J K Rowling VS Faulkner and A S Byatt [Archive]

Lote-Tree

09-24-2007, 04:05 AM

Follwoing on from the thread : http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=449221#post449221

I assert this:

J K Rowling has enticed millions of readers into her magical realm of Hogwarts by the Power of her Story telling: This is is her Art. Not only did she entice millions of the "Nintendo-generation" into reading a book but millions of adults have also been enticed by her narratives. Faulkner and A S Byatt will not be able to achieve this in a million years no matter how much "Intellectual Mind" games they play with their writings because they are too snobbish to come with something like Quidditch :D they don't understand how the imagination works. Imagination latches onto the Narrative :D

It is said that she does not make any demands on her readers. Why should the writer demand anything of the reader? What arrogance is this! Is it not arrogant enough to demand your reader to buy your book? But to demand more is Hubris! :D

Does Lord of the Rings demand anything of the reader? Nope. The Power of the Lord of the Rings lies in it's ability to transport you to another world. This world may have weird and wonderful characters in it but what matters is the Power of the Narrative.

It is also said that Faulkner's works is allegorical etc...if the narrative isn't there then the allegory is wasted or the writer was not good enough tell teh tale of that allegory. Lord of the Flies is allegorical - but remove the allegory it still stands as a great story. This is the power of great writings.

And I am sure we will be still reading JK Rowling as we are still reading Lord of the Rings...and AS Byatts and Faulkners of this world will be gathering dust on some snotty professor's bookshelf...:D

Mark F.

09-24-2007, 05:20 AM

So you're saying there's no narrative in Faulkner? Okay, so this thread is intended as some kind of a bad joke right? HAHA. Thanks for the laughs.

It wasn't worth picking up Harry Potter, the kids could have gone on playing video games, many of which provide more cerebral exercise than Rowling's writing. Yes, by the way, many video games also have narratives.

I'm sure will all be recylcing our Harry Potter editions as toilet paper when we run out of trees on the planet before we stop reading Faulkner's work.

Lote-Tree

09-24-2007, 05:27 AM

So you're saying there's no narrative in Faulkner?

Faulkner's narrative is boring that's why it does not entice the readers :D

Okay, so this thread is intended as some kind of a bad joke right? HAHA. Thanks for the laughs.

Laughter is the sun the drives the winter from the human face :D

It wasn't worth picking up Harry Potter, the kids could have gone on playing video games, many of which provide more cerebral exercise than Rowling's writing. Yes, by the way, many video games also have narratives.

Yes. Video games have stories. But J K Rowling's Story telling was good enough to entice them from their Wii consoles :D

I'm sure will all be recylcing our Harry Potter editions as toilet paper when we run out of trees on the planet before we stop reading Faulkner's work.

Only snotty proferssors will be reading Faulkner to massage their egos :D

Rest of will be adventuring in the Magical Realm of Hogwarts and the Lord of the Rings :D

Noisms

09-24-2007, 06:54 AM

You're comparing apples to oranges. J K Rowling is a children's writer: it's her job to entice and entertain in an essentially fluffy and inconsequential way. (Not that children's fiction can't aspire to be something more, of course, but J K Rowling is no C S Lewis or Roald Dahl.) William Faulkner was a heavyweight "literary" author: it was his job to create challenging art which "says something" about the human condition. He did that very well, although you're right that his writing is not as entertaining or enticing for children as J K Rowling's is.

You might just as well compare Michael Jackson to Mahler. Both do what they do in a highly competent way, but their fields are completely different.

Lote-Tree

09-24-2007, 07:02 AM

J K Rowling is a children's writer: it's her job to entice and entertain in an essentially fluffy and inconsequential way.

This was said of J R R Tolkien too ;-)

Whether she is a children writer or not her job is to tell a story. And she does it really well. Faulkner and Byatt do not.

William Faulkner was a heavyweight "literary" author: it was his job to create challenging art which "says something" about the human condition.

This "heavy weight" was not able to engage the mind of million of readers. So how can he understand the Human Condition?

He did that very well, although you're right that his writing is not as entertaining or enticing for children as J K Rowling's is.

So what is the point of writing if can't engage your readers? Self-ego massaging?

Both Mahler and Micheal Jackson attempt to move their listeners with music. Micheal Jackson used to do it well. Mahler does it only for select few...

Noisms

09-24-2007, 07:17 AM

This was said of J R R Tolkien too ;-)

Whether she is a children writer or not her job is to tell a story. And she does it really well. Faulkner and Byatt do not.

I know - and I'm one of those people who says it of Tolkien. He set out to do something and did it brilliantly well.

I happen to think the same of Faulkner - he set out to do something and did it brilliantly well. It was different to what Rowling and Tolkien wanted to do, so why compare the two?

All you're really doing is advocating a position based on the most subjective or reasons: that you happen to like one writer and not another. (I started to read one of the Harry Potter books, and found it boring and predictable. So what? That doesn't prove anything.)

This "heavy weight" was not able to engage the mind of million of readers. So how can he understand the Human Condition?

I'm not sure of the figures exactly, but Faulkner was quite popular in his day, you know. He even wrote film scripts.

But you're creating the false equation that just because a writer doesn't sell millions of books, he doesn't understand the Human Condition. That relies on the assumption that millions of people want to read books that are about the Human Condition, which they probably don't.

Both Mahler and Micheal Jackson attempt to move their listeners with music. Micheal Jackson used to do it well. Mahler does it only for select few...

See above. Michael Jackson attempted to move his listeners to dance. Mahler attempted to make them feel other emotions. That more people prefer to listen to music they can dance to does not make Mahler any better or worse at what he did than Michael Jackson.

Let's put it another way: most adults are very busy. They don't have much time or energy to devote to reading Faulkner or listening to Mahler; if they want to pick up a book they want something light and fluffy that won't challenge them in any way, so they pick up J K Rowling. Likewise, they don't want to listen to a dark and brooding symphony, but to a bouncy pop song. That's an obvious fact of the way we live or lives. If people had more time, I think they'd read more Faulkner and listen to more Mahler, but that's by the by.

In other words, different art works for different people in different situations. Again, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Virgil

09-24-2007, 07:18 AM

Follwoing on from the thread : http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=449221#post449221

I assert this:

J K Rowling has enticed millions of readers into her magical realm of Hogwarts by the Power of her Story telling: This is is her Art. Not only did she entice millions of the "Nintendo-generation" into reading a book but millions of adults have also been enticed by her narratives. Faulkner and A S Byatt will not be able to achieve this in a million years no matter how much "Intellectual Mind" games they play with their writings because they are too snobbish to come with something like Quidditch :D they don't understand how the imagination works. Imagination latches onto the Narrative :D

First of all, I think you're confusing Faulkner with Joyce, who does play intellectual games. What Faulkner does is arrange to dramatize experience, and that is the foundation of art. I have never read Byatt, so i don't know what her work is like.

Who cares if more people read Harry Potter than Light In August. More people read comic books than Light In August; more people listen to Britney Spears than Beethoven; more people look at pictures of magazine models than Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings.

Mark F.

09-24-2007, 07:18 AM

Faulkner's narratives are more challenging than Rowling, and if you understand them, so much more rewarding. And I agree with Noisms's post. How about Rowling vs Dan Brown, who will fall into oblivion the fastest? That's more like it.

Do you think people are going to continue reading LOTR? Now that the movies are there, they're going to choose the easy way out. Then they'll just lie and say they read the books.

Aiculík

09-24-2007, 08:05 AM

Does Lord of the Rings demand anything of the reader? Nope.

No book demands anything of the reader... but every book can offer something to a reader.

It depends on how the reader reads the book. Passive reading... just following the story, without any deeper thought about the book, may produce some vague feeling "this is boring" or "this is entertaining" or even "this is so great"...

but usually when I ask people who read this way why the book seems boring, entertaining, or great, they can't answer. Usually it's something like "well it was funny" or "the author is really great".

Active reading... using your own intellect, experience, and imagination during reading can lead to surprisingly different and much more concrete answers.

And by the way... LotR is not an allegory. It is a myth. And there's quite a difference between these two... not only in the style, but also in the way they are read, and in the meaning they have...

manolia

09-24-2007, 09:31 AM

I'm sure will all be recylcing our Harry Potter editions as toilet paper when we run out of trees on the planet before we stop reading Faulkner's work.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
This was just so funny

Do you think people are going to continue reading LOTR? Now that the movies are there, they're going to choose the easy way out. Then they'll just lie and say they read the books.

Those who love fantasy and appreciate a well written book which is in fact a whole universe (with its goegraphy, past, present and future) will continue to read LOTR and wiil make the inevitable comparison between LOTR-the book and Peter Jackson's trilogy..you got my drift?

Hehe Lote you're back!! :lol:

I'll say it once more. Harry Potter books annoy me in one instance. They are very unoriginal, a cocktail of stolen ideas. Everyone who has read enough fantasy books in their lives can assure you about that. ;) There is nothing original in Rowling's writing ;)
Of course readers are free to enjoy Rowling's books and they are entitled to their own opinions as long as they know that all those interesting ideas in her books were in fact taken from other more interesting and well written books ;)

Hehe and please don't put Tolkien and Rowling in the same league. You hurt my feelings :lol:

EDIT
Just because i think i know you a little, the way you respond in arguments i mean, i am foreseing a probable answer of yours:
Lote: Are there many original ideas out there? How many of those books are truly original?

Well yes, this may actually be true, but there is a differance in an author being inspired by another author's work and an author merely stealing ideas from various -less famous authors- and compiling a book ;)
I hope you understand what i mean..

Alexei

09-24-2007, 10:43 AM

This "heavy weight" was not able to engage the mind of million of readers. So how can he understand the Human Condition?

To have a large audience doesn't make the "product" good, it's just means it is baked up with better commercials. People doesn't necessarily read something because it is a good book, they read it because they think it is a good book, after all they could just be stupid! So I don't think that the large audience is a good argument.

Logos

09-24-2007, 10:47 AM

You're comparing apples to oranges. :) Indeed. And you stated your case very well.

Petrarch's Love

09-24-2007, 11:40 AM

Like Logos and Noisms, I agree that this seems like an apples and oranges comparison. I have read all the Harry Potter books, and enjoyed them for the most part. I found them fun and when Rowling's on her game she has a quick paced style that keeps you reading. I don't really see comparing HP to either Faulkner's novels or The Lord of the Rings, though. Though their subjects and styles are clearly very different, I would still put both Faulkner and Tolkien in that group of writers whose works I can read over and over again with the sense that I am finding something new and deeper with each reading. I don't think Rowling is that sort of writer. I think a better comparison for her work might be L. Frank Baum's Oz books, which I read all of in my childhood and still cherish and occasionally re-read for their wonderful imagination and delightful style. The Oz books were also wildly popular children's books that have been enjoyed by adults as well, and it is my sense that a hundred years from now Rowling may enjoy a similar amount of attention to that Baum receives now.

I have no idea why people on this thread are acting as though one has to chose between reading Rowling or Faulkner exclusively. I agree with those on this thread who say there's nothing wrong with Rowling providing an entertaining read, and I agree with those who say that there's nothing wrong with Faulkner providing a thought provoking read. There's certainly room for both on the bookshelves of this snotty (soon to be) professor. ;)

Virgil

09-24-2007, 01:23 PM

I have no idea why people on this thread are acting as though one has to chose between reading Rowling or Faulkner exclusively.

