Lord of The Rings was just not my thing at all. After I watched the trilogy, I just sat there and thought "They spent 9 hours to tell me that?". I have to re-watch the first film though as I watched them before I got into Sean Bean
Lord of The Rings was just not my thing at all. After I watched the trilogy, I just sat there and thought "They spent 9 hours to tell me that?". I have to re-watch the first film though as I watched them before I got into Sean Bean
To get back to the OP, I don't know which country has the best literature. However, as a wild guess, I'm going with Palau for the worst literature. The population is only 21,000, and it's been a country for only 18 years. I'm guessing -- but the odds are with me.
I think that the main disadvantage is that film is full of superficial effects. We know that everything is changing, mainly technology so in a 10 years for example "Hobbit" would also have this problem.Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Lord of The Rings was just not my thing at all. After I watched the trilogy, I just sat there and thought "They spent 9 hours to tell me that?". I have to re-watch the first film though as I watched them before I got into Sean Bean
For me, it would have to be -
Britain
Russia
America
Personally, I love Lord of the Rings. I read it first when I was ten or 12 years old, and doubtless it has particular appeal to youthful tastes.
I loved the Lord of the Rings when I was young... before I had a good deal of experience in reading all the other marvelous books that were out there.
However, the notion that a novel should appeal ONLY to mature tastes is faulty, I think. In “On Art” Tolstoy argues that universal appeal is a sign of the best art. That art which appeals only to those with a specialized education is, in Tolstoy’s opinion, consigned to the category of second-rate.
Tolstoy was an artistic genius... but a critical idiot. Remember he also dismissed most of Shakespeare... partially because of Shakespeare's amorality (the good guys don't always win... "bad" isn't always punished) but also due, I suspect, to his own petty jealousy and recognition he could not surpass the Bard. Tolstoy... a nascent Socialist/Communist imagined literature and art as having some great social worth that could only be realized if the work is universally accessible. The problem is that accessibility has absolutely no bearing whatsoever upon the aesthetic or artistic merits of a work of art. The Harry Potter and Twilight novels are more accessible than anything Tolstoy wrote... yet surely third-rate works of literature by way of comparison.
I wouldn’t go as far as Tolstoy. Nonetheless, I don’t think novels that appeal to children are automatically lesser than more sophisticated novels.
This would depend upon the book and the child. I read (and loved) a rather highly edited version of the Arabian Nights as a kid. I also read Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass, the OZ books, Kipling, and Edward Lear. But I also read a lot of second-rate fantasy and science fiction. I'll agree that there is a degree of bias against works of art that are deemed by some as "childish" because they appeal to the child. There have been such critical comments leveled not only toward the great Lewis Carroll, Kipling, and H.G. Wells novels, but also Mozart's Magic Flute, Engelbert Humperdinck's Hansel and Gretel, Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker, films such as The Wizard of OZ and entire genre such as comic books. This doesn't seem to be the issue with JBI and others who have offered intelligent, well-though-out, criticisms of Lord of the Rings which have nothing to do with the notion that the book was written for children.
Indeed, I wouldn’t trust the sophisticate who renounced his teenage literary favorites any more than I would trust the man who was no longer in love with his high school girlfriend.
Many of the TV shows, books, comic books, and music that I listened to as a child, I would be embarrassed to admit to having once loved. I once loved Spaghetti-Os with Franks, Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches, and Cap'n Crunch and Lucky Charms cereal. These are no longer a part of my diet than is much of the music I listened to as a pre-pubescent.
No literary love is stronger than one’s first literary love – just as no Eros is more powerful than one’s first sexual love.
Ummm... how old are you? I can quite assure you that there are books, films, works of music, paintings, etc... that I passionately love... far more than my first loves in literature, music, film, and art. I also suspect that my feelings for my wife are far greater than those for my "first love."
As far as JBI’s specific criticisms of LOTR, the debate has gone on for decades. Some “literary” critics side with JBI; some side with me. Obviously, Tolkien fans don’t find his prose style “just boring to read”, but if JBI does, I’d suggest he refrain from reading it. However, the notion that the fault is with the novel instead of the reader is a bit self-serving, considering how many people of undoubted good taste have loved the book.
