Literary snobs are kinda most annoying when they have good intentions

[SirJazzHands]

Am I the only who is terribly bothered by a comment that goes a little something like this:

"I feel like I was supposed to like it, but I just can't. I feel like I'm missing out on something. The author is too intellectual for me, it's beyond my grasp."

While yes, sometimes literature does require a little bit of research to know what it's getting at.. if a reader doesn't feel up to putting into the time because he or she just DOESN'T LIKE the book.. I just don't understand. Why say you're "supposed" to like something? You don't like a book that's in the "canon". Big deal? Not everyone is going to appreciate James Joyce or whatever.

What does everyone else think about this? Why should you be ashamed of something you don't understand, appreciate, or enjoy?

[Dark Muse]

I agree with you. A person should not feel as if they must like a book just because of its status. Nor should a person feel as if it reflects badly upon them becasue they did not happen to like a certain book that has accalim.

I have no qaulms about saying that I could not get through Lord Jim and really don't like the way Conrad writes, and that it confussed the heck out of me.

Or that I really did not like A Portrait of An Artist.

And after reading some of Melville's short stories I really have zero interest in attempting to read Moby Dick, becasue I find it a bit tedius and painful trying to get through Melvilles writing, I could not imagine attempting to read an entire novel he wrote.

These are my opinions and I am entiled to them, and I will own them without needing to feel like I am somehow wrong in feeling this way.

[Etienne]

I disagree. If you don't understand something it's normal you might not like it. Liking something is not just taking something and instantly liking it without effort or anything, in fact, the greatest passions are those for which you have to work.

It is true that it might be possible to simply not like a work, even after having understood it, but I don't think that letting your first impressions on a work be the best way to appreciate, in the long term literature, especially in the case of a dilettante. This work for anything.

The point here is not liking what you are told to like at all. It is simply to give more consideration to works who bear some "authority". Sometimes a work will not be at it's most enjoyable on a first-read or without actually giving the necessary time and reflexion to the work. The problem, is that when one expects to enjoy a book a-la-bestseller in order to find it good. We live in an era where entertainment is given the easy way. But anyone who delve is "more demanding" forms of entertainment often won't look back unless to simply relax (even though it's less fun).

In the same way, one could consider the intellectual effort of some forms of entertainment comparable to the physical efforts in some sports. Try to play football "just to relax", it won't be very enjoyable. Also someone who doesn't know how to play football won't have as much fun as someone who has some ability at it and it might be for that person the best form of entertainment, much more fun that any less demanding hobbies. It is just the same for intellectual abilities and intellectual "hobbies or sports".

Having said that, there are some authority bearing works that I do not enjoy that much, and do not feel guilty about it.

[Dark Muse]

I understand where you are coming from and agree with some of your points, but I do not completely agree with everything you say. I do not think a person needs to feel obligated to enjoy a piece of literature just because it is "great" and with so many other things out there to read, I do not think one need spend time on a work that simply does not appeal to them. I think even if one does not initially understand something, they can still get a flavor as to whether or not it does appeal to them, and if there interest is sparked they will take the effort to delve more deeply into it.

An example for me is Henry James. His writing completely baffles me. I do not understand half of what he says most the time, but there is still something there which is of interest to me, which makes me want to read more of his work and makes me want to try and put more effort into it. Because I am intrigued by it and do find it interesting.

On the other hand, I had read Portrait of An Artist twice, and in one of my classes we discussed Joyce, and the book. I might have come to understand the work better, but I still found it torturous to have to read, and my apperception for the book was not improved. I do not say that Joyce is not a talented writer, but it just does not appeal to me, and putting effort into the work had not made me like the work any better. It simply was not to my taste.

[Etienne]

I do not think a person needs to feel obligated to enjoy a piece of literature just because it is "great"

I agree with you, I did not say one needs to feel obligated, but that one should give more consideration.


they can still get a flavor as to whether or not it does appeal to them, and if there interest is sparked they will take the effort to delve more deeply into it.

I agree, however I think that this spark often has to be like a thunderstorm to induce some people into intellectual effort. I'm not pointing at anything or anyone, one might read solely for relaxing, in the same way as one might do physical exercise only to relax (take walks, and not enjoy more demanding physical efforts).


On the other hand, I had read Portrait of An Artist twice, and in one of my classes we discussed Joyce, and the book. I might have come to understand the work better, but I still found it torturous to have to read, and my apperception for the book was not improved.

Well I thought that Portrait of the Artist was at most alright. It's reputation probably only lies in the fact that it was carried by Ulysses, which I found much more interesting.

[SirJazzHands]

You really do appear as if you're picking on someone or something, though. What's wrong with reading or exercising solely for enjoyment?
Reading isn't inherently intellectual, it's only made like that because of the stigma of "It's written down so it has more of a basis than if it's oral", or something along those lines.
I could write down a bunch of drivel after getting a doctorate but that doesn't mean I actually know any more "about life" than someone below me.
I mean, Isaac Newton dropped out of school basically, if memory serves me correctly. If that doesn't prove something, I don't know what does.
I'm kind of not sure what I'm getting at to be honest, except for the fact that reading shouldn't always be an analytical thing. You shouldn't have to "delve deeper" into something if the information found within has no relevance to you whatsoever. If you don't relate to a king being deceived by three witches, or a fisherman out at sea searching for a whale, well... that's perfectly understandable, not many people can.
(Eh let's not get started on how awful Macbeth is, though. I've read about 5 of his plays and Macbeth is by far the worst, even worse than Romeo and Juliet.)

[LitNetIsGreat]

(Eh let's not get started on how awful Macbeth is, though. I've read about 5 of his plays and Macbeth is by far the worst, even worse than Romeo and Juliet.)

:brickwall

Come back to it in a few years time and if you are still interested in reading you will laugh at that statement.

[Dark Muse]

You really do appear as if you're picking on someone or something, though. What's wrong with reading or exercising solely for enjoyment?
Reading isn't inherently intellectual, it's only made like that because of the stigma of "It's written down so it has more of a basis than if it's oral", or something along those lines.
I could write down a bunch of drivel after getting a doctorate but that doesn't mean I actually know any more "about life" than someone below me.
I mean, Isaac Newton dropped out of school basically, if memory serves me correctly. If that doesn't prove something, I don't know what does.
I'm kind of not sure what I'm getting at to be honest, except for the fact that reading shouldn't always be an analytical thing. You shouldn't have to "delve deeper" into something if the information found within has no relevance to you whatsoever. If you don't relate to a king being deceived by three witches, or a fisherman out at sea searching for a whale, well... that's perfectly understandable, not many people can.
(Eh let's not get started on how awful Macbeth is, though. I've read about 5 of his plays and Macbeth is by far the worst, even worse than Romeo and Juliet.)

I do agree that there is nothing wrong with reading for lieasure as it were. And that sometimes it is good to just sit down with a book and read it for what it is, without having to turn your reading experince into an intellectual project.

But on the other hand, I do enjoy gaining a deeper understanding of some works, and I think it is good to sometimes put a little more effort into your reading.

You do not have to with every book you read, nor should you feel the need to everytime you read something. But I think one can have a balance between the two, of both reading for pure relaxion, as well as reading for more intelecutal reasons.

As to the examples you gave above, I think you are over simplyfying it a bit. But than maybe that was your intent. But though I cannot say I have a desire to read Moby Dick, it is about more than just a man searching for a whale.

[JBI]

It seems this sort of question always comes back to examples like Joyce, or for poetry perhaps Hart Crane. In truth, there is good, accessible literature, and there is bad complicated literature. My advise is, not to dismiss it outright, but if something isn't doing the trick, just put it aside. My first Joyce experience was that of a puzzled teenager trying to make his way through the endless streets of Dublin. Yet when I came back, though I am no Joyce scholar, I learned to pick out things more clearly, and took the time to try and understand the book more closely.

In truth, if it is canonical, most likely it is for a reason. If the book doesn't work for you though, just put it down, and leave it for a while, and come back some other time, or don't. Reading should be enjoyable, and that enjoyment shouldn't be compromised.

