Reading the Classics discussion
Archives
>
Understanding Period Conceptions
date
newest »
newest »
Well, not every person acted the same way, with the same values, morals, mores, customs, within each era. There was a lot more individuality than is being suggested here.
Nathalia wrote: "On the other hand, this is classics without the class and..."Huh??
I am occasionally surprised to hear readers express disapproval that people in an earlier time thought differently about life, money, God, social classes, workers, people of different ethnic groups, countries outside their sphere, etc. Perhaps it's a lack of history courses in school, or a lack of awareness of how different the world is all the time, not just in the past but now as well. That said, I will add that mystery readers can be especially distressed to find that some of their favorite mystery authors were anti-semitic, nativist, and narrow minded in other ways. And yet, some writers of the same period were not. There are always people who think far ahead of their times, whose way of looking at the world is more compassionate and comprehensive than that of their contemporaries, but they don't write all the novels that survive for later readers to enjoy. Literary style has definitely changed over time, but each of us reacts differently. I find Little Women unreadable today, but I still enjoy Shakespeare and I'd prefer to grapple with Chaucer than Gothic fiction.
Leslie wrote: "Nathalia wrote: "On the other hand, this is classics without the class and..."Huh??"
Ooops. Wrong Group.
The casual anti-Semitism of British writers of the 20s-30s was shocking the first few times I saw it. They also usually referred to Indians as blacks. I come across it all the time - Dorothy Sayers, Evelyn Waugh, Agatha Christie, others. It gets less shocking the more you read it. As I read "Lie Down in Darkness" published by William Styron in 1951, all the dialogue about "niggers" was also not shocking.Personally I'm just as offended by all the sexism in nonfiction works going up to about the 1960s - it truly was a man's world, and you are never allowed to forget it. I'm constantly reading sentences like "I was looking to hire a man...." or "When a man embarks on a career on sociology...."
While I agree that culture of a time period and region needs to be taken into account, I also think what makes a classic truly a classic is the nature of the story that we can look at it both from the lens of that time period and also what we can take from it and apply to today. It's not a right or wrong viewpoint, it's simply taking what we know of a time period and guessing what the author was trying to say then, as well as applying what we can to today's world and seeing how we might feel or think differently. Judging individual characters on their time period makes more sense, but the book as a whole stands the whole "test of time" exam when we looking at it from multiple angles, not simply the time period in which it was written.
I agree with Alana, the story's background should be considered, but it also depends what for a book is read. If someone is seeking for better understanding of a given period then it is natural to read it more like a historian. however, I think that a more regular reader just wants to make the most of a story and apply it to himself. So if a reader can relate to the characters that is good.
Alana wrote: "While I agree that culture of a time period and region needs to be taken into account, I also think what makes a classic truly a classic is the nature of the story that we can look at it both from the lens of that time period and also what we can take from it and apply to today. "Right. I agree that it's wrong (and also pointless) to criticize authors of the past for holding and representing the values and core assumptions of their societies. But it is completely worthwhile, and indeed IMO the point of reading classics, to look for for two things: one, the universal truths about human nature, society, and governance which transcend the specific mores of the author's time, and two, the changes or developments in society (not always progress, sadly!) which have taken place since the work was written and looking in the works we read to understand how those changes were taking place at the time. (Middlemarch, for example, is a superb example of this.)
Thanks, Everyman, for pointing out that one of the main reasons for reading the classics are for "the universal truths about human nature, society, and governance which transcend the specific mores of the author's time."One of my favorite small pieces of literature is William Faulkner's Nobel Prize acceptance speech, in which he says: "The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past." http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prize...
Today, as a woman, I find all the "him" and "his" words rather jarring, but the truths of which Faulkner speaks remain valid. I taught high school English for 31 years, and only in about the last 10 were gender issues considered in writing. Our text suggested recommending to students that they move to plural forms to avoid the awkward attempts at gender equality (s/he, e.g.).
So Faulkner's words would become: "The poetS', the writerS', duty is to write about these things. It is THEIR privilege to help HUMANITY endure by lifting OUR heartS, by reminding US of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of OUR past."
It never bothers me to read the singular "man" or to see people referred to as "mankind," especially in older literature. In fact, sometimes I prefer it, such as when it's someone speaking in general about an individual. Makes it more clear than using "their." But it can usually be inferred from context what the particular author intended. But I don't mind the gender-neutral "their," either, depending on context, because that's what other languages do. In the Romantic languages, for example, the only a group of females is referred to is when it's specifically the word for a group of females, whereas if it's a group of males or a mixed group, the plural masculine word is used. Works in other languages and that's essentially what we do in English.I guess I understand the controversy but it's never bothered me, except when someone is trying to be entirely too PC and puts she/he and his/hers all the time, making it very challenging to read, entirely breaking up the flow.
I agree with both of you, Philip and Alana--for me, it's fine for Thoreau to use "man", since trying to change the past usages becomes awkward. In our grammar classes, we were aiming at helping students become more aware--and believe me, high school students tend NOT to be very "PC" as I'm constantly reminded in the news. So the grammar text our department chose recommended that students move to the plural in their OWN writing, not as a way to critique authors from the past.
For me, it's just second nature now to write, for example: "Students should use their pencils on this form." rather than "Each student should use his pencil on this form." Even the words flow more smoothly in the plural form, imho.
Philip, I just wish you were right when you say: "In these days the feminist oversensitivity is no longer necessary: equality is recognised and here to stay." Sorry, but in the general society that simply isn't true, just as the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not end racism in the U.S.
Julia wrote: "Philip, I just wish you were right when you say: "In these days the feminist oversensitivity is no longer necessary: equality is recognised and here to stay." Sorry, but in the general society that simply isn't true, just as the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not end racism in the U.S. "I was thinking this, Julia, but didn't know how to formulate it. I would say, though, that like racism, the problem is more prominent in some areas than others. I'm not what one might call a pillar of the feminist movement by any means, in fact I'm rather traditional, but there is certainly still a lot of tenseness out there over both racism and feminism issues. I think both topics are a bit over-sensitive in literature at times, which I think is what Philip is getting at, and I do understand your point, but to say that society has fully embraced equality in those areas isn't accurate. Hence, many of our discussions/debates over things such as gender neutrality in modern and classic literature.
HOWEVER, that does keep everything interesting :)
On the other hand, this is classics without the class and if you want to become frustrated and vent, you can. If you have no compassion with a character despite their circumstances, why not say so. A true classic usually contains themes that stand the test of time. On the other hand, if someone complains about the language being different and tedious and descriptions too long very often, maybe the classics just not for you.