Wanted: list of "classics" to read
Mike Harless
Does anyone have any lists of the "classics" that everyone should have read
going through GOOD high school and college english/literature courses? I've
got some old lists that I found laying around, but they seem to be pretty
incomplete. Thanks!
...Mike
Jack Campin
har...@sdd.hp.com (Mike Harless) wrote:
> Does anyone have any lists of the "classics" that everyone should have read
^^^^^^^^
> going through GOOD high school and college english/literature courses?
Here's my list: {}.
There is a vast and various world of literature out there - the most anyone
can get through in high school is a few dozen books. It's terminally daft
to think that any meaningful "shortlist" can exist. OK, so you include
Chaucer - is he obviously more worth including than Yunus Emre, Li Po,
Shota Rustaveli or the Tale of Genji? Your shortlist would bog down before
leaving the Middle Ages.
Probably all American and British kids read some Shakespeare. I see no
evidence that this commonality does anything particularly beneficial in
either culture. When did you last start a conversation about "The Merchant
of Venice" in a supermarket queue?
Let's hear it for diversity of experience. This newsgroup would be bloody
boring if people read according to the schedules of Allan Bloom and the
Chicago "Great Books" marketing team.
--
-- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6044 work 041 556 1878 home
JANET: ja...@cs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcvax and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913
INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: ja...@glasgow.uucp
Miriam H. Nadel
>
>Does anyone have any lists of the "classics" that everyone should have read
>going through GOOD high school and college english/literature courses? I've
>got some old lists that I found laying around, but they seem to be pretty
>incomplete. Thanks!
There are lots of books around which suggest reading programs. One I like
is Clifton Faddiman's _The Lifetime Reading Plan_.
My own list (more or less off the top of my head) would include:
Classical Literature:
Homer, _The Iliad_
Homer, _The Odyssey_
Virgil, _The Aeniad_
Plutarch, _Parallel Lives_
Europe through the Renaissance:
Chaucer, _Canterbury Tales_
Bocaccio, _The Decameron_
Dante, _The Inferno_
Machiavelli, _The Prince_
Moore, _Utopia_
Shakespeare, various plays. I suggest _Macbeth_, _Hamlet_ and _The Tempest_.
One could also make a good case for _King Lear_ and _Othello_
being important to know. I find plays very difficult to read
and suggest that seeing them, or at least getting recordings,
may be valuable if you find plays otherwise difficult.
Milton, _Paradise Lost_
British Novels:
Defoe, _Moll Flanders_. I would also suggest _A Journal of the Plague Years_
and _Robinson Crusoe_. Defoe is one of my favorite authors and I'm
always amazed at how few people have read him.
Dickens, _A Tale of Two Cities_. Most people would also probably attempt
_David Copperfield_ and/or _Great Expectations_. I see no need to
read more than one novel by an author you dislike and I can't stand
the sentimentality dribbled throughout these books.
Hardy, _Tess of the D'Urbervilles_
Scott, _Ivanhoe_
Bronte, _Jane Eyre_
I should probably include something by Jane Austen but I've not gotten around
to reading anything of hers. I'm also probably forgetting all sorts of
important authors.
American Novels:
Hawthorne, _The Scarlet Letter_. I think it's profoundly boring but it is
considered *the* American novel.
Melville, _Moby Dick_. Actually, I would suggest starting with a shorter
piece. "Bartleby the Scrivener" would be a good choice.
Twain, _Tom Sawyer_, _Huckleberry Finn_, etc. (I think the exact titles
actually have "the adventures of" in front of the names but you'll
still be able to find them in the library or bookstore this way).
Faulkner, _The Sound and the Fury_. Note: this is very difficult, so persevere!
Fitzgerald, _The Great Gatsby_
Hemingway, _For Whom the Bell Tolls_ or _A Farewell to Arms_.
I'm not convinced that the latter two are important enough but most educated
people have read them. It's at least worth a glance to see if you like either
author.
European Novels:
Kafka, _The Castle_, _The Trial_, "Metamorphosis"
Dostoevsky, _Crime and Punishment_, _The Brothers Karamazov_
Tolstoy, _War and Peace_
Camus, _The Plague_, _The Stranger_ (there are other title translations of
"L'Etranger" so you might ask your librarian or bookseller)
Hugo, _Les Miserables_ (seeing the musical doesn't count)
Again, this is a very incomplete list, but it should give you somewhere to
start.
Miriam Nadel
--
One of the 95% of American peanut-eaters who eat at least nine at a sitting.
na...@aerospace.aero.org
PhinisheD 4/26/90
Mike Godwin
>
>Probably all American and British kids read some Shakespeare. I see no
>evidence that this commonality does anything particularly beneficial in
>either culture. When did you last start a conversation about "The Merchant
>of Venice" in a supermarket queue?
Let's see: when was the last time I read or heard a reference to
Shakespeare in ordinary reading or conversation? Why, just today! Um,
well, when was the time before that? Why, just yesterday!
Hmmm, maybe there's something to this commonality business after all.
--Mike
Mike Godwin, UT Law School |"... and first I put my arms around him yes
(JD received, May 1990) | and drew him down to me so he could feel my
mnem...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | breasts all perfume yes and his heart was
(512) 346-4190 | going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."
Hosek, Donald A.
>>going through GOOD high school and college english/literature courses? I've
>>got some old lists that I found laying around, but they seem to be pretty
>>incomplete. Thanks!
>My own list (more or less off the top of my head) would include:
>Classical Literature:
>Homer, _The Iliad_
>Homer, _The Odyssey_
I'd suggest getting Lattimore's translations of these two.
[Interesting aside. Richard Lattimore and Robert Fitzgerald were
boyhood friends who made a pact that Lattimore would do _the_
definitive Iliad of the 20th C. and Fitzgerald would do the
Odyssey. Well, after they were both finished, Lattimore took a
look at Fitzgerald's translation, thought it was horrible and
did a new translation himself. Having read both, I must agree
with Lattimore.]
>Virgil, _The Aeniad_
There hasn't been a decent translation of this prose or verse as
far as I've seen. Learn Latin and read it in the original.
>Plutarch, _Parallel Lives_
Let's not forget Ovid's Metamorphoses. I haven't seen a good
verse translation, but Penguin has a good prose translation.
A pile of author's names in a jumble:
Aeschylus, Euripides, Petronius, Seneca, Plautus, Apuleius,
Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Sappho (get _Sappho: A Modern
Translation_)
Part of the reason for reading "Classics" (I use it here in its
proper sense, referring to Graeco-Roman antiquity) is to get an
understanding of later authors (which is not to say that Homer
et alia shouldn't be read for their own merits). Towards this
end, you probably want to be familiar with the Bible. As a
translation, the King James Bible is frequently weak (being based
far more on the Vulgate than anyone is willing to admit).
However, it has been the translation most authors in English have
read (second place going to St. Jerome's Vulgate Bible). Bits you
should definitely be familiar with include:
Genesis, Exodus, Samuel, Kings, Job, Psalms, Jonah, Isaiah,
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, Revelation
(this would be a minimal reading to be be able to catch the
better part of the Biblical allusions in the lit you read).
>Europe through the Renaissance:
>Chaucer, _Canterbury Tales_
>Bocaccio, _The Decameron_
>Dante, _The Inferno_
>Machiavelli, _The Prince_
>Moore, _Utopia_
That's More.
>Shakespeare, various plays. I suggest _Macbeth_, _Hamlet_ and _The Tempest_.
> One could also make a good case for _King Lear_ and _Othello_
> being important to know. I find plays very difficult to read
> and suggest that seeing them, or at least getting recordings,
> may be valuable if you find plays otherwise difficult.
>Milton, _Paradise Lost_
YOU MISSED DON QUIXOTE!
DQ ranks up there with Homer and the Bible as a great wellspring
of Western Literature. (Here's a trivia question for you: Many
novels are clearly influenced by Don Quixote, some more than
others. How many novels can you come up with that mention
"Quixote" explicitly in the title? (I have five in my personal
library and am certain there are far more than that.))
Miriam's list focuses largely on prose works as is painfully
evident from this portion here. I think some of the best English
verse was written in the 16th and 17th centuries (but then again,
that's my specialty, so I'm biased). The Norton Anthology of
English Lit is a good place to start to get an overview of
English verse and short prose and drama. Volume one covers the
dawn of time to a the late 18th c., volume two covers the rest.
Oxford University Press has a good anthology of the 16th & 17th
c. edited by Hollander and Kermode. They also have a series of
complete and selected works of the period.
>British Novels:
>Defoe, _Moll Flanders_. I would also suggest _A Journal of the Plague Years_
> and _Robinson Crusoe_. Defoe is one of my favorite authors and I'm
> always amazed at how few people have read him.
>Dickens, _A Tale of Two Cities_. Most people would also probably attempt
> _David Copperfield_ and/or _Great Expectations_. I see no need to
> read more than one novel by an author you dislike and I can't stand
> the sentimentality dribbled throughout these books.
That's too bad that you don't like Dickens. I personally love
him. If you're really only going to read one Dickens novel, I'd
say go with David Copperfield. Other highlights IMHO are Bleak
House, Little Dorrit, and Great Expectations.
>Hardy, _Tess of the D'Urbervilles_
>Scott, _Ivanhoe_
>Bronte, _Jane Eyre_
>I should probably include something by Jane Austen but I've not gotten around
>to reading anything of hers. I'm also probably forgetting all sorts of
>important authors.
Others you's want to hit:
George Eliot: if you're willing to devote the time, read
Middlemarch--long but good. Otherwise, Mill on the Floss would
be a good choice,
Samuel Richardson: _Pamela_ (considered the first English novel)
Henry Fielding: Joseph Andrews or Tom Jones (more or less the
same plot in both; JA is considered the second English novel,
TJ is Fielding covering the same ground but doing a somewhat
better job of it)
Lawrence Sterne: _Tristram Shandy_ (Read this one!)
Graham Greene: My favorite author. I'd suggest starting in with
one of: Monsignor Quixote, Brighton Rock, Travels with my Aunt,
Orient Express
Evelyn Waugh: Anywhere is a good place to start
Iris Murdoch: One of my friends thinks that Sacred and Profane
Love Machine is her best, personally I prefer Henry and Cato.
Anthony Trollope: His books form series; the Signet Classics
editions have a note in the back indicating which books belong
to which series and in what order. I'd say start with the
Barsetshire Chronicles.
Virginia Woolf: A room of One's Own, To the Lighthouse
>American Novels:
Not much to say on these... I'm not much of an American lit type,
but
>Melville, _Moby Dick_. Actually, I would suggest starting with a shorter
> piece. "Bartleby the Scrivener" would be a good choice.
Screw "shorter". Read Moby Dick. I'm sure many people are put off
thinking, "oh, it's a long boring story about a whale". Which it
is. BUT it's also a damned good book about a long boring story
about a whale and well worth the time to read it. Another thing
to keep in mind when reading this book is that it's really a
rather comic book.
>European Novels:
>Kafka, _The Castle_, _The Trial_, "Metamorphosis"
>Dostoevsky, _Crime and Punishment_, _The Brothers Karamazov_
>Tolstoy, _War and Peace_
>Camus, _The Plague_, _The Stranger_ (there are other title translations of
> "L'Etranger" so you might ask your librarian or bookseller)
>Hugo, _Les Miserables_ (seeing the musical doesn't count)
Goethe: Sorrows of Young Werther (Vintage has a nice translation)
Flaubert: Madame Bovary
Balzac: anything
>Again, this is a very incomplete list, but it should give you somewhere to
>start.
True. One of my problems with this list already is that it
reflects the bias of the educational system towards western
culture. For example, there are only five women authors in the
whole list above and the rest are white male. There are great
heaps of work that are considered extracanonical, and most of it
is actually quite good. (the 16th c. poems that I'm writing on
for my thesis are some of the most amazing poetry I've ever read
and the only book that contains them has been out of print for
fifty years). Just examining women and minority authors in Europe
and America can reveal an extraordinary amount of fascinating
work. Then, if you look beyond this to Middle Eastern literature,
Asian lit, Latin American lit, etc. you find an even more amazing
selection of work. (One really neat discovery I've made is that
the essential postulates of Deconstruction were discovered by an
Indian Buddhist 1500 years ago!)
-dh
---
Don Hosek "When I was younger, I would throw
dho...@ymir.claremont.edu spitballs at girls that I liked. Now,
dho...@ymir.bitnet I beg and plead for dates. Frankly, the
uunet!jarthur!ymir old way was more satisfying."
Francis Muir
excludes Aristophanes. Since Euripedes defines Tragedy and Aristophanes
Comedy, I am left speechless except for Brekekekex, ko-ax, ko-ax. To
these two masters I would add Thomas Love Peacock, who understood women
better than Jane Austen understood men, and Juana de Asbaje, Sor Ines
de la Crus, whose poetry is a jewel.
Philomath
Dave Alexander
In article <72...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> dho...@sif.claremont.edu writes:
> In article <74...@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
na...@aerospace.aero.org (Miriam H. Nadel) writes:
>> Melville, _Moby Dick_. Actually, I would suggest starting
>> with a shorter piece. "Bartleby the Scrivener" would be a
>> good choice.
> Screw "shorter". Read Moby Dick.
Well, *I* think that the best way is to see Woody Allen's
"Zelig" and *then* read "Moby Dick."
-- Dave Alexander
--
"When I was a little boy in Baltimore in 1954, I wanted
to be a juvenile delinquent when I grew up."
-- John Waters
Cathy Smither
>In article <1990May24....@sdd.hp.com> har...@sdd.hp.com (Mike Harless) writes:
>>
>>Does anyone have any lists of the "classics" that everyone should have read
>>going through GOOD high school and college english/literature courses? I've
>>got some old lists that I found laying around, but they seem to be pretty
>>incomplete. Thanks!
>
[Most of a good list deleted...]
>Dickens, _A Tale of Two Cities_. Most people would also probably attempt
> _David Copperfield_ and/or _Great Expectations_. I see no need to
> read more than one novel by an author you dislike and I can't stand
> the sentimentality dribbled throughout these books.
I whole-heartedly agree with this. I managed to finish _David Copperfield_
in high school & have started a few of his other books, but never got very
far into them before they began to annoy me intensely. My mother swears
this is because she read lots & lots of Dickens while she was pregnant
with me.
>I should probably include something by Jane Austen but I've not gotten around
>to reading anything of hers.
>
How about _Pride & Prejudice_ (of course) or _Emma_. Great stuff.
>Miriam Nadel
>
Cathy Smither Seismological Laboratory
ca...@seismo.gps.caltech.edu California Institute of Technology
Greg Barnes
>Don Hosek, in a long list of books, confines Euripedes to a jumble and
>excludes Aristophanes. Since Euripedes defines Tragedy and Aristophanes
>Comedy,
I think Aristophanes himself would disagree with you about Euripides,
preferring Sophocles or Aeschylus.
But you're right on the mark about Aristophanes. How can you expect one to
get through all those poems and tragic plays without a little Aristophanes?
Greg Barnes
gr...@cs.washington.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Euripides: What do you want a poet for?
Dionysus: To save the City, of course.
Michael Nolan
This question reminds me of a story told by the late Prof. Bergen Evans, who
taught 'introduction to literature' at Northwestern University for over 30
years.
Bergen was asked to supervise an independent study for an English major.
The student handed his professor a list of books and asked if he should read
them. Bergen's response was "NO! ABSOLUTELY DO NOT READ THESE BOOKS!"
The stunned student asked why, and was told that as a supposedly thinking
being, the student should choose what books to read FOR HIMSELF. Any book
that the student was unsure about was obviously unworthy of the student's
attention.
The moral is, choose the books you care to read for your own reasons, not
because some 'expert' has branded that book a 'classic'. There are many
thousands of excellent books which are not considered classics.
However, if you wish to know some books that are frequently taught in literature
courses, I suggest you contact Cliffs Notes and get their title list.
(Write to PO Box 80728, Lincoln, NE 68501.) Remember, though, that just
because book A has a Cliffs Notes and book B doesn't is no reason NOT to
read book B, and at best a weak reason to read book A.
Disclaimer: I do computer work for Cliffs Notes and am married to the founder's
daughter, so the above recommendation is biased but probably still valid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Nolan "I don't know what apathy is,
Tailored Software Services, Inc. and I don't want to find out!"
Lincoln, Nebraska (402) 423-1490
UUCP: tssi!nolan should work,
if not try something like uunet!frith!upba!tssi!nolan
ren...@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Written 12:51 pm May 27, 1990 by sschr...@eagle.wesleyan.edu:
>? ,"The Lottery"
Shirley Jackson.
>? ,"The Monkey's Paw"
Saki (H.H. Munro), I think.
I would also add my favorite short story, "Flowers for Algernon" by
Daniel Keyes. Although it's often classed as SF, I think it rises
above genre.
hal.
Robert Burgin
>reflects the bias of the educational system towards western
>culture.
Okay, let's put together a reading list from the non-western tradition.
Here are some suggestions:
Classics:
Epic of Gilgamesh.
Egyptian Book of the Dead.
Bhagavad-Gita.
Ramayana.
Mahabharata.
Africa:
Chinua Achebe. Things Fall Apart.
Wole Soyinka. Death of the King's Horseman.
Wa Thiong'O Ngugi. A Grain of Wheat.
Naguib Mahfouz. Cairene Trilogy.
India:
Rabindranath Tagore. Poems.
Mulk Raj Anand. Untouchable.
R.K. Narayan. The Guide.
China:
Sunflower Splendor. (Anthology of Chinese poetry)
Li Po. Poems.
Tu Fu. Poems.
Ts'ao Hsueh-ch'in. The Dream of the Red Chamber.
Japan:
The Manyoshu.
The Tale of Genji.
Matsuo Basho. The Narrow Road to the Deep North.
Ihara Saikaku. The Life of an Amorous Woman.
Kawabata Yasunari. Snow Country.
Natusme Soseki. Kokoro.
Tanizaki Junichiro. Seven Japanese Tales.
Any other suggestions?
--rb
amci...@umiami.miami.edu
> In article <72...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> dho...@sif.claremont.edu writes:
>>
>>True. One of my problems with this list already is that it
>>reflects the bias of the educational system towards western
>>culture.
>
> Okay, let's put together a reading list from the non-western tradition.
> Here are some suggestions:
>
> R.K. Narayan. The Guide.
>
> Kawabata Yasunari. Snow Country.
> Any other suggestions?
> --rb
Yes. My major suggestion, and this is not repeat not to start an evermounting
flame, is that these novels, as interesting as they may be, are not, upon
some moments of reflection, in the nonwestern tradition. In fact, they are
absolutely in the heart of that tradition. I may be mixing up Yasunari
with someone else, but I have read Narayan and Achebe's work. I don't see
how they are any different from Madame Bovary. If we're talking novels,
in the sense that these are novels, they are absolutely western. Otherwise,
you have to put all your weight on the fact of the author's skin color or
place of birth, not the intellectual dynamic or the shared conventions
of the writing. And, if I am not mistaken, the first two were written
in English, which has to count for more than a random element.
Having said all that, I do support your basic premise, that there is a
gigantic body of nonwestern literature worth the effort. I remember
the feelings I felt reading Jai Ratan and P. Lal's translation
of Premchand's _Godan: A Novel of Peasant India_. I was living
in India at the time. Even though I spoke Hindi, I was struck by
the cultural distance more from this book than from any of my
other experiences. The feeling still remains [and I lived in South Asia
for six years]. The premises of the novel, the motivations, the
flow of the dialogue are all at some degrees from familiar in a
way that good science fiction can achieve--pushing your conceptual
tolerance just enough to keep you off-balance.
Other than that, I have rarely run into works that are contemporary that
don't feel like western novels larded with local color and exotica. From
what I have read, the Cairene novels may be an exception, but I haven't
seen anything other than brief excerpts.
--
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Alexander H. McIntire,Jr. | Internet/Bitnet: | Where there's |
Graduate School of | amci...@umiami.miami.edu | smoke, there |
International Studies | SPAN: ISPIR1::AMCINTIRE | may be just a |
U.of Miami-Box 8123 | | smoke-making |
Coral Gables FL 33124-3010 | Tel: 305-284-4303 [M-F,9-5] | machine! |
Rita Rouvalis
>>Classical Literature:
>>Homer, _The Iliad_
>>Homer, _The Odyssey_
>
>I'd suggest getting Lattimore's translations of these two.
>[Interesting aside. Richard Lattimore and Robert Fitzgerald were
>boyhood friends who made a pact that Lattimore would do _the_
>definitive Iliad of the 20th C. and Fitzgerald would do the
>Odyssey. Well, after they were both finished, Lattimore took a
>look at Fitzgerald's translation, thought it was horrible and
>did a new translation himself. Having read both, I must agree
>with Lattimore.]
>
I *liked* Fitzerald's translation of the Odyssey -- as
well as of the Oedipus cycle. If you have to make a choice,
everyone I know, including myself, hated the Iliad but really
enjoyed the Odyssey
>>Virgil, _The Aeniad_
>
>Part of the reason for reading "Classics" (I use it here in its
>proper sense, referring to Graeco-Roman antiquity) is to get an
>understanding of later authors (which is not to say that Homer
>et alia shouldn't be read for their own merits). Towards this
>end, you probably want to be familiar with the Bible. As a
>translation, the King James Bible is frequently weak (being based
>far more on the Vulgate than anyone is willing to admit).
>However, it has been the translation most authors in English have
>read (second place going to St. Jerome's Vulgate Bible). Bits you
>should definitely be familiar with include:
> Genesis, Exodus, Samuel, Kings, Job, Psalms, Jonah, Isaiah,
> Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, Revelation
>(this would be a minimal reading to be be able to catch the
>better part of the Biblical allusions in the lit you read).
>
Yes, the King James can be awful, but that is the
translation that all the literature we are talking
about is based on. If you want a very accurate,
readable translation, try the NIV (New International
Version). It follows the New Testament Greek as closely
as any version I've ever seen, and I imagine it does
the same with the Hebrew.
It really is important to read the whole thing to get
a complete understanding -- remember those authors lived
and breathed the Bible back then. But Genesis is the most
fun to read.
>>Europe through the Renaissance:
>>Chaucer, _Canterbury Tales_
>>Bocaccio, _The Decameron_
>>Dante, _The Inferno_
>>Machiavelli, _The Prince_
>>Moore, _Utopia_
>
You forgot Beowulf, and Thomas Mallory's D'Morte de Arthur. Sir
Gawain and the Green Knight is also a very popular choice of lit
for this period. It's also a lot of fun to read to kids if you
have any around.
.
>
>>Shakespeare, various plays. I suggest _Macbeth_, _Hamlet_ and _The Tempest_.
>> One could also make a good case for _King Lear_ and _Othello_
>> being important to know. I find plays very difficult to read
>> and suggest that seeing them, or at least getting recordings,
>> may be valuable if you find plays otherwise difficult.
>>Milton, _Paradise Lost_
How could you miss Julius Caesar and Romeo and Juliet? I found
Othello and Lear easier to read than a lot of the history plays
-- the King Henry's (all of them) are a little difficult to get
thru, but worth knowing. How else does one get introduced to
Sir John Falstaff (other than Merry Wives of Windsor)?
>
>YOU MISSED DON QUIXOTE!
>That's too bad that you don't like Dickens. I personally love
>him. If you're really only going to read one Dickens novel, I'd
>say go with David Copperfield. Other highlights IMHO are Bleak
>House, Little Dorrit, and Great Expectations.
>
>>Hardy, _Tess of the D'Urbervilles_
>>Scott, _Ivanhoe_
>>Bronte, _Jane Eyre_
>>I should probably include something by Jane Austen but I've not gotten around
>>to reading anything of hers. I'm also probably forgetting all sorts of
>>important authors.
Pride and Predudice and Sense and Sensibility are the biggies
by Jane Austen. You also might want to try some Conrad --
especially The Heart of Darkness (lots of fun to read and then
see Apocalypse Now).
(stuff deleted)
>
>>Melville, _Moby Dick_. Actually, I would suggest starting with a shorter
>> piece. "Bartleby the Scrivener" would be a good choice.
>
>Screw "shorter". Read Moby Dick. I'm sure many people are put off
>thinking, "oh, it's a long boring story about a whale". Which it
>is. BUT it's also a damned good book about a long boring story
>about a whale and well worth the time to read it. Another thing
>to keep in mind when reading this book is that it's really a
>rather comic book.
If you *really* want to torture yourself, try Billy Budd --
I reserved that novel for a level of Dante's hell once. But
I personally can't stand Melville.
For American lit, you'll want to read Poe -- lots of it.
It appeals to pimply teenagers with carbonated hormones
so they do lots of it in High Schools. Not so much in
college, but we do get a liberal dose. The Raven, The
Pit and the Pendulum, The Telltale Heart etc.
Washington Irving for Rip Van Winkle and the Legend of
Sleepy Hollow.
You *must* do some of Emily Dickinson's poety.
