Literature class books that you enjoyed aned did not enjoy

[Metamorphosis]

I guess it is just a matter of opinion and perception. In my book, if it is fiction and it isn't entertaining, then it is worthless.

 

[wildcat]

I guess it is just a matter of opinion and perception. In my book, if it is fiction and it isn't entertaining, then it is worthless.

That is what my INTJ father would have said. My mother used to read different kind of books, though. She read Nancy Mitford, Muriel Spark, Jane Austin, Carson mcCullers, P.G. Wodehouse.. all kinds of great art.

 

[miss fortune]

I never had much patience with reading entire books and always prefered short stories and non-fiction that applied to topics that interested me. I especially hated The Scarlet Letter (for goodness sake- she thought her husband was dead and the minister wasn't married- I don't see that she did anything wrong! I didn't finish reading it).

 

[wildcat]

I never had much patience with reading entire books and always prefered short stories and non-fiction that applied to topics that interested me. I especially hated The Scarlet Letter (for goodness sake- she thought her husband was dead and the minister wasn't married- I don't see that she did anything wrong! I didn't finish reading it).

Scarlet Letter sounds good. Like Blue Velvet. Very romantic.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Not to tread into a somewhat parallel conversation, but works of literature, like works of art, are always open to subjective interpretation and are appreciated in different ways by different people. Robert Frost lamented that The Road Not Taken is often mis-interpreted....but we all interpret what we experience through our own life experience prisms

Now this is something to chew on. We tackled this topic in a great class I took called The Philosophy of Art. I spent the whole semester (unsuccessfully) trying to convince the class that the only valid interpretation of a work is the one that matches the artist's intent. I argued that anything else is drawn from false assumptions or amateur psychoanalysis. I tend to sympathize with Frost.

 

[Vortex]

The moment the artist releases his work, he writes off his right to have the only valid interpretation of it.

Every opinion and interpretation hereafter is valid. In a sense, when work leaves the artist's hand, the artist is "dead". It doesn't matter what he thinks about is own piece or how he interprets it, he might not even know the truth anymore.

 

[Ivy]

Now this is something to chew on. We tackled this topic in a great class I took called The Philosophy of Art. I spent the whole semester (unsuccessfully) trying to convince the class that the only valid interpretation of a work is the one that matches the artist's intent. I argued that anything else is drawn from false assumptions or amateur psychoanalysis. I tend to sympathize with Frost.

In a sense I agree with you, but I'm not entirely convinced that even artists are consciously aware of all of their intents. It's unnecessarily limiting to only look at the artist or author's stated intents. Having said that, it's definitely important to recognize that anything we come up with beyond the artist or author's own stated intent is conjecture.

 

[wildcat]

Now this is something to chew on. We tackled this topic in a great class I took called The Philosophy of Art. I spent the whole semester (unsuccessfully) trying to convince the class that the only valid interpretation of a work is the one that matches the artist's intent. I argued that anything else is drawn from false assumptions or amateur psychoanalysis. I tend to sympathize with Frost.

You do not get it, do you?

If you are right you do not convince.

 

[Ms. M]

Now this is something to chew on. We tackled this topic in a great class I took called The Philosophy of Art. I spent the whole semester (unsuccessfully) trying to convince the class that the only valid interpretation of a work is the one that matches the artist's intent. I argued that anything else is drawn from false assumptions or amateur psychoanalysis. I tend to sympathize with Frost.

Though not related to literature, I'm curious to see if you believe this extends to law as well. I've been fortunate enough to meet several US Supreme Court Justices, and one of them (Scalia) makes a similar argument for the U.S. Constitution. He rejects the "living Constitution" rationale for framer intent at the time of ratification. For example, the death penalty was permissible in 1789, so it cannot be considered cruel and unusual punishment because it wasn't then. He sees everything in Constitutional Law as if it was frozen in time in 1789 (or the date of the ratification of the Amendments).

I agree with you that the artist's intent is of course relevant, but I disagree that it is the only valid interpretation. For example, a photograph of the Twin Towers taken in 1980 has a much different meaning now to the viewer than the original intent. History, personal and otherwise, changes the way everything is viewed.

 

[Metamorphosis]

Though not related to literature, I'm curious to see if you believe this extends to law as well. I've been fortunate enough to meet several US Supreme Court Justices, and one of them (Scalia) makes a similar argument for the U.S. Constitution. He rejects the "living Constitution" rationale for framer intent at the time of ratification. For example, the death penalty was permissible in 1789, so it cannot be considered cruel and unusual punishment because it wasn't then. He sees everything in Constitutional Law as if it was frozen in time in 1789 (or the date of the ratification of the Amendments).

Wow...that's a comforting thought...

 

[Ms. M]

Wow...that's a comforting thought...

I know. Scares the heck out of me too.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Though not related to literature, I'm curious to see if you believe this extends to law as well. I've been fortunate enough to meet several US Supreme Court Justices, and one of them (Scalia) makes a similar argument for the U.S. Constitution. He rejects the "living Constitution" rationale for framer intent at the time of ratification. For example, the death penalty was permissible in 1789, so it cannot be considered cruel and unusual punishment because it wasn't then. He sees everything in Constitutional Law as if it was frozen in time in 1789 (or the date of the ratification of the Amendments).

I agree with you that the artist's intent is of course relevant, but I disagree that it is the only valid interpretation. For example, a photograph of the Twin Towers taken in 1980 has a much different meaning now to the viewer than the original intent. History, personal and otherwise, changes the way everything is viewed.

Although I can see the possible problems with Scalia's position, on the whole I would agree with him. To me, the "living Consititution" is largely a fancy concept designed to open the barn door and let lobbyists edit the founding fathers to serve their special interests. I trust Thomas Jefferson and the Jeffersonettes more than I trust people with $200 haircuts that get paid to make tobacco seem harmless, try to disarm law-abiding citizens, or keep gay people from getting married.

 

[GZA]

I did not enjoy Romeo and Juliet.

I'm not going to really get into it, but essentially, I didn't think it was bad, but that it did not live up to the amazing potential of the story. The main reason it fell flat of what it could have been is the fact it takes place over four days. That is simply way to fast for it to make sense, and to really create good character development, especially in terms of relationships between characters (particularly Romeo and Juliet). The fact that they meet one night and get married the next morning is absurd (and don't tell me "it was the times", because either way its still stupid). There is no way to build a strong, enjoyable relationship between these characters to warrant a marriage in one night. Had this taken place over a month, it would have been much better. Hell, even two weeks and I'd be more satisfied.

I also found Romeo to be rather annoying. I very much admire Shakespeare's decision to make him how he is rather than some macho guy, but he still totally lacks charisma, and is impossible to enjoy or even respect on a basic level. I can't even remember the exact aspects of what he did and said that makes me think this, but I remember when I read it that I thought he, like most of the play, did not live up to potential.

Look at what the basic story is; two young people from opposing, yet similar, families fall in love with one another and decide to get married and live on despite the harsh climate surrounding them. In one fight between the families, the man kills and is exiled from his family and his love. He and his love are broken, and want nothing but to be together. They arrange to meet and escape together. The plan gets mixed up and the man gets the impression his love has died, and kills himself, then the woman sees her love dead and kills herself, and the families come together.

That is, in essence, a good story, a very good story, but I felt that condensing it into four days made it rather stupid, rather than tragic and deep. I don't like how young Romeo and Juliet were. I know thats when a lot of people got married back then, but they still come off as very young and foolish, and after teachers responding to my opinion by saying I'm "too young to understand the deep, complex emotions involved", I can really just see that most people who read Shakespeare probably let other people do a good deal of the thinking and intepretation, and thus don't fully develop their own opinion. These teachers should remember that I, and every other student in that class, am older than Romeo and Juliet, and that many of the students have had "deep" and "complex" romances as well. I quote "deep" and "complex" because they don't actually describe R&J or teenagers. Even if it is a play about the folly of young love, they are still way to stupid and moronic to be interesting and it still takes place way to fast to make any sense. They may seem very intelligent and mature in their words, but in their actions that are not, and they seem extremely emotionally immature. If they weren't, they would never have gotten married after one meeting.

There were some things about Romeo and Juliet I did. As I said, the basic idea of the story is great, even if I think it was not handled proporly. I also liked the whole Rosaline and Paris situation. I liked how Romeo and unsuccesfully chasing Rosaline and it was bumming him out, and I like how at the beggining of the play he was thus acting out of his usual character his friends know. I like how Paris is the love for Juliet that is approved and encouraged by her father, and I also liked how Juliet's father was such a jackass. I also liked the way some parts of it were written. At it's best, it is simply beautiful writing, but when it is not at it's best it doesn't always seem particularly special, and it certainly isn't always interesting to read. A more direct approach would have done wonders at some points where a character takes a rediculous amount of time to describe or say something that should be fairly simple. These are also often the times where I did not find the language as interesting to read. But, it has many great moments of short passion, and those lines are the best.

"But soft! What light through yonder window breaks?
It is the East, and Juliet is the sun!
Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,
who is already sick and pale with grief
That thou her maid art far more fair than she."

"Death lies on her like an untimely frost
Upon the sweetest flower of all the field."