View Single Post
Old 04-21-2011, 01:22 PM   #101
faithbw
Guru
faithbw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.faithbw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.faithbw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.faithbw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.faithbw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.faithbw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.faithbw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.faithbw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.faithbw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.faithbw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.faithbw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
faithbw's Avatar
 
Posts: 618
Karma: 1526148
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: A place where the sun always shines
Device: Kindle Oasis, iPad Mini 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by bZkindle View Post
You're entitled to your own taste.
That however, does not make a classic any less of a classic.
I have my own taste and there are plenty of classics that I don't like but I still recognize them as classics and see their literary value.
Hmm, well in that post you quoted, I wasn't actually referring to the "classics" or contesting their status as "classics" (which brings us back to the issue of what is a classic and whether all classics are intellectually stimulating, etc.). There was another poster who made a good point that "classics" isn't necessarily a genre. The question of what we mean when we even say "classic" literature is an interesting one but it actually doesn't have anything to do with the post your quoted.

I was simply agreeing with the Anke Wehner's opinion that not "getting" or liking a book doesn't necessarily reflect on one's intelligence or even whether a person is "well read" (which should also be defined...although I think ultimately we would all have a hard time defining what that means).
faithbw is offline   Reply With Quote