Walt Whitman, The Leaves of Grass (someone out there likes it).
Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Walden. Throw in
some Ralph Waldo Emerson while you\re at it.
You'll want to read The Scarlett Letter, The House of the Seven
Gables, and some more stuff by Hawthorne.i
The Federalist papers aren't a bad choice for political readings
of the revoutionary war. Benjamin Franklin's autobiography is
pretty interesting -- his Poor Richard's Almanac a must.
This is a pretty schizoid list of American literature, but it gives
you an idea.
Rita M. Rouvalis rrou...@hawk.ulowell.edu
University of Lowell, Box 5636 S. Lowell, MA 01854
Motto: "To boldly split infinitives no [wo]man has split before."
M G SriRam
"The Silver Pilgrimage" by Ananthanarayanan.
This is a delightful novel set in medieval india. The language of the
original is English -- it is not a translation. Readers will notice a
slight similarity to Voltaire's "Candide", but the book's sensibilties
are entirely non-western. One of the more memorable passages is a
description of "Hamlet" and of "MacBeth" from an Indian viewpoint!
Sridhar Pingali
>In article <14...@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, bur...@unc.cs.unc.edu (Robert Burgin) writes:
>> Chinua Achebe. Things Fall Apart.
>
>> R.K. Narayan. The Guide.
>>
>flame, is that these novels, as interesting as they may be, are not, upon
>some moments of reflection, in the nonwestern tradition. In fact, they are
>absolutely in the heart of that tradition. I may be mixing up Yasunari
>with someone else, but I have read Narayan and Achebe's work. I don't see
>how they are any different from Madame Bovary. If we're talking novels,
>in the sense that these are novels, they are absolutely western. Otherwise,
>you have to put all your weight on the fact of the author's skin color or
>place of birth, not the intellectual dynamic or the shared conventions
>of the writing. And, if I am not mistaken, the first two were written
>in English, which has to count for more than a random element.
>
The novel itself is a relatively recent literary form
in India. Poetry and plays were the preferred forms until
about 2 centuries ago. The first novel in Telugu, my native
tongue, was not written until the late 19th Century. Sanskrit
epics cannot be classified as novels - the Mahabharata and
the Ramayana are primarily poems. There are a large number
of other puranas (collections of mythological stories), but
none of them are novels in the modern sense of the word.
I am not sure how to respond to the comment on English.
Obviously, the texture of an Indian work in English would
be different from one in one of the Indian languages - but
I do not believe that in itself takes away from the authenticity
of the work. For better or worse, English has become a part
of the Indian scene and has taken a form rather peculiar to
India. The Satanic Verses is a recent example of the form -
though that is indisputably a western book. A more Indian
book would be "Kanthapura" by Raja Rao. This was published
in the late 1930s. Raja Rao's other novels "The Serpent and
the Rope" and "The Chessmaster and His Moves" have a very
definite Indian feel to them. However, good novels should address
the human condition in some manner. Perhaps, the similarities
that you see suggest that "exotic" is not what one should
be looking for. I have not read Madame Bovary - I have read
R.K.Narayan. I cannot but place him in India, though that is
no reason to suppose that others might not recognize situations
in his books.
I might add Kalidasa's numerous plays to the list.
[Shakuntala, Meghdoot etc]. They lose a lot in the
translation from Sanskrit.
--
Sridhar Pingali
David Grubbs
suspect they are all worth reading. Draw your own conclusions.)
I have two lists for you:
In 1980, five professors from Harvard, B.U., Tufts, and
Northeastern were asked to compile a list of the 20 most
important books ever written. They chose:
Leo Tolstoy War and Peace
Ernest Hemingway The Sun Also Rises
Karl Marx The Communist Manifesto
John Milton Paradise Lost
William Faulkner The Sound and the Fury
Charles Dickens Great Expectations
Saul Bellow herzog
Robert Frost Collected Poems
William Shakespeare Hamlet
Plato Republic
Henry David Thoreau Walden
??? The Bible
Fyodor Dostoevsky The Brothers Karamazov
James Joyce Ulysses
Dante Inferno
William Butler Yeats Collected Poems
Albert Camus The Stranger
Gustav Flaubert Madame Bovary
Homer Illiad and Odyssey
Herman Melville Moby Dick
The book "How to Read a Book" by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren contains
an excellent list of "Classics of Western Literature" from Homer to
Solzhenitsyn: (I typed this in a decade ago.)
Suggested readings from "How to Read a Book" -- Mortimer Adler
-------------------------------------------
(* = Work in the Great Books of the Western World.)
1. Homer (9th century b.c.?)
*Iliad *Odyssey
2. The Old Testament
3. Aeschylus (c. 525 - 456 b.c.)
4. Sophocles (c. 495 - 406 b.c.)
*Tragedies
5. Herodotus (c. 484 - 425 b.c.)
*History (of the Persian Wars)
6. Euripides (c. 485 - 406 b.c.)
*Tragedies (esp. Hippolytus, Medea, The Bacchae)
7. Thucydides (c. 460 - 400 b.c.)
*History of the Peloponnesian War
8. Hippocrates (c. 460 - 377? b.c.)
*Medical writings
9. Aristophanes (c. 448 - 380 b.c.)
*Comedias (esp. The Clouds, The Birds, The Frogs)
10. Plato (c. 427 - 347 b.c.)
*Dialogues
11. Aristotle (c. 384 - 322 b.c.)
*Works
12. Epicurus (c. 341 - 270 b.c.)
Letter to Herodotus Letter to Menoeceus
13. Euclid (fl.c. 300 b.c.)
*Elements
14. Archimedes (c. 287 - 212 b.c.)
*Works
15. Apollonius of Perga (fl.c. 240 b.c.)
*On Conic Sections
16. Cicero (106 - 43 b.c.)
Works (esp. On Friendship, Orations, On Old Age)
17. Lucretius (c. 95 - 55 b.c.)
*On the Nature of Things
18. Virgil (70 - 19 b.c.)
*Works
19. Horace (65 - 8 b.c.)
Works (esp. Odes and Epodes, The Art of Poetry)
20. Livy (59 b.c. - a.d. 17)
History of Rome
21. Ovid (43 b.c. - a.d. 17)
Works (esp. Metamorphoses)
22. Plutarch (c. 45 - 120)
*Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans Moralia
23. Tacitus (c. 55 - 117)
*Histories *Annals Agricola Germania
24. Nicomachus of Gerasa (fl.c. 100 a.d.)
*Introduction to Arithmetic
25. Epicetus (c. 60 - 120)
*Discourses Encheiridion (Handbook)
26. Ptolemy (c. 100 - 178 fl. 127 - 151)
*Almagest
27. Lucian (c. 120 - 190)
Works (esp. The Way to Write History, The True History,
The Sale of Creeds)
28. Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180)
*Meditations
29. Galen (c. 130 - 200)
*On the Natural Faculties
30. The New Testament
31. Plotinus (205 - 270)
*The Enneads
32. St. Augustine (354 - 430)
Works (esp. On the Teacher, *Confessions, *The City of God,
*Christian Doctrine)
33. The Song of Roland (12th century?)
34. The Nibelungenlied (13th century?)
(Scandinavian: The Volsung Saga)
35. The Saga of Burnt Njal
36. St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225 - 1274)
*Summa Theologica
37. Dante Alighieri (1265 - 1321)
Works (esp. The New Life, On Monarchy, *The Divine Comedy)
38. Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1340 - 1400)
Works (esp. *Troilus and Criseyde, *The Canterbury Tales)
39. Leonardo da Vinci (1452 - 1519)
Notebooks
40. Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527)
*The Prince Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy
41. Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1469 - 1536)
The Praise of Folly
42. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 - 1543)
*On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres
43. Sir Thomas More (c. 1478 - 1535)
Utopia
44. Martin Luther (1483 - 1546)
Three Treatises Table-Talk
45. Francois Rabelais (c. 1495 - 1553)
*Gargantua and Pantagruel
46. John Calvin (1509 - 1564)
Institutes of the Christian Religion
47. Michel de Montaigne (1533 - 1592)
*Essays
48. William Gilbert (1540 - 1603)
*On the Loadstone and Magnetic Bodies
49. Miguel de Cervantes (1547 - 1616)
*Don Quixote
50. Edmund Spenser (c. 1552 - 1599)
Prothalamion The Faerie Queen
51. Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626)
Essays *Advancement of Learning *Novum Organum *New Atlantis
52. William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616)
*Works
53. Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)
The Starry Messenger *Dialogues Concering Two New Sciences
54. Johannes Kepler (1571 - 1630)
*Epitome of Copernican Astronomy *Concerning the Harmonies of the World
55. William Harvey (1578 - 1657)
*On the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals
*On the Circulation of the Blood *On the Generation of Animals
56. Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679)
*The Leviathan
57. Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650)
*Rules for the Direction of the Mind *Discourse of Method
*Geometry *Meditations on First Philosophy
58. John Milton (1608 - 1674)
Works (esp. * the minor poems, * Areopagirica,
* Paradise Lost, * Samson Agonistes)
59. Moliere (1622 - 1673)
Comedies (esp. The School for Wives, The Miser, The Misanthrope,
The Doctor in Spite of Himself, Tartuffe)
60. Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)
*The Provincial *Pensees *Scientific treatises
61. Christian Huygens (1629 - 1695)
*Treatise on Light
62. Benedict de Spinoza (1632 - 1677)
*Ethics
63. John Locke (1632 - 1704)
*Letter Concerning Toleration
*"Of Civil Government" (2nd of Two Treatises on Government)
64. Jean Baptiste Racine (1639 - 1699)
Tragedies (esp. Andromache, Phaedra)
65. Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727)
*Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy *Optics
66. Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646 - 1716)
Discourse on Metaphysics
New Essays Concerning Human Understanding
Monadology
67. Daniel Defoe (1660 - 1731)
Robinson Crusoe
68. Jonathan Swift (1667 - 1745)
A Tale of a Tub Journal to Stella
*Gulliver's Travels A Modest Proposal
69. William Congreve (1670 - 1729)
The Way of the World
70. George Berkeley (1685 - 1753)
*Principles of Human Knowledge
71. Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744)
Essay on Criticism Rape of the Lock Essay on Man
72. Charles de Secondat (Baron de Montesquieu) (1689 - 1755)
Persian Letters *Spirit of Laws
73. Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
Letters on the English Candide Philosophical Dictionary
74. Henry Fielding (1707 - 1754)
Joseph Andrews *Tom Jones
75. Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784)
The Vanity of Human Wishes Dictionary Rasselas
The Lives of the Poets (esp. essays on Milton and Pope)
76. David Hume (1711 - 1776)
Treatise of Human Nature Essays Moral and Political
*An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding
77. Jean Jaques Rousseau (1712 - 1778)
*On the Origin of Inequality *On Political Economy
Emile *The Social Contract
78. Laurence Sterne (1713 - 1768)
*Tristram Shandy A Sentimental Journey through France and Italy
79. Adam Smith (1723 - 1790)
The Theory of the Moral Sentiments
*Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
80. Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804)
*Critique of Pure Reason *Critique of Practical Reason
*Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals
*The Science of Right *Critique of Judgement
Perpetual Peace
81. Edward Gibbon (1737 - 1794)
*The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Autobiography
82. James Boswell (1740 - 1795)
Journal (esp. London Journal) *Life of Samuel Johnson Ll. D.
83. Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743 - 1794)
*Elements of Chemistry
84. John Jay (1745 - 1829),
James Madison (1751 - 1836),
Alexander Hamilton (1757 - 1804)
*Federalist Papers (along with *Articles of Confederation,
*Constitution of the United States, *Declaration of Independence)
85. Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832)
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
Theory of Fictions
86. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832)
*Faust Poetry and Truth
87. Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768 - 1830)
*Analytical Theory of Heat
88. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 - 1831)
Phenomenology of Spirit *Philosophy of Right
*Lectures on the Philosophy of History
89. William Wordsworth (1770 - 1850)
Poems (esp. Lyrical Ballads, Lucy poems, sonnets, The Prelude)
90. Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772 - 1834)
Poems (esp. "Kubla Khan", Rime of the Ancient Mariner)
Biographia Literaria
91. Jane Austen (1775 - 1817)
Pride and Prejudice Emma
92. Karl von Clausewitz (1780 - 1831)
On War
93. Stendhal (1783 - 1842)
The Red and the Black The Charterhouse of Parma On Love
94. George Gordon, Lord Byron (1788 - 1824)
Don Juan
95. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)
Studies in Pessimism
96. Michael Faraday (1791 - 1867)
Chemical History of a Candle *Experimental Researches in Electricity
97. Charles Lyell (1797 - 1875)
Principles of Geology
98. Auguste Comte (1798 - 1857)
The Positive Philosophy
99. Honore de Balzac (1799 - 1850)
Pere Goriot Eugenie Grandet
100. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882)
Representative Man Essays Journal
101. Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804 - 1864)
The Scarlet Letter
102. Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 - 1859)
Democracy in America
103. John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
A System of Logic *On Liberty *Representative Government
*Utilitarianism The Subjugation of Women Autobiography
104. Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882)
*The Origin of Species *The Descent of Man Autobiography
105. Charles Dickens (1812 - 1870)
Works (esp. Pickwick Papers, David Copperfield, Hard Times)
106. Claude Bernard (1813 - 1878)
Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine
107. Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862)
Civil Disobedience Walden
108. Karl Marx (1818 - 1883)
*Capital (along with *The Communist Manifesto)
109. George Eliot
Adam Bede Middlemarch
110. Herman Melville (1819 - 1880)
*Moby Dick Billy Budd
111. Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821 - 1881)
Crime and Punishment The Idiot *The Brothers Karamazov
112. Gustave Flaubert (1821 - 1880)
Madame Bovary Three Stories
113. Henrik Ibsen (1828 - 1910)
Works (esp. Hedda Gabler, A Doll's House, The Wild Duck)
114. Leo Tolstoy (1828 - 1910)
*War and Peace Anna Karennina What is Art? Twenty-Three Tales
115. Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn The Mysterious Stranger
116. William James (1842 - 1910)
*The Principles of Psychology The Varieties of Religious Experience
Pragmatism Essays in Radical Empiricism
117. Henry James (1843 - 1916)
The American The Ambassadors
118. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
Thus Spoke Zarathustra Beyond Good ad Evil
The Geneology of Morals The Will to Power
119. Jules Henri Poincare (1854 - 1912)
Science and Hypothesis Science and Method
120. Sigmund Freud
*The Interpretation of Dreams
*Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis
*Civilization and Its Discontents
*New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis
121. George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
Plays (and Prefaces) (esp. Caesar and Cleopatra,
Man and Superman, Pygmalion, Major Barbara, Saint Joan)
122. Max Planck (1858 - 1947)
Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory
Where is Science Going? Scientific Autobiography
123. Henri Bergson (1859 - 1941)
Time and Free Will Matter and Memory
The Two Sources of Morality and Religion Creative Evolution
124. John Dewey (1859 - 1952)
How We Think Democracy and Education
Experience and Nature Logic, the Theory of Inquiry
125. Alfred North Whitehead (1861 - 1947)
An Introduction to Mathematics Science and the Modern World
The Aims of Education and Other Essays Adventures of Ideas
126. George Santayana (1863 - 1952)
The Life of Reason Skepticism and Animal Faith Persons and Places
127. Nikolai Lenin (1870 - 1924)
The State and Revolution
128. Marcel Proust (1871 - 1922)
Remembrance of Things Past
129. Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
The Problems of Philosophy Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits
An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth The Analysis on Mind
130. Thomas Mann (1875 - 1955)
The Magic Mountain Joseph and His Brothers
131. Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
The Meaning of Relativity On the Method of Theoretical Physics
The Evolution of Physics (with L. Infeld)
132. James Joyce (1882 - 1941)
"The Dead" in Dubliners Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
Ulysses
133. Jaques Maritain (1882 - )
Art and Scholasticism The Degrees of Knowledge
The Rights of Man and Natural Law True Humanism
134. Franz Kafka (1883 - 1924)
The Trial The Castle
135. Arnold Toynbee (1889 - )
Study of History Civilization on Trial
136. Jean Paul Sartre (1905 - )
Nausea No Exit Being and Nothingness
137. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn (1918 - )
The First Circle Cancer Ward
----------
Also:
Norbert Wiener
Albert Camus
Saul Bellow
Samuel Beckett
H.L. Mencken
--
David G. Grubbs Kendall Square Research Corp.
{harvard,uunet}!ksr!dgg d...@ksr.com
Henk P. Penning
writes:
>Okay, let's put together a reading list from the non-western tradition.
>Here are some suggestions:
> Classics: Africa: India: China: Japan:
> Any other suggestions?
Maybe the Icelandic Saga's fall in this catagory because
they are unlike anything else I've seen in Western literature.
The Saga's were written around 1200 and playing around 1000.
Although they are very old, they are very easy to read.
The style is factual, down to earth, short sentences, short chapters,
clearly describing life in those times in Iceland and Norway.
At the other hand there are long dramatic lines, development of
character and poetry.
Some are available in Penguin. (King Harald's Saga, Laxdaela Saga,
Egil Saga, Njal's Saga). Each volume contains an excellent introduction.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist. They are real gems.
=== HenkP ===
--
Henk P. Penning, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University.
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Telephone: +31-30-534106
e-mail : he...@cs.ruu.nl (uucp to hp4nl!ruuinf!henkp)
Col. G. L. Sicherman
>
> Written 12:51 pm May 27, 1990 by sschr...@eagle.wesleyan.edu:
>
>
> Saki (H.H. Munro), I think.
No, W. W. Jacobs, a writer of rural and marine sketches and stories.
This one turns up on the Net pretty often....
-:-
"Dolt! This isn't _Forty Delicious Ways to Cook Rats!_"
--Historical Perspective
--
Col. G. L. Sicherman
g...@odyssey.att.COM
Fogbound Child
>In article <72...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> dho...@sif.claremont.edu writes:
>>
>>True. One of my problems with this list already is that it
>>reflects the bias of the educational system towards western
>>culture.
>
>Here are some suggestions:
>
..
> China:
>
> Sunflower Splendor. (Anthology of Chinese poetry)
> Li Po. Poems.
> Tu Fu. Poems.
> Ts'ao Hsueh-ch'in. The Dream of the Red Chamber.
I would suggest adding here:
Lu Xun (or you can romanize it like "Lu Hsuan"), _A Call To Arms_
(much more modern - 1920s. Socialist. Cynical. Depressing. Excellent.)
Wu Ch'ing Tzu, _The Monkey King_ (talk about a recurring myth! you
can find this one throughout Asian literature)
Pu Songling, _Tales of Liaozhai_ (another one in which the
romanizations are widely divergent, but Pu's name doesn't change
much).
Actually, there are several others that would be good, but these are my
favorites. Also note that _The Dream of the Red Chamber_ mentioned above is
sometimes referred to as _The Story of the Stone_, and the author's name is
sometimes romanized as C'ao Xu Ch'in.
The divergence in romanization is also mirrored in translations. For
example, I've seen the following translations of a single famous line from the
Tao Te Ching:
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."
"A journey of three thousand miles [a thousand _li_] begins with a step
forward."
"A trip, may it be a thousand miles, begins beneath one's feet."
"One cannot start a great journey save by taking a step."
Unfortunately, my Chinese is *extremely* limited, and I have no idea which
is the best translation...
Dani Zweig
>>>Classical Literature:
>>>Homer, _The Iliad_
>>>Homer, _The Odyssey_
>>
>>I'd suggest getting Lattimore's translations of these two.
>>[Interesting aside...Lattimore took a look at Fitzgerald's translation,
>>thought it was horrible and did a new translation himself..
>>
> I *liked* Fitzerald's translation of the Odyssey -- as
> well as of the Oedipus cycle. If you have to make a choice,
> everyone I know, including myself, hated the Iliad but really
> enjoyed the Odyssey
A better translation of the Iliad might change your mind. I suggest the
Classics Illustrated translation. It's not too long, it avoids the technical
problems that more poetic translations run into, and unlike the other
translations it tells you how the war ends, instead of leaving you dangling.
(Sequelitis has killed many a better book!)
-----
Dani Zweig
has...@andrew.cmu.edu
If you're going to write, don't pretend to write down. It's going to be
the best you can do, and it's the fact that it's the best you can do that
kills you! -- Dorothy Parker
Miriam H. Nadel
>can get through in high school is a few dozen books. It's terminally daft
>to think that any meaningful "shortlist" can exist. OK, so you include
>Chaucer - is he obviously more worth including than Yunus Emre, Li Po,
>Shota Rustaveli or the Tale of Genji? Your shortlist would bog down before
>leaving the Middle Ages.
>
separately. The first is the question of time - how many books can you
get through in a few years? Our typical school load was maybe a dozen or
so books a year that we studied as a class (a unifying theme for each school
year, e.g. 9th grade was "growing up in an imperfect world") with perhaps
another half dozen as "outside reading" assignments that we had to write
papers on. (These came as a list.) That adds up to some 70 odd books for
high school. A limited number, admittedly, but a chance for a fair amount
of broader exposure. (Note that I'm counting only books I read in English
classes; I had to plow through a couple of dozen books in German as well.)
The second argument is the question of western culture and whether it should
be treated differently than non-western cultures. While I'd agree that
western literature is not inherently superior, one who lives in the western
world is far more likely to come across references to western classics.
With limited time, that suggests that there are good reasons to emphasize
western classics (though not excluding non-western literature completely).
>Probably all American and British kids read some Shakespeare. I see no
>evidence that this commonality does anything particularly beneficial in
>either culture. When did you last start a conversation about "The Merchant
>of Venice" in a supermarket queue?
>
I may not have started a conversation about "The Merchant of Venice" but
I can understand Horace Rumpole's reference to Phillida as "the Portia of
our chambers." The other day I read _Dark Nantucket Moon_ by Jane Langton.
A nice pleasant little murder mystery - and damn hard to appreciate if you've
never read _Moby Dick_.
>Let's hear it for diversity of experience. This newsgroup would be bloody
>boring if people read according to the schedules of Allan Bloom and the
>Chicago "Great Books" marketing team.
I haven't heard anybody around here saying that one should only read and
study classics. But classical references abound in literature (and life)
in general and there's no point in making so much inaccessible. Perhaps you
needn't have read _The Odyssey_ but you ought to have a vague idea of
what it's about. Perhaps just a few hints will suffice - faithful
Penelope, Circe turning men into swine, Scylla and Charybdis (between a
rock and a hard place), Cyclops being blinded, lotus eaters, etc. but isn't
it easier to acquire these by reading the book, rather than memorizing
literary dictionaries?
There's yet another reason to read classics, of course. Books become classics
for good reasons. It isn't as if a committee of sadistic English teachers
sat down and said, "let's come up with a list of books we can bore our
students with for the next umpteen generations." Isn't a book a classic
because a lot of people have found it enjoyable, meaningful, insightful, etc.?
Why not see if you might find the same merits in it?
SECBH@cunyvm
Subject: Non-Western Reading List
In article <14...@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
>Okay, let's put together a reading list from the non-western tradition.
>Here are some suggestions:
> China:
>
> Sunflower Splendor. (Anthology of Chinese poetry)
> Li Po. Poems.
> Tu Fu. Poems.
> Ts'ao Hsueh-ch'in. The Dream of the Red Chamber.
To which I would add:
Monkey, We Ch'eng-en (novel)
Translations from the Chinese, Arthur Waley (poetry)
> Japan:
>
> The Manyoshu.
> The Tale of Genji.
> Matsuo Basho. The Narrow Road to the Deep North.
> Ihara Saikaku. The Life of an Amorous Woman.
> Kawabata Yasunari. Snow Country.
> Natusme Soseki. Kokoro.
> Tanizaki Junichiro. Seven Japanese Tales.
My additions:
Confessions of Lady Nijo
Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon
As I Crossed the Bridge of Dreams
Gossamer Years
Tale of the Heike
The Zen Master Hakuin, Philip Yampolsky(editor and intro., rest is Hakuin)
Five Women Who Loved Love, Ihara Saikaku (+ anything else of his)
Meiji Era to Present:
Yukio Mishima, The Sea of Fertility (4 books)
Death in Midsummer
The Thirst for Love
Fumio Niwa, The Buddha Tree
Fumiko Enchi, The Waiting Years
Junichiro Tanizaki, The Makioka Sisters
The Key
The Secret History of the Lord of Musashi & Arrowroot
Kobo Abe, Woman in the Dunes
Masao Togawa, The Master Key
Naoya Shiga, A Dark Nights Passing
Yasunari Kawabata, Naomi
House of the Sleeping Beauties
Ryu Muraharu (?), Almost Transparent Blue
Poetry:
The Burning Heart - Seabury Press (poetry by women)
100 Poems from the Japanese - New Directions
Book of Japanese Verse - Penguin
Tangled Hair, Akiko Yosano
Background: Sources of Japanese Tradition - Columbia Univ. Press (largely
composed of excerpts from letters, documents, etc. with intro.
narrative to each section.)
