5 ms·

I don't think that's true at all. Sure many classics are great, but what is and isn't considered a "classic" is dictated to a large extent by what literature te

by learc83 12y ago

I don't think that's true at all. Sure many classics are great, but what is and isn't considered a "classic" is dictated to a large extent by what literature teachers choose to teach, and it is heavily biased towards what literature teachers find enjoyable. Classics definitely aren't picked because millions of people over dozens of generations have enjoyed them more than other books. If that were the case, high school students would spend a year just reading Agatha Christie. And I can count on one hand the number of science fiction and fantasy books we read in high school and college literature classes (1984, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451).

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
The criterion isn't 'enjoyable' - it's 'improving.' There's a strange belief that reading certain books will make your mind better. (For ''better', read 'more middle class' - at least, that's how it works in the UK.) It may even be true: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/07/reading-good-book-make-better-person-nathan-filer-costa http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/07/reading... There's an entire series of books by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu where he pulls apart culture as a symbol of status and social distinction. He's well worth reading on the topic. (But being middle class, I would say that...) A lot of people miss the fact that literature is about teaching moral lessons. If you read books about novel writing, you'll see that some recommend that you start with a premise - which is a moral point you want to make. You can then use the writing to dramatise the premise. This is more persuasive than stating it outright as an opinion, and also gives the book a focus it wouldn't otherwise have. This is a slightly old-fashioned view now, but I think it applies to many old-fashioned classics - maybe not so much to modern fiction, a lot of which is either escapist or nihilistic or horrific for the sake of it. 1984, Brave New World, and F451 all have a strong premise, IMO.
- ashark 12y ago
  As a mostly-sic-fi reader who later broadened his horizons to include lots of classic literature, I think a lot of sci-fi fans don't have a great sense of how "good" sci-fi writing compares with the sorts of things that end up in the literary canon. Often the basic craft of the writing isn't even up to the standards of a typical "canonical" work (see: Asimov, with his hopelessly flat characters and dialogue), let alone the finer qualities that take a work from "a fun read" to sublime.
  - ollysb 12y ago
    Which authors would you recommend(for sci-fi)?
    - ashark 12y ago
      TL;DR: Bradbury, A Canticle for Leibowitz, and Vonnegut, sort of. Bradbury, unreservedly. I remember really liking Dune through God Emperor, but I read it so long ago that I recommend it only tentatively. I do recall that the one non-Dune book of Herbert's I attempted to read seemed like it was written while on acid, and not in a good way. A Canticle for Leibowitz is one of the best sci-fi novels I've read. Its author wasn't very active, though, so there's not much else from him. I haven't read any of the rest, but none of it has the reputation that Canticle does. I'd put forward Vonnegut, but a) he's often not classed as a sci-fi writer for some reason, and b) I personally think he's at his best when his sci-fi tendencies are kept to a minimum (Dead Eye Dick, Bluebeard, Galapagos, which is as more fantasy than sci-fi if one must stick a genre label on it). I'd class Atwood as similar to Vonnegut in this regard, but even more so—her sci-fi work is just OK, from what I've seen of it, and I prefer her "straight" fiction. If found Clarke's The City and the Stars deeply affecting (though, for long stretches, a bit of a chore), but the other couple novels of his I've read I wish I hadn't. A couple interesting ideas that stick, but not much substance. They were The Hammer of God and The Songs of a Distant Earth, for the record. They weren't even very entertaining. Both were late novels, so maybe his earlier stuff tends to be better? Mere speculation. I've been put off trying more of him by his current 1-for-3 record. I do like the movie 2001, though :-) Bester's probably my biggest blind spot among the sci-fi greats—I've read nothing by him. I can recommend The New Hugo Winners collections over The Hugo Winners, pretty much universally, if you're looking for short stories. Asimov all but sneers at them in his torch-passing introduction, but the reason he feels out of touch with those authors' work is because they're way better than what he was used to. However, I've yet to find a contemporary sci-fi author I can rely upon to deliver an entire novel that doesn't fall apart at some point, one way or another. I haven't tried Murakami, who seems well regarded and is, by reputation, my greatest remaining chance. (Just to be clear, I enjoy plenty of other sci-fi in a guilty-pleasure, lazy weekend sort of way, in the same way that I genuinely like watching [some] crappy movies on Netflix)
- learc83 12y ago
  >A lot of people miss the fact that literature is about teaching moral lessons. If you read books about novel writing, you'll see that some recommend that you start with a premise - which is a moral point you want to make. I'd argue that science fiction is more focused on teaching a moral lesson than any other genre.
  - firebones 12y ago
    And generally more blunt about it, certainly.
thret 12y ago
Agatha Christie is indeed enjoyable, but she hasn't been read for hundreds of years. Do you really think people will be reading her 200 years from now? I'm not sure why you think what is considered a classic could be dictated by what is taught in schools? I can see no basis for this assertion.
- learc83 12y ago
  > Do you really think people will be reading her 200 years from now? Well people have been reading her novels for 95 years now, and she's sold over 2 billion copies. So the answer is yes I do. >I'm not sure why you think what is considered a classic could be dictated by what is taught in schools? I can see no basis for this assertion. Because what most people consider classics are books they were told are classics--mostly by their high school literature teacher. I'm sure there are more objective measures, but the majority of people certainly don't use them. Being a classic is a bit self propagating. Kids grow up hearing that Ethan Frome is a classic, they become teachers and teach their students that Ethan Frome is a classic.
  - firebones 12y ago
    The Lindy Effect [1] would say that the best guess is that they'll still be reading her 95 years from now... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_Effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_Effect
bobcostas55 12y ago
Literature teachers have hated the classics for the last 40 years or so. The "canon" has not only been under attack, it has lost the fight completely.
- learc83 12y ago
  According to the study written about here, that's not true. https://nylusmilk.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/top-10-most-taught-books-in-high-school/ https://nylusmilk.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/top-10-most-taugh... This also fits with what I remember from high school 13 years ago.

