What are books for?

[The Unnamable]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/stonemewhatalife/pic.jpg

The cartoon I came across several years ago illustrates, with startlingly literal gallows humor, the grim predicament of a man at the end of his tether. As he glumly piles one book upon another to reach the noose that dangles ominously above his head, he accidentally gazes down upon an opened page. He pauses. Riveting his attention upon the book, he stays his self-execution. By losing himself in the story, he seems paradoxically to have rescued himself from the anguish that prompted him to repudiate his life. The noose continues to dangle above his head, serving as a reminder of his vulnerability to self-destruction; the man's interests, however, are now elsewhere—at least until he completes the book.
Few novelists would admit that a picture, much less a cartoon, equals a thousand words, but this metaphor of a work of art intervening between life and death raises a number of disturbing questions which most readers have prudently avoided. Is the man reading for pleasure, for escape, or for self-discovery? Why the smile on his face? Is he escaping from "reality" into an illusory world that can but momentarily palliate his grief? Is he perhaps identifying with a fictive character whose situation resembles his own and in the process experiencing a relief in shared community, even if this community depends upon the essential selfishness of misery-loves-company? Or rather, is he discovering a major insight from literature that he can then apply therapeutically to his life: discovering, in short, the truth of fiction?

[Shea]

I wanted to respond to this post, but I didn't have the time yesterday. I often find myself "lost in a story" and it especially helps when I'm feeling upset or frustrated. For the time it takes to read a chapter, my problems have momentarily dissolved and I 'become' the characters that I read. I unfortunately must go back to my problems and deal with them, but I enjoy my 'escape', brief though it is.

But I can't ever wholly identify with characters. The women in novels are always trying to break out of shells, not crawl into them as I want to. The best I can do is identify with a bad situation, even if it is a situation that I would personally prefer.

[alicialiv]

I am unable to view the picture, would you by chance have the link?

[papayahed]

Wow. Can't it be just a ridiculous cartoon that illustrates the sheer joy of getting lost in a good stoy. avoidence smoidence!

[The Unnamable]

I am unable to view the picture, would you by chance have the link?

The above picture is a link - to this page - http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/stonemewhatalife/pic.jpg

Can you see it now?

[The Unnamable]

Wow. Can't it be just a ridiculous cartoon that illustrates the sheer joy of getting lost in a good stoy. avoidence smoidence!

It can be, if that’s what you want. In the same way, ‘Hamlet’ can be a soap opera and ‘Animal Farm’ a nice story about talking animals.

"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." - William Blake

[papayahed]

It can be, if that’s what you want. In the same way, ‘Hamlet’ can be a soap opera and ‘Animal Farm’ a nice story about talking animals.

"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." - William Blake

Well I guess the question then becomes, who's the fool and who's the wise man?

[Scheherazade]

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9812/reading9hi.th.jpg (http://img34.imageshack.us/my.php?image=reading9hi.jpg)

[The Unnamable]

Well I guess the question then becomes, who's the fool and who's the wise man?
Given that this is a Literature forum, my guess would be that the fool is the one that wants to simplify the complexity of human experience. Why was my interpretation of the cartoon so deserving of your sneer?

[papayahed]

Given that this is a Literature forum, my guess would be that the fool is the one that wants to simplify the complexity of human experience. Why was my interpretation of the cartoon so deserving of your sneer?

I knew you were going to say that!!!

No sneering here, if I'm not mistaken you brought up the fool vs. wise man quote. I am suggesting that at times the label is interchangeable.

I'm a known simplifier, sometimes a pen is just a pen, sometimes it's more.

[Scheherazade]

Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)

[Virgil]

I don't buy it, Mr. Unnamble. The cartoon is out of an overly intellectual point of view. Is that why we listen to Beethoven or admire The Mona Lisa? I don't believe that we appreciate art to distract ourselves from life's difficulties. I think art compliments life (it's what we do as humans) and it entertains us, which is different than distraction.

[Shea]

Did I see this cartoon differently because of the mood I've been in?

I have no interest in my usual things anymore. When I heard that the Narnia and King Kong movies were coming out, I was very excited, and wanted to see them on the opening day. Now I don't really care. I don't want to practice my music, or work on my blanket that I'm crocheting, or work on a cross-stitch. But if I have extra time, the first thing I want to do is pick up a book. I love books, but I miss loving those other things too.

[The Unnamable]

Did I see this cartoon differently because of the mood I've been in?

I have no interest in my usual things anymore. When I heard that the Narnia and King Kong movies were coming out, I was very excited, and wanted to see them on the opening day. Now I don't really care. I don't want to practice my music, or work on my blanket that I'm crocheting, or work on a cross-stitch. But if I have extra time, the first thing I want to do is pick up a book. I love books, but I miss loving those other things too.


It appears that you have of late, but wherefore you know not, lost all your mirth.

[The Unnamable]

No sneering here,

The sneering I was referring to was the glibly offered ‘avoidence smoidence’ (sic) in your first response.