Buddhism, especially Zen and Jodo Shin, have set the tone of Japanese
culture to such a degree that I think that some reading from these
areas is necessary. That is why I have included the book on Hakuin.
I am not very familar with Jodo Shin, however it is the major
sect of Japanese Buddhism and the popular religion so something by
its found Shinran should be examined.
Jack Carroll
Nichael Cramer
>rrou...@hawk.ulowell.edu (Rita Rouvalis):
>> everyone I know, including myself, hated the Iliad but really
>> enjoyed the Odyssey
>A better translation of the Iliad might change your mind. I suggest the
>Classics Illustrated translation. It's not too long, it avoids the technical
>problems that more poetic translations run into, and unlike the other
>translations it tells you how the war ends, instead of leaving you dangling.
>(Sequelitis has killed many a better book!)
This is, like, humor, right?
.
Bud Noren
Why read the classics?
I find that this is a question most often posed by those who have not.
(This is a general observation, not an accusation)
As an undergrad I had the incredible good fortune to be invited to join a
special program which would simultaneously satisfy English, Philosophy, and
Theology requirements (it was a Jesuit school). I was in a class of 13 and
a professor. We did nothing but read classics and discuss them ourselves
for 5 hours/wk. It was a 4 semester program of double credit courses, so
you can imagine the volume of reading required. The students were all highly
motivated and I believe that every student read every page of every book.
No reading of outside criticism was allowed; we would form and trust our
own opinions. We started with Homer and progressed chronologically up
to Sartre and Camus. There were 100 or so books involved.
At the very start of the program the prof said that we were about to embark
on an experience that few ever have the opportunity to try. He also said
that we would value this for the rest of our lives. I had no idea how much.
This was the most educational experience of my life. It gave perspective
on the history of world and of the evolution of modern philosophical thought.
In books such as these you find ideas that are eternal and the statement
of problems that we still grapple with today. You see how the some great
minds have dealt with these issues. Many of the most basic ideas of politics,
economics, psychology, and philosophy are exposed for you in these books.
Surely there are many other works from around the world that could be included
in such a list, but why not concentrate on the most accessible ones and the
ones that are most pertinent to western life? They form a sort of skeleton
and you can flesh it out afterwards with any books you choose. You will find
other books more meaningful and more easily understood. You will more easily
separate the good stuff from the chaff.
I will be the first to admit that I haven't read many classics since that
course (unless you consider Bukowski a classic). They can be tough going!
Here's a question: Are there any people out there who have spent some time
reading classics and who have regretted it?
Bud Noren
Hewlett-Packard
Microwave Technology Division
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
bu...@hpmwgde2.HP.COM
"A classic is a book everbody wants to have read but which
nobody wants to read."
-Somebody Famous
karen.l.fenton
> I whole-heartedly agree with this. I managed to finish _David Copperfield_
> in high school & have started a few of his other books, but never got very
> far into them before they began to annoy me intensely. My mother swears
> this is because she read lots & lots of Dickens while she was pregnant
> with me.
>
I find Great Expectations somewhat less self-indulgent.
> >I should probably include something by Jane Austen but I've not gotten around
> >to reading anything of hers.
> How about _Pride & Prejudice_ (of course) or _Emma_. Great stuff.
>
> >Miriam Nadel
Add Persuasion to that list and you have the absolute BEST of Jane Austen,
which is to say the BEST_AVAILABLE. (yeah, yeah, IMHO).
It's hard to say which of the three would be the best to begin with:
P&P is charming and effervescent, Persuasion is very autumnal and
elegant, and Emma is a combination of the two. Start with Emma.
K. Fenton
Craig Presson
}>
}>>Classical Literature:
}>>Homer, _The Iliad_
}>>Homer, _The Odyssey_
}>
}>I'd suggest getting Lattimore's translations of these two.
}>[Interesting aside. Richard Lattimore and Robert Fitzgerald were
}>boyhood friends who made a pact that Lattimore would do _the_
}>definitive Iliad of the 20th C. and Fitzgerald would do the
}>Odyssey. Well, after they were both finished, Lattimore took a
}>look at Fitzgerald's translation, thought it was horrible and
}>did a new translation himself. Having read both, I must agree
}>with Lattimore.]
}>
}
} I *liked* Fitzerald's translation of the Odyssey -- as
} well as of the Oedipus cycle. If you have to make a choice,
} everyone I know, including myself, hated the Iliad but really
} enjoyed the Odyssey
}
I found Lattimore tough going, but the poetry of Fitzgerald superior. Those
who know say Lattimore is more literal. I have the Harvard Classics dual-
language edition if I really want to pick at meanings, but I usually don't.
}
}
}
} >>Virgil, _The Aeniad_
}>
Of which Fitzgerald's translation is a damned fine read. I don't quite
read enough Latin to judge it as a translation. The Aenead is apparently
not easy to translate readably, as I can't stomach any of the others I've
tried.
[...]
}
}
}
} Rita M. Rouvalis rrou...@hawk.ulowell.edu
} University of Lowell, Box 5636 S. Lowell, MA 01854
} Motto: "To boldly split infinitives no [wo]man has split before."
--
** Craig Presson <...!uunet!ingr!b11!craig> **
"Let any who considers this a trifle deem grand what he likes."
-- von Eschenbach, _Parzival_ (Hatto trans.)
Nichael Cramer
>Probably all American and British kids read some Shakespeare. I see no
>evidence that this commonality does anything particularly beneficial in
>either culture. When did you last start a conversation about "The Merchant
>of Venice" in a supermarket queue?
The answer, I would say, is that it has been very strongly involved in
probably every serious conversation that I or you --or anyone else on this
net-- has every had in his or her life.
Look, the purpose of having read Shakespeare (or Plato/Dante/Paul/Basho/
Tolstoy/[...]) is not to be able to answer the question "What is the
couplet in the Eighteenth Sonnet?" (or to understand allusions in Stak Trek
movies, to use someone's earlier example ;).
Rather, it is to be exposed and to learn from what the best minds in
history have thought about love/honor/family/death/sorrow/peace/joy/[...].
Now, if you want to ask when last someone had a conversation about one of
*those* topics...
N
Nichael Cramer
> [Concerning Lattimore's and Fitzgerald's translations of Homer]
>I found Lattimore tough going, but the poetry of Fitzgerald superior. Those
>who know say Lattimore is more literal.
In the course I just took on pre-classic greek poetry we used both
translations (with supplemental texts) for exactly the reasons Craig
mentions: i.e. Fitzgerald is easier (and probably more pleasant) to read as
English verse, but Lattimore is more accurate or authentic in many ways.
As two particular examples Lattimore takes care to use the same english
word whenever a given word appeared in the original greek and he takes
pains to keep the placement of words on a given line as close to the
original as possible; both of these factors can be critical to
understanding the epics.
BTW, for those interested, the current BOMC bonus book catalogue has a two
volume HARDBACK set of Lattimore's translations of Homer (so far as I know
the hardback books are otherwise out of print).
N
the Rev. Mom
better by someone else:
================
I cannot understand the rage manifested by the greater part of
the world for reading New Books. If the public had read all
those that have gone before, I can conceive how they should not
wish to read the same work twice over; but when I consider the
countless volumes that lie unopened, unregarded, unread, and
unthought-of, I cannot enter into the pathetic complaints that I
hear made that Sir Walter writes no more--that the press is
idle--that Lord Byron is dead. If I have not read a book before,
it is, to all intents and purposes, new to me, whether it was
printed yesterday or three hundred years ago.
If it be urged that it has no modern, passing incidents, and is
out of date and old-fashioned, then it is so much the newer; it
is farther removed from other works that I have lately read, from
the familiar routine of ordinary life, and makes so much more
addition to my knowledge.
But many people would as soon think of putting on old armour as
of taking up a book not published within the last month, or year
at the utmost. There is a fashion in reading as well as in dress,
which lasts only for a season. One would imagine that
books were, like women, the worse for being old (footnote: 'Laws
are not like women, the worse for being old'--the Duke of
Buckinghams' Speech in the House of Lords, in Charles II's time)
and have a pleasure in being read for the first time; that
they open their leaves more cordially; that the spirit of
enjoyment wears out with the spirit of novelty; and that, after a
certain age, it is high time to put them on the shelf. This
conceit seems to be followed up in practice.
What is it to me that another--that hundreds or thousands have in
all ages read a work? Is it on this account the less likely to
give me pleasure, because it has delighted so many others? Or
can I taste this pleasure by proxy? Or am I in any degree the
wiser for their knowledge? Yet this would appear to be the
inference. *Their* having read the work may be said to act upon
us by sympathy, and the knowledge which so many other persons
have of its contents deadens our curiousity and interest
altogether. We set aside the subject as one on which others have
made up their minds for us (as if we really could have ideas in
their heads), and are quite on the alert for the next new work,
teeming hot from the press, which we shall be the first to read,
criticise, and pass an opinion on.
Oh, delightful! To cut open the leaves, to inhale the fragrancy
of the scarcely dry paper, to examine the type to see who is the
printer (which is some clue to the value that is set upon the
work), to launch out into regions of thought and invention never
trod till now, and to explore characters that never met a human
eye before--this is a luxury worth sacrificing a dinner-party, or
a few hours of a spare morning to...
A new work is something in our power; we mount the bench, and sit
in judgment on it; we can damn or recommend it to others at
pleasure, can decry or extol it to the skies, and can give answer
to those who have not yet read it and expect an account of it;
and thus show our shrewdness and the independence of our taste
before the world have had time to form an opinion.
If we cannot write ourselves, we become, by busying ourselves
about it, a kind of accessories after the fact. Though not the
parent of the bantling that 'has just come into this breathing
world, scarce half made up,' without the rid of criticism and
puffing, yet we are the gossips and foster-nurses on the
occasion, with all the mysterious significance and self-importance
of the tribe. If we wait, we must take our report from others; if
we make haste, we may dictate ours to them.
....
One age cannot understand how another could subsist without its
lights, as one country thinks every other must be poor for want
of its physical productions. This is a narrow and superficial
view of the subject: we should by all means rise above it.
I am not for devoting the whole of our time to the study of the
classics, or of any other set of writers, to the exclusion and
neglect of nature; but I think we should turn our thoughts enough
that way to convince us of the existence of genius and learning
before our time, and to cure us of an overweening conceit of
ourselves, and of a contemptuous opinion of the world at large.
Every civilised age and country (and of these there is not one,
but a hundred) has its literature, its arts, its comforts, large
and ample, though we may know nothing of them: nor is it (except
for our own sakes) important that we should. ...
Florence, May 1825
"On Reading New Books"
William Hazlitt.
--
ka...@fps.com | Here's to us. "Old Friends"
ucsd!celerity!kathy | Who's like us? MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG
DO NOT USE hanff!!!! | Damn few. --Stephen Sondheim
---------------------'
Cliff Stoll
I don't know, but not a day goes by that I don't think of the Wife of Bath.
Bill Oliver
the short archive period at my site, my coverage of articles is
spotty. If I am repeating another poster, I apologise.
In any case, none of the articles I have read mention what I consider
to be the most important reason to read classics: there is nothing
(or at least very little) new under the sun.
This was brought home to me a couple of nights ago when my fiance and
I were walking out of a movie house after watching "Pretty Woman."
An older couple and a young woman in her 20's were walking out
in front of us. The young woman turned to the older man.
"Gee, wasn't that a great movie?"
"Yes, good Pygmalion stories are always fun."
"Who's Pygmalion?"
"An old story, sort of like that movie."
Modern TV is well known for reworking old scripts for new series, especially
for sitcoms. How many times have we seen the story of the protagonist
agreeing to watch a neighbor/friend's pet/valuable for a weekend,
lose it, acquire a replacement and try to fool the friend when he
or she returns by substituting the fake pet for the real one, and
then have the real pet return just in time to cause comedic logistic
problems for the protagonist? I have seen this plot on Lucy, Dick
Van Dyke, Golden Girls, and a host of others.
The same sort of thing is so common in some genres, such as SF and
Romance, that editors publish lists of "things not to write," as
guides for aspiring authors. Stanley Schmidt, if I remember
correctly, published such a list in Writer's Digest saying
that he tended to toss manuscripts which followed such cliche'd
storylines with barely a first reading. Of course he added the
caveat that a really great writer can make a worthwile new
contribution with any plot, even one of the cliches, but unless
an author felt that he or she exhibited such greatness, it would be
better to steer clear of such old saws.
But sitcoms and SF are not the only places where "old" plots and
characterizations are reworked and retried. It happens in all of
literature, and there are those who would argue that it happens in
all of the human drama, both fiction and non-fiction. Certainly, it
is the idea behind the commonality of the expressions of drives
in Freudian thought and of the Archetypes of Jung. Bruno
Bettleheim made the same point about fairy tales, and Joseph
Campbell made a career of noting it in myth. They recur because
the feelings and problems they address are as old and as constant
as human nature. The difference between a "classic", a good work
which, however, will pass, and a hack piece is precisely how well,
how deeply, and how timelessly the work addresses these problems
and feelings.
These recurring great themes, which make up our heritage both
of culture and as humans, are embodied in the classics. The
classics provide both exemplary instances of the expressions
of these themes and act as measures by which other such
attempts may be judged.
I have no doubt that there are modern versions of the "young
couple in love against the will of self-centered parents" stories
which are excellent, and I don't want to imply that I think
that *nothing* can be said about the idea that is not found
in "Romeo and Juliet." However, a person who knows Romeo and
Juliet, and who has bothered to learn a little bit about the
variations of that storyline, is in a position, I believe, to
get much more from a later story. Whether the feuding families are
named Hatfield and McCoy instead of Montague and Capulet, or
if the lovers are named Jason and Samantha in a modern
soap opera instead of Romeo and Juliet,
someone who has some knowledge of the theme derives a deeper
and, I believe, better pleasure and (if possible) benefit
from the piece.
Think about a single great artist. I remember the first time I
looked at a work by Van Gough. It was OK, but I really couldn't
see what the big deal was. A few years later, I had occasion to
go to the Van Gough museum in Amsterdam and to the Van Gough
collection in, rats -- I can't rememer the name -- it's that
beautiful little park in the Netherlands -- oh, well, wherever , and I
was able to see, in panorama, the development of his work and
how it related to his his life. Then, and only then, did an appreciation
of his work occur.
Consider a still life. Without some idea of the conventions, the
background, and the ideas of color, form, culture and time which
drive such a work, a still life is doomed to be perceived as a boring,
if well executed, study in representational art. With such an
understanding, a still life can be surprisingly powerful. An indirect,
and understated message, to be sure, but, like an Haiku, more
powerful because of it.
And so we have the classics. It is nice, of course, to be able to
see a Pygmalion story for the first time, but the man who knew the
theme and who was familiar with the classic expression of that theme
was able to view the movie from a more mature perspective. He was
able to appreciate (or deplore the lack of) contrast with the
classic story, to see the nuances that separate the modern from
the ancient.
Only an educated palette can fully appreciate nuance. The classics
provide that education and the needed measure. A person who
denigrates the classics as unnecessary and superflous is like the
person who puts catsup on all of his or her food. Yes, the
taste of the condiment has its own pleasure, and there is certainly
a place for it in the fridge and on the table. But, one can also
argue that an appreciation of more subtle and complex seasoning
is a good thing. One cannot learn that appreciation of seasoning
without knowing something about food. And one cannot learn that
kind of appreciation of writing, drama, or poetry without knowing
something about literature -- and the classics.
Bill Oliver
pir...@cc.helsinki.fi
>
> I have two lists for you:
>
> In 1980, five professors from Harvard, B.U., Tufts, and
> Northeastern were asked to compile a list of the 20 most
> important books ever written. They chose:
>
>
> The book "How to Read a Book" by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren contains
> an excellent list of "Classics of Western Literature" from Homer to
> Solzhenitsyn: (I typed this in a decade ago.)
In the words of Duffy Duck, these lists are despicable!
The first one, then talking about important books, where are e.g.
Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own? Or Simone de Beauvoir's The Second
Sex?
And for that second "excellent" list, Jane Austen and George Eliot must
feel themselves very lonely there. Where are e.g.:
Louisa May Alcott
Simone De Beauvoir
Aphra Behn
Elizabeth Barrett Browning
Anne Bronte
Charlotte Bronte
Emily Bronte
Frances Hodgson Burnett
Willa Cather
Colette
Emily Dickinson
Isak Dinesen (Karen Blixen)
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Selma Lagerloef
Katherine Mansfield
Sylvia Plath
Jean Rhys
George Sand
Mary Shelley
Gertrude Stein
Virginia Woolf ?
This was just a random sample, but I think you get my point.
Anetta Pirinen
Beware! Bookaholic at large!
My husband's account: pir...@cc.helsinki.fi
Roger Lustig
>In any case, none of the articles I have read mention what I consider
>to be the most important reason to read classics: there is nothing
>(or at least very little) new under the sun.
This is a pretty odd argument, except in a historicist context. True,
we place a good deal of weight on originality, and on origins. But your
claim that true appreciation of a story requires appreciation of its
earlier (and presumably greatest) versions requires more argument than
you've supplied.
>This was brought home to me a couple of nights ago when my fiance and
>I were walking out of a movie house after watching "Pretty Woman."
>An older couple and a young woman in her 20's were walking out
>in front of us. The young woman turned to the older man.
>"Gee, wasn't that a great movie?"
>"Yes, good Pygmalion stories are always fun."
>"Who's Pygmalion?"
>"An old story, sort of like that movie."
OK: what about it? Knowing the Pygmalion archetype won't do the young
woman much good, unless she simultaneously reflects on the historical
path of the story and its significance to the cultures through which it
has travelled.
Moreover, the movie (or so they tell me) has more currents than that
one. There's the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold, for instance, and more
general ideas of redemption through love.
Finally, the Pygmalion that's closest is the Shavian one, not the
mythical one (which also shows up in our culture; check out the old
musical _One Touch of Venus_...). Shaw's introduction of class issues
is wickedly clever and new, and that's much of what that movie seems to
be about. I guess I will have to go see it before saying much more...
>Modern TV is well known for reworking old scripts for new series, especially
>for sitcoms. How many times have we seen the story of the protagonist
>agreeing to watch a neighbor/friend's pet/valuable for a weekend,
>lose it, acquire a replacement and try to fool the friend when he
>or she returns by substituting the fake pet for the real one, and
>then have the real pet return just in time to cause comedic logistic
>problems for the protagonist? I have seen this plot on Lucy, Dick
>Van Dyke, Golden Girls, and a host of others.
Nu?
I'm not sure what your point is. What difference does the order in
which you watch these make?
And is one's appreciation diminished very much by lack of knowledge of
the archetype, or of related stories (such as Maupassant's _La Parure_)?
The knowing smile is only one form of pleasure, and not nearly the most
important, either.
[some deletion]
>characterizations are reworked and retried. It happens in all of
>literature, and there are those who would argue that it happens in
>all of the human drama, both fiction and non-fiction. Certainly, it
>is the idea behind the commonality of the expressions of drives
>in Freudian thought and of the Archetypes of Jung. Bruno
>Bettleheim made the same point about fairy tales, and Joseph
>Campbell made a career of noting it in myth. They recur because
>the feelings and problems they address are as old and as constant
>as human nature. The difference between a "classic", a good work
>which, however, will pass, and a hack piece is precisely how well,
>how deeply, and how timelessly the work addresses these problems
>and feelings.
And how does knowledge of the history of these themes tie in with the
catharsis (or whatever) that a particular instance provides? That, I
think, is the key; and you haven't really made the connection between
the one and the need for the other.
>These recurring great themes, which make up our heritage both
>of culture and as humans, are embodied in the classics. The
>classics provide both exemplary instances of the expressions
>of these themes and act as measures by which other such
>attempts may be judged.
Nu? Do we watch things in order to rate them on a scale? I think not!
I think we appreciate art (not to mention Julia Roberts movies...)
mainly for the immediate impression it makes.
To be sure, we educate ourselves when viewing art of times other than
our own, for obvious reasons: it wasn't made for us, and we have
preserved it for some particular reason perhaps not related to our
current experience of it.
But we will not go back if the experience is not satisfying at the gut
level.
>I have no doubt that there are modern versions of the "young
>couple in love against the will of self-centered parents" stories
>which are excellent, and I don't want to imply that I think
>that *nothing* can be said about the idea that is not found
>in "Romeo and Juliet." However, a person who knows Romeo and
>Juliet, and who has bothered to learn a little bit about the
>variations of that storyline, is in a position, I believe, to
>get much more from a later story. Whether the feuding families are
>named Hatfield and McCoy instead of Montague and Capulet, or
>if the lovers are named Jason and Samantha in a modern
>soap opera instead of Romeo and Juliet,
>someone who has some knowledge of the theme derives a deeper
>and, I believe, better pleasure and (if possible) benefit
>from the piece.
Does one appreciate Romeo and Juliet better if one knows the story of
Pyramus and Thisbe?
The things one will 'get' by knowing earlier versions are at best
glosses on one's experience of the thing itself. In fact, they can
hinder one's appreciation if one does not put them firmly in their
place and avoid excessive comparison -- something that can destroy one's
appreciation of any author.
What one learns about variations on a story through history is very
often a history of cultural needs and interests. In the 18th and 19th
centuries, the Garrick version of Romeo and Juliet was popular; this
added a reconciliation scene between the families. (Berlioz thought
Garrick had restored a cut, which explains the finale of his Romeo and
Juliet symphony, a piece I've been htinking of a lot lately.)
What does the Garrick gloss tell us? Does it improve our appreciation
of West Side Story? Spoil it? Does the 'message' of WSS get lost in
any way if one doesn't?
Ultimately the reason to read classics is that it ties one into a
culture that values the reading of classics and rewards the reader of
classics with an appreciation of literature that is considered in line
with the classics-reading culture. Whether it's better or not is
another issue.
>Think about a single great artist. I remember the first time I
>looked at a work by Van Gough. It was OK, but I really couldn't
>see what the big deal was. A few years later, I had occasion to
>go to the Van Gough museum in Amsterdam and to the Van Gough
>collection in, rats -- I can't rememer the name -- it's that
>beautiful little park in the Netherlands -- oh, well, wherever , and I
>was able to see, in panorama, the development of his work and
>how it related to his his life. Then, and only then, did an appreciation
>of his work occur.
Ah, Scotland's greatest painter, that Van Gough! 8-)
(Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's spelled van Gogh. Gough/Goff is a
Scots name.)
Well, here's a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. v. Gogh
didn't paint for you, but for his time. Your appreciation seems to come
from a scholarly understanding (I use the term loosely -- no insult
there -- but the study of a painter's evolution is quite different from
the act of looking at a painting, which is the way most people judge
art). We need that understanding because post-Impressionism, Fauvism,
Cubism, and commercial art (not to mention a jillion other things) have
dulled our appreciation of the painting's novelty. (Debussy is
impossible to teach in Music Appreciation for just that reason.)
trouble is, you need the whole historicist attitude in the first place
before *wanting* to appreciate v. Gogh or being able to derive an
appreciation of his work from study.
Finally, this seems to be a little off your topic. You didn't study
classical painters to get to v. Gogh (or did you go through El Greco,
David, Courbet, and Manet on your way?); nor do you tell of applying
your newfound knowledge to modern art. You seem to have studied the
evolution of one 'classical' painter for the sake of understanding that
very painter.
>Consider a still life. Without some idea of the conventions, the
>background, and the ideas of color, form, culture and time which
>drive such a work, a still life is doomed to be perceived as a boring,
>if well executed, study in representational art. With such an
>understanding, a still life can be surprisingly powerful. An indirect,
>and understated message, to be sure, but, like an Haiku, more
>powerful because of it.
Why has still life BECOME that way? I think it's just as important to
look at the ways we've come to use still life, and the way in which its
importance diminished over the years, and why. That would be a better
example for your original argument, btw. Again, you're studying the
history of old art to illuminate old art, not using it to expose the
'meaning' of modern works with old themes.
>And so we have the classics. It is nice, of course, to be able to
>see a Pygmalion story for the first time, but the man who knew the
>theme and who was familiar with the classic expression of that theme
>was able to view the movie from a more mature perspective. He was
>able to appreciate (or deplore the lack of) contrast with the
>classic story, to see the nuances that separate the modern from
>the ancient.
Why more mature? Is learning what makes maturity? Surely an
understanding of the people around one, and the world as it is now, is
far more important to a definition of maturity.
Moreover, seeing the nuances, and deploring lack of contrast, doesn't
mean a damn thing to the appreciation of the story itself! It is only
relevant to an understanding of the history of the story (which is not
why we go to the movies) or to an understanding of the changes in the
story as culture changes.
Come to think of it, the movie is a clever conflation of the Classical
and Shavian forms. (Somebody please puncture my balloon if my reading
of the reviews and posters is wrong.) The classical Galatea is a
statue, made to order by the sculptor. He falls in love with her
incarnation. Shaw's Eliza is the antithesis of made-to-order; the
sculptor attempts to turn her INTO a statue, starting with crude Cockney
clay. His ability and inability to change her appearance and nature,
respectively, are the keys to the story.
