Could someone help me understand "classic" literature

After yet another year of clashing with my English teachers and their curriculum choices, I am fed up. I have been told year after year that these stories were top of the line and that they would inspire/move me. Year after year they have not lived up to this standard. Is it the books? The teachers? Or is it me? In any case I'd like to know what exactly sets these books and authors above the others. Any help or constructive critiscm is appreciated.

Oh and a few examples of the authors giving me trouble. Hawthorne, Alighieri, Shakespeare, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.
I have enjoyed Orwell, Twain, and Steinbeck.

I'm with you on Wharton. A duller book then Ethan Frome is hard to come by. As to Hawthorne a duller boyfriend to wear a Scarlet Letter for could not be found. C. S. Lewis reads better if you have a background in Christian doctrines or much head scratching will ensue. I'm a cranky dinosaur so Shakspeare does not have the magic that others see in him but his sense of having a feel for the popular entertainments and what motivates mankind keep his plays moving along. I tend to enjoy his villians better then his heroes. Never read Dante and have never been tempted. Personally I prefer Haggard or Dickens or Stevenson WHEN the mood strikes me. Hope this helps.

hawthorne is an incredibly difficult author to understand, so no hard feelings there. C.S. Lewis, i enjoyed... but to each his own i guess. Shakespeare? those are PLAYS, and were always meant to be seen, not read. Reading them takes the life right out of the play and leaves it dull and boring and confusing. Go see a good shakespeare play... maybe it can kindle a 'shakespeare fire'...lol

I think Shakespeare probably could move or inspire you if you read the right play AND could get into the language of it. Dante is also wrapped in a language issue. Both of these are written as poetry. On top of that, Dante is translated, and refers to people and religious themes you might not know much about.

So, for the Shakespeare, I had to get into the new words and the different sort of language/structure of the sentences. Getting better at THAT has to become enjoyable, something interesting in itself, in my opinion. Perhaps you have worked along those lines, and have even gotten the hang of how to read it and understand what's going on pretty well, but you still don't like Shakespeare? But if the language is obstructing the story or overly-frustrating, then I'd suggest it might be worth the effort to stick with it and get the hang of it. And maybe see a play, or movie adaptation.

I'm guessing you are in high school. I read Dante in the university in a class that was simply about Dante. It was a while ago, but it was really great--but maybe having an interesting professor go through it with the class helped a lot--in fact, I am sure it did. As far as being inspiring or moving, well, maybe it was here or there, but I was mostly impressed by how much there was in those books, what things might 'mean', and with just how incredibly visual it often was.

Leland... I'm sorry, but it's you. Dante, Shakespeare, Hawthorne, etc... are among some of greatest writers... indeed Shakespeare and Dante virtually divide Western literature between them. The problem, however, is that any art form is essentially a language... and that language and its vocabulary must be learned and understood before you can really begin to appreciate it. After having read any number of older works of prose and poetry I laugh at the notion that Shakespeare... let alone Hawthorne... is difficult to read. But as with most things in life, practice makes perfect. Shakespeare and Dante both place far greater demands upon the average reader (demands that are more than rewarded) that are not as challenging as more recognizable language found in the work of many more recent writers... or the works of the writers most of us grew up reading as children... and many of the works of the more commercially popular writers. Of course I might add that it could also be the teacher (although as a teacher myself I probably shouldn't make such suppositions). A good teacher should attempt to instill a love of reading in you... should help you to develop a grasp of older prose and poetic forms... but ultimately it is up to the individual and you must decide whether the pleasure to be gained is worth the struggle. You can certainly stick with Harry Potter and Dan Brown and other writers that pander to the audience with easy art... just as you can stick with Lady Gaga or the latest summer block-buster and avoid music or film or art that might demand a bit more of you... art that might challenge you... art that might avoid the usual cliches. The decision is yours.

You mention having liked Steinbeck and Twain... both good writers... but not the and breadth of Shakespeare and Dante. Don't be quick to give up on them. At the same time... don't assume that your first opinions are your last. As you grow and gain in experience... including the experience of reading... you may find your opinions change. For now I would advise you to build off those writers among the "classics" that you do admire. Look into Hemingway's stories, Poe's tales, Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky (start with the short stories), Aldus Huxley. Also seek out the best examples of whatever genre you like to read: science-fiction, mysteries, ghost stories, etc... But every so many books... challenge yourself; try some poetry or perhaps Lewis Carroll in order to develop a love of language. Pick up a Greek play or one by Shakespeare and push your self and your expectations.

While I am on this, I might point out that the idea that Shakespeare should be seen performed and not read is absolutely absurd. His mastery of language, the difficulty of some of his concepts and metaphors, his use of word play, etc... are all best served through reading. Seeing a good live performance, on the other hand, can certainly help to pull things together... and lead to a better concept of the flow of the language.

@mtpspur- Yes it does help, there is at least someone else out there that shares some of my opinion.
@billl and tiredstudent- You bring up a fair point I will make sure to go see a play of his.
@stlukesguild-
Your passion is great. But then again so is mine, reading has been a central component of my life for as long as I can remember, whether it was reading Greek mythology with my grandmother, or tackling books like Little Women and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in grade school. I hate to sound as if I am bragging, but reading is my passion. So please do not reduce me to Dan Brown and Harry Potter right off the bat, and by no means am I a fan of Lady GaGa or for that matter anything that is played on the radio. I think any discussion between the two of us will be much more productive if you don't make rash assumptions of who I am. Thank you. In regards to Dante, I really don't find myself identifying with any themes within Dante as I am an agnostic atheist, and find most everything within that poem to be petty and depressing. On the other hand I think that I will give Shakespeare another go. I have already read War and Peace, Dickens has been a consistent figure in English classes, I like Poe's poetry, Crime and Punishment is on my summer reading list, and I will look into the others that you have mentioned. In regards to genres, I am a long time fantasy fan and my favorites are Martin, Abercombie, Rothfuss, and Lovecraft. Recently though I've been reading philosophy and political theory: Nietschze, Marx, Locke, Mill, Hobbes, Paine, and Shapiro so far. I'd be happy to receive any recommendations.

Just because everyone else loves it doesn't mean you have to. Enjoying a work is subjective. That's like me telling you that Beethoven is more enjoyable than Black Sabbath, which would be a total lie.

