Classic vs Contemporary

[Colette Jones]

...For the most part, as you will notice if you browse my post to the "50 Favorite Books" thread, the books I read are "classics." This is because, from my experience, the writers of the past have a deeper understanding of human nature than the authors of today. I have yet to find writer on a par with Balzac, Dostoevsky, Dickens, or Henry James among contemporary writers.
Ooh, this sounds like a challenge. I believe I must be your polar opposite as I find the classics a mixed bag. Let's take Dickens for example - I've only read a few but I find them a bit of fun rather than thought provoking. I've had fun trying to figure out The Turn of the Screw and would rate Henry James much higher in intrigue than Charles Dickens, but I wouldn't say that he had a deeper understanding of human nature than, say, Richard Yates.

And don't get me started on Wuthering Heights. (luckily you didn't mention Emily Bronte). :)

Edit (after reading the rest of the thread): I don't recall the first 75 pages of Focault's Pendulum being the difficult ones. I think I got into difficulty somewhere in the middle but ploughed through.

[titania7]

Ooh, this sounds like a challenge. I believe I must be your polar opposite as I find the classics a mixed bag. Let's take Dickens for example - I've only read a few but I find them a bit of fun rather than thought provoking.

Yes, some of Dickens' novels are quite fun! However, there was certainly nothing "entertaining", in my opinion, about A Tale of Two Cities or Bleak House. For me, both of these novels were quite thought-provoking
and neither offered me any good laughs.

Bleak House, for example, is partially narrated by a young woman who is illegitimate, and who, over the course of the novel, becomes badly disfigured by a disease. Surely you couldn't find this amusing? I know I didn't. Then, her mother, who has been blackmailed by a nefarious man who will stop at nothing, runs away and is found dead in a graveyard. Entertainment? I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

I assume we're talking about the same Charles Dickens, but I daresay we are not talking about the same books.


I've had fun trying to figure out The Turn of the Screw and would rate Henry James much higher in intrigue than Charles Dickens, but I wouldn't say that he had a deeper understanding of human nature than, say, Richard Yates.

Henry James is a master of psychological realism. I've never heard Richard Yates referred to as that. However, to make any judgements based merely on The Turn of the Screw would be remiss indeed. Have you read any of James' major novels: The Ambassadors, Wings of the Dove, The Golden Bowl, or The Portrait of the Lady? I haven't read Yates, but I find it impossible to imagine that he could have penned a novel on the same level with one of these books by James.

If you really want to debate this issue, that's fine--but please, read one of the novels I list above. Otherwise I simply can't have a meaningful discussion with you in this regard. To base an opinion on something as comparatively insignificant as The Taming of the Shrew simply isn't fair. Also, Washington Square (which I believe was on your list of 2008 reads) is what I would call B-rate James, at best (i.e., good enough, but nothing exceptional).

I don't mean to be harsh or take umbrage unnecessarily, but I do feel that comparisons should be fair above all else. Since you mention Yates, I assume you've read one of his MAJOR novels. To not give James that same benefit seems very unjust.

As for Dickens, unless you have a very twisted sense of humor, I just cannot imagine your finding Bleak House or A Tale of Two Cities funny. And yes, I do consider a novel in which one man sacrifices his life to save another (as in A Tale of Two Cities) thought-provoking.


And don't get me started on Wuthering Heights. (luckily you didn't mention Emily Bronte). :)

I only named a few people because I was merely trying to find examples. When I first read Wuthering Heights, I found it confusing. Later, I understood what Emily Bronte was trying to say. The narrative structure can be frustrating, and the novel is not pleasant to read. But I do think Emily conveys something about human nature that is interesting--and that is how closely aligned hate and love can be, and how easily pride can destroy us.

Stewart has recommended Yates to me, and I'm sure Revolutionary Road is a great book. But I don't think I'll be putting Yates in the same category with the classic novelists I mentioned any time soon. Just out of curiosity--in what way has one of Yates' novels changed your life, Colette? I haven't read any of his books....so maybe I really am missing out on something. I know that many books that are technically "classics" have changed my life, including Tolstoy's Resurrection and Dostoevsky's The Possessed and The Brothers Karamazov, Edith Wharton's The House of Mirth, James' The Wings of the Dove, as well as Mann's Doctor Faustus.

I'm perfectly prepared to accept that we simply have different vantage points in regard to books. But the Richard Yates argument puzzles me. If, for example, you had said that Salman Rushdie or Saramago was as thought-provoking as Dickens and Balzac, I'd have been more easily persuaded. But Yates? From the descriptions of his novels, I see nothing psychologically penetrating about them. He's compared to J. D. Salinger and John Cheever, both of whom, I must say, are hardly known for their depth of characterization or their treatment of thought-provoking issues. Rather, it seems Yates is a different sort of writer entirely. And maybe that's just the point--he appeals to you whereas these other authors don't. He is hailed as a "chronicler of 20th century mainstream American life," as opposed to James whose finest novels have been called "brilliantly
subtle and penetrating character studies."

The fact you appreciate Yates is not something I have trouble with as I believe that each person is entitled to have his or her own favorites where authors and books are concerned. However, when you start calling Dickens and James "a lot of fun," I must protest as that's not an accurate assessment of their writing.


All the best for 2009,
Titania

[Colette Jones]

Whoa, Titania, I was not trying to start a fight! I am certainly not well-read in the classics but I was just trying to say that, compared to those classics I have tried, I prefer more recent writing. I have not read Bleak House and I agree it does not sound funny. I was referring to Great Expectations as a bit of fun, but was not intending to make commentary on all Dickens' books!

My post was meant to be fun - in that you prefer classics to more recent authors and I am the opposite. I thought we might find books to offer each other to show what we like and why. I am only giving my opinion - I don't really mind what other people prefer and would not try to convince anyone that what I prefer is better.

A Side Note: "A bit of fun" does not mean funny to me. I didn't find Great Expectations funny.

[titania7]

Whoa, Titania, I was not trying to start a fight!

Colette,
Forgive me if I overreacted. Strangely enough, I've been called upon to defend my views about various things quite a bit lately. Thus, I may be a wee bit sensitive in this regard. I appreciate the fact that you don't want to start any sort of quarrel--neither do I.


I am certainly not well-read in the classics

....just as I am not very well-read when it comes to contemporary fiction. I've told Stewart about my lack of familiarity with "modern" authors on more than one occasion. If you take a look at my 50 Favorite Books, you'll see that most of the books on my list are what would be called "classics."
Henry James, Charles Dickens, George Eliot, Honore De Balzac, Victor Hugo, Guy De Maupassant, Thomas Mann, Gustave Flaubert, Marie-Henri Beyle Stendhal, Emile Zola, Diderot--all of these authors are close to my heart. To have never read their books would have deprived me of great joy and happiness. These are the writers I grew up reading, and I'm passionate about them.

If my passion comes across as vehemence, I apologize. I simply feel that
a person must read the best books by these writers before they can form any viable opinions about them. Quite honestly, I cannot give you an accurate judgment when it comes to Richard Yates. And this isn't my fault. I've been on a waiting list for Revolutionary Road (from the library) for over two months. I hope I'll enjoy him as much as you did, Colette. I am quite impressed by Andrei Makine, for example, and he's a recent writer.


but I was just trying to say that, compared to those classics I have tried, I prefer more recent writing.

In all likelihood, you and I are somewhat similar. I've concluded that I prefer classic literature because that's what I've read the most of, and you've concluded that you prefer contemporary fiction because that's what you're most familiar with. We both need to broaden our horizons, don't we? ;) Do take a look at some of the "classics" on my 50 Favorites, by the way. I suspect you'll find a few there that will (possibly) change your opinion about "classic" literature.


I have not read Bleak House and I agree it does not sound funny.

It's an incredibly tragic book. Indeed, it would be impossible not to be affected by it for weeks after finishing it. It's also interesting to note
that there's a very harrowing aspect of Dickens' novel, Nicholas Nickelby. In this novel, Dickens depicts the tortuous lives of boys who are sent off to boarding school. Of course you think it must be exaggerated when you read it. However, one of my friends who lives in England tells me that she's actually visited graveyards where there are lines of tombstones commemorating the lives of all the young boys who died in boarding schools like the ones depicted in Nicholas Nickelby.

On a James-related note, the character of Milly Theale in The Wings of the Dove was based on a young heiress that James met. In the book, she is dying of cancer (the disease is only hinted at). I don't know whether or not the psychopathic Kate Croy, who pursues Milly for her inheritance,
was inspired by an actual person or not. In all probability, she was. But as you can see, the plot of this book, which I'm only hinting at, is psychologically brutal. You might have trouble believing that this is the same James who wrote The Turn of the Screw. But the James who wrote
The Wings of the Dove is the one I speak of when I talk about his "deep understanding of human nature." I cannot even think of a writer who has painted a more subtle, more believable portrait of a psychopath than James did with Kate Croy. The amazing thing is (and this could only happen with James), the reader can't help but empathize with her.
Intricate fiction indeed.


I was referring to Great Expectations as a bit of fun, but was not intending to make commentary on all Dickens' books!

Fair enough ;).


My post was meant to be fun - in that you prefer classics to more recent authors and I am the opposite. I thought we might find books to offer each other to show what we like and why. I am only giving my opinion - I don't really mind what other people prefer and would not try to convince anyone that what I prefer is better.

Colette, I'm fully cognizant of the fact that I took your post too seriously.
I'm like a tigress defending her cub when it comes to my favorite authors and books! But I would certainly love the idea of us finding books to recommend to each other. That would be absolutely delightful! I, too, believe that there's room for everyone's taste where literature is concerned. No two people are alike. And there's no "right" or "wrong" type of literature to read or to enjoy. I recently had an interesting debate with a friend about "good" and "bad" literature, and we decided that both
terms are pre-defined...and should probably be banished! The only thing is, we couldn't think up any terms to replace "good" and "bad." Thus, we're stuck with them--at least for the moment ;).


