Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What the H*** is the point in classic literature????
- Thread starter AP_piano295
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
PlaceofDis said:
< has a degree in science.
can't disagree more with what you said. at first there is no need for everyone to understand the culture of 2500 years ago in greece. the world at that time was much larger than greece and focussing on "classic literature" pretends there was greece and nothing else (however i like greece!).
the reason why certain books in certain cultures are classics are not part of the books/stories. the reason is entirely made up in the peoples minds. a certain group of people being influential at that time likes the book and declares it important. other not so important people want to belong to the first group and mimic their behaviour. so they all claim that these classics are "must reads".
this also applys to fine arts and music.
the particular stories (or pieces of art or music) are usually compatible with human psychology in some way and therefore are adapted by the establishment easily. (but that would get us into MEMETICs).
the real negative impact of this mechanism is that claiming the classic literature (or art or music) have a real inherent importance creates a narrow view of the world. as if the understanding of the world would depend on the content of this stories or books. there are more important contemporary books out there that one can read and their content is more important than the so called classics.
alright i'll stop ranting for now.
So, I have a degree in Classical Literature and am working on a masters in New Testament/Early Christianity, where obviously some of this stuff is important.
However, your question gives me pause. I know why I read classical literature, but when I'm presented with a teenager asking me why Oedipus ("Eddie") should be readI'm not sure exactly what to say. It's always interesting to me to consider that for hundreds of years this stuff was "lost." During the Dark Ages, it appears that no one was reading "the Classics." However, lucky for us, people in the Middle East were reading Aristotle and Plato. The Crusades, as well as other social factors, allowed those texts to float back west.
Consider that our earliest full manuscript of the New Testament can be dated roughly to the 4th century. By contrast, what we have of most authors like Sophocles, Euripides, Livy, etc. are manuscripts dated to the 10th century and beyond. When you consider that our manuscripts of Sophocles date from 1400 years after Sophocles was writing [I admit that these statements are based on general knowledge of the state of classical manuscripts...I've never reasearched the manuscript history of Sophocles specifically], it's truly amazing to think that these manuscripts garnered enough attention for someone to pay for their production (not a cheap thing). That someone sat and copied them by hand (often in painstakingly beautiful script). That alone gives me tremendous respect for them.
I think some good reasons for reading classical literature have already been mentioned. I think the most important is just general literacy. By literacy I don't mean reading pamphlets and road signs...I mean reading literaturethe type of high literacy that improves your mind. An interesting study of literacy is Brian Stock's The Implications of Literacy, where he traces the movement of Western Europe from a predominantly oral culture to a literate culture in the Middle Ages. Interesting stuff.
Why should you read the Oedipus Cycle? There are some universal truths in therenot only of the moral kind (e.g., the angst caused by hubris). It would be interesting, if someone were so inclined, to read Antigone in the light of post-colonial discourse, studying Antigone's resistance to Creon's demandsthe actual power of the King versus the moral power of Antigone's desire to honor her brother. Etc. etc. There's lots of stuff going on in there.
When I read Greek tragedy, in general, I sometimes like to think that I'm reading the ancient Best Picture Oscar winners. The Oedipus Cycle is like the Godfather of the 5th century BCE. The Athenians knew what they were doing, generally, when they handed out those awards.
Hmmm...might be time for me to pick up Euripides' Bacchae. A good bacchic festival does the mind and soul some good!
However, your question gives me pause. I know why I read classical literature, but when I'm presented with a teenager asking me why Oedipus ("Eddie") should be readI'm not sure exactly what to say. It's always interesting to me to consider that for hundreds of years this stuff was "lost." During the Dark Ages, it appears that no one was reading "the Classics." However, lucky for us, people in the Middle East were reading Aristotle and Plato. The Crusades, as well as other social factors, allowed those texts to float back west.
