What is literature?

[Sabo]

You've probably discussed the topic before, but it struck me while reading the last few days posts about rap and Pink Floyd that people seem to have very different ideas on what is literature.

So what is literature? This is of course an eternal question in literary criticism, with several extreme positions. Russian formalism accentuated the use of literary devices; it has been said about one of the Russian Formalists that art, according to him, was "is a sum of literary and artistic devices that the artist manipulates to craft his work." On the other side of the scale you might find excerpts from a phone book published as poetry: a text becomes a work of art because of the intention of the poet. In the discussion on the forum I've been surprised to meet the very old idea that something can not be (a great) work of art because it is too profane. Apparently the literature is still judged after its moral content.

Then there is also the classical opposition between the craft and art, but let's not go there.

I personally-if anything-am mainly a follower of the intentionalist approach: if somebody made/wrote something that meant something to him, if he or she saw it as art, then it is art. Maybe it's not always great art, maybe I would like to burn it, but it's art.

How about you?

[Asa Adams]

Miram-Webster Defines Literature as:
1 archaic : literary culture
2 : the production of literary work especially as an occupation
3 a (1) : writings in prose or verse; especially : writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest

Make Note of the first. This brings into contemplation, the culture behind Lit. This is a good representation of your "Art" opinion.

[holdencaulfield]

You've probably discussed the topic before, but it struck me while reading the last few days posts about rap and Pink Floyd that people seem to have very different ideas on what is literature.

which posts about rap and floyd you had in mind while posting this?

the popularity of a literary work (like other arts) is often determined by the popularity of the writer.if tomorrow john updike writes something even cheesier than j.k. rowling, it will be considered as "literature" but if someone lesser known manages to write a pretty serious work on modern life, it will be, at best, "pseudo-literature".

you are right when you say ""if somebody made/wrote something that meant something to him, if he or she saw it as art, then it is art." art is personal.it is for the artist.
the poet muses and the world overhears.

[sHaRp12]

Human expression by the form of written words in verses.

[Virgil]

I personally-if anything-am mainly a follower of the intentionalist approach: if somebody made/wrote something that meant something to him, if he or she saw it as art, then it is art. Maybe it's not always great art, maybe I would like to burn it, but it's art.

How about you?
This is a great idea for a thread, Sabo. I'm torn between what you call the intentionalist approach and what I'll call a cultural approach. What I mean by that is that a culture, collectively and through discussion and debate, chooses what it considers literature. Some might consider the phone book a work of literature (post modern critics consider any text to be, if not quite on equal quality, worthy of consideration), but those are so few that one can hardly say that a phone book is literature. However, a culture does informally (and sometimes formally) decide what works are literature and what works are just written material.

[Sabo]

which posts about rap and floyd you had in mind while posting this?

For example, in rap-thread, no 16:


It is not just the explicitness that disturbs and offends me - it is the combination of the explicitness and the devalued, basic, and shameful topics.
I am not willing to compare rap lyrics with any form of literature.

ShoutGrace didn't dismiss all rap, only the sort that bothered her because of its explicitness. That is: if the content is unappropriated, it's not literature. This surprised me.

In Pink Floyd-thread, no 1:


In my opinion, a lot of Pink Floyd's lyrics are very similar to lit etc.

Why "very similar to lit"? To me, this can not be a question. Lyrics are a genre of poetry. But apparently, this is not as obvious to others. Again, I was surprised.


Miram-Webster Defines Literature

For the first, the first of the definitions in Merriam-Webster is not even close to the intentionality definition I gave. The arcaic use of word "literature" is also given as alternative no 1 in Oxford English Dictionary and better defined there:


Acquaintance with ‘letters’ or books; polite or humane learning; literary culture. Now rare and obsolescent. (The only sense in Johnson and in Todd 1818.)

This has nothing to do with the intentionality definition, which is a rather new idea.

For the second, dictionary definitions will simply not do in this metter. The literary criticism has come up with many and very different answers on the question what makes a text a piece of art. This is not kind of knowledge you will find in a dictionary like Merriam-Websters.

Anther defintion, given as no 3c by Oxford English Dic, is "(colloq.) Printed matter of any kind." This is the sense in which it will be used when we for example speak of literature in a course we are taking, as, god forbidd, in economics. But what I was talking about is closer to the old term "belles-letres", even though this is by no means a good term, since it also focuses upon the "belle", the polite, the accepted.


