Poll: Sex and Violence: Your Take on Classic Literature
- Thread starter Captain Billy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
the generals [http://www.amazon.com/The-Generals-American-Military-Command/dp/1594204047/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358457579&sr=8-1&keywords=rick+thomas+the+generals] by rick thomasFuzzed said:
Wolfram Von Richthofen: Master of the German Air War [http://www.amazon.com/Wolfram-Von-Richthofen-Master-Studies/dp/0700615989] by James Corum
War, Strategy and Intelligence [http://www.amazon.com/War-Strategy-Intelligence-Michael-Handel/dp/B0041VC13S/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358457727&sr=1-7&keywords=war+strategy+and+intelligence] by michael handel
War [http://www.amazon.com/WAR-Sebastian-Junger/dp/B0085RZFDC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358457802&sr=1-1&keywords=war+junger+sebastian] by sebastian junger
The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat [www.amazon.com/Hungarians-Thousand-Years-Victory-Defeat/dp/0691119694/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358457859&sr=1-1&keywords=the+hungarians+a+thousand+years+of+victory+in+defeat] by Paul lendvai
The Strongman: Vladimir Putin and the Struggle for Russia [http://www.amazon.com/Strongman-Vladimir-Putin-Struggle-Russia/dp/1780760167/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358457923&sr=1-1&keywords=the+strongman+vladimir+putin+and+the+struggle+for+russia] by angus roxburgh
This is a list of stuff that I've either read or am in the middle of right now.
I just finished reading Emma.
Was that considered literature? A bunch of housewives gossiping? If so, Twilight is fucking Shakespeare.
Was that considered literature? A bunch of housewives gossiping? If so, Twilight is fucking Shakespeare.
As literature student at uni, I'm pretty taken with literature of all periods and cultures. Steadily becoming a fan of pre-19th century Japanese literature, but I do love the ones that have already been brought up like Beowulf, Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer, Dante and so on. Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur is probably one of my favourites at the moment though.
I'd have to say that I prefer contemporary writing, purely because literature is now completely free. There is no censorship or holding back. It is pure expression, whereas pre-19th century, literature was still highly censored, I mean look at the Marquis de Sade. He was imprisoned for his writing and lifestyle.
I find that my favourite classic pieces are those that are considered ahead of their time, or indeed timeless. Although what I will say is that there are more timeless classic novels than there are contemporary, but that is because it is arguably too easy to publish these days, and well, most of the best stuff has already been said/printed.
There is just so much more choice these days, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. But the era in which a subgenre like Bizarro Fiction can exist just about has the edge for me.
I find that my favourite classic pieces are those that are considered ahead of their time, or indeed timeless. Although what I will say is that there are more timeless classic novels than there are contemporary, but that is because it is arguably too easy to publish these days, and well, most of the best stuff has already been said/printed.
There is just so much more choice these days, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. But the era in which a subgenre like Bizarro Fiction can exist just about has the edge for me.
Too broad to really answer.Captain Billy said:
You seem to be saying that you aren't a fan of Post Modernism (the past 60 year or so) or Modernism (anytime from aprox 1890 until around 1945, give or take depending on who you ask).
Typically, I prefer Modernism to Post Modernism (although it depends on the work - something really Deconstructive can be fun now and then if it's well written - see Fight Club).
Dickens is an example of the style that came just before Modernism (the name of which I can't currently recall - although it might just be Dickensian, which is how I usually think about it).
Elizabethan and Jacobean is where Shakespeare falls (about 400 years ago), and are very different styles from Dickensian (or Modernism). I also believe there is (at least) one other style in there between Elizabethan and Dickensian, but that isn't my area of specialization (I specialized in Elizabethan, Jacobean, Modernism, and Post Modernism).
Anyway, I bring this up because the sex and violence amount varies between era. Elizabethan has less sex and violence than Jacobean, but both have more than Dickensian (when Queen Victoria was ruling). Shakespeare LOVED sex and violence - there are sex jokes all over Hamlet, for instance. The violence should be obvious. Hamlet was and is a good example of a Jacobean era play.
Early modernism (pre WW1) tends to have less sex and violence in general, although there will often be hints of it. Post WW1, but pre WW2, the violence increases a lot, but the sex only increases a little. Post Modernism ups the sex. However, Post Modernism also often reduces the Plot - as the concept of Plot began being deconstructed during Post Modernism. Not always - Fight Club is my go-to example of Post Modernism with a good plot.
Anyway, the point is, "Classic" isn't a category - it any story that's still popular now but wasn't written recently. It is a publisher term, not a literary term. And, since the name of the thread is Sex and Violence (with a subtitle) I assume that is the aspect you're looking for. However, the level of sex and violence varies significantly between eras. Check out some Jacobean authors other than Shakespeare - he was actually fairly sedate compared to some of the blood-baths on stage in that period.
Oh, and to anyone who is more expert in the periods between Jacobean and Modernism, I fully admit (and noted above) that I don't know those eras well having focused on other eras. I tried not to say much on stuff I didn't directly know about - if you do, feel free to add to what I said and help give the OP a more complete picture.
Eh... I like... some of it. It's more or less half and half whether I read 'classic' literature contemporary stuff... though it depends what it is I'm reading.
A lot of my classic history was written contemporaneously (Appian, Livy, Arrian, Sallust, Polybius and all that good stuff), I don't have much on Hellenic/Roman history that wasn't written by someone who's been dead for less than 2000 years... though I've got some Machiavelli lying around here, too... -_-
As for fiction, most of it is contemporary (Raymond E Feist, GP Taylor, David Gemmell, Robin Hobb etc.), but that isn't to say that I do not enjoy authors such as Arthur Conan-Doyle, Alexandre Dumas pere, Jules Verne and so on and so forth... *shrug*
A lot of my classic history was written contemporaneously (Appian, Livy, Arrian, Sallust, Polybius and all that good stuff), I don't have much on Hellenic/Roman history that wasn't written by someone who's been dead for less than 2000 years... though I've got some Machiavelli lying around here, too... -_-
As for fiction, most of it is contemporary (Raymond E Feist, GP Taylor, David Gemmell, Robin Hobb etc.), but that isn't to say that I do not enjoy authors such as Arthur Conan-Doyle, Alexandre Dumas pere, Jules Verne and so on and so forth... *shrug*
I think its a pretty straightforward distinction: The older the literature, likely the more difficult it is to read due to antiquated dialect or less than perfect translations, but getting through it is rewarding because of the challenge overcome. Newer literature is much easier to take in, so less rewarding in that way, but usually more fast paced and entertaining.
Quality doesn't really enter into it. Imagination, insight, and entertainment can be found across the centuries, but so can tons of shit.
Currently reading John Dies At The End, on a break from The Brothers Karamazov.
Quality doesn't really enter into it. Imagination, insight, and entertainment can be found across the centuries, but so can tons of shit.
Currently reading John Dies At The End, on a break from The Brothers Karamazov.
Shakespeare is unhealthily overrated, and English classes which force you to read the unedited versions for the story are pretentious and simply wrong- we should be learning English in an English class, not Ye Olde Bardspeak.
I understand if you might be referring to his style in a poetry class, of course.
On another note, I felt the late 19th century was where books really got going- authors like Verne and Wells put out masterpieces of science-fiction arguably close in level to that of Vonnegut or Huxley.
I understand if you might be referring to his style in a poetry class, of course.
On another note, I felt the late 19th century was where books really got going- authors like Verne and Wells put out masterpieces of science-fiction arguably close in level to that of Vonnegut or Huxley.
Kinda a unfair comparison. Afterall, the classics have alot larger library, as they have been around longer, and we tend to get just the best stuff, since all the really famous stuff from the best authors tends to get recognition for its time period. I am sure the past had no lack of mediocre novels, they just have been largely forgotten.
I'd say by stating works suc has Paradise Lost and Divine Comedy it's picking 2 of the best works from a few thousand years. So if you compare it to the 'average' modern literature it'll obviously far oustrip most of it. If we're talking overall terms of pre 19th centure and post, i prefer post. But in terms of literary prowess and individual titles, I personally think you've got to go a long way to beat Ulysses by James Joyce, which falls just on the modern side of your line. When I first tried to read that it just blew my mind, it's utterly insane.
Huh, I didn't realize anyone could actually stand the Divine Comedy so much they made it their favourite book. I read about a third before I had to pause for a while.
All in all I do enjoy classic literature, but I am very picky with what I like. For example I couldn't even stand Pride and Prejudice when it was combined with regular zombie attacks. Romantic literature is painfully dull.
All in all I do enjoy classic literature, but I am very picky with what I like. For example I couldn't even stand Pride and Prejudice when it was combined with regular zombie attacks. Romantic literature is painfully dull.
Some classic literature is good because it has a moral or a story that is irrelevant to the age you're reading it in. Death of a Salesman, a play from the fifties, is still relevant today. Glass Menagerie, a play from the... thirties? for the same reason. Great Expectations has its convoluted plot, Edgar Allan Poe wrote good horror stories that didn't seem to be confined to any time period, Treasure Island was simply a good adventure boo; Vernes is simply fantastic, favorite science-fiction writer of all time, he blends futuristic technology and situations with (now outdated) society to a pretty unique effect. Lovecraft's stories are beautifully constructed because of the whole 'piecing together the climax' thing that more books should do because it is such a cool element.
But, notice something? All the books above are good because they are good, not because they're classics. Most of the books work so well because they don't focus at all on the time period they are set in. Just because the title sounds contemporary - doesn't mean it's at all good, it just means that they're... insightful, at most.
But some stories are classics because... they're classics. I'm not fond at all of Shakespeare's works - they work okay as comedies, but they don't make good tragedies or histories or whatever else. Dickens has painfully slow stories with not too developed characters. Hemmingway is... Hemmingway. Mark Twain (though I like him) has weird pacing, and mostly his stories aren't even one grand plot, but more of a bunch of smaller plots with dry humor.
That being said, one of my favorite authors is Jules Verne. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is still my favorite sci-fi books.
But, notice something? All the books above are good because they are good, not because they're classics. Most of the books work so well because they don't focus at all on the time period they are set in. Just because the title sounds contemporary - doesn't mean it's at all good, it just means that they're... insightful, at most.
But some stories are classics because... they're classics. I'm not fond at all of Shakespeare's works - they work okay as comedies, but they don't make good tragedies or histories or whatever else. Dickens has painfully slow stories with not too developed characters. Hemmingway is... Hemmingway. Mark Twain (though I like him) has weird pacing, and mostly his stories aren't even one grand plot, but more of a bunch of smaller plots with dry humor.
That being said, one of my favorite authors is Jules Verne. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is still my favorite sci-fi books.
There's good and bad in both classic and contemporary literature. Homer's work, though... brilliant. Utterly unrivaled in my opinion.
I love Pendragon (Though I also heard the word in Arthurian legend). Really nice series.MickDick said:
Based on the authors you listed (I love all three, with Pynchon being my favorite author of all time), I'd highly recommend checking out David Foster Wallace. Particularly Infinite Jest. Most everything he's written is great, but I'd call that novel an unqualified masterpiece.sextus the crazy said:
OT: I don't think it makes sense to opine whether several centuries' worth of literature is better or worse than another several centuries' worth of literature. Works can be judged on their own merits.
Edit:
Have you actually read the Bible? Whatever you may think of the religions based on it, it's a rather remarkable work of literature, especially if read with supplementary materials that explain the differing interpretations of certain passages, how the English compares to the original Hebrew/Greek, connections to and borrowings from pre-Judeo-Christian myths/gods, etc.Fuzzed said:
The information density of some sections is astounding: there are some sentences in the Bible you could write pages explaining. The poetry is frequently beautiful and moving. And considering that pretty much the entirety of Western literature draws heavily from the Bible and/or other works that do so, there are multitudes of references in practically every work of fiction flying over the heads of those who haven't read it.
Old works tend to feel cliche or boring due to all the tropes they use becoming dead horse tropes. Plus, if they refer to the scientific or religious beliefs of the time it tends to be immersion breaking, because old timey people believed some seriously stupid crap. Music of the spheres anyone? Four humours, alchemistry...
so infinite jest is a called a masterpiece, but isn't qualified for the title?bananafishtoday said:
Works of art tend to create and follow trends, so you can compare separate time periods. These period seem to shorten in time as they go forward in time.
"Unqualified" as in without restriction/reservation. As compared to "it's a masterpiece" qualified with something like "for its era/genre/whatever."sextus the crazy said: