"Classic" literature vs modern literature

Status
Not open for further replies.

TsukiRyoko

Forced into cell phone life
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
2,692
Reaction score
942
Location
West Vir-freaking-ginia
Website
tsuki-explodes.blogspot.com
My English teacher assigns us what he calls "classical" literature (even though most of it isn't really classical at all) and stuff to read all the time, then asks us to dissect the symbolism behind it. According to him, pieces like "The Lottery", "Death of a Salesman", "The Jilting of Granny Weatherall" are considered classical literature, but I disagree. While I do see the strong symbolism and message used in each of these piece, I don't see how they're "classical" literature. Is he wrong about their genre, or am I misunderstanding the meaning of "classical"?
 

Calla Lily

On hiatus
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
39,307
Reaction score
17,490
Location
Non carborundum illegitimi
Website
www.aliceloweecey.net
If you ask my 16-y-o, "classical"="depressing." I've read everything in his textbook, and I agree with his assessment. It's enough to make HS students swear off reading for life.

I think the word should be "seminal"--works that epitomized or defined a genre or movement. IMO--and I'm a former English teacher--"classical" covers works by Homer, Suetonius, Aeschylus, Malory, Chaucer, Shakespeare, the Restoration writers, Dumas, Dickens--you get the idea. This is only MO!
 

TsukiRyoko

Forced into cell phone life
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
2,692
Reaction score
942
Location
West Vir-freaking-ginia
Website
tsuki-explodes.blogspot.com
If you ask my 16-y-o, "classical"="depressing." I've read everything in his textbook, and I agree with his assessment. It's enough to make HS students swear off reading for life.

I think the word should be "seminal"--works that epitomized or defined a genre or movement. IMO--and I'm a former English teacher--"classical" covers works by Homer, Suetonius, Aeschylus, Malory, Chaucer, Shakespeare, the Restoration writers, Dumas, Dickens--you get the idea. This is only MO!
That's what I assumed classical literature was- it's all written by people who've been dead for a longggggg time. But "The Lottery" and "Death of a Salesman"- that's not classical, is it?

I don't mind classical literature as much as other teens my age, but I'll still take elves fighting ogres with magical arrows over it any day of the week, though :)
 

willietheshakes

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
3,661
Reaction score
726
Location
Semi-sunny Victoria BC
In this case, it's a misuse of the word "classical" (not a lot of fiction from the Greeks and Romans). "Canonical" is the word your English teacher should be using.
 

paprikapink

Bored fanatic
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
868
Location
yonder
Website
paprikapink2.blogspot.com
Or maybe teacher is saying "classic," not "classical" at all? In music, for instance, it's a bigge difference. As in Classic Rock = Freebird; Classical Rock = PDQ Bach.
 

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
I see "classical" as in James Joyce or Shakespeare. Death of a Salesman may be a classic, but not classical.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I think the word your teacher is looking for is, indeed, "classic," not "classical." I would conjecture that he or she is using "classic" to refer to works of literature generally revered and thought of as "great" in one sense or another by the literary community, and are also considered "acceptable" by the school system.

I truly dislike the idea of "classic" literature as is usually presented in high school, though, due to the second part of my conjecture. Too often, it's the same ol' boring books with a few good ones thrown in. I know that's really just my opinion, because I'm not particularly fond of lots of the authors I was taught. (Some of them, on the other hand, I loved dearly, like F. Scott Fitzgerald.)

It's not so much that I consider the majority of books taught in high school unworthy of study therein, but more so that I find it a fatal flaw that there are many, many great writers that are well-respected and truly made a deep impact on literature that the school system generally ignores. These include such writers as Kafka, Kerouac, Ginsberg, Camus, Pynchon, Borges, Beckett, Eco, Joyce, Marquez, DeLillo, and so on. Now not all schools ignore all of these, but for the most part, the great works of literature produced by writers like these are generally left out of the English classes. I have to ask why, as all of these writers certainly have as much, if not more literary merit than some of the authors forced upon me in school. My personal theory is that the American school system is simply afraid of the ideas presented by many of them, and prefers to stick to "safer" ideologies like Orwell's "totalitarianism is bad" or Harper Lee's "rape is bad." What do other people think of this?
 

