How might you find the greats? Some will give you lists, as did Mortimer Adler, who designed with Mr. Ego Robert Maynard Hutchins The Great Books of the Western World. On campuses today, their efforts are an effrontery to the politically correct who think for every male you read there is a corresponding female. There just might be, but I find tallying of that sort to be a kick in the shin of intelligence. My sort of reading is too drifty and restless to worry about the niceties of trends. Besides, one of my favorite (female) writers, Dorothy Leigh Sayers, once said, "What is repugnant to every human being is to be reckoned always as a member of a class and not as an individual person." Let me quote her again: "Indeed, it is my experience that both men and women are fundamentally human, and that there is very little mystery about either sex, except the exasperating mysteriousness of human beings in general."
I may never end her exasperation, but I do worry about finding the greats. Jacques Barzun has four intersections each great must pass in order to arrive safely home: thickness, adaptability, votes, and academic discussion. Perhaps he's right; I would emphasize that the greats bring intense pleasure in their reading (and, this must not be forgotten, their re-reading). But, I have discovered one sure-fire method of finding the best books in a bookstore, or what the Romans once called taberna libraria. Go to Barnes and Noble on a Friday evening, just after dinner, and find the least inspected shelves, and there you'll find the greats. People, from the looks of the store, read stuff by John Grisham and Robert Atkins and Tim LaHaye, but there is no shelf-pull toward Homer, Hesiod, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Montaigne - and here we pass into the age of first names - Ben Franklin, Samuel Johnson, Jean Jacques Rousseau, J.W. von Goethe, Robert Louis Stevenson, or even those as recent as G.K. Chesterton, H.L. Mencken, Dorothy Sayers, James Thurber, E.B. White, George Orwell, A.J. Liebling, Isaiah Berlin, Flannery O'Connor, Joseph Epstein, Umberto Eco, Edward Said, Lionell Trilling, Nancy Mairs, Joan Didion, Cynthia Ozick, Anne Faddiman, V.S. Naipaul, or Merrill Joan Gerber. Pause for a minute with these writers (both men and women for the tally-minded). You'll find their prose siren-like, their topics humane and urbane, and their angles clever and insightful. And sometimes they are just plain fun to read. I am a sucker for the witty, and find myself wandering into the writings of James Thurber and Robert Benchley and S.J. Perelman and Anne Lamott.
There's that joie de vivre in the former sorts, too - well, perhaps not in Mencken for he was more intent on scoring points. As Terry Teachout has shown in his superbly written biography of Mencken, that man's sturdy pen had a sharp, serrated edge, and it began with his after-breakfast cigars. It was Mencken who delighted in blowing (cigar-infested) fumes of cynicism on simple souls of faith. When speaking of the soul and the claim that it separates humans from beasts, Mencken fumed: "Well, consider the colossal failure of the device. If we assume that man actually does resemble God, then we are forced into the impossible theory that God is a coward, idiot and a bounder." Let's not follow his gaseous thought any further, for a few gulps of straight Mencken is plenty for the day. Instead, let's admit that places in the bookstore where most people stand have books that tell good stories (people are buying them for a reason), and reveal secrets for living for the next week or so. But I've yet to find those authors struggle with life and death, with meaning and purpose, or with questions like "Who am I?" or "Who are we as a 'we'?" or "What is God like?" and "How might I know God?"

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon












"On campuses today, their efforts are an effrontery to the politically correct who think for every male you read there is a corresponding female."
Normally, I understand you to be fair-minded when it comes to issues of gender equality, but this strikes me as a low (and not particularly accurate) blow....
Upon reflection, that looks a lot more hostile than I'd like. My apologies. I actually like most of this article, and would certainly encourage people to explore more of the classics (my father-in-law is such a fan of the Great Books that he gave my wife a set of her own when she entered college, which we still have).
I'm just a bit touchy about the way people (much broader than just you, Scot) use "politically correct" in such a dismissive way. Although I'll concede that many academics argue that "all male" lists are problematic, it's usually to highlight the fact that there were *some* female thinkers, even of those earlier times, who have been ignored. I can't think of anyone who truly argues that such lists MUST be measured at a one-to-one quota of male-to-female.
I'd take Horace and Juvenal to Virgil. Dante is fantastic, especially the circles of Hell. I'd rather read poetry--Chaucer, Milton,Keats, Coleridge, Byron, Swift, Pope--but if we're going to read prose, how about some stylists--Gibbon, Swift, Churchill, Waugh,Pynchon and Joyce.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.