the basics of great or memorable literature

[cacian]

You seem to enjoy making grand, sweeping statements about what literature should and is doing. Statements that seem to have no or little bearing on reality.

literature is grand any less of a sweeping statement and it would be undermining it.

I don't think having a 'universal' literature is really possible, and any attempt to do that it doomed to either failure or not saying anything important at all. Or both.

global literature is all the rage and it is the most possible thing to do. no one yet has attempted it. I wonder why because that puts travelling under a unitile activity. what is the mind waiting for? a sweeping generalisation that it is half asleep under a dosage its own half baked shoddy morality that failure is what it is?

Chinua Achebe said the same thing as me in one of his essays. Have you ever heard the saying 'You can't please everyone'?

I know about it and that is one sweeping generalisation in need of a revamp a reality check. how is that one cannot please everyone and language is the most we have in common?

Besides, if you can't have swearing or vulgarity then you are not bridging all cultures.

life is not serious and swearing/ inappropriate language is a serious business. the two obviously collide.
vulgarity undermines language and sets barriers and turn people into vulgar themselves.
a vulgar swear full inappropriate literature is like a derelict desolate falling down house no one wants to live in it.
the logical forward thing everyone wants to do is to renovate it to make it attractive/pleasant and appealing so that one can sell it for others to live in it and make profit.
that is ultimately the role of good literature is to make profit a good solid ongoing profit.

[Poetaster]

literature is grand any less of a sweeping statement and it would be undermining it.

If literature is 'grand' it needs to be carefully considered, not let it fall into fabulism.

global literature is all the rage and it is the most possible thing to do. no one yet has attempted it. I wonder why because that puts travelling under a unitile activity. what is the mind waiting for? a sweeping generalisation that it is half asleep under a dosage its own half baked shoddy morality that failure is what it is?

How can it be 'all the rage' and 'most possible' is no one has attempted it? That doesn't make sense.

The rest of this is the most opaque thing I've read all week.

I know about it and that is one sweeping generalisation in need of a revamp a reality check. how is that one cannot please everyone and language is the most we have in common?

How is it a 'sweeping generalisation' if it warns against generalising? Language is the most we have in common? Then in that case literature cannot by definition apply to everyone if we are all different sans our language. And, furthermore, we all don't have the same language. Can you read all the world languages without outside help? I certainly can't.

life is not serious and swearing/ inappropriate language is a serious business. the two obviously collide.
vulgarity undermines language and sets barriers and turn people into vulgar themselves.
a vulgar swear full inappropriate literature is like a derelict desolate falling down house no one wants to live in it.
the logical forward thing everyone wants to do is to renovate it to make it attractive/pleasant and appealing so that one can sell it for others to live in it and make profit.
that is ultimately the role of good literature is to make profit a good solid ongoing profit.

What serious study do you base this on? Because at the moment I can't help but regard this as piffle.

[cacian]

If literature is 'grand' it needs to be carefully considered, not let it fall into fabulism.

fabulism? far from it. Literature is everyday life an ideal life. fabulism is an ideology. I do not see how the two would ever relate.
literature must reflect an idea that suits all forms of understanding. there is no understanding in inappropriate.

How can it be 'all the rage' and 'most possible' is no one has attempted it? That doesn't make sense.

good question I would like to know why but instead one can think up a way or two.
language is no barrier. the globe can have one common language they read and understand that could be English. a global story could be written in English to be read by all.
this takes time effort travelling but it is not impossible. in fact it is a project worth taking worth a while.
educating the globe is something I aspire to for it is very much in need of it. let's get those tyrants to sit and read. that will keep them occupied. lets keep them sat forever.

The rest of this is the most opaque thing I've read all week.

opaque is a word that keeps creeping up. I always imagine it to be a shape for some reason. like a hexagon. no idea why.

How is it a 'sweeping generalisation' if it warns against generalising? Language is the most we have in common? Then in that case literature cannot by definition apply to everyone if we are all different sans our language. And, furthermore, we all don't have the same language. Can you read all the world languages without outside help? I certainly can't.



What serious study do you base this on? Because at the moment I can't help but regard this as piffle.

it is not a study it is an analogy. this is how I interpret the state of language in literature today.
I could paint it and it would be most undesirable. a literature painting.

[Poetaster]

fabulism? far from it. Literature is everyday life an ideal life. fabulism is an ideology. I do not see how the two would ever relate.
literature must reflect an idea that suits all forms of understanding. there is no understanding in inappropriate.

Well there in lies the difference between me and you as readers I guess.

good question I would like to know why but instead one can think up a way or two.
language is no barrier. the globe can have one common language they read and understand that could be English. a global story could be written in English to be read by all.

Nonsense, not everyone will want to learn English, and English itself has evolved rapidly into other branches like panglish. Verity is the spice of life, as it seems to also be inevitable. Language and even dialect are problems even between two English speakers a lot of the time. In short: it's not gonna happen.

this takes time effort travelling but it is not impossible. in fact it is a project worth taking worth a while.
educating the globe is something I aspire to for it is very much in need of it. let's get those tyrant to sit and read. they will keep them occupied. lets keep them sat forever.

Now this certainly sounds like fabulism to me, but I can be quite cynical. I'm sorry, I just can't share this optimism so fine - I guess.

it is not a study it is an analogy. this is how I interpret the state of language in literature today.
I could paint it and it would be most undesirable. a literature painting.

I'll leave aside that the point of your comment was not an analogy - I think we are done here. Nice chatting.

[Dono]

One of the overlooked aspects of great works is subtle thematic repetition. People subconsciously look for patterns in everything. Some of the best and most successful authors knew this and used it to their storytelling advantage. Shakespeare's recurring use of wise fools and foolish royals; Dant e's simple yet powerful descending circles of hell; some like Joyce or Hemingway whose very writing style was a comfortable recurring pattern. For a work to resonate over thousands of years it must feel familiar in some way even if the reader doesn't recognize that aspect. A character everyone knows in real life, or a scene everyone can picture...and patterns.

[Ruben Meijerink]

In this book by Terry Eagleton about poetry (How to Read a Poem), there's this

In Lotman's view, a good literary work is one rich in information; and information is a matter of deviation. The more stable, predictable elements of a text, such as metre, belong to what one might call its dominant code. But because they are so regular, they tend also to be less perceptible. These are known to information theory as 'redundant' elements, which are necessary for conveying information but not in themselves informative.

Anyone agrees?