Old Classics or New Literature?

[Paulclem]

Having studied a reasonable number of classic books - by no means all - in the past, and seeding classics into my reading, I am becoming more and more interested in books that may become modern classic novels.

This doesn't seem to be much of a focus on the forum, with the exception of the book club which does a good job of trying to look at a range of styles, periods and types.

What we often get are discussions about lists of classic novels with opinions about particular books from individual posters. This is fine as far as it goes, but should we be looking at more recent novels- in the light of member's experience at what constitutes a classic?

I don't know how you regard awards such as The Man Booker Prize, but in my opinion I think they may be a good starting point for predicting and discussing which novels may become classics. Do we focus enough on these?

I can see the problem - the mass of new novels that are written each year - but we do have a rudimentary filter. Even with this problem, it is possible to spot and study longlisted authors. This year's winner was The Narrow Road To The Deep North, which is the title of the Haiku Master Basho's famous work. The fact that the winner concerns the suffering of allied POWs whilst building the Burma railway has certainly sparked my interest. Hilary Mantel's recent two winners employ an interesting narrative style which worked very well in Wolf Hall.

Should we be looking at more contemporary work on these boards?

[Lykren]

I think I've seen a few conversations on here about the canonization process. What keeps getting reiterated, and what I think is true, is that canonization is basically a plutocratic process, with those who have the time and temperament to dedicate their life energy to studying literature (or whatever medium) being the ones who decide what art will feature in the annals of the great.

But, reading contemporary literature can sometimes have the added value of being easier to relate to! The mannerisms of the past can be off-putting and, I believe, have a distancing effect on modern readers. That doesn't mean that quality of writing shouldn't factor into what we read of contemporary literature, just that the masterworks of the present, if we happen to unknowingly stumble across them, may be more accessible to current generations than any others that will follow.

I'm reading Gilead by Marilynne Robinson right now. My friend who is also reading it said that she had zero interest in the subject matter, but was sucked in simply for the graceful presentation of said subject matter. I don't agree with that view entirely, but I do empathize with it. Some of Ames' concerns seem to have relevance to me, others don't, but it's his attitude toward them that I find intriguing.

[kev67]

I often wonder myself whenever I read a list of top great books, whether the classics of the past really are better than the books written now. I don't suppose there were very many people trying to write fiction in the past as there are now. How many authors were there in the C18th compared to now? Authors were not more intelligent or better educated. They lived in different times so they had that interestng perspective. Maybe the classics that have come down to us are just the best of what was available at the time they were written, and that there are numerous contemporary books that are just as good.

[ennison]

That's an interesting point Kev. But I think if you came forward to the mid 19th century you would find a very large number of books being published throughout the British Isles (Not all fiction) and a huge readership despite illiteracy still being common. The classic authors of the past may be like the "classic"authors of today - a couple of great books and four or five ordinary ones. I think reading was a very important activity for the 19th century Middle Class and the educated Working Class. I suspect there were a large number of writers trying to satisfy that and most of them are long forgotten.

[Paulclem]

I think unfamiliar language and circumstances may very well pose a problem for the modern reader who relies on translations from the remote past and requires detailed notes to access the language used in Shakespeare for example. (This isn't helped by schools in the UK requiring his plays to be studied and read when that was not the author's original intention).

My OP really concerns whether we should have more focus on modern works here given that classic literature is a fairly sealed Canon. I've read some really good modern works which employ interesting and innovative narrative structures. One book I'm in the middle of is The Kills by Richard House which concerns the US involvement in Iraq and how this affects the lives of individuals caught up in the corporate exploitation detailed in the book. (This was long listed for the Booker last year). It is the first book I have come across that has a subtext accessed through web pages which can be listened to independently or alongside a reading of the text. As I have the paperback - not realising it had this feature- I haven't accessed these to any great extent. I think it offers a new direction for novels though which could allow the reader to follow up links to relevant history or other works. Would War and Peace benefit from links which could give some historical perspective to the battles? In my opinion it wouldn't make the text better, but could enrich the reading experience further.

I don't think modern novels are easier to read either. Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall keeps the reader on their toes as you don't get any authorial foreground to chapters through usual description, but are plunged into Cromwell's mind stream, orientating yourself as you go along. You can almost hear Mantel calling "keep up"!

Julian Barnes "The Sense of an Ending" was a fascinating read, not for the rather prosaic story, but for how the original narrative presented becomes revised years later and allows you to reflect on how one kind of memory can be interpreted and modified in startlingly different ways.

The modern literary writer often has a very sophisticated arsenal of techniques which they can be used in ways they weren't in the past, good as those classics were.

[cacian]

old skool versus modern.
minimalist versus crowded.

[Paulclem]

old skool versus
minimalist versus crowded.

Meaning what?

[JCamilo]

Well, you are focusing in some kind of modern novels. Even in this site, guys like Dan Brown, J.K.Rowling, Neil Gaiman, Murakami, Stephen King, etc are mentioned and discussed. Are them out of the race for canonization? Can we tell what is the status of Tolkien?

[stlukesguild]

I often wonder myself whenever I read a list of top great books, whether the classics of the past really are better than the books written now.

Certainly they are better than the vast majority of what was written in the past and present.

I don't suppose there were very many people trying to write fiction in the past as there are now. How many authors were there in the C18th compared to now?

What do numbers have to do with it? There are more students being coming out of schools every year with BFAs and MFAs in the visual arts than there were people alive in Florence, Venice and Rome during the Renaissance... yet the sheer number of brilliant artists that came out of the Italian Renaissance far surpasses what might be expected based upon demographics... and far surpasses the number of brilliant artists actively working today.

Authors were not more intelligent or better educated.

That's debatable. We may have a far broader education. The writer today is likely familiar with literature from ancient Greece to the present and familiar with writers from Britain, American, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and even Asia and South America. Dante probably owned a couple hundred books at best and may have had access through various libraries (private and academic) to a thousand more. What he knew was less broad... but he likely knew it in far greater depth. In most cases what he read, was read in the original language (Latin, Italian, French).

They lived in different times so they had that interesting perspective. Maybe the classics that have come down to us are just the best of what was available at the time they were written, and that there are numerous contemporary books that are just as good.

The "classics" are essentially those books that continue to resonate with an audience across time and space. It is quite likely that there are books written in the last 50 or 20 years that will eventually be recognized as classics... but "numerous" contemporary "classics"? Highly unlikely. Of course we are all open to your suggestions as to what contemporary works qualify.

[stlukesguild]

My OP really concerns whether we should have more focus on modern works here given that classic literature is a fairly sealed Canon.

SHOULD? WE? It seems to me that WE SHOULD be reading and studying that which we take the most pleasure in. Personally, I have enjoyed any number of Modern and Contemporary works of literature, but honestly I don't follow contemporary fiction... especially novels... as much as I once did. I read much more poetry... and I might ask SHOULD WE not be discussing poetry more? :D
Seriously, I don't think anyone with any real passion for literature imagines that the "Canon" is sealed. Jose Saramago, Gabriel José de la Concordia García Márquez , Yves Bonnefoy, Geoffrey Hill, Anne Carson... can't we all name a number of writers who are prime candidates for "canonization"?

[cacian]

Meaning what?

hi Paulcem
i meant old skool versus modern
minimalist versus crowded
what i meant to say is that classic literature is crowded with images/ideas plots and so the writing is dense
today the writing is rather minimalist compared to it.
there are no more Iliads or De Sartre types of writing.
we tend to veer towards heavy loaded science fictions or fifty shades of grey type of style.

[Lykren]

[COLOR="#B22222"]Gabriel Garcia Lorca

Gabriel Garcia Lorca! I'd love to see what the child of Marquez and Lorca would produce :D

[Marbles]

Speaking of fiction, what has come down to us as canon should be looked at as history of literature. History as in not the sum total of what was produced but a succession of new discoveries and new breaks in the novel. So the vast, picaresque, adventurist narrative of Cervantes unbounded by time and space takes a definitive break in the expression of Balzac, Flaubert and Dickens, which is quotidian, bounded by modern structures, social institutions, and where time takes on a finite and vicious quality of the cause-and-effect formula. Go further and the disillusionment with the quotidian, in Kafka, breaks into a fusion of dream and reality (Metamorphosis), and later takes on a form of an enormous, uncontrollable, incomprehensible genie of that is a modern state (in The Trial, The Castle).

These are just three major discoveries I have mentioned; there are many other twists and turns and many good novelists that contributed to it. Much of that has found its way into the broader consensus of canon.

Shall we pay less attention to the classics that define for us the history of the novel? I think not. It is vital for our education to approach contemporary or near-contemporary fiction with a balanced view of what came before, how society which produced new writers absorbed it, and made further discoveries for the posterity. Though some might object to Marquez's contributions as yet to meet the test of time, I am in no doubt he represents a definitive new discovery in the onwards journey of the novel, that of primordial myth guiding our destinies in this post-modern world. Like in Macondo, where beds of polished stones, white and enormous, were like prehistoric eggs (One Hundred Years of Solitude), we live in a time where we are in the process of rediscovering ice.

We may ignore classics of the canon to a certain extent, where minor works may be left out for the unavoidable names (a few of those mentioned above), but the more we ignore classics, the more we forget how we arrived in Macondo or how we traversed Terra Nostra.

[kev67]

I often wonder myself whenever I read a list of top great books, whether the classics of the past really are better than the books written now.

Certainly they are better than the vast majority of what was written in the past and present.

I don't suppose there were very many people trying to write fiction in the past as there are now. How many authors were there in the C18th compared to now?

What do numbers have to do with it? There are more students being coming out of schools every year with BFAs and MFAs in the visual arts than there were people alive in Florence, Venice and Rome during the Renaissance... yet the sheer number of brilliant artists that came out of the Italian Renaissance far surpasses what might be expected based upon demographics... and far surpasses the number of brilliant artists actively working today.

Authors were not more intelligent or better educated.

That's debatable. We may have a far broader education. The writer today is likely familiar with literature from ancient Greece to the present and familiar with writers from Britain, American, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and even Asia and South America. Dante probably owned a couple hundred books at best and may have had access through various libraries (private and academic) to a thousand more. What he knew was less broad... but he likely knew it in far greater depth. In most cases what he read, was read in the original language (Latin, Italian, French).

They lived in different times so they had that interesting perspective. Maybe the classics that have come down to us are just the best of what was available at the time they were written, and that there are numerous contemporary books that are just as good.

The "classics" are essentially those books that continue to resonate with an audience across time and space. It is quite likely that there are books written in the last 50 or 20 years that will eventually be recognized as classics... but "numerous" contemporary "classics"? Highly unlikely. Of course we are all open to your suggestions as to what contemporary works qualify.

It depends what you call a classic, but for instance I recently read Humphrey Clinker, written about 1771, which is marketed as one of the Pengiuin English Library (http://www.penguinclassics.co.uk/nf/Search/StdResultsPage/1,,,00.html) novels. I found it interesting from an historical point of view, but if a contemporary version of similar quality was written today, I doubt it would find a publisher. I have just finished Nostromo, which has been described as Joseph Conrad's masterpiece. Conrad was listed as one of the four most important writers in the English tradition by F.R. Leavis, who was a legendary English professor and critic (the other three were Jane Austen, George Elliot and Henry James) I also read recently Leaving Cheyenne by Larry McMurtry. I have read several books by Conrad and several by McMurtry. I think Larry McMurtry is a better writer.

In a top 100 of great novels of all time published by The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/oct/12/features.fiction), the top 10 were


Don Quixote
Pilgrim's Progress
Robinson Crusoe
Gulliver's Travels
Tom Jones
Clarissa
Tristram Shandy
Dangerous Liasons
Emma
Frankenstein


The only two of those I have read were the first part of Don Quixote and (I think) the whole of Gulliver's Travels. I liked the first part of Gulliver's Travels with the Lilliputians, but I did not think the rest of it was so good. I thought Don Quixote was a real bore. It was a joke flogged to death. I slogged my way to the end of the first part, but could not face the second part. I plan to read Robinson Crusoe next year, but I also intend to read The Martian by Andy Weir, which is about an astronaut trapped on Mars. I will be interested to see which is better. I also plan to read Frankenstein next year, and I might read I Robot by Issac Asimov. Again it will be interesting to compare. In the list above, Don Quixote was described as the first modern novel, and Robinson Crusoe was described as the first English novel. To me this suggests that they were important because they were the first, not necessarily because they were the best.

[Paulclem]

Well, you are focusing in some kind of modern novels. Even in this site, guys like Dan Brown, J.K.Rowling, Neil Gaiman, Murakami, Stephen King, etc are mentioned and discussed. Are them out of the race for canonization? Can we tell what is the status of Tolkien?

It's a moot point and worth discussing. I'm thinking particularly of literary works, though there are those who think these authors have merit. Times have changed and it is uncertain what the criteria will be for classic status.

[Paulclem]

When I suggested that the Canon was sealed, I merely meant historically. No more 19th century novels are likely to achieve classic status. I'd like to be involved in discussions about classic candidates from the 20th and 21st century. I think they offer the innovation that can be found in classic novels Marbles - my intention is not to suggest that established classic literature shouldn't be read and studied - but that there is scope for discussion about how the techniques used in classic works are being innovated and improved on. In my view they are.

I would also like to study more poetry. Whether we should is down to members, but I think classic and modern novels and poetry will give a picture of how the traditions have developed and what they are developing into. I find that interesting.

[stlukesguild]

Gabriel Garcia Lorca! I'd love to see what the child of Marquez and Lorca would produce.

Yes... the love child of Lorca and Marquez might be quite interesting... although I think I'd prefer the child of Borges and Calvino.

[stlukesguild]

It depends what you call a classic, but for instance I recently read Humphrey Clinker, written about 1771, which is marketed as one of the Pengiuin English Library novels. I found it interesting from an historical point of view, but if a contemporary version of similar quality was written today, I doubt it would find a publisher.

Of course not. It is highly unlikely that Smolett or Dante or Shakespeare would be writing in the same manner if they were living today. Artists build upon their experiences... the world they live in... including the art they know.

I have just finished Nostromo, which has been described as Joseph Conrad's masterpiece. Conrad was listed as one of the four most important writers in the English tradition by F.R. Leavis, who was a legendary English professor and critic (the other three were Jane Austen, George Elliot and Henry James) I also read recently Leaving Cheyenne by Larry McMurtry. I have read several books by Conrad and several by McMurtry. I think Larry McMurtry is a better writer.

The fact that you like something better does not mean that it is better.

In a top 100 of great novels of all time published by The Guardian, the top 10 were

Don Quixote
Pilgrim's Progress
Robinson Crusoe
Gulliver's Travels
Tom Jones
Clarissa
Tristram Shandy
Dangerous Liasons
Emma
Frankenstein

This seems like a rather dated... and Anglo-centric list. Pilgrim's Progress? Really?

The only two of those I have read were the first part of Don Quixote and (I think) the whole of Gulliver's Travels. I liked the first part of Gulliver's Travels with the Lilliputians, but I did not think the rest of it was so good. I thought Don Quixote was a real bore. It was a joke flogged to death. I slogged my way to the end of the first part, but could not face the second part. I plan to read Robinson Crusoe next year, but I also intend to read The Martian by Andy Weir, which is about an astronaut trapped on Mars. I will be interested to see which is better.

