The classics
What defines them? Why did these books became classics while others didn't? Is it popularity? Language in which they were written? Quality? Depth? Or all together?
Do any modern book deserve the title of classic? Can you name them or do you think only future generations are allowed to do it?
Classic simply means great literary work from the Greco-Roman era. Then some israelites in New York decided to use the term as marketing for their 20th century publications. Hemingway is not a fricking classic, Mr Goldberg.
"Classic" in the way penguin uses it has been in use since the 1600s.
Literally obsessed.
Someone more likeable than you that people actually listens to gets to decide. Someone who will have a long wikipedia page
The fricking shit that defined how you think and speak are le "classics". You're mindless cancer so the Greeks and the Christian tradition have nothing to do with you. They're not classics to you, they had no influence on your thinking at all because you don't think.
Being pioneering and generally excellent works.
Anyway, opinions on pope's translation of the Illiad?
Should I read it?
If you're into that singsongy Dr Seuss tier shit, yea. It's basically its own thing. Homer didn't use rhymes
>Homer didn't use rhymes
damn.
Oh, ok. Why is Lattimore the best translation? Is it the most strict when it comes to meaning? Does it strike a good balance between beauty and preserving the original meaning?
One of the advantages of the Pope translation is that I could read it online using Project Gutenberg but if it completely distorts the text I guess I'll switch to another translation.
Might still read it someday whenever I get into trying to write poetry.
>Does it strike a good balance between beauty and preserving the original meaning?
Correct
I read EV Rieu's version. I enjoyed it a lot, but is it worth reading Lattimores' version as well?
>One of the advantages of the Pope translation is that I could read it online using Project Gutenberg but if it completely distorts the text I guess I'll switch to another translation.
You can find Lattimore's translation on libgen or annasarchive
No, read Lattimore. Dactylic hexameter in Homer wasn't a poetic device like a modern English rhyme scheme
Pope's translation is almost considered a work in and of itself. You should definitely read it (or at least parts of it) in the future, even if you decide not to read it now.
I really liked the initial parts. Might read bit by bit.
Eventually, I'm bound to finish a book.
I'm reading Nostromo in 20-minute periods in between classes on weekdays (sans friday) and it hasn't taken me that long.
I really should start reading seriously again though.
best translation homie
>medieval lord wants to appear wise and worldly, also has excess free time
>few contemporary works because 99% illiteracy rate and the few who are publishing charge insane prices because every book has to be written and illustrated by hand
>hmm, here’s a copy of the Iliad.
>looks… accessible. at least its not just a collection of political treatises
>…
>well that was mid
>oh well, I’m like one of five people in this town who’s actually read a book, I can still brag about it at feasts to look smart and cool
a classic is born
If this world has any future everyone like you will eventually be hunted down and murdered.
I don’t doubt it. The world has a habit of ganging up on people who tell unpopular truths.
>I think all of history was moronic like the European middle ages
The world has a habit of abusing people who think they know better than they do
But you know that Illiad was already an established classic in antiquity. You should have picked "Song of Roland" or "Divine Comedy" to be more believable
How do you think it worked in eras when literacy rate was higher?
The Iliad was not translated into Latin until 1488. Most medieval nobles did not read it and only had the bare minimum understanding of the Troy story.
They had the Ilias Latina, so they knew all the major events of the Iliad. They also had the Trojan War central to their own kingdom's history (England was founded by Brutus, for example), chiefly by way of the Aeneid.
>academics telling me modern gays and blacks and women are based
I sleep
>the same academics telling me a public domain book is based
Real fricking shit
>the same academics
Wrong
If it's hecking based and cool like your favorite spongebob episode is irrelevant. Your language and thoughts were shaped by this shit you mindless idiot.
You will never contribute anything to any subject. Every time you try to express yourself the world is worse off for it. Everyone else suffers to allow you your pointless existence, which you despise.
Try to learn english homie
>Why did these books became classics while others didn't?
Basically.
This but unironcally, cancel the illiad my female mind can not comprehend it #MakeFifty*claps*Shades *claps*OfGrayIsAClassic*claps*
And that's the tea
Great Conversations by Robert Maynard Hutchins is a great book to read on this topic. He discusses what classic literature is, how it shaped society and the criticisms levied against them. Some of his arguments in the defense of classic writers doesn’t quite hold up to me. For example, he says that classic lit isn’t elitist and it isn’t opposed to democracy or the democratic way of life but many of the writers definitely were anti-democracy and arguably worked as propagandists for aristocrats. I get he is saying that the great books can be made to be read by anyone but the idea that they aren’t in any way designed for upper class people in some cases, to defend their outdated modes of life (ideas such as slavery) is wrong. I just reread it today. Give it a read. It’s only 82 pages.
Classic is used interchangeably between works of antiquity, works that are considered part of the canon, and works that are good. Antiquity while not 100% perfectly defined down to a specific year is an easy enough idea to understand, as is thinking that something is good. For what makes something part of the canon, that can depend on the canon in question, but in general it's works that are influential to future works in that sphere.
Think of it this way: If tomorrow we all forgot what works were considered important to western literature, but we still had the works themselves, the most prominent works in the canon could be discerned just by looking back at the literature. It would be noticeable that this one English playwright is referred to so often and so many books are named after lines from his plays, it would be easy to figure out why the term Trojan horse shows up everywhere. Even with words this is the case. Clue originally meant a thing of thread, and turned into "thing that helps solve a mystery" by the story of Theseus and the minotaur. So in answer to your question, you can call a modern book a classic in that you think it's good, or you can call it that in the sense that you believe that one day it will be canonical, but you cannot say it with the latter sense with any sort of authority, because it has yet to prove significant in some way.
>you can call it that in the sense that you believe that one day it will be canonical,
That's why I like the term 'modern classic' as a work of art which is a candidate to become a classic 'par excellence'
The funny thing there is that modern is also a bit of a thorny word that gets used interchangeably between meaning the present and a specific time period. I guess saying contemporary classic sounds a little weird.