by learc83 12y ago

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago

The criterion isn't 'enjoyable' - it's 'improving.' There's a strange belief that reading certain books will make your mind better. (For ''better', read 'more middle class' - at least, that's how it works in the UK.) It may even be true: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/07/reading-good-book-make-better-person-nathan-filer-costa http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/07/reading... There's an entire series of books by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu where he pulls apart culture as a symbol of status and social distinction. He's well worth reading on the topic. (But being middle class, I would say that...) A lot of people miss the fact that literature is about teaching moral lessons. If you read books about novel writing, you'll see that some recommend that you start with a premise - which is a moral point you want to make. You can then use the writing to dramatise the premise. This is more persuasive than stating it outright as an opinion, and also gives the book a focus it wouldn't otherwise have. This is a slightly old-fashioned view now, but I think it applies to many old-fashioned classics - maybe not so much to modern fiction, a lot of which is either escapist or nihilistic or horrific for the sake of it. 1984, Brave New World, and F451 all have a strong premise, IMO.

ashark 12y ago
As a mostly-sic-fi reader who later broadened his horizons to include lots of classic literature, I think a lot of sci-fi fans don't have a great sense of how "good" sci-fi writing compares with the sorts of things that end up in the literary canon. Often the basic craft of the writing isn't even up to the standards of a typical "canonical" work (see: Asimov, with his hopelessly flat characters and dialogue), let alone the finer qualities that take a work from "a fun read" to sublime.
- ollysb 12y ago
  Which authors would you recommend(for sci-fi)?
  - ashark 12y ago
    TL;DR: Bradbury, A Canticle for Leibowitz, and Vonnegut, sort of. Bradbury, unreservedly. I remember really liking Dune through God Emperor, but I read it so long ago that I recommend it only tentatively. I do recall that the one non-Dune book of Herbert's I attempted to read seemed like it was written while on acid, and not in a good way. A Canticle for Leibowitz is one of the best sci-fi novels I've read. Its author wasn't very active, though, so there's not much else from him. I haven't read any of the rest, but none of it has the reputation that Canticle does. I'd put forward Vonnegut, but a) he's often not classed as a sci-fi writer for some reason, and b) I personally think he's at his best when his sci-fi tendencies are kept to a minimum (Dead Eye Dick, Bluebeard, Galapagos, which is as more fantasy than sci-fi if one must stick a genre label on it). I'd class Atwood as similar to Vonnegut in this regard, but even more so—her sci-fi work is just OK, from what I've seen of it, and I prefer her "straight" fiction. If found Clarke's The City and the Stars deeply affecting (though, for long stretches, a bit of a chore), but the other couple novels of his I've read I wish I hadn't. A couple interesting ideas that stick, but not much substance. They were The Hammer of God and The Songs of a Distant Earth, for the record. They weren't even very entertaining. Both were late novels, so maybe his earlier stuff tends to be better? Mere speculation. I've been put off trying more of him by his current 1-for-3 record. I do like the movie 2001, though :-) Bester's probably my biggest blind spot among the sci-fi greats—I've read nothing by him. I can recommend The New Hugo Winners collections over The Hugo Winners, pretty much universally, if you're looking for short stories. Asimov all but sneers at them in his torch-passing introduction, but the reason he feels out of touch with those authors' work is because they're way better than what he was used to. However, I've yet to find a contemporary sci-fi author I can rely upon to deliver an entire novel that doesn't fall apart at some point, one way or another. I haven't tried Murakami, who seems well regarded and is, by reputation, my greatest remaining chance. (Just to be clear, I enjoy plenty of other sci-fi in a guilty-pleasure, lazy weekend sort of way, in the same way that I genuinely like watching [some] crappy movies on Netflix)
learc83 12y ago
>A lot of people miss the fact that literature is about teaching moral lessons. If you read books about novel writing, you'll see that some recommend that you start with a premise - which is a moral point you want to make. I'd argue that science fiction is more focused on teaching a moral lesson than any other genre.
- firebones 12y ago
  And generally more blunt about it, certainly.

thret 12y ago

Agatha Christie is indeed enjoyable, but she hasn't been read for hundreds of years. Do you really think people will be reading her 200 years from now? I'm not sure why you think what is considered a classic could be dictated by what is taught in schools? I can see no basis for this assertion.

learc83 12y ago
> Do you really think people will be reading her 200 years from now? Well people have been reading her novels for 95 years now, and she's sold over 2 billion copies. So the answer is yes I do. >I'm not sure why you think what is considered a classic could be dictated by what is taught in schools? I can see no basis for this assertion. Because what most people consider classics are books they were told are classics--mostly by their high school literature teacher. I'm sure there are more objective measures, but the majority of people certainly don't use them. Being a classic is a bit self propagating. Kids grow up hearing that Ethan Frome is a classic, they become teachers and teach their students that Ethan Frome is a classic.
- firebones 12y ago
  The Lindy Effect [1] would say that the best guess is that they'll still be reading her 95 years from now... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_Effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_Effect

bobcostas55 12y ago

Literature teachers have hated the classics for the last 40 years or so. The "canon" has not only been under attack, it has lost the fight completely.

learc83 12y ago
According to the study written about here, that's not true. https://nylusmilk.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/top-10-most-taught-books-in-high-school/ https://nylusmilk.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/top-10-most-taugh... This also fits with what I remember from high school 13 years ago.