A Side Note: "A bit of fun" does not mean funny to me. I didn't find Great Expectations funny.

I didn't, either. It's actually a very sad book, even though there's a lot of humor in it. Dickens is quite good at combining pathos and wit. Even in Bleak House, there are at least a few moments that are....well, not utterly bleak!

Colette, thanks for your considerate response to my overly zealous post.
I'm a passionate and feisty lass, and I sometimes let my fervor get the best of me ;).

Warmest regards,
Titania

[Colette Jones]

Colette,
Forgive me if I overreacted. Strangely enough, I've been called upon to defend my views about various things quite a bit lately. Thus, I may be a wee bit sensitive in this regard. I appreciate the fact that you don't want to start any sort of quarrel--neither do I.
I've had to steadfastly defend my views on something very important over the last year, so I sympathise! It is now over, thank goodness. (Famous last words).

I simply feel that
a person must read the best books by these writers before they can form any viable opinions about them. Quite honestly, I cannot give you an accurate judgment when it comes to Richard Yates. And this isn't my fault. I've been on a waiting list for Revolutionary Road (from the library) for over two months. I hope I'll enjoy him as much as you did, Colette. I am quite impressed by Andrei Makine, for example, and he's a recent writer.

I've only read two of Yates' books (Revolutionary Road and The Easter Parade). The difference between him and Dickens where I am concerned (and I speak for me alone) is I am left wanting to read Yates' entire catalog whereas I'm not sure I'll pick up another Dickens.


On a James-related note, the character of Milly Theale in The Wings of the Dove was based on a young heiress that James met. In the book, she is dying of cancer (the disease is only hinted at). I don't know whether or not the psychopathic Kate Croy, who pursues Milly for her inheritance,
was inspired by an actual person or not. In all probability, she was. But as you can see, the plot of this book, which I'm only hinting at, is psychologically brutal. You might have trouble believing that this is the same James who wrote The Turn of the Screw. But the James who wrote
The Wings of the Dove is the one I speak of when I talk about his "deep understanding of human nature." I cannot even think of a writer who has painted a more subtle, more believable portrait of a psychopath than James did with Kate Croy. The amazing thing is (and this could only happen with James), the reader can't help but empathize with her.
Intricate fiction indeed.
You've sold me on this one - it sounds fantastic. I am intrigued by Henry James, not just his fiction, but his life, and that of his brother William.

Although I am not tempted to read another Dickens, I'm quite tempted with James as you can see, and others we corresponded about such as Zola and Thomas Mann. I like books which leave me wanting to read another of the author's books and that just didn't happen with Great Expectations.

I wonder if Stewart would like to move these posts to a new thread - "Personal taste - Classics v Contemporary" or something like that (although I don't want it to sound like a contest - both are good).

[Stewart]

I wonder if Stewart would like to move these posts to a new thread - "Personal taste - Classics v Contemporary" or something like that (although I don't want it to sound like a contest - both are good).

Consider it done, since it is.

[Colette Jones]

Consider it done, since it is.
Thanks Stewart.

I have always wondered who decides what and when something becomes "classic". Is it based on number of years in print, or possibly number of years since publication? Is Graham Greene a writer of classics, for example?

[titania7]

I've had to steadfastly defend my views on something very important over the last year, so I sympathise! It is now over, thank goodness. (Famous last words).

The important thing, of course, it so remain steadfast ;). Sounds like you did it, Colette!


I've only read two of Yates' books (Revolutionary Road and The Easter Parade). The difference between him and Dickens where I am concerned (and I speak for me alone) is I am left wanting to read Yates' entire catalog whereas I'm not sure I'll pick up another Dickens.


There's nothing quite like that feeling you have when you know you want to read everything a writer has written. I know what this is like--I've felt it too many times to count! Dostoevsky, Balzac, Marai, Thomas Hardy, D. H. Lawrence, Henry James....those are just a few authors whose entire oeuvres of work I want to read.


You've sold me on this one (The Wings of the Dove)- it sounds fantastic. I am intrigued by Henry James, not just his fiction, but his life, and that of his brother William.

Yes, I love William James, too! In fact, I highly recommend his writing. When I was in theatre I read him nearly every night. It was a way to keep my sanity ;). As for Henry, many of his shorter works are excellent, but his novels are where he shows his genius. Of his short stories, I do recommend the one called "The Beast in the Jungle." It's been known to change a few peoples' lives. Although I won't discourage you from reading ANY of his books, The Wings of the Dove and The Portrait of a Lady are great places to begin.


Although I am not tempted to read another Dickens, I'm quite tempted with James as you can see, and others we corresponded about such as Zola and Thomas Mann.

Oh, there are so many "classic" authors whom I suspect you would enjoy! Knowing a bit about your taste, I would heartily recommend Flaubert, Maupassant, Stendhal, and Zola....and possibly even Dumas and Victor Hugo. Even if you don't like Dickens, I still think you would enjoy Thomas Hardy. He's a bit of an obsession for me. And D. H. Lawrence--wow, have you ever read him, Colette? I remember when I first read Women in Love--there were actually moments when I couldn't believe I was reading a writer who could write that beautifully and that powerfully.

The Russian authors are another area to explore. Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Turgenev cannot be overlooked. I've long been aware of the fact that I need to learn about more contemporary Russian authors, too. So, maybe we can learn about those together, Colette! Eric has told me about Rybakov, and I'm already devoted to Solzhenitsyn. I know there must be many others. I have enjoyed the short stories of Tatyana Tolstoya.


I like books which leave me wanting to read another of the author's books and that just didn't happen with Great Expectations.

It's all about personal preferences, Colette. Dickens simply isn't your "cup of tea," obviously. The important thing is that you haven't "written off" classic literature because of him. And that's what I'm delighted about!


I wonder if Stewart would like to move these posts to a new thread - "Personal taste - Classics v Contemporary" or something like that (although I don't want it to sound like a contest - both are good).

I must extend my thanks to Stewart in this regard. You certainly are on top of things!

~Titania

[Sevigne]

Who decides what and when something becomes a Classic? Why the readers of course! They just keep on buying a certain book or a certain author and, as a child becomes an adult, a book moves from the Latest Thing to a Classic.



Thanks Stewart.

I have always wondered who decides what and when something becomes "classic". Is it based on number of years in print, or possibly number of years since publication? Is Graham Greene a writer of classics, for example?

[Sevigne]

I much prefer the Classics finding them to be more satisfactory on the whole. But I think that a reader's diet should include both contemporary and classics as a well rounded diner has both sweet and savory on his plate during a meal.

[Colette Jones]

Who decides what and when something becomes a Classic? Why the readers of course! They just keep on buying a certain book or a certain author and, as a child becomes an adult, a book moves from the Latest Thing to a Classic.
So is a book defined a classic by still being in print after so many years, or ? (I really don't know, sorry if it's a silly question).

[nnyhav]

Let's take Dickens for example - I've only read a few but I find them a bit of fun rather than thought provoking.
Whew, for a moment I thought you meant Eric's posts :p

I'm with Sevigne on this one, time filters out a lot of fluff. I'd add that literature talks to itself, and often depends on what's already been said, so to fully appreciate the new requires a familiarity with the old, and not only for allusion or context but even for form (how can one tell what rules are being fiddled with if one doesn't know the rules?). But as CJ says, it also depends on what one means by 'classic', as in academical circles what comprises the canon, and what of the new should displace what of the old, has been an ongoing source of controversy. How ongoing? cf Swift's The Battle of the Books ...

[Irene Wilde]

Hmmm....this is an interesting discussion! Titania, what's the cut-off line between "contemporary" and "classic" for you? To me, some works become "instant classics." Is there a date line? Does "contemporary" mean the writer is still walking among us?

If you are instantly turned off because the ladies aren't wandering about in bustles and petticoats, you are missing some great literature. ;) <-- this means I'm joking with you, not trying to get that famous dander of yours up. :)

I would put "Against the Day" side by side with anything other great work and that came out just a year, maybe two years, ago. And "Pale Fire" -- written in the post-atomic age, is certainly a classic.

[SilverSeason]

I'm with Sevigne on this one, time filters out a lot of fluff. I'd add that literature talks to itself, and often depends on what's already been said, so to fully appreciate the new requires a familiarity with the old, and not only for allusion or context but even for form (how can one tell what rules are being fiddled with if one doesn't know the rules?). But as CJ says, it also depends on what one means by 'classic', as in academical circles what comprises the canon, and what of the new should displace what of the old, has been an ongoing source of controversy.

I don't see the classic vs contemporary as an opposition. Time does filter out a lot of fluff. So something does not become classic by staying in print, it stays in print because readers continue to find reading it rewarding.

Of contemporary authors I have enjoyed -- Murakami, Rushdie, Naipaul, among others -- some will be recognized as classics as the years go by and others will drop away. To some extent, it is beyond their and our control, since future events both social and literary will influence what future readers find relevant.

I also recognize a second tier of recent or contemporary writers whose work I enjoy but doubt they can become classics. Could I be wrong?:confused: Examples: Delillo, Allegra Goodman, Alison Lurie, Wallace Stegner, A. S. Byatt. Who's for any of them?

[Sevigne]

I love A.S. Byatt. She is a contemporary but she is always looking over her shoulder at what went before in literature.

[titania7]

Hmmm....this is an interesting discussion! Titania, what's the cut-off line between "contemporary" and "classic" for you? To me, some works become "instant classics." Is there a date line? Does "contemporary" mean the writer is still walking among us?

I don't think a writer has to still be living to be called "contemporary." For example, I would definitely call Kurt Vonnegut contemporary, as well as Solzhenitsyn. At the same time, these two writers are also "classic." As you see, the line of demarcation between the two categories is slim, at best--and yet, it can be crossed.


If you are instantly turned off because the ladies aren't wandering about in bustles and petticoats, you are missing some great literature. ;)

Believe it or not, I get tired of the bustles and petticoats quite frequently! My favorite type of literature isn't Victorian--it's Russian. And the reason for this is because I feel that Russian novels are timeless. I'd almost always prefer to read a Russian writer over any other. I realize a lot of them, such as Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, wrote in the time period when bustles and petticoats would have been the dress du jour, but when you get to writers like Solzhenitsyn, you're talking about something quite different. Even Maxim Gorky, when you think of his novel, Mother (what a masterpiece), and his play, The Lower Depths, was bridging the gap between "costume" fiction and modern fiction/drama.


<-- this means I'm joking with you, not trying to get that famous dander of yours up. :)

You're playing with fire, girl! You ought to know better than to joke around with a tigress! ;)


I would put "Against the Day" side by side with anything other great work and that came out just a year, maybe two years, ago. And "Pale Fire" -- written in the post-atomic age, is certainly a classic.

I've never read any Pynchon, but I will say that Pale Fire is certainly a classic. Goodness, it was written by Nabokov, wasn't it? We're talking about the same author who wrote the sizzling Lolita. If Nabokov doesn't fit into the "classic" writer category, I think we oughtta start examining what we really do mean by that word (i.e., classic).

More to come....;)

~Titania

PS Thanks for joining in, Irene.

[Sevigne]

As Ezra Pound said:

"Literature is news that stays news." The Classics reward reading wherever and whenever they are read.

I've never been out whaling. I'm terrified of the sea. But I did read Moby-Dick four times in five years until I got everything Melville had to say to us.

Of contemporary books, Cloud Atlas has left an aftertaste, an echo that I hear at least once a week.




So is a book defined a classic by still being in print after so many years, or ? (I really don't know, sorry if it's a silly question).

[titania7]

I also recognize a second tier of recent or contemporary writers whose work I enjoy but doubt they can become classics. Could I be wrong?:confused: Examples: Delillo, Allegra Goodman, Alison Lurie, Wallace Stegner, A. S. Byatt. Who's for any of them?

I have the feeling Byatt is excellent, even though I've only read portions of Possession. Truman Capote, always a harsh critic, had great things to say about Alison Lurie. He said, in an interview with Lawrence Grobel (from the book, Conversations with Capote), "I think she (Lurie) is one of the five best young American writers."

Here's my personal opinion. I've read a collection of Lurie's stories, as well as her novel, Foreign Affairs. Although she has her moments, I don't think she's going to make a lasting impression on literary history. I am planning to read more of her work, however.

...Just my ten cents,

~Titania

[Beth]

''This could end in a hail of bullets,''...

Back to Bola?o!

[Beth]

Okay, just can't let this one go. When I first read Titania's comment,


This is because, from my experience, the writers of the past have a deeper understanding of human nature than the authors of today.
I had to read it again to make sure I was seeing straight. If this were the case, I submit that none of us would even be here, exploring new and old authors with equal interest and deriving enrichment from both. In fact, just the idea, Titania, that you would patronise and insult my friend Colette and suggest that she couldn't possibly be as enlightened by an author of her choosing as you are by authors of your choosing? Help us all! I appreciate your well read status. Colette is also staggeringly well read and incorporates wisdoms from this every day in her relationships with friends, family, and issues in her community. I know this for a fact.

Speaking of Richard Yates, I read Revolutionary Road two years ago and I believe that its brutal portrayal of a type of narcissism (think Yuppie couples nailed to a 't') will haunt you and ring true when you are able to get a copy. It's a brilliant work, as are The Easter Parade, and Collected Stories.

Thankfully this didn't turn into a blazing battle, thanks to both of your good graces and good sense, but I just had to pop up from the cow pasture and give a more fulsome expression to the ''Holy Shit!'' moment I felt.

[Colette Jones]

All I can say right now is that if Kurt Vonnegut is considered a writer of classics, I have been reading classics for a heck of a long time.

[titania7]

Okay, just can't let this one go. When I first read Titania's comment,

"This is because, from my experience, the writers from the past have a deeper understanding of human nature than the authors of today."



This is a case in which you should have let something go, Beth.

In the first place, I was interacting with Colette, not with you. Were you aware of this?

In the second place, Colette and I have resolved any misunderstandings we did have--unless, that is, she has private messaged you and told you differently.

In the third place, you must not have read my sentence above very carefully. Do the words IN MY EXPERIENCE mean anything to you? It would sound like I was speaking from my personal vantage point. I wasn't saying that EVERYONE felt the way I did. If that's what I had meant to say, I wouldn't have included those three lit'l old magic words: "In My Experience."


I had to read it again to make sure I was seeing straight.

It would seem you should have read it several more times--you still weren't seeing straight, Beth.


If this were the case, I submit that none of us would even be here, exploring new and old authors with equal interest and deriving enrichment from both.

Whoa! Slow down. Are you saying that my feelings regarding classic vs. contemporary authors have something to do with why YOU are here? In other words, if I prefer classic authors, are you telling me that I'm doing a disservice to the other forum members? Surely you're not trying to tell me that I'm not entitled to have my own opinion. I was speaking from personal experience--not your experience, or Colette's, or any other listmember's. Beth, you really are blowing this way out of proportion and taking umbrage at something that was never addressed to you. I'm really confused. What gives?


In fact, just the idea, Titania, that you would patronise and insult my friend Colette and suggest that she couldn't possibly be as enlightened by an author of her choosing as you are by authors of your choosing? Help us all!

Oh goodness. Here we go again. Where did you get the idea I was patronizing and insulting Colette? I wouldn't purposely patronize or insult Colette or anyone else at this forum. That's just not my personality, though I really shouldn't have to tell you this since we've had some contact outside of the forum.

As for Colette, if she feels that I was in some way saying I was superior to her because I've read more classic literature, then she has feelings of inadequacy that have nothing whatsoever to do with me. I merely asked her if she had read a significant work by Henry James, a writer who means a lot to me and whose work I've deeply devoted to. If asking someone a simple question is patronizing them, I wonder what the world is coming to.

And what puzzles me especially is this: why are you telling me what I did to Colette? Shouldn't she be saying this to me instead of you?

I think perhaps you need to be reading self-help books instead of literature because you are showing behavior that is simply not well-adjusted. It's not rational, Beth.


I appreciate your well read status.

I don't consider that I have some sort of "status" based on how much I've read or haven't read. I don't even like the word "status." It makes me think of status symbols.


Colette is also staggeringly well read

Hmmm...I don't know who to believe. Colette said on this list that she was certainly "not well-read in the classics." But now you're telling me that she's staggeringly well-read? I would generally assume that the word "staggeringly" in relation to the word well-read would be applied to a person who was well-read in EVERY area of literature.


...and incorporates wisdoms from this every day in her relationships with friends, family, and issues in her community. I know this for a fact.

Wisdom doesn't come from books, Beth. It comes from life experience. I can only assume that you spend time with Colette on a day-to-day basis if you could be so vehement about her incorporating wisdom into her everyday life.


Speaking of Richard Yates, I read Revolutionary Road two years ago and I believe that its brutal portrayal of a type of narcissism (think Yuppie couples nailed to a 't') will haunt you and ring true when you are able to get a copy. It's a brilliant work, as are The Easter Parade, and Collected Stories.

I never said Richard Yates wasn't a decent writer. But I'm sure I'm not in the minority when I say that he isn't in the same class with Henry James, Fyodor Dostoevsky, or Honore de Balzac.

And until you've read MAJOR works by these writers, it really isn't wise to speak with authority on the subject. How would you know whether or not recent writers were on a par with James, Dostoevsky, and Balzac unless you had read them all? I've tried books by many of the newer writers mentioned at this forum, and I haven't personally (PERSONALLY--please note that word) discovered anyone who has impressed me the way the "classic" writers have.

Am I supposed to merely conform to what you, Colette, and or any other listmember thinks I should like and tell you that I prefer writers like Coetzee? Or are my HONEST opinions welcome at this forum? I wonder if I were Mirabell or Eric whether or not you would've been so quick to pounce on me like a cat.

Those claws are sharp, Beth.


Thankfully this didn't turn into a blazing battle, thanks to both of your good graces and good sense, but I just had to pop up from the cow pasture and give a more fulsome expression to the ''Holy Shit!'' moment I felt.

My "good graces" only go so far. And as for "good sense," you haven't used much of that, Beth. Actually, you've insulted Colette by implying that she needs you to fight her battles for her (not that we were fighting a battle at this point, though who knows what your misguided interference may have caused?)

Rather than continue this ridiculous and childish skirmish on the list, I request that Colette message me privately if she wishes to tell me something. And in the future, Beth, it would probably save you a lot of frustration if you only responded to posts that are addressed to you.

Best,
Titania

[Colette Jones]

I love you both.

[nnyhav]

I've never read any Pynchon, but I will say that Pale Fire is certainly a classic. Goodness, it was written by Nabokov, wasn't it? We're talking about the same author who wrote the sizzling Lolita. If Nabokov doesn't fit into the "classic" writer category, I think we oughtta start examining what we really do mean by that word (i.e., classic).

Future Shock: from Playboy interview (http://lib.ru/NABOKOW/Inter03.txt):

Alvin Toffler: What do you want to accomplish or leave behind--or should this be of no concern to the writer?

Vladimir Nabokov: Well, in this matter of accomplishment, of course, I don't have a 35-year plan or program, but I have a fair inkling of my literary afterlife. I have sensed certain hints, I have felt the breeze of certain promises. No doubt there will be ups and downs, long periods of slump. With the Devil's connivance, I open a newspaper of 2063 and in some article on the books page I find: "Nobody reads Nabokov or Fulmerford today." Awful question: Who is this unfortunate Fulmerford?

[Beth]

Titania, I knew when I posted that it was jumping into a simmering subject. Still, your quizzing Colette about having her life changed was so raggedly inappropriate and insulting to me that I calculated the risk and felt it was worth the exposure. I do not have to consult with Colette to post to this thread. It?s open and I?m a member. I frankly thought it was too egregious an insult to be ignored. To be honest, there have been some other instances where I felt patronized by you. This morning, when you mentioned Russian writers as though I?d never heard of Goncharov or Gogol. And several weeks ago when, after discovering that we both enjoy Willa Cather, you proceeded to suggest to me works of hers that I read twenty years ago. It is easier for me to value your opinions and impressions when you express them succinctly and without extraneous comments that others, including myself, might find offensive. I admire your spirit and your love of literature, but you are not alone in that. No one of us has the market cornered on the perfect reading life. That?s why we?re here, to learn from one another and to mix it up. You were right to ask Colette?s forgiveness for your overreaction. And she has been more than kind in her replies to you. But you?re wrong, it wasn?t just an isolated spar between the two of you. If it?s on a public forum, it?s fair game for appraisal and comment. I have read quite a bit of Henry James, minor and major, and am able, in part thanks to him, to recognize subtly insulting behavior when I see it and read it.

[titania7]

Titania, I knew when I posted that it was jumping into a simmering subject. Still, your quizzing Colette about having her life changed was so raggedly inappropriate and insulting to me that I calculated the risk and felt it was worth the exposure.

Wait. How could my behavior to another person insult you? That doesn't make sense.

In answer to this remark about quizzing Colette, I asked her a simple question. Although you seem to want to attribute sinister motives to my behavior, I was actually just being inquisitive.



I do not have to consult with Colette to post to this thread. It’s open and I’m a member.

Perhaps you really should consult Colette before you post. She and I have already settled this matter, Beth. If you had taken the time to ask her about it, she would have let you know that.


I frankly thought it was too egregious an insult to be ignored.

First of all, it wasn't an insult. You perceived it as an insult. I've already said that I would never treat anyone in an insulting manner. And that's that. You can either believe me or not--it's your choice.


To be honest, there have been some other instances where I felt patronized by you.

Really?


This morning, when you mentioned Russian writers as though I’d never heard of Goncharov or Gogol.

Excuse me? In what way did I imply that you hadn't heard of Goncharov and Gogol? Are you suggesting because I said that Gogol wrote Dead Souls and that Goncharov wrote Oblomov that I'm in some way saying you haven't heard of either writer?
This is neurotic.


And several weeks ago when, after discovering that we both enjoy Willa Cather, you proceeded to suggest to me works of hers that I read twenty years ago.

I was suggesting other books you might enjoy by a writer you clearly loved. What's the problem? I don't take umbrage at someone recommending books to me that I read ten years ago. Rather, I say, "I've read that already and very much enjoyed it."

But then, I'm not impolite and discourteous, Beth, which is more than I can say for you.


It is easier for me to value your opinions and impressions when you express them succinctly and without extraneous comments that others, including myself, might find offensive.

Hold on a second: are you trying to tell me what to say and how to say it? This is unbelievable.


I admire your spirit and your love of literature, but you are not alone in that. No one of us has the market cornered on the perfect reading life.

What planet are you on, Beth? I never said I had the "perfect reading life" (not that I would ever use that term to begin with), nor did I say I had any sort of "market" cornered.

I'm really wondering, though: what is your problem? You're continuing to attack me for no viable reason. And the pitiful thing about it is that you're only making yourself look bad. I won't use the word that would best describe what you're acting like, but I think you can figure it out (rhymes with ditch).


You were right to ask Colette’s forgiveness for your overreaction.

Talk about patronizing! Clearly, you could write a book about how to patronize, Beth.


And she has been more than kind in her replies to you.

As if I needed you to point this out for me. Thanks.


But you’re wrong, it wasn’t just an isolated spar between the two of you. If it’s on a public forum, it’s fair game for appraisal and comment.

What's interesting to note is that no one besides Eric took offense when he was called a "cunt" by another listmember on the Lionel Britton thread. I wonder why that is. Could it be because those of us who really do want to "mix and mingle" with others try not to stick our noses in other listmembers' affairs?


I have read quite a bit of Henry James, minor and major, and am able, in part thanks to him, to recognize subtly insulting behavior when I see it and read it.

Subtlely insulting behavior? This is risible! It's obvious you don't know how to recognize anything because you have myopic vision. To begin with, you seem to think that every word I say is meant exclusively for you. Beth, I like you just fine, but I'm not thinking about you when I make my posts to the forum. I don't ponder over what your reaction to my posts will be,
nor do I care whether or not you like the suggestions I offer other people when it comes to books and authors.

Look, there are plenty of people who like me on this list and fully appreciate the remarks I make. It's obviously a case of sour grapes with you, but that's going to have to remain your problem, Beth.

I will not be addressing anything else you say on this subject. If you want to continue to insult me and vilify me, go ahead. You will receive no response from me. Stewart may allow you to say what you like, since you and he know one another. But I don't think the other listmembers are going to enjoy your tirades.

~Titania

[Colette Jones]

When I first read Wuthering Heights, I found it confusing. Later, I understood what Emily Bronte was trying to say. The narrative structure can be frustrating, and the novel is not pleasant to read. But I do think Emily conveys something about human nature that is interesting--and that is how closely aligned hate and love can be, and how easily pride can destroy us.
That is probably a correct reading of what Emily Bronte was saying. However, I thought she said it in a very strange and inconsistent way. I read it for my face-to-face book group a few years ago. The others were curious whether I'd be able to understand the Old English as I am American (now, that's insulting - why do some Brits think that way of us?) Anyway, it was probably the first classic I had read, or at least chose to read, and it nearly put me off classics! Everything was drawn out in minute detail until suddenly in a page, she has a baby and goes insane. I'm sure that's an exaggeration but I really thought Bronte jumped over a whole lot of life and it was inconsistent with the rest of the book.

Luckily I have been enticed into other classics by some very well-read friends and have enjoyed them. I will try another Zola but I found him condescending and insulting with Therese Raquin. It makes me interested in him as an author, but had I read it when it was written, I wouldn't have ventured further into his works. I guess that is one difference between classic and contemporary as the classic often becomes a study of history.

I have had more luck with Henry James. I think I prefer the 20th century classics such as Graham Greene (am I right in thinking he's got some classics in his repertoire?)

[Colette Jones]

What's interesting to note is that no one besides Eric took offense when he was called a "cunt" by another listmember on the Lionel Britton thread.
I've tried to find this because I almost certainly would have taken offense had I read it. No one deserves personal insults and name calling on a public forum. It appears this post was lost with the server problems, probably a good thing.

I feel I started something by my initial, intentionally playful post which possibly came across as confrontational. It was not meant to be and I think we have cleared that up and it will hopefully be a good topic for conversation.

I think it is fine for other people to speak up if they find offense in something written in response to another. I certainly would have spoken up for Eric if I had seen the above mentioned post. It is the nature of a forum for people to join in on any subject; I don't see it as two-way conversation, but unlimited.

[Eric]

As in all logical debates, we have to define our terms. It may sound pedantic, but otherwise we are just slagging one another off, or saying the equivalent of: "I prefer classics / contemporary novels, so there".

Firstly, what are classics? If you limit yourself to what Oxford, Penguin, Wordsworth, Everyman, and a few others define as classics, you are limiting yourself quite a lot. These are books that British and American publishers decide to publish.

Secondly, the term "contemporary" can mean anything from "since 1945" to "since 2000".

*

Take Russian literature. If we call "contemporary" since about 1945, there might actually exist several important works of Russian literature that are available to us in English. If, however, the year 2000 is your cut-off point for "contemporary" literature, there is virtually nothing whatsoever available, even eight years into the decade.

I still maintain that what most people call "Russian literature" is indeed classics from the mid-19th century, plus Bulgakov, Pasternak (only one novel) and Solzhenitsyn. There is virtually no awareness whatsoever of contemporary Russian literature, in either of the above definitions. So you can't really compare like with like.

*

Even if we restrict ourselves to books published in the English language, you have to think of what is available. When Virago started republishing forgotten women writers, some of those re-discovered old books turned out to be gems. Britton's "Hunger and Love" could shift from its position of "obscure failed masterpiece" to "classic" should it be republished by say Wordsworth Classics, and a few reviewers take the trouble to review it. Another such author is Charles Morgan. If three of his novels are republished in popular editions, there will be two-page Guardian Review spreads.

Only then can readers judge - when the books have passed the sluice or filter of publishing houses. Readers tend only to react to what is available in mainstream bookshops. Not many readers go around rooting out obscure and forgotten authors in dusty second-hand bookshops with fire-risk wooden staircases crammed with piles of books. And fewer still bring these books to the attention of publishers, in order to give such books a new lease of life.

[lionel]

Aren't we taking things far too seriously here? 'Classic vs Contemporary' is a little like Shakespeare vs Joyce: meaningless because subjective. And 'human nature'? Meaningless too: what is human nature if not a determinism? There ain't no such thing. Lighten up, guys, and just have fun.

[lionel]

I've tried to find this because I almost certainly would have taken offense had I read it.

You would definitely have taken offense, Colette, as there was no justification for it whatsoever. However, there is now an apology from the person concerned ? George ? on my Lionel Britton thread, which Eric has accepted. George admitted that he was 'howling pissed' at Christmas on the occasion, and also that he should never have been on the forum in that condition. But please don't read this as any kind of excuse for him as there is none.

[Colette Jones]

Aren't we taking things far too seriously here? 'Classic vs Contemporary' is a little like Shakespeare vs Joyce: meaningless because subjective. And 'human nature'? Meaningless too: what is human nature if not a determinism? There ain't no such thing. Lighten up, guys, and just have fun.
I think this is very funny because you mention determinism which is a pretty heavy concept, and then say "lighten up". :)

I would have to agree with you that it is all a bit subjective, but interesting nonetheless. I didn't realize that even the definition of a classic was so subjective, for instance!