Sooner or later though, I think all readers develop a sort of knowledge of the patterns of literature, and the way they connect with each other. This knowledge really makes certain books, and poems, and things quite boring, when taken relative to the other things the person has read. As a result, they seek other genres and modes, and more complex books, or more flowery verse, or whatever. That is when guys like the Joyce of Ulysses and Finnegans Wake tend to want reading, not before then really.

I personally will confess I find myself rather bored with most novels in general, and have gone over to reading primarily verse and essays (both contemporary and canonical). I still wouldn't go so far as to say though, that prose is boring, or "too simple". Likewise, I must acknowledge that my favorite novelist happens to be Jane Austen, a rather simple writer (though with many, many dimensions), yet I cannot accuse writers of being "too complex."

When it comes down to it, you should always read what you want, and put aside that which isn't enjoyable to you. Sooner or later, everything really becomes quite surprising and you will find yourself searching for surprises when ever you read. It is at those times when I think complex things need to be taken out, and read closely.

It's like the person listening to Wagner for the first time - quite overwhelming. I first saw a video of Das Rhinegold a few years ago, and absolutely loathed it. Then a year and a bit later, I watched a video of Die Walkure, of the same production (James Levine, in the Met, 1990) and became entranced by it. On watching Das Rhinegold for the second time, I had a much better experience, and now, after listening to the Ring countless times, I will say it is perhaps my preferred listening music, on the majority of occasions.

Things just need time to settle in, one cannot just jump in. I still cannot make much sense out of Derrida's writing (and Kristeva is even more difficult), yet what I have gotten out of his work has changed my own train of thought completely. Things take time, you just need to be patient, or you just need to ignore that which isn't working for you.

That being said, you shouldn't go on a rant and say something like, "All Modern poetry is random words and psychotic babbling." you should merely say, I prefer, right now, to read other works. I prefer to read Faulkner, over Joyce, or Stevens over Crane, or Emily Dickinson over Walt Whitman. That isn't to say those others are bad, it is merely to outline an idiosyncratic preference.

[SirJazzHands]

"Come back to it in a few years time and if you are still interested in reading you will laugh at that statement."

I'll come back to the other two posts later, because I can hardly hear myself think with my roommate's insanely ****ty music, but this is something I don't need to think about: Macbeth is awful. That play just shouldn't even exist. Macbeth himself is ****ing stupid. It's his whole fault ANY of that happened. Sure, maybe it like, reflects human psychology a bit, I think that's cool, however, most people don't just go like "Oh. These three witches whom I've never met before think I should kill the king, because I'm going to be king too!" And just.. well to be honest, I honestly do not know how to describe how hilariously stupid Macbeth is, so I'll stop.
I mean don't get me wrong. Loved Hamlet and Julius Caesar but that's because those plays seemed a bit... realistic. Macbeth.. what loser is going to put himself into trouble like that?

[JBI]

I thought so the first time reading Macbeth too - then I reread it, and absolutely loved it. The plausibility of the story is only secondary, the imagery, and characters are central. Plot was never Shakespeare forte, as he stole almost all of them.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well I’m not going to defend the literary merits of Macbeth, but you seem to be forgetting about the context, amongst other things. In Shakespeare’s time people were hung for being witches by the cart load, and of course it is based on something much, much earlier than that. Witchcraft, fate and all of that stuff was something really feared at the time. Perhaps more importantly the idea of the witches may simply represent the idea of fate itself, of destiny. Fate and the idea of your life being mapped out for you was also something strongly believed in, you don’t always have to read these things on a strict, literal level.

P.S. Tell your friend to think of the neighbours.:flare:

[Dark Muse]

I haven't read Macbeth, but I saw it preformed, and I rather enjoyed it myself.

[Etienne]

You really do appear as if you're picking on someone or something, though. What's wrong with reading or exercising solely for enjoyment?

Read my post as it is, not what you think it implies, I never said anything is wrong with it.

And the rest of your post was or beside the point or pointless...


I must acknowledge that my favorite novelist happens to be Jane Austen

:eek:

:D

[JCamilo]

You dont have to understand anything completely to enjoy it, but what does this have to do with intelectual snobs ? Seems like you just want to take a jab with however you think it is an intelectual snob because the overall attitude you describe in your can be found in any group of people.

[PeterL]

Am I the only who is terribly bothered by a comment that goes a little something like this:

"I feel like I was supposed to like it, but I just can't. I feel like I'm missing out on something. The author is too intellectual for me, it's beyond my grasp."

Whether I am bothered by such comments depends on who makes the comment and what the comment is made about.


While yes, sometimes literature does require a little bit of research to know what it's getting at.. if a reader doesn't feel up to putting into the time because he or she just DOESN'T LIKE the book.. I just don't understand. Why say you're "supposed" to like something? You don't like a book that's in the "canon". Big deal? Not everyone is going to appreciate James Joyce or whatever.

What does everyone else think about this? Why should you be ashamed of something you don't understand, appreciate, or enjoy?

Good literature very seldom requires any research to be understood. If the reader can't understand a piece of literature, then the author failed. The purpose of language, in any form, is to communicate. Failure to communicate is failure in literature. Not understanding a book and not liking it are too different things. I understand Walt Whitman's writing perfectly well, but I don't like it. You mentioned James Joyce, and his writing was varied in type; I enjoy reading Joyce's writing, but people are not expected to understand Finnegan's Wake.

There is nothing wrong with not liking literature that is in the canon, because much of the literature included in the canon is not included because it is good, but because it is thought that people should be exposed to that literature.

[Drkshadow03]

. . . the literature included in the canon is not included because it is good, but because it is thought that people should be exposed to that literature.

Which books in the Canon do you consider bad?

[Virgil]

Am I the only who is terribly bothered by a comment that goes a little something like this:

"I feel like I was supposed to like it, but I just can't. I feel like I'm missing out on something. The author is too intellectual for me, it's beyond my grasp."

While yes, sometimes literature does require a little bit of research to know what it's getting at.. if a reader doesn't feel up to putting into the time because he or she just DOESN'T LIKE the book.. I just don't understand. Why say you're "supposed" to like something? You don't like a book that's in the "canon". Big deal? Not everyone is going to appreciate James Joyce or whatever.

What does everyone else think about this? Why should you be ashamed of something you don't understand, appreciate, or enjoy?

A snob only has an effect if you are insecure. The question then arises, why are you insecure?

[stlukesguild]

I agree that the primary reason for reading is to derive pleasure. Of course some people derive pleasure from that which appears quite difficult or incomprehensible to others. As one grows more experienced in reading one discovers that the easier pleasures grow boring... tiresome and cliché. With time I found myself drawn to that literature which had gained something of a status... canonical literature if you will. No matter how great someone tells you that it is there is no way that you can be forced into liking something that just doesn't work for you. In some cases a first reading failed for me (as with As I Lay Dying or the poetry of Emily Dickinson) while through a second later reading I discovered a whole world... I found myself enthralled where initially I was bored. This does not mean that you ever can/will/should like everything just because it has achieved a certain status. Nor does it mean that you will not have preferences that are contrary to accepted status of certain writers. Personally I prefer Proust, Borges, and Kafka to Joyce. I also prefer Pierre Bonnard, Max Beckmann and Paul Klee to Picasso. I realize, however, that my personal preferences are not the same as the artist's real status.

I completely disagree with the assertion that literature which fails to is a failure of the author. Certainly, is some instances, it may be... but more likely it is a failure of the reader. As a younger reader I struggled through Keats and Shelley and Shakespeare... most any form of poetry and any writing which employed older, archaic vocabulary. That failure was mine because I did not grasp how poetry worked... its flow or music. I was also put off by the challenges of an unknown vocabulary. The goal of the artist is not necessarily to reach the broadest possible audience. Some artists/writers employ a more difficult... even hermetic language. In other cases the artist/writers are creating within a tradition that may not be familiar to the reader. No one...without a lot of historical background knowledge... is going to pick up the Divine Comedy and get what the writer has communicated without making some concerted effort. That effort is your choice. It is an elective affinity. If you believe the results are worth the effort you will probably put such forth; if not, not.

[stlukesguild]

Which books in the Canon do you consider bad?