Consider that our earliest full manuscript of the New Testament can be dated roughly to the 4th century. By contrast, what we have of most authors like Sophocles, Euripides, Livy, etc. are manuscripts dated to the 10th century and beyond. When you consider that our manuscripts of Sophocles date from 1400 years after Sophocles was writing [I admit that these statements are based on general knowledge of the state of classical manuscripts...I've never reasearched the manuscript history of Sophocles specifically], it's truly amazing to think that these manuscripts garnered enough attention for someone to pay for their production (not a cheap thing). That someone sat and copied them by hand (often in painstakingly beautiful script). That alone gives me tremendous respect for them.
I think some good reasons for reading classical literature have already been mentioned. I think the most important is just general literacy. By literacy I don't mean reading pamphlets and road signs...I mean reading literaturethe type of high literacy that improves your mind. An interesting study of literacy is Brian Stock's The Implications of Literacy, where he traces the movement of Western Europe from a predominantly oral culture to a literate culture in the Middle Ages. Interesting stuff.
Why should you read the Oedipus Cycle? There are some universal truths in therenot only of the moral kind (e.g., the angst caused by hubris). It would be interesting, if someone were so inclined, to read Antigone in the light of post-colonial discourse, studying Antigone's resistance to Creon's demandsthe actual power of the King versus the moral power of Antigone's desire to honor her brother. Etc. etc. There's lots of stuff going on in there.
When I read Greek tragedy, in general, I sometimes like to think that I'm reading the ancient Best Picture Oscar winners. The Oedipus Cycle is like the Godfather of the 5th century BCE. The Athenians knew what they were doing, generally, when they handed out those awards.
Hmmm...might be time for me to pick up Euripides' Bacchae. A good bacchic festival does the mind and soul some good!
I have the perfect answer as to why read Oedipus.
So you can use the term M****rf****r in conversation without hyperbole on unneeded vulgarity.
So you can use the term M****rf****r in conversation without hyperbole on unneeded vulgarity.
That paper made my day!
I can only imagine what that professor was thinking while grading that paper, and REALLY going lenient on the grade.
I can only imagine what that professor was thinking while grading that paper, and REALLY going lenient on the grade.
andiwm2003 said:
I don't agree that there is a negative impact at all here. Its not a matter of understanding the *world* through classic literature, its a matter of looking at things through a different perspective.
By going through, and suffering the classics (they are a pain to read, sometimes), you can adjust the way you associate ideas and concepts. Looking at things outside of your *world* gives you a wider view of the world.
I find your argument helping things stay narrower, try looking at things from a different perspective occasionally, you might learn something.
D
Mr. Anderson said:I find your argument helping things stay narrower, try looking at things from a different perspective occasionally, you might learn something.
D
i've read enough classics from three different languages. so i guess i gave it a fair shot. i still maintain that the prevalent view by many so called literature experts that "only the classics count and we define what classics are" is wrong. having some classics is fine, some (a few) of them are actually fun.
but claiming that a book is important just because some people declare it a classic is plain wrong. and unfortunately thinking a "declared classic" isn't that great after all gives you a straight "F". i can only come up with german literature examples for that. don't know enough english classics to dare to start a discussion about them here.
andiwm2003 said:
Not necessarily. If you can marshall your arguments well enough, then taking a different viewpoint can get you excellent marks. The problem is that it's harder to disprove a popular theory that a book is a classic.
I've read most of the English classics and several of the Latin/Greek ones (most in translation but large chunks of Ovid and Virgil in Latin). Some I enjoyed and keep on my bookshelves to reread; some I read for a class and didn't enjoy. There are some books which are considered 'classics' but which aren't necessarily well-written; their ideas at the time of writing made them memorable and I'd agree that some of those have entirely too much read into their use of language. On the other hand, there are books which are deceptively simple in storyline but breaking down the paragraphs and lines can give more insight into the mind of the author.
To give a non-literary analogy, imagine watching a football game. You see a play fail because the quarterback is sacked. Most of the people watching see just that; some may spot that it's a coverage sack, others may see a mistake by the guard. Students of the game (or those reading too deeply) will break down the planned play, check the routes of receivers, watch the movements of each player on the field and read intentions to the defense's actions). In literature, most people just read the story - and enjoy it or not. A few more appreciate the vocabulary and accuracy of setting. Students of the genre will break down the subtleties of everything.
