You might have meant it as sarcasm, but it's true.
Maybe Transformers isn't any more realistic than the Odyssey, but The Great Gatsby certainly is.
I doubt there are any Important Observations About Human Nature in Shakepeare's plays that haven't been done better in Discworld.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayHow about this:
Twilight is a classic. It was popular enough to redefine the vampire in modern literature, redefine what romance means to many women, portrayed many racial problems in a new light thanks to metaphor, and delved into the psyche of modern day girl and her motivations, goals, and beliefs.
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.On the one hand, I am very cautious to say "Better" in this context. On the other hand, my first instinct is to agree with what Storyyeller said.
I think that literature is like technology. You use what was set down beforehand to move forwards. It should necessarily be the case that our best works are better than the works of the previous generation, because we're learning. Of course, you get the mantra of "It's unoriginal so it sucks" occasionally, which distorts our perceptions-
-but again, I'm cautious about saying what it distorts them away or towards.
ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS: People who aren't impressed with Shakespeare upon their first readings tend not to study his plays extensively or rigorously. The fact that you did study them indicates that you were already pre-disposed to reach the conclusion that you did.
"Maybe Transformers isn't any more realistic than the Odyssey, but The Great Gatsby certainly is."
Realism is a relatively new movement that picked up steam when prose overtook poetry as the more conventional mode of artistic expression, but I still don't see how realism of setting or dialogue translates into a clearer lens into the human condition, which works like Hamlet and Lear do despite being utterly unrealistic in every which way but Sunday.
"People who aren't impressed with Shakespeare upon their first readings tend not to study his plays extensively or rigorously. The fact that you did study them indicates that you were already pre-disposed to reach the conclusion that you did."
I wasn't impressed when I first read Shakespeare. When I was a little older, and exposed to him once again, I realized that it was my age and not his ineptitude as a writer that had made him inaccessible.
edited 9th Apr '11 5:35:08 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?"Or they don't, because they're not realistic."
Once again, I am more than happy to discuss specific texts.
"Without a good definition of "Indicative of the Human Condition" we can infer both contradictory positions to be true because they are in essence meaningless."
It's tautological. It does not require a definition.
"Then why did you keep reading it?"
School requirement.
edited 9th Apr '11 5:37:13 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?It's not an issue of the texts, it's an issue of the fact that we're asking if Shakespeare (as though the entire body of his work is somehow a distinct object) demonstrates a property, and then that property is somewhat if not totally meaningless.
It's impossible to have an informed intelligent discussion on something like that. I mean, what are we even talking about? At that level, you might as well just babble about oranges and grapefruits.
... "It's tautological?" I'm not actually sure that's the case, but if it is, it'd mean you're meaning it to mean precisely what you need it to mean to support your argument thus rendering said argument pretty much meaningless to begin with, so you might want to re-address this point.
All things require a definition. Maybe not a proof, but at least a definition.
edited 9th Apr '11 5:40:09 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
I really would like you to venture an opinion as to why I never did get to the point of finding the "classics" interesting or accessible, despite loving to read in general. You must have some thoughts on the matter. If you suspect me of trolling, rest assured that I'm not—I'm actually curious as to what a classic literature buff thinks of someone who simply cannot stomach the classics.
edited 9th Apr '11 5:43:26 PM by Karalora
Not so fast. The 13th-15th centuries produced a copious number of prose romances. The word "novel" derives from novella romance - a new romance, characterized by realism rather than the fantastic adventures of, say, Arthur's knights. Don Quixote is of course the evolutionary link here.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. BernardI suspect your schoolteachers trained you to read 20th century prose. This can make verse and archaic vocabulary hard to read later, because you don't grow up used to them.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. BernardI am not a classics buff; I have a very specific literary concentration, and I do not give two shits about most "classical" literature outside of it any more than I do about modern works that pique my interest. I think "classics," as a corpus, is a good idea, because it grounds the modern reader and writer alike in the canon that inspired not only literary conventions but also mores and philosophies of certain eras. There are works which I find do not meet the criteria of talented writing or meaningful ideas, but I understand that they are kept in the corpus because they represent a certain demographic and their particular concerns; or are otherwise typical of a certain influential genre. I don't think Jane Eyre is a particularly valuable read in any sense, but it is going to continue being taught, at the very least in Victorian Lit classes, because it is representative of its genre, because it is proto-feminist in its wretched, hypocritical way, and because it was written by one of the few women writing at the time. Worth teaching? In specific classes, yes.
As for what I think of your own situation, I am wary of your self-professed tendency to downrate a novel simply because someone else described it as a classic, and I do think you're stubborn enough to conveniently forget or ignore personal experience in order to prove a point. I've read utter shit and managed to find something worthwhile about it, so my opinion is that you either have extremely specific standards, or else dislike anything that you perceive as belonging to the classics out of sheer contrarianism.
@ Tomu, I will frankly say I don't know what you're talking about. All that is required for an "intelligent discussion" of Shakespeare's text and its commentary on various aspects of human nature and condition is close reading. Once there is familiarity with the text, dialogue can begin. It's no more complicated than that.
edited 9th Apr '11 6:00:14 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?Yeah...about that...you mention contrarianism below, and can see how it would look that way. Allow me to explain.
From time to time, someone I know recommends a book to me. Usually, they have the sense to recommend it based on something about that they think I would like. "It's really funny," they'll say. Or "I think you'll really identify with the protagonist." Or "I know you like other books by this author." Or "The subject matter is right up your alley." Something like that. If someone recommends me a book on the basis of it being a "classic," that tells me that either a) it has no specific traits worth recommending, or b) this person doesn't know my tastes well enough to have any business recommending books to me. (The latter case also puts across a hint of "Read this because I say so," and that does rouse the contrarian in me. But from time to time I do attempt to read a "classic" on my own, and it makes no difference.)
Can you explain what you mean by this? How the hell do you know what my personal experience has been?
edited 9th Apr '11 6:10:01 PM by Karalora

Family Guy is a classic.