Good question. There certainly is a large difference between suggestion that certain canonical books just don't work for me... that I don't like them personally... and the suggestion that they are bad... or at least "not good".:confused:

[curlyqlink]

I'm not sure this is "snobbery". Actually, I'm not sure what "snobbery" is.

I came to the realization some years ago that a "wine snob" is someone who can afford to drink better wine than I can. So maybe a literary snob is just someone who has better taste in literature?

Is there really no difference in taste, in discernment, in aesthetic refinement? Really? And I think an aesthetic sensibility is something we have to work at; it doesn't just happen. Someone who doesn't at first like difficult books, and learns to like them, is doing themselves a favor, it seems to me.

I don't say this with any illusions that I am part of the elite. I like The Three Stooges and fall asleep if I try to watch opera.

I think snobbery gets confused with pretension. I can't bear people who pretend they like opera when they'd rather be watching the Stooges. But people who have a taste for opera, who have learned to enjoy this long and difficult art form? Them, I just envy.

[PeterL]

Which books in the Canon do you consider bad?

Did I say that I considered any of them "bad"? There are quite a few that I would not consider worthy of being classics.

[Drkshadow03]

Did I say that I considered any of them "bad"? There are quite a few that I would not consider worthy of being classics.

Thanks for elaborating. What books do you consider to be unworthy of being classics and why?

[PeterL]

Thanks for elaborating. What books do you consider to be unworthy of being classics and why?

Anything by Joseph Conrad for a start. He was not a good writer, as far as the mechanics of writing go, and his books lack universality. Some people include some of Nathaniel West's books among 20th century classics, but, like Conrad, West's writing was not very good, and his books also lacked universality.

I could go on, if I had more time right now. I would suggest that oyu take a look at Harold Bloom's list and see if there is anything that you might consider dropping.
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtbloom.html

Consider also what is not included that is better and more universal. Many of the books listed will be completely forgotten in less than a hundred years.

[JCamilo]

The notion that a book who is not understood is a failure of the author is a complete non-sense.
Once, we have books who are read for thousands years and several different cultures. Blaming the writer for the incapacity to predict what all those cultures will think and how they will develop their lingustic/communicative aspects is hilarious.
Second, Poetic language is exactly the language who use figurative language to express not the obvious. It is rather clear that the objective of poetry - the highest art form of writing - is not to make understadment easier. Clear and objective writing is for Cientific texts of journalism and any kid can tell how "good" their literature is.
Creating such rule that an artist must be limited by the obvious (since 99% of readers will only graps the obvious) is ridiculous. A good artist will aim to break such limit, not follow it. It is art we are talking.
It is impossible to understand the majority of great books with your first reading. Exactly because great writers create works with different level of meanings, complexity that will keep raising questions, will be used a hundred times, will ask for re-readings since there can be something new to grasp. That is why Paulo Coelho or Dan Brown suck. People read it, enjoy and that is it. You understand them very well. Nothing to add, nothing to create. Compare with the Divine Comedy and Dante four levels of significance. Here lies the difference of a great work and a bad work. Complexity of significance (not exactly of text, altough likes of Joyce could use the language to create the complexity). So, it is rather expected to find readers not understanding a work and that is not a failure of the writer.
Even because, in this silly failure thing (as if we fail in life, writing is not the olympic games) is rather dumb. If a SINGLE writer manages to understand one text, than it is rather obvious that text can be understood and other writers failing to do so, are just unable to do so, becasuse their own capacity. And Even Finnegans Wake have one reader that understand a good deal of it.

[JCamilo]

Anything by Joseph Conrad for a start. He was not a good writer, as far as the mechanics of writing go, and his books lack universality. Some people include some of Nathaniel West's books among 20th century classics, but, like Conrad, West's writing was not very good, and his books also lacked universality.

If he is not a good writer because he lacks universality then using his book about an african colony of XIX century to talk about America and Vietna would be impossible. And that happened and curiously enough, one of the most memorable movies of all time. Please find another argument about Conrad.



I could go on, if I had more time right now. I would suggest that oyu take a look at Harold Bloom's list and see if there is anything that you might consider dropping.
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtbloom.html

Bloom list is not the Canon. It is his opinion and flawed like any human being.

Consider also what is not included that is better and more universal. Many of the books listed will be completely forgotten in less than a hundred years.

[PeterL]

If he is not a good writer because he lacks universality then using his book about an african colony of XIX century to talk about America and Vietna would be impossible. And that happened and curiously enough, one of the most memorable movies of all time. Please find another argument about Conrad.

I am amazed that anyone would have used anything by Conrad in relation to Vietnam. My opinion stands. If you disagree then continue to, if you wish. If you bothered to read my post, then you already know that his lack of universality was secondary.



Bloom list is not the Canon. It is his opinion and flawed like any human being.

Of course it is his opinion, but it closely reflects what is accepted by the world at large. Do you have a better list of that ilk?


The notion that a book who is not understood is a failure of the author is a complete non-sense.
Once, we have books who are read for thousands years and several different cultures. Blaming the writer for the incapacity to predict what all those cultures will think and how they will develop their lingustic/communicative aspects is hilarious.
Second, Poetic language is exactly the language who use figurative language to express not the obvious. It is rather clear that the objective of poetry - the highest art form of writing - is not to make understadment easier. Clear and objective writing is for Cientific texts of journalism and any kid can tell how "good" their literature is.
Creating such rule that an artist must be limited by the obvious (since 99% of readers will only graps the obvious) is ridiculous. A good artist will aim to break such limit, not follow it. It is art we are talking.
It is impossible to understand the majority of great books with your first reading. Exactly because great writers create works with different level of meanings, complexity that will keep raising questions, will be used a hundred times, will ask for re-readings since there can be something new to grasp. That is why Paulo Coelho or Dan Brown suck. People read it, enjoy and that is it. You understand them very well. Nothing to add, nothing to create. Compare with the Divine Comedy and Dante four levels of significance. Here lies the difference of a great work and a bad work. Complexity of significance (not exactly of text, altough likes of Joyce could use the language to create the complexity). So, it is rather expected to find readers not understanding a work and that is not a failure of the writer.
Even because, in this silly failure thing (as if we fail in life, writing is not the olympic games) is rather dumb. If a SINGLE writer manages to understand one text, than it is rather obvious that text can be understood and other writers failing to do so, are just unable to do so, becasuse their own capacity. And Even Finnegans Wake have one reader that understand a good deal of it.

So what purpose does language have other than to communicate?

[kelby_lake]

Well, it should at least be memorable- although if prose is pretty but communicates nothing (cough, twilight) it's worthless.

[JCamilo]

I am amazed that anyone would have used anything by Conrad in relation to Vietnam. My opinion stands. If you disagree then continue to, if you wish. If you bothered to read my post, then you already know that his lack of universality was secondary.

In relation to Conrad that was the only thing you mentioned.
And I know you have your opinion. The problem is that someone just amazed you (just a long time ago), going as evidence against it. So, you keep your opinion if you wish so (The fact that a brazilian like me read and ehjoy Conrad 100 years after should stand up about the so called universality of Conrad)
A side note: I do not think Universality is any possible criteria, what it means anyways?No culture, artwork, text is really appliable to all cultures and societies, maybe we can say that for scientifc laws, but that is what they are supposed to be.




Of course it is his opinion, but it closely reflects what is accepted by the world at large. Do you have a better list of that ilk?

They would be all lists, the ideal would be using many lists from many different opinions, but since not everyone will use the same criteria to build the list it may be even more flawed when we get closer to our time. (And perhaps being flawed is what adds personality to anything, so we should accept it. There is a canon, but not bothered to write down the list).

As the other post,
Literature is not the same as language. It only uses language and like all art it happens inside a communicative action. But what they are communicating may be the aesthetical emotion not the pure information. So, that is why Art have different uses for language.
That is why great artworks last even if the interpretation of society have no relation to the artist's aim. Take Monalisa, people still have no idea what it says, what is communicates. But it causes something on the observer, something that may be false in the sense it is not the truth of its creation. But it happens.

[Etienne]

So what purpose does language have other than to communicate?

Aesthetics... I'm amazed one should have to precise it in a literature forum...