Because we want to debate and fight. :lol: Otherwise we would be one big happy family. :D

Alexei

09-24-2007, 01:29 PM

I think this topic has become something more than comparing of apples and oranges. I think it is more like a discussion about classic literature and popular one and what we prefer and why :) It's how I see it.
Although I suppose you have already realize this :D

StayGolden

09-24-2007, 01:35 PM

My question is why are people who read Faulkner "snotty"?

It seems like in today's society reading an "intellectual novel" instead of what passes for popular literature earns the reader nothing but a lot of boo-hissing from people. I don't understand that. What's wrong with wanting a challenging, thought-provoking read?

Petrarch's Love

09-24-2007, 02:33 PM

Because we want to debate and fight. :lol: Otherwise we would be one big happy family. :D

:lol: Well, then, enjoy the fray by all means, and don't let me get in the way.

Lote-Tree

09-24-2007, 02:59 PM

All you're really doing is advocating a position based on the most subjective or reasons: that you happen to like one writer and not another. (I started to read one of the Harry Potter books, and found it boring and predictable. So what? That doesn't prove anything.)

And if millions of people say the same thing - is that still subjective? :D

Who cares if more people read Harry Potter than Light In August.

AS Byatt does :D She is upset that no one reads her "Brilliant-Intellecutal" Books :D

More people read comic books than Light In August

Perhaps they have more to say about the Human condition than Faulkner :D

more people listen to Britney Spears than Beethoven

Perhaps people respond to Britney because it speaks to them of their human condition? Perhaps "Hit Me Baby one more" is more about the human condition than Beethoven's 5th? :D

more people look at pictures of magazine models than Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings.

Is it because they prefer Realism? :D

No book demands anything of the reader...

Then let no one say that a book should demand something of the reader. For a book to demand something of the reader is an arrogant position.

but every book can offer something to a reader.

Agreed. And JK Rowling does that really well. Faulkner and Byatt do not.

And by the way... LotR is not an allegory.

It was lord of the flies.

Hehe Lote you're back!!

Aye lassie I is back :D

Just because i think i know you a little, the way you respond in arguments i mean, i am foreseing a probable answer of yours:

Come on Manolia. Am I that predictable or you know the answer but dare not say it :D

Well yes, this may actually be true, but there is a differance in an author being inspired by another author's work and an author merely stealing ideas from various -less famous authors- and compiling a book
I hope you understand what i mean..

Please Manolia. Give her credit for her inventiveness...who else will come up with names like Professor Dumbledore? :D

To have a large audience doesn't make the "product" good, it's just means it is baked up with better commercials.

You can spend millions on Faulkner's advertising. But Faulkner will not be able to entice readers. They will stop after the first page just like many stopped after the firs chapter of Stephen Hawkings "A brief history of time".

There's certainly room for both on the bookshelves of this snotty professor.

LOL :D

The contention who was more engaging story teller. And JK wins hands down.

virgil
Because we want to debate and fight. Otherwise we would be one big happy family.

Come Virgilus - so some passion about literature :D

Virgil

09-24-2007, 03:31 PM

:lol: I can't respond to all your points, Lote, so I'll just say you made me laugh today. :D

NickAdams

09-24-2007, 04:25 PM

And if millions of people say the same thing - is that still subjective? :D

Collective subjectivity is still subjective.

"Crazy is majority rules." - 12 Monkeys

Harry Potter is fresh to some, because they have not read enough to recognize regurgitation.

There is a difference between allusion and replication.

What connects the two?
Joe Christmas and Jesus Christ: alludes to the tragedy of birth.

Dementors and Ring Wraths: whole sale rip-off.

If I want to enjoy Harry Potter, I'll watch Star Wars.

Discover Nancy Stouffer and her 1984 Legend of Muggles ...

manolia

09-24-2007, 04:34 PM

Hehe Lote you made me laugh too (twice this day).
I give her credit about the inventive names :D . Besides there is no harm in reading HP..i personally have read worse things than Rowling :lol:

NickAdams

09-24-2007, 04:42 PM

Hehe Lote you made me laugh too (twice this day).
I give her credit about the inventive names :D . Besides there is no harm in reading HP..i personally have read worse things than Rowling :lol:

Nothing greatly inventive about given her characters names that represent them.

Look to Faulkner: Gavins, Grove and Hightower to name a few.

Lote-Tree

09-24-2007, 04:44 PM

Nothing greatly inventive about given her characters names that represent them.

Look to Faulkner: Gavins, Grove and Hightower to name a few.

They are nothing like Hufflepuff or Slytherin :D

NickAdams

09-24-2007, 04:48 PM

They are nothing like Hufflepuff or Slytherin :D

I guess some enjoy names written in hyperbole. She may beat Faulkner there, but not Pynchon.

manolia

09-24-2007, 05:00 PM

I guess some enjoy names written in hyperbole.

Bah, not really. The names are just funny ;)

NickAdams

09-24-2007, 05:03 PM

Bah, not really. The names are just funny ;)

Simple things are always funny.

PeterL

09-24-2007, 06:35 PM

Oddly enough, I don't have significant disagreement with any of the post in this thread. The Harry Potter series is part of a tradition of storiy telling that leads all the way back to the Enuma Elish and before, but that same is true of Mr Faulkner's writings. I don't consider either of those writers among the greatest, because the greatest writers included entertainment for the masses while expressing deep feelings or communicating profound ideas.

Rowling writes in an easy to understand and slightly amusing style, while Faulkner writes in one of the more difficult styles. Which is better? That depends on what one prefers, but I prefer writers who communicate well and readily, so I have a slight preference for Rowling in this line-up.

G. C. Edunson was a better writer than either of them.

chckn648

09-24-2007, 06:53 PM

I have read only one of the Harry Potter books, and I don't think I plan on reading any more of them. (I was on a trip and there was a lack of other reading material, so I read one belonging to a friend.) There are way too many better things to read. On the other hand, I enjoy Faulkner's writings and plan on reading more of them. In my opinion, books are more enjoyable when you can get more out of them than just a story. A great book is one where you can discover something new each time you read it, and Harry Potter just doesn't seem like that kind of book.

Granny5

09-24-2007, 08:33 PM

I don't see the point of having to choose between one writing style or another. Some of us are book whores, we'll read anything. I will read just about anything, and enjoy most. I don't think that who or what a person reads is as important as what they get from it, be it insight or pure entertainment. If one reads enough, one will have to learn something, unless they are complete idiots. And in that case, there is very little hope anyway.

JBI

09-24-2007, 08:53 PM

This thread is silly. The majority of people who don't read many books will read something like Dan Brown, or J.k. Rowling, or Steven King's works. The people who tend to read more books (25+ a year I would say) are more likely to read something intellectual. You can try to dispute this, but although I have no statistics in front of me, this seems basically logical.

The fact that Rowling is a good or bad writer is meaningless to this debate. The mass number of sales makes no one a good or bad author, it makes them well read. You forget that fads occur in industries such as toys, why could they not occur in things such as art? I think it is clear from the way people see Michael Jackson now, versus the way they saw him 20 years ago, that the public opinion holds some sway. Thereby, we must ask ourselves how much of Rowling's genius comes from the market, versus how much comes from the quality of her writing.

Faulkner's genius doesn't just lie in him writing elaborate plots. it relies a) on his innovation. Rowling is semi-unique (none of the ideas are truly original) and her writing style seems like a crappy modernized rip off of Jane Austen's. Faulkner, though he had his influence, really changed the structuring, and style of writing.b) his writing has purpose. It is designed to change the way we see the world. It is designed to make the world more real, rather than to create detachment.

The reason why critics criticize Harry Potter is not because they are bad books. On the contrary, most critics will agree with children reading them. They criticize them because adults are reading them; because people decided that "hard" writing is too difficult. I personally would agree with this, simply on the grounds that there is no real benefit to reading Harry Potter over the next book. Harry Potter's purpose is to entertain, to allow escape, not to teach, to help show what life is about, to bring new meanings to the world, or to change how we see art. That is why she is able to be read by so many, and at the same time that is why I don't believe she will last the test of time.

There have been many writers over the years who have written easy-to-read books, and have sold, but few survive the test of time. Perhaps I am wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that Faulkner is here to stay. uniqueness and innovation automatically get you into the cannon if your work works. I.E. Joyce (even though most people can't read Ulysses.) Reading isn't always about escaping. Art for the sake of escape has no real lasting value. It speaks to a generation, then disappears. Art that teaches, expands, innovates has a purpose, a historical purpose, and will generally always stand the test of time.

Granny5

09-24-2007, 09:06 PM

JBI

09-24-2007, 09:32 PM

"This thread is silly. The majority of people who don't read many books will read something like Dan Brown, or J.k. Rowling, or Steven King's works. The people who tend to read more books (25+ a year I would say) are more likely to read something intellectual. You can try to dispute this, but although I have no statistics in front of me, this seems basically logical."

I guess I just don't see the logic in your statement. I read Dan Brown and Steven King, Joyce, Faulkner, and endless other works by endless other writers. I read at least 25 books a year and most years during my adult have read many more than that. Just because I enjoy many different styles doesn't mean I don't read "intellectual" works. Variety is important in order to keep an open mind. There is something to be learned in just about any work.
Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's worthless. Wasn't Joyce popular during his time?
That isn't what I meant. I meant that if a reader is reading one book a year, chances are it isn't going to be As I lay dying, but will be something along the lines of Dan Brown, Grisham, etc. Readers who generally read few books a year I would think are less likely to read "literary" books. Not to say that frequent readers don't read commercial fiction, I am just trying to say that small time readers don't likely read literary fiction.

bluevictim

09-24-2007, 09:53 PM

I haven't read anything by either Rowling or Byatt, but I love a good debate, so I thought I'd post some fodder.

I think the original poster is reacting to opinions like those in "Harry Potter and the Childish Adult" (http://www.countercurrents.org/arts-byatt110703.htm), by A. S. Byatt. In fact, Byatt's thoughts sound uncannily like a lot of the posts of certain members here.

A counterpoint is given in "A. S. Byatt and the goblet of bile" (http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2003/07/08/byatt_rowling/), by Charles Taylor. [I had a little bit of trouble accessing this article -- I had to temporarily allow "cookies" on my browser and search for "byatt rowling" on the main Salon page]

Discuss!

Janine

09-24-2007, 10:26 PM

That isn't what I meant. I meant that if a reader is reading one book a year, chances are it isn't going to be As I lay dying, but will be something along the lines of Dan Brown, Grisham, etc. Readers who generally read few books a year I would think are less likely to read "literary" books. Not to say that frequent readers don't read commercial fiction, I am just trying to say that small time readers don't likely read literary fiction.

Hi JBL, Actually I have to disagree with that thought. I used to read only a few books a year but they were good literature. I don't even care for poor modern authors. I did read Dan Brown for fun but thought it was way below par and once I read one Grisham book - "Skipping Christmas" and got a kick out of it. However, normally, I choose a book that we would probably be more likely to read in this site, usually a classic author. I am a slow reader, but if I only had the time to read one book a year, I would choose wisely. So one cannot really generalise that fact, I believe.

brainstrain

09-24-2007, 10:50 PM

Harry Potter is fresh to some, because they have not read enough to recognize regurgitation.