Julia Roberts comes made-to-order in one way, utterly unacceptable in
another. Her transformation (or the revelation of her 'true' nature)
and the change this brings about in Richard Gere make the movie go, no?
Gere neither carves her from stone nor molds her clay; the
transformation is much more independent. (I WILL see this movie soon, I
promise!) And the issue of class is inverted; rather than rigid British
distinction, we have American mobility underneath.
(I HAVE seen Working Girl, which is yet another twist. How many people
have made the connection between those two movies? You don't need to
know of the ancient OR the Shavian archetypes to note the differences
and similarities in those two; geez, the guy's even named Jack Trainer.
Get it? He's her jock and her trainer.)
>Only an educated palette can fully appreciate nuance. The classics
>provide that education and the needed measure. A person who
>denigrates the classics as unnecessary and superflous is like the
>person who puts catsup on all of his or her food. Yes, the
>taste of the condiment has its own pleasure, and there is certainly
>a place for it in the fridge and on the table. But, one can also
>argue that an appreciation of more subtle and complex seasoning
>is a good thing. One cannot learn that appreciation of seasoning
>without knowing something about food. And one cannot learn that
>kind of appreciation of writing, drama, or poetry without knowing
>something about literature -- and the classics.
And what place does the appreciation of spicing/nuance have in one's
overall ability and worth? seems to me you can get a pretty complex
palate without any training in food and how it works; but the 'good
thing' that the appreciation of complex seasoning is is only 'good'
within a very restricted sense, one that is very subordinate to the
importance of the sensuality of taste.
Likewise, classical background is, imho, far subordinate to the ability
to read closely, to think analytically, to understand a movie as more
than just a sequence of shticks. You don't need the classics for any of
that; and knowing the classical history of the theme in question will
not necessarily illuminate its importance to YOU.
Roger
Tim Bray
Axiom: There isn't enough time to read all the books out there, so you
gotta pick some and leave others.
Observation: Methods for deciding whether to try a book include looking
at the picture on the jacket, reading the comments from other authors
on the jacket, getting infatuated with a particular writer, and following
the accumulated critical consensus that defines "classics".
Proposition: While perception of quality in books is highly subjective,
there is a very considerable degree of consensus with respect to the
merits of some books.
Conclusion: Picking a book to read based on the fact that it's a "classic"
is probably as good as any of the other methods listed above.
You win some, you lose some. I hated the Faerie Queene, Don Quixote, the
Magic Mountain, the Odyssey, and all of Joseph Conrad. I love Marcus
Aurelius, Ulysses, Moby Dick, Gravity's Rainbow, and all of Jane Austen.
There's probably somebody for whom the reverse is true. But given Sturgeon's
law, batting .500 by picking classics isn't doing to badly.
David Palmer
novel available in paperback in the New World) until after you
have read "Macbeth". (Which is probably available in paperback
already. Look on the remainders table at your local chain bookstore. :-)
Otherwise you will find it very hard to understand.
If you have read Macbeth, read "Wyrd Sisters", (it is relatively independant
of the prequels, which are also very funny.)
--
David Palmer
pal...@gap.cco.caltech.edu
...rutgers!cit-vax!gap.cco.caltech.edu!palmer
I have the power to cloud men's minds -- or at least my own.
Jeff Dalton
>ja...@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
>>Probably all American and British kids read some Shakespeare. I see no
>>evidence that this commonality does anything particularly beneficial in
>>either culture. When did you last start a conversation about "The Merchant
>>of Venice" in a supermarket queue?
>The answer, I would say, is that it has been very strongly involved in
>probably every serious conversation that I or you --or anyone else on this
>net-- has every had in his or her life. [...] to be exposed and to learn
>from what the best minds in history have thought about love/honor/family/
death/sorrow/peace/joy/[...].
It is simply false that The M of V has been very strongly involved
in probably every serious conversation. Just because a serious
converstation might involve X and the M of V also involves X
does not show the M of V is strongly involved. Weakly involved,
maybe. Nor does it become true if instead of X you say love/honor/
etc. You are letting your enthusiasm for the classics lead you
into error. (On the other hand, I don't see why something has to
feature in conversations in supermarket queues to be worth reading.)
An interesting exercise, for those who think the classics are best,
is to try to come up with a non-circular definition of classic that
is true of all classics and false of everything else. "Books that
have stood the test of time" or "old books we still think are worth
reading" won't do, because they're essentialy circular and don't
explain why these books and no others are on the list.
Another suggestion that won't work is:
Isn't a book a classic because a lot of people have found it
enjoyable, meaningful, insightful, etc.?
Well, "etc" can cover a multitude of sins, but there are certainly
a number of books that many people have found enjoyable, meaningful,
and insightful that are nonetheless not classics. Indeed, a number
of formerly popular and now forgotten books are in that category.
Another interesting exercise is to pick a random classic and then ask
yourself if there is any non-classic that it would, right now, be
better to read (all things considered). Suppose you don't find
anything. Do you think that will work for every classic?
Finally, for those who think you should reaad the classics so you
can "get" the references that appear everywhere, you should bear in
mind (1) there are many cultural references that have nothing to do
with classics (eg, references to recent books, films, pop songs, etc,;
what a "Chubb" is (a kind of key -- but what kind?)); (2) one can
often learn what a number of classical references mean just in the
normal course of reading, without actually reading the classics
in question -- it is not necessary to memorize literary dictionaries
as Miriam Nadel suggested; (3) many people who will tell you how
great the classics are will not have read, for example, the Bible.
-- Jeff
Jeff Dalton
>to be the most important reason to read classics: there is nothing
>(or at least very little) new under the sun.
If nothing is new, why read any particular version? Or, if the
classics really are the best, or among the best, of the versions,
that should be reason enough to read them even if new things are
also possible.
Moreover, in order to see nothing as new you have to describe
things in certain, relatively abstract, ways, for otherwise
there'd always be all kinds of new things: computers, atomic bombs,
monetarism (eg sterling M3), aids, blotter acid, CD ROMs, the
Lotus Esprit, this piece of paper, Julia Roberts, Richard Gere,
you.
It is often worthwhile to notice when and how themes recur, but
not if it means failing to notice the details that make anything
distinct or new.
>This was brought home to me a couple of nights ago when my fiance and
>I were walking out of a movie house after watching "Pretty Woman."
>An older couple and a young woman in her 20's were walking out
>in front of us. The young woman turned to the older man.
>
>"Gee, wasn't that a great movie?"
>"Yes, good Pygmalion stories are always fun."
>"Who's Pygmalion?"
>"An old story, sort of like that movie."
Elitism and condescension, the Eternal Companions of the in-joke.
To my mind, this sort of remark, taking the general outline of the
plot and noting that it's been done before, misses the whole point,
regardless of whether it's used to denigrate the film or to imply the
value of being able to recognize classic themes, kind of like reducing
Romeo and Juliet to "two kids disobey their parents, engage in
premarital sex, and come to a bad end via drugs".
-- Jeff
Francis Muir
[a lot of improving stuff - a pilgrim's progress - about the importance
of being earnest about the classics. He then overhears a young woman
and an older man discussing a movie they have just seen]
"Gee, wasn't that a great movie?"
"Yes, good Pygmalion stories are always fun."
"Who's Pygmalion?"
"An old story, sort of like that movie."
Bill Oliver wants us to read this as a Wise Owl - Dumb Kid story with a
not very subtle sexist twist. To me it sounded more like a Bright Young
Girl - Dull Old Fart tale. Are we really supposed to be taken in by this
acadanaemic stuff? Me, I've spent most of my adult years running as hard
as I can to keep in that same fresh magic place where Oliver's Girl is
lucky enough to find herself. Antiquarian studies can be fascinating,
but not if they are no more than a rather lengthy grace before meals.
Philomath
David Kosenko
>It is often worthwhile to notice when and how themes recur, but
>not if it means failing to notice the details that make anything
>distinct or new.
>
In the words of T.S. Eliot:
..my strongest impulse to original development in early
years has come from thinking, "here is a man who has said
something long ago or in another country and another language
which somehow corresponds to what I feel I want to say now.
Let me see if I can't do what he has done in the language
of my own place and time."
Must dash -
Dave
--
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein | There's more than one answer
are by no means those of Informix Software | to these questions pointing me
(though they make you wonder about the | in a crooked line...
strange people they hire). |
David Grubbs
"In 1980, five professors chose 20 "most important" books . . ."
and
"The book "How to Read a Book" by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren
contains an excellent list of "Classics of Western Literature" from
Homer to Solzhenitsyn:"
The only response from the net was this, from Anetta Pirinen:
> In the words of Duffy Duck, these lists are despicable!
Daffy Duck thought *many* things were "mean, vile and deserving of contempt."
But no, these lists are not despicable. Only people can be despicable. Thank
you for your analysis, Doctor.
> The first one, then talking about important books, where are e.g.
> Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own? Or Simone de Beauvoir's The Second
> Sex?
Five English professors in 1980 embodied their concept of "important" in a
list of 20 books. I would guess their despicable biases (if biases can be
despicable rather than the people who display them) could be characterized as
"significant influence over the rest of literature." Your bias doesn't even
require a guess.
Were you suggesting that Virginia Woolf has been, or will ever be, as
influential as Hamlet, Plato's Republic, Ulysses, Moby Dick, the Communist
Manifesto or the Bible? On the other hand, I've always thought Hemingway and
Faulkner were overrated, so maybe we can scratch them from the list and
replace them with other "important books". But then that is "our" list, not
the five professors'.
Over the past 3 millenia, *of course* females have had fewer opportunities
than men to permanently record their thoughts. And those who have done so
have been disproportionately neglected. But should a talented player forced
to sit on the sidelines be credited with the score? Of course not. There may
have been a female to equal Plato, but she left no evidence (I'd be glad to be
proven wrong). Even Aspasia, a shining light in the days of Pericles, left
nothing but second hand tales of her intellect.
I have a friend who believes the most significant book of the last 30 years is
"Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard. Another friend looking over my shoulder
suggests that "Thin Thighs in 30 days" (I suspect he has been reading too many
"Bloom County" cartoons.) has had more influence over the acts of Western
women in the last few decades than Simone de Beauvoir's works *or* the Bible.
The "important" books on my *private* list contain only pictures. :-)
> And for that second "excellent" list, Jane Austen and George Eliot must
> feel themselves very lonely there. Where are e.g.:
. . . A couple dozen excellent writers, who happen to be women, deleted . . .
>
> This was just a random sample, but I think you get my point.
>
> Anetta Pirinen
Yes, I could hardly miss your point. (But if you comb your hair the right
way, no one will notice. :-)) Again I was careful to label the list
appropriately. Is it not arrogant of you to think that no one else can read a
disclaimer, that everyone in the world, excepting yourself of course, is too
ignorant and uneducated to filter out bias, even when it is clearly labeled?
If you read Mortimer Adler's works you will find he is not Allan Bloom. In
fact he published a little-heralded refutation of Bloom's book, which I did
read, entitled "Reforming Education." Mr. Adler is an impressive intellect.
His "How to Read a Book", its first edition a bestseller in 1940, repeatedly
suggests the application of one's own mind as a filter when reading any kind
of writing. His intro to the second list I posted includes this:
"Although not all of the books listed are "great" in any of
the commonly accepted meanings of the term, all of them
will reward you for the effort you make to read them. All
of these books are over most people's heads -- sufficiently
so, at any rate, to force most readers to stretch their
minds to understand and appreciate them. And that, of
course, is the kind of book you should seek out if you
want to improve your reading skills, and at the same time
discover the best that has been thought and said in our
literary tradition."
I don't see any suggestion that the list is complete. He says to go "seek
out" more challenging books. In fact they later admit ignorance of Eastern
works, suggesting that you check elsewhere. If *you* want to add to the list,
go right ahead. They should be works rather than authors, since no author is
uniformly excellent, but the collected works of your list of female writers
certainly contains items that qualify for inclusion in such a list.
Maybe you should bring your suggestions to the attention of people who publish
such lists instead of complaining to us.
You may obviously use your own judgment in choosing the works you read, Ms.
Pirinen, as I use my own, but purposely misinterpreting my intentions,
attaching labels to that misinterpretation and pushing them in my direction on
the tip of a "point" is a waste of effort. Save your energy for the real
hobgoblins and little minds.
Bill Oliver
>>In any case, none of the articles I have read mention what I consider
>>to be the most important reason to read classics: there is nothing
>>(or at least very little) new under the sun.
>
>If nothing is new, why read any particular version? Or, if the
>classics really are the best, or among the best, of the versions,
>that should be reason enough to read them even if new things are
>also possible.
>
>Moreover, in order to see nothing as new you have to describe
>things in certain, relatively abstract, ways, for otherwise
>there'd always be all kinds of new things: computers, atomic bombs,
>monetarism (eg sterling M3), aids, blotter acid, CD ROMs, the
>Lotus Esprit, this piece of paper, Julia Roberts, Richard Gere,
>you.
>
>It is often worthwhile to notice when and how themes recur, but
>not if it means failing to notice the details that make anything
>distinct or new.
>
The phrase "nothing new under the sun" was an allusion. Of course
I didn't mean it in the sense of the particulars you mention.
But, I believe, you miss my point. Literature is not about
"things" -- computers, atomic bombs, monetarism, etc. It is
about *people*, and how they deal with life and with each
other. No, older literature does not address AIDS, but it
does address how people deal with plague hysteria and with
the fear of perceived helplessness and mortality. Camus' The
Plague is not set in New York, and the plague is not AIDS, but
the message of the inherent value of striving is as applicable
in the Big Apple as in Algeria, and the use of AIDS as an allegory
would have been just as appropriate as the use of Yersinia pestis.
Older literature does not deal with CD ROMS, computers and such,
but it does deal with how people react to the disruption of their
lives by overwhelming social forces beyond their control, including
the force of technological change. Zola and Hardy discuss the
effects of the Industrial Revolution, but their discussion and
depiction of the problems of social displacement and changing values
are quite appropriate considerations today. The fears of the Earth Firsters
with their monkeywrenches have plenty of literary precedent.
Older literature does not deal with atomic bombs, but it certainly
does deal with war and mass destruction, from the detached policy view
to the very human horrors of the individual on the battlefield. The problems of
conflicing loyalties, personal values tested in extremis, dehumanization,
and such do not begin and end with the Vietnam War. Cries against
opression and their expression in literature predate Apartheid and
Tienanmen Square, and that literature is well worth knowing as an
expression of basic human dignity and the human spirit.
Yes, there are always new things in the world, and every individual
human is unique. But the basic themes of the human drama remain
the same. It is the challenge of the modern writer who uses those
themes to make them new and exciting, and to reinforce that
timelessness with application to modern concerns. These variations are the
nuances I was wrting about. It is the contrast between these new
facets of human existence with what is common and timeless
that makes reading *any* literature, classic or modern, worthwhile to me.
Knowing the antecedents of a thought does not detract from
that thought. Reading, for most folk I know, is an active process
in which the reader does not thoughtlessly accept the words of the
author like an infant takes milk. Reading a piece of literature
is a conversation between the author and the reader. And as
with conversation, it behooves a person to measure the worth, the
motivation, and the deeper meaning of another person's words.
Knowing a little about the literature from which a
modern work is derived does not lessen the enjoyment or meaning
of that modern work. It simply makes that conversation an
intelligent one.
>>This was brought home to me a couple of nights ago when my fiance and
>>I were walking out of a movie house after watching "Pretty Woman."
>>An older couple and a young woman in her 20's were walking out
>>in front of us. The young woman turned to the older man.
>>
>>"Gee, wasn't that a great movie?"
>>"Yes, good Pygmalion stories are always fun."
>>"Who's Pygmalion?"
>>"An old story, sort of like that movie."
>
>Elitism and condescension, the Eternal Companions of the in-joke.
>
>To my mind, this sort of remark, taking the general outline of the
>plot and noting that it's been done before, misses the whole point,
>regardless of whether it's used to denigrate the film or to imply the
>value of being able to recognize classic themes, kind of like reducing
>Romeo and Juliet to "two kids disobey their parents, engage in
>premarital sex, and come to a bad end via drugs".
>
No, it is not elitist nor condescending. Walking through the historic
district of a town, especially a town with a lengthy history, is
interesting in and of itself. One can appreciate a Bavarian castle, or a
French cathedral, or the simplicity of Shaker furniture without knowing
anything at all about them. It is, however, even more interesting if one
happens to know the actual history behind how and why they were built,
the people who lived there, and such. It is not elitist to find that
knowledge worthwhile, nor is it, in and of itself condescending to mention
it to one's fellow-travellers.
To recognize the antecedents of and to mention the underlying theme
behind a work does not reduce the work to the bare-bones of the theme
or deny whatever was added in variation of that theme. It does, however,
establish a common basis (if one exists) by which one may discuss the
work. When my finacee and I got back home, we talked about the movie
and compared it to our impressions of other works on that theme. It was not
elitist to do so, nor was it condescending for whichever one of
us initiated the conversation to mention Pygmalion or My Fair Lady.
What if the conversation had gone something like what follows.
"Gee, wasn't that a great movie?"
"Yes, good Pygmalion stories are always fun."
"Yes, I just wish these folk had done a better job of giving
Gere a motivation for doing what he did. At least Rex Harrison
had a bet going in My Fair Lady."
Now is it "elitist and condescending?" By calling the man "elitist
and condescending," you are blaming him for the young woman's
ignorance. I assumed that they were father and daughter, so that
may indeed be the case, but the idea that one should limit the
intellectual content of one's conversation to some lowest common
denominator for fear of offending someone else's ignorance is
specious, and is a form of anti-intellectual elitism in and of
itself.
If you are arguing that it is outrageous for one to
assume that a random person walking out of Pretty Woman knows
about Pygmalion or My Fair Lady, then you are begging the question that
started this whole conversation -- the idea that the classics
are or should be an integral part of any education.
Bill Oliver
Bill Oliver
fra...@hanauma.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
>Bill Oliver writes:
>
>Bill Oliver wants us to read this as a Wise Owl - Dumb Kid story with a
>not very subtle sexist twist. To me it sounded more like a Bright Young
>Girl - Dull Old Fart tale. Are we really supposed to be taken in by this
>acadanaemic stuff?
Well, for better or for worse, that's what happened. I assumed that
the young woman was the older couple's daughter, but I didn't stop
to interrogate them. Had it been the case that it was a young man
rather than a young woman, I would have reported it so. You may
find the idea that an older man might know more than a younger
woman offensive, but that was the case in this conversation.
My point obviously had nothing to do with the gender of the
participants of that conversation, however willfully you decide
to misinterpret it.
You are, of course, free to project whatever hostility or
predjudice you wish on my experience. I do not think, however, that
you do your position much of a favor by mandating that I lie to
protect your political or social sensitivities, or risk the
charge of sexism.
Charges of sexism are trivially easy to make, and almost impossible
to defend against. But you know that. That's what makes it
such an attractive weapon for ad hominem attacks.
I am not sure I can defend myself against the charge of writing
"acadanaemic" stuff. I'm afraid I don't know what that means, and
I didn't find it in the OED or Webster's Third. Perhaps
you could tell me what it means and where you found it.
>Me, I've spent most of my adult years running as hard
>as I can to keep in that same fresh magic place where Oliver's Girl is
>lucky enough to find herself. Antiquarian studies can be fascinating,
>but not if they are no more than a rather lengthy grace before meals.
>
There is a great deal of enjoyment to splashing about on the beach and
looking with wonder out at the great blue sea. Moving from the
beach and exploring the deep does not destroy that sense of wonder;
it expands and enhances it. It does, however, require that one
learn a bit more about the ocean.
Learning about the antecedents of a thought or a theme does not destroy
that sense of wonder you mention. Like most knowledge, it opens ones
eyes to a sense of wonder beyond the superficial.
Bill Oliver
Jeff Dalton
>In article <14...@thorin.cs.unc.edu> oli...@tlab1.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) writes:
>>This was brought home to me a couple of nights ago when my fiance and
>>I were walking out of a movie house after watching "Pretty Woman."
>>An older couple and a young woman in her 20's were walking out
>>in front of us. The young woman turned to the older man.
>>
>>"Gee, wasn't that a great movie?"
>>"Yes, good Pygmalion stories are always fun."
>>"Who's Pygmalion?"
>>"An old story, sort of like that movie."
The basic claim here is that the young woman has lost out by not
knowing the classics. I think it could just as easily be argued
that she's won. After all "great movie" sounds more like evidence
of enjoyment than does "good Pygmalion stories are always fun".
Anyway, that's for rec.arts.books. (N.B. read the followup-to.)
>Moreover, the movie (or so they tell me) has more currents than that
>one. There's the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold, for instance, and more
>general ideas of redemption through love.
Some reviews say "Cinderella". I think we might also notice she's
named Vivian (ie, one of the Ladies of the Lake) and that he is
arguably on a quest (though he doesn't know it) to become an
acceptable human being. [This is a not entirely non-serious
remark, make of it what you will.]
In any case, reviewers have been quick to label this one, whether
as Pygmalion, Cinders, or whatever, and chiefly as a step in
dismissing it. Few, if any, reviews note that more than one
label could be applied; none attempt a more than superficial
classification / analysis of the plot. For example, what is
the function of the hotel manager? What is the reason for
having Edward (the Richard Gere character) barely know how
to drive?
In a sense, the reviewers may be right. Maybe that level of analysis
isn't important. But they ought to realize that the Pygmalion /
Cinders level isn't important either.
Indeed, I think it's strange when someone complains that something has
been done better before (eg, many comments on _When Harry Met Sally_
vs. various films by Woody Allen). I mean, is that really a problem?
If it were good enough in itself, whouldn't that be enough? And maybe
these actors are better to look at than the other ones, or whatever.
>>These recurring great themes, which make up our heritage both
>>of culture and as humans, are embodied in the classics. The
>>classics provide both exemplary instances of the expressions
>>of these themes and act as measures by which other such
>>attempts may be judged.
>
>Nu? Do we watch things in order to rate them on a scale? I think not!
>I think we appreciate art (not to mention Julia Roberts movies...)
>mainly for the immediate impression it makes.
Exactly.
>Come to think of it, the movie is a clever conflation of the Classical
>and Shavian forms. (Somebody please puncture my balloon if my reading
>of the reviews and posters is wrong.) The classical Galatea is a
>statue, made to order by the sculptor. He falls in love with her
>incarnation. Shaw's Eliza is the antithesis of made-to-order; the
>sculptor attempts to turn her INTO a statue, starting with crude Cockney
>clay. His ability and inability to change her appearance and nature,
>respectively, are the keys to the story.
>
>Julia Roberts comes made-to-order in one way, utterly unacceptable in
>another. Her transformation (or the revelation of her 'true' nature)
>and the change this brings about in Richard Gere make the movie go, no?
>Gere neither carves her from stone nor molds her clay; the
>transformation is much more independent. (I WILL see this movie soon, I
>promise!) And the issue of class is inverted; rather than rigid British
>distinction, we have American mobility underneath.
She's transformed, but to a large extent it just happens. She goes to
sleep a girl of the street and wakes up ... a Julia Roberts character.
And even though she's supposedly the one being made over, it's Edward
who must be transformed to reach the resulution that allows the film
to end.
>(I HAVE seen Working Girl, which is yet another twist. How many people
>have made the connection between those two movies? You don't need to
>know of the ancient OR the Shavian archetypes to note the differences
>and similarities in those two; geez, the guy's even named Jack Trainer.
>Get it? He's her jock and her trainer.)
Good point.
-- Jeff
Jeff Dalton
> Classics:
> China:
Somewhere in China or Classics we could put:
Lao Tzu
Chuang Tzu
Confucius, The Analects
The I Ching
As for translations of (old) Chinese poetry, beware of those
by Authur Waley. While he is no doubt an expert in the Chinese
language, he is not a very good poet. Ezra Pound are almost
always better as poems and sometimes (so I'm told) more accurate,
even though he didn't know Chinese and worked from someone
else's (forgot the name) translation notes.
-- Jeff
Mark Isaak
_Optics_ and Adam Smith's _Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations_. While these books are indisputably great from the
standpoint of the effect they've had on civilization, are they worth
reading today? Having learned optics from high school and college
text books, should I now read Newton's original work?
I've never read _Wealth of Nations_, but one biographer I've read
said the book was incredibly boring. Smith was an economist, not a
writer. His book may contain great ideas, but that doesn't make it
great literature. Even when a scientist or scholar is a good writer,
the task of presenting all the evidence to support a theory can make
it rather dry to read. _Origin of Species_ is, on the whole, well
written, but I'd recommend instead the works of Stephen J. Gould to
anyone who wanted to learn the nuances of evolutionary biology in an
enjoyable style. Darwin's _Voyage of the Beagle_ deals more with
human issues and is, IMHO, a much better read than _Origin of Species_.
