We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

Posted By: fire365 Oct 19, 2004 - 07:23 pm

Hello all I havent been posting lately because I have been so busy but I figured I needed to rant a little. I have been reading the Awakening for english and it has made my ponder why some novels are considered "masterpieces." I mean it can't be for entertainment value based on the boringness and biasedness of some books such as The Awakening or Pride and Prejudice. Since these novels are boring as he(double hockey sticks). It also can't be the themes since most of those are repeated through clasical literature. I think novels become "clasics" when they can easly be used by english teachers and academia in general to illustrate "good" english, diction and such. Now don't get me wrong there are lots of clasical novels that I consider very intellectual yet still entertaining. Such as many of shakespeare's works. I also think there are very good novels that the established english departments don't focus on becuase of the difficulty involved in "teaching" them rather then what could really bring students in.
Sorry about my rant but I needed to vent.
Chris

Posted By: Kevin Oct 19, 2004 - 07:31 pm

I think that a "classic" is what a store calls a "masterpiece," and a masterpiece is what you think of as a great story. A classic story to me is one with a "masterful plot," as that is quite hard to create. One man once said that there were only ten "Master" plots that could ever be conceived, that the rest would simply be copies, and to me, a "master plot" is a classic story.
PS. If you can understand my language, you're a "master" at comprehension.

Posted By: Magus Oct 20, 2004 - 03:32 pm

I actually love Shakespear. But I know many classic novels that I think aren't. O.K., maybe just 2:

A Tale of Two Cities

The Scarlet Letter

I just can't stand these two. In A Tale of Two Cities I loved the first and last chapter. They were awsome. I also liked Madame Dufarge as a villain. But, in all honesty, I hated the rest. I hated Mr. Dickens' style, no offense. I just wouldn't stand it.

The Scarlet Letter was little improvement, we just finished the Quarter Exam in my English Class on this today. The syle was much improved, MUCH improved. But the plot was all but nonexistant. There was nothing of merit to the plot or the story at large. It was undoubtably made worse by it being taught by my English Teacher, whom I can't stand, but it is still a very superfluous and non-plotted piece.

I hear very good things concerning The Three Musketeers from my sister, which she read on her own, and more good things concerning Beowulf. And there are some that I do want to read other then those (The Count of Monte Cristo, Les Miserables, Le Mort De Arthur, Dracula, The Unusual Case of Dr. Jekyle and Mr. Hyde...) and further that I've read and enjoyed. But mostly I agree with the statements above, they simply show good mechanics of writing and not so much good plotting, characters or developement. I think that Many of today's modern writers such as Stephen King, Michael Crichton, Philip K. Dick, etc... show just as good mechanics and far better plotting and the rest.

Posted By: Magus Oct 20, 2004 - 05:32 pm

I'm actually going to pose this question to my English teacher tomarrow; why classics are considered as such and if its only for technical and mechanical reasons. I think it would be an interesting concept.

Posted By: fire365 Oct 20, 2004 - 05:53 pm

Ah Kevin this is something I can agree with you on, but only partially. I do conceit that a carefully crafted and unique plot can be a source of much enjoyment and exalt a mediocre text into something uncommonly great. I do however feel that a great novel can have a standard, overused, or even bland plot yet still be "masterful" piece of writing through character development. This is one thing which I feel that authors can do to vivificate a palin old story and turn it into something truly unforgetable. Unfortuntaly I think that most authors barely scratch the surface in this regard.

Posted By: Gnollslayer Oct 20, 2004 - 05:54 pm

I don't like many of the "classics," but there are a some that I have enjoyed. Beowulf, The Faerie Queene, many of Shakespeare's plays (about half of the ones that I've read), The Praise of Folly, The Prince, and Homer's works.

My favorite classic, though, is Don Quixote.

I did NOT like: The Divine Comedy, the Aeneid, or anything by Dickens.

Posted By: Magus Oct 20, 2004 - 06:23 pm

I agree that plot is not as essensial when dealing with a highly character driven story. Stephen King claims to have only ever written one plot driven story, The Dead Zone. And he is the most celebrated living author, and easily one of the greatest to ever live, although he's not, in my opinion, not THE greatest.

What I say is that some of the "classics" that I have read don't have much, if any, in some instances, plot to them. And even then there is very little character developement or portrayal, with a few exceptions in my reading.

I do enjoy Shakepsear very much. And I hope to find many other classics and classic authors that I enjoy.

I'll post here what my teacher says on the subject tomarrow.

Posted By: Aldan Oct 22, 2004 - 11:12 pm

I believe that part of what makes a classic a classic is what novels were like AT THAT TIME. If a story is solid AND it stretches the genre, that will help it tremendously to become a classic. However, I also believe that if pseudo-intellectuals can take the story and say that it fits such and so things that they believe strongly in, it can also become a classic, however undeservedly.
Something to remember about literature, though, is that what was extremely readable at one time may become a trudgefest a mere hundred years in the future, and that a hundred years before it was written, they'd be asking each other what language is being used in the future story.

Posted By: Magus Oct 23, 2004 - 07:38 am

My teacher said that what makes works classic are that they have universal themes that are timeless and everyone can relate to, more then the mechanics, plot or characters of a story. But then she went on to say that no {blankity blank} year old could ever relate to The Scarlet Letter.

What's with that? She says that The Scarlet Letter is the greatest classic in literature history, having a universal theme that EVERYBODY can relate with, but then goes on to say that nobody she teaches could possably understand or relate to it. And then she doesn't have us finish the book, instead letting us watch the equivilent of the last five chapters worth of the movie she has told us was crappy all year.

She's crazy.

Posted By: Aeawyn Dec 16, 2004 - 04:08 pm

Magus...if im not mistaken the scarlet letter is nonfictional...or based on a nonfictional event. So, dont flame that for not having a good plot


If im wrong correct me.

Posted By: Magus Dec 16, 2004 - 06:19 pm

No, The Scarlet Letter is purely fictional.

Nathanial Hawthorne wrote it and was pleased when, after reading it, his wife went to bed early and cried herself to sleep. Honestly, I think I actually fell asleep while reading it. Granted, I was reading it in my bed. But still...

And, being fictional, I flame as I please.

Posted By: Aeawyn Dec 16, 2004 - 07:57 pm

you win

Posted By: Talon Sinnah Dec 17, 2004 - 10:05 am

Magus my teacher said the same thing about all the "masterpieces". My peers got spoon fed while I questioned her reasoning behind her belief. As for Scarlet Letter, how could she say that her students could not relate? Has she ever tried being a teen in this day and age? A masterpiece is determined by "professional" english majors who has never tried writing a day of there life, and of course most of the "masterpieces" related to them, there lives were boring just like the books.

Posted By: Magus Dec 17, 2004 - 11:14 am

I think that what we should do here is make our own kind of a list of what we would consider "masterpieces". We should be able to nominate books and then post our arguments for or against them. Then we could vote and if the majority of the votes are "Yeah" then it's in or if "Nay", then it's not.

Is anybody willing to roll with me on this?

Bmat, would this be allowed?

Posted By: Aeawyn Dec 17, 2004 - 01:46 pm

make a new thread for it, that would be awsome.

Posted By: Magus Dec 17, 2004 - 01:57 pm

What stipulations do you think that there should be? There have to be some guidelines, or ese it would be chaos.

I'm thinking three seperate catagories; Novels, short stories and poetry.

And each should be a finished work. They should have been around for a little, I think. But it shouldn't be too long or else many books may not get their fair shot... what about them having to be published at least five years prior to nomination? That would help leave some of the "fad" books behind and keep only ones that would be likely to stand the tests of time. They should all be complete works. If you nominate one book in a series then you must nominate all the books in that series, and so each one would have to follow the above guidelines. And they should be jusged for all matters of quality.

What do you think? Should there be any amendments to this?

Posted By: Magus Dec 17, 2004 - 02:02 pm

Oh, and as for voting:

Only people who read the book(s), story(ies) or poem(s) should vote.

I'll post a topic for this tonight.

Posted By: Talon Sinnah Dec 17, 2004 - 07:33 pm

I am in for it.

Posted By: Queen Ehlana Dec 18, 2004 - 07:51 pm

According to my World History teacher, a classic is an eternal standard. And if it's lasted for 300 years, then I think it's closer to eternal than most media get, even if no one is interested after that.