Could someone help me understand "classic" literature

[ktm5124]

@spooky-Ugh its a never ending circle. lol
@stluke- I understand that reading can introduce you to new ideas, but in Dante's case they were for the most part the lessons of my childhood (raised a Roman Catholic) but with more detail.Though I still have my doubts you have convinced me to study poetry more intensively, and revisit the Divine Comedy. As for recommendations, if you happen to know of any prominent anarchist theorists that would be great. I'd like to once again apologize to anyone I got snappy with, I regret doing so. This seems to have quickly devolved into an irritable me ranting at people over the internet.

Well you did come across as overly-defensive in this thread, but I think that's a symptom of your age (no offense). However, you show a good deal of maturity in this post :-)

The authors that are troubling you are all very remote from the life of a modern-day adolescent. As much as you're going to hate me for saying this, literature is better understood and appreciated with a little life experience. When you experience the themes of a work of art for yourself, or when they are somewhere on your horizon, your appreciation of that work may change. I think this is why Romeo & Juliet is Shakespeare's most accessible play - its main theme is universally accessible to all ages.

Also you should ask yourself - when you read a novel/play/poem, are you looking for immediate gratification, e.g. the gratification of a thrilling plot, of suspense, of one brilliant idea after another? Sometimes the joy of reading a text is to be found under the surface of the composition. Sometimes it is to be found in retrospect, because it is only when you finish a text that you know its true shape and structure. This doesn't apply so much to Shakespeare, as Shakespeare's plays were meant to be entertaining, but it applies to many 19th and 20th century writers you might come across (including, for example, Hawthorne).

To give some more concrete suggestions --

Regarding Shakespeare, I would recommend watching the various plays on film that are out there. I highly recommend the following:

Richard Burton / Elizabeth Taylor's The Taming of the Shrew
Derek Jacobi's Richard II
Laurence Olivier's Richard III
Laurence Olivier's Hamlet

(I refer to the films here by the starring actor.)

Watching a Shakespeare play, especially those that star world-class actors, can show you how funny and dramatic a scene or soliloquy can be, so that when you read it you have a new appreciation. Not only that, but watching one Shakespeare play can help you read another; the more you see how Shakespeare is acted out, the better you become at reading him.

Regarding Hawthorne:

I suggest reading some scholarly articles. If you can get access to jstor.org, that will prove invaluable. You won't be able to access it from home; you'll need to find a library that has a subscription. It's where academia looks for scholarly articles on the web.

You can also find criticism on Hawthorne in any local library. Next to The Scarlet Letter there should be books written on The Scarlet Letter. Try picking one of these up and see what you get from it. Also, if you have a critical edition of TSL, see what you can glean from the introductory essay.

Sorry for such a long post. =/

[Featchy]

Stick with Shakespeare; he’s undoubtedly the greatest writer in the English language, and eventually you’ll develop an ear for him.

Dante, like any poet, is best approached in his own language. Translation can only do so much.

The problem with Hawthorne is Hawthorne, and by that I mean he has aged badly and is dull.

[mal4mac]

Shakespeare? those are PLAYS, and were always meant to be seen, not read. Reading them takes the life right out of the play and leaves it dull and boring and confusing. Go see a good shakespeare play... maybe it can kindle a 'shakespeare fire'...lol

I disagree that reading them takes the life right out of them! Many great Shakespeare critics, like Harold Bloom, recommend reading them *rather than* watching them, because so many directors make them dull, boring and confusing. Also reading allows you to slow things down so you have time to understand difficult passages. To 'get' Shakespeare you need notes, but too many versions have too many notes that are excessive, dull, boring and confusing. So look, or ask here, for recommendations. I like the RSC Complete Shakespeare edited by Bate & Rasmussen - which is now coming out in 'individual play' versions if you can't face the 'complete'...

Given the authors you say you like, Macbeth might be a good play to start with. Try and get hold of Polanski's film version if you need some live action inspiration.

The key to Dante is finding a good translation with great notes - I'm reading Mandelbaum's Everyman translation and greatly enjoying it. The biggest problem is coming to terms with the Italian 'characters' and history. But if you make the hard slog through the notes to 'get' these aspects, Dante eventually repays you with wonderful imagery, poetry and philosophy.

