Classics for Beginners discussion
Defining a Classic
message 151:
by
Jonathan
(new)
Feb 23, 2012 06:00PM
I turn a lot of things into mini essays myself. Plus you had some really intriguing things to say there which I agree with on the whole.
reply
|
flag
I feel better about it in that case. :)(The overriding power of consensus at play perhaps!)
I should note a Jungian influence on what I say in the final paragraph up there. Not all aspects of the unconscious mind (particularly what Jung calls the collective unconscious, because collective consensus of course is what determines popularity, which is often an unavoidable initial spur in classifying a work's lasting value) are incorporated in forging consciousness, and particularly for those things that are likely to be more or less uniformly realised among the population at a given era, there is a strong dependence on prevailing social attitudes.
Another note I would make is that restraint in judgement on whether or not a work will come to be called a 'classic' (not in the strictly academic sense of course) is akin to the scientific method, waiting for confirmation (or at least due support) even when the conclusion seems inevitable.
Not being skilled at writing, I'm more the math/science/computer type, I appreciate your mini-essays. One of the reasons I joined Goodreads is to see how other people feel and think about books. I like to keep learning, so keep it up! :)
So am I actually. A maths type that is. :D
I am not so much a math and computer guy (Science yes, math, not so much, computers...they just don't like me), but I appriciate the long explainations too.I get a little self-conscious myself when I post then realize my post covers the computer screen from top to bottom.
And I'm on board with the collective unconscious Jungian thing. Did you know that there's a group of researchers that believe humans know right from wrong when (or before) they are born? (NPR's a wonderful Resource).
The thing about doing maths is that you're sometimes (even unwittingly) compelled to make your arguments, even in verbal form, rigorous (see how I keep qualifying statements? I can't seem to help it!) and (hopefully) aesthetically pleasing. I blame it on one of my old lecturers who once bluntly said equations should always be coherent sentences, because I seem to have taken the converse to heart.A Google search turned up these-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...
It seems Jung's ideas may have biological support, or at least, counterparts.
I recently came across this- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3plwT...
Game theory applied to evolution is a remarkable idea (I would love to read Nowak's books sometime, as well as John Maynard Smith's original- Evolution And The Theory Of Games), and I don't think it'd be a stretch for the optimal strategies, on a general level, to embed themselves innately into human, and perhaps even animal, behaviour. The children make 'moral' or 'altruistic' decisions because these decisions have been deemed rational for group survival purposes, and a natural propensity may have been established following many generations of the evolutionary process. We provide the 'reasons' (unless you're the appropriate form of moral rationalist, or a nihilist, which I'm in the curious position of not being able to deny that I am, but less than sure of accepting) in hindsight with our philosophical theories of ethics.
I also found,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetec...
What all this means for literature, I suppose, is that some themes will almost always have a base resonance in almost all of us.
The first one is the NPR article I was mentioning, or rather references the story. There's a lot longer story/article about that in there section about "Your Brain on God." or something like that. Nice, thank you for posting that stuff.
I'm not sure this proves or disproves the Ideas around the Jungian "Collective Unconsciousness," But it does connect some of the dots that morality is not a completly nurtured or learned behavior. We have to get our info from somewhere, right?
Found the section, I'll look at that.Happy to share.
Among the charges commonly levelled against theories from the likes of Jung and Freud is that their ideas aren't really testable. I don't disagree, but I (blasphemously) break with the scientific approach on this. Oliver Sacks is quoted as saying,
"Neuropsychology, like classical neurology, aims to be entirely objective, and its great power, its advances, come from just this. But a living creature, and especially a human being is first and last . . . a subject, not an object. It is precisely the subject, the living `I,' which is excluded from neurology".
I argue that modern psychology is much the same. The mainstream is confined by a slavish devotion to the empirical in a discipline that's intimately concerned with subjectivity. Science has its place there, but theories like Jung's and Freud's, rather than being discarded for possibly not fitting with a scientific paradigm, provide useful insights on various aspects of the mind and should be invoked so in complement with those objective things. So long as there's no 'agenda' behind a theory to compromise its conclusions, and it seems deductively reasonable, there may well be merit to it.
It seems a great joke, even the possibility that, as we scurry searching for meaning in actions, the rational course is innate in us.
