Strategies for reading the classics?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Harmon

True, not too many Aesops around...

Tsk. Moralizing.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Harmon

It would take an omnitruck.

Similarly massive omnibusii exist for other authors-- I prefer them to collections of individual books. On my reader right now, the largest omnibusii I have claiming to be the complete works (which I've never actually double-checked):

Mark Twain: 15,571 pages
Jules Verne: 12,978 pages

(This is with Calibre's page numbering-- for some reason, Calibre always shows a much higher page count than my Sony.)

(Waiting for HarryT's head to explode over the faux-latin plurals.)

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Even things like The Illiad and The Odyssey is written from the POV of the god-children and heroes and generals. Not so much from the POV of the cannon-fodders. Or, for that matter, from the POV of the women other than a handful of queens and princesses.

POV does not subsist in the writer so much as it is in what is written.

I think that the real issue with POV has more to do with lack of opportunity than anything intrinsic to a particular status. Mark Twain covered this in Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven.

For those who have not followed MT beyond Huck Finn, the idea is that the Captain's guide shows him around heaven. At one point, the Captain sees the great generals of history clustered around some old guy in a rocking chair, identified by the guide as the greatest general ever - and the Captain (nor you or I) have ever heard of him. Turns out it was because the general had the misfortune to have lived in a time of peace, so he never got a chance to show his stuff. (eBook is on Gutenberg. Good Twain in his theological mode.)

Basically, I think that the fundamental talent of a great writer lies not merely in using words, but in the ability to occupy someone else's POV. So I don't see that the writer's sex, or economic status, or anything much other than opportunity and talent, matter.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Tsk. Moralizing.

Don't throw me in that briar patch.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by crich70

"A classic is something everybody wants to have read, but no one wants to read." --Mark Twain

I'm sure you realize, but some people here don't seem to, that Twain was a humorist.

Many of his 'sayings' are pithy, but they're meant for humorous effect, not to be taken as a true picture of the world, or even of Twain's true beliefs.

Also keep in mind, that in Twain's time Dickens was a 'popular' author - 'classics' would have been mostly things written in Greek or Latin. I doubt Austen had achieved classic status by then, either.

We have so many more 'classics' to enjoy than poor Twain did.

Hurray for us!

[anamardoll]

Basically, I think that the fundamental talent of a great writer lies not merely in using words, but in the ability to occupy someone else's POV. So I don't see that the writer's sex, or economic status, or anything much other than opportunity and talent, matter.

Of course a talented male author can write a good female character and a talented free person can write a solid slave character -- my point was less that those writing the Greek classics were male and free and more that for the most part they didn't feel bothered to present a different point of view.

However, I would point out that the adage that "author circumstances don't matter" has been historically used to keep the "classics" cannon largely white, free, and male. A talented author may be able to conceive a solid character in completely different circumstances, but more often than not there is going to be something missing from the overall picture.

[ATDrake]

Originally Posted by Harmon

But I confess that I don't get the Beta, unless (a) we shoehorn someone in between Johnson & Austen (Eliot, perhaps?) or (b) there's nothing to get.

Boswell!

Actually, [STAR SYSTEM] [greek lettter name] is just how Adams tends to refer to "generic" planets in his work, which are presumably dubbed by the equivalent number of their orbit rather than a special made-up planetary name.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by ATDrake

Boswell!

Actually, [STAR SYSTEM] [greek lettter name] is just how Adams tends to refer to "generic" planets in his work, which are presumably dubbed by the equivalent number of their orbit rather than a special made-up planetary name.

So there is less to it than it appeared...

[ATDrake]

Oh, I'm sure Douglas Adams did it on purpose. The conjunction of a variation on Johnson's quote and a variation on his nickname is probably not coincidence, and Adams liked to slip in these little references to things sometimes.

But yeah, the "Beta" part of "Ursa Minor Beta" probably doesn't mean anything in particular.

[ficbot]

Oh, Twain is a good one. Has anybody read "The $30,000 Bequest"? Great novella.

As for why I want to read the classics, as I said in my original post, I am a little bored with a lot of the completely forgettable contemporary stuff I've been reading. I want something a little more memorable and interesting. I want the feeling of being transported into a world not like my own. And given how error-filled so many of my recent purchases have been, a hundred years to have been proof-read is a nice bonus

Anyway, I did some exploring today and while I enjoyed the little chronology and quite sampler at the front of the B&N books, I found the essays a little dry so am skipping them for now. And I have found a few typos I may use their list (and pretty cover art) as the basis and just find my own editions.