[Stewart]

Italo Calvino, from Why Read The Classics?, says:


The classics are the books of which we usually hear people say, "I am rereading . . . " and never "I am reading . . . "
We use the words "classics" for books that are treasured by those who have read and loved them; but they are treasured no less by those who have the luck to read them for the first time in the best conditions to enjoy them
The classics are books that exert a peculiar influence, both when they refuse to be eradicated from the mind and when they conceal themselves in the folds of memory, camouflaging themselves as the collective or individual unconscious.
Every rereading of a classic is as much a voyage of discovery as the first reading.
Every reading of a classic is in fact a rereading.
A classic is a book that has never finished saying what it has to say.
The classics are the books that come down to us bearing the traces of readings previous to ours, and bringing in their wake the traces they themselves have left on the culture or cultures they have passed through (or, more simply, on language and customs).
A classic does not necessarily teach us anything we did not know before. In a classic we sometimes discover something we have always known (or thought we knew), but without knowing that this author said it first, or at least is associated with it in a special way. And this, too, is a surprise that gives much pleasure, such as we always gain from the discovery of an origin, a relationship, an affinity.
The classics are books which, upon reading, we find even fresher, more unexpected, and more marvelous than we had thought from hearing about them.
We use the word "classic" of a book that takes the form of an equivalent to the universe, on a level with the ancient talismans. With this definition we are approaching the idea of the "total book," as Mallarm? conceived of it.
Your classic author is the one you cannot feel indifferent to, who helps you to define yourself in relation to him, even in dispute with him.
A classic is a book that comes before other classics; but anyone who has read the others first, and then reads this one, instantly recognizes its place in the family tree.
A classic is something that tends to relegate the concerns of the moment to the status of background noise, but at the same time this background noise is something we cannot do without.
A classic is something that persists as a background noise even when the most incompatible momentary concerns are in control of the situation.

My favourite is number six.

[Colette Jones]

My favourite is number six.
Yes, number six is good. Some are a bit baffling. What does this mean?

"Every reading of a classic is in fact a rereading."

[Sevigne]

I feel that the older writers got better effects from what they used. Since the "zipless f*ck" wasn't available to them as an attention grabbing device, they had to be more inventive.

[Bjorn]

Some are a bit baffling. What does this mean?

"Every reading of a classic is in fact a rereading."
I take it to mean that classics - at least those truly deserving the term - are usually so entrenched in culture and in other works, that few people come to Oedipus Rex, Hamlet, Oliver Twist or Lolita as an absolutely blank slate, with no preconceptions about either the works themselves or the stories/concepts they contain. We've read or seen other works that were inspired by them, we've heard phrases or words they coined bandied about in everyday conversation, etc. By the time a work is declared a "classic", the themes it explores have become so commonplace that you're already familiar with them even if you haven't read that exact work.

[lionel]

Since the "zipless f*ck" wasn't available to them as an attention grabbing device, they had to be more inventive.

What's that fuckin asterisk doin there? Why self-censor?

[lionel]

I think this is very funny because you mention determinism which is a pretty heavy concept, and then say "lighten up". :)

I was using ?determinism? in a Sartrean sense, and have been playing around with the thing like Plasticine, as kids do, so?


[W]hich is a pretty heavy concept

Far out, man. ;)

[Bjorn]

I feel that the older writers got better effects from what they used. Since the "zipless f*ck" wasn't available to them as an attention grabbing device, they had to be more inventive.
Tristram Shandy, published in 1759 (by a priest, no less) starts off with a sex scene. That's quite the attention grabber (written before the invention of the zipper, too). ;) Of course, using the word "fuck" and other slang (if that's what you were referring to) only works as an attention grabber if one still thinks there's anything outrageous about it, and since it's been commonplace in literature since at least the 50s (and commonplace in the English language since long before then) I'm not sure that use of that word alone would make an author stand out these days. Surely there's some other difference between Dickens and McCarthy?

[Irene Wilde]

Thanks Bjorn.

[Sevigne]

At the NYTimes books forums we couldn't even get away with Moby Dick!



What's that fuckin asterisk doin there? Why self-censor?

[Sevigne]

First note that I said "zipless fuck". I believe it was Erica Jong who coined that term.

The definition: (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=zipless%20fuck#)"A usually spontaneous sexual encounter between strangers with little or no personal information exchanged. The highest plateau of casual sex. "

Sterne makes perfectly clear that the sexual activity that Walter and Elizabeth Shandy are engaged in is so much a matter of habit that Mrs. Shandy is reminded of the neglected clock because Mr. Shandy usually takes care of his two duties, marital and mechanical, at the same time.

The Shandys are a long-married couple. Witness the fact that their oldest son, Bobby, is away at university. They are not strangers.

So far is this episode from proving a point that it merely calls attention to the fact that Sterne's whole game is to dance around every sexual matter without ever saying the thing out plainly.







Tristram Shandy, published in 1759 (by a priest, no less) starts off with a sex scene. That's quite the attention grabber (written before the invention of the zipper, too). ;) Of course, using the word "fuck" and other slang (if that's what you were referring to) only works as an attention grabber if one still thinks there's anything outrageous about it, and since it's been commonplace in literature since at least the 50s (and commonplace in the English language since long before then) I'm not sure that use of that word alone would make an author stand out these days. Surely there's some other difference between Dickens and McCarthy?

[lionel]

At the NYTimes books forums we couldn't even get away with Moby Dick!

LOL. Let me guess: they thought it was a weird kind of STD, right?

[Sevigne]

The forum censoring software was so sensitive that we couldn't post consecutive words such as "the pen is...."




LOL. Let me guess: they thought it was a weird kind of STD, right?

[lionel]

The forum censoring software was so sensitive that we couldn't post consecutive words such as "the pen is...."

That reminds me of the porn filters used by local councils some years ago, when any reference to Scunthorpe, a town in the East Midlands of England, completely disappeared from their computers.

[Sevigne]

Having thought of the worst contemporary book I've ever read....Gould's Book of Fish.... I am trying to decide what, in my opinion, is the worst classic to ever attain that status. Sister Carrie seems a promising candidate.

[Bjorn]

First note that I said "zipless fuck". I believe it was Erica Jong who coined that term.

The definition:"A usually spontaneous sexual encounter between strangers with little or no personal information exchanged. The highest plateau of casual sex. "
Yeah, I got the reference, I just had to argue a bit since didn't see how that's a defining aspect of non-classic literature. :)

Funnily enough, just today I started M. Ageyev's Novel With Cocaine, which starts off with the teenage protagonist picking up a girl, taking her to a hotel, giving her gonnorrhea, and never talking to her again. Not sure if that one qualifies as "classic" yet (published in 1934), but hey, coincidence.

[Mirabell]

Having thought of the worst contemporary book I've ever read....Gould's Book of Fish.... I am trying to decide what, in my opinion, is the worst classic to ever attain that status. Sister Carrie seems a promising candidate.


why worst? funhouse, whose opinions on literature I generally share, and respect, keeps recommending that book. when I chose, for my entry into Flanagan's work, his latest and reported (s*: "The Unknown Terrorist" and Katharina Blum (http://shigekuni.blogspot.com/2008/02/unknown-terrorist-and-katharina-blum_29.html)) my indignation at having had to suffer through such a bad book he said Gould was much, much better: http://www.worldliteratureforum.com/forum/asian-oceanic-literature/1698-richard-flanagan-unknown-terrorist.html#post5012

so I put Gould's Book of Fish on my ever.growing list of books I want to read/buy/have.

so what, exactly, is it you hated about it?

[Sevigne]

What didn't I like about the book? The blood, shit, piss, vomit, phlegm. Any bodily fluid that can run or drip seems to be beloved of the author of Gould's Book of Fish.

And magic realism, too, in this day and age?

I picked up my copy in Paris and it was the only reading matter I had to see me through the twelve hour flight to San Francisco. I wanted to poke my eyes out with red hot shish kabob skewers.

[Mirabell]

What didn't I like about the book? The blood, shit, piss, vomit, phlegm. Any bodily fluid that can run or drip seems to be beloved of the author of Gould's Book of Fish.

And magic realism, too, in this day and age?

I picked up my copy in Paris and it was the only reading matter I had to see me through the twelve hour flight to San Francisco. I wanted to poke my eyes out with red hot shish kabob skewers.


you thought it was too graphic? amazon 1star reviewers seem to find it too depressing, also.

[Sevigne]

Gonnorrhea on the first date? Really, you shouldn't have. Flowers would have done just as well....

I like the fact that in James' Golden Bowl we aren't even told whether Prince Amerigo and Charlotte Stant have been physically unfaithful or merely emotionally so.

All I ask is a little sublety, a little something left to the imagination. And more was decidely left to the imagination by our forebears.

The sexual content of any novel is simply a matter of taste unless it is used to make up for something lacking in another department.




Yeah, I got the reference, I just had to argue a bit since didn't see how that's a defining aspect of non-classic literature. :)

Funnily enough, just today I started M. Ageyev's Novel With Cocaine, which starts off with the teenage protagonist picking up a girl, taking her to a hotel, giving her gonnorrhea, and never talking to her again. Not sure if that one qualifies as "classic" yet (published in 1934), but hey, coincidence.

[Dante Newton]

The upshot of this is that classics are more illustrious than contemporaries,as contemporaries are overlooking classics,or thereabouts,which dispel the productivity of antecedent stories.Lo and behold,no one in this contemporary era can outclass Henry James' intellect,which is inexplicable.This is my deep-rooted conviction.

[Eric]

Lionel, #30, if you're having a serious debate about classic versus contemporary, you shouldn't "lighten up". If you want light banter, try the Chat section.

You should preferably analyse, as I did in my postings, and as indeed Italo Calvino seems to have done in what Stewart posted. But I have to say that Calvino does get a bit soundbitey. He rather likes the sound of his own voice in witty paradox after witty paradox. Such as the one Colette Jones points out: "Every reading of a classic is in fact a rereading". Oh, glibbitude!

Let's avoid the word "fucking". It implies that the mind behind the term used is desperately short of adjectives. Just because the word is used in some famous novel, doesn't mean you have to use it liberally just to give you a thrill.

I'm sorry to say that I think this debate is moving in the direction of Humpty Dumpty definitions. No one seems really to be able to define classics. And as I have said earlier, the definition is often driven by publishing houses in specific countries rather than by such noble ideas as canon and value. Classics also vary from country to country. Even between Britain and the USA, both speaking the same language, there is a certain difference of focus. And if you examine the French or German canon of classics (ignoring the obvious local-language literature listed there) you will find differences of focus.

All these factors have to be thought about seriously. There's more to defining what is a classic than first meets the eye.

[lionel]

Lionel, #30, if you're having a serious debate about classic versus contemporary, you shouldn't "lighten up".

As usual, you've completely misunderstood what I was saying ? it's impossible to have a serious debate about opposition between the two because anything said will be impossibly subjective. Understand this time?


Let's avoid the word "fucking".

Why? It's an ordinary word. It's not a word of hate like some, which, mercifully, I don't think we'll find here. I was making a point about self-censorship, which you again chose to ignore.


It implies that the mind behind the term used is desperately short of adjectives.

Don't be ridiculous.


Just because the word is used in some famous novel, doesn't mean you have to use it liberally just to give you a thrill.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[saliotthomas]

Lionel do not feed the troll please or we never see the end of him.

[lionel]

Lionel do not feed the troll please or we never see the end of him.

Sorry, Thomas ;)

[titania7]

I feel I started something by my initial, intentionally playful post which possibly came across as confrontational. It was not meant to be and I think we have cleared that up and it will hopefully be a good topic for conversation.

Colette,
I interpreted your initial post as being confrontational. It was my reaction to it that is the issue here. I understand now that you were not trying to start any sort of argument. However, at the time I read it, that's how I perceived it.

On a related note, I wasn't really trying to start a fight with you, either. However, I become so passionate and enthusiastic about the things that are important to me--such as the books and authors I love--that others could well see me as being overbearing. Forgive me, please, if I have seemed that way towards you.

In regard to the situation that transpired with Beth, not only was I tired when she posted her confrontational remarks, but also, I had PMS. I'm not the person to get into a skirmish with when I have PMS ;). It's best to handle me with kid gloves. I try to keep my temper under control, but, in spite of the best intentions, it honestly does oft-times get the best of me at a certain time every month.

Colette, I hope that this thread will prove to be enlightening on many different levels. I agree with you when you say that the classic vs. contemporary (literature) debate is a wonderful topic for conversation.

All my best wishes,
Alexis

[Eric]

Trolls are abnormal. (I've never met one.) Humans are the norm. When we debate, we don't expect trolls to be shouting from the sidelines.

Too many people start serious debates, then, when people actually say the opposite of what they expected them to say, shift to saying "well, it was all a joke really". Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a debate where people have their hearts in what they say, and are prepared to stick up for it. Because as it now is, there seems to be the trick of "let's have a good laugh, but if anyone gets serious, ignore them". That is not a debate. That's fun. Less fun, please.

Debates are only confrontational if you shift from debating the subject to dragging in your personal frustrations and taking over the debate. This debate is not about working-class, 19th century or Estonian literature, not about recent reviews, Henry James or Irvine Welsh. If you can't stick to the subject of the debate, you should go somewhere else. Otherwise you are thread-spoiling.

When you have some knowledge, you don't need to be confrontational. You can say your piece and ask others' opinions. If you just want to tell people that they are wrong, you should tell them why.

It would be so nice if people would start debating, and furnish proof and opinions, and stop soundbiting. Smilies are the substitute for opinions.

[Sevigne]

But I don't know that a preference for Classics over Contemporaries is anything more than a matter of taste or perhaps temperament. I don't know that my choosing the Classics is any more explicable than why I prefer vinegar and salt to sweets or dislike sunshine intensly and would rather have fog.

Aside from falling in love with Huckleberry Finn at eight years of age and going on a Dickens binge in my teens, I didn't really start reading fiction until I was fifty.

Since I came to novel reading after a steady diet of Macaulay, Carlyle and Boswell, I was naturally happier with George Eliot than with Phillip Roth.

I have since read Roth and other moderns with pleasure but I never find myself taking any interest in re-reading them. If I enjoy a novel like The English Passengers or Oscar and Lucinda, I hand the book off to a friend or relative with a high recommendation rather than returning it to my shelf.

[Eric]

Personally, I believe in a happy medium. Not a jolly person that summons up the spirits of the dead, but a balance in what you read.

I feel that reading only a diet of classics, as defined by Penguin, Wordsworth, Everyman, etc., may sometimes be undertaken by people who feel an inadequacy in their schooling. I am only too aware of mine, but I am not going to stick to The Classics, simply to prove to others that I am literate and "well read". Life is too short.

So I try to strike a balance between classic and contemporary, and also between fiction and non-fiction. I don't feel that a person is "well read" if they read novel after novel after novel, but never any poetry or non-fiction. Such people strike me as slightly obsessive.

In the same way as vinegar versus Mars Bars may be a question of body chemistry, classic versus contemporary may be a matter of what people around you read, and what your local public library has in stock. This is more a question of availability than taste.

With literature in translation from just about any language into English, there is a huge amount of inadvertant censorship of both classics and contemporary literature. If it isn't translated, you can't read it. So it won't appear in your local bookshop or library. So, it won't become part of the canon of what a "well read" Brit or Yank must read. But if you can read even only one other language, let us say French, German or Spanish, you can already plug into what people from several non-English-speaking countries think of as classic books. And discover a different set of classics. Plus a whole new world of contemporary literature.

When I translate things, classic or contemporary (I was doing a contemporary story this morning), I hope for ordinary readers to discover things. It is a shame that a lot of the things we read in translation are filtered by academics who have made a study of authors that they are keen to promote because they wrote their MA dissertation on them. As a translator, I would like to demonstrate to people that both classic and contemporary literature exists beyond the university canon constructed for English-speakers by English-speaking academics with certain vested interests.

At school level, a country should have a literary canon to introduce schoolchildren to their national heritage. But once you've left school, I feel it is healthy to expand your knowledge to include other subjects and countries.

[Colette Jones]

I try to strike a balance between classic and contemporary, and also between fiction and non-fiction. I don't feel that a person is "well read" if they read novel after novel after novel, but never any poetry or non-fiction. Such people strike me as slightly obsessive.
Count me as obsessed! I hardly ever read non-fiction (except the newspaper, and the non-fiction element is questionable) and even less often poetry.

I don't count myself as well-read necessarily. Some of my friends would, but it is only relative. Some of my face-to-face book group only read the one book a month that we do together. To them I am well-read.

I read novels because I love to read novels. For me it is a hobby. I didn't study literature, nor will I ever, most likely. A side effect of my obsession with novels is that I love to discuss them with people, hence my hope for more group reads on the forum.

Knowing that more recent authors can be and are considered classics, I'd say I probably prefer classic to non-classic, but not when considering what I thought was meant by classic when I started this discussion.

A roundabout sentence that I hope makes sense?

[Sevigne]

The people around me read the IRS code. They read only tax law and wonder why they can't learn to write English properly.

I did not consider this to be a question of what we should read so much as which of the two categories is superior and why. That is indeed a very subjective matter.

As to what we should read, the mere fact that I started with Huckleberry Finn, read all of Dickens and then moved on to Horace and Junvenal seems to bespeak the fact that I was born a Classicist. I did not choose to be what I am. God made me this way.

I'm too old now to want to go against the grain. I have not placed an absolute ban on contemporary authors as witness my love of Penelope Fitzgerald. In fact, the last three novels I've read have been written since 1970.

But given a choice I'm going for the triple-decker novels deplored by V. Woolf.

[saliotthomas]

Count me as obsessed! I hardly ever read non-fiction (except the newspaper, and the non-fiction element is questionable) and even less often poetry.


Obsessed too...

As for classic or contemporary,i like both as long as they are well written.
I can't find now an exemple of a bad classic novel.
It could be a thread "Bad or boring classic novels".

[Eric]

Alright Colette, you're obsessed. I just claim that if you read non-fiction, you would understand some things in the newspapers better, and get more depth of knowledge.

In the papers today are the Gaza business and the fact that the Russian-Ukrainian quarrel is causing half of Europe to be low on gas supplies for heating and cooking. If you know more about Russia and the Soviet Bloc, and about Israel and the Arab world, the context of both conflicts becomes much more clear. Otherwise you just react to the sensationalist bits of the news, without understanding the underlying trends.

"Classic" hopefully means that enough thinking people have read the book and commented positively on it. But as I keep repeating, what is important is who these people are, and whether they are doing it because they think the book worthwhile, or whether they are in the marketing department of a publishing house. Too many people automatically accept that if the book belongs to the Penguin Classics and other series, it is automatically a "classic". Often "classic" means a reasonably good 19th century book that can now be reprinted without paying the copyright holder royalties. Have you ever thought of that?

I read novels because I find them relaxing or introduce me to new worlds. But "classic" isn't a static quality. Some 20 years ago, Anthony Powell was half-forgotten as an author; published, but not discussed that much. Now you can find things by him in every well-stocked bookshop. And right now, no one any longer appears to read Charles Morgan; one day there'll be a revival, then he'll become a "classic". John Buchan will get a big boost, now that his "Thirty-Nine Steps" was remade as a film and shown on the BBC at Christmas time. But his reputation had been gradually dwindling for some while. Now he'll hit the "classic" jackpot again.

[Colette Jones]

I can't find now an exemple of a bad classic novel.
It could be a thread "Bad or boring classic novels".
The term "bad" will just never work for classic novels. For them to be classic, it must have appealed to a great number of learned people.

