Classic vs Contemporary

[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:

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:

1. The classics are the books of which we usually hear people say, "I am rereading . . . " and never "I am reading . . . "
2. 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
3. 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.
4. Every rereading of a classic is as much a voyage of discovery as the first reading.
5. Every reading of a classic is in fact a rereading.
6. A classic is a book that has never finished saying what it has to say.
7. 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).
8. 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.
9. The classics are books which, upon reading, we find even fresher, more unexpected, and more marvelous than we had thought from hearing about them.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.