[JCamilo]

Things aside, moderm social communication theory would not help also to sustain the idea that communication only happens when one understands another, but that rather when one interpretate the other. Every model will show that between the creation of the discuss (as simple as I want water) may lose his real signification until it arrives in the potential listener (or reader, or watcher, etc).
So, even if Language is meant to communication it is rather impossible to claim there is only communication if everyone understand each other and that language will fail if my interpretation is different from anyone else.

[PeterL]

In relation to Conrad that was the only thing you mentioned.

False



And I know you have your opinion. The problem is that someone just amazed you (just a long time ago), going as evidence against it. So, you keep your opinion if you wish so (The fact that a brazilian like me read and ehjoy Conrad 100 years after should stand up about the so called universality of Conrad)

Perhaps that you are not fluent in English resulted in you not reapizing that Conrads writing was so poor. It does amaze me that you would think Conrad to have been a good writer, which might also have led you to mistakingly consider Conrad's message to be universal.


A side note: I do not think Universality is any possible criteria, what it means anyways?No culture, artwork, text is really appliable to all cultures and societies, maybe we can say that for scientifc laws, but that is what they are supposed to be.

I disagree. Universality is foremost among the criteria for good literature. Humans are humans, so something that applies to some applies to many. Culture is a short-term local thing, that is only a matter of how the universal is applied to local situation.


They would be all lists, the ideal would be using many lists from many different opinions, but since not everyone will use the same criteria to build the list it may be even more flawed when we get closer to our time. (And perhaps being flawed is what adds personality to anything, so we should accept it. There is a canon, but not bothered to write down the list).

Anyone can make a list. I agree that until a common set of criteria will be developed, it will be impossible to know what should be in the canon.


As the other post,
Literature is not the same as language. It only uses language and like all art it happens inside a communicative action. But what they are communicating may be the aesthetical emotion not the pure information. So, that is why Art have different uses for language.

Literature is written language, regardless of what the authors may be trying to communicate, the purpose of language is communication. Language can't be used as a replacement for steel beams, or for anything els. It can only communicate. Written language, as something devised by humans is an art.


That is why great artworks last even if the interpretation of society have no relation to the artist's aim. Take Monalisa, people still have no idea what it says, what is communicates. But it causes something on the observer, something that may be false in the sense it is not the truth of its creation. But it happens.

So you agree that great literature is universal, do you not?


Aesthetics... I'm amazed one should have to precise it in a literature forum...

So you agree that language has no purpose except communication.


Things aside, moderm social communication theory would not help also to sustain the idea that communication only happens when one understands another, but that rather when one interpretate the other. Every model will show that between the creation of the discuss (as simple as I want water) may lose his real signification until it arrives in the potential listener (or reader, or watcher, etc).
So, even if Language is meant to communication it is rather impossible to claim there is only communication if everyone understand each other and that language will fail if my interpretation is different from anyone else.

Communication is a two way street. it only happens when the receiver interprets what the sender intended. If your interpretation is different from the interpretations of everyone else, then it suggests that you have a cognitive problem. Language often has multiple possible interpretations, but a skilled user of language will keep extraneous interpretations to a minimum.

Imagine if agreement on meaning weren't a necessary part of language: Two people could sit at a table, and one might describe a football game, while the other understood it as a recipe for making explosives. That might be amusing, but it wouldn't do any good for either of them.

[JCamilo]

False

So, plese quote it again, my english is not fluent enough to read what you have said.



Perhaps that you are not fluent in English resulted in you not reapizing that Conrads writing was so poor. It does amaze me that you would think Conrad to have been a good writer, which might also have led you to mistakingly consider Conrad's message to be universal.

Hah, are you telling me that a book that have more than one century of life was only read by those not fluent enough in English? I mean, Greene, Borges, Fitzgerald, Hemingway they all have problems with english, right?
It is getting clear your relation with Conrad is bad and this criticism of universality cannt stand the evidence that Conrad theme was used for another war, decades later with two different cultures (two different continenets as well). That have nothing to do with me misunderstanding him or not, but a simple fact that you should consider, as it amazed you, that your perception was flawed.




I disagree. Universality is foremost among the criteria for good literature. Humans are humans, so something that applies to some applies to many. Culture is a short-term local thing, that is only a matter of how the universal is applied to local situation.

Never heard that using some short of jungian archetypical literature is the criteria for good literature. Also, if we are all humans, all we do will be universal, since we can not avoid it.
Universality seems to me to be used there as a mambo jambo vague term and if the definition is creating an work that can be applied to other nations and places or understand for them, Conrad international sucess and his influence around the world should give you a clue that he did something that can be applied and enjoyed in our "universe".




Anyone can make a list. I agree that until a common set of criteria will be developed, it will be impossible to know what should be in the canon.

My point is they are pointless. Lists are usually a manifestation of a momment, while the canon is manifestation of centuries.




Literature is written language, regardless of what the authors may be trying to communicate, the purpose of language is communication. Language can't be used as a replacement for steel beams, or for anything els. It can only communicate. Written language, as something devised by humans is an art.

So, communication does not mean perfect interpretation. As I pointed moderm Social Communication theory almost claims that all messsages will be in some level misunderstood.
Another thing, in art it is irrelevant if you understood correctly or not. It is relevant if you produce an effect of interpretation.
To aid, it is like saying, since people still unware of Monalisa's meaning , that Leonardo failed.
And as I said, the objective of an artwork may be only communicating the aesthetical ambition of the creator. Assuming that only semantic understanding is the real understanding is going against every logic.




So you agree that great literature is universal, do you not?

Never disagreed, but that is only a consequence of what is the literature. Does not explain anything, almost like saying : great literature is immortal and saying the great criteria for a work is being immortal.


Communication is a two way street. it only happens when the receiver interprets what the sender intended. If your interpretation is different from the interpretations of everyone else, then it suggests that you have a cognitive problem. Language often has multiple possible interpretations, but a skilled user of language will keep extraneous interpretations to a minimum.

Here is the funny thing: You just blammed everything in the individual receiver. Not in the author of the message. That would mean the writer cann't be a failure, since the problem of interpretation is to the one with cognitive problems. Not exactly what you have been arguing.
Anyways, your notion of the communicative process belong to the 40's (or, you are writing too fast too be more precise).
- Not every problem of interpretation can be blamed on the receiver. The sender can be responsable but also the medium where the communication happens. The same message in a book may provoke another interpretation in a street wall. As marshall mcluhan would put, the medium is the message.
- There is different levels of interpretation. Some scholars would not even consider the possibility of wrong interpretation and something would not consider that it is possible to have a correct interpretition. Fact is, the most influential book of humankind, The Bible, have no correct interpretation at all.
-If I have a different interpretation of everyone else, I may be right. Or we all may be wrong, and a third part be right. As pointed, all books writen, are born already with one correct interpretation, so this criteria is not relevant.
- The great artist is exactly the one who use the language potential for various interpretations. That is why a perfect interpretation is impossible. Irrelevant. Not every work will have Dante writing at the same time of creation the four different levels of interpretation.


Imagine if agreement on meaning weren't a necessary part of language: Two people could sit at a table, and one might describe a football game, while the other understood it as a recipe for making explosives. That might be amusing, but it wouldn't do any good for either of them.


Communication (considering as a being) have no moral grounds. It does not seeks only understanding or the good of humankind.

[DapperDrake]

"I feel like I was supposed to like it, but I just can't. I feel like I'm missing out on something. The author is too intellectual for me, it's beyond my grasp."

While yes, sometimes literature does require a little bit of research to know what it's getting at.. if a reader doesn't feel up to putting into the time because he or she just DOESN'T LIKE the book.. I just don't understand. Why say you're "supposed" to like something? You don't like a book that's in the "canon". Big deal? Not everyone is going to appreciate James Joyce or whatever.

What does everyone else think about this? Why should you be ashamed of something you don't understand, appreciate, or enjoy?

Well there's no harm in being forthright about what you do and don't enjoy, personally I have absolutely no problem with expressing my opinion's on books (no matter how much against the grain). However I will also acknowledge that in some cases my lack of intellectual appreciation may cause me to judge a book too harshly, after all, a book isn't called a classic lightly - there is always a good reason.

