Great Literature

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: an older and wiser Laertes' response to Polonius

> Beware

Of entrance to a quarrel; but being in

Bear't that th'opposed may beware of thee. [Jeffrey]

You're aware that Polonius was a big windbag, aren't you.

(Seriously though, I know my comments and take no prisoners way of expressing my views will piss people off tremendously, make me cordially detested by those who have felt the sandpapering of my tongue. One example outside of this thread is my decades-long criticisms of the hamfisted, inept, complacently smug Objectivist movement over a number of decades... The reason is because a bad Oist movement could literally allow the ideas to be swept aside. So I'm going to bitch slap it - and its members, great or small - every time it's deserved, no matter which 'side' or person is doing something destructive or hubristic or sloppy.)

The quote is relevant to more than one person on this thread.

That's all I'm saying.

Jeff S.

Trying to reserve judgment

I hope Phil cools it. He went several steps too far and now looks like Wile Coyote suspended over an abyss.

--Brant

Edited October 11, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Philip Coates]

Brant, I'm not Wile Coyote. I'm the Road Runner.

Try to keep up. (Beep, beep..)

Edited October 11, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

Brant, I'm not Wile Coyote. I'm the Road Runner.

Try to keep up. (Beep, beep..)

Okay.

--Brant

[Xray]

And in the context of the paragraph that began:

"She knew that fear was useless, that he would do what he wished, that the decision was his, that he left nothing possible to her except the thing she wanted most - to submit."

Adam

Again, Ayn Rand's gender hierarchy is quite clear ("the decision was his" and what the female "wants most is to submit"). I ask myself how someone like professor Mimi Gladstein could recommend Dagny Taggart as a role model for her female students to emulate.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

This thread has drifted so wildly, and I keep catching whiffs of Eau de Troll, but I’ve been wanting to jump in to defend James Joyce. I think his work is rejected with too much vehemence in Rand-land, reference this:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3251

The main thing I have to say about Ulysses is that it must be heard, not read. Reading it off the page is torture, but when read aloud with the right accent, without which the puns get lost, and proper attention to rhythm, its very enjoyable. By turns funny, moving, and thought provoking. However I do think it takes too long to wind down, Penelope is the Galt’s Speech of the Modernists. Everyone skims it.

Much of Joyce’s poetry is great, Chamber Music and Pomes Penyeach bring joys to the eyes and ears. Samuel Barber set some of them to music, worth looking up. Dubliners, mentioned earlier in the thread, is an early lesser work, I agree The Dead is the main draw. Portrait of the Artist is ok, its about coming of age and casting off religion, but didn’t resonate much with me. Finnegans Wake remains beyond me, though its cyclical structure has been influential (e.g. Thomas Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow).

On another matter, the first sex encounter between Dagny and Francisco is being debated here, this calls to my mind the scene early in When Harry met Sally, they’re discussing Casablanca, and Harry concludes Sally’s just never had any great sex.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: One Favorite at a Time in Literature

Would people be willing to post a paragraph or two about their *number one favorite of all time* novel, play, or poem? But since this thread is "Great Literature", it should be literature, as opposed to light fiction (sci fi, mysteries, dime store thrillers and romances). And not including Ayn Rand, since we've already got threads on her writing.

1) At least a paragraph of explanation of what it was you liked in that particular book. Something about the writing, the story, the characters?

But devote a whole post to it. If you want to discuss another great book, make it a -separate- post: People have already posted laundry lists of what they like, nothing more than names of books or authors in a list. But they are not much use without explanation. And just a name is not persuasive or informative. (The post above by ND is a good example of giving enough detail so people can visualize or understand.)

2) If other people could restrain themselves from instantly jumping in to rebut and trash people's favorites in brutal, contemptuously dismissive language ("crap", "silly", "dumb"), that will also help encourage contributions.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

A favorite work of "literature" might include something from childhood or school days. There are critics who don't think "Treasure Island" or Kipling's "The Jungle Book" are literature, but they are. Which is why they are still taught in the schools, appear on summer reading lists, are long remembered by some people.

[9thdoctor]

I don’t have a favorite novel, but I’ll contribute a post about Umberto Eco’s Baudolino, since its been on my mind lately.

