I copied this post over from the Welcomes and Introductions Thread where it was initially posted, because the discussion will be better here than there.\\
Okay, I'll take you up on your challenge.
First, please define the era you're talking about so I'm sure which books you're pitting WH against.
But second, assuming you consider Austen, Dickens, Thackeray, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Eliot to be part of the same era as Bronte, please explain how/why you consider WH (1847) to be a greater work of literature than Emma (1816), Vanity Fair (1848), Bleak House (1852), War and Peace (1869), Middlemarch (1872), or Brothers Karamazov (1880), not to mention any other works by these authors. And though I don't consider Trollope or Hardy to be novelists on the level of Dickens, Austen, etc., I would match Trollope's The Way We Live Now, the Barchester novels, and the Palliser novels, and Hardy's The Return of the Native and Tess of the Durbervilles as fair competition for Wuthering Heights.
So I'm quite willing to test your intellectual skills! (Heck, when I was 17 I was every bit as cocky as you are. I truly thought that I understood Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, Sophocles, Euripides, Locke, Hobbes, and even Kant. Ha!) But let's see what we can do here.
It'll be a fine way to pass the time while we're waiting for Songs to arrive.
Oh, by the way, I'm sure that at some point in the discussion we're going to have to specify what the purpose of a novel is so we can tell how well a particular work does nor does not partake of novelistic greatness, so you might be thinking on that point, too.
You're on!
ZBeanz wrote:
... I welcome the challenge eagerly as a chance to prove myself as an intellectual equal to you all.... Also, Wuthering Heights is, in my humble opinion, the greatest work of literature of the era.
Okay, I'll take you up on your challenge.
First, please define the era you're talking about so I'm sure which books you're pitting WH against.
But second, assuming you consider Austen, Dickens, Thackeray, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Eliot to be part of the same era as Bronte, please explain how/why you consider WH (1847) to be a greater work of literature than Emma (1816), Vanity Fair (1848), Bleak House (1852), War and Peace (1869), Middlemarch (1872), or Brothers Karamazov (1880), not to mention any other works by these authors. And though I don't consider Trollope or Hardy to be novelists on the level of Dickens, Austen, etc., I would match Trollope's The Way We Live Now, the Barchester novels, and the Palliser novels, and Hardy's The Return of the Native and Tess of the Durbervilles as fair competition for Wuthering Heights.
So I'm quite willing to test your intellectual skills! (Heck, when I was 17 I was every bit as cocky as you are. I truly thought that I understood Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, Sophocles, Euripides, Locke, Hobbes, and even Kant. Ha!) But let's see what we can do here.
It'll be a fine way to pass the time while we're waiting for Songs to arrive.
Oh, by the way, I'm sure that at some point in the discussion we're going to have to specify what the purpose of a novel is so we can tell how well a particular work does nor does not partake of novelistic greatness, so you might be thinking on that point, too.
You're on!
Okay, I'll take you up on your challenge.
First, please define the era you're talking about so I'm sure which books you're pitting WH against.
So I'm quite willing to test your intellectual skills! (Heck, when I was 17 I was every bit as cocky as you are.)
Oh, by the way, I'm sure that at some point in the discussion we're going to have to specify what the purpose of a novel is so we can tell how well a particular work does nor does not partake of novelistic greatness, so you might be thinking on that point, too.
Haha
First, I would like to clear up what I said in that post. I admit that I made a mistake in the way I worded my comment about Wuthering Heights being the greatest novel of the era. What I meant with the comment was simply that I enjoyed it more than any other novel I have read that is considered a 'classic', even though not all classics are from the same era, of course.
Perhaps the most obvious comparison for Emily would be Charlotte and Anne. After all, the three girls practically did their writing at the same time. Wuthering Heights, too me, offered a much more emotional journey. I felt completely drawn in by the story, completely enchanted by the powerful emotions. Much more than when I read, say, The Professor.
