Classics and the Western Canon discussion
General
>
Hard books
I've only read two off of the list - The Faerie Queene and To The Lighthouse. Spenser is only hard if you feel compelled to grasp every layer of allegory. If you're willing to admit you probably can't catch everything in a single reading then it's really enjoyable. This was the favorite work of the majority of my graduate Renaissance lit class, followed closely by Utopia. To The Lighthouse does not belong on this list at all. It might have been challenging when it was written, but there are many much more difficult works in the post-modern era. I'm not surprised to see Joyce on the list. A professor of mine said she had an entire PhD class devoted to Finnigan's Wake and most of her peers found it unreadable. I think the work that was most difficult for me, and one I'm really surprised isn't on the list, is The Sound and The Fury. A mentally challenged and almost incomprehensible narrator? And a suicidal narrator? It was worth the work, but it was hard - especially since I read it before I'd taken any college English classes.
I agree with The Sound and the Fury -- it's that so much is unsaid, has to be inferred. Finnegan's Wake is of course notorious -- I find t makes a lot more sense if it's read aloud. So I would guess that the principle at work here is that these books don't just say what they mean. The author puts out the ingredients and the reader is left to make a meal of them. Clues are optional.
Yes, "The Sound and the Fury" is hard, at least the first time around. "The Faerie Queen" is great through the first book, but boring after that, at least to me. Hegel,now, is not so much hard as far too seductive. A good book to throw across the room.
Some books are hard to read, and some are hard to understand. (And some both, to be sure.) Heidegger is hard to read, but Plato is more difficult to understand. (Reading Heidegger's lectures on Plato have impressed this upon me.) Dante is not hard to read, but difficult to understand. Kierkegaard is easy to read because he is a wonderful writer, but he is more difficult to understand than Hegel, who is more difficult to read because he writes so miserably. But Joyce is just a delight, once or twice through. It's getting through the first time that is difficult -- after that, it's just pudding.
Thomas wrote: "Some books are hard to read, and some are hard to understand. (And some both, to be sure.) Heidegger is hard to read, but Plato is more difficult to understand. (Reading Heidegger's lectures on Pla..."And then there is Kant. Jacob Klein once said that Germans who wanted to understand Kant needed to learn English, because he is totally unintelligible in the original, but is at least somewhat comprehensible in Smith's translation.
Laurele wrote: "Hegel,now, is not so much hard as far too seductive. A good book to throw across the room. .."Why do you say it is seductive?
A Prof in philosophy said reading Hegel was torture, the slowest book he had ever read, and then recommended it to me.
Funny, I was just thinking about Kant this morning. I've been reading Plato's Statesman, in which the Stranger anticipates (and argues against) the notion of a categorical imperative, the idea that a law or rule can hold true despite varying circumstances. But I agree entirely. Kant is very difficult. I re-read the chapter on the antinomies a few weeks ago to clarify something I was thinking about during the Plato discussion, and he hasn't gotten any easier with time. (My time, that is.) The Pluhar translation might be an improvement, but if it makes Kant any easier i think I'd mistrust the translation.
I think it's important to make a distinction between types of hard works. Philosophy texts are hard for me for different reasons than fiction texts are hard. With philosophy it's like trying to join a conversation mid-stream. If you don't understand the context the author is writing in then it can be, for me at least, impenetrable. Likewise, Euclid is "hard" because I can't really follow him. Fiction is a different story though. What I find challenging are sudden shifts in time, (Alice Munro), unreliable narrators, and novels that neglect the plot almost entirely. I'm reading JR by Gaddis and that has been hard to get into. Works that include constant allusions to texts I haven't read are hard also.
Jeremy wrote: "I think it's important to make a distinction between types of hard works. Philosophy texts are hard for me for different reasons than fiction texts are hard. With philosophy it's like trying to joi..."Yes, I think there are different reasons for different books being hard, not all to do with the book itself. I have a hard time with certain philosophy books for the same reason I do with some areas of mathematics and Rubik's cubes -- I can't remember sequences very well. So in math, where argument x involves an extension of the proof of proof b, which entails proof a, and so forth, I'm often left scratching my head. Whereas fiction, which is for me to a large extent a matter of the ear, of stories around the campfire, it's different. I have no problem with J.R. because it's all voices, as is Ulysses in a different way. The sonorous, ceremonial opening just sucks me in: Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead..." The business of allusions raises a different question -- I read a lot of books before an age when I could have known a lot of the cultural and other references in them. I simply didn't care, and said in effect -- well, I suppose I'll find out eventually. Whence this attitude? It's like reading took precendence over understanding, which I now find very odd. Although in French, which I now read poorly, I'm willing sometimes to go for the gist and wait for the details.
