"Elitism"

[nathank]

The idea of "elitism" seems to come up a lot around here. But in the "hard" sciences you NEVER hear people who are knowledgeable referred to in this way. They are usually congratulated for their hard work and education, even by the public at large. But a writer or "soft" science person is degraded as being an "elitist" if they seem to know anything beyond "common sense" and include it in their works. What a bizarre double standard. Just wondering what others think about this?

[Lambert]

But a writer or "soft" science person is degraded as being an "elitist" if they seem to know anything beyond "common sense" and include it in their works. What a bizarre double standard. Just wondering what others think about this?

Yes, excellent point. What annoys me about the general reading public is there general dislike of writers with a large vocabulary or erudition (eg. Joyce, Faulkner, Nabokov).

[plainjane]

Yes, excellent point. What annoys me about the general reading public is there general dislike of writers with a large vocabulary or erudition (eg. Joyce, Faulkner, Nabokov).

I'm not sure if it is the large vocabulary that puts some off these writers, I'd have to say it is more actually having to think, having to analyze the layering techniques. Faulkner and Nabokov are two of my favorite writers and I am not the smartest, or most learned person by a long shot.

"Popular fiction" in general does not require analysis or any sort of deep thinking, sort of like junk food as opposed to real nourishing food [Nabokov, Faulkner]. IMHO :D

[PeterL]

Yes, it is rather bizarre double standard; although the word "elitist" seems to be applied by people who envy the learning of people in the humanities.

[Lambert]

I'm not sure if it is the large vocabulary that puts some off these writers, I'd have to say it is more actually having to think, having to analyze the layering techniques. Faulkner and Nabokov are two of my favorite writers and I am not the smartest, or most learned person by a long shot.

Thank you Jane, I should have digressed more on that vocabulary point. But of course I was too damn lazy always to do so....

I think you've summed it up pretty nicely. There seems to be a fear of intellectual engagement with serious literature nowadays. In the eyes of the general populace, literature has to conform to their demands for a basic vocabulary, accesiblilty and an easy going nature.

[Daniel A. C.]

There's something to this, but scientists can be elitist too - if you read Richard Feynman's books, he is always complaining how scientists seem to make many things unnessesarily complicated, inaccessible to the common person.

Another thing - authors like Joyce and Nabokov were elitist, I would say. They really enjoyed leaving people behind, baffled. I don't think anyone could deny that Finnegan's Wake is for anyone beyond a tiny minority of devoted & talented readers.

There's nothing really wrong with this, I don't think, there are authors who write stories that are easy to read, and others that are deeper and more complex. It takes all kinds.

[stlukesguild]

I agree that a large part of the charges of "elitism" placed upon artists in all fields is rooted in a certain degree of jealousy, dislike and even fear of that which is challenging... difficult... and not immediately accessible. I would note, however, that another large part of the equation is rooted (ironically?) in certain aspects of academia. Since at least the 1960s we have been "blessed" with those academics who confuse the teaching, criticism, and study of art with social activism. Such academics have been quick to suggest that anyone who who believes that Shakespeare, Homer, Dante, or Milton are inherently greater writers than Sylvia Plath, Toni Morrison, or Jack Kerouac (sorry... I couldn't help myself:lol::D) are "elitists". Some would go so far as to argue for an artistic "relativity"... ie. would suggest that as all is subjective no artist is better or worse than another... and to suggest such is "elitist". Some go even further and suggest that the great artists themselves were "elitist" as they benefited from a social structure that favored white males. Of course that would make Japanese woodblock artists and African sculptors just as "elitist". Personally, I have no problem with the notion that art is "elitist". Democracy and Egalitarianism certainly have their place politically (although even there they are not perfect:confused:), but art and Democracy or Egalitarianism make horrid partners. I want nothing to do with an art of mediocrity... an art designed for the masses. I'll take that which challenges and makes me think... that which has certain high standards... and I'll gladly be called an "elitist" and say "thank you very much".:nod:

[nathank]

I could see the idea of "elitism" as applied to art appearing at that time in academia. That helps to give it some more context in a sense.

It's too bad the idea of "better" or "worse" even entered into this. The idea that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" has been around for millennia. We could simply say that some works are more complex and dense and require a larger background to be fully understood.

Perhaps we are using two different ideas of "elitism." I was thinking of "complex works" by any author of any age as being labeled elite simply because they are more difficult. You seem to be thinking of academic complaints in terms of "greater or lesser works" based on socially entrenched stigmas, etc and the professors goals to liberate these "oppressed" writers.

I'm more interested in the former version and particularly why the general public labels these works as elitist, when they look up to highly knowledgeable scientists, even confusing scientists, as Gods. They are baffled by quantum mechanics, but think those who understand it are great. They are equally baffled by Faulkner, Joyce, and Nabokov and they label them as elitist, arrogant, etc. Strange. Sad.

[stlukesguild]

But is "elitism" as you have suggested, solely related to the "difficulty" or "complexity" of the work? Certainly James Joyce, Beethoven's late string quartets, Heironymous Bosch's symbol-laden paintings or Mallarme's poetry can be dense... difficult... challenging... and as such one can surely understand the charges of "elitism" lain upon such art. Indeed, with Finnegan's Wake or one of Philip Glass' operas or much of what passes for "conceptual art" it becomes quite understandable that a general population would find the work completely "meaningless" and proof of the notion of the "elitists" in their ivory tower... artists/intellectuals creating "art" which has no relevance to reality. On the other hand... there is a good deal of great art which is not overly "difficult". Certainly the greater experience the audience has the more likely they are to appreciate further levels of "meaning" and form. Really, is Mozart that difficult, or Rembrandt, or Dickens, or even Shakespeare? Yet there are undoubtedly those who would suggest that they (and those who appreciate their work) represent a certain "elitism" as well. Personally, I feel that I am open to a broad range of art. I love Bach, but I also am greatly enamored of Miles Davis, Johnny Cash and iris DeMent:eek2: I don't, however, imagine that all art is equal by any stretch of the imagination. I think when it comes to literature I am a bit more stringent... preferring not to waste my time on mediocre, light entertainment. This is probably owing to the fact that reading often involves a far greater investment in terms of time than most music or painting. Surely we all have some notion of an artistic hierarchy, however vague that may be. We create this when we choose what we will spend our time with and what we won't. We create this in our own "creative" endeavors... whether writing, painting, creating music, or building book shelves when we edit ourselves... when we decide that this works better than that. To suggest that questions of "good" and "bad" or "better" have no place in art seems completely absurd to me. As a visual artist I can tell you that this question is forever in the fore... as I lay down every brush-stroke.

[Demian]

I would say that if there were an exception to this rule it is in the realm of science fiction. In science fiction the better educated are usually the most revered. But science fiction has never really been taken seriously as a genre of literature anyway.

[PeterL]

I would say that if there were an exception to this rule it is in the realm of science fiction. In science fiction the better educated are usually the most revered. But science fiction has never really been taken seriously as a genre of literature anyway.

Science Fiction was part of general littersture in the 1950's. Orwell's 1984 was taken as general fiction, and some of the early SF was considered general fiction, Jules Verne's novels and H. G. Wells The Time Machine are examples. Earlier SF was not regarded as any different from general fiction, consider Cyrano de Bergerac's "Autre Mondes". The differentiation was between general fiction and pulp fiction until the 1960's.

[krisztina0907]

I'm not sure if it is the large vocabulary that puts some off these writers, I'd have to say it is more actually having to think, having to analyze the layering techniques.
"Popular fiction" in general does not require analysis or any sort of deep thinking, sort of like junk food as opposed to real nourishing food [Nabokov, Faulkner]. IMHO :D

I am new on this site. Let me introduce myself. I am from Hungary, but I live in New York for over a year now.

I have to write American book reviews on a monthly basis for a Hungarian magazine but I am not really familiar with American contemporary literature.
I am not looking for the popular bestselling authors (because it does not necessarily guarantee the quality I am searcing for) but those who would be considered strong literary authors and meet high standards in style, vocabulary, require analysis and deep thinking also. I feel a little lost because I have not studied contemporary American writers. Could you suggest some current American writers (poet, novellist, playwrite) that I should pay attention to? Do you know any websites, or periodicals which contain reliable information on this topic? Can I trust the Sunday New York Times literature section?

[Lote-Tree]

The idea of "elitism" seems to come up a lot around here. But in the "hard" sciences you NEVER hear people who are knowledgeable referred to in this way. They are usually congratulated for their hard work and education, even by the public at large. But a writer or "soft" science person is degraded as being an "elitist" if they seem to know anything beyond "common sense" and include it in their works. What a bizarre double standard. Just wondering what others think about this?

Erm...Hard Sciences are OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE...unlike art which is subjective Experience of the Individual...

[ClickForth]

okokok

[JBI]

Most people who criticize "Elitist" literature haven't read much of it I would think. Anyone can insult Finnegan's Wake, or Remembrance of Things Passed, or Pale Fire, but how many have read those works.

On first hearing about Finnegan's Wake, I too felt baffled, and shocked that anyone could purposely write something as complex, and unintelligible as that. Upon reading it however, I began to understand why and how someone could do that. He was experimenting, without the intention of appealing to everyone. He had the intention of appealing to those who would care. The work isn't as chaotic as it is made out to be I find, it just isn't meant to be straight forward, and is designed to play around with language in an unknown way.

The reason why people don't like this sort of stuff is because they want things either easy, or fast. Not many want to have to cut open something, and try to extract from it some meaning. Others don't want to have to think about heavy themes, while others just want to escape their lives for whatever reason. There is of course the other group who want the opposite, and call them Elitist or Enthusiast it makes no difference. There always will be that group, and there always will be that type of literature, the "ground breaking" literature, which breaks the rules, rewrites the rules, journeys to the uncharted, or digs into the deepest recesses of our minds.

[Nossa]

I agree on the idea that it has to do with the fear of thinking or coming across a literary work that would have what people tend to call sometimes 'difficult' ideas or vocabulary or whatever.
But there's something else, that I think can contribute sometimes. That is the fact that not everyone who's studying/reading literature is as good when it comes to comprehending complicated works, which include certain kind of diction that can be hard for someone who's either a beginner in literature, or doesn't speak English as his/her mother language.
I personally remember that when I started reading literature, it was very hard. I had to keep a dictionary beside me, and it was sometimes hard cuz it can be very dictracting to keep looking words up from the dictionary while reading the book. It could have been VERY frustrating for me, had I started reading Faulkner or Joyce when I was still taking baby steps in literature.
That's just a point of view that might clarify things, it doesn't mean that any of these works are bad, it simply means that they're not understandable for everyone, for various reasons.

[Woland]

One needs to be able to think critically to gain meaning from some of these so called "elitist" works, and thinking critically seems to be on the wane these days.

[AuntShecky]

So-called "elitism" does not sit well wit us egalitarians if th
members of a select group take extraordinary measures or go out of their way to keep others ( i.e. "us") out. On the other hand, if becoming one of the "elite" is a possible goal, there is nothing wrong with trying to achieve greatness.
Society as a whole might one day evolve into making labels (such as "elitist," or "stereotypes") extinct. Yet at the same time we should celebrate what makes each individual unique.

Your "Fly-by-night" Auntie

[KidTruth]

Wow. I'm an English major myself, but do you all just sit in circles jerking each other's egos off all day, or what? An above poster is correct in his assertion that science is objectively verifiable, and literature is not. The problem is that the study of literature is actually a study of six or seven popular ways to read literature - and each form of criticism will give you a different list of the world's greatest authors. So, within our own field, we have no answers. Is it so hard to think that an outsider might be frustrated by this?

And all we have to tell them is that whatever they're reading - that is, whatever is selling best - sucks.

Also, I'm baffled by how many of you stick to tenants of classical criticism that went out of style a century ago.

[Psycheinaboat]

I am an English major who hopes to go on to teach. My husband is an engineer, and we have had many discussions about the merits (or lack of) in studying and teaching lit. I actually appreciate this because it has made me really think through why I am doing what I am doing.

The subjective nature of analyzing literature just seems to drive my hubby mad. He is also a total canon basher, which I sort of agree with him about.

I do believe that something would truly be lost in the way of analyzing past and present cultures and teaching critical/independent thought if literature was lost in the craze to push sciences and math. Not to mention the need to create that I think is housed inside of every student.

Literature is the study of thought in a way that anthropology, sociology, psychology can never take the place of.

[nathank]

Also, I'm baffled by how many of you stick to tenants of classical criticism that went out of style a century ago.


Not being a lit major I often wondered about this in regards to various peoples comments on these boards. What styles of ctiticism do you see here on the boards that are "out of style"? What would you consider to be more modern styles of criticism?


Thanks

[KidTruth]

"Not being a lit major I often wondered about this in regards to various peoples comments on these boards. What styles of ctiticism do you see here on the boards that are "out of style"? What would you consider to be more modern styles of criticism?


Thanks - nathank"

Classical criticism, neoclassical criticism, genetic criticism - these are outdated in the sense that in the last 50 years, a handful of new critical views have replaced them.

What we see more of now is modern and postmodern criticism. A very blunt boiling-down of these is that a work of art stands as on its own, completely apart from the author who created and the history surrounding it. Therefor, you don't hate Harry Potter because of who wrote it or how many copies it sold, or because there are ads for it everywhere and it is the literary equivalent of Starbucks.

Postmodern criticism can also lead to such "interesting" observations as: Shakespeare sucks, everything I don't immediately like sucks, etc. And, according to Postmodern criticism, you'd be right to say that. But that gets more into Reader-response criticism, which is to say that the response generated by any given reader is a correct critique of the work.

My argument to these elitists is thus: If this literature is so great, why doesn't it elicit the correct response from the majority of people who read it? Blaming an audience is of questionable intellect - after all, the point of great literature is that it has broad-reaching appeal.

Personally, I attribute the above to the fact that most of the literature these gentlemen/ladies are referring to is very dated and requires some historical context to fully understand.

Hope that helps.

[JBI]

Yes to the above poster, but how can you fully analyze something like Voltaire's Candide, or Zola's Germinal without looking at their historical backgrounds. It is easy to generate a view of Dan Brown's novel without any real background, after all the is the point, but how can you compare the two.

If we use your logic, we can say that anyone who likes classics is giving an honest opinion, because they are providing a correct critique of the work.

However, one must acknowledge the power advertisement has on the publishing industry. I know plenty of my opinions over many works have been affected by bias (specifically non-fiction reading). For instance, one may be labeled a bad writer because they are antisemitic, or sexist, though this may not appear in their works. We naturally create a bias in our minds, and I do not think it is possible to escape it.

When reading a book, though this form of criticism may seem "out of fashion" to some, I find it necessary to analyze everything about the text, where it came from, why it was written, etc. We are trying to intemperate a meaning from a work, and if the meaning is generated by the reader, and not accurate at all, the book is a complete failure.

To ignore everything, especially the authors point of view, message, and intent, is to ignore most of the work. I am not alone in saying this, though some of you may find this view "Dated".

[ClickForth]

okokok

[KidTruth]

Didn't really mean to imply that one was right and one was wrong - that is the real message of postmodernism: that there is no right or wrong way to look at things.

The original poster asked why these views were seen as elitist... a lot of it has to do with the fact that this classical view of literature came from England and accompanied the view that most of you share - that there is "high" art and "low" art. You constantly snub popular writers of our time period while you spout the virtues of writers of "high" art from centuries ago.

I think that's why you're referred to as elitist.

Personally, I think that a historical background for a book is often necessary - IE, you will miss half of Shakespeare if you don't understand his constant pop references - but that trying to take the writer's view of his own work will often ruin it for you. Not to mention, some of the most enduring works of literature come with no background or information on the author. What then?

Is Gilgamesh worthless because we don't even know who wrote it? And how much do we actually know about Homer? Socrates may well have been a literary invention of Plato - we can't prove his existence at all.

[Oniw17]

Socrates may well have been a literary invention of Plato - we can't prove his existence at all.

Actually, we can't even prove Plato existed.

[KidTruth]

Then Aristotle was one hell of a thinker :D

[Psycheinaboat]

I think understanding the time period of the writer matters more than knowing or understanding the writer. Authors are products of their enviroment just like we all are, although understanding who created the work and their personal reasons for doing so can be interesting.

[KidTruth]

I agree with you on that one - hopefully, anyway. Most literature, even some modern (Shakespeare, for instance) has left us with no details about the author's intention. If you study up on some of the recent methods of criticism, they have completely removed the author's intentions from the equations. Reader Response and Deconstructionism are two examples of this style of critique.

[nathank]

In looking into these "postmodern" views, would it be accurate to say that a work can be used for whatever purpose or interpretation one chooses. For example as a demonstration of racism, sexism, colonialism, the freudian unconscious, etc. Is it basically saying that all we have is a bunch of text on a page until it is interpreted by whatever theory we choose to interpret it with? So there would be no "right" or "truer" or "better" reading, just different ones? Would this viewpoint be the underlying idea behind "the death of the author?"

Interesting discussion, thanks.

[Aiculík]

To say they enjoyed leaving people confused is a little absurd I think. It was an inherent part of their style and personality. Joyce was a linguist at heart who enjoyed the labyrinths that language could create. And Nabokov certainly doesn't do this all that much--he just writes well. I've read several Nabokov novels...the vocabulary is at maybe the 12th grade level, although the concepts are *gasp* thought-provoking and demanding. How dare he try to baffle people by incorporating deep themes and philosophy in his works.

I don't know about Nabokov, but Joyce did enjoy leaving people confused:

I've put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant, and that's the only way of insuring one's immortality.

That's what he said about Ulysses.
And that is the reason I don't like Joyce's novels.

[AuntShecky]

"The author's intention"? Unless he (or more rarely she) has left notes or letters stating such how would a reader so many years after the fact know an author's intention?
What we have are the actual words on the page. All we can do is extrapolate all the meaning that we can from what is there.
If we do have knowledge of the work's historical, sociological, philosophical context, we can call on them in the process of analyzing the work.
In a nutshell, let's look at the piece FIRST before imposing our prejudices/current trends upon it.
And to state once more, we cannot evaluate a work without
examining its FORM. Let's not be so involved in what the
author may have "meant" that we neglect to discover HOW he has expressed this meaning.

Oh and by the bye, let's not call a work or an author "elitist" merely because we find it difficult. "Oh, let's cross this dead white male off the reading list because his stuff is just sooo hard for us!"

[KidTruth]

That is the idea, nathank.

It's interesting to look at where these modern and postmodern views came from as well.

The world was going pretty swimmingly, all in all, and seemed to be heading in a good direction - particularly for artists - before 1910-1940ish and the first two world wars, not to mention the Great Depression for Americans. The world ceased to make sense to many people, and literary theory changed to reflect that fact.

This is a gross oversimplification, but it was from this rank shatfest that the somewhat depressing modern and postmodern theories were born from.

[KidTruth]

Yes to the above poster, but how can you fully analyze something like Voltaire's Candide, or Zola's Germinal without looking at their historical backgrounds. It is easy to generate a view of Dan Brown's novel without any real background, after all the is the point, but how can you compare the two.

If we use your logic, we can say that anyone who likes classics is giving an honest opinion, because they are providing a correct critique of the work.

However, one must acknowledge the power advertisement has on the publishing industry. I know plenty of my opinions over many works have been affected by bias (specifically non-fiction reading). For instance, one may be labeled a bad writer because they are antisemitic, or sexist, though this may not appear in their works. We naturally create a bias in our minds, and I do not think it is possible to escape it.

When reading a book, though this form of criticism may seem "out of fashion" to some, I find it necessary to analyze everything about the text, where it came from, why it was written, etc. We are trying to intemperate a meaning from a work, and if the meaning is generated by the reader, and not accurate at all, the book is a complete failure.

To ignore everything, especially the authors point of view, message, and intent, is to ignore most of the work. I am not alone in saying this, though some of you may find this view "Dated".

Actually, there is an inherent flaw in your comparison of Dan Brown to authors in history - you are IN Dan Brown's time period, so of course you don't need a history lesson. It isn't history yet!

In two or three hundred years, it will require a great deal of study to understand everything he was saying. I'm not saying that his books are philosophically deep, I'm just pointing out where your argument is flawed. In fact, many of the words Dan Brown uses in his books will have been out of usage for centuries, eventually.

You can't compare modern authors from your country of origin and time period to authors who have been dead a hundred years and are from cultures that no longer exist.

[JBI]

Alright, take Midnight's Children as an example instead. How can you fully understand that without knowing something about India? That is why at the beginning of the book there is (in the version I got at least) a 20 page overview of the history involved.

[ShoutGrace]

I'm not sure if it is the large vocabulary that puts some off these writers, I'd have to say it is more actually having to think, having to analyze the layering techniques. Faulkner and Nabokov are two of my favorite writers and I am not the smartest, or most learned person by a long shot.

I will always remember this little observation regarding Faulkner's writing:


"What we need is a mixed diction," said Aristotle, and his point remains true twenty-three centuries and several languages later. The aim of style, he says, is to be clear but distinguished. For clarity, we need common, current words; but used alone, these are too commonplace, and as ephemeral as everyday talk. For distinction, we need words not heard every minute, unusual words, strange words, foreign words, metaphors; but used alone, these become gibberish. What we need is a diction that marries the popular with the dignified, the clear current with the sedgy margins of language and thought . . . William Faulkner, who has soaked himself in Shakespeare, gets much of the same power from the same mixture. Here he is describing a very old woman in The Sound and the Fury. She has been fat, but now she is wrinkled and completely shrunken except for her stomach:

". . . a paunch almost dropsical, as though muscle and tissue had been courage or fortitude which the days or the years had consumed until only the indomitable skeleton was left rising like a ruin or a landmark above the somnolent and impervious guts . . ."

The impact of the short, ugly Anglo-Saxon word, with its slang metaphorical pun, is almost unbearably moving. And the impact would be nothing, the effect slurring, without the grand Latin preparation.

I wonder if little things like that play into an author's "skill" or "artistry" . . . or not.

(The author above also mentions these lines of Shakespeare's, just before addressing Faulkner:

"This my hand will rather
The multitudinous seas incarnadine,
Making the green one red.")

[nathank]

Alright, take Midnight's Children as an example instead. How can you fully understand that without knowing something about India? That is why at the beginning of the book there is (in the version I got at least) a 20 page overview of the history involved.


How can you fully understand that

I think that's exactly the point. There is no such thing as "fully understanding," or "correctly understanding" a work. A person can read that or any other book for any reason and with any interpretation one wants. The historical element is only one way of looking at the book, along with a linguistic, structural, freudian, etc. One can "understand" the book from within any of these interpretations, but never "be right" about the book.

Another way of looking at it might be to ask whose history or which history we are supposed to understand. Do we study the feminist version, the colonial english version, the postcolonial, the marxist, the lower caste, the upper caste, the nonviolence movement, etc? Which ones of these or others are "right" so that we "fully understand" the book?

As a final, and absurd example, what if a reader had never heard of India and just imagined the book to be a type of fantasy writing with lots of strange history and background that was just there to add to the world making? That person could read it primarily for fun.

[KidTruth]

I agree with Nathank here - and this is something Herman Hesse experimented with strongly.

He knew he wanted to write a book about enlightenment based in India (Siddhartha) but when he arrived in India, found that he hated it - and that it did not at all fit his vision for his book. So he left India and wrote Siddhartha as a purely subjective and observational thought-experiment.

But if you read his book and thought he had done his research... well, there you go.

Furthermore, what the poster above is suggesting is that a historical backdrop is what is needed to understand the text. Alright, so if that historical backdrop is incorrect, or cast in the wrong light - are you understanding the text at all by your own terms? It seems like you're just as likely to get a complete misreading of the text by reading a brief 20 page history.

The truth may be that there is no correct reading of a text, and that it is ALL your personal preference - so this "elitism" really says much more about the reader than the writer. Which goes back to the first post - why people call you "elitist."

[stlukesguild]

My argument to these elitists is thus: If this literature is so great, why doesn't it elicit the correct response from the majority of people who read it?

Uh... what exactly is the "correct" response?

Blaming an audience is of questionable intellect -

Blaming the artist who has no interest in pandering to the lowest common denominator seems to be of an even more questionable intellect. Or perhaps all writers should avoid complex concepts, experimentation with forms, and big words. It'll make it easy on the "majority" after all.

the point of great literature is that it has broad-reaching appeal.

Who on earth ever told you this?

[stlukesguild]

What we see more of now is modern and postmodern criticism.

By the way... in case you hadn't heard, most Post-Modern critical theory is a rather "elitist" Franco-German-American construct.

[KidTruth]

My argument to these elitists is thus: If this literature is so great, why doesn't it elicit the correct response from the majority of people who read it?

Uh... what exactly is the "correct" response?

Blaming an audience is of questionable intellect -

Blaming the artist who has no interest in pandering to the lowest common denominator seems to be of an even more questionable intellect. Or perhaps all writers should avoid complex concepts, experimentation with forms, and big words. It'll make it easy on the "majority" after all.

the point of great literature is that it has broad-reaching appeal.

Who on earth ever told you this?

Oh, right. I suppose you have all those ancient texts of which only ten copies were made and no one read.

What's that? Every historical author you've ever read has been widespread and popular? You don't say? What? The evidence for that nugget is in the evidence that their work has survived anywhere from five decades to eight centuries? Awesome!

You're under the false assumption that people will turn away from experimentation IF IT IS GOOD. People love experimentation with style. Older novels and texts that you enjoy now are harder-than-necessary to read because they are in dialects that are not spoken by the reader and require history lessons to understand. Some of us undertake that mission to understand them in order to be better authors.

Some of us undertake that mission so that we can look down our noses at the common "plebes."

[Psycheinaboat]

In looking into these "postmodern" views, would it be accurate to say that a work can be used for whatever purpose or interpretation one chooses. For example as a demonstration of racism, sexism, colonialism, the freudian unconscious, etc. Is it basically saying that all we have is a bunch of text on a page until it is interpreted by whatever theory we choose to interpret it with? So there would be no "right" or "truer" or "better" reading, just different ones? Would this viewpoint be the underlying idea behind "the death of the author?"

Nathank, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? :D

[Lote-Tree]

Nathank, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? :D

We can record the sound now these days :D

So it does :D

[Psycheinaboat]

We can record the sound now these days :D

So it does :D

But, in that case the recording device "hears" it. :)

That old adage is just what I thought of while reading nathank’s comment.

[Lote-Tree]

But, in that case the recording device "hears" it. :)

"Quantum Entanglement" allows us to "hear" this sound even though we are millions of miles from the forest :D

Universe is Queerer than you Think. Queerer than you can Imagine :D

[nathank]

Not quite sure what's with the tree falling stuff (extreme philosophical solipism?). But perhaps one could argue that the sound heard wasn't really a tree falling, but something else? Or that it wasn't a tree to begin with? At this point we are really delving into the philosophy and would have to look into materialism, solipism, epistomology, mind-body duality, etc. How can we ever really "know" anything? Philosophy has yet to hammer that one out or even difinitively prove whether or not we even exist!

[nathank]

On furth thought, I think this whole tree falling thing is taking the postmodern idea in the wrong direction. Postmodernism doesn't argue that there is or isn't something there (ie reality, a tree, a book), it is simply stating that everything is open to interpretation. That there are many different ways to interpret an "event." Is a fire just a combustion of chemicals or the release of spirits from the dead tree? Is my desk made of solid wood or mostly empty spaced atoms? These are just different interpretations (realities) that exist depending on which approach you are using at the time to look at the "event." None is more "justified" than any other, they all must stand on some assumptions.

[Psycheinaboat]

"Quantum Entanglement" allows us to "hear" this sound even though we are millions of miles from the forest :D

Universe is Queerer than you Think. Queerer than you can Imagine :D

Touché! ;)

[Lote-Tree]

Is a fire just a combustion of chemicals or the release of spirits from the dead tree?


erm combustions of chemicals because that is verifiable. Spirit is not.

[nathank]

But what does it mean to be materially and objectively verifiable? And according to whose standards (those choosen by a group of people called "scientists"?)? Philosophers have yet to even demonstrate that material existence even exists, without which all our "verifications" are perhaps only smoke and mirrors.

[KidTruth]

Definitely gone into the realms of existentialism, here.

I like that science is based off of "objectively verifiable" data, and yet all experience is subjective until someone learns how to become conscious from another person's viewpoint. Until then, you can't even prove that this isn't all a dream in the White King's head.

[nathank]

Here here! Perhaps we should leave this horse alone then, it appears to have been beaten thoroughly enough already, and continue on in our uncertainty.

Thanks to all for a fun discussion (so far?).

[Lote-Tree]

But what does it mean to be materially and objectively verifiable? And according to whose standards (those choosen by a group of people called "scientists"?)? Philosophers have yet to even demonstrate that material existence even exists, without which all our "verifications" are perhaps only smoke and mirrors.

Come on chappy verifiable to everyone and not just you. That what it means.

[KidTruth]

Come on chappy verifiable to everyone and not just you. That what it means.

That'd be great if you could prove anyone existed except yourself. Or that YOU exist, even.

[PeterL]

Definitely gone into the realms of existentialism, here.

I like that science is based off of "objectively verifiable" data, and yet all experience is subjective until someone learns how to become conscious from another person's viewpoint. Until then, you can't even prove that this isn't all a dream in the White King's head.

Even if someone were able to perceive from the point of view of another, that would not be verifiable evidence that the universe is not a dream of a third party.

[PeterL]

Back to the matter at hand: Writing is communication. If an author fails to communicate anything to readers, the author has failed. If a writer manages to communicate to only a very few readers, the writer has done a poor job. If a writer succeeds in communicating to most readers what the writer intended to communicate, then the writer was successful. Obscure writing, word-play, deeply hidden meanings, etc. are interesting, and they can make a piece of literature absorbing, but, if the meaning is so well hidden that only a few people can find it, what has the author done, except engage in intellectual play.

[Lambert]

Back to the matter at hand: Writing is communication. If a writer fails to communicate anything to readers has failed. If a writer manages to communicate to only a very few readers, the writer has done a poor job.

That would be true for the essay maybe, but when comes to fiction, writers have the credence to let ambiguity into their work. If fiction is meant to be a verisimilitude of reality in some way or another, and reality to us can be partially vague, and unknowable in its totality, then fiction therefore must have the ability to be difficult in some manner.

If the only condition writers had to obey in order to become “Great Writers” was to be absolutely clear in everything they wrote without an iota of clout over what they wanted to convey, then Tom Clancy would be up there where Leo Tolstoy used to be.

[nathank]

Back to the matter at hand: Writing is communication. If a writer fails to communicate anything to readers has failed. If a writer manages to communicate to only a very few readers, the writer has done a poor job. If a writer succeeds in communicating to most readers what the writer intended to communicate, then the writer was successful. Obscure writing, word-play, deeply hidden meanings, etc. are interesting, and they can make a piece of literature absorbing, but, if the meaning is so well hidden that only a few people can find it, what has the author done, except engage in intellectual play.


Yeah, that was always my thinking too. I always wondered why did Joyce have to be such a bastard and make his works so insanely hard to read (similar but much more mild feelings about Gaddis, Pynchon, and their like too).

Until stlukesguild made a comment in the thread " Garbage that they teach you in AP classes" which helped me see why these books are this way. If I understood his point, it was that authors don't have to write all books for all audiences. They write for a variety of reasons from artistic to plot to fun. Basically, not all people will enjoy every book ever written and they aren't supposed to. Sometimes authors DO just write for their own personal reasons and don't worry about anything else (ie mass appeal and ease of understanding). At least that was my understanding and it seemed reasonable enough.

[PeterL]

That would be true for the essay maybe, but when comes to fiction, writers have the credence to let ambiguity into their work. If fiction is meant to be a verisimilitude of reality in some way or another, and reality to us can be partially vague, and unknowable in its totality, then fiction therefore must have the ability to be difficult in some manner.

If the only condition writers had to obey in order to become “Great Writers” was to be absolutely clear in everything they wrote without an iota of clout over what they wanted to convey, then Tom Clancy would be up there where Leo Tolstoy used to be.

If you prefer form over content, then you are right. Personally, I think that content is more important. If an author has something worthwhile to say and can put that into a form that shows what he means, then that sort of writing is superior; Nabokov for example. If Mr Clancy had anything new or interesting to express, then he would be a truly great writer, but there isn't much depth in his novels.

[PeterL]

Yeah, that was always my thinking too. I always wondered why did Joyce have to be such a bastard and make his works so insanely hard to read (similar but much more mild feelings about Gaddis, Pynchon, and their like too).

Until stlukesguild made a comment in the thread " Garbage that they teach you in AP classes" which helped me see why these books are this way. If I understood his point, it was that authors don't have to write all books for all audiences. They write for a variety of reasons from artistic to plot to fun. Basically, not all people will enjoy every book ever written and they aren't supposed to. Sometimes authors DO just write for their own personal reasons and don't worry about anything else (ie mass appeal and ease of understanding). At least that was my understanding and it seemed reasonable enough.

Yes, some writers write for themselves, but they get published. Joyce is an interesting example. Ulysses is interesting, because few people had even tried to write something like that before; but it expresses ideas that are not commonly found in writing, and it is very readable to anyone who takes the time to read it. Finnegans Wake is very, very, difficult , and it gives the impression that Joyce didn't want it to be understood. Becaise FW is so difficult to read, it verges on not being communication, so I consider it poor literature.

[KidTruth]

I like the way PeterL is talking.

As far as Joyce goes, I would like to point out that he at the point in his career when his writing became such a linguistic puzzle he had already written two very straight-forward works that proved his worth as someone with something to say.

The Dubliners and Portrait of an Artist are very accessible and only as complex as the incredibly deep characters that he is writing about. I often wonder how his career would have shaped up if we didn't have those two works to ensure to us that Joyce does, indeed, have something worth saying.

I also feel that maybe some mentalities are such that after you do something really well once, it's time to start challenging yourself again. That's the impression I get from Joyce - he was writing to challenge himself and the concept of the novel itself, not to write a "great book" as we would think of it.

I'd also like to second (third?) the sentiment that content > form. Your content can be open ended in that it can challenge a reader to draw his own conclusions, but it must take you up to that point very well. To believe otherwise would suggest that writing should have continued in the vein of Finnegan's Wake, which to the day is still the most complex and intricate example of form I can personally think of in the body of human literature.

[JBI]

Joyce's Ulysses may be difficult, but that doesn't make it bad. When examining a book, I feel you must always look at the authors intention in writing it. Ulysses I think is a landmark work in terms of experimentation in literature, and influence. Think about how modern literature would look like if Joyce hadn't written Ulysses. Not to mention the fact that Finnegan's Wake was one of the greatest influences Jacques Derrida had when coming up with his deconstruction theories.

[JBI]

Yes, some writers write for themselves, but they get published. Joyce is an interesting example. Ulysses is interesting, because few people had even tried to write something like that before; but it expresses ideas that are not commonly found in writing, and it is very readable to anyone who takes the time to read it. Finnegans Wake is very, very, difficult , and it gives the impression that Joyce didn't want it to be understood. Becaise FW is so difficult to read, it verges on not being communication, so I consider it poor literature.

Is it fair to bash Finnegans Wake like that? He didn't intend it to be read by the mass public, he intended it to be studied. The whole work is about experimentation with language. Is it fair to judge a book not intended to be read by you with your perception of literature? Of course the average reader will hate Finnegans; does that make it a bad book though? The experimentation of language alone I personally felt when reading it was worthy of high status recognition, though I don't expect many people to gladly read it. After all, how many people are into experimental language? How many people can actually read it?

To say something is bad because it fails to communicate to you is just as silly as saying every language you cannot understand is a bad language.

[Lote-Tree]

That'd be great if you could prove anyone existed except yourself. Or that YOU exist, even.

2+2=4. And it will be even if you were to die tomorrow. It will be still if humanity were to perish tomorrow. But we are going off topic...perhaps you need to open a new thread to pursue this? :D

[PeterL]

Joyce's Ulysses may be difficult, but that doesn't make it bad. When examining a book, I feel you must always look at the authors intention in writing it. Ulysses I think is a landmark work in terms of experimentation in literature, and influence. Think about how modern literature would look like if Joyce hadn't written Ulysses.

I strongly agree. Ulysses is an important and content rich novel. Joyce did an excellent job writing it, and those who have tried to write similar works have most fallen flat.


Not to mention the fact that Finnegan's Wake was one of the greatest influences Jacques Derrida had when coming up with his deconstruction theories.

I hadn't known that, but it is interesting, and it makes Derrida's attempts at writing more understandable.

[PeterL]

Is it fair to bash Finnegans Wake like that? He didn't intend it to be read by the mass public, he intended it to be studied. The whole work is about experimentation with language. Is it fair to judge a book not intended to be read by you with your perception of literature? Of course the average reader will hate Finnegans; does that make it a bad book though? The experimentation of language alone I personally felt when reading it was worthy of high status recognition, though I don't expect many people to gladly read it. After all, how many people are into experimental language? How many people can actually read it?

To say something is bad because it fails to communicate to you is just as silly as saying every language you cannot understand is a bad language.

The purpose of language is to communicate. Something that fails to communicate is not language. I appreciate some of Finnegans Wake, but I don't see any reason for it to continue in such word-play for such lengths. As you wrote, Joyce wrote it as a experiment in words; as such, it isn't really a work of literature. If he had intended it to be a fine work of literature, he would have written less indirect language. Figurative language, wordplay, and other indirect uses of language have their places, but they are useful to language only as long as they can be understood by the intended audience.

Joyce is not the only author who has used indirect language for reasons that are not immediately apparent to readers. Most authors do that to a slight degree, and it makes no difference, if most readers don't understand a personal joke or whatever; but there are practical limits. Consider the Voynich manuscript, it is written in symbols that no one understands by an unknown author. It is an oddity, although, if the symbols are linguistic, it is a work of literature. Other than being an oddity, of what use is the thing?

[Lambert]

The purpose of language is to communicate. Something that fails to communicate is not language. I appreciate some of Finnegans Wake, but I don't see any reason for it to continue in such word-play for such lengths. As you wrote, Joyce wrote it as a experiment in words; as such, it isn't really a work of literature.
The Wake shouldn’t be looked at as merely an experiment in language. Thematically it explores the nature of History through division, conflict (As seen through HCE’s two sons Shem and Shaun) and ultimately a sort of cosmic realignment:

Teems of times and happy returns. The seim anew. Ordovico or viricordo. Anna was, Livia is, Plurabelle's to be.
Seamus Deane has written some wonderful criticism of FW. You should check out his work.

[stlukesguild]

You're under the false assumption that people will turn away from experimentation IF IT IS GOOD. People love experimentation with style. Older novels and texts that you enjoy now are harder-than-necessary to read because they are in dialects that are not spoken by the reader and require history lessons to understand.

Certainly you are slightly deluded if you think that the only thing that makes an older "classic" difficult for the average reader is the lack of a historical foundation and a lack of understanding of outdated dialects. I greatly doubt that Milton's sonnets, Dickenson's poetry, Goethe's Faust... or any number of other marvelous works of literature (not even mentioning Joyce, T.S. Eliot, Beckett, etc...) were ever "easy" going or popular with the mass audience.

Some of us undertake that mission to understand them in order to be better authors.

Some of us undertake that mission so that we can look down our noses at the common "plebes."

And some of us read what we like... and have never been taken in by the notions of artistic or cultural relativity... or as Milan Kundera so succinctly put it, “the absolute denial of ****http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/icon_turd.gif.” Perhaps we also discover that there is a certain pleasure to be found in works that are challenging... where all the answers are not given... where one cannot immediately tell where it is all heading.

To say something is bad because it fails to communicate to you is just as silly as saying every language you cannot understand is a bad language.

I think this is an especially accurate analogy. Every artist creates for him- or herself. This does not denote a total lack of concern for an audience... but rather it does suggest that the artist generally thinks of an audience not unlike him/herself. Certainly Joyce was not writing to be unintelligible... but neither was he writing for the average reader who just wanted a little light summer reading. He most certainly knew that his audience would be limited to those of a more scholarly penchant... those who would surely be well-read and enjoy the various experiments in language, the linguists games, the literary references. Just because this audience is smaller is in no way proof of the inferiority of Joyce's chosen artistic language... or his achievements therein. Such is no more relevant than to suggest that Italian or Polish are inherently inferior as languages to Chinese because the audience for the latter is so far greater in size.

[AuntShecky]

The original posting about "Elitism" seems to have gone off on a tangent about Finnegan's Wake
Joyce himself said that readers would have to devote their lives to reading the work, but methinks he was being facetious.
For insight into his works, you might consider looking into critical pieces by the late, great Anthony Burgess: ReJoyce.

And by the bye, from whence did that idea come that the purpose of literature is "communication"? That could be a by-product and often is, but not its raison d'etre. Otherwise, you would have to say the sole reason Picasso painted his works was to "communicate."

[nathank]

The original posting about "Elitism" seems to have gone off on a tangent about Finnegan's Wake
Joyce himself said that readers would have to devote their lives to reading the work, but methinks he was being facetious.
For insight into his works, you might consider looking into critical pieces by the late, great Anthony Burgess: ReJoyce.

And by the bye, from whence did that idea come that the purpose of literature is "communication"? That could be a by-product and often is, but not its raison d'etre. Otherwise, you would have to say the sole reason Picasso painted his works was to "communicate."

Yeah, it has kinda of come down to this one book, perhaps because it is often seen as the pinnacle of difficult, obtuse books by so many people. However, I know there are a lot of people our there that would consider a great many other books to be painfully difficult and perhaps that is an important part of this discussion.

Perhaps our "elite" vs "non-elite" distinction is too black and white. Perhaps this is yet another example of "multiple interpretations." :) There is definitely a range of "elitism" from virtually none to very high, but this also varies with the reader and the group making the distinction. Around here, most of us are fairly well read (esp. of what others would consider challenging books), so I think we have a MUCH higher bar for what is considered challenging, elite, etc.

Maybe people could suggest other challenging books so that we can see some more variety and open this up to interpretations of why certain books are "elite?"

For example, I and people I know also consider these challenging:

Gravity's Rainbow
The Recognitions
Absalom, Absalom
Pale Fire (for some even Lolita)
Moby Dick
Sot-Weed Factor
War and Peace

[stlukesguild]

I do believe that communication of one sort or another... a dialog with an audience (however small it may be) is a prime motive of most art. However, the experiences or thoughts that an artist may choose to convey are not necessarily best conveyed through a direct and easily understood manner or through the use of traditional forms. Picasso is certainly a prime example. The artist was coming of age during an period of explosive innovation: the first airplanes, the first cars, steamships, burgeoning industrial cities, mechanized war machines. Robert Hughes in his landmark book on 20th century art, The Shock of the New, pointed out the absurdity of a sculptural monument by Camille Lefebvre. The sculpture was intended to commemorate a now long-forgotten automobile race. When thinking of cars and racing the images that may come to our head include speed, noise, smoke, the blurred image. J.M.W. Turner conveyed something of this in his classic ode to the great invention of the steam-engine, Rain, Steam, and Speed:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/RainSteamandSpeed-TheGreatWesternRa.jpg

Unfortunately for Lefebvre the language of Turner's late paintings had yet to be digested by most artists of the time... and certainly there was no sculptural equivalent. Lefebvre thus turned to the accepted language of sculptural form... carved in marble... and the result is almost painfully comic:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/Levassor_statue_300RB.jpg

The roaring, blurred energy of the car race has been frozen into a sculptural form... as if it were no different from a monumental figure by Donatello or Michelangelo. Picasso, on the other hand, is not satisfied with using the accepted traditional forms for representing the realities of a modern life with all its speed. To him the world is certainly coming apart at the seams and there is no better language to convey this perceived fragmentation than through a fragmented language. If we look at one of his most famous paintings, Guernica, we can see how far removed it is from earlier monumental images of warfare such as one of Ruben's battle scenes:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/Battle_of_the_Amazons-small.jpg

The composition of Rubens' painting as a whole is something of a grand blurred swirl of explosive energy... yet it is made up of solidly rendered muscular heroes and imagined in glorious Technicolor. Picasso's Guernica, on the other hand...

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/picasso_guernicasmall.jpg

... is an attempt to convey something of the faceless horror of the modern, mechanized warfare. The forms fall apart just as the entire world seems to fall apart under random bombing of modern cities. The shard-like forms of the painting itself seems to convey the shards of shattered glass and broken brick and concrete that is the result of such war. The heroes Rubens' painting have become nothing but a broken statue with a shattered sword laying in the dust. Where Rubens' imagined war as an image of visual, colorful, sensual splendor, Picasso imagines the shattered ruins seen in stark black and white... like the journalistic photographs printed in so many newspapers. Picasso's choice of visual language was not the result of any intention of appearing clever... or of making himself difficult or intentionally unaccessible... it was rather the result of seeking out a formal language that he felt was suited to best convey his thought/experiences... even at the risk of appearing unaccessible at first.

[nathank]

As our discussion continues, I was reminded of a famous Hemingway and Faulkner exchange.




Faulkner: “[Hemingway] has no courage, has never climbed out on a limb... has never used a word where the reader might check his usage by a dictionary”

Hemingway: "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use."



When I looked it up, it made me laugh in light of our ongoing discussion and I wondered if we are not just "spinning our wheels" so to speak. As if we are the first people to ever discuss the idea of "what is art" or "what is literature." As if we will finally distill an answer sought for centuries.

Not to say this isn't fun, enlightening, and entertaining but just something I thought I would keep in mind when reading and responding to others thoughts.

Thanks for so many great comments!

[ClickForth]

okokok

[aswelch]

Hmm...I find this interesting because at various times I am cast into both camps. Sometimes I am accused of being "elitist" and other times of not being elitist enough. Your conversation is quite honestly giving me a headache. It sounds just like the "conversations" we have in Lit classes when we bring up "high brow" vs. "low brow" literature. I know this is not where the original thread was going. In fact, I think that the result of this thread is why lit majors, authors, classes, etc are considered elitist by many people who are *intentionally* shut out by the acedemia of it all. Honestly, my boy friend, a pre-med major, is brilliant, but when I discuss my classes with him I find myself having to define what for me are very simple terms and concepts that I have been dealing with for almost 4 years now. (It will be 5 years before I get my English teaching degree, yes I will be teaching this stuff) He thinks we are elitist because of the thought, pretense, effort, etc, we put into a book. After all, it is just a book. Some scientific theories aren't talked about and researched as much as Hamlet has been.

Oh, and in case you have forgotten, Shakespeare was extremely popular with the masses. Is he now worth less than before?

I also want to respond to the old criticism that most people are relying on(which I agree is outdated and thus considered less viable and interesting than other methods) vs the post modern crit. Post modern is a very large category which includes many modes of crit and theory such as: feminism, deconstrucion, freudian, close reading, contextualization...( i just went brain dead and can't remember anymore names of theories/methods).

Finally, I would like to give my opinion on "literature". I am going to go out on a limb here and tell you that some of the literature that you speak of with so much disdain gives me just as much joy and pleasure as your "classic" or "canonical" Literature. I enjoy Harry Potter as much as I enjoy Shakespeare. I enjoy Dune and The Wheel of Time series as much as I enjoy Candide or Gilgamesh. I'm not kidding you, I do love these works.

[Aiculík]

I don't mind elitist authors at all - though I might not love all their works.

What I can't stand are elitist readers. But I should explain this, because personally I distinguish between "experienced reader" and elitist. By elistist I mean those who only read books that they think "elitist" or "high-brow" - because it makes them feel more intelligent, educated, better people than "stupid masses" who read something else. They would never read anything that is popular, because they pride themselves that they read things that other people can't possibly understand... though it's questionable how much they really understand or enjoy what they read. They are never moved to tears by the book, or laugh out loud... unless they heard somewhere that they should, because the book is famous for it.

Experienced reader is quite different. He likes "high-brow" literature not because it is "high-brow"... but because he can see, understand and enjoy things in a book which led some people to call that book "elitist"... They like it not because someone somewhere said this is right book for intelligent people to read, but because they feel that the book can give them something, enrich them in some way... He is the one who says which parts of the book were moving or funny - and he even knows why. If they prefer to read "high-brow" literature, it's usually because they tried to read popular literature and didn't find it satisfying... and that's huge difference.

At the first sight, many elitist may seem to be experienced readers, but at the closer look, the sad truth is revealed... and unfortunatelly, there is quite a lot of them... at least that's my sad experience.
I said I can't stand them, but that's not quite true. I pity them...

[PeterL]

The original posting about "Elitism" seems to have gone off on a tangent about Finnegan's Wake
Joyce himself said that readers would have to devote their lives to reading the work, but methinks he was being facetious.
For insight into his works, you might consider looking into critical pieces by the late, great Anthony Burgess: ReJoyce.

And by the bye, from whence did that idea come that the purpose of literature is "communication"? That could be a by-product and often is, but not its raison d'etre. Otherwise, you would have to say the sole reason Picasso painted his works was to "communicate."

I think that the discussion wasn't hijacked or sidetracked. Some books have been used as examples. Other examples would also be appropriate. I almost beought up S. T. Coleridge's "Kubla Khan" which is usually interpreted in the way that he described it, as a dream that was interrupted by the arrival of a mailman. My opinion is that it is a complete poem that is an obscured description of sexual intercourse and his decision to describe it in poetry to later remind him of the pleasure. I consider it an example of literature that was excessively obscured, but done well and deliberately. Like Finnegans Wake it can be interpreted by anyone who takes the time, and it also makes some sense in the other interpretation.

[PeterL]

Finally, I would like to give my opinion on "literature". I am going to go out on a limb here and tell you that some of the literature that you speak of with so much disdain gives me just as much joy and pleasure as your "classic" or "canonical" Literature. I enjoy Harry Potter as much as I enjoy Shakespeare. I enjoy Dune and The Wheel of Time series as much as I enjoy Candide or Gilgamesh. I'm not kidding you, I do love these works.

Good literature is good literature, and if lots of people enjoy it, then the author does well.

[nathank]

Your conversation is quite honestly giving me a headache. It sounds just like the "conversations" we have in Lit classes when we bring up "high brow" vs. "low brow" literature.


I was never in any of those classes (science major), so I always had these lingering questions. That's why I posted this question initially and have responded in the ways I have. However, I could imagine a class like this from our discussion so far and I could imagine having a massive headache from that class. :)

[nathank]

They are never moved to tears by the book, or laugh out loud... unless they heard somewhere that they should, because the book is famous for it.

I think I agree with your entire post, but this part was GREAT! It is pitiful and funny. :lol:

[KidTruth]

Certainly you are slightly deluded if you think that the only thing that makes an older "classic" difficult for the average reader is the lack of a historical foundation and a lack of understanding of outdated dialects. I greatly doubt that Milton's sonnets, Dickenson's poetry, Goethe's Faust... or any number of other marvelous works of literature (not even mentioning Joyce, T.S. Eliot, Beckett, etc...) were ever "easy" going or popular with the mass audience.


"Mass Audience..." you keep using this term, and I'm not sure what you think it means. All of the authors you named in the above post have audiences in the hundreds of thousands, how much more massive are you trying to compare them to? Yeah, not everyone likes these authors - but a whole lot of people do. Is the division in your mind between yourself and non-readers, or readers who don't pursue these authors in particular? And how does it work to say that you read what you like, but then look down at other people who just read what THEY like?

I'll finish by pointing out that there is very little new ever said in the literary world - just repeated over and over by different voices in different times and cultures, FOR that time and culture. American audiences may not be reading Goethe, but you can be sure the authors are.

So if it's the same message again and again - why do you feel the need to be an "elitist?" Shouldn't your experience with these works be its own reward, and not bring with it the need to be recognized as some sort of "expert" on literature - of which no such title exists? There are only opinions and opinions of opinions.

[KidTruth]

I'd also like to point out that a great deal of what makes many authors seem so deep and imposing IS historical and due to the language used - and "elitists" take advantage of that gap in understanding to bolster their own "leetness."

"You don't get that? Oh, but it's so simple to me..." Said not including the fact that the knowledge came with an encyclopedic search of the history and author.

Exhibit A: Shakespeare - arguably the greatest storyteller of his millennium - was widely understood and appreciated by the most common of uneducated folk. He was the equivalent of a Rowlings or Dan Brown today, insofar as his ability to get people who wouldn't normally appreciate literature to actually take part in it. However, today it requires a great deal of study to understand the subtlety of his works.

The point being that except in a few cases, more often than not it is time which creates a need for us to study these works. If they were modernized there would still be something there to learn - of course - but it would be much more "up front" and accessible. With the exception of a few works that were created to be labyrinths of language, like Finnegan's Wake and, say, Revelations in the Bible.

What "elitists" are really clinging to are their historical studies, which is the equivalent of having a doctor telling you that you can't take a **** because you don't know as much about it as he does.

[AuntShecky]

KidTruth, you are absolutely correct in that the so-called
common folk among Shakespeare's contemporaries appreciated and "understood" his works. You may remember learning about the "groundlings" who inhabited
the cheap seats (or lack thereof) @ the Globe, not to make the stereotypical judgement that just because one is a commoner, he or she is poor and can only afford the cheap seats.

And NaThank: Here comes another generalisation from Auntie: I am not kissing up, but one thing that I've noticed about "science majors" is that they are extremely articulate, with the customary "ahs" and "uhs" in usual speech curiously lacking. When you see science shows on PBS or on the Discovery channel, are you not impressed by the fluidity of scientists' speech? I think it stems from the necessity for scientists to be PRECISE. Listen to a scientist, and then someone from the "softer" disciplines, say political science, sociology, and Lord help us, education.

Auntie

[KidTruth]

I agree, AuntShecky. I work with lawyers, and all the best ones speak as little and as concisely as possible - minimalists at heart. I think the motivation is that the more you talk, the more likely you are to give something away that you shouldn't.

[nathank]

AuntShecky I moved from science to psychology/philosophy to teaching and I know what you mean. The scientists definitely seem to think they know more precisely what they are talking about more than the others. I wonder if this reflects an attempt at "minimalism" or simplicity, perhaps more for the audiences sake than because of the material. Does it also reflect scientists general "conciet" that they are "right" while many softer science people are more open to other possibilities?

Great comment!

[aswelch]

I love you comments about concisness. I just realized that one of the big points I wanted to make was entirely missing from my post. LOL The other point I wanted to make is that we do not leave out history when we analyze literature in classes today. I believe what others have been getting at is that there are new ideas about criticism and the ones many of you are familiar with are considered outdated. I would love to get into these theories but honestly I don't think I could do that in less than a couple thousand words :lol: (the biggest complaint I hear about English majors is that we talk to much and are elitist) From what I can tell a typical analysis includes history as well as other aspects. The point is to remember that a work can be analyzed from many different points of view and none that are adequately supported with the text are wrong. The support from the text is the newest stuff. You can say that Hamlet is crazy if you support it. You can also say, as is my opinion, that Hamlet has most of his actions planned out but makes a mistake or has an inherent flaw that keeps him from doing what he planned. All you have to do is support it *from the text*.

Ok, I think I have finally made all my points. :lol:

[stlukesguild]

Hmm...I find this interesting because at various times I am cast into both camps. Sometimes I am accused of being "elitist" and other times of not being elitist enough. Your conversation is quite honestly giving me a headache. It sounds just like the "conversations" we have in Lit classes when we bring up "high brow" vs. "low brow" literature. I know this is not where the original thread was going. In fact, I think that the result of this thread is why lit majors, authors, classes, etc are considered elitist by many people who are *intentionally* shut out by the acedemia of it all. Honestly, my boy friend, a pre-med major, is brilliant, but when I discuss my classes with him I find myself having to define what for me are very simple terms and concepts that I have been dealing with for almost 4 years now. (It will be 5 years before I get my English teaching degree, yes I will be teaching this stuff) He thinks we are elitist because of the thought, pretense, effort, etc, we put into a book. After all, it is just a book. Some scientific theories aren't talked about and researched as much as Hamlet has been.

aswelch... The notion of "elitism" relating to literature as I set forth in no way suggests a cultural, social, or intellectual superiority. It is rather an elected affinity. Those who become the most knowledgeable with regard to literature are simply those who have elected to invest the time and effort in study... and reading. Your pre-med boy-friend may indeed be brilliant but his lack of an understanding of what to you are basic terms of literature has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with experience. Certainly his field... medicine... is no less "elitist" than literary studies... and in the same way. I might only point out the continued use of Latin terminology centuries after it had lost its value as a universal language of scholars. Every field has specialists (some professional... some amateur... some formally educated... some self-taught). We generally accept that we value the opinions of these "experts"... these experienced persons far more than the opinions of any poll of the general population. I, for example, currently have something of a cold coming on. If it continues to grow worse I will probably turn to the opinion of a doctor and not hold a poll among my co-workers. As a practicing visual artist I know that I have certain experiences and understanding of art that go far beyond the opinions of the casual observer. This is not to say that the opinions of the casual audience should be completely ignored... but I'm certainly far more likely to seriously consider the opinions of the more experienced art audience... whether they be another artist, art critic, curator, gallery director, or merely an art lover who has put forth the effort to learn about the field.

Oh, and in case you have forgotten, Shakespeare was extremely popular with the masses. Is he now worth less than before?

How could one forget this. Every time the issue arises of art and popularity Shakespeare is brought forth. The success of his plays is quite common knowledge and resulted in his ability to retire early and quite comfortably. Of course one could argue that the popularity of his plays paled next to those of Ben Jonson or the grand novel of his Spanish counterpart, Cervantes, owing to the very fact that Jonson and Cervantes were to publish their works during their own life time. But that is neither here nor there. As I have suggested before popularity is no measure of artistic merit. There are great writers whose initial audience was quite limited... and there are brilliant writers who were fabulously successful. To suggest that a large audience proves artistic merit is no less absurd than to claim, as some certainly do, that the popularity of a work of art is proof positive of an absolute lack of artistic merit (the artist, no doubt, imagined as having sold out).

[stlukesguild]

What I can't stand are elitist readers. But I should explain this, because personally I distinguish between "experienced reader" and elitist. By elistist I mean those who only read books that they think "elitist" or "high-brow" - because it makes them feel more intelligent, educated, better people than "stupid masses" who read something else. They would never read anything that is popular, because they pride themselves that they read things that other people can't possibly understand... though it's questionable how much they really understand or enjoy what they read. They are never moved to tears by the book, or laugh out loud... unless they heard somewhere that they should, because the book is famous for it.

Experienced reader is quite different. He likes "high-brow" literature not because it is "high-brow"... but because he can see, understand and enjoy things in a book which led some people to call that book "elitist"... They like it not because someone somewhere said this is right book for intelligent people to read, but because they feel that the book can give them something, enrich them in some way... He is the one who says which parts of the book were moving or funny - and he even knows why. If they prefer to read "high-brow" literature, it's usually because they tried to read popular literature and didn't find it satisfying... and that's huge difference.

At the first sight, many elitist may seem to be experienced readers, but at the closer look, the sad truth is revealed... and unfortunatelly, there is quite a lot of them... at least that's my sad experience.
I said I can't stand them, but that's not quite true. I pity them...

I can't say that I've met all that many readers who fit this description. I might admit that there was a time as a naive junior-high student when I imagined that I might impress a certain girl if she saw me reading something "deep"... but reality soon set in. It would seem far more likely that one might be seen in a rather negative light if one went around lugging copy of War and Peace or several volumes of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire than that one might be imagined as some great thinker. Personally I read what I like... what gives me the most pleasure... although I will admit that certain works of literature which I learned to love initially struck me as extremely difficult... unintelligible... or just plain blah! At times I may have stuck with them because they were works that had a definite impact upon another writer I greatly admired. In other instances there was just something... something I couldn't put my finger on at the time... that kept drawing me back. One of my favorite painters today is Paul Klee. When I first came across an exhibition of his paintings he represented everything I should have hated. I couldn't understand Modernism in the least... let alone abstraction. But for some reason his work stuck in my mind... planted a seed. I ended buying the catalog and returning to the exhibition several times. Today... he is an unquestioned giant to me. I don't know that it would be at all easy to identify or discern which readers are only attracted to a given body of work because they "SHOULD" be... or because they wish to impress others... and which readers read what they read because they find it to be the most rewarding.

[stlukesguild]

American audiences may not be reading Goethe, but you can be sure the authors are.

Yes, indeed... and many scholars and even certain well-read "common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the term) might be added to that list.

why do you feel the need to be an "elitist?" Shouldn't your experience with these works be its own reward, and not bring with it the need to be recognized as some sort of "expert" on literature - of which no such title exists? There are only opinions and opinions of opinions.

My only arguments to this point have been that A. There is good and bad art and B. Popularity is no measure of what is good or bad (There is popular crap and popular work of true merit). I freely accept the label of "elitist" but it is somewhat tongue-in-cheek... in response to the common practice of labeling anyone who does suggest that not all art is created equally as an "elitist" (or a "snob" or whatever term is then popular). As the initial post pointed out, there does not appear to be this suggestion that someone in the "hard sciences" who is very experienced in his or her field is somehow an "elitist snob"... even if they were to point out the weaknesses of the latest pseudo-scientific crack-pot theories, I would venture to add. On the other hand there seems to be no problem with the notion of calling any experienced reader who fails to recognize that Harry Potter is on par with Hamlet an "elitist"... and it often seems that many of the experienced readers who certainly do know better avoid such discussions out of a fear of appearing impolite... elitist... and certainly against democracy and egalitarianism in all forms.

I just recently purchased a new translation of the selected poems of Luis Gongora. Gongora is reputed to be one of (if not THE) greatest poets of the Golden Age of the Spanish Baroque. His reputation in the English-speaking world has long been taken on faith due to the lack of almost any good translations. Hopefully this book will somewhat rectify this situation... for me at least... but we shall see. Anyway... reading through the introduction I came again upon the discussion of his work as being excessively "difficult"... something I had heard before. His name itself became the basis of the term Gongorism, which referred to an excessively ornate and difficult Spanish Baroque mannerism. He was taken to task for this and certain critics declared his work unintelligible. Gongora responded that 1. he was attempting to raise Spanish to the expressive and artistic level of Latin... 2. he imagined that poetic difficulty would challenge the reader and help develop a greater intellect... 3. he "did not write for idiots". My, how the world has changed.:p

[stlukesguild]

I'd also like to point out that a great deal of what makes many authors seem so deep and imposing IS historical and due to the language used - and "elitists" take advantage of that gap in understanding to bolster their own "leetness."

"You don't get that? Oh, but it's so simple to me..." Said not including the fact that the knowledge came with an encyclopedic search of the history and author.

I suppose that those experienced in any field take a certain advantage of their knowledge. Would we be all that willing to shell out the big fees for a lawyer if the law were all cut-and-dried and clearly accessible to all? On the other hand... I don't think the gap in understanding can be reduced to nothing more than historical knowledge. Again I question whether Milton's sonnets, Dickinson's or Blake's poetry were ever "easy".

Exhibit A: Shakespeare - arguably the greatest storyteller of his millennium - was widely understood and appreciated by the most common of uneducated folk. He was the equivalent of a Rowlings or Dan Brown today,insofar as his ability to get people who wouldn't normally appreciate literature to actually take part in it. However, today it requires a great deal of study to understand the subtlety of his works.

Acck! Blasphemy!:eek::eek2: Surely if you must seek out such a comparison you might be better served by suggesting that the Shakespeares of today are more like Steven Spielberg or George Lucas. Shakespeare, after all, was appreciated as a playwrite... a producer of plays that were performed and not read... not even published. I'm quite certain that many terms and references that are obscure today were well known in his time... on the other hand I'm not all that convinced that the subtlety of his works... and the marvelous poetic language are something that was completely grasped by the audience at large.

The point being that except in a few cases, more often than not it is time which creates a need for us to study these works. If they were modernized there would still be something there to learn - of course - but it would be much more "up front" and accessible.

Again, I disagree. I doubt that a great amount of literature is or was ever accessible to the larger audience... without putting forth some goodly degree of effort. Dante? John Donne? Rilke? Mallarme? Plato? Nietzsche? Holderlin? Beckett? How easy is it to grasp most poetry lacking any experience with poetic form/structure? Was it the audience of illiterate laborers and farm workers who were reading Shakespeare's sonnets? Dante can be read in the most modern translation and will still demand much study. I suppose Chaucer and Donne and Blake and Keats could be "modernized" to such an extent as one of those horrid modernized "translations" of the Bible... and assuredly they might be far more "understood"... but to what point? Ignoring the fact that form and content merge into one in any work of art we are left with nothing more than a menu where once was a meal.

[Aiculík]

I can't say that I've met all that many readers who fit this description.


I don't know that it would be at all easy to identify or discern which readers are only attracted to a given body of work because they "SHOULD" be... or because they wish to impress others... and which readers read what they read because they find it to be the most rewarding.

Well, lucky you. :) I'm in my final year of literature study... and I'm sad to say, that even now, I meet quite a lot of such people. Though most of them didn't "survive" four years of study, one or two can still be found in even the smallest study combination... and you can even found some among professors... (In my country, you apply for what you want to study before entrance exams - e.g. English language and literature + something else, another language, or psychology and you have to stick with that till the end. This is called "study combination".)

They do read a lot, but if you ask them to say their favourite qoute from the book - they will all say the same one - the one that professor pointed out and explained, or the one they found at Spark Notes. If someone dares to say his own interpretation and understanding of the work, they will argue that "everyone knows" it's not that way, that it really means something else, as the critic XY clearly explained in his study... In their own libraries you'd find greatest works of both past and present, and lot of theoretical books - they are reallly not stupid... but it is still impossible to talk about literature with them, because all they ever do is parroting what they heard and read elsewhere.

[nathank]

I wonder if the idea of elitism, as applied to certain fields of study, has to do with how pervasive cetain ideas, like postmodernism, are within those fields. For example, there are virtually no "postmodern" or "egalitarian" values within the "hard" sciences as seen from within or from without (as seen by the public). In general the field is always pushing towards ONE answer and most people within the field are willing to defer to the current "best" answer. Whereas the "softer" sciences have been deeply influenced by "postmodern" and "egalitarian" values as seen from within and from without. And here we see many within the field who are not only happy with multiple interpretations, but actively encourage them. So perhaps what we are seeing is simply a cultural difference from the viewpoint of both those within and without of these fields.

[Dark Star]

AuntShecky I moved from science to psychology/philosophy to teaching and I know what you mean. The scientists definitely seem to think they know more precisely what they are talking about more than the others. I wonder if this reflects an attempt at "minimalism" or simplicity, perhaps more for the audiences sake than because of the material. Does it also reflect scientists general "conciet" that they are "right" while many softer science people are more open to other possibilities?

Great comment!

I think you extrapolated meaning from that comment that isn't there. It has little to do with conceit and more to do with the nature of the hard sciences; your job involves having every element of each paper you write looked over by your peers who do their best to tear it apart, like a hungry pack of wolves with a piece of raw meat thrown in front of them (which is their job). You must also be extremely clear how experiment X went right down to the type of glass the beakers were made of it so it can be re-created and re-tested multiple times. This leads to a necessity for precise speaking/writing and articulation of one's thoughts and experiments if one wishes to be a successful scientist. Nothing to do with "I'm right, you're wrong".

[nathank]

I think you extrapolated meaning from that comment that isn't there. It has little to do with conceit and more to do with the nature of the hard sciences; your job involves having every element of each paper you write looked over by your peers who do their best to tear it apart, like a hungry pack of wolves with a piece of raw meat thrown in front of them (which is their job). You must also be extremely clear how experiment X went right down to the type of glass the beakers were made of it so it can be re-created and re-tested multiple times. This leads to a necessity for precise speaking/writing and articulation of one's thoughts and experiments if one wishes to be a successful scientist. Nothing to do with "I'm right, you're wrong".

Interesting you mention this. There have been many reports lately about the actually poor quality of peer review and the lack of formal re-testing of actual experiments. It turns out that most "peer-reviewed" articles are barely even glanced over by peers before being accepted into a journal and it can be decades until any errors are found (long after future work has been done and expanded upon that original premise).

For ex: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html

[KidTruth]

stlukesguild:

Note that I said Shakespeare was the best Storyteller, not writer. I don't think you can beat his work for combination of intrigue, suspense, love, violence and reflection all in one two-hour play.

[stlukesguild]

I don't think you can beat his work for combination of intrigue, suspense, love, violence and reflection all in one two-hour play.

Although you'd need a bit more time for Hamlet.

[Petrarch's Love]

Well, lucky you. I'm in my final year of literature study... and I'm sad to say, that even now, I meet quite a lot of such people. Though most of them didn't "survive" four years of study, one or two can still be found in even the smallest study combination... and you can even found some among professors... (In my country, you apply for what you want to study before entrance exams - e.g. English language and literature + something else, another language, or psychology and you have to stick with that till the end. This is called "study combination".)

They do read a lot, but if you ask them to say their favourite qoute from the book - they will all say the same one - the one that professor pointed out and explained, or the one they found at Spark Notes. If someone dares to say his own interpretation and understanding of the work, they will argue that "everyone knows" it's not that way, that it really means something else, as the critic XY clearly explained in his study... In their own libraries you'd find greatest works of both past and present, and lot of theoretical books - they are reallly not stupid... but it is still impossible to talk about literature with them, because all they ever do is parroting what they heard and read elsewhere.

While reading Aiculik's exchange with St. Luke's it occurred to me that perhaps the type of reader being described in this instance is simply someone going through the sophomoric stage of their education. By this I'm not referring to people in their sophomore year, but people whose behavior conforms with the root meaning of the word sophomore, which is "wise fool." It is exceedingly common, if not universal for college students to go through some period of sophomoric behavior. At times this period extends through their entire college career, and sadly some never outgrow it. Some of the symptoms are exactly like those Aiculik describes in his or her (sorry, Aiculik, wasn't sure which) colleagues, such as relishing being one of the select few who can read challenging material, acting arrogantly around those they think don't get it, throwing well known quotes from books, critics, and/or the professor around in a name dropping sort of manner, using the catchwords of a couple well known critics to prove all their arguments definitively...the list goes on and on. The onset of the sophomoric stage usually seems to coincide with the person successfully learning what was previously very challenging information for them. The person is rightfully proud of this accomplishment, but this pride is then perverted into a sophomoric elitism (there is a variant strain of the sophomoric that also frequently occurs in graduate school when people are again overcoming difficult concepts). Usually the reasons for this sort of behavior are either that the person is trying to puff themselves up to overcome something they're not entirely secure about--hoping that overconfidence will get them through a difficult degree program for example--or that the person is genuinely so entranced by what he/she has learned and how new it is to his/her mind that this person begins to feel that he/she has found all the answers and that everyone else simply doesn't understand these things in the way that he/she now does (I think most often it is some combination of these two factors).
While people at this stage of their intellectual development can unquestionably be exceedingly annoying to both their instructors and fellow students, I must say that as a teacher I've begun to take this kind of attitude as a good sign in that it usually means that the student has learned something--sometimes it's even a sign of great enthusiasm for learning--and is just at a stage where they need some coaching to start thinking in new ways about what they know and don't know. Perhaps Aiculik is on to something with this binary of the "elitist" versus the "experienced" reader, since the more experience someone has as a reader the more likely they are to move out of the sophomoric mode of overactive pride in what you do know and to take the next step, which is to not only be aware of but to relish all it is that you don't know. ;)

[Petrarch's Love]

Note that I said Shakespeare was the best Storyteller, not writer. I don't think you can beat his work for combination of intrigue, suspense, love, violence and reflection all in one two-hour play.

It's true that Shakespeare is adept at storytelling, but as long as I'm here I feel that I must gently suggest that his use of language may also play some sort of role in his success. Indeed in some ways it is impossible to speak of the power of his story telling without taking into account the poetry which, whether the auditor or reader is conscious of it or not, plays a large role in propelling the narrative and swaying the emotions of the audience.

[KidTruth]

It's true that Shakespeare is adept at storytelling, but as long as I'm here I feel that I must gently suggest that his use of language may also play some sort of role in his success. Indeed in some ways it is impossible to speak of the power of his story telling without taking into account the poetry which, whether the auditor or reader is conscious of it or not, plays a large role in propelling the narrative and swaying the emotions of the audience.

I agree absolutely - he wrote beautifully. But I'm not about to call Shakespeare the millennium's best poet.

[Petrarch's Love]

I agree absolutely - he wrote beautifully. But I'm not about to call Shakespeare the millennium's best poet.

:lol: Well, I'm of the opinion that calling anyone the millennium's best poet is absurd. Wasn't trying to augment the Shakespeare cult, just making sure the discussion wasn't veering off into a direction that failed to take his artistry as well as his storyline into account, since it's that way with language that really sets him (and not only him but many other supremely talented writers this millennium has produced) apart from other writers, both in his time and ours, who can put together a popular fast paced story, but not in the same enduring manner.

[KidTruth]

That's because Jewel is the millennium's best poet. I mean, she outsold Ginsburg.

[Petrarch's Love]

That's because Jewel is the millennium's best poet. I mean, she outsold Ginsburg.

Well, after the best minds of his generation were destroyed by madness, they'd buy anything in bulk.

[Big Al]

Interesting you mention this. There have been many reports lately about the actually poor quality of peer review and the lack of formal re-testing of actual experiments. It turns out that most "peer-reviewed" articles are barely even glanced over by peers before being accepted into a journal and it can be decades until any errors are found (long after future work has been done and expanded upon that original premise).

For ex: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html

Did anybody else read the article and see the humor in it? How do we know that the man the article about is not simply doing the exact same thing that he accuses other scientists of doing? He could very easily be affecting the outcome of his investigation with "self-serving information."

[nathank]

Did anybody else read the article and see the humor in it? How do we know that the man the article about is not simply doing the exact same thing that he accuses other scientists of doing? He could very easily be affecting the outcome of his investigation with "self-serving information."

A beautiful point. When my students debate with me about whether we "really" went to the moon, I tell them it all comes down to trust. Do you trust the people who are telling you these things (ie the government, large corporations, university scientists, TV media, internet, etc)? And I leave it open in regards to both viewpoints, but make this one point about trust.

I seem to recall a book on the history of science which emphasized that science was, and is, only capable of existing as it is because it was based on a "gentleman's" type of understanding about being honest and truthful about what they observed. I think that's a fairly accurate and interesting point. In a lot of fields there are only a few specialist and so a lot of work is based on the findings of these few. We must trust them, nobody can possibly replicate every finding themselves. It is about trust.

Thanks.

[Big Al]

A beautiful point. When my students debate with me about whether we "really" went to the moon, I tell them it all comes down to trust. Do you trust the people who are telling you these things (ie the government, large corporations, university scientists, TV media, internet, etc)? And I leave it open in regards to both viewpoints, but make this one point about trust.

So do you not believe that we landed on the moon? Because your tone seems incredibly skeptical.

If I met somebody who thought that we faked the moon landing, I would ask them if they truly thought that all of the corporations, government officials, the film crews, the "astronauts," the people at NASA, and anbody else connected with it could possibly go forty years without a single person saying anything, when the very same presidential administration couldn't even keep Watergate covered up.

[nathank]

Sure, you make a very valid point (ie strength in numbers). However, when I ask my students what kind of evidence I could provide them with that would lead them to believe we really did go, they always tell me that unless they went, they wouldn't believe it.

I could try to claim this as a postmodern skepticism, but it is probably just as much teenage rebellion as anything. It was their skepticism and comments that led me to begin posing the question of trust to them.

As for myself, I would be surprised if we didn't go, but it wouldn't shake my world if it was all a fake. The older I get the more I realize how much the desire for money and power corrupts and just how much you can accomplish through the use of money and power.

[Big Al]

Sure, you make a very valid point (ie strength in numbers). However, when I ask my students what kind of evidence I could provide them with that would lead them to believe we really did go, they always tell me that unless they went, they wouldn't believe it.

I could try to claim this as a postmodern skepticism, but it is probably just as much teenage rebellion as anything. It was their skepticism and comments that led me to begin posing the question of trust to them.

As for myself, I would be surprised if we didn't go, but it wouldn't shake my world if it was all a fake. The older I get the more I realize how much the desire for money and power corrupts and just how much you can accomplish through the use of money and power.

That's very interesting...I see exactly what you mean, although I might ask them what reasons they have not to believe the moon landing happened, and question them as to whether or not their beliefs are truly motivated by logical skepticism or mere rebellion against "the establishment." But I suppose I'm straying from your original point, aren't I?

So what do you teach?

[nathank]

Yeah, this is probably straying a little too far. I teach high school science. I've taught most subjects, but my area of expertise is Biology.

I'll give that a try next time and see why they would rather trust "FOX News" than hundreds of scientists. Seems rather bizarre actually, now that I think about it like that. But, on the other hand what a stunning comment on the power of the media and just how willing people are to accept what's on TV versus most other sources of information. Fascinating!

[nathank]

Thinking about this some more, perhaps it does fit in with our thread on elitism. Would students consider a teacher an elitist for trying to hold his or her ground when presenting evidence, interpretations, etc? I know I felt that way when my english teachers told me "this is what that poem means." Perhaps that attitude has simply spread further through the disciplines (from the students' or general publics' point of view) to include other areas like science? I bought into science when I was in school, but my students don't seem to be as willing to buy in. And let's not even start with the whole Creationism thing. That has REALLY been influential in taking science down a peg in the eyes of my students (not neccesarily a bad thing). They are much more willing to question those areas especially (not that thats's a bad thing either).

[Big Al]

Thinking about this some more, perhaps it does fit in with our thread on elitism. Would students consider a teacher an elitist for trying to hold his or her ground when presenting evidence, interpretations, etc? I know I felt that way when my english teachers told me "this is what that poem means." Perhaps that attitude has simply spread further through the disciplines (from the students' or general publics' point of view) to include other areas like science? I bought into science when I was in school, but my students don't seem to be as willing to buy in. And let's not even start with the whole Creationism thing. That has REALLY been influential in taking science down a peg in the eyes of my students (not neccesarily a bad thing). They are much more willing to question those areas especially (not that thats's a bad thing either).

They might...It's hard to say. I'm not one hundred percent sure what would constitute an elitist.

And not that I think that increased skepticism toward scientific developments is a bad thing (I've always been a pretty skeptical cat), but is something as unsupported and anti-science as creationism really the way to encourage such skepticism?

[nathank]

And not that I think that increased skepticism toward scientific developments is a bad thing (I've always been a pretty skeptical cat), but is something as unsupported and anti-science as creationism really the way to encourage such skepticism?

Oh, I don't get into it in class (that's illegal around here). I just pickup on their comments and general attitude towards the topic. And no I don't think it is a good example of scientific skepticism.