Join for FREE | Take the Tour Lost Password?
Shop deviantART for the
holidays and save BIG!
Click here! :holly:
[x]

deviantART

:flirty:
 
[x]  
Shop deviantART for the holidays Click here! :holly:
:icondimerization:
:wave: hi everybody, I'm Maura

It's in the subject-- what do you think makes great writing great? Why have Cervantes and Shakespeare survived the test of time, to name only two? What about Jane Austen, for that matter? I'm curious, because no one I ask seems to know, and I was wondering if anyone besides me has an opinion.

I think it's a matter of insight. Shakespeare,* for example, conveys a lot of timeless truths about human nature in his works. He touches on things like love, greed, and madness, and somehow manages to be spot-on nearly all of the time. (I think so, anyway.) He wrote all of these facts of life that most of us probably know on some level, but have never really thought about, and could never put so beautifully, and so what could have been just a bunch of pretty poetry has survived for hundreds of years and is acclaimed more or less worldwide as brilliant literature. Shakespeare manages to tell a lot of truths about how people think and act, and that seems to be pretty hard to do because you don't run across it very often, except in other "great" literature -- at least, that's what I've noticed. What do you think? Is insight really the difference between timelessness and obscurity?


---
*sorry, I realize he's everyone's example for everything, but he's quite convenient here, and I can't think of anyone as good off the top of my head. Do please respond with Austen and Cervantes, etc..

--
:typerhappy:

Devious Comments

love 0 0 joy 0 0 wow 0 0 mad 0 0 sad 0 0 fear 0 0 neutral 1 1
:iconlit-twitter:
Chirp, it's been twittered. :)

--
Hear lit tweet here
:iconbekkia:
I think the timelessness of the ideas plays an important part, as you said. Over the generations, people have seen or read Shakespeare's works and seen slices of humanity so raw that they characters were given lives of their own and became archetypes other works have used. For example, Romeo and Juliet have been reincarnated in so many forms. Puck from A Midsummer Night's Dream is synonymous with mischievousness. But those aren't the only examples.

I think another thing that plays into it is a sort of chance meeting, if you will. Someone must have been the first to say: "This Shakespeare fellow sure is talented." And the notion spread from there until a consensus was reached.
:icondimerization:
:party: thanks! It's great of you to promote the Poetry & Prose forum like this :cookie:

--
:typerhappy:
:icondimerization:
Definitely. Shakespeare immortalized so many stories and characters. It drives me crazy when people tell me Romeo & Juliet is cliched though...

Oh, I had never thought about that. I think you've definitely got a point there. In order to last, great works of literature have to be recognized in the first place. It's a shame that today our vehicles of recognition seem to take the form of Oprah's Book Club, so either literature is in a sorry state of affairs or she's picking all the wrong books... :giggle: I think this was discussed in another thread (maybe awhile ago) but I wonder what sorts of books will emerge as immortal from the current literary period?

--
:typerhappy:
:iconroot-kite:
a) canonisation. not an easy process, involving much more than just literary concerns; partly arbitrary.

b) a great work adresses enduring issues with a new verve; and the 'newness' can still be appreciated afterward, either as something 'that was once new' or (preferably) as something that continues to instill insight as it is, even a long time after its inception.
:iconsparrowsong:
Pfft, I reject a) because of the arbitrary component. Canonization may affect the importance or significance of a literary work because it places it in front of more readers, but it doesn't affect the quality of the work itself.
:iconlytrigian:
I think ~root-kite has it backwards. Canonization is in part consensus judgment on the quality of the work, and it's unlikely to happen to a work that's not already deemed significant or influential. In other words, it's a sign of greatness rather than a determinant.

--
You could say [David Eddings] is the Thomas Kinkade of fantasy literature. --*Memnalar
:iconsparrowsong:
Yeah, pretty much, although I'd add that canonization is a self-perpetuating process in that a canonized work is likely to become increasingly influential and/or significant.

A great writer who's been left out of the canon is unlikely to become as influential as ones who haven't been. I remember Isabella Whitney being as good a poet as her male peers, but she's rarely heard of because she was left out of the canon, even though she managed to become the first woman in England to publish her poetry (I blame that society and not men in general for that). She's significant, but because she had been left out of the canon, she didn't have the chance to be as influential as her peers.

Also, great writers who've entered the canon can be 'forgotten' and discovered again (T. S. Eliot was credited for having 'discovered' John Donne even though there's evidence the Romantics knew his works).

Man, I am long-winded.
:iconbekkia:
That's like saying the Jules Verne's scifi is cliche because you've read so many things like it. Of course! An idea has to start somewhere.

I can only hope that time will filter out the crap published in this era and leave some semblance of goodness.

Site Map