Constant Reader discussion
Constant Reader
>
Handicapping Future Classics
Dree wrote: "Goodness, this thread got away from me.I agree that (many of) Margaret Atwood's books are incredible. Handmaid's Tale, Oryx and Crake, and Year of the Flood. But Blind Assasin--I didn't know what..."
I mentioned Toni Morrison - and specifically, Beloved. You must have missed it.
I love Song of Solomon, too, and The Bluest Eye and I'm glad to read you loved A Mercy. I'm thinking of buying that one, but those I know didn't like it. I couldn't imagine Toni Morrison writing a book people did NOT like.
Ruth wrote: "Carol, while I definitely concur that The Kiterunner is wonderful in its representation of a culture and time. And while I definitely enjoyed it very, very much, I still definitely do not consider ..."I agree about The Kite Runner, Ruth. The writing, to me, was clumsy and melodramatic, at best. The main character's trip over the Khyber Pass was absolutely appalling it was so badly written.
But I have to agree, the book has a certain importance because it is the first book written in English by a native Afghani.
And I don't mean to insult anyone who liked it. Literature is so subjective. Many people can't stand Beloved and Wuthering Heights, two of my favorites. That's fine.
Well, what a great discussion. I think a classic has to go beyond a good story or well-chosen words, and have an underlying philosophy that will still resonate and be relevant for readers of the future. There are tons of great books that have a philosophy that resonates for me now, but that I don't believe will necessarily work in the future (e.g. Wind Up Bird Chronicle; Bone People). I was not an English major, in fact I never took a single English class in college. I've read a lot of classics but I did not necessarily encounter them in the "here is a classic" context. Mainly I just stumbled upon them by unplanned and generally happy accident.
My nominations for recent works that will survive:
Song of Solomon (Toni Morrison)
2666 (Roberto Bolano)*
In the Skin of a Lion (Michael Ondaatje)
Disgrace (Coetzee)
Housekeeping (Marilyn Robinson)
Arcadia (Tom Stoppard)
*I'm only about 1/3 through, so I reserve the right to change my mind on this.
I must call Steve to account regarding Bloom. Years ago I complained vehemently here on CR about how overweeningly avuncular Bloom was in an article he wrote for the New Yorker about Columbia's core curriculum. Steve and Dick put up a spirited (and rather avuncular) defense of Bloom. Not that there's anything wrong with changing one's mind, but just saying . . .
Theresa
Theresa, I agree with every one of your choices, except I haven't read 2666 yet.
Suzanne wrote: "I'm new, so at the risk of offending all of you(and I do not want to) I have to say that I consider Stephen King's 'The Stand' a classic work."I've not read all of Stephen King's books, but I've read a lot of them. I think of any, The Stand is the one most likely to stand the test of time (no pun intended); it is well-written, contains classic themes (especially the never-ending struggle of good v. evil), and has relate-able, complex characters.
Windfall Apple wrote: "Can I suggest Billy Collins, Seamus Heaney, Adrienne Rich and Mary Oliver for starters in the call put out for 'Canonize Contemporary Poets'"I'd vote for Billy Collins. LOVE his poetry!
Whitaker, will you be providing a list of the books from which your quotes (in # 110) were taken? I am very curious!
Mary Ellen beat me to it, Whitaker. I'm curious too. I must know how to find out more about the people with the paper hats!
Theresa, I'm feeling optimistic about reading 2666 since you put it on a list with Ondaatje, Morrison, and Robinson.
I forget who mentioned Atwood, but didn't care for The Blind Assasin. I remember thinking it was a perfect novel and one of the most brilliant things I ever read. I was kind of suprised when I found out how many people didn't think much of it.
Denise wrote: "Theresa, I'm feeling optimistic about reading 2666 since you put it on a list with Ondaatje, Morrison, and Robinson.
I forget who mentioned Atwood, but didn't care for The Blind Assasin. I ..."
I couldn't stand The Blind Assasin. I thought it read like a Danielle Steele book. I kept checking to see if it was Margaret Atwood who wrote it. I couldn't believe this was the same woman who wrote The Handmaid's Tale and Alias Grace.
I started 2666 but put it aside as it seemed "dry" to me. I couldn't get into it, but maybe that was "just me." I'll try again. I can't even subjectively judge it as I haven't read enough.
