Literature and un-literature

[blazeofglory]

Today writing has undergone a dramatic change and literature is not just it and it is mixed, blended and spiced and it misrepresents what our classical writers took it to be, confining or delimiting the domain of literature.

Today we can write a mix of fiction and non-fiction. We mix all.

Today writing has been more of a journalistic modulation.

The objective of writing is just to entertain and once you do it it is done and you will turn out as a successful writer.

The measure of a good piece of writing is its readers and once they endorse it it gains popularity and the number of sales become a yardstick of it.

Therefore today writers are ready to dilute or refrain from following a particular formula set by classicist.

A novel can characteristically contain both fictional and non-fictional quotients. It does not matter as long as it entertains the reader and once it does, it fulfils the objective of what it should be.


All classifications are less important and insignificant as long as it interests the reader.

Whether it is literature or non-literature by olden standards, but when it entertains the reader the objective is fulfilled.

Even science, economics, commerce, politics all can be accomodated in a piece of writing and if it touches the reader and sells well it becomes a masterpiece. Art? It is not necessary to adhere to a particualr school of thought and as long as it can interest the reader the misson becomes complete.

Heaping piles of combersome theories makes a piece of literature unreadeable.

We have bunches,k bundles, piles of classical literature and hardly this generation has any interest in them.

Milton, Johnson, Pope and the rest do not entertain us today.

In this age of the internet we are on a different plane of writing, and deviating our ways from the old one.

[JBI]

You pretend like these are all new things. Gothic novels didn't hold to 17th century ideas of literature, and realist novels didn't hold to the conventions of literature before them. This whole "things are different today" is true on one hand, but no different than the Victorian era was different from the time Between the Wars.

And I would disagree that Milton doesn't entertain today, and to some extent the two others named. Milton is still everywhere - our whole idea of Satan seems to come more from Milton than scripture. Every time the devil is portrayed, he is portrayed as Milton's devil. Hell itself is shown as Milton's Hell, not Dante's. If we aren't entertained by it, it certainly doesn't show, as devils and fallen angels and whatnot are central images in Western culture, and increasingly so, apparently, as of late.


Either way, who cares? What difference does it make if Pope isn't liked anymore? If he isn't liked, he isn't liked, he will be ignored, and then replaced, or will hide behind the shelves in libraries.


I would also note, that this generation has a bigger interest in classics than probably any generation before 1950. In fact, literacy increases have enabled more people than ever to enjoy classics. New publications have given cheaper access to long ignored books. There are people who only read the classics. People study English now, when before it was only a "Classical Education".

The real difference is that British culture supposedly turned in on itself, and became a Museum after the wars, and America is in that process right now. That's what's going on. I think more people care about literature than ever - perhaps just not in some countries, where cultures have peaked.

[Tsuyoiko]

I think it's the fact that literary styles change that makes it art. When someone tries something that no-one's done before: that's art. Doesn't the word 'novel' mean new?

I agree with JBI about Milton; people still read Paradise Lost, and its themes are very present in popular consciousness, even if most people don't recognise them as such. Philip Pullman credits it as the main inspiration behind His Dark Materials, and I've just realised that that's what started me on reading classics. I read Pullman's series with the kids when I worked as a school librarian, heard about the inspiration behind it, and went on to read Paradise Lost . From there I read other classics. So, contemporary, popular literature can actually lead a person to an appreciation of the classics. That's not to say that the only value in contemporary literature is that it can lead people to the classics.

I think there's some truth in what you say about number of sales determining worth. I think a lot of rubbish gets published just because it's bound to sell. And I bet that some good literature never gets published because it won't sell enough. But I don't think that entertainment is the only purpose of literature today. I've read contemporary books that deserve to be classics some day, because they say something new, make us look at the world differently, use language in a novel way or just because they're beautiful. Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell, The Book Thief by Markus Zusak, The Septembers of Shiraz by Dalia Sofer. Best-selling works of art, in my opinion.