I also notice that among the descriptions of the books there was a distinction made that some books were different if you read them slowly. Perhaps there's something about expectations here -- if you try to read Kant like you would a thriller it's going to be hard. I came a cropper as a freshman in college because I did the work as I had in high school -- slap-dash shall we call it. Good enough for government work, as the men on my paint crew said. No good. College was hard.
I thought this part of a summary of Italo Calvino's thoughts (posted in the tea room) might shed some light on the subject."Part of the reason many people come to literary works with trepidation has as much to do with their perceived difficulty as with the scholarly voice of authority that speaks from on high through “critical biographies, commentaries, and interpretations” as well as “the introduction, critical apparatus, and bibliography.” Though useful tools for scholars, these can serve as means of communicating that certain professional readers will always know more than you do. Calvino recommends leaving such things aside, since they “are used as a smoke screen to hide what the text has to say.”
David wrote: "Though useful tools for scholars, these can serve as means of communicating that certain professional readers will always know more than you do."I think Calvino hits it on the head here. This is the primary reason why we minimize the use of "critical biographies, commentaries, and interpretations" in conjunction with the group reads. (Or at least it's my primary reason.)
At the same time, I admit that the "perceived difficulty" is often correctly perceived -- many of the Great Books are challenging for the new reader, or the experienced reader, for that matter -- but they should not be pre-conceived as academic monoliths that only the initiated can enjoy or benefit from.
Thomas wrote: "David wrote: "Though useful tools for scholars, these can serve as means of communicating that certain professional readers will always know more than you do."I think Calvino hits it on the head ..."
You know, I agree, and yet I also ask why waste, or at least not take advantage of, the numbers of scholars, et al, in which society invests the resources to permit them to dig longer and more deeply into works of literature and thought than many have time available to us. So, a balance, whatever that is, seems desirable? And maybe we have to raise stop signs at each other when we perceive such balance is being abused?
With most philosophers (probably excepting Kant) it is often a truism that works explaining them are harder to understand than the original books themselves.
Patrice wrote: " I remember starting a book by Locke (I think that's who it was) and thinking "this is English, I speak English, why don't I understand this?) ;-) "An apocryphal quote attributed to a philosophy student: "Why couldn't Hobbes write in good modern English like Descartes did?"
Lily wrote: "You know, I agree, and yet I also ask why waste, or at least not take advantage of, the numbers of scholars, et al, in which society invests the resources to permit them to dig longer and more deeply into works of literature..."I see what you're saying, and I agree that commentaries can be useful, particularly for the "professional readers" that Calvino mentions. But I think one needs a footing in the original before a commentary becomes useful, otherwise the commentary is not only wasted, it becomes a source of distraction, at which point the original work can easily be lost and become, as Twain remarked, a book that people praise but don't read.
The difficulty that we run into here in the group is that we have "professional readers" among us, folks who have lots of experience with these books and can make ample use of commentary. But as long as we do not require this experience, I think we have to err on the side of simplicity.
I never used to read poetry until I found out that I could have my own ideas about it, without first finding out what everyone else thought.
Lily wrote: "You know, I agree, and yet I also ask why waste, or at least not take advantage of, the numbers of scholars, et al, in which society invests the resources to permit them to dig longer and more deeply into works of literature and thought than many have time available to us. So, a balance, whatever that is, seems desirable"I agree, but with the caveat that it makes a huge difference to me which scholars, and what their approaches to literature are. I find much of modern criticism to be more centered on the reviewer and his or her prejudices than helping a reader get the most out of the book. (The NY Review of Books I find, on the few occasions that I skim it, to be a poster child for this sort of "reviewing," though it's prevalent in many other publications including The New Yorker, The Paris Review, and others.)
