Could someone help me understand "classic" literature

[Wilde woman]

Leland, if you ignore the influences of previous writers on later ones, you're missing a huge portion of the discussion. It's ridiculous to think that great pieces of literature arise out of a vacuum. Even your favorite authors - Twain and Steinbeck - both read and loved pieces of literature in the early modern period (which you so despise). I've read a few chapters in a book which dissects some early works of Steinbeck's and show the chivalric behavior of the characters, which can be traced back to Steinbeck's reading (and rewriting) of medieval romances.

But I think I understand your point: just because a work is influenced by a renowned author does not mean that the work itself is any good. I can understand that position. But there are reasons that works like the Divine Comedy and Shakespeare's dramas are still taught now and have been such a huge influence in literature. Do some digging and you'll see that even your favorite authors have been inspired by either Dante or Shakespeare.

[keilj]

Leland, if you ignore the influences of previous writers on later ones, you're missing a huge portion of the discussion. It's ridiculous to think that great pieces of literature arise out of a vacuum. Even your favorite authors - Twain and Steinbeck - both read and loved pieces of literature in the early modern period (which you so despise). I've read a few chapters in a book which dissects some early works of Steinbeck's and show the chivalric behavior of the characters, which can be traced back to Steinbeck's reading (and rewriting) of medieval romances.

Gotta go with Leland on an author's work standing on its own. I love Steinbeck, who has influenced by Cervantes. I read and pretty much enjoyed Don Quixote - but the entire second half of the 1400 page novel was redundant and almost totally unnecessary (though still funny in parts). (I think Don Quixote is a great example because it is just the kind of novel that Lit scholars would moon over and soliloquize about)

I love Springsteen - but cannot sit through many Pete Segar songs - a big influence of his.

Often when I hear who influenced a writer, singer, so on - I say to myself, "Man, I'm glad they make much better art than their idols did."

A writer ultimately must summon his art from within him/herself as they write upon the page. It seems foolish to suggest that a book cannot be appreciated/understood on its own. And a book that needs tons of background context to be enjoyed, seems hardly enjoyable at all

[stlukesguild]

Gotta go with Leland on an author's work standing on its own.

Explain to me how it is possible that a work of art stands on its own in terms of aesthetic merit? How does an individual develop a concept of the possibilities or the standards without having something upon which to base these? You are simply restating one of the dumbest aesthetic judgments ever voiced: "I don't know much about _______ (art, music, literature...) but I knows what I likes." Why should anyone give the least attention or consideration to such an opinion?

I love Steinbeck, who has influenced by Cervantes. I read and pretty much enjoyed Don Quixote - but the entire second half of the 1400 page novel was redundant and almost totally unnecessary (though still funny in parts).

Unnecessary by what standards? How did you come to this conclusion? Or are you simply again stating your personal opinion (based on ???) as fact?

(I think Don Quixote is a great example because it is just the kind of novel that Lit scholars would moon over and soliloquize about)

There is no "kind of novel" that literature scholars find of interest. There are simply novels (short stories, plays, poems, etc...) that literature scholars, readers, writers, etc... find of more or less merit. Some of these novels are histories, some romances, some comedies, some tragedies, some profoundly serious and reverent... some are bawdy and vulgar, some are centuries old, and some were written last year. This is something that you and those who would portray literary history as some dry, monolith fail to recognize... because you are too hung up with trying to tear down what you don't understand.

I love Springsteen - but cannot sit through many Pete Segar songs - a big influence of his.

And that's fine for you. No one said "you MUST like Pete Seeger if you like Bruce Springsteen. The problem comes, however, when you presume that your own opinions are fact:

Often when I hear who influenced a writer, singer, so on - I say to myself, "Man, I'm glad they make much better art than their idols did."

A writer ultimately must summon his art from within him/herself as they write upon the page. It seems foolish to suggest that a book cannot be appreciated/understood on its own. And a book that needs tons of background context to be enjoyed, seems hardly enjoyable at all

Ah! Now you are presuming to dictate how a writer MUST create his or her art. I've always loved Bonnard's quote on painting: "You can't invent the whole of painting yourself." Yes... you can appreciate a book solely on its own terms. But what is the level of appreciation? Or are we back again to "I don't know much about ______ but I know what I like? Perhaps a better quote for this discussion might come from Lex Luthor (Superman):

Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."

Milton! Thou shouldst be posting on this thread!. Anyone with the chutzpah "to justify the ways of God to man" surely could justify the ways of literature to youth.




Indeed!

[Jozanny]

Gotta go with Leland on an author's work standing on its own.

I think, for those of us who took our education seriously, it goes without saying that an author has to stand on their own legs, and yet, as some have conveyed, nearly all story telling is derivative.

I am actually not sure what your protest amounts to. I am a published poet, with a small collection of my own, and I may have some affinity with other confessional poets, but no conscious imitation of any with the possible exception of lyn lifshin, who I grew out of but once enjoyed her hard edged cadence--and to this extent all writers feed off each other, inclusive of Dante and Cervantes. We're like a club. Same thing goes for classic authors, but we don't see it obviously, because it all becomes textually dependent.

