Experiences of the Great Books
Anne Perez

To be used in reply to "What are the Great Books and why did you spend two years reading them?"

     In 1986 The Great Books Colloquium was initiated at Pepperdine University. The Colloquium was to consist of four classes. Professors of Religion, English, Education, and even Natural Science were to lead the classes. The subject matter was to be "the very best, the most powerful, the most profound, the grandest of man's intellectual works." (Elliot Eisner's The Educational Imagination, p.68) Books would range from Plato's Republic, to Darwin's The Origin of Species, to Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karmazov. Each class had a "core" curriculum, and each was conducted in essentially the same way: the "great books" were analyzed, scrutinized, and actively discussed by the group. Instructors were not to "teach" the books; they were instead to lead discussions. Genuine conversations were to take place.

    In 1990 a fifth class was added to the Colloquium. This past semester I had the opportunity to participate in this fifth class - Great Books V. The course began with a review; excerpts from Plato, Aristotle, and the Bible were again read. But for the remainder of the course, "tradition" was left behind. With only a few exceptions, works chosen were not those considered part of the Great Books Canon. Yet the reading and discussion of these books led to important discoveries, for they helped answer a vital question any Great Books student must consider: What is a Great Book?

    Mortimer Adler, editor/founder of the most (in)famous Great Books List, would have a definite answer. According to Adler, great books must meet three criteria: pertinence to contemporary life, worth rereading, and containment of "great ideas." What overwhelmingly fits this list have been works of Anglo-Saxon males. Some critics have disputed the relevance of today's diverse students reading works by dead white men. In the Los Angeles Times (December 3, 1990) Adler responded to such critics with, "They're all ignorant. They have no background, they have no depth of knowledge, no memory. I would not be so impatient if they were relevant." What is relevant to Adler is that our society is a result of Western ideas. The works of Western males have shaped our background, our depth of knowledge, and our very world. Thus there seems to be a fourth method of criteria for Adler: a Great Book must have influenced and still be influencing our beliefs and ideas. Great Books are those that have stood the test of time. Although they may have been written hundreds of years ago, the ideas in them have shaped civilization and continue to shape civilization today.

    As for the Great Books classroom, Adler has definite views towards this as well. In 1982 he published the Paideia Proposal - a proposal to change our approach to education. According to Adler, schooling should do two things - prepare students for further learning and be of equal quality for all. What will do both is didactic instruction. This instruction is characterized by the telling and explanation of problems to be solved, difficulties to be overcome, and connections to be found. More importantly, "the telling should be tempered with questioning." (52) A true discussion is to take place. These beliefs did not originate with Adler. In Plato's Republic, we see some of the most profound discussions ever to take place. Socrates challenges his students to question, clarify, and expand on their beliefs. The Great Books classroom is to do the same.

    As a participant in the Great Books classroom, it easy to attest to the high levels of discussion that can take place. But a unique form of discussion takes place in Great Books V. For it is in a seminar environment that the discussions can cover the most important aspect of Great Books: what constitutes a great work? I have now had the opportunity, in the context of the Great Books Colloquium, to read Virginia Woolf, Martin Luther King, Mao, Paul Tillich, J.D. Salinger, Flannery O'Connor, Solzhenitsyn, and various poets. With the exception of Woolf, none of these were considered part of the Great Books Colloquium Canon. But I have found each to be instrumental in the determination of what a Great Book should be.

    " 'This great book,' 'this worthless book,' the same book is called by both names ... so long as you write what you wish to write, that is all that matters; and whether it matters for ages or only for hours, nobody can say. But to sacrifice a hair of the head of your vision, a shade of its colour, in deference to some Headmaster ... is the most abject treachery." (106) What Virginia Woolf says in A Room of One's Own is relevant for many other great books. What would our world be like if Martin Luther had given in to his "headmasters?" What if Ibsen had allowed his plays to be influenced by society's standards? And what if Emerson had been a conformist? Great thoughts are not a result of blindly and absolutely following the rules of the headmaster. Virginia Woolf was determined to walk on whichever side of the grass she chose. She paved the way for Judith Shakespeare's and the acceptance of such Judiths. A Room of One's Own should most certainly be considered a Great Book. It may not be as technically perfect as her fiction, but it is still vital to civilization. What she said in 1929 shaped our world and still has the potential to continue shaping. For what she says regarding female writers can be said for all writers/thinkers. One must have a room of one's own and, to quote another Shakespeare, to shine own self be true.

    What could Martin Luther King, Mao, and Tillich possibly have to say towards great books? Through the reading of their works, I feel able to make educated guesses as to what each would respond to the question, "What is a Great Book?" Mao would believe a Great Book should help the group as a whole in some way. He would never choose Emerson's Self Reliance, but he would especially enjoy the writings of Marx. Other writers have also chosen to write about "the group." Mill's On Liberty, Swift's Gulliver's Travels, and works by Hobbes and Locke all describe how a group should function in a society. This is most certainly a great idea and these works in particular are pertinent today and worth rereading. As for King, he would also see great importance in the purposes of a group, but in a different manner. Whereas Mao is mainly concerned with preserving the group at all costs, King is concerned with when and how the group should be changed. "Injustice anywhere is a threat everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." (Letter from a Birmingham Jail, p. 76) King sees the unity a society has as a reason all should be involved in correcting injustices. He would believe Great Books are those that address the responsibilities of the individual to society and vice versa. Emerson, Thoreau, and Woolf would be great thinkers. I also believe King would have found Machiavelli and Marx's works valid as Great Books, although I don't feel he would have agreed with their beliefs. (Agreement with the author is not a necessary component of a Great Book) I also believe King's own "Letter" will be added to the Great Books List. It is masterfully written; it merits being read several times. The ideas of justice, responsibilities of a society, responsibilities of the individual, and nature of disobedience are all great ideas, and unfortunately, the oppression of people is likely to be an issue that will always be dealt with.

    Lastly, how does Tillich's Courage to Be help one choose a great book? Throughout his work Tillich speaks of the courage one must have in a life that can seemingly have no meaning. "Most important is the creative individual, the genius in whom, as Kant later formulated it, the unconscious creativity of nature breaks into the consciousness of man ... their courage was both the courage to be as oneself and the courage to be as a part." (105) Thus a great writer can be loyal to the group as well as to himself (or herself). Tillich recognizes the strength all writers must have if they are to faithfully address great ideas. For this reason, I believe Tillich would admire all the authors of the Great Books simply because they dared to be creative in societies that were not always receptive to such courage.

    In Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye Holden Caufield asks "How would you know you weren't being a phony? The trouble is you wouldn't." (172) Thus two important issues are raised: what is truth and how do we know it? This seems to be a basic question all the Great Books address. Each has vastly different "truths" ranging from aspects in art, to matters of religion, to types of government. But what each writer must do is convince his or her audience that s/he has found some way to determine truth. Be it John's convincing us of Christ's existence, Wordsworth's concepts of nature, or Freud's ideas about human nature, each author must illustrate how s/he came to find the truth as well as prove its existence. Holden Caufield seems unable to do this; does this make Catcher in the Rye incapable of being considered a Great Book? A distinction must now be made between a work that should be part of the canon and a work that may be used to study the canon. I believe Salinger's work to be the latter. It is truly too early to tell if Catcher in the Rye will be relevant 100 years from now or if it is merely a work illustrative of its time. My "hunch" is that it will be considered a "period piece." Yet Salinger's novel is relevant in that it brings up this concept of truth. All Great Books are judged by how much "truth" they contain. Holden challenges us to examine this in our lives; Great Books writers do the same.

    Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, as well as the various poems we examined, have one trait in common: the examination of the human spirit. Langston Hughes addresses what happens to the spirit when one's "dreams are deferred" once too often. A.E. Houseman shows us the fleeting nature of man in "To An Athlete Dying Young." Tennyson's "Lady of Shalott" illustrates the artistic spirit. Jose Garcia Villa chose to address man and his relationship with God and "the way my ideas think me." Coelridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" is an example of the imperfect nature of man, the mistakes humans make, and how we must live with these mistakes. Wallace Steven's "The Emperor of Ice Cream" clearly illustrates the potential obscurity of man's artistic side. Dylan Thomas argues for the strength in the human spirit as he pleads with his father to "not go gentle into that good night." Solzhenitsyn's work does the same. It examines the effect the most damaging physical surroundings can have on an individual. All of these works are important when studying the canon, for we must never forget the importance of our own human nature. What use are Mill's ideas of government or Smith's theories of economics if one does not remember these theories must be applied to human life?

    The stories of Flannery O' Conner also illustrate the many aspects of the human spirit as well as challenge how we determine truth. In "A Good Man Is Hard to Find" it is very difficult to determine who exactly the good people are. How do we measure a good man? How do we measure any aspect of man? In her preface to the novel Wise Blood O'Connor asks, "Does one's integrity ever lie in what he is not able to do? I think that it usually does, for free will does not mean one will, but many wills conflicting in one man. Freedom can not be conceived simply. It is a mystery and one which a novel, even a comic novel, can only be asked to deepen." (Wise Blood, 3) The human spirit is a complex matter that great works may not explain, but can most definitely illustrate.

    Will Flannery O'Connor ever join the ranks of the Great Books? I believe so. Her works are worth rereading. One must read simply to determine meaning, but one will also find oneself rereading for pure enjoyment's sake. I believe her works will be being reread by the 23rd century, for they do contain many "great ideas:" the nature of justice, of God, of society, and most importantly, of man. O'Connor most definitely illustrates all aspects of individuals, and she does it in a unique, humorous, and sometimes overwhelmingly powerful manner.

    Thus a Great Book is a work that should have the following characteristics. It should be relevant to contemporary life, no matter if it was written in 300BC or 1948. It should be worth reading and rereading. It should contain certain great ideas. (see Adler's Synopticon for 102 ideas) And it should have made some sort of impression and/or change in civilization. These four are Adler's criteria. I have added one more: it must never forget the complexity of the human spirit. What has possibly given me the gall to add a measurement criteria. The Great Books Colloquium. Through two plus years of active, sometimes passionate, conversation, I have learned to discuss, analyze, question, conclude, and even judge. This is the legacy of the Great Books: individuals who never forget they are students and who are determined to pursue truth. "For we are inquiring not in order to know what virtue is, but in order to become good." (Aristotle)