Human expression by the form of written words in verses.

Interesting. But would you not consider a novel literature?


a cultural approach.

Yes, there you have a very good point. This is indeed the "working definition" which the society uses, and it works in most cases, but the intriguing ones are when it doesn't-when somebody says that something isn't art, while somebody else claims the opposite. Often (as it seems to me) the people who claim that something isn't art, are provoked by the content of the work. This is now fascinating. It means that it isn't enough that the form a work will be recognizable as artistic (for example, sHaRp12's definition will get in trouble), but the content must also stay within limits of what a culture finds as appropriate material for art.

[Mark F.]

I think the main element that defines literature is the author's relationship to language. When someone reviews a film he doesn't make the same use of words as say Faulkner or Hemingway do when they write descriptive paragraphs, or dialogue.

[caesar]

Somebody once told me that there is no such thing as good and bad literature; there is only popular and unpopular literature.

[ShoutGrace]

ShoutGrace didn't dismiss all rap, only the sort that bothered her because of its explicitness. That is: if the content is unappropriated, it's not literature. This surprised me.


That is my personal partiality (opinion). I also don't like onions. Are onions objectively invalid for all people? I guess that I cannot really say that.

I think that literature is written language, that is all. Literature as Art, however, is another matter.

[Danika_Valin]

I don't have some transcendental definition of literature that Socrates (Plato) would approve of. To me, "literature" as the word is used today is merely fiction held in high regard and considered better than average. For example, if you have a romance novel that's average, it's considered "romance" or "genre fiction." If it's an exceptionally good novel it's called "literature."

[Sabo]

I think that literature is written language, that is all. Literature as Art, however, is another matter.

Exactly, but what? We can all agree that the word "literature" is sometimes used in the meaning "written text". In this broad sense, everything written is literature. In the sense you used it when you wrote that you are not willing to compare rap lyrics with any form of literature, you used it in another sense-you put a certain value into it. Were you not thinking of literature as art in that case?


I think the main element that defines literature is the author's relationship to language.

Yes, one would think that a formalistic point of view would suffice. But does it? How about texts that pretend to be documentary, but are in fact fictional? From a formal point of view, there are documentary-they use same literary devices are that type of text. Or the opposite: a documentary text that is written in a dramatized manner: the content is documentary, but the form literary. Is that literature?

[Manfred]

Who, in fact, determines what is literature, and what is not? Is it the author, or the society he lives in, or posterity?
I have heard of authors who believe that their most widely published material is garbage, and that those books were only written in order to make a living, even while the stuff they would like to be recognized for is considered to be not commercial enough for publication.
I have heard of others who believed themselves to be second-rate hacks, but whom posterity deemed otherwise.
What, or whom, is the real barometer; sales, critical acclaim, or enduring popularity?

[Danika_Valin]

I think it's a combination of the three, Manfred: sales, critical acclaim AND enduring popularity. Literature, at least in my view, is a word that is very versatile and has no single meaning. What may be literature to some may not be literature to others. The read barometer is what the population collectively decides is good reading.

[mono]

I like your idea of an intentional approach to the definition of literature, Sabo, and cannot agree more, but I suppose I never had a definite word for it. ;)
To a degree, I even believe that anything written can seem classified as literature - everything from Charles Dickens on my bookshelf, poetry, the dictionary and thesaurus nearby, and my set of encyclopedias to magazines, newspapers, and DVD installation manuals. The intention, as you say in such an admirably Kantian manner, Sabo, greatly influences the type of literature, however, ranging from fiction, non-fiction, poetry, and reference to instructional and leisurely sources (magazines, etc.).
Whether for benefit or fault, however, with an intentional approach, a novel written by J.K. Rowling or Tom Clancy can seem equivalent to a novel written by James Joyce or George Eliot. Though I think it safe to say, to place the words nicely, that some works of literature appear more intelligently written qualitatively, but this depends entirely on my opinion; all authors relatively intented the same - to write, produce, and likely publish their work, while the readers (like you and I) stand as judges.

[Manfred]

I think it's a combination of the three, Manfred: sales, critical acclaim AND enduring popularity. Literature, at least in my view, is a word that is very versatile and has no single meaning. What may be literature to some may not be literature to others. The read barometer is what the population collectively decides is good reading.

