Five Books Nobody Should Read

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I just love aesthetic relativism. Such a brilliant philosophy... totally suited to those who fear any form of challenge or difficulty. Opinions in art are subjective... and so there can be no "good" nor "bad". Of course no artist believes this to be so... not even when considering his or her own efforts. Some are clearly better than others. All art is but opinion...? Certainly... but then some opinions are far better than others.:D As for "elitism"... well certainly "elitism" can have negative connotations that are connected with wealth and social status... but "elitism" also means having high standards and living up to them. It is NOT about snobbery. Indeed, I often find the opposite to be true among those who embrace an anti-intellectual stance and sneer at anything which requires intellect, concerted effort, and high standards. "Elitism" often involves the rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field; a long track record of competence in a demanding field; an extensive history of dedication and effort in service to a specific discipline, or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field. Meritocracy would be another term for "elitism". Personally, if I were faced with surgery I would wish for an "elite" surgeon... not the merely average. If I were involved in a discussion about Shakespeare here I would probably give anything Petrarch's Love had to say a greater degree of consideration due to her experience with Shakespeare and Renaissance poetry. I take the same approach to art/music/literature.

Having said that much I will admit that I have my own personal preferences and dislikes and there is no way that I like every work that has been acclaimed... and there are works that are less recognized that I personally hold far more dear. But at the same time, I recognize that there is a difference between stating something as personal opinion and stating something as fact. There is a great gap between saying "I didn't like Moby Dick. It just didn't work for me. I just couldn't get over all the digressions" and stating "The Heart of darkness was terrible." or "Candide was just slop." These are not statements of personal opinion but statements of fact... and considering that they go against the larger accepted position, they certainly open the speaker up to criticism and challenges to back up his or her position.

---

Oh, of course. I'd definitely choose to read Moby Dick
because I wanted to be an iconoclast of Melville's work. I wanted to do my best to utterly deface Candide, so I read it. And of course, instantly I scoff at dense novels because they require a concerted effort that I apparently cannot muster. Forgive me if I consider that a tad bit foolish, maybe even ignorant.

Of course an expert's opinion will carry more merit, as they are professionals who are paid to analyze literature (or in your surgery metaphor, perform operations). I didn't realize I needed a doctorate in literature to comment on 4 books I found mediocre and highly disappointing. Should I go to Cambridge for that doctorate?

Out of curiousity, did you not read my prior posts? I believe I commented on the lack of either symbolic or thematic strength and relevance about Candide (not that it matters now, or else you would have noticed). To comment that I must justify myself while you've apparently been oblivious to my prior justifications demonstrates what I'm trying not to consider as presumptuousness.

Sorry for defying the literary status quo. Next time I'll just conform my opinions to that of your beloved critics, the same elitist ones I seem to be sneering at. What a joke.

And of course, instantly I scoff at dense novels because they require a concerted effort that I apparently cannot muster. Forgive me if I consider that a tad bit foolish, maybe even ignorant.

Of course an expert's opinion will carry more merit, as they are professionals who are paid to analyze literature (or in your surgery metaphor, perform operations). I didn't realize I needed a doctorate in literature to comment on 4 books I found mediocre and highly disappointing.

I believe I commented on the lack of either symbolic or thematic strength and relevance about Candide (not that it matters now, or else you would have noticed). To comment that I must justify myself while you've apparently been oblivious to my prior justifications demonstrates what I'm trying not to consider as presumptuousness.

Sorry for defying the literary status quo. Next time I'll just conform my opinions to that of your beloved critics, the same elitist ones I seem to be sneering at. What a joke.

Out of curiousity, did you not read my prior posts?

I might ask the same. Perhaps you read Moby Dick with the same attention to detail? You will note that in no way did I say that you must like every book championed by the "experts". And while we're on this topic perhaps we should confront the issue of just who these "experts" are. It is easy to dismiss the "experts" as elitist snobs. It plays well with our democratic and egalitarian notions (of course all art it elitist... but that's another issue altogether). Politicians love to use this strategy hypocritically... bizarrely suggesting that their opponents should somehow be ashamed of having graduated with honors from a top university.. and as such they are not fit to govern because they are not a common Joe... not "down with the people".

The reality is that the "experts"... those whose opinions count the most with regard to literature are those who have invested the greatest effort into the study and appreciation of literature. This certainly includes academics, professionals, critics, and the like... but it also includes the passionate "common reader" (in Virginia Wool's sense of the term... the educated and informed reader who reads for sheer pleasure) and of course the subsequent generations of writers. These last two, indeed, are perhaps the most influential. A writer like Alexander Dumas survives in spite of his middling reputation among academics because he continues to resonate with readers. At the other end of the spectrum, James Joyce' reputation owes more to critics, academics, and subsequent writers who continue to be challenged and inspired by his work.

A work that attains a certain reputation as "great" is clearly a work that has continued over a period of time to resonate with readers... to fascinate academics and critics... and challenge and inspire writers. In spite of this, there is no guarantee that the book will resonate with any given individual reader. As I stated above, this is fine. If I say "I don't like Milton." This is a statement of personal opinion... and pretty much unchallengeable. If, on the other hand, you state, "Candide was terribly written" you have made a clear value judgment... a value judgment that is just as plainly stated as fact as the opposing opinion. This is what opens your opinion up to being challenged or questioned.

I believe I commented on the lack of either symbolic or thematic strength and relevance about Candide (not that it matters now, or else you would have noticed).

Yes... I certainly noticed, but did not choose to respond. But since you have pushed the issue let's deal with it. You suggest that Candide lacks symbolic or thematic strength. You do understand that the work is a satire upon Liebniz philosophy of optimism that suggested that this is indeed, "the best of all possible worlds" (A philosophy certainly supportive of those in power at the time... at any time... in that it suggests that the individual's place in society is "God's will" and part of a divine master plan... and thus to question one's place... or to actually think to improve upon one's standing is almost tantamount to questioning God and providence). Candide is an allegory... concerned more with questioning and challenging ideas through humor and satire taken to an absurd extreme than it is with character development.

But if a book excels in one standard, that does not instantly posit it as a great work. Moby Dick has strong symbolism, yet that symbolism cannot overcompensate for the lack of thematic relevance to me as a reader; Candide is darkly humorous, but the terrible lack of strong symbolism cannot be ignored. While some books excel in some aspects, they are utterly disasterous in others.

Now here I must clarify what point you are making. Are you suggesting that for a work of literature to be truly "great" it must be masterful upon all accounts? I would have to question this. Every work of literature does not have the same goals. Hemingway is not a failure because his writing lacks the florid and baroque splendor of Proust's poetic language. It is meaningless to criticize Baudelaire's Fleurs du mal as a result of its rigorous form which lacks the freedom of Whitman's Leaves of Grass. Shakespeare himself is not a master of every possible element that makes up writing, Hell, most of his plots are variations derived from pre-existing sources. A work of art succeeds or fails upon its own terms based upon the intentions... not against some abstract check-list of essential elements of reading. You suggest that you recognize Moby Dick's strong symbolism, yet feel that alone does not overcome its thematic relevance to you as a reader. One might ask what makes a work of literature relevant? Must it reinforce your own beliefs, thoughts, and prejudices...? Or might it achieve something more?

