Strategies for reading the classics?

[catsknit]

Originally Posted by SeaBookGuy

I recently read (listened to an unabriged) "Emma" and wasn't all that impressed.

I didn't discover Jane Austen until I was in my early 40's. I began with Emma and hated it - took me 2 tries to get through it. Fortunately, a friend convinced me to read some other of her books and I loved all the rest. I've since re-read Emma thinking I'd like it better after understanding the rest of Austen. I still hate that one but the others are great.

[Barty]

Originally Posted by encapuchado

I love statements like "I don't understand how there are people who don't like X". That says a lot about the level of intelligence and empathy of the utterer

Ok maybe I should've put a smiley in there. The ice cream analogy should've shown I wasn't speaking seriously. I personally know people who don't care for ice cream, as well as people who are bored by Austen and the entire genre about period English upper middle class life. It says nothing about their taste or intelligence.

Me, I just eat this stuff up. I'm the ideal target for the BBC / Merchant Ivory syndicate.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by DMB

Anamardoll, I think you misunderstood what I meant about the Greeks. There's was a very different culture from ours; one might call it alien. But we live in a multicultural world and I think it's a good thing to be able to take in the cultural details and differences while also seeing the common humanity. If our world is to pull though its many problems, we need to find that common humanity.

Reading the classics introduces us to different ways of looking at the world and dealing with life's problems. I don't think we should be so confident about our own culture as to suppose that if humans are still around in a couple of thousand years' time they won't look back on us with some misgivings and even contempt.

Of course I agree about Clytemnestra. Our 21st-century take on her story can provide an interesting basis for a modern novel. Have you come across the Canongate Myth Series? I really enjoyed Margaret Atwood's Penelopiad, which was part of the series.

Our take on that story is one of the many reasons for reading the stories. Reading this sort of thing isn't like reading a piece of modern genre fiction; it's a bit more gritty than that. It surprises, horrifies and challenges us. The Iliad, in particular, is definitely strange. By the time we come to read it, we may have a sketchy idea of the myth and would expect it to start with Paris, the three goddesses and Helen. Instead, it plunges into the middle of the Trojan War and is about Achilles' monstrous sulk. I think it's an interesting question to consider whether an ancient Greek audience would have sympathised with Achilles, the greatest Greek hero, or thought he was behaving badly. That raises the whole question of men's "honour" and what it means. This is still a live question today, with so many so-called "honour killings".

The structure of works like The Iliad and Odyssey when performed was quite different as well. They had a Chorus that would introduce the audience to what was going on and of course back then they could have divine intervention in events. What we would consider cheating on the part of the author they saw as normal. Their mental outlook on the world was very different from ours. To them everything was dependent on the 'Gods' who could be angered by almost anything or who could decide to do something that caused harm to mortals on a whim if nothing else. And woe to any man who offended the Gods somehow. Their plays weren't only entertainment but warnings to not attract the attention of their Gods lest you find yourself in deep trouble.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by crich70

The structure of works like The Iliad and Odyssey when performed was quite different as well. They had a Chorus that would introduce the audience to what was going on and of course back then they could have divine intervention in events. What we would consider cheating on the part of the author they saw as normal. Their mental outlook on the world was very different from ours. To them everything was dependent on the 'Gods' who could be angered by almost anything or who could decide to do something that caused harm to mortals on a whim if nothing else. And woe to any man who offended the Gods somehow. Their plays weren't only entertainment but warnings to not attract the attention of their Gods lest you find yourself in deep trouble.

Greek plays often had a chorus, but I do not recall either The Iliad or The Odyssey having a dedicated chorus part. Although it has been several years since I've read either and it may well be dependent on the whim of the translator.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by crich70

It was performed in Coventry England which is why the Carol is called the "Coventry Carol" to this day.

Interesting-- this seems to be fairly well known, but I've never heard of it. Did some Googling, looked on Youtube, thought it might be something I've heard before but didn't remember, but nope. Never heard it before.

[DMB]

Originally Posted by crich70

The structure of works like The Iliad and Odyssey when performed was quite different as well. They had a Chorus that would introduce the audience to what was going on and of course back then they could have divine intervention in events. What we would consider cheating on the part of the author they saw as normal. Their mental outlook on the world was very different from ours. To them everything was dependent on the 'Gods' who could be angered by almost anything or who could decide to do something that caused harm to mortals on a whim if nothing else. And woe to any man who offended the Gods somehow. Their plays weren't only entertainment but warnings to not attract the attention of their Gods lest you find yourself in deep trouble.

I didn't know about choruses for epic poems either. I thought it was just for plays.

I love the quotation from King Lear about the gods:

As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods, —
They kill us for their sport.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by DMB

I have to say that if I had to pick one poem in the English language to last me for the rest of my life, it would be Ozmandias

Idylls of the King for me.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by DMB

I think it's an interesting question to consider whether an ancient Greek audience would have sympathised with Achilles, the greatest Greek hero, or thought he was behaving badly. That raises the whole question of men's "honour" and what it means. This is still a live question today, with so many so-called "honour killings".

Same word, used for two utterly different things.

Honor to Achilles meant something along the lines of "my worth as a man reflected by my personal valor."

Honor to the barbarians who kill their daughters & sisters means something like "my social status reflected by my ability to control my women."

Not "honor killings." "Status killings."

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by crich70

To them everything was dependent on the 'Gods' who could be angered by almost anything or who could decide to do something that caused harm to mortals on a whim if nothing else. And woe to any man who offended the Gods somehow. Their plays weren't only entertainment but warnings to not attract the attention of their Gods lest you find yourself in deep trouble.

I think that in the context of the plays, the gods were constructs used to convey shorthand explanations of psychological truths underlying human actions, bearing in mind the audience's expectation that the universe should somehow be an orderly or rational place, but obviously isn't always one.

[Ms M]

"..if you haven't read the Bible yet, do that first or else you'll be screwed later" ..how poignant!

[Rich_D]

If the books are truly classics, someone would have made them into movies, save yourself the worry and rent a bunch of dvds.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by Rich_D

If the books are truly classics, someone would have made them into movies, save yourself the worry and rent a bunch of dvds.

Well, if it's a decent movie, someone will have turned it into a video game, so why waste time watching?

Your move.

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Well, if it's a decent movie, someone will have turned it into a video game, so why waste time watching?

Your move.

Just buy the video game's action figure, or the Lego sets? I've got a Luke Skywalker minifig, which is really just the New Testament saviour-myth distilled into the ultimate societal truth of a nugget of non-biodegradable plastic, right?

Sorry, ficbot. I am learning from this thread too, honest.

One thing I've found lacking in myself in reading of some classics is historical knowledge. I can enjoy Shakespeare, for example, but can also be frustrated by not being able to place some of it within history, or even awareness of the time in which he wrote. I'm trying to rectify that, currently reading some non-fiction history texts, broad in scope (such as The Isles, by Norman Davies).

Cheers,
Marc

[Rich_D]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Well, if it's a decent movie, someone will have turned it into a video game, so why waste time watching?

Your move.

Well, after the franchise success of the movie, video game and action figures, the porn industry will cover it and give new meaning to the phrase "Alimentary, my dear Watson, alimentary."

[crich70]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Greek plays often had a chorus, but I do not recall either The Iliad or The Odyssey having a dedicated chorus part. Although it has been several years since I've read either and it may well be dependent on the whim of the translator.

Touche. I haven't really read them through and might have them confused a bit. Certainly though plays and poems were probably closer in presentation back then. Storytellers explained through their stories how/why things happened to a degree I think. Course the world itself was no doubt a very frightening place back then. Anything might be out there beyond the places that a man knew well.