Old Classics or New Literature?

[Pompey Bum]

Unfortunately I'm not in the lit crit biz and am more like yourself - an interested reader. Some of the other posters - St Likes, JCamilo and JBI are more learned.

Thanks. I'm a newb here, so I'm still figuring it all out. St. Luke's indeed seems learned. I'm sure the others are, too, and look forward to reading their posts.

I merely meant that to fully study a book, without much input from other writers, is more involved that forming opinions. It takes some close analysis.

Perhaps, for me, it's a question of quantity. I'm a great believer in holding unpopular opinions. Also I try to avoid looking at much analysis of a work before I've actually read it. I prefer to remain a virgin as I approach a book.

I also didn't mean to suggest that the interested reader couldn't do that. It's just a question of time and on this forum many of us interested readers are working and pressed for time.

Good point. I've got the time and many don't. In fact, I believe I'll order another cup of mocha before I write another word.

Ah lovely!

As a consequence I think it likely that discussion about modern literary works is more difficult. I think it would be worth it though. I like to look forward rather than just at the past classics where a lot of analysis has already been done leaving room for interesting but limited personal opinion.

I wonder if a thread where lit netters could post candidates for future classics would be interesting? Perhaps a short review with reasons why it might qualify as a classic. Who knows - we might actually spot one.

Sounds great. How do we get one?

[JCamilo]

Wasn’t it Stephen Fry who said of contemporary poetry ‘Nothing of note has been written for the last fifty years’ a bit strong but I see where he’s coming from; who reads today’s poetry, other from those who write or talk about it?
When I read quotes such as’ Never prostitute your art for mere public recognition’ and ‘Poetry doesn’t require to be understood’ I feel pretty close to Fry’s views. What happened to the old maxim ‘ Never loose your audience’

Well, the point is that the pratical distinction of Prose and Poems, as a form and way to explore the poetic language, is not relevant to quality as it was centuries ago when poems were the aesthetic ideal of any aspiring writer. It is not about having "worst poetry", it is about prose strong evolution, exactly for dealing with the limits imposed by poetic language. In prose, there is a lot of accomplishment in poetry. (And 50 years ago, major poets were writting, just not in english, but in spanish, portuguese...).

Those sayings about not giving up his "art" for fame is present already on Keats (she is a wayward girl), Byron jokes about it in Don Juan all the time, Emily Dickinson as well, heck, I recall an anedocte with Ovid refusing to change a few verses in a poem, despite the "warning" of his close friends, which pretty much illustrate the poet not bending to public opinion.

As poetry needing to be understood, it is true, it is also an old motto in the sense art by art, how poetry is supposed to be closer to music, this abstract art (and once said the most pure of art forms). Of course, it does not need, but this imply, It can be understood or Dante would not worry to explain his creative proccess like he did. As all texts, some are understood a bit too much, how many understandments Kafka suggests to us? But neither this or the quesiton about "Popularity vs.integrity" allows any text produced to be good or bad.

[Pierre Menard]

I'm with Stlukes, we should study and talk about whatever books we like, and what we are most interested. It so happens that there's lot's of lovers of classic literature on here, and I don't think it's necessary to artificially try to talk about new literature just for the sake of it. To be quite honest, I don't think it's particularly true anyway, as there's been lots of topics over time that have talked about modern literature.
Also, I personally have learned a great deal from the posting about classics and the history of literature from this site. If I wasn't a long-time lurker back in the day, I actually would have been in the dark about a great many classics and interesting authors from the past.

Plus, modern literature gets a very fair shake of it around here compared to poetry and theatre, which unfortunately gets talked about little.

[Paulclem]

I'm with Stlukes, we should study and talk about whatever books we like, and what we are most interested. It so happens that there's lot's of lovers of classic literature on here, and I don't think it's necessary to artificially try to talk about new literature just for the sake of it. To be quite honest, I don't think it's particularly true anyway, as there's been lots of topics over time that have talked about modern literature.
Also, I personally have learned a great deal from the posting about classics and the history of literature from this site. If I wasn't a long-time lurker back in the day, I actually would have been in the dark about a great many classics and interesting authors from the past.

Plus, modern literature gets a very fair shake of it around here compared to poetry and theatre, which unfortunately gets talked about little.

I have to agree with you that there's been lots to learn. I've had loads of recommendations. I'm also interested in seeing how literature develops. I didn't intend an either or attitude but a mix, and I don't think there's the same focus on new stuff. On the other hand I also agree that people should read and discuss what they want. Hence this thread.

[ennison]

I agree that theatre gets little talked about. I don't go near the poetry thread. I've my own views. I may be irredentist even nasty but I ain't argumentative. Geddit? Naw. I just reckon some folk are biased before they read. So on a site like this you Godda do a bit of filtration. And I'm well filtered by a lot of the Reglars. I regularly act as an editor for a real poet who has never heard of this site and knows little at all about the inderundernet. I like the lists as I'm autistmale. I like the Genwine dilettante views. And yep there's always a bit to learn but don't get taken in by the bull****ters who like the "imaginary" sounds of their own voices as they take studious time-out from their "dissertations"

[Paulclem]

Thanks. I'm a newb here, so I'm still figuring it all out. St. Luke's indeed seems learned. I'm sure the others are, too, and look forward to reading their posts.