Baudolino, published in 2002, is set in the Middle Ages, it opens during the sack of Constantinople by the army of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The title character bears some comparison to Forrest Gump, not that he’s an utter fool, but in that he’s witness to historical events, and interacts with actual historical figures. And he’s pretty simple. He saves the life of a Byzantine historian, Niketas, and the novel consists largely of flashbacks recounting Baudolino’s adventures, as he’s relating them to Niketas, who occasionally interrupts to comment and cast doubt on the truth of the tales. Relics of saints, the Holy Grail, the strange creatures of the Nuremberg Chronicle, a conspiracy theory about the death of Barbarossa, and above all the legendary Prester John are among the disparate elements that combine to create sophisticated intellectual comedy, some bawdy stretches, and deeper messages about credulity and political machinations.

What’s so great about it? The characterizations are rich, the story stimulates study of the legends and history on which its based, and it packs loads of laughs. It bears repeated reading (I’ve been through it about 3 times), and keeps getting better. Its actually a bit of a challenge the first time through, and in particular the 1st chapter can be off-putting.

Next time you listen to Carl Orff’s Carmina Burana, note that some of the lyrics (e.g. In Taberna) are actually by Baudolino. Just as Forrest Gump originated the phrase “Shit Happens”.

[jeffrey smith]

Great Novels

Here's one that may not be most people's radar.

Cao Xueyin : The Story of the Stone, often referred to by its alternate title The Dream of the Red Chamber

This is the big Chinese novel, written in the 18th century by an impoverished aesthete as a remembrance of the affluence his family had enjoyed during his childhood. It is apparently a roman a clef, with various characters being closely modelled on actual relatives; what emerges is a richly realized family saga centering on Bao-Yu, the impossibly effeminate son, who manages to fall in love with a poor cousin who dies of (probably) tuberculosis, set against the decline and fall of the family (as happened in reality to the author's family). There is more than a bit of Chinese supernaturalism (most notably, the frame story), and the novel itself is a long one (five volumes in the Penguin Classics paperback edition I own, although one volume abridged versions are available), with the actual story not getting underway until the third chapter (after a long narration of the family history in chapter two in conversation between two minor characters to set things up), but even the minor characters in those two framing chapters show up (even the little girl who gets lost in Chapter Two). The last portion of the novel is a completion by an anonymous person (probably a relative)that does not necessarily represent the original intentions of Cao Xueyin, but it still remains a fascinating story full of realistic characters, and for the Westerner, a good panorama of Chinese society in imperial times.

[Philip Coates]

ND and Jeffrey, thanks for your discussions of two favorite novels. I'm having a bit of difficulty getting a handle on either one, as described. Each seems to be an enormously different world from the ones I've lived in or imaginatively visited. So I'm looking or trying to read between the lines for 'contact points'.

So, just like with Jeff R's description of works by Nabokov, the world

visited seems distant or alien to me [which is not necessarily bad] in such a way that it's hard to get a sense whether or not I would like them, enjoy the story telling, get insight and value from the characters and so on.

Most Oists (especially on this list) don't seem too adventurous in their reading choices (or don't seem like big readers, especially of novels). I'm willing to expand my horizons, be adventurous. But I have to have good reasons. One thing that often is persuasive is "clips" or quotes which are intriguing or of great literary eloquence.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

ND and Jeffrey, thanks for your discussions of two favorite novels. I'm having a bit of difficulty getting a handle on either one, as described. Each seems to be an enormously different world from the ones I've lived in or imaginatively visited. So I'm looking or trying to read between the lines for 'contact points'.

So, just like with Jeff R's description of works by Nabokov, the world

visited seems distant or alien to me [which is not necessarily bad] in such a way that it's hard to get a sense whether or not I would like them, enjoy the story telling, get insight and value from the characters and so on.

Most Oists (especially on this list) don't seem too adventurous in their reading choices (or don't seem like big readers, especially of novels). I'm willing to expand my horizons, be adventurous. But I have to have good reasons. One thing that often is persuasive is "clips" or quotes which are intriguing or of great literary eloquence.

Most Oists (especially on this list) don't seem too adventurous in their reading choices (or don't seem like big readers, especially of novels). I'm willing to expand my horizons, be adventurous. But I have to have good reasons. One thing that often is persuasive is "clips" or quotes which are intriguing or of great literary eloquence.

Let's see if this is a worthy project for us unadventurous, non-fiction reading, non-exploring and unable to provide any good reasons for seeking enlightened fiction...us rubes.

Let's all see if we could help little Phillip learn how to make his point without being ...well, you know...

Adam

[9thdoctor]

Phil: Try Google books, here’s a link to Baudolino, you can read 100 or so pages for free

http://books.google.com/books?id=KweMpAzT_dEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Have you read any Eco? I felt like I was writing advertising copy up above, if it wasn’t intriguing enough, maybe the book’s not for you. Ted Keer lists Name of the Rose as one of his all time favorites, my Eco pecking order goes: Foucault’s Pendulum, Baudolino, Name of the Rose, Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana, Island of the Day Before. You should give something of his a try.

