Before you call me pleb, I just would like to take a minute and have a serious discussion about the importance of reading classical works in a post-modern era.
As a fan contemporary lit, including modernism and post-modernism, I find myself reluctant to read classic works such as those by Homer, Dante, or even Shakespeare for the simple reason that I believe the ideas, ideals, themes and concepts concerning their material is somewhat dated. Now, I'm not completely ignorant to the fact I may learn something or get anything in general of value from these texts, I'm willing to read them if we can discuss said literature.
Dealing with these texts as they were especially relevant to the time in which they were published and/or most popularly read/studied (that is to say they aren't NOT relevant now), it's easy to understand why they are important to literature and literary history. All I'm curious about is why it is still important to read them now, and despite its dated concepts/ideals will I extract anything worthwhile.
I ask these questions seriously, and I hate coming to /lit/ for a serious discussion because I won't get any serious/honest replies but kys and maymays.
>>8187772
Homer and Dante are historical memes
Shakespeare transcends all eras, read him and you'd know that you fucking pleb
because being an instrumentalist is the saddest fucking thing to be.
>>8187772
Because a rich enjoyment of a text isn't just in its reading but also in coming to explain an understanding of it, we've had traditions of literary interpretation for Homer dating back thousands of years while some random post-modern author you pick up will be lucky to have a couple of blogs talking about him.
>>8187772
Why read, if not to encounter new ideas?
Ancient/classic/"old" literature introduces you to societies that, as you rightly say, have an entirely different ontology to the modern day - which makes them a fascinating window into a world that doesn't exist. Where you are mistaken is in assuming that these worlds are all the same - the Christianity of Dante != the Christianity of Chaucer != the Christianity of Shakespeare.
Not only is comparing these differences interesting, but realising the similarities is really the best reason to read them.
I guarantee that, once you penetrate the mildly obscure language, you will be shocked and fascinated at how much you can relate to the humanity of these characters who have been dead longer than your country existed. That's why you should read ancient texts: because, really, they're still new.also kys
>>8187772
The themes are universal and transcend time.
Since they have survived this long you know they are well written, insightful or both.
You learn a little about human history and possibly different cultures.
The history of literature builds on itselft, often responding to past authors or alluding to them.
>>8187772
A better question is why you pressuppose it's worth reading Contemporary Lit at all
Adolf was fucking shredded
>>8187772
>despite its dated concepts/ideals
Oy vey yeah how am I supposed to enjoy Ulysses when Joyce gave no advocations for Transgender rights
>>8187813
+1
these are works that have "stood the test of time", and the fact that they continue to be viewed as relevant as time goes on should say something about their content
>>8187813
I don't. I have no doubt contemp lit's ideals will be dated in the future. It's more a matter of new perspectives. I'm a fan of progressivism when it comes to literary concepts and the "human condition."
I didn't mean to imply I didn't read/enjoy Shakespeare or the others in the OP, rather I wanted to discuss the matter of why.
As for your comment, ignoring contemporary lit is ignoring the progression of human ideals in general. But it's also a matter of opinion/peronal belief, I suppose, whether the human condition is evolutionary or static.
>>8187907
New to who? Were you alive through all three thousand years of the Western canon?
Progressivism is a meme
>>8187922
*whom
>>8187797
Example of "random postmodern author" plz
>>8187922
>progressivism is a meme
Another meme. You're just disagreeing with me. Neither of us were alive all 3000 years, pham. So subjectivity in this case is hardly plebian.
>>8187797
so you judge literature by how many booktube reviews it has?
>>8187922
basically this. I assume you (OP) think, for example, the internet changed the human condition. Yes- it is something we experience and interact with constantly, but do they really change the essence of what it is to be human. At the very heart of the manner? If this were true we couldn't exist without them. If anything I'd argue Shakespeares works give closer insight to humanity. They touch closer to the heart of existence. Any evolution humans make are taking them further away from true beauty.
>>8187966
>so you judge literature by how many booktube reviews it has?
Try academic citations if you want a blunt measurement, you'll find qualified intellectuals rarely deal with contemporary works
>>8187941
DFW
