Debunking the idea of "classics"

[JBI]

Most traditions develop sets of classics and canons. Basically the Bible can be regarded as first a Hebrew canon, the Confucian classics, a Chinese canon of confucianism, as are the Buddhist canons of Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, etc. The Daoist canons assembled during the Tang and Ming periods, etc.

Generally every culture sets up a sort of classical heritage as long as they have continuity between linguistic and cultural values, as well as reverence for such texts.

As for classics, well, basically they originated as Western Europe's dealing with a cultural heritage lost (Rome, Greece, and classical life). That's not an uncommon theme of world literature.

Now, is every victorian novel a classic by necessity of being old? Well, of course not. But some have entered a sort of phase where they are beginning to be taken as the models for the further development of their traditions. We can call that a form of canonization, and classicism. So, for instance, if I model myself on the prose of Bacon, I very much am holding Bacon as a sort of classical model from which I am emulating (even though I am still developing my own ideas, the same way Bacon would have done the same thing with Cicero).

There is, in this sense, a very real thing that is classical traditions and classic works. The idea of the instant classic, or modern classic, however, is nonsense.

Either way, this debunking the idea of classics and the complaining about canons and whatnot seems to pop up every other week, so I guess we can copy and paste our answers into this thread now.

[Gideonthenomad]

Your comment about language shaping content is interesting, because I made a long post in another thread earlier about stylized prose and how I don't think stylized prose or linguistic virtuosity is a necessary cornerstone of prosaic aesthetics. The stylized prose of a Woolf or a Nabokov is fine and should be commended, but being a better prose stylist on its own does not necessarily indicate that one is a superior artist. Is Woolf a better artist than Dostoevsky or Balzac simply because she's a 'better' prose stylist? There's nothing wrong in my opinion with a work of prose being sustained by intellectual or philosophical depth or for lack of a better word, "content". If you want to work in a medium that necessarily rewards "technical virtuosity" for its own sake then be a poet. With prose, any sort of linguistic innovation or experimentation if necessitated should be in the service of something larger, say mimesis or humanity. It shouldn't merely serve to draw attention to itself. It would be like merely judging a painter on his or her abilities as a draughtsman, and we all know there's more to great painting to that. There's not only one great way to write a work of fiction. This is all just my opinion of course. Being an artist is not solely about being an aesthete. There's more to the task than mere aestheticism. The work has to display humanity, since the purpose of all art is ultimately mimesis. That's why the concept of art was originally conceived. This of course goes back to the cave drawings in southern France. Now I would say you're right that language and content shape each other. I'm not disagreeing with you there, but how do we define language? If we were to judge artists merely on "technical virtuosity" or if we were even to use it as merely a prerequisite it would be rather limiting I think. Was Sartre a "technical virtuoso"? Tolstoy? How do we define creativity in general? Do intellectual and philosophical ideas not have as much value as "virtuosity"?

Also, prose, much like jazz playing and even filmmaking to a certain extent, is a medium that rewards a certain level of improvisation and open-endedness, or say lack of self-containment, unlike "classical" music for instance. This implies one need not be overly precious, mannered, or a perfectionist. Some may disagree, but I don't think works of prose need to be self-contained, impeccably constructed, sculpture-like artifacts. Just my opinion though.

Hmmm. There is a sense though, isn't there, in which style is content? The "content" of Lolita is inseparable from the extravagant prose in which it is written, similarly, how do you separate the content (the sense of emotional numbness, for instance) that can be conveyed by a Raymond Carver story from the minimalist prose style?

I think this is one of the problems of translation, the nuances of idiom, connotation of words, double entendre, puns, etc. that are so crucial to prose tend to be lost, robbing the work of an essential component of "meaning" or "content" or whatever.

As to whether fine prose makes an artist better or worse, that's too subjective to really argue about.

[Gideonthenomad]

Well this is sort of what I'm saying, as well. Also, not all eras necessitated or necessitate a revolution in art. The first fifth to third or so of the 20th century indeed called for a revolution in almost all art forms. Now I won't get too verbose with this concept at the moment, but it's worth discussing. Not all epochs call for radical experimentation in art but all epochs do call for art.

To play devil's advocate, some might argue an artist's diligent dedication to craftsmanship with incremental improvements over the course of a lifetime might be akin to taking the path of least resistance, since it's a "work hard instead of work smart" way of concealing one's inability to create a staggering magnum opus with one stroke of the brush. You might say anyone could eventually produce Crime and Punishment or Cousin Bette with enough deliberate practice and diligence, but the same couldn't necessarily be said of the eureka moment-necessitating Ulysses or Rite of Spring. In other words, it doesn't really require innate brilliance to construct a consistent body of work as Balzac or even Dost did.

But I also think the Anglophone intelligentsia is just far more easily flattered by 'modernism' than the French intelligentsia is.

But Gideonthenomad, it's also possible that if we devalue the magnum opus and say dedicated craftsmanship is sufficient it won't provide artists with something to aim for, and thus great art won't get made. So if we send the message that the magnum opus shouldn't be the be-all end all then there'll be no incentive to aim for the sky. Now I realize my devil's advocate points may seem like "middlebrow" thinking, but perhaps that's the point. ;-)

LOl. I don't think your points are "middlebrow." Actually, valuing works that drastically break from the tradition (magnum opuses? opi? not sure what the plural is) is pretty highbrow. My point isn't that magnum opuses shouldn't be valued, its that they shouldn't be viewed in isolation since they are in a sensedefined by the tradition they break from, if only (although rarely only) by their rejection of it.

About artists with a sort of cumulative body of work: I think a near-perfect example, and a contemporary one at that, is Kazuo Ishiguro. His novels are formally uninventive and thematically they refine/delve more deeply into themes raised by their predecessors, sort of like someone getting closer and closer to the solution of a Rubiks Cube. Incidentally, I consider Ishiguro to be verging on the middlebrow although The Remains of the Day is excellent. Have you read Ishiguro? What's your opinion of him?

[Gideonthenomad]

Most traditions develop sets of classics and canons. Basically the Bible can be regarded as first a Hebrew canon, the Confucian classics, a Chinese canon of confucianism, as are the Buddhist canons of Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, etc. The Daoist canons assembled during the Tang and Ming periods, etc.

Generally every culture sets up a sort of classical heritage as long as they have continuity between linguistic and cultural values, as well as reverence for such texts.

As for classics, well, basically they originated as Western Europe's dealing with a cultural heritage lost (Rome, Greece, and classical life). That's not an uncommon theme of world literature.

Now, is every victorian novel a classic by necessity of being old? Well, of course not. But some have entered a sort of phase where they are beginning to be taken as the models for the further development of their traditions. We can call that a form of canonization, and classicism. So, for instance, if I model myself on the prose of Bacon, I very much am holding Bacon as a sort of classical model from which I am emulating (even though I am still developing my own ideas, the same way Bacon would have done the same thing with Cicero).

There is, in this sense, a very real thing that is classical traditions and classic works. The idea of the instant classic, or modern classic, however, is nonsense.

Either way, this debunking the idea of classics and the complaining about canons and whatnot seems to pop up every other week, so I guess we can copy and paste our answers into this thread now.

What I take issue with is not the idea of Canons, which are "real" structures whose history, formation, etc. can be studied and understood, but the idea that I keep encountering (I don't know if it's prevalent on these forums) that classics have some intrinsic/universal value which justifies their inclusion in the canon, separate from the criteria you just listed. I agree with what you've said, and I don't think my post contradicts it.

Basically, my original post was a mild form of venting.

[JBI]

Do they?

All humans are born, all humans die. Things stemming from our biological urges are universals in the sense that all human beings must contemplate the same fate - regardless if it be a Catholic, Buddhist, Daoist or animist response, they are all rooted in the same fundamental questions. Folklorists have already done much to draw such connections amongst us already.

It just annoys me that all these kids who have never read a single Eastern author, know nothing about world literature or cultures, probably only speak one or two Western languages, and have more likely than not never immersed themselves in another culture have this sort of nerve where they start ranting against canons and traditions and the whatnot.

Quite simply, if you want to open up some discussions of universals and world cultures and classics, get out there and read a different canon. Go out and read the Indian canonical texts in Sanskrit and Pali, or the Chinese canon. Hell, go out and learn a few more languages, spend time in another country, do some field work. Then we can start to listen to all this nonsense about canons not being universal and whatnot. I think, coincidentally, you will find that the differences will start to disappear once you begin to understand how these works actually communicate.

But what do I know? Either way the original post seems copy-and-pasted, which is not particularly appropriate anyway.

[Gideonthenomad]

All humans are born, all humans die. Things stemming from our biological urges are universals in the sense that all human beings must contemplate the same fate - regardless if it be a Catholic, Buddhist, Daoist or animist response, they are all rooted in the same fundamental questions. Folklorists have already done much to draw such connections amongst us already.

It just annoys me that all these kids who have never read a single Eastern author, know nothing about world literature or cultures, probably only speak one or two Western languages, and have more likely than not never immersed themselves in another culture have this sort of nerve where they start ranting against canons and traditions and the whatnot.

Quite simply, if you want to open up some discussions of universals and world cultures and classics, get out there and read a different canon. Go out and read the Indian canonical texts in Sanskrit and Pali, or the Chinese canon. Hell, go out and learn a few more languages, spend time in another country, do some field work. Then we can start to listen to all this nonsense about canons not being universal and whatnot. I think, coincidentally, you will find that the differences will start to disappear once you begin to understand how these works actually communicate.

But what do I know? Either way the original post seems copy-and-pasted, which is not particularly appropriate anyway.

