Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!columbia!topaz!chen
From: chen@mitre-gateway.arpa
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: re:  critics
Message-ID: <3633@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 15:07:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3633
Posted: Thu Sep 12 15:07:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 09:54:27 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 61

From: Ray Chen (MS W420) <chen@mitre-gateway.arpa>


From: proper!judith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Judith Abrahms)
Subject: Re: critics
Date: 3 Sep 85 12:57:57 GMT

brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) writes:

>>It is my considered (and I do mean considered) opinion (and I do
>>mean opinion) that to be great art a book must be, first of all, a
>>good read.  If something is sufficiantly inaccessible that it
>>cannot be read for fun, it fails as art because it will only speak
>>to that small segment of the population that is already prepared to
>>listen; its exploration of (if I may) the human condition is wasted
>>on those who could otherwise get the most out of it....

and proper!judith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Judith Abrahms) responds:

>Do you mean that if a large no. of people can't understand it, it
>can't be great art?  And if you have to work to understand it,
>ditto?

Judith and others,

An old English teacher of mine once gave me a prerequisite
for classic literature.

Basically, a classic piece of literature should be able to be
read at many different levels.  It should be like an onion with
many different layers (but no bad spots).  You should be
able to read it for fun and enjoy it one time and be able
to read it for something deeper some other time and enjoy it as well.
When reading a classic piece of literature, you should get out
of it what you put into it.  There should be deep and profound
ideas, conflicts, etc. in the novel for those who are willing
and able to look for them.  Yet, there should also be
something for those who only want solid entertainment.

Shakespeare, for example, in his time was a very popular playwright,
and not because his plays were thought to be that good or profound.
(In fact, a lot of people looked down him and his work.)  He was
well liked because his plays were FUN.  There were sexual innuendos,
puns galore, and slapstick humor throughout all his plays.  They
just don't appear that obvious to us now, because we don't know
Elizabethan slang.

Homer's epic poems, too were passed down orally long before they
were ever written down.  Somehow, I doubt that generations of
Greek tribesmen memorized them because they were "Art".  They
memorized them because they appealed to people at many different
levels.

I don't think that being a good read automatically makes a book a
literature.   There are a lot of books out there that are fun, but
don't have the content to be considered literature or art.

However, I do think that literature should be a good read.  

	Ray Chen
	chen@mitre-gw


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com