One can level that critical escape clause at virtually anything. My inability to really appreciate James Joyce is my fault. But then again... so is my inability to appreciate Harry Potter, Twilight, Dan Brown... and Lord of the Rings.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Russia is number 1 for me. Specifically Dostoevskii.
"Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable."- George Bernard Shaw
Dostoevski was good, but Chekhow was the best representative of the Russian situation.
How little you must know of British, Irish and USA literature in order to make that statement.
Unfortunately, cafolini is right. I've never gotten the obsession with Russian literature. basically, the Russians had one great century from Pushkin and Lermontov until the rise of Stalin... with a few exceptions thereafter. Even ignoring Beowulf, the Brits produced major players in every century from Chaucer onward (Thomas More, Francis Bacon, Marlowe, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, Thomas Traherne, John Donne, Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, Samuel Johnson, Lawrence Sterne, Daniel Defoe, Lord Byron, William Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats, Shelley, Tennyson, Dickens, Austen, Bronte, Hardy, H.G. Wells, Wilde, the Rossettis, Lewis Carroll, Yeats, Joyce, Beckett, etc...). The Greeks and the Italians have a body of literature that is more than impressive and so do the Germans. Within the context of the West, the French are perhaps the closest in terms of achievement to the Brits... but then we have China, India, Japan, Persia, and the rest of the Middle East with a body of literature barely known to most of us.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Without any doubt, Dostoyevski, Tolsoy were great writers. But they don`t represent russian literature as a whole.
Tolstoy was a critical genius as well as an artistic genius, and “On Art” is a great work of criticism. It is true that Tolstoy disliked Shakespeare (and Beethoven, and Wagner, and many other great artists – I haven’t read the book in a few years, so I can’t remember all the details). However, critiques should be judged on their own merits, not on the basis of the extent to which the critic’s taste is similar to his readers’. If you haven’t read “On Art” – give it a try. The first half (in which Tolstoy demolishes a number of philosophers of Art and Aesthetics that I’d never heard of) is a little dull and dated. But Tolstoy’s own theories are so interesting and so well stated that the book is well worth reading, even if one disagrees with much of it (as one always does).Tolstoy was an artistic genius... but a critical idiot.
My memory, by the way, is that Tolstoy’s objections to Shakespeare are not based on the Bard’s amorality, but on the derivative nature of the stories (almost all the plays are derivative) and Tolstoy’s notions about the distinction between “art” and “artifice”. He correctly posited that Shakespeare could never resist a fancy speech, even when it was out of character for whoever was making it. Tolstoy also had his own prejudices about how art “should” be created: his antipathy for Beethoven’s later work was (as far as I can tell) largely based on his belief that no deaf person could write great music.
To each his own, stluke. My mature judgment suggests that I had excellent taste as a child (I never liked spaghetti Os, but I liked peanut butter and jelly, and still do – it’s a classic). One’s early great literary novels seem like an experience that will completely alter one’s life (back to Tolstoy, I’m thinking of reading Anna Karenina for the first time, as a teenager). Of course, no one novel completely alters one’s life (or, at least, the alteration is more ephemeral than one had believed at the time). My urge to become another Levin, so strong when I first read the book, weakened over time, and I realized that no mere novel is quite as life-altering as I believed it to be as a teenager. This experience has an impact on all the novels (even the very best) that I read today – my belief that they are life-altering is tempered by my memory that they are not.
It’s the same with one’s first love. First of all, adolescent insecurity (or modesty, if you prefer) makes you wonder if any woman can ever love you. Then, someone does. It’s like a hormonally-charged miracle. More mature loves can (of course) be longer lasting. The relationships they involve often have more depth. But the miraculous intensity of teenage love – the Eros of it -- is rarely surpassed. At least, that’s how it was for me.
Lord of the Rings was roundly criticized when it was first written. However, it has stood the test of time for 60 years – which Harry Potter, Twilight and Dan Brown have not. JBI’s critique of it was similar to that of the literary critics of 60 years ago – LOTR lacks character development, nuance, etc. However, I think this violates the critical principle that a work should be criticized for what it is, not for what it is not. It is a bit like a critic objecting to minimalist abstract painting because it “doesn’t tell an emotionally expressive story”, or “it doesn’t portray nuances of personality”. (I’m sure JBI said some other things about LOTR, too, and I didn’t look back at what he said – I’m simply making a general comment, not trying to reopen the argument about LOTR.)