Perhaps, for me, it's a question of quantity. I'm a great believer in holding unpopular opinions. Also I try to avoid looking at much analysis of a work before I've actually read it. I prefer to remain a virgin as I approach a book.



Good point. I've got the time and many don't. In fact, I believe I'll order another cup of mocha before I write another word.

Ah lovely!



Sounds great. How do we get one?

We can just start a new thread on the topic of nominations for future classics. I suspect it's difficult, if nigh on impossible, to predict what will become a modern classic.

I'm currently finishing a book called The Kills by Richard House. It is a very interesting read, though I reserve judgement about whether it will become a classic until I finish it. I've mentioned it earlier in this thread. It was longlisted for the Booker, which is how I heard about it.

Aspects like it's 1000 plus pages may well mean it is not read so much, or it could be that the political setting is too transitory and it fails to sustain interest or relevance. On the other hand it could be a seminal book with its use of the internet to deepen the reading experience, or it could become a brooding classic film.

There's no way to tell except how it is read. It would be good to predict a future classic don't you think?

I'll start the thread when I've read it - or someone else could in the meantime if they have a nomination.

[Härt Noiz]

That's absolutely a fantastic idea! Even because I think that disscusing classics is - from a particular point of view - rather easy. It's the biggest challenge to state your own theories and interpretations, especially about works which are fresh and weren't already analyzed in the past.

[Paulclem]

That's absolutely a fantastic idea! Even because I think that disscusing classics is - from a particular point of view - rather easy. It's the biggest challenge to state your own theories and interpretations, especially about works which are fresh and weren't already analyzed in the past.

Thanks Hart -I agree with you that it is easy and comfortable to discuss the classics. Writing about modern classics does lay you open to dispute, but I find that idea interesting. It's a safe sort of speculation.

[Pompey Bum]

So start the thread already, Paul. You should do it since it was your idea. Here are some suggestions, none too new since I don't think everyone reads the Booker list as faithfully as you do, and we need books people have read or no one will post on the thread. Please turn all diversity filters off--this is not a comprehensive list:

A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth
Beyond Black by Hilary Mantel
Every Day is Mother's Day by Hilary Mantel
Vacant Possession by Hilary Mantel
The Risk Pool by Richard Russo
Nobody's Fool by Richard Russo
Butcher's Crossing by John Williams (or Stoner--I haven't read it, but you talk about it a lot)
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthay
Outer Dark by Cormac McCarthay
Child of God by Cormac McCarthay
The Road by Cormac McCarthay
The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt
The Secret History by Donna Tartt
The Luminaries by Eleanor Catton
The Quincunx by Charles Palliser
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke (for the fantasy fans)
A Long, Long Way by Sebastian Barry
Lost Memory of Skin by Russell Banks

I'd have something to say about any of those (and many more) but use what you like.

[Paulclem]

I don't want to give the wrong impression that I'm as widely read as I'd like to be. I've read a a few booker nominations including some in your list. I think it and other awards and reviews might direct us to what could be good nominations for a modern classic though.

So I'll start the thread. It could generate some interesting discussions, not least what features might qualify a book as a modern classic.

[Clopin]

Yes, a very balanced list of white male writers.

What a moron you are.

[Pierre Menard]

Yes, a very balanced list of white male writers.

There's a great deal of diversity in genre, form, style and era in stlukes list, so yes, I would say it's very balanced.

[Vota]

Show me a top 10 list written by female writers that tops that, and I'll show you a just as biased list unlikely to hold up to the standards of time and scholarly close scrutiny such as these works have. Great literature is great literature regardless of the gender of the author.

[Lykren]

Show me a top 10 list written by female writers that tops that, and I'll show you a just as biased list unlikely to hold up to the standards of time and scholarly close scrutiny such as these works have.

Well, not necessarily:

The Tale of Genji
Poems of Emily Dickinson
Emma
Poems of Sappho
Poems of Ono no Komachi
Middlemarch
To The Lighthouse
Wuthering Heights
Poems of Elizabeth Bishop
Poems of Xue Tao

My point here is not that there are as many great female writers as male writers - though one could speculate whether the balance would change if we were able to determine the gender of anonymous authors, as Harold Bloom did with the Torah. My point is merely a sociological one. It is doubtless that circumstances such as reduced rates of literacy and infrequent access to publication have hampered the genius of many a female author in history. I feel, though, that those who would say that we remain unaware of many historical female authors because of a patriarchal literary system, are rather ignoring the sociological impetus behind cultural developments. To say that a gender-balanced ratio of literary genius has always existed is certainly true; to say that a gender-balanced ratio of expressed literary genius is just as certainly false.

[Vota]

To say that a gender-balanced ratio of literary genius has always existed is certainly true; to say that a gender-balanced ratio of expressed literary genius is just as certainly false.

I doubt there is any proof whatsoever that there is any serious evidence that there has always been a gender-balanced ratio of literary genius, expressed or not. I'm all for equality between men and women, but in almost every artistic realm it is dominated by men. Obviously womens' contribution throughout history is greatly diminished in comparison to men, due to their essentially subjugated status, but this does not guarantee that had women throughout history been on equal footing with men that the ratio would be balanced. That's like saying men and women are exactly alike and so can produce the same results, which isn't necessarily true.