I deleted my post with Dr. Amen's clinic website link. He's gotten too commercial. I wish I had a link to the old stuff when he was just a leading researcher. You'll see helpful stuff there, but I surely do not want to go on record as endorsing his clinic in anyway. I don't know enough about his clinic and any treatment to validate, or un-validate it. I appologize for not looking at that first.
Very interesting. I guess the contrast with traditional personality theories is that in your case you just had to wait for a technology, whereas how to go about verifying a theory like Jung's, if at all possible, is a problem in itself.On the other hand, just as with the evolutionary game theory case where the rational course is set early on in life but not, shall we say, cognitively accessible, chemical processes in the brain might be considered the physical agents of phenomena that can be considered psychologically. Scientific thinking today is (perhaps rightly) pushing for banishing the 'ghost in the machine' idea, but again, perhaps thinking in terms of that Cartesian dualism (which I think can dodge a lot of bullets aimed its way by allowing the mind, while distinct, to be manifest within the body, so that bodily limitations affect the manifestation) might actually provide useful perspectives. Such a melding of classical theory and modern neuroscience is the case with the emerging field of neuro-psychoanalysis, for instance.
No worries about the link. Even Sacks, whom I quoted earlier, now seems more interested in his literary pursuits.
Uhhh.... yea, basically...(blink blink)...If what all that means is that we are finding out that the brain and body are linked together, yes. Or more susinctly, that every emotion, thought, memory, sensation etc. physiologically speaking, is nothing more than neurochemicals (neurotransmitters) exchanging between brain cells, and, therefore, things that we consider traumatic, emotionally, or invovlve abnormal changing and persistance of moods translates in the brain as a physiological-Neurochemical exchange, which is, by nature, physiological. So, it's not out of the ballpark, without reason, to say, that our natural responses to unnatural events (Trauma) can bring about a physiolgical change in brain chemistry that becomes permenant, and affects an individuals ability to manage and respond to emotional or psycological issues. Further that this is, by nature as a physiological issue, affected by evolution, survival and promulgation of the most fit of the species just like the ability to stand upright and have eyes foreward on the mellon (head) so stereoscopic vision is possible. (Depth persception)
Then in that case, yes, I agree.
As far as Maslow's Hiearchy of Needs goes or Ericson's stages of development, I'm not sure how they tie in. The Hiegharchy of needs theoroy may lend itself to the idea that, a strong threat or challenge one of those basic needs might bring about a permenant change in brain chemistry.
Ericson's stages of development are more along the lines of nuture or enviromental based learning, rather than speciece/gentic programing.
However, the evidence of a part of the brain responsible for "Faith" based decisions (meaning decisions based on soemthing other than factual or believed to be factual input, not spcifically any philosphy or religion) and what appears now to be an inate ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad straight away from the womb offers some support for the Jungian theories that is based in physilogic research, and surely fits into this bilogical puzzle in some way.
I might add a word of caution, while this kind of thing supports the idea that some day we may be able to take a pill that affects our brain chemistry and corrects our mood, the truth appears to be more likely the other way, that our behavior and healthy managment of emotions, relationships and life, are the best way to go.
To quote a psychiatrist who had been working out of our clinic for a while..."If you want to get better and be happy, go to a psycologist and get to work straightening things out, if just want to take pills everyday keep coming to see me."
(I don't mean to ignore those mental illnesses that involve abnormal brain chemistry and therefore require medicatoin for healthy living, or suggest that thereputic use of medication is not helpful. More I think like Bill Maher, whom, I only sometimes like and agree with, but I agree on this point: "As a civilization, right now we are over medicated.")
Please correct me if I'm wrong. (And by the way, this is so much more fun that how I could have spent my lunch hour! (Thank you!))
(and I wasn't just being a "smarty pants", I really do enjoy this conversation. I just hope I make as much sense when you read it as it did when I typed it. (P-{D>
I'm sorry, references...Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Theory)
http://psychology.about.com/od/theori...
Erickson's Stages of Development
http://allpsych.com/psychology101/soc...
