That's simply not how it works, Kara. Nearly all survey or theme-based literature classed I've taken at university level ended with the professors asking for feedback on which texts to keep and which to kick from the syllabus. Century- or author-specific classes do rely on a body of "classics," but you also have the brilliant choice of not taking them. Will you get them to remove Shakespeare from the program altogether? Of course not, classes on him are frequently the biggest and the most popular. Do you want to debate his actual contribution to literature? Pull up a chair.
edited 9th Apr '11 5:09:27 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?The problem arises when by virtue of being popular, Appeal to Popularity is used as a counter to anyone who suggests that something has no relevance aside from being popular. Thus, by inability to argue against a work because it is popular, something retains its popularity.
edited 9th Apr '11 5:05:24 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Again, that's not really how it works. There's no evil cabal cackling over a list of books and deciding that they will be kept simply because others before them have found merit in them. These books are constantly read and re-read, studied, analyzed, and it is the people who know them inside and out who determine that they are worth teaching - sadly, to people who are often too young and too unmotivated to learn anything from them.
^ I'm not retracting my point (and that's not what redacted means, incidentally).
edited 9th Apr '11 5:10:19 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?I mean that one of the principle reasons why we're holding Shakespeare on a pedestal is the observation that it is popular. The objection is "The popularity of a work is not indicative of its overall quality" (or at the very least not necessarily) but then the objection is to that premise to begin with?
Yeah, but it's also the younger generation that looks at the classics and go "WTF is this shit? This never happens in real life!" until the teachers beat it out of them.
If the Odyssey were written today, Odysseus would have come home to find out the bank had foreclosed on his house and his wife was with another man.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianThen maybe they're not worth teaching to those particular students?
Look, I already admitted to being defective. Do you have an alternate hypothesis as to why I've never gotten positive enjoyment out of any classic I've ever read? Because you seem pretty confident that you know everything about this subject.
edited 9th Apr '11 5:12:37 PM by Karalora
One thing I probably ought to mention is that some of my English teachers believed that students should learn at least one book from every major American literary movement, regardless of quality. One of my teachers absolutely hated 1600s American literature, so he compromised by teaching us the Retraux 1800s novel The Scarlet Letter, even though he wasn't exactly fond of it either. (Of course, this invites the question of why we need to learn each of those movements . . .)
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulI mean that one of the principle reasons why we're holding Shakespeare on a pedestal is the observation that it is popular. The objection is "The popularity of a work is not indicative of its overall quality" (or at the very least not necessarily) but then the objection is to that premise to begin with?
I hold Shakespeare on a pedestal because, after studying a modest number of his plays extensively and rigorously, I've come to the conclusion that he had made very seminal and important observations about human nature and condition, and that many would benefit from seriously reading and analyzing his works. I have no doubt that many people who hold him in high esteem do so for similar reasons.
edited 9th Apr '11 5:13:28 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?But isn't that begging the question? The assertion I'm making is that no they don't, or rather, the reason they believe thus is because they were led to believe it by people who believed it because they were led to believe it ad nauseum as a result of the popularity of Shakespeare.
Though, that's actually a red herring now that I think about it-people can certainly be deluded into thinking the truth.
I could go analyze how Doom Repercussions Of Evil portrays human nature and ultimately its futility and preference for violence. Won't make it a classic however.
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty."'But isn't that begging the question? The assertion I'm making is that no they don't, or rather, the reason they believe thus is because they were led to believe it by people who believed it because they were led to believe it ad nauseum as a result of the popularity of Shakespeare.''
Why would you ever assert that? There's no shortage of people claiming that Shakespeare is overrated, incomprehensible, outdated, irrelevant, etc. To say that I'm bewitched into thinking that he's good simply because some people before me have thought so is insulting to my understanding of the text.
"Then maybe they're not worth teaching to those particular students?"
Sure. Many classics should not be taught to younger age groups, since some life experience and serious reflection is mandatory to understanding them.
edited 9th Apr '11 5:20:53 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?The point is that, the people who dislike Shakespeare, generally don't get into the field of literature. The reason is manyfold, but at least a contributing factor is the fact (well, proposed fact-it's part of the theory) that disliking Shakespeare is a semi-disqualifying trait for participating in the literary community.
So: How would we test this hypothesis?
@feo: From what I've seen, that's much better than the other way to do it; at least it gives you a framework for your interpretation of the book.
@kash: Now, although I do like some of Shakespeare's plays, I don't claim that they're all Great Works of Literature. Or even most of them. They're entertaining, and that's it.
![]()
![]()
What does realism have to do with classic status?
Also, Tomu, I don't see a way because that falls under analysis of society and that tends to be a bit circular in of itself.
edited 9th Apr '11 5:26:36 PM by Usht
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty."Well, if it's "reflects human nature" then "realistic" reflects human nature better, so then modern works are better than old works."
That was sarcasm, Tomu. A little bit of reflection on what modernity produces should have clarified that.
"@kash: Now, although I do like some of Shakespeare's plays, I don't claim that they're all Great Works of Literature. Or even most of them. They're entertaining, and that's it."
Many of them are entertaining. A number of them qualify as truly great for me.
edited 9th Apr '11 5:26:03 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Is that correct?
No.
Is there any point in me re-iterating my position yet again? People seem bound and determined to misconstrue it.
edited 9th Apr '11 4:57:57 PM by Karalora