Even having pointed out what I think is ridiculous about Wuthering Heights, I still couldn't go so far as saying it's "bad". I'm sure there are loads of boring ones though!

Edit: Lord of the Rings comes to mind (boring, not bad!)

[Colette Jones]

Alright Colette, you're obsessed. I just claim that if you read non-fiction, you would understand some things in the newspapers better, and get more depth of knowledge.

In the papers today are the Gaza business and the fact that the Russian-Ukrainian quarrel is causing half of Europe to be low on gas supplies for heating and cooking. If you know more about Russia and the Soviet Bloc, and about Israel and the Arab world, the context of both conflicts becomes much more clear. Otherwise you just react to the sensationalist bits of the news, without understanding the underlying trends.
You're giving me too much credit - I don't read those articles, sorry! I know I should.

"Classic" hopefully means that enough thinking people have read the book and commented positively on it. But as I keep repeating, what is important is who these people are, and whether they are doing it because they think the book worthwhile, or whether they are in the marketing department of a publishing house. Too many people automatically accept that if the book belongs to the Penguin Classics and other series, it is automatically a "classic". Often "classic" means a reasonably good 19th century book that can now be reprinted without paying the copyright holder royalties. Have you ever thought of that?
I think we've found that I don't have a clue as to how to define a classic, but the surprise to me is that no one else does either!

[Eric]

Regarding "Wuthering Heights", I wonder how the novel would have read, had Charlotte not excised most of her sister's Yorkshire dialect dialogue, because it would have been incomprehensible to people outside Yorkshire, or even the West Riding as it then was. Is it a classic now, thanks to Charlotte? Would it have remained an obscure dialect novel, had not Charlotte interfered?

I quite agree that there is no watertight definition of "classic". But as I say, I think that some people do think that there is a real, objective standard, when in reality, the whims of Penguin, Wordsworth, Everyman and a few other popular series seem to give the impression that they are following some mysterious canon - which in fact doesn't exist. But making people imagine that they are reading "classics", i.e. worthwhile literature, helps sell books.

[liehtzu]

Future Shock: from Playboy interview (http://lib.ru/NABOKOW/Inter03.txt):

Alvin Toffler: What do you want to accomplish or leave behind--or should this be of no concern to the writer?

Vladimir Nabokov: Well, in this matter of accomplishment, of course, I don't have a 35-year plan or program, but I have a fair inkling of my literary afterlife. I have sensed certain hints, I have felt the breeze of certain promises. No doubt there will be ups and downs, long periods of slump. With the Devil's connivance, I open a newspaper of 2063 and in some article on the books page I find: "Nobody reads Nabokov or Fulmerford today." Awful question: Who is this unfortunate Fulmerford?

Thanks for that link. That site has almost all of the Nabokov interviews, and they're all terrific.

[Eric]

Yes thanks, Nnyhav and indeed Liehtzu for drawing our attention to the website here. It does indeed list all the interviews and is also a boon for those who know Russian well enough to explore Nabokov from that angle. I must try to get hold of the collected works of Fulmerford some day...

There are a lot of his stories there in Russian, and for the exclusive reader, even the Ukrainian translation of "Lolita":

Лолiта, свiтло мого життя, вогонь моїх чересел. Грiх мiй, душа моя.

Ло-лi-та: кiнчик язика виконує шлях у три сходинки з пiднебiння вниз, щоб на третьому штовхнутися в зуби. Ло. Лi. Та.

When the gas taps have been turned off, and you're reduced to shivering in the kitchen when it's minus 15 degrees Celsius outside, you can still enjoy the antics of "Г.Г.".

Such is art and life.

[Liam]

I can't find now an exemple of a bad classic novel.
It could be a thread "Bad or boring classic novels".

Thomas, try Oliver Goldsmith's The Vicar of Wakefield (1766). Absolutely NOTHING happens in that book.

Although I can see why it was so influential, I also couldn't get through Samuel Richardson's Clarissa (1748)--over 1500+ pages (in my edition) of endless, repetitious letters (a la Les Liaisons Dangereuses).

Unless you're a medievalist (like me) or simply a lover of "Arthuriana," you will probably hate Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur (1470).

I'm sure there's more, still. Do start that thread.

[saliotthomas]

Good.
I've got one.
Le roman de la Momie by Theophile Gautier.Pages after pages of description,not bad but very,very boring.
One of the books i was stuck with so i read it twice.

[Eric]

Another question about the nature of a classic author, apart from that he or she wrote long ago, concerns the number of works.

Most, but certainly not all, authors that become classics have written a substantial body of work. One prime example is Dickens who wrote umpteen novels, some voluminous. Or Balzac, who wrote umpteen more than even Dickens.

Then there are people such as Bruno Schulz, Jorge Lu?s Borges and Katherine Mansfield, whose fame rests on a relatively small number of short-stories. All three of these are perhaps "modern classics". Plus "one-famous-novel" authors, such as Alain-Fournier with "Le Grand Meaulnes".

Do any of the rest of you feel that quantity affects classic status, except in the obvious way that the more books an author publishes, the more visible he becomes over time?

[Sevigne]

I don't think that quantity of work matters when deciding who is or isn't a classic. Only one of Cervantes' novels is readily available today but that one keeps him on any list of classics. Same for Lampedusa.

Of all of Borges extant writings, my favorite piece is his essay on the translators of the Arabian Nights. For me, Borges' classics status rests on those few pages.

[saliotthomas]

Same for Lampedusa.


If i may Madame la marquise,there is another Lampedusa Le Professeur et la sir?ne and you even might be able to get it here Le Professeur et la Sir?ne: Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, Louis Bonalumi: Amazon.fr: Livres (http://www.amazon.fr/Professeur-Sir%C3%A8ne-Giuseppe-Tomasi-Lampedusa/dp/2020516578)

This said,i totally agree with you.

[miercuri]

Thomas, try Oliver Goldsmith's The Vicar of Wakefield (1766). Absolutely NOTHING happens in that book.

Although I can see why it was so influential, I also couldn't get through Samuel Richardson's Clarissa (1748)--over 1500+ pages (in my edition) of endless, repetitious letters (a la Les Liaisons Dangereuses).

Unless you're a medievalist (like me) or simply a lover of "Arthuriana," you will probably hate Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur (1470).

I'm sure there's more, still. Do start that thread!

Regards,
Liam
Add to the list Radishchev's Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow. I am presently struggling with this rather short but exasperating 18th century novel. I must read it for an exam next week. Thankfully, after the end of the semester I won't ever have to return to it!
Come to think about it, most 18th century classics ar not easily enjoyed by modern readers, whereas 19th century authors often make up lists of favourites.

As for Samuel Richardson, I intend to read Pamela one day, only becuase I am rather curious about Henry Fielding's pardoy - Shamela...

[Sevigne]

Thanks for the heads up!


If i may Madame la marquise,there is another Lampedusa Le Professeur et la sir?ne and you even might be able to get it here Le Professeur et la Sir?ne: Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, Louis Bonalumi: Amazon.fr: Livres (http://www.amazon.fr/Professeur-Sir%C3%A8ne-Giuseppe-Tomasi-Lampedusa/dp/2020516578)

This said,i totally agree with you.

[Sevigne]

No, what constitutes a classic is distinctly quality and not quantity.

A classic leaves echos in your mind. A classic sticks to your mental ribs. You might find yourself referring a moral quandry to a favorite author or character of a classic work.

What constitutes a classic is subjective but when numberless readers throughout many generations have made the same judgement regarding a book then it can safely be considered a Classic without too much fear of contradiction.

And a classic work is contemporary. It does not age.

[Eric]

You shouldn't misunderestimate the power of classics on bookshop sales, but I agree that it is a fairly weighty argument for being a classic is when a lot of people like a particular book, quite independently of other readers.

I must say that the following idiom is a bit of a classic in itself:


A classic sticks to your mental ribs.

I can't really work out the image: does your brain have ribs? And is the classic fighting its way into your brain or out of it?

A happier comment is:


And a classic work is contemporary. It does not age.

There I agree.

[Aiculik]

Interesting topic.
Personally I don't like "labels" and "classic" is one of those I most despise. Because usually people use it to distinguish between books that are "worthy" to read and books that are not. In this group I also put the term "contemporary classic".

For me, "contemporary" works are not those that were written recently or in near past. For me they are books with which "contemporary" people can interract and relate to, that seem to understand their feelings, their doubts and worries in their time and place, in their "contemporary" world and written in a way still understandable and enjoyable. And probably I'm very demanding reader, because for me great majority of the "classics" or even "canon" books I read doesn't match these criteria. (Especially the second condition about being enjoyable. On the other hand, in my personal top 100 there are books that most "literary educted" people would consider "low literature". So maybe I'm not demanding after all, but just weird. :p

While "classic" for me is simply the book which was, and still is, widely read and acknowledged by many people, both "laics" and all kinds of theorists, critics, professors etc.. But, after five years of studying literature, I came to the conclusion that I couldn't care less about what other people think of books I like, or even myself.

So clearly, for me it is much more important if the book is "contemporary", if it still has something to tell me and if I can enjoy reading it, than if someone else (even the wisest of scholars) thinks that it is significant, intellectual, beautiful, influential, etc.

[Sevigne]

After some thought I realized exactly where my idea of the Classics came from.

My mother, a reader, took me to the library at least once a week for as long as I can remember anything. I was an inveterate browser and since I was reading on a tenth grade level by the time I was eight, I did not confine my curiosity to the childrens' room of the library.

Like most children I liked very little things and I was charmed by the Oxford World Classics editions that really were pocket sized and bound in blue. Back in the 'Fifties the series was still being published by the Clarendon Press and the books still had illustrated dust wrappers.My earliest memories of the library included Oxford editions of Barchester Towers, Pride and Prejudice and The Mayor of Casterbridge.