One other thing I thought of, coming out of our little scrap on the Dan Edge thread, is that Baudolino bears some comparison to Monty Python’s Holy Grail, and Life of Brian. More so than Forrest Gump, though I can’t think of any other work (movie, novel, whatever) that really has the same flavor as Baudolino.

[Philip Coates]

> us rubes....see if we could help little Phillip

Adam, you [and others] seem to be very quick to take offense (and to fire back as with 'little Philip' or 'schoomarm') at any intellectual criticism. If it were me (and it actually was at one time) who was unadventurous in reading choices or in somewhat of a rut, I would treat it as purely a factual matter if someone who was better read questioned this or raised the issue. And as something I could learn from. Being unadventurous or not widely read is hardly a moral failing.

I have to tell you, and this will give offense - because I'm really tired of getting this kind of response - when you or someone does this and takes a criticism of their habits or thinking or knowledge or any other intellectual criticism as an insult or an occasion for sarcastic name calling -- the simmering rage is generally a sign of some kind of insecurity or defense. It's often projecting onto the other person the fact that you are disappointed in yourself. The more profound the rage, the deeper the disappointment.

A valid criticism can be like a bright light showing you a new pathway. Korean proverb: "The wise man learns even from a fool". And I'm pretty widely read - and no longer a fool today, simply because I was able to suppress my ego and simply look at the question: Is this valid advice or critique? If so, what can I do to improve myself? I am actually grateful to those who harshly criticized me some years back and helped me shore up weaknesses.

,,,,

ND, no, I haven't read any of Umberto Eco. One way I try to become more 'adventurous' in my reading since I don't have unlimited time and have lots of things I want to read is --- before I will invest in a long novel on someone's say-so --- to try to find some short pieces ( a collection of short stories) by someone.

But your idea of reading some excerpts for free via the internet/google/etc is a good one. Long reading list though, so it may be a while. Right now I've just started "Aspects of the Novel" by Forster [recommended for lit crit by Jeff R]

Edited October 19, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

Ok Phil:

You win.

http://www.worldpeac...LAG/WF-37-S.jpg

I will leave you to your own devices from now on, just do me a favor and don't hurt yourself.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

ND, no, I haven't read any of Umberto Eco. One way I try to become more 'adventurous' in my reading since I don't have unlimited time and have lots of things I want to read is --- before I will invest in a long novel on someone's say-so --- to try to find some short pieces ( a collection of short stories) by someone.

Phil: Here’s a link to How to Travel with a Salmon, which is a collection of shorter works by Eco. Most are comic opinion columns, a la Dave Barry, but Stars and Stripes and Conversation in Bablyon are short stories, the only one’s by Eco I can think of. They read like something by Douglas Adams, all the way down to the Apple computer references.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_ntDTaMUys8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=eco+salmon#v=onepage&q=&f=false

That’s all the nudging I’m inclined to give you in the direction of Eco. Beyond this would be an exercise in public masturbation.

[Xray]

Subject: One Favorite at a Time in Literature

Would people be willing to post a paragraph or two about their *number one favorite of all time* novel, play, or poem? But since this thread is "Great Literature", it should be literature, as opposed to light fiction (sci fi, mysteries, dime store thrillers and romances). And not including Ayn Rand, since we've already got threads on her writing.

Philip: which thread here about Ayn Rand the writer do you think would fit to continue the discussion with J. Riggenbach when he returns (JR believes that AR was one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, so he may be surprised to see the discussion about her work being removed from the Great Literature thread. )

Edited October 19, 2009 by Xray

[jriggenbach]

For what it's worth, there are numerous novelists whose novels so far outshine their short stories as to make reading their short stories quite useless in judging whether their novels would be worth reading. And all this is to say absolutely nothing about the many important novelists who never wrote any short stories (or other worthwhile "short pieces") at all.

JR

ND, no, I haven't read any of Umberto Eco. One way I try to become more 'adventurous' in my reading since I don't have unlimited time and have lots of things I want to read is --- before I will invest in a long novel on someone's say-so --- to try to find some short pieces ( a collection of short stories) by someone.

Phil: Here’s a link to How to Travel with a Salmon, which is a collection of shorter works by Eco. Most are comic opinion columns, a la Dave Barry, but Stars and Stripes and Conversation in Bablyon are short stories, the only one’s by Eco I can think of. They read like something by Douglas Adams, all the way down to the Apple computer references.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_ntDTaMUys8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=eco+salmon#v=onepage&q=&f=false

That’s all the nudging I’m inclined to give you in the direction of Eco. Beyond this would be an exercise in public masturbation.