In short, I think we need two categories of Great Books--one containing
books which introduced earth-shaking ideas, and one containing books
which are simply great to read.
--
Mark Isaak {decwrl,sun}!imagen!isaak or imagen!is...@decwrl.dec.com
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." - Nietzsche
pir...@cc.helsinki.fi
writes:
> [criticism of my reaction on his earlier article deleted]
>
Gosh, I'm sorry. I really didn't mean you personally, but those lists...
And I apologize if I used too strong language (please bear in mind
that English isn't my mother tongue) but seeing nearly all female authors
excluded made me rather angry...
You said I had a bias, that's true. But not in the way you meant -- I
really don't exclude male authors from my reading list (and I know you
don't do it to female authors). What I tried to say was that also many women
have written classics (not: all books written by women are classics);
maybe I am complaining, but once in a while it is good to remind
ourselves of this while discussing classics.
But, if you want to flame me, please do it by e-mail.
Dave Alexander
In article <26...@skye.ed.ac.uk> je...@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
> What is the reason for having Edward (the Richard Gere
> character) barely know how to drive?
The stick shift was a phallic symbol?
-- Dave Alexander
--
"When I was a little boy in Baltimore in 1954, I wanted
to be a juvenile delinquent when I grew up."
-- John Waters
Mark Foskey
>An interesting exercise, for those who think the classics are best,
>is to try to come up with a non-circular definition of classic that
>is true of all classics and false of everything else.
I agree that exercises like that one can be interesting, but I wouldn't
put too much store by the results you get or your more probable
inability to come up with good results at all. Categories can be
perfectly meaningful and useful without admitting any kind of
set-theoretic delineation. Sometimes there are unsettleable questions
of degree (how much is "a lot"), and other times different items will
be seen to fit a category for different reasons, so that there will
simply be no unifying thread for the whole category of things. Words
in English are often not well defined.
"Classic works of literature" is one of these categories. The word
"classic" isn't always simply a matter of opinion. It is
a fact that _Hamlet_ is a classic. At least in several senses of the
word "classic". On the other hand, there would be debate about other
works. Is _Catcher in the Rye_ a classic? How about _Gone With the
Wind_? How about one of Marlowe's better plays? One of his lesser
ones?
I'm trying to get across the idea here, with I'm not sure how much
success, that the question isn't just whether the work is somehow good
enough to belong, but which of an overlapping set of criteria you're
choosing to emphasize.
All of which leads in to a book I recommend to anyone who's interested
in questions related to the philosophy of language, or to semantics
(examples of the kind of spidery ill-defined categories I'm talking
about abound here): _Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things_, by Lakoff.
The book is an attempt at a theory of human categorization, which I
take as a natural prelude to a theory of semantics. He really wants to
get at a scientific theory, although right now all I'd say he has is a
good idea of what such a scientific theory would look like.
What I mean by a theory of human categorization is a theory of how
people divide things into categories, which is clearly an essential
prelude to using language. One of the main tenets of the book is that
people usually don't use categories that are sets in the mathematical
sense. But they sometimes do, like when they're doing math. His
refusal to be absolutist about his claims is a great strength of the
book.
A greater strength is that it's fascinating.
On the other hand, it is clearly not a classic (although its title may
be). But if it sounds remotely interesting I think you should read it
anyway.
Mark Foskey mfo...@ucsd.edu
Bill Oliver
>we place a good deal of weight on originality, and on origins. But your
>claim that true appreciation of a story requires appreciation of its
>earlier (and presumably greatest) versions requires more argument than
>you've supplied.
Well, you've caught me in that I am as interested in history as
in literature, and often have a hard time separating the two.
In fact, my (late) introduction to literature came
through some experimental multidisciplinary courses I took as an
undergraduate. The first was a study of the Homeric epics taught
by a team from the English, Classics, and Archaeology departments
which presented the Homeric epics as problems both in literature
and archaeology. The second was a course in European history
through novels of the time, taught by a team from the English and
History departments. By that time, I was hooked.
But, my taste for history aside, it is not the *historical* aspect
I was trying to put forward as much as the timelessness of archetypic
themes, and the usefulness of knowing how these themes are displayed
in their many variations. I am not necessarily claiming that the
older versions are the "greatest" ones, but that they provide a
necessary experience for learning to read or view critically.
> [about the overheard conversation]
>
>OK: what about it? Knowing the Pygmalion archetype won't do the young
>woman much good, unless she simultaneously reflects on the historical
>path of the story and its significance to the cultures through which it
>has travelled.
>
>.....
>
>[about my sitcom example]
>
>I'm not sure what your point is. What difference does the order in
>which you watch these make?
>
>And is one's appreciation diminished very much by lack of knowledge of
>the archetype, or of related stories (such as Maupassant's _La Parure_)?
>The knowing smile is only one form of pleasure, and not nearly the most
>important, either...
>
>[about my statements regarding archetypes]
>
>And how does knowledge of the history of these themes tie in with the
>catharsis (or whatever) that a particular instance provides? That, I
>think, is the key; and you haven't really made the connection between
>the one and the need for the other.
>
>.....
>
>Nu? Do we watch things in order to rate them on a scale? I think not!
>I think we appreciate art (not to mention Julia Roberts movies...)
>mainly for the immediate impression it makes.
>
My point was not that we should analyze what we read historically,
but critically. You state
>
>Likewise, classical background is, imho, far subordinate to the ability
>to read closely, to think analytically, to understand a movie as more
>than just a sequence of shticks. You don't need the classics for any of
>that; and knowing the classical history of the theme in question will
>not necessarily illuminate its importance to YOU.
>
But you have not said how one acquires the ability to read
closely, think analytically, and to "understand" a movie. Perhaps
you were born with the innate ability to think critically about
what you read and saw. I, however, had to learn how to do so.
And that is really what I was getting at. As far as I know, the only
way to develop these kinds of faculties is by experience, and
that experience must be broad as well as deep. My answer is
that one should take a look at the "classic" literature. The
archetype argument was to push the idea that, because of this
constancy of human nature, classic literature is *not* outmoded and
can provide a basis for the development of these critical faculties.
So, OK. The use of older literature to derive this ability to
read and watch critically is not necessary, according to you.
What would you put in its place?
>The things one will 'get' by knowing earlier versions are at best
>glosses on one's experience of the thing itself. In fact, they can
>hinder one's appreciation if one does not put them firmly in their
>place and avoid excessive comparison -- something that can destroy one's
>appreciation of any author.
No, consider this rather long (I'm sorry) exerpt from a review of
Scott Turow's new book. Joe Queenan, who wrote this review for the
Wall Street Journal, begins with a discussion of Turow's first book,
Presumed Innocent.
******* begin excerpt *****
In 1987, Tom Wolfe wrote a novel about an affluent, powerful white man who
suddenly finds himself ensnared in a corrupt legal system and menaced by
the prospect of a long stay in prison for a crime he did not commit. In
1987, Scott Turow wrote a novel about an affluent, powerful white man
who suddenly finds himself ensnared in a corrupt legal system and
menaced by the prospect of a long stay in prison for a crime he did not
commit. Both of these vastly praised, much discused, indispensible
beach companions became huge best sellers by tapping into this primal
Caucasian fear of the slammer. Meanwhile, back in the real world, poor
blacks keep going to jail, while people like Charles Keating keep going
on Ted Koppel's show. Messrs. Wolfe and Turow need to get out more.
Penal implausibilities notwithstanding, there's no denying that Mr. Turow's
first novel, "Presumed Innocent," was a pretty good one. A high-class
whodunit with more twists and turns than an M.C. Escher drawing, the novel
told the story of a jaded prosecutor in a fictional Illinois town who
suddenly finds himslef accused of murdering a female colleague, who
also happened to be his ex-lover. Actually, she also happened to be
everyone in the town's ex-lover, which made it look like Rusty Sabich was
being set up by jealous rivals, one of whom may have also been the
deceased's ex-lover.
Unrelentingly mysogynistic -- Mr. Turow's women are either dolls or
dumplings -- but snappily writen, "Presumed Innocent" did pull off
the Herculean task of making a 39-year-old lawyer seem sympathetic.
All in all, the book was a fine police procedural, a genuine page
turner, and a damn good read.
But that's all it was. Despite Mr. Turow's obvious gifts and his
publisher's stage-managing of his image -- Former Justice Department
Porsecutor Who Used to Teach Creative Writing at Stanford Tells All --
"Presumed Innocent" was not and is not a literary masterpiece that
transcends the the thriller genre a la Simenon, Conan Doyle, or Poe.
In its use of elaborate gimmicks to throw the reader off the trail, it
is a direct descendant fo such ingenious detective novels as Agatha
Christie's "Easy to Kill," "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd," and
"Curtain." (Dame Agatha did not have sexy females stripped, hog-tied
and raped, but, unlike Mr. Turow, she never worked out of Chicago.)
Throughout "Presumed Innocent," Mr. Turow toys with the reader, relentlessly
witholding pertinent peices of information. This allows the author to
spring a nasty surprise in the last 20 pages, but it makes everything
that has gone before seem like one, gigantic con job. Which is
why "Presumed Innocent" cannot be put in the same class as
Joseph Wambaugh's remarkable first novels, "The New Centurions" and
"The Choir Boys." In those searing tales of corruption and
betrayal, there was no shuck and no jive....
******* end excerpt ****
Of course, this is a review and not a true criticism, and I chose
it because it happens to be on my desk, but it will do.
Mr. Queenan's knowledge of the antecedents of Turow's book, both in
style and content was important in the reveiwer's ability to
critically read the work. I gather you would argue that this
knowledge somehow diminished Mr. Queenan's ability to enjoy the
work because it made him realize its limitations. My experience
with my own reading, and my impression from the review is that
it did not. I would bet (obviously, I haven't asked Mr. Queenan
personally about it) that, in fact, it added to his appreciation.
It made him more cognizant of what really was of value in the
book, and by allowing him to recognizing the book's limitations,
increased the appreciation of books previously read. This is not
the pleasure of the "knowing smile" that you accuse folk who suggest
a look at the older literature of striving for. His reference
to previous writers was not as an "in joke." It is a different kind
of pleasure altogether.
To take your argument to it's limit, one should generally steer
clear of excellent books. After all, reading a truly great book
will make other books pale in comparison. Since there is so
much hack work out there as compared to great work, by exposing
onself to the great work one will suffer an overall net
decrease in enjoyment. Ostensibly, Mr. Queenan should never have
read Wambaugh, since Turow compares badly. Or rather, he
should read whichever author is simply the more prolific.
He should never have read Agatha Christie, since this showed
that a similar and also pleasurable type of work could be written
without gratuitous explicit and (I gather -- I haven't read
the book) degrading sex sequences. If he hadn't read Agatha
Christie, he might not have even noticed that such things
*were* gratuitous.
Moreover, this ability to critically read a work is not simply a
matter of "rating on a scale," and a knowledge of, in this case,
the mystery/crime genre did not simply provide "glosses."
>
>Ultimately the reason to read classics is that it ties one into a
>culture that values the reading of classics and rewards the reader of
>classics with an appreciation of literature that is considered in line
>with the classics-reading culture. Whether it's better or not is
>another issue....
>
>
> [my discussion of Van, er, van Gough]
>
>Well, here's a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. v. Gogh
>didn't paint for you, but for his time. Your appreciation seems to come
>from a scholarly understanding (I use the term loosely -- no insult
>there -- but the study of a painter's evolution is quite different from
>the act of looking at a painting, which is the way most people judge
>art). We need that understanding because post-Impressionism, Fauvism,
>Cubism, and commercial art (not to mention a jillion other things) have
>dulled our appreciation of the painting's novelty. (Debussy is
>impossible to teach in Music Appreciation for just that reason.)
>
>trouble is, you need the whole historicist attitude in the first place
>before *wanting* to appreciate v. Gogh or being able to derive an
>appreciation of his work from study.
>
>Finally, this seems to be a little off your topic. You didn't study
>classical painters to get to v. Gogh (or did you go through El Greco,
>David, Courbet, and Manet on your way?); nor do you tell of applying
>your newfound knowledge to modern art. You seem to have studied the
>evolution of one 'classical' painter for the sake of understanding that
>very painter.
Well, actually, I was just stuck in Amsterdam with a couple of days
to kill, and my choices seemed to be either to hit the museums or the
live sex shows. My interest in art came about rather backasswards.
I was originally interested in morphologic diagnosis in Anatomic
Pathology, which led to an interest in computer vision, which led
to an interest in shape, form, color, and such, which led to an
interest in the technical aspects of visual representation, which
led to an interest in the technical aspects of visual art, which
led to an interest in the techniques of various schools of art,
which led to an interest in specific artists, which finally led
to an interest in *why* these people painted and scultped what
they did. And yes, since I have that icky "historicist" attitude,
while I didn't study art linearly in time, I did bother with historical
effects.
But, again, you seem to condemn such a study because it dulls
appreciation for "novelty." Perhaps the problem is the relative
value we place on novelty as an end in itself. Yeah, I like novelty,
but I don't think I will keep myself in determined ignorance
in order to keep experiencing it.
>
> [about my comment on still life]
>Why has still life BECOME that way? I think it's just as important to
>look at the ways we've come to use still life, and the way in which its
>importance diminished over the years, and why. That would be a better
>example for your original argument, btw. Again, you're studying the
>history of old art to illuminate old art, not using it to expose the
>'meaning' of modern works with old themes.
>
Well, again, not really. My interest in still life, aside from the
technical aspects I noted above, came from viewing the work of a
living physician artist who paints still life with anatomic illustrations.
It was looking at his stuff a few years ago and the ensuing discussion
of the use of human anatomic parts in still life that made me remember
skulls and such in some paintings I had seen in the past and wonder
why those guys did it. That's what got me into still life. But, I
use both my relatively new knowledge of the artistic and technical uses
of shape, color, form and symbolism when I look at quite *new*
still life, and there are bunches of folk who still do it -- though
it seems to be more the territory of photographic artists now. So no,
I don't study old still life just to look at old still life.
>Why more mature? Is learning what makes maturity? Surely an
>understanding of the people around one, and the world as it is now, is
>far more important to a definition of maturity.
>
>Moreover, seeing the nuances, and deploring lack of contrast, doesn't
>mean a damn thing to the appreciation of the story itself! It is only
>relevant to an understanding of the history of the story (which is not
>why we go to the movies) or to an understanding of the changes in the
>story as culture changes.
>
Learning is certainly an integral part of maturity. Are you arguing that
there is some maturity gene that some folk have and some folk don't such
that people pop out mature without having to learn any behaviors and
intellectual or emotional responses? But, I think we are talking about
different kinds of maturity. When one speaks of a "mature scientist"
or "mature artist," one speaks of that person maturing within a
discipline or field, not in their interpersonal relations. When I
speak of a "mature" reader or a "mature" palate, I mean it in that
limited way.
I strongly disagree with your statement that seeing the nuances in
irrelvant to appreciationg the story itself. But then, that goes
back to being able to critically evaluate something, which may be
where our basic disagreement lies. Again, how would *you* teach
someone to critically evaluate a work without resorting to other
literature? How would you critically evaluate something without
comparing it to other work? Do you really think that novelty is
so important that one should choose it over such critical skill?
Bill Oliver
Bill Oliver
>Darwin's _Voyage of the Beagle_ deals more with
>human issues and is, IMHO, a much better read than _Origin of Species_.
>
I agree. I read Voyage of the Beagle as an adventure tale. The thing
I like, in general, about older scientific literature is that the
authors didn't mind writing the articles in a more active voice. They
express their enthusiasm and emotion about their subjects in the article.
When I was an undergraduate microbiology major, I found myself reading a
number of original articles by folk who discovered and did the early
taxonomy and observation on, of all things, the cellular slime molds.
There was one author, writing very seriously in a scholarly journal of
the time, who did such a good job of describing the form and visual
appearance of one of the organisms that he made it a surprisingly
sensual experience. He communicated his enthusiasm along with the
data. I wish I could remember the reference. Rats.
Of course, some of the old stuff is pretty wierd. There is one article in
the 1845 issue of the American Journal of Insanity (later called the Am J
Psychiatry), called "The Poetry of Insanity," which was an analysis of
poetry produced by patients at the Bedlam asylum. I'm not sure what
the scientific merit of the work was, but it certainly was interesting:
Oh! That my brain would bleat like buttered peas,
And that, by bleating, catch the itch.
Grow dark, and mangy as the Irish Seas,
To engender whirlwinds from some Northern Witch....
I think that was by Nat Lee (after 17 years, I'm lucky I can remember even
a first stanza), and I can't remember if he was actually an inmate or if
the author just thought he should have been one.
And, of course, there are the articles which are neat simply because they
express views of the times. A later issue of the Am J Insanity
had a description of the autopsy and brain dissection of Pres. McKinley's
assassin, following his execution, in an attempt to find an organic cause
for such an insane act. It is acutally kind of interesting to compare
autopsies of historical figures and the events and politics surrounding
it; from Napoleon to Kennedy, to the evaluation of the victims of the
Argentine dirty war, how, why, and by whom the autopsies were done, and
how the results were or were not reported had fair significance.
But that's another kettle of fish, and I'm reflecting my professional
interests.
Is it literature in the humanities sense? I don't think so. But I
have already written way too much about what I think makes great literature.
Bill Oliver
amci...@umiami.miami.edu
> A couple of lists of "great" books have included works like Newton's
> _Optics_ and Adam Smith's _Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
> Wealth of Nations_. While these books are indisputably great from the
> standpoint of the effect they've had on civilization, are they worth
> reading today? Having learned optics from high school and college
> text books, should I now read Newton's original work?
> I've never read _Wealth of Nations_, but one biographer I've read
> said the book was incredibly boring.
If you can find it, read the frequently excerpted section on economies
of scale. Smith on pinmaking is anything but boring. You just have
to have the right set of mind when you approach it.
> In short, I think we need two categories of Great Books--one containing
> books which introduced earth-shaking ideas, and one containing books
> which are simply great to read.
> Mark Isaak {decwrl,sun}!imagen!isaak or imagen!is...@decwrl.dec.com
The categories do exist. I have the task of getting graduate students
ready for masters and doctoral comprehensives in international studies.
Deep traditions say you thrust a sheaf of bibliographic lists in their
trembling hands and then let 'em sweat.
In the last couple of years I have tried a different approach. I give
them lists, but with this bit of advice:
If you haven't been told to read something that appears on a list, or
if no professor has made extended direct use of one of these works, it
doesn't mean that it is not important.
If the work is an older one, it is probably in the list because it falls
in the general category of works called _seminal_. In these enlightened
times, maybe _germinal_ is a better choice, but the idea is the same--
you become familiar with these works for one of two reasons:
1. Some part of the work, or its totality, added another chink to the
wall of social science. It completed, stretched, grounded, or shattered
a paradigm, or provided vital evidence. Even if what was provided was
flamboyently "wrong," its existence helped spark the research that
later destroyed its validity.
2. Even if the work is not of such critical importance, it falls in the
line of march of intellectual history.
For each of these two types of works, "classics" or not, learning _about_
the work is as important as, or more important than, sitting down and
reading the work.
Of course there are other kinds of works that depend more on the weight of
their presentation than on the evidence that is marshalled. For these,
nothing substitutes for the reading itself. At least some part of their
value comes from stylistic elements. Those you read, as you do the works
that are still being used long after their place in intellectual history
is secure.
Now, this doesn't cover all cases, obviously. There are lists of "classics"
that are plumped up by the "My erudition is bigger than your erudition"
school of puffery. A vulgar, but astute, friend of mine once titled
this "academic prick-measuring."
In practical terms, each discipline has its own sorting mechanisms. I have
my students read "about" most of Marx, but read Gramsci. I have them
read "about" Clausewitz, but read Sun Tzu. I have them read "about"
General Westmoreland, but read General Giap.
The best single example I can think of is Franz Fanon. In my seminar on
forms of conflict, I make sure that students read his essay on the
healing power of violence. This is certainly not because I want them to
become revolutionaries, but because its stylistic weight makes it important.
[Of course, it is also important because it was translated into Spanish
and Arabic and other languages and used as a text by the Tupamaros and
Black Septembrists and others in 60s and 70s].
I hope this speaks to your concern. Sorry I rambled on so long; I have
been thinking about this a fair bit recently.
alex amci...@umiami.miami.edu
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Alexander H. McIntire,Jr. | Internet/Bitnet: | Where there's |
Graduate School of | amci...@umiami.miami.edu | smoke, there |
International Studies | SPAN: ISPIR1::AMCINTIRE | may be just a |
U.of Miami-Box 8123 | | smoke-making |
Coral Gables FL 33124-3010 | Tel: 305-284-4303 [M-F,9-5] | machine! |
Fiona Oceanstar
>When I was an undergraduate microbiology major, I found myself reading a
>number of original articles by folk who discovered and did the early
>taxonomy and observation on, of all things, the cellular slime molds.
>There was one author, writing very seriously in a scholarly journal of
>the time, who did such a good job of describing the form and visual
>appearance of one of the organisms that he made it a surprisingly
>sensual experience. He communicated his enthusiasm along with the
>data. I wish I could remember the reference. Rats.
I remember that author, too! He even invented a lovely Greek-derived
word (acrasin) for the substance that attracts slime molds to each other.
I can't get you the author's name, but I can get very close: J. T. Bonner,
a professor of biology at Princeton, has made a career out of studying
slime molds, and he, too, admires that early scientist. If you look
in the indices of _Scientific_American_ for, say, the years 1960-75,
under Bonner, you'll find an article he wrote on slime molds, with refs.
to the earlier author.
All of which might seem irrelevant to the readers of rec.arts.books,
except for this point: the classics (well-written and path-breaking) of
scientific literature also belong on this putative list. I, for one,
am tired of "two cultures" ignorance--on BOTH sides of the fence!
--Fiona Oceanstar
Jeff Dalton
-In article <26...@skye.ed.ac.uk> je...@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
--In article <14...@thorin.cs.unc.edu> oli...@tlab1.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) writes:
---This was brought home to me a couple of nights ago when my fiance and
---I were walking out of a movie house after watching "Pretty Woman."
---An older couple and a young woman in her 20's were walking out
---in front of us. The young woman turned to the older man.
---
---"Gee, wasn't that a great movie?"
---"Yes, good Pygmalion stories are always fun."
---"Who's Pygmalion?"
---"An old story, sort of like that movie."
--Elitism and condescension ... this sort of remark, taking the general
--outline of the plot and noting that it's been done before, misses the
--whole point, ..., kind of like reducing Romeo and Juliet to "two kids
--disobey their parents, engage in premarital sex, and come to a bad end
--via drugs".
-No, it is not elitist nor condescending.
OK, how about missing the point, etc.? The _Pretty Woman_ plot isn't
particularly interesting unless you try to make it so; and I don't
think the Pygmalion approach is the best way to do it. It might be
interesting to try to account for more of the details or to try to
relate it to a wider (or at least different) range of stories.
- One can appreciate a Bavarian castle, or a
-French cathedral, or the simplicity of Shaker furniture without knowing
-anything at all about them. It is, however, even more interesting if one
-happens to know the actual history behind how and why they were built,
-It is not elitist to find that knowledge worthwhile, nor is it, in
-and of itself condescending to mention it to one's fellow-travellers.
I agree about that, but not about the Pygmalion conversation.
-To recognize the antecedents of and to mention the underlying theme
-behind a work does not reduce the work to the bare-bones of the theme
-or deny whatever was added in variation of that theme.
It depends, I suppose, on what happens after. "An old story, sort
of like that movie" sounds rather dismissive to me and in any case
doesn't sound like the start of a particularly promising discussion.
-It does, however, establish a common basis (if one exists) by which
-one may discuss the work.
Actually, in this case it establishes a gap in the common basis.
-When my fiancee and I got back home, we talked about the movie and
-compared it to our impressions of other works on that theme. It was
-not elitist to do so, nor was it condescending for whichever one of
-us initiated the conversation to mention Pygmalion or My Fair Lady.
Well, I never thought that whatever discussion you had back home,
which after all I know nothing about, was elitist and condescending.
On the other hand, I have rather different views on (1) the attitude
of the older man and (2) the way in which you used this conversation,
which was: something that brought home to you the value of reading
the classics. After all, for all you know she got more out of the
film than he did, not the other way around.
Just for example, maybe the older man doesn't know about _Mystic
Pizza_ and she does. I wouldn't be surprised if that weren't a more
enlightening/interesting comparison than one between _Pretty Woman_
and _My Fair Lady_. Of course, this isn't a particularly good example
for me, because it's still looking at variations. But at least it
doesn't involve classics.
-What if the conversation had gone something like what follows.
-
-"Gee, wasn't that a great movie?"
-"Yes, good Pygmalion stories are always fun."
-"Yes, I just wish these folk had done a better job of giving
- Gere a motivation for doing what he did. At least Rex Harrison
- had a bet going in My Fair Lady."