Well then, I might pose this question - what's so terrible about regurgitation? Some of the greatest works of our time our remakes - take for example Hairspray. Compared to the comparatively 'original' High School Musical 2 - you can't even compare then. Hairspray is a triumphant, musical rendetion of the tearing down of racial barriers, yet has been told several times before, and amazingly filmed and nearly perfectly cast - High School Musical 2 is about high schoolers getting summer jobs, and is so cheesy that is hurts even those who love cheesy things. It's just badly done.

Sure, it's predictable. Sure, it steals from many MANY things before it. But Harry Potter melts down and reforms all these older ideas into something new and distincly beautiful - the timeless tale of good vs. evil - and good winning.

You don't have to like it. But you have to admit that Rowling is a brilliant storyteller - and that reading a book beats playing a video game any day! To suggest otherwise is to be blindfolded and let into a concentration camp by your arrogance!

Or something like that :D

one last comment -

"Some of us are book whores, we'll read anything"

Aha! Amazing! That quite accurately describes me - I read the last of the Harry Potter books in less than 24 hours - and then read four more books that week.

drunkenKOALA

09-24-2007, 11:11 PM

Good art rarely sells. Harry Potter's financial success is hardly a proof for its artistic merit; in fact it may be evidence against it. More people listen to Britney Spears than Tchakovsky.

Take The Da Vinci Code for example. I read it and enjoyed it, but for very different reasons than I enjoy literature. It's light entertainment when I don't want to think too much. Also, I read it in Chinese, and it was still freaking awesome: an engaging, compulsively readable page-turner. I don't think there was much, if anything, lost in translation. I don't think we can say that about most literary works (that nothing was lost in translation).

PeterL

09-24-2007, 11:30 PM

Good art rarely sells. Harry Potter's financial success is hardly a proof for its artistic merit; in fact it may be evidence against it. More people listen to Britney Spears than Tchakovsky.

I suppose that no one ever bought or read anything by Mark Twain. then there is art that doesn't sell, because the owner won't sell, The Mona Lisa for example. Lack of financial success is not evidence that something is good art, and it is often evidence that something isn't good art, or plain bad.

drunkenKOALA

09-24-2007, 11:34 PM

And just because you can't understand someone's writing doesn't mean that he's a snob. I am sure he's not purposely trying to write overly complicated stuff that is not intelligent to the masses just to make them feel stupid.

I believe good writers write to serve their readers, rather than to impress them. It just happens that different readers demand different types of "service", and different writers offers different types of "service". I think what people meant by Harry Potter being less "demanding", is that it provides a "fluffier, more inconsequential" (as someone said in this thread) type of reading. But Faulkner's works serves its readers in another way. Rowling's and Dan Brown's service is fluffy entertainment. Literature's service is art, whatever that means...you know it when you see it, like porn.

metal134

09-25-2007, 01:13 AM

I would never so much as entertain a theortical argument that Rowling is better than Faulkner

NickAdams

09-25-2007, 01:16 AM

Well then, I might pose this question - what's so terrible about regurgitation? Some of the greatest works of our time our remakes - take for example Hairspray. Compared to the comparatively 'original' High School Musical 2 - you can't even compare then. Hairspray is a triumphant, musical rendetion of the tearing down of racial barriers, yet has been told several times before, and amazingly filmed and nearly perfectly cast - High School Musical 2 is about high schoolers getting summer jobs, and is so cheesy that is hurts even those who love cheesy things. It's just badly done.

Sure, it's predictable. Sure, it steals from many MANY things before it. But Harry Potter melts down and reforms all these older ideas into something new and distincly beautiful - the timeless tale of good vs. evil - and good winning.

You don't have to like it. But you have to admit that Rowling is a brilliant storyteller - and that reading a book beats playing a video game any day! To suggest otherwise is to be blindfolded and let into a concentration camp by your arrogance!

Book and film are very different mediums. Hairspray has been reprised not ripped off. There is nothing original about television shows like High School.

Reading a good book beats video games.

I would admit it if it was true. She is a storyteller, but I'll let you call her brilliant. If I think Beckett and Faulkner a brilliant, I would lose all validity of the work to include Rowling.

Granny5

09-25-2007, 03:22 AM

I've never read a Harry Potter book but I have bought the books for my grandchildren. I have seen the movies with my grandson and they seemed ok. I do think that the books serve a purpose in that they get children to read. My oldest grand daughter, browneyedbailey, read the first Harry Potter book the summer between kindergarden and 1st grade. It took her all summer but she finished it and has continued to read. So they are worth what was paid for them.

Noisms

09-25-2007, 06:48 AM

I think the original poster is reacting to opinions like those in "Harry Potter and the Childish Adult" (http://www.countercurrents.org/arts-byatt110703.htm), by A. S. Byatt. In fact, Byatt's thoughts sound uncannily like a lot of the posts of certain members here.

I actually find a lot to agree with in the Byatt article, because it's inarguably the case that Harry Potter is highly derivative and full of utterly banal messages. But that doesn't make the books necessarily bad. I didn't much like the first one and lost interest, but that doesn't mean much - lots of people obviously love the series, and fair play to them. I just think that it's important that they read the books and see them for what they are - fluff, albeit very well told and entertaining fluff.

Being derivative isn't necessarily bad, after all. I love genre fiction of all descriptions, be it crime, SF, fantasy or historical fiction, and all have their tropes and conventions that 99% of the writers within them follow. I just recognise that the majority of it is escapist entertainment and enjoy it for what it is.

As for adults 'reverting' to being children, again I'm moved to comment: So what? Sometimes I read through my old Roald Dahl books, because they're a nostalgic guilty pleasure and I love them. I'm fully aware that this is like reverting to childhood, but where's the harm in that?

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 06:56 AM

I actually find a lot to agree with in the Byatt article, because it's inarguably the case that Harry Potter is highly derivative and full of utterly banal messages.

How is it Banal. It is the Ancient Tale of Good and Evil.

How can the message of Love as an engine of redemption be Banal?

And of friendship and betrayal be Banal?

Is it because she has not obscured this message in Intellectual Mind games?

PeterL

09-25-2007, 07:23 AM

I would never so much as entertain a theortical argument that Rowling is better than Faulkner

I would, and it is very easy to prove that argument.

Noisms

09-25-2007, 07:31 AM

How is it Banal. It is the Ancient Tale of Good and Evil.

How can the message of Love as an engine of redemption be Banal?

And of friendship and betrayal be Banal?

Is it because she has not obscured this message in Intellectual Mind games?

There are two reasons why the messages in Harry Potter books are banal:

1. They've been around since prehistory.
2. Everybody agrees with them and acknowledges them to be true: Good is good and Evil is bad; friendship is valuable; love is redemptive; betrayal is mean. There is nobody in the world who does not believe those truisms or has not heard about them.

Anybody can bandy around messages like those, and hundreds of books do. To re-state my case: the Harry Potter books might be well-written and entertaining, and that's what they're supposed to be. They don't say anything new, or anything particularly interesting, but they're not really supposed to because they're escapist fluff.

I quickly add that escapist fluff is no bad thing (see my post above). But just don't compare it to Faulkner.

Virgil

09-25-2007, 07:50 AM

I haven't read Harry Potter, so I'm somewhat speculating here. It's not the message that is banal, but the writing, the characterization, the depth of the ideas. Great writers have layers and originality. I'm not sure that Harry Potter meets that standard. But let others decide.

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 07:55 AM

Anybody can bandy around messages like those, and hundreds of books do.

Why doesn't AS Byatt do it?

Then she can make a lot of money so that she can devote her entire life in her own Brilliant Intellectual books that no one will ever read?

She can even build mansion on the moon and ponder on her Brilliant Intellectual books that no one ever will read until she dissappears into the nether region of intellecutalism :D

I haven't read Harry Potter, so I'm somewhat speculating here. It's not the message that is banal, but the writing, the characterization, the depth of the ideas. Great writers have layers and originality. I'm not sure that Harry Potter meets that standard. But let others decide.

How can you even speculate if you have not read it? :D

Severus Snape is a character of great moral ambiguity.

Granny5

09-25-2007, 08:02 AM

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 08:05 AM

And if the books continue to attract young readers in the future, then they should be considered important books.

Thank you Gran. But tell me is Animal Farm or Lord of the Flies - Children books?

p.s you need to have closing "]" in your blog url for it to work in your signature.

Virgil

09-25-2007, 08:06 AM

Why not accept the Harry Potter book for what they are. They are books for children. Older teens and adult readers enjoy them but they are books meant for children and young teens. They are not supposed to "Intellectual", they are suppose to entertain and I think they do just that. As I said, I haven't read them but my grandchildren have. It's a great thing for any book to start a child down the road to reading. I appreciate them for that. And if the books continue to attract young readers in the future, then they should be considered important books.

You know you make a good point Granny. These were intended to be children's books. Somehow they caught on with the adult population. We shouldn't be criticizing Rowling, but trying to understand why some adults haven't matured beyond the thierd grade reading level. :p :p :D

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 08:08 AM

We shouldn't be criticizing Rowling, but trying to understand why some adults haven't matured beyond the thierd grade reading level. :p :p :D

or you can say why are adult minds are enticed by her writings? Is it because she is more engaging than Faulkner :D

Circuvico

09-25-2007, 08:24 AM

I will answer this. I am of the Harry Potter generation but I was reading Dahl, Tolstoy and Dickens long long before Harry Potter and now that I've done with J K Rowling; I'm reading The Aeneid, Don Quixote, Othello, Discworld, Hitchikers Guide to The Galaxy and I'm just cracking the extremely intellectual side of literature with Joyce and Woolf. My reaction to these intellectual writers? I think they are equally as good as any of these writers if not better. In fact, I cannot choose between a book by Joyce or a book by Douglas Adams because they are equally great in their own way.
So there you go, I love any style no matter how difficult as long as it's good!

Lote-tree, haven't you heard of the concept of different strokes for different folks?
I've never read Faulkner or Byatts but I shall read them to make my judgement. :)

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 08:37 AM

Lote-tree, haven't you heard of the concept of different strokes for different folks?

The contention was who was more engaging writer? JK Rowling or Faulkner...:D

Circuvico

09-25-2007, 08:42 AM

I wil not answer that, sorry, Lote as I haven't read Faulkner yet but if he's as good as people claim, I might defend him.

Granny5

09-25-2007, 08:47 AM

The contention was who was more engaging writer? JK Rowling or Faulkner...:D

I think that the answer is simple. Rowling is more engaging for the age group that her books are written for and Faulkner is more engaging for the readers he wrote for.

drunkenKOALA

09-25-2007, 08:47 AM

I pretty much have to agree with noism here, and he put it very diplomatically too.

Noisms

09-25-2007, 09:27 AM

Why doesn't AS Byatt do it?

Then she can make a lot of money so that she can devote her entire life in her own Brilliant Intellectual books that no one will ever read?

She can even build mansion on the moon and ponder on her Brilliant Intellectual books that no one ever will read until she dissappears into the nether region of intellecutalism :D

Because she's aspiring to do something different, and should be respected for that. Some people don't want to write escapist fiction. Why does any author choose to write the books they do? I highly doubt it's to get rich. J K Rowling certainly didn't start writing Harry Potter to make millions, because before her, children's writers just didn't.

