Literature has no more value than Mills & Boon

[The Atheist]

This thread has been spawned by my Harry Potter thread which has been derailed to the unrecognisable, although an interesting point has been made which I wish to follow up on.

The theme seems to be:

Some novels are "worth" inherently more than others and we should not value reading unless something of "value" is being read."

I think this is a load of bunkum, myself.

I think any attempt to say otherwise is pure elitism and the exact equivalent of an art critic saying that one piece of art is inherently more valuable than my six-year old's scribbles.

Let's see if JBI wants to play!

:D

[Etienne]

The term worth has an artistic and intellectual meaning. If by worth you only think building rockets, making millions or getting big muscles, then no, that's not the worth referred to.

[Drkshadow03]

Most of these Responses are from Posts in the Harry Potter thread:



Except it's perfectly possible to enjoy reading "classical"/literary works and genre fiction just as it's possible to eat a $100 succulent juicy Kobe steak perfecty marinated and cooked, and still consider your local $2 greasy pizza joint a great meal too.

But is this an apt analogy? I am enamored of Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Schubert... but I still listen to the Rolling Stones, Johnny Cash, and the Louvin Brothers. I can't listen, however, to Madonna or Britney Spears. My taste has become such that I can enjoy the best of genres that are quite different... but there are still standards. It seems that everyone who suggests that the Harry Potter novels are so much schlock are being branded as elitist snobs. Now while I will heartily admit to being an elitist, my taste in the arts is fairly broad. One may reject the Harry Potter novels as being mediocre (at best) and grossly overrated... and still read and admire more than just the "classics". One may even enjoy the best of certain literary genres.

As mayneverhave put it, "after encountering the works of Shakespeare, Dante and the like, it is impossible to go back to the level of Harry Potter and Robert Jordan - it would bore me to death. It's not even an issue of a "classic" being more challenging to the reader, but it lies in the simple fact that I can draw a far greater enjoyment out of quality literature than I can popular literature." This says it all. After one's taste evolves to a certain level with the experience of having read a good number of great books it is difficult to appreciate mediocre popular fiction. The clichés are too obvious. The language offers nothing special. The characters are not well-developed. Most importantly, I draw a far greater degree of pleasure from the better books.

Oh, no the analogy is apt. If you look at my response in context it was talking about ALL genre fiction, not just Potter. So what I was saying is that I enjoy the best of a variety of literary genres. Unfortunately a lot of such works don’t get “Canonical” status, except as I’ve argued before they are part of a de facto sub-Canon anyway. Also, the “best” doesn’t always correlate with quality/originality of the writing itself.

Funny I’ve read Shakespeare and Dante, and really appreciate their work, yet I don’t feel at all like you guys that I can no longer appreciate works that aren’t quite as good, which was precisely my point in my response to mayneverhave.


Oh come on, the critic of genre fictin is based first and foremost on concrete argument, and the fact that they haven't read much of it does not mean that they haven't read any of it. And do you honestly believe that one absolutely has to read a couple of Forgotten Realm books to know that they have no literary value? No, they could even not read a single one and still be right. What genre fiction exactly do you claim have such literary value as to be worth being studied by a university teacher, other than perhaps some general theme.

For example, your subject was Mars in science-fiction. This is a theme. Is it, first, a rich subject in analysis? I doubt it. Then could you honestly make a thesis based on, say the narrative technique in some genre fiction? Etc.

No, most criticisms of genre fiction are based first and foremost on abstract arguments. Just look at the Harry Potter thread. How many times did we hear lines that reading "good" books you gives you benefits, while reading Harry Potter doesn't without the slightest shred of evidence to support these views, never defining exactly how good books benefit us and so-called bad books don't, but simply ASSERTING this to be the case rather than DEMONSTRATING it.

Oh, it’s true that not having read much doesn’t mean they haven’t read any at all. However, if you were to base an opinion on an entire genre having only read one or two works, you’d probably be committing the logical fallacy of confusing the parts with the whole. It only took me asking them about a few key names to ascertain they haven’t read much or own self-admissions (I never read that junk). It’s been my experience having now attended three universities over the course of my academic career (actually four technically, but that’s a story for another time) that the professors who look down on genre haven’t read much of it. And when they happen to like a “genre” work it’s “not actually genre.” Yeah . . .

I already linked to some genre fiction that has some merit in my previous post within the Harry Potter Thread. Go back to it and click on the links if you want some examples, along with some critical analysis. You may actually learn something! Also, genre fiction is in fact studied by university professors. So I am not even sure what you’re asking?

Actually Mars in Science Fiction was a very rich subject of analysis. I found that Mars symbolized a second Earth, a new possibility for restarting society and attempting to cut ourselves off from the problems of Old, it acted as fertile grounds for Utopian/Dystopian literary experiments. So it was interesting to see how different authors utilized Mars as a symbol for second earth and exploring the possibilities of restarting society anew on this new earth. The books were extremely political. I’m always much more interested in content that I am in say narrative technique, aesthetics, or writing style. It’s no that I don’t appreciate those things, but I find them way too subjective and taste-oriented to have serious discussions about. I am generally only interested in those things as they relate to meaning and content. So obviously my paper didn’t delve too much into that.



When a book begins to be viewed as a great work of fiction, generally it stops being considered genre. For instance, Italo Calvino is not read as a fantasy novelist, though by convention if we were to genrize him, many of his works would fall into fantasy or science fiction. By romantic genre definition, any book that has a couple getting married at the end is a romance, yet we wouldn't call every book with a marriage at the end a romance. It would be absurd.

Either way though, the titles of genre verses literary are set up abstractly by publishers, and then writers who seek to meet a publisher's desire. In terms of criticism, such genrization has no real purpose, and one can feel free to say Terry Goodkind is a bad novelist, and not a bad fantasy novelist.

Good books are reappropriated by their best suited audience. Angela Carter can be seen as a writer of fantasy, but who would stick her on a fantasy shelf? no one, we simply call her stuff by some other term, and stick it on the literary shelf, since fantasy readers probably aren't going to buy as many of her books as literary readers. The genre therefore is undercut, and the book is no longer genre fiction, but literary fiction. By that same notion, one could cut almost any good genre book, and deem it literary, and thereby one could consider the bulk of genre fiction mediocre, or unsuited for the literary reader, or unsuited for the reader looking outside of the genre.

Can you name one example of a book that was originally shelved in the fantasy/sci-fi section in bookstores world-wide and then was later moved to the “literature” section?

[djy78usa]

I agree with you 100%. Of course there are some widely-accepted beliefs of what makes "great" literature, but it ultimately comes down to personal preference. Who's to say I'm wrong if I think The Da Vinci Code is a better book than The Great Gatsby? As long as people are reading, and enjoying what they read, who can complain?

By the way, I don't really think The Da Vinci Code is better than The Great Gatsby. :D

[Niamh]

Can you name one example of a book that was originally shelved in the fantasy/sci-fi section in bookstores world-wide and then was later moved to the “literature” section?

Brave new World. :)

[Drkshadow03]

Brave new World. :)

Really? Heh. You learn something new everyday. :lol:

[Niamh]

Really? Heh. You learn something new everyday. :lol:
Surprise! :p
Dont forget h.g.wells and Orwell. ;)
Except back then science fiction was called the Scientific romances.

[JBI]

Yeah, I remember reading an essay somewhere on a reaction of Orwell's to having Animal Farm shelved on a children's shelf. Not to mention Lewis Carrol being reappropriated as an adult work, or The Left Hand of Darkness as a literary work. I would think it is more common in sci-fi than fantasy, though I think the reason for it is too many popular fantasy writers emulate Tolkien, or some variant on Tolkien, whereas sci-fi is a more developed genre.

But it isn't just those two genres, Morley Callaghan now is considered a great worker of modernism, rather than a genre Crime Fiction novelist.

But this trend goes back further - Elizabeth Gaskell seems to have been reappropriated from mediocre Gothic novelist, who only writes for silly women, to an important literary novelist.

[Etienne]

No, most criticisms of genre fiction are based first and foremost on abstract arguments. Just look at this thread. QED.

Plot, structure, richness of vocabulary, character development, etc. are not abstract.


Oh, it’s true that not having read much doesn’t mean they haven’t read any at all. However, if you were to base an opinion on an entire genre having only read one or two works, you’d probably be committing the logical fallacy of confusing the parts with the whole.

Oh, come on, that is absolutely false. Genre fiction is mostly all the same thing but with a different story. If one or a few works really surpasses the narrow "barriers" of what generally characterizes this genre, then it is the exception and it is it, that cannot be used to generalize the whole, and it also generally considered to be outside this genre.


It only took me asking them about a few key names to ascertain they haven’t read much or own self-admissions (I never read that junk). It’s been my experience having now attended three universities over the course of my academic career (actually four technically, but that’s a story for another time) that the professors who look down on genre haven’t read much of it. And when they happen to like a “genre” work it’s “not actually genre.” Yeah .

You're losing yourself into sophism. As to what is genre and what is not, read JBI's post.

[Niamh]

Yeah, I remember reading an essay somewhere on a reaction of Orwell's to having Animal Farm shelved on a children's shelf.

And it still gets shelved there from time to time. but more young adult.

[Etienne]

I already linked to some genre fiction that has some merit in my previous post within the Harry Potter Thread. Go back to it and click on the links if you want some examples, along with some critical analysis. You may actually learn something! Also, genre fiction is in fact studied by university professors. So I am not even sure what you’re asking?

I see you've listed Hitchhikers' Guide to the the Galaxy? I've read it. I enjoyed it because it made me laugh, but beside this? Beside the laugh?

[JBI]

To the original topic, and to other responses, of course, everything is somewhat out of context, but I will try to explain.

What we get out of reading is not only enjoyment. If enjoyment is the only reason to read a book, then there is no justification for anyone calling reading better than any other form of entertainment, be that video games, television, masturbation or fornication.

If however, we can accept that people get something else out of reading, such as knowledge, wisdom, experience, cognition, etc. Then we must distinguish between which works give more, and which give less. I would think the more challenging (note, I do not mean more difficult books to understand), and more intelligent books give more to readers than the mediocre.

But beyond that, there is even the question of aesthetic development. One could argue, as they have done on the other thread, that Potter increases people's reading capabilities, by getting them when they are young. But the question remains, to what extent are the reader's aesthetic views developed? To what extent are they able to perceive literature after and before - what sort of development in terms of understand of the world around them, of themselves, or even other texts is gained by reading such a work.

This brings us back, of course, to Sidney's defense of Poetry (note, prose fiction didn't really exist in the sense we know it today then, so I think his assertions can be carried over to prose as well today), where he argues, splendidly, that poetry both teaches and delights, and the two are unseparable - it delights because it teaches, and it teaches because it delights. Critics generally focus on one or the other, but the two must both be there for the work to be great.

If something only is meant to teach, it won't, because it will simply bore the reader, and therefore isn't really worthwhile. If something is only there to entertain, it fails again, because it doesn't teach anything, and therefore only wastes time, of which the person could have been doing other things.

I have nothing wrong with anyone reading books that only contain one of these two elements. Bad fiction only delights, and most text-books of the mathematic and other kind usually only teach, unless in the rare case, the reader has a great interest in them, in which case they may delight to a certain extent also. But the problem remains when things are praised even though they fit only one, or none of these categories.

Also, we must look at to what level they teach or delight. If they teach very little, and delight very little, they simply aren't worth while. But if they do both at a high level, such as George Eliot's Middlemarch, or Adunis's poetry, then the work is superb.

To read one book is to not read another. To read anything is to not do something else. Reading must therefore be worthwhile, and it is fair to say we can deem certain things more worthwhile than others. The same way we can say a tin of spam is less worthwhile than an 11 course meal.

Of course, the analogy was chosen smartly, what if someone doesn't know such a thing exists? What if someone thinks the world only contains spam, and has never heard of good food. Then how are they to judge the spam? To them it is all the same, and therefore they eat it without thinking about what they are missing. Their aesthetic taste is not developed, and therefore they aren't fit to judge what is before them.

I don't think we can really call Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy science fiction, in the sense that we can't call the Dunciad an epic. Mock-sci-fi or satire is a far better definition.

But also, think of other science fiction writers who were appropriated by the literary community. The one who first comes to mind is Kurt Vonnegut Jr, who was at first viewed as a mediocre sci-fi writer, than as a black humorist, then as a post-modernist.

[mortalterror]

Actually Mars in Science Fiction was a very rich subject of analysis. I found that Mars symbolized a second Earth, a new possibility for restarting society and attempting to cut ourselves off from the problems of Old, it acted as fertile grounds for Utopian/Dystopian literary experiments. So it was interesting to see how different authors utilized Mars as a symbol for second earth and exploring the possibilities of restarting society anew on this new earth. The books were extremely political. I’m always much more interested in content that I am in say narrative technique, aesthetics, or writing style. It’s no that I don’t appreciate those things, but I find them way too subjective and taste-oriented to have serious discussions about. I am generally only interested in those things as they relate to meaning and content. So obviously my paper didn’t delve too much into that.

That sounds pretty cool. I remember I had to write a paper somewhat like that, only mine was on Shakespearean cinema. It was agonizing work. I didn't even like A Midsummer Night's Dream that much when I started, but by the end... Off the top of my head though, I can only think of three Mars novels: Stranger in a Strange Land, Podkayne of Mars, and Red Mars. What books did you eventually wind up using?

[Drkshadow03]

Plot, structure, richness of vocabulary, character development, etc. are not abstract.

Really I must have missed all that discussion on plot, structure, and character development. It seems to me the majority of the discussion was pretty much repeating the same assertion that "Harry Potter is not good." It isn't beneficial to read Harry Potter, while it is beneficial to read "good books." Without any actual evidence to support these positions. I wouldn't exactly call that a concrete argument; I can't find one post that got into the nitty-gritty of the text.



[QUOTE]Oh, come on, that is absolutely false. Genre fiction is mostly all the same thing but with a different story. If one or a few works really surpasses the narrow "barriers" of what generally characterizes this genre, then it is the exception and it is it, that cannot be used to generalize the whole, and it also generally considered to be outside this genre.

"I think, therefore it must be." Declaring my point false does NOT make it so. I find a lot of diversity within genre fiction actually. Reading Philip K. Dick is not like reading Isaac Asimov, which is not like reading Tolkien, which is not like reading China Mieville, which is not like reading Sturgeon. All these writers have very different themes, plot, interests, and styles.

Also, how do you know exactly what characterizes the genre? Do you read a lot of it yourself?


You're losing yourself into sophism. As to what is genre and what is not, read JBI's post.

Sophism? What do you mean? I'm not the one playing language games, if anything its professors who pull the "oh, that's not really genre" comments that are engaging in sophistry.

Works like "The Left Hand of the Darkness" by Ursula LeGuin, which is one work where I've seen this comment made quite clearly fits into genre, its main audience are genre readers, and it still is usually found within the genre section of the bookstore. Likewise, a professor who derided horror fiction was enamored with Kelly Link's work (probably because she managed to get one story published in the Best American Short Story). However, Kelly Link's main audience I believe are still genre readers. And you'll see both of these authors attending Sci-fi conventions frequently.

So JBI's example has its limitations. Even though, I think he himself points out in his post that the labels in bookstores can sometimes be misleading.

Then of course it becomes an issue of whose critical opinion. These are usually professors who dislike genre fiction. Professors that do like genre fiction and write about as a part of their scholarly pursuits still have critical judgements and can tell the bad from the good. It's not like they are writing about any old space opera adventure with tons of purple aliens being shot up by cowboys in space. They generally focus on the work with real sociological value and interesting themes, which happens to be a higher percentage of genre work than you seem to think.

[Niamh]

I don't think we can really call Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy science fiction, in the sense that we can't call the Dunciad an epic. Mock-sci-fi or satire is a far better definition.

But also, think of other science fiction writers who were appropriated by the literary community. The one who first comes to mind is Kurt Vonnegut Jr, who was at first viewed as a mediocre sci-fi writer, than as a black humorist, then as a post-modernist.

But surely Mock sci-fi would be a sub section of science fiction? as would satirical sci-fi? ;)

[Drkshadow03]

That sounds pretty cool. I remember I had to write a paper somewhat like that, only mine was on Shakespearean cinema. It was agonizing work. I didn't even like A Midsummer Night's Dream that much when I started, but by the end... Off the top of my head though, I can only think of three Mars novels: Stranger in a Strange Land, Podkayne of Mars, and Red Mars. What books did you eventually wind up using?

H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds, Frederick Pohl's Man Plus, Heinlein's Double Star, Baker's "The Empress of Mars," Robinson's Red Mars and Blue Mars. I think I might have covered one more, but I don't remember what right now.

I also read some books that didn't make it into the paper because they were either horribly bad. One was a Larry Niven book I read that was just plain silly and boring.

[JBI]

But surely Mock sci-fi would be a sub section of science fiction? as would satirical sci-fi? ;)

It makes no difference. Genre is an abstraction, and in the contemporary sense, a rather new one. That is possibly the reason why examples are hard to find, because quite frankly, literature is an ongoing process, and it takes a while for books to be recognized. No one can read every book, therefore it is almost a given that there are good genre books, and bad "literary books". But the problem is, however, how we classify. For instance, we look at similar trends, such as wizards and dragons, or space ships and military suits, or an old fashion girl finally marrying the seemingly uninterested (though helplessly in love) good looking, rich man. But what if we, for instance, were to put all books with other traits into genres, like many academics do. So we could have the Bildungsroman shelf in the library, beside the Hisotriographic metafiction shelf, beside the family saga books. What would be the point of such division - none absolutely, since it doesn't help to sell books, which is the sole purpose of genrization as we see it in bookstores.

There are few good books written on the whole. Petrarch's Love can better attest to the history of mediocre books being written, as I am sure she has seen more historic examples than I have.

The question of genre verses literary is a marketing ploy. Literary emerged as a sub-genre of all the genres, and not limited by genre. There is no connecting device between literary novels in the way there are between genre novels. It is basically just a way for people looking for something unknown to them (I.E. they don't know what to expect on first reading the book) to get what they want.

[Etienne]

Really I must have missed all that discussion on plot, structure, and character development.

You, in fact, did miss it. Read the title of the topic, the discussion was at first on such "concrete" elements, but then apologists came and said that "at least it made people read" which drove the discussion to other planes.


Also, how do you know exactly what characterizes the genre? Do you read a lot of it yourself?

I have read some in the past, when I was younger. I have read the complete Dune series, I thought this one was pretty good.


Sophism? What do you mean? I'm not the one playing language games, if anything its professors who pull the "oh, that's not really genre" comments that are engaging in sophistry.

Well when exactly does the amount of books read stop so that one can judge a "genre"? The simple fact that it is classified in a genre (with possible exceptions) is a symptom that a work does not have the "strength" to be a "standalone" work of literature (which doesn't mean that every book not in the genre section is "good"). That means that the books would most probably be uninteresting by someone who is not interested in the particular genre.

Say I like literature, but I have no particular interest for fantasy. I like Calvino and Rabelais, but not because they write fantasy but because of their literary merits. Could someone, honestly, be interested in R.A Salvatore, for example, for his literary merits? Meaning that if he wrote some book which has nothing to do with fantasy or genre in general, you would still appreciate him as much? Good literature transcends it's subject matter for this very reason.


Then of course it becomes an issue of whose critical opinion. These are usually professors who dislike genre fiction. Professors that do like genre fiction and write about as a part of their scholarly pursuits still have critical judgements and can tell the bad from the good. It's not like they are writing about any old space opera adventure with tons of purple aliens being shot up by cowboys in space. They generally focus on the work with real sociological value and interesting themes, which happens to be a higher percentage of genre work than you seem to think.

Yes, I can agree with that, but read what you wrote again, "they generally focus on the work with real sociological value and interesting themes", which might be present, there is no doubt, but rarely will the aesthetic merits of the work, or it's contribution to literature as whole come into consideration.

Aristotle would tell you: there is the matter and the form. Great literature is both about matter and form.

[mortalterror]

JBI, the flaw in your reasoning is this, you classify books by transient and constantly metamorphosing states or by who reads them when and what their motivations are. It's so convoluted as to be unmanageable. Setting books into categories based on stable plot points is much easier and more reliable. Drkshadow03 is a librarian; so I'm sure he's more qualified to tell you about classifying literature than I am.

On a slightly personal note, I read Lucian's True Story (http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/true/index.htm) the other day, an ancient text about a trip to the moon and a voyage through the afterlife. The book was very Gulliver's Travels, but funnier. It most certainly belongs in the sci-fi/fantasy section. I think if it were there, more people would read it. More's the pity.

[Etienne]

JBI, the flaw in your reasoning is this, you classify books by transient and constantly metamorphosing states or by who reads them when and what their motivations are. It's so convoluted as to be unmanageable. Setting books into categories based on stable plot points is much easier and more reliable. Drkshadow03 is a librarian; so I'm sure he's more qualified to tell you about classifying literature than I am.

But such categorization is not made for academic or intellectual purposes, but for marketing purposes. So it's not about it being manageable or not. If we want to categorize them by stable plot points, and make Gargantua and Pantagruel be fantasy beside the Forgotten Realms, then of course, we cannot discuss about genres anymore in the topic at hand, and the discussion because all the more convoluted, don't you think?

That's a matter of semantics, and even if one does not have clear points of classification, I am pretty sure that anyone can understand what is meant by genres in the current discussion (which is also the common use of those genres). I think the point was already made, besides.

[JBI]

No I think you didn't get my point - the point is, genre has no bearing on value or experience, and therefore is pointless when discussing the works, and only serves the purpose of easing sales and minimally when discussing context.

[LitNetIsGreat]

This thread has been spawned by my Harry Potter thread which has been derailed to the unrecognisable, although an interesting point has been made which I wish to follow up on.

The theme seems to be:

Some novels are "worth" inherently more than others and we should not value reading unless something of "value" is being read."

I think this is a load of bunkum, myself.

I think any attempt to say otherwise is pure elitism and the exact equivalent of an art critic saying that one piece of art is inherently more valuable than my six-year old's scribbles.

:D

I wonder if you could just (or someone) define what you are saying at little. Are you saying that all books are of equal value or just that all books are worth reading regardless of value? So are you really saying Mills and Boon are as good as Shakespeare, in terms of value and worth, or is it just that all books have value in some way?

For example I have just read a chapter of Bethany the Ballet Fairy to my daughter, it served its purpose, she enjoyed it therefore it has merit in that regard, but I would like to see the paper that placed its literary value over that of King Lear. :p

[SleepyWitch]

I couldn't say that reading has done much towards improving my mind, broadening my horizon, teaching me morals& ethics, understanding life better, making me think or whatever it is they say reading "classics" will do for you.
Granted, maybe that's because I'm stupid, but seeing as I got lots of A's in Literature even at university level and am an A student in general :blush:, I don't think that's the reason.
I used to read all kinds of books, classics, middle-brow as well as 'pulp' (e.g. some popular crime fiction), but I must admit that being forced to read more classics at univ has put me off reading 'pulp', not because an elitist attitude was hammered into me, but because those 'pulp' books have such predictable plots and their characters are so clichéd (sp?) that I just can't seem to enjoy them anymore (I'm not talking about science fiction here, which I do love to read, but about the kind of books that top the best seller lists where I live).
On the other hand, I tend to read classics or contemporary literature (in the narrow, elitist sense of the word) for pure entertainment and don't think too much while reading them. I do think about stuff like gender, narrative perspective etc. while reading (because that's what we're taught to do at univ). But no matter how much I enjoy a book, I've never been able to extract any "lesson" etc from any of them.
Maybe the effect reading has had on me is less tangible and more difficult to pin down. For example, I tend to listen very closely to people and draw up a psychological profile of them. And I expect people to remember what they said to whom and expect that what they said made sense and was supposed to convey some message. Unfortunately, most people do not seem to listen to themselves (let alone to others) or use language to convey any meaningful messages. So they do not behave like people in a book. :(
Maybe the reason why I find it hard to learn anything from reading books is that I tend to accept characters the way they are. So even if a book has got some moral or whatever lesson to teach, I'm not impressed because I tend to see characters as just that: characters in books FULLSTOP.
One could probably argue that this ability to accept all kinds of characters, views, etc is a good thing, but then I'm not sure I developed this as a result of reading. I might have always been tolerant/ not prissy and reading has nothing to do with it?

Anyway, I hope I didn't ramble too much.
Could you guys give concrete examples of how a particular book has changed your outlook on life, your opinion about some issue or imparted some wisdom to you that you could not have learned in another way

[Etienne]

Anyway, I hope I didn't ramble too much.
Could you guys give concrete examples of how a particular book has changed your outlook on life, your opinion about some issue or imparted some wisdom to you that you could not have learn in another way

It's not really about one book changing your outlook on life. Think of reading good literature is for the mind like eating healthy food is for the body.

[Taliesin]

What we get out of reading is not only enjoyment. If enjoyment is the only reason to read a book, then there is no justification for anyone calling reading better than any other form of entertainment, be that video games, television, masturbation or fornication.

If however, we can accept that people get something else out of reading, such as knowledge, wisdom, experience, cognition, etc. Then we must distinguish between which works give more, and which give less. I would think the more challenging (note, I do not mean more difficult books to understand), and more intelligent books give more to readers than the mediocre.


Are you trying to suggest that masturbation and fornication don't give people cognition and experience?





Anyhow...

about the teaching and enjoying part - it seems that the teaching, or the experience, the cognition doesn't come directly, but more as a subliminal message.
Our director told us once that nowadays, in a play, you can't tell people things because people are so damn smart now that they know everything already and when you tell people things, they are not interested. But people want something that they feel intuitively, something about what they can't exactly say what they like, that more stress should be put on the intuitive rather than rational understanding.
I don't know how to differentiate exactly between the "teach" and "enjoy" because some things that we enjoy also teach us things at an intuitive level.
Then, on the other hand, I study mathematics (and yes, get enjoyment from reading mathematical texts) and don't have a degree in Literature so perhaps I missed something.

[mayneverhave]

When entering a bookstore and walking down the alphabetized aisles, you will find no Joyce, Faulkner, Shakespeare, Milton, but rather you must enter the stores specialized "Literature" section. If you call my personal opinion that literary fiction is greater than genre fiction "elitism", the very marketing and media hubs themselves (book stores) lay down those distinctions themselves and are just as guilty of "elitism".

As for genre works becoming "literary". There are numerous examples in film: Kubrick's 2001: A space Odyssey is a science fiction film that utterly destroys the genre and goes above and beyond to become just a "film". Scorsese's Raging Bull, as well, can be considered a sports film, as the main plot of the film deals with boxing, but is so much more.

Fiction, then, must similarly do the same to escape from a genre. Hamlet is most certainly a revenge tragedy - but yet a good portion of the play deals with everything but revenge. In order for a writer to go beyond the genre context (and there is nothing wrong with using a stereo-typical genre as merely a context for a greater work) they must do so by writing in a less cliched, more impressive language (that draws the focus away from the plot - which is the driving point of all genre work), and the creation of characters who avoid becoming the archetypical everyman and develop into real, compelling humans.

[JBI]

Glad you mentioned Hamlet, it is so convenient that you brought it up. We must not forget the players scene, when Hamlet offers us a rich interlude into Shakespeare's idea of literary criticism. If you know what I am talking about, Shakespeare himself even gives us a view of genre in his day, and its limitations, and goes on to destroy the boundaries.

[Niamh]

I've been in plenty of bookstores where they are with the general a-z fiction

[JBI]

Meh, most book stores around me simply have classics and genre fiction. Poetry is virtually unseen besides a few volumes of well known poets. Literary novels are also scarce, and international works are somewhat hard to come by as well. I generally go to niched book stores, second hand charity booksales, and my university book store, not to mention the library, for my browsing. The big box book stores don't seem to have much of what I am looking for, which is a shame, but luckily, I know where to look.

Though I think my biggest quibble with bookstores around me is most don't stock Canadian writers and Canadian fiction, and merely just stock the big American names. I find that problematic, and so I avoid those stores.

[Niamh]

Poetry and drama is separate. we have general fiction a-z. Irish fiction a-z. Crime, Sci-fi fantasy, kids and young adult, then loads of non fiction ones. I suppose we all do things differently in different countries.
bit strange not getting canadian fiction in a canadian bookshop....:confused:

[Etienne]

Well JBI, I've been to quite a few places around the world, and I've always found the situation you describe, and I find myself extremely lucky then to live in Montreal, as there are many great bookshops, and a great load of second hand bookshops too.

[mayneverhave]

I make good use of my university's library as well.

The entire third floor of the library contains mostly classic/literary fiction. There is about an entire row or more of works specifically on Shakespeare, which is quite sad, as this section of the library is virtually untouched by over 90% of the student body. Even among my fellow English majors it is difficult to find anyone with even a remote interested in literary criticism.

Oh well, this is why I'm constantly on here talking to all of you.

[The Atheist]

If however, we can accept that people get something else out of reading, such as knowledge, wisdom, experience, cognition, etc. Then we must distinguish between which works give more, and which give less. I would think the more challenging (note, I do not mean more difficult books to understand), and more intelligent books give more to readers than the mediocre.

I really think that only applies if there are things to be learnt from books which cannot be learned in another way.

I agree that some books have more or less than others of those qualities you espouse, but on the basis of imparting knowledge, the handbook for a Bugatti Veyron would be the best and most valuable book ever written.


But the question remains, to what extent are the reader's aesthetic views developed?

And I'd just answer "So what?"

To what extent are my aesthetic views developed by looking at a Monet instead of this (http://www.suecrockford.com/artists/images.asp?aid=7&img=1_Hotere.jpg&url=1_Hotere)?

Literature is part of the arts and is accoringly always subjective as to its valuation. Certainly, lots of people (me included) value some works over others, but I can't accept that any book is intrinsically greater than any other. Messages contained in prose, poetry, art, sculpture and music are not always received in the same manner they are transmitted and not everyone sees the same thing.


....where he argues, splendidly, that poetry both teaches and delights, and the two are unseparable - it delights because it teaches, and it teaches because it delights.

That'd be lost on me. I hate poetry. I can't think of anything lacking in my life through avoiding poetry like it was norovirus, either.


If something only is meant to teach, it won't, because it will simply bore the reader, and therefore isn't really worthwhile. If something is only there to entertain, it fails again, because it doesn't teach anything, and therefore only wastes time, of which the person could have been doing other things.

Fortunately, almost no non-technical books are written to teach solely. As far as I'm aware, most of 'em were written to be sold.


If they teach very little, and delight very little, they simply aren't worth while. But if they do both at a high level, such as George Eliot's Middlemarch, or Adunis's poetry, then the work is superb.

This is crazy stuff.

Why is teaching valued over enjoyment? I'd rather read Frederick Forsyth and be thoroughly entertained than read some pap which is supposed to edify me in some way. I'm not claiming to know everything, but I don't believe there is any non-technical information I'm going to learn from books nowadays.


Their aesthetic taste is not developed, and therefore they aren't fit to judge what is before them.

Nope, the analogy fails. The 11-course meal may be high in TFAs and be poisonous long-term against spam. With eating, at least you can quantift the nutritional benefit. No such thing exists with written words outside of the subjective analysis of value.


I wonder if you could just (or someone) define what you are saying at little. Are you saying that all books are of equal value or just that all books are worth reading regardless of value? So are you really saying Mills and Boon are as good as Shakespeare, in terms of value and worth, or is it just that all books have value in some way?

Yes, all books are of equal value. Any placing of more value on one than another (which I do frequently, being an Orwell nut) is a purely subjective view.

It doesn't matter whether a book has 1 or 1,000,000,000 readers, it still has no more intrinsic value than the wood the paper was made from, just as a Picasso has no more intrinsic value than the canvas and paint. Interestingly, painters used to realise this by recycling older works of art to paint on.

[Etienne]

it still has no more intrinsic value than the wood the paper was made from, just as a Picasso has no more intrinsic value than the canvas and paint. Interestingly, painters used to realise this by recycling older works of art to paint on.

Why do you buy a book instead of a pile of blank paper then? It costs less and you get your paper one way or the other. If it's for the ink, this is quite cheap as well when you buy them in bottle.

[JBI]

Honestly, you theoretically cannot even prove your own existence to anyone but yourself (if you can even do that). This sort of arguing goes nowhere, and is merely nihilist rhetoric. It all will come down to - what is the point of living if you are just going to die. There is no answer, the same way there is no definite, unconditional answer that reading is worthwhile. We must accept certain assumptions if we are to get beyond pointless arguing over logical fallacies.

[Jozanny]

Atheist: Humanity may create gods which merely suits its needs as the epoch requires, but aesthetic merit is actually authentic, even innate, to what makes us human. Yes, literary people will squabble, but you are so far out in left field that nothing we can post can help you catch your bearings. The woman you married was an aesthetic choice.

[Etienne]

The woman you married was an aesthetic choice.

That was nicely put.

[Drkshadow03]

You, in fact, did miss it. Read the title of the topic, the discussion was at first on such "concrete" elements, but then apologists came and said that "at least it made people read" which drove the discussion to other planes.

What's the title have to do with anything? He was questioning whether Harry Potter had been Ghost Written. It had nothing to do with any those elements really.

If you want to make a concrete argument you should do the following. I believe Harry Potter is hackneyed. Now let me demonstrate where Potter is hackneyed:
. See how line X is similar to what writers J, B, and C (preferably with some quotes). See how idea Z is just rehashing of N. As we can clearly see Harry Potter's ideas are not original and just re-used tropes.

So where did anyone do anything remotely like that in the thread?

[QUOTE]Well when exactly does the amount of books read stop so that one can judge a "genre"? The simple fact that it is classified in a genre (with possible exceptions) is a symptom that a work does not have the "strength" to be a "standalone" work of literature (which doesn't mean that every book not in the genre section is "good"). That means that the books would most probably be uninteresting by someone who is not interested in the particular genre.

For starters one should read the major writers of a genre.


Say I like literature, but I have no particular interest for fantasy. I like Calvino and Rabelais, but not because they write fantasy but because of their literary merits. Could someone, honestly, be interested in R.A Salvatore, for example, for his literary merits? Meaning that if he wrote some book which has nothing to do with fantasy or genre in general, you would still appreciate him as much? Good literature transcends it's subject matter for this very reason.

Who said I appreciate R.A. Salvatore? I appreciate authors who entertain me and keep me interested. Period.


Yes, I can agree with that, but read what you wrote again, "they generally focus on the work with real sociological value and interesting themes", which might be present, there is no doubt, but rarely will the aesthetic merits of the work, or it's contribution to literature as whole come into consideration.

a) not all literary works that are in the Canon have "contributed to literature as whole." SOME have. A work can rest on its meaningfulness and entertainment value and originality of content rather than on its contribution to new styles or aesthetic beauty.

b) aesthetic merits are important, but there not the end all, be all of literary works.

Aristotle would actually tell me: "One may string together a series of characteristic speeches of the utmost finish as regards Diction and Thought, and yet fail to produce the true tragic effect; but one will have much better success with a tragedy which, however inferior in these respects, has a Plot, a combination of incidents, in it."

Your moment of Zen. ;)

[Etienne]

Oh well, I see you have misread over half of my post, but whatever, I'm done discussing this.

Just one example:
Who said I appreciate R.A. Salvatore? I appreciate authors who entertain me and keep me interested. Period.

No one said that... it was an example, and you completely ignored the point.

[JBI]

Strangely enough, one of the central facets of post-modernism is the undercutting, and mixing of genre forms, and literary types. Genre therefore can be seen as somewhat dated in comparison to multi-genre works, such as magical realism works like Borges, which blend realism, fantastical, and other elements, or historeographic metafiction, which blends history and other elements into one work. Of course, this isn't to say all genre works contain one genre in themselves, and don't branch out, it just says that most of them do.

Genre in itself can't be used to categorize literary works, since they mix genres, undercut genres, satirize genres, or offer something so unique that they can't be genrized. Stupidly enough, there is even a genre called mainstream, which means books that aren't genre, but aren't literary. How's that for a genre?

[stlukesguild]

This thread has been spawned by my Harry Potter thread which has been derailed to the unrecognisable, although an interesting point has been made which I wish to follow up on.

The theme seems to be:

Some novels are "worth" inherently more than others and we should not value reading unless something of "value" is being read."

I think this is a load of bunkum, myself.

I think any attempt to say otherwise is pure elitism and the exact equivalent of an art critic saying that one piece of art is inherently more valuable than my six-year old's scribbles.

Let's see if JBI wants to play!

Obviously the OP was designed merely to provoke us "elitists"... and yes... I have no problem admitting that I am an elitist. I do not for a single moment accept the notion of artistic/aesthetic relativity. All art is not of the same merit. Even among the "scribbles" by six-year-olds there are examples that are better and worse. As an art teacher I am made aware of this each and every day.

As JoZ pointed out even the choice of your wife... girlfriend... etc... is an aesthetic choice. I think most of us would have a problem with the notion that any woman/man would have been just as good. Neither do we have a problem admitting that a certain baseball team or football team is better than another. But to suggest that some works of art are better than others is immediately taken as a snobbish position... because it suggests (gasp!) that some opinions are better than others. Guess what? That would be right.

We all make aesthetic decisions. We must. We cannot read and reread each and every book... thus we must make the decision as to which books bring us the greatest degree of pleasure. In that sense, aesthetic decisions are certainly individual and subjective. To state that I dislike this book or that this painting does absolutely nothing for me is fine. To point out that book X or painting Y has sold millions of copies is completely irrelevant to the question of its artistic merits. The popularity of a work of art is based upon the ability of an artist to fill a certain niche and to reach the largest possible audience. Popularity neither speaks for nor against the artistic merits of a work of art. Some works that achieve great popularity will stand the test of time... the vast majority won't. The fact that a given book is popular is about as useful a measure of artistic merit as he question of which book makes a better paperweight. When we begin to make broader statements declaring that this book is great or bad or this artist is far better than that one then we are no longer making a statement of personal preference... we are making a statement that is far more objective... a statement of fact.

The arts are certainly never going to be as objective as the hard sciences... and even they are not completely objective... theories sometimes become fact... and sometimes are overturned. The standards of art are largely based upon the communal opinions of those who have invested the greatest degree of time... effort... study... etc... into the study and appreciation of the same. Here we are speaking of art critics, historians, collectors, subsequent artists and (like most of us here) art lovers... or in literary terms, "the common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the word). The opinion of doctors holds far more weight when I am seeking out treatment for an ailment. The opinion of an electrician is far more valued than that of the population as a whole when it comes to my breaker box sparking and all the lights in my home going off. Why then should it be surprising that the opinion of those having invested great labor in the study of art may hold a greater weight than that of the masses? Elitist? Yes. But there is nothing to stop anyone from putting forth a similar effort into the field. Perhaps their opinions about what art is or is not good will stay the same... yet with the ability to persuasively argue their point based upon examples/comparisons, etc... More than likely their taste will change as they begin to recognize that not all art is created equal.

Atheist: Humanity may create gods which merely suits its needs as the epoch requires, but aesthetic merit is actually authentic, even innate, to what makes us human. Yes, literary people will squabble, but you are so far out in left field that nothing we can post can help you catch your bearings. The woman you married was an aesthetic choice.

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

JoZ... is that marriage proposal still valid?:brow::lol::D

[librarius_qui]

Poetry and drama is separate. we have general fiction a-z. Irish fiction a-z. Crime, Sci-fi fantasy, kids and young adult, then loads of non fiction ones. I suppose we all do things differently in different countries.
bit strange not getting canadian fiction in a canadian bookshop....:confused:

Sorry to interrupt it all with a silly interlude, but ...

since your location says
"By the Black Pools of Faerie"

I wander, "are there any bookstores in that country?" ... :D
Never mind about it, I was only thinking outloud ...


librarius
:crash:

[Drkshadow03]

Sorry to interrupt it all with a silly interlude, but ...

since your location says
"By the Black Pools of Faerie"

I wander, "are there any bookstores in that country?" ... :D
Never mind about it, I was only thinking outloud ...



Ha Ha! That's where they shelves Harry Potter is in the realist section. ;)

[JBI]

Reminds me of the time some girl I know called me boring for reading Saramago, and criticizing Twilight. I doubt she had even heard of Saramago before seeing me with a volume by him, and simply because he was a foreign writer, and a Nobel Prize winner, not to mention the name of the book was Balthasar and Blimunda, she concluded that I was boring for reading said work.

What a shame - Perhaps had she given Saramago a chance, assuming she could comprehend his brilliantly unique poetic-prose style, she could possibly had enjoyed something. As it is, her aesthetic focus is on Twilight, and Harry Potter. I don't think I'm boring for it, I think she is. What I get out of reading, for instance, As for me And My House by Sinclair Ross she can hardly fathom, since she simply doesn't know.

[Etienne]

Reminds me of the time some girl I know called me boring for reading Saramago, and criticizing Twilight. I doubt she had even heard of Saramago before seeing me with a volume by him, and simply because he was a foreign writer, and a Nobel Prize winner, not to mention the name of the book was Balthasar and Blimunda, she concluded that I was boring for reading said work.

Jumping out of topic a second, Saramago's books have been roaming at the tip of my fingers for a while at my frequent visits at the bookshops, which one(s) would you recommend?

[JBI]

Jumping out of topic a second, Saramago's books have been roaming at the tip of my fingers for a while at my frequent visits at the bookshops, which one(s) would you recommend?

Only read this one, and it was great. I don't know what the French title of the book is, if you are wondering, and the Portuguese title is Memorial do Convento, which isn't the same as the English

[bluevictim]

Here we are speaking of art critics, historians, collectors, subsequent artists and (like most of us here) art lovers... or in literary terms, "the common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the word). The opinion of doctors holds far more weight when I am seeking out treatment for an ailment. The opinion of an electrician is far more valued than that of the population as a whole when it comes to my breaker box sparking and all the lights in my home going off. Why then should it be surprising that the opinion of those having invested great labor in the study of art may hold a greater weight than that of the masses? Elitist? Yes. But there is nothing to stop anyone from putting forth a similar effort into the field.The fundamental deficiency that I see with these analogies is that one doesn't need to be a doctor to evaluate whether or not a doctor has done a good job treating your ailment, nor does one need to be an electrician to evaluate whether or not good work has been done on the breaker box. If a bunch of highly trained doctors say Dr. Abe is the best doctor and Dr. Bob is a terrible doctor, but every patient of Dr. Abe dies under his care whereas every patient of Dr. Bob makes a full recovery, little ol' me with no medical training can still conclude that the highly trained doctors' opinions are wrong, or at least they have a different definition of "good" than the one I'm interested in.

I think a more apt comparison can be made to the religious elite. A regular guy might well wonder why cussing is wrong, but defer to the opinion of his pastor because, after all, the pastor is the "expert" on morality, and there isn't really a clear alternative authority.

A problem that elitists face in every age is that they have to simultaneously distinguish themselves from everyone else to establish their superiority, and at the same time find enough common ground with everyone else to keep their superiority relevant. So, if the elites continually call books "great" that people don't enjoy, and pan as "trash" the books that people do enjoy, the rational thing for non-elites to do is to perform a little bit of simple code-breaking and conclude that they should read the "trash" and skip the "greats".

It may indeed be the case that, by investing the resources to get initiated into the elite, one will enjoy some of the "greats" that he/she didn't enjoy before. This raises the question, how important is this additional elite ability? If it really is the case that the experience of the masses have no relevance to the standards of the elite, then inevitably the standards of the elite have no benefit for the masses and therefore this additional elite ability isn't very important at all.

It seems to me that long term popularity is one of the most reliable objective indicators of a book's worth available. You (stlukesguild) almost concede as much when you use as a criterion whether or not the work stands the test of time.


As to the larger question in this thread about "genre fiction" versus "literary fiction", some of you might be interested in these tidbits I've come across from Neal Stephenson.

The first is his answer to the second question in this interview (http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/20/1518217) on Slashdot (look under "2) The lack of respect ... - by MosesJones"). He talks about the differences in "accountability" between different kinds of writers.

The second is this talk (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/11/neal-stephenson-lect.html) he gave, which I found on boing boing (warning: it's about 40 minutes long). Here he mainly makes observations about the state of "speculative fiction".

[librarius_qui]

Jumping out of topic a second, Saramago's books have been roaming at the tip of my fingers for a while at my frequent visits at the bookshops, which one(s) would you recommend?

José is kind'a tricky ... Try to take a look at all the titles, and search for the one(s) you think might interest you better.

I haven't read him up till now, but I itch for reading the History of the Siege of Lisbon, because of my background. (I lived in Portugal, I like History, I wish to begin reading Saramago and I have to choose a door ...)

But maybe someone who's read many of his books already will give you better directions.

These are two ways of finding out where to begin from, I think.


librarius
:crash:

[Etienne]

Only read this one, and it was great. I don't know what the French title of the book is, if you are wondering, and the Portuguese title is Memorial do Convento, which isn't the same as the English

Heh, the French title is Le dieu manchot (something like the one-armed god or the penguin god, not sure which meaning they want to give).

Those crazy translators...

[librarius_qui]

Heh, the French title is Le dieu manchot (something like the one-armed god or the penguin god, not sure which meaning they want to give).

Those crazy translators...

French tradition. Brasilian goes after it. I like 1000 times better the Portuguese way of translating things, because they actually TRANSLATE, and don't keep trying to find meanings to give to what already has meaning ...

Tough matter to discuss, this one, though ...


librarius
:crash:

[Etienne]

French tradition. Brasilian goes after it. I like 1000 times better the Portuguese way of translating things, because they actually TRANSLATE, and don't keep trying to find meanings to give to what already has meaning ...

Tough matter to discuss, this one, though ...


librarius
:crash:

Not really, since the English title is also far from the original translation. It always depends on the works. I'm not sure it has anything to do with tradition, you know.

Translating is not always an easy matter, recently I became aware of the translation of the title of a book by Saint-Exupéry. The title is Terre des hommes. Something like Land of Man, but Terre in French means both Earth and land and both meanings are important. The universal exposition in Montreal had as title Terre des hommes, which they translated in English as Man and his Land (Land of Man is still the best bet in my opinion). Not very good translation, in my opinion. The title of the book in English is so bad though, it's: Wind, Sand and Stars... ugh... but this book is absolutely amazing, by the way, I could not recommend it enough. Probably one of the most beautiful books ever written.

[librarius_qui]

Not really, since the English title is also far from the original translation. It always depends on the works. I'm not sure it has anything to do with tradition, you know.

You'r~ right ... Maybe it doesn't. It's a hypothesis. "Every hipothesis needs material data to be proved or refuted" (...).

I've only put a general feeling I have on the matter, based on other cases, better not to mention here, cause it'll go waaaay off-topic.

We might open a thread (or ressurrect one?) on translation.


lbr_q

[The Atheist]

Why do you buy a book instead of a pile of blank paper then? It costs less and you get your paper one way or the other. If it's for the ink, this is quite cheap as well when you buy them in bottle.

You obviously missed my point - I clearly stated that each and every opinion on a particular book is a personal, and entirely subjective opinion.

Can I be clearer?

I read the books I choose to because I rate them far higher than other books, but that is purely my opinion. Other people will have different opinions (and abilities) and suggesting that one book is better than another for someone else is silly.


Honestly, you theoretically cannot even prove your own existence to anyone but yourself (if you can even do that).

Hell, I constantly remind people that solipsism is both ugly and stupid. What it has to do with the topic, I have no idea, but I'm with ya!


This sort of arguing goes nowhere, and is merely nihilist rhetoric.

Well, you seem to be making a good attempt at turning into nihilistic rhetoric, but I doubt that I'll help you on that.


It all will come down to - what is the point of living if you are just going to die.

Considering I was talking about reading, I really don't see the connection to my argument. Or anyone else's for that matter.


There is no answer, the same way there is no definite, unconditional answer that reading is worthwhile.

I disagree with that entirely; in fact, I thought I'd mentioned that reading was a survival tool. (I did, back a few posts.)

Odd that on one hand you're arguing the worth of one piece of writing over another, but you can't decide whether reading itself is inherently useful.


We must accept certain assumptions if we are to get beyond pointless arguing over logical fallacies.

Nicely put!

May I paraphrase?

"I say that these are Teh Rools and any argument to the contrary is fallacious."

Hmmmm...

Seen better attempts to justify a position.


Atheist: Humanity may create gods which merely suits its needs as the epoch requires, but aesthetic merit is actually authentic, even innate, to what makes us human. Yes, literary people will squabble, but you are so far out in left field that nothing we can post can help you catch your bearings. The woman you married was an aesthetic choice.

Again, I have actually said just that.

Your choice of wifely aesthetics backs me up beautifully!

Unless you want to argue that certain traits of humans are aesthetically more pleasing/attractive than another, it makes my point for me.


Obviously the OP was designed merely to provoke us "elitists"... and yes... I have no problem admitting that I am an elitist.

I hadn't particularly aimed at any sector, but yes, I did have a small suspicion that those who class themselves as lietarary elitists would have a word or two to say!

:D


I do not for a single moment accept the notion of artistic/aesthetic relativity.

Well, you wouldn't, would you, you're an elitist!


All art is not of the same merit. Even among the "scribbles" by six-year-olds there are examples that are better and worse. As an art teacher I am made aware of this each and every day.

So, at one swathe, you consigning any child with a defect in hand/eye co-ordination to being called "useless" at art?

In sport, we have a rule that merit is based on effort. I've always found it interesting that art works in the opposite direction.

Let's play.

In what way are the drawings of some six-year olds better than others?


As JoZ pointed out even the choice of your wife... girlfriend... etc... is an aesthetic choice. I think most of us would have a problem with the notion that any woman/man would have been just as good.

As you can see above, I agree with you 100%.

But on your basis, because she's an outstanding and most beautiful woman, that she must therefore be as good a wife for anyone else! You know that's not right, which means that, like Jo, you've just made my argument for me.


Neither do we have a problem admitting that a certain baseball team or football team is better than another.

Nah, leave the sports analogies to me.

;)

Shocking analogy, by the way. In sport, we have a thing called a scoreboard. Each match, the scoreboard shows a winner and a loser. These are indisputable facts, which cannot be subject to any opinion at all.


But to suggest that some works of art are better than others is immediately taken as a snobbish position... because it suggests (gasp!) that some opinions are better than others. Guess what? That would be right.

Well, you're talking to someone who is an elitist intellectually, so I can understand you position.

I don't agree with it at all, though.


We all make aesthetic decisions. We must. We cannot read and reread each and every book... thus we must make the decision as to which books bring us the greatest degree of pleasure. In that sense, aesthetic decisions are certainly individual and subjective.

Couldn't disagree with a word of that. I said as much a couple of times already.


To point out that book X or painting Y has sold millions of copies is completely irrelevant to the question of its artistic merits.

Agree again. Hell. I'm an atheist - I don't do arguments from popularity.


When we begin to make broader statements declaring that this book is great or bad or this artist is far better than that one then we are no longer making a statement of personal preference... we are making a statement that is far more objective... a statement of fact.

Then make that argument!

Since you can state why one piece of art or literature is better than another, go ahead. Don't just tell me it happens, show me how you arrive at the assessment of greatness objectively.


The standards of art are largely based upon the communal opinions of those who have invested the greatest degree of time... effort... study... etc... into the study and appreciation of the same. Here we are speaking of art critics, historians, collectors, subsequent artists and (like most of us here) art lovers... or in literary terms, "the common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the word). The opinion of doctors holds far more weight when I am seeking out treatment for an ailment. The opinion of an electrician is far more valued than that of the population as a whole when it comes to my breaker box sparking and all the lights in my home going off.

Breaking this down, using your own analogy, you're saying that people who study hard are the ones of value - like elctricians. If they are able to complete the intrinsic technical elements of the job, then that person is of great value.

A great artist then, will be one who makes no technical mistakes and a great novelist will be one with a PhD in English Literature and perfect grammar. The bad news is, from a literary sense, that Steven King is the Lit Prof, while Orwell was essentially a drop-out.

I'm glad you prefer King to Orwell. I have it the other way around myself, but hey, either/either.


Why then should it be surprising that the opinion of those having invested great labor in the study of art may hold a greater weight than that of the masses? Elitist? Yes. But there is nothing to stop anyone from putting forth a similar effort into the field. Perhaps their opinions about what art is or is not good will stay the same... yet with the ability to persuasively argue their point based upon examples/comparisons, etc... More than likely their taste will change as they begin to recognize that not all art is created equal.

Nor is all wiring, which is why some houses burn down and others don't.

I'm glad we've sorted all this out, and I thank you for your help.

Greatness is achieved through hard work, not talent. He who worls hardest is best. Very Boxer (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25177&highlight=boxer)-like in the end.

[Petronius]

The arts are certainly never going to be as objective as the hard sciences... and even they are not completely objective... theories sometimes become fact... and sometimes are overturned. The standards of art are largely based upon the communal opinions of those who have invested the greatest degree of time... effort... study... etc... into the study and appreciation of the same. Here we are speaking of art critics, historians, collectors, subsequent artists and (like most of us here) art lovers... or in literary terms, "the common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the word). The opinion of doctors holds far more weight when I am seeking out treatment for an ailment. The opinion of an electrician is far more valued than that of the population as a whole when it comes to my breaker box sparking and all the lights in my home going off. Why then should it be surprising that the opinion of those having invested great labor in the study of art may hold a greater weight than that of the masses? Elitist? Yes. But there is nothing to stop anyone from putting forth a similar effort into the field. Perhaps their opinions about what art is or is not good will stay the same... yet with the ability to persuasively argue their point based upon examples/comparisons, etc... More than likely their taste will change as they begin to recognize that not all art is created equal.

The problem with this is that the purpose of art is to be experienced directly, not analyzed. The latter is a deviant approach that many writers (such as Fowles) disapprove of. While I understand the purpose of such behaviour in our culture, I do find it distasteful. How can we speak of aesthetic choice, when we then come back and center art on technicalities? It's like, rather than observing an animal in the wild, we choose to disect it. While that may help us understand in more detail how that organism works, one can not retrace the steps and make it alive again.