[The Unnamable]

I don't buy it, Mr. Unnamble. The cartoon is out of an overly intellectual point of view. Is that why we listen to Beethoven or admire The Mona Lisa? I don't believe that we appreciate art to distract ourselves from life's difficulties. I think art compliments life (it's what we do as humans) and it entertains us, which is different than distraction.

I see the anti-intellectual brigade is in tonight.
The reasons why we listen to Beethoven or admire the Mona Lisa are far more complex than I have the inclination to explore here. Such questions have, however, been the interest of Structuralists, Post-Structuralists, Cultural Critics, Feminist Critics, Marxist Critics and so on for the past forty years. By and large, their conclusions suggest that we are ‘conditioned’ to consider such works as ‘great’. Look up ‘hegemony’ and ‘ideology’ in the context of literary artefacts. Whether or not I myself subscribe to this view is irrelevant. I will say, however, that I am more sympathetic to their findings after reading some of the guff on here.
The cartoon is not necessarily about Literature. Any fiction (and a good many other distractions) will do. Shakespeare’s attitude (so far as it can be identified) seems relevant to me here. The title of one of his last plays is ‘The Winter’s Tale’ – a story to keep us amused while we are alone in the dark, waiting for Godot.
Your objection is similar to those who say that Hamlet ‘thinks too much’. Have you ever considered the possibility that it’s you who don’t think enough?
By the way, I think you mean ‘complements’, not ‘compliments’, although perhaps that is exactly what you mean.

[RobinHood3000]

Anti-intellectual, my eye. You are dangerously close to becoming insulting, Unnamable--I would advise that you exercise caution.

Incidentally, your username is misspelled.

[Shea]

It appears that you have of late, but wherefore you know not, lost all your mirth.

It's all in my 'Hermit' thread. But honestly, as I read more and more of your posts Unnamable, it's people like you that are making me so upset. It's the 'uppity' attitude. I work in a high-end shopping center and so I get treated like a 'shop-girl' at least 5 times a day. For the holidays, at least 25 times. "She's a shop-girl, how intelluctually dull." "I wouldn't be caught dead standing behind a counter." Unnamable, your spelling corrections stem from the same attitude. We're not being published here, cut us some slack, okay? I happened to see your cartoon differently because of my experiences. It doesn't mean that we all have to have an entirely intellectually charged conversation about it.

[Shea]

Sorry if that was a bit harsh, I've been touchy lately.

[The Unnamable]

Incidentally, your username is misspelled.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/stonemewhatalife/Trilogy.jpghttp://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/stonemewhatalife/trilogy2.jpg


But thanks for the concern.

[The Unnamable]

Sorry if that was a bit harsh, I've been touchy lately.

Don't worry - I'm very thick-skinned. Besides, it's nice to see a bit of genuine passion around here.

Sorry, Shea but my original post was meant to cheer you up not in any way denigrate you. Admittedly, it wasn’t a hugely life-affirming moment, but I would be flattered if anyone likened my predicament to Hamlet’s. I haven’t been ‘uppity’ (great word and I’m not being sarcastic) with you – only with those who take me for an idiot and those who, perched on their own little islands of dignity, claim dominium over thought. The spelling ‘error’ wasn’t pointed out because I have a fetish about spelling or nothing better to do, but because of the irony it generated in the context of what was being said: “I think art compliments life (it's what we do as humans) and it entertains us, which is different than distraction.” If someone is going to offer such a sweeping summary of human existence and the purpose of Art, then surely it’s not too much to expect that it is clear whether complement or compliment is intended?

Of course we don’t have to have an intellectually charged discussion about it but for me the cartoon is both interesting and funny. It provokes thought and reflection. Is that such a bad thing, especially on a Literature forum? It reminds me of Beckett’s humour – as you might know from my username, avatar and tag line, I rather like Beckett. He writes about terrible and hilarious awfulness of being alive. But I’ll try to leave you with a positive thought.


In Woody Allen's Crimes And Misdemeanors there is a psychoanalyst named Louis Levy (possibly modelled on Bruno Bettelheim and not, as the man’s name has led some to believe, Primo Levi).

This Professor says:

“what we are aiming at when we fall in love is a very strange paradox. The paradox consists of the fact that when we fall in love we are seeking to re-find all or some of the people to whom we were attached as children. On the other hand we ask of our beloved to correct all of the wrongs that these early parents or siblings inflicted on us. So that love contains in it a contradiction, the attempt to return to the past and the attempt to undo the past.”

And he goes on:

“We must always remember, when we are born we need a great deal of love to be persuaded to stay in life, once we get this love it usually last us. But the universe is a pretty cold place. It is we who invest it with feelings, and under certain conditions, we feel that the thing isn’t worth it anymore.”

And the film ends with him saying:


“We're all faced throughout our lives with agonizing decisions, moral choices. Some are on a grand scale, most of these choices are on lesser points. But we define ourselves by the choices we have made. We are, in fact, the sum total of our choices. Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly, Human happiness does not seem to be included in the design of creation. It is only we, with our capacity to love that give meaning to the indifferent universe. And yet, most human beings seem to have the ability to keep trying and even try to find joy from simple things, like their family, their work, and from the hope that future generations might understand more.”

