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.

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

See, if this REALLY worked, I'd have a lot more of my friends coming to krav.

Nah, I'm good with the idea that people I respect really like things I dislike, and vice versa. My life, as of last count, is still too short.

Maybe I'd have read it and enjoyed it. I'll read something else and enjoy it, though. I'll be good.

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.

I think that's more than a bit of an overstatement. I've heard people singling out individual works or authors they don't care for, sure. And for a variety of reasons - but when I say something bores me or doesn't seem worth it or I don't like the style, please don't equate that with it's too hard.

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

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.

That's great. Really, really great.