But my greatest problem with literary elitism are the strong conservative nuances, hinting at intellectual inbreeding. Most "quality literature" comments refer to canon authors, which makes weak points against popular literature (and I hate most popular literature), because there's little difference between the sides. Influential, after all, is simply popular within a limited group, while the fanboy and the snob are the same ape in a different suit. Shakespeare is poised so high on the standard of western culture that even a five year old can say "Oh, this is no Shakespeare" about another work, maybe even quote something he heard somewhere else, and get away with it. On an intellectual level, it tries to impress and fails.
Realistically, as good as they were, most canon works are dipped and broiled in outdated world-views (hence, the "difficulty" and need to study in order to find meanings) and they belong in a box with today's artists and art-lovers outside, unless they are specifically drawn to the era afferent to a certain author.

[Niamh]

Sorry to interrupt it all with a silly interlude, but ...

since your location says
"By the Black Pools of Faerie"

I wander, "are there any bookstores in that country?" ... :D
Never mind about it, I was only thinking outloud ...


librarius
:crash:
Where i actually live is in that sentance i'll have you know. Black pool in Irish is Dubh Linn and my city is Dublin which means the black pool. The whole faery bit is because i usually have a faery avatar. Not to forget also that my country has a large collection of faerie myths, legends, folklore, locations associated with faeries and literature. So dont you think that the Black pool of faerie is quite fitting for Dublin, Ireland?


Ha Ha! That's where they shelves Harry Potter is in the realist section. ;)
yes very funny.

[JCamilo]

Genres distinctions are ridiculous, science fiction, policial, fantasy are almost only usefull for the organization of shelves in libraries. As I said before, if we consider Fantasy was and is the only genre that matters. And it wont show anything about quality, c'mom, Paulo Coelho have stories that have the same argument of Khalil Gibran and Jorge Luis Borges. What does it matters.

The only reason people should be educated to read is to have access to a knowledge that was once a privilegy of a few classes, not to read just to read and die happy because they could spell their names. Of course, not everyone will turn to be such specialized kind of writer than will go reading Finnegans Wake in subway. But there is considerable more options and she must at least move there once or while (I disagree with the notion that after reading Dante would make impossible to enjoy any inferior work, even because we must re-read it. Since I consider the Comedy the greatest work ever and I have read it when I was very young, my life would be quite painfull. "Ack, Brothers Karamazov, how inferior to Dante it is. I feel painnn!") and I think the average work help to keep the market and all alive.
The problem is how the market is today, massive propaganda for one model - In less traditional markets (such as Brazil, where the "academy" does not have stronger roots due to a older literary tradition) the damage is considerable.

[JCamilo]

French tradition. Brasilian goes after it. I like 1000 times better the Portuguese way of translating things, because they actually TRANSLATE, and don't keep trying to find meanings to give to what already has meaning ...

Tough matter to discuss, this one, though ...


librarius
:crash:

Blame Machado de Assis for this, but really brazilians can be rather original with translations as well, all the market consideration and all...

[muhsin]

Nice thread.

[Etienne]

So, at one swathe, you consigning any child with a defect in hand/eye co-ordination to being called "useless" at art?

Well a kid with a leg missing won't run as fast, isn't it?


In sport, we have a rule that merit is based on effort. I've always found it interesting that art works in the opposite direction.

Well you can always give merit based on effort, but whatever you want it to be, the kid just won't run as fast.

[JBI]

Effort isn't the only factor. You are forgetting inspiration which is even more crucial than natural ability.

[The Atheist]

But my greatest problem with literary elitism are the strong conservative nuances, hinting at intellectual inbreeding. Most "quality literature" comments refer to canon authors, which makes weak points against popular literature (and I hate most popular literature), because there's little difference between the sides. Influential, after all, is simply popular within a limited group, while the fanboy and the snob are the same ape in a different suit. Shakespeare is poised so high on the standard of western culture that even a five year old can say "Oh, this is no Shakespeare" about another work, maybe even quote something he heard somewhere else, and get away with it. On an intellectual level, it tries to impress and fails.
Realistically, as good as they were, most canon works are dipped and broiled in outdated world-views (hence, the "difficulty" and need to study in order to find meanings) and they belong in a box with today's artists and art-lovers outside, unless they are specifically drawn to the era afferent to a certain author.

Very nicely put.


Well a kid with a leg missing won't run as fast, isn't it?

Well you can always give merit based on effort, but whatever you want it to be, the kid just won't run as fast.

Correct.

Because in sport, the facts are absolute. A runner with one leg cannot run as fast as one with two. That's why we have the Paralympics.

If sport were judged on aesthetic qualities, a disabled person would have the same chances as an able-bodied one. because sport is about physical comparisons, obviously a one-legged person cannot compete.

Those sports analogies just aren't doing it for you.

:D


Effort isn't the only factor. You are forgetting inspiration which is even more crucial than natural ability.

That would then make J K Rowling an outstanding author. She's certainly put in the effort, taking many years to get from idea to publishing, and regardless of how her books are seen, they are certainly inspired. I don't think there's any other way to describe a plot which has enabled its author to become a billionaire. J K Rowling has oodles of inspiration. And if you meant inspirational authors, I'd have a two word reply:

John Kehoe.

I don't believe either the inspiration behind the book/s or the inspirational nature of the text supports your belief at all.

Seems to me that your defence of labelling of "great" literature comes down to no more than your personal preference, based upon your own aesthetic tastes and cultural/educational background.

[Jozanny]

Again, I have actually said just that.

Your choice of wifely aesthetics backs me up beautifully!

Unless you want to argue that certain traits of humans are aesthetically more pleasing/attractive than another, it makes my point for me.

No it doesn't. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but there are things any philosophical inquiry or criticism can say about the beauty itself. One of them, in literature or art, is universal appeal.

Let me take De Kooning, which was one of the few splendid discussions we had on DIA:


Re: [DisabilityinArts] De Kooning


Very well. I am pleased that visual art has made its way into the discussions. It is such a subjective form of art and I am sure everybody will have an opinion to share with the group. Abstract art is not an easy area to understand as it focuses the viewer on the medium: paint, canvas, the tactile quality of the work and not so much on a definate object other than the painting itself.

There are many areas on the internet that discuss Willem De Koonings late paintings. A quick google will suffice. However the curator and writer Robert Storr from the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) has written an in depth study of the late paintings with reference to other famous artists late paintings. In the book to accompany the exhibition that has traveled across America and Europe Robert storr gives a lengthy account of the works and gives interesting details on De Koonings studio practise while painting the late works. An excerpt of which is here: http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/1997/dekooning/essay.html


I will follow up this email with some more information about abstract painting and be posting a few images of paintings done by De Kooning at different stages to discuss. The history of the Abstract school, as the main group were known, is very interesting and eventfull. Willem DeKooning was considered on of the leading lights of this movement. At the time of revolution of abstract expressionism in the 50s people were still very sceptical, expecially in Europe about the new move away from realism to what seemed like just splashes or doodles on canvas. Sometimes leaving parts of the canvas showing. This sceptisisim has reemerged in a different form again as Dekooning, the aging abstract artist, changes his painting methods and style. Seemingly due to deteriation as a result of alzheimer's desease. How now do we assess his work. Are the late works valid De Kooning paintings? How do we assess DeKoonings identity as a painter.

The member who got this topic voted in was a rare find, a special education teacher in England who actually had an education, unlike most of my American members who wanted to turn blue in the face about ADAPT radicalism.

I do not have a great deal of art world training, but I have enough to see that what makes De Kooning De Kooning, even after he was dying of Alzheimer's, is his use of color and line to appeal to our basic emotions with a coy playfulness. Every artist, every writer who makes it, has some trait of this universal appeal, regardless of culture or point of origin, something that touches and says "Yes, I can identify with that!" So that we may learn something about ourselves, or the world around us, refreshing vigor and will, and the sheer joy of living.

And this is my last engagement with YOU about aesthetic uselessness. You have my pity.

[JBI]

They aren't inspired by the right things. She refurbished things. When I talk about inspiration, I mean it in the Wordsworthian sense, in the channeling of Raw emotions. Rowling I don't think is very inspired - a mere beginners level of Greek mythology, and a boring reading of cliché works isn't inspiration.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Atheist, I am interested in your points throughout this thread, but for me I have to side with the "elitists," some books are simply better than others.

[The Comedian]

My response to this thread is based on perspective, but the short answer is, "yes"; some books are better than others.

One legitimate way of looking at book is by way of craft. Just as some houses are better than others (they may use higher quality materials, make more efficient use of space, etc), so too are some books simply made better than others. Characters are complete, language is accurate and precise, form is challenged or perfected in purposive ways.

However, if "better" simply means personal taste -- you like Harry Potter, while others didn't -- then no, on this ground all books are chaotically equal.

[LitNetIsGreat]

My response to this thread is based on perspective, but the short answer is, "yes"; some books are better than others.

One legitimate way of looking at book is by way of craft. Just as some houses are better than others (they may use higher quality materials, make more efficient use of space, etc), so too are some books simply made better than others. Characters are complete, language is accurate and precise, form is challenged or perfected in purposive ways.

However, if "better" simply means personal taste -- you like Harry Potter, while others didn't -- then no, on this ground all books are chaotically equal.

But there is more to it than personal taste as you commented upon in your second paragraph.

*Elitist spoiler* I also think that the person who is better read will seek out more substantial material. It is very difficult (impossible) to go back to reading "Conan the Barbarian" type-of-books, when you have been touched by some of the great works of literature.

I do think there needs to be a little more flexibility around "the cannon" but I still would stand by the vast majority of it as great literature. Also it should be noted that some of "the classics" are so because they are the first of something and should not just be taken as a label to their quality automatically. Take for example some of the early novelists, Behn (not really a novelist as such but on the road to its development) and the likes of Richardson are “classics” but their writing at best is average (well I think so).

The bottom line for me is that some books are better than others, and some books are way better than others, but there is a difference that goes beyond personal taste.

[Etienne]

Because in sport, the facts are absolute. A runner with one leg cannot run as fast as one with two. That's why we have the Paralympics.

And there are absolutes in art. Those absolutes are perhaps less clear or fixed, but they are there. That for example, a football player is better than another, does not mean that you do not prefer another one than the best, either, you see?


If sport were judged on aesthetic qualities, a disabled person would have the same chances as an able-bodied one.

And if each book was judged on their speed of running, all bad book would have the same chance as a good one. Are you having a hard time putting comparisons in their contexts?


because sport is about physical comparisons, obviously a one-legged person cannot compete.

And because art is about aesthetic comparison, Harry Potter cannot compete with, say, War and Peace.

[Drkshadow03]

But there is more to it than personal taste as you commented upon in your second paragraph.

*Elitist spoiler* I also think that the person who is better read will seek out more substantial material. It is very difficult (impossible) to go back to reading "Conan the Barbarian" type-of-books, when you have been touched by some of the great works of literature.

I do think there needs to be a little more flexibility around "the cannon" but I still would stand by the vast majority of it as great literature. Also it should be noted that some of "the classics" are so because they are the first of something and should not just be taken as a label to their quality automatically. Take for example some of the early novelists, Behn (not really a novelist as such but on the road to its development) and the likes of Richardson are “classics” but their writing at best is average (well I think so).

The bottom line for me is that some books are better than others, and some books are way better than others, but there is a difference that goes beyond personal taste.

It's true that some books are better than other, but simply because such a truth is valid doesn't necessarily mean personal tastes still aren't a huge factor in deciding which books deserve more merit and also that "good books" exist that may not quite be the "best books."

The problems I think with the "elitist" position whatever the heck that is as I've seen a variety of positions is:

The underlying assumption that just because you read Shakespeare and Dante and Faulkner and the best of the best that suddenly you can no longer enjoy, appreciate, or find wonderful things in Harry Potter or Stephen King, despite the fact that many people on this board who have done so are saying that they do still enjoy those things and some of us even say we find them to be interesting works of art.

It also assumes that because you did X, everyone will come to the exact same conclusions you did. If they aren't spouting the exact same conclusions than they must not have read X. Yet I am pretty sure everyone here has had a healthy dose of the classics, we all are fairly articulate and have wonderful contributions to make about literature in general, but heaven forbid if someone happens to rank Harry Potter too highly. Now we have to whip out the loaded metaphors about food critics, and how if only you had tasted ambrosia you would see how poor that other meat really is. Except the problem with these loaded metaphors is that everyone has in fact tasted ambrosia and hasn't come to the same conclusions!

[mayneverhave]

Honestly, I find art - specifically literature - to be entirely subjective in its overall quality.

That being said: certain works of art inspire a greater depth of appreciation, understanding, and emotion. Poetry does not necessarily require completely understanding in order to enjoy - although understanding helps. The Waste Land of T.S. Eliot does not necessarily require a thorough understanding of Grail myth in order for me to simply enjoy the imagery and the vibrancy of the language. Similarly, a reading of Paradise Lost does not require a complete knowledge of Greek mythos in order to simply be awed by the language and the grand nature of the epic.

Great literature requires imagination of its reader; it draws its reader and in invites them to be a part of the imaginative effort of art. There are no set requisites for art to be considered great, but it so happens that great art has ambiguity and beauty that inspire in us our own creative cognition.

Lesser literature simply does not. We read the story, understand the language, and that is the end. There is no transfer of emotion, there is no, dare I say, spiritual appreciation; there is simply the transferal of a story and the reception of information.



The underlying assumption that just because you read Shakespeare and Dante and Faulkner and the best of the best that suddenly you can no longer enjoy, appreciate, or find wonderful things in Harry Potter or Stephen King, despite the fact that many people on this board who have done so are saying that they do still enjoy those things and some of us even say we find them to be interesting works of art.

To reply to this briefly:

This is not to say one cannot enjoy Stephen King after one has read Faulkner. There are books, just as there are movies, made simply for entertainment, and do not aspire to a greater level of artistic innovation. Oft times I don't feel like wracking my brain over poetry, so I'll read a newspaper or magazine.

But going on that note: there should be no reason why these novels written plainly for entertainment should be compared, in away, to Art that truly aspires to be Art. I somewhat pity J.K. Rowling (but given her millions, this doesn't go too far), because she never set out to be the next Shakespeare, and never aspired to be critically analyzed by centuries of literary criticism, but because of her worldwide readership, this burden has been thrust upon her.

There is nothing wrong with simple entertainment, but don't compare it to the greats.

[JBI]

But there is more to it than personal taste as you commented upon in your second paragraph.

*Elitist spoiler* I also think that the person who is better read will seek out more substantial material. It is very difficult (impossible) to go back to reading "Conan the Barbarian" type-of-books, when you have been touched by some of the great works of literature.

I do think there needs to be a little more flexibility around "the cannon" but I still would stand by the vast majority of it as great literature. Also it should be noted that some of "the classics" are so because they are the first of something and should not just be taken as a label to their quality automatically. Take for example some of the early novelists, Behn (not really a novelist as such but on the road to its development) and the likes of Richardson are “classics” but their writing at best is average (well I think so).

The bottom line for me is that some books are better than others, and some books are way better than others, but there is a difference that goes beyond personal taste.

The canon was never a solid, thing it is only used to judge old works. Even modernism quite frankly can't be put into the canon. The books that are taught vary between countries, and quite frankly, there is no definitive list.

Even Harold bloom doesn't think there really is a list - his list a mere sales gimmick - and to put it bluntly - a very successful one.

There are canonized authors, who will not budge, or will not budge for some time, but like literature, the canon is fluid, and always changing. Books fall in and out of favor, and regional attitudes, not to mention personal attitudes vary.

In terms of what is taught - it's true, most of that is fixed, but for good reason. Much of literary schooling is in classical texts, for instance, Victorian Poetry and Prose, or Renaissance Drama, and I don't think there is room for those texts to move around much - besides the odd random poem that gets thrown in for one reason or another.

There is no canon, because not everyone speaks every language. Perhaps there is an English canon, but I'm sure Australians, Canadians, Americans, Caribbean Island peoples, British, Irish, Scottish, and others see the canon very differently.

[Jozanny]

Yes, but Atheist's contentions are more radical than the ever typical argument about the canon's usefulness, and as a writer who has spent my life in the service of aesthetic vision, I am, quite frankly, offended to be made entirely irrelevant by someone who cannot see the *value* of literature. We will have debates about the pecking order of our artifacts for as long as we have society and culture, but for someone to assert those artifacts have no value, and no measure of superiority, this is, for me, beyond the pale.:rage:

[Joreads]

Seems to me that your defence of labelling of "great" literature comes down to no more than your personal preference, based upon your own aesthetic tastes and cultural/educational background.

Well said. People read for many different reasons and so they should. I have said it before if we all read the same books and agreed on everything this there would be no need for this forum.

If you decide not to read certain types of books because they don't appeal to you then great but don't just decide that the books have no merit because they don't appeal to you.

Not every book that I read needs to be a master piece sometime I just like a good enjoyable read.

[Etienne]

Do people realize that this is not about cannon, lists, ranking or whatever? Doing this is like trying to pick water with your hands. It's not even so much as comparing two works together.

Also, one is not born with finished taste, it's cultivated. So one should take take complacency in this but try to cultivate it's taste, if one is really interested. I am not saying this pedantically, as I am myself continually trying cultivating that taste and the more it's cultivated, the more you appreciate.

But anyways I just feel many people are just going to misread my post and it's going to open a can of worm, so I won't be going farther.

[Jozanny]

No Etienne, I do *get it* and such a cavalier attitude has made me angry, to the point that you and I are on the same side on this, which I suppose could be considered amusing. :)

I had to stop myself from stomping off and not coming back, and at least managed that much.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Do people realize that this is not about cannon, lists, ranking or whatever? Doing this is like trying to pick water with your hands. It's not even so much as comparing two works together.

Also, one is not born with finished taste, it's cultivated. So one should take take complacency in this but try to cultivate it's taste, if one is really interested. I am not saying this pedantically, as I am myself continually trying cultivating that taste and the more it's cultivated, the more you appreciate.



Of course taste needs to be cultivated that is very true. If I hadn't have read so much crap in the past then I wouldn't be able to appreciate the things that I now do. With that said I am painfully aware of my gaps and inadequacies in the field of literature, it is part of the realisation of reading that the more you read, the more you realise there is to read, and the little that you really know.

The only reason that I mentioned the canon was that in the past it has ignored women writers for instance and as such some texts need to be re-examined. For example I have a tutor who has recently brought Eliza Parsons back into print - it is things like this that I was referring to earlier, though JBI made some true and fair points upon the matter.

Of course Etienne is correct this has nothing to do with cannon at all and I somewhat apologise for bringing it up.

[Etienne]

Hmm.. I did mean that someone with cultivated taste cannot enjoy Harry Potter... and that therefore any person who enjoys Potter is a phillistine or a brute. My point was aimed at aesthetic relativism, and that one cannot claim Harry Potter to be a great work of art, unless he doesn't "get" the true great works of art.

A great chef can enjoy a hot-dog, but he knows that it has nothing to do with great cuisine, it's not even a question. But some "cruder" people will think a hot-dog is so much better than great cuisine. In the same way that taste for wine needs cultivated to appreciate fully the subtleties of different wines, in the same way any taste can be cultivated.

[Jozanny]

Hmm.. I did mean that someone with cultivated taste cannot enjoy Harry Potter... and that therefore any person who enjoys Potter is a phillistine or a brute. My point was aimed at aesthetic relativism, and that one cannot claim Harry Potter to be a great work of art, unless he doesn't "get" the true great works of art.

A great chef can enjoy a hot-dog, but he knows that it has nothing to do with great cuisine, it's not even a question. But some "cruder" people will think a hot-dog is so much better than great cuisine. In the same way that taste for wine needs cultivated to appreciate fully the subtleties of different wines, in the same way any taste can be cultivated.

Yeah, but on the Potter question, I think you and I are approaching it from different premises. I don't think Rowling was ever trying to be canon-worthy. She was a mother with a kid, and she was on the dole, almost like me, not quite, but almost.

Unlike me, what she did at her typewriter helped her beat back the system. I admire that, and as I've posted elsewhere, her work is getting heat it doesn't deserve. She isn't A.S. Byatt, but she wasn't trying to compete with Byatt in the first place.

[Etienne]

Well ok, she is the example of a professional success, but she is artistically worthless. I think that, from the beginning we were discussing her artistic merits, if we were to discuss the professional success, we might as well discuss the founders of Google or something of that kind.

One could say that she didn't write literature, but books. Of course, we could argue about semantics, but the point is getting the idea.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Hmm.. I did mean that someone with cultivated taste cannot enjoy Harry Potter... and that therefore any person who enjoys Potter is a phillistine or a brute. My point was aimed at aesthetic relativism, and that one cannot claim Harry Potter to be a great work of art, unless he doesn't "get" the true great works of art.



Oh I see what you mean sorry. I still stand by the fact (rather crudely) that you need to have read the bad to truly appreciate the good, in some ways at least. I am not suggesting that we all turn to the bad first, but that people seem to find their feet with what they are comfortable and happy with first, before moving on to better things later. I am not insisting that my five year old daughter should read Dante for example, any book is fine. It is probably just a question of development But no one cannot claim Harry Potter as a great work of art at all.


Just to be clear on my position with the Potter thing: anyone who claims Harry Potter to be a great work of art is rather foolish indeed, but at the same time I am sure it was never set out for that purpose. People seem to really enjoy it and defend it with a zeal, rightly or wrongly.

[stlukesguild]

A problem that elitists face in every age is that they have to simultaneously distinguish themselves from everyone else to establish their superiority...

What I term "elitism" has nothing to do with attempting to establish myself as superior. It has nothing to do with class (although politicians have always played it up in that way), and it has nothing to do with intelligence. There are persons who struggle from paycheck to paycheck who have also decided that poetry or painting is important enough to them that they have put forth the effort into learning all they can about it. By the same token there are brilliant lawyers, doctors, and scientists who are certainly not lacking intelligence in any way... and yet their opinions upon art are largely ignorant because they are largely uniformed... inexperienced in the field. Someone puts forth the effort to learn about art by choice. I would assume that there are those for whom such knowledge gives them a sense of superiority... but most, I would assume, make such a choice because of the pleasure they have discovered in grasping the finest that the arts... that humanity has to offer.

...and at the same time find enough common ground with everyone else to keep their superiority relevant.

Again... there is little thought of superiority. I don't read Shakespeare or Dante or Homer or Rimbaud or Neruda because I imagine it will give me a sort of authority with the "lower plebes". I don't read Tolstoy to impress (at least I haven't done that since I was a teenager and somehow imagined that it would impress girls:blush::lol:). I couldn't care less whether the masses think Dante is relevant.

So, if the elites continually call books "great" that people don't enjoy, and pan as "trash" the books that people do enjoy, the rational thing for non-elites to do is to perform a little bit of simple code-breaking and conclude that they should read the "trash" and skip the "greats".

Again... the "elites" make the choices they do based upon what gives them pleasure. The "non-elites" do the same. The difference in taste is accounted for by the difference in experience and the willingness to put forth a degree of effort... believing that there is sometimes a greater pleasure to be derived from something that challenges than something that is too easy or simplistic.
If the opinion of a given critic never aligns with your own taste... certainly feel free to ignore it. I somehow doubt that the average person cannot discover much that will give him or her great pleasure among the vast range of great literature... but if that were true... ignore it... the fact that you are uninterested in Dickens, Poe, Verlaine, Whitman, Pessoa, etc... has no effect upon me.

It may indeed be the case that, by investing the resources to get initiated into the elite, one will enjoy some of the "greats" that he/she didn't enjoy before. This raises the question, how important is this additional elite ability? If it really is the case that the experience of the masses have no relevance to the standards of the elite, then inevitably the standards of the elite have no benefit for the masses and therefore this additional elite ability isn't very important at all.

I have no problem with suggesting that the opinions of the "elites" may have no relevance and offer no tangible benefit for the masses. Didn't the greatest of the self-acknowledged "elites", Oscar Wilde, admit as much when he declared, "All art is quite useless." Of course Mallarme continued by noting that the most useful room in any home is the toilet. The reality is that the opinions of the 'elites" are the only ones that matter when one is speaking of the survival of a work of art. Every era has its great blockbusters. Almost every last one of them disappears over time as tastes change. The work that survives... that becomes "canonized" (if we wish to use that term) is that which continues to speak to an audience that is comprised of those for whom literature is important and worth the investment of time and effort: scholars, academics, historians, critics, later writers, and the "common readers"... those who simply love great books for the pleasure they bring and are willing to put forth the effort they sometimes demand. This group as a whole do not always agree on everything. In some instances certain portions of the "elite" have differing opinions than the rest. James Joyce, for example, is far more popular with critics, scholars, academics and other writers than he is with the "common reader"... while Poe and Dumas are far more popular with the "common reader" than with the critics and academics. What is common is the fact that the opinions of each is based upon effort and experience.

So, at one swathe, you consigning any child with a defect in hand/eye co-ordination to being called "useless" at art?

At one swipe I make no assumptions about a student's ability or potential... I merely make a judgment of the work at hand.

In sport, we have a rule that merit is based on effort. I've always found it interesting that art works in the opposite direction.

Does it? Art would seem to be the result of both effort and aptitude (talent... natural ability... whatever you wish to call it). There are artists in all walks of life who can create marvelous works beyond the abilities of most... even beyond the abilities of many who have put forth the greatest degree of effort. Others achieve greatness as a result of sheer tenacity... continued effort and the refusal to give up.

Let's play.

In what way are the drawings of some six-year olds better than others?

Let's talk specifics. I can compare MacBeth to Harry Potter because I have specific works to compare/contrast various elements. If you wish for reasons why one student work is better than another you must provide the examples.

[Etienne]

Of course Mallarme continued by noting that the most useful room in any home is the toilet.

Hehe.

[The Atheist]

What a surprisingly divisive subject!


No it doesn't. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but there are things any philosophical inquiry or criticism can say about the beauty itself. One of them, in literature or art, is universal appeal.

Isn't this simply an appeal to popularity?

On that basis - universal appeal - J K Rowling would rate more highly than most authors. Harry Potter appeals to kids, teens and adults.

If you mean "universal appeal amongst people with preconceptions about what constitutes literature", then it doesn't have the same weight, in my view.


And this is my last engagement with YOU about aesthetic uselessness. You have my pity.[/COLOR]

Why would you pity me? Because my aesthetic tastes differ from yours? Can't be that, because you have no idea what my tastes are.

Disappointing.


They aren't inspired by the right things. She refurbished things. When I talk about inspiration, I mean it in the Wordsworthian sense, in the channeling of Raw emotions. Rowling I don't think is very inspired - a mere beginners level of Greek mythology, and a boring reading of cliché works isn't inspiration.

Still, I think we're making progress.

Now, your requirement for literary greatness is the amount of passion a writer uses?

I don't think that's going to work for you either.

Are you able to give a more specific rationale as to why a particular work - of your choice - is more important to humankind than a workshop manual for my 1963 Volswagen?


However, if "better" simply means personal taste -- you like Harry Potter, while others didn't -- then no, on this ground all books are chaotically equal.

Just a note; personally, I think Harry Potter is drivel. But I still cannot say with any kind of certainty that it is intrinsically worth less than any other book.


