Nihil Obstat Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 In terms of classics, I think the Great Gatsby is among my favourites, and yes, I was "forced" to read that in grade eleven. I'm glad I was. I never would have read it otherwise.
alleros Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Don't twist the words of others please. That is a very nasty habit you have, and it is not clever. [quote name='Winchester' date='26 October 2009 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1256579751' post='1991581'] Don't use children as an excuse for your dislike of the classics. [/quote]
Nihil Obstat Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 [quote name='alleros' date='26 October 2009 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1256580255' post='1991588'] Don't twist the words of others please. That is a very nasty habit you have, and it is not clever. [/quote] You'll get used to it. Next he'll accuse you of eating kittens.
Winchester Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 [quote name='alleros' date='26 October 2009 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1256580255' post='1991588'] Don't twist the words of others please. That is a very nasty habit you have, and it is not clever. [/quote] I did not twist anything. Perhaps you did not mean what you said. [quote]I still, after teaching English for many years, cannot go near most of the classics. The mere thought of Shakespeare.. ugh[/quote] Perhaps you meant that after years of teaching English, you can no longer stand the classics. However, what this sentence means is that even after years of teaching English, you cannot go near the classics. [quote]Trying to "teach" any literature to youngsters who need to pass exams on it? [/quote] In response to my facepalm, which indicates disappointment, it implies you lay the blame upon your attempts to teach children. It can be done. Not all the time, but some of the time. The fact is that most teachers don't seem up to the task. Most I encountered simply assigned reading and tested over it. Bacis understanding of the merits of literature over mere entertainments (what do you think of Graham Greene?) is not some unbelievable goal. I can appreciate the place of Shakespeare even if I sometimes think he's over the top. And there are many great quotes and ideas from his plays that speak to his abilities. I often drag through Camus, but I know if I pay attention there's more in [i]The Stranger[/i] than there is in several King books, in spite of how much I enjoy King.
Nihil Obstat Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 When reading literature in school, I think discussion is the most important aspect. Teachers have to challenge their students to actually think about what they read, and students have to challenge each other. When you really start analyzing a good book, or even just a decent book, even if it's not really your cup of tea, you really start to appreciate it (appreciate it, not like it) as you go deeper into what the author was saying through his characters and themes.
Winchester Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) It would be cool to be in a good book club. My wife was in one, but they wouldn't take up anything of substance. She eventually killed and ate the other members. Many of you may not be aware that I am married to a wolverine. Edited October 26, 2009 by Winchester
Nihil Obstat Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='26 October 2009 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1256582096' post='1991613'] It would be cool to be in a good book club. My wife was in one, but they were wouldn't take up anything of substance. She eventually killed and ate the other members. Many of you may not be aware that I am married to a wolverine. [/quote] Wolverine? I always assumed she was a fox. I could not pass that one up. *hides*
Winchester Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='26 October 2009 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1256582187' post='1991616'] Wolverine? I always assumed she was a fox. [/quote] The Sweathogs called, they want their pickup line back.
Nihil Obstat Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='26 October 2009 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1256582833' post='1991625'] The Sweathogs called, they want their pickup line back. [/quote] I don't know what that means, but I bet it's funny.
Winchester Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='26 October 2009 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1256582948' post='1991627'] I don't know what that means, but I bet it's funny. [/quote] I hope I never betray your confidence in me. [img]http://www.nerfect.com/kaplanbday/sweathogs.jpg[/img]
Nihil Obstat Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 If your water breaks, don't touch the toaster.
King's Rook's Pawn Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 [quote name='Catholictothecore' date='26 October 2009 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1256579646' post='1991580'] This is why I want to teach college lit and not high school. [/quote] Yes, although, after I completed by literature major I was so burnt out on literature it took me three years to start reading of recreation again.
add Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 "Words without thoughts never to heaven go." William Shakespeare [url="http://thinkexist.com/quotes/william_shakespeare/"] [/url]
Hassan Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 [quote name='Catholictothecore' date='26 October 2009 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1256535191' post='1991370'] Not only that, but you simply can't compare Harry Potter to to a BigMac. The depth of character, plot, and style (even if it is somewhat lacking in metaphor [which it isn't]) are enough that it is truly "real" literature. The simple fact that not all copies of Harry Potter are read by children is a prove of that. Most of my friends who read those books are adults. I argue that what people mean by "real" literature is mainly "aged-well" literature. Jane Eyre was probably cosidered "pulp" fiction in it's time. In the 1800's, Austen, Dickens, and others were considered contemporary, not classical. They are more highly revered because they have stood the strength of time. I fully expect the Harry Potter series to do the same. Literature changes with each era. I'm sure the realists of the 20's through 50's did not say "Oh, we're writing the realism chapter of literature." Instead, they were modern, cutting edge even. We are simply seeing the cutting edge of ours. [/quote] Many of the classics are just trash that's somehow withstood the test of time. Harry Potter has as much right to someday be called great literature as Mark Twain's novels, or Dickens. In both cases you'd probably learn more watching an hour of good television.
Hassan Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 Turgenev and Gogol are both considered "classics" of Russian Lit. The truth is that this comparison is a massive insult to Gogol. Turgenev was better than most authors who ever lived but he still could be condensed into a well made movie. Gogol could not. Gogol played with words and language in a truly beautiful way. Like Selimovic.
aalpha1989 Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' date='31 October 2009 - 06:53 AM' timestamp='1256986382' post='1994349'] Many of the classics are just trash that's somehow withstood the test of time. Harry Potter has as much right to someday be called great literature as Mark Twain's novels, or Dickens. In both cases you'd probably learn more watching an hour of good television. [/quote] I hope you're not serious. Harry Potter is terrible literature with a self-contradicting plotline, "facts" about characters that the author invented after writing the books, not to mention the extremely low reading level. Twain and Dickens have at least a much higher reading level. I'm not really a fan of Twain, but his books deal with real issues and were extremely controversial because he challenged the status quo. Dickens' books were even more important in fighting corruption and hatred of the poor in Britain, and he dealt with other social issues as well. These books are classics because they are well written (somthing Harry Potter will never be able to claim) and because they speak to something timeless in every man. Harry Potter is trash guising as literature, and as much as some people will always consider it to be a classic, it will always be a fraud.
Era Might Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' date='31 October 2009 - 06:53 AM' timestamp='1256986382' post='1994349'] Many of the classics are just trash that's somehow withstood the test of time. Harry Potter has as much right to someday be called great literature as Mark Twain's novels, or Dickens. In both cases you'd probably learn more watching an hour of good television. [/quote] In my opinion, good literature is ultimately not about "learning" anything. It is an experience, not an intellectual exercise. Just because literature is popular does not mean it cannot be considered great literature. Whether or not Harry Potter will ever be considered great literature, I don't know. I haven't read it. But if it's going to be compared to Dickens, it has a pretty high standard of writing to live up to, before you even consider the story itself.
Era Might Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' date='31 October 2009 - 06:58 AM' timestamp='1256986680' post='1994350'] Turgenev and Gogol are both considered "classics" of Russian Lit. The truth is that this comparison is a massive insult to Gogol. Turgenev was better than most authors who ever lived but he still could be condensed into a well made movie. Gogol could not. Gogol played with words and language in a truly beautiful way. Like Selimovic. [/quote] I'm not familiar with Russian literature. But speaking in general, I think it's important to recognize that there is not one standard that can be applied to literature. An ancient story like the Iliad, for example, was only written down after it was told orally, and so it cannot be analyzed in the same way that modern literature is analyzed, in which authors labor over every word. Similarly, greater complexity in a story does not necessarily make it a greater piece of literature; parables and fables can be just as powerful as novels, even though the parables and fables are simple in a certain sense.
kafka Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 [quote name='Era Might' date='31 October 2009 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1257015226' post='1994450'] Similarly, greater complexity in a story does not necessarily make it a greater piece of literature; parables and fables can be just as powerful as novels, even though the parables and fables are simple in a certain sense. [/quote] agreed. Take William Blake for example. Some of his poetry is not complex, but it has an inner fire and vitality, even a mysticism to it which has seldom been matched. The psalms are simple yet powerful from a purely literary point of view. For literature to be great it needs to have an X factor which transcends analysis. Critics call it different things.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now