Again... and it may seem little more than semantics... what I am suggesting is that when you put your opinion of a work of literature in objective terms... as a statement of fact... it opens you up to being challenged. When you make such blanket statements as "Candide was terribly written" or "Moby Dick was boring"... especially without offering some examples or proof of your opinion... it strikes many as not far from declarations such as "Mozart sucks!" made by some pimply-faced teenager.:wave:

By the way... among those books that I would suggest no one should read... or perhaps no one should be directed, assigned, coerced, or seduced into reading... I would certainly include anything by the Marquis de Sade, Hitler's Mein Kampf, anything by Ayn Rand, L. Ron Hubbard, or Dan Brown.:brickwall

Wow - this got a tad off track, but I suppose the topic did encourage it ;)

I tend to value works of art (particularly literature) very subjectively - I can read Dan Brown's work and still enjoy it (despite noticing the obvious lack of "greatness"), but can still appreciate "classics" even if they don't appeal to me personally. As for Austen, she is one of my favourite authors - and I believe the ability to provide pleasure to readers should be valued as much as symbolism, thematic relevance or other "objective" measures. I'm not trying to imply that popularity makes something "great" - but it certainly takes merit away from the opinion that nobody should read it...

It's kind of depressing watching people misuse critical opinions. The whole notion of relativism is truth, but no scholar of literature is going to accept the "this is toss" as criticism. Truth be told, from experience, academics tend to just accept that the aesthetic merit given to a text is relative to a cultural position, which I don't think St. Lukes, or anybody can disagree with, even Harold Bloom. The problem that arises is when you question what that social opinion implies.

So, for instance, the huge best seller, Madame Chrysanthème which formed the basis of Puccini's slightly more politically correct opera, was widely regarded because of what? Or what are the aesthetic merits to this famous cartoon clip? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjLfyooJQEc

Sometimes we can clearly see the flaws in certain works, to the point where we no longer can even regard them as worth anything anymore, whereas other times, we make exception, as in the case of works like Heart of Darkness, we get beyond the cultural undercurrents.

As for formalist criticism - that generally doesn't go very far if you go against the current. Saying the prose is crap in Moby Dick isn't going to do anything, since formalist grounding is generally the most agreed upon thing, and innovation and style are respected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I might ask the same. Perhaps you read Moby Dick with the same attention to detail? You will note that in no way did I say that you must like every book championed by the "experts". And while we're on this topic perhaps we should confront the issue of just who these "experts" are. It is easy to dismiss the "experts" as elitist snobs. It plays well with our democratic and egalitarian notions (of course all art it elitist... but that's another issue altogether). Politicians love to use this strategy hypocritically... bizarrely suggesting that their opponents should somehow be ashamed of having graduated with honors from a top university.. and as such they are not fit to govern because they are not a common Joe... not "down with the people".

The reality is that the "experts"... those whose opinions count the most with regard to literature are those who have invested the greatest effort into the study and appreciation of literature. This certainly includes academics, professionals, critics, and the like... but it also includes the passionate "common reader" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the term... the educated and informed reader who reads for sheer pleasure) and of course the subsequent generations of writers. These last two, indeed, are perhaps the most influential. A writer like Alexander Dumas survives in spite of his middling reputation among academics because he continues to resonate with readers. At the other end of the spectrum, James Joyce' reputation owes more to critics, academics, and subsequent writers who continue to be challenged and inspired by his work.

A work that attains a certain reputation as "great" is clearly a work that has continued over a period of time to resonate with readers... to fascinate academics and critics... and challenge and inspire writers. In spite of this, there is no guarantee that the book will resonate with any given individual reader. As I stated above, this is fine. If I say "I don't like Milton." This is a statement of personal opinion... and pretty much unchallengeable. If, on the other hand, you state, "Candide was terribly written" you have made a clear value judgment... a value judgment that is just as plainly stated as fact as the opposing opinion. This is what opens your opinion up to being challenged or questioned.

Yes... I certainly noticed, but did not choose to respond. But since you have pushed the issue let's deal with it. You suggest that Candide lacks symbolic or thematic strength. You do understand that the work is a satire upon Liebniz philosophy of optimism that suggested that this is indeed, "the best of all possible worlds" (A philosophy certainly supportive of those in power at the time... at any time... in that it suggests that the individual's place in society is "God's will" and part of a divine master plan... and thus to question one's place... or to actually think to improve upon one's standing is almost tantamount to questioning God and providence). Candide is an allegory... concerned more with questioning and challenging ideas through humor and satire taken to an absurd extreme than it is with character development.


Now here I must clarify what point you are making. Are you suggesting that for a work of literature to be truly "great" it must be masterful upon all accounts? I would have to question this. Every work of literature does not have the same goals. Hemingway is not a failure because his writing lacks the florid and baroque splendor of Proust's poetic language. It is meaningless to criticize Baudelaire's Fleurs du mal as a result of its rigorous form which lacks the freedom of Whitman's Leaves of Grass. Shakespeare himself is not a master of every possible element that makes up writing, Hell, most of his plots are variations derived from pre-existing sources. A work of art succeeds or fails upon its own terms based upon the intentions... not against some abstract check-list of essential elements of reading. You suggest that you recognize Moby Dick's strong symbolism, yet feel that alone does not overcome its thematic relevance to you as a reader. One might ask what makes a work of literature relevant? Must it reinforce your own beliefs, thoughts, and prejudices...? Or might it achieve something more?

Again... and it may seem little more than semantics... what I am suggesting is that when you put your opinion of a work of literature in objective terms... as a statement of fact... it opens you up to being challenged. When you make such blanket statements as "Candide was terribly written" or "Moby Dick was boring"... especially without offering some examples or proof of your opinion... it strikes many as not far from declarations such as "Mozart sucks!" made by some pimply-faced teenager.:wave:

---

Certainly I do not pertain to say that the opinions of critics are frivolous and trivial. Oh Heavens no. I mean to say that my opinions of many heralded "classics" should not be disregarded, as were demonstrated by earlier posts (excluding yours) merely because they come into conflict with those of professional literary critics. When the cause of disagreement with my opinions stem from the fact that I disagree with literary critics, that is when I attack the merit of critics. After all, their opinions are not law. So when I'm defying the "status quo" of literature and being insulted or otherwise scoffed at (once again, excluding yourself) for disagreeing with literary pondits, that's when I question their merit.

About Candide; surely I knew of that, as I had done background research of both the origins of the novel and author prior to reading Candide, Moby Dick, and the others listed. So I knew what to expect. Yet Pride and Prejudice was also a satire of the author's surroundings and society, yet it featured better developed characters, themes, and symbols. Stating that Candide was a satire cannot fully justify the terrible character development.

Great novels don't have to excel in every category of the literary conventions referenced to in other users' posts; yet they still need to be sufficient in other categories. I'm not saying Hemingway's writing is insufficient because it lacks colorful language and pages of description; not at all. I evaluate novels on a basis of relatively objective standards: character development, strength and relevance of both symbols and themes, plot development, and strenght of structure. (Yes, they are subjective in that I derive an influence as a reader, yet they are objective in that a work must not be "enjoyable" to be "well-written.")Florid diction, as you reference to, only serves to improve my vocabulary; it neither aids nor deters from my evaluations.