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 09:38 AM

Because she's aspiring to do something different, and should be respected for that. Some people don't want to write escapist fiction.

Then AS Byatt should not complain about JK Rowling :D

Scheherazade

09-25-2007, 10:12 AM

I find the "elitist" attitude among reading lovers unbearable.

Out of curiousity, I would like to find out how many people have read the works of the authors we have been discussing.

Please take the poll (you can pick more than one option!)

Noisms

09-25-2007, 10:24 AM

Then AS Byatt should not complain about JK Rowling :D

Perhaps so, but that wasn't what we were discussing, which was the relative merits of the three authors in question.

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 10:35 AM

Perhaps so, but that wasn't what we were discussing, which was the relative merits of the three authors in question.

The contention who was more engaging story teller. JK Rowling wins hands down for both children and adults. Faulkner and Byatt...old professors in their dusty offices :D

Noisms

09-25-2007, 10:49 AM

The contention who was more engaging story teller. JK Rowling wins hands down for both children and adults. Faulkner and Byatt...old professors in their dusty offices :D

And back to the beginning we go. I think in future I'll limit myself to discussing things with people who aren't just baiting...

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 10:52 AM

And back to the beginning we go. I think in future I'll limit myself to discussing things with people who aren't just baiting...

Peace Noisms :D

Regards,
Lote

papayahed

09-25-2007, 11:09 AM

JK Rowlings - The writing wasn't great but the story kept me interested.

AS Byatt - The writing was too flowery and long winded but the story was somewhat ok, enough to make me finish but I skipped a lot of the verbal diahrea

Faulkner - It made me think, no reason to skip. Good story, good writing.

metal134

09-25-2007, 12:56 PM

I would, and it is very easy to prove that argument.
No, it isn't. It is, in fact, impossible.

Lambert

09-25-2007, 01:18 PM

I find the "elitist" attitude among reading lovers unbearable.
The idea of “Literary Elites” has always been dubious. I mean, what’s easier: One simply admits that they don’t enjoy the authors that others consider great and feel unnecessarily maligned as a result or buy in to that very sheepish notion that there is “Intellectual Elites” out there, constantly out to condemn “philistines” every waking hour, despite the fact that there is almost no hard evidence of their existence?

I think it is safe to say that the latter is the most common avenue taken.

And back to the beginning we go. I think in future I'll limit myself to discussing things with people who aren't just baiting...
And I’ll have to side with Noisms, an argument made up of trivial adolescent baiting punctuated with a nauseating amount of smiley faces simply to avoid taking a enduring stance in a debate, does not constituent the merit of this discussion.

kilted exile

09-25-2007, 01:46 PM

The idea of “Literary Elites” has always been dubious. I mean, what’s easier: One simply admits that they don’t enjoy the authors that others consider great and feel unnecessarily maligned as a result or buy in to that very sheepish notion that there is “Intellectual Elites” out there, constantly out to condemn “philistines” every waking hour, despite the fact that there is almost no hard evidence of their existence?

I think it is safe to say that the latter is the most common avenue taken.

I dont think its very dubious, I have seen plenty of elitism over my time here(and not only limited to this site). Plenty of people who despite never having even touched a copy of a book (let alone read it) but who will criticise the author as a sell-out pandering to the masses instead of attempting to reach higher ideals or the readers as shallow who would be better off not reading anything.

It exists in exactly the same way as the musical elitist who sees any popular singer as a sell-out also (and generally the musical & literary elitist are the same people). The vast majority of people read as a means of escapism there is nothing wrong with this & no need to read "high literature"

Lambert

09-25-2007, 02:16 PM

The vast majority of people read as a means of escapism there is nothing wrong with this & no need to read "high literature"
“Escapism” is just one of those wishy-washy emotive buzzwords that people use to justify reading trashy popular fiction. If we don’t have high standards in literary tastes, then the vast majority of our literature would become mawkish and mediocre.

Trying to equate Popular Fiction with Literary Fiction in terms of “greatness”, where “greatness” is measured in the number of readers who “enjoyed” a particular work, pushes literature into the extremely dangerous realm of cultural relativism.

I dont think its very dubious, I have seen plenty of elitism over my time here(and not only limited to this site). Plenty of people who despite never having even touched a copy of a book (let alone read it) but who will criticise the author as a sell-out pandering to the masses instead of attempting to reach higher ideals or the readers as shallow who would be better off not reading anything.
Again, all I can ask for is hard evidence. There is a huge area of ambiguity between whether you've actually “seen" elitism or whether you’ve “supposed you have seen” elitism.

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 03:08 PM

And back to the beginning we go. I think in future I'll limit myself to discussing things with people who aren't just baiting...

Come on chap you argued your bit well. That is called debate ;-)

And I’ll have to side with Noisms, an argument made up of trivial adolescent baiting punctuated with a nauseating amount of smiley faces simply to avoid taking a enduring stance in a debate, does not constituent the merit of this discussion.

Lambert dear chappy it is only a debate. It is nothing to get upset over.

As for smiley's and stuff...life is serious enough but to be serious about trivial things like this is silly ---and here is a smiley for you for that :D

*Classic*Charm*

09-25-2007, 03:12 PM

Sorry, Lote, but I don't think you have a very sound arguement here:

What line of comparison can you possibly draw between Chamber of Secrets and The Sound and the Fury??

I can see you're having fun though...:p

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 03:17 PM

Sorry, Lote, but I don't think you have a very sound arguement here:

What line of comparison can you possibly draw between Chamber of Secrets and The Sound and the Fury??

See my original post Classic Charm ;-)

I can see you're having fun though...:p

It was meant as a fun debate...but I guess some people take things seriously...these types of people I guess end up being professors of Havard with their battered copies of faulkner tucked under their armpits :D

edit: I love Dali's Paintings :D

kilted exile

09-25-2007, 03:17 PM

Again, all I can ask for is hard evidence. There is a huge area of ambiguity between whether you've actually “seen" elitism or whether you’ve “supposed you have seen” elitism.

Well, I would cite the example of your own post, but you would disagree you are being elitist I'm sure - despite the condescinding tone of it towards fiction which is liked by the masses (referring to terms such as "trashy popular fiction") nobody is forcing you to read it if you consider it to be such, all that is asked is that if others enjoy it you dont criticise them for doing so.

I cant be bothered searching through the recesses of the forum, however the examples are there if you wish to see them - just look for threads about Dan Brown or JK Rowling

*Classic*Charm*

09-25-2007, 03:21 PM

See my original post Classic Charm ;-)

Haha. Don't get me started!!

It was meant as a fun debate...but I guess some people take things seriously...these types of people I guess end up being professors of Havard with their battered copies of faulkner tucked under their armpits :D

edit: I love Dali's Paintings :D

Yep, that's my cue to get out of here before I turn into one of them. Faulkner hasn't yet made the jump from my shelf to my arms!

And yes, I too am a big fan of Dali! What's your fav? oops that has nothing to do with this topic. sorry;)

Lambert

09-25-2007, 03:27 PM

nobody is forcing you to read it if you consider it to be such, all that is asked is that if others enjoy it you dont criticise them for doing so.
I don't have a problem with the popular fiction people read. I have a problem with people who attempt to put mediocre popular fiction with the best of literary fiction by incorrectly assuming that popularity automatically means greatness.

(referring to terms such as "trashy popular fiction")
So, what, am I meant to consider the "Da Vinci Code" a "Deeply engaging philosophical meditation on murder and police chases with an intelligent use of Italian Renaissance Art for symbolism”?

When pigs fly maybe....

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 03:28 PM

Haha. Don't get me started!!

Ha ha :D Come Classic Charm there is still time to argue your bit. Come and get your hands dirty...or in this case come and join in the mud wrestiling...it is fun...as long as you make it fun though...

And my all time favourite Dali Painting...which I have in my office is "Persistence of Memory"...or better knowns as the "melting clocks" :D

I just love that painting!!:D

*Classic*Charm*

09-25-2007, 03:35 PM

Ha ha :D Come Classic Charm there is still time to argue your bit. Come and get your hands dirty...or in this case come and join in the mud wrestiling...it is fun...as long as you make it fun though...

And my all time favourite Dali Painting...which I have in my office is "Persistence of Memory"...or better knowns as the "melting clocks" :D

I just love that painting!!:D

Oh Lote, you've never had the pleasure of arguing with me. It's not pretty. You may end up with your face in the mud.:D Ill save you that discomfort.

I hate it when people call that painting "the one with the melting clocks". Its about so much more than that! My fav is Metamorphosis, obviously, haha. It's on the wall of my room and it freaks out my roomate when she's drunk. I love it!:D

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 03:42 PM

Oh Lote, you've never had the pleasure of arguing with me. It's not pretty. You may end up with your face in the mud.:D Ill save you that discomfort.

I can lose like a man :D

So don't worry ;-)

When your whole body is in the mud...having your face in the mud won't make much difference... :D

So here is your chance to argue your point about literature...you have after all joined a literature forum for just that haven't you :D

I hate it when people call that painting "the one with the melting clocks".

LOL :D

But it's such a obivious title of the painting...but I prefer the "Persistence of Memory"...

*Classic*Charm*

09-25-2007, 03:48 PM

Well, who doesn't love a good mud bath??

But this is a tricky one...I think Rowling and Faulkner are not necessarily on two different levels of writing, that is, one above and better than the other, but in two parallel universes. The two types of literature are not comparable.

Let me just say that as much as I cannot agree that Rowling is better than Faulkner, I was waiting at a bookstore at midnight in my gryffindor scarf to get Deathly Hallows at midnight the day it was released. While I was on vacation...when I had to go to a wedding the next day...

Damn it, Lote-Tree, you sucked me in!! And I was so enjoying our pleasant banter...;)

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 03:52 PM

Let me just say that as much as I cannot agree that Rowling is better than Faulkner, I was waiting at a bookstore at midnight in my gryffindor scarf to get Deathly Hallows at midnight the day it was released.

Now find me one person in history of Faulkner or A S Byatt reading that has done that for their books :D

Damn it, Lote-Tree, you sucked me in!! And I was so enjoying our pleasant banter...;)

He he :D

So was I. But we can still continue with the pleasant banter and still argue about literature :D

*Classic*Charm*

09-25-2007, 03:56 PM

Petrarch's Love

09-25-2007, 04:00 PM

My, this thread has certainly been popular today. I wasn't going to post again but I thought with all this elitist talk it might be helpful to sort out exactly what we’re arguing about here. Are we asking whether Harry Potter is a satisfying read or whether it deserves a hallowed place in the literary canon?
Lambert, I appreciate your point about those people who use the cry of elitism to condemn what they either do not understand or do not like. As someone who teaches Renaissance literature I certainly am familiar with the type of person who dismisses the works I teach as only of interest to some vague "intellectual elite" and I certainly resent such baseless accusations. On the other hand, as someone in academia I have certainly seen intellectual elitism in action when scholars are condescending and dismissive of students who confess to enjoying "popular" literature. There is, in my opinion a difference between being someone who is a defender of the arts and someone who is merely on the offense against anything they deem unworthy to be called art. To use the context of this thread, I think it's one thing to say that both Harry Potter and The Sound and the Fury can be entertaining reads but that Faulkner's writing is clearly more interesting as art, and is more likely to provide grounds for a depth of conversation and study and to continue to prove stimulating and intriguing after multiple reads. If however, one were to say that only truly intelligent people can fully grasp the wonder that is Faulkner and that only idiots read Harry Potter, this would have crossed over into the elitist camp.
My reasons for teaching Faulkner rather than Rowling in a college course would be along the lines of the first statement. I simply don’t think Rowling’s work is going to provide my students with the type of material that will provide stimulating in depth discussions or provide an example of a provocative approach to the use of language the way Faulkner would (I’d frankly rather teach Milton than Faulkner or Rowling, but this is largely a matter of taste and beside the point :)). Unfortunately I have colleagues who would refuse to teach Rowling for reasons closer to the second statement—that only idiots read Harry Potter, or even merely that it's "popular"—and I think people pick up on that attitude and are turned off by it.