You contradict yourself talking about Springteen's influences, so perhaps you need to sort out your line of thought.

[Leland Gaunt]

Ah, there is more on heaven and earth, Leland, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.

Of course individual works stand well on their own, but they are also in dialogue with one another. Each book, each author or philosopher is a voice in conversation with other voices. What St. Luke's and others are suggesting is not a monolithic entity at all, but a diverse, rich and heterogeneous conversation among voices from age to age that weave together to help form the fabric of the culture, art, values, behavior, beliefs and so on of our own age.

But, of course it is alright if you personally aren't getting anything out of certain works at this point in your life. You have lots of interests to explore and things to work out, and it may be absolutely true that you're not in a place where you appreciate or get much out of certain kinds of literature. That's why many people on this thread started out by saying that you probably aren't at a point in your life when this is meaningful for you, and that this is not a bad thing, but that you just need to recognize that this doesn't mean that the books themselves are not potentially meaningful works or that there may not be another point in your life when they are meaningful to you.

As I write this I can't help but think of the first line of the Divina Commedia. I'll quote the opening stanze:

Absolutely! There is an enormous amount of things to experience in this world. This is why I get the feeling that a book isn't worth many years trying to understand, for me anyway. Hell, if I want to be honest with myself and you, what I am really looking for is a great deal of excitement in my life. That was something lacking in my first reading of Dante, but as I have said before I do plan on reading The Divine Comedy again later in my life after my priorites and perspective have changed, and you have given me some excellent cues as to when to do so. Unfortunately the same can't be said for Hawthorne() and that is definitely a matter of personal taste over aesthetic appreciation. If it seemed as if I was rejecting the advice that I wouldn't ever be moved by it, then my fault, because I was not contesting this point at all.

Leland, if you ignore the influences of previous writers on later ones, you're missing a huge portion of the discussion. It's ridiculous to think that great pieces of literature arise out of a vacuum. Even your favorite authors - Twain and Steinbeck - both read and loved pieces of literature in the early modern period (which you so despise). I've read a few chapters in a book which dissects some early works of Steinbeck's and show the chivalric behavior of the characters, which can be traced back to Steinbeck's reading (and rewriting) of medieval romances.

But I think I understand your point: just because a work is influenced by a renowned author does not mean that the work itself is any good. I can understand that position. But there are reasons that works like the Divine Comedy and Shakespeare's dramas are still taught now and have been such a huge influence in literature. Do some digging and you'll see that even your favorite authors have been inspired by either Dante or Shakespeare.

*ahem* A. The discussion you are referring to does not interest me at the moment B. Those are not my favorite authors (just the ones that I read in my English class), though Steinbeck might soon be C. Boy is this frustrating, having to point out again that I have never once stated that I despised anything...except for Hawthorne D. How far back should I dig to find who influenced who? Am I going to end up at the first primitive chieftain to grunt eloquently about the complexities of life? (this is a bit extreme and a tad juvenile, but darn am I tired of having to express my disinterest in the evolution of art)

A writer ultimately must summon his art from within him/herself as they write upon the page. It seems foolish to suggest that a book cannot be appreciated/understood on its own. And a book that needs tons of background context to be enjoyed, seems hardly enjoyable at all

Spot on.


P.S. Petrarch- I will get back to you on the "conversation among ages" after I have studied both history and literature some more. Thank you for the invitation, but I think I'm gonna put the ol' keyboard down for a bit. Oh and thanks again, to all who have helped, I definitely understand why people enjoy the classics then I did at the beginning of the thread.

[JCamilo]

If you had no trouble you would not start a thread asking for help. And if you need help nobody is stupidy to tell you to act and do exactly what you did before, since it lead it you to trouble. So, we can only tell you alternatives, if it does not interest you, pay attention: it may be a path for you.

So, either you asked for help to receive something you have not or you are just bragging. In either case, listen, for listening you can learn and listening you wont make a silly of yourself because this river have bathed a great number of souls.

Anyways, You cannt even use the word classic without considering the power of influence (many, thanks to Dante), so this thread goes silly. More than 9 lawyers of silliness.

[mal4mac]

Petrarch- See my post above for an answer to most of your post. I no longer expect you to explain why Dante is a triumph in literature. I realize that this is an unfair task to ask of someone. In regards to me posting passages that I did not like, this would be terribly hard. It's not that I hated anything in particular, the poem simply did not move me and I saw nothing resembling some of the claims that others have said were in the book (philosophy, reason). I was a very gray and uninteresting read.

Interesting Freudian slip in the last sentence! Lay down on the couch

Maybe you feel the need to become a brighter reader and (somehow, anyhow) work hard to generate more interest in Dante.