[RobinHood3000]

UnnamEable: (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/unnamable)

Perhaps now you understand my position. My apologies for being a stickler, but we're generally a light-hearted bunch around here, and being told that we "don't think enough" may rub some of us the wrong way.

[The Unnamable]

UnnamEable: (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/unnamable)

Perhaps now you understand my position. My apologies for being a stickler, but we're generally a light-hearted bunch around here, and being told that we "don't think enough" may rub some of us the wrong way.

I understand your position even less. You are offering me a ‘Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary’ page as evidence that I have misspelled Unnamable when the word is a proper noun – ‘Unnamable’ is the actual title of the third book of Beckett’s Trilogy. As this is a Literature forum, it’s not unreasonable to expect that some users might have heard of Samuel Beckett, winner of the 1969 Nobel Prize for, wait for it, LITERATURE! This was, according to the Academy, for “his writing, which - in new forms for the novel and drama - in the destitution of modern man acquires its elevation”. I’m sure that the ‘correct’ spelling should now be applied to all future copies of his work to be published. He might have won the Nobel Prize but he’s not too clever to take a lesson in language from an Internet user armed with Merriam’s Online Dictionary. No doubt Mr. Beckett should have waited for the Internet and spelled it Godeau as well. Although I am English, you will note from an earlier post that I spelled ‘misdemeanours’ as ‘misdemeanors’ because that is the way it is spelled in Woody Allen’s film. And I’m the one rubbing you up the wrong way! You are such a light-hearted bunch that you found it necessary to pick up on my breadcrumb sins (not that it was incorrect, anyway) and display your own superior knowledge. In so doing, of course, you have simply reinforced the criticism I made in the first place. You were wrong. Why not accept that you were trying to be a smart-arse but forgot the smart bit?

[RobinHood3000]

As this forum is open to all sorts of people, it is not altogether unreasonable to expect that I had barely heard of Samuel Beckett and was unaware he wrote a book using it as a proper noun--hence my position.

I was under the impression I had already apologized for my ignorance, but apparently, it was inadequate to circumvent misinterpretation. So again, I will apologize for pointing out something I perceived to be a mistake, but I would very much appreciate it if you would neither resort to personal insults nor presume to observe a superiority complex on my part.

[Schoolmeister]

Wow! You folks are ... interesting...

Without getting too intellectual, I have to take up arms with M. Unnamable! I thought his original post was insightful and very thought provoking. However, after reading the appalling responses, I have lost the original joy with which to respond. I apologize M. Unnamable for having such a weak constitution as to be driven to apathy. Mayhaps I can muster the strength in the future to give your original post its proper response, which it most assuredly deserves.

[starrwriter]

I have to take up arms with M. Unnamable! I thought his original post was insightful and very thought provoking. However, after reading the appalling responses, I have lost the original joy with which to respond.
You're appalled too easily. Most members like to have fun in this forum as well as discuss literature.

[Scheherazade]

Please do not resort to personal insult and attacks during discussions. Unless we learn to respect others' views and their right to speak out as well, we won't be able to produce fruitful discussions.

[The Unnamable]

Do you really believe that ‘fruitful discussions’ can be generated if any remark, no matter how ignorant, is respected? This is not a piece of sarcasm or intended to hurt; I really would like to know. Can you see no restraint on my side?

'Tis sung, when Midas' ears began to spring,
(Midas, a sacred person and a king)
His very minister who spied them first,
(Some say his queen) was forc'd to speak, or burst.
And is not mine, my friend, a sorer case,
When ev'ry coxcomb perks them in my face?

"Good friend, forbear! you deal in dang'rous things.
I'd never name queens, ministers, or kings;
Keep close to ears, and those let asses prick;
'Tis nothing" — Nothing? if they bite and kick?
Out with it, Dunciad! let the secret pass,
That secret to each fool, that he's an a*s:
The truth once told (and wherefore should we lie?)
The Queen of Midas slept, and so may I.

Alexander Pope ‘Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot’

[RobinHood3000]

Then can you see no concessions on mine? I apologized because I made an assumption, and you reveled in your perceived superiority. You've known the people on these forums no more than a few days, and yet you already presume to call us ignorant and to demean our opinions accordingly. I foresee no fruitful discussion.

[The Unnamable]

Then can you see no concessions on mine?

I'm not asking for any. "Give me hate. From it ideas are born." - Jean Genet

[RobinHood3000]

Ordinarily, you would receive shortly after you asked, but as the forum policies demand sophistication and dignity, you shall not.