Soccer Mom

Crypto-fascist
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
18,604
Reaction score
8,039
Location
Under your couch
Kafka, Kerouac, Camus, Beckett, Joyce, etc were all on the menu when I was in school. It depends on the school. And yes, mine was plain old public school.

ETA: Eco wasn't required in high school but was in college and I'm devoutly glad I only had to read him once. I wanted to claw my eyes out.
 

Cinzia8

Registered
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
39
Reaction score
3
Location
Illinois
I agree with The Lily and Kuwisdelu(angry guy with cigarette :)) classical reads are older or ancient pieces of work that transcend time. Writers such as Kafka, Kerouac, Ginsberg, Dickens, Hesse and for me Tolstoy and Nabokov are seldom read at the high school level. A Tale of Two Cities has had a revival, but generally the themes of many of the high school books are about coming of age or teen depression, suicide and prejudice. I fear for the reading level of the general population in the future because IMO the push toward fast paced, simple prose, less narrative and more action will leave these "classical" novels in the shadows for the coming generation of readers. I hope they will not become musty old tomes gathering dust on an ancient or more accurately, metal bookshelf in a used book store (the stores where I find the most beautifully bound copies of my classical favorites).
Cinzia
 

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
I was speaking to a high school English teacher last year and we agreed that schools should introduce more modern classics in addition to all the old-time favorites that may be outdated to this generation. It's great to study Joyce but what good is it if the 15yos can't relate to the material? Something like To Kill a Mockingbird or Catch 22 is more relevant. The trouble is, who decides on what is "classic"? Harry Potter is now being taught in college -- but is it a classic yet? Or should popularity be considered?
 

CaroGirl

Living the dream
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
8,368
Reaction score
2,327
Location
Bookstores
Willie's right. These are "modern classics" that have become part of the "canon" of modern literature.
 

Calla Lily

On hiatus
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
39,307
Reaction score
17,490
Location
Non carborundum illegitimi
Website
www.aliceloweecey.net
My son just finished Gatsby--he hated it as much as I did back then. It's all a matter of taste, sometimes.

And hey, you complainers! I went to a small Catholic HS. The most interesting reading assignment we got was Romeo and Juliet! Nobody as radical as Fitzgerald or Orwell or--gasp--Salinger! :D
 

Will Lavender

Everything is what it seems.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
355
Location
Louisville, KY
He does indeed mean canonical. He's talking about literature that lasts.

What you realize when you're out of school -- at least I did -- that all that old stuff that you first thought was boring is often breathtakingly good when you rediscover it. There is a reason many of these books last.

That said, there does tend to be too much of a weight given to the so-called classics. There is a lot of stuff that's been written in the last 25 years that is completely ignored in high schools across America, and that's unfortunate.
 

Voyager

Ribbed for your pleasure.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
1,445
Reaction score
3,196
I always consider classical literature the kind of stuff that you have to do heavy research on before you can read it, like Homer, Catallus, Vergil, etc. You can't really understand their writing unless you know your ancient history, but once you do, you'll be hooked for life. But then again, maybe those are the ancient classics? *sigh*
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
What you realize when you're out of school -- at least I did -- that all that old stuff that you first thought was boring is often breathtakingly good when you rediscover it. There is a reason many of these books last.
A lot of it is about timing. I too have rediscovered books that left me unimpressed when I was younger and that now I realize are fabulous. Or books that I loved then, and love even more today for different reasons.

There are also books that you loved when young, or even missed, though everybody else had read them. And when you read them later in life, it's too late -- they no longer appeal to you in the same fashion. You can come to a book too late as well as too early.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I was speaking to a high school English teacher last year and we agreed that schools should introduce more modern classics in addition to all the old-time favorites that may be outdated to this generation. It's great to study Joyce but what good is it if the 15yos can't relate to the material? Something like To Kill a Mockingbird or Catch 22 is more relevant. The trouble is, who decides on what is "classic"? Harry Potter is now being taught in college -- but is it a classic yet? Or should popularity be considered?

