This is a very nice piece and joins my tendencies now too to privilege the classics. But I also am trying to find what are the classics of other civilizations. Like for the Chinese I know that "Journey to the West" is one of them, but what is the classic canon for Islamic countries
I think you are definitely right that we should expand the canon and go beyond the Euro-centric approaches. As for the Islamic countries, I’m sure there are people better qualified than me to answer that question but one work that just comes to mind is Rumi’s Masnawi. I keep meaning to read it but I still haven’t done so.
Can we say, though, that a "canon" of literature is truly diverse if it remains fixed in genre? If all the varied people we see are still doing the same things, living out the same scenarios? Classical works are certainly worthy of our attention, and one can argue that the attrition of the ages makes it likely that the average "classic" work is of a higher quality than the average contemporary work, but this is only an artifact of the way these works come to us, not an inherent trait. If you say that you focus on classic or canonical works because you want to, because the context of their canonicity makes them interesting to you, that is a framework I can easily accept. But I will never agree that these supposed classics have some inherent quality that I must bow to.
That is a great point, actually, something I keep thinking about myself but could not get into in the article. "What quality or trait makes a work a classic?" I agree with you that these works do not have an inherent value. I think they "became" classics over time, so the engagement that the readers had with them is very very important.
I also feel like I am out of my depth here. I don't think I am wholly qualified to talk about the issue from an academic standpoint. I just wanted to share why I think the classics are important from a personal point of view.
That’s fair. And I do think, much like what you’re saying about the way these works “become” classics, the simple fact that readers have been engaging with them so long indicates that they are a good place to go to, as exemplars of the movements they’re part of. Reading (or in this particular case hearing), say, the works of Shakespeare lets us touch the core of popular culture as it was in Elizabethan England, and that is just an amazing thing to be able to do.
I only get fussy when there’s an implication that other movements, especially newer ones, are somehow less worthy because of their newness, or because their creativity is expressed in aspects of a work that don’t matter so much in these older movements. I don’t think that’s what you’re saying here, but I’ve encountered the sentiment enough that I have this reflexive reaction whenever the idea of a “classic” of literature comes up.
I guess what I could have emphasized more in the original piece was that in my efforts to become a "better version" of myself (whatever that means), classics were a safe choice. When I say this, I may have implicitly been looking down on the newer works but that was actually not my goal.
This is a very nice piece and joins my tendencies now too to privilege the classics. But I also am trying to find what are the classics of other civilizations. Like for the Chinese I know that "Journey to the West" is one of them, but what is the classic canon for Islamic countries
Thank you very much for the comment.
I think you are definitely right that we should expand the canon and go beyond the Euro-centric approaches. As for the Islamic countries, I’m sure there are people better qualified than me to answer that question but one work that just comes to mind is Rumi’s Masnawi. I keep meaning to read it but I still haven’t done so.
Can we say, though, that a "canon" of literature is truly diverse if it remains fixed in genre? If all the varied people we see are still doing the same things, living out the same scenarios? Classical works are certainly worthy of our attention, and one can argue that the attrition of the ages makes it likely that the average "classic" work is of a higher quality than the average contemporary work, but this is only an artifact of the way these works come to us, not an inherent trait. If you say that you focus on classic or canonical works because you want to, because the context of their canonicity makes them interesting to you, that is a framework I can easily accept. But I will never agree that these supposed classics have some inherent quality that I must bow to.
That is a great point, actually, something I keep thinking about myself but could not get into in the article. "What quality or trait makes a work a classic?" I agree with you that these works do not have an inherent value. I think they "became" classics over time, so the engagement that the readers had with them is very very important.
I also feel like I am out of my depth here. I don't think I am wholly qualified to talk about the issue from an academic standpoint. I just wanted to share why I think the classics are important from a personal point of view.
That’s fair. And I do think, much like what you’re saying about the way these works “become” classics, the simple fact that readers have been engaging with them so long indicates that they are a good place to go to, as exemplars of the movements they’re part of. Reading (or in this particular case hearing), say, the works of Shakespeare lets us touch the core of popular culture as it was in Elizabethan England, and that is just an amazing thing to be able to do.
I only get fussy when there’s an implication that other movements, especially newer ones, are somehow less worthy because of their newness, or because their creativity is expressed in aspects of a work that don’t matter so much in these older movements. I don’t think that’s what you’re saying here, but I’ve encountered the sentiment enough that I have this reflexive reaction whenever the idea of a “classic” of literature comes up.
I guess what I could have emphasized more in the original piece was that in my efforts to become a "better version" of myself (whatever that means), classics were a safe choice. When I say this, I may have implicitly been looking down on the newer works but that was actually not my goal.