Yes, this is true. Upon my tombstone I will have engraved the words, "I Wish I'd Spent More Time Doing Things That Aren't Fun."

And I'm sure you are not going to suggest that people who devote their lives to the study and appreciation of the art are somehow in mass confusion as to what constitutes great literature.

There are a lot of good quality current-day authors out there, the only problem is finding them.
Thanks

...Yes, Austin's books (most anyway) are what I'd consider to be very well crafted classics that communicated very well thoughts, feelings and the subtleties of human interaction very tastefully. I believe though - and don't quote me here - but at the time such books were considered the 'Harlequin Romance' of the time (which isn't unusual: Shakespearean plays, performed during his lifetime and shortly after his death, though popular with many often required intermission acts, such as dancing bears, in order to keep the audience marginally entertained).

Oh, but that is what I'm doing. You're just being civilized by suggesting I'm not. I am criticizing P&P because it is not my cup of tea. My personal preference is what shapes my value judgement. I am not everyones cup of tea, and hence I am often criticized, as is the art/photography I produce on occasion, and which some poor misguided fools have actually paid me for. I'm fine with being criticized, and I am fine criticizing.

Yes. The Shakespearean Literature professor I had was evil incarnate. She imparted wisdom with a 12 pound sledge, and the attitude of "you will enjoy Shakespeare with the same mad passion as I, or I will cast aspersions upon your character and screw up your GPA with a big fat D." Which some of us deserved, come to think of it.

Comparing Cussler to Dante is like comparing apples to cinderblocks.

That's not what I asked. I asked how reading the classics helps you to contribute to civilization.

I must agree with him that, they, indeed, kinda are. Here in Brazil most of what is considered "classic" is largely outdate, ideologically speaking, yet anything with less than 50 years is totally ignored then what the students will have to read to avaliate their interpretation skills is chosen, what I find really anoying. Its not that the classics arent good, its just that they arent better than modern literature, and thus shouldnt be put atop large pillars and workshipped...

We have to be careful here. We have to ask ourselves, 'why do I prefer modern works to older classics?' You are not alone; I typically enjoy modern works more than I enjoy older works - I prefer Thompson to Austen any day.

I think that this is mostly the result of being a product of our times. We enjoy the more recent works because they were crafted with us in mind: we are the immediate audience. Don Quixote was not written for us, but f

An important aspect of our studying, when we read a classic, should be getting an understanding of why the work was so beloved. What about the work resonated with it's immediate audience. We need to try and place the work, culturally. Reading a classic work is not unlike reading history. Someone once said that great literature is great social history, and I think there is a great deal of truth there.

If your criticism is reducible to personal taste, then you have no criticism to make.

personal preference is a minor anecdote.

When we talk about classics and masterpieces, we have transcended our personal preference and crossed into the global discussion: we are not merely talking about what we like, personally, but instead, we are talking about what can be readily recognized as good art no matter where we take it. Crime and Punishment is brilliant in Russia, and in modern America. Basho was brilliant in Edo era Japan, and is brilliant in the modern, global world. These statements remain true even if it might be that I dislike C&P or Basho's haikus on a personal level - I am still capable of seeing the value of the work.

I may have enjoyed Cussler's Sahara, but I know quite well that it is a trite action-adventure novel that barely passes as a decent page-turner. Because that's just it: writing a novel that people will enjoy is much easier than writing a novel that will be enjoyed and that will also inform the reader about human experience.

Because literature is such a pillar of civilization, studying literature is a contribution to civilization.

But I am not sure how one poor teacher leads to the conclusion that teachers are sadistic in the way described. I mean, honestly, which makes more sense: 1) teachers are generally sadistic, in that they structure their classes in such a way as to inflict the most amount of pain and stress as possible upon their students, or, 2) teachers are generally interested in giving their students the best education possible, and this typically involves them running a demanding course after which students should be able to intelligently discuss the works covered?

Of course I do. Where does it say that I can't dish out criticism? I was given no rule book concerning these matters. Because an opinion is personal, does that automatically mean that it is wrong, even if it goes against the collective?

Just out of curiosity, Didymos, how old are you? This may (or may not) be relevant to this discussion.

Studying any discipline in and of itself is not a necessarily a contribution. It is a mental activity. It only becomes a contribution if you actually do something to . . . uh . . . contribute or add on to.