The Classics

My sister and I were discussing yesterday that our present and past English teachers tend to dislike passionately popular novelist such as Daniel Steele, Nora Roberts, Stephen King,etc. and without explaining why they dislike these authors, everyone agrees with them or laughs (our classmates). Personally, I have never read any of these author's books. I do not believe my teachers have read them either. Are they simply judging a book by its author? I understand that their books are not The Classics but should we shun books simply based on the fact that they are not full of literary commentary, alluisons, and such? I guess my main concern is that out teachers outwardly proclaim they hate these books without ever picking a single book up. What is anyone else's opinion on the matter? Has anyone witnessed similar situation?

alicialiv, this makes me boil as well. I hate when people gives their opinion so decidedly without even reading the book.

This problem has occured infront of me several times. Not only in classroom, but in other fields as well.

Even some people here in the forum(no offense to them) believe that "novels" other than "classics" are pieces of litter or children books. Specially fantasies and sci-fictions are critisized by people who think that they knows a lot about literature.

While I understand your objections, it is far more common for those who have not read ‘the classics’ to decry them without ever reading them. Besides, on a forum called ‘The Literature Network’, it’s hardly surprising that people will prefer Dostoevsky to Stephen King.
We all have to make decision about what we read and digest, as there is so much around us. I haven’t read every King novel because there’s simply not enough time. I’ve read enough to know that it has little to offer me. I’ve never taken heroin or murdered anyone either so perhaps I shouldn’t criticise the practices? As one of the teachers who would serve you up Milton before Nora Roberts, I’ll try to offer you an explanation. Here’s George Steiner on what it is that differentiates a ‘classic’ from the rest:

“I define a 'classic', in literature, in music, in the arts, in philosophic argument, as a signifying form which 'reads' us. It reads us more than we read (listen to, perceive) it. There is nothing paradoxical, let alone mystical, in this definition. Each time we engage with it, the classic will question us. It will challenge our resources of consciousness and intellect, of mind and body (so much of primary aesthetic and even intellectual response is bodily). The classic will ask of us: 'have you understood?'; 'have you re-imagined responsibly?'; 'are you prepared to act upon the questions, upon the potentialities of transformed, enriched being which I have posed?'."

I was going to write something of some length, but that quote from George Steiner that The Unamable posted says it well enough.

There is popular fiction that has the potential to become classic, and some of the classics were popular fiction.

So my question is this: Is there such a thing is a modern classic? Could such books as Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Wizard of Oz be considered a classic. What about Steinbeck? He seems very modern. Is he a classic author? Just some questions to ponder.

A good way to distinguish between classics and run-of-the-mill popular novels is that classics leave a lasting impression while non-classics leave you soon after you put the book down. Classics get better each time you read them(there's more depth), while non-classics seem less interesting each time(you've discovered all there is to know the first time).

Does that mean that you should only read books written by someone you study in college? Of course not. I've thoroughly enjoyed many Stephen King books. I find almost nothing more enjoyable than reading a Peter DeVries story. I disagree with people who think that you're wasting your time if you're reading anything other than Elizabethan drama or Romantic novels. But let's face it, everyone is constrained by time. We can't read everything we'd like to, and we must make choices. So if someone were to ask me, I'd always point them to Dostoevsky or Dickens before King or Creighton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alicialiv

My sister and I were discussing yesterday that our present and past English teachers tend to dislike passionately popular novelist such as Daniel Steele, Nora Roberts, Stephen King,etc. and without explaining why they dislike these authors, everyone agrees with them or laughs (our classmates). Personally, I have never read any of these author's books. I do not believe my teachers have read them either. Are they simply judging a book by its author? I understand that their books are not The Classics but should we shun books simply based on the fact that they are not full of literary commentary, alluisons, and such? I guess my main concern is that out teachers outwardly proclaim they hate these books without ever picking a single book up. What is anyone else's opinion on the matter? Has anyone witnessed similar situation?

---

College professors can be overly intellectual, and frankly they themselves don't know why some things are classic and some aren't; they have a curriculum and if it's not part of it somehow it must be superficial. But that doesn't mean that there aren't reasons for considering something a classic (commonly referred to as being part of the cannon) and something that isn't. these are several considerations:

(a) craft and style. Did the writer create a most perfect structured work with the most elegant of writing style? Robert Louis Stevenson comes to mind here.

(b) Originality of ideas. Has the writer thought through and expressed ideas, especially those that reflect the human condition, that no one else has presented? Golding's Lord of the Flies suddenly just came to mind.