Again, it seems you are confusing your personal likes or dislikes with a judgment of what is "better" or "worse". You weren't thrilled with Gulliver's Travels and found Don Quixote a bore... thus they are "overrated"... and likely the whole of the Canon or "classics" are likely "overrated"?

I also plan to read Frankenstein next year, and I might read I Robot by Issac Asimov. Again it will be interesting to compare. In the list above, Don Quixote was described as the first modern novel, and Robinson Crusoe was described as the first English novel. To me this suggests that they were important because they were the first, not necessarily because they were the best.

Don Quixote and Robinson Crusoe are important, in part, due to their innovations. But while this may be enough to maintain their reputation with academics, it has little to do with why these works continue to resonate with an audience of what Virginia Woolf called the well-informed (not-so-common) "common readers". The Don and Sancho are two of the most memorable characters in literature, ranking along with certain characters of Dickens, Shakespeare, etc... It is easy to imagine them living outside of the confines of the fiction that they inhabit. Their relationship is one of the great male friendships in literature... along with Sterne's Uncle Toby and the narrator's father, Twain's Huck and Jim and Pynchon's Mason and Dixon. Don Quixote continues to passionately inspire subsequent writers and artists in other genre of great merit.

[JCamilo]

It's a moot point and worth discussing. I'm thinking particularly of literary works, though there are those who think these authors have merit. Times have changed and it is uncertain what the criteria will be for classic status.

Well, of course you may consider the best works of those authors, but the point about trying to find the classics of today is how you do it. That is why I suggest something complicated as exercise: Tolkien. There goes half of century and no signal of his popularity and even influence be reduced. Why exactly? Tolkien is not a typical best-seller formula (it is too slow, descriptive, not so memorable characterization, rythim constantly broken by old-fashioned poetry, etc). It is not also a clear tradition work - unlike Stephen King who you can trace the american tradition from where he came - Tolkien is where? His world creation may have traces with Robert Howard's Conan, his early children works with Lewis Carroll, and all his medieval work is not his tradition, yet, it is clear from him a kind of fantasy novel became popular, also it is clear, he is already read without being read for real. But is him canonized? Or not. What is wrong that his status is not secure? If we cannot be sure about Tolkien, how we do with more recent books?

[stlukesguild]

There is often an assumption that canonization is a process effected predominantly... or solely... by "experts" and academics... the "cognescenti". I would suggest that a figure like Joyce... especially with Finnegan's Wake... is dependent almost exclusively upon the judgments of the cognescenti: academics and subsequent writers. Almost no one else reads him. Harold Bloom suggested that for better or worse Joyce will almost certainly end up an author studied almost wholly by specialists, like Spenser (or like Loka's Icelandic dudes). Other writers have seemingly survived... in spite of less-than-glowing assessments from the experts. Here we might include not only Tolkein... but also Alexandre Dumas, Arthur Conan Doyle, and even... in the opinion of some... E.A. Poe. We see the same in the realm of music. The cognescenti are champions for Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Ligeti, Xenakis, Boulez, etc... whom almost no one else listens to for pleasure. And then we have Rachmaninoff, Richard Strauss, Aaron Copland, Puccini... even Bizet's Carmen and Mozart's Magic Flute... often dismissed by the cognescenti as trite and populist. But I'm not so certain.

[Aere Perennius]

In a top 100 of great novels of all time published by The Guardian, the top 10 were

Don Quixote
Pilgrim's Progress
Robinson Crusoe
Gulliver's Travels
Tom Jones
Clarissa
Tristram Shandy
Dangerous Liasons
Emma
Frankenstein

This seems like a rather dated... and Anglo-centric list. Pilgrim's Progress? Really?


They are English critics—do they have an obligation to center on any culture but their own? But why the distaste for Pilgrim's Progress? It would seem, or so I thought, an easy pick for one of greatest novels in English—it's never been out of print, considered the first English novel and has been translated to more than 200 languages; and it's morals seem no more dated than Robinson Crusoe's, except Bunyan's style is far more brilliant—it appears a time-less English style, always in fashion. Unless, you simply dislike the novel than, that's fine. I'm just wondering about your surprise at seeing it.

[JCamilo]

They are not just english critics, but bad critics (however, I assume this list was just misquoted here). Another englishman, in the 20's, E.M.Foster was eager to defend the superiority of french or russian novelists over english (or in english language, not sure if he considered americans and I am sure he was unware of Moby Dick), complaining the inexistence of any novel to be up with Dostoievisky, Tolstoy, Flaubert, Hugo or Balzac. Of course, the point is not how this is arguable and Joyce was coming to hit Ulysses on everyone's head, but the point is that nobody would in good sense, suggest the list of 10 best novels of all time is made of 9 english works and 1 spanish, placed there more as a guilty trip. Even if look the novels listed, even those who are remarkable on their genre at the time, like Tom Jones or Gulliver... those are really the english novels to be praised with Don Quixote? No Dickens? Really? (Hence, why, maybe the critery for this list wouldn't be exactly the "best" novels of all time...)

Stlukes


There is often an assumption that canonization is a process effected predominantly... or solely... by "experts" and academics... the "cognescenti". I would suggest that a figure like Joyce... especially with Finnegan's Wake... is dependent almost exclusively upon the judgments of the cognescenti: academics and subsequent writers. Almost no one else reads him. Harold Bloom suggested that for better or worse Joyce will almost certainly end up an author studied almost wholly by specialists, like Spenser (or like Loka's Icelandic dudes). Other writers have seemingly survived... in spite of less-than-glowing assessments from the experts. Here we might include not only Tolkein... but also Alexandre Dumas, Arthur Conan Doyle, and even... in the opinion of some... E.A. Poe. We see the same in the realm of music. The cognescenti are champions for Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Ligeti, Xenakis, Boulez, etc... whom almost no one else listens to for pleasure. And then we have Rachmaninoff, Richard Strauss, Aaron Copland, Puccini... even Bizet's Carmen and Mozart's Magic Flute... often dismissed by the cognescenti as trite and populist. But I'm not so certain.

Well, I am guessing that much of the popularity of Tolkien is that his book is over descriptive, completely unlike Dumas or Doyle (both master of a popular formula, perhaps some of the best at it), who had a fast rythim, but mostly, a lot of dialogue to explore their aces (and maybe the reason of their canonization): over charismatic characters. Like someone named Borges would say, we can believe in Sherlock, probally we can believe in D'Argtangnan too, but, despite Joyce genius, we can believe in Molly Bloom?

I suspect tolkien managed to capture something with the description, in the mind of the modern readers, those readers over affected by visual stimulation. We may not believe in any of Tolkien characters, they are as vague, old, stranger as the medieval characters he like (maybe Loka can believe in many those characters, I think we still believe in King Artur or Lancelot because modern authors made them for us, when the french abandoned the modernization of Roland and Charles Magne, they kind got a bit of dust and lost some credibility), but maybe we can trust in his world. In the movies, it is the best part of it, fans could reckon the places (they had the care to use the classical illustration as reference as well). The artwork originated from terramedia is very rich. Maybe that is the reason, but I am of course not sure. I will let JBI to prove me wrong.

Yet, that is my point to Paul, if we are unsure with something who had already some time for us to analyse, how to do with more recent works. You can guess if a cake fresh from oven is good by tasting, so I guess to find modern classics, you need to use the gutts more than mind. There is not a real valid critery, a technique, a system...

[Pompey Bum]

Great topic, Paulclem.


I don't know how you regard awards such as The Man Booker Prize, but in my opinion I think they may be a good starting point for predicting and discussing which novels may become classics. Do we focus enough on these?

The Scottish writer A.L. Kennedy, a former Man Booker judge, claimed that the award is based on "who knows who, who's sleeping with who, who's selling drugs to who, who's married to who, whose turn it is." I'm sure that is too strong, although I'm not sure why I'm sure--Kennedy was in a position to know.

Still, it would be hypocrisy to pretend that I don't follow Man Booker or base many of my contemporary literature purchases on its judge's decisions. Last year I hurried off to buy Eleanor Catton's The Luminaries as soon as I heard that it had won. I found her prose occasionally evocative:

The storm was borne on greenish winds. It began as a coppery taste in the back of one’s mouth, a metallic ache that amplified as the clouds darkened and advanced, and when it struck, it was with the flat hand of a senseless fury.

But it was sometimes silly, and occasionally it was groaningly bad ("You say Thomas— I say Tamati" comes to mind). Some of the characters were exceptionally well drawn--the prison master and his chaplain, for example, but others seemed little more than politically-correct props whose major function was to give the book an acceptable degree of diversity. The clever structure, featuring characters changing with the planets and chapters waning with the moon, was--well, clever. But it was also dismissive of substance in favor of form. In my opinion, the sooner the post-moderns divest themselves of that Warholian nonsense the better. Give us the Byzantine plot structure if you must, but damn well finish what you start.

In other words, The Luminaries was a perfectly good book by a promising writer of serious literature. But that was all it was. I enjoyed it. I would even recommend it with only a few reservations. But its status as a Man Booker winner hardly qualifies it as--to use your term--a modern classic novel.


I can see the problem - the mass of new novels that are written each year - but we do have a rudimentary filter. Even with this problem, it is possible to spot and study longlisted authors. This year's winner was The Narrow Road To The Deep North, which is the title of the Haiku Master Basho's famous work. The fact that the winner concerns the suffering of allied POWs whilst building the Burma railway has certainly sparked my interest. Hilary Mantel's recent two winners employ an interesting narrative style which worked very well in Wolf Hall.

If by "rudimentary filter" you mean the Man Booker long list, I agree, again with some reservations. I dismiss the ultimate choice of the judges as irrelevant (or do I? I just bought a copy of The Narrow Road to the Deep North), but I use the long list as a guide to books that won't be a waste of my time to read (I have plenty of time, but there are more good books to read than could ever fill it). Those of us who bear the mental illness that requires us to finish a book once we start it cannot be too careful. The Kindly Ones should never happen again. Neither, speaking of Hilary Mantel, should A Place of Greater Safety :)

But the trouble with a filter is that it works both ways. There are plenty of good authors who know, sleep with, sell drugs to, or are married to the wrong people, and who are out of turn besides (or are merely American :) ). Filtering in necessarily means filtering out. That problem can be alleviated to some extent by using other filters--The Pulitzer Prize, New York Times Notable Books, etc.-- but ultimately a direct human exchange of views is preferable.

So to answer your question at long last:


Should we be looking at more contemporary work on these boards?

Yes. Human beings talking beat the pants off of rudimentary filters.

But I would add that terms like "classic" and especially "canon" are unhelpful. The Luminaries is a much better book than The Three Musketeers, or The Screwtape Letters, or--God help us--The Last Days of Pompeii. It's not nearly as good as Tom Jones, The Brothers Karamazov, or War and Peace. Who cares? Rather than concocting a canon (again, filtering in and filtering out), I suggest that we read for ourselves; and that we read what we love (The Three Musketeers is a hell of a lot of fun); but push ourselves beyond what we find comfortable. But a canon is a term borrowed from ecclesiology that implies an adherence to orthodoxy rather than a free range of choice. Besides, you post-moderns should have figured out by now that orthodoxies are no fun at all. :)

And as far as "modern classics" go, isn't the term an oxymoron? A classic is a work that withstands the test of time; and no one, not even our "betters" at Man Booker, can tell us that.

[Marbles]

When I suggested that the Canon was sealed, I merely meant historically. No more 19th century novels are likely to achieve classic status. I'd like to be involved in discussions about classic candidates from the 20th and 21st century. I think they offer the innovation that can be found in classic novels Marbles - my intention is not to suggest that established classic literature shouldn't be read and studied - but that there is scope for discussion about how the techniques used in classic works are being innovated and improved on. In my view they are.

In that case, yes, we should devote more time to the discussion of good modern works of literature, especially considering the sheer amount of output that's become common in our age of informed literacy, which makes it more difficult to separate wheat from the chaff.

[Aere Perennius]

They are not just english critics, but bad critics (however, I assume this list was just misquoted here). Another englishman, in the 20's, E.M.Foster was eager to defend the superiority of french or russian novelists over english (or in english language, not sure if he considered americans and I am sure he was unware of Moby Dick), complaining the inexistence of any novel to be up with Dostoievisky, Tolstoy, Flaubert, Hugo or Balzac. Of course, the point is not how this is arguable and Joyce was coming to hit Ulysses on everyone's head, but the point is that nobody would in good sense, suggest the list of 10 best novels of all time is made of 9 english works and 1 spanish, placed there more as a guilty trip. Even if look the novels listed, even those who are remarkable on their genre at the time, like Tom Jones or Gulliver... those are really the english novels to be praised with Don Quixote? No Dickens? Really? (Hence, why, maybe the critery for this list wouldn't be exactly the "best" novels of all time...)


Critics ranging from Samuel Taylor Coleridge to Hazlitt to James had no fear of comparing English novels favorably to European. English Novels were extremely popular, even in Europe, throughout the 19th century. And after F. R. Leavis, I didn't think anyone seriously questioned English's reputable place in novel-writing—apparently there still are some who do. La Monde filled their top ten with 7 French works and I'm sure any reputable Spanish newspaper would do the same—cultural bias towards one's language is natural. After all, how do you judge the literary merit of a novel if you can't read it in it's original language? Chances are there are few people who speak both Russian, Spanish and French.

And has for Don Quixote, how many Spanish novels compare with that? How Many Spanish novels are actually read that weren't written in the last 60 years?

[mortalterror]

Reading living authors is a suckers game. Say you find someone you like. You read their stuff. Then you wait for the next book to come out. And you wait. And you wait. And you wait. Meanwhile, I still have stuff from the middle ages and the Eastern Canon to read.

[JCamilo]

Critics ranging from Samuel Taylor Coleridge to Hazlitt to James had no fear of comparing English novels favorably to European. English Novels were extremely popular, even in Europe, throughout the 19th century. And after F. R. Leavis, I didn't think anyone seriously questioned English's reputable place in novel-writing—apparently there still are some who do. La Monde filled their top ten with 7 French works and I'm sure any reputable Spanish newspaper would do the same—cultural bias towards one's language is natural. After all, how do you judge the literary merit of a novel if you can't read it in it's original language? Chances are there are few people who speak both Russian, Spanish and French.

You are completely missing the point. It is not about the popularity, or comparing the english novels to french novels or whatsoever. It is about what you call normal, the bias. It is also absolutely normal that someone, as Stlukes did, to point out that bias and say how naked they were. Also, it is absolutely normal to show how unreasonable a bias can be. You are basically acting as if you are a soldier stopping the little kid to say "the king is nude", because it is normal to be naked and it is very unreasonable of the little boy to be reasonable. And as I said, that list i kind of threw here, perhaps completly out of the context.


And has for Don Quixote, how many Spanish novels compare with that? How Many Spanish novels are actually read that weren't written in the last 60 years?

Verry few works compare with Quixote, but what is the point? The way the list was presented, Quixote was placed there as the only non english novel as a nod to tradition, rather than anything else. I suppose, however, that Tyrant Lo Blanch and Lazarillo Tormes still read, since they are published and translated until those days.