That being said, I analyze every book I read. I felt that 1-5, but the 2-5 in question, were either lacking in most categories, or strong in one but weak in others. Candide was successful in 0 parameters. Pride and Prejudice was only strong in plot development, yet even the plot was predictable and unoriginal. Moby Dick had beautiful symbolism but lacked in other categories. While each novel must not be masterful in each category, you surely cannot expect me to say Moby Dick was brilliant if only one component of a novel's total package is well written while the others are uneven.

And as to the themes, they must not be opinions that augment beliefs I already hold. Surely, the theme can reveal me to paradigms on subjects I have not yet experience; in some works (Mere Christianity, Slaughter-House 5) I expect it to. The themes don't have to reinforce my beliefs, as that biases my evaluation of novels. Rather, they have to be strong themes; themes that are reinforced and seem applicable to common-day life, or life itself. While that may differ from yours, or anyone else's perspective of what a theme should be, that's where my disagreement in thematic strength comes in.

luke, Rand is certainly a polemicist, but she can offer the reader a powerful mission statement, despite that her characters become mere mouthpieces.

African Love, I get a bit weary with the oppressed people syndrome going after Caucasian authors in their time who tried to deal with *difference*. As it was once pointed out in another thread, Achebe himself is an Anglophone. Is Huckleberry Finn racist? No, because the reality of the South at that time was worse than what comes out of Twain's pen in the guise of a boy tough rascal.

Twain spent seven years on this novel; it is a satiric masterpiece that exposes Southern culture as so much deadwood, and Jim is actually one of the most morally centered characters in the book. In the same vein, Conrad has the courage to raise his voice and ask if colonialism is worth what it was doing to the Western soul. It is unfair to expect Conrad to create Sidney Poitier in an era when the British Enpire still ruled most of the known world. It took great courage just to publish Heart of Darkness as a text.

If I had a chip on my shoulder about how the disabled were portrayed by 18th and 19th century writers, that tunnel vision would hinder me from getting at certain levels of interpretation. Achebe is unfair in his level of expectation and laying on the guilt. Africa and Europe have clashed and interacted since Carthage very nearly destroyed the city of Rome, and human rights were few for a very long time, human existence was brutal, and I refuse to erase that history just because 1860 to 1960 plus saw a surge of progressive liberalism.

It's funny this debate seems to happen very often among people of verying levels of literary education and interest. This is not to say that one is better than the other as people have different aptitudes and interests.

Anyway, I have taken the stance for the last several years that iconoclasm is not something with which one should triffle. Not that there is no place for it, but that it is something we should approach with the grace and maybe even a little humbleness. If something has lasted centuries in high esteem, rather than accept the first judgements that pop into our heads, we might first ask ourselves why it has recieved so much praise. Surely there is a level of emperor's clothing that exists in any field, but then there are MANY people who have too much common sense/dignity to succumb to this.

What I suggest is read a little criticism by people you respect about a work before you dismiss it. Maybe the reverse is not true, you don't need to rethink something you like--though there are times I've done this out of principle--. But to say that we didn't like "Hamlet", and that it is thus not good is just rediculous. One of the reasons literature as a field outside of writing exists is to point out what is worth reading and what is worthwhile in it. Surely, this should carry some weight into our criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Twain spent seven years on this novel; it is a satiric masterpiece that exposes Southern culture as so much deadwood, and Jim is actually one of the most morally centered characters in the book. In the same vein, Conrad has the courage to raise his voice and ask if colonialism is worth what it was doing to the Western soul. It is unfair to expect Conrad to create Sidney Poitier in an era when the British Enpire still ruled most of the known world. It took great courage just to publish Heart of Darkness as a text.

---

That isn't really what Achebe is criticizing Conrad for though. Heart of Darkness seems to project a position that the English Empire is sullying itself through colonialism by reducing itself to the savagery of the Africans themselves. At least Twain humanizes his African characters. All we get out of Conrad are disease black bodies, dogs imitating people, and at best, with the "wild woman", a noble savage.

Edit: Besides the fact that the book takes place in a Belgian colony. It should rather be Europeans instead of the English.

Edit2: I'd like to add that I do think Heart of Darkness is worth reading and is a very well written novella. I just agree that it is very much racist and we should be aware of that when reading it. It's all fine and good to discuss the symbolic use of darkness and savagery, while distancing ourselves from the fact that these are also representations of a real group of people.

Quote:

---

Congratulations, he had a literary achievement. I'm trying my best not to scoff at your opinion, but is his rampant success with Moby Dick supposed to change my opinion? I read the book twice, hoping the 2nd time would reveal some thematic or symbolic brilliance: I found little. The book featured bright moments, sure, but all books do. I felt it just had little impact on me. Is that a crime?

---

No, it isn't a crime for it to have had little impact on you. The book, however, was NOT a success when he first published. Not only was it not a success, it was an absolute flop in terms of popularity. It took years of scholarly opinion and work for Moby Dick to achieve the stature it now enjoys.

Ironically, I find Herman Melville's style of writing far more enjoyable than most American author's.

From what I've found, the whole source of this argument can be traced back to here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceM

Pride and Prejudice had to spice to the plot, and Heart of Darkness was just terrible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceM

Candide was terribly written. Heart of Darkness had 0 impact on me as a reader who looked forward to reading that novel. Pride and Prejudice lacked any meaning to me as a reader, the plot was terribly predictable, and there was no thematic relevance to me as a reader. Moby Dick, while brilliant in some parts, just proved too tedious. I read that twice.

---

Quote:

---

Candide was just slop. Pride and Prejudice was flat.

---

And is resolved about here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

If I say "I don't like Milton." This is a statement of personal opinion... and pretty much unchallengeable. If, on the other hand, you state, "Candide was terribly written" you have made a clear value judgment... a value judgment that is just as plainly stated as fact as the opposing opinion. This is what opens your opinion up to being challenged or questioned.

---

Everything inbetween has been endless ramblings about elitism and textual criticism. I too contributed to the mess by bringing up my own brand of relativism in answer to IceT's criticisms. In truth, this entire debate has fired off over a slight but significant misuse/abuse of words and percpective. That's all :)

Orphan, if I can find my old paperback with my course notes I will make a thread one day in the author's list and would welcome the debate, but let me leave you with this thought: *The Lie* that Kurtz equates with the realization of the "horror" actually indicts the unnamed woman in the book who is waiting for him back home.

Something to think about. I am not saying Marlow is a saint, or even that Conrad saw things as clearly as he should, but I think the novel is more subversive than finger-pointing allows to its credit.

About Candide; surely I knew of that, as I had done background research of both the origins of the novel and author prior to reading Candide, Moby Dick, and the others listed. So I knew what to expect. Yet Pride and Prejudice was also a satire of the author's surroundings and society, yet it featured better developed characters, themes, and symbols. Stating that Candide was a satire cannot fully justify the terrible character development.

