but perhaps that's the point. ;-)

LOl. I don't think your points are "middlebrow." Actually, valuing works that drastically break from the tradition (magnum opuses? opi? not sure what the plural is) is pretty highbrow. My point isn't that magnum opuses shouldn't be valued, its that they shouldn't be viewed in isolation since they are in a sensedefined by the tradition they break from, if only (although rarely only) by their rejection of it.

About artists with a sort of cumulative body of work: I think a near-perfect example, and a contemporary one at that, is Kazuo Ishiguro. His novels are formally uninventive and thematically they refine/delve more deeply into themes raised by their predecessors, sort of like someone getting closer and closer to the solution of a Rubiks Cube. Incidentally, I consider Ishiguro to be verging on the middlebrow although The Remains of the Day is excellent. Have you read Ishiguro? What's your opinion of him?

[Gideonthenomad]

On the other hand, universals exist in all cultures.

Do they?

[JBI]

Most traditions develop sets of classics and canons. Basically the Bible can be regarded as first a Hebrew canon, the Confucian classics, a Chinese canon of confucianism, as are the Buddhist canons of Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, etc. The Daoist canons assembled during the Tang and Ming periods, etc.

Generally every culture sets up a sort of classical heritage as long as they have continuity between linguistic and cultural values, as well as reverence for such texts.

As for classics, well, basically they originated as Western Europe's dealing with a cultural heritage lost (Rome, Greece, and classical life). That's not an uncommon theme of world literature.

Now, is every victorian novel a classic by necessity of being old? Well, of course not. But some have entered a sort of phase where they are beginning to be taken as the models for the further development of their traditions. We can call that a form of canonization, and classicism. So, for instance, if I model myself on the prose of Bacon, I very much am holding Bacon as a sort of classical model from which I am emulating (even though I am still developing my own ideas, the same way Bacon would have done the same thing with Cicero).

There is, in this sense, a very real thing that is classical traditions and classic works. The idea of the instant classic, or modern classic, however, is nonsense.

Either way, this debunking the idea of classics and the complaining about canons and whatnot seems to pop up every other week, so I guess we can copy and paste our answers into this thread now.

[Gideonthenomad]

Your comment about language shaping content is interesting, because I made a long post in another thread earlier about stylized prose and how I don't think stylized prose or linguistic virtuosity is a necessary cornerstone of prosaic aesthetics. The stylized prose of a Woolf or a Nabokov is fine and should be commended, but being a better prose stylist on its own does not necessarily indicate that one is a superior artist. Is Woolf a better artist than Dostoevsky or Balzac simply because she's a 'better' prose stylist? There's nothing wrong in my opinion with a work of prose being sustained by intellectual or philosophical depth or for lack of a better word, "content". If you want to work in a medium that necessarily rewards "technical virtuosity" for its own sake then be a poet. With prose, any sort of linguistic innovation or experimentation if necessitated should be in the service of something larger, say mimesis or humanity. It shouldn't merely serve to draw attention to itself. It would be like merely judging a painter on his or her abilities as a draughtsman, and we all know there's more to great painting to that. There's not only one great way to write a work of fiction. This is all just my opinion of course. Being an artist is not solely about being an aesthete. There's more to the task than mere aestheticism. The work has to display humanity, since the purpose of all art is ultimately mimesis. That's why the concept of art was originally conceived. This of course goes back to the cave drawings in southern France. Now I would say you're right that language and content shape each other. I'm not disagreeing with you there, but how do we define language? If we were to judge artists merely on "technical virtuosity" or if we were even to use it as merely a prerequisite it would be rather limiting I think. Was Sartre a "technical virtuoso"? Tolstoy? How do we define creativity in general? Do intellectual and philosophical ideas not have as much value as "virtuosity"?

Also, prose, much like jazz playing and even filmmaking to a certain extent, is a medium that rewards a certain level of improvisation and open-endedness, or say lack of self-containment, unlike "classical" music for instance. This implies one need not be overly precious, mannered, or a perfectionist. Some may disagree, but I don't think works of prose need to be self-contained, impeccably constructed, sculpture-like artifacts. Just my opinion though.

Hmmm. There is a sense though, isn't there, in which style is content? The "content" of Lolita is inseparable from the extravagant prose in which it is written, similarly, how do you separate the content (the sense of emotional numbness, for instance) that can be conveyed by a Raymond Carver story from the minimalist prose style?

I think this is one of the problems of translation, the nuances of idiom, connotation of words, double entendre, puns, etc. that are so crucial to prose tend to be lost, robbing the work of an essential component of "meaning" or "content" or whatever.

As to whether fine prose makes an artist better or worse, that's too subjective to really argue about. :)

[Gideonthenomad]

Well this is sort of what I'm saying, as well. Also, not all eras necessitated or necessitate a revolution in art. The first fifth to third or so of the 20th century indeed called for a revolution in almost all art forms. Now I won't get too verbose with this concept at the moment, but it's worth discussing. Not all epochs call for radical experimentation in art but all epochs do call for art.

To play devil's advocate, some might argue an artist's diligent dedication to craftsmanship with incremental improvements over the course of a lifetime might be akin to taking the path of least resistance, since it's a "work hard instead of work smart" way of concealing one's inability to create a staggering magnum opus with one stroke of the brush. You might say anyone could eventually produce Crime and Punishment or Cousin Bette with enough deliberate practice and diligence, but the same couldn't necessarily be said of the eureka moment-necessitating Ulysses or Rite of Spring. In other words, it doesn't really require innate brilliance to construct a consistent body of work as Balzac or even Dost did.

But I also think the Anglophone intelligentsia is just far more easily flattered by 'modernism' than the French intelligentsia is.

But Gideonthenomad, it's also possible that if we devalue the magnum opus and say dedicated craftsmanship is sufficient it won't provide artists with something to aim for, and thus great art won't get made. So if we send the message that the magnum opus shouldn't be the be-all end all then there'll be no incentive to aim for the sky. Now I realize my devil's advocate points may seem like "middlebrow" thinking, but perhaps that's the point. ;-)

LOl. I don't think your points are "middlebrow." Actually, valuing works that drastically break from the tradition (magnum opuses? opi? not sure what the plural is) is pretty highbrow. My point isn't that magnum opuses shouldn't be valued, its that they shouldn't be viewed in isolation since they are in a sensedefined by the tradition they break from, if only (although rarely only) by their rejection of it.

About artists with a sort of cumulative body of work: I think a near-perfect example, and a contemporary one at that, is Kazuo Ishiguro. His novels are formally uninventive and thematically they refine/delve more deeply into themes raised by their predecessors, sort of like someone getting closer and closer to the solution of a Rubiks Cube. Incidentally, I consider Ishiguro to be verging on the middlebrow although The Remains of the Day is excellent. Have you read Ishiguro? What's your opinion of him?

[Gideonthenomad]

Most traditions develop sets of classics and canons. Basically the Bible can be regarded as first a Hebrew canon, the Confucian classics, a Chinese canon of confucianism, as are the Buddhist canons of Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, etc. The Daoist canons assembled during the Tang and Ming periods, etc.

Generally every culture sets up a sort of classical heritage as long as they have continuity between linguistic and cultural values, as well as reverence for such texts.

As for classics, well, basically they originated as Western Europe's dealing with a cultural heritage lost (Rome, Greece, and classical life). That's not an uncommon theme of world literature.