(c) Aestheic vision. Has the author constructed a work whose aesthics refelcts his society and the world view of his times. Dante's Divine Comedy is the absolute best example.

(d) Originality of artistry. Is the writer just writing the same old story but with different names and settings? Or has he taken a story (and there are only a small amount of story types to choose from) and cast in in a new way to amke it interesting? Joyce's Ullyses comes to mind here.

There may be other reasons that I can't think of. I'm not judging any of the authors you mention. Frankly I've barely read any of them. Just remember, lots of writers were put down as poor by the intellectual ellites, but over time were proven to be classics. Fundementally, if you enjoy it, read it. But don't ignore the classics either. A lot of work and discussion has gone into them by lots of people to establish their greatness.

I generally agree with the opinion of MikeK. Going back to the original thought, I belive that teachers shun moderns because there is so much garbage that makes publications. That is not to say that there is nothing good today, or that everything in the eighteenth century was amazing. But the novels, the classics, that live are amazing simply becasue they lived. Everyone knows of Les Miserables or A Tale of Two Cities, becasue they are widely renowned.... but how many know of "Toilers of the Sea".

Also, the problem that I believe that teachers have with today's novels is one that I have complained about several times. That is the "Hollywood" factor in literature. Books are shifting from being "good" and "well written" to simply being entertainined. Many could agree that "The Da Vinci Code" was an entertaining read and very captivating, but if in an English class you were to disect that book, you would discover that in terms of litereray content, it does not offer anything. Once again, this does not apply to all modern books, but commercailized books (written soley to make money) are becoming more popular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by byucougs

So my question is this: Is there such a thing is a modern classic? Could such books as Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Wizard of Oz be considered a classic. What about Steinbeck? He seems very modern. Is he a classic author? Just some questions to ponder.

---

Take a look at any of the many lists of the best novels of the 20th century, and you will see opinions as to what might become classics. Some already are. The Grapes of Wrath usually appears on list of the best, but I think that it has lost stature, because it is too rooted in a period.
The Lord of the Rings has some features of a classic, but the world of fiction has become too fragmented (The Hobbit is a better novel). There are many great fantasy and science fiction novels that would be classics already, if the fiction genre hadn't been subdivided, but I wouldn't include the Chronicles of Narnia.

This Modern Library's list of the top 100. Some are good choices, and some aren't, and some are just bad.
http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlib...estnovels.html

I often meet people, who think the opposite - anything that is elder than fifty years is not worth of their attention. They get annoyed with sentances longer than five words, and judge the book by its age, its cover, the author, saying that it doesnt have anything to do with the world we know today.
I am sure that many modern books are classics, and even if they are not yet, they will probably become in fifty years or so. I mean, the books we now call classics were mostly not called so in its own time, were they?

Quote:

---

Besides, on a forum called ‘The Literature Network’, it’s hardly surprising that people will prefer Dostoevsky to Stephen King.

---

A prime example of implicit intellectual snobbery.

Quote:

---

Are they simply judging a book by its author?

---

Aye, these authors have been typecasted into a stereotype which is supposedly devoid of any remedial features whatsoever.

Quote:

---

I understand that their books are not The Classics but should we shun books simply based on the fact that they are not full of literary commentary, alluisons, and such?

---

On the contrary. It depends on what you ultimately desire out of your reading experience. For those of us who read fiction primarily for entertainment, it would be silly to overlook popular literature. The whole concept of literary merit is itself a subjective, controversial issue and one no two people can completely agree on.
What is the use of literary commentary, allusions and othersuch if at the end of the day, they leave you feeling completely nonplussed?

In her own way Nora Roberts is as important to literature as someone like James Joyce.

Meh. Personally I dislike both Joyce and Nora Jones for entirely different reasons - but that is neither here nor there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flora

I often meet people, who think the opposite - anything that is elder than fifty years is not worth of their attention. They get annoyed with sentances longer than five words, and judge the book by its age, its cover, the author, saying that it doesnt have anything to do with the world we know today.
I am sure that many modern books are classics, and even if they are not yet, they will probably become in fifty years or so. I mean, the books we now call classics were mostly not called so in its own time, were they?

---

I can understand someone getting annoyed with long sentences, and I can understand people judging a book by the author, I can even understand someone judging a book by its cover; but the concept of thinking that any book more than fifty years old is not relevant to the world that we know today is absurd beyond expression. The quality of some books hasn't been noticed until they were a few decades old, and there are books that get 'rediscovered'. When one considers that all modern literature is a retelling in part of the Gilgamesh Epic, that idea becomes downright laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EAP

A prime example of implicit intellectual snobbery.