What I am saying is that Candide is not an example of terrible character development. The author makes no real effort to develop the characters because this is not an issue that is at all relevant to his intentions. Kafka makes no attempt at character development. Neither does Borges, Poe, or many other writers. On the other hand, character development is central to Shakespeare, Dickens, Proust, Twain, and Cervantes who make every effort to create memorable characters. Seriously, I am not proclaiming Candide as one of the most brilliant books ever written. I far prefer Swift for satire in a similar vein... albeit I must admit that I am limited to responding to Voltaire's book in translation.

Great novels don't have to excel in every category of the literary conventions referenced to in other users' posts; yet they still need to be sufficient in other categories. I'm not saying Hemingway's writing is insufficient because it lacks colorful language and pages of description; not at all. I evaluate novels on a basis of relatively objective standards: character development, strength and relevance of both symbols and themes, plot development, and strenght of structure.

Again... this assumes that there are elements that are universal to every book. Yet elements such as character development and setting/atmosphere are largely missing from J.L. Borges, while Proust is all about atmosphere, setting, every last little detail... and yet there is very little plot or action in
the traditional sense of things. By way of analogy it would be ridiculous when judging a work of art to criticize a print by Albrecht Durer for its lack of color or a painting by Picasso (or Jackson Pollack) for anatomical inaccuracies.

This also brings us to the fact that there are other literary forms beyond the novel... and where the intentions of Hemingway may differ from those of Proust we find an even greater challenge to the notion of some set criteria for "good" literature when we consider poetry, drama, essays, histories, criticism, biography, etc... any one of which can be just as much a work of literature... and involve just as much invention (and even fiction) as any novel.

That being said, I analyze every book I read... While each novel must not be masterful in each category, you surely cannot expect me to say Moby Dick was brilliant if only one component of a novel's total package is well written while the others are uneven.

I don't think that I quite analyze every book I read... not consciously. But then again I have done enough of that in the past that I don't always feel the need. My primary motivation is pleasure... of course there is a certain pleasure to be derived from work that is challenging... that pushes the reader beyond his or her comfort zone and expectations.

If I were to offer my judgment upon Moby Dick, to choose but a single book or the several discussed, I would freely admit that it is not the perfect, flawless novel such as Madame Bovary, The Great Gatsby, or Lolita. It is a great sprawling and certainly flawed behemoth (intentional choice of words:D) not unlike Don Quixote or War and Peace. Like these works, Moby Dick rises above its numerous flaws simply upon the basis of its overwhelming strengths. The plot itself is quite unique, although it certainly is based upon an archetype... with the tale of a great struggle that ends in tragedy told by a sole survivor. The multitude of digressions dealing with the history of whaling might be seen as distracting and disruptive of the flow of the narrative... but then again they create a sort of tension with the constant build up and then break. They also establish the practical purpose behind this obsessive drive of the whalers... and one quite removed from the obsessions of Ahab. The characters are certainly well-developed... in spite of the fact that each also has a certain symbolic purpose. Ahab is not easily forgotten. The language shifts equally from the dramatic conveyance of the narrative to the cool, objective descriptions of whaling and ships, to the visionary... almost Biblical/Shakespearean poetic passages. This contrast, like that of the shifting narrative, further paints an image of a ship of fools with greatly conflicting purposes and objectives: those who see this journey as but business of catching and cutting up whales for profit... and the monomaniacal Ahab raging against God and nature. On the symbolic level I agree with JoZ that the work is almost unrivaled as THE American epic (and perhaps only challenged by Leaves of Grass and Emerson's Essays in terms of influence upon American literature and even an American myth). It is, as JoZ suggests, a clashing of a vigorous Old Testment Protestant order with a romantic rebellion against God. It is also perhaps one of the most brilliant expressions of rage against human powerlessness before nature and the supernatural since Job. It absolutely shatters the Romantic notions of a benign nature embraced by many European poets who never stood before the absolute untamed landscapes of the "new world". Add to this all the absolute brilliant passages of visionary power and rage worthy of Milton's Satan spitting forth from the bowels of hell:

"Oh! thou clear spirit of clear fire, whom on these seas I as Persian once did worship, till in the sacramental act so burned by thee, that to this hour I bear the scar; I now know thee, thou clear spirit, and I now know that thy right worship is defiance. To neither love nor reverence wilt thou be kind; and e'en for hate thou canst but kill; and all are killed. No fearless fool now fronts thee."

Sudden, repeated flshes of lightning; the nine flames leap length-wise to thrice their previous height; Ahah, with the rest, closes his eyes, his right hand pressed hard upon them.

"I own thy speechless, placeless power; but to the last gasp of my earthquake life will dispute its unconditional, unintegral mastery in me. In the midst of the personified impersonal, a personality stands here. Though but a point at best; whencesoe'er I came; wheresoe'er I go; yet while I earthly live, the queenly personality lives in me, and feels her royal rights. But war is pain, and hate is woe. Come in thy lowest form of love, and I will kneel and kiss thee; but at thy highest, come as mere supernal power; and though thou launchest navies of full-freighted worlds, there's that in here that still remains indifferent. Oh, thou clear spirit, of thy fire thou madest me, and like a true child of fire, I breathe it back to thee.

[Sudden, repeated flashes of lightning; the nine flames leap lengthwise to thrice their previous height; Ahab, with the rest, closes his eyes, his right hand pressed hard upon them.]

I own thy speechless, placeless power; said I not so? Nor was it wrung from me; nor do I now drop these links. Thou canst blind; but I can then grope. Thou canst consume; but I can then be ashes. Take the homage of these poor eyes, and shutter-hands. I would not take it. The lightning flashes through my skull; mine eye-balls ache and ache; my whole beaten brain seems as beheaded, and rolling on some stunning ground. Oh, oh! Yet blindfold, yet will I talk to thee. Light though thou be, thou leapest out of darkness; but I am darkness leaping out of light, leaping out of thee! The javelins cease; open eyes; see, or not? There burn the flames! Oh, thou magnanimous! now do I glory in my genealogy. But thou art but my fiery father; my sweet mother, I know not. Oh, cruel! what hast thou done with her? There lies my puzzle; but thine is greater. Thou knowest not how came ye, hence callest thyself unbegotten; certainly knowest not thy beginning, hence callest thyself unbegun. I know that of me, which thou knowest not of thyself, oh, thou omnipotent. There is some unsuffusing thing beyond thee, thou clear spirit, to whom all thy eternity is but time, all thy creativeness mechanical. Through thee, thy flaming self, my scorched eyes do dimly see it. Oh, thou foundling fire, thou hermit immemorial, thou too hast thy incommunicable riddle, thy unparticipated grief. Here again with haughty agony, i read my sire. leap! leap up, and lick the sky! I leap with thee; I burn with thee; would fain be welded with thee; defyingly I worship thee!"

Job, Milton's Satan, Tennyson's "Who trusted God was love indeed/ And love Creation's final law/Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw/With ravine, shriek'd against his creed," Faulkner, McCarthy's Blood Meridian, even Spielberg's Jaws are all wrapped up in this magnificent passage which is almost worth the entire book in itself.

Heart of Darkness seems to project a position that the English Empire is sullying itself through colonialism by reducing itself to the savagery of the Africans themselves. At least Twain humanizes his African characters. All we get out of Conrad are disease black bodies, dogs imitating people, and at best, with the "wild woman", a noble savage. I do think Heart of Darkness is worth reading and is a very well written novella. I just agree that it is very much racist and we should be aware of that when reading it.

What we need to recognize when reading any work of literature is that we do not need to agree with everything that is being expressed for us to acknowledge that the work in question is still great art. I pretty much disagree with every last thing that Plato has to say in the Republic... but it is undoubtedly a brilliant and essential bit of writing. The notion that a work of art needs to reinforce our own beliefs, experiences, ideas, and even prejudices is a sorry bit of PC thinking that ignores the possibility that other cultures (past and future) most definitely would find just as many moral flaws in our culture and our art. I, for one, would rather have individuals... including writers... air their thoughts out in the open, than put forth a false face and mouth the part line. It also ignores what Anna Quindlen recognized as an essential value of books: "Books are the means to immortality: Plato lives forever, as do Dickens, and Dr. Seuss, Soames Forsyte, Jo March, Scrooge, Anna Karenina, and Vronsky. Over and over again Heathcliffe wanders the moor searching for his Cathy. Over and over again Ahab fights the whale.Through them we experience other times, other places, other lives. We manage to become much more than our own selves. The only dead are those who grow sere and shriveled within, unable to step outside their own lives and into those of others. Ignorance is death. A closed mind is a catafalque."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Modest Proposal

Anyway, I have taken the stance for the last several years that iconoclasm is not something with which one should triffle. Not that there is no place for it, but that it is something we should approach with the grace and maybe even a little humbleness. If something has lasted centuries in high esteem, rather than accept the first judgements that pop into our heads, we might first ask ourselves why it has recieved so much praise. Surely there is a level of emperor's clothing that exists in any field, but then there are MANY people who have too much common sense/dignity to succumb to this.

---

Good sense on display here Modest. There is, i believe, a tendency to make bold declarations which reflect superficial reactions to a work. I've been guilty of it myself. Dismissing a work like 'Moby Dick' requires some serious and considered analysis. Naturally, the on-line forum lends itself to the off-hand repudiation so perhaps one shouldn't be too harsh. But i think you open yourself up to suspicion and attack if your appraisal of a major work is overly simplistic.

This discussion again highlights the debate surrounding the subjectivity of opinion regarding the critical assessment of literature (or art more generally). I emphatically endorse the following:

Quote:

---

And while we're on this topic perhaps we should confront the issue of just who these "experts" are. It is easy to dismiss the "experts" as elitist snobs. It plays well with our democratic and egalitarian notions (of course all art it elitist... The reality is that the "experts"... those whose opinions count the most with regard to literature are those who have invested the greatest effort into the study and appreciation of literature. This certainly includes academics, professionals, critics, and the like... but it also includes the passionate "common reader".

---

Orphan, while I do not necessarily agree with your synopsis of Conrad's message in THOD, what I was referring to earlier was not the setting of the book, but the fact that Conrad nearly couldn't get it published, and was forced to make changes so that the original publishing house would take a chance on it at all. If African Love had given me some indication that she knew how much Conrad struggled to reach an audience, then maybe I would be less inclined to jump so vigorously to his defense. He was not a Polish version of Charles Dickens, and indeed, needed significant encouragement by the likes of Henry James just to keep writing.

This is what college courses are for people. The old adage of look before you leap applies. In the context of Conrad's era, the post-colonial Achebe is applying 1960's liberalism to a work of fiction when that liberalism did not and could not exist. The terms of debate were far different in 1914 than they were later in the century, but Achebe in some degree probably owes his culture and education to the unraveling of *Empire*--which had its roots in the warnings of Kipling, and Conrad's brooding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceM

About Candide; surely I knew of that, as I had done background research of both the origins of the novel and author prior to reading Candide, Moby Dick, and the others listed. So I knew what to expect. Yet Pride and Prejudice was also a satire of the author's surroundings and society, yet it featured better developed characters, themes, and symbols. Stating that Candide was a satire cannot fully justify the terrible character development.

---

Wow this opinion is so two-dimensional, of course you didn't like Candide if you were bothering about character development... if you had simply been reading it taking it for what it is, you might have found it an extremely funny and witty book.

Character development... :brickwall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I just love aesthetic relativism. Such a brilliant philosophy... totally suited to those who fear any form of challenge or difficulty.

---

Or to those who have minds unhindered by public opinion. Could you make a more pompous statement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

It is NOT about snobbery. Indeed, I often find the opposite to be true among those who embrace an anti-intellectual stance and sneer at anything which requires intellect, concerted effort, and high standards.

---

Elitism centers on exclusivity. The problem is not that people sneer at intelligence; they sneer at intellectualism, which is the sense of entitlement that people hold from believing in their own superiority. You often find the same level of bullying with the self-named literati as you do with powerlifters in a gym.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

"Elitism" often involves the rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field; a long track record of competence in a demanding field; an extensive history of dedication and effort in service to a specific discipline, or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field.

---

You've given the definition for specificity of knowledge, not elitism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Personally, if I were faced with surgery I would wish for an "elite" surgeon... not the merely average.

---

Thank you for this exemplary straw man fallacy. We're discussing art with a dynamicity of terminology, not a general use situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

There is a great gap between saying "I didn't like Moby Dick. It just didn't work for me. I just couldn't get over all the digressions" and stating "The Heart of darkness was terrible." or "Candide was just slop." These are not statements of personal opinion but statements of fact... and considering that they go against the larger accepted position, they certainly open the speaker up to criticism and challenges to back up his or her position.

---

They are not statements of fact. They are statements of opinion. It is simply implicit that IceM said "In my opinion..." When you read opinion articles on literature, the writers don't say, "I think the book exhibited poor dialogue." They say, "The book is poorly written." If you have the capacity to think for yourself, then you can recognize that the statement is an opinion, not a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Wow this opinion is so two-dimensional, of course you didn't like Candide if you were bothering about character development... if you had simply been reading it taking it for what it is, you might have found it an extremely funny and witty book.

Character development... :brickwall

---

Did you mean one-dimensional? If IceM's singular criterion for enjoying a book is character development, then who are you to judge his opinion? Nobody is up in arms against literary critics who base works on other evaluative stances, so is everyone's poor opinion of IceM dictated by his relative inexperience in reading? You're being rather catty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Modest Proposal

Out of curiosity, what books do you think are imaginitive and creative? Or not just empty?

---

I know this doesnt fit now, but books (stories) i find creative or show brilliancy of imagination:
-pretty much anything by Flann O'Brien (esp. The Third Policeman and The Best of Myles (a collection of newspaper articles)

-Picture of Dorien Grey (nothing like it has to my knowledge ever been done before and is therefor original and also creative)

-Animal Farm, 1984 (I dont think i need to explain those)

-Gullivers Travels (also a one in a million book)

-Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (allthough partly based on authers experience i thing it still counts as imaginative though maybe not completely as original)

There are afcourse many more but i would say these really show imagination and definately brilliancy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juhuulian

I know this doesnt fit now, but books (stories) i find creative or show brilliancy of imagination:
-pretty much anything by Flann O'Brien (esp. The Third Policeman and The Best of Myles (a collection of newspaper articles)

-Picture of Dorien Grey (nothing like it has to my knowledge ever been done before and is therefor original and also creative)

-Animal Farm, 1984 (I dont think i need to explain those)

-Gullivers Travels (also a one in a million book)

-Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (allthough partly based on authers experience i thing it still counts as imaginative though maybe not completely as original)

There are afcourse many more but i would say these really show imagination and definately brilliancy.

---

I like most of the books you mentioned, though I haven't read Flann O'Brien or Hunter S. Thompson. From your list it seems when you say imaginative you mostly mean fantasy/sensationalism--not that this is bad or less than anything else, it just seems to be your taste. The only thing I wonder, is if you think that imagination is only measured in how far a work departs from reality? I think it takes quite an imagination to make the kind of full rounded characters in the books you say lacked it. Similarly, I think imagination is required for the many and beautiful poetic passages in most cannonical writers. Really, I guess I just don't think imagination is relegated to fantasy or zaniness, I adhere more to the idea propsed by Samuel Coleridge. You might give it a look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Orphan, while I do not necessarily agree with your synopsis of Conrad's message in THOD, what I was referring to earlier was not the setting of the book, but the fact that Conrad nearly couldn't get it published, and was forced to make changes so that the original publishing house would take a chance on it at all. If African Love had given me some indication that she knew how much Conrad struggled to reach an audience, then maybe I would be less inclined to jump so vigorously to his defense. He was not a Polish version of Charles Dickens, and indeed, needed significant encouragement by the likes of Henry James just to keep writing.

This is what college courses are for people. The old adage of look before you leap applies. In the context of Conrad's era, the post-colonial Achebe is applying 1960's liberalism to a work of fiction when that liberalism did not and could not exist. The terms of debate were far different in 1914 than they were later in the century, but Achebe in some degree probably owes his culture and education to the unraveling of *Empire*--which had its roots in the warnings of Kipling, and Conrad's brooding.

---

I think Achebe would most be likely applying his view of the humans that were native to the Congo, not necessarily responding according to some liberal consensus. I don't think it is fair to lump him in with 1960's liberalism (although that might be a good place to lump some of his strident white supporters in North American and European academia, I guess), just as I don't think the people of Africa should have been expected to view things from the colonialists' perspective in 1914. It is of course important to realize Conrad's context, and that any racism in his book would most likely be due to the times, and not any particular conscious unique-to-him inclination on his part. But it doesn't mean that an African reader today or back then should just shrug it off and turn a blind eye. The racism in the book would probably be the most relevant social-historical aspect to an African, moreso than the colonialists' concerns about doing harm to their own interests, as relevant as that might be as well.

Despite the fact that Conrad might be most consciously interested in critiquing this or that facet of the colonialists, I think OrphanPip is pretty good describing the situation here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Edit2: I'd like to add that I do think Heart of Darkness is worth reading and is a very well written novella. I just agree that it is very much racist and we should be aware of that when reading it. It's all fine and good to discuss the symbolic use of darkness and savagery, while distancing ourselves from the fact that these are also representations of a real group of people.

---

Also, I think you may have African_Love confused with someone else, unless you've been referring to some posts in another thread that might be getting mixed in the discussion or something.

To "Modest Proposal":
I would argue that to concieve a believable character you need writerly talent/skill. However I believe that the kind of people in say North and South are all the typical people of that time and therefor ( even though skill is needed no imagination is required). Although what you say is in a way true i think there is a definition issue here between imagination and writerly skill. This is only my own opinion of course but i believe that a person with imagination can be a bad writer and a good writer (like gaskell or austin) can have little imagination (or at least they dont show it). And yes...for me imagination is departing from reality and thinking of things that are unorthodox/ out of the ordinary. This is however not the case (i believe) in austin or gaskell (just to use 2 examples i have actually studied). This does not mean they are bad books (some people dont like this sansationalism) but to me its just boring, also the story lines are quite unimaginative (in my sense of the word) and repetitional but then again many people might like that.
Like everything its all about taste and ours just happens to differ (immensely as i see by youre name) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceM

I evaluate novels on a basis of relatively objective standards: character development, strength and relevance of both symbols and themes, plot development, and strenght of structure.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Wow this opinion is so two-dimensional, of course you didn't like Candide if you were bothering about character development... if you had simply been reading it taking it for what it is, you might have found it an extremely funny and witty book.

Character development... :brickwall

---

Notice how character development is only 1 portion of how I consider a novel. I merely cited Pride and Prejudice to show that, while not as satirical as Candide, it achieves a greater level of practically everything component of my literary criteria. I love how you zoned in on only one dimension, however. Beautiful.

To all who read my posts though, I do not criticize "classics" for the sake of iconoclasm. When I formed my initial judgments of each novel I read, I analyzed and considered each novel seriously, as I had read most of these novels up to a year before I even joined this forum, giving me time to formulate my thoughts. I posted why I found them disappointing, as evidenced by my earlier posts.

Regardless of whether or not you disagree with my perspectives on these works, it is merely my opinion. If you choose to question them, do so. But when I am referred to as, "grossly ignorant," or, "sneer" at anything required a concerted effort, I take offence and find it necessary to defend my opinions.

Notice, I said, opinions. I expect many people to disagree with my thoughts. Just understand that I was voicing my findings, not purposely intending to be controversial.

SLG (quote)-I just love aesthetic relativism. Such a brilliant philosophy... totally suited to those who fear any form of challenge or difficulty.

Or to those who have minds unhindered by public opinion. Could you make a more pompous statement?

Do you even know what cultural relativism entails? It has nothing to do with liking or dislike a work of art regardless of its reputation. That issue has been discussed already, but presumably you missed it with your careful reading. It is a belief that as opinions in art are subjective there can be no "good" nor "bad"... and undoubtedly no "meaning" either.

SLG- It is NOT about snobbery. Indeed, I often find the opposite to be true among those who embrace an anti-intellectual stance and sneer at anything which requires intellect, concerted effort, and high standards.

Elitism centers on exclusivity. The problem is not that people sneer at intelligence; they sneer at intellectualism, which is the sense of entitlement that people hold from believing in their own superiority.

You listened quite well during the PC lectures, didn't you? "Elitism" is just a loaded word used to undermine those who may have more experience or knowledge in a given field by suggesting that this earned advantage is akin to the unearned advantages of wealth and social status.

SLG (quote)-"Elitism" often involves the rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field; a long track record of competence in a demanding field; an extensive history of dedication and effort in service to a specific discipline, or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field.

You've given the definition for specificity of knowledge, not elitism.

I'm sorry. I didn't know that it was you who was the final arbiter upon which definition of "elitism" I was using. So you have decided that I am wrong and you are right... which would seemingly make you the "elitist".:lol:

SLG (quote)-Personally, if I were faced with surgery I would wish for an "elite" surgeon... not the merely average.

Thank you for this exemplary straw man fallacy. We're discussing art with a dynamicity of terminology, not a general use situation.

I'm continually amazed at how analogies are not understood on a site devoted to reading literature. They clearly need to teach more poetry in school.

SLG (quote)- There is a great gap between saying "I didn't like Moby Dick. It just didn't work for me. I just couldn't get over all the digressions" and stating "The Heart of darkness was terrible." or "Candide was just slop." These are not statements of personal opinion but statements of fact... and considering that they go against the larger accepted position, they certainly open the speaker up to criticism and challenges to back up his or her position.

They are not statements of fact. They are statements of opinion. It is simply implicit that IceM said "In my opinion..." When you read opinion articles on literature, the writers don't say, "I think the book exhibited poor dialogue." They say, "The book is poorly written." If you have the capacity to think for yourself, then you can recognize that the statement is an opinion, not a fact.

And if you have the capacity to think for yourself then you will also realize that if you make a statement contrary to accepted belief among those who have put forth the most effort in the study of a given field, then you had better be prepared to defend your position... especially against those "elitists" who might just know a bit more than you give them credit for.

don't know, Haven't read them yet :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceM

Notice how character development is only 1 portion of how I consider a novel. I merely cited Pride and Prejudice to show that, while not as satirical as Candide, it achieves a greater level of practically everything component of my literary criteria. I love how you zoned in on only one dimension, however. Beautiful.

To all who read my posts though, I do not criticize "classics" for the sake of iconoclasm. When I formed my initial judgments of each novel I read, I analyzed and considered each novel seriously, as I had read most of these novels up to a year before I even joined this forum, giving me time to formulate my thoughts. I posted why I found them disappointing, as evidenced by my earlier posts.

Regardless of whether or not you disagree with my perspectives on these works, it is merely my opinion. If you choose to question them, do so. But when I am referred to as, "grossly ignorant," or, "sneer" at anything required a concerted effort, I take offence and find it necessary to defend my opinions.

Notice, I said, opinions. I expect many people to disagree with my thoughts. Just understand that I was voicing my findings, not purposely intending to be controversial.

---

What if I say: I didn't like Candide, because it was not written in good English (it was written in French). Would that be a good criticism? The same goes for criticizing Candide for lack of character development. Besides, comparing Candide to Pride and Prejudice is like comparing a **** and a bull.

What if I say: I didn't like Candide, because it was not written in good English (it was written in French). Would that be a good criticism? The same goes for criticizing Candide for lack of character development.

Now, now, Etienne. No analogies. You'll be accused of using the classic "strawman" diversion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

What if I say: I didn't like Candide, because it was not written in good English (it was written in French). Would that be a good criticism? The same goes for criticizing Candide for lack of character development. Besides, comparing Candide to Pride and Prejudice is like comparing a **** and a bull.

---

Who said that was my only parameter of criticism? I listed 4 in my own quote. I mentioned character development just to respond to stlukesguild and others that the plot being boring was not my only cause of disappointment, but that I actually took time to analyze each novel specifically. Why you continue to focus singularly on character development when I have 4 components of literary analysis is beyond me.

Another disappointing book: How to Read and Why, by Harold Bloom. That one wasn't written poorly: I just had a different expectation coming in that wasn't fulfilled. Beautiful writing, but was something I didn't expect in that it merely provided multiple synopses of novels. Disappointing, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceM

Why you continue to focus singularly on character development when I have 4 components of literary analysis is beyond me.

---

"Components of literary analysis"... So wether you read Joyce, Proust, Ovid, Dante, Beckett, Austen, Rabelais, Perec, Borges or Flaubert you will judge a book by these "components of literary analysis"... This look more like a high school exercise, than a real criticism. Literature is much richer, diverse and fluid than that...

bill,

When I read Morrison or Ellison, I do not condemn these authors for making their white characters two dimensional idiots of one sort or another. I accept their narratives from within the world they are creating.

I am not telling any minority reader to shrug off history, but to simply state "this is a racist text" without any degree of contextualism, to me is almost as limiting as remaining silent in the face of true demagoguery, sorry. There are countless of narratives, classic and commercial alike, where the civilized man is integrated into the indigenous native society. Tarzan. Dances With Wolves. Richard Harris in A Man Called Horse. Treasure Island. The Man Who Would Be King. Even The Jungle Book, for that matter, is a relative metaphor for man integrating within the natural world. To castigate Conrad for taking this theme and standing it on its head to explore the corruption it causes is simply too one dimensional and a disservice to any lover of literature.

Sometimes this forum makes me feel like I actually did go to Harvard, which says something in and of itself, since I had a fair 1980's university education, nothing extraordinary.

I am not confusing any posters, simply pushing back on the imperative to brand the text as worthless due to bigotry. At the moment, I am out of patience, and I leave luke on his own to temper the reactionaries, O multitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

When I read Morrison or Ellison, I do not condemn these authors for making their white characters two dimensional idiots of one sort or another. I accept their narratives from within the world they are creating.

I am not telling any minority reader to shrug off history, but to simply state "this is a racist text" without any degree of contextualism, to me is almost as limiting as remaining silent in the face of true demagoguery, sorry.

---

Fair enough, and I get your point. I am sorry if my note about confusing posters maybe ended up looking like a jibe, but looking through the discussion, I actually thought you might have meant to be responding to someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Do you even know what cultural relativism entails? It has nothing to do with liking or dislike a work of art regardless of its reputation. That issue has been discussed already, but presumably you missed it with your careful reading. It is a belief that as opinions in art are subjective there can be no "good" nor "bad"... and undoubtedly no "meaning" either.

---

Your stance is that IceM was stating a "fact" that Candide was bad. Perhaps you should do a careful reading of your own post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

You listened quite well during the PC lectures, didn't you? "Elitism" is just a loaded word used to undermine those who may have more experience or knowledge in a given field by suggesting that this earned advantage is akin to the unearned advantages of wealth and social status.

---

That's not what I'm arguing at all. You're putting words in my mouth, which is a prime example of your own pretentious attitudes toward people you seem to think are intellectually inferior to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I'm sorry. I didn't know that it was you who was the final arbiter upon which definition of "elitism" I was using. So you have decided that I am wrong and you are right... which would seemingly make you the "elitist".:lol:

---

It doesn't make me elitist; it makes me capable of using a dictionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I'm continually amazed at how analogies are not understood on a site devoted to reading literature. They clearly need to teach more poetry in school.

---

Why? Because you apparently think that the purpose of poetry is the obfuscation of discussion? You've presented a logical fallacy, and I've called you out for it. Don't try to cover it with semantic analogs just because you don't want to acknowledge that -- wonder of wonders! -- someone has questioned your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

And if you have the capacity to think for yourself then you will also realize that if you make a statement contrary to accepted belief among those who have put forth the most effort in the study of a given field, then you had better be prepared to defend your position... especially against those "elitists" who might just know a bit more than you give them credit for.

---

I do give them credit. They've lived forty to sixty years longer than I have. Yet even my best professors, who are ivy league alumni, mind you, acknowledge the points that literature a.) is impractical b.) is the substance of people who would use the term for egotism and c.) should be taken on a case by case basis rather than simply as various appeals to authority.

If you want to argue literature with someone and make poor claims, then make sure you do it with someone who isn't already in the field.

I should not even go on with this, but, FYI, I have heard Achebe on the lecture circuit give his HoD critique, and the main thrust of his argument, at least to me, seems to boil down to: Conrad takes no account of African animism as a positive affirmation and celebration of life.