And of course, not nitpickin the 60 years limit you proposed, but even the "realism magic" founding novel (El reino de este mundo by Alejo Carpentier) is older than this. But absolutely relevant.

[Ecurb]

Reading living authors is a suckers game. Say you find someone you like. You read their stuff. Then you wait for the next book to come out. And you wait. And you wait. And you wait. Meanwhile, I still have stuff from the middle ages and the Eastern Canon to read.

A living author might have written dozens of novels, scores of short stories, and a variety of other scribblings. Although it is true that (say) Phillip Roth might still write something else, his output already far exceeds Jane Austen's.

It seems to me that one point of the canon is to give fans of literature some common ground for discussion. I looked at National Book Award winners and Booker Prize winners (for novels). I've read 11 of the winners from the past 30 years (11/60). If I look at some list of 100 greatest novels of all-time, I've generally read 60 or more (and I've never studied literature). There's a good chance I'll find some takers here at litnet if I initiate a discussion about Anna Karenina, or The Red and the Black, or Barchester Towers. I might have less luck if I talk about "The Good Lord Bird", James McBride's excellent 2013 National Book Award winner.

[Aere Perennius]

You are completely missing the point. It is not about the popularity, or comparing the english novels to french novels or whatsoever. It is about what you call normal, the bias. It is also absolutely normal that someone, as Stlukes did, to point out that bias and say how naked they were. Also, it is absolutely normal to show how unreasonable a bias can be. You are basically acting as if you are a soldier stopping the little kid to say "the king is nude", because it is normal to be naked and it is very unreasonable of the little boy to be reasonable. And as I said, that list i kind of threw here, perhaps completly out of the context.



Verry few works compare with Quixote, but what is the point? The way the list was presented, Quixote was placed there as the only non english novel as a nod to tradition, rather than anything else. I suppose, however, that Tyrant Lo Blanch and Lazarillo Tormes still read, since they are published and translated until those days.

And of course, not nitpickin the 60 years limit you proposed, but even the "realism magic" founding novel (El reino de este mundo by Alejo Carpentier) is older than this. But absolutely relevant.


You are bringing up points and then saying that "it's not about that." I never disagreed with pointing out the bias but only the fact that they have no obligation to usurp it (and I wasn't saying St. Luke's explicitly or implicitly said that, either). I don't consider cultural bias unreasonable, only inevitable. Any list will have it's bias.

You brought up Don Quixote and said "what English novel compares to that?" And I don't understand the "60 year" comment...I said their aren't really any Spanish novels that weren't written around 60 years ago that are widely popular in the West as a whole. This is just my perspective, but I could be wrong

[mortalterror]

You are bringing up points and then saying that "it's not about that." I never disagreed with pointing out the bias but only the fact that they have no obligation to usurp it (and I wasn't saying St. Luke's explicitly or implicitly said that, either). I don't consider cultural bias unreasonable, only inevitable. Any list will have it's bias.

You brought up Don Quixote and said "what English novel compares to that?" And I don't understand the "60 year" comment...I said their aren't really any Spanish novels that weren't written around 60 years ago that are widely popular in the West as a whole. This is just my perspective, but I could be wrong
100 Years of Solitude, Love in the Time of Cholera, The General in his Labyrinth all by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, The Death of Artemio Cruz by Carlos Fuentes, 2666 by Roberto Bolano, The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, etc.

[Aere Perennius]

100 Years of Solitude, Love in the Time of Cholera, The General in his Labyrinth all by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, The Death of Artemio Cruz by Carlos Fuentes, 2666 by Roberto Bolano, The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, etc.

Thank you? I didn't need examples but these were all written within 60 years from today...Also The Alchemist is Portuguese, but that's okay. I mean, if you can think of some widely-read Spanish novels before 1950 than thank you, but none of these qualify. It's really a minor point and has nothing to do with this thread, so actually best not to ponder it.

[JCamilo]

I did listed novels in spanish that are widely-read, older than 60 years and I will not go further, because there is more than enough, because as I said ,the members of south americam boom, the magic realism, etc were all older than 60 years...

And no, I didn't asked which English Novel compare to Don Quixote, I questioned the novels in the list, which are, as pointed, not even a good list of english novels (really, no Dickens?). There is not point in the list, the bias is so obvious and unreasonable (there may be reasonable bias, but not one as such as the list) that how it can be used as an argument. That is the point.

[kev67]

There are lots of top ten/hundred lists (see here (http://thegreatestbooks.org/)). I only chose that one because it illustrated a point I was trying to make. I agree that reading a British newspaper's top 100 book list is like reading a list of top 100 footballers of all time (that's soccer players to you). They tend to be rather over-represented with British players, while Italian or Argentine lists would be completely different.

[Aylinn]

I just thought that I may add Vicente Blasco Ibáñez. A spanish writer who was very popular at the beginning of 20th century. I don’t think he is so popular now, but I suppose many people at least heard about The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, because of the adaptation made by Hollywood.

[Aere Perennius]

I did listed novels in spanish that are widely-read, older than 60 years and I will not go further, because there is more than enough, because as I said ,the members of south americam boom, the magic realism, etc were all older than 60 years...

I'll end this and say that I don't consider any of those texts to be widely read (some of them I don't even consider novels), even in Spain, but you're experience may be somehow different. This is a silly point, one that you said yourself didn't matter so let's not continue it.


And no, I didn't asked which English Novel compare to Don Quixote, I questioned the novels in the list, which are, as pointed, not even a good list of english novels (really, no Dickens?). There is not point in the list, the bias is so obvious and unreasonable (there may be reasonable bias, but not one as such as the list) that how it can be used as an argument. That is the point.

I think I get your point: the list leaves out what you think are deserving novels and does not incline towards your own bias, therefore it is there is no point to it. I think that ends the discussion as there is nothing I can really argue against that.

However, I would like to hear your definition of reasonable bias. That sounds interesting.

[JCamilo]

It is a reasonable bias to suppose Brazil have a lot of the best football players ever, considering that it is the most succesfull footballing nation. One could overated the brazilians based on this. However, it was very unreasonable spaniards to claim the same because their amazing succes in the recent years. Of course, the bias towards Dickens being mentioned among 10 best english novelist is quite reasonable, not because it is mine, of course.

It is like, how unreasonable that you are arguing 3 novels from spain are not widely read when they are translated to Brazil for example, going way beyond their fronteirs.

[stlukesguild]

I must agree with JCamilo with regards to the bias I sense from the list:

In a top 100 of great novels of all time published by The Guardian, the top 10 were

Don Quixote
Pilgrim's Progress
Robinson Crusoe
Gulliver's Travels
Tom Jones
Clarissa
Tristram Shandy
Dangerous Liasons
Emma
Frankenstein

Pilgrim's Progress is not exactly a book that gets mentioned or studied much today. The most recent book in the list dates from the Romantic period... nothing from the late 19th century... let alone the 20th century. Don Quixote seems but a nod to the non-English world. Dangerous Liasons? That one I can't figure out for the life of me. Zola, Flaubert, Balzac, Stendhal and Prousr (among others) would have offered a greater example of non-British European literature. But what are we to make of a list of the 10 that places something as esoteric as Thomas Love Peacock's Nightmare Abbey above anything by Dickens, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky... any Russian, American, or German writer.

No, there can be no truly representative "Top Ten" list... but certainly almost any semi-literate person can come up with something more balanced with little effort:

1. Don Quixote- Cervantes
2. Madame Bovary- Flaubert
3. War & Peace- Tolstoy
4. The Brothers Karamazov- Dostoevsky
5. In Search of Lost Time- Proust
6. Lawrence Sterne- Tristram Shandy
7. Lolita- Nabokov
8. Moby Dick- Melville
9. Doctor Faustus- Thomas Mann
10. A Tale of Two Cities- Dickens

I suspect most here can do as well.

[JCamilo]

I can see some vallue on Dangerous liaisons, but who with any sanity will pretend hugo, balzac,flaubert sequence has huger impact on the world of novels unlike anything else since rabelais in france. go figures...

[Aere Perennius]

Yeah, nevermind, I'll just let this go—I'll agree to disagree. Checking this thread on this site is becoming a pain. For some reason my browser won't remember my password?

[Marcus1]

Looking at the list of essential 21st century books selected by 'Die Zeit',

2000 Smith, White Teeth
2000 Esterhazy, Celestial Harmonies
2002 Pamuk, Snow
2003 Modiano, Accident Nocturne
2004 Enquist, The Book about Blanche and Marie
2005 Kehlmann, Measuring the World
2005 Nadas, Parallel Stories
2008 Tokarczuk, Bieguni
2008 Tellkamp, The Tower
2009 NDiaye, Three Strong Women

I am quite confident that Nadas's Parallel Stories and A Book of Memories will be canonized. Many have called him the successor of Proust and Musil which certainly indicates that he is a colossal talent. I haven't read the rest on the list yet.

[Marbles]

No, there can be no truly representative "Top Ten" list... but certainly almost any semi-literate person can come up with something more balanced with little effort:

1. Don Quixote- Cervantes
2. Madame Bovary- Flaubert
3. War & Peace- Tolstoy
4. The Brothers Karamazov- Dostoevsky
5. In Search of Lost Time- Proust
6. Lawrence Sterne- Tristram Shandy
7. Lolita- Nabokov
8. Moby Dick- Melville
9. Doctor Faustus- Thomas Mann
10. A Tale of Two Cities- Dickens

A list 10 times better than the one produced by Guardian nincompoops.

[TheFifthElement]

No, there can be no truly representative "Top Ten" list... but certainly almost any semi-literate person can come up with something more balanced with little effort:

1. Don Quixote- Cervantes
2. Madame Bovary- Flaubert
3. War & Peace- Tolstoy
4. The Brothers Karamazov- Dostoevsky
5. In Search of Lost Time- Proust
6. Lawrence Sterne- Tristram Shandy
7. Lolita- Nabokov
8. Moby Dick- Melville
9. Doctor Faustus- Thomas Mann
10. A Tale of Two Cities- Dickens

I suspect most here can do as well.

Yes, a very balanced list of white male writers.

[Paulclem]

Reading living authors is a suckers game. Say you find someone you like. You read their stuff. Then you wait for the next book to come out. And you wait. And you wait. And you wait. Meanwhile, I still have stuff from the middle ages and the Eastern Canon to read.

Why would you limit yourself to one writer? I don't see why you couldn't read a mixture - they are not mutually exclusive. Also if you read modern authors, then you are going to reach a point where you've read all their stuff. I'm waiting for George RR Martin's next instalment, and Philip Kerr's next thriller. I don't limit myself to modern, classic or by genre. Why would you?

[ladderandbucket]

Don Quixote
Pilgrim's Progress
Robinson Crusoe
Gulliver's Travels
Tom Jones
Clarissa
Tristram Shandy
Dangerous Liasons
Emma
Frankenstein

The books in this list you're all slating are not supposed to be the ten best novels. They are listed in order of publication. The full list is here:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/oct/12/features.fiction

[Pompey Bum]

I know I'm going to regret this, but If my 20-something niece (who loves literature, thank God) were to ask me to name ten novels I found especially worthwhile, I would give her a list that looked something like this:

Anna Karenina
War and Peace
The Brothers Karamazov
The Idiot
Journey to the West
Romance of the Three Kingdoms
Dream of the Red Chamber
Don Quixote
Tom Jones
Tristam Shandy

The names appear in no particular order. The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Iliad, and the Odyssey were omitted only because they are not novels. The Golden As s is a sentimental favorite, but it surely belongs in a list of eleven novels I found especially worthwhile.

I have made no attempt at diversity or inclusiveness. There is no need to do so since I am not proposing any kind of canon or standard. As it happens, four of the books are by Russians, three are by Chinese, two are by English, one is by a Spaniard, and none is by a woman. Plenty of novels by women would have been worthy of such a list, but personally I prefer the books I chose. In the case of my niece, I would advise her to get a list of serious novels by woman from someone who knew what she was talking about.

I have also made no concessions to a writer's significance within a given national literature. I love to read Dickens but I have made the unpopular choice of favoring Fielding. For all his genius, I find Dickens tainted by literary association with Richardson's pedantic nonsense, whereas Fielding is the anti-Richardson. Besides, I'm a fool for picaresque novels.

And my apologies to the acolytes of Marquez, Fuentes, Bolano et al., but I really have to hand it to the Don. Because of Cervantes early appearance in the history of the novel, he is innocent of the publisher's mendacious concern for producing a book that could be digested in a few sittings (to followed by the purchase of another). Don Quixote is made to be read over a period of one's life, without concern for how long it takes to finish it (in fact, the longer one reads, the better). The same is true of the Chinese novels, Tom Jones (given Fielding's self-conscious debt to Cervantes), and Tristam Shandy--because how else are you going to read the damn thing? It was also true, for me, of the Russian novels, which I lived as much as read.

No French! No Germans! I haven't read them yet! No Americans! I don't like them enough! One or another can be said of all the other writers I have snubbed. But ten is an arbitrary number--and too small a canon to cause much damage. :)

[Emil Miller]

The books in this list you're all slating are not supposed to be the ten best novels. They are listed in order of publication. The full list is here:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/oct/12/features.fiction

Lots to agree and disagree with but I liked the description of Ulysses as being more discussed than read.

I think the description of The Lord of the Rings should have been.... 'nuff said.

[stlukesguild]

1. Don Quixote- Cervantes
2. Madame Bovary- Flaubert
3. War & Peace- Tolstoy
4. The Brothers Karamazov- Dostoevsky
5. In Search of Lost Time- Proust
6. Lawrence Sterne- Tristram Shandy
7. Lolita- Nabokov
8. Moby Dick- Melville
9. Doctor Faustus- Thomas Mann
10. A Tale of Two Cities- Dickens

Yes, a very balanced list of white male writers.

Admittedly I read for pleasure, not out of some misguided notion that my reading choices might somehow correct unfair biases and prejudices. I'd find it difficult to think of a novel by a female writer or non-white writer that is clearly superior to those I listed. Of course my own knowledge and experience with non-Western literature is limited. Even if I believed that the goal of any list of "The Ten Greatest Novels" should be to present a list that is unbiased and offers equal representation to all "minorities" this would be absolutely impossible in a list limited to but 10 books. What about Jewish authors? Muslim authors? Latin-American authors? Native Americans? Gay and Lesbian? Albino dwarfs?

[Paulclem]

They are not just english critics, but bad critics (however, I assume this list was just misquoted here). Another englishman, in the 20's, E.M.Foster was eager to defend the superiority of french or russian novelists over english (or in english language, not sure if he considered americans and I am sure he was unware of Moby Dick), complaining the inexistence of any novel to be up with Dostoievisky, Tolstoy, Flaubert, Hugo or Balzac. Of course, the point is not how this is arguable and Joyce was coming to hit Ulysses on everyone's head, but the point is that nobody would in good sense, suggest the list of 10 best novels of all time is made of 9 english works and 1 spanish, placed there more as a guilty trip. Even if look the novels listed, even those who are remarkable on their genre at the time, like Tom Jones or Gulliver... those are really the english novels to be praised with Don Quixote? No Dickens? Really? (Hence, why, maybe the critery for this list wouldn't be exactly the "best" novels of all time...)

