The point to reading fiction is to read what other people think. Yes, that novel may be their one opinion, but then you read another one...Let's face it, in life you're not going to come across many people who wish to discuss the meaning of life/deep philosophical questions with you.
1. I'd dispute that. The key is the word "grown" - as though growth had come to an end. There is no such thing as a "grown man", only a "growing man." "Grown" is stagnation and death. I like the analogy though - yes, children play with toys, and adolescents play with sex and intoxicants, and post-adolescents play with other things, like their minds, and maybe fiction. But what's beyond that? That's my point and question. Or do you imagine growth and the possibilities of life at some point stop?
2. That's interesting. Maybe it's right. By "literature" I imagine he means all that poncy, pretentious, overly-poetic stuff. But why is "fiction a necessity"? Can you answer me that?
3. Dig. Isn't that what I'm doing here?
Can you explain that further? What is the benefit of creating demons and hells? How do they empower? How does it bring benefit to you?
JAMCRACKERS: That was interesting; I like your take on things. I'm not sure it was really about "reading literary fiction" - but maybe that's my fault for not phrasing the initial question in a more specific way. Anyways, thanks for the thoughts.
"Life has no meaning save the one you give it" is a quote I like.
I don't think that's true. A novel doesn't necessarily contain what people think: to know what people think you'd have to read their non-fiction, wouldn't you, or talk to them? Think of a fictional writer you've read loads, and now tell me what they think, based on their work. I can't think of how that would work, except in generalised sweeping statements like, "Kurt Vonnegut thought bureaucracy was daft". But do prove me wrong, please.
Ditto, sir!
Anyways, let's try and move this on: I've gone beyond thinking reading fiction is pointless to realising that it's daft to expect too much from it and that that's the pointless bit. I guess I get frustrated 'cos it's such a trumpeted thing whereas I see it mostly as distraction and in many cases the work of people who haven't even begun to figure out the basics about living a happy human life, which is generally all that anybody wants. Sylvia Plath, Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, Ernest Hemingway - I don't give a monkeys that they had a way with words, they were all flops as human beings as far as I'm concerned. Though, having never met them, that may be a little harsh: perhaps they were lovely, kind people in person and the suicidal tendencies and substance abuse could have been...nah, there's no excuse for that: not if you're making yourself out as a purveyor of wisdom. But then are they? And are people even looking at them in that way? I just can't separate the author from their work, and if the author's mind is one that dwelled in hell, I don't really feel much of a need to follow them there, through their words.
And what are words anyway? Mere utterances and sophisticated grunts that stand in the place of thoughts and feelings, always at least one or two steps beyond the impulse behind them. I guess it's the impulse that interests me. The tree behind the apple - and the ground beneath the tree.
Sheet: maybe I should make up a story and put all this in the mouths of characters and see if I can't work it out that way. ;-)
But, c'mon, the distraction hypothesis has gotta be worth looking at - though maybe not here. Who among a literary community wants to stand up and say, yep, I just read to get away from my own inner-being 'cos I don't know what life's really for? Who wants to admit that their intellectualism is just mind games to keep their mind busy from seeing what their mind is really like? I read - sorry, tried to read - a book on critical literary theory the other day - but, I swear, every page I turned to all I could find was gobbledygook dressed up in fancy sentences and the only thing I got from it - from every single of the varied authors and contributors - was, man, these people need to get a life. Imagine that that's what turns you on, tossing over and making up theories about something so abstract as another man's fleeting fictions and dreams. It boggles the braincogs.
Last edited by rubsley; 04-30-2012 at 03:13 PM.
Because one feels lost and reads does not necessitate distraction, one could very well be looking into a work of fiction the way they would look to advise of someone they admire.
Fiction can be pointless, as anything can, particularly if one's chosen meaning chooses to negate it... but it can have direct influences, for example the vision of 1984 standing as a warning for the shifting political climate.
It seems to me that you might be trying to seek out some objective meaning or purpose to existence by which to weigh all elements in the balance.
Do men of presumed importance sometimes take part in frivolous thoughts and activities? I have not had the privilege to oversee their existence but I would wager that it is so.
I think it's a valid basis for study and reflection.
Two examples, although when vocalising people's thoughts, they are always bound to sound trite:
Fitzgerald: fascinated by wealth and the lifestyle it brings, although he knows that at the heart of it, there lies unhappiness.
Hemingway: interested in masculinity- what makes a man. Also appears to be interested in androgynous women, so maybe his interest in masculinity is not simply misogyny.
There are certain themes, characters and subjects that run across writers' works that give us an insight into what mattered to them. A writer writing a story about a racist may not be racist himself but race is a subject that interests him. It's just like in real life- we pick up clues about people based on their actions and what they're interested in.
The point is that different writers will have different perspectives. If I raised Fitzgerald and Hemingway from the dead, and then I got them to write a story about a man who shoots his brother, they will have different tones. If you wrote that story, you might do it in a different way from them. Life is too complex for there to only be one take on it.
Symbols.
Not me. Because this is not true, not for me anyway. First, I'm not sure what the mind is really like. Second, I'm not sure what my "inner-being" really is.
I will admit to not knowing what "life's really for". I don't. Work? Family? Pleasure? Strength? Money? Morality? Heaven? Not really sure.
There is a lot of bad, self-important criticism out there. But some of it is really compelling and insightful. Have you read Northrop Frye or Harold Bloom or Sandra Cisneros? Or maybe Camille Paglia -- Paglia writes in plain language, very intelligent, very outspoken and brazen, but I always think that her interpretations are, if nothing else, a useful addition to my understanding of a text, author, or literary period.
“Oh crap”
-- Hellboy
See, now to me that supports my point: seems like a pretty poor investment for the time it takes to read an author's work to say, "well this dead guy I never met thought wealthy people weren't necessarily happy." Everybody thinks that. Who cares that F. Scott Fitzgerald did? And that it takes hours and hours to discover it. Pf.
Again... the point in reading isn't found in the "meaning"... the "point" lies in the pleasure the experience as whole brings. If you find no pleasure in reading then that's your loss. Look elsewhere. Perhaps you might find pleasure in trolling the internet and posting inane questions guaranteed to inflame others. You could then sit back and laugh at all the time wasted by those earnestly attempting to answer your question.
In other words... "what is the point of this thread?"
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Please, people, please. How much confusion can you take before you give up the con and achieve some fusion. Meaning can only occur in what interests you. Words are meaningless without your cooperation.
well the same can be said about about a book
should a book be taught for example?
I consider fiction as denouement of the mind and to teachit is to stick it with an institutional tagging that drags down the idea of writing to a boredom state of analogy without aim.
A book is an art piece and should left to the individual to make out of it what they wish.
teaching it is a right spoiler. That is what I think anyway.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
The point of fiction is to textually experience things that we have not experienced in real life. You can feel the lust, pain, and guilt of an older man falling for an underage girl in Nabokov's Lolita, or you can be a Lolita in your mind feeling or textually experiencing how it is to be desired and lusted for by an older man. For teen readers, that's enough an experience. They don't have to go on dates with grandpas and retirees.
Last edited by miyako73; 04-30-2012 at 06:00 PM.
"You laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same."
--Jonathan Davis