These days it seems that pre-publication hype, together with the author's name recognition determines sales, and without this there is little prospect of critical acclaim. Maybe it has always been this way, I don't know. If that is the case, publishers are the ones who determine what is literature for the moment, and only time can tell if something will be considered great literature. The author may never know his historical status.
For example, everything written by Grishim is an immediate best-seller, but most are imminantly forgetable. Few "pop" novels go on to be considered classics. Otherwise, Jacqueline Suzanne would be considered one of the greatest of all time.

[Danika_Valin]

Even if publishers are the ones that determine what is literature, they make a profit on what they print. Naturally they are going to print what they think will sell, what they feel the public will buy and read. The people and the popularity of the book still decide what is literature.

Dare I say it, I've heard The Da Vinci Code referred to as literature even though, in my opinion, it was a poorly written book. I'm willing to bet that in twenty years people will still be reading it. There's nothing spectacular about Dan Brown's style of writing, little truth in the Priory of Sion and Mary Magdalene scandal, yet it is referred to as "literature" because of it's popularity.

[Manfred]

Even if publishers are the ones that determine what is literature, they make a profit on what they print. Naturally they are going to print what they think will sell, what they feel the public will buy and read. The people and the popularity of the book still decide what is literature.

Dare I say it, I've heard The Da Vinci Code referred to as literature even though, in my opinion, it was a poorly written book. I'm willing to bet that in twenty years people will still be reading it. There's nothing spectacular about Dan Brown's style of writing, little truth in the Priory of Sion and Mary Magdalene scandal, yet it is referred to as "literature" because of it's popularity.

It is popular because of the rise of religion in world culture at the present time, and because of its percieved sacrilege. We live in very conservative times, but who can say what the climate will be years from now? The political pendulum swings both ways.
While The Da Vinci Code may retain popularity for a while, especially among those who care about such things, I cannot see it being regarded as great literature in the distant future. Shock value wears thin over time if that is all there is to recommend it in the first place.

[yellowsubmarine]

modernism or "abstract expressionism" i deny to regard as art; whatever "intentions" the artist might've had, a can of trash or a canvas with randomly splattered paint fail to register within me an aesthetic appeal. I think that art has to be strived for, to be well thought out and ultimately have some semblence in its form that connects itself to the artist's intention. otherwise, it's just pretention and contrivance.

[Manfred]

modernism or "abstract expressionism" i deny to regard as art; whatever "intentions" the artist might've had, a can of trash or a canvas with randomly splattered paint fail to register within me an aesthetic appeal. I think that art has to be strived for, to be well thought out and ultimately have some semblence in its form that connects itself to the artist's intention. otherwise, it's just pretention and contrivance.

Do you refer to flow-of-conscienceness works such as "On the Road" in reference to literary art? If so, I must agree with you.

[yellowsubmarine]

you mean stream of consciousness? unfortunately i'm not familiar with the particular work that you're referring to, but i've read faulkner's Sound and the Fury and i think it's great... a little difficult to follow, but the text holds meaning.

[literaturerocks]

i definately agree that literature is an art..however how the books are classifyed in the book store is somewhat based upon what picture the author paints (metaphorically speaking of art) not much of a picture is painted with the dictionary but alas it is literature is it not? to answer your question directly "what is literature?" i have to honestly tell you that i dont know. as we can see from this thread obviously alot of what people define it as is based upon opinion. so i guess you have to paint your own picture. :cool:

[Manfred]

you mean stream of consciousness? unfortunately i'm not familiar with the particular work that you're referring to, but i've read faulkner's Sound and the Fury and i think it's great... a little difficult to follow, but the text holds meaning.

Sorry about that; I was still half-asleep.

[Pendragon]

Who, in fact, determines what is literature, and what is not? Is it the author, or the society he lives in, or posterity?
I have heard of authors who believe that their most widely published material is garbage, and that those books were only written in order to make a living, even while the stuff they would like to be recognized for is considered to be not commercial enough for publication.
I have heard of others who believed themselves to be second-rate hacks, but whom posterity deemed otherwise.
What, or whom, is the real barometer; sales, critical acclaim, or enduring popularity?This is the point I was making on the other thread. Arthur Conan Doyle considered Sherlock Holmes to be garbage, but the very name will sell a book even now. Lovecraft considered himself to be a second-rate hack, and still sells every where. Robert E. Howard wrote only from the time he was 15 until his suicide at age 30. He created characters such as Conan, Red Sonja, Kull, Solomon Kane, and many others. His books still sell.