Stlukes



Well, I am guessing that much of the popularity of Tolkien is that his book is over descriptive, completely unlike Dumas or Doyle (both master of a popular formula, perhaps some of the best at it), who had a fast rythim, but mostly, a lot of dialogue to explore their aces (and maybe the reason of their canonization): over charismatic characters. Like someone named Borges would say, we can believe in Sherlock, probally we can believe in D'Argtangnan too, but, despite Joyce genius, we can believe in Molly Bloom?

I suspect tolkien managed to capture something with the description, in the mind of the modern readers, those readers over affected by visual stimulation. We may not believe in any of Tolkien characters, they are as vague, old, stranger as the medieval characters he like (maybe Loka can believe in many those characters, I think we still believe in King Artur or Lancelot because modern authors made them for us, when the french abandoned the modernization of Roland and Charles Magne, they kind got a bit of dust and lost some credibility), but maybe we can trust in his world. In the movies, it is the best part of it, fans could reckon the places (they had the care to use the classical illustration as reference as well). The artwork originated from terramedia is very rich. Maybe that is the reason, but I am of course not sure. I will let JBI to prove me wrong.

Yet, that is my point to Paul, if we are unsure with something who had already some time for us to analyse, how to do with more recent works. You can guess if a cake fresh from oven is good by tasting, so I guess to find modern classics, you need to use the gutts more than mind. There is not a real valid critery, a technique, a system...

I agree that it is difficult to decide what should qualify as classic today. I agree with you about the quality of Tolkien's writing and characterisation and that it found a resonance with modern readers. For me this is what will mark The LOTR as a classic.

I think the same of 1984 - the book has flaws, but the ideas within it have gone beyond the novel and established it as a modern classic. It too resonates with the modern reader through the 20th century with newspeak and big brother.

As for other modern classics, I think it would be difficult to spot what will become one. I think the conversations could be very interesting though. The problems include a work having enough advocates. One of the reasons I cited the Booker is it may provide a rudimentary filter, though this is by no means certain. Narcopolis, long listed which I read last year, was pulpy, though exotic. I don't think it merited long listing. There are some great works being written, but I realise it is hard. Not much is written about the books and so you have to come to conclusions through your own impressions and opinions, whereas we can all read and pontificate about classic works as so much can be found on them. I notice that the thread has quickly reverted to lists of classic books which may be mildly contentious, but also may indicate the classics as a certain comfort zone.

[Pompey Bum]

There are some great works being written, but I realise it is hard. Not much is written about the books and so you have to come to conclusions through your own impressions and opinions

Isn't that exactly what one would want (and expect)? I've never studied literature, classic or contemporary (well, some ancient), but isn't thinking for yourself a big part of it?

On a less contentious note, The New York Review of Books (not to be confused with The New York Times) is a good source of opinion on new works.

[JCamilo]

Yeah, I think that is more the point, the so called "resonance", it is probally where you can start, you as a modern reader of course. I am not sure about the booker list (perhaps it is another comfort zone?), but the resonance is a bit like a cat purring, right? It is a comfortable sensation.

1984 is a good mention. I know it dos resonates, evidences such as effect on world's language is there. I can see why - as it somehow is inside a tradition of distopias - worked at first. Why is working now, I am can especulate that maybe it is not the utopias that ended in this age, so we cannot "dream" about them, but the world is so secure (sic), stable, politically correct, that the distopias also are "dead" in this age, no nightmares are possible, so one we can believe in, like 1984 is strong. I consider this when i see, in Brazil, a minority, but loud and growing in power going to the streets with labels like "communism", "bolivarianism", asking for the return of militar dictadorship - not because you have charismatic leader, but because of supposed merits of the system. To me, their lack of historical context, came from a philosophical lack of reference that distopias can be real.

Anyways, the resonance is like thinking with the gutts, it is about the books you like. Don't you already guide yourself this way?

[mortalterror]

1. Don Quixote- Cervantes
2. Madame Bovary- Flaubert
3. War & Peace- Tolstoy
4. The Brothers Karamazov- Dostoevsky
5. In Search of Lost Time- Proust
6. Lawrence Sterne- Tristram Shandy
7. Lolita- Nabokov
8. Moby Dick- Melville
9. Doctor Faustus- Thomas Mann
10. A Tale of Two Cities- Dickens

Yes, a very balanced list of white male writers.

Admittedly I read for pleasure, not out of some misguided notion that my reading choices might somehow correct unfair biases and prejudices. I'd find it difficult to think of a novel by a female writer or non-white writer that is clearly superior to those I listed. Of course my own knowledge and experience with non-Western literature is limited. Even if I believed that the goal of any list of "The Ten Greatest Novels" should be to present a list that is unbiased and offers equal representation to all "minorities" this would be absolutely impossible in a list limited to but 10 books. What about Jewish authors? Muslim authors? Latin-American authors? Native Americans? Gay and Lesbian? Albino dwarfs?

Well, for chicks you could have gone with Tale of Genji, or Middlemarch. And you might have wanted to throw Asians a bone with one of the four classic novels like say Dream of the Red Chamber. Proust is half-Jewish so you are covered there. In spite of their great poetic output, I can't think of any great Muslim novels besides My Name is Red, Palace Walk, or The Blind Owl and those aren't on the same level of excellence as the other novels we are discussing. I can see someone putting 100 Years of Solitude up for Latin American authors. When it comes to Native Americans it's mostly just Sherman Alexie and Black Elk Speaks. You could throw a rock and hit a gay author, not that you should: Oscar Wilde, Proust, Maugham, Woolf, Capote, Mann, etc. You actually have a lot of viable options if you choose to sculpt the cannon certain ways. Some work better than others, but there is definitely some wiggle room if you need it.

[JCamilo]

darn, had shakespeare writen a novel, we would have covered the jew muslin gay native latin white albino option just as easy...

[Marbles]

Why should we justify lists by including non-white, non-male, non-Western authors so consciously and deliberately when the list is meant to be about top works of fiction (from wherever written by whoever) and not a representation of diversity of today's humanity?

Where's that Tamil female writer who went through the trauma of a forced marriage to tell her story in fictionalised form?

[mortalterror]

Why should we justify lists by including non-white, non-male, non-Western authors so consciously and deliberately when the list is meant to be about top works of fiction (from wherever written by whoever) and not a representation of diversity of today's humanity?

Where's that Tamil female writer who went through the trauma of a forced marriage to tell her story in fictionalised form?
I think there is something to be said for trying various combinations and looking at things from different perspectives. A list says as much about the person who compiles it as it does about the subject. Whenever I make lists about movies, books, or music I usually notice that some areas are overrepresented and others are underrepresented reflecting both strengths and gaps in my own knowledge. A careful analysis of such things usually gives me insight into myself and areas where I need improvement and continued study. Frequently, I find that there are whole time periods, languages, or genres I'm startled to find I have overlooked.

[Paulclem]

Isn't that exactly what one would want (and expect)? I've never studied literature, classic or contemporary (well, some ancient), but isn't thinking for yourself a big part of it?

On a less contentious note, The New York Review of Books (not to be confused with The New York Times) is a good source of opinion on new works.

I'd say yes it is what you would expect but I'm not sure it's as easy as you suggest. One of the reasons the classics are referred to so much is that there is a large and tested body of literature about them. Studying literature is less about coming to your own conclusions but accommodating and commenting on the studies others have done. To do a book justice requires close reading, familiarity with genres and styles, evaluation of the narrative techniques etc etc. That makes studying modern texts, which may only have a few reviews written about them, a bit daunting but nonetheless very interesting.

I read the Times and Guardian reviews and have often picked up books from there. The question of how you locate good literary and potentially classic books is also interesting. It's not surprising the Stoner had to be
revived and may qualify after falling out of print previously. Good newspaper reviews are probably essential along with competition nominations. I know that it has been suggested that such competitions are rife with u fair influence, but at least the books have been suggested by literary readers.

[Paulclem]

Yeah, I think that is more the point, the so called "resonance", it is probally where you can start, you as a modern reader of course. I am not sure about the booker list (perhaps it is another comfort zone?), but the resonance is a bit like a cat purring, right? It is a comfortable sensation.

1984 is a good mention. I know it dos resonates, evidences such as effect on world's language is there. I can see why - as it somehow is inside a tradition of distopias - worked at first. Why is working now, I am can especulate that maybe it is not the utopias that ended in this age, so we cannot "dream" about them, but the world is so secure (sic), stable, politically correct, that the distopias also are "dead" in this age, no nightmares are possible, so one we can believe in, like 1984 is strong. I consider this when i see, in Brazil, a minority, but loud and growing in power going to the streets with labels like "communism", "bolivarianism", asking for the return of militar dictadorship - not because you have charismatic leader, but because of supposed merits of the system. To me, their lack of historical context, came from a philosophical lack of reference that distopias can be real.

Anyways, the resonance is like thinking with the gutts, it is about the books you like. Don't you already guide yourself this way?

Yes on a personal level there is the gut feeling, but that's also opinion. Even a classic list is difficult to agree on though, which makes the in fighting and promotions of books in competitions like the Booker more understandable. I think you have to take recommendations where you can find them.

[Pompey Bum]

I'd say yes it is what you would expect but I'm not sure it's as easy as you suggest. One of the reasons the classics are referred to so much is that there is a large and tested body of literature about them. Studying literature is less about coming to your own conclusions but accommodating and commenting on the studies others have done.

Ah accommodating the views of others! Sounds like the lit crit biz to me. So the people you need to accommodate don't know what to think about contemporary literature because the ones they accommodated never told them--so they can't tell us what to think. I understand, really, and it makes me extremely glad to be a common reader who only needs to worry about finding a bond with an author; and to be free to form my views without the permission of others.


To do a book justice requires close reading, familiarity with genres and styles, evaluation of the narrative techniques etc etc. That makes studying modern texts, which may only have a few reviews written about them, a bit daunting but nonetheless very interesting.

In fact, a motivated reader could do all those things. Keeping up with the current lit on the current lit isn't really necessary to do a book justice, is it? A career maybe, but not a book. Literature is democratic in that respect, I think.

Please don't misunderstand me. I respect what you are saying, and I respect what you seem to do for a living. I am just grinning at the irony that a person like me, an old man reading through his retirement, is freer to decide what I think about contemporary literature than you, an apparent professional.


I read the Times and Guardian reviews and have often picked up books from there. The question of how you locate good literary and potentially classic books is also interesting. It's not surprising the Stoner had to be revived and may qualify after falling out of print previously. Good newspaper reviews are probably essential along with competition nominations. I know that it has been suggested that such competitions are rife with u fair influence, but at least the books have been suggested by literary readers.

You know, I think that Stoner and William's other two books were revived, as you say, specifically because of a publishing project by the New York Review of books (called New York Review Vintage or something). I don't know if it is available in Coventry, West, but I think it would be exactly what you are looking for. It's not connected to a newspaper, by the way. It is very much sui generis.

In any case, thank you for responding. I understand what you mean now.

[Paulclem]

Ah accommodating the views of others! Sounds like the lit crit biz to me. So the people you need to accommodate don't know what to think about contemporary literature because the ones they accommodated never told them--so they can't tell us what to think. I understand, really, and it makes me extremely glad to be a common reader who only needs to worry about finding a bond with an author; and to be free to form my views without the permission of others.



In fact, a motivated reader could do all those things. Keeping up with the current lit on the current lit isn't really necessary to do a book justice, is it? A career maybe, but not a book. Literature is democratic in that respect, I think.

Please don't misunderstand me. I respect what you are saying, and I respect what you seem to do for a living. I am just grinning at the irony that a person like me, an old man reading through his retirement, is freer to decide what I think about contemporary literature than you, an apparent professional.



You know, I think that Stoner and William's other two books were revived, as you say, specifically because of a publishing project by the New York Review of books (called New York Review Vintage or something). I don't know if it is available in Coventry, West, but I think it would be exactly what you are looking for. It's not connected to a newspaper, by the way. It is very much sui generis.

In any case, thank you for responding. I understand what you mean now.

Unfortunately I'm not in the lit crit biz and am more like yourself - an interested reader. Some of the other posters - St Likes, JCamilo and JBI are more learned.

I merely meant that to fully study a book, without much input from other writers, is more involved that forming opinions. It takes some close analysis. I also didn't mean to suggest that the interested reader couldn't do that. It's just a question of time and on this forum many of us interested readers are working and pressed for time. As a consequence I think it likely that discussion about modern literary works is more difficult. I think it would be worth it though. I like to look forward rather than just at the past classics where a lot of analysis has already been done leaving room for interesting but limited personal opinion.

I wonder if a thread where lit netters could post candidates for future classics would be interesting? Perhaps a short review with reasons why it might qualify as a classic. Who knows - we might actually spot one.

[Carousel]

Wasn’t it Stephen Fry who said of contemporary poetry ‘Nothing of note has been written for the last fifty years’ a bit strong but I see where he’s coming from; who reads today’s poetry, other from those who write or talk about it?
When I read quotes such as’ Never prostitute your art for mere public recognition’ and ‘Poetry doesn’t require to be understood’ I feel pretty close to Fry’s views. What happened to the old maxim ‘ Never loose your audience’

[Paulclem]

Wasn’t it Stephen Fry who said of contemporary poetry ‘Nothing of note has been written for the last fifty years’ a bit strong but I see where he’s coming from; who reads today’s poetry, other from those who write or talk about it?
When I read quotes such as’ Never prostitute your art for mere public recognition’ and ‘Poetry doesn’t require to be understood’ I feel pretty close to Fry’s views. What happened to the old maxim ‘ Never loose your audience’

it's not true though is it? Poetry by reputable authors is published and read, though by a minority.

It doesn't get much press, but it's still going on. And yes, there is a lot of stuff written by amateurs.

[Pompey Bum]

Unfortunately I'm not in the lit crit biz and am more like yourself - an interested reader. Some of the other posters - St Likes, JCamilo and JBI are more learned.

Thanks. I'm a newb here, so I'm still figuring it all out. St. Luke's indeed seems learned. I'm sure the others are, too, and look forward to reading their posts.


I merely meant that to fully study a book, without much input from other writers, is more involved that forming opinions. It takes some close analysis.

Perhaps, for me, it's a question of quantity. I'm a great believer in holding unpopular opinions. Also I try to avoid looking at much analysis of a work before I've actually read it. I prefer to remain a virgin as I approach a book.


I also didn't mean to suggest that the interested reader couldn't do that. It's just a question of time and on this forum many of us interested readers are working and pressed for time.

Good point. I've got the time and many don't. In fact, I believe I'll order another cup of mocha before I write another word.

Ah lovely! :)


As a consequence I think it likely that discussion about modern literary works is more difficult. I think it would be worth it though. I like to look forward rather than just at the past classics where a lot of analysis has already been done leaving room for interesting but limited personal opinion.

I wonder if a thread where lit netters could post candidates for future classics would be interesting? Perhaps a short review with reasons why it might qualify as a classic. Who knows - we might actually spot one.

Sounds great. How do we get one?