Novels have no true, defineable purpose. If one has to be identified, than it would simply be that they are to entertain, to provide enjoyment for its readers. Wuthering Heights gave me that. Not to say that the works of her contemporaries didn't, just that WH gave a more intense enjoyment. This is simply because of my taste in literature. I like stories that deal largely with pain and suffering. The way Bronte presented it to me was much more real than anything I have ever read. It was the first and only time that I ever felt exactly what I thought the characters were feeling.
Let me end by saying that I don't wish anyone to think I am cocky at all. Actually, I think that it is rather strange that I am being called 'cocky' when all I wish is to be considered an 'equal' in my opinions over Songs for the Missing, not better. By no means am I better than anyone. I'm sure that there are many many people here that are much more knowledgeable about literature than me. You would probably be one of them.
Also, I would like to say that War and Peace bored me greatly. I thought the story was too broad and there wasn't enough emotional investment in the characters for my liking. Now please don't take that as me saying that it is a horrible piece of literature, because I don't mean that at all. I agree that it is a work of literary greatness. I consider it a top work in my collection. It just isn't my cup of tea, so to speak.
There are different kinds of novels for different kinds of people. That is what makes reading them so great. It truly doesn't matter what books you read or how old/famous they are. All that is truly important is that you read the books that provide you with the most enjoyment and even teach you things about life and yourself. Maybe Wuthering Heights isn't your favorite book. Maybe you loved War and Peace. As long as you find what you love, than you have succeeded in reading they greatest book you could have read at the time.
Thanks so much for your interest!
Zack
ZBeanz wrote:
Okay, I'll take you up on your challenge.
First, please define the era you're talking about so I'm sure which books you're pitting WH against.
So I'm quite willing to test your intellectual skills! (Heck, when I was 17 I was every bit as cocky as you are.)
Oh, by the way, I'm sure that at some point in the discussion we're going to have to specify what the purpose of a novel is so we can tell how well a particular work does nor does not partake of novelistic greatness, so you might be thinking on that point, too.HahaLet me end by saying that I don't wish anyone to think I am cocky at all. Actually, I think that it is rather strange that I am being called 'cocky' when all I wish is to be considered an 'equal' in my opinions over Songs for the Missing, not better. By no means am I better than anyone. I'm sure that there are many many people here that are much more knowledgeable about literature than me. You would probably be one of them.There are different kinds of novels for different kinds of people. That is what makes reading them so great. It truly doesn't matter what books you read or how old/famous they are. All that is truly important is that you read the books that provide you with the most enjoyment and even teach you things about life and yourself. Maybe Wuthering Heights isn't your favorite book. Maybe you loved War and Peace. As long as you find what you love, than you have succeeded in reading they greatest book you could have read at the time.Thanks so much for your interest!Zack
I just read the last two posts of you two, not anything leading up to this but I just want to say, hey, I don't know if your cocky,maybe so, I haven't read anything else you wrote. I do know Eman should know, because he is cocky! hehe OH Eman, you know you are and that I am laughing here. As for being better than anyone or even just equal to everyone, I just have to say one thing, cause I had a friend hurt in one of these clubs by those thinking in these terms and made her feel "less than" because they liked the "classics" and she didn't know them as well, or did some but just loved them for the story, not as some Lit Class test for working on a doctorate of how the words play or are written. She just liked the books and that was enough and it should be. We are not standing in some ethereal line here, where whoever can break down a book the best and is the best theorist wins! Its a book club, we are all equal because we read! We are all equal because we enjoy reading. We are all equal because we enjoy discussing books. My opinion may be different than yours, thats what makes for good discussions. My way of expressing my opinions may be different than yours too and thats what makes it interesting too. Enjoy the books,enjoy the posts, or growl at them lol, but just enjoy having a place to have discussions.
I just wanted to say something, because this whole idea of "being equal" really bothers me and I see people hold back their opinions and thoughts because they think they aren't as valuable then, or that they have nothing to add. Its not true. We are all equal for the reasons I said but for anyone out there feeling their thoughts aren't equal, they are! And I may really really want to hear them, so please share. Through the sharing we learn.
Now you two boys go on with your literary digest or whatever you got going on that you want lol, its ok. As for you Eman, lol, always the debater, but then so am I some times too huh LOL!