Fair enough, but Conrad is not an anthropologist, or even a Kantian structuralist like Levi-Strauss. He was a Gothic novelist living in the tail end of Britain's Imperial era--and as I have already noted, one cannot impose onto him the multi-cultural appreciation that we receive through the modern academic scholar.

And now I'm done. Bow and fade out.

If you want to argue literature with someone and make poor claims, then make sure you do it with someone who isn't already in the field.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

I am bowed before the superior wit, wisdom, and experience of one who is "already in the field." Junior amateur essayist and student... I am cowed. Talk about "pretentious":rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

"Components of literary analysis"... So wether you read Joyce, Proust, Ovid, Dante, Beckett, Austen, Rabelais, Perec, Borges or Flaubert you will judge a book by these "components of literary analysis"... This look more like a high school exercise, than a real criticism. Literature is much richer, diverse and fluid than that...

---

Yes. Adopting some sort of 'tick a box' approach is going to severely constrain the kind of literature you will be able to enjoy. What is remarkable, however, is that relatively respected critics fall prey to this kind of analysis. I'm thinking in particular of James Wood's recent public tantrum over the failure of Don DeLillo to create characters which resemble those of Chekhov or Flaubert.

Quote:

---

Another disappointing book: How to Read and Why, by Harold Bloom. That one wasn't written poorly: I just had a different expectation coming in that wasn't fulfilled. Beautiful writing, but was something I didn't expect in that it merely provided multiple synopses of novels. Disappointing, really

---

I don't necessarily disagree with your ultimate assessment of Bloom's book Ice. But surely the disappointment of expectations (unless those expectations relate purely to aesthetic quality) is not a reason for dismissing a book. Great literature very frequently confounds our expectations, presenting us with characters, themes and prose that present the human experience afresh and broaden the boundaries of artistic endeavour.

Well, I didn't find Candide funny either. Maybe it's a cultural thing. I sprinkled vinegar on my chips (or pommie fritters as they call them in France or something) once dining with French friends of mine. They reacted very strangely & wondered what the strange *Roast Beef was doing. I had to explain to them that in my country the sprinkling of vinegar on chips (or pommie fritters) is quite a common thing. They were quite astounded by this revelation. I thought this was rather strange for a race who eat amphibian limbs.


*A French term for an Englishman based on the slightly bizarre French notion that the English live predominantly on a diet of roast beef & mustard. This isn't strictly true as sometimes we eat Marmite sandwiches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

If you want to argue literature with someone and make poor claims, then make sure you do it with someone who isn't already in the field.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

I am bowed before the superior wit, wisdom, and experience of one who is "already in the field." Junior amateur essayist and student... I am cowed. Talk about "pretentious":rolleyes:

---

I'll forgive you for this one because of the limitations apparent in electronic communication such as these forums. My last statement was intended ironically, as a jab at your (continued) insistence on your own superiority because of certain factors. Your age, I suppose, has something to do with it.

You've aptly demonstrated my point with this last post because you've done nothing to defend your arguments except to insinuate that I am callow and inexperienced. What a shining beacon of intellectual debate you are! Oh, that was ironic as well.

R e m i n d e r

Please keep in mind that we are here to discuss the ideas, not each other.

Posts containing personal comments will be removed without any further notice.

Hmmm, this argument looks startlingly familiar...

Candide is one of my top 10 favorites, but everyone has their own opinions.

Now, just for fun, here are 5 books that I don't think that anyone should read:
1. The Bible, sorry stluke, it might have a lot of literary merit, but it also has incredibly bad results when people start to really grasp onto it, especially when it's stories and metaphors are taken literally. The Qur'an has similar problems. If we could get to a point where these books can be studied and appreciated without them becoming dogma, then that would be different.
2. The Twilight Saga
3. The Book of Mormon
4. Atlas Shrugged
5. Anything by L. Ron Hubbard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

Hmmm, this argument looks startlingly familiar...

Candide is one of my top 10 favorites, but everyone has their own opinions.

---

I think I may have to learn French & read it in its original. A friend of mine similarly hates Camus' La Peste even though he read it in French. I have only ever read it in translation & quite liked it. Humour is often cultural & doesn't always translate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

1. The Bible, sorry stluke, it might have a lot of literary merit, but it also has incredibly bad results when people start to really grasp onto it, especially when it's stories and metaphors are taken literally. The Qur'an has similar problems. If we could get to a point where these books can be studied and appreciated without them becoming dogma, then that would be different.

---

Yes, tendentious dogmatism has a lot to answer for. I'm not religious (well, maybe a bit Zen at times) but I would like to point out that the letters of Paul did influence the development of early English epistolary novels like Richardson's Pamela & Clarissa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

1. The Bible, sorry stluke, it might have a lot of literary merit, but it also has incredibly bad results when people start to really grasp onto it, especially when it's stories and metaphors are taken literally. The Qur'an has similar problems. If we could get to a point where these books can be studied and appreciated without them becoming dogma, then that would be different.

---

I'm not a Christian, but the Bible and its contents are a cornerstone of Western civilisation. It's probably the most important single book ever written (or collated). Disagree with it if you like, but I think it's a little perverse to argue that nobody should read it.

To make a not-very-good analogy, I also wouldn't say that people shouldn't read Mein Kampf. (Not that I'm comparing the Bible to that work.) It's an odious and idiotic screed but a work of profound influence. That gives it historical interest if nothing else.

My 5 would be:

1. Amsterdam by Ian McEwan (sp?). Just a genuinely terrible and silly ending.
2. The Earthsea books. I like Le Guin, but those novels did nothing for me.
3. Any of the Malazan Book of the Fallen by Stephen Erikson (sp?). They're interminably long without pay-off, full of dislikable characters.
4. Finnegan's Wake. The emperor has no clothes.
5. Any of the Star Trek spinoff novels, especially the ones penned by William Shatner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

Well, I didn't find Candide funny either. Maybe it's a cultural thing. I sprinkled vinegar on my chips (or pommie fritters as they call them in France or something) once dining with French friends of mine. They reacted very strangely & wondered what the strange *Roast Beef was doing. I had to explain to them that in my country the sprinkling of vinegar on chips (or pommie fritters) is quite a common thing. They were quite astounded by this revelation. I thought this was rather strange for a race who eat amphibian limbs.


*A French term for an Englishman based on the slightly bizarre French notion that the English live predominantly on a diet of roast beef & mustard. This isn't strictly true as sometimes we eat Marmite sandwiches.

---

When a French and an English discuss food, the English is bound to lose...

Come on, the only thing you can find to sneer at is eating frog legs, which, by the way, are delicious. Besides vinegar on chips is disgusting (actually many people do it here in Canada, but it's just disgusting, mayonnaise is the real deal, then you have ketchup and then salt, pepper and paprika). Whatever you order in England you'll always end up with a plate filled with brown stuff, of different shades. All food is brown in England...

Candide, you know, is like fruits, candies, pastries of all kinds of color, no brown dishes, no painting with a women walking in an alley bordered with trees, all shaded brown with perhaps a timorous dog. No, were talking about exhaltation, fun and colors here. :D