So, broadly I agree with you, one shouldn't feel ashamed about not liking a classic but at the same time I think it's important to realise that not appreciating a classic is possibly a flaw in the reader rather than the book.

[Etienne]

So you agree that language has no purpose except communication.

Well if you want to say that aesthetics is "communicated" by the language, the one could also say the a carved piece of wood's only purpose is communication...

Why one sings instead of simply talking? Both can communicate the same, but singing has this aesthetic part added to it, and can, in many instances, make the communication part irrelevant (one can enjoy music sung in languages that he does not understand).

I am not saying that literature is the same and that I enjoy reading Japanese texts when I don't know Japanese, but I was illustrating the fact that aesthetics is NOT necessarily communication (although it can be closely linked). If communication was the sole purpose, then simple prose that everyone and anyone can understand would be the mark of a great book, but it clearly is not. More hermetic writing understood by fewer is often greater as the aesthetic part is also greater.

"The bright sun was extinguish'd, and the stars
Did wander darkling in the eternal space,"

If the purpose was simply to communicate, he would have benn better to write:

"It was the night." or Maybe "The sun was dawn and we could see the stars in the sky"

So I think the two last communicate the idea "better", although they are far, far less aesthetic and far more boring.

[JCamilo]

Yes, you are right.
Aesthetics may even happens to a lonely individual in an island. Now art is something different. Art happens using a media because there is the interation between creator and viewer.
But defining communication was the process between two ends and with perfect interpretation is another step and totally wrong. And saying that all products that happen in a communication experince aim semantical understanding is failure. Art aims firstly the aesthetical expression (I see communication can be defined as expression of somehting, so it fits here) and not the straightfoward exchange of ideas, with both ends sharing the same level of expression and understanding. Not to mention there is several forms of "dialogues" which sucess is confusing the receiver and not otherwise (an enigma that is easily understood is the failure, not otherwise).
But one thing we must agree, Communication is not Language, Interpretation, Understandment. It is just mutual exchange of ideas and expressions. How it happens is another story.

[kasie]

......Perhaps that you are not fluent in English resulted in you not reapizing that Conrads writing was so poor. It does amaze me that you would think Conrad to have been a good writer, which might also have led you to mistakingly consider Conrad's message to be universal......

I would be interested to know (briefly) why you consider Conrad's writing to be so poor. English is my first language - it was Conrad's third language incidentally - and his writing has never struck me as anything other than masterly.

I am surprised that you do not find his work to have universality. Nostromo has a theme of the corruptibility of a good man - that seems to me to have as much application in the twenty-first century as in the twentieth and in societies in any part of the world. The Secret Agent shows, among other themes, how one man's blinkered adherence to the achievement of his political ends hurts innocent people as well as the object of his political obsessions. That also seems to me to be relevant to events in the present.

You are perfectly entitled not to enjoy Conrad's work but if you have any aspiration towards critical acumen, surely you need to exercise a little more objective assessment in place of simple sweeping statements? That, indeed, might be the answer to the OP's problem - not distinguishing between subjective and objective assessments.

[curlyqlink]

Anything by Joseph Conrad for a start. He was not a good writer, as far as the mechanics of writing go, and his books lack universality.
I like Conrad's writing style. I'm not sure what you mean by the mechanics of writing. I find that Conrad has the directness and the "coolness" of the much celebrated Hemingway, without the latter's choppy inelegance.

There are precious few examples of writing finer than Conrad's description of a battleship rolling in oily swells off the African coast in The Heart of Darkness. Brilliant, eloquent, and original.

As for universality, I find it in spades in The Secret Agent and Lord Jim. The latter stands as virtually an archetype of the aspirations of young men eager to make their mark on the world, IMHO.

[Jozanny]

I was not going to enter this debate, because I am tired of having it in a community which seems to exist to offer access to literature, but has a curious counter culture, seemingly more eager to disparage literary achievement than appreciate it. I join in on the chorus of Conrad defenders, however. His prose style is clear, stark, and gripping, and his greatest works were far ahead of their time.

[JBI]

Conrad's canonical status isn't really up to serious debate, as he has already proved himself relevant to this age, by his continual publication. The fact that he has lasted so long, and continues to be taught in many university, and even high school classrooms seems to echo the perceived universality of his work. It is also important to note, he wrote more than Heart of Darkness.

[Etienne]

but has a curious counter culture, seemingly more eager to disparage literary achievement than appreciate it.

Yes, an interesting observation in fact.

Perhaps I would like to add this observation: That the refusal to consider authority, is perhaps one of the main characteristic of the newer generation, and while there is some good in it, it has generally been pushed too far. As to learn one has to keep this naive approach of being told what is good for you by the "betters" and one should only consider the authority of one's judgment after having pondered and considered it carefully, and in this case, having tried to find out the good and the interest about the work. If one only trust it's first perception and instant-gratification, nothing great will ever come out of it. As I said a couple of time, and I believe it is a very important point, is that all great endeavors, require a measure of "suffering". This is a notion that has been lost in this world of instant gratification. This notion could be applied to basically almost anything I can think of, whether it be appreciation of art, artistic creation, acquisition of knowledge or skills, traveling, etc. etc. etc. One might even quote Poison: "Every Rose has it's Thorn" :lol:

Even though this "acceptance of authority" might sound like dogmatism, it is in fact the very contrary of it, it is about keeping a naive approach and let one's opinion stay fluid and be shaped by any new knowledge one may acquire. This acceptance of authority is, if anything, temporary, it is in fact suspending one's judgment (which is different from opinion, as judgment as this "fixed" connotation it is a sentence, a kind of dogma for the ego). One has to learn to be ignorant, no matter what amount of knowledge one amasses, one should always (when the perspective is learning) learn to stay ignorant and naive. No one learn better than a child, so one should be like a child to learn, even if later it is realized that is was wronf/not true/etc. nothing is lost and then a judgment will at least be possible.

[SirRaustusBear]

You can't just accept something because someone who is considered an authority says it, they must also back it up.

For instance if Harold Bloom stopped me in the street and said Conrad is good without providing a reason, I would have no reason to believe him. If he could explain why, then you have an opportunity to learn from an authority on the subject. If no one questioned the authorities that came before them then literary criticism, as well as every other field, would remain stagnant.

And for the record I like Conrad too, and I never found anything bad about his writing style.

[Etienne]

If an authority tells you he's good with no reason, perhaps you can check out for yourself, and then if you disagree check why he is considered so, what you are missing in his writing that makes him great. You might end up not liking him anyways, but at least you will have an educated opinion about it. No need to make a doctorate thesis about it, but the authority backing it should instill some curiosity about what you might be missing in it.

I don't think that uneducated people can appreciate Homer, Dante, Rabelais, Dante, Goethe, etc. as much as an educated person. The reason they might not appreciate it is not generally so much a matter of "personal taste" as to that their level of education does not allow them to appreciate in full those works. I am not saying that "if you do not like Conrad it's because you are uneducated", for example, but that (and I'm talking about myself as well) sometimes when reading a particular work, we might have some lacking in parts of our knowledge that can hinder us from enjoying a work. It can be literary knowledge, philosophical knowledge, historical knowledge, geographical knowledge, etc. The difference between someone who a) has not read Hamlet and the Odyssey and b) has just heard for the first time of the city of Dublin and c) has no footnotes in his Ulysses, I doubt he can enjoy Ulysses as much as someone who knows almost by heart the Odyssey, is a Shakespeare scholar and knows Dublin like his pocket. I took two extremes, in a work where such knowledge is very important, but in different degrees it also applies to other works.

[stlukesguild]

You can't just accept something because someone who is considered an authority says it, they must also back it up.

For instance if Harold Bloom stopped me in the street and said Conrad is good without providing a reason, I would have no reason to believe him. If he could explain why, then you have an opportunity to learn from an authority on the subject.

Certainly, I agree... and I surely wish there were more discussion as to just what someone admires about this or that writer/poet or given work of literature. What I think Jozie... among others... has noticed is that if anything there is an excess of the reverse: posters announcing that this or that respected writer or book or entire period or genre is without any merit... "sucks"... without giving the least bit of logical reasoning for their assertion beyond their own personal opinion.