Now, is every victorian novel a classic by necessity of being old? Well, of course not. But some have entered a sort of phase where they are beginning to be taken as the models for the further development of their traditions. We can call that a form of canonization, and classicism. So, for instance, if I model myself on the prose of Bacon, I very much am holding Bacon as a sort of classical model from which I am emulating (even though I am still developing my own ideas, the same way Bacon would have done the same thing with Cicero).

There is, in this sense, a very real thing that is classical traditions and classic works. The idea of the instant classic, or modern classic, however, is nonsense.

Either way, this debunking the idea of classics and the complaining about canons and whatnot seems to pop up every other week, so I guess we can copy and paste our answers into this thread now.

What I take issue with is not the idea of Canons, which are "real" structures whose history, formation, etc. can be studied and understood, but the idea that I keep encountering (I don't know if it's prevalent on these forums) that classics have some intrinsic/universal value which justifies their inclusion in the canon, separate from the criteria you just listed. I agree with what you've said, and I don't think my post contradicts it.

Basically, my original post was a mild form of venting. :)

[JBI]

Do they?

All humans are born, all humans die. Things stemming from our biological urges are universals in the sense that all human beings must contemplate the same fate - regardless if it be a Catholic, Buddhist, Daoist or animist response, they are all rooted in the same fundamental questions. Folklorists have already done much to draw such connections amongst us already.

It just annoys me that all these kids who have never read a single Eastern author, know nothing about world literature or cultures, probably only speak one or two Western languages, and have more likely than not never immersed themselves in another culture have this sort of nerve where they start ranting against canons and traditions and the whatnot.

Quite simply, if you want to open up some discussions of universals and world cultures and classics, get out there and read a different canon. Go out and read the Indian canonical texts in Sanskrit and Pali, or the Chinese canon. Hell, go out and learn a few more languages, spend time in another country, do some field work. Then we can start to listen to all this nonsense about canons not being universal and whatnot. I think, coincidentally, you will find that the differences will start to disappear once you begin to understand how these works actually communicate.

But what do I know? Either way the original post seems copy-and-pasted, which is not particularly appropriate anyway.

[Gideonthenomad]

All humans are born, all humans die. Things stemming from our biological urges are universals in the sense that all human beings must contemplate the same fate - regardless if it be a Catholic, Buddhist, Daoist or animist response, they are all rooted in the same fundamental questions. Folklorists have already done much to draw such connections amongst us already.

It just annoys me that all these kids who have never read a single Eastern author, know nothing about world literature or cultures, probably only speak one or two Western languages, and have more likely than not never immersed themselves in another culture have this sort of nerve where they start ranting against canons and traditions and the whatnot.

Quite simply, if you want to open up some discussions of universals and world cultures and classics, get out there and read a different canon. Go out and read the Indian canonical texts in Sanskrit and Pali, or the Chinese canon. Hell, go out and learn a few more languages, spend time in another country, do some field work. Then we can start to listen to all this nonsense about canons not being universal and whatnot. I think, coincidentally, you will find that the differences will start to disappear once you begin to understand how these works actually communicate.

But what do I know? Either way the original post seems copy-and-pasted, which is not particularly appropriate anyway.

I wrote the original post in Word because it's easier to edit, and then I pasted it. What's the problem? How do you know I'm a kid? You raise interesting points that I'd like to address, but why the condescending attitude? How do you know I speak one or two western languages? Not that I have to prove myself to you, but I'm Ethiopian and speak two Ethiopian languages fluently, and I'm literate in one of them (Amharic, in addition to English, and I'm familiar with the Ethiopian (Amharic only) literary tradition, which is one of the things that shaped my attitude. My exposure to far-eastern literature is sadly limited to some Hindu/Buddhist religious texts, but why should that be held against me?

This is an online forum, we are strangers, so a little civility would be appreciated.

[Gideonthenomad]

But what do I know?

Not much in the way of manners, apparently.

[HSPS]

Actually, a writer's works are inseparable from the larger context of his/her oeuvre, in addition to the historical/social/political circumstances surrounding the production of said work.

How can you say this? (What do you mean by it?) I don't have to know anything about the England King Lear was set in to know that that kind of betrayal is bad; that, for a man who was once king, the realization that he is ultimately just a withered old man is going to be agonizing; that a father loves his daughter, and, even though I don't have a daughter, I can liken that to situations in my life. Perhaps more importantly, why do I need to have read any other Shakespeare play to understand it?

Most, if not all, literary works generally considered to be great that I'm familiar with can be read, understood, and loved with not much more than a rudimentary understanding of their contexts, and, in many cases, no understanding at all. That is part of the reason they are considered great. I haven't read Ulysses yet, but I've never encountered someone who has said that I need to read Portrait before I do, or that I need to pick up a book on modernism or 20th century Dublin as well. Now, if you are going to do a historical or political reading of a book, then you'd be right--but, if you are going to, please keep it to yourself.


There's no question of a work "standing alone," works don't exist in a vacuum, and it's naive to assume that they do. The tendency for people (mostly in the English speaking world) to value the magnum opus as some sort of be-all end all is a misguided cultural bias.

Again, I struggle to understand what you mean: "be-all end all"? "Misguided cultural bias"? Nobody thinks that there is one work that itself renders any other work unimportant. There are cases like Melville's where he wrote one masterpiece but didn't manage to write much else of note. It isn't the fault of Moby-Dick that Melville's other novels, stories, and poems aren't as good, nor is it the readers'; it is the writer's fault. The focus on it that we currently have is precisely because he didn't produce anything else nearly as good. However, if you're questioning the idea that a great book does not depend on its historical, political, or cultural context, then I direct you to what I've written above and in previous posts.

[Gideonthenomad]

How can you say this? (What do you mean by it?) I don't have to know anything about the England King Lear was set in to know that that kind of betrayal is bad; that, for a man who was once king, the realization that he is ultimately just a withered old man is going to be agonizing; that a father loves his daughter, and, even though I don't have a daughter, I can liken that to situations in my life. Perhaps more importantly, why do I need to have read any other Shakespeare play to understand it?

Most, if not all, literary works generally considered to be great that I'm familiar with can be read, understood, and loved with not much more than a rudimentary understanding of their contexts, and, in many cases, no understanding at all. That is part of the reason they are considered great. I haven't read Ulysses yet, but I've never encountered someone who has said that I need to read Portrait before I do, or that I need to pick up a book on modernism or 20th century Dublin as well. Now, if you are going to do a historical or political reading of a book, then you'd be right--but, if you are going to, please keep it to yourself.



Again, I struggle to understand what you mean: "be-all end all"? "Misguided cultural bias"? Nobody thinks that there is one work that itself renders any other work unimportant. There are cases like Melville's where he wrote one masterpiece but didn't manage to write much else of note. It isn't the fault of Moby-Dick that Melville's other novels, stories, and poems aren't as good, nor is it the readers'; it is the writer's fault. The focus on it that we currently have is precisely because he didn't produce anything else nearly as good. However, if you're questioning the idea that a great book does not depend on its historical, political, or cultural context, then I direct you to what I've written above and in previous posts.

Of course most people get that betrayal is bad, etc, without having to understand the things I just talked about, they can relate to it, but picking the most obvious "messages" and holding them up as proof that the work is fully intelligible as a self-contained unit, free from context, is a little sloppy.

No work can stand alone. Moby Dick is as much a product of its 19th century context, the larger movement of American Romanticism, the economic/cultural/political structures of the time, etc, etc, as it is a product of Melville's mind (which is also largely a product of these factors). Same goes for Shakespeare. Reading King Lear as if it is an isolated text, sovereign unto itself, strikes me as superficial. Also keep in mind that the forces which shaped these writers also shaped the Western world in general, so people who live the Western world can have an intuitive understanding of the work without having done any research per se.