---

A prime example of implicit dumbing down.

Or perhaps you reject the idea of a dumbing down influence at work and instead ascribe all condemnation of its effects as the recalcitrance of an elite terrified by the waning of their power? I am not looking back in anger but forward in despair and around in disgust.

The multicultural aesthetic, to which we should all subscribe, insists that all values are now relative and the only absolute judgments to be made are those that condemn the ‘High Culture’ of the past. History itself is being rewritten as apology. I do not subscribe to view that the entire Western tradition (now dismissed contemptuously as ‘elitist’ and, of course, ‘racist’) is simply another form of white male oppression. All we have been witnessing is the replacement of an ‘elite’ system with a populist agenda through the insistence that everyone is equal and every opinion valid. The remarkable thing about this process is the way that it has advanced unchecked by the charge that there is nothing egalitarian about it.

I am in favour of elites, as are you all. ‘Elite’ refers to “the best or most skilled members of a group”. If I were to have major brain surgery (and I’m sure some of you think that I have had it and it all went horribly wrong), then I would want the operation performed by the best, the medical elite. Any person whose opinion it is that such operations should be carried out with a large dessert spoon covered in custard might have an opinion but not one that I would consider valid. The day will come when we have blind airline pilots.

M. Unnamable, sir I have been chasing you around this site throwing my support behind you, such as it is. I do so love (proverbially of course M.) your posts. Keep up the good work! I salute you sir, to M. Unnamable, the first among us!

Quote:

---

A prime example of implicit dumbing down.

Or perhaps you reject the idea of a dumbing down influence at work and instead ascribe all condemnation of its effects as the recalcitrance of an elite terrified by the waning of their power? I am not looking back in anger but forward in despair and around in disgust.

---

Err. Yeah, whatever. The only dumbing down influence that seems to be at work here is in the minds of certain people who believe in the importance of viewing the world through monocles of jaded cynicism. The current global situation of humankind is arguably much better than it ever was in man's history, so I cannot for the life of me, understand what you are trying to get at.

Quote:

---

The multicultural aesthetic, to which we should all subscribe, insists that all values are now relative and the only absolute judgments to be made are those that condemn the ‘High Culture’ of the past. History itself is being rewritten as apology.

---

Heh. For a moment I mistook it for a passage out of Pratchett's 'Discworld'. I can only shake my head if you truly believe in this instead of dishing it out as non-sensical rhetoric.

Quote:

---

I do not subscribe to view that the entire Western tradition (now dismissed contemptuously as ‘elitist’ and, of course, ‘racist’) is simply another form of white male oppression.

---

Erm, excuse me, but what are you talking about? White man? 'Racist?' Dude, you are not debating in some sort of fancy WASP competition at Harvard. None of the above is related with the topic at hand, or even its natural extension. If you really want to complain about the 'supposed victimization of white whatevers', I suggest a blog like Live Journal is a much better place.

Quote:

---

All we have been witnessing is the replacement of an ‘elite’ system with a populist agenda through the insistence that everyone is equal and every opinion valid. The remarkable thing about this process is the way that it has advanced unchecked by the charge that there is nothing egalitarian about it.

---

Generalizations. Non sequiturs. Exaggeration. Sterotypical typecasting. All that is left is a pulpit, a gong and an audience of three.

Re: rest

*yawn*

You know, I have always wondered at this extreme hostility often displayed towards Stephen King and others of his ilk. Personally writers like Stephen King, Peter Straub and Jeffrey Archer are far more invaluable in my eyes compared to Dostoevsky, Joyce and other literati darlings. You want social commentary? Read 'It'. A story which is actually enjoyable alongside being thought-provoking? The Stand.

Allusions and other literary techinques? Dark Tower series is rife with them.

Strangely enough, these days, most of the people I meet seem to consider books they actually enjoy inferior to those thick-worded, multi-layered effusive tomes with which you have to force yourself to plough through page 1 and yet are harped about because of their supposed difficulty.

A book has to stand on its own, regardless of the name of its author or the era it was written in. If you find more classics to be better written than contemporary fiction, than good for you. But please don't bandy it about as a universal truth (as some people do, often evident by the scorn they heap on authors like King, Rowling, Tolkien and even Lewis) - show it for what it is, your personal subjective opinion.