I agree, but my grade is dependent on my ability to interpret it just like my teacher. I also have to be able to stay awake while writing my 3rd essay of the week about the novel and what various symbols supposedly mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

I agree, but my grade is dependent on my ability to interpret it just like my teacher. I also have to be able to stay awake while writing my 3rd essay of the week about the novel and what various symbols supposedly mean.

---

You're going to do A LOT of stuff that you don't want to do in school. Actually, you're going to have to do A LOT of stuff that you don't want to do in life.

What that means is fake an interest in it or at least enough interest to get you a passing grade and never look at the novel ever again.

Oh is that so, am I going to have to things I don't want to in life. Things like working 30 hour weekends for the past 10 months, sacrificing your social life so you can go to college. Forcing yourself to drudge through school for 35 hours a week, a school that offers 2 classes that even interest you mildly. Coming home to yet another parental disagreement, and only falling asleep after the caffeine, that you are addicted to, wears off. And waking up 4 and half hours later to do it all again. I have by no means lived the hardest life, but then again it hasn't exactly shown itself to be a cakewalk. I am not asking for sympathy or pity just some advice. I posted here to see if perhaps I had been missing something that could help me get through English class, and in fact I have been given some reasonable advice (thank you first three to respond) but some feel the need to dole out advice that would be considered patronizing even to a 12 year old. I'll thank you to keep your life lessons to yourself.

Edit: Sorry if I'm acting defensive. Just feeling a little on edge tonight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

Oh is that so, am I going to have to things I don't want to in life. Things like working 30 hour weekends for the past 10 months, sacrificing your social life so you can go to college. Forcing yourself to drudge through school for 35 hours a week, a school that offers 2 classes that even interest you mildly. Coming home to yet another parental disagreement, and only falling asleep after the caffeine, that you are addicted to, wears off. And waking up 4 and half hours later to do it all again. I have by no means lived the hardest life, but then again it hasn't exactly shown itself to be a cakewalk. I am not asking for sympathy or pity just some advice. I posted here to see if perhaps I had been missing something that could help me get through English class, and in fact I have been given some reasonable advice (thank you first three to respond) but some feel the need to dole out advice that would be considered patronizing even to a 12 year old. I'll thank you to keep your life lessons to yourself.

Edit: Sorry if I'm acting defensive. Just feeling a little on edge tonight.

---

You're going to get A LOT of patronizing advice in life.

What that means is take the advice with a handful of salt and read that novel.

LOL.

Your passion is great. But then again so is mine, reading has been a central component of my life for as long as I can remember, whether it was reading Greek mythology with my grandmother, or tackling books like Little Women and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in grade school. I hate to sound as if I am bragging, but reading is my passion. So please do not reduce me to Dan Brown and Harry Potter right off the bat, and by no means am I a fan of Lady GaGa or for that matter anything that is played on the radio. I think any discussion between the two of us will be much more productive if you don't make rash assumptions of who I am.

I have made no such assumptions. Lady Gaga, Dan Brown, etc... were but examples of highly accessible and less-than-challenging works of art... works that do not demand a great deal of the audience but rather pander to them. You came to this board wondering about your inability to appreciate Shakespeare, Dante, etc... I merely suggested that these writers may demand that you invest more effort than you are used to... although I would almost assume that if you can appreciate Nietzsche, Shakespeare should present you with no real challenge.

You may indeed have read far more than I presumed... although one might point out that with Dante we are talking about a 13th century Italian poet and with Shakespeare we have a poet/playwright of 16th/early 17th century England. The language, the poetic structures, the use of metaphors, symbols, etc... may be well removed from much that you have read. It wasn't really until I had a good deal of experience in reading poetry... including earlier poets... that I found Shakespeare and Dante really resonated. Of course... you may just not like them, and there is nothing wrong with that... as long as you can discern a personal dislike from a larger value judgment (ie. Shakespeare doesn't do much for me... thus Shakespeare is overrated).

With regard to Dante and your inability to relate to his themes... I would question whether the ability to relate is something to make aesthetic judgments based upon. In other words... do you read only to reinforce your own ideas, beliefs, thoughts, experiences... even prejudices? Part of the value of reading is the ability to experience other ideas, beliefs, thoughts, cultures, etc... I am not Muslim, and yet the strongest book I have read in the last few years was Firdawsi's Shanameh... which is something of Persia/Iran's Odyssey and Divine Comedy all wrapped into one. I remember being absolutely infuriated again and again by the ideas Plato put forth in The Republic. I repeatedly scrawled angry retorts in the margins... but reading him was an experience I would not have missed. It was like engaging in a dialog with a brilliant mind... and I could not deny his brilliance no matter how much I disagreed with what he had to say. Beyond saying this, I might note that Dante's themes are virtually an entire universe. His is not but dry theology... he deals with passion, love, deceit, murder, history, politics, theology, death, spirituality, and so much more. His characters and their narratives and the intensely sensual/sensory manner in which he portrays them include many of the central characters and narratives to Western literature. They have repeatedly been the subject matter of painters, poets, novelists, composers, etc... This is something to consider before dismissing his work offhand.

...some feel the need to dole out advice that would be considered patronizing even to a 12 year old. I'll thank you to keep your life lessons to yourself.

Again... it is impossible to offer any real critique of your reading or suggestions to improve this without a greater case history of your reading, as it were. You are the one who came here asking for the opinions of others. Believe it or not some of those here may have already gone through the same sort of struggles and experiences as you... as some here may have actually have more experience with literature than you. Certainly, you are free to make of my opinions...take them or leave them... as you will.

@spooky-Ugh its a never ending circle. lol
@stluke- I understand that reading can introduce you to new ideas, but in Dante's case they were for the most part the lessons of my childhood (raised a Roman Catholic) but with more detail.Though I still have my doubts you have convinced me to study poetry more intensively, and revisit the Divine Comedy. As for recommendations, if you happen to know of any prominent anarchist theorists that would be great. I'd like to once again apologize to anyone I got snappy with, I regret doing so. This seems to have quickly devolved into an irritable me ranting at people over the internet.