And if you want to understand Ulysses, I think you should not only read Dubliners and Portrait but also read (or at least read about) the various classical works Joyce alludes to.

[JHG]

Quite simply, if you want to open up some discussions of universals and world cultures and classics, get out there and read a different canon. Go out and read the Indian canonical texts in Sanskrit and Pali, or the Chinese canon. Hell, go out and learn a few more languages, spend time in another country, do some field work. Then we can start to listen to all this nonsense about canons not being universal and whatnot.

Quoted for emphasis.

I agree with your general disposition. The definition of "classic" in Western Literature is very... Western. To attempt to identify the term as a universal would no doubt require a great study and appreciation of a variety of cultures. And I concur with your frustration that the attempt to define such a universal with any specificity is pointless to all but a select few life-long scholars.

[kelby_lake]

When people talk about 'universality', they talk about the big human emotions: love, loneliness, anger...things that are part of being human. Though there might be more factors involved in say, loneliness, for example, a 19th century wife who has no job to fall back on, we can all relate to the emotion. That's why some books are more popular than others. Romeo and Juliet isn't the greatest Shakespeare play but it's so popular because it shows us recognisable feelings of love and the concept is abstract enough to fit into any time period or country.

Yes, behaviour changes with cultures and eras but basic human emotions don't change. That is why you have so-called 'timeless' literature. After all, it would be inaccurate to assume that every writer writes with the intent to comment on the present era. Naturally they end up doing so but I imagine most writers probably sit down and think "Oooh, I'd love to write a book about a man who cheats on his wife with her sister" (maybe not that plotline) rather than "Oooh, I'd love to explore how a man in 2014 reacts to cheating on his wife with her sister". Shakespeare has a kind of timelessness because although his plays do have historical and foreign settings, this aspect does not define the work, hence why you can set the plays in the modern day or even the future if you so wish. Whilst the characters speak with a different language, they have the same desires as us.

[Gideonthenomad]

When people talk about 'universality', they talk about the big human emotions: love, loneliness, anger...things that are part of being human. Though there might be more factors involved in say, loneliness, for example, a 19th century wife who has no job to fall back on, we can all relate to the emotion. That's why some books are more popular than others. Romeo and Juliet isn't the greatest Shakespeare play but it's so popular because it shows us recognisable feelings of love and the concept is abstract enough to fit into any time period or country.

Yes, behavior changes with cultures and eras but basic human emotions don't change. That is why you have so-called 'timeless' literature. After all, it would be inaccurate to assume that every writer writes with the intent to comment on the present era. Naturally they end up doing so but I imagine most writers probably sit down and think "Oooh, I'd love to write a book about a man who cheats on his wife with her sister" (maybe not that plotline) rather than "Oooh, I'd love to explore how a man in 2014 reacts to cheating on his wife with her sister". Shakespeare has a kind of timelessness because although his plays do have historical and foreign settings, this aspect does not define the work, hence why you can set the plays in the modern day or even the future if you so wish. Whilst the characters speak with a different language, they have the same desires as us.

But the big human emotions don't just happen, different things cause them to happen in different societies and the implications of these feelings vary from one society to the next. A story about a deformed baby whose parents abandon it may elicit moral outrage in one society, resignation to fate in another and sympathy for the parent's plight in yet another (there do exist cultures where deformed/ weak babies are left to die). Hardly universal.

As for timelessness, well the universe hasn't collapsed on itself yet so I guess time will tell...

[HSPS]

Of course most people get that betrayal is bad, etc, without having to understand the things I just talked about, they can relate to it, but picking the most obvious "messages" and holding them up as proof that the work is fully intelligible as a self-contained unit, free from context, is a little sloppy.

What do you think is missing form my understanding of King Lear that I could only get from doing the research that you recommend, and that would certainly make me love it more? Like I alluded to before, you seem to value more the type of literary criticism that focuses on historically, politically, and/or culturally specific readings of texts, and abhors the idea of a canon. This movement is gaining ever more steam.

I read primarily for joy, for comfort, to experience beauty, and to learn more about human nature. I neither treat literature as merely a historical artefact, nor do I read it for political or moral guidance. Like I said in another post, if I had to identify with a literary movement, I would identify with Aestheticism--but I hate such a distinction, because I think "Aestheticism" is the only viable "movement."


No work can stand alone. Moby Dick is as much a product of its 19th century context, the larger movement of American Romanticism, the economic/cultural/political structures of the time, etc, etc, as it is a product of Melville's mind (which is also largely a product of these factors).

You seem to believe that you're seeing something that I'm not, and I could believe the same of you. I understand your position, but I simply disagree. I know that Moby-Dick wouldn't exist if what happened to Melville hadn't happened. (In fact, the book was inspired by a trip he took to Liverpool.) But the book, its essence, has transcended it's context. To read the book the way people who think like me want to read it--the way I think it should be read--it is not necessary to have a thorough understanding of the time period. Indeed I don't, and it is one of my favourite novels.


Same goes for Shakespeare. Reading King Lear as if it is an isolated text, sovereign unto itself, strikes me as superficial.

Superficial? Could it simply be that you're part of a literary movement that values something else more? I happen to think that people in other movements miss the point of art.


Also keep in mind that the forces which shaped these writers also shaped the Western world in general, so people who live the Western world can have an intuitive understanding of the work without having done any research per se.

Is finding Shakespeare's sonnets to be beautiful merely Western intuition? Can all humans not understand the predominant theme of love?


And if you want to understand Ulysses, I think you should not only read Dubliners and Portrait but also read (or at least read about) the various classical works Joyce alludes to.

I should read those works for their own sakes, but I hardly think they're necessary. It is one of the oldest bits of wisdom in art that people interpret works differently. In other words, works have different meanings to different people. To think that a piece of art is strictly limited to what the author intended it to be, whatever that intention was, is, well, limited. That is, if Joyce wrote Ulysses with those other works you've mentioned in mind, it still doesn't mean they're necessary for an understanding of the book. A piece of art can become greater than the sum of its parts.

Researching a book could enhance my enjoyment of it, but it could also just make me angry and bitter. There have been many cases where I have been disgusted by literary criticism. Again, my point is that further reading is not necessary.

[HSPS]

But the big human emotions don't just happen, different things cause them to happen in different societies and the implications of these feelings vary from one society to the next. A story about a deformed baby whose parents abandon it may elicit moral outrage in one society, resignation to fate in another and sympathy for the parent's plight in yet another (there do exist cultures where deformed/ weak babies are left to die). Hardly universal.

Again, you're assuming that the people within cultures are homogeneous. Not every American supported the war in Iraq, for example. I would doubt that each person in the cultures you mentioned shares the same values as the others. Homogeneity is impossible, which is why a group of friends all born and raised in the same culture can be divided by their individual tastes in art. Still, though I'm being repetitious, there are differences amongst humans, but there are also fundamental similarities. And, like I wrote in my last post, people interpret art in different ways.


As for timelessness, well the universe hasn't collapsed on itself yet so I guess time will tell...

Of course, but, like I wrote earlier, there is something to be said of art that has lasted, in some cases, millennia. Although ancient Greece is part of the Western tradition, we certainly don't share ALL of the same values, but the things that are, one might say, eternal, have survived. Homer is one example.