The extent to which a work of art becomes canonical—loved by a great many art lovers who have demonstrated their taste and expertise – is the extent to which it becomes reasonable to fault oneself for failing to appreciate the work. Harry Potter and Twilight aren’t quite there yet. (Personally, I thought the first couple of Harry Potter books were pretty good, combining two excellent genres of children’s literature – fantasy, and the British Public School story. The series went downhill when it deemphasized the Public School soap opera, and concentrated on the boring war with Voldemart. I never read Twilight.)
I do think that an inability to appreciate “Harry Potter” is a failure of taste. However, that does not suggest that Harry Potter is a great novel, or even a very good novel. It simply means that breadth of taste is a valuable thing – and he who continues to love peanut butter as an adult has more opportunities for gastronomic enjoyment than he who has learned to be bored by it.
It's called an opinion. How little you must know of not being condescending.
Who do you believe are good representatives? I have read works of 19th century Russian literature (Dostoevski, Tolstoy, Gogol, Goncharov, Lermontov...) but I am quite unfamilier with what is the general view of upon Russian Literature as a whole. Thanks!
"Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable."- George Bernard Shaw
They are just very good, excellent writers. I don`t like looking at their works as a Russian literature. It`s not important where for example Gogol was born.
Tolstoy was a critical genius as well as an artistic genius, and “On Art” is a great work of criticism. It is true that Tolstoy disliked Shakespeare (and Beethoven, and Wagner, and many other great artists – I haven’t read the book in a few years, so I can’t remember all the details). However, critiques should be judged on their own merits, not on the basis of the extent to which the critic’s taste is similar to his readers’.
What are the merits of any work of criticism or art beyond that which are our own? I can acknowledge, for example, that James Joyce is considered by a great many well-read individuals as being a brilliant writer but I cannot think of him as a a "brilliant" writer myself if his work does not speak to me. Ultimately all criticism is subjective and individual opinion... albeit some opinions are better than others.
So what do we make of Tolstoy's opinions? It seems that he is unable to appreciate artists... no matter how universally acknowledged... if they do not suit his taste. And how good is his taste? He doesn't like Beethoven, Wagner, Shakespeare... any art based upon the idea "beauty" or aesthetics. For him art is merely a means of transmitting emotions... ideally universally shared emotions... and the measure of art is how powerfully or well these emotions are conveyed. Thus the more universally accessible a work of art is (or the more it reaches the lowest common denominator) the better it is. Yet even here there are exceptions. Tolstoy has issues with art that conveys emotions that he is uncomfortable with. Beethoven and Wagner raise the spectre of passions he feels are inappropriate to art (and Tolstoy could be quite the Puritan) and so they are to be deemed "bad art" in spite of the strength of the emotions they communicate.
If you haven’t read “On Art” – give it a try. The first half (in which Tolstoy demolishes a number of philosophers of Art and Aesthetics that I’d never heard of) is a little dull and dated. But Tolstoy’s own theories are so interesting and so well stated that the book is well worth reading, even if one disagrees with much of it (as one always does).
Certainly anything by Tolstoy is worth reading. But are you not suggesting that the merits of Tolstoy's criticism counters his own aesthetic arguments. In other words, you are suggesting that his critical writings are worth reading because of their aesthetic merits... for how well written they are more than for the actually merits of his arguments.
My memory, by the way, is that Tolstoy’s objections to Shakespeare are not based on the Bard’s amorality, but on the derivative nature of the stories (almost all the plays are derivative) and Tolstoy’s notions about the distinction between “art” and “artifice”.
This would suggest that Tolstoy had little concept of the development of literature, as most literature of Shakespeare's time was derivative. This would be rather like criticizing Michelangelo or Rubens for being "derivative" for basing their paintings upon well-known narratives unlike 20th century painters.
He correctly posited that Shakespeare could never resist a fancy speech, even when it was out of character for whoever was making it.
