> > Lord of the Flies. If anything needs to be condensed, it's Lord of the Flies. (How DARE they put that rotten piece of *so-called* literature on the required reading list?!?!)
>
> Uhm, why they bother putting 4/5 of the stuff they do as "required" reading astounds me. . . . the absolute worst offender, IMO is the Iliad,

I love bashing acclaimed literature (I *hate* Ernest Hemingway), but I'm going to have to speak up in defense of each of these. The Iliad, I think, is revered more for the insight into an ancient culture than for its literary accomplishments, and you must at least admit that the ancient Greek ideas of social stature, the sexes, the roles of host and guest, pride, and other such things are clearly evident from the Iliad and the Odyssey both. I would agree that the Odyssey is far greater in terms of a work of literature, but my impression is that seems to be the general consensus amongst literature scholars anyway.

As for the Lord of the Flies, it does the single thing that most defines great literature, that thing uniquely suited to literature that other mediums can only approximate. It presents ideas and induces thought. LotF is rich with ideas about culture, youth, human instinct, and the age old "nature vs. nuture" issue. Whether or not it's a great story to read for entertainment purposes, the book does a fantastic job of that, and thereby earns its label of "literature." Remember, a judgment of a book as entertainment is a whole different issue. But it's a fine work of art and a fine expression of ideas, and that, IMHO, warrants greater respect than if it were just "a good read." This kind of literature, the kind that expresses and explores ideas, is what keeps culture alive.

At the same time, I'd agree with both of you that there is a lot of schlock on the list of English professors' most prized. I don't see terribly much value in "The Scarlet Letter," for example -- not that I'm completely trashing it. It's a fine, insightful study of what a Puritanical society can do to crush the human spirit. That goal in itself is a good thing, and it's done well. But the work is cluttered to death with symbolism run rampant that, as far as I can tell, does less to move itself forward than it does to flaunt the author's cleverness. Call it an admirable but flawed attempt at greatness. Its central theme is probably profound and insightful enough to excuse its weaknesses and explore the book in spite of them, but I don't think it belongs on any lists of greatest literary works.

And as far as I can tell, Hemingway never wrote anything of any merit whatsoever. So he was a depressed drunkard -- I don't see why anyone else would have some soul-filling need to experience the indulgent wallowing he does in his books. His short stories are even worse.

James Joyce? I'm treading on dangerous territory here, firstly because he's one of THE greatest revered writers ever, secondly because my reading of his work is light. I'm not going to say he's out and out bad, and I'm not going to say ANYTHING about him without the caveat that these are as yet only my impressions not my decided beliefs. The thing about Joyce is that he apparently has all kinds of great ideas in his work, and it's obvious that much care and creativity went into the physical construction of his work. But nobody understands it. Even literary scholars don't know what to make of Ulysses, but most hold to the fantastically brainwashed notion that once they do understand it, it will reveal itself as the greatest written work in the history of mankind. Ha! Having ideas and insight isn't the only essential part of great literature -- the other is expressing them in clear, generally accessible terms. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have to think, but it does mean it should be practically possible to comprehend. If an army of English professors still haven't unraveled it, Ulysses has already failed.

Shakespeare was brilliant. Just thought I'd say that.