What makes a book a 'classic'?
05-21-01, 11:24 PM
#1
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Grounded in reality. For the most part.
Posts: 4,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just thinking of all the books I read in high school and how they were all 'classics'.
What makes The Great Gatsby a classic, and Salem's Lot "trash" (as so eloquently put by my 10th grade English teacher).
Who decides? What is the criteria? Seriously, does one ever expect Stephen King, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy, etc. on a 12th grader's English class reading list?
Any thoughts?
-Steve
What makes The Great Gatsby a classic, and Salem's Lot "trash" (as so eloquently put by my 10th grade English teacher).
Who decides? What is the criteria? Seriously, does one ever expect Stephen King, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy, etc. on a 12th grader's English class reading list?
Any thoughts?
-Steve
05-22-01, 12:36 AM
#2
DVD Talk Legend
If I book is still being read by many and widely acclaimed 30, 40, or even 100+ years after it was written it is a classic. Books that are popular for a year and forgotten are not classics. Anything that can stand the test of time is a classic. Honestly, when was the last time you heard someone talking about Salem's Lot. The Great Gatsby comes up often in literary discussions.
05-22-01, 09:58 AM
#3
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Grounded in reality. For the most part.
Posts: 4,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by darkside
If I book is still being read by many and widely acclaimed 30, 40, or even 100+ years after it was written it is a classic. Books that are popular for a year and forgotten are not classics. Anything that can stand the test of time is a classic. Honestly, when was the last time you heard someone talking about Salem's Lot. The Great Gatsby comes up often in literary discussions.
If I book is still being read by many and widely acclaimed 30, 40, or even 100+ years after it was written it is a classic. Books that are popular for a year and forgotten are not classics. Anything that can stand the test of time is a classic. Honestly, when was the last time you heard someone talking about Salem's Lot. The Great Gatsby comes up often in literary discussions.
I guess my question is who decides? Personally, I would rather read a book for the enjoyment, not for it's literary value.
For example, yes The Great Gatsby is a "literary classic", but does that make it an enjoyable read? To me? No. Utter boredom.
Is Salem's Lot an enjoyable read? To me? Hell yes. Does it make it 'trash'? No.
In my school, we weren't allowed to use Stephen King novels when we did book reports. Why is that? What makes F. Scott Fitzgerald a better author than King? It sure as hell isn't book sales. Millions of people can't be wrong.
I just think fair is fair. King's first novel, Carrie, will probably be 30 years old soon if it's not already. People still talk about it. Do you think it will ever make a reading list?
-Steve
05-22-01, 11:07 AM
#4
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Not a high school reading list, at least not for awhile. Horror rarely makes it onto a high school reading list unless it's Poe. 75 years from now, I could easily see King's short stories being taught. His novels are too long though for a HS reading assignment.
I agree with the definition of a classic, but I'll add this too:
Usually a book becomes a classic because it captures the age that it was written in very well. The story has to demonstrate the morals, views and events of the time, and generally has to offer some sort of insight into it. It's not just about it still being read.
The Great Gatsby does that well, Carrie (and most King) does not. Does that make King trash and Fitzgerald a god? Not at all. I'd rather read King than F. Scott any day. King is a very good storyteller, but his books do not meet most of the other definitions of a classic. Will people read Salem's Lot 100 years from now? Maybe, maybe not.
I agree with the definition of a classic, but I'll add this too:
Usually a book becomes a classic because it captures the age that it was written in very well. The story has to demonstrate the morals, views and events of the time, and generally has to offer some sort of insight into it. It's not just about it still being read.
The Great Gatsby does that well, Carrie (and most King) does not. Does that make King trash and Fitzgerald a god? Not at all. I'd rather read King than F. Scott any day. King is a very good storyteller, but his books do not meet most of the other definitions of a classic. Will people read Salem's Lot 100 years from now? Maybe, maybe not.
05-22-01, 12:25 PM
#5
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: sunny San Diego!
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by tictacboy
I agree with that.
I guess my question is who decides? Personally, I would rather read a book for the enjoyment, not for it's literary value.
For example, yes The Great Gatsby is a "literary classic", but does that make it an enjoyable read? To me? No. Utter boredom.
Is Salem's Lot an enjoyable read? To me? Hell yes. Does it make it 'trash'? No.
In my school, we weren't allowed to use Stephen King novels when we did book reports. Why is that? What makes F. Scott Fitzgerald a better author than King? It sure as hell isn't book sales. Millions of people can't be wrong.-Steve
Originally posted by darkside
If I book is still being read by many and widely acclaimed 30, 40, or even 100+ years after it was written it is a classic. Books that are popular for a year and forgotten are not classics. Anything that can stand the test of time is a classic. Honestly, when was the last time you heard someone talking about Salem's Lot. The Great Gatsby comes up often in literary discussions.
If I book is still being read by many and widely acclaimed 30, 40, or even 100+ years after it was written it is a classic. Books that are popular for a year and forgotten are not classics. Anything that can stand the test of time is a classic. Honestly, when was the last time you heard someone talking about Salem's Lot. The Great Gatsby comes up often in literary discussions.
I guess my question is who decides? Personally, I would rather read a book for the enjoyment, not for it's literary value.