It's a good enough analogy. The thread title asks, "what...is the point?" Both students and "fans" who attend the "game" would do well to recognize that it is a game. Stepping back and taking a look at the ownership and construction of the stadium where the game's played (football) and doing the same with education (accreditation boards) might also help with "what is the point?" questions. Money, entertainment, discipline, reward, advancement, contribution, productivity, though not exhaustive, are some of the "points".Applespider said:
Applespider said:
Many have tried and and all have failed...
Applespider said:
wow, how many english classics are there?
i guess it would take a lifetime to read what some people consider german "classics". it would probably take 3 month to read what i consider important german "classics".
I read some Ovid but i liked Ciceros speaches. Not that i think they are really important. Just the rethorics are cool. And of course Ceasar's "de bello Gallico" which is no classic at all. But if you are into old school roman warfare stuff....
andiwm2003 said:
Well... let's say many of the English classics. I've always read a lot; for the past 10 years or so, I've had a 45 minute commute each way which allows for a lots of books. I get through several a week.
There was a list in one of the Sunday papers of 'classic literature' and I was up around the 90% mark of the must-reads.
andiwm2003 said:< has a degree in science.
can't disagree more with what you said. at first there is no need for everyone to understand the culture of 2500 years ago in greece. the world at that time was much larger than greece and focussing on "classic literature" pretends there was greece and nothing else (however i like greece!).
the reason why certain books in certain cultures are classics are not part of the books/stories. the reason is entirely made up in the peoples minds. a certain group of people being influential at that time likes the book and declares it important. other not so important people want to belong to the first group and mimic their behaviour. so they all claim that these classics are "must reads".
this also applys to fine arts and music.
the particular stories (or pieces of art or music) are usually compatible with human psychology in some way and therefore are adapted by the establishment easily. (but that would get us into MEMETICs).
the real negative impact of this mechanism is that claiming the classic literature (or art or music) have a real inherent importance creates a narrow view of the world. as if the understanding of the world would depend on the content of this stories or books. there are more important contemporary books out there that one can read and their content is more important than the so called classics.
alright i'll stop ranting for now.
< also with degree not in english
andiwm2003
you have great points there about contempary books and non-greek literature
you mentioned you studied science in college as opposed to english like the rest of the college students on this thread with english degrees
but basically google the history of math and science and you will see that the greeks really had it going and at least in the sciences, they were the center of it all...but it would be nice if other non greek pieces of literature was taught in high school
i once had a great class in asian history and we got to read asian writings of antiquity and found so many parallels to the modern day
jefhatfield said:
well, idoubt that the greeks were "the center of it all". seems that the maya's had equally good mathematics skills for a starter. and the focus on the "pre-defined classics" at least at the time i was in school lead to a total neglect of all of asian culture. thats just about 2/3 of the world.
but that's not really my point. i just have a major problem with some people defining what "important classics" are. and a lot of them think people not having read this "important classics" are uneducated and dumb. I probably have made some bad experiences with the "literature and arts establishment" there.
some of this people are plain intolerant. some of them put an "absolute" importance to some literature that is simply not there. it is mostly a "relative" importance depending in what cultural enviroment you are.
not everthing is a "must read" just because it's Goethe and you are not a slacker for not having read it (i read quite a bit of them).
there are a number of "classics" that i'm happy to have read (e.g. Kafka, although i find it disturbing.