As a related point, thanks to BlueVictim who posted links to the Byatt article and a response to that article a couple pages back. I personally found parts of Byatt's article quite elitist. Much of it came off as a superior intellect talking down to those poor deluded masses and their "ersatz magic," an attitude which I found highly off putting. What is sad is that I think that Byatt really is concerned on some level with people ignoring some really great works of literature, but she couches her argument in terms of an offense against the things that people are enjoying reading. I can't help but think that rather than get on her high horse about the childish and ersatz sensibilities of the reading public, she could instead say that many of the elements of the Harry Potter books appear in other literature, and in an even more wonderful way. Surely the Harry Potter craze could be used as a positive starting place for encouraging people to explore all sorts of literature rather than as a reason to bash people for being banal.

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 04:00 PM

Okay yes, but I show my appreication for Faulkner by improving my mind through the reading of his work!! As much as I love HP, and it broadens my imagination, it doesn't broaden my perspective on the world.

In what way Faulkner broaden's your imaginations and HP doesn't? JK After dreamed up the game of Quidditch! :D

So what should we banter about now? We already talked about art...:)

Have we already finished with Art? :D
I thought we just begun :D

*Classic*Charm*

09-25-2007, 04:06 PM

In what way Faulkner broaden's your imaginations and HP doesn't? JK After dreamed up the game of Quidditch! :D

Have we already finished with Art? :D
I thought we just begun :D

Sorry, I didn't make that clear. I meant that HP broadens my imagination while Faulkner broadens my perspective on life and the world around me. That's what I think is the major difference between literature and fiction: fiction may inspire creativity or curiosity, but literature inspires insight.What insight does HP offer?

We had just begun indeed! I'm not much of an art connossieur, however. I only readlly know Dali:blush: My knowledge is present, but limited. Feel free to educate me!!

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 04:10 PM

Granny5

09-25-2007, 04:18 PM

Lote-Tree, I really hate to encourage you, but I so enjoy reading your arguements! I think you could argue any subject and any side. Pure entertainment!

JCamilo

09-25-2007, 04:22 PM

:) Indeed. And you stated your case very well.

But comparing two things that are equal is a waste of time. For example, Saying both have seeds won't tell us anything about them, but saying one is orange and the other is red, works well.

The reason why Faulkner is as good as he is and J.K.Rowling apparently not is simple because the ammount of experiences he can generates with the reading of his texts while Rowling... Just make us follow a chapter after another. One does the basic, the other go beyond.
Reading is not for masses, there is elits and all this. But I bet (and I may be wrong) Faulkner will still be read in 200 years and Rowling just remembered as a curiosity of momment of literature, just like many popular writers of the XVIII century are now.

My, this thread has certainly been popular today. I wasn't going to post again but I thought with all this elitist talk it might be helpful to sort out exactly what we’re arguing about here. Are we asking whether Harry Potter is a satisfying read or whether it deserves a hallowed place in the literary canon?

I suppose the starter of this thread is arguing for the sake of comedy only. After all... satisfaction is not something we can argue, vallue, measure. it is too subjective. The first time I read Crime and Punishment I was lost. The second time, amazed. Simple because the first time I expected a detective story in the Agatha Christie Fashion (My father said it was). That ruined Dostoievisky for me during years.

If however, one were to say that only truly intelligent people can fully grasp the wonder that is Faulkner and that only idiots read Harry Potter, this would have crossed over into the elitist camp.

Who said it, I think Eco... "Beware of those who only have classics in their reading list. They just want to show off". Eventually we end reading something that goes not in the rank of "Masterwork" simple because reading is not a competition. People who walk around with signal saying "I read Finnegans Wake in the morning then the Divine Comedy in the evening and went to sleep reading The Hunger Artist" are but posers. (Not talking about a teacher who said he read Search of the Lost Time 11 times because that is his study object).
And I agree, in the moder world there is a abyss between the kind of readers. The so called intelectuals can not deal with the masses of readers well. And the abyss is caused by the attitude of both sides while I would put the burden heavily in the intelectual side because they are those who are supposed to be able to communicate and think in first place, and they should know how to do some self-criticism.

Lambert

09-25-2007, 04:44 PM

Surely the Harry Potter craze could be used as a positive starting place for encouraging people to explore all sorts of literature rather than as a reason to bash people for being banal.

Proof of the Pudding:- Potter Has Limited Effect on Reading Habits (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/books/11potter.html?_r=2&ref=arts&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

Similar Opinion:- Harry Potter and the Death of Reading (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301730.html?nav=hcmodule)

Another important point:- Harry Potter's big con is the prose (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/07/harry_potters_big_con_is_the_p.html)

Granny5

09-25-2007, 05:02 PM

Reading habits are not decided by a book but by parents. If a parent chooses to allow their children to play video games or what not instead of reading, that's not the fault of any writer.

Lote-Tree

09-25-2007, 05:42 PM

fiction may inspire creativity or curiosity, but literature inspires insight.What insight does HP offer?

The age old Human one? That Love is redemptive? That love is the great equaliser between the Powerful and the weak? That Power is tempting and Corrupts?

We had just begun indeed! I'm not much of an art connossieur, however. I only readlly know Dali:blush: My knowledge is present, but limited. Feel free to educate me!!

We can educate each other :D

Virgil

09-25-2007, 08:24 PM

Come on chap you argued your bit well. That is called debate ;-)

Lambert dear chappy it is only a debate. It is nothing to get upset over.

As for smiley's and stuff...life is serious enough but to be serious about trivial things like this is silly ---and here is a smiley for you for that :D

I can lose like a man :D

So don't worry ;-)

When your whole body is in the mud...having your face in the mud won't make much difference... :D

So here is your chance to argue your point about literature...you have after all joined a literature forum for just that haven't you :D

LOL :D

But it's such a obivious title of the painting...but I prefer the "Persistence of Memory"...

Lote, win or lose, from your replies above, you have earned my respect. You are a cool guy with a pleasant disposition. Thanks for conversation and restraint. :) :)

stlukesguild

09-25-2007, 09:57 PM

Perhaps like Petrarch's Love I am a bit surprised at the amount of debate this thread has generated in so little time... especially considering the fact that the very debate is virtually beneath comment. J.K. Rowling is a better writer than Faulkner and A.S. Byatt (and no doubt Shakespeare and Dante and Milton as well) because she has sold more books than they. And Brittney Spears and Michael Jackson are greater artists than Beethoven because they have far more adoring fans... and all those adoring masses know good art while the educated or discerning audience? well... they're just "snooty elitists", right? And this thinking is worthy of any serious debate?

I highly suspect that Lote-Tree just threw out these comments merely to provoke. If so, I imagine our provocateur imagines that the bait was taken and the experiment a complete success... just look at the number of responses... and numbers are all that matters, right?

But what is the value of such a dialog? One might have made any number of equally absurd statements: "Mozart sucks! Ozzie Osbourne rules!" "Jackie Collins is a better prose stylist than Shakespeare." "I'm a better golfer than Tiger Woods" All such comments are unworthy of comment because they offer no real food for thought... nor are they intended to. If Lote-Tree is merely baiting us with these comments and repetitive :D :D :D then the goal was never to engage in any real dialog... any real give and take. If, on the other hand, Lote-Tree actually believes and stands behind these statements... well then what use is discussion at that point either? I highly doubt that the teen headbanger who truly does believe that "Mozart sucks! Ozzie Rules!" is going to be persuaded by any logical or heart-felt argument to the contrary.

Actually, I will admit that Lote-Tree may have highlighted some ideas worthy of discussion. His/her central argument seems to be that we might measure artistic merit or worth by popularity. Certainly this is not a new concept. Hollywood reputations rise or fall around the battles for the top grossing films. The music industry lives and breathes according to Billboard's Top 100 list. Even in literature we have the venerated New York Times Best Seller List. certainly many do believe that popularity might be equated with artistic merit. Lote went so far as to decalre that such popularity might be seen as proof of a greater understanding of human nature. Perhaps there is a kernel of truth here. Rowling most certainly has quite a grasp of what the masses want. But is "give the people what they want" a motto for the artist to live by? Is art merely about satiating the wants of the lowest common denominator thereby reaching the largest potential audience?

The difficulty many have had in challenging Lote's assertions is in part owing to a fear of being labeled an "elitist". Personally, I have never shared in this reluctance. I will freely admit to being an "elitist". I will also state that the survival of a work of art and the eventual judgment of history has never had the least to do with the opinions of the "masses" and everything to do with the "elitists". The masses are not inherently stupid... but they simply don't care enough. Elitism has nothing to do with social rank or wealth or formal education. Elitism is an elected affinity. One decides whether art (or any field of discipline) is worthy of serious effort and study. The "elitists" are simply those who do care enough about art to have put forth a good deal of time and effort into a study of the field... whether they be professors, high school teachers, critics, historians... or just highly interested and engaged "common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the term). I would certainly assume that the opinion of the person who has invested far more effort and study in the field of science or medicine would be worth more than the opinions of the masses... at least I don't plan on holding a poll the next time I come down with a virus; I'll go to that "elitist" know-it-all, my Doctor. Why do we then assume that there is something inherently wrong... "snooty"... "elitist"... about the person who has made similar efforts within the arts?

I certainly concur with Petrarch's Love in suggesting that the reader who "were to say that only truly intelligent people can fully grasp the wonder that is Faulkner and that only idiots read Harry Potter, this would have crossed over into..." ? into something less than ideal, to be sure. Personally I would love nothing more than to see a larger audience interested in reading great books... all the more people to converse with. At the same time while I can't say I spend much time engaged in light, fluffy reading... perhaps it's just the time involved in reading is too great to waste. I will watch a good trashy movie or listen to music from time to time that I know is certainly not on par with Mozart... or even Strauss (Johann!). I have a problem however with the lopsided standard here. Why is it OK to refer to someone as "stuffy", "snooty", "cold", and old professor, an "elitist" on the one hand... but to suggest that a given artist who is greatly popular may not be all that... is somehow proof of one's snobbishness and not a discernment made as a result of experience? I greatly suspect it is merely a misguided confusion between popularity and democracy. To question the taste of the populace... is this not akin to questioning democracy? But then Tocqueville probably had it right a century and a half ago when he noted that democracy and art are uneasy bedfellows at best.:(

Virgil

09-25-2007, 10:28 PM

The difficulty many have had in challenging Lote's assertions is in part owing to a fear of being labeled an "elitist". Personally, I have never shared in this reluctance.

Neither do I. I am an elitist when it comes to art forms. It is who I am.