On the shelves I saw Boswell's London Jounral and Boswell in Holland. I saw Mistress to an Age, the biography of Madame de Stael and so many other books whose titles I loved and memorized.

As a child looks forward to growing up and getting a two-wheeler bike or a prom dress, I looked forward to the day when I would be old enough to read those books and find out what was attached to those fascinating titles.

I am still intrigued by the idea of a book I have been hearing about all my life. I am still a little hesitant to read those books since my idea of what the book is will disappear, after reading, into what the book really is.

[Sevigne]

And I will always, always prefer books where people travel by horse and buggy; books without phones, without iPods, without airplanes or any other modern noise making apparatus.

I prefer what is old to what is new. Purely a matter of taste as I said in the beginning.

[Boki]

I believe it to be too broad to group literature into these two genres. I mean, for me, Classical Russian literature is alot more thought provoking then Contemporary literature. I mentioned Russian literature as its something i read most of.

Also on a timeline, or spectrum, i enjoy works equidistantly. Therefore i believe every time, or every trend in literature has some good aspects to it, and by aspects i mean works. Moreover they really cant be compared since the works of a specific time, are ofcourse, for that time since they have been moulded and shifted by the tides of the 'present' that they are written in.

For me, personally, i havent got a Classic v Contemporary outlook on most literature. Yet my outlook is specifically focused on individual works and how they, with their time in history, interpret society, life, philosophy or just how well they are actually written.

[Colette Jones]

Sevigne, I love your story of the little books in the library when you were young.

For me, personally, i havent got a Classic v Contemporary outlook on most literature. Yet my outlook is specifically focused on individual works and how they, with their time in history, interpret society, life, philosophy or just how well they are actually written.
I think this sums up what I look for in good literature too, Boki. This sums up Revolutionary Road by Richard Yates (mentioned earlier) perfectly, for example. It also sums up The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro, which I am currently reading and is just so damn good, I expect it will be my read of the year and it's only January.

I suppose it's "their time in history" which I would probably take out of the equation though. The best book could have been written last week rather than a hundred years ago. I suppose to be defined as a classic, a book must withstand the test of time, but I suppose that's why I wouldn't want to say I prefer one over the other. Unless of course, I can define the word "classic" to be whatever I want it to be. And it appears I can! :)

[Eric]

Like Aiculik (#79), I don't tend to worry much whether a book is a classic or not, as I tend to find interesting books in the categories "classic", "modern classic" and "contemporary".

I use surveys of the literary history of a particular country to find out books that might interest me, either to read or to translate. It's a fairly hit and miss affair. Most countries already have a fixed hierarchical canon, of "greats" and "minor authors". But I'm just thankful if I can find a book that at least mentions the existence of writers I might gravitate towards.

When I'm confronted with a vast 700-page history of, for instance, Estonian literature, I soon realise that I will not have the stamina to read it all the way through, from minor beginnings in the 16th century to the present day.

What I do is follow hunches, leads, clues and then read entries about specific authors, in whatever category, ones that I think may be of interest. The national canon is useful as a rough and ready guide. But if you've developed interests and tastes over the years, you may on occasions step beyond the canon, and go it alone. So a more general survey of a national literature is more useful than a book publicising the "ten greatest authors" of any particular country you may choose.

[Heteronym]

I have constant mood swings regarding contemporary and classic literature. One day I feel like I despise anything written before the 20th century, the other day I want to buy everything by E.T.A. Hoffmann, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Voltaire, Henry James, Robert Louis Stevenson, etc.

My mood's on classics at the moment, perhaps because I was rereading Alan Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen recently. I've just made a list with all the classics I haven't read yet and am going to make a huge order this or next week.

Before the books arrive I'll probably go back to only wanting to read Saramago, Kundera, Auster and Roth :D

[Sevigne]

I realized last night that another reason I prefer older novels is because in a world where language has been debased by advertising and piss poor education, it is not easy to find the English language written well.

Trollope's formal yet playful English is like music to my ears.

[Colette Jones]

I realized last night that another reason I prefer older novels is because in a world where language has been debased by advertising and piss poor education, it is not easy to find the English language written well.

That is an interesting point of view. I suppose the old classics are proven in that way, but I highly doubt there are less books which are written well available today. It's just you have to weed through the newer stuff. You don't have to do that with the old stuff because those not written well did not survive the test of time.

Have you tried Kazuo Ishiguro?

[Colette Jones]

Borders has Oxford World Classics at 2 for 1. Some of them are only ?4.99 to start with. Bargain!

[promtbr]

I have constant mood swings regarding contemporary and classic literature. One day I feel like I despise anything written before the 20th century, the other day I want to buy everything by E.T.A. Hoffmann, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Voltaire, Henry James, Robert Louis Stevenson, etc...
Before the books arrive I'll probably go back to only wanting to read Saramago, Kundera, Auster and Roth :D

I am SO with you on this.

My problem is I love them all (must mean I am a not very descriminating reader of literature :o)
Have read A LOT of classics, both Modern and 18th and 19th century, but it was 25+ years ago, and I am finding I might as well have not read them (oh the induced haze of youth ;))

I have now aquired the mindset of a sort of a driven reader... (the "must read before you die" book blurb must have gotten stuck sublimally in my head). I am now re-stucturing my reading plan to make sure its "top-loaded" from the best-of-the-best down (unashamedly arbitrary and subjective of course).

Problem is, I can't confine myself to reading only Classics for one reading period at a time (what if I step in front of a bus and only have read W & P , MB and never got to In Search of Lost Time, Lolita, Blindness or Revolutionary Road????
I now have 3 legal size Note pads of lists of 35 "must reads" each, for 19th century, Modern, and Contempory/"Post Modern" subjective groupings. I will alternate picking a book from each list from the top down....

So now for 2009 its going to be War & Peace followed by that 7 volume megolith of Mr Epicene's...
Yikes...

[Heteronym]

I am SO with you on this.

My problem is I love them all (must mean I am a not very descriminating reader of literature :o)

I'd argue that that's the definition of a true reader.

[Eric]

I agree with Heteronym about "mood swings". Sometimes I want to read something old, sometimes something new. With me, it's as simple as that.

Sevigne talks about "debased English". Surely not all British & American authors are journos that dream of becoming philosophical soundbite bores writing "creative" English. So I tend to agree with Colette on this point.

And not all contemporary (or classic) novels are written in English! Try a few translated ones, you may be surprised at the wit, elegance and sophistication of the "non-English" brigade.

[Sevigne]

"Had I but world enough and time....."

But I don't. And the English language has been the great love of my life. I love the English of Dryden, Johnson, Austen and Ruskin.

When I speak of debased language, I mean the English I am exposed to on a daily basis in newspapers, magazines and business communications.

The older, slightly archaic English that I love is an antidote to these horrors.

I have read many modern novels and they interest and please me for just as long as I am reading them. I never need to re-read an Oscar and Lucinda or Waterland. Not even Patrick White would I re-read.

Penelope Fitzgerald is worth re-reading and re-reading again. I wonder why that is.

[Eric]

Sevigne is right that the dailies are often written by semi-illiterates. But the quality press is still a cut above the tabloids (whether or not these have been bought by ex-KGB agents, like the London Evening Standard...).

I've been reading 1930s novels by Anthony Powell to remind myself of what English can be.

The Swedish author Inger Edelfeldt told me some twenty-odd years ago, when she was still unknown in her native country, that some people accused her of using slightly archa?c or old-fashioned Swedish when she wrote her books. It hasn't done her any harm. She has written at least half a dozen novels or short-story collections since then, and has become an established author by now. And she does comic strips (I mean she writes & draws them, not that she takes her clothes off in a humorous way).

What goes for Inger Edelfeldt's Swedish can surely apply to contemporary English novelists. They can read Trollope, Ruskin and Austen, soak up some of the elegance, rhythm, expressions and so on, digest them (that is important!) and maybe their own style will improve.

When translating Jaan Kross, an author who can do the odd convoluted expression, I consciously read Anthony Powell's "Dance" sequence, not only for enjoyment, but to soak up elegant English, living abroad as I do. A translator also needs models (again, literary ones, not ladies to pose in the nude).

Comic strips and models - how ambiguous English is. Better to speak Esperanto - no synonyms, no misunderstandings (but bloody boring for literature!).

The next jolly English author whose work I wish to explore is Charles Morgan, forgotten by most, but popular once. And Waugh would be nice, too. Or J.B. Priestley, who wrote good novels, some of which had thoroughly banal titles, such as "Blackout in Gretley", or "Blackaat i' Grettleh" as he would have pronounced it.

[stacionari]

Hi,

Nobody here noticed a single interesting fact that in between classic and contemporary literature and authors, there is a venerable elite called Contemporary Classics. If by contemporary literature we consider all books written during and after WW2, then by Contemporary classics are these authors of these books that was born in XIX century.

In fact, authors like Ernest Hemingway, Agatha Christie, J.R.R. Tolkien.. are best read and best selling writers on all published top-of-the-top lists.

There is no such a dilemma as declared in the subject of this thread, in my opinion.

[saliotthomas]

But will Contemporary classics last?

[Heteronym]

But will Contemporary classics last?

I don't know to what extent contemporary classics aren't a creation of publishers. Penguin has its own line of modern classics, which includes 20th century writers like Orwell and Borges. Classic becomes a marketing brand, a lure for readers. Classics stop being books that survive on their own and become books publishers push on people. Of those, I believe many will become classics in their own right.

[promtbr]

"Contemporary Classics" is undoubtedly first and foremost a marketing device. It must be a sucessful one at that. I am sure I have picked up books based on the idea planted in my brain that such and such (insert book title/ author) is a "Contemporary Classic"...

From the perspective of having experienced two periods of book-ophelia, I can tell you that 30 yrs ago, there were works on booksellers shelves that were also listed as "Contemporary Classics" or similiar jargon. I can list at least 20 authors works that are barely in, or out of print now and are sure not found on University Literature studies sylibi...