I find myself more and more gravitating to the older critics. Johnson, Coleridge, and Hazlitt I almost always find worth reading. On Shakespeare, Bradley and Goddard are, for me, much more worth reading than, say, Garber. Quiller-Couch, Northrup Frye, Fadiman, and sometimes (but not always) Chesterton, seem to me to have the reader's interests in mind more than parading their erudition.
I still prefer to approach a book for the first time as a "virgin," if you will, but for re-reading I am likely to take advantage of, as you say, the scholarship of the scholars. (Saccio, for example, on Shakespeare, is a modern scholar who is a delight to read.)
Everyman wrote: "I still prefer to approach a book for the first time as a "virgin," ..."[g]
As you know, most recently I wrestled, with only partial success, with a whole series of commentators, rather like "my own Goodreads board," to come to some sort of satisfactory understanding of Sue Brideshead of Hardy's Jude. Still not satisfied with what I have seen or found....but enough for now, and more than if had not gone exploring.
I found R.F. Christian useful when reading War and Peace. There are some Norton Editions and Cambridge volumes, as well as some annotated editions of Jane Austen around that have been a pleasure to use. And I enjoy Nabokov's lectures, even if he can be dangerous to use at times.
Many of the publications dealing with current literature I consider to be extensions of the publishing industry marketing efforts, capable of being informative, dangerous, biased, opinionated, fun, ....
Lily wrote: "And I enjoy Nabokov's lectures, even if he can be dangerous to use at times."I agree very much with both the enjoyment and the danger (if I read you correctly of too much spoiling).
Everyman wrote: "I agree, but with the caveat that it makes a huge difference to me which scholars, and what their approaches to literature are. I find much of modern criticism to be more centered on the reviewer and his or her prejudices than helping a reader get the most out of the book. (The NY Review of Books I find, on the few occasions that I skim it, to be a poster child for this sort of "reviewing," though it's prevalent in many other publications including The New Yorker, The Paris Review, and others.) "But reviews published in periodicals were always more about personal reactions and interpretations than in-depth critical analysis because they're are meant to address people who haven't yet read the book and help them decide whether or not it's worth buying. I know both Coleridge and Hazlitt published reviews while they worked as journalists but they're rarely reprinted outside of collected works editions.
Everyman wrote: "Lily wrote: "And I enjoy Nabokov's lectures, even if he can be dangerous to use at times."I agree very much with both the enjoyment and the danger (if I read you correctly of too much spoiling)."
Certainly Nabokov introduces spoilers. He may also bias an interpretation or assessment of value.
Andreea wrote: "I know both Coleridge and Hazlitt published reviews while they worked as journalists but they're rarely reprinted outside of collected works editions. "But much of their work is available free online in Gutenberg and elsewhere.
Lily wrote: "Certainly Nabokov introduces spoilers. He may also bias an interpretation or assessment of value. "Doesn't every good critic bias an interpretation or assessment of value?
Everyman wrote: "Doesn't every good critic bias an interpretation or assessment of value?"Well, not every critic is as voluble about his dislike of Jane Austen as Nabokov nor as enthusiastic about Tolstoy's AK.
Lily wrote: "Well, not every critic is as voluble about his dislike of Jane Austen as Nabokov nor as enthusiastic about Tolstoy's AK. "True. But if you want enthusiasm to the nth degree, try Bloom on Shakespeare.
Hard to read? Try the Simarillion (not even sure I spelled it right) by JRR Tolkien. I absolutely love the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but I imagine one would need to be a true student of Tolkien to get through this one.
The original list from Publisher's Weekly is incorrect, I think, in not distinguishing philosophy and fiction. Works of philosophy are expected to be hard by essence - they try to enlarge human thinking. If you find such a book easy or self-evident, don't read this "philosopher" again. On the contrary, if the thinker is hard or totally obscure, reflect - and then read him again. And again.It's the opposite with fiction. Fiction should be immensely readable, otherwise you should not read it. Some authors takes more of an effort than others, but all should be an intense joy to read. If you still find him "hard" after 2-3 chapters, choose another. That's true even if he is amongst the "classics".
And then we have poetry. Hum? Poetry is somewhere in-between..
