Great Books by Authors Who Aren't Dead Yet, I think, should catch some attention. It's written by a professor of mine here at BYU-I--he teaches my American Literature class. And don't worry, he's not so egotistical as to tell me about it himself, I actually found out from a friend who is in another class of his. Apparently, he has a competition going between him and his students in that class (individually) to get the most followers. I told him I had found out about his blog, but I had promised my friend not to officially follow his blog until after the semester since he is already winning the race.
So, not all good books were written by dead authors? Fascinating! Who knew!
I was recently in a debate with my boss, who has a number of degrees, one of which is a doctorate in classics - which means he studied lots of Latin, Greek, old literature, and ancient politics and humanities. I told him I had tortuously forced my way through The Iliad but thought it was one of the most boring books I have ever read, and aside from that, poorly written. He was astonished at my feelings.
"How could you possibly think that?! The Iliad is a masterpiece!"
"The Iliad is pointless. But if you insist on liking it, I wont hold it against you."
After a little of this back and forth, we finally broke into formal debate. He argued that The Iliad had proven itself over millennia, which is evident in the literal plethora of readers who have "enjoyed" it over that time.
I gave him the "Are you kidding me?" face and asked, "So, because a lot of people - most of whom are dead - love it, it's great writing?"
"Well, you can't argue with them, can you?"
"Yeah, I can. A, they're dead. B, they have been told to like it and for centuries the teacher was always right. C, who says half those people even know what "good" writing is, if, indeed, it is definable?" (I believe it is definable, but I tend to avoid the argument because it is nearly impossible to prove due to the varying values people hold.)
Eventually he did acknowledge that basing the quality of a book on its age or by the number of people who have read it was inaccurate and unfair, but he stuck to his opinion that the book was phenomenal.
I'm not saying if you like The Iliad you obviously have no sense of what good literature is, I'm only saying that we can't allow ourselves to be wrapped up in the world of classics when there is great literature being written right under our noses! Let's broaden our horizons!
7 comments:
I totally agree. I thought the Iliad was a bore. Just because it is an ancient epic that has come through the ages doesn't make it quality. It just makes it old. If you had to pick three favorite classics what would they be?
my sister, the only person i know who insists she can actually argue with dead people. but what do you mean by "bad" writing? poor grammar? too repetative? i think people tend to look to classics as great because they set a standard for the rest of us, but because we insist on setting them up as the standards does that in itself make something (or someone) truely great? is the definition of good that everyone has read it and liked it? just because everyone at one time believed the world was flat didn't make it not round. all i'm saying is that for a man with a lot of degrees your boss used some pretty weak arguements to make his point. at the same time, i wouldn't discount a book as bad just because you found it boring. i'm now going to check out that blog!
I agree, Bob. You make a very good point. However, I think that at least one necessary qualifier is the book should teach me something--anything. Whether it's morally important, or just gives me a little look into what the people were like at the time, etc. The Iliad is so exaggerated--and this is true because anyone that studies Greek and Roman literature will tell you that part of their art was to exaggerate (you know the gods, etc.)--that I don't have any view as to what the warriors of the Trojan War were really like at all. The only moral I can think of is "If you have the chance, brutally murder your enemy," which, surprisingly, I disagree with. I can't think of anything else it teaches me...it may be because the book is so boring I'm distracted from whatever lesson is within it, which also makes it horrible writing. In fact, even worse.
Ave, I'll have to think on that one.
I read the "Iliad" as a freshman in high school and was transfixed by the words, "...child of the morning, rosy fingered dawn...".
I thought it was one of the most beautifully descriptive phrases I had ever heard and loved the work for that.
I don't think I got through the whole Iliad, so it must not have interested me much. The Iliad is a classic for historical reasons. It is earliest known work of literature in the Greek language.
My definition of a classic is that it must have timeless appeal, transcending the time, place, and culture it was written in to say something true and real about the human condition.
I like that, Calandria. I think that's the main point of what I was trying to say, only much more eloquently put.
Post a Comment