Different, but not necessarily better. For one thing, the Richard
Gere character did have a motivation, and arguably a less contrived
one than a bet. However I really don't think this kind of plot
variation is the best thing to notice in this case. I suspect
that the people who think about it that way are more likely to
dislike the film (or to see little of value in it) and probably
enjoy it less.
-Now is it "elitist and condescending?"
Probably not, but dismissive nonetheless. [I know someone will
tell me the film deserves to be dismissed...]
Well, actually, if you still think it shows the value of reading the
classics and that these people are winning as compared to those who
do not know such things...
-By calling the man "elitist and condescending," you are blaming him
-for the young woman's ignorance.
That seems a rather strange interpretation to me. But then, I don't
regard her ignorance on this point as something deserving blame.
-[...] but the idea that one should limit the intellectual content of
-one's conversation to some lowest common denominator [...]
I don't think I said or implied that one ought to limit one's
conversation to a lcd. If I did, I didn't mean to.
-If you are arguing that it is outrageous for one to assume that a
-random person walking out of Pretty Woman knows about Pygmalion or
-My Fair Lady [...]
I'm not.
I just think you're wrong to assume / conclude that the young woman is
worse off than the older man just because she hasn't heard of
Pygmalion and he has. This is not to say she wouldn't be better off
if *she* knew about Pygmalion, assuming that everything else remained
the same. But that would be an argument for knowing more, not for
knowing the classics, nor for a classic being better than something
else. For example, I think she might be better off if she knew about
Mystic Pizza than if she knew about Pygmalion.
-- Jeff
Jeff Dalton
--In article <14...@thorin.cs.unc.edu> oli...@tlab1.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) writes:
---In any case, none of the articles I have read mention what I consider
---to be the most important reason to read classics: there is nothing
---(or at least very little) new under the sun.
--
--If nothing is new, why read any particular version? [...]
--Moreover, in order to see nothing as new you have to describe
--things in certain, relatively abstract, ways, for otherwise
--there'd always be all kinds of new things: computers, atomic bombs,
--monetarism (eg sterling M3), aids, blotter acid, CD ROMs, the
--Lotus Esprit, this piece of paper, Julia Roberts, Richard Gere,
--you.
-The phrase "nothing new under the sun" was an allusion.
Yes, to Ecclesiastes 1:9. Why is it significant that it's an allusion?
-Of course I didn't mean it in the sense of the particulars you mention.
I thought I had taken that into account by talking about describing
(looking at) things in a relatively abstract way. What I'm trying to
say is that I don't think that point of view is the best one to take.
-But, I believe, you miss my point. Literature is not about
-"things" -- computers, atomic bombs, monetarism, etc. It is
-about *people*, and how they deal with life and with each
-other.
I'm not sure how I should answer this. I could say that people are,
after all, included under "things"; or that there could be new things
about people under the sun; or even that if you fill in your "etc"
with the remainder of my list (eg, Julia, Richard, you) it might
look rather strange to say I was talking only of things.
-No, older literature does not address AIDS, but it
-does address how people deal with plague hysteria and with
-the fear of perceived helplessness and mortality. Camus' The
-Plague [...] the use of AIDS as an allegory would have been
-just as appropriate as the use of Yersinia pestis.
I'll deal with the more general point below. Right now I'll just say
that using the disease as an allegory is, perhaps, the wrong way around.
Maybe Susan Sontag's _Illness as Metaphor_ and the sequel about AIDS
are relevant here.
-Older literature does not deal with CD ROMS, computers and such,
-but it does deal with how people react to the disruption of their
-lives by overwhelming social forces beyond their control, including
-the force of technological change. [...]
-Older literature does not deal with atomic bombs, but it certainly
-does deal with war and mass destruction, from the detached policy view
-to the very human horrors of the individual on the battlefield.
-[...] that literature is well worth knowing as an expression of basic
-human dignity and the human spirit.
I'm not sure how we could ever resolve this. I could keep saying that
the particulars matter, and you could keep saying that certain themes
are always relevant, and we might never find a way to agree. Some
sort of "we're both right" compromise would still, I think, be
unsatisfying.
I guess I'll start by saying that I don't think classics are valueless
or that they're never worth reading. However, I don't agree that
everyone should read the classics if this is taken to imply that the
classics are all, or even usually, better than other things; or that a
knowledge of the classics is in some sense essential if one is to live
as one ought; or that people who don't do much reading of classics are
in some sense condemned to eat all their food with catsup. Some
classics may be particularly valuable, sometimes, for some people;
but that's not the same.
Indeed, if certain themes are more or less universal, why is it
better to consider them via classics rather than some other way?
Roger Lustig has made this point better than I have.
Beyond that, however, I'm rather uneasy with this whole "basic themes"
/ "nothing new" line of argument. It almost seems to imply that, for
example, we shouldn't be especially worried about atomic bombs because
war and mass destruction have been with us always. Not only that, I
think it's just false that mass destruction of the sort we can now
envision has been with us, in the sense that it is now with us, long
enough to have been properly addressed by "classics", H. G. Wells or
whoever not withstanding. But even if they have addressed it, I don't
think that seeing the situation in terms of basic themes is the right
approach. What we need, rather, is a way to see it as itself rather
than as a variation, as something new and different, as something that
needn't be with us always, as something we should try to do something
about -- take your pick.
And this doesn't apply only to things that are unpleasant. For
example, if we assume that _Pretty Woman_ is not unpleasant,
I would say that what's interesting, worthwhile, etc. about it
is not particularly well captured by seeing it primarily as
a variation on Pygmalion.
-Yes, there are always new things in the world, and every individual
-human is unique. But the basic themes of the human drama remain
-the same. It is the challenge of the modern writer who uses those
-themes to make them new and exciting, and to reinforce that
-timelessness with application to modern concerns. These variations
-are the nuances I was writing about. It is the contrast between these new
-facets of human existence with what is common and timeless that makes
-reading *any* literature, classic or modern, worthwhile to me.
Well it's exactly this idea that they're nuances, mere variations on a
theme, that I object to. This is not to deny that they can be seen as
variations or that it is ever useful, insightful, or whatever to adopt
that point of view. On the other hand, I don't think the approach
that emphasizes basic themes has been particularly successful at
yielding new insight.
Moreover, I don't think the aim of modern writers should be to
make basic themes new and exciting, to reinforce their timelessness,
or to _apply_ them to modern concerns. If the themes as so basic,
they can take care of themselves.
-Knowing the antecedents of a thought does not detract from
-that thought. Reading, for most folk I know, is an active process
-in which the reader does not thoughtlessly accept the words of the
-author like an infant takes milk. Reading a piece of literature
-is a conversation between the author and the reader. And as
-with conversation, it behooves a person to measure the worth, the
-motivation, and the deeper meaning of another person's words.
So far I don't much disagree. [There are problems with the
conversation model and with the idea of deeper meaning, but
they would take us too far afield.]
-Knowing a little about the literature from which a
-modern work is derived does not lessen the enjoyment or meaning
-of that modern work. It simply makes that conversation an
-intelligent one.
Why "derived"? Are they then derivative? And, to me at least,
a "good Pygmalion story" sounds a lot less fun than a "great movie".
... more to follow, but this is getting long ...
-- Jeff
Chuck Smythe
................ Having learned optics from high school and college
>text books, should I now read Newton's original work?
Could be. Newton's account of his experiments is delightfully
immediate and personal compared to modern formal scientific publication.
................. Darwin's _Voyage of the Beagle_ deals more with
>human issues and is, IMHO, a much better read than _Origin of Species_.
Agreed. In fact, VotB is among my all-time favorite reads.
And, by the way, I have heard that some of Darwin's other works (for instance
his monograph on orchids) are really fascinating. I've never encountered
a copy of this on the shelves; has anybody? Comments?
>In short, I think we need two categories of Great Books--one containing
>books which introduced earth-shaking ideas, and one containing books
>which are simply great to read.
Agreed again. This tends to apply particularly to scientific G.B.s, and
a writer whose name escapes me at the moment argued that the susceptibility
of science to successful paraphrase is the most marked difference between
science and art.
It tends to apply to a lot of philosophy too; I'm ashamed to admit how much
of my philosophy I've learned from secondary sources rather than from great
books, just because the Kants of the world are almost unreadable.
Chuck Smythe
Robert Fehr
>On the subject of classics in scientific writing, Bill Oliver writes:
>>When I was an undergraduate microbiology major, I found myself reading a
>>number of original articles by folk who discovered and did the early
>>taxonomy and observation on, of all things, the cellular slime molds.
>>There was one author, writing very seriously in a scholarly journal of
>>the time, who did such a good job of describing the form and visual
>>appearance of one of the organisms that he made it a surprisingly
>>sensual experience. He communicated his enthusiasm along with the
>>data. I wish I could remember the reference. Rats.
In the 19th century many scientists were also excellent writers, I'm thinking
particularly of Louis Agassiz. Pound cites Agassiz in ABCs of Reading. And
there is a wonderful essay by Guy Davenport on Agassiz in "The Geography of
the Imagination."
And now that I think about it Marianne Moore makes note of the man's
glass flowers in one of her poems. A well respected man about town.
I'm probably mistaken but I believe Freud won a Nobel for Literature, or
maybe that was Bertrand Russel...never mind.
--
da...@keats.ca.uky.edu
"That's some family isn't it? Incest, prostitution, fanaticism, software."
-- Miami Blues by Charles Willeford
Brian or James
>
>In article <26...@skye.ed.ac.uk> je...@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
>> What is the reason for having Edward (the Richard Gere
>> character) barely know how to drive?
>
>
>The stick shift was a phallic symbol?
>
>
> -- Dave Alexander
>
Gere's character is an incomplete human, not capable of partaking
in a normal [20th century american] relationship. Most 'normal' folks
can drive; he couldn't. It's kinda symbolic. Either that or the director
wanted an excuse to turn a Lotus' transmission into steel shavings.
JDN
Jeff Dalton
>In article <26...@skye.ed.ac.uk> je...@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>An interesting exercise, for those who think the classics are best,
>>is to try to come up with a non-circular definition of classic that
>>is true of all classics and false of everything else.
>I agree that exercises like that one can be interesting, but I wouldn't
>put too much store by the results you get or your more probable
>inability to come up with good results at all. Categories can be
>perfectly meaningful and useful without admitting any kind of
>set-theoretic delineation.
I would agree that there can be useful categories that do not have
well-defined necessary and sufficient conditions for membership.
Wittgenstein thought "game" was an example, and maybe he's right.
However, I think we should be careful about claims that classics are
better than other books if the people making them can't produce any
properties, let along desirable properties, that distinguish classics
from other books and aren't along the lines of "usually regarded as a
classic".
If instead people want to claim that classics *tend* to be X, or
*usually* are Y, then we can talk about that; but at least then
we'll already be dealing with weaker claims.
If they want to come up with some overlapping criteria and argue
the cases separately, then we could do that; but so far that hasn't
been what's happened.
>"Classic works of literature" is one of these categories. The word
>"classic" isn't always simply a matter of opinion. It is a fact that
>_Hamlet_ is a classic.
Well, I don't think anyone would want to claim it's _just_ a matter
of opinion. For example, it's true, in a sense, that classics have
"stood the test of time", and I don't think it's just an opinion
that they have.
On the other hand, we can't jump from "not simply a mater of opinion"
to "it's a fact that Hamlet is a classic". It's a fact that Hamlet
is usually regarded as a classic.
But suppose someone disagreed. What would you say to convince them?
This brings us back to the question of properties.
>I'm trying to get across the idea here, with I'm not sure how much
>success, that the question isn't just whether the work is somehow good
>enough to belong, but which of an overlapping set of criteria you're
>choosing to emphasize.
Well, ok, what overlapping or other criteria would you suggest?
>All of which leads in to a book I recommend to anyone who's interested
>in questions related to the philosophy of language, or to semantics
>(examples of the kind of spidery ill-defined categories I'm talking
>about abound here): _Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things_, by Lakoff.
Although you may find this surprising given other things I've said,
I've read this book and even found much to agree with in it.
-- Jeff
j...@dcs.simpact.com
jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Brian or James) writes:
>In article <26...@skye.ed.ac.uk> je...@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>> What is the reason for having Edward (the Richard Gere
>>> character) barely know how to drive?
> Gere's character is an incomplete human, not capable of partaking
> in a normal [20th century american] relationship. Most 'normal' folks
> can drive; he couldn't. It's kinda symbolic.
Oh, for crying out loud, youse guys. He couldn't drive A STICK SHIFT. There's
no evidence that he couldn't have handled an automatic. And he couldn't find
his hotel in the LArea at night, having never driven there himself. Big deal.
Geez, what some people will try to read into a movie. (We now return you to
the 186th posting discussing the resolution of paradoxes in the BTTF
series. :-)
> Either that or the director
> wanted an excuse to turn a Lotus' transmission into steel shavings.
> JDN
*chuckle* So you believed that the sound effects were really coming from
the Lotus, eh???
--- Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA
Internet: j...@dcs.simpact.com, or if that fails, j...@crash.cts.com
Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh
Michael J. Hennebry
> Gere's character is an incomplete human, not capable of partaking
>in a normal [20th century american] relationship. Most 'normal' folks
Actually he could drive. He could even drive a stick shift,
just not very well. Driving a car one is not used to
is at least a little bit more difficult than driving one's own car, espescially
if one must use a stick shift for the first time. I expect that I could drive
a stick shift, but I wouldn't do such a nasty thing to a friend's gears.
Gere's character did.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"I realize this is a frame of magic.
Even so that does not seem to make
an extraordinary amount of sense." -- Clef
Nichael Cramer
>It is simply false that The M of V has been very strongly involved
>in probably every serious conversation.
Uh, true. But then nobody has said otherwise.
Read what it was I *did* say.
>...Just because a serious
>converstation might involve X and the M of V also involves X
>does not show the M of V is strongly involved.
True. However, once again, read what it was I said.
>... Nor does it become true if instead of X you say love/honor/
>etc.
OK, but so what? Again read what it was...
>...(On the other hand, I don't see why something has to
>feature in conversations in supermarket queues to be worth reading.)
Um, I trust you will forgive me, but you do tend towards literal-
mindedness, don't you. Again read what was actually said (with an eye
towards the underlying point).
> ...[etc.]...
Again, read what ... [but you get the idea...]
N
Roman Rozin
In article <99...@imagen.UUCP> is...@imagen.UUCP (Mark Isaak) writes:
[ ... ]
> _Origin of Species_ is, on the whole, well
>written, but I'd recommend instead the works of Stephen J. Gould to
>anyone who wanted to learn the nuances of evolutionary biology in an
>enjoyable style.
While Gould is a fine writer, his presentation of evolutionary biology
diverges quite far, at times, from the ideas of modern neo-Darwinism. In
fact, some of his (and Niles Eldridge's) ideas (e.g., punctuated equilibrium)
have debatable validity.
I would recommend the books of Richard Dawkins as the best-written, most
exciting presentation of the ideas of evolutionary biology. His three
books are:
The Selfish Gene
The Extended Phenotype
The Blind Watchmaker
Especially the first and the third books are intended for the layman.
Roman Rozin
Mark Foskey
>In article <11...@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> ma2...@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Mark Foskey) writes:
>>>An interesting exercise, for those who think the classics are best,
>>>is to try to come up with a non-circular definition of classic that
>>>is true of all classics and false of everything else.
I responded that I doubted such a collection of necessary and
sufficient conditions was either possible or required, and took the
opportunity to recommend a book I had liked (_Women, Fire, and
Dangerous Things_). Jeff re-responded that, OK, then how about a
collection of suggestive traits? To let him speak for himself, he
said:
>However, I think we should be careful about claims that classics are
>better than other books if the people making them can't produce any
>properties, let alone desirable properties, that distinguish classics
>from other books and aren't along the lines of "usually regarded as a
>classic".
Well, I'll propose a tentative list and see what kinds of additions and
criticisms it elicits:
1. They use their language well. The flow of words may be beautiful,
arresting, clear, witty, memorable, or what have you. This trait is
more appealing if you can read the works in the original language.
2. They contain good ideas. Or perhaps merely important ones.
3. They observe human nature with exceptional understanding.
Another thing I said in my response to Jeff's original posting was
>>It is a fact that
>>_Hamlet_ is a classic.
I can't decide whether to retract that or not. I had added the caveat
"At least in some senses of the word 'classic'," (at least I think I
had), and with that caveat I think I can stand by my claim. In the
header "Why read the classics", I think most people take the object of
the verb to be the set of books most frequently taught or taught about
in literature and humanities classes, and perhaps philosophy classes as
well; and _Hamlet_ is about as solidly in that list as you could want.
(Well, except that it's a play, not a book. :-))
In the end, perhaps my defense of these lists is a bit hypocritical.
I'm not planning on starting to work my way down one myself. But
on the other hand, from time to time I read (or at least begin)
famous books just because they're supposed to be great books.
Actually, Jeff, or anybody else, I'm curious about two things --
do you think that's a good policy, and how do you think literature,
humanities, and philosophy classes should choose what books they
teach? Should they exist at all?
And finally, Jeff, I'm not really that surprised that you've read and
agreed with some of _W,F&DT_, given how you took my responses to what
you said. I didn't mention it by way of "You'd agree with me if only
you'd read this amazing book that clears everything up."
--
Mark Foskey mfo...@ucsd.edu
14002000
Theory of the Leasure Class. Parts of this are actually laugh out
loud funny.
Tom Maddox
>While Gould is a fine writer, his presentation of evolutionary biology
>diverges quite far, at times, from the ideas of modern neo-Darwinism. In
>fact, some of his (and Niles Eldridge's) ideas (e.g., punctuated equilibrium)
>have debatable validity.
>I would recommend the books of Richard Dawkins as the best-written, most
>exciting presentation of the ideas of evolutionary biology.
Recommending Dawkins as an alternative to Gould is disingenuous.
Gould is in *opposition* to Dawkins and in fact to the entire school of
sociobiology Dawkins forcefully speaks for. And of course Dawkins is more
controversial as a biologist than Gould (as sociobiology in general creates
violent opposition and support).
So if you're interested in modern evolutionary theory (and want to
get a view of one of its major controversies), read both Gould and Dawkins,
both of whom write authoritatively, persuasively, and well.
Oh yes, every biologist I know respects Gould's work; the notion
of punctuated equilibria indeed is controversial, but in other matters relating
to modern biology, Gould is an eloquent, lucid explainer.
Mike Godwin
>In article <78...@pitt.UUCP> ro...@speedy.cs.pitt.edu.UUCP (Roman Rozin) writes:
>
>>I would recommend the books of Richard Dawkins as the best-written, most
>>exciting presentation of the ideas of evolutionary biology.
>
>
> Recommending Dawkins as an alternative to Gould is disingenuous.
>Gould is in *opposition* to Dawkins and in fact to the entire school of
>sociobiology Dawkins forcefully speaks for.
Am I the only one to notice the irony of a Randian's recommending a
sociobiologist? Sociobiology and altruism go hand in hand.
--Mike
Mike Godwin, UT Law School |"For I will consider my Cat Jeoffrey,
Just another bar-exam nerd | For he is the servant of the Living God,
mnem...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | duly and daily serving him."
(512) 346-4190 | --Christopher Smart
Roman Rozin
[ ... ]
>>I would recommend the books of Richard Dawkins as the best-written, most
>>exciting presentation of the ideas of evolutionary biology.
> Recommending Dawkins as an alternative to Gould is disingenuous.
Why? I implied quite clearly (I thought) that Gould and Dawkins do
NOT share the same viewpoints. I happen to find Dawkins's ideas more
convincing, and that is why I recommended him.
Roman Rozin
Roman Rozin
[ ... ]
>>In article <78...@pitt.UUCP> ro...@speedy.cs.pitt.edu.UUCP (Roman Rozin) writes:
>>>I would recommend the books of Richard Dawkins as the best-written, most
>>>exciting presentation of the ideas of evolutionary biology.
[ ... ]
>Am I the only one to notice the irony of a Randian's recommending a
>sociobiologist? Sociobiology and altruism go hand in hand.
You have deduced that I am a "Randian" (whatever that means). Bravo.
I salute you! Hail, brilliant barrister! That mighty intellectual feat
has been superceded only by your divination that "sociobiology and altruism
go hand in hand"!!! Ah, could you but enlighten us how! Or is that
too much to ask?
You probably have never read Dawkins (whom I recommended), but still, seeing
as you've demonstrated such intellectual puissance above, I kinda sorta
would have expected, at least, that you might get some hint from the
title of one of Dawkins's books I listed, "The Selfish Gene".
Roman Rozin
Mike Godwin
>In article <31...@ut-emx.UUCP> mnem...@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>Am I the only one to notice the irony of a Randian's recommending a
>>sociobiologist? Sociobiology and altruism go hand in hand.
>
>You have deduced that I am a "Randian" (whatever that means). Bravo.
>I salute you! Hail, brilliant barrister! That mighty intellectual feat
>has been superceded only by your divination that "sociobiology and altruism
>go hand in hand"!!! Ah, could you but enlighten us how! Or is that
>too much to ask?
First, I think you mean "superseded."
Secondly, I deduce your Randianism (you may prefer the word "Objectivism")
from several things:
a) Your defense of Rand's pseudophilosophy a while back.
b) Your parroting of certain ill-considered and illogical critiques of
Marxism (and overlooking of the well-considered and logical ones, I
should add).
c) The streak of bitterness in your posts, which seems to be of the
same intensity and illogic that one invariably finds in confirmed
Randians.
d) The overdone sarcasm, typically punctuated by exclamation points, that
Randians regard as biting wit. (See, e.g., the paragraph quoted above.)
e) The assumption that all who disagree are ignorant. (See the quoted
reference to Dawkins below.)
>You probably have never read Dawkins (whom I recommended), but still, seeing
>as you've demonstrated such intellectual puissance above, I kinda sorta
>would have expected, at least, that you might get some hint from the
>title of one of Dawkins's books I listed, "The Selfish Gene".
Apparently you misunderstand Dawkins, and sociobiology in general.
According to sociobiological theory, it is precisely because the gene
is "selfish" that human beings are often (and often unaccountably)
altruistic. Sociobiologists typically explain the altruistic impulse
in terms of promoting the preservation and reproduction of genes in
other individuals. But there's no Randian philosophy here; it's the
gene that's being "selfish" and not the individual.
Thus, the "selfish gene" may explain (and even justify, if you're so
inclined) such behavior as giving food and other aid to the poor and
risking death to save another's life (even if that other person is
not closely related).
To read THE SELFISH GENE as consistent with any philosophy of
*individual selfishness* is almost certainly to misread it. Rand
believes in the primacy of the individual; "selfish genes" simply
"use" such individuals as means to an end.
I have no idea what makes you think I "probably have never read
Dawkins," unless you think that lawyers and law students never read
anything but law, and have no background other than law. Or perhaps
you think along the lines of the typical Randian, which means, of course,
that I necessarily will have read more than you think I have, and I'll
necessarily be smarter than you assume me to be.
Francis Muir
Mike Godwin and Roman Rozin made interesting initial contributions to
the Gould/Dawkins thread. Why could they not leave it at that?
Philomath
UUCP: ...!decwrl!hanauma.stanford.edu!francis
INTERNET: fra...@hanauma.stanford.edu
If I'm not me, then who der hell am I?
Arnold, in Total Recall
Gordon E. Banks
>Am I the only one to notice the irony of a Randian's recommending a
>sociobiologist? Sociobiology and altruism go hand in hand.
>
Yes, but so does sociobiology and glorification of selfishness.
In fact, they seem to be saying that altruism is a form of selfishness.
Roman Rozin
>In article <78...@pitt.UUCP> ro...@speedy.cs.pitt.edu.UUCP (Roman Rozin) writes:
[ ... ]
>Secondly, I deduce your Randianism (you may prefer the word "Objectivism")
>from several things:
>a) Your defense of Rand's pseudophilosophy a while back.
The defense mostly consisted of a statement that to the best of my
knowledge, she has never misquoted anyone. I would be willing to make
the same statement about Kant, and Popper, and Koestler, etc. Does
that make me a Kantian, a Popperian and a Koestlerian, too?
>b) Your parroting of certain ill-considered and illogical critiques of
>Marxism (and overlooking of the well-considered and logical ones, I
>should add).
They were not critiques, they were criticisms (inversely, Kant's book
is "Critique of Pure Reason", and not Criticism).
If I recall correctly, your response to my initial posting in which
criticisms of Marx were presented, was something like:
"[ criticisms of Marx, many of them valid, deleted ]"
If they were ill-considered and illogical, why didn't you point it out
then? I could have overlooked some good ones, no doubt, and I would
be grateful if you would state what they are. Some of the criticisms
of Marx, which you say I parroted, I took from Jaspers - is he then, too,
to be considered a "Randian"?
>c) The streak of bitterness in your posts, which seems to be of the
>same intensity and illogic that one invariably finds in confirmed
>Randians.
I have followed with some interest your interchange with Mr. Raymond on
the sf group. Nothing I have ever posted approaches remotely the level
of bitterness therein.
[ ... ]
>According to sociobiological theory, it is precisely because the gene
>is "selfish" that human beings are often (and often unaccountably)
>altruistic.
Sociobiological theory is not restricted to human beings, and neither is
apparent altruism. Altruism is defined, in sociobiology, approximately,
as any action which confers an advantage on another at a cost to the actor.
"Unaccountably" means that it cannot be explained. Thus, you are saying that
sociobiological theory asserts the inexplicable behavior of human beings.
A correct version of the above statement would be, "... because the
gene is selfish that living organisms are often (apparently) altruistic."
See below for explanation of "apparently".
> Sociobiologists typically explain the altruistic impulse
>in terms of promoting the preservation and reproduction of genes in
>other individuals.
Altruistic behavior falls into several categories. Kin selected altruism,
in which genes make bodies act altruistically toward bearers of same genes.
(See the work of W.D. Hamilton on this).
Reciprocal altruism, in which altruistic acts are performed which
generally cost little to the actor, and confer a great benefit to the
recepient, and the expectation is that the recepient will, at the
appropriate time, reciprocate.
(See the work of R.D. Alexander on this, and on the evolution of cooperation).
Thus, altruistic actions are performed by selfish genes to promote the
preservation and reproduction of copies of themselves. Most often, it is
not inconsistent with individual selfishness (e.g., look out for yourself
first, then help your relatives and friends, who also help you). From
the point of view of the "selfish gene", while other people might have
copies of it (with different probabilities) its bearer definitely does,
therefore, in general, individual selfishness is to be expected.
To say that altruistic impulses are explained in sociobiology in terms
of promoting the preservation and reproduction of genes in other individuals,
without any special qualifications, is simply false.
> But there's no Randian philosophy here; it's the
>gene that's being "selfish" and not the individual.
I was not the one who brought Rand's philosophy into this.
>Thus, the "selfish gene" may explain (and even justify, if you're so
>inclined) such behavior as giving food and other aid to the poor and
>risking death to save another's life (even if that other person is
>not closely related).
How can it, without invoking the theory of reciprocal altruism?
What is the benefit to the selfish gene in promoting the survival and
reproduction of other genes (which may be promoting the survival and
reproduction of copies of themselves)? The only consequence is that
such a gene will become less and less frequent in the gene pool.
To give an example of individual selfishness, if you give food to others,
but others keep their food to themselves, the only consequence is that
you will starve.
>To read THE SELFISH GENE as consistent with any philosophy of
>*individual selfishness* is almost certainly to misread it.
It is certainly not consistent with any philosophy of
*individual indiscriminate altruism*.
>I have no idea what makes you think I "probably have never read
>Dawkins." unless you think that lawyers and law students never read
>anything but law, and have no background other than law. Or perhaps
>you think along the lines of the typical Randian, which means, of course,
>that I necessarily will have read more than you think I have, and I'll
>necessarily be smarter than you assume me to be.
In fact, from your previous postings, I am quite impressed with the
level of erudition you've displayed. However, your argument here
boils down to, "the only reason you think I haven't read Dawkins is that
either you think laweyers read nothing but law, or you are a typical
Randian".
But I clearly stated what makes me think that. Your statement that
sociobiology and altruism go hand in hand in the previous posting,
and the statements you made in this one (you also haven't stated that
you HAVE read him).
Roman Rozin
Mike Godwin
I can see how someone might say this, but the question is "Which entity
is being selfish?" If it's the gene, and the individual human being acts
altruistically because of the gene, that seems like self-sacrifice rather
than selfishness *on individual's part*. (This is especially true when
individuals reduce the chances of their own survival in order to help
others.)
Plus, there's something Orwellian about the notion of classifying
altruism as a form of selfishness--if the term "altruism" is to have
any independent meaning at all, it can't mean this.
Samuel Butler once said that "A hen is only an egg's way of making another
egg." If true, it doesn't follow from the fact the egg is acting selfishly
that the hen is as well.
Roman Rozin
>>Sociobiology and altruism go hand in hand.
>Yes, but so does sociobiology and glorification of selfishness.
>In fact, they seem to be saying that altruism is a form of selfishness.
Not at all. What sociobiologists are saying is that most apparent examples
of altruistic behavior of animals are not indiscriminate altruism. There
is a fascinating article in a recent Scientific American issue, about
altruism in vampire bats. Those who had a lot of blood to drink, regurgitate
some of it to those who didn't get any. Turns out that most of that was
between relatives.
Roman Rozin
Mike Godwin
In article <78...@pitt.UUCP> ro...@speedy.cs.pitt.edu.UUCP (Roman Rozin) writes:
>
>The defense mostly consisted of a statement that to the best of my
>knowledge, she has never misquoted anyone. I would be willing to make
>the same statement about Kant, and Popper, and Koestler, etc. Does
>that make me a Kantian, a Popperian and a Koestlerian, too?
If you're not a Randian, my mistake. I believe your defense was a
little more thoroughgoing than that, but never mind.
>>b) Your parroting of certain ill-considered and illogical critiques of
>>Marxism (and overlooking of the well-considered and logical ones, I
>>should add).
>
>They were not critiques, they were criticisms (inversely, Kant's book
>is "Critique of Pure Reason", and not Criticism).
You are correct to note that the terms "critique" and "criticism" are not
coterminous. I don't believe I misused the term "critique" in reference
to your lengthy criticism of Marx (which, as I recall, you did not
attribute to Jaspers at the time).
>If I recall correctly, your response to my initial posting in which
>criticisms of Marx were presented, was something like:
> "[ criticisms of Marx, many of them valid, deleted ]"
You recall incorrectly. I said much more than that. See below.
>If they were ill-considered and illogical, why didn't you point it out
>then? I could have overlooked some good ones, no doubt, and I would
>be grateful if you would state what they are. Some of the criticisms
>of Marx, which you say I parroted, I took from Jaspers - is he then, too,
>to be considered a "Randian"?
You may not recall now that I took you to task for saying that Marx is
not a "real philosopher" because his methods were unscientific. We exchanged
several posts on the subject of testibility in science versus testibility
in philosophy. My position was that it was a misapplication of Popper's
falsificationism to infer from Marx's failure to look for counterexamples
(instances of potential falsification) that Marx is therefore not a
"real philosopher."
Other readers will recall, even if you don't, that I took pains to
"point it out then."
>>c) The streak of bitterness in your posts, which seems to be of the
>>same intensity and illogic that one invariably finds in confirmed
>>Randians.
>
>I have followed with some interest your interchange with Mr. Raymond on
>the sf group. Nothing I have ever posted approaches remotely the level
>of bitterness therein.
I didn't say all bitter exchanges entail Randianism. Taken in itself,
a bitter exchange does not give rise to the inference. Taken with other
considerations, it does. You, for example, implied that I'm a Marxist,
for no reason at all so far as I can see. This nicely parallels Rand's
frequent denunciations of "collectivists," a term she applied loosely
to all who opposed her.
Your comment here also implies that I initiated a bitter exchange with
Raymond--I did not, although I confess to posting some bitter responses.
>Sociobiological theory is not restricted to human beings, and neither is
>apparent altruism. Altruism is defined, in sociobiology, approximately,
>as any action which confers an advantage on another at a cost to the actor.
>"Unaccountably" means that it cannot be explained. Thus, you are saying that
>sociobiological theory asserts the inexplicable behavior of human beings.
You have misread my comment here, in several respects. First, I did
not say sociobiology is restricted to human beings. E.O. Wilson's books
on the subject, however, were provocative and newsworthy because of their
sociobiological hypotheses about various kinds of human behavior. (Lest
I be misunderstood once more, note that I'm using "provocative" and
"newsworthy" in reference to the popular media, not in reference to a
particular academic field, where Wilson's work may have been provocative
for other reasons.)
Secondly, it is the definition of altruism you give here that I was using.
Third, "unaccountably" means, in the context in which I used it,
"unaccountably" with respect to biological theories other than sociobiology.
I am most assuredly NOT saying that "sociobiological theory asserts
the inexplicable behavior of human beings." In fact, I said that
sociobiology purports to explain OTHERWISE inexplicable behaviors of
human beings. (It also applies to other species as well, but I assumed that
as a Randian you had little interest in a discussion of the ethics of
ants. Of course, now that you're not a Randian, maybe you want to talk
about ants.)
>A correct version of the above statement would be, "... because the
>gene is selfish that living organisms are often (apparently) altruistic."
>See below for explanation of "apparently".
I probably shouldn't belabor the obvious, but seeing as how you misinterpreted
my previous comments, let me point out that the class "human beings" is a
subset of the class "living organisms." It is in this sense that I hold
that sociobiology purports to explain human behavior.
>Thus, altruistic actions are performed by selfish genes to promote the
>preservation and reproduction of copies of themselves.R
Here you make what Bertrand Russell might have called a category error.
Even the most selfish gene does not perform altruistic actions. Individuals
do. Thus, even though the gene is selfish, the individual may be acting
unselfishly. It is a common mistake (but one Dawkins does not make)
to conflate the notions of "selfish genes" and "selfish individuals."
>From
>the point of view of the "selfish gene", while other people might have
>copies of it (with different probabilities) its bearer definitely does,
>therefore, in general, individual selfishness is to be expected.
Indeed. But the *particular* "selfish gene" can't possibly be doing
itself any good when it motivates self-sacrifice in an individual of
breeding age who hasn't yet reproduced (or, for that matter, purely
selfish behavior in an individual PAST breeding age). It is precisely
these cases that make sociobiology particularly interesting in analyzing
human behavior and social relationships.
>To say that altruistic impulses are explained in sociobiology in terms
>of promoting the preservation and reproduction of genes in other individuals,
>without any special qualifications, is simply false.
No, it's simply general. I assumed, perhaps falsely, that you were familiar
with kin-selection models that purport to account for altruistic behavior
among relatively unrelated individuals. This is a particularly provocative
offshoot of sociobiology
According to such theories, we're arguably all related enought to rationalize
self-sacrifice in terms of the selfish gene.
>>Thus, the "selfish gene" may explain (and even justify, if you're so
>>inclined) such behavior as giving food and other aid to the poor and
>>risking death to save another's life (even if that other person is
>>not closely related).
>
>How can it, without invoking the theory of reciprocal altruism?
See above and below.
>What is the benefit to the selfish gene in promoting the survival and
>reproduction of other genes (which may be promoting the survival and
>reproduction of copies of themselves)?
One might ask how it benefits the selfish gene in a parent's protection
of offspring who may, thanks to the operation of mutation and the laws
of heredity, possess many genes that are different from the parent's
set. The answer is that the selfish gene deals in terms of probability:
it's likely that my offspring carry a large subset of my genes; it's
also likely that you, Roman, carry a smaller subset ... perhaps enough
to motivate me to save your life, should the occasion arise.
>The only consequence is that
>such a gene will become less and less frequent in the gene pool.
This is oversimplistic. As I point out above, it may well be that my
self-sacrifice to save another individual actually helps preserve my
genes in the gene pool, since it's likely that we have a large number of
genes in common.
>To give an example of individual selfishness, if you give food to others,
>but others keep their food to themselves, the only consequence is that
>you will starve.
Again, you apparently are unfamiliar with some broader kin-selection
models of altruism. I'd prefer to cite some sources, but I don't have
any at this cite.
>It is certainly not consistent with any philosophy of
>*individual indiscriminate altruism*.
It depends on what you mean by "indiscriminate." It probably isn't
consistent with interspecies altruism. (Which makes me wonder--would
Rand have condemned the dolphins who save drowning swimmers?)
>However, your argument here
>boils down to, "the only reason you think I haven't read Dawkins is that
>either you think laweyers read nothing but law, or you are a typical
>Randian".
>
>But I clearly stated what makes me think that.
Well, you also performed a little scherzo about my being a great
barrister and all that. Either that was a non sequitur, or it had
something to do with the conclusions you drew in your previous posting.
>Your statement that
>sociobiology and altruism go hand in hand in the previous posting,
>and the statements you made in this one (you also haven't stated that
>you HAVE read him).
Well, you also haven't stated that you're not a Randian, so I guess
we're even.
Mark Foskey
>Thus, the "selfish gene" may explain (and even justify, if you're so
>inclined) such behavior as giving food and other aid to the poor and
>risking death to save another's life (even if that other person is
>not closely related).
I am not so inclined, and this is a point I cannot resist making. It
is my firm belief that you should be altruistic. However, "should", at
least as I understand it, does not mean the same thing as either "would
find it in your best interests to" or "are probably programmed by your
genes to". In the sense that I used it and in which I believe it is
usually used, it carries with it the tacit assumption of the existence
of some external standard of right and wrong to which actions can be
compared. Whether or not such a standard exists, I think it is clear
from the sentences in which people use the word, and the way they get
indignant when others don't do what they "should", that most people are
assuming the existance of some such standard when they use "should" and
other similar words. And I think to use the word in another way is to
invite confusion.
Of course, you didn't use the word "should", Mike, you used the word
"justify", but it looks to me like you intended it in a normative
sense. However you also didn't say that you yourself wanted to justify
altruism by sociobiology.
But in case anyone else does, I point out that unless you believe that
your highest moral calling is just to do what your genes tell you to
do, sociobiology justifies nothing.
--
Mark Foskey mfo...@ucsd.edu Harvey Gantt for Senate!
Tom Maddox
>
>Why? I implied quite clearly (I thought) that Gould and Dawkins do
>NOT share the same viewpoints. I happen to find Dawkins's ideas more
>convincing, and that is why I recommended him.
Slippery devil, aren't you? Actually, you implied strongly that
Gould's ideas are controversial and not in tune with the mainstream in
neo-Darwinian theory while Dawkins's ideas are. As I said, this misrepresents
Gould badly.
Tom Maddox
>
>Mike Godwin and Roman Rozin made interesting initial contributions to
>the Gould/Dawkins thread. Why could they not leave it at that?
wish we could all be like you.
Or, failing that, like chuq or Peter da Silva.
What a wonderful world it would be!
Mike Godwin
>>Thus, the "selfish gene" may explain (and even justify, if you're so
>>inclined) such behavior as giving food and other aid to the poor and
>>risking death to save another's life (even if that other person is
>>not closely related).
>
>from the sentences in which people use the word, and the way they get
>indignant when others don't do what they "should", that most people are
>assuming the existance of some such standard when they use "should" and
>other similar words. And I think to use the word in another way is to
>invite confusion.
Perhaps. But that is a natural consequence of the established non-moral
denotations of the word "should." You may be stuck with this, Mark.
>Of course, you didn't use the word "should", Mike, you used the word
>"justify", but it looks to me like you intended it in a normative
>sense.
And so I did. Hence, its parenthetical distance from the word
"explain," for which "justify," in another sense, can be a synonym.
>However you also didn't say that you yourself wanted to justify
>altruism by sociobiology.
Quite right. I think sociobiology can never be taken as providing a
moral justification either for altruism or for selfishness.
>But in case anyone else does, I point out that unless you believe that
>your highest moral calling is just to do what your genes tell you to
>do, sociobiology justifies nothing.
Well said.
Roman Rozin
[ ... ]
> Slippery devil, aren't you? Actually, you implied strongly that
>Gould's ideas are controversial and not in tune with the mainstream in
>neo-Darwinian theory while Dawkins's ideas are. As I said, this misrepresents
>Gould badly.
I said that some, not all, of Gould's ideas are controversial and I gave
an example of one (punctuated equilibria). Other examples would be selection
pressures at or above group level, and "emergent" features of species.
The point is, not only are they controversial, but I find them unconvincing.
Roman Rozin
Roman Rozin
>>Thus, the "selfish gene" may explain (and even justify, if you're so
>>inclined) such behavior as giving food and other aid to the poor and
>>risking death to save another's life (even if that other person is
>>not closely related).
>
>I am not so inclined, and this is a point I cannot resist making. It
>is my firm belief that you should be altruistic.
The problem with unsupported belief is that you can believe absolutely
anything. You can say, it is my firm belief that you should be [altruistic,
masochistic, egoistic, hedonistic, nihilistic, etc] (choose any of the
above). Then you can invoke the existence of an external standard, which
is also a matter of belief, to justify that.
[ ... ]
>But in case anyone else does, I point out that unless you believe that
>your highest moral calling is just to do what your genes tell you to
>do, sociobiology justifies nothing.
Sociobiology, like other descriptive fields, does not attempt to justify
anything. It attempts to discover reasons for why things are the way they
are, not to tell how they should be and why. But, if one were looking
for justifications, one would do better to examine the facts, than to
grasp at belief, because to believe that your highest moral calling is to
do what your genes tell you to do is no different from believing that your
highest moral calling is to be altruistic. Both assertions are
unsubstantiated.
Roman Rozin
Roman Rozin
>In article <78...@pitt.UUCP> ro...@speedy.cs.pitt.edu.UUCP (Roman Rozin) writes:
[ ... ]
>>Thus, altruistic actions are performed by selfish genes to promote the
>>preservation and reproduction of copies of themselves.
>Here you make what Bertrand Russell might have called a category error.
>Even the most selfish gene does not perform altruistic actions. Individuals
>do. Thus, even though the gene is selfish, the individual may be acting
>unselfishly. It is a common mistake (but one Dawkins does not make)
>to conflate the notions of "selfish genes" and "selfish individuals."
While literally it is true that individuals perform actions, and not genes,
if one considers the behavior of the individual to be an extended phenotypic
effect of the gene, one may well speak of a gene "for" altruism, just like
one may speak of a gene "for" blue eyes. Thus, when I say above, actions
are performed by genes, the meaning is the same as if I had said, genes
exert extended phenotypic effects on individual behavior, whose consequences
are the actions performed by the individual. Just as if I had said, the
pilot flies, rather than saying the pilot makes the airplane fly. Obviously,
that analogy is more apt for lower animals.
>>From
>>the point of view of the "selfish gene", while other people might have
>>copies of it (with different probabilities) its bearer definitely does,
>>therefore, in general, individual selfishness is to be expected.
>Indeed. But the *particular* "selfish gene" can't possibly be doing
>itself any good when it motivates self-sacrifice in an individual of
>breeding age who hasn't yet reproduced (or, for that matter, purely
>selfish behavior in an individual PAST breeding age). It is precisely
>these cases that make sociobiology particularly interesting in analyzing
>human behavior and social relationships.
On the contrary. The particular selfish gene can be doing itself lots
of good. Do not forget that the phraseology "selfish" is just a convenient
anthropomorphism. If we translate it into respectable gene language,
a selfish gene is a gene which affects bodies it resides in in such
a way that the ultimate effect is a greater frequency of copies of itself
in the population. Thus, if a gene motivates self-sacrifice in an individual
of breeding age who hasn't yet reproduced, but only self-sacrifice which entails
saving, let us say, at least 10 full brothers like himself, then in fact,
such a gene will spread through the population, because the benefit resulting
from its actions will far outweigh the cost.
>No, it's simply general. I assumed, perhaps falsely, that you were familiar
>with kin-selection models that purport to account for altruistic behavior
>among relatively unrelated individuals. This is a particularly provocative
>offshoot of sociobiology
I have never heard of such kin-selection models, but I would doubt their
validity, for the reasons stated below (however, I'll try to look for
some references to such models).
>According to such theories, we're arguably all related enought to rationalize
>self-sacrifice in terms of the selfish gene.
The problem with that idea is that, while it is inarguably true that we have
lots and lots of genes in common (in fact, over 98% of genetic material of
man and chimpanzee is identical), the selfish gene does not justify such
behavior, for the simple reason that it does not care about all the genes
which are held in common, only about itself. The problem that the gene
faces, is of identifying, in other individuals, whether, among the myriad
genes that they hold, is a copy of itself, specifically (what has been
colorfully called the "green beard effect").
[ ... ]
>One might ask how it benefits the selfish gene in a parent's protection
>of offspring who may, thanks to the operation of mutation and the laws
>of heredity, possess many genes that are different from the parent's
>set. The answer is that the selfish gene deals in terms of probability:
>it's likely that my offspring carry a large subset of my genes; it's
>also likely that you, Roman, carry a smaller subset ... perhaps enough
>to motivate me to save your life, should the occasion arise.
It is exactly true that the selfish gene acts in terms of probability.
However, the moment you make the statement, "it's likely that my offspring
carry a large subset of my genes", you are no longer talking about gene
selection, but about individual selection, and individual selfishness. Such
is the traditional view, that an individual wishes to maximize the number of
his genes in the next generation. However, from the point of view of the
selfish gene, it couldn't care less about all the other genes.
The fact that other genes benefit from the care of a parent to its offspring,
for instance, is incidental to the action of the gene which makes the parent
care.
[ ... ]
>>It is certainly not consistent with any philosophy of
>>*individual indiscriminate altruism*.
>
>It depends on what you mean by "indiscriminate."
In the context I use it, you may substitute the word "random", in
the sense that the recepient of altruism is randomly chosen.
> It probably isn't
>consistent with interspecies altruism.
[ ... ]
On the other hand, if the model of "broad kin selection" were valid, see my
statement about chimpanzees above.
>>(you also haven't stated that
>>you HAVE read [Dawkins]).
>Well, you also haven't stated that you're not a Randian, so I guess
>we're even.
Touche!
Roman Rozin
Just another theatre geek...
>an example of one (punctuated equilibria). Other examples would be selection
>pressures at or above group level, and "emergent" features of species.
>The point is, not only are they controversial, but I find them unconvincing.
Feh.
Controversial to you, perhaps, but a leading hypothesis to people
who work in the field and a vigorous source and line of scientific
inquiry. This would hardly be "controversial" in paleontology.
--
Roger Tang
Protoyuppie Scum---and PROUD of it!!!
gwan...@blake.acs.washington.edu
Mike Godwin
>
>of Evolution Reconsidered", Paleobiology, 3, 115-151, 1977), in their
>discussion of punctuated equilibrium, invoke Marx and Engels as representatives
>of the tradition of rejecting the principle of continuity (which punctuated
>equilibrium of course does). Just as a guess (I've never examined that
>issue closely), I would say that many evolutionary theorists who support
>the ideas of group (or species) selection, are either Marxist, socialist,
>or have strong leftist leanings, because of the obvious connection between
>the implications of animals being biologically selected to act for the
>"good of the group", and the Marxist perspective on social organization.
>And on the other hand, if group selection is not a viable mechanism, that
>poses hazards to the Marxist world view.
>(Yes, I know, we are coming back to Marx. Sorry.)
My question is *Why* are we coming back to Marx?
Let's accept your "guess" for the sake of argument: what conceivable
scientific relevance does it have? As Popper and Kuhn, among others,
have pointed out, nonscientific premises or worldviews often give
rise to useful scientific hypotheses or explanatory principles.
So, one has to wonder why it is important to link the concepts of
group or species collection to Marxism? It obviously has nothing
to do with the merit of the theory itself, since the origin of
a theory is no measure of its validity (see Popper, CONJECTURES
AND REFUTATIONS).
Perhaps it has a rhetorical purpose? A less charitable person than
I might *insist* that you suggest a connection with Marxism in order
to undermine acceptance of the ideas of Gould, et al. Me, I'll only
wonder about it.
Just another theatre geek...
> Slippery devil, aren't you? Actually, you implied strongly that
> Gould's ideas are controversial and not in tune with the mainstream in
> neo-Darwinian theory while Dawkins's ideas are. As I said, this misrepresents
> Gould badly.
> I said that some, not all, of Gould's ideas are controversial and I gave
> an example of one (punctuated equilibria). Other examples would be selection
> pressures at or above group level, and "emergent" features of species.
> The point is, not only are they controversial, but I find them unconvincing.
> Feh.
> Controversial to you, perhaps, but a leading hypothesis to people
> who work in the field and a vigorous source and line of scientific
> inquiry. This would hardly be "controversial" in paleontology.
>neodarwinian theory (the Modern Synthesis of Simpson, Mayr, Dobzhansky, etc).
>In fact, Gould himself implies that his ideas are not in tune with the
>mainstream neodarwinian theory. In the article, "Is a New and General
>Theory of Evolution Emerging" (Paleobiology 6, 119-130, 1980), he states
>that the neodarwinian paradigm is, "effectively dead" (that's a pretty
>strong implication).
Fehh, again. You overexaggerate. The only implication here is that
we have a competing paradigm to explain some discrepancies in the data.
It's overstating the case to say this is controversial;certainly none of
the paleoscientists I worked with would call his work either controversial
or out of the "mainstream." The strongest word they would use would
be interesting.
>The major claim made by Gould (and other challengers of neodarwinism - e.g.,
>Eldredge, Stanley, Vrba) is that Macroevolution is a force different from
>Microevolution and therefore it must be taken into account. The concepts
>he (and others) propose are: punctuated equilibrium, selection on the level
>of the species, mass extinctions, and biotic diversification in the
>Phanerozoic. (Almost by definition, if he is challenging the accepted
>paradigm, his ideas are controversial. If they ever become the prevailing
>orthodoxy, they will no longer be controversial, but I doubt that it will
>happen, beause I consider his ideas to be false).
Hmph. I think you need to clarify what you mean by your assertion
that Gould et al considers macroevolution and microevolution to be distinct.
I think you mean something different than, say, what Creationists mean by
differentiating the two. I don't know of any structures within the organism
'that would differentiate between the two; in fact, there is no difference
in the biological mechanisms. The difference lies in isolated environments
and the "microevolution" to meet the changes in these isolated areas. I
don't see necessarily that Gould et al make this distinction (but then again,
I was just a poor geophysicist........).
At any rate, I think you overstate this competition of paradigms and
hardly give Eldredge and Gould enough credit.
>By the way, Gould and Eldredge (Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode
>of Evolution Reconsidered", Paleobiology, 3, 115-151, 1977), in their
>discussion of punctuated equilibrium, invoke Marx and Engels as representatives
>of the tradition of rejecting the principle of continuity (which punctuated
>equilibrium of course does). Just as a guess (I've never examined that
>issue closely), I would say that many evolutionary theorists who support
>the ideas of group (or species) selection, are either Marxist, socialist,
>or have strong leftist leanings, because of the obvious connection between
>the implications of animals being biologically selected to act for the
>"good of the group", and the Marxist perspective on social organization.
>And on the other hand, if group selection is not a viable mechanism, that
>poses hazards to the Marxist world view.
>(Yes, I know, we are coming back to Marx. Sorry.)
You guess quite, quite wrongly. Take a glance at talk.origins (where
I've cross-posted this as a more appropriate group) and I think you'll
see this is a serious bias in your own assumptions.
>That is not to say that Gould has not done important work in paleontology.
>He has. It's just that his challenges of the neodarwinian paradigm are
>plain wrong.
Please elucidate. Expound. I've cross-posted to the appropriate
group (where I feel this is a far more intelligent and potentially
fascinating question than the usual rounds of crank bashing). Tell me
why. I might learn something.
Mike Godwin
>In article <31...@ut-emx.UUCP> mnem...@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>>Here you make what Bertrand Russell might have called a category error.
>>Even the most selfish gene does not perform altruistic actions. Individuals
>>do. Thus, even though the gene is selfish, the individual may be acting
>>unselfishly. It is a common mistake (but one Dawkins does not make)
>>to conflate the notions of "selfish genes" and "selfish individuals."
>
>While literally it is true that individuals perform actions, and not genes,
>if one considers the behavior of the individual to be an extended phenotypic
>effect of the gene, one may well speak of a gene "for" altruism, just like
>one may speak of a gene "for" blue eyes.
I was unaware that "selfish gene" models entailed the positing of
an actual gene for altruism. But even if we do posit such a gene, it
would not make the phenotypic expression of that gene "selfish"
*in reference to the individual*.
Or, to put it another way, if, as Samuel Butler says, the hen is just
the egg's way of making another egg, it does not follow from the egg's
selfishness that the hen is selfish.
And, to put it in human terms, it does not follow from our possession of
selfish genes that human beings are essentially selfish, or are best off
if they act selfishly. Indeed, my original point was that the "selfish
gene" model is rather inconsistent with selfishness on the individual
level.
>>Indeed. But the *particular* "selfish gene" can't possibly be doing
>>itself any good when it motivates self-sacrifice in an individual of
>>breeding age who hasn't yet reproduced (or, for that matter, purely
>>selfish behavior in an individual PAST breeding age). It is precisely
>>these cases that make sociobiology particularly interesting in analyzing
>>human behavior and social relationships.
>
>On the contrary. The particular selfish gene can be doing itself lots
>of good. Do not forget that the phraseology "selfish" is just a convenient
>anthropomorphism. If we translate it into respectable gene language,
>a selfish gene is a gene which affects bodies it resides in in such
>a way that the ultimate effect is a greater frequency of copies of itself
>in the population. Thus, if a gene motivates self-sacrifice in an individual
>of breeding age who hasn't yet reproduced, but only self-sacrifice which entails
>saving, let us say, at least 10 full brothers like himself, then in fact,
>such a gene will spread through the population, because the benefit resulting
>from its actions will far outweigh the cost.
Right. But you forgot what I was responding to--namely, your pointing out
the following:
From
the point of view of the "selfish gene", while other people might have
copies of it (with different probabilities) its bearer definitely does,
therefore, in general, individual selfishness is to be expected.
Since you were talking about selfishness in "its bearer," I addressed that
point specifically. The rest of my postings should make it manifest that
I understand the probabilistic rationale of kin-selection models. But
your comment *here* related to selfishness in individuals, not kin-selection
altruism directed toward "other people."
By trying to respond to me point by point, you're overlooking the contexts
in which I said different things.
>>According to such theories, we're arguably all related enought to rationalize
>>self-sacrifice in terms of the selfish gene.
>
>The problem with that idea is that, while it is inarguably true that we have
>lots and lots of genes in common (in fact, over 98% of genetic material of
>man and chimpanzee is identical), the selfish gene does not justify such
>behavior, for the simple reason that it does not care about all the genes
>which are held in common, only about itself.
Right. But if the gene is motivating altruistic behavior, it cannot "know"
whether the other people being helped carry copies of itself or not.
Ergo, the probabilistic strategy may be the most effective that the gene
can "hope" to find.
>The problem that the gene
>faces, is of identifying, in other individuals, whether, among the myriad
>genes that they hold, is a copy of itself, specifically (what has been
>colorfully called the "green beard effect").
Right. And it's a probably an irresolvable problem, given that genes
are not self-conscious and cannot formulate identification strategies.
>>One might ask how it benefits the selfish gene in a parent's protection
>>of offspring who may, thanks to the operation of mutation and the laws
>>of heredity, possess many genes that are different from the parent's
>>set. The answer is that the selfish gene deals in terms of probability:
>>it's likely that my offspring carry a large subset of my genes; it's
>>also likely that you, Roman, carry a smaller subset ... perhaps enough
>>to motivate me to save your life, should the occasion arise.
>
>It is exactly true that the selfish gene acts in terms of probability.
>However, the moment you make the statement, "it's likely that my offspring
>carry a large subset of my genes", you are no longer talking about gene
>selection, but about individual selection, and individual selfishness.
I certainly didn't mean to be. I meant to be referring to the fact
that, since my offspring carry only a subset of my genes, the probability
of my offspring's carrying the particular gene that's being "selfish"
is less than one. Significantly less. Posit more than one "selfish" gene,
however, the likelihood of kin-selection altruism increases, toward
offspring, toward members of the same group, and toward other people in
general.
>> It probably isn't
>>consistent with interspecies altruism.
>
>On the other hand, if the model of "broad kin selection" were valid, see my
>statement about chimpanzees above.
Right. I should have said "It probably isn't consistent with *most*
interspecies altruism."
Roman Rozin
Tom Maddox writes:
Slippery devil, aren't you? Actually, you implied strongly that
Gould's ideas are controversial and not in tune with the mainstream in
neo-Darwinian theory while Dawkins's ideas are. As I said, this misrepresents
Gould badly.
I write:
I said that some, not all, of Gould's ideas are controversial and I gave
an example of one (punctuated equilibria). Other examples would be selection
pressures at or above group level, and "emergent" features of species.
The point is, not only are they controversial, but I find them unconvincing.
Roger Tang writes:
Feh.
Controversial to you, perhaps, but a leading hypothesis to people
who work in the field and a vigorous source and line of scientific
inquiry. This would hardly be "controversial" in paleontology.
Not only controversial to me, but controversial in light of the
neodarwinian theory (the Modern Synthesis of Simpson, Mayr, Dobzhansky, etc).
In fact, Gould himself implies that his ideas are not in tune with the
mainstream neodarwinian theory. In the article, "Is a New and General
Theory of Evolution Emerging" (Paleobiology 6, 119-130, 1980), he states
that the neodarwinian paradigm is, "effectively dead" (that's a pretty
strong implication).
The major claim made by Gould (and other challengers of neodarwinism - e.g.,
Eldredge, Stanley, Vrba) is that Macroevolution is a force different from
Microevolution and therefore it must be taken into account. The concepts
he (and others) propose are: punctuated equilibrium, selection on the level
of the species, mass extinctions, and biotic diversification in the
Phanerozoic. (Almost by definition, if he is challenging the accepted
paradigm, his ideas are controversial. If they ever become the prevailing
orthodoxy, they will no longer be controversial, but I doubt that it will
happen, beause I consider his ideas to be false).
By the way, Gould and Eldredge (Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode
of Evolution Reconsidered", Paleobiology, 3, 115-151, 1977), in their
discussion of punctuated equilibrium, invoke Marx and Engels as representatives
of the tradition of rejecting the principle of continuity (which punctuated
equilibrium of course does). Just as a guess (I've never examined that
issue closely), I would say that many evolutionary theorists who support
the ideas of group (or species) selection, are either Marxist, socialist,
or have strong leftist leanings, because of the obvious connection between
the implications of animals being biologically selected to act for the
"good of the group", and the Marxist perspective on social organization.
And on the other hand, if group selection is not a viable mechanism, that
poses hazards to the Marxist world view.
(Yes, I know, we are coming back to Marx. Sorry.)
That is not to say that Gould has not done important work in paleontology.
He has. It's just that his challenges of the neodarwinian paradigm are
plain wrong.
Roman Rozin
Paul W Romaine
>A couple of lists of "great" books have included works like Newton's
>_Optics_ and Adam Smith's _Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
>Wealth of Nations_. [....]
>
>I've never read _Wealth of Nations_, but one biographer I've read
>said the book was incredibly boring. Smith was an economist, not a
>writer.
There are a number of abridged versions of _Wealth of Nations_. Smith
wasn't an economist in our sense of the word. Heck, it was the 18th
Century that he wrote, 1776.
>In short, I think we need two categories of Great Books--one containing
>books which introduced earth-shaking ideas, and one containing books
>which are simply great to read.
Along the same lines, there's a book called *Printing and the Mind of
Man*, an exhibit in England (originally in the 1950s) of seminal books
in the history of civilization (East and West -- although the 1st
Edition emphasized West). I'm afraid I don't have a date. Many of
the books, you'd never heard of, many you'd never want to read, very
few of them were "literary." Still, an interesting book on books.
Paul Romaine p...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
Columbia University
School of Library Service
Roman Rozin
>In article <78...@pitt.UUCP> ro...@speedy.cs.pitt.edu.UUCP (Roman Rozin) writes:
>>In article <31...@ut-emx.UUCP> mnem...@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>
[ ... ]
>>The problem that the gene
>>faces, is of identifying, in other individuals, whether, among the myriad
>>genes that they hold, is a copy of itself, specifically (what has been
>>colorfully called the "green beard effect").
>
>Right. And it's a probably an irresolvable problem, given that genes
>are not self-conscious and cannot formulate identification strategies.
You are right, it probably is an irresolvable problem, at least in the
absolute sense (eventually, you have to go back to probabilities). However,
the is no need to posit self-consciousness. Let me be a little more
explicit about the "green beard effect". An example of it is a gene which
makes its possessor have a green beard AND behave altruistically towards
others who have a green beard. In other words, the gene is advertising its
presence. It probably could never work in such an explicit situation,
or if it did arise, it would not be stable, because such a strategy would be
open to invasion by mimics (other genes which make their possessors have
green beards, but which DON'T behave altruistically to other wearers of
green beards).
Another example of an unstable situation is of an altruistic population.
Assume that there is a group (never mind how it came into existence) all of
whose members, while not kin, behave altruistically to one another.
Everything is fine and dandy until a mutation comes along, which makes
its possessor to not behave altruistically. That mutation will spread
through the population like wildfire (for obvious reasons). That is the
reason that pure altruism can't work (and neither can pure individual
selfishness - it is not an evolutionarily stable strategy, because it can
be invaded by a better one, namely, TIT for TAT).
(Evolutionarily stable strategies are strategies which, when in the majority,
cannot be invaded by any others. I don't have the exact referece, but
it is something like, John Maynard Smith, Journal of Theoretical Biology,
circa 1978?, ESS and the Theory of Games).
[ ... ]
> Posit more than one "selfish" gene,
>however, the likelihood of kin-selection altruism increases, toward
>offspring, toward members of the same group, and toward other people in
>general.
All genes are "selfish" in the sense that they do X in order to increase
their freqency in the gene pool (whether X is kin altruism, or sharp
eyes, etc). I think you mean specifically "altruistic" genes.
Generally, one posits one gene "for" a particular behavior, just like
a gene "for blue eyes". It is not that one gene makes blue eyes, far from
it, lots and lots of genes are involved. However, the gene "for" blue eyes
is one whose absence would cause an animal to have, say, brown eyes. Same
with behavior. But even if we posit many such "altruistic" genes, we will
not have indiscriminate altruism (for reasons, see above).
Roman Rozin
Darren S. Bush
> Feh.
> Fehh, again.
> Hmph.
So Roger, how's the cold? :-)
Darren S. Bush "If you keep your money in your
U. Rahchesta shoes, people will know which
Disclaimer: Yeah, sure. bills are yours."
Darren:George::Karl:Groucho -David Byrne
Mike Godwin
>
>Another example of an unstable situation is of an altruistic population.
>Assume that there is a group (never mind how it came into existence) all of
>whose members, while not kin, behave altruistically to one another.
>Everything is fine and dandy until a mutation comes along, which makes
>its possessor to not behave altruistically. That mutation will spread
>through the population like wildfire (for obvious reasons).
The hidden assumption here is that nonaltruistic behaviors would lead
to greater reproductive fitness in a predominantly altruistic population.
I suspect, however, that the Mafioso mutation that appears in a
Quaker population will find it difficult to mate.
Or, to put it in blunter terms, it doesn't matter how ruthless you
are if no one wants to sleep with you. (I'm speaking from an
evolutionary standpoint, of course.)
Given that the human species' survival strategy is essentially
social--that society is the organism by which we ensure our
reproduction--it seems arguable that altruism, in human beings at
least, is of greater survival value than selfishness is.
>All genes are "selfish" in the sense that they do X in order to increase
>their freqency in the gene pool (whether X is kin altruism, or sharp
>eyes, etc). I think you mean specifically "altruistic" genes.
I disagree. It seems apparent that many genes (e.g., green eyes, or
red hair) don't do anything to increase their frequency in the gene
pool. And, as my genetics prof used to stress, assume a stable environment
and you won't see overall gene frequencies change.
--Mike
Mike Godwin, UT Law School |"No interest is good unless it must vest,
Just another bar-exam nerd | if it all, not later than 21 years after
mnem...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | some life in being at the interest's
(512) 346-4190 | creation."
Dave Alexander
In article <78...@pitt.UUCP>
ro...@speedy.cs.pitt.edu.UUCP (Roman Rozin) writes:
> Thus, when I say above, actions are performed by genes, the
> meaning is the same as if I had said, genes exert extended
> phenotypic effects on individual behavior, whose consequences
> are the actions performed by the individual. Just as if I
> had said, the pilot flies, rather than saying the pilot makes
> the airplane fly.
This is still a category error and an inappropriate analogy
won't help it.
The problem with the analogy is that if the plane crashes the
plane is destroyed *and* the pilot dies(*). Their fates are
inextricably linked.
When an individual dies, the gene lives on. Their fates are
usually not linked at all.
That is why it is important to consider the gene and the
individual separately when deciding what is altruism and
what is selfishness.
If you can come up with an explanation of how pilots deliberately
crashing planes from time to time ought to lead to a high level
of air traffic for the model that they're flying, *then* you'll
have a useful analogy.
Good luck!
-- Dave Alexander
(*) Unless time travelers from Earth's future arrive aboard
the plane just in time, transporting the pilot to the future
and leaving a pre-charred body with approximately the right
height, weight, and airline uniform in the cockpit. In *that*
case, of course, things are quite different.
--
"When I was a little boy in Baltimore in 1954, I wanted
to be a juvenile delinquent when I grew up."
-- John Waters
Roman Rozin
[ ... ]
> It is a common mistake (but one Dawkins does not make)
>to conflate the notions of "selfish genes" and "selfish individuals."
While these notions are separate, still the former frequently implies the
latter. Here's what Dawkins says about that: (The Selfish Gene, page 3)
Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society
in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly
towards a common good, you can expect little help from
biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and
altruism, because we are born selfish.
Roman Rozin
Mike Godwin
I see that I misremembered Dawkins. Apparently, conflating the two notions
is indeed a mistake he makes, at least in his introduction.
It is still a category error to suppose that "selfish" genes entail
selfishness in individuals. As Wilson, among others, has observed,
they may entail just the opposite.
--Mike
Roman Rozin
>>Another example of an unstable situation is of an altruistic population.
[ ... ]
>The hidden assumption here is that nonaltruistic behaviors would lead
>to greater reproductive fitness in a predominantly altruistic population.
>I suspect, however, that the Mafioso mutation that appears in a
>Quaker population will find it difficult to mate.
Ah, yes, but that Quaker population is not purely (indiscriminately) altruist.
I.e., the (not so hidden) assumption in my posting was that in an altruistic
population, members behaved altruistically towards others without regard for
reciprocity (otherwise we would have an example of reciprocal altruism, which,
as I've said before, is more stable than pure selfishness).
I think that you can easily convince yourself that a selfish individual
in a population of indiscriminate altruists will have a (much) greater
average fitness.
[ ... ]
> [I]t seems arguable that altruism, in human beings at
>least, is of greater survival value than selfishness is.
Reciprocal altruism, yes. Kin-selected altruism, yes. Indiscriminate
altruism, no. In fact, I would say that most human societies do exibit
the former two kinds of altruism to a significant degree. However, there
is no society (human or otherwise) I know of in which members live in a
purely altruist environment (nor a purely selfish one).
>>All genes are "selfish" in the sense that they do X in order to increase
>>their freqency in the gene pool
[ ... ]
>I disagree. It seems apparent that many genes (e.g., green eyes, or
>red hair) don't do anything to increase their frequency in the gene [pool.]
Sorry. Let me amend the statement above to, "all genes which are visible to
selection pressures are selfish". It is rash to assume, however, that genes
for green eyes, for example, don't do anything to increase their frequency in
the gene pool. Perhaps green eyes are especially appealing to members of the
opposite sex, or there is a negative correlation between green eyes and
cataracts, or whatever. On the other hand, maybe they really have no effect,
in which case they are getting a free ride, so to speak. On the other hand,
if an alternative arose, say blue eyes, for example, which members of the
opposite sex found more appealing, then green eyes would diminish in
frequency.
But I agree with the gist of your statement. In fact, around 1969 or so,
such a theory was proposed independently by Kimura, and by King and Jukes.
It was called the neutral theory of evolution, and it stated that much,
perhaps most genetic change is invisible to selection pressures.
> And, as my genetics prof used to stress, assume a stable environment
>and you won't see overall gene frequencies change.
Absolutely true, and there are many organisms which have stayed
practically unchanged for many millions of years.
But part of the environment of any organism are other organisms, both of its
own and of other species. That is the point of the "red queen hypothesis" -
you have to keep running just to stay in one place. The environment may
be stable, but, for example, cheetas and gizelles, over evolutionary time,
will both keep getting faster (until some physical/energetic limits/tradeoffs
are reached).
Roman Rozin
Gordon E. Banks
Not at all? If giving the blood to your relatives isn't a form of
selfishness, then what is it? Your example merely emphasizes my
argument further! The relatives carry the same genes are you, thus
you are (in an evolutionary sense) ensuring that your genes survive,
even if not in your direct decendants.
Roman Rozin
>> [ 1. Gould and Eldredge invoke Marx and Engels.]
>> [ 2. Relationship between marxism and proponents of group selection. ]
>My question is *Why* are we coming back to Marx?
> [ Point 2. has no conceivable scientific relevance. ]
> [ Point 2. has nothing do to with merits of the theory of group selection. ]
>Perhaps it has a rhetorical purpose? A less charitable person than
>I might *insist* that you suggest a connection with Marxism in order
>to undermine acceptance of the ideas of Gould, et al. Me, I'll only
>wonder about it.
I appreciate your magnanimity in not imputing to me such base motives.
Suggesting a connection with marxism might undermine the acceptance of the ideas
of Gould only if most people on the net despised marxism, and, while it is
true for me, it is not necessarily true of the rest. Second, Gould's ideas
will stand or fall on their own scientific merit.
There are several reasons why I mentioned Marx.
First, because I find it surprising that eminent scientists (such as Gould)
would invoke one who is, from a scientific standpoint, a charlatan (and in
a scientific, not a philosophical publication).
Second, I find an ironic parallel here. Marx fancied that his discovery
of the laws of history (class struggle, etc) was analogous to Darwin's
ideas. Therefore, he wrote to Darwin, asking if he could dedicate to
him chapters 12 and 13 of The Capital. Darwin declined. A century later,
attackers of neodarwinism invoke Marx.
Third, the postulated relation between marxism and group selection does
not directly relate to Gould as such, because referring to Marx does not,
of itself, make him a marxist.
While I absolutely agree that neither the provenance of a theory, nor its
proponents reflect in the least on its validity, the point I wanted to make
is that ideological (political) motivation in scientists is generally dangerous
and suspect (such as, for instance, the race theories of Aryan "science",
or Lysenkoism, etc).
Roman Rozin
Jeff Dalton
>je...@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>It is simply false that The M of V has been very strongly involved
>>in probably every serious conversation.
>
>Uh, true. But then nobody has said otherwise.
>
>Read what it was I *did* say.
I hope you don't want to argue about what "it" referred to in your
posting. I think it would be a lot clearer, and more interesting to
other readers, if you tried to offer an explanation instead of repeating
"read what I said", "read what I said". Of course, maybe you'd
rather just feel superior.
Indeed, I *did* read what you said, several times.
But anyway, Jack Campin wrote:
Probably all American and British kids read some Shakespeare. I
see no evidence that this commonality does anything particularly
beneficial in either culture. When did you last start a
conversation about "The Merchant of Venice" in a supermarket queue?
And you replied:
The answer, I would say, is that it has been very strongly involved
in probably every serious conversation that I or you --or anyone
else on this net-- has every had in his or her life.
Wether "it" refers to the M of V, to reading Shakespeare or to
"this commonality", I would still say it is false, etc. After
that, I was just speculating about why you might have thought
this false statement was true.
>>...(On the other hand, I don't see why something has to
>>feature in conversations in supermarket queues to be worth reading.)
>
>Um, I trust you will forgive me, but you do tend towards literal-
>mindedness, don't you. Again read what was actually said (with an eye
>towards the underlying point).
Why are *you* reading so literally? I don't think you or I or Jack
Campin really think that what matters is what's read in supermarket
queues.
Like you, I disagree with Jack Campin on this point, but (presumably)
for a different reason. I don't think doing something beneficicial
or making a difference to everyday life (or whatever we take the
supermarket example to be about) is all that significant.
--
Jeff Dalton
>>However, I think we should be careful about claims that classics are
>>better than other books if the people making them can't produce any
>>properties, let alone desirable properties, that distinguish classics
>>from other books and aren't along the lines of "usually regarded as a
>>classic".
>Well, I'll propose a tentative list and see what kinds of additions and
>criticisms it elicits:
>1. They use their language well. [...]
>2. They contain good ideas. Or perhaps merely important ones.
>3. They observe human nature with exceptional understanding.
There are non-classics that do this, and (I would say) there are
classics that don't don't do it as well.
I have nothing against books that have the properties you list.
However, even if we suppose that all classics have them, I don't
think that means people should read classics in preference to other
things. This doesn't mean no one should ever read any classic,
or anything like that.
What I want you to do is to question the assumption that "classics"
have these desirable properties and look at the books themselves.
This is because classics might not have these properties and because
focusing on the classics may cause you to overlook other books that
do. It may also cause you to overlook other desirable properites
that are not likely to come to mind when thinking "classic" or
that are best discovered by reading non-classics.
>>>It is a fact that _Hamlet_ is a classic.
>
>I can't decide whether to retract that or not. I had added the caveat
>"At least in some senses of the word 'classic'," (at least I think I
>had), and with that caveat I think I can stand by my claim. In the
>header "Why read the classics", I think most people take the object of
>the verb to be the set of books most frequently taught or taught about
>in literature and humanities classes, and perhaps philosophy classes as
>well; and _Hamlet_ is about as solidly in that list as you could want.
Ok, I agree that it's a classic in that sense. But whatever process
led to this list did not necessarily select the best books. Perhaps
better books were forgotten or are too new.
>And finally, Jeff, I'm not really that surprised that you've read and
>agreed with some of _W,F&DT_, given how you took my responses to what
>you said. I didn't mention it by way of "You'd agree with me if only
>you'd read this amazing book that clears everything up."
No problem. Didn't think you had.
-- Jeff