[JBI]

I wouldn't call the Conrad case that though; it is quite easy to criticize his style.

I wouldn't call it a bad style, I would just call it an unlucky one. Conrad was well before his time, and developed his style before style became a big deal (as you know, writers of that time wrote in a similar voice, and didn't have as distinctly developed voices as the modernists). Because of that, he seems to have become a modernist before the rest, and developed an idiosyncratic style, that was both groundbreaking, and ignored.

Joyce, Woolf, Faulkner, etc. all seem to be far catchier than he was. Hardy too, his contemporary, was a catchier novelist, and his style was more influential. Conrad suffers from not having influenced, and therefore being outside of the convention of prose. His stuff is good, but incredibly unique, to the point that nothing before or after seems to connect with it.

I found similar things when reading Moby-Dick, except for the fact that Moby-Dick has now become super-catchy, and realized itself as a central block for many things after its popularity increased (after his death, roughly 70 years after its publication).

Conrad has not had that same luxury, and as a result, reads like nothing that came before it, or after it; A unique prose-poetry, that seems unnatural at first, yet I believe no less beautiful than conventional stuff.

[JCamilo]

When dealing with art criticism, the best is seek several authorities, not just one. There will be critics that will allow their own personal bias to interfere with their analyse and since most of them are good writers, they can be very convicing.

As Conrad, I do think he had his influence (otherwise his immortality would be at risk) but the whole racism thing affects those days a bigger reception of his work (something that Kipling, Twain, Melville all suffer a little for the wrong motives).

[Jozanny]

Certainly, I agree... and I surely wish there were more discussion as to just what someone admires about this or that writer/poet or given work of literature.

I noted previously I am at fault here for not investing a little more in posting critical arguments. Part of this is lack of time, and personal circumstance, as I am very behind in promoting myself and my work as I used to do in 05. I only *sold* one manuscript last year, for an honorarium which would barely fit my grocery bill, and I have to get back on track, which means I have to skimp on "talking the talk".

[Etienne]

I just found a nice quote by Paul Valery which coincidentally is exactly what my previous rambling was about:
-My translation:
The simplicity of reading is a rule in Letters since the reign of general haste and papers that carry or harass this movement. Everybody tend to read what anybody could have written. Moreover, since it is the goal in literature to amuse and entertain a man, ask not for effort, do not invoke will: here triumphs the belief, perhaps naive, that pleasure and effort are mutually exclusive. As for me, I confess, I understand almost nothing of a book which does not offer some resistance. To ask the reader to bend his mind and to reach the complete possession only at the cost of a somewhat tiresome act; to pretend, from passive that he wishes to be, to make him partly creator, - but that is against custom, laziness and every insufficient intelligence. The art of reading at leisure, isolated, scholarly and distinctly, which at some point answered the work and zeal of the writer with a presence and patience of the same quality, is being lost, is lost.
-Paul Valéry

I especially liked the last sentence.

[kasie]

..... One has to learn to be ignorant, no matter what amount of knowledge one amasses, one should always (when the perspective is learning) learn to stay ignorant and naive.....

I do like this expression, Etienne!

I have sometimes been accused of false ignorance by asking naive questions to which I should 'know' the answer - but if I don't ask questions, how will I ever learn? (And how will I find out how much the other fellow knows or from which direction he is approaching a situation? ;) )

When I worked in an engineering company, I quickly learned its golden rule - never assume: if in doubt, ask!

[mortalterror]

I wouldn't call the Conrad case that though; it is quite easy to criticize his style.

I wouldn't call it a bad style, I would just call it an unlucky one. Conrad was well before his time, and developed his style before style became a big deal (as you know, writers of that time wrote in a similar voice, and didn't have as distinctly developed voices as the modernists). Because of that, he seems to have become a modernist before the rest, and developed an idiosyncratic style, that was both groundbreaking, and ignored.

Joyce, Woolf, Faulkner, etc. all seem to be far catchier than he was. Hardy too, his contemporary, was a catchier novelist, and his style was more influential. Conrad suffers from not having influenced, and therefore being outside of the convention of prose. His stuff is good, but incredibly unique, to the point that nothing before or after seems to connect with it.

I found similar things when reading Moby-Dick, except for the fact that Moby-Dick has now become super-catchy, and realized itself as a central block for many things after its popularity increased (after his death, roughly 70 years after its publication).

Conrad has not had that same luxury, and as a result, reads like nothing that came before it, or after it; A unique prose-poetry, that seems unnatural at first, yet I believe no less beautiful than conventional stuff.

Um, no. Conrad is like quite a few writers actually and fairly influential as writers go. If I were to give examples of people who write like him I'd have to start with The Book of Revelations KJV, then the work of Thomas de Quincey particularly in his essay The English Mail-Coach, through Michael Herr's Dispatches, and Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. He was Ernest Hemingway's favorite writer and if you know where to look you can see traces of the style. Hemingway himself noted Conrad's effect on Fitzgerald and how he stole the ending for The Great Gatsby from Nostromo. Then you have Jack London's novel The Sea Wolf published in 1904 which is half Heart of Darkness and half Rudyard Kipling's Captain's Courageous. His spy stories influenced Graham Green and I think Celiné drew heavily upon him for certain jungle scenes in Journey to the End of the Night. You can see a sort of Conradian apocalyptic style in Burrough's Naked Lunch. I'm sure there's more.

[PeterL]

Well if you want to say that aesthetics is "communicated" by the language, the one could also say the a carved piece of wood's only purpose is communication...

Why one sings instead of simply talking? Both can communicate the same, but singing has this aesthetic part added to it, and can, in many instances, make the communication part irrelevant (one can enjoy music sung in languages that he does not understand).

I am not saying that literature is the same and that I enjoy reading Japanese texts when I don't know Japanese, but I was illustrating the fact that aesthetics is NOT necessarily communication (although it can be closely linked). If communication was the sole purpose, then simple prose that everyone and anyone can understand would be the mark of a great book, but it clearly is not. More hermetic writing understood by fewer is often greater as the aesthetic part is also greater.

"The bright sun was extinguish'd, and the stars
Did wander darkling in the eternal space,"

If the purpose was simply to communicate, he would have benn better to write:

"It was the night." or Maybe "The sun was dawn and we could see the stars in the sky"

So I think the two last communicate the idea "better", although they are far, far less aesthetic and far more boring.

There are personal preferences in style that don't have much to do with content. Which version of that bit about night one prefers depends on context. Clear writing is generally preferred in writing, unless the writer seeks to hide meaning.


I like Conrad's writing style. I'm not sure what you mean by the mechanics of writing. I find that Conrad has the directness and the "coolness" of the much celebrated Hemingway, without the latter's choppy inelegance.

There are precious few examples of writing finer than Conrad's description of a battleship rolling in oily swells off the African coast in The Heart of Darkness. Brilliant, eloquent, and original.

As for universality, I find it in spades in The Secret Agent and Lord Jim. The latter stands as virtually an archetype of the aspirations of young men eager to make their mark on the world, IMHO.

Opinions vary, but I have not noticed any "directness" in Conrad's writing.



You are perfectly entitled not to enjoy Conrad's work but if you have any aspiration towards critical acumen, surely you need to exercise a little more objective assessment in place of simple sweeping statements? That, indeed, might be the answer to the OP's problem - not distinguishing between subjective and objective assessments.

If you want to consider my comments as something other than my opinions, then that suggests that you have a serious cognitive problem. Your comments are clearly opinions and nothing more; although you seem to want them accepted as objective fact. Perhaps you want to make some claim to "critical acumen", but you will have to stop making ad hominems, if you will ever be there.