[Schoolmeister]

My dear Starr,

I see how you and your brood have treated M. Unnamable with hearty contempt, and I but just arrived. You invect the gentleman for what seems to me engendering an honest thread of discussion. You and your cohorts then have the gall to assail him with your opinions based on faulty arguments, the likes of which would be allowed no where near a respectable debate based upon logic and reasoning, and then when I, but a meek and charitable Christian soul, seek to encourage the M. in question, you take issue with my post by not even allowing me my own diction! So, now that you have declared what I may be appalled at and what does not fall within these limits, I must yield the field to you for there is no honor in this proverbially fight we wage because, like other unfortunates in third world countries, I have been marginalized by your superiority and have fallen under the weight of your imposed matrix of domination. However, I do thank you for this object lesson in re the construction of social reality and how M. Berger has time and again warned against using it for political ends.

To my comrade, M. Unnamable, made so by bitter sweet circumstance, I say once more congratulations sir and let us assail the breech once more dear friend as this seems to be our St. Crispin's Day!

[The Unnamable]

Sorry for changing the play from Henry V but, a privilege though it is to fight with you on St. Crispin’s Day, I prefer,

“Blow, wind! Come, wrack! At least we’ll die with harness on our back!”

[kilted exile]

is he discovering a major insight from literature?

Perhaps he noticed that the last book he put down explained how to build a gallows from wood, and he is now going to do that instead of using a pile of books to stand on?

[The Unnamable]

Perhaps he noticed that the last book he put down explained how to build a gallows from wood, and he is now going to do that instead of using a pile of books to stand on?

That's more like it - make me laugh or think. Either will do. At least it's an unconventional way of looking at it.

[Scheherazade]

Do you really believe that ‘fruitful discussions’ can be generated if any remark, no matter how ignorant, is respected? This is not a piece of sarcasm or intended to hurt; I really would like to know. Can you see no restraint on my side?
Calling other people's opinions 'ignorant' and claiming that only ours is worthy of attention hardly counts as constructive discussion. When we post in a Forum of this size, which is visited by people of all ages and various cultural backgrounds, it is only natural that we will meet a wealth of different reactions and intrepretation of any given work. Even if we don't agree with them, I am sure, we can afford to be patient and graceful enough to hear out those as well.
My dear Starr,

I see how you and your brood have treated M. Unnamable with hearty contempt, and I but just arrived. You invect the gentleman for what seems to me engendering an honest thread of discussion. You and your cohorts then have the gall to assail him with your opinions based on faulty arguments, the likes of which would be allowed no where near a respectable debate based upon logic and reasoning, and then when I, but a meek and charitable Christian soul, seek to encourage the M. in question, you take issue with my post by not even allowing me my own diction! So, now that you have declared what I may be appalled at and what does not fall within these limits, I must yield the field to you for there is no honor in this proverbially fight we wage because, like other unfortunates in third world countries, I have been marginalized by your superiority and have fallen under the weight of your imposed matrix of domination. However, I do thank you for this object lesson in re the construction of social reality and how M. Berger has time and again warned against using it for political ends.

To my comrade, M. Unnamable, made so by bitter sweet circumstance, I say once more congratulations sir and let us assail the breech once more dear friend as this seems to be our St. Crispin's Day!Schoolmeister,

We are not here to take sides or gang on anyone but only to exchange opinions in a friendly and encouraging atmosphere. I personally resent your implication to the otherwise and I hope you will be able to approach our members with a more unbiased approach.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I really like that cartoon - It does indeed have a relevance beyond it's format - Personally though, I find that I have a tendency to pick up a book towards the beginning of any house-tidying enterprise and that the end of the house-tidying enterprise immediately follows - Books giveth and they taketh away

[Anon22]

I'm not asking for any. "Give me hate. From it ideas are born." - Jean Genet


In the same way ideas are born from love. Don't be so easily offended. Papayahed was just trying to joke around, you must've misunderstood what she meant, she didn't mean to offend you. Virgil was just giving his opinion, his view, in the same way you were giving yours. You can't expect all of us to know everything about literature, whether this be a literature forum or not, Robin simply thought your name was suppose to be the word Unnameable, there's no need to act in such a way to prove him wrong. The fool and the wise may not see the same tree, but why should it matter to the wise if s/he doesn't?

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise knows himself to be a fool"-William Shakespeare

no, I am not calling you a fool, I simply posted this quote as a way of saying, "don't think your all that". In my opinion, call me a fool or not (I don't care), art is meant to be simple, not something that causes you to think. Just the other day in Draw 1 class I saw this movie on, Norman Rockwell was it? well... anyways... as I watched it I saw the people comment on his paintings... but they looked too much into it, at least that's what I thought. Not everyone sees the same thing in a painting, and what they said, I only saw because they said it. I thought it was strange that someone would think so much about a painting. A painting is something that should relax you, not make you think. In the same way a cartoon is something that should not be taken so seriously. It's a cartoon, it was meant to be absurd, otherwise it wouldn't be a cartoon. It's fine with me if that's what you saw in it... I actually find it intriguing, it shows how differently each mind sees things. In my eye though, it doesn't make minds more foolish or smarter, it just simply makes them unique.

