Ivanhoe's an interesting example of the influence some of these works can have beyond the quality of the narrative. It isn't necessarily the greatest thing to come down the pike but, beyond the already mentioned effect on literature that followed, the wealthy ante-bellum South was apparently obsessed with it, and it's very interesting to look at the socioeconomic norms of that time/group through that lens.

Well, what's wrong with a cerebral tickle?

Nothing, except that I don't get it. That wasn't a value judgement or a knock; it was a way of expressing bewilderment. I have never once curled up at someone's knee, having been drawn there by "Once upon a time..." and tried comparing the story to someone else's, or tried to wrap my intellect around it. Saying it again: my entire sense of creativity gets queasy if I go there. So I don't, not ever.

Shakespeare, I have the same completely visceral reaction to that I have to Joyce, only much stronger. The St. Crispin speech makes me cry - it's sheer joy of the words. If I wanted to be cerebral about it, I could tear the speech apart, the historian in me could be disgusted at the jingoism of it, the rationalist in me would be appalled at the baseness of Henry's motives, and I would no longer enjoy the speech.

Fuck that. I'd rather enjoy the speech. I don't give a shit why it makes me cry - that's a completely visceral reaction. I do not deconstruct my mantras, or my magic spells, because I'd like to continue to enjoy them.

That's why you never, ever, ever see me in the music threads.

Whee! The Knights Templar! Sorry, conspiracy theory fetishist here.

I've noticed that translation version have a huge impact on a story--duh. There's a Chekov play, "The Brute." The first version I read was very turgid, very--dare I say--Russian. For some reason I decided to read another version--and I found myself giggling over it. The language was still formal in places, but I think the translator erred on the side of modernizing sentence structure in places. It's damned funny.

I avoided most of the classic books one gets in high school, though count me in on the side of Shakespeare, especially once I started understanding hte slang. I've even kept all my old college lit books as a cheap source of poetry.

One thing that's guaranteed to get you stared at on the bus is to have "The Odyssey" open in front of you and you're snickering at the good parts. Someone asked, "What class are you reading that for?" I said, "Oh, I'm just reading it." The other person actually leaned away a little.

Good lord, people. Moby-Dick is the greatest novel in the English language not just because it's so goddamn funny and entertaining, but because it's profoundly affecting, too. Just because you find something difficult at first, you shouldn't decide that it's not worth it. If we all approached life that way, none of us would be able to tie our shoes or ride bicycles. I can understand not liking or getting Faulkner or Pynchon (although I can't condone giving up after failing to understand his writing in college), but it's absolutely ridiculous to give up on Moby-Dick. What's not to love?

And what's with the anti-intellectual bent in this thread? This is the second time in less than a month that I've found people complaining about great literature because it's hard. No kidding. Art is sometimes unamusing, too, and some music is kind of off-putting. I guess that means we should just give up and only surround ourselves with things that comfort us.

Anyway, canon exists because literate people generally agree that those particular works represent the best of literature. No other reason, and usually no ulterior motives. Like David said, sometimes authors fall off the list and sometimes authors are added because of new understanding and new trends. Some of this has to do with creating a common language for literate people. Some of this has to do with common appreciation based on understanding certain rules. Personally, I enjoy literature on several levels: the visceral level of language & pleasure that Deb champions; the historical-philosophical level of enjoying the ideas and the way that the author opens a certain time and place; the analytical level of understanding the choices of syntax and the game-rules that the author employs; and the contextual level of this work, this author, this culture. I'm sure there's more, but those leapt immediately to mind.

Juliana: I'm glad to read that you're enjoying Gravity's Rainbow. I took a break about 100 pages in to re-read Mason & Dixon. GR was just exhausting me this time around, but I'm convinced that it's only the super-small type in my edition.

t pulled down the college lit book with the good version of "The Brute," am reading it aloud and laughing.

Just because you find something difficult at first, you shouldn't decide that it's not worth it.

You do every difficult thing that comes your way, or do you pick and choose?

people complaining about great literature because it's hard

Oh, please. I don't think there's anyone in this thread who would go all Barbie-doll, twist their hair around their finger and coo, "Oh, it's just too much for my little mind." I believe the words were "boring" and "impenetrable", not "hard." Just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean it's good. Politicians and preachers have been using that fallacy for years.

I don't think you have to be anti-intellectual to dislike Melville. I think his prose is tiresome. Not hard to read, just rarely worth the bother. I'd read the collected works of Henry James six times over before reading Moby Dick once, because James, while hardly writing concise prose, writes prose that I feel rewards my reading time. Wilde once said about poetry (and though I disagree about Pope, I like the way he said it, which I think he'd approve of), "There are two ways to dislike poetry. One is to dislike it. The other is to read Pope." I'd say there are two ways to dislike novels. One is, of course, to dislike novels. The other is to read Melville. If you want to yearn for the days of pre-literacy, read Faulkner.

You do every difficult thing that comes your way, or do you pick and choose?

It's funny, but if I've heard about how great something is from people I respect, generally I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean it's good. Politicians and preachers have been using that fallacy for years.

I think hayden was reacting to the opposite of this which is just because it's not simple, doesn't mean it's overrrated.