Off topic: literature seminars

[KlondikeGeoff]

I can't decide whether this is funny, absurd or tragic.

In Phoenix, somebody is giving seminars at $120 on how to read great literature.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by KlondikeGeoff

I can't decide whether this is funny, absurd or tragic.

In Phoenix, somebody is giving seminars at $120 on how to read great literature.

It's funny and absurd unless you take the course then it's tragic that you wasted the $120.

Jon

[Andanzas]

I think it is an undercover marriage agency.

[HarryT]

Surely it depends what the course is offering as to whether it's a "rip-off" or not. I'm sure it's not LITERALLY a course on "how to read great literature" in the sense of saying "start on page 1. When you reach the bottom of the page, turn over and read page 2...", etc. .

If it's a course offering suggestions as to what constitutes great literature, why certain books are "great", etc, then $120 seems like a pretty good price. I recently paid a heck of a lot more than that to go on a weekend course on the "History of the English Novel".

[yvanleterrible]

I agree with Harry on this one.

We've all had litterature classes at some point. What was the cost for the education systems that we have them?

And if they only suggest how to avoid litterary crap, the cost of book savings alone will justify the seminars way over.

[NatCh]

Not to mention the time and mental hygiene benefits of literary crap avoidance.

[dhbailey]

I agree that $120 for a course on how to read great literature isn't a rip-off, it's actually quite a fair price, contingent on 2 main points:
1) they actually cover the important issues such as how to recognize main characters and secondary characters and such, as well as how to follow plot threads and recognize plots within plots, etc., the sorts of things which repay repeated readings as the reader can find more and more depth and richness.

2) they come up with some sort of criteria as to what makes great literature. is everything Dickens wrote great literature? No. Is it worth reading? For some of us it is. Is great literature being written today? Sure it is. How can a person recognize it? That's a much harder question to answer, and I certainly hope the teacher doesn't simply hand out a list of "authors who only write great literature" but rather helps the students to find a way to determine what they will find to be great literature. Is great literature really great literature for all readers? No.

And one more point -- I hope the teacher doesn't try to downplay the reading of "not so great literature" -- I'd hate to be trashed for reading the Thorndyke books by Freeman, which I've just begun, or the Haggard She or Allen Quartermain books.

heck, most of the PG books wouldn't be considered great literature, not by academic standards, but man-oh-man am I having a blast reading them!

I was a double major in college (music and English) and the only professors I hated were the ones with closed minds about anything outside their narrow definition of great literature.

[JSWolf]

To me, great literature is that which gives me pleasure. And what is labeled as great is not always so )IMHO). It's a personal preference. If I don't like it, I don't care if some scholor thinks is great, to me it's not. Hell, I'd put up some of my Star Trek books againts "Great Literature". I don't need to be taught how to tell the difference. I already know how. By how much I enjoy a book.

[dhbailey]

Interestingly enough, those who wrote works which many regard as great literature were only setting out to write works which would entertain. It's usually others who apply the label "great literature" to those works.

For many people, though, reading is not something they do at any level other than the TV Guide or possibly a newspaper. Those are the people who were scared off from reading by high school teachers who failed to try to light a fire of enthusiasm for reading, by forcing their students to read works which were never intended to be meaningful to teenagers.

And those people who were scared off and never got interested in reading often in later years, especially when their kids get enthusiastic over books like the Redwall series when they're younger or Harry Potter when they're a bit older, are the ones for whom a course such as the one which started this thread can help.

As long as the teacher espouses JSWolf's philosophy, which is one I heartily agree with -- great literature is that which a person enjoys reading and can take something away from, even if it's just the thrill of having enjoyed the story.

But many people need help in getting started.

They're not likely to have invested in a Sony Reader, though, so any thoughts on reading as being a great thing are sort of like preaching to the choir on this forum, aren't they?

[astra]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

To me, great literature is that which gives me pleasure. And what is labeled as great is not always so )IMHO). It's a personal preference. If I don't like it, I don't care if some scholor thinks is great, to me it's not. Hell, I'd put up some of my Star Trek books againts "Great Literature". I don't need to be taught how to tell the difference. I already know how. By how much I enjoy a book.

Makes two of us

I remember I never liked to read classics or very serious book. Only "light" stuff. My approach to this matter is that life is full of problems, unfairness, sadness, etc. What is a point to spend even more time in this depressing atmosphere by reading books about it? Books have been, they are and most likely they will be an escape from the reality for me (Am I escapist? ). Many people around me (including my father) looked at this with disdain as if it is not a real reading, only a waste of time. I have never quite agreed with their point of view and held to my own as mentioned above great literature is that which gives me pleasure.

[HarryT]

I think that most people would accept that Charles Dickens is a more "important" author than, say, H. Rider Haggard. That's not to say that Haggard's books are any less enjoyable than Dickens (indeed, many would say that they are a lot more enjoyable!), but Dickens changed the whole concept of the novel - the novel "post-Dickens" was not the same as the novel "pre-Dickens". Dickens invented the idea of a novel with a large number of characters and multiple, interconnecting stories, and he was also a significant social commentator, using his books to highlight (and influence) what he perceived to be the wrong and injustices of society (eg, "Oliver Twist" is a commentary on the newly introduced "poor laws", which forced poor people to go into "workhouses" where families were split up).

Dickens CHANGED society; I don't think anyone would claim that, say, J.K.Rowling has done so. That's why Dickens is "great literature" and Harry Potter is not. That's not to say that Harry Potter isn't very enjoyable.

[astra]

I am not sure I can coherently reply (well, you(a general reader ) are right, if you think: if you are not sure, then why do you reply? drop it). I have always had problems with essays in school

You have an interesting approach to "definition" of what "great literature" is.
I think it shows that there at least two different groups of people who define what "great literature" is.

We look at books from completely different perspectives.

Yours is sort of professional?
Amateur is me
I don't care what influence Dicken's book had on our life as long as his books are dull, borring and not interesting - for me. If I don't enjoy reading a particular book it cannot be great literature, doesn't matter what Einstein might say about it. Dicken's could be wise man but this fact doesn't affect his books. If I don't like his books then his work is not great literature for me.
I am not sure about

that most people would accept that Charles Dickens is a more "important" author than, say, H. Rider Haggard

For example, The Lord of the Rings is Great Literature with capital letters (again imho) Why? Because it is a superb book/very interesting/requires real genius and extraordinary talent to create such a world and history and all the characters/races/adventures/happy and not happy endings. He is a corner stone of fantasy for me. IMHO, the book has changed fantasy world. However, it is an exception. There are other great books that didn't change anything but they still fall into great literature cathegory such as The Great Book of Amber, The Dark Tower series, Wheel of Time, The Count of Monte Cristo, Master and Margarita.

My point is...at the end of the day, who decides what is great and what is not? There are as many opinions as people out there. Literature is not math where you have clear definition that when you add 2 to 2 the result equals 4. I think people (maybe only 10 out of 1000, I don't know) from a second group where I belong to don't accept an idea that someone else might decide for us what is great and what is not Only books we really like are great literature for us. Until certain age I thought that I am stupid and not as smart and my father because I do not read and enjoy "serious" books but like adventure and fantasy. I don't think so anymore. That's not to say that I think I am very smart but I don't feel uncomfortable anymore for disagreeing with an opinion such as yours and disagree with they way you label what is great literature and what literature is only interesting.

P.S. I have my own definition of what great literature is.
Usually I never re-read books. I am a slow reader and I don't have time to re-read books if I want to read all the books that are on my "wanted" list. The main reason is that when I know how how everything is going to end it is not interesting to read a whole book again, it doesn't hold any mystery for me anymore. However, sometimes I encounter a book or series of books that after I finish the book I still want to come back and re-read a whole story. to enjoy the journey, to grasp the details - details what I am coming back to enjoy - a wish to come back and re-read the book makes it a great literature for me

[astra]

Now I feel embaraced for writing sooo much.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by astra_lestat

Now I feel embaraced for writing sooo much.

Don't, please! I love this kind of discussion - it's a major part of what makes MR such an interesting place to visit.

Perhaps we could make an analogy to paintings. Personally, I don't like "impressionist" art (I like art which looks like what it's supposed to be!), but I can accept that artists like van Vogh and Piccaso are "great artists" even though I don't personally like their paintings. They are great artists because they did something that nobody had ever done before, and they did it very well.

Similarly, I can accept that there are authors who are "important" authors in the field of literature because they invented new ways of writing, even though I don't personally like them. Authors like James Joyce would fall into this category for me. I don't enjoy reading his books, but nonetheless I can accept that they are "great literature"

One can, I think, make a distinction between authors who are "great" in the sense that they write important books in the field of literature as an art-form, and authors who "merely" write books which are great to read (and I don't mean "merely" in any derogatory sense here, but just to indicate that they didn't bring anything fundamentally new to the field of literature).

I agree with you completely about "The Lord of the Rings". It is, IMHO, "great literature" by anyone's standard. For one man to "invent" a world like that, down to its smallest detail, was a staggering achievement. Although there are many fantasy authors who have come along subsequently, they are all, in a sense, just copying what Tolkien invented.

We do of course read books for pleasure, but books are also a type of art, and we can appreciate that some books and authors are major figures in that field of art even if we don't actually enjoy what they write. Eg, lots of people don't particularly enjoy reading Shakespeare, but I think that virtually everybody would agree that Shakespeare was one of the most important figures in the field of English literature.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by astra_lestat

Now I feel embaraced for writing sooo much.

Nah, you've said some interesting things.

I'd start off by suggesting that you two are probably talking about totally different things. I'd classify them as "Great Literature" and "Good Books."

Great Literature would be things that have a strong influence on the path of the literary world, such as Dickens' work or as you pointed out, astra_lestat, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series. Both of them changed the way folks looked at literature, both in writing and in reading. That can be generally agreed upon, because the effects can be clearly seen in later works. For instance, most modern fantasy is built on Tolkien's views of things like elves, orgs, goblins, etc. That's something that can generally be agreed upon. (Not everyone will, but most folks familiar with the area will see it that way)


Good Books on the other hand are books that we enjoy, hate to see end, and want to read over and over, when we're not telling all our friends how much we enjoyed them. What makes a Good Book will vary from person to person, because as you observed, everyone is different, so the things that interest and appeal to us will vary.

Sometimes a piece of Great Literature is a Good Book, and sometimes it's not. The two aren't the same things, but they're not mutually exclusive either. For instance, I can't abide Hemmingway, but he is generally agreed to have had an influence on the literary world, so while A Farewell To Arms probably is Great Literature, I'd never call it a Good Book.


That bit you're talking about where you notice more detail and get more out of the story on the second read -- I consider that a sign of a well written book, if there's not more than is immediately apparent, then it's probably not a candidate for Great Literature status.

By the same token, I'd suggest that if you were to read, say Jane Eyre multiple times, you'd notice that you get more out of it with each reading, even if you didn't particularly enjoy the book. No book can be Great Literature (in my opinion) unless it has more to offer than just what you get out of the first reading.

I didn't understand that for a long time growing up, but then I got old enough to have read some books I liked on my own more than once, and I started to notice for myself that what others had told me was true, there's more to a Good Book, and to Great Literature than you can get in one read through. :smilie: