Debunking the idea of "classics"

[kelby_lake]

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

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

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

[mande2013]

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

[kelby_lake]

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

[Gideonthenomad]

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

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

[Gideonthenomad]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gideonthenomad]

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

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

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

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

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

[JHG]

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

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

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

[JBI]

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

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

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

[Lykren]

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

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

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

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

[HSPS]

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

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

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

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

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

[Gideonthenomad]

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

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

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

[Lykren]

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

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

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

[JHG]

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

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

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

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

[mande2013]

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

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

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