For example, yes The Great Gatsby is a "literary classic", but does that make it an enjoyable read? To me? No. Utter boredom.
Is Salem's Lot an enjoyable read? To me? Hell yes. Does it make it 'trash'? No.
In my school, we weren't allowed to use Stephen King novels when we did book reports. Why is that? What makes F. Scott Fitzgerald a better author than King? It sure as hell isn't book sales. Millions of people can't be wrong.-Steve
Now, some teachers may just be being snobs about popular fiction, but that's a different story.
In a school setting, you also have to consider that any book that's used has to do quite a lot. It should be reasonably interesting; it should have stood the test of time as one that people found worthwhile to discuss; and it should be something that will spark discussion and learning about what the teacher wants the class to learn about, whether it's symbolism, a particular style of writing, deep characterization, or an exploration of a particular culture. Plus, it helps for there to be a good amount of critical study of the book already existing, so that if the kids do a report on it, there's material for them to find and learn about.
So with that, it's possible to see why works like Great Expectations, The Great Gatsby, The Odyssey, etc., are used frequently.
I think that many of the "classics" are somewhat of an acquired taste, like drinking coffee without milk, say. At first they may not seem as palatable as other, more popular, or more recent works; and some people will just never develop the taste. If you keep "tasting," though, you start to appreciate the strengths of these books that keeps them "classics," and you start to realize that there's a huge variation in those books that are generically called "classics" -- all sorts of different styles, moods, etc. And, contrary to popular belief, developing a taste for "great literature" doesn't make you a book snob
though it might make you more aware of what's well written and what's not well written. I got my degrees in English literature, and my favorite reading material is science fiction and fantasy, and I do enjoy Stephen King, so though I have lots of the "classics," it hasn't changed my enjoyment of more recent books. Some of the classics that I've enjoyed the most are Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, and the other Bronte books as well, and lots of books by Charles Dickens. He's a great storyteller! I'd also consider Poe a writer of classics.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if a few of Stephen King's novels end up on lists of "classics" in fifty years or so. Why? He's a very skilled *writer*. He evokes New England as a wonderfully creepy place; he has a great awareness of character, and how and why people act the way they do. Not all of this books are great, but then again, not all of Dickens' stuff is, either!
On the other hand, I doubt that fiction by, say, Dean Koontz will stand the test of time. What I've read of his work shows me that he just isn't as good a writer as others; the story may be engaging, but there isn't much of anything on top of that (or beneath that, depending on how you visualize it). Koontz will probably end up in that category of books that people read who are researching a particular genre or period... similiarly, there are a *lot* of other Victorian novelists similar to Dickens who weren't bad, but didn't rise to the top, and are largely forgotten now.
05-22-01, 01:06 PM
#6
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Cromwell, CT
Posts: 5,494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by darkside
If I book is still being read by many and widely acclaimed 30, 40, or even 100+ years after it was written it is a classic. Books that are popular for a year and forgotten are not classics. Anything that can stand the test of time is a classic. Honestly, when was the last time you heard someone talking about Salem's Lot. The Great Gatsby comes up often in literary discussions.
If I book is still being read by many and widely acclaimed 30, 40, or even 100+ years after it was written it is a classic. Books that are popular for a year and forgotten are not classics. Anything that can stand the test of time is a classic. Honestly, when was the last time you heard someone talking about Salem's Lot. The Great Gatsby comes up often in literary discussions.
05-22-01, 03:18 PM
#7
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Grounded in reality. For the most part.
Posts: 4,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by JaxComet
Are they being widely read because people want to read them or because they're required reading for kids in school? As long as they remain a part of the ciriculum sure they're going to be read. Do you think any kid wants to sit down and read "The Scarlet Letter" for pleasure?
Originally posted by darkside
If I book is still being read by many and widely acclaimed 30, 40, or even 100+ years after it was written it is a classic. Books that are popular for a year and forgotten are not classics. Anything that can stand the test of time is a classic. Honestly, when was the last time you heard someone talking about Salem's Lot. The Great Gatsby comes up often in literary discussions.
If I book is still being read by many and widely acclaimed 30, 40, or even 100+ years after it was written it is a classic. Books that are popular for a year and forgotten are not classics. Anything that can stand the test of time is a classic. Honestly, when was the last time you heard someone talking about Salem's Lot. The Great Gatsby comes up often in literary discussions.
I think you hit my point Jax. I have my doubts that Gatsby would still be recognized as a classic if it wasn't assigned to students to read. I think it would be popular in coffee shop discussions, but I also think it would just be another book, not the overated classic it is now.-Steve
05-22-01, 08:20 PM
#8
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by tictacboy
because people want to read them or because they're required reading for kids in school? As long as they remain a part of the ciriculum sure they're going to be read. Do you think any kid wants to sit down and read "The Scarlet Letter" for pleasure?
Thank you! I think you hit my point Jax. I have my doubts that Gatsby would still be recognized as a classic if it wasn't assigned to students to read. I think it would be popular in coffee shop discussions, but I also think it would just be another book, not the overated classic it is now.
-Steve
because people want to read them or because they're required reading for kids in school? As long as they remain a part of the ciriculum sure they're going to be read. Do you think any kid wants to sit down and read "The Scarlet Letter" for pleasure?