[HSPS]

A story about a deformed baby whose parents abandon it may elicit moral outrage in one society, resignation to fate in another and sympathy for the parent's plight in yet another (there do exist cultures where deformed/ weak babies are left to die). Hardly universal.

Using your example of the abandonment of a deformed baby, I would like to add that while there may be varying attitudes to such a thing within and across cultures, most feeling humans would be able to understand the complexity of such a situation. A writer's job is not to pass judgement on his characters, but rather to explore his characters and their circumstances. Readers may reach different conclusions, but the exploration is more important than the conclusion.

[AuntShecky]

What about the term, "instant classic"? Would that be an oxymoron?

Sometimes "classic" is just a synonym for "old," as the aforementioned Goldie Oldies tune on the radio. Speaking of music, I'd rather spend an hour listening to Mozart than to listen to the strains of a sitar, but then that's a "cultural thing," or maybe just me. Could be a matter of personal taste.

I do agree with the OP in that "classic" does not necessary mean "good;" I do dispute, however, that there qualitative distinctions between jazz and classical music, as genres(though certain specific works within those realms could be terrific or terrible or anything in-between.) That jazz contains elements of various interpretations and improvisation on the part of the musicians doesn't necessarily mean that it is less musically sublime than a Mahler symphony whose score is set in stone. As the great Duke Ellington said, "There are only two kinds of music: good and bad."

"Classic" is an overused word, plastered on everything from the voluptuous figure of a movie star to that of the lines in the design of an automobile.


Christopher Marlowe was a better playwrite than Shakespeare

A common error. The word is "playwright," even though he or she "writes" plays. The suffix "-wright" refers to "maker of. . ." such as "cartwright."

[JCamilo]

It could be worst, Auntie, could be a "New Classic Epic" because it is a movie with Salma Hayek and Keanu Reeves with 3 hours length...

[JBI]

Quoted for emphasis.

I agree with your general disposition. The definition of "classic" in Western Literature is very... Western. To attempt to identify the term as a universal would no doubt require a great study and appreciation of a variety of cultures. And I concur with your frustration that the attempt to define such a universal with any specificity is pointless to all but a select few life-long scholars.

That's not what I meant. It's basically the argument made by emperor Wu of Liang that Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism - all representations of different traditions - all are saying the same thing, just they are different vehicles for the intended meaning.

The culture is merely a vehicle - the general themes of literature are more or less universals, as most cultures end up being more similar than different once you start unpacking them.

My problem is that there is always some person who randomly comes here and throws out these contentious arguments without knowing anything about world cultures, and then uses western examples to prove or disprove their opinion or other opinions of the universality of the canon. If you want to stop these arguments about the universal, I recommend one go out and study a different culture. In the end, you still find that the themes expressed have more overlap than difference.

[Gideonthenomad]

That's not what I meant. It's basically the argument made by emperor Wu of Liang that Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism - all representations of different traditions - all are saying the same thing, just they are different vehicles for the intended meaning.

The culture is merely a vehicle - the general themes of literature are more or less universals, as most cultures end up being more similar than different once you start unpacking them.

My problem is that there is always some person who randomly comes here and throws out these contentious arguments without knowing anything about world cultures, and then uses western examples to prove or disprove their opinion or other opinions of the universality of the canon. If you want to stop these arguments about the universal, I recommend one go out and study a different culture. In the end, you still find that the themes expressed have more overlap than difference.

There you go again, assuming I'm unfamiliar with world cultures despite the fact that you know nothing about me.

FYI, Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism do not say the same thing or even (in the case of Confucianism) have the same aims.

[Gideonthenomad]

There you go again, assuming I'm unfamiliar with world cultures despite the fact that you know nothing about me.

FYI, Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism do not say the same thing or even (in the case of Confucianism) have the same aims.

On more point: Your idea that cultures being basically the same when you "unpack" them sounds an awful lot like Levi-Strauss' notion of "deep structures" in human minds, and structural anthropology generally. Ideas that don't carry an awful lot of currency these days, though I suppose one could defend them if one had to.

[JBI]

There you go again, assuming I'm unfamiliar with world cultures despite the fact that you know nothing about me.

FYI, Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism do not say the same thing or even (in the case of Confucianism) have the same aims.
Are you sure? please, elaborate. Be sure to use canonical examples. Though I hope you can substantiate your arguments, as I spend 6 hours up to my neck in such manuscripts every day, and we would know there was a general slogan in Chinese literary circles as early as the Late Tang which stipulated 三教合一 or, the three teachings as one. But, then again, we are dealing with a literary culture, and not an introduction to Chinese Philosophy class.

I'm stipulating your arguments are not substantiated by any real historical background or research, they are mere speculation on the part of what looks like an introduction to literary theory essay.

If you are this massive philologist/manuscript expert, then please, let us engage. But your use of Western examples, and Western canonical descriptions are completely one sided, and miss the greater picture. If you have the ammunition, then bring it, I crave a wider discussion without the usual cliche mentions of Shakespeare and whatnot.

As it is I have not really read a western piece of long length literature in nearly two years, perhaps I'm getting rusty.

[JBI]

On more point: Your idea that cultures being basically the same when you "unpack" them sounds an awful lot like Levi-Strauss' notion of "deep structures" in human minds, and structural anthropology generally. Ideas that don't carry an awful lot of currency these days, though I suppose one could defend them if one had to.

Not cultures, values and societies. And this is not an outdated notion, it is substantiated by any number of fields, such as archaeology, sociology, anthropology, religious studies, agricultural studies, and biology. The general move has actually to be to draw the similarities together, rather than stretch cultural differences and the uniqueness of peoples, races, and nations. We've pretty much had the same sort of cultural values from West Europe through Korea and eventually to Japan for nearly 2000 years. The whole idea of the silk road is that a Chinese creation could be sold and appreciated in Rome, and vice-versa.

[Gideonthenomad]

I am not an expert in canonical eastern texts, far from it, and if that is your field of expertise than I confess my views on Confucianism etc will be superficial compared to yours. It is my understanding based on my (limited) knowledge of the three movements, based, I confess, on interpretations for western audiences by the likes of D.T Suzuki, that Daoism and Buddhism are religious (for lack of a better term) movements and Confucianism is more a theory of social organization. The FYI part was born of justifiable annoyance on my part for your rudeness in the previous post, but I don't intend to enter into an argument about Far Eastern movements that I obviously can't win, given your vocation.

However: I must dispute your claim that cultures are all basically the same once "unpacked." This is a tenet of a very specific brand of anthropology (i.e structural anthropology), and an outdated one at that. There are[I] broad similarities, but I submit to you that the differences are varied enough, widespread enough, and deep-rooted enough to render claims of universality, at best, suspect. Feel free to counter.


My original post was not an essay on literary theory, it was a forum post, tapped out on a whim. I am also neither massive nor a philologist. Well maybe an amateur, unsystematic one. But I [I]am normal sized.

[Gideonthenomad]

I am not an expert in canonical eastern texts, far from it, and if that is your field of expertise than I confess my views on Confucianism etc will be superficial compared to yours. It is my understanding based on my (limited) knowledge of the three movements, based, I confess, on interpretations for western audiences by the likes of D.T Suzuki, that Daoism and Buddhism are religious (for lack of a better term) movements and Confucianism is more a theory of social organization. The FYI part was born of justifiable annoyance on my part for your rudeness in the previous post, but I don't intend to enter into an argument about Far Eastern movements that I obviously can't win, given your vocation.