Lote-Tree

09-26-2007, 06:03 AM

Actually, I will admit that Lote-Tree may have highlighted some ideas worthy of discussion. His/her central argument seems to be that we might measure artistic merit or worth by popularity. Certainly this is not a new concept. Hollywood reputations rise or fall around the battles for the top grossing films. The music industry lives and breathes according to Billboard's Top 100 list. Even in literature we have the venerated New York Times Best Seller List. certainly many do believe that popularity might be equated with artistic merit. Lote went so far as to decalre that such popularity might be seen as proof of a greater understanding of human nature. Perhaps there is a kernel of truth here. Rowling most certainly has quite a grasp of what the masses want. But is "give the people what they want" a motto for the artist to live by? Is art merely about satiating the wants of the lowest common denominator thereby reaching the largest potential audience?

I think you have grasped the real argument beneath the humour ;-)

I shall comment on the things you have said above later...

But I will say this...people only respond to things if only it speaks to them...putting "art" on a high pedestal that no one can reach is pointless because it speaks to no one..."sucess" should be measured I believe in how much "speaking" art does to Humanity and to the Human condition...

Lambert

09-26-2007, 06:14 AM

Am I the only one who thinks that it’s bad manners to dismiss well-thought out and constructive opinions made here as just part of some infantile prank?

Lote, if you want some kind of juvenile occupation to keep you busy, do it in the General Chat section. Fact is, some of us want to have engaging discussions about the topics that matter to us. If you see a discussion about cultural fads, literary populism and literary elitism as just a game, then that’s fine, but frankly you’re more of a reflection on your generation’s view on literature than anything else, a generation that seems totally oblivious to the frightening fall in the reading population in the Western world, the decline of book coverage in newspapers and the overall shrinking visibility of literature in the cultural forefront.

As Steve Wasserman, former editor of the Los Angeles Times Book Review put it best:

The terrible irony is that at the dawn of an era of almost magical technology with a potential of deepening the implicit democratic promise of mass literacy, we also totter on the edge of an abyss of profound cultural neglect. One is reminded of Philip Roth’s old aphorism about Communism and the West: “In the East, nothing is permitted and everything matters; in the West, everything is permitted and nothing matters.” In today’s McWorld, the forces seeking to enroll the populace in the junk cults of celebrity, sensationalism, and gossip are increasingly powerful and wield tremendous economic clout. The cultural conversation devolves and is held hostage to these trends. The corporate wars over who will control the technology of newsgathering and electronic communication and data and distribution are increasingly fierce. Taken together, these factors threaten to leave us ignorant of tradition, contemptuous of the habits of quality and excellence, unable to distinguish among the good, the bad, and the ugly.

What does anyone gain from making snide remarks about people’s beliefs and opinions? I mean this for instance:

these types of people I guess end up being professors of Havard with their battered copies of faulkner tucked under their armpits

Oh so, we’re just superfluous because we are passionate about the writers we admire? Unbelievable...

Noisms

09-26-2007, 06:20 AM

I think you have grasped the real argument beneath the humour ;-)

Your 'real argument' has already been dealt with, but you've avoided debating it by resorting to making facetious asides and silly allusions. That might be 'humour' for some; for me it's a waste of time.

Now, shall we all stop encouraging him/her?

Lote-Tree

09-26-2007, 06:32 AM

Am I the only one who thinks that it’s bad manners to dismiss well-thought out and constructive opinions made here as just part of some infantile prank?

It was nothing of that sort Lambert. It was meant as humours discussion on the sucesses of JK Rowling's art of story telling vs Faulkner and Bayatts.

....but frankly you’re more of a reflection on your generation’s view on literature than anything else, a generation that seems totally oblivious to the frightening fall in the reading population in the Western world....

Ah what a Irony!!!

JK Rowling seemed have have captured those falling readers and entranced them into her magical realm of Hogwarts with her "childish" writings!

As Steve Wasserman, former editor of the Los Angeles Times Book Review put it best:

Lambert - do you ever think for yourself? or do you just parrot others have said? You always seem to quote others to justify your point...I like people who can think for themselves and not let other's do their thinking for them...

Oh so, we’re just superfluous because we are passionate about the writers we admire? Unbelievable...

I am passionate about literature too. JK Rowling's writing captured the imaginations of both children and adults alike. This is an achievment that should not be underestimated. Her story telling is is her Art.

Granny5

09-26-2007, 06:44 AM

Just because I don’t like something, doesn’t mean it’s worthless.
And just because I don’t read Rowlings, doesn’t mean her work
is worthless. How many people have read either author doesn’t mean a lot
unless both have been published for the same length of time.
Who is to say that in 50 years Rowling won't outnumber Faulkner in
readers?
I believe every book has something to offer someone.
Just because I like Faulkner, doesn’t mean he’s the greatest writer
ever. Different opinions about different books is why we have more
than one book in the world. If everyone like the same thing, why
would anything else be published? Why can’t both opinions be
correct? Rowlings is great in her arena and Faulkner is great in
his. Why does it make anyone so angry that someone would have
a different take on this subject?

Lambert

09-26-2007, 06:47 AM

Ah what a Irony!!!
JK Rowling seemed have have captured those falling readers and entranced them into her magical realm of Hogwarts with her "childish" writings!

What irony? I already pointed out that the Harry Potter series has no provable long-term effect on the reading habits of children and that it has a poor prose style, even for childrens literature. i.e. it's a cultural fad with no other discernable significance.

Lambert - do you ever think for yourself? or do you just parrot others have said? You always seem to quote others to justify your point...

Are you serious? You've never heard of 'weight of argument'? Do you read newspapers, at all? Because if you did, you would know how remarkably common this practise is.

Granny5

09-26-2007, 06:53 AM

What irony? I already pointed out that the Harry Potter series has no provable long-term effect on the reading habits of children and that it has a poor prose style, even for childrens literature. i.e. it's a cultural fad with no other discernable significance.

Are you serious? You've never heard of 'weight of argument'? Do you read newspapers, at all? Because if you did, you would know how remarkably common this practise is.

I am sorry, but until the books have been published "long-term" how can it be determined if they will have long-term effects? I see the effects on my grandchildren and their friends first hand so I don't put too much into short term "long term" studies.

Now, let's not get too carried away with differing opinions. Let's be civil to each other and enjoy this thread. Ok? It's interesting and informative and I'd hate to see it locked down. Just MHO.

Lote-Tree

09-26-2007, 07:02 AM

What irony? I already pointed out that the Harry Potter series has no provable long-term effect on the reading habits of children and that it has a poor prose style, even for childrens literature. i.e. it's a cultural fad with no other discernable significance.

Only provable thing is that it has got millions of kids (and adults) who will not touch a book with barge pole into reading.

You've never heard of 'weight of argument'? Do you read newspapers, at all? Because if you did, you would know how remarkably common this practise is.

You mean in the Olden times when the "weight of the argument" said World is Flat? or the Earth is Centre of the Universe?

No. Only thing count is evidence - verifiable evidence and not the "Weight of argument".

Lambert

09-26-2007, 07:33 AM

Only provable thing is that it has got millions of kids (and adults) who will not touch a book with barge pole into reading.

I am sorry, but until the books have been published "long-term" how can it be determined if they will have long-term effects? I see the effects on my grandchildren and their friends first hand so I don't put too much into short term "long term" studies.

The HP series has been going for ten years!!! Those in their early teens who started reading the series at the beginning can prove it’s lack of effect on reading habits.

Think about it, where do you hear about how “immensely” the HP series effects children’s reading habits?

Answer: Anecdotal claims. (More than likely from the parents) I don’t see that as unequivocal proof that the HP series effects reading habits. What could easily happen is that the child picks up one of the HP books, reads it for a couple of weeks (and smugly admires the praise they get from their parents for reading something other than schoolwork...), and then they see something good on TV and throw the book aside.

No. Only thing count is evidence - verifiable evidence and not the "Weight of argument".

So let me get this straight. You dislike the idea of someone quoting from another source in order to clarify a point, something that has been practised in the written word for hundreds of years by some of the best minds in history, and you see this idea as flawed by pointing out ideas that predate the widespread use of scientific investigation and empirical evidence, the same thing I was attempting to do with that quote...

Right... So, when is common sense expected to be back, eh?

Aiculík

09-26-2007, 07:35 AM

I read everything I like. I listen to everything I like. And same with movies.

For me, to say that someone's work is not Art just because it cannot be compared with work of someone else, who lived in different era or culture, is stupid.

How can Flaubert and Rowling be compared? I'd really be interested to see comparison of e.g. Madame Bovary with Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. One, a novel from the 19th century, famous for its realism and social criticism. (By the way the novel was the bestseller in its time). The other, a phantasy book for children from the end of the 20th century.

Go on. Prove that either of these books is not art - using only comparison with the other book. I think that would be entertaining reading, and something new, for a change. :)

Scheherazade

09-26-2007, 07:40 AM

R e m i n d e r

Please note that persona and/or inflammatory comments will not be tolerated.

You can always ignore the threads/discussions which do not live up to your expectations (and start your own).

drunkenKOALA

09-26-2007, 07:43 AM

First off, I do think that books like Harry Potter and Da Vinci Code are inferior writing, but I would never consider those who read them as inferior. In fact, I read these inferior works myself from time to time. Also, I admit I cannot understand Shakespeare, Faulkner or James Joyce; but I am inclined to question my own reading ability before I question the writer's merits.

Having said that, I will say that I do resent the apparent dismissive attitude of anything intellectual that seems to be prevalent in the American society today. The philosophy behind these type of behaviour, seems to be "because I cannot contribute anything to academia myself I will stop others from doing so". I resent that people making serious attempts at learning and improving in academia have to face obstacles as childish as being called a nerd in elementary/high school, to something as serious as having their works challenged by the theory of the Intelligent Design, to being labeled as "professors of Havard with their battered copies of faulkner tucked under their armpits".

Lote-Tree

09-26-2007, 08:06 AM

So let me get this straight. You dislike the idea of someone quoting from another source in order to clarify a point...

No Lambert. You can quote from another source. But if your arguments consists of quotations then I think you lose your individuality in it. I like people's individuality and I want to see that individuality in the arguments they form.

drunkenKOALA

09-26-2007, 08:47 AM

No Lambert. You can quote from another source. But if your arguments consists of quotations then I think you lose your individuality in it. I like people's individuality and I want to see that individuality in the arguments they form.

So is that what this is about? Wasting other people's time at discussing something that they genuinely care about so you can make a character study out of them? Is this your idea of humour?

Don't feed the troll.

Granny5

09-26-2007, 08:53 AM

You know, this was interesting until it got to be hateful. I'm sorry that we all can't understand that art/lit is subjective and not one of us is right and no one is wrong.

Lote-Tree

09-26-2007, 08:57 AM

So is that what this is about?

See my original post.

If you want to..but you don't have to... argue your point please do so.

Wasting other people's time at discussing something that they genuinely care about so you can make a character study out of them?

This is bit unfair. Wanting to see people formulate their own arguments and not use someone else's argument is not character study.

Is this your idea of humour?

No. Idea of humour is join in the mud wrestling without taking anything seriously. There far more important thing to be serious about than get upset over trivial debates on literature...

Don't feed the troll.