Thank you!
I think you hit my point Jax. I have my doubts that Gatsby would still be recognized as a classic if it wasn't assigned to students to read. I think it would be popular in coffee shop discussions, but I also think it would just be another book, not the overated classic it is now.-Steve
05-22-01, 08:37 PM
#9
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Grounded in reality. For the most part.
Posts: 4,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by darkside
Its a tough subject because tastes differ, but there is a good reason stuff like Gatsby is on reading lists. Its an incredible well written story. I realize stuff like Great Gatsby and The Scarlet Letter may not appeal to all, but they are incredible stories. If most school children had their way they wouldn't read at all, so you basically have to force them to read regardless. There were lots of bad books written 50+ years ago, but they are all but forgotten. Gatsby survives for more reasons than just being forced on people. I will agree that schools should try harder to add more of the modern books to school reading ciriculum and give kids a better variety to choose from. Too much Shakespeare and Mark Twain almost ruined reading for me when I was in school, because I could not stand either writter and most of the books I was assigned were from them. I certainly think it would be nice if something like Carrie was included on the list. Variety is what I hoped for when I was in school.
Its a tough subject because tastes differ, but there is a good reason stuff like Gatsby is on reading lists. Its an incredible well written story. I realize stuff like Great Gatsby and The Scarlet Letter may not appeal to all, but they are incredible stories. If most school children had their way they wouldn't read at all, so you basically have to force them to read regardless. There were lots of bad books written 50+ years ago, but they are all but forgotten. Gatsby survives for more reasons than just being forced on people. I will agree that schools should try harder to add more of the modern books to school reading ciriculum and give kids a better variety to choose from. Too much Shakespeare and Mark Twain almost ruined reading for me when I was in school, because I could not stand either writter and most of the books I was assigned were from them. I certainly think it would be nice if something like Carrie was included on the list. Variety is what I hoped for when I was in school.
I guess I just have trouble stomaching the fact that (for eg.) The Outsiders will be a required reading for some schools while Carrie will not. Granted, though they are different genre's, they have basically the same theme.
If you think about it, I would imagines some kids would get more involved in a King book than a Fitzgerald book.
BTW, the reason I use King as my example is he is probably the most recognizable of authors who would probably never qualify for the "classic author" title.
-Steve
05-22-01, 08:44 PM
#10
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Grounded in reality. For the most part.
Posts: 4,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ordway
Well said! Don't get me wrong, I have gone back and re-read (and in some cases, read for the first time ) books that were assigned to me in school. I enjoyed them much more than I did the first time around.
As far as aquired taste, you are right on about that. I happen to like Shakespeare, as I have said before, but he is definately an author you have to be in the mood for.
-Steve
I think that many of the "classics" are somewhat of an acquired taste, like drinking coffee without milk, say. At first they may not seem as palatable as other, more popular, or more recent works; and some people will just never develop the taste. If you keep "tasting," though, you start to appreciate the strengths of these books that keeps them "classics," and you start to realize that there's a huge variation in those books that are generically called "classics" -- all sorts of different styles, moods, etc. And, contrary to popular belief, developing a taste for "great literature" doesn't make you a book snob though it might make you more aware of what's well written and what's not well written. I got my degrees in English literature, and my favorite reading material is science fiction and fantasy, and I do enjoy Stephen King, so though I have lots of the "classics," it hasn't changed my enjoyment of more recent books.
though it might make you more aware of what's well written and what's not well written. I got my degrees in English literature, and my favorite reading material is science fiction and fantasy, and I do enjoy Stephen King, so though I have lots of the "classics," it hasn't changed my enjoyment of more recent books.
) books that were assigned to me in school. I enjoyed them much more than I did the first time around.As far as aquired taste, you are right on about that. I happen to like Shakespeare, as I have said before, but he is definately an author you have to be in the mood for.
-Steve
05-26-01, 06:40 PM
#11
New Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a side note, my old high school's Sr. Honors English instructor wanted to have his class read King's Shawshank Redemption last spring. My sister was at the school board meeting where this was brought up. They ultimately made the decision to not allow it in the class room, because of the matures subject matter if I remember correctly.
05-27-01, 11:56 PM
#12
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, considering we are becoming an alliterate society (that is, can but won't read), I think that apart from a few short stories that illustrate something you want to teach or emphasize, we should let students read what pleases them. Otherwise, we run the risk, IMO, of turning them off from reading altogether. Why?
Because if we force them to read stuff like the Great Gatsby that they find boring or feel that it doesn't apply to them, and further if we call this stuff "great" or "good" or a "classic," I think that they will think they are missing something and that maybe reading is not for them.
It's like this: at one point I thought that maybe I wasn't that bright because I just didn't get "it" with certain poetry or certain novels. I mean, I thought, "So what? This stuff sucks. Am I missing something?" Later, I realized that I just don't care for poetry and most literature stuff with lots of symbolism, allegories and "deep" characters with angst and introspection issues are just not my cup of tea. And that's OK. I read for pleasure and enjoyment. As a result, I read what I like, not what others (and by this I mean English PhDs and teachers and literary snobs) consider to be great.
As to mature themes, heck, whatever makes a kid read and flip a page is OK with me (provided it is not complete porno...er, I mean erotica). On that note, I've read some erotica (e.g., Anais Nin) and while it appealed to me as a teenager, it doesn't anymore. In any event, a novel with mature themes (i.e., sexual scenes) is way different than a book that is purely intended to arouse readers. Parents need to not be so hung up on some of this stuff.
Because if we force them to read stuff like the Great Gatsby that they find boring or feel that it doesn't apply to them, and further if we call this stuff "great" or "good" or a "classic," I think that they will think they are missing something and that maybe reading is not for them.
It's like this: at one point I thought that maybe I wasn't that bright because I just didn't get "it" with certain poetry or certain novels. I mean, I thought, "So what? This stuff sucks. Am I missing something?" Later, I realized that I just don't care for poetry and most literature stuff with lots of symbolism, allegories and "deep" characters with angst and introspection issues are just not my cup of tea. And that's OK. I read for pleasure and enjoyment. As a result, I read what I like, not what others (and by this I mean English PhDs and teachers and literary snobs) consider to be great.
As to mature themes, heck, whatever makes a kid read and flip a page is OK with me (provided it is not complete porno...er, I mean erotica). On that note, I've read some erotica (e.g., Anais Nin) and while it appealed to me as a teenager, it doesn't anymore. In any event, a novel with mature themes (i.e., sexual scenes) is way different than a book that is purely intended to arouse readers. Parents need to not be so hung up on some of this stuff.
06-04-01, 10:22 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Suburbia
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think if students in school were allowed to read "popular" fiction society would be much better off. Generating ANY interest in reading for personal pleasure is better than forced reading in order to complete a school assignment. Forcing students to read literature that they can hardly relate to teaches them that reading is boring and should be avoided. It would be much better in the long run to encourage kids to read for pleasure and the only way to do this is to allow them to read things that interest them.
-Gonnosuke
-Gonnosuke
10-27-01, 07:31 AM
#14
Mod Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Outside of the U.S.A.
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
<small>
</small>I agree with the sentiment but letting the kids set the curriculum is not a viable answer IMNSHO. I think a compromise is required with some contemporary/pop material and some older stuff. You can often trace older influences in modern material anyway so that is another way of making things seem relevant interesting.
As to the original question, I cannot say whether standing the test of time means ten years, twenty, fifty or a hundred. In these fast-moving times if a book is enjoyed by one or two generations down the line then that is certainly a success.
Perhaps whether there will be 20th century "classics" in 2100 as there are 19th century classics at the turn of the millennium is another question entirely!!
Originally posted by Gonnosuke I think if students in school were allowed to read "popular" fiction society would be much better off. Generating ANY interest in reading for personal pleasure is better than forced reading in order to complete a school assignment. Forcing students to read literature that they can hardly relate to teaches them that reading is boring and should be avoided.
As to the original question, I cannot say whether standing the test of time means ten years, twenty, fifty or a hundred. In these fast-moving times if a book is enjoyed by one or two generations down the line then that is certainly a success.
Perhaps whether there will be 20th century "classics" in 2100 as there are 19th century classics at the turn of the millennium is another question entirely!!
10-27-01, 10:27 AM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most obvious reason for disallowing King for High School book reports is that he writes on a 2nd grade level. Perhaps it has escaped the notice of many of those replying before me, but we are supposed to be learning in school. Allowing King as book report material in 12th grade would be akin to allowing a senior in Pre-Calculus to turn in the multiplication tables for his homework, rather than the differential equations the teacher assigned. I grant you, math would be a lot more popular if students got to choose their own assignments, but what possible difference does that make?
The reason we are becoming an illiterate society (hysterical typo, Yrth) is not because students are forced to read F. Scott Fitzgerald in High School. Rather, it's because people are very lazy and will generally choose the least possible work when given an option. Reading can be extremely rewarding, but most people subscribe to the philosophy popularized on t-shirts, "hard work pays off eventually, laziness pays off now."
The reason we are becoming an illiterate society (hysterical typo, Yrth) is not because students are forced to read F. Scott Fitzgerald in High School. Rather, it's because people are very lazy and will generally choose the least possible work when given an option. Reading can be extremely rewarding, but most people subscribe to the philosophy popularized on t-shirts, "hard work pays off eventually, laziness pays off now."
10-27-01, 12:01 PM
#16
Mod Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Outside of the U.S.A.
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
<small>
</small>Well, having recently read through this thread, I dont think there is a great deal of evidence for that first suggestion....
.... and, particularly given the rest of his post and the overall context, I think Yrth* deliberately used aliterate rather than accidentally or ironically misspelling "illiterate".
But the idea of King writing on a lower level is quite interesting and could on its own give new life to this "classic" debate e.g. who defines what is "high" literature; what is worthy? whether King's stylistic devices are so far removed from those of the long-dead "greats"? etc. etc.
Any thoughts?
<small>* where is Yrth these days?</small>
Originally posted by Al Infinitum
[....] Perhaps it has escaped the notice of many of those replying before me, but we are supposed to be learning in school. [....] The reason we are becoming an illiterate society (hysterical typo, Yrth) is not because students are forced to read F. Scott Fitzgerald in High School. Rather, it's because people are very lazy and will generally choose the least possible work when given an option.
