A neglected theory on Literature

[Chilly]

From Story and Structure by Laurence Perrine of the Southern Methodist University.

Perrine, Laurence. "Chapter One: Escape and Interpretation." Story and Structure. 2nd ed. Dallas: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1959, 1966. 3-6.

The first question to ask about fiction is: Why bother to read it?...The eternal answers to this question are two: enjoyment and understanding.
Since the invention of language, men have taken pleasure in following and participating in the imaginary adventures and imaginary experiences of imaginary people. Whatever-without causing harm-serves to make life less tedious, to make the hours pass by more quickly and pleasurably, surely needs nothing else to recommend it. Enjoyment-and ever more enjoyment-is the first aim and justification of reading fiction.
But unless fiction gives something more than pleasure, it hardly justifies itself as a subject of college study. Unless it expands or refines our minds or quickens our sense of life, its value is not appreciably greater that that of miniature golf, bridge or ping-pong. To have a compelling claim to our attention, it must yield not only to enjoyment , but understanding.
The experiences of men through the ages is that literature may furnish such understanding, and do so effectively-that the depiction of imagined experiences can provide authentic insights. ... But the bulk of fiction does not present such insights. Only some does. Initially, therefore, fiction may be classified into two broad categories: literature of escape and literature of interpretation.
Escape Literature is that written purely for entertainment-to help us pass the time agreeably. Interpretive Literature is written to broaden and deepen and sharpen our awareness of life. Escape Literature takes us away from the real world: it enables us temporarily to forgo our troubles. Interpretive Literature takes us, through the imagination, deeper into the real world: it enables us to understand our troubles. Escape Literature has as its only object pleasure. Interpretive Literature has as its object pleasure plus understanding.
Having established a distinction, however, we must not exaggerate or oversimplify it. Escape and interpretation are not two great bins into one or the other of which we can toss any given story. Rather, they are opposite ends of the scale, the two poles between which the world of fiction spins. The difference between them does not lie in the absence or presence of a "moral.'' The story which in all of its incidents and characters is shallow may have an unimpeachable moral, while the interpretive story may have no moral at all in any conventional sense. The difference does not lie in the absence or presence of 'facts.' The historical romance may be full of historical information and yet be pure escape in its depiction of human behavior. The difference does not lie in the presence or absence of an element of fantasy. The escape story may have a surface appearance of everyday reality, while the tale of seeming wildest fancy may press home on us some sudden truth. The difference between the two kinds of literature is deeper and more subtle than any of these distincitons. A story becomes interpretive as it illuminates some aspect of human life or behavior. An interpretive story presents us with an insight-large or small-into the nature and conditions of our existence. It gives us a keener awareness of what it is to be a human being in a universe sometimes friendly, sometimes hostile. It helps us to understand our neighbors and ourselves.
Perhaps we can clarify the difference by suggestion. The escape writer is like an inventor who devises a contrivance for our diversion. When we push the button, lights flash, bells ring, and cardboard figures move jerkily across a painted horizon. The interpretive writer is a discoverer: he takes us out into the midst of life and says "look, here is the world!" ...The interpretive writer takes us behind the scenes, where he shows us the props and mirrors and seeks to make clear the illusions. This is not to say that the interpretive writer is merely a reporter...he shapes and forms [his materials] always with the intent that we may see and feel and understand them better...
Now just as there are two kinds of fiction, there are also two kinds of reader. The immature or inexperienced reader...insists that what he reads return him always some pleasant or exciting image of the world or some flattering image of himself.
...The element of unreality does not lie primarily in magic wands and fairy godmothers but in a superficial treatment of life...
...[The inexperienced reader] makes fixed demands of every story he reads, and he feels frustrated and disappointed unless these demands are satisfied...he still wishes every story to conform at bottom to several strict though perhaps unconsciously formulated expectations. Among the most common of these expectations are: 1) a sympathetic hero (or heroine)-one with whom the reader can in imagination identify himself as he reads and whose adventures and triumphs he can share; 2) A plot in which something exciting is always happening and in which there is a strong element of suspense; 3) A happy outcome that sends the read away undisturbed and optimistic about the world in which he lives; 4) a theme-if the story has a theme- which confirms his already-held opinion of the world.
There is nothing wrong with any of these characteristics as story elements. Significant fiction has been written with them all. The error lies in elevating these characteristics into a set of rigid requirements which a story must meet to be enjoyed. Such limitations restrict drastically one's opportunity for expanding his experiences or broadening his insights...