Bjarne wrote: "It's the opposite with fiction. Fiction should be immensely readable, otherwise you should not read it. Some authors takes more of an effort than others, but all should be an intense joy to read. If you still find him "hard" after 2-3 chapters, choose another. "I'm not sure I can totally agree with this. Some fiction is not immensely readable, but it is still very much worth the effort. Great fiction is often trying to do very much what you say philosophy is trying to do -- to "enlarge human thinking." War and Peace is one such book -- it intends to enlarge human thinking about war, why and how people go to war, how people should and do interact, and other human values. It is not, for many readers, as immensely readable as, say, Nancy Drew, but that doesn't mean readers should abandon it in favor of The Secret of the Old Clock.
Another work is Middlemarch. Again, not immensely readable, but renders aspects of philosophy more accessibly than many philosophical works.
Great fiction, IMO, should be challenging. It would make us think. It should not be afraid to make us work a bit to enlarge our view of the world and our understanding of human nature (and with that, of our own minds).
I think Bjarne and Everyman both make great points that are more compatible with each other than they think.It would help to break down "readability" into its component meanings. How easily is it understood by the reader and how is it valued by the reader. How well a book is understood is based on the readers own experiences and their skill at reading. Value can further be broken down into how enjoyable it is, (which is not necessarily how happy it makes the reader) and how rewarding it is to the reader by what the story means to them at the time.
Therefore there are more factors at work here than just "readability". The effort of reading and understanding imaginative literature is a balanced by how rewarding it is to have read it and appreciate the experiences it shares which translates into how much it is enjoyed. If the book is too difficult to understand it will become tedious and boring and it will not be rewarding or enjoyable. Conversely, if the rewards and the enjoyment manifest themselves, the perceived difficulty may be reduced or at least the motivation to carry on is increased. Furthermore, this balancing act is influenced by the circumstances and the state of mind the reader is in.
To a reader marooned on a desert island with only a single book in a foreign language and a dictionary to translate it with reading that book might yield a much higher reward and have greater value than that same book to the same reader under more normal circumstances. A difficult book that must be read for a class may hold less value at the time than the same book to the same reader at a later time choosing to read it voluntarily without an imposed time restriction. More obviously, even among great works, a romantic novel may have more or less appeal to certain readers than an epic war story. Of course lets not forget one is more likely to put in the effort to read a difficult book if they agree with what the author is attempting to convey. This is nothing more than the subjective nature of art.
Bjarne is right, 2-3 chapters into a book "should" be enough to decide if the reward of reading a book is worth the effort or not at the time. Indeed, if done carefully the publisher's description and scanning the chapter titles and a a few random sections are enough in most cases to decide if a book is worthwhile to read or not. Some books may be a bit too far above a reader's skill level. Those books are OK to put down and return to after some time, maybe a few years. But Everyman is also right to suggest 2-3 chapters of some works, especially the great works, may not be enough to acquire enough understanding of them to overcome any ill perceptions of it that only a more thorough reading will do.
I will also add this. Reading great books that are a little above your reading level are the books that should be sought after and read. These books are generally more rewarding because the extra effort one must put into them will increase one's understanding more than books that, while they may still be enjoyable, are not as challenging and require less resulting in little or no gain in understanding.
David wrote: "Reading great books that are a little above your reading level are the books that should be sought after and read. These books are generally more rewarding because the extra effort one must put into them will increase one's understanding more than books that, while they may still be enjoyable, are not as challenging and require less resulting in little or no gain in understanding."
This is a wonderful observation. I'm new here, so I'll be brief. I've noticed what I'll call "an issue" with some people who read above their level, but do not recognize it, project what they expect to see into the text, and come out the other end having learned little. I think it might be a wonderful thing to have someone as a mentor as you embark on a career of reading above your head, which I think is an admirable goal, and one which I will keep before me. But I do find myself wondering when confronted with some book reviews written on the general Goodreads site, and I don't want to sound critical, but I wonder where humility in the face of genius has disappeared to? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think thirst and personal intellectual modesty contribute so much toward truly engendering even a nascent understanding of some of the great, the hard, books. Is this post lacking in positivity? If so, I am positively apologetic, but wonder what others think.