Classics ... as a Dutch literature major I have been assigned many books that weren't in print anymore and I'm almost sure most of them aren't being read either. But when they were assigned reading they have to be classics right? Maybe there's something wrong with the Dutch publishing industry, but I think this is true for classics in many countries.
Harold Bloom's list made me a bit sad. I saw only one Dutch author, Erasmus, but as usual he was included in German literature. Max Havelaar deserves to be on that list too and I'm sure there are more.
Max Havelaar was a very controversial book when first published because it criticizes the Dutch colonial system. It was only published in a very expensive edition, that way no one could read it. I don't think there are many who read it now (I have) but almost everyone in the Netherlands knows the name Max Havelaar (as a fair trade brand). Maybe that's also a part of what being a classic is about: having a lasting impression, being known without being read. You don't have to read Romeo & Julia or The Odyssey to know what they're about.
As for good writing, what we regard as good writing is for a large part decided by our personal preferences (I like original/fresh metaphors among other things). There is also a more universally accepted idea of what good writing is. Writing has to be fluent etc. (maybe there's a list out there) .Then there's the part that's decided by the times we life in. Particular writing styles and genres are more popular in certain periods than others.
I too am curious and want to know the books and authors to Whitaker's list of 'samples'. Please don’t judge my taste as I give my ‘opinions’ on the different samples provided. 1: I hate 2: just too pretentious 3: doesn’t begin too great, turns to ok 4: another ok, but better 5: somehow I like 6: ok with potential 7: nothing, empty-ish 8: another like 9: maybe like this too 10: not good. Do I want to know who wrote these? Or did I dismiss the wrong people here?
Harold Bloom's list made me a bit sad. I saw only one Dutch author, Erasmus, but as usual he was included in German literature. Max Havelaar deserves to be on that list too and I'm sure there are more.
Max Havelaar was a very controversial book when first published because it criticizes the Dutch colonial system. It was only published in a very expensive edition, that way no one could read it. I don't think there are many who read it now (I have) but almost everyone in the Netherlands knows the name Max Havelaar (as a fair trade brand). Maybe that's also a part of what being a classic is about: having a lasting impression, being known without being read. You don't have to read Romeo & Julia or The Odyssey to know what they're about.
As for good writing, what we regard as good writing is for a large part decided by our personal preferences (I like original/fresh metaphors among other things). There is also a more universally accepted idea of what good writing is. Writing has to be fluent etc. (maybe there's a list out there) .Then there's the part that's decided by the times we life in. Particular writing styles and genres are more popular in certain periods than others.
I too am curious and want to know the books and authors to Whitaker's list of 'samples'. Please don’t judge my taste as I give my ‘opinions’ on the different samples provided. 1: I hate 2: just too pretentious 3: doesn’t begin too great, turns to ok 4: another ok, but better 5: somehow I like 6: ok with potential 7: nothing, empty-ish 8: another like 9: maybe like this too 10: not good. Do I want to know who wrote these? Or did I dismiss the wrong people here?
What?? No Wallace Stegner on Bloom's list! I stated in my book club that I wanted to run away with Wallace Stegner because of his writing. Unfortunately, I couldn't because he is dead. My good friend, Dale Short, introduced me to Stegner eons ago.
I know how you feel, Jane. I want to run away with William Trevor (and though married, he's still living), his writing is so beautiful. He didn't make Bloom's list, either.
I think that was me. I did not understand the ending at all, and had a hard time sticking with the book through the whole thing. It actually put me off of Margaret Atwood for years (Handmaid's Tale is one of my all-time faves, and before that I had enjoyed something else by her, though I can't remember what it was now!)--I finally picked up Oryx and Crake last summer, loved it, and just finsihed The Year of the Flood.Denise wrote: "Theresa,
I forget who mentioned Atwood, but didn't care for The Blind Assasin. I ..."
I have read through this thread again. I have to say, much it makes me feel a little dumb. Too...many...intelligent...people. (Who get plenty of rest and don't spend their days working on school fundraising when not figuring out what to make for dinner? I will say yes to make myself feel, er, smart.)I just wonder--I am sure someone on here can give examples--how many "classics" were NOT popular in their time, yet aged well? Or perhaps became even more relevant? How many popular or even award-winning (think Laughing Boy A Navajo Love Story even more than The Good Earth) books became less relevant or simply very dated (to the point of being offensive, even)?
Is it a little pretentious of us to argue this? Even if maybe it's a little fun? (I have added The Bone People to my TBR shelf, I admit I had never heard of it.)
I wouldn't be surprised if, in 50 years or 100 years, the "classics" from now are not at all who we are thinking. Sure, a big award will give staying power. But are they books that will become relevant, though we can't see it now? (Please, not my wonderful Oryx and Crake, I'd prefer you not become more relevant.) Are they from minor publishers? Are they on the Booker long list, but not the short list, let alone a winner?
Look at me. I don't throw around 5 star ratings. My absolute favorite relatively recent reads include Atonement. But also Pasadena A Novel (not all that popular on GR), Girl in Hyacinth Blue (far and away the best book I have read in the last few years, I have met 1 other person IRL who has read it, and the rest of hte author's books sound dull!), The City & The City, and Holy Land A Suburban Memoir (nonfiction, I found the writing and insight incredible; very unusual, even if you don't like it).
An odd bunch, to say the least. I find it intimidating to give a book 5 when its average is under 3.5. I can't help but wonder what is up with that.
Whitaker, my rating: 1. poor
2. good
3. I didn’t like it
4. Very good
5. poor
6. Sunniness? Is this really a word?
7. I liked it.
8. Good
9. I liked it very much.
10. I didn’t like it at all.
Are there others willing to guess?
Dree... why be intimidated? A rating is a personal statement, that's all. If you love a book and it sings for you, give it a 5 and the devil take the hindmost (read: the GR average). Plus, despite this thread (a discussion meant to amuse and provoke thought, is all), it's perfectly fine to tend your own garden of classics. Fertilize your own lists and plant them in double-dug beds. Water your own categories and give them a southern exposure. You can even let your canon lie fallow if you have a year where nothing seems to strike you. It'll be all the richer the next time you DO find another great book.
Over 31% of my ratings are 5's here, but I think that's because -- as a rule -- I read the type of books I want to read, not the type of books someone else wants me to read. That increases the books' chances considerably. It would never occur to me that I'm "too easy" or that I lack discrimination and taste (er, maybe that should occur to me, but it hasn't as of yet).
So don't feel dumb, please! The Girl in Hyacinth Blue has you as the smartest reader out there. So there.
You know the ONLY think wrong with CR? It makes me want to buy too many books! Now I want to read Girl In Hyacinth Blue, too!Is it really good?
I read it years ago, and it suffered for me, because it came close on the heels of The Girl with The Pearl Earring, which I liked much better. The subject matter is similar. Gabrielle, when I first joined CR, I bought so many books, that I STILL have not read all of them. It's a real problem! But a good one.
The books that last are not picked by a they but by the confluence of many stream. One is the opinions of reviewers, another is the sales reports that make them stand out (sometimes reflecting of a movie rather than merit), a third is the emulation of other authors, who by their emulating make readers aware of and sensitive to a particular style of writing and weaving a story and make us aware that a particular book was in some way seminal. A fourth is the cultural milieu; some books seem to speak to us at one time and not at another so they last, die, and then come back. A fifth is the opus of the author; if an author has many good books, we tend to see his better ones as great and lasting. Then, too, there is a wonderful quality of language, of creative use and freshness which at the moment of release makes all more aware of that single book.As am author, I care less about creating a classic and more about speaking to my times and readers who confront the same questions about life and meaning as have wrestled me. I'll let the readers of a thousand years be. However, I do think Widow's Walk is worth today's readers' time. You can check it out at http://widows-walk.webs.com/
I liked Girl with a Pearl Earring, but really liked The Virgin Blue (very good, very disturbing), also by Tracy Chevalier. But then I tried The Lady and the Unicorn and gave up.The only thing I can compare Girl in Hyacinth Blue to is People of the Book. Similar idea, but I think Vreeland's approach was more effective.
It's the only book I've ever read backward on purpose--yes, I read it forward first :)
(Caveat: I read The Best Nest backward many times, as demanded by my then-3yo. He is now 10, and thinks Jeff Kinney and Charles Ogden are the apex of literature.)