Pulp fiction, printed on cheap paper in the depression in colorful magazine covers still sells today. An revival of The Shadow and Doc Savage reprints is currently underway. The first volume of The Shadow is at the printers and will be at selected specialty stores in mid-July, and shipping from Diamond Distributors in October. Each paperback will retail for $12.95 and contain two complete, unabridged pulp adventures of The Shadow, with covers by George Rozen and interior illustrations by Edd Cartier. The reprints can also be ordered directly from: Anthony Tollin; P.O. Box 761474; San Antonio; TX 78245-1474 ([email protected] add $3.00 for postage and packaging) or from Nostalgia Ventures' website (www.nostalgiaventures.com).

Meanwhile, many classical authors are usually remembered for a single book. Few people would know that Bram Stoker wrote anything other than Dracula. Or that Melville wrote something besides Moby Dick.

Are songs literature? Yes. I don't care for some rap lyrics, but because I personally do not like it doesn't change the fact that someone wrote it to express a feeling. Feeling is what makes literature, when the author can make the reader/listener feel what he/she feels. :cool:

[Danika_Valin]

Feeling is what makes literature, when the author can make the reader/listener feel what he/she feels. :cool:

I agreed with everything you said up to this point. Feeling makes literature? As beautiful as that sounds, it is such an empty phrase. It also contradicts what you said before. Did Lovecraft really want his readers to "feel what he feels," or was he just trying to sell books? Didn't the popularity of the books turn them into "literature?"

[Pendragon]

I agreed with everything you said up to this point. Feeling makes literature? As beautiful as that sounds, it is such an empty phrase. It also contradicts what you said before. Did Lovecraft really want his readers to "feel what he feels," or was he just trying to sell books? Didn't the popularity of the books turn them into "literature?"Well, I'll concede the point about the popularity, but yes, Lovecraft was a tormented, haunted soul, and it comes out in his writings. If you read Poe closely, you will even find more than a few references to the alcohol that was destroying the man. An author tends to put him or herself into the work, and you learn much about the person from the literature they put out. If there is a continuing central character, (over several books); look for it to be the author in disguise. For example Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had learned to analyze and deduct evidence from his medical instructor, Dr. Joseph Bell. When he began writing Sherlock Holmes, Bell became Holmes and Doyle became Watson. ;) :nod:

[Mary Sue]

To qualify as "literature," a book must have a timeless, universal appeal. If it can achieve that, then future generations will continue to read and enjoy it. Shakespeare, Dickens, Hardy, Doyle, Twain, Faulkner,Wodehouse, Camus, even crazy ol' H.P.
Lovecraft---all of them touched on our deepest joys/ fears. And because their output didn't "date," it has survived the time of time.
But is Dan Brown one of the "immortals"? Only time will tell....but I kinda doubt it. Speculation about the personal life of Jesus may be all the fad this year, but will it be just as trendy in 2056? If new facts about Jesus should come to life, then Brown's
premise may be disproven or compromised. Remember that other blockbuster, CHARIOTS OF THE GODS, which people today barely remember? Who reads CHARIOTS OF THE GODS anymore? A gimmick isn't enough to ensure longevity. And if interest in the Da Vinci premise doesn't last, then neither will our collective memory of this rather mediocre novel.

[Danika_Valin]

But is Dan Brown one of the "immortals"? Only time will tell....but I kinda doubt it. Speculation about the personal life of Jesus may be all the fad this year, but will it be just as trendy in 2056? If new facts about Jesus should come to life, then Brown's
premise may be disproven or compromised. Remember that other blockbuster, CHARIOTS OF THE GODS, which people today barely remember? Who reads CHARIOTS OF THE GODS anymore? A gimmick isn't enough to ensure longevity. And if interest in the Da Vinci premise doesn't last, then neither will our collective memory of this rather mediocre novel.

Boy, do I ever hope you right! I don't want to hear about Dan Brown in the year 2007, let alone 2056!