Partly yes, on that first count. What I was trying to say is that the focus today in neuroscience is in one particular direction, i.e- that the physical processes are more fundamental, and take precedence over psychological ones. I don't contest this possibility, but maintain that rather than seeking gross unification alone (thus risking taking regard for the subjective out of something that is inherently a study of the subjective), it might be worthwhile yet to see how the complements work- that is, what sort of feedback exists between the psychological and physical.I brought up the application of game theory in evolution as an analogy, because in that case the possibility is that certain rational strategies are hardwired into our behaviour, but it's not a given that (as in the case of very young children which you initially pointed to), someone affected by this is rationally evaluating a given problem in their own minds- what's a given is that they have a propensity towards a certain type of behaviour which turns out to be rational and 'good' in a strictly survival-inclined sense. The analogy is that there are thus two levels of operation- the underlying one that's largely autonomous and about propensities and the deliberate one that we can perceive and conceive and think through.
On Maslow's theory, one problem I have is that in excluding the pathological at the onset, what he's left with is more a motivational guide of sorts rather than a widely applicable theory. It's more about what ought to be than what is, with more value perhaps as either a developmental theory or an anthropological step-ladder of what humans, as they progress, can allow themselves to be concerned about. My concerns aside, relating the hierarchy directly to the neuroscience approach would essentially be asking, are these needs progressively what the physiology demands, and whether, as you say, what effect how well these needs are met might have.
With Erikson and his stages, being largely a theory of development (based on Freud's psychoanalysis in fact), what the 'themes' at play in each stage and how the brain's functions and chemical processes change and relate would be the central problem.
There's a sense of unreason and inevitability in considering and being content with just, to term it crudely, the 'instinctive' tendencies in us (for instance with the possibility raised earlier of evolutionary 'morality'). Which is why I'm wary of the study of these discarding the inherent subjective side struggling to keep up. Even if there comes a day when you could change yourself by changing the by this point presumably well-understood workings of the brain to suit some ideal, there would be no understanding of a graspable meaning.
This excellent Wikipedia article may interest you- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosci...
I've enjoyed this also. Apologies for where I was unclear, and in advance if I've misinterpreted you anywhere.
I love the discussion. Some how I have this image of the Moderator Queen blowing her stack like a flying ship in a bad Steampunk novel and sending a batallion of "Your straying from the discussion thread" fairies to chase me away. LOL... sorry Niccole!
and it does relate to the thread. I think we started discussing how popularity may be a weak criteria to measure "classic" status by, and there is (apparently) strong science ju-ju that supports the idea that we all know a classic when we see one, even if we can't read...
right Yasiru?
Something like that. :DSorry about hijacking the thread. I did start out relevant, then sort of extended too broadly. Spare me the fairies!
Whew...defining a classic?! I think the "passing of time" or "standing the test of time" is incidental. Once a book has been included in the literary canon for x amount of years, it gives scholars and readers a chance to examine the book from different critical lenses. I'll take a couple examples and explain. Nathaniel Hawthorne is considered a classic American author, but it is only recently (within the past 30 years or so) that his work has been examined through a feminist lens. But look at "The Book Thief" (How do I do italics??!!) by Markus Zusak. I would consider this a classic although it has not been around long enough to be included in the "stands the test of time" definition. My argument that this is a classic includes the fact that I (and I'm an "amateur") can analyze this book through many (if not all) the critical lenses. Masculine/feminine critique, Historical critique, biographical,etc. Many are familiar with "To Kill a Mockingbird." Classic material for sure! Just thought I'd share ;)
@Heather- You can use standard HTML tags for italics (click 'some html is ok' for how).Why I believe 'standing the test of time' as you say, is more than incidental, I try to explain in that behemoth of a post at the top of the page, if you'd care to look.
Let me add that society is all about 'fads', things we believe important enough to be diametrically opposed on for just the principle of it sometimes. What's considered an important issue today may find resolution (very likely not even very convincing resolution at first, in light of our seeking extremes, but then compounded over generations) and one day the chosen course will perhaps be thought obvious (in oscillating at the point of conflict between extremes, we miss the equilibrium that might eventually be established and overvalue our extreme positions). If not history itself, then the attitude towards history, and certainly society, is for the victors to choose, if in a way more tempered by the struggle than they might like. At a given time, taken as a whole, we are generally remarkably poor (conscious) judges on what might turn out to have lasting significance.