Maybe you need to know more about the authors Dante refers to? And maybe even read some of them? I've read Plato, some Aristotle, and much about them, and a little about Thomas Aquinas, and I think this has helped a lot with the passages where they are invoked. I haven't read Virgil or Ovid, so the passages where they are mentioned often seem less "rich". But it's probably me who's less rich, rather than Dante...

You could start with "Aquinas:A Very Short Introduction", and other appropriate books in that excellent series, to build up *some* background.

Also read "Portrait" by James Joyce to see an atheist who is totally steeped in Roman Catholicism, then you might see that you don't have to be in the club to find it fascinating & incredibly influential...

And of course authors have to stand on their own legs, but it often helps to stand on the backs of giants.

[kelby_lake]

I would be very careful giving advice on grammar here Kelby, including spelling!

Whoops :/ It's still wrong though, isn't it?

[Leland Gaunt]

If you had no trouble you would not start a thread asking for help. And if you need help nobody is stupidy to tell you to act and do exactly what you did before, since it lead it you to trouble. So, we can only tell you alternatives, if it does not interest you, pay attention: it may be a path for you.

So, either you asked for help to receive something you have not or you are just bragging. In either case, listen, for listening you can learn and listening you wont make a silly of yourself because this river have bathed a great number of souls.

Anyways, You cannt even use the word classic without considering the power of influence (many, thanks to Dante), so this thread goes silly. More than 9 lawyers of silliness.

Actually, I started the thread to find out what made the books so good and why others enjoyed them. I have received my answer, but for whatever reason some angry individual continues with this superior nonsense. Though others did help me out, you did not.

Interesting Freudian slip in the last sentence! Lay down on the couch

Maybe you feel the need to become a brighter reader and (somehow, anyhow) work hard to generate more interest in Dante.

Now if only the original psychodynamic theory could be taken seriously.

[ktm5124]

Leland, you need to calm down a bit. You are coming across as the pretentious teenager with a backpack full of books who feels the need to zip open the backpack and say, "Look, here is Nietzsche!"

You are at the point of your life where you have just discovered intellectuality and, while this is an exciting find, you need to examine your motives and show some humility. Teenagers often take to philosophy so that they can contrive claims of superiority - superiority towards their parents, their schools, society, and authority in general. But this is not a healthy motive - it only serves to condone and reinforce rebellion against authority. One should read books for their enrichment, not to gain a sense of superiority...

You also need a little humility. You need to admit to yourself that you are in a hectic stage of development, with many hormones running through your body, many neural connections being formed and re-formed. You still live with your parents; you have little life experience; your attitudes and inclinations will change as you grow older. (This last bit is true for all of us.) You should recognize that, no matter whether you grow to like Dante or not, five, ten years from now you will have a different opinion of him than you do now.

Don't be so quick to toss out words like "psychodynamic", names like "Freud" and "Nietzsche". It only makes you appear as if you have something to prove, as if you must unzip your backpack full of books for every passerby.

I know you probably hate me after this critical and patronizing response. But I was your age not so long ago, and I was even more pretentious and rebellious. And I am ashamed of how I was then. But then again it is natural; it is perhaps an inevitable stage of development for those who are intellectually curious - at least in our society, with its de-emphasis on education, which gives good reason for rebellion, and little for humility...

[Leland Gaunt]

Leland, you need to calm down a bit.

Maybe it is the fact that we are using the internet and thats how, but I have felt calm beyond the first page of this thread. In the first page I was acting like a prick and was also name-dropping, but I apologized for that.

You are at the point of your life where you have just discovered intellectuality and, while this is an exciting find, you need to examine your motives and show some humility. Teenagers often take to philosophy so that they can contrive claims of superiority - superiority towards their parents, their schools, society, and authority in general. But this is not a healthy motive - it only serves to condone and reinforce rebellion against authority. One should read books for their enrichment, not to gain a sense of superiority...

I will give you that, it is true.

You also need a little humility. You need to admit to yourself that you are in a hectic stage of development, with many hormones running through your body, many neural connections being formed and re-formed. You still live with your parents; you have little life experience; your attitudes and inclinations will change as you grow older. (This last bit is true for all of us.) You should recognize that, no matter whether you grow to like Dante or not, five, ten years from now you will have a different opinion of him than you do now.

To this I will respond with a quote of my own from this thread:
"Hell, if I want to be honest with myself and you, what I am really looking for is a great deal of excitement in my life. That was something lacking in my first reading of Dante, but as I have said before I do plan on reading The Divine Comedy again later in my life after my priorites and perspective have changed, and you have given me some excellent cues as to when to do so."

Don't be so quick to toss out words like "psychodynamic", names like "Freud" and "Nietzsche". It only makes you appear as if you have something to prove, as if you must unzip your backpack full of books for every passerby.

Is there another name for psychodynamic theory? Freud was mentioned by someone else. With Nietzsche, you are correct that was intended to impress, but as I have said repeatedly I realize how juvenile that was, and have apologized for it.

I know you probably hate me after this critical and patronizing response.

I don't hate you, your just giving me your honest opinion on the matter and you speak from a point of understanding and were correct on several matters.