Please help me understand literature

[JamesGold]

If the purpose of literature is to convey a (often philosophical) message, it generally doesn't do a very good job of it. Either the message becomes obscured (deliberately, it seems) by the fictional story it's buried in, or the author belabors the message to the point of annoyance, or both. If you as an author want to convey a message, why shroud it in a long-winded story? Just come right out with it. Write a philosophical work and spare your readers the trouble of slogging through rambling dialogue and unnecessary detail.

As a reader, if you want philosophy, read philosophy. If you want entertainment, read books meant to entertain. When you read books that try to do both, you'll probably end up bored and annoyed like me.

I picked up The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky a couple weeks ago and I'm about half way through the novel. The story is not entertaining, there's tons of fluff, and the philosophical message is belabored. Yes, Dostoevsky, we understand that you believe that simple faith trumps analytical skepticism. We see over and over how the novel's characters of faith (Father Zossima, Alyosha) have a positive effect on the world around them while the characters of doubt (Fyodor Pavlovitch, Dmitri, Ivan) end up destroying themselves and those around them. That's all well and good, but what have you got to back up your philosophy? Who says non-believers can't have a positive effect on the world? This is, after all, a work of fiction, where the author can manipulate the story in whichever way he pleases to support his particular philosophy.

As you can see, I'm a little frustrated with literature as a whole right now. Is there something I'm missing, some perspective on literature I haven't considered that could possibly redeem it?

[Emil Miller]

If the purpose of literature is to convey a (often philosophical) message, it generally doesn't do a very good job of it. Either the message becomes obscured (deliberately, it seems) by the fictional story it's buried in, or the author belabors the message to the point of annoyance, or both. If you as an author want to convey a message, why shroud it in a long-winded story? Just come right out with it. Write a philosophical work and spare your readers the trouble of slogging through rambling dialogue and unnecessary detail.

As a reader, if you want philosophy, read philosophy. If you want entertainment, read books meant to entertain. When you read books that try to do both, you'll probably end up bored and annoyed like me.

I picked up The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky a couple weeks ago and I'm about half way through the novel. The story is not entertaining, there's tons of fluff, and the philosophical message is belabored. Yes, Dostoevsky, we understand that you believe that simple faith trumps analytical skepticism. We see over and over how the novel's characters of faith (Father Zossima, Alyosha) have a positive effect on the world around them while the characters of doubt (Fyodor Petrovitch, Dmitri, Ivan) end up destroying themselves and those around them. That's all well and good, but what have you got to back up your philosophy? Who says non-believers can't have a positive effect on the world? This is, after all, a work of fiction, where the author can manipulate the story in whichever way he pleases to support his particular philosophy.

As you can see, I'm a little frustrated with literature as a whole right now. Is there something I'm missing, some perspective on literature I haven't considered that could possibly redeem it?

This is likely to generate a certain amount of refutation but I do see where you are coming from. It is very difficult to get the balance between the philosophical and fictional elements of a novel in proportion, but it is sometimes easier for people to relate to the philosophy if it is dressed up in a fictional tale with characters with whom the reader can identify. This, to me, is the sole justification for the type of novel you have mentioned.
However, there is another dimension to a novel, i.e. the form or structure of the book which may also be interesting to the reader and add to the entertainment value of the story if not to its philosophical content.

[fb0252]

you started what should be an interesting thread. i have karamazov ordered from Norton for a second reading. 1st was in 40 years ago in my early 20s. i have a good memory for the book. Be interested to see if the aging adult has the same view.

to read or not to read? entertainment, info, philosophy. u left out aesthetics, perspective. i notice a lot of posters on here seem to read in volume. the older i get the slower i go and find second and sometimes third and 4th (shakespeare) readings to be more illuminating. memorizing great passages. i am unsure that Shakespeare was such a superior genius, or whether he simply put more elbow grease into his work. there are lines in Mr. S so precise that regardless how high the IQ, it took a lot of work to get it there. interesting Q u posed!

[Drkshadow03]

If the purpose of literature is to convey a (often philosophical) message, it generally doesn't do a very good job of it. Either the message becomes obscured (deliberately, it seems) by the fictional story it's buried in, or the author belabors the message to the point of annoyance, or both. If you as an author want to convey a message, why shroud it in a long-winded story? Just come right out with it. Write a philosophical work and spare your readers the trouble of slogging through rambling dialogue and unnecessary detail.

As a reader, if you want philosophy, read philosophy. If you want entertainment, read books meant to entertain. When you read books that try to do both, you'll probably end up bored and annoyed like me.