The genre of 'modern classics' I think functions as a sieve which collects all these many candidates for classicdom under such presently intractable fads (a classic in the sense we use here not for me being a term to be attributed lightly) in a more timely manner than would be strictly appropriate, and over time let through the finest grains. That this is so, that we require this mid-level 'bridge' (itself shortened but not excessively) to contain our impatience, argues for me that the truly fine works are difficult to separate out. What good after all, would be an unmanageable profusion of naively lauded works at a given time, knowing the pile is only going to get bigger? Especially in this age of information when preservation of a work is easy (though classification remains as hard!). Surely there is some redundancy in quality, and perhaps tiers of quality too- who can stand next to Shakespeare or Hugo or Chekhov for instance? Not a place to be lightly given in my view even from the naive standpoint that it's preciously rare for a writer to move you in the way these giants can.
@Jonathan- I would posit further that how we criticise too can be considered under theories of personality- by using a literary work or body of such works as a mirror to look into ourselves and the society we are part of.
I'll look up Kristeva.
I hope all this more literary talk is enough to vindicate me.
Holy Crap...took me a half an hour just to catch up on these posts. okay, first of all, being a faerie myself...i feel compelled to sic the faeries on y'all. but whether or not they have any effect remains to be seen. :)Yasiru, going back to your original post, I think that the collective consciousness or mass majority, isn't a defining factor, but should be held in consideration as a valid point for at least consideration a piece as a classic. Which, I believe, you were actually condoning, when you say just because Rowling's work is popular doesn't mean it's a classic, but it will take time to see if her work has lasting effect, etc... And I'm not sure, but I hope you didn't think any of our posts, especially mine, were saying that this is, in fact, a determining factor (popularity), because I don't think it is. Mass popularity along with other factors will determine a classic, in my humble opinion. Just clarifying.
And wow...I was a computer programmer for 20 yrs, but before that, I got a BA in psychology and all your posts brought me back, especially Maslow's Heirachy of Needs. (Thanks Curmungy!)
And now I remember why I hated it. Nothing substantial, no facts, just theory. Nothin wrong with that, just not for me. At least not as a profession. I prefer black and white, ones and zeros. :)
Yes, that's what I meant. Popularity is an instigator for bringing a work under consideration, but it's hard to build a case for it with that alone after.I was being somewhat preemptive about dismissing mass appeal. It was only following this that I read the rest of the posts and fleshed out the arguments (well, fattened, more like it) and tried to give examples.
I'm of a similar opinion about Maslow's theory. Worse for me is that it never considers what could go wrong the way classical psychologists did (in fact, started with, and illustrated their methods with many a case study).
Janine wrote: "And wow...I was a computer programmer for 20 yrs, but before that, I got a BA in psychology and all your posts brought me back, especially Maslow's Heirachy of Needs. (Thanks Curmungy!) ..."Your welcome Janine...not bad for a guy who barely graduated High School huh?
and for the record, I think what we were posting up in great and extraneous detail is considered substantial findings, which are new, Maslow and Erikson were posted as part of a counter rebutle as things went on.
Referring to Maslow I had to do a debate based upon A Doll's House and so I used his research to defend my allocated side. Such research proved irrefutable or maybe it was my own charming persona and wit (*cough*)@Hugh Well while education is good so too is life experience...
And yes popularity should not be used alone. But rather I believe popularity allows scholars (and regular mortals) a chance to examine a book and decide whether its contents are worthy of the title 'classic'. If only we could have some panel set up that elected books to the status of classic after they'd passed certain criteria...
@Jonathan- Maslow is certainly applicable (though as I said, more anthropologically in my view than psychologically), but in purposely trying to be so for the presumed normal masses and making the exclusions that he does, I think his Hierarchy limits itself.The Curmudgeon wrote: "Janine wrote: "And wow...I was a computer programmer for 20 yrs, but before that, I got a BA in psychology and all your posts brought me back, especially Maslow's Heirachy of Needs. (Thanks Curmung..."
It went in all directions! My initial observation about a Jungian theme in what my arguments about literary significance was inspired by Jung's theory of myth which I was reading about in Myth: A Very Short Introduction (one of the very best in the (quite excellent) series; Segal brings together a lot of things I'd read bits and pieces of elsewhere in a true survey of the subject).
From there it touched a great many things, from evolutionary game theory to neuroscience and the philosophy of psychology and even lightly on free will.
