Is there any way to get a classical education or ...

[Luanne]

at least be well-read without reading gory books (that would definitely give me nightmares if I did read them)? I would like to be a well-educated person, but maybe that isn't possible without my reading The Iliad and The Odyssey (and other such graphic books). Any suggestions or comments?

[Luanne]

An Old Fashioned Education?

 

Since no one has responded to my earlier post I am guessing no one has an answer or that I am correct in thinking what I first posted.

[Cedarmom]

The Well Educated Mind by Susan Wise Bauer has a huge book list. It seems like there are enough choices in there that you could choose the books that would interest you. You could also focus on other aspects of classical ed. such as learning Latin or Greek.

[Hunter]

There are many people who think of themselves as well read who have read little of the Western canon. People of other cultures and subcultures sometimes find the literature of dead white men to be offensive.

 

Maybe you might like to start with the folk tales of different cultures around the world? You might like to look at reading lists for classes in women's studies. What about lots of non fiction? The holy books of different religions can be graphic, but you could stick to the parts recommended for devotional reading.

[LidiyaDawn]

Of course! Being "well educated" doesn't automatically mean having had a classical education, nor does it mean having read *this list* of specific books.

[Julie in MN]

Maybe you might like to start with the folk tales of different cultures around the world?

 

Some of those would definitely be gory. But maybe not the stuff of nightmares?

[Ester Maria]

Imagine it this way: you have a very diverse landscape of books, tons upon tons of writing throughout centuries, with many landmarks of different "height". And you are looking at it from the above - in order to see the connections between works, what builds on what and to be able to follow some sort of "development of thought", you have to make sure to cover many landmarks.

 

Landmarks are there for many different reasons - some are there because they are what we have remaining, some are there because they were innovations in literature, many are there because they are skill-wise some of the greatest works the humanity accomplished, and some are there more due to ideological and political reasons than their inherent quality, promoted by a specific canon throughout centuries. Ultimately, it does not really matter, they are still landmarks which define, largely, how we view that landscape from the above. Yes, it is a mixed multitude of writings, but one can definitely pick out some things and call them more important than other things as parts of a "big picture". So, unless you are waving specialist and wish to deal precisely with the more obscure parts, or to deal in-depth with a particular part of the landscape, you need to cover the landmarks - and that is, traditionally, what Great Books (God do I loathe that label, even if there is at least some truth in it) education has been about.

 

The landmarks are many, one cannot possibly address all of them unless a specialist, and even those of us who are dealing with literature professionally have our "gaps" too regarding epochs or national literatures within that Western civilization which we did not study so in-depth. However, in theory, one should plan to cover a bit of all that are important landmarks and known in the tradition of one's nation: so, while maybe both Homeric epics are not essential, it would be a good idea to do one of them, or to do one of them partially or both via anthology readings, to "cover" the aspect of what is basically oral matrix in early literature. While not all Greek tragedies are essential, we can surely pick half a dozen which are more mainstream, "canonical" options, and opt to read a few of those. Same for Shakespeare. Furthermore, while not all Dostoevsky's novels are important to be well-read, we can read one or even two, if we particularly like the style. While one does not have to go through all of Moliere's opus, one can read a play or two. In the end, one ends up with an interesting "mishmash" which can be quite different from the next person's "mishmash", but still representative of the landmarks in Western literature, and both persons can be well-read. In addition, the landmarks differ based on where you look from: French literature is much more important for Italian cultural context (and let alone French one) than for the American one. So, maybe a dozen French readings for my kids by graduation, but somebody else might "cover" it by reading one classical play, a Maupassant story, a Montaigne essay, one realist / naturalist novel and one piece of existentialist writings. That, for his particular point of view, might be all it takes to "cover" France.

 

The tricky thing with antiquity is that, no matter where you look at it from in the Western world, the landmarks remain, and that is a nice, though at the same time challenging thing about antiquity: it seems to be largely, just as Bible, shared heritage, so if one's imperative is to be well-read in the context of the Western civilization, one cannot ignore it. Most of the "threads of thought" were started back then and for an adequate understanding of many latter phenomena in art, literature and philosophy, you will find yourself going back to one of two sources (Biblical vs. classical). That is why a grounding in antiquity is still important, in spite of personal preferences. They enter the picture, of course - one may decide which things to focus on more - but the basic "periodization", how we call it (covering all epochs and selected landmarks which would give a representative overview) is still a must, even if not done in a strictly chronological fashion (there are both arguments and counter-arguments for chronological approach).

 

Not sure if this answers your question, but that is how I view it - so the answer is at the same time a "yes" and a "no".

Edited April 22, 2011 by Ester Maria

[Cedarmom]

Imagine it this way: you have a very diverse landscape of books, tons upon tons of writing throughout centuries, with many landmarks of different "height". And you are looking at it from the above - in order to see the connections between works, what builds on what and to be able to follow some sort of "development of thought", you have to make sure to cover many landmarks.

 

Landmarks are there for many different reasons - some are there because they are what we have remaining, some are there because they were innovations in literature, many are there because they are skill-wise some of the greatest works the humanity accomplished, and some are there more due to ideological and political reasons than their inherent quality, promoted by a specific canon throughout centuries. Ultimately, it does not really matter, they are still landmarks which define, largely, how we view that landscape from the above. Yes, it is a mixed multitude of writings, but one can definitely pick out some things and call them more important than other things as parts of a "big picture". So, unless you are waving specialist and wish to deal precisely with the more obscure parts, or to deal in-depth with a particular part of the landscape, you need to cover the landmarks - and that is, traditionally, what Great Books (God do I loathe that label, even if there is at least some truth in it) education has been about.

 

The landmarks are many, one cannot possibly address all of them unless a specialist, and even those of us who are dealing with literature professionally have our "gaps" too regarding epochs or national literatures within that Western civilization which we did not study so in-depth. However, in theory, one should plan to cover a bit of all that are important landmarks and known in the tradition of one's nation: so, while maybe both Homeric epics are not essential, it would be a good idea to do one of them, or to do one of them partially or both via anthology readings, to "cover" the aspect of what is basically oral matrix in early literature. While not all Greek tragedies are essential, we can surely pick half a dozen which are more mainstream, "canonical" options, and opt to read a few of those. Same for Shakespeare. Furthermore, while not all Dostoevsky's novels are important to be well-read, we can read one or even two, if we particularly like the style. While one does not have to go through all of Moliere's opus, one can read a play or two. In the end, one ends up with an interesting "mishmash" which can be quite different from the next person's "mishmash", but still representative of the landmarks in Western literature, and both persons can be well-read. In addition, the landmarks differ based on where you look from: French literature is much more important for Italian cultural context (and let alone French one) than for the American one. So, maybe a dozen French readings for my kids by graduation, but somebody else might "cover" it by reading one classical play, a Maupassant story, a Montaigne essay, one realist / naturalist novel and one piece of existentialist writings. That, for his particular point of view, might be all it takes to "cover" France.

 

The tricky thing with antiquity is that, no matter where you look at it from in the Western world, the landmarks remain, and that is a nice, though at the same time challenging thing about antiquity: it seems to be largely, just as Bible, shared heritage, so if one's imperative is to be well-read in the context of the Western civilization, one cannot ignore it. Most of the "threads of thought" were started back then and for an adequate understanding of many latter phenomena in art, literature and philosophy, you will find yourself going back to one of two sources (Biblical vs. classical). That is why a grounding in antiquity is still important, in spite of personal preferences. They enter the picture, of course - one may decide which things to focus on more - but the basic "periodization", how we call it (covering all epochs and selected landmarks which would give a representative overview) is still a must, even if not done in a strictly chronological fashion (there are both arguments and counter-arguments for chronological approach).

 

Not sure if this answers your question, but that is how I view it - so the answer is at the same time a "yes" and a "no".

 

What an amazing analogy of classical education! Thanks.You are always so inspiring,

[Lori D.]

[how to be] ...well-read without reading gory books (that would definitely give me nightmares if I did read them)? I would like to be a well-educated person, but maybe that isn't possible without my reading The Iliad and The Odyssey (and other such graphic books). Any suggestions or comments?

 

 

Well it really depends on what exactly would disturb YOU.

 

For example, in movies, I know *I* cannot watch mafia and serial killer movies as they disturb me WAAYY TOOO much. However, I can watch blockbuster action flicks with loads o' explosions and bullets and fake blood a flyin' without a problem because it is so ridiculously unbelievable (to me). When it comes to the classics, I found the psychological darkness, abusiveness and co-dependence in Wuthering Heights to be FAR more disturbing than the up-front war battles in the Iliad. And the subtle but pervasively hopeless existential worldview of Calvino was much more upsetting and lasted longer in my mind than the slaying of the monster Grendal by Beowulf, which left me with the encouraging theme of good persevering, even to the point of physical suffering, but ultimately triumphing over evil.

 

 

Additionally, this is just me, but I do not find the violence in The Iliad, The Odyssey, or Beowulf or other epics to be graphic in the sense that it is disturbing or causes nightmares, for several reasons. One is that these works were written in a poetic, stylized form, which distances you a bit from the violence -- in comparison with the detailed, realistic descriptions and emotional reactions to terrible violence which sucks you in so that you experience the events right alongside the characters in something like All Quiet on the Western Front.

 

Another reason the violence in epics is not distressing to me is that the grand sweeping themes of these works overrides the violence, and tends to keep any violence in perspective. Yes, in The Iliad you read a lot that "the dark came swirling down" (poetic way The Iliad tells you another man died) -- but The Iliad isn't about a body count -- quite often you get a brief history of that man, the names of his parents, where he came from -- I think the point is to both honor the man, but also to drive home the point of how TRAGIC the war is; so many men dying -- and was the original reason worth it? Maybe Homer is being thought-provoking here -- by showing us these men's faces he makes us remember they are individuals, and what the true cost of war is...

 

And finally, thinking about the violence in context with the times in which the work was written can be very helpful. It gets your mind off of dwelling on a gory detail and focused on the big picture: why the people in that culture and in that time wrote about such a topic. How did it help them wrestle with what it means to be human? How did it help them address the issues of their day?

 

 

If you are really concerned you will be upset by some of the classics, how about:

- skip the chapters that describe things that would disturb you

- substitute children's and abridged versions of classics you are concerned about

- just read the summary and analysis from a lit. guide

- watch a film version (although, that will also most likely have battling, monsters, violence or whatever, if it was in the original book)

- skip works you're concerned about for now and come back to them later when you're more used to reading the classics and looking for themes and not so focused on potential reaction

 

 

And in the end, if you really don't want to read certain classics -- then don't! The Great Books Police will NOT come after you. :D Self-educate where and how you feel led; whatever you study will be to the good. BEST of luck, whatever you decide! Warmest regards, Lori D.

[flyingiguana]

There are so many "great" books out there that don't have gore and violence that you could be kept busy reading them for a long time. So yes, it's entirely possible you could work on that aspect of your education while avoiding the gory things.

 

The trick would be finding which ones would be ok.

 

Does anyone know of a list of possibilities? I'd be inclined to start with something like Pride and Prejudice or Jane Eyre.

 

The suggestion of children's versions of the gorier classics is also a good one. I think the Padraic Colum books are fairly literary versions of some of the Greek and Norse myths and epics. I don't recall them being overly gory (someone might chime in here and disagree, though). The Sutcliff versions of the Iliad and the Odyssey are also a bit tamer than the real versions.

 

We're in the middle of the Aeneid right now, and we're beginning to think we're just going to skip all the battle scenes. After the battle scenes in the Odyssey and the Iliad, we think we've just had enough.

 

We also read Lavinia, which is a modern retelling of the Aeneid -- the battle scenes are included, but told more from the perspective of the women at home. I still skimmed them. They just didn't interest me. To be honest, I don't think they said much to me.

 

And then I read The Things They Carried. I wish I hadn't, because the gory scenes are still stuck in my head -- but the big difference between The Things They Carried and the battles in the Odyssey, the Iliad, and the Aeneid is that the battles in the epics did not teach me much of anything, or hit any kind of emotional chord other than "yuck". While they are interesting from a historical perspective, either our culture or I don't respond to them in a way that makes it worthwhile reading. But I did learn and respond from/to The Things They Carried that made it worth reading. (Although I'd still rather not have those images stuck in my head.)

 

At one point, someone suggested just reading books 1,2,4,and 6 of the Aeneid and skipping the rest. I think, though, that this might skip the sack of Troy and the Trojan horse story, which one would probably want to read - even though that was a particularly gruesome chapter. On the other hand, although the sack of Troy in the Aeneid was gruesome, I could see the literary merit of the gore (much like in The Things They Carried) so I wasn't inclined to skip it. However, I couldn't see the point of much of the violence in the Iliad. Some of it worked, yes, but then there seemed to be long chapters where NOTHING happened but for a lot of killing that did not advance the plot or characterization in any way.

 

I wonder if some of the Greek fascination with these interminable battle scenes had to do with the fact that many of the upper class families traced their descent from these heroes. It may have been a bit like researching your ancestors, which people find so interesting today. So what looks to us like an extraneous scene with a minor character might have been very important to those who believed they were descended from him.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I wonder if some of the Greek fascination with these interminable battle scenes had to do with the fact that many of the upper class families traced their descent from these heroes. It may have been a bit like researching your ancestors, which people find so interesting today. So what looks to us like an extraneous scene with a minor character might have been very important to those who believed they were descended from him.

 

I think some of the attraction of the battle scenes had to do with the shared experience of battle that many of the Greeks in the Homeric and later periods had. Battle wasn't just something that people far away and a long time ago did. It was something that they had often experienced and possibly would again. Hanson's Ripples of Battle spends a good amount of time dealing with the figures from the Athens and other cities who had experience fighting.

 

It might be similar to how one of my commanding officers always liked to show WWII movies before big exercises. Past sacrifice, cunning and heroics as inspiration for current endeavors.