Surely, there's no greater "anarchist" than William Blake.:biggrin5:

Oh, yeah. Blake is pretty easy to appreciate. I was very lucky to pick that at random for some high school assignment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

@spooky-Ugh its a never ending circle. lol
@stluke- I understand that reading can introduce you to new ideas, but in Dante's case they were for the most part the lessons of my childhood (raised a Roman Catholic) but with more detail.Though I still have my doubts you have convinced me to study poetry more intensively, and revisit the Divine Comedy. As for recommendations, if you happen to know of any prominent anarchist theorists that would be great. I'd like to once again apologize to anyone I got snappy with, I regret doing so. This seems to have quickly devolved into an irritable me ranting at people over the internet.

---

Well you did come across as overly-defensive in this thread, but I think that's a symptom of your age (no offense). However, you show a good deal of maturity in this post :-)

The authors that are troubling you are all very remote from the life of a modern-day adolescent. As much as you're going to hate me for saying this, literature is better understood and appreciated with a little life experience. When you experience the themes of a work of art for yourself, or when they are somewhere on your horizon, your appreciation of that work may change. I think this is why Romeo & Juliet is Shakespeare's most accessible play - its main theme is universally accessible to all ages.

Also you should ask yourself - when you read a novel/play/poem, are you looking for immediate gratification, e.g. the gratification of a thrilling plot, of suspense, of one brilliant idea after another? Sometimes the joy of reading a text is to be found under the surface of the composition. Sometimes it is to be found in retrospect, because it is only when you finish a text that you know its true shape and structure. This doesn't apply so much to Shakespeare, as Shakespeare's plays were meant to be entertaining, but it applies to many 19th and 20th century writers you might come across (including, for example, Hawthorne).

To give some more concrete suggestions --

Regarding Shakespeare, I would recommend watching the various plays on film that are out there. I highly recommend the following:

Richard Burton / Elizabeth Taylor's The Taming of the Shrew
Derek Jacobi's Richard II
Laurence Olivier's Richard III
Laurence Olivier's Hamlet

(I refer to the films here by the starring actor.)

Watching a Shakespeare play, especially those that star world-class actors, can show you how funny and dramatic a scene or soliloquy can be, so that when you read it you have a new appreciation. Not only that, but watching one Shakespeare play can help you read another; the more you see how Shakespeare is acted out, the better you become at reading him.

Regarding Hawthorne:

I suggest reading some scholarly articles. If you can get access to jstor.org, that will prove invaluable. You won't be able to access it from home; you'll need to find a library that has a subscription. It's where academia looks for scholarly articles on the web.

You can also find criticism on Hawthorne in any local library. Next to The Scarlet Letter there should be books written on The Scarlet Letter. Try picking one of these up and see what you get from it. Also, if you have a critical edition of TSL, see what you can glean from the introductory essay.

Sorry for such a long post. =/

Stick with Shakespeare; he’s undoubtedly the greatest writer in the English language, and eventually you’ll develop an ear for him.

Dante, like any poet, is best approached in his own language. Translation can only do so much.

The problem with Hawthorne is Hawthorne, and by that I mean he has aged badly and is dull.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiredstudent

Shakespeare? those are PLAYS, and were always meant to be seen, not read. Reading them takes the life right out of the play and leaves it dull and boring and confusing. Go see a good shakespeare play... maybe it can kindle a 'shakespeare fire'...lol

---

I disagree that reading them takes the life right out of them! Many great Shakespeare critics, like Harold Bloom, recommend reading them *rather than* watching them, because so many directors make them dull, boring and confusing. Also reading allows you to slow things down so you have time to understand difficult passages. To 'get' Shakespeare you need notes, but too many versions have too many notes that are excessive, dull, boring and confusing. So look, or ask here, for recommendations. I like the RSC Complete Shakespeare edited by Bate & Rasmussen - which is now coming out in 'individual play' versions if you can't face the 'complete'...

Given the authors you say you like, Macbeth might be a good play to start with. Try and get hold of Polanski's film version if you need some live action inspiration.

The key to Dante is finding a good translation with great notes - I'm reading Mandelbaum's Everyman translation and greatly enjoying it. The biggest problem is coming to terms with the Italian 'characters' and history. But if you make the hard slog through the notes to 'get' these aspects, Dante eventually repays you with wonderful imagery, poetry and philosophy.

Hawthorne, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.

Apart from Dante and Shakespeare your rating of Orwell, Twain, and Steinbeck as more worthy than Hawthorne, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis seems spot on!

To really wind up your teachers ask them why C.S. Lewis is on the syllabus and not Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, D.H. Lawrence, Jane Austen, George Eliot... there are so many English writers who are ranked above C.S. Lewis that I'm flabbergasted that he's the 'representative Brit'. Are your English teachers fundamentalist Christians? Maybe they are letting their religious fervour overcome their literary sensibility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

After yet another year of clashing with my English teachers and their curriculum choices, I am fed up. I have been told year after year that these stories were top of the line and that they would inspire/move me. Year after year they have not lived up to this standard. Is it the books? The teachers? Or is it me? In any case I'd like to know what exactly sets these books and authors above the others. Any help or constructive critiscm is appreciated.

Oh and a few examples of the authors giving me trouble. Hawthorne, Alighieri, Shakespeare, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.
I have enjoyed Orwell, Twain, and Steinbeck.

---

Don't get discouraged – I found Hawthorne, Shakespeare and others to be very uninspiring as well. Whereas Twain and Steinbeck are my absolute favorites

In all seriousness, my high school and college English and Lit classes nearly turned me off from reading books altogether. After having to slog through stuff like Beowulf, Shakespeare plays, and Faulkner – and being told by Lit teachers how "amazing" they were – I was left with nearly no interest in classic literature

It was only after I graduated college, and started looking into some authors like Twain, Steinbeck, Sinclair Lewis, and F Scott Fitzgerald that I really started finding book that really moved me and struck a chord with me – books that will stay with me forever.

My other problem with many Lit teachers is their choice of books. For example, I found Tender is the Night to be much better than The Great Gatsby, and I found For Whom the Bells Tolls to be much better than The Sun Also Rises. So spending weeks of class after class analyzing every line of The Sun Also Rises, can also turn you off to a great author like Hemingway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spookymulder93

You're going to do A LOT of stuff that you don't want to do in school. Actually, you're going to have to do A LOT of stuff that you don't want to do in life.

What that means is fake an interest in it or at least enough interest to get you a passing grade and never look at the novel ever again.