[JCamilo]

Wasn’t it Stephen Fry who said of contemporary poetry ‘Nothing of note has been written for the last fifty years’ a bit strong but I see where he’s coming from; who reads today’s poetry, other from those who write or talk about it?
When I read quotes such as’ Never prostitute your art for mere public recognition’ and ‘Poetry doesn’t require to be understood’ I feel pretty close to Fry’s views. What happened to the old maxim ‘ Never loose your audience’

Well, the point is that the pratical distinction of Prose and Poems, as a form and way to explore the poetic language, is not relevant to quality as it was centuries ago when poems were the aesthetic ideal of any aspiring writer. It is not about having "worst poetry", it is about prose strong evolution, exactly for dealing with the limits imposed by poetic language. In prose, there is a lot of accomplishment in poetry. (And 50 years ago, major poets were writting, just not in english, but in spanish, portuguese...).

Those sayings about not giving up his "art" for fame is present already on Keats (she is a wayward girl), Byron jokes about it in Don Juan all the time, Emily Dickinson as well, heck, I recall an anedocte with Ovid refusing to change a few verses in a poem, despite the "warning" of his close friends, which pretty much illustrate the poet not bending to public opinion.

As poetry needing to be understood, it is true, it is also an old motto in the sense art by art, how poetry is supposed to be closer to music, this abstract art (and once said the most pure of art forms). Of course, it does not need, but this imply, It can be understood or Dante would not worry to explain his creative proccess like he did. As all texts, some are understood a bit too much, how many understandments Kafka suggests to us? But neither this or the quesiton about "Popularity vs.integrity" allows any text produced to be good or bad.

[Pierre Menard]

I'm with Stlukes, we should study and talk about whatever books we like, and what we are most interested. It so happens that there's lot's of lovers of classic literature on here, and I don't think it's necessary to artificially try to talk about new literature just for the sake of it. To be quite honest, I don't think it's particularly true anyway, as there's been lots of topics over time that have talked about modern literature.
Also, I personally have learned a great deal from the posting about classics and the history of literature from this site. If I wasn't a long-time lurker back in the day, I actually would have been in the dark about a great many classics and interesting authors from the past.

Plus, modern literature gets a very fair shake of it around here compared to poetry and theatre, which unfortunately gets talked about little.

[Paulclem]

I'm with Stlukes, we should study and talk about whatever books we like, and what we are most interested. It so happens that there's lot's of lovers of classic literature on here, and I don't think it's necessary to artificially try to talk about new literature just for the sake of it. To be quite honest, I don't think it's particularly true anyway, as there's been lots of topics over time that have talked about modern literature.
Also, I personally have learned a great deal from the posting about classics and the history of literature from this site. If I wasn't a long-time lurker back in the day, I actually would have been in the dark about a great many classics and interesting authors from the past.

Plus, modern literature gets a very fair shake of it around here compared to poetry and theatre, which unfortunately gets talked about little.

I have to agree with you that there's been lots to learn. I've had loads of recommendations. I'm also interested in seeing how literature develops. I didn't intend an either or attitude but a mix, and I don't think there's the same focus on new stuff. On the other hand I also agree that people should read and discuss what they want. Hence this thread.

[ennison]

I agree that theatre gets little talked about. I don't go near the poetry thread. I've my own views. I may be irredentist even nasty but I ain't argumentative. Geddit? Naw. I just reckon some folk are biased before they read. So on a site like this you Godda do a bit of filtration. And I'm well filtered by a lot of the Reglars. I regularly act as an editor for a real poet who has never heard of this site and knows little at all about the inderundernet. I like the lists as I'm autistmale. I like the Genwine dilettante views. And yep there's always a bit to learn but don't get taken in by the bull****ters who like the "imaginary" sounds of their own voices as they take studious time-out from their "dissertations"

[Paulclem]

Thanks. I'm a newb here, so I'm still figuring it all out. St. Luke's indeed seems learned. I'm sure the others are, too, and look forward to reading their posts.



Perhaps, for me, it's a question of quantity. I'm a great believer in holding unpopular opinions. Also I try to avoid looking at much analysis of a work before I've actually read it. I prefer to remain a virgin as I approach a book.



Good point. I've got the time and many don't. In fact, I believe I'll order another cup of mocha before I write another word.

Ah lovely! :)



Sounds great. How do we get one?

We can just start a new thread on the topic of nominations for future classics. I suspect it's difficult, if nigh on impossible, to predict what will become a modern classic.

I'm currently finishing a book called The Kills by Richard House. It is a very interesting read, though I reserve judgement about whether it will become a classic until I finish it. I've mentioned it earlier in this thread. It was longlisted for the Booker, which is how I heard about it.

Aspects like it's 1000 plus pages may well mean it is not read so much, or it could be that the political setting is too transitory and it fails to sustain interest or relevance. On the other hand it could be a seminal book with its use of the internet to deepen the reading experience, or it could become a brooding classic film.

There's no way to tell except how it is read. It would be good to predict a future classic don't you think?

I'll start the thread when I've read it - or someone else could in the meantime if they have a nomination.

[Härt Noiz]

That's absolutely a fantastic idea! Even because I think that disscusing classics is - from a particular point of view - rather easy. It's the biggest challenge to state your own theories and interpretations, especially about works which are fresh and weren't already analyzed in the past.

[Paulclem]

That's absolutely a fantastic idea! Even because I think that disscusing classics is - from a particular point of view - rather easy. It's the biggest challenge to state your own theories and interpretations, especially about works which are fresh and weren't already analyzed in the past.

Thanks Hart -I agree with you that it is easy and comfortable to discuss the classics. Writing about modern classics does lay you open to dispute, but I find that idea interesting. It's a safe sort of speculation.

[Pompey Bum]

So start the thread already, Paul. You should do it since it was your idea. Here are some suggestions, none too new since I don't think everyone reads the Booker list as faithfully as you do, and we need books people have read or no one will post on the thread. Please turn all diversity filters off--this is not a comprehensive list:

A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth
Beyond Black by Hilary Mantel
Every Day is Mother's Day by Hilary Mantel
Vacant Possession by Hilary Mantel
The Risk Pool by Richard Russo
Nobody's Fool by Richard Russo
Butcher's Crossing by John Williams (or Stoner--I haven't read it, but you talk about it a lot)
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthay
Outer Dark by Cormac McCarthay
Child of God by Cormac McCarthay
The Road by Cormac McCarthay
The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt
The Secret History by Donna Tartt
The Luminaries by Eleanor Catton
The Quincunx by Charles Palliser
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke (for the fantasy fans)
A Long, Long Way by Sebastian Barry
Lost Memory of Skin by Russell Banks

I'd have something to say about any of those (and many more) but use what you like.

[Paulclem]

I don't want to give the wrong impression that I'm as widely read as I'd like to be. I've read a a few booker nominations including some in your list. I think it and other awards and reviews might direct us to what could be good nominations for a modern classic though.

So I'll start the thread. It could generate some interesting discussions, not least what features might qualify a book as a modern classic.

[Clopin]

Yes, a very balanced list of white male writers.

What a moron you are.

[Pierre Menard]

Yes, a very balanced list of white male writers.


There's a great deal of diversity in genre, form, style and era in stlukes list, so yes, I would say it's very balanced.

[Vota]

Show me a top 10 list written by female writers that tops that, and I'll show you a just as biased list unlikely to hold up to the standards of time and scholarly close scrutiny such as these works have. Great literature is great literature regardless of the gender of the author.

[Lykren]

Show me a top 10 list written by female writers that tops that, and I'll show you a just as biased list unlikely to hold up to the standards of time and scholarly close scrutiny such as these works have.

Well, not necessarily:

The Tale of Genji
Poems of Emily Dickinson
Emma
Poems of Sappho
Poems of Ono no Komachi
Middlemarch
To The Lighthouse
Wuthering Heights
Poems of Elizabeth Bishop
Poems of Xue Tao

My point here is not that there are as many great female writers as male writers - though one could speculate whether the balance would change if we were able to determine the gender of anonymous authors, as Harold Bloom did with the Torah. My point is merely a sociological one. It is doubtless that circumstances such as reduced rates of literacy and infrequent access to publication have hampered the genius of many a female author in history. I feel, though, that those who would say that we remain unaware of many historical female authors because of a patriarchal literary system, are rather ignoring the sociological impetus behind cultural developments. To say that a gender-balanced ratio of literary genius has always existed is certainly true; to say that a gender-balanced ratio of expressed literary genius is just as certainly false.

[Vota]

To say that a gender-balanced ratio of literary genius has always existed is certainly true; to say that a gender-balanced ratio of expressed literary genius is just as certainly false.

I doubt there is any proof whatsoever that there is any serious evidence that there has always been a gender-balanced ratio of literary genius, expressed or not. I'm all for equality between men and women, but in almost every artistic realm it is dominated by men. Obviously womens' contribution throughout history is greatly diminished in comparison to men, due to their essentially subjugated status, but this does not guarantee that had women throughout history been on equal footing with men that the ratio would be balanced. That's like saying men and women are exactly alike and so can produce the same results, which isn't necessarily true.

[Lykren]

The writing I have read by the greatest female authors, which seems to me on a level with anything I have read by the most-respected male authors, is sufficient demonstration, to my mind, that women face no intrinsic handicap when it comes to producing artwork of the highest quality.

[Vota]

Who said they possess a handicap? My point was that there isn't enough great work, or canonized work as of yet, to make the claim that women have equal literary talent to men. I never claimed they don't, but their isn't enough works that are considered true classics to make a statement that they are equal. I'm not talking about now, I'm talkin about the past up to now, which isn't arguable by listing off a dozen works by women.

There will never be a Faust written by a woman. There will never be a War and Peace, or Moby Dick, or works of Plato, or Nietzsche, or The Grapes of Wrath, or Shakespeare and on and on, by a woman. Look at multiple 100 greatest novels ever written lists and see the percentage of men vs. women. Look at top 500 lists. One cannot claim that women would have produced these works. I'm not saying they "couldn't", but that they didn't, and it is not realistic to automatically assume they would have. Based off everything I have seen in the arts, women cannot make the claim to be the equal of men within these disciplines, at the highest levels. Look at painting, writing, music, and tell me there is parity. There isn't, and until such time in the future as there is enough great works of comparable merit, I don't accept statements that basically say women would have been equal if not superior had they not been held down. Not only can this not be proven, but it almost seems like an attempt to diminish the achievements of men. There is a strong feminist undercurrent that is popular within western culture right now, and I'm ok with that for the most part. Women have been held back for a long time, but claims they would have achieved the same things as men is either wishful thinking, or not backed by history.

[Paulclem]

Given the inequality of the past, then what you would do is extrapolate backwards from the present where the relationship is more equal. Then you can see that women in the west now do produce as much quality work as men, and it is safe to assume that they would in the past. That they didn't is down to inequality.

On the original point, St Lukes is free to form whatever list he likes given it is personal preference.

[Vota]

Extrapolations and assumptions are just that.

[Paulclem]

Given that women produce fine work now that they have the opportunity to do so makes the assumption safe in my view. That is of course unless you think there's some other factor involved?

[Clopin]

Given that women produce fine work now that they have the opportunity to do so makes the assumption safe in my view. That is of course unless you think there's some other factor involved?

Women have always produced fine work, just not at the same quantity as men do. I read somewhere that due to the challenges men face in securing reproduction compared to women the spectrum of male intelligence and capabilities is more widely variable which produces more male geniuses as well as more male idiots who end up in prison etc. This seems reasonable to me considering that the highest and lowest positions in society are dominated by men. Most presidents, great writers, engineers and physicists are men but so are most career criminals, prisoners, homeless beggars and drug addicts.

[Paulclem]

Women have always produced fine work, just not at the same quantity as men do. I read somewhere that due to the challenges men face in securing reproduction compared to women the spectrum of male intelligence and capabilities is more widely variable which produces more male geniuses as well as more male idiots who end up in prison etc. This seems reasonable to me considering that the highest and lowest positions in society are dominated by men. Most presidents, great writers, engineers and physicists are men but so are most career criminals, prisoners, homeless beggars and drug addicts.

Did you read my earlier post? My point was that women had unequal chances to produce classic work in the past because of inequality. The fine work many produce now suggests they would have done so in the past had they had the chance.

[Clopin]

Did you read my earlier post? My point was that women had unequal chances to produce classic work in the past because of inequality. The fine work many produce now suggests they would have done so in the past had they had the chance.

Women don't produce nearly as much as men do even today, in any field or discipline. "Many" women have always produced fine work, just not nearly as many as men.

[Paulclem]

Women don't produce nearly as much as men do even today, in any field or discipline. "Many" women have always produced fine work, just not nearly as many as men.

I'm not sure that women can be considered less productive than men fairly. They are the ones who take career breaks, and there is still prejudice, though possibly less than twenty or thirty years ago.

I am surprised that no-one else wants to defend women's productivity in the face of historical inhibition of opportunities.

[Lykren]

Paul, I would but the prospect of having to argue the point is just too depressing.

[ennison]

I have just completed an excellent novel by Helene du Coudray. She was very young when she wrote "Another Country" but she went on to write more.Women have had the burden of child rearing and for that reason they haven't had the same luxury to scribble. It's faintly comic to think there's a significant intellectual difference (although there is a difference) because it wasn't Hermione Melville, Lenora Tolstoy, Charlene Dickens, or Lady Wilma Scott

[Paulclem]

I have just completed an excellent novel by Helene du Coudray. She was very young when she wrote "Another Country" but she went on to write more.Women have had the burden of child rearing and for that reason they haven't had the same luxury to scribble. It's faintly comic to think there's a significant intellectual difference (although there is a difference) because it wasn't Hermione Melville, Lenora Tolstoy, Charlene Dickens, or Lady Wilma Scott

I know what you mean Lykren.

I always think of Mary Shelley - there's no way she would have had the opportunity to write Frankenstein if she had not lived so unconventionally and had the benefit of her philosopher father. How many educated women of the time had unrealized talent? Very few.

[Pompey Bum]

Women have had the burden of child rearing and for that reason they haven't had the same luxury to scribble. It's faintly comic to think there's a significant intellectual difference (although there is a difference) because it wasn't Hermione Melville, Lenora Tolstoy, Charlene Dickens, or Lady Wilma Scott

Or Carmine McCarthy, Juanita Steinbeck, Marsha Twain, Michelle de Cervantes...Hey Ennison, this is kind of fun!

As far as the earlier posts about women go, I've kept out of it till now because the whole thing seemed so pointlessly contentious. Women didn't produce that much literature when they were socially discouraged from writing books? Gee, I wonder why that was. Not enough data to say that they're equals of men in that or any other field? Damn that estrogen! Damn it to hell! Read somewhere that men are either geniuses or idiots? Yeah, well you've got me there, pal.

Is there really anything to say about it other than who cares? Sorry, Lykren and Paul, for not saying it earlier.

[Clopin]

I'm not sure that women can be considered less productive than men fairly. They are the ones who take career breaks, and there is still prejudice, though possibly less than twenty or thirty years ago.

I am surprised that no-one else wants to defend women's productivity in the face of historical inhibition of opportunities.

Women have undoubtedly been heavily disadvantaged in the past, however there is still an enormous disparity between male and female writers and frankly, high achievers in virtually every field which is consistent in every culture and every region on Earth. You can argue that this is due entirely to cultural factors or social limitations but I'm not convinced. I also don't think your average woman is any less intellectual adept than your average man, by the way.

[Clopin]

By the way, women actually outperform men and boys in school from kindergarten to university so I'm not seeing this anti female bias that supposedly permeates all aspects of society and hinders female accomplishment. The only areas women are largely absent from are both the highest and lowest stratum of society (the majority of mathematicians are male, the majority of physicists are male and the majority of homeless people and prisoners are male) so unless there is some bizarre conspiracy centered around keeping women out of fields like engineering and mathematics all the while making sure they don't end up homeless or in jail we might just have to accept some natural differences between the genders.

[Paulclem]

Women have undoubtedly been heavily disadvantaged in the past, however there is still an enormous disparity between male and female writers and frankly, high achievers in virtually every field which is consistent in every culture and every region on Earth. You can argue that this is due entirely to cultural factors or social limitations but I'm not convinced. I also don't think your average woman is any less intellectual adept than your average man, by the way.

I don't think you can make claims about every culture.

I'd stop before the hole gets any deeper if I were you. Let's leave it at that.

[Clopin]

Good argument. I especially liked the part where you didn't make one. Anyway the disparity is clear to see, unless you want to point me to some cultures where the majority of technical and financial jobs as well as political posts are held by women you can definitely concede that there is a disparity right? Now the reason for the disparity is certainly in part due to social conditions but I don't think that's the entire story, you're free to provide some sort of argument though, I would love to actually discuss this with someone.

[Clopin]

Men commit 90% of all homicides in the U.S.A as well so the disparity between men and women is often very ugly for men... I guess that's all social conditioning though because apparently it's absurd to consider that men and women may be psychologically and mentally different by nature as well as nurture.

[Ecurb]

According to Wikipedia, the three best-selling novelists of all time are women: Agatha Christie, Barbara Cartland, and Danielle Steele. JK Rowling and Enid Blyton are also among the top ten. As far as "high achievers in virtually every field" being more likely to be men, how about primary carers and nurturers of young children? I'll bet the most of the "high achievers" to whom you refer were primarily nurtured by women -- or isn't child-care an achievement worth valuing?

[Clopin]

According to Wikipedia, the three best-selling novelists of all time are women: Agatha Christie, Barbara Cartland, and Danielle Steele. JK Rowling and Enid Blyton are also among the top ten. As far as "high achievers in virtually every field" being more likely to be men, how about primary carers and nurturers of young children? I'll bet the most of the "high achievers" to whom you refer were primarily nurtured by women -- or isn't child-care an achievement worth valuing?

I'm a daycare instructor myself and I would hazard that at least 90% of my coworkers have been women, but this just reaffirms my point that men and women are different and choose to work in different fields based on natural differences opposed to societal pressure. By the way, I'm not suggesting that men are better than women and as i am no achiever myself it isn't to my own credit that I'm pointing out the lack of women at the top end of most industries, nor do I think it reflects badly on myself personally that men commit the overwhelming majority of violent crimes, being male myself; these are simply facts.

[Pompey Bum]

Fran Kafka, Edie Allen Poe, Salome Rushdie...

[Paulclem]

Good argument. I especially liked the part where you didn't make one. Anyway the disparity is clear to see, unless you want to point me to some cultures where the majority of technical and financial jobs as well as political posts are held by women you can definitely concede that there is a disparity right? Now the reason for the disparity is certainly in part due to social conditions but I don't think that's the entire story, you're free to provide some sort of argument though, I would love to actually discuss this with someone.

The disparity is the key. This argument you're proposing is a rehash of a cultural assumption made in the last century - that some jobs were unsuitable for women on physical grounds. It was 'natural' that you didn't get women soldiers, plumbers, mechanics, engineers etc. This is now a sexist assumption and women are moving successfully into those roles. Are there as many women in those fields as men? No, but their prescence disproves former assumptions, just as the success of women in literature disproves former assumptions that education was not for women and hence publishing. The lack of representation is because those roles are still being normalize as women's too.

Your own job as a day care instructor sees your co-workers being mostly women. Why might that be? That day care work fits with looking after school age children perhaps? That many men would not consider working with young children because it is not as culturally acceptable? (Here in the UK they cannot get male Primary school teachers - 4- 11year olds. I was one of 3 male staff out of 38). The disparities are still there and it is very simplistic of you to attribute this to the innate qualities of men and women whatever stats you might bring up about violence and murder. Despite anything else most men do not commit violent acts and murder, and that a small minority do might reflect an aberrance that is not present in the majority of the population.

[Ecurb]

Men commit more violent crimes than women -- but it's not clear whether nature or nurture is the primary reason. Also, the fact that the three best-selling novelists were women makes me wonder if the subjectivity upon which critical acclaim is based might be prejudiced in favor of men. Best-seller lists are, at least, reasonably objective.

Evelyn Waugh, Hilliare Belloc, Joyce Kilmer. (Or don't those count?)

[Aylinn]

As to why more women do not work in engineering. It may be that they don't feel welcome and not everyone wants job where they are not appreciated. My father is an engineer, so I had the occasion to hear how 'it is not a suitable job for a woman.' This perception is slowly changing, but it is still present. That women can be engineers is one thing and a change in a good direction, but there is also this persisting perception which needs time to disappear.

[Clopin]

The disparity is the key. This argument you're proposing is a rehash of a cultural assumption made in the last century - that some jobs were unsuitable for women on physical grounds. It was 'natural' that you didn't get women soldiers, plumbers, mechanics, engineers etc. This is now a sexist assumption and women are moving successfully into those roles. Are there as many women in those fields as men? No, but their prescence disproves former assumptions, just as the success of women in literature disproves former assumptions that education was not for women and hence publishing. The lack of representation is because those roles are still being normalize as women's too.

Your own job as a day care instructor sees your co-workers being mostly women. Why might that be? That day care work fits with looking after school age children perhaps? That many men would not consider working with young children because it is not as culturally acceptable? (Here in the UK they cannot get male Primary school teachers - 4- 11year olds. I was one of 3 male staff out of 38). The disparities are still there and it is very simplistic of you to attribute this to the innate qualities of men and women whatever stats you might bring up about violence and murder. Despite anything else most men do not commit violent acts and murder, and that a small minority do might reflect an aberrance that is not present in the majority of the population.

1. Women are less capable than men at physical labour, that is a simple fact. Carpentry, plumbing, garbage disposal, the military and fields like mechanics are still dominated by men, just walk past a construction site for proof of this. It's not sexist, by the way to suggest that women as a gender can't lift as much as men can, you might as well call it sexist that I think men are usually taller than women.

2. I have never suggested that women are unfit for these jobs, only that women choose to work in different fields.

3. Now regarding daycare instructors being mostly women I think you're right to think a lot of this is due to cultural stigma but I also think that women by nature just enjoy children more. Call me sexist, call me old fashioned but this has been my experience in interacting with female friends, girlfriends, family members etc. Women like children more and women choose to spend more time with children. I also think men tend to place more of a value on money and childcare and education is a notoriously poorly paid field.

4. My point was simply to showcase something I believed pointed to an innate difference between men and women. Men are more aggressive and more likely to be violent, I believe this is evolutionary and inborn, you're free to believe that every single difference that manifests between men and women is the result of social conditioning. I will disagree with you.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psychology

[Clopin]

As to why more women do not work in engineering. It may be that they don't feel welcome and not everyone wants job where they are not appreciated. My father is an engineer, so I had the occasion to hear how 'it is not a suitable job for a woman.' This perception is slowly changing, but it is still present. That women can be engineers is one thing and a change in a good direction, but there is also this persisting perception which needs time to disappear.

Time will tell. I'm not a woman or an engineer but i do work in an industry absolutely dominated by women (childcare) and I have never felt unwelcome or that as a male I have a more difficult time gaining positions or promotions. In fact I feel like I'm often prioritized over female candidates in being hired due to the scarcity of men in the field.

[Pompey Bum]

In your opinion would a woman have the intelligence to understand that a thread entitled "Old Classics or New Literature?" was not her vehicle for expressing opinions about gender inequality? Would she be capable of starting a new thread called "Are Men and Women Equal?" in the Serious Discussions forum?

[Marbles]

1. Women are less capable than men at physical labour, that is a simple fact. Carpentry, plumbing, garbage disposal, the military and fields like mechanics are still dominated by men, just walk past a construction site for proof of this. It's not sexist, by the way to suggest that women as a gender can't lift as much as men can, you might as well call it sexist that I think men are usually taller than women.

If men were only as sexist as nature a lot of gender disparity would disappear by itself. But yes, I lean towards your view about the absurd attempts our modern society is making for a long time to remove completely the idea of difference between the sexes on each and every level, in every form or shape, as an article of liberal faith. It is comfortable and easy to believe that men and women have inherent sameness in all respects. It is also politically correct. Try for political leadership with a somewhat different view and you'll be trashed ad nauseam, you don't stand a chance.

That said, however, there is no gainsaying that a lot of supposed 'natural difference' between the sexes is but a front for retaining something from the old order of patriarchy, which remains alive and kicking in developing countries. But the 'problem' is that a patriarchal society with clear divisions of socially-constructed roles, I believe, was an existential necessity in pre-modern agrarian civilisations. It wasn't that the old peoples were intellectually dull and couldn't understand the ideas of equality; those ideas were put forth numerous times across all over the world, but only as an afterthought, because humanity did not have the technology and wherewithal to achieve it, either between genders or between social classes. With that in mind, when Westerners trash poorer developing countries for gender oppression and hackneyed ideas, they should realise that a lot of Third-world problems are caused by poverty and by old-style agrarian systems which is keeping alive classical social disparity of classes and genders.

[Clopin]

In your opinion would a woman have the intelligence to understand that a thread entitled "Old Classics or New Literature?" was not her vehicle for expressing opinions about gender inequality? Would she be capable of starting a new thread called "Are Men and Women Equal?" in the Serious Discussions forum?

You've made four posts on the subject so you tell me.

Marbles I agree with you, a patriarchal hiarchy is natural and occurred everywhere. Nowadays it's not necessary of course because I don't often need to defend my tribe or homestead from mongols etc and my partner is capable of living without protection in safety to bear offspring.

[Pompey Bum]

You've made four posts on the subject so you tell me.

No, I can't imagine many women being too challenged by that.

Thomas Womann, Joyce James...

[Eiseabhal]

I have no idea if we have daycare instructors here in Uibhist but looking after children is both the most important job in society and one of the most time-consuming. I do not completely accept the concept of the"high achiever" as it is a loaded political stance. I'd take my stand with Wole Soyinka on that one.

[Paulclem]

1. Women are less capable than men at physical labour, that is a simple fact. Carpentry, plumbing, garbage disposal, the military and fields like mechanics are still dominated by men, just walk past a construction site for proof of this. It's not sexist, by the way to suggest that women as a gender can't lift as much as men can, you might as well call it sexist that I think men are usually taller than women.

2. I have never suggested that women are unfit for these jobs, only that women choose to work in different fields.

3. Now regarding daycare instructors being mostly women I think you're right to think a lot of this is due to cultural stigma but I also think that women by nature just enjoy children more. Call me sexist, call me old fashioned but this has been my experience in interacting with female friends, girlfriends, family members etc. Women like children more and women choose to spend more time with children. I also think men tend to place more of a value on money and childcare and education is a notoriously poorly paid field.

4. My point was simply to showcase something I believed pointed to an innate difference between men and women. Men are more aggressive and more likely to be violent, I believe this is evolutionary and inborn, you're free to believe that every single difference that manifests between men and women is the result of social conditioning. I will disagree with you.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psychology

You are correct to point out the physical differences between men and women, yet despite this women are able to work in those very fields where it has formerly been the preserve of men. That most do not work in them is down to culture and opportunity, not physical strength. So yes it is sexist to claim that that this work is more suitable to men- which is what your statement about lifting implies. Times have moved on - longer handled tools, lifting equipment and opportunity mean that women can do these male preserve jobs and are doing them.

The point of restating that is to refute your claim of of some innate quality that limits women regarding literature. If women can begin to move into these jobs, then what about intellectual pursuit such as writing literature?

Your original claim was that there were other reasons why women didn't produce many classic pieces of writing and we can see that you mean an innate intellectual difference. You are calling it interest in different things, but I do not accept that. There have been barriers in the past which have limited women's endeavours in literature - not least the lack of education - and some of these conditions persist today. It is still not a level playing field.

[Clopin]

I have no idea if we have daycare instructors here in Uibhist but looking after children is both the most important job in society and one of the most time-consuming. I do not completely accept the concept of the"high achiever" as it is a loaded political stance. I'd take my stand with Wole Soyinka on that one.

High achiever being a president or prime minister, a surgeon, concert master etc.

[Clopin]

You are correct to point out the physical differences between men and women, yet despite this women are able to work in those very fields where it has formerly been the preserve of men. That most do not work in them is down to culture and opportunity, not physical strength. So yes it is sexist to claim that that this work is more suitable to men- which is what your statement about lifting implies. Times have moved on - longer handled tools, lifting equipment and opportunity mean that women can do these male preserve jobs and are doing them.

The point of restating that is to refute your claim of of some innate quality that limits women regarding literature. If women can begin to move into these jobs, then what about intellectual pursuit such as writing literature?

Your original claim was that there were other reasons why women didn't produce many classic pieces of writing and we can see that you mean an innate intellectual difference. You are calling it interest in different things, but I do not accept that. There have been barriers in the past which have limited women's endeavours in literature - not least the lack of education - and some of these conditions persist today. It is still not a level playing field.

In Canada at least there is nothing stopping women from having the opportunity of driving rigs, working on oil pipes, in construction, plumbing, etc and yet relatively few choose to occupy those positions.

As far as intellectual capabilities I've already expressed my opinion that the different reproductive challenges men face compared to women produces a wider spectrum of intellectual ability among men compared to women. I believe that men are more likely to be highly gifted or genius level but are also more likely to be vastly sub average as well. That said there have obviously been (and still are) plenty of female geniuses who were capable of writing enduring works of literature. Again I do not doubt that the prevalence of men in literature, music, chess, mathematics and scientific discovery is in part due to hindrances women faced throughout history but I think it's only part of the story, for the last few decades nothing has hindered women from playing Chess, yet there has never been a female world champion and women make up a very very small percentage of top Chess players.

I've already mentioned by the way that women outperform men at every level of academia from elementary school through university and on average score higher than men on literacy tests. Why is that? Am I sexist towards my own gender as well as sexist towards women? Are men lacking in opportunities in schools?

Another very obvious consideration is how reproduction works. While Lord Byron or whomever can impregnate a woman, leave and go on writing poetry or working, or whatever he wants, Lady Byron in the same situation has to bear and raise the offspring alone, a very time consuming occupation.

[Ecurb]

Women are NOT less capable than men at physical labor. A high percentage of knitting, for example, is done by women. There is no reason to assume that men are innately superior to women at (as Clopin states) carpentry.

Clopin may believe that men are "innately" more violent than women. He may even be right. However, there is no way of being certain. It is clearly the case that in our culture (and most other cultures around the world) boys and men are encouraged to be more violent than women. This makes sense in more technologically primitive cultures, where men's superior physical strength makes them more effective warriors. Perhaps, however, the cultural conditioning has simply persisted when the biological rationale for it has vanished.

[Clopin]

Women are NOT less capable than men at physical labor. A high percentage of knitting, for example, is done by women. There is not reason to assume that men are innately superior to women at (as Clopin states) carpentry.

Clopin may believe that men are "innately" more violent than women. He may even be right. However, there is no way of being certain. It is clearly the case that in our culture (and most other cultures around the world) boys and men are encouraged to be more violent than women. This makes sense in more technologically primitive cultures, where men's superior physical strength makes them more effective warriors. Perhaps, however, the cultural conditioning has simply persisted when the biological rationale for it has vanished.

Women are less capable at performing the vast majority of occupations which could be referred to as physical labour. Period, this is not an argument.

You're right I'm not 100% certain, it's usually very idiotic to be certain about almost anything, all of the differences in result that I note could be purely the result of cultural conditioning, I don't think that is the case however.

Men being innately more violent, by the way, seems to be pretty well understood scientifically, there is some contention though of course, but hey people contest the theory of evolution by natural selection as well.

[Eiseabhal]

Physical labour is very heavy on the body. Most modern men in Western societies cannot take physical labour for long compared to their grandparents. Very few women are built for pushing heavy barrows and very few are nutty enough to want to prove anything about themselves or their sex by doing so. That said I bet my mother's wrists were bigger than most male contributors to this forum. And most modern women have fairies' hands compared to hers. She was brought up on a croft though, not a comfortable middle class home. I doubt if, had she been given the choice, she would have spent so much of her early life between well and peat bank. Some of these "high" achieves are for me only high in the sense of well-hung game!

[Clopin]

Physical labour is very heavy on the body. Most modern men in Western societies cannot take physical labour for long compared to their grandparents. Very few women are built for pushing heavy barrows and very few are nutty enough to want to prove anything about themselves or their sex by doing so. That said I bet my mother's wrists were bigger than most male contributors to this forum. And most modern women have fairies' hands compared to hers. She was brought up on a croft though, not a comfortable middle class home. I doubt if, had she been given the choice, she would have spent so much of her early life between well and peat bank. Some of these "high" achieves are for me only high in the sense of well-hung game!

Plenty of women could outperform me in any number of physical tasks but that's pretty meaningless when we're talking about gender as a whole.

And I agree that high achiever is subjective, you could easily consider a happy life with well raised, happy children a high achievement, the semantics aren't important though and high achiever was just a term to describe the prevelance of men at the top of industry.

[Vota]

Physical labor and combat are two prime examples of the inate differences between men and women. I have worked rigorous jobs all my life, and I have never encountered another man that could physically outperform me when it comes to simple tasks such as shoveling or lifting concrete blocks for wall construction. I'm a solid 245lbs, and can work work a consistent pace all day with just a 15 minute break for lunch. I don't think there are many women alive on this planet that could keep pace with me, let alone do it day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. I can get scientific about a claim like this by stating that greater strength allows a person to perform tasks that Don't maximally tax them easier than a person with less strength, provided the stronger person has adequate physical conditioning. This is a scientific fact. I could also state that men, on average, recover faster than women at strenuous exercise due to a greater level of anabolic hormones which facilitate faster recovery of muscle tissue repair and nervous system restoration. I could safely state that the toughest female mma fighter wouldn't stand a chance against a top 10 male mma fighter. I could go on and on with cases where men inarguably outperform women and probably always will. Just because a woman "can" perform a role or job, doesn't mean they are equal in performance or capacity. My point isn't to belittle women, but to point out the extremely obvious fact that men and women are not equals in many things. I'm really tired of this pc multiculturalistic attitude that pervades so much of modern culture, because a lot of it is feel good garbage that cannot be backed by common sense real world observation. There's a lot of weak theories floating around .

[Vota]

Double post.

[ennison]

I think a daycare instructor sounds like a croileagan playleader Eiseabhal so you probably do have em in Uibhist. It's certainly the case that my daughter has more choice about her work than my grandmother. I don't think many men spend much of their thirties and forties even now bringing up children. Anyway there are plenty examples of good writing by women. A lot of it is relatively unknown. A lot of it deals with life in miniature rather than the big canvas.

[Ecurb]

Physical labor and combat are two prime examples of the inate differences between men and women. I have worked rigorous jobs all my life, and I have never encountered another man that could physically outperform me when it comes to simple tasks such as shoveling or lifting concrete blocks for wall construction. I'm a solid 245lbs, and can work work a consistent pace all day with just a 15 minute break for lunch. I don't think there are many women alive on this planet that could keep pace with me, let alone do it day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. I can get scientific about a claim like this by stating that greater strength allows a person to perform tasks that Don't maximally tax them easier than a person with less strength, provided the stronger person has adequate physical conditioning. This is a scientific fact. I could also state that men, on average, recover faster than women at strenuous exercise due to a greater level of anabolic hormones which facilitate faster recovery of muscle tissue repair and nervous system restoration. I could safely state that the toughest female mma fighter wouldn't stand a chance against a top 10 male mma fighter. I could go on and on with cases where men inarguably outperform women and probably always will. Just because a woman "can" perform a role or job, doesn't mean they are equal in performance or capacity. My point isn't to belittle women, but to point out the extremely obvious fact that men and women are not equals in many things. I'm really tired of this pc multiculturalistic attitude that pervades so much of modern culture, because a lot of it is feel good garbage that cannot be backed by common sense real world observation. There's a lot of weak theories floating around .

OK, we all agree that men are physically superior at Mixed Martial Arts than women are (although why anyone would want to participate in that particular sport is beyond me -- perhaps the fact that more men participate than women proves that men are stupider than women). Nonetheless, there is little evidence that men have more endurance than women. And most paid "physical labor" today does not demand size and strength (the only area in which men are undoubtedly physically superior to women). Gertrude Ederle's record time for swimming the English Channel lasted for decades.

Writing the word "period", Clopin, does not end an argument. It simply demonstrates a lack of rhetorical skill consistent, evidently, with being male.

[Clopin]

Physical labor and combat are two prime examples of the inate differences between men and women. I have worked rigorous jobs all my life, and I have never encountered another man that could physically outperform me when it comes to simple tasks such as shoveling or lifting concrete blocks for wall construction. I'm a solid 245lbs, and can work work a consistent pace all day with just a 15 minute break for lunch. I don't think there are many women alive on this planet that could keep pace with me, let alone do it day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. I can get scientific about a claim like this by stating that greater strength allows a person to perform tasks that Don't maximally tax them easier than a person with less strength, provided the stronger person has adequate physical conditioning. This is a scientific fact. I could also state that men, on average, recover faster than women at strenuous exercise due to a greater level of anabolic hormones which facilitate faster recovery of muscle tissue repair and nervous system restoration. I could safely state that the toughest female mma fighter wouldn't stand a chance against a top 10 male mma fighter. I could go on and on with cases where men inarguably outperform women and probably always will. Just because a woman "can" perform a role or job, doesn't mean they are equal in performance or capacity. My point isn't to belittle women, but to point out the extremely obvious fact that men and women are not equals in many things. I'm really tired of this pc multiculturalistic attitude that pervades so much of modern culture, because a lot of it is feel good garbage that cannot be backed by common sense real world observation. There's a lot of weak theories floating around .

People like Ecurb can't bear to acknowledge even the glaringly obvious and will go through the most elaborate mental hoops and gymnastics to explain away what everyone can plainly see.

Ecurb, men are more adept at physical labour period. You might as well be arguing that women are taller than men.

[Pompey Bum]

Writing the word "period", Clopin, does not end an argument. It simply demonstrates a lack of rhetorical skill consistent, evidently, with being male.

He may have you, Ecurb. I don't think men have periods.

[Vota]

I don't hold men as being superior to women. I think that both sexes have strengths and weaknesses. Men are superior to women in some areas, and women are superior to men in others. Together, men and women create a balanced whole. My only issue is when people try to say that both sexes are totally equal, or that a woman can do anything equally as well as a man can, which is as illogical as saying a man can give birth, which we cannot.

[Clopin]

I don't hold men as being superior to women. I think that both sexes have strengths and weaknesses. Men are superior to women in some areas, and women are superior to men in others. Together, men and women create a balanced whole. My only issue is when people try to say that both sexes are totally equal, or that a woman can do anything a man can do, which is as illogical as saying a man can give birth, which we cannot.

This is all true, and what's more it's clear as day to anyone with half a brain.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

[Ecurb]

Not true. Let's look at a few jobs which can be described as "physical labor" and you can decide whether you think men are more adept at them:

1) Housecleaning.
2) Knitting.
3) Repetitious tasks on an assembly line that don't demand heavy lifting.
4) Waiting tables at a restaurant.

These jobs are often done by women. Other manual labor jobs for which men have few (if any) innate physical advantages, but which are generally performed by men include:

1) Auto mechanic
2) plumber.
3) carpenter
etc., etc. ad infinitum

Jobs that men are probably innately better than women at performing:

1) Mixed martial artist (and many other less idiotic sports).
2) A few other jobs in which strength or size is very important.

By the way, "People like Ecurb" -- a silly and insulting phrase -- do acknowledge the obvious. What I don't acknowledge is that sexist stereotypes are "obviously" the result of innate physical differences. As I said before, they might be, but they might not be. It is often extremely difficult to determine.

[Ecurb]

This is all true, and what's more it's clear as day to anyone with half a brain.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

I'll grant, Clopin, that since it all appears "clear as day" to you, you also appear to have "half a brain". Is that the left side, or the right side?

[Clopin]

Not true. Let's look at a few jobs which can be described as "physical labor" and you can decide whether you think men are more adept at them:

1) Housecleaning.
2) Knitting.
3) Repetitious tasks on an assembly line that don't demand heavy lifting.
4) Waiting tables at a restaurant.

These jobs are often done by women. Other manual labor jobs for which men have few (if any) innate physical advantages, but which are generally performed by men include:

1) Auto mechanic
2) plumber.
3) carpenter
etc., etc. ad infinitum

Jobs that men are probably innately better than women at performing:

1) Mixed martial artist (and many other less idiotic sports).
2) A few other jobs in which strength or size is very important.

By the way, "People like Ecurb" -- a silly and insulting phrase -- do acknowledge the obvious. What I don't acknowledge is that sexist stereotypes are "obviously" the result of innate physical differences. As I said before, they might be, but they might not be. It is often extremely difficult to determine.

Give me a break, who refers to knitting or waiting tables as 'physical labour'? And is knitting really a 'job' for very many people? I actually never said that women are physically hindered from becoming plumbers or auto mechanics, I agree they are not.

Carpentry requires heavy lifting, which men are better suited for. And suggesting that a strength imbalance between men and women is a 'sexist stereotype' is absurd.

[ennison]

I think he was pulling your leg Clopin. I hope he was!

[Ecurb]

In "Twelve Years a Slave" the champion cotton picker was a woman. Does picking cotton constitute "physical labor"? Of course if by "physical labor" you mean only "labor requiring physical strength" then men have the advantage. How are housecleaning and cotton picking not "physical labor", though?

[Clopin]

In "Twelve Years a Slave" the champion cotton picker was a woman. Does picking cotton constitute "physical labor"? Of course if by "physical labor" you mean only "labor requiring physical strength" then men have the advantage. How are housecleaning and cotton picking not "physical labor", though?

They are, and you're right, physical tasks which require endurance and not strength do not favour men particularly (though there is a clear cultural bias towards physical prowess in males so I suspect your average male can, in fact, pick more cotton than your average female) so I misspoke. Considering the entire realm of physical labour though, men clearly hold a large advantage in the jobs which do require strength, I'll list a few since you seem to doubt their existence.

Pipefitter
Stocker
Construction Worker
Mover
Landscaper
Firefighter
Sheet Metal Worker
Bricklayer

Women also have weaker grip and I'm not a plumber, but maybe if you can't open a jar you'll struggle plumbing as well?

[Paulclem]

Physical labor and combat are two prime examples of the inate differences between men and women. I have worked rigorous jobs all my life, and I have never encountered another man that could physically outperform me when it comes to simple tasks such as shoveling or lifting concrete blocks for wall construction. I'm a solid 245lbs, and can work work a consistent pace all day with just a 15 minute break for lunch. I don't think there are many women alive on this planet that could keep pace with me, let alone do it day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. I can get scientific about a claim like this by stating that greater strength allows a person to perform tasks that Don't maximally tax them easier than a person with less strength, provided the stronger person has adequate physical conditioning. This is a scientific fact. I could also state that men, on average, recover faster than women at strenuous exercise due to a greater level of anabolic hormones which facilitate faster recovery of muscle tissue repair and nervous system restoration. I could safely state that the toughest female mma fighter wouldn't stand a chance against a top 10 male mma fighter. I could go on and on with cases where men inarguably outperform women and probably always will. Just because a woman "can" perform a role or job, doesn't mean they are equal in performance or capacity. My point isn't to belittle women, but to point out the extremely obvious fact that men and women are not equals in many things. I'm really tired of this pc multiculturalistic attitude that pervades so much of modern culture, because a lot of it is feel good garbage that cannot be backed by common sense real world observation. There's a lot of weak theories floating around .

It has already been stated that there is an obvious physical difference between men and women. I think you are labouring the point, (haha), as is Clopin. You just need to compare athletes.

It is stretching a point to suggest jobs with more skill cannot be done by women and nowadays construction work has lots of assistive tech like those conveyor belts for roof tiles, portable lifts etc. (You might want to mention it to your boss and yes I've worked on construction too).

I think the cultural standards we have probably have more influence than you might think. With a labouring job it's not merely down to how much you can lift but whether you can stick with the job. If you consider other countries that don't consider sex to be a barrier to this kind of work then you do find women labouring there in India and other Asian countries. Women were conscripted to dig tank traps and defences in WW2 in Russia. An example in extremis you might say, but they also had front line units made of women. Necessity and a different attitude to what women were expected to is the key. In cases like heavy physical work, it's not about barriers but the expectations of both sexes that this is not their kind of work. You may be a good worker, but in your line of work it's about being able to carry on all day everyday, not about how much you can lift at one time.

This is separate from Clopin's argument that women just do not produce as much excellent literature as men despite his acknowledgement that women intellectually outperform men academically. He also cites more physicists chess players and mathematicians as support for his idea that our reproductive system inherently produces more male geniuses with the counter that this also results in more violence and psychopathic men.

I do not agree with this assessment because it makes a number of assumptions about maths physics and chess and whether any of the qualities needed to become good in this field have any relation to literary excellence.

If we question whether women have equal opportunities in maths chess and physics, we'd have to say yes, but are the expectations that these are the pursuits of men rather than women already there? On the Big Bang Theory comedy - excellent though it is - we get a double message. Science is ok for both sexes, but physics is nerdy and in Sheldon's case for the weird. The women scientists are into biological sciences, which on the one hand shows successful women scientists, but on the other reinforces the idea that physics and engineering is for those nerdy boys. Good though it is, it still contains cultural assumptions, and it is difficult to say whether those cultural assumptions are not influencing the choices made by the sexes regarding career paths in science. In fact the lead physicist on the British satellite that landed on a comet recently was a woman, but we don't usually see women in those roles. Except I've just remembered a black woman astrophysicist who is on the telly. Maybe things are slowly changing.

For these reasons I just don't think you can make bland statements about men being more productive than women. The barriers to women still exist in society and culturally. It is changing though so you'd better keep up.

Another thought - I wonder if you being Canadian is significant in your views. I remember Juniperwolf - a Canadian who used to post - going on about the masculine culture she lived in. Just wondering.

[Clopin]

Nobody has made the argument in this thread that there are jobs which women can not perform, even assuming the job is something like ditch digging, women can do it of course just not as well.

Aside from that I have no problem with your post. You don't think evolutionary psychology is as important as cultural or societal pressures and you could be right. I expect to live at least another fifty or so years, so if by then a full 50% of inventions, scientific breakthroughs, mathematics jobs, physics jobs, chess grandmasters, political positions and engineering positions, are made or held by women while 50% of childcare, education, healthcare or social assistance positions are held by men I will certainly admit that my ideas on the subject were dead wrong.

I see it as sort of a chicken and the egg argument, what came first a natural predisposition to certain roles and functions in society which caused a widening gap and inequality over time, or an artificial social hierarchy that culturally pressures people into this or that role and severely underpowers women.

I think it's mostly 1 with a heavy dose of 2, though 2 is becoming less and less prevalent every year and I can't notice any disadvantage women face in entering the hard sciences today. Most of the disadvantage people observe are based on result I.E "women occupy only 10% of jobs in petroleum engineering (no idea if that is true btw) so they must be at a severe disadvantage in entering this field", which, while certainly a possibility is not evidence in itself of any serious lack of opportunity. Like I said, women outperform men in school so do we have to now suggest that this is entirely due to inequality faced by males? I don't think so.

Also I don't think Canada is an overly masculine environment... maybe compared to somewhere like Sweden it is.

[Paulclem]

Vota made the physical argument strongly, but I think he overstated it beyond the athletic situation.

I think your post is on the whole fair, but whereas there may be more overt advantages for women to take up jobs in petrochemicals - to use your example - the actuality of the situation may be that it is women's mindset that mean they do not take a career route that leads there. Due to current cultural expectations and conditioning, they may make choices which steer them away from such work. That is speculation of course, but I think there's something in it. Who in the Reagan era would have thought that a black president would be possible within 30 years until black presidents began to appear in films like Independance Day. It is very difficult to quantify, but you can see positive movements in things like gay rights and disability laws.

I was just wondering about Canada. Orphan Pip, another Canadian poster, was much more cosmopolitan so I just wondered.

Here in the UK a large local council - Birmingham - was recently ordered to compensate women employees for underpaying for equivalent work done by men. I was surprised at this as the council had a sheen of the progressive. It does show that there's a way to go in employment terms.

[Ecurb]

Cultural factors that lead to differences in achievement between the sexes can be subtle. Based on my experience, I think it's correct to say that men are more competitive (about sports OR career achievement) than women, on average. But we need not assume that the difference is innate; it could just as easily be based on differences in child-rearing, or differences in how boys and girls are treated.

It's well known, for example, that eldest children are considerably more likely to achieve success (based on a wide variety of measurements) than younger children. Perhaps we can all agree that the difference here is unlikely to be genetic, or even based on the prejudices of society. Logically, it must be psycho-cultural. It's reasonable to think that differences in achievement between the sexes may result from similar psycho-cultural factors. Of course it might also be that such differences can be explained by evolutionary-psychology.

The problem with evolutionary psychology is that it tends to reason in circles. Men are more competitive than women because being more competitive helped them have more children (in the days of polygamy, possibly). However, such generalities tend to be unpersuasive and banal. Even if they are correct (as might well be the case), how do they help us understand and cope with male or female psychology? How do they help us explain cultural differences around the world? In addition, we have no way of knowing if the assumptions ARE correct. Didn't some hyper-competitive men join the priesthood? What about homosexuality -- doesn't that cast doubt on evolutionary psychology? Like many reductionist explanations for complex behaviors, evolutionary psychology lacks both sophisticated predictive capacity and falsifiability. It sounds good, but doesn't really get us anywhere.

[Ecurb]

Just to clarify my last point, the logical error I often see in Evolutionary Psychology is assuming the antecedent. The error involves the following mistaken logic:

postulate: If A, then B.
Observation -- B exists.
Erroneous conclusion: A must have existed.

Evolutionary thought often falls into this error. Even just considering physical traits (as opposed to more complicated psychological or culturally constituted mores and behaviors), we cannot assume that because a trait exists, it must have promoted descendent-leaving success.

It is true that if a genetic trait increases descendent-leaving success it will tend to spread. That's the fundamental principle of Darwinism. However, assuming that because a trait has spread, it must have increased descendent-leaving success involves the logical error I point out above.

[Clopin]

Here in the UK a large local council - Birmingham - was recently ordered to compensate women employees for underpaying for equivalent work done by men. I was surprised at this as the council had a sheen of the progressive. It does show that there's a way to go in employment terms.

Women actually are not paid less for the same work, the studies which have shown that women make 77 cents on every dollar a man earns only took into consideration total earnings by gender and did not control for relevant variables like field of employment or even hours worked.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Ecurb you realise that the exact same reasoning is applied to the following example

"If women are underrepresented in many fields there must be a bias against women inherent in those fields"
"Women are underrepresented in many fields"
"Therefore the reason for this must be that women are being kept out of these fields due to bias"

I don't feel like debating the nature vs nurture thing anymore though, you obviously think nature plays a very small role while I think the evidence suggests it plays a very large role and since neither of us are going to 'prove' the other wrong I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

I'll just close with saying that I don't even think it comes down to one or the other, nature or nurture, I think both play a role and both are important.

[Ecurb]

I agree that it's futile to argue nature vs. nurture. There's no way of determining the answer (although my example of eldest children out-performing their siblings proves that it's POSSIBLE that the differences in achievement between men and women are based on nurture alone).

Also, I never argued that (direct) bias is the primary factor for differences in achievement between the sexes. It probably once was -- women didn't go to University, etc. But that's no longer the case, and, as you point out, it would be a logical error to assume the antecedent. However, some sort of "bias", or, at least, differential treatment from the parents MUST be the reason for eldest children's success. What else could it be?

[Clopin]

Eldest children have a statistically higher I.Q score, I'm not sure I.Q can be raised through nurture.

[Ecurb]

Eldest children have a statistically higher I.Q score, I'm not sure I.Q can be raised through nurture.

There's no genetic reason that eldest children should have a higher I.Q. score than their siblings, so I.Q. clearly CAN be affected by nurture. (I suppose there may be one possible reason, which is that older women are more likely to bear children with birth defects, but I think this alone can't explain the I.Q. differential.) The influence of nurture has also been proven with identical twin studies. Genetically identical twins who have been adopted and raised in different families can have significantly different I.Q.s. In addition, studies show that proper nutrition (as just one example) affects I.Q. -- which is just one example of nurture's impact.

My guess is that eldest children are more "adult oriented", because their significant relationships in their early life are with their parents. They are therefore more likely to achieve "adult-oriented" goals, including scoring well on I.Q. tests. Younger children are more "peer-oriented", because in addition to their relationships with their parents, they have early relationships with siblings. I'll grant this is just a guess.

[Clopin]

I would be interested in reading about the twins actually. And yeh there's evidence to suggest that younger parents bear healthier children but I would assume it more likely comes down to the family unit in European/North American cultures if there are consistent trends among eldest, youngest and middle children.

[Vota]

I find IQ tests dubious considering they are based on certain knowledge the participant might have. I remember reading somewhere how black people in the 60's always scored lower than their white counterparts on IQ tests. It was later shown this was because many black people had never gone to highschool, or something to that effect, so they would not have had the knowledge to take the tests properly. I'm probably not relaying this quite accurately, but that was the gist of it.

There are people that regularly practice these tests to get higher scores. Right off the bat this should tell you something about the nature of these tests.

My anthropology teacher made a pretty good case against the validity of IQ tests once by using aborigines as an example. He said that these people would utterly fail a typical IQ test, but you could place 100+ items in a particular organization in front of them, and then they could repeat that from memory. Now I don't know about you, but the only people that I know that can pull off this kind of feat of memory are people who specialize in card and number memorization.

I'm not saying IQ tests have no validity, but what they test or prioritize doesn't tell the whole picture or give an accurate account of a person's intelligence. I've typically scored extremely high in English tests, and writing essays has always been extremely easy for me, but my math ability is just average. I have very high artistic talent/ability in both painting and music, but chemistry drives me bat**** crazy.

All I'm saying is that IQ tests are a little dubious in what they really say.

I've used the word dubious twice in this post. Double checking to see if it means what I think it means...yes. Inconceivable.

[Clopin]

IQ tests aren't based on knowledge though and they seem to be pretty accurate, why Africans score fairly low and East Asians fairly high is a different argument.

[Vota]

IQ tests are based on knowledge. How can you actually test someone's IQ without a reference base of some sort? You can't. Recognizable symbols are still symbols with which we are all familiar with, but you showed an aboriginal certain symbols they might not know what to do with them.

I already mentioned people practicing IQ tests to score higher on them. If IQ tests weren't based on knowledge then it would be impossible to increase your score through practice.

[Eiseabhal]

Intelligence tests should use ten or more kinds of test before a generalisation can be made about a score. In practice they tend to focus on three areas : verbal reasoning, numerical aptitude, spatial awareness. I'm sure many of us are already saying but what about ... I find them a crude but perhaps interesting tool to determine a limited number of intellectual abilities. The post above saying the results can improve with practice is correct.

[Clopin]

IQ tests are based on knowledge. How can you actually test someone's IQ without a reference base of some sort? You can't. Recognizable symbols are still symbols with which we are all familiar with, but you showed an aboriginal certain symbols they might not know what to do with them.

I already mentioned people practicing IQ tests to score higher on them. If IQ tests weren't based on knowledge then it would be impossible to increase your score through practice.

They usually gauge spatial reasoning with a series of logic puzzles, none of which rely on any knowledge base. You can improve through practice though so I agree, they aren't perfect.

[Vota]

That's interesting. I wonder why they emphasize spatial reasoning when basic Math and English skills are much more valued in general?

[Clopin]

Well IQ isn't really 'intelligence' as most people would define it. If someone with, say a 110 IQ spent all of his time reading and studying he or she would certainly be more knowledgeable and contribute more to any discussion than someone with a 130 IQ who never learned to read and spent all of his time digging ditches... or something.

[Eiseabhal]

Spatial awareness is significant in lots of engineering tasks and tasks which requires the ability to "see" something three-dimensionally before it is made.

[Clopin]

Spatial awareness is significant in lots of engineering tasks and tasks which requires the ability to "see" something three-dimensionally before it is made.

I suspect engineers as a group have a higher median IQ than most.

[Vota]

I assume my spacial awareness is pretty good. I remember having to make the most complex molecular model in the class and getting it right on the first try. The teacher kind of looked at me funny.

I've taken a few IQ tests and usually come out in the low to mid-130's, but I don't put much stock in it. I've had a couple of friends that were in the mid-140's and it felt like our intelligence levels were very even with each other.

I think Clopin's point about knowledge and experience playing a big factor is accurate.

[tonywalt]

hhhm, I clicked onto this thread thinking the title and the content of the thread would be related....

[easy75]

^ what you said. lol.
To the OP, there are also lots of lists of contemporary literature too. There is a very good top twenty five at quicklit for example. I would include a link, but i'ma newbie and the system won't let me.
I don't know the classics as well as some here, but is the author's body of work a factor in "canonization"?
For example would the fact that E.L. Doctorow has a fairly impressive body of work score points for his best work, where as someone like Claude Brown might get whacked because he only ever produced one great book? I know Harper Lee is the exception and most people consider To Kill A Mockingbird a modern classic. But still...
I also liked what the OP said about 1984 and some others making the grade because of the ideas put forth rather than the actual quality of the writing. I would add to that books that capture the spirit of a specific time, event, or social climate so well that they become synonymous. Dickens did this superbly, Fitzgerald had the roaring 20's, etc. I don't think anyone would call Roots a literary masterpiece, but does it matter?

[Paulclem]

^ what you said. lol.
To the OP, there are also lots of lists of contemporary literature too. There is a very good top twenty five at quicklit for example. I would include a link, but i'ma newbie and the system won't let me.
I don't know the classics as well as some here, but is the author's body of work a factor in "canonization"?
For example would the fact that E.L. Doctorow has a fairly impressive body of work score points for his best work, where as someone like Claude Brown might get whacked because he only ever produced one great book? I know Harper Lee is the exception and most people consider To Kill A Mockingbird a modern classic. But still...
I also liked what the OP said about 1984 and some others making the grade because of the ideas put forth rather than the actual quality of the writing. I would add to that books that capture the spirit of a specific time, event, or social climate so well that they become synonymous. Dickens did this superbly, Fitzgerald had the roaring 20's, etc. I don't think anyone would call Roots a literary masterpiece, but does it matter?

Good points. I think the one about a body of work is interesting as we haven't really touched on it, though we skirted the issue a bit when discussing Cormac McCarthy.

I suppose it depends. Dickens clearly has a well known body of work, but there are authors like Melville for whom only one is regarded as a classic. Maybe Don Delillo's work will qualify.

By the way, from this thread we started the Nominations for modern classics thread where the intention is to recommend modern works as potential classics. I, personally, am bored by the extensive lists of books that are regularly posted in response to questions. They often don't say very much about what really recommends the books.

I'm much more interested in why posters nominate certain books in terms of ideas, narrative form and other stylistic features. I think it adds a bit more depth to the discussion.

[easy75]

Good points. I think the one about a body of work is interesting as we haven't really touched on it, though we skirted the issue a bit when discussing Cormac McCarthy.

I suppose it depends. Dickens clearly has a well known body of work, but there are authors like Melville for whom only one is regarded as a classic. Maybe Don Delillo's work will qualify.

By the way, from this thread we started the Nominations for modern classics thread where the intention is to recommend modern works as potential classics. I, personally, am bored by the extensive lists of books that are regularly posted in response to questions. They often don't say very much about what really recommends the books.

I'm much more interested in why posters nominate certain books in terms of ideas, narrative form and other stylistic features. I think it adds a bit more depth to the discussion.

Ahhh, I posted over there but didn't really explain my nominations very well. I will have to edit it later. Plus I forgot a few :)
I like this topic, and I think it is relevant. I like to connect modern authors with the ones that came before them, which is probably a silly exercise, but when I read Steinbeck I always think of Dickens. I think the classics deal with things that are universal and timeless. When the books start to lose relevance to the current age, it creates a void that new authors step in to fill. Farewell to Arms may or may not be the classic WWI story, but is it relevant in the same way to the Vietnam generation? The Iraq War generation? Doubtful. So insert Tim O'Brien and maybe someday Phil Klay.
So I guess what I'm saying is, more than anything else, it is how modern books connect on an emotional level to people and events that will determine their future status.