[2121]

You go for the easy prey.

[Virgil]

IThe cartoon is not necessarily about Literature. Any fiction (and a good many other distractions) will do. Shakespeare’s attitude (so far as it can be identified) seems relevant to me here. The title of one of his last plays is ‘The Winter’s Tale’ – a story to keep us amused while we are alone in the dark, waiting for Godot.
Your objection is similar to those who say that Hamlet ‘thinks too much’. Have you ever considered the possibility that it’s you who don’t think enough?
By the way, I think you mean ‘complements’, not ‘compliments’, although perhaps that is exactly what you mean.


First, yes I did mean complement. I stand corrected on my spelling. Thank you.

There was a statement somewhere implying that I was speaking as some God authorized expert speaking from the heavens as to what was right or wrong. For that I don’t apologize. I was offering my opinion. I was taught that you don’t need to state that it is an opinion, that the very nature of the discussion implies it so. You do not need an appositive phrase on every sentence cautioning that it is an opinion; it would be redundant.

Second, I think it is you who don't think enough. If you identify "The Winter's Tale" and "Godot" as supportive of the philosophy promulgated by the cartoon, I can name others that don't. Shakespeare himself in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" has the actors create a play for the sake of pageantry and human play. The characters in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales don't tell stories for the sake of avoiding suicide, it's for entertainment. Wordworth's "Tintern Abbey" promotes nature, the well-spring of art for him, as spiritual guide, and Philip Sidney argues that art is essential a didactic endeavor. So there are plenty of others who would not agree with your/the cartoon's argument.

I say it again, the cartoon does not explain why we listen to Beethoven or appreciate the Mona Lisa, or Michelangelo’s David. It is a particular view that Sam Beckett dramatizes. It is a skewed view of the world and limited as an understanding of why we generate and appreciate art. It can explain Beckett, but that is only a small subset of all art.

A more comprehensive understanding of art, in my opinion, more so than from some trivial cartoon, is that human beings generate art as a form of play. It is analogous and strongly related to the generation of folklore. It is what people do to engage other people and link each other culturally. If you are interested in exploring this avenue of thought, try C.L. Barber’s, Shakespeare’s Festive Comedy: A Study of Dramatic Form and its Relation to Social Custom.

Next, not everyone is looking to commit suicide. Beckett's "I can't go on. I must go on," is not comprehensive of the human experience. Frankly it's very limited view. I'd much rather subsrcribe to Beckett's literary godfather, James Joyce, when he has Bloom in the Hades chapter say "Life. Life." and has Molly at the end say the life affirming, "Yes."

Finally, this is a discussion of opinions. We're not here to be lectured to. You don't have to appreciate all opinions or hold them to some high standard, but you don't have to be rude and condescending. Frankly a little charm might get you somewhere in life.

[RobinHood3000]

Bravo, Virgil. Or, in the words of an Andrew Lloyd Webber spectre...


Bravi, bravi, bravissimi...

[papayahed]

The sneering I was referring to was the glibly offered ‘avoidence smoidence’ (sic) in your first response.


That wasn't sneering, in general I don't sneer. I was trying to point out that my easy answer might have been a prime example of the avoidence that you had referred too in your original post.

[The Unnamable]

You go for the easy prey.

I don’t distinguish on an Internet forum. ‘User Name’ could be 8 or 80.
Besides, what you have said is insulting by virtue of its assumption that those I have allegedly attacked are ‘easy prey’, i.e. ill equipped mentally to defend themselves. Fortunately for you, they will be unaware of this, otherwise Scheherazade would be activated.

[The Unnamable]

Don't be so easily offended.
I'm really not offended.


Not everyone sees the same thing in a painting, and what they said, I only saw because they said it. I thought it was strange that someone would think so much about a painting.
JWM Turner was at work at his easel, producing a characteristic swirling masterpiece (something like ‘Rain, Steam, and Speed—The Great Western Railway’) when some old crone looked over his shoulder at his efforts and complained, “But Mr. Turner, I can see no train.” To which he replied, “No, Madam, but don’t you wish that you could.”

[The Unnamable]

“when a great genius appears in the world the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”
Jonathan Swift An Essay On The Fates Of Clergymen.


Well, things have certainly livened up somewhat here on Waltons Mountain.


There was a statement somewhere implying that I was speaking as some God authorized expert speaking from the heavens as to what was right or wrong.
Rather vague – could you be specific? Please identify the statement.


Second, I think it is you who don't think enough.
Of course you do and you are wrong. Your sentence is simply an insult without the courage to dispense with the facade of politeness.

“You see me on the street
You always act surprised
You say, "How are you?" "Good luck"
But you don't mean it

When you know as well as me
You'd rather see me paralyzed
Why don't you just come out once
And scream it?”