---

I agree with the above

But the frustrating thing is - when you are forced to do Algebra - you don't have to listen to the teacher, and some students, soliloquize about how beautiful and emotive and inspiring Algebra is - whereas when you take a Lit class, you do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Leland... I'm sorry, but it's you. Dante, Shakespeare, Hawthorne, etc... are among some of greatest writers... indeed Shakespeare and Dante virtually divide Western literature between them. The problem, however, is that any art form is essentially a language... and that language and its vocabulary must be learned and understood before you can really begin to appreciate it. After having read any number of older works of prose and poetry I laugh at the notion that Shakespeare... let alone Hawthorne... is difficult to read. But as with most things in life, practice makes perfect. Shakespeare and Dante both place far greater demands upon the average reader (demands that are more than rewarded) that are not as challenging as more recognizable language found in the work of many more recent writers... or the works of the writers most of us grew up reading as children... and many of the works of the more commercially popular writers. Of course I might add that it could also be the teacher (although as a teacher myself I probably shouldn't make such suppositions). A good teacher should attempt to instill a love of reading in you... should help you to develop a grasp of older prose and poetic forms... but ultimately it is up to the individual and you must decide whether the pleasure to be gained is worth the struggle. You can certainly stick with Harry Potter and Dan Brown and other writers that pander to the audience with easy art... just as you can stick with Lady Gaga or the latest summer block-buster and avoid music or film or art that might demand a bit more of you... art that might challenge you... art that might avoid the usual cliches. The decision is yours.

You mention having liked Steinbeck and Twain... both good writers... but not the and breadth of Shakespeare and Dante. Don't be quick to give up on them. At the same time... don't assume that your first opinions are your last. As you grow and gain in experience... including the experience of reading... you may find your opinions change. For now I would advise you to build off those writers among the "classics" that you do admire. Look into Hemingway's stories, Poe's tales, Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky (start with the short stories), Aldus Huxley. Also seek out the best examples of whatever genre you like to read: science-fiction, mysteries, ghost stories, etc... But every so many books... challenge yourself; try some poetry or perhaps Lewis Carroll in order to develop a love of language. Pick up a Greek play or one by Shakespeare and push your self and your expectations.

While I am on this, I might point out that the idea that Shakespeare should be seen performed and not read is absolutely absurd. His mastery of language, the difficulty of some of his concepts and metaphors, his use of word play, etc... are all best served through reading. Seeing a good live performance, on the other hand, can certainly help to pull things together... and lead to a better concept of the flow of the language.

---

you seem to be missing the very important point - that people have different tastes.

I would argue that Shakespeare - as Twain put it - is chloroform in print. But I understand that plenty of people like Shakespeare, Faulkner, etc. I don't try to argue that Steinbeck has more breadth than Hawthorne, for example

Do not underestimate Hawthorne. He brings something quite unique.. an obsessive Puritan guilt... to American literature. Personally, I far prefer his short stories.

you seem to be missing the very important point - that people have different tastes.

Yes... everyone has personal tastes... but these do not alter the merits of a great work of art. I recognize the brilliance of James Joyce... but he does not resonate for me anywhere near the level that Proust, Kafka, or J.L. Borges. But I recognize that saying that I like or don't particularly like a given work of literature is not the same as making an objective value judgment such as "Hawthorne is boring" or "Shakespeare sucks"... especially when such judgments go against the larger-held opinions (and these are the closest we get to objective "facts" or "truths" in art). One must certain be prepared for disagreements when making such judgments. To simply state "Shakespeare just doesn't move me," you have put forth a statement of fact; there is no implied value judgment of Shakespeare's work. To suggest that "Shakespeare is 'chloroform in print' " is a statement of another nature, altogether and you may find that others will challenge your judgment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

you seem to be missing the very important point - that people have different tastes.

Yes... everyone has personal tastes... but these do not alter the merits of a great work of art. I recognize the brilliance of James Joyce... but he does not resonate for me anywhere near the level that Proust, Kafka, or J.L. Borges. But I recognize that saying that I like or don't particularly like a given work of literature is not the same as making an objective value judgment such as "Hawthorne is boring" or "Shakespeare sucks"... especially when such judgments go against the larger-held opinions (and these are the closest we get to objective "facts" or "truths" in art). One must certain be prepared for disagreements when making such judgments. To simply state "Shakespeare just doesn't move me," you have put forth a statement of fact; there is no implied value judgment of Shakespeare's work. To suggest that "Shakespeare is 'chloroform in print' " is a statement of another nature, altogether and you may find that others will challenge your judgment.

---

I think we pretty-much agree. There are certainly works of art that are great - beyond what opinion or someone's personal judgment says about them - they stand on their own

And, as you said, some art just does not resonate with some people - despite how highly regarded that art might be.

Which goes back to the original point - that a lot of Lit teachers are proffering books that resonate with them. Yes, some of these books might be highly regarded as well - but when you take a class, and you HAVE to read these books which do not resonate with you, it can be a turn-off.

So where we might disagree is that I don't think the original poster has bad or unrefined taste - I think he just needs to keep looking for books that resonate with him, and look beyond what Lit teachers hold as "marvelous" or "essential"

I wonder how much Shakespeare so-called Shakespeare haters have actually read and which ones?

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them. Sometimes a more sceptical view of a piece of literature can be more useful than just saying 'I liked it.' There's obviously something in them- you just need to find out what. Listen to what your professors say but form your own opinions based on the text.

Shakespeare is worth reading and watching but you need to 'learn' his language, which after some practice shouldn't be too hard. Read versions of the texts which have good notes- if you get school textbook versions, even better. A few sonnets would be good too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I wonder how much Shakespeare so-called Shakespeare haters have actually read and which ones?

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them. Sometimes a more sceptical view of a piece of literature can be more useful than just saying 'I liked it.' There's obviously something in them- you just need to find out what. Listen to what your professors say but form your own opinions based on the text.

Shakespeare is worth reading and watching but you need to 'learn' his language, which after some practice shouldn't be too hard. Read versions of the texts which have good notes- if you get school textbook versions, even better. A few sonnets would be good too.

---

unfortunately the same could be said of someone who claims Twain and Steinbeck don't have breadth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keilj

unfortunately the same could be said of someone who claims Twain and Steinbeck don't have breadth

---

It could probably be said of pretty much any author but it's worse with Shakey, considering his output and influence on modern culture.