[JCamilo]

I just found a nice quote by Paul Valery which coincidentally is exactly what my previous rambling was about:
-My translation:
The simplicity of reading is a rule in Letters since the reign of general haste and papers that carry or harass this movement. Everybody tend to read what anybody could have written. Moreover, since it is the goal in literature to amuse and entertain a man, ask not for effort, do not invoke will: here triumphs the belief, perhaps naive, that pleasure and effort are mutually exclusive. As for me, I confess, I understand almost nothing of a book which does not offer some resistance. To ask the reader to bend his mind and to reach the complete possession only at the cost of a somewhat tiresome act; to pretend, from passive that he wishes to be, to make him partly creator, - but that is against custom, laziness and every insufficient intelligence. The art of reading at leisure, isolated, scholarly and distinctly, which at some point answered the work and zeal of the writer with a presence and patience of the same quality, is being lost, is lost.
-Paul Valéry

I especially liked the last sentence.

Valery is quite a good critic,no. Notice how this sentence resembles what guys like Eco or Bloom would say later, specially Eco about the different kind of readers. That guy (returning to the topic at hand) is the one that is a literary snob and the effort would generate the development of reading capacity.
My literary snob self would say that is the problem of the moderm best-seller industry - when someone justify an author by the "It is fun, I read for 2 hours and I could put it aside easily" I shiver. Freedom is dangerouns.

[Drkshadow03]

My literary snob self would say that is the problem of the moderm best-seller industry - when someone justify an author by the "It is fun, I read for 2 hours and I could put it aside easily" I shiver. Freedom is dangerouns.

Freedom is dangerous?! What?! Can you unpack that sentence please and explain what you mean? Also, why should it bother you that someone should simply want to read for fun?

[JCamilo]

I am snob and without good intentions .So Freedom is dangerous. I think everyone must read for suffering, pain and loneliness.
I heard another day that emos use 1 hour of the day to cause depression to themselves. But that is old, every reader do it for centuries. Imagine, fun to read! What world are we leaving. What is next? Reading twice the same book? hah!

[Drkshadow03]

I am snob and without good intentions .So Freedom is dangerous. I think everyone must read for suffering, pain and loneliness.
I heard another day that emos use 1 hour of the day to cause depression to themselves. But that is old, every reader do it for centuries. Imagine, fun to read! What world are we leaving. What is next? Reading twice the same book? hah!

People should read for suffering, pain, and loneliness? So if I'm getting this straight you think people should read to increase their alienation from the world? I find this particularly strange because I happen to read for the exact opposite reason, to increase my understanding of the world and other people.

Also, you never read the same book twice?

[kasie]

.....If you want to consider my comments as something other than my opinions, then that suggests that you have a serious cognitive problem. Your comments are clearly opinions and nothing more; although you seem to want them accepted as objective fact. Perhaps you want to make some claim to "critical acumen", but you will have to stop making ad hominems, if you will ever be there.

How good it is to know that the wooden spoon is in working order. :)

[Jozanny]

If you want to consider my comments as something other than my opinions, then that suggests that you have a serious cognitive problem. Your comments are clearly opinions and nothing more; although you seem to want them accepted as objective fact. Perhaps you want to make some claim to "critical acumen", but you will have to stop making ad hominems, if you will ever be there.

A wooden spoon indeed! When I was in grade school I landed in some fraudulent doctor's joint where students were actually still struck with paddles during exercise period.;) All kasie was trying to do was ask you to make objective points about what you do not like in Conrad's writing. There is no need to bristle.

If he does push the "Gothic" style to its limit, the narration can grow a bit ponderous in the course of the telling--but this is a fairly minor detraction in coming to perceive the breadth of Conrad's vision. I also tend to agree with kasie about The Secret Agent. I put my nose into it thinking the story would be a lesser work, and how wrong I was. Conrad had much to say about the cost of the British Empire being what is was, and as such, the rotteness of imperialism itself, both for the oppressor and the oppressed--in such a way that HOD probably anticipates Foucault's theories about power-knowledge. Appreciation is the luxury of maturity, apparently.

[Etienne]

Clear writing is generally preferred in writing, unless the writer seeks to hide meaning.

In writing what? A school essay? A newspaper article? Of course clarity is sometimes more appropriate in novel and even poetic form, but it is then part of a larger aesthetic goal. Why are you interested in literature then? What are your favorite works, out of curiosity?

I actually tried to find when you discussed positively about literature, and beside your thousand posts in word association game, you seem to have only negative one-liners or criticism about authors. After looking quickly at a couple of page I could not figure out what you might like in literature.

[curlyqlink]

the refusal to consider authority, is perhaps one of the main characteristic of the newer generation, and while there is some good in it, it has generally been pushed too far.

I have to agree. I suspect this began innocently enough, in an educational agenda to have everyone freely express their opinion. That everyone has a right to express their opinion predictably morphed into the idea that everyone's opinion is of equal value, leading us to hell in a handbasket.

There is much hostility to criticism. Never mind that the most fundamental criticism is self-criticism, never mind that ideas held uncritically are of little use to anyone.

[Jozanny]

I have to agree. I suspect this began innocently enough, in an educational agenda to have everyone freely express their opinion. That everyone has a right to express their opinion predictably morphed into the idea that everyone's opinion is of equal value, leading us to hell in a handbasket.

Exactly so. I also find the thread starter's sentiments somewhat generic in offense. I am not a literary snob, and indeed bemoan the fact that when I was still in the fluid opportunity of youth, I did not push myself harder and further toward more erudition, not less. I wanted to become a professor, and stay in academics as an institution, but it was through my own insolence that I did not fight hard enough for that reward, and I regret it, whatever the positives of becoming an activist through the social service system.

I am very well aware of what I do not know when trying to make critical assessments, but I hope I appreciate my limited intelligence enough not to scitter-scatter around with proclamations about how much I hate author X.

[stlukesguild]

I hope I appreciate my limited intelligence enough not to scitter-scatter around with proclamations about how much I hate author X.

Which brings me again to my wish that there were more dialog and discussion about what we like and why... and not so many negative blanket proclamations made as fact: "Melville is boring." Modern poetry sucks." "Hemingway is a macho blowhard." (Just for you MT:D) etc...

[JCamilo]

People should read for suffering, pain, and loneliness? So if I'm getting this straight you think people should read to increase their alienation from the world? I find this particularly strange because I happen to read for the exact opposite reason, to increase my understanding of the world and other people.

Also, you never read the same book twice?

I am being sarcastic. You can see that in any post I made in this thread I do not defend anything like this and in one of them I talk about multiple readings. You just ignored the entire post of mine for one part "It is fun" and not the most relevant part "put aside it easily" - C'mom, reading only for fun (as watching a movie just for fun) is not something that demands from the artist much. Enterteiment is the first and easier step of art. Even your children (or of a hypothetical mother) can write a little poem that will be fun to read in a birthday part. It means little for quality. And if someone does not develop reading skills (Nobody is born able to read everything), this quality sharpened they will not have the fun reading, lets say Conrad, since he is already close by.
As freedom, it is obviously very dangerous.
As freedom

[Drkshadow03]

I am being sarcastic. You can see that in any post I made in this thread I do not defend anything like this and in one of them I talk about multiple readings. You just ignored the entire post of mine for one part "It is fun" and not the most relevant part "put aside it easily" - C'mom, reading only for fun (as watching a movie just for fun) is not something that demands from the artist much. Enterteiment is the first and easier step of art. Even your children (or of a hypothetical mother) can write a little poem that will be fun to read in a birthday part. It means little for quality. And if someone does not develop reading skills (Nobody is born able to read everything), this quality sharpened they will not have the fun reading, lets say Conrad, since he is already close by.
As freedom, it is obviously very dangerous.
As freedom

Ah! I didn't pick up your sarcasm.

[spookymulder93]

Thread starter has a point.

[mal4mac]

I could write down a bunch of drivel after getting a doctorate but that doesn't mean I actually know any more "about life" than someone below me.
I mean, Isaac Newton dropped out of school basically, if memory serves me correctly.

I don't think it is! In what way do you think he dropped out? For most of his life he was firmly ensconced in Trinity College Cambridge. He was forced to live for a year or two at home 'cause of the plague, but he was a very institutionalised figure who remained at Trinity gaining degrees, fellowships, and other university honours, (all deserved of course - he did revolutionize physics...)

Then again, you could argue that he didn't know much about life! A lot about physics, but no one points to him as being a great 'philosopher of life'. Most philosophers who *do* deserve that title were not university types (Socrates, Spinoza, Montaigne, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer...) so your general point has a lot of validity.

[OrphanPip]

Nietzche was a university type though, he was a professor for 10 years, and he tried to receive lecturing post later in life but was sort of blacklisted for his atheism.

[mal4mac]

I agree that the primary reason for reading is to derive pleasure. Of course some people derive pleasure from that which appears quite difficult or incomprehensible to others. As one grows more experienced in reading one discovers that the easier pleasures grow boring tiresome and cliché. With time I found myself drawn to that literature which had gained something of a status... canonical literature if you will.


But not all canonical literature is difficult and, at least for me, easier pleasures (like canonical novels between Austen and Tolstoy) have not become tiresome or clichéd.

I do like exploring other literature, but I've often found such excursions extremely tiresome. I do sometimes wonder if I should bother reading anything outside the Austen -> Tolstoy(+Shakespeare) universe.



Creating such rule that an artist must be limited by the obvious (since 99% of readers will only graps the obvious) is ridiculous. A good artist will aim to break such limit, not follow it. It is art we are talking.

Artists do not always have to break limits. Some great artists have worked within a discipline. For example, many writers with canonical status have written within the confines of the realist novel - Dickens, Tolstoy, Austen... You may say they are not great, but, if so, that makes you a maverick, because they *are* canonical.


It is impossible to understand the majority of great books with your first reading.


Who cares about "understanding"? Enjoyment is the test... if it's a great novel it should produce great enjoyment - enjoyment of the highest degree possible from an aesthetic experience.

You can enjoy many great books on a first reading. I just read through Jane Austen's "Emma" for the first time with *great* enjoyment, which is my usual experience in the Austen -> Tolstoy universe.

Austen's work is subtle and perhaps I missed some shades of meaning, but that did not hinder me from reading through it once with great enjoyment

[mal4mac]

Nietzche was a university type though, he was a professor for 10 years, and he tried to receive lecturing post later in life but was sort of blacklisted for his atheism.

He was, by all accounts, an incredibly talented student and became a professor of philology in his mid-twenties. But he wanted to change tack to become a "real" philosopher. When the university authorities wouldn't let him do this he left the university and just became a philosopher anyway. So he's not really my idea of a "university type".

[kelby_lake]

"Come back to it in a few years time and if you are still interested in reading you will laugh at that statement."

I'll come back to the other two posts later, because I can hardly hear myself think with my roommate's insanely ****ty music, but this is something I don't need to think about: Macbeth is awful. That play just shouldn't even exist. Macbeth himself is ****ing stupid. It's his whole fault ANY of that happened. Sure, maybe it like, reflects human psychology a bit, I think that's cool, however, most people don't just go like "Oh. These three witches whom I've never met before think I should kill the king, because I'm going to be king too!" And just.. well to be honest, I honestly do not know how to describe how hilariously stupid Macbeth is, so I'll stop.
I mean don't get me wrong. Loved Hamlet and Julius Caesar but that's because those plays seemed a bit... realistic. Macbeth.. what loser is going to put himself into trouble like that?

Hamlet- realistic?! Macbeth is an example of a man who is blinded by his ambition, which ultimately leads to his downfall. A bit like those X-Factor contestants.

[JCamilo]

But not all canonical literature is difficult and, at least for me, easier pleasures (like canonical novels between Austen and Tolstoy) have not become tiresome or clichéd.

It is not because they are canonical that something is difficult. The reasons can be many.


Artists do not always have to break limits. Some great artists have worked within a discipline. For example, many writers with canonical status have written within the confines of the realist novel - Dickens, Tolstoy, Austen... You may say they are not great, but, if so, that makes you a maverick, because they *are* canonical.

Good artists break limits and that have nothing to do with lack discipline. All rebellion in the end carries within a system.



Who cares about "understanding"? Enjoyment is the test... if it's a great novel it should produce great enjoyment - enjoyment of the highest degree possible from an aesthetic experience.

I do not care about understanding and that was exactty my point. However the rest of your sentence is non sense. Reducing art to enjoyinment is frivolous. People can enjoy anything. There is a crap movie i like just because i watched with a girl who i liked. Not because it is a great movie. And Sometimes Fellini bores me. All Novels provide enjoyment for an specific public and it should not be used to define what is great or good.

[LMK]

I've read through some of the responses and must ask the majority of you, "Why did you respond? Was it only to read your own words in print?"

That actually is an example of snobbery. Someone who does not have better taste than I do or who can afford better wine, nicer editions of books, etc., but rather someone who thinks they have better taste, etc. Personally, I have my own tastes and do not rate them on scales in comparison with others, therefore, I cannot (not will not, but cannot) say my idea of wine, music, literature, theatre, etc. is better than anyone else’s.

I ignore elitists and snobs of all sorts in any area of my life. It ranks up there with stupid; I have little tolerance for stupid. That is stupid NOT ignorant, for the ignorant I do have patience and tolerance.

[dafydd manton]

Perhaps I'm beiing a bit over-simplistic, since I haven't contributed to this particular thread, but isn't responding rather the point of a froum such as this? Are we all snobs because we like to interact, and possibly disagree vehemently, but in a civilised manner? I'm not quite sure what to make of the above comment. Am I missing something, or am I just being a bit thick?

[LMK]

Not to put too fine a point on it, dafydd, if your comment was addressed to mine. I was giving an example of my definition of snobbery for those who claimed they did not understand the word or for clarification by not assuming to agree with other definitions.

My apologies if my post was confusing. Of course the point of the thread is to post.

I encourage all to post and post with wild abandon!

[dafydd manton]

Then it WAS me being a bit thick!!! Cheers. Thanks for clearing that up. (Well, it's late, and the claret was rather nice!)

[LMK]

Oooh, do pour a glass and we can discuss further. Wink

[kelby_lake]

I tend to be more annoyed by reverse snobbery.

[JCamilo]

That is very snob of you.
I think the world would be a better place if we all had the same opions.

Ok, this is a exclusive preview of Paulo Coelho new book for you. Enjoy.

[stlukesguild]

I tend to be more annoyed by reverse snobbery.

Indeed! There is something quite annoying about the sort of anti-intellectualism which sneers at anything which requires intellect, or achieves a high standard... or even suggests that there are such standards.

[spookymulder93]

Isn't it cool how different we're all from each other. It makes things so interesting.

[stlukesguild]

That is very snob of you.
I think the world would be a better place if we all had the same opions.

Ok, this is a exclusive preview of Paulo Coelho new book for you. Enjoy.

Speaking of which... I finally saw The Davinci Code (There was nothing else on... honest!:smilewinkgrin:). I'm somewhat torn now as to which one was worse... the book or the movie.:shocked::confused5:

[JCamilo]

That is very snob of you.
I think the world would be a better place if we all had the same opions.

Ok, this is a exclusive preview of Paulo Coelho new book for you. Enjoy.

Speaking of which... I finally saw The Davinci Code (There was nothing else on... honest!:smilewinkgrin:). I'm somewhat torn now as to which one was worse... the book or the movie.:shocked::confused5:

Andrey Tatou mute, dead, not moving, probally adds something else that is not in the book. Of course,that is my compliment for both works.
But do not worry, we can use all our snobery with Paulo Coelho new book, a spiritual journey guided by a dude named J, named Alleph. I will not pretend J is the name given by Bloom to however wrote the bible, because we all know, Bloom sold his snobery to write for commercial purpose only selling out years of secret hidden in our Marble Towers.

[LuggageFan]

At this point in my life, I read mostly just to have fun, and so novels fit the bill, but previously, when I was in college, I read to learn about life and people, so I read more things like studies of certain subjects and biographies.

And other times, I read things on the spur of the moment, for example, in another thread someone said they liked George Sand, and I have had The Black City on my bookshelf for ages, so I had an excuse to start it finally.

But I'll be honest - I don't like to have to work all that hard at reading. The only exception would be things like Plato or St. Augustine, i.e., the classics. Also, I read French, and occasionally, I enjoy reading things written in French, because you do inevitably lose a lot in the translation into English.

[PeterL]

After making two replies, I noticed that I had done the same a couple of years ago.