However: I must dispute your claim that cultures are all basically the same once "unpacked." This is a tenet of a very specific brand of anthropology (i.e structural anthropology), and an outdated one at that. There are[I] broad similarities, but I submit to you that the differences are varied enough, widespread enough, and deep-rooted enough to render claims of universality, at best, suspect. Feel free to counter.


My original post was not an essay on literary theory, it was a forum post, tapped out on a whim. I am also neither massive nor a philologist. Well maybe an amateur, unsystematic one. But I [I]am normal sized.

Forgive me, I hadn't read your most recent post. The idea that "values" and "societies"are what are the same across the board strikes me as even more problematic than the same assertion regarding cultures. In fact, a more convincing case can be made for cultures, e.g. the broad similarities found in many mythologies, etc (this fact is what inspired Levi-Strauss to formulate his theories in the first place). But how on earth can an argument be made for universal values when they so obviously aren't? Biology? Yes humans have innate biological instincts, but these can manifest in any number of value systems. Biologist are nowhere near describing some totalizing explanation of human values, at best they can extrapolate based on current observations of altruism, etc, behavior in humans, to values held by society at large, but such speculation is hardly scientific, and the emperical evidence supports the view that different societies can hold widely divergent values.

Archaeology? Religious studies? I'm afraid facile name dropping won't do. How exactly to present currents in these fields support your view?

[JBI]

I bring it further, I think most people are rather similar, and it is the similarities that form our humanity - the primal instincts and shared consciousness of existing, which is also substantiated by psychological studies that conclude on the nation of human behaviors. A Chinese poet from 2000 years ago writing a poem about missing their dead child is as potent and apparent in any society in terms of the emotion it expresses. Now, it is the form of the expression which differentiates the emotion from the expression, though the expression is rather universal as a feeling shared by others.

Generally though there is much in overlap in terms of genre, function, and theory about literature which is true of East and West, and perhaps even of American native cultures. Literature emerges out of the same human necessities, and therefore, especially at its moment of development (the change from oral to literary cultures) pretty much is of a general pattern. The fashion and functionality may change a little, but the pattern is rather similar around the world. Recording events, expressing emotions, and giving esteem. All of this emerges out of the legacy of a tribal mentality which comes from the pack mentality of our animal nature.

[Gideonthenomad]

I bring it further, I think most people are rather similar, and it is the similarities that form our humanity - the primal instincts and shared consciousness of existing, which is also substantiated by psychological studies that conclude on the nation of human behaviors. A Chinese poet from 2000 years ago writing a poem about missing their dead child is as potent and apparent in any society in terms of the emotion it expresses. Now, it is the form of the expression which differentiates the emotion from the expression, though the expression is rather universal as a feeling shared by others.

Generally though there is much in overlap in terms of genre, function, and theory about literature which is true of East and West, and perhaps even of American native cultures. Literature emerges out of the same human necessities, and therefore, especially at its moment of development (the change from oral to literary cultures) pretty much is of a general pattern. The fashion and functionality may change a little, but the pattern is rather similar around the world. Recording events, expressing emotions, and giving esteem. All of this emerges out of the legacy of a tribal mentality which comes from the pack mentality of our animal nature.

Highly speculative stuff. Why, then, have Chinese psychologists proposed a significantly different personality trait model to the five-factor model favored by western psychologists, do describe Chinese personality traits, if people's psychological development is so similar?

In any case, we seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I'm not saying that all humans don't share similar experiences, to an extent. We are all born, we all die, most of us have sex at some point, religion appears to be present in all societies, etc, etc. What I'm saying (and not many seem to be getting) is that literature is a social construct, not a natural one. It gives meaning to these "fundamental" human experiences, which are meaningless in themselves, and the way it gives meaning differs significantly from one culture to the next. Therefore, claims that literature is "universal" have made the error of assuming that literature is describing fundamental human experiences, when it is actually interpreting and giving meaning to them, a meaning which is determined by the nature of that particular society.

[HSPS]

Nobody is denying that there are some differences between cultures. However, like I wrote when I was addressing your point about the baby, it's not the values, attitudes, decisions, conclusions, etc. themselves that matter so much as the way we reach them. In the Iliad, Achilles refuses to fight because of a dispute with Agamemnon over a girl. I certainly wouldn't have behaved the same way as Achilles, but I can appreciate the complexity and breadth of the human personality, and that is (partially) what Homer is exploring.

Nothing goes without thought, and whatever one culture thinks is right, it didn't reach that conviction unconsciously. Most cultures have a rich history of philosophical inquiry, and while we may disagree with their conclusions on what is moral, we can appreciate the process involved in reaching those conclusions. (Again, not to mention mention the fact that homogeneity within cultures doesn't exist.) In the end, whether or not Raskolnikov was right to kill the woman isn't important, it the reasoning behind his action and how personally affects him that is. One isn't going to find universality in right and wrong, but one will in conflict. Like the creation and appreciation of beauty--amongst other things--literature is essentially concerned with humanity, not morality.

[JBI]

Highly speculative stuff. Why, then, have Chinese psychologists proposed a significantly different personality trait model to the five-factor model favored by western psychologists, do describe Chinese personality traits, if people's psychological development is so similar?

In any case, we seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I'm not saying that all humans don't share similar experiences, to an extent. We are all born, we all die, most of us have sex at some point, religion appears to be present in all societies, etc, etc. What I'm saying (and not many seem to be getting) is that literature is a social construct, not a natural one. It gives meaning to these "fundamental" human experiences, which are meaningless in themselves, and the way it gives meaning differs significantly from one culture to the next. Therefore, claims that literature is "universal" have made the error of assuming that literature is describing fundamental human experiences, when it is actually interpreting and giving meaning to them, a meaning which is determined by the nature of that particular society.

Chinese psychologists propose a different model because they want to be different. Chinese people are the same as Western people - the division is completely arbitrary. Sociologists, anthropologists, and their related colleagues in the scientific community of psychology may draw conclusions on the culture of Chinese persons, which contributes to a different personality development. However, I doubt they could convince any serious scholar these days that Chinese people have any fundamental difference in terms of biology, and therefore, primal instincts.

As for literature being a cultural construct - of course it is, culture must construct to record. My point is there are patterns which are inevitable based on our own shared humanity - that which we call universal.

That being said, that isn't the quality we look for when we think of classics. We look for the esteemed models of a tradition - I.E. the Greeks and Romans, as well as the Hebrews in the West, and various other canons in the East.

[Lykren]

In any case, we seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I'm not saying that all humans don't share similar experiences, to an extent. We are all born, we all die, most of us have sex at some point, religion appears to be present in all societies, etc, etc. What I'm saying (and not many seem to be getting) is that literature is a social construct, not a natural one. It gives meaning to these "fundamental" human experiences, which are meaningless in themselves, and the way it gives meaning differs significantly from one culture to the next. Therefore, claims that literature is "universal" have made the error of assuming that literature is describing fundamental human experiences, when it is actually interpreting and giving meaning to them, a meaning which is determined by the nature of that particular society.

Fundamentally human emotions and experiences do not need meaning given to them by literature or by any other art; they are intrinsically meaningful in themselves. In fact, meaning and emotion basically generate each other, and can be used as interchangeable terms.

If you want to postulate otherwise, you would have to come up with some alternate source for what you term 'meaning', because you are explicitly denying that emotion (which is experience) and meaning are naturally connected.

As for literature being a social construct and not a natural construct, you should be aware that society is a natural construct, and therefore all that society constructs ultimately derives from nature. Language is natural, and literature is language.