Also, I gave up on Beowulf. There is too much I don't know about that time period right now, and I was lost on a lot of the apparently self-evident references in the intro essay. It feels like school to dig all of this up, and I am just not sure it would behoove me to do that at this point. I want novels! Even if that does mean reading them out of chronological order

I also started the first chapter of Emma, found two typos in the first chapter and am of to download the version posted here in hopes of happier trails

[crich70]

Originally Posted by khalleron

May I enquire why someone who holds the classics in disdain is commenting on a thread on which classics to read?

It would be like me giving tips on football or military strategy.

Not sure you meant me in your posting but if you did you are operating under an incorrect assumption. Actually I quite like the classics. I just thought the Twain quote was a good one considering the topic.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by khalleron

I'm sure you realize, but some people here don't seem to, that Twain was a humorist.

Many of his 'sayings' are pithy, but they're meant for humorous effect, not to be taken as a true picture of the world, or even of Twain's true beliefs.

Also keep in mind, that in Twain's time Dickens was a 'popular' author - 'classics' would have been mostly things written in Greek or Latin. I doubt Austen had achieved classic status by then, either.

We have so many more 'classics' to enjoy than poor Twain did.

Hurray for us!

Touche. My own personal favorite of his quotes is"Adam and Eve had many advantages. The principle one being that they escaped teething." lol. Of course he also said, "Familiarity breeds contempt, and children."

[DMB]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Well, I guess we should ask the OP why HE wants to read the classics. I was approaching it from a "broaden my horizons" aspect, but you're right that there are other reasons to read classics.

But I do think the Greek classics are largely written by the top 'o the pile of that society, for better or worse. Alas, the Greek slaves for the most part weren't able to record their thoughts on a medium that has survived to reach us.

Even things like The Illiad and The Odyssey is written from the POV of the god-children and heroes and generals. Not so much from the POV of the cannon-fodders.

I don't think that this is entirely true. For a start, the Iliad and Odyssey weren't initially "written". They were composed and handed down orally for several centuries before they were ever written down. And although society seems to have been stratified at least since the earliest civilisations, these epics (like Beowulf too, as an example from a different culture) appear to have been widely enjoyed in a society where most people were illiterate.

Similarly, the great Greek plays were performed as a part of religious festivals in which everyone participated. I think we have to accept that heroism was thought of as noble within that culture. And the gods were their religion and were seriously worshipped.

Ancient Greek culture appears to us nowadays as quite alien, because what people thought of as important then doesn't necessarily chime with our views now. But the common humanity shines through as well. If we see one of the Orestes plays, we don't literally believe in the Furies beyond the confines of the play (any more than we probably believe in the ghost of Hamlet's father), but we can appreciate the central problem: his father sacrificed his sister, for which his mother killed his father and then he killed his mother. He needs to be punished for matricide, even though his mother was a murderess.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by DMB

I don't think that this is entirely true. For a start, the Iliad and Odyssey weren't initially "written". They were composed and handed down orally for several centuries before they were ever written down. And although society seems to have been stratified at least since the earliest civilisations, these epics (like Beowulf too, as an example from a different culture) appear to have been widely enjoyed in a society where most people were illiterate.

Similarly, the great Greek plays were performed as a part of religious festivals in which everyone participated. I think we have to accept that heroism was thought of as noble within that culture. And the gods were their religion and were seriously worshipped.

Ancient Greek culture appears to us nowadays as quite alien, because what people thought of as important then doesn't necessarily chime with our views now. But the common humanity shines through as well. If we see one of the Orestes plays, we don't literally believe in the Furies beyond the confines of the play (any more than we probably believe in the ghost of Hamlet's father), but we can appreciate the central problem: his father sacrificed his sister, for which his mother killed his father and then he killed his mother. He needs to be punished for matricide, even though his mother was a murderess.

True enough. Society today is a lot different in many ways from what it was in Ancient Greece, but the basic human passions are still the same. The man who today might well shoot his wife if he found her in bed with another man might well have either choked or stabbed her for the same offense in Ancient Greece. The motivation of jealousy and betrayal is the same though the two societies are very different. I'm also reminded of a story I read that I understand is from that time. According to one of their myths the back half of Pegasus fell from the sky and when it landed on the Earth that race known as politicians sprang from it. Though the story is (if I remember correctly) many centuries old we still get what the original writer meant about politicians. Man has changed very little in some ways over the centuries.

[jocampo]

I speak and write decent English but found that in order to read the classics (native language) you MUST read that language perfectly as well. I must confess I struggle reading English classics or even Bible, in English I mean. Lot of old or deprecated words and English syntax that it's difficult to follow.