[....] Perhaps it has escaped the notice of many of those replying before me, but we are supposed to be learning in school. [....] The reason we are becoming an illiterate society (hysterical typo, Yrth) is not because students are forced to read F. Scott Fitzgerald in High School. Rather, it's because people are very lazy and will generally choose the least possible work when given an option.
.... and, particularly given the rest of his post and the overall context, I think Yrth* deliberately used aliterate rather than accidentally or ironically misspelling "illiterate".
But the idea of King writing on a lower level is quite interesting and could on its own give new life to this "classic" debate e.g. who defines what is "high" literature; what is worthy? whether King's stylistic devices are so far removed from those of the long-dead "greats"? etc. etc.
Any thoughts?
<small>* where is Yrth these days?</small>
10-27-01, 12:07 PM
#17
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Grounded in reality. For the most part.
Posts: 4,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Al Infinitum
The most obvious reason for disallowing King for High School book reports is that he writes on a 2nd grade level.
The most obvious reason for disallowing King for High School book reports is that he writes on a 2nd grade level.
That aside, I hardly agree that he "writes on a 2nd grade level."
His characters are probably some of the best developed characters I've read.
Perhaps it has escaped the notice of many of those replying before me, but we are supposed to be learning in school. Allowing King as book report material in 12th grade would be akin to allowing a senior in Pre-Calculus to turn in the multiplication tables for his homework, rather than the differential equations the teacher assigned. I grant you, math would be a lot more popular if students got to choose their own assignments, but what possible difference does that make?
)
The reason we are becoming an illiterate society (hysterical typo, Yrth) is not because students are forced to read F. Scott Fitzgerald in High School. Rather, it's because people are very lazy and will generally choose the least possible work when given an option. Reading can be extremely rewarding, but most people subscribe to the philosophy popularized on t-shirts, "hard work pays off eventually, laziness pays off now."
I, for one, would much rather read all 1200 pages or so of The Stand before I read The Old Man and The Sea. I've read both and I enjoyed The Stand much more.
Take the Harry Potter books. Kids are going crazy for these novels and these books are huge for some of these kids. Still, the kids are choosing Harry Potter over Curious George.
-Steve
10-27-01, 12:08 PM
#18
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Al Infinitum
The most obvious reason for disallowing King for High School book reports is that he writes on a 2nd grade level. Perhaps it has escaped the notice of many of those replying before me, but we are supposed to be learning in school. Allowing King as book report material in 12th grade would be akin to allowing a senior in Pre-Calculus to turn in the multiplication tables for his homework, rather than the differential equations the teacher assigned . . .
The most obvious reason for disallowing King for High School book reports is that he writes on a 2nd grade level. Perhaps it has escaped the notice of many of those replying before me, but we are supposed to be learning in school. Allowing King as book report material in 12th grade would be akin to allowing a senior in Pre-Calculus to turn in the multiplication tables for his homework, rather than the differential equations the teacher assigned . . .
I think King short stories will be taught in high school. I read horror short stories in high school classes--Aside from Poe, "Thus I Refute Beezly" by John Collier and "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson come to mind. So does "A Rose for Emily."
Pick up any horror anthology edited by David Hartwell, and you'll find King. Robert Bloch, Avram Davidson, Clive Barker, Shirley Jackson, H.P. Lovecraft, Joyce Carol Oats--they all made their own mark on horror, and just because King made the mark with the widest appeal doesn't mean that the best of his work is trash.
tasha
As to the original question, I don't really know. After thinking about it, I came up with works that either:
1. Stretched the genre somehow. The first novel, one of the first books that looked at this or that issue, etc. (Things like Don Quixote and Darkness at Noon)
2. Are written in really beautiful but not overflowery language or are exceptionally witty. (Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Jane Austen, who captured her time too, etc)
3. Ask questions or have themes that resonate. (Harlan Ellison, Charles Dickens etc.)
I really don't know. I think that "first of" is an important one for school (for example I hated reading The Histories and The Peleponesian War, and all I could figure was they were important because they were firsts of their kind. They were damn boring though. Yech.)
tasha
10-27-01, 12:25 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by tasha1
Sorry, but I think that's horseshit. I have a grade schooler, and King does not write to her level (and she's in 4th, not second.)
Sorry, but I think that's horseshit. I have a grade schooler, and King does not write to her level (and she's in 4th, not second.)
Technically, King writes at about a 6th grade level. For those that don't know, or assume I'm just being difficult, this means is that a person in 6th grade should be able to read King and comprehend it at the same level that an adult could. King's themes may be more mature than 6th grade, arguably, but his writing style is not.
King could one day be taught in Junior High (grades 6 - 8) but, barring a major change in his future work, he shouldn't be taught in High School. I can't promise that he never will be, but I hold out hope.
10-27-01, 12:31 PM
#20
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Grounded in reality. For the most part.
Posts: 4,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Al Infinitum
Technically, King writes at about a 6th grade level. For those that don't know, or assume I'm just being difficult, this means is that a person in 6th grade should be able to read King and comprehend it at the same level that an adult could. King's themes may be more mature than 6th grade, arguably, but his writing style is not.
