Debunking the idea of "classics"

[JHG]

Responding generally to the post, which I enjoyed.

I tend to agree with your conclusion of not having enough time in the day, but I would add the matters of patience and fashion. Imagine, if you would, the collective yawn that would escape the reading community upon seeing another review of A Tale of Two Cities, no matter how brilliant or original that review may be. Lacking the psyschology training to conclude on human nature, I nonethless believe it to be a matter of course that authors and works will emerge or fade as the collective patience waxes and wanes. Therefore, so also may be the consensus opinion of what is or is not a classic.

As for accessibility, I also agree. Accessibility is perhaps helpful, but not necessary in the definition of a classic. Though clearly, a work that is inherently inaccessible would suffer. I remember in high school, reading books dubbed classics, which confused me to the point of furstration with their abstract concepts and language. That line of thought I think leads to "tradition," or that which the established academia has labeled necessary to a liberal education, for whatever host of reasons. That the works be easily accessible is of less importance.

[mande2013]

It's probably just a personal thing, but as for patience on my part, it doesn't do wonders for my confidence when I can hardly read more than 20 pages of Faulkner in one sitting, nevermind five pages of Proust or even Balzac if I'm reading in French, especially with the ubiquitous fuss over reading speeds and perfect verbal SAT scores. I know it's all just personal but still. How is the ability to read 60-70 pages an hour applicable to Ulysses, Finnegans Wake, or just about any "serious" literature in a second language, and perhaps a lot of "serious" literature in one's native language. You find yourself feeling like an impostor much of the time and it batters your confidence.

[JHG]

It's probably just a personal thing, but as for patience on my part, it doesn't do wonders for my confidence when I can hardly read more than 20 pages of Faulkner in one sitting, nevermind five pages of Proust or even Balzac if I'm reading in French, especially with the ubiquitous fuss over reading speeds and perfect verbal SAT scores. I know it's all just personal but still. How is the ability to read 60-70 pages an hour applicable to Ulysses, Finnegans Wake, or just about any "serious" literature in a second language, and perhaps a lot of "serious" literature in one's native language. You find yourself feeling like an impostor much of the time and it batters your confidence.

I have to say that is not a unique problem. Some literature can only be taken in chunks. Speaking of Ulysses, I remember reading that one summer in College - I could barely read a chapter without needing to take a break. Yes, it was worth it, but it was an effort. I believe that what makes one a serious reader is coming back, and wanting to come back.

As for that SAT talk, I can only criticize the concept. I know what you're talking about because I remember learning about that "ideal" reading speed when I was in high school. I seem to remember being timed, with beeps sounding when we should be finished with a page. Rediculous! I don't think that kind of thing has any meaning at all after the standardized test is done.

[mande2013]

I still need to get to reading Ulysses. I'd like to have it read by the time I'm 28 or so, which gives me about three years. I own a copy at least.

[mal4mac]

I still need to get to reading Ulysses. I'd like to have it read by the time I'm 28 or so, which gives me about three years. I own a copy at least.

Start now

[hopeingod]

Literature is all about the defining of various periods and prevailing isms. What is meant as a classic to the existentialist may not be to the nihilist. Meaning plays a huge part in the way one feels about a bit of writing. If the text confirms or challenges the mindset of the day, it might be thrown out by some, while being inspected by others. Hardy's determinism is, in my view, classic literature, because it almost perfectly sets the individual against unseen and unmoveable forces. The nature of the stories of old are about the evolution of thought and values. As I see it, that progress is shifting us farther and farther away from the stability that absolute truths once lent to society. Questioning everything today is the prevailing major in all universities, as students walk out of classrooms scratching their heads when they should be building foundations for life.

[Iain Sparrow]

Literature is all about the defining of various periods and prevailing isms. What is meant as a classic to the existentialist may not be to the nihilist. Meaning plays a huge part in the way one feels about a bit of writing. If the text confirms or challenges the mindset of the day, it might be thrown out by some, while being inspected by others. Hardy's determinism is, in my view, classic literature, because it almost perfectly sets the individual against unseen and unmoveable forces. The nature of the stories of old are about the evolution of thought and values. As I see it, that progress is shifting us farther and farther away from the stability that absolute truths once lent to society. Questioning everything today is the prevailing major in all universities, as students walk out of classrooms scratching their heads when they should be building foundations for life.

What is a foundation of stone for one person, might well be quicksand for another.

And what are the "absolute truths" once lent to society that you mention, and what is so good about stability?
I'd much rather have university students scratching their heads after class, than walking away with absolute truths.