I liked Of Mice and Men- was in the middle of reading another Steinbeck, a road trippy one, and I liked the film version of East of Eden so may find time to read the book.

Not that keen on venturing into Twain- I prefer Bierce's satire and Coward/Wilde and from what I've heard, it seems to resonate more with Americans than with Brits. But I wouldn't say definitively that it didn't have much 'breadth', although I haven't heard anyone claim that it has 'breadth'- not necessarily to its detriment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I wonder how much Shakespeare so-called Shakespeare haters have actually read and which ones?

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them.

---

What does that mean?

I don't like Bob Dylan but a lot of people do. Does that mean I need to appreciate his music? I mean he did have a huge influence over a lot of other musicians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

It could probably be said of pretty much any author but it's worse with Shakey, considering his output and influence on modern culture.

I liked Of Mice and Men- was in the middle of reading another Steinbeck, a road trippy one, and I liked the film version of East of Eden so may find time to read the book.

Not that keen on venturing into Twain- I prefer Bierce's satire and Coward/Wilde and from what I've heard, it seems to resonate more with Americans than with Brits. But I wouldn't say definitively that it didn't have much 'breadth', although I haven't heard anyone claim that it has 'breadth'- not necessarily to its detriment.

---

Twain is interesting. When you read some of his lesser-loved stuff, like Letters From Earth, his autobiography, or some of his short stories like A Cure for the Blues or A Californian's Tale, you'll see that he, unlike any other authors I have read, stared down the truths of life and human nature, right down to the bone. It took staggering courage to write some of the things that he did

(but now I am just proselytizing)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

I'd like to know what exactly sets these books and authors above the others. Any help or constructive critiscm is appreciated.

Oh and a few examples of the authors giving me trouble. Hawthorne, Alighieri, Shakespeare, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.

---

It would take too many words to explain why each of those writers produced good literature, but I think you could discuss one or two. Let's take Wharton first. Probably her finest novel is The House of Mirth (1905). If you're in a class that reads that work, you'll probably talk about at least these three things: narrative, marriage, and social codes. The story is considered one of the best crafted because it does a great job building the expectations of the reader and then pulling the rug out from under them. Wharton is writting to a audience that hungered for social success and high society. Throughout the novel, she places her heroine in situations that tease the reader with glimpses of the readers' fantasy. But, toward the end, the heroine's failures mount and she falls into the opposite extreme of poverty and disrepute. If you're trying to understand how stories build the expectations of readers and use them to create effects, this is one of the best novels to look at. Another idea that's very present in the book is marriage. So much of Wharton's writting is a meditation on how marriage has become a purely legal contract. The House of Mirth is a satire of this idea. So you're supposed to be thinking about what marriage is, how its established, and what its purpose is. You're also supposed to notice that Wharton's heroine doesn't play by the rules, and how that tears apart her own life and those around her. Just by reading the novel you can learn a lot about narrative, marriage, and social rules. These are some of the reasons why you might have to read her books in a class.

Of course, none of that may be immediately relevant to your life, and the book might be a bore to get through. But, if you're trying to be an articulate and educated person, you probably want to engage with these ideas at some point in your life. After all, people still get married and are confronted with the same problems Wharton's heroine are. And they still tell stories about it. That's why people still assign her books. I could go through and talk about other of her works or some of those other writers, but I don't have time to write out something about all of them. I haven't even read much of C.S. Lewis. If you want to get specific about what exactly you were reading and what you thought didn't work about these books, that might help.

Now this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keilj

some art just does not resonate with some people - despite how highly regarded that art might be.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them.

---

"Resonate," "appreciate," and "like" are all a little vague. I get the sense that you're trying to draw some important distinctions here, but many would see these words as largely synonomous (at least in this context).

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them.

What does that mean?

I don't like Bob Dylan but a lot of people do. Does that mean I need to appreciate his music? I mean he did have a huge influence over a lot of other musicians.

What that means is that there is a difference between saying "I don't like Bob Dylan" and "Bob Dylan sucks. He can't sing, and his lyrics are atrocious."

Taken with regard to literature, saying "Shakespeare is boring" pretty much cuts you off from ever wanting to read his work again... after all, if his works are boring, why would you want to waste your time? Merely admitting, however, that Shakespeare has not resonated with you leaves open the very real possibility that you may eventually come around to liking him.

Well I guess William Blake it is! Though something about stlukes grin tells me he is in some way involved with The Divine Comedy.

Quote:

---

Also you should ask yourself - when you read a novel/play/poem, are you looking for immediate gratification, e.g. the gratification of a thrilling plot, of suspense, of one brilliant idea after another? Sometimes the joy of reading a text is to be found under the surface of the composition. Sometimes it is to be found in retrospect, because it is only when you finish a text that you know its true shape and structure. This doesn't apply so much to Shakespeare, as Shakespeare's plays were meant to be entertaining, but it applies to many 19th and 20th century writers you might come across (including, for example, Hawthorne).

---

Well I alternate between "heavy" and "light" reading. For example last month I first read H.P. Lovecraft after I had finished that I read John Stuart Mill and finished up with a book on lucid dreaming. So I guess before I read a book I've already decided how I am going to approach it.

Quote:

---

The key to Dante is finding a good translation with great notes - I'm reading Mandelbaum's Everyman translation and greatly enjoying it. The biggest problem is coming to terms with the Italian 'characters' and history. But if you make the hard slog through the notes to 'get' these aspects, Dante eventually repays you with wonderful imagery, poetry and philosophy.

Hawthorne, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.

Apart from Dante and Shakespeare your rating of Orwell, Twain, and Steinbeck as more worthy than Hawthorne, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis seems spot on!

To really wind up your teachers ask them why C.S. Lewis is on the syllabus and not Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, D.H. Lawrence, Jane Austen, George Eliot... there are so many English writers who are ranked above C.S. Lewis that I'm flabbergasted that he's the 'representative Brit'. Are your English teachers fundamentalist Christians? Maybe they are letting their religious fervour overcome their literary sensibility?