Dree, I didn’t mean to ignore your last post. According to the GR clock we posted simultaneously. But I understand how it feels strange to “give “stars to what we read. For one thing, I am much harder at the books I read years ago, while I seem to be very easy to my more recent reads.I have been for quite a while now rating them, just like GR suggest:
5 stars – it was amazing
4 stars – I liked very much
3 stars – I liked
2 stars – It was OK
1 star – I didn’t like it
It is just my opinion and I don’t have to explain it to anyone else.
I really enjoyed Girl with a Pearl Earring, but have not read anything else by Tracy Chevalier. Just too many books... I also liked People of the Book, which I read recently with my offline bookclub.
Capitu--No one needs to reply to my every post! That is generally how I rate my books--though generally 5 stars also means I think I will remember it because it was so amazing. (I tend to remember the bad ones too, unfortunately.) Though I don't generally have many 1-stars because I give up on things I don't like. And I don't rate those because who knows, if I'd stuck out another 50 pages, maybe it would have been good. (I generally go with a 50-page limit.)
Wow, bravo to those of you who took the plunge. Apologies for the suspense. Comes from posting in a different time zone. Here's the list with the author and title, and my (admittedly) subjective ranking of what I think the common consensus is on how they stand in the classics scale:
1. At first an instinct had told Syme that this was the man whom he was meant to meet. Then, seeing that the man made no sign, he had concluded that he was not. And now again he had come back to a certainty that the man had something to do with his mad adventure. For the man remained more still than would have been natural if a stranger had come so close. He was as motionless as a wax-work, and got on the nerves somewhat in the same way.
The Man Who Was Thursday, CK Chesterton [Lesser great:]
2. As both these learned men concurred in censuring Jones, so were they no less unanimous in applauding Master Blifil. To bring truth to light, was by the parson asserted to be the duty of every religious man; and by the philosopher this was declared to be highly conformable with the rule of right, and the eternal and unalterable fitness of things.
The History of Tom Jones, Henry Fielding [Great - although this, I think, had more to do with its novelty at the time.:]
3. The sanative effect of the strong vibration was exhausted, and with the last words the poor man fell again, rigid and insensible. Though this was only a recurrence of what had happened before, it struck all present as if it had been death, not only from its contrast with the completeness of the revival, but because his words had all had reference to the possibility that his death was near. But with poor Tulliver death was not to be a leap; it was to be a long descent under thickening shadows.
The Mill on the Floss, George Eliot [Great:]
4. A maid servant living alone in a house not far from the river, had gone up-stairs to bed about eleven. Although a fog rolled over the city in the small hours, the early part of the night was cloudless, and the lane, which the maid's window overlooked, was brilliantly lit by the full moon. It seems she was romantically given, for she sat down upon her box, which stood immediately under the window, and fell into a dream of musing. Never (she used to say, with streaming tears, when she narrated that experience), never had she felt more at peace with all men or thought more kindly of the world.
The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Robert Louis Stephenson [Lesser great:]
5. The ball, rocketing off the crotch of the rim, leaps over the heads of the six and lands at the feet of the one. He catches it on the short bounce with a quickness that startles them. As they stare hushed he sights squinting through blue clouds of weed smoke a suddenly dark silhouette like a smokestack against the afternoon spring sky, setting his feet with care, wiggling the ball with nervousness in front of his chest, one widespread white hand on top of the ball and the other underneath, jiggling it patiently to get some adjustment in air itself.
Rabbit, Run, John Updike [Great? Lesser great? Too early to tell I think.:]
6. I have said there was not cover in the whole place to hide a rat. As the day advanced it was flooded with soft fresh light till it had the fragrant sunniness of the South African veld. At other times I would have liked the place, but now it seemed to suffocate me. The free moorlands were prison walls, and the keen hill air was the breath of a dungeon.
The Thirty-nine Steps, John Buchan [Lesser great.:]
7. The dawns were heralded by the descent of a chill stillness; the woodcutters slept, their fires burned low; the snapping of a twig would make you start. We were wanderers on a prehistoric earth, on an earth that wore the aspect of an unknown planet. We could have fancied ourselves the first of men taking possession of an accursed inheritance, to be subdued at the cost of profound anguish and of excessive toil. But suddenly, as we struggled round a bend, there would be a glimpse of rush walls, of peaked grass-roofs, a burst of yells, a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clapping, of feet stamping, of bodies swaying, of eyes rolling, under the droop of heavy and motionless foliage.
Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad [Great.:]
8. In olden times an eagle swooped down upon the New England coast and carried off an infant Indian in his talons. With loud lament the parents saw their child borne out of sight over the wide waters. They resolved to follow in the same direction. Setting out in their canoes, after a perilous passage they discovered the island, and there they found an empty ivory casket,- the poor little Indian's skeleton.
Moby Dick, Herman Melville [Great.:]
9. As soon as ten o'clock mass was over people began to call by. Father Flood had filled one of the tables with glasses and bottles of lemonade and sweets for the children. He made everyone who came in, including women with fresh hairdos, put on a paper hat. Thus as the men began to arrive to spend all of Christmas Day in the hall they were barely noticed among the crowd. It was only later, after midday, when the visitors began to disperse, that they could be seen clearly, some of them sitting alone with a bottle of stout in front of them, others huddled in groups, many of them stubbornly still wearing cloth caps instead of paper hats.
Brooklyn, Colm Toibin [Okay, I cheated on this one. It's Toibim's latest book, but I wanted a base line for writing not on any list.:]
10. He was a successful man, with a large consulting practice and a knighthood in prospect. From commerce with students and poor people he had the patronising air, and from dealing always with the sick he had the healthy man's jovial condescension, which some consultants achieve as the professional manner. He made the patient feel like a boy confronted by a jolly schoolmaster; his illness was an absurd piece of naughtiness which amused rather than irritated.
Of Human Bondage, Somerset Maugham [Lesser great.:]
Interestingly, the only line that really stood out for me was No. 7 from Heart of Darkness, one of the most boring books I have ever forced myself to read.
It really was randomly selected by the way. I just hit "page down" a random number of times, and then just picked the first passage I came across that was not dialogue or had obvious clues as to the work.
Edit: The only common consensus from those who voted was 1 (thumbs down), 8 (thumbs up) and 10 (thumbs down). I should add that anyone's reaction to the language, whether you liked it or not, is perfectly valid. It's not a right or wrong thing, so don't nobody go around feeling bad about it. But I think that it does show how subjective it is to try and stamp "good" or "not good" or "classic" or "trash" on any work.
Kenneth wrote: "The books that last are not picked by a they but by the confluence of many stream. One is the opinions of reviewers, another is the sales reports that make them stand out (sometimes reflecting of a..."Superb points, Kenneth. Agree with every single one of them.
Sherry wrote: "I read it years ago, and it suffered for me, because it came close on the heels of The Girl with The Pearl Earring, which I liked much better. The subject matter is similar. Gabrielle, when I fir..."
Thank you, Sherry and thanks to everyone else. I'll probably give this book a pass as I did read Girl With a Pearl Earring and I'm sure I now have enough TBR books to last the rest of my life, even if it's very long! Oh, dear!
Whitaker wrote: "Wow, bravo to those of you who took the plunge. Apologies for the suspense. Comes from posting in a different time zone. Here's the list with the author and title, and my (admittedly) subjective ra..."I enjoyed the paragraphs from Heart of Darkness and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde best.
It is interesting that Conrad could write so beautifully in his second language, English. I have often wondered if he had not changed homelands would his language have been as strong. Certainly the musicality of his words is wonderful, especially in Heart of Darkness.
Whitaker, this was a fun exercise. I never read Colm Toibin. It makes me think I should give it a try. Same said of Dr. Jerkyll and Mr Hyde. I did read Heart of Darkness, and actually liked it, but did not recognize the passage here. Same said of Moby Dick.
But, this leaves us where in this definition of “classics”?
Sherry wrote: "I read it years ago, and it suffered for me, because it came close on the heels of The Girl with The Pearl Earring, which I liked much better. The subject matter is similar."Me, too.
I'm curious how The Heart Of Darkness and The Girl With The Pearl Earring have similar subject. Could you comment a bit.
Kenneth if you're referring to Sherry's comment, she meant Girl With a Pearl Earring and Girl in Hyacinth Blue. Both are about the subjects of a painting.
Capitu wrote: "But, this leaves us where in this definition of “classics”?"Damned if I know.
I tend to not take such labels too seriously, particularly if they are treated as indicators of quality. I tend to see the importance of such books as coming from the role they play (or played) as part of a cultural heritage and mindset. Reading them gives me a better insight into that heritage/mindset.
