... when dealing with James Joyce, we're dealing with GREAT literature. Granted, Joyce is difficult. While Dubliners is certainly accessible, even in these early stories it will become clear that Joyce demands more of his readers than most writers do. His first novel, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, is readable, though tough going at times. As for his two epic works, Ulysses and Finnegans Wake, Joyce seems to make good on his famous challenge: "The only demand I make of my reader is that he should devote his whole life to reading my works."
I am curious as to your thoughts on the connection between the difficulty of a text and the value of that text. Does a work have to be complex and difficult to be considered "great"? Can "easy" works of literature that require little effort provide readers with the full, rich experiences we expect from "great" works of literature? If possible, please refer to specific texts in your 
comments.
comments.
18 comments:
I don’t necessarily believe that a “great” work of literature needs to be difficult to read. The one example that springs to my mind is “Alice and Wonderland.” That story has been retold throughout many generations. It is not a hard book to understand nor is it very difficult to read. In fact most parents will read it out loud to their children when they are young. What makes the book so phenomenal is that every time you read the story you discover something new. It is appropriate for a child, containing life morals, but entertaining for an adult with the hidden humor. Since it amuses and interests many audiences it keeps the spirit of the story alive making it a “great” piece of literature.
I agree with what Toni said; many works can be easier to read and still have messages that resonate with a large audience and present valuable moral messages. However, I think that generally works that are more difficult allow a person to have more appreciation for it. When you read a work that doesn't require you to stop and reread passages and study what the text is saying, you end up reading the book for entertainment value, not for what knowledge you can obtain from the text. Works that are more difficult to read are given critical acclaim because they push the reader to delve deeper into the work. Easier texts are no longer an interest to the reader after the last page has been read. Once you've heard the end of the story, there is no more to learn from the work. More difficult texts require thorough analysis and readers can make unique interpretations from underlying text symbols and themes. Thus, they are greater works.
I agree with Tony as well. A story can be "great" with out it being difficult and complex as well. There are many stories that have been told and written throughout history that would be considered "easy" but it does not make them awful literature at all. On the other side, having a complex written book does not make it bad literature either, although perhaps tough to understand at times. Whoever said "it's quality not quantity" hit it dead on for me. A book does not have to 10000 pages to be fantastic. Some short stories are considered remarkable. An easy read just provides people with easier connections and a better understanding of the concept. Relating back to Toni, something as simple as a childhood story that continues on is considered "great". No one sets the standards for what is great but yourself. You can decide whether what you read is easy and understanding or complex and difficult to comprehend and sometimes right in the middle. If the message was put across, then I believe the book has done it's job. All in all I believe that "Great" literature does not have to lengthy and difficult.
I certainly agree with the girls above. A work of literature does not have to be complex and difficult to understand in order to be considered a "great" work. There are plenty of short stories and even children's books that are still considered "great" years after they were written. However, I definitely believe that the more challenging texts allow the reader to truly think about what they are reading and not just read for pure entertainment. I think it is important that a work of literature teaches the reader something and is not read just to pass the time. If the book does send a message to its reader in the end, then I believe no matter how difficult or easy the work is, it should still be considered "great".
I don't think the girls could have put it a better way. I agree with their points that a "great" piece of literature certainly should have some moral value or lesson. A "great" piece of literature also does not need to be countless pages to be considered "great". A short story could also be considered "great" under the above standards. There's no doubt it should have a moral value.
However, in addition to this i also feel a "great" work should have something that teaches you more about yourself or about mankind. It should widen your eyes about something that relates to you. The author should be able to allow every reader to relate to events or situations that take place in the work. For example, "The Canterbury Tales" was considered a great work of literature. I feel everyone could relate to one of those stories, whether that means they can relate to a character or can connect with a character's experience. Perhaps one of the characters taught the readers something about themselves, or the values of life or mankind. While a "great" piece of literature does, and should, have some moral point i do feel that it should also teach each and every reader something about themselves. There should just be one thing that sparks readers to relate to themselves or learn more about themselves through the piece.
The entire question of whether or not a work of literature is great revolves around how you are defining the word "great". If great means that it must be capable of a deep, in-depth analysis and must be able to convey a nuanced, philosophical message to its readers, then there is no way that a piece of literature can be a easy read. Since we finished Hamlet recently, let us use that as an example. If Shakespeare had made Hamlet a simple and "easy" play to understand, do you think we would still be discussing it in the depth that we are now? No, we wouldn't; we would spend not that much time on it because all of its meaning would be apparent on the first read through. However, Hamlet was written complexly, with many nuances and subtleties that only shine through on the second or third read, which helps make a great work of literature.
If you define "great" as having to be relevant and capable of having a personal connection to, then the answer is still yes, the work of literature has to be complex. In order for humans to be able to relate to a work of literature, it must be complex, for humanity is complex. In this case, fairy tales and fables, such as Alice in Wonderland could potentially be considered as great, because they tend to have aspects and elements to them that allow people to relate to the works. Other modern works, such as George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire saga would be considered as "great" works of literature. Even though it is an excellent series of books that shows all of the flaws and cruelties in mankind as well as all of our good and pure aspects, it offers little in literary value and contributions, like Hamlet does.
However, if you definition of "great" is that it simply must enjoyable, then the work of literature does not need to be complex. By this definition, books such as the Eragon series would be considered to be "great". Though enjoyable, it has little that allows it to be related to, and even less that is of any literary value in it, and yet many people would proclaim it as great.
Ultimately it all comes down to what you define a "great" work of literature by.
a work of literature doesnt have to be difficult or long to be considered "great". As long as they have an impact on the reader they can be considered great. novels such as "The Great Gatsby" and "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" are not difficult to read or excedingly long however the message they give to the reader is what really counts. Realizing the american dream or confronting racism can be just as important as trying to navigate your way through Ulysses. As long as the work of literature can speak to the reader in a way that touches them then the work can be considered "great".
It's ridiculous to think that because a piece of literature is not "complex" or "difficult to read" that it is not "great." In fact, I would say that a book that it so inherently taxing and daunting just to read is not "great" at all, but I digress. Case in point that literature does not have to "tricky" is my favorite novel: To Kill A Mockingbird. Lee's masterpiece is not the most complex work, but it is one of the greatest pieces of modern literature. I am more than willing to argue that there are very few novels that are able to so profoundly and eloquently convey the human experience and human nature as To Kill a Mockingbird does. From a moral standpoint, To Kill A Mockingbird is a goldmine that has a millions lessons to teach, in which there are million different emotional experiences that can be observed. This compelling emotional power of the novel is what makes To Kill A Mockingbird "great," not verbosity.
The whole problem with the question "Does literature have to be complex to be "great"" is matter of perception as Allan said. In all circumstances when labeling a piece of literature, the term "great" has to take on a meaning that is relative and sensitive selectively to that situation. Thus, a piece of literature being easy does not automatically bar it from being "great."
More than often it is the elitist critics who instill the concept in an everyday reader that a "great" piece of literature is one that must possess a superior artistic quality. i.e. a complex structure. However, it is in the end intimate reader-literature interaction that makes a piece of literature "great."
Yeah, I concur with Allen and Mike, you have to define what "great" is. Different readers interpret different messages differently. With the amount of interpretation that can spawn from "Dubliners" due to its lack of closure, some may consider it great, some may consider it a tedious waste, some may not be able to grasp it even remotely. Still, the fake statistician in me says that there is a positve coorelation between "great" liturature and complexity. But that is only due to what is predomenantly accepted as the meaning of "Greatness". Greatness should not decide what all readers should enjoy. Some have the Bible, some have have "Hamlet", some have "the little engine that could". Personally, I enjoy reading manga, and Ill be darned if that's ever considered "great".
I agree with almost everyone. I don't think complexity resonates "great" in anyway. The opinion of a piece of work being great depends on the individual reader. Personally, I think that a "great" piece of literature is one that almost anyone can personally relate to. When you think of the play Hamlet, you think of one of the greatest plays ever. But technically based on my definition of great, Hamlet isn't that "great" despite being a complex piece of work. There are elements in the play that I or anyone else can relate to such as gender issues in society or hypocrisy. But that's on the grand scheme of the book. I don't think I can personally connect that well to Hamlet or any of the other characters in great depth.
But then, if we talk about we talk about something more "simpler" such as children's book, I personally can relate to them more. I'm sure other people can too because, despite being not as complex, they resonate more universal messages sometimes.
"Greatness" of any work is based on the reader's opinion because people respond to different situations differently--something that I take personally in any work may not be taken in the same way by someone else (I think someone said this earlier). I don't think complexity has anything to do with literature being great.
OK folks, I'll weigh in here and play Devil's Advocate, since most people seem to be in agreement. Certainly, there are numerous examples of worthy literary works that are not particularly complex. However, when dealing with "great" literature - the literature to which we continually return and in which we continually rediscover - I do believe a certain level of complexity and difficulty is necessary. Frankly, if you didn't have to work all that hard to "get it" the first time through, or if a work was easily exhausted upon an initial reading, I'm not sure that work belongs in the category of "great" literature. I guess by "great" I mean a work of literature that not only stands the proverbial "test of time," but that stands as representative of the heights that literary art can potentially aspire to.
War and Peace, Moby Dick, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn... When I google "Top 10 greatest works of literature", those works and similar others show up everywhere. The fact is, "Alice in Wonderland", "Cinderella", and "Pocahontas" will never be named to one of those lists. I agree with Mr. Cianflone's comment that a certain level of difficulty and complexity is necessary in literature which is studied and analyzed by generation after generation. You can only read stories like "Alice in Wonderland" so many times (like 1 or 2) before it becomes boring and predictable. Great pieces of literature however, are timeless because each time they are read, a new meaning or play on words can be discovered. Critics argue and debate over the meaning of lines in Hamlet (not the Disney Classics) for a reason; because it is a great work of literature.
A great work of literature does not have to be dificult to read. For example Harry Potter is not a dificult work of literature and it is certainly popular. While i understand that popular does not necessarily mean that it is great i think that years from now it will be considered a great book because it raises significant ethical questions about friendships, loyalty, and bravery. * if you haven't read them read with caution* Harry is faced with numerous hardships, obstacles and near death experiences that he overcomes through dedication to friends and to his school family. Also, i raises questions about right and wrong and that there is truly not just good and evil in the world. That sometimes you have to break the rules to do the right thing and that is ok? and also sometimes you must align with those who are eveil to help those that aren't (Snape).
A piece of great literature does not have to be difficult to read. It can be great literature as long as a person with no knowledge of the time, setting, and cultural mechanics can still enjoy the work even without knowledge of the topic they are reading about. For example, I don't have to know about Prohibition in the United States, but by reading a "great" literature about it, i can still figure out that alcohol is illegal in the U.S. while the story is taking place. I believe that a piece of literature may actaully be "greater" if it is easier to understand because everyone is able to connect to it and understand it better, regardless of the reader's own background.
Any good text will be in depth. I mean basic stories with just a plot and general theme aren't as interesting as stories with symbols, themes that have to be found. Great works can't be just black and white, they have to have gray areas. And I know that is a disappointment to hear for some of us who want it to be black and white, but it is proven that great works have gray areas. For example, 1984 is a great novel because of the gray areas. Orwell makes you continue reading the novel to find all of the details. If you can predict everything about everything in a work of literature, how can it be great? It can't be, there have to be twists thrown in there by the author on purpose or by accident to make it great (the by accident twists go back to Mr. Alaimo's English class). If you compare a great novel to a great movie, the comparison is the same. If you can predict the ending (like in movies targeted towards females, The Notebook, 27 Dresses, Maid of Honor) then it won't be great. Yeah it will target one audience, but a great work has to target the whole. SO a work of literature doesn't need to be difficult, it just has to keep you interested, and yes I realize that the difficulty of the text could be a method used to keep you interested, but there are other methods that are used to keep the reader reading. Perhaps a love affair with a scandal, The Great Gatsby, just putting that out there.
difficult and great are two completely different words for a reason. when it comes to literature, difficult certainly doesn't mean great, difficult just means difficult, but it can also add to a book. 1984 is my favorite book of all time and what i consider GREAT literature because its difficult, to a certain degree. without political knowledge or any sort of information on george orwell, parts of the book do get kinda lost. so even though it wasn't all that difficult, it had enough difficulty to keep me intrigued and thinking.
I agree and dissagree with the above posts for numerous reasons but mainly this:
1. Alice and Wonderland is not a Disney classic they simply made the movie.
2. Many people consider the bible a great work and when they are speaking of it they are speaking of the translated text that was translated to make it easier for all to read.
3. a "great" piece of literatue does not need to be "difficult" to read to be "great" it simply needs to have depth or layers, to quote Shrek it needs to be like an onion, that is what makes it great not that you need to look up every other word, or the anotations take up more room than they text its self that just needs to be something new to discover each time you read it. And i'm not talking about oh that's cool their clothes match stuff i'm talking you find a new sub plot you never realised or liek how i just discoved the meaning of that scene in Across The Univers when they're trying to make Prudence come out of the closet.
4. Also one of my favorite books we read in school is Catcher in the Rye and that book is not extreamly difficult but it is definatly considered a great book, with it's witicisums and onion like layers
A work of literature does not need to be super complex, full of symbolism, irony, difficult thesaurus type words, etc. to be great, and give readers a fair experience. It's about the personal connections readers get from the story, and how the words flow on the paper. Haiku poems are super short, but have big meanings.I could argue about Harry Potter all day, but because of the the "no repetition" rule, I'll go with Twilight by Stephanie Meyer. It's a simple story about a vampire and a human who fall in love. Love is a theme everybody wants explained, and it is portrayed through a passionate, honest, loyal relationship in Twilight. The love story gives each of us a perspective on a deep, true form of love, that we can take away upon finishing the book. This leaves the reader feeling satisfied, yet thirsting for more. In the end, every girl feels she has connected with Edward the way Bella has. It leaves a mark on us, which is what every piece of complex, great literature does.
Post a Comment