I doubt anyone would have been shocked to recognize that no one in Shakespeare's time spoke like Shakespeare. Of course Tolstoy lacked Shakespeare's mastery with language... and would have seen it as something "elitist". Again, this is rooted in a concept of art for the masses with a message that is ennobling and uplifting... which puts Tolstoy at odds to a great many... one may even say a majority of artists and critics.
Lord of the Rings was roundly criticized when it was first written. However, it has stood the test of time for 60 years – which Harry Potter, Twilight and Dan Brown have not.
60 years is not a great passage of time when it comes to art. A great deal of Modernism is still open to debate. personally, I suspect that Lord of the Rings will survive as something of a minor classic... akin to the novels of Alexandre Dumas or the Sherlock Holmes books... as works beloved by the larger reading audience... but little loved by critics, academics, and subsequent generations of writers.
I do think that an inability to appreciate “Harry Potter” is a failure of taste. However, that does not suggest that Harry Potter is a great novel, or even a very good novel. It simply means that breadth of taste is a valuable thing – and he who continues to love peanut butter as an adult has more opportunities for gastronomic enjoyment than he who has learned to be bored by it.
One may appreciate Harry Potter as one appreciates trashy TV, most pop music, and most summer blockbuster movies... with the full recognition that they are what they are... mindless entertainment.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
When I said that Tolstoy was a great critic, I simply meant that his critical writing is provacative, interesting, enjoyable to read, and brilliantly argued. I (like most other readers) disagree with many of his judgments -- but what makes a good critic is the quality of his writing -- his ability to entertain, enlighten, and enthrall his readers. My restatements of Tolstoy's positions do not do him justice, in part because I don't remember his arguments well enough to restate them properly. My guess is that since he wasn't a native English-speaker, he probably didn't appreciate the poetry in Shakespeare as much as native-English-speakers do. However, this guess is suspect because Shakespeare's plays are very popular in translation. Tolstoy's evisceration of Wagner's Opera (one of the Ring Cycle Operas, I forget which one) at the end of "What is Art" is hilarious. His basic theory -- about infection of emotion -- is suspect. But part of the fun of reading his criticism is getting an insight into how he crafted his own great novels (which, by the way, he also claimed were second rate in "What is Art", so at least he wasn't self-serving).
C.S. Lewis once wrote an interesting essay in which he disagreed with the distinction between "high-brow" and "low-brow" art (what you call "Trashy" TV). So-called high-brow art is not different in kind from low-brow art (he argues) -- it is simply more satisfying and entertaining -- different in degree. Lewis talked about how much he loved H Rider-Haggard's "She" as a child, and how much he still loves it. However, it didn't provide him with as many hours of entertainment as really good novels, because great novels entertain and enlighten even when you are not reading them. Of course, for many fantasy fans, this is true of Tolkien, too. I'll grant that the hours they spend translating Sindarin or compiling geneologies may not be an identical form of entertainment to thinking about whether one can live one's life eternally questing for truth and goodness, like Levin, but the Tolkien fans aren't so very different from Joyceans who head off to Dublin on Bloomsday to retrace Leopold's journey through the city, spotting landmarks like Tolkien fans spot new Sindarin words. Novels that encite that degree of interest (it seems to me) have *something* going for them. (Harry Potter fans spent many hours thinking about those books, too, but very few of those enthralled were more than 12 years old.)
I forget which painters Tolstoy likes and which he despises in "What is Art" -- but he definitely takes on some famous names, there, too. For those who have read Anna Karenina, some of Tolstoy's ideas are similar to those in the Book where Vronsky is learning to paint in Italy.
e.t.a -- I looked it up and the short book is generally translated as "What is Art" not "On Art" as I had previously written.
Last edited by Ecurb; 05-08-2013 at 07:17 PM.
From what I've read, and honestly, I've only read a little over 100 books from authors of various ethnic heritage I would say that my favorite literature comes from Russia.
I've read books from 11 different countries (I only just realized that by looking at my shelf! lol). Here would be my top 6 countries and/or continents
1. Russia
2. France
3. UK
4. Italy
5. China
6. America
My hide hides the heart inside
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