Positively 4th Street – Bob Dylan



If you identify "The Winter's Tale" and "Godot" as supportive of the philosophy promulgated by the cartoon, I can name others that don't. Shakespeare himself in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" has the actors create a play for the sake of pageantry and human play. The characters in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales don't tell stories for the sake of avoiding suicide, it's for entertainment. Wordworth's "Tintern Abbey" promotes nature, the well-spring of art for him, as spiritual guide, and Philip Sidney argues that art is essential a didactic endeavor. So there are plenty of others who would not agree with your/the cartoon's argument.

It’s always difficult to know how to respond to comments like this because the initial error in understanding leads you to condemn me for what I did not say. I did not offer either text as supportive of any “promulgated” philosophy. I was merely offering my own, admittedly dark, take on things. There was a smile on my face as I did so. The cartoon was not offered as the Wisdom of Solomon but to provoke some interesting discussion. I don’t care what you think; I simply ask that you do. You seem to be overly concerned with whether or not your cited authorities would agree with a particular outlook.
You mention Wordsworth’s ‘Lines Written A Few Miles Above Tintern Abbey’, which contains the lines,

“For I have learned
To look on nature, not as in the hour
Of thoughtless youth, but hearing oftentimes
The still, sad, music of humanity,
Not harsh nor grating, though of ample power
To chasten and subdue.”


So he also hears the “still, sad, music of humanity.” The poem was written in 1798 and, for Wordsworth, the music is neither “harsh nor grating.” By the time we get to the mid to late twentieth century, the music is still sad but far more harsh and grating:

"The fact of being astonishes us, in a world that seems all illusion and pretense in which all human behavior tells of absurdity and all history of absolute futility; all reality and language appear to lose their articulation, to disintegrate and collapse, so what possible reaction is there left, when everything has ceased to matter, but laugh at it all." Romanian born Absurdist playwright, Eugene Ionesco

I would agree with you that Art is for entertainment, though. That is more or less the point I was making. It fills up the time and provides a distraction to the unutterably tedious experience of being here (in life, not on the Forum, which I find scintillating).



I say it again, the cartoon does not explain why we listen to Beethoven or appreciate the Mona Lisa, or Michelangelo’s David. It is a particular view that Sam Beckett dramatizes. It is a skewed view of the world and limited as an understanding of why we generate and appreciate art. It can explain Beckett, but that is only a small subset of all art.

There is where you need to be far more informed. First of all though, the cartoon is not meant to be explaining why we listen to Beethoven etc. I gave an opinion of the cartoon that I would subscribe to but I didn’t suggest it was the answer to everything. Of course it’s a skewed view – all views are unless you believe there is some objective reality (which would be counter to your assumption that all opinions are valid). Are not Wordsworth’s or Beethoven’s views equally ‘skewed’ or do they have ownership of eternal truth? Can you not see the contradictions in your logic?
The reason I say that you need to be better informed is that you appear to be wholly unfamiliar with the work of many of the key Critical Theorists of the last century (especially the second half). Tellingly, you choose your authority figures from the ‘Canon’ of Western Art. Beethoven, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Wordsworth, Sidney, Chaucer and Shakespeare are all white males. Feminist critics argue that the enthronement of such figures is the result of an inherently patriarchal organisation of society rather than any inherent literary merit (itself a problematic term). Marxist critics would offer another, in many ways similar, view.


A more comprehensive understanding of art, in my opinion, more so than from some trivial cartoon,

“some trivial cartoon”- There you go again, offering insults (but in a nice, polite way)


is that human beings generate art as a form of play. It is analogous and strongly related to the generation of folklore. It is what people do to engage other people and link each other culturally. If you are interested in exploring this avenue of thought, try C.L. Barber’s, Shakespeare’s Festive Comedy: A Study of Dramatic Form and its Relation to Social Custom.

You forget that I am a teacher of Literature and have read and taught Shakespeare for many years. I own a dog-eared and faded copy of C.L. Barber’s, Shakespeare’s Festive Comedy. It was originally published in 1959 and is considered by most (including me) to be representative of a now outmoded approach to Shakespeare.



Next, not everyone is looking to commit suicide. Beckett's "I can't go on. I must go on," is not comprehensive of the human experience. Frankly it's very limited view.

Yes, indeed – Beckett, one of the most acclaimed and respected writers of the twentieth century, is ‘very limited’. We all are. Nevertheless, permit me to believe that Beckett, with all his appalling limitations, has more insights to offer than you.


I'd much rather subsrcribe to Beckett's literary godfather, James Joyce, when he has Bloom in the Hades chapter say "Life. Life." and has Molly at the end say the life affirming, "Yes."

Have you actually read Ulysses? When I did, I seem to remember that it consisted of more than two ‘life’s and a ‘yes’. At university, I covered Ulysses with Professor Charles Peake, author of ‘The Citizen and the Artist’ and a recognised authority on Joyce (mind you, it’s all just his opinion). I love it – it’s hilarious. But I prefer Beckett.


Finally, this is a discussion of opinions. We're not here to be lectured to.

Isn’t that precisely what you’ve been doing? Besides, many posters do want to be given ‘answers’.


You don't have to appreciate all opinions or hold them to some high standard, but you don't have to be rude and condescending. Frankly a little charm might get you somewhere in life.


Don’t views like mine deserve to be heard if such discussions are to generate any worthwhile thought? I love the way you and those of your ilk make clear your dislike but hide behind the pretence of politeness. You are, in essence, calling me ‘rude’, ‘condescending’ and ‘charmless’ but you do it so beautifully.

Do I get a 'Bravo', Mr. Hood?

[The Unnamable]

Calling other people's opinions 'ignorant' and claiming that only ours is worthy of attention hardly counts as constructive discussion.

Why don’t you simply say that you will delete/ban what you don’t want to see on the forum? That would at least be honest and you wouldn’t have to resort to such transparent inconsistencies. I didn’t see any chastisement from you when I was referred to as an intellectual snob (nor did I wish to). You appear to prefer the sanitized and anaemic to the genuinely stimulating. That’s your choice but please don’t try to make out that it’s in the pursuit of some higher ideal.

I came here in the hope of reading something thoughtful and stimulating. I also came here to offer what little help I can to anyone genuinely seeking it (which I have done more exhaustively than many others). Are you to decide that my reasons aren’t valid? I find it amazing that on a site dedicated to World Literature, thinking is discouraged and replaced by the only thing we should be concerned about - not offending anyone (according to the rather vacuous standards that appear to have been set).

How can you imply that no opinion is ignorant? If someone came on spouting a theory of racial superiority based on the kind of thinking that was popular two hundred years ago, would you not consider his or her views ignorant? If he or she believed that homosexuals should be burned at the stake, would you still listen gracefully? Would this not be considered as adding to the “wealth” of different opinions? Or is it only the word that offends? Have you never heard the expression, ‘ignorant of the facts’? Some people’s opinions are, however much you try patronisingly to hide it in the fluffy frills of political correctness, ignorant. They stem from simple lack of knowledge. Is ‘uninformed’ any more acceptable?

I don’t claim that only my own contributions are worthy of attention. I really would like to see something interesting here and remain optimistic. I just won’t hold my breath.

“Without contraries is no progression.” William Blake – but, on a forum about Literature, who cares about what he thought?

[The Unnamable]

I say it again, the cartoon does not explain why we listen to Beethoven

How about some fruitful discussion of Beethoven at this point? It is relevant because of the comparison with Beckett.

This is from John Calder's introduction to ‘A Samuel Beckett Reader’:


“Beethoven's first period is an extension of the music of the eighteenth century, of the elegance, clarity, and essentially non-political, non-emotional style associated with Haydn and Mozart. His second period contains a new dynamic where emotion constantly breaks out of the framework of form, thereby increasing the possibilities of style and the content that music can express. At the time it constituted a musical revolution, and Beethoven's reputation might be a little different had he died ten years younger. But his third period was a turning away from the world into himself, where he found an introspective peace in which he could escape his own physical suffering and make a statement about the human condition: although this statement is tragic, it has the power to transmute tragedy into art, thereby giving perhaps the greatest pleasure that we can experience from aesthetics. Beethoven was tormented by bad health, physical pain, deafness, and personal unhappiness. Some of his calmest, most spring-like and cheerful music was written at the depths of his depression when, for instance, contemplating, and close to committing, suicide, he brought the Sixth Symphony to life. In his final quartet, the Op. 135, he musically depicts the approach of death, coming ever closer but occasionally pushed into the background with moments of gaiety. This is the way we all live, pushing the unpleasant realities of life, and those spectres we prefer to keep at the back of our minds, temporarily away; people, in T. S. Eliot's phrase, 'cannot bear very much reality'. Yet in music and in painting we bring ourselves, without too much difficulty, to face the realities of suffering and unhappiness in life and the inevitable presence of death, because art is accepted as an alchemist's stone that changes unpleasant reality into an imaginative awareness that we find not only acceptable but positively enjoyable. Samuel Beckett has accomplished the same form of magic in his writing, but is too little appreciated for doing so by the same public that goes to concerts and art galleries.”

[The Unnamable]

And here’s something that might be interesting in the light of the comment about Beckett’s ‘very limited view’:

“The war left him with an image of suffering humanity that could be depicted only through metaphor and allusion. A scene depicting the horrors of a concentration camp, torture, or execution, however realistic, can never catch the real essence of human cruelty, the despair of those who are trapped, the suffering and universal helplessness of all life in the face of predation and the destructive powers of nature or man. The absence of any divine power able or willing to prevent suffering or improve the human condition, the indifference of nature, and our own limited understanding of the universe in which we live have given modern man, especially in time of war, a sense of helplessness; this helplessness can be countered only with a resigned stoicism, interrupted perhaps with bursts of anger that the world is not the better place we know it could be, so that we should have the intelligence and conscious awareness to perceive the depth of our universal tragedy; if there is a God, why should he treat us so badly or be so indifferent? Beckett has set out to depict this sense of helplessness.”

[RobinHood3000]

I see the anti-intellectual brigade is in tonight.