Hawthorne, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.

Apart from Dante and Shakespeare your rating of Orwell, Twain, and Steinbeck as more worthy than Hawthorne, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis seems spot on!

To really wind up your teachers ask them why C.S. Lewis is on the syllabus and not Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, D.H. Lawrence, Jane Austen, George Eliot... there are so many English writers who are ranked above C.S. Lewis that I'm flabbergasted that he's the 'representative Brit'. Are your English teachers fundamentalist Christians? Maybe they are letting their religious fervour overcome their literary sensibility?

[keilj]

After yet another year of clashing with my English teachers and their curriculum choices, I am fed up. I have been told year after year that these stories were top of the line and that they would inspire/move me. Year after year they have not lived up to this standard. Is it the books? The teachers? Or is it me? In any case I'd like to know what exactly sets these books and authors above the others. Any help or constructive critiscm is appreciated.

Oh and a few examples of the authors giving me trouble. Hawthorne, Alighieri, Shakespeare, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.
I have enjoyed Orwell, Twain, and Steinbeck.

Don't get discouraged – I found Hawthorne, Shakespeare and others to be very uninspiring as well. Whereas Twain and Steinbeck are my absolute favorites

In all seriousness, my high school and college English and Lit classes nearly turned me off from reading books altogether. After having to slog through stuff like Beowulf, Shakespeare plays, and Faulkner – and being told by Lit teachers how "amazing" they were – I was left with nearly no interest in classic literature

It was only after I graduated college, and started looking into some authors like Twain, Steinbeck, Sinclair Lewis, and F Scott Fitzgerald that I really started finding book that really moved me and struck a chord with me – books that will stay with me forever.

My other problem with many Lit teachers is their choice of books. For example, I found Tender is the Night to be much better than The Great Gatsby, and I found For Whom the Bells Tolls to be much better than The Sun Also Rises. So spending weeks of class after class analyzing every line of The Sun Also Rises, can also turn you off to a great author like Hemingway

You're going to do A LOT of stuff that you don't want to do in school. Actually, you're going to have to do A LOT of stuff that you don't want to do in life.

What that means is fake an interest in it or at least enough interest to get you a passing grade and never look at the novel ever again.

I agree with the above

But the frustrating thing is - when you are forced to do Algebra - you don't have to listen to the teacher, and some students, soliloquize about how beautiful and emotive and inspiring Algebra is - whereas when you take a Lit class, you do

Leland... I'm sorry, but it's you. Dante, Shakespeare, Hawthorne, etc... are among some of greatest writers... indeed Shakespeare and Dante virtually divide Western literature between them. The problem, however, is that any art form is essentially a language... and that language and its vocabulary must be learned and understood before you can really begin to appreciate it. After having read any number of older works of prose and poetry I laugh at the notion that Shakespeare... let alone Hawthorne... is difficult to read. But as with most things in life, practice makes perfect. Shakespeare and Dante both place far greater demands upon the average reader (demands that are more than rewarded) that are not as challenging as more recognizable language found in the work of many more recent writers... or the works of the writers most of us grew up reading as children... and many of the works of the more commercially popular writers. Of course I might add that it could also be the teacher (although as a teacher myself I probably shouldn't make such suppositions). A good teacher should attempt to instill a love of reading in you... should help you to develop a grasp of older prose and poetic forms... but ultimately it is up to the individual and you must decide whether the pleasure to be gained is worth the struggle. You can certainly stick with Harry Potter and Dan Brown and other writers that pander to the audience with easy art... just as you can stick with Lady Gaga or the latest summer block-buster and avoid music or film or art that might demand a bit more of you... art that might challenge you... art that might avoid the usual cliches. The decision is yours.

You mention having liked Steinbeck and Twain... both good writers... but not the and breadth of Shakespeare and Dante. Don't be quick to give up on them. At the same time... don't assume that your first opinions are your last. As you grow and gain in experience... including the experience of reading... you may find your opinions change. For now I would advise you to build off those writers among the "classics" that you do admire. Look into Hemingway's stories, Poe's tales, Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky (start with the short stories), Aldus Huxley. Also seek out the best examples of whatever genre you like to read: science-fiction, mysteries, ghost stories, etc... But every so many books... challenge yourself; try some poetry or perhaps Lewis Carroll in order to develop a love of language. Pick up a Greek play or one by Shakespeare and push your self and your expectations.