@Hugh, if you barely passed high school, it was not due to lack of intelligence. I know enough about you from these posts to know you're intelligent enough.@Jonathan - charming wit? is that what they're calling it nowadays? *grin*
Also - If only we had a panel - oh lord, if only...I just don't understand why they can't set something up. At the very least, make it like the Oscar's and have a panel of peers judge books and then vote on them. (have i said this before? am i repeating myself? - if so, I apologize. Having children causes you to lose brain cells)
@Curmudgeon and Yasiru - I haven't had the time to read through ALL the posts,;) but my brother came along this article during his research and sent the link to me. I thought you guys might find it interesting. I'm not on here much, but I appreciate your conversations!!www.unc.edu/~akakalio/Landau.pdf
@Janine - its a very modern term invented just recently by myself.And yes I honestly think there should be a panel. They have the oscars, they have the pulitzer and they have the nobel committees. Why not a classics committee after all? You could give a book say 50 years and then have other qualifications it should pass and then the panel as a whole votes to grant it classic status.
Heather wrote: "@Curmudgeon and Yasiru - I haven't had the time to read through ALL the posts,;) but my brother came along this article during his research and sent the link to me. I thought you guys might find i..."Thank you for that link. I've come across similar accounts before, but this was refreshing for its frank admissions. While I agree with the author that there might be some use in the application of literary theory to 'scientific narrative', I expect it would be easy to overstate the scope of that application (anthropology is actually the most natural one I can think of, though even in this there are still additional rigours to be observed), whatever postmodernism would suggest.
Particularly dangerous is when you come at science without much of an idea what it's about. According to Karl Popper, science can be thought to begin with mythical narrative, but now with a second order tradition of rigorous criticism attached to it. It is in the need for this to be rigorous, i.e- for theories to be falsifiable and based on empirical evidence, that I would advise the strongest caution.
There is a dangerous divide today between the sciences and the arts. It's almost always been there, you could claim, but the rapid progress of science and the tradition of self-reflection in the arts since at least the advent of modernism has widened the schism to an unprecedented degree. C P Snow's warning of the disparity between the 'Two Cultures' is more pressing than ever. Consider for instance the Sokal affair. The shortcomings of the less disciplined and certainly less rigorous cultural or sociological viewpoint in science is glaring. Rigour is something we can all do with, since it's a feat of reason with application to the scientific method, but not the scientific method itself (i.e- there is no limitation to just the empirical when it comes to rigorous thought).
Never heard of the Sokal affair..very interesting. Thanks Yasiru!Heather, I have never heard of the concept of comparing literary theory to science, I loved this article!!! Can't wait to share it with some friends!
Wow! All this psychology....taking me way back when I got my BS in education! Development psych, child psych, general psych and abnormal psych. I actually considered becoming a psychiatrist after taking all these courses! Thanks for the memories!On the subject of what makes a classic, I would definitely vote for The Book Thief. Terrific book!
As far as the long postings, I love to read them! Just don't expect me to post one. I still hate to write! Love talking, love reading, love discusssing but writing....not so much. :)
I had a good laugh the first time I read about it.Not sure about the 'literature committee' idea. Just as I'm wary of going purely by mass appeal, there seems a danger to me that the opinions of a few, however well qualified they may be, might make for an artificial and elitist selection (especially because of unsteady sales in literature because of the sheer scope, unlike with films, for instance).
On the other hand, there are prizes, like the Man Booker prize, the Nobel prize in literature, etc. which correlate highly with (but aren't the be all and end all indicators of) literary merit. Particularly, awards like these can do much within specific literary movements, helping classification within genres.
And then ya got dummies like me... No college ed. and just reads what I like without trying to analyze it. Of course the smut I read would be hard to analyze. lol Well, I do try to up my intelligence occasionally with a good literary book. ☺
Pamela(AllHoney) wrote: "And then ya got dummies like me... No college ed. and just reads what I like without trying to analyze it. Of course the smut I read would be hard to analyze. lol Well, I do try to up my intelligen..."I'm one of you, limited education, though, obviously I do my own analysis, to the beat of a different drummer... very different, distant and far away from what everyone else is following.