This is a wonderful observation. I'm new here, so I'll be brief. I've noticed what I'll call "an issue" with some people who read above their level, but do not recognize it, project what they expect to see into the text, and come out the other end having learned little. I think it might be a wonderful thing to have someone as a mentor as you embark on a career of reading above your head, which I think is an admirable goal, and one which I will keep before me. But I do find myself wondering when confronted with some book reviews written on the general Goodreads site, and I don't want to sound critical, but I wonder where humility in the face of genius has disappeared to? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think thirst and personal intellectual modesty contribute so much toward truly engendering even a nascent understanding of some of the great, the hard, books. Is this post lacking in positivity? If so, I am positively apologetic, but wonder what others think.
Ellen wrote: "I do find myself wondering when confronted with some book reviews written on the general Goodreads site, and I don't want to sound critical, but I wonder where humility in the face of genius has disappeared to?"Those reviews don't reflect on the genius, but on the stupidity of the reviewer. (It is quite likely that my own reviews give others the same impression).
To be fair, I think it takes at least a bit of genius to recognize genius. Sometimes we're just too stupid to realize that we *are* reading above our heads. A mentor would be helpful, but how would you recognize a "mentor", i.e., someone who is intellectually superior, if we can't recognize genius?
I think it's an incremental thing. You start somewhere, a book off the library shelf or a recommendation from someone you like, you read more and develop your reading skills and begin to acquire some ideas on why you like this or that, you read more and your ideas get refined into a more systematic criticism which guides your future judgments... etc.If so, then the keys to the process are a curiosity that drives reading beyond "another one like that" and an openness to other people's judgments. Peoples' reading backgrounds are just not diverse enough -- not only in literature but history, philosophy, art, science... So that these pronouncements from reviewers are based on a very thin layer of knowledge.
But also, so many of the reviewers we're talking about are working from a deep prejudice toward other sources of opinion -- scholarship especially, critical theory, the great critics of the past, the changing reputations of books and authors...
When was the last time you read a review that said something like "Ruskin thought that" or "This novel belongs in the grand tradition of"
I would never attempt to judge the worth of a legal opinion or a surgical practice or the code in my computer software (except of course [expletive deleted]). Why do people think they can make off-the-shelf judgments about literature? Is there some contempt at work here?
Half a century ago French philosophers, observing the way in which we construct the world around us, suggested that the critic was more important than the author in the scheme of things. We've backed away from that a bit, but it's true that work of literary genius needs a bit of pointing out and explication, in the way that Apollinaire acted to make the general public understand cubism. Criticism and book reviewing are important and respectable professions which a system of "how many stars" "I like it/I don't like it" denigrates.
Oh, while there are some real pills out there (where's evolution when you need it?), I think a great many people are simply uneducated, or under-educated. Plus, we're all just dripping with self-importance, it's part of the culture. I think one leads to another; sensing oneself to be uneducated can cause a lot of blusteration, not to mention blathermongering, in terms of impressing others with one's knowledge. (I thought I'd use those two immense words so you'd sense I was well-credentialed.) I don't mind someone being uneducated; I think it's a shame we don't recognize it in ourselves. It's nothing to despise, certainly.
Everyman wrote: Another work is Middlemarch. Again, not immensely readable, but renders aspects of philosophy more accessibly than many philosophical works. Great fiction, IMO, should be challenging. It would make us think. It should not be afraid to make us work a bit to enlarge our view of the world and our understanding of human nature (and with that, of our own minds).
Middlemarch sits on my bookshelf, thick and forboding, and so far I haven't the nerve to start reading it because I am one of those readers who simply must finish what I start. Seriously that book is thicker than War and Peace.
Ellen wrote: "Oh, while there are some real pills out there (where's evolution when you need it?), I think a great many people are simply uneducated, or under-educated."Borrow a copy of the McGuffy readers from your library or a friend and see what grammar school age children were expected to master two centuries ago (on top, of course, of reading Cicero, Homer, et. al. in the original languages).
Or, check out this exam for 8th graders in 1912 -- just over 100 years ago. How many of today's 8th graders could come close to passing this test? Heck, how many adults could?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-n...
Joyce wrote: "Middlemarch sits on my bookshelf, thick and forboding, and so far I haven't the nerve to start reading it because I am one of those readers who simply must finish what I start. Seriously that book is thicker than War and Peace. "I think that's a matter of editions, not amount of text. Middlemarch is not as long as W&P, and it has a lot fewer characters to keep track of, so that more characters get detailed treatments than in W&P.