While I am on this, I might point out that the idea that Shakespeare should be seen performed and not read is absolutely absurd. His mastery of language, the difficulty of some of his concepts and metaphors, his use of word play, etc... are all best served through reading. Seeing a good live performance, on the other hand, can certainly help to pull things together... and lead to a better concept of the flow of the language.

you seem to be missing the very important point - that people have different tastes.

I would argue that Shakespeare - as Twain put it - is chloroform in print. But I understand that plenty of people like Shakespeare, Faulkner, etc. I don't try to argue that Steinbeck has more breadth than Hawthorne, for example

[stlukesguild]

Do not underestimate Hawthorne. He brings something quite unique.. an obsessive Puritan guilt... to American literature. Personally, I far prefer his short stories.

you seem to be missing the very important point - that people have different tastes.

Yes... everyone has personal tastes... but these do not alter the merits of a great work of art. I recognize the brilliance of James Joyce... but he does not resonate for me anywhere near the level that Proust, Kafka, or J.L. Borges. But I recognize that saying that I like or don't particularly like a given work of literature is not the same as making an objective value judgment such as "Hawthorne is boring" or "Shakespeare sucks"... especially when such judgments go against the larger-held opinions (and these are the closest we get to objective "facts" or "truths" in art). One must certain be prepared for disagreements when making such judgments. To simply state "Shakespeare just doesn't move me," you have put forth a statement of fact; there is no implied value judgment of Shakespeare's work. To suggest that "Shakespeare is 'chloroform in print' " is a statement of another nature, altogether and you may find that others will challenge your judgment.

[keilj]

you seem to be missing the very important point - that people have different tastes.

Yes... everyone has personal tastes... but these do not alter the merits of a great work of art. I recognize the brilliance of James Joyce... but he does not resonate for me anywhere near the level that Proust, Kafka, or J.L. Borges. But I recognize that saying that I like or don't particularly like a given work of literature is not the same as making an objective value judgment such as "Hawthorne is boring" or "Shakespeare sucks"... especially when such judgments go against the larger-held opinions (and these are the closest we get to objective "facts" or "truths" in art). One must certain be prepared for disagreements when making such judgments. To simply state "Shakespeare just doesn't move me," you have put forth a statement of fact; there is no implied value judgment of Shakespeare's work. To suggest that "Shakespeare is 'chloroform in print' " is a statement of another nature, altogether and you may find that others will challenge your judgment.

I think we pretty-much agree. There are certainly works of art that are great - beyond what opinion or someone's personal judgment says about them - they stand on their own

And, as you said, some art just does not resonate with some people - despite how highly regarded that art might be.

Which goes back to the original point - that a lot of Lit teachers are proffering books that resonate with them. Yes, some of these books might be highly regarded as well - but when you take a class, and you HAVE to read these books which do not resonate with you, it can be a turn-off.

So where we might disagree is that I don't think the original poster has bad or unrefined taste - I think he just needs to keep looking for books that resonate with him, and look beyond what Lit teachers hold as "marvelous" or "essential"

[kelby_lake]

I wonder how much Shakespeare so-called Shakespeare haters have actually read and which ones?

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them. Sometimes a more sceptical view of a piece of literature can be more useful than just saying 'I liked it.' There's obviously something in them- you just need to find out what. Listen to what your professors say but form your own opinions based on the text.

Shakespeare is worth reading and watching but you need to 'learn' his language, which after some practice shouldn't be too hard. Read versions of the texts which have good notes- if you get school textbook versions, even better. A few sonnets would be good too.

[keilj]

I wonder how much Shakespeare so-called Shakespeare haters have actually read and which ones?

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them. Sometimes a more sceptical view of a piece of literature can be more useful than just saying 'I liked it.' There's obviously something in them- you just need to find out what. Listen to what your professors say but form your own opinions based on the text.

Shakespeare is worth reading and watching but you need to 'learn' his language, which after some practice shouldn't be too hard. Read versions of the texts which have good notes- if you get school textbook versions, even better. A few sonnets would be good too.

unfortunately the same could be said of someone who claims Twain and Steinbeck don't have breadth

[kelby_lake]

unfortunately the same could be said of someone who claims Twain and Steinbeck don't have breadth

It could probably be said of pretty much any author but it's worse with Shakey, considering his output and influence on modern culture.

I liked Of Mice and Men- was in the middle of reading another Steinbeck, a road trippy one, and I liked the film version of East of Eden so may find time to read the book.

Not that keen on venturing into Twain- I prefer Bierce's satire and Coward/Wilde and from what I've heard, it seems to resonate more with Americans than with Brits. But I wouldn't say definitively that it didn't have much 'breadth', although I haven't heard anyone claim that it has 'breadth'- not necessarily to its detriment.

[spookymulder93]

I wonder how much Shakespeare so-called Shakespeare haters have actually read and which ones?

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them.

What does that mean?

I don't like Bob Dylan but a lot of people do. Does that mean I need to appreciate his music? I mean he did have a huge influence over a lot of other musicians.

[keilj]

It could probably be said of pretty much any author but it's worse with Shakey, considering his output and influence on modern culture.

I liked Of Mice and Men- was in the middle of reading another Steinbeck, a road trippy one, and I liked the film version of East of Eden so may find time to read the book.

Not that keen on venturing into Twain- I prefer Bierce's satire and Coward/Wilde and from what I've heard, it seems to resonate more with Americans than with Brits. But I wouldn't say definitively that it didn't have much 'breadth', although I haven't heard anyone claim that it has 'breadth'- not necessarily to its detriment.

Twain is interesting. When you read some of his lesser-loved stuff, like Letters From Earth, his autobiography, or some of his short stories like A Cure for the Blues or A Californian's Tale, you'll see that he, unlike any other authors I have read, stared down the truths of life and human nature, right down to the bone. It took staggering courage to write some of the things that he did

(but now I am just proselytizing)

[Quark]

I'd like to know what exactly sets these books and authors above the others. Any help or constructive critiscm is appreciated.

Oh and a few examples of the authors giving me trouble. Hawthorne, Alighieri, Shakespeare, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.

It would take too many words to explain why each of those writers produced good literature, but I think you could discuss one or two. Let's take Wharton first. Probably her finest novel is The House of Mirth (1905). If you're in a class that reads that work, you'll probably talk about at least these three things: narrative, marriage, and social codes. The story is considered one of the best crafted because it does a great job building the expectations of the reader and then pulling the rug out from under them. Wharton is writting to a audience that hungered for social success and high society. Throughout the novel, she places her heroine in situations that tease the reader with glimpses of the readers' fantasy. But, toward the end, the heroine's failures mount and she falls into the opposite extreme of poverty and disrepute. If you're trying to understand how stories build the expectations of readers and use them to create effects, this is one of the best novels to look at. Another idea that's very present in the book is marriage. So much of Wharton's writting is a meditation on how marriage has become a purely legal contract. The House of Mirth is a satire of this idea. So you're supposed to be thinking about what marriage is, how its established, and what its purpose is. You're also supposed to notice that Wharton's heroine doesn't play by the rules, and how that tears apart her own life and those around her. Just by reading the novel you can learn a lot about narrative, marriage, and social rules. These are some of the reasons why you might have to read her books in a class.

Of course, none of that may be immediately relevant to your life, and the book might be a bore to get through. But, if you're trying to be an articulate and educated person, you probably want to engage with these ideas at some point in your life. After all, people still get married and are confronted with the same problems Wharton's heroine are. And they still tell stories about it. That's why people still assign her books. I could go through and talk about other of her works or some of those other writers, but I don't have time to write out something about all of them. I haven't even read much of C.S. Lewis. If you want to get specific about what exactly you were reading and what you thought didn't work about these books, that might help.

Now this:

some art just does not resonate with some people - despite how highly regarded that art might be.

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them.

"Resonate," "appreciate," and "like" are all a little vague. I get the sense that you're trying to draw some important distinctions here, but many would see these words as largely synonomous (at least in this context).

