4 Great Classic Books

[El_greco]

It's not a problem in these novels, it's just that as i read your posts, you're an aestheticist. Let's say these novels deal with ideology and repression. In sociology and philosophy, you'll see that those are the subject mostly marxian thinkers write about. Then the ontological vs. aesthetical void then becomes even greater. Marxians are tilted more to functionality than aesthetics. It's like Barcelona vs. Madrid. One is functional and other is simply beautiful

I'm in a rush now, so i don't have time to express my thoughts in a more eloquent way

[StephenKingman]

1984
Farenheit 451
Of Mice and Men

No-one read them, let alone 'again'. They are the biggest load of dystopian drivel I have ever read. Such a yawn.

1984 a "yawn"? Where are you coming from with such a statement? Not only is 1984 one of the best books ever written, it is also a hugely important reference point when it comes to modern life, politics and society. Orwell was bang on the money with a lot of his views and observations on life as we know it and hierarchies in society. I wouldnt assume that just because you didnt enjoy it, "No one read them". I read and re-read and thoroughly enjoyed it.

[Fran]

1984
Farenheit 451
Of Mice and Men

No-one read them, let alone 'again'. They are the biggest load of dystopian drivel I have ever read. Such a yawn.

1984 a "yawn"? Where are you coming from with such a statement? Not only is 1984 one of the best books ever written, it is also a hugely important reference point when it comes to modern life, politics and society. Orwell was bang on the money with a lot of his views and observations on life as we know it and hierarchies in society. I wouldnt assume that just because you didnt enjoy it, "No one read them". I read and re-read and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Well said Mike .... 'No one read them' is an arrogant, inaccurate & facile statement & I'm Artdude, that an aspiring intellectual like yourself, would post a statement clearly displaying such limited knowledge of the continuing popularity & relevance of these works.

[Artdude]

('No one read them' - How can this be 'inaccurate'? It's an opinion. Anyway - that is a small thing.)

Where am I coming from with 'yawn':

If someone can explain the value of 1984 to me post-911, post-Facebook, post-Twitter, post-'Arab Spring', and post- invention of the ipad, then be my guest. 1984 was a warning - well, it's happened now! Its value is almost nothing because no-one listened! Now, if you accept the idea that its ideological criticism is... well... obsolete - then it can barely stand alone as a brilliant novel, because it isn't written brilliantly at all. Julia is the most one-dimensional, boring character I have ever read about. The time for 1984 to hide behind its 'message' for its value has been and gone - and no-one could possible argue that its an exciting or 'clever' novel. It would be impossible to point to one page where the language stands alone as amazing.

StephenKingman says that it is one of the 'best' books ever written. If you accept anything I said above, then this is impossible to believe. He wasn't 'bang-on' with hierarchies. There is NO hierarchy - surely that is the premise of the book? One single leader and bunch of his enforcers? Then all the plebs? I would hardly call two tiers worth of society a hierarchy.

Fran: I understand its continuing popularity entirely. (Relevance I take issue with, but hey-ho). Its it exactly the continuing popularity I can't bear: Have you ever read it as a 'historical' novel? In other words, as an interesting perspective from 1949? As it should be? Of course not... no-one ever does. Everyone is so hung up on it being 'relevant' today so that they have something to say about it. Let's face it - you can't exactly talk about Orwell's style with any enthusiasm can you?

I just wish people would see its irrelevance for now, but enjoy it for its relevance and perspective in 1949. But, since no-one will ever do this (myself included), I can't see it being 'great' or 'the best' at all.

Do reply

-- Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:50 am --

Oh and 'Of Mice and Men' - don't even get me started. That really is ridiculous to say that it is brilliant literature. That's practically children's book.

[StephenKingman]

('No one read them' - How can this be 'inaccurate'? It's an opinion. Anyway - that is a small thing.)

Where am I coming from with 'yawn':

If someone can explain the value of 1984 to me post-911, post-Facebook, post-Twitter, post-'Arab Spring', and post- invention of the ipad, then be my guest. 1984 was a warning - well, it's happened now! Its value is almost nothing because no-one listened! Now, if you accept the idea that its ideological criticism is... well... obsolete - then it can barely stand alone as a brilliant novel, because it isn't written brilliantly at all. Julia is the most one-dimensional, boring character I have ever read about. The time for 1984 to hide behind its 'message' for its value has been and gone - and no-one could possible argue that its an exciting or 'clever' novel. It would be impossible to point to one page where the language stands alone as amazing.

StephenKingman says that it is one of the 'best' books ever written. If you accept anything I said above, then this is impossible to believe. He wasn't 'bang-on' with hierarchies. There is NO hierarchy - surely that is the premise of the book? One single leader and bunch of his enforcers? Then all the plebs? I would hardly call two tiers worth of society a hierarchy.

Fran: I understand its continuing popularity entirely. (Relevance I take issue with, but hey-ho). Its it exactly the continuing popularity I can't bear: Have you ever read it as a 'historical' novel? In other words, as an interesting perspective from 1949? As it should be? Of course not... no-one ever does. Everyone is so hung up on it being 'relevant' today so that they have something to say about it. Let's face it - you can't exactly talk about Orwell's style with any enthusiasm can you?

I just wish people would see its irrelevance for now, but enjoy it for its relevance and perspective in 1949. But, since no-one will ever do this (myself included), I can't see it being 'great' or 'the best' at all.

Do reply

-- Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:50 am --

Oh and 'Of Mice and Men' - don't even get me started. That really is ridiculous to say that it is brilliant literature. That's practically children's book.

I will reply. Saying something like "no one read it" and "yawn" and feigning suprise when someone responds is a tad attention seeking in my opinion. To answer your question, we may not have learned from what kind of a society we have turned into as predicted by 1984 but have we ever learned from wars, recessions, dictatorships etc? No. People are people and mistakes will continue to be made despite past lessons or predictions. It doesnt detract from the theme and message of the book. I happen to find Julia a very interesting anf complex character and i could understand why she was so restricted and needed to rebel. I do happen to read Orwell with enthusiasm, as a matter of fact, because after 1984 I read Animal Farm and was similary enthralled by Orwells symbolism of Communism and Democracy. Making sweeping statements based on your own personal preference is not helpful for a debate.

As for hierarchies, I believe Orwell brilliantly (albeit i understand why some people will find it offensive) summed up the filtering system of our society, from the minority at the top who hold the majority of power to the uneducated and apolitical "prole" class, who are born, live conventional lives, never question or protest their lives, and ultimately die and are replaced again ad naeseum. All of which is just as relevent in our times as when it was written. I enjoy the book for the above reasons and would never yawn at any of it.

[Artdude]

Very pleased you wanted to reply. Discussion is so important.

"Have we ever learned from wars, recessions, dictatorships etc? No." - Are you so sure? Do you not think the attrition in the Cold War was due to the realisation of MAD - or mutually assured destruction? The kind of (albeit pre-nuclear) nonsense that characterised the First World War? Has the world not learned from the 1920's German recession not to simply print more money in an attempt to reinvigorate the economy? Was the invasion of Iraq, and aiding Libya not a realisation that pre-emptive and supportive attack was for the good of preserving democracy and upholding democratic values - learned from allowing previous dictatorships to survive?

People are certainly people, and mistakes will continue, but what kind of good is that in relation to 1984? Seems an irrelevance to me. We ignored its badly told warning, and its happened now. Is the premise of the book not, therefore, obsolete? Whether people ignored it or whatever, is its main intention not now dead? It is certainly is from over here.

The theme or 'message' of the book - what do you think it is? Do you think it is something different to me? It seems very clear-cu: "Dictatorship is bad. Surveillance is bad. Love cannot resist it. Humans are fallible." I'm not exactly leaping up and down.... If you can find Julia interesting, then you can find anything interesting. I won't lose sleep over never reading about her again.

Enthusiasm for Orwell's fiction is admirable - I can't do it. (His essays on other writers are brilliant - his one on Dickens, for example, is very good, if only his overpowering socialism didn't get in the way, as usual). I happened to think Animal Farm was a lot better. It is mercifully short, and at least tells the story in an interesting way - albeit with flat, matter-of-fact language, which I can't bear. Its 'symbolism of communism and democracy', as you say, is pretty good. Again, I wouldn't write home about it, but it works pretty well. Infinitely better than the symbolism of the bedroom in 1984, or the filing place where he works, or Room 101, or even O'Brien's office (as I recall, he gets summoned there?) Anyway - these a dreadfully predictable and unsubtle, whereas AF works a lot better.

Why would his portrayal of hierarchy (which doesn't exist?!) be offensive to people? You have to be a pretty dull or at least childish person to find satire offensive. I digress - The kind of mundane existence you have described (in your last paragraph) has been going for hundreds and hundreds of years. You make it sound as if (perhaps unintentionally) Orwell is the first person ever to describe humans as one of many, not an individual! Chaucer's "Pilgramge of wo, and we ben pilgrims passinge to a fro", and Shakespeare's "All the World's a stage" speech, for example, did this hundreds of years before.

I'm yet to be convinced that 1984 is useful or exciting. Before you say it's my own ignorance or stupidity - which you are quite welcome to do - at least consider whether his main message is relevant for now, and whether his writing is in any way exciting. No examples have yet been remotely convincing.

-- Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:19 pm --

Clear-cut* - mistake

This world is but a thurgh fare full of wo,
And we ben pilgrimes, pas singe, to and fro;
Death is an ende of every worldly sore.
(The full Chaucer quote)

[El_greco]

Nicely written, i just have a couple of issues with your texts. You don't read it as a historical novel despite trying to prove that the only value of it is if the novel is positioned and debated only within it's zeitgeist.

The other is expressing Orwell's overpowering socialism as a necessarily bad thing. From the standpoint of ideology theorists, ideology can't be avoided, unless you're performing solely material labor (don't know if i translated it correctly, pardon). Everything else we produce mentally is ideologicaly proposed. In that manner, Orwell has reached above that, by claiming and confirming his ideological standpoint and writing an overtly political work. It's, let's say, more pragmatic than aesthetically perfected. It actually becomes an ideological problem, which is very simple but for some reason (whatever it is) is ignored.

Don't have more time, but what i tried to elaborate in the former (ignored) post of mine is this; though this will be a generalization, it's quite true: People who prefer classical music (as aesthetically superior to any other music form), and aesthetically perfected literary works are often more right winged, romantics if you like. On the other hand, i dare to claim that Orwell fanboys are mostly punk-listening marxians and anarchysts. Your statements are what i see as a harsh overreaction and very hyperbolic (Do not read it, not worth reading, yawn yawn.).
The problem in both is that you all (even me) are reading Orwell from a fixed ideological standpoint, knowingly od subconsciously, doesn't matter. From your mentioning of Orwell's socialism as perjorative, it's a bit clearer why you don't like it. (the same was with our short discussion of Salinger). You're an aestheticist, a person who emphasises the aesthetic component of the work too strongly. But it's not by far the only one. And mentioning WW1 and German recession as a lesson enough, then we could learn everything we know solely from antiquity, but still, we have literary works and monographies that still have to elaborate the problem constantly.

This is a bit too ad-hominem, and i apologise, but i think we should all take a second for some introspection before a too harsh judgement.

Otherwise great style, great thinking, but serious literary studies can't stand that much of hyperbolic statements (in my opinion).


edit: i apologize for my bad english

enjoy your evening

[Artdude]

The thing is, I've spent so much time thinking about Orwell and reading his novels again and again. I haven't leapt to my conclusions from an entirely aesthetic point of you - like you suggest. I've spent enough time labouring over Orwell's motives and - I will say it again - obstructive socialism, to know that it can't criticise that well, because it isn't told well. What is fiction, if not a way of TELLING.

Why obstructive socialism?: One very quick, and simple example. How anybody can criticise Dickens with socialism in mind, and comment on Dickens' views about 'private property' and 'political injustice' is ridiculous. It is just not a helpful way of discussing him. His essay is littered with analysis of this kind, which... just isn't 'right' (for lack of a better phrase).

Ideology can't be avoided - you're certainly right there. But why this is some kind of achievement of Orwell's - to write an entirely political work, is beyond me. You know the common misconception - "Style over substance?" I firmly believe (and this is the case in every circumstance) that style goes directly hand-in-hand, equally with substance. Orwell is severely lacking in half of this combination, which is why I'm not his biggest fan.

I never said the antiquity was what we should be learning from 'solely' - I just said that it is possible to learn from it along with everything else.

Enjoy your evening too!

[StephenKingman]

"Have we ever learned from wars, recessions, dictatorships etc? No." - Are you so sure? Do you not think the attrition in the Cold War was due to the realisation of MAD - or mutually assured destruction? The kind of (albeit pre-nuclear) nonsense that characterised the First World War? Has the world not learned from the 1920's German recession not to simply print more money in an attempt to reinvigorate the economy? Was the invasion of Iraq, and aiding Libya not a realisation that pre-emptive and supportive attack was for the good of preserving democracy and upholding democratic values - learned from allowing previous dictatorships to survive?

Not really great examples of people learning from past mistakes, seeing as the world is now in an awful economic state so bad it has nearly collapsed a currency scarcely 10yrs old and wars continue to rage and will do so for decades to come. Hence why i mentioned people acting as they always did and always will, that doesnt mean 1984 'fails' in its message, in fact even if Orwell were to predict Facebook and terorrism down to the last detail, people would hurl inevitably towards the future regardless of warnings.

The theme or 'message' of the book - what do you think it is? Do you think it is something different to me? It seems very clear-cu: "Dictatorship is bad. Surveillance is bad. Love cannot resist it. Humans are fallible." I'm not exactly leaping up and down.... If you can find Julia interesting, then you can find anything interesting. I won't lose sleep over never reading about her again.

Ignoring your condescending view of my opinion on Julia, the theme of 1984 is indeed a sinister side to surveillance and dictatorship. I am missing your point here? We disagree on the contents of the book not its message

Why would his portrayal of hierarchy (which doesn't exist?!) be offensive to people? You have to be a pretty dull or at least childish person to find satire offensive. I digress - The kind of mundane existence you have described (in your last paragraph) has been going for hundreds and hundreds of years. You make it sound as if (perhaps unintentionally) Orwell is the first person ever to describe humans as one of many, not an individual! Chaucer's "Pilgramge of wo, and we ben pilgrims passinge to a fro", and Shakespeare's "All the World's a stage" speech, for example, did this hundreds of years before.
I'm yet to be convinced that 1984 is useful or exciting. Before you say it's my own ignorance or stupidity - which you are quite welcome to do - at least consider whether his main message is relevant for now, and whether his writing is in any way exciting. No examples have yet been remotely convincing.

I think you have a blinkered way of looking at the book, you are judging it in 2011 and comparing it against all the events that did and didn't happen, thats like saying To Kill a Mockingbird is useless and irrelevant in 2011 because of the progress in reducing racism, you are judging it as a book which must always and forever be relevant and 'fresh' instead of accepting the books' strength and accurate message.
As for hierarchy I never said he was the 1st to expose it, but he certainly manages to explain it very well in the context of his story. Proles is a somewhat insulting and common term in my opinion, regardless of how accurate his description is.

-- Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:19 pm --

Clear-cut* - mistake

This world is but a thurgh fare full of wo,
And we ben pilgrimes, pas singe, to and fro;
Death is an ende of every worldly sore.
(The full Chaucer quote)[/quote]

[Artdude]

I didn't say message - I said warning. I said it is useless as a warning.

I think they're pretty good examples. Just to take you up on economy - have you been watching the news? I'm sure you remember the BBC and CNN broadcasts saying that the plans to print more money were off the bill. Surely this is because they know what happens if they try? I'm no economist, but I'd say examples from the past are extremely valuable. The bleak view of humans forever being fallible is a good one (and the only respectable position to take), but saying that they will always be ignorant of their past mistakes I think is wrong, as well as depressing.

I just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page with its 'message'! That was just to make sure.