[PeterL]

If you read Poe closely, you will even find more than a few references to the alcohol that was destroying the man.


Poe was a teatotaler, in fact, he was almost allergic to alcohol.

[Danika_Valin]

Poe also lost both of his parents when he was very long, and the death of his mother particularly disturbed him. Is it any wonder that in "The Raven," the Raven rests on a bust of Pallas? Pallas (Athena) had no mother and was created from Zeus's head. Literally.

[Pendragon]

Poe was a teatotaler, in fact, he was almost allergic to alcohol.
I would be very interested to know where you came up with this information, Peter. This quote is from Wikkapedia:


The evening of January 20, 1842, the lovely Virginia broke a blood vessel while singing and playing the piano. Blood began to rush forth from her mouth. It was the first sign of consumption, now more commonly known as tuberculosis. She only partially recovered. Poe began to drink more heavily under the stress of Virginia's illness. He left Graham's and attempted to find a new position, for a time angling for a government post. He returned to New York, where he worked briefly at the Evening Mirror before becoming editor of the Broadway Journal. There he became involved in a noisy public feud with Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. On January 29, 1845, his poem "The Raven" appeared in the Evening Mirror and became a popular sensation.

The Broadway Journal failed in 1846. Poe moved to a cottage in the Fordham section of The Bronx, New York. He loved the Jesuits at Fordham University and frequently strolled about its campus conversing with both students and faculty. Fordham University's bell tower even inspired him to write "The Bells." The Poe Cottage is on the southeast corner of the Grand Concourse and Kingsbridge Road, and is open to the public. Virginia died there in 1847. Increasingly unstable after his wife's death, Poe attempted to court the poet Sarah Helen Whitman. Their engagement failed, purportedly because of Poe's drinking and erratic behavior; however there is also strong evidence that Miss Whitman's mother intervened and did much to derail their relationship. He then returned to Richmond and resumed a relationship with a childhood sweetheart, Sarah Elmira Royster, who, by that time, was a widow.

You will note two references to Poe's problems with alcohol even in these two short paragraphs. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/861.gif

The entire article goes through Poe's extremely mysterious death, which the attending physician decreed was due to alcoholism, but others have questioned. We probably will never know for certain.

[PeterL]

I would be very interested to know where you came up with this information, Peter. This quote is from Wikkapedia:

You will note two references to Poe's problems with alcohol even in these two short paragraphs. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/861.gif

The entire article goes through Poe's extremely mysterious death, which the attending physician decreed was due to alcoholism, but others have questioned. We probably will never know for certain.

There are many references to the fact that Poe became ill after a small amount of alcohol. A brief search found this one from the E. A. Poe Society of Baltimore that has perhaps the best site dedicated to Poe.
"We must be careful accepting every statement about Poe's drinking at face value. Poe's enemies, and others who should know better, often attributed any reference to Poe being ill as another occasion of drinking. Although it appears that more than one or two drinks made Poe very ill, it is unreasonable to assume that he was never ill from other, and more commonplace, causes."
http://www.lfchosting.com/eapoe/GENINFO/poealchl.htm

That comment isn't as strong as it should be, because Poe seldom darnk alcohol at all. He knew perfectly well that it would make him sick very quickly. Rumors that he drank heavily were created by his in-laws, who didn't like him much, and by others who disliked him. In the 1990's there were several books and/or articles about his drinking that brought out his intolerance for article. There also was a piece of historical forensics that stated that the symptoms described during the time when he was in a hospital strongly suggest that he died of hydrophobia. The only thing that suggested that he might have been drinking was that he was found unconscious in a road.

I will take a careful look at the Wikipedia article and suggest correction, if that is called for.

[Pendragon]

There are many references to the fact that Poe became ill after a small amount of alcohol. A brief search found this one from the E. A. Poe Society of Baltimore that has perhaps the best site dedicated to Poe.
"We must be careful accepting every statement about Poe's drinking at face value. Poe's enemies, and others who should know better, often attributed any reference to Poe being ill as another occasion of drinking. Although it appears that more than one or two drinks made Poe very ill, it is unreasonable to assume that he was never ill from other, and more commonplace, causes."
http://www.lfchosting.com/eapoe/GENINFO/poealchl.htm

That comment isn't as strong as it should be, because Poe seldom darnk alcohol at all. He knew perfectly well that it would make him sick very quickly. Rumors that he drank heavily were created by his in-laws, who didn't like him much, and by others who disliked him. In the 1990's there were several books and/or articles about his drinking that brought out his intolerance for article. There also was a piece of historical forensics that stated that the symptoms described during the time when he was in a hospital strongly suggest that he died of hydrophobia. The only thing that suggested that he might have been drinking was that he was found unconscious in a road.