---

I read that very same translation of Dante, but I felt nothing. Though to be completely honest I think I am letting my atheism cloud how I view whatever phillosophy he has to offer, I suppose where he is trying to teach morality I just see the faults in his religion. As for imagery I guess the various methods of eternal torture, were well described (see there, I just did it again). Poetry is something I have only found a very recent interest in, so like I told stluke, I will delve into poetry some more and read Dante afterwards.
Lol, I think I've given my teacher enough grief already. Actually, I've heard those names mentioned in conversations about my Senior Lit class, so maybe things will improve.

Quote:

---

But the frustrating thing is - when you are forced to do Algebra - you don't have to listen to the teacher, and some students, soliloquize about how beautiful and emotive and inspiring Algebra is - whereas when you take a Lit class, you do

---

Consider this stored and ready for use on my next English teacher.
I agree with just about every single word in your post.

Quote:

---

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

He brings something quite unique.. an obsessive Puritan guilt

---

To each his own, I suppose. I find nothing interesting about that (though I'm sure you will have a convincing reason as to why it should:biggrin5:), in fact it irritates me a little. Irritates me almost as much as the character Dimmesdale.

Edit: Sorry Quark missed you in my initial response. My main grievance is that I do not need the books to think about the issue, and more often than not the books chosen are just going over old ground that no longer brings up a powerful response.

"Resonate," "appreciate," and "like" are all a little vague. I get the sense that you're trying to draw some important distinctions here, but many would see these words as largely synonomous (at least in this context).

Quark, I don't see the words as completely synonymous... at least in how they are being employed. By "like" I assume one is speaking of enjoying the work on a personal level... taking pleasure in it. By "appreciate" I would think we are speaking of recognizing the aesthetic merit of a work... even if it doesn't speak directly to you... even if you don't particularly "like" it.

unfortunately the same could be said of someone who claims Twain and Steinbeck don't have breadth

I would question that assertion as well. The fact that Shakespeare is the greater writer and that I personally enjoy his work more than Twain or Steinbeck in no way should be mistaken for a suggestion that Twain or Steinbeck are poor or minor writers. I Once loved Steinbeck... although now I would probably lean more toward Hemingway's and Flannery O'Connor's short stories and Faulkner's novels. Neither do I question Twain's achievements... although I lean far more toward Poe, Hawthorne, Emerson, Melville, and their heirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them.

What does that mean?

I don't like Bob Dylan but a lot of people do. Does that mean I need to appreciate his music? I mean he did have a huge influence over a lot of other musicians.

What that means is that there is a difference between saying "I don't like Bob Dylan" and "Bob Dylan sucks. He can't sing, and his lyrics are atrocious."

Taken with regard to literature, saying "Shakespeare is boring" pretty much cuts you off from ever wanting to read his work again... after all, if his works are boring, why would you want to waste your time? Merely admitting, however, that Shakespeare has not resonated with you leaves open the very real possibility that you may eventually come around to liking him.

---

That makes sense. I actually heard a good Bob Dylan song the other day. It took me by surprise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

After yet another year of clashing with my English teachers and their curriculum choices, I am fed up. I have been told year after year that these stories were top of the line and that they would inspire/move me. Year after year they have not lived up to this standard. Is it the books? The teachers? Or is it me? In any case I'd like to know what exactly sets these books and authors above the others. Any help or constructive critiscm is appreciated.

Oh and a few examples of the authors giving me trouble. Hawthorne, Alighieri, Shakespeare, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.
I have enjoyed Orwell, Twain, and Steinbeck.

---

Leland--I think there are two points here that others have brought up as well. One is that it is possible that some of these authors just aren't your personal cup of tea and, as others have said, there is no reason you have to love any particular writer. At the same time, as others have pointed out, literary tastes and appreciations change a lot as people grow and learn and experience things in life, and it's possible that, for any number of imaginable reasons, you simply aren't at a place in your life now that allows you to appreciate these works. I say this partly because you are clearly still in high school and I've found that many people at your age don't yet appreciate some of the writers you mention but do develop an appreciation later in life. I don't mean by this to suggest that you aren't well read or a committed and intelligent young person, but time and experience simply do make a difference, so you probably haven't reached the same point as you will have as a well read person ten years from now. I am similarly aware that well read people ten or twenty years older than myself have acquired certain insights and ways of appreciating literature that I just don't have access to at this point in my life. So, it's less a matter of whether you're grown up enough or not and more a matter of the fact that we are all always learning, and I would also say something similar to someone of almost any age who was having trouble getting into these authors. The writers that speak to us most may change throughout our lives and there are some works that won't mean anything to a person now that they will have a deep appreciation for ten years from now, whether because of their own life experience, or their development as a reader, or the introduction of new ideas or ways of appreciating the world during that time. So, you may not like some of these things now, but may find yourself liking them in the future (or not...who knows). I know this has been true for me.

I would add to this that, regardless of what your personal opinion of these works is (and that is your own), there is a reason that they are on your class syllabus. They are works that really have succeeded in moving, entertaining, changing huge numbers of people for hundreds of years now, and even if they are not to your taste, it may be worth giving them a closer look to see if you can't understand why they have had this great appeal to generations of people. The way I think about it is in terms of a distinction between liking something and respecting something. There are plenty of books and authors that I don't really like or identify with but I respect them for their artistic merit, for the insights into human behavior they deal with etc. For example, I can't say that I really like Faulkner. I don't identify with his themes, I don't know that I really like his plots or his characters in the way I enjoy other works. When I first read him I think I actually threw The Sound and the Fury across the room in frustration. However, I realized that there were other people who were getting something profound out of Faulkner and that interested me. I made myself read his works with real attention in an effort to see if I could understand anything of what the appeal was. As a result I developed a very real appreciation of Faulkner's use of language, and the things he does with narrative are amazing. I also discovered that part of what I do find interesting in his work is the fact that I don't identify with his themes or his characters. Part of what we can get out of a well written work of literature is the reward of both facing the challenge of struggling with and really understanding a work that is not one that you are naturally inclined toward and, along with this, of gaining insight into the concerns and workings of a mind that is very unlike your own. I still don't know that I would say I necessarily like Faulkner, but I have found things that I respect about his work, a respect that comes from a genuine appreciation of certain aspects of his writing and thinking. So, I would begin by framing your question much less in terms of only what you like and think in terms also of what you can have respect for and learn from without necessarily finding that it suits your own personal taste.