[stlukesguild]

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them.

What does that mean?

I don't like Bob Dylan but a lot of people do. Does that mean I need to appreciate his music? I mean he did have a huge influence over a lot of other musicians.

What that means is that there is a difference between saying "I don't like Bob Dylan" and "Bob Dylan sucks. He can't sing, and his lyrics are atrocious."

Taken with regard to literature, saying "Shakespeare is boring" pretty much cuts you off from ever wanting to read his work again... after all, if his works are boring, why would you want to waste your time? Merely admitting, however, that Shakespeare has not resonated with you leaves open the very real possibility that you may eventually come around to liking him.

[Leland Gaunt]

Well I guess William Blake it is! Though something about stlukes grin tells me he is in some way involved with The Divine Comedy.

Also you should ask yourself - when you read a novel/play/poem, are you looking for immediate gratification, e.g. the gratification of a thrilling plot, of suspense, of one brilliant idea after another? Sometimes the joy of reading a text is to be found under the surface of the composition. Sometimes it is to be found in retrospect, because it is only when you finish a text that you know its true shape and structure. This doesn't apply so much to Shakespeare, as Shakespeare's plays were meant to be entertaining, but it applies to many 19th and 20th century writers you might come across (including, for example, Hawthorne).

Well I alternate between "heavy" and "light" reading. For example last month I first read H.P. Lovecraft after I had finished that I read John Stuart Mill and finished up with a book on lucid dreaming. So I guess before I read a book I've already decided how I am going to approach it.

The key to Dante is finding a good translation with great notes - I'm reading Mandelbaum's Everyman translation and greatly enjoying it. The biggest problem is coming to terms with the Italian 'characters' and history. But if you make the hard slog through the notes to 'get' these aspects, Dante eventually repays you with wonderful imagery, poetry and philosophy.

Hawthorne, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis.

Apart from Dante and Shakespeare your rating of Orwell, Twain, and Steinbeck as more worthy than Hawthorne, Wharton, and C.S. Lewis seems spot on!

To really wind up your teachers ask them why C.S. Lewis is on the syllabus and not Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, D.H. Lawrence, Jane Austen, George Eliot... there are so many English writers who are ranked above C.S. Lewis that I'm flabbergasted that he's the 'representative Brit'. Are your English teachers fundamentalist Christians? Maybe they are letting their religious fervour overcome their literary sensibility?

I read that very same translation of Dante, but I felt nothing. Though to be completely honest I think I am letting my atheism cloud how I view whatever phillosophy he has to offer, I suppose where he is trying to teach morality I just see the faults in his religion. As for imagery I guess the various methods of eternal torture, were well described (see there, I just did it again). Poetry is something I have only found a very recent interest in, so like I told stluke, I will delve into poetry some more and read Dante afterwards.
Lol, I think I've given my teacher enough grief already. Actually, I've heard those names mentioned in conversations about my Senior Lit class, so maybe things will improve.

But the frustrating thing is - when you are forced to do Algebra - you don't have to listen to the teacher, and some students, soliloquize about how beautiful and emotive and inspiring Algebra is - whereas when you take a Lit class, you do

Consider this stored and ready for use on my next English teacher.
I agree with just about every single word in your post.

Whilst you do not need to like all the classics, you need to appreciate them.

Why?

He brings something quite unique.. an obsessive Puritan guilt

To each his own, I suppose. I find nothing interesting about that (though I'm sure you will have a convincing reason as to why it should), in fact it irritates me a little. Irritates me almost as much as the character Dimmesdale.

Edit: Sorry Quark missed you in my initial response. My main grievance is that I do not need the books to think about the issue, and more often than not the books chosen are just going over old ground that no longer brings up a powerful response.

[stlukesguild]

"Resonate," "appreciate," and "like" are all a little vague. I get the sense that you're trying to draw some important distinctions here, but many would see these words as largely synonomous (at least in this context).

Quark, I don't see the words as completely synonymous... at least in how they are being employed. By "like" I assume one is speaking of enjoying the work on a personal level... taking pleasure in it. By "appreciate" I would think we are speaking of recognizing the aesthetic merit of a work... even if it doesn't speak directly to you... even if you don't particularly "like" it.