I will take a careful look at the Wikipedia article and suggest correction, if that is called for.Well, Peter, I read your entire article at the url you listed, and unfortunately, it seems to underscore Poe's problem with alcohol. This by no means is a fatal blow to the great author. Few people could point fingers and say they were without flaw. In fact, I would say none could. "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone."

Poe recognizes his problem, hates it: thus the line "for what daemon is like alcohol?" in bemoaning a tormented man's fate. The man was a certified genius who wrote much more than tormented horror tales. Have you read his first person stories written as a woman? Humorous! "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Feather"? Hilarious! His detective stories set the mark for every one that followed. If his personal demon crept into his stories, they made the man more real to his audience. And that is the Poe I love to read! :)

Regards,

Pen :wave:

[subterranean]

You've probably discussed the topic before, but it struck me while reading the last few days posts about rap and Pink Floyd that people seem to have very different ideas on what is literature.


Can someone please be kind enough to post the link to the said posts?

Thank you in advance

[mono]

Though I respect both opinions of Pendragon and PeterL on Edgar Allan Poe's chronic problem (or lack thereof) with alcohol, but I feel there seems far too much evidence of his alcoholism. Not only in his allusions and references in literature (take the Cask Of Amontillado, for example), yet there also seems debate whether he died of a condition called hepatic encephalopathy - a condition related to liver failure, and one of the causes appears directly related to chronic alcoholism, rather than acute alcoholism.

[Manfred]

Though I respect both opinions of Pendragon and PeterL on Edgar Allan Poe's chronic problem (or lack thereof) with alcohol, but I feel there seems far too much evidence of his alcoholism. Not only in his allusions and references in literature (take the Cask Of Amontillado, for example), yet there also seems debate whether he died of a condition called hepatic encephalopathy - a condition related to liver failure, and one of the causes appears directly related to chronic alcoholism, rather than acute alcoholism.

I often wonder at the modern view of alcoholism. There are those who believe that if one consumes a couple of beers per day after work then one is an alcoholic.
When I was younger, I drank a great deal, was what is known as a binge drinker. But I binged often. As I approached my 40's, however, I simply grew tired of this behavior and of all that is associated with it. So I pretty much quit drinking, and have only consumed a few beers in the last couple of years. I did not require a support group, such as AA, to help me accomplish this, I just did it.
I must believe, therefore, that some forms of so-called alcolholism are nothing more than a state of mind, rather than a physical dependancy, and thus are not really alcoholism at all, but rather behavioral deviance caused by some outside influence such as lonliness or boredom or lack of direction.
Any thoughts on this matter?

[Pendragon]

Though I respect both opinions of Pendragon and PeterL on Edgar Allan Poe's chronic problem (or lack thereof) with alcohol, but I feel there seems far too much evidence of his alcoholism. Not only in his allusions and references in literature (take the Cask Of Amontillado, for example), yet there also seems debate whether he died of a condition called hepatic encephalopathy - a condition related to liver failure, and one of the causes appears directly related to chronic alcoholism, rather than acute alcoholism.
Hi Mono! :wave: I did point out that Poe's death was somewhat controversial. :) And as I said, it's not something that destroys the worth of his writings, it just shows from time to time. It would be like saying Van Gogh couldn't paint because he suffered with depression, cut off his own ear, and eventually committed suicide. He painted self-portraits with the missing ear, but yes, he was a masterful painter.

I believe I mentioned that Robert E. Howard's writing career ran only from when he was about 15 until his suicide at 30. Yet his characters Conan, Red Sonja, Kull, Bran Mac Morn, Corman Mac Art, Solomon Kane and others still live on today. Hemingway committed suicide due to depression, but his work will live on. Do traces of these men's depression show in their work? Yes. But it doesn't ruin the art of the storyteller.

It's why my own poetry is often dark and gloomy... But I've had fair success with the market. ;) :nod: