Poll: Sex and Violence: Your Take on Classic Literature

[sextus the crazy]

I like Shakespeare, but the only fiction stuff I read willingly is Heller, Vonnegut, and Pynchon, so I've got little frame of reference. That said, modern books tend to be more streamlined in their writing.

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.

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.

so infinite jest is a called a masterpiece, but isn't qualified for the title?

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."

oh, okay then. You learn something new every day.

 

[The_Echo]

There's good and there's bad. However, I feel that the more popular classics tend to be, well... horrifically boring or overrated.

The same could be said for today's popular literature, but I'm not talking niche audiences or demographics, which Twilight and 50 Shades fall into.

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.

I'd agree. I enjoyed what I read of the Divine Comedy (Which is, Inferno and Purgatorio. I lent it to a friend, who then moved before returning it), but it's far from my favorite book. It has a better shot at being in my list of favorite concepts.

 

[Strazdas]

There are some good authors in classical litterature, but i like the modern one more.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

There's good and bad in both classic and contemporary literature. Homer's work, though... brilliant. Utterly unrivaled in my opinion.

Edgar Allen poe has some really heart-pounding and fucked up stories. Really cool stuff.

But thing is a lot of the good books get drowned out by all the shitty factory pressed collages for some reason called books these days.

Pendragon is a good series, thankfully harry potter really hit hard, it's a good book AND movie series thankfully. Among others, but you don't hear about a lot of these.

I'll wager no one here has even heard the word pendragon.

I love Pendragon (Though I also heard the word in Arthurian legend). Really nice series.

Assuming you finished it, you gotta admit the ending was probably one of the most well done... ever, as well.

I read the entire series. I thought the ending was good. I think it was a bit on the cliche side, and lowered the value of the characters' sacrifices, but otherwise, it was very satisfying.

 

[ninjaRiv]

I think modern books get a bad deal when you compare them with classics, mostly from people who are bias (not saying you are but I'm sure you know the type).

I'm cool with the classics, I think they're influential and a great read but I prefer modern books. Maybe this is because of the times or something and I'm ok with that. As I said, my only problem with this comparison is when people say "but nothing can compare with this" and hold up an old book. Ideas didn't stop at any point.

I suppose it's a nostalgia thing and in a hundred years, people will same about Twilight (shudder) but there ya go. I mean, in my opinion, Philip K. Dick was one of the greatest writers and philosophers of all time. But how often is he included on a list like that?

I dunno, just a personal grudge I have against the comparison of modern and classical literature.

 

[BlueberryMUNCH]

Better, my favorite work is Dr Faustus and I think it's unbelievably good.
That, and the fact my degree is a lot to do with Classical literature (as in, ancient Greek and Roman) should show where I stand:3.

 

[Captain Billy]

I think it's time you unburied yourself. classic works are so friggin defunk it's unbelievable. Most educational systems highly value classic literature over anything else, but those institutions are retarded. Read modern stuff. That's my take. And if you must read stuff from authors that are dead. Please choose Salinger, Faulkner, Steinbeck or Hemingway. Because they're the best. And if you want to read a play. Choose Arthur Miller.

I think I should probably clarify here-I'm not claiming that all old literature is better than all modern literature. That'd be a sweeping generalization, and frankly, very wrong. Mark Danielewski's "House of Leaves," Vladimir Nabokov's "Pale Fire," and anything and everything Tennessee Williams ever wrote are some of my favorite books of all time.

And to respond directly to you, Fuzzed, Faulkner, Miller, and Hemingway are geniuses, but I will commit seppuku before I place Catcher in the Rye anywhere near their works.

 

[Smiley Face]

It's tricky to say, because the historical context in which literature existed is radically different. What we see as 'classic literature' is the cream of the crop that has survived the ages, from a historical situation in which, due to expenses, literacy rates, and general standards of living, literature was not as viable a business as it is now.

Whereas by contrast, during the 20th century and beyond, a far greater volume of books were published - meaning that proportionally, you will get more dross, but you shouldn't let that colour your view of what the quality of the good stuff is like.

However, one thing that I can say, generally speaking, is that stylistically, structurally, modern writers have improved upon and refined their language, dialogue, and story structures, having had the opportunity to learn from both the successes and mistakes of the classics.

 

[Fuzzed]

I think it's time you unburied yourself. classic works are so friggin defunk it's unbelievable. Most educational systems highly value classic literature over anything else, but those institutions are retarded. Read modern stuff. That's my take. And if you must read stuff from authors that are dead. Please choose Salinger, Faulkner, Steinbeck or Hemingway. Because they're the best. And if you want to read a play. Choose Arthur Miller.

I think I should probably clarify here-I'm not claiming that all old literature is better than all modern literature. That'd be a sweeping generalization, and frankly, very wrong. Mark Danielewski's "House of Leaves," Vladimir Nabokov's "Pale Fire," and anything and everything Tennessee Williams ever wrote are some of my favorite books of all time.

And to respond directly to you, Fuzzed, Faulkner, Miller, and Hemingway are geniuses, but I will commit seppuku before I place Catcher in the Rye anywhere near their works.

I didn't really mean to call those guys geniuses. I'm not sure what to call them really (sexy studs), but If I had to call them something I'd probably call them highly, trained butchers. Because they just knew how to cut out excess fat, and leave just the lean meat.

And that whole Salinger comment was a little rough. To me his works are just as real and just as powerful.

 

[Captain Billy]

I think it's time you unburied yourself. classic works are so friggin defunk it's unbelievable. Most educational systems highly value classic literature over anything else, but those institutions are retarded. Read modern stuff. That's my take. And if you must read stuff from authors that are dead. Please choose Salinger, Faulkner, Steinbeck or Hemingway. Because they're the best. And if you want to read a play. Choose Arthur Miller.

I think I should probably clarify here-I'm not claiming that all old literature is better than all modern literature. That'd be a sweeping generalization, and frankly, very wrong. Mark Danielewski's "House of Leaves," Vladimir Nabokov's "Pale Fire," and anything and everything Tennessee Williams ever wrote are some of my favorite books of all time.

And to respond directly to you, Fuzzed, Faulkner, Miller, and Hemingway are geniuses, but I will commit seppuku before I place Catcher in the Rye anywhere near their works.

I didn't really mean to call those guys geniuses. I'm not sure what to call them really (sexy studs), but If I had to call them something I'd probably call them highly, trained butchers. Because they just knew how to cut out excess fat, and leave just the lean meat.

And that whole Salinger comment was a little rough. To me his works are just as real and just as powerful.

To clarify, then: I think Salinger's a great author; his short stories in particular I find incredibly potent in both simplicity and tone. But, and I'm not claiming this is anything more than my personal opinion: I can't stand Catcher in the Rye. Angst alone does not a classic make.