The Blinkered View:

Really - it is an interesting way of thinking about it. Don't we all have a blinkered view, of everything? If you mean to say that I haven't been reading it properly, I have to tell you that I have tried avidly to contextualise it and imagine for myself the world he was trying to portray, at the time he was portraying it. But we all have a prejudiced/blinkered/singular perspective on everything we read - surely? If you mean blinkered as in, stubborn, well I accept that completely. I've long loathed 1984 and I've read it enough times to know it won't change any time soon.

To Kill a Mockingbird is brilliant - but Lee's intention wasn't to reduce racism. Always with prose - INTENTION is the key to everything - at least, good writing. It is always the intention that is important. And Orwell intended it as a warning, therefore I feel it should be judged as a warning. And, I shall repeat - a good one, for 1949, but irrelevant now.


"you are judging it as a book which must always and forever be relevant and 'fresh' instead of accepting the books' strength and accurate message." :

Good literature is always fresh and relevant, and the strength of a book is determined by this quality of yielding more and more, surely? - from Chaucer to Shakespeare to Dickens to Byron to whoever - it will always be fresh and relevant, and always yield something new. King Lear and Alice in Wonderland will be learning experiences until humanity dies out. 1984 has had its time as a warning, but now people need to see it as something more (which I can't see happening, hence my contempt!)

[El_greco]

The thing is, I've spent so much time thinking about Orwell and reading his novels again and again. I haven't leapt to my conclusions from an entirely aesthetic point of you - like you suggest. I've spent enough time labouring over Orwell's motives and - I will say it again - obstructive socialism, to know that it can't criticise that well, because it isn't told well. What is fiction, if not a way of TELLING.

Why obstructive socialism?: One very quick, and simple example. How anybody can criticise Dickens with socialism in mind, and comment on Dickens' views about 'private property' and 'political injustice' is ridiculous. It is just not a helpful way of discussing him. His essay is littered with analysis of this kind, which... just isn't 'right' (for lack of a better phrase).

Ideology can't be avoided - you're certainly right there. But why this is some kind of achievement of Orwell's - to write an entirely political work, is beyond me. You know the common misconception - "Style over substance?" I firmly believe (and this is the case in every circumstance) that style goes directly hand-in-hand, equally with substance. Orwell is severely lacking in half of this combination, which is why I'm not his biggest fan.

I never said the antiquity was what we should be learning from 'solely' - I just said that it is possible to learn from it along with everything else.

Enjoy your evening too!

it's not nearly just a way of telling. The "way of telling" is just only one component. The aesthetic one (sub specie of the phenomenologic one partly, and partly morphologic one). Then there are the others, main ones being the cognitive, ontological and morphological one.
Agreed that in the aesthetic department he fails big time (probably). But every social, ideological group has their own voice. For me, as a punk, rap, FU head, his narration is perfect for the function of his work as a whole that he imagined. I don't yawn when i read it. My socialism is not obstructive, it's the most perfect state/environment for the existence of his work. And the work of Bukowski, and Sartre, and Beckett, and/.../. The point is, there's a lot of narrative processes that suit the different functions of different works. 1984 would simple not be good in the voice of hymnical russian sentimentalists f.e. because as i said already, it's pragmatism vs. appearance, where the voice used is also a microstructure of the novel itself. It has it's own narrative. It's not good, or bad. It's necessary. The same way the romantics needed pathos and naturalism needed filth.

[StephenKingman]

I think they're pretty good examples. Just to take you up on economy - have you been watching the news? I'm sure you remember the BBC and CNN broadcasts saying that the plans to print more money were off the bill. Surely this is because they know what happens if they try? I'm no economist, but I'd say examples from the past are extremely valuable. The bleak view of humans forever being fallible is a good one (and the only respectable position to take), but saying that they will always be ignorant of their past mistakes I think is wrong, as well as depressing.

I just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page with its 'message'! That was just to make sure.

I watch the news every day. We are going through a very bad recession now, one which requires help from Germany and France (where I am, anyway), as banks and developers and basically anyone in a position of power frittered away money wily-mily on a housing market that could never stay upright all the while feathering their own castles nicely with our money- its happened before and will happen again. Fact. Greed will never go away, no matter if your solution is to print more money or attach terms and conditions to bailout loans- my point is just because we didnt "react" to Orwells message/warning in a book from 1949 in an attempt to prevent it happening is hardly the authors' fault is it?