It's a bit like engaging in an internal conversation with that heritage. I was bored to tears by Heart of Darkness and only somewhat less so by Don Quixote, but in reading them, I could understand why they have been such an influence, and that process of understanding is what I enjoy. My personal reaction to the work is somewhat irrelevant to that process. It's the mental participation in that conversation that counts for me.
Whitaker,I so enjoyed the selections of writing that you posted.
I really have enjoyed Colm Toibin - The Blackwater Lightship is certainly worth reading, Capitu.
I've been following this thread though not commenting - mainly because I've no idea whatsoever what of modern books will become classics, none at all. I love good, or great writing, I don't mind the topic, bar horror or horrifically violent bits - but, as others have said - is this going to lead to becoming classics? I've not a clue.
I might just make one additional suggestion for you all to ponder - Annie L. Proulx - for both her writing and her depiction of bleak places and lives, whether it be Wyoming or, was it Newfoundland in The Shipping News.
Whitaker wrote: "Edit: The only common consensus from those who voted was 1 (thumbs down), 8 (thumbs up) and 10 (thumbs down).
I should add that anyone's reaction to the language, whether you liked it or not, i..."
Yet another reason to read Moby Dick, now that I know I like the writing.
I should add that anyone's reaction to the language, whether you liked it or not, i..."
Yet another reason to read Moby Dick, now that I know I like the writing.
The dicey thing about excerpts is that you can find a superb paragraph in a poorly-written book and a lame paragraph in a classic. Also, sometimes terrific writing can begin to "bore you to tears" when there's 600 pages of it and it's packaged as a novel (whereas a descriptive essay might have better suited the writing, genre-wise).
Moby Dick and The Scarlet Letter are slow starters and contain some great passages, but as a story they probably don't click as well. Also, in our time (to lift a title from Hemingway), we have less patience for extended exposition at the beginning of the book. We like fast starters and bracing plots more than we do description-sodden background information on the times, the characters, the weather, and (in Henry James' case) the drawing room. In olden times, that sort of literary dithering was the norm. Now? It's considered bad form.
Someone finally brought up Michaele Ondaatje's name a couple of dozen posts north of here. I meant to say that, when I read The English Patient, I felt as if the author were consciously writing for classic designation. I don't think that's a good idea, and Michael O. might laugh in my face at the whole notion, but there you go. (And BTW, the movie was as remarkably self-conscious as the book. Beautiful and flawed.)
Newengland wrote: "We like fast starters and bracing plots more than we do description-sodden background information on the times, the characters, the weather, and (in Henry James' case) the drawing room. In olden times, that sort of literary dithering was the norm. Now? It's considered bad form."Great point, Newengland, and very true. Which is why I don't think you can pinpoint a classic based on subjective affective reactions such as, "Oh, I liked the writing," or "I didn't like the writing," or "I found it so boring; I don't think it deserves to be called 'classic'."
I love how this discussion has got me thinking about why we might call one book a classic and not another. Thinking out loud, I would say that the label "classic" is applied to a work of art that has such an influence that it shapes or becomes incorporated into the cultural zeitgeist of its country or culture and subsequently it continues to inspire, provoke and stimulate responses from other artists in later times (and even other cultures). These grandchildren works in turn go on to create other echoes and influences such that the influence of the original on the culture spreads out and deepens over the generations. The factors that allow it to do this would obviously include quality, appeal, and popularity but those, in and of themselves, are imperfect indicators of what makes a classic.
A good example is The Towers of Silence. It was hugely popular in its time, it was very moving (to me at least), and it was relatively well-written. But it has not had much influence beyond its particular impact in its time and place. So, no, not a classic.
Hi Whitaker,I would think that popularity is the one thing that you can leave out of what makes a classic. If you consider the popular works of the last century or even of the 19th century - works that were popular at the time don't seem to be the 'lasters'.
Newengland wrote: "Someone finally brought up Michaele Ondaatje's name a couple of dozen posts north of here. I meant to say that, when I read The English Patient, I felt as if the author were consciously writing for classic designation. I don't think that's a good idea, and Michael O. might laugh in my face at the whole notion, but there you go."Newengland, I was hoping you could elaborate on this statement? I'm curious, as I was just thinking about re-reading this book last night.
I very much agree with Newengland. There are some books that just seem pretentious like bad actors using to grand gestures to make what should be subtle points. As an author I am always reminding myself that my characters, no matter what else they may face and consider, must live their daily lives, relate to those around them, be in the world. Some books just lose sight of that humanity. I try to go back to read Chekhov frequently just to remind myself of that to which I aspire. If you'd like to take a look at my work, please visit my website: http://widows-walk.webs.com/ or take a look at my novel, "Widow's Walk," on Amazon.
Ricki wrote: "Hi Whitaker, I would think that popularity is the one thing that you can leave out of what makes a classic. If you consider the popular works of the last century or even of the 19th century - work..."Ricki, I should clarify that I see appeal, quality and popularity only as factors, not requirements. And I don't think that they are the only relevant factors either. I think how a work comes to influence a culture or other works is a confluence of several things working together. Quality plays a part, so does popularity. It doesn't even have to be popular during the lifetime of the artist. Popularity can be posthumous.
Perhaps it would be better to simply say that the work must be known to a large enough group for it to have an impact on the culture or society at large. Quite simply put, for a work to exercise influence, people must know about it. It's a factor, and perhaps not the most important. But an unknown work influences nobody, moves no one, and inspires no other artist.
I would, however, have to disagree with popular 19th century works not lasting. We would include among the 19th century works the novels of Charles Dickens, Alexander Dumas, Gustav Flaubert, Victor Hugo, Thomas Hardy, William Thackeray, and Mark Twain. These were all very popular novelists and their works have left a lasting cultural imprint. By the marker of influence, these works are regarded as classics, and would feature in some way on most such lists.
Yes, Whitaker but think of all those 19th century works and authors who did not last and who were popular at the time...... the authors you mentioned were in a minority...a really teeny tiny minority. Then fast forward and think of the best seller lists of this and the last century.......Jeffrey Archer springs to mind, Jody Picoult, etc. etc etc.
Ricki wrote: "Yes, Whitaker but think of all those 19th century works and authors who did not last and who were popular at the time...... the authors you mentioned were in a minority...a really teeny tiny minori..."Oh for sure. Like I said, being known about is only one factor that results in a book having an impact on a society's or country's culture. Arguably, quality and ability to move should be given greater weight on the scales of influence, but that doesn't mean that being known about plays zero part.
Edit: In fact, I don't think any one factor working alone is enough. You'll need several, including luck.
Edit 2: I'm likely not explaining myself very well. Let me put it this way. As a thought experiment (however fanciful), let's imagine that Flaubert wrote Madame Bovary and had it published. The critics wrote favourable reviews, but the reading public yawned. It went out-of-print and no one ever read it after the first year. Flaubert killed himself out of despair. There were no further works from him. Madame Bovary disappeared from view and never appeared again. From time to time, a learned critic "discovers" it in a bouquanerie and writes a long and erudite essay published in an academic journal about how this is an unjustly overlooked work. But because no one but academics read these journals, these views never receive greater attention.
In that scenario, would it still be a good novel? Yes. Is it a classic? No. It had no impact on French culture or generally on Western society.
I have been the one pounding on the popularity key in this discussion, although I vowed to let it go, I want to explain my thoughts better. I searched but could not find figures on the growth of the publishing industry since the last century. I did find the latest statistic on the yearly amount published per country, which gives the UK alone a stunning figure of 206,000 for 2005. The US follows with 172,000 also in 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_pu...
Of course, those numbers do not refer to literary publications (it would be interesting to have the figures broken into fiction, poetry, etc...) But, my perception is that the shear amount of books has made it much more difficult for a book to rise above the tide of books in print. But maybe I am wrong, and the increase in number of books just mean that there are more poor books available by the grocery store cashiers. Nevertheless, the amount of readers has also increased in amazing numbers, and their impact on the publishing industry is also great.
While I put all this together, the posts kept on coming, so I think I am repeating you, Whitaker, but approaching it from another angle.
I just want to give another example of the public impact. “To Kill a Mockingbird” is regarded by the American readership in general as a classic. Harold Bloom did not think so and did not include it in his list. I can see his side too, but, nevertheless, it is a “classic” because the population has elected it to be, and it will be there 100 years from now because the publishing industry will keep on milking it. However, “Nocturnes for the King of Naples, independent of what Bloom and the academics think of it, is already out of print and will disappear without traces very soon.
Capitu wrote: "I just want to give another example of the public impact. “To Kill a Mockingbird” is regarded by the American readership in general as a classic. Harold Bloom did not think so and did not include it in his list. I can see his side too, but, nevertheless, it is a “classic” "Exactly, Capitu. :-)
I don't know what the cultural zeitgeist is in the US, but I get the vague far-away impression that most people have some idea of what To Kill a Mockingbird is about. In the same way, people who have never read Moby Dick have a sense that it's about some crazy guy who goes looking for a great white whale, and that a scarlet letter "A" refers to an adulterer. These are images or stories that have become part of the cultural baggage of the country.
Which is why even though Harold Bloom excludes The Three Musketeers, I would include it. The story of four men has echoed down to our time, even making an appearance in--ha ha--Slumdog Millionaire. It's part of the cultural landscape. So, yes, classic.
Now, going back to Newengland’s very first post, what books from the past 25 years will make the list of classics in the future? My fear is that this “popularization” will impact the canon more and more (if I sound as a literary snob here is because I am one). The inclusion of Sherlock Holmes among the classics does not bother me as much as it probably bothered the literary snobs of the time – or Sir Conan Doyle himself, who did not understand the popularity of his character even then and “killed” his character once only so he could devote more time to “serious” writing. He brought Sherlock back to life because of popular pressure though. But I do wonder if books as “The DaVinci Code” will manage to achieve this place in the popular unconscious, arriving there through the sheer number of its readership, as The Three Musketeers and Sherlock Holmes did. I sincerely hope not.
Sherry mentioned “Harry Potter” way back where. I think Harry does have a chance to be there in 100 years, and this one at least does not bother me as other books in the bestseller’s list do.
Whitaker wrote: I don't know what the cultural zeitgeist is in the US, but I get the vague far-away impression that most people have some idea of what To Kill a Mockingbird is about. In the same way, people who have never read Moby Dick have a sense that it's about some crazy guy who goes looking for a great white whale, and that a scarlet letter "A" refers to an adulterer. These are images or stories that have become part of the cultural baggage of the country.
Which is why even though Harold Bloom excludes The Three Musketeers, I would include it. The story of four men has echoed down to our time, even making an appearance in--ha ha--Slumdog Millionaire. It's part of the cultural landscape. So, yes, classic.
I think that's a good definition of what a classic is: a work of fiction, poetry or play that has made such a lasting impression on a culture, country, continent or the world that most people have a sense of what it is about without having read it.
The Davinci Code made an impression when it was first published, stirred up a bit of controversy, but that will not be a lasting impression. I don't think we have to worry about it making the canon.
Being made into a movie could help the new canon-candidates making the cut. It means reaching a wider audience and thus being referenced to easier. When you get that far you might have a good chance of making a lasting impression. O wait, The Davinci Code was made into a movie ...
Which is why even though Harold Bloom excludes The Three Musketeers, I would include it. The story of four men has echoed down to our time, even making an appearance in--ha ha--Slumdog Millionaire. It's part of the cultural landscape. So, yes, classic.
I think that's a good definition of what a classic is: a work of fiction, poetry or play that has made such a lasting impression on a culture, country, continent or the world that most people have a sense of what it is about without having read it.
The Davinci Code made an impression when it was first published, stirred up a bit of controversy, but that will not be a lasting impression. I don't think we have to worry about it making the canon.
Being made into a movie could help the new canon-candidates making the cut. It means reaching a wider audience and thus being referenced to easier. When you get that far you might have a good chance of making a lasting impression. O wait, The Davinci Code was made into a movie ...
Such as all humans, beautiful but flawed. Some more than others.
Constant Reader
Books mentioned in this topic
The Best Nest (other topics)People of the Book (other topics)
The Virgin Blue (other topics)
The Lady and the Unicorn (other topics)
Girl with a Pearl Earring (other topics)
More...
I don't like the use of LOL, either, Steve, and I cringe every time I use it. Sometimes I even take it out, but then I read my post and I become fearful that I might be offending someone, so I put it back in to let people know not to take me too seriously and that I don't take myself seriously. At least not all the time.
But rest assured, LOL - and emoticons - make me cringe as well. ;)