classic favourites

[bebe]

Hi everyone...yes, I've given into my dark side (geek) of course I'm not saying you guys are geeks, but I bet I can see the look on my friends' faces if they knew I joined an online book forum. *Beth...we need to get you some help* So this will be my own little dark secret...but anyways on to other subjects, I just want to see if anybody has any favourite classics. I have got to say I love Les Miserables by Victor Hugo the most, then Of Human Bondage by Somerset Maugham, Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, and although these aren't even close to being classics I'm just going to throw in those Goosebumps books that basically EVERYBODY I knew read when they were lke, 9-13 yrs old (hopefully) because I know I read them all the time when I was younger and I was foaming at the mouth to read the next one So if you have a favourite classic or you've read any of the ones I've listed above then post a message, because hopefully I haven't frightened anyone with my rant about Goosebumps. And no, I don't wear thick thick glasses, braces, or laugh like a horse. -B

 

[Dawn]

Hi, Bebe. I think it's OK to be a geek (if that's how you think readers should be classified), even if it's a closet one. Most of my friends read quite a bit, so I don't have to worry about hiding my passion. At work, however, I get comments about the fact that I always have a book near at hand. These people seem to be amused for some reason. I guess I'm an oddball to them.

On to the classics . . . Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite. Of course, that may start a discussion about the definition of "classic".

Let's hear what the peanut gallery has to say.

 

[Tobytook]

Geeky classics and getting help

Originally posted by bebe
... I can see the look on my friends' faces if they knew I joined an online book forum. *Beth...we need to get you some help*

Don't worry too much. I can think of other kinds of online forums where the phrase "You need help" is more applicable.

So this will be my own little dark secret...

If this is as dark as you get then I don't reckon you're going to give St Peter much pause, come the day. But he might have an issue with your Goosebumps episode, of course.

Enjoy the boards.

Tobytook
who wears thick glasses, braces, and laughs like a horse.

 

[bebe]

clarification, please

What do people mean when they say, *peanut gang* and *the boards*? I'm a newbie to all this, uh, book forum lingo *sorry no other phrase to describe it* so somebody please tell me what the heck they mean! -B

 

[Ell]

bebe,

"Peanut gallery" means the people in the audience - i.e. the rest of us reading the posts. It's an old slang term from eons ago. I remember hearing it when I was a child - and that was some time ago!

"On the boards" = the message boards or forum

No apologies necessary.

Ell

 

[Darren]

I've never heard of "peanut gallery" either. I wonder where it originated?

I read "Of Mice and Men" years ago in school. Will have to re-read it sometime.

 

[Ell]

Found this from www.uselessknowledge.com

"Peanut Gallery is American slang dating to 1888 referring to the balcony section of a theater--presumably from the hoi polloi eating peanuts in the cheap seats.

The term was popularized in the 1950s by the television show Howdy Doody, in which the host Buffalo Bob would call the child audience the peanut gallery. In doing so, Buffalo Bob was combining two different slang traditions"

 

[savage_henry]

My favorite "classics" are also 2 of my favorite all time books. (I love to make top 5 top, 10 lists)
Once I read The Great Gatsby and To Kill a Mockingbird in whatever grade you have to read them, I was hooked. I have bought so many copies of these as gifts, replacements for never returned loans, and replacements for beat up copies it is not even funny.

Also Watership Down but I am not sure if that has attained a "classic" status yet!

Mike

 

[Dawn]

I didn't realize my reference to "peanut gallery" would get so much play from the peanut gallery. I'll have to see if I come up with more good 'ole American slang.

How does a book attain "classic" status? Is it subjective, based on the opinion of the experts and readers, or is there an official definition? I thought of this because of the non-fiction classification thread that I believe Tobytook started. (right?)

Hmmmm. Just curious.

 

[savage_henry]

I would guess that a certain amount of time must pass as well as other criteria for a book to be considered a classic. What that period of time is, I do not know.

Mike

 

[bebe]

Yes, well i guess a classic would be like when it has been recognized internationally as one and has been that way for some time (say 40, 50, years?) It's getting harder and harder to atually find a classic among all the *modern* classics, but the ones that really stand the test of time should be classified that way, I guess.

What the hell am I talking about? I have no idea...lets just sit back and see how others rate it in a few decades, how about that? -B

 

[Tobytook]

Paradoxical but fun

Originally posted by Dawn
How does a book attain "classic" status? Is it subjective, based on the opinion of the experts and readers, or is there an official definition?

Well, here are a few tidbits from a dictionary definition:

"A work recognised as definitive in its field."
"An artist... or work generally considered to be of the highest rank or excellence, especially one of enduring significance." Score one for bebe, there!

(Funnily enough, it strikes me that these official remarks are themselves subjective statements. The why of this might be explained by a basic theory that all art is impervious to objectivity.)

More technically, the term does refer to any literary work from ancient Greece or Rome.

On a personal note, I would add that for a book - a novel, at least - to be considered a classic, it should regularly feature in teaching curricula.

Tobytook

 

[Dawn]

I guess that's what I was looking for. The definition itself implies subjectivity. Highest rank or excellence . . .