Not that I don't think W&P is a great novel -- we had a great discussion of it here a year ago, led by Laurel. (We also had a great discussion of Middlemarch, back in 2010.) Both those discussion, of course, are still available here, so if you decide to tackle Middlemarch you might have fun reading the discussion on each section of the book as you get to it.
Ellen wrote: "This is a wonderful observation"If you think so, you might like the book I was paraphrasing from.
Mortimer J. Adler; Van Doren, Charles. How to Read a Book
It is a fascinatingly thorough (excruciatingly thorough to some) practical book on how to read, what to read, and why. There is even a section on the only explanation you will ever need on how to speed read and why it might not be such a good idea. I find the content an amazing model of in-depth methodical analysis and practical advice on the art of reading. He mostly focuses on reading expository books but much of his advice transfers to other types of reading which are also given their own treatment.
To answer the rest of your post, there is no accounting for taste.
David wrote: "Ellen wrote: "This is a wonderful observation"
If you think so, you might like the book I was paraphrasing from.
Mo..."
If you think so, you might like the book I was paraphrasing from.
Mo..."
Thank you, David. I love reading posts that contain excerpts as yours did because I know in my heart of hearts that without enough time in the day to read what I have laid out before me, I might as well admit I will never read "How to Read A Book." Any snippets you share are wonderful. Maybe when I retire....
Everyman, I agree education has changed. My grandfather, born 1897, only went through the 4th grade, and his lifelong passion for reading gave him the gifts of Melville and Balzac and Dumas and Kipling, and he passed them on to me. I went through the 12th grade. But I do believe there is a difference between the scope of an education and putting children in an environment that either never ignites, or extinguishes, all intellectual curiosity and the ability or desire to learn independently. I said on another site that I felt that in the current educational environment, the best thing we could teach a child was how to be an autodidact.
I appreciate that education used to be broader; I had a few McGuffy's as a child, although I was never taught from them, and also diagrammed sentences that looked like NYC subway maps. I don't credit either of those things with an ongoing interest in literature and culture. I think it's something to do with the spirit of the child, something we're not nurturing, certainly in our public schools, any longer. I do appreciate your point, truly, but there's more, I think, there's more.
10 yard penalty, off-topic!
Everyman, I agree education has changed. My grandfather, born 1897, only went through the 4th grade, and his lifelong passion for reading gave him the gifts of Melville and Balzac and Dumas and Kipling, and he passed them on to me. I went through the 12th grade. But I do believe there is a difference between the scope of an education and putting children in an environment that either never ignites, or extinguishes, all intellectual curiosity and the ability or desire to learn independently. I said on another site that I felt that in the current educational environment, the best thing we could teach a child was how to be an autodidact.
I appreciate that education used to be broader; I had a few McGuffy's as a child, although I was never taught from them, and also diagrammed sentences that looked like NYC subway maps. I don't credit either of those things with an ongoing interest in literature and culture. I think it's something to do with the spirit of the child, something we're not nurturing, certainly in our public schools, any longer. I do appreciate your point, truly, but there's more, I think, there's more.
10 yard penalty, off-topic!
Charles wrote: "When was the last time you read a review that said something like "Ruskin thought that" or "This novel belongs in the grand tradition of"Pardon my ignorance, I've never even heard of Ruskin until now, let alone the grand tradition of literary criticism. But these discussions have piqued my curiosity. Could you provide some fine specimens of literary criticism? I'd like to see some essays/reviews (preferably on the classics) that have been considered "influential".
"I would never attempt to judge the worth of a legal opinion or a surgical practice or the code in my computer software (except of course [expletive deleted]). Why do people think they can make off-the-shelf judgments about literature? "
There seems to be an echo of Plato here. :)
Come to think of it, if people can make judgments of nature, e.g., the beauty of sunset, when can't they do the same with literature? Nature is just as complex as art, if not more so.
Nemo wrote: "Could you provide some fine specimens of literary criticism?"I'm not Charles, but I'll offer a few.
Henry James's essays on American, English, and European writers.
Virginia Woolf's First and Second Common Readers
Quiller-Couch Studies in Literature
Nabokov Lectures on Literature, Lecture on Russian Literature, and Lectures on Don Quixote
Hazlitt, Coleridge, Wilson Knight, Orwell, among many others had numerous essays of criticism, many very good, some excellent.
Enough for now -- I'm being called to dinner.
Nemo wrote: "...Could you provide some fine specimens of literary criticism? I'd like to see some essays/reviews (preferably on the classics) that have been considered "influential"...."Nemo -- the following has been suggested to me as a fundamental reference, in its first edition, rather than the third edition shown here.
Critical Theory Since Plato by Hazard Adams
I'm not ready to invest in a one, even used, and my library system does not have a copy. So until I can find a university library with one, I shall abstain.
Great Courses does offer a course led by Louis Markos. The following is from the entry in my library system:
"Summary: This is a study of the major critical writings since Plato, and it aims to gain an understanding of the different theoretical structures, schools, and methodologies that have influenced our understanding and appreciation of literature."
Thanks for the recommendations, Everyman and Lilly. I'm not looking for anthologies or encyclopedic references, not yet at least, I just want to see a few essays that exemplify literary criticism at its very best, preferably essays on a specific author and a specific classic.
There is, "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses" by Mark Twain. That is always fun.
I agree with Lily and Charles. Bravo to whoever cited John Ruskin. I second EM's nominations for Orwell and Nabokov (the latter's lectures at Columbia U, particularly).But I submit also that thinking about literary criticism in this way (e.g. 'searching out a few examples to size them up') is not bound to leave you satisfied. Criticism is less about the individual products it generates than it is about a type of reflectiveness --a sort of heightened-awareness towards literature, which you begin to absorb as you read more of it. Its a sensibility which builds --much like the discipline itself--very accretionally.
What you learn to do when you read lit-crit is watch how the author lays out his arguments. You identify what approach he is relying on...you look for whether or not his points are well-rounded. Does he address prior criticism fairly? How does he build up his own premises from that of his colleagues, is it really something new? In what way is he using the past as a springboard and is he doing it well?
The context of other literary studies can be paramount in finding/lacking pleasure in any one particular work of criticism. Think of the enjoyment of watching an archer fit his arrow to his bow and release it into the air--that singular instance brings to mind pleasant forms and concepts found throughout the sport of archery itself.
All this being stated--Nemo--you might try a few of these examples.
(1) HP Lovecraft's survey of gothic horror--its fun, easy to digest, free online and makes for enjoyable reading.
http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/t...
(2) DH Lawrence's reviews of American Literature,
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/LAW...
...chief gem among these being his opinions towards 'Moby Dick'
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/LAW...
(3) Edmund Wilson's Axel's Castle: A Study of the Imaginative Literature of 1870-1930. In this work Wilson describes the writing of TS Eliot, James Joyce, and some other heavyweights of the early 20th C. Wilson is not the type of critic as is say, a Northrop Frye--he is advancing no method--but he was an 'old-school' critic of longstanding renown and influence in 20th C. American letters (something which always makes me guffaw--Roger Ebert liked to cite him as a role-model). I simply like him for the quality of his writing; his insight; his familiarity with his material.
Some other suggestions (not purely literary criticism) and about which I have less 'feeling'; but which may catch the interest of a newcomer to criticism:
(4) Laura Mulvey's game-changing work of feminist film criticism: Visual And Other Pleasures.
(5) TS Eliot doing some analysis of his own: Tradition and the Individual Talent: An Essay
(6) One of the oldest and hoariest chestnuts of art criticism, Walter Pater's The Renaissance: Studies in Art and Poetry.
Whether or not any of these examples will 'convince you' of the merit in criticism; will perhaps depend on your own turn-of-mind. Good luck.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
A History of Western Philosophy (other topics)A History of Western Philosophy (other topics)
A History of Western Philosophy (other topics)
Visual And Other Pleasures (other topics)
Tradition and the Individual Talent: An Essay (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Hazard Adams (other topics)R.F. Christian (other topics)
I thought the list-maker's comments were quite good, by the way the alternates proposed were also interesting.
Maybe a list of hard books would be interesting, but what I'd really like to know is, if you think a book is 'hard' why do you think so?
There are ancillary questions, of course. If you pronounce a book hard do you put it down, struggle with it, or curse and throw it out the window? Perhaps you can think of more such questions. At any rate, I find this whole topic a hard one, and wanted to know what you thought.