Further, I believe that literature neither describes, nor interprets, nor gives meaning to experience. Rather, it is a method of transmitting actual subjective experience that is less garbled than any other. The methods of expression various artists employ are necessarily varied, but if those variations depended solely on cultural legacies then the experience the author communicated to his or her original audience would not be decipherable by any other audience. Actually, those variations vary not from culture to culture, but from personality to personality. Thus, to most people born in English-speaking countries, works like Ulysses and Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror are in a practical sense emotionally unintelligible, despite sharing cultural roots, because they were constructed by personalities who synthesized artistic techniques in radically novel ways. The expressive qualities of those works depends on their readership being able to participate in the mental experiences of the works' creators. That experience is obviously not culturally dictated, otherwise those who were raised in the same culture would invariably appreciate them.

Yet since the vast majority of personalities and subjective experiences are not vastly different, the stylistic techniques which are generated by those same types always intermesh and are always potentially comprehensible to whoever wishes to seek them out and understand them. A Chinese poem's use of patterns of tones does not mean that its content is inexpressible by other means. The content is inexpressible by other means - but only because it represents, as all works of art do, a unique and unreproducible experience.

[JBI]

The content of a Chinese poem is expressible in many different ways - the art is not the unreproducible experience, but rather the unreproducible approach or artifice of its creation. So someone writing about a dead child and feelings of sorrow can be rewritten as anybody with a shared experience could share it - but it is the manner in which it is expressed which is unique and separates what we call literary culture from collective culture.

Numerous Chinese poets have not only imitated, rewritten, and forged other poet's works, but have also worked together to improve the original. What remains fundamentally the same in all of the versions, however, is the actual meaning of the poem - the changing of word order or the swapping of one image for another is secondary to the simple fact that the meaning remains intact.

[kelby_lake]

But the big human emotions don't just happen, different things cause them to happen in different societies and the implications of these feelings vary from one society to the next. A story about a deformed baby whose parents abandon it may elicit moral outrage in one society, resignation to fate in another and sympathy for the parent's plight in yet another (there do exist cultures where deformed/ weak babies are left to die). Hardly universal.

As for timelessness, well the universe hasn't collapsed on itself yet so I guess time will tell...

Yes but at the end of the day, it comes down to a human emotion. You misunderstand universality; it's not about the social context or what prompts the big emotions, it's the emotions themselves- hence empathy. Though we might disagree with the actions of the parents abandoning the baby and they might not prompt those exact feelings in us, most people have encountered a dilemma in which they will end up hurting a loved one. Empathy is possible because there is such a thing as universality.

[mande2013]

While I understand the concept of universality as it's applied here I feel it depends on the specific work. Some works will more easily transcend the nation from which they emanate than others. Dostoevsky deals with themes of a more 'universal' nature that will resonate with readers across the Western world, whereas someone like Balzac may not be as widely read outside France, since he largely deals with themes and concepts very specific to French society and its class structure, something many Americans and even Germans may have trouble relating to. That doesn't diminish the quality of the latter but just means some works can be more easily removed from the social and cultural context in which they were created than others. I depends on the concerns of the specific artist in question. This may explain why so many film lovers find Rules of the Game 'overrated' since an intuitive understanding of French society and its mores will enhance one's ability to 'get' the film whereas it's fairly easy for just about any male between the ages of 14 and 19 to relate to The 400 Blows for obvious reasons.

[kelby_lake]

I think the 'middlebrow' concept of a classic, eye-rolling snobbish as your statement is OP, has some worth. The vast majority of people do not read fiction out of a socio-historical interest; they read because they, shock horror, want to experience some emotional reaction. Even the classics which we might judge to be classics through being a good example of a particular tradition or a detailed insight into a way of life ultimately boil down to simple human feelings. Simple human feelings are why we even care about socio-historical contexts anyway. People like reading about WW1 because of the human emotions behind it. Even somebody who is interested in the historical battles is prompted by some sort of emotional interest, whether it's failure, success, arrogance, tragedy, whatever.

[Gideonthenomad]

I think the 'middlebrow' concept of a classic, eye-rolling snobbish as your statement is OP, has some worth. The vast majority of people do not read fiction out of a socio-historical interest; they read because they, shock horror, want to experience some emotional reaction. Even the classics which we might judge to be classics through being a good example of a particular tradition or a detailed insight into a way of life ultimately boil down to simple human feelings. Simple human feelings are why we even care about socio-historical contexts anyway. People like reading about WW1 because of the human emotions behind it. Even somebody who is interested in the historical battles is prompted by some sort of emotional interest, whether it's failure, success, arrogance, tragedy, whatever.

I think this is eye-rollingly simplistic. Lit is a construction of meaning around "simple human feelings," feelings aren't intrinsically meaningful outside of whatever meaning we attach to them. Also, you're making some pretty sweeping statements. I think you should replace "people" with "I" or "people I know" in the above post.

[Gideonthenomad]

Fundamentally human emotions and experiences do not need meaning given to them by literature or by any other art; they are intrinsically meaningful in themselves. In fact, meaning and emotion basically generate each other, and can be used as interchangeable terms.

If you want to postulate otherwise, you would have to come up with some alternate source for what you term 'meaning', because you are explicitly denying that emotion (which is experience) and meaning are naturally connected.

As for literature being a social construct and not a natural construct, you should be aware that society is a natural construct, and therefore all that society constructs ultimately derives from nature. Language is natural, and literature is language.

Further, I believe that literature neither describes, nor interprets, nor gives meaning to experience. Rather, it is a method of transmitting actual subjective experience that is less garbled than any other. The methods of expression various artists employ are necessarily varied, but if those variations depended solely on cultural legacies then the experience the author communicated to his or her original audience would not be decipherable by any other audience. Actually, those variations vary not from culture to culture, but from personality to personality. Thus, to most people born in English-speaking countries, works like Ulysses and Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror are in a practical sense emotionally unintelligible, despite sharing cultural roots, because they were constructed by personalities who synthesized artistic techniques in radically novel ways. The expressive qualities of those works depends on their readership being able to participate in the mental experiences of the works' creators. That experience is obviously not culturally dictated, otherwise those who were raised in the same culture would invariably appreciate them.

Yet since the vast majority of personalities and subjective experiences are not vastly different, the stylistic techniques which are generated by those same types always intermesh and are always potentially comprehensible to whoever wishes to seek them out and understand them. A Chinese poem's use of patterns of tones does not mean that its content is inexpressible by other means. The content is inexpressible by other means - but only because it represents, as all works of art do, a unique and unreproducible experience.
"Intrinsically meaningful in themselves" is an oxymoron. Meaning by definition always points to something outside itself, the thing-having-meaning has meaning by virtue of the fact that it "stands in" for some other object, idea, etc.

Of course writers have different personalities, this is a truism. But writers do belong to traditions, for instance, Dickens and Austen, though vastly different, have more in common with each other than with a writer from a completely different literary tradition, an Ethiopian novelist writing in Amharic, say. Cultural differences trump individual idiosyncrasies.

[Gideonthenomad]

Chinese psychologists propose a different model because they want to be different. Chinese people are the same as Western people - the division is completely arbitrary. Sociologists, anthropologists, and their related colleagues in the scientific community of psychology may draw conclusions on the culture of Chinese persons, which contributes to a different personality development. However, I doubt they could convince any serious scholar these days that Chinese people have any fundamental difference in terms of biology, and therefore, primal instincts.