All of this, however, is a very large level response. There's really no way to address your question adequately without knowing what it is about these authors that is turning you off, and the only way to know that is to talk about the literature itself. I'm a college literature instructor who specializes in Medieval and Renaissance literature, so of your list of writers you're not too keen on, I'm most familiar with Dante and Shakespeare. If you like, post a passage from something you've read by one of those two and tell us all what it is you don't like or don't get about that passage. This will be a better way for myself and others on the thread to address what particular problems you are having with these writers and their poetry.

Quote:

---

Leland--I think there are two points here that others have brought up as well. One is that it is possible that some of these authors just aren't your personal cup of tea and, as others have said, there is no reason you have to love any particular writer. At the same time, as others have pointed out, literary tastes and appreciations change a lot as people grow and learn and experience things in life, and it's possible that, for any number of imaginable reasons, you simply aren't at a place in your life now that allows you to appreciate these works. I say this partly because you are clearly still in high school and I've found that many people at your age don't yet appreciate some of the writers you mention but do develop an appreciation later in life. I don't mean by this to suggest that you aren't well read or a committed and intelligent young person, but time and experience simply do make a difference, so you probably haven't reached the same point as you will have as a well read person ten years from now. I am similarly aware that well read people ten or twenty years older than myself have acquired certain insights and ways of appreciating literature that I just don't have access to at this point in my life. So, it's less a matter of whether you're grown up enough or not and more a matter of the fact that we are all always learning, and I would also say something similar to someone of almost any age who was having trouble getting into these authors. The writers that speak to us most may change throughout our lives and there are some works that won't mean anything to a person now that they will have a deep appreciation for ten years from now, whether because of their own life experience, or their development as a reader, or the introduction of new ideas or ways of appreciating the world during that time. So, you may not like some of these things now, but may find yourself liking them in the future (or not...who knows). I know this has been true for me.

I would add to this that, regardless of what your personal opinion of these works is (and that is your own), there is a reason that they are on your class syllabus. They are works that really have succeeded in moving, entertaining, changing huge numbers of people for hundreds of years now, and even if they are not to your taste, it may be worth giving them a closer look to see if you can't understand why they have had this great appeal to generations of people. The way I think about it is in terms of a distinction between liking something and respecting something. There are plenty of books and authors that I don't really like or identify with but I respect them for their artistic merit, for the insights into human behavior they deal with etc. For example, I can't say that I really like Faulkner. I don't identify with his themes, I don't know that I really like his plots or his characters in the way I enjoy other works. When I first read him I think I actually threw The Sound and the Fury across the room in frustration. However, I realized that there were other people who were getting something profound out of Faulkner and that interested me. I made myself read his works with real attention in an effort to see if I could understand anything of what the appeal was. As a result I developed a very real appreciation of Faulkner's use of language, and the things he does with narrative are amazing. I also discovered that part of what I do find interesting in his work is the fact that I don't identify with his themes or his characters. Part of what we can get out of a well written work of literature is the reward of both facing the challenge of struggling with and really understanding a work that is not one that you are naturally inclined toward and, along with this, of gaining insight into the concerns and workings of a mind that is very unlike your own. I still don't know that I would say I necessarily like Faulkner, but I have found things that I respect about his work, a respect that comes from a genuine appreciation of certain aspects of his writing and thinking. So, I would begin by framing your question much less in terms of only what you like and think in terms also of what you can have respect for and learn from without necessarily finding that it suits your own personal taste.

All of this, however, is a very large level response. There's really no way to address your question adequately without knowing what it is about these authors that is turning you off, and the only way to know that is to talk about the literature itself. I'm a college literature instructor who specializes in Medieval and Renaissance literature, so of your list of writers you're not too keen on, I'm most familiar with Dante and Shakespeare. If you like, post a passage from something you've read by one of those two and tell us all what it is you don't like or don't get about that passage. This will be a better way for myself and others on the thread to address what particular problems you are having with these writers and their poetry.

---

As I have thought about it more I have come to realize that it has more to do with the way it is being taught, now I don't want to demonize my teachers for they are quite passionate but that is part of the problem. They build up my expectations and they inevitably fail to meet the high hopes I had for the books. It also has to do with how assignments are given. We are given x number of pages to read. We are also told to pay special attention to certain parts of the assignment. So I read and reread that section. Next day in class I have to sit through first a student and then the teacher (who is melodramatic and likes to perform her own little one woman plays) go through the same passage and it quickly becomes both tedious and redundant. Sometimes we are given problems almost in equation form, person x has come to conclusion z, tell me y, so x+y=z. Or this(x) symbolizes that (z), tell me why (y). I'm so busy looking for the "right" answers that I don't take the time to enjoy the characters, setting or anything else that would emotionally involve me within the story. Consequently I have been so turned off of a few works that the likelihood of me ever picking it up again at a later date to see if my opinion of it has changed, is very unlikely.
Dante is the exception here, as I read it on my own time. As I have mentioned before Dante was one of my first poems, in fact the first that went beyond 2 pages. Also, it is hard for me to relate to any of the moral lessons which seemed either basic (don't kill), or petty (don't give bad advice). Then again I could be completely missing deeper points and underlying themes. And then there was the occasional silliness. Like how the 2 of the 3 mouths of the devil are spending eternity gnawing on Cassius and Brutus. That was almost as bad as Tolstoy's concept of history in War and Peace.
On the overall I find myself drifting away from taking novels and fiction seriously. In fiction, I now tend towards stories with lots of adventure, maybe with an overarching theme of power but that is not the real reason I read it. I prefer philosophy and political theory for my serious reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

Sometimes we are given problems almost in equation form, person x has come to conclusion z, tell me y, so x+y=z. Or this(x) symbolizes that (z), tell me why (y). I'm so busy looking for the "right" answers that I don't take the time to enjoy the characters, setting or anything else that would emotionally involve me within the story.

---

Well, that's certainly a reductionist approach to literature. So I can see why you would get frustrated.

But as others have already said, it really takes time, experience, and effort to appreciate the "really old stuff", as my students call medieval and Classical literature. I'm glad you're learning to like Dante. And as I've learned, you don't need to be Christian to appreciate him.