If you don't enjoy humour best not partake in this...:D

Peace :D

JCamilo

09-26-2007, 10:54 AM

Actually, I will admit that Lote-Tree may have highlighted some ideas worthy of discussion. His/her central argument seems to be that we might measure artistic merit or worth by popularity. Certainly this is not a new concept.

Certainly not new . Coleridge, one of the great members of this elite, once said he was worried with the "thousand" of new readers reading crap (it was the start of age of romance). Voltaire, the most snob and elitist guy ever and so great because of that, never even considered that the mob should even be educated.
I just know that popularity (which does not mean being popular art, such is folk stories, just what sells a lot) is no measurement for quality. Either good or bad. Popularity is a tiny grain of sand, it lasts a little, quality is usually something timeless.

The difficulty many have had in challenging Lote's assertions is in part owing to a fear of being labeled an "elitist". Personally, I have never shared in this reluctance. I will freely admit to being an "elitist". I will also state that the survival of a work of art and the eventual judgment of history has never had the least to do with the opinions of the "masses" and everything to do with the "elitists". The masses are not inherently stupid... but they simply don't care enough. Elitism has nothing to do with social rank or wealth or formal education. Elitism is an elected affinity. One decides whether art (or any field of discipline) is worthy of serious effort and study. The "elitists" are simply those who do care enough about art to have put forth a good deal of time and effort into a study of the field... whether they be professors, high school teachers, critics, historians... or just highly interested and engaged "common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the term). I would certainly assume that the opinion of the person who has invested far more effort and study in the field of science or medicine would be worth more than the opinions of the masses... at least I don't plan on holding a poll the next time I come down with a virus; I'll go to that "elitist" know-it-all, my Doctor. Why do we then assume that there is something inherently wrong... "snooty"... "elitist"... about the person who has made similar efforts within the arts?

Obviously the notion of a conspiracy of PhDs thar decide what is good is just some fiction - What is good does not depend on anyone's opinion because it is what lasts for more time and space (meaning here different societies) that those "elitists clubs and opinions". The bunch of Greek that decided that Homer was awesome have long past, they are not behind us manipulating our minds to believe in it.
As being part of one elite, it does not matter. But from the momment I know I have how to have access to certain books, time to read over and over, access to a university, etc I would be silly if I would not consider that those who can not do it - I am in Brazil, where those who can not do it are millions - will not see me apart of them about it. Then we co to a soccer game and everything is equal :p
Anyways, we do not need lists, or think X is better than Y. The best defender of a writer's quality is his work, the best evidence the amount of time his influence have created new readings of his works and new writings. The best defense of how Homer was special is how Virgil, Ovid, Dante, Joyce, etc,etc,etc,etc,etc have re-wrote his work. If someone allow me, I would rather be immortal for a 2000 years than popular for 10. That is a good elite.

I greatly suspect it is merely a misguided confusion between popularity and democracy. To question the taste of the populace... is this not akin to questioning democracy? But then Tocqueville probably had it right a century and a half ago when he noted that democracy and art are uneasy bedfellows at best.:(

Or age certainly confunds "the right to have opinions" with "the opinions are right". They certainly see anything traditional as dangerous. One of the mistakes of Democracy is that it is not applied everywhere, It is not meant to be.

Lote-Tree

09-26-2007, 11:01 AM

The best defense of how Homer was special is how Virgil, Ovid, Dante, Joyce, etc,etc,etc,etc,etc have re-wrote his work.

But is Homer special for it's Hexameter Versing or his story telling?

Logos

09-26-2007, 11:10 AM

Please discuss the topic, not each other.

Any further such posts, consisting in part, or entirely of, personal comments, will get that entire post removed.

Petrarch's Love

09-26-2007, 11:11 AM

Petrach's Love - that is a balanced post.

But tell me Pertrach's Love if Faulkner is brilliant as you say - why can't his brilliance engage the readers both children's and adult's a like? And if he understood the human condition really well surely you should easily engaged minds of a lot of readers?

or is Faulkner Brilliant Intellect but very poor story teller? And his art - how brilliant it may be...lacks the art of engaging story telling?
Lote--This is going back a ways, but I must say you had me laughing as I imagined Faulkner scratching his head over how he could aim A Light in August toward "children and adults alike." Not really the best material for a bedtime story.:lol: To address your question, on this point I'll have to say that I agree with Lambert, St. Luke's and others here who have said that current popularity isn't necessarily the thing that indicates that something is a great work of art. This is just as much a fallacy as saying that popularity proves that something is not a great work of art. Popularity proves that a large number of people are enjoying something at a given time, and there can be many reasons for this, one of which may or may not be that it's a good work of art that will make an enduring contribution to the history of human thought. As far as saying that Faulkner must not be great because he's not popular, there are a lot of beautiful, complex and worthwhile things in this world aren't necessarily popular. This may be because they take some extra thought and time to appreciate which many people just don't wish to invest. There are also things that are popular that really don't challenge people to think outside themselves and broaden their horizons. This doesn't mean that these popular things are bad, it just means that they don't serve a purpose that other, perhaps less blatantly popular works do.

But is Homer special for it's Hexameter Versing or his story telling?

Both.

Lote-Tree

09-26-2007, 11:18 AM

Lote--This is going back a ways, but I must say you had me laughing as I imagined Faulkner scratching his head over how he could aim A Light in August toward "children and adults alike."

Well let me then rephrase this...Why can't Faulkner write something that is engaging to a lot of people? :D

Not really the best material for a bedtime story.:lol: To address your question, on this point I'll have to say that I agree with Lambert, St. Luke's and others here who have said that current popularity isn't necessarily the thing that indicates that something is a great work of art.

How can be something great if it does not speak to the many? How can it speak of the human condition if it does not speak to the many? If it only affects the select few...then it would mean Human Condition of the few? If so then there is no such thing as the Human Condition is there?

Aiculík

09-26-2007, 11:20 AM

There were many works written in perfect hexameter, and they are still forgotten. Homer may not be as popular as in the past now, but there are still many people who read it and enjoy it. So don't you think he can't be that bad story-teller?

papayahed

09-26-2007, 11:31 AM

Well let me then rephrase this...Why can't Faulkner write something that is engaging to a lot of people? :D

Because that's not what Faulkner does. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and you can't turn a silk purse into a sow's ear.

Petrarch's Love

09-26-2007, 11:40 AM

The difficulty many have had in challenging Lote's assertions is in part owing to a fear of being labeled an "elitist". Personally, I have never shared in this reluctance. I will freely admit to being an "elitist". I will also state that the survival of a work of art and the eventual judgment of history has never had the least to do with the opinions of the "masses" and everything to do with the "elitists". The masses are not inherently stupid... but they simply don't care enough. Elitism has nothing to do with social rank or wealth or formal education. Elitism is an elected affinity. One decides whether art (or any field of discipline) is worthy of serious effort and study. The "elitists" are simply those who do care enough about art to have put forth a good deal of time and effort into a study of the field... whether they be professors, high school teachers, critics, historians... or just highly interested and engaged "common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the term). I would certainly assume that the opinion of the person who has invested far more effort and study in the field of science or medicine would be worth more than the opinions of the masses... at least I don't plan on holding a poll the next time I come down with a virus; I'll go to that "elitist" know-it-all, my Doctor. Why do we then assume that there is something inherently wrong... "snooty"... "elitist"... about the person who has made similar efforts within the arts?

St. Luke's--Thanks for the eloquent defense of scholars and artists. Certainly this thread has gotten absurd enough that it was time for it. I agree with what you've said here, and on these terms will happily join the "elitist" club. :) I do normally avoid using the term about myself, however, not because I have any problem saying that Faulkner is a better artist than Rowling, but because it does have social connotations that I think give people the wrong idea about why I study literature and tends to immediately put them off any opinion I might be offering. Perhaps we need to invent a more positive term for these happy few. I like the sound of the title guardian of the arts and protector of poets.;)

Lote-Tree

09-26-2007, 11:45 AM

St. Luke's--Thanks for the eloquent defense of scholars and artists. Certainly this thread has gotten absurd enough that it was time for it. I agree with what you've said here, and on these terms will happily join the "elitist" club. :) I do normally avoid using the term about myself, however, not because I have any problem saying that Faulkner is a better artist than Rowling, but because it does have social connotations that I think give people the wrong idea about why I study literature and tends to immediately put them off any opinion I might be offering. Perhaps we need to invent a more positive term for these happy few. I like the sound of the title guardian of the arts and protector of poets.;)

I shall yearn for an Artist that can communicate with all of us and not just the select few :D

Petrarch's Love

09-26-2007, 11:57 AM

Lote-Tree

09-26-2007, 12:05 PM

It is not popular to think in depth about the Human Condition either.

But human condition is something you live through. There is no need to think about it. You Experience it. And you can relate to that experience? And we relate to Artist that communicate this Experience to us? When Meat Loaf sings "I would do anything for Love..." what is there to think about except to feel this?

Not many people spend large portions of their lives questioning the way they relate to the world and to others.

In our own way we all do. It is just that we are not all articulate enough to express this.

When they do, Harry Potter is not really the book that is most likely to inspire them to question and think further and in new ways about the human experience.

Is Art about new way of Experiencing the world? If so it is not about the Human Condition is it?

Great artists have the potential to communicate with all of us. Some of us just aren't interested in spending the time communicating with them.

If it is communicated correctly then we all respond?

Scheherazade

09-26-2007, 12:07 PM

Incidently, Faulkner seems to be winning the popularity contest on the poll here. :)Exactly what I was thinking, PL, just before I read your post :) (though it is not 'popularity' exactly but Faulkner seems to be more widely read than other two authors).

To those who believe that popularity is the real measure of 'quality'> Pizza might be one of the most popular food but that does not necessarily make it the 'best' or healthiest food. What's more, a diet based on only pizza is surely to have some undesirable outcomes in long term. :p

Petrarch's Love

09-26-2007, 12:33 PM

But human condition is something you live through. There is no need to think about it. You Experience it. And you can relate to that experience? And we relate to Artist that communicate this Experience to us? When Meat Loaf sings "I would do anything for Love..." what is there to think about except to feel this?

OK, one more try and then my break time is over and I've got to get back to work.:p Yes, you're right that there are many things in life and art that are simply experienced. Meatloaf and Rowling and many others speak to this well and I think that's a wonderful thing. The thing is that the focus is still on what you experience. You're drawn to these things because they reflect your experience as you see it. Certainly I think one aspect of any good book or story is that it has this quality of reflecting something we can all relate to. Some books, however, push you further, making you think about the human condition not just as something you experience but as something others experience. These books not only reflect something you're familiar with but make you reflect on what you do not just experience on your own by walking around the world.
I personally find Faulkner an interesting example because his basic stories and themes are not really the kind I identify with, or even much like normally. The same stories told by another author might completely leave me cold. All the same, I have genuinely enjoyed reading Faulkner because of the way he puts words on the page. Part of what makes his work so engaging is that it challenges the reader to rethink the way stories are told in books and the way characters are drawn. His descriptions of senses and emotions can be very powerful. Even if we ignore the story for a moment, Faulkner’s style of writing alone can be interesting to talk about and to learn from. The stream of consciousness style itself asks the reader to reflect on how he or she experiences life, and how the people around him or her are experiencing it. At any rate, I’m not going to launch into a defense of Faulkner, because that would be needlessly overkill, but what I’m saying is that enduring works of fiction usually have some extra dimension to them in addition to the basic story—some special way of using words, or depicting characters, or commenting on life (usually all of the above) that sets them apart and causes us not just to experience something but to think about the way we approach that experience and whether it is possible that this same experience is different for others.