Technically, King writes at about a 6th grade level. For those that don't know, or assume I'm just being difficult, this means is that a person in 6th grade should be able to read King and comprehend it at the same level that an adult could. King's themes may be more mature than 6th grade, arguably, but his writing style is not.
The same statement can be said about Of Mice and Men, Lord of the Flies, and numerous other books that are on a high school reading list.
Just because it can be comprehended by a 6th grader doesn't mean it doesn't have any literary value.
-Steve
10-27-01, 12:46 PM
#21
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's only the word/reading level but themes and subject matter that determine at what age someone should read a book.
tasha
(and multiplication tables start at the end of second grade where I am.)
tasha
(and multiplication tables start at the end of second grade where I am.)
10-27-01, 01:17 PM
#22
Mod Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Outside of the U.S.A.
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
<small>
</small>Well, I won't simply reiterate what tasha1 and Alien Redrum aptly added but I would make an observation and re-state my earlier question:
I am not intending particularly to champion King but I was quite deliberate in asking earlier among other things "whether King's stylistic devices are so far removed from those of the long-dead 'greats'."
I sometimes get the feeling that some people revere certain writings simply because they are old and written in a somewhat archaic style. This ignores the fact that one simply follows the other i.e. language changes with time. The writing of one era is a snapshot of how things were done in those days. Consider the highly revered King James Version of the Bible.... (and take a look at this page and these two to see how far out some of the arguments go!)
What I am interested in hearing is whether there is any acknowledgement that certain devices are used by "good" writers if any era; whether modern cultural referents (music, tv shows, celebrities) are more, less or of equal value to those used by writers, playwrights etc of yesteryear which were the equivalent in their respective eras?
* Vocabulary may well be at the heart of this: some tests measure one's vocabulary and equate this to a reading age. If you read widely or concentrate in particular areas of writing then you are more likely to score highly. What this actually means is another matter! No doubt certain other traits will either be present in a precocious reader or may be developed by such reading and that is no bad thing. However, the point being made (IMO) is that - without wishing to hamstring teachers or to allow kids to dictate the curriculum - fostering a love of reading is at least as important as force-feeding a particular (narrow?) style/range to schoolchildren.
Originally posted by Al Infinitum Technically, King writes at about a 6th grade level. For those that don't know, or assume I'm just being difficult, this means is that a person in 6th grade should be able to read King and comprehend it at the same level that an adult could. King's themes may be more mature than 6th grade, arguably, but his writing style is not.
- I have heard it said that the more popular newspapers are written so that a 12 year-old can comprehend them
- What is it that make high literature what it is and something to be admired?
I am not intending particularly to champion King but I was quite deliberate in asking earlier among other things "whether King's stylistic devices are so far removed from those of the long-dead 'greats'."
I sometimes get the feeling that some people revere certain writings simply because they are old and written in a somewhat archaic style. This ignores the fact that one simply follows the other i.e. language changes with time. The writing of one era is a snapshot of how things were done in those days. Consider the highly revered King James Version of the Bible.... (and take a look at this page and these two to see how far out some of the arguments go!)
What I am interested in hearing is whether there is any acknowledgement that certain devices are used by "good" writers if any era; whether modern cultural referents (music, tv shows, celebrities) are more, less or of equal value to those used by writers, playwrights etc of yesteryear which were the equivalent in their respective eras?
* Vocabulary may well be at the heart of this: some tests measure one's vocabulary and equate this to a reading age. If you read widely or concentrate in particular areas of writing then you are more likely to score highly. What this actually means is another matter! No doubt certain other traits will either be present in a precocious reader or may be developed by such reading and that is no bad thing. However, the point being made (IMO) is that - without wishing to hamstring teachers or to allow kids to dictate the curriculum - fostering a love of reading is at least as important as force-feeding a particular (narrow?) style/range to schoolchildren.
Last edited by benedict; 10-27-01 at 01:43 PM.
10-27-01, 01:26 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tasha1
You're absolutely right, I don't really think that someone should read Stephen King until they are a bit older than 11. The problem is, King's style, symbolism and language are not challenging for someone in High School, so teaching King in an English class would not help the students develop as readers. I could easily write a novel about Jack the Ripper, but the simple fact that the subject matter is mature does not mean it should be taught in a High School class - I'm a terrible writer.
Alien Redrum
I specified that the 6th grade student could, "comprehend it at the same level that an adult could." This is not true of Lord of the Flies or Of Mice and Men, because those works require comprehension at multiple levels, where most 6th graders would read them only on the most basic level.
You're absolutely right, I don't really think that someone should read Stephen King until they are a bit older than 11. The problem is, King's style, symbolism and language are not challenging for someone in High School, so teaching King in an English class would not help the students develop as readers. I could easily write a novel about Jack the Ripper, but the simple fact that the subject matter is mature does not mean it should be taught in a High School class - I'm a terrible writer.
Alien Redrum
I specified that the 6th grade student could, "comprehend it at the same level that an adult could." This is not true of Lord of the Flies or Of Mice and Men, because those works require comprehension at multiple levels, where most 6th graders would read them only on the most basic level.
10-27-01, 02:23 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<small>
</small>
That might be fair, if not for the fact that the word he used was actually alliterate, not aliterate. It was an honest mistake to assume he was going for the "i" rather than intending to leave off the extra "l." I do admit that, ironically, my reading of his reply was a bit sloppy. I was skimming the posts at that point and Yrth appeared to be the only person remotely in line with my viewpoint.