I wrote the original post in Word because it's easier to edit, and then I pasted it. What's the problem? How do you know I'm a kid? You raise interesting points that I'd like to address, but why the condescending attitude? How do you know I speak one or two western languages? Not that I have to prove myself to you, but I'm Ethiopian and speak two Ethiopian languages fluently, and I'm literate in one of them (Amharic, in addition to English, and I'm familiar with the Ethiopian (Amharic only) literary tradition, which is one of the things that shaped my attitude. My exposure to far-eastern literature is sadly limited to some Hindu/Buddhist religious texts, but why should that be held against me?

This is an online forum, we are strangers, so a little civility would be appreciated.

[Gideonthenomad]

But what do I know?

Not much in the way of manners, apparently.

[HSPS]

Actually, a writer's works are inseparable from the larger context of his/her oeuvre, in addition to the historical/social/political circumstances surrounding the production of said work.

How can you say this? (What do you mean by it?) I don't have to know anything about the England King Lear was set in to know that that kind of betrayal is bad; that, for a man who was once king, the realization that he is ultimately just a withered old man is going to be agonizing; that a father loves his daughter, and, even though I don't have a daughter, I can liken that to situations in my life. Perhaps more importantly, why do I need to have read any other Shakespeare play to understand it?

Most, if not all, literary works generally considered to be great that I'm familiar with can be read, understood, and loved with not much more than a rudimentary understanding of their contexts, and, in many cases, no understanding at all. That is part of the reason they are considered great. I haven't read Ulysses yet, but I've never encountered someone who has said that I need to read Portrait before I do, or that I need to pick up a book on modernism or 20th century Dublin as well. Now, if you are going to do a historical or political reading of a book, then you'd be right--but, if you are going to, please keep it to yourself.

There's no question of a work "standing alone," works don't exist in a vacuum, and it's naive to assume that they do. The tendency for people (mostly in the English speaking world) to value the magnum opus as some sort of be-all end all is a misguided cultural bias.

Again, I struggle to understand what you mean: "be-all end all"? "Misguided cultural bias"? Nobody thinks that there is one work that itself renders any other work unimportant. There are cases like Melville's where he wrote one masterpiece but didn't manage to write much else of note. It isn't the fault of Moby-Dick that Melville's other novels, stories, and poems aren't as good, nor is it the readers'; it is the writer's fault. The focus on it that we currently have is precisely because he didn't produce anything else nearly as good. However, if you're questioning the idea that a great book does not depend on its historical, political, or cultural context, then I direct you to what I've written above and in previous posts.

[Gideonthenomad]

How can you say this? (What do you mean by it?) I don't have to know anything about the England King Lear was set in to know that that kind of betrayal is bad; that, for a man who was once king, the realization that he is ultimately just a withered old man is going to be agonizing; that a father loves his daughter, and, even though I don't have a daughter, I can liken that to situations in my life. Perhaps more importantly, why do I need to have read any other Shakespeare play to understand it?

Most, if not all, literary works generally considered to be great that I'm familiar with can be read, understood, and loved with not much more than a rudimentary understanding of their contexts, and, in many cases, no understanding at all. That is part of the reason they are considered great. I haven't read Ulysses yet, but I've never encountered someone who has said that I need to read Portrait before I do, or that I need to pick up a book on modernism or 20th century Dublin as well. Now, if you are going to do a historical or political reading of a book, then you'd be right--but, if you are going to, please keep it to yourself.



Again, I struggle to understand what you mean: "be-all end all"? "Misguided cultural bias"? Nobody thinks that there is one work that itself renders any other work unimportant. There are cases like Melville's where he wrote one masterpiece but didn't manage to write much else of note. It isn't the fault of Moby-Dick that Melville's other novels, stories, and poems aren't as good, nor is it the readers'; it is the writer's fault. The focus on it that we currently have is precisely because he didn't produce anything else nearly as good. However, if you're questioning the idea that a great book does not depend on its historical, political, or cultural context, then I direct you to what I've written above and in previous posts.

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

No work can stand alone. Moby Dick is as much a product of its 19th century context, the larger movement of American Romanticism, the economic/cultural/political structures of the time, etc, etc, as it is a product of Melville's mind (which is also largely a product of these factors). Same goes for Shakespeare. Reading King Lear as if it is an isolated text, sovereign unto itself, strikes me as superficial. Also keep in mind that the forces which shaped these writers also shaped the Western world in general, so people who live the Western world can have an intuitive understanding of the work without having done any research per se.

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

[JHG]

Quite simply, if you want to open up some discussions of universals and world cultures and classics, get out there and read a different canon. Go out and read the Indian canonical texts in Sanskrit and Pali, or the Chinese canon. Hell, go out and learn a few more languages, spend time in another country, do some field work. Then we can start to listen to all this nonsense about canons not being universal and whatnot.

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.

[kelby_lake]

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

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

[Gideonthenomad]

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

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

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

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

[HSPS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HSPS]

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

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

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

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

[HSPS]

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

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