As for literature being a cultural construct - of course it is, culture must construct to record. My point is there are patterns which are inevitable based on our own shared humanity - that which we call universal.

That being said, that isn't the quality we look for when we think of classics. We look for the esteemed models of a tradition - I.E. the Greeks and Romans, as well as the Hebrews in the West, and various other canons in the East.

Primal instincts are one thing, the way they manifest themselves in a given society is something else entirely. I never said Chinese people are biologically different.

"Chinese psychologists propose a different model because they want to be different." This is a textbook case of begging the question.

[JHG]

While I understand the concept of universality as it's applied here I feel it depends on the specific work. Some works will more easily transcend the nation from which they emanate than others. Dostoevsky deals with themes of a more 'universal' nature that will resonate with readers across the Western world, whereas someone like Balzac may not be as widely read outside France, since he largely deals with themes and concepts very specific to French society and its class structure, something many Americans and even Germans may have trouble relating to. That doesn't diminish the quality of the latter but just means some works can be more easily removed from the social and cultural context in which they were created than others.

Well put, and I think this is an aspect that has not been properly considered in the seemingly specific arguments being had above, and presumably below.

If I could reiterate an aspect of your assertion: we should definitely consider the relatability and (for lack of a better word) likability of the plot and characters within the work being considered. Consider the differences between Portrait and Finnegan's Wake - I'm not a Joyce scholar, but I believe he intended the latter to be the transcendant work, or at least, more transcendant. Certainly it intends to address larger, more ubiquitous themes than Portrait. But which has a better chance to be considered a "classic?"

[JBI]

Primal instincts are one thing, the way they manifest themselves in a given society is something else entirely. I never said Chinese people are biologically different.

"Chinese psychologists propose a different model because they want to be different." This is a textbook case of begging the question.

No it isn't. You don't know how the academies here work, I do. There is a requirement in publishing here to show the uniqueness of the Chinese experience, to the point where they are rewriting Chomsky because "he doesn't understand the cultural richness and specialness of the Chinese language," and various other nonsense. Trust me, I've seen it all.

[Lykren]

Gideon, your insistence that emotions have meanings outside themselves is bizarre; emotions are the end-point of human existence. If they have meaning in that they refer to something else, I wonder what that something else could possibly be. Experiences refer us to emotions, and vice-versa. It's a closed system. Emotions are the meaning of symbols.

JBI, what I meant about poems was that when you have two poems on the same subject, though they may be very similar, they are still different poems; the way translation brings about a different poem. The effect produced by a particular combination of words is unique, but also comprehensible in essence to all readers. You might say that all writing everywhere is rewriting the same topic.

[JCamilo]

Well put, and I think this is an aspect that has not been properly considered in the seemingly specific arguments being had above, and presumably below.

If I could reiterate an aspect of your assertion: we should definitely consider the relatability and (for lack of a better word) likability of the plot and characters within the work being considered. Consider the differences between Portrait and Finnegan's Wake - I'm not a Joyce scholar, but I believe he intended the latter to be the transcendant work, or at least, more transcendant. Certainly it intends to address larger, more ubiquitous themes than Portrait. But which has a better chance to be considered a "classic?"

Probally Finnegans. Otherwise, "Murder in the Orient Express" would have more chance than Finnegans and Dante would not survive. Basically you do not have a rule that must be followed, the characters for example, may explain the chances of Sherlock Holmes, but will do nothing for Henry James. I will not go into the discussio of "universal" vallue (you are being strict to the word, as if it is used in absolute sense, to the point it is meaningles if Homer had or not universal values, themes, characters, plots, expressions, etc.) but you are too focused on the meaning intended by the reader, etc. A classic is a classic for its power to be understood with new meanings and still carries their own time and style with them. It is not because it is too few was said about faulkner or joyce is because we never forgotten them enough to add anything really new to their circustances. Compare with the interpretations of Quixote or Dante, even something more recent as Kafka.

Anyways, as JBI said, it is an old discussion, lots of things have been said, very few added and very pointless (classics, canons defenses and attacks). Saying a work is a classic never meant anything except compare it to Virgil.

[HSPS]

Gideon, your insistence that emotions have meanings outside themselves is bizarre; emotions are the end-point of human existence. If they have meaning in that they refer to something else, I wonder what that something else could possibly be. Experiences refer us to emotions, and vice-versa. It's a closed system. Emotions are the meaning of symbols.

I agree. We all develop different ideas, aspire to different goals, etc., but we're all ultimately subject to our emotions (psychopaths excluded). This is why debates that may have started off as intellectual so often become emotionally charged. Years ago I read an interesting analogy in a book called The Happiness Hypothesis that emotion is like a mad elephant and the intellect is the little rider on top trying to tame it.

On the topic of culture, as I have tried to make clear, the difference is not so much between cultures, but between individuals. I don't get the admiration other North Americans have for Edgar Allan Poe, in spite of us all being from the West and, more specifically, North America. Furthermore, there's nothing stopping a person from China from having more in common ideologically, morally, and, indeed, artistically with Americans than with other Chinese people. A human doesn't lose his autonomy simply by being raised in a particular culture. The point is that there is a foundation that binds us, also known as human nature. When people say a work is universal, they don't say that every single person will like that work, but rather that it speaks to the fundamentals of human nature that are expressed irrespective of culture or upbringing. But, of course, they're not so naive as to think that everybody will admit that such things exist. (I once had an English teacher who scoffed off the idea of human nature.)

The question isn't "Does universality exist?"; the question is "What is universal?" Admittedly, the answer isn't for one person to decide. As they say: let the ages decide!

I would like to add that any apparent lack of universality is probably because cultures give their own heritages priority over others. It would be presumptuous to expect the Chinese to read more translated American literature than their own.

[Gideonthenomad]

Gideon, your insistence that emotions have meanings outside themselves is bizarre; emotions are the end-point of human existence. If they have meaning in that they refer to something else, I wonder what that something else could possibly be. Experiences refer us to emotions, and vice-versa. It's a closed system. Emotions are the meaning of symbols.

JBI, what I meant about poems was that when you have two poems on the same subject, though they may be very similar, they are still different poems; the way translation brings about a different poem. The effect produced by a particular combination of words is unique, but also comprehensible in essence to all readers. You might say that all writing everywhere is rewriting the same topic.

How can there be intrinsic meaning? Meaning always means something, I can't imagine it being otherwise. A word means what it refers to. So does a symbol. It seems more bizarre to claim that there can exist a meaning without a referent, could you explain how that would work? I am genuinely curious.

[Lykren]

How can there be intrinsic meaning? Meaning always means something, I can't imagine it being otherwise. A word means what it refers to. So does a symbol. It seems more bizarre to claim that there can exist a meaning without a referent, could you explain how that would work? I am genuinely curious.

Yes. Emotions are intrinsically meaningful in that they are what facilitates the act of reference itself. They are the binding between signifier and signified.

As far as reference goes, you cannot have anything refer to something beyond emotion. Emotions are not the result of thought, but to say that renders them meaningless would be to simplify the situation. Reference is not a linear process, it is something closer to curved in that any beginning or ending points are not actually beginnings or endings, they are only arbitrarily selected points along a path that is constantly referring to itself.

[JHG]

A classic is a classic for its power to be understood with new meanings and still carries their own time and style with them. It is not because it is too few was said about faulkner or joyce is because we never forgotten them enough to add anything really new to their circustances. Compare with the interpretations of Quixote or Dante, even something more recent as Kafka.

