Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
^Quite true, but I think the ratio does improve somewhat with time. But that's all.
Well, you can't like every single classic book you read. I don't, either. But I can usually still see why they are so appreciated.
Taste remains subjective, although there are some objective criteria of quality within the field of literary criticism.
Even if you say he's missing out on a lot... somehow I think there are enough books written before 1983 that he wouldn't really have to worry about running out...
Though yeah it's a silly thing to say.
Oftentimes books aren't so much remembered for their quality as for opening historical floodgates or whatnot. See: Jane Austen or Uncle Tom's Cabin.
i will call alex in here and make him talk about literary canon. i will.
But that still makes them important, due to their influence on society or literature and art itself.
Come at me.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with quality, which is the subject of this conversation.
Fair point.
She told you, bro! She told you!
I dislike the current literary canon and, tentatively, the concept of a literary canon at all. If nothing else, academia has proven that it can't handle the subject with maturity and open-mindedness. Truly, a lot of the classics represented by the canon are fantastic books -- but equally, some aren't. A lot of Dickens' work, for instance, is the pulp of its era and has been vastly eclipsed by post-modern literature in plenty of ways.
Then there's the books that are openly pretentious. Lord Of The Flies is a good example, since it deigns to not only comment on human nature but to make conclusions about it, and it essentially says to us that we are shitheads in our natural state. However, the idea that we're reduced to savagery without the presence of conventional civilisation is a viewpoint that underpinned the era of direct, imperial colonialism. So Golding can go suck it for being both presumptuous and a colonialist.
If there's room for a literary canon based around "classics", then it ought to exist for works like Of Mice And Men -- books that are both good to read and comment upon the context of their writing and the context of society found therein. As it stands though, I can't find any common thread in the existing literary canon that doesn't boil down to "what a bunch of high-level academics seem to like that is also pretty old". And as preference will always be influenced by what is considered to provide some degree of social benefit, bias creeps into the listings. There's a particular lack of speculative fiction, especially fantasy. Not that speculative fiction is the only stuff worth reading (far from it!), but speculative fiction also allows us to reset our biases to null and experience abstractions and approximations of real-world issues, in turning allowing us to much more easily consider them from different points of view.
Honestly, if that viewpoint were true, civilization wouldn't exist, would it?
Pretty much.
I always thought it's supposed to be a subversion of standard Robinson Crusoe-style plots, in which a heroic castaway establishes a one-man civilisation (bringing Christianity to locals optional), as well as making a jab at the idea that children are innocent. But, hey, what do I know.
That's also true, but the two conceptualisations of Lord Of The Flies aren't mutually exclusive. Golding makes a common philosophical mistake and, in doing so, encourages other to do so as well. And that mistake is the perception that if something is not one way, then it must be the opposite way. Children aren't necessarily innocent, but that doesn't mean there's a beast waiting to be unleashed in them -- rather, the takeaway should be that children are diverse.
While I don't very much like Lord of the Flies and agree with Alex's assessment, the reason it's taught in classes is mostly because it's a good way to teach kids symbolism because it jut lays it on so thick.
Since then other better books have also accomplished this, but inertia being what it is it isn't likely to be replaced anytime soon.
I think literary canon helps if you look at it more from a perspective of what caused shifts in historical and literary trends. Uncle Tom's Cabin is a piece of overwritten shlock but it helped raises awareness and anti-slave sentiment. Likewise with Interview With a Vampire which -while not very good- inspired a new generation of contemporary horror with a superficial revival of the romantic era.
It's still incredibly broken in that it's not mean to be looked at that from a historical perspective but rather objective quality (which I actually do believe exists)
The problem I also have is how many opponents of the literary canon often have an incredibly anti-intellectual look at literature and reduce things to 'it's boring/not entertaining/not enough sexy robots' rathert than understanding the desire of the writer.
The door swings both ways, is my point. Pretentious college professors would benefit from reading some steampunk novels just as much as paperback eaters would benefit from reading Heart of Darkness.
I don't really get it. I mean, I don't know what were Golding's intentions and what he did or did not encourage others too. But, one: the idea that people are inherently more bad than good strikes me as relatively legitimate philosophical concept, and, two: I don't see Golding's ridiculing of then-popular tropes of fiction as inherently illegitimate method of this kind of discourse.
And:
I understand, then, that you dislike Lord of the Rings for its many faults in its depiction of the social classes, as Tolkien's romantic vision is, well, a viewpoint that can at best be described as reactionary delusion, and at worst, one that underpinned the era of legally sanctioned exploitation - feudalism - one that was much longer than the era of imperial colonialism.
In short, I consider most examinations of human nature arrogant. They look less at observable evidence and work more on the basis of the author's personal experiences, or what they want to observe. The whole idea that human nature is this singular, monolithic, immutable force has never passed peer review.