Reading a book of classics demands of us, first and foremost, great perseverance or else we never can appreciate them. The first great classic I read was Milton's Paradise Lost and I did not like the book until I read it 10 times. Now I do not have to read ten times to comprehend a classic for now I am mature enough to understand the classics, and I can enjoy them better. I read the classics then out of my inquisitiveness thinking that the philosophy that there must be mystifyingly gratifying. Now I read it for its great theme and poetic beauty, aesthetic excellence. Everything gratifies me of it. I read Ulysses, notwithstanding the fact that I dropped the book losing patience so many times, yet I always thought that there is a splendor there in the book, an artistic beauty unfound in most books, something novel, ingenious and of course full of mind's eye. While flicking through half of the book I found not a single sentence or theme redundant. Everything is well packed, well written, and phrased and if I cannot comprehend the book it is my slipup, or my erudition is wanting and of course I have to hone my ability. When we fail to fathom the complexity of a book we must think we will have to perfect our competence rather than blaming the text. As a student we generally tend to blame the authorities recommending the syllabus. But we forget our incompetence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

@spooky-Ugh its a never ending circle. lol
@stluke- I understand that reading can introduce you to new ideas, but in Dante's case they were for the most part the lessons of my childhood (raised a Roman Catholic) but with more detail.Though I still have my doubts you have convinced me to study poetry more intensively, and revisit the Divine Comedy. As for recommendations, if you happen to know of any prominent anarchist theorists that would be great. I'd like to once again apologize to anyone I got snappy with, I regret doing so. This seems to have quickly devolved into an irritable me ranting at people over the internet.

---

Dante have little to do with modern Roman Catholic, his catholicism is medieval and does not help much that he mixes classical literature in his Comedy. And I am atheist (not agnostic atheist, I am no chimera) and I have been reading Dante since I was a kid. Simple because reducing Dante to the christianism is the biggest mistake one can do. There is plenty of themes who are universal and the religious allegory (the simple fact they are an allegory should help anyone to free them to the exactly particular original significance) is just a aspect of it.
When I think about text interpretation, I think about Dante and his four interpretative layers. If I think about reading love, Dante and his classicism. If I think about influence, Dante and Virgil. If think about friendship, Dante and Virgil again. If I think about idealist love, Dante and Beatrice. Democratization of literature, Dante and his decision to abandon latim. And of course, his main theme, which is love for reason and philosophy. None of those are somehow limited to the catholic from 700 years ago writer, so I have no idea how any experience but the experience of reading it matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

I would add to this that, regardless of what your personal opinion of these works is (and that is your own), there is a reason that they are on your class syllabus. They are works that really have succeeded in moving, entertaining, changing huge numbers of people for hundreds of years now

---

The same could be said of lesser-known works by Twain, Fitzgerald, so on. In fact, it could probably be said tenfold if these lesser-known works had been included on more syllabi - instead of the same old "cornerstone books" being included time and time and time again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spookymulder93

What does that mean?

I don't like Bob Dylan but a lot of people do. Does that mean I need to appreciate his music? I mean he did have a huge influence over a lot of other musicians.

---

'Appreciate' means that although you might not necessarily count the book as a favourite but you understand the technical achievements/its place in a literary movement/its influence...etc. So although you may not enjoy the book as a whole, you can appreciate that it is of some merit.

I don't like Dylan's voice but I can appreciate his lyrics. If you are unable to appreciate any classic, you miss out. Granted you may not have time to read a certain work as the subject matter does not appeal but you shouldn't badmouth it.

Quote:

---

Reading a book of classics demands of us, first and foremost, great perseverance or else we never can appreciate them. The first great classic I read was Milton's Paradise Lost and I did not like the book until I read it 10 times. Now I do not have to read ten times to comprehend a classic for now I am mature enough to understand the classics, and I can enjoy them better. I read the classics then out of my inquisitiveness thinking that the philosophy that there must be mystifyingly gratifying. Now I read it for its great theme and poetic beauty, aesthetic excellence. Everything gratifies me of it. I read Ulysses, notwithstanding the fact that I dropped the book losing patience so many times, yet I always thought that there is a splendor there in the book, an artistic beauty unfound in most books, something novel, ingenious and of course full of mind's eye. While flicking through half of the book I found not a single sentence or theme redundant. Everything is well packed, well written, and phrased and if I cannot comprehend the book it is my slipup, or my erudition is wanting and of course I have to hone my ability. When we fail to fathom the complexity of a book we must think we will have to perfect our competence rather than blaming the text. As a student we generally tend to blame the authorities recommending the syllabus. But we forget our incompetence

---

The authors are not perfect, you are holding them up to an undeserved status. In my mind anyway. This may just be me but if I read a book 10 times, I would force myself to like it. That way I wouldn't feel as if I just wasted an enormous amount of time.

Quote:

---

Dante have little to do with modern Roman Catholic, his catholicism is medieval and does not help much that he mixes classical literature in his Comedy. And I am atheist (not agnostic atheist, I am no chimera) and I have been reading Dante since I was a kid. Simple because reducing Dante to the christianism is the biggest mistake one can do. There is plenty of themes who are universal and the religious allegory (the simple fact they are an allegory should help anyone to free them to the exactly particular original significance) is just a aspect of it.
When I think about text interpretation, I think about Dante and his four interpretative layers. If I think about reading love, Dante and his classicism. If I think about influence, Dante and Virgil. If think about friendship, Dante and Virgil again. If I think about idealist love, Dante and Beatrice. Democratization of literature, Dante and his decision to abandon latim. And of course, his main theme, which is love for reason and philosophy. None of those are somehow limited to the catholic from 700 years ago writer, so I have no idea how any experience but the experience of reading it matters.

---

It's funny how medieval catholicism influences modern catholicism. Maybe this stems from the fact that I haven't studied the book in a scholarly manner but I'm having a hard time figuring out what your trying to say. What kind of love? Influence over what? I have read of far more convincing friendships. Idealist love, if I wanted to see any of that I'd just take a quick trip to the junior high school. Why should I have to put up with it in classic literature? Whatever trails he blazed outside of the book does not make up for shortcomings within the book. I see little reasoning employed within The Divine Comedy.Philosophy? Seemed like pretty standard issue stuff to me. And my experience of reading it was unpleasant, that is how I judged it, as an unpleasant reading experience.
Also, if you are not agnostic atheist what are you: explicit, ignostic, Theravedic Buddhist, what?