I like the idea that more modern classics should be introduced, but I guess as a personal opinion, I just prefer different "classics."

I found Joyce world's more relevant and enjoyable to me than To Kill a Mockingbird, which felt very patronizing to me, even in middle school. The modern "classics" I would have loved to have seen on the syllabus in high school are great novels that define our more modern society. I'm not sure how old others posting in this thread are, but as an eighteen-year-old, fresh out of high school, I think one of the movements most relevant--and interesting--to me and my classmates was postmodernism and its predecessors. I would have loved to see more works from writers like Burroughs, Pynchon, DeLillo, David Foster Wallace, and their precursors like Nabokov, Kerouac, Ginsberg, Borges, Chabon, Palahniuk, etc. I don't think there's any doubt these authors have a bit more literary merit than Harry Potter. Perhaps it's just my young eyes, but coming-of-age novels like To Kill a Mockingbird feel extremely dated.

Of course, I know I'm also bias. Personally, I loved The Great Gastby and think Umberto Eco's novels are more exciting than thrillers.
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I always consider classical literature the kind of stuff that you have to do heavy research on before you can read it, like Homer, Catallus, Vergil, etc. You can't really understand their writing unless you know your ancient history, but once you do, you'll be hooked for life. But then again, maybe those are the ancient classics? *sigh*

Catullus is amazing. Vergil, not so much. God help anyone who has to do Cicero.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Kafka, Kerouac, Camus, Beckett, Joyce, etc were all on the menu when I was in school. It depends on the school. And yes, mine was plain old public school.

ETA: Eco wasn't required in high school but was in college and I'm devoutly glad I only had to read him once. I wanted to claw my eyes out.

I wish my curriculum were so lucky. I went to a prestigious private school, and even my favorite English teachers only did Camus and Joyce.

Of course, you had to take the Creative Writing class to get Ginsberg ;)

I do wish my college offered a course on Eco.... Foucault's Pendulum is a million times more of a page-turner than The Da Vinci Code for me.
 

Will Lavender

Everything is what it seems.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
355
Location
Louisville, KY
I have to ask why, as all of these writers certainly have as much, if not more literary merit than some of the authors forced upon me in school. My personal theory is that the American school system is simply afraid of the ideas presented by many of them, and prefers to stick to "safer" ideologies like Orwell's "totalitarianism is bad" or Harper Lee's "rape is bad." What do other people think of this?

It's because the authors you mention haven't had time to seep into the canon.

A lot of these curriculum builders -- they haven't read the books they prescribe. They wait until the all clear goes up, for someone to tell them that a work is "great," and then it's up on the reading list. I don't know if it has as much to do with message as it does an ignorance from the ones who tell us what to read.

Reminds me of a discussion I read recently of a banned book. One of the parents who complained about the book said (not a quote), "This is why they should be reading only the classics in school. If it was good enough for me, then it's good enough for my daughter."

Typical thinking. The new is fought against and feared in literature more than it is in any other art form, and this comes at the detriment of a new generation of potential readers.
 

eveningstar

circus girl without a safety net
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
219
Reaction score
2,000
I actually did study Harry Potter in college, for my Children's Literature class. And that was eight years ago.
 

HeronW

Down Under Fan
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
6,398
Reaction score
1,854
Location
Rishon Lezion, Israel
35 years ago, I talked my 10th grade teacher into having us read Dracula in Modern Novels: it's written in the diary style of the day by various characters. It was my 6th time, most every one else's 1st and I was the only one who enjoyed myself. VvvvvV

Last of the Mohicans on the other hand is gawdawful: drags, sags and is tripe. The movie with Daniel Day Lewis cut all that and made it into a fascinating study of the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.