Debunking the idea of "classics"

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gideonthenomad

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gideonthenomad

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gideonthenomad

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Christopher Marlowe was a better playwrite than Shakespeare

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JHG

Quoted for emphasis.

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gideonthenomad

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gideonthenomad

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gideonthenomad

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

---

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

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

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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gideonthenomad

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

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


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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gideonthenomad

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gideonthenomad

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gideonthenomad

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lykren

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

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

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

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

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

---

"Intrinsically meaningful in themselves" is an oxymoron. Meaning by definition always points to something outside itself, the thing-having-meaning has meaning by virtue of the fact that it "stands in" for some other object, idea, etc.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mande2013

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gideonthenomad

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JHG

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lykren

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lykren

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gideonthenomad

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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

---

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

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

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

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

Responding generally to the post, which I enjoyed.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mande2013

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mande2013

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

---

Start now :)