My apologies for missing this earlier reply, benedict, somehow I only noticed tasha1's dismissive response when I returned.
Your question is basically whether or not the value of literature is entirely subjective. I think this is a valid point, to some degree, but as with anything there are certain things which elevate an author above his or her peers. Use of vocabulary is certainly one of those things, as well as grammer, story structure, style and symbolism. To examine the worthiness of literature with a bit more equity, you need to eliminate the natural bias toward the "classics." Let's look at the following contemporary authors:
Dean Koontz - Stephen King - Ray Bradbury - Kurt Vonnegut
These four authors write within comparable genres and all have a relatively minimilistic style of writing. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the literary value of their work increases as you move from left to right along this list. It is possible that a large number of people extensively familiar with all four authors might ask me to move one of them up or down a single position. It is my belief that a far smaller number of those same people would ask me to move one of the authors two positions, and even fewer would ask me to move an author three positions.
So, although "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," I think there are some standards by which we can judge any work of art or literature. Similiar standards hold across film, visual art, television, etc.
Originally posted by benedict
.... and, particularly given the rest of his post and the overall context, I think Yrth* deliberately used aliterate rather than accidentally or ironically misspelling "illiterate".
.... and, particularly given the rest of his post and the overall context, I think Yrth* deliberately used aliterate rather than accidentally or ironically misspelling "illiterate".
That might be fair, if not for the fact that the word he used was actually alliterate, not aliterate. It was an honest mistake to assume he was going for the "i" rather than intending to leave off the extra "l." I do admit that, ironically, my reading of his reply was a bit sloppy. I was skimming the posts at that point and Yrth appeared to be the only person remotely in line with my viewpoint.
My apologies for missing this earlier reply, benedict, somehow I only noticed tasha1's dismissive response when I returned.
Your question is basically whether or not the value of literature is entirely subjective. I think this is a valid point, to some degree, but as with anything there are certain things which elevate an author above his or her peers. Use of vocabulary is certainly one of those things, as well as grammer, story structure, style and symbolism. To examine the worthiness of literature with a bit more equity, you need to eliminate the natural bias toward the "classics." Let's look at the following contemporary authors:
Dean Koontz - Stephen King - Ray Bradbury - Kurt Vonnegut
These four authors write within comparable genres and all have a relatively minimilistic style of writing. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the literary value of their work increases as you move from left to right along this list. It is possible that a large number of people extensively familiar with all four authors might ask me to move one of them up or down a single position. It is my belief that a far smaller number of those same people would ask me to move one of the authors two positions, and even fewer would ask me to move an author three positions.
So, although "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," I think there are some standards by which we can judge any work of art or literature. Similiar standards hold across film, visual art, television, etc.
Last edited by Al Infinitum; 10-27-01 at 02:31 PM.
10-27-01, 02:49 PM
#25
Mod Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Outside of the U.S.A.
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Al Infinitum, I'll have to get back to you on the bulk of your post but, yes, I spotted/corrected Yrth's typo before responding as I did
Also.... [cough]"grammer"[/cough]?
Edited to add: I, too, regret that I let the occasional typo through!
I saw this following interview on another webpage and thought it vaguely relevant either to this or the related "pop" thread:
Also.... [cough]"grammer"[/cough]?Edited to add: I, too, regret that I let the occasional typo through!
I saw this following interview on another webpage and thought it vaguely relevant either to this or the related "pop" thread:
Elaine Showalter, the Avalon Foundation Professor of the Humanities and professor of English, is leading an alumni studies course this fall titled "Instant Classics of Contemporary Fiction: What Makes the Cut, and Why." The books she selected to include are: "A Clockwork Orange" by Anthony Burgess; "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood; "Remains of the Day" by Kazuo Ishiguru; "Midnight's Children" by Salman Rushdie; "White Noise" by Don DeLillo; "The Hours" by Michael Cunningham; and "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" by J.K. Rowling. She spoke with the Princeton Weekly Bulletin's Yvonne Chiu Hays.
What is an instant classic?
ES: An instant classic is a contemporary novel that immediately dazzles readers, influences other writers, attracts the interest of academics, wins prizes and enters the literary curriculum. Of course, the terms "instant" and "classic" are in tension with each other because one suggests popularity and the other involves permanence. When you put those two things together, it limits the field, but there are still a surprisingly large number of candidates. I picked seven that I thought passed the test, would make interesting reading, and covered the range of the styles and genres of contemporary fiction. And I hoped that if people came to terms with these books, they would have a good basis for going on with others, because this list is not meant to be complete.
How did Harry Potter make your list?
ES: The only one that I am unsure about is "Harry Potter." The series isn't finished yet. So it's a little too soon to really know how Rowling's going to turn out. But I thought it would be a very interesting case to discuss. It's such a literary phenomenon, and if there has ever been a book acclaimed as an instant classic, this is it.
Is the success of the Harry Potter series based on hype and formulaic writing?
ES: I think it's more than formulaic; something different and new has engaged all these millions of young readers. Some of their enthusiasm may come from hype, but not all of it. It will be interesting to apply the ideas that we put together from the other books to "Harry Potter." I think many contemporary classics tend to engage serious issues in comical, parodic ways. They don't have to be serious in tone.
Can a great novel also be a bestseller?
ES: Yes, and all seven of the books we are reading have been bestsellers as well as critically successful. For example, we're reading Don DeLillo's "White Noise." DeLillo has written a number of novels, and some of them are more highly regarded by academics and critics than this one. But "White Noise" is the one that I think everybody agrees is his breakout book -- it was the book that first reached a really wide audience and remains the book that is the most popular with general readers. At the same time, it breaks new ground aesthetically and thematically, and influenced many younger writers.
Is it harder to write a classic novel today?
ES: I don't know if it is harder to write a classic novel than it ever was, but I certainly think it's harder for a novelist to get attention. The extraordinary changes in publishing, in marketing and distributing books made the novel's fate much more complicated than it was a century ago. We're actually living in a golden age of fiction, but the novel today has to compete with so many other forms of entertainment for people's time.
Does this mean we are more likely to miss the truly great novel in the flood?
ES: Yes, if we depend only on bestsellers. Bestseller lists are dominated internationally by five or six writers. Those books are like brands -- Nike or the Gap -- because they have a huge amount of publicity and money behind them, and a dependable record for delivering a good read. They're familiar brands and they have a loyal audience. That doesn't mean they're not entertaining. But for a serious novel that is trying to do something new also to reach a mass readership is very, very difficult.
Do those trends disappoint or discourage you as a literary critic?
ES: I think that it's wonderful that there are so many novels being published, and it's wonderful that we have so many choices. Along with that, I think readers need and want more recommendations, advice and guidelines. They're filling that need in a variety of ways, such as by joining book clubs, which are proliferating everywhere. Readers like to talk about what they're reading, but they also want guidance and recommenda-tions they trust about what to read next. I think there is a tremendous need for that kind of opinion, and academic literary critics have an opportunity to speak to a large audience beyond the university. We don't have to leave it all to Oprah Winfrey.
What is an instant classic?
ES: An instant classic is a contemporary novel that immediately dazzles readers, influences other writers, attracts the interest of academics, wins prizes and enters the literary curriculum. Of course, the terms "instant" and "classic" are in tension with each other because one suggests popularity and the other involves permanence. When you put those two things together, it limits the field, but there are still a surprisingly large number of candidates. I picked seven that I thought passed the test, would make interesting reading, and covered the range of the styles and genres of contemporary fiction. And I hoped that if people came to terms with these books, they would have a good basis for going on with others, because this list is not meant to be complete.
How did Harry Potter make your list?
ES: The only one that I am unsure about is "Harry Potter." The series isn't finished yet. So it's a little too soon to really know how Rowling's going to turn out. But I thought it would be a very interesting case to discuss. It's such a literary phenomenon, and if there has ever been a book acclaimed as an instant classic, this is it.
Is the success of the Harry Potter series based on hype and formulaic writing?
ES: I think it's more than formulaic; something different and new has engaged all these millions of young readers. Some of their enthusiasm may come from hype, but not all of it. It will be interesting to apply the ideas that we put together from the other books to "Harry Potter." I think many contemporary classics tend to engage serious issues in comical, parodic ways. They don't have to be serious in tone.
Can a great novel also be a bestseller?
ES: Yes, and all seven of the books we are reading have been bestsellers as well as critically successful. For example, we're reading Don DeLillo's "White Noise." DeLillo has written a number of novels, and some of them are more highly regarded by academics and critics than this one. But "White Noise" is the one that I think everybody agrees is his breakout book -- it was the book that first reached a really wide audience and remains the book that is the most popular with general readers. At the same time, it breaks new ground aesthetically and thematically, and influenced many younger writers.
Is it harder to write a classic novel today?
ES: I don't know if it is harder to write a classic novel than it ever was, but I certainly think it's harder for a novelist to get attention. The extraordinary changes in publishing, in marketing and distributing books made the novel's fate much more complicated than it was a century ago. We're actually living in a golden age of fiction, but the novel today has to compete with so many other forms of entertainment for people's time.
Does this mean we are more likely to miss the truly great novel in the flood?
ES: Yes, if we depend only on bestsellers. Bestseller lists are dominated internationally by five or six writers. Those books are like brands -- Nike or the Gap -- because they have a huge amount of publicity and money behind them, and a dependable record for delivering a good read. They're familiar brands and they have a loyal audience. That doesn't mean they're not entertaining. But for a serious novel that is trying to do something new also to reach a mass readership is very, very difficult.
Do those trends disappoint or discourage you as a literary critic?
ES: I think that it's wonderful that there are so many novels being published, and it's wonderful that we have so many choices. Along with that, I think readers need and want more recommendations, advice and guidelines. They're filling that need in a variety of ways, such as by joining book clubs, which are proliferating everywhere. Readers like to talk about what they're reading, but they also want guidance and recommenda-tions they trust about what to read next. I think there is a tremendous need for that kind of opinion, and academic literary critics have an opportunity to speak to a large audience beyond the university. We don't have to leave it all to Oprah Winfrey.
Last edited by benedict; 10-28-01 at 05:43 AM.