I picked up The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky a couple weeks ago and I'm about half way through the novel. The story is not entertaining, there's tons of fluff, and the philosophical message is belabored. Yes, Dostoevsky, we understand that you believe that simple faith trumps analytical skepticism. We see over and over how the novel's characters of faith (Father Zossima, Alyosha) have a positive effect on the world around them while the characters of doubt (Fyodor Pavlovitch, Dmitri, Ivan) end up destroying themselves and those around them. That's all well and good, but what have you got to back up your philosophy? Who says non-believers can't have a positive effect on the world? This is, after all, a work of fiction, where the author can manipulate the story in whichever way he pleases to support his particular philosophy.

As you can see, I'm a little frustrated with literature as a whole right now. Is there something I'm missing, some perspective on literature I haven't considered that could possibly redeem it?

Philosophy and literature cover many of the same issues/concerns/problems of life, but they approach them differently. One sets out to talk about the matters of life and reality through a rigorous analysis of the issue, while the other attempts to dramatize those experiences and help us more directly connect to them by watching characters attempt to deal with them.

[OrphanPip]

I don't quite get why people think Dostoevsky a brilliant philosopher. He's notable as an early proponent of psychological realism. Instead of reading it thinking about the philosophical arguments going on, think about how Dostoevsky goes about trying to use philosophy and moral arguments to construct a concept of psychological individuality for his characters.

I think Notes From Underground is perhaps better for this because Dostoevsky only deals with one character throughout. BK is an impressive novel though and I enjoy it for what it is despite my complete disagreement with Dostoevsky's pseudo-philosophy.

[dfloyd]

To enjoy a writer such as Dostoyevsky, you must put effort into it. Reading literature is a subject broached by several scholars such as Clifton Fadiman and Harold Bloom. Rather than trying to read a particular work, try reading about reading by those in the know. And there will always be some critic who dislikes a particular novel or writer.

Readers who can read great literatire are often born, not made. There are some personalities who can pick up a book and understand the story and the writer's intent. Such a reader was Teddy Roosevelt who read voraciously. I doubt if Richard Nixon or George W. Bush ever read a work of fiction in their life.

[Lokasenna]

The main factor which distinguishes literature from straight philosophy is that literature isn't so much about what you say, but how you say it. The message, in a sense, is ancilliary.

Sure, the 'fluff' might not be to everyone's taste, but that's the subjectivity of literature. Mary Shelley could have simply written "Don't play God" and had done with it, but I doubt her work would have been as enjoyable, or as predominantly ingrained on the public conciousness, had she chosen to do so.

[JCamilo]

Philosophy and literature cover many of the same issues/concerns/problems of life, but they approach them differently. One sets out to talk about the matters of life and reality through a rigorous analysis of the issue, while the other attempts to dramatize those experiences and help us more directly connect to them by watching characters attempt to deal with them.

That reminds me an anedocte about Zeno. He came to his master and told him... "If achilles and the turtle start the race..." and when he ended the master got up and walked.

I suppose we should ask people to be more minimalist, why writting a philosophical work if a gesture is enough?

[sixsmith]

This is likely to generate a certain amount of refutation but I do see where you are coming from. It is very difficult to get the balance between the philosophical and fictional elements of a novel in proportion, but it is sometimes easier for people to relate to the philosophy if it is dressed up in a fictional tale with characters with whom the reader can identify.

I'm of the opinion that Dostoyevsky rarely gets it right and that his characters tend to collapse into mere mouthpieces for his sandbox philosophy. The tendentious novel is, however, a tough ask, so I don't judge his failings too harshly.

[stlukesguild]

If the purpose of literature is to convey a (often philosophical) message, it generally doesn't do a very good job of it. Either the message becomes obscured (deliberately, it seems) by the fictional story it's buried in, or the author belabors the message to the point of annoyance, or both. If you as an author want to convey a message, why shroud it in a long-winded story? Just come right out with it. Write a philosophical work and spare your readers the trouble of slogging through rambling dialogue and unnecessary detail...

As you can see, I'm a little frustrated with literature as a whole right now. Is there something I'm missing, some perspective on literature I haven't considered that could possibly redeem it?

Yes... there is something essential that you are missing and that is the fact that the "purpose" of literature is not to convey a (often philosophical) message. Your whole approach to literature supposes that the goal is arriving at the ending (thus the desire to eliminate the "rambling dialog and unnecessary detail") at which time one will grasp the "meaning". The reality is that the goal of literature... or the work of music... or a film or painting... is not to rush to the end and the "meaning"; the goal... perhaps not unlike life... is the journey itself. Literature is about telling stories, inventing characters, creating scenes and environments wholly with words... playing with words. Certainly, writers may confront philosophical, social, political, theological, scientific issues, but the supposition that the raison d'être of literature is the expression of such a message completely misses the purpose of art.

[JamesGold]

Yes... there is something essential that you are missing and that is the fact that the "purpose" of literature is not to convey a (often philosophical) message. Your whole approach to literature supposes that the goal is arriving at the ending (thus the desire to eliminate the "rambling dialog and unnecessary detail") at which time one will grasp the "meaning". The reality is that the goal of literature... or the work of music... or a film or painting... is not to rush to the end and the "meaning"; the goal... perhaps not unlike life... is the journey itself. Literature is about telling stories, inventing characters, creating scenes and environments wholly with words... playing with words. Certainly, writers may confront philosophical, social, political, theological, scientific issues, but the supposition that the raison d'être of literature is the expression of such a message completely misses the purpose of art.

Well said, sir.

If the purpose of literature is as you say, then I suppose I should stop reading the novel because the story bores me, the characters and scenes aren't particularly memorable, and his philosophy is kind of stupid. Perhaps at some point in the future I will come back to it and enjoy it.

[IceM]

If the purpose of literature is to convey a (often philosophical) message, it generally doesn't do a very good job of it. Either the message becomes obscured (deliberately, it seems) by the fictional story it's buried in, or the author belabors the message to the point of annoyance, or both. If you as an author want to convey a message, why shroud it in a long-winded story? Just come right out with it. Write a philosophical work and spare your readers the trouble of slogging through rambling dialogue and unnecessary detail...

As you can see, I'm a little frustrated with literature as a whole right now. Is there something I'm missing, some perspective on literature I haven't considered that could possibly redeem it?

Yes... there is something essential that you are missing and that is the fact that the "purpose" of literature is not to convey a (often philosophical) message. Your whole approach to literature supposes that the goal is arriving at the ending (thus the desire to eliminate the "rambling dialog and unnecessary detail") at which time one will grasp the "meaning". The reality is that the goal of literature... or the work of music... or a film or painting... is not to rush to the end and the "meaning"; the goal... perhaps not unlike life... is the journey itself. Literature is about telling stories, inventing characters, creating scenes and environments wholly with words... playing with words. Certainly, writers may confront philosophical, social, political, theological, scientific issues, but the supposition that the raison d'être of literature is the expression of such a message completely misses the purpose of art.

This is likely to generate a certain amount of refutation but I do see where you are coming from. It is very difficult to get the balance between the philosophical and fictional elements of a novel in proportion, but it is sometimes easier for people to relate to the philosophy if it is dressed up in a fictional tale with characters with whom the reader can identify. This, to me, is the sole justification for the type of novel you have mentioned.
However, there is another dimension to a novel, i.e. the form or structure of the book which may also be interesting to the reader and add to the entertainment value of the story if not to its philosophical content.

I very much agree with the two excerpts I bolded. A novel's end serves as a denouement for the character; the journey is a voyage for the reader. Effective structures invite the reader to engage in the emotional, psychological and physical underpinnings of the novel. They transcend the selected medium to engage thought in the reader. And, to me, that is the beauty of great literature. The plot, regardless of how multi-dimensional and layered it may be, is ultimately linear; yet the journey, multi-faceted in it's lifelike evaluation of emotion, psychological and innate impulse, is what fuels thought. The novel's ending serves to express the author's belief. An individual evaluation of the journey in relation to the author's intent is what verifies it.

[Drkshadow03]

Well said, sir.

If the purpose of literature is as you say, then I suppose I should stop reading the novel because the story bores me, the characters and scenes aren't particularly memorable, and his philosophy is kind of stupid. Perhaps at some point in the future I will come back to it and enjoy it.

If you want to figure out the essential difference between philosophy and literature, the obvious choice is of course to read writers who wrote both (Sartre, Camus, etc.) in which their philosophical ideas appear in their literature and then think about how their fiction and philosophy differ even as they explore many of the same ideas.

[JCamilo]

The difference between literature and philosophy is quite simple, the same between Art and literature... sometimes Art is written, sometimes not. Sometimes literature is written, sometimes not...

Well said, sir.

If the purpose of literature is as you say, then I suppose I should stop reading the novel because the story bores me, the characters and scenes aren't particularly memorable, and his philosophy is kind of stupid. Perhaps at some point in the future I will come back to it and enjoy it.

Bingo! Literature just has no purpose. Writers and Readers may have a purpose.

[conartist]

As you can see, I'm a little frustrated with literature as a whole right now. Is there something I'm missing, some perspective on literature I haven't considered that could possibly redeem it?

Literature should be brooded on and analysed but it should also be immediately memorable; reading should be justified as an act in itself, entertaining, as you say, regardless of the book's wider implications. If The Brothers Karamzov hasn't grabbed you then you should take up a work of philosophy or another book. As long as you can acknowledge that the flaw might be with you rather than in the novel, and can consider coming back to it later, when you're perhaps a stronger and wordlier reader, then there's nothing wrong with that.