[jriggenbach]

For what it's worth, there are numerous novelists whose novels so far outshine their short stories as to make reading their short stories quite useless in judging whether their novels would be worth reading. And all this is to say absolutely nothing about the many important novelists who never wrote any short stories (or other worthwhile "short pieces") at all.

JR

Those who are actually "widely read" already know this, of course. My apologies for the useless post.

JR

[Xray]

Subject: One Favorite at a Time in Literature

Would people be willing to post a paragraph or two about their *number one favorite of all time* novel, play, or poem? But since this thread is "Great Literature", it should be literature, as opposed to light fiction (sci fi, mysteries, dime store thrillers and romances). And not including Ayn Rand, since we've already got threads on her writing.

Philip: which thread here about Ayn Rand the writer do you think would fit to continue the discussion with J. Riggenbach when he returns (JR believes that AR was one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, so he may be surprised to see the discussion about her work being removed from the Great Literature thread. )

Philip,

I just saw J. Riggenbach crossposted; so he is back.

What do you think, Philip? Continue the discussion here or give JR links to the the other threads which contain recent discussions about e. g. the Randian heroes?

J. Riggenbach,

Good to see you back. To continue our discussion: if you would be so kind and read posts # 306, # 324 and # 325 here on this thread, I'd be interested in getting a detailed reply.

There are currently other discussions going on here about Atlas Shrugged, so I'm not sure where to continue.

At any rate, you will get links to posts relevant for the discussion, on whatever thread we decide to proceed.

As for your claim of Rand being great "writer", I would like you to illustrate with concrete examples from her work together with explanations. TIA.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Xray

[jriggenbach]

Subject: One Favorite at a Time in Literature

Would people be willing to post a paragraph or two about their *number one favorite of all time* novel, play, or poem? But since this thread is "Great Literature", it should be literature, as opposed to light fiction (sci fi, mysteries, dime store thrillers and romances). And not including Ayn Rand, since we've already got threads on her writing.

Philip: which thread here about Ayn Rand the writer do you think would fit to continue the discussion with J. Riggenbach when he returns (JR believes that AR was one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, so he may be surprised to see the discussion about her work being removed from the Great Literature thread. )

Philip,

I just saw J. Riggenbach crossposted; so he is back.

What do you think, Philip? Continue the discussion here or give JR links to the the other threads which contain recent discussions about e. g. the Randian heroes?

J. Riggenbach,

Good to see you back. To continue our discussion: if you would be so kind and read posts # 306, # 324 and # 325 here on this thread, I'd be interested in getting a detailed reply.

There are currently other discussions going on here about Atlas Shrugged, so I'm not sure where to continue.

At any rate, you will get links to posts relevant for the discussion, on whatever thread we decide to proceed.

As for your claim of Rand being great "writer", I would like you to illustrate with concrete examples from her work together with explanations. TIA.

Xray:

I shan't be posting any further replies to you on this thread. It has become apparent to me that you have no interest in learning anything about the subject at hand (or, perhaps, any subject). All you're interested in doing is "proving" that your preconceived notions are correct. Good luck with that.

JR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have to tell you, and this will give offense - because I'm really tired of getting this kind of response - when you or someone does this and takes a criticism of their habits or thinking or knowledge or any other intellectual criticism as an insult or an occasion for sarcastic name calling -- the simmering rage is generally a sign of some kind of insecurity or defense. It's often projecting onto the other person the fact that you are disappointed in yourself. The more profound the rage, the deeper the disappointment.

Phil,

I am tempted to leave this be, but I must make another attempt.

Recently you came out harshly criticizing misuse of a quote function you either can't learn or refuse to learn. And when it was pointed out that you should learn it, expecially because of the many benefits it will bring you (and others) and the consistency of being able to hold your own acts up as an example when you criticize, you treated this as an act of hostility. I have seen you do this on reading Kant and several other issues. With a great deal of beligerence, I might add (which is why I used that term in that instance.)

I have also noticed that every time I disagree with you (expecially about things like challenging your contention that Objectivism is extremely difficult, or that the world is not really in need of saving, and stuff like that), out comes the hostility card. I find this aggravating because my intent is never hostile. It is most often to identify correctly in order to evaluate correctly.

The mark of the true person interested in discourse is, before attacking, to ask, "Is this what you mean?" if something doesn't sound right, but you don't do that too much (at least I haven't seen it). The mark of the incurable bickerer is to criticize first, then think about it.

You have a choice, just like we all do. I have seen you fall into the second camp far more often than the first. How about choosing something different next time around? It's a good choice. It's one I try to push myself to all the time. It's a hard choice for a forum owner because of the constant attacks and hijacks of the forum from several quarters, but for an individual, it's a great way to be. Since I am both, I keep reminding myself of that when the pettiness flares up and try to imagine what the wise thing to do is. Then I do it. Many times I am right. Sometimes I am not. The health of this forum is proof.

That, I submit, is not the attitude of a snarky hostile person. And for the record, if you ever take it on yourself to look through my past posts, you will not see me calling you a school marm. Not even once. I horse around a bit at times (since I am generally upbeat and like clowning), but never in the ganging up style that has often plagued your online participation—at several venues at that. I have always been uncomfortable with baiting and ganging up on someone. When playful poking in the ribs turns into mocking with intent to belittle (as has often happened when people start in on you), I have always moved on unless I really despise the person. And even in that case, I am far more a crowd facer than a crowd joiner. Through events in my life, I have even grown to prefer facing down a crowd over joining one.

Check my posts out more carefully and you will see me operating as an individual, even when I confront bullies. It is almost never as one chiming in with a hostile crowd.

Your mentality of looking out and blaming others all the time, while getting really testy when your own faults are returned to you in the same voice you use, is something that I sometimes think about as an Objectivist. You are not the only one who does this in O-Land. Even Rand did it. I find it really curious.

I honestly can't tell if you are aware of what you do or not.

I was probably that way in my youth. But overcoming alcohol and drug addiction cured me of that. You can't give those things up by blaming others all the time.

For what it's worth, I see you a lot more than you think I do. (Make of this what you will.)

When I say I like you, there is a world of meaning involved that is not on the surface. I invite you to look where I look and suspend a few of your negative presuppositions. Just let them go for a bit. Thery'll be there when you get back. I see some beautiful stuff that might surprise you...

(Anyway, back to great books...)

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Bravo JR, I say don’t feed the trolls. Reference the trader principle. Continually.

[Philip Coates]

Michael, I disagree with a number of things in your last post, but rather than start another long argument on who is hostile / who did what / who refuses to admit they're wrong, people can draw their own conclusions and I'd rather just get back to the literature topic.

I hope more people will post on the literature topics. I was trying to restart the thread by asking people for favorite literature - explained and discussed.

Xray, I thought I had already answered giving my view and reasons: the pros and cons of Rand's fiction writing and her novels have now taken on life in the 'hero' thread --- many many posts there, so as I argued, it would make more sense to continue it there rather than have it split between there and here. On a second thread and then have people be confused and have to try to read the discussion in both places simultaneously.

Plus this thread has already taken on its own life - discussing Shakespeare, Eco, Chinese novels and much else.

(If the two threads get crapped up or nasty or no topic continues, I'd simply go away. One of the good things about these two threads is they have been more civil than has been the case sometimes. Less heat, more light. Staying away to a certain extent from enmities.)

[Philip Coates]

> there are numerous novelists whose novels so far outshine their short stories as to make reading their short stories quite useless in judging whether their novels would be worth reading. [Jeff]

And vice-versa. I would read them for their own sake and in some cases they can provide a clue. Some writer who is clumsy, long-winded, hard to follow may well be so also in a longer work. And one who is scintillating, witty, a master of characterization likewise in the opposite direction.

ND, re Umberto Eco: I just read the first two essays from 'Salmon'. I thought they were mildy droll, but hardly out of the ordinary, not Dave Barry level, not make me want to read on. But on the other hand, I just read the first few pages in Chapter One of "Baudolino" and thought they were clever and funny and literate. I read some of the Amazon reader comments [i often find them a good supplement to critics and published reviewers, who seem to often have a bandwagon effect just like the movie critics]and several readers who liked the book felt that it tended to ramble, go off on tangents, be more long-winded and boring than The Name of the Rose.

So I may try to read a few pages of TNOTR and if I like it as much as the first pages of B? Well, we'll see....

I'm so glad the Amazon reader reviews exist. Sometimes I will read twenty or thirty on a single book, ranging from the five star to the one star reviews.

I wish there was the same thing for movies... Yahoo has some but ....

Edited October 20, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Xray, above in #348 I said "the pros and cons of Rand's fiction writing and her novels have now taken on life in the 'hero' thread --- many many posts there"

I meant the Dagny and Hank and the motor thread.