__________________________________________________ _______________

Disuss. Do you agree? disagree? Is it worth it to attempt to split literature into different categories? If so, is this an accurate way to do so?

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

What does the experienced reader do?

[LuggageFan]

I try not to overthink things I read. So maybe that makes me a philistine, but if I don't enjoy it, I won't finish it. Life is short, and time is precious.

Reading about that seven year old girl in New Jersey who is dying and was mocked by her neighbors, or the kids who torture their cats, or unemployment at 18% - you know something, reality sucks hard enough; I don't want to read about things like that when I am trying to be entertained. I get enough tragedy and people dying and killing people when I read the news.

I'm not saying that literature isn't entertaining; some of it is. But some of it is depressing or boring and unworthy of an investment of my life amounting to a day or a week or whatever.

[Drkshadow03]

Disuss. Do you agree? disagree? Is it worth it to attempt to split literature into different categories? If so, is this an accurate way to do so?

See I think the key to his idea is this:

Having established a distinction, however, we must not exaggerate or oversimplify it. Escape and interpretation are not two great bins into one or the other of which we can toss any given story. Rather, they are opposite ends of the scale, the two poles between which the world of fiction spins.

The two poles idea I can get behind in which there is a spectrum, and therefore a middle between those two extremes. However, where I would disagree is I think a larger portion than he would probably credit falls in between the two poles.

[Cunninglinguist]

Such do all things in life lie on this spectrum where one end is intrinsic goodness and the other is instrumental. I take the observations here about the types of literature to manifest this truth, and, in my opinion, think that they are therefore very sound ones. I would have liked if it incorperated where philosophy and other such texts fit into this spectrum. They are the ultimate instrumental good in writing, and I think that stories with morals and such tend to fall somewhere nearer to the middle.

Also, by what measure the does experienced reader judge whether a book is good or not? The inexperienced reader measures this by how much it conforms to his preconceived expectations, how does the experienced reader measure the books he reads? i.e. how do we know a book is good? What makes a book good?

[OrphanPip]

Where do we then place the value in the aesthetics of the work. Is something which is masterfully written, beautiful, clever, and entertaining, but teaches us nothing still not worth anything?

I also object to the use of authorial intent, does it matter if someone wrote something merely to entertain and accidentally produced a complex masterpiece. Likewise, how many would-be-greats write novels with the intent of being complex and meaningful that are overall complete trash.

A good novel has to do more than just contain informative insights, it should also be entertaining.

Or instead, why does it necessitate that the reader be inexperienced for him to be entertained by the so called escapist literature. It often takes an experienced reader to understand aspects of some literature written merely for entertainment. If someone writes an elaborate parody of, I don't know, let's say the Faerie Queene, that does nothing but mock 16th century Protestantism, it would still likely require an experienced reader to understand.

Even the simplest of literature, like fan fiction, is built upon generations of slowly developing conventions that are mutually understood between the readers of fan fiction and the writers. If someone inverts a common convention in a slash story, it takes an experienced reader of slash fiction to recognize that, even if the slash fiction still remains nothing more than superficial erotica.

[Silas Thorne]

how do we know a book is good? What makes a book good?

I like Walnut and Maple Syrup icecream. It's good.

[LuggageFan]

I also object to the use of authorial intent, does it matter if someone wrote something merely to entertain and accidentally produced a complex masterpiece.

This is a good point. I do not think it matters. Some people are innately talented at telling stories; they can crank them out very rapidly, effortlessly, and leave the rest of us amazed at the writer's genius and talent at making readers cry or rejoice - a skill that few others can even come close to achieving. Sort of in a way like those musical prodigies they profile on 60 Minutes.

Likewise, how many would-be-greats write novels with the intent of being complex and meaningful that are overall complete trash.

Too many to count.