Your objection is similar to those who say that Hamlet ‘thinks too much’. Have you ever considered the possibility that it’s you who don’t think enough?

As this is a Literature forum, it’s not unreasonable to expect that some users might have heard of Samuel Beckett, winner of the 1969 Nobel Prize for, wait for it, LITERATURE!

You are such a light-hearted bunch that you found it necessary to pick up on my breadcrumb sins (not that it was incorrect, anyway) and display your own superior knowledge. In so doing, of course, you have simply reinforced the criticism I made in the first place. You were wrong. Why not accept that you were trying to be a smart-arse but forgot the smart bit?

Do you really believe that ‘fruitful discussions’ can be generated if any remark, no matter how ignorant, is respected? This is not a piece of sarcasm or intended to hurt; I really would like to know. Can you see no restraint on my side?

Besides, what you have said is insulting by virtue of its assumption that those I have allegedly attacked are ‘easy prey’, i.e. ill equipped mentally to defend themselves. Fortunately for you, they will be unaware of this, otherwise Scheherazade would be activated.

“when a great genius appears in the world the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”
Jonathan Swift An Essay On The Fates Of Clergymen.


Of course you do and you are wrong. Your sentence is simply an insult without the courage to dispense with the facade of politeness.

You seem to be overly concerned with whether or not your cited authorities would agree with a particular outlook.

There is where you need to be far more informed.

Can you not see the contradictions in your logic?

You forget that I am a teacher of Literature and have read and taught Shakespeare for many years. I own a dog-eared and faded copy of C.L. Barber’s, Shakespeare’s Festive Comedy. It was originally published in 1959 and is considered by most (including me) to be representative of a now outmoded approach to Shakespeare.

Yes, indeed – Beckett, one of the most acclaimed and respected writers of the twentieth century, is ‘very limited’. We all are. Nevertheless, permit me to believe that Beckett, with all his appalling limitations, has more insights to offer than you.

Don’t views like mine deserve to be heard if such discussions are to generate any worthwhile thought? I love the way you and those of your ilk make clear your dislike but hide behind the pretence of politeness. You are, in essence, calling me ‘rude’, ‘condescending’ and ‘charmless’ but you do it so beautifully.

Do I get a 'Bravo', Mr. Hood?

Why don’t you simply say that you will delete/ban what you don’t want to see on the forum? That would at least be honest and you wouldn’t have to resort to such transparent inconsistencies. I didn’t see any chastisement from you when I was referred to as an intellectual snob (nor did I wish to). You appear to prefer the sanitized and anaemic to the genuinely stimulating. That’s your choice but please don’t try to make out that it’s in the pursuit of some higher ideal.

I came here in the hope of reading something thoughtful and stimulating. I also came here to offer what little help I can to anyone genuinely seeking it (which I have done more exhaustively than many others). Are you to decide that my reasons aren’t valid? I find it amazing that on a site dedicated to World Literature, thinking is discouraged and replaced by the only thing we should be concerned about - not offending anyone (according to the rather vacuous standards that appear to have been set).

How can you imply that no opinion is ignorant? If someone came on spouting a theory of racial superiority based on the kind of thinking that was popular two hundred years ago, would you not consider his or her views ignorant? If he or she believed that homosexuals should be burned at the stake, would you still listen gracefully? Would this not be considered as adding to the “wealth” of different opinions? Or is it only the word that offends? Have you never heard the expression, ‘ignorant of the facts’? Some people’s opinions are, however much you try patronisingly to hide it in the fluffy frills of political correctness, ignorant. They stem from simple lack of knowledge. Is ‘uninformed’ any more acceptable?

I don’t claim that only my own contributions are worthy of attention. I really would like to see something interesting here and remain optimistic. I just won’t hold my breath.

“Without contraries is no progression.” William Blake – but, on a forum about Literature, who cares about what he thought?
DOES YOUR CONDESCENSION KNOW NO BOUNDS??? And that is only in THIS thread!!!

Fine--if you insist, you shall receive a 'Bravo.' Bravo, Unnamable, for managing to alienate the whole of the functional forums with the exception of one in but a few days. Bravo for your hypocrisy, for your weakly-veiled insults, and your citation of quotations as if the source in itself is adequate to justify the statement. Bravo, Unnamable, for the fool has made himself known. Please, by all means, hold your breath. With any good fortune, unconsciousness will soon follow.

When encountering the ignorant, you should seek to inform, not demean. Insulting those you wish to teach will only provoke defense, as you see here. Of course, given the fervor with which you have patronized us, one must ask if you really intend to inform, or to attempt to sate a twisted quest for self-superiority.

[Scheherazade]

Since this thread outlived its purpose, it will be closed.

Please keep your discussions within the norms of common courtesy and good will. Since we are all willing members and participants of a literary Forum, I am sure we are able to carry discussions without turning them into personal vendettas.

The Unnamable, please feel free to restart the thread if you would like to carry on the discussion on why we read and the place of books in our lives.