Actually, Tolkien doesn't make an examination of the relationship between social classes much if at all in his works. If anything, he falls in favour of the working class -- Sam being the ultimate hero of the story and nothing more than a gardener without a title or anything. And if there's an idealised society in his works, it's that of the Hobbits, which bears more resemblance to the English countryside during the Romantic period than any feudal society.
What do you think of that Moorcock's essay, then? I presume you've stumbled upon it, but if not, I'll try to google it up and post a link.
edit: I'm going to not argue more about human nature in here, as I feel that'll in the end be closer to a discussion on biology than on literature.
edit2:
But, doesn't it then make it some sort of positive discrimination? Like a Magical Negro, a character of underprivileged group who nonetheless is absolutely loyal to his social better The Hero (white, male, upper class, whatever the elite of setting the story's in), without whom The Hero would fail in his mission.
I love Moorcock's fiction, but his actual fictional analysis should be taken with MOUNTAINS of salt.
In one piece he actually claims that allegorical science fiction has no value.
I've never seen Moorcock's essay, but I feel in general that some critics expect too much of Tolkien. He was writing as an extension of a very old romantic tradition and his book is essentially about retaining faith in a good outcome and trusting one's friends. Expecting some kind of scathing socio-political commentary from Tolkien is pretty absurd -- he was drawing from Norse mythology, Arthurian legend and other such sources, and aimed mostly to imitate them in a way he found pleasing to himself.
So basically Tolkien was writing anime before anime was a thing.
In any case, asking him to look deeply into the mechanics of feudalism and its injustices is kind of like asking Star Wars to do the same. It's just so beside the point and appeal of the work. Then there's those who criticise Tolkien of supporting eugenics and whatnot (wrongly -- eugenics is very obviously a tool of Saruman and Sauron), all the while ignoring the stuff he does cover, and quite elegantly at that. For instance, Eowyn's whole arc is about the inherent limitations placed on women in that kind of society, and also concerns the onset of severe depression.
It's not like Tolkien's books are perfect or the man himself is unassailable (there are certainly books and authors I like better), but there's a ridiculous degree of social criticism thrown at him and his works when they essentially wanted to be the rebirth of old styles of mythology.
Well, to play devil's advocate, Eowyn has like one moment of battlefield action after which she settles down in Faramir's kitchen, and it's stated quite clearly that miscegenation dilutes the Numenorean blood until they lose their inborn gifts. One could say that Tolkien, by imitating his sources, didn't or didn't want to notice the implications of rejuvenating the works of exploitative past (with good reason, one might add) societies.
The difference between this stuff and the stuff in Lord of the Flies is that this isn't what LotR is about. I mean, yeah, you can argue that it's in there, but if you take the troublesome stuff out of LotF, you're left with a bunch of blank sheets of paper.
Action isn't the point here, though. The point is perspective and agency. It's easy to equate feminist content with the fighting content of female characters, but it's plainly observable that it's not the case. What's relevant about Eowyn is that she follows her values despite being weighed down by a disadvantageous social position and deep neurosis. She's absolutely sure the world is going to shit and wants an opportunity to die subject to her own agency and no-one else's. In terms of her character, her battle with the Witch King is all that's relevant in action terms and all that's required.
Nowhere are these gifts stated to be a primary tool or source of virtue, though. Some of the characters perceive this to be the case, but the content of the books argues otherwise -- which is why a hobbit gardener is the one that ultimately ensures the defeat of Sauron.
We're expecting someone who grew up under romanticist philosophy to comment on the content of his works with a post modern perspective. If I recall, Tolkien died in the early 70s as an elderly man, just a handful of years after post modernism was actually a significant cultural force. He grew up when Britain was still an empire and fought in World War I. The guy was born well over one hundred years ago.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't note the elements that may be problematic as a contemporary audience, but demonising Tolkien and his books for being less than modern is ridiculous.
Um, Frodo is part of that same "underprivileged" group as well. He's just a slightly richer one who happens to need a gardener.
Hobbits aren't really underprivileged in Middle-Earth's society, if that's what you mean, and Frodo has enough (inherited) money he doesn't need to work, at least I don't remember he ever had to.
Heh. I guess I've got enough of this devil's advocacy. It's that just sometimes some kinds of views trigger my response, whether justified or not. BTW here's Moorcock's essay, I think it was that one: http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=953
Not one page through and Moorcock has already broken The Golden Rule (Of Hitler). Unless "hitlerism" isn't a reference to the historical figure.
So far, I am not particularly convinced.
I mentioned this essay, because this is what I'm usually reminded of when people diss a writer from generally left-wing positions.
My big problem with Moorcock is how he keeps denying the value of allegory in fantasy and science fiction. I've often been an advocate of keeping our monsters and heroes literal, but to dismiss the value of allegory all together is too far of a swing of the pendulum.
He also perplexingly complains about most fantasy stories being 'fairy tales' i.e. for children.
Yeah, that one's a mystery. And in the same breath, he praises Terry Pratchett, of all people.
Much like Alan Moore he also loves to accuse people of stealing from him when they draw influence from him.