Debunking the idea of "classics"

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.