Really - it is an interesting way of thinking about it. Don't we all have a blinkered view, of everything? If you mean to say that I haven't been reading it properly, I have to tell you that I have tried avidly to contextualise it and imagine for myself the world he was trying to portray, at the time he was portraying it. But we all have a prejudiced/blinkered/singular perspective on everything we read - surely? If you mean blinkered as in, stubborn, well I accept that completely. I've long loathed 1984 and I've read it enough times to know it won't change any time soon.

Why read a book that you hate over and over just to see if your viewpoint will change? You obviously hate the book, as can be seen from your sweeping statements such as "No-one read it" "Yawn" etc so why continue to read it? Other views on this book do exist believe it or not and im one of the people who love it and admire the author for his message and accurate view on people and society (further proved in Animal Farm).

Good literature is always fresh and relevant, and the strength of a book is determined by this quality of yielding more and more, surely? - from Chaucer to Shakespeare to Dickens to Byron to whoever - it will always be fresh and relevant, and always yield something new. King Lear and Alice in Wonderland will be learning experiences until humanity dies out. 1984 has had its time as a warning, but now people need to see it as something more (which I can't see happening, hence my contempt!)

I understand your point here with regards to books remaining fresh and i can see why you would not consider 1984 a relevant and fresh book nowadays, in the same way as, as you mention, Dickens etc. I guess it comes down to personal opinion and your view of the book as an excellent prose describing and even warning (albeit vainly!) about society, government and hierarchies or else a failed attempt to warn humans of a possible grim future. I fall in the former category in that sense and always will do.

[Artdude]

"Why read a book that you hate over and over just to see if your viewpoint will change? You obviously hate the book, as can be seen from your sweeping statements such as "No-one read it" "Yawn" etc so why continue to read it? "

- Because I am never content to think that I know enough, or that my opinions and judgements can't be improved in some way. I hate the thought that I have an opinion (good or bad) formed from one reading, especially with something this short - I read it repeatedly with the hope that it's excitement might reveal itself to me slowly, or after a time of thought. In that respect, I gave it a serious chance! Unfortunately, I can't see it at all. Good of you to tell me that other people have opinions - and I'm giving mine. I won't back down on it being a 'yawn' and warning people against its faults, either, since this is again, "expressing my opinion" (which people get so flustered about when you do so strongly). Admiring the author for his message, and his view on society, only goes some of the way to loving the work they produce - I love neither.

"Greed will never go away, no matter if your solution is to print more money or attach terms and conditions to bailout loans- my point is just because we didnt "react" to Orwells message/warning in a book from 1949 in an attempt to prevent it happening is hardly the authors' fault is it?"

- Indeed, "Radix malorum est cupiditas" - as The Pardoner so hypocritically preaches in The Canterbury Tales. "Greed is the root of all evil", he says, which is even further than it 'won't go away'. So I fully agree with that. I only wanted to make clear that it is Orwell's fault to write so drearily and blandly in terms of language, I would never claim people's reactions and its failure as a warning was his fault. It certainly isn't.

[StephenKingman]

^ Nothing wrong with opinions Artdude but if you make your statements in a sweeping manner with little explanation behind your statements then people will pick it up the wrong way. Bit of advice, dont waste your time "warning" people about 1984, wouldn't it be better spending your time reading a book you enjoy! I still have the same opinion on 1984 as your 1st post so im sadly not a convert! Carry on.

[Artdude]

Well, alright. If people pick it up the wrong way, I will endeavour to explain. I will warn people until my dying breath, though.

Shame to hear that you aren't a convert. You can't stop people believing in God either: humans are strange mammals

When I was interviewed at Oxford earlier this month, I had the grilling of all grillings whenever I made any kind of generalisation, which I learned very quickly to avoid. I hope you don't think anything I said was really a generalisation - it can be so boring for readers to be swamped with garbage in that way. I was careful not to say anything generalised... if you thought any of it was, I didn't intend for that kind of blanket statement, and I will spend the next 10 minutes checking everything like a sad bastard, to make sure!

A truce, if ever there was one.