Atheist, I am interested in your points throughout this thread, but for me I have to side with the "elitists," some books are simply better than others.

Look, I'd be the first to agree that some books are better than others, and I've said as much throughout. The only difference between us is that I don't believe my opinion has any more validity than the dummies who write at Yahoo that Harry Potter is the greatest work ever.


*Elitist spoiler* I also think that the person who is better read will seek out more substantial material. It is very difficult (impossible) to go back to reading "Conan the Barbarian" type-of-books, when you have been touched by some of the great works of literature.

Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble on that, but I've read works of supposed literary genius I've used to light fires with while I've also found gems amongst the remainders.

I certainly don't have any pretensions to reading only "good" books.


The bottom line for me is that some books are better than others, and some books are way better than others, but there is a difference that goes beyond personal taste.

Ok, then can you please try to articulate that?


And there are absolutes in art. Those absolutes are perhaps less clear or fixed, but they are there. That for example, a football player is better than another, does not mean that you do not prefer another one than the best, either, you see?

You've started to get a bit circular in your argument, making the same assertion, and failing to use sports analogies to back it up.

I ask you also to please be specific about why one book is more valuable than another.


And because art is about aesthetic comparison, Harry Potter cannot compete with, say, War and Peace.

Goodo, that's a good starting point. Use W&P as the example to show its inherent value. What message does W&P give us that cannot be obtained from another medium?


Honestly, I find art - specifically literature - to be entirely subjective in its overall quality.

Well, that's what I've been saying...


That being said: certain works of art inspire a greater depth of appreciation, understanding, and emotion.

Unfortunately, even among elitists, there is little consensus, aside from a very few works.


Lesser literature simply does not. We read the story, understand the language, and that is the end. There is no transfer of emotion, there is no, dare I say, spiritual appreciation; there is simply the transferal of a story and the reception of information.

Yep, that's why people write books.

Orwell's essay, Why I Write is a great example of it. Orwell was 100% certain that the whole point of his writing was to be read.

As to transfer of emotion, surely the examples of Yahoos and Harry Potter give the lie to that being a requirement. Potter has touched people's lives and changed them.


Well said. People read for many different reasons and so they should. I have said it before if we all read the same books and agreed on everything this there would be no need for this forum.

If you decide not to read certain types of books because they don't appeal to you then great but don't just decide that the books have no merit because they don't appeal to you.

Not every book that I read needs to be a master piece sometime I just like a good enjoyable read.

Well, we don;t have much to argue about!

:D


Also, one is not born with finished taste, it's cultivated. So one should take take complacency in this but try to cultivate it's taste, if one is really interested. I am not saying this pedantically, as I am myself continually trying cultivating that taste and the more it's cultivated, the more you appreciate.

Ah, this is important.

That cultivation will be encouraged and happen under some form of tutelage. Is there a literary elitist who is self-taught in likes & dislikes, greatness & mundanity?

No.

Literary elitists grow under the wings of other literary elitists, whose cultural tastes propagate like memes.

I put it to you that if Eng Lit teachers and tutors didn't reinforce their own likes & dislikes, elitism in literature wouldn't even exist.


It is probably just a question of development But no one cannot claim Harry Potter as a great work of art at all.

But people do!

And if they feel it has the qualities of greatness, as above, that they were moved and inspired by the story, then they're right.


Just to be clear on my position with the Potter thing: anyone who claims Harry Potter to be a great work of art is rather foolish indeed, but at the same time I am sure it was never set out for that purpose. People seem to really enjoy it and defend it with a zeal, rightly or wrongly.

That's fine, but maybe you'd like to have a shot at describing what does constitute a great work of literary art?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Great post stlukes. :thumbs_up I especially like:

What I term "elitism" has nothing to do with attempting to establish myself as superior. It has nothing to do with class (although politicians have always played it up in that way), and it has nothing to do with intelligence. There are persons who struggle from paycheck to paycheck who have also decided that poetry or painting is important enough to them that they have put forth the effort into learning all they can about it. By the same token there are brilliant lawyers, doctors, and scientists who are certainly not lacking intelligence in any way... and yet their opinions upon art are largely ignorant because they are largely uniformed... inexperienced in the filed. Someone puts forth the effort to learn about art by choice. I would assume that there are those for whom such knowledge gives them a sense of superiority... but most, I would assume, make such a choice because of the pleasure they have discovered in grasping the finest that the arts... that humanity has to offer.

Hell that is part me, I struggle to put decent beer upon the table, (I somehow manage) but I consider myself a rich man due to the art or literature I enjoy and have devoted myself to study, in rejection of the capitalist "go-getter thing." Good stuff, good night. :)

[Etienne]

You've started to get a bit circular in your argument, making the same assertion, and failing to use sports analogies to back it up.

Failing to use sport analogy? I'm sorry but you haven't shown that my analogy was bad, you simply claimed it was bad.


I ask you also to please be specific about why one book is more valuable than another.

Well you seem to have a hard time figuring the notion of value or worth as we use. We are not talking of money, we are not talking of technology. We are talking about art, some, you might say abstract notion. Well yes.


Goodo, that's a good starting point. Use W&P as the example to show its inherent value. What message does W&P give us that cannot be obtained from another medium?

Where are we talking of message? Message is one thing, but you don't seemto understand the notion of aesthetic. Why do you read books, only for their message? Why would I be interested in visual art, say, painting, when all that is "useful" (according to your notion of useful) can be gotten out of photography?

Also, if you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you drop this little fathering tone and all that rhetoric.


Ah, this is important.

That cultivation will be encouraged and happen under some form of tutelage. Is there a literary elitist who is self-taught in likes & dislikes, greatness & mundanity?

No.

Literary elitists grow under the wings of other literary elitists, whose cultural tastes propagate like memes.

I put it to you that if Eng Lit teachers and tutors didn't reinforce their own likes & dislikes, elitism in literature wouldn't even exist.

This is rhetoric again, if it was so, there would be no factual arguments. You've read 1984 too much.

Let me use your rhetoric again: You read George Orwell only because you were told it was good, you don't honestly like him.

[bluevictim]

What I term "elitism" has nothing to do with attempting to establish myself as superior. ...

Again... there is little thought of superiority.I'm sorry, I must have misread your earlier post. I thought you were claiming that the opinions of the elite were better than the opinions of others, and that you were using your analogy with doctors and electricians to support that claim.

I reread my post, and I realize it is pretty unclear what the point was that I was trying to make. My point is not that I think the elite is, in fact, completely irrelevant. What I was trying to say is that if it were the case that the judgment of the masses has no correlation with the judgment of the elite, then there is no reason for the masses to consider the opinions of the elite better than their own. As you state, that is not the case. Thus, I would argue, the popularity of a piece of literature is important.

One part of your post that is still unclear to me is your inclusion of "common readers" in your definition of elite. At first, I read that as a fudge factor to account for readers that essentially follow the judgment of the professors (for example), except they don't happen to have an advanced degree in literature. Now, it sounds like you are just referring to people who enjoy reading. But these are the same people who have high opinions of popular books, so their inclusion seems to undermine your point that popularity is completely irrelevant.

[stlukesguild]

SLG (quote)- As JoZ pointed out even the choice of your wife... girlfriend... etc... is an aesthetic choice. I think most of us would have a problem with the notion that any woman/man would have been just as good.
As you can see above, I agree with you 100%.

But on your basis, because she's an outstanding and most beautiful woman, that she must therefore be as good a wife for anyone else! You know that's not right, which means that, like Jo, you've just made my argument for me.

The question, with regard to literature, isn't what is better or worse for you. If you cannot grasp the language of Chaucer or Shakespeare they are obviously not good for you (at that given moment). What we are discussing is whether some literary works are better than others. My guess is that even your idealized "masses" would have no problem with answering that question in the positive. Anyone of us who has made any attempt at virtually anything realizes that there are times when we are on our game... and times when we are not. If all is but relative why make any attempt even as an individual at improvement. The slightest scribble of the rank beginner, after all, is no less than the greatest masterwork. All is relative... it is but thinking that makes it so. By the way... does that work in sports as well?

Neither do we have a problem admitting that a certain baseball team or football team is better than another.

Nah, leave the sports analogies to me.

Ah!! There we have it!! The sound of the elitist. Because of your experience in a given field you would suggest that you are better equipped to offer judgment. Is that not what an elitist in literature... art... music suggests?

Shocking analogy, by the way. In sport, we have a thing called a scoreboard. Each match, the scoreboard shows a winner and a loser. These are indisputable facts, which cannot be subject to any opinion at all.

Does the scoreboard tell all? How often have I heard sports fans arguing the merits of two athletes: Micheal Jordan vs Larry Bird vs LeBron James... Babe Ruth vs Barry Bonds. I would assume that some opinions hold more weight than others based upon knowledge and experience. Admittedly art is more subjective than some other disciplines, but the reality is that opinions based upon experience and knowledge are what hold the most weight in nearly any field.

But to suggest that some works of art are better than others is immediately taken as a snobbish position... because it suggests (gasp!) that some opinions are better than others. Guess what? That would be right.

Well, you're talking to someone who is an elitist intellectually, so I can understand you position.

I don't agree with it at all, though.

You may disagree with it... but it is a fact. The opinion of a physicist is going to hold far more weight upon discussions of theories relating to physics than those of the average person. The opinion of the doctor is going to hold far more value than that of the polled masses when it comes to medical treatments. I assume, at least, that when you are ill you turn to someone with experience in the field rather than holding a poll among your friends. The opinion of the persons who have invested a great deal of their time in understanding art or literature simply holds far more weight in discussion of those topics than the opinions of others. Certainly, they do not always agree... and certainly there are times when their opinions prove wrong (hell... even doctors were sometimes wrong!!:eek:) but the fact that an educated opinion is still subjective to a degree does not make it equal to worth to every last uniformed opinion.

Since you can state why one piece of art or literature is better than another, go ahead. Don't just tell me it happens, show me how you arrive at the assessment of greatness objectively.

Again... to do so demands specifics. Without such I can easily turn the question upon you: you suggest that all works of art are of equal merit... then prove it.

The standards of art are largely based upon the communal opinions of those who have invested the greatest degree of time... effort... study... etc... into the study and appreciation of the same. Here we are speaking of art critics, historians, collectors, subsequent artists and (like most of us here) art lovers... or in literary terms, "the common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the word). The opinion of doctors holds far more weight when I am seeking out treatment for an ailment. The opinion of an electrician is far more valued than that of the population as a whole when it comes to my breaker box sparking and all the lights in my home going off.

Breaking this down, using your own analogy, you're saying that people who study hard are the ones of value - like elctricians. If they are able to complete the intrinsic technical elements of the job, then that person is of great value.

A great artist then, will be one who makes no technical mistakes and a great novelist will be one with a PhD in English Literature and perfect grammar. The bad news is, from a literary sense, that Steven King is the Lit Prof, while Orwell was essentially a drop-out.

I'm glad you prefer King to Orwell. I have it the other way around myself, but hey, either/either.

The ability to create art and the ability to judge art are in no means one and the same. Even if they were, I have never suggested that what we call "elites" (which includes artists as well) is limited to persons of a single class or a single academic walk in life. That is always the tired argument of those who would attempt to undermine aesthetic values... usually a rather sophomoric act put on by those who are themselves just as much a part of the "elites" as the "old guard" in an attempt to make themselves seem more down with the folk... Elitism, as we have been discussing it, is an elective affinity... a choice. It has nothing to do with whether one is an academic or a plumber.

Greatness is achieved through hard work, not talent. He who works hardest is best. Very Boxer-like in the end.

Sometimes... sometimes not. The opinion of the person who has put forth a great deal of effort in a given field is commonly going to bear far more weight than that which is uniformed and inexperienced.

It's true that some books are better than other, but simply because such a truth is valid doesn't necessarily mean personal tastes still aren't a huge factor in deciding which books deserve more merit and also that "good books" exist that may not quite be the "best books."

I fully agree. The opinions of those with the greatest experience are still subjective. Perhaps the way around this is to recognize that personal preferences are not the same as facts. To declare that James Joyce sucks, or that Harry Potter is greater than Joyce is a statement of fact. Personally, I have struggled to appreciate Joyce (although I greatly admired parts of Ulysses). I far prefer Kafka, Borges, Proust, Calvino, and many others, but I recognize that the fact that I prefer Calvino to Joyce is not enough to declare him to be the greater writer.

The problems I think with the "elitist" position whatever the heck that is as I've seen a variety of positions is:

The underlying assumption that just because you read Shakespeare and Dante and Faulkner and the best of the best that suddenly you can no longer enjoy, appreciate, or find wonderful things in Harry Potter or Stephen King, despite the fact that many people on this board who have done so are saying that they do still enjoy those things and some of us even say we find them to be interesting works of art.

Again... I don't think this needs to be true. I love Wagner and Puccini and still listen to the Louvin Brothers and Johnny Cash. There are many works, however, that do become unpalatable as one gains experience.

It also assumes that because you did X, everyone will come to the exact same conclusions you did. If they aren't spouting the exact same conclusions than they must not have read X. Yet I am pretty sure everyone here has had a healthy dose of the classics...

Are you certain of that? Is there a requirement for joining LitNet that one have read a certain amount of "classics"? I have gotten the opinion that there is a wide range of literary experience here.

...we all are fairly articulate and have wonderful contributions to make about literature in general, but heaven forbid if someone happens to rank Harry Potter too highly.

Noted. It becomes irritating when we are repeatedly confronted with declarations of the literary brilliance of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Steven King, etc... and I usually try to avoid such threads. When such declarations escalate into statements about how boring all those big words and descriptive passages are in Tolstoy or Dickens... or nonsense about how the "classics" have become irrelevant because they don't speak to us here and now... as if we read solely to reinforce our own perceptions and our own prejudices rather than to open ourselves up to other possibilities... other experiences... other cultures... then I end up getting drawn into the fray... although I should know better.:D

[JBI]

Meh, this elitist titling is rather pointless. I like good literature, and don't like much of what is popular. I am not an elitist for not liking mediocrity, I am a humanist, and try to encourage other people to like the same. My goal, as a would-be-critic is to shed light upon, and perhaps the odd time, value works. I am not valuing works based on how small their readership is - I would like everyone who hasn't to read, for instance, Alice Munro.

And Again, what's with the appeal to the classics. It always seems to flip back to them - why can't we discuss contemporary literature - can someone perhaps be an enthusiast with a fine taste for that? Aesthetic reading isn't "reading the classics."

Never trust anyone who only reads classics (I think I'm paraphrasing on Eco). They can't be held to have a strong opinion on literature, since theirs is based primarily on other scholars.

[stlukesguild]

JBI... I like the term "humanist". Of course "elitist" is used by me somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps not unlike many of the artists who proudly wore the term of the various "isms" that were thrown at them in a derogatory manner, I have embraced the notion of an "elitist" as accepting the fact that some achievements are better than others... that there are standards... and rejecting the sort of anti-intellectualism, which sneers at anything which
requires intellect, or expects high standards... not unlike certain politicians.

[Drkshadow03]

Stlukes, I am only going to comment on two of your responses to me:




Are you certain of that? Is there a requirement for joining LitNet that one have read a certain amount of "classics"? I have gotten the opinion that there is a wide range of literary experience here.


I was mostly referring to the people participating in this conversation who seem to be taking the "other side" and I hesitate to use that term because I don't think this is really an argument with clear-cut sides necessarily.


Noted. It becomes irritating when we are repeatedly confronted with declarations of the literary brilliance of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Steven King, etc... and I usually try to avoid such threads. When such declarations escalate into statements about how boring all those big words and descriptive passages are in Tolstoy or Dickens... or nonsense about how the "classics" have become irrelevant because they don't speak to us here and now... as if we read solely to reinforce our own perceptions and our own prejudices rather than to open ourselves up to other possibilities... other experiences... other cultures... then I end up getting drawn into the fray... although I should know better.:D

I think this nails it. With all the forums I've posted on, especially fantasy forums which tend to have "a literature/academia is keeping us down complex" that can more than one up LitNet's "Harry Potter complex" as Jozanny put it, I can't tell you how many times I have had this argument. Probably hundreds, and I'm really not exaggerating. Plus I've done this one from both angles. On the fantasy boards, I would sometimes defend the values of Great Literature in comparison to fantasy to those deriding the Tolstoys and Dickens of the world. These conversations get old really quickly, and they usually end up being fairly circular.

I personally do think Potter has some literary value, that there are interesting themes going on dealing with racism, academic freedom, the importance of friendship, and the primacy of choices in moral development, that the way she refurbishes and recombines old motifs of various world mythologies is actually rather sophisticated, and that her world is in fact magical so to speak with the proper amount of strangeness and wonder, while still maintaining a familiarity that allows her themes to have real world relevancy. Not to mention she provides us with characters we can care about and readers relate to.

As they say in internet lingo you're milage may vary; I realize from the bagillion threads before this one a lot of people don't agree with my assessment, which is perfectly fine by me. I am not saying you have to love Potter, I'm not saying you or anyone else need consider the books worthy of literary analysis, and I am certainly NOT saying the books are anywhere near the level of Shakespeare or Dante, but for me I do think there is more going on beneath the surface of those novels that increased my enjoyment of them. Because as I pointed out again and again, the first and only real purpose of reading literature is for entertainment. Though, of course, my definition (or I should probably say Michael Chabon's definition) is fairly broad.

[JBI]

Meh, people just need to start more text-analysis threads, rather than the continuous context-driven threads. We tried to, of course, start one on the Poetry board, but for the most part, the discussion is rather minimal (as few people really joined in, and quite frankly, even I didn't join in as much as I would have hoped to).

Here, for a literature discussion board, I think we simply don't talk the text enough, and are too busy detracting, or criticizing the contexts of works, or others' opinions on the contexts of works.

Quite frankly, if someone really wants to discuss Potter, or any such author, they should start a thread about the books themselves, and go from there. But of course, that doesn't seem to happen. All we get is comments on the sales of books, the popularity of books, or the concept of reading in general. Or the value of the author (which of course, I know I contribute to as well)

Oh wow, I'm starting to sound like a New Critic, I better slow down.

[JCamilo]

It's true that some books are better than other, but simply because such a truth is valid doesn't necessarily mean personal tastes still aren't a huge factor in deciding which books deserve more merit and also that "good books" exist that may not quite be the "best books."

I fully agree. The opinions of those with the greatest experience are still subjective. Perhaps the way around this is to recognize that personal preferences are not the same as facts. To declare that James Joyce sucks, or that Harry Potter is greater than Joyce is a statement of fact. Personally, I have struggled to appreciate Joyce (although I greatly admired parts of Ulysses). I far prefer Kafka, Borges, Proust, Calvino, and many others, but I recognize that the fact that I prefer Calvino to Joyce is not enough to declare him to be the greater writer.

There is a difference of accepting the existense of a Canon and defining exactly what a Canon may be. Some people seems to attack the mere existense of such canon, as attacking tradition or some authority. Harold Bloom list (for example) is not the Canon , it is his list. I disagree with some options because I reckon for example that Bloom knowledge of english literature is far superior of his knowledge of south american literature. He is human, not good, as anyone will disagree if I create such list (I avoid lists anyways). But that does not invalidad the existence of such canon. That is like denying the immortality of Homer after so many years (We can tell objectivelly that Homer is part of the canon by his permanence) or how much influential Shakespeare is (much more than Alexander Pope, for example). Those things are objetive.
Plus, I found the attack on elites very funny. Those people when sick go after a crap doctor or they trust in the best possible doctor? Those people think Michael Jordan, arrogant as he may be, does not belong to elite for his own merits. Agreeing or not with Bloom, dont they think 40 or more years of study, a capacity to recite Proust from memmory, etc does not place him a elite for his own merit? It is necessary more than attacks on elitism to dismiss the guy, because frankly,in 100 we are going to be dead and Shakespeare not.

[JBI]

The problem with Bloom though, is the quality of work he has come up with has taken a beating over the years - he spends more time yelling at the "resenters" than he does talking about literature. As for the Bloom of The Visionary Company, or The Anxiety of Influence, I will admit he was groundbreaking, but the Bloom of How To Read and Why doesn't quite compare, in terms of the quality of the text. Of course, his focus is different now - he wants to sell more copies by reaching a wider audience - hence the list at the back of the Western Canon, which was more a sales gimmick than something meant to be taken seriously, and the catalogue books he is fond of writing now, yet he fails in the sense that he has let his scholarship slide.

The canon cannot be written down, because it isn't one list - it is a regional list, changing from university to university, from person to person. We merely can track similarities in lists, for instance, seeing that Don Quixote, Shakespeare, and Dante seem to be on all of the "literary canon" lists, amongst others. Yet the notion of the Western Canon is quite dated; it's only a matter of time before someone (or many people, as seems likely) tries to piece a world canon, taking from all over the world.

[Virgil]

This thread has been spawned by my Harry Potter thread which has been derailed to the unrecognisable, although an interesting point has been made which I wish to follow up on.

The theme seems to be:

Some novels are "worth" inherently more than others and we should not value reading unless something of "value" is being read."

I think this is a load of bunkum, myself.

I think any attempt to say otherwise is pure elitism and the exact equivalent of an art critic saying that one piece of art is inherently more valuable than my six-year old's scribbles.

Let's see if JBI wants to play!

:D

I understand where you're coming from A. We've (on lit net) had this discussion many times. There is some sort of balance that I try to achieve in these arguments. I agree that all works of creativity have merit and are significant to someone and that is their right and their pleasure. If it gives someone pleasure than the work has merit. That said, it is within the right of some readers, call them critics, who have come together and reached some conclusions as to what is exceptional art. Now they can be wrong and there can be differring and contrarian opinions. But I do think over time (say a century or so) that some literature (and this can apply to all forms of art) can be established to be superior, or if superior is the wrong word, of noteworthy and sustaining merit. That does not take away the achivement and pleasure of works that do not over time reach this status. I cringe at elitism too.

That said, I have not read through this entire thread. So if I've covered topics that have already been discussed, I apologise.

[Jozanny]

Meh, people just need to start more text-analysis threads, rather than the continuous context-driven threads. We tried to, of course, start one on the Poetry board, but for the most part, the discussion is rather minimal (as few people really joined in, and quite frankly, even I didn't join in as much as I would have hoped to).

Here, for a literature discussion board, I think we simply don't talk the text enough, and are too busy detracting, or criticizing the contexts of works, or others' opinions on the contexts of works.

Quite frankly, if someone really wants to discuss Potter, or any such author, they should start a thread about the books themselves, and go from there. But of course, that doesn't seem to happen. All we get is comments on the sales of books, the popularity of books, or the concept of reading in general. Or the value of the author (which of course, I know I contribute to as well).

JBI, I happen to agree with you here, but the problem, especially in a forum like this which claims over 50k posters of various skills and education, is the logistics. For example, Hayley started a thread on a particular Doris Lessing text.

I love Lessing, but have not read what Hayley wants to discuss, and think I am the only one who even bothered a reply, so I don't know how one coordinates it, and for me personally, it is too difficult for me to go chasing books I don't own just to participate.

[mayneverhave]

JBI, I happen to agree with you here, but the problem, especially in a forum like this which claims over 50k posters of various skills and education, is the logistics. For example, Hayley started a thread on a particular Doris Lessing text.

I love Lessing, but have not read what Hayley wants to discuss, and think I am the only one who even bothered a reply, so I don't know how one coordinates it, and for me personally, it is too difficult for me to go chasing books I don't own just to participate.

This is unavoidable. The fact that I have not read Lessing, as of yet, is a weakness in me and not in Lessing, or the thread. This is mostly true of contemporary writers, who - although fantastic - simply cannot expect such a wide readership as the classics. A thread focusing on Milton would generate more responses because generally more people have read Milton than Lessing - this not being a comparison of the two but a statement of the fact that Lessing has not been around as long as Milton.

[DisPater]

the fact that you are trying to classify literature using "genre" is a big mistake. in the case of poetry it may be possible (with fixed form poetry). we can call "the sonnet" a genre, although it is a forced taxonomy. but, in the case of prose, this cannot be done. all we can do is to classify prose according to themes (or in french "motifs"). let's take for example bulgakov's "the master and margarita". It is a horror story (satan himself is a character in it?? It is a sci-fi story (margarita uses a broom for flying)? cortázar' short stories where can be placed according to "genre"? or j.l. borges?

[The Atheist]

Failing to use sport analogy? I'm sorry but you haven't shown that my analogy was bad, you simply claimed it was bad.

I've told you several times why they are bad analogies - sports keep results and it's obvious that Usain Bolt is the fastest sprinter who's ever lived. No argument there.


Well you seem to have a hard time figuring the notion of value or worth as we use. We are not talking of money, we are not talking of technology. We are talking about art, some, you might say abstract notion. Well yes.

No, I don't have any problem with the notion - it's the why a work is considered to have literary value.

Even after 100 posts, we haven't got closer than "Because I/a consensus says so".

Please go ahead and get closer to your point if you're able.


Let me use your rhetoric again: You read George Orwell only because you were told it was good, you don't honestly like him.

Ah, but you've nade a supposition that anyone ever told me he was good. In fact, the absolute opposite is true. I fell in love reading Animal Farm long before anyone ever suggested it as a good read.


The question, with regard to literature, isn't what is better or worse for you. If you cannot grasp the language of Chaucer or Shakespeare they are obviously not good for you (at that given moment). What we are discussing is whether some literary works are better than others. My guess is that even your idealized "masses" would have no problem with answering that question in the positive. Anyone of us who has made any attempt at virtually anything realizes that there are times when we are on our game... and times when we are not. If all is but relative why make any attempt even as an individual at improvement. The slightest scribble of the rank beginner, after all, is no less than the greatest masterwork. All is relative... it is but thinking that makes it so. By the way... does that work in sports as well?

Nope. A n00b will lose every time.

This brings us right back to the training and competency argument. You seem to now be agreeing that training and study makes a great author, just as training and practice makes a great athlete.


Ah!! There we have it!! The sound of the elitist. Because of your experience in a given field you would suggest that you are better equipped to offer judgment. Is that not what an elitist in literature... art... music suggests?

I dunno how many times I can say this: sports results are not subjective.


Does the scoreboard tell all? How often have I heard sports fans arguing the merits of two athletes: Micheal Jordan vs Larry Bird vs LeBron James... Babe Ruth vs Barry Bonds. I would assume that some opinions hold more weight than others based upon knowledge and experience.

Nope. Everyone has a different opinion - aside from who the greatest sportsman ever was - and nobody tries to suggest their opinion is anything more than that. There are elite sportspeople who become elite by proving they are the best, but there is no elitism in sports commentators. As soon as sport discussions enter the equivalent of an aesthetic argument - who was a better boxer, Ali or Louis? - the authority disappears and it become subjective.


You may disagree with it... but it is a fact.

No it is not, something which is evinced by your failure to provide anything other than failed analogies. Here's another:


The opinion of a physicist is going to hold far more weight upon discussions of theories relating to physics than those of the average person. The opinion of the doctor is going to hold far more value than that of the polled masses when it comes to medical treatments. I assume, at least, that when you are ill you turn to someone with experience in the field rather than holding a poll among your friends. The opinion of the persons who have invested a great deal of their time in understanding art or literature simply holds far more weight in discussion of those topics than the opinions of others. Certainly, they do not always agree... and certainly there are times when their opinions prove wrong (hell... even doctors were sometimes wrong!!:eek:) but the fact that an educated opinion is still subjective to a degree does not make it equal to worth to every last uniformed opinion.

Which is a return, yet again, to an argument that training maketh the artist/writer.

That's fine, but I will remind you of Orwell and Steven King. One has immense training, the other had none, yet I'd take a large bet you consider Orwell part of literary heritage and King pulp fiction.


Again... to do so demands specifics. Without such I can easily turn the question upon you: you suggest that all works of art are of equal merit... then prove it.

Admitting defeat already?


Sometimes... sometimes not. The opinion of the person who has put forth a great deal of effort in a given field is commonly going to bear far more weight than that which is uniformed and inexperienced.

I avoid this argument like the plague. On this basis, the world's expert on telepathy would be Dean Radin.

A tip: he isn't.


Here, for a literature discussion board, I think we simply don't talk the text enough, and are too busy detracting, or criticizing the contexts of works, or others' opinions on the contexts of works.

But still unable to quantify that literary greatness you've vehemently insisted exists?

Write away; I really would like to hear a coherent argument as to why you're right, but at this stage, all I see from the defenders of literature that "My opinion is right."

[SleepyWitch]

I know this is a bit random, but there's this popular crime novel I need to vent about. Harry Potter will look like Nobel Prize material in comparison to this kind of writing.
The book I mean is a German one by a woman called Charlotte Link.
The story/ plot is as follows

plot 1
a well-educated professional
middle class
woman is cheated on by
her husband and they separate

plot 2
one/ more woman/women
is/ are murdered.
(forgot how many)
oi confusion, who can be
the murderer?
..
...
...
plot 1

the middle-aged middleclass woman goes on holidays in Italy.
there she meets the black-haired,
green-eyed, well-built, oh so charming
dreamlover and they have a good time doing
clichéd things like having dinners and phenomenal orgasms.
(Ok, I admit I'M not sure I remember that last bit correctly ;) )

then they go to live in Switzerland or some place and the dream lover
gets nasty.
The woman leaves him but he returns to murder her because he is a psychopath/ rapist/ whatever.
There are some gruesome scenes about either the woman/ the dream lovers other ex girlfriend being nearly slaughtered by him (I think it wasn't even the woman herself but another girl). But then she isn't killed and the guy kills himself and the woman goes home (not to her cheating husband, though).

oh, I forgot, the title of the novel is "The Admirer". hum? who on earth can be the murderer? is there an admirer in this book? surely she doesn't mean the black-haired, green-eyed, well-built pseudo-Italian dream-lover? *gasp*


leaving aside the question of what anyone can learn from this book (NOTHING, imho), what I fail to see is how anyone can be entertained by this?????
Seriously, I hardly ever read crime, but I knew that the dream lover was the murderer as soon as he started behaving funny, maybe even earlier, seeing as we need a male character to be the murderer of those girls in the other plot and he is neatly introduced and there are no other male main characters at this stage. I will not go down the "which-well-educated- professional-woman-would-be-daft-enough-to-trust-the-.....dreamlover"-road.
The language was fluent but nothing special. Just the normal everyday language you'd expect from a book like this.

This book was a bestseller and people from all backgrounds read it. Even one of my professors (physical geography) exclaimed about how rivetting this book was. ?????

So, what I don't understand about this kind of bestseller is how anyone with a brain bigger than an amoeba's [do they have brains?] can be entertained by such predictable, clichéd drivel?

[The Atheist]

This book was a bestseller and people from all backgrounds read it. Even one of my professors (physical geography) exclaimed about how rivetting this book was. ?????

Yep, there's that subjective opinion again.


So, what I don't understand about this kind of bestseller is how anyone with a brain bigger than an amoeba's [do they have brains?] can be entertained by such predictable, clichéd drivel?

No, amoebae don't have brains, but then, neither do some people.

I could think of several published authors who fit the same scenario, but I don't accept that because I think they're drivel that that means anyone else can't think they're brilliant.

[bluevictim]

You may disagree with it... but it is a fact. The opinion of a physicist is going to hold far more weight upon discussions of theories relating to physics than those of the average person. The opinion of the doctor is going to hold far more value than that of the polled masses when it comes to medical treatments. I assume, at least, that when you are ill you turn to someone with experience in the field rather than holding a poll among your friends.Let me try again to point out why this analogy is flawed, since I don't think I was very clear in my last attempt. In both traditions -- physics and medicine -- there is a way to evaluate the validity of the tradition's tenets that is independent of the tradition itself. Another way to put it is that there is an ultimate purpose that "good" physics serves that non-physicists can understand, and non-physicists can evaluate whether or not the physicists are fulfilling this ultimate purpose. Namely, the physicists' theories enable engineers to do things like make more destructive bombs and image brain tumors. The same goes for medicine -- one does not need medical training to evaluate whether or not doctors are successfully treating patients.

However, there is no clear "ultimate purpose" of literature. The closest thing that comes to an "ultimate purpose" of literature is whether or not people enjoy it. While polling random people is not likely to be a good method of determining how to build a nuclear bomb, it is likely to give an idea of whether or not people enjoy a given work of literature.

I think, if you want to compare specialists in literature to specialists in another field, it would be better to compare them to specialists in the field of some religion. The main features that you built the comparison on are still applicable -- pastors and theologians (to use the titles of specialists in Christianity) spend a great deal of effort and time studying morality. Like specialists in literature, they expect non-specialists to regard their (the pastors' and theologians') opinions on morality as better than the opinion of a random person. Like literature, it is not very clear what the "ultimate purpose" of the tradition is, and indeed, it seems to engender some of the same sorts of arguments as we see here regarding what makes "good" literature.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Athiest:
That's fine, but maybe you'd like to have a shot at describing what does constitute a great work of literary art?


Ok, then can you please try to articulate that?


Look, I'd be the first to agree that some books are better than others, and I've said as much throughout. The only difference between us is that I don't believe my opinion has any more validity than the dummies who write at Yahoo that Harry Potter is the greatest work ever.


People connect with different texts for a variety of reasons in a variety of situations. I wouldn't take anything away from someone who connected to a particular author, but preference is not the same thing as quality. You have to stand back from personal preference and see the broader picture. One of my favourite novels is Wilde's Dorian Gray but I wouldn't for one minute disagree that there are far better novels out there. The likes of Hardy, Austen and Emily Bronte, and many more besides, just in the English language, eclipse Wilde in the novel form fairly easily. But preference has nothing to do with quality.

Everyone is entitled to preference and can enjoy what they like, but it does not qualify them to raise Dan Brown above Hardy.

Generally speaking the quality of writing can usually be found within the first ten pages or so. This is the process of elimination at the BBC and at other publishers. Of course they have other agenda’s such as the marketing of a particular piece, audience, the suitability of it in terms of sales, etc, so this is not perfect, but overall quality can be sampled within a short time. It is not possible to spot many things within such a short space, in particular character development and integrity, but it is quite easy to spot poor writing within such a space of time, clichés, poor structure, obvious motifs, poor descriptive quality, cheap narrative tricks, all shout out of the writing - loudly. I remember being forced to read a popular detective novel for a module at uni, it took till page two for the detective to bring out the coffee and donuts!

All texts are equal, it is just that some texts are more equal than others.


I would like everyone who hasn't to read, for instance, Alice Munro.

Anything in particular?

[JCamilo]

Let me try again to point out why this analogy is flawed, since I don't think I was very clear in my last attempt. In both traditions -- physics and medicine -- there is a way to evaluate the validity of the tradition's tenets that is independent of the tradition itself. Another way to put it is that there is an ultimate purpose that "good" physics serves that non-physicists can understand, and non-physicists can evaluate whether or not the physicists are fulfilling this ultimate purpose. Namely, the physicists' theories enable engineers to do things like make more destructive bombs and image brain tumors. The same goes for medicine -- one does not need medical training to evaluate whether or not doctors are successfully treating patients.

I do not think you understand well. In the Internet you are not goint to find people who can tell why Yeates poetry is superior to my poetry and give you the reasons. It is harder, but it can be done using objective approach - his use of the vocabulary, his use of cliches, the metric and rythim, etc. It may be not precise as physics - nothing "is" - but saying there is no objective way to analyse a artistic work is ignoring the fact all artists are trainned with objective techniques and must apply it correctly.
As "ultimate purpose"? You cannt tell that Dante achive his "ultimate purpose" right now? His work (fact, not subjective opinion) read since ever by all kind of cultures, Beatrice is the most famous muse in the history of literature, the italian is a stabilished idiom, etc. Just because it is needed more time to analyse and we can not be sure about predictions, this does not mean the reading of the history is flawed as you suggest.
No one needs magical training to tell Shakespeare was a success. You do not even need to read him. I can not explain why the doctor cured me, but I can tell he does. I can not tell why Shakespeare is so good, but we can tell he is good.


However, there is no clear "ultimate purpose" of literature. The closest thing that comes to an "ultimate purpose" of literature is whether or not people enjoy it. While polling random people is not likely to be a good method of determining how to build a nuclear bomb, it is likely to give an idea of whether or not people enjoy a given work of literature.

"Ultimate purpose" is your creation. It is not like every biologist started studying a subject and rejected anything else than his ultimate purpose because of that, otherwise the most important theory of biology history would not exist, since Darwin had no interest to study animals, he was basically just collecting species for Lyell. In the end Ultimate Purpose of both is finding the truth - a philosophical aspect - and nothing relevant for the results and impact.
The same people who can randomly like a book that is not reggarded as good is able to come up with great medicine. For example, my father's wife have great stuff to cure a flu. Some random people are creationists also. They even think it is scientific. You can not stop the folk lore, can you?



I think, if you want to compare specialists in literature to specialists in another field, it would be better to compare them to specialists in the field of some religion. The main features that you built the comparison on are still applicable -- pastors and theologians (to use the titles of specialists in Christianity) spend a great deal of effort and time studying morality. Like specialists in literature, they expect non-specialists to regard their (the pastors' and theologians') opinions on morality as better than the opinion of a random person. Like literature, it is not very clear what the "ultimate purpose" of the tradition is, and indeed, it seems to engender some of the same sorts of arguments as we see here regarding what makes "good" literature.

That is silly. Scientists do not even bother to reggard the opinion of anyone who is not a specialist in their field, they also expect to have their opinions reggarded as true, because any specialist in the field of art, they have spent years building such knowledge. Elits are build this way and trying to imply there is not an human elit among scientist is out of place.
Just like everything, every single individual will have his opinion, this opinion will be "tested" by the body of knowledge of all humankind. Ezra Pound didnt like Virgil, Voltaire didnt like Shakespeare. Imagine if their individual wills (strong as they were) would be able to destroy the so claimed subjective of art analyses.


The problem with Bloom though, is the quality of work he has come up with has taken a beating over the years - he spends more time yelling at the "resenters" than he does talking about literature. As for the Bloom of The Visionary Company, or The Anxiety of Influence, I will admit he was groundbreaking, but the Bloom of How To Read and Why doesn't quite compare, in terms of the quality of the text. Of course, his focus is different now - he wants to sell more copies by reaching a wider audience - hence the list at the back of the Western Canon, which was more a sales gimmick than something meant to be taken seriously, and the catalogue books he is fond of writing now, yet he fails in the sense that he has let his scholarship slide.

Agreed, I would say he is suffering with his anxiety because he discovered his is a neo-marxist and he hated it :D
Serious, he suffers a Richard Dawkinism, his objectivity damaged by the holy war he is fighting. Still able to convice anyone to read Emily Dickinson. So, a good critic.


The canon cannot be written down, because it isn't one list - it is a regional list, changing from university to university, from person to person. We merely can track similarities in lists, for instance, seeing that Don Quixote, Shakespeare, and Dante seem to be on all of the "literary canon" lists, amongst others. Yet the notion of the Western Canon is quite dated; it's only a matter of time before someone (or many people, as seems likely) tries to piece a world canon, taking from all over the world.

A canon is a thing that happens to be. Perhaps we can all "It" like the Adams Family creature...

[Jozanny]

But still unable to quantify that literary greatness you've vehemently insisted exists?

This question is very nearly obscene. One does not quantify the arts the way one quantifies the spectrum of colors in light. I do not know what you are trying to destroy here, but you are looking at it in the wrong way. What is it about being the human animal we are that makes the way aesthetic choice operates so powerful?

A, you can have any opinion you want about the choices you make, this isn't what upsets me. Your determination that the arts are useless does. Why not go to a science forum then? Indeed, why be here, in a literary network forum? Even in a strictly material sense, and I told you before, my philosophy studies have shown me the problems with being a strict materialist, but even if one takes this position--our brains are conditioned to respond and react to art; one can even imagine that training in superior aesthetics is an evolutionary advance over those who have no aptitude to make such discriminations.

You aren't killing off fake gods--though seemingly this is the thrust of your position. I regret the loss of any further confidence between ourselves. Good luck to you.

[The Comedian]

but preference is not the same thing as quality.

This the key distinction in this whole argument, a distinction with which I completely agree.

Heck, I would prefer a half-dozen double-stuff Oreos for breakfast, but I chose whole wheat toast with light cream cheese for its quality contributions to my health and well-being. In this case I chose the better breakfast, just as when I chose to read Thoreau instead of People magazine I chose the better writing.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes I choose light reading and heavy snacking over more healthy options. But I know that the only good thing about an Oreo is the taste.

[Jozanny]

This is unavoidable. The fact that I have not read Lessing, as of yet, is a weakness in me and not in Lessing, or the thread. This is mostly true of contemporary writers, who - although fantastic - simply cannot expect such a wide readership as the classics. A thread focusing on Milton would generate more responses because generally more people have read Milton than Lessing - this not being a comparison of the two but a statement of the fact that Lessing has not been around as long as Milton.

Hey, I hear you, but as health and opportunity allows, I am about 100% aligned with JBI and Drkshadow. These large and overbearing abstract contentions are boring me, and I think from now on I want to look at the authors and poets themselves, when I care to invest the time to do so. I cannot with Montale over in the poetry thread, unfortunately. quasi and luke have been dear helping me with access to samples, but I have to actually get my hands on the texts themselves and study a little. The weather is bad, and menopause is trying to kill my poor little crippled body, at least in this cycle!:sick::D

[dogar sahab]

CLASSICS are still unparallel and I myself have forgotten how many times have I read HAMLET ,MACBETH and OTHELLO!!!!!???

[JBI]

Anything in particular?

Her anthologies are all, for the most part, great. I would recommend, in terms of an intro-work to her, either her selected stories, which combines stories from her earlier books, or for a more concrete introduction, the anthology, Who Do you Think You Are, which is the closest work she has to a novel, being that the short stories for the most part are interconnected.

Though, I would say her best work is probably Something I've Been Meaning to Tell You, which is a superb anthology. Seriously though, you can't really go wrong with her.

[The Atheist]

Generally speaking the quality of writing can usually be found within the first ten pages or so. This is the process of elimination at the BBC and at other publishers. Of course they have other agenda’s such as the marketing of a particular piece, audience, the suitability of it in terms of sales, etc, so this is not perfect, but overall quality can be sampled within a short time. It is not possible to spot many things within such a short space, in particular character development and integrity, but it is quite easy to spot poor writing within such a space of time, clichés, poor structure, obvious motifs, poor descriptive quality, cheap narrative tricks, all shout out of the writing - loudly. I remember being forced to read a popular detective novel for a module at uni, it took till page two for the detective to bring out the coffee and donuts!

All texts are equal, it is just that some texts are more equal than others.

Ok, at least you've made a start here.

You are proposing that quality of writing - character development, integrity, lack of cliches, clever narrative, good structure and descriptive quality make a great work.

That's fine by me, you've just placed Frederick Forsyth among the greats!

:D


This question is very nearly obscene.

To you, sure.


One does not quantify the arts the way one quantifies the spectrum of colors in light.

Well, this is exactly what I've been saying - that all opinion is subjective. Wasn't that hard to agree with me, was it?


I do not know what you are trying to destroy here, but you are looking at it in the wrong way.

The only thing I'm looking to destroy is the myth that one book is superior to another.


What is it about being the human animal we are that makes the way aesthetic choice operates so powerful?

Why does a magpie pick up bright objects to decorate its nest with? The origins of aesthetics are purely evolutionary - we pick good-looking (to us) mates in order to strengthen our genes. We pick good-looking vegetables because we feel they will be th freshest and most nourishing. Because we're a little smarter than the magpie, humans have broadened aesthetics to cover abstract concepts. As we've been saying, because people have different tastes in partner, it's pretty clear that we'll have different tastes in every form of aesthetics.

That stays true until people start to believe that one work has inherently more "worth" than another.

Why does everyone think his/her own children are the most beautiful, wonderful children ever? We cleave to what we know, and in the case of literature, our "knowledge" is gained through studying, which leaves the way open for confirmation biases to grow.


A, you can have any opinion you want about the choices you make, this isn't what upsets me. Your determination that the arts are useless does. Why not go to a science forum then? Indeed, why be here, in a literary network forum?

Where have I said that the arts are "useless"? They aren't necessary for survival, but they certainly have their uses. My only contention is that no one piece of art is worth more than another. (Discounting the obvious market value of pieces, which again, is no more than personal preference.)


Even in a strictly material sense, and I told you before, my philosophy studies have shown me the problems with being a strict materialist, but even if one takes this position--our brains are conditioned to respond and react to art; one can even imagine that training in superior aesthetics is an evolutionary advance over those who have no aptitude to make such discriminations.

Again, you're making my case for me. "Our brains are conditioned to respond and react to art..." Sure they are - but in exactly the same way many other human constructs have become culturally essential. If you can see where aesthetics in art and literature might have an evolutionary advantage, please let me know how/where/why, because I don't agree at all.


You aren't killing off fake gods--though seemingly this is the thrust of your position. I regret the loss of any further confidence between ourselves. Good luck to you.

Any myth is a good myth to explode, in my opinion. I'd thought this one could be dealt with on a very friendly basis because there didn't seem to be any sacred cows involved in the proposition - we're talking about books at a forum dedicated to the subject of books. If you're getting upset by it all, just ignore my opinion, since it's just that - my opinion.

[JBI]

CLASSICS are still unparallel and I myself have forgotten how many times have I read HAMLET ,MACBETH and OTHELLO!!!!!???

Classics aren't unparalleled. Contemporary literature has just as strong merits. Perhaps Shakespeare is unparalleled, but many contemporary works are just as strong as classic books.

Honestly, Atheist, you are having a solipsistic argument with yourself whether good things exist, or whether they are good because you think they are good. It comes down to Plato - Is a book good because we think it is good, or do we think a book is good because it is good.

Either way though, that doesn't disqualify the notion that they are good. Whether they are for one reason or another, they are deemed good or bad, and therefore represent quality, and more value. Subjectivity is a value system, and it works. You're just shoving in a misreading of the basics of philosophy into a pointless argument over whether or not something can be called better or worse.

I bring it back to this, if all roads lead to death, why live? That's right, until you can answer that, without something like "why not?" than there is no basis for argument. In that sense, if there are reasons we live our lives, one of them, or perhaps the most important, is a desire for pleasure. And certain things are deemed by us better deliverers of that pleasure. Therefore, reading certain books are better than others, because they give more.

Note, I use pleasure for lack of a better term, things like clarity, experience, and other such terms are also interchangeable, I cannot think of a header term, I just wanted to through off the nihilist argument.

[bluevictim]

In the Internet you are not goint to find people who can tell why Yeates poetry is superior to my poetry and give you the reasons. It is harder, but it can be done using objective approach - his use of the vocabulary, his use of cliches, the metric and rythim, etc. It may be not precise as physics - nothing "is" - but saying there is no objective way to analyse a artistic work is ignoring the fact all artists are trainned with objective techniques and must apply it correctly.
...
Scientists do not even bother to reggard the opinion of anyone who is not a specialist in their field, they also expect to have their opinions reggarded as true, because any specialist in the field of art, they have spent years building such knowledge. Elits are build this way and trying to imply there is not an human elit among scientist is out of place.
Thanks for responding. I essentially agree with these points, and I don't think they contradict my point. My point is not that there are no similarities between the field of literature and fields like physics and medicine. My point is that the dissimilarities make the analogy unconvincing for the claim that popularity is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a piece of literature is good. I suggest that a much better correspondence can be obtained by comparing the field of literature to religion than to physics and medicine.

You make good points, and they bring the discourse to a deeper level in the analogy. You're right that literature is not entirely subjective. The specialist in literature can argue that a poem is good using standards based on his use of vocabulary, cliches, and meter, just like a specialist in physics can argue that spacetime is compact based on general relativity, and data from experiments. You're right that neither of them needs to consult non-specialists in these endeavors. But so far, all this really shows is that the methodology of the specialists in literature is (at least somewhat) coherent -- that it is consistent enough to be useful among other adherents of the same tradition. The difference is that, in the end, there is an independent check on whether or not the methodology of the physicists produces "good" results -- non-specialists see that their methodology produces things like nuclear bombs and MRIs. This is why we non-specialists find the physicists so authoritative, to the point that it is appealing to make arguments about the field of literature by drawing comparisons to the field of physics (even among people who are not specialists in physics). Like I suggested before, the closest thing to an independent check that comes to mind for literature is whether or not people actually enjoy the literature that the specialists claim to be "good", so it seems that popularity should be a much more important factor in literature than in physics.


You cannt tell that Dante achive his "ultimate purpose" right now? His work (fact, not subjective opinion) read since ever by all kind of cultures, Beatrice is the most famous muse in the history of literature, the italian is a stabilished idiom, etc. Just because it is needed more time to analyse and we can not be sure about predictions, this does not mean the reading of the history is flawed as you suggest.It is not clear to me that this serves as an independent check on the specialists of literature comparable to the independent check on physics I described above. Indeed, this standard seems to accord much better with religion than with physics. Christian morals, like Dante, has dominated the West, but it is not clear that this implies that the opinions of today's pastors and theologians should have the final say in morality for everyone.


I can not explain why the doctor cured me, but I can tell he does. I can not tell why Shakespeare is so good, but we can tell he is good.This might be the main point of difference between our opinions. I do not think these two situations are equivalent in this context. I think it is much more clear that being cured is "good" than that Shakespeare's success is "good".

As a side note, let me address this point:

"Ultimate purpose" is your creation. It is not like every biologist started studying a subject and rejected anything else than his ultimate purpose because of that, otherwise the most important theory of biology history would not exist, since Darwin had no interest to study animals, he was basically just collecting species for Lyell.You're right that "ultimate purpose" is a term I made up. I don't mean by that term some ideal that individual specialists strive for; I don't mean "ultimate intent". To exagerrate the point a little, by "ultimate purpose" I mean, not what the specialists want for their field, but what the non-specialists want from that field. I was basically just trying to express the independent check I described above.

To sum up:

I am not claiming that there are no similarities between the field of literature and the fields of physics and medicine.

I am not claiming that literature is completely subjective.

I am claiming that there are dissimilarities between the field of literature and the fields of physics and medicine that results in a bigger role for popularity in literature than in physics and medicine.

I am suggesting that it would be more apt to compare the field of literature to a religion than to physics and medicine.

Thanks for bearing with silly little me! :)

[JCamilo]

Thanks for responding. I essentially agree with these points, and I don't think they contradict my point. My point is not that there are no similarities between the field of literature and fields like physics and medicine.

I have no problem with that, I would just point that there is also no similarity between medicine and physics either. Or sociology and physics, etc.


My point is that the dissimilarities make the analogy unconvincing for the claim that popularity is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a piece of literature is good.

I do not think it is necessary any analogy. Knowledge is (even in traditional cultures) elitist because not everyone have the time, education and traits to be dedicated to a intelectual life (and here, I am calling shamans and old storytellers intelectuals).
Also, the reasons why something turn to be popular are not always independent to outside factors. Today we have market and cultural domination. In the past the influence of important hystorical events could create booms of popularity (like books about the Second World War), and popular figures may create popular products (a book by Madonna for example). Fashion is decisive as well. Those factors certainly cann't tell anyone about the quality of the artwork because they do not last much.
But of course, Dickens was popular and is good. So, something popular may be good, and that is why I think we should pay attention to booms of popularity, after all it can be good (which is why it is silly when people complain about someone talking or reading a book they do not like).
I would say that something right is done when a book is best-seller. We just must see if what he is doing right is creating a profitable product or a artistic masterwork. I would say those are merits, but not the merit I like to see.


I suggest that a much better correspondence can be obtained by comparing the field of literature to religion than to physics and medicine.

I would say that ok, Art experience is closer to religion experience. But I would say that the study of art often is less philosophical than Religious study.


You make good points, and they bring the discourse to a deeper level in the analogy. You're right that literature is not entirely subjective. The specialist in literature can argue that a poem is good using standards based on his use of vocabulary, cliches, and meter, just like a specialist in physics can argue that spacetime is compact based on general relativity, and data from experiments. You're right that neither of them needs to consult non-specialists in these endeavors. But so far, all this really shows is that the methodology of the specialists in literature is (at least somewhat) coherent -- that it is consistent enough to be useful among other adherents of the same tradition. The difference is that, in the end, there is an independent check on whether or not the methodology of the physicists produces "good" results -- non-specialists see that their methodology produces things like nuclear bombs and MRIs. This is why we non-specialists find the physicists so authoritative, to the point that it is appealing to make arguments about the field of literature by drawing comparisons to the field of physics (even among people who are not specialists in physics). Like I suggested before, the closest thing to an independent check that comes to mind for literature is whether or not people actually enjoy the literature that the specialists claim to be "good", so it seems that popularity should be a much more important factor in literature than in physics.


I agree than mathematic cannt help a study about literature and certainly is something we are giving to the critics of 100 years ago, because only Time do the test.
I think the indepence lies in the fact the tradition changes. I am sure about Homer, why? The number of cultures and traditions that reckonized him obviously form today a independent opinion. I am not sure about Joyce, even if I know he is technically great, they will be sure (or not) in centuries.


It is not clear to me that this serves as an independent check on the specialists of literature comparable to the independent check on physics I described above. Indeed, this standard seems to accord much better with religion than with physics. Christian morals, like Dante, has dominated the West, but it is not clear that this implies that the opinions of today's pastors and theologians should have the final say in morality for everyone.

Yes, but those who stoped to follow the christian morals do not reckon it vallues anymore. We still, even if Dante have nothing to do with us, reckonizing Dante.


This might be the main point of difference between our opinions. I do not think these two situations are equivalent in this context. I think it is much more clear that being cured is "good" than that Shakespeare's success is "good".

Didnt mean that way, I mean we know Shakespeare capacity is good when we are think of literary merits, not that he is good for humankind, altough I think he does.


Thanks for bearing with silly little me! :)

No worries, I do not think we are going to find truth in a internet forum, much less this kind of truth... Altought I am sure I am right :D

[mayneverhave]

No worries, I do not think we are going to find truth in a internet forum, much less this kind of truth... Altought I am sure I am right :D

Surely this is much better than asking a question on Yahoo questions?

[Drkshadow03]

Surely this is much better than asking a question on Yahoo questions?

How do you figure?

[The Atheist]

Subjectivity is a value system, and it works.

I've ignored the rest of your as not being worthy of answering. Some people would be quite insulted by the suggestion that they are struggling with basic philosophical positions, but I'm well able to shrug that off. I'm quite happy to leave people with their misconceptions.

The only interesting part to me, is why you'd swerve down that already-discussed avenue to avoid answering the question. The question is absolutely simple - what differentiates great literature from poor?

If your answer is as you state above, a consensus of subjective opinion, then we actually agree 100%.

Easy, eh? Could've left Plato with the kindergarten kids and posted the above eight words.


I suggest that a much better correspondence can be obtained by comparing the field of literature to religion than to physics and medicine.

Spot on, excellent post.


I have no problem with that, I would just point that there is also no similarity between medicine and physics either. Or sociology and physics, etc.

I'll just correct that one thing, if I may. There are actually many similar things in physics and medicine - they are both evidence-based sciences.


I agree than mathematic cannt help a study about literature ...

This is an interesting analogy, but I think you'll find that maths actually can/does play a part in literature. Meter, phrase length, lack of repetition, lack of cliches, fresh metaphor, great grammar, all of those things are either worked in numbers or conform to patterns which can be broken into algorithm. (Which is exactly what the boys behind Google figured out.) All of those things have been pushed as a big part of literature, and I would agree that literary correctness - which covers all of the above - plot development and continuity are all quite quantifiable.


No worries, I do not think we are going to find truth in a internet forum, much less this kind of truth... Altought I am sure I am right :D


Hell, I know people who have either lost god or found one, entirely on the internet.

Truths live in all sorts of places. Truth, as in "Truth", you're quite right. Won't find it anywhere else, either.

:)


How do you figure?

Sheesh.

Ain't it obvious? The opinions here are far more valuable than those at Yahoo*

:lol:


*Worst company name, ever.

[LitNetIsGreat]

That's fine by me, you've just placed Frederick Forsyth among the greats!


I'm not sure if I have or if I haven't, I have not read any of his stuff so I don't know for sure. From what I have heard about him I doubt that I have in all seriousness, but I trust myself to make my own conclusions based upon what I read for myself so I will reserve judgement until that day, thanks all the same.

I just want to repeat this statement because I quite enjoyed writing it:

All texts are equal, it is just that some texts are more equal than others.

Sorry, but I thought that was quite witty, and I was feeling smug with myself for it, so I am sure you don't mind me repeating it. In all seriousness though I think your points are interesting and articulate but just "wrong".

John.

JBI:
Her anthologies are all, for the most part, great. I would recommend, in terms of an intro-work to her, either her selected stories, which combines stories from her earlier books, or for a more concrete introduction, the anthology, Who Do you Think You Are, which is the closest work she has to a novel, being that the short stories for the most part are interconnected.

Though, I would say her best work is probably Something I've Been Meaning to Tell You, which is a superb anthology. Seriously though, you can't really go wrong with her.

Thanks, I will look into this, I did so earlier and it seemed that she had a hell of a lot of short story compilations. Part of my wish to join such a forum as this is to come across "new" works though so thanks.

[JCamilo]

[QUOTE]I'll just correct that one thing, if I may. There are actually many similar things in physics and medicine - they are both evidence-based sciences.

Just like any science. Literary criticism, if we are going to call it science, is based on the evidence named the writing text. I would left to anyone the easy task to point out the obvious differences between medicine and physics, since one is just an application of another scientific areas (biology and chesmetry) and the other is the study of those areas, but hell, no. I am sure you can meet physicians that will point out how unlikely physics and biology can be.




This is an interesting analogy, but I think you'll find that maths actually can/does play a part in literature. Meter, phrase length, lack of repetition, lack of cliches, fresh metaphor, great grammar, all of those things are either worked in numbers or conform to patterns which can be broken into algorithm. (Which is exactly what the boys behind Google figured out.) All of those things have been pushed as a big part of literature, and I would agree that literary correctness - which covers all of the above - plot development and continuity are all quite quantifiable.

There is a big difference between being able to test you results in mathetimatical systems like physics and using logical language that can be symbolized by mathematic. In one case, mathematics is the system used for study and the other it is the object of the study. Different things.





Hell, I know people who have either lost god or found one, entirely on the internet.

Truths live in all sorts of places. Truth, as in "Truth", you're quite right. Won't find it anywhere else, either.

:)


That is not what I mean because searching and finding god in the internet is just trying to fix in a group, not finding a god. but hellas, such is life.

[stlukesguild]

The only thing I'm looking to destroy is the myth that one book is superior to another.

Fortunately, for us, its not a myth. Luckily there are works of art of great beauty and depth that bring wonder, joy, pleasure, depth of feeling and thought... and beauty to a world that can be quite bland... and even ugly. The writings of Shakespeare and Dante and any number of other artists who represent some of the greatest of what humanity has to offer will continue to be read long after your sophomoric attempts at iconoclasm (still more gods to deny?) are forgotten. Anyone who has been on LitNet or any similar discussion board for more than a few weeks has come across endless "clever clever boys" (or girls) with some small knowledge of literature who set for themselves the laughable goal of undermining the whole notion aesthetic value, merit, and achievement. Yawn! Nothing more pathetic than those who smirk at that which they cannot understand. As much as it disturbs your pseudo-egalitarian nature (or perhaps throws a spotlight on your own fears of mediocrity) all people are not created equal... nor are all artists created equal. Personally I don't understand what you hope to gain... other than wasting a few moments of your day... by provoking others who obviously are involved in a literary discussion group because they believe great writing exists and is of worth to them as human beings. Obviously such is but one more thing in which you don't believe... and yet like a fundamentalist missionary you would convert those who don't lack such belief. But please feel free to continue arguing that Peter Orlovsky's Clean A*@hole Poems & Smiling Vegetable Songs, the manual for winterizing your home, the phone book, and any random teenage girl's diary are of equal aesthetic merit to Homer, Virgil, and Milton. Humor is something often missing from these boards... although be aware we are laughing at you... not with you.:D

[JBI]

To the Atheist.


Honestly, I'm just going to ignore your whole post, and bring up one line, of which you fail to budge on your opinion of "The question is absolutely simple - what differentiates great literature from poor?" - it contains something (sometimes something hard to describe in words) that penetrates. What makes things pleasureful? What makes living worthwhile? Hell, if there is no good and bad art, are there good and bad lives? Does life have a purpose? Is it worth living without pleasure, I.E. if everything was the same, without change, and without any form of enjoyment? Of course not.



You use no real arguments, and only resort to rhetoric. Your response to everything so far has been "You aren't answering my question" or "I don't believe you." which essentially is summed up by the phrase, "Look how smart I am - I am unbending on my opinion of art."

Cut the rhetoric, several answers have been given already; if you see them all unfit, provide one yourself, but simply denying what people says isn't productive, it is simply silly. You are saying "Haha, you are stupid because I don't believe you." and quite frankly, it's merely irritating.


Sorry if I may come off offensive, for Atheist is a very honorable man, I am sure, yet I just find it irritating how someone enters an argument with the sole intention of flexing his "logical powers" over everyone else, without the slightest intention of budging, or accepting what others are saying.

[Etienne]

I've told you several times why they are bad analogies - sports keep results and it's obvious that Usain Bolt is the fastest sprinter who's ever lived. No argument there.

But what about, say soccer players? Which one is objectively best?


Ah, but you've nade a supposition that anyone ever told me he was good. In fact, the absolute opposite is true. I fell in love reading Animal Farm long before anyone ever suggested it as a good read.

Oh! But can't you see the irony? See your comment at which this was aimed at.

Quoting you:That cultivation will be encouraged and happen under some form of tutelage. Is there a literary elitist who is self-taught in likes & dislikes, greatness & mundanity?

No.

Literary elitists grow under the wings of other literary elitists, whose cultural tastes propagate like memes.

I put it to you that if Eng Lit teachers and tutors didn't reinforce their own likes & dislikes, elitism in literature wouldn't even exist.

So I take it you are the only freethinker here, according to you?

[JCamilo]

Yes, I see some people are challenging notions such how we can determine a moderm book is great or not, etc. But a superior book... that is too odd, superior relative to what? Longevity? Influence? Translations? Poetry language? Philosophical system in? Scientific vallue? Religious influence? Those will produce several answers, but we can say a group of books would answer those questions and that there is such superiority, but the rest is too vague and I am see only argumentative sophistry...

[Etienne]

Yes, I see some people are challenging notions such how we can determine a moderm book is great or not, etc. But a superior book... that is too odd, superior relative to what? Longevity? Influence? Translations? Poetry language? Philosophical system in? Scientific vallue? Religious influence? Those will produce several answers, but we can say a group of books would answer those questions and that there is such superiority, but the rest is too vague and I am see only argumentative sophistry...

Aesthetic. What is so hard to understand about this? Does everything have to be counted quantitatively? We are talking about quality here, not quantity. It's not about counting anything, but taking a work for what it is by it's intrinsic artistic merit. And how do you see religious influence as something less vague than artistic merit?

[JCamilo]

Meh, I was refering to atheist notion that there is no book superior to others. Without determining a criteria, it is just a vague argument obviously impossible to counter.

[Etienne]

Alright. Of course, one cannot counter this argument by saying 1+1=2. But not what humanities are about either.

[mayneverhave]

Alright. Of course, one cannot counter this argument by saying 1+1=2. But not what humanities are about either.

Surely you meant 2 times 2 makes 4.

[Etienne]

Surely you meant 2 times 2 makes 4.

Did I? Then perhaps I am simply mistaken in my calculations :lol:

[The Atheist]

The writings of Shakespeare and Dante and any number of other artists who represent some of the greatest of what humanity has to offer will continue to be read long after your sophomoric attempts at iconoclasm (still more gods to deny?) are forgotten.

I wouldn't be so quick on the draw for Dante. He's almost dead already. Shakespeare, sure, but Dante has fallen a long way from his once mighty podium.


Anyone who has been on LitNet or any similar discussion board for more than a few weeks has come across endless "clever clever boys" (or girls) with some small knowledge of literature who set for themselves the laughable goal of undermining the whole notion aesthetic value, merit, and achievement. Yawn! Nothing more pathetic than those who smirk at that which they cannot understand. As much as it disturbs your pseudo-egalitarian nature (or perhaps throws a spotlight on your own fears of mediocrity) all people are not created equal... nor are all artists created equal. Personally I don't understand what you hope to gain... other than wasting a few moments of your day... by provoking others who obviously are involved in a literary discussion group because they believe great writing exists and is of worth to them as human beings. Obviously such is but one more thing in which you don't believe... and yet like a fundamentalist missionary you would convert those who don't lack such belief. But please feel free to continue arguing that Peter Orlovsky's Clean A*@hole Poems & Smiling Vegetable Songs, the manual for winterizing your home, the phone book, and any random teenage girl's diary are of equal aesthetic merit to Homer, Virgil, and Milton. Humor is something often missing from these boards... although be aware we are laughing at you... not with you.:D

Wow. I have to say that that post was as odious as any I've seen anywhere.

Still, I have a strong theory that resorts to that kind of posting are born from the inability to articluate coherent arguments.


Sorry if I may come off offensive, for Atheist is a very honorable man, I am sure, yet I just find it irritating how someone enters an argument with the sole intention of flexing his "logical powers" over everyone else, without the slightest intention of budging, or accepting what others are saying.

No worries on the offence, I don't take any.

I still think you're completely missing what I've said during the thread so far, but it doesn't matter - others can read and take from it what they will.

Far from being an exercise in "logical power", I thought it might be a fun thread.

Shows that even I make mistakes!

:D

More passion in here than the average religion one.


But what about, say soccer players? Which one is objectively best?

No idea, soccer is such an inferior game to rugby.


So I take it you are the only freethinker here, according to you?

Nah, and this is the really funny part - I've admitted to all sorts of elitism myself, but the only difference is that I won't insist that I'm right. I have taken great pains to demonstrate that I am voicing a personal opinion. I find it somewhat ironic that the same admission is so difficult on the other side.


Alright. Of course, one cannot counter this argument by saying 1+1=2. But not what humanities are about either.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary and those who don't.

;)

As to humanities, I stick with the what the science graduate said to the humanities graduate:

"Fries with that Mac, please."

[Drkshadow03]

No.

Literary elitists grow under the wings of other literary elitists, whose cultural tastes propagate like memes.

I put it to you that if Eng Lit teachers and tutors didn't reinforce their own likes & dislikes, elitism in literature wouldn't even exist.[/COLOR]

So I take it you are the only freethinker here, according to you?

You know I don't actually agree with these ideas necessarily, but you're all acting like the Atheist's comments are coming from the twelfth layer of the Gorgon Galaxy, so horribly alien and repugnant that how could anyone possibly think such things? Yet just looking at the quote above he could practically be paraphrasing a major literary critic like Terry Eagleton in his mainstream, though horribly Marxist, Literary Theory: An Introduction. Eagleton at one point suggests it is perfectly possible and reasonable that a society might exist someday in the near future that might thin shakespeare dull, not be able to relate ot it, and find no value in his work.

How many literary theorists, whether feminists, marxists, Foucauldians, race theorists, or many other varieties, have in fact critiqued the idea of the Canon on pretty much the same theoritical basis that the Atheist writes in the quote above? It's only a reflection of the current power structure, whether that be white wealthy males or just a more generalized power structure or whatever, it's propogated by the interests of power so the argument goes, even to the point that "checklist" for aesthetic quality is nothing more than a production of power and engrained cultural habits.

Now, I want to stress I don't agree necessarily with any of these ideas, but one should at least recognize that these ideas exist, and aren't as wild or out there as some of you are making it sound. In fact, many of these challenges are fairly mainstream within academic literary studies. Just thought I would note it.

[JBI]

I've read Eagleton, I just assumed Atheist hadn't. Eagleton however doesn't say that texts are devoid of aesthetic value, he simply states that it varies from society to society, being that Shakespeare can be deemed mediocre by a society. That doesn't negate the concept of literary value.

Either way though, it is a rather flimsy hypothesis. There are similarities between all people - we all are born, live, and die, and from that we can see other trends - most of us know who are parents are, have sexual drives, and other drives. From that then, we can say that there are natural or automatic similarities between people, and therefore it would make sense that from that a general notion of good and bad can be decieved (I.E., we all wish to live and not die). And from that, our society shapes its aesthetic views. Of course, we may get to a point in time when society is so foreign to our society that the old canon is dated and irrelevant, but how long will that take? Homer is still read and enjoyed today. The Bible is still read and enjoyed/studied today. We haven't budged much in 3000 years, how long will it take. Such argumentative thinking is only theoretical, and incredibly impractical. The relevancy of some texts over others to our society is undeniable.

[Etienne]

I wouldn't be so quick on the draw for Dante. He's almost dead already. Shakespeare, sure, but Dante has fallen a long way from his once mighty podium.

What?


Still, I have a strong theory that resorts to that kind of posting are born from the inability to articluate coherent arguments.

Oh, and what arguments have YOU been articulating?


Nah, and this is the really funny part - I've admitted to all sorts of elitism myself, but the only difference is that I won't insist that I'm right. I have taken great pains to demonstrate that I am voicing a personal opinion. I find it somewhat ironic that the same admission is so difficult on the other side.

Only voicing personal opinion? Come on, don't make me laugh. You still won't stop on those rhetorics, won't you?

Actually, your posts since the beginning have been only that: rhetorics. Not a single positive argument, you're actually a good "internet debater" but on the level of constructive dialogue, not so much.

[stlukesguild]

How many literary theorists, whether feminists, marxists, Foucauldians, race theorists, or many other varieties, have in fact critiqued the idea of the Canon on pretty much the same theoritical basis that the Atheist writes in the quote above? It's only a reflection of the current power structure, whether that be white wealthy males or just a more generalized power structure or whatever, it's propogated by the interests of power so the argument goes, even to the point that "checklist" for aesthetic quality is nothing more than a production of power and engrained cultural habits.

Yes... Most of us have probably read such criticisms. Aesthetic mastery... even the very patriarchal/racist sense of the word "master" is but one more element in the arsenal of the elite power structure. Again the linkage of political "elitism" with aesthetic elitism. But how do they play out? How does Michelangelo, a frustrated homosexual misanthropist earn the position of the top artist in Western Christian culture? Why not the far safer Raphael? Sure, he died of syphilis, but at least he would never have covered the central chapel of Christendom with homoerotic sexual fantasies, painted Christ and the Saints... and even the Virgin Mary naked:eek::eek::eek:(covered up shortly thereafter, thank God:rolleyes:) over the very altar where the Pope himself was to hold mass... nor dared to have placed portraits of high-ranking clergy who had offended him in his portrayal of Hell in the Last Judgment. Why Shakespeare... with his problematic sexual history and his knack for challenging clear-cut morals and religious faith? Surely Milton would have been far more ideal? And Dante?! My god! Almost a heretic. The woman of his sexual fantasies placed on the right hand throne next to the Virgin Mary?! All his enemies condemned to horrific tortures in hell. Too often I get the feeling that such critics have little, if any, real love or passion for literature or art. Their real obsession is political, but they have the misguided notion that somehow they might change the social construct by erasing the past... or perhaps they just recognize that no one outside of the arts would actually take them seriously.

[Jozanny]

How many literary theorists, whether feminists, marxists, Foucauldians, race theorists, or many other varieties, have in fact critiqued the idea of the Canon on pretty much the same theoritical basis that the Atheist writes in the quote above? It's only a reflection of the current power structure, whether that be white wealthy males or just a more generalized power structure or whatever, it's propogated by the interests of power so the argument goes, even to the point that "checklist" for aesthetic quality is nothing more than a production of power and engrained cultural habits.

Since Drk has the honor of drawing me back into this, I will say I have some difficulty with this line of reasoning. A Marxist interpretation of Othello's death speech, a feminist alternative to patriarchal control, or the application of Foucaultan power-knowledge to reader ---> writer --->critic is not the same thing as evoking the Dadaists as grand masters.

I understand what you mean when you say you prefer the analysis of each piece over and above a comparative approach Drk, but it is a bit drastic to assert that a newspaper clipping and Hamlet have the same intrinsic value--essentially meaning neither of them has it.

[stlukesguild]

Still, I have a strong theory that resorts to that kind of posting are born from the inability to articluate coherent arguments.

As strong as you might imagine your theory to be, it would be wrong. Postings of the sort to which you refer are simply the result of my growing tired of making the effort to articulate coherent arguments to counter someone who is so well wrapped in the smug belief of his own superiority as a freethinker, iconoclast, and master of debate. No one that values the arts... and all the arts mean to humanity can possibly hold the belief that all art is equal... that a mere scribble or a random page from the phone book is of the same worth as the greatest masterworks. Thus I can only conclude that art means very little to you... or this is but a game. Either way... I tire of it.

[SleepyWitch]

I think there is a difference between excluding books by minority or women writers from the canon and excluding "pulp" fiction and some best sellers (e.g. the book I described here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=633953&postcount=98))

with the minorities/ women you can use two arguments for revising the canon and including them, i.e. aesthetic ones (=their aesthetic value has been overlooked due to their minority/ gender status) and political ones.

but with 10cent bodice rippers and romances or predictable, pointless crime fiction, there is no political argument. They are not written by the kind of people who read them, or for the people who read them or about the people who read them (apart from not having what is called a "universal" message anyway, although I personally doubt that classics/ contemporary lit have one).
E.g. the 10 cent romance stuff you can buy at supermarkets is read by lower class women. But does it deal with their joys and sorrows? Does it offer any "working class culture" as an alternative to the dominant culture? (yeah, I know I'm an old-stock wannabe Marxist who hasn't caught on to the fact that there is no working class any longer). Does it require them to make any mental effort at all, even about issues that are within their own sphere of experience and that they could easily grasp if they were required to/ given a chance? Is it written by lower class women? Don't know, maybe, but what counts is that it is sold for profit. Ok, that's not too different from mainstream books, but still it's not charitably given away for the enlightenment of the poor lower class woman.
So should the body ripper/ 10c romance/ predictable crime best seller be called "literature" just because lots of people read them?
What I mean is, these people are perfectly entitled to read those books, but the only purpose of this kind of 'literature' seems to be to dumb people down (at least the body ripper and romance thingies). I guess if they are determined to read these, it's up to them, but should dumbing down be glorified by calling it "literature"?
Literature by women/minorities/ immigrants/working class authors etc shows the world from a different perspective than that of the Anglo-Saxon white rich old man (at least some of it does) and by dealing with the 'problems' of these groups offers an alternative to the dominant culture (at least some of them do), i.e. it deals with human issues that affect all of society. It is very easy to argue that these literatures used to be excluded from the canon precisely for these reasons.
But what about the 10c porn-romance/bodice ripper? What does it do except numb thousands of lower class housewives? Marijuana or sleeping pills or a nice cup of hop tea would have the same effect.
Could anyone argue that the bodice ripper/romance/ predictable crime bestseller are excluded from the canon because they are written by a certain social class or race or gender? :confused:


edit I've just come across a description of the subgenres offered by Mills and Boon, so maybe I am not doing them justice with respect to the variety of their stories (although all of them are romance). The German equivalent seems to be less varied, but I'll go and check some of them out.




Modern : Focus on being glamorous and 'sophisticated' passionate romance. Titles feature intense relationships, often very sexual, often reflecting shared feelings, desires and dreams within the couple.

Romance: Warm and emotional novels that focus on capturing the feeling of falling in love.

Blaze: Very sexual. Featuring couples in contemporary romantic relationships as they embark on sexual adventures and fantasy journeys.

By Request: Revived romantic novels published previously but now unavailable. One volume is available per month.

Medical: Contemporary romances set against the background of the medical profession.

Historical: Romance set in a specific historical time and place, for example 1920s New York.

Desire 2-in-1: Daring provocative and sensual love stories.

Special Edition: Compelling romances packed with emotion, tackling sensitive issues while embracing the romantic ideal that love can conquer all.

Superromance: Realistic, passionate, contemporary novels that are longer and more involved.

Intrigue: Romance suspense at its best: Danger, deception and desire.

Spotlight: Two bestselling novels in one volume by favourite authors, back by popular demand! Featuring novels from Silhouette series favourites, Special Edition, Sensation and Desire.

[Drkshadow03]

JBI, you're right. He doesn't quite say texts are devoid of aesthetic value, but if I remember correctly he does go a little further beyond just pointing out that texts a text's value may be different from society to society. I do think he does extend that at points to questions whether a given text has any value or whether ultimately it's a matter of cultural construction reflecting a specific formulation of power.

I also hope everyone realizes I don't actually agree with Eagleton. I actually agree more with JBI. I'll provide some select quotes a little bit later from the book and see if anyone would like to respond to them.

[Tournesol]

To me, Mills & Boons are like fast food...lots available, and not much nutritional value.
Literature is like a gourmet meal prepared by a world-renowned chef...tasty, balanced [most times] and prepared with heart and soul!

[JCamilo]

JBI, you're right. He doesn't quite say texts are devoid of aesthetic value, but if I remember correctly he does go a little further beyond just pointing out that texts a text's value may be different from society to society. I do think he does extend that at points to questions whether a given text has any value or whether ultimately it's a matter of cultural construction reflecting a specific formulation of power.

I also hope everyone realizes I don't actually agree with Eagleton. I actually agree more with JBI. I'll provide some select quotes a little bit later from the book and see if anyone would like to respond to them.


Foucault also does not negate the aesthetical vallue, he was just focused with the idea of power, influence and social impact. It would be more far to say he denied the concept of romantic artist because he was quite a elitist himself if we see the kind of artists he used in his texts.
Atheist is not even defending the idea of a illuminati dominating our world and making us like Shakespeare instead of John Smith, the fourth. He trying to prove all books are equal - but writing is not an accident, it is technique, we know some people are more trained to use this technique (not even talking about an artwork, but you and me writing) will produce better texts. It is not possible to sustain his position except using what he denies: a good text construction to breed argument by sophistry.

[The Comedian]

The only thing I'm looking to destroy is the myth that one book is superior to another.

Forgive my ignorance, but if your argument is that all books are equal, then on what grounds are you making this claim? And, since you find subjective evaluation as invalid, then could you make the case for all books being equal and, in so doing, leave out all appeal to subjective evaluation?

[Jozanny]

Foucault also does not negate the aesthetical vallue, he was just focused with the idea of power, influence and social impact. It would be more far to say he denied the concept of romantic artist because he was quite a elitist himself if we see the kind of artists he used in his texts.
Atheist is not even defending the idea of a illuminati dominating our world and making us like Shakespeare instead of John Smith, the fourth. He trying to prove all books are equal - but writing is not an accident, it is technique, we know some people are more trained to use this technique (not even talking about an artwork, but you and me writing) will produce better texts. It is not possible to sustain his position except using what he denies: a good text construction to breed argument by sophistry.

Agreed. Another way to bring this all crashing to the ground is this: Orwell was a polemicist against absolute state authority as it was promulgated by Marx.

Atheist cannot say that Marx and Orwell cannot be judged as the equal to Hearst's yellow journalism, for example. Marx had powerful ideas he conveyed through words; Orwell had powerful ideas against Marx. Both changed the world of political thought--for anyone to say that a Hearst reporter was or is the equal to either of this men, as a writer, is just absurd.

[Drkshadow03]

JBI, it's true that Eagleton doesn't directly say that literary texts are devoid of aesthetic value, but he does make clear that what we define as aesthetically pleasing is a product of our social power structure, and more specifically academic social values.


Literary theorists, critics and teachers, then, are not so much purveyors of doctrine as custodians of a discourse. Their task is to preserve this discourse, extend and elaborate it as necessary, defend it from other forms of discourses, initiate newcomers into it and determine whether or not they have successfully mastered it. . . . Another reason literary criticism cannot justify its self-limiting to certain works by an appeal to their 'value' is that criticism is part of a literary institution which constitutes these works as valuable in the first place. . . . Shakespeare was not great literature lying conveniently to hand, which the literary institution then happily discovered: he is great literature because the institution constitutes him as such. This does not mean that he is not 'really' great literature -- that it is just a matter of people's opinions about him -- because there is no such thing as literature which is 'really' great, or 'really' anything, independently of the ways in which that writing is treated within specific forms of social and institutional life.

So when the Atheist writes: "Literary elitists grow under the wings of other literary elitists, whose cultural tastes propagate like memes.

I put it to you that if ENG Lit teachers and tutors didn’t reinforce their own likes and dislikes, elitism in literature wouldn’t even exist."

Let's face it the Atheist's first sentence could practically be a paraphrase of Eagleton's first sentence. More specifically, I think Eagleton in the last part of the quote about Shakespeare is making the argument that "great" literature doesn't possess some intrinsic aesthetic value, but rather what has aesthetic value is decided by what our social institutions think is valuable and supports the power-structure, the social institution in question here being academia. Eagelton is saying that the whole idea of "great" literature is bunk, an illusion, a "chimera", as he refers to the Canon earlier in the text, that is merely constituted by the value-judgements of the ruling class and Capitalism, which he states more explicitly elsewhere. Not to mention in context this quote occurs at the end where he is finally explaining his own viewpoints on all the issues he has been discussing.

The original quote in question that I was referring to:


[T]he so-called 'literary canon', the unquestioned 'great tradition' of the 'national literature', has to be recognized as a construct, fashioned by particular people for particular reasons at a certain time. There is no such thing as a literary work or tradition which is valuable in itself, regardless of what anyone might have said or come to say about it. 'Value' is a transitive term: it means whatever is valued by certain people in specific situations, according to particular criteria and in the light of given purposes. It is thus quite possible that, given a deep enough transformation of our history, we may in the future produce a society which is unable to get anything at all out of Shakespeare. His works might simply seem desperately alien, full of styles of thought and feeling which such a society found limited or irrelevant. In such a situation, Shakespeare would be no more valuable than much present-day graffiti. And though many people would consider such a social condition tragically impoverished, it seems to me dogmatic not to entertain the possibility that it might arise rather from a general human enrichment. Karl Marx was troubled by the question of why ancient Greek art retained an 'eternal charm', even though the social conditions which produced it had long passed; but how do we know that it will remain 'eternally' charming, since history has not yet ended?

Even though this line occurs in the introduction, I don't think this is just him neutrally reporting the arguments happening in literary studies that one would expect from a normal introduction or the commonsense notion that values differ between cultures. I think the second sentence is definitely Eagleton himself speaking when he tells us "there is no such thing as a literary work or tradition which is valuable in itself." This theme seems to be repeated again and again throughout the work, even when he isn't talking about theorists who necessarily espouse such views.

At the end he also attacks the types of critics and theorists who would place Literature on a pedestal for its aesthetic value:


All theory and knowledge, as I have argued previously, is 'interested', in the sense that you can always ask why one should bother to develop it in the first place. One striking weakness of most formalist and structuralist criticism is that it is unable to answer this question. The structuralist really does examine sign-systems because they happen to be there, or if this seems indefensible is forced into some rationale -- studying our modes of sense-making will deepen our critical self-awareness -- which is not much different from the standard line of the liberal humanists. The strength of the liberal humanist case, by contrast, is that it is able to say why dealing with literature is worth while. Its answer, as we have seen, is roughly that it makes you a better person. This is also the weakness of the liberal humanist case.

The liberal humanist response, however, is not weak because it believes literature can be transformative. It is weak because it usually grossly overestimates this transformative power, considers it in isolation from any determining social context, and can formulate what it means by a "better person" only in the most narrow and abstract of terms.

If one is curious where he is going with the last paragraph, Eagleton believes literature's true transformative power comes with bringing in politics (Marxism, feminism, etc.) and subordinating it as one artifact of textual culture to study among many, which besides Moby Dick would also include song lyrics, the muppets, the rhetoric of a government report, etc.

It is quite clear from this paragraph that he is attacking the types of people who would defend aesthetic values, not to mention the kind of arguments we've seen in this thread. You know, the endless lame food metaphors to explain the value of literature, "popular fiction is like a stale ring ding, sometimes satisfying, but still kind of tastes like the plastic wrapper and leaves you hungry for a real meal, while the Great Works are like a creme brulee pefectly scorched and carmelized leaving you to savor every sweet glob of goodness and the most satisfying part of an excellent meal, plus it's French so it has to be good!" Or even the: "It makes you a better person!" "It's good for your soul." "It improves the mind." "But how does it do those things?" "Shhh, if you don't understand then alas you never will poor foolish, boy."

I remember the first time I read the book he came off as being more neutral. I sort of read it for an introduction to the various theories, and it seemed like he was just reporting on the issues. But when I re-read the book I discovered this isn't some harmless neutral introduction to theory, rather it is dripping with Eagleton's viewpoints and personal judgements. So the reason I went through those quotes is I do think JBI that your understating the implications of his viewpoints, that are quite clearly his viewpoints, a bit.

Keep in mind I am NOT a Marxist, I don't particularly agree with Eagleton. I think my real point was to show that The Atheist isn't exactly alone in these sentiments, but there are many criticial theories circulating around academia and many academics that in fact are raising the same sorts of questions as The Atheist. Though, I would love to see some personal reactions to Eagleton's quotes.


Foucault also does not negate the aesthetical vallue, he was just focused with the idea of power, influence and social impact. It would be more far to say he denied the concept of romantic artist because he was quite a elitist himself if we see the kind of artists he used in his texts.
Atheist is not even defending the idea of a illuminati dominating our world and making us like Shakespeare instead of John Smith, the fourth. He trying to prove all books are equal - but writing is not an accident, it is technique, we know some people are more trained to use this technique (not even talking about an artwork, but you and me writing) will produce better texts. It is not possible to sustain his position except using what he denies: a good text construction to breed argument by sophistry.

Foucault is another one who doesn't explicitly come out against aesthetic value. Not to mention his analysis of power is "objective" in so far as he is more interested in describing the workings of power than railing or condemning it. Foucault is in no position to condemn power; he consistently points out that you can't escape it, no matter what historical change or revolution occurs, you'll only be shifting the deck chairs so to speak and reformulating the rules that govern your society and thus the strategies and networks of power. His idea of power relies on discourses and shifting epistemes. The values, functions of a text, or discourse in one episteme does not work the same in the next. What we value, who we value, and what we consider important changes with each epistemic shift.

Since literature falls under discourse, it is governed by these same rules. The literature we value in one period may not be the literature we value in another period because what the underlying rules that govern discourse has changed what we value because the power formations have changed. Also, HOW we value it won't be the same as how they valued a work in the past because the episteme has shifted and all discourse are merely a node for the movement of power throughout society.

Eagleton's ideas show a strong affinity for Foucault. And unsurprisingly Eagleton has nice things to say about Foucault.

On the other hand, Foucault's idea that resisting power or at least finding some space for self creation within the structures of power by seeking out limit-experiences might be seen as pro-Aesthetic at least with new literature. One always needs to seek the limits in style and content. Most of the writers Foucault liked and wrote about were extremely experimental with their works.

[JBI]

Meh, Eagleton, to me at least, from my readings of him, came off as some 3rd rate hypocrite. There are natural things with language that create effects, such as the way words are stressed, repeated sounds, and other such things. There are natural elements to how things are written effective how they are perceived.

I would also note, that Marx himself was a big fan of Shakespeare, and Marxist in this sense doesn't really go with Marx, but an imprint, or misreading, or perhaps expansion of Marx.


Either way though, I see no problem in thinking books are better than others - sure, a culture may come around which has a completely different value system, and finds these works dull, but when?

Eagleton fails to comment on the factthat there are things in books which cause reactions to us, such as fear, delight, sympathy, and empathy. Sure those are constructed - but it is not the elite who are forcing us to believe these works are the best because of it, it is the simple notion that to us, these, according to our societies views, are the best works.

Shakespeare strikes home hardest, and we therefore worship him the most (OK, Potter may be the best loved book in the world, but Shakespeare still is everywhere. Our tradition in English is shaped by him).

As long as art is going to evoke responses from readers, it will have a value. And the value may be measured (not mathematically) by the responses. Eagleton doesn't seem to mention the reader much - he is merely concerned with condemning his colleagues, and therefore fails to realize that the reading experience is a very personal thing - it isn't about being rich, or bourgeois, or an academic - it is about reacting, and trying to understand the reaction. It's about enjoying something, and the reasons why we enjoy certain things.

Poor people read too, and books' fate has been decided by the people often enough. Shakespeare himself achieved incredible fame in his day, as did Charles Dickens. There are reasons why, and they aren't all elitist, or economical, which Eagleton ignores.

That being said, his theory contradicts itself. If viewpoints on works are elitist, then his viewpoint must be elitist to, thereby the Marxist viewpoint is a product of the Marxist value system, and therefore thinks itself elite.

[Jozanny]

Drk, I am sorry, but I really cannot follow with this line of reasoning, and I am the non-believer while you have faith in your traditions. Look, if you take human interaction and the culture it generates out of the picture, then yes, nothing means anything--but even if aesthetic value is not absolute, this is not an argument against its ontological reality while we are here, while we remain human. Bloom didn't argue that Shakespeare created an ontological humanity out of thin air; it is obvious in the simple examination of his tragic heroes that they aren't stock figures, or Grecians trapped in oracles. Macbeth is a pyschological reality who turns against his own honor and civic duty for reasons we have been teasing out for over 400 years. Is his failure to manipulate power successfully a particular Western/European/Anglo-American dialectic? Probably. Will the era of Obama change this, gradually obsolete it? I don't think so, because Shakespearean strongmen and their dramas have probably played themselves out since modern man emerged into pre-history, but even if Eagleton is the champion of relativism, and Shakespeare will one day fall, I don't think you can have the human if you remove the desire for perfection in our aesthetic sensibility, even if West and East morph into contrasting cultures we do not understand.

And here I thought I was the progressive...but my belief in the authentic vision of myself as a writer is probably what has kept me alive this long, and I am not going down without a fight. :)

[JCamilo]

Foucault is another one who doesn't explicitly come out against aesthetic value. Not to mention his analysis of power is "objective" in so far as he is more interested in describing the workings of power than railing or condemning it. Foucault is in no position to condemn power; he consistently points out that you can't escape it, no matter what historical change or revolution occurs, you'll only be shifting the deck chairs so to speak and reformulating the rules that govern your society and thus the strategies and networks of power. His idea of power relies on discourses and shifting epistemes. The values, functions of a text, or discourse in one episteme does not work the same in the next. What we value, who we value, and what we consider important changes with each epistemic shift.

Since literature falls under discourse, it is governed by these same rules. The literature we value in one period may not be the literature we value in another period because what the underlying rules that govern discourse has changed what we value because the power formations have changed. Also, HOW we value it won't be the same as how they valued a work in the past because the episteme has shifted and all discourse are merely a node for the movement of power throughout society.

Eagleton's ideas show a strong affinity for Foucault. And unsurprisingly Eagleton has nice things to say about Foucault.

On the other hand, Foucault's idea that resisting power or at least finding some space for self creation within the structures of power by seeking out limit-experiences might be seen as pro-Aesthetic at least with new literature. One always needs to seek the limits in style and content. Most of the writers Foucault liked and wrote about were extremely experimental with their works.

I have no disagreement about what you say about Foucault (Eagleton I can not say, not familiar with him). But I think here is where lies the difference between Foucault and Atheist argument. Foucault reckons the aesthetical vallue, he basically puts it under control of a structure of power and social domination - the art for art - freedom is impossible to him. That is all, after all he borrowed a lot of his ideas - included the idea of reader-book relation from guys like Borges, so I do not think in the end he supports much the argument here.
As the idea of a tradition as Eaglaton puts seems to me childish.If such structures of power were possible (and power have influence yes), Voltaire, one of the most influential intelectuals of XVII would have managed to make us forgot Shakespeare and Dante, both writers he wrote against.

[The Atheist]

To me, Mills & Boons are like fast food...lots available, and not much nutritional value.
Literature is like a gourmet meal prepared by a world-renowned chef...tasty, balanced [most times] and prepared with heart and soul!

Bizarre.

I'm constantly amazed at how often different threads in different forums come out with the same thoughts.

I agree with that 100%.

Yet, I can guarantee you there are lots of dishes on those menus which a lot of people are going to find completely repulsive. Food & wine tasting are an interesting analogy, because, unlike the arts, there are physical sensations involved, rather than the purely intellectual stimulus of writing. Along with that, tastes are both physical and conditioned, so it might fit nicely.

Wine tasting too. I can agree that a wine of international distinction is very nice, but I can also think some of them taste as though barrelled in used petrol containers. Taste is individual.


Forgive my ignorance, but if your argument is that all books are equal, then on what grounds are you making this claim? And, since you find subjective evaluation as invalid, then could you make the case for all books being equal and, in so doing, leave out all appeal to subjective evaluation?

No problemo, I thought I had, but the thread has also grown in Topsy-esque method, so I'm happy to list a few quick things:

There is a standard of reading comprehension which is evolutionarily essential. (On the assumption that we are dealing with society as it has largely been for the past 200 years.)

At that level, I would expect a reader to be able to read and understand any coherently written book, from Shakespeare to the originally-mentioned and largely-ignored Mills & Boon.

I'm assuming that books published will be of at least reasonable correctness in terms of language, usage, etc.

At present, some books are rated "better" than others. Such ratings are done on a purely subjective basis by an elite comprised of students of language - and by "students" I mean people up to Professor level, and including all of the others in the group, teachers, students, critics, etc.

Once the evolutionary requirements of reading are taken care of, there is no need to read further non-technical books, just as there is no need to look at works of art. Some books bring pleasure to some people, other books bring pleasure to others.

In all studies of literature, there is a standard reading list comprised of the "classics" as nominated by the literary elite. Aside from "I like it", I haven't had a single argument as to why those books are better than others. The physical mechanisms of writing have been mentioned, but my counter of Frederick Forsyth hasn't been covered, so there's clearly no physicalism involved in what distinguishes good from bad. Based on the canons of literature as evinced so far, Mr Forsyth ought to be at the very forefront, but I'd be surprised if he's ever made a literary elite listing.

I contend that much of that literary elitist "classics" list comes more from cultural bases than real ones. The bias towards certain books is reinforced by being marked in studies in accordance with the prevailing theory of what those books are supposed to say and why they are important.

Given that if one person can gain something from an individual book, I find it hard to reconcile that other books may be "better".

Hope that helps clarify the position - I don't think there's much rhetoric there, is there?

[JBI]

In all studies? Are you sure - I'm not studying classics in some of my classes - have you studied literature? If so, you would know that there are people who specialize in contemporary literature, as I am planning on doing in the near future (right now I am still undergrad, so I must complete my requirements). People don't only study canons. The point remains though, that to study texts you must have texts that can be studied, and therefore you will get a list of books that people deem as being worth studying.

The course material is based on the professors critical approach and aesthetic tastes, but for the most part, at the undergrad level, the texts are somewhat well known, and still in print, of course.

Seriously, have you even read basics into literary and critical theory? Do you have any idea what goes into the formation of reading lists?

You would know that lists, even for the same class, are subject to change, year by year, and teacher by teacher.

Where is this "Standard reading list". Whose list is it - all literature classes are different in focus, and focus on different times, or different traditions (or at least, to some extent).

The reason why Mr. Fosythe isn't on teaching lists, is because quite frankly, he isn't important. He isn't a very important writer, and he himself doesn't think he is. Sure, he has a large audience, but I don't think even they consider him some sort of supreme, for the most part.

People who study literature tend to very interested in books, and quite frankly, I doubt they are very interested in reading paper-back thrillers, or romance novels, unless they decide to writer a thesis on them, which some people do. The point is though, for text analysis, some books are far more yielding, and say a lot more.


Why not pick up a copy of the Norton Anthology of Criticism and flip through it - maybe then will you understand the basics of theory. As of now though, you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing without really knowing what you are talking about. You have outlined why other people are "wrong" whereas you yourself always seem to fail to say exactly what you mean, and stick to criticizing.

And P.S., Forsythe doesn't have the basics mechanisms of writing down pact - few do, even canonical writers don't have the mechanisms down perfect the whole time. There is a difference in the way that, for instance, Joyce, Woolf, Faulkner, Hemingway, or Robertson Davies use prose, bending it, and manipulating it, playing with it, than there is with Forsythe.

[JCamilo]

Bizarre.
There is a standard of reading comprehension which is evolutionarily essential. (On the assumption that we are dealing with society as it has largely been for the past 200 years.)

At that level, I would expect a reader to be able to read and understand any coherently written book, from Shakespeare to the originally-mentioned and largely-ignored Mills & Boon.


That is not true. The amount necessary for reading and understanding any book is variable. There is more levels of "reading capacity" than you seem to admit. Most people can not understand Shakespeare well.


I'm assuming that books published will be of at least reasonable correctness in terms of language, usage, etc.

Here is another problem. Literature, as art, follow no such compromisse. If you are going to present a theory of literary worth you must assume Mallarmé and Joyce played the same game of Flaubert and J.K.Rowling. Do not excuse objects of study because they do not fit in your theories.


At present, some books are rated "better" than others. Such ratings are done on a purely subjective basis by an elite comprised of students of language - and by "students" I mean people up to Professor level, and including all of the others in the group, teachers, students, critics, etc.

There is a loop from the "reading level" ideas to this one. Those ratings are not done on subjective basis. Tradition is not subjective (it may be imperative but people still need Homer not only because X,Y,Z say it is good). In fact, Influential critics such Ezra Pound attacked Virgil. You need more than trying to imply a illuminati.


Once the evolutionary requirements of reading are taken care of, there is no need to read further non-technical books, just as there is no need to look at works of art. Some books bring pleasure to some people, other books bring pleasure to others.

Basead on what? Some books are hard to be understood because the use of vocabulary. Others because the ideas in the book. And we have poetry, which is an evasive form of language.(There is a difference reading Joyce or Guimaraes Rosa and reading Borges or Swift) So, you must always return to your sources, Re-reading is something for strong levels of language.
Also, the supply is too big for you just to give up anything. You can spend all your life reading and you wont end with the possibilities of a given style.
Also, pleasure, while true what you say, is irrelevant. Publishers spend a lot of time deciding the physical format of the book because they know someone will not like a book if the pages keep bouncing. Some people do not have pleasure reading digital books, but if they read a printed version of the same text, they may like it. Also, we can be upset with a book because it was a gift from someone you dislike, etc. I hope we are not going to basis any debate on capriche.


In all studies of literature, there is a standard reading list comprised of the "classics" as nominated by the literary elite.

Yes, but those classics are independent of the teacher. No amount of attack will change the fact Homer is the most enduring author ever and if you need to study the literature you need to know him.


Aside from "I like it", I haven't had a single argument as to why those books are better than others.

Every book have a history. Some books have strong philosophical ideas. So, the Republic from Plato is better than my "Why I think life is boring". Other use vocabulary in a way that they will have more aesthetical vallue. Keats Ode to a Nightingale is better than my Ode of non-sensical humor. Others have narratives that are better build and use symboligy better, so Dom Quixote is better than "When I grow up I will be a paleontologist", Others bring up characters in such way that they represent humanity better, so Hamlet is better than "My Neighbour is a psicompompo". Dante could be all that. Some books have more capacity of interpretation, deeper meanings, pluarity of ideas, some books have bigger historical influence.
But the basic is: They resist. They endure. They re-spawn in other works, they are re-printed, they are know even if not read. No amount of subjectivity and taste can destroy those books and if you ignore this I can not do anything for you.


The physical mechanisms of writing have been mentioned, but my counter of Frederick Forsyth hasn't been covered, so there's clearly no physicalism involved in what distinguishes good from bad.

Forsyth is a cliche writer. He is repetive and not inovative. Just apply a formula. Your counter was not answered because it does sounded like a bravata and not an argument. He is an efficient writer, that is all.


Based on the canons of literature as evinced so far, Mr Forsyth ought to be at the very forefront, but I'd be surprised if he's ever made a literary elite listing.

Really, are saying that Forsyth, basead on the Canon, have accomplished the same as Dante, Homer, Virgil, Cervantes or Shakespeare. He have survived 300 years, he have created a new style, his characters are immortal in every single country, tradition and age ?


I contend that much of that literary elitist "classics" list comes more from cultural bases than real ones. The bias towards certain books is reinforced by being marked in studies in accordance with the prevailing theory of what those books are supposed to say and why they are important.

Cultural bases of course. After all they are the real bases. Now, You have a notiong that all those guys are attacked, have their reading gone and they hardly represent what our society today like?


Given that if one person can gain something from an individual book, I find it hard to reconcile that other books may be "better".

Usually, what someone will gain from a book is her own merit. Hardly different from Dante's effect that changed an entire nation, but ok. I can also write a book that will stabilish an idiom. And I promess to publish this here in the forum.


Hope that helps clarify the position - I don't think there's much rhetoric there, is there?

Actually, you avoind the question. "Good" is purelly your word that means nothing. You do not define any criteria, any reason why you think "Eragorn" is equal to "Iliad". So, still on vague definitions.

[JBI]

Meh, when it comes down to it also, a lot of books are enduring, because they are enjoyed by people outside of academia. Sure, many of us on these boards are English students, but many aren't. Why do those people read then? Could it perhaps be (gasps!) the fact that books give something to the reader, emotional reaction perhaps, or other such effects? Could it be that people actually respond to reading, and other forms of communication? Could it be that people gain meaning in their lives from these sorts of things, in the Sartian sense? Or perhaps it could be simply, that a book is an outlet to explore oneself, and come to a better understand of ones life. That too is a possibility.

There is no one answer, since books are often canonized, or prized for different reasons. The reason the canon exists, quite plainly, is because some books just happen to be enduring - happen to contain something that can entertain audiences other than their original. Shakespeare saw this, he sure mentions it a lot in his sonnets. The power for something to go beyond its original time, and become immortal, by talking beyond its speaker or writer.

Of course, I would cut some things from the canon. For the most part, I joke about cutting out almost everything from Milton to Wordsworth. But I'm not really serious. I would cut Pope, Johnson, and Swift out, but I don't really think that would fly. People still get some sort of reaction out of themselves from reading these works, and because of it, they endure.

[mayneverhave]

Of course, I would cut some things from the canon. For the most part, I joke about cutting out almost everything from Milton to Wordsworth. But I'm not really serious. I would cut Pope, Johnson, and Swift out, but I don't really think that would fly. People still get some sort of reaction out of themselves from reading these works, and because of it, they endure.

Throw Dryden in there too. It's hard to lose Johnson though with his contributions to criticism - though, which influential, I hardly care for. His poetry and prose though (aside from maybe Rasselas), is somewhat forgettable.

[Drkshadow03]

All very interesting and correct responses to Eagleton's nonsense. If anyone is curious here is my own response to Terry Eagleton from my blog post How Homer and Shakespeare are Oppressing me! Or the Revolution will Not be Televised (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/how-homer-and-shakespeare-are-oppressing-me-or-the-revolution-will-not-be-televised/):

Eagleton ends not by offering the latest trends in Feminism and Marxism literary theory, but hitting home the point that his entire book has really been one long polemic with the express goal of pointing out that all literary theory is political. He concludes with the provocative suggestion that Feminism and Marxism is the most productive methods of literary criticism since they can actually manage to accomplish real-world change as opposed to all these other “political” methods of literary theory that always seem to cut themselves short of being able to prepare the reader for activism. He finishes by telling us that literature should be seen as part of a larger material culture, and it therefore makes more sense to practice cultural studies rather than literary studies.

All this leads us into some of my own personal criticisms of Terry Eagleton’s so-called introduction to literary theory. When I first read the book as a way of preparing myself for grad school I was so captivated by all the new and strange theories that I hardly noticed Eagleton’s biases, but on a re-read the author’s Marxism pollutes every page.

Mark Bauerlein accuses the book of being fairly thin on conceptual analysis and finds the methodological descriptions hasty. It’s hard for me to judge that either way since I am not knowledgeable enough in the various theories to discern how well Eagleton explains them. Bauerlein points out that the whole book “reads like a textbook case of commentary by genetic fallacy and ethical consequence.” Eagleton is content to dismiss the validity of theories for having the wrong political origins or if they fail to be explicitly political in their effect.

Bauerlein in Theory’s Empire, the anthology I’ve been quoting, notes how stupid this argument is. There is nothing stopping someone who reads Othello in the New Critical method that Eagleton sees as “supporting the status quo” from protesting the unfair wages of the poor next week or attending a woman’s rights rally or engaging in Civil disobedience. Just because a person prefers to read in a more “traditional” manner doesn’t mean they’re a closet political conservative.

Eagleton has the tendency to create Strawmen of liberal humanist critics. First, he attacks the idea of reading literature in an “objective” neutral way. There is obviously practical reasons for him to make this argument; by claiming that all “methods” are political, imbricated in society, and really reflections of ideological interests (even the ones that claim to be neutral), it defends his own questionable undeniably bias political methods of literary criticism. He already has an “effective” shield up. No matter what objection I raise he can point out that it is my ideological world-view that makes me say it, hence further proving him right and me unable to ever prove him wrong. If I criticize his bias methods, he can just respond that my methods aren’t any more neutral than his. Who has the most to gain by convincing people that all literary interpretation is really ideological and political? The ones who practice an explicitly political interpretation of it of course. The irony should not be lost on my readers that I am using his own method of argumentation right now against him. However, it seems to me there is a huge difference between reading a work and knowing what it will contain a priori (what I’ve in the past called checklist criticism that so many Feminist and Marxist critics practice) versus reading a work and being surprised by what you might find there, to the point where it has the ability to question and challenge your beliefs.

Second, he accuses liberal humanism of being ahistorical. I suspect Eagleton would be hard-pressed to find too many liberal humanist types who don’t think it is important to know the historical context of a work, the historical world it depicts (which may be different than the one it was produced in), and a bit about the author’s life, how the work was received in its time, etc. So what Eagleton is really talking about is a different understanding of history, one that isn’t focused on economics and class struggle as the central or only impetus of historical movement. Not to mention I would argue any liberal humanist historian or literary critic worth their salt is also interested in class struggles alongside all the other history that Eagleton no doubt would think of as a mask for history’s real impulses. It is precisely that liberal humanists are open-minded (an attribute Eagleton is willing to grant) and not so narrowly focused in their interests that allow them to have this rich, complex understanding of history that includes certain “Marxist” concerns, but isn’t dominated by them.

Most of his arguments seem to assume one can only read literature in a single way. I can only have one reading of a work and no more. Once I give my interpretation, that’s it, you’ve said your piece, and that is the only interpretation you can have. It makes you wonder why people would ever bother re-reading a book or discussing it in a group or reading other people’s interpretations in the form of criticism.

Literary theory courses themselves are often designed in such a way that one can apply the various theories to a single book; for example one might apply structuralism during week 1 to The Great Gatsby, a Post-Structuralist method during week 2, Feminism during week 3, Psychoanalysis during week 4. So what is to stop me from doing that with every book I read in the future if I so choose? Heck, even without the elaborate theoritical methods, what is to stop a reader from coming to multiple, sometimes even contradictory, interpretations of a work.

In this regard, Eagleton acts as if all liberal humanists will come to the same interpretation (that one interpretation of a work speaks for all liberal humanists); this isn’t surprising considering he probably thinks we’re all a bunch of middle-class repressed repressive bourgeoisie types sharing the same ideology. Nevertheless, take five of these liberal humanist robots and very often they will come to different interpretations of a single literary work, without the help of Marxism, Feminism, Structuralism, or Post-Structuralism. Why does this happen? Eagleton talks a good game about the many “contradictions” found in literary works, but never does anything with it. It’s not clear that Marxisim when it makes an interpretation is not creating a single unified meaning that smooths away contradictions in a text any less than New Criticism for example. The point is that literary works are full of contradictions, allowing for different ways of reading them regardless of method or world-view.

Lastly, literary works sometimes defy the way you want to read them, despite all of this. I’ve read many works that have challenged my beliefs. I’ve read many works that refused to adhere to how I wanted to interpret them or the world for that matter, instead having to let the author speak to me and say what he/she wanted me to understand. It’s very hard to perform a Marxist interpretation of Ayn Rand for example, other than to criticize her. It is very hard to read Joanna Russ’s “When it All Changed” as anything but a feminist story. Imagine the fact that one can enjoy writers who write against their world-view, I know what a conservatively liberal humanist radical thing to say. To claim that of course ignores that a person might not have a solid world-view, but rather a malleable one that is always in flux based off reading new material that asks new questions and gets them thinking about new answers, but hey we can’t all be Marxist intellectuals with the secret keys to understanding history (despite there being no such thing as those secret keys because you can never achieve an objective neutral vantage-point after all, unless you’re a Marxist apparently) who is longing for the Utopia just around the corner where there won’t be anymore Shakespeare or Homer. Wow, imagine such a paradise!

[JBI]

I think another problem with Marxist, and other approaches, is they only apply to works that can really be read in their light, but when you get to works that are rather ambiguous in nature, without clear cut social constructs, you end up only talking about the author, or dismissing the works. For instance, if they were given something like this;


And ever when the moon was low,
And the shrill winds were up and away
In the white curtain, to and fro,
She saw the gusty shadow sway.
But when the moon was very low,
And wild winds bound within their cell,
The shadow of the poplar fell
Upon her bed, across her brow.
She only said, "The night is dreary,
He cometh not," she said;
She said, "I am aweary, aweary,
I would that I were dead!"

I think they would be hard-pressed to come up with an interpretation on just the text, and would automatically resort to the author as a way of understanding, and criticizing the text. Some works, especially poetry, simply cannot be read in Marxist terms.

[The Comedian]

There is a standard of reading comprehension which is evolutionarily essential. (On the assumption that we are dealing with society as it has largely been for the past 200 years.)

At that level, I would expect a reader to be able to read and understand any coherently written book, from Shakespeare to the originally-mentioned and largely-ignored Mills & Boon.

I'm assuming that books published will be of at least reasonable correctness in terms of language, usage, etc.



Okay. So let me know if I get it. The argument goes something like this:

Insofar as one has the capacity to physically (more mentally), sound out letters, read words, and intuit meaning, then one has the potential "understand any coherently written book."

And, the argument goes, as a small side, that the text must follow the basic conventions of grammar.

These two elements make all books of equal quality/prove that literary "worth" does not exist.




At present, some books are rated "better" than others. Such ratings are done on a purely subjective basis by an elite comprised of students of language - and by "students" I mean people up to Professor level, and including all of the others in the group, teachers, students, critics, etc.

Once the evolutionary requirements of reading are taken care of, there is no need to read further non-technical books, just as there is no need to look at works of art. Some books bring pleasure to some people, other books bring pleasure to others.

In all studies of literature, there is a standard reading list comprised of the "classics" as nominated by the literary elite. Aside from "I like it", I haven't had a single argument as to why those books are better than others. The physical mechanisms of writing have been mentioned, but my counter of Frederick Forsyth hasn't been covered, so there's clearly no physicalism involved in what distinguishes good from bad. Based on the canons of literature as evinced so far, Mr Forsyth ought to be at the very forefront, but I'd be surprised if he's ever made a literary elite listing.

I contend that much of that literary elitist "classics" list comes more from cultural bases than real ones. The bias towards certain books is reinforced by being marked in studies in accordance with the prevailing theory of what those books are supposed to say and why they are important.

Given that if one person can gain something from an individual book, I find it hard to reconcile that other books may be "better".

Hope that helps clarify the position - I don't think there's much rhetoric there, is there?

This part, however, I don't think answers my question because it is not argument for the equality of all texts; rather its an argument against the idea that texts are not of equal quality based on many compelling ancillary arguments about the preferences snobbish people.

If I am correct in summarizing your position, and please correct me if I am not, then while your argument that literary worth is subjective has a lot of weight, I just don't see how you prove that worth/greatness doesn't exist at all unless you underpin it with the idea that all immaterial things either don't exist or have equalized value.

[JCamilo]

Do not forget the part that the basic reading capacity is also the same capacity used to read Shakespeare as if the majority of readers today are used to read plays in verse and not the typical prose or journalism.

[The Atheist]

The point remains though, that to study texts you must have texts that can be studied, and therefore you will get a list of books that people deem as being worth studying.

Yep, that's what I intended to point out.


You would know that lists, even for the same class, are subject to change, year by year, and teacher by teacher.

Sure, in individual classes, but I wasn't meaning that kind of physical list, because aside from a very select few, the number of "classics" currently considered classics is in a mild state of flux. I guess this comes back to where the line is drawn. I doubt even the most ardent literature fanatic wouldn't draw a line and say, "This is where literature stops and garbage starts." By "list of classics", I'd mean books which would have a majority of Lit students feeling the book is worthy of classical or important status.


And P.S., Forsythe doesn't have the basics mechanisms of writing down pact - few do, even canonical writers don't have the mechanisms down perfect the whole time.

"Down pat" is the cliche I think you're looking for.

I'd agree with what you say, because the point of my comment was that Forsyth - please do the man at least the favour of getting his name right, whether or not you've read any of his books, you know very well who he is - in terms of his writing ability in the mechanisms of writing, is at least as accurate as any author who would be considered a literary giant. And better than many.


That is not true. The amount necessary for reading and understanding any book is variable. There is more levels of "reading capacity" than you seem to admit. Most people can not understand Shakespeare well.

No, I admit there are huge differences in reading levels, which is why I used a high level as the cut-off point. If a person is physically unable to understand a book, then they clearly aren't going to be able to rate it.


Here is another problem. Literature, as art, follow no such compromisse. If you are going to present a theory of literary worth you must assume Mallarmé and Joyce played the same game of Flaubert and J.K.Rowling. Do not excuse objects of study because they do not fit in your theories.

No; you're well off track here. As I've established a level of comprehension, clearly there is a difference between word salad and Orwell. A book has to at least conform to minimum standards, and in these days of independent publishing, editors can;t be relied upon to weed the word salads out.


You need more than trying to imply a illuminati.

I'm not and haven't. I've pointed out cultural bias, not a conspiracy.


Meh, when it comes down to it also, a lot of books are enduring, because they are enjoyed by people outside of academia. Sure, many of us on these boards are English students, but many aren't. Why do those people read then? Could it perhaps be (gasps!) the fact that books give something to the reader, emotional reaction perhaps, or other such effects? Could it be that people actually respond to reading, and other forms of communication? Could it be that people gain meaning in their lives from these sorts of things, in the Sartian sense? Or perhaps it could be simply, that a book is an outlet to explore oneself, and come to a better understand of ones life. That too is a possibility.

This seems to support my argument more than yours, in fact, I'm pretty sure my last post pointed very much the same thing out - that people can get value from all sorts of places, it's individual.


These two elements make all books of equal quality/prove that literary "worth" does not exist.

No, I was establishing parameters.


If I am correct in summarizing your position, and please correct me if I am not, then while your argument that literary worth is subjective has a lot of weight, I just don't see how you prove that worth/greatness doesn't exist at all unless you underpin it with the idea that all immaterial things either don't exist or have equalized value.

I did use the example of art - but I'll confirm that I rate non-material artifacts at equal value. My own opinion rates some more highly than others, to me, but I don't believe than any has a greater value than another.

[JCamilo]

No, I admit there are huge differences in reading levels, which is why I used a high level as the cut-off point. If a person is physically unable to understand a book, then they clearly aren't going to be able to rate it.[quote]

You didnt use high level reading level ,you used basic and low. That is why your books must follow some standards. Because they are meant for basic understanding. Joyce Alone would destroy your arguments because he is almost impossible to understand.
As the rest, Then we must agree - Art is hard to understand, that is why it is hard for anyone just to rate it.



[quote]No; you're well off track here. As I've established a level of comprehension, clearly there is a difference between word salad and Orwell. A book has to at least conform to minimum standards, and in these days of independent publishing, editors can;t be relied upon to weed the word salads out.

You havent. What is the distinction? Semantic Level ? Symbolism? Philosophical... you just put together shakespeare and basic level of reading, that is like saying a dwarf can play in the NBA.




I'm not and haven't. I've pointed out cultural bias, not a conspiracy.

You have not pointed a cultural bias other thna dominating groups keeping certains books alive. You are unable to tell me why Voltaire attacks on Dante and Shakespeare have not destroyed those two neither how Oscar Wilde could survive being antagonist to the dominant society of his nation.




This seems to support my argument more than yours, in fact, I'm pretty sure my last post pointed very much the same thing out - that people can get value from all sorts of places, it's individual.

And many people can explain the origem of life diversity, few are right.

[JBI]

dslkfj ldskfj lldskjf lksd lsdkjf llsdk jlksd lkjd lkfjl ksdjf lkjsdflk jlsdkj lksdjlkfjl skdfj lksdj

Get value out of that.

Now, you can understand me, I am making a coherent sentence, and therefore, am communicating something. The question is though, a) what am I communicating, and b) how am I communicating it.

In other words, what does a text mean, and how does it mean. Some meanings, and deliveries are better than others. Some books create consistent reactions. The thing is though, some people act in similar fashions to certain texts. For instance, one feels sad at the end of a Hardy novel, or one laughs at the jokes in Tristram Shandy. The point is, these given reactions, though all slightly different, are enacted across the board by people who are trained professionally how to read, and what to look for. When that happens, they basically say - wow, what a great book. And when enough people say that, they keep the book from distinction. It isn't enough that they react - but that reaction is important, and board spanning.

Then when the question of canonization occurs, academics ask themselves - how well does this work transcend its original audience - can people still react to this text today in a similar, or significant way, in comparison to the original audience? Can Shakespeare still make people cry, laugh, etc.? If the text can, and transcends well, they keep it alive by teaching it, otherwise it's abandoned. Some texts don't talk much - ask Petrarch's Love, I'm sure she can list countless bad plays and sonnets from the Renaissance. The point is - they don't last.

You simply are calling me an idiot, without contradicting, or offering a counter-argument. All you do is bicker, and quote, but never take time to read, or offer a solution - you try to play Socrates, but don't actually want a synthesis, you come in with your "answer" and try to mould everything, and twist everything rhetorically to support your viewpoint, without taking into account anything anyone else is saying. That's the tyranny of the boards - one simply doesn't need to address everything, and therefore if one is arguing, they can simply ignore the comments that best defeat theirs.

Let's be honest - it isn't some bourgeois conspiracy that keeps certain works alive - otherwise, as JCamilo has pointed out, certain anti-bourgeois writers wouldn't have survived.

It isn't just academics who read the classics, or literary works for that matter. Penguin sells copies of everything around the world - from Tourist Shops to second hand stores, you can find the classics being read, and exchanged, and it is not just because the Bourgeois say they are good. People like reading Jane Austen. People like reading Charles Dickens. People - that's right - masses.

The reason? it varies from text to text - the paradox of art is that value is gained by changing, sometimes drastically, the perception of values. We value things highly if they are original and therefore, it is impossible to create a formulaic, mathematical equation for artwork.

That being said, psychologists have studied the way we react to artwork. Even something as abstract as Jackson Pollock has been studied - and psychologists have determined that there are patterns within said works that evoke certain perceptive reactions in the viewer, which trigger responses. There are responses - people don't just look at something - their brain processes it. Now, studying these sorts of things add awareness, sort of like looking at a picture in a lit room, verses a dark room, and it allows the viewer to understand more things.

So when Milton says

Of Man's first disobedience and the fruit

A trained reader can pick up on the substitution in the second foot, and thereby comment on what effect it has on the feel of the line, and the way the message is conveyed. Or if, for instance, a poet drops a pun. A trained person can comment on its effect to meaning/comedic aspects.

A trained person can decode the imagery, or patterns in a way that an untrained person cannot. Even trained persons can find different things - some texts are yielding - they satisfy that many readings - the point is, the more experienced someone is, the better they are at finding certain things.

A musician, for instance, would be better trained to hear a shift in tempo, dynamic, or would flat out notice if a player didn't tune up, and is therefore playing out of key. An untrained listener may not - they may react somehow, but chances are they won't know why.

A trained person can even go beyond that - think of listening, for instance, to Glenn Gould's interpretation of Bach, verses Angela Hewitt's - they are different - they are personal, and they take different shapes. Now compare those with the playing of a 6 year old kid at his first recital, playing Chopsticks - there is a difference - the playings are different, and we can compare them. We can ask ourselves what reactions we got, and which one is better, and then we can evaluate the players accordingly.

I have fallen asleep in bad concerts before, where the soloist or conductor couldn't preform as well as I would have liked - I have been to concerts where people have walked out, in droves, because the music wasn't up to par - what told those people the music wasn't good? Could they possibly (gasp!) hear it, and judge that something wasn't right? It depends on how bad it is, but usually, most people can, even without training, get a feeling something isn't right - the training part is generally what tells you what is wrong, or what is right. The point is - people can judge - if judgment is possible, it means that there must be good and bad - different reactions. If there are different reactions, some reactions can be taken to be more favorable than others.

That is why Yitzhak Pearlman sells a full house worth of tickets, and some other mediocre violinist doesn't make it on stage.

If we apply that to literature, than we can say as follows - certain books give certain reactions - certain reactions to books are more favorable than others - and certain people can tell what is really going on - can understand how certain works communicate better, and therefore understand them more depth.

I see nothing wrong with that - a mechanic can tell you why your car makes a funny noise, as apposed to you, who can only hear the funny noise. An economist can tell you why the markets are fluctuating, and political scientist why people are voting a certain way - the point is, observation and understanding are different.

Thereby, critics, who are trained to read, or view art, or listen to music, or taste food, can tell you what is better, and why it is, whereas the average reader/viewer/listener/taster may not be able to. So when I say, for instance, Rowling uses too many redundant adjectives, and cliché stock phrases, I am making a valid statement, because I know what the effect of such things are, and how to spot them.

[The Atheist]

You have not pointed a cultural bias other thna dominating groups keeping certains books alive.

Can't see much more is needed.


dslkfj ldskfj lldskjf lksd lsdkjf llsdk jlksd lkjd lkfjl ksdjf lkjsdflk jlsdkj lksdjlkfjl skdfj lksdj

Get value out of that.

I did make that exact point.


In other words, what does a text mean, and how does it mean. Some meanings, and deliveries are better than others. Some books create consistent reactions. The thing is though, some people act in similar fashions to certain texts. For instance, one feels sad at the end of a Hardy novel, or one laughs at the jokes in Tristram Shandy. The point is, these given reactions, though all slightly different, are enacted across the board by people who are trained professionally how to read, and what to look for. (bolding mine)

QED.

[JBI]

What, because someone gets payed, they are wrong? OK, so don't trust your mechanic, or your Doctor - he gets paid to diagnose.

Just because people get paid doesn't mean they are wrong - it means they make a life out of it.

Now you are just resorting to pure rhetoric, because you know your argument is flickering into non-existence. You've been Broken, Blown and Burnt.


Now, how many of you got the reference to John Donne's Holy Sonnet? Doesn't the effect change on how you read it, depending on whether or not you had come across the original.

And just so you know, critics are rarely rich, and most are just getting by. There's no need to challenge their credibility just because they want to get paid, and support themselves. Let's be honest, it takes so much time and effort to properly critique stuff - how is it possible to do so without getting paid for it.

You perhaps don't know, but criticism isn't easy - you need library access, which still today, even in the age of the internet, means you need to surrender your mobility, and you need time to sift through almost countless volumes. Even just sticking to a text takes time - to critique War and Peace, even if you read it once, which I doubt you would, you need to at least read 1400 pages. It stops being free time at that point, and starts being a life.

That being said, that is going easy - some critics physically have to move around. Many medievalists and people dealing with older texts actually need to go to archives across the world in order to get information. Good luck doing that unless you are paid for it.

Research isn't free, and art isn't either. It's part of the process that people get paid for their work.

[Tallon]

I went to a rather large local library this week, it had a massive Mills & Boon section but absolutely no section for classics. I was appalled and thought of this thread :p

[Drkshadow03]

And just so you know, critics are rarely rich, and most are just getting by. There's no need to challenge their credibility just because they want to get paid, and support themselves.

I would just add one note here. I wouldn't say most professors are exactly living in squallor or "just getting by" as you put it. Sure, it partially depends on which university you get a job at and partially on how long you've been working there, but I know it's more than possible for a professor to be getting close to six figures, if not making six figures by the end of their career. Plus from what I've seen, salaries have never stopped my professors from going out to fancy restaraunts in the city after department events.

Let's say that by the time you're a full professor and have put in a number of years you should be making a decent enough salary.


You perhaps don't know, but criticism isn't easy - you need library access, which still today, even in the age of the internet, means you need to surrender your mobility, and you need time to sift through almost countless volumes.

I recommend archive.org (http://http://www.archive.org/index.php). My friend was able to do an entire paper on Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse that required out-of-print books and earlier versions of the manuscript. He was able to get everything he needed without having to spend any money or going to visit special collections in person through archive.org

It's great. Basically the whole collection consists of materials scanned from university library's special collections across the globe. They don't have everything (as material gets scanned daily), but they have a lot.

[Jozanny]

I recommend archive.org (http://www.archive.org/index.php). My friend was able to do an entire paper on Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse that required out-of-print books and earlier versions of the manuscript. He was able to get everything he needed without having to spend any money or going to visit special collections in person through archive.org

It's great. Basically the whole collection consists of materials scanned from university library's special collections across the globe. They don't have everything (as material gets scanned daily), but they have a lot.

Drk, thanks for these resources, as I hope to publish one or two critical papers before I become too far impaired. I think you made an error in posting the url, and I attempted to correct for that. It was a tad expensive, btw, but I went ahead and bought a used copy of Plotting The Past, so I had the text to use along side of the standard translation of Lampedusa in English. If I do complete anything to my satisfaction, I am not expecting to get paid for it, unless I lose the notes for those excellent lay reader essays in American Scholar or TNR. Which means maybe I can get paid, actually.

Sorry to barge in, but the OP, at this point, is ceasing to make any sense to me.

[JCamilo]

Can't see much more is needed.

I am sure one can say that Eistein is only respected because a cultural group is dominating. This group is made of idiots picked him because he would be a good mask and his ideas have no vallue to sustain themselves.

That is getting ridiculous, atheist, the groups that dominated the Intelectual world in the early XX are all gone. Most of us would shiver to be even related to them. Or even worst, in the middle XX being a left would be requiered to all intelectuals (in a marxist, or new-marxist, or critical marxist, any disguise it would take), and today that is quite ridiculous. That Cathedral ruinned.
Do you really think free thinking people (real intelectuals are often individualists when related to their ideas) would just be sheep and not have any different ideas. Imagine that, the entire bias of the romantics against the classicists is just ignored by you. Read Baudelaire art critism and see if that guy is manipulated by such cultural groups (also a good example of someone completely out of the academy).
Or what about the guys like Ovid or Cicero who are persecuted by the powers (Ovid upset the Roman Emperor! Cicero acted against Cesar and Octavio. If it was a matter of manipulation those two would not be placed alongside Virgil and Horace, thousand years after as the best of latim language could offer. With thousands of otter writers, the emperors would just impose their views and other names. They could not because some quality is required for immortality).
Even, what when the powers have ambitions? Richelieu, at his time the most powerful politic of europe, had such ambitions as writer. But not even him could convice the others - I am sure the local ball licker said he was the best writer since God - that he was that good, despite his power and despite being a great thinker when the subject was politics.
What you suggest is that a group of people have been manipulating us for 3000 years, convicing us that Homer (who we have no real clue about him) was a great writer, just out of blue. And that not only Greece, but all cultures in the world accepted it (some cultures trying to impose their domination on the world, instead of producing their own Homer, just accepted him) for all this time. And not only this, because it is not just in the academic circles, or powerful circles. Homer returned to the popular world, several of his verses were turned into popular lines repeated until today. A few sittuations he described are found in the oral stories. You can even have a group that try to impose cultural views (it exists) but their power do not last. And unless they hit the nail and the product they impose can sustain years of criticism from all sides those groups are going to be forgetten. In the story of literature we are full of those guys - I have already mentioned Voltaire, which you ignored. The guy is one (if not the) most influential french thinker of his century (or even europe). He was not just a philosopher but an artists - his fame came from his plays (today, almost forgotten, despite the opinion of Voltaire himself) so his artist critic was very important (even because he worked to renew and protect france art). And Voltaire attacked Shakespeare, saying he was too insular (now I remember the nobel judge thing about US. ) to be remembered for long because in the europe, he would never have success. And he listed a couple of playwriters who he considered were better than him and frankly, I do not remember any of them. Really, not just a way to say they are forgotten. If it was a matter of dominating group, Shakespeare cult would be dead. But time proved Voltaire wrong and Shakespeare qualities sustained his work. It happened with him because his texts must have something good to endure. It can not be just a matter of will.
Some books are just better than others - And we do not need even to change the author. Shakespeare wrote some bad plays too.
Unless you give a reason why we have Homer until today and how Voltaire didnt blast Shakespeare to oblivion, insisting that the classics only survive because the opinion of manipulative intelectuals is like those who insist that evolution does not exist.

[Jozanny]

Excellent and impassioned arguments both from JBI and JCamilo, but maybe we should keep an eye on needlessly raising our blood pressure. Atheist may have a big heart, indeed, I thought he and I would get along even though he made some errors about what I do as a freelance writer. I let these things glide, as, after all, not every poster can understand the intricacies of actually publishing, but it seems obvious to me that Atheist is indifferent to literature and fine arts, and his indifference is thereby a springboard for his imposition, nay, insistence, that discrimination in this area is meaningless, and no amount of knowledge or training, or example on our part will change that. To me it is a foolhardy, and in some ways, extremely sad position to hold, and is contradicted even in his enthusiasm for Orwell's works, as his love of Orwell is not valueless to him, else he wouldn't participate in the Orwell thread. Orwell's work, therefore, is more important than Orwell's forgotten contemporaries. I do not see how he gets around that argument, nor any others you and JBI countered.

To add somewhat more force here, it is perfectly fine to be indifferent. I am indifferent to some individual artists, as any of us may be. I fail to see the enthusiasm for boxing, but I respect the experts who treat it and discuss it as a sport, with both ancient and modern traditions. I am puzzled as to why fans riot at soccer matches--but I do not beat my chest and say that sports have no intrinsic value.

Ridiculous is right.

[JCamilo]

I have no personal feelings towards Atheist, polemics are polemics and that is fine. I just think he see no poetry on language, as you put, and thus his view. A Mistake, but I not enough to to bring weapons for a duel instead of food and good wine.

[Scheherazade]

.
Please remember that we are here to discuss various opinions and comments, not the members themselves and refrain from personalising your comments.
.

[The Atheist]

What, because someone gets payed, they are wrong? OK, so don't trust your mechanic, or your Doctor - he gets paid to diagnose.

Same mistake again. Doctors and mechanics are a poor analogy for your case, because the things they learn are physical and demonstrable. A mechanic is trained to know that if you put water in the oil filler, you will destroy your motor, just as a doctor knows not to prescribe aspirin to haemophiliacs.


....and is contradicted even in his enthusiasm for Orwell's works, as his love of Orwell is not valueless to him, else he wouldn't participate in the Orwell thread. Orwell's work, therefore, is more important than Orwell's forgotten contemporaries.

Glad you raised this point again, as I have now made it numerous times - that I'm quite happy to subjectively make my own list of worthwhile literature, but that's as it applies to me. Why on earth does this point keep getting missed?

No matter, as JBI said, it's not a subject worth swords at dawn.

Pencils at midday, maybe? First to complete a page? I'll choose dirty limericks as my method.

:D

[Jozanny]

Glad you raised this point again, as I have now made it numerous times - that I'm quite happy to subjectively make my own list of worthwhile literature, but that's as it applies to me. Why on earth does this point keep getting missed?

It isn't all that subjective if Orwell has the degree of recognition that he does for the power of his ideas. I don't get your argument, and don't really believe you're making a sound one. All I hear coming out of this is that you are indifferent to meritocracy. Is this the case? And if it is, what then?

[mayneverhave]

Same mistake again. Doctors and mechanics are a poor analogy for your case, because the things they learn are physical and demonstrable. A mechanic is trained to know that if you put water in the oil filler, you will destroy your motor, just as a doctor knows not to prescribe aspirin to haemophiliacs.

JBI claimed that a well-read reader with strong literary training will be able to notice (and therefore) enjoy things in literature that others might miss. These "things" are real and physical. A sprung rhythm in Hopkins, the use of Terza rima in Dante as a reflection of the Trinity - these are very real, tangible effects that can be discussed and looked at. A reader with strong literary training has something else to enjoy in Hamlet's soliloquy's than just the pathos of his speech - we can look at allusion, metre, recurring metaphor, etc. all of these being physical things.

So aside from the "utilitarian" effects - how does a doctor examining and diagnosing tuberculous differ from a literary critic examining and analyzing a spondee in a line of blank verse?

[Jozanny]

Oh. Meritocracy is applicable to the hard sciences, but not to the humanities or aesthetics. It doesn't hold up.

Have fun with this all. I stop here.

[JBI]

Honestly, it's quite simple. Shakespeare was learned in the rhetorical schemes and tropes of Quintillian, therefore one who wants to understand Shakespeare in depth must be somewhat familiar with them as well. I see no problem suggesting that people more familiar with something, and are used to taking things apart can tell you something more about the whole then some kid who just read Harry Potter, the first actual novel he has read, as is going crazy.

[JCamilo]

A bit of what you suggest can be found in Umberto Eco categories of readers. There is intertextual complexity.
But I would also point that poetry language is not finding the most straightfoward way to tell something - as it is journalism - so there is already an addition of textual complexity.
Also, there is Dante four levels of meaning, when the writer add complexity of significance.
Plus, there is costume. People do not write epics like Homer, we are not going to find in the best seller lists anyone trying it (or even among high level intelectuals, when it happens it is under a diguise, or something similar to Nabokov Pale fire - not exactly like homer anyways. I may be wrong but I am certain that Chesterton pun about the contents of his pockets and the age of epic poetry being long gone to be correct) to use the formula (because it is a formula). We have the best-seller formula, a plot, split in chapters, a final twist, linearity, etc, this means the public is used with a system of organization - to meet many poetic formulas or even a dramatic text - is a factor of difficulty. Even some prose workers, that end with normal chronology such as Faulkner will be harder than a sequencial plot.
Finally we have guys using a highly complicated vocabulary, such as Joyce's Finnegans and Guimarães Rosa's Grande Sertoes. Anyone remotely suggesting it is a easy to read those guys as reading Agatha Christie is a genius.(Not in ironic way, a genius while cracking up codes and dealing with idioms)

[ennison]

Meritocracy? Elitism? It's absurd to think all texts have equal value. But it doesn't matter much that they don't. Lots of my friends (Most of them actually) do not read at all, read only religious texts or have read no significant literature since school. That takes nothing away from the superiority of "Moby Dick" to "Litle Nell's Adventures in Hollywood"

[kelby_lake]

Mills and Boon novels are written solely for money, to support hacks trying to write proper books. Not all literature is like that.

[ennison]

Writing solely for money is not a criticism. I've built walls, built scaffolding, ploughed fields, made lobster creels etc etc solely for money and feel no shame. But then me, I'm shameless.