). There are some I had to read and I think they are mostly a waste of time (e.g. Max Frisch's "Homo Faber"). don't know if that are true classics but they are both on the "must read" lists.
andiwm2003 said:
i know other cultures, besides greece, had a lot to offer...yes, the mayans had trigonometry and geometry, the egyptians invented calculus (long before newton's principia mathematica and newton basically knew he was re-discovering lost mathematics from the classical era), but the greeks took algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus to a new level...history channel has also looked into how the greeks may have known a lot more about planetary motion and clockmaking, too
i think the classics are a good base for anybody here in the west and they, to borrow a term stretch the mind...medical schools actually believe the best doctors are those who had undergraduate degrees in the classics and not pre-med or science and gear their admissions that way...dean edell md, often talks about the subject on national radio
while i studied science, business, law and other subjects in high school, college, and graduate school, i found that it's good to know how to think inside of a set of rules (algebra and quantitative analysis comes to mind), but a look at the great scientific mind of richard feynman shows that his well rounded and "artistic" persona and stretched mind was able like him think outside of the box in a way that only einstein had in the 20th century...feynman's theory of quantum electrodynamics and his brilliant three volume cal tech lectures of physics are about a man who thought beyond the rules of math and science
i hate to use this term, but it's all holistic...classics, math/science, psychology, and other subjects are all interdependent on each other and boost each other to further human knowledge of the universe
jefhatfield said:
yep, Feynman is one of the authors i would recommend to read. regardless what you read, but that's a mind worth looking at. needless to say the whatever he writes (aside of the scientific puplications) is usually torn apart by the critics. seems he doesn't follow the established literature "standards" well enough.
...but to be fair of other cultures
if the greeks did not take math and science to the highest level in antiquity, some other culture would have stumbled on it in time
a unified theory of everything in physics is now on the plate, but a similar theory in the context of human interaction with nature/god/cosmology has long been attributed to the ancient jews and their fascinating "bible code" unlocking many mysteries of the universe
but western scholars are just now finiding out that china had writings which basically said the same thing, and more, many years before the cryptic writings of jewish prophets
i do think we in the west can even further the education of our youth by bringing in more writings and belief systems...study the mayans, chinese, africans, voodoo, bhuddism, islam, and even creation stories (book of genesis) taught side by side with darwin (gotta know what a lot of the bush right wingers truly believe)...right now i am reading about the islamic sufis and totally being enlightened by it
the more i study and the more i experience, the more i realize how much the same we really are and that, understanding of each other, will be the foundation of man's greatest (and so far most elusive) achievement of all time...world peace
if the greeks did not take math and science to the highest level in antiquity, some other culture would have stumbled on it in time
a unified theory of everything in physics is now on the plate, but a similar theory in the context of human interaction with nature/god/cosmology has long been attributed to the ancient jews and their fascinating "bible code" unlocking many mysteries of the universe
but western scholars are just now finiding out that china had writings which basically said the same thing, and more, many years before the cryptic writings of jewish prophets
i do think we in the west can even further the education of our youth by bringing in more writings and belief systems...study the mayans, chinese, africans, voodoo, bhuddism, islam, and even creation stories (book of genesis) taught side by side with darwin (gotta know what a lot of the bush right wingers truly believe)...right now i am reading about the islamic sufis and totally being enlightened by it
the more i study and the more i experience, the more i realize how much the same we really are and that, understanding of each other, will be the foundation of man's greatest (and so far most elusive) achievement of all time...world peace
L
Lau
Guest
andiwm2003 said:
physics has long been considered the field most inaccesible and hard to understand for high school and college students alike...the common sense of newton is one thing, but getting into relativity, curved space, and worm holes is not intuitive stuff explained in a straightforward manner
but feynman took what was considered once the realm of the phd and made it accessible, and fun, for all of us to enjoy (his purposefully limited vocabulary and direct bbq-esque approach endeared him to the common man...and he grabbed many a proclaimed non-physicist and steered them into the field and the effects of his teaching will be seen by the great next crop of physicists
a quantum leap in the field will follow his legacy and how lucky we were to have einstein followed by richard feynman
I'm glad you guys appreciated the essay . I've got a lot more where that came from.
"this is page 3" lol
. I've got a lot more where that came from."this is page 3" lol
Chundles said:
yeah 61 is a bit high I got a 45 thats 45 out of 100 on my final essay on to kill a mockingbird and I worked on that for three days strait. Honestly thought it was good she gave me a b- and b plus on the other major papers I turned in I was running with a b plus in that class in till that essay grade hit... my rents wernt happy about that c-....mebe I should start smoking a 61 would be better.