Pamela(AllHoney) wrote: "And then ya got dummies like me... No college ed. and just reads what I like without trying to analyze it. Of course the smut I read would be hard to analyze. lol Well, I do try to up my intelligen..."Some books are just fun, they don't bother to, or even need to explore deep themes. But even to write a fun book, the author usually has to do things right, with the narrative structure, how the characters come across, etc. It's not always as easy as it seems. Maybe no points for originality or daring, but chances are, time-tested techniques are used to decent effect.
Besides, I don't think university education necessarily correlates with the ability to criticise. Certainly, you might be able to call out what you see if you gathered any relevant knowledge and cross examine with established theses (which you can also reach with enough reading), but the analysis itself, supposedly prerequisite knowledge aside, is open to anyone reasonably intelligent.
Of course sometimes, as with Freudian and Jungian theory, what you read and what that reading evokes in you might reflect on yourself as well!
One of the the reasons I could never write a book myself is that I do tend to overanalyze myself. I have thought out plots but then I keep telling myself that that could never happen that way. Its funny that I don't really do that to the books I read that often. Unless there is obvious mistakes that even an amateur should have known better to make. lol
The main purpose for books is to entertain. :)I'm just happy that there's still ppl out there willing to read.
I plan on - if I ever have kids myself - doing what mum did with me. That is introducing me to some of the great books early on. Apparently most of how you understand the world forms about the age you learn to read so if I can foster a love of books then...It's what happened to me. I was brought up on the classics so to speak. Peter Pan, Little Women, The Chronicles of Narnia...
My father introduced me to the Hobbit when I was 8 (ish). I was home sick and wanted to hear what he was reading, so he read the hobbit to me and I had nightmares from the big spiders in the Mirkwood.
I read the Hobbit with my parents at a similar age! I'd got into the Narnia books earlier and that just fuelled my love fantasy writing. I then read Lord of the Rings about the age of ten or eleven. My memory's not quite crystal on ages things happened even though I can replay in my head how everything happened.
I hated to read until I was 10 yrs old. I picked up one of my mom's gothic romances (1970s) and got hooked. Eventually I discovered the school library and read Little Women, A Wrinkle In Time, The Call of the Wild and a multitude of other books. I still had a problem reading what my teachers wanted me to read, though.
I loved The Call of the Wild. Not sure why I never read anything else by Jack London. Maybe I should and see if I still like that style of writing.
Mod
I am a scientist, and I was trained in the scientific method, and I am an analytical person. However, I'm not the most critical reader, so I don't adhere to strict literary standards when I personally define a classic. If some readers find that helpful, nothing wrong with that. As a person who has read voraciously since I was four, I believe that you get a feel for good quality writing when you see it, even if you don't have a college education or a high school education for that matter. Yes, you may not be able to spout technical terminology, but I believe that a seasoned reader can say for themselves what was good and what was bad about every book they read. I didn't enjoy every book I had to read in school, but going through the process of reading and analyzing a book, both internally and with a trained instructor does help to improve each reader's critical eye.
One of the things I like about this group is we don't have to have one set in stone definition for classic. I admit that I do reject literary elitism every chance I get. I don't think that reading a prize winning book says any more about a person than one who reads fun books that they enjoy. I'm just happy that they are reading. Eventually, every reader gets tired of the same old same, and they want to try something different, but that's because they want to, not because someone has told them their reading choices are inferior.
I view a list of classic literature as a starting point and a guideline for a reader who wants to dive in. I don't think every person is required to read each and every book to be considered an erudite reader.
Mod
Oh, definitely read White Fang. I think it's much better.
That's a real bargain read I just got for only two cents... excellent thoughts Lady D
Mod
lol... think I will, Lady D ☺
Mod
Janine wrote: "The main purpose for books is to entertain. :)I'm just happy that there's still ppl out there willing to read."
For almost all fiction, certainly, though I stop short in including everything, unless what's meant by entertainment takes even a masochistic overtone once in a while (and I include some very good works here, it's not about a book being terrible).
Classics for Beginners
Books mentioned in this topic
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)The Color Purple (other topics)
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)
Gargantua and Pantagruel (other topics)
The Epic of Gilgamesh (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
George Orwell (other topics)Aldous Huxley (other topics)
Ray Bradbury (other topics)
Gabriel García Márquez (other topics)
Gabriel García Márquez (other topics)