I can't help but agree with this. Though it doesn't necessarily disqualify any of what has been said to this point, it is the best definition that I have come across. I may have been too focused on reader response, as I tend to do.



Saying a work is a classic never meant anything except compare it to Virgil.

Yet it carries such cultural weight. Is the term perhaps just a compromise crafted over generations, to lend importance to certain works held in high esteem? The term "classic" may be in itself a classic, as it seems to have survived and thrived for centuries; to borrow your meaning, it has become subject to different understandings and intepretations.

[mande2013]

Well I'm curious why some works have more longevity than others. For instance, I wonder why Kafka, Faulkner, Joyce, and Nabokov are household names whereas Bowles, Rilke, Gaddis, and Dos Passos aren't. Have the latter three fallen by the wayside? Are the former three more easily appropriated and needless to say, more popular? Is it simply a matter of historical accident and current fashions? What would people in this thread say? Are the former three more "accessible" than the latter three? I wouldn't assume so. I'd say the accessibility quotient is pretty constant across the board with these eight figures, so why do some writers and artists remain household names while others don't. Why is Wagner a household name but not Saint-Saens? Why Godard but not Rivette, or why Coltrane and not Andrew Hill and so on? Can this merely be attributed to dispassionate observation on the part of the intelligentsia simply determining the household name is the true genius of the pair and not the other figure? Maybe, but it's probably not that simple. The other approach of just foregoing any sort of hierarchy and concluding all accomplished artists are of equal value by virtue of their efforts and cultural values also strikes me as being a bit of a cop out, as if one is afraid to grapple with the white elephant in the room, so I really don't know.

Now I think most if not all classical music experts would acknowledge Saint-Saens as a worthy listen, but most would also probably confess when push comes to shove that he's not quite as essential as Wagner or even Mahler. So that's another question. Do we only stick to the true essentials and would doing so be that problematic? And would it really be worse than eclecticism or permissiveness? I'm just thinking out loud here. Of course, new creations should be seen, read, and listened to in order to determine whether or they're essential, but a century worth of discourse is usually sufficient to determine a work's true value. So if Joyce or Proust hasn't fallen by the wayside by now they probably never will, although Ezra Pound and even T.S. Eliot do seem to have fallen by the wayside even if only marginally, as Yeats seems to be acknowledged as the foremost poet of that general period in history.

Eclecticism certainly has its virtues and I sympathize with it and have attempted to take that approach at times, but I'm ultimately left thinking, "there just isn't enough time in the day". It's a bias on my part, and I understand such an attitude won't suit everyone, so who knows. But I mean that in the sense I simply don't have time to start reading Bernanos, Robbe-Grillet, or Alberto Moravia when I haven't yet read all of Faulkner, Balzac, or even Kafka. I guess my philosophy is exhaust the essentials and then move on to the secondary figures, and it doesn't make things easy when like myself you're not the world's fastest reader. But saying that, there are certain essentials I simply don't have all that much interest in, like Hemingway or Dickens. I can't say why. It's probably just a gut feeling or a personal shortcoming.

[JHG]

Responding generally to the post, which I enjoyed.

I tend to agree with your conclusion of not having enough time in the day, but I would add the matters of patience and fashion. Imagine, if you would, the collective yawn that would escape the reading community upon seeing another review of A Tale of Two Cities, no matter how brilliant or original that review may be. Lacking the psyschology training to conclude on human nature, I nonethless believe it to be a matter of course that authors and works will emerge or fade as the collective patience waxes and wanes. Therefore, so also may be the consensus opinion of what is or is not a classic.

As for accessibility, I also agree. Accessibility is perhaps helpful, but not necessary in the definition of a classic. Though clearly, a work that is inherently inaccessible would suffer. I remember in high school, reading books dubbed classics, which confused me to the point of furstration with their abstract concepts and language. That line of thought I think leads to "tradition," or that which the established academia has labeled necessary to a liberal education, for whatever host of reasons. That the works be easily accessible is of less importance.

[mande2013]

It's probably just a personal thing, but as for patience on my part, it doesn't do wonders for my confidence when I can hardly read more than 20 pages of Faulkner in one sitting, nevermind five pages of Proust or even Balzac if I'm reading in French, especially with the ubiquitous fuss over reading speeds and perfect verbal SAT scores. I know it's all just personal but still. How is the ability to read 60-70 pages an hour applicable to Ulysses, Finnegans Wake, or just about any "serious" literature in a second language, and perhaps a lot of "serious" literature in one's native language. You find yourself feeling like an impostor much of the time and it batters your confidence.

[JHG]

It's probably just a personal thing, but as for patience on my part, it doesn't do wonders for my confidence when I can hardly read more than 20 pages of Faulkner in one sitting, nevermind five pages of Proust or even Balzac if I'm reading in French, especially with the ubiquitous fuss over reading speeds and perfect verbal SAT scores. I know it's all just personal but still. How is the ability to read 60-70 pages an hour applicable to Ulysses, Finnegans Wake, or just about any "serious" literature in a second language, and perhaps a lot of "serious" literature in one's native language. You find yourself feeling like an impostor much of the time and it batters your confidence.

I have to say that is not a unique problem. Some literature can only be taken in chunks. Speaking of Ulysses, I remember reading that one summer in College - I could barely read a chapter without needing to take a break. Yes, it was worth it, but it was an effort. I believe that what makes one a serious reader is coming back, and wanting to come back.

As for that SAT talk, I can only criticize the concept. I know what you're talking about because I remember learning about that "ideal" reading speed when I was in high school. I seem to remember being timed, with beeps sounding when we should be finished with a page. Rediculous! I don't think that kind of thing has any meaning at all after the standardized test is done.

[mande2013]

I still need to get to reading Ulysses. I'd like to have it read by the time I'm 28 or so, which gives me about three years. I own a copy at least.

[mal4mac]

I still need to get to reading Ulysses. I'd like to have it read by the time I'm 28 or so, which gives me about three years. I own a copy at least.

Start now :)

[hopeingod]

Literature is all about the defining of various periods and prevailing isms. What is meant as a classic to the existentialist may not be to the nihilist. Meaning plays a huge part in the way one feels about a bit of writing. If the text confirms or challenges the mindset of the day, it might be thrown out by some, while being inspected by others. Hardy's determinism is, in my view, classic literature, because it almost perfectly sets the individual against unseen and unmoveable forces. The nature of the stories of old are about the evolution of thought and values. As I see it, that progress is shifting us farther and farther away from the stability that absolute truths once lent to society. Questioning everything today is the prevailing major in all universities, as students walk out of classrooms scratching their heads when they should be building foundations for life.

[Iain Sparrow]

Literature is all about the defining of various periods and prevailing isms. What is meant as a classic to the existentialist may not be to the nihilist. Meaning plays a huge part in the way one feels about a bit of writing. If the text confirms or challenges the mindset of the day, it might be thrown out by some, while being inspected by others. Hardy's determinism is, in my view, classic literature, because it almost perfectly sets the individual against unseen and unmoveable forces. The nature of the stories of old are about the evolution of thought and values. As I see it, that progress is shifting us farther and farther away from the stability that absolute truths once lent to society. Questioning everything today is the prevailing major in all universities, as students walk out of classrooms scratching their heads when they should be building foundations for life.


What is a foundation of stone for one person, might well be quicksand for another.

And what are the "absolute truths" once lent to society that you mention, and what is so good about stability?
I'd much rather have university students scratching their heads after class, than walking away with absolute truths.:)