Is Art about new way of Experiencing the world? If so it is not about the Human Condition is it?

I truthfully have no idea why experiencing the world in ways that are new to you and understanding the human condition are mutually exclusive. The human condition is not a monolith (unless you're a big Kubrick fan I suppose;)) but a variety of experiences.

SleepyWitch

09-26-2007, 12:36 PM

AS Byatt does :D She is upset that no one reads her "Brilliant-Intellecutal" Books :D

I've only read one book by A.S. Byatt ( Possession, probably enough to put me off reading another one) and I'm in two minds about it... on the one hand, it's clearly a book by a Literature scholar, about Literature scholars and (I assume) for Lit scholars, which is a major pain in the rear, IMHO. on the other hand, I think it's a good enough narrative and it's got lots of interesting twists; she kinda leads the reader on and plays with his/her expectations. it did not strike me as brilliant or particularly intellectual, though. I mean, it was "intellectual" in that it's kinda meta-fictional in a lets-all-play-around-with-lots-of-constructs-because-we're-intellectuals-and-haven't got-anything-better-to-do way, but it certainly was not thought-provoking or profound in any way. it's more like a mutual-admiration-society for Lit professors, while the main characters are not very interesting (quirky, weird etc) but just as plain and boring as any old Englishman/woman can be.
if there's anything interesting about it (apart from the plot twists, which are really great), then that's the question whether we are meant admire her characters or maintain some degree of ironic distance (after all, it is about a mediocre present day couple poking around in the lives of a mediocre 19th c couple... so does the fact that the present day couple are lit profs make it any more interesting?)
/rant

Lote-Tree

09-26-2007, 12:38 PM

OK, one more try and then my break time is over and I've got to get back to work.:p Yes, you're right that there are many things in life and art that are simply experienced. Meatloaf and Rowling and many others speak to this well and I think that's a wonderful thing. The thing is that the focus is still on what you experience. You're drawn to these things because they reflect your experience as you see it. Certainly I think one aspect of any good book or story is that it has this quality of reflecting something we can all relate to. Some books, however, push you further, making you think about the human condition not just as something you experience but as something others experience. These books not only reflect something you're familiar with but make you reflect on what you do not just experience on your own by walking around the world.
I personally find Faulkner an interesting example because his basic stories and themes are not really the kind I identify with, or even much like normally. The same stories told by another author might completely leave me cold. All the same, I have genuinely enjoyed reading Faulkner because of the way he puts words on the page. Part of what makes his work so engaging is that it challenges the reader to rethink the way stories are told in books and the way characters are drawn. His descriptions of senses and emotions can be very powerful. Even if we ignore the story for a moment, Faulkner’s style of writing alone can be interesting to talk about and to learn from. The stream of consciousness style itself asks the reader to reflect on how he or she experiences life, and how the people around him or her are experiencing it. At any rate, I’m not going to launch into a defense of Faulkner, because that would be needlessly overkill, but what I’m saying is that enduring works of fiction usually have some extra dimension to them in addition to the basic story—some special way of using words, or depicting characters, or commenting on life (usually all of the above) that sets them apart and causes us not just to experience something but to think about the way we approach that experience and whether it is possible that this same experience is different for others.

I truthfully have no idea why experiencing the world in ways that are new to you and understanding the human condition are mutually exclusive. The human condition is not a monolith (unless you're a big Kubrick fan I suppose;)) but a variety of experiences.

Petrach I have very much enjoyed your responses. Thank you very much for taking the time to post.

And Yes. I am very much a Stanley Kubrick fan :D

NickAdams

09-26-2007, 12:53 PM

Petrach I have very much enjoyed your responses. Thank you very much for taking the time to post.

And Yes. I am very much a Stanley Kubrick fan :D

A Kubrick fan and a defender of Rowling; that's what they call a paradox.;)

NathanFisher

09-26-2007, 01:20 PM

Lote, what you have said is the same as saying Disney was a better film-maker than Kubrick, because more people have been 'engaged' by, say, The Jungle Book' than they have 'Dr Strangelove'.

And 'power corrupts' and 'love is redemptive' are hardly revelatory insights.

I have not read Byatt or Faulkner, but I did enjoy the Harry Potter series very much. I wouldn't say, however, that because more people have read Rowling than Byatt that makes the former a better author. More people have read (and thus, presumably, been 'engaged' by) Rowling than they have Homer, or Zola. To say that this means Rowling is a better author is verging on the absurd.

JCamilo

09-26-2007, 02:25 PM

But is Homer special for it's Hexameter Versing or his story telling?

Petrach's Love got my "both", but I would say, Homer is much more special for his storytelling. Anyone who manages, in any form, to tell such stories that 2000 years after we still recall, basically with the same elements (not form) that Homer used and, without fear we can say, the two works the serve as foundantion of the entire western literature, must be a hell of storyteller.

Millions of books sold are nothing close to his popularity :p

Anyways, another reason to why popularity is tricking is because selling is not only about a free choice, but depends on marketing, market offer, space, adversiting, etc. And this only happens if you already have money. There is a strong tendency of what have money to make more money.

Virgil

09-26-2007, 02:49 PM

Well let me then rephrase this...Why can't Faulkner write something that is engaging to a lot of people? :D

He did.

Faulkner received a second Pulitzer Prize for this, his last novel. The Reivers is a comic novel that tells of three unlikely car thieves from rural Mississippi — eleven-year-old Lucius “Loosh” Priest; a hapless worker for Loosh’s grandfather, Boon Hogganbeck; and the family’s black coachman, Ned McCaslin. When they steal Loosh’s grandfather's car to go on a joyride to Memphis, they embark upon a picaresque adventure involving horse smuggling, sheriff’s deputies, jail, and Miss Reba’s brothel.
http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~egjbp/faulkner/n-reiv.html

And did you know that Faulkner wrote some very popular Hollywood movie scripts. http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~egjbp/faulkner/mph.html

Lote-Tree

09-26-2007, 03:22 PM

Time to put this thread to rest :D

J K Rowling
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/blog/rowling.jpg

What is in Hogwarts is ours to keep
For it either makes us happy or makes us weep.

:D :D :D

Peace to you all
regards,
lote

PeterL

09-26-2007, 06:23 PM

A Kubrick fan and a defender of Rowling; that's what they call a paradox.;)

What might be paradoxical about that?

stlukesguild

09-26-2007, 07:57 PM

How can be something great if it does not speak to the many? How can it speak of the human condition if it does not speak to the many? If it only affects the select few...then it would mean Human Condition of the few? If so then there is no such thing as the Human Condition is there?

I think the problem here is that you have made the assumption that it is one of the central goals of an artist to speak to the many... the masses. As an artist myself, albeit in the visual field, I can tell you that for the most part this is not true. Artists strive to convey something to an audience... to engage in a dialog with an audience... but largely their intentions are quite selfish. They deal with subjects that interest them and speak in a language that they find interesting and imagine an audience not unlike themselves. Certainly there are those who are politically minded and imagine creating an art to reach the masses... but in most cases they are misguided as the masses aren't all that concerned with egalitarianism or other ideals... especially if these inconvenience their more immediate desires. On the other hand... there are artists who quite intentionally pander to an audience... seeking to satiate their wants... but only so as to assure themselves the largest possible paycheck. The size of an artist's audience proves nothing about his or her artistic merit. There are artists of great merit whose works speak to a huge audience... and those whose audience is quite limited. I doubt that James Joyce will ever garner a huge following... but those who have been enamored of his works include a great many critics, historians... and probably most important: a great many subsequent writers. You might remember that Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Mao were all able to move enormous audiences... are we to assume that they were great leaders based solely upon these numbers? Art is not and has never been democratic, egalitarian, or populist. Art has always been "elitist". It is about making decisions and value judgments. Lambert was taken to task for having quoted the opinions of others... and yet is not the same thing being done when someone quotes the popularity of an artist as "proof" of their artistic merit? Am I to assume that the opinions of the masses (many who have little experience in the field) are worth more than the opinions of a trusted critic... scholar... subsequent artist... or myself? If I dare to declare that Faulkner or Beethoven or Michelangelo are artists of uncommon talent... even "genius"... I am not basing this opinion upon some poll... but rather upon my own experience at having invested some real effort in the fields of art, music and literature.

A Kubrick fan and a defender of Rowling; that's what they call a paradox.

What might be paradoxical about that?

Perhaps that is not paradoxical in itself. I am a fan of J.S. Bach... and Johnny Cash. The paradox arises, however, when someone admits to an admiration of Kubrick... in spite of arguing that it is the ability to reach and entertain the masses that makes for great art. Personally, I think Kubrick was great. I absolutely love Doctor Strangelove... but I wonder, if popularity is the end-all/be-all... how one could prefer Kubrick to a good Arnold Schwarzenegger film, a Spielberg blockbuster, Titanic, Star Wars, or Shrek?

SleepyWitch... I think you make some valid points with regard to A.S. Byatt. Personally I "liked" Possession... but I didn't "love" it. Like a good deal of Umberto Eco's work (excepting The Name of the Rose) I certainly do get too much a feeling of an intellectual trying too hard to impress: lots of literary allusions and narratives once removed. On the other hand... I find that some writers such as J.L. Borges or Italo Calvino can pull this off brilliantly. I don't think that it is necessarily due to a lack of "interesting" characters or exciting events. A great writer can unveil the magical in the most mundane. Proust and Madame Bovary come immediately to mind... to say nothing of Lawrence Sterne who could turn an abortive attempt at telling virtually everything about a complete nobody into a masterpiece of British literature.

ClickForth

09-26-2007, 10:26 PM

okokok

JCamilo

09-26-2007, 11:36 PM

SleepyWitch... I think you make some valid points with regard to A.S. Byatt. Personally I "liked" Possession... but I didn't "love" it. Like a good deal of Umberto Eco's work (excepting The Name of the Rose) I certainly do get too much a feeling of an intellectual trying too hard to impress: lots of literary allusions and narratives once removed. On the other hand... I find that some writers such as J.L. Borges or Italo Calvino can pull this off brilliantly.

I remember a serie of Interview of Ernesto Sabato and Borges where Sabato argues that Borges is a great writer because but he wrote for writers (which we could easily replace literature scholar) and said Joyce was one of those also. We could add easily Nabokov, Pychon,Woolf, Milton, Voltaire, Goethe and many others which public was certainly members of "literate elite" because their references and proposals demanded a certain knowledge. Dante certainly didn't wrote his Comedy thinking the same public that listen to some bard in a tavern would read it.
The point that there is no problem doing it - we can not demand a writer to write for a public. Simple as that.
Anyways, Umberto Eco is a great academic, I always tell that reading his essays is more enjoyable than his romances, even the name of the rose, because his hand is heavy and he did not found the correct peace although the right idea of using literature as references, which he learnt with his models, Joyce and Borges, is not a bad one.
As Calvino, he is a bit light weight compare to Eco's academic production and as borges... someone, not me, said Calvino was Borges in bad day. Of course, to be any borges, you need to be good, so that may be a compliment because Calvino did some good stuff indeed.