[ SECRET POST #2594 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2594 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 094 secrets from Secret Submission Post #371.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[silvereriena]

"I ACTUALLY HATE SHERLOCK! AND I HATE YOU ALL LEAVE ME ALONE" XD

I'm never quite sure what constitutes a classic, or why a classic can't also be part of the pop culture landscape. Is it a book that must have made some sort of cultural/social impact and have been around for a number of decades? I mean, I'd consider Harry Potter to be a classic children's book series at this point. I remember the children's lit course at my university had the Prisoner of Azkaban on their syllabus so people got to read it for analysis. Sadly, I had a different prof and wasn't in that particular class.

[dreemyweird]

I think that according to the popular definition of a "classic", to have been written over n decades ago is a requirement. (It kind of makes sense - I'd say that a classic should be timeless, and timelessness is a bit difficult to determine when little actual time has passed).

But I'm pretty sure that a classic always constitutes a part of the pop culture landscape. Precisely because "it is a book that must have made some sort of cultural/social impact".

Ultimately, the word is kind of blurry and particular cases are subject to (sometimes very heated) debate. IDEK how to define it properly. I'm not sure one even needs to define it; it seems to be of little use in any literature-related discussion. I mean, why would you want to determine if something is a classic or not? Unless the discussion in question revolves around the definition of "classics".

IMO, there are books you can point at and say "this is a classic", but there are many more that are kind of in the grey area. Is Bulgakov a classic writer, for example? Or Forester?

[elephantinegrace]

I remember asking my AP English Lit teacher if I could do my classics report on a book that was published either that year or the year before. Apparently, "The Kite Runner" was okay, but none of the Harry Potter novels were. I don't know where this arbitrary line gets drawn up.

[visvang.livejournal.com]

I think there is also something about being an in-cultural thing.
For example, in Russian-speaking countries Bulgakov is definitely a classic writer. We study his books at school! That alone makes him a classic writer :)
On the other hand, I'm not sure that every Russian-speaking person considers a classic something like a "To Kill a Mockingbird" or lots of other books that are written in foreign languages and published in the 20th century. I still remember how our literature teacher scolded my classmate for reading "Fight Club" in her lesson and named the book "some modern pulp stuff".

[dreemyweird]

This is undoubtedly true! And it makes the concept even more vague.

As regards Bulgakov, that might've been a bit of a wrong example, you are right. Let's take someone who's not on the syllabus - Yuz Aleshkovsky, for instance. I seriously DK if the guy can be considered a classic writer by either a Russian or anyone else. And then there are dudes like Venedikt Yerofeyev. Is "Moscow-Petushki" widely known and loved? Hell yes. Is it a classic? ...Um... well. Seriously, hell knows.

I still remember how our literature teacher scolded my classmate for reading "Fight Club" in her lesson and named the book "some modern pulp stuff".

Was it back in the Soviet times, or in the 21st century? Because if it happened recently, then... ouch. I guess you didn't have a very good literature teacher :/

[visvang.livejournal.com]

No, I'm way too young to have been studying at school during Soviet times, it was 2001 or 2002. But yeah, she was by no means the best literature teacher in the world.

I see what you mean. Vagueness upon vagueness :(
I'm not sure most people consider Yerofeev a classic author, partly because of foul language he uses I'm afraid

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<insert [...] "inappropriate">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

No, I'm way too young to have been studying at school during Soviet times, it was 2001 or 2002. But yeah, she was by no means the best literature teacher in the world.

I see what you mean. Vagueness upon vagueness :(
I'm not sure most people consider Yerofeev a classic author, partly because of foul language he uses I'm afraid <insert here reasoning on what's considered "appropriate" and "inappropriate" and how it affects lots of things in our society>

And then there is genre classics... I mean, I think of Sidney Sheldon as a classic of detective story but I'm not sure he is a classic writer. Or Isaac Asimov and sci-fi, or even Astrid Lindgren and children's literature. So I can imagine JK Rowling becomes a classic children's author in some time but I don't think she ever becomes a classic author along with Mark Twain, Bernard Shaw, Albert Camus or Mikhail Bulgakov. I wonder who will among the now-living writers?

[dreemyweird]

True, Yerofeyev's love of obscenities might have made him ineligible :) But still, there are such people as Sholokhov and Yuri Koval and maybe some borderline classic Silver-Age poets like Vladislav Khodasevich.

Ah, the genre classics. I think you are right about Rowling - she does look the part of a future classic children's author.

I wonder who will among the now-living writers?

I wonder this, too! Though I think that it is hard to predict, not only because our tastes may be different from those of our descendants, but also because there are always people who only achieve any sort of popularity after death, which is why we may be simply unaware of their existence (refer to Kafka). Still, we can take guesses in regard to the now-living popular authors. Though I must admit I have little idea. From the Russian ones it may be, dunno, Ulitskaya? Petrushevskaya? Among the English-speaking folks, Terry Pratchett? But one of the problems is that I'm not really up-to-date with the modern literature, so I'm probably the wrong person to speculate about it. I wish I knew somebody who'd read all the modern stuff and could tell me about it.

[visvang.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, I haven't read anything by Ulitskaya, Petrushevskaya and Pratchett yet :(
I suddenly had a thought that, besides all things you wrote about earlier, problems described in a classic book have to be kind of eternal for humanity (I know it sounds pathetic, I'm sorry). For example, I love Neil Gaiman very much but I have some doubts that future generations would have the same attitude. It seems to me that despite all the mythological elements in his books they are very modern and deal with all kinds of problems of modern society (I may be mistaken though).