Who determines that? and based on what criteria? Many books are well written, but they aren't considered classics. One that endures the test of time and is well written? There again, there must be thousands of books that measure up. So what is the measuring stick for literature?

Oh, wait. Isn't that what you just said, Tobytook?

Anyway, I was curious because "classic" is one of those words that get tossed around quite a bit. Sort of like "new and improved". I guess anyone could use the word to sell a product, even a book. In my local bookstore there is a classics section. I've often wondered by what means they determined the books that will be displayed in that section. The same could be said for books that are shelved in the non-fiction section. (oops, wrong thread)

Thoughts from the . . . ahem . . . peanut gallery?

 

[Dawn]

Re: Paradoxical but fun

Sorry, I just thought of something else.

Originally posted by Tobytook

On a personal note, I would add that for a book - a novel, at least - to be considered a classic, it should regularly feature in teaching curricula.

Tobytook

Tobytook, do you teach?

In order for a novel to be featured in a teaching curriculum, it would have to be selected by the professor or by a selection committee, right? If this is true, any novel could be considered a classic, based on what you are saying.

I know I'm oversimplifying but I wanted to take the opportunity to take a jab. . . you did leave yourself wide open.

 

[Tobytook]

Hit me with your best shot

Originally posted by Dawn
In order for a novel to be featured in a teaching curriculum, it would have to be selected by the professor or by a selection committee, right? If this is true, any novel could be considered a classic, based on what you are saying.

Here we go, then.

In the first place, any decision of this nature needs to be ratified by the department - and usually a few other groups, too. It's never just up to one person unless that one person constitutes the whole establishment.

In the second place, the people making those decisions use quasi-objective criteria such as we have already mentioned (test of time, definitive in field, etc) - not just their own (considerably, I hope) educated opinions.

Finally, while it is true that anyone can say that any novel could be considered a classic, they must be able to demonstrate how it fit said criteria. It would stand or fall on its merits and the ability of the person to address/defend them.

I know I'm oversimplifying but I wanted to take the opportunity to take a jab. . . you did leave yourself wide open.

Yes, you are. And yes, I did.
Jab away. You're cool.
"Bring a gun, bring a knife. Bring your friends." - Rip Torn to Dennis Hopper, on being called out for a fight.

Tobytook who isn't a teacher but sees your point.

 

[Dawn]

Ha! I love it when I can make a point, since it happens so rarely.

Tobytook, I know that you know I was just pulling your leg. I knew you meant "in addition to" other qualifications. I also know that academics can have their own agendas.

Anyway, I think we could start a new thread on a"art is perception" discussion. And another one on the whole "art isn't created in a vacuum" bit. I think I caused this one to get off track.

That being said, I guess no one has a problem with Jane Austen's work being considered "classic". Cool.

 

[Tobytook]

Late reply no indication of apathy

Originally posted by Dawn
Tobytook, I know that you know I was just pulling your leg

I know that you knew that I knew that... I think. (Can this domino line of mutual knowledge go any further?)

I think we could start a new thread on a"art is perception" discussion. And another one on the whole "art isn't created in a vacuum" bit.

That would be cool. We might get in trouble, though. It better not be stupid!!

That being said, I guess no one has a problem with Jane Austen's work being considered "classic". Cool.

I was reading an article about her pre-Freudian ideas recently. The writer suggested that, plot-wise, Austen's novels were interchangeable with most Mills & Boon output. However, the big difference (that puts her in the "classic" canon, I suppose) lies in characterisation. Which leads - nicely, I think - into a good question for you (and anyone else, actually):

Who is Austen's best character?

(And, if her best character is not in what you consider to be her best book, explain why.)

Tobytook

 

[bebe]

emma, from emma, because shes the most interesting and yes, as scary as it sounds, feisty. Ohh god now I feel truly freaky....I'm going to take a shower and wash it off me. -B

 

[Tobytook]

Yeah, I'd have to go along with that. She's certainly the critics' choice, too. One of the most outstanding things about her, for me, is that she isn't perfect. Unlike Austen's other famous creations, Elizabeth Bennet (Pride & Prejudice) and Elinor Dashwood (Sense & Sensibility), Emma Woodhouse is spoiled, sometimes cruel, and - most importantly - ignorant of her own true feelings. Emma is on what has been called "self-satisfied autopilot" (AC Grayling), and Austen herself warned the public that only she could love her heroine. (That proved untrue, of course.) Emma has very little understanding of her own motives, and that makes the didactic aspect of the novel easier to swallow because, for once in an Austen novel, the reader is in on an equal footing with the main character.

Rats. I really wanted to disagree with you there, bebe.

Write something else.

I know. Wait a minute. I take it back. Emma is a vacuous, silly, two-dimensional creation, whose emotional transference is palpably transparent. The lessons she learns are predicatable, and her eventual reward (in the shape of Knightley) is anti-climactic and dry.

No, I can't do it. I just can't muster the conviction. Someone else will have to do it.

(And then we can team up and kill them!!)

Tobytook

 

[bebe]

*applause*

nice. very nice. -B